REGULAR CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING

City Council 2026 · Moorpark, CA · 2026-09-02 · More Moorpark, CA meetings · More California meetings

View original source →

Agenda

[0:02] CALL TO ORDER:

[0:09] PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

[0:34] ROLL CALL:

[0:49] PROCLAMATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS:

[0:52] Certificate of Recognition to Mark Chagaris for attaining over 10,000 volunteer hours for the Moorpark Police Department’s Volunteer in Policing (VIP) Program.

[7:10] PUBLIC COMMENT:

[15:17] REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: (Pursuant to Council Rules of Procedure, Section 2.9, Items to be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar shall be identified at this time.)

[15:34] ANNOUNCEMENTS, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND REPORTS ON MEETINGS/CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY COUNCILMEMBERS AND MAYOR:

[22:59] CONSENT CALENDAR: (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED)

[23:21] Consider Approving a Two-Year Time Extension for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2005-02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5739, Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 2 of City Council Resolution No. 2022-4121 Associated with the Everett Street Terraces Project, for Property Located at the Intersection of Everett Street and Walnut Canyon Road, on the Application of Stanley Chiu on behalf of John Chiu LP-N. Staff Recommendation: Approve two additional one-year time extensions for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2005-02 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5739, pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 2 of City Council Resolution No. 2022-4121, thereby extending the expiration date to September 7, 2028. (Staff: Blake Erickson, Assistant Planner)

[34:51] PUBLIC HEARINGS:

[34:54] PRESENTATION/ACTION/DISCUSSION:

[34:57] Consider the Police Services Fiscal Impact Analysis for a Proposed Citywide Community Facilities District. Staff Recommendation: Consider Police Services Fiscal Impact Analysis for a Citywide Community Facilities District and provide direction to staff. (Staff: Jeremy Laurentowski, Parks and Recreation Director)

[1:02:34] Consider Disposition Direction for 112, 124, and 136 First Street (APN 512-0-102-100, -110, & -120); and Consider Disposition Direction for 224 and 236 Charles Street (APN 512-0-093-020 & -030). City Council - Staff Recommendation: 1) Provide direction to staff on disposition or retention of properties located at 224 and 236 Charles Street; and 2) Provide direction to staff on disposition or retention of properties located at 112, 124, and 136 First Street. (Staff: Jessica Sandifer, Deputy Parks and Recreation Director)

[1:32:52] (CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY) Consider Disposition Direction for 15404 Princeton Avenue (APN 513-0-024-105 & -135). City Council – Staff Recommendation: 1) Decline to purchase 15404 Princeton Avenue (APN 513-0-024-105 & -135) property from the Successor Agency; and 2) Direct staff to bring the property back for City Council consideration, should property sales activities by the Successor Agency fail. Successor Agency – Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to return to the Successor Agency with a resolution to declare the property at 15404 Princeton Avenue (APN 513-0-024-105 & -135) surplus land and return for further direction if no sale occurs within the next 18 months. (Staff: Jessica Sandifer, Deputy Parks and Recreation Director)

[1:59:33] Consider Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD). Staff Recommendation: Provide direction to staff. (Staff: PJ Gagajena, City Manager)

[2:22:13] ORDINANCES:

[2:22:17] CLOSED SESSION:

[2:22:24] ADJOURNMENT:

Transcript

Download: Text · SRT

SOURCE TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is downloaded from the source you provided but we haven't reviewed it for accuracy. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record. You can also request an AI-transcription of the audio file with the button to the left.

This transcript may end before the meeting did — it covers about 52 minutes of what looks like a 2 hour 23 minute recording. The captions stop early at the source.

[0:01] Um, when it comes time to appraisals, will they be

[0:04] appraising at both individual lot and uh, potential of all

[0:08] three? We appraise them as individual

[0:11] lots and sell them as individual lots, even if

[0:14] they're being purchased by one individual.

[0:16] Okay. Thank you. Um, if we sell them as

[0:20] individual lots and they're purchased by one individual, do

[0:23] we have the availability to dictate that they stay in

[0:28] individual lots, or is that out of our hands.

[0:31] In terms of, you know, if one person is buying three lots,

[0:35] you only want to see three single family homes or

[0:37] whatever. Sort of similar to Walnut Canyon. Um, I believe we

[0:41] can, uh, structure the deal the same.

[0:44] Okay. Thank you. Our questions. Um, do we have

[0:50] any speakers? Soon. You should ask.

[0:52] For that. No, Mr. Mayor, no speakers on

[0:54] this item. Okay. Discuss.

[0:58] Um. I think, um, this location here is not a location where

[1:07] you'd expect to put in any other municipal type of use,

[1:11] necessarily, and I feel like housing makes the most sense.

[1:17] I would agree, I think that there's there's already a park

[1:21] nearby. Um, and I think housing is a good use here. I think,

[1:27] um, as you said, as we're able to direct, uh, if proposals

[1:32] come through, you know, certainly aiming towards

[1:35] keeping consistent with the neighborhood, that would be

[1:38] important to me. Yeah, I agree that was why I

[1:40] was asking that. I want to make sure if there was development,

[1:42] it was going to be, um, it was going to fit in with that

[1:46] neighborhood and not be an outlier. Okay. Well, that's the

[1:54] direction. Yes, mayor, Council, we have

[1:57] direction, uh, to keep it residential and, uh, move

[2:01] forward with the disposition process.

[2:03] Great. All right. We'll move on to item ten. C. As considered

[2:16] disposition direction for 15404 Princeton Avenue. The center.

[2:27] Good evening. Mayor and city council. I do want to just sort

[2:31] of correct. Uh, the address listed. I've been here a very

[2:38] long time. And when we purchased this property, that

[2:40] was the address. I knew it as, um. That is no longer the

[2:42] address just because it's been vacant land for so long. Uh,

[2:45] so, just to clarify, I know there was some confusion on

[2:47] that, but these are the Princeton Avenue properties.

[2:50] I'm going to spare you the Surplus Land Act speech again.

[2:55] Um, but just suffice it to say that, uh, the disposition of

[2:59] this parcel, should we decide to dispose of it, would be

[3:02] subject to the Surplus Land Act. So just to go over the

[3:08] property history again? Um, this property was purchased by

[3:12] the redevelopment Agency. It was intended to be a relocation

[3:17] site for a fueling station that used to be located on High

[3:19] Street. Um, ultimately, the project was not approved, and

[3:24] the redevelopment agency did continue to look for

[3:26] development partners with, um, no success. In 2020, a

[3:32] development partner approached the city about developing a

[3:34] housing project at the site. Um, at the time, there was an

[3:37] exemption in the Surplus Land Act for Redevelopment Agency

[3:41] properties. Um, but it did require that all land

[3:44] disposition activities conclude by December of 2022. Um, during

[3:50] the due diligence process, the interested developer did find

[3:54] that there was some poor soil conditions, the cost of which

[3:57] would effectively write down the land value. Um,

[4:00] unfortunately, due to the expiration of the exemption,

[4:04] we're not able to resolve the issue of the price and what to

[4:06] do with the land, with the oversight board. And the

[4:09] developer decided not to move forward. Uh, since then, the

[4:12] city council has discussed this property a couple of times. So

[4:15] we had the initial discussion in November of 2025, where we

[4:19] were asked to return with the appraised value to determine if

[4:23] the city council would want to purchase the property. Um, in

[4:26] January of 2026, we did present that appraisal value, and the

[4:30] cost of the site had increased significantly due to the

[4:34] property being rezoned during the General Plan update. Uh,

[4:37] the land value increased approximately $1.2 million

[4:42] under the new zoning, and at the time, the city council had

[4:45] asked if we could dialogue with the former developers in return

[4:48] with information related to the soils on the site and the

[4:50] potential writedown of the land value. Based on those studies,

[4:54] um, I was able to obtain the developer's estimates from

[4:58] 2022, and at that time they had estimated approximately

[5:02] $960,000 to remove uncertified fill materials and remediate

[5:08] liquefaction issues, and that at that time would have written

[5:11] the land value down to zero based on the prior zoning and

[5:13] their appraised value. I very conservatively, I think,

[5:17] inflated the developer's cost us to get a flavor of what

[5:20] those land remediation costs would be today against the

[5:24] current appraised value, and we'd we would have a reduced

[5:28] land value, but only around $876,000. Um, I'm forgetting

[5:35] about my PowerPoint. Uh, so given the potential cost of the

[5:38] city to purchase a lot from the successor agency, staff had

[5:42] made a recommendation to attempt to put the Surplus

[5:45] Land Act put the property through the Surplus Land Act

[5:48] and sell the land. And because this property is subject to

[5:54] oversight by the Ventura County Consolidated Oversight Board,

[5:58] the idea is that if we could show our due diligence and

[6:01] trying to sell the property, and if we receive offers, um,

[6:07] it could set a favorable, favorable negotiations with the

[6:10] oversight Board to potentially purchase a property for a lower

[6:14] value than the appraised value. And if offers did materialize

[6:18] as a part of the SLA that resulted in some sort of

[6:21] development on the site, the city could still potentially

[6:25] realize some of a city council goals related to potential

[6:28] trails on the site. By reserving an easement or

[6:31] negotiating that through that development. And so I did put

[6:36] together here's the the property generally kind of

[6:39] where the trail easement would go. Um, obviously this would be

[6:42] subject to if somebody did want to develop here kind of what

[6:45] their property layout would end up having to be and all of

[6:49] that. But that would be generally kind of the idea. Um,

[6:53] and so, um, again, so the lot size in on paper is 2.26 acres.

[7:00] Again, it's zoned R two. Um, it's about under it's just

[7:05] under one acre of usable land. Um, given the erosion, um, for

[7:09] from the arroyo on the south side of the property. Um, and,

[7:14] um, and so it's, you know, much smaller than it looks like on

[7:18] paper. And so we'd like to receive direction from City

[7:23] Council regarding retention or disposition of the property.

[7:26] Like I said, we did make a staff recommendation that the

[7:29] city council declined the purchase at this time, but we

[7:32] would return to the city council if no sale activity

[7:34] occurs. This is also a dual successor agency item, and we

[7:38] would be looking for direction from the successor agency to

[7:41] actually move forward with the SLA process. If that was the

[7:44] desire. Um, and we could again return for further direction if

[7:47] no sales occurred within the next 18 months. Um, or you can

[7:51] you're free, as usual, to direct staff is deemed

[7:55] appropriate. So this concludes my presentation and I'm happy

[7:59] to answer any questions. Thank you.

[8:00] Any questions? You saying yes. You have a

[8:04] question. Do you want to. Okay. Go ahead.

[8:06] Ladies first. Uh thank you Jessica. Um, so

[8:09] given the erosion portion, there's a trailhead. Follow

[8:14] along. The part of unusable space. Or does it cut into or

[8:18] the proposed trailhead? Does it cut into usable area?

[8:23] So right now where it's shown is, is kind of like the very

[8:26] edge of the usable area. But I would anticipate if somebody

[8:29] was going to be developing, they'd have to be doing

[8:31] something with that end that would create effectively, like

[8:34] a levee road that would allow us to put a trail in. Um, I

[8:37] can't guarantee that, you know, and that's why the trail might

[8:41] actually move, depending on how the development would be

[8:44] designed. Um, but generally, um, I think it would make sense

[8:49] because, again, you'd be able to see all the wild parts of

[8:52] the arroyo and the kind of different interpretive things

[8:55] you could do with that trail. So a follow up question to

[8:58] that. Um, since I know the trailheads are important to us.

[9:02] Should an easement or access be required? Um, should the

[9:06] requirement be established prior to marketing?

[9:09] So we would put it in the marketing materials and then

[9:13] the easement would be established upon sale. When the

[9:15] grant deeds are recorded. So we would at least notify potential

[9:19] buyers that that that would be a requirement of the sale.

[9:23] Okay. Thank you. Uh. Thank you. Would this

[9:30] property be. Could we decide to transfer funds and turn this

[9:36] into some of their zoning, like open space? If we chose to?

[9:41] Um, you could you could purchase. If you're asking if

[9:44] the city could purchase the property, you could purchase

[9:46] the property. Um, we would just have to have the property, um,

[9:51] purchase approved by the oversight board. And the value

[9:53] of the property approved. You know, whatever that transaction

[9:57] cost is approved by the oversight board.

[9:59] Council member means as a supplement to that response.

[10:03] Um, I wanted to I've had a moment to kind of review based

[10:06] on the earlier questions. I wanted to clarify that public

[10:08] parks and recreation facilities are permitted in all zones. So

[10:12] if that's strictly the question, then a zoning change

[10:14] wouldn't be necessary. Uh, perfect. And it leads

[10:18] straight into my my question, uh, of the Housing Crisis Act

[10:23] of 2018, which I will admit, I have studied for minutes now.

[10:28] Uh, it's one acre. Would this be subject to the Housing

[10:32] Crisis Act, where we would have to make up the acreage as well?

[10:35] No. So based on the new information that was just

[10:38] provided, if we're not changing the general plan land use

[10:41] designation or changing the zone, which it sounds like we

[10:45] don't need to, then we would not need to worry about, that

[10:49] since everything would remain the same, it would remain zoned

[10:53] as R-2. Um, it would just be put for a, different use, but

[11:00] it would be remain as R-2. Good. I like that answer.

[11:05] Great. How is that different than the Charles properties

[11:08] that we were just talking about?

[11:09] It's not. It's just now we have new information that public

[11:12] parks are allowed within the R one zone as well. Is that

[11:17] right? Correct. Actually, within all

[11:18] city zones, the situation we were discussing previously was,

[11:22] was the idea that we would have to change the zoning to

[11:24] something non-residential, and if the intended use here is a

[11:27] public park or recreation facility, that is not the case.

[11:32] Okay. Can we go back to the last item

[11:34] and open that back up and have it? I'll leave it. We've got

[11:37] direction there. But, um, that that strikes all the questions

[11:40] I have. So it's residential, which

[11:45] implies that there's a certain amount of units per acre based

[11:48] off the density. But if we decided to use that as a park,

[11:53] obviously you can't live at a park. Well, you could actually,

[11:56] but, um, we don't make up those numbers.

[12:00] Correct. Because the requirement to make up those

[12:03] numbers is only triggered if we were to change it to a

[12:05] non-residential zoning. Got it. Okay. All right. Don't

[12:09] understand that, but it makes sense. Good. Yeah.

[12:13] Doctor Kessler. Um, I just wanted to build on

[12:17] Councilmember Delgado's question about the the sale

[12:20] attempt that includes the trailheads. I love that great,

[12:23] great suggestion. Does that in some ways. Um, in some

[12:27] hypothetical scenario where someone would be very

[12:29] interested in this and it would be, um, it would be for them,

[12:34] just a make or break to have to have that as a trail. Does that

[12:38] disadvantage us in that first attempt at a sale?

[12:42] Yeah. I mean, I think it could, um, I think it could. I don't

[12:48] have, you know, it really just depends on sort of, you know,

[12:51] what they're proposing. You know, if something was lower

[12:54] density, it might be harder for them to recoup costs related to

[12:58] that. Um, but given sort of the remediation and the, the

[13:01] erosion for the arroyo, that would have to be dealt with,

[13:04] they're probably going to be doing something higher density

[13:06] anyway. Um, and so maybe they could, could, could, you know,

[13:10] cover the cost of that, but I, I don't I can't say until we

[13:12] know what somebody wants. To do. Okay. So the, the follow

[13:15] up then is that, is it possible for us to state our like

[13:19] priorities but without like limiting ourselves to that? We

[13:23] would only accept offers that included that as a provision.

[13:26] Yeah, we can we can put that in our as our requirements that we

[13:29] would be retaining some kind of a trail easement. You know, and

[13:33] maybe the, the workaround to maintaining the trail is being

[13:36] flexible with how the trail actually goes through the

[13:38] development. Yeah. And um, obviously I, we

[13:42] it's hypothetical, but one of the things that was clear in

[13:45] the staff report is whatever is done with this property,

[13:48] there's going to need to be extensive soil remediation. And

[13:52] so how much of the soil and how much of the land that they're

[13:55] potentially would be applying a soil meet soil remediation

[13:58] criteria to land that is ultimately going to be used for

[14:00] a trail? Um, seems like that could be, you know, limiting.

[14:04] Yeah. Thank you. A couple more questions. Um,

[14:12] how confident are you in your your inflated, uh, 20, 22

[14:18] estimates? Uh, would it behooves us to get new geos and

[14:23] new estimates? We we could. I will tell you

[14:27] that just from experience, we've done that, like with the

[14:29] daily group site, we did go out and get geotechnical reports.

[14:34] We had geotechnical consultants provide estimates for us. Um,

[14:39] but they were off by well over half $1 million because the

[14:44] ultimate remediation costs are based on what you're doing with

[14:48] the site. And that varies, you know, because daily group, it

[14:51] went three storeys in some areas. They had more extensive

[14:54] ground remediation than we initially estimated. So I think

[14:59] we could do that. I, you know, the, the geo tech reports

[15:02] aren't and are not inexpensive to do. Um, and so, um, you

[15:08] know, but but if that's, you know, the direction from the

[15:10] council, we could certainly do that and try to get an

[15:12] estimate. But I'm not saying it would be accurate.

[15:14] So would we be putting these this on the market for 1.98

[15:19] million and then supplying the 2022 soils? Uh.

[15:24] I don't have their documentation. I have their

[15:28] email where they gave us their their issues with it and what

[15:31] they were dealing with. Um, I could see if they'd be willing

[15:34] to share that documentation with other buyers, but it's,

[15:38] you know, not right now. It's not our document.

[15:40] So. So typically we would put it in we would put it on the

[15:44] market at 1.98 million. And then we would say buyer do your

[15:47] due diligence. Correct. Yeah.

[15:49] So it's possible. We would tell them we know

[15:51] that. Of course. Yes. You have

[15:52] disclosures. Absolutely. Uh, so possibly we could get a higher

[15:57] value than 876,000. Potentially. Yeah.

[16:02] Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Have any

[16:08] speakers? No, Mr. Mayor. No speakers on

[16:12] this item. All right. Thank you. Okay.

[16:15] What are the thoughts.? I think there's opportunity

[16:21] with the site, um, for civic use. Um, obviously there's

[16:27] potential trailhead with the development, um, opportunity.

[16:31] But I think that there there's more opportunity there as well.

[16:35] As we look at pocket parks in communities and the existing

[16:39] pocket park, uh, for that community happening across the

[16:42] road and, and go, uh, I think that there, um. There's a

[16:50] potential here to, to look at how how that could play out as

[16:56] a park. And I think we also haven't done we haven't gone to

[17:00] the Oversight Board yet. Right. We haven't said, look, this is

[17:05] going to be really hard to build on. It's going to be

[17:07] really expensive. It's got all these issues. We rezoned it on

[17:12] ourselves right through the general plan. Like, would you

[17:16] honor this lower price for us to to buy this property and do

[17:19] it? Why why shouldn't we ask that question before we go

[17:24] through all this rigmarole? If it's something that we do have

[17:27] a desire to use? I don't see, um, yeah, I.

[17:39] I guess my concern with keeping all of these parcels is the

[17:44] money to purchase them. Right. Yes. My concern to, um.

[17:51] What would that money come from for purchase of this?

[17:56] Again, we'd have to look at, you know, our available funds.

[17:59] It could be general funds, special projects. It just sort

[18:01] of depends on, you know, where we would want to identify it.

[18:04] So I don't I don't know where I would pay for it from, but but

[18:08] I think it would depend on the value. Right. The amount that

[18:10] we were right. It was a park use. It would be

[18:13] more money than we'd want to spend on parks. Since we're

[18:17] thinking in. That way. Yeah. Mr. mayor, can

[18:19] I build on that question? And this is just for staff in

[18:21] general. Obviously, we don't know which fund it could come

[18:24] from. Is it is it a conceivable that if we did want to purchase

[18:30] it, that that could affect our ability to fund CIPs, that

[18:34] ultimately we want to move forward with?

[18:37] Uh, yes. Doctor Castro, it's a possibility if some of our CIP

[18:41] projects depends on the general fund or special projects funds.

[18:45] Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it's it's pretty much,

[18:48] um, developable. I mean, the trailhead access there, that

[18:52] trail is something that we're looking at probably like 20

[18:55] years, 30 years from now. We're being built up. It'd be nice if

[18:59] it was sooner than that, but there's multiple areas to put a

[19:04] trailhead to the trail that doesn't exist yet. Um, I. Don't

[19:11] feel great. Very comfortable buying that and turning it into

[19:14] a park when our parks need so much more. That isn't that

[19:18] undeveloped. Rocky, dirty spot in the corner. So we walked in

[19:23] to spend money on that. But having it stay open isn't bad

[19:29] either. Develop on it so that's where I'm sitting right now.

[19:34] Why wouldn't we go with Stan? Staff recommendation like I do

[19:38] to me? Uh, as a reminder, we're broke, and I've got a lot of

[19:45] things we want to do. Um, and I don't. And I believe, uh,

[19:50] staff's evaluation that this property might be priced

[19:54] artificially high. Uh, why not let it go through? And then we

[19:57] have the tangible evidence to go back to the board and say,

[20:01] this is this is a lower price. I don't the answer to your

[20:03] question, Councilman Barrett. I don't see any downside to

[20:06] asking. Hey, did you guys let us buy it for a buck or

[20:10] whatever the, the the price might be? Um, but in the

[20:14] absence of doing that and getting that answer back, then

[20:17] I would say let's let's move. Staff recommendation.

[20:20] Yeah. If we're going to buy it, we're going to buy it because

[20:21] it's not developable and worthless. And then it can just

[20:25] be anything we want really. But uh, putting money into that

[20:29] versus where we're bleeding money. I couldn't do that.

[20:35] So but I do think there's a valid question. I don't know if

[20:38] we can modify this to, to find out if there is a conversation

[20:43] to be asked, uh, to, to your point, Councilman Barrett. Uh,

[20:47] yeah. What if what? And I guess I'd ask for for staff to to

[20:52] take a guess. Is that a viable outcome?

[20:57] Uh, as far as approaching the oversight board.

[21:00] Yeah, I'm saying just kidding. We're not going to pay that.

[21:03] I know, um, you know, the we. I don't think there's any harm in

[21:07] asking. Um, you know, the Oversight Board is tasked with,

[21:10] you know, selling property and, and and, uh, wrapping up

[21:13] redevelopment agency activities that are in a the most

[21:16] advantageous way to the taxing entities. That's their, um,

[21:19] sort of, uh, goal. Right? So there's no harm in asking first

[21:25] and then if they're kind of like, well, they may come back

[21:28] and say, well, have you even tried to sell it? You know,

[21:30] what? If and if they do come back and that's the response,

[21:33] then we can come back and say, this is what they told us. We

[21:36] should probably move it through the Surplus Land Act. If it's

[21:38] not successful, then we like you're saying Tom would or Mr.

[21:41] Means would have the intangible or the tangible evidence to go

[21:46] back to them with and and and have a better conversation so

[21:49] it could go, you know, two things could be done at this,

[21:52] you know, in that regard. I'd be maybe cutting off

[21:56] conversation, but maybe inclined to, uh, to ask staff

[22:00] to have that conversation if the door is is shut, then

[22:03] proceed with staff recommendation. If there's an

[22:05] opening to that conversation, we're not in a rush. This this

[22:09] land isn't going to all of a sudden, you know, be a hot a

[22:13] hot ticket item. Um, so if if there is an opening, let's hear

[22:17] it again and let's talk about it.

[22:19] So if this land sits vacant and does not get built upon and we

[22:24] don't want to buy it either, what happens to it?

[22:27] That's an excellent question. I would think, you know, at that

[22:30] point, you know, the Oversight Board does have to get these

[22:33] sort of properties off of their books. And so again, that may

[22:36] just go more towards even if we did want to buy it like a much

[22:40] reduced land value, just to clear it off, off the oversight

[22:43] Board books. Right. So which would be my

[22:47] goal. Yeah.

[22:47] Yes. And then it. could be vacant

[22:50] forever until we wanted to do something with it. Right.

[22:53] Perfect. You buy it for a dollar, you

[22:55] can have a park there. Well, I mean, I think the

[22:58] opportunity of the park allows for an opportunity at a

[23:02] different location, if that makes sense. Without going too

[23:06] far. So. Oh, you were watching..

[23:09] So I, you know that that's that's where I'm coming from.

[23:13] So I think the more that we ask and talk to the Oversight

[23:18] Board, I don't see a harm in asking.

[23:20] And but is is my, uh, I don't know if I'm moving or not, but

[23:25] is my suggestion acceptable to you that we ask and it's a hard

[23:29] no. Yep. Move to the process. And if it isn't, then we open

[23:32] up and have another discussion. So you ask the question. They

[23:35] give you a price for what it would cost, right?

[23:38] Is it a dollar? Well it's on ask you right now

[23:40] where's your cutoff point. Let's play this game again.

[23:43] Where would you cut that off at?

[23:45] Uh, I have no idea what the value of that property would be

[23:48] until it goes through the process. And we see that nobody

[23:51] wants to buy it at any price, that I will offer a dollar.

[23:54] Because it can come back with a number that's still high, but a

[23:57] lot lower than it is now. But it could be lower if no one

[24:00] bought it, obviously, so sure. But we wouldn't know. It's not

[24:04] asking the question. Okay, so the gist of it with me

[24:07] is I don't want to spend a lot of money on any of this stuff,

[24:10] and if it's free, I'll take it. So if we want to find that out

[24:13] in a certain way, I'm okay with that too.

[24:17] So to clarify what we'll do and, um, staff is directed to

[24:23] approach the Oversight Board about purchasing the property

[24:26] for park space or open space uses for the cities to retain,

[24:31] take their temperature on that and see where they come back

[24:33] and then return to city council with that direction. Or if it's

[24:37] a flat no, move forward with surplus on the property and

[24:41] seeing what happens. I'm comfortable with if it's a

[24:44] flat no moving forward. Uh, yeah. And if it's anything but

[24:49] a flat no, then we can talk about it again.

[24:51] And I'm sure we can provide a box item or something. You

[24:54] know, if we do, if it is flat. No. And we move to the process,

[24:57] you would also see as the successor agency board, the

[25:00] resolution coming back to surplus it. So you'd have that,

[25:02] you know, notification as well. Good.

[25:08] Is that enough direction or do you need to move and get a

[25:10] second and all that. We need to do? There's a

[25:16] recommendation here. So we have to modify that recommendation.

[25:18] Yeah. Or um. Yeah I think I'm gonna stand up

[25:23] for, uh, clarify that we would, uh, approach the Oversight

[25:27] board, uh, determine if they'd be willing to sell the property

[25:31] at lower cost. If they do, then we would come back to the city

[25:35] council, report back on that. But if it's a flat now, then we

[25:38] would proceed with a surplus Land Act process.

[25:41] Yeah. And the only other thing, because we had two

[25:43] recommendations, one for the city council piece and the

[25:45] successor agency, do we just have no recommendation on the

[25:49] successor agency piece at this point, or that's the only it's

[25:54] so weird. Or let me see, maybe it's still relevant.

[26:00] We would decline to purchase the property and to go back and

[26:04] have that discussion and then return back to us. Um.

[26:10] If a deal can be made. Yeah. Got it. Okay.

[26:15] Say it again, mayor. If you would.

[26:18] I said so. The recommendation would or the, uh, the motion

[26:22] would be to decline the purchase of the property.

[26:26] Right. And modify this to, um, go back

[26:30] to the successor agency if you can get a better deal on that.

[26:35] If the answer is flat. No, it's what it is, then to go through

[26:40] the, um, disposition. Sorry, the disposal. Right.

[26:46] I think the changes that we go back to the oversight board.

[26:51] Okay. Do you want to read that off?

[26:54] So I butchered that. Thank you.

[26:56] I'm gonna try. So for the city council, the motion is to

[27:00] decline the purchase of the property at this time. Um, but

[27:04] approach the owed to the oversight board and to

[27:07] determine whether or not they want to sell the property at a

[27:10] lower value. If the answer is yes, we will return to the city

[27:14] Council and report on that. And for final decision, if the

[27:17] answer is no, then the successor agency will move

[27:20] forward with the Surplus Land Act process.

[27:23] Okay. That's fine. It seems like it might make more sense

[27:28] to make a point one and two here, 0.2 and three are 0.1

[27:34] being approached the board, see if they'll do anything. If the

[27:37] answer is no, then proceed as as recommended. Uh, as opposed

[27:41] to declining it and then finding out if they'd offer a

[27:44] lower amount. Now, we've already declined it, but we

[27:47] would need to go back. And so I think we we asked first if the

[27:50] answer is no, proceed with staff recommendation all the

[27:53] way through. If the answer is anything but no, we get to talk

[27:56] about it again. Okay. Do we need to clarify it again?

[28:02] I'm clear on that. You're clear. We're all good. We're

[28:05] all clear on that. We'll watch the video a bunch

[28:06] of times. I'm sorry to hear you have to

[28:09] do that. So everyone is in grants. Okay.

[28:14] All right, so you wanna make a motion?

[28:18] Sure. I'd like to hear it out of your mouth. Mayor, please..

[28:23] No, I'm asking if you want to make the motion.

[28:24] Oh, I thought you said. Do you want me to make the motion?

[28:26] Would you like to make the motion?

[28:28] Shucks. Uh, I move exactly what we just discussed. Okay.

[28:32] I'll second. We have a motion and a second, as amended. Uh,

[28:39] all in favor? Aye, aye.

[28:41] Any opposed? Okay. Got it. Okay. Next is presentation action.

[28:51] Discussion item ten D. That's a considered enhanced

[28:54] infrastructure financing districts. Mr. Gargano.

[28:58] Thank you, mayor and council. Uh, so this evening I will be

[29:01] providing an overview of enhanced infrastructure

[29:04] financing districts. Uh, if these are not new taxes, uh,

[29:11] Senate Bill 628 created Aids back in 2014 after the

[29:16] dissolution of redevelopment in 2012. If these capture future

[29:21] property tax increment growth to fund infrastructure and

[29:24] capital projects such as roads, facilities, parks, trails,

[29:28] water, sewer, flood control business, facade improvements,

[29:31] property acquisition, long term deferred maintenance or

[29:34] rehabilitation, uh district boundaries for include areas

[29:38] for growth, although it could be an entire city or county,

[29:43] we've seen those happen. Uh, these district boundaries do

[29:47] not need to be contiguous, but can be used anywhere in the

[29:51] city as long as they have community wide impacts. Uh,

[29:55] cities may establish, uh, its own CFD, uh, or it may partner

[29:59] with another taxing agency, such as a county, uh, to

[30:03] capture a portion. Uh, for instance, the county's tax

[30:06] increment. Um, and to return that investment back to the

[30:10] district. And I will note that participation efforts are

[30:15] completely voluntary. Uh, for city county partnerships, uh,

[30:20] these have occurred throughout the state. It is a win win in

[30:23] many scenarios because, uh, the county will not realize those

[30:27] property tax growth without the city's investment in time,

[30:31] resources and getting those projects, uh, developed. And

[30:35] through an entitlement process and. ET cetera. Uh, public

[30:39] financing authorities will have to be established separately,

[30:44] and they would be made up of the taxing entity

[30:48] representatives as well as as well as members of the public,

[30:52] uh, to oversee the FDA once they're established. Uh, this,

[30:58] uh, graph, uh, or this, this illustration, uh, shows you how

[31:03] the tax increment financing works as private property

[31:07] investment occurs or new development occurs within a

[31:10] city or district. Uh, they will, uh, increase property tax

[31:16] revenue from their increased new property values. And when

[31:19] capturing those increased values, uh, those increments

[31:23] could be then deposited into tax increment financing funds,

[31:27] such as an IFD, which can then be used to fund for public

[31:32] improvements. Uh, this graph shows you, uh, if a IFD is

[31:39] formed and establish, uh, there is a baseline property value

[31:44] that is established. And then at that point, any, uh, new

[31:49] property value and future tax increment would then be

[31:52] captured above that baseline value. And again, a portion of

[31:57] that, uh, between the city or county could then be used for

[32:00] those types of improvements. After a set date or period of

[32:04] time. In this graph, it shows you about a 45 year period.

[32:08] Once the district has concluded its collection of the portion

[32:12] of property tax increments, then it would revert back to

[32:16] the city or county receiving their normal regular property

[32:20] tax revenues back into their respective general funds. Uh,

[32:26] in terms of a discussion, uh, timeline, since this has been

[32:30] brought up by the council, we first mentioned this, uh, to

[32:34] you last August during our financial strategies workshop.

[32:38] And FDS was a tool that you directed staff to further

[32:43] explore and come back to you at a future date. Um, after

[32:47] August, between September and December last year, uh, city

[32:50] staff had preliminary discussions with the County of

[32:53] Ventura about establishing an IFD and possibly partnering

[32:57] with them. Um, at that point, we also invited our real estate

[33:01] consultant, uh, earlier this year in January to have them

[33:05] meet with our own city staff to provide information about Aids

[33:09] and answer any questions or concerns staff may have about

[33:12] them. Uh, during this period of time, we also began hearing,

[33:17] um, other cities approached the county about establishing IFD.

[33:21] Uh, and at that point, the county had, uh, informed myself

[33:26] and city staff that they would be putting together a county

[33:29] policy regarding EDS, because, again, many cities have been

[33:33] approaching them about it, such as Moorpark. And so, uh,

[33:37] earlier this year in May, the county went ahead and adopted

[33:40] an IFD policy, uh, and then, um, some highlights of that

[33:45] policy or the discussions that took place at that May Board of

[33:49] Supervisors meeting. Uh, the auditor, controller, um, uh,

[33:53] indicated that they would, uh, work with cities to identify

[33:57] tax rate area boundaries. Also, the county, uh, also mentioned

[34:02] that, um, they could establish an unlimited number of IFD and

[34:08] partnerships with cities or other taxing agencies, and they

[34:12] could be formed on a first come, first served basis. But

[34:15] they could decide as a county to, uh, stop establishing them

[34:19] at a certain period of time. Uh, based on their decision.

[34:23] And then the county also, uh, under their policy, capped tax

[34:27] increment contribution limits to 50% with performance

[34:32] triggers. Um, other cities that expressed interest at that, uh,

[34:37] Board of Supervisors meeting was the city of Thousand Oaks,

[34:41] uh, and also the city of Ventura, the Ventura County

[34:45] Taxpayers Association also, uh, made a public comment during

[34:49] that meeting, but they're not opposed to aphids. Uh, but they

[34:53] do have concerns about issuing any debt service. And the

[34:56] optimistic assumptions of future property value growth.

[35:03] For more parks, uh, property tax break down under prop 13,

[35:08] uh, basically cap basic property tax at 1% of assessed

[35:12] value, purchase price. And these are then capped up to 2%

[35:17] annually. Uh, the city of Moorpark receives a total of

[35:20] $0.09 out of every property tax dollar. There is a also a

[35:24] supplemental, uh, submitted this evening. There was a typo

[35:27] in the staff report, uh, on the $0.09, uh, rather than, uh,

[35:33] mistakenly indicating $0.90 on there. Uh, and then in terms of

[35:36] how much the city receives for property tax, uh, approximately

[35:41] about $5 million per year goes into the general fund. And then

[35:45] at 1.4 million, uh, portion of it goes to the library fund. In

[35:53] terms of the steps to establish an IFD, uh, they would first

[35:57] need to be a feasibility and analysis, uh, where we would

[36:02] sort of define the boundaries, then estimate any future

[36:05] revenues, uh, what the projects would be, the costs. And, uh,

[36:10] you know, preliminary fiscal analysis would be done as well.

[36:13] At that point, we would conduct an outreach to other taxing

[36:19] entities, uh, property owners. The county, for instance, to

[36:23] determine their interest in partnering with us based on the

[36:27] analysis, uh, that we would, uh, uh, uh, generate and, uh,

[36:32] come out to. And then if there is an interest, we would

[36:35] initiate the formal process with a resolution of a tent,

[36:39] establish the public financing authority, identify membership.

[36:43] Uh, then we would prepare an infrastructure financing plan

[36:47] where we would identify, uh, all the list of projects to be

[36:51] included in this, the financing plan, the projections, dates,

[36:56] uh, duration, uh, etc.. Then we would go through a pre adoption

[37:01] phase informing the taxing entities and partners as well

[37:04] as the any property owners within that district. And then

[37:07] we go through a series of public hearings. Any majority

[37:11] protests would stop establishment and IFD. And then

[37:16] at that point it would go through the approval or

[37:19] formation process. Um, if the taxing entities all agreed to

[37:23] establish it. In terms of eligible IFC projects, it's

[37:30] generally any property or project with a useful life of

[37:34] 15 plus years that has community wide impacts or

[37:37] significance. So you could see here anything from water, sewer

[37:40] infrastructure to roads, parking, uh, parks, open space,

[37:45] uh, any city facilities, libraries, etc. uh, could be

[37:50] used, uh, uh, in the IFD funds. Uh, this is the list of, uh,

[37:57] IDs that have formed in California, um, throughout the

[38:00] state. Uh, and I know there is a growing number of cities and

[38:04] counties, um, looking into this at the moment. Uh, this next

[38:08] slide shows you IDs that have city and county partnerships

[38:13] specifically, uh, you can see the five that are with LA

[38:16] County and the respective cities there, uh, as well as

[38:21] other counties, central, northern California, uh,

[38:24] Southern California, that, uh, is related to things again,

[38:27] water, sewer, roads, flood control, uh, revitalizing a

[38:32] downtown area or commercial area, for instance. Um, so you

[38:37] can kind of see all the different, uh, uh, uses that

[38:41] the counties and cities have identified to use if design if

[38:46] the council was to, uh, direct staff to proceed and exploring

[38:51] and considering efforts, the next step would really be for

[38:55] the city to contract with a consultant to evaluate the IFD

[38:59] feasibility, whereby we could identify the boundaries,

[39:03] estimate the future property values, estimate future tax

[39:07] increments for both the city and the county, uh, and also

[39:10] identify possible uh, public facilities and projects to be

[39:15] included. And then any other funding sources that would be

[39:19] in addition to the tax increment we would receive, um,

[39:22] costs of a consultant to do this. Feasibility is estimated

[39:27] between 30,000 to $35,000. Um, we would then, as results of

[39:34] the feasibility analysis would then be presented back to the

[39:37] city council at a future date. Uh, and then the council at

[39:40] that point could decide whether to proceed or not. Um, perhaps

[39:43] the decision to not move forward could be because of the

[39:46] estimated tax increment. Returns are very low and may

[39:50] not be, um, have a significant impact on future projects we

[39:53] have. Or you may decide to move forward if the estimated tax

[39:58] increment returns are reasonable or high. Uh, and

[40:02] then at that point we would discuss with the county if

[40:04] they're interested in participating and partnering

[40:07] with us, uh, and discuss the benefits to the county and

[40:10] other potential county related projects. That is in the

[40:14] district or within the city. And then we would report back

[40:17] to you if the council if the county would be interested in,

[40:21] um, uh, moving forward with establishing an IFD. Uh, that

[40:27] concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions

[40:30] you may have. Any questions? Go ahead.

[40:35] Uh, the Laverne example that you provided significantly

[40:38] underperformed its original tax increment projections. Uh, what

[40:42] assumptions would more park use to avoid overestimating

[40:45] revenue? And what happens to planned projects if actual

[40:48] increment comes in? Well, under the predictions?

[40:52] Yeah, the two samples I provided in the staff report,

[40:55] one of which was the city of Laverne and their partnership

[40:58] with L.A. County, and that has resulted in lower returns or

[41:03] tax increment returns that they expected. Uh, however, they are

[41:07] using the lower amounts to then still combine it with other

[41:11] funding sources so that they could move forward on some of

[41:15] their capital projects. Um, I think what we could do is if

[41:19] the returns are not as high as we expect, if we were to

[41:25] establish one and, you know, find out it didn't turn out as

[41:28] we expected, we could always reassess, determine if this is

[41:32] still valuable, to move forward. And in partnership

[41:35] with the county. So we could always make that adjustment in

[41:38] the future. Um, but, you know, it's really hard to obviously

[41:42] predict, um, I mean, we have some development projects

[41:45] underway that we probably know are going to happen. And so

[41:49] that is one way we could, you know, um, at least, uh,

[41:53] establish a certain set of assumptions about what we could

[41:57] realistically, uh, receive in terms of future property value

[42:01] growth. But for projects that are sort of, um, questionable

[42:05] at this point, uh, perhaps maybe we leave those out so

[42:09] that it's not part of our substance. So we're very

[42:11] conservative in our projections.

[42:14] Okay. Thank you.

[42:15] Um, one more question. Uh, if Moore Park uses the pay as you

[42:19] go as opposed to issuing debt, do we have any idea how many

[42:23] years it would take, uh, before it could accumulate enough

[42:27] money to make a tangible difference on a project?

[42:31] Yeah, I mean, that's going to be part of that feasibility

[42:33] analysis. So we could sort of estimate and determine how much

[42:37] actual money we're going to get in the future. That could make

[42:40] sort of a significant impact on a capital project or projects

[42:45] that we identify. But at this point in time, yeah, I wouldn't

[42:47] really know in top of my head what that would be. But, uh,

[42:50] that analysis would provide us that information.

[42:54] And maybe this also goes with that analysis, but do we have

[42:56] any idea how much county participation would

[43:00] realistically be needed in order to just even support

[43:04] administrative and consultant costs?

[43:06] And .. Yeah, I mean, at this point, I mean, it seems to me

[43:10] that the county, with them establishing this IFD policy,

[43:14] um, they're at least open to the discussion and

[43:17] consideration when cities approach them about this. So I

[43:21] know there are some movement and some traction going on with

[43:24] the other cities that are a little bit ahead of us on this.

[43:27] Uh, about, um, consideration. I mean, there was a five oh vote

[43:31] by the Board of Supervisors, uh, to consider this, uh, going

[43:36] forward. I just have a quick question

[43:43] about projecting the management portion of it. So, I mean, it

[43:46] seems like the composition of the IFD is vary depending upon

[43:50] who participates, regardless of the composition, large or

[43:53] small. Where do the administrative costs generally

[43:56] reside? Are those split between the county and the Iid

[43:59] participants, or is it is that burden completely assumed by

[44:03] those you know, whatever the composition is of the IFD?

[44:07] Yeah, that's actually a really good question that I don't know

[44:10] at this point. Uh, actually, our real estate consultant, uh,

[44:13] Mr. Degas is here, might be able to fill in the blanks

[44:17] there, because if we're not yet generating, um, uh, tax

[44:21] increment, obviously funds, uh, sooner than later, I would

[44:25] assume that it's split between the city and the county, but

[44:28] Mr. Degas can properly answer that. Thank you.

[44:31] Yeah. Good evening. Mayor. Members of

[44:33] the. City council. So typically the

[44:35] costs are initially borne by the sponsoring entity, which

[44:38] would be you, the city of Moorpark. And then those costs

[44:41] and other costs that go along with the formation are

[44:44] typically reimbursable by the revenues as they come in. So if

[44:47] it is a county partnership, it would essentially be splitting.

[44:50] But the city is the one advancing.

[44:52] And my follow up question is in general, I'm just going to use

[44:56] the term start up cost. Right. So for in general, is it 2 to 3

[45:00] years that the city is bearing the bulk of that responsibility

[45:03] before they start to see the receipts coming in.

[45:06] 2 to. 3 years? Okay. Thank you.

[45:11] Just one clarifying question. Could we make the geographic

[45:16] boundaries of an IFD consistent with the city limits?

[45:20] Yes, we could do that. Thank you, Mr. Means. Thank you.

[45:24] Any more questions? Um, there's a comment saying that, uh, we

[45:31] would go through a consultant to go through this process and

[45:35] see if it was going to work. And then once we decide if it

[45:37] was going to work, we would then approach the county to see

[45:40] if they would partner up with this on this. You said that the

[45:44] county is is in favor of this process, but is there a limit

[45:50] where they wouldn't be in favor? And do you know? Yeah,

[45:53] I'm kind of asking you to estimate this now, but are we

[45:57] is it look favorable or does it look like we're on the edge of

[45:59] this? Well, I would say that the

[46:00] county is open to it. Um, I think it depends on what we

[46:05] approach them with to see what type of impacts, uh, to the

[46:10] county, uh, would benefit them. And also, um, you know, the

[46:15] expected property, uh, uh, tax increment that could be

[46:19] generated so that it's substantial enough that they

[46:22] could see the impacts of both the city and the county.

[46:25] Okay. Yeah. Have we done any estimating based off of what we

[46:28] know so far on this whole procedure? Because obviously

[46:32] we're going to hire a consultant. And and we have no

[46:34] idea if he's going to tell us it's a good idea or not a good

[46:37] idea. That doesn't really make much sense, but I'd want to

[46:40] know, would we feel comfortable with this the way we think it

[46:43] would pan out? Yeah. I mean, we, we we haven't

[46:46] been able to to determine the initial numbers at this point

[46:49] because we'd also want to define the boundaries and what

[46:52] type of projects, uh, that could be benefiting the city

[46:56] and also could benefit the county as well, because I think

[46:59] they'd want their input about their county infrastructure

[47:02] within city limits. But the boundaries itself, I think we

[47:05] would provide you with various scenarios, whether it's just

[47:09] the growth areas within the city or as councilmember

[47:13] suggested, it could be the entire city so that we capture

[47:16] any property value increase in the future, regardless of where

[47:20] it's located. Okay. Is that something that

[47:22] should be decided before we get into this project, or is that

[47:26] something that we should be seeing the different options

[47:29] of? Yeah, I think if we do the

[47:31] feasibility analysis, I would want to see those scenarios and

[47:34] present that to you. Okay. Any questions? Do you

[47:40] have any speakers? We do have one speaker card,

[47:44] but I do not see the individual in the chambers. Um, Daniel

[47:49] Pulido did, uh, submit a card and also submitted a

[47:52] supplemental for you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, move the

[47:56] discussion. Um. Once again, we got to pay money to see if it's

[48:02] a good idea. That's always a hard thing to get behind. But

[48:07] what are the thoughts on this? Doctor Castro?

[48:12] Yeah. Again. I want to thank staff. This is

[48:14] another idea that was suggested. And you brought it

[48:17] forward, um, getting into it now I start to see our why.

[48:21] It's even more complex than it seemed like before. Um, so

[48:25] there's I didn't anticipate that there would be some, some

[48:28] risk elements. It seemed like, oh, there's only this upside,

[48:30] right? But obviously there's a risk. But, um, I do think based

[48:34] on what the city manager shared, uh, the current

[48:38] temperament and disposition of the county, um, Board of

[48:42] Supervisors, it seems like it wouldn't be a good idea to be

[48:47] the last to the table. Uh, so I although I know we've had a lot

[48:51] of questions about the cost of consultants, if there is an

[48:55] upside to this, it seems really to our advantage to be the

[49:00] first to explore it. So that's my initial thought. Yeah.

[49:03] Okay. I'm gonna jump in and agree

[49:05] with that. I think this is an opportunity to to lead in the

[49:11] county. And and if we're already a little behind, you

[49:14] know, maybe catch up and, um, I if we move forward, I would

[49:20] definitely want that direction that we go full force fast.

[49:28] Yeah, I, I concur first come, first serve. Uh, and eventually

[49:33] if enough of these come in front of the county, the county

[49:35] is going to say, whoa, wait, we can't do any more of that. And

[49:37] to keep our our dollars at home right now, all these projects

[49:40] we do, we got a CIP list. If we make the boundaries, the city

[49:44] limits, we got our CIP list. We know what we want to do. I

[49:47] mean, we can pick and choose as we want to, um, and, uh, and

[49:53] invest and keep it dollars at home. I, I fully I hate $35,000

[49:58] for a consultant to tell me that we're gonna, we're gonna

[50:01] make money. I don't want to go and take on debt load. Uh, I'd

[50:05] want it to be pay as you go, but we got enough cips that we

[50:08] pay as you go. Uh, that that will constantly be a benefit.

[50:11] So, um, assuming that there is no other way to get that report

[50:15] conclusive and convincing. Uh, I think we move forward with

[50:19] the with the consultant. Yeah. I'm concerned about the

[50:23] upkeep, infrastructure, obviously, with our finances.

[50:27] And if we're lost to the table with this, we could lose out a

[50:30] lot on that. So, um, I'm in favor of it. I wish we could

[50:34] see a little bit more of the feasibility before we engage

[50:39] into a consulting agreement, but, um, I think what you've

[50:45] been saying is looking pretty much like it would be

[50:48] straightforward, right? Yes, ma'am.

[50:51] That's correct. Anything else?

[50:56] That's pretty. That's pretty good direction. We all seem to

[51:01] be on the same page. That's what Doctor Castro said.

[51:04] Okay. We have consensus then to, uh,

[51:06] have staff move forward further considering this. And, uh, uh,

[51:10] contract services with a consultant to determine the

[51:14] feasibility. That's correct.

[51:16] Thank you. Quickly. Yeah, yeah, if we can, we can

[51:20] catch up. I agree. Just just make it work. Yeah.

[51:24] Okay. Next item is 11 ordinances. There are none this

[51:32] evening while by closed session, Mr. Agena.

[51:36] Uh, there are no closed session items this evening, mayor.

[51:39] All right. Thank you. 13. I'll make a motion to adjourn. All

[51:42] in favor? Aye, aye.

[51:44] Thank you. And good night. Moorpark.