[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.