Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Libraries topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board asks CEO to study transfer of Simi Valley Library to city after sustained city investment

Ventura County Board of Supervisors · April 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board unanimously directed the CEO to study transferring the Simi Valley Library building and adjacent parking (6.74 acres) to the City of Simi Valley within 60 days. City officials and library advocates said the city has paid rent and invested over $2.6M and wants ownership to pursue roughly $3M in necessary capital upgrades.

The Board voted unanimously to direct the County Executive Officer to research options for transferring the Simi Valley Library property and adjacent parking lot to the City of Simi Valley and report back within 60 days.

Supervisor Parvin introduced the request, noting the site was conveyed for a multi‑agency civic center partnership in 1977 and that since 2012 the city has operated the library while leasing the building from the county. City officials including Mayor DeDe Cavanagh and City Manager Samantha Argabright said the city has paid about $845,000 in lease payments, invested more than $600,000 in facility maintenance, and spent over $2 million in building upgrades while still lacking clear title to the property.

City speakers and library advocates said the 46‑year‑old building requires an estimated minimum of $3 million for upgrades (roof, ADA/earthquake work, electrical and flexible shelving) and that ownership would allow the city to invest and compete for state infrastructure grants more effectively. Foundation and Friends groups told the board donors have been reluctant to commit large gifts while the city is not the property owner.

Supervisor Parvin’s motion asked staff to check surplus land rules (Surplus Lands Act) and other legal considerations as part of a 60‑day report; the board approved the motion unanimously. Board members said they welcomed continued partnership and asked staff to coordinate with the city manager on details.

Speakers for and against were heard; no amendment or sale price was discussed.