Transparent Clayton - User contributions [en]

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T08:18:52Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2022-12-05 04_00 PM

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T08:18:48Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

List of 2026 Planning Commission Meetings

2026-11-06T08:17:01Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2026-05-26 07_00 PM

== October 13, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S8ALCjyyNM2rsT1V2WH93V5XntZIg4T5/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda]
|}

== September 22, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/188fXPyHDBLPMwLj4ajsSfQMdpy10K4Gf/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== September 08, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xa6WHHXkY6d5rgMQhxaK4DzVpkavpqLQ/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda]
|}

== August 25, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DqsbVWi9nlJvJSMJv0Q0NImUrHYyiEHo/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== August 11, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oRg6CvsEw2_vaXq5JqVUDYCXMlcRLAPv/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== June 30, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qjYYOwWxagsxKRoCYoCHnpLSjqCjD6UP/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda]
|}

== June 24, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKA8Q38c4kLBdGxRp2FG8qL-89-cRu7Y/view?usp=drivesdk Special Planning Commission Meeting]
|}

== June 23, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdVB4BmrVAG6Nr1Oar0s8dBmGcgDmMpK/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdVB4BmrVAG6Nr1Oar0s8dBmGcgDmMpK/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umWAgDcKcMFF8dLznCpCdDUKzKESehdr/view?usp=drivesdk PC Agenda 062326]
|}

== June 09, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/106IOiUjr4cD9N4sv_WzOuD17ezLpJXvt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/106IOiUjr4cD9N4sv_WzOuD17ezLpJXvt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zGXkBpIzAqLyzUxRv46x7wwrauTD4Gw8/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Agenda 060926]
|}

== May 26, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XF0_qGwAAAxKnZHJDJctTxjLQNdbTb-/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/f773f099-33b8-40b9-98be-e193afab441d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XF0_qGwAAAxKnZHJDJctTxjLQNdbTb-/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/181CFZOSTAnTiXbI8UdUq4NN-Y3ypyKVs/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Agenda 5/26] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2OtP_LZV3fyJqQjdr93hbNVQm5O1UwFyp8WoxmaXUo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaIyeJCi1Zg Video Backup] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocOIEOKZ4fg Video Backup part 2]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Acceptance of the Agenda ====

The meeting was called to order by Daniel Richardson, who noted that the roll call was visual and that not all members were present. He mentioned that the agenda was straightforward and not subject to much movement. Richardson then led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. No further discussion or action was taken on the acceptance of the agenda during this portion of the meeting.

'''Keywords:''' roll call visual, agenda straightforward, no further discussion, acceptance agenda

==== Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance ====

Pledge of Allegiance at [0:00:40].

==== Item 5: Public Meeting ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 6: Communications ====

The Planning Commission convened a work session to discuss the process by which projects come before the Commission, the Commission’s role in reviewing and approving projects, and ways to refine the process for future projects. The discussion was initiated by Chair Daniel Richardson, who expressed a desire to improve the Commission’s understanding of the process and to explore ways to enhance the Commission’s ability to evaluate design and other aspects of projects effectively. He highlighted recent projects, such as Silver Oak Estates and a large private home, as examples of how the Commission could benefit from more structured and segmented review processes.

Senior Planner Craig Chalmers provided an overview of the workflow for projects, including the submission process, CEQA requirements, and the importance of pre-submission conferences. He emphasized the need for the Commission to provide feedback on how projects are presented and suggested that breaking projects into smaller segments for review could be more effective. He also mentioned the use of tools such as story poles to help visualize the scale and massing of buildings, which the Commission had used in the past with positive results.

Commissioners discussed the challenges of reviewing large, complex projects that arrive as single, overwhelming packages, often after the comment period, limiting the Commission’s ability to provide meaningful input. They expressed a preference for segmented reviews, allowing for more thorough discussions and informed decisions. The Commission also discussed the importance of site visits and visual tools, such as 3D models and context plans, to better understand the impact of proposed developments on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Commissioners acknowledged the need for the Commission to develop clear criteria for evaluating design elements, such as size, massing, and visual impact, and to ensure that developers provide the necessary information to support informed decisions. They also discussed the importance of maintaining a policy that allows the Commission to recommend changes or require additional information from developers when necessary.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to continue these conversations in future meetings, with the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 9th. The Commission also agreed to consider holding a special meeting if needed to further refine the process and develop policies for future project reviews.

'''Keywords:''' project review process, segmented reviews, CEQA requirements, visual tools, design criteria, pre-submission conferences, policy development

==== Item 7: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:01].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2OtP_LZV3fyJqQjdr93hbNVQm5O1UwFyp8WoxmaXUo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 31, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/89560c07-037a-4477-8ea8-2838b1385b74.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HsANoV2pGLsBfeSWN8rbfpNKprYCXJyF/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_31_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZoBkDtAwtyWh9D8v7JpFIVNyWzx2ioAsp9_S-i4uNys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KOpEDXY5GM Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Roll Call ====

Roll Call at [0:00:01].

==== Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance ====

Pledge of Allegiance at [0:00:12].

==== Item 4: Acceptance of the Agenda ====

The Planning Commission meeting began with a brief moment of patriotism as a speaker, Joseph Banchero, invited attendees to join in the Pledge of Allegiance. a speaker, Daniel Richardson, then led the pledge, reciting the full text. No further discussion or action was taken on Agenda Item 4 during this segment of the meeting.

'''Keywords:''' Pledge of Allegiance, Joseph Banchero, Daniel Richardson, Agenda Item 4

==== Item 6: Public Hearing ====

The Planning Commission convened a public hearing to consider Resolution No. 04-2026, which recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Clayton Municipal Code to allow certain residential developments as "by right" with specific affordable housing requirements. Frank Chow, a senior planner from the City of Naperville, presented the proposal. He explained that the amendment has three key components: allowing sites identified to address shortfalls in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment to be developed by right if at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households; ensuring that minimum density requirements (20 units per acre) take precedence over base zone regulations; and defining "by right" in the municipal code to mean that certain housing developments do not require discretionary approvals such as conditional use permits or plan unit development permits.

Following the presentation, Joseph Banchero moved to approve the resolution, which was seconded by Frank Chow. A vote was taken, with all three commissioners voting in favor. The motion carried unanimously. No further discussion or amendments were proposed, and no additional public comments were received during the hearing. The Planning Commission concluded the meeting without any other business.

'''Keywords:''' affordable housing requirements, residential developments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, minimum density requirements, by right definition, conditional use permits, plan unit development permits

==== Item 7: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:11:04].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZoBkDtAwtyWh9D8v7JpFIVNyWzx2ioAsp9_S-i4uNys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 10, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rqwCgzNiJslDsZoRtHQsZXnC3zxVcMFr/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/642e8dce-52a5-47f8-bec8-472408e1b6a9.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rqwCgzNiJslDsZoRtHQsZXnC3zxVcMFr/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y3oWHKPHo1l4_vBvmXZiMrehHjlLugJ7/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_10_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkAWdPj4vbcg4jNb8q6ZUY78qzJOpbL-K2tNVSX8ai4/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4-AV1ieGk Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order ====

Call to Order at [0:00:21].

==== Item 2: Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 4: Acceptance of the Agenda ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 6: Consent Calendar ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 7: Public Hearing ====

The Planning Commission continued its public hearing on the Silver Oak Estates Project, focusing on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), vesting tentative subdivision map, and development plan. Staff outlined the CEQA alternative analysis, which included the no project alternative, a reduced development alternative with 20 units, and a base level alternative with 25 units. The no project alternative was deemed inconsistent with the city’s housing element and general plan objectives. The reduced development alternative was considered environmentally superior due to lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but it failed to meet the city’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) numbers, making it difficult to support findings for reduced density. Staff emphasized that the proposed project aligns with the city’s housing goals and includes measures to preserve Maud Alba Creek and provide buffer areas for neighbors.

Staff also detailed coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consultation occurred during the initial study, draft EIR, and final EIR stages. CDFW provided limited comments, which were incorporated into the EIR, while the Regional Water Quality Control Board had no comments. Pre-construction requirements, such as a stream alteration agreement and biological surveys, will be conducted in cooperation with CDFW. Additionally, a notice of intent to construct will be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Regarding the Homeowners Association (HOA), staff explained that the HOA will be responsible for maintaining private facilities, including streets, street lights, and bioretention systems. Developers must submit a detailed budget for approval, and if the HOA becomes underfunded, it can levy special assessments to ensure solvency. Staff noted that HOA insolvency is rare due to these mechanisms.

Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project, including certifying the EIR, adopting a mitigation monitoring reporting program, approving the vesting tentative map, and adopting the development plan with subcomponents such as the affordable housing plan and habitat conservation plan. Staff also requested the Commission to adopt findings of fact and conditions of approval for the project.

'''Keywords:''' Silver Oak Estates Project, Environmental Impact Report, Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Maud Alba Creek, Homeowners Association, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Affordable Housing Plan

==== Item 8: Communications ====

The Planning Commission considered the adoption of Resolution 012-206, which includes the approval of multiple components related to the Silver Oaks Estates project. a speaker moved to approve all items associated with the resolution, including the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map VTS M9541, the development plan DP-01-10, and the findings of fact and conditions of approval for the project. a speaker affirmed the motion, and a speaker seconded it. Following the motion, a speaker requested the city clerk to call the roll for a vote.

Commissioner Brosevich voted in favor (Aye), Commissioner Casagrande opposed (No), Commissioner Schulman supported (Aye), Vice Chair Banchero voted in favor (Aye), and Chair Richardson also supported the motion (Aye). The resolution was approved with a majority vote.

'''Keywords:''' Silver Oaks Estates project, Mitigation and Monitoring, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plan DP-01-10, Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval, Resolution 012-206

==== Item 9: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:16:55].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkAWdPj4vbcg4jNb8q6ZUY78qzJOpbL-K2tNVSX8ai4/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 24, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bs8iKQEqwB1ZmN4sA94GL7J3fqjXl13O/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/03dd7c05-36cd-40d3-9b2b-12845a19da96.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bs8iKQEqwB1ZmN4sA94GL7J3fqjXl13O/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D3j-8nKyiXZLPz7H1tEikpZ94BCi0mD_/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_24_2026]
|}

''No transcript is available: the recording published by the City for this meeting contains no usable audio.''

== February 10, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erQl_8g3Hu8BiJRdEyA7DUqeg7Ynkg8I/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/439aeb44-f64b-4fa2-b80d-2159879bc7c4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erQl_8g3Hu8BiJRdEyA7DUqeg7Ynkg8I/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r1P74cHjRPuWlMY8Po8gEvtlEtDSq4lu/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_10_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tOZgyiJuh0zdoTzPERtUrOG1czVd0eSJCFR9YoDa7Sk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
TBD
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tOZgyiJuh0zdoTzPERtUrOG1czVd0eSJCFR9YoDa7Sk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 13, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kJ1eZNbZ5XxeBEPtiPX-J1iWyO7eKXM/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/99e02630-db02-4f2d-99c3-2318e0351cf4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kJ1eZNbZ5XxeBEPtiPX-J1iWyO7eKXM/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/15tcv0-jixKdniF4RHadU7QGqlP_wmXOI/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_01_13_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fzsM6gIBdjrnnNY7dIS7hmJypGrpuUEyFnvsLmWRjmk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
TBD
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fzsM6gIBdjrnnNY7dIS7hmJypGrpuUEyFnvsLmWRjmk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2026 Planning Commission Meetings

2026-11-06T08:16:56Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T08:16:18Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2022-12-05 04_00 PM

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T08:16:14Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

List of 2026 Planning Commission Meetings

2026-11-06T08:12:39Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2026-05-26 07_00 PM

List of 2026 Planning Commission Meetings

2026-11-06T08:12:26Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

List of 2026 Planning Commission Meetings

2026-11-06T08:07:01Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2026-03-31 07_00 PM

== October 13, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S8ALCjyyNM2rsT1V2WH93V5XntZIg4T5/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda]
|}

== September 22, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/188fXPyHDBLPMwLj4ajsSfQMdpy10K4Gf/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== September 08, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xa6WHHXkY6d5rgMQhxaK4DzVpkavpqLQ/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda]
|}

== August 25, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DqsbVWi9nlJvJSMJv0Q0NImUrHYyiEHo/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== August 11, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oRg6CvsEw2_vaXq5JqVUDYCXMlcRLAPv/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== June 30, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qjYYOwWxagsxKRoCYoCHnpLSjqCjD6UP/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda]
|}

== June 24, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKA8Q38c4kLBdGxRp2FG8qL-89-cRu7Y/view?usp=drivesdk Special Planning Commission Meeting]
|}

== June 23, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdVB4BmrVAG6Nr1Oar0s8dBmGcgDmMpK/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdVB4BmrVAG6Nr1Oar0s8dBmGcgDmMpK/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umWAgDcKcMFF8dLznCpCdDUKzKESehdr/view?usp=drivesdk PC Agenda 062326]
|}

== June 09, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/106IOiUjr4cD9N4sv_WzOuD17ezLpJXvt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/106IOiUjr4cD9N4sv_WzOuD17ezLpJXvt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zGXkBpIzAqLyzUxRv46x7wwrauTD4Gw8/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Agenda 060926]
|}

== May 26, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XF0_qGwAAAxKnZHJDJctTxjLQNdbTb-/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/f773f099-33b8-40b9-98be-e193afab441d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XF0_qGwAAAxKnZHJDJctTxjLQNdbTb-/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/181CFZOSTAnTiXbI8UdUq4NN-Y3ypyKVs/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Agenda 5/26] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2OtP_LZV3fyJqQjdr93hbNVQm5O1UwFyp8WoxmaXUo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaIyeJCi1Zg Video Backup] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocOIEOKZ4fg Video Backup part 2]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Planning Commission convened for a work session to discuss the process of reviewing development projects and how they are presented to the commission. The session aimed to improve understanding of the workflow, identify areas for refinement, and explore ways to enhance the commission’s ability to evaluate design and impact effectively. The discussion centered on two recent projects: Silver Oak Estates and a large single-family home near one of the commissioners’ residences. These projects were used as case studies to reflect on how information is presented, the timing of reviews, and the commission’s role in assessing design and environmental impacts.

Commissioners expressed concerns about receiving large, complex packages of information all at once, which made it difficult to fully understand and deliberate on the projects. They noted that in past experiences, projects were reviewed in segments, such as the environmental impact report during the comment period, allowing for public and commission input before moving on to design components. The commissioners emphasized the value of breaking projects into smaller, more manageable pieces for review, as this would allow for more thoughtful discussion and the opportunity to ask questions before making decisions.

The use of “story poles” was highlighted as a helpful visual tool to understand the scale and massing of proposed developments. Story poles are 2x4s placed on a site to represent the corners and heights of buildings, providing a tangible way to visualize a project’s design. Commissioners acknowledged the benefits of this approach, particularly for projects that are difficult to interpret from two-dimensional plans. They also discussed the importance of visiting sites in person to better understand a project’s impact on the neighborhood.

The session concluded with a general agreement that the commission should have more input on how projects are presented and that policies should be developed to ensure a more structured and transparent review process. Commissioners also emphasized the need for trust in staff’s ability to evaluate technical aspects of projects before they reach the commission, allowing the commission to focus on design, compatibility with the neighborhood, and public interest.

'''Keywords:''' development projects, review process, environmental impact, story poles, project presentation, public input, design evaluation

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Council members discussed the role of the Planning Commission in evaluating development projects, focusing on the importance of visual impact, neighborhood compatibility, and the need for thorough review processes. a speaker emphasized the value of using tools like story poles to help visualize building massing and scale, citing past experiences with projects like Silver Oak Estates where such measures could have improved public and commission understanding. They also highlighted the importance of considering a project’s visual and physical impact on the neighborhood, not just its compliance with technical requirements like traffic and noise studies.

a speaker raised concerns about balancing subjective neighborhood preferences with adherence to municipal codes and the general plan, noting that they had previously voted against a project due to concerns about its fit within the neighborhood. They acknowledged that "no" is a valid decision but questioned whether such decisions were legally permissible in certain cases.

a speaker reiterated that the Planning Commission’s role is to assess whether a project fits within the neighborhood and aligns with city standards, not to dictate design specifics. They also discussed the importance of receiving full sets of drawings and having the opportunity to visit sites before making decisions, noting that this practice had been less common in recent years due to logistical and storage challenges.

a speaker brought up the idea of tracking metrics to evaluate the Planning Commission’s effectiveness, such as the percentage of applications handled administratively versus those requiring commission review. They suggested that analyzing these metrics could help identify inefficiencies and improve the commission’s ability to make informed decisions. However, a speaker expressed reservations about the value of such metrics, emphasizing that the commission’s role is to evaluate projects based on their impact and fit, not to measure administrative performance.

The discussion also touched on the need for clearer policies and procedures for how projects are brought to the commission, including breaking large projects into smaller, more manageable pieces for review. a speaker suggested that developing a flowchart or policy guide for staff and commissioners could help streamline the process and ensure consistency in how projects are evaluated. They also emphasized the importance of maintaining impartiality and avoiding prior involvement with projects to prevent conflicts of interest.

'''Keywords:''' visual impact assessment, story poles usage, neighborhood compatibility, project review process, conflict of interest, policy guide development, administrative metrics

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

A discussion about the Planning Commission's role and responsibilities took place during the meeting. a speaker emphasized the importance of the commission being proactive in addressing community concerns and planning for future developments. They mentioned several potential projects, including a development near Endeavor Hall and a project near Peacock Creek, and highlighted the need for the Planning Commission to be involved in updating the downtown-specific plan. a speaker also discussed the lack of a Design Review Commission, which they felt was a gap in the current system, and suggested that the Planning Commission could take on a more active role in reviewing design elements of projects.

a speaker also spoke about the importance of public hearings and the need for the Planning Commission to serve as a hearing body for the City Council. They encouraged more frequent meetings and suggested that the commission could provide recommendations to the City Council on various planning issues. The discussion also touched on the need for better communication tools and materials to help the commission understand and evaluate proposed projects. a speaker and others discussed the use of tools such as story polls, 3D models, and context plans to better visualize the impact of proposed developments.

a speaker summarized the discussion and outlined next steps, including the need to provide staff with guidance on developing and implementing refinements to policies, processes, and communication materials. The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of holding a special meeting to continue the conversation about upcoming projects and planning issues. The meeting concluded with a reminder about the upcoming Planning Commission meetings and the need to follow the Brown Act for special meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Planning Commission role, Future developments, Downtown-specific plan, Design Review Commission gap, Public hearings importance, 3D models visualization, Policy refinements guidance, Special meeting possibility
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2OtP_LZV3fyJqQjdr93hbNVQm5O1UwFyp8WoxmaXUo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 31, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/89560c07-037a-4477-8ea8-2838b1385b74.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HsANoV2pGLsBfeSWN8rbfpNKprYCXJyF/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_31_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZoBkDtAwtyWh9D8v7JpFIVNyWzx2ioAsp9_S-i4uNys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KOpEDXY5GM Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Roll Call ====

Roll Call at [0:00:01].

==== Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance ====

Pledge of Allegiance at [0:00:12].

==== Item 4: Acceptance of the Agenda ====

The Planning Commission meeting began with a brief moment of patriotism as a speaker, Joseph Banchero, invited attendees to join in the Pledge of Allegiance. a speaker, Daniel Richardson, then led the pledge, reciting the full text. No further discussion or action was taken on Agenda Item 4 during this segment of the meeting.

'''Keywords:''' Pledge of Allegiance, Joseph Banchero, Daniel Richardson, Agenda Item 4

==== Item 6: Public Hearing ====

The Planning Commission convened a public hearing to consider Resolution No. 04-2026, which recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Clayton Municipal Code to allow certain residential developments as "by right" with specific affordable housing requirements. Frank Chow, a senior planner from the City of Naperville, presented the proposal. He explained that the amendment has three key components: allowing sites identified to address shortfalls in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment to be developed by right if at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households; ensuring that minimum density requirements (20 units per acre) take precedence over base zone regulations; and defining "by right" in the municipal code to mean that certain housing developments do not require discretionary approvals such as conditional use permits or plan unit development permits.

Following the presentation, Joseph Banchero moved to approve the resolution, which was seconded by Frank Chow. A vote was taken, with all three commissioners voting in favor. The motion carried unanimously. No further discussion or amendments were proposed, and no additional public comments were received during the hearing. The Planning Commission concluded the meeting without any other business.

'''Keywords:''' affordable housing requirements, residential developments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, minimum density requirements, by right definition, conditional use permits, plan unit development permits

==== Item 7: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:11:04].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZoBkDtAwtyWh9D8v7JpFIVNyWzx2ioAsp9_S-i4uNys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 10, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rqwCgzNiJslDsZoRtHQsZXnC3zxVcMFr/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/642e8dce-52a5-47f8-bec8-472408e1b6a9.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rqwCgzNiJslDsZoRtHQsZXnC3zxVcMFr/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y3oWHKPHo1l4_vBvmXZiMrehHjlLugJ7/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_10_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkAWdPj4vbcg4jNb8q6ZUY78qzJOpbL-K2tNVSX8ai4/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4-AV1ieGk Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order ====

Call to Order at [0:00:21].

==== Item 2: Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 4: Acceptance of the Agenda ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 6: Consent Calendar ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 7: Public Hearing ====

The Planning Commission continued its public hearing on the Silver Oak Estates Project, focusing on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), vesting tentative subdivision map, and development plan. Staff outlined the CEQA alternative analysis, which included the no project alternative, a reduced development alternative with 20 units, and a base level alternative with 25 units. The no project alternative was deemed inconsistent with the city’s housing element and general plan objectives. The reduced development alternative was considered environmentally superior due to lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but it failed to meet the city’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) numbers, making it difficult to support findings for reduced density. Staff emphasized that the proposed project aligns with the city’s housing goals and includes measures to preserve Maud Alba Creek and provide buffer areas for neighbors.

Staff also detailed coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consultation occurred during the initial study, draft EIR, and final EIR stages. CDFW provided limited comments, which were incorporated into the EIR, while the Regional Water Quality Control Board had no comments. Pre-construction requirements, such as a stream alteration agreement and biological surveys, will be conducted in cooperation with CDFW. Additionally, a notice of intent to construct will be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Regarding the Homeowners Association (HOA), staff explained that the HOA will be responsible for maintaining private facilities, including streets, street lights, and bioretention systems. Developers must submit a detailed budget for approval, and if the HOA becomes underfunded, it can levy special assessments to ensure solvency. Staff noted that HOA insolvency is rare due to these mechanisms.

Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project, including certifying the EIR, adopting a mitigation monitoring reporting program, approving the vesting tentative map, and adopting the development plan with subcomponents such as the affordable housing plan and habitat conservation plan. Staff also requested the Commission to adopt findings of fact and conditions of approval for the project.

'''Keywords:''' Silver Oak Estates Project, Environmental Impact Report, Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Maud Alba Creek, Homeowners Association, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Affordable Housing Plan

==== Item 8: Communications ====

The Planning Commission considered the adoption of Resolution 012-206, which includes the approval of multiple components related to the Silver Oaks Estates project. a speaker moved to approve all items associated with the resolution, including the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map VTS M9541, the development plan DP-01-10, and the findings of fact and conditions of approval for the project. a speaker affirmed the motion, and a speaker seconded it. Following the motion, a speaker requested the city clerk to call the roll for a vote.

Commissioner Brosevich voted in favor (Aye), Commissioner Casagrande opposed (No), Commissioner Schulman supported (Aye), Vice Chair Banchero voted in favor (Aye), and Chair Richardson also supported the motion (Aye). The resolution was approved with a majority vote.

'''Keywords:''' Silver Oaks Estates project, Mitigation and Monitoring, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plan DP-01-10, Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval, Resolution 012-206

==== Item 9: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:16:55].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkAWdPj4vbcg4jNb8q6ZUY78qzJOpbL-K2tNVSX8ai4/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 24, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bs8iKQEqwB1ZmN4sA94GL7J3fqjXl13O/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/03dd7c05-36cd-40d3-9b2b-12845a19da96.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bs8iKQEqwB1ZmN4sA94GL7J3fqjXl13O/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D3j-8nKyiXZLPz7H1tEikpZ94BCi0mD_/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_24_2026]
|}

''No transcript is available: the recording published by the City for this meeting contains no usable audio.''

== February 10, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erQl_8g3Hu8BiJRdEyA7DUqeg7Ynkg8I/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/439aeb44-f64b-4fa2-b80d-2159879bc7c4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erQl_8g3Hu8BiJRdEyA7DUqeg7Ynkg8I/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r1P74cHjRPuWlMY8Po8gEvtlEtDSq4lu/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_10_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tOZgyiJuh0zdoTzPERtUrOG1czVd0eSJCFR9YoDa7Sk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
TBD
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tOZgyiJuh0zdoTzPERtUrOG1czVd0eSJCFR9YoDa7Sk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 13, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kJ1eZNbZ5XxeBEPtiPX-J1iWyO7eKXM/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/99e02630-db02-4f2d-99c3-2318e0351cf4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kJ1eZNbZ5XxeBEPtiPX-J1iWyO7eKXM/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/15tcv0-jixKdniF4RHadU7QGqlP_wmXOI/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_01_13_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fzsM6gIBdjrnnNY7dIS7hmJypGrpuUEyFnvsLmWRjmk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
TBD
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fzsM6gIBdjrnnNY7dIS7hmJypGrpuUEyFnvsLmWRjmk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2026 Planning Commission Meetings

2026-11-06T08:06:57Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

== October 13, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S8ALCjyyNM2rsT1V2WH93V5XntZIg4T5/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda]
|}

== September 22, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/188fXPyHDBLPMwLj4ajsSfQMdpy10K4Gf/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== September 08, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xa6WHHXkY6d5rgMQhxaK4DzVpkavpqLQ/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda]
|}

== August 25, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DqsbVWi9nlJvJSMJv0Q0NImUrHYyiEHo/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== August 11, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oRg6CvsEw2_vaXq5JqVUDYCXMlcRLAPv/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== June 30, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qjYYOwWxagsxKRoCYoCHnpLSjqCjD6UP/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda]
|}

== June 24, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKA8Q38c4kLBdGxRp2FG8qL-89-cRu7Y/view?usp=drivesdk Special Planning Commission Meeting]
|}

== June 23, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdVB4BmrVAG6Nr1Oar0s8dBmGcgDmMpK/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdVB4BmrVAG6Nr1Oar0s8dBmGcgDmMpK/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umWAgDcKcMFF8dLznCpCdDUKzKESehdr/view?usp=drivesdk PC Agenda 062326]
|}

== June 09, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/106IOiUjr4cD9N4sv_WzOuD17ezLpJXvt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/106IOiUjr4cD9N4sv_WzOuD17ezLpJXvt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zGXkBpIzAqLyzUxRv46x7wwrauTD4Gw8/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Agenda 060926]
|}

== May 26, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XF0_qGwAAAxKnZHJDJctTxjLQNdbTb-/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/f773f099-33b8-40b9-98be-e193afab441d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XF0_qGwAAAxKnZHJDJctTxjLQNdbTb-/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/181CFZOSTAnTiXbI8UdUq4NN-Y3ypyKVs/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Agenda 5/26] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2OtP_LZV3fyJqQjdr93hbNVQm5O1UwFyp8WoxmaXUo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaIyeJCi1Zg Video Backup] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocOIEOKZ4fg Video Backup part 2]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Planning Commission convened for a work session to discuss the process of reviewing development projects and how they are presented to the commission. The session aimed to improve understanding of the workflow, identify areas for refinement, and explore ways to enhance the commission’s ability to evaluate design and impact effectively. The discussion centered on two recent projects: Silver Oak Estates and a large single-family home near one of the commissioners’ residences. These projects were used as case studies to reflect on how information is presented, the timing of reviews, and the commission’s role in assessing design and environmental impacts.

Commissioners expressed concerns about receiving large, complex packages of information all at once, which made it difficult to fully understand and deliberate on the projects. They noted that in past experiences, projects were reviewed in segments, such as the environmental impact report during the comment period, allowing for public and commission input before moving on to design components. The commissioners emphasized the value of breaking projects into smaller, more manageable pieces for review, as this would allow for more thoughtful discussion and the opportunity to ask questions before making decisions.

The use of “story poles” was highlighted as a helpful visual tool to understand the scale and massing of proposed developments. Story poles are 2x4s placed on a site to represent the corners and heights of buildings, providing a tangible way to visualize a project’s design. Commissioners acknowledged the benefits of this approach, particularly for projects that are difficult to interpret from two-dimensional plans. They also discussed the importance of visiting sites in person to better understand a project’s impact on the neighborhood.

The session concluded with a general agreement that the commission should have more input on how projects are presented and that policies should be developed to ensure a more structured and transparent review process. Commissioners also emphasized the need for trust in staff’s ability to evaluate technical aspects of projects before they reach the commission, allowing the commission to focus on design, compatibility with the neighborhood, and public interest.

'''Keywords:''' development projects, review process, environmental impact, story poles, project presentation, public input, design evaluation

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Council members discussed the role of the Planning Commission in evaluating development projects, focusing on the importance of visual impact, neighborhood compatibility, and the need for thorough review processes. a speaker emphasized the value of using tools like story poles to help visualize building massing and scale, citing past experiences with projects like Silver Oak Estates where such measures could have improved public and commission understanding. They also highlighted the importance of considering a project’s visual and physical impact on the neighborhood, not just its compliance with technical requirements like traffic and noise studies.

a speaker raised concerns about balancing subjective neighborhood preferences with adherence to municipal codes and the general plan, noting that they had previously voted against a project due to concerns about its fit within the neighborhood. They acknowledged that "no" is a valid decision but questioned whether such decisions were legally permissible in certain cases.

a speaker reiterated that the Planning Commission’s role is to assess whether a project fits within the neighborhood and aligns with city standards, not to dictate design specifics. They also discussed the importance of receiving full sets of drawings and having the opportunity to visit sites before making decisions, noting that this practice had been less common in recent years due to logistical and storage challenges.

a speaker brought up the idea of tracking metrics to evaluate the Planning Commission’s effectiveness, such as the percentage of applications handled administratively versus those requiring commission review. They suggested that analyzing these metrics could help identify inefficiencies and improve the commission’s ability to make informed decisions. However, a speaker expressed reservations about the value of such metrics, emphasizing that the commission’s role is to evaluate projects based on their impact and fit, not to measure administrative performance.

The discussion also touched on the need for clearer policies and procedures for how projects are brought to the commission, including breaking large projects into smaller, more manageable pieces for review. a speaker suggested that developing a flowchart or policy guide for staff and commissioners could help streamline the process and ensure consistency in how projects are evaluated. They also emphasized the importance of maintaining impartiality and avoiding prior involvement with projects to prevent conflicts of interest.

'''Keywords:''' visual impact assessment, story poles usage, neighborhood compatibility, project review process, conflict of interest, policy guide development, administrative metrics

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

A discussion about the Planning Commission's role and responsibilities took place during the meeting. a speaker emphasized the importance of the commission being proactive in addressing community concerns and planning for future developments. They mentioned several potential projects, including a development near Endeavor Hall and a project near Peacock Creek, and highlighted the need for the Planning Commission to be involved in updating the downtown-specific plan. a speaker also discussed the lack of a Design Review Commission, which they felt was a gap in the current system, and suggested that the Planning Commission could take on a more active role in reviewing design elements of projects.

a speaker also spoke about the importance of public hearings and the need for the Planning Commission to serve as a hearing body for the City Council. They encouraged more frequent meetings and suggested that the commission could provide recommendations to the City Council on various planning issues. The discussion also touched on the need for better communication tools and materials to help the commission understand and evaluate proposed projects. a speaker and others discussed the use of tools such as story polls, 3D models, and context plans to better visualize the impact of proposed developments.

a speaker summarized the discussion and outlined next steps, including the need to provide staff with guidance on developing and implementing refinements to policies, processes, and communication materials. The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of holding a special meeting to continue the conversation about upcoming projects and planning issues. The meeting concluded with a reminder about the upcoming Planning Commission meetings and the need to follow the Brown Act for special meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Planning Commission role, Future developments, Downtown-specific plan, Design Review Commission gap, Public hearings importance, 3D models visualization, Policy refinements guidance, Special meeting possibility
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2OtP_LZV3fyJqQjdr93hbNVQm5O1UwFyp8WoxmaXUo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 10, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rqwCgzNiJslDsZoRtHQsZXnC3zxVcMFr/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/642e8dce-52a5-47f8-bec8-472408e1b6a9.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rqwCgzNiJslDsZoRtHQsZXnC3zxVcMFr/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y3oWHKPHo1l4_vBvmXZiMrehHjlLugJ7/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_10_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkAWdPj4vbcg4jNb8q6ZUY78qzJOpbL-K2tNVSX8ai4/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4-AV1ieGk Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order ====

Call to Order at [0:00:21].

==== Item 2: Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 4: Acceptance of the Agenda ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 6: Consent Calendar ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 7: Public Hearing ====

The Planning Commission continued its public hearing on the Silver Oak Estates Project, focusing on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), vesting tentative subdivision map, and development plan. Staff outlined the CEQA alternative analysis, which included the no project alternative, a reduced development alternative with 20 units, and a base level alternative with 25 units. The no project alternative was deemed inconsistent with the city’s housing element and general plan objectives. The reduced development alternative was considered environmentally superior due to lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but it failed to meet the city’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) numbers, making it difficult to support findings for reduced density. Staff emphasized that the proposed project aligns with the city’s housing goals and includes measures to preserve Maud Alba Creek and provide buffer areas for neighbors.

Staff also detailed coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consultation occurred during the initial study, draft EIR, and final EIR stages. CDFW provided limited comments, which were incorporated into the EIR, while the Regional Water Quality Control Board had no comments. Pre-construction requirements, such as a stream alteration agreement and biological surveys, will be conducted in cooperation with CDFW. Additionally, a notice of intent to construct will be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Regarding the Homeowners Association (HOA), staff explained that the HOA will be responsible for maintaining private facilities, including streets, street lights, and bioretention systems. Developers must submit a detailed budget for approval, and if the HOA becomes underfunded, it can levy special assessments to ensure solvency. Staff noted that HOA insolvency is rare due to these mechanisms.

Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project, including certifying the EIR, adopting a mitigation monitoring reporting program, approving the vesting tentative map, and adopting the development plan with subcomponents such as the affordable housing plan and habitat conservation plan. Staff also requested the Commission to adopt findings of fact and conditions of approval for the project.

'''Keywords:''' Silver Oak Estates Project, Environmental Impact Report, Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Maud Alba Creek, Homeowners Association, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Affordable Housing Plan

==== Item 8: Communications ====

The Planning Commission considered the adoption of Resolution 012-206, which includes the approval of multiple components related to the Silver Oaks Estates project. a speaker moved to approve all items associated with the resolution, including the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map VTS M9541, the development plan DP-01-10, and the findings of fact and conditions of approval for the project. a speaker affirmed the motion, and a speaker seconded it. Following the motion, a speaker requested the city clerk to call the roll for a vote.

Commissioner Brosevich voted in favor (Aye), Commissioner Casagrande opposed (No), Commissioner Schulman supported (Aye), Vice Chair Banchero voted in favor (Aye), and Chair Richardson also supported the motion (Aye). The resolution was approved with a majority vote.

'''Keywords:''' Silver Oaks Estates project, Mitigation and Monitoring, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plan DP-01-10, Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval, Resolution 012-206

==== Item 9: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:16:55].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkAWdPj4vbcg4jNb8q6ZUY78qzJOpbL-K2tNVSX8ai4/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 24, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bs8iKQEqwB1ZmN4sA94GL7J3fqjXl13O/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/03dd7c05-36cd-40d3-9b2b-12845a19da96.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bs8iKQEqwB1ZmN4sA94GL7J3fqjXl13O/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D3j-8nKyiXZLPz7H1tEikpZ94BCi0mD_/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_24_2026]
|}

''No transcript is available: the recording published by the City for this meeting contains no usable audio.''

== February 10, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erQl_8g3Hu8BiJRdEyA7DUqeg7Ynkg8I/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/439aeb44-f64b-4fa2-b80d-2159879bc7c4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erQl_8g3Hu8BiJRdEyA7DUqeg7Ynkg8I/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r1P74cHjRPuWlMY8Po8gEvtlEtDSq4lu/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_10_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tOZgyiJuh0zdoTzPERtUrOG1czVd0eSJCFR9YoDa7Sk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
TBD
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tOZgyiJuh0zdoTzPERtUrOG1czVd0eSJCFR9YoDa7Sk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 13, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kJ1eZNbZ5XxeBEPtiPX-J1iWyO7eKXM/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/99e02630-db02-4f2d-99c3-2318e0351cf4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kJ1eZNbZ5XxeBEPtiPX-J1iWyO7eKXM/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/15tcv0-jixKdniF4RHadU7QGqlP_wmXOI/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_01_13_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fzsM6gIBdjrnnNY7dIS7hmJypGrpuUEyFnvsLmWRjmk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
TBD
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fzsM6gIBdjrnnNY7dIS7hmJypGrpuUEyFnvsLmWRjmk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2026 Planning Commission Meetings

2026-11-06T08:05:24Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2026-03-10 07_00 PM

== October 13, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S8ALCjyyNM2rsT1V2WH93V5XntZIg4T5/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda]
|}

== September 22, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/188fXPyHDBLPMwLj4ajsSfQMdpy10K4Gf/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== September 08, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xa6WHHXkY6d5rgMQhxaK4DzVpkavpqLQ/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda]
|}

== August 25, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DqsbVWi9nlJvJSMJv0Q0NImUrHYyiEHo/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== August 11, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oRg6CvsEw2_vaXq5JqVUDYCXMlcRLAPv/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== June 30, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qjYYOwWxagsxKRoCYoCHnpLSjqCjD6UP/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda]
|}

== June 24, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKA8Q38c4kLBdGxRp2FG8qL-89-cRu7Y/view?usp=drivesdk Special Planning Commission Meeting]
|}

== June 23, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdVB4BmrVAG6Nr1Oar0s8dBmGcgDmMpK/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdVB4BmrVAG6Nr1Oar0s8dBmGcgDmMpK/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umWAgDcKcMFF8dLznCpCdDUKzKESehdr/view?usp=drivesdk PC Agenda 062326]
|}

== June 09, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/106IOiUjr4cD9N4sv_WzOuD17ezLpJXvt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/106IOiUjr4cD9N4sv_WzOuD17ezLpJXvt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zGXkBpIzAqLyzUxRv46x7wwrauTD4Gw8/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Agenda 060926]
|}

== May 26, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XF0_qGwAAAxKnZHJDJctTxjLQNdbTb-/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/f773f099-33b8-40b9-98be-e193afab441d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XF0_qGwAAAxKnZHJDJctTxjLQNdbTb-/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/181CFZOSTAnTiXbI8UdUq4NN-Y3ypyKVs/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Agenda 5/26] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2OtP_LZV3fyJqQjdr93hbNVQm5O1UwFyp8WoxmaXUo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaIyeJCi1Zg Video Backup] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocOIEOKZ4fg Video Backup part 2]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Planning Commission convened for a work session to discuss the process of reviewing development projects and how they are presented to the commission. The session aimed to improve understanding of the workflow, identify areas for refinement, and explore ways to enhance the commission’s ability to evaluate design and impact effectively. The discussion centered on two recent projects: Silver Oak Estates and a large single-family home near one of the commissioners’ residences. These projects were used as case studies to reflect on how information is presented, the timing of reviews, and the commission’s role in assessing design and environmental impacts.

Commissioners expressed concerns about receiving large, complex packages of information all at once, which made it difficult to fully understand and deliberate on the projects. They noted that in past experiences, projects were reviewed in segments, such as the environmental impact report during the comment period, allowing for public and commission input before moving on to design components. The commissioners emphasized the value of breaking projects into smaller, more manageable pieces for review, as this would allow for more thoughtful discussion and the opportunity to ask questions before making decisions.

The use of “story poles” was highlighted as a helpful visual tool to understand the scale and massing of proposed developments. Story poles are 2x4s placed on a site to represent the corners and heights of buildings, providing a tangible way to visualize a project’s design. Commissioners acknowledged the benefits of this approach, particularly for projects that are difficult to interpret from two-dimensional plans. They also discussed the importance of visiting sites in person to better understand a project’s impact on the neighborhood.

The session concluded with a general agreement that the commission should have more input on how projects are presented and that policies should be developed to ensure a more structured and transparent review process. Commissioners also emphasized the need for trust in staff’s ability to evaluate technical aspects of projects before they reach the commission, allowing the commission to focus on design, compatibility with the neighborhood, and public interest.

'''Keywords:''' development projects, review process, environmental impact, story poles, project presentation, public input, design evaluation

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Council members discussed the role of the Planning Commission in evaluating development projects, focusing on the importance of visual impact, neighborhood compatibility, and the need for thorough review processes. a speaker emphasized the value of using tools like story poles to help visualize building massing and scale, citing past experiences with projects like Silver Oak Estates where such measures could have improved public and commission understanding. They also highlighted the importance of considering a project’s visual and physical impact on the neighborhood, not just its compliance with technical requirements like traffic and noise studies.

a speaker raised concerns about balancing subjective neighborhood preferences with adherence to municipal codes and the general plan, noting that they had previously voted against a project due to concerns about its fit within the neighborhood. They acknowledged that "no" is a valid decision but questioned whether such decisions were legally permissible in certain cases.

a speaker reiterated that the Planning Commission’s role is to assess whether a project fits within the neighborhood and aligns with city standards, not to dictate design specifics. They also discussed the importance of receiving full sets of drawings and having the opportunity to visit sites before making decisions, noting that this practice had been less common in recent years due to logistical and storage challenges.

a speaker brought up the idea of tracking metrics to evaluate the Planning Commission’s effectiveness, such as the percentage of applications handled administratively versus those requiring commission review. They suggested that analyzing these metrics could help identify inefficiencies and improve the commission’s ability to make informed decisions. However, a speaker expressed reservations about the value of such metrics, emphasizing that the commission’s role is to evaluate projects based on their impact and fit, not to measure administrative performance.

The discussion also touched on the need for clearer policies and procedures for how projects are brought to the commission, including breaking large projects into smaller, more manageable pieces for review. a speaker suggested that developing a flowchart or policy guide for staff and commissioners could help streamline the process and ensure consistency in how projects are evaluated. They also emphasized the importance of maintaining impartiality and avoiding prior involvement with projects to prevent conflicts of interest.

'''Keywords:''' visual impact assessment, story poles usage, neighborhood compatibility, project review process, conflict of interest, policy guide development, administrative metrics

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

A discussion about the Planning Commission's role and responsibilities took place during the meeting. a speaker emphasized the importance of the commission being proactive in addressing community concerns and planning for future developments. They mentioned several potential projects, including a development near Endeavor Hall and a project near Peacock Creek, and highlighted the need for the Planning Commission to be involved in updating the downtown-specific plan. a speaker also discussed the lack of a Design Review Commission, which they felt was a gap in the current system, and suggested that the Planning Commission could take on a more active role in reviewing design elements of projects.

a speaker also spoke about the importance of public hearings and the need for the Planning Commission to serve as a hearing body for the City Council. They encouraged more frequent meetings and suggested that the commission could provide recommendations to the City Council on various planning issues. The discussion also touched on the need for better communication tools and materials to help the commission understand and evaluate proposed projects. a speaker and others discussed the use of tools such as story polls, 3D models, and context plans to better visualize the impact of proposed developments.

a speaker summarized the discussion and outlined next steps, including the need to provide staff with guidance on developing and implementing refinements to policies, processes, and communication materials. The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of holding a special meeting to continue the conversation about upcoming projects and planning issues. The meeting concluded with a reminder about the upcoming Planning Commission meetings and the need to follow the Brown Act for special meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Planning Commission role, Future developments, Downtown-specific plan, Design Review Commission gap, Public hearings importance, 3D models visualization, Policy refinements guidance, Special meeting possibility
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2OtP_LZV3fyJqQjdr93hbNVQm5O1UwFyp8WoxmaXUo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 31, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/89560c07-037a-4477-8ea8-2838b1385b74.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HsANoV2pGLsBfeSWN8rbfpNKprYCXJyF/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_31_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZoBkDtAwtyWh9D8v7JpFIVNyWzx2ioAsp9_S-i4uNys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KOpEDXY5GM Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Meeting ====

The meeting began with a roll call, confirming the presence of Chair Richardson, Vice Chair Bonchero, and Commissioner Schulman, with Commissioners Casagrande and Berzovich absent. A quorum was established, and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The meeting then moved through procedural items, including the acceptance of the agenda and public comment, which was closed due to no speakers.

The primary discussion centered on a municipal code text amendment, specifically Resolution Number 04-2026, which recommends amending the Clayton Municipal Code to allow certain residential uses by right, provided at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households. Frank Chow, a senior planner, presented the background and details of the amendment. The changes included allowing residential development on sites identified to address housing shortfalls, ensuring minimum density requirements prevail over base zone regulations, and defining "by right" in the code to exclude discretionary approvals typically required under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Following the presentation, a motion was made to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously by the present commissioners, with no further discussion or opposition. The meeting concluded with no additional business and was adjourned.

'''Keywords:''' municipal code amendment, affordable housing units, residential development, minimum density requirements, by right definition, resolution 04-2026, unanimous approval
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZoBkDtAwtyWh9D8v7JpFIVNyWzx2ioAsp9_S-i4uNys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 10, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rqwCgzNiJslDsZoRtHQsZXnC3zxVcMFr/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/642e8dce-52a5-47f8-bec8-472408e1b6a9.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rqwCgzNiJslDsZoRtHQsZXnC3zxVcMFr/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y3oWHKPHo1l4_vBvmXZiMrehHjlLugJ7/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_10_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkAWdPj4vbcg4jNb8q6ZUY78qzJOpbL-K2tNVSX8ai4/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4-AV1ieGk Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order ====

Call to Order at [0:00:21].

==== Item 2: Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 4: Acceptance of the Agenda ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 6: Consent Calendar ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 7: Public Hearing ====

The Planning Commission continued its public hearing on the Silver Oak Estates Project, focusing on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), vesting tentative subdivision map, and development plan. Staff outlined the CEQA alternative analysis, which included the no project alternative, a reduced development alternative with 20 units, and a base level alternative with 25 units. The no project alternative was deemed inconsistent with the city’s housing element and general plan objectives. The reduced development alternative was considered environmentally superior due to lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but it failed to meet the city’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) numbers, making it difficult to support findings for reduced density. Staff emphasized that the proposed project aligns with the city’s housing goals and includes measures to preserve Maud Alba Creek and provide buffer areas for neighbors.

Staff also detailed coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consultation occurred during the initial study, draft EIR, and final EIR stages. CDFW provided limited comments, which were incorporated into the EIR, while the Regional Water Quality Control Board had no comments. Pre-construction requirements, such as a stream alteration agreement and biological surveys, will be conducted in cooperation with CDFW. Additionally, a notice of intent to construct will be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Regarding the Homeowners Association (HOA), staff explained that the HOA will be responsible for maintaining private facilities, including streets, street lights, and bioretention systems. Developers must submit a detailed budget for approval, and if the HOA becomes underfunded, it can levy special assessments to ensure solvency. Staff noted that HOA insolvency is rare due to these mechanisms.

Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project, including certifying the EIR, adopting a mitigation monitoring reporting program, approving the vesting tentative map, and adopting the development plan with subcomponents such as the affordable housing plan and habitat conservation plan. Staff also requested the Commission to adopt findings of fact and conditions of approval for the project.

'''Keywords:''' Silver Oak Estates Project, Environmental Impact Report, Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Maud Alba Creek, Homeowners Association, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Affordable Housing Plan

==== Item 8: Communications ====

The Planning Commission considered the adoption of Resolution 012-206, which includes the approval of multiple components related to the Silver Oaks Estates project. a speaker moved to approve all items associated with the resolution, including the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map VTS M9541, the development plan DP-01-10, and the findings of fact and conditions of approval for the project. a speaker affirmed the motion, and a speaker seconded it. Following the motion, a speaker requested the city clerk to call the roll for a vote.

Commissioner Brosevich voted in favor (Aye), Commissioner Casagrande opposed (No), Commissioner Schulman supported (Aye), Vice Chair Banchero voted in favor (Aye), and Chair Richardson also supported the motion (Aye). The resolution was approved with a majority vote.

'''Keywords:''' Silver Oaks Estates project, Mitigation and Monitoring, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plan DP-01-10, Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval, Resolution 012-206

==== Item 9: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:16:55].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkAWdPj4vbcg4jNb8q6ZUY78qzJOpbL-K2tNVSX8ai4/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 24, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bs8iKQEqwB1ZmN4sA94GL7J3fqjXl13O/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/03dd7c05-36cd-40d3-9b2b-12845a19da96.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bs8iKQEqwB1ZmN4sA94GL7J3fqjXl13O/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D3j-8nKyiXZLPz7H1tEikpZ94BCi0mD_/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_24_2026]
|}

''No transcript is available: the recording published by the City for this meeting contains no usable audio.''

== February 10, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erQl_8g3Hu8BiJRdEyA7DUqeg7Ynkg8I/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/439aeb44-f64b-4fa2-b80d-2159879bc7c4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erQl_8g3Hu8BiJRdEyA7DUqeg7Ynkg8I/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r1P74cHjRPuWlMY8Po8gEvtlEtDSq4lu/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_10_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tOZgyiJuh0zdoTzPERtUrOG1czVd0eSJCFR9YoDa7Sk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
TBD
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tOZgyiJuh0zdoTzPERtUrOG1czVd0eSJCFR9YoDa7Sk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 13, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kJ1eZNbZ5XxeBEPtiPX-J1iWyO7eKXM/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/99e02630-db02-4f2d-99c3-2318e0351cf4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kJ1eZNbZ5XxeBEPtiPX-J1iWyO7eKXM/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/15tcv0-jixKdniF4RHadU7QGqlP_wmXOI/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_01_13_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fzsM6gIBdjrnnNY7dIS7hmJypGrpuUEyFnvsLmWRjmk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
TBD
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fzsM6gIBdjrnnNY7dIS7hmJypGrpuUEyFnvsLmWRjmk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2026 Planning Commission Meetings

2026-11-06T08:05:19Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

:''Main article: [[Planning Commission]]''
== October 13, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S8ALCjyyNM2rsT1V2WH93V5XntZIg4T5/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda]
|}

== September 22, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/188fXPyHDBLPMwLj4ajsSfQMdpy10K4Gf/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== September 08, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xa6WHHXkY6d5rgMQhxaK4DzVpkavpqLQ/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda]
|}

== August 25, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DqsbVWi9nlJvJSMJv0Q0NImUrHYyiEHo/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== August 11, 2026 ==
'''Cancelled''' — [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oRg6CvsEw2_vaXq5JqVUDYCXMlcRLAPv/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation]

== June 30, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qjYYOwWxagsxKRoCYoCHnpLSjqCjD6UP/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda]
|}

== June 24, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKA8Q38c4kLBdGxRp2FG8qL-89-cRu7Y/view?usp=drivesdk Special Planning Commission Meeting]
|}

== June 23, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdVB4BmrVAG6Nr1Oar0s8dBmGcgDmMpK/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdVB4BmrVAG6Nr1Oar0s8dBmGcgDmMpK/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umWAgDcKcMFF8dLznCpCdDUKzKESehdr/view?usp=drivesdk PC Agenda 062326]
|}

== June 09, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/106IOiUjr4cD9N4sv_WzOuD17ezLpJXvt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/106IOiUjr4cD9N4sv_WzOuD17ezLpJXvt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zGXkBpIzAqLyzUxRv46x7wwrauTD4Gw8/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Agenda 060926]
|}

== May 26, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XF0_qGwAAAxKnZHJDJctTxjLQNdbTb-/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/f773f099-33b8-40b9-98be-e193afab441d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XF0_qGwAAAxKnZHJDJctTxjLQNdbTb-/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/181CFZOSTAnTiXbI8UdUq4NN-Y3ypyKVs/view?usp=drivesdk Planning Commission Agenda 5/26] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2OtP_LZV3fyJqQjdr93hbNVQm5O1UwFyp8WoxmaXUo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaIyeJCi1Zg Video Backup] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocOIEOKZ4fg Video Backup part 2]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Planning Commission convened for a work session to discuss the process of reviewing development projects and how they are presented to the commission. The session aimed to improve understanding of the workflow, identify areas for refinement, and explore ways to enhance the commission’s ability to evaluate design and impact effectively. The discussion centered on two recent projects: Silver Oak Estates and a large single-family home near one of the commissioners’ residences. These projects were used as case studies to reflect on how information is presented, the timing of reviews, and the commission’s role in assessing design and environmental impacts.

Commissioners expressed concerns about receiving large, complex packages of information all at once, which made it difficult to fully understand and deliberate on the projects. They noted that in past experiences, projects were reviewed in segments, such as the environmental impact report during the comment period, allowing for public and commission input before moving on to design components. The commissioners emphasized the value of breaking projects into smaller, more manageable pieces for review, as this would allow for more thoughtful discussion and the opportunity to ask questions before making decisions.

The use of “story poles” was highlighted as a helpful visual tool to understand the scale and massing of proposed developments. Story poles are 2x4s placed on a site to represent the corners and heights of buildings, providing a tangible way to visualize a project’s design. Commissioners acknowledged the benefits of this approach, particularly for projects that are difficult to interpret from two-dimensional plans. They also discussed the importance of visiting sites in person to better understand a project’s impact on the neighborhood.

The session concluded with a general agreement that the commission should have more input on how projects are presented and that policies should be developed to ensure a more structured and transparent review process. Commissioners also emphasized the need for trust in staff’s ability to evaluate technical aspects of projects before they reach the commission, allowing the commission to focus on design, compatibility with the neighborhood, and public interest.

'''Keywords:''' development projects, review process, environmental impact, story poles, project presentation, public input, design evaluation

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Council members discussed the role of the Planning Commission in evaluating development projects, focusing on the importance of visual impact, neighborhood compatibility, and the need for thorough review processes. a speaker emphasized the value of using tools like story poles to help visualize building massing and scale, citing past experiences with projects like Silver Oak Estates where such measures could have improved public and commission understanding. They also highlighted the importance of considering a project’s visual and physical impact on the neighborhood, not just its compliance with technical requirements like traffic and noise studies.

a speaker raised concerns about balancing subjective neighborhood preferences with adherence to municipal codes and the general plan, noting that they had previously voted against a project due to concerns about its fit within the neighborhood. They acknowledged that "no" is a valid decision but questioned whether such decisions were legally permissible in certain cases.

a speaker reiterated that the Planning Commission’s role is to assess whether a project fits within the neighborhood and aligns with city standards, not to dictate design specifics. They also discussed the importance of receiving full sets of drawings and having the opportunity to visit sites before making decisions, noting that this practice had been less common in recent years due to logistical and storage challenges.

a speaker brought up the idea of tracking metrics to evaluate the Planning Commission’s effectiveness, such as the percentage of applications handled administratively versus those requiring commission review. They suggested that analyzing these metrics could help identify inefficiencies and improve the commission’s ability to make informed decisions. However, a speaker expressed reservations about the value of such metrics, emphasizing that the commission’s role is to evaluate projects based on their impact and fit, not to measure administrative performance.

The discussion also touched on the need for clearer policies and procedures for how projects are brought to the commission, including breaking large projects into smaller, more manageable pieces for review. a speaker suggested that developing a flowchart or policy guide for staff and commissioners could help streamline the process and ensure consistency in how projects are evaluated. They also emphasized the importance of maintaining impartiality and avoiding prior involvement with projects to prevent conflicts of interest.

'''Keywords:''' visual impact assessment, story poles usage, neighborhood compatibility, project review process, conflict of interest, policy guide development, administrative metrics

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

A discussion about the Planning Commission's role and responsibilities took place during the meeting. a speaker emphasized the importance of the commission being proactive in addressing community concerns and planning for future developments. They mentioned several potential projects, including a development near Endeavor Hall and a project near Peacock Creek, and highlighted the need for the Planning Commission to be involved in updating the downtown-specific plan. a speaker also discussed the lack of a Design Review Commission, which they felt was a gap in the current system, and suggested that the Planning Commission could take on a more active role in reviewing design elements of projects.

a speaker also spoke about the importance of public hearings and the need for the Planning Commission to serve as a hearing body for the City Council. They encouraged more frequent meetings and suggested that the commission could provide recommendations to the City Council on various planning issues. The discussion also touched on the need for better communication tools and materials to help the commission understand and evaluate proposed projects. a speaker and others discussed the use of tools such as story polls, 3D models, and context plans to better visualize the impact of proposed developments.

a speaker summarized the discussion and outlined next steps, including the need to provide staff with guidance on developing and implementing refinements to policies, processes, and communication materials. The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of holding a special meeting to continue the conversation about upcoming projects and planning issues. The meeting concluded with a reminder about the upcoming Planning Commission meetings and the need to follow the Brown Act for special meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Planning Commission role, Future developments, Downtown-specific plan, Design Review Commission gap, Public hearings importance, 3D models visualization, Policy refinements guidance, Special meeting possibility
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2OtP_LZV3fyJqQjdr93hbNVQm5O1UwFyp8WoxmaXUo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 31, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/89560c07-037a-4477-8ea8-2838b1385b74.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HsANoV2pGLsBfeSWN8rbfpNKprYCXJyF/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_31_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZoBkDtAwtyWh9D8v7JpFIVNyWzx2ioAsp9_S-i4uNys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KOpEDXY5GM Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Meeting ====

The meeting began with a roll call, confirming the presence of Chair Richardson, Vice Chair Bonchero, and Commissioner Schulman, with Commissioners Casagrande and Berzovich absent. A quorum was established, and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The meeting then moved through procedural items, including the acceptance of the agenda and public comment, which was closed due to no speakers.

The primary discussion centered on a municipal code text amendment, specifically Resolution Number 04-2026, which recommends amending the Clayton Municipal Code to allow certain residential uses by right, provided at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households. Frank Chow, a senior planner, presented the background and details of the amendment. The changes included allowing residential development on sites identified to address housing shortfalls, ensuring minimum density requirements prevail over base zone regulations, and defining "by right" in the code to exclude discretionary approvals typically required under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Following the presentation, a motion was made to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously by the present commissioners, with no further discussion or opposition. The meeting concluded with no additional business and was adjourned.

'''Keywords:''' municipal code amendment, affordable housing units, residential development, minimum density requirements, by right definition, resolution 04-2026, unanimous approval
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZoBkDtAwtyWh9D8v7JpFIVNyWzx2ioAsp9_S-i4uNys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 24, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bs8iKQEqwB1ZmN4sA94GL7J3fqjXl13O/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/03dd7c05-36cd-40d3-9b2b-12845a19da96.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bs8iKQEqwB1ZmN4sA94GL7J3fqjXl13O/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D3j-8nKyiXZLPz7H1tEikpZ94BCi0mD_/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_24_2026]
|}

''No transcript is available: the recording published by the City for this meeting contains no usable audio.''

== February 10, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erQl_8g3Hu8BiJRdEyA7DUqeg7Ynkg8I/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/439aeb44-f64b-4fa2-b80d-2159879bc7c4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erQl_8g3Hu8BiJRdEyA7DUqeg7Ynkg8I/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r1P74cHjRPuWlMY8Po8gEvtlEtDSq4lu/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_10_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tOZgyiJuh0zdoTzPERtUrOG1czVd0eSJCFR9YoDa7Sk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
TBD
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tOZgyiJuh0zdoTzPERtUrOG1czVd0eSJCFR9YoDa7Sk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 13, 2026 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kJ1eZNbZ5XxeBEPtiPX-J1iWyO7eKXM/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/99e02630-db02-4f2d-99c3-2318e0351cf4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kJ1eZNbZ5XxeBEPtiPX-J1iWyO7eKXM/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/15tcv0-jixKdniF4RHadU7QGqlP_wmXOI/view?usp=drivesdk PC_RegularSession_Agenda_01_13_2026] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fzsM6gIBdjrnnNY7dIS7hmJypGrpuUEyFnvsLmWRjmk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
TBD
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fzsM6gIBdjrnnNY7dIS7hmJypGrpuUEyFnvsLmWRjmk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]


[[Category:City Government]]

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T08:03:25Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2024-11-07 04_00 PM

== November 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/97f5ba83-06d4-435b-9cdb-f4659719dd39.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MePwW3kN6nsJeP-OyAUYF8Sx6m_AZsKq/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_11_07_2024] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vBNtRifomZcQnO2XhWSZyQ2btIJsMIzR/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Minutes_11_07_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nObzNTmAzFy6-8jk8btLL7ndKVFEymQKW8FvHiA05dM/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXPfuNLLfr0 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

A member of the public spoke about concerns related to accessibility and public safety in Clayton, highlighting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and issues with the maintenance of sidewalks and streets. The speaker emphasized that these conditions make it increasingly dangerous for residents with mobility challenges to exercise their basic civil rights. They also referenced a long-standing legal battle with the city, citing a specific ADA case (DOT 2020-0141) and alleging that the city has not complied with requests for resolution. The speaker accused Clayton of fostering a hostile living environment through harassment, isolation, and bullying at a specific address, 1553 Haviland Place. They mentioned recent intimidation tactics, including de facto voter suppression, but stated that these efforts have only strengthened their resolve. No further public comments were made on non-agenda items, and the meeting proceeded to the next agenda item.

'''Keywords:''' ADA violations, sidewalk maintenance, public safety, legal battle, voter suppression, mobility challenges, hostile environment

==== Item 3: Discussion of RFP’s in the Public Purchase portal (Assistant City Manager) ====

Assistant City Manager Regina Rubier presented updates on four recent requests for proposals (RFPs) posted in the public purchase portal. The first RFP, for investment management and advisory services, received no bids, and the city will continue working with UBS as discussed in a prior meeting. A presentation on transitioning to managed services is expected at the December 19th meeting.

The second RFP, for on-call community development and code enforcement services, received three bids from Urban 37, CSG, and Four Leaf. The city manager and Regina Rubier are evaluating the proposals to determine whether to proceed with staff augmentation or contractual staffing. The RFP was structured to allow one firm to handle both community development and code enforcement or for separate firms to handle each area.

The third RFP, for finance and human resources services, had only one response, which was significantly higher than the $30,000 budget allocated for the previous consulting work. Based on the current situation, the recommendation is to put this RFP on hold.

The fourth RFP, for a utility transport and search and rescue vehicle, is part of a state homeland security grant. The vehicle, a side-by-side off-road vehicle, is fully funded by the grant, and the city has received approval to proceed with the procurement. The vehicle will be used by the police department for rescue operations on trails. The ongoing maintenance costs have not been discussed, but the vehicle will come with a trailer.

'''Keywords:''' investment management, managed services transition, community development bids, finance consulting budget, utility transport vehicle, state homeland security grant

==== Item 4: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Revisions to the Full-Time Administrative Assistant Classification, the Addition of Full-Time Classifications for Senior Management, Analyst, Senior Planner and Recreation Coordinator, as well as a Part-Time Classification of Recreation Leader and the Related Specifications, Pay Ranges and Benefits and Deleting the Full-Time Community Development Director and Full-Time Assistant Planner from the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Budget. (Assistant City Manager) ====

Councilmember Jeff Wan raised concerns about the agenda item being presented as if it were for the full City Council rather than the Budget and Audit Committee, emphasizing the need to clarify the committee's role and avoid misrepresentation. Assistant City Manager Regina Rubier explained that the proposal involves revising several administrative and support positions, including adding full-time roles for Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, and Recreation Coordinator, as well as a part-time Recreation Leader, while removing the full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner from the FY2024-25 budget. She noted that the changes were based on a comparative analysis with other cities, using similar methodologies as the Police Officers Association, and that salary ranges were determined by averaging data from comparable agencies.

Councilmember Wan questioned the significant increase in salary ranges, particularly for the Administrative Assistant position, noting discrepancies between the proposed ranges and those of similar-sized cities. He also raised concerns about the workload justifying the higher salaries and suggested that the city's size and budget should be the primary factors in determining compensation. Rubier clarified that the city had conducted a class and comp study, and the proposed salary ranges were based on the median of the data collected.

The discussion also covered the role of the Senior Management Analyst, who would support multiple departments, including HR, payroll, and contract management, and the Recreation Coordinator, who would oversee event management and facility rentals. Concerns were raised about the title "Recreation Leader" being misleading and the need for a clearer organizational structure, particularly regarding reporting lines and supervisory roles.

Councilmember Wan emphasized the importance of presenting a clear "before and after" view of the proposed changes, including the impact on the budget and organizational structure. He also noted the need to ensure that the budget document clearly reflects the financial implications of the proposed changes and that the org chart accurately represents the reporting relationships.

The discussion concluded with a request to review the updated proposal prior to the November 19th meeting and to ensure that the presentation of the budget and changes is clear and accurate to avoid public confusion and distrust.

'''Keywords:''' Budget Changes, Salary Ranges, Organizational Structure, Comparative Analysis, Role Clarification, Position Adjustments, Comp Study Data, Reporting Lines

==== Item 5: Future Topics ====

Councilmember Jeff Wan raised the issue of improving the tracking of ongoing projects and open items, particularly those related to the library refresh, biotech, HDL, sound or noise events, and the surplus plan. He noted that the current format of the weekly update makes it difficult to keep track of progress on these initiatives, as there is no centralized or structured way to monitor their status. Wan suggested creating a table or similar format in the weekly update that lists all significant open items, along with their status and any updates from the prior period. This, he argued, would make it easier to track progress and ensure accountability.

Assistant City Manager Regina Rubier confirmed that Stephanie had included an update on the library refresh in the weekly report. However, she did not address the broader suggestion for a more structured format for tracking all open items. Speaker 1, who was identified as a member of the public, briefly mentioned that HDL was expected to provide an update on business license software and asked if facilities rental software was also being considered. Speaker 4, who was identified as a member of the public, responded that they were currently exploring the possibility of adding facilities rental software.

Wan reiterated the need for a more systematic approach to tracking ongoing projects, emphasizing that having a standing list of open items would help ensure that nothing falls through the cracks. He also noted that having a regular update on what has been done and what is planned for the next interval would help with accountability and planning. No formal motion was made, and the discussion concluded with Wan indicating that he would send a list of additional topics related to budget and audit for further consideration.

'''Keywords:''' library refresh, tracking projects, open items status, structured format, facilities rental software, accountability updates, budget audit topics

==== Item 6: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:17:41].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nObzNTmAzFy6-8jk8btLL7ndKVFEymQKW8FvHiA05dM/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== September 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/30f1848a-2fb8-4989-8317-22c411ab6545.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tqFp2Ww29j1TFlh_UQt15kM_sRJTHlL/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_09_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmaB0bDNzdc Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Presentation from UBS on Advisory Investment Management ====

James, representing UBS, provided an overview of the proposed advisory investment management relationship with the city, explaining that it would shift day-to-day portfolio management to UBS while the city retained oversight through periodic meetings and an investment policy. He emphasized that the portfolio would remain focused on high-quality, fixed-income investments and that UBS would provide ongoing reporting and performance metrics.

Councilmember Jeff Wan asked about the average time between the maturity of an investment and its redeployment, noting that the city currently initiates trades. James explained that UBS typically reaches out to the city before a maturity, but delays can occur due to missed communications or market changes. He estimated the average cycle time to be two to three days and offered to provide historical data if needed.

Wan also inquired about the potential benefits of a managed portfolio, such as reducing cycle time, and asked whether there were any transactions that would have occurred differently under a managed model. James noted that some investment opportunities might have been missed due to the current process and that a managed portfolio would allow for quicker decision-making.

Regarding the investment policy, James suggested that expanding the range of permissible investments—such as including government agency bonds or high-quality corporate bonds—could add value to the portfolio. However, he clarified that the city would not be required to change the policy to proceed.

Wan requested a pro forma of the fee structure, noting that the city had previously paid around 20 basis points, or approximately $24,000 annually. He also asked about transaction costs and how they would be offset by the advisory fee. James explained that transaction costs were not directly paid by the city and that the advisory fee would replace those costs.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano confirmed that UBS would remain the portfolio advisor and asked about the procedure for future interactions, particularly with the new assistant city manager, Regina. James explained that UBS would maintain a monthly communication with Regina and her team, providing updates and seeking input on liquidity needs.

Trupiano also emphasized the need for regular reporting, with a preference for quarterly performance reports to keep the public informed. James confirmed that UBS would provide quarterly performance reports as part of the advisory relationship.

Finally, the council agreed to move forward with the presentation to the full council, with James to prepare materials for a future meeting. The specific date was to be confirmed, with a preference for October 15.

'''Keywords:''' advisory investment management, portfolio oversight, fixed-income investments, fee structure, quarterly performance reports, transaction costs, investment policy, managed portfolio

==== Item 3: Library Refresh Proposal Update (City Clerk) ====

The Library Refresh Proposal Update was discussed, with staff providing an update following a meeting with the working group and the Library Community Foundation. Staff reported that the Library Foundation had clarified the use of grant funds, which are limited to furnishings and programmatic items, and that approximately $73,000 of the grant could be used for furnishings. However, to proceed with phase one of the project, the city would need to contribute at least $370,000. This figure was based on the scope of work, which was estimated at $493,000. Staff noted that the Library Foundation could potentially assist with fundraising but would not take the lead.

Councilmember Jeff Wan questioned why the city would need to contribute $370,000 and suggested that reducing the scope could lower the cost. Staff explained that the next step was to meet with the group to finalize the scope of phase one, ensuring a proposal that would be acceptable to the Library, staff, and the Foundation.

Vice Mayor Kim Trupiano asked whether the city could cover part of the cost with $200,000 and rely on community fundraising for the remainder. Staff confirmed that the Foundation would support fundraising efforts but would not take the lead. They also clarified that the $733,000 grant was the total available for eligible uses, and that the grant could not be used for painting or structural repairs.

Staff also mentioned that the Library Foundation had received two out of five tranches of the grant, totaling $250,000, and that they would need to reach certain milestones to receive the remaining tranches. They noted that the Foundation had identified $73,000 of the grant as usable for furnishings, and that the $370,000 city contribution was based on the phase one scope.

Councilmember Wan expressed concern about the disparity between the $73,000 grant and the $1.4 million total proposal, and noted that the Foundation was not part of the initial discussion. Staff confirmed that the Foundation would not support upgrades to the community room in phase one. The discussion concluded with the agreement to meet again and finalize the proposal before presenting it to the full budget and audit committee.

'''Keywords:''' Library Refresh Proposal, Grant Funds Use, City Contribution, Phase One Scope, Foundation Fundraising, Furnishings Allocation, Budget Committee

==== Item 4: Apply for MPA Risk Safety Grant Program (Assistant City Manager) ====

The assistant city manager presented an opportunity to apply for a $14,500 grant from the MPA Risk Safety Grant Program, which aims to help cities reduce liability by transitioning from paper to electronic filing systems. The grant requires a resolution from the city council to proceed with the application. The assistant city manager emphasized the benefits of the grant, stating it would support the city’s electronic filing project and described the process as a formality.

Speaker 3, identified as a member of the public, asked whether the grant opportunity was annual. The assistant city manager responded that it appears to be semi-annual, suggesting there may be additional opportunities in the future. Speaker 3 then encouraged the city to apply, calling it a “no brainer” and referencing a numbered item, likely referring to a previous discussion or agenda item. The assistant city manager corrected the reference, noting that the next item was number five, and Speaker 3 expressed regret for missing the previous item. No formal motion or vote was recorded during this discussion, and no further action was taken on the grant application at this time.

'''Keywords:''' MPA Risk Safety Grant, electronic filing project, grant application, semi-annual opportunity, no brainer, resolution required, future opportunities

==== Item 5: Purchase Toughbook MDA’s for Police Department (Police Chief) ====

The discussion centered on purchasing Panasonic Toughbook MDCs for the police department, as part of replacing older devices that have reached the end of their lifecycle. The current contract with the city of Concord for IT and dispatch services includes these devices at a negotiated price of $109.30 each, with a total cost of $874.40 for eight units. This contract is part of a recurring five-year cycle, with the last procurement occurring in 2018. The speaker noted that the city had previously decided not to budget for this expense during the current budgeting process, opting instead to request a budget amendment later.

Speaker 2 compared the purchase to buying tires, emphasizing that while it is an undesirable but necessary expense, it must be addressed. He suggested setting aside funds annually for such recurring expenses rather than relying on budget amendments. Speaker 4 agreed, suggesting that these purchases be categorized under capital projects to better plan for them. Speaker 6 mentioned that the sustainability committee would work on related planning efforts. No further questions or comments were raised, and the item was closed.

'''Keywords:''' Panasonic Toughbook MDCs, replacing older devices, negotiated price $109.30, total cost $874.40, five-year contract cycle, budget amendment request, capital projects funding

==== Item 6: Contract Extension for MTC (Assistant City Manager) ====

The discussion centered on extending a contract for Elsie, who is providing HR consulting services, along with hiring a management analyst for approximately 10 hours per week to assist with contract management. The proposed extension would cover the remainder of the fiscal year and have an estimated annual cost of $80,000. This is an increase from the previous contract, which was for $30,000 and had been approved by the city manager without council approval.

Speaker 2 asked about the cost and the value of the extension, prompting Speaker 4 to clarify that the $80,000 covers both the HR consulting and the management analyst position. Speaker 3 confirmed the $80,000 annual cost and inquired about the analyst’s hours, which were confirmed as 10 hours per week. Speaker 2 noted that the arrangement is less than a full-time equivalent and therefore acceptable.

Speaker 3 mentioned that the need for updated HR policies had been a priority, and Speaker 2 emphasized that the cost of contracting was significantly lower than hiring a full-time employee. Speaker 3 acknowledged the value of the work done by LC and expressed support for the arrangement.

Speaker 6 asked about specific deliverables associated with the contract, such as summaries of all contracts and their terms. Speaker 4 responded that the deliverables were not explicitly outlined in the contract and that the hiring was for specific projects to be determined.

Speaker 3 suggested that the analyst might be used for different tasks, including contract analysis, and Speaker 2 reiterated that the combination of the HR analyst and management analyst was necessary and cost-effective. Speaker 3 praised the work done by LC and concluded that the arrangement was appropriate. No further questions were raised, and the item was closed.

'''Keywords:''' HR consulting extension, management analyst hire, annual cost $80,000, contract management support, full-time equivalent, HR policy updates, contract deliverables, cost-effective arrangement

==== Item 7: Update on the City Hall Refresh Project (Assistant City Manager) ====

The Assistant City Manager provided an update on the City Hall Refresh Project, focusing on the repainting of the third floor. Speaker 4, James, reported that three contractors had been contacted for the repainting work. One had not responded, another had declined to provide a quote, and the third had submitted a quote for $15,000. Efforts were underway to secure a fourth contractor to ensure three full quotes before proceeding.

Speaker 3 asked whether the next meeting would be the timeline for next steps, to which Speaker 4 confirmed that the discussion was limited to the walls of the third floor. Speaker 4 then inquired about the second floor, and Speaker 7 noted that the second floor had been painted not long ago. Speaker 3 humorously remarked that the chief had done the work, but Speaker 8 corrected that the chief had not been involved. Speaker 7 clarified that the second floor work had been limited to certain areas, such as a garage and other spaces.

Speaker 6 suggested waiting a month or two to start the project, noting that contractors often prefer to do interior jobs in the winter. Speaker 4 considered the suggestion, noting that delaying the project could allow for a reduced rate if the work started in the winter. However, Speaker 4 also mentioned that advertising the project was not currently an option, as the team was still gathering estimates and ensuring alignment with purchasing guidelines. The team was following a cautious approach to avoid complications that might arise from issuing an RFP too soon.

'''Keywords:''' City Hall Refresh Project, Repainting Third Floor, Contractor Quotes, Winter Delay Consideration, Purchasing Guidelines, Third Floor Walls, Second Floor Painting

==== Item 8: Future Topics ====

The discussion centered on future topics for the Budget and Audit Committee, with a focus on capital asset maintenance and replacement planning. A speaker (Speaker 6) raised a question about whether Larry, the city’s engineer, should be invited to the sustainability committee to discuss the maintenance and replacement of capital assets over the next five to ten years. Speaker 3 confirmed that Larry had already presented a 10-year capital improvement project analysis in June, using the Streetwise software, and that the presentation was available for review.

Speaker 4 noted that the meeting in June was the first one of the year, and Speaker 3 acknowledged that the software used made it difficult to track the exact date. Speaker 6 suggested that while the 10-year plan was a good starting point, there were areas not covered, such as stormwater drain systems, and recommended discussing these with Marion. Speaker 3 agreed to look into the matter and coordinate with Regina and Howard.

Speaker 6 also raised the possibility of authorizing Larry to come in for further discussions, suggesting a formal petition for funding. Speaker 2 recommended working with Regina to arrange a structured meeting with Larry, emphasizing the need for discrete topics to ensure preparedness and avoid open-ended discussions. Speaker 6 agreed to set a time limit and prepare a set of questions for Larry to address, with a follow-up meeting if needed.

Speaker 8 supported the approach, and Speaker 6 noted that no city council authorization was required, as the acting city manager had the authority to proceed. The discussion concluded with no further agenda items proposed for the Budget and Audit Committee.

'''Keywords:''' capital assets, sustainability committee, 10-year plan, stormwater drains, funding authorization, structured meeting, capital improvement

==== Item 9: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:48:13].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 12, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/3a6c1f6d-83c2-4494-bb96-33fc1609a702.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GaNEh13CTZ8T_C1lREKiZCWqQlEonAov/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_08_12_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the Library Refresh Proposal, which involves renovating the Clayton Community Library. The proposal was initiated by the former city manager and includes a comprehensive list of potential improvements, such as carpet replacement, painting, and furniture upgrades. The total estimated cost for the proposed renovations is approximately $1.37 million, though the city has not yet identified a specific budget. The county library staff has volunteered to fund the architectural services of Noll & Tam to prepare an initial study of the improvements. The city is considering combining available Living Trust Grant funding, fundraising with the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF), and a contribution from the city to fund the project. The county library staff has agreed to help prioritize the improvements once a budget is identified. The fiscal impact of the project is yet to be determined, as the city has not yet discussed fundraising amounts with the CCLF. The city’s contribution is expected to come from the General Fund and/or reserves, though no funds have been allocated in the FY24-25 budget or CIP. The committee members asked for more information on the funding sources and the potential for phased implementation of the project. The library staff emphasized the importance of community engagement and the need to involve the CCLF in the fundraising efforts. The committee members also inquired about the feasibility of implementing phase one of the project independently of the other phases. The library staff indicated that the phases are not necessarily dependent on each other and can be implemented independently. The discussion highlighted the need for further dialogue with the CCLF and the city’s finance department to determine the financial viability of the project.

'''Keywords:''' Library Refresh Proposal, Renovating Clayton Community Library, $1.37 Million Estimated Cost, Living Trust Grant Funding, Clayton Community Library Foundation, General Fund Contribution, Phased Implementation, Architectural Study by Noll & Tam

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed renovations for the Clayton Community Library, including the scope of work, funding sources, and community engagement. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a detailed list of potential improvements, which included carpet replacement, painting, furniture upgrades, and the addition of study pods and a Discovery Zone for early literacy. The estimated total cost was approximately $1.37 million, with the City, the Contra Costa County Library, and the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF) each expected to contribute. The City’s contribution would likely come from the General Fund or reserves, while the County had already committed $120,000 for architectural services. The CCLF had not yet provided a fundraising commitment, and the Living Trust Grant, which could provide up to $250,000 over five years, was limited in its allowable uses, such as furniture but not carpeting.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano raised questions about the distinction between the Living Trust and the CCLF’s funds, as well as the timeline for phase one of the project. She also inquired about the possibility of other grant opportunities outside of the Living Trust. The City Engineer clarified that the County would not apply for grants related to the project, as that responsibility fell to the City. The discussion also touched on the role of the CCLF in fundraising, with the foundation’s treasurer noting that they were not typically fundraisers but were willing to support the project if included in future conversations.

The Interim City Manager, Adam Politzer, emphasized the importance of collaboration between the City, the County, and the CCLF, and suggested forming a working group to move forward with the project. He also highlighted the need for a community engagement effort to prioritize the improvements and develop a funding plan. The meeting concluded with a motion to form a working group and provide an update to the full council in early November.

'''Keywords:''' Clayton Community Library, funding sources, carpet replacement, Living Trust Grant, community engagement, study pods, Discovery Zone, General Fund

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a proposal to modify the third floor of City Hall to enhance security while maintaining an open and aesthetically pleasing environment. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a preliminary cost range of $140,000 to $222,000 for the project, which includes architectural and engineering services. The proposal involves installing physical barriers, such as glass walls and doors with security card access, to restrict public access to employee-only areas while preserving the open layout of the third floor. The design aims to balance security with the historical and aesthetic value of the building.

Interim City Manager Adam Politzer emphasized the need for security improvements following a mental health incident in the City Hall lobby, highlighting the importance of preventing unauthorized access to staff areas. He noted that the design would include features such as swipe card access, which would track who enters and exits, and help prevent potential harm to staff.

Councilmember Jeff Wan raised concerns about the cost and the feasibility of the proposed design, suggesting alternatives such as securing access at the first or second floor instead of the third. He also questioned whether the project should be prioritized over other needed improvements, such as carpeting and painting. Councilmember Kim Trupiano suggested exploring less costly options, such as locking the front door and using cameras, and inquiring about the historical significance of the building and potential constraints on modifications.

Public comment included suggestions for using clear walls similar to those in banks to maintain an open feel while ensuring security. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on the open and transparent nature of City Hall, with some members expressing a preference for maintaining the current accessibility of the building.

The committee agreed to request additional information and options from the City Engineer and architect, including potential designs for securing access at different floors and the associated costs. The discussion concluded with a recommendation to revisit the proposal with updated information before making a final decision.

'''Keywords:''' security enhancements, cost range $140k-$222k, physical barriers, swipe card access, historical building constraints, alternative access floors, public comment on transparency

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed purchase of a new lawnmower for city maintenance operations. The speaker presented the new lawnmower as a more efficient and economical option, with a cutting radius double that of the current model. They also mentioned the inclusion of a sunshade to protect staff from sun exposure, highlighting both practical and health-related benefits. The speaker expressed willingness to provide a detailed report on the lawnmower’s performance after it is acquired, acknowledging that the actual efficiency gains may not be a pure 50% improvement as suggested in the brochure. Other members of the committee expressed interest in testing the lawnmower once it is received and supported the purchase. No public comment was received on the item, and the committee moved on to the next agenda item.

'''Keywords:''' new lawnmower, efficiency gains, sunshade inclusion, performance report, testing support, health benefits
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== July 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/64c93490-1496-4e8b-91c5-36db7d1018a4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lvFJ09Zn9xVZuTRd6GYTLll1TPddYKvz/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_07_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqalFr24LPI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:07].

==== Item 2: UBS Financial Services (Interim City Manager) ====

The discussion on the City’s investments under Agenda Item 2, concerning UBS Financial Services and the interim City Manager, was brief and did not proceed as initially planned. Speaker 2, Adam, initiated the conversation by referencing ongoing discussions about the city’s investment strategy and inquired whether UBS was present online. Speaker 8 responded that they were not present. Speaker 2 then indicated that the discussion would move forward, but before proceeding, Speaker 4, Kim Trupiano, suggested that the meeting could potentially move to item three and adjust the order of discussion. No further details on the City’s investment strategy or UBS Financial Services were provided, and the topic was not revisited.

'''Keywords:''' UBS Financial Services, investment strategy, interim City Manager, discussion order

==== Item 3: HdL Economic Solutions (Interim City Manager) ====

The discussion centered on the City’s economic forecast and the role of HdL Economic Solutions in supporting the city’s financial planning, particularly regarding business licenses and sales tax. Adam, a committee member, introduced Ken Nordhoff from HdL, highlighting his background and the previous collaboration with the city on business license functions. He noted that discussions with HdL had expanded to include sales tax and budget-related topics, such as business license fees, following a transition in city management and finance director roles. Adam emphasized the opportunity to reconnect with HdL and gain clarity on their services as the city moved toward renewing business licenses.

Ken Nordhoff acknowledged the introduction and outlined his presentation, which would focus on sales tax data analysis, budgeting forecasts, and the direction of business license tax services. He noted that he would tailor the discussion to address the committee’s primary interest in business licenses, as highlighted by Kim Trupiano, who observed that 80% of the materials reviewed were based on sales tax, while the committee’s questions focused more on business licenses. Kim encouraged Ken to adjust his presentation accordingly, ensuring it aligned with the committee’s priorities. The discussion was set to proceed with a review of key aspects of business license tax services and next steps for the city.

'''Keywords:''' economic forecast, business licenses, sales tax, HdL Economic Solutions, budget forecasts, city management, tax services

==== Item 4: Review and provide feedback on proposed Scope of Work prior to the preparation of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Right of Way Landscape Maintenance (City Engineer) ====

The discussion centered on the proposed Scope of Work for the Right of Way Landscape Maintenance RFP, though the transcript spanned a different agenda item related to sales tax and revenue collection. The speaker, identified as Ken Nordhoff, provided an overview of his company's expertise in maximizing revenue collection for government entities, particularly in the context of sales tax. He explained the historical framework of sales tax in California, emphasizing that it applies to tangible personal property and is paid by consumers at the end of a retail transaction.

Nordhoff outlined the distinction between sales tax and use tax, noting that use tax applies to goods ordered from out-of-state and is collected into county pools, with distribution based on point-of-sale revenue. He highlighted the limited sales tax base in Clayton, noting that the city receives only a small percentage of the Contra Costa County pool. He also discussed confidentiality constraints, particularly the "gang of four" and the 80% rule, which limit the disclosure of specific taxpayer information.

He explained the structure of the sales tax rate, including the Bradley Burns 1% portion that returns to the city, and noted that Clayton's current rate is 8.75%, incorporating additional taxes for BART, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and Measure X. He mentioned the potential for increasing the rate up to 9.25% under certain conditions and noted the complexities surrounding online sales and the impact of the Wayfair decision, which led to AB 147 in California.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax, revenue collection, use tax, county pool, sales tax rate, online sales, Wayfair decision

==== Item 5: Review Proposal to amend the City Engineer’s agreement to include Maintenance Division Oversight (Interim City Manager) ====

Councilmember Kim Trupiano asked if there was data available regarding what has been remitted to Clayton related to AB 147. Ken Nordhoff responded that he did not have specific data but mentioned that there were new taxpayers who started paying taxes in California beginning in October 2019. He noted that he could provide some names but not exact numbers.

Trupiano suggested bifurcating the information provided into what relates to AB 147 and what does not, emphasizing that a user would expect to see a significant or meaningful increase in tax revenue post-2019, which was not clearly reflected in the data presented.

Nordhoff explained that new marketplace facilitator accounts, such as those from Amazon and Walmart, as well as recent activities from companies like Timu and TikTok, have contributed to increased tax revenue. He noted that these businesses are complying with the law and contributing to the tax pools. However, he clarified that Clayton only receives two-tenths of 1% of the total dollars collected in the Contra Costa pool.

He provided an example, stating that in the most recent quarter ending in March, the city received approximately $550,000. Nordhoff highlighted that 35% of this revenue came from the food and grocery store, drugstore sector, with restaurants also contributing significantly. He mentioned that the pools have become a more significant part of the city's tax revenue in recent years, particularly since the wafer decision in 2019. He offered to run data backwards for multiple years to show the trend of increasing pool contributions.

'''Keywords:''' AB 147 data, tax revenue increase, marketplace facilitators, Contra Costa pool, food and grocery tax, wafer decision 2019, tax pools trend

==== Item 6: Review of the July 16, 2024, City Council Meeting Items (Financial Advisor) ====

The discussion centered on the potential impact of a local sales tax measure on vehicle sales revenue for Clayton. Speaker 4 noted the value of examining data over time and expressed interest in understanding how such information could be presented. Speaker 1 responded by offering to collaborate with Adam and staff to develop a plan for presenting the data.

Speaker 6 raised a question about whether vehicle sales tax revenue would be affected if residents purchased vehicles outside of Clayton, noting the absence of local dealerships. Speaker 1 explained that currently, residents buying vehicles elsewhere contribute sales tax revenue to the location of the dealership, such as Walnut Creek or Concord. However, if Clayton implemented a local approved tax, similar to what Walnut Creek has with Measure, the revenue would shift to Clayton based on registration-based regulations rather than the place of sale.

Speaker 4 clarified that without a local measure, Walnut Creek would retain the revenue from vehicle sales, while Clayton would receive nothing. Speaker 1 further elaborated that if Clayton voters approved a local 1% tax, residents purchasing vehicles in Walnut Creek would contribute 1% of the sales tax to Clayton, increasing the overall tax rate to 9.75%. This would allow Clayton to capture revenue from vehicle sales made by its residents, even if the purchase occurred outside the city. Speaker 6 confirmed that currently, Clayton receives no revenue from vehicle sales.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax measure, vehicle sales revenue, local tax impact, registration-based tax, revenue shift, tax rate increase, residents purchasing

==== Item 7: Future topics (Financial Advisor) ====

The discussion focused on the city's business license program, including the discovery process for unlicensed businesses, delinquencies, and the transition to a new contract with HCL. The presenter, Ken Nordhoff, outlined the current status of the program, noting that 863 businesses are active, with 54 currently delinquent in their license fees. He explained that the discovery process is ongoing and involves multiple methods, such as snail mail, phone calls, and data from other city departments, to identify unlicensed businesses operating in the city.

Nordhoff also discussed the financial implications of the program, noting that the city had previously operated on an internal system before signing the contract with HCL in October. He emphasized that the transition to the new system is a process, and the full impact of the contract on revenue generation would not be known until the first full cycle was completed. He estimated that the next opportunity to review results would be in October, following the renewal period.

Kim Trupiano asked about the cycle timeline, confirming that the current cycle runs from July to June. She also inquired about the distinction between businesses that are delinquent in payments and those that are operating without a license, to which Nordhoff clarified that the 54 delinquent businesses are those that are past due on their fees, while the discovery process is still identifying unlicensed businesses.

Adam suggested implementing a phased penalty approach, with amnesty periods and reduced penalties for early compliance, which Nordhoff agreed was a common and effective strategy. The discussion also touched on the need to align the contract with the cycle period and the importance of generating comprehensive data for the council to review in October. The presenter concluded by expressing willingness to provide further updates and collaborate with city staff on next steps.

'''Keywords:''' business license program, unlicensed businesses, delinquent fees, HCL contract, discovery process, penalty phases, revenue impact

==== Item 8: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:35:15].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/7f14d032-b876-4801-a652-610bc4287559.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryCSVh1ospF4idEbkChfUH_S8vS33v0C/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_30_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Budget Overview, Discussion and Schedule ====

The budget overview discussion focused on the FY 2023–24 year-to-date actuals and the FY 2024–25 budget, with several updates and questions from committee members. Regina provided an update on the FY 2023–24 budget, noting that the city had received a $634,540 vehicle license fee payment but was still missing approximately $400,000 in secured property taxes and $100,000 in business license fees. She explained that the FY 2024–25 budget had seen increases in expenses due to new charges from Concord PD, Contra Costa County, and radio leases. The city had not yet moved $113,000 from last year’s general fund to balance the budget this year.

Jeff Wan raised questions about the absence of well water usage charges in the budget, noting that Oakhurst likely uses the city’s well water. Regina suggested adding an $18,000 to $20,000 line item for this. Kim Trupiano inquired about the significant drop in “other in lieu” funds, from $175,000 to $59,000, and Regina acknowledged the need to investigate further.

On the expense side, Regina noted that police lieutenant salaries were not yet budgeted and would require a future amendment. Jeff Wan questioned the discrepancy in salary and benefit line items, which Regina explained were double-budgeted and being corrected. Kim Trupiano asked about the impact of electricity rate increases on the budget, and Regina proposed addressing this during the mid-year budget review.

Several committee members raised concerns about line items such as rental leases, education and training, and professional services, suggesting potential reductions or reallocations. Jeff Wan also discussed the city’s involvement with the animal control services, noting the high costs and the need for a potential fee-for-service model. Kim Trupiano emphasized the importance of aligning the budget with the council’s priorities and goals, suggesting that future budget amendments would reflect this alignment.

The discussion also touched on the city’s reserve funds, which were noted to be at $7.7 million, significantly above the required $2.2 million. This was seen as a positive, but there was recognition of the need to address long-term fiscal planning and infrastructure needs. Regina concluded the presentation, and the meeting moved forward with no formal motions or votes on the budget at this time.

'''Keywords:''' vehicle license fee, secured property taxes, business license fees, FY 2024–25 budget, well water usage charges, other in lieu funds, electricity rate increases, reserve funds

==== Item 3: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:01:54].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 14, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEiSEZHqOEqAJOcxSqB-8BDzB049lykl/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_14_2024]
|}

== May 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtNTcuWlF_j2fTvxneZoXHJkrOp2ugVJ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_05_07_2024]
|}

== April 22, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C36NbbhYAeMnFpAonfMb8VbYfY1o9GaT/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_04_22_2024]
|}

== March 25, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/931f8bd9-e8ad-48fe-98c3-2dbdf2dcd43d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tyhPgr1JwKC29XajByppMUknXsXPih0D/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_25_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZuenLGJnE Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:04:27].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee conducted an interview with Frank Gavidia for a seat on the Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee. Gavidia, a certified financial planner with experience in municipal finance and Wall Street, expressed interest in joining the committee to provide financial expertise and ensure transparency in city finances. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing numbers and questioned the lack of detailed information on the city’s investment portfolio in past meetings. Gavidia also discussed his potential collaboration with existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford, highlighting their complementary financial backgrounds. He envisioned working closely with city staff to obtain necessary data and conducting thorough analyses to inform the Council.

Committee members Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano asked questions about Gavidia’s motivations and how he would approach his role. Gavidia explained that his interest in the subcommittee had grown over time, particularly after conversations with Kaplan and others, and he believed the committee could serve as a valuable check on city finances. He also addressed concerns about the subcommittee’s structure and the Brown Act, noting that while the committee would need to meet publicly, there were ways to manage discussions effectively.

The committee then discussed the reappointment of existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford for two additional years, with their terms expiring in 2026. A motion was made to recommend the appointment of Gavidia to Seat 3, which would align with the staggered term structure and avoid having all three members’ terms expire in the same year. The motion passed unanimously.

Following the interview, the committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2023–2024 Budget with Finance Director Copti. Questions focused on consultant services, budget allocations, and the mechanics of the LMD fund. Copti explained that wages were charged directly through payroll, while benefits were allocated quarterly based on salary data. The discussion also included clarification on HR policies, recruitment services, and the status of personnel policies, which were nearly finalized for presentation to the Council.

'''Keywords:''' Financial Expertise, Subcommittee Appointment, Budget Transparency, Staggered Terms, Consultant Services, LMD Fund Mechanics, HR Policies

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:39:06].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T08:03:21Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

== September 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/30f1848a-2fb8-4989-8317-22c411ab6545.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tqFp2Ww29j1TFlh_UQt15kM_sRJTHlL/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_09_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmaB0bDNzdc Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Presentation from UBS on Advisory Investment Management ====

James, representing UBS, provided an overview of the proposed advisory investment management relationship with the city, explaining that it would shift day-to-day portfolio management to UBS while the city retained oversight through periodic meetings and an investment policy. He emphasized that the portfolio would remain focused on high-quality, fixed-income investments and that UBS would provide ongoing reporting and performance metrics.

Councilmember Jeff Wan asked about the average time between the maturity of an investment and its redeployment, noting that the city currently initiates trades. James explained that UBS typically reaches out to the city before a maturity, but delays can occur due to missed communications or market changes. He estimated the average cycle time to be two to three days and offered to provide historical data if needed.

Wan also inquired about the potential benefits of a managed portfolio, such as reducing cycle time, and asked whether there were any transactions that would have occurred differently under a managed model. James noted that some investment opportunities might have been missed due to the current process and that a managed portfolio would allow for quicker decision-making.

Regarding the investment policy, James suggested that expanding the range of permissible investments—such as including government agency bonds or high-quality corporate bonds—could add value to the portfolio. However, he clarified that the city would not be required to change the policy to proceed.

Wan requested a pro forma of the fee structure, noting that the city had previously paid around 20 basis points, or approximately $24,000 annually. He also asked about transaction costs and how they would be offset by the advisory fee. James explained that transaction costs were not directly paid by the city and that the advisory fee would replace those costs.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano confirmed that UBS would remain the portfolio advisor and asked about the procedure for future interactions, particularly with the new assistant city manager, Regina. James explained that UBS would maintain a monthly communication with Regina and her team, providing updates and seeking input on liquidity needs.

Trupiano also emphasized the need for regular reporting, with a preference for quarterly performance reports to keep the public informed. James confirmed that UBS would provide quarterly performance reports as part of the advisory relationship.

Finally, the council agreed to move forward with the presentation to the full council, with James to prepare materials for a future meeting. The specific date was to be confirmed, with a preference for October 15.

'''Keywords:''' advisory investment management, portfolio oversight, fixed-income investments, fee structure, quarterly performance reports, transaction costs, investment policy, managed portfolio

==== Item 3: Library Refresh Proposal Update (City Clerk) ====

The Library Refresh Proposal Update was discussed, with staff providing an update following a meeting with the working group and the Library Community Foundation. Staff reported that the Library Foundation had clarified the use of grant funds, which are limited to furnishings and programmatic items, and that approximately $73,000 of the grant could be used for furnishings. However, to proceed with phase one of the project, the city would need to contribute at least $370,000. This figure was based on the scope of work, which was estimated at $493,000. Staff noted that the Library Foundation could potentially assist with fundraising but would not take the lead.

Councilmember Jeff Wan questioned why the city would need to contribute $370,000 and suggested that reducing the scope could lower the cost. Staff explained that the next step was to meet with the group to finalize the scope of phase one, ensuring a proposal that would be acceptable to the Library, staff, and the Foundation.

Vice Mayor Kim Trupiano asked whether the city could cover part of the cost with $200,000 and rely on community fundraising for the remainder. Staff confirmed that the Foundation would support fundraising efforts but would not take the lead. They also clarified that the $733,000 grant was the total available for eligible uses, and that the grant could not be used for painting or structural repairs.

Staff also mentioned that the Library Foundation had received two out of five tranches of the grant, totaling $250,000, and that they would need to reach certain milestones to receive the remaining tranches. They noted that the Foundation had identified $73,000 of the grant as usable for furnishings, and that the $370,000 city contribution was based on the phase one scope.

Councilmember Wan expressed concern about the disparity between the $73,000 grant and the $1.4 million total proposal, and noted that the Foundation was not part of the initial discussion. Staff confirmed that the Foundation would not support upgrades to the community room in phase one. The discussion concluded with the agreement to meet again and finalize the proposal before presenting it to the full budget and audit committee.

'''Keywords:''' Library Refresh Proposal, Grant Funds Use, City Contribution, Phase One Scope, Foundation Fundraising, Furnishings Allocation, Budget Committee

==== Item 4: Apply for MPA Risk Safety Grant Program (Assistant City Manager) ====

The assistant city manager presented an opportunity to apply for a $14,500 grant from the MPA Risk Safety Grant Program, which aims to help cities reduce liability by transitioning from paper to electronic filing systems. The grant requires a resolution from the city council to proceed with the application. The assistant city manager emphasized the benefits of the grant, stating it would support the city’s electronic filing project and described the process as a formality.

Speaker 3, identified as a member of the public, asked whether the grant opportunity was annual. The assistant city manager responded that it appears to be semi-annual, suggesting there may be additional opportunities in the future. Speaker 3 then encouraged the city to apply, calling it a “no brainer” and referencing a numbered item, likely referring to a previous discussion or agenda item. The assistant city manager corrected the reference, noting that the next item was number five, and Speaker 3 expressed regret for missing the previous item. No formal motion or vote was recorded during this discussion, and no further action was taken on the grant application at this time.

'''Keywords:''' MPA Risk Safety Grant, electronic filing project, grant application, semi-annual opportunity, no brainer, resolution required, future opportunities

==== Item 5: Purchase Toughbook MDA’s for Police Department (Police Chief) ====

The discussion centered on purchasing Panasonic Toughbook MDCs for the police department, as part of replacing older devices that have reached the end of their lifecycle. The current contract with the city of Concord for IT and dispatch services includes these devices at a negotiated price of $109.30 each, with a total cost of $874.40 for eight units. This contract is part of a recurring five-year cycle, with the last procurement occurring in 2018. The speaker noted that the city had previously decided not to budget for this expense during the current budgeting process, opting instead to request a budget amendment later.

Speaker 2 compared the purchase to buying tires, emphasizing that while it is an undesirable but necessary expense, it must be addressed. He suggested setting aside funds annually for such recurring expenses rather than relying on budget amendments. Speaker 4 agreed, suggesting that these purchases be categorized under capital projects to better plan for them. Speaker 6 mentioned that the sustainability committee would work on related planning efforts. No further questions or comments were raised, and the item was closed.

'''Keywords:''' Panasonic Toughbook MDCs, replacing older devices, negotiated price $109.30, total cost $874.40, five-year contract cycle, budget amendment request, capital projects funding

==== Item 6: Contract Extension for MTC (Assistant City Manager) ====

The discussion centered on extending a contract for Elsie, who is providing HR consulting services, along with hiring a management analyst for approximately 10 hours per week to assist with contract management. The proposed extension would cover the remainder of the fiscal year and have an estimated annual cost of $80,000. This is an increase from the previous contract, which was for $30,000 and had been approved by the city manager without council approval.

Speaker 2 asked about the cost and the value of the extension, prompting Speaker 4 to clarify that the $80,000 covers both the HR consulting and the management analyst position. Speaker 3 confirmed the $80,000 annual cost and inquired about the analyst’s hours, which were confirmed as 10 hours per week. Speaker 2 noted that the arrangement is less than a full-time equivalent and therefore acceptable.

Speaker 3 mentioned that the need for updated HR policies had been a priority, and Speaker 2 emphasized that the cost of contracting was significantly lower than hiring a full-time employee. Speaker 3 acknowledged the value of the work done by LC and expressed support for the arrangement.

Speaker 6 asked about specific deliverables associated with the contract, such as summaries of all contracts and their terms. Speaker 4 responded that the deliverables were not explicitly outlined in the contract and that the hiring was for specific projects to be determined.

Speaker 3 suggested that the analyst might be used for different tasks, including contract analysis, and Speaker 2 reiterated that the combination of the HR analyst and management analyst was necessary and cost-effective. Speaker 3 praised the work done by LC and concluded that the arrangement was appropriate. No further questions were raised, and the item was closed.

'''Keywords:''' HR consulting extension, management analyst hire, annual cost $80,000, contract management support, full-time equivalent, HR policy updates, contract deliverables, cost-effective arrangement

==== Item 7: Update on the City Hall Refresh Project (Assistant City Manager) ====

The Assistant City Manager provided an update on the City Hall Refresh Project, focusing on the repainting of the third floor. Speaker 4, James, reported that three contractors had been contacted for the repainting work. One had not responded, another had declined to provide a quote, and the third had submitted a quote for $15,000. Efforts were underway to secure a fourth contractor to ensure three full quotes before proceeding.

Speaker 3 asked whether the next meeting would be the timeline for next steps, to which Speaker 4 confirmed that the discussion was limited to the walls of the third floor. Speaker 4 then inquired about the second floor, and Speaker 7 noted that the second floor had been painted not long ago. Speaker 3 humorously remarked that the chief had done the work, but Speaker 8 corrected that the chief had not been involved. Speaker 7 clarified that the second floor work had been limited to certain areas, such as a garage and other spaces.

Speaker 6 suggested waiting a month or two to start the project, noting that contractors often prefer to do interior jobs in the winter. Speaker 4 considered the suggestion, noting that delaying the project could allow for a reduced rate if the work started in the winter. However, Speaker 4 also mentioned that advertising the project was not currently an option, as the team was still gathering estimates and ensuring alignment with purchasing guidelines. The team was following a cautious approach to avoid complications that might arise from issuing an RFP too soon.

'''Keywords:''' City Hall Refresh Project, Repainting Third Floor, Contractor Quotes, Winter Delay Consideration, Purchasing Guidelines, Third Floor Walls, Second Floor Painting

==== Item 8: Future Topics ====

The discussion centered on future topics for the Budget and Audit Committee, with a focus on capital asset maintenance and replacement planning. A speaker (Speaker 6) raised a question about whether Larry, the city’s engineer, should be invited to the sustainability committee to discuss the maintenance and replacement of capital assets over the next five to ten years. Speaker 3 confirmed that Larry had already presented a 10-year capital improvement project analysis in June, using the Streetwise software, and that the presentation was available for review.

Speaker 4 noted that the meeting in June was the first one of the year, and Speaker 3 acknowledged that the software used made it difficult to track the exact date. Speaker 6 suggested that while the 10-year plan was a good starting point, there were areas not covered, such as stormwater drain systems, and recommended discussing these with Marion. Speaker 3 agreed to look into the matter and coordinate with Regina and Howard.

Speaker 6 also raised the possibility of authorizing Larry to come in for further discussions, suggesting a formal petition for funding. Speaker 2 recommended working with Regina to arrange a structured meeting with Larry, emphasizing the need for discrete topics to ensure preparedness and avoid open-ended discussions. Speaker 6 agreed to set a time limit and prepare a set of questions for Larry to address, with a follow-up meeting if needed.

Speaker 8 supported the approach, and Speaker 6 noted that no city council authorization was required, as the acting city manager had the authority to proceed. The discussion concluded with no further agenda items proposed for the Budget and Audit Committee.

'''Keywords:''' capital assets, sustainability committee, 10-year plan, stormwater drains, funding authorization, structured meeting, capital improvement

==== Item 9: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:48:13].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 12, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/3a6c1f6d-83c2-4494-bb96-33fc1609a702.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GaNEh13CTZ8T_C1lREKiZCWqQlEonAov/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_08_12_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the Library Refresh Proposal, which involves renovating the Clayton Community Library. The proposal was initiated by the former city manager and includes a comprehensive list of potential improvements, such as carpet replacement, painting, and furniture upgrades. The total estimated cost for the proposed renovations is approximately $1.37 million, though the city has not yet identified a specific budget. The county library staff has volunteered to fund the architectural services of Noll & Tam to prepare an initial study of the improvements. The city is considering combining available Living Trust Grant funding, fundraising with the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF), and a contribution from the city to fund the project. The county library staff has agreed to help prioritize the improvements once a budget is identified. The fiscal impact of the project is yet to be determined, as the city has not yet discussed fundraising amounts with the CCLF. The city’s contribution is expected to come from the General Fund and/or reserves, though no funds have been allocated in the FY24-25 budget or CIP. The committee members asked for more information on the funding sources and the potential for phased implementation of the project. The library staff emphasized the importance of community engagement and the need to involve the CCLF in the fundraising efforts. The committee members also inquired about the feasibility of implementing phase one of the project independently of the other phases. The library staff indicated that the phases are not necessarily dependent on each other and can be implemented independently. The discussion highlighted the need for further dialogue with the CCLF and the city’s finance department to determine the financial viability of the project.

'''Keywords:''' Library Refresh Proposal, Renovating Clayton Community Library, $1.37 Million Estimated Cost, Living Trust Grant Funding, Clayton Community Library Foundation, General Fund Contribution, Phased Implementation, Architectural Study by Noll & Tam

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed renovations for the Clayton Community Library, including the scope of work, funding sources, and community engagement. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a detailed list of potential improvements, which included carpet replacement, painting, furniture upgrades, and the addition of study pods and a Discovery Zone for early literacy. The estimated total cost was approximately $1.37 million, with the City, the Contra Costa County Library, and the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF) each expected to contribute. The City’s contribution would likely come from the General Fund or reserves, while the County had already committed $120,000 for architectural services. The CCLF had not yet provided a fundraising commitment, and the Living Trust Grant, which could provide up to $250,000 over five years, was limited in its allowable uses, such as furniture but not carpeting.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano raised questions about the distinction between the Living Trust and the CCLF’s funds, as well as the timeline for phase one of the project. She also inquired about the possibility of other grant opportunities outside of the Living Trust. The City Engineer clarified that the County would not apply for grants related to the project, as that responsibility fell to the City. The discussion also touched on the role of the CCLF in fundraising, with the foundation’s treasurer noting that they were not typically fundraisers but were willing to support the project if included in future conversations.

The Interim City Manager, Adam Politzer, emphasized the importance of collaboration between the City, the County, and the CCLF, and suggested forming a working group to move forward with the project. He also highlighted the need for a community engagement effort to prioritize the improvements and develop a funding plan. The meeting concluded with a motion to form a working group and provide an update to the full council in early November.

'''Keywords:''' Clayton Community Library, funding sources, carpet replacement, Living Trust Grant, community engagement, study pods, Discovery Zone, General Fund

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a proposal to modify the third floor of City Hall to enhance security while maintaining an open and aesthetically pleasing environment. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a preliminary cost range of $140,000 to $222,000 for the project, which includes architectural and engineering services. The proposal involves installing physical barriers, such as glass walls and doors with security card access, to restrict public access to employee-only areas while preserving the open layout of the third floor. The design aims to balance security with the historical and aesthetic value of the building.

Interim City Manager Adam Politzer emphasized the need for security improvements following a mental health incident in the City Hall lobby, highlighting the importance of preventing unauthorized access to staff areas. He noted that the design would include features such as swipe card access, which would track who enters and exits, and help prevent potential harm to staff.

Councilmember Jeff Wan raised concerns about the cost and the feasibility of the proposed design, suggesting alternatives such as securing access at the first or second floor instead of the third. He also questioned whether the project should be prioritized over other needed improvements, such as carpeting and painting. Councilmember Kim Trupiano suggested exploring less costly options, such as locking the front door and using cameras, and inquiring about the historical significance of the building and potential constraints on modifications.

Public comment included suggestions for using clear walls similar to those in banks to maintain an open feel while ensuring security. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on the open and transparent nature of City Hall, with some members expressing a preference for maintaining the current accessibility of the building.

The committee agreed to request additional information and options from the City Engineer and architect, including potential designs for securing access at different floors and the associated costs. The discussion concluded with a recommendation to revisit the proposal with updated information before making a final decision.

'''Keywords:''' security enhancements, cost range $140k-$222k, physical barriers, swipe card access, historical building constraints, alternative access floors, public comment on transparency

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed purchase of a new lawnmower for city maintenance operations. The speaker presented the new lawnmower as a more efficient and economical option, with a cutting radius double that of the current model. They also mentioned the inclusion of a sunshade to protect staff from sun exposure, highlighting both practical and health-related benefits. The speaker expressed willingness to provide a detailed report on the lawnmower’s performance after it is acquired, acknowledging that the actual efficiency gains may not be a pure 50% improvement as suggested in the brochure. Other members of the committee expressed interest in testing the lawnmower once it is received and supported the purchase. No public comment was received on the item, and the committee moved on to the next agenda item.

'''Keywords:''' new lawnmower, efficiency gains, sunshade inclusion, performance report, testing support, health benefits
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== July 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/64c93490-1496-4e8b-91c5-36db7d1018a4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lvFJ09Zn9xVZuTRd6GYTLll1TPddYKvz/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_07_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqalFr24LPI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:07].

==== Item 2: UBS Financial Services (Interim City Manager) ====

The discussion on the City’s investments under Agenda Item 2, concerning UBS Financial Services and the interim City Manager, was brief and did not proceed as initially planned. Speaker 2, Adam, initiated the conversation by referencing ongoing discussions about the city’s investment strategy and inquired whether UBS was present online. Speaker 8 responded that they were not present. Speaker 2 then indicated that the discussion would move forward, but before proceeding, Speaker 4, Kim Trupiano, suggested that the meeting could potentially move to item three and adjust the order of discussion. No further details on the City’s investment strategy or UBS Financial Services were provided, and the topic was not revisited.

'''Keywords:''' UBS Financial Services, investment strategy, interim City Manager, discussion order

==== Item 3: HdL Economic Solutions (Interim City Manager) ====

The discussion centered on the City’s economic forecast and the role of HdL Economic Solutions in supporting the city’s financial planning, particularly regarding business licenses and sales tax. Adam, a committee member, introduced Ken Nordhoff from HdL, highlighting his background and the previous collaboration with the city on business license functions. He noted that discussions with HdL had expanded to include sales tax and budget-related topics, such as business license fees, following a transition in city management and finance director roles. Adam emphasized the opportunity to reconnect with HdL and gain clarity on their services as the city moved toward renewing business licenses.

Ken Nordhoff acknowledged the introduction and outlined his presentation, which would focus on sales tax data analysis, budgeting forecasts, and the direction of business license tax services. He noted that he would tailor the discussion to address the committee’s primary interest in business licenses, as highlighted by Kim Trupiano, who observed that 80% of the materials reviewed were based on sales tax, while the committee’s questions focused more on business licenses. Kim encouraged Ken to adjust his presentation accordingly, ensuring it aligned with the committee’s priorities. The discussion was set to proceed with a review of key aspects of business license tax services and next steps for the city.

'''Keywords:''' economic forecast, business licenses, sales tax, HdL Economic Solutions, budget forecasts, city management, tax services

==== Item 4: Review and provide feedback on proposed Scope of Work prior to the preparation of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Right of Way Landscape Maintenance (City Engineer) ====

The discussion centered on the proposed Scope of Work for the Right of Way Landscape Maintenance RFP, though the transcript spanned a different agenda item related to sales tax and revenue collection. The speaker, identified as Ken Nordhoff, provided an overview of his company's expertise in maximizing revenue collection for government entities, particularly in the context of sales tax. He explained the historical framework of sales tax in California, emphasizing that it applies to tangible personal property and is paid by consumers at the end of a retail transaction.

Nordhoff outlined the distinction between sales tax and use tax, noting that use tax applies to goods ordered from out-of-state and is collected into county pools, with distribution based on point-of-sale revenue. He highlighted the limited sales tax base in Clayton, noting that the city receives only a small percentage of the Contra Costa County pool. He also discussed confidentiality constraints, particularly the "gang of four" and the 80% rule, which limit the disclosure of specific taxpayer information.

He explained the structure of the sales tax rate, including the Bradley Burns 1% portion that returns to the city, and noted that Clayton's current rate is 8.75%, incorporating additional taxes for BART, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and Measure X. He mentioned the potential for increasing the rate up to 9.25% under certain conditions and noted the complexities surrounding online sales and the impact of the Wayfair decision, which led to AB 147 in California.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax, revenue collection, use tax, county pool, sales tax rate, online sales, Wayfair decision

==== Item 5: Review Proposal to amend the City Engineer’s agreement to include Maintenance Division Oversight (Interim City Manager) ====

Councilmember Kim Trupiano asked if there was data available regarding what has been remitted to Clayton related to AB 147. Ken Nordhoff responded that he did not have specific data but mentioned that there were new taxpayers who started paying taxes in California beginning in October 2019. He noted that he could provide some names but not exact numbers.

Trupiano suggested bifurcating the information provided into what relates to AB 147 and what does not, emphasizing that a user would expect to see a significant or meaningful increase in tax revenue post-2019, which was not clearly reflected in the data presented.

Nordhoff explained that new marketplace facilitator accounts, such as those from Amazon and Walmart, as well as recent activities from companies like Timu and TikTok, have contributed to increased tax revenue. He noted that these businesses are complying with the law and contributing to the tax pools. However, he clarified that Clayton only receives two-tenths of 1% of the total dollars collected in the Contra Costa pool.

He provided an example, stating that in the most recent quarter ending in March, the city received approximately $550,000. Nordhoff highlighted that 35% of this revenue came from the food and grocery store, drugstore sector, with restaurants also contributing significantly. He mentioned that the pools have become a more significant part of the city's tax revenue in recent years, particularly since the wafer decision in 2019. He offered to run data backwards for multiple years to show the trend of increasing pool contributions.

'''Keywords:''' AB 147 data, tax revenue increase, marketplace facilitators, Contra Costa pool, food and grocery tax, wafer decision 2019, tax pools trend

==== Item 6: Review of the July 16, 2024, City Council Meeting Items (Financial Advisor) ====

The discussion centered on the potential impact of a local sales tax measure on vehicle sales revenue for Clayton. Speaker 4 noted the value of examining data over time and expressed interest in understanding how such information could be presented. Speaker 1 responded by offering to collaborate with Adam and staff to develop a plan for presenting the data.

Speaker 6 raised a question about whether vehicle sales tax revenue would be affected if residents purchased vehicles outside of Clayton, noting the absence of local dealerships. Speaker 1 explained that currently, residents buying vehicles elsewhere contribute sales tax revenue to the location of the dealership, such as Walnut Creek or Concord. However, if Clayton implemented a local approved tax, similar to what Walnut Creek has with Measure, the revenue would shift to Clayton based on registration-based regulations rather than the place of sale.

Speaker 4 clarified that without a local measure, Walnut Creek would retain the revenue from vehicle sales, while Clayton would receive nothing. Speaker 1 further elaborated that if Clayton voters approved a local 1% tax, residents purchasing vehicles in Walnut Creek would contribute 1% of the sales tax to Clayton, increasing the overall tax rate to 9.75%. This would allow Clayton to capture revenue from vehicle sales made by its residents, even if the purchase occurred outside the city. Speaker 6 confirmed that currently, Clayton receives no revenue from vehicle sales.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax measure, vehicle sales revenue, local tax impact, registration-based tax, revenue shift, tax rate increase, residents purchasing

==== Item 7: Future topics (Financial Advisor) ====

The discussion focused on the city's business license program, including the discovery process for unlicensed businesses, delinquencies, and the transition to a new contract with HCL. The presenter, Ken Nordhoff, outlined the current status of the program, noting that 863 businesses are active, with 54 currently delinquent in their license fees. He explained that the discovery process is ongoing and involves multiple methods, such as snail mail, phone calls, and data from other city departments, to identify unlicensed businesses operating in the city.

Nordhoff also discussed the financial implications of the program, noting that the city had previously operated on an internal system before signing the contract with HCL in October. He emphasized that the transition to the new system is a process, and the full impact of the contract on revenue generation would not be known until the first full cycle was completed. He estimated that the next opportunity to review results would be in October, following the renewal period.

Kim Trupiano asked about the cycle timeline, confirming that the current cycle runs from July to June. She also inquired about the distinction between businesses that are delinquent in payments and those that are operating without a license, to which Nordhoff clarified that the 54 delinquent businesses are those that are past due on their fees, while the discovery process is still identifying unlicensed businesses.

Adam suggested implementing a phased penalty approach, with amnesty periods and reduced penalties for early compliance, which Nordhoff agreed was a common and effective strategy. The discussion also touched on the need to align the contract with the cycle period and the importance of generating comprehensive data for the council to review in October. The presenter concluded by expressing willingness to provide further updates and collaborate with city staff on next steps.

'''Keywords:''' business license program, unlicensed businesses, delinquent fees, HCL contract, discovery process, penalty phases, revenue impact

==== Item 8: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:35:15].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/7f14d032-b876-4801-a652-610bc4287559.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryCSVh1ospF4idEbkChfUH_S8vS33v0C/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_30_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Budget Overview, Discussion and Schedule ====

The budget overview discussion focused on the FY 2023–24 year-to-date actuals and the FY 2024–25 budget, with several updates and questions from committee members. Regina provided an update on the FY 2023–24 budget, noting that the city had received a $634,540 vehicle license fee payment but was still missing approximately $400,000 in secured property taxes and $100,000 in business license fees. She explained that the FY 2024–25 budget had seen increases in expenses due to new charges from Concord PD, Contra Costa County, and radio leases. The city had not yet moved $113,000 from last year’s general fund to balance the budget this year.

Jeff Wan raised questions about the absence of well water usage charges in the budget, noting that Oakhurst likely uses the city’s well water. Regina suggested adding an $18,000 to $20,000 line item for this. Kim Trupiano inquired about the significant drop in “other in lieu” funds, from $175,000 to $59,000, and Regina acknowledged the need to investigate further.

On the expense side, Regina noted that police lieutenant salaries were not yet budgeted and would require a future amendment. Jeff Wan questioned the discrepancy in salary and benefit line items, which Regina explained were double-budgeted and being corrected. Kim Trupiano asked about the impact of electricity rate increases on the budget, and Regina proposed addressing this during the mid-year budget review.

Several committee members raised concerns about line items such as rental leases, education and training, and professional services, suggesting potential reductions or reallocations. Jeff Wan also discussed the city’s involvement with the animal control services, noting the high costs and the need for a potential fee-for-service model. Kim Trupiano emphasized the importance of aligning the budget with the council’s priorities and goals, suggesting that future budget amendments would reflect this alignment.

The discussion also touched on the city’s reserve funds, which were noted to be at $7.7 million, significantly above the required $2.2 million. This was seen as a positive, but there was recognition of the need to address long-term fiscal planning and infrastructure needs. Regina concluded the presentation, and the meeting moved forward with no formal motions or votes on the budget at this time.

'''Keywords:''' vehicle license fee, secured property taxes, business license fees, FY 2024–25 budget, well water usage charges, other in lieu funds, electricity rate increases, reserve funds

==== Item 3: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:01:54].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 14, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEiSEZHqOEqAJOcxSqB-8BDzB049lykl/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_14_2024]
|}

== May 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtNTcuWlF_j2fTvxneZoXHJkrOp2ugVJ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_05_07_2024]
|}

== April 22, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C36NbbhYAeMnFpAonfMb8VbYfY1o9GaT/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_04_22_2024]
|}

== March 25, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/931f8bd9-e8ad-48fe-98c3-2dbdf2dcd43d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tyhPgr1JwKC29XajByppMUknXsXPih0D/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_25_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZuenLGJnE Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:04:27].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee conducted an interview with Frank Gavidia for a seat on the Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee. Gavidia, a certified financial planner with experience in municipal finance and Wall Street, expressed interest in joining the committee to provide financial expertise and ensure transparency in city finances. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing numbers and questioned the lack of detailed information on the city’s investment portfolio in past meetings. Gavidia also discussed his potential collaboration with existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford, highlighting their complementary financial backgrounds. He envisioned working closely with city staff to obtain necessary data and conducting thorough analyses to inform the Council.

Committee members Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano asked questions about Gavidia’s motivations and how he would approach his role. Gavidia explained that his interest in the subcommittee had grown over time, particularly after conversations with Kaplan and others, and he believed the committee could serve as a valuable check on city finances. He also addressed concerns about the subcommittee’s structure and the Brown Act, noting that while the committee would need to meet publicly, there were ways to manage discussions effectively.

The committee then discussed the reappointment of existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford for two additional years, with their terms expiring in 2026. A motion was made to recommend the appointment of Gavidia to Seat 3, which would align with the staggered term structure and avoid having all three members’ terms expire in the same year. The motion passed unanimously.

Following the interview, the committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2023–2024 Budget with Finance Director Copti. Questions focused on consultant services, budget allocations, and the mechanics of the LMD fund. Copti explained that wages were charged directly through payroll, while benefits were allocated quarterly based on salary data. The discussion also included clarification on HR policies, recruitment services, and the status of personnel policies, which were nearly finalized for presentation to the Council.

'''Keywords:''' Financial Expertise, Subcommittee Appointment, Budget Transparency, Staggered Terms, Consultant Services, LMD Fund Mechanics, HR Policies

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:39:06].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:57:38Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-11-16 04_00 PM

== November 16, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/c586e273-7324-47ea-8ea2-7586ec85d9b7.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikFTRQICbQI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non-agenda Items ====

Debbie D'Souza, a resident of Clayton, spoke about her review of the city's budget and checkbook, highlighting her interest in the city's solar project and its potential to generate income. She expressed appreciation for the city's efforts in pursuing energy efficiency and asked whether the city had explored ways to generate income from solar energy. She also inquired about the availability of Brett’s job description and the results of a recent review that had been mentioned on social media.

Mayor Jeff Wan responded, explaining that the city is engaged in an ongoing energy infrastructure project with Climatech, which is expected to continue for at least the remainder of the year and possibly beyond. He noted that the city is limited in its ability to earn money from solar due to PG&E regulations but is exploring all available options. He confirmed that the job description for Brett is available in a brochure from earlier in the year and that a six-month evaluation had been conducted, with no reportable actions found.

Another speaker, identified as Speaker 3, addressed rumors circulating on social media, particularly regarding concerns about the city's financial stability and the potential for a parcel tax. He criticized the spread of misinformation and the use of the city manager’s concerns to push for a parcel tax, noting that the majority of Clayton residents are opposed to such measures. He also mentioned a rumor about the mayor attempting to fire the city manager, which he attributed to a past CBCA board member and expressed concern about the organization’s behavior.

'''Keywords:''' solar project, energy efficiency, PG&E regulations, job description, parcel tax, social media rumors, city manager concerns

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the first quarter (July 1–September 30) budget status for the General Fund and Landscape Maintenance District Fund, as well as the quarterly financial report on the city’s investment portfolio. The Finance Director, Brett, noted that while revenue trends were difficult to assess in Q1 due to the timing of property tax and sales tax collections, the city was generally within budget. Most revenue comes in December and April, with sales tax collected in arrears, making early-quarter analysis limited. Departments were adhering to their spending plans, and the city was confident in its ability to manage the remainder of the fiscal year.

Mayor Jeff Wan emphasized the importance of using home sales data as a proxy for property tax revenue trends, noting that the city could better predict receipts by analyzing directional changes in sales rather than focusing on exact figures. He also expressed a desire for quicker access to unaudited financial results for FY23 to aid in planning, though he acknowledged the audit process required time.

Regarding the investment portfolio, the Finance Director, Pat, reported that the city earned $52,000 in the quarter, with a focus on U.S. Treasury investments and higher-yield options. He explained that the city had shifted funds from lower-yield accounts to higher-yield ones and had invested $700,000 in U.S. Treasuries. The committee requested more detailed reports, including transaction logs and average daily cash balances, to better understand the investment activity and cash flow.

Public comment included suggestions for improving transparency, such as posting monthly investment statements and participating in Treasury auctions directly rather than through brokers. The discussion also touched on the city’s reserve policy, with current reserves exceeding 100% of the general fund, prompting a planned February review of reserve levels and their appropriate use.

'''Keywords:''' budget status, property tax revenue, investment portfolio, financial report, reserve policy, higher-yield investments, unaudited results

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:42:47].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 14, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/dafff971-eb4a-4be6-8e1d-5cf5d74967f5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhF5FpnpEkg Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with Mayor Jeff Wan calling the meeting to order. He noted that both committee members were present and confirmed that the meeting was proceeding as scheduled. The first agenda item was public comment on non-agenda items, which are matters not listed on the official agenda but within the committee’s jurisdiction. Mayor Wan invited members of the public to speak, emphasizing that each speaker would be limited to three minutes, as per the committee’s rules.

After a brief pause, City Manager Prati confirmed that no members of the public had raised their hands to speak, either in person or via the Zoom platform. No further discussion or comments were offered during this segment. As a result, the committee moved forward without any public input on non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' Budget/Audit Committee, Mayor Jeff Wan, Public Comment, Non-Agenda Items, Zoom Platform, Committee Rules, City Manager Prati

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the city's quarterly financial report on the investment portfolio for the period ending June 30, 2023. The report detailed the city's investment strategy, which focuses on maximizing yield while maintaining liquidity. The city's total interest for fiscal year 2022–2023 was approximately $238,000, with $71,000 received from UBS in the second quarter of 2023. The city's investment portfolio includes a mix of CDs, federal agency securities, and U.S. Treasury notes, with the current yield at 1.99% and an average duration of 1.94 years.

Mayor Jeff Wan raised questions about the allocation of funds between the CAMP and LAIF accounts, noting that CAMP offers a higher yield than LAIF. He suggested that the city should prioritize moving funds to higher-yielding accounts, even if the difference in yield is significant. The city manager, Prati, explained that the city continues to reinvest maturing funds into higher-yielding investments and that the current interest rate environment is favorable for locking in higher yields.

The discussion also covered the city's strategy for managing cash flow and liquidity, with a focus on reinvesting maturing funds into higher-yielding instruments. The city has made recent investments in two CDs yielding 5.45% and 5.25% over two- and three-year terms, respectively. The city manager emphasized that the strategy is to hold investments to maturity and avoid selling them before maturity to prevent potential losses.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano and others raised additional questions about the city's investment policy, the impact of interest rate fluctuations, and the potential for a more diversified investment strategy. The city manager and finance director addressed these concerns, explaining that the city's approach is to balance yield, liquidity, and cash flow needs while avoiding unnecessary risks.

Public comment was also taken, with one speaker suggesting that the city should consider moving to a more liquid investment strategy, such as U.S. Treasury notes, and another emphasizing the importance of understanding the long-term interest rate environment. The committee closed the discussion with no further items to address.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, interest rate environment, CAMP vs LAIF, CDs yield 5.45%, reinvest maturing funds, liquidity management, higher-yielding accounts, diversified investment strategy

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:52].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/1098c029-9181-48cb-b43d-fdbe3dff0adc.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSuWwcg0Qs Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non ====

Mayor Jeff Wan opened the public comment period for non-agenda items, inviting members of the public to speak. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted that there were no speaker cards or raised hands on Zoom, indicating no members of the public had requested to speak. Based on this, Mayor Wan closed the public comment period and moved directly into action items. The first action item on the agenda was the quarterly financial reports on the city's investment portfolio, which Brett was scheduled to present.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, financial reports, investment portfolio, action items

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The city manager provided an overview of the quarterly financial reports on the city's investment portfolio for the periods ending December 31, 2022, and March 31, 2023. The report highlighted the current investment strategy, which includes transitioning to longer-duration investments to maintain interest rates amid anticipated Federal Reserve rate reductions. The current portfolio includes money market funds with yields over 4%, but the city is aiming for a target yield of 2.5% to 3% in the short term. The city manager emphasized the importance of working with UBS to develop a long-term investment strategy that balances liquidity, yield, and risk management.

The city manager also discussed the inclusion of medium-term notes and corporate bonds in the portfolio, explaining that these investments fall under the government code and are considered medium risk. The city is moving toward maximizing yield while adhering to investment policy limits. The city manager cautioned against using investments as a budget-balancing tool, referencing past issues in other agencies.

Regarding the proposed FY 2023-24 operations and maintenance budget, the city manager outlined the current state of the general fund, which is nearly balanced with the use of one-time pension reserves. The budget reflects a net deficit of $28,000 before supplemental changes, which would balance the budget. The city manager noted that operating expenses are expected to rise due to inflation and increasing service delivery costs, and the city is exploring ways to enhance efficiency and implement technology to reduce future costs.

The city manager also addressed the need for salary adjustments for key positions, including the finance director, community development director, police chief, and assistant city manager, to improve recruitment and retention. The proposed budget includes a $50,000 increase in salaries for these roles.

The city manager acknowledged the need for a more structured approach to fund balance policy, suggesting that a portion of the surplus be allocated to capital reserves, pension reserves, and operating reserves. The city manager also discussed the importance of evaluating the city's purchasing policy and refining it to ensure compliance with government regulations.

Public comment was closed after the presentation, and the council moved on to the next item.

'''Keywords:''' investment strategy, target yield range, long-term investment, medium-term notes, budget deficit, salary adjustments, fund balance policy, purchasing policy

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:14:30].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 15, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/a8c41fa3-903d-47e6-b6dd-4faff029f982.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIYJkd4bzCMA_laeKbhuhxXm38snoMpd/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_15_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2XNqCiAI8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:03].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began its session with a public comment period for non-agenda items. Speaker 3, who was identified as the moderator, opened the floor for public input, noting that individuals in attendance or participating remotely had the opportunity to speak. However, Speaker 8, who appeared to be a committee member, pointed out that no hands had been raised, indicating that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on non-agenda items. In response, Speaker 3 confirmed that the public comment period would be closed. Before moving on to the next agenda item, Speaker 3 took the opportunity to welcome the new city manager, Mr. Brett Perbula, expressing gratitude for his arrival. No further discussion or action was taken on non-agenda items during this segment.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, non-agenda items, new city manager, welcome speech, committee member, speaker confirmation

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the proposed update to the master fee schedule, presented by Nitish Sharma of GovInvest. The update aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services, incorporating actual costs rather than estimated time-based fees. Key areas reviewed included planning and development fees, police services, environmental review, and facility rental fees.

Nitish explained that deposits were adjusted to reflect actual costs, including legal and engineering expenses, and that the city would monitor deposits to ensure they cover project costs. He also highlighted new fees, such as those for technology impact, and clarified that some previously unitemized costs, like county filing fees and mileage, were now included for transparency.

Council members raised questions about the methodology, including how fees for tree removal and picnic area rentals were calculated. They noted that some fees, like the $5,000 deposit for annexation, were based on actual costs rather than time estimates. Concerns were raised about the clarity of fee categories and the need for maps to identify specific areas affected by fees.

The committee also discussed the inclusion of a technology impact fee to cover future software costs, with some members expressing support for this approach. Regarding facility rental fees, the committee requested clearer labeling and maps to help identify specific areas.

The discussion concluded with the committee acknowledging the need for a policy on street closures and the importance of setting clear guidelines for fee waivers. The updated fee schedule was to be brought back to the full council for adoption, likely as part of a budget workshop.

'''Keywords:''' master fee schedule, cost recovery, actual costs, technology impact fee, fee categories, fee waivers, budget workshop

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:22].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== March 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/00f5141d-a50e-4a92-880f-2e5b98355549.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Av8VI1B2OlbfmLNfghWMauULCiKc_Gx/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Kbs-Eey8E Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began the public comment segment for non-agenda items. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted there were two speaker cards, and the first speaker was identified as "Mr. Killer." However, no public comments were made during this segment. The discussion quickly moved on to action items, with no further remarks or interventions from members of the public or committee members regarding non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker cards, Mr. Killer

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the status and timeline for the FY 2023–2024 budget and the update to the city’s master fee schedule. Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma provided an overview of the current timeline, which includes distributing budget worksheets to department leaders starting March 1, initiating the master fee schedule interview process with department leaders on March 10, compiling information by April 7, and presenting preliminary proposals to the city manager and the Budget/Audit Committee on April 24. Further updates were scheduled for May 22, with budget workshops planned for June 6. The committee noted that the April 24 meeting would present the initial budget proposals, while the May 22 meeting would serve as a workshop for feedback and revisions. Concerns were raised about the timeline, with some members suggesting the possibility of accelerating the process or holding additional meetings if needed.

Public comment included concerns from residents about potential hidden taxes through the master fee schedule and the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in fee calculations. Ed Miller referenced Proposition 26, which defines the difference between taxes and fees, emphasizing the need for transparency in the fee schedule process. Another speaker encouraged the committee to consider how increased fees might affect the city’s unfunded liabilities.

The committee then moved to item 3B, a review of active service contracts. Angeline Loeffler presented a list of 48 active contracts, primarily professional services, excluding day-to-day operations like copy machine renewals. She noted that most contracts were annual or had three-year terms with renewal options. She also highlighted the lack of a centralized spreadsheet to track contract dates and the need to digitize and organize existing contracts. Council members raised questions about the accuracy of the list, the lack of contract expiration dates, and the need for historical spending data to better understand the contracts’ scope and usage.

Several specific contracts were discussed, including Precision Civil Engineering, Apex Technology, and JNR Floor Services, with clarification on their roles and services. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency, potential overlaps in services, and the need for better coordination between departments and vendors. The committee also discussed the need for a more robust bidding process for larger contracts and the importance of consolidating services where possible to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to revisit the master fee schedule and active contracts in future meetings, with the next review expected in May.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2023–2024 budget, master fee schedule, budget timeline, unfunded pension liabilities, active service contracts, contract transparency, fee schedule process, budget proposals

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:09:00].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 23, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/65c563fb-b6ad-4be7-bd5d-b76adced5214.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:14].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non ====

Public comment on non-agenda items was opened, with the chair inviting members of the public to speak on matters not listed on the agenda. The chair noted that each speaker would be limited to three minutes, as per the committee’s guidelines. No members of the public spoke during this time. The chair confirmed that no comments were received and moved on to the next item.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, three minutes

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee reviewed the audited annual financial report of the City of Clayton for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, presented by Bryce Rojas, the auditor, and Nitish Sharma, the interim finance director. The report indicated that the city received a clean, unmodified opinion on its financial statements, confirming that they were fairly stated in all material respects. The city’s total net position was $45.76 million, with $5.87 million in unrestricted net position, an increase of $338,000 from the prior year. The general fund had a change in fund balance of $250,000, largely due to a grant received during the year.

The audit also identified several material weaknesses in internal controls, including the lack of continuity in finance department personnel, which led to a loss of institutional knowledge during the fiscal year closure. Additionally, discrepancies were found in fair value estimates for certain assets, such as the Stranahan equity investment, where the city’s valuation differed from the auditor’s. There were also issues with agency funds, including a negative cash balance in the middle school Community Facilities District (CFD) and inconsistent document retention practices for journal entries.

The committee engaged in a detailed discussion with the auditor and finance staff, addressing concerns about the material weaknesses, the impact of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant on the general fund, and the city’s financial reporting practices. The committee requested that the audit report be updated to include a comparison of ARPA-related revenues and expenditures, and that the management letter be included in the document for transparency. The committee also discussed the need for improved internal controls, document retention, and the transition to electronic systems for journal entries.

The committee approved the presentation of the audited financial report and recommended forwarding it to the full City Council for action. The next agenda item, the proposed update to the Master Fee Schedule, was introduced by Nitish Sharma, who outlined the scope of the project, the methodology for updating fees, and the importance of aligning with state law and cost recovery principles. The committee requested further details on the timeline, deliverables, and the inclusion of a comparison with other jurisdictions for certain fees. The committee also discussed the potential for adjustments to fees for nonprofit users of Endeavor Hall and the existing fee waiver for the Clayton Community Band (CBC). These topics were deferred for further discussion at the next committee meeting.

'''Keywords:''' clean unmodified opinion, net position increase, material weaknesses, ARPA grant impact, internal control issues, fee schedule update, document retention, institutional knowledge loss

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:39:57].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:57:34Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:53:43Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-08-14 04_00 PM

== November 16, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/c586e273-7324-47ea-8ea2-7586ec85d9b7.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikFTRQICbQI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

Public comment on non-agenda items was called to order. Debbie D'Souza, a resident, expressed appreciation for the council meeting report and raised questions about the city's solar initiatives and potential income generation from solar projects. She also inquired about the availability of Brett's job description and the results of a recent review. In response, Speaker 2 explained that the city is engaged in a large energy infrastructure project with Climatech and that there are limitations on earning money from solar due to PG&E regulations. He also noted that the job description is available in a brochure and that a six-month evaluation had no reportable actions.

Speaker 3 addressed rumors circulating about the city's financial situation and criticized the use of the city manager's concerns to push for a parcel tax. He emphasized that the majority of Clayton opposes such measures and that the city's financial challenges are not as dire as some claim.

The discussion then moved to the FY 24 Q1 budget status. Brett provided an overview of the city's revenue and expenses, noting that property tax receipts are a significant portion of the city's revenue and are received in December and April. He explained that the city is generally within budget and that the focus is on managing expenses. There was a discussion about the availability of property tax data and the need for more detailed reporting. The city manager also addressed the audit process for FY 2023, noting that unaudited financials would be available in December.

The meeting then moved to the quarterly financial report on the city's investment portfolio. The report detailed the city's investment earnings, the movement of funds between accounts, and the focus on U.S. treasuries. There was a discussion about the need for more detailed reporting, including transaction details and average daily cash balances, to provide better context for the city's financial activities.

'''Keywords:''' solar initiatives, income generation, job description, parcel tax, property tax receipts, investment portfolio, financial reporting

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the city's investment strategy, particularly the return on investment (ROI) for the past quarter, which was approximately $52,000. The speaker asked about future goals and whether there was a target ROI. In response, another speaker explained that the city aims for a net increase every quarter while interest rates remain higher than the yields from maturing investments. They noted that there is no specific target interest rate, as investments are made based on what rolls off or matures. They also mentioned that selling current investments at a loss to reinvest in higher-yield options is not currently viable due to the significant losses involved.

The speaker also discussed the city's investment duration, stating that a two-year benchmark would be ideal as the portfolio's duration is between one and a half to two years. They suggested that as older investments roll off and new ones come in, the portfolio may eventually align with this benchmark. They also mentioned that if new members are appointed in December, there could be a reconsideration of including corporate bonds in the portfolio, noting that some corporate debt has better credit ratings than U.S. treasuries and is highly liquid.

Another speaker asked about the mix of investments, and it was confirmed that the focus has been on treasuries, with a recent investment of $350,000 in CDs due to a better return. A public comment was made suggesting that monthly statements from UBS be posted for transparency, and that the city should participate in treasury auctions rather than buying from UBS's inventory to avoid markups. The discussion also touched on the city's reserve policy, noting that the current reserve is over 100%, and that discussions about appropriate reserve levels would take place in February. The next budget and audit committee meeting was expected to be in January.

'''Keywords:''' return on investment, target ROI, investment duration, corporate bonds, treasury auctions, reserve policy, monthly statements
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 14, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/dafff971-eb4a-4be6-8e1d-5cf5d74967f5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhF5FpnpEkg Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with Mayor Jeff Wan calling the meeting to order. He noted that both committee members were present and confirmed that the meeting was proceeding as scheduled. The first agenda item was public comment on non-agenda items, which are matters not listed on the official agenda but within the committee’s jurisdiction. Mayor Wan invited members of the public to speak, emphasizing that each speaker would be limited to three minutes, as per the committee’s rules.

After a brief pause, City Manager Prati confirmed that no members of the public had raised their hands to speak, either in person or via the Zoom platform. No further discussion or comments were offered during this segment. As a result, the committee moved forward without any public input on non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' Budget/Audit Committee, Mayor Jeff Wan, Public Comment, Non-Agenda Items, Zoom Platform, Committee Rules, City Manager Prati

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the city's quarterly financial report on the investment portfolio for the period ending June 30, 2023. The report detailed the city's investment strategy, which focuses on maximizing yield while maintaining liquidity. The city's total interest for fiscal year 2022–2023 was approximately $238,000, with $71,000 received from UBS in the second quarter of 2023. The city's investment portfolio includes a mix of CDs, federal agency securities, and U.S. Treasury notes, with the current yield at 1.99% and an average duration of 1.94 years.

Mayor Jeff Wan raised questions about the allocation of funds between the CAMP and LAIF accounts, noting that CAMP offers a higher yield than LAIF. He suggested that the city should prioritize moving funds to higher-yielding accounts, even if the difference in yield is significant. The city manager, Prati, explained that the city continues to reinvest maturing funds into higher-yielding investments and that the current interest rate environment is favorable for locking in higher yields.

The discussion also covered the city's strategy for managing cash flow and liquidity, with a focus on reinvesting maturing funds into higher-yielding instruments. The city has made recent investments in two CDs yielding 5.45% and 5.25% over two- and three-year terms, respectively. The city manager emphasized that the strategy is to hold investments to maturity and avoid selling them before maturity to prevent potential losses.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano and others raised additional questions about the city's investment policy, the impact of interest rate fluctuations, and the potential for a more diversified investment strategy. The city manager and finance director addressed these concerns, explaining that the city's approach is to balance yield, liquidity, and cash flow needs while avoiding unnecessary risks.

Public comment was also taken, with one speaker suggesting that the city should consider moving to a more liquid investment strategy, such as U.S. Treasury notes, and another emphasizing the importance of understanding the long-term interest rate environment. The committee closed the discussion with no further items to address.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, interest rate environment, CAMP vs LAIF, CDs yield 5.45%, reinvest maturing funds, liquidity management, higher-yielding accounts, diversified investment strategy

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:52].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/1098c029-9181-48cb-b43d-fdbe3dff0adc.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSuWwcg0Qs Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non ====

Mayor Jeff Wan opened the public comment period for non-agenda items, inviting members of the public to speak. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted that there were no speaker cards or raised hands on Zoom, indicating no members of the public had requested to speak. Based on this, Mayor Wan closed the public comment period and moved directly into action items. The first action item on the agenda was the quarterly financial reports on the city's investment portfolio, which Brett was scheduled to present.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, financial reports, investment portfolio, action items

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The city manager provided an overview of the quarterly financial reports on the city's investment portfolio for the periods ending December 31, 2022, and March 31, 2023. The report highlighted the current investment strategy, which includes transitioning to longer-duration investments to maintain interest rates amid anticipated Federal Reserve rate reductions. The current portfolio includes money market funds with yields over 4%, but the city is aiming for a target yield of 2.5% to 3% in the short term. The city manager emphasized the importance of working with UBS to develop a long-term investment strategy that balances liquidity, yield, and risk management.

The city manager also discussed the inclusion of medium-term notes and corporate bonds in the portfolio, explaining that these investments fall under the government code and are considered medium risk. The city is moving toward maximizing yield while adhering to investment policy limits. The city manager cautioned against using investments as a budget-balancing tool, referencing past issues in other agencies.

Regarding the proposed FY 2023-24 operations and maintenance budget, the city manager outlined the current state of the general fund, which is nearly balanced with the use of one-time pension reserves. The budget reflects a net deficit of $28,000 before supplemental changes, which would balance the budget. The city manager noted that operating expenses are expected to rise due to inflation and increasing service delivery costs, and the city is exploring ways to enhance efficiency and implement technology to reduce future costs.

The city manager also addressed the need for salary adjustments for key positions, including the finance director, community development director, police chief, and assistant city manager, to improve recruitment and retention. The proposed budget includes a $50,000 increase in salaries for these roles.

The city manager acknowledged the need for a more structured approach to fund balance policy, suggesting that a portion of the surplus be allocated to capital reserves, pension reserves, and operating reserves. The city manager also discussed the importance of evaluating the city's purchasing policy and refining it to ensure compliance with government regulations.

Public comment was closed after the presentation, and the council moved on to the next item.

'''Keywords:''' investment strategy, target yield range, long-term investment, medium-term notes, budget deficit, salary adjustments, fund balance policy, purchasing policy

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:14:30].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 15, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/a8c41fa3-903d-47e6-b6dd-4faff029f982.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIYJkd4bzCMA_laeKbhuhxXm38snoMpd/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_15_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2XNqCiAI8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:03].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began its session with a public comment period for non-agenda items. Speaker 3, who was identified as the moderator, opened the floor for public input, noting that individuals in attendance or participating remotely had the opportunity to speak. However, Speaker 8, who appeared to be a committee member, pointed out that no hands had been raised, indicating that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on non-agenda items. In response, Speaker 3 confirmed that the public comment period would be closed. Before moving on to the next agenda item, Speaker 3 took the opportunity to welcome the new city manager, Mr. Brett Perbula, expressing gratitude for his arrival. No further discussion or action was taken on non-agenda items during this segment.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, non-agenda items, new city manager, welcome speech, committee member, speaker confirmation

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the proposed update to the master fee schedule, presented by Nitish Sharma of GovInvest. The update aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services, incorporating actual costs rather than estimated time-based fees. Key areas reviewed included planning and development fees, police services, environmental review, and facility rental fees.

Nitish explained that deposits were adjusted to reflect actual costs, including legal and engineering expenses, and that the city would monitor deposits to ensure they cover project costs. He also highlighted new fees, such as those for technology impact, and clarified that some previously unitemized costs, like county filing fees and mileage, were now included for transparency.

Council members raised questions about the methodology, including how fees for tree removal and picnic area rentals were calculated. They noted that some fees, like the $5,000 deposit for annexation, were based on actual costs rather than time estimates. Concerns were raised about the clarity of fee categories and the need for maps to identify specific areas affected by fees.

The committee also discussed the inclusion of a technology impact fee to cover future software costs, with some members expressing support for this approach. Regarding facility rental fees, the committee requested clearer labeling and maps to help identify specific areas.

The discussion concluded with the committee acknowledging the need for a policy on street closures and the importance of setting clear guidelines for fee waivers. The updated fee schedule was to be brought back to the full council for adoption, likely as part of a budget workshop.

'''Keywords:''' master fee schedule, cost recovery, actual costs, technology impact fee, fee categories, fee waivers, budget workshop

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:22].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== March 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/00f5141d-a50e-4a92-880f-2e5b98355549.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Av8VI1B2OlbfmLNfghWMauULCiKc_Gx/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Kbs-Eey8E Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began the public comment segment for non-agenda items. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted there were two speaker cards, and the first speaker was identified as "Mr. Killer." However, no public comments were made during this segment. The discussion quickly moved on to action items, with no further remarks or interventions from members of the public or committee members regarding non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker cards, Mr. Killer

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the status and timeline for the FY 2023–2024 budget and the update to the city’s master fee schedule. Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma provided an overview of the current timeline, which includes distributing budget worksheets to department leaders starting March 1, initiating the master fee schedule interview process with department leaders on March 10, compiling information by April 7, and presenting preliminary proposals to the city manager and the Budget/Audit Committee on April 24. Further updates were scheduled for May 22, with budget workshops planned for June 6. The committee noted that the April 24 meeting would present the initial budget proposals, while the May 22 meeting would serve as a workshop for feedback and revisions. Concerns were raised about the timeline, with some members suggesting the possibility of accelerating the process or holding additional meetings if needed.

Public comment included concerns from residents about potential hidden taxes through the master fee schedule and the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in fee calculations. Ed Miller referenced Proposition 26, which defines the difference between taxes and fees, emphasizing the need for transparency in the fee schedule process. Another speaker encouraged the committee to consider how increased fees might affect the city’s unfunded liabilities.

The committee then moved to item 3B, a review of active service contracts. Angeline Loeffler presented a list of 48 active contracts, primarily professional services, excluding day-to-day operations like copy machine renewals. She noted that most contracts were annual or had three-year terms with renewal options. She also highlighted the lack of a centralized spreadsheet to track contract dates and the need to digitize and organize existing contracts. Council members raised questions about the accuracy of the list, the lack of contract expiration dates, and the need for historical spending data to better understand the contracts’ scope and usage.

Several specific contracts were discussed, including Precision Civil Engineering, Apex Technology, and JNR Floor Services, with clarification on their roles and services. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency, potential overlaps in services, and the need for better coordination between departments and vendors. The committee also discussed the need for a more robust bidding process for larger contracts and the importance of consolidating services where possible to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to revisit the master fee schedule and active contracts in future meetings, with the next review expected in May.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2023–2024 budget, master fee schedule, budget timeline, unfunded pension liabilities, active service contracts, contract transparency, fee schedule process, budget proposals

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:09:00].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 23, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/65c563fb-b6ad-4be7-bd5d-b76adced5214.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:14].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non ====

Public comment on non-agenda items was opened, with the chair inviting members of the public to speak on matters not listed on the agenda. The chair noted that each speaker would be limited to three minutes, as per the committee’s guidelines. No members of the public spoke during this time. The chair confirmed that no comments were received and moved on to the next item.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, three minutes

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee reviewed the audited annual financial report of the City of Clayton for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, presented by Bryce Rojas, the auditor, and Nitish Sharma, the interim finance director. The report indicated that the city received a clean, unmodified opinion on its financial statements, confirming that they were fairly stated in all material respects. The city’s total net position was $45.76 million, with $5.87 million in unrestricted net position, an increase of $338,000 from the prior year. The general fund had a change in fund balance of $250,000, largely due to a grant received during the year.

The audit also identified several material weaknesses in internal controls, including the lack of continuity in finance department personnel, which led to a loss of institutional knowledge during the fiscal year closure. Additionally, discrepancies were found in fair value estimates for certain assets, such as the Stranahan equity investment, where the city’s valuation differed from the auditor’s. There were also issues with agency funds, including a negative cash balance in the middle school Community Facilities District (CFD) and inconsistent document retention practices for journal entries.

The committee engaged in a detailed discussion with the auditor and finance staff, addressing concerns about the material weaknesses, the impact of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant on the general fund, and the city’s financial reporting practices. The committee requested that the audit report be updated to include a comparison of ARPA-related revenues and expenditures, and that the management letter be included in the document for transparency. The committee also discussed the need for improved internal controls, document retention, and the transition to electronic systems for journal entries.

The committee approved the presentation of the audited financial report and recommended forwarding it to the full City Council for action. The next agenda item, the proposed update to the Master Fee Schedule, was introduced by Nitish Sharma, who outlined the scope of the project, the methodology for updating fees, and the importance of aligning with state law and cost recovery principles. The committee requested further details on the timeline, deliverables, and the inclusion of a comparison with other jurisdictions for certain fees. The committee also discussed the potential for adjustments to fees for nonprofit users of Endeavor Hall and the existing fee waiver for the Clayton Community Band (CBC). These topics were deferred for further discussion at the next committee meeting.

'''Keywords:''' clean unmodified opinion, net position increase, material weaknesses, ARPA grant impact, internal control issues, fee schedule update, document retention, institutional knowledge loss

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:39:57].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:53:39Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:49:21Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-05-30 04_00 PM

== November 16, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/c586e273-7324-47ea-8ea2-7586ec85d9b7.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikFTRQICbQI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

Public comment on non-agenda items was called to order. Debbie D'Souza, a resident, expressed appreciation for the council meeting report and raised questions about the city's solar initiatives and potential income generation from solar projects. She also inquired about the availability of Brett's job description and the results of a recent review. In response, Speaker 2 explained that the city is engaged in a large energy infrastructure project with Climatech and that there are limitations on earning money from solar due to PG&E regulations. He also noted that the job description is available in a brochure and that a six-month evaluation had no reportable actions.

Speaker 3 addressed rumors circulating about the city's financial situation and criticized the use of the city manager's concerns to push for a parcel tax. He emphasized that the majority of Clayton opposes such measures and that the city's financial challenges are not as dire as some claim.

The discussion then moved to the FY 24 Q1 budget status. Brett provided an overview of the city's revenue and expenses, noting that property tax receipts are a significant portion of the city's revenue and are received in December and April. He explained that the city is generally within budget and that the focus is on managing expenses. There was a discussion about the availability of property tax data and the need for more detailed reporting. The city manager also addressed the audit process for FY 2023, noting that unaudited financials would be available in December.

The meeting then moved to the quarterly financial report on the city's investment portfolio. The report detailed the city's investment earnings, the movement of funds between accounts, and the focus on U.S. treasuries. There was a discussion about the need for more detailed reporting, including transaction details and average daily cash balances, to provide better context for the city's financial activities.

'''Keywords:''' solar initiatives, income generation, job description, parcel tax, property tax receipts, investment portfolio, financial reporting

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the city's investment strategy, particularly the return on investment (ROI) for the past quarter, which was approximately $52,000. The speaker asked about future goals and whether there was a target ROI. In response, another speaker explained that the city aims for a net increase every quarter while interest rates remain higher than the yields from maturing investments. They noted that there is no specific target interest rate, as investments are made based on what rolls off or matures. They also mentioned that selling current investments at a loss to reinvest in higher-yield options is not currently viable due to the significant losses involved.

The speaker also discussed the city's investment duration, stating that a two-year benchmark would be ideal as the portfolio's duration is between one and a half to two years. They suggested that as older investments roll off and new ones come in, the portfolio may eventually align with this benchmark. They also mentioned that if new members are appointed in December, there could be a reconsideration of including corporate bonds in the portfolio, noting that some corporate debt has better credit ratings than U.S. treasuries and is highly liquid.

Another speaker asked about the mix of investments, and it was confirmed that the focus has been on treasuries, with a recent investment of $350,000 in CDs due to a better return. A public comment was made suggesting that monthly statements from UBS be posted for transparency, and that the city should participate in treasury auctions rather than buying from UBS's inventory to avoid markups. The discussion also touched on the city's reserve policy, noting that the current reserve is over 100%, and that discussions about appropriate reserve levels would take place in February. The next budget and audit committee meeting was expected to be in January.

'''Keywords:''' return on investment, target ROI, investment duration, corporate bonds, treasury auctions, reserve policy, monthly statements
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 14, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/dafff971-eb4a-4be6-8e1d-5cf5d74967f5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhF5FpnpEkg Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The meeting began with a roll call, confirming the presence of both members of the Budget and Audit Committee. The only action item on the agenda was the presentation of the quarterly financial report on the city's investment portfolio for the period ending June 30, 2023. The report was presented by [Speaker 4], who outlined the city's investment strategy, emphasizing the focus on reinvesting maturing funds into higher-yielding instruments. The city's total interest for fiscal year 2022–2023 was approximately $238,000, with $71,000 received from UBS in the second quarter of 2023. The city currently earns over 5% interest from its BFM camp account, which is a liquidity pool similar to the LEIF account, though the latter yields around 3%. The city has also invested in two CDs yielding 5.45% and 5.25% over two- and three-year terms, respectively.

[Speaker 2] raised several questions, including why the city still maintains funds in the lower-yielding LAIF account despite the higher yields available in the CAMP account. [Speaker 1] explained that maintaining some funds in LAIF helps preserve the relationship with the institution and avoids the costs associated with closing and reopening the account. [Speaker 2] also inquired about the city's liquidity needs and the high minimum balance required in the checking account, which [Speaker 1] attributed to bank analysis charges and the need to maintain sufficient liquidity for operations.

[Speaker 2] expressed concern about the city's strategy of holding investments to maturity and questioned why CDs were preferred over treasuries. [Speaker 1] explained that the decision is based on yield, liquidity needs, and cash flow projections, and that the city generally avoids selling investments before maturity. The discussion also touched on the city's limited size and how it affects investment decisions, with [Speaker 1] noting that the city's small portfolio size limits the ability to negotiate better terms with financial institutions.

[Speaker 2] concluded by requesting more detailed activity reports and a clearer understanding of the city's investment strategy, emphasizing the importance of maximizing yield while maintaining liquidity. The meeting ended with [Speaker 2] expressing appreciation for the presentation and the detailed discussion.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, quarterly financial report, higher-yielding instruments, total interest 238,000, UBS 71,000, BFM camp account, CDs 5.45% 5.25%, LAIF account

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Council members and staff discussed the city's investment portfolio and related financial strategies during the meeting. The discussion centered on the city's $238,294 in investment earnings for fiscal year 2023, which exceeded the budget by $119,684. This was attributed to reinvesting a portion of the city's cash into shorter-term, higher-yield investments, including a $500,000 shift earlier in the year. Councilmember Brett questioned whether this shift was the source of the surplus, and Mayor Wong confirmed that the city had considered moving funds to higher-yielding instruments at the start of the year, though the details were not fully clear from the provided information.

Councilmember Trubiano noted that the city's portfolio included a mix of CDs, federal agency securities, medium-term notes, and municipal bonds, with CDs typically being the lowest-yielding. Staff clarified that the yield of CDs depends on the specific institution and market conditions. The discussion also covered the city’s investment in higher-yield U.S. Treasury notes and the expected annual cash flow from UBS, which was $204,120 for fiscal year 2022–2023.

A key point of discussion was the market value of the portfolio, which exceeded its book value by $627,756 as of June 2023. Staff explained that this was due to a fair market value adjustment required by GASB 31. Councilmember Trubiano raised concerns about the impact of rising interest rates on the portfolio’s value, and staff explained that bonds are inversely related to interest rates, but since the city holds investments to maturity, the impact is less significant.

The conversation also touched on the potential for swapping lower-yielding investments for higher-yielding ones, though staff cautioned that doing so could result in short-term losses that might affect the general ledger. Mayor Wong noted that a swap analysis had been conducted in February, identifying some opportunities for improvement, but the city had not acted on it due to other priorities.

Councilmember Trubiano suggested developing a clearer investment strategy, including target maturities and a more streamlined portfolio with fewer positions. Staff acknowledged the need for a more systematic approach and agreed to revisit the topic in future meetings. The discussion concluded with a commitment to continue evaluating the portfolio’s performance and strategy.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, fiscal year 2023, investment earnings, higher-yield investments, market value adjustment, rising interest rates, swap analysis, investment strategy
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/1098c029-9181-48cb-b43d-fdbe3dff0adc.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSuWwcg0Qs Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non ====

Mayor Jeff Wan opened the public comment period for non-agenda items, inviting members of the public to speak. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted that there were no speaker cards or raised hands on Zoom, indicating no members of the public had requested to speak. Based on this, Mayor Wan closed the public comment period and moved directly into action items. The first action item on the agenda was the quarterly financial reports on the city's investment portfolio, which Brett was scheduled to present.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, financial reports, investment portfolio, action items

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The city manager provided an overview of the quarterly financial reports on the city's investment portfolio for the periods ending December 31, 2022, and March 31, 2023. The report highlighted the current investment strategy, which includes transitioning to longer-duration investments to maintain interest rates amid anticipated Federal Reserve rate reductions. The current portfolio includes money market funds with yields over 4%, but the city is aiming for a target yield of 2.5% to 3% in the short term. The city manager emphasized the importance of working with UBS to develop a long-term investment strategy that balances liquidity, yield, and risk management.

The city manager also discussed the inclusion of medium-term notes and corporate bonds in the portfolio, explaining that these investments fall under the government code and are considered medium risk. The city is moving toward maximizing yield while adhering to investment policy limits. The city manager cautioned against using investments as a budget-balancing tool, referencing past issues in other agencies.

Regarding the proposed FY 2023-24 operations and maintenance budget, the city manager outlined the current state of the general fund, which is nearly balanced with the use of one-time pension reserves. The budget reflects a net deficit of $28,000 before supplemental changes, which would balance the budget. The city manager noted that operating expenses are expected to rise due to inflation and increasing service delivery costs, and the city is exploring ways to enhance efficiency and implement technology to reduce future costs.

The city manager also addressed the need for salary adjustments for key positions, including the finance director, community development director, police chief, and assistant city manager, to improve recruitment and retention. The proposed budget includes a $50,000 increase in salaries for these roles.

The city manager acknowledged the need for a more structured approach to fund balance policy, suggesting that a portion of the surplus be allocated to capital reserves, pension reserves, and operating reserves. The city manager also discussed the importance of evaluating the city's purchasing policy and refining it to ensure compliance with government regulations.

Public comment was closed after the presentation, and the council moved on to the next item.

'''Keywords:''' investment strategy, target yield range, long-term investment, medium-term notes, budget deficit, salary adjustments, fund balance policy, purchasing policy

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:14:30].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 15, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/a8c41fa3-903d-47e6-b6dd-4faff029f982.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIYJkd4bzCMA_laeKbhuhxXm38snoMpd/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_15_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2XNqCiAI8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:03].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began its session with a public comment period for non-agenda items. Speaker 3, who was identified as the moderator, opened the floor for public input, noting that individuals in attendance or participating remotely had the opportunity to speak. However, Speaker 8, who appeared to be a committee member, pointed out that no hands had been raised, indicating that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on non-agenda items. In response, Speaker 3 confirmed that the public comment period would be closed. Before moving on to the next agenda item, Speaker 3 took the opportunity to welcome the new city manager, Mr. Brett Perbula, expressing gratitude for his arrival. No further discussion or action was taken on non-agenda items during this segment.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, non-agenda items, new city manager, welcome speech, committee member, speaker confirmation

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the proposed update to the master fee schedule, presented by Nitish Sharma of GovInvest. The update aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services, incorporating actual costs rather than estimated time-based fees. Key areas reviewed included planning and development fees, police services, environmental review, and facility rental fees.

Nitish explained that deposits were adjusted to reflect actual costs, including legal and engineering expenses, and that the city would monitor deposits to ensure they cover project costs. He also highlighted new fees, such as those for technology impact, and clarified that some previously unitemized costs, like county filing fees and mileage, were now included for transparency.

Council members raised questions about the methodology, including how fees for tree removal and picnic area rentals were calculated. They noted that some fees, like the $5,000 deposit for annexation, were based on actual costs rather than time estimates. Concerns were raised about the clarity of fee categories and the need for maps to identify specific areas affected by fees.

The committee also discussed the inclusion of a technology impact fee to cover future software costs, with some members expressing support for this approach. Regarding facility rental fees, the committee requested clearer labeling and maps to help identify specific areas.

The discussion concluded with the committee acknowledging the need for a policy on street closures and the importance of setting clear guidelines for fee waivers. The updated fee schedule was to be brought back to the full council for adoption, likely as part of a budget workshop.

'''Keywords:''' master fee schedule, cost recovery, actual costs, technology impact fee, fee categories, fee waivers, budget workshop

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:22].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== March 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/00f5141d-a50e-4a92-880f-2e5b98355549.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Av8VI1B2OlbfmLNfghWMauULCiKc_Gx/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Kbs-Eey8E Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began the public comment segment for non-agenda items. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted there were two speaker cards, and the first speaker was identified as "Mr. Killer." However, no public comments were made during this segment. The discussion quickly moved on to action items, with no further remarks or interventions from members of the public or committee members regarding non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker cards, Mr. Killer

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the status and timeline for the FY 2023–2024 budget and the update to the city’s master fee schedule. Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma provided an overview of the current timeline, which includes distributing budget worksheets to department leaders starting March 1, initiating the master fee schedule interview process with department leaders on March 10, compiling information by April 7, and presenting preliminary proposals to the city manager and the Budget/Audit Committee on April 24. Further updates were scheduled for May 22, with budget workshops planned for June 6. The committee noted that the April 24 meeting would present the initial budget proposals, while the May 22 meeting would serve as a workshop for feedback and revisions. Concerns were raised about the timeline, with some members suggesting the possibility of accelerating the process or holding additional meetings if needed.

Public comment included concerns from residents about potential hidden taxes through the master fee schedule and the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in fee calculations. Ed Miller referenced Proposition 26, which defines the difference between taxes and fees, emphasizing the need for transparency in the fee schedule process. Another speaker encouraged the committee to consider how increased fees might affect the city’s unfunded liabilities.

The committee then moved to item 3B, a review of active service contracts. Angeline Loeffler presented a list of 48 active contracts, primarily professional services, excluding day-to-day operations like copy machine renewals. She noted that most contracts were annual or had three-year terms with renewal options. She also highlighted the lack of a centralized spreadsheet to track contract dates and the need to digitize and organize existing contracts. Council members raised questions about the accuracy of the list, the lack of contract expiration dates, and the need for historical spending data to better understand the contracts’ scope and usage.

Several specific contracts were discussed, including Precision Civil Engineering, Apex Technology, and JNR Floor Services, with clarification on their roles and services. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency, potential overlaps in services, and the need for better coordination between departments and vendors. The committee also discussed the need for a more robust bidding process for larger contracts and the importance of consolidating services where possible to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to revisit the master fee schedule and active contracts in future meetings, with the next review expected in May.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2023–2024 budget, master fee schedule, budget timeline, unfunded pension liabilities, active service contracts, contract transparency, fee schedule process, budget proposals

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:09:00].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 23, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/65c563fb-b6ad-4be7-bd5d-b76adced5214.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:14].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non ====

Public comment on non-agenda items was opened, with the chair inviting members of the public to speak on matters not listed on the agenda. The chair noted that each speaker would be limited to three minutes, as per the committee’s guidelines. No members of the public spoke during this time. The chair confirmed that no comments were received and moved on to the next item.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, three minutes

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee reviewed the audited annual financial report of the City of Clayton for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, presented by Bryce Rojas, the auditor, and Nitish Sharma, the interim finance director. The report indicated that the city received a clean, unmodified opinion on its financial statements, confirming that they were fairly stated in all material respects. The city’s total net position was $45.76 million, with $5.87 million in unrestricted net position, an increase of $338,000 from the prior year. The general fund had a change in fund balance of $250,000, largely due to a grant received during the year.

The audit also identified several material weaknesses in internal controls, including the lack of continuity in finance department personnel, which led to a loss of institutional knowledge during the fiscal year closure. Additionally, discrepancies were found in fair value estimates for certain assets, such as the Stranahan equity investment, where the city’s valuation differed from the auditor’s. There were also issues with agency funds, including a negative cash balance in the middle school Community Facilities District (CFD) and inconsistent document retention practices for journal entries.

The committee engaged in a detailed discussion with the auditor and finance staff, addressing concerns about the material weaknesses, the impact of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant on the general fund, and the city’s financial reporting practices. The committee requested that the audit report be updated to include a comparison of ARPA-related revenues and expenditures, and that the management letter be included in the document for transparency. The committee also discussed the need for improved internal controls, document retention, and the transition to electronic systems for journal entries.

The committee approved the presentation of the audited financial report and recommended forwarding it to the full City Council for action. The next agenda item, the proposed update to the Master Fee Schedule, was introduced by Nitish Sharma, who outlined the scope of the project, the methodology for updating fees, and the importance of aligning with state law and cost recovery principles. The committee requested further details on the timeline, deliverables, and the inclusion of a comparison with other jurisdictions for certain fees. The committee also discussed the potential for adjustments to fees for nonprofit users of Endeavor Hall and the existing fee waiver for the Clayton Community Band (CBC). These topics were deferred for further discussion at the next committee meeting.

'''Keywords:''' clean unmodified opinion, net position increase, material weaknesses, ARPA grant impact, internal control issues, fee schedule update, document retention, institutional knowledge loss

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:39:57].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:49:18Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:44:14Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-01-23 04_00 PM

== November 16, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/c586e273-7324-47ea-8ea2-7586ec85d9b7.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikFTRQICbQI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

Public comment on non-agenda items was called to order. Debbie D'Souza, a resident, expressed appreciation for the council meeting report and raised questions about the city's solar initiatives and potential income generation from solar projects. She also inquired about the availability of Brett's job description and the results of a recent review. In response, Speaker 2 explained that the city is engaged in a large energy infrastructure project with Climatech and that there are limitations on earning money from solar due to PG&E regulations. He also noted that the job description is available in a brochure and that a six-month evaluation had no reportable actions.

Speaker 3 addressed rumors circulating about the city's financial situation and criticized the use of the city manager's concerns to push for a parcel tax. He emphasized that the majority of Clayton opposes such measures and that the city's financial challenges are not as dire as some claim.

The discussion then moved to the FY 24 Q1 budget status. Brett provided an overview of the city's revenue and expenses, noting that property tax receipts are a significant portion of the city's revenue and are received in December and April. He explained that the city is generally within budget and that the focus is on managing expenses. There was a discussion about the availability of property tax data and the need for more detailed reporting. The city manager also addressed the audit process for FY 2023, noting that unaudited financials would be available in December.

The meeting then moved to the quarterly financial report on the city's investment portfolio. The report detailed the city's investment earnings, the movement of funds between accounts, and the focus on U.S. treasuries. There was a discussion about the need for more detailed reporting, including transaction details and average daily cash balances, to provide better context for the city's financial activities.

'''Keywords:''' solar initiatives, income generation, job description, parcel tax, property tax receipts, investment portfolio, financial reporting

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the city's investment strategy, particularly the return on investment (ROI) for the past quarter, which was approximately $52,000. The speaker asked about future goals and whether there was a target ROI. In response, another speaker explained that the city aims for a net increase every quarter while interest rates remain higher than the yields from maturing investments. They noted that there is no specific target interest rate, as investments are made based on what rolls off or matures. They also mentioned that selling current investments at a loss to reinvest in higher-yield options is not currently viable due to the significant losses involved.

The speaker also discussed the city's investment duration, stating that a two-year benchmark would be ideal as the portfolio's duration is between one and a half to two years. They suggested that as older investments roll off and new ones come in, the portfolio may eventually align with this benchmark. They also mentioned that if new members are appointed in December, there could be a reconsideration of including corporate bonds in the portfolio, noting that some corporate debt has better credit ratings than U.S. treasuries and is highly liquid.

Another speaker asked about the mix of investments, and it was confirmed that the focus has been on treasuries, with a recent investment of $350,000 in CDs due to a better return. A public comment was made suggesting that monthly statements from UBS be posted for transparency, and that the city should participate in treasury auctions rather than buying from UBS's inventory to avoid markups. The discussion also touched on the city's reserve policy, noting that the current reserve is over 100%, and that discussions about appropriate reserve levels would take place in February. The next budget and audit committee meeting was expected to be in January.

'''Keywords:''' return on investment, target ROI, investment duration, corporate bonds, treasury auctions, reserve policy, monthly statements
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 14, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/dafff971-eb4a-4be6-8e1d-5cf5d74967f5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhF5FpnpEkg Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The meeting began with a roll call, confirming the presence of both members of the Budget and Audit Committee. The only action item on the agenda was the presentation of the quarterly financial report on the city's investment portfolio for the period ending June 30, 2023. The report was presented by [Speaker 4], who outlined the city's investment strategy, emphasizing the focus on reinvesting maturing funds into higher-yielding instruments. The city's total interest for fiscal year 2022–2023 was approximately $238,000, with $71,000 received from UBS in the second quarter of 2023. The city currently earns over 5% interest from its BFM camp account, which is a liquidity pool similar to the LEIF account, though the latter yields around 3%. The city has also invested in two CDs yielding 5.45% and 5.25% over two- and three-year terms, respectively.

[Speaker 2] raised several questions, including why the city still maintains funds in the lower-yielding LAIF account despite the higher yields available in the CAMP account. [Speaker 1] explained that maintaining some funds in LAIF helps preserve the relationship with the institution and avoids the costs associated with closing and reopening the account. [Speaker 2] also inquired about the city's liquidity needs and the high minimum balance required in the checking account, which [Speaker 1] attributed to bank analysis charges and the need to maintain sufficient liquidity for operations.

[Speaker 2] expressed concern about the city's strategy of holding investments to maturity and questioned why CDs were preferred over treasuries. [Speaker 1] explained that the decision is based on yield, liquidity needs, and cash flow projections, and that the city generally avoids selling investments before maturity. The discussion also touched on the city's limited size and how it affects investment decisions, with [Speaker 1] noting that the city's small portfolio size limits the ability to negotiate better terms with financial institutions.

[Speaker 2] concluded by requesting more detailed activity reports and a clearer understanding of the city's investment strategy, emphasizing the importance of maximizing yield while maintaining liquidity. The meeting ended with [Speaker 2] expressing appreciation for the presentation and the detailed discussion.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, quarterly financial report, higher-yielding instruments, total interest 238,000, UBS 71,000, BFM camp account, CDs 5.45% 5.25%, LAIF account

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Council members and staff discussed the city's investment portfolio and related financial strategies during the meeting. The discussion centered on the city's $238,294 in investment earnings for fiscal year 2023, which exceeded the budget by $119,684. This was attributed to reinvesting a portion of the city's cash into shorter-term, higher-yield investments, including a $500,000 shift earlier in the year. Councilmember Brett questioned whether this shift was the source of the surplus, and Mayor Wong confirmed that the city had considered moving funds to higher-yielding instruments at the start of the year, though the details were not fully clear from the provided information.

Councilmember Trubiano noted that the city's portfolio included a mix of CDs, federal agency securities, medium-term notes, and municipal bonds, with CDs typically being the lowest-yielding. Staff clarified that the yield of CDs depends on the specific institution and market conditions. The discussion also covered the city’s investment in higher-yield U.S. Treasury notes and the expected annual cash flow from UBS, which was $204,120 for fiscal year 2022–2023.

A key point of discussion was the market value of the portfolio, which exceeded its book value by $627,756 as of June 2023. Staff explained that this was due to a fair market value adjustment required by GASB 31. Councilmember Trubiano raised concerns about the impact of rising interest rates on the portfolio’s value, and staff explained that bonds are inversely related to interest rates, but since the city holds investments to maturity, the impact is less significant.

The conversation also touched on the potential for swapping lower-yielding investments for higher-yielding ones, though staff cautioned that doing so could result in short-term losses that might affect the general ledger. Mayor Wong noted that a swap analysis had been conducted in February, identifying some opportunities for improvement, but the city had not acted on it due to other priorities.

Councilmember Trubiano suggested developing a clearer investment strategy, including target maturities and a more streamlined portfolio with fewer positions. Staff acknowledged the need for a more systematic approach and agreed to revisit the topic in future meetings. The discussion concluded with a commitment to continue evaluating the portfolio’s performance and strategy.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, fiscal year 2023, investment earnings, higher-yield investments, market value adjustment, rising interest rates, swap analysis, investment strategy
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/1098c029-9181-48cb-b43d-fdbe3dff0adc.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSuWwcg0Qs Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee convened for a special meeting, beginning with a roll call confirming the presence of Brett, Mayor Wong, and the City Manager. The session opened with public comment, which was closed due to no speakers. The first agenda item was a review of the city's quarterly financial reports on its investment portfolio. The City Manager provided an overview, explaining the current investment strategy, which includes transitioning to longer-duration investments to maintain interest rates amid anticipated Federal Reserve rate reductions. He emphasized the importance of liquidity, yield, and state liquidity as key pillars for investment management and outlined plans to meet with UBS to develop a strategy for managing the city's investments.

Councilmember Brett inquired about the inclusion of medium-term notes and corporate bonds in the portfolio, and the City Manager explained that these are corporate debt instruments from well-capitalized companies, classified as medium risk. He also discussed the city's plan to move away from certain types of investments, such as mortgage-backed securities, and the need to review the investment policy approved in May 2023. He noted that the city had moved $500,000 from the LAIF to investments and that a dollar target for cash flow management was still being determined.

The discussion then shifted to the FY 24 proposed operations and maintenance budget. The City Manager presented the budget, highlighting the use of one-time pension reserves to balance the budget and the need for future operating efficiencies and technology improvements. He noted that the general fund is balanced with the use of $125,000 from pension reserves and emphasized the importance of salary structure improvements for key positions such as the finance director and police chief. The City Manager requested additional time to evaluate potential budget cuts and understand their impacts before making further decisions.

Brett asked about the FY23 surplus, and the report indicated a revised surplus of $408,931. He also inquired about the $40,000 allocated for software purchases, and the City Manager explained that part of the cost would cover one-time implementation fees, while other parts would be ongoing subscription costs. The City Manager expressed the need for further evaluation of technology projects and their associated costs.

'''Keywords:''' investment strategy, Federal Reserve rates, medium-term notes, pension reserves, FY24 budget, software purchases, technology projects, investment policy

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Brett raised concerns about the classification of one-time expenses within the operating budget, suggesting that separating them would provide a clearer picture of regular operations versus one-time items. City Manager responded by acknowledging the need for clarity and mentioned the possibility of developing a fund balance policy to better manage surplus funds and allocate them to specific reserves, such as capital or pension reserves, rather than letting them accumulate in the general fund without direction.

Councilmember Brett also inquired about the surplus from the current fiscal year and how it would be used. City Manager explained that surplus funds could either be rolled into general fund reserves or used to balance the next year’s budget, depending on council direction. He noted that a fund balance policy would help automate and formalize this process, ensuring that funds are allocated according to predetermined priorities.

Regarding the pension reserves, Councilmember Brett pointed out that using $125,000 from the pension fund to balance pension costs was a short-term solution. City Manager agreed, emphasizing the need for long-term planning and understanding of service delivery costs to avoid unsustainable fixes.

Councilmember Brett also questioned the budgeted amount for the supplemental property tax, noting a significant drop from $50,000 in FY 22 to $10,000 in FY 24. City Manager explained that the estimate was based on industry trends, interest rates, and the lag in supplemental tax collections, which are influenced by the timing of property sales and county processing delays. He noted that the number was difficult to predict and that HDL, the contractor providing the estimate, was cautious due to current market conditions.

Councilmember Brett also raised concerns about inconsistencies between the staff report and the detailed schedules in the agenda packet, which City Manager attributed to the departure of the previous finance director and the use of spreadsheets rather than budgeting software. He mentioned that a revised budget would be posted shortly to address these inconsistencies.

Other topics included the exclusion of the climate tech loan repayment and potential benefits from the project, the ongoing discussions with PG&E regarding streetlight rebates and energy efficiency, and the need to reassess service delivery and fund sustainability for various city funds, such as the stormwater assessment and street lighting fund. City Manager also mentioned plans to review vendor contracts and the recruitment process for a new finance director, noting the challenges in the current market for qualified candidates.

'''Keywords:''' one-time expenses classification, fund balance policy, pension reserve usage, supplemental property tax, budget inconsistency, climate tech loan repayment, vendor contract review, finance director recruitment

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The discussion centered on budgeting and funding sources for various city programs, particularly those related to trails and maintenance. Speaker 2 raised concerns about structurally overspending dedicated funds and the need for a community conversation about future funding strategies, including whether to pursue a specific tax for trails or integrate trail funding into a broader parcel tax. Speaker 1 emphasized the importance of having this conversation in the fall, noting the need for a six- to ten-month runway to prepare for a potential vote in November 2024. They also highlighted the need to distinguish between service reductions that pose real risks versus those that are merely aesthetic concerns.

Speaker 2 reiterated the need for clarity in how staff time is allocated across different funds and suggested presenting data on the percentage of maintenance work tied to specific programs. Speaker 1 agreed, noting that such clarity would help guide the fall conversation. They also discussed the potential use of remaining grant funds for one-time benefits, such as security cameras, and the need to understand the restrictions on those funds.

Speaker 4 asked about the remaining grant funds for the Grove, and Speaker 1 acknowledged the uncertainty due to the departing finance director. Speaker 2 suggested that the funds were likely in the grant fund and not on the operating side. Speaker 1 confirmed the need to work with the Titian team to better understand the grant fund's balance and available resources.

Speaker 4 also inquired about the need to extend the Gov Invest contract due to the finance director vacancy and the Tish team staying on for an additional month. Speaker 3 responded that they would work with the city manager to potentially reduce the contract amount and manage some work internally.

The discussion concluded with Speaker 2 closing public comment and Speaker 1 summarizing the need for continued refinement of the budget process and preparation for community conversations in the fall.

'''Keywords:''' trail funding strategies, community conversation, potential tax vote, grant fund balance, staff time allocation, service reduction risks, budget process refinement
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 15, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/a8c41fa3-903d-47e6-b6dd-4faff029f982.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIYJkd4bzCMA_laeKbhuhxXm38snoMpd/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_15_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2XNqCiAI8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:03].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began its session with a public comment period for non-agenda items. Speaker 3, who was identified as the moderator, opened the floor for public input, noting that individuals in attendance or participating remotely had the opportunity to speak. However, Speaker 8, who appeared to be a committee member, pointed out that no hands had been raised, indicating that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on non-agenda items. In response, Speaker 3 confirmed that the public comment period would be closed. Before moving on to the next agenda item, Speaker 3 took the opportunity to welcome the new city manager, Mr. Brett Perbula, expressing gratitude for his arrival. No further discussion or action was taken on non-agenda items during this segment.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, non-agenda items, new city manager, welcome speech, committee member, speaker confirmation

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the proposed update to the master fee schedule, presented by Nitish Sharma of GovInvest. The update aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services, incorporating actual costs rather than estimated time-based fees. Key areas reviewed included planning and development fees, police services, environmental review, and facility rental fees.

Nitish explained that deposits were adjusted to reflect actual costs, including legal and engineering expenses, and that the city would monitor deposits to ensure they cover project costs. He also highlighted new fees, such as those for technology impact, and clarified that some previously unitemized costs, like county filing fees and mileage, were now included for transparency.

Council members raised questions about the methodology, including how fees for tree removal and picnic area rentals were calculated. They noted that some fees, like the $5,000 deposit for annexation, were based on actual costs rather than time estimates. Concerns were raised about the clarity of fee categories and the need for maps to identify specific areas affected by fees.

The committee also discussed the inclusion of a technology impact fee to cover future software costs, with some members expressing support for this approach. Regarding facility rental fees, the committee requested clearer labeling and maps to help identify specific areas.

The discussion concluded with the committee acknowledging the need for a policy on street closures and the importance of setting clear guidelines for fee waivers. The updated fee schedule was to be brought back to the full council for adoption, likely as part of a budget workshop.

'''Keywords:''' master fee schedule, cost recovery, actual costs, technology impact fee, fee categories, fee waivers, budget workshop

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:22].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== March 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/00f5141d-a50e-4a92-880f-2e5b98355549.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Av8VI1B2OlbfmLNfghWMauULCiKc_Gx/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Kbs-Eey8E Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began the public comment segment for non-agenda items. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted there were two speaker cards, and the first speaker was identified as "Mr. Killer." However, no public comments were made during this segment. The discussion quickly moved on to action items, with no further remarks or interventions from members of the public or committee members regarding non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker cards, Mr. Killer

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the status and timeline for the FY 2023–2024 budget and the update to the city’s master fee schedule. Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma provided an overview of the current timeline, which includes distributing budget worksheets to department leaders starting March 1, initiating the master fee schedule interview process with department leaders on March 10, compiling information by April 7, and presenting preliminary proposals to the city manager and the Budget/Audit Committee on April 24. Further updates were scheduled for May 22, with budget workshops planned for June 6. The committee noted that the April 24 meeting would present the initial budget proposals, while the May 22 meeting would serve as a workshop for feedback and revisions. Concerns were raised about the timeline, with some members suggesting the possibility of accelerating the process or holding additional meetings if needed.

Public comment included concerns from residents about potential hidden taxes through the master fee schedule and the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in fee calculations. Ed Miller referenced Proposition 26, which defines the difference between taxes and fees, emphasizing the need for transparency in the fee schedule process. Another speaker encouraged the committee to consider how increased fees might affect the city’s unfunded liabilities.

The committee then moved to item 3B, a review of active service contracts. Angeline Loeffler presented a list of 48 active contracts, primarily professional services, excluding day-to-day operations like copy machine renewals. She noted that most contracts were annual or had three-year terms with renewal options. She also highlighted the lack of a centralized spreadsheet to track contract dates and the need to digitize and organize existing contracts. Council members raised questions about the accuracy of the list, the lack of contract expiration dates, and the need for historical spending data to better understand the contracts’ scope and usage.

Several specific contracts were discussed, including Precision Civil Engineering, Apex Technology, and JNR Floor Services, with clarification on their roles and services. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency, potential overlaps in services, and the need for better coordination between departments and vendors. The committee also discussed the need for a more robust bidding process for larger contracts and the importance of consolidating services where possible to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to revisit the master fee schedule and active contracts in future meetings, with the next review expected in May.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2023–2024 budget, master fee schedule, budget timeline, unfunded pension liabilities, active service contracts, contract transparency, fee schedule process, budget proposals

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:09:00].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 23, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/65c563fb-b6ad-4be7-bd5d-b76adced5214.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:14].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non ====

Public comment on non-agenda items was opened, with the chair inviting members of the public to speak on matters not listed on the agenda. The chair noted that each speaker would be limited to three minutes, as per the committee’s guidelines. No members of the public spoke during this time. The chair confirmed that no comments were received and moved on to the next item.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, three minutes

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee reviewed the audited annual financial report of the City of Clayton for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, presented by Bryce Rojas, the auditor, and Nitish Sharma, the interim finance director. The report indicated that the city received a clean, unmodified opinion on its financial statements, confirming that they were fairly stated in all material respects. The city’s total net position was $45.76 million, with $5.87 million in unrestricted net position, an increase of $338,000 from the prior year. The general fund had a change in fund balance of $250,000, largely due to a grant received during the year.

The audit also identified several material weaknesses in internal controls, including the lack of continuity in finance department personnel, which led to a loss of institutional knowledge during the fiscal year closure. Additionally, discrepancies were found in fair value estimates for certain assets, such as the Stranahan equity investment, where the city’s valuation differed from the auditor’s. There were also issues with agency funds, including a negative cash balance in the middle school Community Facilities District (CFD) and inconsistent document retention practices for journal entries.

The committee engaged in a detailed discussion with the auditor and finance staff, addressing concerns about the material weaknesses, the impact of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant on the general fund, and the city’s financial reporting practices. The committee requested that the audit report be updated to include a comparison of ARPA-related revenues and expenditures, and that the management letter be included in the document for transparency. The committee also discussed the need for improved internal controls, document retention, and the transition to electronic systems for journal entries.

The committee approved the presentation of the audited financial report and recommended forwarding it to the full City Council for action. The next agenda item, the proposed update to the Master Fee Schedule, was introduced by Nitish Sharma, who outlined the scope of the project, the methodology for updating fees, and the importance of aligning with state law and cost recovery principles. The committee requested further details on the timeline, deliverables, and the inclusion of a comparison with other jurisdictions for certain fees. The committee also discussed the potential for adjustments to fees for nonprofit users of Endeavor Hall and the existing fee waiver for the Clayton Community Band (CBC). These topics were deferred for further discussion at the next committee meeting.

'''Keywords:''' clean unmodified opinion, net position increase, material weaknesses, ARPA grant impact, internal control issues, fee schedule update, document retention, institutional knowledge loss

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:39:57].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:44:10Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

== November 16, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/c586e273-7324-47ea-8ea2-7586ec85d9b7.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikFTRQICbQI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

Public comment on non-agenda items was called to order. Debbie D'Souza, a resident, expressed appreciation for the council meeting report and raised questions about the city's solar initiatives and potential income generation from solar projects. She also inquired about the availability of Brett's job description and the results of a recent review. In response, Speaker 2 explained that the city is engaged in a large energy infrastructure project with Climatech and that there are limitations on earning money from solar due to PG&E regulations. He also noted that the job description is available in a brochure and that a six-month evaluation had no reportable actions.

Speaker 3 addressed rumors circulating about the city's financial situation and criticized the use of the city manager's concerns to push for a parcel tax. He emphasized that the majority of Clayton opposes such measures and that the city's financial challenges are not as dire as some claim.

The discussion then moved to the FY 24 Q1 budget status. Brett provided an overview of the city's revenue and expenses, noting that property tax receipts are a significant portion of the city's revenue and are received in December and April. He explained that the city is generally within budget and that the focus is on managing expenses. There was a discussion about the availability of property tax data and the need for more detailed reporting. The city manager also addressed the audit process for FY 2023, noting that unaudited financials would be available in December.

The meeting then moved to the quarterly financial report on the city's investment portfolio. The report detailed the city's investment earnings, the movement of funds between accounts, and the focus on U.S. treasuries. There was a discussion about the need for more detailed reporting, including transaction details and average daily cash balances, to provide better context for the city's financial activities.

'''Keywords:''' solar initiatives, income generation, job description, parcel tax, property tax receipts, investment portfolio, financial reporting

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the city's investment strategy, particularly the return on investment (ROI) for the past quarter, which was approximately $52,000. The speaker asked about future goals and whether there was a target ROI. In response, another speaker explained that the city aims for a net increase every quarter while interest rates remain higher than the yields from maturing investments. They noted that there is no specific target interest rate, as investments are made based on what rolls off or matures. They also mentioned that selling current investments at a loss to reinvest in higher-yield options is not currently viable due to the significant losses involved.

The speaker also discussed the city's investment duration, stating that a two-year benchmark would be ideal as the portfolio's duration is between one and a half to two years. They suggested that as older investments roll off and new ones come in, the portfolio may eventually align with this benchmark. They also mentioned that if new members are appointed in December, there could be a reconsideration of including corporate bonds in the portfolio, noting that some corporate debt has better credit ratings than U.S. treasuries and is highly liquid.

Another speaker asked about the mix of investments, and it was confirmed that the focus has been on treasuries, with a recent investment of $350,000 in CDs due to a better return. A public comment was made suggesting that monthly statements from UBS be posted for transparency, and that the city should participate in treasury auctions rather than buying from UBS's inventory to avoid markups. The discussion also touched on the city's reserve policy, noting that the current reserve is over 100%, and that discussions about appropriate reserve levels would take place in February. The next budget and audit committee meeting was expected to be in January.

'''Keywords:''' return on investment, target ROI, investment duration, corporate bonds, treasury auctions, reserve policy, monthly statements
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 14, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/dafff971-eb4a-4be6-8e1d-5cf5d74967f5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhF5FpnpEkg Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The meeting began with a roll call, confirming the presence of both members of the Budget and Audit Committee. The only action item on the agenda was the presentation of the quarterly financial report on the city's investment portfolio for the period ending June 30, 2023. The report was presented by [Speaker 4], who outlined the city's investment strategy, emphasizing the focus on reinvesting maturing funds into higher-yielding instruments. The city's total interest for fiscal year 2022–2023 was approximately $238,000, with $71,000 received from UBS in the second quarter of 2023. The city currently earns over 5% interest from its BFM camp account, which is a liquidity pool similar to the LEIF account, though the latter yields around 3%. The city has also invested in two CDs yielding 5.45% and 5.25% over two- and three-year terms, respectively.

[Speaker 2] raised several questions, including why the city still maintains funds in the lower-yielding LAIF account despite the higher yields available in the CAMP account. [Speaker 1] explained that maintaining some funds in LAIF helps preserve the relationship with the institution and avoids the costs associated with closing and reopening the account. [Speaker 2] also inquired about the city's liquidity needs and the high minimum balance required in the checking account, which [Speaker 1] attributed to bank analysis charges and the need to maintain sufficient liquidity for operations.

[Speaker 2] expressed concern about the city's strategy of holding investments to maturity and questioned why CDs were preferred over treasuries. [Speaker 1] explained that the decision is based on yield, liquidity needs, and cash flow projections, and that the city generally avoids selling investments before maturity. The discussion also touched on the city's limited size and how it affects investment decisions, with [Speaker 1] noting that the city's small portfolio size limits the ability to negotiate better terms with financial institutions.

[Speaker 2] concluded by requesting more detailed activity reports and a clearer understanding of the city's investment strategy, emphasizing the importance of maximizing yield while maintaining liquidity. The meeting ended with [Speaker 2] expressing appreciation for the presentation and the detailed discussion.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, quarterly financial report, higher-yielding instruments, total interest 238,000, UBS 71,000, BFM camp account, CDs 5.45% 5.25%, LAIF account

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Council members and staff discussed the city's investment portfolio and related financial strategies during the meeting. The discussion centered on the city's $238,294 in investment earnings for fiscal year 2023, which exceeded the budget by $119,684. This was attributed to reinvesting a portion of the city's cash into shorter-term, higher-yield investments, including a $500,000 shift earlier in the year. Councilmember Brett questioned whether this shift was the source of the surplus, and Mayor Wong confirmed that the city had considered moving funds to higher-yielding instruments at the start of the year, though the details were not fully clear from the provided information.

Councilmember Trubiano noted that the city's portfolio included a mix of CDs, federal agency securities, medium-term notes, and municipal bonds, with CDs typically being the lowest-yielding. Staff clarified that the yield of CDs depends on the specific institution and market conditions. The discussion also covered the city’s investment in higher-yield U.S. Treasury notes and the expected annual cash flow from UBS, which was $204,120 for fiscal year 2022–2023.

A key point of discussion was the market value of the portfolio, which exceeded its book value by $627,756 as of June 2023. Staff explained that this was due to a fair market value adjustment required by GASB 31. Councilmember Trubiano raised concerns about the impact of rising interest rates on the portfolio’s value, and staff explained that bonds are inversely related to interest rates, but since the city holds investments to maturity, the impact is less significant.

The conversation also touched on the potential for swapping lower-yielding investments for higher-yielding ones, though staff cautioned that doing so could result in short-term losses that might affect the general ledger. Mayor Wong noted that a swap analysis had been conducted in February, identifying some opportunities for improvement, but the city had not acted on it due to other priorities.

Councilmember Trubiano suggested developing a clearer investment strategy, including target maturities and a more streamlined portfolio with fewer positions. Staff acknowledged the need for a more systematic approach and agreed to revisit the topic in future meetings. The discussion concluded with a commitment to continue evaluating the portfolio’s performance and strategy.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, fiscal year 2023, investment earnings, higher-yield investments, market value adjustment, rising interest rates, swap analysis, investment strategy
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/1098c029-9181-48cb-b43d-fdbe3dff0adc.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSuWwcg0Qs Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee convened for a special meeting, beginning with a roll call confirming the presence of Brett, Mayor Wong, and the City Manager. The session opened with public comment, which was closed due to no speakers. The first agenda item was a review of the city's quarterly financial reports on its investment portfolio. The City Manager provided an overview, explaining the current investment strategy, which includes transitioning to longer-duration investments to maintain interest rates amid anticipated Federal Reserve rate reductions. He emphasized the importance of liquidity, yield, and state liquidity as key pillars for investment management and outlined plans to meet with UBS to develop a strategy for managing the city's investments.

Councilmember Brett inquired about the inclusion of medium-term notes and corporate bonds in the portfolio, and the City Manager explained that these are corporate debt instruments from well-capitalized companies, classified as medium risk. He also discussed the city's plan to move away from certain types of investments, such as mortgage-backed securities, and the need to review the investment policy approved in May 2023. He noted that the city had moved $500,000 from the LAIF to investments and that a dollar target for cash flow management was still being determined.

The discussion then shifted to the FY 24 proposed operations and maintenance budget. The City Manager presented the budget, highlighting the use of one-time pension reserves to balance the budget and the need for future operating efficiencies and technology improvements. He noted that the general fund is balanced with the use of $125,000 from pension reserves and emphasized the importance of salary structure improvements for key positions such as the finance director and police chief. The City Manager requested additional time to evaluate potential budget cuts and understand their impacts before making further decisions.

Brett asked about the FY23 surplus, and the report indicated a revised surplus of $408,931. He also inquired about the $40,000 allocated for software purchases, and the City Manager explained that part of the cost would cover one-time implementation fees, while other parts would be ongoing subscription costs. The City Manager expressed the need for further evaluation of technology projects and their associated costs.

'''Keywords:''' investment strategy, Federal Reserve rates, medium-term notes, pension reserves, FY24 budget, software purchases, technology projects, investment policy

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Brett raised concerns about the classification of one-time expenses within the operating budget, suggesting that separating them would provide a clearer picture of regular operations versus one-time items. City Manager responded by acknowledging the need for clarity and mentioned the possibility of developing a fund balance policy to better manage surplus funds and allocate them to specific reserves, such as capital or pension reserves, rather than letting them accumulate in the general fund without direction.

Councilmember Brett also inquired about the surplus from the current fiscal year and how it would be used. City Manager explained that surplus funds could either be rolled into general fund reserves or used to balance the next year’s budget, depending on council direction. He noted that a fund balance policy would help automate and formalize this process, ensuring that funds are allocated according to predetermined priorities.

Regarding the pension reserves, Councilmember Brett pointed out that using $125,000 from the pension fund to balance pension costs was a short-term solution. City Manager agreed, emphasizing the need for long-term planning and understanding of service delivery costs to avoid unsustainable fixes.

Councilmember Brett also questioned the budgeted amount for the supplemental property tax, noting a significant drop from $50,000 in FY 22 to $10,000 in FY 24. City Manager explained that the estimate was based on industry trends, interest rates, and the lag in supplemental tax collections, which are influenced by the timing of property sales and county processing delays. He noted that the number was difficult to predict and that HDL, the contractor providing the estimate, was cautious due to current market conditions.

Councilmember Brett also raised concerns about inconsistencies between the staff report and the detailed schedules in the agenda packet, which City Manager attributed to the departure of the previous finance director and the use of spreadsheets rather than budgeting software. He mentioned that a revised budget would be posted shortly to address these inconsistencies.

Other topics included the exclusion of the climate tech loan repayment and potential benefits from the project, the ongoing discussions with PG&E regarding streetlight rebates and energy efficiency, and the need to reassess service delivery and fund sustainability for various city funds, such as the stormwater assessment and street lighting fund. City Manager also mentioned plans to review vendor contracts and the recruitment process for a new finance director, noting the challenges in the current market for qualified candidates.

'''Keywords:''' one-time expenses classification, fund balance policy, pension reserve usage, supplemental property tax, budget inconsistency, climate tech loan repayment, vendor contract review, finance director recruitment

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The discussion centered on budgeting and funding sources for various city programs, particularly those related to trails and maintenance. Speaker 2 raised concerns about structurally overspending dedicated funds and the need for a community conversation about future funding strategies, including whether to pursue a specific tax for trails or integrate trail funding into a broader parcel tax. Speaker 1 emphasized the importance of having this conversation in the fall, noting the need for a six- to ten-month runway to prepare for a potential vote in November 2024. They also highlighted the need to distinguish between service reductions that pose real risks versus those that are merely aesthetic concerns.

Speaker 2 reiterated the need for clarity in how staff time is allocated across different funds and suggested presenting data on the percentage of maintenance work tied to specific programs. Speaker 1 agreed, noting that such clarity would help guide the fall conversation. They also discussed the potential use of remaining grant funds for one-time benefits, such as security cameras, and the need to understand the restrictions on those funds.

Speaker 4 asked about the remaining grant funds for the Grove, and Speaker 1 acknowledged the uncertainty due to the departing finance director. Speaker 2 suggested that the funds were likely in the grant fund and not on the operating side. Speaker 1 confirmed the need to work with the Titian team to better understand the grant fund's balance and available resources.

Speaker 4 also inquired about the need to extend the Gov Invest contract due to the finance director vacancy and the Tish team staying on for an additional month. Speaker 3 responded that they would work with the city manager to potentially reduce the contract amount and manage some work internally.

The discussion concluded with Speaker 2 closing public comment and Speaker 1 summarizing the need for continued refinement of the budget process and preparation for community conversations in the fall.

'''Keywords:''' trail funding strategies, community conversation, potential tax vote, grant fund balance, staff time allocation, service reduction risks, budget process refinement
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 15, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/a8c41fa3-903d-47e6-b6dd-4faff029f982.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIYJkd4bzCMA_laeKbhuhxXm38snoMpd/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_15_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2XNqCiAI8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:03].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began its session with a public comment period for non-agenda items. Speaker 3, who was identified as the moderator, opened the floor for public input, noting that individuals in attendance or participating remotely had the opportunity to speak. However, Speaker 8, who appeared to be a committee member, pointed out that no hands had been raised, indicating that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on non-agenda items. In response, Speaker 3 confirmed that the public comment period would be closed. Before moving on to the next agenda item, Speaker 3 took the opportunity to welcome the new city manager, Mr. Brett Perbula, expressing gratitude for his arrival. No further discussion or action was taken on non-agenda items during this segment.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, non-agenda items, new city manager, welcome speech, committee member, speaker confirmation

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the proposed update to the master fee schedule, presented by Nitish Sharma of GovInvest. The update aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services, incorporating actual costs rather than estimated time-based fees. Key areas reviewed included planning and development fees, police services, environmental review, and facility rental fees.

Nitish explained that deposits were adjusted to reflect actual costs, including legal and engineering expenses, and that the city would monitor deposits to ensure they cover project costs. He also highlighted new fees, such as those for technology impact, and clarified that some previously unitemized costs, like county filing fees and mileage, were now included for transparency.

Council members raised questions about the methodology, including how fees for tree removal and picnic area rentals were calculated. They noted that some fees, like the $5,000 deposit for annexation, were based on actual costs rather than time estimates. Concerns were raised about the clarity of fee categories and the need for maps to identify specific areas affected by fees.

The committee also discussed the inclusion of a technology impact fee to cover future software costs, with some members expressing support for this approach. Regarding facility rental fees, the committee requested clearer labeling and maps to help identify specific areas.

The discussion concluded with the committee acknowledging the need for a policy on street closures and the importance of setting clear guidelines for fee waivers. The updated fee schedule was to be brought back to the full council for adoption, likely as part of a budget workshop.

'''Keywords:''' master fee schedule, cost recovery, actual costs, technology impact fee, fee categories, fee waivers, budget workshop

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:22].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== March 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/00f5141d-a50e-4a92-880f-2e5b98355549.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Av8VI1B2OlbfmLNfghWMauULCiKc_Gx/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Kbs-Eey8E Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began the public comment segment for non-agenda items. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted there were two speaker cards, and the first speaker was identified as "Mr. Killer." However, no public comments were made during this segment. The discussion quickly moved on to action items, with no further remarks or interventions from members of the public or committee members regarding non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker cards, Mr. Killer

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the status and timeline for the FY 2023–2024 budget and the update to the city’s master fee schedule. Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma provided an overview of the current timeline, which includes distributing budget worksheets to department leaders starting March 1, initiating the master fee schedule interview process with department leaders on March 10, compiling information by April 7, and presenting preliminary proposals to the city manager and the Budget/Audit Committee on April 24. Further updates were scheduled for May 22, with budget workshops planned for June 6. The committee noted that the April 24 meeting would present the initial budget proposals, while the May 22 meeting would serve as a workshop for feedback and revisions. Concerns were raised about the timeline, with some members suggesting the possibility of accelerating the process or holding additional meetings if needed.

Public comment included concerns from residents about potential hidden taxes through the master fee schedule and the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in fee calculations. Ed Miller referenced Proposition 26, which defines the difference between taxes and fees, emphasizing the need for transparency in the fee schedule process. Another speaker encouraged the committee to consider how increased fees might affect the city’s unfunded liabilities.

The committee then moved to item 3B, a review of active service contracts. Angeline Loeffler presented a list of 48 active contracts, primarily professional services, excluding day-to-day operations like copy machine renewals. She noted that most contracts were annual or had three-year terms with renewal options. She also highlighted the lack of a centralized spreadsheet to track contract dates and the need to digitize and organize existing contracts. Council members raised questions about the accuracy of the list, the lack of contract expiration dates, and the need for historical spending data to better understand the contracts’ scope and usage.

Several specific contracts were discussed, including Precision Civil Engineering, Apex Technology, and JNR Floor Services, with clarification on their roles and services. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency, potential overlaps in services, and the need for better coordination between departments and vendors. The committee also discussed the need for a more robust bidding process for larger contracts and the importance of consolidating services where possible to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to revisit the master fee schedule and active contracts in future meetings, with the next review expected in May.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2023–2024 budget, master fee schedule, budget timeline, unfunded pension liabilities, active service contracts, contract transparency, fee schedule process, budget proposals

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:09:00].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:37:57Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2022-12-14 04_00 PM

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:37:53Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:35:49Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2022-12-05 04_00 PM

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:35:46Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:30:38Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2024-09-10 04_00 PM

== November 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/97f5ba83-06d4-435b-9cdb-f4659719dd39.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MePwW3kN6nsJeP-OyAUYF8Sx6m_AZsKq/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_11_07_2024] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vBNtRifomZcQnO2XhWSZyQ2btIJsMIzR/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Minutes_11_07_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nObzNTmAzFy6-8jk8btLL7ndKVFEymQKW8FvHiA05dM/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXPfuNLLfr0 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the adoption of a resolution authorizing revisions to several full-time and part-time classifications, including the addition of roles for a Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, Recreation Coordinator, and a part-time Recreation Leader, while removing the full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions from the FY 2024–25 budget. The resolution also included salary recommendations for these positions based on market surveys and internal compensation parity.

The Administrative Assistant position, currently filled by a temporary employee, was budgeted at $77,000 for the fiscal year, with a proposed pay range of $70,560 to $87,305. The Recreation Coordinator position had a recommended salary range of $75,465 to $91,372, while the Senior Management Analyst was proposed at $128,691 to $158,046. The Senior Planner position had a recommended range of $113,138 to $142,785, and the part-time Recreation Leader was recommended at $16.79 to $19.92 per hour.

The committee noted that the removal of the Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions would result in cost savings of approximately $360,647, as these roles had been filled by consultants at a cost of about $150,000 for the year. The proposed positions were intended to provide more consistent and efficient service, particularly in areas such as event coordination, facility rentals, and administrative support.

Several council members raised concerns about the salary recommendations, noting that the proposed ranges were significantly higher than those of comparable cities and questioned the methodology used to determine them. Some members also pointed out discrepancies between the budget and the proposed salary figures, emphasizing the need for transparency and clarity in the budgeting process.

The discussion highlighted the need for a more detailed breakdown of the budget and the rationale behind the salary recommendations, as well as the importance of aligning the compensation with the workload and responsibilities of the positions. The committee acknowledged the need for further review and discussion on these matters before finalizing the resolution.

'''Keywords:''' Salary Recommendations, Position Additions, Cost Savings, Market Surveys, Compensation Parity, Budget Discrepancies, Role Removals, Pay Ranges

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a resolution authorizing revisions to several full-time and part-time classifications, including the addition of new roles and the deletion of existing ones from the FY 2024-25 annual budget. The proposed changes included revising the full-time Administrative Assistant classification, adding full-time roles for Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, and Recreation Coordinator, as well as a part-time Recreation Leader classification. The full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions were to be deleted, resulting in a combined salary and benefit savings of $360,647.

During the discussion, several council members raised questions and concerns about the proposed changes. One council member noted confusion regarding the title "Recreation Coordinator," suggesting it might be more appropriately named "Special Event Manager." There was clarification that the Recreation Leader, a part-time position, would report to the Recreation Coordinator, not the City Clerk, as previously indicated.

Council members also inquired about the salary ranges and the rationale behind them. The Assistant City Manager provided details on the market survey data used to determine the pay ranges for each position, emphasizing alignment with industry standards and the City’s compensation framework. The Senior Management Analyst’s salary range was highlighted as $128,691 to $158,046, while the Recreation Coordinator’s range was $75,465 to $91,372.

There was a discussion about the organizational chart and the reporting structure, with concerns raised about the span of control for the Senior Management Analyst, who would be supervising only one person. A council member suggested a flatter organizational structure to improve efficiency and reduce management layers.

The fiscal impact of the proposed changes was also addressed, with a net salary savings of $59,123 for FY 2024-25 and an estimated additional cost of $127,018 for FY 2025-26. The committee was advised to update the organizational chart and ensure clarity in the presentation of the budget impact, including the use of favorable and unfavorable indicators.

The discussion concluded with a request to review the updated materials prior to the November 19th meeting, ensuring that all concerns and recommendations were incorporated.

'''Keywords:''' Recreation Coordinator, Senior Management Analyst, Salary Savings, Organizational Chart, Pay Range Alignment, Fiscal Impact, Position Deletion, Reporting Structure

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed Agenda Item 4, which proposed a resolution to revise and add several full-time and part-time classifications within the City of Clayton’s FY 2024–25 annual budget. The resolution included revising the full-time Administrative Assistant classification, adding full-time roles for Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, and Recreation Coordinator, and introducing a part-time Recreation Leader classification. It also proposed removing the full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions, resulting in a combined salary and benefit savings of $360,647.

Assistant City Manager Regina Rubier presented the staff report, outlining the rationale for each classification change. She noted that the City had previously relied on temporary agency employees and consultants for these roles, but recent CalPERS rulings prohibited the use of annuitants in ongoing consulting capacities. The report included detailed salary recommendations based on market surveys and internal compensation parity. For example, the Administrative Assistant’s pay range was set at $70,564 to $85,771 annually, while the Recreation Leader’s hourly rate was proposed at $16.53 to $22.15.

Public comment on the item was limited, with only one speaker, Dan Richardson, addressing the committee. He expressed concerns about the creation of bureaucracy and the potential impact on frontline workers, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a focus on operational efficiency rather than administrative expansion. He also mentioned the need for renewal of the Landscape Assessment District in 2027 and highlighted the importance of productivity improvements in maintenance roles.

The committee did not engage in further discussion or debate on the resolution, and no motions or votes were taken during the span provided. The item was moved to future topics, with the next meeting of the Budget and Audit Committee scheduled for December 11, 2024.

'''Keywords:''' Budget Revision, Classification Changes, Salary Savings, Full-Time Roles, Part-Time Positions, CalPERS Rulings, Public Concerns
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nObzNTmAzFy6-8jk8btLL7ndKVFEymQKW8FvHiA05dM/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== September 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/30f1848a-2fb8-4989-8317-22c411ab6545.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tqFp2Ww29j1TFlh_UQt15kM_sRJTHlL/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_09_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmaB0bDNzdc Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Presentation from UBS on Advisory Investment Management ====

James, representing UBS, provided an overview of the proposed advisory investment management relationship with the city, explaining that it would shift day-to-day portfolio management to UBS while the city retained oversight through periodic meetings and an investment policy. He emphasized that the portfolio would remain focused on high-quality, fixed-income investments and that UBS would provide ongoing reporting and performance metrics.

Councilmember Jeff Wan asked about the average time between the maturity of an investment and its redeployment, noting that the city currently initiates trades. James explained that UBS typically reaches out to the city before a maturity, but delays can occur due to missed communications or market changes. He estimated the average cycle time to be two to three days and offered to provide historical data if needed.

Wan also inquired about the potential benefits of a managed portfolio, such as reducing cycle time, and asked whether there were any transactions that would have occurred differently under a managed model. James noted that some investment opportunities might have been missed due to the current process and that a managed portfolio would allow for quicker decision-making.

Regarding the investment policy, James suggested that expanding the range of permissible investments—such as including government agency bonds or high-quality corporate bonds—could add value to the portfolio. However, he clarified that the city would not be required to change the policy to proceed.

Wan requested a pro forma of the fee structure, noting that the city had previously paid around 20 basis points, or approximately $24,000 annually. He also asked about transaction costs and how they would be offset by the advisory fee. James explained that transaction costs were not directly paid by the city and that the advisory fee would replace those costs.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano confirmed that UBS would remain the portfolio advisor and asked about the procedure for future interactions, particularly with the new assistant city manager, Regina. James explained that UBS would maintain a monthly communication with Regina and her team, providing updates and seeking input on liquidity needs.

Trupiano also emphasized the need for regular reporting, with a preference for quarterly performance reports to keep the public informed. James confirmed that UBS would provide quarterly performance reports as part of the advisory relationship.

Finally, the council agreed to move forward with the presentation to the full council, with James to prepare materials for a future meeting. The specific date was to be confirmed, with a preference for October 15.

'''Keywords:''' advisory investment management, portfolio oversight, fixed-income investments, fee structure, quarterly performance reports, transaction costs, investment policy, managed portfolio

==== Item 3: Library Refresh Proposal Update (City Clerk) ====

The Library Refresh Proposal Update was discussed, with staff providing an update following a meeting with the working group and the Library Community Foundation. Staff reported that the Library Foundation had clarified the use of grant funds, which are limited to furnishings and programmatic items, and that approximately $73,000 of the grant could be used for furnishings. However, to proceed with phase one of the project, the city would need to contribute at least $370,000. This figure was based on the scope of work, which was estimated at $493,000. Staff noted that the Library Foundation could potentially assist with fundraising but would not take the lead.

Councilmember Jeff Wan questioned why the city would need to contribute $370,000 and suggested that reducing the scope could lower the cost. Staff explained that the next step was to meet with the group to finalize the scope of phase one, ensuring a proposal that would be acceptable to the Library, staff, and the Foundation.

Vice Mayor Kim Trupiano asked whether the city could cover part of the cost with $200,000 and rely on community fundraising for the remainder. Staff confirmed that the Foundation would support fundraising efforts but would not take the lead. They also clarified that the $733,000 grant was the total available for eligible uses, and that the grant could not be used for painting or structural repairs.

Staff also mentioned that the Library Foundation had received two out of five tranches of the grant, totaling $250,000, and that they would need to reach certain milestones to receive the remaining tranches. They noted that the Foundation had identified $73,000 of the grant as usable for furnishings, and that the $370,000 city contribution was based on the phase one scope.

Councilmember Wan expressed concern about the disparity between the $73,000 grant and the $1.4 million total proposal, and noted that the Foundation was not part of the initial discussion. Staff confirmed that the Foundation would not support upgrades to the community room in phase one. The discussion concluded with the agreement to meet again and finalize the proposal before presenting it to the full budget and audit committee.

'''Keywords:''' Library Refresh Proposal, Grant Funds Use, City Contribution, Phase One Scope, Foundation Fundraising, Furnishings Allocation, Budget Committee

==== Item 4: Apply for MPA Risk Safety Grant Program (Assistant City Manager) ====

The assistant city manager presented an opportunity to apply for a $14,500 grant from the MPA Risk Safety Grant Program, which aims to help cities reduce liability by transitioning from paper to electronic filing systems. The grant requires a resolution from the city council to proceed with the application. The assistant city manager emphasized the benefits of the grant, stating it would support the city’s electronic filing project and described the process as a formality.

Speaker 3, identified as a member of the public, asked whether the grant opportunity was annual. The assistant city manager responded that it appears to be semi-annual, suggesting there may be additional opportunities in the future. Speaker 3 then encouraged the city to apply, calling it a “no brainer” and referencing a numbered item, likely referring to a previous discussion or agenda item. The assistant city manager corrected the reference, noting that the next item was number five, and Speaker 3 expressed regret for missing the previous item. No formal motion or vote was recorded during this discussion, and no further action was taken on the grant application at this time.

'''Keywords:''' MPA Risk Safety Grant, electronic filing project, grant application, semi-annual opportunity, no brainer, resolution required, future opportunities

==== Item 5: Purchase Toughbook MDA’s for Police Department (Police Chief) ====

The discussion centered on purchasing Panasonic Toughbook MDCs for the police department, as part of replacing older devices that have reached the end of their lifecycle. The current contract with the city of Concord for IT and dispatch services includes these devices at a negotiated price of $109.30 each, with a total cost of $874.40 for eight units. This contract is part of a recurring five-year cycle, with the last procurement occurring in 2018. The speaker noted that the city had previously decided not to budget for this expense during the current budgeting process, opting instead to request a budget amendment later.

Speaker 2 compared the purchase to buying tires, emphasizing that while it is an undesirable but necessary expense, it must be addressed. He suggested setting aside funds annually for such recurring expenses rather than relying on budget amendments. Speaker 4 agreed, suggesting that these purchases be categorized under capital projects to better plan for them. Speaker 6 mentioned that the sustainability committee would work on related planning efforts. No further questions or comments were raised, and the item was closed.

'''Keywords:''' Panasonic Toughbook MDCs, replacing older devices, negotiated price $109.30, total cost $874.40, five-year contract cycle, budget amendment request, capital projects funding

==== Item 6: Contract Extension for MTC (Assistant City Manager) ====

The discussion centered on extending a contract for Elsie, who is providing HR consulting services, along with hiring a management analyst for approximately 10 hours per week to assist with contract management. The proposed extension would cover the remainder of the fiscal year and have an estimated annual cost of $80,000. This is an increase from the previous contract, which was for $30,000 and had been approved by the city manager without council approval.

Speaker 2 asked about the cost and the value of the extension, prompting Speaker 4 to clarify that the $80,000 covers both the HR consulting and the management analyst position. Speaker 3 confirmed the $80,000 annual cost and inquired about the analyst’s hours, which were confirmed as 10 hours per week. Speaker 2 noted that the arrangement is less than a full-time equivalent and therefore acceptable.

Speaker 3 mentioned that the need for updated HR policies had been a priority, and Speaker 2 emphasized that the cost of contracting was significantly lower than hiring a full-time employee. Speaker 3 acknowledged the value of the work done by LC and expressed support for the arrangement.

Speaker 6 asked about specific deliverables associated with the contract, such as summaries of all contracts and their terms. Speaker 4 responded that the deliverables were not explicitly outlined in the contract and that the hiring was for specific projects to be determined.

Speaker 3 suggested that the analyst might be used for different tasks, including contract analysis, and Speaker 2 reiterated that the combination of the HR analyst and management analyst was necessary and cost-effective. Speaker 3 praised the work done by LC and concluded that the arrangement was appropriate. No further questions were raised, and the item was closed.

'''Keywords:''' HR consulting extension, management analyst hire, annual cost $80,000, contract management support, full-time equivalent, HR policy updates, contract deliverables, cost-effective arrangement

==== Item 7: Update on the City Hall Refresh Project (Assistant City Manager) ====

The Assistant City Manager provided an update on the City Hall Refresh Project, focusing on the repainting of the third floor. Speaker 4, James, reported that three contractors had been contacted for the repainting work. One had not responded, another had declined to provide a quote, and the third had submitted a quote for $15,000. Efforts were underway to secure a fourth contractor to ensure three full quotes before proceeding.

Speaker 3 asked whether the next meeting would be the timeline for next steps, to which Speaker 4 confirmed that the discussion was limited to the walls of the third floor. Speaker 4 then inquired about the second floor, and Speaker 7 noted that the second floor had been painted not long ago. Speaker 3 humorously remarked that the chief had done the work, but Speaker 8 corrected that the chief had not been involved. Speaker 7 clarified that the second floor work had been limited to certain areas, such as a garage and other spaces.

Speaker 6 suggested waiting a month or two to start the project, noting that contractors often prefer to do interior jobs in the winter. Speaker 4 considered the suggestion, noting that delaying the project could allow for a reduced rate if the work started in the winter. However, Speaker 4 also mentioned that advertising the project was not currently an option, as the team was still gathering estimates and ensuring alignment with purchasing guidelines. The team was following a cautious approach to avoid complications that might arise from issuing an RFP too soon.

'''Keywords:''' City Hall Refresh Project, Repainting Third Floor, Contractor Quotes, Winter Delay Consideration, Purchasing Guidelines, Third Floor Walls, Second Floor Painting

==== Item 8: Future Topics ====

The discussion centered on future topics for the Budget and Audit Committee, with a focus on capital asset maintenance and replacement planning. A speaker (Speaker 6) raised a question about whether Larry, the city’s engineer, should be invited to the sustainability committee to discuss the maintenance and replacement of capital assets over the next five to ten years. Speaker 3 confirmed that Larry had already presented a 10-year capital improvement project analysis in June, using the Streetwise software, and that the presentation was available for review.

Speaker 4 noted that the meeting in June was the first one of the year, and Speaker 3 acknowledged that the software used made it difficult to track the exact date. Speaker 6 suggested that while the 10-year plan was a good starting point, there were areas not covered, such as stormwater drain systems, and recommended discussing these with Marion. Speaker 3 agreed to look into the matter and coordinate with Regina and Howard.

Speaker 6 also raised the possibility of authorizing Larry to come in for further discussions, suggesting a formal petition for funding. Speaker 2 recommended working with Regina to arrange a structured meeting with Larry, emphasizing the need for discrete topics to ensure preparedness and avoid open-ended discussions. Speaker 6 agreed to set a time limit and prepare a set of questions for Larry to address, with a follow-up meeting if needed.

Speaker 8 supported the approach, and Speaker 6 noted that no city council authorization was required, as the acting city manager had the authority to proceed. The discussion concluded with no further agenda items proposed for the Budget and Audit Committee.

'''Keywords:''' capital assets, sustainability committee, 10-year plan, stormwater drains, funding authorization, structured meeting, capital improvement

==== Item 9: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:48:13].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 12, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/3a6c1f6d-83c2-4494-bb96-33fc1609a702.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GaNEh13CTZ8T_C1lREKiZCWqQlEonAov/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_08_12_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the Library Refresh Proposal, which involves renovating the Clayton Community Library. The proposal was initiated by the former city manager and includes a comprehensive list of potential improvements, such as carpet replacement, painting, and furniture upgrades. The total estimated cost for the proposed renovations is approximately $1.37 million, though the city has not yet identified a specific budget. The county library staff has volunteered to fund the architectural services of Noll & Tam to prepare an initial study of the improvements. The city is considering combining available Living Trust Grant funding, fundraising with the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF), and a contribution from the city to fund the project. The county library staff has agreed to help prioritize the improvements once a budget is identified. The fiscal impact of the project is yet to be determined, as the city has not yet discussed fundraising amounts with the CCLF. The city’s contribution is expected to come from the General Fund and/or reserves, though no funds have been allocated in the FY24-25 budget or CIP. The committee members asked for more information on the funding sources and the potential for phased implementation of the project. The library staff emphasized the importance of community engagement and the need to involve the CCLF in the fundraising efforts. The committee members also inquired about the feasibility of implementing phase one of the project independently of the other phases. The library staff indicated that the phases are not necessarily dependent on each other and can be implemented independently. The discussion highlighted the need for further dialogue with the CCLF and the city’s finance department to determine the financial viability of the project.

'''Keywords:''' Library Refresh Proposal, Renovating Clayton Community Library, $1.37 Million Estimated Cost, Living Trust Grant Funding, Clayton Community Library Foundation, General Fund Contribution, Phased Implementation, Architectural Study by Noll & Tam

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed renovations for the Clayton Community Library, including the scope of work, funding sources, and community engagement. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a detailed list of potential improvements, which included carpet replacement, painting, furniture upgrades, and the addition of study pods and a Discovery Zone for early literacy. The estimated total cost was approximately $1.37 million, with the City, the Contra Costa County Library, and the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF) each expected to contribute. The City’s contribution would likely come from the General Fund or reserves, while the County had already committed $120,000 for architectural services. The CCLF had not yet provided a fundraising commitment, and the Living Trust Grant, which could provide up to $250,000 over five years, was limited in its allowable uses, such as furniture but not carpeting.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano raised questions about the distinction between the Living Trust and the CCLF’s funds, as well as the timeline for phase one of the project. She also inquired about the possibility of other grant opportunities outside of the Living Trust. The City Engineer clarified that the County would not apply for grants related to the project, as that responsibility fell to the City. The discussion also touched on the role of the CCLF in fundraising, with the foundation’s treasurer noting that they were not typically fundraisers but were willing to support the project if included in future conversations.

The Interim City Manager, Adam Politzer, emphasized the importance of collaboration between the City, the County, and the CCLF, and suggested forming a working group to move forward with the project. He also highlighted the need for a community engagement effort to prioritize the improvements and develop a funding plan. The meeting concluded with a motion to form a working group and provide an update to the full council in early November.

'''Keywords:''' Clayton Community Library, funding sources, carpet replacement, Living Trust Grant, community engagement, study pods, Discovery Zone, General Fund

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a proposal to modify the third floor of City Hall to enhance security while maintaining an open and aesthetically pleasing environment. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a preliminary cost range of $140,000 to $222,000 for the project, which includes architectural and engineering services. The proposal involves installing physical barriers, such as glass walls and doors with security card access, to restrict public access to employee-only areas while preserving the open layout of the third floor. The design aims to balance security with the historical and aesthetic value of the building.

Interim City Manager Adam Politzer emphasized the need for security improvements following a mental health incident in the City Hall lobby, highlighting the importance of preventing unauthorized access to staff areas. He noted that the design would include features such as swipe card access, which would track who enters and exits, and help prevent potential harm to staff.

Councilmember Jeff Wan raised concerns about the cost and the feasibility of the proposed design, suggesting alternatives such as securing access at the first or second floor instead of the third. He also questioned whether the project should be prioritized over other needed improvements, such as carpeting and painting. Councilmember Kim Trupiano suggested exploring less costly options, such as locking the front door and using cameras, and inquiring about the historical significance of the building and potential constraints on modifications.

Public comment included suggestions for using clear walls similar to those in banks to maintain an open feel while ensuring security. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on the open and transparent nature of City Hall, with some members expressing a preference for maintaining the current accessibility of the building.

The committee agreed to request additional information and options from the City Engineer and architect, including potential designs for securing access at different floors and the associated costs. The discussion concluded with a recommendation to revisit the proposal with updated information before making a final decision.

'''Keywords:''' security enhancements, cost range $140k-$222k, physical barriers, swipe card access, historical building constraints, alternative access floors, public comment on transparency

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed purchase of a new lawnmower for city maintenance operations. The speaker presented the new lawnmower as a more efficient and economical option, with a cutting radius double that of the current model. They also mentioned the inclusion of a sunshade to protect staff from sun exposure, highlighting both practical and health-related benefits. The speaker expressed willingness to provide a detailed report on the lawnmower’s performance after it is acquired, acknowledging that the actual efficiency gains may not be a pure 50% improvement as suggested in the brochure. Other members of the committee expressed interest in testing the lawnmower once it is received and supported the purchase. No public comment was received on the item, and the committee moved on to the next agenda item.

'''Keywords:''' new lawnmower, efficiency gains, sunshade inclusion, performance report, testing support, health benefits
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== July 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/64c93490-1496-4e8b-91c5-36db7d1018a4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lvFJ09Zn9xVZuTRd6GYTLll1TPddYKvz/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_07_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqalFr24LPI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:07].

==== Item 2: UBS Financial Services (Interim City Manager) ====

The discussion on the City’s investments under Agenda Item 2, concerning UBS Financial Services and the interim City Manager, was brief and did not proceed as initially planned. Speaker 2, Adam, initiated the conversation by referencing ongoing discussions about the city’s investment strategy and inquired whether UBS was present online. Speaker 8 responded that they were not present. Speaker 2 then indicated that the discussion would move forward, but before proceeding, Speaker 4, Kim Trupiano, suggested that the meeting could potentially move to item three and adjust the order of discussion. No further details on the City’s investment strategy or UBS Financial Services were provided, and the topic was not revisited.

'''Keywords:''' UBS Financial Services, investment strategy, interim City Manager, discussion order

==== Item 3: HdL Economic Solutions (Interim City Manager) ====

The discussion centered on the City’s economic forecast and the role of HdL Economic Solutions in supporting the city’s financial planning, particularly regarding business licenses and sales tax. Adam, a committee member, introduced Ken Nordhoff from HdL, highlighting his background and the previous collaboration with the city on business license functions. He noted that discussions with HdL had expanded to include sales tax and budget-related topics, such as business license fees, following a transition in city management and finance director roles. Adam emphasized the opportunity to reconnect with HdL and gain clarity on their services as the city moved toward renewing business licenses.

Ken Nordhoff acknowledged the introduction and outlined his presentation, which would focus on sales tax data analysis, budgeting forecasts, and the direction of business license tax services. He noted that he would tailor the discussion to address the committee’s primary interest in business licenses, as highlighted by Kim Trupiano, who observed that 80% of the materials reviewed were based on sales tax, while the committee’s questions focused more on business licenses. Kim encouraged Ken to adjust his presentation accordingly, ensuring it aligned with the committee’s priorities. The discussion was set to proceed with a review of key aspects of business license tax services and next steps for the city.

'''Keywords:''' economic forecast, business licenses, sales tax, HdL Economic Solutions, budget forecasts, city management, tax services

==== Item 4: Review and provide feedback on proposed Scope of Work prior to the preparation of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Right of Way Landscape Maintenance (City Engineer) ====

The discussion centered on the proposed Scope of Work for the Right of Way Landscape Maintenance RFP, though the transcript spanned a different agenda item related to sales tax and revenue collection. The speaker, identified as Ken Nordhoff, provided an overview of his company's expertise in maximizing revenue collection for government entities, particularly in the context of sales tax. He explained the historical framework of sales tax in California, emphasizing that it applies to tangible personal property and is paid by consumers at the end of a retail transaction.

Nordhoff outlined the distinction between sales tax and use tax, noting that use tax applies to goods ordered from out-of-state and is collected into county pools, with distribution based on point-of-sale revenue. He highlighted the limited sales tax base in Clayton, noting that the city receives only a small percentage of the Contra Costa County pool. He also discussed confidentiality constraints, particularly the "gang of four" and the 80% rule, which limit the disclosure of specific taxpayer information.

He explained the structure of the sales tax rate, including the Bradley Burns 1% portion that returns to the city, and noted that Clayton's current rate is 8.75%, incorporating additional taxes for BART, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and Measure X. He mentioned the potential for increasing the rate up to 9.25% under certain conditions and noted the complexities surrounding online sales and the impact of the Wayfair decision, which led to AB 147 in California.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax, revenue collection, use tax, county pool, sales tax rate, online sales, Wayfair decision

==== Item 5: Review Proposal to amend the City Engineer’s agreement to include Maintenance Division Oversight (Interim City Manager) ====

Councilmember Kim Trupiano asked if there was data available regarding what has been remitted to Clayton related to AB 147. Ken Nordhoff responded that he did not have specific data but mentioned that there were new taxpayers who started paying taxes in California beginning in October 2019. He noted that he could provide some names but not exact numbers.

Trupiano suggested bifurcating the information provided into what relates to AB 147 and what does not, emphasizing that a user would expect to see a significant or meaningful increase in tax revenue post-2019, which was not clearly reflected in the data presented.

Nordhoff explained that new marketplace facilitator accounts, such as those from Amazon and Walmart, as well as recent activities from companies like Timu and TikTok, have contributed to increased tax revenue. He noted that these businesses are complying with the law and contributing to the tax pools. However, he clarified that Clayton only receives two-tenths of 1% of the total dollars collected in the Contra Costa pool.

He provided an example, stating that in the most recent quarter ending in March, the city received approximately $550,000. Nordhoff highlighted that 35% of this revenue came from the food and grocery store, drugstore sector, with restaurants also contributing significantly. He mentioned that the pools have become a more significant part of the city's tax revenue in recent years, particularly since the wafer decision in 2019. He offered to run data backwards for multiple years to show the trend of increasing pool contributions.

'''Keywords:''' AB 147 data, tax revenue increase, marketplace facilitators, Contra Costa pool, food and grocery tax, wafer decision 2019, tax pools trend

==== Item 6: Review of the July 16, 2024, City Council Meeting Items (Financial Advisor) ====

The discussion centered on the potential impact of a local sales tax measure on vehicle sales revenue for Clayton. Speaker 4 noted the value of examining data over time and expressed interest in understanding how such information could be presented. Speaker 1 responded by offering to collaborate with Adam and staff to develop a plan for presenting the data.

Speaker 6 raised a question about whether vehicle sales tax revenue would be affected if residents purchased vehicles outside of Clayton, noting the absence of local dealerships. Speaker 1 explained that currently, residents buying vehicles elsewhere contribute sales tax revenue to the location of the dealership, such as Walnut Creek or Concord. However, if Clayton implemented a local approved tax, similar to what Walnut Creek has with Measure, the revenue would shift to Clayton based on registration-based regulations rather than the place of sale.

Speaker 4 clarified that without a local measure, Walnut Creek would retain the revenue from vehicle sales, while Clayton would receive nothing. Speaker 1 further elaborated that if Clayton voters approved a local 1% tax, residents purchasing vehicles in Walnut Creek would contribute 1% of the sales tax to Clayton, increasing the overall tax rate to 9.75%. This would allow Clayton to capture revenue from vehicle sales made by its residents, even if the purchase occurred outside the city. Speaker 6 confirmed that currently, Clayton receives no revenue from vehicle sales.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax measure, vehicle sales revenue, local tax impact, registration-based tax, revenue shift, tax rate increase, residents purchasing

==== Item 7: Future topics (Financial Advisor) ====

The discussion focused on the city's business license program, including the discovery process for unlicensed businesses, delinquencies, and the transition to a new contract with HCL. The presenter, Ken Nordhoff, outlined the current status of the program, noting that 863 businesses are active, with 54 currently delinquent in their license fees. He explained that the discovery process is ongoing and involves multiple methods, such as snail mail, phone calls, and data from other city departments, to identify unlicensed businesses operating in the city.

Nordhoff also discussed the financial implications of the program, noting that the city had previously operated on an internal system before signing the contract with HCL in October. He emphasized that the transition to the new system is a process, and the full impact of the contract on revenue generation would not be known until the first full cycle was completed. He estimated that the next opportunity to review results would be in October, following the renewal period.

Kim Trupiano asked about the cycle timeline, confirming that the current cycle runs from July to June. She also inquired about the distinction between businesses that are delinquent in payments and those that are operating without a license, to which Nordhoff clarified that the 54 delinquent businesses are those that are past due on their fees, while the discovery process is still identifying unlicensed businesses.

Adam suggested implementing a phased penalty approach, with amnesty periods and reduced penalties for early compliance, which Nordhoff agreed was a common and effective strategy. The discussion also touched on the need to align the contract with the cycle period and the importance of generating comprehensive data for the council to review in October. The presenter concluded by expressing willingness to provide further updates and collaborate with city staff on next steps.

'''Keywords:''' business license program, unlicensed businesses, delinquent fees, HCL contract, discovery process, penalty phases, revenue impact

==== Item 8: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:35:15].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/7f14d032-b876-4801-a652-610bc4287559.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryCSVh1ospF4idEbkChfUH_S8vS33v0C/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_30_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Budget Overview, Discussion and Schedule ====

The budget overview discussion focused on the FY 2023–24 year-to-date actuals and the FY 2024–25 budget, with several updates and questions from committee members. Regina provided an update on the FY 2023–24 budget, noting that the city had received a $634,540 vehicle license fee payment but was still missing approximately $400,000 in secured property taxes and $100,000 in business license fees. She explained that the FY 2024–25 budget had seen increases in expenses due to new charges from Concord PD, Contra Costa County, and radio leases. The city had not yet moved $113,000 from last year’s general fund to balance the budget this year.

Jeff Wan raised questions about the absence of well water usage charges in the budget, noting that Oakhurst likely uses the city’s well water. Regina suggested adding an $18,000 to $20,000 line item for this. Kim Trupiano inquired about the significant drop in “other in lieu” funds, from $175,000 to $59,000, and Regina acknowledged the need to investigate further.

On the expense side, Regina noted that police lieutenant salaries were not yet budgeted and would require a future amendment. Jeff Wan questioned the discrepancy in salary and benefit line items, which Regina explained were double-budgeted and being corrected. Kim Trupiano asked about the impact of electricity rate increases on the budget, and Regina proposed addressing this during the mid-year budget review.

Several committee members raised concerns about line items such as rental leases, education and training, and professional services, suggesting potential reductions or reallocations. Jeff Wan also discussed the city’s involvement with the animal control services, noting the high costs and the need for a potential fee-for-service model. Kim Trupiano emphasized the importance of aligning the budget with the council’s priorities and goals, suggesting that future budget amendments would reflect this alignment.

The discussion also touched on the city’s reserve funds, which were noted to be at $7.7 million, significantly above the required $2.2 million. This was seen as a positive, but there was recognition of the need to address long-term fiscal planning and infrastructure needs. Regina concluded the presentation, and the meeting moved forward with no formal motions or votes on the budget at this time.

'''Keywords:''' vehicle license fee, secured property taxes, business license fees, FY 2024–25 budget, well water usage charges, other in lieu funds, electricity rate increases, reserve funds

==== Item 3: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:01:54].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 14, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEiSEZHqOEqAJOcxSqB-8BDzB049lykl/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_14_2024]
|}

== May 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtNTcuWlF_j2fTvxneZoXHJkrOp2ugVJ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_05_07_2024]
|}

== April 22, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C36NbbhYAeMnFpAonfMb8VbYfY1o9GaT/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_04_22_2024]
|}

== March 25, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/931f8bd9-e8ad-48fe-98c3-2dbdf2dcd43d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tyhPgr1JwKC29XajByppMUknXsXPih0D/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_25_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZuenLGJnE Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:04:27].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee conducted an interview with Frank Gavidia for a seat on the Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee. Gavidia, a certified financial planner with experience in municipal finance and Wall Street, expressed interest in joining the committee to provide financial expertise and ensure transparency in city finances. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing numbers and questioned the lack of detailed information on the city’s investment portfolio in past meetings. Gavidia also discussed his potential collaboration with existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford, highlighting their complementary financial backgrounds. He envisioned working closely with city staff to obtain necessary data and conducting thorough analyses to inform the Council.

Committee members Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano asked questions about Gavidia’s motivations and how he would approach his role. Gavidia explained that his interest in the subcommittee had grown over time, particularly after conversations with Kaplan and others, and he believed the committee could serve as a valuable check on city finances. He also addressed concerns about the subcommittee’s structure and the Brown Act, noting that while the committee would need to meet publicly, there were ways to manage discussions effectively.

The committee then discussed the reappointment of existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford for two additional years, with their terms expiring in 2026. A motion was made to recommend the appointment of Gavidia to Seat 3, which would align with the staggered term structure and avoid having all three members’ terms expire in the same year. The motion passed unanimously.

Following the interview, the committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2023–2024 Budget with Finance Director Copti. Questions focused on consultant services, budget allocations, and the mechanics of the LMD fund. Copti explained that wages were charged directly through payroll, while benefits were allocated quarterly based on salary data. The discussion also included clarification on HR policies, recruitment services, and the status of personnel policies, which were nearly finalized for presentation to the Council.

'''Keywords:''' Financial Expertise, Subcommittee Appointment, Budget Transparency, Staggered Terms, Consultant Services, LMD Fund Mechanics, HR Policies

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:39:06].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:30:34Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:24:43Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2024-07-10 04_00 PM

== November 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/97f5ba83-06d4-435b-9cdb-f4659719dd39.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MePwW3kN6nsJeP-OyAUYF8Sx6m_AZsKq/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_11_07_2024] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vBNtRifomZcQnO2XhWSZyQ2btIJsMIzR/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Minutes_11_07_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nObzNTmAzFy6-8jk8btLL7ndKVFEymQKW8FvHiA05dM/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXPfuNLLfr0 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the adoption of a resolution authorizing revisions to several full-time and part-time classifications, including the addition of roles for a Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, Recreation Coordinator, and a part-time Recreation Leader, while removing the full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions from the FY 2024–25 budget. The resolution also included salary recommendations for these positions based on market surveys and internal compensation parity.

The Administrative Assistant position, currently filled by a temporary employee, was budgeted at $77,000 for the fiscal year, with a proposed pay range of $70,560 to $87,305. The Recreation Coordinator position had a recommended salary range of $75,465 to $91,372, while the Senior Management Analyst was proposed at $128,691 to $158,046. The Senior Planner position had a recommended range of $113,138 to $142,785, and the part-time Recreation Leader was recommended at $16.79 to $19.92 per hour.

The committee noted that the removal of the Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions would result in cost savings of approximately $360,647, as these roles had been filled by consultants at a cost of about $150,000 for the year. The proposed positions were intended to provide more consistent and efficient service, particularly in areas such as event coordination, facility rentals, and administrative support.

Several council members raised concerns about the salary recommendations, noting that the proposed ranges were significantly higher than those of comparable cities and questioned the methodology used to determine them. Some members also pointed out discrepancies between the budget and the proposed salary figures, emphasizing the need for transparency and clarity in the budgeting process.

The discussion highlighted the need for a more detailed breakdown of the budget and the rationale behind the salary recommendations, as well as the importance of aligning the compensation with the workload and responsibilities of the positions. The committee acknowledged the need for further review and discussion on these matters before finalizing the resolution.

'''Keywords:''' Salary Recommendations, Position Additions, Cost Savings, Market Surveys, Compensation Parity, Budget Discrepancies, Role Removals, Pay Ranges

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a resolution authorizing revisions to several full-time and part-time classifications, including the addition of new roles and the deletion of existing ones from the FY 2024-25 annual budget. The proposed changes included revising the full-time Administrative Assistant classification, adding full-time roles for Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, and Recreation Coordinator, as well as a part-time Recreation Leader classification. The full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions were to be deleted, resulting in a combined salary and benefit savings of $360,647.

During the discussion, several council members raised questions and concerns about the proposed changes. One council member noted confusion regarding the title "Recreation Coordinator," suggesting it might be more appropriately named "Special Event Manager." There was clarification that the Recreation Leader, a part-time position, would report to the Recreation Coordinator, not the City Clerk, as previously indicated.

Council members also inquired about the salary ranges and the rationale behind them. The Assistant City Manager provided details on the market survey data used to determine the pay ranges for each position, emphasizing alignment with industry standards and the City’s compensation framework. The Senior Management Analyst’s salary range was highlighted as $128,691 to $158,046, while the Recreation Coordinator’s range was $75,465 to $91,372.

There was a discussion about the organizational chart and the reporting structure, with concerns raised about the span of control for the Senior Management Analyst, who would be supervising only one person. A council member suggested a flatter organizational structure to improve efficiency and reduce management layers.

The fiscal impact of the proposed changes was also addressed, with a net salary savings of $59,123 for FY 2024-25 and an estimated additional cost of $127,018 for FY 2025-26. The committee was advised to update the organizational chart and ensure clarity in the presentation of the budget impact, including the use of favorable and unfavorable indicators.

The discussion concluded with a request to review the updated materials prior to the November 19th meeting, ensuring that all concerns and recommendations were incorporated.

'''Keywords:''' Recreation Coordinator, Senior Management Analyst, Salary Savings, Organizational Chart, Pay Range Alignment, Fiscal Impact, Position Deletion, Reporting Structure

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed Agenda Item 4, which proposed a resolution to revise and add several full-time and part-time classifications within the City of Clayton’s FY 2024–25 annual budget. The resolution included revising the full-time Administrative Assistant classification, adding full-time roles for Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, and Recreation Coordinator, and introducing a part-time Recreation Leader classification. It also proposed removing the full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions, resulting in a combined salary and benefit savings of $360,647.

Assistant City Manager Regina Rubier presented the staff report, outlining the rationale for each classification change. She noted that the City had previously relied on temporary agency employees and consultants for these roles, but recent CalPERS rulings prohibited the use of annuitants in ongoing consulting capacities. The report included detailed salary recommendations based on market surveys and internal compensation parity. For example, the Administrative Assistant’s pay range was set at $70,564 to $85,771 annually, while the Recreation Leader’s hourly rate was proposed at $16.53 to $22.15.

Public comment on the item was limited, with only one speaker, Dan Richardson, addressing the committee. He expressed concerns about the creation of bureaucracy and the potential impact on frontline workers, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a focus on operational efficiency rather than administrative expansion. He also mentioned the need for renewal of the Landscape Assessment District in 2027 and highlighted the importance of productivity improvements in maintenance roles.

The committee did not engage in further discussion or debate on the resolution, and no motions or votes were taken during the span provided. The item was moved to future topics, with the next meeting of the Budget and Audit Committee scheduled for December 11, 2024.

'''Keywords:''' Budget Revision, Classification Changes, Salary Savings, Full-Time Roles, Part-Time Positions, CalPERS Rulings, Public Concerns
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nObzNTmAzFy6-8jk8btLL7ndKVFEymQKW8FvHiA05dM/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== September 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/30f1848a-2fb8-4989-8317-22c411ab6545.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tqFp2Ww29j1TFlh_UQt15kM_sRJTHlL/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_09_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmaB0bDNzdc Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the proposal to apply for the MPA Risk Safety Grant Program, which offers $14,500 to support the transition from paper to electronic filing systems, thereby reducing liability risks. The Assistant City Manager, James, explained that the grant is part of MPA’s liability insurance risk pool and that the city needs a resolution from the council to proceed with the application. The grant is available semi-annually, and there is potential for additional funding in the future. Councilmember Jeff Wan and others expressed support for the application, noting that it is a straightforward opportunity to secure funding for an important project. The resolution was approved without objection, and the city will move forward with applying for the grant.

'''Keywords:''' MPA Risk Safety Grant, $14,500 Funding, Electronic Filing Systems, Liability Risk Reduction, Grant Application, Council Resolution

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the contract extension for MTC, which involves HR consulting and a management analyst. The assistant city manager, James, explained that the extension would cover services through the end of the fiscal year at an estimated annual cost of $80,000. This includes hiring a management analyst for 10 hours per week and additional support from an HR consultant. The previous contract, approved within the city manager’s authority, was for $30,000 and covered through July or August. Councilmember Jeff Wan noted that the current arrangement is significantly cheaper than hiring full-time equivalents and emphasized the need for the services. Councilmember Kim Trupiano acknowledged the value of the HR consultant’s work, particularly in updating outdated HR policies. A speaker raised a question about specific deliverables under the contract, to which James responded that the contract focuses on specific projects, with details to be determined. No objections were raised, and the item was concluded.

'''Keywords:''' contract extension, HR consulting, management analyst, annual cost $80,000, HR policies update, specific projects, full-time equivalents
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 12, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/3a6c1f6d-83c2-4494-bb96-33fc1609a702.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GaNEh13CTZ8T_C1lREKiZCWqQlEonAov/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_08_12_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the Library Refresh Proposal, which involves renovating the Clayton Community Library. The proposal was initiated by the former city manager and includes a comprehensive list of potential improvements, such as carpet replacement, painting, and furniture upgrades. The total estimated cost for the proposed renovations is approximately $1.37 million, though the city has not yet identified a specific budget. The county library staff has volunteered to fund the architectural services of Noll & Tam to prepare an initial study of the improvements. The city is considering combining available Living Trust Grant funding, fundraising with the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF), and a contribution from the city to fund the project. The county library staff has agreed to help prioritize the improvements once a budget is identified. The fiscal impact of the project is yet to be determined, as the city has not yet discussed fundraising amounts with the CCLF. The city’s contribution is expected to come from the General Fund and/or reserves, though no funds have been allocated in the FY24-25 budget or CIP. The committee members asked for more information on the funding sources and the potential for phased implementation of the project. The library staff emphasized the importance of community engagement and the need to involve the CCLF in the fundraising efforts. The committee members also inquired about the feasibility of implementing phase one of the project independently of the other phases. The library staff indicated that the phases are not necessarily dependent on each other and can be implemented independently. The discussion highlighted the need for further dialogue with the CCLF and the city’s finance department to determine the financial viability of the project.

'''Keywords:''' Library Refresh Proposal, Renovating Clayton Community Library, $1.37 Million Estimated Cost, Living Trust Grant Funding, Clayton Community Library Foundation, General Fund Contribution, Phased Implementation, Architectural Study by Noll & Tam

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed renovations for the Clayton Community Library, including the scope of work, funding sources, and community engagement. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a detailed list of potential improvements, which included carpet replacement, painting, furniture upgrades, and the addition of study pods and a Discovery Zone for early literacy. The estimated total cost was approximately $1.37 million, with the City, the Contra Costa County Library, and the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF) each expected to contribute. The City’s contribution would likely come from the General Fund or reserves, while the County had already committed $120,000 for architectural services. The CCLF had not yet provided a fundraising commitment, and the Living Trust Grant, which could provide up to $250,000 over five years, was limited in its allowable uses, such as furniture but not carpeting.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano raised questions about the distinction between the Living Trust and the CCLF’s funds, as well as the timeline for phase one of the project. She also inquired about the possibility of other grant opportunities outside of the Living Trust. The City Engineer clarified that the County would not apply for grants related to the project, as that responsibility fell to the City. The discussion also touched on the role of the CCLF in fundraising, with the foundation’s treasurer noting that they were not typically fundraisers but were willing to support the project if included in future conversations.

The Interim City Manager, Adam Politzer, emphasized the importance of collaboration between the City, the County, and the CCLF, and suggested forming a working group to move forward with the project. He also highlighted the need for a community engagement effort to prioritize the improvements and develop a funding plan. The meeting concluded with a motion to form a working group and provide an update to the full council in early November.

'''Keywords:''' Clayton Community Library, funding sources, carpet replacement, Living Trust Grant, community engagement, study pods, Discovery Zone, General Fund

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a proposal to modify the third floor of City Hall to enhance security while maintaining an open and aesthetically pleasing environment. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a preliminary cost range of $140,000 to $222,000 for the project, which includes architectural and engineering services. The proposal involves installing physical barriers, such as glass walls and doors with security card access, to restrict public access to employee-only areas while preserving the open layout of the third floor. The design aims to balance security with the historical and aesthetic value of the building.

Interim City Manager Adam Politzer emphasized the need for security improvements following a mental health incident in the City Hall lobby, highlighting the importance of preventing unauthorized access to staff areas. He noted that the design would include features such as swipe card access, which would track who enters and exits, and help prevent potential harm to staff.

Councilmember Jeff Wan raised concerns about the cost and the feasibility of the proposed design, suggesting alternatives such as securing access at the first or second floor instead of the third. He also questioned whether the project should be prioritized over other needed improvements, such as carpeting and painting. Councilmember Kim Trupiano suggested exploring less costly options, such as locking the front door and using cameras, and inquiring about the historical significance of the building and potential constraints on modifications.

Public comment included suggestions for using clear walls similar to those in banks to maintain an open feel while ensuring security. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on the open and transparent nature of City Hall, with some members expressing a preference for maintaining the current accessibility of the building.

The committee agreed to request additional information and options from the City Engineer and architect, including potential designs for securing access at different floors and the associated costs. The discussion concluded with a recommendation to revisit the proposal with updated information before making a final decision.

'''Keywords:''' security enhancements, cost range $140k-$222k, physical barriers, swipe card access, historical building constraints, alternative access floors, public comment on transparency

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed purchase of a new lawnmower for city maintenance operations. The speaker presented the new lawnmower as a more efficient and economical option, with a cutting radius double that of the current model. They also mentioned the inclusion of a sunshade to protect staff from sun exposure, highlighting both practical and health-related benefits. The speaker expressed willingness to provide a detailed report on the lawnmower’s performance after it is acquired, acknowledging that the actual efficiency gains may not be a pure 50% improvement as suggested in the brochure. Other members of the committee expressed interest in testing the lawnmower once it is received and supported the purchase. No public comment was received on the item, and the committee moved on to the next agenda item.

'''Keywords:''' new lawnmower, efficiency gains, sunshade inclusion, performance report, testing support, health benefits
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== July 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/64c93490-1496-4e8b-91c5-36db7d1018a4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lvFJ09Zn9xVZuTRd6GYTLll1TPddYKvz/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_07_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqalFr24LPI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:07].

==== Item 2: UBS Financial Services (Interim City Manager) ====

The discussion on the City’s investments under Agenda Item 2, concerning UBS Financial Services and the interim City Manager, was brief and did not proceed as initially planned. Speaker 2, Adam, initiated the conversation by referencing ongoing discussions about the city’s investment strategy and inquired whether UBS was present online. Speaker 8 responded that they were not present. Speaker 2 then indicated that the discussion would move forward, but before proceeding, Speaker 4, Kim Trupiano, suggested that the meeting could potentially move to item three and adjust the order of discussion. No further details on the City’s investment strategy or UBS Financial Services were provided, and the topic was not revisited.

'''Keywords:''' UBS Financial Services, investment strategy, interim City Manager, discussion order

==== Item 3: HdL Economic Solutions (Interim City Manager) ====

The discussion centered on the City’s economic forecast and the role of HdL Economic Solutions in supporting the city’s financial planning, particularly regarding business licenses and sales tax. Adam, a committee member, introduced Ken Nordhoff from HdL, highlighting his background and the previous collaboration with the city on business license functions. He noted that discussions with HdL had expanded to include sales tax and budget-related topics, such as business license fees, following a transition in city management and finance director roles. Adam emphasized the opportunity to reconnect with HdL and gain clarity on their services as the city moved toward renewing business licenses.

Ken Nordhoff acknowledged the introduction and outlined his presentation, which would focus on sales tax data analysis, budgeting forecasts, and the direction of business license tax services. He noted that he would tailor the discussion to address the committee’s primary interest in business licenses, as highlighted by Kim Trupiano, who observed that 80% of the materials reviewed were based on sales tax, while the committee’s questions focused more on business licenses. Kim encouraged Ken to adjust his presentation accordingly, ensuring it aligned with the committee’s priorities. The discussion was set to proceed with a review of key aspects of business license tax services and next steps for the city.

'''Keywords:''' economic forecast, business licenses, sales tax, HdL Economic Solutions, budget forecasts, city management, tax services

==== Item 4: Review and provide feedback on proposed Scope of Work prior to the preparation of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Right of Way Landscape Maintenance (City Engineer) ====

The discussion centered on the proposed Scope of Work for the Right of Way Landscape Maintenance RFP, though the transcript spanned a different agenda item related to sales tax and revenue collection. The speaker, identified as Ken Nordhoff, provided an overview of his company's expertise in maximizing revenue collection for government entities, particularly in the context of sales tax. He explained the historical framework of sales tax in California, emphasizing that it applies to tangible personal property and is paid by consumers at the end of a retail transaction.

Nordhoff outlined the distinction between sales tax and use tax, noting that use tax applies to goods ordered from out-of-state and is collected into county pools, with distribution based on point-of-sale revenue. He highlighted the limited sales tax base in Clayton, noting that the city receives only a small percentage of the Contra Costa County pool. He also discussed confidentiality constraints, particularly the "gang of four" and the 80% rule, which limit the disclosure of specific taxpayer information.

He explained the structure of the sales tax rate, including the Bradley Burns 1% portion that returns to the city, and noted that Clayton's current rate is 8.75%, incorporating additional taxes for BART, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and Measure X. He mentioned the potential for increasing the rate up to 9.25% under certain conditions and noted the complexities surrounding online sales and the impact of the Wayfair decision, which led to AB 147 in California.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax, revenue collection, use tax, county pool, sales tax rate, online sales, Wayfair decision

==== Item 5: Review Proposal to amend the City Engineer’s agreement to include Maintenance Division Oversight (Interim City Manager) ====

Councilmember Kim Trupiano asked if there was data available regarding what has been remitted to Clayton related to AB 147. Ken Nordhoff responded that he did not have specific data but mentioned that there were new taxpayers who started paying taxes in California beginning in October 2019. He noted that he could provide some names but not exact numbers.

Trupiano suggested bifurcating the information provided into what relates to AB 147 and what does not, emphasizing that a user would expect to see a significant or meaningful increase in tax revenue post-2019, which was not clearly reflected in the data presented.

Nordhoff explained that new marketplace facilitator accounts, such as those from Amazon and Walmart, as well as recent activities from companies like Timu and TikTok, have contributed to increased tax revenue. He noted that these businesses are complying with the law and contributing to the tax pools. However, he clarified that Clayton only receives two-tenths of 1% of the total dollars collected in the Contra Costa pool.

He provided an example, stating that in the most recent quarter ending in March, the city received approximately $550,000. Nordhoff highlighted that 35% of this revenue came from the food and grocery store, drugstore sector, with restaurants also contributing significantly. He mentioned that the pools have become a more significant part of the city's tax revenue in recent years, particularly since the wafer decision in 2019. He offered to run data backwards for multiple years to show the trend of increasing pool contributions.

'''Keywords:''' AB 147 data, tax revenue increase, marketplace facilitators, Contra Costa pool, food and grocery tax, wafer decision 2019, tax pools trend

==== Item 6: Review of the July 16, 2024, City Council Meeting Items (Financial Advisor) ====

The discussion centered on the potential impact of a local sales tax measure on vehicle sales revenue for Clayton. Speaker 4 noted the value of examining data over time and expressed interest in understanding how such information could be presented. Speaker 1 responded by offering to collaborate with Adam and staff to develop a plan for presenting the data.

Speaker 6 raised a question about whether vehicle sales tax revenue would be affected if residents purchased vehicles outside of Clayton, noting the absence of local dealerships. Speaker 1 explained that currently, residents buying vehicles elsewhere contribute sales tax revenue to the location of the dealership, such as Walnut Creek or Concord. However, if Clayton implemented a local approved tax, similar to what Walnut Creek has with Measure, the revenue would shift to Clayton based on registration-based regulations rather than the place of sale.

Speaker 4 clarified that without a local measure, Walnut Creek would retain the revenue from vehicle sales, while Clayton would receive nothing. Speaker 1 further elaborated that if Clayton voters approved a local 1% tax, residents purchasing vehicles in Walnut Creek would contribute 1% of the sales tax to Clayton, increasing the overall tax rate to 9.75%. This would allow Clayton to capture revenue from vehicle sales made by its residents, even if the purchase occurred outside the city. Speaker 6 confirmed that currently, Clayton receives no revenue from vehicle sales.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax measure, vehicle sales revenue, local tax impact, registration-based tax, revenue shift, tax rate increase, residents purchasing

==== Item 7: Future topics (Financial Advisor) ====

The discussion focused on the city's business license program, including the discovery process for unlicensed businesses, delinquencies, and the transition to a new contract with HCL. The presenter, Ken Nordhoff, outlined the current status of the program, noting that 863 businesses are active, with 54 currently delinquent in their license fees. He explained that the discovery process is ongoing and involves multiple methods, such as snail mail, phone calls, and data from other city departments, to identify unlicensed businesses operating in the city.

Nordhoff also discussed the financial implications of the program, noting that the city had previously operated on an internal system before signing the contract with HCL in October. He emphasized that the transition to the new system is a process, and the full impact of the contract on revenue generation would not be known until the first full cycle was completed. He estimated that the next opportunity to review results would be in October, following the renewal period.

Kim Trupiano asked about the cycle timeline, confirming that the current cycle runs from July to June. She also inquired about the distinction between businesses that are delinquent in payments and those that are operating without a license, to which Nordhoff clarified that the 54 delinquent businesses are those that are past due on their fees, while the discovery process is still identifying unlicensed businesses.

Adam suggested implementing a phased penalty approach, with amnesty periods and reduced penalties for early compliance, which Nordhoff agreed was a common and effective strategy. The discussion also touched on the need to align the contract with the cycle period and the importance of generating comprehensive data for the council to review in October. The presenter concluded by expressing willingness to provide further updates and collaborate with city staff on next steps.

'''Keywords:''' business license program, unlicensed businesses, delinquent fees, HCL contract, discovery process, penalty phases, revenue impact

==== Item 8: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:35:15].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/7f14d032-b876-4801-a652-610bc4287559.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryCSVh1ospF4idEbkChfUH_S8vS33v0C/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_30_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Budget Overview, Discussion and Schedule ====

The budget overview discussion focused on the FY 2023–24 year-to-date actuals and the FY 2024–25 budget, with several updates and questions from committee members. Regina provided an update on the FY 2023–24 budget, noting that the city had received a $634,540 vehicle license fee payment but was still missing approximately $400,000 in secured property taxes and $100,000 in business license fees. She explained that the FY 2024–25 budget had seen increases in expenses due to new charges from Concord PD, Contra Costa County, and radio leases. The city had not yet moved $113,000 from last year’s general fund to balance the budget this year.

Jeff Wan raised questions about the absence of well water usage charges in the budget, noting that Oakhurst likely uses the city’s well water. Regina suggested adding an $18,000 to $20,000 line item for this. Kim Trupiano inquired about the significant drop in “other in lieu” funds, from $175,000 to $59,000, and Regina acknowledged the need to investigate further.

On the expense side, Regina noted that police lieutenant salaries were not yet budgeted and would require a future amendment. Jeff Wan questioned the discrepancy in salary and benefit line items, which Regina explained were double-budgeted and being corrected. Kim Trupiano asked about the impact of electricity rate increases on the budget, and Regina proposed addressing this during the mid-year budget review.

Several committee members raised concerns about line items such as rental leases, education and training, and professional services, suggesting potential reductions or reallocations. Jeff Wan also discussed the city’s involvement with the animal control services, noting the high costs and the need for a potential fee-for-service model. Kim Trupiano emphasized the importance of aligning the budget with the council’s priorities and goals, suggesting that future budget amendments would reflect this alignment.

The discussion also touched on the city’s reserve funds, which were noted to be at $7.7 million, significantly above the required $2.2 million. This was seen as a positive, but there was recognition of the need to address long-term fiscal planning and infrastructure needs. Regina concluded the presentation, and the meeting moved forward with no formal motions or votes on the budget at this time.

'''Keywords:''' vehicle license fee, secured property taxes, business license fees, FY 2024–25 budget, well water usage charges, other in lieu funds, electricity rate increases, reserve funds

==== Item 3: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:01:54].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 14, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEiSEZHqOEqAJOcxSqB-8BDzB049lykl/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_14_2024]
|}

== May 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtNTcuWlF_j2fTvxneZoXHJkrOp2ugVJ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_05_07_2024]
|}

== April 22, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C36NbbhYAeMnFpAonfMb8VbYfY1o9GaT/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_04_22_2024]
|}

== March 25, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/931f8bd9-e8ad-48fe-98c3-2dbdf2dcd43d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tyhPgr1JwKC29XajByppMUknXsXPih0D/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_25_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZuenLGJnE Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:04:27].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee conducted an interview with Frank Gavidia for a seat on the Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee. Gavidia, a certified financial planner with experience in municipal finance and Wall Street, expressed interest in joining the committee to provide financial expertise and ensure transparency in city finances. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing numbers and questioned the lack of detailed information on the city’s investment portfolio in past meetings. Gavidia also discussed his potential collaboration with existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford, highlighting their complementary financial backgrounds. He envisioned working closely with city staff to obtain necessary data and conducting thorough analyses to inform the Council.

Committee members Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano asked questions about Gavidia’s motivations and how he would approach his role. Gavidia explained that his interest in the subcommittee had grown over time, particularly after conversations with Kaplan and others, and he believed the committee could serve as a valuable check on city finances. He also addressed concerns about the subcommittee’s structure and the Brown Act, noting that while the committee would need to meet publicly, there were ways to manage discussions effectively.

The committee then discussed the reappointment of existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford for two additional years, with their terms expiring in 2026. A motion was made to recommend the appointment of Gavidia to Seat 3, which would align with the staggered term structure and avoid having all three members’ terms expire in the same year. The motion passed unanimously.

Following the interview, the committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2023–2024 Budget with Finance Director Copti. Questions focused on consultant services, budget allocations, and the mechanics of the LMD fund. Copti explained that wages were charged directly through payroll, while benefits were allocated quarterly based on salary data. The discussion also included clarification on HR policies, recruitment services, and the status of personnel policies, which were nearly finalized for presentation to the Council.

'''Keywords:''' Financial Expertise, Subcommittee Appointment, Budget Transparency, Staggered Terms, Consultant Services, LMD Fund Mechanics, HR Policies

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:39:06].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-06T07:24:39Z

Joelclayton: Refreshing 1 meeting(s) (updated)

:''Main article: [[Budget and Audit Committee]]''
== November 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/97f5ba83-06d4-435b-9cdb-f4659719dd39.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MePwW3kN6nsJeP-OyAUYF8Sx6m_AZsKq/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_11_07_2024] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vBNtRifomZcQnO2XhWSZyQ2btIJsMIzR/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Minutes_11_07_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nObzNTmAzFy6-8jk8btLL7ndKVFEymQKW8FvHiA05dM/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXPfuNLLfr0 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the adoption of a resolution authorizing revisions to several full-time and part-time classifications, including the addition of roles for a Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, Recreation Coordinator, and a part-time Recreation Leader, while removing the full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions from the FY 2024–25 budget. The resolution also included salary recommendations for these positions based on market surveys and internal compensation parity.

The Administrative Assistant position, currently filled by a temporary employee, was budgeted at $77,000 for the fiscal year, with a proposed pay range of $70,560 to $87,305. The Recreation Coordinator position had a recommended salary range of $75,465 to $91,372, while the Senior Management Analyst was proposed at $128,691 to $158,046. The Senior Planner position had a recommended range of $113,138 to $142,785, and the part-time Recreation Leader was recommended at $16.79 to $19.92 per hour.

The committee noted that the removal of the Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions would result in cost savings of approximately $360,647, as these roles had been filled by consultants at a cost of about $150,000 for the year. The proposed positions were intended to provide more consistent and efficient service, particularly in areas such as event coordination, facility rentals, and administrative support.

Several council members raised concerns about the salary recommendations, noting that the proposed ranges were significantly higher than those of comparable cities and questioned the methodology used to determine them. Some members also pointed out discrepancies between the budget and the proposed salary figures, emphasizing the need for transparency and clarity in the budgeting process.

The discussion highlighted the need for a more detailed breakdown of the budget and the rationale behind the salary recommendations, as well as the importance of aligning the compensation with the workload and responsibilities of the positions. The committee acknowledged the need for further review and discussion on these matters before finalizing the resolution.

'''Keywords:''' Salary Recommendations, Position Additions, Cost Savings, Market Surveys, Compensation Parity, Budget Discrepancies, Role Removals, Pay Ranges

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a resolution authorizing revisions to several full-time and part-time classifications, including the addition of new roles and the deletion of existing ones from the FY 2024-25 annual budget. The proposed changes included revising the full-time Administrative Assistant classification, adding full-time roles for Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, and Recreation Coordinator, as well as a part-time Recreation Leader classification. The full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions were to be deleted, resulting in a combined salary and benefit savings of $360,647.

During the discussion, several council members raised questions and concerns about the proposed changes. One council member noted confusion regarding the title "Recreation Coordinator," suggesting it might be more appropriately named "Special Event Manager." There was clarification that the Recreation Leader, a part-time position, would report to the Recreation Coordinator, not the City Clerk, as previously indicated.

Council members also inquired about the salary ranges and the rationale behind them. The Assistant City Manager provided details on the market survey data used to determine the pay ranges for each position, emphasizing alignment with industry standards and the City’s compensation framework. The Senior Management Analyst’s salary range was highlighted as $128,691 to $158,046, while the Recreation Coordinator’s range was $75,465 to $91,372.

There was a discussion about the organizational chart and the reporting structure, with concerns raised about the span of control for the Senior Management Analyst, who would be supervising only one person. A council member suggested a flatter organizational structure to improve efficiency and reduce management layers.

The fiscal impact of the proposed changes was also addressed, with a net salary savings of $59,123 for FY 2024-25 and an estimated additional cost of $127,018 for FY 2025-26. The committee was advised to update the organizational chart and ensure clarity in the presentation of the budget impact, including the use of favorable and unfavorable indicators.

The discussion concluded with a request to review the updated materials prior to the November 19th meeting, ensuring that all concerns and recommendations were incorporated.

'''Keywords:''' Recreation Coordinator, Senior Management Analyst, Salary Savings, Organizational Chart, Pay Range Alignment, Fiscal Impact, Position Deletion, Reporting Structure

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed Agenda Item 4, which proposed a resolution to revise and add several full-time and part-time classifications within the City of Clayton’s FY 2024–25 annual budget. The resolution included revising the full-time Administrative Assistant classification, adding full-time roles for Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, and Recreation Coordinator, and introducing a part-time Recreation Leader classification. It also proposed removing the full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions, resulting in a combined salary and benefit savings of $360,647.

Assistant City Manager Regina Rubier presented the staff report, outlining the rationale for each classification change. She noted that the City had previously relied on temporary agency employees and consultants for these roles, but recent CalPERS rulings prohibited the use of annuitants in ongoing consulting capacities. The report included detailed salary recommendations based on market surveys and internal compensation parity. For example, the Administrative Assistant’s pay range was set at $70,564 to $85,771 annually, while the Recreation Leader’s hourly rate was proposed at $16.53 to $22.15.

Public comment on the item was limited, with only one speaker, Dan Richardson, addressing the committee. He expressed concerns about the creation of bureaucracy and the potential impact on frontline workers, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a focus on operational efficiency rather than administrative expansion. He also mentioned the need for renewal of the Landscape Assessment District in 2027 and highlighted the importance of productivity improvements in maintenance roles.

The committee did not engage in further discussion or debate on the resolution, and no motions or votes were taken during the span provided. The item was moved to future topics, with the next meeting of the Budget and Audit Committee scheduled for December 11, 2024.

'''Keywords:''' Budget Revision, Classification Changes, Salary Savings, Full-Time Roles, Part-Time Positions, CalPERS Rulings, Public Concerns
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nObzNTmAzFy6-8jk8btLL7ndKVFEymQKW8FvHiA05dM/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== September 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/30f1848a-2fb8-4989-8317-22c411ab6545.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tqFp2Ww29j1TFlh_UQt15kM_sRJTHlL/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_09_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmaB0bDNzdc Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the proposal to apply for the MPA Risk Safety Grant Program, which offers $14,500 to support the transition from paper to electronic filing systems, thereby reducing liability risks. The Assistant City Manager, James, explained that the grant is part of MPA’s liability insurance risk pool and that the city needs a resolution from the council to proceed with the application. The grant is available semi-annually, and there is potential for additional funding in the future. Councilmember Jeff Wan and others expressed support for the application, noting that it is a straightforward opportunity to secure funding for an important project. The resolution was approved without objection, and the city will move forward with applying for the grant.

'''Keywords:''' MPA Risk Safety Grant, $14,500 Funding, Electronic Filing Systems, Liability Risk Reduction, Grant Application, Council Resolution

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the contract extension for MTC, which involves HR consulting and a management analyst. The assistant city manager, James, explained that the extension would cover services through the end of the fiscal year at an estimated annual cost of $80,000. This includes hiring a management analyst for 10 hours per week and additional support from an HR consultant. The previous contract, approved within the city manager’s authority, was for $30,000 and covered through July or August. Councilmember Jeff Wan noted that the current arrangement is significantly cheaper than hiring full-time equivalents and emphasized the need for the services. Councilmember Kim Trupiano acknowledged the value of the HR consultant’s work, particularly in updating outdated HR policies. A speaker raised a question about specific deliverables under the contract, to which James responded that the contract focuses on specific projects, with details to be determined. No objections were raised, and the item was concluded.

'''Keywords:''' contract extension, HR consulting, management analyst, annual cost $80,000, HR policies update, specific projects, full-time equivalents
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 12, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/3a6c1f6d-83c2-4494-bb96-33fc1609a702.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GaNEh13CTZ8T_C1lREKiZCWqQlEonAov/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_08_12_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the Library Refresh Proposal, which involves renovating the Clayton Community Library. The proposal was initiated by the former city manager and includes a comprehensive list of potential improvements, such as carpet replacement, painting, and furniture upgrades. The total estimated cost for the proposed renovations is approximately $1.37 million, though the city has not yet identified a specific budget. The county library staff has volunteered to fund the architectural services of Noll & Tam to prepare an initial study of the improvements. The city is considering combining available Living Trust Grant funding, fundraising with the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF), and a contribution from the city to fund the project. The county library staff has agreed to help prioritize the improvements once a budget is identified. The fiscal impact of the project is yet to be determined, as the city has not yet discussed fundraising amounts with the CCLF. The city’s contribution is expected to come from the General Fund and/or reserves, though no funds have been allocated in the FY24-25 budget or CIP. The committee members asked for more information on the funding sources and the potential for phased implementation of the project. The library staff emphasized the importance of community engagement and the need to involve the CCLF in the fundraising efforts. The committee members also inquired about the feasibility of implementing phase one of the project independently of the other phases. The library staff indicated that the phases are not necessarily dependent on each other and can be implemented independently. The discussion highlighted the need for further dialogue with the CCLF and the city’s finance department to determine the financial viability of the project.

'''Keywords:''' Library Refresh Proposal, Renovating Clayton Community Library, $1.37 Million Estimated Cost, Living Trust Grant Funding, Clayton Community Library Foundation, General Fund Contribution, Phased Implementation, Architectural Study by Noll & Tam

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed renovations for the Clayton Community Library, including the scope of work, funding sources, and community engagement. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a detailed list of potential improvements, which included carpet replacement, painting, furniture upgrades, and the addition of study pods and a Discovery Zone for early literacy. The estimated total cost was approximately $1.37 million, with the City, the Contra Costa County Library, and the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF) each expected to contribute. The City’s contribution would likely come from the General Fund or reserves, while the County had already committed $120,000 for architectural services. The CCLF had not yet provided a fundraising commitment, and the Living Trust Grant, which could provide up to $250,000 over five years, was limited in its allowable uses, such as furniture but not carpeting.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano raised questions about the distinction between the Living Trust and the CCLF’s funds, as well as the timeline for phase one of the project. She also inquired about the possibility of other grant opportunities outside of the Living Trust. The City Engineer clarified that the County would not apply for grants related to the project, as that responsibility fell to the City. The discussion also touched on the role of the CCLF in fundraising, with the foundation’s treasurer noting that they were not typically fundraisers but were willing to support the project if included in future conversations.

The Interim City Manager, Adam Politzer, emphasized the importance of collaboration between the City, the County, and the CCLF, and suggested forming a working group to move forward with the project. He also highlighted the need for a community engagement effort to prioritize the improvements and develop a funding plan. The meeting concluded with a motion to form a working group and provide an update to the full council in early November.

'''Keywords:''' Clayton Community Library, funding sources, carpet replacement, Living Trust Grant, community engagement, study pods, Discovery Zone, General Fund

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a proposal to modify the third floor of City Hall to enhance security while maintaining an open and aesthetically pleasing environment. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a preliminary cost range of $140,000 to $222,000 for the project, which includes architectural and engineering services. The proposal involves installing physical barriers, such as glass walls and doors with security card access, to restrict public access to employee-only areas while preserving the open layout of the third floor. The design aims to balance security with the historical and aesthetic value of the building.

Interim City Manager Adam Politzer emphasized the need for security improvements following a mental health incident in the City Hall lobby, highlighting the importance of preventing unauthorized access to staff areas. He noted that the design would include features such as swipe card access, which would track who enters and exits, and help prevent potential harm to staff.

Councilmember Jeff Wan raised concerns about the cost and the feasibility of the proposed design, suggesting alternatives such as securing access at the first or second floor instead of the third. He also questioned whether the project should be prioritized over other needed improvements, such as carpeting and painting. Councilmember Kim Trupiano suggested exploring less costly options, such as locking the front door and using cameras, and inquiring about the historical significance of the building and potential constraints on modifications.

Public comment included suggestions for using clear walls similar to those in banks to maintain an open feel while ensuring security. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on the open and transparent nature of City Hall, with some members expressing a preference for maintaining the current accessibility of the building.

The committee agreed to request additional information and options from the City Engineer and architect, including potential designs for securing access at different floors and the associated costs. The discussion concluded with a recommendation to revisit the proposal with updated information before making a final decision.

'''Keywords:''' security enhancements, cost range $140k-$222k, physical barriers, swipe card access, historical building constraints, alternative access floors, public comment on transparency

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed purchase of a new lawnmower for city maintenance operations. The speaker presented the new lawnmower as a more efficient and economical option, with a cutting radius double that of the current model. They also mentioned the inclusion of a sunshade to protect staff from sun exposure, highlighting both practical and health-related benefits. The speaker expressed willingness to provide a detailed report on the lawnmower’s performance after it is acquired, acknowledging that the actual efficiency gains may not be a pure 50% improvement as suggested in the brochure. Other members of the committee expressed interest in testing the lawnmower once it is received and supported the purchase. No public comment was received on the item, and the committee moved on to the next agenda item.

'''Keywords:''' new lawnmower, efficiency gains, sunshade inclusion, performance report, testing support, health benefits
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/7f14d032-b876-4801-a652-610bc4287559.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryCSVh1ospF4idEbkChfUH_S8vS33v0C/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_30_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Budget Overview, Discussion and Schedule ====

The budget overview discussion focused on the FY 2023–24 year-to-date actuals and the FY 2024–25 budget, with several updates and questions from committee members. Regina provided an update on the FY 2023–24 budget, noting that the city had received a $634,540 vehicle license fee payment but was still missing approximately $400,000 in secured property taxes and $100,000 in business license fees. She explained that the FY 2024–25 budget had seen increases in expenses due to new charges from Concord PD, Contra Costa County, and radio leases. The city had not yet moved $113,000 from last year’s general fund to balance the budget this year.

Jeff Wan raised questions about the absence of well water usage charges in the budget, noting that Oakhurst likely uses the city’s well water. Regina suggested adding an $18,000 to $20,000 line item for this. Kim Trupiano inquired about the significant drop in “other in lieu” funds, from $175,000 to $59,000, and Regina acknowledged the need to investigate further.

On the expense side, Regina noted that police lieutenant salaries were not yet budgeted and would require a future amendment. Jeff Wan questioned the discrepancy in salary and benefit line items, which Regina explained were double-budgeted and being corrected. Kim Trupiano asked about the impact of electricity rate increases on the budget, and Regina proposed addressing this during the mid-year budget review.

Several committee members raised concerns about line items such as rental leases, education and training, and professional services, suggesting potential reductions or reallocations. Jeff Wan also discussed the city’s involvement with the animal control services, noting the high costs and the need for a potential fee-for-service model. Kim Trupiano emphasized the importance of aligning the budget with the council’s priorities and goals, suggesting that future budget amendments would reflect this alignment.

The discussion also touched on the city’s reserve funds, which were noted to be at $7.7 million, significantly above the required $2.2 million. This was seen as a positive, but there was recognition of the need to address long-term fiscal planning and infrastructure needs. Regina concluded the presentation, and the meeting moved forward with no formal motions or votes on the budget at this time.

'''Keywords:''' vehicle license fee, secured property taxes, business license fees, FY 2024–25 budget, well water usage charges, other in lieu funds, electricity rate increases, reserve funds

==== Item 3: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:01:54].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 14, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEiSEZHqOEqAJOcxSqB-8BDzB049lykl/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_14_2024]
|}

== May 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtNTcuWlF_j2fTvxneZoXHJkrOp2ugVJ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_05_07_2024]
|}

== April 22, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C36NbbhYAeMnFpAonfMb8VbYfY1o9GaT/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_04_22_2024]
|}

== March 25, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/931f8bd9-e8ad-48fe-98c3-2dbdf2dcd43d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tyhPgr1JwKC29XajByppMUknXsXPih0D/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_25_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZuenLGJnE Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:04:27].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee conducted an interview with Frank Gavidia for a seat on the Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee. Gavidia, a certified financial planner with experience in municipal finance and Wall Street, expressed interest in joining the committee to provide financial expertise and ensure transparency in city finances. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing numbers and questioned the lack of detailed information on the city’s investment portfolio in past meetings. Gavidia also discussed his potential collaboration with existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford, highlighting their complementary financial backgrounds. He envisioned working closely with city staff to obtain necessary data and conducting thorough analyses to inform the Council.

Committee members Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano asked questions about Gavidia’s motivations and how he would approach his role. Gavidia explained that his interest in the subcommittee had grown over time, particularly after conversations with Kaplan and others, and he believed the committee could serve as a valuable check on city finances. He also addressed concerns about the subcommittee’s structure and the Brown Act, noting that while the committee would need to meet publicly, there were ways to manage discussions effectively.

The committee then discussed the reappointment of existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford for two additional years, with their terms expiring in 2026. A motion was made to recommend the appointment of Gavidia to Seat 3, which would align with the staggered term structure and avoid having all three members’ terms expire in the same year. The motion passed unanimously.

Following the interview, the committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2023–2024 Budget with Finance Director Copti. Questions focused on consultant services, budget allocations, and the mechanics of the LMD fund. Copti explained that wages were charged directly through payroll, while benefits were allocated quarterly based on salary data. The discussion also included clarification on HR policies, recruitment services, and the status of personnel policies, which were nearly finalized for presentation to the Council.

'''Keywords:''' Financial Expertise, Subcommittee Appointment, Budget Transparency, Staggered Terms, Consultant Services, LMD Fund Mechanics, HR Policies

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:39:06].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-11-01T16:15:01Z

Joelclayton:

:''Main article: [[Budget and Audit Committee]]''
== November 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/97f5ba83-06d4-435b-9cdb-f4659719dd39.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MePwW3kN6nsJeP-OyAUYF8Sx6m_AZsKq/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_11_07_2024] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vBNtRifomZcQnO2XhWSZyQ2btIJsMIzR/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Minutes_11_07_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nObzNTmAzFy6-8jk8btLL7ndKVFEymQKW8FvHiA05dM/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXPfuNLLfr0 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the adoption of a resolution authorizing revisions to several full-time and part-time classifications, including the addition of roles for a Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, Recreation Coordinator, and a part-time Recreation Leader, while removing the full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions from the FY 2024–25 budget. The resolution also included salary recommendations for these positions based on market surveys and internal compensation parity.

The Administrative Assistant position, currently filled by a temporary employee, was budgeted at $77,000 for the fiscal year, with a proposed pay range of $70,560 to $87,305. The Recreation Coordinator position had a recommended salary range of $75,465 to $91,372, while the Senior Management Analyst was proposed at $128,691 to $158,046. The Senior Planner position had a recommended range of $113,138 to $142,785, and the part-time Recreation Leader was recommended at $16.79 to $19.92 per hour.

The committee noted that the removal of the Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions would result in cost savings of approximately $360,647, as these roles had been filled by consultants at a cost of about $150,000 for the year. The proposed positions were intended to provide more consistent and efficient service, particularly in areas such as event coordination, facility rentals, and administrative support.

Several council members raised concerns about the salary recommendations, noting that the proposed ranges were significantly higher than those of comparable cities and questioned the methodology used to determine them. Some members also pointed out discrepancies between the budget and the proposed salary figures, emphasizing the need for transparency and clarity in the budgeting process.

The discussion highlighted the need for a more detailed breakdown of the budget and the rationale behind the salary recommendations, as well as the importance of aligning the compensation with the workload and responsibilities of the positions. The committee acknowledged the need for further review and discussion on these matters before finalizing the resolution.

'''Keywords:''' Salary Recommendations, Position Additions, Cost Savings, Market Surveys, Compensation Parity, Budget Discrepancies, Role Removals, Pay Ranges

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a resolution authorizing revisions to several full-time and part-time classifications, including the addition of new roles and the deletion of existing ones from the FY 2024-25 annual budget. The proposed changes included revising the full-time Administrative Assistant classification, adding full-time roles for Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, and Recreation Coordinator, as well as a part-time Recreation Leader classification. The full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions were to be deleted, resulting in a combined salary and benefit savings of $360,647.

During the discussion, several council members raised questions and concerns about the proposed changes. One council member noted confusion regarding the title "Recreation Coordinator," suggesting it might be more appropriately named "Special Event Manager." There was clarification that the Recreation Leader, a part-time position, would report to the Recreation Coordinator, not the City Clerk, as previously indicated.

Council members also inquired about the salary ranges and the rationale behind them. The Assistant City Manager provided details on the market survey data used to determine the pay ranges for each position, emphasizing alignment with industry standards and the City’s compensation framework. The Senior Management Analyst’s salary range was highlighted as $128,691 to $158,046, while the Recreation Coordinator’s range was $75,465 to $91,372.

There was a discussion about the organizational chart and the reporting structure, with concerns raised about the span of control for the Senior Management Analyst, who would be supervising only one person. A council member suggested a flatter organizational structure to improve efficiency and reduce management layers.

The fiscal impact of the proposed changes was also addressed, with a net salary savings of $59,123 for FY 2024-25 and an estimated additional cost of $127,018 for FY 2025-26. The committee was advised to update the organizational chart and ensure clarity in the presentation of the budget impact, including the use of favorable and unfavorable indicators.

The discussion concluded with a request to review the updated materials prior to the November 19th meeting, ensuring that all concerns and recommendations were incorporated.

'''Keywords:''' Recreation Coordinator, Senior Management Analyst, Salary Savings, Organizational Chart, Pay Range Alignment, Fiscal Impact, Position Deletion, Reporting Structure

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed Agenda Item 4, which proposed a resolution to revise and add several full-time and part-time classifications within the City of Clayton’s FY 2024–25 annual budget. The resolution included revising the full-time Administrative Assistant classification, adding full-time roles for Senior Management Analyst, Senior Planner, and Recreation Coordinator, and introducing a part-time Recreation Leader classification. It also proposed removing the full-time Community Development Director and Assistant Planner positions, resulting in a combined salary and benefit savings of $360,647.

Assistant City Manager Regina Rubier presented the staff report, outlining the rationale for each classification change. She noted that the City had previously relied on temporary agency employees and consultants for these roles, but recent CalPERS rulings prohibited the use of annuitants in ongoing consulting capacities. The report included detailed salary recommendations based on market surveys and internal compensation parity. For example, the Administrative Assistant’s pay range was set at $70,564 to $85,771 annually, while the Recreation Leader’s hourly rate was proposed at $16.53 to $22.15.

Public comment on the item was limited, with only one speaker, Dan Richardson, addressing the committee. He expressed concerns about the creation of bureaucracy and the potential impact on frontline workers, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a focus on operational efficiency rather than administrative expansion. He also mentioned the need for renewal of the Landscape Assessment District in 2027 and highlighted the importance of productivity improvements in maintenance roles.

The committee did not engage in further discussion or debate on the resolution, and no motions or votes were taken during the span provided. The item was moved to future topics, with the next meeting of the Budget and Audit Committee scheduled for December 11, 2024.

'''Keywords:''' Budget Revision, Classification Changes, Salary Savings, Full-Time Roles, Part-Time Positions, CalPERS Rulings, Public Concerns
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nObzNTmAzFy6-8jk8btLL7ndKVFEymQKW8FvHiA05dM/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== September 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/30f1848a-2fb8-4989-8317-22c411ab6545.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tqFp2Ww29j1TFlh_UQt15kM_sRJTHlL/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_09_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmaB0bDNzdc Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the proposal to apply for the MPA Risk Safety Grant Program, which offers $14,500 to support the transition from paper to electronic filing systems, thereby reducing liability risks. The Assistant City Manager, James, explained that the grant is part of MPA’s liability insurance risk pool and that the city needs a resolution from the council to proceed with the application. The grant is available semi-annually, and there is potential for additional funding in the future. Councilmember Jeff Wan and others expressed support for the application, noting that it is a straightforward opportunity to secure funding for an important project. The resolution was approved without objection, and the city will move forward with applying for the grant.

'''Keywords:''' MPA Risk Safety Grant, $14,500 Funding, Electronic Filing Systems, Liability Risk Reduction, Grant Application, Council Resolution

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the contract extension for MTC, which involves HR consulting and a management analyst. The assistant city manager, James, explained that the extension would cover services through the end of the fiscal year at an estimated annual cost of $80,000. This includes hiring a management analyst for 10 hours per week and additional support from an HR consultant. The previous contract, approved within the city manager’s authority, was for $30,000 and covered through July or August. Councilmember Jeff Wan noted that the current arrangement is significantly cheaper than hiring full-time equivalents and emphasized the need for the services. Councilmember Kim Trupiano acknowledged the value of the HR consultant’s work, particularly in updating outdated HR policies. A speaker raised a question about specific deliverables under the contract, to which James responded that the contract focuses on specific projects, with details to be determined. No objections were raised, and the item was concluded.

'''Keywords:''' contract extension, HR consulting, management analyst, annual cost $80,000, HR policies update, specific projects, full-time equivalents
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LzwTMitY5i1zrXwj8qTR_PBgbYB7iPQvePrh7d5u8hQ/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 12, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/3a6c1f6d-83c2-4494-bb96-33fc1609a702.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GaNEh13CTZ8T_C1lREKiZCWqQlEonAov/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_08_12_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the Library Refresh Proposal, which involves renovating the Clayton Community Library. The proposal was initiated by the former city manager and includes a comprehensive list of potential improvements, such as carpet replacement, painting, and furniture upgrades. The total estimated cost for the proposed renovations is approximately $1.37 million, though the city has not yet identified a specific budget. The county library staff has volunteered to fund the architectural services of Noll & Tam to prepare an initial study of the improvements. The city is considering combining available Living Trust Grant funding, fundraising with the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF), and a contribution from the city to fund the project. The county library staff has agreed to help prioritize the improvements once a budget is identified. The fiscal impact of the project is yet to be determined, as the city has not yet discussed fundraising amounts with the CCLF. The city’s contribution is expected to come from the General Fund and/or reserves, though no funds have been allocated in the FY24-25 budget or CIP. The committee members asked for more information on the funding sources and the potential for phased implementation of the project. The library staff emphasized the importance of community engagement and the need to involve the CCLF in the fundraising efforts. The committee members also inquired about the feasibility of implementing phase one of the project independently of the other phases. The library staff indicated that the phases are not necessarily dependent on each other and can be implemented independently. The discussion highlighted the need for further dialogue with the CCLF and the city’s finance department to determine the financial viability of the project.

'''Keywords:''' Library Refresh Proposal, Renovating Clayton Community Library, $1.37 Million Estimated Cost, Living Trust Grant Funding, Clayton Community Library Foundation, General Fund Contribution, Phased Implementation, Architectural Study by Noll & Tam

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed renovations for the Clayton Community Library, including the scope of work, funding sources, and community engagement. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a detailed list of potential improvements, which included carpet replacement, painting, furniture upgrades, and the addition of study pods and a Discovery Zone for early literacy. The estimated total cost was approximately $1.37 million, with the City, the Contra Costa County Library, and the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF) each expected to contribute. The City’s contribution would likely come from the General Fund or reserves, while the County had already committed $120,000 for architectural services. The CCLF had not yet provided a fundraising commitment, and the Living Trust Grant, which could provide up to $250,000 over five years, was limited in its allowable uses, such as furniture but not carpeting.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano raised questions about the distinction between the Living Trust and the CCLF’s funds, as well as the timeline for phase one of the project. She also inquired about the possibility of other grant opportunities outside of the Living Trust. The City Engineer clarified that the County would not apply for grants related to the project, as that responsibility fell to the City. The discussion also touched on the role of the CCLF in fundraising, with the foundation’s treasurer noting that they were not typically fundraisers but were willing to support the project if included in future conversations.

The Interim City Manager, Adam Politzer, emphasized the importance of collaboration between the City, the County, and the CCLF, and suggested forming a working group to move forward with the project. He also highlighted the need for a community engagement effort to prioritize the improvements and develop a funding plan. The meeting concluded with a motion to form a working group and provide an update to the full council in early November.

'''Keywords:''' Clayton Community Library, funding sources, carpet replacement, Living Trust Grant, community engagement, study pods, Discovery Zone, General Fund

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a proposal to modify the third floor of City Hall to enhance security while maintaining an open and aesthetically pleasing environment. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a preliminary cost range of $140,000 to $222,000 for the project, which includes architectural and engineering services. The proposal involves installing physical barriers, such as glass walls and doors with security card access, to restrict public access to employee-only areas while preserving the open layout of the third floor. The design aims to balance security with the historical and aesthetic value of the building.

Interim City Manager Adam Politzer emphasized the need for security improvements following a mental health incident in the City Hall lobby, highlighting the importance of preventing unauthorized access to staff areas. He noted that the design would include features such as swipe card access, which would track who enters and exits, and help prevent potential harm to staff.

Councilmember Jeff Wan raised concerns about the cost and the feasibility of the proposed design, suggesting alternatives such as securing access at the first or second floor instead of the third. He also questioned whether the project should be prioritized over other needed improvements, such as carpeting and painting. Councilmember Kim Trupiano suggested exploring less costly options, such as locking the front door and using cameras, and inquiring about the historical significance of the building and potential constraints on modifications.

Public comment included suggestions for using clear walls similar to those in banks to maintain an open feel while ensuring security. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on the open and transparent nature of City Hall, with some members expressing a preference for maintaining the current accessibility of the building.

The committee agreed to request additional information and options from the City Engineer and architect, including potential designs for securing access at different floors and the associated costs. The discussion concluded with a recommendation to revisit the proposal with updated information before making a final decision.

'''Keywords:''' security enhancements, cost range $140k-$222k, physical barriers, swipe card access, historical building constraints, alternative access floors, public comment on transparency

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed purchase of a new lawnmower for city maintenance operations. The speaker presented the new lawnmower as a more efficient and economical option, with a cutting radius double that of the current model. They also mentioned the inclusion of a sunshade to protect staff from sun exposure, highlighting both practical and health-related benefits. The speaker expressed willingness to provide a detailed report on the lawnmower’s performance after it is acquired, acknowledging that the actual efficiency gains may not be a pure 50% improvement as suggested in the brochure. Other members of the committee expressed interest in testing the lawnmower once it is received and supported the purchase. No public comment was received on the item, and the committee moved on to the next agenda item.

'''Keywords:''' new lawnmower, efficiency gains, sunshade inclusion, performance report, testing support, health benefits
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== July 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/64c93490-1496-4e8b-91c5-36db7d1018a4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lvFJ09Zn9xVZuTRd6GYTLll1TPddYKvz/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_07_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqalFr24LPI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 8: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:35:13].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/7f14d032-b876-4801-a652-610bc4287559.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryCSVh1ospF4idEbkChfUH_S8vS33v0C/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_30_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Budget Overview, Discussion and Schedule ====

The budget overview discussion focused on the FY 2023–24 year-to-date actuals and the FY 2024–25 budget, with several updates and questions from committee members. Regina provided an update on the FY 2023–24 budget, noting that the city had received a $634,540 vehicle license fee payment but was still missing approximately $400,000 in secured property taxes and $100,000 in business license fees. She explained that the FY 2024–25 budget had seen increases in expenses due to new charges from Concord PD, Contra Costa County, and radio leases. The city had not yet moved $113,000 from last year’s general fund to balance the budget this year.

Jeff Wan raised questions about the absence of well water usage charges in the budget, noting that Oakhurst likely uses the city’s well water. Regina suggested adding an $18,000 to $20,000 line item for this. Kim Trupiano inquired about the significant drop in “other in lieu” funds, from $175,000 to $59,000, and Regina acknowledged the need to investigate further.

On the expense side, Regina noted that police lieutenant salaries were not yet budgeted and would require a future amendment. Jeff Wan questioned the discrepancy in salary and benefit line items, which Regina explained were double-budgeted and being corrected. Kim Trupiano asked about the impact of electricity rate increases on the budget, and Regina proposed addressing this during the mid-year budget review.

Several committee members raised concerns about line items such as rental leases, education and training, and professional services, suggesting potential reductions or reallocations. Jeff Wan also discussed the city’s involvement with the animal control services, noting the high costs and the need for a potential fee-for-service model. Kim Trupiano emphasized the importance of aligning the budget with the council’s priorities and goals, suggesting that future budget amendments would reflect this alignment.

The discussion also touched on the city’s reserve funds, which were noted to be at $7.7 million, significantly above the required $2.2 million. This was seen as a positive, but there was recognition of the need to address long-term fiscal planning and infrastructure needs. Regina concluded the presentation, and the meeting moved forward with no formal motions or votes on the budget at this time.

'''Keywords:''' vehicle license fee, secured property taxes, business license fees, FY 2024–25 budget, well water usage charges, other in lieu funds, electricity rate increases, reserve funds

==== Item 3: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:01:54].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 14, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEiSEZHqOEqAJOcxSqB-8BDzB049lykl/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_14_2024]
|}

== May 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtNTcuWlF_j2fTvxneZoXHJkrOp2ugVJ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_05_07_2024]
|}

== April 22, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C36NbbhYAeMnFpAonfMb8VbYfY1o9GaT/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_04_22_2024]
|}

== March 25, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/931f8bd9-e8ad-48fe-98c3-2dbdf2dcd43d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tyhPgr1JwKC29XajByppMUknXsXPih0D/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_25_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZuenLGJnE Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:04:27].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee conducted an interview with Frank Gavidia for a seat on the Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee. Gavidia, a certified financial planner with experience in municipal finance and Wall Street, expressed interest in joining the committee to provide financial expertise and ensure transparency in city finances. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing numbers and questioned the lack of detailed information on the city’s investment portfolio in past meetings. Gavidia also discussed his potential collaboration with existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford, highlighting their complementary financial backgrounds. He envisioned working closely with city staff to obtain necessary data and conducting thorough analyses to inform the Council.

Committee members Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano asked questions about Gavidia’s motivations and how he would approach his role. Gavidia explained that his interest in the subcommittee had grown over time, particularly after conversations with Kaplan and others, and he believed the committee could serve as a valuable check on city finances. He also addressed concerns about the subcommittee’s structure and the Brown Act, noting that while the committee would need to meet publicly, there were ways to manage discussions effectively.

The committee then discussed the reappointment of existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford for two additional years, with their terms expiring in 2026. A motion was made to recommend the appointment of Gavidia to Seat 3, which would align with the staggered term structure and avoid having all three members’ terms expire in the same year. The motion passed unanimously.

Following the interview, the committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2023–2024 Budget with Finance Director Copti. Questions focused on consultant services, budget allocations, and the mechanics of the LMD fund. Copti explained that wages were charged directly through payroll, while benefits were allocated quarterly based on salary data. The discussion also included clarification on HR policies, recruitment services, and the status of personnel policies, which were nearly finalized for presentation to the Council.

'''Keywords:''' Financial Expertise, Subcommittee Appointment, Budget Transparency, Staggered Terms, Consultant Services, LMD Fund Mechanics, HR Policies

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:39:06].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2025 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:45:04Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2025-08-11 04_00 PM

== August 11, 2025 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_zNjqoRxTyRwon9MIC7FrdeA8DUJrU6L/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/8173070d-7afa-4cb6-b875-d73d7fb86ae2.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_zNjqoRxTyRwon9MIC7FrdeA8DUJrU6L/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UGrV3DiUgTPmLtFTmXqm2z2U4BSPecSU/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_08_11_2025]
|}

== May 19, 2025 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13GT_8DkI6U5pZxfHjV4cSJe9GK9_yXDt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/3fe01947-e7f3-4ecc-9512-2c301f3d003e.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13GT_8DkI6U5pZxfHjV4cSJe9GK9_yXDt/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X4VuEIsv_OhfPPZJUhMXKnlTr0aBobwV/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_19_2025] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/10mSFsDlA4nRkPBfklciEWo73DxN7twhD8I0v5m0nBOc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5DlorzS54c Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non-agenda Items ====

The committee moved to item 3B, which involved receiving a report amending the salary schedule for a vacant senior planner position. City Manager Chris provided an overview of the situation, noting that despite efforts to fill the position, there had been very low application rates, with only 16 total applications and five candidates meeting the minimum qualifications. One candidate accepted an offer but chose to remain with their current employer, and subsequent recruitment rounds had not yielded successful hires. Currently, two candidates meet the minimum qualifications, and the proposed salary adjustment would place the position at step B, corresponding to $12,666 per month. This adjustment is intended to attract a qualified candidate who can provide full-time support for ongoing city projects and resident services. Chris emphasized the need for a dedicated senior planner to address the city’s growing workload and improve service delivery.

Mayor Jeff Wan acknowledged the report and asked if there were any questions. City Manager Chris clarified that the agenda item was for discussion rather than approval. Vice Mayor Wong confirmed this understanding. Vice Mayor Wong then inquired about the impact of the salary adjustment on the overall budget, but the transcript cuts off before a response is provided. No further discussion or action was taken on the item during the available transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' salary schedule amendment, senior planner position, low application rates, salary adjustment, city projects, budget impact, qualified candidate

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/10mSFsDlA4nRkPBfklciEWo73DxN7twhD8I0v5m0nBOc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== April 21, 2025 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FcLFnFrn3F3quc92ZR2spWwZeDU5vvf2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/faad371f-f75e-469b-9810-105144e5edb1.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FcLFnFrn3F3quc92ZR2spWwZeDU5vvf2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IqGloTtlxEr8m0WGQIE6eCX_zVX3AevD/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_04_21_2025] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A3BPeSf1v35bZg0-8lOQyQtMv2T7C4U4PxIusQLAkQg/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non-agenda Items ====

The committee moved to item 3A, the approval of the April 7th meeting minutes, after briefly reopening public comment to address any input on the minutes. Councilmember Kim Trupiano, who was presiding, confirmed that no members of the public had comments on the minutes and proceeded to close public comment on non-agenda items. She then announced the transition to action items, starting with the approval of the minutes. No further public comments were received on the minutes, and the item was moved forward for consideration.

'''Keywords:''' approval of minutes, public comment, transition to action items, councilmember presiding

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee convened to discuss the FY 2025-26 two-year budget, marking the first time the city is implementing such a plan. Assistant City Manager Regina Rubier presented the budget overview, highlighting initial challenges, including formula errors, over-budgeted line items, and the need for revisions. The budget includes 27.6 full-time employees, with no new hires, and incorporates departmental requests, though some were not clearly itemized. Key issues raised included discrepancies in year-to-date expenses, such as $74,000 in other professional services and $43,000 in dues and subscriptions, which were attributed to temporary agency wages and software costs like Granicus.

The budget also faced scrutiny over inflated figures, such as the $347 million discrepancy in the Community Development Department’s wages and benefits. Concerns were raised about the accuracy of the General Services Fund, which had a $600,000 allocation, and the need to consolidate funds for better clarity. Specific line items, such as the $30,000 expense for recording meetings and the $15,000 for consultants, were questioned.

The Police Department’s budget included a $410,000 estimate for dispatch services and a $160,000 allocation for seasonal labor, though some departments, like Parks and Rec, had lower figures. The Library’s budget reflected significant expenses for HVAC repairs, with future plans to reduce costs once the system is fixed. The Climate Tech fund, which tracks projects like solar and EV charging, was noted as being audited for the first time, with its own separate fund for loan repayments.

The committee also discussed the need for a bottom-up budgeting approach to better understand departmental needs and ensure alignment with city goals. A budget workshop was scheduled for May 6, where department heads would present their requests, and a follow-up meeting was planned for May 12. The final budget was expected to be presented to the full council for approval on June 3.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2025-26 budget, formula errors, over-budgeted line items, Community Development Department, General Services Fund, Climate Tech fund, bottom-up budgeting

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A3BPeSf1v35bZg0-8lOQyQtMv2T7C4U4PxIusQLAkQg/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 10, 2025 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1akQIMa1A0_jhZPX62Q1ciDLqaOR4jMFy/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/696413c3-81c5-470c-a0ac-508e1bbd1480.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1akQIMa1A0_jhZPX62Q1ciDLqaOR4jMFy/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SyTrmlPYg-_LyHlCAoM635HZ-s9LL-Uk/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_10_2025] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hD9rhhZv2HXqhOtIBB9In5L7HIn6gOEZ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Minutes_02_10_2025] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E9tdHh-89-TU3qhhTG875LR2pCBXVPxGt2AzKlncMPc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaFLrtR-UCY Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The committee discussed the review of the HDL contract and performance for business license services, and the recommendation to consider changes in policy for business license filing. Regina Rubier, the assistant city manager, provided an update on the contract, noting that the city is close to being on budget for business license revenue, with an estimated shortfall of only $2,000 for the current fiscal year. She recommended continuing the contract for a full fiscal year, explaining that terminating it would require 120 days’ notice.

Vice Mayor Wan raised concerns about the contract’s auto-renewal terms and suggested adjusting the contract start date to align with the fiscal year to allow sufficient time for evaluation before renewal. He also questioned the lack of data provided by HDL, including the number of businesses they had identified and the results of their discovery phase. He emphasized the need for HDL to provide detailed information on their findings and the effectiveness of the contract, noting that the city had not received the promised data or analysis.

Mayor Trupiano echoed these concerns, referencing a previous meeting where HDL had made promises about identifying additional businesses and generating revenue. He pointed out that the city had not received the promised analysis or results, and questioned whether the contract was meeting its goals. He also highlighted the need for HDL to communicate more effectively with the city, particularly regarding the responsibility of the city to handle certain tasks, such as sending out home occupancy questionnaires.

Public comment included feedback from a business owner who expressed frustration with the lack of timely notices from HDL regarding delinquencies and the difficulty in paying fees. Another speaker suggested that the city should ensure consistent communication with contractors to avoid confusion and inefficiencies.

Regina Rubier concluded by stating that the recommendation was to receive the report and request HDL to schedule a presentation to the full council to address the concerns raised. The committee did not vote on any motion related to the contract or policy change at this time.

'''Keywords:''' HDL contract review, business license revenue, policy change recommendation, contract auto-renewal, HDL data transparency, contract performance evaluation, city-HDL communication, fiscal year alignment

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:43:26].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E9tdHh-89-TU3qhhTG875LR2pCBXVPxGt2AzKlncMPc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 13, 2025 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/e518202b-df16-4e6f-9c7c-17c21bb4b6a6.mp4 Video] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AZYdxKWEl8Gf1AoZTnaSihmptmaH91VkBeXXcJH_Ic/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfYaAi3bbBw Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The meeting began with a roll call and a public comment period on non-agenda items. Mr. Gavidia expressed concern about misinformation circulating about the city’s financial status, particularly regarding rumors that Clayton is going broke. He urged the committee to publish the city’s financial statements online, noting that while some information is redacted for privacy, transparency would help counter false claims. Ms. Schulman echoed these concerns, adding that some city officials have been engaging in inappropriate comments on social media, which could harm the city’s reputation. She emphasized the need for officials to adhere to guidelines from the Institutes of Government and the League of Cal Cities, which advise against negative social media posts about city government.

Following the public comment, the meeting moved on to other agenda items, including the approval of minutes from a previous meeting and a presentation on investment management services. However, technical difficulties prevented the presentation from proceeding as planned. The discussion then shifted to a proposal for revising job descriptions and adding new positions to the city’s workforce. Regina, the Assistant City Manager, outlined the proposed changes, which included updating outdated job titles, adding new roles such as a community development technician and a senior planner, and removing some existing positions. She also provided a financial analysis, noting that while there would be a budget savings of approximately $28,000 in the current fiscal year, the next year would see an increase of about $76,000.

Vice Mayor Wong raised several questions and recommendations, including the need for a more comprehensive overview of all positions and a more concise approach to job descriptions. He also expressed concerns about the salary range for the community development technician, suggesting it might be too high given the job’s requirements. Madam Mayor and others engaged in further discussion, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the new positions and confirming the budget implications. The item was ultimately recommended for approval with a modification to the salary for the community development technician.

'''Keywords:''' financial transparency, social media guidelines, job description revisions, budget savings, new city positions, salary adjustments, investment management

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The city council discussed the investment advisory program for the city's portfolio, with a focus on transitioning to either a short-duration U.S. Treasury portfolio managed by UBS or a broader investment-grade government and credit portfolio managed by Invesco. The current portfolio, valued at over $12 million, includes holdings that are underwater due to rising interest rates, which would result in approximately $126,000 in realized losses if fully transitioned. However, the higher yields from the new portfolios are expected to offset these losses within less than a year. A partial transition was also considered, allowing underwater investments to mature at par value before being replaced.

The advisory program offers institutional pricing advantages, estimated to save between $7,000 and $28,000 annually, and ensures that cash remains actively invested rather than idle. The cost of the advisory service is 30 basis points annually, billed quarterly based on the daily average balance of the portfolio. The city would need to update its investment policy to align with the chosen strategy and establish guidelines for portfolio allocation and monitoring.

Vice Mayor Wong recommended proceeding with the short-duration UBS Treasury portfolio, citing its conservative nature and alignment with the city's investment policy. The full transition would involve accepting short-term losses for long-term gains. The recommendation was supported by the mayor, and the matter was set to be reviewed by the full council in February.

'''Keywords:''' investment advisory program, transition to UBS portfolio, realized losses $126k, institutional pricing savings, investment policy update, short-duration Treasury portfolio, portfolio allocation guidelines
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AZYdxKWEl8Gf1AoZTnaSihmptmaH91VkBeXXcJH_Ic/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:45:00Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2024-11-07 04_00 PM

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:44:44Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2024-09-10 04_00 PM

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:44:40Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2024-08-12 04_00 PM

== August 12, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/3a6c1f6d-83c2-4494-bb96-33fc1609a702.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GaNEh13CTZ8T_C1lREKiZCWqQlEonAov/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_08_12_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed the Library Refresh Proposal, which involves renovating the Clayton Community Library. The proposal was initiated by the former city manager and includes a comprehensive list of potential improvements, such as carpet replacement, painting, and furniture upgrades. The total estimated cost for the proposed renovations is approximately $1.37 million, though the city has not yet identified a specific budget. The county library staff has volunteered to fund the architectural services of Noll & Tam to prepare an initial study of the improvements. The city is considering combining available Living Trust Grant funding, fundraising with the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF), and a contribution from the city to fund the project. The county library staff has agreed to help prioritize the improvements once a budget is identified. The fiscal impact of the project is yet to be determined, as the city has not yet discussed fundraising amounts with the CCLF. The city’s contribution is expected to come from the General Fund and/or reserves, though no funds have been allocated in the FY24-25 budget or CIP. The committee members asked for more information on the funding sources and the potential for phased implementation of the project. The library staff emphasized the importance of community engagement and the need to involve the CCLF in the fundraising efforts. The committee members also inquired about the feasibility of implementing phase one of the project independently of the other phases. The library staff indicated that the phases are not necessarily dependent on each other and can be implemented independently. The discussion highlighted the need for further dialogue with the CCLF and the city’s finance department to determine the financial viability of the project.

'''Keywords:''' Library Refresh Proposal, Renovating Clayton Community Library, $1.37 Million Estimated Cost, Living Trust Grant Funding, Clayton Community Library Foundation, General Fund Contribution, Phased Implementation, Architectural Study by Noll & Tam

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed renovations for the Clayton Community Library, including the scope of work, funding sources, and community engagement. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a detailed list of potential improvements, which included carpet replacement, painting, furniture upgrades, and the addition of study pods and a Discovery Zone for early literacy. The estimated total cost was approximately $1.37 million, with the City, the Contra Costa County Library, and the Clayton Community Library Foundation (CCLF) each expected to contribute. The City’s contribution would likely come from the General Fund or reserves, while the County had already committed $120,000 for architectural services. The CCLF had not yet provided a fundraising commitment, and the Living Trust Grant, which could provide up to $250,000 over five years, was limited in its allowable uses, such as furniture but not carpeting.

Councilmember Kim Trupiano raised questions about the distinction between the Living Trust and the CCLF’s funds, as well as the timeline for phase one of the project. She also inquired about the possibility of other grant opportunities outside of the Living Trust. The City Engineer clarified that the County would not apply for grants related to the project, as that responsibility fell to the City. The discussion also touched on the role of the CCLF in fundraising, with the foundation’s treasurer noting that they were not typically fundraisers but were willing to support the project if included in future conversations.

The Interim City Manager, Adam Politzer, emphasized the importance of collaboration between the City, the County, and the CCLF, and suggested forming a working group to move forward with the project. He also highlighted the need for a community engagement effort to prioritize the improvements and develop a funding plan. The meeting concluded with a motion to form a working group and provide an update to the full council in early November.

'''Keywords:''' Clayton Community Library, funding sources, carpet replacement, Living Trust Grant, community engagement, study pods, Discovery Zone, General Fund

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee discussed a proposal to modify the third floor of City Hall to enhance security while maintaining an open and aesthetically pleasing environment. The City Engineer, Larry Theis, presented a preliminary cost range of $140,000 to $222,000 for the project, which includes architectural and engineering services. The proposal involves installing physical barriers, such as glass walls and doors with security card access, to restrict public access to employee-only areas while preserving the open layout of the third floor. The design aims to balance security with the historical and aesthetic value of the building.

Interim City Manager Adam Politzer emphasized the need for security improvements following a mental health incident in the City Hall lobby, highlighting the importance of preventing unauthorized access to staff areas. He noted that the design would include features such as swipe card access, which would track who enters and exits, and help prevent potential harm to staff.

Councilmember Jeff Wan raised concerns about the cost and the feasibility of the proposed design, suggesting alternatives such as securing access at the first or second floor instead of the third. He also questioned whether the project should be prioritized over other needed improvements, such as carpeting and painting. Councilmember Kim Trupiano suggested exploring less costly options, such as locking the front door and using cameras, and inquiring about the historical significance of the building and potential constraints on modifications.

Public comment included suggestions for using clear walls similar to those in banks to maintain an open feel while ensuring security. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on the open and transparent nature of City Hall, with some members expressing a preference for maintaining the current accessibility of the building.

The committee agreed to request additional information and options from the City Engineer and architect, including potential designs for securing access at different floors and the associated costs. The discussion concluded with a recommendation to revisit the proposal with updated information before making a final decision.

'''Keywords:''' security enhancements, cost range $140k-$222k, physical barriers, swipe card access, historical building constraints, alternative access floors, public comment on transparency

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the proposed purchase of a new lawnmower for city maintenance operations. The speaker presented the new lawnmower as a more efficient and economical option, with a cutting radius double that of the current model. They also mentioned the inclusion of a sunshade to protect staff from sun exposure, highlighting both practical and health-related benefits. The speaker expressed willingness to provide a detailed report on the lawnmower’s performance after it is acquired, acknowledging that the actual efficiency gains may not be a pure 50% improvement as suggested in the brochure. Other members of the committee expressed interest in testing the lawnmower once it is received and supported the purchase. No public comment was received on the item, and the committee moved on to the next agenda item.

'''Keywords:''' new lawnmower, efficiency gains, sunshade inclusion, performance report, testing support, health benefits
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UK2xBO6p7qRGK5p-ecuALNEihyIa-Kizmv2jYPBZPgg/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== July 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/64c93490-1496-4e8b-91c5-36db7d1018a4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lvFJ09Zn9xVZuTRd6GYTLll1TPddYKvz/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_07_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqalFr24LPI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 8: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:35:13].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/7f14d032-b876-4801-a652-610bc4287559.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryCSVh1ospF4idEbkChfUH_S8vS33v0C/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_30_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Budget Overview, Discussion and Schedule ====

The budget overview discussion focused on the FY 2023–24 year-to-date actuals and the FY 2024–25 budget, with several updates and questions from committee members. Regina provided an update on the FY 2023–24 budget, noting that the city had received a $634,540 vehicle license fee payment but was still missing approximately $400,000 in secured property taxes and $100,000 in business license fees. She explained that the FY 2024–25 budget had seen increases in expenses due to new charges from Concord PD, Contra Costa County, and radio leases. The city had not yet moved $113,000 from last year’s general fund to balance the budget this year.

Jeff Wan raised questions about the absence of well water usage charges in the budget, noting that Oakhurst likely uses the city’s well water. Regina suggested adding an $18,000 to $20,000 line item for this. Kim Trupiano inquired about the significant drop in “other in lieu” funds, from $175,000 to $59,000, and Regina acknowledged the need to investigate further.

On the expense side, Regina noted that police lieutenant salaries were not yet budgeted and would require a future amendment. Jeff Wan questioned the discrepancy in salary and benefit line items, which Regina explained were double-budgeted and being corrected. Kim Trupiano asked about the impact of electricity rate increases on the budget, and Regina proposed addressing this during the mid-year budget review.

Several committee members raised concerns about line items such as rental leases, education and training, and professional services, suggesting potential reductions or reallocations. Jeff Wan also discussed the city’s involvement with the animal control services, noting the high costs and the need for a potential fee-for-service model. Kim Trupiano emphasized the importance of aligning the budget with the council’s priorities and goals, suggesting that future budget amendments would reflect this alignment.

The discussion also touched on the city’s reserve funds, which were noted to be at $7.7 million, significantly above the required $2.2 million. This was seen as a positive, but there was recognition of the need to address long-term fiscal planning and infrastructure needs. Regina concluded the presentation, and the meeting moved forward with no formal motions or votes on the budget at this time.

'''Keywords:''' vehicle license fee, secured property taxes, business license fees, FY 2024–25 budget, well water usage charges, other in lieu funds, electricity rate increases, reserve funds

==== Item 3: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:01:54].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 14, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEiSEZHqOEqAJOcxSqB-8BDzB049lykl/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_14_2024]
|}

== May 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtNTcuWlF_j2fTvxneZoXHJkrOp2ugVJ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_05_07_2024]
|}

== April 22, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C36NbbhYAeMnFpAonfMb8VbYfY1o9GaT/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_04_22_2024]
|}

== March 25, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/931f8bd9-e8ad-48fe-98c3-2dbdf2dcd43d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tyhPgr1JwKC29XajByppMUknXsXPih0D/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_25_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZuenLGJnE Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:04:27].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee conducted an interview with Frank Gavidia for a seat on the Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee. Gavidia, a certified financial planner with experience in municipal finance and Wall Street, expressed interest in joining the committee to provide financial expertise and ensure transparency in city finances. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing numbers and questioned the lack of detailed information on the city’s investment portfolio in past meetings. Gavidia also discussed his potential collaboration with existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford, highlighting their complementary financial backgrounds. He envisioned working closely with city staff to obtain necessary data and conducting thorough analyses to inform the Council.

Committee members Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano asked questions about Gavidia’s motivations and how he would approach his role. Gavidia explained that his interest in the subcommittee had grown over time, particularly after conversations with Kaplan and others, and he believed the committee could serve as a valuable check on city finances. He also addressed concerns about the subcommittee’s structure and the Brown Act, noting that while the committee would need to meet publicly, there were ways to manage discussions effectively.

The committee then discussed the reappointment of existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford for two additional years, with their terms expiring in 2026. A motion was made to recommend the appointment of Gavidia to Seat 3, which would align with the staggered term structure and avoid having all three members’ terms expire in the same year. The motion passed unanimously.

Following the interview, the committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2023–2024 Budget with Finance Director Copti. Questions focused on consultant services, budget allocations, and the mechanics of the LMD fund. Copti explained that wages were charged directly through payroll, while benefits were allocated quarterly based on salary data. The discussion also included clarification on HR policies, recruitment services, and the status of personnel policies, which were nearly finalized for presentation to the Council.

'''Keywords:''' Financial Expertise, Subcommittee Appointment, Budget Transparency, Staggered Terms, Consultant Services, LMD Fund Mechanics, HR Policies

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:39:06].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:44:24Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2024-07-10 04_00 PM

== July 10, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/64c93490-1496-4e8b-91c5-36db7d1018a4.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lvFJ09Zn9xVZuTRd6GYTLll1TPddYKvz/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_07_10_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqalFr24LPI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 8: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:35:13].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/13y3aBz5-QIBNRlkclQr5Odswzw2FgPOkpdoTrrpqR6k/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/7f14d032-b876-4801-a652-610bc4287559.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryCSVh1ospF4idEbkChfUH_S8vS33v0C/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_30_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Budget Overview, Discussion and Schedule ====

The budget overview discussion focused on the FY 2023–24 year-to-date actuals and the FY 2024–25 budget, with several updates and questions from committee members. Regina provided an update on the FY 2023–24 budget, noting that the city had received a $634,540 vehicle license fee payment but was still missing approximately $400,000 in secured property taxes and $100,000 in business license fees. She explained that the FY 2024–25 budget had seen increases in expenses due to new charges from Concord PD, Contra Costa County, and radio leases. The city had not yet moved $113,000 from last year’s general fund to balance the budget this year.

Jeff Wan raised questions about the absence of well water usage charges in the budget, noting that Oakhurst likely uses the city’s well water. Regina suggested adding an $18,000 to $20,000 line item for this. Kim Trupiano inquired about the significant drop in “other in lieu” funds, from $175,000 to $59,000, and Regina acknowledged the need to investigate further.

On the expense side, Regina noted that police lieutenant salaries were not yet budgeted and would require a future amendment. Jeff Wan questioned the discrepancy in salary and benefit line items, which Regina explained were double-budgeted and being corrected. Kim Trupiano asked about the impact of electricity rate increases on the budget, and Regina proposed addressing this during the mid-year budget review.

Several committee members raised concerns about line items such as rental leases, education and training, and professional services, suggesting potential reductions or reallocations. Jeff Wan also discussed the city’s involvement with the animal control services, noting the high costs and the need for a potential fee-for-service model. Kim Trupiano emphasized the importance of aligning the budget with the council’s priorities and goals, suggesting that future budget amendments would reflect this alignment.

The discussion also touched on the city’s reserve funds, which were noted to be at $7.7 million, significantly above the required $2.2 million. This was seen as a positive, but there was recognition of the need to address long-term fiscal planning and infrastructure needs. Regina concluded the presentation, and the meeting moved forward with no formal motions or votes on the budget at this time.

'''Keywords:''' vehicle license fee, secured property taxes, business license fees, FY 2024–25 budget, well water usage charges, other in lieu funds, electricity rate increases, reserve funds

==== Item 3: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:01:54].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 14, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEiSEZHqOEqAJOcxSqB-8BDzB049lykl/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_14_2024]
|}

== May 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtNTcuWlF_j2fTvxneZoXHJkrOp2ugVJ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_05_07_2024]
|}

== April 22, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C36NbbhYAeMnFpAonfMb8VbYfY1o9GaT/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_04_22_2024]
|}

== March 25, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/931f8bd9-e8ad-48fe-98c3-2dbdf2dcd43d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tyhPgr1JwKC29XajByppMUknXsXPih0D/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_25_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZuenLGJnE Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:04:27].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee conducted an interview with Frank Gavidia for a seat on the Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee. Gavidia, a certified financial planner with experience in municipal finance and Wall Street, expressed interest in joining the committee to provide financial expertise and ensure transparency in city finances. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing numbers and questioned the lack of detailed information on the city’s investment portfolio in past meetings. Gavidia also discussed his potential collaboration with existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford, highlighting their complementary financial backgrounds. He envisioned working closely with city staff to obtain necessary data and conducting thorough analyses to inform the Council.

Committee members Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano asked questions about Gavidia’s motivations and how he would approach his role. Gavidia explained that his interest in the subcommittee had grown over time, particularly after conversations with Kaplan and others, and he believed the committee could serve as a valuable check on city finances. He also addressed concerns about the subcommittee’s structure and the Brown Act, noting that while the committee would need to meet publicly, there were ways to manage discussions effectively.

The committee then discussed the reappointment of existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford for two additional years, with their terms expiring in 2026. A motion was made to recommend the appointment of Gavidia to Seat 3, which would align with the staggered term structure and avoid having all three members’ terms expire in the same year. The motion passed unanimously.

Following the interview, the committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2023–2024 Budget with Finance Director Copti. Questions focused on consultant services, budget allocations, and the mechanics of the LMD fund. Copti explained that wages were charged directly through payroll, while benefits were allocated quarterly based on salary data. The discussion also included clarification on HR policies, recruitment services, and the status of personnel policies, which were nearly finalized for presentation to the Council.

'''Keywords:''' Financial Expertise, Subcommittee Appointment, Budget Transparency, Staggered Terms, Consultant Services, LMD Fund Mechanics, HR Policies

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:39:06].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:44:20Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2024-05-30 04_00 PM

== May 30, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/7f14d032-b876-4801-a652-610bc4287559.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryCSVh1ospF4idEbkChfUH_S8vS33v0C/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_30_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Budget Overview, Discussion and Schedule ====

The budget overview discussion focused on the FY 2023–24 year-to-date actuals and the FY 2024–25 budget, with several updates and questions from committee members. Regina provided an update on the FY 2023–24 budget, noting that the city had received a $634,540 vehicle license fee payment but was still missing approximately $400,000 in secured property taxes and $100,000 in business license fees. She explained that the FY 2024–25 budget had seen increases in expenses due to new charges from Concord PD, Contra Costa County, and radio leases. The city had not yet moved $113,000 from last year’s general fund to balance the budget this year.

Jeff Wan raised questions about the absence of well water usage charges in the budget, noting that Oakhurst likely uses the city’s well water. Regina suggested adding an $18,000 to $20,000 line item for this. Kim Trupiano inquired about the significant drop in “other in lieu” funds, from $175,000 to $59,000, and Regina acknowledged the need to investigate further.

On the expense side, Regina noted that police lieutenant salaries were not yet budgeted and would require a future amendment. Jeff Wan questioned the discrepancy in salary and benefit line items, which Regina explained were double-budgeted and being corrected. Kim Trupiano asked about the impact of electricity rate increases on the budget, and Regina proposed addressing this during the mid-year budget review.

Several committee members raised concerns about line items such as rental leases, education and training, and professional services, suggesting potential reductions or reallocations. Jeff Wan also discussed the city’s involvement with the animal control services, noting the high costs and the need for a potential fee-for-service model. Kim Trupiano emphasized the importance of aligning the budget with the council’s priorities and goals, suggesting that future budget amendments would reflect this alignment.

The discussion also touched on the city’s reserve funds, which were noted to be at $7.7 million, significantly above the required $2.2 million. This was seen as a positive, but there was recognition of the need to address long-term fiscal planning and infrastructure needs. Regina concluded the presentation, and the meeting moved forward with no formal motions or votes on the budget at this time.

'''Keywords:''' vehicle license fee, secured property taxes, business license fees, FY 2024–25 budget, well water usage charges, other in lieu funds, electricity rate increases, reserve funds

==== Item 3: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:01:54].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uz8nUPTSmqIMC-GcYV0pt8EmZeUe5XLKvpoQkbZQQyc/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 14, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEiSEZHqOEqAJOcxSqB-8BDzB049lykl/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_14_2024]
|}

== May 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtNTcuWlF_j2fTvxneZoXHJkrOp2ugVJ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_05_07_2024]
|}

== April 22, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C36NbbhYAeMnFpAonfMb8VbYfY1o9GaT/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_04_22_2024]
|}

== March 25, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/931f8bd9-e8ad-48fe-98c3-2dbdf2dcd43d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tyhPgr1JwKC29XajByppMUknXsXPih0D/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_25_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZuenLGJnE Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:04:27].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee conducted an interview with Frank Gavidia for a seat on the Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee. Gavidia, a certified financial planner with experience in municipal finance and Wall Street, expressed interest in joining the committee to provide financial expertise and ensure transparency in city finances. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing numbers and questioned the lack of detailed information on the city’s investment portfolio in past meetings. Gavidia also discussed his potential collaboration with existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford, highlighting their complementary financial backgrounds. He envisioned working closely with city staff to obtain necessary data and conducting thorough analyses to inform the Council.

Committee members Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano asked questions about Gavidia’s motivations and how he would approach his role. Gavidia explained that his interest in the subcommittee had grown over time, particularly after conversations with Kaplan and others, and he believed the committee could serve as a valuable check on city finances. He also addressed concerns about the subcommittee’s structure and the Brown Act, noting that while the committee would need to meet publicly, there were ways to manage discussions effectively.

The committee then discussed the reappointment of existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford for two additional years, with their terms expiring in 2026. A motion was made to recommend the appointment of Gavidia to Seat 3, which would align with the staggered term structure and avoid having all three members’ terms expire in the same year. The motion passed unanimously.

Following the interview, the committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2023–2024 Budget with Finance Director Copti. Questions focused on consultant services, budget allocations, and the mechanics of the LMD fund. Copti explained that wages were charged directly through payroll, while benefits were allocated quarterly based on salary data. The discussion also included clarification on HR policies, recruitment services, and the status of personnel policies, which were nearly finalized for presentation to the Council.

'''Keywords:''' Financial Expertise, Subcommittee Appointment, Budget Transparency, Staggered Terms, Consultant Services, LMD Fund Mechanics, HR Policies

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:39:06].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2024 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:44:04Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2024-03-25 04_00 PM

== May 14, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEiSEZHqOEqAJOcxSqB-8BDzB049lykl/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_14_2024]
|}

== May 07, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtNTcuWlF_j2fTvxneZoXHJkrOp2ugVJ/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_05_07_2024]
|}

== April 22, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C36NbbhYAeMnFpAonfMb8VbYfY1o9GaT/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_04_22_2024]
|}

== March 25, 2024 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/931f8bd9-e8ad-48fe-98c3-2dbdf2dcd43d.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tyhPgr1JwKC29XajByppMUknXsXPih0D/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_25_2024] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoZuenLGJnE Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:04:27].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget and Audit Committee conducted an interview with Frank Gavidia for a seat on the Community Financial Sustainability Subcommittee. Gavidia, a certified financial planner with experience in municipal finance and Wall Street, expressed interest in joining the committee to provide financial expertise and ensure transparency in city finances. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing numbers and questioned the lack of detailed information on the city’s investment portfolio in past meetings. Gavidia also discussed his potential collaboration with existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford, highlighting their complementary financial backgrounds. He envisioned working closely with city staff to obtain necessary data and conducting thorough analyses to inform the Council.

Committee members Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano asked questions about Gavidia’s motivations and how he would approach his role. Gavidia explained that his interest in the subcommittee had grown over time, particularly after conversations with Kaplan and others, and he believed the committee could serve as a valuable check on city finances. He also addressed concerns about the subcommittee’s structure and the Brown Act, noting that while the committee would need to meet publicly, there were ways to manage discussions effectively.

The committee then discussed the reappointment of existing members Howard Kaplan and Hank Stratford for two additional years, with their terms expiring in 2026. A motion was made to recommend the appointment of Gavidia to Seat 3, which would align with the staggered term structure and avoid having all three members’ terms expire in the same year. The motion passed unanimously.

Following the interview, the committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2023–2024 Budget with Finance Director Copti. Questions focused on consultant services, budget allocations, and the mechanics of the LMD fund. Copti explained that wages were charged directly through payroll, while benefits were allocated quarterly based on salary data. The discussion also included clarification on HR policies, recruitment services, and the status of personnel policies, which were nearly finalized for presentation to the Council.

'''Keywords:''' Financial Expertise, Subcommittee Appointment, Budget Transparency, Staggered Terms, Consultant Services, LMD Fund Mechanics, HR Policies

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:39:06].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1co_2rSUzhls7_kXXuvvOI4O4RYCaBrHm-tsLb4tLWfo/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:44:00Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-11-16 04_00 PM

== November 16, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/c586e273-7324-47ea-8ea2-7586ec85d9b7.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8zwr2O5l-0k_wxThpg7wRVQFQStu5Ad/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikFTRQICbQI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

Public comment on non-agenda items was called to order. Debbie D'Souza, a resident, expressed appreciation for the council meeting report and raised questions about the city's solar initiatives and potential income generation from solar projects. She also inquired about the availability of Brett's job description and the results of a recent review. In response, Speaker 2 explained that the city is engaged in a large energy infrastructure project with Climatech and that there are limitations on earning money from solar due to PG&E regulations. He also noted that the job description is available in a brochure and that a six-month evaluation had no reportable actions.

Speaker 3 addressed rumors circulating about the city's financial situation and criticized the use of the city manager's concerns to push for a parcel tax. He emphasized that the majority of Clayton opposes such measures and that the city's financial challenges are not as dire as some claim.

The discussion then moved to the FY 24 Q1 budget status. Brett provided an overview of the city's revenue and expenses, noting that property tax receipts are a significant portion of the city's revenue and are received in December and April. He explained that the city is generally within budget and that the focus is on managing expenses. There was a discussion about the availability of property tax data and the need for more detailed reporting. The city manager also addressed the audit process for FY 2023, noting that unaudited financials would be available in December.

The meeting then moved to the quarterly financial report on the city's investment portfolio. The report detailed the city's investment earnings, the movement of funds between accounts, and the focus on U.S. treasuries. There was a discussion about the need for more detailed reporting, including transaction details and average daily cash balances, to provide better context for the city's financial activities.

'''Keywords:''' solar initiatives, income generation, job description, parcel tax, property tax receipts, investment portfolio, financial reporting

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the city's investment strategy, particularly the return on investment (ROI) for the past quarter, which was approximately $52,000. The speaker asked about future goals and whether there was a target ROI. In response, another speaker explained that the city aims for a net increase every quarter while interest rates remain higher than the yields from maturing investments. They noted that there is no specific target interest rate, as investments are made based on what rolls off or matures. They also mentioned that selling current investments at a loss to reinvest in higher-yield options is not currently viable due to the significant losses involved.

The speaker also discussed the city's investment duration, stating that a two-year benchmark would be ideal as the portfolio's duration is between one and a half to two years. They suggested that as older investments roll off and new ones come in, the portfolio may eventually align with this benchmark. They also mentioned that if new members are appointed in December, there could be a reconsideration of including corporate bonds in the portfolio, noting that some corporate debt has better credit ratings than U.S. treasuries and is highly liquid.

Another speaker asked about the mix of investments, and it was confirmed that the focus has been on treasuries, with a recent investment of $350,000 in CDs due to a better return. A public comment was made suggesting that monthly statements from UBS be posted for transparency, and that the city should participate in treasury auctions rather than buying from UBS's inventory to avoid markups. The discussion also touched on the city's reserve policy, noting that the current reserve is over 100%, and that discussions about appropriate reserve levels would take place in February. The next budget and audit committee meeting was expected to be in January.

'''Keywords:''' return on investment, target ROI, investment duration, corporate bonds, treasury auctions, reserve policy, monthly statements
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JyfY_hiI0BBd29UzwsUQFmW16aNKRS5mCkqvprvQ6PE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== August 14, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/dafff971-eb4a-4be6-8e1d-5cf5d74967f5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhF5FpnpEkg Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The meeting began with a roll call, confirming the presence of both members of the Budget and Audit Committee. The only action item on the agenda was the presentation of the quarterly financial report on the city's investment portfolio for the period ending June 30, 2023. The report was presented by [Speaker 4], who outlined the city's investment strategy, emphasizing the focus on reinvesting maturing funds into higher-yielding instruments. The city's total interest for fiscal year 2022–2023 was approximately $238,000, with $71,000 received from UBS in the second quarter of 2023. The city currently earns over 5% interest from its BFM camp account, which is a liquidity pool similar to the LEIF account, though the latter yields around 3%. The city has also invested in two CDs yielding 5.45% and 5.25% over two- and three-year terms, respectively.

[Speaker 2] raised several questions, including why the city still maintains funds in the lower-yielding LAIF account despite the higher yields available in the CAMP account. [Speaker 1] explained that maintaining some funds in LAIF helps preserve the relationship with the institution and avoids the costs associated with closing and reopening the account. [Speaker 2] also inquired about the city's liquidity needs and the high minimum balance required in the checking account, which [Speaker 1] attributed to bank analysis charges and the need to maintain sufficient liquidity for operations.

[Speaker 2] expressed concern about the city's strategy of holding investments to maturity and questioned why CDs were preferred over treasuries. [Speaker 1] explained that the decision is based on yield, liquidity needs, and cash flow projections, and that the city generally avoids selling investments before maturity. The discussion also touched on the city's limited size and how it affects investment decisions, with [Speaker 1] noting that the city's small portfolio size limits the ability to negotiate better terms with financial institutions.

[Speaker 2] concluded by requesting more detailed activity reports and a clearer understanding of the city's investment strategy, emphasizing the importance of maximizing yield while maintaining liquidity. The meeting ended with [Speaker 2] expressing appreciation for the presentation and the detailed discussion.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, quarterly financial report, higher-yielding instruments, total interest 238,000, UBS 71,000, BFM camp account, CDs 5.45% 5.25%, LAIF account

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Council members and staff discussed the city's investment portfolio and related financial strategies during the meeting. The discussion centered on the city's $238,294 in investment earnings for fiscal year 2023, which exceeded the budget by $119,684. This was attributed to reinvesting a portion of the city's cash into shorter-term, higher-yield investments, including a $500,000 shift earlier in the year. Councilmember Brett questioned whether this shift was the source of the surplus, and Mayor Wong confirmed that the city had considered moving funds to higher-yielding instruments at the start of the year, though the details were not fully clear from the provided information.

Councilmember Trubiano noted that the city's portfolio included a mix of CDs, federal agency securities, medium-term notes, and municipal bonds, with CDs typically being the lowest-yielding. Staff clarified that the yield of CDs depends on the specific institution and market conditions. The discussion also covered the city’s investment in higher-yield U.S. Treasury notes and the expected annual cash flow from UBS, which was $204,120 for fiscal year 2022–2023.

A key point of discussion was the market value of the portfolio, which exceeded its book value by $627,756 as of June 2023. Staff explained that this was due to a fair market value adjustment required by GASB 31. Councilmember Trubiano raised concerns about the impact of rising interest rates on the portfolio’s value, and staff explained that bonds are inversely related to interest rates, but since the city holds investments to maturity, the impact is less significant.

The conversation also touched on the potential for swapping lower-yielding investments for higher-yielding ones, though staff cautioned that doing so could result in short-term losses that might affect the general ledger. Mayor Wong noted that a swap analysis had been conducted in February, identifying some opportunities for improvement, but the city had not acted on it due to other priorities.

Councilmember Trubiano suggested developing a clearer investment strategy, including target maturities and a more streamlined portfolio with fewer positions. Staff acknowledged the need for a more systematic approach and agreed to revisit the topic in future meetings. The discussion concluded with a commitment to continue evaluating the portfolio’s performance and strategy.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, fiscal year 2023, investment earnings, higher-yield investments, market value adjustment, rising interest rates, swap analysis, investment strategy
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/1098c029-9181-48cb-b43d-fdbe3dff0adc.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSuWwcg0Qs Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee convened for a special meeting, beginning with a roll call confirming the presence of Brett, Mayor Wong, and the City Manager. The session opened with public comment, which was closed due to no speakers. The first agenda item was a review of the city's quarterly financial reports on its investment portfolio. The City Manager provided an overview, explaining the current investment strategy, which includes transitioning to longer-duration investments to maintain interest rates amid anticipated Federal Reserve rate reductions. He emphasized the importance of liquidity, yield, and state liquidity as key pillars for investment management and outlined plans to meet with UBS to develop a strategy for managing the city's investments.

Councilmember Brett inquired about the inclusion of medium-term notes and corporate bonds in the portfolio, and the City Manager explained that these are corporate debt instruments from well-capitalized companies, classified as medium risk. He also discussed the city's plan to move away from certain types of investments, such as mortgage-backed securities, and the need to review the investment policy approved in May 2023. He noted that the city had moved $500,000 from the LAIF to investments and that a dollar target for cash flow management was still being determined.

The discussion then shifted to the FY 24 proposed operations and maintenance budget. The City Manager presented the budget, highlighting the use of one-time pension reserves to balance the budget and the need for future operating efficiencies and technology improvements. He noted that the general fund is balanced with the use of $125,000 from pension reserves and emphasized the importance of salary structure improvements for key positions such as the finance director and police chief. The City Manager requested additional time to evaluate potential budget cuts and understand their impacts before making further decisions.

Brett asked about the FY23 surplus, and the report indicated a revised surplus of $408,931. He also inquired about the $40,000 allocated for software purchases, and the City Manager explained that part of the cost would cover one-time implementation fees, while other parts would be ongoing subscription costs. The City Manager expressed the need for further evaluation of technology projects and their associated costs.

'''Keywords:''' investment strategy, Federal Reserve rates, medium-term notes, pension reserves, FY24 budget, software purchases, technology projects, investment policy

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Brett raised concerns about the classification of one-time expenses within the operating budget, suggesting that separating them would provide a clearer picture of regular operations versus one-time items. City Manager responded by acknowledging the need for clarity and mentioned the possibility of developing a fund balance policy to better manage surplus funds and allocate them to specific reserves, such as capital or pension reserves, rather than letting them accumulate in the general fund without direction.

Councilmember Brett also inquired about the surplus from the current fiscal year and how it would be used. City Manager explained that surplus funds could either be rolled into general fund reserves or used to balance the next year’s budget, depending on council direction. He noted that a fund balance policy would help automate and formalize this process, ensuring that funds are allocated according to predetermined priorities.

Regarding the pension reserves, Councilmember Brett pointed out that using $125,000 from the pension fund to balance pension costs was a short-term solution. City Manager agreed, emphasizing the need for long-term planning and understanding of service delivery costs to avoid unsustainable fixes.

Councilmember Brett also questioned the budgeted amount for the supplemental property tax, noting a significant drop from $50,000 in FY 22 to $10,000 in FY 24. City Manager explained that the estimate was based on industry trends, interest rates, and the lag in supplemental tax collections, which are influenced by the timing of property sales and county processing delays. He noted that the number was difficult to predict and that HDL, the contractor providing the estimate, was cautious due to current market conditions.

Councilmember Brett also raised concerns about inconsistencies between the staff report and the detailed schedules in the agenda packet, which City Manager attributed to the departure of the previous finance director and the use of spreadsheets rather than budgeting software. He mentioned that a revised budget would be posted shortly to address these inconsistencies.

Other topics included the exclusion of the climate tech loan repayment and potential benefits from the project, the ongoing discussions with PG&E regarding streetlight rebates and energy efficiency, and the need to reassess service delivery and fund sustainability for various city funds, such as the stormwater assessment and street lighting fund. City Manager also mentioned plans to review vendor contracts and the recruitment process for a new finance director, noting the challenges in the current market for qualified candidates.

'''Keywords:''' one-time expenses classification, fund balance policy, pension reserve usage, supplemental property tax, budget inconsistency, climate tech loan repayment, vendor contract review, finance director recruitment

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The discussion centered on budgeting and funding sources for various city programs, particularly those related to trails and maintenance. Speaker 2 raised concerns about structurally overspending dedicated funds and the need for a community conversation about future funding strategies, including whether to pursue a specific tax for trails or integrate trail funding into a broader parcel tax. Speaker 1 emphasized the importance of having this conversation in the fall, noting the need for a six- to ten-month runway to prepare for a potential vote in November 2024. They also highlighted the need to distinguish between service reductions that pose real risks versus those that are merely aesthetic concerns.

Speaker 2 reiterated the need for clarity in how staff time is allocated across different funds and suggested presenting data on the percentage of maintenance work tied to specific programs. Speaker 1 agreed, noting that such clarity would help guide the fall conversation. They also discussed the potential use of remaining grant funds for one-time benefits, such as security cameras, and the need to understand the restrictions on those funds.

Speaker 4 asked about the remaining grant funds for the Grove, and Speaker 1 acknowledged the uncertainty due to the departing finance director. Speaker 2 suggested that the funds were likely in the grant fund and not on the operating side. Speaker 1 confirmed the need to work with the Titian team to better understand the grant fund's balance and available resources.

Speaker 4 also inquired about the need to extend the Gov Invest contract due to the finance director vacancy and the Tish team staying on for an additional month. Speaker 3 responded that they would work with the city manager to potentially reduce the contract amount and manage some work internally.

The discussion concluded with Speaker 2 closing public comment and Speaker 1 summarizing the need for continued refinement of the budget process and preparation for community conversations in the fall.

'''Keywords:''' trail funding strategies, community conversation, potential tax vote, grant fund balance, staff time allocation, service reduction risks, budget process refinement
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 15, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/a8c41fa3-903d-47e6-b6dd-4faff029f982.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIYJkd4bzCMA_laeKbhuhxXm38snoMpd/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_15_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2XNqCiAI8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:03].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began its session with a public comment period for non-agenda items. Speaker 3, who was identified as the moderator, opened the floor for public input, noting that individuals in attendance or participating remotely had the opportunity to speak. However, Speaker 8, who appeared to be a committee member, pointed out that no hands had been raised, indicating that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on non-agenda items. In response, Speaker 3 confirmed that the public comment period would be closed. Before moving on to the next agenda item, Speaker 3 took the opportunity to welcome the new city manager, Mr. Brett Perbula, expressing gratitude for his arrival. No further discussion or action was taken on non-agenda items during this segment.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, non-agenda items, new city manager, welcome speech, committee member, speaker confirmation

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the proposed update to the master fee schedule, presented by Nitish Sharma of GovInvest. The update aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services, incorporating actual costs rather than estimated time-based fees. Key areas reviewed included planning and development fees, police services, environmental review, and facility rental fees.

Nitish explained that deposits were adjusted to reflect actual costs, including legal and engineering expenses, and that the city would monitor deposits to ensure they cover project costs. He also highlighted new fees, such as those for technology impact, and clarified that some previously unitemized costs, like county filing fees and mileage, were now included for transparency.

Council members raised questions about the methodology, including how fees for tree removal and picnic area rentals were calculated. They noted that some fees, like the $5,000 deposit for annexation, were based on actual costs rather than time estimates. Concerns were raised about the clarity of fee categories and the need for maps to identify specific areas affected by fees.

The committee also discussed the inclusion of a technology impact fee to cover future software costs, with some members expressing support for this approach. Regarding facility rental fees, the committee requested clearer labeling and maps to help identify specific areas.

The discussion concluded with the committee acknowledging the need for a policy on street closures and the importance of setting clear guidelines for fee waivers. The updated fee schedule was to be brought back to the full council for adoption, likely as part of a budget workshop.

'''Keywords:''' master fee schedule, cost recovery, actual costs, technology impact fee, fee categories, fee waivers, budget workshop

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:22].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== March 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/00f5141d-a50e-4a92-880f-2e5b98355549.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Av8VI1B2OlbfmLNfghWMauULCiKc_Gx/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Kbs-Eey8E Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began the public comment segment for non-agenda items. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted there were two speaker cards, and the first speaker was identified as "Mr. Killer." However, no public comments were made during this segment. The discussion quickly moved on to action items, with no further remarks or interventions from members of the public or committee members regarding non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker cards, Mr. Killer

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the status and timeline for the FY 2023–2024 budget and the update to the city’s master fee schedule. Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma provided an overview of the current timeline, which includes distributing budget worksheets to department leaders starting March 1, initiating the master fee schedule interview process with department leaders on March 10, compiling information by April 7, and presenting preliminary proposals to the city manager and the Budget/Audit Committee on April 24. Further updates were scheduled for May 22, with budget workshops planned for June 6. The committee noted that the April 24 meeting would present the initial budget proposals, while the May 22 meeting would serve as a workshop for feedback and revisions. Concerns were raised about the timeline, with some members suggesting the possibility of accelerating the process or holding additional meetings if needed.

Public comment included concerns from residents about potential hidden taxes through the master fee schedule and the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in fee calculations. Ed Miller referenced Proposition 26, which defines the difference between taxes and fees, emphasizing the need for transparency in the fee schedule process. Another speaker encouraged the committee to consider how increased fees might affect the city’s unfunded liabilities.

The committee then moved to item 3B, a review of active service contracts. Angeline Loeffler presented a list of 48 active contracts, primarily professional services, excluding day-to-day operations like copy machine renewals. She noted that most contracts were annual or had three-year terms with renewal options. She also highlighted the lack of a centralized spreadsheet to track contract dates and the need to digitize and organize existing contracts. Council members raised questions about the accuracy of the list, the lack of contract expiration dates, and the need for historical spending data to better understand the contracts’ scope and usage.

Several specific contracts were discussed, including Precision Civil Engineering, Apex Technology, and JNR Floor Services, with clarification on their roles and services. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency, potential overlaps in services, and the need for better coordination between departments and vendors. The committee also discussed the need for a more robust bidding process for larger contracts and the importance of consolidating services where possible to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to revisit the master fee schedule and active contracts in future meetings, with the next review expected in May.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2023–2024 budget, master fee schedule, budget timeline, unfunded pension liabilities, active service contracts, contract transparency, fee schedule process, budget proposals

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:09:00].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 23, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/65c563fb-b6ad-4be7-bd5d-b76adced5214.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The city manager introduced the draft audit for fiscal year 22, followed by a presentation from Bryce Rojas, the auditor, who outlined the audit findings. The audit resulted in a clean, unmodified opinion, indicating that the financial statements were fairly stated in all material respects. The city's total net position was $45.76 million, with $5.87 million in unrestricted net position. The general fund experienced a revenue shortfall of $1.3 million, but this was offset by a large grant, resulting in an increase in the fund balance of $250,000 and an overall increase in net position of $338,000.

Bryce highlighted several areas identified during the audit that required improvement, including material weaknesses in the continuity of personnel in the finance department, fair value estimates for certain assets, and internal controls over agency funds. The finance department faced challenges with personnel turnover, which led to a loss of institutional knowledge and the need for additional guidance when closing the books. Regarding fair value estimates, a discrepancy of approximately $150,000 was identified between the city's valuation of an asset and the auditor’s valuation, which was adjusted to reflect a more accurate fair value.

Agency funds presented complexities, particularly with the middle school Community Facilities District (CFD), which had a negative cash balance at year-end due to timing issues in the audit process. The city had since resolved this issue by paying off the final year of the CFD and closing the loan. Document retention practices were also noted as an area needing improvement, as some journal entries lacked supporting documentation, though this was not classified as a material weakness.

Councilmember Trubiano asked several questions, including the nature of the material weaknesses, the impact of the fair value adjustment, and the handling of agency funds. The city manager and interim finance director provided clarifications, emphasizing that while some issues were identified, they were being addressed and did not represent significant risks to the city's financial integrity. The discussion also touched on the transition to electronic document retention and the dual control process for journal entries, which included review and approval by different individuals.

The audit also highlighted the city’s overall financial position, with total revenues increasing by $1.5 million, largely due to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant. However, there were challenges in segregating ARPA-related spending from general fund expenditures, which distorted comparisons. The city was considering ways to present this information more clearly in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the audit report. The discussion concluded with a review of pension liabilities, OPEB liabilities, and the implementation of new accounting standards, including GASB 87, which required the capitalization of lease assets.

'''Keywords:''' draft audit fiscal year 22, clean unmodified opinion, revenue shortfall $1.3 million, fair value adjustment $150k, Community Facilities District, ARPA grant $1.5 million, GASB 87 lease assets

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Nitish Sharma discussed the impact of recent changes in sales tax collection on the city's revenue, particularly highlighting the effects of the Wayfair decision and Amazon's shift in business model. Initially, the city benefited from increased sales tax revenues following the Wayfair decision, which allowed counties to collect sales tax on online transactions. However, subsequent changes by Amazon, which began treating its distribution centers as local entities, redirected sales tax revenues to jurisdictions with such centers, negatively affecting Clayton's revenue. Sharma noted that the city has been advocating for changes to this situation but has not been successful.

Sharma also addressed questions about property tax assessments, specifically pointing out that Comcast's unsecured property value was listed as $22.962 million, primarily due to its underground infrastructure. He explained that the city's Endeavor program's financials were largely impacted by depreciation, with operating costs being covered by rental revenue. Additionally, there were discussions about the collectability of notes and the treatment of interest and principal in financial statements, with staff indicating that while interest allowances were established, principal allowances were not due to the nature of the city's financial practices.

Regarding the audit, staff highlighted that while there were material weaknesses in internal controls, day-to-day operations were functioning well. The audit was expected to be completed by November, and there were no findings of fraud during the current audit. Public comment was opened, with one speaker raising concerns about the city's financial practices and the need for formalized accounting policies. The item was then recommended for approval and forwarding to the full council for consideration.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax changes, Wayfair decision, Amazon business model, property tax assessments, Comcast property value, Endeavor program, audit material weaknesses, financial practices

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The presentation outlined the City's initiative to update its Master Fee Schedule, a process led by GovInvest, with the goal of aligning fees with full cost recovery while ensuring affordability and equity. The fee program currently accounts for approximately 8–9% of the general fund, with nearly $400,000 in fees used to support city services. The update will consider both existing and new fees, and will be informed by a methodology that includes analyzing direct and indirect costs, such as labor, materials, and administrative expenses. The process will also involve stakeholder engagement, including county and business partners, to ensure transparency and alignment with community needs.

The presentation emphasized the importance of regular fee adjustments to avoid large, sudden increases and to ensure that fees are comparable to those of neighboring jurisdictions. It also highlighted the need to avoid creating "pay-to-play" scenarios, particularly in areas like recreation, and to consider equity and access issues. The updated fee schedule will be tied to the city’s interactive budget book, enhancing transparency and accountability. The process will involve a phased approach, starting with scoping and stakeholder input, and will aim to include the updated schedule in the next budget, expected in the spring.

During the discussion, several questions were raised. One focused on the value of comparing fees with other cities, even when limited to cost recovery. The presenter explained that while the city is bound by Proposition 26 to cost recovery, comparing with other jurisdictions can help identify opportunities for process improvements and inform policy decisions. Another question addressed the inclusion of indirect costs, such as pension expenses, in the fee calculation. The presenter clarified that normal pension costs are included, but unfunded liabilities are not, as they are not budgeted for in the same way as direct costs.

The timeline for the project was not yet fully established, but the goal is to complete the work by May and include it in the next budget. The presenter also noted that the fee schedule would not include land use or development-related fees, only service delivery fees. A suggestion was made to tag fees in the accounting system to better track revenue and identify underutilized or unused fees. The discussion also touched on the possibility of adjusting fees for nonprofit users of Endeavor Hall, which would require a separate policy discussion.

'''Keywords:''' Master Fee Schedule, Cost Recovery, Fee Adjustments, Stakeholder Engagement, Budget Book Integration, Indirect Costs, Proposition 26, Service Delivery Fees

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the interpretation and implications of cost recovery mechanisms, particularly concerning budgeted versus actual expenses. Speaker 1 explained that certain costs are not included in utility rates and are instead recovered through budgeted allocations, emphasizing that these are legitimate city expenses. They noted that costs are calculated based on the time employees spend on specific services, which affects the overall budgeting process. Speaker 2 added that the city has a buyout program for unused vacation time, which effectively converts that time into a cash expense. They suggested that while these costs may not be material to the fee being discussed, it is important to understand them fully. Speaker 2 also indicated they had additional questions unrelated to the fee and planned to address them separately. Public comment was opened, but no one raised their hand to speak. Speaker 7 confirmed there were no comments, and the item was closed without further action or motion. The meeting then proceeded to adjournment.

'''Keywords:''' cost recovery mechanisms, budgeted versus actual expenses, utility rates, employee time allocation, vacation buyout program, cash expense conversion, fee discussion
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:43:44Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-08-14 04_00 PM

== August 14, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/dafff971-eb4a-4be6-8e1d-5cf5d74967f5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VVSKeNfdb8AnMYQXsnUMl4dT8BjMl7b2/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhF5FpnpEkg Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The meeting began with a roll call, confirming the presence of both members of the Budget and Audit Committee. The only action item on the agenda was the presentation of the quarterly financial report on the city's investment portfolio for the period ending June 30, 2023. The report was presented by [Speaker 4], who outlined the city's investment strategy, emphasizing the focus on reinvesting maturing funds into higher-yielding instruments. The city's total interest for fiscal year 2022–2023 was approximately $238,000, with $71,000 received from UBS in the second quarter of 2023. The city currently earns over 5% interest from its BFM camp account, which is a liquidity pool similar to the LEIF account, though the latter yields around 3%. The city has also invested in two CDs yielding 5.45% and 5.25% over two- and three-year terms, respectively.

[Speaker 2] raised several questions, including why the city still maintains funds in the lower-yielding LAIF account despite the higher yields available in the CAMP account. [Speaker 1] explained that maintaining some funds in LAIF helps preserve the relationship with the institution and avoids the costs associated with closing and reopening the account. [Speaker 2] also inquired about the city's liquidity needs and the high minimum balance required in the checking account, which [Speaker 1] attributed to bank analysis charges and the need to maintain sufficient liquidity for operations.

[Speaker 2] expressed concern about the city's strategy of holding investments to maturity and questioned why CDs were preferred over treasuries. [Speaker 1] explained that the decision is based on yield, liquidity needs, and cash flow projections, and that the city generally avoids selling investments before maturity. The discussion also touched on the city's limited size and how it affects investment decisions, with [Speaker 1] noting that the city's small portfolio size limits the ability to negotiate better terms with financial institutions.

[Speaker 2] concluded by requesting more detailed activity reports and a clearer understanding of the city's investment strategy, emphasizing the importance of maximizing yield while maintaining liquidity. The meeting ended with [Speaker 2] expressing appreciation for the presentation and the detailed discussion.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, quarterly financial report, higher-yielding instruments, total interest 238,000, UBS 71,000, BFM camp account, CDs 5.45% 5.25%, LAIF account

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Council members and staff discussed the city's investment portfolio and related financial strategies during the meeting. The discussion centered on the city's $238,294 in investment earnings for fiscal year 2023, which exceeded the budget by $119,684. This was attributed to reinvesting a portion of the city's cash into shorter-term, higher-yield investments, including a $500,000 shift earlier in the year. Councilmember Brett questioned whether this shift was the source of the surplus, and Mayor Wong confirmed that the city had considered moving funds to higher-yielding instruments at the start of the year, though the details were not fully clear from the provided information.

Councilmember Trubiano noted that the city's portfolio included a mix of CDs, federal agency securities, medium-term notes, and municipal bonds, with CDs typically being the lowest-yielding. Staff clarified that the yield of CDs depends on the specific institution and market conditions. The discussion also covered the city’s investment in higher-yield U.S. Treasury notes and the expected annual cash flow from UBS, which was $204,120 for fiscal year 2022–2023.

A key point of discussion was the market value of the portfolio, which exceeded its book value by $627,756 as of June 2023. Staff explained that this was due to a fair market value adjustment required by GASB 31. Councilmember Trubiano raised concerns about the impact of rising interest rates on the portfolio’s value, and staff explained that bonds are inversely related to interest rates, but since the city holds investments to maturity, the impact is less significant.

The conversation also touched on the potential for swapping lower-yielding investments for higher-yielding ones, though staff cautioned that doing so could result in short-term losses that might affect the general ledger. Mayor Wong noted that a swap analysis had been conducted in February, identifying some opportunities for improvement, but the city had not acted on it due to other priorities.

Councilmember Trubiano suggested developing a clearer investment strategy, including target maturities and a more streamlined portfolio with fewer positions. Staff acknowledged the need for a more systematic approach and agreed to revisit the topic in future meetings. The discussion concluded with a commitment to continue evaluating the portfolio’s performance and strategy.

'''Keywords:''' investment portfolio, fiscal year 2023, investment earnings, higher-yield investments, market value adjustment, rising interest rates, swap analysis, investment strategy
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1575_hO3zXO4FDJGSwHyomkdyow2jXsxfCNp6dNx5coA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 30, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/1098c029-9181-48cb-b43d-fdbe3dff0adc.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSuWwcg0Qs Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee convened for a special meeting, beginning with a roll call confirming the presence of Brett, Mayor Wong, and the City Manager. The session opened with public comment, which was closed due to no speakers. The first agenda item was a review of the city's quarterly financial reports on its investment portfolio. The City Manager provided an overview, explaining the current investment strategy, which includes transitioning to longer-duration investments to maintain interest rates amid anticipated Federal Reserve rate reductions. He emphasized the importance of liquidity, yield, and state liquidity as key pillars for investment management and outlined plans to meet with UBS to develop a strategy for managing the city's investments.

Councilmember Brett inquired about the inclusion of medium-term notes and corporate bonds in the portfolio, and the City Manager explained that these are corporate debt instruments from well-capitalized companies, classified as medium risk. He also discussed the city's plan to move away from certain types of investments, such as mortgage-backed securities, and the need to review the investment policy approved in May 2023. He noted that the city had moved $500,000 from the LAIF to investments and that a dollar target for cash flow management was still being determined.

The discussion then shifted to the FY 24 proposed operations and maintenance budget. The City Manager presented the budget, highlighting the use of one-time pension reserves to balance the budget and the need for future operating efficiencies and technology improvements. He noted that the general fund is balanced with the use of $125,000 from pension reserves and emphasized the importance of salary structure improvements for key positions such as the finance director and police chief. The City Manager requested additional time to evaluate potential budget cuts and understand their impacts before making further decisions.

Brett asked about the FY23 surplus, and the report indicated a revised surplus of $408,931. He also inquired about the $40,000 allocated for software purchases, and the City Manager explained that part of the cost would cover one-time implementation fees, while other parts would be ongoing subscription costs. The City Manager expressed the need for further evaluation of technology projects and their associated costs.

'''Keywords:''' investment strategy, Federal Reserve rates, medium-term notes, pension reserves, FY24 budget, software purchases, technology projects, investment policy

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Brett raised concerns about the classification of one-time expenses within the operating budget, suggesting that separating them would provide a clearer picture of regular operations versus one-time items. City Manager responded by acknowledging the need for clarity and mentioned the possibility of developing a fund balance policy to better manage surplus funds and allocate them to specific reserves, such as capital or pension reserves, rather than letting them accumulate in the general fund without direction.

Councilmember Brett also inquired about the surplus from the current fiscal year and how it would be used. City Manager explained that surplus funds could either be rolled into general fund reserves or used to balance the next year’s budget, depending on council direction. He noted that a fund balance policy would help automate and formalize this process, ensuring that funds are allocated according to predetermined priorities.

Regarding the pension reserves, Councilmember Brett pointed out that using $125,000 from the pension fund to balance pension costs was a short-term solution. City Manager agreed, emphasizing the need for long-term planning and understanding of service delivery costs to avoid unsustainable fixes.

Councilmember Brett also questioned the budgeted amount for the supplemental property tax, noting a significant drop from $50,000 in FY 22 to $10,000 in FY 24. City Manager explained that the estimate was based on industry trends, interest rates, and the lag in supplemental tax collections, which are influenced by the timing of property sales and county processing delays. He noted that the number was difficult to predict and that HDL, the contractor providing the estimate, was cautious due to current market conditions.

Councilmember Brett also raised concerns about inconsistencies between the staff report and the detailed schedules in the agenda packet, which City Manager attributed to the departure of the previous finance director and the use of spreadsheets rather than budgeting software. He mentioned that a revised budget would be posted shortly to address these inconsistencies.

Other topics included the exclusion of the climate tech loan repayment and potential benefits from the project, the ongoing discussions with PG&E regarding streetlight rebates and energy efficiency, and the need to reassess service delivery and fund sustainability for various city funds, such as the stormwater assessment and street lighting fund. City Manager also mentioned plans to review vendor contracts and the recruitment process for a new finance director, noting the challenges in the current market for qualified candidates.

'''Keywords:''' one-time expenses classification, fund balance policy, pension reserve usage, supplemental property tax, budget inconsistency, climate tech loan repayment, vendor contract review, finance director recruitment

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The discussion centered on budgeting and funding sources for various city programs, particularly those related to trails and maintenance. Speaker 2 raised concerns about structurally overspending dedicated funds and the need for a community conversation about future funding strategies, including whether to pursue a specific tax for trails or integrate trail funding into a broader parcel tax. Speaker 1 emphasized the importance of having this conversation in the fall, noting the need for a six- to ten-month runway to prepare for a potential vote in November 2024. They also highlighted the need to distinguish between service reductions that pose real risks versus those that are merely aesthetic concerns.

Speaker 2 reiterated the need for clarity in how staff time is allocated across different funds and suggested presenting data on the percentage of maintenance work tied to specific programs. Speaker 1 agreed, noting that such clarity would help guide the fall conversation. They also discussed the potential use of remaining grant funds for one-time benefits, such as security cameras, and the need to understand the restrictions on those funds.

Speaker 4 asked about the remaining grant funds for the Grove, and Speaker 1 acknowledged the uncertainty due to the departing finance director. Speaker 2 suggested that the funds were likely in the grant fund and not on the operating side. Speaker 1 confirmed the need to work with the Titian team to better understand the grant fund's balance and available resources.

Speaker 4 also inquired about the need to extend the Gov Invest contract due to the finance director vacancy and the Tish team staying on for an additional month. Speaker 3 responded that they would work with the city manager to potentially reduce the contract amount and manage some work internally.

The discussion concluded with Speaker 2 closing public comment and Speaker 1 summarizing the need for continued refinement of the budget process and preparation for community conversations in the fall.

'''Keywords:''' trail funding strategies, community conversation, potential tax vote, grant fund balance, staff time allocation, service reduction risks, budget process refinement
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 15, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/a8c41fa3-903d-47e6-b6dd-4faff029f982.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIYJkd4bzCMA_laeKbhuhxXm38snoMpd/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_15_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2XNqCiAI8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:03].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began its session with a public comment period for non-agenda items. Speaker 3, who was identified as the moderator, opened the floor for public input, noting that individuals in attendance or participating remotely had the opportunity to speak. However, Speaker 8, who appeared to be a committee member, pointed out that no hands had been raised, indicating that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on non-agenda items. In response, Speaker 3 confirmed that the public comment period would be closed. Before moving on to the next agenda item, Speaker 3 took the opportunity to welcome the new city manager, Mr. Brett Perbula, expressing gratitude for his arrival. No further discussion or action was taken on non-agenda items during this segment.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, non-agenda items, new city manager, welcome speech, committee member, speaker confirmation

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the proposed update to the master fee schedule, presented by Nitish Sharma of GovInvest. The update aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services, incorporating actual costs rather than estimated time-based fees. Key areas reviewed included planning and development fees, police services, environmental review, and facility rental fees.

Nitish explained that deposits were adjusted to reflect actual costs, including legal and engineering expenses, and that the city would monitor deposits to ensure they cover project costs. He also highlighted new fees, such as those for technology impact, and clarified that some previously unitemized costs, like county filing fees and mileage, were now included for transparency.

Council members raised questions about the methodology, including how fees for tree removal and picnic area rentals were calculated. They noted that some fees, like the $5,000 deposit for annexation, were based on actual costs rather than time estimates. Concerns were raised about the clarity of fee categories and the need for maps to identify specific areas affected by fees.

The committee also discussed the inclusion of a technology impact fee to cover future software costs, with some members expressing support for this approach. Regarding facility rental fees, the committee requested clearer labeling and maps to help identify specific areas.

The discussion concluded with the committee acknowledging the need for a policy on street closures and the importance of setting clear guidelines for fee waivers. The updated fee schedule was to be brought back to the full council for adoption, likely as part of a budget workshop.

'''Keywords:''' master fee schedule, cost recovery, actual costs, technology impact fee, fee categories, fee waivers, budget workshop

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:22].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== March 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/00f5141d-a50e-4a92-880f-2e5b98355549.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Av8VI1B2OlbfmLNfghWMauULCiKc_Gx/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Kbs-Eey8E Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began the public comment segment for non-agenda items. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted there were two speaker cards, and the first speaker was identified as "Mr. Killer." However, no public comments were made during this segment. The discussion quickly moved on to action items, with no further remarks or interventions from members of the public or committee members regarding non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker cards, Mr. Killer

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the status and timeline for the FY 2023–2024 budget and the update to the city’s master fee schedule. Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma provided an overview of the current timeline, which includes distributing budget worksheets to department leaders starting March 1, initiating the master fee schedule interview process with department leaders on March 10, compiling information by April 7, and presenting preliminary proposals to the city manager and the Budget/Audit Committee on April 24. Further updates were scheduled for May 22, with budget workshops planned for June 6. The committee noted that the April 24 meeting would present the initial budget proposals, while the May 22 meeting would serve as a workshop for feedback and revisions. Concerns were raised about the timeline, with some members suggesting the possibility of accelerating the process or holding additional meetings if needed.

Public comment included concerns from residents about potential hidden taxes through the master fee schedule and the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in fee calculations. Ed Miller referenced Proposition 26, which defines the difference between taxes and fees, emphasizing the need for transparency in the fee schedule process. Another speaker encouraged the committee to consider how increased fees might affect the city’s unfunded liabilities.

The committee then moved to item 3B, a review of active service contracts. Angeline Loeffler presented a list of 48 active contracts, primarily professional services, excluding day-to-day operations like copy machine renewals. She noted that most contracts were annual or had three-year terms with renewal options. She also highlighted the lack of a centralized spreadsheet to track contract dates and the need to digitize and organize existing contracts. Council members raised questions about the accuracy of the list, the lack of contract expiration dates, and the need for historical spending data to better understand the contracts’ scope and usage.

Several specific contracts were discussed, including Precision Civil Engineering, Apex Technology, and JNR Floor Services, with clarification on their roles and services. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency, potential overlaps in services, and the need for better coordination between departments and vendors. The committee also discussed the need for a more robust bidding process for larger contracts and the importance of consolidating services where possible to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to revisit the master fee schedule and active contracts in future meetings, with the next review expected in May.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2023–2024 budget, master fee schedule, budget timeline, unfunded pension liabilities, active service contracts, contract transparency, fee schedule process, budget proposals

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:09:00].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 23, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/65c563fb-b6ad-4be7-bd5d-b76adced5214.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The city manager introduced the draft audit for fiscal year 22, followed by a presentation from Bryce Rojas, the auditor, who outlined the audit findings. The audit resulted in a clean, unmodified opinion, indicating that the financial statements were fairly stated in all material respects. The city's total net position was $45.76 million, with $5.87 million in unrestricted net position. The general fund experienced a revenue shortfall of $1.3 million, but this was offset by a large grant, resulting in an increase in the fund balance of $250,000 and an overall increase in net position of $338,000.

Bryce highlighted several areas identified during the audit that required improvement, including material weaknesses in the continuity of personnel in the finance department, fair value estimates for certain assets, and internal controls over agency funds. The finance department faced challenges with personnel turnover, which led to a loss of institutional knowledge and the need for additional guidance when closing the books. Regarding fair value estimates, a discrepancy of approximately $150,000 was identified between the city's valuation of an asset and the auditor’s valuation, which was adjusted to reflect a more accurate fair value.

Agency funds presented complexities, particularly with the middle school Community Facilities District (CFD), which had a negative cash balance at year-end due to timing issues in the audit process. The city had since resolved this issue by paying off the final year of the CFD and closing the loan. Document retention practices were also noted as an area needing improvement, as some journal entries lacked supporting documentation, though this was not classified as a material weakness.

Councilmember Trubiano asked several questions, including the nature of the material weaknesses, the impact of the fair value adjustment, and the handling of agency funds. The city manager and interim finance director provided clarifications, emphasizing that while some issues were identified, they were being addressed and did not represent significant risks to the city's financial integrity. The discussion also touched on the transition to electronic document retention and the dual control process for journal entries, which included review and approval by different individuals.

The audit also highlighted the city’s overall financial position, with total revenues increasing by $1.5 million, largely due to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant. However, there were challenges in segregating ARPA-related spending from general fund expenditures, which distorted comparisons. The city was considering ways to present this information more clearly in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the audit report. The discussion concluded with a review of pension liabilities, OPEB liabilities, and the implementation of new accounting standards, including GASB 87, which required the capitalization of lease assets.

'''Keywords:''' draft audit fiscal year 22, clean unmodified opinion, revenue shortfall $1.3 million, fair value adjustment $150k, Community Facilities District, ARPA grant $1.5 million, GASB 87 lease assets

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Nitish Sharma discussed the impact of recent changes in sales tax collection on the city's revenue, particularly highlighting the effects of the Wayfair decision and Amazon's shift in business model. Initially, the city benefited from increased sales tax revenues following the Wayfair decision, which allowed counties to collect sales tax on online transactions. However, subsequent changes by Amazon, which began treating its distribution centers as local entities, redirected sales tax revenues to jurisdictions with such centers, negatively affecting Clayton's revenue. Sharma noted that the city has been advocating for changes to this situation but has not been successful.

Sharma also addressed questions about property tax assessments, specifically pointing out that Comcast's unsecured property value was listed as $22.962 million, primarily due to its underground infrastructure. He explained that the city's Endeavor program's financials were largely impacted by depreciation, with operating costs being covered by rental revenue. Additionally, there were discussions about the collectability of notes and the treatment of interest and principal in financial statements, with staff indicating that while interest allowances were established, principal allowances were not due to the nature of the city's financial practices.

Regarding the audit, staff highlighted that while there were material weaknesses in internal controls, day-to-day operations were functioning well. The audit was expected to be completed by November, and there were no findings of fraud during the current audit. Public comment was opened, with one speaker raising concerns about the city's financial practices and the need for formalized accounting policies. The item was then recommended for approval and forwarding to the full council for consideration.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax changes, Wayfair decision, Amazon business model, property tax assessments, Comcast property value, Endeavor program, audit material weaknesses, financial practices

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The presentation outlined the City's initiative to update its Master Fee Schedule, a process led by GovInvest, with the goal of aligning fees with full cost recovery while ensuring affordability and equity. The fee program currently accounts for approximately 8–9% of the general fund, with nearly $400,000 in fees used to support city services. The update will consider both existing and new fees, and will be informed by a methodology that includes analyzing direct and indirect costs, such as labor, materials, and administrative expenses. The process will also involve stakeholder engagement, including county and business partners, to ensure transparency and alignment with community needs.

The presentation emphasized the importance of regular fee adjustments to avoid large, sudden increases and to ensure that fees are comparable to those of neighboring jurisdictions. It also highlighted the need to avoid creating "pay-to-play" scenarios, particularly in areas like recreation, and to consider equity and access issues. The updated fee schedule will be tied to the city’s interactive budget book, enhancing transparency and accountability. The process will involve a phased approach, starting with scoping and stakeholder input, and will aim to include the updated schedule in the next budget, expected in the spring.

During the discussion, several questions were raised. One focused on the value of comparing fees with other cities, even when limited to cost recovery. The presenter explained that while the city is bound by Proposition 26 to cost recovery, comparing with other jurisdictions can help identify opportunities for process improvements and inform policy decisions. Another question addressed the inclusion of indirect costs, such as pension expenses, in the fee calculation. The presenter clarified that normal pension costs are included, but unfunded liabilities are not, as they are not budgeted for in the same way as direct costs.

The timeline for the project was not yet fully established, but the goal is to complete the work by May and include it in the next budget. The presenter also noted that the fee schedule would not include land use or development-related fees, only service delivery fees. A suggestion was made to tag fees in the accounting system to better track revenue and identify underutilized or unused fees. The discussion also touched on the possibility of adjusting fees for nonprofit users of Endeavor Hall, which would require a separate policy discussion.

'''Keywords:''' Master Fee Schedule, Cost Recovery, Fee Adjustments, Stakeholder Engagement, Budget Book Integration, Indirect Costs, Proposition 26, Service Delivery Fees

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the interpretation and implications of cost recovery mechanisms, particularly concerning budgeted versus actual expenses. Speaker 1 explained that certain costs are not included in utility rates and are instead recovered through budgeted allocations, emphasizing that these are legitimate city expenses. They noted that costs are calculated based on the time employees spend on specific services, which affects the overall budgeting process. Speaker 2 added that the city has a buyout program for unused vacation time, which effectively converts that time into a cash expense. They suggested that while these costs may not be material to the fee being discussed, it is important to understand them fully. Speaker 2 also indicated they had additional questions unrelated to the fee and planned to address them separately. Public comment was opened, but no one raised their hand to speak. Speaker 7 confirmed there were no comments, and the item was closed without further action or motion. The meeting then proceeded to adjournment.

'''Keywords:''' cost recovery mechanisms, budgeted versus actual expenses, utility rates, employee time allocation, vacation buyout program, cash expense conversion, fee discussion
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:43:40Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-05-30 04_00 PM

== May 30, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/1098c029-9181-48cb-b43d-fdbe3dff0adc.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJPvEmwgHLeTGodFGGIFecr4X76ge2qi/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSuWwcg0Qs Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The Budget and Audit Committee convened for a special meeting, beginning with a roll call confirming the presence of Brett, Mayor Wong, and the City Manager. The session opened with public comment, which was closed due to no speakers. The first agenda item was a review of the city's quarterly financial reports on its investment portfolio. The City Manager provided an overview, explaining the current investment strategy, which includes transitioning to longer-duration investments to maintain interest rates amid anticipated Federal Reserve rate reductions. He emphasized the importance of liquidity, yield, and state liquidity as key pillars for investment management and outlined plans to meet with UBS to develop a strategy for managing the city's investments.

Councilmember Brett inquired about the inclusion of medium-term notes and corporate bonds in the portfolio, and the City Manager explained that these are corporate debt instruments from well-capitalized companies, classified as medium risk. He also discussed the city's plan to move away from certain types of investments, such as mortgage-backed securities, and the need to review the investment policy approved in May 2023. He noted that the city had moved $500,000 from the LAIF to investments and that a dollar target for cash flow management was still being determined.

The discussion then shifted to the FY 24 proposed operations and maintenance budget. The City Manager presented the budget, highlighting the use of one-time pension reserves to balance the budget and the need for future operating efficiencies and technology improvements. He noted that the general fund is balanced with the use of $125,000 from pension reserves and emphasized the importance of salary structure improvements for key positions such as the finance director and police chief. The City Manager requested additional time to evaluate potential budget cuts and understand their impacts before making further decisions.

Brett asked about the FY23 surplus, and the report indicated a revised surplus of $408,931. He also inquired about the $40,000 allocated for software purchases, and the City Manager explained that part of the cost would cover one-time implementation fees, while other parts would be ongoing subscription costs. The City Manager expressed the need for further evaluation of technology projects and their associated costs.

'''Keywords:''' investment strategy, Federal Reserve rates, medium-term notes, pension reserves, FY24 budget, software purchases, technology projects, investment policy

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Brett raised concerns about the classification of one-time expenses within the operating budget, suggesting that separating them would provide a clearer picture of regular operations versus one-time items. City Manager responded by acknowledging the need for clarity and mentioned the possibility of developing a fund balance policy to better manage surplus funds and allocate them to specific reserves, such as capital or pension reserves, rather than letting them accumulate in the general fund without direction.

Councilmember Brett also inquired about the surplus from the current fiscal year and how it would be used. City Manager explained that surplus funds could either be rolled into general fund reserves or used to balance the next year’s budget, depending on council direction. He noted that a fund balance policy would help automate and formalize this process, ensuring that funds are allocated according to predetermined priorities.

Regarding the pension reserves, Councilmember Brett pointed out that using $125,000 from the pension fund to balance pension costs was a short-term solution. City Manager agreed, emphasizing the need for long-term planning and understanding of service delivery costs to avoid unsustainable fixes.

Councilmember Brett also questioned the budgeted amount for the supplemental property tax, noting a significant drop from $50,000 in FY 22 to $10,000 in FY 24. City Manager explained that the estimate was based on industry trends, interest rates, and the lag in supplemental tax collections, which are influenced by the timing of property sales and county processing delays. He noted that the number was difficult to predict and that HDL, the contractor providing the estimate, was cautious due to current market conditions.

Councilmember Brett also raised concerns about inconsistencies between the staff report and the detailed schedules in the agenda packet, which City Manager attributed to the departure of the previous finance director and the use of spreadsheets rather than budgeting software. He mentioned that a revised budget would be posted shortly to address these inconsistencies.

Other topics included the exclusion of the climate tech loan repayment and potential benefits from the project, the ongoing discussions with PG&E regarding streetlight rebates and energy efficiency, and the need to reassess service delivery and fund sustainability for various city funds, such as the stormwater assessment and street lighting fund. City Manager also mentioned plans to review vendor contracts and the recruitment process for a new finance director, noting the challenges in the current market for qualified candidates.

'''Keywords:''' one-time expenses classification, fund balance policy, pension reserve usage, supplemental property tax, budget inconsistency, climate tech loan repayment, vendor contract review, finance director recruitment

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The discussion centered on budgeting and funding sources for various city programs, particularly those related to trails and maintenance. Speaker 2 raised concerns about structurally overspending dedicated funds and the need for a community conversation about future funding strategies, including whether to pursue a specific tax for trails or integrate trail funding into a broader parcel tax. Speaker 1 emphasized the importance of having this conversation in the fall, noting the need for a six- to ten-month runway to prepare for a potential vote in November 2024. They also highlighted the need to distinguish between service reductions that pose real risks versus those that are merely aesthetic concerns.

Speaker 2 reiterated the need for clarity in how staff time is allocated across different funds and suggested presenting data on the percentage of maintenance work tied to specific programs. Speaker 1 agreed, noting that such clarity would help guide the fall conversation. They also discussed the potential use of remaining grant funds for one-time benefits, such as security cameras, and the need to understand the restrictions on those funds.

Speaker 4 asked about the remaining grant funds for the Grove, and Speaker 1 acknowledged the uncertainty due to the departing finance director. Speaker 2 suggested that the funds were likely in the grant fund and not on the operating side. Speaker 1 confirmed the need to work with the Titian team to better understand the grant fund's balance and available resources.

Speaker 4 also inquired about the need to extend the Gov Invest contract due to the finance director vacancy and the Tish team staying on for an additional month. Speaker 3 responded that they would work with the city manager to potentially reduce the contract amount and manage some work internally.

The discussion concluded with Speaker 2 closing public comment and Speaker 1 summarizing the need for continued refinement of the budget process and preparation for community conversations in the fall.

'''Keywords:''' trail funding strategies, community conversation, potential tax vote, grant fund balance, staff time allocation, service reduction risks, budget process refinement
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL0Ok5jd3Mt1u4TtdBjPaCcB4C-hg_Ecn51sWKjS2ys/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 15, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/a8c41fa3-903d-47e6-b6dd-4faff029f982.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIYJkd4bzCMA_laeKbhuhxXm38snoMpd/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_15_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2XNqCiAI8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:03].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began its session with a public comment period for non-agenda items. Speaker 3, who was identified as the moderator, opened the floor for public input, noting that individuals in attendance or participating remotely had the opportunity to speak. However, Speaker 8, who appeared to be a committee member, pointed out that no hands had been raised, indicating that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on non-agenda items. In response, Speaker 3 confirmed that the public comment period would be closed. Before moving on to the next agenda item, Speaker 3 took the opportunity to welcome the new city manager, Mr. Brett Perbula, expressing gratitude for his arrival. No further discussion or action was taken on non-agenda items during this segment.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, non-agenda items, new city manager, welcome speech, committee member, speaker confirmation

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the proposed update to the master fee schedule, presented by Nitish Sharma of GovInvest. The update aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services, incorporating actual costs rather than estimated time-based fees. Key areas reviewed included planning and development fees, police services, environmental review, and facility rental fees.

Nitish explained that deposits were adjusted to reflect actual costs, including legal and engineering expenses, and that the city would monitor deposits to ensure they cover project costs. He also highlighted new fees, such as those for technology impact, and clarified that some previously unitemized costs, like county filing fees and mileage, were now included for transparency.

Council members raised questions about the methodology, including how fees for tree removal and picnic area rentals were calculated. They noted that some fees, like the $5,000 deposit for annexation, were based on actual costs rather than time estimates. Concerns were raised about the clarity of fee categories and the need for maps to identify specific areas affected by fees.

The committee also discussed the inclusion of a technology impact fee to cover future software costs, with some members expressing support for this approach. Regarding facility rental fees, the committee requested clearer labeling and maps to help identify specific areas.

The discussion concluded with the committee acknowledging the need for a policy on street closures and the importance of setting clear guidelines for fee waivers. The updated fee schedule was to be brought back to the full council for adoption, likely as part of a budget workshop.

'''Keywords:''' master fee schedule, cost recovery, actual costs, technology impact fee, fee categories, fee waivers, budget workshop

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:22].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== March 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/00f5141d-a50e-4a92-880f-2e5b98355549.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Av8VI1B2OlbfmLNfghWMauULCiKc_Gx/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Kbs-Eey8E Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began the public comment segment for non-agenda items. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted there were two speaker cards, and the first speaker was identified as "Mr. Killer." However, no public comments were made during this segment. The discussion quickly moved on to action items, with no further remarks or interventions from members of the public or committee members regarding non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker cards, Mr. Killer

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the status and timeline for the FY 2023–2024 budget and the update to the city’s master fee schedule. Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma provided an overview of the current timeline, which includes distributing budget worksheets to department leaders starting March 1, initiating the master fee schedule interview process with department leaders on March 10, compiling information by April 7, and presenting preliminary proposals to the city manager and the Budget/Audit Committee on April 24. Further updates were scheduled for May 22, with budget workshops planned for June 6. The committee noted that the April 24 meeting would present the initial budget proposals, while the May 22 meeting would serve as a workshop for feedback and revisions. Concerns were raised about the timeline, with some members suggesting the possibility of accelerating the process or holding additional meetings if needed.

Public comment included concerns from residents about potential hidden taxes through the master fee schedule and the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in fee calculations. Ed Miller referenced Proposition 26, which defines the difference between taxes and fees, emphasizing the need for transparency in the fee schedule process. Another speaker encouraged the committee to consider how increased fees might affect the city’s unfunded liabilities.

The committee then moved to item 3B, a review of active service contracts. Angeline Loeffler presented a list of 48 active contracts, primarily professional services, excluding day-to-day operations like copy machine renewals. She noted that most contracts were annual or had three-year terms with renewal options. She also highlighted the lack of a centralized spreadsheet to track contract dates and the need to digitize and organize existing contracts. Council members raised questions about the accuracy of the list, the lack of contract expiration dates, and the need for historical spending data to better understand the contracts’ scope and usage.

Several specific contracts were discussed, including Precision Civil Engineering, Apex Technology, and JNR Floor Services, with clarification on their roles and services. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency, potential overlaps in services, and the need for better coordination between departments and vendors. The committee also discussed the need for a more robust bidding process for larger contracts and the importance of consolidating services where possible to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to revisit the master fee schedule and active contracts in future meetings, with the next review expected in May.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2023–2024 budget, master fee schedule, budget timeline, unfunded pension liabilities, active service contracts, contract transparency, fee schedule process, budget proposals

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:09:00].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 23, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/65c563fb-b6ad-4be7-bd5d-b76adced5214.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The city manager introduced the draft audit for fiscal year 22, followed by a presentation from Bryce Rojas, the auditor, who outlined the audit findings. The audit resulted in a clean, unmodified opinion, indicating that the financial statements were fairly stated in all material respects. The city's total net position was $45.76 million, with $5.87 million in unrestricted net position. The general fund experienced a revenue shortfall of $1.3 million, but this was offset by a large grant, resulting in an increase in the fund balance of $250,000 and an overall increase in net position of $338,000.

Bryce highlighted several areas identified during the audit that required improvement, including material weaknesses in the continuity of personnel in the finance department, fair value estimates for certain assets, and internal controls over agency funds. The finance department faced challenges with personnel turnover, which led to a loss of institutional knowledge and the need for additional guidance when closing the books. Regarding fair value estimates, a discrepancy of approximately $150,000 was identified between the city's valuation of an asset and the auditor’s valuation, which was adjusted to reflect a more accurate fair value.

Agency funds presented complexities, particularly with the middle school Community Facilities District (CFD), which had a negative cash balance at year-end due to timing issues in the audit process. The city had since resolved this issue by paying off the final year of the CFD and closing the loan. Document retention practices were also noted as an area needing improvement, as some journal entries lacked supporting documentation, though this was not classified as a material weakness.

Councilmember Trubiano asked several questions, including the nature of the material weaknesses, the impact of the fair value adjustment, and the handling of agency funds. The city manager and interim finance director provided clarifications, emphasizing that while some issues were identified, they were being addressed and did not represent significant risks to the city's financial integrity. The discussion also touched on the transition to electronic document retention and the dual control process for journal entries, which included review and approval by different individuals.

The audit also highlighted the city’s overall financial position, with total revenues increasing by $1.5 million, largely due to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant. However, there were challenges in segregating ARPA-related spending from general fund expenditures, which distorted comparisons. The city was considering ways to present this information more clearly in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the audit report. The discussion concluded with a review of pension liabilities, OPEB liabilities, and the implementation of new accounting standards, including GASB 87, which required the capitalization of lease assets.

'''Keywords:''' draft audit fiscal year 22, clean unmodified opinion, revenue shortfall $1.3 million, fair value adjustment $150k, Community Facilities District, ARPA grant $1.5 million, GASB 87 lease assets

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Nitish Sharma discussed the impact of recent changes in sales tax collection on the city's revenue, particularly highlighting the effects of the Wayfair decision and Amazon's shift in business model. Initially, the city benefited from increased sales tax revenues following the Wayfair decision, which allowed counties to collect sales tax on online transactions. However, subsequent changes by Amazon, which began treating its distribution centers as local entities, redirected sales tax revenues to jurisdictions with such centers, negatively affecting Clayton's revenue. Sharma noted that the city has been advocating for changes to this situation but has not been successful.

Sharma also addressed questions about property tax assessments, specifically pointing out that Comcast's unsecured property value was listed as $22.962 million, primarily due to its underground infrastructure. He explained that the city's Endeavor program's financials were largely impacted by depreciation, with operating costs being covered by rental revenue. Additionally, there were discussions about the collectability of notes and the treatment of interest and principal in financial statements, with staff indicating that while interest allowances were established, principal allowances were not due to the nature of the city's financial practices.

Regarding the audit, staff highlighted that while there were material weaknesses in internal controls, day-to-day operations were functioning well. The audit was expected to be completed by November, and there were no findings of fraud during the current audit. Public comment was opened, with one speaker raising concerns about the city's financial practices and the need for formalized accounting policies. The item was then recommended for approval and forwarding to the full council for consideration.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax changes, Wayfair decision, Amazon business model, property tax assessments, Comcast property value, Endeavor program, audit material weaknesses, financial practices

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The presentation outlined the City's initiative to update its Master Fee Schedule, a process led by GovInvest, with the goal of aligning fees with full cost recovery while ensuring affordability and equity. The fee program currently accounts for approximately 8–9% of the general fund, with nearly $400,000 in fees used to support city services. The update will consider both existing and new fees, and will be informed by a methodology that includes analyzing direct and indirect costs, such as labor, materials, and administrative expenses. The process will also involve stakeholder engagement, including county and business partners, to ensure transparency and alignment with community needs.

The presentation emphasized the importance of regular fee adjustments to avoid large, sudden increases and to ensure that fees are comparable to those of neighboring jurisdictions. It also highlighted the need to avoid creating "pay-to-play" scenarios, particularly in areas like recreation, and to consider equity and access issues. The updated fee schedule will be tied to the city’s interactive budget book, enhancing transparency and accountability. The process will involve a phased approach, starting with scoping and stakeholder input, and will aim to include the updated schedule in the next budget, expected in the spring.

During the discussion, several questions were raised. One focused on the value of comparing fees with other cities, even when limited to cost recovery. The presenter explained that while the city is bound by Proposition 26 to cost recovery, comparing with other jurisdictions can help identify opportunities for process improvements and inform policy decisions. Another question addressed the inclusion of indirect costs, such as pension expenses, in the fee calculation. The presenter clarified that normal pension costs are included, but unfunded liabilities are not, as they are not budgeted for in the same way as direct costs.

The timeline for the project was not yet fully established, but the goal is to complete the work by May and include it in the next budget. The presenter also noted that the fee schedule would not include land use or development-related fees, only service delivery fees. A suggestion was made to tag fees in the accounting system to better track revenue and identify underutilized or unused fees. The discussion also touched on the possibility of adjusting fees for nonprofit users of Endeavor Hall, which would require a separate policy discussion.

'''Keywords:''' Master Fee Schedule, Cost Recovery, Fee Adjustments, Stakeholder Engagement, Budget Book Integration, Indirect Costs, Proposition 26, Service Delivery Fees

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the interpretation and implications of cost recovery mechanisms, particularly concerning budgeted versus actual expenses. Speaker 1 explained that certain costs are not included in utility rates and are instead recovered through budgeted allocations, emphasizing that these are legitimate city expenses. They noted that costs are calculated based on the time employees spend on specific services, which affects the overall budgeting process. Speaker 2 added that the city has a buyout program for unused vacation time, which effectively converts that time into a cash expense. They suggested that while these costs may not be material to the fee being discussed, it is important to understand them fully. Speaker 2 also indicated they had additional questions unrelated to the fee and planned to address them separately. Public comment was opened, but no one raised their hand to speak. Speaker 7 confirmed there were no comments, and the item was closed without further action or motion. The meeting then proceeded to adjournment.

'''Keywords:''' cost recovery mechanisms, budgeted versus actual expenses, utility rates, employee time allocation, vacation buyout program, cash expense conversion, fee discussion
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:43:24Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-05-15 04_00 PM

== May 15, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/a8c41fa3-903d-47e6-b6dd-4faff029f982.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIYJkd4bzCMA_laeKbhuhxXm38snoMpd/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_15_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2XNqCiAI8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:03].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began its session with a public comment period for non-agenda items. Speaker 3, who was identified as the moderator, opened the floor for public input, noting that individuals in attendance or participating remotely had the opportunity to speak. However, Speaker 8, who appeared to be a committee member, pointed out that no hands had been raised, indicating that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on non-agenda items. In response, Speaker 3 confirmed that the public comment period would be closed. Before moving on to the next agenda item, Speaker 3 took the opportunity to welcome the new city manager, Mr. Brett Perbula, expressing gratitude for his arrival. No further discussion or action was taken on non-agenda items during this segment.

'''Keywords:''' public comment period, non-agenda items, new city manager, welcome speech, committee member, speaker confirmation

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the proposed update to the master fee schedule, presented by Nitish Sharma of GovInvest. The update aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services, incorporating actual costs rather than estimated time-based fees. Key areas reviewed included planning and development fees, police services, environmental review, and facility rental fees.

Nitish explained that deposits were adjusted to reflect actual costs, including legal and engineering expenses, and that the city would monitor deposits to ensure they cover project costs. He also highlighted new fees, such as those for technology impact, and clarified that some previously unitemized costs, like county filing fees and mileage, were now included for transparency.

Council members raised questions about the methodology, including how fees for tree removal and picnic area rentals were calculated. They noted that some fees, like the $5,000 deposit for annexation, were based on actual costs rather than time estimates. Concerns were raised about the clarity of fee categories and the need for maps to identify specific areas affected by fees.

The committee also discussed the inclusion of a technology impact fee to cover future software costs, with some members expressing support for this approach. Regarding facility rental fees, the committee requested clearer labeling and maps to help identify specific areas.

The discussion concluded with the committee acknowledging the need for a policy on street closures and the importance of setting clear guidelines for fee waivers. The updated fee schedule was to be brought back to the full council for adoption, likely as part of a budget workshop.

'''Keywords:''' master fee schedule, cost recovery, actual costs, technology impact fee, fee categories, fee waivers, budget workshop

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:00:22].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JATLhCB3SNIxXIrL4MjsYuwyXAG962Z0GVCkchdcKE/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== March 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/00f5141d-a50e-4a92-880f-2e5b98355549.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Av8VI1B2OlbfmLNfghWMauULCiKc_Gx/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Kbs-Eey8E Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began the public comment segment for non-agenda items. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted there were two speaker cards, and the first speaker was identified as "Mr. Killer." However, no public comments were made during this segment. The discussion quickly moved on to action items, with no further remarks or interventions from members of the public or committee members regarding non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker cards, Mr. Killer

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the status and timeline for the FY 2023–2024 budget and the update to the city’s master fee schedule. Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma provided an overview of the current timeline, which includes distributing budget worksheets to department leaders starting March 1, initiating the master fee schedule interview process with department leaders on March 10, compiling information by April 7, and presenting preliminary proposals to the city manager and the Budget/Audit Committee on April 24. Further updates were scheduled for May 22, with budget workshops planned for June 6. The committee noted that the April 24 meeting would present the initial budget proposals, while the May 22 meeting would serve as a workshop for feedback and revisions. Concerns were raised about the timeline, with some members suggesting the possibility of accelerating the process or holding additional meetings if needed.

Public comment included concerns from residents about potential hidden taxes through the master fee schedule and the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in fee calculations. Ed Miller referenced Proposition 26, which defines the difference between taxes and fees, emphasizing the need for transparency in the fee schedule process. Another speaker encouraged the committee to consider how increased fees might affect the city’s unfunded liabilities.

The committee then moved to item 3B, a review of active service contracts. Angeline Loeffler presented a list of 48 active contracts, primarily professional services, excluding day-to-day operations like copy machine renewals. She noted that most contracts were annual or had three-year terms with renewal options. She also highlighted the lack of a centralized spreadsheet to track contract dates and the need to digitize and organize existing contracts. Council members raised questions about the accuracy of the list, the lack of contract expiration dates, and the need for historical spending data to better understand the contracts’ scope and usage.

Several specific contracts were discussed, including Precision Civil Engineering, Apex Technology, and JNR Floor Services, with clarification on their roles and services. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency, potential overlaps in services, and the need for better coordination between departments and vendors. The committee also discussed the need for a more robust bidding process for larger contracts and the importance of consolidating services where possible to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to revisit the master fee schedule and active contracts in future meetings, with the next review expected in May.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2023–2024 budget, master fee schedule, budget timeline, unfunded pension liabilities, active service contracts, contract transparency, fee schedule process, budget proposals

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:09:00].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 23, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/65c563fb-b6ad-4be7-bd5d-b76adced5214.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The city manager introduced the draft audit for fiscal year 22, followed by a presentation from Bryce Rojas, the auditor, who outlined the audit findings. The audit resulted in a clean, unmodified opinion, indicating that the financial statements were fairly stated in all material respects. The city's total net position was $45.76 million, with $5.87 million in unrestricted net position. The general fund experienced a revenue shortfall of $1.3 million, but this was offset by a large grant, resulting in an increase in the fund balance of $250,000 and an overall increase in net position of $338,000.

Bryce highlighted several areas identified during the audit that required improvement, including material weaknesses in the continuity of personnel in the finance department, fair value estimates for certain assets, and internal controls over agency funds. The finance department faced challenges with personnel turnover, which led to a loss of institutional knowledge and the need for additional guidance when closing the books. Regarding fair value estimates, a discrepancy of approximately $150,000 was identified between the city's valuation of an asset and the auditor’s valuation, which was adjusted to reflect a more accurate fair value.

Agency funds presented complexities, particularly with the middle school Community Facilities District (CFD), which had a negative cash balance at year-end due to timing issues in the audit process. The city had since resolved this issue by paying off the final year of the CFD and closing the loan. Document retention practices were also noted as an area needing improvement, as some journal entries lacked supporting documentation, though this was not classified as a material weakness.

Councilmember Trubiano asked several questions, including the nature of the material weaknesses, the impact of the fair value adjustment, and the handling of agency funds. The city manager and interim finance director provided clarifications, emphasizing that while some issues were identified, they were being addressed and did not represent significant risks to the city's financial integrity. The discussion also touched on the transition to electronic document retention and the dual control process for journal entries, which included review and approval by different individuals.

The audit also highlighted the city’s overall financial position, with total revenues increasing by $1.5 million, largely due to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant. However, there were challenges in segregating ARPA-related spending from general fund expenditures, which distorted comparisons. The city was considering ways to present this information more clearly in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the audit report. The discussion concluded with a review of pension liabilities, OPEB liabilities, and the implementation of new accounting standards, including GASB 87, which required the capitalization of lease assets.

'''Keywords:''' draft audit fiscal year 22, clean unmodified opinion, revenue shortfall $1.3 million, fair value adjustment $150k, Community Facilities District, ARPA grant $1.5 million, GASB 87 lease assets

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Nitish Sharma discussed the impact of recent changes in sales tax collection on the city's revenue, particularly highlighting the effects of the Wayfair decision and Amazon's shift in business model. Initially, the city benefited from increased sales tax revenues following the Wayfair decision, which allowed counties to collect sales tax on online transactions. However, subsequent changes by Amazon, which began treating its distribution centers as local entities, redirected sales tax revenues to jurisdictions with such centers, negatively affecting Clayton's revenue. Sharma noted that the city has been advocating for changes to this situation but has not been successful.

Sharma also addressed questions about property tax assessments, specifically pointing out that Comcast's unsecured property value was listed as $22.962 million, primarily due to its underground infrastructure. He explained that the city's Endeavor program's financials were largely impacted by depreciation, with operating costs being covered by rental revenue. Additionally, there were discussions about the collectability of notes and the treatment of interest and principal in financial statements, with staff indicating that while interest allowances were established, principal allowances were not due to the nature of the city's financial practices.

Regarding the audit, staff highlighted that while there were material weaknesses in internal controls, day-to-day operations were functioning well. The audit was expected to be completed by November, and there were no findings of fraud during the current audit. Public comment was opened, with one speaker raising concerns about the city's financial practices and the need for formalized accounting policies. The item was then recommended for approval and forwarding to the full council for consideration.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax changes, Wayfair decision, Amazon business model, property tax assessments, Comcast property value, Endeavor program, audit material weaknesses, financial practices

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The presentation outlined the City's initiative to update its Master Fee Schedule, a process led by GovInvest, with the goal of aligning fees with full cost recovery while ensuring affordability and equity. The fee program currently accounts for approximately 8–9% of the general fund, with nearly $400,000 in fees used to support city services. The update will consider both existing and new fees, and will be informed by a methodology that includes analyzing direct and indirect costs, such as labor, materials, and administrative expenses. The process will also involve stakeholder engagement, including county and business partners, to ensure transparency and alignment with community needs.

The presentation emphasized the importance of regular fee adjustments to avoid large, sudden increases and to ensure that fees are comparable to those of neighboring jurisdictions. It also highlighted the need to avoid creating "pay-to-play" scenarios, particularly in areas like recreation, and to consider equity and access issues. The updated fee schedule will be tied to the city’s interactive budget book, enhancing transparency and accountability. The process will involve a phased approach, starting with scoping and stakeholder input, and will aim to include the updated schedule in the next budget, expected in the spring.

During the discussion, several questions were raised. One focused on the value of comparing fees with other cities, even when limited to cost recovery. The presenter explained that while the city is bound by Proposition 26 to cost recovery, comparing with other jurisdictions can help identify opportunities for process improvements and inform policy decisions. Another question addressed the inclusion of indirect costs, such as pension expenses, in the fee calculation. The presenter clarified that normal pension costs are included, but unfunded liabilities are not, as they are not budgeted for in the same way as direct costs.

The timeline for the project was not yet fully established, but the goal is to complete the work by May and include it in the next budget. The presenter also noted that the fee schedule would not include land use or development-related fees, only service delivery fees. A suggestion was made to tag fees in the accounting system to better track revenue and identify underutilized or unused fees. The discussion also touched on the possibility of adjusting fees for nonprofit users of Endeavor Hall, which would require a separate policy discussion.

'''Keywords:''' Master Fee Schedule, Cost Recovery, Fee Adjustments, Stakeholder Engagement, Budget Book Integration, Indirect Costs, Proposition 26, Service Delivery Fees

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the interpretation and implications of cost recovery mechanisms, particularly concerning budgeted versus actual expenses. Speaker 1 explained that certain costs are not included in utility rates and are instead recovered through budgeted allocations, emphasizing that these are legitimate city expenses. They noted that costs are calculated based on the time employees spend on specific services, which affects the overall budgeting process. Speaker 2 added that the city has a buyout program for unused vacation time, which effectively converts that time into a cash expense. They suggested that while these costs may not be material to the fee being discussed, it is important to understand them fully. Speaker 2 also indicated they had additional questions unrelated to the fee and planned to address them separately. Public comment was opened, but no one raised their hand to speak. Speaker 7 confirmed there were no comments, and the item was closed without further action or motion. The meeting then proceeded to adjournment.

'''Keywords:''' cost recovery mechanisms, budgeted versus actual expenses, utility rates, employee time allocation, vacation buyout program, cash expense conversion, fee discussion
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:43:20Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-03-27 04_00 PM

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== March 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/00f5141d-a50e-4a92-880f-2e5b98355549.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Av8VI1B2OlbfmLNfghWMauULCiKc_Gx/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Kbs-Eey8E Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

Call to Order and Roll Call at [0:00:00].

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began the public comment segment for non-agenda items. Councilmember Kim Trupiano noted there were two speaker cards, and the first speaker was identified as "Mr. Killer." However, no public comments were made during this segment. The discussion quickly moved on to action items, with no further remarks or interventions from members of the public or committee members regarding non-agenda items.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker cards, Mr. Killer

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee discussed the status and timeline for the FY 2023–2024 budget and the update to the city’s master fee schedule. Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma provided an overview of the current timeline, which includes distributing budget worksheets to department leaders starting March 1, initiating the master fee schedule interview process with department leaders on March 10, compiling information by April 7, and presenting preliminary proposals to the city manager and the Budget/Audit Committee on April 24. Further updates were scheduled for May 22, with budget workshops planned for June 6. The committee noted that the April 24 meeting would present the initial budget proposals, while the May 22 meeting would serve as a workshop for feedback and revisions. Concerns were raised about the timeline, with some members suggesting the possibility of accelerating the process or holding additional meetings if needed.

Public comment included concerns from residents about potential hidden taxes through the master fee schedule and the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in fee calculations. Ed Miller referenced Proposition 26, which defines the difference between taxes and fees, emphasizing the need for transparency in the fee schedule process. Another speaker encouraged the committee to consider how increased fees might affect the city’s unfunded liabilities.

The committee then moved to item 3B, a review of active service contracts. Angeline Loeffler presented a list of 48 active contracts, primarily professional services, excluding day-to-day operations like copy machine renewals. She noted that most contracts were annual or had three-year terms with renewal options. She also highlighted the lack of a centralized spreadsheet to track contract dates and the need to digitize and organize existing contracts. Council members raised questions about the accuracy of the list, the lack of contract expiration dates, and the need for historical spending data to better understand the contracts’ scope and usage.

Several specific contracts were discussed, including Precision Civil Engineering, Apex Technology, and JNR Floor Services, with clarification on their roles and services. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency, potential overlaps in services, and the need for better coordination between departments and vendors. The committee also discussed the need for a more robust bidding process for larger contracts and the importance of consolidating services where possible to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to revisit the master fee schedule and active contracts in future meetings, with the next review expected in May.

'''Keywords:''' FY 2023–2024 budget, master fee schedule, budget timeline, unfunded pension liabilities, active service contracts, contract transparency, fee schedule process, budget proposals

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:09:00].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1leBbvDE_RhCA8aOv6qMpJ_cTdnYekMlNCdjase1M7ww/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 23, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/65c563fb-b6ad-4be7-bd5d-b76adced5214.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The city manager introduced the draft audit for fiscal year 22, followed by a presentation from Bryce Rojas, the auditor, who outlined the audit findings. The audit resulted in a clean, unmodified opinion, indicating that the financial statements were fairly stated in all material respects. The city's total net position was $45.76 million, with $5.87 million in unrestricted net position. The general fund experienced a revenue shortfall of $1.3 million, but this was offset by a large grant, resulting in an increase in the fund balance of $250,000 and an overall increase in net position of $338,000.

Bryce highlighted several areas identified during the audit that required improvement, including material weaknesses in the continuity of personnel in the finance department, fair value estimates for certain assets, and internal controls over agency funds. The finance department faced challenges with personnel turnover, which led to a loss of institutional knowledge and the need for additional guidance when closing the books. Regarding fair value estimates, a discrepancy of approximately $150,000 was identified between the city's valuation of an asset and the auditor’s valuation, which was adjusted to reflect a more accurate fair value.

Agency funds presented complexities, particularly with the middle school Community Facilities District (CFD), which had a negative cash balance at year-end due to timing issues in the audit process. The city had since resolved this issue by paying off the final year of the CFD and closing the loan. Document retention practices were also noted as an area needing improvement, as some journal entries lacked supporting documentation, though this was not classified as a material weakness.

Councilmember Trubiano asked several questions, including the nature of the material weaknesses, the impact of the fair value adjustment, and the handling of agency funds. The city manager and interim finance director provided clarifications, emphasizing that while some issues were identified, they were being addressed and did not represent significant risks to the city's financial integrity. The discussion also touched on the transition to electronic document retention and the dual control process for journal entries, which included review and approval by different individuals.

The audit also highlighted the city’s overall financial position, with total revenues increasing by $1.5 million, largely due to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant. However, there were challenges in segregating ARPA-related spending from general fund expenditures, which distorted comparisons. The city was considering ways to present this information more clearly in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the audit report. The discussion concluded with a review of pension liabilities, OPEB liabilities, and the implementation of new accounting standards, including GASB 87, which required the capitalization of lease assets.

'''Keywords:''' draft audit fiscal year 22, clean unmodified opinion, revenue shortfall $1.3 million, fair value adjustment $150k, Community Facilities District, ARPA grant $1.5 million, GASB 87 lease assets

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Nitish Sharma discussed the impact of recent changes in sales tax collection on the city's revenue, particularly highlighting the effects of the Wayfair decision and Amazon's shift in business model. Initially, the city benefited from increased sales tax revenues following the Wayfair decision, which allowed counties to collect sales tax on online transactions. However, subsequent changes by Amazon, which began treating its distribution centers as local entities, redirected sales tax revenues to jurisdictions with such centers, negatively affecting Clayton's revenue. Sharma noted that the city has been advocating for changes to this situation but has not been successful.

Sharma also addressed questions about property tax assessments, specifically pointing out that Comcast's unsecured property value was listed as $22.962 million, primarily due to its underground infrastructure. He explained that the city's Endeavor program's financials were largely impacted by depreciation, with operating costs being covered by rental revenue. Additionally, there were discussions about the collectability of notes and the treatment of interest and principal in financial statements, with staff indicating that while interest allowances were established, principal allowances were not due to the nature of the city's financial practices.

Regarding the audit, staff highlighted that while there were material weaknesses in internal controls, day-to-day operations were functioning well. The audit was expected to be completed by November, and there were no findings of fraud during the current audit. Public comment was opened, with one speaker raising concerns about the city's financial practices and the need for formalized accounting policies. The item was then recommended for approval and forwarding to the full council for consideration.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax changes, Wayfair decision, Amazon business model, property tax assessments, Comcast property value, Endeavor program, audit material weaknesses, financial practices

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The presentation outlined the City's initiative to update its Master Fee Schedule, a process led by GovInvest, with the goal of aligning fees with full cost recovery while ensuring affordability and equity. The fee program currently accounts for approximately 8–9% of the general fund, with nearly $400,000 in fees used to support city services. The update will consider both existing and new fees, and will be informed by a methodology that includes analyzing direct and indirect costs, such as labor, materials, and administrative expenses. The process will also involve stakeholder engagement, including county and business partners, to ensure transparency and alignment with community needs.

The presentation emphasized the importance of regular fee adjustments to avoid large, sudden increases and to ensure that fees are comparable to those of neighboring jurisdictions. It also highlighted the need to avoid creating "pay-to-play" scenarios, particularly in areas like recreation, and to consider equity and access issues. The updated fee schedule will be tied to the city’s interactive budget book, enhancing transparency and accountability. The process will involve a phased approach, starting with scoping and stakeholder input, and will aim to include the updated schedule in the next budget, expected in the spring.

During the discussion, several questions were raised. One focused on the value of comparing fees with other cities, even when limited to cost recovery. The presenter explained that while the city is bound by Proposition 26 to cost recovery, comparing with other jurisdictions can help identify opportunities for process improvements and inform policy decisions. Another question addressed the inclusion of indirect costs, such as pension expenses, in the fee calculation. The presenter clarified that normal pension costs are included, but unfunded liabilities are not, as they are not budgeted for in the same way as direct costs.

The timeline for the project was not yet fully established, but the goal is to complete the work by May and include it in the next budget. The presenter also noted that the fee schedule would not include land use or development-related fees, only service delivery fees. A suggestion was made to tag fees in the accounting system to better track revenue and identify underutilized or unused fees. The discussion also touched on the possibility of adjusting fees for nonprofit users of Endeavor Hall, which would require a separate policy discussion.

'''Keywords:''' Master Fee Schedule, Cost Recovery, Fee Adjustments, Stakeholder Engagement, Budget Book Integration, Indirect Costs, Proposition 26, Service Delivery Fees

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the interpretation and implications of cost recovery mechanisms, particularly concerning budgeted versus actual expenses. Speaker 1 explained that certain costs are not included in utility rates and are instead recovered through budgeted allocations, emphasizing that these are legitimate city expenses. They noted that costs are calculated based on the time employees spend on specific services, which affects the overall budgeting process. Speaker 2 added that the city has a buyout program for unused vacation time, which effectively converts that time into a cash expense. They suggested that while these costs may not be material to the fee being discussed, it is important to understand them fully. Speaker 2 also indicated they had additional questions unrelated to the fee and planned to address them separately. Public comment was opened, but no one raised their hand to speak. Speaker 7 confirmed there were no comments, and the item was closed without further action or motion. The meeting then proceeded to adjournment.

'''Keywords:''' cost recovery mechanisms, budgeted versus actual expenses, utility rates, employee time allocation, vacation buyout program, cash expense conversion, fee discussion
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:43:04Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-02-27 04_00 PM

== April 24, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usDO5xzdRMa0FDZ0GQDO3gwmt90yLTs1/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== February 27, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/11e44e49-2dd9-4203-9578-5fce85342142.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SGg8vg8P2jajcAkUOF1fgmVeVMiSp9zw/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_02_27_2023] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLDgM_jG5WI Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m. with the roll call, during which Councilmember Kim Trupiano and Mayor Jeff Wan confirmed their presence. The Finance Director, Angeline Loeffler, was also present. The meeting then moved to the public comment segment for non-agenda items, as outlined in Agenda Item 2. The chairperson invited members of the public to speak on matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction that were not included on the formal agenda. Each speaker was limited to three minutes, as per the rules established for the meeting.

At this point in the transcript, no members of the public have yet spoken. The chairperson, referred to as Speaker 2 in the transcript, is still addressing the audience, asking if anyone online wishes to make a comment on non-agenda items. The meeting is still in the early stages of this segment, and no substantive discussion or statements from the public have been recorded in the provided transcript span.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, speaker limit, meeting rules

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update, presented by Finance Director Angeline Loeffler and Finance Consultant Nitish Sharma. The update covered the city’s general fund operating budget of $5.4 million (excluding ARPA funds), with an estimated $81,000 in additional revenue from property taxes, vehicle license fees, franchise fees, and interest earnings. The budget also included a discussion of the $127,000 ARPA transfer from the previous year, which was used to balance the original budget. Committee members noted that while the current budget appears to be in a strong position, the final outcome would depend on factors such as salary savings from vacant positions and potential changes in revenue streams.

The presentation also outlined the city’s investment policy, which was under review for updates. The current policy was criticized for being vague on roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding who is responsible for investment decisions. A proposal for a revised policy was discussed, with suggestions to clarify investment objectives, liquidity requirements, and the inclusion of periodic reviews of investment performance. The committee also expressed interest in moving funds from the LAIF account to a higher-yield investment account, starting with a $500,000 transfer, to improve returns.

A fee study was also discussed, which aimed to ensure full cost recovery for city services. The study would involve analyzing labor costs, including unfunded liabilities, and determining appropriate fee rates based on the time and resources required to provide services. The committee requested that the fee study be aligned with the city’s budget calendar and that a draft be presented at the next Budget/Audit Committee meeting on March 27.

The discussion also touched on the ARPA funds, with the committee noting that the remaining balance in the Pandemic Reserve Fund was approximately $1.4 million, plus an additional $204,000 from the previous year. The committee planned to address the allocation of these funds at the April 4 meeting, alongside the Climate Tech project, to ensure a comprehensive review of the city’s financial needs.

Public comment was limited, with only one speaker offering insights on investment strategies, emphasizing the importance of limiting investment durations and avoiding complex financial instruments due to the city’s limited resources. The committee agreed to incorporate feedback into the revised investment policy and to continue discussions on budget updates, fee studies, and ARPA fund allocations in subsequent meetings.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget, ARPA Transfer, Investment Policy, Fee Study, LAIF Account Transfer, Pandemic Reserve Fund, Climate Tech Project

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [1:33:25].

==== Item 11: Municipal Bonds of the State of California or Local ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmrOQjQDTKGB2Ma2GyXw1HUgogq-FXAhklQw889cYvs/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== January 23, 2023 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/65c563fb-b6ad-4be7-bd5d-b76adced5214.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oIn6nHgR-qv3mSlhnSUNcGHbzikbqQwT/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The city manager introduced the draft audit for fiscal year 22, followed by a presentation from Bryce Rojas, the auditor, who outlined the audit findings. The audit resulted in a clean, unmodified opinion, indicating that the financial statements were fairly stated in all material respects. The city's total net position was $45.76 million, with $5.87 million in unrestricted net position. The general fund experienced a revenue shortfall of $1.3 million, but this was offset by a large grant, resulting in an increase in the fund balance of $250,000 and an overall increase in net position of $338,000.

Bryce highlighted several areas identified during the audit that required improvement, including material weaknesses in the continuity of personnel in the finance department, fair value estimates for certain assets, and internal controls over agency funds. The finance department faced challenges with personnel turnover, which led to a loss of institutional knowledge and the need for additional guidance when closing the books. Regarding fair value estimates, a discrepancy of approximately $150,000 was identified between the city's valuation of an asset and the auditor’s valuation, which was adjusted to reflect a more accurate fair value.

Agency funds presented complexities, particularly with the middle school Community Facilities District (CFD), which had a negative cash balance at year-end due to timing issues in the audit process. The city had since resolved this issue by paying off the final year of the CFD and closing the loan. Document retention practices were also noted as an area needing improvement, as some journal entries lacked supporting documentation, though this was not classified as a material weakness.

Councilmember Trubiano asked several questions, including the nature of the material weaknesses, the impact of the fair value adjustment, and the handling of agency funds. The city manager and interim finance director provided clarifications, emphasizing that while some issues were identified, they were being addressed and did not represent significant risks to the city's financial integrity. The discussion also touched on the transition to electronic document retention and the dual control process for journal entries, which included review and approval by different individuals.

The audit also highlighted the city’s overall financial position, with total revenues increasing by $1.5 million, largely due to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant. However, there were challenges in segregating ARPA-related spending from general fund expenditures, which distorted comparisons. The city was considering ways to present this information more clearly in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the audit report. The discussion concluded with a review of pension liabilities, OPEB liabilities, and the implementation of new accounting standards, including GASB 87, which required the capitalization of lease assets.

'''Keywords:''' draft audit fiscal year 22, clean unmodified opinion, revenue shortfall $1.3 million, fair value adjustment $150k, Community Facilities District, ARPA grant $1.5 million, GASB 87 lease assets

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Councilmember Nitish Sharma discussed the impact of recent changes in sales tax collection on the city's revenue, particularly highlighting the effects of the Wayfair decision and Amazon's shift in business model. Initially, the city benefited from increased sales tax revenues following the Wayfair decision, which allowed counties to collect sales tax on online transactions. However, subsequent changes by Amazon, which began treating its distribution centers as local entities, redirected sales tax revenues to jurisdictions with such centers, negatively affecting Clayton's revenue. Sharma noted that the city has been advocating for changes to this situation but has not been successful.

Sharma also addressed questions about property tax assessments, specifically pointing out that Comcast's unsecured property value was listed as $22.962 million, primarily due to its underground infrastructure. He explained that the city's Endeavor program's financials were largely impacted by depreciation, with operating costs being covered by rental revenue. Additionally, there were discussions about the collectability of notes and the treatment of interest and principal in financial statements, with staff indicating that while interest allowances were established, principal allowances were not due to the nature of the city's financial practices.

Regarding the audit, staff highlighted that while there were material weaknesses in internal controls, day-to-day operations were functioning well. The audit was expected to be completed by November, and there were no findings of fraud during the current audit. Public comment was opened, with one speaker raising concerns about the city's financial practices and the need for formalized accounting policies. The item was then recommended for approval and forwarding to the full council for consideration.

'''Keywords:''' sales tax changes, Wayfair decision, Amazon business model, property tax assessments, Comcast property value, Endeavor program, audit material weaknesses, financial practices

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The presentation outlined the City's initiative to update its Master Fee Schedule, a process led by GovInvest, with the goal of aligning fees with full cost recovery while ensuring affordability and equity. The fee program currently accounts for approximately 8–9% of the general fund, with nearly $400,000 in fees used to support city services. The update will consider both existing and new fees, and will be informed by a methodology that includes analyzing direct and indirect costs, such as labor, materials, and administrative expenses. The process will also involve stakeholder engagement, including county and business partners, to ensure transparency and alignment with community needs.

The presentation emphasized the importance of regular fee adjustments to avoid large, sudden increases and to ensure that fees are comparable to those of neighboring jurisdictions. It also highlighted the need to avoid creating "pay-to-play" scenarios, particularly in areas like recreation, and to consider equity and access issues. The updated fee schedule will be tied to the city’s interactive budget book, enhancing transparency and accountability. The process will involve a phased approach, starting with scoping and stakeholder input, and will aim to include the updated schedule in the next budget, expected in the spring.

During the discussion, several questions were raised. One focused on the value of comparing fees with other cities, even when limited to cost recovery. The presenter explained that while the city is bound by Proposition 26 to cost recovery, comparing with other jurisdictions can help identify opportunities for process improvements and inform policy decisions. Another question addressed the inclusion of indirect costs, such as pension expenses, in the fee calculation. The presenter clarified that normal pension costs are included, but unfunded liabilities are not, as they are not budgeted for in the same way as direct costs.

The timeline for the project was not yet fully established, but the goal is to complete the work by May and include it in the next budget. The presenter also noted that the fee schedule would not include land use or development-related fees, only service delivery fees. A suggestion was made to tag fees in the accounting system to better track revenue and identify underutilized or unused fees. The discussion also touched on the possibility of adjusting fees for nonprofit users of Endeavor Hall, which would require a separate policy discussion.

'''Keywords:''' Master Fee Schedule, Cost Recovery, Fee Adjustments, Stakeholder Engagement, Budget Book Integration, Indirect Costs, Proposition 26, Service Delivery Fees

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The discussion centered on the interpretation and implications of cost recovery mechanisms, particularly concerning budgeted versus actual expenses. Speaker 1 explained that certain costs are not included in utility rates and are instead recovered through budgeted allocations, emphasizing that these are legitimate city expenses. They noted that costs are calculated based on the time employees spend on specific services, which affects the overall budgeting process. Speaker 2 added that the city has a buyout program for unused vacation time, which effectively converts that time into a cash expense. They suggested that while these costs may not be material to the fee being discussed, it is important to understand them fully. Speaker 2 also indicated they had additional questions unrelated to the fee and planned to address them separately. Public comment was opened, but no one raised their hand to speak. Speaker 7 confirmed there were no comments, and the item was closed without further action or motion. The meeting then proceeded to adjournment.

'''Keywords:''' cost recovery mechanisms, budgeted versus actual expenses, utility rates, employee time allocation, vacation buyout program, cash expense conversion, fee discussion
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vMNKaGXK57khezL3_MYjIOE1_5pwYRXfKDGpXUnCtKk/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2023 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:43:00Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2023-01-23 04_00 PM

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:42:44Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2022-12-14 04_00 PM

== December 14, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KtJhmzszCRoLh4f--C4PECvVhrcgOqTx/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/87011798-fe75-4a64-a5e0-5f869d3d6bc8.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KtJhmzszCRoLh4f--C4PECvVhrcgOqTx/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WQ83ge4zaZyAMmu7LLUK3YqjudJUnmucvtcYe9RYCh8/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A1rfF6Joa8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The committee conducted an interview with Mr. Kaplan, a candidate for the Community Financial Sustainability Committee. Mr. Kaplan expressed his interest in contributing his financial expertise to the committee, emphasizing his background in finance, including his MBA from Berkeley and experience managing large budgets in the securities industry. He discussed his perspective on the city's budget, highlighting the importance of understanding the distinction between discretionary and obligatory spending, and his belief in long-term planning to avoid short-term issues.

Mr. Kaplan also shared his experience on the Trail and Landscape Committee, where he felt the committee often acted as a rubber stamp for staff decisions. He emphasized the need for the new committee to establish credibility and build trust with the public by making informed, transparent decisions. He acknowledged the city's efforts to improve the committee's role and expressed appreciation for the resources available, such as the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

During the discussion, committee members expressed differing opinions on Mr. Kaplan's suitability for the role. While some appreciated his ideas and experience, others were hesitant, citing concerns about his expectations for staff support and whether his background in large organizations would align with the committee's needs. The committee also discussed the possibility of recommending Mr. Kaplan, along with other candidates, for appointment to the committee. They considered the timing of appointments, the need for a quorum, and the potential terms for the candidates. Ultimately, the committee deliberated on whether to move forward with recommending Mr. Kaplan for appointment, with some members expressing openness to proceeding while others remained cautious.

'''Keywords:''' financial expertise, discretionary spending, long-term planning, committee credibility, staff support concerns, appointment recommendation, quorum requirements

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

Speaker 4 noted that certain individuals had shown the most interest and were the first to step up, suggesting they should be prioritized. Speaker 2 agreed, stating the proposal was reasonable. Speaker 4 confirmed they were fine with the suggestion, proposing two-year terms for the positions in question. The group reached agreement on the proposal, with Speaker 2 indicating they would place the item on the action calendar for further discussion. Speaker 3 supported the decision, affirming that it was a good move. Speaker 4 reiterated that the matter would be handled as an action item. A vote was taken, with committee members voting in favor. Speaker 5 then announced that the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m. Speaker 3 offered a closing thank you.

'''Keywords:''' prioritize individuals, two-year terms, action calendar, committee vote, meeting adjourned
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WQ83ge4zaZyAMmu7LLUK3YqjudJUnmucvtcYe9RYCh8/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== December 05, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tHfzFa2udVnnBgcbRc9SI8IQwksn2pE/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/130c0c59-3880-41da-a2c4-d764f0b04864.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tHfzFa2udVnnBgcbRc9SI8IQwksn2pE/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xJRgjr7kDwvLjmtXhUKg1MAkt-xQVVmJFgbij4w9y3Q/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfhunhZm7e8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The meeting began with a roll call confirming the presence of Committee members Tillman and Wan. The agenda then moved to public comment on non-agenda items, but no speakers were present. The first action item was the consideration of a debt management policy and its recommendation for adoption by the full City Council. Nitesh Sharma, the interim finance director, presented the report, explaining that the policy was required by California state law, specifically Senate Bill 1029, and aligned with best practices from the Government Finance Officers Association and the California Debt Investment Advisory Commission.

The policy outlined criteria for issuing debt, including the types of loans, timing, and alignment with the city’s financial projections and mission. It also addressed internal loan policies and procedures, ensuring that inter-fund loans were properly documented and followed legal and financial guidelines. Sharma noted that the city currently had limited debt, mostly from special assessment districts, and that most of it was scheduled to be paid off by 2024-25. He emphasized the importance of maintaining financial stability and ensuring that any new debt issuance was consistent with the city’s long-term financial planning.

Several committee members asked questions about the policy. One inquired about the role of the budget office in maintaining records of inter-fund loans, to which Sharma clarified that the finance department would be responsible. Another asked about the policy’s alignment with the city’s planning goals and capital improvement program, and Sharma explained that any new debt would need to be consistent with these documents. A third member raised concerns about the potential administrative burden of documenting inter-fund loans, and Sharma acknowledged the need for transparency but noted that the policy provided flexibility in how such loans were handled.

A member of the public, Howard Geller, praised the city’s financial management and noted that the city had historically avoided borrowing money, relying instead on reserves and assessment-driven debt. Another virtual speaker, Fred, asked about the city’s potential credit rating, and Sharma indicated that while the city had not yet sought a rating, its healthy reserves suggested a strong rating if needed.

The discussion concluded with a motion to forward the debt management policy to the full City Council for adoption, which was seconded and passed without objection.

'''Keywords:''' debt management policy, california state law, inter-fund loans, financial stability, credit rating, special assessment districts, capital improvement program

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the treasurer's quarterly financial reports for the city's investment portfolio covering the periods ending March 31, 2022, June 30, 2022, and September 30, 2022, as well as a revised investment policy. The finance director explained that the reports were comprehensive and aligned with state guidelines, with the investment portfolio being conservative, consisting largely of CDs (67 percent), LAIF (18 percent), and CAMP (7 percent). The finance director also addressed discrepancies in the reports, noting that some figures were off by an order of magnitude and that dates were incorrectly listed. These issues would be corrected before presenting the reports to the full council.

The revised investment policy was described as an expansion and modernization of the existing policy, with added specificity on objectives such as safety, credit risk, interest rate risk, and liquidity yield. It also included updates on the standard of care, public trust ethics, and conflicts of interest. The finance director emphasized that the policy would allow the city to consider new investment types, such as mutual funds, while maintaining a conservative approach. The policy was reviewed by UBS, the city's investment broker, and was intended to provide a framework for more strategic investment decisions.

Committee members raised questions about the accuracy of the reports, the alignment of the investment policy with the city's investment practices, and the need for transparency in the investment process. Concerns were also expressed about the need for a separate reserve policy, which would be developed as a standalone document. The finance director acknowledged these concerns and committed to making necessary corrections and providing additional information to ensure clarity and alignment with the city's goals.

'''Keywords:''' financial reports, investment portfolio, revised policy, discrepancies corrected, mutual funds allowed, UBS review, reserve policy needed

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The discussion centered on the delegation of investment authority to the finance director, with implications for the city's investment policies and procedures. Speaker 1 explained that the finance director would assume full responsibility for investment decisions, including buying, selling, and reinvesting funds, while maintaining quarterly reporting to the council. This shift from the previous arrangement, where the city treasurer had explicit authority, was justified by the finance director's daily management of cash flow and resources. Speaker 1 emphasized that the finance director would work closely with the city manager to ensure oversight and that the city treasurer, as an appointed position, would have a role in selecting financial institutions and brokers.

Speaker 3 raised concerns about the lack of explicit internal controls, suggesting that for proper oversight, there should be a clear separation between the initiation and approval of transactions, with documentation to support each decision. Speaker 2 shared that in practice, a form is used to document recommendations and approvals, though it is not formally part of the investment policy.

Speaker 4 questioned the new 30% limit on CDs and the absence of a clear policy for handling existing CDs that would exceed the limit after the new policy is implemented. Speaker 1 responded that the limit could be adjusted based on the finance director’s and city manager’s judgment, providing flexibility.

Public comment was opened, and a member raised concerns about the reduction in CD holdings and the average duration of CDs. Speaker 1 explained the rationale for diversifying investments to seek higher returns while managing risk. Another member expressed discomfort with the inclusion of mutual funds and commercial paper, arguing that they introduce unnecessary risk for the city, which lacks the expertise to manage such investments. There was a consensus to present the policy as written to the council, with a note on the concerns raised about certain investment types and the possibility of revising limits or removing them. The item was then moved forward for further council consideration.

'''Keywords:''' investment authority, finance director responsibility, internal controls, CDs policy limit, mutual funds risk, investment diversification, policy revision possibility

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The City Council reconvened briefly to discuss the formation of the Community Financial Sustainability Committee, which would recommend appointments and conduct interviews for its members. Council Member Juan and another council member conducted interviews with two candidates, Mr. Killeran and Hank Stratford, who expressed their interest in serving on the committee. Both candidates emphasized their extensive experience in finance, accounting, and public service, and outlined their visions for the committee’s role in engaging the public, providing financial oversight, and ensuring transparency in city budgeting.

Mr. Killeran, with over a decade of experience in financial oversight at a major credit union, emphasized the importance of aligning the committee’s work with the city’s goals and ensuring that recommendations are brought back to the full Council. He also highlighted the need for public engagement and the importance of avoiding political decisions, stressing that the committee should focus on education and transparency rather than making budgetary decisions.

Hank Stratford, a former Council member, shared his experience with the challenges of budgeting and the importance of consensus-building. He acknowledged the difficulty of making tough financial decisions and emphasized the value of public input in guiding the committee’s work. He also expressed concerns about the potential for groupthink and the importance of seeking out diverse perspectives to ensure balanced decision-making.

The discussion also touched on the committee’s structure, its relationship with the City Council and city staff, and the need for clear guidance on its responsibilities. Council members emphasized the importance of defining the committee’s scope, engaging the public, and ensuring that its work is meaningful and impactful. The interview concluded with the candidates expressing their commitment to serving the community and supporting the Council in its financial responsibilities.

'''Keywords:''' Community Financial Sustainability Committee, Public Engagement, Financial Oversight, Transparency in Budgeting, Candidate Interviews, Consensus-Building, Diverse Perspectives

==== Item 5: Part 5 ====

The discussion centered on the selection and appointment of committee members, with a focus on ensuring clarity and alignment among candidates regarding the committee's purpose. Speaker 4 expressed that while the interview process was unconventional, it was ultimately worthwhile and emphasized the importance of setting clear expectations for new members to avoid confusion during their first meeting. They also suggested that staff should prepare candidates in advance to align their understanding of the committee's goals. Speaker 4 proposed that two specific individuals be appointed to the committee for two-year terms, though they acknowledged the need for staggered terms as recommended by staff.

Speaker 2 noted that assigning terms was at the discretion of the committee and suggested considering the preferences of the candidates. Speaker 3 echoed the sentiment that having all four candidates would have been ideal but agreed to delay a decision until further interviews could be conducted. Speaker 4 proposed conducting interviews via Zoom or through the Brown Act to accommodate logistical constraints, which Speaker 2 confirmed was permissible under current guidelines.

Speaker 2 also announced plans to schedule additional interviews for more candidates, acknowledging that appointments may not be finalized at the December 20th meeting if scheduling conflicts arose. The discussion concluded with agreement to proceed with the proposed steps, and the item was closed.

'''Keywords:''' committee appointments, candidate interviews, clear expectations, staggered terms, Zoom interviews, Brown Act compliance, appointment delays
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xJRgjr7kDwvLjmtXhUKg1MAkt-xQVVmJFgbij4w9y3Q/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 23, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/b9066974-2df9-4c60-b6d1-8f75d3cf28c1.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDC1WNdX7c5LrwMI-jAOhwQkR4U8_MSu/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_23_2022] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-BHdrM9TMxutA7pUSGV9buwGbtfEUaVTfjSu-3zP0w/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0NcnByyX0s Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to review the Fiscal Year 2022/23 draft budget and related financial updates. The City Manager, Jeff Wan, and Finance Director, Kathryn Korczak, presented an overview of the proposed budget, highlighting key challenges, including rising labor and utility costs, and the need to balance the general fund. The proposed budget projects a $122,265 deficit for the general fund, considering factors such as a 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for unrepresented miscellaneous employees, a 4% raise for police officers, and increased insurance costs.

Several options were discussed to address the deficit, including forgoing the 3% COLA for miscellaneous employees, delaying the replacement of a police vehicle, and using prepayments to save on CalPERS costs. These measures could potentially reduce the deficit by approximately $148,500. The committee was also informed about the status of various funds, including the Landscape Maintenance District Fund, the Neighborhood Street Lights Fund, and the Stormwater Fund, all of which face financial challenges or projected shortfalls.

The committee also reviewed the status of the accounting action plan, which includes efforts to improve financial reporting, streamline processes, and ensure compliance with audit requirements. The plan involves reconciling accounts, refining procedures, and potentially hiring a senior accountant to assist with these efforts. The accounting team is on track to complete most tasks by the end of the fiscal year, with the goal of soft-closing the books by July and fully closing by August.

Public comment was taken, with residents and community members offering feedback on the budget, fee schedules, and permitting processes. Concerns were raised about the cost and efficiency of permitting, with suggestions to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. The committee acknowledged these concerns and committed to revisiting the fee schedule and permitting process in future meetings.

The committee did not take any formal action on the items discussed but agreed to bring forward recommendations for the June 7 meeting, including a prioritization strategy for ARPA funds and updates on the fee schedule. The meeting concluded with a commitment to continue refining the budget and financial processes in alignment with community needs and fiscal responsibility.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget, General Fund Deficit, Cost-of-Living Adjustment, CalPERS Costs, Landscape Maintenance Fund, Accounting Action Plan, Permitting Process, ARPA Funds Prioritization

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [2:41:32].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-BHdrM9TMxutA7pUSGV9buwGbtfEUaVTfjSu-3zP0w/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 14, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XRWABWM4YTMprwW_6XB6xHjbkbsGXSVS/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_14_2022]
|}

== March 07, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RRGqAN9d8k9IJhNeAgtkrvtRPAMNwqs-/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_07_2022]
|}

== January 31, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/5b78be08-93b2-4de4-a0d7-1e29be6bf2a5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/11-Gcw-Ic8SSJvTo4lhkRr8XHkJjZINSA/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_01_31_2022] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YLRk-hUTGZbX6H3WRPUUwp9_NdOgIpMEn1O7jvszFuA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO1_yCnsMbw Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee moved to the next item on the agenda as no members of the public had raised their hands to speak on non-agenda items. The City Clerk, Janet Calderon, noted that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on matters not listed on the agenda. As a result, the committee proceeded without further discussion on this item.

'''Keywords:''' Budget/Audit Committee, Public Speakers, Non-Agenda Items, Proceed Without Discussion

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:00:47].

==== Item 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 5: Capital Assets ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 6: Compensated Absences ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 7: Conduit Debt ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 8: Unearned and Deferred Revenue ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 9: Risk Management ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 10: Defined Benefit Pension Plan ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 11: Other Post-employment Benefits (opeb) ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 12: Redevelopment Successor Agency Activities ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 13: Equity Balances ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YLRk-hUTGZbX6H3WRPUUwp9_NdOgIpMEn1O7jvszFuA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:42:40Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2022-12-05 04_00 PM

== December 05, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tHfzFa2udVnnBgcbRc9SI8IQwksn2pE/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/130c0c59-3880-41da-a2c4-d764f0b04864.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tHfzFa2udVnnBgcbRc9SI8IQwksn2pE/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xJRgjr7kDwvLjmtXhUKg1MAkt-xQVVmJFgbij4w9y3Q/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfhunhZm7e8 Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 1: Part 1 ====

The meeting began with a roll call confirming the presence of Committee members Tillman and Wan. The agenda then moved to public comment on non-agenda items, but no speakers were present. The first action item was the consideration of a debt management policy and its recommendation for adoption by the full City Council. Nitesh Sharma, the interim finance director, presented the report, explaining that the policy was required by California state law, specifically Senate Bill 1029, and aligned with best practices from the Government Finance Officers Association and the California Debt Investment Advisory Commission.

The policy outlined criteria for issuing debt, including the types of loans, timing, and alignment with the city’s financial projections and mission. It also addressed internal loan policies and procedures, ensuring that inter-fund loans were properly documented and followed legal and financial guidelines. Sharma noted that the city currently had limited debt, mostly from special assessment districts, and that most of it was scheduled to be paid off by 2024-25. He emphasized the importance of maintaining financial stability and ensuring that any new debt issuance was consistent with the city’s long-term financial planning.

Several committee members asked questions about the policy. One inquired about the role of the budget office in maintaining records of inter-fund loans, to which Sharma clarified that the finance department would be responsible. Another asked about the policy’s alignment with the city’s planning goals and capital improvement program, and Sharma explained that any new debt would need to be consistent with these documents. A third member raised concerns about the potential administrative burden of documenting inter-fund loans, and Sharma acknowledged the need for transparency but noted that the policy provided flexibility in how such loans were handled.

A member of the public, Howard Geller, praised the city’s financial management and noted that the city had historically avoided borrowing money, relying instead on reserves and assessment-driven debt. Another virtual speaker, Fred, asked about the city’s potential credit rating, and Sharma indicated that while the city had not yet sought a rating, its healthy reserves suggested a strong rating if needed.

The discussion concluded with a motion to forward the debt management policy to the full City Council for adoption, which was seconded and passed without objection.

'''Keywords:''' debt management policy, california state law, inter-fund loans, financial stability, credit rating, special assessment districts, capital improvement program

==== Item 2: Part 2 ====

The discussion centered on the treasurer's quarterly financial reports for the city's investment portfolio covering the periods ending March 31, 2022, June 30, 2022, and September 30, 2022, as well as a revised investment policy. The finance director explained that the reports were comprehensive and aligned with state guidelines, with the investment portfolio being conservative, consisting largely of CDs (67 percent), LAIF (18 percent), and CAMP (7 percent). The finance director also addressed discrepancies in the reports, noting that some figures were off by an order of magnitude and that dates were incorrectly listed. These issues would be corrected before presenting the reports to the full council.

The revised investment policy was described as an expansion and modernization of the existing policy, with added specificity on objectives such as safety, credit risk, interest rate risk, and liquidity yield. It also included updates on the standard of care, public trust ethics, and conflicts of interest. The finance director emphasized that the policy would allow the city to consider new investment types, such as mutual funds, while maintaining a conservative approach. The policy was reviewed by UBS, the city's investment broker, and was intended to provide a framework for more strategic investment decisions.

Committee members raised questions about the accuracy of the reports, the alignment of the investment policy with the city's investment practices, and the need for transparency in the investment process. Concerns were also expressed about the need for a separate reserve policy, which would be developed as a standalone document. The finance director acknowledged these concerns and committed to making necessary corrections and providing additional information to ensure clarity and alignment with the city's goals.

'''Keywords:''' financial reports, investment portfolio, revised policy, discrepancies corrected, mutual funds allowed, UBS review, reserve policy needed

==== Item 3: Part 3 ====

The discussion centered on the delegation of investment authority to the finance director, with implications for the city's investment policies and procedures. Speaker 1 explained that the finance director would assume full responsibility for investment decisions, including buying, selling, and reinvesting funds, while maintaining quarterly reporting to the council. This shift from the previous arrangement, where the city treasurer had explicit authority, was justified by the finance director's daily management of cash flow and resources. Speaker 1 emphasized that the finance director would work closely with the city manager to ensure oversight and that the city treasurer, as an appointed position, would have a role in selecting financial institutions and brokers.

Speaker 3 raised concerns about the lack of explicit internal controls, suggesting that for proper oversight, there should be a clear separation between the initiation and approval of transactions, with documentation to support each decision. Speaker 2 shared that in practice, a form is used to document recommendations and approvals, though it is not formally part of the investment policy.

Speaker 4 questioned the new 30% limit on CDs and the absence of a clear policy for handling existing CDs that would exceed the limit after the new policy is implemented. Speaker 1 responded that the limit could be adjusted based on the finance director’s and city manager’s judgment, providing flexibility.

Public comment was opened, and a member raised concerns about the reduction in CD holdings and the average duration of CDs. Speaker 1 explained the rationale for diversifying investments to seek higher returns while managing risk. Another member expressed discomfort with the inclusion of mutual funds and commercial paper, arguing that they introduce unnecessary risk for the city, which lacks the expertise to manage such investments. There was a consensus to present the policy as written to the council, with a note on the concerns raised about certain investment types and the possibility of revising limits or removing them. The item was then moved forward for further council consideration.

'''Keywords:''' investment authority, finance director responsibility, internal controls, CDs policy limit, mutual funds risk, investment diversification, policy revision possibility

==== Item 4: Part 4 ====

The City Council reconvened briefly to discuss the formation of the Community Financial Sustainability Committee, which would recommend appointments and conduct interviews for its members. Council Member Juan and another council member conducted interviews with two candidates, Mr. Killeran and Hank Stratford, who expressed their interest in serving on the committee. Both candidates emphasized their extensive experience in finance, accounting, and public service, and outlined their visions for the committee’s role in engaging the public, providing financial oversight, and ensuring transparency in city budgeting.

Mr. Killeran, with over a decade of experience in financial oversight at a major credit union, emphasized the importance of aligning the committee’s work with the city’s goals and ensuring that recommendations are brought back to the full Council. He also highlighted the need for public engagement and the importance of avoiding political decisions, stressing that the committee should focus on education and transparency rather than making budgetary decisions.

Hank Stratford, a former Council member, shared his experience with the challenges of budgeting and the importance of consensus-building. He acknowledged the difficulty of making tough financial decisions and emphasized the value of public input in guiding the committee’s work. He also expressed concerns about the potential for groupthink and the importance of seeking out diverse perspectives to ensure balanced decision-making.

The discussion also touched on the committee’s structure, its relationship with the City Council and city staff, and the need for clear guidance on its responsibilities. Council members emphasized the importance of defining the committee’s scope, engaging the public, and ensuring that its work is meaningful and impactful. The interview concluded with the candidates expressing their commitment to serving the community and supporting the Council in its financial responsibilities.

'''Keywords:''' Community Financial Sustainability Committee, Public Engagement, Financial Oversight, Transparency in Budgeting, Candidate Interviews, Consensus-Building, Diverse Perspectives

==== Item 5: Part 5 ====

The discussion centered on the selection and appointment of committee members, with a focus on ensuring clarity and alignment among candidates regarding the committee's purpose. Speaker 4 expressed that while the interview process was unconventional, it was ultimately worthwhile and emphasized the importance of setting clear expectations for new members to avoid confusion during their first meeting. They also suggested that staff should prepare candidates in advance to align their understanding of the committee's goals. Speaker 4 proposed that two specific individuals be appointed to the committee for two-year terms, though they acknowledged the need for staggered terms as recommended by staff.

Speaker 2 noted that assigning terms was at the discretion of the committee and suggested considering the preferences of the candidates. Speaker 3 echoed the sentiment that having all four candidates would have been ideal but agreed to delay a decision until further interviews could be conducted. Speaker 4 proposed conducting interviews via Zoom or through the Brown Act to accommodate logistical constraints, which Speaker 2 confirmed was permissible under current guidelines.

Speaker 2 also announced plans to schedule additional interviews for more candidates, acknowledging that appointments may not be finalized at the December 20th meeting if scheduling conflicts arose. The discussion concluded with agreement to proceed with the proposed steps, and the item was closed.

'''Keywords:''' committee appointments, candidate interviews, clear expectations, staggered terms, Zoom interviews, Brown Act compliance, appointment delays
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xJRgjr7kDwvLjmtXhUKg1MAkt-xQVVmJFgbij4w9y3Q/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== May 23, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/b9066974-2df9-4c60-b6d1-8f75d3cf28c1.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDC1WNdX7c5LrwMI-jAOhwQkR4U8_MSu/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_23_2022] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-BHdrM9TMxutA7pUSGV9buwGbtfEUaVTfjSu-3zP0w/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0NcnByyX0s Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to review the Fiscal Year 2022/23 draft budget and related financial updates. The City Manager, Jeff Wan, and Finance Director, Kathryn Korczak, presented an overview of the proposed budget, highlighting key challenges, including rising labor and utility costs, and the need to balance the general fund. The proposed budget projects a $122,265 deficit for the general fund, considering factors such as a 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for unrepresented miscellaneous employees, a 4% raise for police officers, and increased insurance costs.

Several options were discussed to address the deficit, including forgoing the 3% COLA for miscellaneous employees, delaying the replacement of a police vehicle, and using prepayments to save on CalPERS costs. These measures could potentially reduce the deficit by approximately $148,500. The committee was also informed about the status of various funds, including the Landscape Maintenance District Fund, the Neighborhood Street Lights Fund, and the Stormwater Fund, all of which face financial challenges or projected shortfalls.

The committee also reviewed the status of the accounting action plan, which includes efforts to improve financial reporting, streamline processes, and ensure compliance with audit requirements. The plan involves reconciling accounts, refining procedures, and potentially hiring a senior accountant to assist with these efforts. The accounting team is on track to complete most tasks by the end of the fiscal year, with the goal of soft-closing the books by July and fully closing by August.

Public comment was taken, with residents and community members offering feedback on the budget, fee schedules, and permitting processes. Concerns were raised about the cost and efficiency of permitting, with suggestions to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. The committee acknowledged these concerns and committed to revisiting the fee schedule and permitting process in future meetings.

The committee did not take any formal action on the items discussed but agreed to bring forward recommendations for the June 7 meeting, including a prioritization strategy for ARPA funds and updates on the fee schedule. The meeting concluded with a commitment to continue refining the budget and financial processes in alignment with community needs and fiscal responsibility.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget, General Fund Deficit, Cost-of-Living Adjustment, CalPERS Costs, Landscape Maintenance Fund, Accounting Action Plan, Permitting Process, ARPA Funds Prioritization

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [2:41:32].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-BHdrM9TMxutA7pUSGV9buwGbtfEUaVTfjSu-3zP0w/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 14, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XRWABWM4YTMprwW_6XB6xHjbkbsGXSVS/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_14_2022]
|}

== March 07, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RRGqAN9d8k9IJhNeAgtkrvtRPAMNwqs-/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_07_2022]
|}

== January 31, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/5b78be08-93b2-4de4-a0d7-1e29be6bf2a5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/11-Gcw-Ic8SSJvTo4lhkRr8XHkJjZINSA/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_01_31_2022] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YLRk-hUTGZbX6H3WRPUUwp9_NdOgIpMEn1O7jvszFuA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO1_yCnsMbw Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee moved to the next item on the agenda as no members of the public had raised their hands to speak on non-agenda items. The City Clerk, Janet Calderon, noted that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on matters not listed on the agenda. As a result, the committee proceeded without further discussion on this item.

'''Keywords:''' Budget/Audit Committee, Public Speakers, Non-Agenda Items, Proceed Without Discussion

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:00:47].

==== Item 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 5: Capital Assets ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 6: Compensated Absences ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 7: Conduit Debt ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 8: Unearned and Deferred Revenue ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 9: Risk Management ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 10: Defined Benefit Pension Plan ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 11: Other Post-employment Benefits (opeb) ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 12: Redevelopment Successor Agency Activities ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 13: Equity Balances ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YLRk-hUTGZbX6H3WRPUUwp9_NdOgIpMEn1O7jvszFuA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:42:24Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2022-05-23 04_00 PM

== May 23, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/b9066974-2df9-4c60-b6d1-8f75d3cf28c1.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDC1WNdX7c5LrwMI-jAOhwQkR4U8_MSu/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_05_23_2022] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-BHdrM9TMxutA7pUSGV9buwGbtfEUaVTfjSu-3zP0w/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0NcnByyX0s Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to review the Fiscal Year 2022/23 draft budget and related financial updates. The City Manager, Jeff Wan, and Finance Director, Kathryn Korczak, presented an overview of the proposed budget, highlighting key challenges, including rising labor and utility costs, and the need to balance the general fund. The proposed budget projects a $122,265 deficit for the general fund, considering factors such as a 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for unrepresented miscellaneous employees, a 4% raise for police officers, and increased insurance costs.

Several options were discussed to address the deficit, including forgoing the 3% COLA for miscellaneous employees, delaying the replacement of a police vehicle, and using prepayments to save on CalPERS costs. These measures could potentially reduce the deficit by approximately $148,500. The committee was also informed about the status of various funds, including the Landscape Maintenance District Fund, the Neighborhood Street Lights Fund, and the Stormwater Fund, all of which face financial challenges or projected shortfalls.

The committee also reviewed the status of the accounting action plan, which includes efforts to improve financial reporting, streamline processes, and ensure compliance with audit requirements. The plan involves reconciling accounts, refining procedures, and potentially hiring a senior accountant to assist with these efforts. The accounting team is on track to complete most tasks by the end of the fiscal year, with the goal of soft-closing the books by July and fully closing by August.

Public comment was taken, with residents and community members offering feedback on the budget, fee schedules, and permitting processes. Concerns were raised about the cost and efficiency of permitting, with suggestions to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. The committee acknowledged these concerns and committed to revisiting the fee schedule and permitting process in future meetings.

The committee did not take any formal action on the items discussed but agreed to bring forward recommendations for the June 7 meeting, including a prioritization strategy for ARPA funds and updates on the fee schedule. The meeting concluded with a commitment to continue refining the budget and financial processes in alignment with community needs and fiscal responsibility.

'''Keywords:''' Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget, General Fund Deficit, Cost-of-Living Adjustment, CalPERS Costs, Landscape Maintenance Fund, Accounting Action Plan, Permitting Process, ARPA Funds Prioritization

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [2:41:32].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-BHdrM9TMxutA7pUSGV9buwGbtfEUaVTfjSu-3zP0w/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== March 14, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XRWABWM4YTMprwW_6XB6xHjbkbsGXSVS/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_14_2022]
|}

== March 07, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RRGqAN9d8k9IJhNeAgtkrvtRPAMNwqs-/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_07_2022]
|}

== January 31, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/5b78be08-93b2-4de4-a0d7-1e29be6bf2a5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/11-Gcw-Ic8SSJvTo4lhkRr8XHkJjZINSA/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_01_31_2022] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YLRk-hUTGZbX6H3WRPUUwp9_NdOgIpMEn1O7jvszFuA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO1_yCnsMbw Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">

==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee moved to the next item on the agenda as no members of the public had raised their hands to speak on non-agenda items. The City Clerk, Janet Calderon, noted that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on matters not listed on the agenda. As a result, the committee proceeded without further discussion on this item.

'''Keywords:''' Budget/Audit Committee, Public Speakers, Non-Agenda Items, Proceed Without Discussion

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:00:47].

==== Item 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 5: Capital Assets ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 6: Compensated Absences ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 7: Conduit Debt ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 8: Unearned and Deferred Revenue ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 9: Risk Management ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 10: Defined Benefit Pension Plan ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 11: Other Post-employment Benefits (opeb) ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 12: Redevelopment Successor Agency Activities ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 13: Equity Balances ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YLRk-hUTGZbX6H3WRPUUwp9_NdOgIpMEn1O7jvszFuA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2022 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:42:20Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2022-01-31 04_00 PM

== March 14, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XRWABWM4YTMprwW_6XB6xHjbkbsGXSVS/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_14_2022]
|}

== March 07, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RRGqAN9d8k9IJhNeAgtkrvtRPAMNwqs-/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_03_07_2022]
|}

== January 31, 2022 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/5b78be08-93b2-4de4-a0d7-1e29be6bf2a5.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/11-Gcw-Ic8SSJvTo4lhkRr8XHkJjZINSA/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_01_31_2022] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YLRk-hUTGZbX6H3WRPUUwp9_NdOgIpMEn1O7jvszFuA/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript] || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO1_yCnsMbw Video Backup]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee moved to the next item on the agenda as no members of the public had raised their hands to speak on non-agenda items. The City Clerk, Janet Calderon, noted that there were no speakers wishing to address the committee on matters not listed on the agenda. As a result, the committee proceeded without further discussion on this item.

'''Keywords:''' Budget/Audit Committee, Public Speakers, Non-Agenda Items, Proceed Without Discussion

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 4: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:00:47].

==== Item 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 5: Capital Assets ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 6: Compensated Absences ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 7: Conduit Debt ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 8: Unearned and Deferred Revenue ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 9: Risk Management ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 10: Defined Benefit Pension Plan ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 11: Other Post-employment Benefits (opeb) ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 12: Redevelopment Successor Agency Activities ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

==== Item 13: Equity Balances ====

This item was not taken up at the meeting.
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YLRk-hUTGZbX6H3WRPUUwp9_NdOgIpMEn1O7jvszFuA/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

List of 2021 Budget and Audit Committee Meetings

2026-10-30T00:42:04Z

Joelclayton: Added new meeting: 2021-06-08 04_00 PM

== June 08, 2021 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://cpmedia.azureedge.net/claytonca/b63b9254-eec5-4557-b067-f88aacae0958.mp4 Video] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HLictcGgpaj0KBxe0YTZLmqIftAo-75x/view?usp=drivesdk BAC_SpecialSession_Agenda_06_08_2021] || [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WpndwC8l2g9Hg1VT_62FIjlmxdu9yNzGa83dbTgh4mI/edit?usp=drivesdk Transcript]
|}

=== AI summary ===
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow:auto;">
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
==== Item 2: Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee began its session with a call to order and roll call, followed by an announcement of the agenda items. Councilmember Holly Tillman opened the meeting by inviting public comment on non-agenda items, emphasizing that the committee would not take action on any matters not listed on the posted agenda. She instructed members of the public who wished to speak to dial *9. However, no members of the public spoke during this portion of the meeting. The transcript indicates that the session proceeded without any public input on non-agenda items, and no further discussion or action was taken on this topic.

'''Keywords:''' public comment, non-agenda items, public input, committee session, agenda items, councilmember tillman, meeting procedures

==== Item 3: Action Items ====

The Budget/Audit Committee convened to discuss the fiscal year 2021–2022 draft budget, with a focus on the operating budget in the general fund. City Manager Rena Calderon provided an overview, noting that the proposed budget is balanced but faces long-term challenges, including a structural imbalance between rising expenses and stagnant revenues. She emphasized the need for a reserve policy and a long-term financial plan, which would be addressed later in the year, including discussions on the American Rescue Plan funds and the city’s reserve strategy.

Finance Director Paul Rodriguez presented a brief overview of the budget, highlighting that the general fund’s operating revenues and expenditures have been increasing steadily. He noted that the city’s largest revenue source is property taxes in lieu of VLF, followed by sales and use taxes. He also explained that franchise fees have plateaued due to factors such as the pandemic and the shift to streaming services. Sales tax revenue has increased slightly due to online purchases and the Wayfair decision, which increased the city’s share of online sales.

Rodriguez detailed the proposed expenditures for 2021–2022, noting a 7% increase in operating expenditures, driven by the addition of a full-time city engineer and ongoing police department negotiations. He also explained that the FY21 capital improvement program was lower due to the deferral of the neighborhood paving project to FY22.

Committee members raised questions and comments. Councilmember Jeff Wan inquired about the FY21 capital improvement program decline, and Rodriguez explained that the neighborhood paving project was pushed to FY22, significantly affecting the budget. Wan also noted that the city’s budget philosophy had shifted in recent years, with more realistic project allocations.

Councilmember Holly Tillman asked about the historical context of the city’s reserves and whether they were sufficient. Rodriguez explained that the city had maintained reserves of around $5 million over the past decade, though adjusted for inflation, the value had not kept pace. He emphasized that reserves were intended for one-time emergencies, not ongoing expenses, and that the city had a rainy day fund established from prior reserves.

Councilmember Wan and others discussed the need for a reserve policy, with Rodriguez noting that a proposal would be brought forward in the summer and fall. He also explained that the city’s current reserve level was adequate for short-term needs but that a long-term policy was necessary to address the growing gap between revenues and expenses.

'''Keywords:''' fiscal year 2021–2022 budget, operating budget general fund, structural fiscal imbalance, reserve policy proposal, american rescue plan funds, property taxes in lieu of vlf, sales tax revenue increase, neighborhood paving project

==== Item 5: Adjournment ====

Adjournment at [0:35:59].
</div>
</div>

See the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WpndwC8l2g9Hg1VT_62FIjlmxdu9yNzGa83dbTgh4mI/edit?usp=drivesdk full transcript here.]

== February 18, 2021 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TyLGUNl5uQj6mD7QOFIM-VBggEdAerQ5/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TyLGUNl5uQj6mD7QOFIM-VBggEdAerQ5/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}

== January 26, 2021 ==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right:auto; margin-left: 0px;"
|-

| [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qOB4p8XRj1cjJdmY44m73d9HP7B2DQGz/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda] || [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qOB4p8XRj1cjJdmY44m73d9HP7B2DQGz/view?usp=drivesdk Agenda Packet]
|}