[30:05] Six, 9:30 a.m. calling the

[30:07] Ventura County Consolidated

[30:08] Oversight Board meeting to

[30:12] order. And we'll start off with

[30:15] the roll call. Good morning.

[30:22] Board member Bojorquez. Present

[30:26] board member Brooke. Here.

[30:28] Board member. Important. Here.

[30:31] Board member. Mitchell. Present.

[30:33] Board member. Simmons. Present.

[30:35] And chair, Mike Mitchell here.

[30:38] Thank you, thank you. Pledge of

[30:40] allegiance. James, can you lead

[30:42] us? Start us off. Right hand

[30:46] over your heart. Ready? Begin.

[30:49] I pledge allegiance to the flag

[30:51] of the United States of America.

[30:53] And to the Republic for which

[30:55] it stands. One nation under God,

[30:59] indivisible, with liberty and

[31:01] justice for all. Next, Robert,

[31:08] do we have any changes to the

[31:10] agenda? Since there are no

[31:13] changes to the agenda, we don't

[31:14] need to make any actions.

[31:16] There's no changes. Okay. Thank

[31:18] you. Next is item number five,

[31:22] which is the meeting minutes

[31:24] from the previous meeting on

[31:27] October 22nd, 2025. Do I have

[31:29] any questions from any of the

[31:31] members on it? Do I have a

[31:33] motion? I'll make a motion to

[31:35] approve. Do I have a second?

[31:38] I'll second it. Okay. Thank you.

[31:40] All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any

[31:43] opposed? None. Motion passes

[31:45] six zero. Going on now to item

[31:49] number six. Public comment. Do

[31:52] we have anybody on the internet

[31:55] coming in this meeting is does

[31:58] not have an internet component,

[31:59] but there are no requests to

[32:01] speak. Okay. Thank you. Is

[32:02] there anybody here in the

[32:04] chamber who wants to speak at

[32:06] this time? Okay. Thank you. I

[32:08] see none. So going on to item

[32:10] number seven board comments. Do

[32:12] I have any board comments at

[32:13] this time? No, I see none. So

[32:17] we'll move on to number eight

[32:19] staff comments Robert, do we

[32:21] have any staff comments? Yes,

[32:25] just just one quick one. So the

[32:27] city of Santa Paula has been

[32:28] working on their final

[32:30] dissolution, and we were hoping

[32:33] that they would have wrapped it

[32:34] up by for this meeting so we

[32:36] could have addressed it. But

[32:37] they haven't been successful.

[32:39] So they're still working on it.

[32:40] And and I just wanted to let

[32:42] you know that we may have

[32:44] another meeting soon, but but

[32:46] within the schedule. But but

[32:47] you know, usually we have a

[32:49] little bit of a rest period at

[32:51] this time. But we may call a

[32:52] meeting coming up in the month.

[32:55] Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[32:59] Okay. We're going to move on to

[33:00] the regular agenda number nine.

[33:03] We're going to be looking at

[33:04] the the city of Ventura is the

[33:08] city of Ventura.

[33:10] Representatives here for their

[33:13] presentation. Oh thank you.

[33:19] Good morning, chair and members

[33:20] of the board. My name is

[33:21] Heather bowling. I'm back again

[33:23] to see you in place of Joe

[33:25] Anthony. Carlos. Next slide

[33:28] please. You have a remote right

[33:31] in front of you. Thank you.

[33:34] Okay. So we're going to do a

[33:36] little update on site seven.

[33:37] And I have some information

[33:38] from the questions from last

[33:40] meeting. So for our RoPS. We

[33:48] submitted a total of 1.2

[33:54] million and $835. Most of it

[33:59] was for our our 1339043 and

[34:04] then the administrative total

[34:05] of $61,792. So for site seven.

[34:15] It's the two parcels that are

[34:17] located between California and

[34:19] Chestnut, north of Main Street.

[34:22] We did receive the appraisal

[34:26] just within the last week. And

[34:29] the the successor agency

[34:31] parcels came in at $2,075,000.

[34:35] The city Apns are 2,665,000. So

[34:39] the combined valuation of that

[34:41] whole parking lot is appraised

[34:44] at $4,740,000. You guys had a

[34:51] couple. Your board also had a

[34:54] couple questions regarding the

[34:55] lease. And right now there

[34:57] currently is no lease on the

[34:58] property. It was designated as

[35:03] temporary use. And it seems

[35:04] that since they designated the

[35:06] area as a parking lot, it's

[35:08] just continued indefinitely as

[35:10] a parking lot without a lease.

[35:13] And you asked about who pays

[35:14] the property tax? Well, because

[35:16] it's government property, it's

[35:20] nontaxable. And so it's exempt

[35:21] from property tax. So there's

[35:22] no tax being paid on it. The

[35:27] next step that we're going to

[35:28] do is in February or in between

[35:31] February and April, I'm

[35:32] thinking closer to April. We're

[35:34] going to take it to City

[35:36] Council and ask them to declare

[35:39] the property as surplus. And

[35:41] then we're going to continue to

[35:42] keep going through the next

[35:44] steps after they declared a

[35:45] surplus. I think our next

[35:46] process would be to do a notice

[35:48] of availability and continue in

[35:50] the Surplus Land Act process.

[36:01] And that's pretty much it for

[36:02] my presentation. Do you guys

[36:03] have any other questions or.

[36:06] Yeah. Ken. Yeah, I got a couple

[36:08] questions. So you have no lease

[36:10] in the property. Is is there

[36:11] any income on the property? No,

[36:13] we have no revenue that comes

[36:14] in on the property. And are

[36:15] there any expenses? Who sweeps

[36:17] it? Who cleans it? If there's a

[36:19] pothole, who fixes it? I don't

[36:22] I think the city maintains it.

[36:24] I there is some dumpsters. I

[36:26] don't know if you guys have

[36:27] ever been there, but the movie

[36:28] theater does have dumpsters in

[36:30] the back and there is always

[36:32] constantly popcorn butter that

[36:35] comes out. And there's so they

[36:36] probably maintain the city. The, movie theater probably

[36:39] maintains that portion of it,

[36:41] but there are no agreements to

[36:42] do it. So out of record, not

[36:45] that. Yeah. I mean, I can

[36:46] research this with our public

[36:48] works department and see if

[36:49] they maintain the parking lot

[36:50] or if they repave it. I don't

[36:52] think anybody's repaving it

[36:53] because I've seen it and it's

[36:55] in pretty bad condition. I'm

[36:57] not suggesting it's not. But if

[36:59] somebody trips and falls, who

[37:00] gets sued? I mean, somebody's

[37:02] got to be responsible for it.

[37:05] That's a good question. I'll

[37:06] have to ask our city attorney's

[37:08] office. Is this an operational

[37:09] question? And having no lease,

[37:12] no responsibility yet it's a former redevelopment

[37:16] property. It's got to be

[37:18] covered by I'm assuming the

[37:19] city would cover it in the

[37:21] meantime, but I'd like some

[37:23] definition. I guess it would

[37:24] depend which parcel they

[37:25] tripped and fell on, right?

[37:27] Yeah. If it was the RTA or the

[37:28] city property, but I can I can

[37:31] definitely bring these

[37:32] questions to our city

[37:33] attorney's office and bring

[37:34] back some information next time.

[37:36] And all I'm getting at is that

[37:38] it's it's a structural thing.

[37:40] It's a temporary structural

[37:42] thing. And I want to make a big

[37:44] issue of it. But, you know, I'm

[37:45] in the real estate business and

[37:47] there's always a an exposure

[37:49] and a cost, etcetera. And if

[37:50] there's no documentation, I

[37:52] just ask the basic questions.

[37:54] And I'm not trying to be

[37:55] difficult, just that somebody

[37:57] should, you know, take

[37:59] possession of it and, and be

[38:01] responsible for it and just get

[38:02] some answers, that's all. Well,

[38:03] you know, there are some

[38:05] different options. And we did

[38:06] since we did just get the

[38:08] appraisal back within the last

[38:09] week, city leadership is going

[38:10] to review it and, you know,

[38:13] discuss further. So we don't

[38:14] really have any updates from

[38:15] what city leadership is

[38:17] discussing about the property

[38:18] at this point. And if it's of

[38:20] your board that you would like

[38:22] me to research about seeing if

[38:23] there is some type of lease

[38:25] process that you would like us

[38:27] to look into with the the

[38:29] property, I don't know exactly

[38:30] how that would work, so I'd

[38:32] have to do research, and I

[38:34] would talk to your city

[38:35] attorney about those issues and

[38:37] what the solution is. I mean,

[38:39] there's a simple solution, I'm

[38:41] sure. But if it's if it's an

[38:44] entity that owns it, that's not

[38:45] the city, then they have to

[38:47] have responsibility for it. So

[38:49] if that entity has the

[38:51] insurance and everything else,

[38:52] it's not and it's already been

[38:54] resolved. I'm not trying to

[38:55] tell you what to do, but it's a

[38:57] question that should be asked.

[38:59] And absolutely. And I think

[39:01] it's within your purview to

[39:02] tell us what to do. Right? I

[39:04] don't know, I don't I don't

[39:06] want to go there. So if you if

[39:08] your board would like us to

[39:09] look into a lease, we can

[39:11] absolutely do that. Well, talk

[39:13] to your city attorney and

[39:15] whatever they recommend, come

[39:16] back with a suggestion. Okay.

[39:18] And what's the fallback plan

[39:20] for this? Is there a fallback

[39:21] plan after you go through all

[39:23] this? You should be. I'm just

[39:25] saying I'd like to see. I don't

[39:27] want to spend all a bunch of

[39:29] time going through all this

[39:31] process, and nothing happens at

[39:32] the end of it, and they still

[39:34] haven't. I'd like to see the

[39:36] city, you know, go through,

[39:37] plan A, which are going through

[39:39] the Surplus Land Act process.

[39:41] Yes. And then have a plan B

[39:44] available afterwards. I'd like

[39:45] to to have the city discuss

[39:47] that as an option. What's going

[39:48] to happen next if it, you know,

[39:51] what's the next step if that

[39:52] doesn't work, if that makes any

[39:54] sense. What I'm saying

[39:55] absolutely makes sense. And I

[39:56] know that right now we're just

[39:57] waiting for city leadership to

[39:59] discuss it because they're the

[40:01] people. They're they're going

[40:02] to be able to make the

[40:04] determinations of which process

[40:05] that we would take after the

[40:06] Surplus Land Act. I do have

[40:09] some information here that

[40:11] there is an option B city lease

[40:14] or purchase of property. And so

[40:18] there is information. And once

[40:20] I get an update from our city

[40:22] leadership of which direction

[40:23] they want to go, we can bring

[40:24] in another update here to you

[40:27] and let you know, like where

[40:29] we're at in the Surplus Land

[40:30] Act process and what the city

[40:33] is willing or able to do after

[40:36] that process. If that's not

[40:39] successful. Okay. Thank you. I

[40:41] just want them to be aware that,

[40:42] you know, I want this. I want

[40:44] them to have a plan B if

[40:46] possible, as are. So we don't

[40:47] spend another two years after,

[40:49] you know, if this takes 1 or 2

[40:51] years, it'd be nice to ha

[40:52] something, a plan B maybe in

[40:54] the background. And Robert, can

[40:56] we schedule a follow up if

[40:58] Santa Paula is going to come in

[41:00] at some point and if it ties in,

[41:02] if, can you just check in with

[41:04] the City of Ventura to see if

[41:05] they want to give us an update?

[41:07] At the same time, if we're

[41:09] going to have a meeting anyway?

[41:10] Yes, we could do that, you know,

[41:12] that's all. If they're not

[41:13] ready, then it doesn't matter.

[41:14] But I'm just saying if it works

[41:16] out, we can have. Have you come

[41:18] back the same time the city of

[41:20] Santa Paula comes back? Yeah,

[41:21] absolutely. For an update.

[41:22] Thank you. And we were hopeful

[41:23] to get the appraisal back

[41:25] sooner. But with the holidays

[41:26] and there was some delays. So

[41:28] we literally just got it I

[41:29] think earlier this week. So if

[41:33] we had got it back earlier,

[41:34] city leadership could have

[41:35] already had some discussions

[41:37] and we could have brought more

[41:38] of an update for you, but it

[41:40] just didn't work out that way.

[41:41] Now, let me ask a stupid

[41:43] question, Ken, because you know

[41:44] this stuff and I know I'm good,

[41:47] stupid questions, but okay,

[41:49] it's a parking lot. When they

[41:50] do the evaluation for the

[41:52] appraisal, is it appraised as a

[41:54] parking lot or is it as a

[41:56] potential development site?

[41:57] Well, I don't know. I haven't

[41:59] seen the appraisal, so I

[42:00] couldn't I couldn't advise you

[42:01] on that. There's an existing

[42:03] uses of a parking lot. There's

[42:05] existing zoning. It may have

[42:07] development rights. Really

[42:08] depends on what they where they

[42:11] go with that. And I'm guessing

[42:14] it's probably appraised more

[42:15] than a parking lot. That price

[42:17] point. Because there's the

[42:20] revenue income on that parking

[42:21] lot would not would not justify

[42:23] for an investor to pay that

[42:26] price. So it has to be

[42:28] something to do with additional

[42:30] development rights and stuff

[42:31] like that access. But again, it

[42:33] has to be with if you're going

[42:35] to develop it, you can't just

[42:36] develop that parcel. So you

[42:38] have to develop the entire

[42:39] thing or have the city take

[42:41] over and run it as a parking

[42:43] lot, which is also a necessity

[42:44] of the area. So and remind me,

[42:47] I think at the September, I

[42:49] don't know, it's been a while

[42:51] since we've had meetings and to

[42:52] remember, but I remember the

[42:55] parcel. So you had the city had

[42:56] a parcel and then the RDA had a

[42:58] portion of the parcel. And I

[43:00] remember if my memory serves me,

[43:03] the you still had to have

[43:05] access right to the parcel,

[43:07] like, and then the rezoning,

[43:08] there was all these

[43:10] complexities. And when you went

[43:11] out to bid last time or had up

[43:14] for sale, the interest was

[43:19] difficult because of all these

[43:20] restrictions put on, because

[43:21] you couldn't just develop the

[43:23] property behind the movie

[43:25] theater. There were access

[43:28] rights. And so and it was odd

[43:29] shaped and and we were like, we

[43:32] had discussions back then, why

[43:34] doesn't it just remain a

[43:35] parking lot? Like the downtown

[43:37] needs a parking lot. Why

[43:38] doesn't it just remain? There's

[43:39] no parking down there. I was

[43:41] just down there this weekend.

[43:42] You know, you're always

[43:43] struggling to either be in this,

[43:44] in the in this parking

[43:46] structure or to find something

[43:47] on the end. It's always nice.

[43:49] Like, is that option B is to

[43:52] just have RDA give it to the

[43:54] city and then it just stays a

[43:55] parking lot because the

[43:57] development not really sure

[43:58] what you can do with that

[44:00] property. Yeah. And you know

[44:01] and it is very interesting

[44:02] because I think the parcels are

[44:04] kitty corner. So like the city

[44:05] parcels are this way the RDA.

[44:07] And there is a house like up at

[44:09] the top of the hill that there

[44:11] probably is some easement for.

[44:12] And it is the location is a

[44:14] good location, but the location

[44:16] is not a good location. And it

[44:17] is a very downtown, but the

[44:20] access to the different pieces

[44:22] is. Yeah, if if you want to go

[44:24] a step further to that, I mean,

[44:27] do you want can we get a copy

[44:29] of the the title report with

[44:31] easements on it and get a copy

[44:33] of the they showed it last I

[44:34] mean, last time they had the I

[44:36] saw the plot. Yeah. But I that

[44:38] certain easements you can build

[44:39] on certain easements you can't.

[44:42] And again the appraisal you

[44:43] brought up a good question.

[44:44] Maybe we should take a look at

[44:46] the appraisal because that if

[44:47] that's an item that we have to

[44:49] evaluate compared to what it's

[44:51] being used for and sold for, I

[44:53] think we need to take a look at

[44:54] the appraisal as well to see

[44:56] how they evaluated it. Well,

[44:57] I'm just seeing like as we're

[44:59] looking at the budget, they

[45:00] were like 30,000 admin budget

[45:02] because nothing was happening.

[45:04] Right? I thought they were

[45:06] after this whole presentation

[45:08] that they couldn't really do

[45:09] anything. It's a hard piece of

[45:11] property, blah blah, blah, blah. And now they're

[45:13] increasing it. Now they've

[45:14] doubled it. So I want to know

[45:16] you're doubling it because you

[45:18] think there's going to be an

[45:20] opportunity to do something

[45:21] with it. You mean our admin

[45:23] budget that we doubled? Okay.

[45:24] So that's the there is a legal

[45:27] process that we have to follow

[45:28] in order to dispose of the the

[45:30] land. It's the Surplus Land Act

[45:33] process. And so we have to

[45:34] legally go through this process,

[45:36] which there is a lot of work

[45:37] that is involved with going

[45:39] through the Surplus Land Act

[45:40] process, like council hearings.

[45:41] We have to do notices of

[45:43] availability. We have to do a

[45:45] lot of administrative work that

[45:47] is entailed within this process.

[45:49] So that's why our admin budget

[45:50] went up substantially, so that

[45:53] we can start the process of the

[45:56] Surplus Land Act. I don't think

[45:59] that we have any guarantee or

[46:01] outcome of what's going to

[46:02] happen with the Surplus Land

[46:04] Act. That wasn't what was what

[46:07] contributed to the increase in

[46:09] the admin budget. It's

[46:10] literally just the process of

[46:11] going through the Surplus Land

[46:13] Act. So that's what increased

[46:15] the admin budget. I know that

[46:17] there is some. Joe Anthony is

[46:20] our subject matter expert for

[46:22] site seven. I do all of the

[46:24] accounting for the ROP, so we

[46:26] both work together to maintain

[46:27] this project. And he is

[46:30] unavailable today. So I'm

[46:32] coming. And he actually is like

[46:33] the expert. I've been

[46:35] researching the Surplus Land

[46:36] Act, researching site seven. He

[46:39] understands a lot more of this

[46:40] information and hopefully next.

[46:42] Is he part of the admin budget?

[46:44] Yes he is, but he was

[46:46] unavailable even though he

[46:46] knows that we're every fourth

[46:49] Wednesday. Okay. Yes. Things

[46:53] come up. And so yes, he is

[46:56] unavailable today, but I'm here

[46:57] and I am. But you don't have

[46:59] more details for site seven.

[47:00] Well, I have this whole eight

[47:03] page document that he provided

[47:04] me so I can, you know, I've

[47:06] read read through it, but

[47:07] there's so much information in

[47:08] here is that eight part page

[47:11] document part of our materials?

[47:13] No, this is a notes for me. If

[47:15] you guys want, we can produce

[47:18] something like this for you

[47:19] that can give you more

[47:21] information and send it in. As

[47:23] to Robert, but I think there is

[47:27] some type of process that can

[47:28] happen, like where the city can

[47:30] if the successor agency does

[47:32] want to give the property to

[47:34] the city, there is a process

[47:35] for that. I don't know exactly

[47:38] the process. That could be one

[47:41] of the the options, but I think

[47:42] we still have to go through the

[47:44] Surplus Land Act process. You

[47:45] have to. Yeah, that's required

[47:47] by law. Just a minimum six

[47:49] month process after you prepare

[47:51] it. So it could be a 7 or 8

[47:53] month. Other cities have done

[47:55] it for this similar type. Well,

[47:58] anytime you have a I think is

[48:01] and we reviewed the Surplus

[48:03] Land Act a couple of years ago

[48:04] when the when the legislation

[48:05] came out, the governor decided

[48:08] that we want housing. And so

[48:11] one of the objectives of the

[48:13] California Housing Act,

[48:14] whatever they call it, was to

[48:16] make sure that the lands that

[48:19] were former Redevelopment

[48:21] Agency lands were presented to

[48:23] housing developers, basically

[48:25] for Surplus Land Act and

[48:27] letting non-profits go out and

[48:29] take a look at it, or whoever's

[48:30] developing low and moderate

[48:31] income housing to review the

[48:33] process. And and there's a six

[48:35] month window from the time it

[48:36] gets published to the end date.

[48:39] And then when that happens and, we could ask everybody

[48:44] that's here today how many

[48:46] people actually took it from

[48:47] Surplus Land Act. You're going

[48:48] to find it's a very small

[48:50] percentage. But it does take

[48:52] time. It does take money. And

[48:54] at at the end of that, then the

[48:56] city can go with their plan B.

[48:58] It doesn't mean that the city's

[49:00] plan B can't be discussed and

[49:03] determined while this process

[49:06] is going on. So which is what

[49:08] you're requesting. And it's

[49:11] been enough time that we should

[49:12] be able to get that. But you

[49:14] said, I think it was by April

[49:16] that the City Council will have

[49:17] reviewed all these things. Is

[49:19] that what I heard? So we're

[49:20] going to take our first

[49:21] presentation in April. I am

[49:23] we're we're scheduling April as

[49:24] the tentative city council date

[49:26] to have them declare the land

[49:29] as surplus. Okay. So do you

[49:31] have to require two meetings,

[49:32] the notification, and then you

[49:34] have to have the vote later? I

[49:35] don't know if I know that

[49:37] happens for ordinance like

[49:38] ordinance updates like the

[49:39] second reading, but I don't

[49:40] know if a second reading is

[49:42] necessary for. So you'll have

[49:43] the the one, the what typically

[49:46] happens in cities have to be

[49:47] familiar with this is that the

[49:49] staff will do a report, do the

[49:51] study, they'll. But if it's

[49:53] just the Land Act presentation,

[49:56] that's one thing. But we're encouraging you to add to

[50:00] discuss when the if the Land

[50:02] Act is not successful

[50:04] presentation, what the uses

[50:05] will be and what the process

[50:07] will be. That is what we're

[50:08] looking for. That can be done

[50:10] during during that same period

[50:11] of time. I do have an option

[50:14] see exempt surplus land

[50:16] declaration attempt to declare

[50:17] the property as exempt. Surplus

[50:19] land under exemption. Category

[50:20] three land dedicated for other

[50:23] public uses. Statutory

[50:25] exemptions. Land dedicated for

[50:26] other public uses. Parks,

[50:27] schools, etc. Transfer to

[50:29] federal state government. Land

[50:31] exchange for other land to be

[50:32] used by the local agency, etc.

[50:34] For parking lot to be exempt,

[50:35] it usually needs to fall under

[50:37] specific categories, such as

[50:38] being part of a larger project

[50:40] for affordable housing. If the

[50:42] governing body can make a

[50:44] defensible finding that the lot

[50:45] is necessary for current or

[50:46] future agency operations, then

[50:48] it is not surplus at all, and

[50:50] the SLA never triggers. So I

[50:52] think this is just what I'm

[50:54] reading from here. Well, so

[50:56] what basically what she's

[50:58] saying is that and LA city have

[51:00] done that. They say this is

[51:01] going to be our future park. So

[51:03] that's allowed. But a parking

[51:05] lot is not allowed. So and it

[51:08] is in the Te 4.1 something zone.

[51:11] And I don't know even if that

[51:13] area is zoned to be allowable

[51:15] use of a parking lot. So

[51:17] there's all the zoning codes

[51:18] and all this other stuff that

[51:20] you have to look into. Can we

[51:21] get a copy of the appraisal?

[51:24] Yeah. If you would like a copy

[51:25] of the appraisal, we can send

[51:26] it to Robert. Why don't we have

[51:28] can we do that at the same if

[51:30] whenever, can we follow up with

[51:32] Ventura to come back with more

[51:35] information on this and give us

[51:36] an update with Santa Paula, or

[51:38] even if we have to do a

[51:39] separate and with the copy of

[51:41] their appraisal, so we can get

[51:44] in between the appraisal.

[51:45] Because I don't want to, you

[51:47] know, see it two days before.

[51:49] Okay. Sorry. I think for Brown

[51:51] Act purposes it has to be

[51:52] released with an agenda. I

[51:54] would defer to County Council,

[51:55] but we would release that to

[51:58] the board and the public

[52:00] simultaneously as part of

[52:01] agenda under the Brown Act. You

[52:03] can't receive substantial

[52:05] documents outside the public

[52:07] agenda process. Well, no, it

[52:09] can be put on the public agenda

[52:11] and that would cover the Brown

[52:13] Act. You can verify that, but

[52:15] we could certainly see it.

[52:17] There's not a time limit as to

[52:18] when we can see it, is there? I

[52:20] mean, if we sent it in, can you

[52:22] post it as a supplemental to

[52:24] the agenda and then it's

[52:25] available? Yes. Yeah. Assistant

[52:26] County Counsel David Etzel yeah.

[52:28] Generally the Brown Act

[52:29] restrictions are minimums is

[52:30] the 72 hours, you know, posting

[52:32] an agenda. You need to provide

[52:34] the materials before that.

[52:35] There's nothing that would

[52:37] that I'm aware of that

[52:38] would preclude providing

[52:39] the materials well in

[52:40] advance of that, if the

[52:41] board would request it as a

[52:42] courtesy. But just as far

[52:43] as having a meeting that 72

[52:46] hours, that's the that's

[52:47] the minimum that it must be

[52:48] posted. Yeah. Well, we'll have a meeting to

[52:51] discuss it and be published

[52:53] accordingly, but no reason

[52:55] why we can't see it

[52:56] beforehand. That's all I'm

[52:57] saying. Okay. So I know

[53:01] just make sure we're on the

[53:02] same wavelength here. What

[53:05] we're going to do is ask

[53:06] for Ventura. So, Ken, why don't

[53:09] you summarize what you're

[53:10] asking for? Yeah, I'd like to

[53:11] see a copy of the appraisal and, and get now that you've

[53:17] mentioned it, a copy of the

[53:19] existing zoning and definition.

[53:22] With that existing zoning

[53:23] allows. And then I would love

[53:26] to see a copy of the easements

[53:28] and a copy of the title report

[53:30] that you have on it, but that

[53:33] would be me. That's what I do,

[53:36] that I could educate. Then I

[53:38] can, from that perspective,

[53:40] actually give you qualified

[53:41] input, somewhat qualified input.

[53:46] So we'll have Robert. We want

[53:48] to have that information

[53:50] supplied from Ventura to you.

[53:51] And then you can send it out to

[53:53] us. And then at some point we

[53:55] need to follow up with a

[53:57] meeting. Yes. On that.

[53:58] Understood. Is that okay. Yes.

[54:02] Okay. Absolutely. Get back to

[54:03] you. So let me repeat back what

[54:05] you guys are requesting. So you

[54:07] would like to see a copy of the

[54:08] appraisal. You would like to

[54:09] see a copy of the zoning of

[54:11] that, those parcels. You would

[54:14] like to understand the zoning

[54:15] laws. And you want to see the

[54:17] easement title report. And I

[54:20] can do my best to find all of

[54:21] this information. It's going to

[54:22] take some time to research, and

[54:24] I'll have to work with public

[54:25] Works, and we'll call the title

[54:28] officer up. They haven't your

[54:31] title officer. And then did you

[54:32] guys want me to send you also a

[54:37] little cheat sheet on the

[54:39] Surplus Land Act or any other

[54:40] information? No. Okay. We've

[54:41] already reviewed that okay.

[54:46] Any more questions from

[54:47] up here or you want to talk

[54:49] about. Okay. No, no, I have a

[54:50] question. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah.

[54:52] Just focusing on the admin

[54:55] budget. So year over year it's

[54:56] about a $30,000 increase right.

[54:58] Is that that's purely

[54:59] attributable to the Surplus

[55:00] Land Act process. Yes. Okay. So

[55:02] just doing a quick math in my

[55:04] head. So if it's like $30,000 a

[55:06] six month process, that's like

[55:08] $5,000 a month. And so I'm

[55:09] trying to think intuitively,

[55:10] okay. In terms of a burn rate,

[55:12] does that sound reasonable. And

[55:14] so that's where, you know, I'm

[55:15] just wanted to confirm that

[55:17] 30,000 is that's just for the

[55:19] going through that process. I

[55:20] think the Surplus Land Act is

[55:22] definitely longer than a six

[55:23] month process. Well, the the

[55:25] process is longer, but the

[55:28] notification period six months,

[55:29] I believe. Am I right or wrong.

[55:32] Yeah. And the budget is for one

[55:35] fiscal year starting in July,

[55:38] so we won't even be using that

[55:40] admin budget till July. So

[55:41] we'll be doing a lot of work

[55:43] within this year's admin budget.

[55:44] And the good news is is is just

[55:46] a budget. So the we didn't

[55:50] we're still learning how to

[55:52] estimate how long this process

[55:53] is going to take. And so the

[55:55] only thing that will actually

[55:57] be charged to the successor

[55:58] agency is the actuals. And this

[56:00] is all determined by the prior

[56:02] period adjustment. So next year

[56:05] we'll actually later on in this

[56:06] year in September we do a

[56:08] public I mean a prior period

[56:11] adjustment which shows what we

[56:13] actually used. And then they

[56:15] deduct what they give us from

[56:17] our next year's payment. So we

[56:21] really just are doing the best

[56:22] we can as being new to the

[56:24] successor agency to estimate

[56:25] how much staff time and

[56:26] attorney costs or other things

[56:28] that are going to go into this

[56:30] process. Yeah, actually, I

[56:31] pulled up the Surplus Land Act

[56:34] guidelines, and so I thought

[56:35] six months was fairly

[56:36] aggressive. So in fact, it

[56:37] looks even better. Right?

[56:38] Because if you take 30,000

[56:39] divided by 12, you know, that's

[56:41] more like 2500 a month. So in

[56:43] my mind that seems reasonable.

[56:45] So I would support your admin

[56:46] budget. Okay. Great. Thank you

[56:47] James. Mr. important. I'm sorry.

[56:52] Any other questions? I do have

[56:54] one more question in the admin

[56:58] budget. Excuse me. It does say

[57:00] that the increase in outside

[57:02] consultant is for an updated

[57:06] appraisal. So I just want to be

[57:08] and this budget doesn't start

[57:09] till July. So that updated

[57:13] appraisal you actually got

[57:15] completed in this fiscal year

[57:17] correct. Yes. And I believe

[57:18] this is probably going to come

[57:20] from city funds. Or maybe it

[57:22] would be part of our I don't

[57:23] know if it will be part of our

[57:25] admin budget for this current

[57:27] fiscal year. If we I don't

[57:28] believe we will have to do an

[57:30] updated appraisal so that money

[57:31] will probably not be used and

[57:33] will be part of the the prior

[57:34] period adjustment. Thank you.

[57:40] Okay. No other questions okay.

[57:42] Well thank you very much. No

[57:44] problem. I hope this was

[57:45] helpful for you. And thank you

[57:47] for your time today. Okay.

[57:48] Thank you. Do I have a motion

[57:51] for this a motion to approve.

[57:55] Do I have a second? I'll second.

[57:58] All in favor say aye. Aye. Any

[58:01] opposed? Say no. None here. So

[58:03] motion passes, six zero. Thank

[58:06] you. Going on to item number

[58:10] ten which is the city of

[58:12] Moorpark. We have

[58:14] representatives here can come

[58:16] up. Thank you. Good morning,

[58:28] chair and board members. My

[58:30] name is Hiromi Diva, finance

[58:32] director from Moorpark. For

[58:36] this, we are requesting for a

[58:39] total of 1.3 million. Pretty

[58:43] close to 1.4 million. This

[58:45] include the 1.3 1,000,336, 990,

[58:50] and which is for majority is a

[58:54] bond payment. And the $50,000

[58:57] in admin cost and $50,000 admin

[59:01] costs has not changed from our

[59:02] original request, which include

[59:06] $34,000 in personnel costs,

[59:09] $5,000 in legal costs, $10,000

[59:11] in the Finance and bond debt

[59:14] administration and other

[59:16] administrative costs for $909.

[59:21] Last October meeting. We did

[59:24] not have any update on

[59:27] remaining land, and a city

[59:30] conducted property discussion

[59:32] session in November, and we had

[59:34] some directions, but not the

[59:36] final directions. I haven't.

[59:38] Mr. Miss Sandifer. I'm sorry,

[59:41] miss, Miss Sandifer, to go over

[59:45] with current status of

[59:47] remaining fund remaining land.

[59:51] Good morning everybody. This.

[59:53] Can you hear me? Okay. The city

[59:55] council still deciding whether

[59:57] or not they want to go down a

[59:59] pathway where they maintain the

[1:00:00] property versus going through

[1:00:01] the Surplus Land Act. We did

[1:00:03] have a discussion with them

[1:00:04] recently, and I do owe them

[1:00:06] some additional information on

[1:00:09] the condition of the property.

[1:00:12] You know, we had talked about

[1:00:13] the property being developable,

[1:00:16] you know, based on what a

[1:00:17] previous developer said, but we

[1:00:19] never got any written or

[1:00:23] documentation from that

[1:00:24] developer or costs. So we're

[1:00:25] going to go through that

[1:00:27] process. I'm hoping they'll be

[1:00:28] kind and give us that

[1:00:29] information, assuming they had

[1:00:30] it, and we're just using that

[1:00:32] for negotiation tactics. But so

[1:00:35] I owe the city council some

[1:00:37] additional information. And so

[1:00:38] it will either be that they

[1:00:39] direct us to move down a

[1:00:41] pathway that allows us to keep

[1:00:42] the property for open space or

[1:00:44] some other park use, or we'll

[1:00:45] do the Surplus Land Act and try

[1:00:47] to see if somebody wants to try

[1:00:49] to develop the property. So I

[1:00:50] would anticipate that by the

[1:00:52] time we're doing the next RFPs

[1:00:54] process, we'll have a definite

[1:00:55] process for you and happy to

[1:00:57] come back and update if you

[1:00:59] want that as well. Happy to

[1:01:02] answer any questions. So how

[1:01:04] long has it. We've been kind of

[1:01:07] in limbo here for a while. And

[1:01:11] so I'm I'm kind of nervous when

[1:01:14] you say it'd be a whole year

[1:01:16] here before you get back to us.

[1:01:17] I mean, I don't know, Ken. I

[1:01:19] mean, is there anything I would

[1:01:21] think they could do something

[1:01:22] here faster. Yeah, I, I lived

[1:01:24] there, I've so been going to

[1:01:25] the actual meetings and, and

[1:01:28] this city council has been

[1:01:29] pretty diligent to be honest

[1:01:31] with you. And so a staff member

[1:01:34] this was under contract at one

[1:01:36] time. So they had somebody

[1:01:38] there to go ahead and build it

[1:01:40] so they'd us. And at the end of

[1:01:43] the day, if I'm understanding

[1:01:45] correctly, the developer pulled

[1:01:46] out of the deal. So now it goes,

[1:01:48] okay. Now what do we do with

[1:01:49] the property. You're asking the

[1:01:51] question. They're asking the

[1:01:52] same question. I mean, I'm not

[1:01:54] here to speak for city council,

[1:01:56] but it's a difficult site to

[1:01:58] develop from a real estate

[1:02:00] perspective. And it's probably

[1:02:01] going to end up being a public

[1:02:02] land use because it's right

[1:02:04] there at the base of the

[1:02:06] mountains, and it's got all

[1:02:07] sorts of liquefaction issues

[1:02:09] and access issues and

[1:02:10] everything else. But with that

[1:02:12] being said, I'm not making that

[1:02:14] determination. So I would think

[1:02:17] you'd be back to City Council

[1:02:19] with by March. Yeah, yeah, I

[1:02:21] would think so. Yeah. Yeah. So

[1:02:24] and from that you'll have the

[1:02:26] information and they'll have

[1:02:28] determination sometime in March.

[1:02:29] So that's right around the

[1:02:30] corner. I know it's I'm not

[1:02:33] here to speak for them. I'm

[1:02:34] just saying that's I just been

[1:02:36] following the process. So I

[1:02:38] don't know how much quicker

[1:02:39] than March. You're going to get

[1:02:41] it. And if I can follow up too,

[1:02:43] you know, we do have a new

[1:02:44] council member who is loathe to

[1:02:46] let go of any land because land

[1:02:48] in California is expensive. So

[1:02:49] he's always looking at ways

[1:02:50] that the city can utilize it to

[1:02:52] better serve the city and the

[1:02:53] amenities. So he really just

[1:02:55] wants to make sure that if

[1:02:56] we're going to get rid of

[1:02:58] something, that it is for a

[1:02:59] good reason or we don't have a

[1:03:01] purpose for it. And so we're

[1:03:02] just going through the motions

[1:03:04] and, you know, and if if the

[1:03:05] city does end up maintaining

[1:03:07] the property, that's an easier

[1:03:08] process for us. You know,

[1:03:09] probably not for Ventura

[1:03:10] because ours is in a parking

[1:03:12] lot. But for us, you know,

[1:03:13] government. Government to

[1:03:14] government transfer of open

[1:03:15] space is exempt from the

[1:03:16] Surplus Land Act. So that would

[1:03:18] be better for the oversight

[1:03:19] board. But again, it's there's

[1:03:20] five people who have to sort of

[1:03:22] make that decision that are above me. So. I'm

[1:03:29] going to suggest maybe Robert

[1:03:31] again, that if by the time

[1:03:33] Santa Paula comes in, if you

[1:03:34] want to contact Moorpark and

[1:03:36] see if they can come in at the

[1:03:37] same time and give us an update,

[1:03:39] maybe their city council has.

[1:03:41] I'm just saying potentially I

[1:03:43] don't want you to come in by

[1:03:45] yourself this meeting, but if

[1:03:46] we can coordinate that with

[1:03:48] either Ventura coming in

[1:03:50] separate or Santa Paula to come

[1:03:52] in and give us an update, sure.

[1:03:53] We could do that. Okay. Thank

[1:03:55] you. And we're happy to do. Any

[1:03:57] other questions? I was

[1:03:58] wondering, I just only seen the

[1:04:00] attachments. Just a two page,

[1:04:03] two line salaries, benefit

[1:04:06] operations. We didn't get a

[1:04:08] historical like we do. We see a

[1:04:10] few actuals and then a budget.

[1:04:12] I'm confused with what we

[1:04:14] received. Are you guys seeing

[1:04:17] the same? Okay. Yeah, I had a

[1:04:20] similar question. I wanted to

[1:04:21] see what the actual normally

[1:04:22] you see like three years of

[1:04:24] actuals were they hit. What's

[1:04:25] this year's budget. What's the

[1:04:27] new. I just see 50,000 usually

[1:04:29] get some detail about the

[1:04:30] salaries. I don't see any of

[1:04:32] that. And I if I remember

[1:04:34] correctly, in September I

[1:04:35] wasn't happy with the 50,000.

[1:04:36] And where it's at. I wasn't at

[1:04:38] the October meeting. I had a

[1:04:40] conflict, as I always do with

[1:04:42] the October. So I'm kind of

[1:04:44] confused about where we're at

[1:04:46] with this one. So I turned in

[1:04:51] what what was provided to me.

[1:04:54] And again, yeah, in September

[1:04:56] we had a lot more information.

[1:04:58] So but it hasn't I mean, the

[1:05:00] numbers haven't changed. Not to say that. I mean, we

[1:05:05] probably should have. I was I

[1:05:06] was clear that I wasn't for the

[1:05:08] 50,000 at that time and I

[1:05:10] didn't I was not available for

[1:05:12] the October meeting. Right. But

[1:05:16] we only received this right. Do

[1:05:19] you want to bring up see if

[1:05:21] they can staff can bring up the.

[1:05:23] Do you guys have the normal

[1:05:25] historical or that we usually

[1:05:27] receive. Can can staff

[1:05:32] bring up the previous one

[1:05:34] from back? I'm just

[1:05:35] wondering why we didn't get

[1:05:36] it for this one. Like, do I

[1:05:38] have to go back into the

[1:05:40] October meeting to get it,

[1:05:41] or can I just get it again?

[1:05:43] I don't want it now. I mean,

[1:05:45] a waste of everybody's time,

[1:05:46] but I know where my vote is

[1:05:47] on this. Yeah. Yeah. You

[1:05:51] have to go back to the

[1:05:52] previous. Yeah, yeah. Okay.

[1:05:57] I don't have historical

[1:06:00] paperwork. I only have

[1:06:02] comparing with last year's

[1:06:03] for my note and I mean for

[1:06:06] fiscal year 2526 budget, we

[1:06:09] have reduced the $12,000 in

[1:06:11] personnel cost and the

[1:06:14] $10,000 in legal cost. And

[1:06:18] additional administrative

[1:06:19] costs reduced by 2994 total

[1:06:25] $25,000. Reduced from

[1:06:26] fiscal year 2526. So this

[1:06:31] current fiscal year, we are

[1:06:33] we requested for $75,000.

[1:06:35] Assuming we are going

[1:06:36] through this process of

[1:06:41] remaining property, but the

[1:06:43] next year. So we further

[1:06:46] reduced to the $50,000. So

[1:06:49] I was able to pull up the October report. So well

[1:06:54] let's see if staff staff,

[1:06:55] can you pull that up from

[1:06:57] September. You have access

[1:06:58] to that to be displayed on

[1:07:00] the screen. Is that what

[1:07:01] you're requesting? It'll

[1:07:03] take a few moments, but we

[1:07:04] can try to. It's not

[1:07:06] necessary. Yeah, it's for

[1:07:08] October but it's not

[1:07:10] necessary. Yeah. Sorry. I'mt

[1:07:15] clear. Pulling it up or not. We did discuss it in October

[1:07:20] and they did reduce it from

[1:07:23] 75,000 to 50,000. So there was

[1:07:24] a reduction from the meeting.

[1:07:26] You okay? Thank you I didn't

[1:07:29] normally we get to see that

[1:07:30] history at this meeting. So I

[1:07:32] guess for next time when we're

[1:07:34] here at the January meeting, if

[1:07:36] we can get the full information.

[1:07:40] Yeah. It's what we just got for

[1:07:42] Ventura. Yes. And we have, but

[1:07:44] we normally do that for

[1:07:45] everybody. So I'm just kind of

[1:07:47] confused. Why? Yeah, I think in

[1:07:48] the past and in October we do

[1:07:51] provide a sheet where you could

[1:07:52] see it's just one sheet that

[1:07:54] you could see each of the

[1:07:55] cities and where it's I'm

[1:07:57] looking at that from the

[1:07:58] October 1st. And yeah, you can

[1:07:59] see that it was reduced by the

[1:08:01] typical 25 usually in January.

[1:08:03] Is that what you were, what

[1:08:05] you're asking for. Because that

[1:08:06] one. Yeah we could provide that.

[1:08:08] Yeah. In January, every January

[1:08:11] we usually get all that to get

[1:08:12] the two pager two liner. We

[1:08:14] don't normally see that. And I

[1:08:16] don't want to have to go grab

[1:08:18] October's meeting to look at

[1:08:19] what we're going to approved in

[1:08:21] January's meeting, correct? No,

[1:08:22] I agree. And just to summarize,

[1:08:24] since I have. Thank you, Kathy,

[1:08:25] for updating me. Yeah. So just

[1:08:29] to summarize the data that was

[1:08:30] provided in October, starting

[1:08:33] at is basically a downward

[1:08:34] trend. So their actuals were

[1:08:36] around like 140,000 to now

[1:08:38] where we're at, you know with

[1:08:40] the 50,000. So so I had to

[1:08:43] remind myself like what did I

[1:08:44] see last October. And so, you

[1:08:46] know, I was fine with the

[1:08:47] budget then. And because of

[1:08:49] that downward continued

[1:08:50] downward trend. So 75 and

[1:08:52] September down to 50 correct.

[1:08:54] Yeah. So we're seeing the

[1:08:55] downward trend that we're

[1:08:57] expecting. Yes. Thank you. Any

[1:09:03] other comments or questions.

[1:09:07] You can obviously tell that

[1:09:09] we're interested in seeing you

[1:09:12] know you know you guys working

[1:09:14] on the admin budget. So I mean

[1:09:16] that's always you know just

[1:09:17] keep that in the back of your

[1:09:19] mind as you're going back for

[1:09:21] down the road and stuff, I

[1:09:23] understand. Okay. Thank you.

[1:09:26] And then Robert will follow up

[1:09:28] in if with Moorpark to see if

[1:09:30] they have an update that they

[1:09:32] can coordinate with either

[1:09:33] Santa Paula or Ventura coming

[1:09:35] back. Yes. For some updates on this. Okay. Well thank you.

[1:09:39] very much. Thank you

[1:09:40] very much. Do I have any

[1:09:42] motions on this motion? I'll

[1:09:45] second. Okay. In second. All in

[1:09:49] favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[1:09:51] Say no. None. None here. So the

[1:09:55] motion passes. Six zero for

[1:09:58] City of Moorpark. Next up is

[1:10:00] item number 11 on the agenda.

[1:10:03] That's Oxnard, the city of

[1:10:04] Oxnard. Good morning, chair and

[1:10:08] members of the board. My name

[1:10:09] is Annie Jensen. I'm with the

[1:10:11] city manager's office with the

[1:10:12] City of Oxnard for the

[1:10:14] highlights. On the Oxnard

[1:10:15] successor agency, RoPS for 2627.

[1:10:18] You'll see that our enforceable

[1:10:20] obligations are down by a

[1:10:21] little over 951,000 from the

[1:10:23] previous year. This is

[1:10:25] primarily due to one of our pre

[1:10:27] 2010 bonds that's now falling

[1:10:28] off the books. So that's great

[1:10:30] news. That will terminate on

[1:10:32] September 1st and we will no

[1:10:33] longer have that expense. We do

[1:10:36] show a slight increase for

[1:10:37] items 24 and 40. And these are

[1:10:40] some of our developer

[1:10:41] agreements. And so these are

[1:10:43] contractual increases that are

[1:10:45] due to our DDA. So that was an

[1:10:48] expense that was baked into the

[1:10:50] development agreement that we

[1:10:51] inherited. And you will also

[1:10:53] see that since last year, our

[1:10:56] agreement for outside legal

[1:10:57] counsel ends on June 30th 2026.

[1:11:00] So that does not appear on this

[1:11:02] proposed 2627 wraps. And that's

[1:11:04] because we no longer have any

[1:11:05] physical property, and we feel

[1:11:07] that our more complicated legal

[1:11:09] needs are pretty much wrapped

[1:11:10] up. So we felt comfortable with

[1:11:12] not forwarding that expense to

[1:11:14] this fiscal year. And beside

[1:11:16] that, it's about business as

[1:11:17] usual. Our admin costs remain

[1:11:19] steady this year, and I'm happy

[1:11:21] to answer any questions you

[1:11:23] have on our proposed RoPS. Do I

[1:11:27] have any questions? The only

[1:11:29] thing is the same thing as we

[1:11:31] just went through with Moorpark.

[1:11:33] We don't have. I can't seem to

[1:11:36] find the same spreadsheet, so

[1:11:41] with each meeting when we have

[1:11:42] each one, can I can we see it?

[1:11:45] Yeah, we can because. Thank you.

[1:11:48] I don't want to have to rehash

[1:11:50] it I I'm sorry. Anybody else

[1:11:53] have a question? I have a

[1:11:55] question for you. And I kind of

[1:11:57] mentioned this at the last

[1:11:58] meeting, it seems. And help me

[1:12:02] out. It seems to me we're, you

[1:12:04] know, obviously you've gotten

[1:12:05] rid of your properties. You

[1:12:06] made great progress and all

[1:12:07] that, and you made headway and

[1:12:09] all that good stuff. You're

[1:12:12] basically I'm trying to

[1:12:13] understand you're just

[1:12:14] servicing existing stuff. You

[1:12:17] mean you're not really doing

[1:12:19] you're not planning to do a

[1:12:20] sale or anything? Why can't

[1:12:22] that admin costs go down? I'm

[1:12:26] confused at this point. Why?

[1:12:27] aren't they decreasing?

[1:12:29] Some of our admin costs went up

[1:12:31] because our financial team is

[1:12:32] taking on more of the expense

[1:12:34] internally that we used to have

[1:12:35] a contractor for. So creating

[1:12:37] the waterfall calculation,

[1:12:39] that's all something we're

[1:12:40] doing now. So that's we feel

[1:12:43] that that's still a cost that

[1:12:44] we need to produce all the

[1:12:46] documents associated with

[1:12:47] navigating our our remaining

[1:12:49] obligations as they get

[1:12:52] experienced over time. Won't

[1:12:53] that be a quicker or easier

[1:12:56] operation or more experience

[1:12:57] with that? I'm I'm just trying

[1:13:00] to see why the cost can't go

[1:13:01] down more. Because I don't see something out there

[1:13:06] that's really driving up the

[1:13:08] cost or keeping it up there. If

[1:13:10] it's just routine operations,

[1:13:12] yeah, there's going to be some

[1:13:13] overhead, but I would expect

[1:13:15] over time it becomes a routine

[1:13:17] process and it's not going to

[1:13:19] be, you know, you should be

[1:13:21] able to go through it pretty

[1:13:22] quickly. But I'm just saying

[1:13:24] I'm that's where I'm coming

[1:13:25] from. I this will make me very

[1:13:27] nervous down the road to keep

[1:13:30] seeing these types of admin

[1:13:32] costs when you're just doing

[1:13:33] maintenance on something. I

[1:13:34] mean, you know, this the same

[1:13:36] paperwork over and over again.

[1:13:37] I don't know if anybody else

[1:13:39] has that feeling, but but go

[1:13:43] ahead. Well, I mean, you bring

[1:13:45] up an interesting point there

[1:13:47] when you have a bond issue and

[1:13:49] I'm not a bond expert, but

[1:13:52] maybe we can get some

[1:13:54] definition as to what has to be

[1:13:57] done to keep a bond current and

[1:14:00] not in violation of their bond

[1:14:03] contract. Is there are

[1:14:05] waterfalls. The numbers are

[1:14:06] just. And unfortunately, if you

[1:14:09] have the same person doing it

[1:14:10] every year, I'll bet you money

[1:14:13] that they're probably making

[1:14:14] more money the second year than

[1:14:16] they are the first year. So

[1:14:17] there's a cost of that. But it

[1:14:19] doesn't mean that your question

[1:14:22] that if it's something that

[1:14:24] should take ten hours a year

[1:14:27] for one bond, it's ten hours a

[1:14:29] year, but if it's really 50

[1:14:31] hours a year, I mean, we don't

[1:14:32] have that Intel intelligence,

[1:14:34] so maybe we can get some

[1:14:36] education on that. But I think

[1:14:37] it's a valid question. But I

[1:14:40] know some of your work though

[1:14:41] is based on your you have to

[1:14:44] look at what's happening in,

[1:14:45] you know, with some of your

[1:14:47] contracts, you have issues

[1:14:48] where you have to evaluate, you

[1:14:49] have to get the inputs and

[1:14:51] costs and see the difference.

[1:14:52] And I know there's some work

[1:14:54] there, but it should be. It's

[1:14:55] nothing new. It's not the same.

[1:14:57] It's the same stuff you did

[1:14:58] each previous year. So I mean,

[1:15:00] I would think over time it gets

[1:15:02] more more of a routine process.

[1:15:04] We did find out that some of

[1:15:06] our hours had been under billed

[1:15:08] in previous years, so the city

[1:15:09] had been absorbing some of the

[1:15:10] costs that really should have

[1:15:12] been a successor agency cost.

[1:15:13] And now it's our finance team

[1:15:15] worked to correct that and and

[1:15:17] keep it. So the reflection that

[1:15:19] you see is the same is also

[1:15:20] because we feel like our hours

[1:15:22] have been previously

[1:15:23] undercounted. Okay. Well and

[1:15:26] then provide the next time I'd

[1:15:28] like to see a break a detailed

[1:15:30] breakout like we usually get

[1:15:32] for all the hours and where the time is going in. The

[1:15:36] cost is being generated for

[1:15:38] sure, with the admin or with

[1:15:39] the contracts or with the admin. Okay. Any costs going

[1:15:43] into the admin. Yeah okay. Yeah,

[1:15:46] absolutely. We can do that and

[1:15:48] I'll provide some more context.

[1:15:49] I did for the Moorpark example.

[1:15:52] But three years ago the actuals

[1:15:54] were around 133,000. Then it

[1:15:57] dipped down to 100,000 and back

[1:15:59] up to 120,000 for last year or

[1:16:01] the. And so what they're

[1:16:03] proposing is flat. So that's

[1:16:05] kind of so it's kind of been

[1:16:07] flat or I guess for the last

[1:16:09] three years or so, but still

[1:16:12] for me, at this point, if

[1:16:14] you're just doing maintenance

[1:16:15] on something, it should the

[1:16:17] cost, you should be getting

[1:16:18] more efficient at what you're

[1:16:20] doing and cost should be going

[1:16:21] down. You're not really, you

[1:16:23] know, once people know what to

[1:16:25] do, you don't have you don't

[1:16:26] have to use a higher level

[1:16:28] staff. You can you can push

[1:16:29] that down to lower, lower cost

[1:16:31] staff. That is true. Although

[1:16:33] we do have unfortunately have

[1:16:34] some staff turnover as well. So

[1:16:36] sometimes that we need to. Yeah yeah okay. Yeah. This year

[1:16:40] in particular since I've been

[1:16:41] here about three months. But

[1:16:42] okay. It's not all me I promise.

[1:16:44] Okay chair, can I just mention

[1:16:48] something. Yes. Go ahead. So

[1:16:49] you know, the way we had kind

[1:16:51] of designed the progression of

[1:16:52] these meetings is that we have

[1:16:54] that September meeting and and

[1:16:56] that's primarily for the admin

[1:16:58] budget. That's that's what we

[1:16:59] want to we want to, you know,

[1:17:01] make sure it gets before you

[1:17:02] guys, they give us the the

[1:17:03] history of it. And and we're, focused on that so that

[1:17:07] we don't necessarily have to

[1:17:09] deal with it right now. Because

[1:17:10] right now we're up against a timeline to, to get

[1:17:15] these passed. And so what you

[1:17:18] know, we we'll have the

[1:17:19] September meeting and possibly

[1:17:20] the October meeting. And once

[1:17:22] it once it gets passed. And I'm

[1:17:23] not saying, you know, you guys

[1:17:25] can't can't rehash it again,

[1:17:26] but I'm just saying at this

[1:17:28] point they've, they've done

[1:17:30] their, their, their job on

[1:17:32] whittling it down. We've done

[1:17:34] our due diligence on, on, you

[1:17:37] know, making sure they're

[1:17:37] answering the questions. And at

[1:17:39] this point it should be okay.

[1:17:43] You know, you didn't change the

[1:17:45] numbers. So the numbers are the

[1:17:46] same and it carries over. And

[1:17:47] that's what we've done in the

[1:17:49] past I'm saying. But if if the

[1:17:52] board is wanting something

[1:17:53] different or a different format

[1:17:54] for us to to do this, to do our

[1:17:57] jobs and for the cities to do

[1:17:58] their jobs, we got to

[1:18:00] understand that. And maybe, we need to to reframe

[1:18:04] this or redo this in a

[1:18:06] different way so that, you know,

[1:18:08] all the information is for you.

[1:18:10] And then maybe, maybe even the

[1:18:13] September October meetings may

[1:18:14] be unnecessary. And we could

[1:18:16] just do it all. All. Now, I'm

[1:18:18] just I'm just saying and that's

[1:18:20] been the history that's why.

[1:18:22] And and yes, you're correct.

[1:18:24] That has been the history

[1:18:25] because we had struggled in the

[1:18:26] past. Everything was at the

[1:18:27] last minute and, and January

[1:18:30] and conversations were made.

[1:18:31] And so yes, you are correct, we

[1:18:33] did set that up, but we don't

[1:18:36] have very many of these

[1:18:37] meetings that we keep on the

[1:18:39] books. So we only have a select

[1:18:44] few because normally we go dark.

[1:18:46] Right. Unless there's something

[1:18:47] urgent that you want us, we go

[1:18:49] dark until September, right? Oh

[1:18:51] yeah. Absolutely. So we have

[1:18:52] basically September, October

[1:18:53] and January, but we have other

[1:18:56] meetings on the books in case,

[1:18:57] you know, there's an issue. So

[1:18:59] we only have these three

[1:19:01] opportunities to talk about the

[1:19:02] next time. Right. So we only

[1:19:04] have now right to talk about

[1:19:07] September before September

[1:19:09] comes. So I guess I'm along I'm

[1:19:12] okay with Mitch letting them

[1:19:14] know now that we have an

[1:19:17] expectation at the September to

[1:19:19] like when we start this process

[1:19:21] again, to definitely go through

[1:19:22] and look at those admin budgets

[1:19:23] and make them realistic to the

[1:19:25] actual work that's being done.

[1:19:27] So when we have our September

[1:19:30] and October meetings where we

[1:19:31] dive in, it's fruitful. Yeah.

[1:19:33] No, no. And I'm not, I'm not arguing against. Yeah.

[1:19:37] Me neither is you know. Yeah

[1:19:39] I'm saying more information,

[1:19:41] but I just want to be clear. If

[1:19:43] the board wishes to adjust the

[1:19:45] format we're doing this, we

[1:19:47] need to know the city's need to

[1:19:48] know so that we could do it,

[1:19:50] provide you with the best

[1:19:51] information you could have. I'm

[1:19:53] just explaining kind of how we

[1:19:54] sit up here, too, but the I've

[1:19:56] already talked about it. I'd

[1:19:57] like to see it every single

[1:19:59] time. The format not change in

[1:20:01] the format. I like our format.

[1:20:02] I'm still a for it. The only

[1:20:04] thing I'm requesting is I feel

[1:20:06] like this time to agencies

[1:20:09] didn't have the normal,

[1:20:11] even though it's still a

[1:20:13] repeat of October. I'd like

[1:20:14] it in the materials. Okay,

[1:20:16] that was my only thing was

[1:20:17] I don't want to have to go

[1:20:19] back to another meeting to

[1:20:20] remind myself again what

[1:20:21] happened. Just just have it in

[1:20:23] the materials and everything's

[1:20:25] okay. Easier. It's all right in

[1:20:27] front of us. We don't have to

[1:20:28] go digging up anything, okay?

[1:20:30] That that was it. Okay. And

[1:20:34] then I'm here trying to make

[1:20:35] sure that for your next meeting.

[1:20:38] Correct. I'm just. I'm just

[1:20:39] giving you a heads up again to

[1:20:41] give you foreshadowing for the

[1:20:43] next meeting that, you know, I

[1:20:44] want to I want to see some

[1:20:46] improvement. There are more

[1:20:47] efficiencies or something being

[1:20:49] done because, you know, Oxnard,

[1:20:51] you guys are going to be the

[1:20:52] last ones on the books. I'm not

[1:20:55] sure if you knew that with

[1:20:57] being new on the job, but your

[1:20:58] guys, everybody else is going

[1:21:00] to be gone before you. So

[1:21:01] you're the last one is on the

[1:21:03] books. And what I'm saying long

[1:21:04] term, just for your input so

[1:21:06] you can get that, you know, the

[1:21:08] background. I don't want to to

[1:21:09] me is I'd like to see that

[1:21:12] 120,000 go down over, you know,

[1:21:14] over the next years and years

[1:21:16] because you're going to be out,

[1:21:17] you're going to be coming back

[1:21:19] here year after year for a long

[1:21:21] time. So I'd like to see some

[1:21:22] headway on that, where you get

[1:21:24] more, find ways to be more

[1:21:25] efficient at what you're just

[1:21:27] doing for maintenance type work

[1:21:28] on these projects. Does that

[1:21:30] make any sense? What I'm saying

[1:21:31] it does, yes. Thank you.

[1:21:32] Absolutely. Noted. And I will

[1:21:34] talk to our finance team about

[1:21:35] that. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah.

[1:21:37] I'd still like to see a summary

[1:21:39] of what the process of

[1:21:42] continuing a bond issue. So we

[1:21:43] have a better I have a better

[1:21:46] understanding of what's

[1:21:47] involved okay. Absolutely.

[1:21:50] Thank you. Any other questions

[1:21:52] or comments? No. Do I have a

[1:21:56] motion? I'll make the motion.

[1:22:00] I'll second. All in favor say

[1:22:04] aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no.

[1:22:07] None. Heard so. Motion passes,

[1:22:09] six zero. Thank you. On to item

[1:22:15] number 12. City of Fillmore.

[1:22:25] Good morning. Board members and

[1:22:26] chair. I'm Deborah Cappelletto,

[1:22:28] finance director for the City

[1:22:30] of Fillmore. Today I have Kevin

[1:22:31] McSweeney with me, who is our

[1:22:33] planning and community

[1:22:34] development director. He will

[1:22:35] be discussing the surplus

[1:22:37] properties that we have

[1:22:38] available, and I'll be going

[1:22:40] over quickly. The financial

[1:22:43] components, as you can see on

[1:22:45] item G for the administrative,

[1:22:47] we have not changed since our

[1:22:48] last two presentations. So

[1:22:50] we're at $58,117. The remaining

[1:22:54] is the $3,664,650 is associated

[1:22:59] with bond payments. The trust, trust agents and the

[1:23:06] admin charges, and any of the

[1:23:08] remaining amounts associated

[1:23:10] with the disposal of the

[1:23:12] remaining properties. So that's

[1:23:14] it for my presentation. On the

[1:23:16] financial side, do I have any

[1:23:18] comments or questions from the

[1:23:19] board up here? Go ahead James.

[1:23:23] Oh no. I just want to point out

[1:23:25] I think this is one of the

[1:23:26] examples where this is the

[1:23:28] attachment that we were looking

[1:23:29] for that shows the actuals

[1:23:30] compared to some of the, I

[1:23:32] think, the previous

[1:23:33] presentations. And so we could

[1:23:34] see that trend over time in the

[1:23:35] last couple fiscal years. So

[1:23:37] but and I recognize that we see

[1:23:39] it in September and October. I

[1:23:40] just want it present in front

[1:23:42] of me again in January. Any

[1:23:47] other questions or comments? No.

[1:23:49] Okay. I now have Kevin just be

[1:23:52] able to speak okay. Thank you.

[1:23:55] Good morning, Mr. Chair.

[1:23:56] Members of the board, my name

[1:23:57] is Kevin McSweeney, community

[1:23:59] development director. There are

[1:24:01] three parcels. Two parcels are

[1:24:04] abutting each other. And the

[1:24:05] city completed the Surplus Land

[1:24:07] Act for that property and

[1:24:08] selected many mansions to

[1:24:11] develop. They're proposing 50

[1:24:13] low income units there. They

[1:24:16] submitted an application. It's

[1:24:17] an incomplete application.

[1:24:20] Except for fees. They're paying

[1:24:21] all fees. They're paying for

[1:24:24] everything on the property. All

[1:24:25] of our city attorney's time,

[1:24:26] planning time and engineering

[1:24:28] time to process that project.

[1:24:30] Not you. That's those two

[1:24:33] parcels. The third parcel is

[1:24:36] 510 Santa Clara Street. We went

[1:24:38] through the Surplus Land Act.

[1:24:40] Nobody wanted it because it's

[1:24:42] small. There is a developer

[1:24:44] interested in building it. We

[1:24:45] are in negotiations with him.

[1:24:47] There's one negotiation point

[1:24:50] that we're trying to resolve.

[1:24:52] Hope to have that resolved in

[1:24:55] 2026. And on that particular

[1:24:57] property. We want to protect it

[1:24:59] or secure it. And so if you see

[1:25:01] our expenses is for new fencing

[1:25:03] for that property. And that

[1:25:06] project will also have some low

[1:25:08] income, not not all of it. Okay.

[1:25:13] Oh question. Is the mini

[1:25:14] mansion project in conjunction

[1:25:15] with the housing authority. Is

[1:25:17] there separate. No. Right now

[1:25:19] it's separate. They're doing it

[1:25:21] solo for now. So I'm not sure

[1:25:24] where it'll end up. Okay. Thank

[1:25:26] you. Was there any other

[1:25:31] questions? No. Okay. Well,

[1:25:33] thank you very much. Do I have

[1:25:37] a motion on the for City of

[1:25:40] Fillmore? I motion to approve.

[1:25:42] I'll second. Okay. We have a

[1:25:44] first and a second. All in

[1:25:46] favor, say aye. Aye. Any

[1:25:48] opposed? Say no. None. Heard.

[1:25:50] Motion passes six zero. Thank

[1:25:54] you. Everybody here. I just

[1:25:55] want to thank everybody in the

[1:25:57] audience for being here and

[1:25:58] going through all this today.

[1:26:01] And do we have any other follow

[1:26:03] up follow up here Robert okay.

[1:26:08] So everybody's happy. Any other

[1:26:10] comments from anybody. No. Okay.

[1:26:13] Well motion to adjourn. Meeting

[1:26:16] adjourned. Have a good day.

[1:26:18] Thank you.

Ventura County Consolidated Oversight Board Meeting - January 28, 2026

Transcript