[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:01] Good evening. I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Moor Park City Council for September 2, 2020, and we'll mark Shigar's from the volunteers in policing. Please lead us in the pledge.
[0:30] Would
[0:33] court please take roll?
[0:37] Good evening.
[0:38] Some member Barrett.
[0:40] Council member Castro.
[0:41] Present.
[0:41] Council member Gargato.
[0:43] Present.
[0:43] Council member Means.
[0:44] Present.
[0:44] Mayor Integrant.
[0:46] Present.
[0:48] Excited.
[0:48] Ms. Four.
[0:49] Proclamations and Commendations.
[0:51] Forays a Certificate of Recognition to Mark Shigaras
[0:54] for attaining over 10,000 volunteer hours
[0:57] with more park police departments volunteering in police program.
[1:03] Mark, we come meet you up in front.
[1:23] For you.
[1:29] Today, we recognize and celebrate
[1:31] a remarkable member of our community.
[1:33] Mark, who along his family made more park his home 38 years ago.
[1:37] Mark often says that our city's logo could be very well read, welcome.
[1:41] You reach the end of the rainbow.
[1:43] A sentiment that reflects both his love for this community and the spirit he brings to it.
[1:48] In 2011, after observing our volunteers and policing program in action,
[1:52] on many occasions, Mark decided to join their ranks.
[1:55] We want to contribute directly to the safety and well-being of more park,
[1:57] over the past 15 years he's done exactly that. His mission has always been simple,
[2:03] the cheerfully provide whatever support the police department needs. As Mark himself puts it,
[2:08] this is the best job I've ever had. The support knowledge transfer and interaction with the
[2:14] sheriff's department personnel are fantastic. Mark's contributions have been exceptional among them,
[2:20] which is serving as a VIP field training officer bringing 10 new volunteers on board,
[2:25] Coordinating VIP teams and working numerous all-hands call-out events that require extended traffic control,
[2:32] scene security, and other essential duties, volunteering at every third of July event and surviving the Egress each time.
[2:41] We've got to fix that someday.
[2:44] Over seeing weekly testing and calibration by the Crime Lab, the Department, and CHP's portable blood alcohol testing equipment.
[2:52] Responding to hundreds of calls for service assigned to VIPs, issuing parking enforcement
[2:58] citations as needed, connecting more than 50 home security assessments to help keep
[3:03] our residents safe, assisting with numerous registrations for the cognitive impairment
[3:08] registration program.
[3:10] Is dedication has not gone unnoticed, since becoming a volunteer, Mark has received an
[3:15] impressive 13 commendations recognizing his outstanding service, reliability and commitment
[3:21] to our community.
[3:22] When asked how it feels to have achieved this extraordinary milestone of 10,000 hours of
[3:26] service, Mark's response was immediate.
[3:28] Every one of those hours, I was accompanied by another VIP, being part of a great team is what
[3:33] makes this great job.
[3:36] Today we honor Mark not only for his service, but for the heart, dedication, humility,
[3:40] he brings some more part.
[3:42] His impact is immeasurable and our community is truly fortunate to have him as a part of the
[3:46] team.
[3:46] Mark, I've got to see all of you driving around, smiling, and doing a great job out there.
[3:51] Thank you so much.
[3:52] I'd
[4:01] like to thank the City Council and City Management for establishing and supporting the volunteer and policing program.
[4:13] It's a real pleasure to be able to directly give back every volunteer, can directly give back to the community in which we live.
[4:23] And, along with that, we also get to work and we have the honor and the privilege of working
[4:28] with the Sheriff's Department, something not very many people get the opportunity to do.
[4:33] So we're part of the Sheriff's Team and the City Team and it feels great.
[4:37] So thank you to all of you for making it happen for all of us.
[4:52] I just say a couple of words one, my math isn't very good, which is why I got in the law enforcement
[4:58] in the first place.
[5:00] You know, 10,000 hours. So just a 40-hour work week. That's just under five years worth of volunteering, which is profound. And we're extremely grateful, Mark, for all the help that you've given our deputies throughout the years.
[5:16] Your knowledge and experience, your mentor also to some of our new deputies in guiding them. So that does not go and notice. So thank you very much for everything you've done.
[5:26] But we're also thankful for all of you, all the volunteer work that you do.
[5:31] You allow us to handle priority issues and concerns in the city.
[5:37] You're helping out with traffic, helping out with parking citations, and things that our
[5:41] deputies would be doing otherwise, and so it's greatly appreciated.
[5:46] So thank you to each of you.
[5:47] And I'd love to be able to get Mayor, if you're okay with photo with all of our volunteers
[5:51] and mark up here.
[5:52] So if you could have you all come up real quick,
[5:59] I'm going to move this mic out of the way.
[6:41] You won't be checking parking on the parking lot right now for citations right I need to be right back.
[6:56] Make sure to say if I appreciate that in the program.
[6:59] Excuse me.
[7:01] All right.
[7:10] Next item is five public comment.
[7:12] Are there any speakers?
[7:15] Yes, Mr. Mayor.
[7:16] I've received three speaker cards under a public comment this evening.
[7:20] Our first speaker will be Daniel.
[7:23] Followed by your Washington or a Gandhi.
[7:28] Probably got that wrong.
[7:30] So Daniel, you have three minutes to.
[7:32] address the council under public on that.
[7:48] All right.
[7:49] Good evening, Council staff.
[7:51] There was a written supplemental for agenda item 10A,
[7:54] as well as a written public comment submitted today.
[7:58] I'm in most of my presentations today will be via those.
[8:01] So I'm just drawing attention to them now.
[8:04] It's an eight page fiscal review of item 10A directly
[8:07] to the city clerk for the official record.
[8:11] Highlights keep policy concerns regarding uncapped
[8:14] rate escalators and technology paths through risks.
[8:17] I urge the Council to direct staff to address the explicit recommendations, or at least
[8:22] consider them, on page 8 before initiating the CFD formation.
[8:29] I'm married previously indicated that Flock would return as an agenda discussion.
[8:33] It's not on tonight's agenda.
[8:35] I submitted a short illustrated public education exhibit explaining why this cannot remain
[8:39] Bari at Insight Contracts, police budgets or vendor substitutions.
[8:44] Please, please, please, flock and any proposed action replacement on a properly noticed
[8:49] agenda before renewal, expansion, replacement or further interrogation.
[9:02] I see that they already issued a supplemental correcting the math there on ten D, but there
[9:08] we're eight other questions attached with a supplemental that made the public record on that
[9:14] as well. Thank you very much, and enjoy the supplementals. Thank you. The graphics are cool,
[9:21] but they don't look like me, though. I'm sorry, but very wrinkled in the old.
[9:26] Thanks. And our next speaker is, I'm going to try it again. Yes, I'll want to work on
[9:34] the, I know, how to say the last name. Who will be followed by a secret role? We'll
[9:40] All
[9:44] right, honorable mayor, respected city council members and distinguished members of the mayor's office and everyone else that's listening.
[9:54] My name is Yash or Ganti, and I'm part of the Hindu community of more part as well as a...
[10:05] The reason I'm here today is we are celebrating a rupture of London, which is a festival that holds a very special place in the hearts of millions of Hindus around the world. The word rupture means protection and abundant means connection. Together, it symbolizes a promise, a commitment to care for one another, to stand together and to uphold harmony in our community. Traditionally rupture of London is celebrated between siblings and the world.
[10:29] where a sister ties a secret thread called Rocky around her brother's wrist.
[10:36] But over time this festival has grown beyond family boundaries
[10:39] and has become a symbol of unity, gratitude, and mutual respect.
[10:45] And that is why we are here today.
[10:48] This thread represents our gratitude for your guy's leadership.
[10:51] Our respect for your dedication, our trust, and the work you guys do every single day.
[10:56] and our commitment to stand together as one unified community.
[11:00] More work is a city where diversity is not just present, it's embraced.
[11:05] We come from different backgrounds, cultures, and different traditions.
[11:09] Yet, we share the same streets, the same schools, the same parks, and the same hope for our families.
[11:16] Festivals like Ruksham Bundan Reminds that Unity is created by the understanding that we are all one family.
[11:22] In Hindu culture, we believe that leadership is a sacred responsibility.
[11:29] A leader is someone who protects guides and uplifts people.
[11:33] By tying this rocket, we symbolically acknowledge that responsibility and express
[11:38] our support for your continued efforts to keep our cities safe and strong.
[11:43] We also want to express our appreciation for the openness and warmth
[11:46] with which MoPARC has welcomes,
[11:49] which with which MoPARC welcomes cultural traditions.
[11:55] We thank you for giving us these few minutes
[11:57] to share about our tradition.
[11:59] It means a great deal to us.
[12:01] And we hope this small gesture
[12:02] becomes a symbol of the bond between the Hindi community
[12:05] and the city leadership, a bond of respect,
[12:09] unity and mutual support.
[12:11] On behalf of the entire community,
[12:13] thank you for your time, your service,
[12:14] and your commitment to the people of Mopark. Thank you.
[12:17] Thank you.
[12:26] Our last speaker under public comment is,
[12:29] Oh boy,
[12:30] Siguro,
[12:31] Bonapali.
[12:40] Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.
[12:43] My name is Guru Boopali and I'm currently a freshman
[12:46] at Mopark High School.
[12:48] It is an honor to be here today.
[12:50] Once again, we would like to sincerely thank the Mayor
[12:53] and City Council for giving us this opportunity
[12:55] to express our gratitude and share traditions.
[12:58] It was a privilege to celebrate Rakshalman with all of you today.
[13:03] By tying the rakhi and sharing the meaning behind this beautiful tradition, we hope
[13:08] we are able to give you a glimpse into the values of family, respect, love and togetherness
[13:13] that are so important to others, and our culture.
[13:17] As we look ahead, I would also like to speak about another Hindu festival coming up in October
[13:22] and November.
[13:23] The Vali, the Vali represents the victory of light over darkness, knowledge over ignorance and good over evil, but the Vali is not only about celebration.
[13:36] It is also about giving back and serving others.
[13:39] As part of the Hindu community, we participate in the Vali, where communities come together to organize food drives, volunteer activities, donations, and other service projects to support those in need.
[13:52] With the volley approaching, I would like to respectfully request two things from our city.
[13:58] First, we ask the city to support and recognize the volley and the service activities organized via our community.
[14:07] We would love to work together with the city to encourage residents to participate and give back to our community.
[14:13] Second, as we have previously proposed, we ask the city to consider celebrating the
[14:19] valley as an official city festival.
[14:23] This would allow our entire community to come together, learn about Hindu traditions,
[14:29] enjoy cultural performances, and celebrate the values of unity, service, and togetherness.
[14:36] We are grateful for the growing recognition of Hindu traditions and the valley in California,
[14:40] and we hope our city can continue to be part of that progress.
[14:46] Thank you Mayor and City Council for welcoming our community,
[14:49] listening to us and giving us the opportunity to share our culture.
[14:54] We look forward to celebrating the volley with all of you
[14:57] and bringing its spirit of light and service to our community.
[15:00] Community. Thank you. Thank you.
[15:09] Thank you. And that was the final public speaker under public comment.
[15:13] Thank you.
[15:17] Exciting to six, ordering of the agenda. I think need to be pulled to reorder.
[15:21] I would like to pull 80.
[15:28] Anything else?
[15:31] I
[15:34] want to item seven, announcements, future agenda items and reports of meetings,
[15:38] a conversation by council members and mayor.
[15:41] Start with Mr. Reeds.
[15:43] I'll thank you Mr. Mayor.
[15:45] With past couple weeks, I've done a couple very interesting things.
[15:48] One, I flew to New York City and attempted an event at the New York City Public Library.
[15:54] It was exceptional.
[15:56] While it's a much grander scale than even what more park is going to have.
[16:00] They're use of collections and using the house of knowledge in the public place in order to engage people and bring them in
[16:11] and create a public discussion was exceptional.
[16:15] I look forward to more part of finding a way to do that in its own way.
[16:18] So I continue to find myself in those environments exploring.
[16:22] And that was on 822.
[16:25] On 826, along with Council Member Barrett and the more part morning
[16:29] rotary, we had the pleasure of putting on a police services police
[16:35] services station barbecue.
[16:36] I'm struggling today.
[16:37] A police service is barbecue at our station here with both CHP and the deputies, as I know
[16:44] all of you know, but as a reminder, we're the only location in California that has a single
[16:48] building that houses two separate law enforcement agencies, CHP and local deputies, and
[16:54] to see them work together to keep our communities safe every day as something I'm really proud of.
[16:59] Thank you.
[17:01] Thank you.
[17:05] An August 20th, I attended the Economic Development Collaboration meeting.
[17:10] We reviewed EDC's current financial position, several new continuing regional economic development initiatives, including Small Business Support, Broadband, Fathom Works, and Autonomous Systems.
[17:24] We also discussed new partnerships and agreements intended to bring additional resources and opportunities to businesses throughout Ventura County.
[17:31] On August 22nd, I attended the Ventura County Animal Services Clear, the Shelter's event.
[17:37] Twenty-nine dogs, several of which were long-term dogs, got adopted.
[17:41] Twenty-nine cats and kittens, ten bunnies and three guinea pigs for a total of 71 animals were adopted that day.
[17:48] On August 28th, I attended more park high school football game, which was a nail biter until the end.
[17:53] We did end up beating at Camarillo.
[17:56] And on August 29th, they attended the High Street Arts Center Gala.
[18:00] Annual Gala is incredibly important and it raises more money for the theater in one evening than all of the shows combined and it helps to ensure the arts continue to thrive right here in more park.
[18:10] It was a beautiful evening, lots of fun and a great reminder of how lucky we are to have this historic theater in the heart of our city.
[18:16] That's it.
[18:18] Mr. Barrett.
[18:20] On August 25th, I attended the Tri-County Chamber Alliance board meeting on August 26th,
[18:32] I, along with Council of Modern Remains, attended the Public Safety Recognition Barbecue,
[18:39] it was a great event, and great to thank our wonderful law enforcement for all that they
[18:47] do for us here in Morbark.
[18:49] On August 29th, I attended the High Street Arts Center
[18:53] Gala, along with Councilman Dogado.
[18:57] Wonderful event, as always, they put on a great, great evening,
[19:04] and if you have not been, I would highly recommend marking your calendar
[19:08] for next August, for that event.
[19:15] On September 1st, they attended the Morpher Chamber mixer at Sedora, home and gift store
[19:22] here and more park.
[19:24] If you have not been to Sedora, they are located over in the center where hems on fresh
[19:31] used to be, and it is a great place to buy gifts and home to gore, and please check that
[19:42] So this afternoon, I attended the Roshka Badan ceremony that our local Hindu community did
[19:59] right here in.
[20:00] At City Hall, and got these threads tied around my wrists, along with mayor and aggrant.
[20:09] So it was a beautiful ceremony, and very, very nice to hear all the kind words, and especially the children speaking up and their involvement in recognizing the city and what happens here.
[20:29] So, I do have a future agenda item as well that I would like to add for discussing data centers.
[20:39] Okay,
[20:42] it's all due.
[20:44] And if there's a consensus with the council, we will address that at future council meeting.
[20:50] All right, thank you.
[20:52] Is it?
[21:01] Okay.
[21:01] at the Council Member Barrett,
[21:02] Tender the Raksha Bandun ceremony,
[21:06] which I'm probably gonna butcher this.
[21:08] I've tried to write it down and make sure I knew it right,
[21:10] but symbolizes protection, gratitude,
[21:12] and the bond of goodwill,
[21:14] and it's something that they present to public servants,
[21:18] they want to do our council,
[21:20] and they also do the police station
[21:23] and other services like that.
[21:26] And it's a great tradition,
[21:29] really wonderful people came out and really appreciate that. It was really nice to see that.
[21:36] And then I also attended the Administrative Finance and Public Safety meeting with Council Member
[21:41] Mayor Pro Tem Castro. Just a minute ago. And that is all I have to report. I've got a few announcements here.
[21:52] Sign up now for fall classes at the Royal Vista Recreation Center. Programs offered include tennis, pickleball, golf, basketball,
[21:59] baking, arts, and crafts, science, and more. For details and to register visit, see you website
[22:05] at moreparksca.gov slash classes. Movies in the park are USA 250 and a
[22:12] Versary American Movie Road Trip continues on Saturday, September 12th, the screening of
[22:18] Super 8. Movie will be shown in a Royal Vista Park starting at 715 pm. Mission is free
[22:23] and food is available for purchase. For details including the full road trip schedule visit
[22:28] more parcsia.gov slash movies.
[22:33] Finally, put on your blades or quads and join us for Skate Night on Friday, September 18th
[22:38] from 6 to 8 p.m.
[22:40] Enjoying evening of skating, music and games, plus fun activities, or non-skaters.
[22:44] The event takes place at the Rovistic Community Park.
[22:47] The theme for September is more park, top 40, so submit your request by September 15th.
[22:52] The more information or to submit a song request visit more parcsia.gov slash skate.
[22:58] Next, we'll move on to the consent item calendar.
[23:02] We pulled item 80, so I'll entertain a motion for the balance.
[23:06] I'll move the balance.
[23:09] You have a motion in the second.
[23:10] We'll need a roll call vote.
[23:13] Council member Barrett.
[23:14] Council member Delgado.
[23:16] Council member Means.
[23:17] Council member Castro.
[23:18] Hi.
[23:20] We'll move to item 80, which is consider approving a two year time extension for residential
[23:25] plan development permit number 2005-02, investing tentative track map number 5739, pursuant
[23:34] to condition of approval number 2 of city council resolution number 2022-4121, associated with
[23:42] the Everett Street Terrace's project. For property located at the intersection of Everett Street,
[23:48] and walnut canyon road on the application of Stanley Chu on behalf of John Chu LPN.
[23:54] Mr. Erickson.
[24:10] Good evening. Honorable Mayor and members of the council. My name is Blake
[24:16] Erickson and I'm the assistant planner for the city. I prepared a brief presentation
[24:21] for this item, but first I wanted to ask if there were a specific question that the
[24:25] council had for me or the applicant or if you'd like me to proceed with my presentation.
[24:30] I mean I have several questions, but if you would like to proceed.
[24:38] That's fine, go ahead.
[24:40] Okay.
[24:41] Thank
[24:59] you.
[24:59] Either way.
[25:00] A.D. is a request to approve a two-year time extension for residential planned development permit, number 2005-02, and vesting tentative track map, number 5-739, pursuant to condition of approval, number 2, of city council resolution, number 222-4121, associated with the average street terraces project, at the intersection of average street and walnut canyon road.
[25:26] The applicant first applied for project entitlements in December 2005, and the project was approved by the City Council on September 7, 2022, for a 60-attached multi-family residential-codominium units on 2.44 acres.
[25:45] The entitlements were initially set to expire two years after approval with provisions allowing additional extensions based on certain findings.
[25:53] The community development director previously granted two one-year extensions in August 2024 and August 2025.
[26:03] Those extensions bring the current expiration date to September 7th, 2022.
[26:10] As the project has exhausted all time extensions that may be granted by the community development director,
[26:16] The applicant, Stanley Chu, on behalf of John Chu, LPN, is now requesting a two-year time extension from the city council.
[26:26] In their extension request letter, the applicant's sites economic disruptions to the construction financing environment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, continued financing, market headwinds, following the pandemic,
[26:38] And there efforts to advance the project forward, including pursuing prior extensions, participating in annual development agreement reviews, maintaining communications with the city through land use consultants, engaging developers and builders, contacting financial institutions regarding construction financing, and continuing to assess project feasibility as market conditions evolve.
[27:04] In evaluating the request, staff considered the findings contained in condition number 2 of resolution
[27:11] number 222-4121. Specifically, whether there have been changes in the adjacent area that
[27:19] would warrant reconsideration of the approval of the approved project and whether the applicant
[27:24] has demonstrated diligent efforts towards use in auguration. Staff has found that there
[27:34] approved project and that the applicant has demonstrated diligent efforts towards use and
[27:39] inauguration consistent with the basis provided in their extension request.
[27:46] If the time extension request is approved by the City Council, the existing entitlements
[27:51] would expire on September 7, 2028 unless a final map is recorded and a building permit issued
[27:58] which would inaugurate the use.
[28:01] The proposed action does not modify the previously approved project and staff has determined
[28:06] that no subsequent environmental review is required under
[28:09] sequela.
[28:13] Therefore, staff recommends that the council
[28:14] approve a two-year time extension for residential
[28:18] plan development permit number 2005-02, and vesting tentative
[28:22] track map number 5-739, pursuant to condition of approval
[28:26] number 2 of city council resolution number 2022-4121, thereby
[28:33] extending the expiration date to September 7, 2021. This
[28:38] concludes my presentation. Staff's available for any questions, and the applicant Stanley
[28:42] Chu is here to answer any questions the council has related to their extension request.
[28:48] Thank you. There are any questions to staff?
[28:50] Yes. So I don't know, maybe this is better for the applicant, or you can decide.
[28:55] In the four years since the 2022 approval, what tangible milestones, or are there any other tangible
[29:02] milestones to be had aside from investigating, financing, or other developers,
[29:14] that makes sense
[29:15] for us to just continue this in additional two years.
[29:23] Thank you, Council Member.
[29:24] I'll ask that, Mr. Stanley, to approach on that item.
[29:32] Boy, thank you for the question.
[29:33] And thank you for considering this request during extension.
[29:37] It's a really viable project that has faced some pretty big headwinds.
[29:42] Councilmember Delgado, you asked about tangible milestones in the last four years.
[29:48] We've met with three different development organizations, and the challenge we're facing is
[29:54] the perform of the project today, which is very different than it did when the project was entitled.
[30:00] COVID drove escalation in the building industry that is just the cost of doing this job is really different than it was before.
[30:08] The developers brought that to our attention, and we are struggling. We're working hard to bring this project to fruition.
[30:16] But the reality is between escalation and then, you know, as Blake mentioned, another pretty significant thing is that the increase in interest rates has not yet come down.
[30:25] So the cost of getting that we need more money
[30:28] and the cost of getting money has increased.
[30:31] And then on top of that, my father has been
[30:34] through a pretty significant illness,
[30:36] which really limited our ability to respond
[30:40] to these challenges.
[30:41] We believe in the project.
[30:44] It was, I would say, in some ways collaboratively
[30:46] created with the city of More Park.
[30:49] It responds to a need.
[30:50] It's in a fantastic location.
[30:51] It's so close to the transit station, the rail line.
[30:55] It's just, we need a little more time to make it happen.
[31:01] Does that answer your question?
[31:02] Yes, but in two more years, we can only predict that cost will probably continue to go up.
[31:11] Is the two years are you just hoping for interest rates to come down?
[31:15] Since that's kind of, it's either cost or interest rates for both.
[31:18] It's it's it's it's the whole pro forma getting getting the thing depends on we're confident that
[31:23] Interest rates are going to go down and then our finances will be in a place to get the project started
[31:29] So so where do they need to come down what what level do they need to come down to to be able to make this a feasible
[31:36] Project. Yeah, I don't know that I can just answer that off the top of my head. Okay, so we we have been seeking development partners
[31:43] So some of this is a kind of a dance or collaboration with a development group.
[31:48] So it's an extremely viable project so it's got that going on.
[31:51] It's a great project.
[31:54] I've been looking forward to it.
[31:56] If you're interested in being involved in it, we'd invite you to.
[31:59] You can make all this happen next week.
[32:03] Okay, thank you very much.
[32:04] I do have one question for staff.
[32:06] If this project were to expire, what could potentially happen with the lot and another developer?
[32:13] You don't want to know.
[32:14] Thank you, Councilmember.
[32:15] So the entitlements that we're talking about the vesting tentative map and the residential
[32:19] plan development permit, they are also linked to a development agreement, which I believe
[32:23] will be valid through 2040.
[32:25] Is that right?
[32:26] Probably.
[32:27] 42.
[32:27] Thank you.
[32:28] So that would put the applicant in a position if the entitlements were to expire to seek to either
[32:35] re-entitle the project as it was proposed or bring back some alternative project and seek an
[32:40] to their development agreements.
[32:42] Those are kind of the scenarios we'd looking at.
[32:44] But essentially, in a lot of ways, Mr. Chu would
[32:47] be starting over.
[32:48] He would have to design that project
[32:49] through planning commission city council
[32:51] and environmental review.
[32:55] OK.
[32:56] Thank you.
[32:57] What a one-year extension suffice
[32:59] or are you looking for, too?
[33:02] I think, too, is safer.
[33:03] I think, too, is safer.
[33:07] All right, question.
[33:08] Where does your plan if we're in the same spot in two years?
[33:16] Well, I think that we are going to be able to adjust the scope of the project to keep
[33:22] that from happening.
[33:24] So we may end up, it's hard, I mean, the only thing I could do is stand here and speculate.
[33:30] So I think we can make it happen.
[33:35] Questions?
[33:37] It's a great project.
[33:41] Do we have any other public comment?
[33:44] No, Mr. Mayor, that is the only speaker current I have on the side of.
[33:48] Thank you.
[33:48] Thank you.
[33:49] Thank you for considering it.
[33:54] So.
[33:56] No, I just wanted to hear if they still thought it would be feasible in two years
[34:00] and what exactly they were waiting for besides interest rates.
[34:05] It's fine.
[34:06] I mean, I'm fine with moving it forward.
[34:08] I just wanted to make sure we were going to continue to extend and extend
[34:12] extent on the project that might not be viable anymore. Right. The alternative to
[34:17] approving it doesn't sound. It's the alternative, right. Multiple reasons.
[34:23] Any other comments or discussions?
[34:27] Okay.
[34:28] I want to do it.
[34:29] Oh, sure.
[34:30] I would move that we are granting extension.
[34:34] Okay, second motion in a second, but it means
[34:38] and we'll need a roll call vote.
[34:40] Can't remember how to add it. I can't remember means I can't remember bear it. I can't
[34:45] remember Castro may remember. All
[34:50] right next is I'm nine public hearings. There are none.
[34:53] We'll move on to item 10. 10 A is a consider the police services fiscal impact.
[35:00] Clerk analysis for proposed citywide community facilities district. Mr. Lawrence,owski.
[35:07] Thank you, Mayor, and members of the City Council. In April of last year, staff presented a agenda report to the City Council regarding the creation of a citywide community facilities district.
[35:18] As you recall, this was completed in parallel with the Bell Trauma Ranch, CFD. However, because CFDs offer a wide range of facilities and services that could be included in a citywide CFD.
[35:31] the City Council directed staff to bring back a future gender report regarding the creation
[35:36] of a citywide CFD that also considers funding for future police services that will be necessary
[35:42] as the City New Year's Build-out.
[35:45] So in October of last year, the City Council approved an agreement with SCI Consulting Group
[35:49] to assist the city with the formation of a citywide CFD.
[35:54] The agreement included a three-phase approach in which phase one involves the preparation
[35:59] of a financial impact analysis related to police services.
[36:04] So with that, I would like to introduce Blair Us with SCI, who will summarize the findings
[36:11] outlined in the IA. Blair is attending us via Zoom tonight.
[36:16] So I will go through the presentation for Blair.
[36:22] Well, thank you, Jeremy, and good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council members.
[36:30] For tonight, I think it'd be best if I just started with the question that this analysis
[36:37] was prepared to answer.
[36:41] So more park does not have its own police department.
[36:45] The city contracts with the Ventura County Sheriff's Office and that contract is really
[36:51] the single largest service cost in the city's general fund.
[36:56] As the city approves doing developments under its General Plan 2050, the Sheriff's Office has to expand what it provides.
[37:10] So there's going to be more residents, more businesses, more calls, more deployed hours, etc.
[37:18] And that expansion has a cost and that and the city pays that under the contract.
[37:30] So now new development also generates revenue, property tax revenue, sales tax revenue,
[37:40] other reoccurring revenue sources.
[37:42] So the question that we are asking is relatively straightforward, will the revenue covered
[37:53] by the added police cost generated by City Approved New Development Projects, will the revenue
[38:02] cover those costs or will there be a shortfall that would negatively impact the city's
[38:08] find in the city's finances.
[38:13] So one point I'd like to emphasize before we go any further, you know,
[38:17] whatever comes out of this applies only to future development that hasn't been built yet.
[38:27] There's nothing here that changes what existing residents or businesses pay. So to answer that
[38:37] question, the first thing that we need to do is to measure the growth itself. So, Jeremy,
[38:46] if you could advance the next slide.
[38:53] So, every number in this analysis traces back to the
[38:57] city's general plan. We didn't build any of our own growth forecasts. We used the cities
[39:06] adopted forecasts, so the analysis rests on that document that's already been approved by the
[39:12] Council. And that plan projects roughly 5,500 new dwelling units and another 7,300 new
[39:21] jobs at build out of the plan.
[39:28] So for this analysis, we need one number that captures
[39:32] how much police demand that that growth is going to generate. And that's what that surface
[39:40] population represents. It's a combination of residents and workers, because police, the police
[39:48] serve the people who live here and who work here in shop here, right? So, apply to the city
[39:57] projections, new development.
[40:00] Development is projected to add about 19,700 growth in the service population. So from roughly 40,000 to 60,000. And again, that's service population.
[40:14] So that single number drives everything on the next two slides. So that's the, this is the demand sites. And the next question is what are the costs to serve that new demand?
[40:30] What are the cost of tributable to that new demand?
[40:38] So the approach here is deliberately simple.
[40:43] We're not projecting a future police budget.
[40:48] We're not trying to anticipate what that's going to look like in 10, 15, 20 years.
[40:54] What we're asking is what is the cost to serve one person today
[40:59] And then use that to apply to future growth.
[41:04] So there's two things about what's in that cost.
[41:08] So first we've counted only reoccurring costs.
[41:12] So the cost of the current contract and vehicles and equipment that it provides.
[41:20] So capital facilities like police stations and substations
[41:27] are handled through development and tax fees so they're not included in this analysis.
[41:32] Secondly, we only use part of the budget that actually grows with the city.
[41:38] So some departments grow a lot with service population and some budgets barely at all.
[41:46] So we went through department by department and keeping only that share that responds to growth.
[41:53] And of course, police is at the top of that range, but roughly that works out to be total budget
[42:00] about 46% of the total.
[42:03] And then breaking that down, that results to about $223 per person per year, or roughly $4.4 million
[42:14] annually at build out.
[42:16] And again, we're talking at build out, but again, this is in current dollars.
[42:20] That's typical with this type of an analysis.
[42:25] So that is actually the cost.
[42:27] So the next side of the is the other side of the ledger, which is the revenues.
[42:33] So new development, of course, is going to generate real revenue.
[42:38] And in this analysis, we've given it full credit for all of it.
[42:42] property tax revenue, property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee, transfer taxes, sales taxes in any other reoccurring general fund revenue sources.
[42:54] And that's about $8.3 million a year at Bill Naut.
[42:59] But not all of that revenue is available for police.
[43:05] It funds a whole range of city services and so we credit it that new
[43:11] Credit new developments with police is share of that
[43:16] Which is using the same that same figure
[43:19] 46.3% so that comes down to roughly 3.8 million dollars
[43:26] so
[43:29] So setting against that 4.4 million dollars in cost
[43:35] And then we credit 3.8, that leads, that covers about 87% of its own police costs.
[43:44] So that's, it's close, but it doesn't quite get there.
[43:47] So the short call, there's, there is a short call projected to come from residential development.
[43:55] Commercial and industrial development are approximately cost neutral.
[43:58] So I would characterize them that way rather than a surplus because the results are sensitive
[44:04] to assumptions about feature residential sales that nobody can really pin down at this stage.
[44:11] So that's sort of the gap.
[44:15] It's not significant, but it can add up annually and over time.
[44:23] So, here's what it would look like on a per unit basis.
[44:30] So, this table takes the shortfall and turns it into a per unit number.
[44:37] So, the residential gap is divided by the units that are projected to be generated according to the general plan.
[44:45] And that's roughly $111 a year for a new single family home, and then $195 a year for a multi-family housing unit.
[45:00] So two things to note, there's no citywide proposed rate for commercial and industrial, because those categories are already sort of covering their police costs, and these rates recover only the gap, so they don't recover the full cost of police services.
[45:26] Now, if you notice there's a difference between the two housing types, single family and
[45:34] multi-family, that rate is what it costs to serve those residents, but those housing units.
[45:43] It's what's left over after we account for the revenue that's generated by each types
[45:50] these projects. So multi-family actually costs less to serve, but it also generates a lot less revenue
[46:01] because property tax revenues based upon assess value. And so I believe we have a single
[46:12] family home on averages about $950,000 a unit but a multi-family apartment unit on averages
[46:19] about a half a million dollars. So there's that lot less revenue. So the single family ends up
[46:27] covering about 86% of its own costs, but multi-family covers only 60% of the costs. And so that's the
[46:36] difference between the two rates. So next, let me show you that calculation in the three steps
[46:46] really is just simply. And so this is really the whole analysis on one slide. So what
[46:55] it takes to serve this new population, again, in current dollars, is about $4.4 million
[47:02] a year. New development is going to generate about $8.3 million in revenue, and they're
[47:12] that share that's attributable to police services is about 3.8.
[47:17] So subtracting that from $4.4 million of cost,
[47:21] you're left with an unfunded amount.
[47:24] And then we simply take the two, the single family,
[47:29] and the multi-family residential categories.
[47:31] We just take those deficits divided by the projected number of units
[47:37] to get the cost per year for for each. So again, I want to just sort of underline one thing
[47:49] here. So these are just planning level figures. These are not the proposed actual tax rates.
[47:58] So they don't include CFD administration. They don't include S. Anielescalations. They don't include
[48:06] other policy directions from the council.
[48:10] So this is just one phase that sort of lays a foundation
[48:14] for work to occur when we go to start to form this city-wide
[48:19] the C-D-wide C-F-D.
[48:22] And at that C-D-wide C-F formation,
[48:28] the rate and the method
[48:30] of how these special taxes are determined,
[48:33] And one will be a maximum tax which will set the ceiling and can be lowered but never raised.
[48:43] And then underneath that will be this annual special tax.
[48:46] It's often a formula which is what the council year after year will use to determine the
[48:54] levees for that upcoming fiscal year.
[48:56] And it would be more tied to an analysis like this which supports it.
[49:01] So the council keeps room at the top, but the levy stays anchored to some actual costs.
[49:11] But again, that's that's work that hasn't been done yet, which will become in the future.
[49:19] So that, so these are how the numbers are built.
[49:23] Let me, let me, uh, close with where we go from here in the next slide.
[49:29] So again, as I mentioned, this is really like the first phase, it establishes an approximate
[49:36] cost basis. The second phase, if the council gives direction, is to form the citywide
[49:44] CFD. Conceptually, the one that we brought forward you to last year, and we paused on it because
[49:49] you wanted to consider incorporating police services as a cost component. And so that's the
[49:57] the citywide see if these were the actual race.
[50:00] Structure is written. And so the CFD would be built upon to carry two cost components, if you recall. So there would be the citywide, there would be the police services cost component, which is what works as discussing today, and then alongside that would be the project specific components, which would be those services that would be unique to the residents.
[50:30] development project in question, and so that is that can vary from project to project, depending
[50:38] upon the unique aspects of what's in that development project, and then additionally, we
[50:46] would propose creating tax zones so that the first developments that forms the CFD and
[50:56] subsequent annexations into that CFD would be put in its own tax zone and would have its own rate for each based upon the police services component and these projects specific components.
[51:12] And they can vary from tax zone to tax zone with uniformity for the CFD wide.
[51:21] So, every project can carry the police component and then something projects specific.
[51:30] So, so with that, I'll turn it back to Jeremy.
[51:36] So, thank you, Billar.
[51:37] So, City Council, we are simply asking that you would consider this fiscal impact analysis
[51:43] for a citywide community facility district and provide directions to staff, particularly should
[51:51] We move forward with this, as we develop the citywide CFD.
[51:55] That concludes our report.
[51:58] Thank you.
[51:59] Any questions or stuff?
[52:04] Okay.
[52:06] Well, the CFD rates and assumptions be recalculated periodically.
[52:10] Of actual development, city revenues and share of contract costs differently from the projections.
[52:17] Yes.
[52:18] As Blair mentioned, what we would do is we would establish a maximum assessment.
[52:23] And that is the maximum we could ever tax.
[52:26] The actual cost that would be levied for each of the homeowners would be based directly
[52:31] on what our contractual costs are, so it's the actual cost of what we budget every year
[52:37] for police services.
[52:40] Similar how we structure LMDs in the city.
[52:43] We have an LMD for 20 various communities.
[52:47] There's a maximum ceiling on those LMDs, which is the maximum rate that rate escalates
[52:53] over your CPI. However, every year, we put together our budget for every L&D, so that amounts
[53:00] of money that's actually levied for those profiuners is based on our actual budget
[53:05] rather than any assumptions.
[53:11] Come one more. Can you clarify which developments would be subject to the CFD from the outset
[53:17] and which, sorry, would be included only voluntary voluntarily?
[53:23] So right now, we have seven developments that have development agreements.
[53:29] Those development agreements are very specific to what can be included in the CFD, specifically
[53:37] landscaping, storm drain facilities, things like that.
[53:40] They do not include police services, hit-range, specific communities, the project we just
[53:46] heard about and several others that have all been entitled and have the development agreement.
[53:54] So, so we would need voluntary concurrence from those developers to include this police services
[54:01] component into those CFDs as those are developed in the future. We've spoken to some of them
[54:07] already. There's no real objection to it. It's just at the time. They didn't know the costs and
[54:15] I don't know the cost of this CFD, and I think there will be a value way to as we move
[54:20] in towards developing those CFDs.
[54:25] What do you mean?
[54:29] Thank you for the explanation.
[54:30] I appreciate it a lot to see you again, Blair.
[54:34] When you talked about step two annual escalations in the cap, with Prop 13 being a thing in
[54:40] California provided that it doesn't change, no matter what cap we set, our revenues are
[54:46] going to be limited at build out to whatever prop 13 will allow us to continue to collect
[54:52] at least from that portion of our revenue.
[54:55] So if you go into the future looking far out, we will...
[55:00] Will we eventually hit that cap?
[55:03] Well, the plan is no. Getting there is what's going to be tricky, and I think Blair could probably
[55:10] describe it a little bit more as we develop the final cap, how the hat with that cap's
[55:15] going to be established. The cap does escalate annually with CPI, and we could put a rate
[55:20] of what that escalation can be. I believe we don't have to set it at CPI. It could be a little
[55:27] than CPI, and that's something I think we'll get into a lot more discussion when we bring
[55:33] that report to you once we've really developed that. But ultimately the goal would be
[55:38] that we would never reach that cap, that that escalation would cover those costs, and that
[55:46] again, you know, it's the maximum and we want to, you know, quite frankly want to keep it a
[55:53] little higher so that we never reach it and would have to go out to the homeowners
[55:57] to vote, I don't know if you have anything additional you want to add and bleder.
[56:03] Yeah, I agree. The cap is really the maximum special taxes really to provide for some
[56:10] sustainability and longevity for the CFD. So you just, you always want to structure that cap
[56:17] to anticipate contingencies of cost escalation inflation higher than the CPI. If the contract ends
[56:26] going up 10% for one reason or another, a button beyond inflationary adjustment. You want to be
[56:32] able to be able to recover those costs. And so you don't want to ever get to a point where
[56:41] it's outdated or you're having a shortfall that you're actual costs, they're seeing the maximum
[56:49] cap. So that's where we just, it's common to put a little bit of contingency buffer in the
[56:57] maximum tax. That's anchored to reasonable cost analysis like we provided so that it just
[57:03] gives its sustainability. But keep that in mind that too, that if in 20 years the CFD just isn't
[57:12] structured right, it doesn't quite fit to the circumstances, and you can always just do a
[57:19] new CFD and make some slight adjustments. But this just allows you to keep the CFD going.
[57:27] So, so that's, we typically we like to structure it for that longevity. But that's that's
[57:32] something that we'd all work out with you and what your options are for that.
[57:45] One question,
[57:46] And if one of the seven currently proposed or currently approved developments were to open
[57:54] their development agreement for some reason, they want to make a change or something, would
[57:59] we be able to add this in at that point?
[58:04] I like to assume so, I don't know if Doug's got a better answer than I assume so.
[58:11] Yes, Council Member Barrett, that would allow us the opportunity to pursue that as part of those negotiations.
[58:17] Thank
[58:23] you. Do you have any speakers?
[58:25] Yes, Mr. Mayor, we have one speaker card on this item from Daniel.
[58:31] But I don't see him in the room at the moment. Also, there was a supplemental submitted by Mr. Politi as well with respect to this item.
[58:41] That is in your pocket.
[58:42] But I don't see them here.
[58:46] All right.
[58:48] We'll move to the discussion then.
[58:51] Yeah, I understand the point behind this.
[58:55] It's tough because we're being forced by the state to constantly keep expanding.
[59:01] But there's no money coming in to do so.
[59:04] So we either expand and have less services for everyone else and more part.
[59:08] Or we have to do something like this, which.
[59:11] I don't see any other ways around this one, but what
[59:19] your thoughts?
[59:21] Dr. Castro.
[59:22] Dr. Castro.
[59:22] Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor.
[59:23] I appreciate staff bringing this forward.
[59:26] Agreed.
[59:26] There's only one way to generate revenue sometimes.
[59:31] What I feel good about though is that we've known for our citizens that they value safety.
[59:36] We've continued to be at one of the safest cities in the state.
[59:40] Yes, there can be a point of diminishing returns where you can spend a lot of money and not climb that rank any higher, but this at least is allowed to maintain a quality of life in a local service and then later on as was suggested.
[59:52] Should this revenue not keep pace with the demands then the future council can make a decision at that point.
[1:00:03] I think it's necessary. I don't think it's necessary. I think it's appropriate. The developments that are coming online and moving forward are going to impact our city going to impact the citizens and the property owners that are here.
[1:00:16] I'm making these changes to those properties we will have greater costs. We know it. We can forecast it and we can offset some of it.
[1:00:22] the cost that we have right now when you do the great line math are going to be limited
[1:00:26] by Prop 13.
[1:00:28] And so having something with a cap that can grow to offset some of that difference is
[1:00:34] one of the only ways that we'll be able to keep ourselves solvent as a city.
[1:00:41] Because we can't mix items.
[1:00:44] The last item that we talked about, they wanted an extension.
[1:00:47] And that could be a good time in future conversations to inject.
[1:00:54] OK, the developer wants something.
[1:00:55] Here's an opportunity to have the CFT.
[1:00:59] But this isn't figured out yet.
[1:01:00] So I'm not sure that would have been appropriate discussion.
[1:01:03] But I would like to see those if this goes through when this goes through.
[1:01:07] I'd like to see those in each of those conversations, because that is a way to recap
[1:01:12] the impact.
[1:01:12] The financial impact that the new property changes are having on the existence of
[1:01:20] I was pleasantly surprised.
[1:01:22] It was as low as it is to be quite honest.
[1:01:26] And so I, you know, this is exactly what we asked for,
[1:01:31] and please, there's no.
[1:01:33] Right.
[1:01:33] The only other alternative is lowering police services in not being
[1:01:38] forced safety in California and falling into that dark hole.
[1:01:43] So yeah, I'm okay with this, so I want to make a motion.
[1:01:50] Is there a motion in the header was just good.
[1:01:52] I believe we just need concurrence to move forward.
[1:01:57] We have moved to concur.
[1:01:58] We've got a motion and I'll second the concurrence.
[1:02:04] Direction is good.
[1:02:06] We have direction.
[1:02:11] Yes, Mayor.
[1:02:12] Now we have your direction.
[1:02:13] And we will go ahead and consider police services in community facilities districts on any current and for future developments.
[1:02:24] Great.
[1:02:24] Thank
[1:02:29] you.
[1:02:30] We have.
[1:02:33] Next is presentation action discussion item 10 v as consider disposition.
[1:02:37] Direction for 112 12 24 and 136 first street and consider disposition direction for 224 and 236 Charles Street.
[1:02:47] I believe we have some recusals.
[1:02:49] Yes, Mr. Mayor.
[1:02:51] I'm recusing myself from the consideration of this agenda item until the recusals segment that
[1:02:55] applies to properties 224 and 236.
[1:02:58] Charlestrade has been acted upon by the rest of the city council.
[1:03:01] This is because those properties are located within a thousand beats of my residents on
[1:03:06] Charlestrade.
[1:03:06] Thank you.
[1:03:09] Mr. Mayor.
[1:03:09] I'm also reducing myself from consideration in the agenda item until the recusals segment
[1:03:14] that applies to properties at 224 into 36 Charles Street has been acted upon by the rest
[1:03:21] of City Council.
[1:03:22] This is because these properties are adjacent to property owned by my employer.
[1:03:27] Thank you.
[1:03:29] Thank you.
[1:03:47] All right.
[1:03:48] This is Jennifer.
[1:03:49] Good evening, Mayor.
[1:03:49] And City Council members.
[1:03:52] I do have a script regarding the segmentation discussion that I will read or as quickly
[1:03:57] as I can.
[1:03:59] So, as we were talking about this agenda item is for City Council to consider and provide feedback on certain city on properties on first street and child street, staff report and presentation of this agenda item is being divided into two sections.
[1:04:12] First we will, we've already heard the refusal statements, so we're just going to address the refusal segment.
[1:04:20] The effective council members have already read their statements and left the DIA, so check that off.
[1:04:25] And then what we're going to do now is I will go through the full presentation on all of the properties after the presentation.
[1:04:34] We can ask for public comments on the agenda item.
[1:04:38] And then we'll seek City Council's consideration on first the Charles Street Pros properties, which are the recute users segment.
[1:04:43] Once we have discussion and decision on that section of property, I will bring the other
[1:04:49] council members back and we'll have the discussion on the first street properties.
[1:04:55] I think that covers it.
[1:05:00] I'll go ahead and start the presentation.
[1:05:10] Okay, so first, we'll provide, I'll try to make it a brief refresher on the Sir Plus Land Act. I understand that. Most of you are probably well aware at this point, but in case we have some new folks in the audience. Basically, local governments must follow the Sir Plus Land Act when property owned by the agency is deemed no longer needed for a government use. The SLA governs not only the sale of property, but long term leases of 15 or more years.
[1:05:36] The process involves declaring a properties surplus or exempt surplus and following the procedures outlined in the SLA.
[1:05:42] Generally for surplus properties it means offering the property to the interested affordable housing agencies school districts or open space agencies.
[1:05:50] Those parties have 60 days to respond and if responses are received.
[1:05:54] There is a nine required 90 day good faith negotiation process.
[1:05:58] If there is no agreement on a deal after that 90 day period, the agencies free to dispose of the property to the general public.
[1:06:04] The SLA does require that a covenant be recorded on the property that if ten or more residential units are built 15% of them must be affordable.
[1:06:17] For exempt surplus property it means making findings that the property is exempt.
[1:06:22] And so those findings include land size of less than half neeker, not located near the coast state park historical place or adjacent to affordable housing already affordable housing development.
[1:06:32] The exempt surplus designation is a shorter process.
[1:06:35] It does not include the 60 or 90D notice and negotiation periods in land can be disposed
[1:06:41] of 30 days after the exemption determination has been provided to each CD.
[1:06:48] And then beyond the SLA, depending on the type of property that we're disposing, there may
[1:06:52] be other requirements related to the zoning code planning commission approval or property
[1:06:58] used as Parkland is surplus and need to comply with other requirements.
[1:07:06] So generally we have discussed these properties before in November of 2025 when we had
[1:07:13] the initial property workshop.
[1:07:15] At that time, all of these parcels were encumbered by an ENA with the Area Housing Authority,
[1:07:20] as part of a future scattered site affordable housing development.
[1:07:24] Since that discussion, the area housing authority has terminated their ENA,
[1:07:29] citing, changed economic conditions that make the development project and feasible.
[1:07:35] And so, just as part of the discussion tonight, which is a few reminders,
[1:07:40] the properties at 224 and 236 tarls may pull it.
[1:07:44] Which is the refusal segment.
[1:07:47] Oh, sorry.
[1:07:50] Our successor housing agency parcels as well as the properties on 1, 2, 4, and 1, 3, 6 first street.
[1:07:57] Because they were purchased with the RD housing funds, any proceeds of their sale,
[1:08:01] I need to be deposited in the successor housing agency fund.
[1:08:05] Similarly, if the city likes to keep the parcels, then we just have to make a transfer from city funds to the successor housing agency funds.
[1:08:12] that funds have to be used specifically for construction of new affordable housing or
[1:08:18] preservation of existing units in a portion of it can be used for homelessness prevention
[1:08:23] and administrative costs. Also the property look at that located at 1-1-2 for a
[1:08:29] street is a bond funded property. So the proceeds of that sale if it is determined to be sold
[1:08:35] would have to be, I used D.Fee's outstanding RDA housing.
[1:08:42] So, the parcels are all zoned R1.
[1:08:45] There are approximately 7,405 square feet each.
[1:08:50] Should the city council move forward with this position of the properties?
[1:08:54] We believe that the properties at 224 and 236 tarl.
[1:08:57] Street could be considered exempt surplus property,
[1:09:01] and we would be subject to that shorter disposition period.
[1:09:05] But the properties on first street by virtue of being three properties continues to each other to be safe.
[1:09:11] It's best to put those properties through the full SLA because if they do get purchased by one buyer,
[1:09:17] the properties would be subject to the full SLA.
[1:09:19] So we just get it out of the way and then see what happens.
[1:09:22] We can still, it wouldn't prohibit us from selling them individually though.
[1:09:27] So as noted, the purpose of our discussion for tonight is to receive direction from the city council,
[1:09:32] regarding retention or disposition of the properties and for the first
[1:09:37] recusals segment we do have the Charles Street properties so I do have those
[1:09:41] I've just to remind you there to the east of Bard in Charles. Again 7,400
[1:09:48] by Square Feet, Perlatt's own Darwin eligible to be declared exempt
[1:09:52] surplus land as we mentioned. And then I'll just talk about, maybe we can talk.
[1:10:01] And then I can go over the other ones when the other council members come back. So we'll stop here and we will entertain discussion and direction on the charge of street parcels.
[1:10:12] Thank you. A question to the staff.
[1:10:19] Not anymore.
[1:10:20] Okay. What are these properties owned right now? It's residential.
[1:10:25] Yes, are one.
[1:10:31] So with these two, I don't want to get into a future conversation about something else, but I think I'd rather want to keep these ones open for possibilities, possibly at parkies.
[1:10:46] Yeah, that's good question and stuff.
[1:10:48] I'm sorry, I got excited.
[1:10:50] I got excited.
[1:10:51] He's going to get into it.
[1:10:53] And I think it made me relate to the point, the question you were asking.
[1:10:56] Thank you, Mr. Sandra, you give me far too much credit for my retention of the surplus land act and I appreciate that kindness.
[1:11:06] You'd made a statement that if we want, I almost wanted you to read the line again.
[1:11:12] If we want to keep the parcels, we would just have to transfer funds if I heard you write.
[1:11:18] If we wanted to keep the parcels for a city use, we would not have to go through the SLA at this time.
[1:11:26] or would we be wise to go through the SLA process to get it cleared, maybe you can give
[1:11:32] me a little clearer.
[1:11:33] The transfer of the funds just clears the successor housing agency designation from the
[1:11:37] parcels.
[1:11:38] So we would not have to go through the SLA, but if we wanted to do something other than affordable
[1:11:43] housing with them, we would just have to make that transfer from unrestricted C funds to the
[1:11:49] successor housing agency fund.
[1:11:50] And then the city would be free to do whatever they would like with it, right now with
[1:11:55] success or housing agency designation, we either have to, we have to sell it to, develop
[1:12:02] affordable housing, which we've not been successful at doing or sell it so that we can regain
[1:12:07] the funds for the success or housing agency fund. Perfect. So far it makes sense even to me.
[1:12:14] If we were to transfer the funds so it gets out of the designation,
[1:12:21] assume it has a city use
[1:12:22] 20 years from now or whatever time frame I tried to avoid the 15 year mark 20 years from now we decide oh
[1:12:29] We want to sell it. Do we then have to go back to affordable housing or since we've transferred it out of the
[1:12:36] designation then we could sell it that seems like a bit of a loophole
[1:12:39] Right, it's if you decide in the future that you have no municipal purpose for the property and then it would have to go through the SLA
[1:12:46] Just like any other unrestricted city property that we have it would have to go through it again
[1:12:52] Yeah. Well, we're not. So the process of the transferring, you're not
[1:12:57] deeming the property, except surplus when you transfer the funds, you're just
[1:13:01] changing the use it that will how the city can use the property. But it's not
[1:13:06] actually going through the surplus land act in that regard. So if you decide to
[1:13:10] keep it and we want to explore some other non-residential use for it, if we make
[1:13:17] that fund transfer, then we're free to do what we would like municipal
[1:13:21] Well, what municipal purpose we would like to do with it, if that makes sense?
[1:13:25] It does.
[1:13:28] But then municipal use for years, we decided to sell it later, it has to go back to
[1:13:33] a formalism.
[1:13:34] If we were to go through SLA now, and an acceptable agreement was not, or an acceptable offer
[1:13:41] was not made, does that then become free and clear, or can we then buy it from ourselves
[1:13:49] without having the requirement to go back to a formal housing
[1:13:55] developers later?
[1:13:57] So because this parcel would qualify as exempt surplus in any scenario,
[1:14:02] so even if you retain it for a municipal use now,
[1:14:05] we make the fund transfer to pay back the housing agency.
[1:14:09] And we decide to do a municipal use on it.
[1:14:13] then the, um, oh my god, that was my turn to thought, that's terrible.
[1:14:20] Sorry, and then in the future, you know, we decide that we're not going to have a
[1:14:24] municipal use for it and we decide to go back and surplus it.
[1:14:28] It would be part of the exempt surplus.
[1:14:30] We could exempt surplus this property.
[1:14:32] So it wouldn't have to be offered to affordable housing developers.
[1:14:35] It could just be disposed of, you know, once we do the paper work with HCD.
[1:14:39] So if we keep it and we want to do something with it, we're free to do that, because the city owns it now as the successor housing units, it's just taking away the shade of the successor housing units by transferring the funds for the land.
[1:15:02] I think so. Thank you. I just want to clarify that somehow. Without the background accounting and shifting around of titles of land, this land does not have to go through the SLA. We don't have to go through formal housing. It could essentially be whatever we want.
[1:15:27] Can we sell it as commercial?
[1:15:29] I'm not saying we're going to, but could you do that?
[1:15:32] I mean, that's a bigger question.
[1:15:34] But I mean, effectively, no, because commercial isn't a municipal use.
[1:15:40] So it's sort of a two-prong approach.
[1:15:43] I think if the city council should decide they want to maintain the property,
[1:15:49] not dispose of it for municipal use.
[1:15:51] And that means municipal use is something else.
[1:15:56] you know, then you can do that. We just need to do the counting.
[1:16:02] We've got that, so we can do that.
[1:16:03] Yeah, and then we want to sell it for something else.
[1:16:08] To be developed as a residential or commercial or something.
[1:16:13] How do you go through that?
[1:16:14] And that would have to go through the surplus land back.
[1:16:17] But the process would be the shorter process.
[1:16:21] So you wouldn't necessarily have to offer it to affordable housing developers.
[1:16:24] you would go through the shorter process and you could sell it, you know, a person may
[1:16:29] want to do a single family home or whatever, on both of those lots, that would be what would
[1:16:35] happen after you go through the surplus land act. Right, so you have to do surplus land act,
[1:16:39] you could do residential or commercial or whatever in that. The person you purchase is it, could you?
[1:16:44] Okay, you don't have to engage in a good faith negotiation with anyone.
[1:16:50] the president.
[1:16:53] Okay.
[1:16:54] That makes sense.
[1:16:55] That makes sense?
[1:16:56] Yes.
[1:16:58] Quick question.
[1:16:58] Have we done or will there be an appraisal for that we know, and I'm assuming we have to
[1:17:05] buy it at today's market value?
[1:17:07] Yeah.
[1:17:07] And we have not done the appraisal, but yeah, would there be a appraisal and that would
[1:17:12] be come back with that land value for the city council?
[1:17:15] And it would be appraised as vacant residential property.
[1:17:19] And if we were not to keep it in transfer funds for municipal use, would we be selling these as both individual parcels and
[1:17:28] as well as together? Yeah, it would you would be sort of like what about you know what people approach you what they want to do and then you make the decision on
[1:17:37] on the sale. Do we have an estimate of what these these parcels would cost if you don't hold me to it. I will give you
[1:17:48] to the land value on Walnut Canyon less because they're not as large. So maybe in the $200,000
[1:17:56] range, there's a little bit of interest in drawles for you right now I think for building
[1:18:02] custom homes I'd be curious to see what their appraisals actually come out out. And would
[1:18:08] it be coming from general funds or from another fund source? That would be up to the city council
[1:18:13] decide it would just have to be some other unrestricted and probably the general.
[1:18:19] That's what I figured.
[1:18:21] Thank you.
[1:18:24] We have, to right now it's residential.
[1:18:28] If we change the use to something that's not residential, does that mean our renal numbers need
[1:18:33] to be shifted somewhere else?
[1:18:36] I would ask Mr. Spondello on that.
[1:18:38] I'm not up to speed on renal anymore.
[1:18:44] It's a question I think we'd want to be developed a little more deliberately regarding the proposal.
[1:18:50] I don't believe that these sites are included in our site inventory as affordable housing sites,
[1:18:56] so there may be a secondary obligation to ensure that that loss doesn't carry forward.
[1:19:01] Yeah, so under the Housing Crisis Act, a city is not allowed to change the zoning of a property
[1:19:08] that was zoned as a residential use to a non-residential use.
[1:19:13] As of, I believe what it was zoned for as of,
[1:19:16] I think it's July 1, 2018, or it might be January 1, 2018,
[1:19:22] but whatever that, from the 2018 date on,
[1:19:25] if it was zoned residential, you can't change that
[1:19:28] to non-residential use without having to make up
[1:19:31] the loss acreage.
[1:19:33] So the acreage here, if you would have changed it
[1:19:35] to different zoning designation,
[1:19:36] you'd have to make up that loss of acreage somewhere else and within 180 days
[1:19:41] up zone that other property. We're already so far over our renal numbers already.
[1:19:46] I can't imagine that two small parcels would make. So this is not renal.
[1:19:50] So there's two different known net loss provisions under state law. We have the known
[1:19:55] net loss under housing element law, which is where we're talking about the site inventory.
[1:20:00] So if this is not a housing element site, we don't have to worry about the arena numbers. There is a different
[1:20:06] known net loss under the Housing Crisis Act, which expressly provides that you can't downzone property
[1:20:12] from residential use to a non-residential use or decrease the density from where what it existed
[1:20:19] as of January 1, 2018, without having to upzone similar egreg, elsewhere in the city.
[1:20:34] So, just for clarity, if we were to decide this is open space,
[1:20:42] and a municipal use, we would
[1:20:44] then have to go find another set of parcels of land and increase that density within
[1:20:51] 180 days in order to make this exactly what it is today with the House on it.
[1:20:59] Yes, making a fine leak that code section for you and read it to you for life.
[1:21:02] I believe you might. I don't mean to have a town if I do it is with the State of California not with you, but
[1:21:10] Thank you for that clarity.
[1:21:15] This is probably too really to ask this question, but Mr. Spondale, do you have an idea in mind of how you would go about this
[1:21:23] equation here
[1:21:24] The designation of other
[1:21:27] property in the city. I think that's I think that's outside the scope of what we're discussing right now
[1:21:33] think what we're focusing right now really is does the city want to retain these two parcels
[1:21:40] for a city use or does the city want to declare them surplus land and dispose of the property.
[1:21:47] And so we don't need to necessarily discuss tonight what that use would be what we have to
[1:21:52] absorb any of those changes. I think it's just do we want to keep them or not.
[1:21:58] I think would, yeah, one is they can plant it, obviously.
[1:22:04] In my opinion, it might change whether or not we want to retain these parcels based
[1:22:08] on the impact that it is likely to have.
[1:22:11] So what we have to put a different agenda item together in the future to have a broader scope
[1:22:15] in order to have that conversation.
[1:22:20] I want to let me just put this forward while that question sits, but there are a number
[1:22:24] of uses permitted in this zone that do not involve residential development.
[1:22:30] government uses, for example, could be developed in the R1 zone as is, but again, all the further.
[1:22:37] And so the agenda item, expressly, says, provide direction to staff on disposition or retention of properties.
[1:22:47] So, I mean, that's what's before you do you want to retain or do you want to dispose?
[1:22:50] I think if we're talking about, you know, what should we reason it as, I think that's probably going outside the scope,
[1:22:57] But just do we want to retain or not?
[1:23:00] Yeah, council member means yes.
[1:23:02] Oh, whatever direction you provide us on these properties,
[1:23:04] we would have to come back to you in a future agenda item
[1:23:07] because based on what your decision is tonight,
[1:23:10] could then impact other items or things that are related
[1:23:14] to your decision this evening.
[1:23:15] So we would have to come back and return to you.
[1:23:19] I appreciate that.
[1:23:19] I think the difficult part, and I think this is
[1:23:21] what you're getting at council member means,
[1:23:23] is that how do we know if we should be?
[1:23:27] keeping me or disposing of them if we don't know what the repercussions going to be, if we
[1:23:33] need to change some other parcel. So I guess that's my question. I feel like I need more information
[1:23:38] to make this decision tonight. Right. So I think that's what that next meeting is. So I can kind of
[1:23:43] tie that one together. I think we're looking at it right now is do we want to, if we want to go with it
[1:23:49] and keep it the same thing like that or do we want to look into alternative uses, if alternative
[1:23:53] of uses is what we want to look into.
[1:23:56] That's when we'll hear from Doug about how that would work, how we'd pencil that whole thing
[1:24:00] out and we can make that decision to do that at the time or not.
[1:24:04] Does that make sense?
[1:24:07] Did I get that?
[1:24:07] Oh, it makes sense.
[1:24:08] Good.
[1:24:09] And right yet.
[1:24:10] It makes no sense.
[1:24:12] I understand.
[1:24:15] So do you have all the questions asked?
[1:24:17] I think we have all the questions asked.
[1:24:18] Okay, so we want to do that.
[1:24:20] Any other questions?
[1:24:21] Yeah, I mean, Councillor Gistick, I'd like to ask.
[1:24:23] Yes, you're absolutely correct.
[1:24:24] I mean, you provide us direction this evening.
[1:24:26] We would have to come back and provide you other contexts
[1:24:28] and impacts.
[1:24:30] So it's not as if your decision tonight is final.
[1:24:33] You can simply direct staff to go in a certain direction
[1:24:35] and then come back with more information.
[1:24:38] OK, be sure.
[1:24:41] Do we need speakers?
[1:24:45] No, Mr. Mayor, not on item 10A.
[1:24:47] OK, I'll discuss.
[1:24:50] So as I said, when I jumped in earlier,
[1:24:52] I'd like to explore municipal uses.
[1:25:17] This morning, press
[1:25:31] that right now, is that I don't mean to talk to you guys, but.
[1:25:35] Well, it's not taking you through a cell-way, but it's either disposing of it or keeping
[1:25:39] it.
[1:25:40] So I want to keep it.
[1:25:42] We want to keep it.
[1:25:43] We want to explore.
[1:25:44] Look at municipal uses.
[1:25:45] We're not going to talk about what types of uses those would be necessarily, because that would
[1:25:50] be not agendas, and we couldn't do that.
[1:25:53] Can we ask for that direction, though, Marisol?
[1:25:56] Yes, I think we do need further direction, so that when the item comes back, we can
[1:26:00] have the better understanding of we are that means we are all interested in keeping
[1:26:05] these these two lots but we would like to know what the trade-off is going to be
[1:26:10] for keeping these two lots and potentially changing them to other municipal
[1:26:15] uses. So you're saying municipal uses are we saying park park?
[1:26:19] That's what we can't talk about right?
[1:26:22] I think you can generally say if you want to keep it for a city use then that is
[1:26:27] It means it's not, you're not just suppose that it is surplus, you're actually using it for a city purpose and then we could come back with an agenda item explaining precisely what that means in terms of okay, we're going to have to come up with, you know, 7,405 square feet per lot somewhere else
[1:26:48] And here are some possible locations or, you know, that would be brought back to you.
[1:26:53] But I think generally we wanted to know because we heard commercial also.
[1:26:56] So we just wanted to make sure we understood what municipal nets.
[1:27:01] Yeah, municipal is not commercial.
[1:27:03] So yes.
[1:27:04] So municipal could be a lot of different things.
[1:27:06] So we wanted to see what that is.
[1:27:07] Commercial would be the SLA going to that whole process, which we don't want to do.
[1:27:12] Correct?
[1:27:13] We might want to do.
[1:27:14] Depending on the options we can talk about.
[1:27:17] in the words that I thought I wasn't allowed to use.
[1:27:19] Anybody watching at home, well, rightfully judges us to not know anything that we're talking about,
[1:27:26] but I don't know what I can say.
[1:27:28] I absolutely would like to see this come back in a way that we can have a discussion about,
[1:27:33] which I think means that we do not want to move forward with those in the property at this time.
[1:27:39] But I think in order for us to be able to come back to you with more information,
[1:27:44] And I think what we're trying to get to earlier is it is allowable for you to provide us
[1:27:49] direction whether you want it to be open space, you want it to be some other thing,
[1:27:56] or because at least we can provide a little bit more detail and context when we come back
[1:28:00] to you at a future date.
[1:28:01] You guys will stop me if I start saying things and that's what to say.
[1:28:04] But I could see that being potentially a park or a parking lot or some other sort of building
[1:28:13] the city might use. If it's determined that that is not something we want to do with it,
[1:28:20] then taking it through the process of disposing it could be perfectly fine. We'd like to have
[1:28:27] that. But I think that there are municipal users like Parkland parking lots or a city building
[1:28:33] that could fit there. It could be a playground if we had to move a playground for some
[1:28:38] reason, the future, be that, it could be a community garden, it could be a lot of different
[1:28:43] things. However, the cost of those things is going to be based off of what the trade-offs
[1:28:49] are, which is. All right, we've noted that. Is that enough direction? Yes, I think that is.
[1:28:55] Thank you. Okay. Thank you for all of that staff. We appreciate it. Okay, we can move on to
[1:29:01] the next one though.
[1:29:04] Let me just go get the other council.
[1:29:29] Okay, so we've gone through the
[1:29:31] Excuse us, segments.
[1:29:32] So we now we can move on to 112, 12, 12, 24,
[1:29:35] and 136 first street.
[1:29:38] All right, so next step, like we said,
[1:29:40] we've got 124 and 136 first street,
[1:29:43] which are these successor housing agency parcels in this group.
[1:29:48] And this successor has just,
[1:29:51] just, Council Member Barrett and Castro,
[1:29:54] were you able to watch the information and stuff
[1:29:57] and back, okay.
[1:29:58] I don't want to waste time, I've heard it.
[1:29:59] Thanks for watching!
[1:30:00] So, successor has the agency parcel for 124.136 for Street. Lot sizes are 7,000, 45 square feet as well.
[1:30:08] The bond-funded parcel in this group is 112 for Street. Same lot size as the other two and zoned are one.
[1:30:16] If we did decide to move forward with disposition of this group of properties, we would be going through the full SLA process with negotiation with the four of the housing developers.
[1:30:27] etc. So, open to here, Council discussion on the item.
[1:30:32] Thank you.
[1:30:33] Any questions?
[1:30:39] I assume no appraisals have been done on these either, correct?
[1:30:42] We have not done yet.
[1:30:44] When it comes time to appraisals, will they be appraising at both the individual
[1:30:48] lot and potential of all three?
[1:30:52] We appraise them as individual lots and sell them as individual lots,
[1:30:56] Even if they're being purchased by one individual, thank you.
[1:31:02] If we sell them as individual lots and they're purchased by one individual, do we have the availability to dictate that they stay in individual lots or is that our heads?
[1:31:14] In terms of, you know, if one person is buying three lots, you only want to see three single family homes or whatever sort of similar to Walnut Canyon, I believe we can structure the deal the same.
[1:31:30] Okay, there are questions.
[1:31:33] Do we have any speakers?
[1:31:35] Excuse me.
[1:31:36] No, Mr. Mayor, no speakers on the side.
[1:31:38] I think
[1:31:46] this location here is not a location where you'd expect to put in any other
[1:31:52] municipal types of views as a ceremony and like housing makes the most sense.
[1:32:00] I would agree.
[1:32:02] I think that there's already a park nearby and I think housing is a good use here.
[1:32:09] I think, as you said, as we're able to direct if proposals come through, you know, certainly
[1:32:17] aiming towards keeping consistent with the neighborhood, that was being important to me.
[1:32:22] Yeah, I agree. That was why I was asking that. I want to make sure if there was development,
[1:32:25] it was going to be, it was going to fit in with that neighborhood and not be an outlier.
[1:32:35] Okay. Well, that's the direction.
[1:32:38] Yes, Mayor Council, we have direction to keep it residential and move forward with the disposition process.
[1:32:53] All right.
[1:32:53] We'll move on to you at 10C.
[1:32:58] As considered, disposition direction for 15404 Princeton Avenue, the senator.
[1:33:11] Good evening, Mayor.
[1:33:12] in the city council, I do want to just sort of correct the address listed. I've been here
[1:33:20] a very long time and when we purchased this property, that was the address I knew it
[1:33:23] has and that is no longer the address just because it's been vacant land for so long. So
[1:33:28] just to clarify, I know there was some confusion on that, but these are the Princeton Avenue properties.
[1:33:33] I'm going to spare you the surplus land act speech again, but just suffice it to say that
[1:33:41] the disposition of this parcel should we decide to dispose of it would be subject to the
[1:33:47] surplus land act.
[1:33:50] So just to go over the property history again, this property was purchased
[1:33:55] by the redevelopment agency. It was intended to be a relocation site for a fueling station
[1:34:01] that used to be located on high street. Ultimately, the project was not approved. In the redevelopment
[1:34:07] agency did continue to look for development partners with no success.
[1:34:13] In 2020, a development partner approached the city about developing a housing project
[1:34:17] at the site.
[1:34:19] At the time, there was an exemption in the Surplus Land Act for redevelopment agency
[1:34:23] properties, but it did require that all-land disposition activities conclude by December
[1:34:30] of 2022.
[1:34:32] During the due diligence process, the interested
[1:34:36] developer did find that there was some poor soil conditions,
[1:34:39] the cost of which would effectively write down the land value.
[1:34:43] Unfortunately due to the expiration of the exemption,
[1:34:46] we're not able to resolve the issue of the price
[1:34:48] and what to do with the land with the oversight board
[1:34:51] and the developer decided not to move forward.
[1:34:55] Since then, the City Council has discussed this property
[1:34:57] a couple of times, so we had the initial discussion
[1:34:59] Thanks for watching, and I'll see you in the next one.
[1:35:00] In November of 2025, we were asked to return with the appraisal value to determine if the city council
[1:35:06] would want to purchase the property. In January of 26, we did present that appraisal value and the cost
[1:35:14] of the site had increased significantly due to the property being re-azone during the general plan update.
[1:35:21] The land value increased approximately $1.2 million under the new zoning. And at the time, the city council
[1:35:27] But as if we could dialogue with the former developers and return with information related
[1:35:31] to the soils on the site and the potential right down to the land value based on those studies.
[1:35:37] I was able to obtain the developers estimates from 2022 and at that time, they had estimated
[1:35:43] approximately $960,000 to remove uncertified fill materials and remediate local faction issues.
[1:35:51] And at that time, what have written the land value down to zero based on the predatory zoning
[1:35:56] their praise value. I very conservatively I think inflated the developers
[1:36:01] cost us to get a flavor of what those land remediation costs would be
[1:36:05] today against the current appraised value and it would have a reduced
[1:36:11] land value but only around $876,000.
[1:36:19] So given the potential cost of the city to purchase a slot from the
[1:36:23] accessor, agency staff had made a recommendation to attempt to put the Surplus Land Act
[1:36:29] to put the property through the Surplus Land Act in Sullivan and because this property
[1:36:35] is subject to oversight by the Venture County Consolidated Oversight Board, the idea is that
[1:36:42] if we could show our due diligence in trying to sell the property and if we receive no
[1:36:48] offers, it could set up favorable negotiations with the oversight board to potentially purchase
[1:36:55] a property for a lower value than the appraisal value.
[1:36:59] And if offers did materialize as a part of the SLA that resulted some sort of development
[1:37:05] on the state, the city could still potentially realize some of a city council goals related
[1:37:10] to potential trails on the site by reserving an easement or negotiating that through that development.
[1:37:17] And so I did put together, here's the property, generally kind of where the trail easement
[1:37:23] would go.
[1:37:24] Obviously, as we subject to, if somebody didn't want to develop here kind of what their property
[1:37:29] layout would end up having to be in all of that, that would be generally kind of the idea.
[1:37:36] And so again, so the lot size in on paper is 2.26 acres. Again, it zoned R2.
[1:37:47] It's just under one acre of usable land given the erosion from the
[1:37:52] royal on the south side of the property and so it's you know much smaller than it looks like
[1:38:01] on paper and so we'd like to receive directions with City Council regarding retention or
[1:38:07] disposition of the property like I said we did make a staff recommendation that the City Council
[1:38:12] decline the purchase at this time but we would return to the City Council if no sale activity occurs
[1:38:17] this is also a dual successor agency item and we would be looking for a direction from the successor
[1:38:23] agency to actually move forward with the SLA process, if that was the desire, and we could
[1:38:28] again return for further direction if no sales occurred within the next 18 months.
[1:38:34] Or you can, you're free as usual to direct staff as deemed appropriate, so that's concludes
[1:38:39] my presentation on a copy answer any questions.
[1:38:43] Thank you.
[1:38:43] The very questions.
[1:38:46] Wait, you're saying yes, you have a question, do you want to go ahead?
[1:38:49] Thank you first.
[1:38:51] Thank you Jessica.
[1:38:51] So, given the erosion portion, does a trailhead follow along the part of unusable space
[1:38:59] or does it cut into or the proposed trailhead?
[1:39:02] Does it cut into usable area?
[1:39:05] So, right now where it's shown is kind of like the very edge of the usable area.
[1:39:10] But I would anticipate if somebody was going to be developing.
[1:39:13] There'd have to be doing something with that.
[1:39:15] And that would create effectively like a levy road that would allow us to put a trail in.
[1:39:20] I can't guarantee that, you know, and that's why the trail might actually move depending on how the development would be designed.
[1:39:28] But generally, I think it would make sense, because again, you'd be able to see all the wild parts of the Arroyo and the kind of different interpretive things you could do with that trail.
[1:39:39] So the follow-up question to that.
[1:39:41] Since I know that trailheads are important to us should an easement or access be required should the requirement be established prior to marketing?
[1:39:53] So we would put it in the marketing materials and then the easement would be established upon sale when the grantee's are recorded.
[1:40:00] We would at least notify potential buyers that that would be a requirement of the sale.
[1:40:06] Okay. Thank you.
[1:40:08] Excuse me.
[1:40:11] Thank you. Would this property be could we decide to transfer funds and turn this into some of their zoning
[1:40:20] like open space if we chose to?
[1:40:25] You could purchase, if you're asking if the city could purchase the property, you could purchase
[1:40:29] the property, we would just have to have the property purchase approved by the oversight
[1:40:35] board and the value of the property approved, you know, whatever that transaction cost
[1:40:40] is approved by the oversight board.
[1:40:42] Well, Council Member means as a supplement to that response, I wanted to, I've had a moment
[1:40:47] to kind of review the basis on the earlier questions.
[1:40:49] I wanted to clarify that public parks and recreation facilities are permitted in all zones.
[1:40:54] So if that's strictly the question, then a zoning change wouldn't be necessary.
[1:40:59] Perfect, and it leads straight into my question of the Housing Crisis Act of 2018, which I will admit I have studied for minutes now.
[1:41:12] It's one acre, would this be subject to the Housing Crisis Act where we would have to make up the acreage as well?
[1:41:18] No, so based on the new information that was just provided, if we're not changing the general plan land use designation or changing the zone, which it sounds like we don't need to.
[1:41:29] Then we would not need to worry about that since everything would remain the same.
[1:41:34] It would remain zoned as R2.
[1:41:38] It would just be put for a different use.
[1:41:42] But it would be remain as R2.
[1:41:45] Good. I like that answer. Great. How is that different than the Charles properties that we were just talking about?
[1:41:52] It's not. It's just now we have new information that public parks are allowed within the R1 zone as well.
[1:42:00] Is that right?
[1:42:00] Correct. Actually within all cities zones, the situation we were discussing previously was the idea that we would have to change the zoning to something non-residential.
[1:42:08] And if the intended use here is a public park or recreation facility, that is not the case.
[1:42:14] So we go back to the last item and open that back up and have it as I'll leave it.
[1:42:20] We've got direction there.
[1:42:22] That strikes all the questions I have.
[1:42:25] So it's residential, which implies that there's a certain amount of units per acre based up
[1:42:32] But if we decided to use that as a park, obviously you can't live at a park, well, you could.
[1:42:39] But we don't make up those numbers.
[1:42:43] Correct.
[1:42:44] Because the requirement to make up those numbers is only triggered if we were to change it to a non-residential zoning.
[1:42:49] Got it.
[1:42:51] All right.
[1:42:52] Don't understand that.
[1:42:53] But it makes sense.
[1:42:55] Good.
[1:42:56] Yeah.
[1:42:57] Dr. Kesher.
[1:42:57] I just wanted to build on council member.
[1:43:00] of the other's question about the sale attempt that includes the trailer has.
[1:43:05] I love that great, great suggestion.
[1:43:07] Does that in some ways, in some hypothetical scenario, or someone would be very interested
[1:43:12] in this and it would be, it would be for them just a make or break to have to have that
[1:43:20] as a trail.
[1:43:20] Does that disadvantage just in that first attempt at a sale?
[1:43:25] Yeah, I mean, I think it could, I think it could, I don't have, you know, really just depends
[1:43:33] on sort of, you know, what they're proposing, you know, if something was a lower density,
[1:43:37] it might be harder for them to recruit costs related to that, but give in sort of the remediation
[1:43:43] in the erosion and for the oil that would have to be dealt with, they're probably going
[1:43:47] to be doing something higher density anyway, and so maybe they could, could cover the
[1:43:53] also that but I don't I can't say till we know what somebody needs to do so that the follow-up
[1:43:58] then is that is it's possible for us to state our like priorities but without like limiting ourselves
[1:44:04] to that we would only accept offers that included that as a provision. Yeah we can we can put that
[1:44:10] in our as our requirements that we would be retaining some kind of a trail easement you know and maybe
[1:44:15] that the work around to maintaining the trail is being flexible with how the trail actually goes through
[1:44:21] of development? Yeah, and obviously, it's hypothetical, but one of the things that was clear
[1:44:27] in the staff report is whatever is done with this property, there's going to need to be extensive
[1:44:32] soil remediation. And so how much of the soil and how much of the land that there potentially
[1:44:38] would be applying a soil remediation criteria to land that is ultimately going to be used for a trail
[1:44:44] Seems like that could be, you know, limiting, yeah, thank you.
[1:44:51] A couple more questions.
[1:44:54] How confident are you in your, you're inflated?
[1:45:00] 22 estimates, would it be who was to get new geos and new estimates?
[1:45:07] We could. I will tell you that just from experience, we've done that with the daily group
[1:45:13] site. We did go out and get geotechnical reports. We had geotechnical consultants provide estimates
[1:45:20] for us, but they were off by well over half a million dollars because the ultimate remediation
[1:45:28] costs are based on what you're doing with the site and that varies because daily group
[1:45:34] went three stories and some areas they had more extensive ground remediation than we
[1:45:38] initially estimated. So I think we could do that. The geotecker ports are not inexpensive to
[1:45:48] do.
[1:45:51] But if that's the direction from the council we could certainly do that and try to get an
[1:45:58] putting these this on the market for 1.98 million and then supplying the 2022 soils.
[1:46:07] I don't have their documentation. I have their email with a gave us their issues with it and
[1:46:14] what they were dealing with. I could see if they be willing to share that talking
[1:46:18] invitation with other buyers but it's not right now it's not our document. So typically
[1:46:25] We would put it on the market at 1.98 million, and then we would say buyer do your due diligence
[1:46:30] correct.
[1:46:32] So it's possible to tell them we know that, of course, yes, you have your due diligence.
[1:46:37] So possibly, we could get a higher value than 876,000, potentially, okay, thank you.
[1:46:48] Thank you.
[1:46:49] Thank you.
[1:46:50] Thank you.
[1:46:53] Mr. Mayor, now speakers on the side of.
[1:46:55] All right.
[1:46:56] Thank you.
[1:46:59] I
[1:47:02] think there's opportunity with this site for civic use.
[1:47:08] Obviously, there's potential trailhead with the development opportunity.
[1:47:14] But I think that there's more opportunity there as well as we look at pocket parks in communities
[1:47:20] and the existing pocket park for that community.
[1:47:24] happen to cross a road and go, I think that there's a potential here to look at how that could
[1:47:37] play out as a park. And I think we also haven't done, we haven't gone to the overstate board yet.
[1:47:45] We haven't said, look, this is going to be really hard to build on. It's going to be really expensive.
[1:47:50] if it's got all these issues, we resound it on ourselves, right?
[1:47:56] Through the general plan, like, would you honor this lower price for us to buy this property
[1:48:02] and do it? Why shouldn't we ask that question before we go through all this program or
[1:48:07] all if it's something that we do have a desire to use? I don't see, yeah, I
[1:48:22] guess my concern
[1:48:23] with keeping all of these parcels as the money to purchase them?
[1:48:31] Right, yes, my concern too.
[1:48:34] What would that money come from for purchase this?
[1:48:39] Again, we'd have to look at, you know, our available funds.
[1:48:42] It could be general funds, special projects.
[1:48:43] It just sort of depends on, you know, where we would want to identify it.
[1:48:47] So I don't know where I would pay for it from.
[1:48:51] But I think it would depend on the value, right?
[1:48:53] The amount that we were.
[1:48:54] Right. It was a park use. It would be more money than we'd want to spend on parks.
[1:48:59] It's worth thinking now.
[1:49:01] Yeah, Mr. American, I've built on that question. This is just for staff in general.
[1:49:05] Obviously, we don't know which funding it could come from.
[1:49:08] Is it conceivable that if we did want to purchase it, that that could affect our ability to fund CIPs,
[1:49:16] that ultimately we want to move forward with?
[1:49:20] Yes, Dr. Crash, it's a possibility if some of our CAP projects depends on the general fund or special projects ones.
[1:49:28] Okay, thank you.
[1:49:30] It's pretty much undevelopable.
[1:49:33] I mean, the trailhead access there.
[1:49:34] That trail is something that we're looking at probably like 20 years, 30 years from now that being built up.
[1:49:41] It was sooner than that, but there's multiple areas to put a trail ahead to the trail that doesn't exist yet.
[1:49:53] I don't feel great.
[1:49:55] A couple of buying that and turning it into a park when our parks need so much more that is...
[1:50:00] And that undevelopable rocky dirty spot in the corner. So, I walked into spend money on that, but having
[1:50:09] it stay open, isn't bad either. I'm going to develop on it. So, that's what I'm sitting right
[1:50:16] now.
[1:50:17] My wouldn't be go with staff recommendation. To me, as a reminder, we're broke. And I've got a lot of things
[1:50:28] want to do? And I believe staff's evaluation that this property might be priced artificially
[1:50:38] high. Why not let it go through and then we have the tangible evidence to go back to the
[1:50:43] board and say this is the silver price. I don't the answer your question counts from Barrett.
[1:50:47] I don't see any downside to asking, hey, did you guys let us buy it for a buck or whatever
[1:50:53] the price might be. But in the absence of doing that and getting that answer back, then I
[1:51:00] would say let's move staff for a explanation. Yeah, we're going to buy it because it's not
[1:51:04] developable and worthless. And then it can just be anything we want really. But putting money into
[1:51:11] that versus what we're bleeding money, I couldn't do that.
[1:51:18] But I do think there's a valid question.
[1:51:20] And I don't know if we can modify this to find out if there is a conversation to be asked
[1:51:28] to your point, y'all, so I'm very, yeah, and I guess I'd ask for staff to take a guess
[1:51:35] is that a viable outcome?
[1:51:40] As far as can approach any oversight board?
[1:51:43] Yeah, and just kidding, we're not going to pay that.
[1:51:47] You know, I don't think there's any harm in asking.
[1:51:50] Um, you know, the oversight board is tasked with, you know, selling property and, and, and wrapping up redevelopment agency activities that are in a, the most advantageous way to the taxing entities that's their, um, sort of, uh, goal, right.
[1:52:05] So there's no, um, harm and asking first and then if they're kind of like, well, they may come back and say, well, have you even tried to sell it and you know, what if anything do come back and that's the response, then we can come back and say this is what they told us.
[1:52:18] we should probably move it through the surplus land act if it's not successful then we'd like
[1:52:22] you're saying Tom would have or Mr. Means would have the intangible or the tangible evidence
[1:52:28] to go back to them with and have a better conversation. So it could go, you know, two things
[1:52:33] can be done at this, you know, in that regard. Yeah, I'd be in an, I don't know, maybe cutting off
[1:52:39] conversation. I mean, I'm inclined to ask staff to have that conversation if the door is shut,
[1:52:45] then perceive a staff recommendation if there's an opening to that conversation. We're not in a rush.
[1:52:52] This this land isn't going to all of a sudden, you know, be a hot ticket item.
[1:52:57] So if there is an opening, let's hear it again, let's talk about it.
[1:53:02] So if this land sits vacant and does not get built upon and we don't want to buy it either, what happens to it?
[1:53:09] That's an excellent question. I would think, you know, at that point, you know, the oversight board does have to get these sort of properties off of their books, and so again, that may just go more towards even if we did want to buy it, like a much reduced land value just to clear it off off the oversight board books.
[1:53:27] Right, which would be my goal.
[1:53:30] Yeah, and then you can, you vacant forever until we wanted to do something with it, right?
[1:53:36] Perfect.
[1:53:37] You buy a per dollar and have a park there. Well, I mean, I think the opportunity of the park allows for an opportunity at a different location
[1:53:46] if that makes sense without going too far.
[1:53:49] So,
[1:53:50] Oh, you were watching.
[1:53:53] So,
[1:53:55] That's where I'm coming from.
[1:53:56] So I think the more that we ask and talk to the oversight board,
[1:54:01] I don't see a harm in asking.
[1:54:05] But is my suggestion acceptable to you that we ask?
[1:54:11] Absolutely.
[1:54:11] It's hard to know.
[1:54:12] Yep.
[1:54:13] Move to the process and if it isn't, then we open up and have another discussion.
[1:54:17] So you asked the question that you do a price for what would cost?
[1:54:21] Is it a dollar?
[1:54:22] Well, it's on the ask.
[1:54:23] Where's your cutoff point?
[1:54:24] let's play this game again. Where do you cut that off at?
[1:54:28] I have no idea what the value of that property would be until it goes through the process
[1:54:33] and we see that nobody wants to buy it at any price that I will offer a dollar.
[1:54:37] Because it can come back with a number that's still high but a lot lower than it is now,
[1:54:41] but it could be lower if no one bought it obviously.
[1:54:45] Sure. But we wouldn't know what it's asking the question.
[1:54:48] Okay, so the gist of it with me is I don't want to spend a lot of money on any of this stuff.
[1:54:53] And if it's free, I'll take it. So if you want to find that out in a certain way, I'm okay with that too.
[1:55:00] So to clarify what we'll do and staff will use directed to approach the oversight board about purchasing
[1:55:09] the property for park space or open spaces uses for the city's to retain. Take their temperature
[1:55:15] on that and see where they come back and then return to city council with that direction or if
[1:55:19] it's a flat-no move forward with surplus in the property and seeing what happens.
[1:55:25] I'm comfortable with if it's a flat now moving forward and if it's anything but a flat now then we get talked about it again
[1:55:34] And ensure we can provide a box item or something you know if we do if it is flat now when we move to the process
[1:55:40] We would also see as the successor agency board the resolution coming back to surplus
[1:55:44] It's so you'd have that you know notification as well.
[1:55:51] Is that enough direction? Do you need to move and give a second all that?
[1:55:55] We need to do, there's a recommendation here, so we have to modify that recommendation.
[1:56:02] Yeah.
[1:56:05] Yeah.
[1:56:05] I think I'm going to stand up for clarify that.
[1:56:08] We would approach the oversight board and determine if they'd be willing to sell the property
[1:56:14] at lower costs.
[1:56:15] If they do, then we would come back to the City Council report back on that.
[1:56:19] But if it's a flat now, then we would proceed with a surplus land act process.
[1:56:24] Yeah, and the only other thing because we had two recommendations one for the City Council piece in the successor agency, do we just have no
[1:56:31] Recommendation on the successor agency piece at this point or that's the only it's so weird
[1:56:39] Or let me see
[1:56:42] Maybe it's still relevant. We would kind of purchase the property and to go back and have that discussion and then return back to us
[1:56:52] if a deal can be made.
[1:56:55] Got it.
[1:56:59] Say it again.
[1:57:00] Mayor, if you would.
[1:57:01] So the recommendation would work.
[1:57:04] The motion would be to decline the purchase of the property.
[1:57:09] Right.
[1:57:09] I've been modified this to.
[1:57:12] Go back to the successor agency.
[1:57:15] To get a better deal on that.
[1:57:18] If the answer is flat.
[1:57:19] No, it's what it is then to go through the.
[1:57:28] I think the change is that we go back to the oversight board.
[1:57:35] Do you want to read that off?
[1:57:37] It's like, but you're going to try.
[1:57:40] So for the City Council, the emotion is to decline the purchase of the property at this time.
[1:57:47] But approach the oversight board and to determine whether or not they want to sell the property
[1:57:52] the lower value. If the answer is yes, we will return to the city council and report on that in a
[1:57:58] per final decision. If the answer is no, then the successor agency will move forward with the
[1:58:03] surface land act process.
[1:58:07] That's fine. It seems like it might make more sense to 0.1 and 2 here,
[1:58:14] 0.2 and 3. Our point one being approach the board, see if they'll do anything. If the answer is no,
[1:58:20] then proceed as recommended, as opposed to declining it, and then finding out if they'd
[1:58:26] offer a lower amount.
[1:58:27] Now we've already declined it, but we would need to go back and, so I think we asked first.
[1:58:33] If the answer is no, proceed with staff recommendation all the way through.
[1:58:37] If the answer is anything but no, we get to talk about it again.
[1:58:43] Do we need to clarify it again?
[1:58:45] I'm clear in that.
[1:58:47] We're all clear in that.
[1:58:48] We're all clear in that.
[1:58:48] We're all clear in that.
[1:58:49] We're all clear in that.
[1:58:49] We're all clear in that.
[1:58:51] We're all clear in that.
[1:58:52] that. So everyone is in. Yeah. Grants. Okay. All right. So you want to make a motion?
[1:59:01] Sure.
[1:59:04] I'd like to hear that out of your mouth, Mayor. Please.
[1:59:06] No, that's not if you want to make the motion. Oh, I thought you said you want me to make the motion.
[1:59:09] Would you like to make the motion? Shucks. I move exactly what we just discussed.
[1:59:16] I'll second. We have a motion in a second as amended.
[1:59:21] All in favor?
[1:59:23] Aye.
[1:59:24] Aye.
[1:59:24] Any pose?
[1:59:26] Okay.
[1:59:27] Got it.
[1:59:32] Next is presentation.
[1:59:34] Action discussion item 10D.
[1:59:35] That's a considered enhanced infrastructure financing districts.
[1:59:39] Mr. Gaga Hannah.
[1:59:41] Thank you, Mayor.
[1:59:42] Council.
[1:59:42] So this evening I will be providing an overview of enhanced infrastructure financing districts.
[1:59:50] EIFDs are not new taxes.
[1:59:52] Senate Bill 628 created EIFDs back in 2014 after the
[1:59:59] solution of redevelopment.
[2:00:00] Parliament in 2012. EIFE's capture, future, property tax increment growth to fund infrastructure and capital projects, such as roads, facilities, parks, trails, water, sewer, flood control, business, facade improvements, property acquisition, long-term deferred maintenance or rehabilitation.
[2:00:18] District boundaries for EIFE's include areas for growth, although it could be an entire city or county, and we've seen those happen.
[2:00:27] These district boundaries do not need to be contiguous, but can be used anywhere in the city,
[2:00:34] as long as they have community wide impacts.
[2:00:37] Cities may establish its own EIFD, or a may partner with another taxing agency, such
[2:00:43] as a county, to capture a portion, for instance, the county's tax increment, to return that
[2:00:52] investment back to the district, and I will note that participation EIFDs are completely
[2:00:57] voluntary.
[2:01:00] For city county partnerships, these have occurred throughout the state.
[2:01:05] It is a win-win in many scenarios, because the county will not realize those property
[2:01:10] tax growth without the city's investment in time resources and getting those projects developed
[2:01:17] through entitlement process, etc. Public financing authorities will have to be established separately,
[2:01:27] and they would be made up of the taxing entity representatives, as well as members of the public
[2:01:35] to oversee the EIFDs once they're established.
[2:01:40] This graph or this illustration shows you how the tax
[2:01:46] Incident financing works as private property investment occurs or new development occurs within a city or district.
[2:01:55] They will increase property tax revenue from their increased new property values.
[2:02:02] And when capturing those increased values, those increments could be then deposited into tax financing funds such as an EIFD, which can then be used to fund for public improvements.
[2:02:16] This graph shows you if a EIFD is formed and established there is a baseline property value
[2:02:26] that is established and then at that point any new property value and feature tax increment
[2:02:34] would then be captured above that baseline value and again a portion of that between the city
[2:02:41] or county could then be used for those types of improvements.
[2:02:44] After a set data period of time in this graph, it shows you about a 45-year period.
[2:02:51] Once the district has concluded its collection of the portion of property tax increments,
[2:02:58] then it would revert back to the city of the county receiving their normal regular property tax revenues
[2:03:03] back into their respective general funds.
[2:03:09] In terms of a discussion timeline, since this has been brought up by the Council, we first
[2:03:14] mentioned this to you last August during our financial strategies workshop, and EIFDs was
[2:03:23] a tool that you directed staff to further explore and come back to you at a future date.
[2:03:29] After August, between September, December, last year, City staff had preliminary discussions
[2:03:34] with the county of Interior about establishing an EIFD and possibly partnering with them.
[2:03:41] At that point, we also invited our real estate consultant earlier this year in January to have
[2:03:47] the meet with our own city staff to provide information about EIFDs and answer any questions or
[2:03:53] concerns staff may have about them. During this period of time, we also began hearing other cities
[2:04:00] approach the county about establishing EIFD. And at that point, the county had informed
[2:04:08] myself and city staff that they would be putting together a county policy regarding EIFDs
[2:04:14] because, again, many cities had been approaching them about it such as more part. And so earlier
[2:04:20] the year in May, the county went ahead and adopted an EIFD policy. And then some highlights of that
[2:04:28] policy or the discussions that took place at that May Board of Supervisors meeting.
[2:04:33] The auditor controller indicated that they would work with cities to identify tax rate
[2:04:41] area boundaries.
[2:04:43] Also the county also mentioned that they could establish an enlimited number of EIFD and
[2:04:51] partnerships with cities or other taxing agencies and it could be formed on a first come
[2:04:56] for serve bases, but they could decide as a county to...
[2:05:00] Stop establishing them at a certain period of time based on their decision.
[2:05:06] And then the county also under their policy-capped tax increment contribution limits to 50% with performance triggers.
[2:05:17] Other cities that expressed interest at that Board of Supervisors meeting was the city of Thousand Oaks and also the city of Ventura.
[2:05:25] The Ventura County Tax period is also made a public comment during that meeting, but they're
[2:05:33] not opposed to EIFDs, but they do have concerns about issuing any debt service and the
[2:05:39] optimistic assumptions of future property value growth.
[2:05:46] For more parts of property tax break down under Prop 13, we're basically cap basic property
[2:05:53] tax at 1% of assessed value or purchase price.
[2:05:57] And these are then capped up to 2% annually.
[2:06:01] The city of more park receives a total of 9 cents out of every property tax dollar.
[2:06:05] There is a also a supplemental submitted this evening.
[2:06:09] There was a typo in the staff report on the 9 cents rather than mistakenly indicating
[2:06:16] 90 cents on there and then in terms of how much the city receives for
[2:06:21] property tax approximately about $5 million per year goes into the general fund
[2:06:27] and then 1.4 million portion of it goes to the library fund.
[2:06:36] In terms of the steps to establish an EIFD, they would first need to be a
[2:06:41] feasibility and analysis where we would sort of define the boundaries that
[2:06:46] to estimate any future revenues with the projects would be the cost and you know preliminary
[2:06:53] fiscal analysis would be done as well. At that point we would conduct an outreach to other
[2:07:01] taxing entities, property owners, the county for instance, to determine their interest in partnering
[2:07:07] with us based on the analysis that we would generate and then come out to.
[2:07:16] And then if there is an interest, we would initiate the formal process with a resolution
[2:07:20] of a tent, establish the public financing authority, identify membership, then we would
[2:07:27] prepare an infrastructure financing plan where we would identify all the list of projects
[2:07:33] to be included in this, the financing plan, the projections, dates, duration, et cetera.
[2:07:41] Then we would go through a pre-adoption phase informing the taxing entities and partners,
[2:07:46] as well as the property owners within that district, and then we'd go through a series of
[2:07:51] public hearings, any majority protests would stop the establishment in EIFD, and then at that point
[2:07:59] would go through the approval or formation process if the taxing entities all agreed to establish
[2:08:06] it.
[2:08:10] In terms of eligible EIFD projects, it's generally any property or project with a useful
[2:08:16] life of 15 plus years that has community-wide impacts or significance, so you can see here
[2:08:22] anything from water, sewer infrastructure to roads, parking, parks, open space, any city facilities,
[2:08:30] libraries, et cetera, could be used in the EIFD funds.
[2:08:38] This is the list of EIFDs that
[2:08:41] have form in California throughout the state. I know there is a growing number of
[2:08:46] cities and counties looking into this at the moment. This next slide shows you
[2:08:52] EIFDs that have city and counties, partnerships specifically. You could see the
[2:08:58] that are with L.A. County and the respect of cities there, as well as other counties, Central
[2:09:05] Northern California. Southern California that is related to things again, water sewer roads,
[2:09:11] flood control, revitalizing a downtown area or commercial area, for instance, so you can kind of
[2:09:29] If the council was to direct staff to proceed and exploring, considering EIFDs, the next step would really be for the city to contract with a consultant to evaluate the EIFD feasibility whereby we could identify the boundaries, estimate the future property values, estimate the future tax increments for both the city and the county, and also identify a possible public facilities and projects.
[2:09:57] to be included, and then in-
[2:10:00] Any other funding sources that would be in addition to the tax increment we would receive.
[2:10:05] Costs of a consultant to do this feasibilities estimated between 30,000 to 35,000 dollars.
[2:10:14] We would then, as results of the feasibility analysis would then be presented back to the city council of future date.
[2:10:20] And then the council at that point could decide whether to proceed or not, perhaps the decision
[2:10:26] to not move forward could be because of the estimated tax increment returns are very low
[2:10:31] and may not have a significant impact on future projects we have.
[2:10:37] Or you may decide to move forward if the estimated tax increment returns are reasonable or high.
[2:10:45] And then at that point we would discuss with the county if they're interested in participating and partnering with us.
[2:10:50] And discuss the benefits to the county and other potential county-related projects that is in the district or within the city.
[2:10:59] And then we would report back to you if the county would be interested in moving forward with establishing an EIFD.
[2:11:09] That concludes my presentation.
[2:11:11] I'm happy to answer any questions.
[2:11:13] Any questions?
[2:11:17] Go ahead.
[2:11:18] The lever, an example that you provided significantly under performed its original tax increment
[2:11:23] projections, what assumptions would more park use to avoid overestimating revenue and what
[2:11:28] happens to plan projects if actual increment comes in while under the predictions?
[2:11:35] Yeah, the two samples I provide in the staff for one of which was the city of Leverne
[2:11:39] and their partnership with LA County and that has resulted in lower returns or tax increment
[2:11:46] returns that they expected. However, they are using the lower amounts to then still combine
[2:11:53] it with other funding sources so that they could move forward on some of their capital projects.
[2:12:00] I think what we could do is if the returns are not as high as we expect, if we were to
[2:12:07] establish one and you know, find out it didn't turn out as we expected, we could always reassess
[2:12:13] determine if this is still valuable to move forward and in partnership with the county.
[2:12:19] So we could always make that adjustment in the future, but, you know, it's really hard to
[2:12:24] obviously predict. I mean, we have some development projects underway that we probably know
[2:12:30] are going to happen. And so that is one way we could, you know, at least establish a certain set of
[2:12:37] assumptions about what we could realistically receive in terms of future property value growth,
[2:12:44] but for projects that are sort of questionable at this point, perhaps maybe we leave those out,
[2:12:51] so that it's not part of our substance, so we're very conservative in our projections.
[2:12:59] One more question. If more park uses the pay as you go as opposed to issuing debt, do we have any idea
[2:13:06] how many years it would take before it could accumulate enough money to make a tangible difference
[2:13:12] on a project?
[2:13:14] Yeah, I mean, that's going to be part of that feasibility analysis, so we could sort of estimate
[2:13:18] and determine how much actual money we're going to get in the future, that could make sort
[2:13:23] of a significant impact on a capital project or projects that we identify.
[2:13:29] But at this point in time, yeah, I wouldn't really know it's half of my head what that would
[2:13:32] but that analysis would provide us that information.
[2:13:36] And maybe this also goes with that analysis,
[2:13:38] but do we have any idea how much county participation
[2:13:42] would realistically be needed
[2:13:44] in order to just even support administrative and consultant costs?
[2:13:50] Yeah, I mean at this point,
[2:13:51] I mean it seems to me that the county
[2:13:53] with them establishing this EIFD policy
[2:13:57] they're at least open to the discussion
[2:13:59] and consideration when cities approach them about this.
[2:14:04] So I know there are some movement and some traction going on with the other cities that are
[2:14:08] a little bit ahead of us on this about consideration.
[2:14:12] I mean, there was a five of a book by the Board of Supervisors to consider this going forward.
[2:14:24] I just have a quick question about protecting the management portion of it.
[2:14:28] So I mean, it seems like the composition of the EI of these vary depending upon who
[2:14:33] participates, regardless of the composition, larger, small, where do the administrative costs
[2:14:38] generally reside, or those split between the county and the EID participants, or is that burden
[2:14:44] completely assumed by those, you know, whatever the composition is of the EID?
[2:14:49] Yeah, that's actually a really good question that, you know, at this point, actually that
[2:14:55] I'm sure D.A. has here might be able to fill in the blanks there.
[2:15:00] Because if we're not yet generating tax increment, obviously funds sooner than later, would assume
[2:15:08] that it's split between the city and the county, but yesterday I guess can properly answer
[2:15:13] that.
[2:15:13] Thank you.
[2:15:14] Good evening, Mayor.
[2:15:15] Members of the city council.
[2:15:17] So, typically the costs are initially borne by the sponsoring entity, which would
[2:15:20] be used to be of more part.
[2:15:22] And then those costs and other costs that go along with the formation are typically
[2:15:26] reimbursable by the revenues as they come in.
[2:15:29] So if it is a county partnership, it would essentially be splitting, but the city is the one advancing.
[2:15:36] And my follow question is in general, I'm just going to use the term starter cost, right?
[2:15:40] So for in Jenna, is it two to three years that the city is bearing the bulk of that responsibility
[2:15:46] before they start to see the receipts coming in?
[2:15:49] Two to three years. Okay, thank you.
[2:15:54] Just one clarifying question. Could we make the geographic boundaries of an EIFD consistent with the
[2:16:01] limits? Yes, we can do that. Mr. Means, thank you. Any more questions?
[2:16:12] There's a comment saying that we would go through a consultant to go through this process,
[2:16:17] the CFO is going to work and then once we decide if it was going to work, we would then approach the county
[2:16:21] to see if they would partner up with this on this. You said that the county is in favor of this process,
[2:16:31] But is there a limit where they wouldn't be in favor?
[2:16:34] And do you know, I'm kind of asking you that estimate this now?
[2:16:38] But are we, is it look favorable or is it look like we're on the edge of this?
[2:16:42] Well, I would say that the county's open to it.
[2:16:45] I think it depends on what we approach them with,
[2:16:49] to see what type of impacts to the county would benefit them.
[2:16:55] And also, you know, the expected property tax increment that could be generated so that it
[2:17:03] substantial enough that they could see the impacts about the city and the county.
[2:17:08] Have we done any estimating based off of what we know so far on this whole procedure because
[2:17:15] obviously if we're going to hire a consultant and we have no idea if he's going to tell us it's
[2:17:19] a good idea or not a good idea that doesn't really make much sense, but I want to know
[2:17:23] would we feel comfortable with this or the way we would pan out?
[2:17:27] Yeah, I mean, we haven't been able to determine any initial numbers at this point because
[2:17:32] we'd also want to define the boundaries and what type of projects that could be benefiting
[2:17:38] the city and also could benefit the county as well because I think they'd want their input
[2:17:42] about their county infrastructure within the city limits.
[2:17:46] But the boundaries itself, I think we would provide you with various scenarios, whether it's
[2:17:51] just the growth areas within the city or as councilmember means suggest that it could be
[2:17:56] the entire city so that we capture any property value increase in the future regardless
[2:18:02] of where it's located.
[2:18:04] Okay, is that something that should be decided before we get into this project or is that something
[2:18:09] that we should be seeing the different options of?
[2:18:12] Yeah, I think if we do the feasibility analysis, I would want to see those scenarios and present
[2:18:17] that to you.
[2:18:21] Any other questions?
[2:18:23] Give me any speakers.
[2:18:26] We do have one speaker card, but I do not see
[2:18:28] the individual in the chambers.
[2:18:31] The annual police did submit a card,
[2:18:34] and also submit a supplemental for it.
[2:18:36] OK, thank you.
[2:18:38] OK, a little bit of discussion.
[2:18:43] Once again, we've got to pay money to see if it's a good idea.
[2:18:46] That's always a hard thing to get behind.
[2:18:50] but what are the thoughts on this?
[2:18:55] Dr. Castro.
[2:18:55] Again, I want to thank staff.
[2:18:57] This is another idea that was suggested and you brought it forward.
[2:19:01] Getting into it now, I start to see why it's even more complex than it seemed like before.
[2:19:08] So there's, I didn't anticipate that there would be some risk elements.
[2:19:11] It seemed like, oh, there's only this upside right, but obviously there's a risk.
[2:19:15] But I do think based on what the city manager shared, the current temperament and
[2:19:21] position of the county, the Board of Supervisors, it seems like it wouldn't be a good idea
[2:19:28] to be the last to the table. So I, although I know we've had a lot of questions about the
[2:19:35] cost of consultants. If there isn't upside to this, it seems really to our advantage to be the
[2:19:42] first to explore. So that's my initial part.
[2:19:47] I'm going to jump in and agree with that.
[2:19:49] I think this is an opportunity to lead in the county and if we're already a little behind,
[2:19:56] you know, maybe catch up.
[2:20:00] If we move forward, I would definitely want that direction that we go full force fast.
[2:20:11] Yeah, I can correct. First come first serve. And eventually, if enough of these come in front of the county, the county is going to say, well, wait, we can't do any more of that.
[2:20:20] To keep our dollars at home right now, all these projects we do, we got a CIP list.
[2:20:24] from make the boundaries, the city limits, we've got our CIP list, we know what we want to do.
[2:20:30] I mean, we can pick and choose as we want to.
[2:20:34] And in invest, we keep dollars in home.
[2:20:38] I fully, I hate $35,000 for a consultant to tell me that we're going to make money.
[2:20:44] I don't want to go and take on debt load.
[2:20:47] I want it to be a pays you go, but we got enough CIPs that we pay as you go, that will constantly be a benefit.
[2:20:53] So assuming that there is no other way to get that report
[2:20:58] conclusive and convincing, I think we move forward with the, what's the consultant?
[2:21:03] Yeah, I'm concerned about the upkeep infrastructure, obviously,
[2:21:08] but our finances and if we're the last of the table with this, we can lose out a lot on that.
[2:21:14] So I'm in favor of it. I wish we could see a little bit more of the feasibility before we engage into a
[2:21:23] It's holding agreement, but I think what you've been saying is looking pretty much like it
[2:21:31] would be straightforward.
[2:21:34] Yes, Mayor.
[2:21:34] Let's go.
[2:21:38] Any else?
[2:21:39] No.
[2:21:39] That's pretty good direction.
[2:21:43] We'll also be on the same page.
[2:21:44] That's good.
[2:21:45] Would Dr. Gastreson?
[2:21:46] No, man.
[2:21:47] We have consensus then to have staff move forward further considering this and contract services
[2:21:54] with a consultant to determine the feasibility.
[2:21:58] That's correct.
[2:21:59] Thank you.
[2:22:02] Yeah, if we can reach up, I agree.
[2:22:04] Just make it work.
[2:22:07] Okay.
[2:22:13] Excitement is 11 ordinances.
[2:22:14] There are none this evening.
[2:22:16] All by close session.
[2:22:18] Yes, Rebecca Hanna.
[2:22:20] There are no close session items this evening there.
[2:22:22] All right.
[2:22:23] Thank you.
[2:22:23] As I said, 13, I'll make a motion to adjourn on favor.
[2:22:26] All right.
[2:22:27] Thank you.
[2:22:27] and good night more birds.