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.Scheduled start 6:00 PM · clock-time estimates pending review
0:00 – 0:1316 turns
Hello, everyone. Good to see everybody. Welcome to the Tuesday, April 14th City Council regular meeting. Roll call, please.
Roll call — called by Mayor
Show transcript
Thank you. Any changes to the agenda? No?
Okay. I'll make a motion to approve
it. Second that. Any objections? Wonderful. We'll go forward. We have two presentations tonight. First, we have a quarterly progress update on findings of the City of Ojai's targeted forensic review. Thank you.
Thank you, everyone. We're getting our presentation up.
Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council, I'm Christy Billings, and I'm presenting to you the progress made by the City on findings within the Kroll Report. Kroll was hired to perform a targeted review, which was presented to the City in December. Included in the review were 23 findings, which were broken down by key areas of observation. The list of the findings and their status has been provided as an attachment to the Administrative Report.
This presentation will go through each of the findings. Council asked staff to provide a quarterly update on the tasks, and this is our first update. Aha, we're on the same page now. Okay, so there were 23 findings within the report. 30% of the tasks have been completed. 26% are in progress and 44% are in discussion. So the next question would be, what does that mean? What do the statuses mean?
In discussion, staff has met on the task and is working towards a solution. Some solutions involve software updates or may require different meetings with staff. Things may need to be ordered from contractors. We're working on it, but I wouldn't call it quite started. In progress, I have defined as things have been implemented, the task is on track, but I have not yet observed that it's fully implemented, so I'm putting it in that in progress category. Complete means I've observed that it's moving through, the city is performing that task, and we're done, or we're in progress, it's heading along.
So, now we've gotten through all that. I'm going to walk you through all the tasks by areas of observation, and within the accounts payable area, there were three findings. One is still in discussion, and two are in progress. So the findings that we have here, the batch check description issue, that would be updating our descriptions that we're providing within the general ledger. And we're working to streamline that and make it, we're working within the constraints of the software though. There's only so many fields allowed.
Procedure documentation documenting our process for accounts payable. Staff has begun that progress, but I've not fully reviewed it and observed staff doing the steps. Purchasing system. We have the purchasing system. The software glitches have been mostly worked out. We're in a test process already, and we hope to have it fully operational for the next fiscal year.
Next area of observation was accounts receivable. There are two findings. One has been completed. One is in discussion. The accounts receivable findings were having a segregation of duties for mail opening. That has been completed. And then reviewing the aging of accounts. In other words, looking at our listing of what's in accounts receivable and getting It caught up so that everything's balanced. That is in progress. It's being assisted by some of our new software implementation, but I don't see it completed yet, so I didn't give it a gold star yet.
Budget management. We had one finding. We have one in progress. I want to say that I think the city has made some really strong decisions on its new finance staff, and they're working. Everyone's working really closely together. The oversight is coming together, and I think you're going to see real growth in this in the next year, but it's in progress. Claims process. There were two findings.
One is the documentation of repair costs, and while they are documented, we haven't yet fully made it so they're in one repository, so everybody has the costs and a formal claims process. We are meeting with CJPIA, our insurer who works with Carl Warren, to handle the claims process for the city, so they would be doing the billing for any An example would be if somebody hit a stop sign in the city that needed to be repaired. We'd bill the insurance company.
This would be handled by Carl Warren. We are in process of getting that set up. It's just a matter of getting that finalized. Digital security, there was one finding which has been completed, and that has to do with enhancing the logging and retention of our data. Employee management, two findings. So better audit reports for payroll, we are limited by the reports that are provided by our software, so we are still working with our provider to get the reports better aligned with what information you need. And then the frequent employee list reviews, while that has been started, it's not a task that's being done on like a certain regular basis. And some of these tasks, I'm purposely not saying what that regular basis would be because Then we'd be telling everybody what our internal controls were exactly, and we don't want to detail all the details.
Employee separation, one finding, that is a checklist to go over all the steps when we have an employee departure. I know that is being worked on. It is in progress, but I haven't reviewed it for completion. Grant management, staff has completed a centralized grant listing, so that's been completed. Grant tracking improvements, that again deals with our general ledger management, and staff is working on that with some upcoming changes just to the way they're laid out within the general ledger for the next budget cycle.
Hiring process. We had one finding which has been completed and that has to do with updating our background checks. Staff has already implemented this. Mail receipt and distribution. The finding there was to centralize the mail handling and that has been completed. Physical security, there was one finding, it has to do with securing the check stock storage. This has been partially implemented, but is officially in progress because we have one more step that needs to get to the completed box.
Positive pay, I don't know if you're familiar with positive pay, but it is a way for businesses, when a check goes through, you're able to say who the vendor is supposed to be and what the amount is supposed to be. So if I write a check to bin, or the city writes a check to bin for $100, the system would say that's supposed to be check 1234, and we tell the bank it's written out to Benjamin Harvey. If somebody else tries to present an altered check for a different amount or a different payee with that check number, the bank flags it as a problem and staff would deny that going through.
We did have some positive payee in place, but we didn't have all the security in place. Now we fully have that in place. We, again, this has to do with the standardization of our data entry within the general ledger system, and this is something that finance is working on standardizing so that it makes it easier to find the backup, and this will just take time to get it, get staff trained so that they enter things in a format that is standard for every entry.
Vendor management, four findings. New hires are completing in key positions, are completing our conflict of interest forms. We are working on a master vendor list maintenance. This is going to take some software review, system generating onboarding. That, again, has to do with some more software and some training that we've got to put in place. And then once we have those conflict of interest All together, you had a total of 23 comments. Staff has worked in the last few months to get you up to date on everything.
The city should be very proud of the progress made in the short time that we had. Staff is working together to improve the internal controls, bring the city in line with the findings. The next quarterly update should be in the August time frame, and I'm going to bet that it's going to show over 50 percent of these tasks are completed and only a few remain in discussion. We'll have a few more that are tasks in progress.
Thank you for the support. And are there any questions? I'm happy to answer them.
You answered one, which was by the time the next report is, but that 50%, that seems like quite a task in the midst of a new budget and a new fiscal year. That seems reasonable for you,
though. Well, if we look here, we've already completed 30 and we have 26% in tasks in progress. So I have faith that those tasks in progress in the next few months, because I know where they're at, that we're going to be able to move forward on those. Some of the tasks in discussion, I have to admit, are, it's a lot. Staff is, it's a lot of change and a lot of training, but these are super important.
And I know that Ben has directed us to all focus in and get this together, so I have faith.
Do you anticipate by the next fiscal year that the other 50% would be completed, or what do you think of that?
I do. And if there's something that we have to work together with, then we'll report that
out. Any questions? Thanks for all the hard work.
I don't want to belabor this, but for the hiring and the departures, is that for finance specifically, or wouldn't that come under HR? Yes,
in the role that I'm serving, I am not working just with finance on these projects. I'm working in the direction of the City Manager's Office, so some of these are public works, some of them are HR reporting to the City Manager's Office, so I'm working across departments. I've switched up my role from what you saw me in the last time, and now I'm helping to get these in place so that a lot of them are finance, but many of them are cross-state.
I would gladly give you each of you a gold star. I appreciate the support. I think that the city I I've seen a lot of growth in the year I've been here, and I really appreciate the support that you're offering to
the
staff.
Thank you so much. Appreciate it greatly. OK, our next presentation will be from the Green Valley Project and the crew tree planting presentation.
0:13 – 0:1910 turns
Hi, everyone. My name is Tara, and I am the program director of Green Valley Project. Green Valley Project is a program of the crew. Can you guys hear me in the microphone? Okay, sweet. And basically, we have youth council programs all across Ventura County. We have one in Thousand Oaks, we have one in Oxnard, and we have one here in Ojai. And the kids today are representing our Ojai Youth Council group, and they basically, each session will come up with an environmental issue that they are concerned about, and they will create a community service-based project and try and solve that environmental issue. So they're going to tell you guys more about their tree project that they're working on in Ojai. Thank you.
Thanks.
Hello and good morning, council members. My name is Duane Small. I'm the president of this year's Green Valley Project. Yeah, I'm only 13. I have a great goal for this project. This is a youth-led initiative based here in Ojai. Our goal is to reduce heat distribution by replanting native trees so that there's less temperatures in hotter areas. We are very passionate about wildfire prevention, replanting our local ecosystems, supporting mental health, and uplifting our local communities.
Thank you for having us.
Hello, uh, I'm Celeste. I'm also a part of the Green Valley Project. I'm on the, what was it? Activities chair. Um, I'm a part of this because I really care about the local environment and like protecting it and enhancing it for everybody. And yeah.
Thank you.
I'm Cadence McCall. I'm 19. I joined Green Valley Project because I want to be able to help our community and our people and also help distribute heat. And I'm part of the activities chair as well as social media.
Thanks.
Who are we? As I already explained, we're the Green Valley Project, a program of the crew located in Ventura County. We're empowering youth to speak out against environmental justice. Our age limit is from 13 to 20, and we love working together to support communities and help others know problems in our society. Why trees matter. Trees are essential for life on Earth, providing critical benefits such as combating climate change, improving air quality, supporting biodiversity, and enhancing human well-being.
Why oak trees? That's the kind of tree that we're aiming to plant more of. This is because they're native, safe for the environment, and will help pollinators and local wildlife. They also provide a lot of shade, which is a part of the goal for this because we're going to be planting in areas that are like urban areas that are known to be really hot. A small summary of our project is we're working to better understand where heat gathers in Ojai.
So what we did is we created a map of Ojai that shows all the major hotspots. And then we went we went from there to figure out where to put the trees.
So here shows our Ojai urban heat islands over here. So the red spots, as you can see, is where there's extreme heat. And we actually made this map ourselves during a workshop. So we had a full workshop to understand GIS mapping, which really helped us pinpoint specific locations that we're going to introduce to you that we're looking to plant trees. So the project summary, after identifying these hotspot areas, we selected about several or more potential locations where we're wanting to plant trees that could help our community reduce heat.
And actually, Tara over here visited these hotspots and took some pictures for us. And we're right now evaluating and trying to speak to these areas and see if it might be possible and if it can actually help our community.
0:19 – 0:2514 turns
Okay, our next steps. Our next step will be to present our findings to the Ojai City Council and Ojai Trees. Obtain permissions to plant trees on these various properties. We hope to lead three tree planting communities events in mid-fall 2026. We will work with the crew to maintain and water our trees until they are established. These are our identified hotspots.
We plan to reach out to these local businesses to ask if we can plant trees on site. Adams Towing, it's a huge lot full of cars, and we noticed around the plot, we can add trees. It'll also help with the air because of a lot of cars there, carbon, I can go on. But we thought trees could maybe support the health in that area. Another area we saw was Ojai Valley Inn. There's a huge piece of land that has no trees, and maybe locals or even people visiting Ojai, they would love to have shade.
We also saw Ojai Self Storage. The tops of the buildings aren't covered necessarily, and it is hard to plant trees on top, but we find it as a possibility so we can limit heat. One last spot was the community hospital. It's just a huge area. It seems it's really hot, and we just felt like we could put trees there.
This is our project timeline. So in the spring, we're looking to determine locations, get permissions and gather resources. And then by the fall, we're looking to start planting the trees and hosting community events so that people can help us with that. And then the end goal is to decrease urban heat density or just to make it so it's less hot. There will be more shade and cleaner air and more nature in Ojai. Yeah.
I just have a quick update since the group created this PowerPoint. We were able to talk to the Community Memorial Hospital already, and we are going to be working with them in fall, planting about six to eight trees on their property. So we're already starting somewhere, and that's really exciting.
Three quick questions. One is, so they're all private property, so you're going to work with the private property owners for permission, right? And if you run into any resistance, then you may come back and decide on different locations. Am I getting that right?
Yeah, we're also hoping that we can offer like a variety so they're able to pick what they actually want. At least we're able to plant trees and also help benefit their community as well as the rest of Ojai.
And then just how, what was the method by which you pick the hotspots? Just curious.
So we actually, each one of us, we, because we actually were members, but we each spoke about what we thought the hottest places were in living in Ojai, because a lot of us grew up here, and so writing all of those specific places down, and then also just kind of looking around on hot days, and people we know as well, so, who recommended really hot spots.
And then just the last question is, you're going to come back to us soon with a proposal. Okay. That was my question.
So we recently had a town hall on trees for our tree ordinance, and some of the things that, for instance, Con Edison spoke about was, and I think the whole panel probably spoke to it, was the idea of when you plant, understand, and you probably do this, and I didn't understand, understand how big and how the tree is going to grow so that it's protected as it, you know, as it grows and when Con Edison, you know, comes in to do the trimming that they inevitably do, it's best to have planted so that it grows in a way such that Con Edison doesn't Thank you very much.
And then also, one of the other things that we were thinking is the oak trees would be primarily for spaces that have the space for oak trees, because we know that oak trees get a lot bigger than some of the other trees. If we're doing street trees, we're going to be working, hopefully, speaking with Public Works and kind of deciding with them what types of trees work the best.
And one final question, I'm sorry. Where are you going to get the trees?
We're going to be working with Ojai Trees, and they'll help us to kind of get some of the trees. Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Appreciate your work. Go ahead. So if the goal was to pick a project that the community would love, you guys did a great job.
I know this is like the best part of the night, probably, tonight, right now. Thank you so much. And look forward to seeing the proposal. Thank you. Yes, thanks. Thanks. Well done. Oh, I know. We've got to break down a rule for that one. Okay. Commission reports. I do not have any. None received, Mayor. Okay. And then City Manager's report. None tonight, Mayor. Okay. Public communications. I have a few cards here.
Ron Salarzano, please, William Wyrick, and then Larry Stengelt.
0:25 – 0:315 turns
All right. All right, good evening, members of council. My name is Ron Solorzano. I am the regional librarian for the Ojai Valley. I'm here today to just give you an update on what we have going on at the library, and I have big news for you today. We finally have a start date for the upcoming renovations to the Ojai Library building. So we've worked with our contractors, library administration, and on feedback that we've gotten from the community, And we've settled on August of this year to begin our construction. So that means that the library is going to be closing to the public at the very end of July. So we will be open for one more full summer, including a great summer reading program, before the work itself begins.
So we've been advised by the contractors that the work is going to take anywhere from six to eight months. That's a little longer than we had thought, but it will likely be concluding in the early part of 2027. In the meantime, library staff are going to be able to continue supporting the Ojai Valley community at the Miner's Oaks and the Oak View libraries, and we're going to be bringing in the Ventura County Mobile Library to do some regular weekly visits to Ojai to deliver story time, deliver books, anything else that we might be able to do with them.
During this time, the Ojai Library itself is going to be receiving new floors, new lights and electrical systems, new shelving, furniture, and paint, a new hydration station, two electric fireplaces, and new ADA-compliant front doors.
Love it.
Yeah. The architect has also helped us to make sure that we maintain a character that is consistent with the Ojai feel that is so important to us library staff as well as the community. So the building will continue to be something that we can all be proud of. The renovation itself, it's possible due in large part to the incredible generosity of former Ojai librarian Ann Crozier.
Ann was a passionate and devoted librarian who worked as the head of the Ojai branch from 1975 until 1997. This tenure makes her the second longest serving Ojai librarian since the branch first opened in 1893. Anne's contributions to the library and the community were many, and she made an incredible impact on those around her. It is a bequest from Anne's estate that has made this library renovation a reality.
In the next few months, we will still be open, and we still have so much happening over at the Ojai Library. We have our ongoing poetry readings, we have a number of talks by local authors and academics, of course our weekly story times, and our upcoming summer reading program. So for details on any of these programs, you can always drop by the library, talk to me, talk to our staff, or visit us online at library.venturacounty.gov.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir. I had a call from Ryan Blatch today over the lot we've always talked about as the AT&T lot, which is street address 111 West Matillahaw Street, at least according to Bing Maps. And he was noticing it, though his law office is right there. It's zone PL, I believe, still. And it's part of a CUP that is decades old. The institutional memory that Ryan and I and a city attorney worked on quite extensively back in the day was to look at that CUP, which was intended to say, okay, you're going to improve that one project there on Blanche for the AT&T building.
You're going to have a lot of trucks there. Part of the CUP is you're going to maintain a public parking lot and park your trucks in that parking lot. Well, AT&T liked to forget that they had a CUP. They liked to forget that they were responsible for maintaining the parking lot. I was glad to see that the parking lot was getting some attention, but then I saw that it's listed for sale.
And the listing says commercial property suitable for commercial land, parking lots, garages, automotive properties, retail properties and spaces, and general commercial real estate. Saw that today. That's not what the CUP says. That's not what Zoning PL says. And I'm hoping That the city enforces these terms of use with the property and does not get into letting this thing get out of hand again where then it becomes litigation and God knows what else.
And hopefully what our dream was back in the day was to enforce the stipulations of the CUP and the responsibilities for when they weren't taking care of the parking lot and say, hey, you know, Let's do a creative little piece of donation to the city here, give you a tax break, get a parking lot without paying a whole lot of upfront money. I believe they're asking over $800,000 for the lot, which I don't think that is market value if the city enforces the terms of the CUP, which although archaic, is there, and the PL zoning. It's PL zoned because of the CUP. So I thought I'd just bring up Thank you.
0:32 – 0:3910 turns
Fellow residents of Ojai. I actually wrote this, so it should be good. A few weeks ago, our city manager, Ben Harvey, appeared on Ojai Talk of the Town podcast, which is very nice. Brett does a great job. In that conversation, he referred to dedicated citizens who regularly attend meetings and speak up as the same ten people. I had thought, when I first heard this, that was a compliment. Gee, that's a, it's a good thing. It's nice to have people who show up, and I do appreciate that. However, The same 10 people he said in a way that many of others have found dismissive and even mocking.
I can take a lot of abuse. I'm married, three kids and six grandchildren, so you can abuse me all day long. It's okay. All right, I've got it fixed again. But let's be clear. These people are not a problem to be managed. They are the backbone of civic life. Look at the people who show up tonight. Even if it's for the one thing they like, But they show up. You want people to show up.
Otherwise, we have dictatorship, we have run amok, we have whatever. They're not involved. In communities like Ojai, where most residents are busy with work, family, and daily life, it's normal that only a few committed show up month after month. My wife works, thank God. And I'm retired. I have time. I actually like coming here. I like you people. I like... It's fun. It's interesting. We live here.
Okay? They read the agenda, study the budgets, ask tough questions, and hold us all accountable. Without them, important issues would slip through the cracks and transparency would suffer. So please, let's put videoing, closed meetings on the agenda so we can have a conversation, even if it's voted down. At least bring it out in the light of day. San Francisco has the Sunshine Act. Even they record, which is bizarre, but that's okay. The solution isn't to belittle those who participate. The solution is to make city government more accessible, more transparent, and more welcoming, so that the 10 can grow into 20 and 50 or more. I know that means three minutes, maybe, and it takes a long time for democracy to happen, and that's what we need.
Maybe if there's a lot of people, depending on the issues, start earlier, because a lot of people here go to bed at night. It happens. So, the city manager to all, let's stop mocking the people who care to show up. Instead, let's thank them and do real work in inviting everyone else to join in, because a healthy democracy doesn't need fewer voices, it needs more.
And we just need more. So, please. I realize I was gonna be sarcastic and say something snarky, but I'm not. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Steingold. Anita Cram, please.
Good evening, everyone. I would like to thank Larry Steingold and Bill Miley for being here at times when no one else could because people have to come to City Council. And if it's always the same people, then thank you to the people who show up because it's better than no one. So thank you to those 10 people who show up all the time.
Thank you. Leanna McNeely, please.
I wasn't sure that the STP comment was made in a derogatory manner. I actually think it was made to thank people for showing up, because our input is what gives direction to the City and to the City Council, and STP is a badge of honor, and I think that that's probably how it was meant to be conveyed. Any other person thinking otherwise? Oh, well.
Thank you. Anybody online? Yes, Mayor. We do have
one raised hand from Mike. Thank you. We have two raised hands now. Okay. First, we'll have Mike followed by Starchild. All right. Mike, you have the floor.
Tonight, I'd like to speak about three things. Respect, waste, and hate. First, respect. I once told my Nordhoff High School leadership students that the world revolves around respect. Give it, and you usually get it back. Four years later, I wrote a book on leadership and told the story about a man tragically shot in the neck, a story centered entirely around respect.
At the end of the story, I mentioned Jackie Robinson's famous quote, quote, I'm not concerned with you liking or disliking me. All I ask is that you respect me as a human being. We all need to provide more respect in this world and more is needed from City Hall. The next topic is hate. I don't like to use that word, but most Americans hate two things, taxes and wasteful spending.
Our citizens work hard, they grind and they grind, and they pay and they pay. The double stinger comes when the hard-earned money is spent inefficiently and ineffectively. This often leads to waste and abuse, waste, fraud, and abuse, three words we hear all too often. I never thought I would witness blatant abuse of the Ojai City Municipal Code and other critical city processes.
I'm shocked to see our contract bidding process for accounting and other city services abused. I'm also shocked when I see we might spend $20 million over 10 years for 30 tiny units previously known as Cabin Village. And we can't even get that right. That is a big number, $20 million. The 22 residents, 22 neighbors currently living in Tent Town need help. There is no doubt there. And let's provide it, but let's do it efficiently and effectively.
We need to reboot Cabin Village Project responsibly. On a side note, I want to flag my suggestion two weeks ago about getting air conditioners or better coolers for Tent Town. I've already volunteered to help raise funds. Who wants to help? Back to the main topics. I'm also very shocked to hear a city official dismissing our citizens on a recent podcast. Ojai residents are, by and large, deep thinkers and take pride in their city. To hear the city manager agree that the citizens who attend meetings because they are bored. Yes, bored.
That's insulting, disrespectful, and disturbing. It's 2026, people. I have a newsflash. People in power should not be labeling Labeling people, labeling those, quote, same 10 people, the people who speak up and question you in meetings, calling them STP while laughing at them. Those are the people you're supposed to serve. And it's unacceptable. In closing, I say we need more respect, less hate and less waste. It's that simple.
Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Next, we have Starchild. Starchild, you may unmute and you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to provide the city manager an opportunity to reaffirm his dedication to public comments, his appreciation for the public that worked to make the city better, and to apologize for any offense his comments may have given.
0:39 – 0:4319 turns
Are you still talking? That's all.
No,
that's
all. Okay.
Thank you. That's all, Mayor. Okay. All right. Okay, moving on to the consent calendar. We do have our Parks and Rec Commissioner here just to say a few words, but anybody want to pull anything out of consent?
I'm going to pull four.
Okay. Anything else? Any public comments on any consent items that we don't have? Okay, so let me actually ask Mr. Bailey to come up and say a few words, please.
Hello, sir. Hello, my name is Jim Bailey, and I take it that I've been nominated or voted on to become a member of the
Parks Commission. You will be confirmed after this vote we're about to do.
Okay, excellent. Well, I just wanted to say that, you know, I've been teaching in Ohio for 25 years, and for the last part of that, I've moved over into the positive youth development sector. And in that work of providing enrichment and support for kids, I've had some opportunity to work with the Mayor's Youth Council. And in a project that we did with young people and the Mayor's Youth Council, we identified that young people felt, the teens in our community, felt they didn't have a place to be. And I was, you know, I was so affirmed that our Parks and Rec coordinator, Christy Rivera, when she heard that said, come to the Parks and Rec. Department, and let's find a place for young people to be there. And I saw, it was kind of a bit of a light bulb, that indeed our Parks and Rec Department is a heartbeat of positive youth development in our community.
And the research shows that that's how we help all young people thrive. So I'm really honored to play my part, to listen, to learn, and to see if we can support all young people to thrive in our community. So thank you.
Thank you for your service.
Thanks.
I know. Yep. So could I have a motion to approve 3, 5, and 6, please?
I'll move.
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 move. Second that. Should we do a roll call,
Show transcript
Yay, thank you
so much. And welcome to the commission. Yes, thank you,
Mr. Bailey. Thank you for your service. Yay, yay, yay, wonderful. Okay, let's go to number four, the city warrants, please.
Yes, and if I could ask Ms. Cho if she's president. Thank you, there she is. If she could just join us, give us one moment, please, thank you.
So, yeah, mine is just a comment which actually predates you, Ms. Cho, but thank you for coming up. On page 30, second from the bottom, is Meyers Knave, a professional corporation, for an amount of $7,681.10. And I just want to point out that this has now This settlement and my indemnification cost is now up to $257,000 and counting. So we're at a quarter of a million dollars. I know that they have been, that they are no longer involved, so I'm assuming that this was their last invoice.
But to see it again is quite a chunk of change, and I think that we all need to realize we're at a quarter of a million dollars for this. That's all.
0:43 – 0:559 turns
Okay, no other items. Any items for anybody else? Okay. Can I have a motion please to approve number four?
I'll move to approve it. Okay,
I'll second that. I'll call Mayor.
Thank you. Council Member Rule. Thank you, Ms. Cho. Sorry, who'd you call? Council Member Rule. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Whitman. Yes. Council Member Lang. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Mang. Yes. Mayor Gilman. Yes.
All right, on to our first discussion item, the Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project Dignity Moves Project Bid Affirmation City Council Direction.
Yes, thank you, Mayor. Give us a moment to call up a presentation. While I'm doing that, I want to advise the Council that I'm going to be asking Dignity Moves to participate in my presentation. With us from Dignity Moves this evening, we have Mr. Jeff Gattas, back in the front row, Mr. Dylan Johnson, and I see Mr. David Grunwald. Is it Grunwald? Am I getting that correctly? Okay, thank you. In the back with his wife as well.
David doesn't have a speaking role unless he wants, but you'll be hearing from Mr. Gaddis and Mr. Johnson as part of my presentation. Okay, so here we are. We are before the Council this evening to ask Council to consider affirming the project bid for the Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project. Next slide, please. I'm going to get into some background in the introduction. Next slide.
This has been going on for some time, so this is going to sound very repetitive to a lot of you, but I'm just going to go through it again. The City received a $12.7 million grant from the State of California. It's called the Encampment Resolution Fund Grant, ERF. This was in April of 2024. And the point of this grant that the state provided to cities and counties on a competitive basis was to transition individuals living in homeless encampments, much like the one we have outside our doors, into safe, stable housing. So that's why the city received this grant on a competitive basis. Next slide, please.
We have looked at a number of different sites, as this Council knows, and as recently as last month, we were looking at another site. I'm conservatively stating that ten potential sites have been evaluated. In fact, there actually have been more that I would call unofficial evaluations, but definitely ten that have been considered seriously for the project.
The City Council, back in May, picked the Lower Public Works Yard, approved it as the site selected for the Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project after much deliberation and, again, after reviewing many other sites. And I'm not going to go into all those selected. We did talk about that at length at the last meeting. If you look at the agenda report, there's a link to the landing page for the project, and you can look at all the sites that we've discussed.
Next slide, please. A little overview of the project. Next slide. This is familiar to the Council as well. You may recall that back in September, we went through the design of the project in detail with this Council. It is a 30-unit, hacienda-style, sustainably built project with a courtyard. It features en suite bathrooms, has a community gathering area, laundry, very thoughtfully designed and laid out by a renowned architect, and this council got to participate in that process that got us where we are today.
Next slide, please. Let's talk a little bit about the bid process and budget considerations. The city went through an RFP in order to determine four pre-qualified contractors, the reason being this was not going to be – oh, actually, I'm just going to keep saying next slide if that's okay. Know your limitations. Four pre-qualified contractors and we, Dignity Moves, under the supervision of the City, did this because it was a special project construction that we were asking for. These were not modular units or similar to other Dignity Moves projects. This was a sustainably constructed project with very specific features that we were looking for.
We went through a competitive bid process, and in the end, it was specialty construction from the three bids that were received that was determined to be the lowest responsive bidder. Oh, there we go. Next slide. This is in your agenda report. There you see those who bid upon the project. The construction costs, the hard costs, the soft costs, those are the costs on top of the bid for things like utility connections and other things.
There were two slices of the bid, if you will, one just with everything and one with cost-saving alternates. You are going to be hearing this evening from Mr. Dylan Johnson, who is the architect. He is the most well-versed in this area, so I'm going to ask that if you have specific questions about the bid or cost, that you save those for Mr. Johnson. Next slide, please.
As we were preparing to bring the bid affirmation to you, we received some amazing news from Dignity Moves that an unsolicited donation in the amount of $1 million had been pledged to Dignity Moves towards a project from the Ballet Co. Foundation. And at this time, I'd like to call Mr. Jeff Gattis forward so that he can speak to the Council about that. When Mr. Gattis is finished talking about the donation, he's going to hand things over to Mr. Johnson to talk about the two primary recommendations we have for you for bid affirmation. So, Mr. Gattis? Thank you.
Thank
you.
Mayor, members of the City Council, City Manager, and City staff, thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight. I'm going to read remarks because I feel this is just an important moment. And I want to open up my heart a little bit because I've been coming out here for two and a half years to this podium and what this project means to me, why this matters.
People ask me why I do this work. The answer I keep coming back to is this. I needed to create safe places because for so much of my life I had not. I needed to become the person for others that I needed on the worst days of my own life. Many people thought I wouldn't make it past 25. I was lost. I felt like the world had given up on me. And here I am, 65 years old, standing before you in full possession of my life.
As they used to say about me at residential treatment facilities for adolescent males where I work, they let one of us in here to run the place. Because of a chance I was given, that chance is what I bring into this work every single day, and it is what I feel in this room tonight. It is what I see in every person in this project will serve. It is also what I bring into the classroom, training the next generation to become the people we need in those moments of loss and despair.
I feel the full weight of it. I feel the full weight of this project. As my mom would always say to me, God has a plan, and that guided me through my whole life and my own recovery. I stand before you on behalf of Dignity Moves accountable to this entire community, which brings me to tonight and why that matters for this donation. The Belico Foundation, one of the most focused and mission-driven private foundations working on homelessness in California, has committed $1 million to Dignity Moves for this project.
This is a restricted grant with the following conditions. The funds are designated specifically for the Hacienda-style permanent supportive housing development at the lower public works yard, 611 South Montgomery Street. This address, this design, this community, and within that, five of the 30 units designated for transitional age youth. This condition is not transferable to any other project or location within the city.
BILICO and Dignity Moves have built together across Central Coast from Grover Beach to Santa Barbara to San Luis Obispo. They do not invest lightly, and they do not show up where they do not believe in the work. We are deeply honored by their partnership and by their willingness to step into Ojai, stand with this project, and to become a part of this community.
This gift is a signal that what we are building here is real and that others see it too. For a younger person who's never had stability, permanent supportive housing is not a destination. It is a foundation, a place to land, to stabilize, to begin building a life toward independence. Transitional age youth, young people between the ages of 18 and 25, along with the elderly, represent the two fastest growing age groups experiencing homelessness in this country.
within this project is not only the right thing to do, And by expanding the city's commitment to its most vulnerable residents, Ojai demonstrates good faith to the state of California that this community is doing its part that carries weight. It will look favorably on future housing projects, funding opportunities, and other means of state support. Without it, the cycle continues. With it, everything becomes possible.
And before I introduce Dylan, I want to acknowledge the person who made this introduction to Dylan possible, Sage Stoneman. Sage is a beloved member of this community and someone who has become a friend. Just over two years ago, Sage stood in the public comment section at a city council meeting and asked me in Dignity Moves whether we were open to environmental build materials for this project.
My answer was, if there's a viable path and the city supports it, then yes, absolutely. The next day, Sage introduced me to Dylan. Digny Moves brought Dylan together with our Vice President of Innovation and Design, Maureen Boyer, a highly educated and experienced architect and project manager who has poured herself into this work from the beginning. Dylan and Maureen have worked diligently together with the city for this community to design a site that meets the needs of the people we serve, honors the vision of Ojai established, and charts a new course.
And to city staff, contractors, experts, and the community members who showed up, those who advocated, those who questioned, and those who pushed back, you have made this project better and made us accountable. All of it matters. I am so humbled and honored, and if I'm being honest, it still feels like a miracle to me that I'm standing before you tonight alongside this team and this organization.
They have exemplified the best in all of us. They have been professional, singularly focused, and unwavering, no matter the obstacle to deliver this to you this evening. Challenges the communities are facing are only going to increase. That calls on all of us to face these issues together, to recognize our interdependence, and to build solutions that are sustainable, dignified, and lasting.
This project is a step in that direction. We have assessed that we have the right site, the right plan, the right team, funding, and community support, and the options for you to consider and choose from tonight. Dylan, I will turn it over to you to walk the Council through what is before them, the contractor selection, and the options they will be considering and making decisions on. Thank you.
0:55 – 1:073 turns
Thank you. Good evening, Council, Mayor. Thank you for having us back. Thank you, Jeff. So, as Ben described, Mr. Harvey described, there are two options at this point with the project. As we all know, the bidding process, it took place in a challenging time in the construction market. Things are expensive. The budget was tight. As you all know, we've been through many iterations of the design to try to get the The design and the scope to match the allotted $9.5 million for the project.
And it hasn't been without its challenges, so this donation makes a tremendous difference in the viability of the project. So what I'm going to do is I'll walk you through two versions. The Dignity Moves team, and I believe Jeff Spahr is on remotely from Dignity Moves, who's been managing the budget and the spreadsheet, so we may need to defer to him. for specific line item questions, but we've worked quite hard to come up with two schemes to present to you tonight.
One that does fit within the 9.5 originally allocated. There are some hard decisions there, as you'll see. And the other, just in the recent couple of weeks when we got news of this donation, that is much more comfortable. It allows us to have some of the features that we've all wanted to be part of this project included for a total project budget of 10.5, which is the 9.5 originally allocated plus the 1 million in donation. Feel free to interrupt me if you have questions along the way.
So I'll begin by just reminding everyone what's actually in both of these projects. The goal is to meet the core requirements of the ERF grant and the requests of the Council and the community. So this includes 30 accessible, I'll remind everyone, these are fully accessible units, all 30 of them, wheelchair access, turning radiuses, et cetera, within each unit.
with en-suite bathrooms. They also all have windows in the bathrooms. The slide that was up earlier actually was an earlier conceptual version without the windows. I'm pleased to report that in either scheme we have all of the windows that are designed. Both schemes also include a gathering space for the residents and guests with the compressed straw ceiling structure that we've all been very interested in using. We went into at length several months ago.
So that compressed straw, the brand name is DuraPanels Ceiling Panels, are in both schemes in the ceiling of the gathering space. We're using hemp insulation throughout the building in both schemes. Again, these bio-based, low-embodied carbon materials were a real priority, so we've worked hard to maintain as much of that as we could in both of these schemes. Both schemes include the same administrative and laundry facilities layouts for the residents, so the floor plan is the same. Both schemes continue to include the peaceful courtyard, which I think we all believe is an integral part of the project.
Both schemes also include a fenced dog play area right outside for residents with pets. Both schemes also include an accessible pedestrian ramp and stairs up to South Ventura Street, a pretty significant piece of site work to connect this site to the downtown in an accessible way. And both schemes don't compromise on fire hardening and fire resistance. So, we're meeting all the most current standards for the WUE wild urban interface design requirements from Ventura County for the very high fire severity zone. So, none of those are compromised in either schemes.
Now what I'm going to do is talk through Scheme 1, which is the version at a $10.5 million budget. And this includes, so these are the differences from the project or the alternates selected or not selected that you saw in the bid set that we presented late last year. So, for option one, the $10.5 million version, we are not taking the add alternate that was explored to add additional foundation drainage below the slab and on the downhill sides of the building after studying the soils report, talking with the engineers.
We think that is money that is reasonably saved and not added to the project. In terms of materials, in earlier schemes, we looked at versions that used the door panel or the compressed straw panels throughout many different parts of the building. We've had to pare that back. Again, both schemes have it in the ceiling of the gathering space, and the $10.5 million version also uses it on one side of the partition walls between all of the residential units, significantly enhancing the acoustic performance separation between the units.
In this scheme, we've also considered using a lower cost clay tile roof. Frankly, it's probably imperceptible to folks in the room. It's just a good cost savings that we've been able to secure. And then also, the $10.5 million scheme reduces the amount of acoustic ceiling panels that were in the base bid design by 50%. So we're using The acoustic panels in the most critical 50% areas of the building and removing them from the other half.
With regard to site and landscaping, we are removing raised planters in the courtyard. We think that's a necessary expense at this point. It could be added later. We're also removing the steel screens around the heat pumps mounted around the exterior of the building. Given the minimal visibility of the perimeter of the building, we think this is a reasonable cost savings to take.
We had also designed a quite nice sort of estate-style sandstone address column at the base of Montgomery Street. That came in in the bids at about $30,000. We think that's a reasonable savings. We'll use a simple sign instead. We also are taking the deductive alternates that were in the bid as it related to the shipping container storage building, so that whole scope of work is removed from the project.
And we've simplified the trash enclosure, working closely with the City, to essentially pare down the trash enclosure to the minimum requirements, which is a three-sided enclosure to block the dumpsters from view as you're coming up from Montgomery Street, but eliminating the roof and all of the gates and the rest of the enclosure for the trash. And then there's a couple items that we've shifted the scope from the general contractor's contract, which is then burdened by all the general conditions and overhead and markup and so forth, to expenses allocated to the future operator, which is yet to be named, of the site. This includes the electronic key card access system.
This makes sense, particularly in Dignity Moves experience, to coordinate that with the operator's preferred access control system. As well as some of the common area appliances, the dishwasher, refrigerators, and freezers. And the three decorative steel gates that secure the courtyard from the outside. So again, that's sort of interrelated with the electronic key card access system.
So that's Scheme 1. It's more or less the original project that we've designed with, I think, some strategic and logical cost savings measures implemented. A wonderful project. As Mr. Gattis also shared, this would, the other change here with this $10.5 million version is five of the units would be dedicated for transitional AGU. So, option two, for 9.5- Next slide, please. Thank you. And we have the spreadsheets, I believe they're in your agenda reports as well, so we can get into the line items if you'd like.
We take all of the savings that we just discussed for option one with the addition of a few more to take another million dollars out of the budget. This includes the removal of all of the plantings and irrigation, a pretty significant line item that would remove that from the general contractor scope and be installed at some future date as additional funding becomes available or volunteer resources come online.
It also replaces all of the pavers in the courtyard with decomposed granite, so the courtyard would be substantially simplified. No plants, no planters, just simple DG paving in the courtyard. The compressed straw panels that I talked about on the partition walls of the units would be removed, so the only compressed straw panels left in the project would be those in the ceiling of the gathering space.
We would also remove the non-structural soffit beams and corbels that surround the arcade of the courtyard and the exterior of the building that give it part of its Spanish Hacienda sort of visual aesthetic. We would also remove the colored and stamped concrete that is around all of the paving around the project and the colored concrete on the inside. And we would remove all of the acoustic panels, understanding we would need to add some of those back in through the operator's budget or future donations to support acoustic paneling and acoustic input in the building.
Importantly, there is a meaningful difference in the project contingency in these two schemes. In Scheme 1 with 10.5, the project is able to proceed at the point of awarding the contract with a 10% contingency. So that's 10% of the general contractor's hard cost reserved for unforeseen conditions, owner changes, scope changes, etc. Two with 9.5, the contingency is brought down to only 4%. So I'll pause there. That's a lot of information kind of in the weeds, but I think it's important.
And it looks like you have the spreadsheets here, so I'm happy to answer questions. I also think we have the drawing set available on the screen if you want to look at any illustrations of how these scope changes affect the project.
I just have a real quick question. We've looked through all this packet, and I appreciate that. Thanks for sharing it. Can you just off the top of your head, with all of the things that would be removed from option number one, what does that total, the amount of all of those things that you would be removing?
That's an excellent question, and I'm not going to be able to answer it precisely. Jeff Spahr may be able to do a quick sum in the Excel, but I'm going to say it is in the vicinity of $300,000. And I say that because the difference in the contingency line A 4% contingency, if I'm remembering these numbers, is about $300,000, and a 10% contingency is close to $800,000. So there's a million additional dollars coming to the project. Half of that's going to contingency, roughly, and the other half would go to directly funding the scope.
So I guess my math was wrong. It's probably $500,000 worth of savings.
1:07 – 1:1721 turns
Any other questions for now? Yes, please go.
That's right. Option number two is the project that we would have had to recommend had this million-dollar donation not come into the picture. So it is, of course, at that point, there is no donation. There's not a requirement for the transitional-age youth units. It is a stripped-down version of the project you've seen before that fits within a $9.5 million total project budget.
And is that because the donation was specific that it had to be the exact project? Or, I mean, we couldn't take that million dollars and apply it to the...
Well, that's actually what we did. No, that is really what we did. I mean, it was an incredible... It was incredible news for the team to get this just quite recently. And it really took some of the pressure off the value engineering work that the team was engaged in. And we said, okay, if we have a million dollars coming into the project, where can we add scope back in that's most meaningful? And so that was, one, we felt it prudent to increase the contingency to 10%, and then use the balance of the money to add back in, for example, landscape. I think that's huge, as everyone in Ojai can appreciate. Maintaining the landscape as part of the project.
under the general contractor scope so it's done when the project is done, as well as adding more of the compressed straw panels back in, and a number of these items that are, frankly, important to the community that we've heard about over the last two years. So that's the process we've been through in the last
couple of weeks. Just to ask the question more pointedly, we could do option two and include the $1 million and keep the reduced version of the building and then grow the contingency. Is that correct or not correct?
It is a reasonable suggestion. I think option two, essentially what we would be doing there is having a, we could keep the scope the same, minimize the hard construction cost, have a much larger contingency. The only piece of the project that, as far as I understand, that is restricted as it relates to the grant is the transitional-age youth units. I think the donor is open to our recommendations about what the right refinements of the details are in the building.
So I think it's certainly plausible.
That's what you were asking. Sorry, I didn't know. No, no, that's okay. This is for Mr. Harvey, I guess. Adding, setting aside five units with this age restriction, HCD has said they are open to that idea. So, so far, the message is? That's
correct. Okay. We have, when the concept of the donation first came before us, before we really knew anything about it, we let Dignity Moves know that we had to talk to HCD to see if this would even be allowed. And they said kind of what you would think that they would say, which is everything goes through them via a revised grant application. It's actually a budget modification as a tool that they look to. But they said that is consistent with permanent supportive housing. They support the inclusion of TAY.
Some of the services that you provide to TAY also apply to others in the development, notably job training and those life skill training across the board. So if the Council gave us that direction, we would be submitting a revised budget modification to HCD. They would ultimately review and approve it, but they have indicated that they would be inclined to do so, and they are supportive of this.
Who provides the job trainings? I've done research, and it's not anything that Help of Ojai has listed on there.
There are other organizations in town, notably MESA, that does provide that type of service, and it's certainly not just MESA, but there are other organizations that can't provide that.
The director is here in the audience if we need more information. Yes, please.
I had a question. Do we know what the need is for that population in our community, in Ojai specifically?
I can speak from experience. We have had Tay within OTT. We know that there are kids in that age group that are without housing that need the help. We've had them live here with us.
I might possibly, if he's willing, to have Mesa come up and simply say what the expectation of the need might be if we were to open up five units. Is that a reasonable question for you? Come to the mic. Thank you. I think you would know better than anyone. The question is, if we were to have five units here dedicated to this age group, what are you seeing at MESA in terms of, does this seem like something that would also support needs that could
augment? Yeah, I mean, I think that in general, you see a much lower percentage of TAY that need permanent supportive housing than other populations, right? But it certainly exists, and we've seen it at MESA in the last year and a half. So it would be an absolute I think there's only one other TAY permit supportive housing project in Ventura County. Eight units run by many mansions, D Street.
So, yeah, there's definitely not enough support for that percentage of TAY who are incredibly high needs and will need a higher level of service than something like Section 8 can provide.
Thank you. Yeah, I've got a question, if you don't mind. You weren't expecting this, but thanks for being willing. Thanks for showing up. I did some reading, and I know it's only cursory, but my understanding is that the goals for that TAY individual are quite a bit different than what they are for that person who's permanent supportive housing and that there is concern about mixing TAY individuals into the permanent supportive housing population and how that'll, in fact, I don't think there's concern that the supportive housing community is going to be negatively impacted by having the teenagers. But the other way around, the teenager is, you know, the goal is to get the teenager to be self-sufficient
and
move on. And that is the complete opposite goal of permanent supportive
housing. So a couple of clarifying points there. Because there's a lot in that, right? But transition-age youth is 18 to 24 years old. So, not all teenagers, right? And as soon as you turn 25, you're no longer Tay. So, you could theoretically have a 25-year-old who moves into one of these other PSH units who's not that functionally different than a 24-year-old who does.
Generally speaking, and I think that this rule applies universally, that if you get into a TAY unit as a transition-age youth, you are not exited from that unit when you turn 25, right? So, theoretically speaking, you could welcome five transition-age youth into the building at 23 years old, and in five years, they're still there. And that unit then only is open to another TAY resident when that unit is vacated.
So that's part of it. I would also say that generally, yeah, you want to expire all other options for a TAY individual before you move them into permanent assortive housing. When someone's welcomed to MESA, I would say we're not thinking about permanent supportive housing for a very long time. We want to look at every other option that's available to us. And generally speaking, I would say it's true that the earlier you can work with someone, the less likely it is that you're going to rely on something like permanent supportive housing, which is a really expensive intervention.
That being said, Just like the general population, you're going to find a small percentage of transition-age youth that can absolutely benefit and are appropriate to be placed in a transition in a TAY, Permanent Support Housing Unit. It is more rare, and I would say it's a much smaller percentage of the population than the general, maybe chronically homeless population, which is why you might see five units, only five units out of 30, right?
But I think you're totally right in terms of a general approach. I would say in this case, it's
appropriate. So one other question, I was thinking I've been to your property. It looks like you have room.
Are
1:17 – 1:2623 turns
there any goals of expanding the population at
Mesa? I'm definitely not prepared to answer that question tonight. I don't think that's the topic Thank you all very much. And we had to even expand beyond what was given to us, right? We went back to the county and asked for an additional allotment. So having money in the short term... Having money
isn't the only issue. You've got lots of things you'd have to go to before you increase...
And then the other really simple piece of it, we'd have to go back to HCD and apply for an exemption because right now we have a 15-year covenant to provide transitional housing for TAY. If we were to add something like PSH, that's a whole different operation. Thank you very much. Yeah, which puts us in a position where we're going to be around for a while, you know, and I think that puts us in a space where we can start to look at expansion opportunities.
But we've been open a year and a half, right? So I think that it's a little premature to... I wasn't talking about expanding. I was trying to bring up the point about you have community support. I think for this project, I mean, you know, I've been following this, obviously, really closely. And I think that You know, it's really easy, you look at the Ojai Valley News article that just came out, it's really easy to look at a number and say, man, not getting enough for that number.
It's the, what other options do you have? You know, and I think this has been done incredibly thoughtfully and the longer we wait, the more it's going to cost. At least the trends we're seeing. And I think that, you know, ultimately you want to get things done as quickly as you can, right? We sprinted from the day we won our award to get open. That being said, it's a better project now than it was a year ago, and I think that the work has been put in. You're collaborating with some pros, and I'm definitely impressed.
Thank you, sir. Appreciate you stepping up. Any other questions for staff before we go to public comments?
Next slide, please. So as you saw from your agenda report, besides the two primary recommendations that we do offer, you could decide to provide some type of alternate direction, and I don't know exactly what that might be. And you could take no action. I just do want to point out that either one of those, but especially the take no action option, does come with some significant follow-on requirements, namely what City staff would be doing with, as far as OTT is concerned, You know, how the discussion would go with HCD, because we have been told by HCD that this is a competitive grant. You know, they have to provide all the approvals. If you're going to take no action or do something else, they have to be the ones to provide that approval.
And there are other agencies that have submitted very competitive bids that weren't awarded that might be, in their view, more deserving of the award. If you are, you know, looking at taking no action, you do have to also consider some of the sunk costs that have taken place so far. You also have to consider that if HCD does ask for the award money back, it will be with interest that the City has earned on it in the meantime. You also have a contract with Dignity Moves that is site-specific and project-specific, so if you're looking to do something else, you have to consider that as well. You don't have that flexibility in the DMA that the City currently has. So I'm happy to talk more about these considerations if you decide to go down that path, but these are things that you need to be aware of, and I wanted to make that statement.
Thank you. And I think with that, it's the end of my presentation. If we have any questions from council before going out to public comment, happy to take those. Thank you. Ms.
Rule.
I think this will come up in discussion, but, you know, the implication that HCD will take the money back, I just feel like that's out of the blue. So, I mean, that would be many, many, many steps. And, you know, I feel like in some ways
I'll bring it up during
discussion. I have several questions. No, I have deep discussion about this, so I think these things will come up during deep discussion, so I'll leave it there. But I did feel a little bit of pressure just right now from you about, you know, not moving forward with this, which I didn't really appreciate. So, that having been said...
I just want to point out, and this is not pressure, this is information that's in the agenda report. I put that in the agenda report because I want to provide Council with an understanding of, you know, every action, you know, you need to consider what the consequences of it are, and so I'm just presenting that to you.
No, I understand that,
but... I'm not trying to pressure you, I'm
just... Also, should the Council take no action, the City Council must provide direction to the City Manager for... Who says we must provide? So, that's a question that will also come up in discussion. I'm telling you
you must because of the requirements that we're operating under with the grant. That's why I'm telling you. None of these are
questions. These are all impressions.
Yeah, they are. Fair enough. Okay. They are. Fair enough. Mr. Whitman?
Yeah, so, let's see. Do we still have the option to shift to modular construction If it were our goal to try to get our overall construction costs below our 9.5 threshold with room, to do all aspects of the construction that was in kind of the original plan and design, with the exception of all of
the stick construction. Can I jump in really quickly? I do have, during discussion, an entire sort of outline of possibilities. Please do hold.
I'm asking...
Yeah, no, I understand
that. So do we have an option of... So you have two shifting gears and going back to HCD and saying, hey, we want to do this type of project now.
So you have a couple considerations that have to be made. And again, these are things I just talked about a little bit. So one is, yes, you would have to change the scope of the project, and that would require a budget modification submittal to HCD, which they would have to review and approve. In general, they're overarching counsel when making changes to projects.
If you're going to make a change, it needs to provide more than what you've proposed previously, or it has to be something that provides better access to service. That's the general overarching guidance they've given us. However, probably more of concern than that is you are in a development management agreement with Dignity Moves that contemplates a very specific project at a very specific location, and that is the one before you. And if you want to do something different, I'm not saying you couldn't, but you would have to renegotiate that agreement with Dignity Moves, or you'd have to enter into a new agreement with a new Thank you very much.
1:26 – 1:3114 turns
Also says that we're going to come in at a specific price point and as much, you know, there's a lot of wrangling about how this is all going to be changed. I view that as we're not coming in at our price point so that we should be talking. Well, the question is, can we go to the developer and talk about that type of change given what's happened?
I think we can absolutely have a conversation with the developer. I don't know the answer of what their position on that would be. We can't know that
until
we
enter those
discussions. We can't unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, but we can always have a conversation.
So my next question is...
I just want to add one more thing because I think this is important. And now we're in
discussion. Well, this is going to be our main item for tonight, so we'll have a lot of time to talk.
Can we look at splitting the project? Because as much as the McRae property, and I'm sorry I'm using that term, but I think that's what everybody recognizes, but as much as I didn't think it was appropriate that we would try to move the entire project onto the McRae property, I I have been very concerned, you know, before we started getting a series of letters from an ADA lawyer, I've been very concerned about the accessibility of this location for some of the people who show up here to speak to us. I mean, I don't understand how they're going to get on or off that property Unless some car is going to come and take them wherever, but we don't really have control. They're free to go and do whatever they want, and we're planning to put some fairly significantly disabled people on a property that's very difficult to assess.
So is it possible that we could proposed to HCD that we move, we create some specialty units on the McRae property that would be for a specific population in terms of their physical ability and other characteristics, and then have a smaller project for those who are really, you know, physically fit and able to get on and off the property.
I will first answer the legal question, and then I think the city manager also has some remarks. In terms of whether we could approach HCD with that question, I think we could, again, we could absolutely ask the question. I don't know what their response would be. I think the other kind of element of that is that we would have to, again, we'd have to go back and look at how that would change the other elements of the project.
In addition to that.
Dylan, can I ask you, the ADA seems to come up a little bit here and there, so can you talk about that ramp and address some of those concerns again? I know you've done it before, but I'm asking again if you don't mind.
Yeah, you bet. The ramp is, as we all know, the site is challenging. The topography is such that there is some elevation change that has to be navigated to get from the housing project to downtown. When we first were looking at this site, we considered taking an ADA ramp downhill to Montgomery and then all the way back up. But you lose an additional roughly 30 feet, 30 vertical feet, that then folks would have to gain back up as they climbed up Montgomery to get to town. Furthermore, Montgomery doesn't have the sidewalk and right-of-way improvements that That would make sense. So in light of that, we opted to design the switchbacking ramp that's in the plans now that just is simply across the parking lot, doesn't cross any meaningful vehicular traffic, and up the slope to South Ventura Street.
I think it's about 20 vertical feet from, I could pull up the site survey, from the units to the point at which we intersect the existing sidewalk on South Ventura Street. So it is, you know, it's a long path, there's no question, but it is the most reliable, code-compliant, sort of durable solution to get folks to town in the absence of a van or some sort of transport. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Do
you have other questions, Mr. Whitman, for now? No. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we'll go to public comment. I have some cards here. Delaney Labar, please, Anita Cram, and then Dean Wigger, please.
1:31 – 1:372 turns
Good evening. Hello. Delaney Labar, I live on Blanche here. What a remarkable gift we've been offered. You know, for this, we've just received this $1 million grant commitment, and the grantor, Ballet Co-Foundation's mission is to solve housing and food security for the homeless in California, and they focus especially on the Central Coast. They've partnered with Dignity Moves on several successful projects.
Reading from the letter to Mr. Harvey and the city, I quote a few of the following, what stood out to me in that letter, because it was long. So, the following passage is that the foundation does not accept unsolicited grant applications. It conducts its own research, identifies strategic partners, and invests where it believes the greatest and most lasting impact can be achieved.
And they chose Ojai. That's important. In each of these projects, the Ballet Co-Foundation has not simply written a check. It's shown up. Volunteers from the Foundation have built gardens, painted buildings, prepared rooms, and worked alongside the community members. Belleco Foundation has made a request that the city modify the ERF grant to designate five of the 30 rooms for transitional youth, as we've heard tonight, for homeless youth within Ojai.
This not only expands, and it is 18 to 25, which is a real crunch age for people who've been in the foster home situation and are, like, essentially graduating out of that, but are unprepared. And really need some housing. So, this not only expands the housing for our young adults at a really pivotal time in their life, but it opens up much more in the way of state and federal funding opportunities moving forward. So, I think that's really an important piece because there's been a lot of discussion about the money and how's it going to keep going and one thing or another. So, I think that in one way, the one grant creates an opportunity for many more grants, and that's a really important piece to this.
The most important paragraph of the letter to me is that it bears emphasis that this gift is committed specifically to the proposed Hacienda-style development at 611 South Montgomery Street site. It is not a general contribution to homelessness services in Ojai, nor is it transferable to any other project or location within the city. I submit that we are done saying the grass is greener over there.
Thank you.
I think we should go forward with the project at the current site. I think the consequences are too high to not go forward, and the biggest consequences are human, a human cost of the people who this is supportive housing for. And I think it could cost our reputation, both with government organizations and NGOs, if we do not proceed with it. I would just want to make sure, I mean, the million-dollar grant is awesome, thank you so much, but I just want to make sure that it's clear that these, it's stipulated that all of these, no matter what the designation of them, go to Ojai residents, that we don't end up getting people from the county who come in for these five units designated as TAY. I think that's very important.
And also, I'd just like to say that if we had a vacant home tax, the money from that could go in to support this very project into the future. So, of course, Scheme 1 is better with the 10% contingency, but also I kind of wonder if there couldn't be something in between the two. I think that, you know, we just had a presentation on heat islands. I think it would be a mistake to pull out the plants and the irrigation.
And I also think that the substrate should be whatever will allow watershed, you know, percolation. So I think whichever substrate is suited for drainage into the percolation is going to be the better one. I'm not real fond of modular. I think we're getting too many of those in Ojai that there is a big trend right now because it's cheaper. And again, I also think that the modular, you run the risk of the heat island issue, you know, and also we have to think of the construction of an offsite. We can't just say, oh, bring it in. It's easier.
Modular housing is usually dirtier than building housing. It's usually not as environmental. And my question would be also, would there be a heat island effect with modular versus some of this straw bale type of construction? And I must admit, I haven't been to some of the more recent meetings, so I may be out of the loop on some things. But so I think it's a great project and I think we should go forward in the most sustainable manner available to it. Thank you.
1:37 – 1:458 turns
All right, a bunch of my questions got answered that I sort of came for. I wasn't super prepared to talk this evening. So I think that Hopefully a lot of discussion is going to be had and I'm just sort of like proposing that you go further into the discussion. Specifically with contingency, I don't, just to offer you a definition of contingency, a provision for an unforeseen event or circumstance. So the fact that we're calling this 10% contingency seems to just be an add to the budget. And I know there's, by looking at the budget with the contractors, there's already a $200,000 contingency fee being charged in that budget from the contractor.
And it's just, it's not normal in construction that you would see this developer contingency on top of everything. So I'd really like you guys to drill down on where that money's getting spent and how it's getting spent. Just to make sure that, you know, it is being appropriated for the benefit of the project. I also am very curious how the project management came into need, to become a need, excuse me.
You know, you have a contractor who's doing project management, and you have a developer who should be doing project management for the $500,000 cost they're charging to this project. So to use taxpayer funds for additional project management doesn't make sense to me, so I hope you guys are going to drill down on that further. And I think I'll wrap it up in there and list all the discussions.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate it.
Marci Toscher, please, Larry Stangold, and then Ruth Miller.
Good evening, Mayor, City Council and staff. I want to thank you, first of all, for the two years of hard work and hundreds of hours that you all have devoted to the Permanent Supportive Housing Project, formerly known as Cabin Village. Tonight, after countless diversions and detours, Driven by NIMBY opposition, we are finally at the finish line, and yet again, we're presented with a red herring, another last-minute proposal to move the project to another new location, including the land abutting Stewart Canyon, and that's already been vetted previously.
Stewart Canyon is a riparian, environmentally sensitive habitat, and for years, residents of the city. Numerous public and private organizations have invested time, money, and real human effort to restore Stewart Canyon to its native condition. Many Ojai residents are looking forward to enjoying that land as park space in vision and collaboration with the Green Coalition. Frankly, I'm surprised that the Persimmon Hill Group hasn't suggested a parcel recently photographed by Artemis II on the moon because every week they seem to find a new location. Thank you. Anywhere except the one already approved.
We keep hearing complaints that the process have taken too long, yet here we are at the 11th hour being told there's suddenly a better plan, a better site, a better design, a better contractor. These better ideas always appear just in time to delay the project. These are stall tactics meant to run out the clock, and now we're facing yet another Hail Mary. Please don't fall for it. Delay tonight equals death to the project.
Some opponents offer polite words about empathy and concern, but actions tell the truth. So tonight, instead of rejecting all the bids or launching yet into another location for another parcel, while still claiming to support the project, I urge one of you to make a substitute motion for a simple up or down vote. Build the permanent supportive housing as proposed with Total $13.7 million in grant funding. The city has already been awarded on the Public Works Yard site. Let's go on the record. Clearly, about whether we support the permanent housing project for our OTT residents, and now the TAY population, or not.
And I've yet to hear a rational fiscal argument for walking away from $13.7 million in funds. Continuing the OTT as it is will cost the city at least $500,000 every year, without any other money coming in. We lose county funding. We lose everything. And plus, we have to pay back the approximately $180 million that have already been expended. And what do we get? We get nothing. Nothing. We'd have to start over again, probably without any grant money. I don't think this city has the appetite for that. Let's just move this forward. Thanks.
Thank you, ma'am. Larry Stengel, please, Ruth Miller, and then Leanna McNeely, please.
And here's another fine mess you got us into. This thing has been a screw-up since – for the past two years. It's been going here, it's been going there, it's been look for this, look for that. It's got to get done. You're between a rock and a hard place, okay? A lot of the things that Mr. Harvey said are true. You have to do this and have to do that, and this will change.
And what Ms. Rule said was true, and it's all true. But we've got to take care of our own. The 5P, the Tay thing, MESA doesn't want to manage it. That's from what he said, from what I understood. That means who's going to manage it? OUSD? These are 18 to 25-year-olds. Are they going to sign the contracts that the people there have to sign? No drugs, no this, no that. Come on.
I mean, 18 to 25, let's face it, we've all been there. The fact that this thing started out as a very nice hotel room with a kitchen, and now it's turned into a Motel 6 with God knows what there, because the developer keeps cutting, cutting, cutting. And he blames it on the tariffs, and he blames it on this. How about lowballing the deal in the first place?
Or overdoing it. I feel for his life, and this is a tough thing to do when taking care of the homeless. But if he's that concerned, let him donate the $500,000 fee. But that's another... We have to do something, but how are you going to do this? Mr. Whitman's right. We're going to have ADA issues. My wife's an occupational therapist. You go on this little ramp thing that they're proposing in a wheelchair, or in a walker.
Aren't those the customers, the clients, our fellow city residents? Aren't those the type of people we have? They're handicapped. They've got issues. You walk a ramp or go on Montgomery. Is it the best location? No. I mean, I was in real estate. I would have suggested it as a public works yard because you own it. It's away from everybody. It's an easy thing to do.
But it took nine months to do the phase two, and then they poo-pooed it and didn't want to use it, and they said, oh, it's a circler. We don't want to take care of it, okay? And then we found lead, and we found some arsenic, and now that's being taken care of. But I mean, this shouldn't have happened. We shouldn't be here like this. I mean, you've got a lot of smart people in this community, most of them not in this room, because on this issue.
I mean, they could have come up with something. A motel type is fine. But the 180 square feet? Really? I mean, come on. I mean, we can do better. I mean, how about 30 boxables together? Or not boxable. We'll pick another company. Whatever. Doesn't matter. They bolt these things together. They're all over the country. It doesn't take that much to go, hey, what's it take? It's the site work, and I know it's the engineering, and I know it takes effort.
Thank you, Mr. Stengel. Ruth Miller, Leanna McNeely, and Brad Smith, please.
1:45 – 1:523 turns
Hi. Good evening. I was feeling good about this until I read some of the comments. Let's postpone the project. Let's look for a better site and developer. Never mind the deadline to allocate funding is just a few days away. I'm sure the HDD will approve an extension with no location, developer, or plan. Better yet, let's just kill the project. The people we've been working to house are old and sick and poor.
They aren't contributing to our society. In the words of Ebenezer Scrooge, perhaps they should just die and decrease the surplus population. The wealthy people of Persimmon Hills have been working hard to kill the project since day one. Just look at the comments from the Planning Commission meeting from November 6, 2000, 2024. The proposed multiple alternate sites, they disparage everyone who supports the project.
That shows their deep commitment to their idea that those people should not live close to them. They've suggested the city make the tents more habitable instead. That's just putting lipstick on a pig. The tents do not have walls. People lay awake at night and listen to the rats chewing their way through the canvas. The tents leak on their clothes and their beds when it rains.
They don't have a locking door. They're porta-potties, and they have no way to clean up if they have an accident. And some of the elderly do on a regular basis. They need a ride to access the shower once a week. And how long before the City Council decides that supporting OTT is not a good use of funds? You'll see them again sleeping in the doorways of the arcades and camping in Libbey Park.
When one of our elderly fell recently, they were discharged back to their tent, even though they were unable to toilet themselves and were still a full risk. When they fell again, the process was repeated three times. They were not eligible for any home health care services. People living in encampments or on the street do not get home health care services.
If someone has a chronic illness, they don't have a nurse to come by and check on their medication. They're unable to bathe or feed themselves. They do not have an aid to assist them. If they are dying, they cannot receive hospice. They are in a tent listening to rats chewing. Oh, shoot. We get
it. We get what you're saying. Leanna McNeely, please, Brad Smith, and then Renee Roth.
Good evening. I'm a little disheartened by what I've heard so far. We have the gift of twelve point seven million dollars and now the million dollar private donation given directly to Dignity Moves for the Cabin Village. This would allow the city to move forward with a healthy contingency fund Three to four years of operational funds and the opportunity to provide housing for youth who are trying to find their footing in the world.
You'd think that'd be an easy yes vote, but now we're hearing all these objections. We've heard repeatedly over the last few weeks about additional sites, better sites. There is no unicorn people. There is no perfect site. It does not exist. Looking in the public comments and the letters, we see that now there's this grand proposal to move the site to the eight acres here. Let's just change it all.
We've had complaints that after the public works site was approved 18 months ago, That it's just taken too damn long. Well, folks, this is why it's taken too damn long. Nobody can make a move. Nobody can make a decision. What you have here is delay, delay, delay. And the purpose of that delay, the purpose of everyone looking for the unicorn site, that perfect site, is to kill the project. Let's not be coy about it. I'm done with coy.
Nobody wants this project anywhere near them. We're living by them. I live on Blanche Street. These people are not a problem. You know, we, we, the City Council, um, last meeting voted to remove the contaminated soil from the public works yard, so we would be ready for housing. I ask, what housing? Why not this housing? What, you don't want to live by these people, but you want to live by other people?
We are now at the 11th hour. Funds for the grant, I've heard, need to be allocated by April 18th. Delay will kill the Cabin Village. And you're asking the city manager, you know, if you want to change the site, to request an extension with no approved site, no developer, and no plans. And you can bet that money will go to another city and at great financial cost to our city. If I were cynical, I would think that this was all carefully orchestrated to delay and kill the project.
Please vote to move forward with this project. The folks in OTT Outside are not getting younger, and they're not getting healthier. And if the Cabin Village fails, NIMBYism will be this council's legacy. It will be our town's legacy, and our NIMBY status will be legend.
1:52 – 1:577 turns
Thank you, ma'am. Brad Smith, please, Renee Roth, and then Bill Miley. What she said. I knew you were going to say that. Thank you.
In a relationship, one's usually smarter than the other.
Appreciate it.
Y'all been kicking the ball down the road, down the field. It's true. Let's bring something else up tonight. Let's delay it some more. Let's make a decision. Throw some big ones. Put on your big boy panties or whatever they're called. Make a decision. Do it or don't do it. But it needs to be done. These people are not getting better. I live with her. You already know where she lives. We live next door to the solar lot. These people are not a problem.
And I'm talking about these people, these unfortunates, who some are wired differently than we are, who have had issues. We could be there, but for the grace of God, if you believe in God, or make another choice. You could be there, and here we are. Oh, yeah, well, let's do this, and well, let's do that. No, they need permanent housing. They need doors that lock.
Don't kick the ball down the road. It'll kill the project. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Renee Roth, please, Bill Miley, and then Sudeep Rao.
Good evening, everybody. Renee Roth. You are in a difficult position, and Mr. Whitman, I do want to thank you very much for bringing up the access issue and the ADA needs of this community. I think they are very real, and I do think this project It is inadequate because it is not addressing that need adequately. I don't have all the answers. I am not a building expert.
And I'm sure that probably none of you ever thought you'd have to be a building expert when you took over your job as a City Council person. And that was one of the reasons why I recommended that in my comment that you hire, and you should have hired it at the very beginning, two years ago when you first started, a new owner's, an owner's representative. acting on your behalf to negotiate for the city with Dignity Moves.
That should have been Dignity Moves right now holds all the cards on what the site is, who gets access to what, and how much money other people may want to contribute and for what. I don't agree with that approach. I really don't agree with that approach. I do think the City should be holding all the cards. This was your grant. It wasn't a Dignity Moves grant.
And there may be other people wanting to come forth and negotiate directly with the City on this project. So, this is really difficult for me to watch and see an inadequate site being used to develop this housing. This is the biggest project the city has developed in how many years? You know, when have you spent $10 million on anything in 20 years in Ojai? This is a huge project. It's a huge investment. You do need an owner's representative to help guide your analysis of the bids and how to negotiate further. And I am one who does believe the grass is greener.
I do think you could take this site and the sunk costs and put it on another site pretty easily and have your ADA access as well. I honestly do sincerely believe that. But you've got to be able to not have dignity moves say this is the project and now and this is the only one we're going to do. That to me is not okay. Thank you very much.
Bill Miley, please, Sudip Rao, and then Whitney Nunes.
1:57 – 2:034 turns
Hello. Hi. In reading the Ojai Valley News last night, it told me that the city has allocated $2 million for future operating monies with the Cabin Village when it's finished. I checked the grant application, and sure enough, it was there, $500,000 for each of four years. My suggestions tonight go to option number four, provide alternative direction to the city manager.
When that reserve was set up for operating costs months ago, I remember a number of times when the city manager was asked, What about this? He said, oh, there will be grant opportunities and continuum of care funding. Don't worry. We'll have the money to operate. That's not a quote. That's just what I remember. The original grant award was $12.7 million. $2 million operating reserve was put away by the city, bringing it to $10.7 million.
The award to Dignity Moves was $9.5 million. The difference being between the grant award of $12.7 and the lowered amount to dignity of $9.5 is $3.2 million, as I see it, in the city reserve. 15% plus change. That's why I'm suggesting we use some of that money to finish the original project. Specialty Construction says we can do it for $10.4 or $10.5. What is missing is $900,000.
Giving away five units to get $1 million for a different type of rehab does not, in my opinion, fit our programs. It reduces the supply. The county just recently did a count in January or February. There's 70 people in the Oye Valley who are homeless. So, I would suggest We take some of that reserve money and add it to specialty construction so they can do the job properly as designed.
Take some of the tourist money we have, three million extra dollars this year, and add that. Let's make this thing work with 30. We need more than 30. That that million dollars goes someplace else. We have the resources. Let's get them, apply them, and succeed in our vision and goal. Thank you, Mr. Miley. Appreciate it. Sudip Rao and then Whitney Nunes, please.
Thanks.
Thank you very much. Leslie Rule, and staff manager Ben Harvey, and attorney and police chief. You're taking up your time here, buddy. That's okay, because I realize that in the work we're doing, I see Norma and Weston and Westridge, and I realize, you know, these people are not robots that just show up in City Hall. They are human beings, and so I want to acknowledge that. I mean, part of the discussions we're having about Gruppen, Persimmon Hill, or others, Thank you very much.
Wisdom, I suppose, so all these, balancing all these is, of course, on your shoulders, also on, there are so many people in our, who show up here, who show up online, who are listening, who are reading, so participation is an important process, so I'm glad. I'm here to just share that we have, as a city, we have fantastic infrastructure, not just in the city, owned by the city. There's non-profits just being at the help of Ojai, seeing the Senior Nutrition Center.
So there are people who need the services. We need to grow as a city, and we need to grow in density. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. In the 30 seconds that I have, I want to just share the State of the Union of the Wildfire Resilience Festival is going strong. We look forward to your all invited, staff and also council members, mayor. We would love to give you a platform to speak, and please speak with your constituents to show up, to volunteer, to step up, to be counted.
to step up to actually offer their services there, whatever they have in their garages. If there's excess stuff, let's put it together. Let's auction it off. Let's offer it to people. Let's create this beautiful eBay, Amazon, that is Ojai culture. So, show up Saturday, April 25th, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Sazori Park. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Whitney Nunes, please.
2:03 – 2:1313 turns
I'm sure most of you know me. I'm one of the case managers here at the encampment, so I just wanted to chat a little bit with you guys. It's really great that they found another million. I just want to make sure that, like, with the ERF grant, because it is Encampment Resolution Fund, that that won't take away from anything, because I thought it was supposed to be the encampment, so I could be wrong. I haven't spoken to any of the higher-ups or anything.
So if the five TAY units come in, of course, I'm a case manager, so I think everybody needs help, but when we wrote the grant, 57% are seniors on fixed income here at the encampment, and so I just want to make sure, like, a lot of who I work with are seniors, and so, of course, I want TAY to have their opportunity for housing if they need it, but I just want to make sure it doesn't mess anything up with the grant, because I was under the impression they had to be here at the encampment or homeless on the streets.
So we just want to make, I just want to make sure but I really want this to go through. I love the people that I work with. The people here so badly need housing, and this is a people thing, and we really need to help these people because we have the opportunity to do it. I think Ruth really hit it home with how hard it is. And I'm not saying we shouldn't use the million. I just want to make sure that the grant, we respect it, we make sure we're doing the right thing. And if the five TAY units is what we need to do, then that's fine. But I just really, truly want to make sure that my clients are taken care of because these people are so amazing and so deserve this. And we've been working with them for so long, and I don't want to see this fall apart.
So please, please, please, just let's think about the people who are here. Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody online?
Yes. Yes, Mayor, we have two raised hands, now three with that notification. First we'll have Gene, followed by David, and then Starchild. Thank you. Gene, you have the floor.
Hi, I urge the City Council to vote no on the proposed options. Both options are fatally flawed because the maintenance yard site is the worst possible location for ADA access for its many future disabled and elderly residents. Both options included very expensive $700,000 cost to build a 325-foot ADA disability ramp that leads to South Ventura Street. The reasons I explained at the last council meeting, this is a ramp to nowhere because there are numerous ADA barriers that prevent wheelchair-bound residents from being actually able to travel to downtown Ojai, contrary to what Mr. Leib said, from the maintenance yard site or any other nearby South Ventura Street site, because the sidewalk, there's no sidewalk and there are all sorts of problems where you don't have the 36-inch access.
And in addition, many elderly non-wheelchair bound residents will not be able to safely or helpfully climb up 30 steps simply to get to street level. City knew when it started the location process that many of the potential residents were elderly and disabled. Therefore, ADA-friendly access should have been on the top of the City's selection list when it first started booking for a location. The reluctance now to pivot to a friendly ADA-accessibility site is essentially motivated by the City Council's and City Manager's refusal to acknowledge its huge blunder of choosing the maintenance yard, the worst possible ADA-accessible site. The site west of Kent Hall does not require A $700,000 ramp, you have no ADA barriers for those residents to get downtown.
There should be a feasibility study done now. If not, this is a textbook example of bureaucratic inertia bias. It's important to note that the City Council and City Manager have never publicly explained why they decided to change their original choice of building a facility near Kent Hall. It appears the City Manager and City Council were suffering from their own version of NIMBYism. With them not wanting to see the facility next to their own workplace, perhaps they thought it looked unprofessional to have the site so close to City Hall. It appears that City Council Member Leslie Rule has decided, based on what she was saying at the last meeting, not to be a victim of this inertia bias and is considering pivoting and considering building the facility west of Kent Hall.
I urge the rest of you to do the same. The City Council needs to immediately conduct a feasibility study for the PSH location at the site adjacent to Kent Hall. Don't be hoodwinked by the City Manager providing excuses that this will just take too long. This is your last chance to get it done right. Thank you.
Thank you. Next we have David followed by Starchild. Okay. David, you have the floor. David, we'll give you the option to unmute once more.
Hello.
There we go. Hi.
First off, thanks go to Ben Harvey, the administration, mayor, and council supporters, Dignity Moves and the Belay Cow Foundation, and the help of OHI who have timelessly worked to improve and move this project forward. Here we are today, April 14th, just four days away from HCD's requirement to have all grant funds allocated. If this does not occur, there is a high probability of losing the grant.
An individual opposed to the project has proposed last-minute site changes, in fact, three in the last month or so. This is not to identify a better site, but to continually delay the program to a point where the project self-destructs. This is unacceptable to the people of Ojai. How does it feel when your true position on a project is so unpopular and lacks compassion that you cloak it in disingenuous comments and pretend that you actually have the well-being of the OTT residents in mind?
Most people are too smart to buy into that. People were complaining about this project taking too long. Now at the 11th hour, when delays will kill it, everyone has a better idea, a better plan, a better location, so on and so forth. Where were these plans and ideas while the public works yard has been the approved location for 18 months now? Stop messing around and vote to complete this project.
Nothing is perfect, but this will be far better than what the current residents of Mohaitan Town have to live in. Vote to kill it, but don't pretend you want to fix it at this late date. Please vote to support Option 1 to get this project started. To quote the learned gentleman, Larry Steingold, enough already. Just do it. Thank you.
Thank you,
sir. Mayor, we have one more on Zoom, and that would be Starchild. Okay. Starchild, you may unmute, speak.
Thank you. I have some comments about the $1 million grant that you're contemplating accepting today. I can see the temptation to accept that grant. One million dollars of free money is something that this city could use to increase housing, but I want you to think further about whether that grant should be accepted. Right now, There are, right now, the current proposal is 30 units of permanent supportive housing. The grant would reduce that number to 25.
Who are the five adults who you would have not be able to get permanent supportive housing if you accept this grant? Who are the five 18 to 25-year-olds in Ojai right now who would move in to these TAY reserved housing units? I think the effect of this grant would be to make elderly residents of Ojai who are homeless stay living in tents or living in the woods while the city waits to fill the five TAY units.
Those $1 million would be better spent by this foundation on a different project. Remember that Mesa built their 10 units at a cost of about $100,000 per unit, instead of the $330,000 that this project is spending per unit. Additionally, as a former member of the same 10 people, I remember Mr. Harvey said that if Dignity Moves would be responsible for any overage if the bids came in above $9.5 million.
Reading public comments today, I saw that Clay Creasy heard him say the same. And I would like to hear you ask the city manager whether he said that, whether he misled this council. Thank you.
Thank you, Starchild. No more raised hands on Zoom, Mayor.
Okay, I have one more public comment. Melissa Balding, please come up. Yeah, thanks.
2:13 – 2:2421 turns
This isn't my forte, but...
No, it's okay.
Speaking for the elderly that live here, because I live here, They would much rather be able to go up a ramp than have to live on the dirt or what we've already lived in, which is hell, you know, and the rats. Without the rats, it would be great because it keeps me up all night, every night. So I don't think that everybody here that I live with can make it up a ramp, and they would be happy to do so.
Thank you. I appreciate it. Doug Labarre, please.
You need to use a facility like a sink. You just turn on the hot water, turn on the cold water. You can take a shower. Toilet flushes. It's warm. You can keep the rats out. We've kicked the can on this thing way, way too long. And just think about what some of these people are having to deal with, because they've been, they've just had a series of bad situations, one after another, that's made them without a house, without shelter, without security, without Being able to lock a door. How privileged are we, sitting here, trying to figure out whether it's going to be okay to build The Cabin Village because there's a little bit of a problem with elevation change.
I see the people coming from Tent Town going to the market, having to negotiate going down the grade to the trail and then back up again. They pause sometimes in my bushes on their return on a hot day because it's so hot they don't know if they can make it. When the Cabin Village is developed and operating and successful, there's going to be other things that come into it, other services and other programs that will be supportive.
There will be people who will say, hey, why don't we get a transportation system, even if it's battery-operated, to help some of these people. That's what we will do as a community. So let's get this thing done. Let's move on. It's not going to be the only place that's... I mean, look at the cost of homes in Ojai. What do you buy for a million dollars right now?
How are these people going to get there? or rent for $2,500 or $3,000 a month. It's out of reach. They need assistance and there's going to be more and more and more people in that category. This is just the start of what's going to start happening. So let's start it. Let's get it going. Thank
you. Thank you, sir. Okay. Public comment over. We've been sitting for two hours and 15 minutes. Do we need a quick break before we get into discussion? Five minute break. Okay, we'll come right back. Check, check, one, two. Welcome back, everyone. I would like to ask Dignity Moves and the architect to come back and just address a couple of the questions related to what you heard so far, just so we can understand and kind of come from a base of as much information as we can.
Sure, yeah, I'm happy to speak to a few of the points that have come up. First, I think it's important to note it wasn't discussed the timeline for the bids themselves. They were opened on January 16th and are valid for 120 days. So that means that the bids that we have are valid until May 16th. So there is a real clock as it relates to the validity of those bids.
Once they do expire, it's a significant process to rebid many months if we were to do so. Second, I think there's been a lot of discussion about modular versus the design that we have today, which is what's known as type five or stick built construction. So simple two by sixes, the same type of construction you would see in essentially the lowest cost single family housing you can build there. If you just go look at a housing development, that's typically what you see.
And when we started this project, there was a request for the lowest cost solution we could come up with, particularly for this site. Given the land area that we're working with, to accommodate 30 units, the offices, the laundry, the gathering spaces, the other support spaces, the total gross square footage. Working with some local contractors and other engineers and industry professionals, we determined that single-story stick-built construction was the most cost-efficient way to deliver 30 housing units, which led us to the project that we have today. Of course, there have been things that were added that did add costs, such as the natural building materials.
The clay tile roof, you know, the Spanish hacienda sort of aesthetic, a lot of things that were, you know, as the design team, we took as requests or even mandates to fit within the architectural fabric of Ojai and deliver a responsible, sustainable building that will be permanent. At the most cost efficient structural system. So I know there's been a lot of discussion of modular, but when we start to look at 30 individual units with their own foundations and their own utility hookups, it's not designed, so of course I can't say definitively. But my professional opinion is that that would actually cost more than what we're getting at a per unit cost for the project that you're looking at
today. All right. You want to start? Thank you.
So I want to thank everyone for their comments and their passion right off the bat. You know, I understand the fear of the high probability of losing the grant. That's never the intention here. The idea that it will kill the project, that's something that nobody wants. I hear references to when we started this process. When we started this process, it was two years ago, and things have changed, and all of those natural building materials are gone, except for the ceiling for the common roof is a straw panel now. So many of the things that we asked for at the beginning have been whittled away. Thank you very much.
Solutions never go in a straight line. Things emerge. You have to be ready to change paths. And I think what it really comes down to here, a lot of it is risk adverse. Like, you know, what are the risks that we are, what risks are we taking in trying to evaluate another site? So, you know, the main risk that I hear is HCD saying no and pulling the money back. Now, I would like to say that that just means we need to have a discussion with HCD if we do indeed come up with a plan, and if they say no, we say okay. Like, they're not going to say, thank you for calling us, we don't like your idea, we're taking the money back. They're going to say, no, you can't do this, we need you to stick with the original plan. So the idea of HCD pulling the money back and giving it to, you know, another town I think is unrealistic.
I mean, let's ask them. All we can do is have a conversation. That having been said, are these in the back as well? So I have put together So one pager that's based on a seven-page sort of analysis of a 30-unit modular cabin village. And the question that I started with, and I might need more than five minutes, so I hope that I can get that.
Well, we'll have you stop at five, and then we'll all take
turns.
Well,
I won't get through
the
whole thing in
five.
Well,
we'll have to pause and get feedback. Yeah, we'll have a second round. Yeah.
Well, we have made exceptions for that protocol upon
asking. Take your two minutes here, because then we all have things to say.
I'm sure you do. Okay, so the question is, can we build a 30-unit ERF project to be delivered on city-owned land east of Kent Hall using modular construction within the budget with a kitchen, a garden, storage features that are being cut from the plan? So why this works, modular construction, I'm just going to go through the bullet points. I had hoped to have a little bit more time to be able to explain this since I put days and days and days and days of research into
it.
2:24 – 2:333 turns
So, you know, ADA compliance is a huge issue, so if you're going down the bullet points, better access to town center, peer foundations can be used, code compliant, this is code compliant, pre-permitted, HCD inspected at the factory and arrived at the site pre-permitted, and indeed, it's more environmentally friendly if you look at how the build happens, not necessarily the materials.
So, you know, there are things that need to be verified, survey the east parcel, an arborist report, outbuilding conditions. So I do have a proposed motion, but you can see there's a current path, the maintenance yard, with the figures that are pulled from the most recent budget, as well as an east parcel with modular. Indeed, it is also, to Councilmember Whitman's point, you know, it's not It's impossible to ask HCD, would they agree or would they have a problem with us parceling this out at different locations. You know, ask the question, get the answer.
Right now, the maintenance yard, to me, is unsupportable. It still is in the middle of a tox screen. When are we going to get back the findings from the Department of Toxic Substance? That's a two-stage process that we are still in the middle of. There is a big pile of toxic. Thank you all for joining us.
Yeah, I am not in in support of changing the scope of the project, of looking at different locations. We've investigated this property and there were too many concerns that were some of which were brought up here today, but we've brought them up in the past. Environmental concerns, the the land slope. And so I'm not in support of of doing anything I'm starting over from scratch.
And I'm not saying this because I'm concerned about the timeline and I'm concerned about the grant. That's definitely a consideration. But it's more that we have a great project. The architect has worked with us every step of the way to ensure that things that we wanted, that we said we wanted to have a part of this project were included, including the green building materials.
Even though I know that the scope has changed because prices have changed, they've been working on our direction. There's a human cost every day that we don't move forward with this. And, you know, yes, we could do a lot of different things right now, but every day that we prolong this, more and more people are living in these conditions. It's, to me, it's like we've come too far to start all over from scratch. If we want to look at other types of projects for temporary shelter down the road, I think that modular could work. But we heard tonight that modular was a consideration and this actually cost less.
So the other thing that we don't get with modular is a trauma-informed where there are opportunities for people to gather, to come together. That was an important part of this project as well. These were all things that we discussed that were a part of how we got to where we are today. The other thing, too, I mean, I'm in favor of making this as low cost as possible so that we do have access for maintaining the property and for, you know, for four years at least, you know, it would be great to have more.
One thing that I heard in conversations with Whitney and a couple of other folks is that we don't really have a huge Tay population here, and to tie up beds from people who really need them, There's some concern about that. And if we're limited and we have to have five units for TAY residents and we don't have those residents, I don't want to see empty spaces when we have people who are living in tents right now.
You know, we have to do something. We are spending a half a million dollars a year on OTT. Before that, we had people camping all over town, we had security issues, we had business owners in the arcade being harassed by people who were hanging out in their doorways. We're going to spend money no matter what, but at least having some place for people to go opens us up to funding from the county, funding from the state, and it solves a real problem that we have.
And so I'm in support. I'm in support of moving forward with the $9.5 million, not accepting the TAY, and with getting this going and breaking ground.
Thank you. I'm intending to, I have the same concerns about the grant. If there's any flexibility on the grant, I would love to hear that. Otherwise, actually, I thought Mr. Miley had a very interesting idea, which is How using some of the levers that we have to say we increase the sales tax, that would have to come through a vote, of course, but that's one idea to pay for this structure. Another thing would be, let's say, the TOT. But in either case, finding a way to fund this, I would actually personally be completely okay with.
Moving more towards option one without the limits of the grant, personally, so we get a little bit more of the project, similar to what Mr. Miley had just said. So my intention is that I would like to proceed with this location. And I had to really think pretty seriously about this, as Renee Roth pointed out. It's one of the biggest projects we're going to do in recent history, and being dedicated to a process is what I'm very interested in, and it's not inertia in the sense that In my view, the process has been adhered to, and we've gone every step of the way, looked at every single piece, including with Dignity Moves. When we first looked at the project in Santa Barbara, the public outcry was, we want something more. We want each one to have its own bathroom, and we want to have the central area.
As you pointed out, they have met us every step of the way on these requests. So I guess for me, the process has been adhered to. We have looked at locations. And every time we look at another location, when it gets brought up, it always gets brought up as, this is why it's gonna be better. And as soon as we start looking at it, it's not. Or we say, everybody's gonna like it here in this place. But as soon as it gets brought up, people start coming to the meeting saying, here's why it's not okay.
So the only through line I've seen in all of the concerns is not at the public works yard. That's the only concern that I see from a group expressing their concern. And so I've counted 11. It's a whole variety of things and I'm just, it's hard for me not to see why it's just The concern is really not just not there. It's anywhere but there. So I can't know their hearts. But what I do think is the process has been adhered to and those sites have been looked at. And I'm intending to vote tonight to say option one with a little increase or option two. I'm sorry, option one or option two. I'm happy to have a project assigned a person that the city assigns to work on it. No problem there. But I'm intending to move forward tonight. Thank you.
2:33 – 2:467 turns
Well, I have a ton of questions and all this stuff, but for the sake of time, I appreciate what everybody said. I know everybody's like, accept the money, take the million dollars and all that, but you have to realize that from this process since I've been involved, any time there was Thank you all for being here. And I think for the sake of time and all of that stuff, that if Bethany goes to Sacramento and sits down with everything that we have, here's what we want to do to get a straight answer so we know. If we accept the million dollars, what do we have to do?
Who's going to be out of something because we've taken this money? So I think to just get all the questions answered for once, like let's do this right and get all those answers, come back. If it's in a week, tell me the day we can all come back and discuss everything so we can still be in time of the May 16th deadline, but I think that all of the information we really need, you know, this is a great project, it's the first time, and to do it right, because it would be a shame to do something and have it jeopardize, or we only have this much money because now we have to pay, you know, close to a million dollars for a Thank you very much. Thank you.
I don't know if I've shared it with anybody, but the City of Long Beach, they were doing a unhoused community, purchased the units, 30 of them, decided like this is way too much, we can't do it. Well, so I had spent, you know, sending emails, talking with people, getting the runaround for months, and finally, you know, I didn't stick with it. I was like, forget it, I'm not getting anywhere.
Well, just on Friday, I get a letter from Long Beach. Are you still interested? 30 units are down at T&T Crane off 33, and you can look at them tomorrow. So I think it would be well, you know what I mean? I've got nothing to lose. I'm gonna go there tomorrow at 1130, and I'll take photos, I'll do everything, get all the information we can. Maybe we could take that if it's a cheaper thing, not that we're saying to use it for everything, but if we could get, you know, Thank you very much.
Sorry, I'm kind of looking at things from a different perspective that's, you know, just based upon my experience and watching this project and the concept evolve. And when I started on City Council, you know, we had Primarily people living in Libbey Park. The gazebo was always kind of filled with people and then everything kind of transitioned over here to City Hall and And it was, you know, so I went to a Cal Cities conference and there was a great presentation about addressing the homelessness issue.
And this is before the grant, and actually Dignity Moves was a presenter in the panel that I listened to, but there were several. And what they identified was the idea that you need to consolidate your homeless people under roofs, to a roof structure, and then You need to bring in social services and identify the programs that these individuals qualify for, and then you move them into those programs, and it was referred to as transitionary housing.
I've always thought that that fit what Ojai, it kind of, you know, the attitude of the average person, which I, you know, A lot of people want to make this a binary choice of yes or no, and I think that most of us can agree that we need to do something to address this problem. And the issue is that it's difficult to decide the best way to solve it, and I want for Ojai that we find the best way to address our homeless issue.
And so, it has always bothered me as I learned what permanent supportive housing was, and I didn't really even understand permanent supportive housing until long after we applied for the grant and were given it. And that is that we're going to take 30 people and give them a home for their lifetimes. We're promising to the state that these people will always have a place, as opposed to we're going to shepherd them from their bad condition into hopefully a program that's going to place them in a better condition. And, you know, they explained back at the Cal Cities conference I went to that someone might end up staying in our program for, you know, three or four years, but eventually a program is found for them. One of the things that concerns me about going with a permanent supportive housing Approach is that it is, so we're only helping 30 people.
I would much rather use whatever amount of money it is we decide we need to use to help a lot more people. You know, especially people who are actually housed, but they're close to being not housed. And we're not addressing a lot of people who are in our community who aren't housed. And we don't really have a plan for how to address that. And I'm gonna run out of time.
So, yeah. I don't support the TAY. And that's because, one, we've received zero information about what that would entail for us in terms of the services that we would have to provide concerning the TAY. And I've frankly stopped expecting to receive any explanation of what our expenses are going to be. I've asked repeatedly, and I never receive a response. Let
me come back
to you guys both. But yeah,
Ms. Rule.
Ms. Rule So I want this to be a deliberative process. I want to work through this. So a couple of things. To Councilmember Lang's point about we need to move forward, in my mind there is no assurance, I think it's a 50-50 on where you would break ground first. I remember the soils tests for Cabrillo, and when it rained, they had to wait months before they could do a soils test. And I asked about that oh so long ago, so I have no confidence that we would break ground at the maintenance yard before we would be able to Get all of the information that we needed for this particular, for Kent Hall. Also, I will say that it's been two years, and all of the reasons that we had for why the Kent Hall parking lot didn't work, That was then, you know, we said, oh, the slope is too much.
Well, the slope is probably no more than the slope at the maintenance yard. In other words, there is a process, and part of the process is reevaluating after two years and seeing if all those assumptions that you had way back when still hold after you've gone through two years of analysis of other places. So to me, this is not not being part of the process. This is absolutely part of the process.
All of the reasons, you know, we've had this whole project has been, you know, death by a thousand cuts. We've let things go and we're not going to do this anymore. We're not going to do that anymore. And let's look at where we actually are in what we would be building, what it would cost us, and where it would be. I think we simply, we should have, and I would hope that everyone here would agree to have a discussion with HCD and to, you know, put some of these things forward. And if they say no, they say no. And then we know at least where we are. And if HCD says no, I'm like, okay.
I'm in for the maintenance yard. But I don't believe the maintenance yard to be the best site for this. I don't believe that it will be a quicker build. Like I said, we're two phases along still on the lead remediation. So, you know, I just don't believe that argument. It doesn't make sense to me as having a real solid basis for this is a time-sensitive, and we'll do better at the maintenance yard. I just don't get that. You know, to Councilmember Whitman's point, we've said this before, this money is from the state for permanent supportive housing. So if we want to do other things, we can do other things, but we can't do other things with this money. So, you know, that's kind of that. I also do not, I don't support the million dollars. I know it's really hard to say no to a million dollars, but number one, it's not money to us, it's money to Dignity Moves.
We have no idea what the parameters around that are, what the restrictions might be. We haven't had any direct contact with the funder at all. So I wouldn't put ourselves in that, But I would also say if you want to have a conversation with the actual funders and see, I mean, I'm a little bit suspicious when it's like, oh, no, it has to be the maintenance yard. There's no other place it can be.
If I don't support the maintenance yard, I certainly don't support, you know, the condition that it be the maintenance yard. You know, that having been said, I want everyone to know that I am not going to be the down vote on this. But I also think a conversation with HCD is entirely plausible, absolutely warranted. We can't break ground at the maintenance yard until we have clearance from the Department of Toxic Substances, DTSC, whatever that stands for. I mean, we can't. And we don't have that.
So I see that there is a time frame here. I know people are so, so I'm upset with the idea of this is still in flux. That's the hard part, is that it's still in flux. But deciding on the maintenance yard doesn't move it any quicker. I mean, we can make that decision, but that doesn't mean that the maintenance yard is going to clear for the lead. We don't know what it's going to take. There's still a pile of contaminated soil that needs to be removed, not even to talk about I would like to make a motion of some sort with my recommendations, the proposed motion.
But this is a deliberative body, and I want to deliberate with this body. I don't want to be here, but this is what I have arrived at after two years of this, and Ruth and I were at that first meeting, and we supported it from day one.
Anything you want to add to what you said?
2:46 – 3:0034 turns
I don't think I have anything to add. Just a question for the city manager. A couple of questions. When is the soil remediation expected to be finished?
I was just going to see if Lucas is here. He is here. Mr. Seibert, could you come give an overview on what's going on with what we call the dirty dirt process, please? He's the closest to this, so thank you, Mr. Seibert.
Good evening. Okay, so I am meeting on site with Pacific Petroleum as well as Rencon on Friday, and we're going to scope this site out in terms of the trucks coming in and working through that. It's looking like they're going to start a week from this Monday. So this coming Monday is when they're going to start. Now you're going to ask, how long is this going to take?
In a conversation I just had with them yesterday via Zoom, they're not seeing more than five days. Working through the stockpile as well as the lead subterranean, chasing it, they're not seeing more than five days.
Can I just ask a quick question? That's assuming that the Boreings come back with no findings, and that assumes that, I mean, they themselves might be able to do the work in five days, but it still has to get final approval from DTSC, and maybe we have a relationship with them, and, you know, they promised a quick turnaround, I don't know.
Yeah, so DTSC is kind of the unknown in terms of how we'll be working through that with them. I can tell you that in working with RENCON and talking with Andy and Jessica about how they'll be chasing the subterranean pieces, they're already aware of an area where they're not seeing it going any further, but there are areas they're going to be chasing it through the wall.
So, it's not a matter of, in terms of how, and I'm only regurgitating what they just told me because I am not the expert on this. So, it was really kind of what they were explaining to me is when they get out there and they do a dig, then they'll have their equipment out there to see if the lead is still any further, right? So, it's not necessarily a boring piece like what you were talking about before. Those have already been done in terms of identifying where the lead is located.
But you need to, I mean, we've had this discussion before, you need to bore into the sides to make sure that there's no margin.
Maybe it's the same thing we're saying. It's more like you're taking a scoop and then doing a reading.
Making
a scoop and then doing a reading.
Right, and the reading that they take on site is with handheld devices, but they need to take that back and actually do a lab analysis because DTSC doesn't accept Thank you. That's, of course, that's the goal. I mean, yeah. But, you know, we don't,
we don't know. Thank you.
You were involved in the process of looking at the Kent Hall property, is that correct? Three years ago, yes. In doing feasibility
studies? Not necessarily a feasibility study like we did recently for the one up 50, what Highway 350, Ventura Street. That's your question.
Okay, just if you could speak to any anything that you wanted that that any either challenges or opportunities with that property.
Yeah, so this site presents the challenges very similar to what we're seeing for the lower part. You mean this site? Kent Hall. Is that what you mean? Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. When I'm pointing that direction, I mean this part behind me here. Similar challenges. I mean, you're looking at a difference in grade. You're looking at some historical pieces, which are not necessarily the same as what we're looking at for Kent Hall.
So you've got some other... It's kind of a mixed bag in terms of what you're looking at here. I mean, I'm only talking at the 20,000-foot level, not necessarily drilling down like we did for 503 South Ventura Street. Like everybody's been talking about, each side is presenting itself with some problems and some challenges, certainly.
Can I ask a question that I thought you might ask? If you get into a scenario where you say, all right, well, we're going to go here instead, or that's the intention, right? I mean, if the suggestion is this will be faster versus the public works yard, talk about that a little bit. What would be entailed with changing the location? What would need to be done?
It would be the same number of studies that we've done for the lower public works here. So, you're looking at a Phase 1, and likely, because it's on a public piece of property, and it's residential, we'd be asking for a Phase 2, and then we'd see what would come out of that. No one anticipated the lead at the Public Works Yard. I think, to be honest, I was projecting petroleum, subterranean petroleum, and for that to not come back with all the boring we did was a bit of a relief. Chasing that, from what I'm hearing, is significantly more difficult.
If I could do something, there's some other, because I've looked at 10 different locations. The other big part about it you have, we talked a little bit about it, is the public part of it. Once you make the public aware that you're considering this, you're going to have folks come out with things you hadn't considered. It's just what has been our experience. The other thing is that we have OTT currently, and this is one of our challenges. It's bifurcating our organization. We've got our finance department. In another building, this would invariably somehow impact that. Again, it's another thing to think about.
And then not to mention, you've paid the Green Coalition $100,000 to do a master plan for this entire property, and that's not contemplated in that.
I just, if I, Dylan, if you don't mind, I guess I just want to ask this question again, just so that we're just being plain. That if we said, oh, if we're going to switch a location, Is it possible that it will be faster if we were to build it here versus continuing here? I just want to make sure we're being clear about what we're saying.
Yeah, I think from a timeline perspective, with respect to Council Member Rule's concerns about the lead, I think Mr. Siebert explained it well. It is most likely a couple of weeks process to do the borings and test and carve the sidewalls to chase the lead. That's my understanding as well. Beyond that, the project is likely two to four weeks from receiving a final building permit based on the decision that's made this evening. We'll adjust the scope, work with the city and the plan reviewer to finalize the permit. We're virtually done. Ventura County Fire has largely signed off already.
So, I think the project at the Public Works Yard, if it is decided tonight to move forward, would break ground within six weeks, I would say. If we were to look at an alternative site, There's all of the feasibility that Mr. Seibert just explained, which is some number of months. Design for a project like this is surely some number of months, probably six months to get a full consultant team to design a new site.
Bidding is typically a couple of months, so call that eight months, and permit review as well. So add all of that in, I think it's likely from the point at which a site is selected, best case scenario, 10 to 12 months until project's ready to break ground.
Okay, thank
you. Something
along those lines. Let me finish. Do you have any more questions though? Because I do want to go down the line.
Yeah, I have one more question. And that was, there was a public comment that was brought up about the contingency and the developer contingency. Is there anything that you could speak about that?
Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. So the contingency in specialties bid, the public comment is correct. There is a contractor's contingency, although I believe it's $100,000. We could check. And that is a contingency that is to be applied to cost differences throughout the course of the project. That the contractor would need to have a pool of money to apply. Is
that GC contingency escalation? Did that
line up? I'm not looking at the spreadsheet. It's above the hard cost total, so it's higher on the spreadsheet. There's a GC contingency line. I think it's $100,000.
Yeah, well it says the allowance is $100, but-
Yes, that one. So there's an allowance. Okay, so below the line, there is what's a developer contingency that's 4% in the $9.5 million budget and 10% in the $10.5. So the developer contingency is an overall project contingency that Dignity moves and the City's owner's rep would have control over to use for unforeseen conditions. Ten percent is a very standard number at this point in a construction project when you go to bid and you have a bid from a contractor.
It's important that the design team, the developer, and the owner have a pool of money that is available because construction is unpredictable, as anyone knows who's ever tried to build anything. You need some money set aside within the overall project budget that can cover Unforeseen conditions, code compliance issues that come up, code changes. And the deeper you are into the project, that money's also available for owner-driven changes, upgrades. If you want to change the design, add more straw paneling, or more landscape, or whatever it is, that money is there at the discretion of, ultimately, the owner's rep to sign off to add scope. And I will say part of Dignity Moves contract is, I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but my understanding is any money that is left over in this construction budget in that contingency pot is rolled into the city's operating budget for the project.
So best case scenario, the 10% contingency still has a few percent left late in the project, and that can just be used for ongoing operations.
More questions on your side? I could just do it three minutes. I'm going to use mine for questions. Mr. Gass, for you, would the granting organization, if we could not fill those five spots with those people from Ojai, would they allow us to use it for other
people? We can have that conversation. I mean, I'm open to having, and we're open to having that conversation. I do want to push on the TAY a little bit more because I'm doing studies around the state and I'm working with community-based organizations. The TAY population is underreported. They don't show up in the homeless count. They fall off. Typically, you show up in those counts when you get older.
They're hidden in your population and they are growing. So there is, that number is there and you will find them and be able to work with them. And I have worked with mixed populations of elder and Tay together in a population and the services are similar. So there are issues there, like I just want to push back on that a little bit. And I'm actually working with HCD on it's a path to independence.
I want to also just address Councilmember Whitman's comments about transitional housing. We applied for transitional housing in the grant. You don't have enough housing inventory here. They pushed it to permanent supportive housing because of your housing inventory in Ojai. You didn't have enough permanent housing in your inventory. They flipped it on us. But we initially pushed for transitional, so that's why you have PSA.
James, you can keep the clock running. This could be my
time. And you have the other question, too, from you. Again, we can talk to them about that, but the population is there.
So I think that the concern that I'm hearing, and I do understand it, we have said we want people, let's say if they're coming to Tent Town or they're going to go here, they're going to go through the continuum of care through Help of Ojai. So we do want them to be an Ojai I would say
3:00 – 3:1323 turns
In terms of Dan, he's focused on the transitional side, and PSH-centric to OHAI. I want to put that on the record, just to push a little bit on, before you move beyond the money, that there are, the contingencies on there aren't as extreme as you think.
And if they said, we won't have five unused units, if they said that, like we had the need, I would say, great, sign me up. What I mean is if you had people over that age group that could come in and we had any available units there that were set aside, if they could use the unit, it would be hard to say no to somebody if there was an open
Yeah, and I want to speak to the foundation and what they've done and what a lot of philanthropy is shifting to right now that we're working with across the state is focused on transitional age population because of the return on investment. You end up moving them from PSH quicker so that we're seeing more philanthropy shift to that. So when you're asking what the intention of the foundation is, we're seeing a lot more focus on that population. Of course, I would like to see more funding toward the elderly. It is very difficult to get that right now. We're still fighting for that kind of funding.
Thank you, I appreciate that. I'm going to ask Ms. Mang this question. When you were saying to the City Attorney, could there be a list of questions that we asked HCD? I guess I like what you said, and I'm also wanting to ask, though, the problem that I'm seeing in the group is, what are the questions? So you said one. If we take the money, what's the limit? That's a good question.
No, I agree with that one. Thank
you all for
joining us today. You said
three properties, so I'm
wondering.
If we were to go to them and say there's three properties we're talking about, that's not quite right.
Thank you very much.
Well, it just feels very open as presented. Like, we're looking at all these places, we don't have the best bang for the buck. Well, it seems to me you'd want to be much clearer and down the road to say, here are two locations that we have vetted, hypothetically. But that means, well, I'm just proposing it. No, but that means that's work that would have to be done before the question. Otherwise, we're just asking really open-ended things. Like, if you were to say, can we Can we have a year extension to explore options? No, that's wait. OK, fair enough. No, I get that. But I mean, I'm just trying to look at these possibilities about what kind of vetting would need to take place.
So I'm going to I'm addressing I'm seven. Yeah, I'm done. I'm done. Go
ahead. Let me hear. OK.
OK, so. You know, when Councilmember Mang came on Council, she kept asking, well, you know, if we're gonna spend all this money on this project, what are we not gonna spend money
on?
And that's a big concern that I have because, and I have a different view of where we are financially, and I'm watching Thank you all for joining us. I'm not gonna guarantee this, but I think I'm hearing about this, you know, three quarter of a million construction supervision costs for the first time, and that's not being covered by the grant. So, all of this gets subtracted away, and what somebody explained to me recently is, when you're such a small town, You really need to build your financial strength because any interruption in your income, and we've seen this happen a couple of times in the last 15 years or so, any interruption in your income and you're potentially like sunk and we're committing ourselves to long-term, you know, we will not have the excuse to say, hey, we don't have enough money to fund our homeless are permanent supportive housing this year.
And I'm not saying that because we're not going to do it. I want the community to understand that if we're going forward, there are going to be some financial consequences for doing that. Now, what I see, what I could potentially support is the idea of going to HCD and segregating two properties, that being the McRae property and the service yard with the McRae property becoming a place for one, a caretaker's unit. And I'm not, you know, we'd have to do the analysis of the number of people who are elderly and or disabled and really not realistic to be making that sojourn on this path.
So let's say 8 to 12 units, and then the balance of the units being put at the service yard. And then I know it's not going to alleve the concerns of the folks that have I don't want to see it at the service yard, but at least we'd potentially reduce the project from 30 to 18, or whatever the number became. And I absolutely do like the idea of looking at modular housing.
What it would cost to do, so, you know, basically we're talking about, you know, putting in slabs and dropping housing, and most of these companies will bring and install the housing. I don't have in mind doing it on the western part of our campus. But I could see, you know, depending on the need, the potential for doing some units that were on the border of the McRae property so that they would be, but I haven't I haven't thought about what populations make sense.
And so I don't think that we should be even thinking about accepting a grant unless there's a grant agreement so that everything's lawyer approved, all the details spelled out and signed by the grantor. We're getting Thank you very much. Ms. Mang, did you have anything you wanted to
say?
We're
going to take one more round.
Okay, and I'm going to do this quickly. I just wanted to point out that in my research, NEST Toolkit, which is a qualified modular PSH provider, has provided exactly these kinds and these size of permanent supportive housing. That's why I said perhaps a request for information. I don't have deep details. But they have done permanent supportive housing with modular at about the same number of units. That's what I know.
The other thing that I will say is, is that no matter what you say, building, you know, modular or prefab is quicker. And you're not at the vagaries of weather. For instance, there's a lot of things that when you talk about construction and construction time, you know, you have to, it's not just how long does it take to pound nails or anything. So anyway, I think that a request for information, I also think that, you know, with Sunny and Bethany doing some creative thinking about asking HCD where we actually are here, is worth our while. They're not going to say, give us the money back. They're going to say, no, you need to move forward. I mean, you know, you need to move forward like you said you were going to move forward. And that's good for us to know.
Or do we have options? This thinking outside of the box or thinking outside of the hacienda model, because, you know, we haven't really done that. And I do think it's part of the process. And finally, the ADA compliance is For me, it's one of the biggest things because that population, you know, my mom is, in other words, I see that, we've heard from experts, we've heard from ADA lawyers who say, you know, it's not gonna work for them, and I believe that. So that's where I am on it, like I said, we're a deliberative body, I think that We should have our city attorney and Sonny Soldani, who is a very creative thinker, ask HCD where we are in this and give them some options. As Ms. Mang said, we could buy 30 units right down the road there. Okay, what does that look like?
I'm not suggesting that we do that. You know, what is their, what is their malleability here? We don't really know what other towns, the issues that other towns have had. We can certainly assume that our issues are not greater than any other towns, and HCD has thought this through and, you know, will be able to give us some sort of guidance, which I think we need.
Which brings up another question, so like keeping the yard with Dignity Moves, with their model and all of that stuff, and perhaps using the units if they were a fit, if we view them tomorrow, if that would work at the McRae property. Can we mix it up? Well,
that's the question. Why do we mix it up? How much can we mix and match? And as we start to do creative thinking and try to make this really work for our community and as many members of our community as we possibly can, You know, we need to know what the limitation, what HCD's guardrails are. We can't assume. I don't feel comfortable saying, you know, they want you to do exact, you know, that we're going to have problems with HCD. Maybe we will, maybe we won't. So, I don't know. There I am.
Okay. Anything more to say?
3:13 – 3:2026 turns
I don't have anything more to say. It's unfortunate that I feel very defeated right now, and I feel like this project that we've worked on for three years, we've come to a place where we can break ground in six weeks, and now there's a great big roadblock in it. So, you know, if moving forward with approaching HCD and seeing what parameters we can adjust if that can be done in a timely manner.
How much time are we talking about? What would that entail?
Let's ask the serious question.
We're asking if, how much would it delay the project, how much time would you expect to delay to go to Sacramento, meet with HCD, and come back? Or just call on the
phone. Yeah, yeah. I think the question would depend on how long it would take to get the meeting scheduled, what their availability is. And then, you know, whether there is anything they would have to do, you know, I mean, what I would, what we would try to do is have a meeting with someone who can, who would be a decision-maker, but we have to, we have to get to the decision-maker.
What is the question specifically? Is it just, is it just what, what the limitations are on a $1 million donation, or what is it, what is the question?
That's what I
mean.
To me, that's way too open-ended.
That was going to be my follow-on question is I would want to make sure that we have clear direction in terms of what you would like for us to ask.
So my question relates to our ability to do units on the McRae property for the more disabled population and then units on the The service property for the more athletic population.
So I need to jump in really quick because I think this is not so much an HCD question, because what they're going to say is, you know, is that what your direction is to do? Okay. Is that providing more units or better access to service? This is more of a question about the operation of this project once you've got it built, because now you have it split in two different spots, which is harder to manage. And we designed this project with Dignity Moves, who builds these types of developments. We had a whole discussion at one point, you may recall this, looking at a location behind us here, and I am pointing the right way, where there were individual little cabins, you know, kind of spaced out here. And when we discussed this with Dignity Moves, our concern was it doesn't really work very well with this population if you've got people spaced out.
In a bunch of different spots, we're trying to bring people together. Mr. Gattis can jump in on this. You were there at this discussion. But that was the expertise we got on this. Can you jump in on
this? Yeah, that was mostly about a heavily wooded area and sightline and security and trying to build that in a heavily wooded area. But could you
speak to operating two different
locations? Operating two, just as someone who's operated them, it can be difficult. You want integrative services because you've got staffing. Now you're going to hire more staffing. You're going to have to have staffing at two locations. So your staffing ratios are going to go up, right? You're going to have to start to like build services out. The way that you have everybody on one site, you're integrating services and you're capitalizing, you're reducing your FTEs, you're reducing your operating, significantly reducing your operating expenses. You may have overnights. Now you've got two overnights at two places.
You don't have a property manager anymore, you have a property manager and you have overnight staff at two sites. So you start to really, your costs start to go up. That's why when you have one site, you're able to integrate those services and the cost of operation on one site and utilize that staff to do oversight on that property. And I want to say, too, when we moved from Kent Hall to the public, we moved from 20 to 30 units.
We could only fit 20 units over there. I just want to reference back to that. That was another reason why. And HCD is looking at us, is this an improvement on what you originally wrote the grant for? And that's what Ben had to go through several iterations on in terms of proving that we were improving on that.
Well, I think they've actually kind of changed that a little bit. What they've told me is what you last proposed. So if you're, you know, not what you originally submitted. Look, we have something in front of us now for $30,000. Now you're saying it's going to be $20,000.
Well, and then they look at it. It's like, okay, what's the end game? I mean, they're going to look at us like, what is the endgame here? Keeps the goalposts. Again, you'd go to HCD, but they're going to keep looking at you like, what is going on here? Because they see communities stalling on these projects. Right?
But not all. They also see communities fulfilling them.
Well, they do, they see both, but they have guardrails on it to make sure that communities don't backtrack on the obligation to build housing. They want to look at the intent of the community, right? So they just need to see the intent, like, this thing has been going on for two years within that, and they're going to look at that, that time frame and all of these other things. So, yes, go and ask those questions.
We'll move along with you. We will decide as a development team, too, how we can and if we can and if that arrangement is there. But again, these are questions that are going to be scrutinizing. It just seems like it keeps moving.
So just to say if the project tonight were we proceed with option one and we seriously commit to exploring but really making a real serious commitment to say there's a couple of units on 503 Ventura that cater to those other people that actually adds to the number of units or something, I would agree to that today. Yeah.
Or even, you know, well, I think one thing is HCD asks, you know, is it better? Well, you know, I mean, does it provide, you know, access to services? The question I
just proposed doesn't even require them to say, OK, because we disagree. We're going to put a couple of tiny homes on 503 Ventura. We're not changing the public work charge project at all. We just put a couple up there, which we have been pondering, not deciding, that possibly the manager lives up there, possibly. That's not
decided, we just talked about it. I would say that the 503 discussion should probably come back as a separate, yeah.
Yeah, fair enough. I thought that Mr. Whitman's idea was actually a really novel one that I hadn't considered before. And it's interesting.
And that's another option we have tonight, is that we could decide to go into closed session, talk about all of this in terms of, because I'm assuming we can go into closed session.
But why would we need to, I guess I'm asking that question. Is something about contract negotiations on
that? Yeah, property negotiations, all the rest of that. But we have the property already.
3:20 – 3:2629 turns
But I have a question, this brings it up. In the past, I don't recall exactly when it was, but in the past, when we were talking about the proposal with Dignity Moves for $9.5 million, and Mr. Harvey, you said at that time that, you know, when we asked, like, oh, what if they go over? And you said, well, that would be on them. I guess Dignity Moves would take a loss. So with them going over now by a million dollars to something that we agreed on with $9.5, Is that still true that they would have to go back and give us what we said we wanted in the
beginning? So the way this is contemplated is that the city remains consistent with the DMA, which says that it will pay no more than $9.5 million to Dignity Move. That remains the same. What changes is they're holding, if you will, this additional million dollars that's being applied towards the project.
That's only if we accept the grant. What she's asking, though, is a different question.
So with them coming in over $9.5 million, not accepting the million dollars from what you had said in the past, that that would be on
them. The city can only pay $9.5 million to dig anywhere.
Isn't the answer that we can make it be where we can't do the project for more than $9.5 million? And they have said that's option two. In other words, here's what you would get. Here's what is possible for $9.5 million.
So if I may, the development management agreement does address the situation where the development budget appears that it might be exceeded. And so what it basically says is that if it becomes apparent that the budget will be exceeded or that funding is insufficient, After being advised of that by Dignity Moves, the City and Dignity Moves are required to meet and confer to identify and obtain sources of additional funding or agree upon changes to the project to accomplish cost savings and efficiencies.
So, you know, I can't speak to what may have been stated in previous meetings, but I will say that is what the DMA says. It contemplates that the parties will work together. And, you know, one solution might be that Dignity Moves does bring in additional funding. I think that's an option. Because it, you know, to obtain, identify and obtain sources of additional funding. But the other alternative is to agree upon changes that bring the cost down. So I think... Seems like
both have happened.
Well, I mean, what's left? I mean, seriously, like, I don't know
what's left. That seems like an overstatement to me. Because they could say, no earthen materials, and then we can bring the cost down even more. They've responded to what we've asked for, including Thank you all for joining us.
The question is, though, basically, Dignity Moves is not on the hook for any overage. It's a conversation between them and us to decide either to find money with city money or grant money or whatever money, or we decrease scope to where we get to the budget.
The development management agreement does not require them to find additional funding.
Correct. Correct.
I have to admit to my colleagues here, I am hearing the audience to say we do keep adding things and we keep wanting to move it down the road. We've constantly been doing that for a year. So I want to entertain a motion that we accept option Well, here's how I want to say it. I would accept option one, pending conversation around flexibility on the five units.
I'm not going to vote for that.
Okay, that's
okay.
Or I'll go with
two. I would be more comfortable with option two. Two's fine. And have discussions, further discussions. And if
that comes in at another time,
great. Yeah.
So,
yes, I would
propose accepting option
two. OK, I'll make a motion to accept option two.
I second that.
OK, I'm going to make an alternative motion that we authorize the city attorney to talk to HCD about the two property option. But I'd also want to get back You know, maybe for the first time I'll get some discussion about what the expenses are. I haven't been able to get the expense of what it's going to cost us to operate this, but maybe when I make it into new properties I can.
I know you're making a motion, Council Member, but I do want to say that I think I have actually provided this in my estimate. I'm going to say this again, is $500,000 a year. You're going to know definitively when you go out for bid, which is in the agenda report. That's when you're going to know better on what it's going to cost. But in talking to operators about it and describing the number of units, that's what I've been provided. They've said, yeah, it's probably a half a million dollar expenditure. And we have talked about that in public meetings before.
City Attorney, can I offer a friendly suggestion or an amendment to this motion even though we have one out? Do you need a second on that one before?
3:26 – 3:3129 turns
So the motion is to continue this until we have a discussion with HCD? Yes. Okay, so it's to continue this until we have a discussion with HCD. Do you want to put a time limit?
And the specific subject matter of the discussion is whether we can Split the project between the two properties, and I'm thinking more like, you know, 20 and
10. Right. And you know, of course, that the property across the street from the McRae property is city-owned property. It's at the top of the maintenance yard. That's city-owned property that's the same site, same size as the McRae property. Just saying. Just saying.
I'm interested in configurations between The city property, I just was never supportive of the Kent Hall proposal.
Okay, and I assume that we don't have a taker on the Kent Hall property, which is fine. I'm perfectly fine, although there are schematics that say that 30 units will work. But, you know, we're a deliberative body, and if I don't have any, you know, support, then I don't have any support. I would support your motion. I'm not ready to vote on this, and I would hate for this vote to go down.
I need more information. You know, I'm not comfortable at all with where we are with this project at the city, the maintenance yard. I'm just not comfortable with it. I think we have had a lot of different, you know, discussions on September 9th. You know, we were given a budget at 9.5 that was supposedly, and I don't want to rehash all this stuff.
You're saying why you won't vote for the first one, but you're gonna, you're the second, you're
gonna go for the second. Thank you very much.
Tiny homes at the 503 Ventura property as an extension of the
project.
Yes. So I was saying, yeah, I'm saying number two, asking Dignity Moves to explore the flexibility of the five units of the TAE restriction. So we're just asking them to explore that, but we're only taking number two, and that we are asking staff to engage in a feasibility study on extending a few tiny home units or some small units at the 503 Ventura property. That would be in addition to the project.
And is that contingent on getting Dignity Moves, getting the money from the foundation? No. No. No.
Because we're just saying option two. And if they come, so hypothetically, if the grant comes through, great. And if they say we got flexibility, we could come back and say, actually, we can make an adjustment. But pending that, I think it's, we've just, it seems like a good call not to take it.
You want this
to go down? Does that make
sense?
Huh? Okay. Okay.
Yeah. What was the first motion?
The first motion was just option two. And the second option was go to HCD, looking at the two properties, just saying the shorthand. Third option is option two and a feasibility study on extending the project to 503 Ventura.
And if I may, with option two, well, maybe we... You mean
motion two?
Yeah, motion two, motion two. I think part of what we would also be inquiring from HCD is what other, you know, ancillary issues... I mean, so ultimately, if they are willing to consider the substitute motion, with an alternate project, with bifurcation of the project on two sites. There will be some other approvals we would need from HCD related to extension of project timelines.
I just want
to make sure that we ask all the questions, that I understand that motion. So we will first need to vote on the third motion.
Do you need me to say it again? Mayor, I understand you're the motion maker. I know I already suggested
the amendment to Ms. Lang's motion, but it's option two. Pardon? Sure.
Who
was
the second for the third motion? Thank you for clarifying. Okay.
It doesn't matter who's the motion and who's the second. Are you saying I'm the motion and you're the second?
Roll-call vote Failed 2–2 move forward with option two and authorize staff and Dignity Moves to proceed with questions with the donor about five units and direct staf · 1 under review
Show transcript
3:32 – 3:376 turns
Council Member Rule.
It's the wrong project. I feel your pain, Rachel. Can I ask a legal question? Is this revisitable at all?
It would be subject to a motion for reconsideration, which is a majority
would need. And
then at a future meeting, it would require a supermajority of council to approve waiving the rules. In order to make the motion for consideration. Yeah, reconsideration.
I just want to say. That this has not been, to me, an upfront, above-board process at all. And I feel like a gun is to my head. I feel like, you know, time after time after time, we've been given wrong information only to come back four months later and, you know, half the people have forgotten the wrong information. It has been horrible. It has been horrible since September 9th when Dignity Moves gave us a budget that was There were a lot of things that were not real, where they said there were, you know, bids online you could look at, all of that. There was none of that, and the bids came in way higher.
I agree that as far as architecturally has gone, that Dylan, you've been great, but the management of this has not been great, not from the city, not from Dignity Moves, and it pains me to have to have sat through this for two years. And I could get a litany of situations where I have felt disrespected, have felt manipulated, have felt dishonesty, have felt, I'm gonna tell you this now so we can move on and come back, and it's not true, oh, you know, and our previous attorneys made a contract and told us things that weren't true, that's not, you know, our new attorneys, Thank you very much.
Both from our project manager and from the city staff about what's true and what's not true and how much lead there is and how much lead there isn't and how long it's going to take. And, you know, we vetted ten properties. Nah, we gave a blink to a few properties. You know, as far as the Bryant Street, not, you know, That property, we had attorneys weigh in on whether or not that could be vetted. It's been horrible, and I don't feel like I've gotten clearer.
True answers, and I do feel like I have a gun to my head, this idea of a foundation giving us money only if we put it in one place. Like, how does that work? Anyway, but I have heard from many, many, many people that I love and that I trust who have begged me to vote yes on this. And so I'm going to vote yes on it, even though I am so incredibly disappointed in my fellow council members, in the staff of the city, in the management of the process, but in the end, These people need homes, and nobody seems to believe that the best way to do it is not this way, which I firmly believe. But I'm not going to put it at risk. I'm going to put this to bed, and we're going to do the best we can from here on out. And I don't appreciate a gun to my head by anybody.
So I'm voting yes with a gun to my head, because I can't possibly vote no.
3:37 – 3:451 turns
All right. Five minute break. We'll come right back. Check, check. Thanks, y'all. Are you ready, Mr. Montgomery? I think we can get through the rest pretty quickly if you guys are up for it, or me, Mr.
3:45 – 3:528 turns
Whitman.
Yeah, we definitely have to do the next item. There he is. Okay, let's go on to number eight, revising the City Council protocols to establish quasi-judicial hearing procedures.
All right, I will provide, I don't have a presentation, but I will present the item. Basically, this item is intended to bring a modification, it's really, there are three parts, three elements, and it would be approved by resolution. The first part of this is modifying the council protocols, and part of that is to adopt a policy for quasi-judicial procedures.
There is a second cleanup modification included as part of the council protocols to correct what I can only believe is a scrivener's error in your council protocols to refer to Robert's Rules of Procedure instead of Rosenberg, but your municipal code says it's Rosenberg. And then the third piece of this is actually just approving the quasi-judicial hearing policy and procedures.
The reason this is coming back before you is last September, City Council started the process of hearing an appeal on a transient occupancy tax audit. determination and as part of that process there I believe there was some confusion regarding what the procedures were and what the rules and parameters were both for the appellant as well as for city staff in terms of providing information to City Council and then what the procedures themselves would look like.
Since that time, you know, we've prepared this policy, but we also have another appeal on a different matter that we intend to bring to City Council later this month, and so it would be helpful to ensure that we're providing adequate due process and a clear process and policy for members of the community who have filed appeals or who have other quasi-judicial applications pending before City Council or before city commissions and so for that reason we are recommending that council approve the resolution Adopting the revisions to the protocols and adopting the policy
And then just to me that there were some key issues. So this is a question I'm looking at page 106 of the full document or three of seven of attachment C and I'm seeing timelines for when things are submitted to us because that I felt like that was a huge question, was we were given things the day before, expected to read it, and all of us were saying, we can't do this right now. I'm seeing that as a material change here.
That is a big change. The other thing that it does, and we've provided some flexibility there because sometimes appeals get filed And we have time to provide more extensive notice, but there are a number of provisions in your municipal code where shorter notice periods are allowed. And so, you know, if there is going to be a hearing for which we only provide, let's say, you know, five days notice, you know, it doesn't make sense that we would require materials to be submitted before people even have notice of a hearing. So just trying to provide some ground rules there. The other big things that I think are important here is it sets some expectations around the length of time for testimony as part of quasi-judicial hearings and appeals.
And so that there are some, you know, boundaries around, you know, how long both parties would speak. So I believe what we, or what I included in the policy was that it would, testimony, like initial testimony would be allowed up to 20 minutes, with an additional five minutes on all sides for rebuttal. You know, When these matters come before a city council or a commission, there are also public hearings, and so there's always an opportunity for public comment. I have included a provision that allows the presiding officer of either council, so that would be the mayor or the chair of a commission, to modify or adjust those timelines depending on the nature of the matter, because sometimes more time may be appropriate or less time may be necessary.
I'm also happy to take any other questions. I don't believe this is something that some other city has been using. This was actually prepared by your previous city attorney's office initially, the initial draft of this. I reviewed it and revised it based on other quasi-judicial procedures I've used in the past. But it wasn't a specific written policy. It was more based on my own experience handling these matters.
Absolutely. But it wasn't a specific policy from another community. So we have, I believe it should be in a red line. There is a section. Hold on one moment. Yes. So we have so in the council protocols. So there were two changes, one was in the rules of procedure. And of course, now that I'm flipping through it, I'm not finding it quickly.
You mean in the main document?
Yeah, in the Council Protocols document. Bear with me one more moment. There should be red print, theoretically. Thank
you.
3:52 – 3:5934 turns
So it appears... So on the Rules of Procedure, Now that I'm flipping through it. Do
you remember just what the word is?
So the one would be a reference to Rosenberg. OK.
Got it.
Yeah. So it's on
page 91 on page 80 of the packet and then page 91 of the of the document under city council meetings. Yeah. It's not redlined, but that's the revision
right there.
Larry,
is that on this item? Yeah. So the first change was on page 80 in Section D, and I apologize that it's not in red line. That's OK. It was simply to change the reference from it previously stated Roberts Rules of Order. OK. And the only change was to change it to Rosenberg Rules of Order. OK. And then the other change was on.
If you remember the word, I can search it real quick.
Quasi judicial.
Okay, page 97, Public Hearings, 9. Is
that
it?
That is not it.
Okay, there's more. The rest are all in the addendum at the end.
It refers to the policy by name. Quasi-judicial hearings.
I see it in the resolution. Page
1092, number 9.
I apologize guys, we need to defer this.
Oh, quasi-adjudicative? That's on page 85.
If I might try, Mayor, page 24 of the Council Protocols document, section 9, Public Hearings. If I may offer that.
Ah, yes, there, and thank you, Weston. So which page is it? So it's on page 97 of the packet, on page 24 of the protocols. It's adding one sentence that reads, quasi-judicial proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the City Council policy for quasi-judicial hearings. That policy is attached to these protocols as attachment A. Okay. Sorry, I apologize for that. That was at nine.
It was at nine. Yeah.
No problem. There you go. No, that's good. I was also going to propose that, I just noticed a few little tweaks here and there, so I definitely want to go forward with what you proposed today, but then just to have the City Manager possibly go, or you go back and just go through with a more fine-toothed comb.
And we will make sure that the next time that we bring other revisions back that they are in red line.
Okay. Any more questions of your staff?
Yes. I guess we can wait till this discussion, but I have the same. I would like to make some minor changes or revisit some of the protocols, but I don't want to, you know, stall this approval for tonight. So perhaps we can figure out how that would work. Absolutely.
Larry, would you mind coming up? Thanks.
Cool. This is great. I think it's wonderful. I have a question, though. The BAB, this is sort of aiming at doing away with the BAB, which is Building Appeal, which is usually made up of people who are very knowledgeable about the things that are being discussed. That is not your specialty, forte, and therefore would lean more for establishing people who have expertise in some of the issues that are being brought up, because good intentions and quick reading and a few YouTube videos or whatever does not necessarily make you experts of the topic that you will be adjudicating.
So on certain boards you may want to do that.
If I may, I know we don't typically respond to public comment from the dais, but I would also like to address your question. So this does not actually change or modify which city body would be the appeal authority under the Municipal Code, all it simply does is provide procedures that will be used. So if the Municipal Code today provides for a decision to be appealed to the Building Appeals Board, it would still continue to be appealed there. So this is also the same process that would apply for appeals to the Planning Commission that are made by city
staff. But to the mayor, because we don't have a BAB, We do
have a
BAB.
We do have a BAB.
3:59 – 4:0126 turns
Go for the appeal. Would that be appeal? Would that be something? It would be if the
council said something to the client, and the client then appeal, and we made the decision, and then the client appealed to the BAP.
Because usually it's the community development director says, they're against it, and the board says no, and the applicant appeals the decision.
You mean the commission, or what board do you mean? The
commission. The applicant appeals the commission to the BAP. The applicant appeals the decision to the BAB.
To the council, I
believe. No, but now you want to make it to the
council.
We're not changing how that works. We'll count on Bethany when it comes time for somebody to appeal something. No,
this is good clarification. No, thanks. No, good, good.
And I'm still confused because I thought BAB appeals a council decision. I don't know.
I thought that too.
I would have to look at how the BAB functions. But my only point is that this doesn't modify who the review authority is for a decision. It simply adds procedures that apply for those reviews. That's how I understood. Thank you.
Ready to make a motion? I move that we accept the protocol changes.
Or approve the resolution.
Approve the resolution. Yes. I second. Okay. Roll call, please. Yes, Mayor. Thank you.
And thank you for bearing with me. It's been a long night.
No, no problem. All good. We're all good. Council Member Rule.
Yes.
Council Member Wood. Yes. Mayor Gilman. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Mang. Yes. Council Member Lang.
Yes.
Awesome. Okay, Pest Control Services, number nine. Yes. We
just received this from Weston not too long ago. Under here on the building of Hillsport, the term expired in 2021.
Okay, so we need to revise, but there hasn't been a
case. I
actually asked for, I think I got a second, that we have the attorney come back and talk to us about the ramifications or alternatives if we were to dissolve the board, how would we do it? I think there was a question about whether It would be better to have the City Council be the Appeal Board or whether it would be better to have the Planning Commission be the Appeal Board.
And we were waiting to get, that was probably something on Matt's or Taylor's to-do list.
4:01 – 4:0617 turns
So let's put that on our agenda. Thank you. That's a good call. Wow, okay, all right. Thank you. Number nine, Pest Control Services.
Yes, I'm going to ask Ms. Rojas to please join us. So thank you, Jackie, for coming up here. Thank you very much. Thank you. Weston, if you could add that last item on to the report of reports, if you don't mind. Thank you. Thanks.
All
right,
so good very late evening. I'm super happy. Thanks for hanging in there. Yeah, no problem. So good evening, Mayor and Council Members. For this item, Public Works is recommending Council award a maintenance agreement for citywide pest control services for various city-owned facilities and parks.
Let me just ask you to pause. Fellas, we just can't hear when you, I know you guys are whispering, but it carries. Go ahead. Thank you.
So, obviously, pest control is needed for several reasons, but we're mostly concerned about maintaining safety and sanitary conditions in our city-owned facilities and parks. In the past, we've used Ventura Pest Control, and we've been satisfied with their service, but their contract did expire in March of this year. So, best practice for our department is to go ahead and get, or seek quotes, or in this case, informal bids.
With that said, we adopted the Uniform Public Construction Costs Accounting Act, or as we refer to, CUPCA. So that allows us to enter into a contract by force account, or in other words, like I said, informal bid. And technically, we did not have to do that because the total cost of this service is coming under $75,000. So we can solicit, we decided as best practice to solicit an informal bid.
So we did that. We got three beds. Those were from Ventura Pest Control in Newberry Park, which we currently use, Carpetria Valley Extermination in Oakview, and Mary's Pest Control in Bakersfield. So Ventura Pest Control was the lowest and responsible bidder, coming in at around $45,000. So again, like I said, I refer to them as VPC, Ventura Pest Control. They perform work in the city most recently. This means that, you know, we've been satisfied with their service and they did come in. It's a low spitter.
They also have implemented and have complied with our earth-friendly management policy, which states that we cannot be using any poisons or any harmful tactics to mitigate our pests. And we've been very satisfied with that. So again, the benefit to our staff and to the community is, you know, having these things be more of a proactive maintenance approach is what we're going for. And then we want to maintain cleanliness and usability of our facilities.
And it protects the public in our parks. Therefore, we do recommend that Council authorize the City Manager to enter into this agreement with VPC for a remainder of this fiscal year, because again, like I said, they expire in March, so it will take us through the end of June 30th, 2026. And then they will also be awarded for a year, so that will take them to 2027, and then they'll have the option to be extended for another three years, so that will bring them to a total of four, four and a half years. For four and three months.
And the costs are included in this fiscal year and will be budgeted for next fiscal year. Any questions?
Just to say the last thing you said again, the funding that will be for the end of this fiscal year is already in the budget. And then this is the proposal that you're offering us is for, will come back for us for next year.
Well, no, you'd be authorizing the city manager for the option to extend for another three one-year terms.
Okay, so we currently do this in-house?
No, no, we actually contract with Ventura Pest Control right now.
Okay,
so
it's $10,000 to go through June 30th. Okay, cool. Yes, understood.
No, we have a contract. The contract we have currently in place are only for a couple facilities. So this is more comprehensive. It just includes every single facility and park that we already have an agreement
with. So we're currently not addressing certain locations with pest control. We're expanding the scope of where we're doing pest control.
Well, as currently as we have it right now, we do have like three different agreements. And that's only because as we were going through some of the facilities that we have, like in particular, for example, the police department, right? So we had to look at our lease agreement to see what we are required to do in there. And so we added that as a facility. And so that was kind of a separate agreement. But again, like I said, in order to kind of just put this all together into one big nice package, we went out to I
4:06 – 4:1328 turns
just have a quick question because I've heard from Mr. Harvey that there's creatures that climb in the attic. So has that not been addressed if we have a current company helping with pests and rodents and all of that stuff?
I think we have this situation here because of where we're located. Unfortunately, that's what they've told us. The pest control person is like, look.
So that rolls over into Tent Town, because I know they always say, you
know what I mean? Yeah, so that's a two-part problem. So the problem here is we're in the forest, and it's a constant battle to basically cover every single hole you can possibly find. Right. The problem with tent town that we have and this is the food sources and so that is our big challenge and people are tense and so you can't seal them up. We do our best.
Yeah, and no matter how hard you try to mitigate the rats, I mean, it really comes down to cleanliness.
But the other great thing is having a regular, thorough person with knowledge of all the facilities will be better, but it's an ongoing thing. Thank you.
And I can't speak to any private properties. But the
ones we have are, and they're just pellets inside ours, and
they're just feeding. Those boxes typically have poison that they eat, and then they get eaten by birds and stuff like that. So it's not that
bad. But we have in our contract right now, as an Exhibit D to the contract, that is the entire Earth Friendly Management Policy, so they have to comply with that. And they have been right now.
And you included that. Well, I would like to move that we authorize the agreement to the end of the fiscal year and then going into the next fiscal year, as recommended. Second. Cool.
I'll second.
Thank you. Any more discussion? Roll call,
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 move that we authorize the agreement to the end of the fiscal year and then going into the next fiscal year, as recommended. Second. Cool. I
Show transcript
Motion passed. Thank you. So on to number 10, the installation of air conditioning unit at Libby Bowl Ticket Booth.
Yeah, so this is gonna be another quick item. So this item requests approval of a $21,000 budget appropriation from the Libby Bowl Maintenance Fund to install an air conditioning unit at the ticket booth at Libby Bowl. The ticket booth is currently utilized by event coordinators during event, many of which occurred during the summer months. Currently, there's no climate control within that ticket booth, which creates uncomfortable working conditions for staff.
I bet most of us have worked in the booth already,
Yes, yes, I'm sure. So another driving factor behind this request is obviously requests from key users such as, you know, Ojai Valley Music, Ojai Music Festival, and there's quite a few others who utilize that as well. So again, the work will be completed under an existing on-call maintenance agreement with Green Globe HVAC, which allows us to get the project done expeditiously before a large amount of programming and events begin at the Libby Bowl.
So the work includes the cost for the split Heat pump, AC unit, and the installation. So the total cost is $21,000. While this is within the city manager's authority, the project was not included in the adopted budget. So council approval is required to appropriate the funds. The Libby Bowl Fund does have sufficient balance to cover this expense, and I would like to make the point while this improvement is quoted at $21,000, I would like to just address that As a government agency, we do have to pay a prevailing wage. So in the case that somebody gets a quote from the public for their private improvement, it's not going to come in as high as it would for us.
So again, the improvement supports the ongoing functions at the Libby Bowl. And it's a high-use facility, so it will prevent unfavorable conditions in the summertime. So therefore, staff is recommended to authorize the appropriation of the $21,000 from the Libby Bowl Maintenance Fund to install air conditioning unit at the ticket booth.
And it's already in the Libby Bowl Fund, the $46,000, so it's not contributing to the budget anyway. It's already there. Okay, cool.
Oh, and authorize the city manager to execute the task order with Green
Globe.
But you are asking for a budget appropriation? Correct.
If that makes sense. There's money in the fund. It just wasn't specifically allocated in your approved budget. So that is what we will have to do through an appropriation. Of course. But you have money to pay for it.
That's it. So I don't have questions, but I do have a comment. And that is that I looked at the $21,000 and I was thinking, I'm talking about someone about my whole house for that amount. But then I went and talked to somebody who knew about this stuff and they said this is a, it's a great unit. It has to service four different offices and so the Not only are the prices in line, but this is a really great energy-efficient unit.
He talked me out of being concerned very quickly.
Can I make a comment to your comment? I did try to, so this was not a part of our energy modernization program. It was not included, although there was a split system at the Libby Bowl Green Room, and I thought, well, if we're just going to replace that one, then we could use the old unit. But unfortunately, the old unit that we will be replacing is beyond its useful life. So I tried to save some money there,
but... No, thanks. Thank you for that. That's great to hear.
And I'll just say that I support paying a prevailing wage. I don't ever have a problem with that.
And it gets very hot in that room.
I just wanted to, I just have one quick comment from a constituent who said we, at a later date, it would be great for us to revisit the, that whole entrance and the building and the way that all of that is laid out. So I'm in support of moving forward with this, but I think it's a both and, like let's, you know, let's revisit that at a later date as well.
4:13 – 4:1827 turns
I move that we recommend the budget appropriation of $21,000 for the Livable Maintenance Fund balance to purchase the installation of an AC unit at the Livable Ticket Booth and authorize the City Manager to execute the task order with Green Globe.
I'll second.
Roll-call vote Passed 6–0
Show transcript
sir. In order to give this next item its better due, would Council be upset if we continued this through another day? Of course not.
It's going to be that we'll rush through it.
It really is worth it. Norma spends a lot of time organizing this, and I want her.
Norma, is that okay? No, I mean, is it okay? Okay, okay. I would have
asked,
but I was
afraid to.
Any Councilmember reports?
I would like to make a recommendation. Ben's review is like past due, isn't it typically? So I would like to schedule his review.
Let's put that on the calendar. Would you add that to the report of reports? Performance evaluation city manager.
If I missed a
date.
I have a future agenda item. So I'd like us to address
The issue of these large speed bumps, I don't know exactly how to describe them, what the term is. I know we're doing the Safety Commission, but I'd hate to have, so the folks who live on Quiama are really upset. They have been for a while, but now they've just had an accident. And I'm really interested in this idea because I've seen it in operation in places. I'm really interested in hearing a report.
So what we're doing is we're proposing, and this is going to be the first item when the Public Safety Commission is consummated, the Public Works Director is emphatic that we develop a citywide policy. And that is, she's been very clear with me on that many, many times, that you don't want to just go and throw speed bumps out in a neighborhood because you need to look at things systematically. We want the sheriff to be involved with this. And so that is the first item that we want to bring to that commission. I don't know how far away we are, Mr. Montgomery, with getting
We just got the protocol email, right? So I believe there's one application.
We have three applications. So my thought was, I agree with you 100%. My thought on this agenda item was that we as a City Council could just address this issue of these big .
.
Okay, I understand what you're saying, but I think we can adopt a
citywide
policy. I am quite tempted to say if we could just throw something down there for now until we figure out something better, I would really like to do
that.
I know I mean we want Chief Abbott to agree but I know you I know you have been on that street much more I've seen I I ride my bike on that street I do see it I see that the police are there but they have been
and I believe we have a meeting we the chief and I and Miss Palmer have a meeting with them tomorrow I think
it's tomorrow correct well I agree with you I want a second that and you got a second here as well Okay, on it. Okay, anything else? All right. Thank you all.
