[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] I apologize. So, there are five members here. Evans Mason, Swas, Shell, Carlson, and Epstein are here, absent, or Blair
[0:18] And, uh, uh, Rishi and, uh, Rishi and, uh, Rishi and, um, Rishi and, um, thank you very much.
[0:22] And, uh, our guests are Mitch Barker from PARS and Wally, catch up PIA from PFFM.
[0:31] And Jim is here as our associate member and the mayor when this one is here and Vice Mayor
[0:38] Mark will be joining us shortly.
[0:41] Great.
[0:42] Okay, first item agenda is the approval of minutes. We had a motion by mason and a second by swass. Any discussion I got it backwards. Sorry. I got it. Okay, right. You got it right. Thank you. Any discussion. All in favor.
[1:03] All right. Okay. That was a roll call by all members and attendance.
[1:09] What is that?
[1:13] We just approve the minutes.
[1:17] Welcome back, Sam.
[1:19] It's been a long time.
[1:20] Thank you, Jim.
[1:21] Why?
[1:23] Appreciate that.
[1:24] Looking forward to this relaxation.
[1:29] Serena, the next item on the agenda is the review of PM's report.
[1:34] How would you like to handle that?
[1:40] You could just pass it over to Wally.
[1:42] He's going to talk about the fourth quarter for the period ending December 31, 2022, and then while you could just roll into the investment policy, I know you were here the last time and you kind of reviewed it, but now everybody has the document actual redline document in hand for them to see the changes that you have.
[2:14] RPFM has recommending.
[2:19] Very good, Serena. Thanks very much.
[2:21] While it's your, you're meeting if you can share.
[2:29] Second, share my screen.
[2:43] Can everyone see my screen?
[2:46] I see a blank.
[3:05] I can everybody see the PDF document that I'm sharing.
[3:08] No.
[3:10] No PDF yet?
[3:11] Nope.
[3:23] How about now?
[3:24] Nope.
[3:26] What's that?
[3:27] It might be, it means to take a little time.
[3:33] Okay, let me give it a couple of seconds.
[3:43] Are the settings to allow non-host to share their screens turned on?
[3:47] I believe so. I can see if I can check on that.
[4:02] If not, I suggest we just pull it up on our own screens.
[4:05] I'll go through it.
[4:08] It says it's rolling.
[4:12] A lot depends upon your computer and how you have things set up to share with Zoom.
[4:20] So I'll tell you what, Serenic, can you pull it up for them and then while he just
[4:25] goes, you know, go to the next page to go to the next page,
[4:34] you have to stop sharing
[4:35] I believe.
[4:36] Okay.
[4:46] There we go.
[4:50] There we go.
[4:50] All right.
[4:50] I have it.
[4:53] Perfect.
[4:55] All right.
[4:56] So we'll start with page one of the reports.
[4:59] We'll go through the market update, go back one slide, there
[5:07] we go.
[5:08] So just in overview what happened in 2022, when we look at the market update, we saw an aggressive move in interest rates throughout the year, with 425 basis points of rate hikes throughout the year, causing the tweeter treachery to make a tremendous move about 370 basis points.
[5:27] This aggressive move did have a negative impact on all fixed end-income investments across the board
[5:34] one of the worst
[5:36] years we've seen over the last
[5:38] 40 years
[5:40] One of the phenomenons we did see was that we saw stocks and bond both had negative return
[5:45] There's something that you don't quite see very often
[5:49] Consumer spending resident remain resilience the job market and labor market remain strong
[5:55] But inflation, especially when we look at energy and other sectors of the market remain persistent.
[6:02] When we look at the asset classes for the year, oil and cash were the best performing sectors.
[6:10] In 2022 with all other investments returning in the negative.
[6:17] When we move on to the next slide and we look at the landscape of what is going on moving forward in 2023.
[6:24] Again, inflation continues to be the main theme that is dictating what the Fed is doing regarding their monetary policy.
[6:31] Unemployment numbers came out on Friday, labor markets again, remains strong at 3.4% unemployment.
[6:37] We are seeing that the inflation and the increase in cost of living is starting to get the consumer
[6:44] with deteriorating savings and increasing amounts of debt to pay for day-to-day expenses,
[6:49] so that is something that we definitely want to keep an eye on as we move out throughout this
[6:53] year. The Fed says that they want to get to a rate on the Fed funds rate of somewhere between
[6:59] 5 to 5.25% by the end of the year. We did get a 25 basis point rate hike last week and we're expecting
[7:08] another 25 basic point rate hike at the next meeting, whether the Fed continues to raise rates
[7:15] hold rates at that number will determine on what the inflation numbers containers show as we move
[7:22] throughout the year. We look at the yield curve, again, remains inverted, so that does put us on
[7:28] recession watch. And if you look at the belly of the curve and that three to seven year time frame,
[7:34] we did see rates move lower. So that was a good thing. When we look at the longer and in the short
[7:40] of the yield curve rates did increase slightly last quarter. We move on to the next slide and we
[7:49] look at how the two-year treasury has moved since late October. We can kind of see that, you know,
[7:53] there has been a lot of volatility with the two-year treasury, a lot of that having to do with,
[7:58] you know, how the, you know, the Fed has not only increased rates, but also too, we're starting
[8:03] to see that inflation starting in November started to be baked. So that's why you see that drop of
[8:08] 24 basis points in November of 2022 and then in November of at the end of November, we saw the
[8:19] drone power mentioned that the pace of the rate heights that we're going to start to see will start to decrease.
[8:26] So those 75 basis point rate heights that we saw that we're mostly done to catch up with inflation.
[8:31] It looks like that those might come to an end and we'll start to see slower rate highs moving forward, which does build well for fixed income investments.
[8:40] We move on to the next slide and we look at the inflation graph.
[8:44] We can see again inflation has come off well off its peak from in the summer time decreasing to about 6.5% on the CPI at the end of December.
[8:55] Energy, again, which was a very contributor, has really detracted from its highs, which is good.
[9:00] But the services sector, a lot of that's where it's including an energy when we look at that number,
[9:06] that number continues to be pretty persistent and pretty sticky.
[9:12] Again, we did see some increase in the labor force participation rates.
[9:16] So again, more people are starting to take the jobs that we're starting to see there open.
[9:20] So we'll see if that has an effect to the services sector and the equation that we're seeing, which is mostly coming from wages.
[9:29] We move on to the next slide and we take a look at what the federal committee members are looking at moving on to the next slide.
[9:38] When we're looking at the federal committee members and what they're thinking, where the Fed funds rate should be, again there's a huge consensus that we should be near that 5% range and hold that rate for this year.
[9:49] with potential rate cuts coming as early as December of 2024 by the end of the year.
[9:57] So the Fed has explicitly said that they do not plan on cutting rates this year, that, you know,
[10:03] 2024 probably a more realistic timeframe where we could see some rate cuts.
[10:07] Again, these are not predictions.
[10:09] What these are just estimates of what different committee members are thinking as we look
[10:15] inflate the inflation data and where rate should be by the end of each year moving forward.
[10:21] Now, with the market is pricing in, if we go for the next slide, the market is pricing
[10:25] in something entirely different. So the market, again, is pricing in another 25-based
[10:30] point rate hike at the next meeting. We got the 25-based point rate hike at the last meeting
[10:34] last week, but the market is pricing in potential rate cuts at the end of the year. So whether or not
[10:41] that holds two or not, you know, we don't know just yet,
[10:45] but there is a disconnect between what the message
[10:48] that's wrong, power has been delivering at his speeches
[10:50] and what the Fed funds future rates are pricing in
[10:54] when the Fed's could potentially start to cut rates.
[10:59] We move on to the next slide.
[11:00] We look at recession risk.
[11:03] Again, there is some caution that we need to have
[11:05] and we're looking at recession.
[11:06] We're somewhere in the yellow,
[11:08] not flashing red per se at this moment.
[11:10] But most analysts, if you look at Bloomberg estimates, are pretty optimistic that GDP will start to increase by the end of the year.
[11:18] They are expecting some slowdowns in the beginning of the year.
[11:22] We did see some of that in some of the earnings report, some of the companies that have already reported.
[11:26] But they are, again, optimistic that we should see modest GDP growth as we move throughout 2023 into 2024.
[11:36] we look at the yield curve and how it shifted on the next page and this gives us an idea of some
[11:43] of the effects that we saw with the changes in rates over the quarter so again if you look
[11:49] between the three and the five-year range you see that rates did slightly decrease and if you look
[11:55] at the shorter end of the curve in at three month one year and then a longer end on the 30 year
[12:00] and the 10 year you see that rates did increase when we move on to the next slide and we look at
[12:11] pretty much another graph that gives you a year and reviews. So if you look at 2020,
[12:15] a lot of that negative return that we saw in the fixed income markets did come from price returns.
[12:20] Again, with yields moving very, very aggressively upwards, that does have a negative impact to
[12:27] income securities that were purchased in the past. The good thing is that we start to make
[12:32] new purchases and we start to access fixed income markets for new issues. We're starting
[12:38] at pretty good yields in that one to five year space at 4.3% so the income generation of new
[12:46] purchases and new assets that would be added to the portfolio are a lot more attractive compared
[12:50] to where they were back in 2020 when the Fed started cutting rates.
[12:58] When we look at the next page and we take a look at the different sectors of the market
[13:03] where we're looking for adding value to the portfolio, spreads did come down pretty much across
[13:11] the board and we look at federal agencies, corporates, asset back and more of the back securities.
[13:16] So again, when spreads start to tighten and come down, we tend to favor treasuries a
[13:20] bit more. So as we move on into 2020, the first quarter of this year, we're keeping an eye
[13:26] and seeing what spreads to do to see where we can again add value to the portfolio.
[13:32] This is just the next page. It gives you a quick update. So I haven't seen this in a couple
[13:37] quarters, but the next page showed us that we did have positive returns across the board in the
[13:46] these acid-backs and corporates all again, you know, we're able to seek out some positive
[13:53] gains.
[13:54] We're the fed saying that they're going to slow down the pace of the rate-hikes.
[13:58] Again, that does vote well for fixed income securities, you're not going to hopefully
[14:02] not going to see tons of swings in unrealized gains and losses throughout the year, because
[14:09] again, that the pace of those rate-hikes will start to normalize.
[14:12] The next page just gives you a little bit more commentary around the different sectors of the markets.
[14:18] I will let you guys read that at your leisure.
[14:21] And then the following page gives you an idea of what PFM is thinking for our first quarter out look of 2023.
[14:28] Any questions so far?
[14:35] All right.
[14:35] If there are no questions, we can move on to the accounts summary.
[14:39] So the next page gives us an idea of what the portfolio looked like at the end of December.
[14:43] We had about $20.3 million in assets, the yield that costs, so this is the yield that the portfolio is generating is at 1.57% with a yield at market at 4.51%.
[14:58] So as we're, you know, getting...
[15:00] Agree more assets as they mature and reinvesting those assets on the yield it caused is slowly starting to uptake in assets. The camp pool is generating a pretty healthy return with 4.5% on any unused assets that are in the portfolio currently.
[15:18] Move on to the next slide. This is an idea of the maturity distribution. So most of the portfolio is sitting in that's 1 to 3 year space with about 10.9% of assets.
[15:31] assets in that 181 to one year space. So again, as those assets become available for reinvestment
[15:38] will be able to reinvest those assets at a yield that's closer to the yield that market.
[15:45] Moving on to the next slide, we gives you an idea of the parameters within the investment policy.
[15:52] What's allowed, we are not against any of those limits, which is good. And then the next page
[15:58] which gives you a certificate of compliance letting you guys know that the portfolio is in
[16:04] compliance with the investment policy.
[16:08] We move on to the portfolio review.
[16:10] So a little bit more details here.
[16:11] When we look at the portfolio on the next page and we look at the effect of duration and
[16:18] the benchmark duration.
[16:19] We're slightly underweight the benchmark duration.
[16:22] Some of that coming from being more overweight in the zero to one year space.
[16:28] and being slightly underweight in that one to two year space when it comes to the duration distribution in comparison to the Benchmark credit quality remains high at double A and then again I yield a cost at 1.57 percent.
[16:45] We look on to the next page, this is just a page that gives an idea of how the portfolio composition has changed over the last four quarters.
[16:53] not a ton of change here, the allocation has remained fairly constant with roughly about 20% of the
[16:59] assets and corporates and roughly about 60% of the assets and treasuries. That's pretty much
[17:04] remained in line going back to about March 2022. When we look at the next pay, I think, is you an
[17:13] idea of net activity. Again, we've been net buyers of treasuries and of corporates and most of
[17:23] international federal agency and the agency on C. M. B. S. space.
[17:30] The next page was looking performance and again we had positive returns for the first time in quite some time.
[17:36] It just earned a 2000 with a change in positive market value of about 123,000 dollars for the order.
[17:45] That was better than the benchmark.
[17:47] So the portfolio had a positive return of 1.2% on the benchmark as that's 95 basis points.
[17:55] When we look at more of a longer term view of what's happening in the portfolio, again,
[17:59] most of the unrealized games loss that we've seen.
[18:02] We saw happened in, you know, most of that happened last year,
[18:07] but when we look at it, but the longer term view, you know,
[18:09] we look at and see that the portfolio has,
[18:12] pretty handily beat the benchmark over that 10 year time frame, which is positive news, you know,
[18:19] when you take it more of a high level view, how the portfolio has performed.
[18:24] The next page looks at actual earnings in the portfolio, so these are earnings that
[18:29] are looking at realized and unrealized losses and also interest earned. Those numbers across the board
[18:37] remain positive, not only in the short term, but then also to
[18:41] in the longer time friends of five and ten years.
[18:46] That's it for my presentation. Are there any questions?
[18:58] I don't think there's any questions. Why don't you, Serena?
[19:01] I think you want him to move on to talk about the changes to the investment policies that
[19:05] correct? That's correct.
[19:09] Should I?
[19:14] So everybody should have what was in the packet on the investment policy in the red lines.
[19:24] And I don't think there was a lot of changes that KFM made.
[19:30] Did anybody have a chance to reveal them?
[19:32] And if they have any questions for Wally on why the changes were made?
[19:39] Do you know what the statutory to me, is that, was there any, does mental changes?
[19:46] No.
[19:47] No.
[19:48] No.
[19:49] I had a question.
[19:50] So when it refers to a Senate bill, that becomes a default mechanism.
[19:54] So we don't need to express it ourselves.
[19:57] Is that the way I should bring that?
[19:59] Yeah.
[19:59] If there's a Senate bill, there's a change to code.
[20:03] That pretty much defaults everything across the board.
[20:06] So that's mainly what has happened last year when you look at what's changed in California code.
[20:17] And just to be clear with regards to commercial paper, the change allows the town to hold more commercial papers that correct.
[20:25] Correct.
[20:32] Anyone have any other questions?
[20:37] So Serena is looking for a vote by the committee to approve this.
[20:41] And I have someone make a motion to approve the changes to the investment policy.
[20:46] Make a motion.
[20:47] Cheryl makes a motion.
[20:49] Can I have a second?
[20:50] A second.
[20:52] Either way.
[20:53] Okay.
[20:53] Righty was quick around the draw, so the second is ready.
[20:58] Any further discussion?
[21:01] Okay.
[21:01] Roll call vote.
[21:03] Aye.
[21:04] Susan?
[21:07] I think you said aye.
[21:10] Sorry about that.
[21:11] Yes, aye.
[21:12] Okay.
[21:12] ready. Hi. So I Alan says I Jim, you on board? Yes. Yes. Okay. All in favor. Thank you very much.
[21:26] You're very welcome. Well, we thanks very much. The next item on the agenda.
[21:32] Yeah, with me for one second.
[21:37] Is the presentation by Pares on managing the town's open investments?
[21:42] Serena, how would you like to handle that?
[21:44] I'm just going to, I just want to, I'll pass it over to Mitch.
[21:48] Mitch had given me this presentation a few months ago,
[21:52] and we discussed bringing it forward to the FIC in getting their feedback
[22:01] from the presentation.
[22:06] Okay, Mitch, Mitch, Mitch, one thing before you start,
[22:09] I see some names on the participant list that I don't recognize.
[22:14] If you would like to ask questions, please feel free to raise your hand.
[22:19] I'll be happy to recognize you.
[22:22] Okay, go ahead, Mitch.
[22:25] Thanks, Alan.
[22:25] Thank you, Peter and Serena for inviting me tonight.
[22:28] Good afternoon, Finance and Invest committee.
[22:30] So, you know, if you can pull up the presentation, I'd rather you drive that if you can do that.
[22:46] Is that okay, Serena?
[22:47] Are you able to pull it up?
[23:02] Fantastic.
[23:03] That way, I don't have any driving issues.
[23:06] Like the 101 or the 405.
[23:09] So, very good.
[23:11] So, I'm going to give a short presentation to the committee,
[23:15] to consider cars for your OPEV assets, which are currently with CalPUR service.
[23:22] Next page.
[23:26] I'm not going to blow that up a little bit.
[23:28] I don't know if everyone can see it clearly.
[23:31] So my name again is Mitch Barker.
[23:33] I'm a senior consultant.
[23:34] I've been with the town since the beginning of this engagement.
[23:39] The investment manager currently managing the pension assets
[23:43] in our trust as Andrew Brown.
[23:44] We all have talked to him in the past and he's not with us tonight because I just didn't feel like it was necessary for him to attend this particular session.
[23:54] Next page.
[23:59] Think I under a heard that there might be a new committee member attending tonight, so I just wanted to do a quick overview of our 115 trust team.
[24:08] We work with public agencies only, we're all about retirement services, and we focus very strongly on 115 trust.
[24:16] I've been doing that since I began with the company back in 2004 when GASB45 came out.
[24:23] So, bars are what's known as trusted administrators.
[24:26] We do the record keeping the accounting.
[24:29] We monitor plant compliance as it relates to the IRS, GASB,
[24:33] also state government code, we process contributions coming in and and disbursements going out.
[24:40] Our trustee is US Bank, so they are the custodian of the assets and hold the money
[24:44] and provide oversight protection and then high-mark capital is the investment management.
[24:52] All right, next.
[24:55] Well, it's always important to share our right list. We have almost 500 agencies
[25:00] in our 115 trust for sake of brevity. I just focused on the Bay Area Clients, which are on the
[25:07] screen in front of you. You'll know many of those cities, if not all of them. I did highlight those in
[25:13] red, which represents the switch from Calper, Serbate, over to PARS for the OPEC side of the equation.
[25:24] They felt like that was a good move and hopefully we'd been able to justify that move.
[25:30] couple cities in that area,
[25:32] livermore and in the town of Woodside,
[25:36] also five counties,
[25:38] the most recent of which is plastered,
[25:40] that transferred over 225 million.
[25:43] And then we have a couple of special districts
[25:46] and one school district too.
[25:49] Next,
[25:52] so we have a combination trust
[25:54] which is the graphic on the right.
[25:56] It's capable of pre-funding
[25:57] either OPEC or Pinch and are both. It is IRS approved. CalPERS has their
[26:05] server, which is their OPEB trust. And the idea before you tonight is to potentially
[26:11] consider transferring over the OPEB assets and their OPEB only trust over to our
[26:18] combination trust. The act for that we saw showed about 3.1 million in assets
[26:25] within their trust. So if you were to transfer that over to the
[26:30] pars combination trust, along with your 1.8 million pension, that would be
[26:37] about $4.1 million in assets within the total trust. Next,
[26:46] it's always
[26:46] important to look at the actual evaluation for OPEP to take a look at the numbers
[26:51] And the latest numbers on the act for that we can see shows your fully funded.
[26:57] You've done a great job of funding their trust to prepare for paying OPEB assets at some
[27:04] point of time out of the trust.
[27:07] So I want to commend the town for doing that year in the probably top 5% that are fully funded
[27:13] on the OPEB side.
[27:14] Even though that gas requirement has been around for quite some time.
[27:20] Next,
[27:25] I want to take a look at our investment approach, it's simple in nature, it's certainly
[27:28] not simple to understand the market and try and figure out what's the right investment
[27:33] opportunity, but I think our approach is proven our clients very well and it's maybe
[27:40] a testament as to why we're the number one provider, 115 trust services in California.
[27:46] We listen carefully that input phase on the left, we focus in on what's your target rate
[27:50] return, what's your investment philosophy, what's your timing use of funds, and then we have
[27:56] the five model portfolio strategies in the middle there. Side note, your pension assets with
[28:03] us or in the moderate strategy to one right in the middle is about a 50-50 strategy, which is
[28:09] earned 5.1% over a 10-year period compared to life at the bottom. If you were in just a liquidity
[28:16] management program is earned 0.91 over that same period of time and I think the block on the right
[28:23] really is one of the main reasons why we've been able to do so well is our dedicated portfolio
[28:29] manager concept. I think Andrew Brown does a great job of listening to the committee and the
[28:34] town's needs and does this very best to deliver. He also drafts an investment policy,
[28:40] 5 page game plan on how to achieve your target rate of return with at least a amount of risk
[28:46] possible and then has cell phone access. He has certainly got a number of phone calls
[28:51] over the last year as the market spent a lot of volatile things with interest rate changes
[28:57] in dips and turns. So I think that personalized service is really how we've been able to achieve
[29:04] success. Next page,
[29:09] probably the most important reason why you might want to consider a shifting
[29:13] your OPEB assets over to the combination trust would be performance. We like to look at
[29:18] net performance, we think that's the best measuring stick. Net performance is defined as gross
[29:23] performance minus all fees. So this is net of all fees comparing our like strategy to like strategy
[29:33] at CalPERS servant. They're longest term strategy strategy one versus our capital appreciation.
[29:41] I guess in a positive way, we lost less money than they did last year.
[29:47] Kind of a different way to look at it. Over three years, 2.8 versus 1.5, over five years,
[29:55] 3.9 versus 3.1 and over 10 years.
[30:00] 6.4 versus 5.3. So, again, this is net of all fees. When the footnote at the bottom there, this is for assets under 5 million.
[30:10] Once your assets exceed 5 million, it reaches another level on our fee schedule and then our fee is go down. So, the net return differential would even grow. Next page.
[30:24] I wanted to give you our fee schedule so that you see those scales starting at 0.25 for
[30:32] cars and going down, high marks at fee schedule starts at 0.35 and goes down so you
[30:39] see once the assets get over a 5 million, their fees go from 0.35% down to 0.25% pretty dramatic
[30:46] drop.
[30:48] Next page, this is my last slide and I'm trying to put myself in your places to why this might be a worthy change to potentially shift your OPEV assets over to parse.
[31:01] Here at the key points, I'm not going to go over one of them, I'm just going to hit the highlights.
[31:05] First off, this is our core business. This is what I've been doing since parse started the 115 trust business in 2015.
[31:13] this is our core business. We are the go to leading expert in the state. Number two, market pioneer, we were the first to come out with the OPEP trust and then we were the first to come out with the combo trust which has pension pre funding.
[31:30] Number three, this is a combination trust where the two CalPERS trust are separate and they don't they don't communicate with each other. So we think the combination trust is an easier way to communicate and to
[31:43] handle both of these post employment benefits.
[31:46] Think number five is important.
[31:48] Every agency needs to look at what if the worst case scenario
[31:51] happens such as a tough budget year or an emergency,
[31:55] you can take out up to two years worth of expenses with powers.
[31:59] You can only take out one year with calipers.
[32:02] So twice as much flexibility if you were to have a difficult time
[32:07] period.
[32:08] I talked about the dedicated portfolio manager concept.
[32:11] Again, I think that's probably the most important key, which leads to number 7.
[32:16] We have a choice of five active strategies, or five passive strategies, or once you get
[32:23] over 5 million in assets, we can customize the strategy.
[32:27] So we've got lots of flexibility.
[32:29] And then the final thought again is greater net performance, 6.4 versus 5.3 over a 10-year
[32:36] period of time.
[32:38] So, the idea is to potentially work with one company.
[32:42] CalPERS, no question has a good program, they have a lot of clients.
[32:46] I just think in our opinion, we've got a better program.
[32:49] And that's my presentation. I'm available for questions.
[32:54] Okay. Thank you very much, Mitch.
[32:57] People have questions?
[33:03] Well, I have some of the same questions that Alan has.
[33:06] So I'd like to better understand the benefits of this joint account that you described.
[33:14] I noticed that you still have two buckets on your graph.
[33:18] Does that mean that the money isn't co-mingled, but it's just in the same account?
[33:23] Or what is the advantage of that to us?
[33:27] Yeah.
[33:28] So you're going to can you pull that slide.
[33:30] You still have it?
[33:33] Under Gasby Rules, Roddy, we have to keep the money separate.
[33:37] So Gasby 75 governs OPEP and Gasby 68 governs pension.
[33:46] So at beyond page five, there we go.
[33:49] If you can blow up, maybe that graphic on the right there.
[33:53] So again, for Gasby Rules, we have to keep those separate.
[33:57] They are different line items on your balance sheet as well.
[34:01] So that's why you see them separated.
[34:02] But for fee purposes, Roddy, we were able to combine those two together, and that's why I was talking about 3.1 plus 1 equals 4.1 million assets.
[34:16] You can, however, have different strategies. So for instance, the town is in moderate with us for pension.
[34:24] If you had a different risk tolerance level for OPEP, we can do that.
[34:30] So that's part of the flexibility we have.
[34:34] So let me ask a second part of that question.
[34:37] Are you pointed out that we're over funded by a million dollars?
[34:43] So let me just make that point and say,
[34:47] what would you suggest that we do about that?
[34:50] With respect to what you can accomplish for us?
[34:53] Yeah, so there's a number of ways
[34:56] to address funding at that level.
[34:59] You could either get, you could take some risk off the table and go to a more conservative strategy,
[35:07] since you're sort of at the end from a funding standpoint.
[35:12] If you do that, then the Actuary will lower your discount rate,
[35:18] commensurate with your risk tolerance level.
[35:21] Unfortunately, the teeter totter effect will happen, so when you lower the discount rate,
[35:26] the the unfunded liabilities in the annual cost go up.
[35:30] So we'd have to balance those two with your actuary to make sure that, you know,
[35:36] you're going in the right direction.
[35:38] The other option is to potentially start using the assets out of your trust to pay for your
[35:51] So that's what I've seen some of our clients do that are fully funded.
[35:56] They start using the trust to pay the bill instead of out of the general fund.
[36:02] That is your question.
[36:04] The answer to part of it.
[36:06] I'll leave it down to ask the last part.
[36:11] Anyone else have questions for Mitch?
[36:15] So Mitch, my question is,
[36:18] I understand you account for these two things separately.
[36:21] Is it possible to use Opeb fun to pay on funded pension or is that not a lot correct?
[36:31] That is not allowed.
[36:32] Let's go to the bottom of the go back to that graphic slide screen if you can.
[36:39] All right.
[36:39] And then the paragraph at the bottom left there any time access.
[36:44] So the trust funds are available anytime, but Opeb funds must be used only for Opeb
[36:51] pension funds, less to only use for pension. Again, that's a gas-be requirement. So let's use
[36:57] a pension for instance, or better yet, let's use OPEP for instance if you were to make this
[37:02] move because you're a fully funded status actually a little bit overfunded. If you said, hey,
[37:08] we really want to put some more money on the pension side. You'd have to take reimbursement of
[37:13] your OPEP assets back to your general fund. Once they're in the general fund, then you have the right
[37:19] do whatever you want with them. You could use them for some other purpose or you could use them to
[37:26] go into the pension account within our combination trust.
[37:31] And a follow-up question to that. That would mean that the money that we provided in the last two
[37:37] years to to powers could be taken back and reallocated to the to the pension. Is that correct?
[37:45] Yes. So we haven't given you any money. And at this current time, we're not putting any
[37:53] money into the, into the opem. We are doing what you suggested using the fund itself to
[38:00] pay for all the current current costs. So with what I've described to you, there is no opportunity
[38:07] to move funds from opem to pension.
[38:11] Yeah, you can't move them directly over on a lateral basis based on that graphic on the right but you could reimburse them back to the general fund in effect redistribute them back to the pension account.
[38:24] But you under gas be rules, you must take reimbursement first.
[38:28] You may remember in the old days of the 115 trust they talked about the word irrevocable irrevocable trust irrevocability.
[38:34] So what that means is the funds must be used for the purpose in which they were intended when they were contributed into the trust.
[38:41] So those OPEV assets must be used to pay the OPEV bill, either as on a reimbursement directly back to the town or pay the provider of the OPEV benefit directly.
[38:56] Conversely, your pension assets can be used to reimburse the town for pension-related expenses or when you deem it appropriate, you can pay CalPERS directly to lower the UAL.
[39:14] It seems, if I'm listening to you correctly, the real advantage is that we pay lower fees to have you manage both of them.
[39:25] Lower fees and then also better investment performance.
[39:29] But in particular, Cheryl, there's another advantage, which is that once you put money into Cal Perth, it never comes back out.
[39:35] Right. In this arrangement, you can get it back for a year or two.
[39:42] Yeah. But the lower fees break point is 5 million right, Mitch. So.
[39:47] Correct. The lower fee is not for the total 5 million. It's above the asset base above 5 million.
[39:54] The total would be attributable to. So, I mean, until we're above 5 million. And it's only
[40:01] lower fee on that above 5 million. Correct.
[40:07] But I see what you're saying. Yeah, but I feel like the idea of working one with one investment provider for these post employment benefits and then better net investment performance than perhaps this might be a good idea for you.
[40:22] Let me just go over some territory we've been over before you to make sure I'm not missing anything.
[40:29] Assuming that we take this million dollars that we have, that's overfunded out of the OPEP trust and put it someplace else, what are the pluses and minuses putting it into your pension trust as opposed to using it to pay down the unfunded liability with CalPERS.
[40:48] Well,
[40:52] I don't have your, I didn't put your pension numbers into this presentation for
[40:59] give me rody for that. I think paying the CalPERS liability down is a good idea. I don't
[41:10] remember exactly where your pension fund is status is, but my guess it's on the higher
[41:15] end of the scale. We can see a bit of this good but it's not but but and we're fully funded at the
[41:22] moment but in a couple more years we will be. Yeah well we know what's coming in August this next year.
[41:28] Well the current year we're in we're getting new numbers which reflect June 30 2022's CalPERS performance
[41:34] which was unfortunately negative 7.5%. So when those numbers get factored in the mathematician
[41:41] folks at our shop and others I've heard said that you will drop about 10 percentage points.
[41:47] So if you're fully funded now for pinching, you'll drop to about 90%. So one idea is to use
[41:53] overage extra money. The million you mentioned to pay down the UAL with CalPERS. If you like that idea.
[42:01] Others have said, man, the liability is going to grow next year. Therefore, I don't want to put it there.
[42:08] I want to put it into the 115 trust to keep it ready for the future sort of keep your powder dry prepare for what may be coming down the road. Hopefully it will be a good year, but we don't know for sure.
[42:23] They're going to lower the discount rate again at some point in time. They lowered it last year to 6.8 so if you like the idea of building up that pension account and you would put it there so.
[42:34] You know, there's an argument for doing it either way.
[42:38] I'll leave it to you guys to sign what's best.
[42:41] All right.
[42:45] So right if you take down the sharing formula, I could see everybody.
[42:49] Is there anyone else that has questions for Mitch?
[42:55] Any public questions for Mitch?
[43:00] So I think today we've got an excellent report from Mitch.
[43:04] Thank you so much.
[43:06] The committee will take it under consideration and decide what action we'd like to take at a subsequent meeting, but thank you so much, and if we have further questions, we know where to find it.
[43:16] Thanks Alan, thank you committee, take care everyone.
[43:20] Thanks, Mitch.
[43:24] I'm sorry, it just came to me.
[43:28] Mitch, your comparison.
[43:30] Well, he just got off yet.
[43:32] Go ahead and ask your question, no, Jim. We'll get an answer for you, okay?
[43:38] Here is an uneal, was based on the most aggressive option for CalPERS and PARS. If the
[43:46] comparison was done using our choices, the moderate versus the CalPERS our choice moderate,
[43:54] what would a difference be? It would be favorable to CalPERS to the OCA that we're using now.
[44:02] Okay, Jim, there also isn't an exact direct comparison.
[44:07] Calper says, you know, less options to choose from.
[44:12] So, par says five buckets and Calper's only has two or three.
[44:16] So, you actually can't get a one to one comparison.
[44:19] But your question is a very good question.
[44:21] He kind of compared apples and oranges a little bit in his presentation.
[44:27] But it is true that the advantage is that if we would have had this money that we have
[44:33] in OPEP in the OPEP, we could have just taken it out and we're having to work hard
[44:43] now to find a way to make sure we get that million dollars back efficiently.
[44:47] So it's easier for us to work with the model than it is with the CalPers model.
[44:52] It seems to me that the real advantage is flexibility.
[44:54] Okay, yes.
[45:00] Just point out that we're not putting any new money into the OPEB trust.
[45:05] But that number keeps getting bigger. That million was 200,000 the first time we saw it. And we saw it coming. And we anyhow, I'm just saying it's easier to manage one less thing to worry about.
[45:19] But I'm just trying to say that the flexibility is the ability to get money back that you put in in the last two years. And we're not, and we're not putting any additional money into into OPEB.
[45:31] because we're, quote, overfunded and we're using the trust that this point to pay the current expenses.
[45:37] That's our effort to draw down the, the overfunding of the OPEP trust, if that's clear to everyone.
[45:44] Mm-hmm.
[45:45] Right. Okay. Thank you so much.
[45:48] The next item on the agenda is Serena's mid-year budget review.
[45:55] Okay. So before I start sharing my screen,
[45:58] And I don't know if they were Roddy Ann Allen's questions, but Roddy sent me some questions so I'm going to try to integrate it into the presentation. Anything I missed Roddy, I'm sure you could chime in.
[46:13] Thank you.
[46:15] Let me share my screen.
[46:40] One quick second, let me pull it out.
[46:46] Can
[47:06] everybody see my screen?
[47:08] Okay.
[47:12] Okay. So, this is the Townwide Fund summary, and one of the questions was, what does
[47:20] earmarked mean? And earmarked is just stating that this is what Council has approved for
[47:27] either reserves or for projects pertaining to that fund. So, as you can see, we still have pretty much
[47:38] haven't made much or many changes in the reserve.
[47:47] Sorry, in the reserve fund with these different categories. What I am recommending is for we have 1.2 in our disaster contingency and with the storms that we've just endured. I'm going to request or propose.
[48:10] to City Council in moving $200,000 from the disaster contingency reserve to the general fund.
[48:20] And if we do get reimbursement back from FEMA or from the state, we then will then put the funds
[48:28] back into the contingency.
[48:32] And then, of course, we have our ARPA funds and then we also have our
[48:37] on our sewer funds. So, with that being said, you see some negatives here in the general CIP and the street.
[48:45] That does not include the transfers that we would normally do at the end of the year.
[48:52] So, we don't do them at mid-year, we would do them at the end of the year.
[48:56] Also, you can see for the revenue for a street, we haven't received all the revenue that mostly pays for our street expense.
[49:05] So here is a snapshot of the proposed budget amendments that we will be taking to council.
[49:15] This column here where it's approved budget council budget amendments through 1231.
[49:22] Those are budget appropriations that council made from July through December.
[49:29] We see the expenditures were increased by 42,000, and then we have the capital funds that were increased by 56,000.
[49:42] So our amended budget total through 1231 does take those total takes those amendments in the consideration.
[49:52] And what we're proposing for budget amendments to the city council.
[49:57] So we want to reduce the revenues in the general fund by 189,000, 100.
[50:08] Those pertain reducing the license and permits revenue by 183,000 and then reducing the charges for services.
[50:16] We recognize that we are not going to get the close to the budget amount that we initially
[50:26] proposed in July. And that's because we saw that permits that were issued this fiscal year was about 297 permits and what we received at the same time last year was 340. So we decided to reduce the revenue and I'll show you in the next couple slides.
[50:53] the actual line items so you could get a better understanding. So we also add, we also are
[51:04] asking to add in reach codes. And the reach codes are for the, what is the reach codes for?
[51:16] is to update going from gas and building fees.
[51:23] Go ahead, Peter.
[51:24] Did you say something?
[51:25] Sorry.
[51:26] I am muted the wrong section.
[51:27] Green building fees.
[51:29] Green building elements of the building code.
[51:33] So the council directed staff to look at requiring electrification for remodels.
[51:41] So as part of that, we need to do community outreach and then propose some new
[51:46] language that would be embedded into our building codes and then make that enforceable at the
[51:52] beginning of next year. Thank you. And this is one of the items that council added to their
[52:00] work plan at their study session. So we wanted to add that to this year's budget. We also are
[52:11] asking or proposing to reduce the planning and building expenditures by 269,000 with the reduced revenue.
[52:20] We decided to reduce the expenditures because of the number of permits that are being issued.
[52:29] And also the 50,000 we're asking to add that for the Council chamber or AV system.
[52:49] Okay, so this is just a snapshot of all the funds, as you could see, by amending the budget for revenues and expenditures, our revenues are coming in at 39%, which the actuals were about 6.3 in the expenditures at 46% at 7 million.
[53:16] it.
[53:18] And then the other thing was that we amended was the capital funds. As you know, revenues
[53:25] for capital normally is timing of the receipts and then of course the expenditures more
[53:33] at 57%. And then the sewer funds of course the timing difference of the revenues receipts
[53:41] for the sewer assessments.
[53:43] And then of course, the operating expenses also
[53:47] has a timing of the expenditures.
[53:55] Overhead allocations arena, there was a 35% increase.
[53:59] There was that just volume related also.
[54:02] Yes.
[54:03] So can you guys all see this?
[54:06] I didn't make it a little larger, please.
[54:11] I've got to do it to everybody see that.
[54:17] OK.
[54:17] So as I said before, we have the itemized of revenues based by category, property tax is always a timing difference as you can see, as of last year, it was about the same percentage, taxes another property that big increased last year was sales tax this year, it stabilized after, you know, COVID.
[54:45] most a lot of people are now getting out and spending their money versus being at home and
[54:51] on the computer. Frank, franchise fees, always a timing difference. We always get that towards
[54:58] closer to the end of the fiscal year. And then here again, as I mentioned earlier,
[55:05] The previous budget, the council initiated initially approved was about 2.4 and we reduced it to 1.6.
[55:20] So we feel that with reducing those revenues that we're going to get on a bit more on target of what we will see received by the end of the year.
[55:33] You said money and property as you heard from well earlier that it's interest that has
[55:44] is not up to the market governmental, you know, some of those revenues are based on reimbursement.
[55:54] So we would receive it once we spend the money.
[55:57] charges for services. When reducing the charges for services, we're pretty much on target of what we're going to receive by the end of the year.
[56:08] Miscellaneous. Those are some miscellaneous refunds and reimbursements that we received that we didn't expect, so that is what's taking it to the 57%.
[56:21] And then if we go down here to our expenditures, pretty much a administration is almost on target at the 49%, a little bit over from previous year, and we have all they can see, we have filled all staffing with exception of one vacancy in the building department.
[56:47] Public safety that's slightly higher from the previous year. Some of it has to do with the timing of the expenses, but also it also includes some over time.
[57:01] Planning and building we did reduce the expenditures. If we weren't going to receive the revenue, we wanted to make sure that we reduced expenses based on the number of permits.
[57:13] So I'm going to stop right there for a second because I do want to point out I know last year there was a big cut discussion regarding license and permits and charges for services, how we if you could see here the 104% for license that permits and that was that mid year and then charges for services of 129% so I just want to give some a little bit more analysis to that and.
[57:43] Currently, we are not receiving enough revenue to support the building and planning expenditures.
[57:49] So currently, we received 1.1, 1.2, and we expense 1.2.
[57:59] As you can see here, 1.7, so the general fund is still supporting the planning and building departments.
[58:08] And so when we talked last year, we said we wanted to do an analysis of the license and permit fees,
[58:20] because, you know, we didn't think we were fully capturing all of the revenue or even fully capturing all of the expense.
[58:28] And as you can see, year to year, it changes and it's even flow up and down and so we could never just look at one year and it's entirely to say that we're, you know, we're collecting more revenue than we are spending and so this is just a perfect example as how things change from last year to this year.
[58:55] do you want to add anything Peter to that?
[59:01] No. Oh.
[59:05] I'm using two different systems, I'm sorry,
[59:08] by headset and when we connect to my phone. So yeah, I think that the point that we've tried to
[59:14] make early on in this conversation with permit fees are very volatile in any city. You get revenues
[59:20] some days. The general fund is supporting the building department. Other days the building department
[59:25] is depositing the revenues into the general fund.
[59:28] And so we were apprehensive to make a quick judgment
[59:34] in terms of our correction.
[59:40] And so now we're starting to see that, in fact,
[59:42] now the building department is not doing as well
[59:46] as we would have hoped.
[59:48] So again, we're going to do the cost of service study
[59:51] later after we've done our audit of the building
[59:54] permits, but we're already starting to see the effects of going from...
[1:00:00] One fee that we had at the beginning of last year to now the the new fee which was cut in half. So we're definitely seeing a reduction in in revenues. The one thing I would point out is that there's this never going to be a year that we get it absolutely perfect. That's just a nature of this business.
[1:00:18] So, the way to look at this is to do a five to ten year horizon, and as long as we're
[1:00:25] working towards generally expenditures and revenues matching, then we're in good shape.
[1:00:32] But now we're just, we're seeing what we thought we would see, which is reducing the fees
[1:00:36] and having a negative impact on our ability to keep the building department.
[1:00:45] at a neutral position.
[1:00:48] So we'll have to go back and take a look at the permits.
[1:00:52] And after we do the audit of the permits
[1:00:54] that were issued since we adjusted the billing permit fees,
[1:00:58] where we have to do a cost of service study.
[1:01:01] But that's still probably six months to a year
[1:01:05] by the time we finished both those things.
[1:01:08] So I don't know if this is confusing to anybody else,
[1:01:11] I find this the most confusing chart to really be able to understand what's going on.
[1:01:21] I think Cheryl, maybe if I if you take all the numbers off this chart and you just focus on two
[1:01:26] numbers. The first number is under license and permits. Right. Okay. That's all of our building
[1:01:34] permit revenue. Right. So yeah, so the building permit revenue last year received more revenue
[1:01:45] than we expected. So we went through this exercise, you could remember the FIC motion made
[1:01:52] a motion that we reduced the permit fees. Right. So we did that. So we reduced the permit fees.
[1:01:58] Now that they mid-year is over, we've seen that we were collecting a lot less than we thought.
[1:02:06] And as a result, not only are we below what we thought we would be, which would be normal,
[1:02:10] because we knew we were going to collect less.
[1:02:12] But we're actually below expenditures.
[1:02:15] So now we're exceeding, we're spending more than we're receiving.
[1:02:18] So I'm just over here to spend the expenditure of the planning and building.
[1:02:23] That's the same thing.
[1:02:24] Yeah. Okay. So, licenses and permits are planning and building. Well, so I, what I, what I, what I don't understand is if I go look at the proposed amended budget, you had a, a million six in licenses permits, but 3.7,
[1:02:44] And planning and building. Well, why would we have ever had a budget like that?
[1:02:52] Maybe I can help. This is somewhat a comparison of apples and oranges. First of all,
[1:03:00] the original budget number wasn't one million six. The original budget number was 2.5 million
[1:03:06] up there at the top. The number that's shown there now is the adjusted number after the
[1:03:12] $890,000 reduction is put in place.
[1:03:19] The fees under license is in permits just to go to the building department, but the expenditure
[1:03:25] that they show is the combination of the planning department and the building department.
[1:03:29] The planning department, a large percentage of the planning department, is not recoverable
[1:03:35] through fees because what the planning department does has to do with general governmental
[1:03:42] functional functions as opposed to specific projects we waited to individual projects.
[1:03:49] So I think it's the overhead, it's what you're seeing.
[1:03:52] It also, yes, it definitely includes the overhead as well.
[1:03:57] Just to correct a statement, the FIC never passed a motion recommending that the
[1:04:08] be reduced. We basically suggested that the fees were being charged were excessive and needed
[1:04:17] to be investigated. And looking at the detail associated with this report, if you look at the
[1:04:25] trial balance, the NEP fees and basically disappeared from what they were the prior year. You
[1:04:32] won't see it here on the schedule. This is if you look at the trial balance. So the town has made
[1:04:37] some changes to the way in which they charge their fees, they haven't disclosed those changes
[1:04:44] that they've made. So it's impossible to evaluate them. As to why they have produced the
[1:04:52] reduction that they have, but I take exception to the comment that the reason why the total fees
[1:04:59] have gone down is because the change in the number of permits is 297 to 340. I believe the
[1:05:07] reasonable reason for the reduction in the fees is because the town has made a change to its fee policy, which it has not disclosed to the public.
[1:05:18] Okay, maybe we can, but okay, so the first issue is, when we went to the council last year, we explained that we were going to only collect one of the two fees,
[1:05:28] any P versus building permit.
[1:05:31] And so doing, we thought that that would might be a stop gap.
[1:05:33] We weren't sure if that was going to be too much of a reduction in fees or if it might
[1:05:39] be the right reduction.
[1:05:41] We had no basis.
[1:05:42] We took a educated guess based on some analysis we did with our consultant.
[1:05:48] So we started implementing that late last year and for that reason and for the reason
[1:05:53] that we've seen a reduction in number of permits, the revenues have gone down.
[1:05:59] To be clear, the FIC was very adamant that we were double collecting.
[1:06:05] And so we were also trying to ensure that the council understood that there was no,
[1:06:12] there was no basis to claim that we were double collecting.
[1:06:15] We were collecting fees based on the adopted fee schedule.
[1:06:19] And so when we stopped collecting one of the two building permit slash MEP fees, we saw a reduction in our revenues.
[1:06:29] And so the point that we're trying to make is that now revenues are exceeding expenditures in that one line item.
[1:06:39] So this is going to take my recollection.
[1:06:41] I just I believe the discussion and maybe there was another discussion that I wasn't there for.
[1:06:47] was that we were having trouble matching up the fees from a project.
[1:06:55] The actual fees for our project versus what?
[1:06:59] The applicant had paid.
[1:07:02] And it was difficult to, depending upon where they were in the cycle of the project,
[1:07:10] to know whether we had collected enough or not.
[1:07:17] That's not recall. Is that, is there something else that I missed?
[1:07:22] Well, the discussion was preparing the fees that were collected in 2021 to the freeze
[1:07:31] that were collected prior to that. And we saw an increase in revenues in that one, whatever,
[1:07:37] 18-month period, and the thought was, it was articulated to us and to the council, was that
[1:07:48] we've started double collecting in fees.
[1:07:51] What we tried to articulate is that we weren't double collecting the fees.
[1:07:57] We really needed to make a better understanding of what our expenses were, to ensure that
[1:08:02] we had an understanding of how much we might have been over collecting.
[1:08:06] But as I've stated last year and I'll continue to state, building permit fees are not something that you can correct year over year.
[1:08:15] It's something that you have to take a long view for. It's like driving a car, you have to look a quarter mile out. You can't look right in front of you.
[1:08:21] And so what we're trying to explain, which we knew would happen, is that by correcting the fees too quickly, that you would get an over correction.
[1:08:30] And so, we're seeing that oral correction now.
[1:08:34] We reduce the fees by half, and now we're seeing a reduction
[1:08:37] that is causing our revenues to exceed,
[1:08:40] I mean, our expenditures to exceed our revenues.
[1:08:43] So this is going to have to be corrected,
[1:08:45] but we don't know exactly how much to correct it
[1:08:47] until we do a full cost of service study.
[1:08:50] So we're kind of chasing our tail as what I'm trying to say.
[1:08:52] And so I want to encourage the FIC to not be too reactive
[1:08:56] when we see situations like this,
[1:08:59] because this is the nature of this type of a revenue stream, it's very volatile, and we can't
[1:09:06] base corrections every year. It doesn't work that way. We have to base it on a five-year rolling
[1:09:11] average. And this is exactly what happens when you try to correct after one year of revenues.
[1:09:22] Anyways, nothing on this page shows that your expenditures for building exceeds the revenue
[1:09:34] that you've received.
[1:09:36] The wide out in that you're pointing to is not the line item for building.
[1:09:40] It is the line item for a combination of building and planning.
[1:09:44] So Serena can pull out the line items that represent the cost for the building department and compare that to the revenue that the town is currently receiving.
[1:09:57] But nothing on this page allows you to make that comparison.
[1:10:02] As far as the expenditures are concerned,
[1:10:05] I take exception to the comments that the city manager is made.
[1:10:10] I don't believe there are accurate and represent the discussion that took place
[1:10:18] or the results that are being shown at this point in time.
[1:10:23] What's continued on?
[1:10:25] Anyone else have any questions or Serena?
[1:10:28] Have you finished your presentation?
[1:10:31] a couple more pages,
[1:10:34] so, you know, I did want to review the sewer briefly,
[1:10:41] you know, the sewer assessment normally we get it in January and so that's why you don't see anything as received currently here today.
[1:10:51] The sewer connections are not as much as last year, so we have less connections.
[1:11:04] And then of course, use of money and property is represents the interest.
[1:11:11] As I once said before, the operating expenses for sewer are normally, you know, the timing of the invoices and capital expenditures also.
[1:11:26] We did do a little bit more expense details for sewer.
[1:11:30] The personnel cost, we finally are fully staffed in that area and so they're close to the 50% and then the contract services definitely is the timing difference of the invoices received along with the professional services.
[1:11:57] operations is very consistent and then the allocation out. Also, just a brief overview of the capital funds
[1:12:10] of where we're at versus the budget. Just interject a real quick question here.
[1:12:18] You know, I read your weekly report. There were a couple of SSOs last week that you announced.
[1:12:24] Is that, what is the, what's your best guess as to what how much cost is involved in dealing with those?
[1:12:32] There was one SSO and I think the cost came in. We're taking it to Council on the 16th.
[1:12:39] We have a contract and not exceed.
[1:12:43] I think it's 65,000 with a 20.
[1:12:47] I think it's 65,000 plus a $20,000 contingency.
[1:12:53] Yeah, so we went out to bed, we had three, three responses, or one, two responses and one no response.
[1:13:04] So that work is concluding and we should have it wrapped up in the next day or so.
[1:13:11] Is that storm related?
[1:13:13] It was.
[1:13:14] So it's possible that some reimbursement of those costs is available through this contingent federal funding.
[1:13:20] Correct.
[1:13:21] possible. Thank you.
[1:13:27] Okay. So that that concludes my presentation. So let me just again understand here.
[1:13:38] This is just where we're deciding to use some of the capital funds that we have we're going to use more
[1:13:46] for funds from a capital town, then we're going to get in,
[1:13:53] because you're spending as so much greater than here.
[1:13:56] Correct.
[1:13:57] So, so for, let's see, like, I think maybe the street,
[1:14:04] the street revenues, no, we haven't gotten all of that in.
[1:14:09] We haven't gotten all of the revenue in yet.
[1:14:12] and some of the revenue is based on reimbursement and then also you see is this still
[1:14:21] one specifically you're talking about the street where we only received 23 and then we
[1:14:26] spent 1.8 right yeah so that's part of it is the the timing of the receipts up when
[1:14:36] receive the money and also in addition, we do transfer from the general fund into the
[1:14:43] portion to the street fund, and we don't normally do it until the end of the foot.
[1:14:48] Even if you just looked at your budget, your revenue was budgeted to be a million
[1:14:52] over a million and you're expanding for 0.3.
[1:14:58] Well, now, um...
[1:15:00] While that's in for the budget correct. But some of this has to do with transfers that we would normally do. And if you go back to the budget, there are transfers that are in the original or initial budget to accommodate these expenditures.
[1:15:22] Okay. But Serena, this season isn't there also, you spoke of a timing issue where projects
[1:15:30] we've started before and those expenses were now being realized in this fiscal year.
[1:15:36] Correct. And it may have been in the prior budget. Correct.
[1:15:41] I mean, we didn't realize those expenses. Is that the way we should think about that?
[1:15:46] And if you look, let me go back to the first page.
[1:15:53] Let me, let me do some of that.
[1:15:55] And you could see here, who is that Cheryl?
[1:15:59] So you have the fund balance here.
[1:16:02] So I think that was the streets.
[1:16:04] So you have the fund balance of 745,000 to start with.
[1:16:09] We've only received 203.
[1:16:11] We expect to receive more by the end of the year.
[1:16:14] And then we would also, there would be a transfer from the, um, from the general fund into the street fund.
[1:16:24] To accommodate the full expenditure.
[1:16:28] Okay.
[1:16:29] Does that make sense? I think this is a better chart to look at when you're looking when you're going to be using the fund balance, especially for these capital funds.
[1:16:40] Okay.
[1:16:42] That was the rate I just to be sure on the since you talked about this street find if I could ask the question.
[1:16:48] The budget the budget of expenditure for this year was $500,000 less than the year expenditure just through the first half of this year.
[1:16:58] Why why is the expenditure of $500,000 more and just so the year.
[1:17:06] I don't think it's exactly 500,000 last year.
[1:17:09] So if you go, if you go to the page where you showed what the budgeted expenditures are,
[1:17:15] yeah.
[1:17:16] The budget expenditure is 1,356.
[1:17:20] You've already spent 1,836, that's a half a million dollars difference.
[1:17:25] We're only a half way through the year.
[1:17:27] Could you explain why we're half a million dollars over budget and expenditure in the first half of the year?
[1:17:34] So as I don't know if everybody knows,
[1:17:37] Normally, the street projects are always conducted during the dry months, and so it started from probably June, which then, as what Susan has said, the expenses are being realized in this fiscal year.
[1:17:58] And from the last fiscal year, there was a, I think there was a 400,000, 500,000 dollar savings from the previous street project that got rolled into this year.
[1:18:18] And so that's why they extended the number of streets that they were going to work on, and that's why you see the additional funding.
[1:18:30] Pretty much that is over that project will be over, and then they will be starting the next one closer to the end of the fiscal year.
[1:18:40] So we won't, we don't see any more funds being, or any more expenditures, expense for the street project.
[1:18:50] It would be, because they mostly started towards the end of the fiscal year.
[1:18:55] So it's like a carrier from the prior year, but, and so I guess it would be good to somehow see that because when you look at, when you look at these,
[1:19:05] I mean, it's like, to me, it just looks like
[1:19:10] Goblin, you know, I'm sitting here going, how do you?
[1:19:15] Well, in a, you know, without seeing the bigger picture, it's hard to analyze these numbers.
[1:19:25] So, is there a location that talks that shows like probably a rolling three years or four years because of the way projects get down?
[1:19:34] And then when they get built is there is there a document like that that has capital projects of this venture where we have a rolling view.
[1:19:44] Perfect questions isn't in the budget book.
[1:19:48] In the budget book for I'm looking at it right now in the budget books we do a five year capital plan and in there it shows.
[1:19:59] It very detailed the streets that we are going to be working on and the length and feet and the type of work that we're going to be doing.
[1:20:12] And so in this budget book, this year's budget book, it's about 6.8 miles that
[1:20:19] excuse me that they have projected of working on this fiscal year. So last year there was about
[1:20:33] $407,000 from the prior project that they that they didn't use or that they had as a savings.
[1:20:50] Well, actual savings are actually timing disparities.
[1:20:53] Um, actual savings.
[1:20:59] So I understand.
[1:21:02] Um, sorry.
[1:21:03] So we would still be short.
[1:21:06] Um, and from what Allen's point is.
[1:21:10] So we took the 407 with what was budgeted.
[1:21:14] 1.3, 1.4 takes it to about 1.7, 1. close to 1.8, so the general fund will support the remaining
[1:21:28] and I believe in the general fund. Coming from the general fund is about 600,000. That
[1:21:39] support the street project. But you will need more than that. You will need to transfer more
[1:21:45] than that to get the budget to get the budget to be correct. It would be the four out right. It would
[1:21:51] be the 407 from last year because it's still sitting in the fund. The 407 is still sitting in the fund.
[1:22:00] But you're correct, Alan. We probably will have to transfer more and we'll see that at the year end
[1:22:07] when you, when we do or if I don't audit, let me just ask this question, it's the same
[1:22:13] question a little bit differently. Serena, are you proposing to ask council to increase the
[1:22:19] budget anywhere and, and if so, what would those items be? So as I stated in these previous
[1:22:28] in this chart,
[1:22:32] this is what I've asked, this is what we're, this is what staff is proposing and
[1:22:40] increases aside from the 200,000 from the disaster contingency into the general fund, which we don't
[1:22:56] here. But we have we're going to put that in our staff report. So we want to also in addition to what I just showed you here.
[1:23:05] We also are going to request 200,000 from the disaster contingency into the general fund.
[1:23:17] The cost of the street repairs.
[1:23:20] Well, it would be for the storm for the storm fees.
[1:23:25] And the storm charges that we just endured in this law, in January and in the December.
[1:23:35] And so I'm just, and how are those storm charges were they for repair of streets or were they for
[1:23:44] of streets,
[1:23:48] staff time, and, you know, we get the FEMA reimbursement, we will definitely put the money back into the disaster contingency.
[1:24:00] And so, just a question, are you taking it out of the disaster contingency for a, for FEMA reasons as opposed to just taking it out of the unassigned fund balance?
[1:24:12] I mean, there's eight million dollars on a signed fund balance.
[1:24:16] I'm just trying to understand what the law...
[1:24:17] Yeah, we could do it.
[1:24:19] I mean, we could do it either way.
[1:24:22] Even on a signed or disaster contingency,
[1:24:25] that's what the disaster contingency is for for, you know, disaster recovery.
[1:24:32] I mean, I don't think it makes it their friends,
[1:24:36] but I guess...
[1:24:38] Well, I think what we're trying to understand
[1:24:39] was the the 200,000 was it was that all actually for expenses related to the storms,
[1:24:54] where the expenses related to the storm has nothing to do with the street project itself.
[1:25:00] This is money that has is related to the storm specifically. And so and so the money you need
[1:25:09] for the street project, we're showing up here.
[1:25:17] No, you're asking for, or are you not asking?
[1:25:19] No, I'm not asking.
[1:25:21] It's for, I guess the confusion is because I'm using street.
[1:25:28] So, the, the, the, we opened the ELC during the storm.
[1:25:35] And there were, there was a lot of damage.
[1:25:37] There was two sinkholes plus a lot of other damage throughout the town.
[1:25:43] And so we were requesting for those, for those to get reimbursed from FEMA.
[1:25:54] Okay, so that's all I'm asking you.
[1:25:56] Oh, I'll say.
[1:25:57] Is the amount that were over in our street budget related to those costs.
[1:26:04] And that's why we're over from the carry forward or is it just because what we're doing on the streets costs more than we originally budget it costs more than what we originally budget it.
[1:26:17] Great. Thank you.
[1:26:18] What I yeah.
[1:26:19] So the disaster contingency and the ask for that has nothing to do with the street projects per se.
[1:26:30] But you're not requesting a change to the street much in this, you know,
[1:26:38] no.
[1:26:39] What may be confusing, Cheryl, and you're not to probably the only one that's confused
[1:26:45] by it, is that this is really a picture of what things looked like as of December 31st, 2022.
[1:26:56] Okay, she serena is actually not showing you what the difference in the year will be, at the end of the year, as a result of these changes and any other changes, the only, the only ones that she's asked for is the reduction in the revenue to recognize the fact that they are now collecting less revenue from the building and planning.
[1:27:24] That's the $898,000 reduction and a reweighted reduction in the expenditures associated with performing building permits because they state that the activity level is over.
[1:27:40] Those are the only, and that's just one other $50,000 change. Those are the only changes that they're asking for at this time. Now what they haven't told you is there's all these other numbers in the budget, which
[1:27:53] But they may not spend, or they may not receive, they're not asking to, they're not informing
[1:27:59] the council about those particular changes.
[1:28:02] These are the ones that they're asking the council, or making the council aware of it.
[1:28:07] They're only asking for a couple of mid-year adjustments, and it's not, they're not really
[1:28:11] looking at the entire budget.
[1:28:13] It's just the ones they feel they need an adjustment to.
[1:28:16] That is correct.
[1:28:18] Correct.
[1:28:18] Okay.
[1:28:18] I'm sorry.
[1:28:19] Yeah.
[1:28:19] Thank you, Alan.
[1:28:21] Okay, are there any other questions on this item?
[1:28:26] No.
[1:28:27] All right.
[1:28:28] So because of your timing,
[1:28:31] Cheryl, I'd like to move on to the committee code of conduct discussion.
[1:28:37] Let me see if I can share mine.
[1:28:43] Let's see if I can share.
[1:28:51] I want to share this door.
[1:28:56] Can you see this on your screen now?
[1:29:00] Yes.
[1:29:03] So, as you know, back in October, the staff recommended a change to the code of conduct and
[1:29:12] the change in the conflict of interest.
[1:29:15] The conflict of interest is really the form 700 and the requirement for five committees, members of five committees, which the FIC is one, to fill out forms 700, which is the economic interest form that the state of California has for people who have decision making authority or are elected public officials.
[1:29:44] When that information was proposed, a number of committee chairs got together and wrote a letter to the council recommending that those two changes not be made, the council is good.
[1:30:00] A. There action on those and in January of this year, reverse their position with regards to the conflict of interest designation, and eliminated the need for committee members to fill out form 700. So the form 700 requirement has now been removed.
[1:30:21] As far as the Code of Conduct is concerned, the Code of Conduct has been, the Council did not take action other than to first
[1:30:33] put up a, or ask the staff to put up a website to solicit input from the community, and then at the most recent January 24th meeting established and ad hoc committee made up of Council member Tyson and Council member Schmidt to do further investigation with regards to what action
[1:31:00] the council wishes to take with regards to the code of conduct.
[1:31:06] In December, last December, when this was going on, a number of the chairs of the various committees got together and had a meeting and had a discussion about the code of conduct.
[1:31:21] And see, did you see a change on your screen that now says standing committees?
[1:31:27] Okay. At that meeting of the committee chairs, we put this presentation together and it had to do with what the committee's chairs felt about the changes in proposed to the code of conduct.
[1:31:44] And I'm not going to go through it because it was part of the presentation that you received.
[1:31:50] But there are a number of proposed changes to the Code of Conduct that the committee chairs did not feel were advantageous or beneficial or would improve the efficiency and output of the committees.
[1:32:08] And at the end of the meeting, the committee chairs drafted a statement.
[1:32:15] And the statement is right here.
[1:32:18] We consider the draft code of conduct data
[1:32:20] at October 2022 to be unnecessary,
[1:32:22] ill-advised, and a major impediment to the efficiency
[1:32:26] and effectiveness of committees
[1:32:28] by dedicated town volunteers,
[1:32:30] resturongally in Samarra, we reject the premise intent
[1:32:33] and language of this document.
[1:32:36] The second paragraph is no longer applicable.
[1:32:38] It had to do with the form 700.
[1:32:40] And as I said, the town has reversed their position
[1:32:44] and with regards to the form, the need for the Form 700 or committee members.
[1:32:50] So the committee chairs agreed in their meeting that they would take this statement to their committees,
[1:32:57] and see if their committees would be willing to adopt this statement,
[1:33:03] to advise the council with regards to their feelings about the proposed changes to the code of conduct.
[1:33:10] So that is the reason why I've put this before you today to see whether or not you would be interested in supporting this statement and forwarding it to the council.
[1:33:26] So if it's all right, I'd like to stop sharing so that we can see each other and have a discussion about that. Is that all right?
[1:33:39] Well, I will say first thing Alan, I'm really happy to hear that they've eliminated the need for the form 700.
[1:33:47] I would just immediately resign because I thought it was such overreach.
[1:33:52] So it's good to not have that there.
[1:33:56] Right. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:33:57] A number of committee members have resigned.
[1:34:00] A number committee members said they would resign if the form 700 would stay.
[1:34:05] So that's been reversed and we don't need to discuss that any further.
[1:34:10] You're, of course, free to make any comments you'd like, but it's not something we need to take action on because the council has already reversed that one.
[1:34:19] So the question is, would committee like to endorse the statement with regards to the code of conduct?
[1:34:27] I think it makes sense.
[1:34:29] I mean, that's certainly, it adds some information for the two council members that are working on this that that's how they're feeling of the committees are and they can add that to their
[1:34:41] Hopper and other information and make a decision when they want to come back with, but absolutely makes that makes perfect sense.
[1:34:53] So Alan, the thought process here is that we would go back with the view point, this view point on the code of conduct, and then sit down and negotiate kind of what the changes both parties could agree with, is that thought process on what's going to happen here?
[1:35:15] Well, the next step is entirely up to the council.
[1:35:18] The council has formed an ad hoc committee made of the two members that I've mentioned,
[1:35:23] and it's up to them to decide how they wish to go and investigate and decide what changes they would like to make.
[1:35:33] It is entirely up to them. It's an ad hoc committee, so it's not done in the public pur view.
[1:35:41] They can reach out individually, they can hold meetings.
[1:35:47] We haven't been told what they intend to do.
[1:35:51] As Shell has pointed out, this is intended to try and indicate to that committee.
[1:35:58] The various committees, feelings about this.
[1:36:01] I should point out that two committees have already endorsed this statement.
[1:36:06] And other committees either have been asked or will we ask to endorse the statement?
[1:36:14] Okay. All right, I support it.
[1:36:19] I moved that we vote to adopt that.
[1:36:23] Show moves is there a second?
[1:36:26] Second.
[1:36:28] Choose Mason's seconds.
[1:36:30] Any further discussion on the matter?
[1:36:33] Would anyone on this on the call like to make any comments or add any additions at this point in time?
[1:36:43] I would just say that this committee is free to make this motion and I'm not trying to suggest that you don't make the motion.
[1:36:51] But I think there is reason why this code of conduct was introduced in the first place and I think it would.
[1:37:01] It would be in everybody's best interest to hear what the concerns are and how we can come together to resolve some of the concerns.
[1:37:09] A lot of the purpose behind the Code of Conduct and the revised standing resolution was to provide more voice to the committees and more support to the committees,
[1:37:19] but also provide staff with the ability to support the committees.
[1:37:23] So, you know, we're trying to find a balance and the way that we can continue to support
[1:37:29] the committees, but at the same time, not overwhelm staff.
[1:37:36] And so we just need to spend more time hearing from the committees what we can do to find
[1:37:41] that compromise.
[1:37:42] Because right now the balance is tipped and we're trying to bring some attention to it and
[1:37:48] we need to help and the support of the committees to get to a better balancing point.
[1:37:52] You know, when we do out outgoing interviews, a staff, the first thing that they say is that the work load is overwhelming.
[1:38:02] So we just lost our planning director and went out going interview.
[1:38:07] This was again a comment.
[1:38:09] It's an extraordinary amount of work for such a small town.
[1:38:13] So, you know, I just want the committee to understand that this isn't a...
[1:38:22] to say that the committees aren't valued,
[1:38:24] we just have to find a better way to work together
[1:38:26] so that we can work in tandem,
[1:38:28] work in unison, work on the same goals
[1:38:32] objectives rather than work in opposition to each other.
[1:38:36] Because it's putting staff in a very difficult situation
[1:38:41] and I don't know how else to say that.
[1:38:43] So until we have a chance to look at all the issues and concerns,
[1:38:47] I think it's a little premature in my opinion,
[1:38:49] to vote on, similarly, rejecting the standing resolution, but again, that is entirely up to the
[1:38:55] committees to decide. I'll tell you what we will be doing is we're doing another
[1:39:01] roundtable discussion with all the committees, of all the committee chairs and co-chairs,
[1:39:06] and we'll share some of the challenges that we're having, and we'll hear what's working well,
[1:39:11] what isn't working well, and then we'll take another crack with the ad hoc committee to see
[1:39:15] we can find and compromise.
[1:39:19] I would say that that's a great idea and and I think that the feeling
[1:39:23] about the whole process was premature is or I don't think this hit them there's so much
[1:39:31] cooperation between the volunteers and the staff properly managed that process is perfect and
[1:39:40] and will help staff, and I, we, it's been frustrating for us, air of FIC, we watched for
[1:39:47] for 15 years, enormous amount of staff time wasted, and a lot of staff time has been wasted,
[1:39:55] not utilizing the volunteers properly. So I think that, I appreciate that from your perspective,
[1:40:03] you this kind of missed the mark, but certainly the initial proposal here would form 700 and
[1:40:11] all that. That was an on-mark either. So it's excellent to get a here Peter that going back to
[1:40:18] a drawing mark, come up with something that actually will work and make everybody's day easier.
[1:40:26] And it's super important that we make sure that we listen to staff and help staff. That's been
[1:40:32] an ongoing thing for to take you and a half, I'm being involved in, finally we can say,
[1:40:38] we actually have management in this town. So enormous progress been made in the year here.
[1:40:43] So let's, let's just keep at it and and go about it in a very transparent way that it would be
[1:40:49] perfect. Thank you guys. And I know Cheryl's press for time. I'll just make a couple of comments.
[1:40:56] So I think all we're trying to do is say exactly what Peter has said, we want to find a solution that is best for the town staff and beneficial for the committees and the effectiveness of the organization.
[1:41:11] And we just think that what we started with isn't the good starting point.
[1:41:16] And we ought to put that one aside, start with a blank piece of paper, and let's sit down together and identify what the real issues are and come up with the real solutions.
[1:41:28] And we're all in this together.
[1:41:30] We all want the town to be successful and effective and efficient.
[1:41:34] We don't want staff to lose to lead.
[1:41:37] So, all we're trying to say here is, let's start again in a cooperative stance, spirit in which Peter at Peter has proposed.
[1:41:46] So, I'm going to, we've got a motion on the table. We've got a second. I'm going to call the vote at this point in time. Cheryl.
[1:41:55] I have seen.
[1:41:57] Okay.
[1:41:58] Roger.
[1:41:59] Thank you.
[1:41:59] I see.
[1:42:01] Sorry. Go ahead and see.
[1:42:02] Cheryl, did you say in your abstain?
[1:42:04] Yes.
[1:42:06] Okay.
[1:42:09] I think I voted for it on December 11th, but I'll vote for it again.
[1:42:14] Okay, Susan?
[1:42:16] Yes.
[1:42:17] Cheryl?
[1:42:19] Yes.
[1:42:20] And I'll vote. Yes.
[1:42:21] Thank you very much.
[1:42:22] The vote is for.
[1:42:23] Oh, we have enough.
[1:42:24] With a corner of one of Stains.
[1:42:26] Since we're.
[1:42:27] The quorum.
[1:42:27] The quorum only counts to have a legal meeting.
[1:42:31] And once you have a legal meeting.
[1:42:32] You know, it's the members that are there.
[1:42:34] You just have to have a simple majority.
[1:42:37] I'm sorry, if you'd like to weigh in on this, I'd be more than happy to have your input about
[1:42:49] it.
[1:42:50] I don't have any input at this time.
[1:42:53] Thank you very much.
[1:42:54] So the vote was four in favor and none against and one at Stenchen.
[1:43:01] Sarah, if you need to, if you need to go, we can, I think we've conducted the majority of the business.
[1:43:07] Alan, can you just cover the changing rules for where we meet before Sheryl leaves?
[1:43:13] Oh yes, Cheryl, the state emergency ends at the end of February and so committees members are required to be in person starting starting with our March meeting.
[1:43:28] The town is going to provide facilities that enables us to have a what do you call it.
[1:43:37] simultaneous in person and Zoom meeting, hybrid meeting, and the public will be able to attend by hybrid meeting, but the committee members, unless they have a valid excuse, have to be in attendance in person in a meeting.
[1:43:54] on it. Great. And as far as we know the next meeting will be March at our regular time in Serena,
[1:44:01] you'll update us as to any additional things you need for us to have on the agenda for that meeting.
[1:44:07] So thank you so much, Cheryl, for being here. Appreciate it. Next is report on time activities of interest.
[1:44:16] Peter, if you'd like to comment on anything, we'd be happy to hear from you.
[1:44:20] Let's see, anything of interest.
[1:44:23] So, obviously we had another rupture in a storm line that we were in the process of completing.
[1:44:33] I think they're just doing the cleanup right now.
[1:44:38] We've got a pretty packed agenda for Thursday, this 16.
[1:44:46] before I go on, I see Deborah's got her hand up.
[1:44:49] Maybe this is pertinent to what I'm talking about.
[1:44:51] I just want to make a note that the meeting
[1:44:53] is technically been adjourned because you're no longer
[1:44:56] have a quorum.
[1:44:57] You can continue discussing but the minute should reflect.
[1:45:00] The meeting adjourned at 547 or whatever time that was, that this is not part of the meeting any longer.
[1:45:06] That's great. Thank you for making that comment. Let me ask you what happens when a member leaves and we, well, let me ask the question differently.
[1:45:20] With respect to reflecting attendance in the minutes, how do you suggest we deal with members coming in and out during the meeting?
[1:45:28] So if I have a council member that comes in late to a council meeting, I make a note in the attendance council member Schmidt arrived at 515 pm if the meeting started at 5 and in the minutes I make a note that council member Schmidt left at 645.
[1:45:47] But technically you wouldn't be doing this because you're meeting technically adjourned three minutes ago when she left.
[1:45:53] So you would have to reflect her absence because the meeting ended because she left.
[1:45:57] You could reflect that if you'd like.
[1:46:00] Okay, so Deborah, one other question for you.
[1:46:02] Should I stop the recording at this point in time?
[1:46:05] I would.
[1:46:07] The meeting is over.
[1:46:09] Okay.
[1:46:09] But we'll continue our discussion because we certainly would like to hear from the city manager and the mayor with regards to activities of interest if they would like to stay around and talk with us about it.
[1:46:24] And Deborah, I don't think that rule is widely understood about the leaving and the coming and the going in the minutes.
[1:46:34] Yeah. Well, part of the standing committee resolution includes parliamentary procedure training, which I'm going to assume that that's not a problem.
[1:46:43] I anticipate that we will offer it to a number of committee members, but right now, you know, I don't have anything scheduled, but I could definitely do parliamentary proceeding procedures for any committee members of like.
[1:46:56] Well, it's not, you know, we haven't followed the procedure for a long time, never followed that procedure, but I, but I have this conversation with a few other committee chairman at this summer 11 meeting and I don't believe they're following it either.
[1:47:12] Well, we can talk about it.
[1:47:16] I'm going to be sending an email to the chair trying to arrange his time for the chairs to meet with the mayor and the city manager.
[1:47:23] We did this last year.
[1:47:25] And that'll be coming up in March or April.
[1:47:27] So I can bring it up at that time.
[1:47:29] Okay, sounds good.
[1:47:30] I'm going to stop recording now.