[0:00] Okay.
>> Traffic on the way over.
[0:02] » Okay. All right. Let me know when
>> it is. You're the only one that got
[0:07] that.
>> What is it? It's up to
[0:11] » All right. We're going to call the
meeting to order uh for a
[0:15] » a short meeting. Um Emily, I have the
roll call, please.
[0:19] » Sure. Council member Piper. Yep.
>> Council member MH, Council Member
[0:22] Wilson, Mayor Prom Black. Yep. And Mayor
Daringer.
[0:25] » Okay. Uh pledge of allegiance. Uh Jim,
would you do the honors? Yeah, please.
[0:30] Thank you.
>> Ready? Begin.
[0:34] » I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic
[0:39] for which it stands, one nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:45] justice for all.
>> Okay. All right. [laughter]
[0:50] And then we have no presentations,
proclamations, announcements of terms of
[0:54] the order of the agenda. May I have a
motion?
[0:57] » Move the order of the agenda. I second
it.
[0:59] » All those in favor?
>> Okay. Any oppose? No. Okay. Blue folder
[1:03] items. We have none. Uh public comment
on non-aggenda items. We have no member
[1:08] of the public comment here. Um so can I
dispense?
[1:12] » Actually, uh we don't have anybody here,
but I do have one that I was asked to
[1:16] read into the record if that's okay,
please.
[1:18] » Okay. Uh so this is a letter from Mr.
Roger Hawkins. Uh, dear Mayor Daringer
[1:24] and members of the city council, as this
is an important community matter, please
[1:29] read this letter into the record at the
next council meeting if I cannot attend.
[1:32] I am writing to reiterate a concern that
many residents share. Traffic conditions
[1:38] on our roads and trails remain unsafe
with excessive speeding and near miss
[1:43] incidents occurring regularly. Despite
repeated discussions over the years,
[1:47] there has been no meaningful progress
towards improving road or trail safety.
[1:52] Before someone is seriously injured, I
urge the council to take concrete steps
[1:56] to address these conditions. The current
situation is untenable and the community
[2:01] deserves visible action rather than
continued delay.
[2:06] » Okay. And that are there any other um
from received from the residents? That
[2:12] is it.
>> All right. Then with that um we will
[2:15] conclude the public comment and then on
the consent calendars anybody have any
[2:20] items they wish to pull?
>> I make a motion we approve all the
[2:25] consent calendar. [clears throat]
>> All right. All those in favor
[2:29] » I no one opposed. Okay. And we have no
excluded consent items, no commission
[2:35] items, no public hearings. Now for a
discussion item, we have Robert Samario
[2:39] in the house and he is ready on 12A.
>> Good evening, Madame Mayor, members of
[2:47] council. So I'm happy to present to you
the audited financial statements for the
[2:52] city of Rolling Hills. This is for the
year ended June 30, 2025. So we're we're
[2:57] about seven months in to the new year.
And I just want to remind you that last
[3:01] year we brought this to you sometime in
April. So we're early. And you know, one
[3:07] of the reasons that we got a favorable
sort of fee from our auditors because
[3:11] they they recognize that we're not
trying to get things done at the same
[3:15] time everybody else is like in the fall.
So, we're willing to push it back and
[3:19] start later. So, we do that. But, I
didn't want to finish earlier than April
[3:22] because I think it's more meaningful
that way. Um, so what I want the purpose
[3:28] of our item is just to represent it to
you and then have you, you know, receive
[3:31] and file it. But I'm going to go through
it fairly quickly. You may recall that
[3:36] um a few months ago I pres brought to
you our what we call the preliminary
[3:40] year and results for last year. So I
already shared to you kind of where we
[3:43] thought we'd be at the end of the year.
We now have final audited numbers which
[3:47] are going to be which are pretty very
close to where we thought we were going
[3:50] to be before the the audit was
completed. So that's why I'm going to go
[3:54] fairly quick with this. I do have we do
have the auditors here online on Zoom.
[3:58] So once I'm done with mine um I'm going
to turn it over to Jamie Lambert. He's
[4:02] the senior manager for Malisel and he's
going to talk about their process, the
[4:07] results of the audit, the reports that
were issued and I would I would
[4:11] encourage you to ask any questions you
might have of them about, you know,
[4:14] their process, any concerns you have
about, you know, internal controls, that
[4:19] kind of thing because I know we've had
discussions in the past about that. So
[4:22] really, I encourage you to, you know,
ask away and about what their
[4:26] perspectives are on in terms of their
their audit work and our internal
[4:30] controls.
So, why we have audited financial
[4:35] statements? They're required by the
state controllers's office. Uh, I
[4:38] thought they might have been required by
the city's municipal code, but I
[4:41] couldn't find anything in there. Maybe
they're in there, but but it is a
[4:44] requirement that every city and county
issue prepare audited financial
[4:47] statements um because we do have to
submit those to the state. Um, they
[4:52] differ from what we present to you
during the year because now we're
[4:55] dealing with final numbers and they are
audited from an independent CPA. Whereas
[4:59] during the year we focus on how are we
doing budget to actual in in based on
[5:04] what we expect our expectations were the
this report which is referred to as the
[5:08] ACTER it used to be called the caffer
but somewhere in South America that's
[5:12] considered a derogatory term so they
changed it to ACER it stands for annual
[5:17] comprehensive financial report and one
of the things that focuses on additional
[5:21] kind of to the year results but on the
financial health of the city and every
[5:25] agency and I'll get more into that in a
moment
[5:29] So the key components is of the acter
are the management's discussion and
[5:33] analysis. This is tries to make sense in
layman's terms of what the document
[5:39] says. There are a lot of numbers and and
footnotes and most people who aren't in
[5:44] finance have a hard time understanding
what the numbers mean and how to
[5:47] interpret them unless you're like a a
grading agency. The idea of an MDNA is
[5:52] that it gives you a layman's perspective
and it tells a story and and I write
[5:56] this every year, but it sort of tries to
tell a story of how did we do and what
[6:00] these financial statements are trying to
say. Um, it includes what's called
[6:05] entitywide financial statements. And,
you know, I'm a little cynical about
[6:09] some of these things because I think
that while this was intended to help the
[6:13] reader understand the the financial
statements, they they sometimes can make
[6:16] it more complicated. And this was
something that back in 2001 or two was
[6:22] required. But the idea was that one of
the criticisms of local government and
[6:27] county government was that when you look
at their financial statements, you
[6:30] really couldn't assess the financial
health of the entity. When you think of
[6:35] kind of how the way they're presented,
it wasn't in any term that was similar
[6:39] to the private sector. If you look at
you know Apple's financial statements
[6:43] you will know whether they're about
their financial condition and whether
[6:46] it's improving or deteriorating over the
has deterior deteriorated or improved
[6:50] over the last year. You couldn't do that
with with fund financial statements. So
[6:54] this was an attempt to say let's measure
you in the same way the private sector
[6:57] does to see are you really in good
financial health or not and are how are
[7:02] you doing over time.
The fund financial statements are kind
[7:06] of what we've always seen for many many
years. you know, you look at the general
[7:09] fund, our restricted funds at at that
level. And then there's footnotes, a lot
[7:13] of words in there which kind of explain
the numbers and then in the back you
[7:17] have the individual funds that are that
are kind of combined toward the front.
[7:21] So you can see individual funds and how
they did.
[7:24] So this is entitywide. Again, this is
intended to present like similar in the
[7:29] private sector. How are we doing and
what's our what's our financial
[7:32] condition? I'm not going to get into a
lot of details other than to kind of
[7:36] point to you to the bottom section where
it says net position.
[7:41] So net position for those of you who do
have private businesses or or follow
[7:46] this stuff, it's kind of the same thing
as your equity. It's it's a measure of
[7:49] your financial health at a given point
in time. And for us, it's at June 30.
[7:53] And you know what you want to see are
bigger numbers because it's the
[7:56] difference between how much you have in
assets, all assets, and what you owe,
[8:00] all your liabilities. And that
difference is your net position. And I
[8:03] just wanted to point to you that we have
as of June 3025
[8:07] um unrestricted net position of $3.6
million. Most of that is in the general
[8:12] fund. That's the reserves that we have
that are both assigned to for
[8:16] emergencies and those that are
unassigned and and we'll talk more about
[8:19] that. We do have some restricted monies.
Those are largely related to monies for
[8:23] the prop, you know, restricted funds,
Prop A, Prop C, our utility fund and
[8:27] things like that. and they are in fact
restricted by external forces either by
[8:31] contract or by regulation or law.
Um but so it you know what I'll tell you
[8:37] is that the the important important
measure is how did we do in the year and
[8:42] this says what was the changes in their
net position throughout the year and
[8:46] I've highlighted what the important
number that overall we saw an increase
[8:50] in our in our net position by almost $2
million in the first column of numbers
[8:55] which is the governmental activities.
That's everything but our refuge fund.
[9:00] And and largely the reason we saw that
is because we had substantial
[9:05] contributions to our capital program
from FEMA. If you look at the top, you
[9:10] see the operating grants. It's really a
little bit of a misnomer. It's a
[9:13] combination of operating grants and
capital grants. But we in total re
[9:18] earned or received about 1.4 almost $
1.5 million from the federal government
[9:23] toward our underground and utility
projects. And that fund goes to capital
[9:27] and investments and so that is
considered a revenue and the expenditure
[9:31] of those funds is not considered an
expense on this on this statement. It's
[9:34] capitalized as an asset. So that really
explains that. Um but I think you know
[9:39] the if it weren't for that we would
still be in the positive and overall
[9:43] citywide we we saw an increase in our
net position.
[9:48] um you'll see that they're going to have
a different sense of this when you look
[9:51] at the general fund because it's on a
different basis and um it's not going to
[9:55] look as stable as what this looks now.
So look at the general fund here are
[10:02] revenues and showing the adopted budget
actual revenues. Again, we've talked a
[10:07] lot about this, but the one thing I will
point out is, and this is not because we
[10:12] have a magic wand, but it's a lot of
this is that we're just trying to do a
[10:15] better job with projecting our revenues.
We are only $14,000
[10:20] different from what we projected, you
know, long time ago before the year
[10:25] ended. Um, there were some individual
variances, but even those variances at
[10:28] the line item level were pretty nominal.
Um, so I think it's good that we didn't
[10:32] see much of a departure from what we
expected overall.
[10:38] On the expense side, um we did have some
overages and we've explained that in the
[10:43] past. You know, the 60,000 in
administration was primarily legal costs
[10:47] related to the land movement that
occurred in the peninsula under public
[10:51] safety or I'm sorry, under planning the
overage is because of the additional
[10:54] costs we paid to the county. Remember,
we had that issue where all our costs
[10:58] went up by, you know, hundred plus
thousand dollars even though and our
[11:01] revenues went down. We're still working
on that, but that's why we had that
[11:04] overage.
Um, but otherwise, we're pretty close to
[11:07] budget if it weren't for those two
things.
[11:11] Um, this is a summary of the of all of
that. I would focus on the middle
[11:16] column, which is the actuals. So, in
total, we received 2.6 million in
[11:21] revenues and we spent $2.8 million in
expenditures. So, we actually consumed
[11:26] reserves by $182,000 unexpectedly. Um
again because of the reasons I mentioned
[11:32] our capital transfers of 344 those
that's planned that's that's we set
[11:36] aside reserves for that purpose. Um but
overall we use $527,000
[11:41] from our reserves to cover all of our
costs including capital.
[11:48] So I'll turn it over I'll ask you there
any questions about the numbers before I
[11:52] turn it over to Jamie to talk about the
audit results.
[11:56] I just have [clears throat] a quick
question on the you mentioned in I think
[12:00] it's your report that um page uh where
you talk about the citywide analysis and
[12:06] our net position that there was uh
direct charges for the uh refues that
[12:14] were 994
uh thousand. It's lower than the
[12:21] budgeted revenues and you're not sure
why the assessments fell short this
[12:25] year.
>> Yes.
[12:26] » So what do you are you when would we
find this out?
[12:30] » Yeah. So I haven't had a chance to look
at exactly what happened. You know we
[12:34] tell the county how much to charge each
parcel? It's I think this past year was
[12:38] 15 for this current year it's 1585
1,585.
[12:42] And we take the cost and divide it by
the 700 parcels that are assessed.
[12:47] I don't know why we came up short
because the year before we were almost
[12:50] like to the dollar but this so in 24 but
in last year we were short by about you
[12:56] know $11,000 or so or $12,000.
I can't explain to you why that is
[13:01] whether lack of payment maybe some
properties came off the tax roll. I
[13:06] don't know. I have not had a chance to
ask those questions. Um but I think
[13:10] that's an unusual occurrence that we see
this variance. We expect that every year
[13:13] we're going to collect exactly what
those costs are because that's how the
[13:17] math works, you know.
>> Does that help?
[13:20] » Yeah. So, it's not satisfying.
>> Meaning they're if they're not get using
[13:25] the trash services that would do it like
if they've they've no they've suspended
[13:29] it or
>> Well, I mean again we we've identified
[13:32] 700 parcels that are subject that are
going to be paying for refues, right?
[13:36] And we take the total cost of let's just
roughly a million and we divide it by
[13:39] the 700 parcels. That's how we come up
with the per parcel rate of I think it
[13:43] was 1585 and that we tell the county
here are the parcels and here is the
[13:48] amount and they put that on the property
tax bill and so presumably then you know
[13:52] then the idea is that they would pay
that along with their property regular
[13:55] property tax bill and the county would
remit it to us. I don't know why we came
[13:59] up short this year like I said it's to
me I haven't figured that one out. I
[14:02] haven't pursued that yet. Um but
normally we are almost exactly what we
[14:07] would expect to get.
Can I ask a followup question on that?
[14:13] » So, we have parcels
like like for example the fire station.
[14:22] They do trash pickup at the fire
station.
[14:26] Do do we bill the county?
>> No.
[14:29] » For that. So is is republic
>> charging us for or not charging us but
[14:36] is republic saying we have this number
of parcels and you're turning in this
[14:40] number of parcels but places like hicks
ring cab ring the view state um the view
[14:50] uh spot up on crest so I can think of
four or five different places and even
[14:55] here who pays for our
>> trash pickup up here. Yeah.
[15:00] » Could those have something to do with
why there's a
[15:03] » I don't think so.
>> And I don't know. I'm not familiar
[15:04] enough with the city to to know those
specific areas, but any governmentowned
[15:10] facility or property, they are not
assessed for for refues. So, whatever
[15:15] the cost of those the services are get
spread across the 700 parcels that are
[15:22] also receiving services but are not
government agencies, if that makes
[15:25] sense.
>> So,
[15:29] If
>> so, we should get 100% either way
[15:32] because we're just it's just a few, you
know, the spread across the 700 that in
[15:37] total should add up to the total amount
that we are paying REA Republic for
[15:41] their services.
[15:45] » Yeah.
>> And anybody else have any Yes.
[15:50] [clears throat] on the um general fund
revenues um spreadsheet the third column
[15:56] almost the last item miscellaneous
revenue I think you told us before why
[16:00] it budget six and went to 50 I I forget
what the reason was
[16:03] » yeah that was the we didn't budget for a
grant that we got to do the landscape
[16:07] work around here and so was I think it
was $48,000 for the grant so we have a
[16:12] corresponding expense
um
[16:14] » the other one was interest budgeted 140
and we actually got 184
[16:18] » how do we miss that boat. I mean that
should be pretty predictable.
[16:22] » No, actually it's not predictable
because you know the variability comes
[16:26] from the monies we have with um with
PARS a section 115 trust and those are
[16:31] invested in a lot different way that
they got invested in equities and a lot
[16:34] of things that have more volatility.
>> This is just a a natural market.
[16:38] » Yeah. I mean it so yeah we and I and to
be honest you know it's it's a
[16:42] conservative number so I don't I don't
try to be aggressive on what
[16:46] » 140 you mean?
>> Yeah. The 140 is very it's very
[16:49] conservative. Well, I'm sorry. The 140
is a conservative number. The 184
[16:53] just things just did better than we
expected. I mean, again,
[16:57] » a lot better though.
>> Yeah.
[16:58] » Yeah.
>> I'm trying to remember why it did so
[17:01] well, but um
>> I just maybe it's a super conservative
[17:06] number. Yeah. The PARS number is
separate. So, I I'm sorry. I It's a
[17:10] separate number.
>> I'll get back to you. I'll send you an
[17:12] email tell you how we why we ended up
doing so well.
[17:15] the whoever that money was invested with
probably had some projection or maybe
[17:20] not I don't know about or
history of their return on investment.
[17:25] » Yeah. I mean the only thing I can think
of is
[17:28] aside from the fact that I just tried to
be conservative with that estimate is
[17:32] that we do see turnover you know these
are all CDEs that have a fixed term and
[17:37] a fixed rate of return or interest when
they mature. I don't know what the
[17:40] interest rate is going to be at that
point. I can't predict that going
[17:43] forward. So if we have a maturity CD
that matures that was at 3% but we get
[17:47] 4% then we're going to enjoy better
revenues than we had predicted or
[17:51] thought we would get.
>> Well anywhere else this would be budget
[17:53] less but you know for us it's
>> meaningful.
[17:57] » Yep.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[17:59] » I I have one other question on the lease
revenue from the community association.
[18:05] I know that we continue to go in and say
well we'll reduce their rent for this
[18:09] and for this and I just want to make
sure. So, is this 58,000
[18:14] the actual revenue?
>> Yeah. And that's just a timing
[18:17] difference because we just we recognize
it when we get it. So, I think there
[18:20] might be I think sounds like there's two
two months of revenues that aren't
[18:23] booked in there.
>> Oh, I see. Oh, so it's not that we
[18:26] adjusted more things. So, that 69 would
be what you'd be using for next year as
[18:31] well. That
>> they pay us like $5,700 a month if I'm
[18:34] not mistaken. So, I just
>> I thought this was after everything that
[18:37] closed. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. any other. Okay. All right. Then
[18:41] we can proceed to the next phase.
[18:49] » So Jamie has his own PowerPoint that
he's going to share. Um we're going to
[18:52] take him off of mute. Let's see if we
can get there.
[18:56] And there's Jamie in a minute. Again,
he's a senior manager. So he kind of is
[19:00] the, you know, oversees the whole audit
process. So he's going to share some of
[19:04] his perspectives and the results of the
audit. Thank you, Jamie. Absolutely.
[19:09] Can you Can you see my screen?
>> Yes.
[19:12] » Yes.
>> All right. Perfect. Well, thank you so
[19:15] much for that introduction, Robert.
Like, like you mentioned, my name is
[19:18] Jamie Lambert. I'm a senior manager here
with LSL. Um, uh, this is now my I was
[19:23] involved with the city of Rolling Hills
audit last year, and this will be my
[19:26] second year on the audit. So, um, and I
appreciate y'all y'all bringing us back
[19:31] this year, me
forward. Um, so, you know, LSL was
[19:36] engaged by the performed the following
procedures. We performed a financial
[19:40] statement audit for the city for the
year ended June 30th, 2025 in accordance
[19:44] with generally accepted auditing
standards and government auditing
[19:47] standards. And we also performed a
single audit over the city's federal
[19:51] awards for the year of June 30, 2025 in
accordance with federal uniform
[19:54] guidance.
Um our scope, you know, we we performed
[19:59] year and inter field work um you know,
in a couple weeks. Uh during the interim
[20:05] field work, we kind of examined the
internal control, you know, performed
[20:08] interviews with with with staff and
personnel. Um
[20:13] pulled some, you know, we also reviewed
these policies and procedures. We pulled
[20:17] some transactions to verify that, you
know, the policies were working as as
[20:21] intended. Um provided relevant feedback.
Then we performed a risk assessment to
[20:26] help plan our our our final procedures
for the audit. Uh where we did our
[20:31] detailed testing of account balances and
transactions. We did some compliance
[20:35] testing related to laws, regulations,
brand agreements and contracts. We also
[20:39] performed our single audit and then you
know some other procedures as well.
[20:43] As a result of our audit, um we issued
an unmodified auditor's opinion on the
[20:47] financial statements for the city. Um
and and what that means is that we were
[20:52] providing reasonable assurance that the
financial statements were accurate and
[20:56] reliable are accurate and reliable as of
June 30th, 2025. Um we also issued a
[21:00] report on internal control and
compliance knowing no significant
[21:04] deficiencies or material weaknesses in
internal control and no material n
[21:08] compliance with laws regulations or
grant agreements.
[21:12] Additionally, [clears throat]
we didn't have any findings in the
[21:14] previous year this year 2024 that we
need to follow up on for 2025.
[21:19] Um also we issued an online opinion on
the city's compliance with the
[21:23] requirements of major federal award
programs as a single audit. Uh and what
[21:27] that means is we you know as a result of
our procedures [snorts] we determined
[21:31] the city was in compliance with terms
and conditions of their major federal
[21:34] reward programs um at the end of fiscal
year. We also identified concern doubts
[21:40] and um we did not identify any fraud
waste or abuse during the fiscal year.
[21:46] Um we also we had no disagreements with
management about application of
[21:50] accounting principles. We didn't have
any difficulty conducting the audit and
[21:54] we also determined all estimates used by
management preparing the statements were
[21:58] reasonable.
I put this slide in here financial
[22:02] highlights but Robert you know just went
over all the highlights so I'm not you
[22:05] know go over these again kind of went
through the whole thing. So um with that
[22:12] you know that's my presentation and I'll
you know open up to any [clears throat]
[22:16] questions you might have.
>> Does anybody have any questions about
[22:20] the audit?
No. Okay. I think uh everyone's
[22:24] satisfied with your explanation in the
documents. So they have no questions
[22:30] other than like where are you from?
Okay. [laughter]
[22:36] » Well, actually I am from the great state
of Alabama.
[22:40] » No way.
>> [laughter]
[22:45] » Well, LSL a few years ago determined
that we were having um and they were
[22:49] having quite a bit of difficulty uh
recruiting everyone locally in Orange
[22:56] County in California who wanted to be
one CPAs and also wanted to be
[23:00] government auditors. It's a this is a
unique breed of people who wants to be a
[23:04] CPA and a government auditor. There's a
a increasingly low number of people
[23:09] interested in that. So they started they
started looking outward and the result
[23:14] has been and I've now been here for four
years. I think I was our first fully
[23:18] remote employee. Um the result we have
full teams were able to complete our
[23:23] audits. We're able to fully staff our
audits uh and provide a higher level
[23:27] assurance in our opinion um to our
clients as a result. Um, so we have now
[23:32] people in we have we have opened a
location in Texas, we have a location in
[23:37] Phoenix, we have a partner in New York,
I'm I'm obviously in Alabama, we have
[23:42] people um, you know, all over the
country now and really has provided LSL
[23:46] the opportunity to provide to give much
better service and um, also not to have
[23:53] less turnover really because government
auditors get burned out really quick.
[24:00] But I am um I I do come out to
California fairly regularly for
[24:05] conferences and things like that. And um
the
[24:10] um partner the ultimate partner on the
job is a California CPA. I'm working on
[24:15] getting my California CPA currently
licensed in Alabama. Uh but you know I'm
[24:19] going to get that this year kind of
reciprocity there. Um so yeah, thank you
[24:24] for asking that question and uh since
you brought it up I'll just mention a
[24:28] roll tie. So,
>> all right. Okay. Well, thank you for
[24:32] sharing. All right. All right. Well,
thank you. If there's no other
[24:35] questions, then we can conclude that
matter. And since he's three hours time
[24:39] difference,
>> I make a motion we receive and file.
[24:44] » Second.
>> All right. All those in favor say I.
[24:46] » I. Okay. No.
>> He's wearing pants. I had a question.
[24:49] You wearing pants, [laughter]
[24:52] » Jim? Jim,
>> there's a rule. Don't ask questions you
[24:55] don't really want to know the [laughter]
answer to.
[24:57] » Good point.
I'm glad we cut that screen off before
[25:01] that question got [laughter] to
>> Thank you all.
[25:05] » All right. Thank you, Robert. Okay.
[laughter]
[25:09] » All right. Okay. I know.
>> All right. That could have been an
[25:11] overshare. Let's We can try to reframe.
[laughter]
[25:14] All right. So, now going to matters uh
from the city council. Um before we get
[25:20] into item 13A, I just wanted to let the
council know that I did uh as per the
[25:25] request faithfully oppose the um the
county's um I proposal for that half
[25:34] extra half cent measure that they uh
wanted to put on the June ballot.
[25:38] Unfortunately, that was unsuccessful.
They had uh they limited people to 90
[25:43] minutes and one minute per person. Um,
and they had over 700 people that wanted
[25:50] to speak. So, I had to exercise in order
to get my one minute of comment, which I
[25:57] I managed to truncate while I'm waiting
online several hours to be able to get
[26:02] all the salient points in. U, but I had
to contact somebody to get me up in the
[26:07] line so I could be sure to give the the
comment. Uh, nevertheless, it was not
[26:12] successful, but
>> you know, I just wonder. I know
[26:17] » they're going to tax us more.
>> The done deal before anyone with that.
[26:20] » But anyway, but we can still try to tell
our res.
[26:24] » No, supervisor Bar was the sole no vote.
>> Only one.
[26:29] » She's the only Republican, you know, so
just on the on the board.
[26:34] » Just gets worse and worse. It's most
regressive way to head do it. So
[26:38] whatever.
>> It's not the same. I mean this crap. I
[26:40] mean, every time you turn around, it
just it's
[26:42] » unbelievable. But the cities are unified
and they're putting out the message to
[26:46] their residents that notwithstanding the
fact that this is a special tax which
[26:50] would normally have a twothirds vote
disguised into a which is really a
[26:55] general tax which only requires 50% puts
one um then uh which they think is going
[27:01] to assure them of a victory that if we
get people to really vote no in in
[27:06] unison then you know they would have to
uh dig in in their own pockets and and
[27:11] so I did get report in LASist which um I
was the only one who said no to things
[27:18] that because there were other people who
voiced objections including the director
[27:22] for California contract cities. Uh but
um so anyway, so we we'll keep up the
[27:28] now it's to the voters. So that's that's
my report on that and now we have
[27:32] anybody else want to say anything before
we go to 13A? All right, we're gonna go
[27:37] to 13A.
>> Okay. Well, good evening, uh, mayor and
[27:41] council members. Uh, this item is coming
before you tonight at the request of
[27:45] Mayor Prom Black from last August. Uh,
basically, uh, regarding the South Bay
[27:52] COG's um, annual dues, uh, as you'll see
within the staff report, attachment A,
[27:58] uh, has the current dues formula, which
was approved back in 2024. At that
[28:04] point, uh, the city's dues were $8,91.
Um, part of the motion of the COG board
[28:11] at that time, uh, was to simplify the,
uh, structure for how dues were, um,
[28:19] were, [clears throat] uh, were
>> calculated.
[28:24] » Calculated. Thank you. Sorry, I'm having
a having a senior moment. Um, [laughter]
[28:29] » you're not old enough.
>> You'd be surprised, council member. uh
[28:34] uh and and what they did was they set a
uh a CPI uh the the dues would increase
[28:41] for each city based on CPI each year
with a maximum cut off of 5%. Uh the
[28:46] staff report as attached has all that
information uh historically because we
[28:51] did discuss this back uh a couple years
back. Um, with that said, the dues for
[28:57] this year, uh, or the the upcoming year,
fiscal year 2627,
[29:02] uh, will be 8,625,
uh, and that's based on an adjustment of
[29:07] 3.2%
uh, CPI. Um with that said, this matter
[29:13] is really before you to discuss uh if
you want to have further discussion or
[29:18] information brought forward um as it
relates to uh your membership dues uh
[29:24] now and going forward. Uh with that
said, available for any questions.
[29:28] » So if we [clears throat] approve this,
that means we're agreeing to remain
[29:33] members for another year. This is a
receive and file uh of of just
[29:38] information for you to the body to have
a discussion and you can direct staff as
[29:43] to whether you want to bring back an
item where you might consider uh not
[29:49] retaining membership which is why I do
have a paragraph in the staff report
[29:52] about what does that look like and what
is the city obligated to do under the
[29:56] terms of the uh JPA agreement. Uh so
this is really a free-for-all for you
[30:03] each to have to express your thoughts
and considerations related to uh the
[30:08] matter.
>> Thank you.
[30:10] » Okay. Does anybody else have any
question of Christian before we do it?
[30:15] Okay. All right. Um and there is no
public comment because we have no um
[30:20] public I didn't call it because there's
still nobody here in the audience to
[30:24] call public comment for the record. Uh
so um well in terms of that um I know
[30:32] that there was a discussion and I don't
know if people want to hear about some
[30:36] of that now but I don't know we have all
the information about what the services
[30:40] are
>> um in the staff report um
[30:44] » from the previous time
this is not the time to make the motion
[30:48] to withdraw from the cog or is it
>> you could actually that's that is really
[30:53] at the decision of this body
>> I mean
[30:57] Do we get any value out of this that
actually matters to us?
[31:04] » Is that a open-ended question or
>> I'd say yeah all
[31:10] » the cog right now is administering some
grants for us and it requires us to have
[31:14] reporting for recycling for the state of
California and they're managing those
[31:17] grant programs for us. You can see the
results of that program and in the
[31:22] material we put out for through our
newsletter. So for example, organics,
[31:26] we're not required, but we are expected
to put information out educating the
[31:30] residents about that. We don't
>> required. You said
[31:33] » the education component. We are
>> and that part is what we're achieving
[31:37] through the grant programs. They provide
those services. We don't do it in house.
[31:42] We don't work with um the state of
California recycling services to to um
[31:47] get these mandates. They administer that
all on our behalf. All we do is to be
[31:52] able to open up our facility and educate
the residents through the blue
[31:55] newsletter and presenting events here.
We've had a couple since I've been here
[32:00] of those events. Um other services that
you provide are um research. If we're
[32:06] looking for information that we may not
necessarily have on staff, we reach out
[32:09] to the cog and they provide it for us.
Um they have in-house personnel that
[32:13] again just specialties um and experience
that we don't have it. We attend
[32:17] meetings for planning, engineering, um
special pro projects, special events.
[32:23] Upcoming would be a housing trust. I
mean, there's so many different
[32:26] components. A housing trust, it's not up
for discussion this evening, but
[32:30] » we don't want a housing trust,
>> right? But those are the type of things
[32:34] » telling us how to do a housing trust
>> and and they're not
[32:37] » it's not mandatory for that.
>> But those are the things where they're
[32:40] conducting that level of research for
not just us, but for the agencies in the
[32:45] South Bay. So there are some benefits in
having them. It is additional bodies
[32:50] that we do not have in house.
I guess that's the most important part
[32:54] is the time spent.
>> So when you said you know that have
[32:59] planning things that they can help us
with. Can you get I I guess what we
[33:04] would look for is may maybe we could
direct staff to give us just a very
[33:09] quick breakdown of what services apply
they provide. we have been able to
[33:15] utilize this
>> and what value you think it brings
[33:19] » and what value
>> because if we we get out of it
[33:23] » which and you can say oh we think we are
getting 15,000 or $20,000 the value let
[33:30] me show you how it is then that's a
different statement than
[33:35] the perception that we get zero out of
it
[33:38] » right
>> and it might be the this cog versus that
[33:41] cog versus the league of whatever
It's sort of the same problem across all
[33:46] of them.
>> A lot of the things they think they're
[33:49] solving have nothing to do with us.
>> And [clears throat] so when when they
[33:52] when they give us information like this,
they I'm not saying the COG doesn't do a
[33:57] lot. you know, I trotted down the
elections center that the cog arranged
[34:02] that to her and I found that very very
useful to me and you know and I shared
[34:07] what the things that I saw there with
the women's club and here um about
[34:14] uh election security and I found it very
helpful but most things that they do I'm
[34:21] not seeing the benefit to us not saying
that they don't do a lot but if we could
[34:27] find about just you know quick not in
great deal but just you know we utilize
[34:33] COG for this this this and this year if
we drop out of COG this this and the
[34:39] repercussions would be this this and
this you know we'd need to find somebody
[34:42] to do this or something like that I
think it's I don't know if you guys
[34:47] think it's worth having direct directing
staff to do something like that to bring
[34:50] it back for us if or we're going to say
no just out of hand we've said for the
[34:56] last three or four years. We'll do it
this year again, but boy, I don't want
[35:01] to do it, you know, next year when it
goes up. So, some of us may have made up
[35:06] our minds already.
>> Mhm. Okay.
[35:09] » I have a question. Um,
>> that just escaped me.
[35:16] » Oh, boy. That was fast.
>> You don't have a senior.
[35:19] » I do. [laughter]
[35:23] » Okay. Well, I mean, there was something
I know we we have a list. um of on I
[35:29] don't know what page that that is uh 140
of 155 um that there was different
[35:36] things that they did there was the
>> wait [clears throat] I remember my
[35:39] question
>> okay all right okay I knew once I
[35:41] started that you [laughter] would have
sorry no that's okay
[35:44] » did anybody drop out this year any uh or
uh resign I don't know what what the
[35:49] process would be but did did the cogs
any members
[35:52] » no
>> okay I think some other like the league
[35:56] in some of the contracts.
>> Yeah, the league has there's nine cities
[36:01] statewide, that's it, that are not
members of the league.
[36:05] » That was my question. Sorry.
>> So, instead of going through the list of
[36:09] what they say, I think staff needs to
tell us what value they think and have
[36:14] to monetize what it is. We used to
outsource
[36:18] » what Benjamin now does. And the value of
having Benjamin here to do those things
[36:23] is one, we got a bunch of stuff off the
list and there's more value of of doing
[36:27] it. I'm not saying we're hiring
somebody, but how does this work with
[36:32] what we can do and can't do because
yeah, historically it's
[36:39] not a lot of bang for our buck. But
>> and in by value, you're talking about
[36:44] like what would it cost us if we had to
do this contract out? have to do the
[36:49] paperwork for the trash or for the
because they keep making everything
[36:52] worse, right?
>> And so they make everything I mean so
[36:56] now we have to do the the bot trash
paperwork even though we don't it's like
[37:00] storm water just a waste of money but we
got to do it. So if you can put together
[37:05] an outline that's clearly defined on
what matters to us versus what they do
[37:10] because if we go through what they do
90% of it's nothing for us.
[37:17] maybe more
and not what we should do what we're
[37:22] absolutely forced required to do.
>> I don't want to do one thing more ever.
[37:29] In fact, we can put off a lot of stuff
until they come at us and say, "Oh,
[37:33] you're 5 years old behind." Say, "Oh,
sorry." And that's fine, too. But then
[37:38] that happens all the time.
>> Except for housing.
[37:41] » Yeah. Except we get sued like like some
cities did
[37:45] » um by, you know, get sued. only because
we went to the meeting and and and that
[37:51] was um
>> I know they went
[37:54] » and Pat Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[37:56] » So, uh we kind of said, "Oh, we didn't
know G." And so,
[38:00] » you save a lot of money by now. The
slower we do anything is the better it's
[38:04] going to be,
>> right? Well, I'm not saying we
[38:06] » save a lot of money,
>> but yeah, that would be helpful. So,
[38:09] does that give you enough direction?
Okay. And then and then if there's other
[38:13] things coming down the pike that are
mandates that we know we're going to
[38:18] have to do and the cog will take care of
us. We need to be doing it
[38:23] prognostically too, right, for the
future.
[38:26] » Okay. All right. Um, so do we we don't
need a a motion for that. It's just
[38:30] direct.
>> Just a motion to receive and file.
[38:31] » I have a motion to receive file. Second.
>> All right. All those in favor?
[38:34] » I
>> Okay. None opposed. Thank you. All
[38:37] right. And so that that's all folks
unless somebody has something from oh
[38:43] staff was going to make a a comment
about this latest the shutdown of
[38:48] rolling hills estates. If you want to
hear about
[38:51] » we can we can cancel the we can stop the
meeting and if you want to tell people
[38:55] later that's fine.
[39:00] » Okay. All right. That's fine. All right.
So um motion to adjurnn then let's
[39:04] sojourn.
>> Thank you.
[39:05] » Okay. You you win the war, be
>> no
[39:10] 15 minutes if you don't want.