Six, 9:30 a.m. calling the
Ventura County Consolidated
Oversight Board meeting to
order. And we'll start off with
the roll call. Good morning.
Board member Bojorquez. Present
board member Brooke. Here.
Board member. Important. Here.
Board member. Mitchell. Present.
Board member. Simmons. Present.
And chair, Mike Mitchell here.
Thank you, thank you. Pledge of
allegiance. James, can you lead
us? Start us off. Right hand
over your heart. Ready? Begin.
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America.
And to the Republic for which
it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Next, Robert,
do we have any changes to the
agenda? Since there are no
changes to the agenda, we don't
need to make any actions.
There's no changes. Okay. Thank
you. Next is item number five,
which is the meeting minutes
from the previous meeting on
October 22nd, 2025. Do I have
any questions from any of the
members on it? Do I have a
motion? I'll make a motion to
approve. Do I have a second?
I'll second it. Okay. Thank you.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any
opposed? None. Motion passes
six zero. Going on now to item
number six. Public comment. Do
we have anybody on the internet
coming in this meeting is does
not have an internet component,
but there are no requests to
speak. Okay. Thank you. Is
there anybody here in the
chamber who wants to speak at
this time? Okay. Thank you. I
see none. So going on to item
number seven board comments. Do
I have any board comments at
this time? No, I see none. So
we'll move on to number eight
staff comments Robert, do we
have any staff comments? Yes,
just just one quick one. So the
city of Santa Paula has been
working on their final
dissolution, and we were hoping
that they would have wrapped it
up by for this meeting so we
could have addressed it. But
they haven't been successful.
So they're still working on it.
And and I just wanted to let
you know that we may have
another meeting soon, but but
within the schedule. But but
you know, usually we have a
little bit of a rest period at
this time. But we may call a
meeting coming up in the month.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. We're going to move on to
the regular agenda number nine.
We're going to be looking at
the the city of Ventura is the
city of Ventura.
Representatives here for their
presentation. Oh thank you.
Good morning, chair and members
of the board. My name is
Heather bowling. I'm back again
to see you in place of Joe
Anthony. Carlos. Next slide
please. You have a remote right
in front of you. Thank you.
Okay. So we're going to do a
little update on site seven.
And I have some information
from the questions from last
meeting. So for our RoPS. We
submitted a total of 1.2
million and $835. Most of it
was for our our 1339043 and
then the administrative total
of $61,792. So for site seven.
It's the two parcels that are
located between California and
Chestnut, north of Main Street.
We did receive the appraisal
just within the last week. And
the the successor agency
parcels came in at $2,075,000.
The city Apns are 2,665,000. So
the combined valuation of that
whole parking lot is appraised
at $4,740,000. You guys had a
couple. Your board also had a
couple questions regarding the
lease. And right now there
currently is no lease on the
property. It was designated as
temporary use. And it seems
that since they designated the
area as a parking lot, it's
just continued indefinitely as
a parking lot without a lease.
And you asked about who pays
the property tax? Well, because
it's government property, it's
nontaxable. And so it's exempt
from property tax. So there's
no tax being paid on it. The
next step that we're going to
do is in February or in between
February and April, I'm
thinking closer to April. We're
going to take it to City
Council and ask them to declare
the property as surplus. And
then we're going to continue to
keep going through the next
steps after they declared a
surplus. I think our next
process would be to do a notice
of availability and continue in
the Surplus Land Act process.
And that's pretty much it for
my presentation. Do you guys
have any other questions or.
Yeah. Ken. Yeah, I got a couple
questions. So you have no lease
in the property. Is is there
any income on the property? No,
we have no revenue that comes
in on the property. And are
there any expenses? Who sweeps
it? Who cleans it? If there's a
pothole, who fixes it? I don't
I think the city maintains it.
I there is some dumpsters. I
don't know if you guys have
ever been there, but the movie
theater does have dumpsters in
the back and there is always
constantly popcorn butter that
comes out. And there's so they
probably maintain the city. The, movie theater probably
maintains that portion of it,
but there are no agreements to
do it. So out of record, not
that. Yeah. I mean, I can
research this with our public
works department and see if
they maintain the parking lot
or if they repave it. I don't
think anybody's repaving it
because I've seen it and it's
in pretty bad condition. I'm
not suggesting it's not. But if
somebody trips and falls, who
gets sued? I mean, somebody's
got to be responsible for it.
That's a good question. I'll
have to ask our city attorney's
office. Is this an operational
question? And having no lease,
no responsibility yet it's a former redevelopment
property. It's got to be
covered by I'm assuming the
city would cover it in the
meantime, but I'd like some
definition. I guess it would
depend which parcel they
tripped and fell on, right?
Yeah. If it was the RTA or the
city property, but I can I can
definitely bring these
questions to our city
attorney's office and bring
back some information next time.
And all I'm getting at is that
it's it's a structural thing.
It's a temporary structural
thing. And I want to make a big
issue of it. But, you know, I'm
in the real estate business and
there's always a an exposure
and a cost, etcetera. And if
there's no documentation, I
just ask the basic questions.
And I'm not trying to be
difficult, just that somebody
should, you know, take
possession of it and, and be
responsible for it and just get
some answers, that's all. Well,
you know, there are some
different options. And we did
since we did just get the
appraisal back within the last
week, city leadership is going
to review it and, you know,
discuss further. So we don't
really have any updates from
what city leadership is
discussing about the property
at this point. And if it's of
your board that you would like
me to research about seeing if
there is some type of lease
process that you would like us
to look into with the the
property, I don't know exactly
how that would work, so I'd
have to do research, and I
would talk to your city
attorney about those issues and
what the solution is. I mean,
there's a simple solution, I'm
sure. But if it's if it's an
entity that owns it, that's not
the city, then they have to
have responsibility for it. So
if that entity has the
insurance and everything else,
it's not and it's already been
resolved. I'm not trying to
tell you what to do, but it's a
question that should be asked.
And absolutely. And I think
it's within your purview to
tell us what to do. Right? I
don't know, I don't I don't
want to go there. So if you if
your board would like us to
look into a lease, we can
absolutely do that. Well, talk
to your city attorney and
whatever they recommend, come
back with a suggestion. Okay.
And what's the fallback plan
for this? Is there a fallback
plan after you go through all
this? You should be. I'm just
saying I'd like to see. I don't
want to spend all a bunch of
time going through all this
process, and nothing happens at
the end of it, and they still
haven't. I'd like to see the
city, you know, go through,
plan A, which are going through
the Surplus Land Act process.
Yes. And then have a plan B
available afterwards. I'd like
to to have the city discuss
that as an option. What's going
to happen next if it, you know,
what's the next step if that
doesn't work, if that makes any
sense. What I'm saying
absolutely makes sense. And I
know that right now we're just
waiting for city leadership to
discuss it because they're the
people. They're they're going
to be able to make the
determinations of which process
that we would take after the
Surplus Land Act. I do have
some information here that
there is an option B city lease
or purchase of property. And so
there is information. And once
I get an update from our city
leadership of which direction
they want to go, we can bring
in another update here to you
and let you know, like where
we're at in the Surplus Land
Act process and what the city
is willing or able to do after
that process. If that's not
successful. Okay. Thank you. I
just want them to be aware that,
you know, I want this. I want
them to have a plan B if
possible, as are. So we don't
spend another two years after,
you know, if this takes 1 or 2
years, it'd be nice to ha
something, a plan B maybe in
the background. And Robert, can
we schedule a follow up if
Santa Paula is going to come in
at some point and if it ties in,
if, can you just check in with
the City of Ventura to see if
they want to give us an update?
At the same time, if we're
going to have a meeting anyway?
Yes, we could do that, you know,
that's all. If they're not
ready, then it doesn't matter.
But I'm just saying if it works
out, we can have. Have you come
back the same time the city of
Santa Paula comes back? Yeah,
absolutely. For an update.
Thank you. And we were hopeful
to get the appraisal back
sooner. But with the holidays
and there was some delays. So
we literally just got it I
think earlier this week. So if
we had got it back earlier,
city leadership could have
already had some discussions
and we could have brought more
of an update for you, but it
just didn't work out that way.
Now, let me ask a stupid
question, Ken, because you know
this stuff and I know I'm good,
stupid questions, but okay,
it's a parking lot. When they
do the evaluation for the
appraisal, is it appraised as a
parking lot or is it as a
potential development site?
Well, I don't know. I haven't
seen the appraisal, so I
couldn't I couldn't advise you
on that. There's an existing
uses of a parking lot. There's
existing zoning. It may have
development rights. Really
depends on what they where they
go with that. And I'm guessing
it's probably appraised more
than a parking lot. That price
point. Because there's the
revenue income on that parking
lot would not would not justify
for an investor to pay that
price. So it has to be
something to do with additional
development rights and stuff
like that access. But again, it
has to be with if you're going
to develop it, you can't just
develop that parcel. So you
have to develop the entire
thing or have the city take
over and run it as a parking
lot, which is also a necessity
of the area. So and remind me,
I think at the September, I
don't know, it's been a while
since we've had meetings and to
remember, but I remember the
parcel. So you had the city had
a parcel and then the RDA had a
portion of the parcel. And I
remember if my memory serves me,
the you still had to have
access right to the parcel,
like, and then the rezoning,
there was all these
complexities. And when you went
out to bid last time or had up
for sale, the interest was
difficult because of all these
restrictions put on, because
you couldn't just develop the
property behind the movie
theater. There were access
rights. And so and it was odd
shaped and and we were like, we
had discussions back then, why
doesn't it just remain a
parking lot? Like the downtown
needs a parking lot. Why
doesn't it just remain? There's
no parking down there. I was
just down there this weekend.
You know, you're always
struggling to either be in this,
in the in this parking
structure or to find something
on the end. It's always nice.
Like, is that option B is to
just have RDA give it to the
city and then it just stays a
parking lot because the
development not really sure
what you can do with that
property. Yeah. And you know
and it is very interesting
because I think the parcels are
kitty corner. So like the city
parcels are this way the RDA.
And there is a house like up at
the top of the hill that there
probably is some easement for.
And it is the location is a
good location, but the location
is not a good location. And it
is a very downtown, but the
access to the different pieces
is. Yeah, if if you want to go
a step further to that, I mean,
do you want can we get a copy
of the the title report with
easements on it and get a copy
of the they showed it last I
mean, last time they had the I
saw the plot. Yeah. But I that
certain easements you can build
on certain easements you can't.
And again the appraisal you
brought up a good question.
Maybe we should take a look at
the appraisal because that if
that's an item that we have to
evaluate compared to what it's
being used for and sold for, I
think we need to take a look at
the appraisal as well to see
how they evaluated it. Well,
I'm just seeing like as we're
looking at the budget, they
were like 30,000 admin budget
because nothing was happening.
Right? I thought they were
after this whole presentation
that they couldn't really do
anything. It's a hard piece of
property, blah blah, blah, blah. And now they're
increasing it. Now they've
doubled it. So I want to know
you're doubling it because you
think there's going to be an
opportunity to do something
with it. You mean our admin
budget that we doubled? Okay.
So that's the there is a legal
process that we have to follow
in order to dispose of the the
land. It's the Surplus Land Act
process. And so we have to
legally go through this process,
which there is a lot of work
that is involved with going
through the Surplus Land Act
process, like council hearings.
We have to do notices of
availability. We have to do a
lot of administrative work that
is entailed within this process.
So that's why our admin budget
went up substantially, so that
we can start the process of the
Surplus Land Act. I don't think
that we have any guarantee or
outcome of what's going to
happen with the Surplus Land
Act. That wasn't what was what
contributed to the increase in
the admin budget. It's
literally just the process of
going through the Surplus Land
Act. So that's what increased
the admin budget. I know that
there is some. Joe Anthony is
our subject matter expert for
site seven. I do all of the
accounting for the ROP, so we
both work together to maintain
this project. And he is
unavailable today. So I'm
coming. And he actually is like
the expert. I've been
researching the Surplus Land
Act, researching site seven. He
understands a lot more of this
information and hopefully next.
Is he part of the admin budget?
Yes he is, but he was
unavailable even though he
knows that we're every fourth
Wednesday. Okay. Yes. Things
come up. And so yes, he is
unavailable today, but I'm here
and I am. But you don't have
more details for site seven.
Well, I have this whole eight
page document that he provided
me so I can, you know, I've
read read through it, but
there's so much information in
here is that eight part page
document part of our materials?
No, this is a notes for me. If
you guys want, we can produce
something like this for you
that can give you more
information and send it in. As
to Robert, but I think there is
some type of process that can
happen, like where the city can
if the successor agency does
want to give the property to
the city, there is a process
for that. I don't know exactly
the process. That could be one
of the the options, but I think
we still have to go through the
Surplus Land Act process. You
have to. Yeah, that's required
by law. Just a minimum six
month process after you prepare
it. So it could be a 7 or 8
month. Other cities have done
it for this similar type. Well,
anytime you have a I think is
and we reviewed the Surplus
Land Act a couple of years ago
when the when the legislation
came out, the governor decided
that we want housing. And so
one of the objectives of the
California Housing Act,
whatever they call it, was to
make sure that the lands that
were former Redevelopment
Agency lands were presented to
housing developers, basically
for Surplus Land Act and
letting non-profits go out and
take a look at it, or whoever's
developing low and moderate
income housing to review the
process. And and there's a six
month window from the time it
gets published to the end date.
And then when that happens and, we could ask everybody
that's here today how many
people actually took it from
Surplus Land Act. You're going
to find it's a very small
percentage. But it does take
time. It does take money. And
at at the end of that, then the
city can go with their plan B.
It doesn't mean that the city's
plan B can't be discussed and
determined while this process
is going on. So which is what
you're requesting. And it's
been enough time that we should
be able to get that. But you
said, I think it was by April
that the City Council will have
reviewed all these things. Is
that what I heard? So we're
going to take our first
presentation in April. I am
we're we're scheduling April as
the tentative city council date
to have them declare the land
as surplus. Okay. So do you
have to require two meetings,
the notification, and then you
have to have the vote later? I
don't know if I know that
happens for ordinance like
ordinance updates like the
second reading, but I don't
know if a second reading is
necessary for. So you'll have
the the one, the what typically
happens in cities have to be
familiar with this is that the
staff will do a report, do the
study, they'll. But if it's
just the Land Act presentation,
that's one thing. But we're encouraging you to add to
discuss when the if the Land
Act is not successful
presentation, what the uses
will be and what the process
will be. That is what we're
looking for. That can be done
during during that same period
of time. I do have an option
see exempt surplus land
declaration attempt to declare
the property as exempt. Surplus
land under exemption. Category
three land dedicated for other
public uses. Statutory
exemptions. Land dedicated for
other public uses. Parks,
schools, etc. Transfer to
federal state government. Land
exchange for other land to be
used by the local agency, etc.
For parking lot to be exempt,
it usually needs to fall under
specific categories, such as
being part of a larger project
for affordable housing. If the
governing body can make a
defensible finding that the lot
is necessary for current or
future agency operations, then
it is not surplus at all, and
the SLA never triggers. So I
think this is just what I'm
reading from here. Well, so
what basically what she's
saying is that and LA city have
done that. They say this is
going to be our future park. So
that's allowed. But a parking
lot is not allowed. So and it
is in the Te 4.1 something zone.
And I don't know even if that
area is zoned to be allowable
use of a parking lot. So
there's all the zoning codes
and all this other stuff that
you have to look into. Can we
get a copy of the appraisal?
Yeah. If you would like a copy
of the appraisal, we can send
it to Robert. Why don't we have
can we do that at the same if
whenever, can we follow up with
Ventura to come back with more
information on this and give us
an update with Santa Paula, or
even if we have to do a
separate and with the copy of
their appraisal, so we can get
in between the appraisal.
Because I don't want to, you
know, see it two days before.
Okay. Sorry. I think for Brown
Act purposes it has to be
released with an agenda. I
would defer to County Council,
but we would release that to
the board and the public
simultaneously as part of
agenda under the Brown Act. You
can't receive substantial
documents outside the public
agenda process. Well, no, it
can be put on the public agenda
and that would cover the Brown
Act. You can verify that, but
we could certainly see it.
There's not a time limit as to
when we can see it, is there? I
mean, if we sent it in, can you
post it as a supplemental to
the agenda and then it's
available? Yes. Yeah. Assistant
County Counsel David Etzel yeah.
Generally the Brown Act
restrictions are minimums is
the 72 hours, you know, posting
an agenda. You need to provide
the materials before that.
There's nothing that would
that I'm aware of that
would preclude providing
the materials well in
advance of that, if the
board would request it as a
courtesy. But just as far
as having a meeting that 72
hours, that's the that's
the minimum that it must be
posted. Yeah. Well, we'll have a meeting to
discuss it and be published
accordingly, but no reason
why we can't see it
beforehand. That's all I'm
saying. Okay. So I know
just make sure we're on the
same wavelength here. What
we're going to do is ask
for Ventura. So, Ken, why don't
you summarize what you're
asking for? Yeah, I'd like to
see a copy of the appraisal and, and get now that you've
mentioned it, a copy of the
existing zoning and definition.
With that existing zoning
allows. And then I would love
to see a copy of the easements
and a copy of the title report
that you have on it, but that
would be me. That's what I do,
that I could educate. Then I
can, from that perspective,
actually give you qualified
input, somewhat qualified input.
So we'll have Robert. We want
to have that information
supplied from Ventura to you.
And then you can send it out to
us. And then at some point we
need to follow up with a
meeting. Yes. On that.
Understood. Is that okay. Yes.
Okay. Absolutely. Get back to
you. So let me repeat back what
you guys are requesting. So you
would like to see a copy of the
appraisal. You would like to
see a copy of the zoning of
that, those parcels. You would
like to understand the zoning
laws. And you want to see the
easement title report. And I
can do my best to find all of
this information. It's going to
take some time to research, and
I'll have to work with public
Works, and we'll call the title
officer up. They haven't your
title officer. And then did you
guys want me to send you also a
little cheat sheet on the
Surplus Land Act or any other
information? No. Okay. We've
already reviewed that okay.
Any more questions from
up here or you want to talk
about. Okay. No, no, I have a
question. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah.
Just focusing on the admin
budget. So year over year it's
about a $30,000 increase right.
Is that that's purely
attributable to the Surplus
Land Act process. Yes. Okay. So
just doing a quick math in my
head. So if it's like $30,000 a
six month process, that's like
$5,000 a month. And so I'm
trying to think intuitively,
okay. In terms of a burn rate,
does that sound reasonable. And
so that's where, you know, I'm
just wanted to confirm that
30,000 is that's just for the
going through that process. I
think the Surplus Land Act is
definitely longer than a six
month process. Well, the the
process is longer, but the
notification period six months,
I believe. Am I right or wrong.
Yeah. And the budget is for one
fiscal year starting in July,
so we won't even be using that
admin budget till July. So
we'll be doing a lot of work
within this year's admin budget.
And the good news is is is just
a budget. So the we didn't
we're still learning how to
estimate how long this process
is going to take. And so the
only thing that will actually
be charged to the successor
agency is the actuals. And this
is all determined by the prior
period adjustment. So next year
we'll actually later on in this
year in September we do a
public I mean a prior period
adjustment which shows what we
actually used. And then they
deduct what they give us from
our next year's payment. So we
really just are doing the best
we can as being new to the
successor agency to estimate
how much staff time and
attorney costs or other things
that are going to go into this
process. Yeah, actually, I
pulled up the Surplus Land Act
guidelines, and so I thought
six months was fairly
aggressive. So in fact, it
looks even better. Right?
Because if you take 30,000
divided by 12, you know, that's
more like 2500 a month. So in
my mind that seems reasonable.
So I would support your admin
budget. Okay. Great. Thank you
James. Mr. important. I'm sorry.
Any other questions? I do have
one more question in the admin
budget. Excuse me. It does say
that the increase in outside
consultant is for an updated
appraisal. So I just want to be
and this budget doesn't start
till July. So that updated
appraisal you actually got
completed in this fiscal year
correct. Yes. And I believe
this is probably going to come
from city funds. Or maybe it
would be part of our I don't
know if it will be part of our
admin budget for this current
fiscal year. If we I don't
believe we will have to do an
updated appraisal so that money
will probably not be used and
will be part of the the prior
period adjustment. Thank you.
Okay. No other questions okay.
Well thank you very much. No
problem. I hope this was
helpful for you. And thank you
for your time today. Okay.
Thank you. Do I have a motion
for this a motion to approve.
Do I have a second? I'll second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any
opposed? Say no. None here. So
motion passes, six zero. Thank
you. Going on to item number
ten which is the city of
Moorpark. We have
representatives here can come
up. Thank you. Good morning,
chair and board members. My
name is Hiromi Diva, finance
director from Moorpark. For
this, we are requesting for a
total of 1.3 million. Pretty
close to 1.4 million. This
include the 1.3 1,000,336, 990,
and which is for majority is a
bond payment. And the $50,000
in admin cost and $50,000 admin
costs has not changed from our
original request, which include
$34,000 in personnel costs,
$5,000 in legal costs, $10,000
in the Finance and bond debt
administration and other
administrative costs for $909.
Last October meeting. We did
not have any update on
remaining land, and a city
conducted property discussion
session in November, and we had
some directions, but not the
final directions. I haven't.
Mr. Miss Sandifer. I'm sorry,
miss, Miss Sandifer, to go over
with current status of
remaining fund remaining land.
Good morning everybody. This.
Can you hear me? Okay. The city
council still deciding whether
or not they want to go down a
pathway where they maintain the
property versus going through
the Surplus Land Act. We did
have a discussion with them
recently, and I do owe them
some additional information on
the condition of the property.
You know, we had talked about
the property being developable,
you know, based on what a
previous developer said, but we
never got any written or
documentation from that
developer or costs. So we're
going to go through that
process. I'm hoping they'll be
kind and give us that
information, assuming they had
it, and we're just using that
for negotiation tactics. But so
I owe the city council some
additional information. And so
it will either be that they
direct us to move down a
pathway that allows us to keep
the property for open space or
some other park use, or we'll
do the Surplus Land Act and try
to see if somebody wants to try
to develop the property. So I
would anticipate that by the
time we're doing the next RFPs
process, we'll have a definite
process for you and happy to
come back and update if you
want that as well. Happy to
answer any questions. So how
long has it. We've been kind of
in limbo here for a while. And
so I'm I'm kind of nervous when
you say it'd be a whole year
here before you get back to us.
I mean, I don't know, Ken. I
mean, is there anything I would
think they could do something
here faster. Yeah, I, I lived
there, I've so been going to
the actual meetings and, and
this city council has been
pretty diligent to be honest
with you. And so a staff member
this was under contract at one
time. So they had somebody
there to go ahead and build it
so they'd us. And at the end of
the day, if I'm understanding
correctly, the developer pulled
out of the deal. So now it goes,
okay. Now what do we do with
the property. You're asking the
question. They're asking the
same question. I mean, I'm not
here to speak for city council,
but it's a difficult site to
develop from a real estate
perspective. And it's probably
going to end up being a public
land use because it's right
there at the base of the
mountains, and it's got all
sorts of liquefaction issues
and access issues and
everything else. But with that
being said, I'm not making that
determination. So I would think
you'd be back to City Council
with by March. Yeah, yeah, I
would think so. Yeah. Yeah. So
and from that you'll have the
information and they'll have
determination sometime in March.
So that's right around the
corner. I know it's I'm not
here to speak for them. I'm
just saying that's I just been
following the process. So I
don't know how much quicker
than March. You're going to get
it. And if I can follow up too,
you know, we do have a new
council member who is loathe to
let go of any land because land
in California is expensive. So
he's always looking at ways
that the city can utilize it to
better serve the city and the
amenities. So he really just
wants to make sure that if
we're going to get rid of
something, that it is for a
good reason or we don't have a
purpose for it. And so we're
just going through the motions
and, you know, and if if the
city does end up maintaining
the property, that's an easier
process for us. You know,
probably not for Ventura
because ours is in a parking
lot. But for us, you know,
government. Government to
government transfer of open
space is exempt from the
Surplus Land Act. So that would
be better for the oversight
board. But again, it's there's
five people who have to sort of
make that decision that are above me. So. I'm
going to suggest maybe Robert
again, that if by the time
Santa Paula comes in, if you
want to contact Moorpark and
see if they can come in at the
same time and give us an update,
maybe their city council has.
I'm just saying potentially I
don't want you to come in by
yourself this meeting, but if
we can coordinate that with
either Ventura coming in
separate or Santa Paula to come
in and give us an update, sure.
We could do that. Okay. Thank
you. And we're happy to do. Any
other questions? I was
wondering, I just only seen the
attachments. Just a two page,
two line salaries, benefit
operations. We didn't get a
historical like we do. We see a
few actuals and then a budget.
I'm confused with what we
received. Are you guys seeing
the same? Okay. Yeah, I had a
similar question. I wanted to
see what the actual normally
you see like three years of
actuals were they hit. What's
this year's budget. What's the
new. I just see 50,000 usually
get some detail about the
salaries. I don't see any of
that. And I if I remember
correctly, in September I
wasn't happy with the 50,000.
And where it's at. I wasn't at
the October meeting. I had a
conflict, as I always do with
the October. So I'm kind of
confused about where we're at
with this one. So I turned in
what what was provided to me.
And again, yeah, in September
we had a lot more information.
So but it hasn't I mean, the
numbers haven't changed. Not to say that. I mean, we
probably should have. I was I
was clear that I wasn't for the
50,000 at that time and I
didn't I was not available for
the October meeting. Right. But
we only received this right. Do
you want to bring up see if
they can staff can bring up the.
Do you guys have the normal
historical or that we usually
receive. Can can staff
bring up the previous one
from back? I'm just
wondering why we didn't get
it for this one. Like, do I
have to go back into the
October meeting to get it,
or can I just get it again?
I don't want it now. I mean,
a waste of everybody's time,
but I know where my vote is
on this. Yeah. Yeah. You
have to go back to the
previous. Yeah, yeah. Okay.
I don't have historical
paperwork. I only have
comparing with last year's
for my note and I mean for
fiscal year 2526 budget, we
have reduced the $12,000 in
personnel cost and the
$10,000 in legal cost. And
additional administrative
costs reduced by 2994 total
$25,000. Reduced from
fiscal year 2526. So this
current fiscal year, we are
we requested for $75,000.
Assuming we are going
through this process of
remaining property, but the
next year. So we further
reduced to the $50,000. So
I was able to pull up the October report. So well
let's see if staff staff,
can you pull that up from
September. You have access
to that to be displayed on
the screen. Is that what
you're requesting? It'll
take a few moments, but we
can try to. It's not
necessary. Yeah, it's for
October but it's not
necessary. Yeah. Sorry. I'mt
clear. Pulling it up or not. We did discuss it in October
and they did reduce it from
75,000 to 50,000. So there was
a reduction from the meeting.
You okay? Thank you I didn't
normally we get to see that
history at this meeting. So I
guess for next time when we're
here at the January meeting, if
we can get the full information.
Yeah. It's what we just got for
Ventura. Yes. And we have, but
we normally do that for
everybody. So I'm just kind of
confused. Why? Yeah, I think in
the past and in October we do
provide a sheet where you could
see it's just one sheet that
you could see each of the
cities and where it's I'm
looking at that from the
October 1st. And yeah, you can
see that it was reduced by the
typical 25 usually in January.
Is that what you were, what
you're asking for. Because that
one. Yeah we could provide that.
Yeah. In January, every January
we usually get all that to get
the two pager two liner. We
don't normally see that. And I
don't want to have to go grab
October's meeting to look at
what we're going to approved in
January's meeting, correct? No,
I agree. And just to summarize,
since I have. Thank you, Kathy,
for updating me. Yeah. So just
to summarize the data that was
provided in October, starting
at is basically a downward
trend. So their actuals were
around like 140,000 to now
where we're at, you know with
the 50,000. So so I had to
remind myself like what did I
see last October. And so, you
know, I was fine with the
budget then. And because of
that downward continued
downward trend. So 75 and
September down to 50 correct.
Yeah. So we're seeing the
downward trend that we're
expecting. Yes. Thank you. Any
other comments or questions.
You can obviously tell that
we're interested in seeing you
know you know you guys working
on the admin budget. So I mean
that's always you know just
keep that in the back of your
mind as you're going back for
down the road and stuff, I
understand. Okay. Thank you.
And then Robert will follow up
in if with Moorpark to see if
they have an update that they
can coordinate with either
Santa Paula or Ventura coming
back. Yes. For some updates on this. Okay. Well thank you.
very much. Thank you
very much. Do I have any
motions on this motion? I'll
second. Okay. In second. All in
favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Say no. None. None here. So the
motion passes. Six zero for
City of Moorpark. Next up is
item number 11 on the agenda.
That's Oxnard, the city of
Oxnard. Good morning, chair and
members of the board. My name
is Annie Jensen. I'm with the
city manager's office with the
City of Oxnard for the
highlights. On the Oxnard
successor agency, RoPS for 2627.
You'll see that our enforceable
obligations are down by a
little over 951,000 from the
previous year. This is
primarily due to one of our pre
2010 bonds that's now falling
off the books. So that's great
news. That will terminate on
September 1st and we will no
longer have that expense. We do
show a slight increase for
items 24 and 40. And these are
some of our developer
agreements. And so these are
contractual increases that are
due to our DDA. So that was an
expense that was baked into the
development agreement that we
inherited. And you will also
see that since last year, our
agreement for outside legal
counsel ends on June 30th 2026.
So that does not appear on this
proposed 2627 wraps. And that's
because we no longer have any
physical property, and we feel
that our more complicated legal
needs are pretty much wrapped
up. So we felt comfortable with
not forwarding that expense to
this fiscal year. And beside
that, it's about business as
usual. Our admin costs remain
steady this year, and I'm happy
to answer any questions you
have on our proposed RoPS. Do I
have any questions? The only
thing is the same thing as we
just went through with Moorpark.
We don't have. I can't seem to
find the same spreadsheet, so
with each meeting when we have
each one, can I can we see it?
Yeah, we can because. Thank you.
I don't want to have to rehash
it I I'm sorry. Anybody else
have a question? I have a
question for you. And I kind of
mentioned this at the last
meeting, it seems. And help me
out. It seems to me we're, you
know, obviously you've gotten
rid of your properties. You
made great progress and all
that, and you made headway and
all that good stuff. You're
basically I'm trying to
understand you're just
servicing existing stuff. You
mean you're not really doing
you're not planning to do a
sale or anything? Why can't
that admin costs go down? I'm
confused at this point. Why?
aren't they decreasing?
Some of our admin costs went up
because our financial team is
taking on more of the expense
internally that we used to have
a contractor for. So creating
the waterfall calculation,
that's all something we're
doing now. So that's we feel
that that's still a cost that
we need to produce all the
documents associated with
navigating our our remaining
obligations as they get
experienced over time. Won't
that be a quicker or easier
operation or more experience
with that? I'm I'm just trying
to see why the cost can't go
down more. Because I don't see something out there
that's really driving up the
cost or keeping it up there. If
it's just routine operations,
yeah, there's going to be some
overhead, but I would expect
over time it becomes a routine
process and it's not going to
be, you know, you should be
able to go through it pretty
quickly. But I'm just saying
I'm that's where I'm coming
from. I this will make me very
nervous down the road to keep
seeing these types of admin
costs when you're just doing
maintenance on something. I
mean, you know, this the same
paperwork over and over again.
I don't know if anybody else
has that feeling, but but go
ahead. Well, I mean, you bring
up an interesting point there
when you have a bond issue and
I'm not a bond expert, but
maybe we can get some
definition as to what has to be
done to keep a bond current and
not in violation of their bond
contract. Is there are
waterfalls. The numbers are
just. And unfortunately, if you
have the same person doing it
every year, I'll bet you money
that they're probably making
more money the second year than
they are the first year. So
there's a cost of that. But it
doesn't mean that your question
that if it's something that
should take ten hours a year
for one bond, it's ten hours a
year, but if it's really 50
hours a year, I mean, we don't
have that Intel intelligence,
so maybe we can get some
education on that. But I think
it's a valid question. But I
know some of your work though
is based on your you have to
look at what's happening in,
you know, with some of your
contracts, you have issues
where you have to evaluate, you
have to get the inputs and
costs and see the difference.
And I know there's some work
there, but it should be. It's
nothing new. It's not the same.
It's the same stuff you did
each previous year. So I mean,
I would think over time it gets
more more of a routine process.
We did find out that some of
our hours had been under billed
in previous years, so the city
had been absorbing some of the
costs that really should have
been a successor agency cost.
And now it's our finance team
worked to correct that and and
keep it. So the reflection that
you see is the same is also
because we feel like our hours
have been previously
undercounted. Okay. Well and
then provide the next time I'd
like to see a break a detailed
breakout like we usually get
for all the hours and where the time is going in. The
cost is being generated for
sure, with the admin or with
the contracts or with the admin. Okay. Any costs going
into the admin. Yeah okay. Yeah,
absolutely. We can do that and
I'll provide some more context.
I did for the Moorpark example.
But three years ago the actuals
were around 133,000. Then it
dipped down to 100,000 and back
up to 120,000 for last year or
the. And so what they're
proposing is flat. So that's
kind of so it's kind of been
flat or I guess for the last
three years or so, but still
for me, at this point, if
you're just doing maintenance
on something, it should the
cost, you should be getting
more efficient at what you're
doing and cost should be going
down. You're not really, you
know, once people know what to
do, you don't have you don't
have to use a higher level
staff. You can you can push
that down to lower, lower cost
staff. That is true. Although
we do have unfortunately have
some staff turnover as well. So
sometimes that we need to. Yeah yeah okay. Yeah. This year
in particular since I've been
here about three months. But
okay. It's not all me I promise.
Okay chair, can I just mention
something. Yes. Go ahead. So
you know, the way we had kind
of designed the progression of
these meetings is that we have
that September meeting and and
that's primarily for the admin
budget. That's that's what we
want to we want to, you know,
make sure it gets before you
guys, they give us the the
history of it. And and we're, focused on that so that
we don't necessarily have to
deal with it right now. Because
right now we're up against a timeline to, to get
these passed. And so what you
know, we we'll have the
September meeting and possibly
the October meeting. And once
it once it gets passed. And I'm
not saying, you know, you guys
can't can't rehash it again,
but I'm just saying at this
point they've, they've done
their, their, their job on
whittling it down. We've done
our due diligence on, on, you
know, making sure they're
answering the questions. And at
this point it should be okay.
You know, you didn't change the
numbers. So the numbers are the
same and it carries over. And
that's what we've done in the
past I'm saying. But if if the
board is wanting something
different or a different format
for us to to do this, to do our
jobs and for the cities to do
their jobs, we got to
understand that. And maybe, we need to to reframe
this or redo this in a
different way so that, you know,
all the information is for you.
And then maybe, maybe even the
September October meetings may
be unnecessary. And we could
just do it all. All. Now, I'm
just I'm just saying and that's
been the history that's why.
And and yes, you're correct.
That has been the history
because we had struggled in the
past. Everything was at the
last minute and, and January
and conversations were made.
And so yes, you are correct, we
did set that up, but we don't
have very many of these
meetings that we keep on the
books. So we only have a select
few because normally we go dark.
Right. Unless there's something
urgent that you want us, we go
dark until September, right? Oh
yeah. Absolutely. So we have
basically September, October
and January, but we have other
meetings on the books in case,
you know, there's an issue. So
we only have these three
opportunities to talk about the
next time. Right. So we only
have now right to talk about
September before September
comes. So I guess I'm along I'm
okay with Mitch letting them
know now that we have an
expectation at the September to
like when we start this process
again, to definitely go through
and look at those admin budgets
and make them realistic to the
actual work that's being done.
So when we have our September
and October meetings where we
dive in, it's fruitful. Yeah.
No, no. And I'm not, I'm not arguing against. Yeah.
Me neither is you know. Yeah
I'm saying more information,
but I just want to be clear. If
the board wishes to adjust the
format we're doing this, we
need to know the city's need to
know so that we could do it,
provide you with the best
information you could have. I'm
just explaining kind of how we
sit up here, too, but the I've
already talked about it. I'd
like to see it every single
time. The format not change in
the format. I like our format.
I'm still a for it. The only
thing I'm requesting is I feel
like this time to agencies
didn't have the normal,
even though it's still a
repeat of October. I'd like
it in the materials. Okay,
that was my only thing was
I don't want to have to go
back to another meeting to
remind myself again what
happened. Just just have it in
the materials and everything's
okay. Easier. It's all right in
front of us. We don't have to
go digging up anything, okay?
That that was it. Okay. And
then I'm here trying to make
sure that for your next meeting.
Correct. I'm just. I'm just
giving you a heads up again to
give you foreshadowing for the
next meeting that, you know, I
want to I want to see some
improvement. There are more
efficiencies or something being
done because, you know, Oxnard,
you guys are going to be the
last ones on the books. I'm not
sure if you knew that with
being new on the job, but your
guys, everybody else is going
to be gone before you. So
you're the last one is on the
books. And what I'm saying long
term, just for your input so
you can get that, you know, the
background. I don't want to to
me is I'd like to see that
120,000 go down over, you know,
over the next years and years
because you're going to be out,
you're going to be coming back
here year after year for a long
time. So I'd like to see some
headway on that, where you get
more, find ways to be more
efficient at what you're just
doing for maintenance type work
on these projects. Does that
make any sense? What I'm saying
it does, yes. Thank you.
Absolutely. Noted. And I will
talk to our finance team about
that. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah.
I'd still like to see a summary
of what the process of
continuing a bond issue. So we
have a better I have a better
understanding of what's
involved okay. Absolutely.
Thank you. Any other questions
or comments? No. Do I have a
motion? I'll make the motion.
I'll second. All in favor say
aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no.
None. Heard so. Motion passes,
six zero. Thank you. On to item
number 12. City of Fillmore.
Good morning. Board members and
chair. I'm Deborah Cappelletto,
finance director for the City
of Fillmore. Today I have Kevin
McSweeney with me, who is our
planning and community
development director. He will
be discussing the surplus
properties that we have
available, and I'll be going
over quickly. The financial
components, as you can see on
item G for the administrative,
we have not changed since our
last two presentations. So
we're at $58,117. The remaining
is the $3,664,650 is associated
with bond payments. The trust, trust agents and the
admin charges, and any of the
remaining amounts associated
with the disposal of the
remaining properties. So that's
it for my presentation. On the
financial side, do I have any
comments or questions from the
board up here? Go ahead James.
Oh no. I just want to point out
I think this is one of the
examples where this is the
attachment that we were looking
for that shows the actuals
compared to some of the, I
think, the previous
presentations. And so we could
see that trend over time in the
last couple fiscal years. So
but and I recognize that we see
it in September and October. I
just want it present in front
of me again in January. Any
other questions or comments? No.
Okay. I now have Kevin just be
able to speak okay. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Members of the board, my name
is Kevin McSweeney, community
development director. There are
three parcels. Two parcels are
abutting each other. And the
city completed the Surplus Land
Act for that property and
selected many mansions to
develop. They're proposing 50
low income units there. They
submitted an application. It's
an incomplete application.
Except for fees. They're paying
all fees. They're paying for
everything on the property. All
of our city attorney's time,
planning time and engineering
time to process that project.
Not you. That's those two
parcels. The third parcel is
510 Santa Clara Street. We went
through the Surplus Land Act.
Nobody wanted it because it's
small. There is a developer
interested in building it. We
are in negotiations with him.
There's one negotiation point
that we're trying to resolve.
Hope to have that resolved in
2026. And on that particular
property. We want to protect it
or secure it. And so if you see
our expenses is for new fencing
for that property. And that
project will also have some low
income, not not all of it. Okay.
Oh question. Is the mini
mansion project in conjunction
with the housing authority. Is
there separate. No. Right now
it's separate. They're doing it
solo for now. So I'm not sure
where it'll end up. Okay. Thank
you. Was there any other
questions? No. Okay. Well,
thank you very much. Do I have
a motion on the for City of
Fillmore? I motion to approve.
I'll second. Okay. We have a
first and a second. All in
favor, say aye. Aye. Any
opposed? Say no. None. Heard.
Motion passes six zero. Thank
you. Everybody here. I just
want to thank everybody in the
audience for being here and
going through all this today.
And do we have any other follow
up follow up here Robert okay.
So everybody's happy. Any other
comments from anybody. No. Okay.
Well motion to adjourn. Meeting
adjourned. Have a good day.
Thank you.