Oxnard City Council
July 15, 2025

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this __________ day of JULY, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Luis A. Mc Arthur, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Lourdes A. López, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
Stephen M. Fischer, City Attorney
391
CITY OF OXNARD General Management
Policy # X.XX

MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING POLICY FOR

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS

Approved by: City Council on 00/00/0000

PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to provide the City, City staff, the residents of the City, and the owners and developers of properties located within the City, with guidance regarding the City’s use of landscape maintenance districts to fund maintenance and other ongoing services. This policy governs the manner in which the City will administer landscape maintenance distri cts formed under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. The principles that underly this policy are the protection of the public interest, creating consistency throughout the City in how landscape maintenance districts are used and administered, and prot ecting the City’s financial position. This policy does not apply to districts in connection with which bonds or other financing instruments have been (or will be) sold to outside investors. This policy is not intended to override any requirement imposed upon the City by the state constitution or applicable state law.

DEFINITIONS:

Affected Property Owners:

The owners of parcels of real property that will be assessed or taxed in connection with a Landscape Maintenance District.

Annual Inflation Adjustment:

An annual adjustment, based on a clearly defined formula, to the maximum rate of the Required Payment. The formula for an Annual Inflation Adjustment must be approved at an assessment ballot proceeding along with the initial (or revised) maximum rate for the Required Payment. The annual implementation of an approved Annual Inflation Adjustment is not an increase to the Required Payment.

Capital Improvement Plan (Program):

The City’s Capital Improvement Plan is an annually updated document which may contain specific projects funded via district levies. The plan may restate projects which are already identified within the Engineer’s Reports adopted by the City.

General Benefit Contribution: A contribution made from the General Fund or other available funds of the City that funds the costs of “general benefits” that cannot be funded through an assessment. The general benefits are calculated annually in a third-party Engineer’s Report for each such Landscape Maintenance District.

General Fund Subsidy:

Contributions, other than General Benefit Contributions, of funds from the City’s General Fund to defray expenses that would otherwise be assessable to a Landscape Maintenance District under this policy. General Fund Subsidies are not a regularly anticipated source of revenue for any Landscape Maintenance District except where set forth in the Governing Documents for the Landscape Maintenance District

Governing Document:

Any resolutions or ordinances adopted by the City Council to establish or otherwise govern a Landscape Maintenance District.

Proposition 218:

Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218, along with applicable state law, generally 392
CITY OF OXNARD General Management
Policy # X.XX

MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING POLICY FOR

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS

Approved by: City Council on 00/00/0000
requires that new, extended, or increased assessments against real property be subject to mail -ballot proceedings.

Required Payment:

An assessment against real property or a special tax that is levied and collected in connection with a Landscape Maintenance District.

Reserves:

Reserve Funds consist of the following types;
Assigned Reserves - The sum of the Operating Reserves and Project Reserves.

Operating Reserves - The operating reserve consists of funds that are carried over from the prior year to fund estimated costs that will be incurred prior to collection of the 1 st installation of property taxes for the fiscal year, or the date the City expects to receive its apportionment of parcel charges from the county, whichever is later. Operating reserves shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions in Section IV. Funding.

Project Reserves - Project reserves consist of funds collect ed in installments pursuant to Streets & Highways Code Section 22660 that have not yet been expended. Projects for which installments will be collected, as well as the complete estimated cost of such projects, shall be identified in a resolution of the City Council, which resolution shall also set forth the number of annual installments and the fiscal years during which they are to be collected, and fix or determine the maximum amount of each annual installment. Such information may be incorporated into the resolution as part of an Engineer’s Report, the City Capital Improvement Plan or other enactment of the City Council.

Significant Interest:
“Significant Interest” is an expression of a level of interest amongst Affected Property Owners that makes it likely that such Affected Property Owners would approve, in an assessment ballot proceeding or special election, a new or increased rate for their Required Payments. When surveys of Affected Property Owners within an assessment district are performed, results in favor of performing a ballot proceeding must be at least two -thirds (66% +1) of the survey responses to establish Significant Interest. I f more than one owner of a single parcel responds to the survey, “responses” of all owners of a parcel shall count as a single response.

Landscape Maintenance District:

A district formed by the City under the Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972 to levy an assessment within a defined portion of the territory of the City to fund the maintenance of improvements that has been named and numbered as a Landscape Maintenance District.

POLICY:

I. Purpose of Landscape Maintenance Districts

Landscape Maintenance Districts provide a mechanism for funding costs associated with the maintenance, operation, and preservation of landscaping and other specified types of public improvements within a geographic area. Subject to the Governing Documents of each L andscape Maintenance District, the following are general goals of the Landscape Maintenance District program for the selection of services and plantings to be provided in each Landscape Maintenance District (the level of service):

A. Enhancing the aesthetic quality of the service area and providing continuity of character throughout the City; 393
CITY OF OXNARD General Management
Policy # X.XX

MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING POLICY FOR

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS

Approved by: City Council on 00/00/0000

B. Preserving and extending the life of existing landscapes, urban forests, hardscapes, sidewalks, streets, stormwater drainage systems, and fences, and providing any othe r maintenance services as authorized by the governing documents of each maintenance district;

C. Maintaining improvements in a manner that is not inconsistent with the goals of flood protection, water protection, air cleaning, noise minimization, slope stabi lization, creating wind barriers, promoting proper drainage, and providing natural coolant; and

D. Keeping the costs for each Landscape Maintenance District at a level that does not exceed the revenues generated by that Landscape Maintenance District plus the other funds directly appropriated or otherwise available to that Landscape Maintenance District.

II. Types of Services Provided

Subject to the Governing Documents of each Landscape Maintenance District, the availability of funds, and any limitations imposed by state law, the following may be funded by a Landscape Maintenance District:

A. Routine maintenance services, which may be performed by City staff or contracted labor and may include (but are not limited to):
(i) mowing, edging, trimming, and fertilizing turf;
(ii) maintaining and replacement of the general landscape such as ground cover and shrubs; (iii) maintaining and pruning trees;
(iv) removing litter and debris;
(v) general pest and vector control services including but not limited to weeds, insects, vertebrate pests, and diseases;
(vi) maintaining irrigation systems;
(vii) routine maintenance, repairs, and replacement of sidewalks, streets, flood control, and drainage systems;
(vii) maintaining other improvements specified in the Governing Documents that are located in or adjacent to sidewalks, streets, and waterways such as parking areas seating, ornamental installations, landmarks and monumental signs, and fences.

B. Maintenance, operation and servicing of lighting, pumps, backflows, electrical components, or other appurtenances (including the provision of electricity).

C. Installation of replacements for authorized improvements;

D. Capital Improvement Projects as identified as a part of a district’s improvements;

E. Enhancements to any authorized service and improvement to satisfy environmental or regulatory requirements, community requests, and/or maintain compliance with any Specific Plan within which a District ma y be included.

F. Costs associated with contract procurement, City staff oversight of maintenance contractors, contract 394
CITY OF OXNARD General Management
Policy # X.XX

MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING POLICY FOR

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS

Approved by: City Council on 00/00/0000
management; annual special tax/assessment reporting; customer service;

G. Indirect costs (e.g., insurance, computer and telecommunication expenses, accounting staff, human resource support, etc.) associated with any of the above.

Because Landscape Maintenance Districts exist for the convenience and special benefit of local property owners, it is the policy of the City that, to the maximum ex tent legally possible, the costs set forth in (A) through (G) that are associated with a Landscape Maintenance District and its activities shall be funded by the Landscape Maintenance District, rather than from the general resources of the City.

III. Frequency and Manner of Service

A. Maintenance frequency and the manner in which District improvements and assets are maintained shall be determined by each District’s ability to fund those costs.

B. To provide services at the most competitive rates possible, staff will use all available procurement methods relevant to the size, scope, and nature of those maintenance activities.

C. The City will seek to maintain improvements in each district in a manner that keeps them as similar to their original character as possible, within the constraints of funding availability, changes to the boundaries of the Landscape Maintenance District, changes to the physical condition of the improvements or the surrounding territory, State and local legal requirements and legislation, and material availability.

D. The manner and frequency of service of District improvements may be altered to address unexpected changes in funding availability as a result of, changes in service costs due to changes in contracted service providers, physical changes to the District boundaries and/or landscape, state and local requirements and legislation, emergencies which require work to address imminent threats to the health and safety of the public, material availability or other factors.

E. Service Levels will be generally indicated by the frequency of scheduled service visits. However, Service Levels do not indicate the total number of times a district will be visited for various services within a year.

Maintenance activities, inspections, i ndividual service requests, projects, and other tasks that occur at irregular or less than annual intervals, will be performed on an as -needed basis, provided sufficient district funds and labor resources are available. Service Levels for landscape maintenance will be generally defined as follows:

Level 1 – Intensive services - scheduled services provided more frequently than weekly Level 2 – 52 service visits annually - weekly scheduled service Level 3 – 26 Visits annually - every other week scheduled service Level 4 – 12 Visits annually - once a month scheduled service Level 5 – 6 Visits annually - once every other month scheduled service Level 6 – 4 Visits annually - once a quarter scheduled service

IV. Funding

A. It is the intention of the City of Oxnard to ensure that its Landscape Maintenance Districts operate sustainably 395
CITY OF OXNARD General Management
Policy # X.XX

MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING POLICY FOR

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS

Approved by: City Council on 00/00/0000
and independently of other City funds (such as the General Fund). Districts should be self -sufficient to the extent possible and should not be designed to require long-term financial support from other City funds.

B. Property owners within Landscape Maintenance Districts shall fund the ongoing maintenance through Required Payments collected on their property tax bill. To the extent allowed by state law, a Required Payment may also be collected prior to the installation of improvements to support the creation of district reserve funds so long as these funds are properly identified in a resolution or other documentation required by state law. Any required payment shall be levied in accordance with applicable law, including, but not limited to, Proposition 218. Required Payments that cannot be or are not collected on the property tax roll may be collected by any other means legally available to the City.

C. Districts that are able to fund all budgeted expenses, Operating Reserves, and any Project Reserves, through any combination of their assessments or existing fund balances shall be classified as Fully Funded.

D. Districts that are found to be unable to fund all budgeted expenses and Assigned Reserves within a fiscal year shall be classified as Underfunded.

E. Districts that are unable to fund all budgeted expenses at a minimal service level, their calculated Assigned Reserves and are found to have a projected negative cash balance position within a fiscal year shall be classified as Deficient.

F. For Fully Funde d districts: in order to ensure that Landscape Maintenance District s maintain appropriate reserve levels, City staff shall ensure through the assessment process that these Landscape Maintenance District s maintain Operating Reserves no less than 16.6% and n o more than the maximum amount of Operating Reserves allowed under Streets and Highways Code Section 22569(a) (excluding expenses funded with “Project Reserves” per the Streets and Highways Code and at the time of the writing of this policy the Operating R eserve maximum amount was calculated at 47.4% of total operating expenses.)

G. For Underfunded or Deficient districts: City staff shall endeavor to ensure that each Landscape Maintenance District maintains Operating Reserves no less than 16.6% and no more th an the maximum amount of Operating Reserves allowed under Streets and Highways Code Section 22569(a) (excluding expenses funded with “Project Reserves” per the Streets and Highways Code and at the time of the writing of this policy the Operating Reserve maximum amount was calculated at 47.4% of total operating expenses.)

H. Aside from General Benefit Contributions, routine and temporary transfers/allowance of negative balances for cash flow purposes, and contributions for the payment of utilities above and be yond specific utility maximums as defined within a district’s Governing Documents, General Fund Subsidies should be avoided whenever possible. The City shall endeavor to avoid the general subsidy of any Landscape Maintenance District from any City funding source that has not been specifically set aside for such purpose by the City Council. Any exception to this policy must be set forth in a resolution of the City Council and shall follow the process established within SHC Section 22657 in which the City Council may 1) authorize a contribution to the LMD or 2) authorize a temporary advance and direct that the advance be repaid from the following year assessment.

I. In the event that the projected end of year fund balance of a Landscape Maintenance District shows a deficit within a specific fiscal year, the reduction of services and the levy and collection of the Required Payment at the 396
CITY OF OXNARD General Management
Policy # X.XX

MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING POLICY FOR

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS

Approved by: City Council on 00/00/0000
maximum legally allowable rate shall be prioritized before the City Council is asked to approve a General Fund Subsidy. In the event that a negative fund balance is still anticipated within a district after these actions are taken, the City Council may approve a loan to the District in question as described above, to be repaid from the following year assessment.

J. In the event that a district’s utility expenses are projected to exceed the maximum amount able to be charged as governed by that district’s Governing Documents, the City Council may choose during the annual budget process to fund the expected subsidy amount via a transfer from any fund it chooses.

K. Levy credits (where reserves are used to offset the required levy amount for the upcoming fiscal year), shall only be available to districts which are not classified as Underfunded or Deficient.

L. Each year the City will evaluate the total anticipated costs of providing the services for the upcoming fiscal year. This evaluation will take projected increases in costs as well as cost savings into consideration. Examples of these costs may include, but shall not be limited to, routine maintenance contracts, equipment repair (e.g., electric pedestals, irrigation pumps, etc.), irrigation parts and controllers, weed abatement, tree pruning, radios and electronic devices, water, electricity, fertilizer, vehicles and vehicle main tenance, other administrative costs to operate the district, and funding Assigned Reserves. An annual budget shall be developed using these costs. Subject to the requirements of the applicable Governing Documents and applicable state law, the total costs shall be divided among the parcels in each area proportionally.

M. Where the cost to provide the services and fund the operating reserves is less than the amount that can be raised by the application of the maximum rate, the available capacity may be applied to establish or reestablish Assigned Reserves, increase the service levels (for routine and additional work services), provide one -time professional services or infrastructure re-investments, or any combination thereof.

N. Where the cost to provide services exceeds the applied and/or maximum rate, reserves may be used to fund the shortfall or services may be reduced so that costs do not exceed the maximum rate, except for in a Landscape Maintenance District that is Underfunded or Deficient. If a district is U nderfunded or Deficient, then the following methods, in the following specific order of preference, may be taken to bridge the shortfall:

(i) Use Reserves;
(ii) Notify the Affected Property Owners that an increase of maximum assessment rates may be necessary;
(iii) Reduce expenses and services specific to the district in question such that the maximum assessment can support all expen ses of the district, (expenses shared by all districts shall not be considered an appropriate source of reductions);
(iv) Apply a maximum levy;
(v) Eliminate maintenance services;
(vi) Remove maintenance responsibility of specified improvements from the district by either eliminating district funding or City Council action identifying the areas removed from district responsibility; or
(vii) Other City Council direction which may supersede any item listed above.

397
CITY OF OXNARD General Management
Policy # X.XX

MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING POLICY FOR

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS

Approved by: City Council on 00/00/0000
V. Survey and Balloting

A. Increasing Maximum Rate

In the event that a Landscape Maintenance District is projected to be underfunded or deficient within the next fiscal year, the most appropriate approach to bring that Landscape Maintenance District into balance may be to seek to increase the maximum assessment rate for that Landscape Maintenance District . Pursuant to state law, any increase to the maximum assessment rate (aside from the implementation of an existing annual CPI adjustment, which is not an “increase” for this purpose) must successfully complete a Proposition 218 ballot proceeding.

Due to the expense to the expense of conducting a Proposition 218 ballot proceeding, it is the policy of the City that, before a ballot proceeding is conducted, the affected property owners must first complete an informal survey process to establish property owner interest in the increase.

B. Survey

The purpose of the survey is to establish that there is a Significant Interest (66% + 1 of the survey responses) in an increase. The following procedure shall be followed:

a. Staff will initiate contact with owners of property within the district with a written letter or other notification regarding the maintenance and servicing of improvements. b. The community may request a meeting, develop a written survey instrument (with the assistance and approval of City staff) , and identify a lead petitioner from within the district to conduct the survey regarding the maintenance and servicing of improvements. The cost of any materials necessary to conduct the survey will be borne solely by the community. c. If no lead petitioner is id entified and no further interest in a survey is conveyed to staff, no survey will be pursued, staff will not pursue an increase to the maximum rate, and the following will occur:
▪ Elimination or reduction of specific maintenance services; or ▪ Removal of improvements or expenses via City Council direction. d. If a lead petitioner is identified, affected property owners within the district will be surveyed by the Lead Petitioner, the results of which will be submitted to City staff no more than 30 days from th e date the survey is opened.
e. After the survey is closed, staff will validate signatures of the affected property owners and determine if the results indicate the establishment of Significant Interest.

If Significant Interest is not established, no ballot proceeding will be pursued, staff will not seek an increase to the maximum rate, and expenses shall be reduced as indicated above.

C. Proposition 218 Ballot Proceeding

If Significant Interest is established, the City Council will initiate Proposition 218 ballot proceedings for the affected district.

398
CITY OF OXNARD General Management
Policy # X.XX

MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING POLICY FOR

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS

Approved by: City Council on 00/00/0000
Any Proposition 218 ballot proceeding will be conducted in compliance with the then-current requirements of Article XIII D, Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, Section 53753 of the California Government Code, and other applicable state law. As a general summary of these requirements, at the time this policy was written;

a. The City Council, at its discretion, will cause an Engineer’s Report to be prepared to support a proposed increase to the maximum assessment rate and adopt a Resolution of Intention calling for a public hearing on the proposed increase to the maximum assessment rate and for a mail balloting. b. At least 45 days prior to the public hearing, staff will mail a notice, assessment ba llot, and ballot return envelope to property owners.
c. The notice will include the proposed maximum assessment rate (and any proposed annual inflation adjustment formula), the total amount proposed to be charged to the entire district, the amount chargeable to the owner's particular parcel, the fact that annual payments are expected to be required without sunset, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, together with the date, time, and locat ion of the public hearing. Some of this information may be instead included on the ballot itself, which is incorporated into the notice. The ballot and notice will also describe how to complete and return the ballot and a disclosure statement that the ex istence of a majority protest will result in the maximum assessment rate not being increased. d. Ballots will be accepted by the City Clerk (via mail and hand -delivery) up until the close of the public comment portion of the public hearing.
e. The City Council w ill not approve the increased maximum assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property ( so, for example, a parcel with a $200 annual maximum assessment will have twice as much weight as a parcel with a $100 annual maximum assessment).
f. As part of the Resolution of Intention, the City Council may adopt specific rules for the completion, return and tabulation of ballots that comply with then-current law.

D. Consequences of Ballot Proceedings

a. If the ballot proceeding fails and assessments are not changed, the City will assume the cost of conducting the proceedings and reductions in maintenance or removal of improvements from the district will be initiated.
b. If balloting fails in any fiscal year, the City will not fund further Proposition 218 ballot proceedings until at least one fiscal year passes since the close of the previous failed ballot, unless otherwise directed by City Council.
c. If the ballot proceeding succeeds, the assessment will be changed to the identified rate and the total cost of the proceeding will be borne by the district, to be repaid from the following year’s assessment or future assessments as identified in the Prop 218 ballot.

399
400
401
Paseos and Landscapes
General Fund Areas/LMDs Comparison
402
Examples of Neighborhood Paseos
General Fund Paseo
2 LMD Paseo
403
Examples of Neighborhood Entrances
LMD Neighborhood Entrance
3 LMD Maintained
Items
(within highlighted area)
• Sign
• Turf
• Planters
• Trees
• Irrigation
• Sidewalks
404
Examples of Neighborhood Entrances
General Fund Neighborhood Entrance
4 General Fund
Maintained Items
(within highlighted area)
• Planter (in front
of sign only)
• Sidewalks
• All other trees
and shrubs are
privately
maintained
405

PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. D.1

DATE: February 25, 2025

TO: Public Works and Transportation Committee

FROM: Michael Wolfe, Public Works Director, (805) 385-8055, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Maintenance and Funding Policy Workshop for Landscape Maintenance Districts. (30 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

The Public Works and Transportation Committee:

1. Discuss key elements for a potential Maintenance and Funding Policy for Landscape Maintenance Districts; and

2. Recommend staff develop a Maintenance and Funding Policy for Landscape Maintenance Districts to be presented to the City Council for consideration.

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video:
https://youtu.be/SZ-z7e2f9uE

BACKGROUND

The Special Districts Division, within the Public Works Department, is responsible for the management of the City’s bonded assessment districts, landscape maintenance districts (“LMDs”), community facilities districts (“CFDs”), maintenance assessment districts (“MADs”), and waterways assessment districts (“WADs”). Each of these districts function under different provisions of the State Constitution, which enables their respective formation, the purposes for which they can be formed, basic administrative requirements, and the processes by which their assessments and special taxes can be levied. Out of these various assessment districts, the LMDs were formed under the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500–22679) and carry specific requirements for management that differ from other types of assessment districts.

The formation of LMDs began in the City in the 1980s for the purpose of funding specific improvements and the perpetual maintenance of these improvements within each new development. These are funded via special assessments that are defined in each district's governing documents (“Formation Documents”). However, during the past thirty years, there have been various legislative and judicial changes that have impacted the way California cities can manage these LMDs.

To address the changes in the legal aspects and improve procedures related to maintaining LMDs, the City of Oxnard embarked on a process in 2015 that focused on the manner in which these assessment districts are managed. Through the creation of a new Special Districts Division, within the Public Works Department, the City reduced the total number of LMDs from 60 to 36 in Fiscal Year 2017/2018 and also created a Maintenance Assessment District Administration and Operational Manual to guide future staff in the management of these remaining LMDs. This Manual specifically included a “Statement of Goals and Policies for the use of 406
Maintenance Assessment Districts” (Statement) which lays out many of the concepts that staff is bringing to the Council for discussion. However, it is unclear if this Statement of Goals and Policies was ever adopted as official City policy by the City Council. Additionally, in regard to the management of LMDs, it is overly broad as it addresses a variety of district types, focuses largely on the formation of new districts without taking into account the variances between the different types of assessment districts, and does not provide specific direction for how the existing LMDs should be managed if they become insolvent or are in danger of becoming insolvent.

Therefore, staff is now requesting direction on key elements for a future policy document that will focus solely on the LMDs, provides direction on issues that are common to LMDs, and defines a policy for future use by staff.

DISCUSSION

Regardless of someone’s opinion of LMDs, the essence of a LMD is to be self-sufficient (with the exception of the required general benefit contribution) by providing funds to maintain specific improvements as outlined in the annual Engineer’s Report consistent with the Streets and Highway Code. LMDs that may have been set up many decades ago, and usually prior to legislative and legal changes, and without an annual cost inflator, often find themselves in a common situation of being overcome by inflation. Assuming the costs for maintenance services, that were fixed decades ago, would still be able to be fund the same level of service, is not reasonable. As such, LMDs can find themselves in a situation where their maximum annual assessment is not sufficient to provide the services originally contemplated when created, and therefore become underfunded.

Staff is seeking input for key elements of a policy that governs the City’s procedures regarding LMDs, especially in regard to the position the City will take when faced with underfunded or deficient districts that cannot afford to maintain their improvements. Decisions on these topics are necessary for at least 10 of the City’s LMDs that do not contain authorized inflationary adjustments for their assessments. Other topics that this policy can address include the frequencies of routine services such as landscaping, the prioritization of district and City funds, and the responsibility for funding the costs for administrative items such as balloting and capital projects. Therefore, staff is requesting discussion and direction on the following topics:

1. What position will the City take for underfunded districts that cannot afford to maintain their improvements?

2. What is the process for addressing a district with a negative fund balance?

3. Should LMDs be required to meet a specific reserve fund balance target?

4. Who can request a district to be balloted?

5. What is the internal city-process for approving new rates and who pays for the process?

6. Should district subsidies be allowed or restricted? If subsidies are allowed, should there be requirements for a district to meet prior to receiving them?

7. What happens if a district is polled and chooses not to ballot themselves?

These topics are commonly faced by cities throughout the State when managing LMDs and there are a number of different ways to approach them. For example, some cities follow a specific set of guidelines which governs the process for changing assessment levels, polling residents, and raising or lowering maintenance frequencies.

Other cities subsidize their pre-proposition 218 Landscape, Lighting, and Park Districts with the General Fund.

Due to the variety of options available, staff is seeking input and direction for the creation of a Maintenance and Funding Policy for Landscape Maintenance Districts within the City of Oxnard to be presented to the City Council for consideration.

Please note that during the Public Works and Transportation Committee Meeting, staff will bring forward the above topics for the Committee Members to discuss. Additionally, draft sections for the policy have been 407
prepared by staff and are attached to this staff report to assist with the discussion and consideration by the Committee.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This agenda item supports the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy. The purpose of the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy is to preserve and improve our roads, utilities, parks, trees, water supply and natural resources through effective planning, prioritization, and an equitable and efficient use of available funding.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact associated with this action.

Prepared by: Anthony Miller, Special Districts Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Sample Policy Text Responses

2. Draft Frequency & Manner of Service

3. Draft Funding Section

4. Draft Polling & Balloting Section

5. Presentation

408

PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. D.2

DATE: March 25, 2025

TO: Public Works and Transportation Committee

FROM: Michael Wolfe, Public Works Director, (805) 385-8055, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Draft Maintenance and Funding Policy for Landscape Maintenance Districts. (30 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

The Public Works and Transportation Committee:

1. Provide final recommendations on the draft policy sections; and

2. Recommend staff present a Maintenance and Funding Policy for Landscape Maintenance Districts to the City Council for consideration.

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/AASAXRtPasQ

BACKGROUND

The Special Districts Division, within the Public Works Department, is responsible for the management of the City’s bonded assessment districts, landscape maintenance districts (“LMDs”), community facilities districts (“CFDs”), maintenance assessment districts (“MADs”), and waterways assessment districts (“WADs”). Each of these types of districts is governed by different provisions of state law, which govern the purposes for which they can be formed, basic administrative requirements, and the processes by which their assessments and special taxes can be levied. Out of these various assessment districts, the LMDs were formed under the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et. seq.) (the “1972 Act”) and must comply with specific management requirements unique to the 1972 Act.

On February 25th, staff introduced various concepts and draft policy text examples for the Committee to discuss and provide feedback and recommendations. The intent of the policy is to provide staff with a path forward when addressing LMDs that are unable to appropriately fund their maintenance and operations within their current funding structure. While the policy will help guide staff for all 36 LMDs, there are currently 7 LMDs that are either underfunded or in a deficit (see Table 2) that this policy, when adopted, will provide direction for corrective actions. While inflation continues and the costs of goods and services increase, having this policy in place will help provide direction to staff to avoid other LMDs from also becoming underfunded or potentially run into a deficit. The February 25, 2025 staff report is included as an attachment to this report to provide the necessary background information.

Staff received input from the Committee on a variety of questions. However, much of the discussion was specifically focused on the reserve levels, processes for the balloting of districts, the need for a policy document for staff to follow, specific reserve requirements, and priorities. Additionally, there was public 409
comment that focused primarily on the reason for the existence of LMDs. This is briefly addressed at the beginning of the Discussion Section in this report.

DISCUSSION

While not specifically addressed by this policy, the public comments and discussion by members of the Public Works and Transportation Committee has shown the need for a brief explanation about the impacts that LMDs have upon their neighborhoods and an explanation of their specific functions.

LMDs exist to provide a direct and special benefit to those who choose to purchase property within its boundaries. The additional level of landscaping, amenities, parks, lighting, and/or other authorized improvements within the district that are above and beyond what is generally provided to residents through the typical planning and permitting of non-LMD developments. This explicit benefit relationship between an LMD and its component properties is a condition of the development for its approval. This can be shown specifically by directly comparing development areas that are situated close to LMD neighborhoods (please see the attached photos showing common LMD neighborhood entrance landscaping and structures and non-LMD neighborhood entrance structures).

Table 1 also highlights the difficulty of maintaining an increased level of service within LMDs that have capped rates in the presence of continuous inflation. The highlighted rows indicate the LMDs with capped maximum rates that were formed prior to the passing of California Proposition 218 (Prop. 218). Each of these LMDs have been assessed their highest rate at least once within the past five years. Any future increases in operating expenses for items such as landscape services or utilities cannot be met unless they are able to reduce services or eliminate improvements within that district. This specifically means reducing or canceling services entirely in order to stay within the LMDs funding capacity. To put this in terms that may be more familiar, the highest assessed rates within the past 5 years have been broken into a monthly payment to show what an equivalent to a Homeowners Association payment would be with similar improvements.

Table 1 - Highest Annual Rate (Past 5 FYs)/Monthly Equivalent District Number District Name Highest Annual Rate
Past 5 FY
Monthly Equivalent
LMD No. 3 River Ridge $162.86 $13.57
LMD No. 10 Country Club Estates $157.36 $13.11
LMD No. 11 St. Tropez $84.22 $7.02
LMD No. 12 Standard Pacific $87.82 $7.32
LMD No. 13 Le Village $112.78 $9.40
LMD No. 14 California Cove $173.08 $14.42
LMD No. 16 California Lighthouse $73.78 $6.15
LMD No. 23 Greystone $91.60 $7.63
LMD No. 24 Vineyards $183.00 $15.25
LMD No. 25 The Pointe $110.18 $9.18
LMD No. 27 Rose Island $415.43 $34.62
LMD No. 28 Harborside $207.20 $17.27
LMD No. 30 Haas Automation $562.50 $46.88
LMD No. 31 Rancho De La Rosa $439.15 $36.60
LMD No. 32 Oak Park $431.63 $35.97
LMD No. 33 El Paseo $371.70 $30.98
LMD No. 34 Sunrise Pointe/Sunset Cove $246.00 $20.50
410
LMD No. 36 Villa Santa Cruz / Villa Carmel $550.99 $45.92 LMD No. 37 Pacific Breeze $75.38 $6.28
LMD No. 38 Aldea Del Mar $469.67 $39.14
LMD No. 39 Promesa/Sueno $1,084.75 $90.40
LMD No. 39 DR Horton $1,022.25 $85.19
LMD No. 40 Cantada $379.01 $31.58
LMD No. 41 Pacific Cove $465.58 $38.80
LMD No. 42 Cantabria/Coronado $607.08 $50.59
LMD No. 43 Greenbelt Zone 1 $1,747.021 $97.47
LMD No. 43 Greenbelt Zone 2 $401.691 $33.47
LMD No. 43 Greenbelt Zone 3 $1,683.781 $93.90
LMD No. 43 Greenbelt Zone 4 $320.701 $26.73
LMD No. 46 Daily Ranch Area A $755.642 $62.97
LMD No. 46 Daily Ranch Area B $731.062 $60.92
LMD No. 46 Daily Ranch Area C $652.892 $54.41
LMD No. 47 Sycamore Place $276.58 $23.05
LMD No. 49 Cameron Ranch $646.63 $53.89
LMD No. 50 Pleasant Valley Senior Housing $460.96 $38.41 LMD No. 51 Pfeiler $660.89 $55.07
LMD No. 52 Wingfield $85.23 $7.10
LMD No. 53 Huff Court $546.57 $45.55
LMD No. 54 Meadowcrest Villas $243.40 $20.28
LMD No. 55 Wingfield West $856.21 $71.35
LMD No. 58 Westwind $186.20 $15.52
LMD No. 60 Artisan $56,314.593 $17.253
1 LMD 43 contains 4 zones, two of which pay rates calculated per acre with the other two paying per unit. This amount is the highest assessed per- unit rate within the past five fiscal years within each per unit zone (2 and 4) and the per acre rate zones (1 and 3) calculated out across all acreage, divided by apartment unit, and then divided by 12.
2 LMD 46 contains 3 rate-paying zones.
3 LMD 60 consists of one parcel, within which there are 272 apartments. While only one parcel is assessed, to calculate an equivalent per unit HOA rate, the monthly amount has been divided again by 272.

The LMDs, highlighted above, are specifically at risk for substantial swings in maintenance quality as they become unable to fund their improvements because of inflation and their capped pre-Prop 218 fixed rates.

Therefore, they may be forced to begin sacrificing specific services or improvements in order to continue funding operations year over year, unless a Prop 218 vote occurs to raise the maximum assessment rate. This is already happening in some LMDs, such as LMD 25, where there are more trees than the amount that can be funded for pruning on a regular schedule without having to drop the frequency of that district’s landscape services. The following table (also attached in map form for reference) indicates each LMDs funding status within Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY 24/25) and whether or not they are able to fund Improvement Reserves. The capped LMDs are highlighted in yellow.

Table 2 - LMD Funding Status and Present Improvement Reserve District Number District Name FY 24/25 Funding Status Improvement Reserve? LMD No. 3 River Ridge Funded Yes
LMD No. 10 Country Club Estates Funded Yes
411
LMD No. 11 St. Tropez Underfunded No
LMD No. 12 Standard Pacific Funded Yes
LMD No. 13 Le Village Funded Yes
LMD No. 14 California Cove Funded Yes
LMD No. 16 California Lighthouse Underfunded No
LMD No. 23 Greystone Funded No
LMD No. 24 Vineyards Funded Yes
LMD No. 25 The Pointe Funded No
LMD No. 27 Rose Island Funded Yes
LMD No. 28 Harborside Funded Yes
LMD No. 30 Haas Automation Funded Yes
LMD No. 31 Rancho De La Rosa Underfunded No
LMD No. 32 Oak Park Funded Yes
LMD No. 33 El Paseo Funded Yes
LMD No. 34 Sunrise Pointe/Sunset Cove Funded Yes
LMD No. 36 Villa Santa Cruz / Villa Carmel Funded Yes
LMD No. 37 Pacific Breeze Funded Yes
LMD No. 38 Aldea Del Mar Underfunded Yes
LMD No. 39 Promesa/Sueno Funded Yes
LMD No. 39 DR Horton Funded Yes
LMD No. 40 Cantada Funded Yes
LMD No. 41 Pacific Cove Funded Yes
LMD No. 42 Cantabria/Coronado Funded Yes
LMD No. 43 Greenbelt Underfunded Yes
LMD No. 46 Daily Ranch Funded Yes
LMD No. 47 Sycamore Place Funded Yes
LMD No. 49 Cameron Ranch Deficient No
LMD No. 50 Pleasant Valley Senior Housing Funded No
LMD No. 51 Pfeiler Funded Yes
LMD No. 52 Wingfield Funded Yes
LMD No. 53 Huff Court Underfunded No
LMD No. 54 Meadowcrest Villas Funded Yes
LMD No. 55 Wingfield West Funded Yes
LMD No. 58 Westwind Funded Yes
LMD No. 60 Artisan Funded Yes

The above tables are not intended to illustrate any specific or ideal assessment amount, but rather the scope and scale of what services are provided, the ability of each LMD to fund its operations at the current rates, and the amount the highest of those rates represents as a part of each unit’s/property’s total tax bill. These assessments, in contrast with the rest of the property tax payments, provide for a specifically defined purpose that is not shared among competing agencies or purposes. This allows for residents within these assessed properties to have a more direct impact on the services they receive from their taxed assessments.

Proposition 218, Polling and Balloting

412
Proposition 218, an amendment to the state constitution that was adopted by the voters in 1996, dramatically reduced the City’s ability to increase assessment rates in existing LMDs. Prior to the adoption of Prop. 218, the City Council could, each year, adopt increases to maximum assessment rates without holding any sort of property-owner “election.” Therefore, the LMDs established prior to the adoption of Prop. 218 were approved by the City Council without the concept of a “maximum rate” or an automatic “inflation adjustment.” At the time these LMDs were established, it was assumed that the rates could be easily adjusted each year to meet increasing or special costs. Prop. 218 introduced changes that effectively “moved the goalposts” for communities formed prior to Prop. 218’s passage (these LMDs are highlighted in Table 3 below).

Table 3 - District Formation Dates
District Number District Name District Formation
LMD No. 3 River Ridge March 18, 1986
LMD No. 10 Country Club Estates December 18, 1988
LMD No. 11 St. Tropez January 3, 1989
LMD No. 12 Standard Pacific March 28, 1989
LMD No. 13 Le Village March 20, 1990
LMD No. 14 California Cove June 5, 1990
LMD No. 16 California Lighthouse July 9, 1991
LMD No. 23 Greystone June 18, 1996
LMD No. 24 Vineyards June 18, 1996
LMD No. 25 The Pointe June 18, 1996
LMD No. 27 Rose Island June 24, 1997
LMD No. 28 Harborside June 24, 1997
LMD No. 30 Haas Automation June 24, 1997
LMD No. 31 Rancho De La Rosa June 23, 1998
LMD No. 32 Oak Park February 23, 1999
LMD No. 33 El Paseo October 19, 1999
LMD No. 34 Sunrise Pointe/Sunset Cove October 19, 1999
LMD No. 36 Villa Santa Cruz / Villa Carmel January 25, 2000 LMD No. 37 Pacific Breeze January 25, 2000
LMD No. 38 Aldea Del Mar November 28, 2000
LMD No. 39 Promesa/Sueno March 6, 2001
LMD No. 40 Cantada January 8, 2002
LMD No. 41 Pacific Cove January 8, 2002
LMD No. 42 Cantabria/Coronado May 14, 2002
LMD No. 43 Greenbelt January 7, 2003
LMD No. 46 Daily Ranch June 24, 2003
LMD No. 47 Sycamore Place April 22, 2003
LMD No. 49 Cameron Ranch June 3, 2003
LMD No. 50 Pleasant Valley Senior Housing June 10, 2003 LMD No. 51 Pfeiler April 19, 2005
LMD No. 52 Wingfield February 1, 2005
LMD No. 53 Huff Court June 7, 2005
LMD No. 54 Meadowcrest Villas March 28, 2006
LMD No. 55 Wingfield West March 28, 2006
413
LMD No. 58 Westwind June 6, 2006
LMD No. 60 Artisan November 27, 2012

Once Prop. 218 went into effect the currently applied rate for the assessment in connection with each of these “grandfathered” LMDs became the “maximum rate” for the LMD. LMDs established after 1996 included a property-owner-approved automatic annual adjustment to the new LMD’s “maximum rate.” Thus, the “maximum rate” for each of these newer LMDs increases each year. Please note that the “maximum rate” is different from the annual “applied rate”. The annual “applied rate” is less than or equal to the “maximum rate” and is recommended by staff (with community input when provided) and approved by the City Council annually via the Engineer’s Report and budgeting process.

Pursuant to Prop. 218, in order to increase the “maximum rate” for an existing LMD, the City must conduct an “assessment mail-ballot proceeding.” This sort of proceeding involves mailing a notice and ballot to the owner of each affected property at least forty-five days prior to a public hearing. Property owners can return their ballots to the City up until the close of the public input portion of the public hearing. After holding the public hearing, the City Council can approve the increased rate unless the ballots returned in opposition to the proposal exceed the ballots returned in favor. The proposal can incorporate an automatic annual adjustment to the “maximum rate."

Prop. 218 is an important piece of State legislation that directly affects the management and operations of LMDs that were created both before and after passage in 1996. The Proposition provides the residents within any LMD the right to vote on increases in their maximum assessments. This is not to be confused with changes in the annual applied assessments. The Streets and Highways Code specifies that the annual assessment is approved by the City Council through a public process. Staff ensures that the annual process for managing LMD budgets and approving their assessments is a public action and follows all of the stipulations required within the Streets and Highways Code, Government Code, and Prop. 218.

The purpose of this policy is to address areas where the Streets and Highways Code, Government Code, and Prop. 218 does not provide explicit guidance on the processes and procedures for the City to follow. This is particularly relevant for LMDs that were formed prior to the passage of Prop. 218, as those LMDs were formed in a manner that was anticipated to be adequate to provide for the areas under their responsibility in perpetuity.

Neither Prop. 218 nor the 1972 Act require that a city conduct any sort of polling or resident outreach prior to preparing an engineer’s report, proposing an assessment, or mailing notices and ballots to property owners. However, as a practical matter, it makes sense to do outreach or polling prior to beginning the formally required process, since there are significant costs associated with preparing an engineer’s report and conducting a mail ballot proceeding. If the City uses general funds to pay these costs, and the property owners do not approve the proposed assessment, then the money invested in the process by the City will not be recovered.

In light of the fact that the process for increasing the maximum rates for an assessment is somewhat costly and the fact that owners of property in many of the City’s LMDs may be requesting increases, staff has dedicated a substantial portion within the draft policy specifying procedures for initiating polling prior to the commencing the steps required by state law for an increase. The draft policy will also include procedures for conducting mail balloting required by Prop. 218 in order to set the “ground rules” well ahead of conducting a balloting.

To address the remaining policy items that the Committee had not reached consensus, staff has included tables with specific policy text examples that highlight different versions that Committee members supported.

Sections that are highlighted in yellow signify the operative text included from the previous discussion.

Sections highlighted in orange signify items that staff strongly recommend, even though the Committee did not include these items in the previous discussion. The header rows of each table include staff's understanding of 414
the position for each Committee Member. In certain cases, the Committee's direction may mean that additional sections of text are necessary to address the topic completely. This process is followed throughout the remainder of this report.

The first item requiring consensus is polling and balloting. This means defining a level that is considered to be of “significant interest” within an LMD for balloting. This includes: how ballots should be funded, what process should be followed when a LMD is found to not be able to fund its maintenance and operations, what happens if a ballot is not pursued, and what happens if a ballot fails. The Committee must also note that changes to the text in either column may affect other policy tables that are further along in the discussion. For this reason, staff recommends no significant alterations to either option.

Table 4 - Polling/Balloting
No Indicated Preference:

Committee Chair McArthur
Supporter(s)

Committee member Basua
Committee member Teran
Staff Recommended
Supporter(s) - None

This is alternative language from other agencies with LMDs and includes concepts that were discussed but not necessarily recommended by Committee members.
• In the event that a landscape maintenance district is projected to be underfunded or deficient within the
next fiscal year, a Proposition 218 ballot procedure
may be necessary. Upon following a prioritized list
of actions, a property owner-led poll may be
initiated to establish the presence of Significant
Interest (66% +1 of the survey responses to
establish Significant Interest). The following
procedure shall be followed to initiate a Proposition
218 ballot proceeding.
a. Staff will initiate contact with owners of
property within the district with a written
letter or other notification regarding the
maintenance and servicing of
improvements.
b. The community may request a meeting,
develop a poll, and identify a lead
petitioner from within the district to
conduct the poll regarding the
maintenance and servicing of
improvements. The cost of any materials
necessary to conduct the poll will be
borne solely by the district or its affected
property owners.
c. If no lead petitioner is identified and no
further interest in polling is conveyed to
staff, no polling will be pursued and the
following will occur:
• Elimination or reduction of
specific maintenance services;
or
• Removal of improvements or
expenses via City Council
direction.
d. If a lead petitioner is identified, affected
property owners within the district will
be polled, the results of which will be
submitted to City staff no more than 30
days from the date the poll is opened.
• In the event that a landscape maintenance district is projected to be underfunded or deficient within the
next fiscal year, a Proposition 218 ballot procedure
may be necessary. Upon this determination, a
property owner-led poll may be initiated to
establish the presence of Significant Interest (50%
+1 of the survey responses to establish Significant
Interest). The following procedure shall be
followed to initiate a Proposition 218 ballot
proceeding.
a. Staff will initiate contact with owners of
property within the district with a written
letter or through other means as
determined within a community outreach
plan.
b. The community may request a meeting,
develop a poll, and identify a lead
petitioner from within the district to
conduct the poll regarding the
maintenance and servicing of
improvements. The cost of any materials
necessary to conduct the poll will be
borne by the City.
c. If no lead petitioner is identified and no
further interest in polling is conveyed to
staff, no polling will be pursued and the
following will occur:
▪ Elimination or reduction of
specific maintenance services;
or
▪ Removal of improvements or
expenses via City Council
direction.
d. If a lead petitioner is identified, affected
property owners within the district will
be polled, the results of which will be
submitted to City staff no more than 30
days from the date the poll is opened.
e. After the poll is closed, staff will validate
signatures of the affected property
415
e. After the poll is closed, staff will validate
signatures of the affected property
owners and determine if the results
indicate the establishment of Significant
Interest.
• If Significant Interest is not established, no ballot proceeding will be pursued, expenses shall be
reduced as indicated above.
• If Significant Interest is established, the City
Council will initiate Proposition 218 proceedings
for the affected district.
• In the event that a Proposition 218 ballot is
pursued, the procedures below will be followed.
a. If the ballot proceeding fails and
assessments are not changed, the City
will assume the cost of the proceedings
and reductions in maintenance or
removal of improvements from the
district will be initiated.
b. If balloting fails in any fiscal year, the
City will not fund further measures until
at least one fiscal year passes since the
close of the previous failed ballot, unless
otherwise directed by City Council.
c. If the ballot proceeding succeeds, the
assessment will be changed to the
identified rate and the total cost of the
proceeding will be borne by the district,
to be repaid from the following year’s
assessment or future assessments as
identified in the Prop 218 ballot.
owners and determine if the results
indicate the establishment of Significant
Interest.
• If Significant Interest is not established, no ballot proceeding will be pursued, expenses shall be
reduced as indicated above.
• If Significant Interest is established, the City
Council will initiate Proposition 218 proceedings
for the affected district.
• In the event that a Proposition 218 ballot is
pursued, the procedures below will be followed.
a. If the ballot proceeding fails and
assessments are not changed, the City
will assume the cost of the proceedings
and reductions in maintenance or
removal of improvements from the
district will be initiated.
b. If balloting fails in any fiscal year, the
City will not fund further measures until
at least three fiscal years pass since the
close of the previous failed ballot, unless
otherwise directed by City Council.
c. If the ballot proceeding succeeds, the
assessment will be changed to the
identified rate and the total cost of the
proceeding will be borne by the district,
to be repaid from the following year’s
assessment.

LMD Funding Practices and Priorities

This table outlines two options for the City’s procedures when addressing LMDs with a projected negative fund balance. Ideally, this situation should not occur. However, in the event that it does, the proposed policy should provide direction on a process that is allowed under the Streets and Highways Code. As defined within Streets and Highways Code, Sections 22656 and 22657, the City may carry over any surplus or deficit within an LMD to the following fiscal year. When a deficit is projected to occur, staff noted two competing directions during the previous Committee meeting and therefore seek clarification. The policy section on the left side of the table includes further text necessary to fully enact the policy directive if this section is included in the policy. As stated prior to Table 4, the highlighted terms indicate operative text within the policy section.

The highlighted orange text indicates a staff recommendation which if included or excluded, will also affect options within Table 7.

Table 5 - Funding/LMD Fund Balance Deficit Contributions Supporter(s)

Committee member Basua
Committee member Teran
Staff Recommended
Supporter(s)

Committee Chair McArthur

• Aside from contributions to fund general benefits,
routine and temporary transfers/allowance of
negative balances for cash flow purposes, and
contributions for the payment of utilities above and
beyond specific utility maximums as defined
within a district’s Governing Documents, the
general subsidy of district expenses by the City
should be avoided whenever possible. The City
shall endeavor to avoid the general subsidy of any
• Aside from contributions to fund general benefits,
routine and temporary transfers/allowance of
negative balances for cash flow purposes, and
contributions for the payment of utilities above and
beyond specific utility maximums as defined
within a district’s Governing Documents, the
general subsidy of district expenses by the City
should be avoided whenever possible. The City
shall endeavor to avoid the general subsidy of any
416
landscape maintenance district from any City
funding source that has not been specifically set
aside for such purpose by the City Council. Any
exception to this policy must be set forth in a
resolution of the City Council and shall follow the
process established within SHC Section 22657 in
which the City Council may 1) authorize a
contribution to the LMD or 2) authorize a
temporary advance and direct that the advance be
repaid from the following year assessment.
• In the event that the projected end-of-year fund
balance of a landscape maintenance district shows
a deficit within a specific fiscal year, the reduction
of services and the levy and collection of the
Required Payment at the maximum legally
allowable rate shall be prioritized before the City
Council is asked to approve a subsidy. In the event
that a negative fund balance is still anticipated
within a district after these actions are taken, the
City Council may approve a loan to the District in
question as described above, to be repaid from the
following year assessment.
landscape maintenance district from any City
funding source that has not been specifically set
aside for such purpose by the City Council. In the
event that a deficit is projected within a LMD fund
at the end of a fiscal year, the City Council may
authorize a contribution to the LMD or authorize a
temporary advance and direct that the advance be
repaid from the following year assessment.

Continuing within LMD funding questions, this section focuses on LMD reserves and their different types. To identify reserves within categories allowed under the Streets and Highways Code, staff will define “Assigned Reserves,” “Operating Reserves,” and “Improvement Reserves,” within the final policy document. This section speaks specifically to “Operating Reserves,” which are explicitly allowed under Streets and Highways Code Section 22569 (also attached to this report for reference) which states that when estimating expenses for the fiscal year, a ”reserve may be may include a reserve which shall not exceed the estimated costs of maintenance and servicing to December 10 of the fiscal year, or whenever the city expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the county, whichever is later.” This does not disallow the City from also collecting reserve funds for specific projects or improvements (i.e. the “Improvement Reserves” referenced above), but staff recommends clarifying their differences within the final policy document.

Based upon Committee input and staff recommendation, the following samples indicate two options to choose from to govern the generation of “Operating Reserves.” Both examples presented here comply with the language within Streets and Highways Code Section 22569. Staff recommends that unexpected expenses be strongly considered when attempting to reach a consensus on this item for two reasons. First, for LMDs with smaller budgets, a lower percentage will mean a potentially minimal real cash amount held in reserves, which may make very little difference when addressing unexpected expenses. When calculating Operating Reserves, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22569, expenses to fund future improvements and included in the “Improvement Reserves” will be excluded from the calculation for Operating Reserves.

Table 6 - Funding/Operating Reserve Guidance
No Indicated Preference:

Committee Chair McArthur
Committee member Teran
Supporter(s)

Committee member Basua
Supporter(s)

Staff Recommended
• In order to ensure that landscape maintenance
districts maintain appropriate reserve levels, City
staff shall endeavor to ensure that each landscape
maintenance district maintains Operating Reserves
approximately equal to 25% of its annual operating
• For Fully Funded districts: in order to ensure that
landscape maintenance districts maintain
appropriate reserve levels, City staff shall ensure
through the assessment process that these
landscape maintenance districts maintain Operating
417
expenses (excluding expenses funded with
“Improvement Reserves” per the Streets and
Highways Code.)
Reserves no less than 16.6% and not to exceed

47.4% of each district’s annual operating expenses
(excluding expenses funded with “Improvement
Reserves” per the Streets and Highways Code.)
• For Underfunded or Deficient districts:the City
staff shall endeavor to ensure that each landscape
maintenance district maintains Operating Reserves
no less than 16.6% and not to exceed 47.4% of
each district’s annual operating expenses
(excluding expenses funded with “Improvement
Reserves” per the Streets and Highways Code.)

It is also important to note that during the calculation of these reserve amounts, Streets and Highways Code Section 22659 states that any direct payment to an LMD must be factored into the calculation of the following year’s assessment. For example, in an instance where unauthorized expenses are found to have been billed to an LMD (such as when Mr. Blattel identified that certain sidewalk grinding services should not have been billed to his LMD), the reimbursement of those costs must be factored into the calculation of the following year’s assessment, to include any reserve amounts needed for Operating or Improvement purposes.

The different language between these two samples is relatively minor but has a substantial impact on how the City budgets for its LMDs. A lower Operating Reserve percentage can make budgeting for LMDs with capped maximum levies easier as less funds may be needed to be set aside prior to budgeting for regular maintenance and operations. However, that can also be achieved by changing this reserve “requirement” to a “goal” which is similar to how staff currently manages the LMDs that do not have the ability to fully fund their current Operating Reserve (for example, in Fiscal Year 2024-25, LMDs 11, 16, 31, 38, 43, 49, and 53 were unable to fund their Operating Reserve at the 47.4% level. If this was a requirement, these LMDs would have been forced to reduce services.)

In addition to regular operating reserves, LMDs may also hold reserves for specifically identified projects in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 22660 (also attached to this report for reference). These “Improvement Reserves” as staff is defining them within the policy, may be reserved for any item that will incur an expense that, “is greater than can be conveniently raised from a single annual assessment and… shall be raised by an assessment levied and collected in installments over a period not to exceed five fiscal years.” This is a very important differentiation as it encourages the City to periodically review projects within the LMDs and their ability to fund longer-term projects. The inability to fund larger projects, even when expenses are spread across a five-year window, may indicate a need for an LMD to be balloted.

Continuing within the funding category, staff also seeks specific consensus on how to prioritize funding decisions within LMDs when projected expenses exceed revenues and reserves may no longer be sufficient to cover the difference. To do this, staff has defined two conditions for LMDs that identify them as either “Underfunded” (meaning they are unable to fund both their reserve balances and maintenance activities), or “Deficient” (meaning that they are projected to be unable to fund their reserve balances, maintenance and operations, and are projected to end the fiscal year with a fund balance deficit.). These classifications are recommended by staff so that there is a clear delineation for LMDs that are at risk for service reductions or other extraordinary adjustments to ensure their continued operation. This has also been visualized for the Committee on an attached map.

It is important to note that any LMD may move from being fully funded to “Underfunded” in a very short time frame dependent upon the size of their budget, potential mid-year increases in cost (such as a change in landscape contractor), and whether or not Operating and Improvement Reserves are required to be funded. In particular, mid-year changes in expenses may be the strongest reason for requiring a higher reserve amount, as a change in contract may introduce an unexpected increase in expenses, which could be defrayed by an adequate reserve balance. The following sections address a potential hierarchy of fiscal actions that staff can 418
proceed through prior to initiating polling and balloting procedures when expenses exceed revenues. In addition to the input considered from the February Committee meeting, staff is strongly recommending that identifying a maximum assessment as a policy option be included so as not to potentially exclude that tool from future usage if needed. As was also done above, operative text is highlighted in yellow and orange.

Table 7 - Funding/Priorities when Expenses Exceed Revenues No Indicated Preference:

Committee Chair McArthur
Supporter(s)

Committee member Basua
Committee member Teran
Staff Recommended
Supporter(s) - None

This is alternative language from other agencies with LMDs and includes concepts that were discussed but not necessarily recommended by Committee members.
• Where the cost to provide services exceeds the
applied and/or maximum rate, reserves may be
used to fund the shortfall or services may be
reduced so that costs do not exceed the maximum
rate, except for in a landscape maintenance district
that is Underfunded or Deficient. If a district is
Underfunded or Deficient, then the following
methods, in the following specific order of
preference, may be taken to bridge the shortfall:
a. Use Reserves;
b. Notify the Affected Property Owners to
determine if there’s a significant interest
in conducting a ballot proceeding to
increase the services (e.g., increase the
maximum rate) and if such interest
exists, conduct such mail ballot
proceeding/special election of the
Affected Property Owners;
c. Reduce expenses and services specific to
the district in question (expenses shared
by all districts shall not be considered an
appropriate source of reductions);
d. Apply a maximum levy;
e. Eliminate maintenance services;
f. Remove maintenance responsibility of
specified improvements from the district
by either eliminating district funding or
City Council action identifying the areas
removed from district responsibility; or
g. Other City Council direction.
• Where the cost to provide services exceeds the
applied rate or the maximum rate, reserves may be
used to fund the shortfall or services may be
reduced so that costs do not exceed the maximum
rate, except for in a landscape maintenance district
that is Underfunded or Deficient. If a district is
Underfunded or Deficient, then the following
methods, in no particular order of preference, may
be taken to bridge the shortfall:
• Use Reserves;
• Notify the Affected Property Owners to determine
if there’s a significant interest in conducting a
ballot proceeding to increase the services (e.g.,
increase the maximum rate) and if such interest
exists, conduct such mail ballot proceeding/special
election of the Affected Property Owners;
• Reduce expenses and services specific to the
district in question (expenses shared by all districts
shall not be considered an appropriate source of
reductions);
• Eliminate maintenance services;
• Apply a maximum levy;
• Remove maintenance responsibility of specified
improvements from the district by either
eliminating district funding or via City Council-
approved action; or
• Other City Council direction.

The policy sections discussed above signify the remaining items needed for staff to complete a fully defined LMD Maintenance and Funding Policy. When consensus is reached on the above items, staff will incorporate this feedback and recommend bringing the full document to City Council for discussion and approval.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This agenda item supports the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy. The purpose of the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy is to preserve and improve our roads, utilities, parks, trees, water supply and natural resources through effective planning, prioritization, and an equitable and efficient use of available funding.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

419
There is no direct financial impact associated with this action.

Prepared by: Steve Howlett, Assistant Public Works Director, Anthony Miller, Special Districts Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. February 25, 2025 PWTC Agenda Report

2. Map of Landscape Maintenance Districts

3. Map of Landscape Maintenance Districts and Funded Status

4. LMD and City Landscape Feature Comparison

5. Streets and Highway Code Section 22569

6. Streets and Highway Code Section 22660

7. Presentation

420
State of California

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
Section 22569
22569. The estimate of the costs of the improvements for the fiscal year shall contain estimates for all of the following:
(a)  The total costs for improvements to be made that year, being the total costs of constructing or installing all proposed improvements and of maintaining and servicing all existing and proposed improvements, including all incidental expenses. This may include a reserv e which shall not e xceed the estimated costs of maintenance and servicing to December 10 of the fiscal year , or whenever the city expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the county, whichever is later.
(b)  The amount of an y surplus or deficit in the impro vement fund to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
(c)  The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.
(d)  The amount, if an y, of the annual installment for the fiscal year where the legislative body has ordered an assessment for the estimated cost of any improvements to be levied and collected in annual installments.
(e)  The net amount to be assessed upon assessable lands within the assessment district, being the total improvement costs, as referred to in subdivision (a), increased or decreased, as the case may be, by an y of the amounts referred to in subdi vision (b), (c), or (d).
(Amended by Stats. 1991, Ch. 966, Sec. 15.)
421
State of California

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
Section 22660
22660. (a)  The legislative body may , by resolution, determine that the estimated cost of an y of the proposed impro vements described in subdi visions (a) to (d), inclusive, of Section 22525 is greater than can be con veniently raised from a single annual assessment and order that the estimated cost shall be raised by an assessment levied and collected in installments over a period not to exceed five fiscal years. (b)  The legislative body may, by resolution, determine that the estimated cost of the proposed impro vements described in Section 22525 is greater than can be conveniently raised from a single annual assessment and order that the estimated cost of those improvements, other than the costs of maintenance and servicing, be raised by an assessment levied and collected in installments over a period not to exceed 30 years.
(c)  The resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) shall generally describe the proposed improvements, set forth the estimated cost thereof, specify the number of annual installments and the fiscal years during which they are to be collected, and fix or determine the maximum amount of each annual installment. (Amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 366, Sec. 1. Effective July 14, 1988.) 422
Adoption of Resolution Establishing a Maintenance
and Funding Policy for Landscape Maintenance
Districts for the City of Oxnard
City Council
July 15, 2025
Anthony Miller
Special Districts Manager
423
RECOMMENDATION 2
That the City Council Adopt a Resolution Establishing a Maintenance and Funding Policy for Landscape Maintenance Districts managed by the City of Oxnard.
424

BACKGROUND
• The Special Districts Division, within the Public Works Department, is responsible for the management of the City’s bonded assessment districts, landscape maintenance districts (“LMDs”), community facilities districts (“CFDs”), maintenance assessment districts (“MADs”), and waterways assessment districts (“WADs”).
• Each of these types of districts is governed by different provisions of state law, which set forth the purposes for which the districts can be formed, basic administrative requirements, and the processes by which their assessments and special taxes can be levied.
3 425

BACKGROUND
• LMDs are formed under the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 22500 et. seq.) (the “1972 Act”) and must comply with specific management requirements unique to the 1972 Act.
4 426

BACKGROUND
• In order to provide ample opportunity for public comment on this process, staff sent mailers to property owners within all the LMDs listing upcoming Public Works and Transportation
Committee (PWTC) meetings on the subject.
• On February 25th, staff introduced various concepts and draft policy text examples for the Public Works and Transportation Committee to discuss and provide feedback with
recommendations.
• On March 25th, staff brought specific policy text examples back to the Committee in order to capture their recommendations within the final policy document.
5 427

BACKGROUND
• Staff received input from the Committee on a variety of questions.
• Much of the discussion was specifically focused on appropriate reserve levels, processes for the balloting of districts, the need for a policy document for staff to follow, specific reserve requirements, and priorities.
• Additionally, there was public comment and committee
discussion that focused primarily on the reason for the existence of LMDs, which is addressed at the beginning of the Discussion Section in this report.
6 428

DISCUSSION
• After significant review by City staff and substantial effort to include direction from the Public Works and Transportation Committee, staff is recommending that the attached Landscape Maintenance District Maintenance and Funding Policy be
adopted, via resolution, by the City Council.
• LMDs exist to provide a direct and special benefit to those who choose to purchase property within its boundaries.
• The additional level of landscaping, amenities, parks, lighting, and/or other authorized improvements within the district that are above and beyond what is generally provided to residents through the typical planning and permitting of non-LMD
developments.
7 429
Examples of Neighborhood Paseos
General Fund Paseo
8 LMD Paseo
430
Examples of Neighborhood Entrances
LMD Neighborhood Entrance
9 LMD Maintained
Items
(within highlighted area)
• Sign
• Turf
• Planters
• Trees
• Irrigation
• Sidewalks
431
Examples of Neighborhood Entrances
General Fund Neighborhood Entrance
10 General Fund
Maintained Items
(within highlighted area)
• Planter (in front
of sign only)
• Sidewalks
• All other trees
and shrubs are
privately
maintained
432

DISCUSSION
• Many of the City’s LMDs were formed prior to the passing of Proposition 218 in 1996.
• This means that in LMDs formed without an inflator, any future increases in operating expenses for items such as landscape services or utilities cannot be met unless they are able to reduce services or eliminate improvements within that district. • This specifically means reducing or cancelling services entirely in order to stay within the LMDs funding capacity.
11 433

DISCUSSION
• To put this in terms that may be more familiar, the highest assessed rates within the past 5 years have been broken into a monthly payment to show what an equivalent to a
Homeowners Association payment would be with similar
improvements.
• This information is shown in Table 1 within the Staff Report. • The LMDs highlighted within Table 1 are specifically at risk for substantial swings in maintenance quality as they become unable to fund their improvements because of inflation and their capped pre-Prop. 218 fixed rates.
12 434

DISCUSSION
• This is already happening in some LMDs where maintenance and operations expenses are exceeding the LMD’s capacity to fund them.
• Districts that are classified as “Underfunded” or “Deficient” are indicated within Table 2 in the staff report and on the map included as Attachment 3 to the staff report.
• This information is not meant to determine any ideal
assessment amount, but rather illustrate the scope and scale of services provided in comparison to what the highest assessment amounts represent as a portion of each unit’s/property’s total tax bill.
13 435
DISCUSSION - Proposition 218, Polling and Balloting
• Proposition 218, an amendment to the state constitution that was adopted by the voters in 1996, dramatically reduced the City’s ability to increase assessment rates in existing LMDs. • Prior to the adoption of Prop. 218, the City Council could, each year, adopt increases to assessment rates without holding any sort of property-owner “election.”
• The LMDs established prior to the adoption of Prop. 218 were approved by the City Council without the concept of a
“maximum rate” or an automatic “inflation adjustment.”
14 436
DISCUSSION - Proposition 218, Polling and Balloting
• At the time these LMDs were established, it was assumed that the rates could be easily adjusted each year to meet increasing or special costs.
• Prop. 218 introduced changes that effectively “moved the goalposts” for communities formed prior to Prop. 218’s
passage.
• The City currently has 10 LMDs that were formed prior to the passage of Prop. 218, each of which has a capped assessment. (This list can be found within Table 3 as a part of the staff report.)
15 437
DISCUSSION - Proposition 218, Polling and Balloting
• Once Prop. 218 went into effect the currently applied rate for the assessment in connection with each of these
“grandfathered” LMDs became the “maximum rate” for the
LMD.
• LMDs created after 1996 included a property-owner-approved annual adjustment to the “maximum rate.”
• It is also important to note that the “applied rate” is annually recommended by staff and approved by the City Council and is less than or equal to the “maximum rate.”
16 438
DISCUSSION - Proposition 218, Polling and Balloting
• Pursuant to Prop. 218, to change a LMDs “maximum rate” the City must conduct an “assessment mail-ballot proceeding.” • The purpose of this policy is to address areas where the Streets and Highways Code, Government Code, and Prop. 218 does
not provide explicit guidance on the processes and procedures for the City to follow.
• Neither Prop. 218 nor the 1972 Act require that a city conduct any sort of polling or resident outreach prior to preparing an engineer’s report, proposing an assessment, or mailing notices and ballots to property owners.
17 439
DISCUSSION - Proposition 218, Polling and Balloting
• Although not required, it makes sense to do outreach or polling prior to beginning the formally required process as there are significant costs associated with preparing an engineer’s report and conducting a mail ballot proceeding.
• Staff has dedicated a substantial portion within the draft policy specifying procedures for initiating polling prior to the commencing the steps required by state law for an increase. 18 440
DISCUSSION - Proposition 218, Polling and Balloting
• Discussion around Prop. 218 processes primarily focused on how and when balloting could take place within a district. Staff incorporated the feedback received during the Committee process and within policy Section V. Polling and Balloting, which sets specific guidelines for the following:
• A level that is considered to be of “significant interest” within an LMD for balloting;
• How balloting should be funded;
• The process should be followed when a District is found to not be able to fund its maintenance and operations;
• What happens if a ballot is not pursued and;
• What happens if a ballot fails.
19 441
DISCUSSION - LMD Funding Practices and Priorities
• The policy specifically seeks to clarify LMD funding practices and procedures.
• Specifically, the policy clarifies when fund balance contributions may be used, defines different types of allowable reserve funds and what they can be used for, and minimum and maximum
levels for reserve balances where the City has discretion. • Staff sought to define processes by broadly outlining how the current process works, and then refined the policy based on the feedback received.
20 442
DISCUSSION - LMD Funding Practices and Priorities
• Examples of the feedback and direction, specifically within Section IV. Funding, include the following:
• Guidelines for when districts may be eligible to receive a non-utility subsidy from the general fund;
• Establishing an operating reserve floor for fully funded districts of 16.6% and a ceiling of 47.4% of their budget expenses;
• Providing guidelines that underfunded districts may have operating reserve levels which fall below 16.6% of their budgeted expenses, and; • Establishing a hierarchy of procedures for staff to follow when expected revenue requirements within an underfunded or deficient district exceed the district’s maximum rate of assessment.
21 443
DISCUSSION - LMD Funding Practices and Priorities
• It should be noted that during the calculation of these reserve amounts, Streets and Highways Code Section 22659 states that any direct payment to an LMD must be factored into the
calculation of the following year’s assessment.
• This includes instances such as when Mr. Blattel identified that certain sidewalk grinding services should not have been billed to his LMD, the reimbursement of those costs must be factored into the calculation of the following year’s assessment, to include any reserve amounts needed for Operating or
Improvement purposes.
22 444
DISCUSSION - LMD Funding Practices and Priorities
• The differences between the above sections, while minor, have a substantial impact.
• A lower Operating Reserve percentage can make budgeting for LMDs with capped maximum levies easier as less funds may be needed to be set aside prior to budgeting for regular
maintenance and operations.
• This can also be achieved by using specific language, such as specifying a reserve “goal” rather than a “requirement.” 23 445
DISCUSSION - LMD Funding Practices and Priorities
• Separate from operating reserves, LMDs may also hold reserves for specifically identified projects in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 22660.
• These “Improvement Reserves,” may be collected over a period not to exceed 5 years.
• This is a very important differentiation as it encourages the City to periodically review projects within the LMDs and their ability to fund longer-term projects. The inability to fund larger projects, even when expenses are spread across a five-year window, may indicate a need for an LMD to be balloted.
24 446
DISCUSSION - LMD Funding Practices and Priorities
• Continuing within the funding category, staff also seeks specific consensus on how to prioritize funding decisions within LMDs when projected expenses exceed revenues and reserves may no longer be sufficient to cover the difference.
• To facilitate this, staff defined two LMD funding states:
• Underfunded - unable to fund both operating reserves and maintenance operations
• Deficient - unable to fund operating reserves, maintenance operations, and are projected to end the fiscal year with a fund balance deficit 25 447
DISCUSSION - LMD Funding Practices and Priorities
• Any LMD may move from being fully funded to “Underfunded” in a very short time frame dependent upon the size of their budget, potential mid-year increases in cost (such as a change in landscape contractor), and whether or not Operating and Improvement Reserves are required to be funded.
• Staff is strongly recommending that identifying a maximum assessment as a policy option be included so as not to
potentially exclude that tool from future usage if needed. • As with the previous section, highlighted items indicate operative text and staff recommendations.
26 448
DISCUSSION - LMD Funding Practices and Priorities 27
Table 7 - Funding/Priorities when Expenses Exceed Revenues No Indicated Preference:

Committee Chair McArthur
Supporter(s)
Committee member Basua
Committee member Teran
Staff Recommended
Supporter(s) - None
This is alternative language from other agencies with LMDs and includes concepts that were discussed but not necessarily recommended by Committee members.
- Where the cost to provide services exceeds the applied and/or maximum rate, reserves may be used to fund the
shortfall or services may be reduced so that costs do not exceed the maximum rate, except for in a landscape
maintenance district that is Underfunded or Deficient. If a district is Underfunded or Deficient, then the following methods, in the following specific order of preference, may be taken to bridge the shortfall:
a. Use Reserves;
b. Notify the Affected Property Owners to determine
if there’s a significant interest in conducting a
ballot proceeding to increase the services (e.g.,
increase the maximum rate) and if such interest
exists, conduct such mail ballot
proceeding/special election of the Affected
Property Owners;
c. Reduce expenses and services specific to the
district in question (expenses shared by all
districts shall not be considered an appropriate
source of reductions);
d. Apply a maximum levy;
e. Eliminate maintenance services;
- Where the cost to provide services exceeds the applied rate or the maximum rate, reserves may be used to fund the
shortfall or services may be reduced so that costs do not exceed the maximum rate, except for in a landscape
maintenance district that is Underfunded or Deficient. If a district is Underfunded or Deficient, then the following methods, in no particular order of preference, may be taken to bridge the shortfall:
- Use Reserves;
- Notify the Affected Property Owners to determine
if there’s a significant interest in conducting a
ballot proceeding to increase the services (e.g.,
increase the maximum rate) and if such interest
exists, conduct such mail ballot
proceeding/special election of the Affected
Property Owners;
- Reduce expenses and services specific to the
district in question (expenses shared by all
districts shall not be considered an appropriate
source of reductions);
- Eliminate maintenance services;
- Apply a maximum levy;
449
DISCUSSION - LMD Funding Practices and Priorities 28
Table 7 - Funding/Priorities when Expenses Exceed Revenues (Cont.) No Indicated Preference:

Committee Chair McArthur
Supporter(s)
Committee member Basua
Committee member Teran
Staff Recommended
Supporter(s) - None
This is alternative language from other agencies with LMDs and includes concepts that were discussed but not necessarily recommended by Committee members.
f. Remove maintenance responsibility of specified
improvements from the district by either
eliminating district funding or City Council action
identifying the areas removed from district
responsibility; or
g. Other City Council direction.
- Remove maintenance responsibility of specified
improvements from the district by either
eliminating district funding or via City Council-
approved action; or
- Other City Council direction.
450

DISCUSSION
• The previous policy items signify the remaining items needed for staff to complete a fully defined LMD Maintenance and Funding Policy.
• When consensus is reached on the above items, staff will incorporate this feedback and recommend bringing the full document to City Council for discussion and approval.
29 451

FINANCIAL IMPACT
• There is no direct financial impact associated with this action. 30 452

QUESTIONS
453

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. M.2

DATE: July 15, 2025

TO: City Council

FROM: Michael Wolfe, Public Works Director, (805) 385-8055, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Response to Grand Jury Report - Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance. (10 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City Council, the City of Oxnard’s response to the 2024-2025 Ventura County Grand Jury Report - Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance.

(This item did not originate in Committee.)

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/VJBjhgXNDog

BACKGROUND

On June 4, 2025, the City received the 2024-2025 Ventura County Grand Jury Report Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance (“Report”), demanding a response within 90 days. As such, the City has until September 2, 2025, to respond. A copy of the Report is attached.

The Report is an attempt to define and characterize best management practices for pavement maintenance. The Report, specific to local agencies’ maintenance of streets, outlines deferred maintenance, develops a poorly supported hidden cost calculation, provides funding variables, and ultimately tries to compare local cities with respect to pavement maintenance practices to general statements in published documents.

The Report claims that the Ventura Civil Grand Jury received complaints about road conditions in several cities within Ventura County and chose to investigate Camarillo, Oxnard, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Ventura. Interesting to note that the Grand Jury did not include the County of Ventura, which has 542 centerline miles of streets to maintain (compared to Oxnard's 453 centerline miles) but is on pace to receive $37.5 million in Gas Tax in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25, which is 3.4 times more than the City of Oxnard.

The Report’s findings and recommendations specific to Oxnard are:

Finding F-01. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Oxnard does not maintain its streets in a best practice condition resulting in costlier deferred maintenance on streets and a hidden cost on residents due to extra vehicle wear.

Finding F-06. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Oxnard, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, would make effective use of the funds allocated for street maintenance.

Recommendation R-02. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that Oxnard set a goal to achieve best practice pavement conditions within 10 years and create a plan to accomplish that goal by December 2025.

The proposed response is attached and a summary is provided in the Discussion section below. 454

DISCUSSION

As with most Civil Grand Jury Reports, this one is a very narrow review of one small portion of what a local agency does. In fact, street maintenance is 2% of the Public Works Department’s overall annual operating budget and is 1% of the City’s overall annual operating budget for FY 2025/26. In FY 2025/26, street paving projects, including alley projects, make up 26% of the new funding approved by the City Council for the overall capital improvement budget for the fiscal year. Public Works staff is unable to replicate the financial figures used in the Report for the City of Oxnard. It should be noted that since FY 2021/22 (after the passage of Measure E) through FY 2025/26, the City has budgeted $96.6 million on street paving capital improvement program (CIP) projects and has budgeted $27.5 million for Streets Maintenance operating budget.

In general, the Report states that maintaining streets above a certain pavement condition index (PCI) will result in spending less money on street maintenance in the long run; meaning, keeping streets above a specified PCI and conducting more preventative maintenance than corrective maintenance is best management practice. Public Works staff agrees with the logic that preventative maintenance for roadways is less expensive than corrective maintenance. However, the statement that only an overall PCI above 80, which the Report purports represents an agency that has best management practices in place, is not only a misuse of what a PCI generally represents, but it is also not based on sound engineering logic nor the specifics of any agency's actual street data.

As noted in the attached response, the Public Works staff disagrees with the generalization of some of the very technical engineering information that the Grand Jury is trying to use. Licensed professional civil engineers who have designed and constructed pavement projects know that preventive maintenance treatments, such as slurry seals, chip/cape seals, and thin overlays can be used on street segments with PCIs less than 80, given the correct assessment of specific distresses in the asphalt pavement, evaluation of core samples, and years of engineering experience. However, the Report incorrectly implies that those treatments are only available for streets with PCIs above 80.

In April 2024, Public Works staff brought forward to the City Council a staff report outlining the City’s pavement management program and 5-phased pavement maps. The staff report outlines the City’s plan to achieve best practice pavement management; however, it is not just based upon a broad-brush PCI number, such as “above 80”. From the City’s August 2018 Pavement Management Report to its most recent finalized report dated February 2024, the City’s overall PCI has increased from 63 to 67. This is due to the significant investment the City Council has made in funding CIP projects for street paving, as noted above.

The goal of Oxnard’s Pavement Management Program has already been established and was re-emphasized to the City Council on April 2, 2024. The goal is to reach the pavement condition category of “Good” (at least a PCI of 70) for all street segments in Oxnard, allowing for a future goal of a 75% preventative maintenance and 25% corrective maintenance ratio for all capital improvement projects related to street paving. The staff report is attached for reference. Please note that the City’s goal (i.e. to reach the pavement condition category of “Good”) is the same as the Report’s Reference 14 (SaveCaliforniaStreets), “To use taxpayer money wisely, it makes more sense to preserve and maintain roads in good condition [emphasis added] than to wait and repair or replace them when they deteriorate or fail.”

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This agenda item is a routine operational item or does not relate to the five strategic priorities adopted by City Council on March 16, 2021.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There are no fiscal impacts with the recommended action items in this staff report.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME

This item did not originate in Committee.

Prepared by: Michael Wolfe, Public Works Director

455

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2024-2025 Ventura County Civil Grand Jury - Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance Report

2. Response to Grand Jury - Street Maintenance

3. April 2, 2024 Agenda Report

4. Presentation

456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
Response to 2024-2025 Ventura County Grand Jury Report
Report Title: Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance

Report Date: July 15, 2025

Report Entity: City of Oxnard

Response by: Luis A. Mc Arthur Title: Mayor
Michael Wolfe, PE Title: Director of Public Works

FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS

● Finding F-01. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Oxnard does not maintain its streets in a best practice condition resulting in costlier deferred maintenance on streets and a hidden cost on residents due to extra vehicle wear.

Response: The City of Oxnard (“City”) disagrees wholly with this finding. The City agrees with the logic that preventative maintenance for roadways is less expensive than corrective maintenance, as noted in the 2024 -2025 Ventura Co unty Civil Grand Jury Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance report (“Report”). However, the statement that only an overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) above 80 represents an agency that has best management practices in place is not only a gross misinterpretation of what a PCI generally represents, it is also not based on sound engineering logic nor the specifics of any agency's actual street data.

Reference 14 (Ref 14 - SaveCaliforniaStreets) is used in the Report and seems to be the key theme of the Report. In this reference, there is this excerpt:

“To use taxpayer money wisely, it makes more sense to preserve and maintain roads in good condition [emphasis added] than to wait and repair or replace them when they deteriorate or fail. The estimated costs reported in this study are based on improving roadway pavement condition to meet best management practices (BMPs). At BMP conditions, preventative maintenance treatments (i.e. slurry seals, chip seals, thin overlays) [emphasis added] are most cost-effective.”

The City agrees with the logic behind this themed statement. In fact, it is consistent with the City’s recent update of the Citywide Pavement Management Program Oxnard Public Works staff gave to the City Council on April 2, 2024. A co py of the relevant staff report is attached for reference. The staff report outlines the City’s plan to achieve best practice pavement management; however, it is not just based upon a broad -brush PCI number, such as “above 80”. Indeed, street PCIs over 7 0 are considered "good to excellent" per the SaveCaliforniaStreets website.

Licensed professional civil engineers who have designed and constructed pavement projects know that preventive maintenance treatments, such as slurry seals, chip/cape 490
Response to 2024-2025 Ventura County Grand Jury Report
seals, and thin overlays can be used on street segments with PCIs less than 80, given the correct assessment of specific distresses in the asphalt pavement, evaluation of core samples, and years of engineering experience. In fact, if you look at the key statement above from the Report’s Reference 14, the bolded text (bolded by the City for emphasis) includes examples of preventive maintenance treatments that are cost-effective. However, the Report incorrectly implies that those treatments are only available for streets with PCIs above 80. The actual default break points in the StreetSaver program have light maintenance work going down to a PCI level of 70. In StreetSaver, the defined light maintenance work includes: slurry seal, micro-surface, fog seal, and/or scrub seal. This all means that it is not accurate to assume light maintenance only applies to street segments above 80 PCI.

It is also incorrect to assume that asphalt streets can continue to receive preventative maintenance only and exist for the life of a C ity. The Report accurately provides an analysis showing the cost comparison of preventative maintenance versus corrective maintenance over a 30 -year period. However, page 3 of the Report states, “ In other words, perform less costly preventative maintenan ce more often so that more costly maintenance or reconstruction is not needed (emphasis added).” To assume that a street segment would never need corrective maintenance is incorrect. And, for a city like Oxnard, which is over 120 years old, this 30-year narrow view provides the narrative that the Report wants to give, but limits the actual understanding of how a City has to function for over a century.

Building on the above, the report makes reference (Figure 2 and its adjoining paragraph) to the concept of perpetual pavements that allow for a BMP state; at first glance this makes sense, but a closer look is in order here. Per FHWA (for example, publication FHWA-HIF- 19-080): "[these pavements] are designed with a bottom -up approach (emphasis added), focusing on fatigue resistance in the lower layers and rut resistance in the surface layers." Similarly, from the National Asphalt Paving Association (NAPA) : “A Perpetual Asphalt Pavement, properly designed and constructed (emphasis added), lasts longer than 50 years without requiring major structural rehabilitation or reconstruction, and needs only periodic surface renewal in response to distresses confined to the top of the pavement (Newcomb, 2002)”. Therefore, it is important here to acknowledge the key concept that perpetual pavements are designed (emphasis added) from the outset to be managed as perpetual pavements; a pre -existing and/or new pavement not intentionally designed to be a perpetual pavement cannot be expected to perform as such.

Generalizing and assuming that any pavement section can be managed as a perpetual pavement is false, in that it does not take into account pre-existing design, roadway base and subbase conditions, ground water levels, and cracking/degradation beyond roadway surface distresses. With this in mind, ideal perpetual pavement BMPs likely are not possible with, or applicable to, older, pre -existing roadways, or those not des igned from the bottom up to be built and managed as perpetual pavements. For Oxnard, due to pre- existing below-surface conditions, a BMP state likely is not achievable without the full reconstruction of streets and replacing them with specifically designed perpetual 491
Response to 2024-2025 Ventura County Grand Jury Report
pavements. The vast cost for the complete reconstruction of all of Oxnard’s streets is unrealistically prohibitive, as well as unnecessary per the pavement management reasoning explained earlier in this response.

The City objects to the use o f the term “hidden tax” in the Report and the calculation to “hidden costs”. Car ownership is a choice and to consider any costs associated with a choice a tax is a misleading statement. There are many examples of highly functioning residents in Oxnard, and Ventura County who do not own or use a car.

The information from TRIP that is being referenced in the Report (Ref 18) to produce the “hidden cost” is being misused. The statement is that driving on “deteriorated roads” costs motorists money. There is no quantification of what "deteriorated roads” mean and the Report incorrectly makes a giant leap in stating that a 2022 statewide PCI of 65 should be the basis for this calculation. At best, the TRIP “fact” (assuming it is a fact), says “poor or mediocre” roads. While PCI categories do have a “poor” designation, there is no “mediocre” designation. Assuming that would be the next level up from “poor”, it would be the “fair” category in a traditional PCI scale. Only 47.9% of Oxnard’s arterial, collector , and residential streets fall into these two (i.e. “Poor” and “Fair”) categories or lower. The remaining residential, collector, and arterial streets in Oxnard are above those categories and should be excluded from the calculation. As such, if we did agr ee with the Report’s hidden cost calculation, it would have to be reduced by 52.1%.

Additionally, the TRIP “fact” (assuming it is a fact”) indicates a cost per driver. However, the table on page 9 of the Report assumes the entire population of Oxnard dri ves a car.

This is obviously not correct.

● There are 3.5 persons per household in Oxnard and the average is 2 cars per household (Reference A: Oxnard data). Multiplying the number of dwelling units in Oxnard, which is 55,777 (Reference B:( Oxnard data), by the average number of cars per household results in roughly 111,554 cars.
● From the City’s most recent Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis, the total VMT per service population in Oxnard is 20.4 miles in 2024. The Report’s assumption that the average Californian drives 35 miles grossly over exaggerates that for Oxnard residents.
● The street classifications where the majority of the daily commute and weekend leisure travel occurs in the City is on the arterial, collector, and residential streets.

The most recent finalized PCI for these three street categories in Oxnard is 69.6.

If the City actually agreed with the hidden cost (“tax”) concept, which it does not, it should be around $6.3 million using the accurate information presented above.

The City finds the Report to be very misleading by trying to make a comparison acr oss different agencies in the County of Ventura without taking into account all of the different factors that impact the cost of pavement work, and the many factors that have a combined 492
Response to 2024-2025 Ventura County Grand Jury Report
effect on an agency’s PCI. The Report makes reference to “Differing Circumstances” on page 13, but does not provide sufficient detail to allow a reader to understand the importance of the circumstances. Some of the factors that impact the cost of paving work and an agency's PCI are: (1) the age of the city, (2) the makeup of the traffic in the city, (3) the population density of a city, and (4) engineering factors.

The age of a city and how long ago streets were designed and constructed has a heavy influence on the amount and cost of pavement repairs, which eventually impa cts a city’s PCI. The Report ignores these factors. Older cities, which have to maintain roadways that were designed and constructed under decades -old outdated inferior engineering standards, are at a disadvantage to cities that have newer streets with b etter structural pavement sections. The City of Oxnard was incorporated in 1903, while the City of Camarillo was incorporated in 1964.

The make-up of traffic (e.g. volume of cars, semi-trucks, and buses) and the density of the population also have a sig nificant impact on the amount and cost of pavement repairs, which eventually impacts a city’s PCI. The Report ignores these factors. The goods that come through the Port of Hueneme utilize, to a large extent, portions of the City of Oxnard’s designated tr uck routes. This factor, along with the high concentration of commercial and industrial businesses in Oxnard, mean a significantly higher amount of semi-truck traffic occurs in Oxnard than in “bedroom communities”. Furthermore, information from Gold Coast Transit District indicates that there are 14 fixed routes in Oxnard compared to 2 fixed routes in Camarillo. The amount of bus traffic, which involves a very heavy vehicle traversing the City of Oxnard’s streets multiple times a day, impacting its pavement to a higher degree than a much lighter personal vehicle, is significantly higher than “bedroom communities”. Lastly, engineering factors such as soil type and groundwater table elevations also impact the cost of paving projects, which are not accounted for in the Report.

The City is unable to recreate the financial figures used in the Report for the City of Oxnard. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 through FY 2025/26, the City has budgeted $96.6 million on street paving capital improvement program (CI P) projects and has budgeted $27.5 million for its Streets Maintenance operating budget.

● Finding F -06. The Civil Grand Jury finds that Oxnard, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, would make effective use of the funds allocated for street maintenance.

Response: The City agrees with this finding.

● Recommendation R-02. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that Oxnard set a goal to achieve best practice pavement conditions within 10 years and create a plan to accomplish that goal by December 2025

493
Response to 2024-2025 Ventura County Grand Jury Report
Response:

From the City’s August 2018 Pavement Management Report to its most r ecent finalized report dated February 2024, the City’s overall PCI has increased from 63 to 67. The goal of Oxnard’s Pavement Management Program has already been established and was re - emphasized to the City Council on April 2, 2024. The goal, which has been implemented, is to reach the pavement condition category of “Good” (at least a PCI of 70 for best management practice) for all street segments in Oxnard, allowing for a future goal of a 75% preventative maintenance and 25% corrective maintenance ratio for all capital improvement projects related to street paving. Without a major downward shift in the economic trend of the City, the goal to reach an overall PCI category of “Good” is on track to be achieved within a 10 -year period. The April 2024 staff report is attached for reference. Please note that the City’s goal (i.e. to reach the pavement condition category of “Good”) is the same as the Report’s Ref 14 (Save California Streets), “To use taxpayer money wisely, it makes more sense to preserve and maintain roads in good condition [emphasis added] than to wait and repair or replace them when they deteriorate or fail.”

Aside from the fact that the City has already set such a goal and a corresponding plan to achieve it, it is by no means the City’s only, or most urgent goal. The City Council has the responsibility to weigh and balance the vast needs and wants among the entire population, ranging from police services, fire protection, public works, parks, libraries, youth and senior programs, as well as responding to the statewide housing and homeless crisis, and to prioritize all of those alongside funding for street paving capital projects. The voters of Oxnard have elected seven members to represent them in making such decisions.

In conclusion, th e City is appreciative of the opportunity to provide a response to the Report.

However, the City would like to point out a large data gap in the Report due to the fact that the County of Ventura, which has over 542 centerline miles to maintain (compared to 453 centerline miles in the City of Oxnard), is projected to receive receive $37.5 million in Gas Tax in FY 24/25 (3.4 times more than the City of Oxnard), and has a reported PCI of 75 in October 2024 is not included in this analysis. If it is the intent of the Grand Jury to provide an analysis across different agencies in the County with varying degrees of funding sources, volumes of centerline miles, and ranges of Pavement Condition Indexes, it seems odd to leave out the largest agency in the County. Perhaps the Grand Jury could provide an explanation for this glaring omission. 494

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. K.2

DATE: April 2, 2024

TO: City Council

FROM: Michael Wolfe, Public Works Director, (805) 385-8055, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Citywide Pavement Management Program Overview. (20 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council receive and file a report on the Citywide Pavement Management Program Overview.

(Public Works & Transportation Committee approved 3-0 on March 12, 2024.)

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/gJqiE9RCOlg

BACKGROUND

Oxnard’s streets and alleyways are among its most valuable assets, with a present replacement value of approximately $988.9M. Because of this high value, combined with the need to address continuous pavement wear and degradation, it is imperative to perform corrective and preventive maintenance via a strategic multi-year, multi-phase plan. This plan is implemented through individual construction projects utilizing a “toolbox” of paving methods. Such treatments generally include removal and replacement (R&R), cold milling with asphalt concrete (A/C) overlays, portland cement concrete (PCC) patching and reconstruction, and sealing (crack, slurry, cape, and micro-surfacing). Seals are typically seen as preventive maintenance (also commonly termed pavement preservation) techniques, as they do not add structural capacity to the existing pavement.

The City currently owns and maintains approximately 440.5 total centerline miles across all functional street classifications, as follows:
• Arterial and Collector – 128.6 centerline miles
• Residential – 246.8 lane miles centerline miles
• Alley – 65.1 centerline miles

This equates to a total of 95,450,658 square feet of pavement in the City’s network, as calculated by the City’s pavement management software, StreetSaver. This application, sourced from and managed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is a planning tool used to monitor, analyze, and forecast Oxnard’s overall Pavement Management Program (PMP) and is critical to establishing a proper, phased multi-year paving cycle. Projections and computations regarding change in pavement condition versus annual funding investment are typically made over a 10-year span; for budget planning and capital project programming purposes, staff develops a phased paving project plan based on a rolling 5-year horizon, termed the Citywide Pavement Management Program.

It should be noted that the current lawsuit against the City filed by Aaron Starr and his political corporation “Moving Oxnard Forward” precludes the use of lease revenue bonds for funding pavement projects. Such bonding, commonly used for high-cost projects like street paving, is a financing mechanism traditionally used by all American cities, counties, 495
and states, that provide for funding consistency and predictability necessary for the development of a strategic, multi-year paving program. A funding source like this allows for both corrective and preventive paving work to be planned and executed predictably, with the goal of stretching the limited available funding as far as possible.

DISCUSSION

The key pavement health metric used by Oxnard is the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which provides a snapshot of the pavement health of a road through a surface condition-based visual analysis algorithm. It is reported on a scale of 0 to 100 (0 being worst, 100 best). Oxnard’s PCI assessments are made yearly by a contracted pavement engineering consultant. According to the most recent PMP report (utilizing inspections from 2023), the average PCI of the City’s entire road network is 67; broken into roadway functional classifications, this equates to PCIs of 73 for Arterials, 69 for Collectors, 68 for Residential, and 29 for Alleys.

The Citywide Pavement Management Program is a planning and project programming roadmap for Oxnard’s paving needs over a rolling multi-year horizon, and is further broken down into project phases. Each phase is a collection of street locations that is determined by prioritization (explained below), anticipated budget, grouping of locations for construction efficiency, and other technical factors. The phases are implemented mainly through three discrete projects within the present Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Projects are separated into alleys, residential streets, and arterial streets as discussed in more detail below.

Planning over a multi-year horizon is critical for budgeting resources – both staff and financial. Adopting a capital pavement program allows Engineering staff to schedule projects according to anticipated revenues and staff workload capacity. This also makes the Council’s priorities clear to staff as grant opportunities arise that may be applicable to the planned projects.

Being a multi-year funding roadmap, there is flexibility such that new projects or street segments could be added as unforeseen year-to-year circumstances arise such as funding amounts, materials costs, accelerated pavement degradation, etc.

Prioritization

Since there are more needs than funding or staff resources to meet those needs, projects must be prioritized. A further consideration for prioritization is moving the overall pavement condition forward toward “good” (generally considered a PCI value of at least 70) and, once there, maintaining at least that level over time. City staff has developed a methodology for prioritizing and programming paving projects to meet these constraints. Generally, projects are divided into three subcategories, namely residential streets, arterial streets, and alleyways; these generally correspond with the three named paving projects in the CIP. Each subcategory has somewhat different prioritization parameters, as follows:

Project priorities for residential streets are determined by:

The average PCI and the number of lane miles are calculated for each neighborhood (Only for poor-condition streets, i.e. PCI<55). High priority is given to neighborhoods with low average Pavement Condition Index (PCI), a high number of lane miles, and a high concentration of pothole repair work.

Project priorities for arterial streets are determined by,

Average PCI and Average Daily Traffic (ADT), representing the number of vehicles using the street each day are calculated for each arterial project. High priority is given to arterial streets with low PCI, high ADT, and high number of pothole repairs.

Project priorities for alleys are determined by:

Low PCI, high population density, schools, parks, businesses, and the number of potholes repaired.

A high priority is given to alleys with low PCI, high pothole repair count, high population density, and close proximity to schools, parks, and businesses.
496

A special case exists for the above prioritization system, namely locations where there are aging, buried cast iron pipes that are historically troublesome and prone to failure. These tend to be located in alleyways, and in these places the pipe ideally should be removed and replaced before the paving work occurs. For the present multi-phase paving plan, a number of the project locations (see attachments) for the first two phases recommend the replacement of cast iron pipe ahead of the paving work. To accomplish this, funding will need to be identified and programmed separately for the CIP project titled “Water Distribution: Neighborhood Street Cast Iron Pipe Replacement”.

A high degree of weight will be placed on locations requiring a significant amount of pothole repair work. The City’s pothole repair team is the same staff that does sidewalk repair, curb/gutter repair, street sign maintenance and repair, street striping, right-of-way clean-up, etc. Pothole repair work is temporary, costly, and requires dedicated resources (i.e. staffing and equipment) for little long-term benefit. As such, the more street segments with a high pothole repair need that can be addressed with long-term corrective/preventive paving work, the better the Public Works team can leverage its limited resources. As mentioned above, there are a range of pavement treatments available, and a “mix of fixes” is usually the ideal way to proceed with a given year’s paving project. Staff has determined that, for this present multi- phase plan, the most effective paving budget split will be approximately 80% for rehabilitation (A/C mill-and-overlays, PCC concrete) and 20% for preventive maintenance (also called pavement preservation, such as slurry seals, cape seals, and micro-surfacing). Over time, as the City’s overall PCI goes up, this split will change to reflect less of a “worst first” approach that prioritizes rehabilitation, to one of “keeping good pavements good” that emphasizes maintenance and preservation.

The concept of “mix of fixes” is important to elaborate on since at first glance it may seem counter-intuitive. It is easy to think that the best way to address paving work is to fix the worst street segments (that is, streets with the lowest PCI) first. However, that approach is flawed for two general reasons. First, the degradation of asphalt concrete is not linear. As PCI scores approach around 70-65 or less, asphalt concrete degrades exponentially. Second, the cost to do corrective work such as R&R and mill-and-overlay (generally used when the PCI is less than 65-70) is 6-10 times more than the cost to do preventive/preservation work such as seals and microsurfacing (normally used where the PCI is greater than 70). Said another way, if the worst streets are the only ones done in each phase, then the streets with higher PCIs will continue to degrade untreated down past a PCI of 70, and cost 6-10 times more to fix in the future. Therefore, it’s imperative to maximize the use of pavement preservation techniques in every phase; this approach results in the least-cost per square foot, and stretches the limited amount of funding for maximum benefit. This is why Public Works staff will make recommendations to conduct paving work on several street segments in each phase with higher PCIs than other streets that have lower PCIs.

Pavement Maintenance Program Phasing

A traditional pavement management program (PMP) is separated by fiscal years to include the identification of the total amount of paving work (e.g. street segments) that can be done in each fiscal year with the known or required funding amount. However, with the Aaron Starr lawsuit, bonding is not currently available to Oxnard. The City prevailed in the lawsuit at the trial court level, but Aaron Starr immediately filed an appeal. The appeal process could take a year for the case to be briefed and argued, and for the court to issue a ruling. As such, planning for street paving work must be modified until such time the lawsuit process is complete.

The City’s 2023 pavement management report indicates that $19.4M dollars (hard construction costs) should be spent each fiscal year to maintain the current PCI. When adding in the soft costs (design, inspection, material testing, etc) the estimated total amount per year is $23.3M dollars. However, with bond funding unavailable, the long-term planning for pavement rehabilitation and maintenance is hampered. The amount of new annual Gas Tax for CIP paving projects, in addition to the anticipated Measure O funding for alley work, amounts to $6.25M for next Fiscal Year instead of the $23.3M per year to maintain the current PCI. Therefore, Public Works has organized the PMP into phases rather than fiscal years. Using a phased approach allows for the flexibility to adjust funding amounts (higher or lower) to avoid unrealistic expectations from the public about when streets will be paved. It should be noted that any funds remaining once current paving construction projects are completed will be carried over to next fiscal year and can be used for Phase 1 work.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

497
This agenda item supports the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy. The purpose of the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy is to preserve and improve our roads, utilities, parks, trees, water supply and natural resources through effective planning, prioritization, and an equitable and efficient use of available funding.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact to receive and file this report and provide input. Depending on input and direction from the City Council during the annual Operating and CIP budget process, there are several issues to address. Presently, due to the City’s current inability to bond for projects resulting from the Aaron Starr lawsuit, the new funding specifically available for street paving for next Fiscal Year is solely from gas tax and anticipated Measure O revenue in the amount of approximately $6.25M. With this amount, the City can pave only one residential street project and a few alleyways identified in Phase 1. Should there be an opportunity to provide more funding, additional streets from Phase 1 may be included in this year’s project scope.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME

The Public Works and Transportation Committee approved 3-0 on March 12, 2024 to approve the staff recommendation and to forward the item to the City Council as a receive and file report.

Prepared by: Morgan Kessler, City Engineer

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Arterial Street Construction Projects Phase I & Phase II

2. Proposed Arterial Street Construction Projects Phase III, Phase IV and Phase V

3. Proposed Alley Construction Projects Phase I and Phase II

4. Proposed Alley Construction Projects Phase III, Phase IV and Phase V

5. Proposed Residential Street Construction Projects Phase I & Phase II

6. Proposed Residential Street Construction Projects Phase III, Phase IV and Phase V

7. Presentation

498
Response to Grand Jury Report - Prioritizing
Best Practice Street Maintenance
City Council
July 15, 2025
Michael L. Wolfe, P.E.

Director of Public Works
499
That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City Council, the City of Oxnard’s response to the 2024-2025 Ventura County Grand Jury Report - Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance.

RECOMMENDATION 2
500
• 2024-2025 Ventura County Grand Jury Report - Prioritizing Best Practice Street Maintenance (“Report”)
• Received on June 4, 2025; Response Due 90 days after
receipt (9/2)
• Report claims the Grand Jury received complaints about roadway conditions in several cities in Ventura County
• Grand Jury elected to only investigate the cities of: Camarillo, Oxnard, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Ventura
BACKGROUND 3
501
Grand Jury Findings & Recommendations:
• F-01: Oxnard does not maintain its streets in a best practice condition resulting in costlier deferred maintenance on streets and a hidden cost on residents due to extra vehicle wear (same for SP, SV, and Ventura)
• F-06: Oxnard, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, would make effective use of the funds allocated for street maintenance (same for all cities reviewed)
• R-02: Recommend setting a goal to achieve best practice pavement conditions within 10 years and create a plan to accomplish that goal by December 2025
BACKGROUND 4
502
Key item in Report:

DISCUSSION 5
503
Report “conclusion” (over simplistic and flawed):

DISCUSSION 6
504
• Agreement: Preventative maintenance is more cost-effective than corrective maintenance
• Disagreement: PCI > 80 as sole best-practice metric is flawed • PCI is one of several tools for pavement management; not a standalone standard
DISCUSSION 7
505
• Licensed Civil Engineers apply maintenance treatments based many factors such as:
• Street-specific distresses
• Core sampling
• Pavement material evaluations
• Preventative treatment effective on PCI < 80
• Report implies slurry/chip/cape seals only apply to PCI > 80 • This is technically inaccurate and not supported by
engineering-based decision making
DISCUSSION 8
506
• April 2024: Staff presented Citywide Pavement Management Program Overview and 5-phase pavement plan to Council
• Based on comprehensive strategy, not arbitrary PCI
benchmark
• Goal: At least PCI of 70 (“Good” condition) citywide
• Future maintenance ratio goal for CIP projects:
• 75% Preventative
• 25% Corrective
DISCUSSION 9
507
From Public Works’ April 2024 Staff Report:

DISCUSSION 10
508
City’s Response:
• F-01: Oxnard does not maintain its streets in a best
practice condition - do not agree
• F-06: Oxnard, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, would make effective use of the funds allocated for street maintenance - agree
• R-02: Recommend setting a goal to achieve best practice pavement conditions within 10 years and create a plan to accomplish that goal by December 2025 - goal already
restated in April 2024 Staff Report
DISCUSSION 11
509
• Staff unable to replicate financial figures used in Report • Since FY 21/22 (post-Measure E):
• $96.6M in street paving CIP projects
• $27.5M in Streets Maintenance operations
• PCI improvement:
• 2018: PCI 63
• 2024: PCI 67
• More details in staff report and attached Response
DISCUSSION 12
510
There are no fiscal impacts with the recommended action items in this staff report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT 13
511

QUESTIONS
14 512

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. M.3

DATE: July 15, 2025

TO: City Council

FROM: Stephen Fischer, City Attorney, (805) 385-7483, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Prohibition of Nitrous Oxide Ordinance. (10 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council approve the first reading by title only and waive further reading of the proposed ordinance titled:

“ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, ADDING ARTICLE XXVII TO CHAPTER 7 TO THE OXNARD CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE PROHIBITION OF NITROUS OXIDE.”

(The Community Services, Public Safety, Housing & Development Committee approved 3-0 on June 24, 2025.)

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/C2gN_LLcl18

BACKGROUND

Nitrous Oxide is an odorless, colorless chemical that can be inhaled for legitimate purposes associated with medical or dental procedures in a clinical setting, and is legitimately used for industrial purposes and as a propellant for food products. While nitrous oxide has legitimate purposes in certain professional and controlled settings, the improper inhaling or ingesting as an intoxicant causes serious harm to those who misuse it recreationally. Nitrous Oxide is subject to recreational misuse and abuse, in part, because it is easy to purchase from retail vendors and relatively inexpensive.

Access by those who improperly abuse Nitrous Oxide for recreational purposes can cause short-term dangers through intoxicating the brain, such as illogical thinking or irrational behaviors, permanent vitamin deficiencies in the blood, as well as causing long-term physical, neurological, and psychological damage, including paralysis and death in severe cases. This serious and growing problem of the abuse of nitrous oxide causes lasting negative impacts on individuals, their families, and our local communities.

The incidence of Nitrous Oxide recreational misuse and abuse has been on the rise both within the City and internationally over the past decade, with multiple medical studies noting significant increases in recreational misuse in the past five years, as well as a broader medical understanding of the long-term hematological and neurological impacts of Nitrous Oxide misuse and abuse. Nitrous Oxide recreational misuse and abuse has been associated with multiple traffic incidents and criminal incidents throughout the City in the past several years.

Penal Code section 381b specifically makes the following a misdemeanor: (1) possessing nitrous oxide, or any substance containing nitrous oxide, for the purpose of intoxication or (2) being under the influence of nitrous oxide or any material containing nitrous oxide. Within the past twenty-four months, the Oxnard Police 513
Department has issued 35 citations for violations of Penal Code section 381(b). Additionally, a citation for a violation of Penal Code section 381e was issued to one smoke shop for failing to record sales transactions for Nitrous Oxide as required under the Penal Code.

However, Penal Code section 381b does not prevent the sale of nitrous oxide; rather, it criminalizes the abuse of Nitrous Oxide. Currently, the City seeks to regulate the sale of Nitrous Oxide and finds and declares that, in the absence of City regulations, Nitrous Oxide creates a significant risk to the public through the sale of Nitrous Oxide to individuals who intend to misuse or abuse the product. The City desires to regulate the sale of Nitrous Oxide in order to preserve and protect the community from individuals that use the products for illegal purposes. This proposed Ordinance specifically prohibits the sale or distribution of regular and flavored nitrous oxide. The Ordinance was drafted to ensure there is no confusion that flavored nitrous oxide is also prohibited.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This agenda item supports the Quality of Life strategy. The purpose of the Quality of Life strategy is to restore and increase quality services and programs that enrich Oxnard's diverse community, promotes safe neighborhoods, encourages community engagement, and supports our residents in their efforts to improve their quality of life.

This agenda item supports Public Safety strategy. The purpose of the Public Safety strategy is to restore and modernize the delivery of public safety services to provide for the safety of our neighborhoods and health of our community.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME

The Community Services, Public Safety, Housing & Development Committee approved 3-0 on June 24, 2025, to approve the staff recommendation and to forward the item for Council approval.

Prepared by: Michelle McCarron, Assistant City Attorney, Andrew Gonzalez, Deputy City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS

1. Nitrous Oxide Ordinance

2. Proposed Prohibition of Nitrous Oxide Ordinance Presentation Council

514

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD
ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, ADDING ARTICLE XXVII TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE OXNARD CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE

REGULATION OF NITROUS OXIDE
WHEREAS, Nitrous Oxide is an odorless, colorless chemical that can be inhaled for legitimate purposes associated with medical or dental procedures in a clinical setting, and is legitimately used for industrial purposes and as a propellant for food products; and WHEREAS, Nitrous Oxide is also subject to recreational misuse and abuse, in part, because it is easy to purchase from retail vendors and relatively inexpensive; and WHEREAS, Penal Code section 381b specifically makes the following a misdemeanor: (1) possessing nitrous oxide, or any substance containing nitrous oxide for the purpose of intoxication or (2) being under the influence of nitrous oxide or any material containing nitrous oxide. However, Penal Code section 381b does not prevent the possession of nitrous oxide in general; and
WHEREAS, the recreational misuse and abuse of Nitrous Oxide can cause permanent vitamin deficiencies in the blood, and can cause long-term neurological effects, including paralysis and death; and
WHEREAS, the incidence of Nitrous Oxide recreational misuse and abuse has been on the rise both within the City and internationally over the past decade, with multiple medical studies noting significant increases in recreational misuse in the past five years, as well as a broader medical understanding of the long-term hematological and neurological impacts of Nitrous Oxide misuse and abuse; and
WHEREAS, Nitrous Oxide recreational misuse and abuse has been associated with multiple traffic incidents and criminal incidents throughout the City in the past several years; and WHEREAS, the City does not currently regulate the sale of Nitrous Oxide and finds and declares that in the absence of local regulation, Nitrous Oxide remains subject to significant risk of misuse and abuse through sale to individuals who intend to misuse or abuse the product; and WHEREAS, the City desires to regulate the sale of Nitrous Oxide in order to preserve and protect public health and to dissuade sellers of Nitrous Oxide products from selling to individuals which they know or have reason to know intend to use the products for illegal purposes (i.e., recreational ingestion and/or inhalation).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
515
Part 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The findings and determinations reflected above are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein as the cause and foundation for the action taken by and through this Ordinance.

Part 2. Codified Amendment. The City Clerk is directed to request that the publisher of the City Code add thereto the amendments listed in Part 3 of this Ordinance to Chapter 7, Article XXVII and sections 7-370 through 7-375 as set forth below.

Part 3. Article XXVII sections 7-370 through 7-375 are hereby added to Chapter 7 of the Oxnard City Code to read as follows:
“ARTICLE XXVII. REGULATION OF NITRIOUS OXIDE
Sec. 7-370 Authority and Purpose
This article is enacted to protect the public safety, health and welfare by eliminating retail access for recreational use of nitrous oxide which is a dangerous gas that is illicitly used as an intoxicant.

Sec. 7-371 Definitions
For purposes of this article, the following definitions apply. (A) "Device" means any cartridge, compressed gas cylinder, apparatus, container, balloon, attachment, nozzle, or other object used to contain, dispense or administer nitrous oxide. (B) "Nitrous oxide" means the colorless nonflammable gas sometimes identified as N2O, which is sometimes used in aerosols and sometimes used as an anesthetic, and which, when inhaled, produces loss of sensibility to pain, often preceded by exhilaration and laughter and often used as an anesthetic in dentistry. Nitrous oxide is often informally or colloquially referred to as "laughing gas," "NOX," "galaxy gas," "whippits," amongst others. (C) "Person" means any individual or legal entity however constituted or organized. (D) "Wholesale capacity" means sale of or distribution of nitrous oxide or a device to dispense nitrous oxide to a person that will use nitrous oxide or the device in service or products for resale. Examples include, but are not limited to, commercial sale of dentistry supplies to dentists or dentistry offices, commercial sale of devices for the use in food production or in a commercial kitchen, and/or commercial sale of nitrous oxide for the purpose of producing food products for commercial sale (e.g., whipped cream canisters). (E) “Flavored Nitrous Oxide” means any nitrous oxide product that contains a taste or smell, other than the taste or smell of nitrous oxide, that is distinguishable by an ordinary consumer either prior to, or during the consumption of, a nitrous oxide product, including, but not limited to, any taste or smell relating to fruit, menthol, mint, wintergreen, chocolate, cocoa, vanilla, honey, or any candy, dessert, alcoholic beverage, herb, or spice. A public statement or claim, whether express or implied, made or disseminated by the manufacturer of a nitrous oxide product, or by any person authorized or permitted by the manufacturer to make or disseminate public statements concerning such products, that a product has or produces a taste or smell other than a taste or smell of nitrous oxide will constitute presumptive evidence that the product is a flavored product.
516
Sec. 7-372 Prohibition on Sale or Distribution of Nitrous Oxide Except as otherwise authorized by law or allowed under this article, it is unlawful for any person to sell, attempt to sell, offer, distribute or otherwise provide to any person nitrous oxide, a device to dispense or administer nitrous oxide, or any device that contains any quantity of nitrous oxide.

Sec. 7-373 Prohibition on Sale or Distribution of Flavored Nitrous Oxide Except as otherwise authorized by law or allowed under this article, it is unlawful for any person to sell, attempt to sell, offer, distribute or otherwise provide to any person flavored nitrous oxide, a device to dispense or administer flavored nitrous oxide, or any device that contains any quantity of flavored nitrous oxide.

Sec. 7-374 Exceptions to Prohibition
This article does not apply to the sale, attempt to sell, distribution, or other manner of providing nitrous oxide, or a device containing nitrous oxide, in the following circumstances:
(A) If the nitrous oxide is contained in a food product for use as a propellant. (B) If the nitrous oxide or device is being sold, attempted to be sold, offered, or distributed in a wholesale capacity, for uses similar to those described in subsection (D) of section 7-371. This exemption only applies if the wholesaler does not know or have reason to know that the recipient intends to use the nitrous oxide or device in violation of sections 7-372 or 7-373. (C) If the nitrous oxide or device that is being sold, attempted to be sold, offered, or distributed is specifically designed for use in a vehicle to enhance the performance of the vehicle. (D) If the nitrous oxide is being sold, attempted to be sold, offered, or distributed specifically for the purpose of providing medical or dental care, by or at the direction and under the supervision of, a medical or dental practitioner licensed by the State of California and in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations.
(E) If the nitrous oxide or device is being sold, attempted to be sold, offered, distributed, or dispensed by a pharmacist, pharmacist intern, or pharmacy as defined by California Business & Professions Code §§ 4030, 4036, and 4037, as may be amended, in the course of their duties as a pharmacist or pharmacist intern, or wholesalers licensed by the Board of Pharmacy. (F) Or any other circumstances exempted under law.

Sec. 7-375 Violations and Penalties
Any person who violates this Article is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof may be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of not more than six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. This section shall not serve to limit any other legal remedies or actions that the City may have to address violations of this Article. A violation of sections 7-372 or 7-373 is grounds for a revocation of a business license, pursuant to section 11-25(A) of the Oxnard City Code.”
Part 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 517
Part 5. The City Council exercises its independent judgment and made findings herein above, that this ordinance is not subject to CEQA, because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that will have a significant effect on the environment. There is no possibility that the passage of this ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA.

Part 6. Pursuant to Government. Code Section 36933(c)(1), the City Attorney was designated to prepare, and the City Clerk published a summary of this ordinance, and a certified copy of the ordinance was posted in the Office of the City Clerk a minimum of five days before the City Council’s adoption of the ordinance.

Part 7. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of the adoption and shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. Ordinance No. _____ was first read on July 15, 2025, and finally adopted on July ____, 2025 to become effective thirty days thereafter.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of July, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Luis A. McArthur, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lourdes A. López, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Stephen M. Fischer, City Attorney
518

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OXNARD, CALIFORNIA,
ADDING ARTICLE XXVII TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE OXNARD CITY

CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF NITROUS OXIDE
Andrew Gonzalez, Deputy City Attorney
City Attorney Office
City Council
07/15/2025
519
Recommendation
2 That the City Council review and approve the first reading by title only and waive further reading of the proposed ordinance titled:
“ORDINANCE  OF THE CITY OF OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, ADDING
ARTICLE XXVII TO CHAPTER 7 TO THE OXNARD CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO THE PROHIBITION OF NITROUS OXIDE.”
520
Background
• Nitrous Oxide is an odorless, colorless chemical that can be inhaled for legitimate purposes associated with medical or dental procedures in a clinical setting, and is legitimately used for industrial purposes and as a propellant for food products.

While nitrous oxide has legitimate purposes in certain professional and controlled settings, the improper inhaling or ingesting as an intoxicant causes serious harm to those who misuse it recreationally.  Nitrous Oxide is subject to recreational misuse and abuse, in part, because it is easy to purchase from retail vendors and relatively inexpensive.
3 521
Background
• Access by those who improperly abuse Nitrous Oxide for recreational purposes can cause short-term dangers through intoxicating the brain, such as illogical thinking or irrational behaviors, permanent vitamin deficiencies in the blood, as well as causing long-term physical, neurological, and psychological damage, including paralysis and death in severe cases.  This serious and growing problem of the abuse of nitrous oxide causes lasting negative impacts on individuals, their families, and our local communities. 4 522
Background
• The incidence of Nitrous Oxide recreational misuse and abuse has been on the rise both within the City and internationally over the past decade, with multiple medical studies noting significant increases in recreational misuse in the past five years, as well as a broader medical understanding of the long-term hematological and neurological impacts of Nitrous Oxide misuse and abuse.  Nitrous Oxide recreational misuse and abuse has been associated with multiple traffic incidents and criminal incidents throughout the City in the past several years.  Penal Code section 381(b) specifically makes the following a misdemeanor: (1) possessing nitrous oxide, or any substance containing nitrous oxide, for the purpose of intoxication or (2) being under the influence of nitrous oxide or any material containing nitrous oxide.
5 523
Background
• However, Penal Code section 381(b) does not prevent the possession of nitrous oxide in general.  The City does not currently regulate the sale of Nitrous Oxide and finds and declares that in the absence of local regulation, Nitrous Oxide remains subject to significant risk of misuse and abuse through sale to individuals who intend to misuse or abuse the product.  The City desires to regulate the sale of Nitrous Oxide in order to preserve and protect public health and to dissuade sellers of Nitrous Oxide products from selling to individuals who they know or have reason to know intend to use the products for illegal purposes (i.e., recreational ingestion and/or inhalation).
6 524
QUESTIONS?
525

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. M.4

DATE: July 15, 2025

TO: City Council

FROM: Stephen Fischer, City Attorney, (805) 385-7483, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Disposal of Confiscated, Impounded And Unclaimed Property Ordinance. (10 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council approve the first reading by title only and waive further reading of the proposed ordinance titled:
“ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 7

OF THE OXNARD CITY CODE REGARDING DISPOSAL OF CONFISCATED, IMPOUNDED AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY.”

(The Community Services, Public Safety, Housing & Development Committee approved 3-0 on June 24, 2025.)

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/7Qu6LnISllE

BACKGROUND

Senate Bill 946 (“SB 946”), which took effect in 2019, and Senate Bill 972 (“SB 972”), which took effect in 2023, allows sidewalk vending to occur on public sidewalks and within parks and precludes cities from regulating such vendors, except for specific circumstances. Cities may adopt local regulations pertaining to time, place, and manner restrictions that directly relate to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns, but may not prohibit sidewalk vending activities.

As such, in 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2952, which created Section 8-47 of the Oxnard Municipal Code to establish certain regulations for sidewalk and street vendors. Although the City Council adopted Ordinance 2952, SB 946 and SB 972 together only allow Oxnard Code Compliance to issue administrative citations to unpermitted food vendors within the City because SB 946 and SB 972 prevent the City from handling vendor-related violations as misdemeanor or infraction offenses. Additionally, as a result of SB 946 and SB 972, there are little to no consequences if an individual simply ignores the previously mentioned administrative citation or refuses to provide identification.

To mitigate the public safety risks of unpermitted food vendor operations, in January 2024, the City launched the Operation HERO (Hazard Elimination and Reduction Operation) Program, which brings together staff from Oxnard Fire, Police, and Code Compliance to conduct after-hours enforcement activities under the authority of the California Fire Code. The program focuses on identifying, citing, and removing unpermitted vendors that pose fire or other safety hazards, all while remaining compliant with SB 946 and 972. Created with the approval of the City Attorney’s Office, the HERO program addresses these safety hazards while also providing education and guidance to vendors on how to secure the necessary permits for lawful operation. 526
The HERO program is deployed an average of five times per month, with activities scheduled on varied nights to ensure effective coverage. These operations are carefully balanced with other public safety responsibilities.

For example, around the Fourth of July, resources are temporarily shifted from the HERO program to concentrate on fireworks enforcement. Once that period ends, resources are redirected back to HERO. As a result of the HERO enforcement program, after educating and advisements on initial contact, the Fire Department impounds propane tanks used for gas grills on the second Fire Code violation and propane tanks, hoses, open flame grills, gas-powered generators, and other hazardous items on the third and fourth Fire Code violations.

The following are some examples of the incidents that Operation HERO has encountered caused by improper placement, use, storage, and handling of propane and open flame ranges when dealing with unpermitted food vendors within the City:

On March 29, 2022, a taco van caught on fire, causing propane tanks to explode and rip through the roof and sides of the van. SB 101 Freeway shut down on the Conejo Grade for two hours.

On June 26, 2022, an unpermitted food vendor’s propane tank exploded and injured two people. One victim who was critically injured was sent to the Grossman Burn Center in Los Angeles, and the other was sent to St.

John's Regional Medical Center in Oxnard.

On November 29, 2023, a customer of an unpermitted food vending operation was struck and killed by a hit- and-run driver as he was crossing Hueneme Road at Perkins Road.

On March 22, 2024, a drunk driver collided with an unpermitted food vendor stand on a sidewalk near the Channel Islands Boulevard bus stop at the Centerpoint Mall, just West of Saviers Road. The Oxnard Police Department (“OPD”) responded, and the driver was arrested for a DUI, and two were injured.

On January 4, 2025, there was a traffic Collision involving a food vendor: a vehicle failed to stop at a red light and collided with several patrons outside of Ruby's Cafe at 348 South Oxnard Boulevard. The vehicle collided with a hot dog cart and careened into a tree. A total of three pedestrians, including the hot dog vendor and one of the vehicle occupants, were injured and transported to VCMC and Los Robles hospitals with minor to moderate injuries.

On March 26, 2025, an unpermitted food stand vendor was struck by debris from a train vs. semi truck collision at Rice Avenue and Fifth Street. The vendor was taken to an area hospital in critical condition. Officials said while severe, her injuries are not considered life-threatening.

Additionally, over the last several years, there have been numerous reports to Ventura County Environmental Health of our Oxnard residents being sickened with foodborne illnesses. This is directly related to the unsafe and unhygienic food preparation associated with these unpermitted food operations.

In fiscal year 2024 - 2025 HERO enforcement efforts resulted in the removal of the following items:
32 gas-powered generators,
53 open flame grills removed,
111 propane bottles impounded,
89 civil citations have been issued.

Since the coordinated education and enforcement efforts began in January 2024, the HERO program has resulted in: 78 night inspections, 162 civil citations, removal of 126 gas and charcoal open flame grills from public sidewalks, removal of 259 propane bottles, 80 gas-powered generators and the reduction of unpermitted food vendor operations from 35 to 3-4 on any given evening.

Currently, items impounded as hazards under the City of Oxnard Fire Code are held for safekeeping for sixty (60) days or until reclaimed by the owner under California Civil Code Section 2080.10. Additionally, under 527
state law, if impounded items remain unclaimed after sixty (60) days, the City may dispose of these items to the City’s benefit. However, the Oxnard City Code does not provide a procedure for disposing of impounded, confiscated, and unclaimed property. The proposed additions of sections 7-65 and 7-66 will provide a procedure for both the removal and disposal of impounded, confiscated, and unclaimed property.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This agenda item supports the Quality of Life strategy. The purpose of the Quality of Life strategy is to restore and increase quality services and programs that enrich Oxnard's diverse community, promotes safe neighborhoods, encourages community engagement, and supports our residents in their efforts to improve their quality of life.

This agenda item supports Public Safety strategy. The purpose of the Public Safety strategy is to restore and modernize the delivery of public safety services to provide for the safety of our neighborhoods and health of our community.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The financial impact is unknown. However, it is estimated that minor costs may be incurred in relation to storage and disposal of hazardous items.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME

The Community Services, Public Safety, Housing & Development Committee approved 3-0 on June 24, 2025, to approve the staff recommendation and to forward the item for Council approval.

Prepared by: Michelle McCarron, Assistant City Attorney, Andrew Gonzalez, Deputy City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance - Disposal of Impounded Personal Property

2. Presentation

528

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD
ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD, AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 7 OF THE OXNARD CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE

DISPOSAL OF CONFISCATED, IMPOUNDED AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Oxnard Fire Department has responded to numerous burn incidents caused by improper placement, use, storage and handling of propane and open flame ranges; and WHEREAS, the Oxnard Fire Department has cited unpermitted food vendors within the City for such burn incidents pursuant to the City of Oxnard Fire Code and California Health and Safety Regulation violations; and
WHEREAS, on the second violation the Oxnard Fire Department has impounded five-gallon propane tanks used for gas grills and, on the third and fourth violations, impounded grills, gas- powered generators, and other items; and
WHEREAS, items impounded as hazards under the City of Oxnard Fire Code are held for safekeeping for sixty (60) days or until reclaimed by the owner under California Civil Code Section 2080.10; and
WHEREAS, under state law, if impounded items remain unclaimed after sixty (60) days the City may dispose of these items to the City’s benefit; and
WHEREAS, the Oxnard City Code does not provide a procedure for disposing of impounded, confiscated and unclaimed property and desires to create such.

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

Part 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The findings and determinations reflected above are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein as the cause and foundation for the action taken by and through this Ordinance.

Part 2. Codified Amendment. The City Clerk is directed to request that the publisher of the City Code add thereto the amendments listed in Part 3 and 4 of this Ordinance to Chapter 7, Article III as set forth below.

Part 3. The title of Article III of Chapter 7 is amended to read as follows:
“ARTICLE III. CIVIL FINES AND PROPERTY DISPOSAL”
Part 4. Sections 7-65 through 7-66 are hereby added to Article III to read as follows:
529
“SEC. 7-65. DISPOSAL OF CONFISCATED, IMPOUNDED AND UNCLAIMED

PROPERTY
When the city confiscates, impounds or takes possession of property as a result of an enforcement action pursuant to the city code, the city will follow the notification, storage, documentation, and disposition procedure outlined below in accordance with Section 2080.10 of the California Civil Code.

SEC. 7-66. REMOVAL PROCEDURE
(A)Notice of Removal. At the time of removal of any confiscated property, any city enforcement personnel or officer (Fire, Police or Code Compliance) shall provide the individual from whom property is being taken or otherwise asserts ownership, or control of the property, with a notice of removal that includes instructions and timeframes of the retrieval of the property. The notice shall advise the individual of the right to appeal the removal of the property with fourteen (14) calendar days of removal.
(1) If the owner or other person in possession or control of the property leaves the scene or otherwise refuses to accept the notice, the city enforcement personnel or officer shall mail the notice via first class mail to the person from whom the property was removed or who otherwise asserts possession and control of the items within twenty-four (24) hours of removal, if the person provided his or her name and contact information to the city enforcement personnel or officer off. (2) If the city enforcement personnel or officer is not provided with the owner contact information to deliver or mail the notice, then the property shall be held by the City for 60 days and then disposed of in accordance with State Law and this Section. (B)Inventory. The enforcement official shall document the following information (as applicable):
(1) The time period when the city enforcement personnel or officer observed sidewalk vending items;
(2) The location where the Sidewalk Vending Items were located prior to removal; (3) Any reasonable attempt to locate the owner of the Sidewalk Vending Items – including any person’s refusal to provide identification;
(4) The circumstances that support the city enforcement personnel or officer’s determination of the grounds or bases for removal – including the vendor’s failure to comply with a city enforcement personnel or officer’s instructions to remove the Sidewalk Vending Items from the sidewalk, park, or other public right-of-way;
(5) The date and time of removal of the Items;
(6) An inventory with a complete description of Sidewalk Vending Items removed – including any items that were disposed of pursuant to Subsection 7-66(C) hereinbelow. The inventory should also state the basis for disposing of any removed Item. (i) If, based upon a totality of the circumstances, the Enforcement Official cannot complete an inventory of each Item being removed at the time of removal due to safety concerns, the Enforcement Official may relocate the Sidewalk Vending Items to a safe location and complete the inventory and description of Items thereat. No Item shall be disposed of prior to completion of the inventory of that Item.
(C)Storage or Disposal of Removed Sidewalk Vending Items. After storing the property for sixty (60) days, if the confiscated or impounded property remains unclaimed the City will dispose of the property as follows:
(1) The City Manager or his designee shall determine the disposition of the property as follows:
530
(a) Items which can be re-used will be disposed of as follows:
(i) Use by the city upon a determination by the city manager that the item offers a benefit to the public;
(ii) Donation of the item to a non-profit organization; or (iii) Sale of the item(s) through a public auction or bid process. (2) If the City does not retain the property, or it cannot be sold or donated, then the city will dispose of the property in the same manner as refuse, in accordance with any applicable state or local regulation.
(D) Proceeds from the sale of any items shall be deposited in the fund associated with the City Department responsible for storing and preserving the property. (E) In the event the owner of the property appears one (1) day before the date the property is sold or gifted to a nonprofit organization, provides satisfactory proof of ownership to reclaim the property, and reimburses the city for all expenses incurred in the care and preservation of the property, the property shall then be restored to the owner. An appeal is not required to reclaim removed items.
(F) As used in this section, “property” does not include animals or vehicles. (G) This section does not apply to:
(1) Unclaimed property that is perishable, soiled, contaminated, fouled, polluted or hazardous in nature, that has been determined by a Director to pose a health or safety risk to persons or the environment, may be destroyed as soon as possible through a certified and licensed Vendor or other city provider; or
(2) Lost or unclaimed property in the possession of the Oxnard Police Department.” (H) Appeal of Removal of Sidewalk Vending Items. Any person to whom a Notice of Removal was provided or other person asserting ownership of Sidewalk Vending Items removed by the City may contest/appeal the removal of Sidewalk Vending Items by filing a written Request for Appeal with the Community Development Department - Code Compliance Division within fourteen (14) calendar days of removal. Any Request for Appeal shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) The date and time the Items were removed by the City. (2) The location from which the Items were removed by the City. (3) A description of the confiscated items sought to be reclaimed by the owner. (4) If appellant is not the person to whom a Notice of Removal was issued, proof of ownership of the Items that were removed by the City.
(5) A brief statement explaining why the removal was improper in sufficient detail to enable the Hearing Officer to understand the nature of the controversy.

Part 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Part 6. The City Council exercises its independent judgment and made findings herein above, that this ordinance is not subject to CEQA, because the activity is covered by the general rule 531
that CEQA applies only to projects that will have a significant effect on the environment. There is no possibility that the passage of this ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA.

Part 7. Pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Section 36933(c)(1), the City Attorney was designated to prepare, and the City Clerk published, a summary of this ordinance, and a certified copy of the ordinance was posted in the Office of the City Clerk a minimum of five days before the City Council’s adoption of the ordinance.

Part 8. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of the adoption and shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. Ordinance No. _____ was first read on July 15, 2025, and finally adopted on July ___, 2025 to become effective thirty days thereafter.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of July, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Luis A. McArthur, Mayor
ATTEST:

Luly Lopez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Stephen M. Fischer, City Attorney
532

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
OXNARD, AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 7 OF THE
OXNARD CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE  DISPOSAL OF
CONFISCATED, IMPOUNDED AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
Andrew Gonzalez, Deputy City Attorney
City Attorney Office
City Council
07/15/2025
533
Recommendation
2 That the City Council review and approve the first reading by title only and waive further reading of the proposed ordinance titled:
“ORDINANCE  OF THE CITY OF OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 7 OF THE OXNARD CITY CODE
REGARDING DISPOSAL OF  CONFISCATED,  IMPOUNDED AND
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY.”
534
Background
• Senate Bill 946 (“SB 946”), which took effect in 2019, and Senate Bill 972 (“SB 972”), which took effect in 2023, allows sidewalk vending to occur on public sidewalks and within parks and precludes cities from regulating such vendors, except for specific circumstances.  Cities may adopt local regulations pertaining to time, place and manner restrictions that directly relate to objective health, safety or welfare concerns but may not prohibit sidewalk vending activities. 3 535
Background
• As such, in 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2952, which created Section 8-47 of the Oxnard Municipal Code to establish certain regulations for sidewalk and street vendors.  Although the City Council adopted Ordinance 2952, SB 946 and SB 972 together only allow Oxnard Code Compliance to issue administrative citations to unpermitted food vendors within the City because SB 946 and SB 972 prevents the City from handling vendor related violations as misdemeanor or infraction offenses.

Additionally, as a result of SB 946 and SB 972, there are little to no consequences if an individual simply ignores the previously mentioned administrative citation or refuses to provide identification.
4 536
Background
• The Oxnard Fire Department (“Fire Department”) has encountered burn incidents caused by improper placement, use, storage, and handling of propane and open flame ranges when dealing with unpermitted food vendors within the City.  As a result of SB 946 and SB 972, the Fire Department took charge of a Fire Code centered enforcement program and has cited unpermitted food vendors within the City pursuant to the City of Oxnard Fire Code and California Health and Safety Regulation violations.  As a result of the Fire Code centered enforcement program, the Fire Department impounds the following as hazards:
• On the second Fire Code violation, the Fire Department impounds five gallon propane tanks used for gas grills. • On the third and fourth Fire Code violation, the Fire Department impounds grills, gas-powered generators, and other items.
5 537
Background
• Currently, items impounded as hazards under the City of Oxnard Fire Code are held for safekeeping for sixty (60) days or until reclaimed by the owner under California Civil Code Section 2080.10.  Additionally, under state law, if impounded items remain unclaimed after sixty (60) days, the City may dispose of these items to the City’s benefit.  However, the Oxnard City Code does not provide a procedure for disposing of impounded, confiscated, and unclaimed property.  The proposed additions of sections 7-65 and 7-66 will provide a procedure for both the removal and disposal of impounded, confiscated, and unclaimed property.
6 538
QUESTIONS?
539

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. M.5

DATE: July 15, 2025

TO: City Council

FROM: Stephen Fischer, City Attorney, (805) 385-7483, [email protected]

SUBJECT: Regulation of Skateboard Parks. (10 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

That the City Council approve the first reading by title only and waive further reading of an ordinance titled:

"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD ADDING ARTICLE XXVIII TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE OXNARD CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF CITY SKATEBOARD PARKS."

(The Community Services, Public Safety, Housing & Development Committee approved 3-0 on June 24, 2025.)

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/irjdVfj6w-w

BACKGROUND

In anticipation of the new council-approved skatepark project in the La Colonia neighborhood, the City Attorney's Office drafted a proposed ordinance aimed at further enhancing public safety at skatepark facilities in Oxnard. This ordinance establishes a new Article in Chapter 7 of the Oxnard City Code. The purpose of the ordinance is twofold.

For the protection of persons utilizing skatepark facilities in Oxnard, especially young children, this ordinance requires, among other restrictions, that any person riding a skateboard or other wheeled recreational device at a facility or park owned or operated by the City to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads and requires the City to post signs stating that any person riding a skateboard or other wheeled recreational device at a facility or park owned or operated by the City must wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads. The proposed signage is intended to help inform the public on how to protect their children’s safety while enjoying the skatepark.

Moreover, existing law provides qualified immunity to public agencies and public employees for injuries suffered by individuals engaged in “hazardous recreational activities,” which the law identifies as an activity “that creates a substantial, as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant, risk of injury to a participant or a spectator,” such as rock climbing. (Gov.

Code Section 831.7.) Skateboarding at a facility or park owned or operated by a public entity is categorized as a hazardous recreational activity for which public agencies can receive qualified immunity, so long as (1) the person riding the skateboard (or other wheeled recreational device) was 12 years of age or older and engaged in a stunt, trick, or luge riding and (2) the public agency prohibited riding at the skate park unless that person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads. (Health and Safety Code § 115800).

540
A public agency can meet the second requirement at a facility not supervised regularly by: (1) adopting an ordinance that requires a person riding a skateboard to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads; and (2) posting signs giving reasonable notice about these safety requirements and warning persons that noncompliance will subject them to citation.

Accordingly, under this proposed ordinance:

1. No person may enter skatepark facilities outside the hours of operation;

2. Every person under the age of 12 years old using skatepark facilities in Oxnard must be supervised by a parent or guardian and shall wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads;

3. No person shall place, position, erect, or use any outside equipment, obstacles, ramps, rails, or other similar materials or devices at skatepark facilities;

4. No person shall operate any type of motorized vehicle, motorized scooter, e-bicycle, motorized bicycle, bicycle, or motorcycle on or about skatepark facilities;

5. Any person injured at skatepark facilities shall report the injury to City personnel and shall complete an injury report form; and

6. Any person who fails to comply with the regulations set forth will be subject to immediate eviction from skatepark facilities and/or citation and prosecution as an infraction.

These regulations will assist with the orderly operation of the City's skatepark facilities.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This agenda item is a routine operational item or does not relate to the five strategic priorities adopted by City Council on March 16, 2021.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME

The Community Services, Public Safety, Housing, and Development Committee approved the staff recommendation 3-0 on June 24, 2025, to forward the item for Council approval.

Prepared by: Michelle McCarron, Assistant City Attorney, Mira Saleh, Deputy City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS

1. Skateboard ordinance

2. Measure M powerpoint

541
ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
OXNARD ADDING ARTICLE XXVIII TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE

OXNARD CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF

CITY SKATEBOARD PARKS
WHEREAS, there is one operable Skateboard park facility in the City, and the City is in the process of constructing another Skateboard park larger in size and comprised of different features that are not available in the current skatepark and desires to create regulations pertaining to the orderly function of City owned Skateboard park facilities; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Chapter is to promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare by establishing rules and regulations for the use and enjoyment of City Skateboard parks, which are designed and maintained for recreational skateboard or similar device use; and
WHEREAS, riding a skateboard or other wheeled recreational device at a facility or park owned or operated by a public entity as a public skateboard park is deemed a hazardous recreational activity within the meaning of California Government Code Section 831.7 under certain conditions described in the California Health and Safety Code Section 115800; and WHEREAS, the City deems it necessary to enact rules and regulations for the City owned Skateboard parks.

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

Part 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The findings and determinations reflected above are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein as the cause and foundation for the action taken by and through this Ordinance.

Part 2. Codified Amendment. The City Clerk is directed to request that the publisher of the City Code add thereto the amendments listed in Part 3 of this Ordinance to Chapter 7, Article XXVIII and sections 7-376 through 7-380 as set forth below.

Part 3. Article XXVIII sections 7-376 through 7-380 are hereby added to Chapter 7 of the Oxnard City Code to read as follows:

ARTICLE XXVIII. CITY SKATEBOARD PARK REGULATIONS
Section 7-376 Purpose and intent.
542
The purpose of this Article is to acknowledge that riding a skateboard or other wheeled recreational device at any facility or park owned by a pubic entity as a public skateboard park is a hazardous recreational activity within the meaning of Government Code section 831.7, and to initiate regulations that comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 115800 by requiring all persons of any age riding a skateboard or other wheeled recreational device at City of Oxnard skateboard park to wear a helmet, elbow pads and knee pads and appropriate signage.

Section 7-377. Definitions.
(A) As used in this chapter:
“Director” means the Recreation and Community Services Director, the Recreation and Community Services Director’s designee, the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee.
“Eviction” means expulsion from the skatepark.
“Skate” or “skating” means to ride, operate, or use a skateboard, non-motorized scooter, wheelchair, rollerskates or in-line skates.
“Skateboard” means any platform of any composition or size to which two or more wheels are attached and which is intended to be ridden or propelled by one or more persons standing or kneeling upon it and to which there is not affixed to it any seat or any device or mechanism to turn and control the wheels.
“Skate area” means the paved surfaces, obstacles, and features of the skateboard park specifically designed for skating, including platforms, transitions, banks, bowls, hips, ledges, coping, decking, rails, flat bars, stairs, and adjacent concrete surfaces, but excluding the picnic tables, public restrooms, and pathways. “Skateboard park” means any City of Oxnard designated skateboarding facility as determined by the recreation and community services director, the recreation and community services director’s designee, the city manager, or the city manager’s designee.

Section 7-378. Skate rules and regulations.
(A) The following rules and regulations shall apply to skating in skateboard parks:

1. No person shall enter or be upon Skateboard parks at any time other than the established and posted hours of operation or at any time when the Director has closed the skateboard parks.

2. Every person under the age of 12 using skateboard parks must be supervised by a parent or guardian and shall wear a helmet, elbow pads and knee pads.

3. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 115800(b), all persons of any age riding a skateboard, scooter, wheelchair, roller skates or in-line skates at the skateboard park shall wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads. 543

4. The skateboard park is designed for use without the introduction of any outside obstacles, ramps, rails, or other similar materials or devices. No person shall place, position, erect, or use any outside equipment, obstacles, ramps, rails, or other similar materials or devices at skateboard parks.

5. No person shall use the Skatepark outside the hours of operation. Skatepark hours of operation shall be displayed on signage posted in accordance with Section 7- 379.

6. The Director or designee may, in his or her sole discretion, regulate the hours of operation at the Skateparks for specified groups of users or events. The City shall post such regulations or notice thereof, as required by this section, on appropriate signage at the Skateparks.

7. No person shall operate any type of motorized vehicle, motorized scooter, e- bicycle, motorized bicycle, bicycle or motorcycle on or about the Skateboard Park.

8. Any person who is injured at skateboard parks shall report the injury to City personnel and shall complete an injury report form.

Section 7-379. Notice–Posted signs.

Posted signs. Signs shall be posted in one or more conspicuous and visible area(s) at skateboard parks to afford reasonable notice of the provisions of this chapter, and that pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 115800, any person riding a skateboard, scooter, wheelchair, roller skates or inline skates at skateboard parks must wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads, and that any person failing to do so shall be subject to citation.

Section 7-380. Effect, enforcement, and penalties.
(A) The privilege of any person to use the skateparks is expressly conditioned upon compliance by that person or a parent or guardian of a person under 12 with the provisions of this chapter as they apply to such use. It is unlawful to violate the provisions of this Article and any violations will be subject to a citation or punishment in accordance with this Code for any person or parent or guardian of a minor 12 years or younger to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this chapter. (B) Eviction. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall subject the violator to immediate eviction from skateboard parks and/or citation and prosecution as an infraction.

Part 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 544
Part 5. The City Council exercises its independent judgment and made findings herein above, that this ordinance is not subject to CEQA, because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that will have a significant effect on the environment. There is no possibility that the passage of this ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA.

Part 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c)(l), the City Attorney was designated to prepare, and the City Clerk published, a summary of this ordinance, and a certified copy of the ordinance was posted in the Office of the City Clerk a minimum of five (5) days before the City Council's adoption of the ordinance.

Part 7. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) calendar days of the adoption and shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. Ordinance No. _____ was first read on July 15, 2025, finally adopted on July 29, 2025, to become effective thirty days thereafter.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of July, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Luis A. McArthur, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lourdes A. López, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Stephen M. Fischer, City Attorney
545

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
OXNARD ADDING ARTICLE XXVIII TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE

OXNARD CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF

CITY SKATEBOARD PARKS
Mira Saleh, Deputy City Attorney
City Attorney Office
City Council Meeting
07/15/2025
546
Recommendation
2 That the City Council introduce an ordinance by title only and waive further reading of an ordinance entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD ADDING ARTICLE XXVIII TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE OXNARD CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF CITY SKATEBOARD PARKS." 547
Purpose – Public Safety
In anticipation of the new council-approved skatepark project in Colonia, the City Attorney’s Office drafted a proposed ordinance aimed at further enhancing public safety in skatepark facilities in Oxnard.

This ordinance establishes a new Article in Chapter 7 of the Oxnard City Code, which pertains to regulations for skatepark facilities in Oxnard. 3 548
Purpose – Public Safety
For the protection of persons utilizing skatepark facilities in Oxnard, especially young children, this ordinance requires, among other restrictions, that any person riding a skateboard or other wheeled recreational device at a facility or park owned or operated by the City to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads and requires the City to post signs stating that any person riding a skateboard or other wheeled recreational device at a facility or park owned or operated by the City must wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads.
4 549
Legal Background
Existing law provides qualified immunity to public agencies and public employees for injuries suffered by individuals engaged in “hazardous recreational activities,” which the law identifies as an activity “that creates a substantial, as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant, risk of injury to a participant or a spectator,” such as rock climbing. (Gov. Code Section 831.7.)
5 550
Legal Background Continued
Skateboarding at a facility or park owned or operated by a public entity is categorized as a hazardous recreational activity for which public agencies can receive qualified immunity, so long as:

1. The person riding the skateboard (or other wheeled recreational device) was 12 years of age or older and engaged in a stunt, trick, or luge riding and

2. The public agency prohibited riding at the skate park unless that person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads. (Health and Safety Code § 115800). 6 551
Legal Background Continued
A public agency could meet the second requirement at a facility not supervised regularly by:

1. Adopting an ordinance that requires a person riding a skateboard to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads; and

2. Posting signs giving reasonable notice of these safety requirements and warning persons that noncompliance will subject them to citation This proposed ordinance establishes a new Article in Chapter 7 of the Oxnard City Code, pertaining to regulations for skatepark facilities in Oxnard, which include those requirements. 7 552
Proposed Skatepark Regulations
Under this proposed ordinance, the following regulations apply:
● No person shall enter Skatepark facilities outside of the hours of operation; ● Every person under the age of 12 using Skateparks must be supervised by a parent or guardian and shall wear a helmet, elbow pads and knee pads; ● No person shall place, position, erect, or use any outside equipment, obstacles, ramps, rails, or other similar materials or devices at skateboard parks; ● No person shall operate any type of motorized vehicle, motorized scooter, e-bicycle, motorized bicycle, bicycle or motorcycle on or about the Skateboard Park; ● Any person who is injured at Skateparks shall report the injury to City personnel and shall complete an injury report form; and
● Any person who fails to comply with the regulations set forth will be subject to immediate eviction from Skateparks and/or citation and prosecution as an infraction.

Furthermore, the City is required to post such regulations or notice thereof, as required by this section, on appropriate signage at the Skateparks.
8 553
QUESTIONS?
554