May 8, 2025 Council Finance Committee/Investment Review Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:02] Unknown Speaker: So

[00:00:02] Member Chris Clark: welcome, everyone, to the council finance committee, meeting of May 8th, 2025. It's 834 AM. I'll call a meeting to order. Um, this is a hybrid meeting allowing the public to comment in person and virtually an instructions for addressing the committee virtually can be found on the agenda. We'll start with roll call. It looks like all committee members are present. and we'll look at for the minutes. Um, Item 3 is the approval of prior meeting minutes, the minutes from the December 6th, 2024. Council Finance Committee meeting, um, are up for approval with any member of the public join us, virtually or in person, like to write comment on. the minutes from December 6th. If so, please click raise hand and um, raise hand button and zoom and interest and attendees should raise their hand. Hold on, we'll take an in-person speakers 1st and then each speaker will have 3 minutes. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak in person? They don't see me. Is there anyone online? No,

[00:01:03] Rampone: no one. I'm

[00:01:04] Member Chris Clark: not raising their hand. Do, um, any committee members have, uh, questions or any items they want to discuss or emotion for the

[00:01:12] Member Lucas Ramirez: minutes? I will move to approve the minutes and share my gratitude to staff for, uh, incorporating the corrections that I emailed.

[00:01:21] Member Chris Clark: So a motion by council member Ramirez. Second. Second. Vice mayor. Vice mayor Ramos, um, There's no further discussion, Holland Favor, say hi. Hi. Posed. So that passes unanimously. So we'll move on to item 4 or communications for the public, would any member of the public join us virtually in person like provide comment on any items that are not on the agenda? If so, click, raise hand, uh, in Zooms, and then you can raise their hand here. Does anyone wish to speak? We've been putting onto them. Raising their hand? No, I'm saying there. Or a line, so we'll close oral communications to the public, and move on to, item 5 of our discussion, action, discussion, action items, the 1st item is a physical year, 2023, 2024, single audit report, and, um, our finance administrative uh, administrative services director. Uh, Jerry Repon will make frequent marks uh, before the presentation

[00:02:28] Rampone: by the city's auditor. Thank you, Jack Clark, and good morning. Many members, Ramirez and Ramos. Derek Crampone, your finance and administrative services director. Item number 5.one. is the report out from the city's audit firm on the June 30, 2024 single audit report, which is all the federally funded awards that the city receives were required to have an annual audit if we spend more than $750,000 each year in federal funds. Um, and so we actually have our auditor, uh, Ahmed Badawi from Badawi and associates. On the line and he would give a presentation. Um, on the single lottery report. Great. And I'm going to share my screen for the presentation. Would

[00:03:18] Ahmed Badawi: it be possible, Derek, if

[00:03:20] Rampone: I share my screen? Yeah, you can. That's fine if that works.

[00:03:22] Ahmed Badawi: If I can so I can control my slides? Sure. All right. Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to your meeting. Good to see you again. I did meet with you late last year to present the city audit. Hopefully next year, it will be just one meeting for both the city and the single audit. But for this year, this is just a quick presentation regarding the single art. So I am going to go in a slideshow. And get started. So this is a presentation to the council and finance committee. Today, I'll present you the 2024 single audit of the city of Mountain View, the results of that audit, uh, agenda for today. Sorry. Uh, I'll just give you a very brief overview of our firm and the engagement team. Uh, again, a very high level uh, overview of our audit methodology, uh, provided audit results, and then some of the required communications. As far as our firm and the engagement team. So this slides just give you a very brief overview of our firm, we have about 25 years of experience, with a very specialized firm, we work mostly with government clients. We have about 65 government clients, We have about 44 cities that we audit and about 30 employees. And so far, luckily we have 0 lawsuits, legal action, or disciplinary actions. As far as the engagement team. So this was the engagement team that worked on the city and the single audit, me being the audit partner, we had a quality control reviewer, an audit manager, an audit senior, 3 professional staff, and an IT specialist. So that was our audit team. Moving on to the audit methodology. Um, so really uh, try to break down the single audit into the different steps or phases that we go through. We started by receiving a schedule of expenditures of federal awards from the city, we call CIFA. Uh, we receive and review that. The next step is to do risk assessment. So we assess whether the city is a high risk or a low risk RT. And then we assess each program listed on the CFA, whether it's a high risk or low risk program based on whether it was audited in the past or not and whether it had any findings in the past. Once we select the major programs that are to be tested, then we perform the compliance work, and that usually involve assessing the risk of non-compliance, and also testing the control over compliance and the compliance itself. And then finally, the reporting phase where we report on the CFA and on the major programs that we selected for testing, whether the city complied or not. That's a single audit report that you receive. Uh, wanted to summarize for you the audit results. Uh, the auditor's report, we have issued an unmortified opinion, meaning that it's a clean opinion. We believe the city complied in all material respects with the requirements of those grants. As far as the RT risk, so the city did qualify as a low risk oddity. Normally, the city would not qualify if it either did not have a single audit in the past or had material, weakness, and material findings in the past. Uh, the major programs tested, we selected 2 major programs, uh, the CDBG entitlement grant and the home investment partnership program. Uh, the city had about 6400000 almost in total federal award expenditures during the year. The programs we selected for testing represented 96% of those expenditures, so almost the entire federal expenditures. Please to say that as far as deficiencies in internal control over compliance, we did not note any. And as far as non-compliance was the requirements of those 2 programs, we also noted no instance of non-compliance. Uh, finally, uh, on my slide here, just wanted to provide you some of the required communication as your independent auditors. Uh, just responsibilities as an audit firm is to provide an opinion on whether the city complied with the major programs, compliance requirements or not. We're also responsible to provide an opinion on the CFA in relation to the financial statements. We evaluate and test internet control over compliance. Evaluate compliance with major program requirements, and then finally communicate with the governing body, which is what I'm doing today. The city have responsibilities in this process. So the city take responsibility for the CIFA. It is responsible for providing us a complete and accurate list of federal awards and federal expenditures. Establish and maintain internal control over compliance. Make our records available to us during the audit process. Establishing tender control to prevent and detect fraud. Inform us of all known and suspected fraud related to the federal awards. Comply with the major programs, compliance requirements, and then if we have audit findings, then take corrective action on audit facts. And that concludes my presentation. I want to say thank you for uh, allowing us to uh, provide service to city. And again, the goal is next year, hopefully this presentation be combined with a city presentation. We already started working on the single audit for 2025. We selected what we hope would be the only major program to be tested and we started doing testing work on that. So we are ahead compared to last year. But I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[00:09:01] Member Chris Clark: Thank you. Are there any any member questions or questions? Um, no public comment. Okay. If there's if there's no one online to speak, does anyone in the room wish to speak?

[00:09:15] Unknown Speaker: Just one comment for the committee, sends Director Rampone and I are in a reporting relationship. I was actually interviewed by Mr. Badawi and his staff. to see what my observations were of the fast day department, and so that interview lasted somewhere between 20 minutes and a half hour, as part of the process. Any, um,

[00:09:38] Member Chris Clark: I don't see any public comments. Is there, uh, any, uh, discussion or action we'd like to take? Uh, maybe

[00:09:47] Member Lucas Ramirez: I'm Ramirez. Thank you, chair. So 1st I want to share my appreciation for Mr. Badawi and also for Stafford. Um, uh, compiling the audit and presenting the findings today. A few years ago, we used, the CFC used to not siege for single audit. But I think it was during, um, uh, the, well, when the council, the city was receiving a substantial amount of, uh, funding through the American Rescue Plan Act. We figured it'd be helpful just to make sure, you know, we're understanding the, um, the use of the funds and soaking for the 1st time, um, a couple of years ago, we started seeing the, uh, the single audit, which, uh, doesn't require council approve. So this is the only body that that would be seen. So I'm grateful for the opportunity just to understand what's going on and, um, uh, happy to, uh, support the staff recommendation to, uh, to accept the book. You, sorry,

[00:10:48] Member Chris Clark: do I assume? Yeah, I move to approve the... Yeah, okay. So, the motion by Clean member Ramirez to, you can accept the city, single art report purpose. So, you're, um, that ended June 30th, 2024. Is there further discussion? Yeah,

[00:11:03] Member Emily Ann Ramos: one quick question, and it might be a dumb question. So please bear with me. Um, do, what would, with all the changes that are happening in the federal government, would we take into account how that would go when we do our honors? and how we handle because we was kind of on funding. So like if they change the requirements. How do we track, how do we adjust to that? How do we do that? Great

[00:11:29] Rampone: question. So we work with our audit firm. We, on, um, any new requirements. We're always kept apprised of any requirements, you know, I, Personally, I think maybe the threshold could decrease and they would want to see more audits. So I have a feeling that could be on the table eventually instead of the $750,000 threshold, which would just mean that they the audit firm would be looking at more programs that we're receiving federal funding on and looking at expenditures. But we work closely with the audit firm on any new pronouncements and making sure that we comply with them. So just, but nothing has changed yet. Yeah,

[00:12:05] Kimbra: and I would just add council member that should there be any further action from the federal administration and a reduction of the funds. Um, that, that is, uh, possible, and council's actually going to be seeing an agenda item on Tuesday, where you're going to be reviewing the, the federal consolidated plan for the home and CD, CDBG funds. Right now, we are operating off of the assumption that we will have the same amount. But if those amounts would change, so would the parameters of the audit, we would just have to adapt to whatever the decreased or changed funding amount would be. Um, but you will be seeing uh, this funding and the recommended programs to be funded on Tuesday night. I

[00:12:55] Member Chris Clark: thought I'll second. Okay, so motion by, can you remember Ramirez seconded by his vice mayor? Um, I will support this as well. This is about as clean as clean other as you can get. So thank you to everyone involved in this, um, it's, it's just good to know that we're in, we're in good hands. Okay, with us, with our staff, for these programs. So, um, all in favor, say hi. Hi. Hi. All right. Red Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Have a good day. We'll move on to item 5.2, which is um, the results of the use of deep study and an update on capacity. Uh, some fun, uh, passenger I study with our city manager. And, uh, and sorry, if I just administrates, so just... Yes. Thank you. Sure,

[00:13:48] Kimbra: Mark. So I will just kick us off. And well, our director's pulling up the leave short presentation. So just as a really quick overview, it has been over a decade. Since the city has holistically looked at our fees, or even updated our master fee schedule, which, quite frankly, is too long, to do this. So many things have changed since the last time we had, um, our fees looked at holistically. What we do do every year, though, annually is staff will look at, um, certain fees that may need change and recommend adjustments as part of the recommended budget. So there is a table in here every year that shows what the fees are and any increases, but we haven't done the whole study to actually really capture our cost recovery. Uh, since, like I said, more than 10 years. So, um, this has been something that's been in the works for for some time. It's a significant undertaking. Um, it involves a consultant working with almost every single department. Um, and having to spend time using the analysis to justify, uh, what a fee might be generally back into, uh, why a certain fee would be recommended for either increase or decrease. Um, and I know there were a few questions, council member, about, um, just some policy questions on, should the city or could the city, uh, subsidize certain fees or decrease certain fees, that is certainly within your purview? I have seen other places, uh, at least fees sometimes related to nonprofit use, uh, for recreational, uh, sort of events or I know childcare came up as well. So that is certainly something that if this committee would like us to refrige it further, that's something that, uh, we could probably bring back with the, uh, agenda item, which is coming to you all in June. Um, but there are also some other fees that we would not recommend. Uh, reducing and we can talk about that further as you get through your discussion. So I just kind of wanted to lay to the stage for that and I'll go ahead and turn it over to Mr. Rampone to kick us off. All

[00:16:13] Rampone: right, thank you, Kimbra. Hello again? Derek Grampone, your finance and administrative services director. As Kimber said, what you, the item you have in front of you, is the results of the user fee study and an update on the capacity charge study. As you can see, we have represented representative from several departments here today providing support and available to answer questions as well. We also have our consulting team from Will Dan Associates on the line, Tony Thasher and Pretty Patel. Um, so they can also assist with any questions that you may have about the process. The quick background on the user fee study can recovered some of it, but, you know, it's part of a general cost recovery strategy. Local governments, including the city of Mountain View, has adopted user fees, to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole, and mainly benefit the specific user. The city's fee schedule was last comprehensively reviewed and updated over 10 years ago. And since that time, a lot has changed. Um, costs have risen. There have been new government laws and regulations in regards to fees, and community needs have evolved. As a result, the user fees need to be updated to ensure that they are current and appropriately recover the city's cost of actually providing the service. Over the past 10 years, we have made annual updates to the fees schedule, but they mainly consisted of inflationary increases that are based on CPI or other cost indexes. And as I said earlier, as in 2024, the city engaged Wildan financial services to conduct a cost allocation plan and user fee study as part of a formal RFP process. A few of their northern California clients include the city of Hayward, Foster City, Salinas, Gilroy, San Bruno, Napa, Petaluma, and Richmond, just as background. So diving in a little bit more on the purpose of the study and the cost allocation plan. In particular, the cost allocation plan was, um, is being used to develop indirect cost rates that can be used in calculating actual costs of providing the service. It actually also assists the city in recovering administration and overhead costs from federally funded grants. Once we have a approved overhead rate that is results from our cost allocation plan, the federal government will actually reimburse us for a portion of our administration and overhead, which we currently don't receive. So that will be helpful. Um, the user fee study obviously has many purposes. The 1st one is helping determine the actual cost of providing a service. Um, it assists with reviewing the fees and the structure and how we, you know, build, build the users to make sure it's updated with our current practice. It helps identify any new fees that we may need to, that should be charged. And it also identifies any outdated or obsolete fees that we should remove or that we're no longer offering. It also helps ensure that we know what our maximum cost recovery can be, and that helps reduce any general fund subsidies or any other fund subsidies when we don't charge the full cost. Um, the final product results in a model that staff can annually update, um, by updating the costs of salaries and benefits. And so that will really help us as we go for it to have a more accurate increase every year and not just a standard 3% or depending on what index we use. It also helps ensure compliance, like I said, with federal and state of requirements, and it's a best practice by having a 3rd party conducted, at least every 5 years or so. Um, and it provides transparency, right, to the community on how much the, uh, how much the costs are really, depending on each service. So a little bit just on the methodology, this is also on the report, but this is a snapshot of how the cost of service is developed. They're usually, generally there are 3 cost layers, as you can see. starting with the central services overhead and these are the administrative support departments. And then we have department overhead from the department that's actually providing the service, so those could be supplies, memberships, your typical overhead. And then personnel costs, right, are the direct salary and costs broken down into an hourly rate. And once those are all known, they come up with a fully burdened hourly rate by classification by position throughout the city. And then the consultant will meet with each department to discuss how much time it takes for it to provide each service and which classification is, you know, encompasses. And once that's determined, that's how you come up with the actual cost or estimated actual cost of the providing the service. And that's what you see in fee or in attachment one, the fee schedule. So the results showed, I think what we kind of assumed, that numerous fees were not covering, the actual cost of delivering the service. Um, and as a result, uh, the general fund and other funds would be subsidizing those fees when when they don't cover the actual cost because costs have to be picked up somewhere. So as a reminder, cities are allowed to collect up to the actual cost of providing the service. However, the fee cannot exceed the cost. The cost or the fee can be lower, but it can never exceed the cost. Comparing user fees to other cities, um fees can be difficult due to cost differences, um, that vary city by city. In addition, the organizational and operational structure of departments and how they provide services may be different. Some services may have one city employee involved, and then in city B, there may be 3 employees involved. So it's kind of hard to compare it sometimes. Um, and the fees charge, the rate structure themselves can be different. You could have a flat fee at one city and an hourly fee at another. So those are kind of hard to get reconciled sometimes. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Elizabeth on the capacity charge updates. Good morning.

[00:22:33] Elizabeth Flegel: Fair members of the committee. Elizabeth Flegel, water resources manager, of the works. Um, so this is a separate but parallel study that was conducted over a similar timeline. The city hired Bartle Wells and Associates, Financial, um, independent financial public advisors to prepare an updated water and wastewater capacity charge study. The last time we prepared such a study was in 2014. This was the 1st time the city adopted these charges. Um, and they are specifically designed to equitably recover the cost of the infrastructure, our water and wastewater system, um, based on the development, the portions of those infrastructure that are benefiting new development. Um, We use the same approach as we did in 2014, which is a very common approach for cities such as Mountain View, where most of the infrastructure is built out and is built specifically to provide services to new development. That approach is called the system buy-in approach. Um, and it, one major factor in the system buy-in approach is the cost of the actual infrastructure. And since 2014, the value and the cost of the city's water and wastewater infrastructure has increased substantially. As part of this new study, we updated all of calculated updated fees for all of the existing customer categories, which are included in the memo. But we also asked the consultant to look at some additional new categories, which have been very common in the cities, applications. These include assisting assisted living units, senior care facilities, ADUs, and also some larger water meter sizes that are becoming more common. The results of the study recommend increases to the water and sewer, water and wastewater capacity charges range from approximately 20 to 85% for water, depending on the customer category. And between 85 and 125% for wastewater charges. One important component that I want to draw your attention to is that all applicants receive a credit for the existing use on the site. So they only pay for the incremental increase in capacity needs on the city's infrastructure. The staff recommendation is to move forward with, uh, consideration for adoption, uh, on June 10th, concurrent with the other fee study recommendations, and we've also included 2 additional recommendations. One is to grandfather in, um, the existing fees for applicants that have already been received and complete. And we will also be recommending an exemption for ADUs. The next slide shows a comparison, a little small, but it shows a comparison of the current combined water and wastewater fees for an apartment on the left, and a single family home on the right, compared to other neighboring agencies, such as, um, Melpitas, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, et cetera. Currently, compared to these agencies, the city's fees are on the low end. And this study will bring them approximately into the mid-range.

[00:26:02] Member Chris Clark: Just to clarify, that's per unit. This

[00:26:04] Elizabeth Flegel: is per dwelling unit. So, for example, if a single family home were to be torn down in a new single family home erected, they would get a credit and which would cancel out the fee, so they would not pay any capacity charge. If a single family home were to be torn down and something else built in its place, they would get the credit for the single family home, and the new fee would be assessed based on the new capacity demand on the increased capacity demand on the systems. Thank you. And that concludes my slides.

[00:26:40] Rampone: All right, so as you can see on the slide, we're at the Red Arrow today at the CFC meeting, the next step in this process is, um, that the community services department will actually be sending out notifications to user groups tomorrow, um, informing them of their their fee increases. And, um, on May 12th, there's a development review, uh, update meeting with developers where both the user fee study and capacity charge study will be discussed. And then on June 10th, will be a public hearing and potential adoption of the modified fees, including the capacity charges discussed today. Staff recommendations are listed on this slide as well, and staff is available for any questions? Thank you. Um, we'll

[00:27:24] Member Chris Clark: start with committing questions. I have lot, but I also dominate the conversation. So if that's someone else's name. Do you have a... Okay.

[00:27:34] Member Lucas Ramirez: All right. Thank you for, um, this is, I know this is a perculane undertaking and very important work. Glad that, uh, CFC has opportunity to, uh, preview it. And I'm also very grateful that you're going to take this information out to the community to get input, so that will almost understand what trade-offs we may want to make, sacrifice means some cost recovery opportunity. to ensure that members of our community access the facilities and recreational opportunities that they want to enjoy. Um, and also some of the questions I'm going to get into. We're not, you know, accidentally or unintentionally discouraging folks from doing business in the city. Um, so uh, maybe a couple of high-level questions first. Um, uh, I know there were some uh, sort of cleanup items that were uncovered in the responses to the questions I submitted. Thank you very much. Yeah, no, you only had a day. I'm guessing there's going to be some continued review and just making sure that I was confused by some of the headers, for instance. So, will there continue to be some review and cleanup of the formatting?

[00:28:47] Rampone: Yes, there will be. Yeah. We're just doing some final scrub. This was actually Virgin 10. So we, yeah. So we will be on version 11, just cleaning up like some of the formatting errors or formatting issues. So we'll clean those up to clarify and make it, hopefully you try to present it in a little bit cleaner version, but it's in Excel. So we do our best. But yes, we will be cleaning it up. And as mentioned, in the staff report, I think we talked about some of the rounding as well and the questions and answers. And so we'll be looking at that as well with some input from today's meeting on rounding down to have clean, even amounts. Right, right.

[00:29:25] Member Lucas Ramirez: And so, yeah. Totally fair. But I should have assumed that parades permit had nothing to do with massage business. So, you know, that kind of thing where it's like the readability, I think, will benefit from another look through, but thank you for taking care of that. Um, and then sort of another bigger picture question. I know we often will conduct financial feasibility analyses when we, uh, look at things like community benefit, obligations and, um, uh, you know, CMR and loop fees. Um, but those analyses presumed, you know, uh, much lower, fees and charges. So I'm curious to know it. Um, if any, if staff or the consultant has thought about the, um, the relevance of those feasibility studies and whether they're, it should be reviewed in light of potentially significantly higher fees imposed on development applications. I know it's a big question and I'm not really sure who to target it to. Just repeat the last piece of that. Sure. Um, so I'm, I guess the concern I have is, you know, if you look at like the, the feast stack on, on a, given development proposal. Um, it's, there's park fees and BMR and Lou and commercial linkage fees and, you know, permit fees and stuff like that. When we did the financial feasibility and analysis to show that a community benefit fee, for instance, was feasible, it presumed, you know, much lower fees. Now we're increasing the fees, but we're not necessarily updating those financial feasibility analysis, which means that some number of developments that used to be financially feasible may no longer be. Because, you know, the permit fees, some of these charges are much higher. So I guess the sort of the higher level question would be, should we review some of those financial feasibility analyses to show that the community benefit fees we're imposing are still feasible, whether as a consequence of increasing these fees, the fees stack has grown so great, that really development in Mountain View is no longer feasible. So

[00:31:49] Kimbra: I'll take the 1st part of that. And then I'll ask our community development director to fill in and maybe even our community services director. Uh, so fundamentally, We have a problem in Mountain View with our development services fund. Development services fund is in the red to the tune of $7000000 and growing. And the challenge that we have is that. We don't have a problem with development in Mountain View. There is no, um, halt on development, I guess, because of that. Um, Because of the fees, and the challenge we have is that we have a similar volume of development projects coming in. They are more complex now, they're taking a lot more time. And as most folks know, we've, we've added some staff over the past few years to keep up with the volume and the demand. Um, but what's happened is that the costs, We're being charged in some cases, pennies on the dollar for this halftime spent on, uh, some of these projects. And so, we're in a really, um, precarious situation with the general fund subsidizing development activity right now in Mountain View. Um, every year that amount will grow. So 7000000 now, it could double next year and double the year after that. So what we're having to do is spend some of our general fund, uh, limited period funding, and the past few years, we have been having to move it over to help supplement the DSF. So fundamentally, that that's, um, a challenge we have right now, and that is fundamentally why we really need to, and it is a best practice to right size, those fees. Um, to your other question in terms of whether some of our fees are too high. Uh, I think you're aware that for the, um, housing element, we are looking at our parkland fees and the reduction of those fees, there are also various, um, laws moving through the legislature that would probably change the nature of what any local agency can charge for park fees. Uh, so there's a lot of things coming down the pike that I think will affect, not just mountain view, but others. Um, and I'd like to invite, uh, our community services director too, just give a little bit of an overview of the timing for that. Then as far as the financial analysis you're talking about or the nexus studies. Um, Christian, if you could speak a little bit more about that, but I think we do have a fundamental challenge in that our fees are too low. Right now, for the most part. Some of the fees that, uh, maybe perceived as too high, like parkland fees will lower. They will lower. We just haven't got to that study yet. So those aren't included in this.

[00:34:55] Unknown Speaker: I always find it helpful when you start talking about the subject. To think of subsidies in terms of a spectrum. One out of the spectrum over here is the entire community, your residence. If they benefit in total. That starts to beg for a good argument for subsidies. At the other end of the spectrum, are limited number of residents or even non-resident corporate entities. That starts to really look like a diversion of public funds which is not necessarily a good practice. So, this exercise, we have to determine the fully loaded cost for the service the city provides. This exercise should be kind of detached a little from the other conversation in the sense that it would probably be more prudent to accept the exercise at face value, understand, a lot of the fees are lower than they should be, and remedy that. Down the road is developments are looked at on an individual basis. The council always has the ability to decide, if they want to waive fees or not. But I think this exercise should try to be taken at face value, and determine using that spectrum of benefit or limited or no benefit. so that there isn't a diversion of the public funds. So

[00:36:26] Member Chris Clark: we have someone online. Yeah, Tony. Go ahead, Tony. Hello,

[00:36:30] Tony Thrasher: Tony Thrasher, Project Manors willed in. Project manager for the for the user fee study. So I did want to speak up a bit as far as industry standards and things that we've experienced with talking with development communities and such. So, user fees, our single time, use fees on total develop, on the overall development. They are not the part that is going to dissuade any sort of development within your city. Impact fees, taxes. Those other things you mentioned. Those are the things that get passed on in the individual kind of unit price, but these sort of costs are not things we typically get pushed back on developers from a cost basis. Whenever we meet with them, the answer is what do we get out of it? And the other kind of thing that we always notice is that if a city were to implement expedite fees at 100% or even greater, then they'll always use them. So it's time is the money for them, right? So there are often when we're having those communications with the developers, We're making sure that we want to make sure to frame this as, like, this is operational cost of the city. If the city does not recover the cost of providing these services, it impacts their ability to fund these departments and those services, it delays turnaround times, right? Uh, it can impact, uh, you know, the servers being provided and so they can't get their project rolling. And so we have not experienced in any city that we've worked with, that user fees are end up being a detriment to the amount of development that happened within a city itself. So I would not anticipate any decrease in development as a result of these. Again, impact fees are a different story. but user fees are not.

[00:38:08] Member Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I have comments for later, but I'll try and go through this questions, um, a faster clip. So the staff research fee, um, thank you for the response. I'm still a little concerned about when it would be applied. So if I, if I'm a resident and I submit a request through Ask Mountain View, asking for information about a project, would I be charged by the city? So,

[00:38:36] Lindsay Akins: if you're just asking for information on dolphinants, we may have, that would fall more under the public records request actual process. In which case there would not be a charge. Staff would share that information. However, we do get a lot of inquiries. I will say primarily from, 3rd party businesses that wish for us to actually review the content of a permit, talk to them about the conditions of the permit, and have questions and sort of want us to have these dialogues that are way more specific to, um, the actual, you know, documentation at hand. Um, and sometimes the questions uh, involve extensive research, particularly if it's an older property is well beyond the boundaries of like a PRA request. Oh, and I'm Lindsay Akins, sorry. assistant community development director. Thanks, let's see.

[00:39:29] Member Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I, I'm, I'm not sophisticated enough to know what that line looks like, but I'm going to trust you on this. And then, for the, also the downtown parking fee, uh, will, will the fee schedule be modified to recognize some of the limitations or the specificity that is, that the staff response to the question includes. So, in other words, like, if you, if I just look at the fee schedule, it looks like a fee for, you know, a downtown parking space, regardless of whether it's subject to AB 2097 or anything, but it's, it's, the information here isn't, isn't terribly, isn't sufficient, I guess, for me to really understand when I would pay this fee. Um, is there, is it possible to, how would I learn more about whether this fee applies to me or not? And

[00:40:23] Unknown Speaker: I think from a policy perspective, I don't know if there's a way to embed policy implications. Um, but I'm assuming when you start to have direct contact with a developer, you inform them of policy implications. That's

[00:40:39] Christian Murdoch: right. Good morning, committee members. Christian Murdoch Community Development Director. So I think what we can offer between now and the next consideration of this item by the council is to work with, uh, Director Rampone to see if we can put a brief caveat there, something like, you know, parentheses when required by zoning. So at least there's an indication that there are instances perhaps when that would not be required and prompt a conversation by a prospective applicant or developer. Um, something much more extensive than that, it's probably difficult to embed in this format of a fee uh, table.

[00:41:09] Member Lucas Ramirez: Okay, of this sort. That works for me. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, the gatekeeper free authorization application. I appreciate the breakdown. Some of this was surprising to me, though. The gatekeeper, hearing, so this is, this is, for the authorization hearing, right? This isn't, after, like, after counsel authorize, authorize a step to review an application, I understand there's a much more substantial review that's necessary, but this level of review for projects that, for we have an authorized level of review in any great detail seems really substantial, and I'm looking in particular at the engineering requirements, providing review of project traffic circulation, mapping, and compliance with city policies. That, do, does that level of granularity typical for a free authorization here, we can review for application? So

[00:42:03] Christian Murdoch: I think I'll start and then perhaps allow public works director into, um, supplement the specific work of her team. I think, um, as we prepared this uh, particular estimate of the fee. We were reflecting, I think, what staff understood is the expectations that council would want. Um, staff to be able to answer questions about certain project components. And so, to be able to answer those questions, staff needs to do a certain amount of analysis and study of the project, which involves multiple members of the public works department. Um, you know, perhaps you can characterize a little more, some of the specific work or, um, other aspects of it, but I think it's really geared towards, um, ants be able to answer the council's questions and anticipation of, uh, what those questions would be at the authorization hearing. Yeah,

[00:42:47] Lindsay Akins: I think Christian summed it up pretty well. There's a lot of front loaded effort that goes into it. It's sort of with the intent of getting everything out there up front. Um,

[00:42:54] Member Emily Ann Ramos: so that we don't see a lot of surprises later on as we're going through making our way through the process.

[00:42:59] Member Lucas Ramirez: I'm thinking about, and this was before many folks in the room where with the city, there was a gatekeeper hearing, Chris, you might have been on the council for this, where a single family homeowner in the West Park neighborhood wanted to build like a 2nd unit. That was a gatekeeper authorization. Um, so this fee, I understand for like Charleston Plaza, which is a much more significant redevelopment. But would you impose this fee on the Coesta part single family homeowner? As well?

[00:43:29] Christian Murdoch: I mean, I think that isolated hypothetical, yes, as the fee is proposed in this structure here, I think what you're also aware of, based on your membership on the council policies and procedures committee is that the council will be considering new gatekeeper exemptions on May 27th, or an overall policy, I should say, which would include updated exemptions, and that type of project may potentially be subject to an exemption from an authorization hearing. And so, conceivably would not be subject to that fee.

[00:43:55] Member Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Well, then I guess we'll have that conversation intandive. And then I think the city manager sort of spoke to this earlier, but there were, the fee increases for uses that I think are the kinds of uses that we are really trying to encourage, like childcare and nonprofit uses and even safe parking. Um, what would be should, would be sufficient for us if a majority of the committee is interested to say, we would love staff to explore appropriate subsidies to make sure we're not deterring those types of uses.

[00:44:27] Kimbra: I think that that could be the motion, part of the motion or recommendation if that's what the committee wishes. Okay. And I would ask our finance director. Do you have any other insight as to, um, the non, because we have built in some productions for nonprofit usage. I know, certainly for community services. So maybe we can speak to that a little bit further. Christine. Oh, I'm Director Crosby.

[00:44:56] Christine Crosby: Good morning. Christine Crosby's second name, services director. So last fiscal years, budget cycle. We did, um, hear from the public about our fees for the nonprofit, you specifically related to barbecue areas and for the rabbit hall. And through last year's budget cycle, we moved forward with reducing the peak hour rate for nonprofits, the Redwood Hall by 50% of the resident rate. That reduced it down. We also included a one time free use, per year that they could use that space. And then we also introduced a nonprofit rate for barbecues. During this fee cycle, we were then able to go through and update all of the peak rates for nonprofits and reduced it so that it was 50% of the resident rate and making it consistent across the board. So that you'll see within the fee study for all of the facilities that recreation reserves. Um, that um, decreased took place. Which

[00:45:56] Member Lucas Ramirez: is great. Thank you. And then also for permit fees for the uses as well. So, that, then if we simply said we would love for staff to explore subsidies that would be sufficient. Okay, I have 2 more questions, then I'll get out of your ear. I sorry. Uh, 1st is the, so the heritage tree removal, you'll be is very heavily subsidized. I think it's like 95% or something. Uh, and I, I, I, I think I understand the, the staff explanation, but I'm, I, I guess I'm, I'm struggling to understand, how, that feels like a policy determination, and I don't know if I would, would feel comfortable so heavily subsidizing, especially I've seen enough, uh, PRC meetings to know that oftentimes, the, the, appeals are denied, right? So it's like, you know, it's, it's a, it's a huge amount of staff time, um, expended on something where we're not getting the cost of recovery to just, you know, have, have it kind of fizzle out. So is that, is that, Do you feel on your heart that that subsidy is actually worthwhile? So

[00:47:05] Unknown Speaker: it is a policy decision. Um, and in the last, I would say, since COVID, um, we have heard that the, Current $50 fee at times has been a burden to some residents to submit an application for a tree that is not necessarily on their property, but one that they're interested in saving in the community. And so as the response that you see, um, in your packet is trying to find that balance of, If it's just $50 now, but then the actual cost is much more significant. Where do we find that sweet spot? Um, and so that's what we were trying to help determine. And again, this is a policy decision of which you have authority to give us some direction.

[00:47:52] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. Choices are barrier to entry versus frivolous appeals. Well, and we're seeing a significant increase in the number of appeals within the last 6 months. And so we, there is a great balance. We just don't want to, similar to recreation programs. We were trying not to price somebody out from a process. Right. So that and

[00:48:16] Member Lucas Ramirez: those are by comments for when we get back to development in a little bit. So I appreciate you saying that. But I appreciate that, the need to find that balance. Um, last question, so I, I'm, uh, it sounds like staff will already go back and, you know, I'll speak for myself. I'm not really interested in seeing adult entertainment and card room, those types of uses proliferate in Mountain View. Um, so it sounds like you're gonna go and potentially eliminate the subsidy proposed without further action from this body. That's correct. Which is great. Thank you. The one I didn't see is tobacco or smoke shops. Is there a reason there isn't like a call out for cost recovery for those uses?

[00:48:57] Kimbra: So council will have an agenda item coming to you all, I believe, it's going to be the last meeting in May, um, for the bathing band. And, um, some of what you ask will be addressed in the in the baby and band. But it is certainly a consideration that you can consider now, or you could, uh, you know, bring up at that time for a greater maybe discussion on tobacco related fees. Um, but that's certainly something that you all discuss.

[00:49:29] Member Lucas Ramirez: Do we have the authority in this meeting to say? I don't know if the applicants can respond to this. It wasn't something that I'm guessing was explicitly studied, so would it require additional study tobacco fees? Bacco or like a snow shop? Cost recovery?

[00:49:45] Kimbra: No, I do not believe. So? But if you want to uh, give direction to look into that. And then that's what we would, you know, bring back more information on that. But we don't have, um, city. I would need to talk to the city attorney's office about the extent of what they studied or not, with the police department, um, in that vaping band. I'm not sure that they did. So.

[00:50:09] Member Lucas Ramirez: So that's an example of use that actually has been a problem in Mountain View. So I would be interested to the age that we can. And, you know, it's not it's not a deterrent, right? It's cost recovery. Um, but I've noticed that some of these cost recovery fees are quite high and so it may serve, you know, for a use that I'm fairly interested in as a as a deterrent. So those are my questions we're not thinking for your adults. Any other questions? Uh,

[00:50:38] Member Emily Ann Ramos: just a quick one. Uh, because I, I, I, I knew this budget very well. Or I was on council, when they did the fees for the rental housing committee, which I also saw that there was a questionnaire changing based on that. How come when you match what the, I can't find it now, but whatever. Uh, but like it had the proposed, it had the current fee, and then the proposed fee, which usually was the same, and then it said, um, the, the full cost. Wouldn't it automatically be the full cost is that's why it's just NA. In the charts. I don't know which and

[00:51:18] Kimbra: I believe our housing director is here, right? Yes. So we can... Yes,

[00:51:28] Wayne Chan: good morning, everyone. Wayne Chan housing director. Yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions. It sounds like a council member, vice mayor Ramos's questions may be more about how the information shows up in the chart, but, um, uh, according to the responses, yes, the rental housing committee did, um, support, um, the reduced fee at $142. Um, this is not a fee that's typically part of the master fee study. So I think any, um, information that might need to be reflected in the document, uh, we, we can certainly incorporate..

[00:52:02] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Especially since we're looking at doing some subsidy toward the mobile home or stabilization. Uh, it would be nice to show that, like, one is, uh, the program on its definition is generally 100% cost. Actually, none is, not on the, its definition, but like, it usually is 100% cost recovery, and so that should be reflected in the full cost and the percentage of subsidy. And

[00:52:28] Unknown Speaker: vice mayor, I believe you're on page 44. Found it. Right. And so it's about 3 quarters of the way down the page, the, uh, Rental housing fee, I believe that's the one you're aging too, and the malons at CNA, and maybe someone speak to why they're in it. Yeah, it's

[00:52:44] Rampone: actually, so those 2 fees are not part of the fee study and we're be pulling those out and presenting that at the June 10th meeting as separate items. It's those come directly from the housing department and part of their, um, Committee. So, yeah.

[00:52:58] Tony Thrasher: Tony Thrasher again. I just want to know. So a lot of the NAs you see in our study. There is costs associated with those things, but if they're not included within our cost analysis, then we can't show that we developed or determined a cost, right? So it's simply, uh, designating that if, you know, any action that we would be asking counsel to take for suggested fees are not based off of a cost analysis that we did in our study, right? So that's we want to make sure there's a clear distinction in there. The NA represents a few different things in these cases. So in the full cost, Uh, it's often that either a cost was not calculated or a cost was not needed to be calculated in the uh, form of, say, a penalty. In community services, the way that a lot of those are provided, they actually fall under a different exemption under prop 26 as a fee, as instead of being a tax. And so those can be set based off market rates, policy decisions, they are not cost recoverable based in the same way that, say, permits would be. Uh, we do a cost analysis on all the community service, um, you know, uh, services and rentals and all that to make sure that they are not earning a profit, which, of course, they are not, uh, but we also want to make sure that we are, uh, not showing cost calculations for which we did not, you know, determined one in the study. So these, this,

[00:54:21] Member Emily Ann Ramos: this, uh, this attachment, the personality schedule, is only what our consultants, that, is there a chance that we can distinguish like, because I would love to see like a full, uh, a study so that we have contacts for all of these things.

[00:54:38] Andrews: Director Chen, when are you coming back with your analysis and recommendations for fees? It sounded like you were doing a separate track on that. Yeah,

[00:54:49] Wayne Chan: um, thank you, assistant. manager Andrews. Uh, so, uh, these fees are a typically parallel tract and coordination with the finance and administrative um, department. Um, the rental housing committee sets its own budget. And, uh, on April the 22nd, the rental housing committee, uh, or the 25th, the rental housing committee, um, reviewed the proposed fees, um, um, and we've provided those, uh, those proposed fees, um, uh, with to, to FASD. And so, um, The rental housing committee is looking to adopt uh, the reduced fees for the mobile home space ordinance at $142 and the rental housing uh, committee has also approved or uh, recommended adoption of, uh, um, CSFRA fees at $130. So those will be information provided to FASD through the overall budget process, but it is on a separate, um, a parallel track. Yeah,

[00:55:49] Rampone: yeah. And we will split them out. On the June 10th, we'll have fees that were in the fee study and then other fees that were recommended for modification and those will be included inosis. Um,

[00:56:02] Member Chris Clark: I don't have any additional questions, so, um, well, uh, does anyone in the room facility comment? Is there anyone online who? Nobody weighs in their hand. Okay. So, um, So, go a public moment on this item, so we'll bring it back for, um, discussion and, uh, and ultimately emotion, if anyone

[00:56:24] Member Lucas Ramirez: would like, you know, search, you know, remember? Yes, thank you, chair. So first, I, I, I think this is important. I'm grateful to everyone for, um, helping. Right sized the fee is recognizing that, um, it has been a long time and cost recovery is important, especially in a time of, um, resource scarcity. So I think it unbalanced, this is very good. Um, I do want to, um, I may quote, uh, our congress member, Sam Ricardo, when he was mayor of San Jose, you'd often say, 100% of nothing is nothing. Um, and the point of saying that was in response to folks like me who say, well, why can't we impose more of a a fee burden or a tax burden on development, right? We want all of the good things. We want parks and affordable housing and community benefits, but if you start taxing too heavily, then you push development into oblivion and then you collect nothing. And I think housing starts generally have shown that we're looking at oblique outlook for a little while, you know, and with tariffs and labor costs escalating, what I worry is, even if this isn't the fee that breaks the camel's back, it is considered in a silo. We do have other significant fees and taxes that were imposing on development. And I think we are rapidly approaching a point where Development may not be feasible. We might see things entitled as we often do that don't get built. And I think that's that's actually kind of important. Um, so I may ask, um, before, when the budget comes back to us and the fee schedule, in its final form, um, for, for information about housing starts, just so we can understand that context, right? Are we actually seeing development fall off a ledge, and as a consequence, maybe we don't adjust these fees, or maybe we provide only a modest subsidy, but we really do need to think about fees and taxes ballistically, and that fee stack, and the, the, the total cost of, especially residential development, which I think is, is a priority for the council. So that's, these are, I'm gonna support this, but I do so with great caution and with, with, some desire and urgency around evaluating the total fee stack and making sure that we're not accidentally disincentivizing development as a whole in the city. Um, I am, uh, interested in, including, I'll move to, I guess, is it approved and recommend? I don't even expect the user study and then recommend it to counsel for adoption. Thank you, chair. to approve the staff recommendations with some additional direction to have staff evaluate potential subsidies for childcare centers, for the various, uh, permits that are described, uh, conditional use and development review permits. I think there's some others. Um, and then also, um, for, uh, safe parking, like, that's, that's someone doing us a favor, right? And so I'm not certain we want to disincentivize, you know, a private property owner from helping the city address our homelessness challenges. So I think that that should, you should consider a healthy subsidy there. And then, um, It's nonprofit housing needs, meals, and similar programs operated by nonprofit agencies that use shows up multiple times. Um, and I'd be, it's not totally clear to me exactly what that is referencing, but, I, I, that, that those all sound like good things, and so it would be helpful for, for us to understand, you know, why, so if staff says, actually, we do need full cost recovery. Here's why I will understand and appreciate that. But if you determine those are unbalanced, good things that support vulnerable folks in our community, that I would support, um, a subsidy for those uses as well. Um, I would also include, um, So the, the recommendation from staff, um, to slightly reduce the abandoned shopping cart impact, impound fee subsidy. So I get, you know, nearest tool number, but going down the nearest dollar instead of the nearest 10. I, I, it's a modest change, um, But it is my pet project is why I ran for council all those years ago. And then also including somebody's taking notes, right? Um, an exploration of the tobacco or smoke shop, cost recovery, if that is something that can include. And finally, um, I think I'm, I don't know what the number is, but I would maybe staff, if you can, um, tee up some options for a heritage tree removal appeal fee adjustment. I, I know that there's a balance and I, I want to respect that, but I also feel like especially if you're starting to see an increase in appeals that are denied. I don't think that the subsidy is helping either the community or the city. So a reduction in that, um, that subsidy, I think, would have, would have some merit. I have a lot of concerns about. So that's the that's the motion. I have some concerns about things like the gatekeeper. Uh,

[01:01:38] Andrews: earlier, you also mentioned either fully uh, adjusting the fee for adult, uh,

[01:01:43] Member Lucas Ramirez: yeah. or removing it. So yes, I thought that was already a stat recommendation. Yeah, that it will be discussed. I want to just clarify. Yeah, 100%. My preference would be 100% cost recovery for adult entertainment and cart rooms, and then pool and billiard rooms, but I know those are, those are not common, but if we get one, then people will say, oh, why is the city subsidizing that? Um, so that's that's, thank you. I appreciate that. Um, so that then that would be the motion. And also separate from that, unrelated. I do have concern about the gatekeeper pre-authorization application. I would love for it to be sensitive to the scale and magnitude of a project. That may not be something that you can do in time for the budget. But, as you said, um, director Murdoch, maybe in the context of the gatekeeper, um, uh, policy that we're creating, maybe we can find a way to be sensitive to, you know, the gatekeepers for any text amendment, zoning, change, general plan, amendment, and that that could be big, often is, or it could be very small. Um, and so it, like I said, what is it, a $12,000 fee? You know, the, the, well capitalized folks are going to be able to absorb just fine, they don't mind taking that risk, but that could be a severe deterrent for someone who's doing a much, you know, more modest development that may, we may actually want. Um, but where it ceases to be feasible simply because you have to pay $12,000 for the privilege of going to council task for permission, for your application to be reviewed, and that may be, you know, too much for, for some effort of, uh, perspective developers. Um, so I'll end my comments there. Thank you all again for this work. I'm grateful that you brought it to the CFC for you. Nice, apparently you have any comments. Sure,

[01:03:40] Member Emily Ann Ramos: I'll start with seconding the, um, how's my roommates of, um, motion. Um, I look forward to, um, on a broader level. Because, uh, there's goes really in depth. On a basic level, just, we're happy to subsidize things that we want and get the full cost of curries are the things that we don't, um, there's probably a discussion about development there. Um, just because we do want housing. Um, I don't think that has changed. Um, I look forward to, uh, eventually seeing probably voodoo dolls, uh, councilman for Ramirez, when the people who wanted to be, um, uh, the heritage tree removals. Welcome their hatred. Because I know a few of those. So that's gonna be fun. Uh, and they care very much and they they complain. They already complain about the fees that they pay now for that. Um, which which will be also fun to take on. Um, But overall, I, I, thank you staff for doing such an in-depth job, and I know this is a long time coming, and I wish I had the ability to go as deeply, as, as, uh, the view my colleagues have on some of these, but, um, it is really kind of eye-opening how much we, uh, how much things cost. My basic call. Um, So

[01:05:11] Member Chris Clark: just to recap, being emotion by Councilman Ramirez, I could do it by the, um, by the Iceman Ramos, um, for the staff recommendation, and, Looking at my notes, um, exploring, uh, between now and when it comes back to council, exploring subsidies for, um, kind of like childcare, um, safe parking, um, profit agency programs. There was something about shopping carts that I didn't understand. We got it. like abandoned shopping carts. Okay, as long as you got what you needed. Tobacco and smoke shops. Um, uh, re, revisiting bath item, it's under right, um, Heritage, uh, tree, appeal, substitute, deduction. Um, adult entertainment card rooms, um, I guess just be reviewing that. Yeah, we got it. Um, And then trying to account for the scale of a of a gatekeeper. Did I miss anything? Oh,

[01:06:26] Kimbra: you got it. Yes, you captured it. Thank you. Okay,

[01:06:28] Member Chris Clark: so, um, so that was the lotion, um, which I am, thank you, sir. Helving into all this. This has been a long time coming. I think, yeah, 10, I think that was the last time I was married. It was long time ago. It was

[01:06:44] Kimbra: long here, work, work plan, too. I forgot to mention that. It's great to see it. accomplishment. Yes. Oh,

[01:06:51] Member Lucas Ramirez: a big thank you to the consultant. too. I forgot to recognize Tony and his team. So thank you for your work. Our

[01:06:57] Tony Thrasher: pleasure. Thank you very much for hearing us out. You're

[01:07:00] Member Chris Clark: right. So, um, all in favor of the motion, say aye. I, um, any opposed? That passes unanimously. And, uh, thank you, Irwin, for showing us through the 2 items, uh, but...

[01:07:13] Kimbra: Jeremy, I have to say one thing. Just, I want to make sure you all understand what will happen on June 10th. Um, because it'll be a little different than how our prior, I think, budget medians have gone because we have a number of items. It'll be separate items. So you'll receive your recommended budget, which you'll actually receive at the end of May. And then there will be a separate item on this for the master fee schedule. Then there'll also be a separate item related to our, um, bonding for the public safety building. So we're bringing that financing plan to you all, and then there will be a 4th brand new item related to position vacancies, which we all agencies are now required to report out, uh, pursue it to a new law that has been passed by the state. That would be interesting. Yes. It is in San Jose. Yes. So it'll be a pack an evening basically filled with financial and budgetary, um, updates and policy decisions from council. So we also appreciate your support of this and diving into this as much as you have. I think this will be a real, uh, improvement for the city and, uh, will really help our operation. So thank you all too.

[01:08:26] Unknown Speaker: And I'll just add one thing on the vacancy report. The legislation also requires notification to the labor groups and the labor groups will have an opportunity to speak if they choose to. Okay,

[01:08:41] Member Chris Clark: um, So, item six, any, uh, do you step, comments, questions, or? question.

[01:08:48] Member Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I'm curious to know what, um, what's on the work plan for this body, this year I saw, and the, I think it, that's away, but, um, there was a, like a referral. Um, Uh, or

[01:09:04] Rampone: a couple of items for plan. Yeah. For the auditor work plan. For the in term of the, yeah, the city auditor. Right? Is that the one you're referring to? See him just kind of... Um, it was, uh, So

[01:09:19] Kimbra: there was, there was something I wanted to raise that, um, council member market race about the travel policy for council members. Right. So you could, as the CFC, tackle that, opposed to C&PC, because it's more of a budgetary item. So that could be something that we could put on your work plan coming up. Um, so something something to think about. Uh, and then I was just speaking with the assistant city manager about, we probably will have an item for you all to consider about, um, bonding and the fiduciary duty, the council and staff have, uh, when we make our bond representations, basically.

[01:10:01] Unknown Speaker: The city has an underwriter council, and a continuing disclosure council, and their recommendation, and doing our recommendation, as well as that all council members receive a briefing on your fiduciary role when we do go to market with bombing. I could 3 of you sit on this body. This would be a good opportunity to have 3 of you in the training at once.. So

[01:10:23] Member Lucas Ramirez: the minutes, so thank you. helpful. And then there's the, so the minutes did include, looks like, um, Um, I'm actually having her over Parsons. Uh It does, oh, this is item 6.2 appointment of the city audit is some reference to include the city's expense policy and travel peak card to the list of work plan items. Um, so that it wasn't clear to me, like, is that something that we're looking at this year and what the scope of that was. And then I also agree if there's a way for, uh, Council member Clark's, uh, referral. I'm comfortable with CFC looking at it..

[01:11:06] Member Lucas Ramirez: It's us 2 and council member McAllister.

[01:11:08] Member Emily Ann Ramos: Wasn't you stream me up, McAlliston? I need to go back and look at my notes.

[01:11:16] Kimbra: Really, you all just wanted to holistically kind of review what the policy is. Okay. And just, just to see it and discuss it. Okay. That was it, right?

[01:11:27] Rampone: I wasn't in the meeting at that point. so I don't remember. Yeah, yeah, I remember I was out. We'll make sure.

[01:11:32] Kimbra: my laptop today. Oh, that was my life. Okay. Um...

[01:11:40] Member Chris Clark: Any other questions or airports? If, uh, say none will, during at 9.46 PM? Thank you. 9.6 AM. It feels like an...

[01:11:55] Kimbra: Thank you very much. Thank you. So funny. And

[01:11:59] Member Chris Clark: we have a Coco, allegedly. We do?

• ← Previous
• Next →