[0:13] like to call to order the city of Belvier finance committee meeting of

[0:16] Thursday, April 16th. Uh, Robert, can we have a roll call?

[0:22] » Yes. >> Cascal,

[0:25] » yes. >> John Wilton is absent. David Walker

[0:30] » present. >> Patrick Federer

[0:32] » here. >> Will Lion

[0:35] » present.

[0:39] » Sorry. And council member Mark >> uh here. Thank you.

[0:44] » And we also have our city manager Robert Sadnik and myself Helga Carter, director

[0:49] of administrative services. >> Okay. Um can we first have an open

[0:54] forum? There are no members in the audience. Robert, is anyone online?

[0:59] » Nobody online. >> Okay. So, next item will be to approve

[1:02] the minutes of our last meeting on January 22nd.

[1:06] Are there any comments or changes? And if not, can I have a motion to approve?

[1:11] » So move. >> Second.

[1:14] » Second. >> Okay. Roll call.

[1:18] » Chairman Cascal. >> Yes.

[1:20] » David Walker. >> Patrick Feder.

[1:24] » Yes. That passes unanimously.

[1:31] » He doesn't get to vote. So, yes. >> Uh, okay. Third agenda item, discussion

[1:39] and possible action regarding the semiannual review of the city's

[1:42] investments. Elga, >> thank you. Thank you, Chair McKascal and

[1:48] committee. In February of 24, the council approved a change to the city's

[1:53] investments, which involved transferring most of the city's fund balance from the

[1:57] local agency investment fund or Lif to Calrust. As part of the update,

[2:02] investment policy staff will provide investment information to the committee

[2:07] on a semianual basis. The Cal Trust funds earned over 460,000 in interest

[2:13] last fiscal year and have generated 350,000 through the first three quarters

[2:19] of this fiscal year. In July of 2024, with the approval of the finance

[2:24] committee chair, the remaining 150,000 in Lif was transferred to Calrust

[2:30] short-term fund to take advantage of a slightly higher interest rate, but was

[2:34] moved to the liquidity fund in January of 2025 to take advantage of an even

[2:41] slightly higher yield and a more stable net asset value. Only a small balance

[2:46] remains in leaf at this time. Mayor Wilkinson, committee member Will Lion,

[2:51] and I review the investments at the end of each quarter and recommend any

[2:55] changes to Chair McKascal for his approval per the investment policy.

[3:00] As of the end of the quarter, as of the quarter ending March 31st, 2026, we

[3:07] recommend maintaining the current Cal Trust allocation. The city fund balance

[3:11] is invested in the liquidity fund which continues to provide

[3:16] the highest return and maintains a stable net asset value in these

[3:20] uncertain times. And with that, staff are available for questions.

[3:28] » Okay, questions or comments?

[3:38] Well, you're our expert on this. I assume you've weighed in on this and uh

[3:44] Hugga tells me the recommendation is that we just keep it where it is. Is

[3:47] that correct? >> Yeah, that's right. Um I think the only

[3:52] thing that I would add is some of the other funds both at Cal

[3:58] Trust and at Leif have moved slightly above the liquidity fund yield. But

[4:07] what's unique about the liquidity fund is it's got that stable net asset value

[4:11] like a money market fund. So, you know, if interest rates pop up, we wouldn't

[4:16] have a any principal risk. Um I think what we're we've already kicked off is

[4:24] gathering uh additional information both from Lif um as well as from Cal Trust on

[4:30] the um on the Cal Trust funds that we don't own just to try to level set you

[4:36] know across our fund choices you know from a risk perspective

[4:41] um you know I think we've learned that LEF does in fact have um a stable

[4:47] principle of value which I I think is equivalent to a stable net asset value.

[4:51] So I think the point to the committee is we're going back and getting more

[4:56] information. Um you know and I think our approach to get you know much deeper

[5:00] information sort of on an annual basis uh makes good sense. Um and then we'll

[5:05] come back to this group with a recommendation because it may make sense

[5:09] to split out some assets to try to capture a little bit uh higher yield if

[5:15] the risks are the same. you know both in terms of um credit quality the

[5:20] underlying bonds as well as the uh stability of the principal. So expect

[5:25] more from us um after doing this deeper dive.

[5:30] » Okay, other questions or comments from the committee?

[5:35] Um and Robert, still no one on the public.

[5:39] Uh, all right. So, uh, the presumably the motion that needs to be made is one

[5:45] that no change to our current investment allocation. Is that correct, Helga?

[5:49] » Yes, that's correct. >> Can I have a motion and a second?

[5:54] » I'll make a motion to approve if I can vote.

[5:58] » I don't know. He you you can't vote, so I don't I'm not sure you can make a

[6:02] motion. >> It's true.

[6:04] » I don't think so. >> All right. So, move.

[6:06] » Is there a second? >> Second.

[6:08] » Okay. Roll call. >> McCascal.

[6:11] » Yes. >> Uh David Walker.

[6:13] » I. >> And Patrick Federer.

[6:15] » Yes. >> That passes unanimously.

[6:22] » Okay. Next item on the agenda is the uh review regarding the fiscal year 2627

[6:28] preliminary operating and capital budget review. Helga.

[6:52] So, thank you, Chair McKascal and committee. Before you today is a

[6:56] preliminary operating capital budget for fiscal year 2627.

[7:01] To begin with some revenue highlights, the general fund revenues are projected

[7:06] to increase by 10.2% or approximately 979,000.

[7:12] Property tax revenue remain the main driver with overall growth of 5.62%

[7:18] over the current year budget or about 439,000

[7:23] based on the most recent county estimates. Other property tax revenues

[7:27] are expected to remain flat while the fire tax revenue is projected to

[7:33] increase by approximately 3% pending final state data which comes out around

[7:39] May 1st. Development related fee revenues have increased due to the new

[7:44] user fee schedule that went into effect July 1st, 2025 and continued development

[7:50] activity, particularly largecale projects and increased encroachment and

[7:55] road closures. Despite a slight decline in permit volume, fees are projected to

[8:00] recover approximately 89% of the city's cost of service. The city council also

[8:06] approved a CPI based adjustment for the user fee schedule which will be

[8:11] effective July 1st, 2026. B performance in the first year has

[8:16] largely met the 92% cost recovery target. Therefore, no additional

[8:21] incremental revenue is assumed in the outer years. Consistent with best

[8:26] practice, no revenue increases were assumed in the first year of

[8:30] implementation and staff will continue to monitor cost recovery over time or

[8:36] trends over time as they may fluctuate with broader economic conditions.

[8:41] Onetime increase in building permit plan review and road impact fee revenue is

[8:48] anticipated in fiscal year 2728 from the Mard Point project based on the current

[8:54] timeline. Timing remains uncertain and staff will refine revenue projections as

[9:00] the project advances. No grant funding is included in the

[9:05] proposed budget at this time, though staff will continue to pursue

[9:08] opportunities through partner agencies. Overall revenue projections remain

[9:13] strong, but are intentionally conservative to support long-term fiscal

[9:18] stability amid the economic uncertainty.

[9:30] And now on the expenditure side from the general fund, fiscal year 2526 was the

[9:35] last year of a three-year contract with the city's represented and

[9:39] non-represented groups. The city is currently engaged in labor negotiations

[9:44] and anticipates reaching an agreement in the coming weeks. The fisc year 2627

[9:50] budget incorporates the results of a compensation study and a 2 and a.5% cost

[9:55] of living adjustment. A 3% salary increase has been assumed across the

[9:59] outer years. The fiscal year 2627 budget includes 235,000

[10:06] for a temporary police officer position over a three-year period to support

[10:11] operations during the police department evaluation.

[10:15] The budget includes 150,000 for implementing the housing element goals,

[10:19] programs, and policies along with funding for general legal costs and

[10:24] ongoing litigation. It also allocates 50,000 for the city's 2030 climate

[10:30] action plan. Expenditures related to the Malard Point project include 150,000 for

[10:36] a special project manager, 10,000 for relocation specialists, and 40,000

[10:42] 45,000 for city engineering services. These costs will be reimbursed in

[10:47] accordance with the agreement with the developer. Tibberon Fire is estimating a

[10:52] seven and a half% increase in our contract costs again this coming fiscal

[10:57] year due to increase in district expenditures related to station 10

[11:03] from the capital equipment fund. The budget includes 70,000 to replace an

[11:07] aging public works utility truck, 70,000 for a police handheld radar unit, and

[11:14] 13,500 for replacement of several staff computers, a server, and backup power

[11:20] systems. From the capital improvement fund, the budget includes the Beach Road

[11:26] stabilization project scheduled from June through October of 26 with a total

[11:31] cost of 4.97 million. Of this 4.68 million will be funded from the critical

[11:38] infrastructure reserve with 345,000 from other sources to close the gap. An

[11:46] estimated 2.48 million will roll over from fiscal year 2526 and the

[11:52] construction contract was approved by council on April 13th.

[11:57] The five-year CIP includes ongoing annual funding of 80,000 for lane

[12:02] improvements and 15,000 for vegetation management and fire fuel reductions.

[12:08] Key projects next year include Harry B. Allen stair repairs, community park

[12:13] restroom renovations, redrilling of the community parkwell, and police

[12:18] department improvements. The budget also includes 60,000 to complete the

[12:22] infrastructure assessment which will inform the fiscal year 2728 capital

[12:28] budget. Several projects are expected to be partially funded through partner

[12:32] agencies and private donations.

[12:37] And this brings us to uh another large part of the city's expenditures are

[12:43] staffing costs. Personnel costs are projected to increase in fiscal year

[12:48] 2627 over estimated actuals primarily due to staffing additions and

[12:53] compensation adjustments. Regular salaries are increasing by 21%

[12:59] approximately 535,000 driven by higher staffing levels with 21

[13:07] staff headcount in the proposed budget verse 18.4 4 actual headcount in fiscal

[13:12] year 2526 which is an increase of about 14% over

[13:17] estimated actuals. Implementation of the compens

[13:23] compensation study of 4% increase or 124,000

[13:28] and a 2 and a half% cola or about 75,000.

[13:33] Lower fiscal year 2526 staffing and expenditures reflect vacancies in police

[13:39] administration and public works during the current fiscal year. These positions

[13:44] have all been filled with administration position new hire starting April 28th.

[13:51] Health insurance costs are projected to rise by 22% reflecting a 9% increase in

[13:57] premiums as well as the addition of family rate coverage for the new police

[14:01] position. The city's unfunded acred liability contribution is increasing by

[14:07] 45% approximately 104,000 over the fiscal year 26 actuals

[14:14] consistent with fluctuations driven by Kalpers's investment performance,

[14:19] actuary assumptions and retiree experience.

[14:23] Other personnel costs are also increasing primarily due to the addition

[14:28] of 1.5 positions in the police department in co impacting costs such as

[14:34] holiday pay, shift differential, and education incentive.

[14:41] And this next slide highlights the city's required pensions related

[14:46] payments to Kalpers, including contributions toward the unfunded acred

[14:50] liability and payments associated with the pension obligation lease lease back

[14:55] debt. The fiscal year 2627 UL payment is based on the most recent Kalpers actuary

[15:03] valuation as of June 30th, 2024, which reflected an investment return of 9.3%.

[15:11] However, prior years continue to impact current and future contribution

[15:15] requirements, including a negative 6.1% return for the period ending June 30th,

[15:21] 222 and a 5.8% return for the period ending June 30th,

[15:27] 2023. Both of which fell below the Kalpers's

[15:31] assumed rate of 6.8%. And the impacts of the June 24 investment return impacts

[15:38] are reflected in the slight decrease in the UAL in year four and five. Again, UL

[15:44] costs may fluctuate annually based on investment performant changes in actuary

[15:49] assumptions and retiree experience. The pension related debt obligation will

[15:55] have a final payment of 123,000 in fiscal year 3132.

[16:01] We are also planning a review of the city's pension funding strategy for this

[16:06] coming December, including whether some section 115 assets should be transferred

[16:11] to Kalpers. This item will be discussed later on the agenda.

[16:18] This next slide shows the anticipated transfers from the general fund that are

[16:22] part of this budget. The fire is 1.42 million, pension 115 trust 300,000.

[16:29] pension related debt 237,000. The budget includes a $100,000 transfer

[16:36] to the insurance and legal reserve fund to cover ongoing uninsured legal expense

[16:41] with a reduction in the transfer amount reflecting an anticipated decrease in

[16:46] legal costs and bringing the fund to its minimal required balance. the capital

[16:51] improvement fund of 184,000 and the $75 transfer to the critical

[16:59] infrastructure reserve was budgeted in 2526 to support the beach road

[17:04] stabilization project. The fund will also be renamed the long-term capital

[17:08] planning fund and received 1.1 million to support future capital needs

[17:14] identified through upcoming infrastructure assessments. And finally,

[17:18] the equipment replacement fund transfer of 89,500.

[17:26] Brings us to a summary of the proposed budget. The budget anticipates total

[17:30] operating revenues of 11.86 million and total operating expenditures of 11.16

[17:36] million resulting in an operating surplus of just over 700,000.

[17:42] Capital revenues are estimated at 545,000

[17:45] while capital expenditures are projected to be 3.31 million leading to a capital

[17:51] fund deficit of 2.77 million primarily due to the 2.23 million in expenditure

[17:57] for the Beach Road stabilization project next year. In summary, revenues are

[18:03] projected at 12.41 million and expenditures at 14.48 million resulting

[18:09] in a 2.07 07 million deficit. This is primarily due to the one-time cost for

[18:15] the Beach Road stabilization project and largely funded by the critical

[18:19] infrastructure reserve. Following this one-time expense, the budget is expected

[18:24] to return to more typical operating levels.

[18:30] This slide shows projected fund balances as of June 30th, 2027. General fund

[18:35] begins fiscal year 2026

[18:40] at or 20 begins fiscal year 27 at 7.21 million above the reserve target and

[18:48] after planned transfers for fire capital pensions

[18:52] is projected to end the year at 5.63 million. The critical infrastructure

[18:58] reserve reflects a 2.49 49 million transfer out and a 705 transfer in,

[19:04] resulting in a remaining balance of 1.1 million. As mentioned previously, this

[19:10] fund will be renamed the long-term capital planning fund to support future

[19:14] capital needs identified through the infrastructure assessments. The budget,

[19:19] as submitted, anticipates returning to a more normal state following the city's

[19:25] allowing the city to replenish the newly renamed long-term capital planning fund

[19:29] to over 1.53 million by the end of the forecast period.

[19:36] And this brings us to the general fund reserve. The reserve policy is to

[19:41] maintain a reserve equal to 50% of the projected general fund expense plus fire

[19:47] transfer plus pension debt service. This budget incorporates the policy with the

[19:52] reserve goal at 50% of the fiscal year 2728 projected

[19:59] general fund expense plus fire transfer plus debt service which is 5.27 million.

[20:05] The projected general fund balance at the end of next fiscal year is 5.63

[20:11] million. The projected general fund balance is over the policy goal by

[20:16] 354,000 or 53%.

[20:21] And this slide shows the history of the general fund's actual ending fund

[20:25] balance, the fiscal year 2526 estimated general fund balance of 7.21

[20:31] million and shows the five-year projections. The green line reflects the

[20:36] council's reserve policy goal. And as you can see, the budget reflects that it

[20:40] does meet the reserve policy goal for the next five years.

[20:46] And in and in conclusion, a few highlights of the budget are the general

[20:51] fund reserve is met over the five-year forecast period. We continue with annual

[20:56] contributions to our 115 pension trust, contributions to the critical

[21:02] infrastructure reserve to fund the Beach Road stabilization construction project,

[21:07] and plans to replenish the fund in future years. The budget reflects a

[21:11] physical fiscally conservative approach that prioritizes maintaining staffing

[21:16] levels and support the city's operational needs.

[21:23] What are our next steps today? We're looking for your input, which we'll

[21:26] incorporate as we continue to refine the budget. We'll then bring the draft to

[21:31] the city council on May 11th for review and feedback and return on June 8th for

[21:36] adoption following the public hearing. And with that, I'd be happy to take any

[21:41] questions.

[21:47] David, since you had sent us a list of questions, do you want to start going

[21:52] through your questions?

[21:55] We'll >> get to step back just quickly. There was

[21:58] one comment on the investment

[22:03] made and that was on page two

[22:08] where it says under restricted investments in the middle of the first

[22:12] paragraph, these funds are not available. The on

[22:17] operating costs and restricted for pension costs.

[22:21] And correct me if I'm wrong, but I might write that sentence as these funds are

[22:27] restricted for pension costs. And the reason I would say that is

[22:32] because they can be used for operating costs in

[22:36] the sense of covering the current year's pension payments. And if you think about

[22:41] it, um, you know, we think something around 34

[22:47] of a million a year in pension costs 700,000

[22:52] something like that. And uh so if you had uh 3 million in this 115

[23:00] fund or three and a half million or something, you you could actually pay

[23:04] your pension operating costs for four or five years

[23:09] out of that fund. And that's sort of a secondary benefit. Um because we set

[23:17] that fund up to more fully fund the crude liability rather than the pushing

[23:24] current policy liabilities for future source

[23:30] but it also is that secondary benefit is quite tremendous and powerful. It's

[23:35] unlikely we would need to call on that but you just mentioned in the budget

[23:40] review we have this sort of secure balance

[23:44] this other 15 fund has residual secondary benefit of that

[23:50] same. So I think just for the record if we think of it as restricted for pension

[23:56] costs um that's probably appropriate.

[24:04] » Okay, we can make that change. Sally, where are you looking for? I'm I'm not

[24:09] seeing it. Page two of the memo

[24:13] » paragraph under restricted investments. >> It's really operational aspect,

[24:18] » right? >> It's restricted to pension costs.

[24:20] » Oh, sure. >> I think that gets lost. Again, it's not

[24:26] our primary purpose, but it's >> powerful reserve.

[24:32] » Okay. Next.

[24:36] » Well, I sent an email to you as the chair and

[24:41] » Oh, okay. >> Robert

[24:46] wants to just dive into that. >> Sure.

[24:55] » So, I can go through your questions. Um, >> you need to read read the question

[25:02] first, Helga, since the >> Oh,

[25:04] » full committee doesn't have the email. Um the first question was around

[25:09] planning and building and why there are kind of fluctuations in the outer years

[25:15] of the planning and building expenditures.

[25:18] Correct, David? >> Yeah. Recognizes

[25:22] um that we've got significant increase associated with Malard Point. Um goes up

[25:29] for a few years, then it comes down. Um but is questioning um

[25:38] when it comes back down uh does that fully u eliminate the malard point costs

[25:46] by the final year in the five-year budget?

[25:50] Um it asks about how these malard point

[25:55] costs the outside consultants are pretty obvious. Um but the um planning and

[26:03] building uh personnel and u benefit costs how those go up and how they come

[26:09] back down and and again are they fully down by year five

[26:14] and then it I don't know if I noted in that email but if you take the 2526

[26:23] expected actual for planning and building and compare that to the fifth

[26:29] year of the budget. Um it's a uh about a 59%

[26:37] increase or about 10% a year over that fiveyear period. So that's that's the

[26:43] sort of overall context. Um we recognize the Malard point aspect.

[26:48] I'm wondering about how that relates to the actual staffing personnel and

[26:53] benefit costs and the are those fully out by the final

[26:59] year and if they are we're still rolling on about a 10% annualized increase in

[27:05] that department. So, we're not anticipating any

[27:09] additional staff for the related to the malard in addition to the special

[27:17] consultants that we're hiring. So, our staffing positions, we're not planning

[27:22] to increase those related to the project. The part of the increase in

[27:28] those outer years is planning for the 2030 general plan update. I spread

[27:34] 660,000 over a three-year period in those outer

[27:39] years and then I backed it out. So that's what accounts for those

[27:44] fluctuations in those years. I didn't in this current in the upcoming budget

[27:51] the proposed budget I budgeted the 150 for the Mard project special

[27:58] um coordinator spec and so in speaking with

[28:03] our director of planning and building we do anticipate that that person will be

[28:09] on board for the project but Um,

[28:19] and depending on what applications are submitted next, it will determine what

[28:24] the comp consultants needs in what they need to oversee in the

[28:30] future. So we'll have a better idea of what that um consultant's activity will

[28:37] be in the outer years. But it the cost of the 150 is still within the budget

[28:43] over the five years. Hopefully that answers your question.

[28:48] » You're saying the 150 is annual for five years.

[28:54] » Yes. So, you have 750,000 in the five-year forecast for the uh

[29:01] » Yes. >> And

[29:04] » so that so that remains in that fifth year. I didn't see that, but I guess

[29:07] it's true. >> It does. I didn't back that out. The

[29:11] only thing I backed out was the cost for the general plan update. So, because

[29:17] that needs to be completed by 2030 >> and that's 660,000.

[29:23] » Yes. that's spread over three years >> and is that an outside or is that uh

[29:28] personnel benefits? >> Um it it'd be outside but the we just

[29:34] that's a kind of plug number for now because the scope and defining how that

[29:39] updates going to happen is still being worked out.

[29:46] So the um

[29:53] so none of the 660 is in the fifth year of the U budget.

[29:58] » Correct. So, if you backed out um 150,000 in the

[30:04] fifth year for the Malard Point coordinator,

[30:08] um that might be a number that would be somewhat comparable to the actual 2526

[30:16] estimated. I'm trying to just look for

[30:20] I wasn't cognizant of this $600,000 one, which we probably want to talk

[30:27] about a little bit. It's not a small number. Um but um

[30:32] I was looking at okay we've got this Malard point bump and trying to just get

[30:37] a trend from 25 26 actual which presumably is kind of

[30:44] a regular number pre that bump. And it sounds like um if none of that 660 is in

[30:53] the fifth year and only the 150 coordinator is that if you took 150 out

[30:59] of the fifth year projection, you could then compare that to 2526 and instead of

[31:04] being a 10% annual increase it would be I don't know what 8% or some number.

[31:13] » Yes, I I would agree with that. So um >> so I guess then the question would be um

[31:21] since we have these assumptions that are kind of like four and 5% assumptions um

[31:26] that um if I haven't done the math on that but

[31:32] 150 out of something is going to be that might lower it quite a bit actually.

[31:37] Huh? Yeah, David,

[31:40] » there's there's there's also a missing piece here is that and and and we talked

[31:44] about this yesterday is that we may want to

[31:48] account for special projects like Malor Points either on its own line or on a

[31:53] subline in some way because you've got which I think is high by the way through

[31:56] that five years 150 for each of those five years but nonetheless you've got

[32:00] that in there rolling over those years but we don't have it we don't have a um

[32:04] equivalent revenue structure attached to that

[32:06] » right >> at all we have I think $100,000 over a

[32:10] over a 18-month period. Um, and their fees arguably with it, road impact fees

[32:14] and everything else is upwards of a million dollars. So, we've been hesitant

[32:18] to um um uh plan for or project permit revenues without the permit in hand. I

[32:24] think we only have the 100,000 that um Rebecca feels comfortable with um to

[32:29] Helga, which is the current um demolition site work and city map

[32:33] potentially the building permit on the first phase one. uh but we've got the

[32:37] cost associated with it throughout the whole plan at full implementation. So

[32:41] that's a that's a miss I think a little bit. Um we might want to create a

[32:46] special project module that looks at both sides of it and layers onto it

[32:51] because I think David's right. It's it's skewing those numbers artificially. Um,

[32:55] and the the general plan will do that anyway, but you add on top those those

[32:59] contractor costs for a special project like Malard, it's going to skew it even

[33:04] more so than than it would otherwise do. So,

[33:06] » yeah, that's that's important and and thanks for covering that. I wasn't

[33:11] really looking at the revenue. I was just kind of assuming that there's

[33:15] revenue generated off the project of course and that somewhere in our uh

[33:21] excellent team and review that those revenues were being matched with the um

[33:28] coordinator and other costs. And so I was just trying to take

[33:32] » Yeah. >> and remove the whole bump. And so

[33:36] you said you'd tend to agree that if I took year five and pulled out 150,000, I

[33:42] could then compare that and I just did that and it reduces the five-year

[33:46] increase in planning and building from 59%

[33:50] to 47%. So it is close to that 8% um maybe it'd

[33:56] be 8 and a4%. So I guess then my question would be why is planning and

[34:02] building going up 8 and a4% per year when our underlying benefit assumptions

[34:08] and so forth or you know costs or colas are in the four to 5%.

[34:14] Does that make sense? >> Well so in the outer years we budgeted

[34:19] for 3% colas right >> and then we budgeted for expenditures to

[34:24] increase by 5%. So both those numbers are materially

[34:29] below the 8%.

[34:33] I'm I'm just taking year five planning and building which is um 2.11

[34:40] and I'm taking 150,000 out of that which gets you to nine whatever it was and

[34:48] dividing that by the expected current actual for 2526 which is 1.33

[34:55] and the difference is 47%. 1.3 1.777

[35:03] or 26 27 or 25 26 >> 25 26 I'm taking actual what we're doing

[35:10] today and comparing it to what we're

[35:13] projecting five years >> do you think rather than doing this on

[35:17] the fly would it be better for Helga to come back and do that analysis and

[35:20] » I guess I didn't write my email well and I sent it just yesterday so I'm I'm

[35:26] perfectly fine with that it's just Um I don't no that's fine.

[35:31] » I think there's a lot going on in that planning line general plan to things

[35:35] like that and maybe you got to pull it out so you can so you can see what what

[35:38] a normal business as usual um flow would look like to David's point and because

[35:42] that that should replicate more of an 80%.

[35:45] » Well if it is or or identify why it's at 8% and everything else would be lower

[35:48] than that. >> Well and and it might be that it's

[35:52] appropriate. It probably could be. I just don't I can't reconcile it in my

[35:57] mind. >> And those projected years

[36:00] take into account the change in compensation based on the

[36:06] comp study in the two and a half. And so that's then multiplied by the 3%

[36:13] each of the year two through five for salaries and benefits.

[36:19] » So it's five plus three over five years every year. So it's cumulative eight

[36:24] which makes sense to be somewhere in the 40%.

[36:27] » Right. >> Right. So when we look at the um

[36:35] the exhibit that shows uh I forget where it is that shows the um

[36:41] assumed uh increases the cola stuff. Where is it?

[36:49] Is that in your memo?

[36:53] thought it was. >> It is. It's in the

[36:57] » uh table six in the >> uh Yeah, I was looking at table 13 on

[37:05] page 12

[37:14] expenditure assumptions. >> Right. So the

[37:19] » because that actually leads to my other question that was in the email. So when

[37:22] we say salaries 333 um

[37:26] » that's cumulative. So, you know, it takes 2627's

[37:32] proposed budget salary and then multiplies that by 3% and then that new

[37:39] number is multiplied by understand that um the 8%

[37:45] um is the same way 8% each year cumulative. So, so that's highlighting

[37:53] my question. the 3% there and and obviously you've got fringe benefits at

[37:57] 4%. Um other costs at 5%. But none of those approach eight. So it

[38:04] sounds like there's a study that is um the compensation's actually going to go

[38:11] up more than 3%. Is that what's happening? Okay. So

[38:15] enlighten me please. >> Yeah I can I can comment on that. So we

[38:20] have a compensation study which was kind of linked to a classification study as

[38:24] well. What are people doing here? How does that compare to other agencies and

[38:29] you know is it fair to pay them you know what is a fair salary in terms of the

[38:32] median market or slightly below the median market for county

[38:36] » and a couple of these surrounding agencies. Um and that work is still

[38:40] ongoing. We're still in the middle of negotiations and close sessions with

[38:44] council. So I can't, you know, talk, you know, perfectly openly about that right

[38:48] now, but uh yeah, we for for Helga's purposes and what we've included in the

[38:53] budget, um is, you know, a 3% cola on top of whatever is negotiated. And the

[39:00] amount that we've contemplated for just the we can call the true up whatever you

[39:04] want to call it to reach to the market goal that we're trying to get to. That

[39:08] number is >> 124,000

[39:12] » in total per per year. >> The compensation

[39:20] » so is that it's >> about 5%.

[39:22] » Yeah, >> it's about 5%. Yeah. As a one time.

[39:27] » Yeah. Yes. And is that is that that's for non

[39:32] bargaining? >> It's it's yeah

[39:35] » including the bargaining units. >> Yes.

[39:38] » Because you'd only change them or you'd change the bargaining compensation

[39:44] outside of a collective bargaining agreement.

[39:46] » Well, the collect the it comes out >> the contracts ended will end June 30th,

[39:52] 2026. our current contracts and that's why we're in negotiation with both the

[39:57] represented and non-represented staff.

[40:08] » Well, that get closer. I don't think it it closes the gap um to to the 8%.

[40:14] » I mean, it would close it for the first year. 5 plus three is eight, but I know

[40:18] you've got pension at four and other at five. So there's still a little bit um

[40:22] not as big as um originally because of two things. One um I didn't uh

[40:28] understand that 150 was in year five. So that lowers it from 10 to 8. And then

[40:34] this one time potential five could be four, could be six. Who knows where it's

[40:39] spread across? But that closes it further. So we're we're we're getting

[40:44] we're getting closer. I'm satisfied for the purposes of today's meeting. Um and

[40:49] maybe you can just dig that and we'll close that remaining gap.

[40:53] » Sure, >> we can do that.

[40:56] » I the kind of there were two reasons I was looking at this. One was just as a

[41:00] general look at what we're projecting for expenditures and is that you know

[41:06] within these numbers and so forth. And the other was to see that um you already

[41:12] mentioned I think Robert that um or maybe it was Helga that there wasn't

[41:16] going to be additional personnel um uh hired by the city um on an inside

[41:24] staffing basis for Malard Point, but I wanted to um sort of just fair it out

[41:30] that when that ship goes over the horizon um we're back and it it doesn't

[41:36] leave any embed added costs that sort of just perpetuate

[41:40] » and you know the other thing that's in there is

[41:44] that department's portion of the UL which increased

[41:50] » for next year. So that's also in that line item. So that's that was a a a

[41:55] question I had in the email too because it's again that same chart on um table

[42:02] 13 where you've got the UL at in the next two fiscal years at 18 and 15%. And

[42:10] then it goes negative and I apologize if I research this I could probably answer

[42:15] the question myself but it's easier to ask you. Um is are those numbers um

[42:20] pulled out of um numbers from Kalpers? >> Those numbers come from the June 30th,

[42:28] 2024 valuation report and it's their projections for the U for both the

[42:33] safety and miscellaneous. >> Perfect. I I thought so and

[42:37] » and as you know that will shift dramatically when we get the budget next

[42:40] year. Yeah, as always,

[42:43] » David, Dave, you might want to when you when you get a sec, um, look at you're

[42:46] looking at the the the five-year projection, but look at 26 27 to sorry,

[42:50] 256 to 26 27, >> right?

[42:53] » Um, that's the biggest jump. That's basically it bumps up. There's a 20%

[42:57] bump in operating cost and then that flows a little more more flatly over

[43:00] that 5year period of time. >> Well, I suspect that the 26 27 is what

[43:04] includes that 5%. >> That's that's what that's the big jump

[43:08] right there. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[43:10] Thank you. Um

[43:16] so that answers several of them. The other couple questions, um one on this

[43:22] 660,000 um

[43:30] when is that expected to be an expense? >> So I started budgeting for it in 2728.

[43:38] » Okay. So, um, and then I, like I said, allocated it over the following three

[43:45] fiscal years,

[43:49] » the general plan update. >> Yeah. I mean, we during our annual

[43:55] retreat, we had a pretty long conversation about the general plan

[43:58] update and what that might look like and whether we needed a full plan update and

[44:03] whether we or whether we just wanted to keep this as a um as a live document

[44:08] that we just update over time rather than just these very expensive concrete

[44:13] updates every 20 years. And so I believe Peter, you and Kevin are working on that

[44:19] right now to see whether we can essentially do a lot of it inhouse to

[44:23] get those costs down. >> Yeah, we're trying to uh as Sally talked

[44:27] about in a sense take off the the 2030 designation. I mean, that's the simple

[44:32] way of describing it, but having it being a just a general plan for the city

[44:34] that gets updated from time to time with um statemandated update requirements as

[44:39] well as timeliness updates based on community changes, housing requirement

[44:43] changes, and so forth. So, we're in the process right now of going through

[44:47] identifying sort of in a matrix format what are the what are the mandated

[44:50] updates we need to do so we can break down what are um perhaps some more

[44:54] administrative straightforward changes we can make. um trying to avoid what

[44:58] we're what we're budgeting for here, which is a in Kevin's words, a boiling

[45:02] the water type of all hands- on deck general plan um rewrite, which would

[45:07] probably cost more than that over the long term, having recently completed our

[45:10] housing element, which is only one one part of that broader plan. Uh so we are

[45:14] looking at it as a incremental update process and tasking future councils with

[45:20] updating it as needed as opposed to give it a a termination date as it currently

[45:24] has right now which will probably have positive benefits for that number but I

[45:29] think it's wise to keep that number in there for that period of time.

[45:38] » Thank you. That helps a lot. Um, and obviously we'll hear more about that

[45:42] when it gets to the current year budget, >> right? And we we should know more

[45:49] probably by next year, I would think. >> Yeah.

[45:52] » So, >> I think the last question I had in that

[45:54] email was on the climate action plan. And I know um

[46:02] I'd written this before uh John's email came out um and I noted he mentioned um

[46:10] a number of different sort of studies and um you know you can study a lot of

[46:15] things and uh I had just identified the client action plan because um I didn't

[46:22] know what it was. Um it was budgeted last year for 25,000. Um

[46:29] I guess and nothing took place then and now it's budgeted for 50,000.

[46:35] And so I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but um then you'll

[46:39] probably speak to some of John's questions later, but uh what what is the

[46:44] client climate action plan? Is it required? Um,

[46:50] and is it u going to be $50,000 and then we're done with it for some period of

[46:56] time? >> Yeah, so the climate action plan uh is a

[47:01] part of the city's general plan and it has to be updated from time to time.

[47:06] There's uh specific state laws that have been enacted recently to require you to

[47:11] meet certain greenhouse gas emission goals by again I think it's 2030. And to

[47:17] get there, the climate action plan is really a roadmap of how the city can do

[47:20] that. And just like the housing element, there's a ton of policies and programs

[47:25] that have been contemplated in the plan that need to be implemented. Um, so

[47:29] there's an opportunity other you know, Tibrron hired somebody on a well,

[47:34] they're sharing the costs with Mil Valley on a for a full-time position. We

[47:38] chose not to participate in that just because we didn't feel like it was

[47:41] needed here. Um, but we do think for a small effort, you know, roughly 25 to

[47:46] $50,000, we can have a consultant do the line share of that work for us and put

[47:51] those programs in place so that we meet the requirements. Uh, you know, and uh,

[47:56] you know, we don't have have compliant or or uh, you know, an action plan that

[48:02] has, you know, no action on it. So, we're trying to get there.

[48:05] » So, thank you. U, so is it primarily around emissions?

[48:11] to like our power plant and all those kinds of

[48:14] » and efficiency you know you know um renewable sources you know

[48:19] » but but David I agree with so the last climate action plan we did was done by

[48:22] Nancy Kimnitzer for free so I'm just I was surprised by that number as well I

[48:28] don't think that we'll necessarily need that number but things are potentially

[48:33] getting a little bit more uh complicated just because the way that

[48:37] we measure emissions in California is moving from an annual measure to an

[48:41] hourly measure, >> right?

[48:42] » And because we're all contracting with MCE, which is very clean on a annual

[48:48] basis, but not an hourly basis, things might change for cities as well in terms

[48:52] of having to do other stuff. >> Yeah.

[48:54] » Because we always relied on them. But but as I say, Nancy had put together a

[48:57] working group last time and they did that, I think, with no expense, right?

[49:01] » And so I I think we should aim to do something similar next time because

[49:05] that's feels like a big number. >> And and to be clear, I'm all for climate

[49:09] action. um just not so much for

[49:14] spending money and uh I mean maybe we should do an EIR on the impact of doing

[49:20] a client action plan, but >> I thought the um I thought the 50 and

[49:24] the and the 150 for uh the housing element implementation were on

[49:28] implementation, not so much reworking the plans themselves.

[49:32] » Yeah, that's right. the the plan. I I'm sure that as part of this evaluation and

[49:37] implementation, there may be some parts of the plan that need to be adapted and

[49:41] updated. Uh but for the most part, we're talking about implementation. Yeah.

[49:47] » Thank you. >> How do you implement a climate action

[49:50] plan? >> Uh yeah. Well, like I said, just like

[49:55] the housing element, there's 15 or 20 different programs you have to put in

[49:59] place. Um, >> I mean, um, Tony talked about a couple

[50:02] of them at the at the retreat. Um, put putting in, um, um, uh, high efficiency

[50:07] lighting around the city for 80 grand, you know, doing doing, um, more

[50:11] efficient, um, you know, charging systems, you know, having more charging

[50:14] systems, things along those lines, which are ways for the city to overall lower

[50:18] its its greenhouse gas emissions. You know, I think they all need to be

[50:22] evaluated, like we talked about in the in the in the meeting, on a on a value

[50:25] basis, not just for the sake of doing it. Um

[50:30] the housing island stuff is a little bit more straightforward. You know, you have

[50:32] you have specific programs for specific policies that you have to implement.

[50:36] Again, I don't think we're going to spend anywhere near that money, but you

[50:39] have to you have to um be be deliberate. HCD and whatever state a agency is

[50:45] looking at the climate action plans, they do watch your efforts from an from

[50:48] a from a implementation perspective. So, we certainly are going forward with

[50:52] that. Certainly with our um housing updates, we are reporting our housing

[50:57] updates and pivoting and um showing them as results of the plans and the policies

[51:03] that we put in place.

[51:09] » Okay. Um Helga, what I think we're going to do with respect to John Wilton's

[51:14] questions, which we all got, why don't I just uh take them one at a time and ask

[51:19] you and let you respond to them. um his overall concern was with the growth in

[51:24] expenditures. He then uh had six bullet points of specific items that hopefully

[51:30] you can respond to today, Helga. >> The first was that he questioned

[51:36] why does the city budget staff costs at the top of the salary range for each

[51:41] position when we know what our actual staff's costs are.

[51:47] So, we budget that way because part of it is that it's past practice and the

[51:53] other part is that all but three of our staff are at the top step of the salary

[51:59] range. So, it it makes sense to budget for them and it accounts for any

[52:05] increases during the fiscal year due to merit increases. So,

[52:10] » okay. Second question is, is the $235,000

[52:16] the annual cost of employing a temporary police officer

[52:21] and do we need 30,000 study to evaluate police department staffing?

[52:28] Um the 235 is the salary and benefits for a police officer and it reflects the

[52:37] we budget for the the benefits the health insurance benefits at the family

[52:43] rate because we don't know if the person's single but that way we have it

[52:48] budgeted for the higher rate and the also the PD has additional pays like I

[52:55] mentioned in the PowerPoint for uh education incentives, shift

[53:00] differential, and like holiday pay that is on top of their base pay so that

[53:07] other positions don't have. >> Oh, and the 30,000 police study, I'll

[53:13] let Robert answer that. >> So, the the 30,000 and again, I don't

[53:18] think we will be spending that amount. Um but it is earmarked for a study to

[53:23] look into what would um what would they you know ideally what are the options

[53:29] for the city when it comes to policing in Belvadier. Um just internally with

[53:33] our own department. Do we have the best structure right now in terms of a chief

[53:38] and sergeants and officers and how many officers is appropriate given the size

[53:42] of our city. um you know some of that work we can do ourselves but it would be

[53:47] great to have an outside opinion who you know is not just looking focused in

[53:51] Marin County but sees a broader picture of here's traditional policing and

[53:54] here's how you can envision that. So that's kind of part one. Part two is a a

[54:00] more broad view looking at what would you know policing on the peninsula look

[54:04] like if we had more of a combined department or perhaps even the JPA or

[54:09] something like that. um similar to how the Ton fire pro protection district

[54:13] operates and that's a bigger analysis and I think a line share of the of the

[54:18] cost is probably seated in that versus uh you know the first part I mentioned

[54:22] and Peter or Sally if you want to add to that feel free. Yeah, part of our our

[54:27] our um work last couple years with our police chief has been focusing on um the

[54:33] resiliency and the redundancy within the department, making sure that they have

[54:36] the depth and the opportunity to um actually service the community in the

[54:40] 247 means that they um are asked to do so. Um policing is more challenging

[54:45] other positions relative to to um outages, time off, disability training.

[54:51] So this this was an interim step for a I think two or three year bubble to um

[54:57] bring back the uh additional officer so that they can

[55:02] » meet the needs of the community um from a from a redundancy and from a

[55:06] resilience perspective without relying on an outside agency which has been um

[55:11] considered and um found lacking in in many degrees at this point in time. um

[55:16] while we as Robert talked about think about the department from a a

[55:22] longer term perspective, a succession planning perspective and reimagining it

[55:26] from the from from the sense of do we continue with the same model that we've

[55:31] had in the past, a chief and sergeants and officers as Robert said, or do we

[55:36] think about it differently? Maybe maybe think about it as a captaincy as the as

[55:40] the top person here reporting to a chief in another jurisdiction or even have the

[55:43] city manager act as a chief responsibilities in some fashion. um as

[55:47] a way to get more of an oper operational department um as as a as a as a

[55:52] possibility potential um but looking for an outside source to to validate that to

[55:57] some degree because what we're relying on now um as expertise as our police

[56:02] department is they have expertise in Beverly policing and we want to look at

[56:05] it from a little bit more from an outside perspective as well and like

[56:08] Robert said we're not looking at spending a ton of money there but

[56:11] looking at um some objective check on how we're planning our staffing going

[56:16] forward. >> I think what Peter isn't saying out loud

[56:20] there is that we uh we don't have a working chief.

[56:25] And so part of that examination is can we with a different model have only six

[56:30] headcount rather than seven. >> And to clarify working chief meaning

[56:35] he's his function here is primarily administrative. You know 99% of that he

[56:40] will fill in for shifts as needed. But um you know again is that the best model

[56:45] for us as Peter said we start looking at succession planning.

[56:49] » Okay. Uh John's next question was ditto on the 150,000 for a consultant on

[56:57] housing element goals and 15,000 for fire annexation study. So, our housing

[57:04] element was certified this past February and so staff are working on organizing

[57:15] on organizing the programs which will need consultant support. Not all of the

[57:21] policies and programs will need that. Some will be done in-house. Um, so like

[57:27] Peter and Robert have said, maybe not all the 150,000 will be needed, but it's

[57:34] just kind of earmarked for that. Um, and it's just the implementation of the

[57:39] certified housing element. And then the 15,000 for the fire

[57:45] annexation study is for ongoing costs related to the evaluation of the city's

[57:53] options for uh either fire annexation into the fire district or a revised

[58:00] contract. So >> can I add just one thing there just in

[58:05] terms of why sometimes money is well spent which is that one of the things

[58:08] that we have discovered through these discussions with the fire district is

[58:13] that the GAN limit override vote that we've been taking to the voters every

[58:17] four years we will not need in the future and so that saves money there.

[58:25] Uh this next question maybe was covered by David's comment 50,000 for climate

[58:31] action plan. >> And so that's the implementation as we

[58:34] spoke about about the climate action plan.

[58:37] » Okay. Uh his next bullet point was questioning the 100,000 for the

[58:44] insurance legal fund. >> So this is just the transfer to

[58:50] the insurance legal fund. We're estimating to spend 200,000 in ongoing

[58:57] um uninsured legal expenses next year, but we're only planning to transfer a

[59:03] 100,000. And that will bring the balance in that insurance and legal reserve fund

[59:10] to 250,000 which is the minimum required balance per the policy instead of

[59:16] keeping it at the 350,000.

[59:22] Uh and then John the last point says that he doesn't

[59:28] understand why pension costs increase so much

[59:32] 24% including health insurance each year even though we created an additional

[59:38] fund to meet our unfunded liabilities over time.

[59:48] That's the U

[59:55] this year. >> Yes. You have your normal cost rate and

[59:57] then you you have your required UL payment and that depends on market

[1:00:01] performance. It's as simple as that. And so the year that we're the contribution

[1:00:07] relates to was a year which was a bad year for financial markets because it

[1:00:11] was 2023 2022

[1:00:15] and 2023. >> Yeah.

[1:00:17] So the numbers will shift again but for for this year that's what's causing that

[1:00:22] jump along with more employees presumably in terms of the normal cost

[1:00:26] rate. Uh yes the normal cost rate does reflect

[1:00:31] the addition of the one and a half police officer positions. So

[1:00:39] and then it is determined by Kalpers the amount we pay each month. Yeah.

[1:00:45] » Okay. Uh I think that covered the item that John had. Uh questions other

[1:00:50] questions from committee members comments.

[1:00:55] » I have one question actually. How you just said that we you anticipating

[1:00:58] spending 200,000 on legal and insurance claims in 27.

[1:01:05] That seems quite a high number given that our CTL problems are somewhat

[1:01:10] behind us. What other risks you anticipating there?

[1:01:14] » Um, there's also a human resource related issue that we're working on and

[1:01:20] » that will continue into 27. >> We anticipate it. Yes.

[1:01:24] » Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, if there no other comments

[1:01:31] from the committee, uh, are there any members of the public on Zoom? All

[1:01:36] right. Um, if there's no other questions or comments, I assume uh we should

[1:01:41] entertain a motion to uh recommend the uh preliminary operating capital

[1:01:49] budget to the city council. Is that correct, Helga?

[1:01:51] » That's correct. >> Can I get such a motion and a second? So

[1:01:55] moved.

[1:01:59] » Is there a second? >> You can.

[1:02:03] » Well, I can if you want to. All right. I second.

[1:02:07] Um, roll call. >> Chair McKascal,

[1:02:10] » yes. >> Patrick Federer,

[1:02:13] » yes. >> And David Walker,

[1:02:15] » I. >> That passes unanimously.

[1:02:20] » Thank you, Helga. Uh, the last item on the agenda for our meeting today is a

[1:02:26] discussion in costal action establishing an ad hoc pension review committee.

[1:02:34] » Thank you, chair. Uh the finance committee last conducted a pension

[1:02:38] funding review in December of 2023. Consistent with the city's policy to

[1:02:43] review the strategy at least every 5 years. And based on council direction

[1:02:47] from the retreat, we plan to bring an update to council in December of 2026.

[1:02:53] To support that effort, we are recommending the committee establish an

[1:02:58] ad hoc pension funding committee today to begin reviewing pensions this fall

[1:03:04] once the latest Kalpers valuation report is released later in August.

[1:03:12] So I proide a bit more context as well. So at the annual retreat, there were

[1:03:15] some questions from another council member about the merits of transferring

[1:03:19] some of the 115 and paying off some of the the KPA's UAL. And so that combined

[1:03:26] with that request with three years since the last assessment. So, it felt like it

[1:03:30] would be a good time to do that now so that we can report back to the council

[1:03:34] um what the recommendations are both in relation to whether the 300,000 is still

[1:03:40] appropriate and whether the pros and cons of putting money pulling money out

[1:03:44] of the 115 and putting it into Kalpers because obviously Kalpers on a long-term

[1:03:50] basis outperforms because it takes more risk. But obviously you've already

[1:03:54] talked about the benefits of keeping money in a 115.

[1:03:58] » And is the proposal that this would be a committee created by this finance

[1:04:02] committee or by the city council? >> By this finance committee?

[1:04:06] » By this. Okay. So uh meaning we would uh appoint members.

[1:04:10] » Yes. >> And are there any recommendations,

[1:04:14] Sally? >> David's looking in the wrong direction.

[1:04:18] David and I worked on this last time and I think Will might be interested in

[1:04:23] participating as well. So, if you're up for it,

[1:04:26] » I would. I'm fine. Yes.

[1:04:32] » And how many? Just the two of you. >> I'm sorry. Who was

[1:04:38] » So, Will, David, sorry. Yep. >> Okay. Uh, do we need a a motion for

[1:04:45] that?

[1:04:50] Not today. >> Not not today.

[1:04:53] » Okay. All right. So, um uh I will assume the committee is in agreement with that

[1:04:59] hearing. No objections. And at that point, uh is there any other

[1:05:05] new business to be brought before us today?

[1:05:08] » I do have one item. >> Okay. So, um, I wanted to bring to the

[1:05:13] committee's attention a new requirement under Senate Bill 852 that was signed

[1:05:19] into law in October of 2025 that beginning in 2026, public officials who

[1:05:25] manage public investments, including s certain board, commissions, and

[1:05:30] committee members will be required to electronically file a form 700 statement

[1:05:36] of economic interest with the FPPC. This form will be due annually on by

[1:05:43] April 1st. This change to the finance committee.

[1:05:49] Um, so this does affect the finance committee members since they

[1:05:55] um have input into the investments and so this change was presented to the city

[1:06:01] council at its April 13th meeting amending the administrative policy

[1:06:06] manual section six on committees, commissions, and boards to reflect this

[1:06:12] change in state law. and our city clerk will be reaching out to the members of

[1:06:18] the committee with additional information on filing the form 700.

[1:06:23] » And for this committee, the first form will have to be filed by next April 1st

[1:06:27] or >> no. Um, she'll be sending out the

[1:06:30] information in the next week or two. And so, um, you need to file it as soon as

[1:06:36] possible. >> Got it. Okay. Any questions on that?

[1:06:39] » Yeah, I have a question. Um, so this is a state requirement.

[1:06:43] » Yes. And uh correct me if I'm wrong, but this committee makes recommendations and

[1:06:50] doesn't actually take those actions. It makes recommendations to the city

[1:06:54] council that then takes the action. So I would think um we're studying things but

[1:07:04] we're not taking the actions to manage them.

[1:07:08] Has that uh aspect been addressed? Um it was the recommendation of our city

[1:07:14] attorney based on the new law because the new law states that uh management of

[1:07:20] public investments means the non-ministerial functions of directing

[1:07:24] the investment of public monies, formulating or approving investment

[1:07:29] policies, approving or establishing guidelines for asset allocation or

[1:07:34] approving investment transactions. >> So I don't think we do any of that. Um I

[1:07:40] mean non-ministerial means fiduciary or discretionary and it I I heard in that

[1:07:46] it says taking actions and um >> we can't do that.

[1:07:52] » My understanding of the law from talking with the city attorney on this is that

[1:07:55] it's any group who makes or participates in making governmental decisions. So in

[1:08:00] this case, you know, we're developing a recommendation even though the action is

[1:08:04] done by city council. you're you're providing insight into policy which then

[1:08:10] is a recommendation. So air on the side of caution I guess is

[1:08:15] what our is what our uh >> city attorney said about filing.

[1:08:19] » I guess it begs the question how difficult is the form we're each asked

[1:08:23] to fill out a 10page financial statement. Maybe we would like our city

[1:08:27] attorney to reconsider. >> It's not your economic interest. It's

[1:08:30] your it's your economic interest in things that that might conflict with

[1:08:33] your activities. >> Correct. Right.

[1:08:36] » So, filling out the form should be fairly easy.

[1:08:38] » It it you have to do it online and it takes literally two minutes.

[1:08:42] » Okay. >> Um, as long as you read it correctly.

[1:08:47] » Do you have a different You've looked at the statement.

[1:08:50] » I haven't looked at anything. This is the first I've heard of it. That's why

[1:08:53] I'm asking the question. Do you want to just send me the link for that

[1:08:56] information or Well, I guess I can wait until the clerk and then I'll raise

[1:08:59] questions at that point if I have any. >> Right. And she'll be sending that out.

[1:09:04] So, Okay. All right.

[1:09:07] » Um, one of the thing that we that came up in relation to looking at um this

[1:09:13] policy for the finance committee was that we our charter says that the uh

[1:09:19] chair of the finance committee should be three years. Um we've actually reduced

[1:09:27] it to two at the council meeting. Correct. because to make it more

[1:09:30] consistent with other >> committees and so we were and also to

[1:09:34] introduce a vice chair which we should have been doing and we haven't been

[1:09:37] doing so at the November meeting we were hoping to do a rotation of those two

[1:09:42] positions >> great

[1:09:51] okay there's no other new business um >> that's all I had

[1:09:55] » okay um I believe we're adjourned thank you everyone particular particularly.

[1:09:59] Thank you, Helga. >> Yes. Thank you, Helga.

[1:10:01] » Thanks, everybody. Have a great day.

Finance Committee Meeting: April 16, 2026

Agenda

Transcript