[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.