BodyCity Council
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 February 18, 2026

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:033 turns

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:09

All right, good evening. I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Moorpark City Council for February 18th 2026 and will Dr. Julius Sokanu, Moorpark College president please lead us in the pledge? I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed0:28

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

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:42

Clerk, please take roll.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed0:46

Good evening. Council Member Barrett. Present. Council Member Castro. Present. Council Member Delgado. Present. Council Member Means. Present Mayor Ingram.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:54

Present Next item is 4A a proclamation declaring National Engineers Week the week of February 22nd to 28th 2026. Will Public Works Assistant Engineer Linda Myaskowski please join me at the podium? All right. Proclamation of the City Council, the city of Moorpark declaring February 22nd to February 28th 2026 as National Engineers Week which is the best week ever obviously.

Whereas engineering is essential to our economy, security and quality of life, shaping everything from the devices in our pockets to the infrastructure that carries us safely from place to place. Whereas the work of engineers touches every part of our lives improving health care, protecting the environment, expanding access to clean water and energy and advancing new technologies that address global challenges.

Whereas engineering is a creative, collaborative, inclusive profession that offers meaningful careers to people of every background and inspires innovation across disciplines. And whereas the theme for this year, Transform Your Future recognizes that engineering does not just shape our world, it shapes our opportunities, our communities and the future we can imagine for ourselves and for our children.

And whereas Engineers Week is a time to celebrate the accomplishments of engineers, promote engineering education and inspire students and young people to pursue careers in engineering and related fields. Whereas the world would be a very different place if it were not for engineers' extraordinary ability to think outside the box Now, therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the city of Moorpark does hereby declare the week of February 22nd to 28th 2026 as Engineers Week and further extends appreciation to Moorpark's dedicated city engineers for the vital services they perform and for their exemplary dedication to the city of Moorpark. In witness whereof, the City Council of the city of Moorpark does set its hand and cause the seal of the city of Moarpark to be affixed this 18th day of February 2026.

0:03 – 0:046 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:19

Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:19

you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:28

Thank you, Mayor and members of City Council. I am honored to accept this recognition in celebration of National Engineers Week. On behalf of the engineers and technical professionals who serve our community, I want to express our appreciation for this acknowledgement and for the city's continued support of engineering and public works. I want to also recognize the collaboration that makes good engineering possible.

City staff, planners, builders, inspectors and maintenance crews and decision makers like you on the council. Successful projects are always team efforts. Thank you again for this honor and for your commitment to investing in safe resilient and forward-looking infrastructure for our community. Thank you very much

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:42

Okay, next item is five public comment. Are there any speakers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:46

No Mr. Mayor I have not received any speaker cards for any items this evening.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:49

Thank you. All right next item is six reordering of and additions to the agenda. Anyone need to pull anything?

Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled — click to expand
CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction4:56

Yes, I'd like to pull item 10D.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:17

Okay, anything else?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:22

All right. We're going to Item 7, Announcements and Future Agenda Items and Reports in Meetings and Conferences Attended by Councilmembers and Mayor. Start with Mr. Barrett.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction5:31

On February 5th I attended the Regional Defense Partnership meeting. We had members from the Port of Wainimi there speaking about all the things that they do and the great partnership they have with the Navy base. On February 5th, I also attended the Clean Power Alliance board meeting. On February 7th, attended the Lunch and Learn at the teaching zoo at Moorpark College.

This was the history of training big cats, a very interesting discussion of how we kind of have gotten to where we are and some of the legislative things that are happening right now, and how actually members from the college are getting involved in some of that discussion. And then this morning I attended the immigration stakeholders meeting.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:36

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:39

On February 5th, I attended the focus group with the HOA President of Villa del Arroyo Mobile Home Park regarding the Arroyo Drive project or the update on the Arroyo Drive project. On February 12th,I attended the Young Professional Group for Chamber of Commerce which was one of the largest groups we've actually had to date, which is very exciting about and we meet for lunch on the second Thursday of every month at different local Moorpark restaurants And on February 15th, I attended the Park Lounge ribbon cutting with Mayor Enneagrin and Council Member Means.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed7:20

On February 10th, I attended an AI for Business Leaders workshop. On February 11th, attended the Matera County Community Foundation Neighbor Support Fund reception where they shared a response to immigration enforcement across the county and the supports they're providing. And then also on February 11th I attended a CSUCI Advisory Committee meeting. That's it. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed7:41

Thank you. As mentioned, on the 7th of February I attended the Lunch and Learn. The advisory board was invited to it, the teaching zoo at Moorpark College talking about the Big Cat Act and it's just a reminder of what a gem we have. I know we'll get to hear a little bit more about what a gem we have in that college right here in town and how wonderful they are But what a great event for the public to be able to learn from. On February 15th, I attended the Park Golf Lounge as mentioned by Councilwoman Delgado along with her and Mayor Enneagrin.

What a neat spot that we get to enjoy and it's just a perfect extra source of entertainment for all generations. I then went to the Luna Yena car show and charity benefit fundraiser That was exceptional. The cars that people have put together mixed with mariachi music and some of the best darn food you can get anywhere, it was just a delight to see the community come out. I in particular liked the car that had the vanity plate that said Moorpark on it so well done Moorpark.

On the today earlier today Councilman Delgado and I participated in the Community and Economic Development Committee meeting talking about future opportunities for Moorpark And I would like to acknowledge it wasn't a meeting that I went to but on the 13th of February. I was having dinner at Sushi Planet here in Moorpark, and there was an unfortunate incident where a bad actor had engaged a gentleman that was on the sidewalk and had struck that person, sent that person to the hospital. And I was not participatory. Let me get that real clear. But I observed the response rate from our law enforcement from our fire department, from our emergency services was immediate and great in mass. And Chief Odenath, your folks deserve a lot of credit because it wasn't more than a couple days later when an unnamed unknown hooded individual was apprehended and brought to justice.

That hooded individual was not from Moorpark by the way but had come to visit our cities and do their bad acts and they were apprehended. And I am really proud of the response rate that you were able to provide and the apprehension so thank you for that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:00

Thank you. All right, so for myself, Friday February 6th I attended a VCTC meeting and then Saturday February 15th I also attended the Park Golf Lounge and Simulator and that place is pretty incredible. So it's not just a golf simulator. You can go in there and watch TVs have beers like a normal bar and also just play golf and the screens are very realistic really nice. So excited for that one And today, I also along with Council Member Baird attended the immigration stakeholders meeting.

And I did not stop by the car show but I drove right through it and it looked really awesome so that was a nice event. That's all I've got to report and I got a few announcements here. Interior County Housing Rights Workshops. The city of Moorpark will be hosting a housing rights workshop for tenants on Thursday, March 19th, 2026 from 6 p.m. to 8 p. m. The workshop will be offered in person and virtually at the Moorpark Community Center Apricot Rim. The event is free of charge and Spanish interpretation will be provided. Housing Rights Center will present information on fair housing laws and tenant rights related to evictions, rent increases and tenant protections under California law. Registration is available at www.housingrightscenter.org slash workshops Registration for spring recreation programs is now open.

The Roya Vista Recreation Center offers a variety of programs including recreation classes, sports leagues, day camps and more. For more information and details on registration visit moorparkca.gov slash recreation. If you live or work in Moorpark and love to perform show off your talent at the 15th annual Moorpark Has Talent Audition videos are due online by March 2nd. The show takes the stage on Friday, March 13th at the High Street Art Center. For more information and to submit your video, visit highstreetartcenter.com.

All right. Next is public hearings. There are none so we'll move on to presentation action discussion item 9A as I consider a presentation by Moorpark College President Dr. Julius Sokinu.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed12:24

Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor, City Council members, staff and members of the audience. It's a pleasure to be here this evening sharing with you the great work that happens at your local community college. I have with me some colleagues of mine and so please have them stand up. We'll have deans, we have two of our vice presidents, members of our foundation as well as faculty. So please, please stand up Moorpark College, if I say so myself, is an incredible place.

And the reason why it's an incredible place is because of our people. So who do we serve? As you can see, we serve a diversity of people from variety of backgrounds. All are welcome at Moorpark College. Who do we serve at Moorpark College from Moorpark? The data point is pretty clear. 7.48% of our student population is actually from Moorpark, so that's 1,068 students.

And if you look at the breakdown of those students, you will see that there's a gender breakdown but you will also notice that 293 of those students are first generation college students. They are the first in their families to go to college. Moorpark College makes that possible. You will also see that we serve veterans, we serve students with the access program and students with disability. And you will also note that we have a lot of young students from the city of Moorpark and those young students are probably mostly through our dual enrollment program. I'll talk a little bit about that as we proceed.

We have a PACE program for adult learners. We have a dual enrollment program for high school and middle school age students. We have online degrees. We provide hybrid instruction. We have certificates, we have associate degrees. We have two bachelor's degrees now. And we work with the cities that we serve and the communities that we serve through their workforce development offices to create ongoing just-in-time training for our community members. So these are the cities that we serve and the populations of individuals from those particular cities.

I'm very proud to tell you that our enrollment has increased by 4% spring-to-spring, which really builds upon the previous year's enrollment growth as well. So your college,

0:14 – 0:301 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed14:56

your local community college is growing. In addition to the growth, we're known for outstanding transfer outcomes. You already know that we've been a finalist for the Aspen Prize twice now. We hope that this will be the third time with the charm. So this time next year, we'll be celebrating. But what you probably may not know is that 89% of our students who apply to the CSUs get accepted.

In terms of the UCs, we had 650 nicense who applied to the UCs and 529 of those students got accepted. That's an 80% acceptance rate for the UC. That's an incredible acceptance rate but we don't stop there. If you look at our students and you compare them to the students in the top 10 Aspen finalist institutions. So there are 1,200 community colleges in the country. Aspen looks at the top 200 of those community colleges, invites them to apply for a prize, and then they select the top 50, then the top 25, the top 10, and then the institution that gets the prize.

Of those top 10 best community colleges in the nation, Their transfer rates, Moorpark College outperforms their transfer rates at 13 to 14 points. So you see that here on this slide. So 2021 to 2023, we do much better than even the top 10 community colleges in the nation. Now what happens when our students transfer to a university or professional school? When we compare Moorpark College students with those students from those top 10 institutions in the country, top 10 community colleges in the country, once again, we do better than those students.

You have a community college in the city that you should be proud of because it is the pride of the nation. So, why are we successful at doing this work? What allows us to do that? Well first of all we have the degrees that allow us to do that. We have 36 associate degrees for transfer which means students can finish at Moorpark College and get a guaranteed admission to CSU.

We also have articulation agreements with public institutions and non-public institutions. And we have a certification that allows us for general education transfer curriculum. You see the list of the top 10 institutions our students enroll in after they leave Moorpark College. So we have a strong culture of transfer and student success. That culture is supported by the fact that we have an honors program, that 71% of the students who apply to UCLA's Honors Program get in at first try. First try. So three out of five people who applied to UCLA from Moorpark College getting their first try.

We're a member of the Aspen Transfer Network. The Aspen Transfer Network is an opportunity for our students to get into the most prestigious institutions in the country, so Aspen works with us so that we can not only identify those students but then provide them opportunities to meet with those institutions, those high-ranking institutions and they get mentors at that institution who work with our students so that they can be accepted into these research one institutions as well as other prestigious institutions nationwide.

We have on-the-spot and on-the-spot same day admissions with some of the universities in our local area. So if you're a Moorpark College student, CLU comes to campus, CSUCI comes to campus, Laverne, Grand Canyon, Woodbury comes to campus, and you can actually present your transcript, get an opportunity to meet with a counselor from that institution, and get admitted on the spot.

That is an incredible opportunity for our students, particularly our first-generation college students because they get that opportunity to engage with these institutions on their own terms. And then we have a transfer center that does incredible work in preparing students for transfer but also helps faculty and staff to connect to those institutions that we serve.

We invest in our students' future through the work that we do, and that work is being rewarded by these various organizations that recognize the distinction of Moorpark College. We not only work well within our own institution, but we collaborate. Here you are a list of businesses, organizations, vendors, employers, internship sites and transfer institutions that we work with at Moorpark College. And this is not an exhaustive list, but this is a list of those individuals who we see as our main partners. And you will see there that both the city, the chamber, as well as the school district are partners of distinction.

So we talk about how we are investing in our students, and we do this in two ways. We're looking at their post-graduation success and transfer, so just the data points I've shared with you is about transfer. And we also look at the student's success in terms of workforce. So when we look at the CT outcomes survey, which is a survey that's conducted of our students two years after they leave the institution and we ask them about their experience of the institution. 90% of those students are not only happy with the experience that they had at the institution but they're consistently acknowledging that it's one of the best experiences of their life so not just about being at an institution. We also note that students get a salary bump by coming to Moorpark College.

What we pride ourselves in is the fact that more and more of our students are leaving the institution, and they're going into direct employment. More and more of our students are, while they're at the institution, getting internships. Participating in internships. And we're very proud of the fact that for most of those students, those are paid internships. Again, that is important for students who cannot afford to take time out and work for free. The opportunity for us to receive grants that then support them as they go ahead and do that work of getting real workplace experience is an additional bonus to the successes of our students.

You have some of our students who are interns in the city of Moorpark as well. You see there what our students tell us about the importance of internships and work-based learning opportunities. So I want to focus on the fact that not only are we training students for the workplace, not only are we training students to transfer, but we're also training students to start their own businesses Entrepreneurship. We're also supporting students and individuals who are already entrepreneurs so that they can better enhance their skills.

An example of that is the work that our game design program does with our game design students. We currently have two students whose games are now being considered for mass publication and distribution by well-known game companies in the local area, and that is an example of the work that we do to add to the economic wellbeing of the city of Moorpark, of the county of Ventura, and obviously of this region.

Similarly, the work that we do with the Navy Base of Ventura County is one that we need to call out because that work comes from the collaboration between our college, our college district and the Navy Base. It is an understanding that the Navy base has 4,000 civilian employees and that those 4,00 civilian employees there's a consistent need not only to replenish those employees but the fact that we want to hire folks who are going to stay in Ventura County. One of the ways we do that is we start off by educating people who are from Ventura County, who live in Ventura County and who live in the service area so they can get employment there.

So, the Navy Base of Ventura County is partnered with our institution so that there are internships that are available to our students and internships that are more than just a semester or summer. They're long-term internships. We've also gotten partnerships with the Navy Base so that they pay for their employees to take classes at the institution so that they're in an engineering technology program, they're in a computer network systems engineering program. then a business program. And this then offers individuals who may not have the credential, the opportunity to get credentials so they can then promote within the Navy-based structure.

We have incredible partnerships with the biotech sector. You know, we have a bio-manufacturing degree and those partnerships are evident in the equipment that we get sometimes donated other times purchased specifically for us or funds provided to us to be able to equip our labs so that our students get trained on the most cutting edge pieces of instrumental technology.

We also have partnerships with companies like Takeda and Bank of America, where they support our foundation through really robust donations that then support our students as they pursue their education at the college. We're very proud of the fact that we see ourselves in partnership, in collaboration with our local businesses. And one of the areas I would like to call out and really celebrate is the partnership that we have with the City of Moorpark. The work that we do with John Bandek and what we do with the team at Moorpark is an exemplar of the work that we can do with our municipal partners Because there's an investment on the part of the city to support the work of the college, and there's investment on the part of the college to really respond to the economic development needs of the city.

The ways in which you engage us so that when you bring new businesses into the city and you engage us with it we're part of that promotion of the city, that helps us because then we already have built a relationship with the companies and with their leadership where they see us as relevant partners in the work. So some things to brag about. These are some of our workforce outcomes.

83% of our former students who are employed full-time are working in a job closely related to their field of study. That is very important because we're not training people to go into disciplines that may not be necessarily connected to their education. We are providing them with appropriate career guidance, career exploration, and appropriate connections to the workforce so that they can seamlessly build careers that then support their families and in so doing support our community.

We're ranked seventh statewide by the College Futures Foundation. They did a return on investment study, and that study they looked at students from 10 years ago, actually from 2015, and they noticed that those students increased their salaries by 37%, within a year after leaving Moorpark College. There are institutions where that is not close in terms of the return on investment. So you should be proud of that.

In 2025, over 300 local employers engaged in partnerships with the college. And I've given you some examples of that. I'm very proud of the fact, and this is an area where we could do better and we could continue to do better work, is that we had 227 of our students participate in internships in 2024 and 2025. We want to increase that number, particularly looking at the number of women, number of students of color, and the number of first generation college students and low income students who participate in internships because we know that workplace learning opportunities lead to long-term career success.

And then I just spotlight two of our health programs, the Spotlight on Nursing 100% five year average licensure exam pass rates. Again, the nurses who take care of you and your families are Moorpark College graduates and we're very proud of the way in which we've prepared them to be caring and career-invested professionals. The same thing with the RADTEC is a 91% five year average licensure exam pass rate, and I just got this a couple of days ago EMT paramedics program. This is their third cohort, and they have 100% pass rate in that three year time frame.

So what's coming up at Moorpark College? What's next? In the fall of 2026, we will begin to offer a bachelor's degree in cyber defense network operations. As I probably mentioned this last time when I was here that we were in the process of getting approved for that degree. There are 750 jobs that are unfilled on any given day in cybersecurity nationwide. We are helping to support and to address that much needed career pathway and industry success.

I'm very proud of this program because it is a program that's designed for individuals who are place-bound. Folks who are not going to leave Moorpark or leave Simi or leave Thousand Oaks, our service area and go to San Marcos or to Irvine. They will stay here because they have connections that they have jobs here. They have families here. And so they need also an education and access back to a bachelor's degree And this bachelor's degree in cyber defense will do that. You should also note that the college's CNSE program has already been identified and recognized by the NSA as a center of occupational excellence, so we're very proud of that.

So that is coming in the fall of this year. The other thing that's coming this year, and actually not in the fall but coming later this summer is I may have shared with you previously these incredible drawings of our amphitheater. Now, I may have told you that it was going to cost us $60 million. And as you know, 60 million just doesn't drop out of the skies. So we're raising funds to get that work done on the interim Our foundation has purchased a temporary amphitheater stage for us at the college that we will look to then begin to deliver concerts this summer.

And we'll be working with the city so that we can sort of align our concert series, but our hope is by the tail end of the summer and the beginning of the fall that we'll start a concert series outside between the library and the gym, that beautiful space right there on the green grass, and that we will have this Wonderful opportunity to bring people to Moorpark, the city and Moorpark, the college to enjoy high quality entertainment.

Once again, I want to thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to share with you the incredible work that's going on at Moorpark College, your local community college. And just as a sort of a heads up, the college turns 60 next year. So we have been in this community and you as this community has supported this college now for 60 years. So will be celebrating 60 years of Moorpark College beginning this fall and will be inviting you all to add various times over the course of the next year to recognize the incredible gem that you have in Moorpark College. And we continue to see ourselves as partners in economic development of the service area. So thank you so much.

Any questions or comments?

0:30 – 0:358 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed30:19

Thank you. Yeah, do we have any questions? Tom, want to start off?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed30:22

Sure. Thank you, Dr. Sokinoue. I so appreciate you being here. Deans, professors, teachers, staff members, as you went through these stats, these stats didn't mean as much to me two years ago as they do today talking about the transfer rate, talking about constant improvement, talking about the types of students that you serve. You know that in my own household, my wife, my better half She, for the last two years has been going to Moorpark College. She had extraordinary teachers. It was great in proximity and with the facilities and the education that was provided and a lot of hard work and long nights studying on her part she did get to transfer. She is a fully employed first generation Hispanic woman who hit a number of the marks that you were talking about there.

And with the education from Moorpark College, she was accepted to Ivy League schools like Columbia and UPenn, other East Coast schools like NYU and Georgetown, many of the UC schools. But ultimately she got into her number one choice in clearly the best university in my alma mater USC where she is currently. Sorry PJ and Councilwoman Delgado. You know, not everybody can get into USC. So some of them go to UCLA but she is currently a student there continuing on her education because you serve the community as well as you do and while she is special, she is not alone. You do that for a tremendous number of students and I'm proud of our community and I'm proud to have you guys as partners so thank you and thank you for this update. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed32:01

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Dr. Solkeny, obviously there's so many accolades that your team has accumulated. I think you said members of the foundation are here too? Yes. I know their support is instrumental to that. I'll just pick two areas to focus on. I think over 10 years ago the Harvard Business Review basically tried to promote this idea of like moving from the traditional views of pipelines and extend that to platforms. And I just think about You're not only meeting your core mission with all the stats and accolades that we accumulated, but to think about the connected piece that Moorpark College now plays across the city regionally and now nationally.

That's remarkable. And so that's what came to mind. That's despite or not, despite in addition to the fact that you have this promise that extends to so many talented individuals regionally. That promise extends to our highest need families, our highest needs students. The dedication you've had with the food pantry for a number of years is As diverse as the population is, a portion of that population continues to be our unhoused population. And the fact that they are welcome and successful in all these avenues and opportunities that you have are available just as you said to everyone I think also is something worth celebrating so thank you for all the work that you've done.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed33:19

I'd like to say thank you for all the work, and you're running an incredible organization over there. And we're incredibly proud to have Moorpark College in our city. I've got a really good family friend. She's a single mom struggling to pay her bills. She's a medical assistant, and she just wanted to make a better life for herself and her And she's now in the nursing program going through that. And just seeing how, you know, a four-year college is not for every single person out there but watching someone take Moorpark College as a step to bettering her life, her whole family is a really powerful thing and glad to have that in our city.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed33:59

Thank you so much. Thank you Mr. Mayor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed34:02

I'll echo what everyone has said. Thank you so much for everything that you've done for the college. We've seen it grow and seen these numbers and accolades rise since you've been here. I do have a personal experience as well, 11 years ago when I came to Moorpark Took four years of dance classes as a community member, which was a ton of fun. I wish I could take more But your level of instructors you're there beyond Superior

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed34:26

so

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction34:38

As well echo what everyone said, but I want to thank you for the partnership. I think that is so key, the partnership with the city, the partnership with the businesses and always kind of having that student first mentality that you're knowing what your goal is and striving for that goal and pushing for that and I see it In the work that everyone does at the college. I've been blessed to meet many people through my interactions with Moorpark College and just Incredible people so thank you for all you do Is there any public comment

0:35 – 0:4516 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed35:24

No Mr. Mayor, no speaker cards on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed35:27

Thank you. All right well this is a receiving file I want to say thank you again for coming out great to see you again okay

we'll move on to item B which is to consider resolution authorizing mid-year amendments the fiscal year 2526 budget Miss Deaver

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed35:49

Good evening mayor and council members Tonight I would like to turn this over to Mr. Poon Salang, Budget and Finance Manager who spent many hours analyzing and then compiling this report.

CommentSaturday FebruaryProposed · by introduction36:06

Thank you. Good evening Mayor and Council Members. Tonight I will be presenting the Mid-Year Budget for Fiscal Year 25-26. So annually the City reviews the budget status in January and makes necessary adjustments to budget line items that's considered significant Typical guideline is to adjust anything over $10,000. The proposed adjustments are based on the following key considerations.

For revenue we adjusted property tax and sales tax using the most recent data from our consultant HDL. We reviewed a timeline of development related projects and adjusted fee revenues accordingly. And then we corrected a revenue estimate of our solid waste franchise fees. On the expenditure side, we adjusted salary and benefits to account for the 3% COLA approved in June 2025 and health insurance premiums that increased in 2026.

We also reviewed increased maintenance and contractual service costs, reviewed legal costs, and we adjusted development-related building and safety costs So one thing to note, in January 2025 we had several wildfires which resulted in massive property and capital losses with estimates totaling over $130 billion. This caused shortages of materials resulting in higher prices on building and construction materials in the area. This also resulted in increased maintenance costs for the city.

So some of the prices and costs arise are due to post-disaster rebuilding. Large scale reconstruction after the fire has increased demand for contractors, equipment and materials pushing prices higher for projects. For construction materials, prices remain elevated due to supply constraints, transportation costs and tariffs on imported materials directly affecting increased capital project costs and labor costs. Minimum wage increase and prevailing wage requirement raises the project labor costs.

For our mid-year budget adjustments, total revenue is reduced by approximately $2.6 million. So the good news is most of the revenue is increasing so as we stated earlier property tax and sales tax are estimated to increase by about 200,000 each Our franchise fees are increasing due to corrected solid waste franchise fee calculation per the last agreement adopted in December 2024.

That results in an increase of $262,000. Our building and safety fees are increasing by about $900,000 based on activity occurring right now. However this is offset by also increased costs. Where our revenues are decreasing is related to development projects, development impact fees which are reduced by $3.9 million. This is based on just a timeline of development projects and while it's being decreased this year this is revenue we expect to receive in future years.

On the expenditure side, we are asking for additional appropriation of $1.4 million. This includes property maintenance services which are estimated to increase by $224,000 as well as an increase of $187,000 in contractual services. As stated, building and safety costs are estimated to increase by $530,000. This is offset by the $900,000 increase in revenue In addition, we have a legal cost increase of $340,000 which is $100,000 in general fund, $200,000 in our solid waste fund and then $40,000 in other special revenue funds.

Lastly, our salary and benefit increases are about $67,000. So breakdown on the revenue. Primary changes to revenue include general fund increases to taxes, fines and vehicle in lieu fees totaling $742,000. However this is offset by a reduction in recreation revenue of $96,000 due to cancellations of programs. The LA AOC and City Housing Fund are impacted by the realignment of the timeline for development projects. And then the Community Development Fund has a large increase due to the building permit revenue increase. In addition, the city received $39,000 for the reimbursement under Princeton Avenue Winding Project.

For expenditures, property maintenance includes city hall police service center maintenance. Citywide landscaping and lighting district cost increases as well as the trail and ridge crest basin repairs for Moorpark Highlands. Contractual services including parking, bail surcharges, printing, building and safety, safety light repairs, transit operations and other contractual services.

As stated earlier legal costs increase include the general fund and solid waste matters. So, originally the fiscal year 25-26 had an estimated ending fund balance of $70.4 million. However after the proposed budget adjustment, the revised estimate ending fund balance is reduced to $66.4 million. Once again it's important to note that the $3.9 million in deferred development related revenues is not lost but simply moved to the future year.

This slide shows the net change of the budget adjustments by fund. The major changes in fund balance are general fund, which increased by $400,000, the LA AOC, which increased by $265,000. City affordable housing is a decrease of $4.2 million and then the solid waste fund decreased of $210,000 So our reserve fund projection, our current fund balance for Special Projects Fund and Endowment Fund is $47.8 million.

Projected revenue includes grant reimbursement of $2 million, raising the fund balance to $49.8 million. However, of this amount, $31.6 million is committed for current fiscal year projects and an additional $2.2 million is committed for future CIP projects. The remaining available fund balance is $16.1 million. Our total unallocated available funds or reserve funds is $21.7 million.

So this does conclude my presentation. Staff recommends approving the resolution, including amendments to account numbers that were addressed. I am available for any questions you may have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed43:20

Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the report. The question I have will hold comments off but the question I had is the approximately $4 million that you said for development fees that won't come in this fiscal year. You said it would be either in the next year or years? I'll defer that to

CommentSaturday FebruaryProposed · by introduction43:44

Community Development Director. Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed43:47

Thank you very much, Mayor Pro Tem. So we expect those within the next year or two. It's always a little difficult to kind of pin when exactly those might be realized with everything that goes into site preparation. Most of these will be collected upon the issuance of a building permit so typically as we have an adjustment like this, we'll slide those into an upcoming fiscal year or beyond.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed44:10

So we'll basically just see that coming up in the approved budget for 26-27 fiscal year and then if there are any adjustments, that will be adjusted into the subsequent year. Correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed44:19

Yes. That's our hope and I also have been conservative about those estimates with regard to projects that are actively moving forward versus others that have been approved. I'm only projecting things that were actively advancing. Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed44:30

Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:30

you. Do we have any speakers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed44:38

No Mr. Mayor no speakers on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:40

All right. We'll move into discussion. Pretty straightforward. Anything else?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed44:49

Yeah, I just wanted to laud the city. In a budget the size that we have, the fact that most of these projections are really within reasonable limits and the couple of unexpected losses in revenue and then increases in expenditures is just again thank you for keeping such a close watch on the budget and being within amazing striking distance of the original projection so thank you for your work

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed45:13

And my only comment is when I saw the $3.4 million off, my very first reaction was whoa like that's a problem and very quickly upon review as you were pointing out Mayor Pro Tem it's a cash flow item it's not an overall issue so I'm delighted to how spot on we are when you consider that being a cash flow item.

0:45 – 0:5217 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:39

Alright well I'll go ahead and move the recommendation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed45:43

Second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:44

Motion in a second. We need a roll call

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed45:46

vote All right, we'll go on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:56

to item C that's considered specifications and authorization to advertise for construction bids for the 2026 pavement rehabilitation project specification number mpk 26-0 to mr. Kim

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed46:12

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Daniel Kim, City Engineer and Public Works Director, and I will be joined by Ms. Muskowski, Engineer of the Week, right? The item before you tonight is to consider and approve the 2026 Pavement Rehabilitation Project and authorize city staff to advertise the project to obtain construction bids. In 2021, the City awarded a contract to IMS Infrastructure Management Services to develop a citywide pavement management program.

A pavement management program is an asset management tool that cities use to analyze and evaluate existing pavement conditions and to prioritize future investments for maintenance and rehabilitation. In 2022, IMS surveyed and analyzed all 84 centerline miles of the city's street network and developed a pavement rehab plan based on an annual budget of $800,000 per year.

The $800,000 annual budget for pavement preservation was based on funding received during fiscal year 2022-23 from the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program, which is revenue generated by Senate Bill 1, the gas tax. In 2022 when the streets were surveyed, the average pavement condition index for the city was 68, which is described as in good condition. Most cities target an average PCI of 72, which is described as very good.

On October 18th, 2023 the City Council approved the five-year pavement rehabilitation plan which as previously mentioned is based on an annual pavement preservation budget of $800,000. Attachment one of the staff report provides an exhibit of the street segments that were recommended as part of the five year rehab plan. Admittedly between 2022 and 2025 city staff was working on and completing other high priority CIP projects and did not perform a pavement rehab project.

The 2026 project aims to catch up on the entire five-year rehabilitation plan all at once, including several additional street segments where the pavement condition has deterred it beyond normal maintenance and repair. And these have been found to be primarily on cul de sacs. Attachment 3 of the staff report contains the project specifications for the 2026 pavement rehabilitation project, specification number MPK 26-02.

Staff recommends that City Council review and approve the project specifications and authorize city staff to advertise a project to obtain construction bids. The funding source for the 2026 pavement project will be fund 2416, State Road Rehabilitation Fund. The current fund balance is approximately $4.7 million and the engineer's estimate for their project based on the estimated quantities is approximately $ 4.4 million.

The city is required to adopt by resolution a project list for those areas to be funded by state Senate Bill 1. The 2026 pavement project is consistent with the previously adopted resolutions. The 2026 project is also consistent with City Council Goal 3, Excellence in City Governments, Objective 3.6, Implement Pavement Management Plan. Completing this project will also achieve this objective.

Should the city council authorize staff to move forward with the 2026 project after construction completion, staff will resurvey of the streets to determine an average and updated citywide PCI and develop a pavement rehab plan for the next five years for the city council's consideration. That concludes my brief presentation. I, along with Ms. Muscovsky are available for any questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:35

Thank you. Are there any questions? I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed49:42

just want to thank you for the report and I'm excited to see some of this getting underway. You mentioned we're going to catch up on a five-year plan all at once. By its very nature, there'll be some winners and losers street by street. Some that will get paved now and some won't be paved in the next year. My question is how quickly will those other areas of need after this year be addressed? Can we anticipate next year or the year after to have a furtherance of the pavement improvement?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed50:12

That's, I don't try to pick winners and losers obviously.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed50:17

I didn't mean to insinuate that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed50:19

you did, I'm sorry. And so we consult with a pavement engineering company that evaluates all the city streets and there is really one big factor that addresses what streets get done first and when. It's A, the pavement condition number 1. Number 2, what is our actual budget? This particular five-year plan was based on an $800,000 a year annual budget. The last several years, and correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Deaver, we've been receiving more upwards of $950,000-ish.

So our budget has gone up in about $100,000, but our goal after we complete this is to resurvey the whole street network and then evaluate or determine the overall citywide pavement condition index. And they will propose a rehab plan based on our annualized budget. So to answer your question, we'll have an opportunity to evaluate which streets have a certain PCI. And then we can work with the council or the TPW to determine a strategy moving forward on which areas or which streets may have priority over the others.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed51:31

Thank you. I did not mean to insinuate at all that you were picking winners and losers but if somebody lives on one street that was repaved that resident might feel that way. The question is really a matter of timing. So we get this done, then we're going to resurvey how long would the next most need-proven street be addressed or could it? A range would be

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed51:54

fine. Like if I'm projecting a schedule, like a program schedule, if you were Advertise obtain bids for this project complete construction by the end of summer This upcoming fall we can consult with another company to go ahead and resurvey all the city streets That evaluation can take anywhere from six to eight months And then we can be developing the next project based on that rehab plan certainly with council feedback and input Perfect, so I'm hearing it could

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed52:27

be

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed52:28

12 to 18 months out. Correct and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed52:30

Potentially

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed52:30

it's the nature of the program So it will develop a five-year rehabilitation plan and each year each neighborhood or each segment of streets will get addressed based on the plan and the budget that we have and These this program kind of lives its own every five years Till we touch all the streets Thank you

0:52 – 0:598 turns

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction52:54

Yeah, I've got a couple questions. So I wasn't on the council when this got approved so I apologize if I maybe have misunderstood some things along the way but I do remember kind of when it was going through and there was a lot of conversation over you know kind of doing certain roads first because the condition as it gets worse they become harder to and more expensive to deal with So because we have waited this amount of time on some of these roads, it's been several years that we didn't implement the plan.

Do we anticipate that some of those roads are now in a repair status that is going to cost higher? Is that factored into the projections here?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed53:42

Well by nature, the pavement condition will degrade over time so what can be for example five years ago might have been rated at 70, could be 65 today. Correct? We're still maintaining the pavement preservation methods outlined in the plan and we're going to be consistent with the plan. Certainly if we go out during construction and there's an area that is worse off than what it was a couple of years ago, that's something that we can try to address at the appropriate time during construction.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction54:22

And then. Yeah, I find it really a struggle right? Because I know the winners and losers you didn't pick them right like was said. It comes off of the plan. But even just driving earlier today on Park Lane, I believe it is, you know, the condition of the street is just horrible and it's not mentioned on the plan, right? I've had constituents complain about their streets And they're not on the plan.

So is there a way that, you know, if the goal is to be doing this every year? You know I'm glad that we're moving forward and we're doing this and we need to do this but as far as looking at The next steps, you said potentially eight months to do the study. If our goal is to do this every year we should start that study now. We know which roads are going to be done so they can skip these roads. They're going to be perfect and start surveying those so that we're in place for next year. Wouldn't that make sense?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed55:35

No. We would want to study the roads, the entire street network after the pavement preservate, the five-year rehab plan is complete to understand where the overall average PCI is for the entire city because that's a metric that we're defined by as well and then if we can actually individually survey every single street again and determine another... If we survey it right now the PCI that was 68 five years ago is probably much lower than that now.

It's a given, so what we want to do is we want to make sure that the city is also investing in the right streets to bring that PCI up to make sure that our investment today matters in the future as well, right? So our goal is to understand what the pavement preservation and the investment that we put into it to see where our PCI is after the five-year rehab plan and then go ahead and attack it again.

Only to do it now just to confirm that the existing pavement has degraded over the past five years.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction56:35

I apologize, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not trying to do it now to evaluate the roads that we've already identified that were already going to change. I am saying you could just write those off as being perfect because they should be right by the end of this. What I hope not to lose is finishing this, then waiting eight months. Then we're into maybe the winter by the time delays things happen and we're not going The construction, so we miss a year versus if we were to know this plan not need to evaluate these streets because we know they're going to be fine but start a PCI evaluation of the roads that were not updating right now.

So that we don't lose a year in the process I guess that was my question. Is that possible?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed57:29

Sure, I mean you can do that but the goal of a payment management program is also to understand where the city as a whole has, if the payment condition is. So I mean to not factor just because we do a payment rehab on said street doesn't mean it's 100 still. It's really like 68 might be at 77 now That's the reality of it, right? So to be fair our goal with the payment management program is beyond just the five year rehab plan. It's to understand where our overall PCI is.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction58:10

I 100% understand, but the goal of a resident that lives on a low PCI street is for their road to be fixed. Right? And they care about their road and I don't want to lose track of the fact that we've waited years now to implement this and I don't want to lose momentum if that is making sense.

CommentHigh StreetProposed · by introduction58:34

Council Member Barrett, maybe something we could do is in terms of the next step in terms of issuing the bids. I mean those things could be prepared while this current payment plan is almost near conclusion and then by the time we select the PCI company to start beginning the evaluation it could be exactly when we complete this existing plan already So that maybe we could at least start it a little bit earlier, like you're saying. Just at least in terms of the administrative stuff that needs to happen ahead of time.

But we could line it up where this project completed and they can start doing the evaluation after that.

0:59 – 1:046 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed59:15

I just have a prompt for Mr. Kim that might help the dialogue here in having had the benefit of sitting on the TPW, there's this paradox that you don't really understand until you get into the details. Can you, for the benefit of the council and the public talk about how paradoxical this pavement management plan is when we start getting into this PCI in that marginal territory because it's To the typical person it seems like, oh this is obvious right. Those marginal scores, the lowest score should be the first rows that we replace but there's this paradox and if you can talk about what that paradox is I think it would be helpful.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed59:54

Thank you Dr. Castro so... And this is counterintuitive to pavement management And generally speaking, the lowest rated streets do not get pavement rehabilitation. If the goal is to say maintain a PCI of 72, the goal is to bring the 60's to the 70's. The streets that are in the 30 and 40 oftentimes don't... Pavement rehabilitation isn't the solution, it's pavement reconstruction. Reconstruction of the road which is much more expensive been sealing a road.

So just from a factor of scale, a square foot of sealing the street can be anywhere from 25 cents to 35 cents a square foot. Square foot of repaving a road can be $14 a square foot. Just to give you an example of the scale it's not in order of two or three it's quite a bit so and then that's also if Analyze our pavement management report paint final payment report. Those are also considered backlog There comes a point where? Rehabilitation isn't the solution its actual actually pavement reconstruction So some of those really bad streets, for example Sealing the road won't do it It would be like a ground in overlay or a reconstruction and just from a perspective of dollars and value $800,000 at say 40 cents a square foot versus $14 a square foot.

That much less streak gets done so it is paradoxical. It is somewhat counterintuitive in the sense of where do you go and start your pavement rehabilitation efforts first? There will be a moment where we're going to have to have a conversation about, we're going to have a very expensive or costly pavement rehab program because we are reconstructing streets not sealing them. So if that's the paradoxical...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:01:54

That was it to a T and I appreciate the distinction between the pavement rehabilitation versus a pavement reconstruction Because this is one lens by which to look at that. But there's a broader perspective that we will be confronted with when it looks at, when we look at the limited dollars and the need that comes as a result of this study. So thank you for explaining

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:02:15

that. And just from another perspective... The model was based on $800,000 a year. And that's what we were getting from revenue from Senate Bill 1. To maintain our current PCI for the next five years, the annual budget has...was predicted to be around $1 million per year. To get it to 72 over five years, $1.5 million. Just to give you some perspective of dollars and investment on pavement preservation for the City of Moorpark.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:02:50

I have a question and part of my naivete about how all this works. Since we know that already degrading streets continue to degrade, what is the purpose of continuing to survey the streets? Don't we already have a list like... We already know the ones that are better than ones that you're going to do first so that they can keep the longevity. You already have a list, right? So why do we need to continue to make to do surveys if we already have this running list? And I get that some streets do degrade at a quicker rate, such as in Cul-de-Sac. Sure, I mean,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:03:25

I'll be honest, Cul-De-Sacs degrade faster than regular through streets. The last time the city did a pavement management study was in 1996, prior to 2023-2022 timeframe. So it's been like almost 30 years. So the main objective of a pavement report and reserving is you get an objective data and an objective analysis from outside consulting firms that don't sell asphalt that will provide pavement data The second objective is to figure out, is the dollar investments that we're putting into the pavement rehab plant, is that actually maintaining the city's overall PCI?

If it's not, then we need to re-figure out what are we doing and what are we putting the dollars in the right spot. So there's two objectives. It's really just to get an unfiltered someone that's not picking winners and losers for example, an assessment of the existing pavement Facilities and the other one is are we putting our money in the right bucket of rehab efforts?

1:04 – 1:1019 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:04:41

There are questions

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:04:44

Okay, Jimmy speakers

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:04:47

No, mr. Mayor no speaker cards on this item

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:04:50

OK. Back to discussion. Now, this is quite a complex issue as we're working on evaluating the streets and even paving them. Other streets are falling apart. And now the rain obviously did not help that at all. My biggest concern is getting into a situation where we just keep falling behind year after year. And it's just like a house, if you don't replace things as they break, it becomes a point where it's just so hard to even catch back up. So maintaining a level of Our current level is one thing.

In a perfect world, we just go pave every single street and then go back and start over again the next year. But that would be very, very expensive project there. So those are my concerns.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:05:51

I have a question that absolutely nobody on city staff is going to be prepared to answer, and I apologize for that in advance. We were going to trust on my memory from a couple of years ago there was a number of how much it would cost to bring all of our streets up, all at once. And I thought that number was something like $30 million. Does that sound roughly right having put you on the spot in a terrible way Mr. Kim? 34.8.

Or he's going to have the exact number which is the other option we might

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:06:23

have. But that value is from five years ago but your memory is correct and there is a fix-it-all In TPW, we discussed in the TPW there's a fixed level option and spend $35 million over five years and get everything up to not 100, but to get everything up to 72. Right? And then the next year it's not 72 anymore, it's 71. And then after that it's 68 and so on and so forth. Then you have to go back in.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:06:50

That makes sense. With that number understanding it's five years old and no longer relevant Would that have done rehabilitation and reconstruction of roads like the one that Councilman Barrett was mentioning, Park Lane? Would that have done reconstruction as well because I hear the delineation between reconstruction and rehabilitation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:07:17

Can you state your question again?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:07:19

Yeah, probably not any clearer. Or less clear, huh? You had mentioned that reconstruction is really expensive, $14 a square foot. Rehabilitation, $0.40 a square foot. Just to give you scale of cost, yeah. In that $30 million number were we suggesting that reconstruction would have occurred?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:07:38

No, no, it's a combination of sealing and reconstruction. And the goal of the $35 million isn't Reconstruct every single road is to get the PCI

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:07:51

to 72 citywide, right? But if we have an average and you're gonna have above and below So it's Park Lane It was brought up earlier. Is that 20 making up the number? You know, we don't necessarily have to fix that to get to a 72 if everything else is upgraded. So I'm just trying to get a basis on are we in that number? Are we kind of... That number isn't a fix-all. That number might be even more than that. Is that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:08:15

right? That's true. If we're evaluating an overall average That's true. There could be the park lane situation where there is a short section of road that isn't ideal, just to be honest with you. And then we can have other streets that are getting reconstructed. So yeah, it's a combination thereof of reconstruction ceiling to get the overall network to be 72.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:08:47

I appreciate the clarity. Sorry to go back to questions but...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:08:49

>>:No, it's a good question. So basically what we were saying is that even if we spent $35 million on getting up to 72, we would still have a lot of roads that look like we obviously didn't do anything to them because we wouldn't be doing every single road over. If we were to... Here's a question that you definitely don't have the answer to. If we were to do every single road over to make it all perfect 100 percent, what would that cost?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:09:17

Hold on, hold on. I don't think... There was a number and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:09:23

I thought it was... Infinity?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:09:25

And remember 30 million in 2020 is now about 60 million in 2025 so... I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:09:33

forgot to report that. I think there was a report where the value of the streets and rotary infrastructure for the city is $99 million. Do you remember that $90 million number? Yeah, that's just to give you... That's a value of it so maybe that could be a replacement

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:09:52

value. Do you have a comparison of neighboring cities with their PCI looks like compared to Moorpark?

1:10 – 1:1621 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:10:03

I... No, not really. Although in speaking with my colleagues in other cities we're all struggling with the same issue. It's cost of maintenance and revenue and budgets to hit all the streets. It was a challenge. It is a growing challenge for our public works professionals and we are just trying to do the best and most that we can with obviously the resources that the city has.

CommentHigh StreetProposed · by introduction1:10:35

Mr. Kipp, can you also just clarify that once we get the new study because we do it every five years that we are committed to doing an annual pavement plan project?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:10:44

Correct So we would do an annual Much smaller. If our revenue is increased from $800,000 to say $980,000 a year naturally our goal is to have a pavement project that's roughly in the ballpark of $900,000 or $880, 000 a year just maximize the revenue coming in and obviously spend that for pavement rehab

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:11:14

>>:OK, one question. So I know that the pavement rehabilitation is geared towards the CPI of the city as a whole pretty much. If we have streets that are obviously hazards, we're going to end up having to fix those as we go no matter what. Is that right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:11:35

I guess it could depend on what... Can you define a hazard? I mean, if it's unsafe for example. Yes,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:11:42

exactly.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:11:42

There's a difference

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:11:42

between deteriorating street versus an actual street that's going to cause an accident.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:11:49

Absolutely. If there's a sinkhole obviously that gets addressed right away and that's not even a pavement rehabilitation. That's an emergency that public works staff will get to right away. The hazard part, I guess that just depends on what the hazard is really. I mean... Right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:12:12

Yeah. Because we're not just abandoning streets that are a lost cause if they're not durable? No. Yeah, it's making sure that... Certainly not. It sounds like that sometimes when we say these things but it's making sure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:12:24

And your risk pool insurance authority would require you to fill potholes at appropriate times if there's notice of the condition of the street creating damage. Correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:12:36

There was a broad question asked about where we stand in comparison to other cities. I know we don't have that information, but anecdotally without naming cities, we know that some neighboring cities around the county are considering measures and special taxes because they have been unable to keep up with the cost of maintaining roads. That much I think... Can you confirm that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:13:03

I can't. I'm not aware of... Can you?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:13:08

Coming recently from another Dame Rain jurisdiction, that is one of the methods that was used to help get the road infrastructure up to par and that involves a 20-year pavement management plan for that organization so it is something as Mr. Kim noted is a challenge across organizations all across California Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:13:35

Any other questions, comments?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:13:38

I do want to acknowledge the fact that when we do have public speakers up here complaining or not...I won't say complain but educating us about their roads that you do take the time to go out and physically walk those properties so we appreciate that thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:13:56

It's, thank you. And it's important for us to be responsive to residents when there is a concern and public, Ms. Muskowski goes out there with our Public Works Supervisor and assesses the immediate situation and we do our best to rectify that concern as soon as possible.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:14:14

Yeah I too have noticed that we are, we, I take credit, we are very responsive with potholes and such and I do appreciate that. My comments on this is I think we need to say yes and move forward with this as soon as possible, but it certainly is uncovering or bringing to light. We've prioritized different capital improvement projects along the way. We have some great ones. We're sitting in one of those right now, and I think pavement probably needs to be highlighted for us as a council as we move forward. And I know that there's no intention on winners and losers, but just looking at And a map that happens to be up in Mountain Meadows, portions of Mountain Meadow Drive and Crescent Meadow get fixed. And right around the corner, Cedar Meadow doesn't, Crystal Ranch doesn't.

If I drive over that nice rehabbed pavement onto my street that wasn't, and it didn't seem that different to the naked eye, not saying that it isn't graded appropriately, that's frustrating. I'm frustrated as a resident living in that. I don't blame anybody for that. On a moving forward basis, we need to make sure that this is a CIP is prioritized. And I think I have been misunderstanding or previously misunderstanding rehabilitation and reconstruction at least as far as the disparity in the cost go but we need to be focused on how we can do some of that reconstruction as well.

Those are my thoughts.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:15:47

>>:Yeah, I 100 percent agree. You know, we've done some great improvement projects in the new library we're building, this city hall right here. These are all great projects. Pavement doesn't usually get the same excitement out of people. It's not a building, it's not something to look at. But we're going to have to start looking at that as an actual, you know, item to focus on financially because if we don't, we're going to end up having a nice beautiful building surrounded by broken streets and that doesn't really help it either so...

I agree. I think we should move forward with this and really start thinking about how to increase this in the future and how to move it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:16:22

Mayor, I'd like to also add that the city council did construct Princeton Avenue which was a major street improvement and street reconstruction project so... Yeah, that's one of them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:16:34

That was a good project.

1:16 – 1:408 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:16:38

I do think it's relevant to talk about timing as well. I appreciated that we had a five-year plan and we will not be held up to move forward for another five years after this phase is completed. I also think that your questions, I don't mean to insinuate that I know what exactly you were thinking Councilman Barrett But I think they're good ones. Rather than waiting for completion of one project and then beginning another project, can we align those? And I think I heard city managers... Yes. ...and Mr. Kim say yeah, we can expedite those timetables so the planning doesn't start after the project is which I will feel better about going to our citizens saying we're condensing these timeframes, we're applying budget and we are making this better with expedience and priority.

Am I understanding that correctly?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:17:25

Yeah, I think I better understand Councilmember Barrett's intention in asking that question. And so we can certainly streamline our efforts to tee things up efficiently. That works for me.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:17:42

Well all right, I'll go ahead and I'll make a motion to approve the recommendation. Second. I'll second or I'll third. We have a motion and a second? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Move on to item D. Consider direction to conduct public opinion survey for park maintenance revenue options. Mr. Lontowski.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:18:07

Thank you, Mayor and members of the City Council. During the 1984 statewide general election, the City of Moorpark consolidated a special municipal election with the County of Ventura for the purposes of placing an advisory ballot measure before the voters. The measure allowed the city council the opportunity to consider the formation of an assessment district for the purposes of maintaining public parks and other landscaped areas The advisory measure passed with a 61.5% of voters approving the measure.

So on May 18th, 1985, the City Council adopted Resolution 85-194 establishing the Parks Maintenance Assessment District AD85-1 Resulting in an annual cost of $15.31 per single family residence. But on November 5th, 1996 California voters approved Prop 218 also known as the Right to Vote on Taxes Act Prop 218 ultimately amended the California Constitution which affected the ability of special districts and local governments to levy taxes. Because of this, the city's standard practice of establishing an annual levy to cover the costs associated with park maintenance operations had to be reconsidered. So prior to disbanding the Park Maintenance District, property owners in Moorpark were paying an assessment rate of $41.16.

So on July 2nd, 1997 the City Council adopted Resolution 97-132 calling for a special municipal election imposing a park maintenance special tax later known as Measure P. Measure P established a special tax with a 10 year limit to be used exclusively for park maintenance purposes. The maximum rate established for the special tax was $68.50 Per single family residents however measure P failed to achieve the required two third majority vote and was not passed by the voters so on February 3rd of 1999. The City Council adopted Resolution 99-1566 initiating the proceeding for a ballot measure and the formation of a park maintenance district. The proposed maintenance district included 14 existing parks and provided a provision to include any future parks.

On June 16, 1999, the assessment ballot proceeding passed with a final ballot result of 71.5% in support And the City Council adopted Resolution 99-1625 approving the assessment engineer's report and the formation of the parks maintenance district. The 1999 assessment included a single family equivalent rate of $39, and included an annual CPI increase with a 3% cap. This covered 52% of the park budget in 1999.

Since then, park maintenance expenses have significantly outpaced revenue. The fiscal year 25-26 engineer's report established an assessment rate of $75.06 per single family equivalent and estimated that the proposed assessment would generate approximately one million dollars in revenue allocated to the park maintenance operations At the approved rate, assessment revenue will cover approximately 43% of the operating budget or 21% of the total budget which includes operating costs and capital improvement costs.

So during this special City Council meeting of August of last year staff presented an agenda report regarding the status of the city's general fund and review of the city's 10-year long term financial plan The long-term financial plan projected that the city's revenue or the city's general fund will face a structural deficit beginning in fiscal year 2930. To avoid a projected deficit, it was discussed that the city will require additional long term general fund revenue to address several areas particularly rising public safety costs, ongoing investment to sustain which we just talked about our payment management plan A decline in interest earnings as revenues have been drawn down to support some of our major capital improvement projects.

An increased general fund subsidy for both our park and LMD maintenance fund, and continued subsidies for our community development and engineering fund. So as shown on this table over the last several years, the general fund has subsidized park maintenance operations between about 51 and 67 percent. However, this does not include the additional $400,000 in annual funding that the city would need to cover the city's equipment replacement fund which we'll discuss in length later. Even though the city has made a considerable effort to reduce maintenance costs, the general fund is still contributing A significant portion of the city's operating costs. Without additional revenue, the city will need to reduce future maintenance costs by at least $500,000 a year.

So including the equipment replacement fund, the city is chasing about a $900,000 deficit. So at the October 15, 2025 City Council meeting, the city council approved an agreement with SCI Consulting Group and EMC Research to provide consulting services for a park maintenance revenue enhancement measure. The first phase of this work includes a preliminary feasibility analysis of the potential revenue enhancement measures to increase revenue for park maintenance operations. So with that, I would like to introduce Jeanette Hinson with SCI Consulting Group who will summarize her findings in this report and I'd like to...

Jeanette feel free to join our meeting.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:24:16

Good evening Council Members, Mayor, thank you. Let's see. Jeremy, can you bring up the presentation?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:24:28

Yeah, the presentation is up. Feel free to go through it and I will move us through and if I'm too slow feel free to hit me over the head and tell me to move on.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:24:40

We'll do. Okay, as Jeremy or Mr. Lermontowski indicated we're exploring the two options for the Parks and Recreation Revenue Enhancement Measure. We've completed preliminary assessment engineering for a property owner benefit assessment and preliminary special tax engineering for a partial tax voter measure Our approach assumes that the current park assessment would continue to be levied and a new overlay assessment or special tax would be created in addition to the existing assessment rather than replacing the current assessment.

Okay, next slide. To create a new benefit assessment or increase the existing assessment Eric Reeves, the existing Parks Assistant. The city must conduct a Proposition 218 mail ballot proceeding. The requirements include mailing a notice and assessment ballot to all the property owners at least 45 days before a public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing ballots are tabulated and then weighted according to each parcel's proportional assessment amount.

For example if I own two houses in this city and the rate is $100 per house then I have 200 votes If Mr. Laurentowski owns one house, then he has 100 votes. If 50% of the weighted votes do not oppose the assessment, council can vote to levy the assessment. Also it's important to note that only ballots that are returned before the close of the public hearing are counted. Okay next slide.

An analysis of the parcels in the city found that almost 80% are single family residential parcels with 88% of them being owner occupied. Okay, next slide. Proposition 218 requires that special benefit be allocated to property as it is received by property. Our method of allocating special benefit to property for a parks assessment is based on the type of property, the size of the property and the population density.

For residential land uses we look at population density and the average square feet for different residential land uses using a single family home as the baseline. Population density equivalents are calculated by dividing the total population for a certain property type by the total occupied households for that property type. Square foot factors are calculated by dividing the average square feet of other residential property types by the average square feet of a single family home.

And then single family equivalent rates are calculated by multiplying the population density equivalent by the square foot factor. These rates are presented in a preliminary SFE column in this table. These are the proposed SFE rates for residential parcels per residential unit. For commercial and industrial land uses, we look at the average employee density relative to a residential relative to residential population density to determine the SFE rates.

We found that the value of residential, commercial and industrial property is generally equal on an acreage basis therefore commercial and industrial land use parcels are assigned SFE benefit units per acre. These are the proposed SFE rates per fifth of an acre for commercial and industrial parcels When determining the level of benefit properties in the city receive from parks, we complete a proximity analysis to determine if all of the parcels in the city have equal access to parks.

We used a half a mile in our analysis as this is the typical service area for a neighborhood park and it's also consistent with the city's adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The analysis found that there are some areas in the city that are more than a half a mile from a park And these parcels receive less benefit than parcels that are within a half a mile of the park. These are shown as Zone B in blue on this map.

We determined that parcels in Zone B received 60% of the relative benefit received by parcels in Zone A. Estimated reduction and benefit received by parcels in Zone B are shown in this table. The weight of each benefit factor for Zone A is multiplied by the factor for Zone B. The estimated benefit received in Zone B is shown in the Zone B benefit column, which sums up to 60%.

Therefore, the assessment rates for parcels in Zone B would be 60% of the rate of parcels in Zone A. Proposition 218 requires that general and special benefits be separated and quantified. The rationale for separating general and special benefits is to ensure that property owners subject to the benefit assessment are not paying for general benefits. An assessment can only fund special benefits and cannot fund general benefits. General benefits from park and recreational facilities or benefits received from park and recreational facilities from people that do not pay the assessment.

In our analysis, we determined the number of parcels with access to a park that are outside of the city. This map shows that the parcels that are outside the city within proximity of a park. The orange parcels are outside of the city and within half a mile of a park and the yellow parcels are outside of the city and within two miles of a community park. This slide summarizes our general benefit findings To estimate the benefit to the public at large, we measured the land area within the city that is publicly owned and used for regional purposes.

We found that 3.17% of the land area within the city is used for regional purposes such as highways and Moorpark College. Just over 4% of the park and recreational facilities may be a general benefit to property outside of this city. This is the percent of parcels within Proximity to a park and outside of the city. The parcels we just saw on the previous slide.

And then finally, almost 20% of the parks are used by non-residents. This is the percentage of park rentals by non residents. Using the sum of these three measures of general benefit, we found that 27.16% of the benefits provided by the parks may be general and should not be funded by the assessment. These general benefits, this percentage must be funded by sources other than the assessment.

This is the fiscal year, the preliminary fiscal year 2026-27 parks budget for an assessment With total installation, maintenance, servicing and administration costs at $2.5 million. And then we reduce this funding need by the contribution for general benefits to 27.16. So $688,000 contribution for general benefits and then the contribution from the current parks assessment.

This gives us a net cost of $771,000 which is...which we then add Annual capital asset replacement reserve fund almost 400,000 bringing the net amount to assessment at 1.1 million 168 thousand. And then we so then we take this total assessment and then we divide it by the total number of benefit units assigned to the city based on the factors that we reviewed previously. So if we divide the total assessment by the total number Benefit units, we come up to a single family equivalent rate of $97.42 for parcels in Zone A and $58.45 for parcels in Zone B.

This chart presents the preliminary assessment rates for each property type with a 60% reduction for parcels in Zone B These rates are determined by multiplying the SFE rates previously shown by the base rate per single-family equivalent for each zone, $97.42 for parcels in Zone A and $58.45 for parcels in Zone B. And again, multifamily parcels would be charged per dwelling unit and commercial industrial office would be charged per fifth of an acre. So these are the rates per fifth of an acre or per dwelling unit.

This chart presents the new proposed assessment rates and the current assessment rate displaying the total parks assessment rates for each land use category with a total of $172.48 for the typical household. This chart identifies the total revenue generated by the proposed assessment for each land use category with about 83% of the assessment allocated to residential property and 16% allocated to commercial, industrial and office property types.

Now we will move on to our special tax analysis. Special tax isn't subject to the same special and general benefit requirements as a benefit assessment, only that the special taxes apportioned in a fair and reasonable matter. As a result, the special tax can cover the full budget shortfall currently subsidized by the general fund. And it has more flexibility such as allowing for senior exemptions.

For special tax modeling purposes, we consider two methodologies. A special tax based on a flat tax, just one base rate, just the same rate for taxable parcel and a special tax based on building square feet. This table shows us special tax based on building square fee without a senior exemption. So this is a rate where at six and a half cents Per building square foot, $50 for undeveloped parcels with a $10,000 cap so that the maximum tax for any parcel would be $10.000 and this would apply to very low percent of the parcels in the city you know mostly large commercial or apartment buildings.

No senior exemptions and this would be an average single family home tax at $151. For the commercial tax, 56% fall under the 10,000 building square feet or less with an average tax of $294. Parcels between 10,000 to 50,000 square feet at $1,407. This is about 32% of the commercial properties in the city and parcels with more than 50,000 square feet are at an average of $7,506 and that's only about 12% of the commercial properties.

You can see that this With this methodology, with the building square feet methodology about 76-77% of the taxes on residential and 22% of the taxes on commercial and industrial property. So this is the same methodology. The only difference is that we're applying a senior exemption, so we're assuming based on our experience with similar communities about 8% of the parcels would be senior exempt in order to meet that same revenue goal.

We need to levy a higher tax and less parcels wouldn't be subject to the tax. So this is at 7 cents per building square foot. The same $50 for undeveloped $10,000 cap With an average single-family home tax of $162. Commercial properties, 10,000 buildings square feet or less would be at $317. Ten to 50,000 buildings square feet, $1,515. And parcels more than 50,000 buildings square feet, $8,083.

With a similar allocation to the different property types, only with slightly less to the single family homeowner and slightly more to the commercial and industrial with them applying the senior exemption. So this table shows what a flat tax would look like. To hit the revenue goal we would need to tax $175 per parcel so this is the same rate per taxable parcel with no senior exemptions. So you can see how this puts more of the tax on the single family homeowners and would then carry a 95% of the tax, and in commercial industrial at about 2.8% of the tax.

And this is the same flat tax methodology, only just applying a senior exemption to hit that revenue goal. We would need to charge $187.50 per parcel assuming that 8% of the parcels are senior exempt. So when considering a flat tax or building square foot The analysis shows that using a building square foot model instead of a flat tax just distributes the tax more evenly across commercial properties and reduces the burden on residential properties.

This table summarizes the key differences between a benefit assessment and a special tax. Both are viable options for generating revenue to support the city's park and recreational funding needs with each with distinct advantages and limitations A benefit assessment is subject to greater legal analysis and requires that the general benefits be funded from sources other than the assessment.

A benefit assessment requires approval from a majority of the property owners, weighted by the amount of their proposed assessment through a 45-day mail ballot proceeding. A special tax requires approval by two thirds of the city's registered voters in an election conducted by the Register of Voters. So in conclusion, a benefit assessment with the lower rate for typical single family home and a lower approval threshold may make it a more feasible funding mechanism.

A special tax has a higher approval threshold but it provides a funding mechanism with strong long-term defensibility that can cover the full budget shortfall This chart, the chart below presents the current parks assessment rate, the preliminary new assessment rate. The two building square feet taxes one without a senior exemption, one with a senior exemption and then two flat taxes with and without a senior exemption.

And with that we'll pass it over to Sarah.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:40 – 1:487 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:40:48

Thank you, Jeanette. Next I'd like to introduce Sarah Labatt with EMC Research. Sarah is also attending via Zoom and she will discuss the survey methodology that we are proposing for this project. So thank you,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:41:02

Sarah. Good evening. Thank you so much for having me. Nice to see you all again. I have hopefully a much briefer section here that was certainly a very helpful analysis As we look at all of that and consider your options, we wanted to come with a recommendation on should you choose to do a survey? Sort of how we feel we would recommend approaching that. As you saw, right, you have sort of two mechanisms each one with some choices within it available to you benefit assessment or a special tax the populations that would be eligible to participate in those Efforts or elections or ballotings are different and the threshold is different. And as the prior slide said, you know a benefit assessment has essentially a lower rate, a lower required threshold for passage.

It is not always but often the more feasible approach because of that lower threshold it's a single issue effort and it's targeted just to to property owners, whereas the special tax of course has the higher threshold and is also a higher sort of rate across all of the potential voters in that election. So because the special tax measure if you want to continue to consider both of these avenues because the special tax measure is Likely the harder ask, the harder one to succeed at our recommendation is that we do a survey, a random sample survey of likely voters in Moorpark. Within that population will be included a lot of property owners near over 70% of voters are property owners single you know not commercial but they would we would the bulk of the voting and benefit assessment does come Um, from the residential property owner.

So this would allow us to look at that property on our subset and essentially allow us to analyze sort of the feasibility about supporting additional revenue in either of those potential approaches. We'd use probably the special tax model for framing the questions meaning because that's the higher amount and bigger, higher threshold. We'd probably recommend that we would really use that as like the proxy for a potential benefit assessment just because of the higher amount and the heavier lift with respect to threshold.

The poll itself would be used for all of the reasons we talked about before evaluating priorities around the investments you could make general opinion environment around revenue effort You know, the data would be used to help inform the city not just of is one of these options potentially feasible but also to help form any public information efforts that you would plan in conjunction with one of these two. I want to start by saying thank you to the city of New York City Council for providing us with these types of revenue generating mechanisms. As you know, the city cannot advocate but you can provide information and certainly one of the things we would do in the context of a survey is understand the impact of potential information you could provide so that you know what is most helpful for your voters or your property owners Electoral environment and the property owner benefit assessment environment, and look at feasibility really of both of those potential models.

We would build in some understanding and testing of different potential sort of rates or amounts as well to understand something within how the different rate recognizing that the benefit assessment has a lower rate for single family homes which is where these, you know, many of the voters, the way to vote comes from. To understand sort of what's the how much of their opinion about a revenue measure is about the amount versus about the idea of a revenue effort. So that's kind of the big picture of what we're recommending.

The specifications as we discussed before is 400 interviews with a margin of error 4.9 percentage points when we come back with results will be showing The answers, the data with that five point margin of error. We are using a phone and online mixed mode survey. It's a random sample of voters in Moorpark so not put it on the website everybody participate but rather we control that sample to ensure its random and representative and we would do this survey in both English and Spanish.

I think I just have one more slide should you choose to move forward with a survey This is a high-level timeline of how that would work. Here we are on February 28th, so tonight should you choose to direct staff to conduct the survey, we'd be working with your staff team to develop the survey questionnaire, revise and finalize it. Data collection period would be in April.

You know, we need a couple of weeks really to do the data collection component. We'd be back May 20th to the Council after working with your staff on their report and recommendations. We'll be back to you at your May 20 meeting to present results, understanding of feasibility for these potential mechanisms and then it will be back to you for considering your options moving forward.

I think that's my last slide?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:46:53

Thank you very much, Sarah and Jeanette. So that concludes our report. Staff is requesting that the City Council direct staff to conduct a public opinion survey to evaluate potential park maintenance revenue options and return to the City Council to consider those results. That concludes our report. We're certainly all here for questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:47:16

Thank you. One quick question to begin with, you mentioned legal uncertainty. Can you explain that a little bit more between the two different options and what kind of things could we fall into?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:47:28

So there's probably three of us on here, but I'll take a first stab at it. So legal uncertainty really is regarding the special versus general benefit option. As Jeanette was describing, it's not a clear-cut Data analysis is not putting a bunch of numbers in a formula and it spits out a result. There is some assumptions in there, some analysis in there. So it potentially could be challengeable how that analysis was done.

And so that's really just behind some legal uncertainty because like I said, it's not a straight cut algebraic calculation where we're just plugging in numbers.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:48:14

Is that typical in this type of?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:48:16

It's always typical, you know where it's a similar methodology to say a landscape maintenance district. Again, it's an engineer's report that assumes a certain amount of general benefit and special benefit to the homeowners that pay into that assessment so it's normal process. It just leaves the door open a little bit for it to be challenged.

1:48 – 1:5522 turns

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction1:48:42

I have a couple of questions. On the general benefits, when we look at the two miles outside the city, it's an interesting map because you're... Yes, you're two miles geographically but to drive that from Santa Rosa Valley into Moorpark is significantly more than two miles to access those parks. Is that Just how that's typically done. I mean, it just doesn't seem there's no...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:49:14

And I could have Jeanette go ahead and answer that question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:49:20

Yeah, you're correct if we were to drive two miles or if we were to calculate two miles driving there would be less parcels in the equation. This is typically how we've done it for our parks assessment But we, you know if we did decide to move forward. We could redo that analysis using GIS and network analysis to come up with an absolute value of the number of parcels that are within proximity to a park driving but yeah that's a fair point

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction1:49:54

Yeah, in particular that Santa Rosa Valley area. I just don't know that fully makes sense in there And then when you said you assumed the 8% Senior exempt parcels do we have any data from the city as to what? You know if that 8% is a correct assumption and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:50:19

Definitely, it could be less or more. This is 8% as an estimate based on our experience with similar communities and similar taxes. So I mean it definitely could be less or it could be more. It's just a...it's just our best guess at this time.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction1:50:37

And when do we turn that from not a guess? Is that just when we start actually collecting, we get that or if we're setting this methodology and these amounts all based on an assumption. When do we fill in that assumption?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:50:58

Yeah, it's really hard to say because you can look up the seniors in your community and see what percent of your population are seniors. But not all of them are going to apply for an exemption. So it's really hard to say we do have a lot of data on special taxes that we administer and the percent of parcels that apply for a senior exemption. And 8% is our best guess based on the data available to us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:51:27

And if I could just add to that Council Member Barrett, this is preliminary analysis that would go into an engineer's report. The actual engineer's report would have the methodology nailed down on these particular issues and between now and then these questions other questions from staff in our office would be addressed to make sure that we have as...the data is as good as possible and most defensible So that report would come back to you if you were to move forward and approve the benefit assessment process.

Got it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:52:10

Questions?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:52:12

You've got a couple, should be pretty easy Mr. Larentowski. Is it correct that in 1985 we had five parks at Moorpark?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:52:23

We had four.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:52:25

That's going to throw all of my numbers off. Is it correct that we have 19 parks today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:52:30

Correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:52:30

All right, one for two. I'm not doing bad. What is the park budget or park expense annually from the 2025 year? Or you could use the 2024 year which is on page 295 assuming that I'm right at it's just under 2.1 million

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:52:52

It's yeah, the park budget is a little higher than that. It's about two and a half million dollars the actual budget You know there's two graphs that we've been looking at one is actual expenses Which is closer to your 2.2 million? The budget is generally around 2.4

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:53:08

Perfect. And we stay with the question of, we'll say expenses because that's the number I have with 2.1. Do you happen to know in 2016 what the expense was for the park? It's also on 295. I think it's 2. 1 as well. Am I reading that correctly? I will

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:53:27

open it right

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:53:28

now. Just want to make sure I understand the document in front of me.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:53:32

Yeah, so in 2016-17 our operating expenses were about $2.1 million. It's fluctuated obviously a little bit. It's gone from 2.1 to 2.5. Right now we're back down to about 2. 1. So it hasn't really changed much in the last 8 or 9 years.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:53:52

Assuming a rounding error, we could say that it has been relatively flat while we've experienced 35% inflation Correct. Overall? Yep That is the question that I have to support my comment later. Thank you very

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction1:54:04

much Another question Mr. Lerentowski if we were to ask you You know, we are facing a structural deficit coming up if we were to ask you to cut $500,000 from the park budget What what would be a reasonable thing? That could be done

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:54:29

It's a tough question, and I've pondered that question obviously for many years knowing that at some point we're going to have to make that decision potentially. You know, I don't think we could spread $500,000 across our parks and expect to get $500,000 worth of savings without essentially ruining 19 parks. You know, I think my recommendation would be that we probably look at closing a certain amount of parks. We've got a lot of parks in Moorpark.

It's probably the...I wouldn't say it's just the easiest way to do it but it's probably the best way to do it so that we still have viable parks that our residents can enjoy. There's a lot of other factors we would have to consider because a lot of our parks generate quite a bit of rental revenue, such as our sports parks. My recommendation would probably be that we continue to maintain our sport parks or our neighborhood parks with sport facilities Those generate the most revenue income and potentially look at some of the more passive neighborhood parks that aren't used as frequently.

And possibly, I mean it's as hard as it is to say closing parks. What does that really mean? It probably just means stopping all maintenance, closing restrooms and things of that sort.

1:55 – 2:0510 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:55:59

I'm just going to ask you to jump on that. Has the city of Moorpark ever been in a position in the last, say, 27 years where we had to cut maintenance to parks? And can you tell us what the reaction from the community was at that time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:56:12

Well, we have twice. Back in 1998 after Prop 218 was passed the city essentially was looking at... We had zero money for park revenue. At that time Monta Vista Park was closed. We did not have July 3rd that year. We did not have an Easter egg hunt that year. And we cut service levels across most of our parks. Now, I wasn't there to witness that so I don't know the reaction but I do know the reaction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The city was very concerned about revenue loss during the pandemic and the City Council approved maintenance reductions across not only our parks but all of our LMBs And my phone rang off the hook because of the weeds and the tall grass that was growing and things like that. And back to our sports parks, quite frankly it's not a safe practice to not mow parks. Children can get hurt from grass being overly tall and things of that sort so...

It did disrupt, you know the peacefulness of Moorpark and we got lots of phone calls. And quite frankly the most concerning phone calls were from property owners concerned about their property values. Do

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:57:33

we have any speakers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:57:42

No Mr. Mayor no speaker cards on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:57:44

OK. All right, we'll move back to discussion.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction1:57:54

I want to start off by commending the Park Direct staff on their efforts to reduce costs. And I think that puts us in an interesting position to have this conversation because so much work has been done, and we're at a point where we can't just cut things without slicing, right? Without taking out parks Making big decisions that I can guarantee will be unpopular with the community if we have to make those decisions.

Hence, we're having this conversation today. I struggle with looking at this proposal and what's ahead. I understand that we have all of these decisions that we could make, and we can go different routes here. And having a survey in that data would certainly help in guiding that assuming We are trying to push for a very specific thing, such as passing a tax measure.

Ultimately, I think it's up to the residents and their vote as far as what way they want to go. And if that means closing parks and that's what people want to vote for or if that means paying a special tax You know, I think that we're kind of putting that decision in them and to spend forty four thousand dollars To try and word it so that we can convince them in a certain way It's just a lot of money. It's hard to swallow You know and and I understand it and they understand the best practice and I understand you know why it's presented it to us this way but ultimately my goal would not be to To convince them that my idea is the right idea, it would be what do you want as a vote?

And that's why we're putting on an auto ballot. So that's where I'm going to start.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:00:18

So I understand your point is there. I totally get that. The one thing that and I struggle with the surveys too, and I hate spending money on surveys. I know that. The one thing about that though is You're right. We're not trying to go out there to convince people or word things in some crazy, crafty way because we've all voted before and seen the do you not want us... It's hard and we don't want that. However if we do this survey the one part that could be helpful is that if we find out that people don't want to go ahead and do this We wouldn't spend the time and the money to go into the whole ballot preparation or even putting that on the election anyway. So, that's part of it. If we had a nice fair way to put it out there and actually find out what people were concerned with if people wanted to see the parks be maintained with some sort of added money or just start closing them, we would know that before we even got into a survey as well.

So that's something

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction2:01:26

If I may though, the $44,000 to do the survey, $45,000 to do the vote. Right? And that's one methodology obviously it's more expensive if we do the mail-in version but... We would then know

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:01:46

Right. And so that would be true if we were going to say that we're definitely going to do the vote version of that. If we're gonna do the mail-in version, that's more money. Go ahead, Mr. Cashaw.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:01:58

Yeah. I think just drawing a distinction and maybe our speakers can talk about whether were convincing voters or determining to what degree they would support either offering, because I think there's a methodology question somewhere in there. So that's for our speakers but I think one of the other benefits regardless of that response is informing us as to which direction we want to go because one of these directions is comes with more certainty, but less revenue. And then the other one is a much higher threshold. And then when we consider, you know, a plus or minus five percentage margin of error, we would need to see that from this survey that I start to get into comfort like You're looking at... Will 75, close to 75% of voters approve that?

Because we would need to account for plus or minus 5% of that vote on any given day not going that direction in order to be able to get that 67-plus percent passage rate. So that's another really key metric. Are we content running either one of these knowing that The thresholds are one indicator of potential success. But then, will we be content knowing that we could have potentially... That the voters would have supported the higher earnings? So that the difference here of a potential general fund subsidy is close to $700,000 in one versus we cover a majority of expenses with the other. I think that's really important for us too and then Just weighing in on, you know, the idea of closing parks. You know I think back to my first year on the council and one of the things that we talked about is like if we were to really entertain that then In addition to what was shared in terms of how we would potentially prioritize which parks are closed, I think there's also an equity analysis.

Which is what is the decision making by which we would determine which parks are closed? I think that's really important too. Which kind of goes in a circuitous way around this question about like the radius of the benefits. Because I was thinking, it's...I know it's not completely analogous but I was thinking about like property comps right? Property comps don't take into consideration the driving distance they just look at what the radius is right so I think that methodology is important but really regardless of which methodology we go to which I would still love to hear from our presenters how the methodology helps us tease out the best path forward. Regardless of the methodology, however, at the end of the day we need to make sure that we're content with whatever decision the voters tell us they would do or don't want because the revenue considerations could be a result if we left potentially $700,000 of general fund money there and that result was closing parks.

I think we need to make sure that we own up to that when we could have potentially generated more revenue.

2:05 – 2:101 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:05:26

You were asking for your speakers. I think I was one of those, is that what you were asking? Yes please. Yeah so on the survey research piece of this, I think the question came up about what is the poll trying to do and at least I think that was roughly right and I want it to be clear A good poll isn't trying to create a result or influence. It is trying to understand where the voters are, what they know, what they think.

Um, it's important to know that for most voters in most communities, potentially the only time they engage on the issue is when they get that ballot or that assessment. They may not know, um, when they are voting That they're voting between a tax or benefit increase or closing parks. That's something we can understand the impact of that information in a poll environment to help you know, how much does the public need to be informed in addition to what they might think today so that when they get that ballot or that assessment, that mailed assessment question, they understand the choice they're making?

That's one of the things a poll can help you do is understand, you know, the voters don't and won't have the complete set. All of them won't have the complete set of information because voters are voters and they... I'm not saying anything about yours but just generally they don't always pay a lot of attention. They get their ballot especially at, you know, general election ballot with lots of things on it and yeah, they run down it and they generally vote their values if they like parks Are okay with raising their taxes to pay for them, they might say yes. And if they think I don't really like taxes, they might just say no without really learning anymore and the risk there is that you know they may not.

Part of what a poll can do is help you understand do voters understand that that's the choice in front of them? If that is the choice in front I'm Essentially simulating an information effort that you could provide, but then they might say oh that's the choice I'm making. Okay well I don't love taxes but for this maybe I would consider it because parks are really important to me and I think that's one of the values that I hear what you're saying about just moving forward with an election without polling certainly you can do that communities do that.

And I think that That's an option for you. But I wouldn't, I would recommend and I know that I'm saying this from the position of the pollster so take that as it is but you know the more information you can get from your community the better as you enter this decision and when you know if we do this poll and we come back in May and we give you our analysis or understanding of where the voters and the public the property owners are You have that piece of information in addition to all the other pieces of information you have that are informing this choice.

That will give you the ability to say, we have really listened to what the public is interested in and worried about, right? I mean, we know this is a difficult time to pass any kind of revenue effort especially at two-thirds tax measure. It's hard throughout California it is hard And so I want to be realistic about, you know, we don't know what we're going to see in your community in a poll. We don't know what we would see if you just put it on the ballot. But if the poll that we do comes back with, you're not really close to that two thirds but we think you could potentially achieve that property assessment. Yes, it's a lower amount for the city or a lower amount to the parks directly You know, that I think would be information that'd be helpful in steering your choice on what effort you might move forward with.

So it's really your call and I think there's a lot you can get out of a poll to understand the impact of telling people things like without additional revenue we're likely going to have to close some parks, we're likely going to cut back on maintenance You know, how does that shift their thinking? Do they still say yeah I'm still not voting for something or they say now that I know that, that's a valuable piece of information that I would want to know before I go and cast a vote. So you know that's...I don't know if that's helpful but that is sort of how I think of some of these efforts

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:10 – 2:188 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:10:41

So one of my questions is when you go out to take that poll, do you try to be more broad in the we have to cut expenses or do you try to I guess it goes back to Dr. Castro was saying trying to figure out which parts we would be eyeing if that was the case? Or what types of maintenance costs would we be trying to change?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:11:09

I think that we would want to make sure that what we are using as potential information in the poll is something the city or the Parks Department would be able to say truthfully, right? We're not trying to test data. That's not true. So at this stage if we do the poll in the next couple of months, we'd be working with your staff on what happens if you don't succeed in a revenue effort It might not be as specific as particular parks. I think the public can certainly provide input, and I imagine that they will through other mechanisms as well in terms of engaging with your public, as you always do and are available to them. But I think that if we would want to present information in the poll that is reasonably broad but realistic about what could happen, right?

So it sort of depends on what you're ready To say, we would not recommend using the poll only to plan exactly what you're going to have to cut. The public is not really qualified to know like what saves you that amount of money. But I do think we'd want some realistic statement we would use that is here's what happens if we don't do this or we don' succeed at it and we don increase revenue. That probably is reasonably direct about park closures, at least generally potential park closures. Potential cuts to maintenance and the resulting ability to use and access parks and bathrooms etc as compared with this sort of state of the department today in the parks today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:13:00

Right. Yeah, it's just the tough part is people are going to be OK with closing parks that aren't near their houses typically. And you know it's usually that kind of thing where it's probably not gonna be the park near me and then you find out that it is and then you know... It's a big issue. So it's kind of hard to do it. I mean, it's hard to plan it all out in the beginning without knowing but then it's also hard to be extremely transparent which is what we're trying to do. We're trying to be as transparent as we can. We're not trying to go out there and say we want to do one way or the other. We are trying to really ask these questions and that's where we want to be really fair and really straightforward with that. Go ahead and then Renee after.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction2:13:45

So what would be the downside? Again, I'm fixated a little bit on this survey and the cost. But if we were to go ahead and do the ballot measure which we know there are some challenges there right? And if that were to not pass then we could potentially proceed with the other... I mean that's kind of what was done in the late 90s right? But by doing that we save $44,000.

What's the downside there?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:14:25

I just want to add that $45,000 doesn't include the cost from the register of voters so there would be additional fees that are unknown for the county election costs and those fees depend on a lot of factors like which election you Which election you're on, how many other measures are on the ballot. I think a rough estimate was in a previous staff report from the City of Santa Paula where it could be as much as an additional $20,000. So just to put those costs into perspective.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:15:06

I can respond just from a policy perspective. If we ran the wrong measure and that measure didn't pass, then that's two years of potentially slightly in excess of a loss of $2 million in revenue. That's one piece. The other, I think from a talking point perspective We know that there are members of our community who were not in favor of taxes regardless, right? It doesn't matter how good the case is. They're just opposed to taxes which I think we all get.

I think there's a value however in having a data set that says We understand your position, but again we need this data so I can't even propose what that would look like. But if that survey comes back to us it gives us an ability to say we understand your position but based on this data this shows us that X number of these registered voters who were sampled who are representative of our broader population, you know, disagree with you. You know? And so I think that's important from a policy perspective to be able to say when we go to the voters and ask them to approve this kind of measure, you go into that conversation while informed with data to say there was a reason behind it, that it wasn't random, that we weren't just doing this because we wanted to tax voters, because we have the authority to try and do so.

I think that's another important consideration when we're confronted with community members who, regardless of what the issue is, they don't want to be taxed. They don't even want to be asked to be taxed. And I think there's some value in that as well. I don't know if that's helpful but it could be.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:16:55

Do we have any data on whether the vote of 97 did they do any type of polling or education? Or what did they do or didn't do

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:17:06

You know I really couldn't find any information about what kind of analysis they did prior to the vote. They, I suspect that they did not. They obviously didn't make a very good decision. It didn't even come close to passing. And so, you know when and it was actually the opposite Councilmember Barrett of what you were saying. It was starting with the special tax which is the higher tax.

It was $68 which covered 100% of park maintenance but it was also the harder sell that required two-thirds vote After it didn't pass, you know I don't like to say the word desperation but it almost was because now we had failed at the polls. We knew what our residents were paying prior to the special tax which is about $41. And we had no money at that point. So it was so it was we had to get something right and so we went back With the ballot measure knowing that we only had to get a majority But we actually went with a number that was less than what we were getting prior to Prop 218. So, you know, we made a conscious decision I could say to get something at that point but that set us up poorly for where we're at now.

2:18 – 2:233 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:18:36

And I completely get not wanting to spend the $44,000. At the same time my concern is just that and stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny in scramble mode and I would just hate to be there at that point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:18:54

Yeah, I'm the same way. I feel like it's going to be expensive if we're gonna do it the right way. I think it's the right way. Also there's a question for everyone here too. We want people to be the most educated as possible about what's happening when they go to the poll or they get the ballot to vote on. Would doing this survey help us keep that conversation going and keep this more important to people you think?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:19:27

I think so. I'll chime in with some of my thoughts. My initial consideration of this was to evaluate if this is a false choice, right? Is it more fees, more park? Less fees, less park? And both in the uh... the park quality as well as the number of parks uh... and why i was asking mister lontowski questions i was asking was uh... i think doctor castro you're talking about some of those people that don't want taxes no matter what matter ever uh... and those that group certainly exists i also think there's a big segment the population that efficiency in the spending their government is providing As a city, our goal is to provide services. To provide a community benefit. We exist and we collect money in order to do that. So are we doing that in the most efficient and effective way?

And it was recognized earlier by a couple of our council members here. I think our park department has done a phenomenal job of doing that. And I believe that we are at the point where we have maximized efficiency for the quality of the parks that we're providing. A little back the napkin math, which is not scientific but just trying to set up some sort of equation.

Four parks, not five in 1985. There's 19 of them now. The public was happy paying $15 at the time. $15 and 85 is worth about $47 today. We now have 4.75, almost five times the number of parks. If you do that equation out, that $15 would be about $225 today. So that's one way to look at it. The other way to look at is 1997, those $48 on today's dollars is about a hundred bucks. And so as we're looking at the special taxes that are approved at the $151, $162 and $175 range I don't know that those are outside of reasonable and what our residents in our city have said before that they were willing to participate from a financial perspective to support our parks both for property values that were mentioned as well as for community Community engagement, community service and benefit.

So you're kind of doing all that math. I do believe that we find ourselves in a place where the city has done right. We've been good stewards of the public's money and now it is a choice for the voters to tell us. And do they want to be spending more money to keep the quality of parks that we have? Do they want to not be spending more money and have some of those tough decisions made In the past when we've had those tough decisions that have been made after park closures, then the members of our community see the impact. It's so hard to see that impact unless you're willing to be at a city council meeting at 854. Thank you to those of you that are at night hearing the debate and the discussion.

All of that being said, I hate the idea of spending money on a survey. But I cannot imagine us moving forward without getting that data from our residents to know how they want us to be serving them best. And if we then do go out and put an item on the ballot, I don't think we should be advocating. one-sided data out there. But I do think it's important that we share information, unbiased information about where we are. We all know that we're facing a structural deficit. We all know that the city if we do not do certain things today, we will be in a position where we're going to have to make really tough choices for our community and I know that we all take that very seriously. We just heard about the pavement that needs to be done. We've got other needs that we need to be enhancing what we're spending so all of that being said I do think that we're at a crux where knowing what our residents feel more than the subjective information that we're able to gather from our discussions is important.

And I think the surveying is worthwhile to do.

2:23 – 2:356 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:23:40

Anything else?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:23:42

I agree. Well, I'll go ahead and I'll make the motion. I will move the recommendation to move forward with the survey.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:23:52

I will second the motion

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:23:53

Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Okay,

we'll move on to item E as considered Moorpark City Library operations and service delivery. Mr. Laurentowski.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:24:15

Thank you again Mayor and members of the city council The discussion about withdrawing from the Ventura County Public Library system began in about 2005. The city's concerns at the time were related to library operational changes that were implemented by the Ventura County Library Commission and the county library staff, without any input from the city. So in 2006, the city conducted a library operation study which confirmed that leaving the Ventura County Public Library system would be essentially cost neutral to the city and would not require any additional subsidy from the city to continue operations.

The decision to leave the county was centered around mostly local control of a community amenity that the city council believed should be managed directly by the city in order to provide the best level of services for Moorpark residents. Ultimately, in 2007, the city withdrew from the Ventura County Public Library System and assumed library operations. So one of the decisions that had to be considered was whether the library should be operated in-house or via service contract with a library operator.

So in November of 2006, the city council awarded an agreement to Library Systems and Services which we will affectionately call LS&S from here on, to provide library operations for Moorpark City Library. The initial term was four years and one month The agreement included a provision whereby the contract amount would be negotiated annually to allow for adjustments as the city and LSS modify the operational needs for the library.

In 2011, the first five-year agreement was approved and the provisions of the agreement remained generally the same for the following 10 years with subsequent agreements approved in 2016 and 2021. The provisions of the agreement with LS&S currently include a variety of provisions very quickly paraphrase, but the entire agreement is included in your staff report with details of these provisions.

So for library collection management that includes the acquisition of materials based on the library collection development policy It also includes cataloging, processing, selection and inventory of library collection. It should be noted that the procurement costs associated with the city's collection remains with the city's library budget so that's not something that LSNS is required to purchase independently.

Additionally, it includes library operations such as the day-to-day library staffing. The required level is 7.5 full time equivalent positions. It includes programming interlibrary loan network management of the integrated library system grant writing reporting performance monitoring which is based on the California State Library minimum reported benchmark requirements and overall management of the facility. The total contract amount for the current five-year term is $2,995,270 which includes a 3% annual increase.

Library services are paid through an allocation of property taxes that the city assumed when the city took over operations from the county. Currently, the property taxes received are sufficient to cover the cost of the library operations and they increase incrementally each year. For instance, in fiscal year 24-25, the city received about $1.4 million in property taxes An additional $288,000 in miscellaneous revenues which include interest earnings, grants and donations. The total amount was about 1.7 million dollars.

Library expenses in fiscal year 24-25 totaled about 1.4. So the total agreement with LS&S expires on June 30th, 2026 and contains a provision to extend the agreement for additional five-year term. The agreement also contains a provision whereby the city would need to notify LS& S of an extension 120 days prior to the expiration date and that date would be March 2nd of this year if we were going to extend that agreement.

So when considering how library operations have been managed over the last several years under the current contract, one way is to measure the library's success as it's compared to Moorpark Libraries to other libraries. Staff has reviewed data for the last 10 years of library operations and compared some of the key data areas against all Ventura County libraries for trend comparisons.

These next slides showcase how the library circulation, visits and programming have all trended down across Ventura County libraries until about after the COVID-19 pandemic in fiscal year 2021-22 where data trends generally start to show gradual increases For the Moorpark City Library, circulation trends reflect a reduction in adult physical material circulation with children's material remaining consistent comprising about 50% or higher share of the overall total physical circulation.

The total number of programs have generally remained consistent since 21 and 22. However, even though the numbers have remained consistent participation has shown year-over-year increases. The most relevant information on this slide relates to virtual visits and technology use both of which have increased significantly since the pandemic This growth generally reflects a clear shift in how library patrons access services and highlights a broader change in overall library operations and service delivery.

These next charts compare the Moorpark City Library against several California benchmarks based on the last reporting cycle that was compiled by the California State Library, Overall, the data shows that the demand for services are high but limited by the size of the Moorpark facility when comparing library visits, attendance and circulation per square foot which always exceeds a California benchmark because we know our library is very small.

As expected due to the facilities side, the Moorpark City Library ranks below California averages and local averages in facility side staffing and collection size. This next slide kind of highlights the collections and our library visits. And we also have shown some data for circulation and program attendance. These slides are somewhat detailed, so I won't go into the specifics but we can certainly ask any questions that were certainly added into your report.

So when the city took over library operations from the county in 2007, a consultant was hired to determine whether the city should operate the library in-house or contract with a firm to provide library operations. The initial study provided similar pros and cons for in-house operations and contract operations. As mentioned previously, the increased control stability in funding and improved service levels were the primary reason Moorpark moved away from the county.

The consultant also looked at the potential costs of city operations versus contract operations and concluded that contract operations were slightly less expensive than the City by approximately $60,000 per year. This was mostly because contract operations were about 15% less than the City's salary benefit burden at the time. The city also had another opportunity to compare costs of library operations in 2017.

The city was approached by the City of Santa Clarita regarding the creation of a joint powers agreement to share resources and operate an independent library system with other member cities. The JPA structure anticipated that each participating member would pay into the JPA to provide for staffing, human resources, accounts payable types of central services. As part of that analysis, the consultant determined that the first year of operation would result in overall savings of about $40,000 to the city over a 10-year period. That amount fluctuated mostly due to administration costs of the JPA but at that time the city determined that the savings did not provide enough of a benefit to warrant changing the service model.

So this slide identifies the estimated savings for library operations under the JPA model over a 10-year and 15-year term. It's kind of interesting to note that the library operations contract It was projected to cost the city about $656,000 in fiscal year 25-26 and many other years under the JPA model. However, the actual operations contract with LS&S is about 623.

Which represents about a $30,000 difference which essentially offsets any estimated savings to join the JPA. So the lower actual costs are most likely attributed to the fact that we can negotiate these contracts every five years with LS&S and any other type of library vendor. So library services throughout the county vary by agency. In addition to Moorpark, Simi Valley and Camarillo operate their libraries through a contract with Alice & S.

The City of Oxnard and Thousand Oaks operate their libraries with in-house staffing. The City of Santa Paula's library are provided by an independent special district with an elected board And all other libraries in the county, which includes Fillmore, Ojai, Port Hueneme and Ventura are served by the Ventura County Public Library System. We don't have a recommendation other than to direct staff as deemed appropriate.

That concludes my report and I'm certainly here to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions?

2:35 – 2:4017 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:35:05

I get to go first this time. Thank you very much. First off, I want to start by saying what I'm about to say is no reflection on the staff. I know we have incredible staff and just based on your graph, we have the second highest program attendance per amount spent which is in all of the cities which is really incredible especially given our small little library So are there no other options besides LS&S? It didn't seem like it was either in-house, a special committee or this one company.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:35:42

Well there's... yeah it's you know they're to my knowledge there is one other consulting company that provides library services like LSNS. Other than that there's LSNS, there's in-house services Joining a JPA was was kind of a model that was presented to us. That would take obviously, you know basically Coordinating with with a bunch of other agencies and cities to make something like that happen And then there's still the county You know the county would you know they they still manage Library systems for four other cities so those are those are generally the options for for for libraries

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:36:28

And they're all roughly the same it seems like the same cost.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:36:32

They're generally the same cost, you know I you know when we looked at The JPA model we could we could pretty much attribute that to what it would cost a city They had an administration cost in that chart Which which? Generally when you look at it Would be about the same amount of costs that would would cost a city for general services and that would be for HR and for finance departments and IT departments to provide those support services So it's roughly about what that JPA model would look like which pretty much is a wash to doing a contracted type arrangement like we have now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:37:10

Okay, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:37:11

Chris?

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction2:37:15

If we were to go out RFP and look at say that other option or the county potentially or whatnot Is that even an option with this March deadline that you said?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:37:31

So the way the contract, the contract right now expires on June 30th. So if we let the contract expire it expires hopefully we had something in place otherwise we have no library The 120 day notice is if we wanted to extend that, the current agreement. So we would have to notify LS&S within 120 days to say hey, we're considering this because that also gives us time to negotiate the next five year costs and things of that sort.

There was, there's a provision in the agreement that says you know six months is required if the city wanted to terminate the agreement. That's if we wanted to terminate the agreement six months before the termination date. So say we wanted to terminate that two years ago, we would have to give LS&S a six month notice and obviously that's reasonable. There's staffing that would have to be displaced and things like that that would have to be handled so winding down a library is complicated.

I don't know if I answered your question, but there's plenty of time to do that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:38:44

I wanted to take a chance at trying out my back-of-the-napkin math on this here. So the total cost for five years is just approximately $3 million, right? That's the cost of the contract

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:38:58

correct. It's about 600,000

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:39:00

per year right? And then that covers 7.5 FTE

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:39:05

Correct

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:39:06

and which which equates to about 80,000 per FTE I'm just going to use terms like total comp right so in general that would be a base salary of approximately $56,000 if you had about $24,000 of statutory benefits for a typical employee. So ranging between 25 and 30% statutory benefits is that in general? If we were trying to estimate what that would be individually?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:39:31

I'm not going to second guess your math, but that sounds about right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:39:35

So the reason that I'm asking the question is if we were to consider anything regardless of who's providing that service, the benchmark that we would be trying to find would be to staff our libraries with costing no more than $300,000 per 7.5 FTEs which on average changes obviously But that would be about $56,000 as a base salary for those employees.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:40:05

Yeah, and the one thing that we have to consider as well is support services. So you know the contract requires 7.5 FTEs as a minimum but that's not including marketing central services, HR, finance so it's a whole gamut of numbers that would be very complicated back of the napkin trying to figure out. But if it was just on staffing, that sounds about right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:40:39

Okay. Thank you.

2:40 – 2:4819 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:40:43

Just to follow up on that back-of-the-napkin math, what is the total library budget that we work with? I understand $660,000 is LS&S. What is the balance of that each year?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:40:57

I will probably mess this up so I will lean on Ms. Sandifer

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:41:03

So there's about the $600,000 for LSNS services and then the rest goes into facility maintenance costs and things of that nature. So staffing to deal with the facility itself. So the 1.3 number that we listed is the all-in cost including all of those things.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:41:19

And that includes the LSNS numbers? Correct. We're at about 1.4 annual expenditure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:41:25

Yeah.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:41:27

Perfect. We've got a couple of other questions. Mr. Lewandowski, you'd mentioned that one measurement of success is to compare us to other cities and the state on page five of the report. And it looks like in a number of places we're doing really well and a few that were...we may be a step behind. That is a measurement of success and I like it. What goals and measurements do we have in our five years ago when we got into this contract? What goals do we have, what metrics are we trying to hit. Do we want to be at a certain percentage of any of these numbers with those stated somewhere or those reported regularly

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:42:08

So we report to the State Librarian every year. Those numbers that we report are based on basically the California state average is what we use as that benchmark, so that's reported to the California State Librarian and then every year we bring to the City Council which you'll receive in a couple weeks the annual reports that we provide you As well the annual report of pride you isn't as data-driven as what we give the state librarian and it has a General description of our programs or successes its charts year after year You know participation and things of that sort

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:42:54

So that seems to track what we've done and where we're going. And I think a lot of those trend lines are really positive, but it doesn't seem to measure to goals on the contract that I dug into and I apologize for putting anybody on the spot page 2029 item six planning and performance monitoring there's an A and B Establishing short-term and long-term goals and objectives being A, and provide performance measurements is part B. Is the performance measurements that we're getting provided as the city the report to the state on how we're doing compared to the state? And then what are our short-term and long-term goals and objectives as we understand it today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:43:37

Yeah, maybe Ms. Sandifer can chime

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:43:39

in. Sorry I don't mean to be directionate the wrong way.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:43:43

I think that, so in the contract there's always been a provision to actually do a goals and objectives document. We haven't done that over the years because we've been waiting on the new library. And so as far as like from a document that Our board your board or the library board have approved that doesn't exist but the library staff do have goals that they measure themselves up to And you know circulation goals and things like that, and we do report that out to the library board on a quarterly basis because the library board gets the information that We're going to be reporting to the state at the end of the year So as far as a formalized document, that doesn't exist. But the library staff do have goals that they are measuring themselves against.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:44:34

And we don't have those readily available? I'm

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:44:36

curious. I don't have those readily

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:44:37

available. Putting you completely on the spot. Sorry, Ms. Sandifer. I appreciate it. I'd be curious to know more about what those look like. But I'll hold that until discussion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:44:49

Do we have any speakers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:44:52

No, Mr. Mayor, no speakers on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:44:54

All right. Thank you. All right. We'll move back to the discussion then. Discussion time. Let's hear it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:45:01

All right. I'll kick us off. I got a couple of comments here. One we've invested a lot of money in the community has spoken that they want a library and a public meeting space and I think it's important that we get the best that we possibly can from from that investment. And I think we have a lot of passionate people that are That are moving that moving that initiative forward. I think it's great And I think we have a lot of connectivity with our library staff beloved by the community, so I think that some of that Consistency needs to add some value to it that perhaps this discussion and some of my other comments may Need to be weighed against The RFP process hasn't been completed in multiple renditions of this contract. So I don't know that we know what is out there.

Cost is one thing, I actually think we got a pretty good cost per qualified teammate working in our libraries right now. But that's only one of the considerations. The second consideration is what benefit is the city getting? And I'm not sure that we know how to measure that and what goals do we have as a city for our library, and are we going to be moving up in the state Uh, rankings. Are we trying to have more programming? And perhaps those goals exist in... I don't know the details but as we enter into another contract to fill our brand new library, I'd love to see LS&S or anyone else define those goals more clearly. Here is what we will be doing. Here is what you can measure us against. Here's where we see the city of Moorpark going. And I think that's a really good place for us to go, to have clarity and communication in what we're gonna do with our library.

So I would like to see goals and measurements in the contract. I think the RFP process is probably the most natural way to go about doing that when multiple entities are coming forth with their best ideas in order to secure a contract. We get to learn a bit more about what benefits might be out there, what services might be out there And I think that all things being equal, we likely default to LS&S. They've been doing a great job seemingly by the numbers for a long time with great people.

But I think it's worth measuring and making sure maybe we get an even better deal or even more services from LS& S because we go out to the market That's where I am.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:47:31

Yeah, I kind of want to hop on that too. No, I agree with what you're saying and also to add is that we have a different library we're building. It's not this current one we have right now. There'll be different programs in it, different meeting rooms and a lot more that can happen in that one so Being able to go back and reevaluate what that looks like in the future is something that we should definitely be getting into. Also, I think it's just good business practice to always be evaluating contracts no matter what. I have no problems with LS&S right now. They do a great job of doing.

And I think at the end of the day, we might even just be more confident in the fact that we made that choice in the first place. But I see no reason not to.

2:48 – 2:5717 turns

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction2:48:21

I'm going to agree as well. I mean, I think we made a similar choice with our city manager, right? We ended up hiring an internal candidate who is fantastic by the way but you know, I don't regret going back, going out looking at the options and knowing all those data points

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:48:50

I don't have a lot to add to the discussion. I agree, I think... I do want to take the time to talk about our current staff. Our current staff are respected and appreciated so I want to make sure that it's not an issue of dissatisfaction with staff. I do think it's not only conscientious to look at the RFP but also I think Mr. Laurentowski you talked about the fact that we've been able to hold costs down because of our negotiating position. And I think that's just good practice to make sure that we're placing ourselves in a place to negotiate the best agreement. And if we end up in the exact same place that we are now, based on just the current expenditures by staff, we're actually relatively in a really good spot when you look at whatever a comparable amount of service would cost us across the county.

So I'm in support.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:49:42

Let's make a motion. I've done the last three.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:49:44

I just want to add, I would like to get our council's attention on getting that goals and objectives document created that we don't have it at this time. I think that's something that as we move into this how can we possibly ask for an RFP or response back to our library services if we don' as a council if we're not able to give direction to the folks that are supposed to be executing so I'm not sure if it's a cart before the horse discussion.

But I think it's worth at least, I guess hearing from city staff about...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:50:20

Yeah so the goals and objective question is a great one. We've actually had that discussion with LS&S especially with the new library looming in the distance and it's the perfect time. It's almost like the perfect time to do a library master plan To really start talking about how are we going to you know? What kind of metrics are we gonna be putting out there to try to test ourselves and to make sure that we're following You know succeeding in our goals, so Timing wise it's great.

That is something that we would definitely write into the RFP as a deliverable Prior to library constructing which we have plenty of time to do I So I think that point is well taken and I think it's an excellent opportunity to start looking at that. As far as library operations themselves, you know the design of the library there's no expectation that we would be Let's just look at the current contract. There is no anticipation that we're going to have to increase our FTE requirement based on the way the library is designed. You know, I think we can move into a library with 7.5 FTEs and in a very similar contract as far scope of work is concerned.

Where we might have to consider adding staff is with the success of our library, which is a good problem to have. So if I come back to you and say City Council, we really need to increase our library contract, the only reason I would be in front of you to say that is because our programming has gotten so popular and we're overwhelmed with the amount of people walking into that library. We need more people.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:52:06

Assuming that we all want that, I imagine that we can also have that as part of the RFP process that allows us to increase in certain intervals or price points?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:52:17

Well, I don't think we would include it as part of the RFP process. I think the RFP process is... We need to put in a certain amount of FTEs that we know can operate the library. I think where that process comes in, it would be a negotiated term later on should we need that and any of these contracts could be negotiated at anytime if we needed to add or remove things. It's certainly an amendment to the ad agreement that we would negotiate with the library operator and bring those changes to you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:52:49

Perhaps I'm optimistic that a library that's under construction is going to have such demand that we've got a plan for doubling our staff and resources. So, that I understood the initial point for goals and objectives in that document. Were you suggesting that we allow Whichever, probably SL&S. But to allow them to help us craft those after the award of a contract or that we would be doing that beforehand?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:53:17

We would allow the new vendor to craft that as part of their new contract.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:53:21

And there'd be a discussion with council then, or they would be presenting it to us as an RFP for us to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:53:27

approve? They would include the cost of that which I don't anticipate it being in additional costs but they would, their library, their proposal to the city would include that as a deliverable once that document was prepared. It would obviously come in front of the City Council for adoption or for approval

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:53:47

I hear it. A question, if we're going to be evaluating options and value and cost, and we don't know what our objectives and goals will be, how do we know who can deliver the best on unknown objectives and goals? It feels like we're putting them in a really tough spot.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:54:05

Well, I guess I'm looking at it as almost like a master plan document that the library operations are being evaluated by our current vendor They're setting those goals ahead of time on how this new library is going to be operated What goals are establishing for themselves and they would be presenting those goals to the City Council? And then it's a checks and balances from there right then it's it's it every year as we're reporting We're also reporting on that document. Are we are we succeeding in what we said, we're going to succeed and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:54:43

I relate it to my private business. If I'm responding to an RFP and the RFP says, how are you going to service us when this contract? And then afterwards we can talk about what it is that you're trying to accomplish. I think we're putting our vendor potentially in a tough spot but if Council thinks of that that makes sense and that's the best way to move forward then

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:55:07

Maybe help out. Yeah, and so We at as a staff level can't do the document right? So we'd have to get somebody that can Provide it or put together goals and objectives document That scope is currently in Ellis and S's contract and we could activate that scope now. I But again, their contract is expiring at the end of June and it would probably we could put stuff together But we have to bring it to the library board. We'd have to bring it to your body as well So that obviously takes time that would eat into an RFP time If we wanted to do a lesser extension than five years on the LS&S Contract to allow some of those things to be done prior to the RFP process That's something that we could consider as well so Take that for what you may. We need a consultant to do it, we have a consultant on contract right now that can do it and probably can do it fairly quickly because again they are already working on goals and objectives at a staff level so maybe that's an option.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:56:11

That helps a lot and I think it brings back the point that is most relevant. If LS&S has been our vendor for at least two contracts, ten years Item A under six, planning and performance. Why don't we have it yet? That's I guess it might be more rhetorical. It's certainly not meant accusatory, but imagine there's reasons why we don't

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:56:35

yeah So in the initial library studies that were conducted they said a lot of the issues that The libraries experiencing was the size of the library so we have been and I hate to say this out loud You know multiple times that we have been planning a new library since 2007 and so I know that there has been A desire to not plan major expansions of programming and set goals for ourselves that we can achieve based on the size of the building.

So unfortunately, it's taken 20 years to get to that point or 19 years to get to that point but So there's just never been that desire, you know We've generally operated the library as long as we're doing better The following year than we did the year prior then that was what we were doing. Well, you know, we were doing better than the County was doing and so those have been sort of the metrics that have been driving You know the operations at the library so, you know because we do have that available to us now we can certainly activate that now and Prior to the library being you know built, but that was the previous kind of direction I

2:57 – 3:027 turns

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction2:57:45

Think I think what Tom our councilmember means sorry It's trying to train to get across is if we if we assume You know success based on just doing better year over year or even if we say set a goal of 5% Better that's very different than say a 15% That we want to increase circulation by 15% or 30% and if that's our goal that might have a very different response from an RFP standpoint as to what we're trying to achieve and what staff and what resources and things they need to put into it in order to achieve that goal. Does that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:58:30

help you? Yeah, what if we want grander things and it's going to cost us more money and then we're going to get better services for our city, our city staff or library staff Our hamstrung by our lack of direction there to try to accomplish, you know, whatever the goals are. To your point a 5% improvement and 100% improvement take completely different tactics to accomplish And I don't know that we've set what that looks like because we have been planning a library for 20 years or whatever it might be is probably a reasonable reason to not have one and Measuring ourself against the state and did we do better than last year? I think that's a great default position to have as a goal, but moving forward Let's be awesome. We talked about investing art money to make sure that pardon me To make sure that the environment is engaging That's a showpiece let's let's invest and make this as wonderful as it can be given the direction that that we think it should have so I don't know that conversation is here.

I just want to make sure that we don't go out on RFP and set up either our current provider or potential providers to be in a position where they can't succeed because we haven't given them enough information.

CommentHigh StreetProposed · by introduction2:59:44

Yeah, Council, I think if maybe I can clarify a little bit on this just to separate maybe the two different types of goals. There's the goals that are driven by the library services contract that staff has alluded to and then I think there's also the goals that would be included in the RFP so that perhaps it's separate so that we could staff... We can work on putting together You know, certain goals in the RFP.

Have you guys review it so that kind of the overall vision of what we're looking for for the library based on the different programs or facilities and equipment that's going to be created there? are things that a new library or existing contract library company can at least, at a high level, achieve. And they can outline that in their proposal. But then once we're in contract with them, we could then work with them on the specific goals library services agreement with LSS or a similar company in talking about actual metrics that is in support of that overall vision that you kind of established in the RFP, kind of high-level goals.

I don't know if that makes sense. Yeah?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:01:04

>>:Yeah, I understand where you're going with this. I think it's just the RFP we're going to see more of the deliverables of, you know, what these different companies will offer us and how to run this library and that input. But then it also comes down to us to work together to create those metrics and the deliverables. And honestly, to be on top of that constantly to make sure that we're getting that.

You know, no business would ever say that the goal is just to do better than last year. Because doing better than last year is not good if you could be doing a lot better than last year. So that's something I think we're going to have to be a lot more on top of. And allowing for a contractor to develop their own goals and objectives doesn't really work because that obviously takes out the other side of that.

CommentHigh StreetProposed · by introduction3:01:55

Yeah, Mayor. It's almost similar to our City Council retreat where we ask the council about the high-level goals that you envision and then we come back as staff and give you the work plan so the RFP would capture the high level goals that you're looking for and then once we're in contract with a library company that we could work with them to develop the work plan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:02:16

Sure. I think just to sum it up, in the future we've got to be tighter with everything. That's basically it.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction3:02:22

Can I interject that I think that process would be great to maybe even do a joint meeting with the library board to facilitate some of that discussion? Because I think when we talk about the accountability and this ongoing accountability That's where the library board really can help, right? And track those goals and watch them closer than we might even watch.

3:02 – 3:087 turns

CommentHigh StreetProposed · by introduction3:02:51

Councilmember are you referring to the actual work plan session when we're in contract with a library company? That's when we would include the library board. Is that what I just want to clarify versus

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction3:03:02

I Think they should be included in every level, but I think at some point You know Maybe there is a time where we come together and do a joint meeting with them in order to facilitate some some deeper discussion into this from a goal standpoint

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:03:17

On a separate subject, too. There's also the what is the library board's function and what can we do to even increase that function? There's a lot of things we can discuss that really aren't part of this whole thing but it's worth opening up in the future.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:03:37

I think I'm good with moving forward that we would look to have an RFP, see how that comes back. I like the idea that we'd continue to be more involved and give more direction to people that are implementing what our vision is in getting more community members involved too in what are we going to be? So if If a motion's in order, I would say let's take this out to an RFP assuming that there is time to do so.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:04:07

Yeah and if I could just clarify, scratch my head a little bit on timing and how this is all going to work What I've kind of gathered is that we're looking at some overarching goals to include in the RFP. And that way any prospective bidder, just we'll use bidder has an opportunity to evaluate those goals and take a look at them and say well these are the five primary overarching goals that City of Moorpark has established That to me doesn't sound like a quick process at all.

And if we were going to issue an RFP to potentially have a new vendor or potentially to have a new contract by June 30th, that doesn't seem to fit with my time frame that I'm turning around in my head. So that's just something I'm talking out loud because I'm not sure what else to do right now, but But but with that I think if that's the city council's goal because I think if we're really talking about let's and I think it's a Really brilliant idea To have these these established goals as part of the RFP because it really informs any perspective bidder on what is the city of Moorpark looking at because I When I was having trouble answering your questions initially, cuz I'm looking at it as no we have this budget We can't we can't touch this budget.

We have these certain expectations Not realizing that those are my expectations and maybe maybe not the City Council's or maybe not the library board I'm kind of thinking that if we're going to put in some sort of metric like this, that we should involve the library board with the city council to talk about those overarching goals that we could put into an RFP.

I think that's what we're talking about. And if that is, you know, my thought with that is to I need a little bit more time. And with the contract running out, I would say let me go back to LS&S and see what a six month extension or one year extension would look like so that we have time to really evaluate that a little bit better.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:06:40

I guess I'd look to city staff to give us direction on that. It seemed like a short timetable to me, you know, four months or whatnot. But sure, I mean how do we get the best? And I think Ellis and Esme have great suggestions on man if we could do everything that we dreamed of doing and we weren't confined here's the things that would bring forward. I think we have great input and talent can guide us too because I'm the last person to tell us what our goals should be. That's a community input and decision, I think.

I guess, are we at a point where we need to decide if we want to try to extend the contract? We want to go RFP. I think maybe I've muddied this enough that we don't even know what direction we're going.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:07:24

Yeah, I think if we were going to do a straight RFP, that's something that we could accomplish now and get that done by June and have this all figured out. If we want to start talking about adding, which I really like the idea of including some goals that the City Council and the Library Board has had time to evaluate. Like our city manager said, that kind of similar to our City Council goals. To include it in RFP I would say let me go back to LS&S and negotiate an extension for at least six months.

And that way we could have that discussion. And we'll come back to you probably at the next meeting to talk about what that looks like.

3:08 – 3:1320 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:08:14

So six months from June or six months from today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:08:17

We would extend the contract six months from June.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:08:20

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:08:21

Yeah.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:08:23

Given the new library isn't going to be built by then, I think that we have that time to try to get it right. So yeah. I would move to see if we can get an extension and in that during that duration figure out goals objectives and get feedback from our stakeholders. Do I have a motion? So moved.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:08:43

Second. Motion and second? Move on to consent we pulled item D. So I'll entertain a motion for the balance motion improve the bounce

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:09:05

The

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:09:06

motion in a second will need a roll call vote

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:09:09

Councilmember means

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:09:11

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:09:11

councilmember D'Algato I council member Barrett

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:09:14

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:09:14

council member Castro mayor and a grant

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:09:17

Aye. Move on to item D, consent which is consider the approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for construction bids for the High Street Bus Shelter Improvement Project CIP number C0083 specification number MPK26-3. Ms. Swimmer?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:09:38

Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Council Members. The item before you tonight is to consider approval of the plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for construction bids for the High Street Bus Shelter Improvement Project. This project is 100% funded through the Regional Early Action Planning 2.0 grant administered by VCTC. The city received a total of $225,000 in grant funds to improve the existing bus stops on High Street and purchase trash receptacles for all the existing bus shelters in the city.

The grant has defined scope and timeline and is specifically intended to support improvements to existing transit stops that serve current riders and enhance access to transit. The scope of work includes the fabrication and installation of a bus shelter similar in design to the existing shelter in front of the Metrolink station, construction of a reinforced concrete bus pad, installation of bench seatings and trash receptacles, and installation of red brick pavers to match those already installed along High Street.

The project consolidates three existing bus stops into one improved location. These stops currently serve four transit services and they are VCTC Intercity Service, Valley Express, MCT On Demand and the City's Fixed Route Service. Consolidation will significantly enhance rider comfort, safety and accessibility by providing amenities that are currently lacking on this portion of High Street.

Staff has presented various iterations of the project to the Transportation and Public Works Standing Committee consisting of Mayor Enneagrin and Dr. Castro to receive input in both the design and location. The proposed bus shelter will be located in front of the city-owned property at 467 East High Street, positioned on the western corner of the site to avoid obstructing frontage and to maintain flexibility for future use or development.

No portion of the bus shelter will encroach into the city-owned property and will be entirely in the public right-of-way. This project also directly supports City Council Goal 2, Objective 2.5, complete high street improvements in other areas by investing in upgraded transit infrastructure this project will help enhance the eastern portion of High Street complementing previous improvements and contributing to a more cohesive accessible and pedestrian and transit Fennerly corridor with that staff is available to answer any questions

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:12:29

Questions.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction3:12:35

The grant funds that have been secured, is that something that you can go back to VCTC in any way and modify any provisions? Or is that a... How is that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:12:52

So we do have a limited timeline. Our we have to spend the grant by the end of 2026 and it did take us six months to. Get that construction plans done for this project and so going back to VCTC. Might be hard considering the timeline that we need to spend the fines for.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction3:13:31

And there's no options for an extension?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:13:34

No, unfortunately not.

3:13 – 3:2011 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed3:13:41

Council Member Barrett, just to add some clarity to that. These were expiring funds from VCTC remaining funds and they approached the city if there was a need for transit improvements and so we jumped at the opportunity To construct a bus shelter similar in light to the one at the existing North Metrolinx parking lot to consolidate and provide a bus shelter facility on the north side of High Street

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:14:09

Yeah, so

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction3:14:14

I mean, I don't know if we need to open it first and then have the discussion Do

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:14:20

we have any speakers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:14:27

No, mr. Mayor no speakers on many of our consent items.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:14:30

Thank you

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction3:14:34

Yeah, so looking at this obviously I really appreciate the staff jumping on that. I think that's huge we're looking for these grant opportunities when they come and seizing that I very much appreciate it. But when looking at this particular bus stop and consolidating it, I get that. That's wonderful. But the bus stops on High Street take away parking. Right.

So as we look at developing High Street, we have a great mass transit space with the Metrolink and if we could direct bus traffic to the south Metrolink lot and put a consolidated bus stop That's not on the street, but actually in accessible parking. I feel like it serves the riders better there's easier if someone is transferring when I looked at this particular bus stop. It's so far down the road from the Metrolink space that you can't see it visually without kind of going and walking out a ways. You also, it's kind of centrally located between crosswalks like it's not an easily accessible place if you're transferring to the bus from the train which I think would be a natural Hopefully something that people could do.

And I understand why we've pushed it down the street as we have, looking at how this road is a little wider there and And then, of course, existing businesses and concerns about putting it in front of an existing business. So I understand those things but in my mind the existing bus stops should completely be removed from High Street and redirected. And I don't know the implications of that. I'm not on the Transportation Committee so you guys have had some discussions but I don't know if that was even considered. And I know that derails the grant and I know that derails a lot of things If someone's going to use the bus, we want to make sure that we make it as useful and accessible as possible.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:17:12

If you're taking the bus to High Street and it stops on High Street, that's obviously better. But routing the bus through the parking lot on the south side and encouraging people to walk across the tracks, I know that's a concern with Metrolink.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction3:17:28

>>:I mean, that literally what we're telling all our residents to do is park in that parking area in the south lot for all the events and all the things that we do on High Street All the new businesses, right? We're saying we have plenty of parking in that lot. So I don't understand that logic. If we don't want them to walk across the train tracks then we've got other issues.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:18:00

Yeah, I think it's different when you look at like overfill parking as opposed to transit stops. Now yeah sure in the past we've had the bus stops on High Street so it was natural to look at consolidating those to one bus stop and not have a multiple bunch of them down the street So, you know, is that plan good? Yeah. I think that's a better plan than we had before.

Pulling the bus stops off of High Street. That's a possibility but that's, you know... That's not something that could happen now, I don't think. Also, I don't know if it's a great idea

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:18:36

either. The only thing that I think would be important is... And it's been awhile. Mayor, you're much more embedded in this with VCTC but the ridership like you were talking about encouraging the ridership from the train station with the Metrolink as if those populations are very similar. And the last time that I read the annual report from DCTC about Metrolink ridership, those are very different populations. The regular ridership on that route is not the same population that we're talking about taking the buses. Again it's been several years since I've read through that annual report but I do remember the detailed demographics that they took a look at So I just think it's important that we're not saying that, like comparing those two populations.

I don't think that the which then in some ways addresses the question about the where, the location, that location and directionality you were talking about to directions of the bus and the efficiencies that come in that way aligned with... not aligned with included with the consolidations of other stop Based on the data, the TPW was provided. I think there's a bigger picture of everything that was being accomplished with that rather than just probably like the one offs or the two offs. I think it was the broader picture of making sure that we were And I know you can speak to this much more effectively, but the lack of ridership in other areas. The consolidation of ridership along High Street and then, of course, the grant timelines is another factor in itself.

I don't know if there's anything that you can add to that?

3:20 – 3:2917 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:20:26

I'd just like to add that So just from my own observations passing the current bus stops on High Street, I see our riders sitting on the ground waiting for the buses. And when this opportunity came up from VCTC when they reached out to us regarding the REAP 2.0 grant, I just thought oh wow that's a great Chance to make that stop better. We can consolidate those three stops, open up some parking spaces on the street from those two stops that were taken away and provide a nice bus stop facility for our transit passengers.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:21:24

Yeah, it's a good point. I mean, it's a good project too and I think Dr. Castro mentioned something that I totally overlooked but yeah you're right the people running taking the bus are not the same people taking the train and you think that maybe you take the bus down to the train station then get on the train. It's typically not that if you do look at the ridership You're seeing more people trying to get into the downtown area, moving around about.

Moving the bus stops to the south lot would just be making it really inconvenient and if that was a case we might as well just put it at the old city hall too. It's out of sight completely as well but still in the downtown area so I think having them on High Street is a good idea because it takes up some parking a lot less than it does now with this plan but you can take the bus and not have to park

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:22:20

Yeah, I'll just add to the statements that there's a net gain, I think in terms of parking than what we're currently operating. So if the consideration were just parking alone this is more beneficial it's not just parking alone but if we were to take that lens I think there's a net positive along High Street because I think our parking issues as High Street becomes more and more activated, I don't think those parking issues will come down to one or two parking spots.

It's going to be a bigger issue than that too so that's something for us to consider.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:22:55

I have a question. With the money that we're looking at getting from the grant funding or the regional area action planning grant funding, is there a minimum amount of time that that structure would have to exist? Because it is in front of two lots that could be developed and if an ingress or egress is needed for a project that we thought was great... We just talked about those properties a couple meetings ago and two years from now it's decided that that beautiful structure Is right in the way of a driveway are we gonna have to be repaying these funds and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:23:27

someone. I would have to ask the CTC.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:23:33

Is that typical? I am full of questions that nobody can answer, and I apologize for that. That is not okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed3:23:40

That's a great question. I just want to kind of step back a little bit. The goal for this is to provide an amenity for transit users at an existing bus stop or an existing transit stop. Again, we were approached by VCTC with an opportunity to take advantage of some funds. And we certainly jumped at that opportunity to provide a bus shelter, sit a bench and trash receptacles and whatnot just your basic facilities.

With that bus shelter, we could have certainly looked at a prefabricated box if you will but with the funding opportunities we looked There's a great design across the street and bring that over to the north side as well. So we looked at it as an opportunity to provide an amenity, an existing bus stop. We did speak with Ms. Standerfer actually in terms of like the potential of that property.

And we've kind of aligned that or located it to the westernmost side of the property line I think with the goal to avoid the existing driveway and the existing water meter that's on High Street, so I believe that any future development can Possibly take advantage of that amenity with their design and integrate that it's also we're also beautifying the bus stop instead of just a pole in a And a box with the schedule, it's going to look nicer with the brick pavers and be consistent with that aesthetic that's already been established on High Street. So again we're just trying to take advantage of an opportunity here at the same time provide an amenity at an existing bus stop.

I can certainly understand council members... I think there's a bigger question is what do we want to deal with? What does transit look like altogether and how does that move? That's a great question to be had. It's a great discussion to be had. But that's not the goal of what we're trying to achieve for this particular project, but it's certainly a great question that we can certainly discuss in the TPW and quite frankly bring back to the City Council.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:26:00

Thank you. I don't disagree with the design, I don't disagree with grabbing that money. I think it's great how do we put it to use in Moorpark? The underlying question was if we put this in a short period of time, short period in government time two or three years, it needs to be rearranged are we putting ourselves in a liability? I don' know if that's typical in a contract or not and I understand it might be an impossible question to ask I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed3:26:23

don't think so. I don't have the MOU directly in front of me, so I don' t want to guess an answer at this juncture but I don''t think there's that requirement.

CommentHigh StreetProposed · by introduction3:26:37

Yeah, I would just add that council member that perhaps we could be relocated right to a more suitable location so that we don't lose the actual shelter and we can Still use it in some way And then again to adding to mr. Kim's point and council member bear in terms of well This may not do your appointment councilmember in terms of your question It may not be within the scope of this current project But I think you have the larger Kind of a question and concern as the downtown does grow and develop, whether some type of future transit hub is maybe what you're thinking about.

Maybe there's not a direct connection with the transit rider and the train and the bus but in terms of possible transit hub that makes it more convenient that has less impact on parking in downtown And many cities like Thousand Oaks has a transportation center where multiple buses do go to as a hub, where people park and take the bus transfer etc. That's maybe something long term that you're thinking about that we can certainly consider as the downtown develops.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:27:44

Right. Something like that is when you take a bus to go somewhere else, but we're taking a bus to go to High Street and drive past High Street to go around the corner in this tight little parking lot also going to block the traffic going down Moorpark Road too with this 40 foot thing coming out and it's already a bunch of trucks down there. That creates a lot of issues too. But to save two parking spots I don't think it's worth it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:28:07

My reason for asking the question about Timing and obligations is if we have to make a decision now, I think it's a great structure. It's a great amenity It's a great way to improve what we're doing. I think there is merit in considering long-term you know how we get bus routing and You know with MCT on demand, you know doing what it is like how? What our vision is there whether it's in the South parking lot or not but for the decision today If we can get this put it in place, perhaps relocate it when we have time to do a grander plan. It seems like something that I think we should move forward with because we have optionality later with it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:28:50

Yeah. No, I think that's good. I think it was a good observation. When you go down High Street, you see people sitting on the side of the street. It looks like they're homeless. They're just waiting for the bus and there's nowhere to sit. And don't blame them. So putting a bus shelter up there would make it look a lot nicer, more comfortable And I think it's sure there are questions about what could go there in that lot in the future. And could you work around it? I think the plan was to position that in a way to where we can mitigate that as much as possible, to keep areas where you could bring a driveway into it.

But I think with the amount of information we have right now and with the money for it, I think it's a good idea just to go for it. Move

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:29:36

to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:29:36

approve you make the motion. I'm sorry. I don't move to

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction3:29:38

approve Okay, we

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:29:42

have a motion in a second and all in favor Opposed But item 11 ordinances there are none this evening followed by item 12 closed session we have a few Disclosures to read

3:30 – 3:306 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:30:02

Let's see, in connection with agenda item 12R which involves property lease to the Moorpark Chamber of Commerce. I am required to disclose that I'm a non-compensated member of the Board of Directors of the chamber. Thank you.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction3:30:14

And I too, in connection with agenda item 12R which involves the property leased to the Moorpark Chamber of Commerce. I'm required to disclose that I am a non-compensated member of the Board of Directors of the chamber. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:30:30

you.

CommentJeanette HinsonProposed · by introduction3:30:31

Mr. Gagahanna?

CommentHigh StreetProposed · by introduction3:30:33

Thanks, thank you Mayor. Staff requests adjourn to closed session items 12A to 12R.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:30:38

All right. Thank you. I say 13, we'll make a motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Thank you and good night Moorpark.