Yes.

Okay, Ms. Ford, I'm calling the game of the Finance Committee of the City Assembly and the City Council to order a time to start with the State of the Bowl.

Member Mose.

Present.

Council Member DeVayas-Waltin.

Present.

And Council Member Ida, I'm going to be present today.

Thank you.

We'll please make your announcement.

After each agenda item is presented, the mayor will ask for committee member comments and then take public comment.

You will have two minutes for your comment, and a countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and attendants.

Okay, at this point in time, we're going to move to our item 2A.

And I believe we have finance manager Angie Nichols here to present the item.

Yes. Good afternoon, Mayor Gonzalez and Finance Committee.

Good afternoon, Mayor Gonzalez and Finance Committee.

Angie Nichols, Finance Manager.

And I'll be presenting the annual AB 1600 Development Impact Game

for fiscal year ending June 30th, 2021.

Thank you.

So local agencies often charge fees on new development to mitigate the cost of public improvements

among new services.

These fees are commonly known as Development Impact Fees, or DIP for short.

California's Assembly Bill 1600 established rules and requirements in regard to the purpose

and use of these fees, such as fees collected must be segregated from the general fund,

records have to be maintained on the projects funded by these fees,

the fees collected must be spent or committed within five years or make a finding to show continued need,

and lastly, we must present development impact fee annually, 180 days after the fiscal year-end.

Stanley Ender collects two development fees.

The first is specifically for streets traffic improvements.

The fees are deposited to Special Revenue Fund 120, and the purpose of this fee is to mitigate the costs brought on by residential and commercial growth.

For fiscal year 2025, we started the year with 1.6 lane and fund balance.

We collected $210,000 in revenue, and that also includes interest as well.

There's $140,000 in expenditures, leading us with an ending balance of $1.7 million.

Of that balance, $10,000 is encumbered in obligations via P.O.

There's 512,000 committed to projects, and that leaves us with 1.1 million in uncommitted

funds.

Although these funds were not committed by appropriation at the end of fiscal year 25,

they were established as a funding source in the 10-year CIP plan for a set of projects

I should add.

Next slide.

Sorry.

Thank you.

So this is a condensed version of the annual development impact fee.

For presentation purposes, it would look best to condense it, but you can see a list of

the project commitments as of 630.

So that's what we have committed right now at the end of March 5.

The whole portion of the report is available as attachment A.

And the next development beam is a park facility development impact beam.

And this is deposited into Special Revenue Fund 122, and its purpose is to acquire and

construct new park and recreation facilities.

For this video 2025, we began with a balance of $6 million, collected about $841,000 in

fee, revenue, and interest, had $25,000 in expenditures, leading us with an ending balance

of $6.9, of which $4.9 is committed to projects.

And the uncommitted balance is anticipated to fund upcoming projects, specifically the

Washington Manor Park site-specific master plan, which was adopted by council in June

of 2025.

And then again, here is a condensed version of the AB 1600 report.

I should add as well, these are unaudited financial students.

We are still in the middle of our audit, but we do not anticipate the numbers to change

much.

And for the full version of this report, please report to attachment.

And at this time, this concludes the presentation.

We ask that the committee recommends the annual AD 1600 report to City Council for consideration

and adoption.

And I turn it over to the committee for questions and feedback.

Thank you.

Okay, council member, there's a call to.

Thank you. I'll combine my comments and questions. I don't have a lot of questions, but I do have some comments.

I think I am ready to send this over to the council, but I did want to give some feedback in terms of when we get back to council.

I think that we should include on the kind of fund balance, because even though it's not technically committed, you did mention that some of those funds are already kind of set aside for specific projects.

because I think as we think about the budget in the coming year,

it's not money technically that we get to kind of allocate.

So I think it would be helpful to understand what other projects are being intended to be funded out of the fund balance.

If that makes any sense.

Sorry, funded through the fund balance.

That sounded a little redundant.

But I think you get my draft.

In terms of, you mentioned in Attachment A, there were some funds, again, along, I'm

continuing to pull on that thread of the non-committed projects.

Can you talk of the projects that are funded through the fund balance that are not in this

presentation but are currently kind of set aside for those projects?

Aside from, I think you mentioned not Washington Park

was attachment B, what are some of the projects out of

on balance that are being planned to be used with the

money expended funds?

Thank you for that question.

There were a number of projects that were identified as part

of the CIP project that came to council in July.

We do have both the Public Works Department and the Parks

Department here who may be able to provide a little bit more

detail on what type of projects are planned in the future and will be used for these funds.

At this time, I'll turn it over to Fenthe Duniga, Director of Rex and Mark.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify that I'm understanding this is for the uncommitted fund.

That's correct.

Perfect, thank you.

And it's not what we're going to do, but things that we have in mind.

Yes.

Perfect, thank you.

Good afternoon.

As I mentioned during the presentation, we're still working with finance as well as engineering on some of the projects that are listed,

confirming appropriations, actual expenditures.

We have the benefit now that we have adopted Recreation and Parks Master Plan.

And that master plan actually does outline the 10 to 20 year CIP vision.

So we'll be going through those plans and identifying a list of projects and priorities from all the data and feedback we've got from the community on the priorities.

and bringing those back to council for committing those funds.

So that would be scheduled on a later day to come.

I don't have the list of all the projects off the top of my head,

but yes, we'll be coming back to you all for approval

and to commit those on future projects

that align with the Recreation and Parks Master Plan.

It sounds like the biggest chunk of that

would be the Washington Manor site-specific plan.

That is one that's identified.

We have a list of other CIGRE projects that are listed as part of the master plan,

and a lot of the community feedback that we got.

So we'll be evaluating the master plan in that list and then bringing it back to council.

Some of the plans are also listed on there as well, too.

We're evaluating those as well, too, to see if there's a possibility to uncommit those,

to see now that we have a lot more data and feedback from the community on priorities,

to see if some new projects may be committed with those funds as well.

Thank you. Double clicking not on that part of money but on the committed projects. The Stephen Taylor Sanctity of Life Memorial, when the council voted on the last, well it last came to council, there was a delta in terms of how much we allocated for the project, but it ended up costing more.

is the 140,678, does that essentially meet the kind of delta that was brought back from

council? I remember it being much larger than this amount.

No, I can follow up with engineering as well too, or leading that project. Yeah, that's

the delta was the difference was made up with parking lot of fees for enhanced amenities

at Marina Park.

Thank you.

Those are all my comments.

I'll come back up

to kind of the overall questions.

Thank you.

In terms of how it's trending,

is this consistent

with

development fees and park and loop fees

from last year

and the previous two fiscal years?

How is it looking

in terms of trend?

Are we down, are we up, are we steady?

Looking at prior year reports and then looking at this report this year, we are trending in a way where we are collecting on a regular basis.

To be clear, I don't know if we see the dip, so to speak.

In loopies, I can do a little bit of research and get some year-to-date actuals for fiscal year 2026 on where we're at,

where our actions were for 25 and 24.

I will say the city has collected on a regular basis,

park and loo, as well as the traffic impact fees

to support a number of these projects moving forward.

So I don't know that we've seen a significant decline

in this area of revenue.

I don't, but I would say that we haven't seen an increase.

So I think it's probably something

that's a really stable type of revenue.

And so as we see kind of our permits and development

permit fees stabilized, we'll start to see that fee as well stabilized.

So there's a lot of trending related to what we're seeing with our permits.

Thank you. Those are all my questions.

So just for quickly, do we have any public comments?

We have.

So I'm closing public comments.

Coming back to the discussion, by the way, it's always useful for me personally

to have a date and a page number on the slides.

So I would encourage that. Can we go back, just start going back to the presentation?

Because I don't have the page number in front of me.

Oh, I apologize. The page number is in this corner down here on the bottom left.

Looks like you can't see it, so we will move that.

Wait a minute on the right. Can I pick this one at a date?

Yes, that would be good.

Okay, so if we can just go right, let's start right here.

So we've got $4.5 million committed, $2.4 million uncommitted.

When we spoke about Washington Manor Park, were we talking about the $4.5 million or the $2.4 million?

The $2.4 million.

Perfect.

Downtown Park Construction.

What is this?

That was a project that was identified, I think, in collaboration with Engineering and

Community Development for possibly a new downtown park.

So funds were committed to that project.

A lot of these projects were placed on hold pending the completion of the master plan.

So we'll be evaluating those unbalances, looking at if there's any construction documents or any work that hasn't been started,

and we'll be re-evaluating some of these committed projects and bringing it back to council.

I ask because there's various things that could happen downtown.

I just don't know if they're in the purview of what would be called a park.

So that's really important to understand what that definition of park is.

So for instance, if the grounds, if Casapralto was redone and open to the public as a venue

where people can gather, where the public gathers, does that qualify yes, no?

mark. And if it was to acquire other land to, for example, expand something like a

root park or to create another open space given the construction that's happening,

it would be useful to get those details. I ask in particular because I think of the

five-year spending deadline, and I don't remember this being discussed in the three

years that I've been here. So then that also raises a flag in terms of do we need

to reallocate that money in some way.

And if we reallocate it, and this is more a question, I guess, for finance now,

does the clock start again on the five-year window to spend?

It does not restart, but we can, when we submit our annual report,

we can mention that there's a need for that money,

that we're transitioning it to a different park, to a different project,

and that the money still needs to be used.

And because these monies come in annual tranches,

it would be highly useful to lay out a simple spreadsheet

that shows this money is expiring

and just to have that transparency

so that we can be attentive to when you spend this money.

I actually do have that spreadsheet.

Usually at my prior agency, we include that with our five-year.

annual dip report,

but we can definitely

out of it going forward.

Yeah, because I'm just thinking

each year we have money

that's expiring.

And so it's as much an annual

as a looking forward

or reporting over five years.

The other question that I had

was a follow-up on the

Stephen Taylor,

I thought it was called

the pavilion,

but whatever its official name is,

I do not remember

a council authorizing

any incremental expenditures.

In fact, we talked about the fact that

some of the things that we had wanted

would not be delivered,

and then subsequently, you know,

we could raise additional money.

That was my recollection.

Are we...

Does somebody remember what that's factored with?

The budget was the budget was the budget was the budget.

I'm a representative from engineering.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Team Mayor Gonzalez.

So, originally when we went out to bid, it was much more than was anticipated and then

we decided the council gave the action that we would go out to bid again and reduce some

of the scope of work so that the cost would come down.

So that bid came out.

the cost exceeded, and there was a delta, which is shown in the spreadsheet, which is

about $140,000.

And then in that award of the project, part of it was to ask council to appropriate that

money into the project.

Did we reduce the scope?

We did reduce the scope.

However, it still exceeded the estimate.

Okay, so then we approved a reduced scope, and we actually increased the total that we're

spending on the park.

So we added beyond the $640,000.

What was the original budget for this?

Approximately, does anybody remember?

So it looks like it was $625,000.

$625,000.

Yeah, that's my recollection, $600 and some.

Not quite $650.

So you're saying that we have approved to spend closer to $800,000.

That's appropriated.

The total appropriation that was approved by Council of June was $765,678.

$765,000.

So that's what adds to this.

Okay.

And so it was funded partially through the CIP, through Fund 210.

I'm sorry.

I did not, I didn't realize that we had increased on net the amount of money being spent on the park.

And that's actually surprising to me.

That's my fault.

I will look into that.

Because my recollection was, the budget is the budget is the budget is the budget is the budget.

The end, that's the budget.

So I'll look into that.

If we can go back to the Farley Pool replacement, or just to that, I'm sorry, we don't need

to move it, going up the list.

I thought that this was done, done, done, done, done, done, done, and the facility is

open, so I'm not sure what this $100,000 is.

So, as finance manager Nichols stated, we are still in the process of finalizing our

audit and so what it looks like is that the full project is complete and there were some funds that

were remaining um and so those funds as director of zubatina stated was we will come back with any

funds that were currently committed in this case barley pool replacement where there were some

potential funds available and we look to commit those to a different type of project perfect

Thank you.

If we can go then up to the

120 fund.

For this,

the inflows

are associated primarily

with new development

or exclusively with respect

to new development that occurs?

Correct.

And when we say new development,

Is that a new building, or it could include extensive remodeling of the existing facility?

That I am not sure.

Okay, if we can follow up on that.

I know we've had a new building, right?

Like a new dry building is an example of a painting building.

But I do wonder about buildings that are completely gutted and put to new use that could involve substantial changes in the traffic that those facilities generate.

I think, let me just double check.

Oh, Davis and Doolittle.

120.

It was my understanding that the Davis and Doolittle intersection is completely within state, completely Caltrans.

But would we have work there, for instance, on sidewalks or some other elements that would not be covered by Caltrans?

Is that why we would have work there?

I'll just restate the question.

So we've got up there on the list of potential projects, Davis-Dulittle.

And what I think of Davis and Dulittle, they're both state highways at that intersection, if I'm not mistaken.

You make the turn.

So as you make the turn, it's a state highway.

But this improvement is actually on the west side.

Southwest corner?

I would say it would be Northwest corner, if I'm not mistaken.

So as you're driving on Davis, heading towards the plant, you're heading west now.

It's that corner.

As you cross the intersection, there was a proposed traffic signal modification for that

corner because of changes to the configuration of the street on the east side.

And so traffic signals on the state highway were in charge of, even if they're on the

state highway?

This particular one is city's responsibility.

Okay.

Just to clarify, on East 14, the signals are the state's responsibility.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

The last question that I have is park acquisition.

And this is, I think, as much for Director Sanyga.

When the Parks Master Plan Backup came out, I'm trying to remember what was our – what

What was our point of view on whether we need to have more park land?

To answer your question, it was identified that we need additional park acreage.

It identified some recommendations on potential sites, but it did reference to the Recreation

and Parks Department to work collaboratively with economic development to identify potential

sites and areas that were part deficient.

So we do have that data in the areas that are part deficient.

We are working collaboratively with community development

to identify any additional slots that we give water

to increase our acreage.

Let's see.

And then one just bigger picture question.

We've got,

I don't know if I'm going to be a number of things.

got $6 million.

We find under $6 million

to decide that I was

speaking.

How would you think about

allocating that money

between acquisition

and refurbishments,

shall we say,

for addition to existing

additional facilities and existing

acreage?

I think we

have to evaluate what

what our current need is, but also continue to think long-term.

And I think it's on a case-by-case basis.

There's an opportunity.

It's a good deal for the city to acquire Park 8-Bridge.

We'll work with the opportunity for community development to identify some funds for that.

And again, it's case-by-case, looking at what the current needs are,

looking at what the priorities are from the data we collected from residents

with some short-term and also thinking short-term and long-term goals in regards to increasing park acreage

and also adding additional amenities at existing facilities and parks.

So I think it's a case-by-case.

I think we're working really to identify some of the recommendations of the National Plan

and reviewing those for community development to think strategically in 5, 10, 15, 20 years.

What does that look like?

The National Plan does provide some guidelines and some recommendations.

So it's very, very helpful with us to really identify what we commit to funds.

But I think it's just working collaboratively to really identify what makes the most sense financially,

as well as long-term to, again, to continue to increase our papers.

Thank you.

So at this point in time, I think you are asking us to move this forward to the full council with our approval, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, so I think you have consensus from the committee members.

Thank you.

So at this point in time, we'll move to item 2B,

that will have the trust and pension trust investment reports

through this last quarter, September 30th, 2025.

And I reckon we'll sell us your year to present.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

This afternoon, presenting quarter three,

of the city's OPEB and pension trust investment.

This is a performance report through September 30th, 2025.

Okay.

So a very brief presentation.

Included in the packet is the quarterly performance report,

but wanting to highlight just key performance of both the OPEB trust,

which is the retiree medical fund.

We have an increased value from the last quarter at 23.5 to an increase of 24.3.

We have seen a one-year return of about 6.85%, with inception date returns of about a little

over 5%.

We see our pension fund, which is to support our retirement pension plan.

Again, an increase from the last quarter of 34.7% to 36.7% with an annual one-year return of 9.15%, an annual inception date return of 4.45%.

And so we have seen an increase in, I should say a positive shift in a number of areas.

Because since the first quarter of the year, financial conditions have continued to ease

as far as tariffs are concerned.

When the announcement of the tariffs occurred in around March of this year, there was a

lot of uncertainty.

And so there's been a little bit of digestion on what tariffs are looking like and how it's

impacting the economy.

And so there's a little bit more confidence in what we're seeing in the market.

There are still areas in which we are watching and our consultant PFM is watching, which

is the area of, of course, inflation.

We are not at that 2% target at the Fed's place.

We're close to about 3%.

Again, looking at just market, labor market.

We are also just keeping an eye on the impacts of what's happening in the globe as far as

political policies are concerned, the continuation of the conflict in the Middle East, as well

as the prolonged government shutdown and how those are impacting the market itself.

Those are areas in which our consultants are watching to see if there's areas in which

we need to shift our focus, but also how those impact our investments in most of these stress

thoughts. Next slide. It is a very brief presentation. We provide these on a quarterly

basis. It's really intended to provide oversight and overview of our investments. We do meet

with our consultants on a quarterly basis to go through these investments and look for

We need to pivot our strategies.

We catch you so.

Thank you for your presentation.

I'm going to take public comment on this side.

Do you have any public comment?

We do not.

So we'll close public comment.

And I lost a comment.

So the only comment that I will make is that I continue to have concerns,

for two or three years now

about the fact that

we are investing

in a way that yields

a rate of return that's materially

lower than a calpher's rate of return

and I think that

just we as a committee need

to explore that, we as a council

need to explore that because there's an opportunity

cost that's material

in a compounded sense to our

investment strategy.

We will talk about that in the future.

So with that, do we need to recommend that this go to the Council?

Yes, please.

Okay, so I think you have consensus from the domain members to carry this forward to the Council.

And it's a unanimous consensus.

I'm hoping that they can just be on the exact calendar.

Moving to item 2C.

I guess there's actually a presentation on our calendar.

Back, back, back.

Good afternoon.

again, Nicole Gonzalez, science director. This is also kind of a brief routine item,

which will be coming to the committee each year. This is a calendar for the upcoming calendar year

2026. Our regular meetings occur on the fourth Wednesday of every month. We are scheduled to meet

regularly through the month of October on the fourth Wednesday of every month, with the

exception that we are looking for consensus from this committee for the months of November

and December, in which we are proposing to meet on the third Wednesday of both of those

months to accommodate the holidays.

And so I think we are looking for a consensus that this is an acceptable calendar for the

upcoming 2026 year.

I don't have any concerns, but I just did want to flag that aren't going to be your

appointment done every year.

May I?

Yes.

Every two years, typically.

Every two years.

So this is year one of two?

Yes.

We're current 25?

Okay.

So this is the current.

Okay, then I'm looking with it.

I checked my calendar.

I'm available for all this.

Okay.

Okay, well, I will identify, as I have, I think, already in writing, but just so there's

a verbal public record as part of this meeting, that on the 18th of November, on the 16th

of December, there is a risk, depending on how heavy those attendants are, that that

would conflict with another commitment that I have.

It's typically on the third Wednesday, and because both of those meetings from the fourth

Wednesday to move for the third Wednesday, it runs the risk of creating a potential conflict.

So how staff chooses to handle that, we can cross that bridge when we get there.

I will be out of town on January 28th for the U.S. Mayor's Conference.

So just full disclosure of things that will create conflicts for me personally.

Setting that aside, I think you have consensus with that.

One more question or comment, please proceed.

Just looking ahead in terms of the mid-year review of the budget, I think it would be

prudent to add one meeting.

I was just talking about how we dealt with it last year.

We had to add a meeting to kind of go through the process.

So I'm just wondering if there's one month that you think you will need more of our time

so that we can plan for it?

We can absolutely identify a proposal for that.

What I will say is that we are building a direct calendar now is that we are planning

to bring a proposal to the Finance Committee both in February and March.

So we are already planning to bring it twice, with it then being presented tentatively to

Council in April for a work session and an adoption in May. So that is a tentative kind

of internal calendar we're working on, but we are already planning that to bring it to

this committee every twice. Okay. Thank you. That's very useful. Thank you. And given the load

that was just described, what about our ERP implementation? Because that's a highly sensitive

item also.

When do we plan to speak about that and do we have the bandwidth to talk about any challenges

that we are encountering in LA's?

We absolutely are planning to bring it back to this committee.

I know there's a planned update to the school council as well.

I don't have a specific timeline.

I don't know if Deputy City Manager Coston has a different timeline that he is aware

of, but we do recognize the importance and complexity of the ARP project and recognize

that there are updates that need to be provided to this committee and to the council.

And I ask that if I remember correctly, February 1st is payroll go live.

We are tentatively scheduled to go live on March 1st.

March 1st, okay. And we're still July 1st for new financials?

Yes.

Really, really, really, really important deadline.

And so if anything that happens that we need to be brought into, funding, et cetera, I

just don't want any surprises.

So let's just start blurring into committee member comment as it is for the actual calendar.

But just let's be aware of that.

Okay.

So I think we've got consensus.

So did all of the conversation we've had to move the calendar?

to improve calendar.

With that, we'll go to public comment on items that are not on our agenda.

We don't have any public comment.

So we'll close that. Item number three.

If you'd like to have some of those vaulted.

So we are set and we are adjourned at what time it is right now.

What time is it?

4.39. We are adjourned.