Moorpark and School Officials Still at Odds Over Real Estate Deals

MOORPARK — Short on cash, the school district has choreographed a creative series of steps to raise money--everything from building homes downtown to selling the district headquarters.

But this fancy financial footwork requires a partner--namely, City Hall. And the two bodies have never had what you would call an amicable relationship.

They’ve squabbled over land, fought each other in court and more often than not, maintained a frosty silence between them.

Now trying to work together, the two entities still find themselves at odds over details of some of the Moorpark Unified School District’s key projects. District officials worry that numerous city fees could squeeze the profitability out of a proposal to build homes on land next to the former high school. City officials say the district should pay the same fees and follow the same rules as any developer.

District Supt. Tom Duffy recently stopped payment on a $3,200 check to the city, which would have paid for development-related services he considers unnecessary. After discussing the issue with City Manager Steve Kueny, Duffy later paid the fee.

Some district trustees say such disagreements and miscommunications are inevitable when two governmental bodies first attempt to work together.

“We just haven’t had a working relationship, and I guess that’s a criticism of both sides,” said school Trustee Greg Barker. “We’re in the baby steps.”

And yet, any strain in the relationship can be a cause for worry. The district will finish the current fiscal year $409,429 in the red on its $32.6-million budget, and needs income from several proposed projects that will require the city’s help.

“Right now, if you only look at finances, the cooperation of the city is very important,” Trustee Clint Harper said. “Why pick a fight?”

To get an idea of how much hinges on that cooperation, consider a brief outline of the 6,875-student district’s money-making proposals.

* District officials hope to sell and develop about 15 acres of land next to the former high school on Casey Road. Under the proposal, 97 homes would be built, if the city approves. Profit to the district: probably about $2 million.

* The school district headquarters property, at Los Angeles and Flory avenues, may also be sold, possibly after being rezoned by the city to allow residences. Profit to the district has not yet been determined and could vary substantially, depending on the zoning.

* District officials have asked for $750,000 from the city’s Redevelopment Agency, money the agency has agreed to pay once the district sells a portion of the Casey Road property. The district wants the money sooner.

These steps won’t simply add money to the district’s general fund. They are needed to help pay for other, expensive projects already underway.

For example, money from the proposed housing development would help fund construction of a $6-million Walnut Canyon elementary school, which will soon be built on the grounds of the old high school. The district is paying for the project with a loan taken out last year, and will also receive about $3 million from the state.

Similarly, district officials wanted to use the Redevelopment Agency’s $750,000 for a down payment on a larger building that will one day serve as the district’s administrative headquarters. School board members voted in April to buy the building on Maureen Lane for $3.4 million and will now probably spend part of the elementary school loan on the down payment.

In each of these financial maneuvers, the city plays a role.

Perhaps nowhere is that more evident than in the housing project. The plan, drafted with the Braemar development company, would create a new neighborhood downtown at the western end of High Street and close to City Hall.

The homes would be built on the same piece of land that, years ago, prompted the most bruising fight yet between the school district and the city. Moorpark city officials sued the district for the right to buy the property at a discount and use it for a park. The case eventually went before the state Supreme Court in 1991, with justices ruling in the district’s favor.

To develop that land, however, the district must now seek the city’s approval. And approval of any housing project comes only after a rigorous, long and frequently expensive process.

District officials had hoped to trim some of the time and cost by sidestepping certain requirements and fees. But so far, Kueny, the city manager, has stood firm on most issues, saying that the district should face the same requirements as any developer.

Each fee, however, eats away at the district’s profits from the project. Harper said that if that profit margin falls too low, say, to $1 million or less, the district may have to postpone or abandon the effort.

“If it’s just $1 million [profit], then we’d have to look really hard at holding on to the property, realizing that in the future, it’ll probably be worth a lot more,” he said.

Although several City Council members have expressed interest in the district’s plan--saying it could help revitalize the city’s struggling downtown--Councilman Chris Evans said the city cannot set aside its requirements.

“Our job as a city is to make sure the school district maximizes its profit potential from this project, but the city can’t absorb all the costs and waive all the fees,” he said.

The district and city have also clashed over parts of the Walnut Canyon School construction project. School construction generally falls outside a city’s jurisdiction, with building plans approved by the state, not a local city council. But Kueny insists that state law requires city review and approval of grading plans at a school construction site.

In April, the city asked the district for $3,200 to pay an independent consultant to review the geological studies already performed on the project. Duffy sent the check, then stopped payment on it, arguing that the review was unnecessary and redundant.

That struck Trustee Harper as a needless provocation. Worse, he felt it would antagonize someone whose cooperation the district badly needed.

“Tom Duffy is an extremely competent superintendent--one of the best in the state, particularly on school-site construction--but he doesn’t know which fights to pick,” Harper said.

“I wasn’t attempting to antagonize,” Duffy said. “We had already had a [state] review done. . . . Why do we have to have two agencies review the same thing on a project?”

After a series of memos and conversations with Kueny, Duffy agreed to pay the fee.

In spite of such occasional skirmishes, both district and city officials say the relationship between the two entities is improving. They note that recent talks over the housing project have led to some progress, with each side finally getting a clear indication of what the other wants.

“We may not like the parameters they put on it, but as long as we know what those are, we will work within those parameters,” said Barker.