Ventura County Grand Jury
• 2007-2008
Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Reorganization
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 24 findings
F01
Memorial districts are formed under and operate pursuant to the provisions of the Military and Veterans Code of the State of California. [Ref-05]
No recommendations for this finding
F02
The District was formed in 1950 as an independent special district that serves Fillmore, the unincorporated community of Piru, and other unincorporated areas in the east-central portion of Ventura County. Civic, religious, and educational organizations are allowed to use various portions of the buildings and facilities for a nominal fee. There is no user fee for Veterans’ organizations or other organizations the Board designates. [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F03
The District’s sources of revenue are a share of the property tax, hall rental, fee charges, and a special District property assessment of $5.00 per parcel. [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F04
Approximately two-thirds of the District’s property tax and special property assessment revenues are derived from private property within the incorporated boundaries of Fillmore. [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F05
Registered voters usually elect an independent district’s board of directors. Dependent districts are governed by existing legislative bodies such as a city council or county board of supervisors. [Ref-01]
No recommendations for this finding
F06
The Directors of the District receive no compensation but are entitled to reasonable expenses in the performance of Board duties. [Ref-01]
No recommendations for this finding
F07
The Military and Veterans Code §1195 requires that elections for board members of memorial districts be held in odd-numbered years and that at least three seats be designated for Veterans [Ref-05]
No recommendations for this finding
F08
Elections held in conjunction with regular elections cost an estimated $2,500. Memorial district elections held in odd-numbered years are estimated to cost $25,000. [Ref-02] 2 Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Reorganization
No recommendations for this finding
F09
The District has not held an election since before 1990. In lieu of an election the BOS reappoints incumbents and/or appoints new members. [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F10
LAFCos have no investigative authority. LAFCo MSRs are studies not investigations. [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The MSR’s major determinations are its dependence on Fillmore, the majority of its revenue coming from property taxes and special parcel assessment, and no contested elections since before 1990. LAFCo determined that the District should be dissolved. [Ref-02]
Related Recommendations (1)
R01
The Grand Jury recommends that the District be reorganized as a subsidiary district of Fillmore through the State legislative process. (C-01, C-05) 4 Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Reorganization
F12
LAFCo would likely support the distribution of the District’s assets to Fillmore as the logical successor agency if the District were to dissolve.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The Board has not completed the mandatory ethics training required by AB1234 passed in 2005. [Ref-02, Ref-04]
Related Recommendations (1)
R03
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board complete AB1234, mandatory ethics training, regardless of a decision to reorganize the District. (C-03) [Ref-04]
F14
The District currently includes 151,305 acres within its boundaries. [Att-02] [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Fillmore provides all administrative, operational, and maintenance services for the District through a Joint Powers Agreement. The District has no employees. [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The District received $208,932 during FY2005-2006 and FY2006-2007 from the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) as a County of Ventura Community Development Block Grant. The funds were used for maintenance, new fixtures, and to improve the facilities in the memorial buildings. [Att-01]
No recommendations for this finding
F17
According to the District’s audited financial statements, revenues exceeded expenditures by $120,657 for FY2003-2004 through FY2006- 2007. [Att-01]
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The County Supervisor for District 3, in which the Fillmore-Piru Memorial District is located, supports any reorganization that simplifies government.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
There are four options that could be considered by the District: • special legislation by the State to reorganize the District into a subsidiary district of Fillmore • reorganization of the District into a subsidiary district of Fillmore using the “70% requirement method” • compliance by the Board regarding ethics training and elections • dissolution
No recommendations for this finding
F20
The District could reorganize through special State legislation whereby the District becomes a subsidiary district of Fillmore; the new district could maintain the same boundaries, real property, and revenues.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
Special State legislation requires approval by both houses of the Legislature. Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Reorganization 3
No recommendations for this finding
F22
An alternate method to reorganize the District into a subsidiary district and not require State legislation is the “70% requirement method”. Sufficient territory would have to be detached from the District so that Fillmore comprises at least 70% of the new district. As an example, adding part of the unincorporated area of Bardsdale (881 acres) to Fillmore’s 2,069 acres would bring the total area to 2,950 acres, thus meeting the “70% method”. The loss of revenue to the new District from the property tax allotment would be approximately $22,000. [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F23
There are 5,980 parcels in the District, with approximately 3,944 parcels in Fillmore. If the unincorporated area of Bardsdale was included, approximately 110 parcels would be added for an approximate total of 4,054 parcels. The loss of revenue to the new district from the $5.00 per parcel special assessment in this example is estimated at $10,000.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
Dissolution of the District could cause a loss of revenue from the District’s portion of the property tax and the $5.00 parcel special assessment. These two sources of revenue totaled $99,772 in FY2006- 2007. [Att-01] Conclusions C-01. If the District is dissolved, Fillmore with the support of LAFCo would likely assume the assets of the District. (F-12) C-02. Dissolution of the District will result in no revenues to Fillmore from the $5.00 per parcel special assessment and possibly from property taxes. (F-24) C-03. The District is currently not in compliance with California State Law in regard to elections and ethics training. (F-09, F-13) C-04. Under the “70% requirement method,” the Grand Jury estimates that the City of Fillmore could lose approximately $10,000 in revenue from the $5.00 per parcel special assessment, and $22,000 from the loss of property tax revenues for an estimated total revenue loss of $32,000 per year. This could impact the District’s administrative, maintenance, and operating budget. (F-22, F-23) C-05. If the existing District became a subsidiary district of Fillmore, through special State legislation, it could maintain the same boundaries, real property (including the Memorial Hall), and revenues. The Fillmore City Council could become the Board of Directors for the new district and the current Board could become an advisory or honorary board of directors. (F-05, F-20, F-21) Recommendations
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 4C-01. If the District is dissolved, Fillmore with the support of LAFCo would likely assume the assets of the District. (F-12) C-02. Dissolution of the District will result in no revenues to Fillmore from the $5.00 per parcel special assessment and possibly from property taxes. (F-24) C-03. The District is currently not in compliance with California State Law in regard to elections and ethics training. (F-09, F-13) C-04. Under the “70% requirement method,” the Grand Jury estimates that the City of Fillmore could lose approximately $10,000 in revenue from the $5.00 per parcel special assessment, and $22,000 from the loss of property tax revenues for an estimated total revenue loss of $32,000 per year. This could impact the District’s administrative, maintenance, and operating budget. (F-22, F-23) C-05. If the existing District became a subsidiary district of Fillmore, through special State legislation, it could maintain the same boundaries, real property (including the Memorial Hall), and revenues. The Fillmore City Council could become the Board of Directors for the new district and the current Board could become an advisory or honorary board of directors. (F-05, F-20, F-21)
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.