[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.