Ojai City Council
August 25, 2026

DISTRICT 1 - LESLIE RULE
DISTRICT 2 - RACHEL LANG
DISTRICT 3 - ANDREW WHITMAN
DISTRICT 4 - KIM MANG

BEN HARVEY

CITY MANAGER

BETHANY BURGESS

CITY ATTORNEY

WESTON MONTGOMERY

CHIEF DEPUTY CITY CLERK

1. Food Share Ventura County Chief Development Officer, Jennifer Caldwell, to provide a report on local services provided.

AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2026, 6:00 PM
KENT HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL CAMPUS - 111 W SANTA ANA ST, OJAI, CA

OJAI CITY COUNCIL

ANDY GILMAN, MAYOR

VIEWING & ACCESS
Public participation is encouraged! The Ojai City Council meets regularly on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at 6:00 p.m. The meetings are conducted in a hybrid model, providing both in-person attendance and virtual public comment via the Zoom link below.

Virtual attendance via Zoom is the only way to remotely provide public comment. Preregistration is not required for public comment via Zoom. Instead, Zoom participants will utilize the “hand-raise” function to indicate their desire to speak on an item. The meeting is also livestreamed on the City's website at ojai.ca.gov/525/2968/Public-Meetings, on YouTube at youtube.com/@ojaicity, and on Spectrum Channel 10. See “Public Comment Options” below for further instruction.

ZOOM LINK - August 25, 2026 - Regular Meeting

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

PRESENTATIONS
Presentation Slides
Tuesday, August 25, 2026 Ojai City Council Agenda
1 2. City Council Minutes

3. Planning Commission Minutes

4. City of Ojai Warrants for July 27 - August 16, 2026

5. Treasurer's Monthly Report of Cash and Investments for the City of Ojai as of July 31, 2026

6. Approve Addendum to Fire Alarm Monitoring Contract with JMG Security Systems

7. County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding Ojai Permanent

COMMISSION REPORTS
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Public Communications is the time set aside during the meeting for members of the public to address the City Council on items of City business other than scheduled agenda items.

Matters raised at this time may be briefly discussed by the Council, and will generally be referred to staff and/or placed on a subsequent agenda. Under State law, other than for emergency items, no action can be taken.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are to be considered routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed. There will be no discussion of these items unless, before the vote on the motion to adopt, specific items are removed from the Consent Calendar for separate motions.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
08-04-26 Special Meeting
08-11-26 Regular Meeting
RECOMMENDATION: Received and file.
07-01-26 PC Regular Meeting
07-15-26 PC Regular Meeting
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.

Administrative Report - Warrant Report
Attachment A - Warrant Register
Attachment B - Disbursement by Category
Warrant Report Cover
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.

Administrative Report -Treasurers Report July 2026
Attachment A -Treasurer's Monthly Report July 2026
Exhibit A - Cash & Investment Summary July 2026
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the addendum to the fire alarm monitoring contract with JMG Security Systems for the installation of new smoke detection equipment in the gymnasium at 510 Park Road in the amount of $17,488, as detailed in the submitted contract documents and in accordance with applicable state and local fire safety codes.

Administrative Report - Recreation Gym Fire Alarm Services Attachment A - Addendum, Agreement No. 2026-104
Attachment B - Agreement
Tuesday, August 25, 2026 Ojai City Council Agenda
2 Supportive Housing Project

8. County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding Countywide Response to Public Complaints About Fireworks (Legal Requirement)

9. Introduce Ordinance No. 974 Amending Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Ojai Municipal Code to Add Section 4-3.511 Prohibiting the Use of Libbey Park Tennis Courts For Any Activity Other Than Tennis (City Council Direction)

10. City of Ojai Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy (Operational Need) RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed response to the County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report.

Administrative Report - Civil Grand Jury Report OPSHP
Attachment A - Civil Grand Jury Report, Including Attachments Attachment B - Proposed Response to Civil Grand Jury Report – Clean Copy Attachment C - Proposed Response to Civil Grand Jury Report – Redline Copy

DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Discuss the proposed response to the County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report

2. Approve the proposed response or provide direction for revisions to the proposed response.

Administrative Report - Grand Jury Fireworks
Attachment A - Report
Attachment B - Proposed Response
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Introduce, for first reading by title only with further reading waived, Ordinance No. 974 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OJAI, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 4 OF THE OJAI MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SECTION 4-3.511 PROHIBITING THE USE

OF LIBBEY PARK TENNIS COURTS FOR ANY ACTIVITY OTHER THAN TENNIS, and;

2. Direct staff to return to the City Council for second reading and adoption of the Ordinance at the September 8, 2026, City Council Meeting.

Administrative Report - Tennis Court Ordinance
Attachment A - Ordinance No. 974
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the City of Ojai Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy, establishing a governance framework for the responsible use of AI systems across all City departments.

Administrative Report - AI Use Policy
Attachment A - Policy

COUNCIL MEMBER'S REPORTS

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
Posted August 21, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. Weston Montgomery, Chief Deputy City Clerk Tuesday, August 25, 2026 Ojai City Council Agenda
3 WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
Written public comments will be published here for public access. Please see PUBLIC COMMENT OPTIONS below for instructions on how to submit. .

Written Public Comments - August 25 Regular Meeting

ACCOMMODATIONS
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call (805) 646-5581. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

If you feel that a language interpreter is necessary for you to participate in this meeting, notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for an interpreter to assure your participation/understanding of this meeting.

Si considera que un intérprete de idiomas es necesario para participar en esta reunión, la notificación 48 horas antes de la reunión le permitirá a la Ciudad hacer arreglos razonables para que un intérprete asegure su participación/comprensión de esta reunión del Concejo Municipal.

Para Español por favor llame al (805) 646-5581 ext. 100 o por correo electronico a [email protected].

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Agenda reports and other disclosable public records related to agenda items are available on the City's website at ojai.ca.gov/525/2968/Public-Meetings and at City Hall located at 401 S.

Ventura St., Ojai, Ca., during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENT OPTIONS
Written Comments: In order for staff to provide the City Council with written public comments timely, written/emailed public comments must be submitted no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day before the meeting.

You may always submit written comments to the City Clerk via mail, in person at City Hall, or via email to [email protected]. If your written comment is received by 3:00 p.m. on the day before the meeting date, the City Clerk will distribute copies of your comments to all Council Members and recorded on the City website. Written comments received after 3:00 p.m. may not be distributed to the Council Members and recorded on the City website until after the meeting.

Verbal Comments: Verbal Comments will be received on any item on the agenda at the time Tuesday, August 25, 2026 Ojai City Council Agenda
4 the agenda item is heard. Comments may be made in person at the meeting or through Zoom, via the link at the top of the Agenda. Pre-registration is not required for public comment via Zoom. Instead, Zoom participants will utilize the hand-raise function to indicate their desire to speak on an item.

IMPORTANT NOTES:

All materials related to an item on this agenda, including written public comments, will be available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office at City Hall, and following the meeting, will be accessible on the City of Ojai's website at ojai.ca.gov.

As a government agency, the City of Ojai is subject to the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.). Please be advised that all communications submitted to City officials and staff are subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

There are limited exceptions that allow the City to redact personal information under the California Public Records Act. If you have concerns regarding privacy, please do not include your personal identifying information, such as your name, e-mail, phone number, and home address in your correspondence to the City, including, but not limited to, public comment.

If you challenge the actions of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the public notices, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing (California Government Code Section 65009).

Any legal action by an applicant seeking to obtain a judicial review of the City Council's decision on a Hearing listed on this Agenda may be subject to the 90-day filing period of and governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

LEVINE ACT WARNING
Applicants and their agents before the City Council are subject to the campaign disclosure provisions detailed in Government Code Section 84308. No City Council Member may accept, solicit, or direct a contribution of more than $500 from any party or agent for 12 months subsequent to the date a final decision is rendered by the City. This prohibition commences when your application has been filed, or the proceeding is otherwise initiated.

A party to a City proceeding - which includes both applicants and agents - shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution of more than $500 made to any Council Member by the applicant or agent, during the preceding 12 months. No party to a City proceeding, or agent, shall make a contribution to a Council Member during the proceeding and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered by the City.

Prior to rendering a decision on a City proceeding, any Council Member who received a contribution of more than $500 within the preceding 12 months from any party, or agent, to a proceeding shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding and shall be disqualified from participating in the proceeding. However, if any Council Member receives a contribution that otherwise would require disqualification and returns the contribution within 30 days of knowing about the contribution and the relevant proceeding, the Council Member shall be permitted to participate in the proceeding.

If you believe that these provisions apply to you or a Council Member, please inform the City Clerk at the earliest possible opportunity. Failure to do so may affect the City's ability to Tuesday, August 25, 2026 Ojai City Council Agenda
5 process your application.

Tuesday, August 25, 2026 Ojai City Council Agenda
6 BECAUSE
NO ONE
SHOULD
GO
HUNGRY.
7 8
9 The State
of Hunger
in Ventura
County
10 11
1 IN 4 PEOPLE IN VENTURA COUNTY NEEDED FOOD
ASSISTANCE LAST YEAR.
$67M
12 State of Hunger in
Ojai Valley
13 Partner Pantries in Ojai
Help of Ojai *
• Pantry
• Total Pounds
Distributed: 176,426
St. Thomas Aquinas
• Pantry & Senior Box
• Total Pounds
Distributed: 115,318
Secure Beginnings *
• Diapers only location
• Total Diapers Given by
Food Share: 70,690
* Ojai City Limits
14 15
Hunger
Relief in
Action
16 College Park Drive-Thru Dist.

WEEKLY: 1,000 CARS/5500 INDIVIDUALS17
Serving our Unhoused
70,000 KITCHEN FREE BAGS 18
Serving our Farmworkers
EST. 45,000 FARMWORKERS IN VENTURA COUNTY
19 Feeding our Seniors
3,500 SENIOR BOXES MONTHLY
20 Kids Programs

KIDS FARMERS MARKETS & KIDS KITCHEN
21 The Need Continues
Photo by: Juan Carlo/The Star
22 23
All Under One Roof
24 25
26 27
28 Thank
You!
29 MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2026, 6:00 PM
KENT HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL CAMPUS - 111 W SANTA ANA ST, OJAI, CA

ROLL CALL
The following members were present: Mayor Gilman, Mayor Pro Tem Mang, and Council Members Rule, Lang, and Whitman.

Also present: City Manager Harvey, City Attorney Burgess, and Chief Deputy City Clerk Montgomery.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chief Deputy City Clerk Montgomery led the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was moved by Mayor Gilman, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Mang, to approve the agenda.

The motion carried unanimously.

CLOSED SESSION

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING
LITIGATION (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1))
Name of case: Leslie Rule v. City of Ojai, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 2025CUPT055697

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Burgess reported out of Closed Session. No reportable action was taken. 30 ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Gilman adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
____________________________________
Weston Montgomery, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Approved:
31 MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2026, 6:00 PM
KENT HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL CAMPUS - 111 W SANTA ANA ST, OJAI, CA

ROLL CALL
The following members were present: Mayor Gilman, Mayor Pro Tem Mang, and Council Members Rule, Lang, and Whitman.

Also present: City Manager Harvey, City Attorney Burgess, and Chief Deputy City Clerk Montgomery.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chief Deputy City Clerk Montgomery led the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
ACTION: Unanimous consent reached through the Mayor, to approve the agenda of the August 11 Regular Meeting, with Item 14 being heard as the first discussion item.

COMMISSION REPORTS
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Harvey provided an oral report.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

2. City of Ojai Warrants for June 22 - July 26, 2026
32 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.

3. Treasurer's Monthly Report of Cash and Investments for the City of Ojai as of June 30, 2026
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.

4. Adoption of Ordinance No. 973 Suspending Certain Requirements Of Article 2 Of Chapter 3 Of Title 7 Of The Ojai Municipal Code (“Well Construction, Modification, And Demolition Standards”) (City Council Direction) RECOMMENDATION: Continue second reading of Ordinance No. 973 to the August
25, 2026, City Council meeting.

5. Ratification of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Between the County of Ventura, Ventura County Watershed Protection District, California Department of Transportation, Ojai Valley Sanitary District, and the Cities of Ojai and San Buenaventura (MOA Parties) to Share the Costs of Funding a Ventura River Algae TMDL Monitoring Program; and Approval of Associated Expenditures (Operational Need)
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Ratify MOA for the Ventura River Algae TMDL Monitoring Program, retroactively effective January 1, 2025, through January 1, 2028, and;

2. Approve the City's three-year cost-sharing obligation of $129,794.83.

6. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Interagency Agreement with the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) for Senate Bill 125 (SB125) Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Funding RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 and related documents necessary to implement the amended agreement.

7. Resolution Approving and Adopting the Revised Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy for Safety Sensitive Employees
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving and adopting the City’s revised drug and alcohol testing policy, and repeal any and all previous adopted policies
related to drug and alcohol testing for safety sensitive employees.

Council Member Lang pulled Items 5 and 6 for discussion.

Council Member Rule pulled Item 2 for discussion
MOTION: It was moved by Mayor Gilman, second by Council Member Lang, to approve Consent Calendar Items 1, 3, 4, and 7.

The motion carried unanimously.

Item 2
33 MOTION: It was moved by Council Member Rule, second by Mayor Gilman, to approve.

The motion carried 4-1. (Council Member Rule abstaining.) Item 5
MOTION: It was moved by Council Member Lang, second by Mayor Gilman, to approve.

The motion carried unanimously.

Item 6
MOTION: It was moved by Council Member Lang, second by Mayor Gilman, to approve.

The motion carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION

8. County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project (Legal Requirement)
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Discuss the proposed response to the County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report.

2. Approve the proposed response or provide direction for revisions to the proposed response.

Consensus on Council direction to staff reached through the Mayor, with no motion or action needed, as approved by the City Attorney. The City Council reviewed the proposed responses and provided revisions. Consensus reached on revision requests and direction provided to have the response return on the Consent Calendar at the next regular meeting, to allow an additional opportunity to review and revise if so desired.

9. Approval of Amendment to Development Management Agreement ( Operational Need)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a proposed Amendment to the Development Management Agreement, substantially in the form of Attachment A, with DignityMoves to allow acceptance of donations for specified purposes for the Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project.

MOTION: It was moved by Council Member Lang, second by Mayor Gilman, to approve the proposed Amendment with revisions as directed by the City Council.

The motion carried 3-2. (Council Members Mang and Whitman dissenting.) 34 10. Authorization to Release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Integrated Property Management and Supportive Services Provider for the City’s Permanent Supportive Housing Development (Operational Need) RECOMMENDATION:

1. Approve the Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Integrated Property Management and Supportive Services Provider for the City’s 30-unit Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) development; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to release the RFP, conduct the competitive solicitation process, evaluate proposals, and return to the City Council with a recommended contract award for consideration.

MOTION: It was moved by Council Member Lang, second by Mayor Gilman, to approve, working with Help of Ojai and County of Ventura and experts to further develop the RFP, returning in September, and designating Council Members Rule and Whitman to work in an ad-hoc capacity.

The motion carried unanimously.

11. Authorization to Release a Request for Proposals for Owner’s Representative/Construction Management Services for the Permanent Supportive Housing Project (PSHP) (Operational Need)
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Approve the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Owner’s
Representative/Construction Management Services for the Permanent Support Housing Project (PSHP); and

2. Authorize the City Manager to release the RFP, conduct the competitive solicitation process, evaluate proposals, and return to the City Council with a recommended contract award for consideration.

Item 11 was continued.

12. City of Ojai Policy for Commemorative Naming and Donations (City Council Direction)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve proposed Policy for Commemorative Naming and Donations.

Item 12 was continued.

13. Furnished by Owner and Installed by Owner (FOIO) Items | Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project (OPSHP) 611 South Montgomery Street (Operational Need)
RECOMMENDATION:
35 1. Review the Permanent Supportive Housing Project Furnished by Owner and Installed by Owner (FOIO) items list.

2. Authorize staff to proceed with solicitation of donations for items included on the FOIO List.

Item 13 was continued.

14. Approval of FY 2026 27 Professional Services Agreement with the Ojai Valley Chamber of Commerce (City Council Direction)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the FY 2026 27 Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between the City of Ojai and the Ojai Valley Chamber of Commerce for business development, economic consultancy, and community focused event management services.

MOTION: It was moved by Mayor Gilman, second by Council Member Lang, to approve continuing the contract – with revised list returned to Council in 30-days.

The motion carried 3-2. (Council Members Mang and Whitman dissenting.)

15. Amendment No. 3 to Secural Security Corporation Agreement – Contract Extension and Not-to-Exceed Increase (Operational Need) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement for Contract Services with Secural Security Corporation, revising the contract’s not-to-exceed (NTE) amount to $767,000 and extending the termination date to June 30, 2027.

Item 15 was continued.

COUNCIL MEMBER'S REPORTS
Council Member Whitman provided a Planning Commission Liaison report.

Mayor Gilman provided a Public Safety Commission Liaison report and a water adjudication report.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Gilman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
____________________________________
Weston Montgomery, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Approved:
36 APRIL

MINUTES

OJAI PLANNING COMMISSION
July 1, 2026
Call to Order
Chair Murphy called the regular meeting of the Ojai Planning Commission to order on Wednesday, July 1, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. (In-person and via teleconference).

Roll Call
On a call of the roll, the following Planning Commissioners were present in person: Chair Murphy, and Commissioners Hanson, Rice Schmidt and Steward.

Absent: Vice Chair Chesley
City staff present: Lucas Seibert, Community Development Director, Darren Zeigler, Senior Counsel, John Cardenas, Senior Counsel, and Shari Herbruck, Principal Planning and Building Technician.

Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Hanson
Approval of the Agenda The Commission approved the agenda as submitted.

Public Communication Kim Mang spoke on behalf of Andrew Whitman.

Consent Item(s)

1. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Planning Commission June 17, 2026 Motion: Commissioner Rice Schmidt moved and Commissioner Hanson seconded the motion to approve June 17, 2026, regular PC meeting minutes as submitted.

The motion passed as follows:

AYES: Hanson, Murphy, Rice Schmidt, Steward
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chesley
Disclaimer of Site Visits and Ex-parte Contacts
All Commissioners reported. Commissioner Rice Schmidt stated she will recuse from the Public Hearing Item No. 2.
37 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 1, 2026

Commissioner Rice Schmidt recused herself from this item as she owns property within 500’ radius of the site.

Public Hearing Item(s)

2. Design Review Permit (DRP 26-004) | Reduction in size from the 2016 Planning Commission approval regarding the Phase II Residential Units which are Addressed 312-B West Aliso Street, 312-C West Aliso Street, and 314-B West Aliso Street within the existing development referred to as, Cottages Among the Flowers, Accessor Parcel Numbers, 020-0- 250-035, 020-0-250-045, and 020-0-250-085; Zoning Designation of Multi-Family Residential, Medium High Density (R-2). General Plan Designation: Medium High Density Residential (MHR 8 du/ac). Applicant: Jeff Becker, Property Owner: Ojai Bungalows LP.

Chair Murphy opened the item and turned the time over to staff Staff – Director Seibert presented the staff report and showed a PowerPoint.

Questions for staff
The Commission asked questions.

Chair Murphy opened the public hearing item for public comments Speakers: In person: Anita Cramm. Virtually: None.

Chair Murphy closed the public hearing comment period
The Commission deliberated and Chair Murphy invited a motion.

Motion: Commissioner Steward moved and Commissioner Hanson seconded the motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 26-06 approving with the associated findings and conditions to reduce the size to the three residential units associated with Phase II of the Cottages Among the Flowers project located at 312-B, 312-C, and 314-B West Aliso Street.

The motion passed as follows:

AYES: Hanson, Murphy, Steward
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chesley
RECUSED: Rice Schmidt
Commissioner Rice Schmidt returned to the dais.

Informational Item(s)

3. Future Agenda Items
The Commission received a report from Director Seibert. 38 39
APRIL

MINUTES

OJAI PLANNING COMMISSION
July 15, 2026
Call to Order
Chair Murphy called the regular meeting of the Ojai Planning Commission to order on Wednesday, July 15, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. (In-person and via teleconference).

Roll Call
On a call of the roll, the following Planning Commissioners were present in person: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Chesley, and Commissioners Hanson, Rice Schmidt and Steward.

Absent:

City staff present: Lucas Seibert, Community Development Director, Shari Herbruck, Principal Planning and Building Technician.

Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Hanson
Approval of the Agenda The Commission approved the agenda as submitted.

Public Communication None
Consent Item(s)

1. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Planning Commission July 1, 2026 Motion: Commissioner Hanson moved and Commissioner Steward seconded the motion to approve July 1, 2026, regular PC meeting minutes as submitted.

The motion passed as follows:

AYES: Hanson, Murphy, Rice Schmidt, Steward
ABSTAIN: Chesley
Disclaimer of Site Visits and Ex-parte Contacts
All five Commissioners reported
Public Hearing Item(s)

2. Appeal of Director Decision (MISC 26-016) | Regarding penalties imposed by the Community Development Director pursuant to Section 4-11.13 (Enforcement) of the City of Ojai Municipal Code, for violation related to removing a protected coast live oak without benefit of permit, located at 52 Krotona Street, aka 12401 N. Ventura Avenue within in the IR3 Zoning District. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 018-0-050-120. Representative/Arborist:

Bill Mellett, Landscape and Design. Property Owner: Krotona Institute Theosophy.

Appellant: Elena Dovalsantos.

Chair Murphy opened the item and turned the time over to staff Staff –Principal Planner Macaluso presented the staff report. 40 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 15, 2026

Chair Murphy invited the Krotona applicants and representatives to speak.

Ryan Blatz, Attorney, Bill Mellett, Landscape Architect & Arborist, Elena Dovalsantos, President, Krotona Institute, Maria Parisen, Secretary, Krotona Institute, Liz, Krotona resident.

Chair Murphy opened for public comments
Speakers: Bill Miley.

Chair Murphy closed the public comment period
Questions for staff
The Commission asked staff questions.

The Commission deliberated and discussed details with the project Arborist and made a modification to the original decision.

Motion: Commissioner Rice moved seconded the motion to grant the appeal and deny the director’s decision to require penalties as specified in the Conditions of Approval with the new condition the applicant plant one new 15-gallon oak tree and pay an additional tree permit fee, and the planting be under the supervision of a licensed arborist. The motion failed without a second to the motion.

There was further discussion by the commission, staff, project attorney, and city attorney.

Motion: Chair Murphy moved and Commissioner Steward seconded the motion to grant the appeal and revise the Conditions of Approval to bring back a new revised resolution requiring the applicant to plant two new 24-inch box coast live oak trees and pay an additional tree permit fee of $225.00, and the planting be under the supervision of a licensed arborist.

The motion passed as follows:

AYES: Chesley, Hanson, Murphy, Steward
NOES: Rice Schmidt
Discussion Item(s)

3. Design Review Permit (DRP 25-011), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 26-005), Zone Change (ZC 25-002), General Plan Amendment (GPA 25-001) | Regarding the Adaptive Reuse of a Former Online College/Office Use to a Health Spa & Wellness Center Use, Zone Change from Public, Quasi-Public (P-L) to Village Mixed Use (VMU), and General Plan Land Use Amendment from Public/Quasi-Public (P) to Village Mixed Use (VMU); located at 107 North Ventura Street (Formerly: World University) – Assessor’s Parcel No. 021-0-106-040 and currently residential use at 107 W. Matilija Street Assessor’s Parcel No. 021-0-106-030.

The existing General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site is Public/Quasi-Public (P) and existing Zoning Classification of the subject site is Public, Quasi-Public (P-L).

Property Owner: 107 Ventura LLC. Applicant/Representative: Jeremy McBride. 41 42

Administrative Report
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Leah Palmer, Acting Finance Director
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: City of Ojai Warrants for July 27, 2026 – August 16, 2026

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.

DISCUSSION
Disbursement Warrant Check Numbers: 81051-81160
Payroll Warrant Check Numbers: 38426-38429
Number of Direct Deposits: 68
City of Ojai Disbursement Warrants for General Fund
and Special Revenue Funds $ 1,733,353.07
Payroll – August 06, 2026 130,294.99
Total $ 1,863,648.06

CITY COUNCIL GOALS ALIGNMENT
Goal No. 8 - Financial Stability

OPTIONS

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. The list of warrants is presented for informational purposes only and reflects payments previously authorized and budgeted.

Prepared by: Scott Avila

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Check Register
B. Disbursement by Category
43 Check Register
Check No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
81051 AllConnected, Inc. 07/30/2026 907.50
June 2026 IT Auxiliary Support
81052 Aqua-Flo Supply 07/30/2026 1,722.03
Supplies for Citywide Maintenance
81053 Timothy Bowen 07/30/2026 1,560.00
Recreation Class- Lego Camp
81054 Cail Burkett 07/30/2026 125.00
June 2026 Lifeguard Staffing
81055 Carahsoft Technology Corporation 07/30/2026 1,362.37 IT Security Training
81056 Fred's Tire Man 07/30/2026 140.31
June 2026 PW Trailer Repair
81057 Greg Rents 07/30/2026 1.00
June 2026 PW Equipment Rental
81058 E.J. Harrison & Sons 07/30/2026 60.93
June 2026 Rolloff Dumpster Rental
81059 Terry Kvasnik 07/30/2026 585.00
Recreation Class- Parkour & Qi Gong
81060 Ojai Music Festival 07/30/2026 4,318.14
May 2026 Music Festival Restroom Rental
81061 Raimi & Associates Inc 07/30/2026 13,933.20
April & May 2026 General Plan Update
81062 Tripepi Smith and Associates, Inc. 07/30/2026 193.75 May 2026 Communication Support
81063 Verizon Wireless 07/30/2026 72.72
June 2026 City Cell Phone
81064 Westridge Market Inc 07/30/2026 746.64
June 2026 Supplies for City Council Meetings
81065 Susan Yuen 07/30/2026 910.00
Recreation Class- Japanese Drums
81066 AllConnected, Inc. 07/30/2026 600.00
Microsoft 365 Annual Licensing Fee
81067 California State Disbursement Unit 07/30/2026 195.88 July 2026 Payroll Expense
Check Summary By Check Number
44 Check Register
Check No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Check Summary By Check Number
81068 Canon Financial Services, Inc. 07/30/2026 171.27
July 2026 Copy Machine Lease
81069 Chakra Investments, Inc. 07/30/2026 6,768.28
Trolley Advertising Frames
81070 Colonial Life & Accident Ins 07/30/2026 716.14
July 2026 Payroll Expense
81071 Delta Liquid Energy 07/30/2026 1,103.15
July 2026 Trolley Fuel
81072 Emmanuel A Mendez 07/30/2026 1,000.00
July 2026 City Transit Wash
81073 Explore Ecology 07/30/2026 350.00
Recreation Summer Camp Field Trip
81074 Franchise Tax Board 07/30/2026 100.00
July 2026 Payroll Expense
81075 Fred's Tire Man 07/30/2026 1,153.09
July 2026 PW Truck Repair
81076 Geoffrey T Black 07/30/2026 1,485.00
Fall 2026 Activity Guide
81077 Johannes M Pouw 07/30/2026 1,049.10
Recreation Class- Baseball
81078 Terry Kvasnik 07/30/2026 1,140.75
Recreation Class- Mindful Movement
81079 Lincoln National Life Insurance Co 07/30/2026 2,886.03 July 2026 Payroll Expense
81080 Martin's Ojai Locksmith 07/30/2026 275.00
July 2026 Service Call for Door Handle Repair
81081 Meiners Oaks Hardware 07/30/2026 357.61
Supplies for Citywide Maintenance
81082 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 07/30/2026 4,967.27 July 2026 Payroll Expense
81083 Allen Olsen 07/30/2026 10.00
Employee Reimbursement
81084 Prudential Overall Supply 07/30/2026 404.44
Public Works Cleaning Supplies & Clothing Allowance
45 Check Register
Check No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Check Summary By Check Number
81085 Puretec Industrial Water 07/30/2026 435.57
July 2026 Industrial Water for Trolley
81086 Lisa Sauvageau 07/30/2026 7,000.00
Ojai Day 2026 Mandala Funding
81087 Jan C. Scow 07/30/2026 350.00
July 2026 Tree Site Evaluations
81088 SSD Systems 07/30/2026 815.81
IT System Installation
81089 VC Fusion Soccer 07/30/2026 1,935.00
Recreation Class- Soccer Camp
81090 Agromin 08/06/2026 1,134.18
Mulch & Compost for City Parks
81091 CA Dept of Tax and Fee Administration 08/06/2026 3,016.92 2025 Sales and Use Tax Remittance
81092 E.J. Harrison & Sons 08/06/2026 791.30
June 2026 Rolloff Dumpster Rental for OTT
81093 Ojai Valley Green Coalition 08/06/2026 15,454.19
June & July 2026 City Hall Campus Agreement
81094 Phoenix Group Info Systems 08/06/2026 158.39
June 2026 Parking Citation Fees
81095 Springbrook Holding Company, LLC 08/06/2026 7,125.00 April 2026 Electronic Timesheet Setup
81096 StoreRite 08/06/2026 40.00
May 2026 City Hall Shredding
81097 Ventura County Animal Services 08/06/2026 31,044.26 April - June 2026 Animal Services Agreement
81098 Advantage Mailing, LLC 08/06/2026 12,567.65
Fall 2026 Recreation Guide
81099 Agromin 08/06/2026 1,018.88
Mulch & Compost for City Parks
81100 Delta Liquid Energy 08/06/2026 682.20
July 2026 Trolley Fuel
81101 EDC-VC 08/06/2026 3,100.00
Annual Business Enhancement Board Dues & Film Commission Contribution 46 Check Register
Check No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Check Summary By Check Number
81102 EEG Enterprises 08/06/2026 2,000.00
City Council Meetings Live Text Subscription
81103 Help of Ojai Inc. 08/06/2026 4,500.00
July 2026 ADA Transportation Support
81104 Gregory Kiley 08/06/2026 3,000.00
July 2026 Government Relations Service
81105 Ojai Auto Supply 08/06/2026 68.59
July 2026 Supplies for Trolley Maintenance
81106 Pitney Bowes Global Financial Services LLC 08/06/2026 184.30 May - August 2026 Postage Machine Lease
81107 Shine Wash Inc 08/06/2026 91.97
July 2026 City Vehicles Wash
81108 Aleshire & Wynder LLP 08/13/2026 105,551.00
June 2026 Services
General Services 33,994.50
Special Projects 1,947.50
Litigation 16,926.00
Labor & Employment 7,993.00
Planning 16,569.00
Public Works - Engineering 1,347.50
Park & Recreation 1,171.00
Police 154.00
Code Enforcement 828.50
Housing 588.50
Becker Development 2,695.00
Real Property 1,963.50
Public Records 7,726.50
Finance - TOT 115.50
Permanent Supportive Housing Project (reimbursable) 11,531.00 81109 CA Dept of Justice 08/13/2026 160.00
June 2026 Fingerprinting Fees
81110 California Building Standards 08/13/2026 77.40
April - June 2026 Building Standards Permit Fees
81111 County of Ventura Public Works Agency 08/13/2026 38,542.35 Annual Ventura River Algae TMDL City Portion
81112 Division of the State Architect 08/13/2026 297.88 April - June 2026 State Disability Access Fee
81113 Firestick Pottery 08/13/2026 406.00
Recreation Class- Pottery
47 Check Register
Check No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Check Summary By Check Number
81114 Lucy Walker Grace 08/13/2026 1,191.66
Recreation Class- Dog Training
81115 Gregory Kiley 08/13/2026 3,000.00
June 2026 Government Relations Service
81116 Raimi & Associates Inc 08/13/2026 9,546.81
June 2026 General Plan Update
81117 Rincon Consultants Inc 08/13/2026 6,039.00
June 2026 Professional Fees for PSHP
81118 Tripepi Smith and Associates, Inc. 08/13/2026 2,410.43 June 2026 Social Media Management
81119 County of Ventura 08/13/2026 1,218.10
June 2026 PW Truck Repair
81120 AllGood Driving School, Inc. 08/13/2026 28.00
Recreation Class- Online Driver Education
81121 ApplicantPro Holdings LLC 08/13/2026 3,057.69
Annual Applicant Tracking System & Background Check
81122 AT&T 08/13/2026 32.14
July 2026 Telephone
81123 Bennie K. Enterprises Inc 08/13/2026 4,110.00
July & August 2026 Portable Restroom Rental for Libbey Bowl Event 81124 Timothy Bowen 08/13/2026 2,044.25
Recreation Class- Lego Camp
81125 California State Disbursement Unit 08/13/2026 212.53 August 2026 Payroll Expense
81126 Christy Billings 08/13/2026 27.85
Employee Reimbursement
81127 Max Dickenson 08/13/2026 1,040.00
Recreation Class- Weight Room
81128 EideBailly LLP 08/13/2026 1,037.50
July 2026 Accounting Services
81129 Emmanuel A Mendez 08/13/2026 1,250.00
August 2026 City Transit Wash
81130 Fence Factory Rentals 08/13/2026 753.08
August 2026 Temporary Fence Rental for OTT
48 Check Register
Check No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Check Summary By Check Number
81131 Fillmore Area Transit Corporation 08/13/2026 5,408.00 July 2026 Trolley Driver Services
81132 Franchise Tax Board 08/13/2026 100.00
August 2026 Payroll Expense
81133 Fred's Tire Man 08/13/2026 498.54
July 2026 PW Truck Repair
81134 Darrell Gooden 08/13/2026 416.00
Recreation Class- Kung Fu
81135 HdL Coren & Cone 08/13/2026 2,662.54
July - September 2026 Contract Services Property Tax
81136 Hoffman, Vance & Worthington 08/13/2026 7,500.00
Appraisal Services for 503 S. Ventura St
81137 Interface Children Family Services 08/13/2026 1,273.00 Ventura County 2-1-1 Service Cost Share
81138 Jumping Joe's 08/13/2026 450.00
Wet Slide Rental for Recreation Summer Camp
81139 Michael Kamir 08/13/2026 300.00
Refund for Cancelled Appeal Hearing
81140 Martin's Ojai Locksmith 08/13/2026 180.00
July 2026 Service Call for OTT Kitchen Lock
81141 Meiners Oaks Hardware 08/13/2026 1,353.11
Supplies for Citywide Maintenance
81142 Brittany Naing 08/13/2026 450.00
Reimbursement for Temporary Use Permit
81143 Ojai Valley News 08/13/2026 173.00
July 2026 Display Ads
81144 Ojai Valley Sanitary District 08/13/2026 2,138.82 August 2026 Sewer Services
81145 Prudential Overall Supply 08/13/2026 134.39
Public Works Cleaning Supplies & Clothing Allowance
81146 Jan C. Scow 08/13/2026 700.00
July 2026 Tree Site Evaluations
81147 Signa Services, Inc. 08/13/2026 125.00
Annual Communications Remote Monitoring for Public Works 49 Check Register
Check No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Check Summary By Check Number
81148 Sinclair Sanitary Supply, Inc. 08/13/2026 975.57
Cleaning Supplies for Citywide Maintenance
81149 So Cal Gas 08/13/2026 125.21
July 2026 Gas
81150 Solid Waste Solutions Inc. 08/13/2026 2,578.75
July 2026 Cal Recycle Program
81151 Springbrook Holding Company, LLC 08/13/2026 812.50 July 2026 Electronic Timesheet Setup
81152 Starlight Dance Academy 08/13/2026 1,617.00
Recreation Class- K-Pop Dance Class
81153 Traffic Technologies, Inc. 08/13/2026 2,645.49
July 2026 Supplies for Street Maintenance
81154 Trails By Potter, LLC 08/13/2026 579.15
Recreation Class- Pickleball
81155 Tri-County Restaurant Supply Inc 08/13/2026 2,241.53 Libbey Bowl Snack Bar Fridge
81156 Tripepi Smith and Associates, Inc. 08/13/2026 8,890.00 July 2026 Monthly Communication Retainer
81157 United Site Services Inc 08/13/2026 1,356.71
July 2026 OTT Porta Potty Rental
81158 Ventura County Sheriff's Dept 08/13/2026 343,878.33 July 2026 Patrol & Traffic Services
81159 Ventura Urgent Care Center 08/13/2026 99.00
July 2026 Pre-Employment Physical
81160 Witherspoon Industries Inc 08/13/2026 90.00
July 2026 OTT Storage
ACH CalPERS Retirement ACH 07/27/2026 28,731.21
July 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH IRS ACH 07/27/2026 49,904.44
July 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH EDD ACH 07/27/2026 8,004.52
July 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH Ameriflex: Claims ACH 07/27/2026 738.51
July 2026 Payroll Expense
50 Check Register
Check No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Check Summary By Check Number
ACH Chevron 07/28/2026 2,111.32
July 2026 Fuel
ACH Ameriflex: Claims ACH 07/29/2026 789.99
July 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH CalPERS Retirement ACH 07/30/2026 612,420.00
July 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH Alliant Insurance Services 07/30/2026 1,234.00
Annual Crime Insurance Program Renewal
ACH Amazon.com/Sales, Inc 07/30/2026 4,387.24
July 2026 Miscellaneous Supplies
ACH CalPERS Retirement ACH 07/30/2026 30,186.00
July 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH Willdan Engineering 07/30/2026 75,328.00
January 2026 Services
Building & Safety Plan Checking Services 10,952.50
Building & Safety Services 17,232.50
May 2026 Services
Building & Safety Plan Checking Services 5,525.00
Building & Safety Services 16,897.50
Project 1019.001 923 E Ojai Ave 5,144.00
June 2026 Services
Engineering Reviews 1,702.50
Code Enforcement 11,340.00
Project 1013.001 216 Park Ave 681.00
Project 1018.001 923 E Ojai Ave 227.00
Project 1019.001 923 E Ojai Ave 2,289.00
Project 1021.001 107 N Ventura & 103 W Matilija St 113.50 Project 1025.001 402 Bryant St 57.00
Project 1028.001 320 Bryant St 3,166.50
ACH Christopher Reno 07/30/2026 4,175.00
July 2026 Trolley Repairs
ACH Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc. 07/30/2026 918.00
June 2026 Gym Structural Design
ACH CalPERS Health ACH 07/31/2026 84,591.82
July 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH Amazon.com/Sales, Inc 08/03/2026 18.65
July 2026 Miscellaneous Supplies
ACH Ready Refresh by Nestle 08/03/2026 436.44
July 2026 Drinking Water for City Departments
51 Check Register
Check No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Check Summary By Check Number
ACH Ameriflex: Claims ACH 08/03/2026 1,636.11
August 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH Mission Square 457 ACH 08/06/2026 10,892.53
August 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH Willdan Engineering 08/06/2026 14,902.20
Annual District Administration Fee
ACH IRS ACH 08/07/2026 47,743.44
August 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH Ready Refresh by Nestle 08/07/2026 231.67
August 2026 Drinking Water for City Departments
ACH EDD ACH 08/07/2026 7,931.91
August 2026 Payroll Expense
ACH CalPERS Retirement ACH 08/10/2026 26,368.95
August 2026 Payroll Expense
1,733,353.07
ACH Payroll
Pay Period 7/20/2026-8/02/2026 08/06/2026 130,294.99
Wire & Paper Check Total 130,294.99
Grand Total 1,863,648.06 $
52 Category Amount
Advertising 173.00
Ojai Valley News 173.00
Lease and Rentals 12,286.73
Bennie K. Enterprises Inc 4,110.00
Canon Financial Services, Inc. 171.27
E.J. Harrison & Sons 852.23
Fence Factory Rentals 753.08
Greg Rents 1.00
Jumping Joe's 450.00
Ojai Music Festival 4,318.14
Pitney Bowes Global Financial Services LLC 184.30
United Site Services Inc 1,356.71
Witherspoon Industries Inc 90.00
Legal 105,551.00
Aleshire & Wynder LLP 105,551.00
Payroll and Benefits 1,038,519.74
Ameriflex: Claims ACH 3,164.61
California State Disbursement Unit 408.41
CalPERS Health ACH 84,591.82
CalPERS Retirement ACH 697,706.16
Colonial Life & Accident Ins 716.14
EDD ACH 15,936.43
Franchise Tax Board 200.00
IRS ACH 97,647.88
Lincoln National Life Insurance Co 2,886.03
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 4,967.27
Pay Period 7/20/2026-8/02/2026 130,294.99
Professional Services/Contract Services 645,165.58
Advantage Mailing, LLC 12,567.65
Agromin 2,153.06
AllConnected, Inc. 1,507.50
Alliant Insurance Services 1,234.00
CA Dept of Justice 160.00
CA Dept of Tax and Fee Administration 3,016.92
Cail Burkett 125.00
California Building Standards 77.40
Carahsoft Technology Corporation 1,362.37
Chakra Investments, Inc. 6,768.28
Christopher Reno 4,175.00
County of Ventura 1,218.10
County of Ventura Public Works Agency 38,542.35
Division of the State Architect 297.88
EDC-VC 3,100.00
EideBailly LLP 1,037.50
Emmanuel A Mendez 2,250.00
Fillmore Area Transit Corporation 5,408.00
Fred's Tire Man 1,791.94
Geoffrey T Black 1,485.00
Gregory Kiley 6,000.00
HdL Coren & Cone 2,662.54
Help of Ojai Inc. 4,500.00
Hoffman, Vance & Worthington 7,500.00
City of Ojai
Disbursement by Category
53 Interface Children Family Services 1,273.00
Jan C. Scow 1,050.00
Lisa Sauvageau 7,000.00
Martin's Ojai Locksmith 455.00
Ojai Valley Green Coalition 15,454.19
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc. 918.00
Phoenix Group Info Systems 158.39
Raimi & Associates Inc 23,480.01
Rincon Consultants Inc 6,039.00
Shine Wash Inc 91.97
Signa Services, Inc. 125.00
Solid Waste Solutions Inc. 2,578.75
SSD Systems 815.81
StoreRite 40.00
Tripepi Smith and Associates, Inc. 11,494.18
Ventura County Animal Services 31,044.26
Ventura County Sheriff's Dept 343,878.33
Ventura Urgent Care Center 99.00
Willdan Engineering 90,230.20
Recreation Classes 14,851.91
AllGood Driving School, Inc. 28.00
Darrell Gooden 416.00
Explore Ecology 350.00
Firestick Pottery 406.00
Johannes M Pouw 1,049.10
Lucy Walker Grace 1,191.66
Max Dickenson 1,040.00
Starlight Dance Academy 1,617.00
Susan Yuen 910.00
Terry Kvasnik 1,725.75
Timothy Bowen 3,604.25
Trails By Potter, LLC 579.15
VC Fusion Soccer 1,935.00
Reimbursement and Refund 787.85
Allen Olsen 10.00
Brittany Naing 450.00
Christy Billings 27.85
Michael Kamir 300.00
Subscriptions and Software 12,995.19
ApplicantPro Holdings LLC 3,057.69
EEG Enterprises 2,000.00
Springbrook Holding Company, LLC 7,937.50
Supplies 28,836.85
Amazon.com/Sales, Inc 4,405.89
Aqua-Flo Supply 1,722.03
Delta Liquid Energy 1,785.35
Meiners Oaks Hardware 1,710.72
Mission Square 457 ACH 10,892.53
Ojai Auto Supply 68.59
Prudential Overall Supply 538.83
Puretec Industrial Water 435.57
Ready Refresh by Nestle 668.11
Sinclair Sanitary Supply, Inc. 975.57
Traffic Technologies, Inc. 2,645.49
Tri-County Restaurant Supply Inc 2,241.53
54 Westridge Market Inc 746.64
Utilities 4,480.21
AT&T 32.14
Chevron 2,111.32
Ojai Valley Sanitary District 2,138.82
So Cal Gas 125.21
Verizon Wireless 72.72
Grand Total 1,863,648.06
55 Warrant Register for the Meeting Date August 25, 2026 Per Section 37208 of the Government Code, I hereby certify that the referenced demands conform to the approved budget except as noted and have been paid. These demands are hereby submitted to the City Council for receipt and file.
______________________________________
Leah Palmer, Acting Finance Director
56

Administrative Report
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Steve Olsen, City Treasurer
Leah Palmer, Acting Finance Director
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Monthly Report of Cash and Investments for the City of Ojai as of July 31, 2026

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.

DISCUSSION
The City Treasurer has evaluated the City’s investments and has formalized an investment plan working with the investments authorized by the Statement of Investment Policy, which was adopted by City Council in June 2026. The investment plan was developed with the intent of lengthening the duration and yield of the portfolio, while providing comparative benchmarks and protecting the City’s funds. The focus of our investment strategy is Safety, Liquidity, and Yield.

The following is a summary of key information on the City’s cash and investments. Please see Exhibit A for more detailed information and discussion.

Cash & Investments Amounts Yield % Interest-to-Date
7/31/2026
Cash in Bank
MBS Cash $ 14,709 0.00%
Wells Fargo Sweep $ 529,330 3.53% $ 5,618
Wells Fargo Section 125 $ 26,578 0.00%
Investment Accounts
LAIF $ 27,407,829 3.84%
MBS Certificate of Deposits $ 10,119,635 3.55% $ 29,565 Total Cash & Investments $ 38,098,081 3.67% $ 35,183
57

Change in Portfolio:
07-2026 $260,650 Deposit LAIF – State of California
07-2026 $248,000 Withdrawal MBS – CD redemption
07-2026 $1,000,000 Withdrawal LAIF – State of California The attached Treasurer’s report for the month of July 2026 provides details of the investment plan and the City’s cash and investment portfolio.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS ALIGNMENT
Goal No. 8 - Financial Stability

OPTIONS

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternate direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

Prepared by: Matthew Hutchins, Accountant II

ATTACHMENT(S)
Attachment A – Treasurer’s Report
Exhibit A – Cash & Investment Summary
58 Attachment A

City of Ojai
Treasurer’s Report for the Month of July 2026
The City Treasurer has evaluated the City’s investments and has formalized an investment plan, which includes investments authorized by the Statement of Investment Policy, which was adopted by City Council in June 2026. The investment plan was developed within the framework of the three basic requirements for our investments:

1. Safety- Secure the City’s principal that is invested,

2. Liquidity- provide sufficient cash flow for ongoing operations, and

3. Yield – obtain a reasonable rate of return on the City’s investments.

Benchmarks
Benchmarks are used to measure how the City’s portfolio is performing compared to other measures.

Staff have chosen to compare the portfolio to two benchmarks: The County of Ventura Investment Pool and the US Government 2-yr Treasuries. Benchmarks may be changed if it is determined that a different benchmark would be more appropriate for the City’s use. Historical information for the City’s portfolio and the chosen benchmarks for the past five years is illustrated in the chart to the right. Historical information for the City’s portfolio and the chosen benchmarks for the past five years is illustrated in the chart below.

The weighted average yield to maturity and the weighted average DTM for the City’s investments portfolio on July 31, 2026, were 3.76% and 276 days. By comparison, the weighted average yield to maturity and the weighted average DTM for the County of Ventura portfolio were 3.81% and 278 days, and 2-yr Treasury were 4.28% and 720 days.

Impact of Market Changes on Investment Earnings and Values Investments are purchased at par value and market interest rates may vary from the investment’s actual current yield. Changes in the market value of investments result in “unrealized gains or

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%
Jul-21
Sep-21
Nov-21
Jan-22
Mar-22
May-22
Jul-22
Sep-22
Nov-22
Jan-23
Mar-23
May-23
Jul-23
Sep-23
Nov-23
Jan-24
Mar-24
May-24
Jul-24
Sep-24
Nov-24
Jan-25
Mar-25
May-25
Jul-25
Sep-25
Nov-25
Jan-26
Mar-26
May-26
Jul-26
July 2021- July 2026
Ojai Compared to Benchmarks
Ojai Ventura County 2-Yr Treasury
59 Attachment A

losses” on the investment. Increasing market interest rate environments generally result in an unrealized loss while decreasing market interest rates generally result in an unrealized gain.

Unrealized gains and losses are temporary adjustments to the carrying value of the investment and do not become permanent unless the investment is sold prior to maturity. Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 31 (GASB 31) requires the City to adjust the value of investments to the market value in the annual financial statements. Because CDs are purchased with a fixed rate of interest until maturity and the temporary adjustments cumulatively net to zero by the time that the CDs mature, the GASB 31 adjustment can create significant distortions in revenues throughout the life of the CD.

Planned Investment Instruments
 Certificates of deposit (CDs) are purchased at par value and earn a constant rate of return throughout the life of the investment, regardless of the current market value of the investment. The CDs are fully insured by the federal government. The CDs may be sold prior to maturity at the current market value, which could result in a realized gain or loss on the sale; however, as the CDs move closer to maturity, the fixed interest rate will generally be higher than comparable investments with the same remaining term. Additionally, the interest earned over the life of the CD will generally offset any potential loss on the sale, thus protecting the City’s principal. CDs are primarily subject to interest rate and reinvestment risk (see below).
 The Local Agency Investment Pool (LAIF) is a Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) containing investments allowed by the California Government Code and administered by the California State Treasurer for local agencies to invest idle cash. LAIF funds may be accessed on the day that a withdrawal is requested and earn interest based upon the monthly yield of the pool. Interest is accrued monthly but is paid quarterly. These assets are primarily subject to credit risk (see below).

Credit, Interest Rate, and Reinvestment Risk
 Credit risk is the possibility that the deterioration in the underlying creditworthiness of an issuer will adversely affect the value of its outstanding bonds or that a bond issuer will fail to make timely payments of interest or principal on its outstanding bonds (default). A decline in a bond issuer’s credit rating, or creditworthiness, may cause prices for its outstanding bonds to decline. Typically, the higher the credit risk, the higher the interest rate on the investment.
 Interest rate risk is the possibility that a fixed-rate investment will decline in value because of a rise in interest rates. Whenever investors buy securities that offer a fixed rate of return (such as CDs), they are exposing themselves to interest rate risk. In general, investment prices vary inversely with market interest rates. The change in the price of an investment depends on several factors, including its maturity date. In general, investments with longer maturities are more sensitive to changes in interest rates than investments with shorter maturities.
 Reinvestment Risk is the risk that falling interest rates will lead to a decline in cash flow from an investment when its principal and interest payments are reinvested at lower rates. In 60 Attachment A

a declining interest rate environment, investors who have investments maturing face the difficult task of investing the proceeds in instruments with equal or greater interest rates than the matured investment. As a result, they are often forced to purchase securities that do not provide the same level of income, unless they take on more credit or market risk and buy investments with lower credit ratings.

Changes to the Pooled Cash and Investment Portfolio
Action:

Transaction
Date Amount Description
Maturity
Date
Percent
Yield
7/15/26 $250,650 Deposit – LAIF State of California N/A 3.84% 7/22/26 $248,000 Withdrawal – MBS CD redemption 7/22/26 0.95% 7/31/26 $1,000,000 Withdrawal – LAIF State of California N/A 3.84% Cash and Investment Balances
See Exhibit A for details on the cash and investment balances.

This report is presented pursuant to the City of Ojai’s Investment Policy Resolution 26-23 adopted by the City Council on June 23, 2026. Staff estimate that there are sufficient funds available to meet the next 6 months’ obligations.
61 BOOK/ PERCENT AVERAGE YIELD
POOLED DESIGNATED AND OPERATING PAR MARKET OF CITY DAYS TO 365 DAYS CASH & INVESTMENTS: VALUE VALUE CASH MATURITY MATURITY EQUIVALENT Operating Cash
Checking Accounts
Wells Fargo Section 125 26,578 26,578 0.07% 1 0.00%
Total 26,578 26,578 0.07%
Money Market
Wells Fargo (Sweep) Sweep 529,330 529,330 1.39% 1 3.53% MBS (Cash) Cash 14,709 14,709 0.04% 1 0.00%
Total Operating Cash 544,039 544,039 1.43%
Invested Cash
Local Government Pools and Certificates of Deposit
Local Agency Investment Funds Investment Pool 27,407,829 27,407,829 71.94% 220 3.84% Certificates of Deposit:

FIRST TECHNOLOGY FED Certificate of Deposit 245,000.00 245,029 0.64% 9/25/2026 2026 56 4.05% QUORUM FED CR UN PUR Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 249,075 0.65% 9/30/2026 2026 61 4.15% NUMERICA CR UN Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 249,154 0.65% 9/30/2026 2026 61 4.35% B1BANK BATON ROUGE Certificate of Deposit 245,000.00 244,873 0.64% 9/30/2026 2026 61 3.65% FIRST NATL BK MIDDLE Certificate of Deposit 245,000.00 244,806 0.64% 9/30/2026 2026 61 3.70% WINGS FINL CR UN Certificate of Deposit 245,000.00 244,941 0.64% 10/21/2026 2026 82 4.00% AMERICAS CR UN Certificate of Deposit 248,000.00 247,943 0.65% 10/23/2026 2026 84 3.85% SYNCHRONY BK RETAIL Certificate of Deposit 248,000.00 246,088 0.65% 11/5/2026 2026 97 1.10% MERRICK BK SOUTH Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 246,672 0.65% 11/30/2026 2026 122 1.15% PENTAGON FEDERAL CR Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 246,316 0.65% 12/23/2026 2026 145 1.25% STATE BK INDIA NEW Certificate of Deposit 247,000.00 244,206 0.64% 1/21/2027 2027 174 1.65% DOGWOOD ST BK Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 245,738 0.65% 1/28/2027 2027 181 1.30% FIRST CAROLINA BK Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 245,738 0.65% 1/28/2027 2027 181 1.30% AMERANT BK NATL ASSN Certificate of Deposit 248,000.00 244,843 0.64% 2/16/2027 2027 200 1.60% CFBANK NATL ASSN Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 245,477 0.64% 2/17/2027 2027 201 1.40% CAPITAL ONE BK USA Certificate of Deposit 246,000.00 243,651 0.64% 4/6/2027 2027 249 2.65% CAPITAL ONE NATL Certificate of Deposit 246,000.00 243,877 0.64% 4/27/2027 2027 270 2.90% LAFAYETTE FED CR UN Certificate of Deposit 245,000.00 243,344 0.64% 5/25/2027 2027 298 3.25% CAPITAL ONE NATL Certificate of Deposit 246,000.00 244,138 0.64% 6/1/2027 2027 305 3.20% FIRST NATL BK AMER Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 250,066 0.66% 7/26/2027 2027 360 4.60% MORGAN STANLEY BK N Certificate of Deposit 245,000.00 243,532 0.64% 8/4/2027 2027 369 3.55% COBALT FED CR UN Certificate of Deposit 245,000.00 243,488 0.64% 9/15/2027 2027 411 3.60% DECORAH BK & TR CO Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 245,870 0.65% 9/23/2027 2027 419 3.70% FIRST FNDTN BK Certificate of Deposit 244,000.00 245,418 0.64% 11/4/2027 2027 461 4.70% TRUE SKY FED CR UN Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 248,761 0.65% 11/8/2027 2027 465 4.10% PEOPLES BK CO Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 247,939 0.65% 1/12/2028 2028 530 3.90% SAN FRANCISCO FED CR Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 249,510 0.66% 2/3/2028 2028 552 4.35% LIBERTY FIRST CR UN Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 249,538 0.66% 2/3/2028 2028 552 4.35% ALASKA USA FED CR UN Certificate of Deposit 248,000.00 250,468 0.66% 3/22/2028 2028 600 4.85% NEIGHBORS FED CR UN Certificate of Deposit 248,000.00 251,512 0.66% 7/26/2028 2028 726 5.00% TTCU FED CR UN TULSA Certificate of Deposit 248,000.00 251,512 0.66% 7/26/2028 2028 726 5.00% CUSTOMERS BK MALVERN Certificate of Deposit 245,000.00 243,300 0.64% 8/15/2028 2028 746 3.90% LEADERS CR UN Certificate of Deposit 248,000.00 251,708 0.66% 8/30/2028 2028 761 5.00% EMPOWER FED CR UNION Certificate of Deposit 248,000.00 252,273 0.66% 9/29/2028 2028 791 5.10% NICOLET NATL BK Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 246,503 0.65% 11/1/2028 2028 824 3.80% BAXTER CR UN VERNON Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 248,064 0.65% 11/22/2028 2028 845 4.10% CITY FED CR UN Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 247,105 0.65% 1/12/2029 2029 896 3.95% MAUCH CHUNK TR CO Certificate of Deposit 248,000.00 248,397 0.65% 2/28/2029 2029 943 4.35% BEAL BK USA LAS Certificate of Deposit 244,000.00 246,594 0.65% 6/6/2029 2029 1,041 4.70% BALBOA THRIFT & LN Certificate of Deposit 249,000.00 248,283 0.65% 7/23/2029 2029 1,088 4.20% SALLIE MAE BK SALT Certificate of Deposit 244,000.00 243,888 0.64% 7/24/2029 2029 1,089 4.30% Total Certificates of Deposit 10,142,000 10,119,635 26.56% Total 38,120,446 38,098,081 98.50% (B) 276 (A) 0.0375666 Total Pooled Operating Cash & Investments 38,120,446 38,098,081 100.00% Total Pooled Cash & Investments $ 38,098,081 38,120,446 $ 100.00% Rate includes 0.12% interest rate + 0.35% earnings credit (B) Weighted Average days to maturity and yield for the invested cash

CITY OF OJAI

TREASURER'S REPORT - CASH & INVESTMENT SUMMARY
July 31, 2026
Exhibit A

62

Administrative Report
TO: Honorable City Council;
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: Approve Addendum to Fire Alarm Monitoring Contract with JMG Security Systems

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the addendum, Agreement No. 2026-104, to the existing fire alarm monitoring contract with JMG Security Systems for the installation of new smoke detection equipment in the gymnasium at 510 Park Road in the amount of $17,488, as detailed in the submitted contract documents and in accordance with applicable state and local fire safety codes.

DISCUSSION
In May, JMG, the company responsible for monitoring the alarm systems at the Boyd center, replaced the failed 1980s fire alarm system with a new one for $20,355. This replacement was essential to ensure the building could remain in use. The plans for the new system were submitted to the Ventura County Fire Department, which conducted a thorough review following state and local regulations for fire alarm and detection systems in assembly spaces. Although the replacement was intended to restore previous functionality, the review revealed that current codes and enforcement protocols require a broader assessment of the system's adequacy and compliance when major work, including replacements, is carried out. As a result of the plan check the Ventura County Fire Department is requiring additional smoke detection coverage and system integration throughout the gymnasium and nearby areas.

The proposed contract addendum with JMG Security Systems addresses the need to expand smoke detection coverage in the gymnasium to align with current fire safety standards. The scope of work includes the installation of additional smoke detectors and integration with the existing fire alarm monitoring infrastructure. The design and equipment specifications are required to comply with the technical criteria established by the State Fire Marshal and enforced locally by the Ventura County Fire Department. In accordance with state law, all fire alarm system components must be listed and approved for use in California, and the installation must be performed by appropriately licensed contractors.

Upgrading the smoke detection system in the gymnasium is justified by the need to maintain a safe environment for facility users and to ensure compliance with evolving fire and life safety regulations. The California State Fire Marshal’s regulations require that assembly occupancies be equipped with fire alarm systems capable of detecting and 63

alerting occupants to the presence of smoke or fire and transmitting alarm signals to an approved supervising station. The City’s action to expand smoke detection coverage is consistent with these requirements and supports the City’s risk management objectives.

Upon approval of the contract addendum, JMG Security Systems will proceed with the procurement of equipment and scheduling of installation activities in coordination with City staff. The implementation process will include submission of detailed system plans to the Ventura County Fire Department for review, as required by local enforcement procedures. All work will be subject to inspection and acceptance by the authority having jurisdiction prior to system activation. Documentation of compliance with applicable codes and standards will be maintained as part of the project record.

The anticipated outcome of this project is the enhancement of fire detection capabilities in the gymnasium, resulting in improved occupant safety and compliance with state and local fire safety regulations. The upgraded system is expected to provide early warning in the event of a fire, facilitate prompt emergency response, and support the City’s overall emergency preparedness objectives. The project will also position the facility to reduce potential liability associated with fire and life safety risks.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS ALIGNMENT
Goal No. 5 - Public Safety

OPTIONS

1. Approve JMG addendum as submitted

2. Take no action;

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost for the installation of new smoke detection equipment and associated system upgrades under the proposed contract addendum is $15,588. This amount covers all specified labor, materials, equipment, and testing required for the expanded fire alarm coverage in the gymnasium and related areas. In addition, the City is responsible for direct payment of certain project-related fees, including a $1,100 allowance for blueprint and plan review fees and $800 for lift rental, as outlined in the contract documents. These costs are not included in the contractor’s base fee and will be paid separately by the City.

Although this total project cost of $17,488 was not expressly included in this year’s budget, it will be paid for using the approved operational budget for facilities maintenance. No offsetting revenues are anticipated in connection with this action.

Prepared by:

James Hahn, IT Manager

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. JMG Security Systems, Inc. Addendum, Agreement No. 2026-104 B. Fire Alarm Installation Agreement with Prevailing Wage Adjustment 64 Rev Client Initial:_______
17150 Newhope St, Ste. 109
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Tel: 800-900-4564 Fax: 714-545-0352
www.jmgsecurity.com
JMG SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.

Addendum
The following equipment shall be made a part of and attached to the Commercial Security/Fire Alarm System Agreement dated __________________ between JMG Security Systems, Inc., a California Corporation (hereinafter "JMG") and _________________________________(hereinafter "Client”) at the following location:
_________________________________________________________________________________________ THE CLIENT REQUESTS AND JMG AGREES TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING PROTECTION:

Which will be owned by the client upon payment of the installation fee in full, or Which will remain the sole property of JMG and be provided for the client use for a monthly fee CLIENT AGREES TO PAY _________________ IN ADDITIONAL SALES/ INSTALLATION FEE ( ½ DEPOSIT DUE NOW) AND AN ADDITIONAL ____________ PER MONTH IN USE/MONITORING/ FEE .

TO BE COMPLETED BY JMG
Accepted by
Date
TITLE
Alarm Agent Agent #
Authorized Signature
Signer’s Name (printed or typed)/Title
Business/Residence Phone Fax
e-mail:

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT
4/15/2026

CITY OF OJAI
510 PARK ROAD OJAI CA 93023
$15,588
$25.00
M HALFMANN 531352

PER VENTURA COUNTY FD PLAN CHECK, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH/ANY EXISTING COVERAGE ON THE SOUTH GYM AND ADDED DEVICES IN OCCUPIED AREAS MUST BE INSTALLED. THIS INCLUDES THE SOUTH SIDE STORAGE AREA, 2 NORTH END RESTROOMS, AND SPACE BETWEEN RESTROOMS/ STAIRWELL, AS WELL AS

THE ENTIRE GYM FOOR, WHICH WILL BE COVERED BY SMOKE BEAMS, REFLECTORS AND CAGES TO PROTECT THESE DEVICES.

JMG TO INSTALL:
3 POTTER PAD100MIM MODULES FOR SMOKE BEAMS AND POWER SUPERVISION RELAY 1 POTTER PAD 100 RELAY MODULE FOR SMOKE BEAMS
1 POTTER PSN-64 POWER SUPPLY FOR SMOKE BEAMS
2 SYSTEM SENSOR OSI-R-SS SMOKE BEAMS FOR GYM AREA
2 SYSTEM SENSOR RTS 151KEY REMOTE TEST STATIONS FOR SMOKE BEAMS 4 STI-9846 DAMAGE PROTECTION CAGES FOR SMOKE BEAMS/ REFLECTORS 5 POTTER PAD 300 SMOKE DETECTORS WITH BASE
1 MISC WIRE
1 MISC LIFT FEES FOR WIRE RUN ALONG GYM FLOOR
1 MISC LABOR
1 MISC TESTING
1 MISC PLANS FEES- $1100 ALLOWANCE
**LABOR RATES INCLUDE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS**
Date
65 4/15/2026

CITY OF OJAI
1100
incl 800
66 4/15/2026

CITY OF OJAI
510 PARK ROAD OJAI CA 93023
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80

Administrative Report
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Bethany Burgess, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project (Legal Requirement)

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the proposed response to the County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report.

DISCUSSION
On June 25, 2026, the County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury (“Civil Grand Jury”) released a report regarding the Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project pertaining to best practices to ensure a fair and competitive selection process (Attachment A). According to the report, on April 16, 2025, the Civil Grand Jury received “a public complaint alleging that the Ojai City Council authorized the city manager to negotiate a contract with DignityMoves for around $10 million for the construction of a 30-unit permanent supportive housing complex for people experiencing homelessness without obtaining competitive bids based on the lowest price as required by law for construction projects of this size.” The Civil Grand Jury investigated the complaint and based on the summary provided in the report, concluded that “[t]here are lessons to be learned and recommendations that should be followed after a Ventura County Civil Grand Jury investigation found that the City of Ojai selected a vendor for inclusion in a grant application, and later awarded a contract to that vendor, without conducting a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency as required by law.” The Civil Grand Jury further recommended that best practices should followed in all jurisdictions, including the City of Ojai.

The Civil Grand Jury’s summary noted that the risk of running out of time and missing deadlines arose as a consistent theme in Ojai’s decision-making process and recognized that that “Ojai certainly faced pressure to keep the project funded and moving forward.” The report summary concluded with recognition that providing safe and secure accommodations for the unhoused population is an important goal shared by the City of Ojai and its Ventura County partners, and that the issues were not with the project’s good intentions, but rather with the execution and management of the project.

Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 925a, a civil grand jury may examine the records 81

of any incorporated city and “may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city” and make recommendations as it may deem proper and fit. Reports resulting from such investigations must be transmitted to the governing body of any affected agency. Following completion of an investigation, and with approval of the presiding judge, a grand jury may make its findings and report available to the public and may also submit the report for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments of the agency that is the subject of the investigation.

After receiving a report from a grand jury, Penal Code Section 933 requires that the public agency that is the subject of the report provide comments to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under the governing body’s control within 90 days after submission of the final report. Penal Code Section 933.05(a) establishes the form of such responses to findings and provides that they must indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(Penal Code Section 933.05(a)).

Additionally, with respect to grand jury recommendations, the agency must identify whether (1) the recommendation was implemented with a summary of the implemented action, (2) the recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation, (3) the recommendation requires further analysis, or (4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation.

Beginning on page 13 of the Civil Grand Jury’s report, the Civil Grand Jury listed 18 findings related to the project and also provided six recommendations for future action. Page 15 of the Civil Grand Jury’s report requests responses within 60 days from the date of the report from the City Manager (and 90 days from the City Council). Because grand jury reports often pertain to legal issues, a common practice for a city receiving a civil grand jury report is for the initial draft of the response to be prepared by the City Attorney’s Office. Consistent with this practice and direction provided by the City Council at its July 14, 2026, City Council meeting, the City Attorney recommends that City Council provide direction to the City Attorney’s Office to prepare a proposed response for review by City Council in August.

During the August 11, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Council discussed the proposed response and provided direction to the City Attorney’s Office to update the response. The updated response reflects the City Council’s requested changes. All of the revisions requested by Council are reflected in Attachments B (clean copy) and C (redline) to this report. There was one response (to Finding No. F-05) to which Council requested that the City Attorney verify the date of issuance of the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). After 82

further review of the NOFA, the City Attorney also recommends additional clarifying revisions reflected in the redline and incorporated in the clean version.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS ALIGNMENT
Goal No. 8 - Financial Stability

OPTIONS

1. Provide alternate direction to the City Attorney and City Manager.

FISCAL IMPACT
Preparation of the response to the Civil Grand Jury report will require attorney and staff time. Implementation of the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendations will also require attorney and staff time. City Attorney and staff time are incorporated in the FY 26/27 budget.

Prepared by: Bethany Burgess, City Attorney

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Civil Grand Jury Report, including attachments
B. Proposed Response to Civil Grand Jury Report – clean copy C. Proposed Response to Civil Grand Jury Report – redline copy 83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
01436.0002 2183814.1
August __, 2026
Honorable Matthew P. Guasco
Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California
County of Ventura
800 S. Victoria Ave.

Ventura, CA 93003
Re: Civil Grand Jury Report
Dear Judge Guasco,
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933, et seq., please find enclosed the City of Ojai’s response to the 2026 County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project: Best Practices to Ensure a Fair and Competitive Selection Process.” The enclosed response was approved by the City Council.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Bethany A. Burgess
City Attorney, City of Ojai
Enclosure
104
01436.0002 2183814.1

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF OJAI

TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE 2026 COUNTY OF VENTURA CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT
“OJAI PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT: BEST PRACTICES TO ENSURE A FAIR AND COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS”
Finding No. F-01
The City of Ojai was exempt from obtaining competitive bids based on price when selecting a development manager for its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application and contract under an area of California law that expressly exempts contracts for certain professional services.

Response: Agree.

Finding No. F-02
The City of Ojai was required by law to conduct a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when selecting a development manager for its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024.

Response: Agree. The City of Ojai agrees that the California Government Code includes two provisions related to the selection of firms providing certain professional services by public agencies. Government Code Section 4526 requires that local agencies select private architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, land surveying, or construction project management firms “on the basis of demonstrated competence and on the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required.” Separately, Government Code Section 4529.12 requires that “all architectural and engineering services shall be procured pursuant to a fair, competitive selection process.” For purposes of Government Code Section 4529.12, “architectural and engineering services” include all architectural, landscape architectural, environmental, engineering, land surveying, and construction project management services. Use of a qualifications based selection process pursuant to Government Code Section 4526 has been deemed to satisfy the requirements of Section 4529.12.

DignityMoves was retained by the City of Ojai to serve as its development manager of the City’s Permanent Supportive Housing Project (the “Project”). In this capacity, and as described in Section 2.1 of the Development Management Agreement between DignityMoves and the City, DignityMoves is responsible for managing, arranging, supervising and coordinating the planning, design, entitlement, permitting, construction and completion of the Development Work. The City recognizes that included in the responsibilities DignityMoves is required to perform, construction management and oversight is required, and for this reason, the City agrees that, in retrospect, the City should have competitively procured these services. If the scope of DignityMoves services had not included the categories of services described in Government Code Sections 4526 or 4529.12, a competitive process may not have been required. 105
01436.0002 2183814.1
Notwithstanding the City’s failure to conduct a competitive process, the City of Ojai did evaluate DignityMoves qualifications and experience and awarded the Development Management Agreement to DignityMoves based on its qualifications.

Finding No. F-03
The City of Ojai did not conduct a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it included DignityMoves as its development manager in its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024.

Response: Agree. Please see explanation to Finding 2.

Finding No. F-04
The recommendation of DignityMoves by the County of Ventura Community Development Division did not absolve the City of Ojai from conducting a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it included DignityMoves as its development manager in its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024.

Response: Agree.

Finding No. F-05
The City of Ojai’s claims of insufficient time did not absolve the City of Ojai from conducting a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it included DignityMoves as its development manager in its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024.

Response: Agree. The City agrees that the California Government Code requirements relating to competitive solicitation for this type of service do not include an exception where there is insufficient time to conduct a full and open competitive process. Notwithstanding this fact, the Notice of Funding Availability for the Encampment Resolution Funding Round 3 grant was released in November 2023, and the deadline for submitting an application for Application Window #1 of Funding Round 3 was January 31, 2024. Though Funding Round 3 included multiple application windows, according to the Notice of Funding Availability, the application would only remain open until all program funds were exhausted (and so, if all funds were awarded in Application Window #1, there was the potential that no funds would be available for subsequent Application Windows). In order to conduct a fair and competitive selection process in time to submit a Funding Round 3 grant application, the City would have likely required a minimum of 120 to 180 days. Once a public agency identifies the need for professional services, it typically takes between 15 and 30 days to prepare a Request for Proposals or Request for Qualifications. In order to provide a meaningful procurement process, many agencies then allow up to 30 days for submission of proposals. Once proposals are received they must be reviewed and evaluated, which often takes another 15 to 30 days depending on the number of proposals received. Following review of the proposals, interviews may be conducted to select the most qualified firm. After the most qualified firm is identified, the parties must then negotiate contract terms and pricing, which for a complex project, can easily take from 30 to 45 days. 106
01436.0002 2183814.1
Finding No. F-06
The City of Ojai could not support its claim of insufficient time to conduct a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency prior to submitting its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024.

Response: Agree; however, see explanation to Finding 5.

Finding No. F-07
The City of Ojai was required by law to conduct a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it awarded a contract to DignityMoves on May 27, 2025.

Response: Agree. Please see explanation to Finding 2.

Finding No. F-08
The City of Ojai did not conduct a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it awarded a contract to DignityMoves on May 27, 2025.

Response: Agree.

Finding No. F-09
The City of Ojai issued a series of findings on page 20 of Resolution No. 25-19 dated May 27, 2025, to justify the awarding of a contract to DignityMoves as its sole source development manager on May 27, 2025, without conducting a fair and competitive selection process.

Response: Agree. The Resolution findings stated that the City Council found that the approval of a Development Agreement with DignityMoves as a sole source contract is justified as necessary because they are uniquely qualified to provide the product and services, based on its demonstrated experience delivering innovative, dignified interim and permanent housing solutions in California. They worked on similar projects for the County of Santa Barbara, San Francisco, and San Mateo County.

Finding No. F-10
The City of Ojai could not support its claims on page 20 of Resolution No. 25-19 dated May 27, 2025, that DignityMoves was uniquely qualified and that no other development managers could have been identified.

Response: Agree; however, the City’s decision was based on representations from other agencies and experts that DignityMoves was uniquely qualified to provide the product and services, based on its experience delivering innovative, dignified interim and permanent housing solutions in California. They worked on similar projects for the County of Santa Barbara, San Francisco, and San Mateo County.

Finding No. F-11
The City of Ojai could not support its claim on page 20 of Resolution No. 25-19 dated May 27, 2025, that it was obligated to award a contract to DignityMoves because DignityMoves was listed in the grant application.
107
01436.0002 2183814.1
Response: Disagree. The October 4, 2024, ERF Grant Agreement between the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) and the City of Ojai requires the delivery of the project pursuant to the application. The Scope of Work section in Exhibit A stated: “Grantees will implement their ERF funded local proposals in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the NOFA under which the Grantee applied, the representations contained in the Grantee’s application, HCD guidance and directives, and the requirements per the authorizing statute.” By incorporating a grant applicant’s application into the final grant agreement, HCD, effectively, contractually requires grantees to deliver the grantfunded activity in the manner articulated in the grant application.

Finding No. F-12
The City of Ojai could not support its claims on page 20 of Resolution No. 25-19 dated May 27, 2025, that it was obligated to award a contract to DignityMoves because it faced a short timeline to spend 50% of the grant due to delays leading up to the deadline.

Response: Agree. From a calendar standpoint, there was sufficient time between the date on which the City received the grant award and when the Development Management Agreement was approved to conduct a competitive selection process. However, the City was unaware at the time that HCD would consider changes to the City’s consultant identified in the City’s grant application. In support of this statement, the City had been repeatedly advised by HCD that the ERF grant awards were highly competitive, and that changes to an awardee’s application would only be considered where they would enhance or improve the Project in some way. For example, during this time period, the City underwent a process to evaluate alternative Project sites and the current Project location was only approved because it would facilitate an increase in the number of units and, therefore, in the number of people served by the Project.

Additionally, during this period of time, the City underwent a significant process to evaluate multiple Project sites. The City’s original application for the ERF grant proposed the project to be located on the City Hall property. On July 9, 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager to request that the Ojai Valley Board of Realtors serve as a task force to the City Council for the purpose of identifying proposed locations for the Project. On August 27, 2024, the Realtors released four potential site locations, including the Lower Public Works Yard. On March 25, 2025, the City Council approved the Public Works Yard as the Project location contingent on entering into a Development Management Agreement with Dignity Moves and approval of the site. On May 27, 2025, the City approved the Public Works Yard location and the Development Management Agreement with DignityMoves.

Finding No. F-13
The City of Ojai’s claims of insufficient time did not absolve the City of Ojai from conducting a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it awarded the contract to DignityMoves on May 27, 2025.

Response: Agree. The City agrees that the California Government Code does not provide exceptions from competitive contracting requirements where there is insufficient time to conduct a meaningful competitive process. The City received notice from HCD on April 18, 2024, that it 108
01436.0002 2183814.1
was selected for the award of an ERF Grant in the amount of $12,667,461.04 to construct the project described in the City’s application. On October 4, 2024, the Grant agreement with HCD was executed. As originally approved, ERF Grant required that no less than 50% of grant funds be expended and 100% obligated by June 30, 2025 and that 100% of funds be expended by June 30, 2027. While this does not absolve the City of Ojai from the requirement to conduct a fair and competitive selection process, it does highlight that there were compressed schedules to secure contractors and consultants.

Finding No. F-14
There was significant turnover of staff and elected officials at the City of Ojai during this process which contributed to the issues in this report.

Response: Agree. The application window for the California Interagency Council on Homelessness’s ERF Round 3 grant was from November 3, 2023 to January 31, 2024. On January 23, 2024, the Ojai City Council voted to submit the ERF grant application. Current city Manager Ben Harvey was appointed to be the Ojai City Manager on January 29, 2024. Also during this time period the City experienced changes in other key leadership roles.

Finding No. F-15
There was a lack of full public transparency throughout the process of the City of Ojai selecting DignityMoves for the Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024 and awarding the contract in May 2025.

Response: Agree. As noted above, the City agrees that DignityMoves was not selected through an open and competitive process. However, with respect to the project more generally, since late 2023, the City has endeavored to provide transparency by conducting twenty-two (22) public meetings regarding the Project, providing significant opportunity for City Council deliberation and community input. The City has also maintained a project landing page, providing information and relevant documents for public review, including financial and project plan documents. Further, the City has actively cooperated with the media to answer questions and concerns regarding the Project.

Finding No. F-16
There was a lack of alignment within the Ojai City Council, and between the city and local residents, resulting in delays that impacted the progress of the project.

Response: Disagree. The City Council acknowledges that Council decisions related to the Project have not been unanimous, with many decisions being approved with a 3-2 vote. The City Council operates by a majority vote. Notwithstanding the Council voting history related to the Project, the Project is still on schedule to be completed within the timeline required by the grant. 109
01436.0002 2183814.1

RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation No. R-01
By January 1, 2027, the City of Ojai should develop policies and procedures that support conducting a fair and competitive selection process in all cases moving forward. (F-01, F-02, F03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, F-10, F-11, F-12, F-13, F-14) Response: Agree. In process. Since January 2026, the City has been evaluating the need for revisions to its purchasing procedures and practices. On July 14, 2026, the City Council formally provided authority and direction to the City Attorney to prepare revisions to the City’s purchasing ordinance and solicitation templates in order to provide more robust direction to the City Manager and City staff. The updates to the City’s Municipal Code are expected to be completed by January 1, 2027.

Recommendation No. R-02
By January 1, 2027, the City of Ojai should implement a plan to improve its public transparency throughout the selection process in all cases moving forward. (F-15) Response: Agree. In process. As noted in the response to Recommendation No. 1, the City Attorney has received authorization and direction from the City Council to prepare updates and revisions to the City’s purchasing ordinances and other procurement documents. These revisions are expected to better ensure public transparency in City purchasing and contracting activities.

The updates to the City’s Municipal Code are expected to be completed by January 1, 2027.

Recommendation No. R-03
By January 1, 2027, the City of Ojai implement a plan to gain alignment among employees, elected officials, and local residents before initiating large and complex projects. (F-16) Response: Generally agree. Over the past year, the City Council has spent a significant amount of time developing City Council Goals in order to facilitate greater alignment among the City Council and identify key priorities that are common amongst all Council Members. With that being said, each City Council Member works to represent the many facets of a diverse community while recognizing that members of the community will not always agree on all issues. A key aspect of a democratic form of government includes consideration of differing opinions and perspectives, and at times, differing positions on significant issues by the Council. 110
01436.0002 2182291.1
August __, 2026
Honorable Matthew P. Guasco
Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California
County of Ventura
800 S. Victoria Ave.

Ventura, CA 93003
Re: Civil Grand Jury Report
Dear Judge Guasco,
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933, et seq., please find enclosed the City of Ojai’s response to the 2026 County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project: Best Practices to Ensure a Fair and Competitive Selection Process.” The enclosed response was approved by the City Council.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Bethany A. Burgess
City Attorney, City of Ojai
Enclosure
111
01436.0002 2182291.1

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF OJAI

TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE 2026 COUNTY OF VENTURA CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT
“OJAI PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT: BEST PRACTICES TO ENSURE A FAIR AND COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS”
Finding No. F-01
The City of Ojai was exempt from obtaining competitive bids based on price when selecting a development manager for its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application and contract under an area of California law that expressly exempts contracts for certain professional services.

Response: Agree.

Finding No. F-02
The City of Ojai was required by law to conduct a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when selecting a development manager for its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024.

Response: Generally agreeAgree. The City of Ojai agrees that the California Government Code includes two provisions related to the selection of firms providing certain professional services by public agencies. Government Code Section 4526 requires that local agencies select private architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, land surveying, or construction project management firms “on the basis of demonstrated competence and on the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required.” Separately, Government Code Section 4529.12 requires that “all architectural and engineering services shall be procured pursuant to a fair, competitive selection process.” For purposes of Government Code Section 4529.12, “architectural and engineering services” include all architectural, landscape architectural, environmental, engineering, land surveying, and construction project management services. Use of a qualifications based selection process pursuant to Government Code Section 4526 has been deemed to satisfy the requirements of Section 4529.12.

DignityMoves was retained by the City of Ojai to serve as its development manager of the City’s Permanent Supportive Housing Project (the “Project”). In this capacity, and as described in Section 2.1 of the Development Management Agreement between DignityMoves and the City, DignityMoves is responsible for managing, arranging, supervising and coordinating the planning, design, entitlement, permitting, construction and completion of the Development Work. The City recognizes that included in the responsibilities DignityMoves is required to perform, construction management and oversight is required, and for this reason, the City agrees that, in retrospect, the City should have competitively procured these services. If the scope of DignityMoves services had not included the categories of services described in Government Code Sections 4526 or 4529.12, a competitive process may not have been required. 112
01436.0002 2182291.1
Notwithstanding the City’s failure to conduct a competitive process, the City of Ojai did evaluate DignityMoves qualifications and experience and awarded the Development Management Agreement to DignityMoves based on its qualifications.

Finding No. F-03
The City of Ojai did not conduct a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it included DignityMoves as its development manager in its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024.

Response: Agree. Please see response explanation to Finding 2.

Finding No. F-04
The recommendation of DignityMoves by the County of Ventura Community Development Division did not absolve the City of Ojai from conducting a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it included DignityMoves as its development manager in its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024.

Response: Agree.

Finding No. F-05
The City of Ojai’s claims of insufficient time did not absolve the City of Ojai from conducting a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it included DignityMoves as its development manager in its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024.

Response: Partially agreeAgree. The City agrees that the California Government Code requirements relating to competitive solicitation for this type of service do not include an exception where there is insufficient time to conduct a full and open competitive process.

Notwithstanding this fact, the Notice of Funding Availability for the Encampment Resolution Funding Round 3 grant was released on in November 27, 2023., and Tthe deadline for submitting an application for Application Window #1 of Funding Round 3 was January 31, 2024.

Though Funding Round 3 included multiple application windows, according to the Notice of Funding Availability, the application would only remain open until all program funds were exhausted (and so, if all funds were awarded in Application Window #1, there was the potential that no funds would be available for subsequent Application Windows). City had to submit the ERF grant application by January 31, 2024, in order to be considered for the grant. In order to conduct a fair and competitive selection process in time to submit a Funding Round 3 grant application, the City would have likely required a minimum of 120 to 180 days. Once a public agency identifies the need for professional services, it typically takes between 15 and 30 days to prepare a Request for Proposals or Request for Qualifications. In order to provide a meaningful procurement process, many agencies then allow up to 30 days for submission of proposals. Once proposals are received they must be reviewed and evaluated, which often takes another 15 to 30 days depending on the number of proposals received. Following review of the proposals, interviews may be conducted to select the most qualified firm. After the most qualified firm is identified, the parties must then negotiate contract terms and pricing, which for a complex project, can easily take from 30 to 45 days.
113
01436.0002 2182291.1
Finding No. F-06
The City of Ojai could not support its claim of insufficient time to conduct a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency prior to submitting its Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024.

Response: DisagreeAgree; however, see explanation. Please see response to Finding 5.

Finding No. F-07
The City of Ojai was required by law to conduct a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it awarded a contract to DignityMoves on May 27, 2025.

Response: Agree. Please see response explanation to Finding 2.

Finding No. F-08
The City of Ojai did not conduct a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it awarded a contract to DignityMoves on May 27, 2025.

Response: Agree.

Finding No. F-09
The City of Ojai issued a series of findings on page 20 of Resolution No. 25-19 dated May 27, 2025, to justify the awarding of a contract to DignityMoves as its sole source development manager on May 27, 2025, without conducting a fair and competitive selection process.

Response: Agree. The Resolution findings stated that the City Council found that the approval of a Development Agreement with DignityMoves as a sole source contract is justified as necessary because they are uniquely qualified to provide the product and services, based on its demonstrated experience delivering innovative, dignified interim and permanent housing solutions in California. They worked on similar projects for the County of Santa Barbara, San Francisco, and San Mateo County.

Finding No. F-10
The City of Ojai could not support its claims on page 20 of Resolution No. 25-19 dated May 27, 2025, that DignityMoves was uniquely qualified and that no other development managers could have been identified.

Response: DisagreeAgree; however, the City’s decision was based on representations from other agencies and experts that DignityMoves was uniquely qualified to provide the product and services, based on itshad demonstrated experience delivering innovative, dignified interim and permanent housing solutions in California. They worked on similar projects for the County of Santa Barbara, San Francisco, and San Mateo County.
114
01436.0002 2182291.1
Finding No. F-11
The City of Ojai could not support its claim on page 20 of Resolution No. 25-19 dated May 27, 2025, that it was obligated to award a contract to DignityMoves because DignityMoves was listed in the grant application.

Response: Disagree. The October 4, 2024, ERF Grant Agreement between the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) and the City of Ojai requires the delivery of the project pursuant to the application. The Scope of Work section in Exhibit A stated: “Grantees will implement their ERF funded local proposals in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the NOFA under which the Grantee applied, the representations contained in the Grantee’s application, HCD guidance and directives, and the requirements per the authorizing statute.” By incorporating a grant applicant’s application into the final grant agreement, HCD, effectively, contractually requires grantees to deliver the grantfunded activity in the manner articulated in the grant application.

Finding No. F-12
The City of Ojai could not support its claims on page 20 of Resolution No. 25-19 dated May 27, 2025, that it was obligated to award a contract to DignityMoves because it faced a short timeline to spend 50% of the grant due to delays leading up to the deadline.

Response: Partially agreeAgree. From a calendar standpoint, there was sufficient time between the date on which the City received the grant award and when the Development Management Agreement was approved to conduct a competitive selection process. However, the City was unaware at the time that HCD would consider changes to the City’s consultant identified in the City’s grant application. In support of this statement, the City had been repeatedly advised by HCD that the ERF grant awards were highly competitive, and that changes to an awardee’s application would only be considered where they would enhance or improve the Project in some way. For example, during this time period, the City underwent a process to evaluate alternative Project sites and the current Project location was only approved because it would facilitate an increase in the number of units and, therefore, in the number of people served by the Project.

Additionally, during this period of time, the City underwent a significant process to evaluate multiple Project sites. The City’s original application for the ERF grant proposed the project to be located on the City Hall property. On July 9, 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager to request that the Ojai Valley Board of Realtors serve as a task force to the City Council for the purpose of identifying proposed locations for the Project. On August 27, 2024, the Realtors released four potential site locations, including the Lower Public Works Yard. On March 25, 2025, the City Council approved the Public Works Yard as the Project location contingent on entering into a Development Management Agreement with Dignity Moves and approval of the site. On May 27, 2025, the City approved the Public Works Yard location and the Development Management Agreement with DignityMoves.

Finding No. F-13
The City of Ojai’s claims of insufficient time did not absolve the City of Ojai from conducting a fair and competitive selection process based on qualifications and competency when it awarded the contract to DignityMoves on May 27, 2025.
115
01436.0002 2182291.1
Response: Partially agree; partially disagreeAgree. The City agrees that the California Government Code does not provide exceptions from competitive contracting requirements where there is insufficient time to conduct a meaningful competitive process. The City received notice from HCD on April 18, 2024, that it was selected for the award of an ERF Grant in the amount of $12,667,461.04 to construct the project described in the City’s application. On October 4, 2024, the Grant agreement with HCD was executed. As originally approved, ERF Grant required that no less than 50% of grant funds be expended and 100% obligated by June 30, 2025 and that 100% of funds be expended by June 30, 2027. While this does not absolve the City of Ojai from the requirement to conduct a fair and competitive selection process, it does highlight that there were compressed schedules to secure contractors and, consultants, and work.

Finding No. F-14
There was significant turnover of staff and elected officials at the City of Ojai during this process which contributed to the issues in this report.

Response: Agree. The application window for the California Interagency Council on Homelessness’s ERF Round 3 grant was from November 3, 2023 to January 31, 2024. On January 23, 2024, the Ojai City Council voted to submit the ERF grant application. Current city Manager Ben Harvey was appointed to be the Ojai City Manager on January 29, 2024. Also during this time period the City experienced changes in other key leadership roles.

Finding No. F-15
There was a lack of full public transparency throughout the process of the City of Ojai selecting DignityMoves for the Encampment Resolution Funding grant application in January 2024 and awarding the contract in May 2025.

Response: Generally disagreeAgree. As noted above, the City agrees that DignityMoves was not selected through an open and competitive process. However, with respect to the project more generally, since late 2023, the City has conducted endeavored to provide transparency by conducting twenty-two (22) public meetings regarding the process and the Project, providing significant opportunity for City Council deliberation and community input. The City has also maintained a project landing page, providing information and relevant documents for public review, including financial and project plan documents. Further, the City has actively cooperated with the media to answer questions and concerns regarding the Project.

Finding No. F-16
There was a lack of alignment within the Ojai City Council, and between the city and local residents, resulting in delays that impacted the progress of the project.

Response: Partially agree; partially disagreeDisagree. The City Council acknowledges that Council decisions related to the Project have not been unanimous, with many decisions being approved with a 3-2 vote. The City Council operates by a majority vote. Notwithstanding the Council voting history related to the Project, the most significant delays in project progress are attributable to evaluation of alternate Project locations. Over ten different potential locations 116
01436.0002 2182291.1
were vetted, which added considerable time to the process.the Project is still on schedule to be completed within the timeline required by the grant.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation No. R-01
By January 1, 2027, the City of Ojai should develop policies and procedures that support conducting a fair and competitive selection process in all cases moving forward. (F-01, F-02, F03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, F-10, F-11, F-12, F-13, F-14) Response: Agree. In process. Since January 2026, the City has been evaluating the need for revisions to its purchasing procedures and practices. On July 14, 2026, the City Council has formally provided authority and direction to the City Attorney to prepare revisions to the City’s purchasing ordinance and solicitation templates in order to provide more robust direction to the City Manager and City staff. The updates to the City’s Municipal Code are expected to be completed by January 1, 2027.

Recommendation No. R-02
By January 1, 2027, the City of Ojai should implement a plan to improve its public transparency throughout the selection process in all cases moving forward. (F-15) Response: Agree. In process. As noted in the response to Recommendation No. 1, the City Attorney has received authorization and direction from the City Council to prepare updates and revisions to the City’s purchasing ordinances and other procurement documents. These revisions are expected to better ensure public transparency in City purchasing and contracting activities.

The updates to the City’s Municipal Code are expected to be completed by January 1, 2027.

Recommendation No. R-03
By January 1, 2027, the City of Ojai implement a plan to gain alignment among employees, elected officials, and local residents before initiating large and complex projects. (F-16) Response: Generally agree. Over the past year, the City Council has spent a significant amount of time developing City Council Goals in order to facilitate greater alignment among the City Council and identify key priorities that are common amongst all Council Members. With that being said, each City Council Member works to represent the many facets of a diverse community while recognizing that members of the community will not always agree on all issues. A key aspect of a democratic form of government includes consideration of differing opinions and perspectives, and at times, differing positions on significant issues by the Council. 117

Administrative Report
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report Regarding Countywide Response to Public Complaints About Fireworks (Legal Requirement)

RECOMMENDATION

1. Discuss the proposed response to the County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report

2. Approve the proposed response or provide direction for revisions to the proposed response.

DISCUSSION
On June 25, 2026, the County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury issued a report regarding the countywide response to public complaints involving fireworks. The report evaluates current practices related to fireworks complaints, enforcement, interagency coordination, public education, and local regulations throughout Ventura County.

As part of its report, the Civil Grand Jury issued findings and recommendations directed to various public agencies, including the City of Ojai. The City is required to respond only to the specific findings and recommendations that the Civil Grand Jury directed to Ojai, and is not required to respond to finding or recommendations for Under California Penal Code Sections 933, governing bodies that are the subject of Civil Grand Jury findings and recommendations are required to provide formal responses within the applicable statutory timeframe. The response must address each finding and recommendation specifically directed to the responding agency and must follow the response categories established by State law.

For each finding requiring a response, the City must indicate whether it:
 Agrees with the finding; or
 Disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, with an explanation of the portion that is disputed and the reasons for the disagreement.

For each recommendation requiring a response, the City must generally indicate whether the recommendation:
 Has been implemented;
 Has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, including a timeframe for implementation;
 Requires further analysis, including an explanation and timeframe for the analysis; 118

or
 Will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, including an explanation supporting that determination.

The City’s proposed responses are intended to meet the requirements of California Penal Code Sections 933 while accurately reflecting the City’s existing practices, regional partnerships, and approach to fireworks enforcement. Council may approve the proposed responses as presented or provide direction to staff regarding revisions prior to submission to the Ventura County Civil Grand Jury.

Following Council approval, staff will finalize and transmit the City’s responses in accordance with the Civil Grand Jury’s required response process.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS ALIGNMENT
Goal No. 9 - Communication and Relationships

OPTIONS

1. Take no action;

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with approving and submitting the City’s response to the County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury report.

Prepared by: Norma Cervantes, Assistant to the City Manager

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Civil Grand Jury Report
B. Proposed Response to Civil Grand Jury Report
119
39 2025-2026 CONSOLIDATED FINAL REPORT

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS Countywide Response
to Public Complaints
About Fireworks
June 25, 2026
120
VENTURA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 40 venturacounty.gov/grand-jury

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS

SUMMARY
The public’s discharge of fireworks in Ventura
County — legal and illegal — impacts the quality of
life for residents, and impacts law enforcement and
fire departments both financially and from a staffing
standpoint. These explosions have other impacts,
such as negative effects on individuals suffering from
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), fire danger,
noise disturbance to citizens, and trauma to pets.

In response to a public complaint to the Ventura
County Civil Grand Jury, an investigation identified
concerns regarding record-keeping of calls from
residents about illegal fireworks, as well as different responses by law enforcement agencies to public
complaints, and varied degrees of implementing
technology that would assist in responding to
those complaints.

Additionally, the Civil Grand Jury investigation found
inconsistency among cities regarding the legality
of possession and legally discharging so-called “safe
and sane” fireworks. Those fireworks are purchased
legally in Fillmore and transported to areas of the
county where possession and discharge are illegal.

The Civil Grand Jury recommends enhanced coordination and cooperation among law enforcement agencies and city fire departments, as well as engagement with state agencies, departments, or committees to determine best practices for enforcement and public compliance with laws and regulations regarding the sale and use of fireworks. It also recommends that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors pass a Host Liability Ordinance incorporating fireworks, applicable to the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. Lastly, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that each city that lacks a fireworks host liability ordinance (Ojai, Moorpark, Camarillo, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks) develop one.

BACKGROUND
Fireworks are generally categorized in two ways, as “dangerous” or “safe and sane.” “Dangerous” fireworks, as defined by California law, include skyrockets and rockets, Roman candles, firecrackers, “chasers” that travel along the ground, and various chemical compounds. (Ref-002) California Health and Safety Code 12505 prohibits discharge of “dangerous” fireworks by the public in all areas of California. (Ref-002) However, California allows the public to discharge “safe and sane” fireworks. “Safe and sane” fireworks are defined as “any fireworks that have been approved by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and that have been carefully examined and tested by the State Fire Marshal and determined by the State Fire Marshal that the fireworks meet and are in compliance with the general and specific standards for design, construction, performance, and labeling for ‘safe and sane’ fireworks, as set forth in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 979) of Division 1 of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations, as it reads on July 1, 2023.” (Ref-003)

METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury conducted
interviews with leaders of the Ventura
County Sheriff’s Office (VCSO), city
police agencies in the county, the
Ventura County Fire Department
(VCFD), Ventura County Animal
Services (VCAS), and the Ventura
County Medical Center (VCMC)
regarding the nature of public
complaints about fireworks, how those
agencies respond to the complaints,
and the direct and indirect impact the
discharge of fireworks has on residents
of Ventura County.

Additionally, the Civil Grand Jury
conducted research on governmental
agencies, made several site visits,
surveyed social media, and reviewed
other California civil grand jury reports
and news reports.
121
41 2025-2026 CONSOLIDATED FINAL REPORT

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS

TYPES OF FIREWORKS
Figure 1. Types of Fireworks. Source: CA State Fire Marshal (Att-008a) Throughout California, the illegal possession and discharge of fireworks remain a challenge. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CAL FIRE’s) Office of the State Fire Marshal, “… illegal activity remains prolific and increasingly blatant.” (Ref-004) CAL FIRE is establishing a Public Safety Fireworks Enforcement Task Force, composed exclusively of fire service and law enforcement members (with no fireworks industry participation) to review current state laws and regulations and develop recommendations to enhance enforcement and compliance. The task force plans to issue a formal report in 2026. (Ref-004)
Locally, the possession and discharge of any fireworks is illegal in all of Ventura County. (Ref-005) Four cities have passed restrictions on possession and use of fireworks (Oxnard, Ventura, Santa Paula, and Fillmore). (Ref-005c, Ref-005d, Ref-005e, Ref-005f, Ref-007) In addition, the remaining six cities and the unincorporated areas of Ventura County are under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD), which has enacted Section 5601 of Ordinance 34 prohibiting possession and use of fireworks. (Ref-005a, Ref-005b), Individual jurisdictions can pass ordinances that override the county ordinance. (Ref-006) Within Ventura County, only the City of Fillmore has passed an ordinance that allows the sale and discharge of “safe and sane” fireworks during specific dates. (Ref-007) Within Ventura County, public and law enforcement attitudes regarding fireworks vary. Interviews with leaders in several law enforcement agencies indicate that there are differing perceptions about the seriousness of the fireworks situation. (Ref-001) This has led to differing commitments by law 122
VENTURA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 42 venturacounty.gov/grand-jury

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS enforcement in addressing and responding to public fireworks complaints. (Ref-001) Each municipality passes its own ordinances and sets financial penalties regarding fireworks, including policies and priorities to enforce the ordinances. There is no uniformity within the county. (Ref-001) All 10 cities and the unincorporated areas of Ventura County experience discharge of fireworks, primarily around the Fourth of July. The county’s law enforcement agencies receive hundreds of calls from the public during “fireworks season” (which requires the assignment of personnel to respond to the calls for service). Each city defines “fireworks season” slightly differently, but all include several days before the Fourth of July through July 5. (Ref-001)
Ventura County law enforcement agencies report that the fireworks are a combination of “safe and sane” fireworks obtained legally in Fillmore and locations outside Ventura County but illegally discharged in Ventura County (outside of Fillmore), plus “dangerous” fireworks illegally obtained within and outside Ventura County. (Ref-001)
Law enforcement agencies throughout Ventura County report similar impacts on their communities from the discharge of fireworks, such as trauma to pets, negative effects on individuals suffering from PTSD, fire danger, and noise disturbance to citizens, even during late-night and early-morning hours. (Ref-001) Ventura County’s law enforcement agencies and fire departments, animal services, and veterans service agencies all report, to varying degrees, financial or emotional impacts and acknowledge there is a significant emotional and mental health fallout from fireworks. (Ref-001) Due to the development and adaptation of drone technology, some police departments throughout California are investigating, or have implemented, the use of drones to assist in detecting specific locations where fireworks are being discharged. They have used public messaging to announce that drones will be deployed in advance as a deterrent to those inclined to discharge fireworks. (Ref-008, Ref-009) Ventura County law enforcement agencies are at different stages of investigating and implementing this technology. (Ref-001)

DISCUSSION
The Civil Grand Jury’s interviews with law enforcement officials in Ventura County reflected their understanding of the public’s attitudes toward fireworks and revealed their current efforts at responding to complaints about fireworks discharge.

Justification for the public’s discharge of fireworks around the Fourth of July dates at least to President John Adams, who in 1776 wrote, “It [Independence Day] ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews (sic), Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.” (Ref-010) 123
43 2025-2026 CONSOLIDATED FINAL REPORT

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS

TRADITIONAL REALITY OF FIREWORKS
Figure 2. Reality of Fireworks. Source: Oxnard Police Department, April 2026. (Att-008b) 124
VENTURA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 44 venturacounty.gov/grand-jury

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS Impacts on Ventura County
Law Enforcement: The volume of complaints to law enforcement agencies regarding fireworks is reflected in the following table:

JURISDICTION YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL VCSO* 2023 15 10 3 19 25 150 353 40 27 9 25 37 713
2024 26 4 6 14 26 177 355 42 34 51 25 55 815
2025 24 10 17 26 14 166 328 42 18 20 49 26 740
Oxnard 2023 29 5 3 14 34 275 579 25 29 30 17 35 1,075
2024 28 5 7 7 57 415 670 40 37 31 20 95 1,412
2025 52 14 10 13 65 213 585 36 23 32 57 74 1,174
Ventura 2023 13 6 3 3 19 77 412 28 11 14 5 26 617
2024 15 2 4 8 100 211 455 25 27 38 19 31 935
2025 33 5 28 4 22 74 362 47 14 20 16 25 650
Port Hueneme 2023 9 1 1 8 11 62 118 6 8 1 4 4 233
2024 7 0 0 2 18 81 113 7 7 5 2 9 251
2025 5 1 2 4 10 53 111 3 7 3 10 10 219
Santa Paula** 2023
2024
2025
Simi Valley 2023 22 4 13 8 7 30 505 10 10 6 4 32 651
2024 21 6 4 1 6 44 293 17 9 17 5 18 461
2025 23 2 3 4 9 46 287 21 7 9 8 15 454
* VCSO data includes the cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Ojai, Moorpark, Thousand Oaks, and the unincorporated areas of Ventura County **Data not provided as of report publication
Figure 3. Number of Public Fireworks Complaints by Month. Three-year history of public fireworks complaints. (Att-001, Att-002, Att-003, Att-004, Att-005) As reflected in Figure 3 above, despite varied efforts by different governmental agencies to educate the public about fireworks, the annual total of public complaints about fireworks has remained about the same over the last three years.

VCFD: The Civil Grand Jury learned that fires are frequently attributed to fireworks. (Ref-001) From 2023 to 2025, there were 107 fire calls to VCFD where fireworks were a contributing factor. (Att-006) In June 2024 a two-alarm fire was reported in Simi Valley. The heat source was determined to be fireworks, and the fire grew to just under five acres. The incident required dispatching 11 fire trucks, two helicopters, and a dozer. The fire was extinguished approximately 19 hours later. All firefighting costs incurred were the responsibility of VCFD (no cost sharing with the state). (Ref-001, Att-007) Animal Services: Fireworks explosions impact our beloved pets. In interviews with VCAS personnel, the Civil Grand Jury learned that the agency does not compile statistics on fireworks-related events (such as animals escaping yards, surrendering of animals by their owners, lost animals). Instead, they acknowledge that they receive anecdotal information from residents about fireworks frightening their 125
45 2025-2026 CONSOLIDATED FINAL REPORT

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS pets, which in turn causes trauma to some animals or leads to runaways. It also contributes to people dropping off animals at VCAS for temporary caretaking. In response to the impact of July Fourth fireworks on our pets, the agency uses social media to reach out to the Ventura County community, offering support for animal owners during fireworks season. (Ref-011) Because of the linear design of the buildings at VCAS, there is ongoing noise from the echoing of dog barking and, therefore, there is little effect from outside noises on the animals in the Camarillo shelter. (Ref-001)
Veterans, Retired Law Enforcement Personnel, Victims of Violent Crimes: Veterans suffering from PTSD can find July Fourth to be a challenge. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs addresses this directly on its website, stating, “While fireworks symbolize freedom, their sudden booms, flashing lights, and smoky trails can trigger intense reactions for those who’ve experienced trauma, especially combat veterans. Loud noises often resemble gunfire. The unpredictability of neighborhood displays can shatter a veteran’s sense of safety.” (Ref-012) The Civil Grand Jury interviewed some Ventura County veterans who confirmed their reactions to fireworks are like those seen nationally. (Ref-001) Law enforcement officers who have experienced shootings and victims of violent crimes also experience trauma from fireworks explosions. (Ref-001)
Hospital Emergency Room Visits: Hospitals and other agencies in the U.S. voice concern about injuries caused by fireworks. (Ref-013, Ref-013a, Ref-013b, Ref-013c) According to the U.S. Product Safety Commission, children under the age of 15 and adults between 25 and 44 are the age groups most likely to be injured by fireworks and end up in the hospital emergency room. (Ref-014) In 2024 an estimated 14,700 people were treated in emergency rooms nationwide due to fireworks injuries. (Ref-014) In Ventura County, hospital emergency rooms experience an influx of fireworks-related injuries, mainly to the hand and the foot, during the days surrounding the Fourth of July. However, VCMC does not increase staffing during these days, so, although there is an influx of fireworks-related incidents at the emergency room during fireworks season, there is no additional cost to the hospital budget. (Ref-001) Police Agencies’ Responses to Fireworks Complaints
As far back as 2017 Oxnard held community-fireworks discussions with city, police and fire department management. In mid-2025 the Oxnard Police Department involved members from the eight active neighborhood council associations as well as city and fire department management out of concern about citizens’ complaints to the police department. The police department acted upon input from citizens and implemented the department’s professional expertise and experience to create a bestpractice model of responding to and enforcing violations of fireworks ordinances. (Ref-001) (Att-017a) In 2024 Oxnard introduced fixed-wing aircraft to support enforcement. Oxnard Police Department has also implemented community-outreach efforts through Facebook, Instagram, radio station broadcasts, and its own website to educate the public about fireworks. In addition, Oxnard started sending shortterm-rental hosts an advance-warning letter about the city’s fireworks enforcement. (Ref-001) (Att-017a) All law enforcement agencies staff up to increase patrol personnel around July Fourth to deal with fireworks complaints. This is done through paying overtime, pulling staff off other duties or canceling time off. The goal is to be fully staffed. During this period, utilizing staff to respond to fireworks complaints removes them from other important duties and their day-to-day expertise. (Ref-001) 126
VENTURA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 46 venturacounty.gov/grand-jury

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS Oxnard uses a priority system to classify calls to its dispatch center. Calls about fireworks that provide nonspecific information (such as, “I hear fireworks exploding a couple of blocks away”) are given a lower Priority 7. Calls about fireworks that give a specific address, vehicle information, name of person, or a more specific location identifier are given a higher Priority 3. The Priority 7 calls are typically broadcast to officers, but officers might not be assigned because of the nonspecific nature of the call. No other law enforcement jurisdiction in Ventura County uses a prioritizing system to manage fireworks complaints. (Ref-001) (Att-018)
Documentation of complaints varies among agencies. Some record detailed statistics; others don’t. (Ref-001)
In addition to enhanced staffing around July Fourth, Oxnard also has implemented additional strategies in anticipation of the surge in fireworks activity, including:
• Data-driven maps of the City of Oxnard displaying snapshots of fireworks activity, used to assist asset deployments within city limits (see Figure 4, below, showing a point-in-time snapshot of fireworks activity on July 4, 2025).
• Pre-holiday deployments: Neighborhood Policing Teams and Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Team, which involves using drones.
• Deployment of fixed-wing aircraft for thermal imaging to record specific parcel numbers, which can result in citations.

Figure 4. Oxnard Police Department Point-in-Time Map Showing Active Fireworks Calls at 9:40 PM on July 4, 2025. (Att-008c) 127
47 2025-2026 CONSOLIDATED FINAL REPORT

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS In addition to incurring increased costs and reassigning officers to help respond to fireworks complaints, law enforcement agencies’ responses present other challenges: (Ref-001) • Response times to complaints are affected by “competition” between fireworks complaints and concurrent emergencies (e.g., felony crimes, traffic accidents, etc.), which also require police resources. As noted earlier, Oxnard deals with this challenge by prioritizing calls. • If a drone is used to respond (discussed below), its use requires an operator and a spotter. This takes two employees away from other duties and priorities. In addition, to issue a citation as a misdemeanor, an officer must observe or have a recording of the violation. • Most fireworks complaints are nonspecific, meaning the reporting party does not designate a specific address where the fireworks are being discharged, so an immediate response to the incident becomes problematic.
• Some complaints give a specific location but present challenges — examples are a single shot of a firework (event is over before police can respond); fireworks discharged in the street (difficult to attribute to a specific person); or offenders scattering before police officers arrive. • If law enforcement issues a civil citation for fireworks discharge through a host liability ordinance (explained below), in some cases an appeal hearing officer may lower the civil fine, which can undermine the effect of the civil citation.

Other Efforts to Reduce Fireworks Incidents
A host liability ordinance is used in situations where a property owner rents their property on a shortterm basis (e.g. through Airbnb). Several Ventura County cities have adopted host liability ordinances. (Ref-015, Ref-015a, Ref-016, Ref-016a, Ref-017, Ref-017a, Ref-018, Ref-018a) Under this type of ordinance the property owner can be held liable if the owner has not informed tenants of the illegality of shooting off or possessing fireworks and has reason to believe the tenants might do so. There is no countywide host liability ordinance. In those cities that have host liability ordinances (listed in the table below), Ventura County law enforcement agencies send letters to short-term rental landlords in advance of the Fourth of July to advise about the ordinance and the landlord’s responsibility to advise renters of fireworks ordinances in the city. (Ref-001)
Police departments in Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, and Ventura choose to issue administrative (civil) fines through host liability ordinances to violators of fireworks regulations, rather than with a Health and Safety Code violation. A civil citation must meet a “preponderance of evidence” standard, while a Health and Safety Code violation requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a more difficult standard to meet. (Ref-001)
The table below identifies communities that have host liability ordinances that address fireworks.

Beyond the cities listed, host liability ordinances are not in effect for Simi Valley and all other areas of Ventura County, including the cities and unincorporated areas where VCSO has primary law enforcement responsibility:
128
VENTURA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 48 venturacounty.gov/grand-jury

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS

CITY YEAR ADOPTED INITIAL VIOLATION FINE SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION FINE Oxnard 2018 $250 (safe and sane)
$1,000 (dangerous)
2nd = $500; 3 or more=$1,000 (safe/
sane)
Santa Paula 2020 $500 $1,000
Ventura 2018 $132 2nd =$264; 3 or more =$396
Port Hueneme 2018 $250 2nd=$500; 3 or more=$1,000
Figure 5. Various Ventura County cities host liability ordinances (Ref-015a, Ref-016a, Ref-017a, Ref-018, Att-009, Att-010) The Sheriff’s Office contracts with five Ventura County cities — Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, and Thousand Oaks — for law enforcement services. Of these five cities, only Fillmore has a municipal code of strict liability, where deputies can cite the property owner for illegal fireworks being discharged from their property. (Ref-018a) Moorpark is researching the option of implementing a host liability ordinance regarding fireworks but has not acted as of this report. (Ref-001) In 2022 the staff of Simi Valley introduced Municipal Ordinance 1338 for consideration. This ordinance proposed making possession, sale, and discharge of fireworks illegal. In addition it proposed a host liability ordinance regarding fireworks. To the Civil Grand Jury’s knowledge, this ordinance was never approved by the Simi Valley City Council. (Ref-025)
Below is an overview of civil citations issued and collected through host liability ordinances that relate to fireworks. (Ref-001)
City Year # Issued $ Issued $ Collected # Dismissed
via Appeal
Oxnard
2023 59 $41,500 $8,100 9
2024 50 $35,000 $12,025 7
2025 59 $47,000 $12,175 5
Santa Paula **
Ventura
2023 9 $2,188 $996 1
2024 15 $12,396 $6,132 2
2025 13 $6,056 $3,160 0
Port Hueneme
2023 0 $0 $0
2024 0 $0 $0
2025 0 $0 $0
** No information available or not tracked
Figure 6. Host Liability Ordinance Fines, by City. (Att-011, Att-012, Att-013) 129
49 2025-2026 CONSOLIDATED FINAL REPORT

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS In addition to the use of host liability ordinances, the VCSO, police departments, and the Ventura County District Attorney have taken other steps to reduce the incidences of fireworks discharge in advance of July Fourth. (Ref-001) These efforts include the use of press releases in advance of the holiday, social media, tip lines, emails, warning letters, message trailers on streets, pre-holiday deployments, mapping tools (to help identify high-incident areas), and enhanced staffing around July Fourth. Despite these efforts no agency has “solved the problem” (as is evidenced by the ongoing number of public complaints). Sheriff and police leaders state that stopping discharge of fireworks remains an elusive goal, and it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the outreach efforts through social media and public-service announcements. (Ref-001)
Use of Drone Technology
The advent of drone technology has given law enforcement additional tools to respond to fireworks complaints. Using drones as a first responder offers an alternative to dispatching personnel as the first step in securing public safety, including the discharge of fireworks.

Advantages of using drones in response to fireworks complaints include:
• A drone can arrive at a location sooner than deployed officers. Drones can be based in a stationary location in a pod on top of a building, enabling stationing in strategic locations. As an alternative, they can be housed in a patrol car and transported to the site for deployment. (Ref-001) • With GPS and video capability, drones might eliminate the need for deployment of officers to a site, which can accomplish two goals: obtaining information and reducing officers’ exposure to possible harmful behavior from individuals. Officers responding to fireworks complaints may find themselves in large crowds, outnumbered, and at risk of injury. (Ref-001) • Information obtained by drones can include the address of an offense and video or photos of offenders in the act, which can be used as evidence supporting a civil citation. In addition, drones offer more flexibility and quicker response times than from the use of a manned helicopter. (Ref-001) Requirements for Using Drone Technology
For government agencies to operate a drone or Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), the drone pilot must be Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Part 107, certified (Ref-019), or the agency must obtain a signed FAA Certificate of Waiver (Ref-020) or Authorization. Law enforcement agencies can obtain waivers of standard drone regulations through application to the FAA. In late January 2026, the City of Elk Grove, CA, obtained an FAA waiver, allowing it to operate drones at an altitude of 400 feet and beyond the operator’s visual line of sight. (Ref-021) This exceeds the normal regulation, restricting the operating of a drone to within the operator’s visual line of sight. Other waivers may be possible in the future.
130
VENTURA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 50 venturacounty.gov/grand-jury

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS Current Use of Drones by Ventura County Law Enforcement Agencies The use of drone technology by law enforcement agencies in Ventura County varies in the stages of deployment. The following table outlines the number of drones in use by each jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction Number of Drones
2026
Number with
thermal cameras
Number with
Capability to Record
GPS Coordinates
Expected Number of
Drones 2027
VCSO 23 23 23 24
Oxnard 12 12 10 15*
Ventura 15 2 2 12-15****
Port Hueneme 4 4 4 4
Santa Paula ** *** *** ***
Simi Valley *** ***
* assuming none taken out of service because of age ** seeking bids for two drones *** data not provided **** no additional funds allocated to supplement existing fleet Figure 7. Current Drone Inventory. Various Ventura County cities drone inventory as of April 2026. (Att-014, Att-015, Att-016, Att-017)
Concerns About Drone Usage
Privacy is an evolving issue related to drone use by law enforcement agencies. Drones can be used in a reactive mode, such as in response to a public complaint about fireworks, or they can be used proactively, such as patrolling an area that is considered a “hot spot” for illegal-fireworks activity. There is a concern within law enforcement that the proactive use of drones might be perceived by the public as an invasion of privacy. (Ref-001) California Civil Code 1708.8 addresses privacy protections as they relate to drone usage. (Ref-022, Ref-022a) Law enforcement must be cognizant of this code and any waivers for law enforcement in making decisions about drone usage.

Interagency Cooperation
All law enforcement officials interviewed for this report stated that there is ongoing cooperation among the cities and county law enforcement agencies and VCFD. There is a monthly meeting of the Ventura County Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee, comprising law enforcement officers from the Sheriff’s office, each Ventura County police department, and the California Highway Patrol, to discuss procedures. Mutual aid is part of the cooperation process. (Ref-001) Mutual aid is a formal, voluntary agreement between agencies to share personnel, equipment, and resources during emergencies, largescale events, or when local capabilities are overwhelmed. These pre-planned, authorized arrangements allow neighboring agencies to provide support, improving safety and efficiency for incidents like natural disasters, riots or mass-casualty events. (Ref-023)
Improved Countywide Response to Fireworks Complaints?
With the exception of Fillmore during a specified period of time, discharge of fireworks of all kinds is illegal in all parts of Ventura County. This is the result of individual cities passing fireworks ordinances (Oxnard, Ventura, Santa Paula, Fillmore) and through an ordinance from the Ventura County Fire Protection District, which has jurisdiction over the unincorporated areas of Ventura County and the cities of Ojai, Port Hueneme, Moorpark, Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks. 131
51 2025-2026 CONSOLIDATED FINAL REPORT

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS If county and city agencies are able to establish a better-coordinated approach to education and enforcement of fireworks regulations, this could include:
• A unified approach for enforcement of fireworks regulations. • Coordinated use of resources (personnel and technology) to address the most egregious offenses, target “hot spots,” and focus on repeat offenders.

FINDINGS
F-01. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that there is no public consensus regarding the discharge of fireworks, even if it is deemed illegal.

F-02. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that most fireworks complaints are nonspecific in location and do not result in a warning or citation.

F-03. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that despite numerous and varied efforts by law enforcement, the fire department, and the district attorney to educate the public, the number of complaints has not decreased.

F-04. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that there are varied responses to fireworks complaints among Ventura County law enforcement agencies.

F-05. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that Fillmore is the only city in Ventura County that allows the purchase and/or discharge of “safe and sane” fireworks, and some of these fireworks are illegally transported to, and discharged in, other parts of the county.

F-06. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that the use of drone technology to respond to complaints provides benefits to law enforcement, including quicker response times and better identification of offenders.

F-07. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that there are occasions when civil citations have been issued and citizens can challenge and go through an appeal process to reduce or eliminate any fines. The reduction or elimination of any fines impacts the effectiveness of enforcement actions.

F-08. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that, with the exception of Fillmore during a limited time around July 4th, through a set of city and Ventura County Fire Protection District regulations, discharge of fireworks is illegal throughout Ventura County.

F-09. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that the cities of Oxnard, Santa Paula, Ventura, and Port Hueneme have fireworks host liability ordinances.

F-10. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that the Oxnard Police Department has been a leading Ventura County law enforcement agency in implementing strategies to respond to public complaints about fireworks.

F-11. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that there is no fireworks host liability ordinance that applies to the unincorporated areas of Ventura County.

F-12. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that Oxnard, Ventura, Santa Paula and Port Hueneme have existing fireworks host liability ordinances; that Fillmore has a strict liability ordinance regarding fireworks; and that Ojai, Moorpark, Camarillo, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks do not currently have fireworks host liability ordinances. 132
VENTURA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 52 venturacounty.gov/grand-jury

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS

RECOMMENDATIONS
R-01. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors pass a host liability ordinance regarding fireworks, applicable to the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. (F-11)
R-02. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury recommends that Ojai, Moorpark, Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks develop their own fireworks host liability ordinances. (F-12) R-03. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Fire Department maintain ongoing communication with CAL FIRE’s Public Safety Fireworks Enforcement Task Force to learn about recommendations to enhance enforcement and compliance with fireworks laws. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06)
R-04. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Fire Department interface regularly with Ventura County Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee to inform the committee about recommendations from CAL FIRE’s Fireworks Enforcement Task Force. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06)
R-05. The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Fire Department and Ventura County Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee meet regularly to strategize best practices to enhance responses to fireworks complaints and establish best practices for enforcement of fireworks regulations. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, F-10, F-11, F-12)

RESPONSES
Responses invited, but not required, from:

The following appointed officials within 60 days:

Fire Chief, Ventura County Fire Department (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, F-10, F-11, F-12, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05)
Responses required from:

The following elected officers within 60 days:

Ventura County Sheriff’s Office (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F07, F-08, F-09, F-11, F-12, R-04, R-05) The following governing bodies within 90 days:

Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-03, R-04, R-05) City of Camarillo City Council (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-12, R-02, R-04) City of Fillmore City Council (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, R-04, R-05) City of Moorpark City Council (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-12, R-02, R-04) City of Ojai City Council (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-12, R-02, R-04) City of Oxnard City Council (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, F-10, R-04, R-05) City of Port Hueneme City Council (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, R-04) City of Santa Paula City Council (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, R-04) 133
53 2025-2026 CONSOLIDATED FINAL REPORT

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS City of Simi Valley City Council (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-12, R-02, R-04) City of Thousand Oaks City Council (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-12, R-02, R-04) City of Ventura City Council (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, R-04, R-05)

COMMENDATION
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury commends the Oxnard Police Department for setting an example for responding to and enforcing violators and violations of fireworks ordinances. This was demonstrated by being the first police department in Ventura County to solicit community input regarding fireworks and in its decision making and development of strategies to respond to fireworks complaints.

REFERENCES
Ref-001. Civil Grand Jury interviews with various officials and other interested parties.

Ref-002. California Health and Safety Code. Section 12505. Dangerous fireworks, defined, 1977.

Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection. xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=12505
Ref-003. California Health and Safety Code. Section 12529. Safe and sane fireworks, defined, 2023.

Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection. xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=12529
Ref-004. CAL FIRE General Fireworks Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, September 15, 2025, 2-3.

Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdnendpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/osfm-website/committes/general-fireworks-advisorycommittee/2026/gfac-meeting-minutes-final-(20250915).pdf?rev= 11eaefc9d05f446292cd1ee62ab3e1ef&hash=8E165C85A1C2F5E19A95936F838DE58F Ref-005. Ventura County District Attorney’s Office. District Attorney Urges Public to Avoid Illegal Fireworks. News Release, June 28, 2024. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://da.venturacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/District-Attorney-Urges-Publicto-Avoid-Illegal-Fireworks-1.pdf Ref-005a. About the VCFD. Ventura County Fire Department. Accessed on May 26, 2026.

Ref-005b. Ventura County Fire Protection District Ordinance Number 34. Dated October 14, 2025.

Accessed May 22, 2026 from https://vcrealtors.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ Ordinance-34.pdf
Ref-005c. Oxnard Ordinance Prohibiting Sale, Offer to Sell, Use or Possession of Fireworks. Memo from Assistant City Attorney to City Council. Dated April 29, 2008. Accessed May 22, 2026 from https://oxnard.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?clip_id=860&meta_id=59195 Ref-005d. Ventura Municipal Code 10.852 (definitions) prohibiting manufacturing, possession, storage, sale, and use and handling of fireworks. Ventura Municipal Code passed February 17, 2026.

Accessed May 22, 2026 from https://sanbuenaventura.municipal.codes/SBMC/10.852.010 Ref-005e. Ventura Municipal Code 10.852 (prohibition) prohibiting manufacturing, possession, storage, sale, and use and handling of fireworks. Ventura Municipal Code passed February 17, 2026.

Accessed May 22, 2026 from https://sanbuenaventura.municipal.codes/SBMC/10.852.020 134
VENTURA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 54 venturacounty.gov/grand-jury

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS Ref-005f. Santa Paula Municipal Ordinance Chapter 103 Prohibiting and Regulating Fireworks. Santa Paula Ordinance 1300. Accessed May 22, 2026 from https://www.spcity.org/ DocumentCenter/View/1965/Ordinance-1300-Prohibiting-and-Regulating-Fireworks Ref-006. Article XI, Section 7 of California State Constitution. California State Constitution. Accessed May 22, 2026 from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText. xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=XI Ref-007. City of Fillmore, California Code of Ordinances. Title 15, Chapter 15.38, Paragraph 15.38.100 – Discharge of fireworks. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://library.municode.com/ca/ fillmore/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15PESAMO_CH15.38FI_15.38.100DIFI Ref-008. City of Riverside, California. Illegal Fireworks Crackdown Results in Over 60 Citations. News Release, July 10, 2025. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://riversideca.gov/press/illegalfireworks-crackdown-results-over-60-citations Ref-009. City of Seaside, California. Illegal Fireworks Enforcement. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/649/Illegal-Fireworks-Enforcement Ref-010. Worsham, Jim. Pieces of History, a Blog of the U.S. National Archives History Office. John Adams’s Vision of July 4 was July 2. Original post by Kratz, Jessie, July 2, 2014. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2014/07/02/john-adams-vision-of-july-4- was-july-2/
Ref-011. Ventura County Animal Services. Fourth of July Pet Safety Tips. Instagram post, July 4, 2025.

Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://www.instagram.com/p/ DLsYQwVvkCe/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D
Ref-012. Weston, Camille, Public Relations Officer. When Fireworks Don’t Feel Like Freedom: PTSD Awareness and Coping During Independence Day. U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs website, July 2, 2025. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://www.va.gov/jackson-health-care/stories/whenfireworks-dont-feel-like-freedom-ptsd-awareness-and-coping-during-independence-day/ Ref-013. Barskaya, Angela, M.D. What an ER Doctor Wants You to Know About Fireworks. Columbia University Irving Medical Center – Columbia Doctors, June 30, 2025. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://www.columbiadoctors.org/news/what-er-doctor-wants-you-know-aboutfireworks Ref-013a. Southwick, Ron, Hospitals Await Surge of Fireworks Burns and Injuries With July 4 Holiday, Chief Healthcare Executive, July 3, 2024, Accessed on May 22, 2026 from https://www. chiefhealthcareexecutive.com/view/hospitals-brace-for-fireworks-burns-and-injuriesaround-july-4-holiday Ref-013b. Fireworks Safety, National Fire Protection Association, Accessed on May 22, 2026 from https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/home-fire-safety/fireworks Ref-013c. Don’t Pick Up and Light Fireworks, Warns UCI Health Burn Expert, UCI Health, June 26, 2025, Accessed on May 22, 2026 from https://www.ucihealth.org/about-us/news/2025/06/ firework-safety
Ref-014. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC Estimate: 14,700 Injuries, 11 Deaths. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://www.cpsc.gov/Safety-Education/SafetyEducation-Centers/Fireworks 135
55 2025-2026 CONSOLIDATED FINAL REPORT

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS Ref-015. Santa Paula Police Department. Facebook post – Municipal Code Chapter 103: Host Liability Ordinance, June 28, 2021. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://www.facebook.com/ SantaPaulaPoliceDepartment/posts/did-you-know-under-municipal-code-chapter-103-anyhost-person-who-organizes-supe/6508923209133085/ Ref-015a. Santa Paula Municipal Code Chapter 103: Fireworks. American Legal Publishing, Accessed on May 22, 2026 from https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/santapaula/latest/santapaula_ ca/0-0-0-74953
Ref-016. City of Oxnard, California. Oxnard Fireworks 411. Be a Good Neighbor – Don’t Use Illegal Fireworks in Oxnard. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://sites.google.com/oxnard.org/ oxnardfireworks
Ref-016a. Oxnard City Council Minutes of April 3, 2018, approving Fireworks Social Host Liability Ordinance. Accessed on May 22, 2026 from https://oxnard.granicus.com/DocumentViewer. php?file=oxnard_46d2aab4e07bf64d1b6f8155d3e456a6.pdf&view=1 Ref-017. City of Ventura, California. Fireworks Safety, June 17, 2025. Accessed on April 23, 2026 from https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/2115/Fireworks-Safety
Ref-017a. Text of City of San Buenaventura Ordinance 2018-015, Pertaining to Fireworks. July 16, 2018. Accessed on May 22, 2026 from https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/22073/CC---Council-Ordinances----Ord-No--2018-015-Title--PERTAINING-TOFIREWORKS-Body--CITY-COUNCIL Ref-018. City of Port Hueneme, California Code of Ordinances. Article V, Chapter 2, Part G, Paragraph 1542 – Fireworks Prohibited. Accessed on April 23, 2026 from https://library.municode. com/ca/port_hueneme/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTVTAUSRE_CH2BUPE_ PTGFI_5142FIPR
Ref-018a. Fillmore Ordinance 15.38.110 Strict liability for the illegal discharge of fireworks. Fillmore Municipal Code. Accessed 5/22/2026 from https://library.municode.com/ca/fillmore/codes/ code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15PESAMO_CH15.38FI_15.38.110STLIILDIFIADPE Ref-019. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. Become a Certificated Remote Pilot, February 15, 2024. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://www.faa. gov/uas/commercial_operators/become_a_drone_pilot
Ref-020. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. Part 107 Waivers, March 19, 2026. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_ operators/part_107_waivers
Ref-021. Fox-Sowell, Sophia. California Police Department Granted FAA Waiver to Fly Drones at 400 Feet, January 28, 2025. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://statescoop.com/elk-grovecalifornia-police-department-faa-waiver-drones-400-feet/ Ref-022. Gross, Richard J. Drone Laws in California: Detailed Guide, April 2026. Propel website, March 30, 2026. Accessed on April 23, 2026 from https://www.propelrc.com/drone-laws-incalifornia/ Ref-022a. California Civil Code Section 1708.8. California.Public.Law. Accessed May 22, 2026 from https://california.public.law/codes/civil_code_section_1708.8 Ref-023. Cal OES, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. Mutual Aid System. Accessed on April 23, 2026. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/office-of-the-director/operations/response-operations/lawenforcement/mutual-aid-system/ 136
VENTURA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 56 venturacounty.gov/grand-jury

COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS

ATTACHMENTS
Att-001. Ventura County Sheriff’s Office. Fireworks Calls, 2023-2025.

Att-002. Oxnard Police Department. Fireworks Calls, 2023-2025.

Att-003. Ventura Police Department. Fireworks Calls, 2023-2025.

Att-004. City Port Hueneme. Fireworks Calls, 2023-2025.

Att-005. City of Simi Valley. Fireworks Calls, 2023-2025.

Att-006. Ventura County Fire Department. Fireworks Cause 2023-2025.

Att-007. City of Simi Valley. 2024 Fire Resource Details, June 28, 2024 – June 29, 2024.

Att-008a. Oxnard Police Department. Types of Fireworks.

Att-008b. City of Oxnard. Traditional Reality of Fireworks.

Att-008c. City of Oxnard. 2024 Fireworks Recap, September 18, 2025.

Att-009. City of Port Hueneme. Host Liability Fines, 2023-2025.

Att-010. City of Ventura. Host Liability Fines, 2026.

Att-011. Oxnard Police Department. Fines and Dismissals, 2023-2025.

Att-012. Ventura Police Department. Fines and Dismissals, 2023-2025.

Att-013. City of Port Hueneme. Fines and Dismissals, 2023-2025.

Att-014. Oxnard Police Department. Drone Inventory, 2026.

Att-015. Ventura Police Department. Drone Inventory, 2026.

Att-016. City of Port Hueneme. Drone Inventory, 2026.

Att-017. Ventura County Sheriff’s Office Drone Information Att-017a. Oxnard PD Community Meeting Regarding Fireworks (Recollections) Att-018. Oxnard PD Priority Assignment of incoming calls

GLOSSARY

TERM DEFINITION
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection FAA Federal Aviation Administration
PTSD Post-traumatic stress disorder
UAS Unmanned Aircraft System
VCAS Ventura County Animal Services
VCMC Ventura County Medical Center
VCFD Ventura County Fire Department
VCSO Ventura County Sheriff Office
137
August __, 2026
Honorable Matthew P. Guasco
Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California
County of Ventura
800 S. Victoria Ave.

Ventura, CA 93003
Re: Civil Grand Jury Report
Dear Judge Guasco,
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933, et seq., please find enclosed the City of Ojai’s response to the 2026 County of Ventura Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Countywide Response to the Public Complaints About Fireworks” The enclosed response was approved by the City Council.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Bethany A. Burgess
City Attorney, City of Ojai
Enclosure
138

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF OJAI

TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE 2026 COUNTY OF VENTURA CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT
“COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT FIREWORKS” Finding No. F-01
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that there is no public consensus regarding the discharge of fireworks, even if it is deemed illegal.

Response: Partially Agree. The City acknowledges that public opinions regarding fireworks may vary throughout Ventura County. However, the City has not independently conducted an assessment sufficient to determine whether there is or is not public consensus regarding the discharge of fireworks. Within the City of Ojai, the discharge of fireworks is prohibited, and the City supports compliance with applicable laws and regulations intended to protect public safety, reduce wildfire risk, and minimize impacts to residents, animals, and property.

Finding No. F-02
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that most fireworks complaints are nonspecific in location and do not result in warning or citation.

Response: Partially Agree. The City recognizes that fireworks complaints may lack sufficient information regarding the precise location or identity of the responsible party, which can make enforcement challenging. However, the City does not have sufficient information regarding fireworks complaints and enforcement outcomes throughout Ventura County to independently confirm that most complaints are nonspecific or do not result in warnings or citations. The City supports providing law enforcement with timely and specific information whenever possible to assist with effective enforcement.

Finding No. F-03
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that despite numerous and varied efforts by law enforcement, the fire department, and the district attorney to educate the public, the number of complaints has not decreased.

Response: Partially Agree. The City agrees that public education is an important component of fireworks prevention and recognizes the ongoing educational efforts undertaken by law enforcement, fire agencies, and other regional partners. The City does not have sufficient independent data to verify whether fireworks complaints have increased, decreased, or remained consistent throughout Ventura County. The City supports continued public education combined with appropriate enforcement, particularly given the significant wildfire risk present in Ojai and the surrounding region.

Finding No. F-04
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that there are varied responses to fireworks complaints among Ventura County law enforcement agencies. 139
Response: Agree. The City agrees that enforcement practices may vary among law enforcement agencies based on available resources, staffing, local ordinances, operational procedures, call volume, and the circumstances associated with individual complaints. The City of Ojai contracts with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services and supports continued regional coordination and communication regarding effective approaches to fireworks enforcement.

Finding No. F-05
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that Fillmore is the only city in Ventura County that allows the purchase and/or discharge of “safe and sane” fireworks, and some of these fireworks are illegally transported to, and discharged in, other parts of the county.

Response: Partially Agree. The City acknowledges the Grand Jury’s finding regarding the sale and discharge of “safe and sane” fireworks in the City of Fillmore. The City also recognizes the potential for legally purchased fireworks to be transported into jurisdictions where their possession or use may be prohibited. However, the City does not have independent information sufficient to determine the extent to which fireworks purchased in Fillmore are transported to or discharged in other areas of Ventura County.

The City of Ojai prohibits the discharge of fireworks and supports regional public education regarding the fact that the legality of purchasing fireworks in one jurisdiction does not authorize their possession or discharge in another jurisdiction where they are prohibited.

Finding No. F-06
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that the use of drone technology to respond to complaints provides benefits to law enforcement, including quicker response times and better identification of offenders.

Response: Agree. The City agrees that, when lawfully and appropriately deployed, drone technology can provide law enforcement with an additional tool to assist in responding to fireworks complaints, identifying locations where fireworks are being discharged, and potentially identifying responsible individuals.

The City recognizes that the deployment of such technology is an operational law enforcement matter and must be conducted consistent with applicable laws, policies, privacy protections, and agency procedures. The City supports the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office’s evaluation and use of appropriate technologies that can enhance public safety and enforcement effectiveness.

Finding No. F-07
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that there are occasions when civil citations have been issued and citizens can challenge and go through an appeal process to reduce or eliminate any fines. The reduction or elimination of any fines impacts the effectiveness of enforcement actions.

Response: Partially Agree. The City agrees that individuals who receive administrative or civil citations are entitled to applicable due process, including opportunities to contest citations as 140
provided by law. The City also recognizes that penalties can serve as an important deterrent to unlawful conduct.

However, the City does not necessarily agree that the reduction or elimination of a fine through an established appeal process inherently diminishes the effectiveness of enforcement. An impartial appeal process is an important component of fair and legally sound enforcement.

Effective enforcement requires an appropriate balance between meaningful consequences for violations and due process protections for individuals receiving citations.

Finding No. F-08
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that, with the exception of Fillmore during a limited time around July 4th, through a set of city and Ventura County Fire Protection District regulations, discharge of fireworks is illegal throughout Ventura County.

Response: Agree.

Finding No. F-12
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury finds that Oxnard, Ventura, Santa Paula and Port Hueneme have existing fireworks host liability ordinances; that Fillmore has a strict liability ordinance regarding fireworks; and that Ojai, Moorpark, Camarillo, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks do not currently have fireworks host liability ordinances.

Response: Agree. However, the City of Ojai prohibits short term rentals in their entirety within the City of Ojai, and so a host liability ordinance would likely have extremely limited liability within the City of Ojai.
141

RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation No. R-02
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury recommends that Ojai, Moorpark, Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks develop their own fireworks host liability ordinances. (F-12) Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City of Ojai could develop a fireworks host liability ordinance; however at this time, there is neither City Council policy direction nor broad public interest or concern to do so. Additionally, the City of Ojai prohibits short term rentals in their entirety within the City, and so a host liability ordinance would likely have extremely limited applicability.

Recommendation No. R-04
The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Fire Department interface regularly with Ventura County Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee to inform the committee about recommendations from CAL FIRE’s Fireworks Enforcement Task Force. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06)
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented by the City of Ojai. Though the City of Ojai agrees with this recommendation, the City of Ojai is not a member of the Ventura County Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee and is not in the position to implement this recommendation. The City of Ojai will encourage and support the Ventura County Fire Department, as the provider of fire protection services within the City of Ojai, in implementing this recommendation.
142
01436.0008 2183448.1
Administrative Report
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Bethany Burgess, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: Introduce Ordinance No. 974 Amending Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Ojai Municipal Code to Add Section 4-3.511 Prohibiting the Use of Libbey Park Tennis Courts For Any Activity Other Than Tennis (City Council Direction)

RECOMMENDATION

1. Introduce, for first reading by title only with further reading waived, Ordinance No. 974, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OJAI, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 4 OF THE OJAI MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SECTION 4-3.511 PROHIBITING THE USE

OF LIBBEY PARK TENNIS COURTS FOR ANY ACTIVITY OTHER THAN TENNIS, and;

2. Direct staff to return to the City Council for second reading and adoption of the Ordinance at the September 8, 2026, City Council Meeting.

DISCUSSION
The City of Ojai owns and operates the public tennis courts located at Libbey Park, including the Upper Libbey and Lower Libbey tennis courts. The tennis courts are public park facilities intended to provide recreational opportunities for the community.

The City's regulations governing activities and conduct in public parks are contained in Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Ojai Municipal Code. The Municipal Code does not currently contain a provision expressly limiting the use of the Libbey Park tennis courts exclusively to tennis.

The City Council desires to establish a clear and uniform regulation governing the use of the tennis courts. The proposed ordinance would clarify that the courts are reserved for tennis and may not be used for other recreational activities or purposes.

The proposed ordinance also recognizes the need for tennis court reservations and closures associated with events at the Libbey Bowl or otherwise taking place in Libbey 143
01436.0008 2183448.1
Park. In these circumstances, the City Manager, or designee, would retain authority to reserve and temporarily close one or more Upper Libbey tennis courts when reasonably necessary in connection with a permitted event at Libbey Bowl or otherwise taking place in Libbey Park.

The proposed ordinance would add Section 4-3.511 to Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Ojai Municipal Code.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS ALIGNMENT
Goal No. 4 - Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvement

OPTIONS

1. Take no action;

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the ordinance is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact on the City.

It is possible that the City will see some minimal decline in facility use permit revenue over prior years, however, as such revenues are intended to offset the cost of reviewing and administering the permits, there would be a corresponding reduction in costs associated with such activities. The ordinance primarily clarifies the permissible recreational use of existing City facilities and does not require construction, acquisition of property, or the creation of a new City program. Any administrative or enforcement activities associated with implementation of the ordinance are expected to be performed using existing City resources.

Prepared by: Bethany Burgess, City Attorney

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Ordinance No. 974
144
Ordinance No. 974

01436.0008 2180299.1

CITY OF OJAI
ORDINANCE NO. 974

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
OJAI, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER
3 OF TITLE 4 OF THE OJAI MUNICIPAL CODE (“PUBLIC
PARKS”) TO ADD SECTION 4-3.511 PROHIBITING THE

USE OF THE LIBBEY PARK TENNIS COURTS FOR ANY

ACTIVITY OTHER THAN TENNIS
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates the public tennis courts located at Libbey Park, consisting of the Upper Libbey and Lower Libbey tennis courts; and WHEREAS, the City currently regulates the activities and conduct permitted in the City’s Public Parks pursuant to Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Ojai Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to clarify the permitted uses of the Libbey Park tennis courts and to preserve the courts for tennis use; and WHEREAS, the City Council further desires to preserve the City’s ability to reserve or temporarily close the Upper Libbey tennis courts in connection with permitted events at the Libbey Bowl when necessary for activities related to such; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments to the Ojai Municipal Code set forth below are necessary and appropriate to regulate the use of City park facilities and to promote public health, safety, welfare, and enjoyment of Libbey Park.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OJAI, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference to the same extent as if restated herein.

SECTION 2. Code Amendment. Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Ojai Municipal Code is hereby amended to add section 4-3.511 entitled “Libbey Park Tennis Courts” which shall be read in its entirety as follows:
§ 4-3.511 Libbey Park Tennis Courts
(a) The tennis courts located at Upper Libbey Park and Lower Libbey Park shall be used exclusively for the playing of tennis. No person shall use, or permit the use of, any such tennis court for any other recreational activity or purpose. 145
Ordinance No. 974

01436.0008 2180299.1
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the City Manager, or designee, may approve reservations for temporary closures of one or more of the tennis courts at Upper Libbey Park in connection with a permitted event at the Libbey Bowl or in Libbey Park when reasonably necessary for event-related purposes. A reservation for a temporary closure pursuant to this subsection shall not constitute a use of the Libbey Park tennis courts for a recreational activity other than tennis.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the City or its authorized agents, contractors, or service providers from using the tennis courts for maintenance, repair, construction, inspection, or other City-authorized operational purposes.

SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. The City Council determines that based on the entire administrative record, the foregoing amendment to the Ojai Municipal Code is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the following reasons. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA review is not required if an activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with Section 15378(b)(5), a “project” for purposes of CEQA does not include organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. This ordinance is administrative in nature, and will not result in any direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The adoption of this ordinance is therefore exempt from CEQA review pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15060 and 15378, subdivision (b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases or portions might be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published as required by law, and shall cause a copy of this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the City.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its passage and adoption pursuant to California Government Code Section 36937.can a PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on ____, 2026.

CITY OF OJAI, CALIFORNIA
___________________________________
Andy Gilman, Mayor
Date: _____________________________
146
Ordinance No. 974

01436.0008 2180299.1
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Weston Montgomery, Chief Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Bethany A. Burgess, City Attorney
I, Weston Montgomery, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Ojai, certify that Ordinance No. 974 was introduced at a regular meeting of the Ojai City Council held ______, 2026, and adopted at a regular meeting held _____, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_____________________________________
Weston Montgomery, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Exhibits to this Ordinance:

None
147

Administrative Report
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
James Hahn, IT Manager
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of the City of Ojai Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy (Operational Need)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the City of Ojai Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy, establishing a governance framework for the responsible use of AI systems across all City departments.

DISCUSSION
The City of Ojai is increasingly utilizing digital tools and emerging technologies to enhance its public services. Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents significant opportunities to increase efficiency, responsiveness, and effectiveness in municipal operations. Nonetheless, AI also brings potential risks associated with privacy, transparency, security, community trust, and ethical considerations. To address these challenges, it is essential to establish a governance framework for AI systems implemented by or on behalf of the City of Ojai. Such a structure will enable the City to capitalize on the benefits of AI in service delivery while mitigating risks to residents, employees, and the broader community.

To balance innovation with safeguards, staff developed the City of Ojai Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy. The policy establishes a comprehensive yet flexible governance structure for all AI systems used by, or on behalf of, the City. Its purpose is to allow the City to leverage AI responsibly while protecting the rights and interests of residents, staff, and the broader community.

The city’s AI use policy will adapt in response to technological advancements. To ensure continued relevance and foster knowledge exchange, city IT personnel have joined the GovAI Coalition, which is comprised of more than 2,000 public servants from 700 government agencies nationwide. The coalition is dedicated to supporting governments in leveraging AI for the public good. Insights gained through involvement with the GovAI Coalition will inform staff as they assess and implement future revisions to the city’s AI use policy. Information provided by the coalition helped shape the proposed Artificial Intelligence use policy for the City of Ojai, which is attached.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS ALIGNMENT
Goal No. 4 - Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvement 148

OPTIONS

1. Adopt the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

2. Take no action;

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adopting the policy.

Prepared by: James Hahn, I.T. Manager, City Manager’s Office

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. City of Ojai AI Policy
149
01436.0001 2116384.1
City of Ojai – Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

1. Purpose
This policy establishes a governance structure for the responsible use of AI systems by or on behalf of the City of Ojai. It enables the City to leverage AI to improve public services and operational efficiency while protecting residents, staff, data, and community trust.

This policy is administered by the IT Manager under the authority of the City Manager. It will be reviewed periodically and updated as needed to reflect advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology, changes in applicable law, and operational experience.

2. Scope
This policy applies to all AI tools and systems deployed by the City of Ojai or operated on its behalf. It applies to all City employees, contractors, interns, volunteers, vendors, and partners who interact with AI for City business, in any department or capacity.

3. Definitions & AI System Categories
The following terms are used throughout this policy:
 Artificial Intelligence (AI) – A machine-based system that makes predictions, recommendations, decisions, or generates content in support of human-defined objectives. For purposes of this policy, AI includes any data system, software, application, or tool operating partly or fully using machine learning, large language models, or automated decision-making.
 AI Fact Sheet – A vendor-supplied disclosure document that the IT Manager may request as part of procurement review of an AI tool or system. 150
01436.0001 2116384.1
To improve clarity across AI use cases, the City recognizes three types of AI systems:
 Generative AI Tools – Systems that produce text, images, audio, code, or other content in response to user input.
 Decision-Support AI Systems – Systems that provide predictions or assessments to assist staff decision-making.
 Automated or Algorithmic AI Workflows – Systems that trigger automated actions or apply predefined rules without direct human initiation.

4. Guiding Principles for Responsible AI
The City is committed to using AI in a manner that is ethical, transparent, and aligned with the public interest. The following principles guide all AI-related decisions, deployments, and day-to-day use by City staff and partners. The IT Manager is responsible for overseeing compliance with these guiding principles.  AI as a Tool – Not a Replacement for Human Workers – AI is designed to complement and support employee tasks rather than replace human judgment.

Human review of AI output is required under Section 6.3.  Privacy – AI Users, Vendors, and IT Staff should protect personal data through minimization (collecting, processing, and retaining only necessary data), and secure handling.
 Transparency – Residents must be clearly informed if they are interacting with an AI system, and AI-generated content published by the City is disclosed as provided in Section 8.
 Equity – Monitor AI for bias and disparate impacts.
 Accountability – Maintain clear responsibility for oversight and enforcement.  Effectiveness – Ensure AI systems deliver operational value. 151
01436.0001 2116384.1

5. Roles & Responsibilities
City Council – Approves this policy and any major changes.

City Manager – Maintains oversight and may require departments to alter or cease AI use. Authorizes pilot programs and approves additions to the Approved AI Tools List in coordination with the IT Manager.

Information Technology (IT) Staff – Enforces policy compliance through governance oversight, documentation, risk mitigation, and technical controls. Reviews vendorprovided AI-enabled products and services for policy compliance prior to procurement approval. The IT Manager maintains the Approved AI Tools List, adds or removes tools in coordination with the City Manager, and authorizes pilot programs jointly with the City Manager.

City Attorney – Advises on legal compliance, liability, and risk related to AI use and procurement.

Finance Department – Confirms with the IT Manager that any AI tool or AI-enabled service has been reviewed and cleared under this policy prior to finalizing vendor contracts or issuing procurement approval.

Departments – Comply with directives from IT Staff related to enforcement of this AI Policy, participate in governance reviews with IT Staff as needed, and present any new or proposed AI tools or vendors to the IT Manager prior to use or procurement.

6. Policy Requirements

6.1 Staff Training and AI Literacy
IT Staff will provide guidance and/or training to City staff on approved AI tools, responsible use under this policy, and how to request new tools or pilot programs.

6.2 Vendor Accountability
Vendors providing AI tools or services to the City are encouraged to provide an AI Fact Sheet or equivalent disclosure documentation. The IT Manager will request and maintain AI Fact Sheets and related compliance documentation for approved AI tools and may require vendors to provide or update such documentation as part of procurement review or periodic compliance evaluations. Vendors must comply with the City's data security standards.
152
01436.0001 2116384.1

6.3 Human Review of AI Output
AI-generated output must be reviewed for accuracy and appropriateness by a knowledgeable staff member before it is treated as final, relied upon, distributed, or published. The reviewing staff member is accountable for the content regardless of the tools used to produce it.

7. Approved AI Tools
The City maintains an Approved AI Tools List, administered and updated by the IT Manager. The initial list of approved tools includes Ojai Pro (powered by Madison AI) and Microsoft 365 Copilot.

Platforms are added following joint review and approval by the IT Manager and City Manager. The Approved AI Tools List will be re-evaluated periodically and following major tool updates.

Pilot programs for AI tools not yet on the Approved AI Tools List may be authorized jointly by the IT Manager and City Manager. Pilots are intended to evaluate the suitability of platforms under consideration for permanent approval. Upon successful completion of a pilot, the IT Manager and City Manager must both approve the tool before it is added to the Approved AI Tools List.

8. AI Transparency and Disclosure

8.1 Public-Facing AI Interactions
When the City deploys public-facing AI Systems such as a website chatbot or similar AIdriven interaction tool on any public platform, residents must be clearly notified that they are interacting with an AI system. An alternative, non-AI method of contact must be made available for residents who do not wish to interact with an AI tool.

8.2 Written Materials
Written materials published by the City are issued under the responsibility of an identified City employee, department, or official, who is accountable for their accuracy and content under Section 6.3 regardless of the tools used in drafting. Except as provided in Section 8.4, disclosure of AI use is not required for such materials.

8.3 AI-Generated Media
153
01436.0001 2116384.1
AI-generated images or video that depict apparently real people, places, or events must carry a clear disclosure when published or presented to the public. Review, modification, or adoption by a City employee does not remove this requirement.

AI-generated or AI-cloned audio that reproduces or imitates the voice of a real, identifiable person must carry a clear disclosure. Generic synthetic narration that does not imitate an identifiable individual does not require disclosure under this section.

Disclosures required by this section must be clear and conspicuous, appropriate to the medium, and understandable to a reasonable person. The IT Manager will maintain guidance on disclosure format and placement. Where a publishing platform provides its own mechanism for disclosing altered or synthetic content (for example, YouTube's "AI use" disclosure setting), staff must use it in addition to any disclosure required under this section.

8.4 AI Translation and Dubbing
Translations of City materials produced by AI that have not been verified by a qualified human reviewer must carry a clear disclosure identifying the material as an AIgenerated translation that may contain errors. The disclosure must appear in the language of the translation.

This requirement applies to written translations, subtitles, captions, and dubbed audio.

Where AI dubbing reproduces or imitates the voice of a real, identifiable person, Section

8.3 also applies.

9. AI Incident Response
Staff must report any suspected AI incident to the IT Staff promptly and without delay.

Reportable incidents include, but are not limited to:
 Accidental disclosure of confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable information through an AI system.
 Use of an unapproved AI tool or system.
 AI-generated output that is materially inaccurate and has been acted upon or distributed.
 Suspected unauthorized access to a City AI system.
 Ethical concerns, bias, or harm resulting from AI use.

The IT Staff will assess the severity of the incident and escalate to the City Manager, City Attorney, or other appropriate parties as warranted. The IT Staff will conduct or coordinate a post-incident review of significant AI incidents, commensurate with their severity, and shall document findings and corrective actions taken. 154
01436.0001 2116384.1
Employees who report suspected AI incidents in good faith will not be subject to retaliation. Staff are encouraged to report concerns without fear of disciplinary consequence.

10. Prohibited Uses
AI tools and systems shall not be used for the following purposes:
 Fully automated decisions that significantly impact individuals, their rights, access to services, or City policy outcomes without human review.  Entering, uploading, or processing confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable information into unapproved AI tools.
 Generating content that impersonates or deceives without authorization (including deepfakes, AI-generated imagery presented as authentic, or fraudulent communications of City staff, officials, or residents)Real-time or covert biometric identification or surveillance.
 Emotion recognition or facial analysis used to surveil, evaluate, or make decisions about individuals.
 Social scoring to evaluate, rank, or classify individuals based on personal characteristics, behavior, or social attributes.
 Producing content that discriminates on the basis of any protected class under applicable law.
 Violating copyright, intellectual property rights, or licensing agreements.  Any unlawful purpose or activity.

11. Sunset Procedures
AI tools and systems that no longer provide operational value, fail to meet security/compliance requirements, or are replaced by an approved alternative must be retired. The IT Manager will identify candidates for retirement during periodic reviews or as circumstances warrant and present a recommendation to the City Manager for approval. Upon retirement, the tool or system will be removed from the Approved AI Tools List.

Prior to AI retirement, the IT Manager will ensure all City data is exported or deleted in accordance with the City's records retention schedule and that system access and integrations are revoked.

Specific user or use-case exceptions to retirement may be granted by the City Manager in consultation with the IT Manager, with documented justification. 155
01436.0001 2116384.1

12. Public Records
AI inputs and outputs used in the conduct of City business may be subject to the California Public Records Act and document retention pursuant to City retention schedules.

13. Policy Enforcement
Compliance with this policy is mandatory for all City employees, contractors, interns, volunteers, vendors, and partners who interact with AI for City business. The IT Staff is responsible for investigating potential violations and escalating to the City Manager as appropriate.

14. Violations
Violations of this Policy will be addressed proportionately to their nature and severity.

Confirmed violations may result in any combination of the following:
 Reporting to the employee's supervisor or department head.  Mandatory remedial training.
 Revocation or restriction of access to City AI tools and systems.  Disciplinary action, up to and including termination, imposed in accordance with the City's Employee Handbook and applicable personnel policies.

Third-party vendors, contractors, and consultants who violate this Policy may be found in breach of contract and subject to contract suspension, termination, and/or pursuit of damages. Violations constituting a breach of local, state, federal, or international law will be referred to the appropriate authorities.
156
As a government agency, the City of Ojai is subject to the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.). Please be advised that all communications submitted to City oicials and sta are subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act. There are limited exceptions that allow the City to redact personal information under the California Public Records Act. If you have concerns regarding privacy, please do not include your personal identifying information, such as your name, e-mail, phone number, and home address in your correspondence to the City, including, but not limited to, public comment.

TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Weston Montgomery, Chief Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: Written Public Comments
The attached public comments were submitted to the City Clerk prior to 3:00 p.m. the date before the meeting (referenced above) and are being posted to the City’s website for public access.

Posted: August 24 , 2026

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Written/emailed public comments must be submitted no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day before the meeting.

The City encourages public participation. Members of the public who wish to make public comments may do so in person at the meeting, comment live via telewebinar software, or submit written public comments in advance of the meeting. Written public comment emails should be sent to [email protected].

Communications to the City Council are public records and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications to the City Clerk’s Office at 401 S Ventura St, Ojai Ca, 93023, or you may email the comment as an attached PDF to the email and request in the email to only include the attachment. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication.
157
1 Weston Montgomery
From: Karin Quimby <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2026 4:43 AM
To: City Clerk; Rachel Lang; Andy Gilman; Kim Mang; Andrew Whitman Cc: [email protected]; Dad
Subject: Strong Support for Ordinance No. 974: Prohibiting the Use of Libbey Park Tennis Courts For Any Activity Other Than Tennis August 22, 2026
Attachments: Strong Support for Ordinance No 974.docx
Strong Support for Ordinance No. 974: Prohibiting the Use of Libbey Park Tennis Courts For Any Activity Other Than Tennis
August 22, 2026
Dear Mayor Gilman and Members of the Ojai City Council, We are property owners of rental units on South Signal Street, and we strongly support Ordinance No. 974.

1. Protecting nearby residents from unacceptable noise: As property owners of rental units near Lower Libbey Park, we have a responsibility to advocate for our tenants’ right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes. For the past four years, we have been engaged in discussions concerning the noise impacts of recreational activities other than tennis— particularly pickleball—on the Lower Libbey tennis courts. In response to the ongoing efforts by the Ojai Valley Pickleball Club to use the Lower Libbey tennis courts for pickleball, and concerns raised by nearby residents and members of the tennis community, the City commissioned a professional sound study in 2023. The study documented unacceptable noise impacts on neighboring properties if pickleball were played on the Lower Libbey courts. Ordinance No. 974 appropriately recognizes and acts on that evidence by allowing tennis only to be played on these courts.

2. Following the City’s own prior recommendations: Ordinance No. 974 also implements the recommendation of the Ojai Parks & Recreation Commission, which, after an exhaustive thirteen-month study, advised against allowing pickleball on the Lower Libbey tennis courts.

That recommendation, together with the professional sound study, provides a strong, evidence-based rationale for preserving the Libbey courts exclusively for tennis.

3. Preserving Ojai’s limited public tennis resources: Pickleball players have access to nine other public courts in the City of Ojai, including the exclusive pickleball facility the City built at Soule Park. In contrast, the eight Libbey Park tennis courts are the only available public courts for tennis players in Ojai. Allowing another sport to displace tennis on these courts would be both unnecessary and unfair to the tennis community.

For these reasons, we strongly urge the City Council to adopt Ordinance No. 974 and preserve the Libbey Park Tennis Courts exclusively for tennis.
158
2 Thank you for protecting both the quality of life of nearby residents and Ojai’s limited public tennis facilities.

Sincerely,
Robert, Phyllis and Karin Quimby
Ojai Property Owners
407 South Signal Street
Karin Quimby
202-716-1654 cell
[email protected]
159
Strong Support for Ordinance No. 974: Prohibiting the Use of Libbey Park Tennis Courts For Any Activity Other Than Tennis
August 22, 2026
Dear Mayor Gilman and Members of the Ojai City Council, We are property owners of rental units on South Signal Street, and we strongly support Ordinance No. 974.

1. Protecting nearby residents from unacceptable noise: As property owners of rental units near Lower Libbey Park, we have a responsibility to advocate for our tenants’ right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes. For the past four years, we have been engaged in discussions concerning the noise impacts of recreational activities other than tennis— particularly pickleball—on the Lower Libbey tennis courts. In response to the ongoing efforts by the Ojai Valley Pickleball Club to use the Lower Libbey tennis courts for pickleball, and concerns raised by nearby residents and members of the tennis community, the City commissioned a professional sound study in 2023. The study documented unacceptable noise impacts on neighboring properties if pickleball were played on the Lower Libbey courts. Ordinance No. 974 appropriately recognizes and acts on that evidence by allowing tennis only to be played on these courts.

2. Following the City’s own prior recommendations: Ordinance No. 974 also implements the recommendation of the Ojai Parks & Recreation Commission, which, after an exhaustive thirteen-month study, advised against allowing pickleball on the Lower Libbey tennis courts. That recommendation, together with the professional sound study, provides a strong, evidence-based rationale for preserving the Libbey courts exclusively for tennis.

3. Preserving Ojai’s limited public tennis resources: Pickleball players have access to nine other public courts in the City of Ojai, including the exclusive pickleball facility the City built at Soule Park. In contrast, the eight Libbey Park tennis courts are the only available public courts for tennis players in Ojai. Allowing another sport to displace tennis on these courts would be both unnecessary and unfair to the tennis community.

For these reasons, we strongly urge the City Council to adopt Ordinance No. 974 and preserve the Libbey Park Tennis Courts exclusively for tennis.

Thank you for protecting both the quality of life of nearby residents and Ojai’s limited public tennis facilities.

Sincerely,
Robert, Phyllis and Karin Quimby
Ojai Property Owners
407 South Signal Street
160
1 Weston Montgomery
From: BILL MILEY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 3:13 AM
To: Weston Montgomery
Subject: Council meeting Tuesday 8/25/26
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
8/24/26…3:06 am.

To: Ojai City council
From: Bill Miley
Subject: council meeting 8/25 multiple agenda items…item 7. Grand jury housing; item 8. Grand jury fireworks; item 9. Libbey Park Tennis Courts
Hello.

Agenda item 7. (Grand Jury Housing RFP). (Support)I read each of the Grand Jury statements of concern and recommendation. And noticed the response our city council voted to submit at its last agenda’d meeting. I support all the condition statement responses. Principally “Agree”. As i remember the Grand Jury’s report described “wrong doings” but focused on the future. It did not require a redo. It said something like “in the future you shall….”. I fully support the city attorney’s formulation of the city council’s response.

Agenda item 8. (Grand Jury Fire works regulation) (Support) I support the GJ recommendation that Ojai City adopt a Host Liability ordnance covering fire works use within city limits. And that the city support the county government for such an ordinance for all unincorporated county areas.

Fireworks on and around the 4th of July certainly has historical significance. Wildfires do too. And damage to people using them outside of the rules. With drone technology available for very pretty fireworks displays i also support banning the use of explosive devices to create color patterns and noise. BANG!!!! The city of Fillmore allows non-profits to sell legal fireworks to raise money for their charity purposes. Yet, the buyers take them into county areas and cities and light them illegally. NOT GOOD. Besides fines all fined should have to take a class on fireworks safety/legality.

I support the two relevant GJ recommendations for Ojai City, listed below… R-01…The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Board ofSupervisors pass a host liability ordinance regarding fireworks, applicable to the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. (F-11)
.

R-02…The Ventura County Civil Grand Jury recommends that Ojai, Moorpark, Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks develop their own fireworks host liability ordinances. (F-12) Agenda item 9. (libbey Tennis Court ordinance). (Support) Its time has come! History clearly shows Tennis and Ojai are linked tightly. Diluting the dedicated courts with other sports and activities is wrong and disinhabitating.
161
2 It conflicts…other sport behaviors can create disturbing behavior, noises and unpleasant results. One specific other sport can redo one tennis court into four smaller courts each of which can hold 4 players. 4 x 4 = 16 players. Versus a maximum of 4 tennis players. Ouch. One specific other sport creates impact and impulse sounds similar to small gun shot sounds which can travel hundreds of feet. Affecting those nearby on courts or in Libbey Park with unusual and annoying sounds. I have this philosophy that sounds generated by folks for their sole benefit should not disturb those there for other purposes. I fully support this carefully crafted ordinance tightening the values which created our city.

Sincerely, Bill Miley
Sent from my iPad
162
1 Weston Montgomery
From: Mike Donohue <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 1:55 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: City Council Meeting Record Leadership Request: Pause Work Pending Proper Bidding - City of Ojai - Ojai, CA
Attachments: Article About Procurement Problems.jpeg; Email Exchange witht Ben Harvey, Kim Mang and Donohues.docx; Blistering Sad Headline.jpeg
Please include this into the record for this upcoming meeting (if I hit the deadline) or the next one if not… thank you From: Mike Donohue <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 12:40 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Michael Donohue' <[email protected]>; 'City Council' <[email protected]>; 'City Clerk' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Laura Rearwin Ward' <[email protected]> Subject: Leadership Request: Pause Work Pending Proper Bidding - City of Ojai - Ojai, CA Dear Mr. Jeremy Hauk and Team,
From one leader to another, I commend you on your firm’s success. As you know so well, being a Top 20 Accounting Firm serving 17 industries is no small achievement — hats off to you and your team.

I’m writing today while borrowing a page from your own playbook: “Doing what’s right, even when it is hard.” Jeremy, we need your help — we have problems.

As you know, our city, the City of Ojai is your client. Our city management entered into multiple contracts, and even expanded contracts, without following Ojai Municipal Code or State of California procurement requirements. I am fulfilling a promise I made to the City Council, which you’ll see below.

I’ve have attached recent news articles and correspondence outlining the serious issues/deficiencies with our procurement processes. Your contract with our city was not put out to bid — it should have been. Attached is an email from our City Manager stating plainly: “the City should have gone out for a request for proposals (for certain contracts) … but did not.” Jeremy, our poor judgment is not your fault, not your firm’s fault.

Citizens of Ojai, Ventura County, and local and regional businesses respectfully ask that you coordinate with city management and the Council and pause your work – take this bold step. We want bidding processes to unfold properly, and of course you would be welcome to compete for the work funded by taxpayers. If you win the bid, your work continues. I know your company says — and clearly believes — doing what’s right, even when it is hard, is the right thing to do.

We are trying to restore faith in our city’s management and leadership. As you’ll see from the multiple press references to the Grand Jury investigation, the indictment of our former Acting City Manager, and the improper (if not illegal) sole-sourcing of accounting, marketing, and construction management contracts — we have issues — to put it mildly. Please see attachments and the link below. 163
2 So why help? Three reasons:

1. Pausing work will not harm your client and can be easily coordinated.

2. It is the right — and hard — thing to do.

3. It sends a powerful message, an authentic message and reminder to your employees, clients, and future clients: we have ethics, and we take the “high road”.

Mr. Hauk and team, it would be easy to follow up to this email and simply ask the Ojai City Manager, “What would you like us to do after receiving this email, this written correspondence?” In my opinion, that approach would be ill-advised — you’d be asking the people who created the problem for guidance. In my opinion, you should coordinate with the City, but the choice is yours – which road to take, to pause and reboot or not to pause.

After carefully reviewing the information below and the attachments, you will have good understanding of the situation and know the concerns of citizens and businesses. You will have done your research, and it is up to you and your team to decide which “road” to take.

I teach Leadership Studies at a couple of major universities (after retiring from running a global company). I may use this dilemma as a “mini case study” in my classroom. We look forward to your reply from the great state of North Dakota! Again, congratulation on your firm’s success.

Sincerely,
Mike Donohue – CEO/Founder Mike Donohue | LinkedIn
Ventura Star Article Below:
co flaOjai council concedes flaws in homeless housing project processws in homeless housing project process
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Donohue <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 1:59 PM
To: 'City Council' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Bethany Burgess' <[email protected]>; 'City Clerk' <[email protected]>; <48 others> Subject: CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE TAKE THE "HIGH ROAD" - IT'S LESS CROWDED (Fair Playing Fields Help Businesses and Citizens and Saves Money)
"Reboot To Avoid Another Lawsuit" Do The Right Thing, The Ethical Thing - Fix The Contracts Awarded Without Proper Bidding -
Dear City Council, Concerned Constituents and Business Leaders, 164
3 As I revisited the June 25, 2026 Grand Jury Report, one theme appeared again and again: the absence of “fair and competitive bidding” (I think it is mentioned 8 times in the carefully crafted report). The report— prepared by citizen jurors with detailed guidance/support from the Ventura County Legal Counsel Department —makes this point unmistakably clear.

These words raise another important question. If the PSH (Permanent Supportive Housing – Cabin Village) public works project suffered from improper, non-competitive contracting, what about other City contracts? How many agreements were awarded without following the Ojai Municipal Code, state law, or basic standards of fairness and ethics? And more importantly: Can We Fix Them? A constructive idea popped in my head —one that could begin restoring public trust in the City’s commitment to lawful, ethical, and transparent practices.

A Path Toward Repair and Integrity
The City Manager has already acknowledged (see attached) that the City “should have” conducted a proper RFP process for certain City of Ojai service contracts.

The two fairly recent examples I am referencing are the large financial services consulting contracts awarded to MV Cheng (Los Angeles) and Edie Bailly (North Dakota) without bidding or RFP’s.

As Mr. Harvey stated, shockingly, in his March 10, 2026 email, … “the City should have gone out for a request for proposals (for those contracts)… but did not.” If we accept that mistake, then we should also correct it (and I not just saying the correction is… we will try harder to follow the basic, clear rules in the future).

The Remedy ! (…in part)
The City should publicly announce that it is taking this matter seriously. We should acknowledge the error (to use a mild term), reaffirm our commitment to fair and competitive bidding, and take ethical corrective action, the “high road”.

The Specific Actions:
 Cancel the improperly awarded contracts, immediately.  Initiate a proper, open RFP process consistent with the Ojai Municipal Code and state law.  Invite MV Cheng and Edie Bailly to participate, along with qualified firms from Ojai, Ventura County, and elsewhere.

The out of state and out of county firms Edie Bailly (North Dakota) and MV Cheng (Los Angeles) are not at fault; they accepted seven figure contracts offered to them. In fact, they may welcome the opportunity to compete fairly—it will reflect well on their organizations and demonstrates their commitment to ethical business practices (also taking the “high road”). I intend to speak with both CEOs about this approach.

City Council, if you were running one of those companies, wouldn’t you prefer a transparent, competitive process? Would you agree to this idea and remedy? I hope so… Why An Ethical Approach Matters
This remedy sends a clear message to the business community—many of whom are frustrated with the City— that Ojai is committed to fairness, transparency, ethical conduct, and lawful contracting. It demonstrates a renewed dedication to ethical governance and sound managerial practices, and signals that we are taking charge and changing our management - our management processes. Frustrated local and regional businesses are considering legal action against the City; it’s time to turn a new page and a new leaf – let’s take the high road.

In short, this is a chance to reboot our practices, repair trust, and avoid further legal exposure.

Mike Donohue and Other Concerned Citizens
P.S. Also, the first “sweetheart contract” awarded to Tripepi (Irvine, CA) for Ojai marketing services/support should be looked at closely. There was no bidding on that first contract I am told. 165
4 Let’s reboot to avoid another lawsuit (we already have enough to deal with)
166