1 00:00:01,100 --> 00:00:04,360 Um, when it comes time to appraisals, will they be 2 00:00:04,360 --> 00:00:08,641 appraising at both individual lot and uh, potential of all 3 00:00:08,641 --> 00:00:11,978 three? We appraise them as individual 4 00:00:11,978 --> 00:00:14,247 lots and sell them as individual lots, even if 5 00:00:14,247 --> 00:00:16,982 they're being purchased by one individual. 6 00:00:16,982 --> 00:00:20,520 Okay. Thank you. Um, if we sell them as 7 00:00:20,520 --> 00:00:23,390 individual lots and they're purchased by one individual, do 8 00:00:23,390 --> 00:00:28,610 we have the availability to dictate that they stay in 9 00:00:28,610 --> 00:00:31,264 individual lots, or is that out of our hands. 10 00:00:31,264 --> 00:00:35,201 In terms of, you know, if one person is buying three lots, 11 00:00:35,201 --> 00:00:37,470 you only want to see three single family homes or 12 00:00:37,470 --> 00:00:41,874 whatever. Sort of similar to Walnut Canyon. Um, I believe we 13 00:00:41,874 --> 00:00:44,878 can, uh, structure the deal the same. 14 00:00:44,878 --> 00:00:50,278 Okay. Thank you. Our questions. Um, do we have 15 00:00:50,683 --> 00:00:52,752 any speakers? Soon. You should ask. 16 00:00:52,752 --> 00:00:54,888 For that. No, Mr. Mayor, no speakers on 17 00:00:54,888 --> 00:00:57,288 this item. Okay. Discuss. 18 00:00:58,691 --> 00:01:05,891 Um. I think, um, this location here is not a location where 19 00:01:07,320 --> 00:01:11,303 you'd expect to put in any other municipal type of use, 20 00:01:11,303 --> 00:01:17,303 necessarily, and I feel like housing makes the most sense. 21 00:01:17,711 --> 00:01:21,715 I would agree, I think that there's there's already a park 22 00:01:21,715 --> 00:01:27,854 nearby. Um, and I think housing is a good use here. I think, 23 00:01:27,854 --> 00:01:32,592 um, as you said, as we're able to direct, uh, if proposals 24 00:01:32,592 --> 00:01:35,461 come through, you know, certainly aiming towards 25 00:01:35,461 --> 00:01:38,640 keeping consistent with the neighborhood, that would be 26 00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:40,533 important to me. Yeah, I agree that was why I 27 00:01:40,533 --> 00:01:42,869 was asking that. I want to make sure if there was development, 28 00:01:42,869 --> 00:01:46,205 it was going to be, um, it was going to fit in with that 29 00:01:46,205 --> 00:01:52,205 neighborhood and not be an outlier. Okay. Well, that's the 30 00:01:54,214 --> 00:01:57,417 direction. Yes, mayor, Council, we have 31 00:01:57,417 --> 00:02:01,688 direction, uh, to keep it residential and, uh, move 32 00:02:01,688 --> 00:02:03,956 forward with the disposition process. 33 00:02:03,956 --> 00:02:11,156 Great. All right. We'll move on to item ten. C. As considered 34 00:02:16,503 --> 00:02:20,703 disposition direction for 15404 Princeton Avenue. The center. 35 00:02:27,914 --> 00:02:31,784 Good evening. Mayor and city council. I do want to just sort 36 00:02:31,784 --> 00:02:38,384 of correct. Uh, the address listed. I've been here a very 37 00:02:38,391 --> 00:02:40,126 long time. And when we purchased this property, that 38 00:02:40,126 --> 00:02:42,662 was the address. I knew it as, um. That is no longer the 39 00:02:42,662 --> 00:02:45,198 address just because it's been vacant land for so long. Uh, 40 00:02:45,198 --> 00:02:47,533 so, just to clarify, I know there was some confusion on 41 00:02:47,533 --> 00:02:50,603 that, but these are the Princeton Avenue properties. 42 00:02:50,603 --> 00:02:55,740 I'm going to spare you the Surplus Land Act speech again. 43 00:02:55,740 --> 00:02:59,812 Um, but just suffice it to say that, uh, the disposition of 44 00:02:59,812 --> 00:03:02,949 this parcel, should we decide to dispose of it, would be 45 00:03:02,949 --> 00:03:08,821 subject to the Surplus Land Act. So just to go over the 46 00:03:08,821 --> 00:03:12,759 property history again? Um, this property was purchased by 47 00:03:12,759 --> 00:03:17,630 the redevelopment Agency. It was intended to be a relocation 48 00:03:17,630 --> 00:03:19,965 site for a fueling station that used to be located on High 49 00:03:19,965 --> 00:03:24,170 Street. Um, ultimately, the project was not approved, and 50 00:03:24,170 --> 00:03:26,572 the redevelopment agency did continue to look for 51 00:03:26,572 --> 00:03:31,372 development partners with, um, no success. In 2020, a 52 00:03:32,111 --> 00:03:34,714 development partner approached the city about developing a 53 00:03:34,714 --> 00:03:37,650 housing project at the site. Um, at the time, there was an 54 00:03:37,650 --> 00:03:41,387 exemption in the Surplus Land Act for Redevelopment Agency 55 00:03:41,387 --> 00:03:44,990 properties. Um, but it did require that all land 56 00:03:44,990 --> 00:03:49,790 disposition activities conclude by December of 2022. Um, during 57 00:03:50,596 --> 00:03:54,533 the due diligence process, the interested developer did find 58 00:03:54,533 --> 00:03:57,603 that there was some poor soil conditions, the cost of which 59 00:03:57,603 --> 00:04:00,807 would effectively write down the land value. Um, 60 00:04:00,807 --> 00:04:04,343 unfortunately, due to the expiration of the exemption, 61 00:04:04,343 --> 00:04:06,812 we're not able to resolve the issue of the price and what to 62 00:04:06,812 --> 00:04:09,810 do with the land, with the oversight board. And the 63 00:04:09,810 --> 00:04:12,752 developer decided not to move forward. Uh, since then, the 64 00:04:12,752 --> 00:04:15,755 city council has discussed this property a couple of times. So 65 00:04:15,755 --> 00:04:19,959 we had the initial discussion in November of 2025, where we 66 00:04:19,959 --> 00:04:23,162 were asked to return with the appraised value to determine if 67 00:04:23,162 --> 00:04:26,320 the city council would want to purchase the property. Um, in 68 00:04:26,320 --> 00:04:30,970 January of 2026, we did present that appraisal value, and the 69 00:04:30,970 --> 00:04:34,573 cost of the site had increased significantly due to the 70 00:04:34,573 --> 00:04:37,777 property being rezoned during the General Plan update. Uh, 71 00:04:37,777 --> 00:04:41,377 the land value increased approximately $1.2 million 72 00:04:42,515 --> 00:04:45,510 under the new zoning, and at the time, the city council had 73 00:04:45,510 --> 00:04:48,187 asked if we could dialogue with the former developers in return 74 00:04:48,187 --> 00:04:50,989 with information related to the soils on the site and the 75 00:04:50,989 --> 00:04:54,260 potential writedown of the land value. Based on those studies, 76 00:04:54,260 --> 00:04:58,330 um, I was able to obtain the developer's estimates from 77 00:04:58,330 --> 00:05:02,868 2022, and at that time they had estimated approximately 78 00:05:02,868 --> 00:05:07,680 $960,000 to remove uncertified fill materials and remediate 79 00:05:08,700 --> 00:05:11,411 liquefaction issues, and that at that time would have written 80 00:05:11,411 --> 00:05:13,946 the land value down to zero based on the prior zoning and 81 00:05:13,946 --> 00:05:17,549 their appraised value. I very conservatively, I think, 82 00:05:17,549 --> 00:05:20,886 inflated the developer's cost us to get a flavor of what 83 00:05:20,886 --> 00:05:24,824 those land remediation costs would be today against the 84 00:05:24,824 --> 00:05:28,828 current appraised value, and we'd we would have a reduced 85 00:05:28,828 --> 00:05:33,628 land value, but only around $876,000. Um, I'm forgetting 86 00:05:35,901 --> 00:05:38,905 about my PowerPoint. Uh, so given the potential cost of the 87 00:05:38,905 --> 00:05:42,441 city to purchase a lot from the successor agency, staff had 88 00:05:42,441 --> 00:05:45,644 made a recommendation to attempt to put the Surplus 89 00:05:45,644 --> 00:05:48,448 Land Act put the property through the Surplus Land Act 90 00:05:48,448 --> 00:05:54,653 and sell the land. And because this property is subject to 91 00:05:54,653 --> 00:05:58,457 oversight by the Ventura County Consolidated Oversight Board, 92 00:05:58,457 --> 00:06:01,994 the idea is that if we could show our due diligence and 93 00:06:01,994 --> 00:06:07,133 trying to sell the property, and if we receive offers, um, 94 00:06:07,133 --> 00:06:10,670 it could set a favorable, favorable negotiations with the 95 00:06:10,670 --> 00:06:14,730 oversight Board to potentially purchase a property for a lower 96 00:06:14,730 --> 00:06:18,878 value than the appraised value. And if offers did materialize 97 00:06:18,878 --> 00:06:21,681 as a part of the SLA that resulted in some sort of 98 00:06:21,681 --> 00:06:25,840 development on the site, the city could still potentially 99 00:06:25,840 --> 00:06:28,902 realize some of a city council goals related to potential 100 00:06:28,902 --> 00:06:31,771 trails on the site. By reserving an easement or 101 00:06:31,771 --> 00:06:36,442 negotiating that through that development. And so I did put 102 00:06:36,442 --> 00:06:39,779 together here's the the property generally kind of 103 00:06:39,779 --> 00:06:42,915 where the trail easement would go. Um, obviously this would be 104 00:06:42,915 --> 00:06:45,852 subject to if somebody did want to develop here kind of what 105 00:06:45,852 --> 00:06:49,550 their property layout would end up having to be and all of 106 00:06:49,550 --> 00:06:53,593 that. But that would be generally kind of the idea. Um, 107 00:06:53,593 --> 00:07:00,533 and so, um, again, so the lot size in on paper is 2.26 acres. 108 00:07:00,533 --> 00:07:05,271 Again, it's zoned R two. Um, it's about under it's just 109 00:07:05,271 --> 00:07:09,876 under one acre of usable land. Um, given the erosion, um, for 110 00:07:09,876 --> 00:07:14,280 from the arroyo on the south side of the property. Um, and, 111 00:07:14,280 --> 00:07:18,485 um, and so it's, you know, much smaller than it looks like on 112 00:07:18,485 --> 00:07:23,756 paper. And so we'd like to receive direction from City 113 00:07:23,756 --> 00:07:26,493 Council regarding retention or disposition of the property. 114 00:07:26,493 --> 00:07:29,495 Like I said, we did make a staff recommendation that the 115 00:07:29,495 --> 00:07:32,231 city council declined the purchase at this time, but we 116 00:07:32,231 --> 00:07:34,767 would return to the city council if no sale activity 117 00:07:34,767 --> 00:07:38,571 occurs. This is also a dual successor agency item, and we 118 00:07:38,571 --> 00:07:41,374 would be looking for direction from the successor agency to 119 00:07:41,374 --> 00:07:44,177 actually move forward with the SLA process. If that was the 120 00:07:44,177 --> 00:07:47,580 desire. Um, and we could again return for further direction if 121 00:07:47,580 --> 00:07:51,985 no sales occurred within the next 18 months. Um, or you can 122 00:07:51,985 --> 00:07:55,254 you're free, as usual, to direct staff is deemed 123 00:07:55,254 --> 00:07:59,580 appropriate. So this concludes my presentation and I'm happy 124 00:07:59,580 --> 00:08:00,793 to answer any questions. Thank you. 125 00:08:00,793 --> 00:08:04,597 Any questions? You saying yes. You have a 126 00:08:04,597 --> 00:08:06,665 question. Do you want to. Okay. Go ahead. 127 00:08:06,665 --> 00:08:09,936 Ladies first. Uh thank you Jessica. Um, so 128 00:08:09,936 --> 00:08:14,474 given the erosion portion, there's a trailhead. Follow 129 00:08:14,474 --> 00:08:18,945 along. The part of unusable space. Or does it cut into or 130 00:08:18,945 --> 00:08:23,149 the proposed trailhead? Does it cut into usable area? 131 00:08:23,149 --> 00:08:26,352 So right now where it's shown is, is kind of like the very 132 00:08:26,352 --> 00:08:29,689 edge of the usable area. But I would anticipate if somebody 133 00:08:29,689 --> 00:08:31,757 was going to be developing, they'd have to be doing 134 00:08:31,757 --> 00:08:34,560 something with that end that would create effectively, like 135 00:08:34,560 --> 00:08:37,764 a levee road that would allow us to put a trail in. Um, I 136 00:08:37,764 --> 00:08:41,100 can't guarantee that, you know, and that's why the trail might 137 00:08:41,100 --> 00:08:44,637 actually move, depending on how the development would be 138 00:08:44,637 --> 00:08:49,975 designed. Um, but generally, um, I think it would make sense 139 00:08:49,975 --> 00:08:52,512 because, again, you'd be able to see all the wild parts of 140 00:08:52,512 --> 00:08:55,114 the arroyo and the kind of different interpretive things 141 00:08:55,114 --> 00:08:58,500 you could do with that trail. So a follow up question to 142 00:08:58,500 --> 00:09:02,789 that. Um, since I know the trailheads are important to us. 143 00:09:02,789 --> 00:09:06,992 Should an easement or access be required? Um, should the 144 00:09:06,992 --> 00:09:09,929 requirement be established prior to marketing? 145 00:09:09,929 --> 00:09:13,650 So we would put it in the marketing materials and then 146 00:09:13,650 --> 00:09:15,868 the easement would be established upon sale. When the 147 00:09:15,868 --> 00:09:19,605 grant deeds are recorded. So we would at least notify potential 148 00:09:19,605 --> 00:09:23,476 buyers that that that would be a requirement of the sale. 149 00:09:23,476 --> 00:09:28,276 Okay. Thank you. Uh. Thank you. Would this 150 00:09:30,349 --> 00:09:36,880 property be. Could we decide to transfer funds and turn this 151 00:09:36,880 --> 00:09:41,761 into some of their zoning, like open space? If we chose to? 152 00:09:41,761 --> 00:09:44,831 Um, you could you could purchase. If you're asking if 153 00:09:44,831 --> 00:09:46,832 the city could purchase the property, you could purchase 154 00:09:46,832 --> 00:09:51,237 the property. Um, we would just have to have the property, um, 155 00:09:51,237 --> 00:09:53,639 purchase approved by the oversight board. And the value 156 00:09:53,639 --> 00:09:57,643 of the property approved. You know, whatever that transaction 157 00:09:57,643 --> 00:09:59,912 cost is approved by the oversight board. 158 00:09:59,912 --> 00:10:03,516 Council member means as a supplement to that response. 159 00:10:03,516 --> 00:10:06,185 Um, I wanted to I've had a moment to kind of review based 160 00:10:06,185 --> 00:10:08,520 on the earlier questions. I wanted to clarify that public 161 00:10:08,520 --> 00:10:12,458 parks and recreation facilities are permitted in all zones. So 162 00:10:12,458 --> 00:10:14,994 if that's strictly the question, then a zoning change 163 00:10:14,994 --> 00:10:18,597 wouldn't be necessary. Uh, perfect. And it leads 164 00:10:18,597 --> 00:10:23,200 straight into my my question, uh, of the Housing Crisis Act 165 00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:28,607 of 2018, which I will admit, I have studied for minutes now. 166 00:10:28,607 --> 00:10:32,945 Uh, it's one acre. Would this be subject to the Housing 167 00:10:32,945 --> 00:10:35,748 Crisis Act, where we would have to make up the acreage as well? 168 00:10:35,748 --> 00:10:38,150 No. So based on the new information that was just 169 00:10:38,150 --> 00:10:41,554 provided, if we're not changing the general plan land use 170 00:10:41,554 --> 00:10:45,892 designation or changing the zone, which it sounds like we 171 00:10:45,892 --> 00:10:49,896 don't need to, then we would not need to worry about, that 172 00:10:49,896 --> 00:10:53,365 since everything would remain the same, it would remain zoned 173 00:10:53,365 --> 00:11:00,172 as R-2. Um, it would just be put for a, different use, but 174 00:11:00,172 --> 00:11:05,440 it would be remain as R-2. Good. I like that answer. 175 00:11:05,440 --> 00:11:08,714 Great. How is that different than the Charles properties 176 00:11:08,714 --> 00:11:09,782 that we were just talking about? 177 00:11:09,782 --> 00:11:12,985 It's not. It's just now we have new information that public 178 00:11:12,985 --> 00:11:17,390 parks are allowed within the R one zone as well. Is that 179 00:11:17,390 --> 00:11:18,925 right? Correct. Actually, within all 180 00:11:18,925 --> 00:11:22,328 city zones, the situation we were discussing previously was, 181 00:11:22,328 --> 00:11:24,464 was the idea that we would have to change the zoning to 182 00:11:24,464 --> 00:11:27,934 something non-residential, and if the intended use here is a 183 00:11:27,934 --> 00:11:32,400 public park or recreation facility, that is not the case. 184 00:11:32,400 --> 00:11:34,730 Okay. Can we go back to the last item 185 00:11:34,730 --> 00:11:37,677 and open that back up and have it? I'll leave it. We've got 186 00:11:37,677 --> 00:11:40,879 direction there. But, um, that that strikes all the questions 187 00:11:40,879 --> 00:11:44,479 I have. So it's residential, which 188 00:11:45,751 --> 00:11:48,620 implies that there's a certain amount of units per acre based 189 00:11:48,620 --> 00:11:53,920 off the density. But if we decided to use that as a park, 190 00:11:53,920 --> 00:11:56,429 obviously you can't live at a park. Well, you could actually, 191 00:11:56,429 --> 00:12:00,899 but, um, we don't make up those numbers. 192 00:12:00,899 --> 00:12:03,302 Correct. Because the requirement to make up those 193 00:12:03,302 --> 00:12:05,838 numbers is only triggered if we were to change it to a 194 00:12:05,838 --> 00:12:09,441 non-residential zoning. Got it. Okay. All right. Don't 195 00:12:09,441 --> 00:12:13,913 understand that, but it makes sense. Good. Yeah. 196 00:12:13,913 --> 00:12:17,316 Doctor Kessler. Um, I just wanted to build on 197 00:12:17,316 --> 00:12:20,520 Councilmember Delgado's question about the the sale 198 00:12:20,520 --> 00:12:23,722 attempt that includes the trailheads. I love that great, 199 00:12:23,722 --> 00:12:27,126 great suggestion. Does that in some ways. Um, in some 200 00:12:27,126 --> 00:12:29,461 hypothetical scenario where someone would be very 201 00:12:29,461 --> 00:12:34,867 interested in this and it would be, um, it would be for them, 202 00:12:34,867 --> 00:12:38,538 just a make or break to have to have that as a trail. Does that 203 00:12:38,538 --> 00:12:42,809 disadvantage us in that first attempt at a sale? 204 00:12:42,809 --> 00:12:48,547 Yeah. I mean, I think it could, um, I think it could. I don't 205 00:12:48,547 --> 00:12:51,217 have, you know, it really just depends on sort of, you know, 206 00:12:51,217 --> 00:12:54,553 what they're proposing. You know, if something was lower 207 00:12:54,553 --> 00:12:58,240 density, it might be harder for them to recoup costs related to 208 00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:01,961 that. Um, but given sort of the remediation and the, the 209 00:13:01,961 --> 00:13:04,310 erosion for the arroyo, that would have to be dealt with, 210 00:13:04,310 --> 00:13:06,366 they're probably going to be doing something higher density 211 00:13:06,366 --> 00:13:10,103 anyway. Um, and so maybe they could, could, could, you know, 212 00:13:10,103 --> 00:13:12,572 cover the cost of that, but I, I don't I can't say until we 213 00:13:12,572 --> 00:13:15,308 know what somebody wants. To do. Okay. So the, the follow 214 00:13:15,308 --> 00:13:19,645 up then is that, is it possible for us to state our like 215 00:13:19,645 --> 00:13:23,116 priorities but without like limiting ourselves to that? We 216 00:13:23,116 --> 00:13:26,520 would only accept offers that included that as a provision. 217 00:13:26,520 --> 00:13:29,856 Yeah, we can we can put that in our as our requirements that we 218 00:13:29,856 --> 00:13:33,590 would be retaining some kind of a trail easement. You know, and 219 00:13:33,590 --> 00:13:36,195 maybe the, the workaround to maintaining the trail is being 220 00:13:36,195 --> 00:13:38,731 flexible with how the trail actually goes through the 221 00:13:38,731 --> 00:13:42,269 development. Yeah. And um, obviously I, we 222 00:13:42,269 --> 00:13:45,405 it's hypothetical, but one of the things that was clear in 223 00:13:45,405 --> 00:13:48,541 the staff report is whatever is done with this property, 224 00:13:48,541 --> 00:13:52,120 there's going to need to be extensive soil remediation. And 225 00:13:52,120 --> 00:13:55,148 so how much of the soil and how much of the land that they're 226 00:13:55,148 --> 00:13:58,485 potentially would be applying a soil meet soil remediation 227 00:13:58,485 --> 00:14:00,954 criteria to land that is ultimately going to be used for 228 00:14:00,954 --> 00:14:04,490 a trail? Um, seems like that could be, you know, limiting. 229 00:14:04,490 --> 00:14:09,290 Yeah. Thank you. A couple more questions. Um, 230 00:14:12,165 --> 00:14:17,565 how confident are you in your your inflated, uh, 20, 22 231 00:14:18,705 --> 00:14:23,420 estimates? Uh, would it behooves us to get new geos and 232 00:14:23,420 --> 00:14:27,113 new estimates? We we could. I will tell you 233 00:14:27,113 --> 00:14:29,849 that just from experience, we've done that, like with the 234 00:14:29,849 --> 00:14:34,521 daily group site, we did go out and get geotechnical reports. 235 00:14:34,521 --> 00:14:39,459 We had geotechnical consultants provide estimates for us. Um, 236 00:14:39,459 --> 00:14:44,930 but they were off by well over half $1 million because the 237 00:14:44,930 --> 00:14:48,468 ultimate remediation costs are based on what you're doing with 238 00:14:48,468 --> 00:14:51,471 the site. And that varies, you know, because daily group, it 239 00:14:51,471 --> 00:14:54,741 went three storeys in some areas. They had more extensive 240 00:14:54,741 --> 00:14:59,813 ground remediation than we initially estimated. So I think 241 00:14:59,813 --> 00:15:02,948 we could do that. I, you know, the, the geo tech reports 242 00:15:02,948 --> 00:15:08,555 aren't and are not inexpensive to do. Um, and so, um, you 243 00:15:08,555 --> 00:15:10,823 know, but but if that's, you know, the direction from the 244 00:15:10,823 --> 00:15:12,492 council, we could certainly do that and try to get an 245 00:15:12,492 --> 00:15:14,761 estimate. But I'm not saying it would be accurate. 246 00:15:14,761 --> 00:15:19,832 So would we be putting these this on the market for 1.98 247 00:15:19,832 --> 00:15:24,320 million and then supplying the 2022 soils? Uh. 248 00:15:24,637 --> 00:15:28,374 I don't have their documentation. I have their 249 00:15:28,374 --> 00:15:31,644 email where they gave us their their issues with it and what 250 00:15:31,644 --> 00:15:34,914 they were dealing with. Um, I could see if they'd be willing 251 00:15:34,914 --> 00:15:38,718 to share that documentation with other buyers, but it's, 252 00:15:38,718 --> 00:15:40,653 you know, not right now. It's not our document. 253 00:15:40,653 --> 00:15:44,257 So. So typically we would put it in we would put it on the 254 00:15:44,257 --> 00:15:47,727 market at 1.98 million. And then we would say buyer do your 255 00:15:47,727 --> 00:15:49,396 due diligence. Correct. Yeah. 256 00:15:49,396 --> 00:15:51,530 So it's possible. We would tell them we know 257 00:15:51,530 --> 00:15:52,998 that. Of course. Yes. You have 258 00:15:52,998 --> 00:15:57,803 disclosures. Absolutely. Uh, so possibly we could get a higher 259 00:15:57,803 --> 00:16:00,203 value than 876,000. Potentially. Yeah. 260 00:16:02,742 --> 00:16:06,942 Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Have any 261 00:16:08,800 --> 00:16:12,840 speakers? No, Mr. Mayor. No speakers on 262 00:16:12,840 --> 00:16:15,755 this item. All right. Thank you. Okay. 263 00:16:15,755 --> 00:16:20,555 What are the thoughts.? I think there's opportunity 264 00:16:21,695 --> 00:16:27,233 with the site, um, for civic use. Um, obviously there's 265 00:16:27,233 --> 00:16:31,433 potential trailhead with the development, um, opportunity. 266 00:16:31,705 --> 00:16:35,174 But I think that there there's more opportunity there as well. 267 00:16:35,174 --> 00:16:39,712 As we look at pocket parks in communities and the existing 268 00:16:39,712 --> 00:16:42,515 pocket park, uh, for that community happening across the 269 00:16:42,515 --> 00:16:49,715 road and, and go, uh, I think that there, um. There's a 270 00:16:50,523 --> 00:16:56,195 potential here to, to look at how how that could play out as 271 00:16:56,195 --> 00:17:00,800 a park. And I think we also haven't done we haven't gone to 272 00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:05,337 the Oversight Board yet. Right. We haven't said, look, this is 273 00:17:05,337 --> 00:17:07,140 going to be really hard to build on. It's going to be 274 00:17:07,140 --> 00:17:12,145 really expensive. It's got all these issues. We rezoned it on 275 00:17:12,145 --> 00:17:16,349 ourselves right through the general plan. Like, would you 276 00:17:16,349 --> 00:17:19,953 honor this lower price for us to to buy this property and do 277 00:17:19,953 --> 00:17:24,900 it? Why why shouldn't we ask that question before we go 278 00:17:24,900 --> 00:17:27,930 through all this rigmarole? If it's something that we do have 279 00:17:27,930 --> 00:17:33,930 a desire to use? I don't see, um, yeah, I. 280 00:17:39,572 --> 00:17:44,310 I guess my concern with keeping all of these parcels is the 281 00:17:44,310 --> 00:17:50,310 money to purchase them. Right. Yes. My concern to, um. 282 00:17:51,718 --> 00:17:56,122 What would that money come from for purchase of this? 283 00:17:56,122 --> 00:17:59,258 Again, we'd have to look at, you know, our available funds. 284 00:17:59,258 --> 00:18:01,660 It could be general funds, special projects. It just sort 285 00:18:01,660 --> 00:18:04,997 of depends on, you know, where we would want to identify it. 286 00:18:04,997 --> 00:18:08,200 So I don't I don't know where I would pay for it from, but but 287 00:18:08,200 --> 00:18:10,603 I think it would depend on the value. Right. The amount that 288 00:18:10,603 --> 00:18:13,606 we were right. It was a park use. It would be 289 00:18:13,606 --> 00:18:17,744 more money than we'd want to spend on parks. Since we're 290 00:18:17,744 --> 00:18:19,145 thinking in. That way. Yeah. Mr. mayor, can 291 00:18:19,145 --> 00:18:21,347 I build on that question? And this is just for staff in 292 00:18:21,347 --> 00:18:24,150 general. Obviously, we don't know which fund it could come 293 00:18:24,150 --> 00:18:30,489 from. Is it is it a conceivable that if we did want to purchase 294 00:18:30,489 --> 00:18:34,293 it, that that could affect our ability to fund CIPs, that 295 00:18:34,293 --> 00:18:37,960 ultimately we want to move forward with? 296 00:18:37,960 --> 00:18:41,901 Uh, yes. Doctor Castro, it's a possibility if some of our CIP 297 00:18:41,901 --> 00:18:45,371 projects depends on the general fund or special projects funds. 298 00:18:45,371 --> 00:18:48,574 Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it's it's pretty much, 299 00:18:48,574 --> 00:18:52,511 um, developable. I mean, the trailhead access there, that 300 00:18:52,511 --> 00:18:55,849 trail is something that we're looking at probably like 20 301 00:18:55,849 --> 00:18:59,319 years, 30 years from now. We're being built up. It'd be nice if 302 00:18:59,319 --> 00:19:04,324 it was sooner than that, but there's multiple areas to put a 303 00:19:04,324 --> 00:19:10,924 trailhead to the trail that doesn't exist yet. Um, I. Don't 304 00:19:11,865 --> 00:19:14,668 feel great. Very comfortable buying that and turning it into 305 00:19:14,668 --> 00:19:18,605 a park when our parks need so much more. That isn't that 306 00:19:18,605 --> 00:19:23,943 undeveloped. Rocky, dirty spot in the corner. So we walked in 307 00:19:23,943 --> 00:19:29,250 to spend money on that. But having it stay open isn't bad 308 00:19:29,250 --> 00:19:34,363 either. Develop on it so that's where I'm sitting right now. 309 00:19:34,363 --> 00:19:38,701 Why wouldn't we go with Stan? Staff recommendation like I do 310 00:19:38,701 --> 00:19:45,107 to me? Uh, as a reminder, we're broke, and I've got a lot of 311 00:19:45,107 --> 00:19:50,647 things we want to do. Um, and I don't. And I believe, uh, 312 00:19:50,647 --> 00:19:54,917 staff's evaluation that this property might be priced 313 00:19:54,917 --> 00:19:57,920 artificially high. Uh, why not let it go through? And then we 314 00:19:57,920 --> 00:20:01,190 have the tangible evidence to go back to the board and say, 315 00:20:01,190 --> 00:20:03,793 this is this is a lower price. I don't the answer to your 316 00:20:03,793 --> 00:20:06,796 question, Councilman Barrett. I don't see any downside to 317 00:20:06,796 --> 00:20:10,533 asking. Hey, did you guys let us buy it for a buck or 318 00:20:10,533 --> 00:20:14,203 whatever the, the the price might be? Um, but in the 319 00:20:14,203 --> 00:20:17,730 absence of doing that and getting that answer back, then 320 00:20:17,730 --> 00:20:20,760 I would say let's let's move. Staff recommendation. 321 00:20:20,760 --> 00:20:21,678 Yeah. If we're going to buy it, we're going to buy it because 322 00:20:21,678 --> 00:20:25,215 it's not developable and worthless. And then it can just 323 00:20:25,215 --> 00:20:29,850 be anything we want really. But uh, putting money into that 324 00:20:29,850 --> 00:20:34,485 versus where we're bleeding money. I couldn't do that. 325 00:20:35,224 --> 00:20:38,561 So but I do think there's a valid question. I don't know if 326 00:20:38,561 --> 00:20:43,432 we can modify this to, to find out if there is a conversation 327 00:20:43,432 --> 00:20:47,503 to be asked, uh, to, to your point, Councilman Barrett. Uh, 328 00:20:47,503 --> 00:20:52,410 yeah. What if what? And I guess I'd ask for for staff to to 329 00:20:52,410 --> 00:20:56,841 take a guess. Is that a viable outcome? 330 00:20:57,247 --> 00:21:00,649 Uh, as far as approaching the oversight board. 331 00:21:00,649 --> 00:21:03,119 Yeah, I'm saying just kidding. We're not going to pay that. 332 00:21:03,119 --> 00:21:07,590 I know, um, you know, the we. I don't think there's any harm in 333 00:21:07,590 --> 00:21:10,527 asking. Um, you know, the Oversight Board is tasked with, 334 00:21:10,527 --> 00:21:13,797 you know, selling property and, and and, uh, wrapping up 335 00:21:13,797 --> 00:21:16,665 redevelopment agency activities that are in a the most 336 00:21:16,665 --> 00:21:19,803 advantageous way to the taxing entities. That's their, um, 337 00:21:19,803 --> 00:21:25,675 sort of, uh, goal. Right? So there's no harm in asking first 338 00:21:25,675 --> 00:21:28,678 and then if they're kind of like, well, they may come back 339 00:21:28,678 --> 00:21:30,680 and say, well, have you even tried to sell it? You know, 340 00:21:30,680 --> 00:21:33,416 what? If and if they do come back and that's the response, 341 00:21:33,416 --> 00:21:36,286 then we can come back and say, this is what they told us. We 342 00:21:36,286 --> 00:21:38,954 should probably move it through the Surplus Land Act. If it's 343 00:21:38,954 --> 00:21:41,824 not successful, then we like you're saying Tom would or Mr. 344 00:21:41,824 --> 00:21:46,295 Means would have the intangible or the tangible evidence to go 345 00:21:46,295 --> 00:21:49,699 back to them with and and and have a better conversation so 346 00:21:49,699 --> 00:21:52,502 it could go, you know, two things could be done at this, 347 00:21:52,502 --> 00:21:56,639 you know, in that regard. I'd be maybe cutting off 348 00:21:56,639 --> 00:22:00,109 conversation, but maybe inclined to, uh, to ask staff 349 00:22:00,109 --> 00:22:03,913 to have that conversation if the door is is shut, then 350 00:22:03,913 --> 00:22:05,982 proceed with staff recommendation. If there's an 351 00:22:05,982 --> 00:22:09,919 opening to that conversation, we're not in a rush. This this 352 00:22:09,919 --> 00:22:13,123 land isn't going to all of a sudden, you know, be a hot a 353 00:22:13,123 --> 00:22:17,594 hot ticket item. Um, so if if there is an opening, let's hear 354 00:22:17,594 --> 00:22:19,261 it again and let's talk about it. 355 00:22:19,261 --> 00:22:24,670 So if this land sits vacant and does not get built upon and we 356 00:22:24,670 --> 00:22:27,203 don't want to buy it either, what happens to it? 357 00:22:27,203 --> 00:22:30,740 That's an excellent question. I would think, you know, at that 358 00:22:30,740 --> 00:22:33,542 point, you know, the Oversight Board does have to get these 359 00:22:33,542 --> 00:22:36,546 sort of properties off of their books. And so again, that may 360 00:22:36,546 --> 00:22:40,483 just go more towards even if we did want to buy it like a much 361 00:22:40,483 --> 00:22:43,420 reduced land value, just to clear it off, off the oversight 362 00:22:43,420 --> 00:22:47,220 Board books. Right. So which would be my 363 00:22:47,220 --> 00:22:47,691 goal. Yeah. 364 00:22:47,691 --> 00:22:50,226 Yes. And then it. could be vacant 365 00:22:50,226 --> 00:22:53,829 forever until we wanted to do something with it. Right. 366 00:22:53,829 --> 00:22:55,765 Perfect. You buy it for a dollar, you 367 00:22:55,765 --> 00:22:58,167 can have a park there. Well, I mean, I think the 368 00:22:58,167 --> 00:23:02,639 opportunity of the park allows for an opportunity at a 369 00:23:02,639 --> 00:23:06,420 different location, if that makes sense. Without going too 370 00:23:06,420 --> 00:23:09,642 far. So. Oh, you were watching.. 371 00:23:09,979 --> 00:23:13,450 So I, you know that that's that's where I'm coming from. 372 00:23:13,450 --> 00:23:18,540 So I think the more that we ask and talk to the Oversight 373 00:23:18,540 --> 00:23:20,857 Board, I don't see a harm in asking. 374 00:23:20,857 --> 00:23:25,729 And but is is my, uh, I don't know if I'm moving or not, but 375 00:23:25,729 --> 00:23:29,132 is my suggestion acceptable to you that we ask and it's a hard 376 00:23:29,132 --> 00:23:32,468 no. Yep. Move to the process. And if it isn't, then we open 377 00:23:32,468 --> 00:23:35,471 up and have another discussion. So you ask the question. They 378 00:23:35,471 --> 00:23:38,408 give you a price for what it would cost, right? 379 00:23:38,408 --> 00:23:40,944 Is it a dollar? Well it's on ask you right now 380 00:23:40,944 --> 00:23:43,546 where's your cutoff point. Let's play this game again. 381 00:23:43,546 --> 00:23:45,415 Where would you cut that off at? 382 00:23:45,415 --> 00:23:48,551 Uh, I have no idea what the value of that property would be 383 00:23:48,551 --> 00:23:51,354 until it goes through the process. And we see that nobody 384 00:23:51,354 --> 00:23:54,824 wants to buy it at any price, that I will offer a dollar. 385 00:23:54,824 --> 00:23:57,293 Because it can come back with a number that's still high, but a 386 00:23:57,293 --> 00:24:00,963 lot lower than it is now. But it could be lower if no one 387 00:24:00,963 --> 00:24:04,433 bought it, obviously, so sure. But we wouldn't know. It's not 388 00:24:04,433 --> 00:24:07,504 asking the question. Okay, so the gist of it with me 389 00:24:07,504 --> 00:24:10,439 is I don't want to spend a lot of money on any of this stuff, 390 00:24:10,439 --> 00:24:13,176 and if it's free, I'll take it. So if we want to find that out 391 00:24:13,176 --> 00:24:17,313 in a certain way, I'm okay with that too. 392 00:24:17,313 --> 00:24:23,787 So to clarify what we'll do and, um, staff is directed to 393 00:24:23,787 --> 00:24:26,923 approach the Oversight Board about purchasing the property 394 00:24:26,923 --> 00:24:31,594 for park space or open space uses for the cities to retain, 395 00:24:31,594 --> 00:24:33,662 take their temperature on that and see where they come back 396 00:24:33,662 --> 00:24:37,533 and then return to city council with that direction. Or if it's 397 00:24:37,533 --> 00:24:41,137 a flat no, move forward with surplus on the property and 398 00:24:41,137 --> 00:24:44,730 seeing what happens. I'm comfortable with if it's a 399 00:24:44,730 --> 00:24:49,412 flat no moving forward. Uh, yeah. And if it's anything but 400 00:24:49,412 --> 00:24:51,548 a flat no, then we can talk about it again. 401 00:24:51,548 --> 00:24:54,351 And I'm sure we can provide a box item or something. You 402 00:24:54,351 --> 00:24:57,620 know, if we do, if it is flat. No. And we move to the process, 403 00:24:57,620 --> 00:25:00,290 you would also see as the successor agency board, the 404 00:25:00,290 --> 00:25:02,625 resolution coming back to surplus it. So you'd have that, 405 00:25:02,625 --> 00:25:06,225 you know, notification as well. Good. 406 00:25:08,497 --> 00:25:10,833 Is that enough direction or do you need to move and get a 407 00:25:10,833 --> 00:25:16,439 second and all that. We need to do? There's a 408 00:25:16,439 --> 00:25:18,908 recommendation here. So we have to modify that recommendation. 409 00:25:18,908 --> 00:25:23,780 Yeah. Or um. Yeah I think I'm gonna stand up 410 00:25:23,780 --> 00:25:27,583 for, uh, clarify that we would, uh, approach the Oversight 411 00:25:27,583 --> 00:25:31,521 board, uh, determine if they'd be willing to sell the property 412 00:25:31,521 --> 00:25:35,191 at lower cost. If they do, then we would come back to the city 413 00:25:35,191 --> 00:25:38,461 council, report back on that. But if it's a flat now, then we 414 00:25:38,461 --> 00:25:41,264 would proceed with a surplus Land Act process. 415 00:25:41,264 --> 00:25:43,399 Yeah. And the only other thing, because we had two 416 00:25:43,399 --> 00:25:45,601 recommendations, one for the city council piece and the 417 00:25:45,601 --> 00:25:49,405 successor agency, do we just have no recommendation on the 418 00:25:49,405 --> 00:25:54,164 successor agency piece at this point, or that's the only it's 419 00:25:54,164 --> 00:26:00,164 so weird. Or let me see, maybe it's still relevant. 420 00:26:00,904 --> 00:26:04,775 We would decline to purchase the property and to go back and 421 00:26:04,775 --> 00:26:10,714 have that discussion and then return back to us. Um. 422 00:26:10,714 --> 00:26:15,785 If a deal can be made. Yeah. Got it. Okay. 423 00:26:15,785 --> 00:26:18,187 Say it again, mayor. If you would. 424 00:26:18,187 --> 00:26:22,125 I said so. The recommendation would or the, uh, the motion 425 00:26:22,125 --> 00:26:26,263 would be to decline the purchase of the property. 426 00:26:26,263 --> 00:26:30,467 Right. And modify this to, um, go back 427 00:26:30,467 --> 00:26:35,271 to the successor agency if you can get a better deal on that. 428 00:26:35,271 --> 00:26:40,277 If the answer is flat. No, it's what it is, then to go through 429 00:26:40,277 --> 00:26:44,477 the, um, disposition. Sorry, the disposal. Right. 430 00:26:46,683 --> 00:26:51,154 I think the changes that we go back to the oversight board. 431 00:26:51,154 --> 00:26:54,900 Okay. Do you want to read that off? 432 00:26:54,900 --> 00:26:56,930 So I butchered that. Thank you. 433 00:26:56,930 --> 00:27:00,364 I'm gonna try. So for the city council, the motion is to 434 00:27:00,364 --> 00:27:04,368 decline the purchase of the property at this time. Um, but 435 00:27:04,368 --> 00:27:07,637 approach the owed to the oversight board and to 436 00:27:07,637 --> 00:27:10,440 determine whether or not they want to sell the property at a 437 00:27:10,440 --> 00:27:14,243 lower value. If the answer is yes, we will return to the city 438 00:27:14,243 --> 00:27:17,580 Council and report on that. And for final decision, if the 439 00:27:17,580 --> 00:27:20,317 answer is no, then the successor agency will move 440 00:27:20,317 --> 00:27:23,520 forward with the Surplus Land Act process. 441 00:27:23,520 --> 00:27:28,125 Okay. That's fine. It seems like it might make more sense 442 00:27:28,125 --> 00:27:34,197 to make a point one and two here, 0.2 and three are 0.1 443 00:27:34,197 --> 00:27:37,534 being approached the board, see if they'll do anything. If the 444 00:27:37,534 --> 00:27:41,805 answer is no, then proceed as as recommended. Uh, as opposed 445 00:27:41,805 --> 00:27:44,140 to declining it and then finding out if they'd offer a 446 00:27:44,140 --> 00:27:47,100 lower amount. Now, we've already declined it, but we 447 00:27:47,100 --> 00:27:50,947 would need to go back. And so I think we we asked first if the 448 00:27:50,947 --> 00:27:53,950 answer is no, proceed with staff recommendation all the 449 00:27:53,950 --> 00:27:56,620 way through. If the answer is anything but no, we get to talk 450 00:27:56,620 --> 00:28:02,693 about it again. Okay. Do we need to clarify it again? 451 00:28:02,693 --> 00:28:05,162 I'm clear on that. You're clear. We're all good. We're 452 00:28:05,162 --> 00:28:06,896 all clear on that. We'll watch the video a bunch 453 00:28:06,896 --> 00:28:09,499 of times. I'm sorry to hear you have to 454 00:28:09,499 --> 00:28:14,299 do that. So everyone is in grants. Okay. 455 00:28:14,971 --> 00:28:18,241 All right, so you wanna make a motion? 456 00:28:18,241 --> 00:28:23,646 Sure. I'd like to hear it out of your mouth. Mayor, please.. 457 00:28:23,646 --> 00:28:24,914 No, I'm asking if you want to make the motion. 458 00:28:24,914 --> 00:28:26,583 Oh, I thought you said. Do you want me to make the motion? 459 00:28:26,583 --> 00:28:28,317 Would you like to make the motion? 460 00:28:28,317 --> 00:28:32,989 Shucks. Uh, I move exactly what we just discussed. Okay. 461 00:28:32,989 --> 00:28:39,620 I'll second. We have a motion and a second, as amended. Uh, 462 00:28:39,620 --> 00:28:41,197 all in favor? Aye, aye. 463 00:28:41,197 --> 00:28:47,197 Any opposed? Okay. Got it. Okay. Next is presentation action. 464 00:28:51,408 --> 00:28:54,277 Discussion item ten D. That's a considered enhanced 465 00:28:54,277 --> 00:28:57,277 infrastructure financing districts. Mr. Gargano. 466 00:28:58,548 --> 00:29:01,618 Thank you, mayor and council. Uh, so this evening I will be 467 00:29:01,618 --> 00:29:04,354 providing an overview of enhanced infrastructure 468 00:29:04,354 --> 00:29:10,354 financing districts. Uh, if these are not new taxes, uh, 469 00:29:11,161 --> 00:29:15,961 Senate Bill 628 created Aids back in 2014 after the 470 00:29:16,700 --> 00:29:21,304 dissolution of redevelopment in 2012. If these capture future 471 00:29:21,304 --> 00:29:24,373 property tax increment growth to fund infrastructure and 472 00:29:24,373 --> 00:29:28,178 capital projects such as roads, facilities, parks, trails, 473 00:29:28,178 --> 00:29:31,480 water, sewer, flood control business, facade improvements, 474 00:29:31,480 --> 00:29:34,917 property acquisition, long term deferred maintenance or 475 00:29:34,917 --> 00:29:38,988 rehabilitation, uh district boundaries for include areas 476 00:29:38,988 --> 00:29:43,393 for growth, although it could be an entire city or county, 477 00:29:43,393 --> 00:29:47,731 we've seen those happen. Uh, these district boundaries do 478 00:29:47,731 --> 00:29:51,100 not need to be contiguous, but can be used anywhere in the 479 00:29:51,100 --> 00:29:55,710 city as long as they have community wide impacts. Uh, 480 00:29:55,710 --> 00:29:59,609 cities may establish, uh, its own CFD, uh, or it may partner 481 00:29:59,609 --> 00:30:03,130 with another taxing agency, such as a county, uh, to 482 00:30:03,130 --> 00:30:06,949 capture a portion. Uh, for instance, the county's tax 483 00:30:06,949 --> 00:30:10,887 increment. Um, and to return that investment back to the 484 00:30:10,887 --> 00:30:15,224 district. And I will note that participation efforts are 485 00:30:15,224 --> 00:30:20,240 completely voluntary. Uh, for city county partnerships, uh, 486 00:30:20,897 --> 00:30:23,767 these have occurred throughout the state. It is a win win in 487 00:30:23,767 --> 00:30:27,904 many scenarios because, uh, the county will not realize those 488 00:30:27,904 --> 00:30:31,375 property tax growth without the city's investment in time, 489 00:30:31,375 --> 00:30:35,311 resources and getting those projects, uh, developed. And 490 00:30:35,311 --> 00:30:39,115 through an entitlement process and. ET cetera. Uh, public 491 00:30:39,115 --> 00:30:43,915 financing authorities will have to be established separately, 492 00:30:44,540 --> 00:30:48,324 and they would be made up of the taxing entity 493 00:30:48,324 --> 00:30:52,662 representatives as well as as well as members of the public, 494 00:30:52,662 --> 00:30:58,334 uh, to oversee the FDA once they're established. Uh, this, 495 00:30:58,334 --> 00:31:03,539 uh, graph, uh, or this, this illustration, uh, shows you how 496 00:31:03,539 --> 00:31:07,343 the tax increment financing works as private property 497 00:31:07,343 --> 00:31:10,880 investment occurs or new development occurs within a 498 00:31:10,880 --> 00:31:16,180 city or district. Uh, they will, uh, increase property tax 499 00:31:16,180 --> 00:31:19,889 revenue from their increased new property values. And when 500 00:31:19,889 --> 00:31:23,960 capturing those increased values, uh, those increments 501 00:31:23,960 --> 00:31:27,696 could be then deposited into tax increment financing funds, 502 00:31:27,696 --> 00:31:32,235 such as an IFD, which can then be used to fund for public 503 00:31:32,235 --> 00:31:38,835 improvements. Uh, this graph shows you, uh, if a IFD is 504 00:31:39,242 --> 00:31:44,581 formed and establish, uh, there is a baseline property value 505 00:31:44,581 --> 00:31:49,252 that is established. And then at that point, any, uh, new 506 00:31:49,252 --> 00:31:52,922 property value and future tax increment would then be 507 00:31:52,922 --> 00:31:57,527 captured above that baseline value. And again, a portion of 508 00:31:57,527 --> 00:32:00,997 that, uh, between the city or county could then be used for 509 00:32:00,997 --> 00:32:04,534 those types of improvements. After a set date or period of 510 00:32:04,534 --> 00:32:08,471 time. In this graph, it shows you about a 45 year period. 511 00:32:08,471 --> 00:32:12,809 Once the district has concluded its collection of the portion 512 00:32:12,809 --> 00:32:16,879 of property tax increments, then it would revert back to 513 00:32:16,879 --> 00:32:20,150 the city or county receiving their normal regular property 514 00:32:20,150 --> 00:32:25,550 tax revenues back into their respective general funds. Uh, 515 00:32:26,631 --> 00:32:30,702 in terms of a discussion, uh, timeline, since this has been 516 00:32:30,702 --> 00:32:34,439 brought up by the council, we first mentioned this, uh, to 517 00:32:34,439 --> 00:32:38,443 you last August during our financial strategies workshop. 518 00:32:38,443 --> 00:32:43,181 And FDS was a tool that you directed staff to further 519 00:32:43,181 --> 00:32:47,185 explore and come back to you at a future date. Um, after 520 00:32:47,185 --> 00:32:50,522 August, between September and December last year, uh, city 521 00:32:50,522 --> 00:32:53,591 staff had preliminary discussions with the County of 522 00:32:53,591 --> 00:32:57,129 Ventura about establishing an IFD and possibly partnering 523 00:32:57,129 --> 00:33:01,533 with them. Um, at that point, we also invited our real estate 524 00:33:01,533 --> 00:33:05,336 consultant, uh, earlier this year in January to have them 525 00:33:05,336 --> 00:33:09,741 meet with our own city staff to provide information about Aids 526 00:33:09,741 --> 00:33:12,611 and answer any questions or concerns staff may have about 527 00:33:12,611 --> 00:33:17,548 them. Uh, during this period of time, we also began hearing, 528 00:33:17,548 --> 00:33:21,820 um, other cities approached the county about establishing IFD. 529 00:33:21,820 --> 00:33:26,424 Uh, and at that point, the county had, uh, informed myself 530 00:33:26,424 --> 00:33:29,561 and city staff that they would be putting together a county 531 00:33:29,561 --> 00:33:33,631 policy regarding EDS, because, again, many cities have been 532 00:33:33,631 --> 00:33:37,302 approaching them about it, such as Moorpark. And so, uh, 533 00:33:37,302 --> 00:33:40,105 earlier this year in May, the county went ahead and adopted 534 00:33:40,105 --> 00:33:45,243 an IFD policy, uh, and then, um, some highlights of that 535 00:33:45,243 --> 00:33:49,114 policy or the discussions that took place at that May Board of 536 00:33:49,114 --> 00:33:53,851 Supervisors meeting. Uh, the auditor, controller, um, uh, 537 00:33:53,851 --> 00:33:57,722 indicated that they would, uh, work with cities to identify 538 00:33:57,722 --> 00:34:02,727 tax rate area boundaries. Also, the county, uh, also mentioned 539 00:34:02,727 --> 00:34:08,533 that, um, they could establish an unlimited number of IFD and 540 00:34:08,533 --> 00:34:12,604 partnerships with cities or other taxing agencies, and they 541 00:34:12,604 --> 00:34:15,340 could be formed on a first come, first served basis. But 542 00:34:15,340 --> 00:34:19,277 they could decide as a county to, uh, stop establishing them 543 00:34:19,277 --> 00:34:23,815 at a certain period of time. Uh, based on their decision. 544 00:34:23,815 --> 00:34:27,685 And then the county also, uh, under their policy, capped tax 545 00:34:27,685 --> 00:34:31,285 increment contribution limits to 50% with performance 546 00:34:32,223 --> 00:34:37,629 triggers. Um, other cities that expressed interest at that, uh, 547 00:34:37,629 --> 00:34:41,299 Board of Supervisors meeting was the city of Thousand Oaks, 548 00:34:41,299 --> 00:34:45,236 uh, and also the city of Ventura, the Ventura County 549 00:34:45,236 --> 00:34:49,107 Taxpayers Association also, uh, made a public comment during 550 00:34:49,107 --> 00:34:53,512 that meeting, but they're not opposed to aphids. Uh, but they 551 00:34:53,512 --> 00:34:56,848 do have concerns about issuing any debt service. And the 552 00:34:56,848 --> 00:35:01,480 optimistic assumptions of future property value growth. 553 00:35:03,188 --> 00:35:08,860 For more parks, uh, property tax break down under prop 13, 554 00:35:08,860 --> 00:35:12,664 uh, basically cap basic property tax at 1% of assessed 555 00:35:12,664 --> 00:35:17,335 value, purchase price. And these are then capped up to 2% 556 00:35:17,335 --> 00:35:20,539 annually. Uh, the city of Moorpark receives a total of 557 00:35:20,539 --> 00:35:24,809 $0.09 out of every property tax dollar. There is a also a 558 00:35:24,809 --> 00:35:27,546 supplemental, uh, submitted this evening. There was a typo 559 00:35:27,546 --> 00:35:33,840 in the staff report, uh, on the $0.09, uh, rather than, uh, 560 00:35:33,840 --> 00:35:36,888 mistakenly indicating $0.90 on there. Uh, and then in terms of 561 00:35:36,888 --> 00:35:41,426 how much the city receives for property tax, uh, approximately 562 00:35:41,426 --> 00:35:45,697 about $5 million per year goes into the general fund. And then 563 00:35:45,697 --> 00:35:52,897 at 1.4 million, uh, portion of it goes to the library fund. In 564 00:35:53,304 --> 00:35:57,509 terms of the steps to establish an IFD, uh, they would first 565 00:35:57,509 --> 00:36:02,113 need to be a feasibility and analysis, uh, where we would 566 00:36:02,113 --> 00:36:05,917 sort of define the boundaries, then estimate any future 567 00:36:05,917 --> 00:36:10,655 revenues, uh, what the projects would be, the costs. And, uh, 568 00:36:10,655 --> 00:36:13,658 you know, preliminary fiscal analysis would be done as well. 569 00:36:13,658 --> 00:36:19,530 At that point, we would conduct an outreach to other taxing 570 00:36:19,530 --> 00:36:23,200 entities, uh, property owners. The county, for instance, to 571 00:36:23,200 --> 00:36:27,138 determine their interest in partnering with us based on the 572 00:36:27,138 --> 00:36:32,610 analysis, uh, that we would, uh, uh, uh, generate and, uh, 573 00:36:32,610 --> 00:36:35,413 come out to. And then if there is an interest, we would 574 00:36:35,413 --> 00:36:39,350 initiate the formal process with a resolution of a tent, 575 00:36:39,350 --> 00:36:43,154 establish the public financing authority, identify membership. 576 00:36:43,154 --> 00:36:47,158 Uh, then we would prepare an infrastructure financing plan 577 00:36:47,158 --> 00:36:51,830 where we would identify, uh, all the list of projects to be 578 00:36:51,830 --> 00:36:56,968 included in this, the financing plan, the projections, dates, 579 00:36:56,968 --> 00:37:01,390 uh, duration, uh, etc.. Then we would go through a pre adoption 580 00:37:01,390 --> 00:37:04,375 phase informing the taxing entities and partners as well 581 00:37:04,375 --> 00:37:07,845 as the any property owners within that district. And then 582 00:37:07,845 --> 00:37:11,783 we go through a series of public hearings. Any majority 583 00:37:11,783 --> 00:37:16,454 protests would stop establishment and IFD. And then 584 00:37:16,454 --> 00:37:19,257 at that point it would go through the approval or 585 00:37:19,257 --> 00:37:23,661 formation process. Um, if the taxing entities all agreed to 586 00:37:23,661 --> 00:37:29,610 establish it. In terms of eligible IFC projects, it's 587 00:37:30,869 --> 00:37:34,139 generally any property or project with a useful life of 588 00:37:34,139 --> 00:37:37,800 15 plus years that has community wide impacts or 589 00:37:37,800 --> 00:37:40,945 significance. So you could see here anything from water, sewer 590 00:37:40,945 --> 00:37:45,617 infrastructure to roads, parking, uh, parks, open space, 591 00:37:45,617 --> 00:37:50,622 uh, any city facilities, libraries, etc. uh, could be 592 00:37:50,622 --> 00:37:57,828 used, uh, uh, in the IFD funds. Uh, this is the list of, uh, 593 00:37:57,828 --> 00:38:00,832 IDs that have formed in California, um, throughout the 594 00:38:00,832 --> 00:38:04,302 state. Uh, and I know there is a growing number of cities and 595 00:38:04,302 --> 00:38:08,840 counties, um, looking into this at the moment. Uh, this next 596 00:38:08,840 --> 00:38:13,310 slide shows you IDs that have city and county partnerships 597 00:38:13,310 --> 00:38:16,914 specifically, uh, you can see the five that are with LA 598 00:38:16,914 --> 00:38:21,119 County and the respective cities there, uh, as well as 599 00:38:21,119 --> 00:38:24,122 other counties, central, northern California, uh, 600 00:38:24,122 --> 00:38:27,726 Southern California, that, uh, is related to things again, 601 00:38:27,726 --> 00:38:32,526 water, sewer, roads, flood control, uh, revitalizing a 602 00:38:32,664 --> 00:38:37,680 downtown area or commercial area, for instance. Um, so you 603 00:38:37,680 --> 00:38:41,673 can kind of see all the different, uh, uh, uses that 604 00:38:41,673 --> 00:38:46,811 the counties and cities have identified to use if design if 605 00:38:46,811 --> 00:38:51,700 the council was to, uh, direct staff to proceed and exploring 606 00:38:51,700 --> 00:38:55,104 and considering efforts, the next step would really be for 607 00:38:55,104 --> 00:38:59,442 the city to contract with a consultant to evaluate the IFD 608 00:38:59,442 --> 00:39:03,642 feasibility, whereby we could identify the boundaries, 609 00:39:03,712 --> 00:39:07,983 estimate the future property values, estimate future tax 610 00:39:07,983 --> 00:39:10,919 increments for both the city and the county, uh, and also 611 00:39:10,919 --> 00:39:15,991 identify possible uh, public facilities and projects to be 612 00:39:15,991 --> 00:39:19,328 included. And then any other funding sources that would be 613 00:39:19,328 --> 00:39:22,932 in addition to the tax increment we would receive, um, 614 00:39:22,932 --> 00:39:27,135 costs of a consultant to do this. Feasibility is estimated 615 00:39:27,135 --> 00:39:32,535 between 30,000 to $35,000. Um, we would then, as results of 616 00:39:34,677 --> 00:39:37,412 the feasibility analysis would then be presented back to the 617 00:39:37,412 --> 00:39:40,282 city council at a future date. Uh, and then the council at 618 00:39:40,282 --> 00:39:43,819 that point could decide whether to proceed or not. Um, perhaps 619 00:39:43,819 --> 00:39:46,622 the decision to not move forward could be because of the 620 00:39:46,622 --> 00:39:50,559 estimated tax increment. Returns are very low and may 621 00:39:50,559 --> 00:39:53,762 not be, um, have a significant impact on future projects we 622 00:39:53,762 --> 00:39:58,434 have. Or you may decide to move forward if the estimated tax 623 00:39:58,434 --> 00:40:02,171 increment returns are reasonable or high. Uh, and 624 00:40:02,171 --> 00:40:04,440 then at that point we would discuss with the county if 625 00:40:04,440 --> 00:40:07,443 they're interested in participating and partnering 626 00:40:07,443 --> 00:40:10,446 with us, uh, and discuss the benefits to the county and 627 00:40:10,446 --> 00:40:14,583 other potential county related projects. That is in the 628 00:40:14,583 --> 00:40:17,720 district or within the city. And then we would report back 629 00:40:17,720 --> 00:40:21,857 to you if the council if the county would be interested in, 630 00:40:21,857 --> 00:40:27,196 um, uh, moving forward with establishing an IFD. Uh, that 631 00:40:27,196 --> 00:40:30,800 concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions 632 00:40:30,800 --> 00:40:35,000 you may have. Any questions? Go ahead. 633 00:40:35,538 --> 00:40:38,741 Uh, the Laverne example that you provided significantly 634 00:40:38,741 --> 00:40:42,211 underperformed its original tax increment projections. Uh, what 635 00:40:42,211 --> 00:40:45,480 assumptions would more park use to avoid overestimating 636 00:40:45,480 --> 00:40:48,751 revenue? And what happens to planned projects if actual 637 00:40:48,751 --> 00:40:52,421 increment comes in? Well, under the predictions? 638 00:40:52,421 --> 00:40:55,291 Yeah, the two samples I provided in the staff report, 639 00:40:55,291 --> 00:40:58,227 one of which was the city of Laverne and their partnership 640 00:40:58,227 --> 00:41:03,765 with L.A. County, and that has resulted in lower returns or 641 00:41:03,765 --> 00:41:07,503 tax increment returns that they expected. Uh, however, they are 642 00:41:07,503 --> 00:41:11,841 using the lower amounts to then still combine it with other 643 00:41:11,841 --> 00:41:15,111 funding sources so that they could move forward on some of 644 00:41:15,111 --> 00:41:19,915 their capital projects. Um, I think what we could do is if 645 00:41:19,915 --> 00:41:25,253 the returns are not as high as we expect, if we were to 646 00:41:25,253 --> 00:41:28,724 establish one and, you know, find out it didn't turn out as 647 00:41:28,724 --> 00:41:32,594 we expected, we could always reassess, determine if this is 648 00:41:32,594 --> 00:41:35,864 still valuable, to move forward. And in partnership 649 00:41:35,864 --> 00:41:38,400 with the county. So we could always make that adjustment in 650 00:41:38,400 --> 00:41:42,710 the future. Um, but, you know, it's really hard to obviously 651 00:41:42,710 --> 00:41:45,807 predict, um, I mean, we have some development projects 652 00:41:45,807 --> 00:41:49,478 underway that we probably know are going to happen. And so 653 00:41:49,478 --> 00:41:53,615 that is one way we could, you know, um, at least, uh, 654 00:41:53,615 --> 00:41:57,285 establish a certain set of assumptions about what we could 655 00:41:57,285 --> 00:42:01,623 realistically, uh, receive in terms of future property value 656 00:42:01,623 --> 00:42:05,761 growth. But for projects that are sort of, um, questionable 657 00:42:05,761 --> 00:42:09,298 at this point, uh, perhaps maybe we leave those out so 658 00:42:09,298 --> 00:42:11,433 that it's not part of our substance. So we're very 659 00:42:11,433 --> 00:42:13,833 conservative in our projections. 660 00:42:14,636 --> 00:42:15,703 Okay. Thank you. 661 00:42:15,703 --> 00:42:19,775 Um, one more question. Uh, if Moore Park uses the pay as you 662 00:42:19,775 --> 00:42:23,512 go as opposed to issuing debt, do we have any idea how many 663 00:42:23,512 --> 00:42:27,583 years it would take, uh, before it could accumulate enough 664 00:42:27,583 --> 00:42:31,186 money to make a tangible difference on a project? 665 00:42:31,186 --> 00:42:33,589 Yeah, I mean, that's going to be part of that feasibility 666 00:42:33,589 --> 00:42:37,526 analysis. So we could sort of estimate and determine how much 667 00:42:37,526 --> 00:42:40,528 actual money we're going to get in the future. That could make 668 00:42:40,528 --> 00:42:45,134 sort of a significant impact on a capital project or projects 669 00:42:45,134 --> 00:42:47,936 that we identify. But at this point in time, yeah, I wouldn't 670 00:42:47,936 --> 00:42:50,672 really know in top of my head what that would be. But, uh, 671 00:42:50,672 --> 00:42:54,760 that analysis would provide us that information. 672 00:42:54,760 --> 00:42:56,611 And maybe this also goes with that analysis, but do we have 673 00:42:56,611 --> 00:43:00,215 any idea how much county participation would 674 00:43:00,215 --> 00:43:04,553 realistically be needed in order to just even support 675 00:43:04,553 --> 00:43:06,822 administrative and consultant costs? 676 00:43:06,822 --> 00:43:10,250 And .. Yeah, I mean, at this point, I mean, it seems to me 677 00:43:10,250 --> 00:43:14,290 that the county, with them establishing this IFD policy, 678 00:43:14,290 --> 00:43:17,899 um, they're at least open to the discussion and 679 00:43:17,899 --> 00:43:21,837 consideration when cities approach them about this. So I 680 00:43:21,837 --> 00:43:24,440 know there are some movement and some traction going on with 681 00:43:24,440 --> 00:43:27,509 the other cities that are a little bit ahead of us on this. 682 00:43:27,509 --> 00:43:31,646 Uh, about, um, consideration. I mean, there was a five oh vote 683 00:43:31,646 --> 00:43:36,118 by the Board of Supervisors, uh, to consider this, uh, going 684 00:43:36,118 --> 00:43:40,318 forward. I just have a quick question 685 00:43:43,258 --> 00:43:46,462 about projecting the management portion of it. So, I mean, it 686 00:43:46,462 --> 00:43:50,532 seems like the composition of the IFD is vary depending upon 687 00:43:50,532 --> 00:43:53,668 who participates, regardless of the composition, large or 688 00:43:53,668 --> 00:43:56,405 small. Where do the administrative costs generally 689 00:43:56,405 --> 00:43:59,541 reside? Are those split between the county and the Iid 690 00:43:59,541 --> 00:44:03,946 participants, or is it is that burden completely assumed by 691 00:44:03,946 --> 00:44:07,820 those you know, whatever the composition is of the IFD? 692 00:44:07,820 --> 00:44:10,152 Yeah, that's actually a really good question that I don't know 693 00:44:10,152 --> 00:44:13,889 at this point. Uh, actually, our real estate consultant, uh, 694 00:44:13,889 --> 00:44:17,226 Mr. Degas is here, might be able to fill in the blanks 695 00:44:17,226 --> 00:44:21,563 there, because if we're not yet generating, um, uh, tax 696 00:44:21,563 --> 00:44:25,768 increment, obviously funds, uh, sooner than later, I would 697 00:44:25,768 --> 00:44:28,103 assume that it's split between the city and the county, but 698 00:44:28,103 --> 00:44:31,707 Mr. Degas can properly answer that. Thank you. 699 00:44:31,707 --> 00:44:33,108 Yeah. Good evening. Mayor. Members of 700 00:44:33,108 --> 00:44:35,444 the. City council. So typically the 701 00:44:35,444 --> 00:44:38,113 costs are initially borne by the sponsoring entity, which 702 00:44:38,113 --> 00:44:41,583 would be you, the city of Moorpark. And then those costs 703 00:44:41,583 --> 00:44:44,186 and other costs that go along with the formation are 704 00:44:44,186 --> 00:44:47,589 typically reimbursable by the revenues as they come in. So if 705 00:44:47,589 --> 00:44:50,459 it is a county partnership, it would essentially be splitting. 706 00:44:50,459 --> 00:44:52,861 But the city is the one advancing. 707 00:44:52,861 --> 00:44:56,331 And my follow up question is in general, I'm just going to use 708 00:44:56,331 --> 00:45:00,469 the term start up cost. Right. So for in general, is it 2 to 3 709 00:45:00,469 --> 00:45:03,805 years that the city is bearing the bulk of that responsibility 710 00:45:03,805 --> 00:45:06,742 before they start to see the receipts coming in. 711 00:45:06,742 --> 00:45:09,742 2 to. 3 years? Okay. Thank you. 712 00:45:11,947 --> 00:45:16,840 Just one clarifying question. Could we make the geographic 713 00:45:16,840 --> 00:45:20,628 boundaries of an IFD consistent with the city limits? 714 00:45:20,628 --> 00:45:24,965 Yes, we could do that. Thank you, Mr. Means. Thank you. 715 00:45:24,965 --> 00:45:31,565 Any more questions? Um, there's a comment saying that, uh, we 716 00:45:31,840 --> 00:45:35,430 would go through a consultant to go through this process and 717 00:45:35,430 --> 00:45:37,112 see if it was going to work. And then once we decide if it 718 00:45:37,112 --> 00:45:40,114 was going to work, we would then approach the county to see 719 00:45:40,114 --> 00:45:44,385 if they would partner up with this on this. You said that the 720 00:45:44,385 --> 00:45:50,258 county is is in favor of this process, but is there a limit 721 00:45:50,258 --> 00:45:53,395 where they wouldn't be in favor? And do you know? Yeah, 722 00:45:53,395 --> 00:45:57,650 I'm kind of asking you to estimate this now, but are we 723 00:45:57,650 --> 00:45:59,534 is it look favorable or does it look like we're on the edge of 724 00:45:59,534 --> 00:46:00,935 this? Well, I would say that the 725 00:46:00,935 --> 00:46:05,539 county is open to it. Um, I think it depends on what we 726 00:46:05,539 --> 00:46:10,344 approach them with to see what type of impacts, uh, to the 727 00:46:10,344 --> 00:46:15,150 county, uh, would benefit them. And also, um, you know, the 728 00:46:15,150 --> 00:46:19,687 expected property, uh, uh, tax increment that could be 729 00:46:19,687 --> 00:46:22,223 generated so that it's substantial enough that they 730 00:46:22,223 --> 00:46:25,260 could see the impacts of both the city and the county. 731 00:46:25,260 --> 00:46:28,896 Okay. Yeah. Have we done any estimating based off of what we 732 00:46:28,896 --> 00:46:32,767 know so far on this whole procedure? Because obviously 733 00:46:32,767 --> 00:46:34,969 we're going to hire a consultant. And and we have no 734 00:46:34,969 --> 00:46:37,372 idea if he's going to tell us it's a good idea or not a good 735 00:46:37,372 --> 00:46:40,375 idea. That doesn't really make much sense, but I'd want to 736 00:46:40,375 --> 00:46:43,778 know, would we feel comfortable with this the way we think it 737 00:46:43,778 --> 00:46:46,314 would pan out? Yeah. I mean, we, we we haven't 738 00:46:46,314 --> 00:46:49,918 been able to to determine the initial numbers at this point 739 00:46:49,918 --> 00:46:52,520 because we'd also want to define the boundaries and what 740 00:46:52,520 --> 00:46:56,524 type of projects, uh, that could be benefiting the city 741 00:46:56,524 --> 00:46:59,127 and also could benefit the county as well, because I think 742 00:46:59,127 --> 00:47:02,197 they'd want their input about their county infrastructure 743 00:47:02,197 --> 00:47:05,332 within city limits. But the boundaries itself, I think we 744 00:47:05,332 --> 00:47:09,404 would provide you with various scenarios, whether it's just 745 00:47:09,404 --> 00:47:13,700 the growth areas within the city or as councilmember 746 00:47:13,700 --> 00:47:16,143 suggested, it could be the entire city so that we capture 747 00:47:16,143 --> 00:47:20,214 any property value increase in the future, regardless of where 748 00:47:20,214 --> 00:47:22,683 it's located. Okay. Is that something that 749 00:47:22,683 --> 00:47:26,220 should be decided before we get into this project, or is that 750 00:47:26,220 --> 00:47:29,290 something that we should be seeing the different options 751 00:47:29,290 --> 00:47:31,292 of? Yeah, I think if we do the 752 00:47:31,292 --> 00:47:34,962 feasibility analysis, I would want to see those scenarios and 753 00:47:34,962 --> 00:47:40,362 present that to you. Okay. Any questions? Do you 754 00:47:40,702 --> 00:47:44,505 have any speakers? We do have one speaker card, 755 00:47:44,505 --> 00:47:49,110 but I do not see the individual in the chambers. Um, Daniel 756 00:47:49,110 --> 00:47:52,780 Pulido did, uh, submit a card and also submitted a 757 00:47:52,780 --> 00:47:56,918 supplemental for you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, move the 758 00:47:56,918 --> 00:48:02,189 discussion. Um. Once again, we got to pay money to see if it's 759 00:48:02,189 --> 00:48:07,795 a good idea. That's always a hard thing to get behind. But 760 00:48:07,795 --> 00:48:12,533 what are the thoughts on this? Doctor Castro? 761 00:48:12,533 --> 00:48:14,469 Yeah. Again. I want to thank staff. This is 762 00:48:14,469 --> 00:48:17,738 another idea that was suggested. And you brought it 763 00:48:17,738 --> 00:48:21,800 forward, um, getting into it now I start to see our why. 764 00:48:21,800 --> 00:48:25,279 It's even more complex than it seemed like before. Um, so 765 00:48:25,279 --> 00:48:28,216 there's I didn't anticipate that there would be some, some 766 00:48:28,216 --> 00:48:30,418 risk elements. It seemed like, oh, there's only this upside, 767 00:48:30,418 --> 00:48:34,755 right? But obviously there's a risk. But, um, I do think based 768 00:48:34,755 --> 00:48:38,226 on what the city manager shared, uh, the current 769 00:48:38,226 --> 00:48:42,697 temperament and disposition of the county, um, Board of 770 00:48:42,697 --> 00:48:47,168 Supervisors, it seems like it wouldn't be a good idea to be 771 00:48:47,168 --> 00:48:51,773 the last to the table. Uh, so I although I know we've had a lot 772 00:48:51,773 --> 00:48:55,709 of questions about the cost of consultants, if there is an 773 00:48:55,709 --> 00:49:00,181 upside to this, it seems really to our advantage to be the 774 00:49:00,181 --> 00:49:03,451 first to explore it. So that's my initial thought. Yeah. 775 00:49:03,451 --> 00:49:05,853 Okay. I'm gonna jump in and agree 776 00:49:05,853 --> 00:49:11,392 with that. I think this is an opportunity to to lead in the 777 00:49:11,392 --> 00:49:14,462 county. And and if we're already a little behind, you 778 00:49:14,462 --> 00:49:20,468 know, maybe catch up and, um, I if we move forward, I would 779 00:49:20,468 --> 00:49:26,468 definitely want that direction that we go full force fast. 780 00:49:28,675 --> 00:49:33,281 Yeah, I, I concur first come, first serve. Uh, and eventually 781 00:49:33,281 --> 00:49:35,160 if enough of these come in front of the county, the county 782 00:49:35,160 --> 00:49:37,551 is going to say, whoa, wait, we can't do any more of that. And 783 00:49:37,551 --> 00:49:40,421 to keep our our dollars at home right now, all these projects 784 00:49:40,421 --> 00:49:44,158 we do, we got a CIP list. If we make the boundaries, the city 785 00:49:44,158 --> 00:49:47,295 limits, we got our CIP list. We know what we want to do. I 786 00:49:47,295 --> 00:49:53,101 mean, we can pick and choose as we want to, um, and, uh, and 787 00:49:53,101 --> 00:49:58,906 invest and keep it dollars at home. I, I fully I hate $35,000 788 00:49:58,906 --> 00:50:01,508 for a consultant to tell me that we're gonna, we're gonna 789 00:50:01,508 --> 00:50:05,246 make money. I don't want to go and take on debt load. Uh, I'd 790 00:50:05,246 --> 00:50:08,382 want it to be pay as you go, but we got enough cips that we 791 00:50:08,382 --> 00:50:11,585 pay as you go. Uh, that that will constantly be a benefit. 792 00:50:11,585 --> 00:50:15,790 So, um, assuming that there is no other way to get that report 793 00:50:15,790 --> 00:50:19,600 conclusive and convincing. Uh, I think we move forward with 794 00:50:19,600 --> 00:50:23,398 the with the consultant. Yeah. I'm concerned about the 795 00:50:23,398 --> 00:50:26,998 upkeep, infrastructure, obviously, with our finances. 796 00:50:27,134 --> 00:50:30,538 And if we're lost to the table with this, we could lose out a 797 00:50:30,538 --> 00:50:34,408 lot on that. So, um, I'm in favor of it. I wish we could 798 00:50:34,408 --> 00:50:39,213 see a little bit more of the feasibility before we engage 799 00:50:39,213 --> 00:50:45,213 into a consulting agreement, but, um, I think what you've 800 00:50:45,820 --> 00:50:48,956 been saying is looking pretty much like it would be 801 00:50:48,956 --> 00:50:51,356 straightforward, right? Yes, ma'am. 802 00:50:51,892 --> 00:50:54,292 That's correct. Anything else? 803 00:50:56,363 --> 00:51:01,369 That's pretty. That's pretty good direction. We all seem to 804 00:51:01,369 --> 00:51:04,380 be on the same page. That's what Doctor Castro said. 805 00:51:04,380 --> 00:51:06,373 Okay. We have consensus then to, uh, 806 00:51:06,373 --> 00:51:10,978 have staff move forward further considering this. And, uh, uh, 807 00:51:10,978 --> 00:51:14,582 contract services with a consultant to determine the 808 00:51:14,582 --> 00:51:16,383 feasibility. That's correct. 809 00:51:16,383 --> 00:51:20,388 Thank you. Quickly. Yeah, yeah, if we can, we can 810 00:51:20,388 --> 00:51:24,258 catch up. I agree. Just just make it work. Yeah. 811 00:51:24,258 --> 00:51:29,658 Okay. Next item is 11 ordinances. There are none this 812 00:51:32,933 --> 00:51:36,871 evening while by closed session, Mr. Agena. 813 00:51:36,871 --> 00:51:39,741 Uh, there are no closed session items this evening, mayor. 814 00:51:39,741 --> 00:51:42,810 All right. Thank you. 13. I'll make a motion to adjourn. All 815 00:51:42,810 --> 00:51:44,612 in favor? Aye, aye. 816 00:51:44,612 --> 00:51:48,212 Thank you. And good night. Moorpark.