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.0:00 – 0:027 turns
Will the clerk please take roll?
Good evening. Councilmember Barrett,
present.
Councilmember Castro, present. Council Member Delgado, present.
Council Member Means, present
Mayor Ingram,
present Move on to item 4 presentation of a certificate of recognition to Ventura County Sheriff's Office Officer of the Year Deputy Andrew Powell. Will Deputy Powell please join me in front of dais please Deputy Andrew Powell is an exceptional member of the Ventura County Sheriff's Office. Since joining in April of 2013, he has consistently demonstrated professionalism, integrity and unwavering commitment to public service. When I transferred to the Moorpark station in October 2024 immediately stood out for strong work ethic and his ability to lead by example Patrol is a vital part of the Sheriff's Office. The role of a field training officer is critical to the success of every new patrol deputy. Andrew has served as a field training officer since 2020, and in that time he has trained a total of 20 new patrol deputies.
Over the past year, he has distinguished himself as one of the most dedicated and effective trainers. Deputy Powell consistently goes above and beyond the expectations of a field training officer. He's taking initiative to develop written tests, scenarios and practical exercises that challenge trainees and give them meaningful opportunities to learn and grow. These tools allow him to assess their progress while equipping them with the essential skills and confidence needed to excel as solo patrol deputies.
The attention to detail and strong work ethic he brings to training are equally evident in his own performance as a patrol deputy. His commitment to excellence strengthens our department and directly enhances the safety and quality of life for the residents of Moorpark, helping to make Moorpark one of the safest cities in California. Thank you so much for what you do.
0:02 – 0:077 turns
Thank you for the honor, I'm very grateful. I wish I had come to Moorpark a lot sooner but it is what we call the hidden gem of the department so there's a very long waiting list for deputies to come work at this station and I just had a very lucky slim opportunity to come over here. Wish it was years earlier but very grateful the time that I did get to spend here. So y'all be proud that the city that you run is You know, very desirable place to live and I wish I lived here as well.
But I was outvoted by my boss at home so... I'm over in Santa Clarita but if I could live anywhere it would be in Moorpark and that's not hyperbole.
Just really quick. I just want to say about Andrew so the field training program to be a field training officer arguably is one of the most challenging positions for any law enforcement agency because you're entrusted with somebody who's never worked patrol to train them make sure they're safe make sure your you're safe make sure the community safe and it can be very challenging Depending on the trainee that you have in the moment. The fact that he's trained 20 people In and of itself is extraordinary most training officers burn out by about the 10th But his commitment and passion, I mean is Arguably the greatest on the department. He will go above and beyond to make sure he can identify a what they need to understand the issue that they're addressing, and if that's doing scenarios or if that's reading material or if that's visualizing something he will try to identify how they learn to help them succeed.
And because of him we've got a number of great deputies now on our agency so kudos to Deputy Powell.
All right, next item 4B is a presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to California Highway Patrol Officer of the Year, Officer Alexander Rios. Alexander will you come up to the podium slash microphone standing in the middle of the room?
Congratulations.
Officer Alexander Rios has proudly served with the California Highway Patrol for more than two years. He entered the CHP Academy in May 2023 and graduated in November 2023 before being assigned to the Moorpark area office, where he successfully completed field training began working the graveyard shift. Officer Rios has demonstrated an exceptional commitment to public safety through his proactive enforcement efforts and dedication to removing impaired drivers from the roadway. Over the past year he led the Moorpark area office in DUI arrests, was recognized for his efforts with a Mothers Against Drunk Driving Award.
In addition to his strong work ethic and enforcement accomplishments, Officer Rios has quickly emerged as a respected leader among his peers. He was recently selected to serve as Field Training Officer where he now mentors and develops newly assigned officers. He is also frequently relied upon to act on the officer in charge in the absence of a sergeant reflecting the trust and confidence placed in him by his supervisors and coworkers.
There's professionalism, leadership and unwavering dedication to the community. Officer Rios exemplifies the highest standards of a California Highway Patrol and is highly deserving of recognition as officer of the year. Outside of law enforcement career, Officer Rios enjoys cooking steaks and investing in the stock market. Congratulations! Good luck in the stock
market. You guys should wish me luck it's my first day actually training crews so I just want to say thank you guys. When I first got the invitation, I was like oh they're going to take my certificate away. That probably don't deserve it but no I appreciate it. I appreciate you guys honoring us and really respecting us there's not a lot of places that do respect officers and Moorpark is one of those places that do and we're grateful for it and yeah thank you
I just want to thank the council for recognizing our officers. It is a breath of fresh air when you come into a community that's so supportive. So, I just wanted to say thank you very much for doing that. Officer Rios like he said he has his first trainee today. So we'll see how he does but we have all the confidence in the world. Thank you.
0:07 – 0:112 turns
Next item is 4C, a proclamation declaring May 17th to 23rd 2026 as Public Works Week. Will Senior Management Analyst Michelle Woomer please join me? A proclamation, the City of Moorpark declaring May 17th through May 23rd 2026 as Public Works Week. Whereas this year marks the 66th annual Public Works Week celebrating the contributions of public works professionals across the country and whereas the services public works professionals provide are essential to everyday lives of residents and the overall functioning of our communities And whereas Public Works Professionals plan, build, maintain and operate the infrastructure and services that support daily life. These dedicated professionals work tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure safe transportation, clean water, environmental stewardship, reliable public services for all residents.
And whereas the American Public Works Association's 2026 theme Rooted in Service Powered by Community recognizes a strong partnership between public works professionals and the communities they serve. Whereas the roots of service run deep in public works, reflecting generations of innovation and dedication that empower communities to involve. And whereas some of the work is highly visible while other public works contributions are often hidden from view. Together these efforts from the foundation of thriving communities remind us that every project seen or unseen powers a connection between the services and the people it supports.
Now therefore be it resolved that the Moorpark City Council does hereby declare May 17th through May 23rd, 2026 as Public Works Week and further extends appreciation to each and every member of Moorpark's Public Works Department for the vital services they perform and for their exemplary dedication to the city of Moorpark. A witness whereof, the Moorpark City Council does set its hand and cause the seal of the city of Moarpark to be affixed this 20th day of May, 2026.
On behalf of our public works department, I would like to thank you mayor and council members for recognizing National Public Works Week. Public works is often the behind-the-scenes service that keeps a community functioning every day from maintaining streets and sidewalks operating transit services Managing traffic systems, delivering capital improvement projects, overseeing parking enforcement and stormwater programs and supporting animal and vector control services. Our work touches nearly every aspect of daily life in Moorpark. Here in Moorpark, I am proud to work alongside a dedicated team that consistently goes above and beyond to serve our residents. Much of our work happens out of public view but our commitment and pride in serving the community are evident in everything we do.
In the coming months, residents will see several important public works projects moving forward including the High Street Bus Shelter Improvement Project which will provide safer and more comfortable transit amenities. The Pavement Rehabilitation Project which will improve and extend the life of our streets. And the citywide Storm Drain Catch Basin Full Capture Trash Device project which will help protect local waterways by preventing trash from entering the storm drain systems.
We're excited to see this project move forward and continue enhancing the quality of life to our residents. Thank you.
0:11 – 0:1815 turns
All right, next item is five public comment. Are there any speakers?
Yes Mr. Mayor we have two speakers under public comment this evening the first speaker is Cameron Gill who will be followed by Daniel Politi and since this is public comment you have three minutes to address the council
Good evening, I'm Cameron Gill. For item 10D the consent calendar item about the CTAC appointment and one thank you mayor and the council for putting your trust in me with this appointment and confirmation. And also want to appreciate the city clerk for the efficient process knowing what goes on behind the scenes that's always a testament when it's smooth and there's no other words to be said then it's wonderful.
Having been involved in all sides of local government for a decade, primarily on the other side of the county for local city and county government. I know how important substantive and intentional community participation is particularly on advisory boards such as CTAC as one part of connecting constituent voice with the decision-making process which is often not seen but is vital for making sure that the quality of life improvements, that's transportation in particular bring to our community for our employees, for our neighbors to provide them flexible and intentional choices for when they want to go around such as connecting to regional events like the Strawberry Festival over in Ventura. When we have the choice and the flexibility it does bring meaningful impacts For our neighbors, and I do recognize that the transportation system does face fiscal challenges often.
But when we have a process such as SeaTac to lend more substantive and informative constituent voice to our decision-making process for the county, for the region, It is very meaningful. So I appreciate the opportunity to be that conduit, to provide that way for our community, to make their voice known, to give you as decision makers more meaningful and sustainable impact particularly for the annual unmet needs assessment.
And I just hope that you will look favorably on this appointment and thank you again for taking us up tonight.
Thank you. We're glad to have you.
And our second speaker is Daniel Politi, which again this is public comment on general items and consent items.
Question Ms. Spangler, so later am I going to be able to have a chance to talk about the nine item or the 10 item? It will
be the nine
item. So now I should talk about the ten? Thank you. Okay. All right, initially I had a precursor one because I wanted to speak on the two but since I don't get to speak about 10 later, I'm going to choose to speak about that now and we'll skip. The preamble of nonsense. Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers and staff for item 10-G I want to begin by saying this is support the library support public artists for creating spaces for children to feel joyful imaginative and worthy of civic pride but supporting public art does not mean suspending public oversight tonight that council is being asked to waive the city's purchasing requirements and approve an agreement with studio Y creations for an amount Not to exceed $280,000. This item is on the consent calendar even though the agenda itself describes a waiver of purchasing requirements and a major contract authorization that should not pass silently.
That staff report says staff chose a qualified firm instead of going through the typical call for artists process and they even amended it from what I saw during Their specific council meetings citing coordination needs with library design and construction. It also says that after an extensive search, Studio Y was identified as the preferred studio but the public deserves to know what an extensive search means. Who else was considered? Were any local or regional artists invited? Was there a scoring process? Were alternatives priced? Was there any independent comparison? The proposal attached to the agreement listed $220,000 total but then states that the total should not include or does not include duties taxes and shipping It estimates shipping for products over $100,000 at approximately $33,000.
The agreement itself is capped at 280,000 and includes a $26,000 contingency that may be explainable but it still needs to be explained publicly before approval. The contract also places state tax responsibilities and certain import fees, tariffs, custom duties, brokerage fees and tax ID related due delay costs on the city. It describes tariff mitigation through customs valuation based on material costs exceeding design labor.
This is not only ordinary, you're still approving consent material that's contract risk discussion. And there's another important issue, ownership. The agreement says Studio YA reserves the right to exclusive ownership, context art designs, 2D mural art while the city retains the right to use the photos for non-commercial purposes. So before approving $280,000, the council should clearly state what the public is buying, what the public owns and what remains in the vendor. Again, this is not a tagging audit. It's about protecting the city trust when large contracts placed in the consent calendar and the purchasing rules are waived, when costs are spread across proposal totals, contingency taxes, shipping tariffs and import items residents start to feel like the public money is being moved faster than the public can understand or keep up.
Sound familiar? Please pull this item from the discussion. Ask the staff to explain the procurement waiver, ask for a list of firms considered, ask for a plain English cost reconciliation, ask why $50 per day in liquidated damages is enough for shipping delays if it's held up at customs? Ask whether or not the contract protects the taxpayers as it strongly protects the vendors. Council members, this vote will be part of the public record. Please make the record show that you asked the hard questions before approving the money, thank you.
Thank you.
Buzzer Beater!
It's Mr. Pulido right?
Yes sir, close enough.
I just want to say anytime you want to talk, I can meet with you and I can explain all these things so you don't have two minutes to jam it all through. So any time reach out. Thank you. Are there anymore speakers?
No Mr. Mayor that's the last speaker under public comment. Okay
thank you Next item six reordering of and distancing agenda is anyone need to pull anything from consent? Nope okay Next item is seven, announcements for future agenda items and reports of meetings and conference attended by council members and mayor. We'll start with Mr. Barrett.
0:18 – 0:266 turns
On May 7th I attended the Regional Defense Partnership meeting. On May 7th, I also attended the Visita Future of Agriculture in Ventura County talk that was with Harold Edwards from Luminera at Cal Lutheran Very interesting conversation about some of the challenges of the local farmers. A lot of focus on the area, the Somis area actually and some of the struggles that they are currently having for some of those farms to survive.
On May 14th, I attended the Chamber Young Professionals Lunch. On May 14, I also attended the Clean Power Alliance board meeting and also on May 14 I attended the Ventura County Leadership Academy graduation. It was great to see Moorpark represented in graduates there and hopefully we had more Moorpark members apply for this upcoming year, it was a great program.
On May 16th I attended the community yard sale which seemed to have a great turnout when i was there at least and Hopefully our community was able to find new homes for things and that was a great event. This afternoon, I had the pleasure of attending the Moorpark College inaugural class biomanufacturing graduation. That is the first time Moorpark College has had a bachelor's degree program and what an honor to be there and to see that first class receive their degrees And to keep them here in the community by having a program like that in the community, they were able to stay close to home and already many of them have jobs lined up. To see those high paying jobs locally through that program is impressive so it was a great event.
All right. While I was out of country for a couple of weeks, I did have a chance to stop by one of the local libraries in Kyoto, Japan and just kind of get a feel of what they do with their libraries. It's a very stark contrast. It was pretty minimalist. It was a smaller one but it was extremely well organized though, I will say that and very, very quiet. That's all I have for the last two weeks. Thank you.
Castro?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just one update on May 9th I attended the Apricot Festival. That's all I have thank you.
Thank You Mr. Mayor. I too attended the Apricot Festival on May 9 and just a big shout out to everybody that volunteered all the city team that put that on it's really cool to watch our community come out to these events and thrive in our downtown enjoy our heritage And just a wonderful event and it continues to grow and get better and better. On May 15th at the High Street Arts Center, I had the privilege of watching the 50th anniversary of The Bad News Bears that was shown here in Moorpark because one of our former council members used to sit in this seat being a big movie star and was in that movie. He was able to bring that event back home and that was a lot of fun and to watch people connect We've got a lot of Hollywood connections here in Moorpark.
And then finally on May 18th, I attended an event with the Library Foundation of Los Angeles called Allowed. They bring authors of books together with celebrities and have conversations. This was at a multi- many, many hundred person theater sold out audience and the concepts of bringing authors and people of celebrity are noted in the community To have discussions over important topics in books that are being released is something I anticipate we will do on some scale here in Moorpark, and I'm excited to see how we do that.
So for myself, Thursday May 7th I attended the Southern California Association of Governments conference and it was a pretty good conference. There was a lot on AI and transportation and the combinations of both of those and I think self-driving cars are going to be a future of a lot of transportation it looks like. I spoke to some companies About that. And then Saturday, May 9th I also attended the Apricot Festival and that was extremely well run great day pretty good turnout really a turn out actually.
That's all I have for myself and I got a few announcements here. Registration is open for the 2026-27 school year for the Moorpark Little Learners Academy traditional preschool program for two and three year olds. Classes are held at the Royal Vista Recreation Center. Open hours will be available May 27th and 28th at 9 30 a.m to RSVP or for more information email avrc at moorparkca.gov or visit moorparkca.gov slash preschool Moorpark middle schoolers are invited to Game Night on Friday, May 22nd at the Arroyo Vista Recreation Center. Hang out with all your friends and play video games, board games and card games. There will also be an escape room. Admission is $10 cash and includes pizza and a soda bar. For details visit moorparkca.gov slash teens Registration is open for summer camps at the Arroyo Vista Recreation Center.
Programs include Camp Moorpark, a day camp for children ages 5 to 11, kinder camp for ages 3 to 5 and a variety of specialty camps including Lego Engineering, Movie Making, Extreme Nerf Camp, a variety of sports camps and more. For details on summer camps visit moorparkca.gov slash recreation Sign up now for the Moorpark Youth Basketball League at the Arroyo Vista Recreation Center.
Divisions are available for ages 5 to 13. For details and to register, visit moorparkca.gov slash youthsports. Registration is now open for the City of Moorpark Summer Adult Sports Leagues. Leagues offered include softball, basketball and soccer. For details, visit moorparksca.gov slash adult sports. Applications are now open for the 2026-27 Moorpark Teen Council. This is a wonderful opportunity for Moorpark students entering 7th through 12th grade to learn about local government, build leadership skills, meet city leaders and share their voice on issues that matter to teens and the community. The teen council meets twice a month during the school year and participates in hands-on activities including mock City Council meetings, public safety discussions, career readiness opportunities and community events.
Applications are due Friday June 12th by 5 p.m. Interested students can apply online at moorparkca.gov slash serve Finally, the City of Moorpark is happy to share an incredible opportunity to recent college graduates and graduated seniors through the AmeriCorps Lead for America Fellowship Program. If you're passionate about communications, social media, public outreach, and community engagement, this fellowship offers hands-on experience working alongside local government leaders while helping connect residents with meaningful programs initiatives. As a fellow, you will gain professional mentorship and leadership training, experience in communications and community outreach, opportunities to support local projects initiatives, valuable networking connections, salary benefits, retirement credit, education award up to $7,500.
This is your chance to grow your career while making a real impact in Moorpark. Interested candidates please email Jonathan Royas, Assistant City Manager at jroyas at moorparkca.gov Next is public hearings. There are none this evening, so we'll move on to presentation action discussion Item 9a is to consider presentation by the Museum of Ventura County Mr.. Royce
0:26 – 0:409 turns
Good evening mayor and council Staff is happy to welcome Elena Brokaw the chief executive officer of the Museum of Ventura County Helena thank you for joining us
I am so happy to be here tonight mayor mayor pro tem council members city manager city staff. Thank you so much for having me as Jonathan said my name is Alaina Brokaw, I am the Barbara Bernhardt Smith CEO at the Museum of Ventura County and for those of you who don't know we are the We are an art history and culture museum. We have four physical sites, two in downtown Ventura, an agriculture museum in Santa Paula, and we now have office suites in Camarillo, and we are the largest repository of history and culture in the county. We are guided by the wisdom of an incredible board of directors, one of whom is a resident here in Moorpark, and that is County CEO Savette Johnson We also have over 100 volunteers who are guiding all of our efforts at all time.
And these volunteers come from all over Ventura County, so that's who leads us in our efforts as to what we do. We work to represent our region's unique identity in everything that we collect. Our focus here is on accessibility and as you can see right here, we have this browse items 8165 total. That is our online digitized items. It's actually much higher than that, I got that like a few weeks ago so it's over 8400 now.
Everything we do we try to make it accessible so people can learn about what created this county. Using those collections we provide rotating exhibits in our six galleries at three sites. We present about 30 programs each year Accessibility, again, is very important to us. We have a new program where we get sponsors to make admission entirely free. Our exhibits are opening in June and Southern California Edison is going to be our sponsor for that month. Everybody will come in free. It's almost quadrupled our attendance at the downtown site.
And here is who is coming to the museum. This is attendance just for our exhibits, about two-thirds of our visitors come from Ventura County another 25% come from throughout the state and then about 8% come nationally and internationally In education we provide school tours directly for second in Santa Paula and third graders in Ventura Tours are entirely free for Title I schools and we have grants that provide buses completely free.
We present satellite pop-ups and programs all over the city, and here you can see what we have done in Moorpark itself over the last two years including participating in the Apricot Festival last weekend which we were so happy to be able to do. Maybe some of you got to go into the High Street Theater and see our exhibits there. So those collections, exhibits, programs and education all serve the museum's foundational principles which are these.
We work to engage participants in meaningful experiences with history, art culture and each other. And we aim to build community and connection. Connection, connection, connection. Everything we do is about connection. And one way that we do that, build connection is to highlight our shared history And to that end, tonight I would like to share a little bit of a story about the origins of Moorpark.
Before I get into this, everything that I'm sharing with you is from our archives, our collections and our library. All the photos you will see are from there. So before we get started specifically about Moorpark, just bear with me. I want to give you a really short history lesson of what is it? 13,000 years not 130,000 years. You all know that this place that we are standing on right now has always been home Home to the Chumash indigenous population including a village right here in what is now Moorpark.
About 250 years ago, sorry about 500 years ago in 1542 the California coast including here was discovered by a sailor named Juan Cabrillo, who was sailing for Spain. And this whole area was colonized and claimed as part of New Spain. So suddenly we belong to somebody and we belong to Spain. About 250 years ago, Spain began to move in. They began to populate the region, and that's when our missions came about. They wanted to get people on the ground. About 200 years ago, Mexico revolted against the colonizers from Spain and miraculously they won. It's shocking that they did. And what is now California, Texas, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada etc., we all became part of Mexico. We were part of Mexico for about 25 years until the Mexican-American War The Americans won, we became part of the United States in 1848 and then we became a state in 1850.
So I want to go back to this 1822-1848 period because it's there that you can see the roots of what became Ventura County. When Mexico had governance of this area they were really working hard to populate it because they were very afraid that it was going to be taken away from them. Specifically from the French, the English and the Russians. So what the Mexican governor did in order to get people to come here is they started awarding ranchos and they awarded them to soldiers, to friends, to whomever. And during that time period 17 ranchos were created in Ventura County.
And many of the boundaries of those ranchos actually became the general boundaries of the cities that we know today. Except in this case, the 113,000 acre Rancho Simi ended up with not just one but two cities, two distinct cities, Simi Valley as we know and Moorpark. So why? What happened to that? So what happened and why did that happen? So the answer to that is partially topography, right? There's some like actual geographical boundaries But also, the creation of these two distinct communities can be traced through who purchased them and how and why.
So the original Rancho Simi was used as most ranchos were to raise cattle. This was an incredibly lucrative business during the Mexican era for every dollar that a ranchero spent raising and taking cattle up to the gold rush they earned about $15. Great return on investment at that time. But things began to fall apart in the 1860s with droughts and floods and droughts and floods.
And everything changed, the entire economics of Ventura County and the state changed forever. Land ownership, community, everything was altered and all the rancheros either sold or lost their ranchos. The same goes here in 1870 Rancho Semi was purchased by Thomas Scott whose agent was his nephew future US Senator Thomas Bard. They bought Rancho Semi looking for oil didn't find it And ultimately, they created the Simi Land and Water Company. And the goal with that was to chop up the rancho and sell it to farmers in small lots. And they sold about 100 or even fewer acres. They were going to sell them for about $10 to $100 per acre. They were not roaringly successful. However, this is where Simi came from. Many of you maybe know about Cineopolis, which was a small colony made to order house kits.
And people from Chicago came out, about 13 families in a two block radius, about eight miles from here they built these houses in the 1880s and that is the genesis of Sidney Valley today. But ultimately they didn't sell that many lots. So when the company disbanded, the unsold property was parceled out to the partners in that company. One of those partners was a man named Robert Poindexter who lived in LA and he received the western part of the rancho where we are standing right now.
Truthfully if Robert Poindexter had been a different type of person, we would not be here. Honestly, who knows what would have happened? We might've been a little bit separate. Anything could have happened but Robert Poindexter and his wife Madeline came, laid out the plot of the town, they built a depot, they built a train station and by 1904 Moorpark had really been created. And I was at the Rotary last week and I said thank goodness he named it for an apricot and not for himself because we could all be, you could all be living in Poindexter California, so now you just have what a road and a park I think still name for that.
At this point families and farmers started moving to the area and one of those farmers was the father of Monroe Everett. I bring him up because we did an oral history with him in 1989 six years before he died. A little bit about Monroe Everett His grandfather was a pioneer who came to California from Kalamazoo, Michigan. Trained in New York. Freight shipped him down to Panama. Mule wagon across the Isthmus. Freight up to San Francisco. Spent a little time in the gold fields and came down to Ventura County. So many of our people ended up here that way.
And in about 1902 he had purchased 1800 acres and became one of the largest apricot producers in the area. Monroe was born in 1902, their house in Moorpark was about three miles out of town so until his parents bought a car in 1917 they went everywhere by foot or on horseback. They had no electricity until 1918 when Edison finally put a line in out to their house.
Another oral history that we collected about 20 years ago was with Transito Corralejo When Moorpark grew into an agricultural powerhouse, Transito's mother and father moved into the growing community to harvest the apricots and walnuts. And the harvest was a family affair. So he tells us that when the harvest was on, he and his other kids in the neighborhood would go to school during the day and then they would leave and they would all go out and harvest the apricots every afternoon.
So the Museum of Ventura County has thousands of stories like this and they help us to remember, oh these are by the way this is all the apricot harvesters on Monroe Everett's father's ranch. But these stories help us to remember that when a city like this is created it is really created by people like this I think that we tend to forget that Now, that's what we are all about. And our job now is to continue gathering these stories, to continue gathering what's happening right now because it will be history in another 125 years when somebody who's not me comes and talks to people who are not you. Okay? We won't be here.
We have an initiative right now which we're very positive about. We've written a grant To create more oral histories specifically for Moorpark residents using or working with students at Moorpark College. We have about 450 oral histories and only about six from Moorparks so clearly this is something that we need to do and that brings me to ask I'm not here just to talk about the museum. I'm here to ask you to help guide us to gathering the stories of today.
The easiest way to do that is to Get more oral histories, and we would love to hear from you who you think the community leaders are or the non-community leaders whose stories we should be getting today. And also to get photographs. So this QR code that's right here is just... You can go right in there and submit photographs, and they will give us all the details about them, and they will go into our archives as well as a bunch of other ideas, ways that we can partner together either formally or informally. And that brings me to my end. I would just like to say we have new exhibits opening on June 5th. We hope that you can come up and see them at the Ventura Museum, and thank you for all you do to guide this community.
Thank you. That's an incredible amount of information. Thanks so much. It's exciting just to see the roots of the cities, looking back at the photos of what it used to look like before we built anything and then I'm sure 100 years from now looking back at what it looks like right now would be pretty similar too but thank you so much. Any other comments?
There was a picture included there, couple slides back. Was there a water tower at one time in Moorpark? There it is right there. Is that upper left quadrant looks like there might have been a water tower. That's relevant to some of the stuff that we're working on right now but thank you so much for bringing that. That picture, that will come up in a future council meeting. Thank God for
collections. I'll try to figure out what that is because it could just be the cistern for that particular orchard but we have the information on this so Council Member Means, I'll try to find it for you.
How incredible! That is great. Thank you for everything you're doing and I hope we can do a lot of collaborations with the new library and everything that you guys are doing for our county. Thank you.
Definitely appears like a water tower. Thank you so much. Do we have any public comment?
No Mr. Mayor, no speaker cards on this item.
Thank you so much. Okay next is presentation action discussion item 9b let's consider Ventura County Civic Alliance 2025 State of the Region report. Mr. Yagihana?
0:40 – 0:582 turns
Thank You mayor we have this evening David Mehron the chair of the state of the region report
I'm just gonna give Helena All right, good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council, staff, members of the audience thank you for inviting us to present the State of the Region Report I'm David Marin with the Ventura County Civic Alliance every two years we produce this report and we can't go around and share these beautiful books with the audiences and our leaders without the support of some of our sponsors here's a few of them the Ventura County Community Foundation I'd also like to take a moment to introduce one of our board members, Abiel Acosta is here with me tonight supporting me and keeping an eye on me.
As I said, the report's published every two years. All of the sources are listed in the report beginning on page 113 and for those in the audience or at home you can download this report for free at CivicAlliance.org We're a non-profit neutral unbiased and focused on sustaining our quality of life. I think this sort of fits well with Elena's report as far as talking about the history And now we'll get a little bit into the weeds on some of the more recent data. So this is not in your reports right here, but this is the County of Ventura and I'm showing that our median age continues to go up. So back in 2017 we were at 37 and a half and today we are at 39.6 The challenge that Ventura County faces is that we are getting older and we are not having enough young people.
You can see in this chart that even though the population went from about 847,000 to 837,000 a loss of about 10, we lost 20,000 people in the zero to 18 bracket. That's the blue line. Here's your city of Moorpark. Moorpark has been up and down, but it's actually a little bit better than the overall county average. You can see that even for the city that has been about stable in the overall green bars, the blue has declined a little bit over the years as we start to lose young people. And part of that is young people get a little bit older and they age out, but then we don't have enough new children coming into the system.
So let's talk about some of the big parts of our report. Agriculture, strawberries remain a top crop in Ventura County at over $700 million. It's a 2.17 billion dollar industry and this is listed in the report. That's about 3% of our economy. It used to be closer to four and 5%. Ag has stayed pretty much level at about two billion but our overall economy has grown so it's very challenging.
Water, labor, pesticides there's a lot of challenges that they have Community engagement, you're all elected officials. I'd like to share the stats as far as our elected representation countywide. The blue is Democrats, red are Republicans, green is the no party preference. You can see that in the last 20 plus years we've gone from about 38% for Dems to 42, a slight growth but Republicans have lost ground and that ground that they've lost has gone to no party preference. Young people and others who are registering prefer to be no party rather than Associated with one of the parties. Here's the detail broken down by city and I've circled Moorpark You can see that Moorpark is fairly even a little bit more blue than red And healthy amount of no party preference Oxnard in Ojai are the only cities where there is a majority of Democrats Simi Valley is the only city in the county that has a plurality of of Republicans, all other cities are a little more dense.
Now keep in mind that's the registration. That doesn't mean they vote. Many of the people that might be in here are not necessarily active voters giving all parties a chance. I'd like to share about the nonprofit sector just how powerful it is. We have over 11,000 people working in the nonprofit sector generating almost half a billion dollars of annual income You can see that the wages are a little bit better for when you include government and the hospitals, but it's a very important sector. And I think all of us especially as you pointed out some of the things that you've attended how much our nonprofit community is doing including the Museum of Ventura County On the economy side, this chart's hard to read but I just want to explain that there is actually several pages of this in the report.
We break down goods producing, that would be things like ag, oil, manufacturing. This one is showing the service providing where we get into things like professional services, financial activities, leisure and there's one more in the report about government. The top half of the chart shows you the overall quantity of people working in a particular sector So just to use a financial activities, we see about 15,000 people working in that sector. Oh, my time's up now.
So we have about 15,001 working in that sector. But if you go to the bottom half, you see that the wages paid there are 112,000 as a high paying job. It's where we want to see growth, but unfortunately we've seen a decline in the number of people working in that sector. The ones that have been growing like leisure and hospitality Those have the lower wages. So there's an imbalance in Ventura County where we have too many people so as Council Member Barrett mentioned, as far as the degrees from Moorpark those are very high paying jobs that hopefully those young people take here in Ventura County but for policy makers it's how do you attract businesses to Moorpark that are high paying jobs because people can't make it on a 30 or $40,000 salary?
This is the overall Grosse County product. If you have your older reports and you look at this, you'll see the numbers are completely different. That's because we restate this every two years adjusted for inflation. You can see back around 2007, we hit our peak of about $72 billion for the overall economy. After the Great Recession, we plateaued. We're starting to come back a little. But none of this is good news. The state, the nation have come back much stronger than Ventura County and that could lead you to be concerned about what'll happen when we have another recession. So we are nowhere near our peak on the economy.
Taxable sales, you don't have the car malls that Camarillo or Oxnard or Ventura have. You don't have the huge shopping malls like Thousand Oaks. So you can see that your taxable sales have been a little bit in a decline. Oxnard, that is the Amazon effect. They have that warehouse and they've been able to do very well. And you can see the other cities especially with car dealers are doing well on the taxable sales.
In education, the blue line here is grades K through eight. The green is the high school grades and you can see that we pretty much are on the decline as far as the number of students that are attending schools and the projection is it'll continue to decline. If you look in your upper left corner, it might be hard for the audience but in the upper left corner I put what our population was 50 years ago. 1973, we had 419,000 We've doubled that to 838,000 in 2023. So 50 years countywide doubled our population but if you look at the number of students we went from about 107,000 to about 122,000. We only grew about 22,000 students while we doubled our population so this is why Dr.
Castro and all the other superintendents are dealing with declining enrollment Specifically for some schools out in your area, you can see Conejo Valley has had a decline. The top row is 2021, the bottom row, the blue is 2024. Conejo Valley has lost 10%, Moorpark not quite so bad, Simi Valley has been about break even. I'm often asked well doesn't that mean that all these students are going to private schools or homeschooling? But the reality is even private schools are seeing a decline in their enrollments For pupil spending, Moorpark is about in the middle of the pack.
We've included in this report test scores. It's a very difficult... You have to look at it in the book when you wanna dig into this but we list pretty much every public school in Ventura County and the state does a test every year and it sets a standard whatever that baseline is for the third grade or eighth grade or 12th grade but it measures how many students don't meet that standard Almost meet the standard, meet the standard or exceed the standard. In our report what we show is a percentage of students that are meeting or exceeding the standard. You would expect you'd want 100% of your students to meet or exceed this standard.
So looking at the various schools, Coneo Valley there's a few that are in the 80%, 70, 60, 50% as far as the people that are achieving and this is English. Moorpark generally pretty good compared to some other districts you can see Fillmore, Wainimi they don't even make the chart. Nordoff and Ojai just one school so If you dig into it, you can really review it.
And in the report we also have the math scores. So this is a way to sort of look at it and see which school districts and which schools are doing well. And schools have a huge challenge obviously right resources good teachers our kids prepared or their English language learners so we report what the state gives us community colleges. Good news here is that they've come back from the Great Recession The blue bars are Moorpark College, and you can see they're back up to their highest level of attendees recently.
I'd like to show this chart. It's educational attainment. If you have a child or nephew or grandchild who's thinking about going to college, this shows the dramatic difference between attaining a degree at a high school level versus some college versus bachelor blue is male greenest female take the blue high school male graduate gets about $46,000 a year of annual income if that person stays in college and gets a bachelor's degree The average that they can look forward to is 92,000. Pretty much doubled. So if somebody's motivated but they say gee dad or mom I'm not sure I want to borrow all that money. If they're motivated it's worth it because this is per year multiply that by 20 or 30 years of their life the value of education pays off for those who are motivated and of course going on getting a graduate degree also helps Land use and housing, housing starts are close to their highest that they've been at.
I should rephrase that they're not at their highest our highest was 2017 they've come up a little but we're not as high as we want to be home ownership Moorpark excels at having a number of people who actually own their home 80% it's the highest in the county The flip side of that is it's very hard to rent here. There's not very many units, but a large number of homeowners means that they care about their community, they're involved in their community, they take care of their homes and the median price was 1.2 million in June of 2025.
This is the challenge for our young people everywhere, is that apartment rents are in the $2,800, $2900, $2700. It's because there's no vacancies. Now since this report there has been more development mostly in Ventura and Oxnard a lot of new apartments along the freeway have come online so I think we're going to see this plateau but it's still extremely expensive to live here Moorpark is pretty much in the middle as far as the amount of average water use. I'll let you dig in, I'm going to try to speed up because I want to spend a few moments on this report.
I've talked about the declining enrollment. I've talked about we're getting older. This is why. So this shows the birth rate per thousand residents in Ventura County and if you go back to 1990, we hit our peak We had a birth rate of about 19 children per thousand residents. In 1990, we had 12,700 births in 2023. We have three quarters of that 8,500, even though we've grown, we're having less children and that rate went from 19 verse per thousand to 10.2. So a dramatic decline young people are putting off having children so they wait longer They decide to have maybe only one or two kids instead of three or four kids, that may have happened later. And worst of all they decide to move to Riverside or somewhere else to raise a family because it's so expensive here.
So I'll talk about housing and some of that but if we don't deal with this we're just gonna be a lot of old people looking around for somebody to take care of us because we won't have enough young people. So everybody will say well what can you do about it? One thing is we can make childcare a lot easier, so it's expensive. But if you think about an industrial zone with a lot of employees and I'm not sure Moorpark has quite that density but Amgen has their own daycare center Everybody who uses that still pays the same, and that could be close to 15,000 a year. But it's close by. You drive to work, you drop your kid off. But if somebody is living in Camarillo and they dropped their kid off in Ventura at the daycare and then they have to drive back to Thousand Oaks, it just makes life so much harder here.
Employers through cities and others could offer more flexible hours so people with young families can maybe split their shifts so one spouse could be at home while the other one's working, things like that. So, I believe there are things that could happen and hopefully VCOG and others will try to lead a regional focus. But if we can make Ventura County attractive to young people, if we can make it so somebody growing up in LA or Orange County says, I hear Ventura County gives you a stroller when your babies are born, or they have free diapers, or they have much better childcare. We can start to attract the young people we need which will bring in jobs as well.
We've added cancer rates to the report, so we have all cancers listed here. We also have leukemia, breast cancer and prostate cancer. We listed the top 20-25 counties by population. The interesting thing is when you see Ventura show up higher on the list I don't have an answer why? Is it because we have better doctors and we're detecting breast cancer faster than other counties or is it because we have more of it?
This report reports incidence. Incidence is different than prevalence, so incidence is the number of people that would come down with a cancer in a particular year. So prevalence is just how many people have a particular cancer. The other thing that's often noticed is that many of these counties that are high scores are coastal coincidence causation. I don't have an answer but we hope to see more about this public safety Ventura County continues to be the largest, the safest large county in this state. It's been that way for multiple years and Moorpark continues to have a very good Crime rates, it has crept up a little but still it's amazingly low.
And yes, Nick and everybody else should be proud of the work that's happening here in Moorpark and around the county. Even with these numbers even when you look at Oxnard or Ventura we're still a very safe County. This is violent crime this is property crime so we see a little bit of an increase In the report, you'll see juvenile crime has crept up too. And that's a question are we catching them more? Is there some reason and even juvenile girls are committing more crimes don't have an answer why social services food share continues to just give away a lot of food. Moorpark has the lowest adult homelessness as you probably know but domestic violence crept up here in Moorpark almost double what it was a few years ago.
And I'll wrap up here with transportation, there's a lot of data in the report and I'm only touching on about a quarter of the charts in the report but you can see that the people who are working from home even though COVID is over, the pandemic's over we still have a lot of people who are taking advantage of working from home So with that, thank you very much for indulging me going over about a minute or two Mr. Mayor and we've been doing these reports for many years and appreciate the opportunity to share it. I've provided you and staff with some extra books and if you need more just let me know.
0:58 – 1:0211 turns
All right thank you for the report are there any questions?
I just have one. I've been fortunate to connect with Mr. Marin on this, so I want to ask you just a different question You've given this report around the county and I'm just really curious to hear people's reactions or To this this phenomenon of a graying County we're following The same trajectory of other coastal communities And it looks stark right like we have A grain population, fewer births. It's more expensive and as we get older your chart about the income which is the profession that provides those services to a grain population is also the profession that is going to make the least amount of money and not be able to provide for themselves while they're trying to take care of our grain population so Again, just a curiosity about as you go around the county.
What have you seen the general response to this directionality?
So that's a terrific question. What I've seen and heard is that there sort of like it sinks in a little bit initially. It's not like councils can get up and start making bold decisions but what I've heard later is a council member will call me and say oh I was at this meeting And I brought this up, or I was talking to this executive over at Adventist and they mentioned childcare. And I knew we have to talk about that. So hopefully it permeates to the staff who are going to lots of meetings. It's a difficult thing because we're not policymakers but I do think that maybe the over the years, the report is helping to identify these issues and everybody realizes that the schools as you know, are looking at declining enrollment I think the report helps the general community to understand that it's not, oh, Coneo is just poorly run.
No, they're losing students. They will have to close a school. That's what I would say. I don't have a good answer. I do know that New Mexico is doing some phenomenal work in the area of child care, trying to provide that for free through some statewide programs. You may be familiar with that. I'm not sure Mr. Cagahena. So I think there are initiatives around the country. I always believe that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery If we can copy other places that are doing well in California or states, I think that's worthwhile. But I do think people recognize the issue but they don't have an answer.
Thank you again for just generating so much data that does positively influence policy decisions across the county. Thank you.
Yeah, mine's just a comment. Thank you as much for being here and thank you to your Moorpark board members for coming out and supporting as well. We can't make good decisions without good data and your team consistently presents us with data that we can use and implement. I just want to say thank you. You're welcome.
I'll let go the thank-you comments and give a little plug David's going to be joining us next Thursday For the Chamber of Commerce topic on tap to present this. So if anyone has further questions, that's a great opportunity It will be at Enneagrin Brewery Week from tomorrow
and a bit of trivia Many years ago when Chris was at a different employer, he worked on the state of the region helping to design it and prepare the data with us. So he's got some DNA history with us.
And you said you've recast the numbers since he's been working on it? Okay, all
right well thanks a lot. Do we have any other speakers this morning?
No Mr. Mayor no speakers on this item. All right
thank you for coming out again. Next is presentation action discussion item 9C to receive and discuss proposed mid-cycle amendments the fiscal year 2026, 2027 budget. Ms. Stever?
1:03 – 1:082 turns
Good evening mayor and council members. Tonight Mr. Poonsan and I are presenting the proposed mid-cycle budget adjustment for fiscal year 2026 and 27. In June 2025, the City Council approved the city's first biannual budget Previously, a budget workshop was held each year in May prior to the adoption of a budget. However since fiscal year 26-27 budget was previously approved as part of the annual budget process, tonight's presentation will serve as an update to the adopted budget.
We will provide high level overview of the proposed adjustment and address any questions from City Council. Staff will return on June 17th meeting with the final mid-cycle budget adjustment for consideration and adoption. Mr. Poonsalan will first present the proposed revenue and expenditure changes. I will then provide an overview of the projected result balances, and a long term financial plan based on the proposed mid cycle adjusted budget.
And I'm handing over to Mr. Phan-Slam.
Do they have the presentation? Yeah, okay. Good evening mayor and council members. As Ms. Dever stated last year in June Council adopted the first biennial budget for fiscal year 25-26 and 26-27 as we enter into fiscal year 26- 27 and year two of the biannual budget staff underwent to exercise of reviewing the original projections for revenue and expenditures We are reviewing the budget to determine if adjustments were necessary based on trend or there were any changes in operational needs for year 2 of the budget. After reviewing the originally adopted fiscal year 26-27 budget, staff has compiled additional recommended budget adjustments.
So there are some minor adjustments to revenue, which is a net increase of $160,000 to 51.2 million. These adjustments reflect increased projections in property sales and transient occupancy taxes and franchise fees offset by decreased and projected investment earnings and charges for services and fees. In terms of expenditures, adjustments to expenditures total $6.4 million, increasing the fiscal year 26-27 budget to $45.3 million. However these adjustments are a little inflated as it includes rollover of park related capital improvement projects totaling 4.2 million, and parks-related capital acquisition totaling 400,000.
Historically these capital improvement projects would be rolled over in August or September of the following fiscal year for any unused capital expenditures. However since this is a biannual budget and we needed the data to do our park assessment district tax rolls, we had to do the rollover as part of this mid cycle budget adjustment. So when you take out those rollovers, the actual new budget amendments total $1.8 million.
So the $1,800,000 includes increases to contractual services of around 600,000, salarying benefits of 500,000 and then capital acquisition of 300,000 with other operational costs totaling 400,000. You can see the major adjustments on the screen, so acquisition capital for new vehicles and new purchases. And then salary benefits is primarily related to the COLA increase and comp study.
The last thing I want to go over is Exhibit D to the staff report, which provides a fund summary of the adjustments to all funds. We do want to highlight a few of the funds in there. So the main one we want to highlight is the General Fund, which is the City's primary discretionary fund. Originally adopted budget reflects a $1.3 million projected surplus at the end of this upcoming fiscal year.
However, proposed adjustments result in a net decrease of $900,000 reducing the projected surplus to $400,000 in the general fund. This is primarily due to 450,000 in CIP rollover. So just moving one budget from current year to the next year. We also have an increase of 450,000 to subsidize other funds. 260,000 in payroll adjustments and then 110,000 for new software needs.
The next funds I want to highlight is our TDA 8A and gas tax funds, which are both used to maintain the city streets. They were projected to start the upcoming year with a balance of $370,000. However due to operational costs, the projected fund balance is projected to be depleted at the end of the fiscal year. And then lastly, just highlighting our TDA 8C which is the city's transportation fund.
This fund is operating at a net operating deficit and to balance the fund staff salaries were moved out of that fund into another fund. I'm gonna turn over the presentation to Ms. Dever who will go over the city's reserve and long-term financial plan.
1:09 – 1:159 turns
Thank you, Mr. Ponson. We are estimating total reserve funds to be a $23,968,078 at the end of fiscal year 25-26. Prior to closing fiscal year 25- 26 staff will adjust emergency contingency reserve to maintain the required 20% of fiscal year 26-27 general fund expenditures in accordance with City Council policy. This adjustment requires a transfer of $113,498 from general fund balance resulting in the beginning balance of $24,081,576 with an unallocated balance of $21,831,576.
The estimated fund balance at the end of fiscal year 26-27 will be further down to $21,4248. This represents 80.5% of general fund expenditures. The City Hall Improvement Fund is excluded from this calculation as the remaining balance is expected to be fully utilized for the library project. For the long-term financial plan, It has been updated using the proposed mid-cycle adjusted budget for fiscal year 26, 27.
Expenditure assumptions include a 3% cost of living adjustment for salaries, 6% increase in health insurance benefit, a 3 percent increase based on the January 2026 consumer price index for other operating expenses And a 4.2% increase based on the January 2026 construction cost index for the capital acquisitions and capital projects. Revenue assumptions include a 2% increase for property tax and sales tax, 3% increase for franchise fees No growth is expected for interest revenue and average increase of 1.5% for all other revenue.
Based on these assumptions, city's general fund surplus is projected to decline over the forecast period with a structural deficit anticipated starting fiscal year 2930. The expenditure growth is projected to outpace revenue growth, which may place the city in a challenging financial position in future years without additional revenue sources such as an increase in property tax or sales tax revenue.
As expenditure growth continue to outpace revenue growth, prudent financial planning and thoughtful consideration of additional expenditure will be critical to sustaining the city's long-term fiscal health. This concludes the presentation and I am available for any questions?
Thank you. Are there any questions? Okay. Do we have any speakers?
No, Mr. Mayor, no speakers on this item.
Okay, moving to discussion. It's tight.
Better than a couple years ago though so...
It is but yeah something you can keep on top of obviously.
I don't love that we're doing a mid-year adjustment it indicates that We up here need to be digging into these budgets as they come in and trying to find better forecasting. I think a lot of what we're looking at here is going to be a cash flow issue, as development comes online. I think we're gonna help ourselves but those are gonna be one-time improvements to our baseline and that's gonna help so I don't think that we should I think we're going to have a year, a couple years from now where things are going to feel better. And I don't want us to get our eye off the ball that we need to be making sure that we're being as efficient as possible and doing economic development. There was an announcement today that one of our big restaurants is closing down in town so we need to make sure that we're providing an environment to continue to bring in revenue there.
It's tough for me to see it. That margin, that $400,000 on this budget is, I mean that's a rounding error and I'd hate to see us go negative any sooner than we have to but compliments to city staff for identifying it, for working on the places to find some cuts, to find some savings and I think it gives us a real challenge and obligation to be digging into how we continue to focus on running the city as well as we can be.
There's lots of projects out there and the fees come in when they're done but you get delayed, we bank on them early it's always a problem so something to be conservative with obviously. Thank you very much.
Thank you. So that way as we look at the projection of that long-term structural deficit, you know Even cutting that in half over a 10 year period allows for what you were talking about for revenues potentially to catch up But as we know We do need to be looking at what services were providing for from the city perspective
1:15 – 1:179 turns
Well Go ahead and I'll move the recommendation. Second?
This item is to provide direction to staff on the proposed budget amendments, so I don't know if we've now provided enough direction to staff to bring the item
back. My direction is to encourage staff to continue to look at the programming and expenses that we have to see where we might be able to. We have an excellent team that looks at ways to be more efficient and not reduce the services we are providing to our citizens. I think it's commendable, doesn't always show up in the numbers when looking at red lines but The direction would be keep on, keep on keeping on at least as far as I'm concerned and thank you for what you've done. And I do think that perhaps we let city staff know that we are willing to take on some tough decisions to make sure that we're keeping the city in a good spot. That'd be my suggestions.
Exactly. Yeah, I
agree.
And the only thing I would add, I think you touched on it, would just be to continue to look for efficiencies where efficiencies are capable. They're not always capable without loss of service. Yeah?
Right. Just like any business we're not constantly trying to find ways to be more efficient then we'll get burned obviously so keep on going but let's start really playing good defense on this because this can get out of control in the future and we want to stay on top of that. Thank you, Council. Does that make sense for direction?
Yeah, no I appreciate it Council. We'll definitely look at efficiencies and look at other ways we can meet programs and services at less cost as much as possible.
Move on to the next item, which is fitting for this. Next is Presentation and Action Discussion Item 9D, and it's to consider Parks and Recreation Revenue Measure Feasibility Survey Results and consider resolution to initiate proceedings related to the 2026 Parks and Recreation Maintenance and Improvement District or provide other direction. Mr. Laurentowski?
1:17 – 1:434 turns
Thank you Mayor. I'm just waiting for this PowerPoint to come up. Technical tip, go up please. We'll be right with you.
It's a good looking screensaver though that we got.
Thank you Mr. Thompson. Thank you Mayor and members of the City Council. We've shared a lot of information over the last several years leading up to where we are today. There's a lot of history, so we will start this presentation on June 16th, 1999 when an assessment ballot measure was passed by Moorpark property owners establishing our current Parks Maintenance Assessment District.
At that time, the city had 14 existing parks and the engineers report made a determination that 25% of the benefits shall be deemed special and 75% shall be deemed general as required under Proposition 218. This means that the city can only assess properties for the portion of the budget related to special benefits And general benefits must be funded with non-assessment revenue which obviously is the general fund.
In 1999, the initial annual assessment rate was $39 which covered 52% of the operating budget which was well below the special benefit cap of 75%. So during the Special City Council meeting of August of last year, staff presented a agenda report regarding the status of the city's general fund and the review of the 10-year long range Long Term Financial Plan which we just had a current update on.
The Long Term Financial Plan projected that the city's general fund will face a structural deficit around fiscal year 2930 which we just saw To avoid a structural deficit, it was discussed that the city will require additional long-term general fund revenues to address several issues facing the city such as rising public safety costs, ongoing investment to sustain our city's pavement management plan.
A decline in interest earnings as reserves are drawn down to support some of our capital projects as well as of course our park and LMD maintenance funds. You just saw this graph five minutes ago. And we will continue to update it as part of our annual budget process so we track our expected revenues and expenditures. As our finance director just discussed, the expected deficit will occur sometime around fiscal year 29-30 without additional revenue opportunities or reductions in service levels.
Since 1999, park maintenance expenses have significantly outpaced assessment revenue. As shown in the table at the bottom of this slide over the last several years, the general fund has subsidized park maintenance operations between 51 and 67%. However, this does not include the additional approximately $400,000 in additional funding needed to cover the city's equipment replacement fund. So even though the city has made considerable effort to reduce maintenance costs, the general fund is still contributing a significant portion of the park's maintenance costs.
So during the February 18th City Council meeting, the city council considered the preliminary feasibility analysis for both a property owner benefit assessment and a parcel tax voter measure. It was discussed that the approach to a benefit assessment and associated mail ballot proceeding would be to form a new overlay assessment which would be additional to the existing 1999 park assessment rather than replacing it.
Essentially the analysis considered all residential and non-residential land uses, the proximity of residential homes to parks as well as a general benefit finding. So different than the 1999 study that established a 25% general benefit finding, the current analysis estimated that the general benefit finding would be approximately 27%. The difference is due to a variety of factors that have changed since 1999, such as regional roadways, public use impacts, access to parcels outside the city limits, as well as non-residential use of our park facilities.
The analysis based the proposed assessment rate on the current operating budget and reserve funding after subtracting benefit contribution and revenue generated from the existing park assessment, the remaining funding needed to address through an overlay assessment is approximately $1.2 million annually. So this slide identifies the preliminary assessment rates by land use category. As we'll describe in more detail a little later, the feasibility analysis estimates that the single family residential rate for the majority of the homes at Moorpark would be approximately $97.42 and that of course varies depending on the property type.
Similar to a benefit assessment, a parcel tax would be additional to the existing 1999 park assessment The analysis again considered both residential and non-residential properties, and considered two methodologies. A flat tax which would be applied equally to all parcels, and a tax based on square footage. It should be noted that different than a benefit assessment, a parcel tax allows for more flexibility such as allowing for senior exemptions, and is not subject to the same constitutional requirements related to special and general benefits. Instead it only needs to be apportioned in a fair and reasonable manner.
Analysis was also based on the fiscal year 26-27 operating budget and after subtracting this existing park assessment, the remaining funding needed to be addressed through the revenue measure would be approximately 1.9 million dollars annually The chart at the bottom of the slide identifies the estimated benefit assessment that was previously discussed, as well as the estimated special tax or parcel tax options. The two highly highlighted rates are essentially the higher the two residential rates for both measures that were used to test the two different options in the feasibility survey.
So on February 18th again of this year, the City Council directed staff to move forward with a public opinion survey to determine the level of support for both a benefit assessment and a parcel tax. So with that I'd like to welcome Sarah Labatt with EMC who you've all met previously and she will present these survey results.
Thank you and good evening council and staff and members of the public. I'm also joined by my colleague Kaylin Robert here as well Did a lot of work on this project and is here to help answer questions. So first of all, there's a quick description of the methodology from the survey was a survey of voters in Moorpark conducted in mid April in English and Spanish we used a industry standard approach of mixed mode telephone and web methodology it was a random sample Of voters, so it wasn't an open access survey but rather people could would receive a invitation and be able to participate. We completed 400 interviews with voters in Moorpark for a margin of error of about five percentage points And related to what was just being discussed about the different rates, we used a split sample methodology here to test two different potential tax rates.
So what that means is we took those 400 interviews and split them into two groups of 200 randomly sampled voters each so it's really like two surveys in one where each of those samples has 200 interviews and margin of error of about seven points. And the advantage of this is we're not asking any one voter to choose a rate, but rather each voter just gets a survey about one rate either $188 or $98. Those two amounts were chosen because of the analysis done in the initial financial analysis that 188 represents the number that is approximately estimated for a potential voter tax A parcel tax and the $98 is essentially what could represent the potential benefit assessment level. We used a parcel tax to test both of these in modeling on a parcel tax for both so that we can understand tax rate sensitivity without changing other factors in the question, and I'll get more into that as we get it to the data next slide please.
A quick note on how we did the benefit assessment analysis. We recognize that the voters are the potential electorate in a parcel tax, but in a benefit assessment, the electorate is property owners. A majority of voters are property owners about 75% in our survey were property owners. We know that there are homeowners that are not voters as well, but the overlap is fairly great. We feel this is a reasonable way to evaluate a potential benefit assessment environment by looking at homeowners in our survey data really looking and modeling Viability with that population using a parcel textile question, which has many of the same elements just formatted differently. So it's really to help us understand what is the potential level support for these two potential mechanisms?
And that's really what the ninety eight dollars was chosen for and how we model that against homeowners. It's about 300 interviews with homeowners in this survey, 150 in each of the two splits in the survey. Next slide, please. So getting into the data Moorpark voters are in a good mood, 80% feel things are going in the right direction. This is very positive compared with other communities we've surveyed. Generally individual cities get fairly positive ratings but even here it's higher at 80% right direction and we tend to find not by rule but generally an electorate that's in a positive mood about how the city is doing may respond more favorably to and ask for a revenue increase from that city. If they think things are going well, that might make them more inclined to consider if they can invest in continuing that.
Next slide please. We also asked them in an open-ended question this is before we introduce anything about parks or revenue just what's the most important problem facing Moorpark? And we see that the top issues are around traffic growth and overcrowding Jobs and housing affordability, you see road repairs on there as well. So thinking about what is the average Moorpark voter thinking about in terms of what they think are the issues facing Moorpark? Those are the areas they're thinking about. They're not necessarily coming into this survey thinking that parks and recreation are a big challenge the city is facing.
They certainly are thinking of some other things that they might have higher on their mind in this environment. Next slide please. We do also ask them as we start getting into the parks topic to rate how the parks are. We see a very positive rating for the quality of public parks at 91% positive, quality of recreation programs, the job the city does managing these facilities and programs also very positive. So we certainly have an electorate that's generally pleased with how the city is operating the parks and programs now.
Next slide please. Then we asked them if they feel there is a need for additional revenue for parks and recreation facilities in Moorpark. And we find this question as helpful in understanding and contextualizing how they respond when we ask them whether they would support a revenue effort. So even before we ask them the revenue effort, when we ask them if they think there's a need for funding, In the top two box saying there's great or some need, but just 6% saying that there's a great need for funding. This is a very low intensity what we find in communities where the awareness is really widespread about the need Is a much higher intensity of that need more people indicating that they are aware this is a need that's out there.
They might that that number tells us Here that they might not really be anticipating at this time. That the revenue is specifically needed or that anything could change without additional revenue. We also see 38% on the other side saying just a little need or no real need for funding again, supporting that there's probably not a lot of awareness among the general electorate that parks funding is challenged right now, or that there are things will have to happen without additional funding to continue what they have. Next slide, please.
So then we introduce a ballot question and this is a draft ballot question it fulfills the requirements of a ballot question for a parcel tax measure as I said we used a parcel tax measure for the wording um the parameters the parcel tax the wording are a little bit different than a benefit assessment although largely the same topics are covered so we do this to really use one model to test in the survey and give you the ability to look at that homeowner population at that benefit assessment rate at the same time. So we're showing a lot on this slide, let me walk through it.
First of all, the parcel tax measure I believe was mentioned earlier has a two thirds requirement for passage. That's that 67% mark on this chart to succeed with a special tax which is what this would be you would need to get two thirds of the voters to say that they approve it in an election ballot. A benefit assessment, which is a property owner mailed election, it's not on the regular election ballot but that has a simple majority requirement 50% plus one so we added those lines here on this chart so you can see really sort of where the support levels are in relation to those thresholds. So looking now at the two splits here, we're showing the two samples separately Split A, that's 200 people and split B is a different 200 people that heard this ballot measure but with either $188 or $98 in the rate question.
And you can see that support for each of them is at about the mid 50s 54-55%. We're not seeing a difference in support between 188 and 98 so within that range we're not seeing The electorate respond really differently to a lower rate versus a higher rate. They're not comparing, but that helps us with this controlled experiment to understand where are the cost sensitivities within these parameters that we've set? And we don't see a statistically significant difference between the two. Remember our margin of error here is about seven points. On these bars and at 54 and 55, those are within that margin of error. So we can really think of that as not different statistically so support for a revenue measure at either of these rates among voters is around the mid 50s.
That's well short of the parcel tax threshold at 67%. Now on the right hand side with split B, we see we broke out support among just homeowners. So homeowners within this voter population are supported at a slightly lower rate. The demographics of homeowners tend to be a little bit more tax conservative generally. They're going to be older and higher income and we see that associated here with just a slightly less support among homeowners so just for that same question At 51%. Remember the benefit assessment threshold is a simple majority, which is 50% plus one of the weighted vote in a benefit assessment. And so we can look at this and sort of conclude that at this moment if the election were today whichever type The support level for one of these types would be somewhere in that 51 to 55% range most likely based on this survey I do want to remind you or say since I haven't said it yet, polling is not predictive.
It's a snapshot in time today the rest of this survey we use to understand more about what might happen with additional information in the environment but this is really representing where are people today based on what they know right now and how they might react to this question next slide please So then we give them a few different ways to think about what might be included in a measure. So first, we give them a list of priorities for each one they're asked how important is this to include in a potential ballot measure on a 1-7 importance scale?
And they can give a number for each of them independently. They're not asked to put them in order, we sort them here on this slide by total importance but they were given these in a randomized order in the survey and you can see what rises to the top is keeping parks clean self safe and well maintained and maintaining lighting and security And then we see preventing park closures and maintaining access to programs for everyone.
So I think rising to the top is these sort of maintain the things we have, keep what we've got, keep doing the things. Remember how well they rated the parks and programs? And we see that reflected here too. They're very interested in really maintaining the things that they have here in Moorpark. Next slide please. We also give them additional information and the information we give in this survey, it is not advocacy information for a measure. Rather it is public that style of public information the city can provide if you decide to move forward or when you decide to move forward with a revenue effort.
You know, we recommend making sure the public is educated about why you are asking. Remember how few really understand that the revenue is needed These are the kinds of things you could say to help the electorate understand why you might be asking for additional revenue. So we're really looking for what are the pieces of information that are the most sort of compelling, to help them understand the situation that you're facing? And so we see what's the most sort of convincing here in this set there's two slides of these and this is sort of the top most sort of compelling pieces is accountability. So keeping the funds local Keeping them from being taken by the state and monitoring transparent spending. We also see just a very basic safe and clean public parks, part of what makes Moorpark a great place to live and keep us active, healthy and connected.
So again that sort of resonance with maintaining what we have, ensuring parks stay safe, providing dedicated funding for Moorparks Parks and Recreational Programs. Then on the next slide Is a continuation of this. This is sort of the bottom half of the list, so somewhat less compelling information here. I do want to call your attention to the second one from the bottom 62% find it convincing but a much higher intensity from this one about parks what might happen without additional revenue?
The potential for considering significant cuts and listing out some of what those might be including potentially park closure. So certainly talking about that does raise some emotional reaction in people I feel like this reaction, plus looking at the earlier number about awareness of need for funding indicates that they probably aren't considering this right now as something that's a possibility when they react in the context of this survey.
Next slide. This is my last slide of data here and I wanted to show sort of the trajectory of support throughout the survey so we asked them do you support or oppose Three times in the survey. The first one is the one that says initial, you see split A and split B on the two sides of the screen. That's what we already saw in that sort of first vote. Then after information once we've told them some of the things it could potentially fund, once we've given them some more information, we ask them again now how would you vote? You can see in both splits just a very small increase in vote with information. We're not seeing a lot of movement In their support, even when we tell them some of these things that are helping kind of fulfill that information.
That they might not have about the need and what we look for in that second opportunity is, are we seeing a lot of movement? That might indicate to us that there's a potential to get to that two thirds threshold for a parcel tax. We're not seeing that kind of movement here. It stays pretty far south of that 67% threshold, even when we give them all the information and we had in the survey about a measure. And then we gave them a brief opposition message it's there in the gray on this chart. Pretty general, it's the wrong time cost of living are too high. We have other priorities or pretty general opposition message about a potential revenue measure and we do see some vulnerability To a generalized opposition measure you see support drop below their initial the initial level really in both samples indicating that, you know it.
You know if you decide to move forward with an effort. It'll really be important to engage all the communities in your city and make sure people understand, you know why this is important enough that they might want to set some of those concerns aside and potentially consider whether this is something they want to support. We did add that support among homeowners as well there on the right for that $98 which again is the potential benefit assessment rate.
You know, we see support pretty consistently a little bit lower than the general voters given the population. It stays right around that majority threshold. Remember, we have a margin of error at play here Meaning that 51, then 52, then 48. That's the progression. It could be a little higher or it could be a little lower. And what this tells us is that while we don't think that you're in an environment right now where a parcel tax at that two-thirds threshold, a special tax would be within the realm of viability. The benefit assessment we think is sort of on the bubble. It's in a place where you could potentially see success if you move forward with it I think there's a opportunity to educate the community and engage them before they get that ballot.
But I think this is the opportunity that's in front of you for sort of potentially considering. So if you can go to my last content slide here, so just some quick conclusions about this poll and then I think I hand it back to Jeremy unless Jeremy would prefer I take questions on the poll first but we see that voters strongly value public parks But their support for a parcel tax measure at either amount tested is just over majority, which is well short of that two-thirds threshold. A benefit assessment effort does appear to have a stronger chance of viability in this current environment largely because the threshold is lower not because they're supporting it at a higher level necessarily but rather the threshold is different and to succeed.
We do see a fair amount of tax sensitivity and sensitivity to the cost of living in the economy. And we also see that the public is largely satisfied with parks and recreation services, they don't seem to have much intensity of awareness or need for additional revenue. They do find things about parks important, they want to maintain what they have keep their parks clean well maintained prevent closures. But it seems there's not a lot of specific awareness of that need or any potential threats to what they're getting from the city in terms of parks and recreation. So we would advise that educating the community about need is the way to potentially set the stage for a potential revenue effort, whether that's something you pursue this year or you decide to pursue it at a future time.
That will be an important piece of making sure when this goes to the community for a vote They're informed and they know what they're choosing between, and understanding what they lose without it and what they can gain with it. With that I think I hand it back to Jeremy.
1:43 – 1:487 turns
Thanks Sarah and we'll continue on and take questions at the end and real quick we'll talk about next steps. So a property owner benefit assessment would be subject to Proposition 218 procedures The city would be required to prepare an engineer's report identifying the improvements and services to be funded, the proposed assessment district boundaries and estimated cost. This special general benefit analysis that we talked about and the proposed assessment methodology. The schedule shown on the first part of this next slide is obviously compressed but it would leave about six weeks for community outreach before ballots will be mailed. For a special tax, the schedule is also compressed. If the City Council directs staff to pursue this option, staff will need to work with the city attorney consultants, the Ventura County Elections Division to prepare the measure language that complete the fiscal and legal review and return to the City Council for consideration of a resolution calling the election and requesting consolidation during the City Council meeting on July 1st.
There's a typo in the staff report, which I believe says July 17th. So should the city council consider a benefit assessment and associated mail ballot proceeding, staff recommends that the city council adopt the attached resolution to initiate proceedings and direct the preparation of an engineer's report. This would allow the city to maintain the current timeline and return on July 1st with the engineer's report and related resolutions.
However, staff has provided several options that the City Council could consider. We can certainly defer the mail ballot mailing. The City Council could defer the resolution and direct staff to return for a potential spring 2027 property owner assessment ballot, or another date. This would provide additional time for community education. The primary trade-off is timing. If the city defers the ballot mailing and if passed, the assessment would not be placed on the property tax bills until fiscal year 28-29.
City Council can certainly reject staff's recommendation and direct staff to initiate a special tax measure And we're certainly open to other direction. You've already met Sarah and Kaylin from EMC, Jeanette Hinson with SCI Consulting Group is also on here tonight. This concludes our report and we're here for any questions.
Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Yes. Mr. Barrett.
So for the benefit assessment, are we able to include trails and future planned parks in that?
We certainly are. So the engineer's report that we would prepare for a benefit assessment including immediate as well as future maintenance needs, the engineer's report would essentially establish a maximum assessment rate. That's what the voters would vote on And the engineer's report would differentiate those levels of assessment that would be needed based on when those facilities are completed. So if we had planned trails in the future, we could budget for it now and assess for the maintenance of those trails once those were completed. Same with inclusive playgrounds, Include the replacement costs of inclusive playground equipment, which we know is specialized and fairly expensive as well as the surfacing material.
Once that has been installed, we can start taking the assessment to cover the maintenance obligation and then put those funds in a reserve fund for future replacement.
Awesome. And then for our consultants – and I apologize for not asking this ahead to give you a heads-up So I don't know if you even have this number, but when we looked at the different splits, we had the split A and split B. And we only looked at homeowners for the split B which was the lower cost of the benefit assessment. But if we are potentially able to look at additional facilities That would potentially drive that benefit assessment cost higher. Is it possible to see the homeowners split for the higher amount?
The answer is yes, we can certainly look at that. And we did look at that and it's very similar a couple of points lower but not significantly different between the higher and the lower amount among homeowners like we saw with voters so we can provide the specific numbers as follow-up but certainly that's something we looked at anticipating this question and it's a similar story as we saw for the voters as well
Thank you. I mean, the fact that it's similar is enough for me. Thank you.
1:48 – 2:0113 turns
Sure. So can you please remind me if we're going to go with let's just say the $98 average what portion of that 51-67% would that cover? That were currently taking from general funds?
So if we, if there was a benefit assessment and the $98 pass that would generate about 1.2 million dollars in additional revenue and again it would cover about 75% of our maintenance cost. Again with the benefit assessment there's the general benefit So on the education part of it,
The report mentions the awareness of need is soft. So how we go about letting people know how This whole procedure would work why we're doing it what it would look like if we didn't do it and so on
So a lot of that is you know, a lot of effort between our consultant and staff our consultant does have a I want to start by saying thank you to all of the staff who are working on this project. Ms. Deaver has gone over as well as what we've continually shown in the staff report about how our general fund is subsidizing park maintenance and really what we've been doing to try and offset some of that cost, you know? We take a very proactive approach over the last 10 years to bring down those maintenance costs Like we've talked about, we're kind of at the point where we really can't go much lower without really talking about cutting services. So it would be really meeting with community groups, meeting with our service groups.
It would be social media, getting things out in our rec guide. And just general information out to the community. Obviously we can't advocate for this, we can't go around and put up banners and say vote for this but we can educate and just inform people as best we can that the city's in need. And I think really talking about our long range financial plan showing our structural deficit and showing how this is just one One opportunity to generate some revenue to support park maintenance just slows down that trajectory of those two lines merging.
Okay, so if we're to do that then wouldn't we need to know what things would look like with the assessment and without it? This is a company and I was an investor. I'd want to know what are you going to do without this money? What's it gonna look like? And if you did get it, what does it exactly look like too just to gauge that because right now we say that might have to cut services You think about that you might think they might cut services to the little tiny part across town that I don't ever go to therefore fine but if we had a plan of this is the operation how we're going to do this if we didn't get the benefit of the assessment.
I have to be all discussed on Council up here as to how we go about doing that, which would take a lot more time to get that together. So without being absolutely informed about what things look like pro and con then how would the public have enough knowledge to make an informed decision about that?
Yeah, you know what we would not do if we didn't, weren't able to generate an revenue. You're correct it's a very complicated question and I think the council would certainly have to chime in on that discussion because is it, where is the city's comfort level? Are we trying to subs, if we're really looking at it, we're short $1.2 million And if you're asking me to cut $1.2 million, it's almost impossible.
I mean we're honestly talking about closing parks. You can't cut $ 1.2 million out of 18 parks and expect that the parks are still gonna function or be in some form of operation so it's pretty significant. Now again, it is a big analysis because Maybe that's not what we're talking about. Maybe maybe the City Council is comfortable with okay Let's let's let's talk about half a million dollars What does that look like? So I think if we were really trying to do that analysis it you're right It's not something that we could probably have prepared because we couldn't really say what that is Other than the fact that we know if we don't get it, there's a pretty strong opportunity chance that we would potentially have to close some parks
Mr. Mayor me perhaps to provide some additional context to that since we can't specifically identify What those cuts will be? Perhaps the things we can reference are what we've cut in the past when we were in a similar financial situation so whether provide examples of what happened, you know 26 27 years ago when we didn't have And perhaps we could also refer to some of the cuts in maintenance and services during COVID just as examples.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Mayor, just two questions for EMC. The first one is in the results it was interesting I just was wondering how do you reconcile the contradictions in like the reported concept of what maintenance is when the discrete elements of maintenance were like lower had a lower priority so it said hey we want Safe and well-maintained parks, but then when you get to the discrete elements of what that actually means Those elements were ranked lower. So what do you would you make of that in terms of the voter behavior projected voter behavior?
Yeah, I just great question and I would say it indicates to me that the voters while they are They value parks and find it an important part of what they like about Moorpark. They aren't parks planners They don't know goes into The details of a well-maintained park. So I think we've often find in our research that voters are more enthusiastic about outcomes than methods, in part because outcomes are oriented towards them right? Safe clean well maintained parks for everyone versus the more detailed about the kinds of things that need to happen to have those outcomes where they might not feel as well First, they might not use parks as often. So I think you know, I wouldn't necessarily call it a contradiction. I would say it's something we learn and see in a lot of polling and I think it helps us advise on how to communicate with the public which is make sure you're focusing on the outcomes.
It doesn't mean you don't need to have some answers on how you're going to get there but for most people who aren't planners who aren't gonna get their hands all the way into it they want to hear You're going to result, it's going to result in the thing that they're interested in. So to me, it indicates why they're interested in parks and how much they value them. I think it's very consistent with some of those questions about how much they like the parks saying we want to keep what we have now when you get into the details, I just think there are a little bit less clear on exactly how that results but for most voters, they don't necessarily need To know all of those details Which is not me saying you shouldn't have answers, so I don't know if that helps but that's how I look at it.
It does, so what I hear some of what you're saying is that it illuminates the belief systems about what they want but doesn't necessarily provide as much information without like the education piece of it. That we have to be able to communicate that your belief system also equals these other discrete elements. So yeah thank you and then the second question was, I absolutely understand the fact that this particular survey is not predictive of how this would actually perform, I understand that But broadly, not taking just this one survey but in general in real application when we have margins of error of five to seven percent.
In general how predictive are these results like these when they're actually put into place? Sure
sure yes non-predictive However, I've done a lot of polls. I've been in this industry for 25 years doing this work and seeing a lot of public agencies get survey results and then proceed to an election outcome. There's a few pieces that come in between, right? The electoral environment, some of those questions in the early part of the poll around what are the issues facing the community? How are things going? That environment changes every day. It can be changed by the national environment, the state environment, things that happen locally So that's one variable that really you can't necessarily control.
Another is what happens between today and whatever the election day, whether it's a voter election or assessment balloting. Every community we work with and every poll we see, it's always in the public agency space six to nine months before that election day. Communities and agencies that invest in engaging their community and educating generally we find when they get to election day, we are rarely surprised by the outcome of the election if they did the work.
It generally preserves kind of the place they were maybe they see a little bit more support Maybe they get more community enthusiasm, and that can drive support on the private side of people getting out there and talking to their neighbors and generating enthusiasm. So I don't have like a numeric answer to your question. I would say these results tell me you're right on the bubble for a benefit assessment.
And I'm not going to tell you that if you move forward with it, you can definitely succeed nor am I going to say that this will definitely not succeed with these numbers. But I would say With an education effort that helps the public understand and make an informed decision about what you're asking them. I think these numbers are a reasonable place to start.
I'd love it if they were better, right? If you were closer to 55 or 60 with homeowners, I think that would be more comfortable. I recognize that but I think, you know, I would say seeing numbers like this, it's really kind of unfortunately You know, back to you on figuring out if that's something that you think you can bring the community to help them understand why you're asking and how important. They know parks are important so it becomes is it important enough to spend a little bit more money to keep these things that we really value? And that's the piece that I think they don't know right now when you ask them about spending the money. They're not really thinking about the equation on the other side of what stand to lose if they don't.
Thank
you. You mentioned in your presentation that on June 16th of 99 we had 71 and a half percent I'm going to start with you, Mr. Chairman. The ballot measure passed with 71 and a half percent. Can you give just a brief overview of what the parks look like? Maybe the number of parks if there was any closures, reductions in programming etc.? ?
2:01 – 2:1010 turns
And this was before Prop 218. The park assessment, back in those days you could just say hey Moorpark residents would you support a tax measure for parks? And the vote was yes without any real discussion about what that would cost the residents and cities back in those days could essentially assess for the cost of maintenance so we did and we covered all of our maintenance Prop 218 says, hey cities you can't do that anymore right? And they said it's the Right to Vote on Taxes Act and that disbanded the assessment that we initially had.
So after prop 218 the city said they went back to the voters and they tried to pass a special tax. And at that time I believe The assessment was about $45 that they were paying, and Measure P which was the special tax I believe was increasing that to about 50 odd dollars. That failed with the voters. A special tax took of course two-thirds a vote Um, so that's where the city really had to dig in and decide how are we going to handle these shortcomings. So, uh, we did close Juan Park. We closed Monta Vista Park at the time. Uh, we did not have July 3rd fireworks that year. We did not have an Easter egg hunt that year.
We cut services across the board a lot of recreation programs and then we went back out for The park measure that we talked about in in 1999 I believe you know again, we were assessing Residents about $45 prior to that. We had 14 parks but we needed a measure to pass so the A 1999 park assessment was set at $39, which was extremely low at the time. But I believe the city needed a funding source because at that time there was nothing. It was 100% general fund and that's where it passed at 71%.
Thank you, I appreciate that reminder of that background and where we've come from. On the timeline, just want to make sure I understood, we talked about the benefit assessment, the ballots need to be mailed on 8-24, the results will be back on 10-21, short timelines. Is there a reason? Well, I'll leave it at that. Is there a reason that we'd have to hit those deadlines? Or could we push it out 30 days or 60 days and what would the ramifications be if we decided to push that out?
So if we wanted to pass this year, we would have to essentially stick to those timelines. Those are date specific while also allowing us a little bit of time for community outreach so we would basically push the election as far as we could But then we would have to get it to the county, and the county's recording division. And so those timelines can't really be pushed too much if we wanted to do it this year. Now obviously if we wanted to push it in a future year We could not do a special tax without a Special election which would cost a significant amount of money because we'd have to coordinate through that through the county But we could do a mail ballot proceeding essentially at any time. So if we wanted to not do this year Push it till next year.
We can certainly initiate a mail ballot proceeding with with no problem. We can just Push down the road we would come back Talk about maybe a spring election and or mail ballot proceeding and Give you some timelines on what that would look like for pushing it later But for this year, we would essentially have to stick to that schedule
And to extrapolate just a step further by By doing it this year. We would begin to and if it was Approved by the voters we had been began collecting The revenue next year and if we didn't do it this year We wouldn't be able to collect the revenue until the following years that correct. Correct? Perfect. Thank you for that clarity and then There was a discussion about It would be I believe the quote was all hands on deck What would the is there a proposed cost of education if we decided we wanted to move forward with this?
It was it's clear that Education will be really important What does that mean in in dollars would have cost us dollars and then what would it mean in? Staff time and the equivalent dollars to be all hands on deck for that education.
So so this dollar cost is about $20,000 The line item with a proposal from our consultant. So that's just the educational component There'd be some additional costs for now. They're they're $20,000 does cover the cost of mailing the ballot But any additional mailings or any additional publications and things like that would potentially be additional costs We estimate anywhere from you know I put a number in there about $15,000 but it just depends on how aggressive with some of that we wanted to get again we can't advocate so this be informational mailers and Things of that sort staff time. It is a bigger commitment when I say all hands on deck you know, we Parks and Rec Department which has been in front of you now for four times I'm gonna have four projects under construction as we're talking about this and talking about the educational piece So the city manager's office would probably take the lead on any educational component and processes with that And and obviously they would have to bring in They have additional resources within their division and obviously we will be there to support.
I would probably be at every meeting with them anyways. As well as our finance departments and our PIO and everybody else so it would really be a pretty large staff effort I couldn't put numbers to it, but it would really be our focus for six weeks
with that I'd love to know if we can estimate what those hours look like in what those costs per hours are because that's a Investment sounds like it might be on the city manager's office Come up with would it hold up any other projects that have already been approved to? Stop and push forth with this effort Because it's all hands.
I don't believe so and that's part of the discussion We had the first first as we're writing this report. I picked up the phone and called mr. Rojas and said there's no way I could do this this year and just with the workload and the capital projects that we're gonna have literally under construction, but I have no doubt that our city manager's office could not move this forward.
As we know, our assistant city manager has moved forward a measure in his prior city and has lots of experience educating the community.
Yeah, Mr. Amin if I can just add some context there Yeah, in addition to their assistant city manager I've had some personal experience on this so we would definitely not pause and ever capital projects. And as the city manager's office takes us on between Jonathan myself most likely our system to the city manager Brian Chong. I would be helping out in this effort.
We would probably pause for the six-week period other items that are on our workload, which are not capital related so in order for us to focus on this and just kind of ballparking if we had our three of us plus maybe a couple of additional staff helping us out with the outreach efforts. $10,000 to $20,000 total if we're spending about 10-15 hours a week on this. Attending meetings providing the education to our community groups just rough estimate there but again we would pause the current projects were probably working on for that time frame
Appreciate that 20,000 or 200,000 would be very different numbers. So I appreciate giving at least a ballpark with that. I Think that's all the question Oh Is it is it safe to say that if this passes and the revenue comes in? That that will offset what the general fund is supporting With the parks department and some of those items some of those Crunches that we saw in item C of this agenda would become a little we'd have a little more room in the budget.
That's correct. Mr. Thank you
2:10 – 2:187 turns
Oh, sorry
Yes, Mr. Mayor we have one speaker on this item that is Mr. Daniel Politi and as this is a presentation action discussion item you have three minutes to address the council
That was a master class in misleading statistics and whack narratives. Thank you, Mr. Laurentowski and our consultants on the line. All right. I'm going to jump through a lot of this because I sent the mayor a list of questions that you can ask if you want to inform lists of questions that they can't limbo under very easily. Please ask away. They're very obvious. They have keyed answers that you can use.
All right, so I'm gonna read through as fast as I can. I wanna be clear, I support parks, I support safe, clean, well-managed, maintained public spaces. This is not anti-parks. I freaking love parks. I played soccer growing up out here. The issue before you tonight isn't whether or not they matter, it's whether or not the council should move into the next paid consultant phase. When the survey results speak for themselves, they're weak, fragile and potentially overstated. They are overstated The staff report says the survey tested two funding amounts with an initial 54% and 55%, rising only slightly after positive information, and then dropping to 50% and 51% after opposition messaging. When you include their margin of error that means you got a big chance of this thing just not going.
She says it's not predictive but she didn't explain that the margin of error drops you below half percent or fifty percent of the people My question is simple. If those results are not considered unfavorable, what would be? The report says the SCI cost proposal was structured so work could be phased and or stopped if a public opinion survey produced unfavorable results yet staff is recommending that SCI proceed with the engineering report phase one is listed as 56 $1,910 completed in the phase two options. This is $95,000 or phase two option one, $95 with another estimated 15 to 20,000 for mailing and printing. And then we just learned about another $20,000 in city staff costs.
When does it stop? And I'll tell you when usually beyond schedule and over cost with Mr. Laurentowski. Tonight I'm asking you not to let that happen. The report says it is, awareness is soft, the timeline is compressed and staff would only have about six or seven weeks for outreach ballot before ballots are mailed. It even describes all hands on deck outreach approach at what point does this become advocacy? In the detailed thing that I sent you there's a checklist of about eight potential words so watch out for watchdogging advocacy. I bet the lawyer's crapping his pants right now because Mr. Laurentowski hit half of them All right, council members. Love you guys and I mean it. Every one of you has said like, I want to work with the community, I want to represent the community.
Don't let this keep happening. You were elected to protect the entire community not just approve the next consultant step because it was packaged professionally. Please slow this down demand clear answers require accountability before authorizing the next phase since that's what you guys are voting on tonight. You got a bunch of sample questions that you can ask these guys. Let them try and give their fake statistics, definitions. I've got textbooks for you. I will sit down hour with everyone and you go over any questions that you have to ask them and get clarified by an expert.
I'll do it for free. And I can kick out the work that they're doing with ChatGPT for $0 in a day. That's it. Oh yeah!
Thank you. Any more speakers?
No, Mr. Mayor that's our only speaker on this item. Okay
thank you all right we'll go back into discussion I'm not against park assessments, necessarily right now looking at this. I do question the speed that we're going into it. My biggest question is the education part of it. I don't know if we can educate the public enough about it if we don't ourselves know what it looks like with or without it. I don't want to lead the public into making a decision. I want them to make a decision They believe in that's my only thought right this second, but I want to hear from everyone
If I may I'd like to just start by saying Our city staffs integrity was just called into question and I've done a lot of work I don' always agree with all the information that comes in front of us, but I have I just wanted to acknowledge and thank our city staff for what they They do and allowing us to have these important discussions with the information that's provided. So If we didn't have that this is a very different conversation But I believe it that our integrity and quality of work is just exceptional here at the city It's a blessing so III concur with with what you were alluding to or directly saying mayor?
I'm not I'm not against Doing moving forward with with this. I'm really I'm not and Based on where our parks came from and the value that we have in parks it it is a It's a natural way to to support that funding that our parks need in order to continue the service than the quality that we have That being said 50% 51 percent With a margin of error of 6.9 is not What we don't have right now is the citizens, the residents of our neighborhoods saying this is a problem. And it's almost a double-edged sword, right? According to the survey, 80% of people think we're headed in the right direction, right? As a council, as a city staff, we have their trust. That's exceptional and I'm proud to live in this city and Those folks and I take it very seriously that we honor that That trust they're trusting in us.
I Would like to see before we make this sort of decision Especially with the confidence what the other options might be some of the questions that the mayor was asking earlier What would happen if it's not binary? It's not 1.2 million or not one point two million It's 1.2 million to be a great influx of revenue, but if we don't we don't immediately shut parks What would the the first step be and what would the second step be? And where is the revenue that we saw doesn't show up on the cash flow from the earlier item Yet that might be coming and how does that help to offset we have a structural deficit We are very aware of it and super important to me But I don't feel confident right now that we can go to the voters of Moorpark and say, you want this.
We are representing you at 51% with a margin of error. I don't think we have that yet. Education is terrific. I wanna make sure that if we do educate and perhaps regardless of what we do here, we need to educate our neighbors on Where the city is and what we're headed to so I think education's important With that education. I would like to be able to tell our residents If we move forward with this You were you are going to get x or you can expect to see x if we don't option one would be That we lose Whatever it might be. Option two would be more dramatic, a timeline. I think with that kind of forecasting, I would feel more comfortable asking people to place their vote as opposed to saying give us a blank check.
We're gonna figure out how to populate it without knowing currently where that money's gonna go. So that's where I stand currently.
2:18 – 2:244 turns
So, well I I'm also not confident in the fact that it's at 51% with that 7% margin of error. However, I feel like the 30 seconds of education that they probably got on the phone call is not going to be anywhere near the six weeks of education that they can possibly get in the next six weeks so I feel like the you know, the residents will be significantly more educated. Obviously, I have no idea what effect that will you know that we'll have but I would hope it would be incremental to the few percent in the 30 seconds of education that they had For me, it's a definite gamble. Do we spend 150 or 100 and something thousand now to potentially get that and we can start hit the ground running next year? Or do we wait? We lose that million we know already for having to take it out of general funds next year.
I don't know, it's... I'm kind of leaning towards moving forward and let's see what we can do in six weeks. And hopefully we can do the education. My concern with waiting to get back an actual... These are the costs of if we cut this, if we cut this, if we cut this. We're waiting two more weeks. That gives us now four weeks for education if we're going to move forward this year.
All right, so just to hop on that because I want to link what you were saying with what Tom mentioned. If we went through with the education and we explain more, you're going to get a better resolution on the data, right? That's what we're saying. We should. We hope so. Yes. In that time will we have enough to know about what the things look like? With the assessment and without it because we don't even know what that looks like. We haven't discussed that plan So if we don't know that going in Do you think people would be able to make an informed decision if all we're saying is we might have to cut some parks or might have to Cut some services because still hanging your head is Okay, fine. You're just not going to mow the lawn every week or is it going to be you tear it all up completely?
And I also don't want to go out there and say that well if we don't get this assessment one of the big parks is gonna get it completely because that would be misleading unless we knew fully that we had to shut down XYZ Park or do whatever That's the only part of that education part of it that has I think has to be Pretty well shown. Otherwise, we're trying to lead people into... Do you like parks? Yeah of course I like parks! Cool awesome great
I think the answer to that question is also very broad because you know we can just cut a little bit, we can continue supplementing through general funds and then not doing other projects. So it's not just about the parks it's now how does it affect everything else that we want to do in the future? To me cutting this deficit now It's so important now, not just for the little bits and pieces that we might cut for parks but for the broad scope of all of our future plans.
Yeah to add to that I think you know to sit up here and debate theoretically what what we're going to do in you know when we hit that structural deficit specific to parks and this seems a little future difficult in itself, right? And now we're arguing what park we're potentially gonna cut in theory. Right? And that becomes a challenging thing. I think what was already spoken about even the last time this agenda item was brought to us is that the reality is we would have to cut parks if we're gonna say that we need to cut the budget for our park and rec The work has been done, we see that in the numbers. They've been able to cut costs.
The next step is to cut services so I think we can realistically say that without saying it's going to be this specific park. We can realistically say if we have to cut our park and rec budget, Mr. Larentowski, our director has said It's gonna have to be a park, right? And then we can historically look at as was outlined earlier what did we do in the past. We did, we closed the park.
You know, we've done these different cost-saving measures. We didn't have the 3rd of July and I think effectively part of this education would be at that event talking about that, right? Do people want this event to continue on as far as an education piece. So I think moving forward if we're going to move forward potentially sooner and getting this in sooner, I just think if you stretch it out You know, we talk about all hands on deck. We're going to crunch this in if we stretch it out now we just stretch it out right? It's not necessarily that we do more outreach. We just do it over a longer period of time so
2:24 – 2:305 turns
Which might not be as effective either.
Yeah, yeah because then people forget and sentiments change so I think you know following this timeline obviously we haven't talked about it but I don't think moving forward with the tax measure makes sense. I think we all got that one.
And Mayor and Council, if I may, I just wanted to let the council know that we have to be very careful in what's on the educational materials and information. We could come back to council and present to you information about what cuts could be made or would need to be made but we also don't want to create any or write anything in the informational materials that could be fear tactics or some way to sway the voters. It has to be purely educational so we have to be very careful about that.
I was going to say something, but let me comment on that. One of the things I was going to say later was we have to educate not advocate right? And part of the kinds of things that we could do is say other cities when other cities have done this these are the kinds of services that are reduced because that's factual. I agree with a couple that with the dialogue I agree with the problematic nature of all of us needing to decide what those cuts would be now.
Because I honestly wouldn't be able to commit to that without looking at the rest of the budget, right? We know that... I want to again compliment our staff as Mr. Means did We the the team and mr. Laurentowski in particular should be credited for reducing the overall deficit that resulted from This general fund contribution, right? But it's it is now what it is It's you know, it's an excess of a million dollars if that's not going to go below that so that the staff has done what they can to to implement sufficiencies now we're looking at actual hard costs and Those costs aren't going, we shouldn't anticipate that those costs are going to go down. They're going to go up and even if we do reduce, let's take a look at what would that actually look like just for parks?
It's personnel. You would have to reduce personnel which if you reduce personnel the effect of that is on the maintenance side yes but it's also on the programming so then you would have That's why I was asking the question of ECM about how it's interesting how when the projected participants or projected voters responded, they say we just want safe and we just want you to maintain everything. We love it. You're doing a great job. It's kind of like we're victims of our own success but I think we could...it doesn't take too much of an imagination to anticipate that if we say like the 3rd of July is going away, like we're not doing youth basketball anymore, like we're not maintaining certain parks I would give us about 10 minutes before all of those people show up and say, oh we didn't if we'd known that this was going to happen.
We would have wanted to know so I think the education side yes we have to educate not advocate but if we do delay for the purpose of trying to create To project what our cuts would be. I just want you to know that I would really struggle with that in the same way that when we were prioritizing our CIPs, we needed, we asked staff to bring like all the CIPs at the same time rather than making decisions about one CIP. We needed to look at the whole thing.
I would feel only comfortable doing the park part if we are looking at what all the general fund contributions are, because maybe if we don't look at just the parks like we're not trying to save $1 million from the parks. Maybe we only want to do half of that for the parks and want to spread that out across other places so just sharing sharing that's a that's what I wrestle with.
Objectively agree parcel tax not doesn't seem like a real good option. I do think that it is important as I've said before, I feel strongly that we need to give people the opportunity to stay and if it fails it fails. And then I know then I feel a lot better about like okay we gave you the opportunity You said it is a priority, but not enough of a priority. So then as you were saying then we as representatives well now that we know it's not enough of a priority Then we go to task with our responsibility which is reducing a structural deficit So those are my thoughts for now
Don't I don't find that you said that we did but I don't find us in disagreement at all And I think you're right that we do Need to be looking at this as a larger budget item because the general fund is supporting parks So if we're going to continue to support parks and prioritize them something else in the general fund would have to be adjusted I am going on an assumption and I haven't asked the question so I want to make sure that I have this properly. If we were to go out To the community and let them vote and if this was not successful What is the rule of thumb on when we would get to ask again? Was it just go out later that year go out next year It seems like it's been 27 years since we since we went out last time Is there a amount of time that's a best practice to wait after a failed measure or a failed initiative.
I
2:30 – 2:3814 turns
Councilmember Means, I don't know if our consultants could weigh in on that. It would be at least two years or more. I don't know if there's a standard rule of thumb when we come back to voters but you know, I've seen other cities give it another two to five years just in case there's a change in the economy or the budget or some other circumstance that financially a city is in a different position Later on, but that's just what I've observed But I don't I haven't not seen cities do it sort of within a one-year time frame It's failed and then let's do it next. Let's do it later in the year again.
I think there's a little bit of time to give Voters some more understanding what's going on and also determine the city's financial condition
I'm curious if our consultants have any insight to that as well somehow in my head might have just made it up. I thought it was a Three to four three to five year at the earliest recommended time frame is that accurate or?
I mean, I'm happy to give a little bit of perspective, you know, I think You know similar to what the city manager said, I feel like there's no rule right about what you can do I think what you want to Um, think about is what are you going to do in that time to show that you're asking them something different or that you've done more work or more education before you come back? I think that's one piece. So like the timeframe in between and part it's about what are the actions you're going to take between two change when you're asking or wait out a bad economy would be another reason.
The other piece I wanted to bring up in terms of timing is we didn't talk a lot about turnout here because, you know for a voter election there's a cycle of turnout that in a broader turnout election with a higher turnout generally see more support for tax measures. We did look at that in this data Even recognizing that the voter parcel tax approach is pretty far south of the threshold, there is higher support. Not high enough to bring it up with turnout enough to pass but higher support with lower turnout voters meaning the ones that might only come to the polls every two to four years. So one reason you might see public agencies sort of waiting four years before going to another ballot Is in part because they are waiting for the next election that might give them a turnout that's more favorable to potential revenue measure.
In addition to taking other actions, maybe changing what they're asking changing the size of the ask talking to the community more about need or demonstrating or even making cuts and demonstrating what actually happens without revenue so I think there's There isn't sort of an absolute rule. I would say it's pretty rare that it happens very quickly in succession, as you can see. It's a big investment of time and money to go forward with any type of revenue effort. And, you know, it's not something obviously you take lightly and you shouldn't. And I think thinking about the investment of time and money if you choose to go forward and it doesn't succeed, you're going to be back to having to start a lot of that over.
And so most communities wait a little bit more time Really to, you know, refresh the energy to go forward again and make whatever other structural changes they're going to make to potentially come with an ask that's more aligned with the community's interests.
When you say thank you, it's very helpful especially on a larger scope. When you say a fair amount of time or a bit of time does a bit of time mean two years? I'm trying to figure out when... I've rarely
seen less than two.
Yeah, so just a number would be fine. Number of
years? I would say two to four and it kind of depends like it's hard to give an absolute answer because it might depend on the mechanism. It might depend on your community and what your needs are right. The timing of the structural deficit is important here too. So I think you know, I can't say I've seen a community immediately go the next year. I can think of examples where they've gone two years later And build on a near success, right? Usually it's we came so close with a few tweaks and an effort on the education and engagement. And maybe a better funded private campaign effort after it gets placed to if it's an election ballot that can make the difference of those few points. So I think I would say no less than two but you could assume it could be longer If there's things that you need to change within that time.
To make that investment again, to try again. I don't know, Jeanette, if you have anything else to add, but that's generally what I've seen.
Yeah, I agree with everything Sarah said in the city manager it's, you know, Outreach program within the community and then possibly do a, you know, a tracker survey in a couple of years and see how that education is affecting the community. And how they're feeling in a couple of years.
I appreciate that was a hard question. You guys certainly went out of your way to help us get something I could work with, thank you very much on that. And then if I can, Jeremy so that I have clarity, if this doesn't go through are we closing a park in 2027 or closing a park in 2028? That's not an absolute right? We would have to evaluate what we're gonna do.
Correct, you know and it's just you know obviously we've talked about this. It's the general fund You know what? It's a general fund funding and it's it's basically everything, you know There's there's 12 million dollars that we're funding every year And so, you know That's when I only know we talked about what are we going to cut and what or what are what are we gonna do in It's such a big question because are we cutting $1 million or are we cutting $100,000? Or are we reducing services somewhere else. So it's a very complicated question.
I couldn't say right off the bat what we would do without having a broader discussion about our general fund overall. And like I said if it came down to Jeremy you need to save $1 million I couldn't do it,
you know. No and I don't think any of us are thinking that a million dollars is gonna come straight out of parks but understanding we have to evaluate it. I understand you have a question? Go ahead Dr. Castro.
Yeah I just wanted to follow up with the consultants on the split B insights so what was tested was the split B at $98. Just waiting for them to come back up on the screen okay
All right, button's not working well. Yes?
And in terms of I understand why we tested at $98 because that's the max revenue that we could potentially generate but did you were able to discern any insights as to what if we didn't seek the $98? What if it were $70 or $65? Right and
2:38 – 2:4316 turns
what we have on this sort of rate sensitivity is really looking at the range You know, I don't think there's a significant amount of support that's being tested. You know, between the 98 and the one 88, although I would say based on my experience that they sort of, you know what we're looking for is a different across that three digit threshold that we're not seeing a big difference. There probably is an amount that's low enough to garner higher support, but it's probably not as high as 70 right?
My experience and what we see in this poll, it's not that I'm saying that the voters wouldn't be interested in a lower rate. But I don't think that lowering it incrementally would really make enough of a difference. I think they are reacting to the idea of paying more taxes more than they're reacting to the dollar amount that we're asking them about.
Yeah, thank you very much for the insight.
To build on that... we really didn't see a big difference as we went to the higher number. And that's where if we're able to include some of the trails and some of those things in, and potentially even some of those future CIP options, and we got to a number that was closer to the 188 say for the benefit assessment, we don't have to assess that right now because if they're not built they don't get assessed but we would have the option to grow this assessment over time without having to go back to the voters, which I think there's benefit too.
And mayor if I can, I just wanted to clarify that with the benefit assessment we cannot include improvements future improvements. It would only be maintenance obligations so we could talk about Future reserve funds to replace playground equipment, but we couldn't fund for New playgrounds or new trails we could fund for the maintenance of neutrals. So just to clarify Yeah
If I can just add, I don't know if it's a statement or a question or both. I 100% agree with what you're saying also if we were to in some way derive an excess of $1 million of revenue from this then that creates the opportunity for the council to give staff direction in terms of maintaining a much smaller structural deficit and then building some other things right? That's equally true yes.
Yeah, okay. If we have well at least two years to go back and redo this and the margin of error is within the failed mail-in ballot or mail-in threshold what's gonna happen if we miss that? That's one my questions, concerns I guess
You mean if we do it now and then have to do it again?
No, if you go out now and since we see the percentages are pretty they're within the margin of error that means like you're almost at a 50-50 chance here. Sure we can kind of say that if you do more advocacy maybe you get more people to We have to call that education. Yes, education. I mean advocacy I meant the educational part of it because right we don't want to say for or against it But a lot of factors can stack up with that. We've got elections coming up with taxes, and during those times people always feel that we're getting taxed too many times with everything else. You've got the gas prices that are going crazy. There's a lot of turmoil happening. I wonder if that's a great time with those numbers? And if we do miss that, we're out two years before we go back into it at least That's scarier to me than taking six months to a year and doing it, which I think would be.
More and more reasons to do it or not do it, but we have a lot more confidence in it because.
Are you saying do it off of a cycle? Off of a voting cycle so the city would have to pay for the ballots?
No, not a ballot.
I
think the mailers, yeah. The tax measure, I don't think that's going to get to 75% unless we got rid of every single park and... It would
still need to be mailed.
True,
yes. So you're saying an off cycle? An off voting cycle?
Right. I'm not saying that. That's just what I'm thinking right now. There's a lot of good points going on here but that's my concern at this moment here.
2:43 – 2:5014 turns
I have that concern too, that if we do this and we miss then we have to cut. We have to. We're going to have a workshop and talk about how we look at our current budget now and what impacts there would be. Would we be able to better inform those that would be paying for this on what options we see, you know, what creativity? Is it closing a park or does the YMCA come in and take over a park and build a pool and provide public access?
Saves us money because of a partnership. What what a neat idea I'm not suggesting that is what is going to happen, but there might be other other ideas. I Find myself in a tough spot here because I look at the dollar amount and I look at the history and And I'm with with you Councilman Barrett like the 188 number for The parcels that I own and Moorpark seems completely reasonable appropriate and something that I personally think is a great investment I want to make sure that We as a city are able to explain what we've looked at, what options are there and hopefully give them great confidence. Not just in 80% like the direction that we're leading it but they can get behind it and I think that education is there.
on a blank check is, hey we need it and we're gonna spend it well. I'd rather be able to have some further discussion about it before making that decision and I understand that doing that will cost us a year. It'll cost us a year because if we don't do it now, it will not come in next year's revenue and I think I'm willing to take that risk to make sure we get it right by the voters and I may be in the minority here.
I just want to make sure that we are doing our homework and thinking through those options before we go to people and ask them to support it, especially if there's a chance within certainly within the margin of error which is a little larger than I expected it to be that it might fail and then we don't have we won't have that confidence will erode some of that confidence in the coming years to go and ask for it
So a question on that one with that point. If we, let's say we were to go with the mail-in assessment and we were to win it present time do you think that we would still win it a year from now with more analysis on this? Or do you think that could change completely for some reason?
Right. What is it in physics with a frictionless rope and no wind resistance or whatever, like
yeah all things being equal if they vote for it now and nothing changed at all would they vote to do it again? Yeah I think with no change in variables we're likely to get the same outcome. Surprised an engineer didn't know that.
I'm making an assumption. I would assume that if it were to pass now, it would pass a year from now.
Yeah, I concur.
But with better margins than 50-50. That's where...I mean, I'm just gonna make a guess at that. Just an educated guess on what I think that would be. Therefore, that's why I am more leaning towards taking the time and doing it right. I feel rushed with this.
I was just having a thought, not on the rope at all. But I was thinking about we're wrestling with, I'm just gonna put a number to it, $100,000 of expenditure right? It's a big number. I think about the fact that if we were to stop maintaining a park, pick two or three parks, about the amount of investment time and energy and resources that we put into building up that park And if we then intentionally just close it, one there will still be ongoing maintenance costs. We can't just leave that to rot but then if let's say in two or three years or four years a measure is successful then we have to go back Um, and reestablish, um, that the cost of that park.
It would probably be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to ignore the needs of that park, also maintaining just the typical maintenance that we would have to do. So if that's something is on my mind as well, yes, we could wait. Yes, we could close parks. Yes potentially voters would come back just like they did years ago, like wow you took something from us? We see that you're serious now, we'll step forward say that we're willing to invest, we would also be open to that same critique that we wasted taxpayer dollars because we disinvested in our own structures and amenities. And then had to... Potentially, we would be open to the critique that we were wasteful because it now cost us four to five times to reestablish what we already had before.
I completely agree with you. The expense of letting something run fallow and then starting it back up is to be avoided. I'm with the time and no, or asking for the time or asking for us to get more information in no way am I thinking that we're going to shut any park and we may do not mean to oversimplify it but if the grass gets mowed every eight days instead of every seven days, I know that's not gonna save us $1.2 million but perhaps I'm willing to do that for the next year in order to make sure that we got a great decision And so I just, I'd like to see more information.
But your point is incredibly valid and I think it's important that perhaps we agree that we don't go willy nilly and say okay well we're gonna shut this off today and we might turn it back on three years from now.
There's also the potential that you shut down a park and you sell the land, right? Or I mean, you intentionally close it with that vision if that's the future direction that is chosen. Right? So you mentioned the YMCA or that type of concept.
I
think I heard us all grimace at the idea of being Less Park, not Moorpark. Perhaps there's other collaborations that, man, I do not want to see Moorpark lose parks or services and
I'll
agree on that.
2:50 – 3:0011 turns
And Mayor and Council, if I may also. Something was brought up earlier in terms of, I think Council Member Castro brought up about overall budget cuts and that context. I do want to just remind you when we talked about financial strategies for the city to address structural deficit last year this is just one of the strategies you directed us to move forward on but I do want to also mention that even The Council decides to move forward with this and let's say the assessment does pass, it still won't address fully our structural deficit.
And so next year we would still need to come back to you about potential cuts for the next two-year cycle just to prepare for that 2930 deficit so we can find ways to push it back even further. So whether or not, again, you decide to move forward or not we would be making that type of presentation to you for the overall budget and how it impacts the general fund.
And also just to answer a comment I think made by the speaker, public comment earlier. The staff time involved in terms of the educational component of this is an additional cost to the city. We would just be redirecting our existing time and resources in that effort and pausing some of our other workload and assignments so it wouldn't be any additional cost involved in that.
Based on what I've heard, if we did some sort of a budget workshop aimed directly at the general plan to get some of those discussions started sooner rather than later seems to be the sentiment. Is that correct? Is that what you guys were thinking?
I did not have a fully baked plan, so that would be an outcome where I would feel better about going to the voters. That choice will cost us a year. I think it will give us either better ideas or help establish the confidence of the voters in what we're deciding And so we may have a better chance of success or at least a better plan, something that I can feel even better behind.
But if it's successful now, man, that revenue comes in now. So I do not have a fully baked plan but I don't know that I'm ready to go to the voters with this. But I love the idea letting the people decide. I think that's super important.
I'm leaning on that same side too. I think I'd I want to look at this more the general point The general fund is as big obviously we're subsidizing the parks the General Fund, but there's lots of stuff the General Fund goes towards so if we Get a tax measure or not tax measure. Yeah, keep missing the I The mail-in assessment. We decide to keep the parks, the same status quo as we are right now but we don't go into the general fund and cut things that we feel that should be cut then we just got an assessment to fund the general funds things that we don't feel are worth spending on I'm not saying which ones that is but If we haven't gone through the whole thing and looked at parts that we could also save on in that side of it, then it's not right to cut the park side of it first based off of this.
So that's where I think it opens it up to obviously a much broader discussion but I think that's something that we need to wrap our heads around too before we go and ask the public to bring more money if we don't have a full plan of how we're gonna deal with that I know we do need more money for parks. Absolutely, but that's just one part of the city so I think I'd rather I'm not against going out for this assessment. I think I would like to take that time even though it is going to push it back one year I Would like to be able to get that done correctly because I feel like if we fail that and the Survey at least shows 50% which is and the questions on the survey are very.
Pointed there they're kind of leading people into do you like parks or not it's I don't see enough on that and I just it's a lot of hazy data, I could have a better idea of just guessing I think myself on that but I would like to have seen that be higher if I was going to go into doing this That is my opinion. It could change, but that's my opinion for right now.
I'm still leaning towards doing it now. Okay.
Chris, where are you? Honestly, he could go either way. I think in general though a budget workshop to specifically look at the general plan whether we move forward right now or not isn't a bad concept, right? To start some of that pre-planning for the structural deficit. We're a ways away, but the more that we pay attention now, the easier it's going to be when that comes to have that planned. So I still think that's a good idea.
Regardless of how we end up here, I'd love for that to be something that we do. Because if that had happened two years ago, we might be in an easier position right now making this decision whenever we decide tonight. So I appreciate you hearing that. Thank you.
As already stated, I have absolutely no objection talking about just the general financing. Good and I think we do a good job of that. What I'm concerned about is just that, is that going to answer the central question which is what I've heard being said when we provide information to the voters education not advocacy? Is that going to provide the council the necessary clarity in what we represent to the voters as to what could be affected Because I honestly, we could ask staff and I don't think we would need to delay a year. I think it would take a week to come up with what are the possibilities of how services could be affected? You know, we don't have to say this will be, will be or will be. It's like these are the things that are likely.
I think staff would be able to estimate how much those things cost and we could provide that to the voters because I think that's what I heard. Like if we're educating the voters, what exactly are they potentially losing I don't know how a broader, delaying the conversation for a broader policy level decision is necessarily going to provide that clarity. I think staff can provide that clarity pretty quickly and then in terms of the timing, I'm actually not against like a small delay at all But I do want to weigh in on the idea of the education piece. The education piece needs to be tightly clustered around when we would go out for this mail ballot assessment, like it can't just be a prolonged education. We would need to decide that is happening for the purpose of then doing the mail assessments.
Like it's not just education for education sake because otherwise it loses its effect and the voters will not pay attention because there's not that sense of urgency
So do you think that, so when we say we want education but not advocacy. Do you think any part of having the education where I guess the budget cuts or the method around saving the money is up in the air in general? Do you think that causes more fear and more advocacy than it would be to say And I'm not saying it's like this, but we're going to cut this one very obvious wasteful thing in the city that everyone believes is wasteful.
I don't know what part that would be, because I think they're all really great we have here. But that's the part where I kind of wonder about it.
Well, I mean, I can only speak for myself but if I were the city attorney, I'd be worried about that because we can't fear monger, right? Because projecting what we will do, this council, that's a policy decision. So I would be uncomfortable saying to the voters, we will do this because we haven't and we haven't weighed in on that That feels more like a form of advocacy than it is to, like, provide information. Like if we were to just say in the other cities where this has transpired these are the things that were utilized for cost-saving measures as it related to the impacted parks. That's not advocacy. That's just information This is how structural deficits were addressed in these areas But tying that to what you said about The vagueness of the survey, that's why in my opinion and I'm sure the consultants can speak to it more precisely but that's why the surveys are structured that way because they're trying not to lead people to a particular conclusion.
They're trying to allow the prospective voters to weigh in on this is what I think based on what you've shared, this is how I would behave, this is my voter behavior so I don't know if the consultants want to add to that or not?
Councilmember Castro if I may and Jeanette if you're still online and or Sarah Specific to a benefit assessment and our schedule and the recommendation to adopt the resolution to initiate proceedings If the City Council decided that they would want us to come back and talk about a general, let's just say cost-saving measure across our general fund. What would that do to our timeline?
3:00 – 3:0618 turns
Yeah the timeline for benefit assessment if you want to hit the property tax bill for fiscal year 27, 28 is very tight The auditor's office requires that all of the formation documents be approved by December 1st. So there really isn't much time for delay, particularly since there is only the July 1st council meeting in July.
So the resolution really isn't critical on July 1st. The July 1st deadline was really to give us some timeframe in between there to educate our community before the ballots were mailed, is that essentially the case?
Well no because we also need to prepare the ballot and the notice and the documents that would be mailed to the property owners on August 24th And so all of that would need to be finalized two weeks before they mail, at least.
I
see. So yeah, there's really not much time and much wiggle room in the timeline. Okay. Yeah, so we would need direction to get started on that engineer's report. It's a very compressed timeline. We would have to have that ready for your council packets for July 1st by mid-June.
Okay, perfect.
Thank you, Jeanette.
Yeah?
I will say that I have frustration. It seems like a lot of these big decisions come with time pressure. I don't want to have it seem like I want to delay this a year. I want to get more information and my understanding was if we don't make a decision tonight, we essentially have missed it and it goes out a year but if there is a way, and it sounds like we just found out there's not, but if there's a way to have that discussion And still have a workshop or discussion of ideas. You suggested, Dr. Castro, city staff, they know exactly where that stuff is. They're sharp and on top of it. But as a council we also have the ability to talk to our neighbors and come up with other ideas.
That is not something that we'd necessarily be able to have if we didn't facilitate it. I understand the time pressure. It's not what, it's not what I would vote to do but I completely respect the motivations and the reasons why my fellow council members are suggesting that so...
One of my other concerns with not moving forward quicker would be or is this does not make up the whole deficit, right? So at some point we might be making another ask. And if those asks come very close together, I feel that that also is not a good you know well you just asked us so now you're asking again for something else for us to spend more money. I feel the sooner we do this one it's not a big it's an ask whether it's big or small I guess doesn't matter but I feel if we do it sooner Then if five years down the line, seven years down the line we do have to make another ask.
It just feels more palpable.
I agree and without guessing what you might be alluding to, this one also has an incredibly strong nexus. And there's a story that we as a community, we cut our parks funding years and years and years ago and I believe that we can right that what I consider to be a mistake in a very appropriate way. That funding happens there but I concur with you completely If that doesn't help us to get on top of it, then we have another decision to make. Cut or raise revenue and there's only a few ways to do that especially in short timelines.
I'm not sure that the conversation is gonna move the opinions and I'm okay being a minority. Do we want to move forward? If somebody wants to make a motion, I certainly respect it. You're
not going to like my motion. I think it's gonna fail so if somebody else wants to go for it, I'm
happy
to nay.
Not necessarily. I think there are a couple people on the fence here. Go ahead
and make your motion and vote on that if you would like.
I would rather we have a discussion. The more consensus that we can have, the better.
It's a tough decision. There are merits on both sides of it and that is the tough part here. I'm still feeling on the side of taking the time to do it right because I am worried that if we did this and it didn't go, then now we're waiting. And then on top of that, we're having to push that deficit further back which there's a lot more to deal with too on top of that. It's not just parks only. And I'm worried about that part of it.
3:06 – 3:1428 turns
I share that same concern. I approach it a different way. If we don't give the voters the opportunity to weigh in on this, we will be in the next two years whether or not we move forward with another ballot measure is kind of irrelevant at that point over the next few years and we will have to make some decisions about the services that we provide as a city And it'll be a challenge for me to not have given the voters the opportunity to say no, right? That's the other piece. They could say yes but these results say they're just as likely to say no as they are to say yes.
If we didn't give them that opportunity and now we're coming to them and saying, we're cutting your services and we never gave them, that's gonna be really hard for me. Conversely if we've given them the opportunity and they voted down Because we will have 40 to 100 speakers coming in. I will have less of a problem looking them in the eyes saying, we gave you this opportunity and the voters didn't want it so we have a responsibility as elected officials to make sure that we are addressing a structural deficit. That's all I'm just sharing. That's a lot easier for me when we're having the conversations with the community to say we did what we thought we needed to do. The community wasn't for us and now we have the responsibility
I completely align with that and I thank you for putting it that way. And we can visualize it, it's coming. And I love that it goes to the people and they get to decide, right? That we're representing what their decision is. I don't disagree with that at all. Are we giving them enough information? You mentioned the youth basketball and whatnot. They're gonna come in and say, we had no idea if it all went that way. Please don't call youth basketball leagues but if it goes that way and they didn't feel like we'd flushed out, that's where the hesitancy is but I think we're all on the same page as far as what we want to deliver for our city. I'm mad at the timeline that we're up against because I don't feel like we can do as much of a job as we could
Yeah, I wouldn't want people to say we never gave us the chance to weigh in on that. But also do we know that that six weeks of rushing this stuff out to get people understand the greater picture of the whole budget of the city is enough I guess be successful in that and I don't know about that.
No, we don't
and that's the part where now I want the most educated Voters on everything because I don' like the idea that we know more than other people out there It's not the truth. We're just representing people So I'd want all that information to get out there the whole You know budget in general just so we can you know get a better You know opinion on it, but I think if if people knew more we'd have we probably see a better turnout one way or the other whether it's Overwhelmingly cut all the parks. We don't need them.
I Might not agree with that But that might be what people think or no, we got to really double down and put more into this because we need these things Also, I want to know that the city did everything they could do to analyze The whole business behind the parks in general so It's funny when I was thinking more
to that side of it. When this discussion hits the acorn and people read about it, perhaps well
that would be education and that might move sentiment. Can we just do another survey next week? And find out what the...
I have a question to go a little off topic. Does the senior exemption apply to benefit assessment or is that just a tax measure?
No, that would only apply to a special tax measure. Okay thank you.
So Mayor Council, it seems like to me there isn't a consensus to move forward on the benefit assessment right now. I mean is that correct?
It seems like you would probably lean that way maybe but... So we can call for a vote and see where we're at. Is anyone on the edge still? Or does everyone have an idea of what they would like to go with? I feel like I'm solidifying my point more thinking about it, but if we're still on the edge let's still keep talking about it. If not might as well just see what happens and go for it.
Everyone is smart here so I respect everyone's consensus of the group.
I agree. I've certainly made my position known. I think that I'll be in the dissent, although supportive of whatever we end up coming to. I'd prefer somebody that feels more passionately about getting it done now might make a motion in the affirmative.
I will make a motion to proceed with staff recommendations to move forward with the engineer report. Is that? Sorry, should have pulled it up.
It's to adopt the resolution to initiate proceedings related to the 2026 Park and Recreation Maintenance Improvement District. There we go.
Okay, we have a motion? And I'll second with an amendment if it's helpful for my colleagues to commit ourselves to the broader study of our general fund expenditures that would accompany that because Just as the council member stated earlier, we still have to do that work too. This doesn't solve that. This just assists with that should it pass. If it doesn't pass then it doesn't assist with it at all. So either way that is work that we have to do So I feel strongly that if that's permissible.
That
would be, I think direction that we provide to staff to bring back a future item to place on the agenda of a budget workshop is what was discussed but I think probably not part of this. Probably not
part of the motion okay so then I'll just
second. For my clarity purposes that was not to get more information before they move forward and also separate item
Yes, because it was accompanying the conversation that what I heard there was a reticence to Be able to inform the general electorate if we didn't have a sense of what we actually would Do and that that was part of the broader conversation about the budget issues. Appreciate the recognition. Thank you
If I may clarify then prior to the vote and also with the city attorney, I would take that as a move to adopt staff's recommendation with the resolution And then also direction to staff to return with general fund expenditure study
Can can we put a timeline on that Return is that possible? I mean if that alleviates some of the, you know to try and have that discussion sooner rather than later so that you have some information as your educating the public.
I was under the impression that the timeline does not allow for that to happen. Correct it doesn't.
So just to clarify what's coming, the resolution is to initiate proceedings. To have you know the engineers report prepared that would still have to come back to the council for consideration. I think we're checking to see timing whether that could also come back with some additional educational information for the Council to make an informed decision so you're not Deciding tonight that yes, you're absolutely going to mail the ballots and do the rest This is just we're gonna take the first step that we need to take
And that's correct The City Council would still have to approve the engineers report as part of that process and I think the city manager is going to chime in To see when they can bring back an item to talk about the general fund
I'm
sorry.
Yes, so we can come back to the council either on the June 17th or July 1st Since I believe all five council members will be present at time to resent you the budget considerations at the time and presentation
Understand we're not in discussion but
3:14 – 3:2240 turns
If you want to pull it back and then
discuss it more, I may have some questions too. Yeah if you don't mind, I'd like to bring it back because I think we might be able to get to consensus here. Okay let's...
I think from a Robert's Rules perspective, go ahead.
So there was a motion and there was a second. If you'd like to withdraw your motion, you could certainly do that and have further discussion or there is a motion pending that you could vote on.
That's fine, I will withdraw my motion so that we can discuss
Okay. Much appreciated. Excellent. We're getting ourself into a tough spot because, sorry I didn't mean to clear my throat in the microphone. We're gonna have another bite at this apple. Once we start down a path it's really hard to pull back but if we have the ability to get some additional information we go down this path and if there's something that comes along with the hard stop or something that we're able to develop from city staff that would allow us to inform the people even better I can get behind saying yes now, holding knowing that I have a no vote available to me at that time.
I also like that I think it, I don't mean to speak for you Mayor but I like that it keeps us as a council aligned because I think our core as a council is directionally in the same place so that's the discussion
that I wanted to make sure I could share.
No, I agree and that's a really good detail because I think that can get us all on the same spot here
Especially if it can be for the June 17th, I think.
Yeah, I'm actually thinking about it. I think July 1st might be better because we have a lot of items coming up on those agendas
So a whole lot of pressure on July 1st got
it one point of clarity The engineers report doesn't have an expiration right if we were to move forward do the engineer report and then delay mailing the ballot into next year does that
Yeah, and I'll let Jeanette answer
that. So the engineer's report would be prepared for fiscal year 27-28 so if you did decide to delay we would have to update that engineer's report, we'd have to update the budget and other items in the report. So it is for a certain fiscal year.
Jeanette, would that be a complete redo of the engineers' report or would it just kind of be an update based on the new budget numbers?
No, I mean it would just be an update. It wouldn't be the full cost to do the full engineer support.
Thank you. What would a cost look like to do that update?
I can't really say we have a whole pricing team that we go through for to give out our fees. I couldn't really just estimate But I could tell you, I mean it would be less. I mean there would be some cost savings for some of the work and analysis would already be done?
Just for some perspective, so the line item in the task schedule is about $29,000 to do the engineer's report for the first time. So a revision would just based on the new budget numbers and things like that. Okay, all right. That puts in perspective enough I think.
Does
that answer the question?
No, because I mean the $29,000 and then is an update. We have no clarity. Is it 50% of that to do an update because that's a lot or are we talking a couple thousand dollars to do an update to those numbers? Like you said, the analysis is done. That's not going to dramatically change based on
We aren't actually approving for them to do this until July 1st, correct? So they have until July 1st to get us what that would be. What that update cost would
be? By adopting the resolution we have to start the engineer's report so that engineer's report would come back to you for your approval And so that at that time along with the information you'll get on July 1st, we could kind of decide What we're doing at that time if we wanted to push it for another year If we pushed it for another year there would be some revision costs to the engineers report. I don't expect it to be 50% But it's again, you know without really knowing what that looks like and I'm sure it's hard for Jeanette to really put a number together but
So so the engineer report comes back to us. What if we don't agree with the new engineer report? What if we find fault with some of the methodology or things in there now are creating delays that make it so we can even do it this year
Yeah, it's a pretty straightforward process. We do it every year with our park assessment now so we're pretty, at least SCI is pretty used to preparing these things for the city. They're pretty straight forward.
So do we have an engineer report now that we are already?
For our current park assessment, correct. Did we just adopt that last meeting? It's the last meeting we just adopt the current park engineer support for our current assessment.
So can we update that with the new assessment numbers rather than redoing and starting?
Well, it's a different analysis and I'm sure Jeanette can talk about it because again remember we're talking about a whole analysis about special benefit versus general benefits Some of those costs have already probably been spent, because remember we did this preliminary feasibility analysis which was kind of a preliminary engineer's report. So I would imagine that a lot of that $29,000 is already spent. Jeanette maybe you could clarify that?
Not what it
shows in the staff report.
Yeah, we couldn't just update the 1999 assessment engineers report. This is a new assessment. A lot of things have changed since 1999 in the legal environment. There's been cases that clarify how special benefit should be and general benefits should be calculated and quantified. So yeah, we would have to do a new engineer's report and it is required to move forward with the assessment We can't just update the old engineer's report.
I'm not talking about the one from 1999, I'm talking about the one from last year or this year, right? If we're already doing one for our current assessment...
So that is the 1999 assessment so we have to update that engineer's report every year So since 1999, we've done an annual engineer's report that sets our levy for the following year.
What is our current cost for updating the 1999 one year to year?
I think it's about $15,000, Harumi. So
about half?
Yeah, yeah, about half.
All right,
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. No, that's exactly where I was going too. So if we approve this now and we move forward with it without the idea that we're for sure gonna move forward this year, it's gonna cost us an extra $15 thousand versus being sure right now
3:22 – 3:248 turns
Well, being sure at the July 1st meeting. Sorry. Yes and between now and July 1st The our the public is gonna have a chance to have heard about this discussion And weigh in I think we'll get a lot of subjective feedback that didn't come in Or maybe we won't and that would be even more telling but I'm I'm excited for the time frame and I love that Speaker tonight, people that I've talked to in the public. There's a lot of concern about the money that we spend on consultings to evaluate if we should make a decision and then make it, you know, the process.
But if we end up not moving forward, I think July 1st, I think we're gonna not move forward because we have a really strong basis in that $15,000 estimate. Nobody promised it. That $15 thousand estimate would be money well spent to get to a better outcome. Yeah, but I appreciate the line of questioning a whole lot watching every those dollars because those dollars add up quickly What do you think
You're smiling and you have a thought and I want to hear it go ahead Renee
Okay, so I will make a motion to adopt resolution number 2026 initiating proceedings for the formation of the 2026 parks and recreation maintenance and improvement district and directing preparation of an engineer's report.
A motion? I'll second. And a second. We need a roll call vote.
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 motion? I'll second. And a second. We need a roll call
Show transcript
All right, we got through that
And just to clarify that we will be coming back on July 1st for a budget presentation. Thank you
Okay next item is consent I'll entertain a motion I Will make a motion I'll make a motion to Move a consent second of emotion in a second. We'll need a roll call vote, please
Next time is 11 ordinances. There are none all by item 12 closed session There's also none. There are two items on the closed session Okay, I'm sorry closed session
3:24 – 3:259 turns
mr. Gaga Hanna
Staff request adjourn to items 12A, 12B in closed session. Thank
you. Thank you. So item 13, adjournment. I'll make a motion to adjourn.
So since we're going into closed session, we're going to reconvene into closed session and... I'll
motion to adjourn to closed session.
We're not adjourning where the meeting doesn't adjourn until after closed session so we are just convening.
I've always said adjourned to closed sessions. I thought I'm doing it wrong. Kevin's never caught me on that.
We
will convene to closed session. All in favor? Thank you and good night Moorpark.