Oversight board reviews successor-agency budgets from Fillmore, Moorpark, Oxnard and Ventura; board urges cuts to administrative hours and clearer end-game

The Ventura County Consolidated Oversight Board on Wednesday reviewed proposed successor-agency cost budgets submitted by the cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, Oxnard and Ventura and urged several cities to tighten administrative costs and clarify near-term plans to dispose of remaining properties.

Board staff said the board will request annual status reports from cities at its Oct. 22 meeting and reiterated that the board’s aim is to “eliminate ourselves” by winding down successor-agency responsibilities.

Presentations and board discussion

Fillmore: Deborah Cavaleto, Finance Director for the City of Fillmore, told the board the city expects its last property to wind down in 2027, if not earlier, and has reduced several cost lines for fiscal 2026–27, including lower legal fees and lower audit and administrative estimates. Cavaleto said the city has budgeted for fencing design on a remaining parcel at 510 Santa Clara Street in 2026 and noted another applicant is incurring costs and has applied to merge two adjacent parcels near the railroad corridor. Community Development Director Kevin McSweeney said a proposal for about 50 low-income housing units is under discussion for the merged parcels and that another site at 510 Santa Clara has interest for a small housing project where "20% of them will be for affordable units."

Moorpark: Hiromi Diva, Finance Director for the City of Moorpark, asked for $50,000 in administrative costs for 2026–27, reflecting a $12,000 reduction in salary-and-benefit estimates from the prior year and a $5,000 legal-fee line. Diva said the city plans a comprehensive review of city- and successor-agency properties and will bring recommendations to the Moorpark City Council in November.

Oxnard: Annie Jensen, project manager in the City of Oxnard’s city manager’s office, said Oxnard’s total cost request for 2026–27 remains the same as in prior years but includes reallocated line items, with staff time increased and consulting and legal costs reduced because obligations are winding down. Jensen said she would provide a list of remaining properties and a longer-term "end game" projection at the board’s October meeting.

Ventura: Joe Anthony Carlos, management analyst with the City of Ventura’s Community Development Department, described an increase in requested staff time and in professional services for a new legal agreement and an updated appraisal. Board members questioned the size of Ventura’s proposed staffing increase — several members said Ventura’s prior budgets showed roughly 130 hours of work and the current request projected roughly 440 hours — and asked the city to reassess whether some costs properly belong on the city side rather than the successor-agency budget. Carlos said the city is reviewing the matter and plans to bring tentative city-council direction and a timeline to a future meeting.

Board response and next steps

Board members repeatedly asked cities to verify that administrative costs are allocated to the correct cost buckets and to provide clearer timelines or an "end game" showing how and when remaining properties will be resolved. The board received the budgets for review and asked cities to return with revisions and additional details by the October meeting; staff said the board may conditionally approve budgets in October with final action anticipated in January.

The board also reviewed letters it had received from the California Department of Finance regarding last year’s Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules (ROPS); staff said several cities received routine comments and one letter cited language about ROPS being "a little bit excessive." No board votes were taken on the budgets at this meeting.