Ojai Moves to Keep Initiative Off Ballot : Recreation: Proposal calls for spending an additional $125,000 yearly on programs. Officials fear it could be disastrous to city finances.

Concerned about the fiscal fallout from a ballot initiative requiring more spending for recreation, Ojai city leaders are determined to keep the measure from ever going to a vote.

At a council meeting Tuesday night, council members directed the city attorney to challenge the legality of the initiative in court. They also asked the city manager to prepare a report outlining the initiative’s financial implications.

The recreation proposal would require the city to spend an additional $125,000 on recreation every year--something officials fear could be disastrous to city finances.

Proponents collected 784 signatures, more than enough to place it on the November ballot.

But city officials are determined to keep the measure off the ballot, leaving proponents crying foul.

“We got the signatures and now residents deserve the right to vote on the issue,” said Craig Walker, who wrote the initiative. “If voters think it’s a bad law they won’t vote for it.”

City Atty. Monte Widders said he would file a motion with the Ventura County Superior Court next week asking the judge to declare the initiative invalid. The judge could respond as early as 15 days, Widders said.

Legal challenges to initiatives are rare but not unprecedented in the county, said Bruce Bradley of the county registrar’s office. The city used the same strategy last year to shoot down a ballot measure supporting a proposed landfill at Weldon Canyon.

While judges generally allow initiatives to go to a vote before making a decision on their validity, the Weldon Canyon measure was rejected by a judge last August before it reached voters.

The crux of the city’s argument is that the initiative strips the council of its ability to manage city fiscal affairs.

“The initiative mandates funding and locks it in,” Widders said. “There’s no flexibility for the council to adjust it. It mandates the city spend at least $165,000 a year on recreation programs and at least $125,000 more on capital projects like a skateboard park whether or not the city can afford it.

“And this at a time when the city can barely keep up with repairs on the facilities it already has.”

Widders said the city had a good case, but was unsure how it would fare in court. “The burden of proof is on us,” he said.

Walker insists budget priorities can be set by residents and not just their elected officials.

“When the City Council doesn’t respond to the needs of the community then the people have the right to set priorities themselves,” Walker said.

Ojai now spends $165,000 of its $3.4-million budget on several dozen recreation programs for young people. Another $350,000 in user fees is also put toward recreation. Ojai spends more per person on recreation than any surrounding community, City Manager Andrew S. Belknap said.

But some residents grew frustrated this spring after the city refused to fund a skateboard park. They pushed the initiative to force funding of the park and several other projects.

Council members ordered Belknap to analyze what the city spends on recreation and study the potential impact of the initiative. But, for the most part, they already know what conclusions he will reach.

“Could we use more recreational facilities . . . ? Sure,” Belknap said. “But we just don’t have the money.

“We already depend on grant money and private donations for regular city capital projects.”

The recreation initiative proposes the city increase its hotel tax from 10% to 12% to raise the money, but local hotel owners insist the tax is already at the state average and raising it might deter tourists.

Mayor Nina V. Shelley, who led a successful legal battle against the Weldon Canyon initiative, is optimistic about winning in the courts this time too.

“The recreation initiative is wrong for the community and I’m going to fight it until it is defeated,” Shelley said. “This isn’t about who’s for recreation and youth. We all are. It’s about what we can reasonably afford.”