Ojai City Council Special Meeting

Ojai Valley Fire Safe Council Proposal

• Council reviewed a wildfire safety proposal regarding financial commitment and scope of risk mitigation services.
• Members weighed concerns regarding budget transparency, contract sourcing, and city staff capacity against the need for proactive action.
• The motion passed to request a revised proposal for specific components and initiate a separate RFP for fuel reduction.
• A future meeting was scheduled to discuss a broader fire prevention budget including siren estimates.

• Here is a summary of the City Council meeting regarding wildfire safety and the Ojai Valley Fire Safe Council proposal:

Topic

• The Ojai City Council convened to discuss a proposal by the Ojai Valley Fire Safe Council for fire hardening, wildfire safety, and risk mitigation services. The discussion centered on the financial commitment, the scope of services, and the city's role in implementation.

Public Comments

• Support: Several speakers strongly endorsed the proposal. Bob Roper (former Ventura County Fire Chief) emphasized the need for proactive action and a regional approach. Cole Bush (local shepherd/grazing provider) highlighted the value of education and holistic ecological care. Vera Long (former firefighter) stressed the danger of the region's geography and the Council's 25-year track record in managing federal grants. Other supporters argued that delaying or cutting costs gambles with lives.
• Concerns/Opposition: Several residents expressed concern over the cost and process. Kathy Laudis and Steve Colomay questioned "sole-sourcing" the contract and suggested looking at models like the Santa Barbara Fire Safe Council (which relies more on volunteers). Teal Colomay and others requested itemized budgets and greater accountability for taxpayer funds. There were concerns that the proposal focused too much on the valley rather than city limits and that the city staff lacked the immediate capacity to manage certain tasks (e.g., tool lending, website development).

Council Deliberation

• Budget and Policy: Council members agreed that fire safety needs to be a priority line item in the annual budget. Councilmember Whitman suggested the city should determine specific goals before accepting a contract.
• Scope of Work: Councilmember Rule supported the Fire Safe Council's expertise but acknowledged the need for clearer budget breakdowns. Councilmember Mang proposed an RFP process to ensure efficiency and avoid "double-dipping" with other organizations already funded for fuel reduction.
• Staff Capacity: City Staff (Speaker 22) noted that several proposal items require city resources (staff time, funding for tools/webpages) and warned that the city needs to be prepared to collaborate to avoid failure.
• Fire Safe Council Response: Representatives clarified that the proposal is synergistic and pulling it apart changes costs, but they agreed to resubmit a modified proposal if specific needs were outlined. They clarified that "B2" (fuel reduction planning) is a tool to secure future grants, not just immediate cutting.

Outcome

• Motion: Councilmember Whitman moved, seconded by Councilmember Rule, to:
• 1. Invite the Fire Safe Council to submit a revised proposal covering only Part A (Community Outreach/Education) and Part B1 (Home Hardening), excluding the tool lending program for now. 2. Issue an RFP for fuel reduction specifically around city properties (City Hall campus and Libby Bowl). 3. Return to a council meeting (likely August 12th) to discuss a broader fire prevention and mitigation budget, including estimates for sirens.
• Vote: The motion passed 4-1 (Councilmember Mang voted No).
• Future Agenda: Council members were advised to table additional requests (like reinstating the Disaster Council) for the upcoming "Goals and Tactics" meeting rather than amending the current agenda.