[10) a. Conduct a Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Amending the Traffic Impact Fee Rate Schedule Pursuant To Chapter 13.24 of The Wasco Municipal Code (Ord. 02- 469), and find that this Project is classified as categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15332, no environmental review is required.]

13.24 OF THE WASCO MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 2-469 AND FIND THAT THIS PROJECT IS CLASSIFIED AS A CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

SEQUA. THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 15 332, NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

MR. VILLA. YEAH.

OKAY. SORRY WE HAD TO ABOUT YOUR MATH TEACHER HAS CALLED ON YOU.

NEXT. MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

I'LL BE QUICK. THIS IS OUR ANNUAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE INCREASE BASED ON COST OR BASED ON THE CPI.

SO THIS YEAR, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE GOES FROM $111.72 PER TRIP TO $112.68 PER TRIP.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THIS ANNUAL INCREASE.

THANK YOU. THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS? MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, MEMBER MEDINA.

NO COMMENT. MAYOR REYNA NO COMMENT.

MEMBER SALDANA I HAVE NONE AND I HAVE NO COMMENTS.

I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

[00:15:02]

SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MADAM CLERK, CAN WE HAVE THE VOTE BY ROLL CALL? I'M SORRY, MAYOR. I DIDN'T GET WHO I MOVED IT.

MAYOR GARCIA.

. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA.

SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MEDINA TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

ITEM NUMBER 11 DEFERRED BUSINESS.

WE HAVE NONE. ITEM 12 NEW BUSINESS ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COST REPORT FOR OUTSTANDING FINES, ASSESSING THE COST THEREOF AND IMPOSING LIENS PURSUANT

[12) a. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Cost Report for Outstanding Fines, Assessing the Cost Thereof, and Imposing Liens Pursuant to City of Wasco Municipal Code 1.20, 8.24, and 17.80, and Find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required.]

TO CITY OF WASCO MUNICIPAL CODE 1.208.24 AND 17.80 AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 1560 C THREE, NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

MRS COBB. YES, MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. AGAIN, THIS IS OUR ANNUAL APPROVAL FOR THE COST OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS BASED ON CODE.

UNPAID CODE CODE FINES FOR THE YEAR.

THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THESE LIENS THIS YEAR IS $10,082.

THOSE LIENS ARE LISTED IN EXHIBIT A OF THE RESOLUTION BY PROPERTY.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST THE ANNUAL APPROVAL TO PLACE THOSE LIENS ON THE PROPERTY.

COUNCIL DOES THIS EVERY YEAR AT THIS TIME.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THESE LIENS TO BE PLACED ON THESE PROPERTIES.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA MEMBER MEDINA I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

BEING NEW TO THIS DEAL, I'D IMAGINE THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH THE WITH THE FOLKS FROM THESE PROPERTIES TO TRY TO GET THESE FINES PAID, RIGHT? YES, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE MOVING FORWARD IN SEVERAL WAYS.

YES. TYPICALLY, PROPERTY OWNERS WILL GET A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, BE GIVEN TIME TO CLEAR THE VIOLATION, EXTRA TIME IF NEEDED.

CODE COMPLIANCE IS REALLY GOOD ABOUT GIVING EXTRA TIME WHERE PROPERTY OWNERS NEED EXTRA TIME AS LONG AS THEY'RE COMMUNICATING WITH US.

IF VIOLATIONS ARE NOT CLEARED, THEN A CITATION IS ISSUED WITH A FINE.

THOSE FINES ARE GIVEN, TIME TO PAY THOSE FINES.

IF THOSE FINES REMAIN UNPAID BY THE END OF THE YEAR, BEGINNING OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR, WE HOLD SORRY, LET ME BACK UP FOR A SECOND.

PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THE FINES WITH THE HEARING OFFICER.

SHOULD THEY NOT DO THAT AGAIN, THERE'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR APPEAL HEARINGS.

WE HOLD THOSE HEARINGS USUALLY IN MAY.

WE'VE HELD THOSE HEARINGS.

EVERYBODY'S BEEN NOTICED AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN AND ARGUE THEIR CASE.

AND THESE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE LEFT THAT EITHER DIDN'T RESPOND OR WERE NOT.

WE'RE NOT LOWERED. SO, YEAH, THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO THANK YOU, CLEAR THE VIOLATIONS AND THE LIENS.

MAYOR REYNA NO, HE ASKED THE QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK.

I KNOW THAT WE GO THROUGH THIS EVERY YEAR.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE DOING GIVING HOMEOWNERS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PAY IT.

SO I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT YOU'VE DONE THAT.

MEMBERS SALDANA NO QUESTION.

AND I HAVE NO COMMENTS. I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU CALL THE VOTE BY ROLL CALL? . A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA.

SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MEDINA TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION.

MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

[12) b. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Salary Schedule for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 in Compliance with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Requirement for Publicly Available Pay Schedules, and Find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required.]

MOVING ON TO ITEM B. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SALARY SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023, 2024, AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, CALPERS REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PAY SCHEDULES AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 15,060 C THREE, NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

MR. HERBERT. YES.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

THE SALARY SCHEDULE YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE APPROVED JUST A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO.

EXCEPT THAT THE 3% NEGOTIATED COLA HAS BEEN APPLIED ACCORDING TO OUR SEIU MOU.

THAT WAS A THREE YEAR AGREEMENT, AS YOU MIGHT RECALL.

AND SO THESE THE HOURLY RATES AND MONTHLY OR BI WEEKLY RATES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO THAT 3%.

AND IT'S ALSO BEEN OUR PRACTICE AND CUSTOM TO APPLY THAT SAME NEGOTIATED COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT TO NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES.

SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MYSELF, THIS APPLIES TO ALL EMPLOYEES CURRENTLY WORKING FULL TIME AT THE CITY.

[00:20:06]

SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.

THIS IS THIS SCHEDULE WOULD GO INTO EFFECT JULY 1ST.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS, MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA.

SO I SEEN THAT THE SALARIES ARE REVIEWED, ARE THE ACTUAL EMPLOYEES REVIEWED AND THEIR PERFORMANCE IS DONE THE SAME TO KEEP UP THIS, THEY'RE NOT DONE IN SYNC WITH THIS.

THEY ARE DONE IN SYNC WITH THEIR EMPLOYMENT ANNIVERSARY DATE.

AND SO THERE MAY BE STEP ADJUSTMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR BASED ON THAT ANNIVERSARY DATE.

OKAY. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A USUAL THING, BUT I ALSO JUST WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REITERATE THIS COUNCIL AND THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO SUPPORTING OUR STAFF AND MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE KEEP THEM, YOU KNOW, COMPETITIVE PAY SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO COMPETE WITH OTHER CITIES IN THE AREA.

AND WE DEFINITELY DO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

AND AGAIN, THIS WAS PART OF A THREE YEAR AGREEMENT WITH THE MOU AND WE DON'T ALWAYS FORESEE THINGS ON A THREE YEAR HORIZON.

SO WE DEFINITELY ARE LOOKING AT THAT.

VERY WELL. THANK YOU. YEAH.

MEMBER MEDINA. NO COMMENT.

MEMBER REYNA? NO COMMENTS MAYOR.

MEMBER SALDANA NO COMMENTS AND I HAVE NO COMMENTS.

I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO MOVE TO APPROVE MAYOR.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

CAN WE HAVE A SECOND, MR. MEDINA? OKAY. CAN WE HAVE THE VOTE BY ROLL CALL? MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MAYOR REYNA SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MEDINA TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

[12) c. Adopt A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Finalize and Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Continental Labor and Staff Resources, Inc., a California Corporation, doing business as “Continental Labor and Staffing Resources”, for temporary staffing services, and Find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required.]

ITEM C ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO FINALIZE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CONTINENTAL LABOR AND STAFF RESOURCES INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS CONTINENTAL LABOR AND STAFFING RESOURCES FOR TEMPORARY STAFFING SERVICES AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 15 ZERO 60 C THREE, NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

MR. HERBERT YES.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

THE CITY ALREADY MAINTAINS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH TEMPORARY COMPANIES THAT DO PRIMARILY CLERICAL TYPE WORK AND OFFICE STAFF.

THIS IS A NEW AGREEMENT.

CONTINENTAL LABOR SPECIALIZES IN INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR TYPE POSITIONS AND THAT'S THEIR MOST COMMON PLACEMENT.

WE'RE FINDING A NEED WITH JUST UNDER STAFFING, PARTICULAR PROJECTS OR STAFF LEAVE AND WHATNOT THAT IS EXTENDED THE NEED FOR THIS KIND OF ASSISTANCE.

AND SO THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO ENTER INTO A SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CONTINENTAL LABOR.

THEY'RE WELL KNOWN MAJOR SUPPLIER INTO THE OIL FIELD IN PARTICULAR AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING AND THAT TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT SO WELL EQUIPPED TO PROVIDE QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS IN THAT REGARD.

THE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE FISCAL IMPACT THAT WOULD COME LATER WITH INDIVIDUAL.

ASSIGNMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WE WOULD NEED.

THOSE WOULD GENERALLY BE COVERED UNDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUDGETS AT THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL, OR IF THERE WAS AN EXTENDED LEAVE, IF WE HAD SOMEONE OUT OR A POSITION GO VACANT, THAT UNSPENT PAYROLL WOULD BE USED POTENTIALLY TO BACKFILL THE CONTRACT COSTS OF FILLING BACKFILLING THAT POSITION.

SO THERE'S NO BUDGET ACTION NECESSARY WITH THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS? MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA.

SMART MOVE. THANK YOU.

MEMBER MEDINA. NO COMMENTS.

MEMBER URENA NO COMMENTS.

MAYOR MEMBER SALDANA NO COMMENTS AND I HAVE NO COMMENTS.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MADAM CLERK, CAN WE HAVE THE VOTE BY ROLL CALL? ITEM D DISCUSS AND PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO STAFF REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A LETTER SUPPORTING GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S PROPOSED PERMITTING REFORM AND STREAMLINING INITIATIVE AND FIND THAT

[d. Discuss and provide guidance to Staff regarding a request for a letter supporting Governor Newsom’s proposed permitting reform and streamlining initiative, and Find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required.]

THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 15 06C3, NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

MR. HURLBUT YES.

[00:25:01]

HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

THIS ITEM WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR LOOKING FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE CITY AND FROM THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE.

WHILE I AM FAMILIAR WITH A LAYER OF THIS PROPOSAL, IT IS PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE.

THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE HAS PUT OUT THIS INITIATIVE UNDER THE BUILD CALIFORNIA CLEAN FUTURE FASTER.

IT HAS SOME PROVISIONS THAT ARE VERY ATTRACTIVE, LIKE ADJUSTMENT OF SEQUA REQUIREMENTS AND WHATNOT TO MOVE PROJECTS FORWARD. WHAT I CANNOT ADVISE THE COUNCIL ABOUT IS PERHAPS SOME OF THE OTHER EFFECTS OF THIS WHOLE INITIATIVE.

I STARTED DOING SOME RESEARCH ON IT AND TO BE HONEST, I JUST DID NOT GET ALL THE WAY THROUGH IT.

THERE ARE PROBABLY 7 OR 8 PRIMARY AREAS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO IMPACT AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS INITIATIVES AND OR EVEN LEGISLATION TIED TO EACH OF THOSE SEVEN AREAS.

AND SO THERE'S A LOT INVOLVED HERE.

AND I HAVE TO BE HONEST, I HAVE NOT STUDIED IT ENOUGH TO HAVE A STRONG RECOMMENDATION.

THE STAFF REPORT SUGGESTS THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COUNCIL TONIGHT.

THERE CAN BE SOME DISCUSSION.

THEN THERE MAY BE A DECISION TO GO AHEAD AND ASK THE CITY, SUPPORT IT THROUGH A LETTER TO DECLINE THAT REQUEST FOR A LETTER OR TO APPOINT A COMMITTEE TO DELVE INTO THIS A LITTLE DEEPER AND EITHER TAKE ACTION BASED ON THAT COMMITTEE'S DISCUSSION OR THAT COMMITTEE COULD REPORT BACK FOR THE FULL COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION.

WE'VE DONE IT BOTH WAYS.

SO I THINK SOME OF THIS IS A LITTLE BIT TIMELY.

SO PERHAPS IF THE COMMITTEE WAS CHOSEN, IT WOULD BE BEST THAT THE COMMITTEE DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION RATHER THAN DEFER TO THE JULY 18TH MEETING WILL BE OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.

SO TO THAT I WOULD LEAVE IT TO COUNCIL TO FOR DISCUSSION.

ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE.

I'LL START THIS CONVERSATION.

I READ ON CAL MATTERS THAT THIS WAS KILLED BY THE BUDGET COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT WAS OVERLY COMPLEX.

BUT IT DOESN'T KILL THE WHOLE THING.

IT JUST DELAYS.

IT IS THAT I DID NOT READ THAT SAME UPDATE.

SO I DO AGREE WITH THE OVERLY COMPLEX, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WHICH PORTIONS ARE DEAD AND WHICH ONES ARE STILL.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS A TOTAL OF 10 OR 11 BILLS THAT ARE INTO ONE.

IT SOUNDS REALLY PROMISING ON IT'S ON THE SURFACE.

I MEAN, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING BAD ABOUT IT, SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE OTHER MEMBERS THINK ABOUT THIS.

MAYOR PRO TEM, FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST I'VE HEARD OF IT, I DON'T KNOW WHY JOSE DIDN'T CALL ME, BUT MAYBE HE OR ABBY CAN SPEAK ON IT.

I'M DIRECTLY THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE OR ZOOMED IN, MAYBE.

BUT IF WE CAN APPOINT A COMMITTEE AND GIVE THE AUTHORITY, I DON'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T DIVE INTO IT AND GET INTO IT.

I MEAN, I'M DEFINITELY FOR IT.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT LESSENING CEQA GUIDELINES FOR A LONG TIME, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY SWEET, BUT YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT'S BELOW THE SURFACE.

AND WITH SACRAMENTO AND THAT'S IT.

AND THAT WAS MY FEELING ABOUT JUST MOVING FORWARD BLINDLY UNTIL WE KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT.

THAT'S ALL I GOT. MEMBER MEDINA.

YEAH. FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF FORMING A COMMITTEE AND HAVING, YOU KNOW, LOOK INTO IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AND GIVE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THEM TO MAKE A DECISION ON IT.

MEMBER REYNA YES, I HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD.

BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2022, I MET WITH MAYOR VILLARAIGOSA BY INVITATION.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT BUILD BACK BETTER MONEY THAT WOULD BE COMING DOWN.

IT WAS A LAW THAT WAS APPROVED BY CONGRESS AND HE WAS ENCOURAGING THOSE ATTENDING.

THERE WAS SIX ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT, INCLUDING MYSELF.

AND HE WAS ENCOURAGING EVERYBODY TO BE PREPARED FOR WHEN THIS MONEY COMES DOWN SO THAT WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND NOT ONLY JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, BUT ALSO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE JOBS, LOCAL JOBS, WELL-PAYING JOBS TO THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN OUR CITIES.

I FOUND THAT VERY APPEALING.

BUT I DID BRING UP TO HIM THAT, YOU KNOW, CEQA SLOWS DOWN PROJECTS DRAMATICALLY.

AND HIS FIRST REACTION, HE SAID, WELL, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

AND BUT OTHERS PRESENT KIND OF ECHOED WHAT I HAD SAID.

AND HE MUST HAVE LISTENED TO THAT SAME COMPLAINT OR SUGGESTION THAT AS HE WENT THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH DIFFERENT ELECTEDS.

AND SO I THINK THIS IS THE RESULT OF THAT.

NOW I AM FOR IT, I CAN TELL YOU THAT.

[00:30:01]

OKAY. I THINK ANY TIME THAT YOU REDUCE REGULATION THAT BOGS US DOWN AND WE HAVE EXPERIENCED SOME OF THAT OURSELVES WHERE SEQUA HAS SLOWED DOWN OUR PROJECTS AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE EVEN HAD TO WORK WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COG TO RECAPTURE SOME OF THE MONEY THAT WE LOST BECAUSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS. BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, I'M LOOKING AT THE PAGE, THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE PAGE, AND I JUST WANT TO BRING UP SOME POINTS THAT HE MAKES OR THEY MAKE ON THE WEBSITE.

IT SAYS, TOGETHER, THIS PROPOSAL COULD CUT PROJECT TIMELINES BY MORE THAN THREE YEARS, SAVE BUSINESSES AND STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND REDUCE PAPERWORK BY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES.

THAT'S ONE BENEFIT OR SEVERAL BENEFITS.

AND THEN IT SAYS THE LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE AND EXECUTION ORDER WILL SPEED UP CONSTRUCTION, EXPEDITE COURT REVIEW, STREAMLINE PERMITTING, ADDRESS CUMBERSOME PROCESSES ACROSS THE BOARD AND MAXIMIZE FEDERAL DOLLARS.

I THINK IN ALL, SOME EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS THAT COULD STREAMLINE OR BE STREAMLINED INCLUDE HUNDREDS OF SOLAR, WIND AND BATTERY STORAGE PROJECTS, TRANSIT AND REGIONAL RAIL CONSTRUCTION, CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND BRIDGES, BRIDGE PROJECTS, WATER STORAGE PROJECTS FUNDED BY PROPOSITION ONE, DELTA CONVEYANCE PROJECT, SEMICONDUCTOR FABRICATION PLANTS AND WILDLIFE CROSSING ALONG THE I-15 CORRIDOR.

NOW, SOME OF THESE DO NOT PERTAIN TO US, BUT SOME OF THEM DO.

AND THAT'S WHY I'M VERY INTERESTED IN THE COUNCIL MAKING A DECISION AND POSSIBLY PUT OUR WEIGHT BEHIND IT SO THAT WE STAND WITH THE GOVERNOR AND TRYING TO ROLL BACK SOME OF THE SEQUA REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BENEFIT US IN FUTURE PROJECTS AS WE GO ABOUT GROWING OUR CITY.

AND YOU KNOW, IN THE LIST THAT I READ, I DIDN'T READ EVERYTHING.

I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. BUT IN THE LIST THAT I READ TO YOU, THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS THAT WE WILL BE HAVING THAT WE WOULD BENEFIT FROM LESS.

AND SO I AM FOR FORMING A COMMITTEE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE, BUT DEFINITELY I AM FOR IT.

I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF THE REASONS THAT I JUST STATED.

THANK YOU. SO I THINK WE HAVE A CONSENSUS THAT WE WANT A COMMITTEE.

DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE COMMITTEE OR DO I JUST APPOINT TWO MEMBERS? HOW DOES THIS WORK? BUT EITHER WAY, YOU'RE GOING TO YOU CAN APPOINT THEM, BUT IF YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THE COMMITTEE.

COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE COMMITTEE.

YOU CAN DO THAT OR YOU CAN ESTABLISH IT YOURSELF.

I'LL ESTABLISH IT. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO VOLUNTEER TO BE ON THIS? I WAS ABOUT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, NOW THAT I HEARD MR. COUNCILMAN MAYOR REYNA, I WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE THE COMMITTEE.

OKAY. SO THEN I'D LIKE TO POINT MEMBER REYNA AND MEMBER SALDANA TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE.

AND I THINK THIS IS PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS AN AD HOC COMMITTEE HAS A LIMITED LIFE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION.

AND IS THE PROPOSAL TO HAVE THIS COMMITTEE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE FORWARD BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THEIR RESEARCH, OR IS IT REQUIRED TO COME BACK FOR A FULL VOTE TO DECIDE ON ENDORSEMENT OR NOT? WE'LL TAKE A VOTE OF THE COUNCIL TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE THE POWER TO DO IT ON ITS OWN.

OKAY, YOU CAN DO THAT.

ARE THEY LOOKING FOR BECAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THE LETTER OF SUPPORT BY THIS FRIDAY, RIGHT? FOR YES.

BY THE WAY, IT WAS VERDUZCO.

HE SENT A LETTER. I BROUGHT IT TO YOU THE DAY AFTER.

AND, YOU KNOW, HE DID CALL ME AND HE WAS REMINISCING OF THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE DURING THAT MEETING.

AND SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING FOR US.

THERE MAY BE PITFALLS, AS YOU ARE PROBABLY, BUT I THINK THE BENEFIT IS LARGER THAN ANY PITFALL THAT THERE MIGHT BE.

SO, I MEAN, IF WE NEED TO RESOLVE IT BY THIS FRIDAY, YOU KNOW, I'M BUSY TOMORROW, BUT I BELIEVE I'M AVAILABLE.

BUT IT'S TOMORROW, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY OR SOMETHING, AND MAYBE THURSDAY.

AND I DIDN'T SEE THAT DEADLINE ON THE LETTER.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TIME.

I MEAN, IF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE IS SAYING THAT THEY WITH ALL THEIR STAFF, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TIME TO REVIEW THIS BILL, YOU KNOW, IN AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF TIME.

I DON'T KNOW THAT. I MEAN, IT SOUNDS VERY GOOD ON ITS ON ITS FACE, BUT I'M NOT VERY TRUSTING OF THE GOVERNOR.

PERSONALLY. I THIS IS MY POSITION.

OKAY. I HEAR YOU AND I DEFINITELY AM ALL FOR THAT.

AND I AGREE. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE ALL FOR THIS ONE ITEM AND THEY WANT US TO SEND A LETTER FOR THE ENTIRE PACKAGE.

WHATEVER COMES OF THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LETTER OUT THERE THAT SAYS WASCO SUPPORTS A, B, C, ALL THE WAY THROUGH Z, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS YET.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE IT COME BACK.

[00:35:01]

BUT I UNDERSTAND WE YOU KNOW, I NEED SOMEONE LOOKING OUT FOR WASCO RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THAT GOES AND NOT JUST GOING TO ANYWAYS, THAT'S THE.

COMBINATION. IT WAS MY IDEA TO BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT ALL OF US PUT OUR SIGNATURE AND SEND IT FORWARD.

I WILL BE WILLING TO SIGN THE LETTER ON MY OWN.

THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO ME, ADDRESSED TO ME BY MR. VERDUZCO AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SEND A LETTER ON THEIR OWN IF THEY WISH TO.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE. I'D BE WILLING TO TESTIFY.

I'VE GONE I'VE DONE TO THE LET US KNOW WHEN THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE AND I'LL BE ON THE MEETING AND I'D BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THOSE SPECIFIC INITIATIVES. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.

YOU SAID TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF WHO? WELL, THEY WANT A LETTER.

AND THESE LETTERS GO TO COMMITTEES WHEN THEY CONSIDER THESE BILLS.

AND SO I'M NOT WILLING TO PUT THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT BEHIND THE WHOLE LETTER OR PACKAGE.

BUT I'LL SHOW UP TO THAT COMMITTEE MEETING, ANY COMMITTEE MEETING THEY WANT US TO BE THERE FOR.

THEY'RE PUSHING THIS BILL, THIS PACKAGE.

THEY CAN LET US KNOW WHAT COMMITTEES, WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE HEARD, WHEN AND WHERE.

AND I'LL ZOOM IN. WE CAN GO TO SACRAMENTO.

WE'LL GIVE THEM THE FULL THROATED SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF WASCO.

I AM FOR THAT, TOO.

SO WHY DON'T WE APPROACH IT THAT WAY? MAYOR, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THAT? SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO SIGN A LETTER THEN, SINCE WE.

WELL, IT'S A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL, RIGHT.

BUT THERE IS NOT MEMBERS ARE NOT COMFORTABLE PUTTING THEIR WEIGHT BEHIND IT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT YEAH, THEY GO TO COMMITTEE.

AND SO I THINK EVEN MORE SO, MY VOICE, OUR VOICE IS SHOWING UP TO THEM BECAUSE COMMITTEE MEETINGS WOULD BE STRONGER THAN ANY LETTER THAT WE SEND AND WE COULD BE MORE SPECIFIC.

THE COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL.

I THINK THERE'S A COMMITTEE GOING TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

SOUNDS LIKE THE COMMITTEE MAY NOT BE NEEDED AFTER ALL.

RIGHT. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT WE DON'T HAVE TIME.

THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.

AND I GOT TO INTERJECT.

BUT I BELIEVE MAYOR PRO TEM MAKES A GOOD POINT.

IF THE FOLKS WHOSE FULL TIME JOB IT IS TO ANALYZE THIS SET OF BILLS TO DETERMINE THE RESULT AND THE OUTCOME, YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY CAN'T COMMIT THE TIME PERSONALLY TO ANALYZE THIS FOR THE COUNCIL TO GIVE YOU A STRONG RECOMMENDATION ON MY PART.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK PERHAPS THIS DEFERRING ON THE ENDORSEMENT LETTER AND BEING INVOLVED IN THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSION MAY BE A GOOD WAY TO GO. I DON'T OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE PROPOSAL TO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL LETTER MESHES WITH THE COUNTY OR WITH THE COUNCIL NORMS. WHETHER THAT LETTER WOULD BE UNDER YOUR TITLE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER OF THE CITY OF WASCO, OR WHETHER THAT BE UNDER YOUR NAME AS A CITIZEN OF CALIFORNIA.

RIGHT. AGAIN, THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO ME BECAUSE OF JOSE REMEMBERING THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE AND SUPPORT OF, YOU KNOW, CLAWING BACK SOME OF THOSE SECRET REGULATIONS.

I WAS REALLY SURPRISED THAT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.

PLEASANTLY SURPRISED.

BUT DEFINITELY HE SENT THE LETTER TO ME, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE HE HEARD THOSE COMMENTS, REMEMBER THEM.

AND SO HE'S ASKING ME, YOU KNOW, WOULD I SUPPORT THIS? AS I SAID, I AM FOR IT, BUT I DON'T OBJECT TO LEARNING MORE ABOUT IT.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THAT ARE VALID.

BUT OVERALL, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR US THAT, YOU KNOW, LESS REGULATION IS BETTER FOR US THAN MORE REGULATION.

THAT'S THE WAY I'M LOOKING. SO THEN WE DON'T NEED ANY DIRECTION THEN, SINCE WE'RE GOING TO DO IT THIS WAY.

CORRECT. AS INDIVIDUALS, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.

WHAT'S THE WAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ACTION AS A COUNCIL.

THERE IS NO ACTION UPON OURSELVES.

I WAS THE ONE THAT WAS ASKING THAT THE COUNCIL PUT THE WAY BEHIND IT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT IMPORTANT FOR US AS A CITY.

BUT I SEE YOU HAVE CONCERNS AND THEY'RE VALID CONCERNS.

SO, YOU KNOW, THEN THERE'S NO NEED.

IF THE MAJORITY FEELS THAT THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO PUT THEIR SIGNATURE ON THAT LETTER, THEN THERE'S NO NEED FOR A COUNCIL ACTION. OKAY.

AND PERHAPS THIS WILL COME BACK TO DO THAT AND MAYBE WE DO BRING IT BACK.

BUT I THINK AS INDIVIDUALS, WE CAN PUT OUR SUPPORT EVEN WITH OUR OWN TITLE.

IT'S NOT INDICATIVE OF WHAT THE ACTION OF THE COUNCIL IS DECIDED.

THERE WAS NO DECISION HERE, BUT WE CAN LEND OUR FULL THROATED SUPPORT TO ANY EFFORTS, AND I'M FULLY BEHIND THE SPECIFIC ONES.

[00:40:01]

BUT SOME OF THESE OTHER ONES THAT GIVE ME PAUSE ARE, YOU KNOW, ARE RESILIENT, YOU KNOW, RESILIENCY WHEN IT COMES TO TO SOME OF OUR ENERGY GOALS AND CLEAN PROJECTS IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH I'M ALL FOR.

BUT USUALLY THOSE ARE FANCY WORDS FOR LET'S GO ALL ELECTRIC AND GET RID OF ENERGY IN CALIFORNIA.

WELL, ALEX, YOU MADE AN INVITATION, YOU KNOW, TO ATTEND THOSE COMMITTEE HEARINGS.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.

ABSOLUTELY. AND I WOULD LOVE TO GO DOWN THERE.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON TO ITEM E, ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY'S APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023,

[e. Adopt a Resolution approving the City’s Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024, and Find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required]

2024 AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 1563.

NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

MR. PEREZ-HERNANDEZ.

I THINK THESE. THESE ARE MINE.

AND THOSE ARE YOURS. THANK YOU.

AND. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.

IT'S A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023, 2024.

AND I FORGOT I HAD THE THING.

SO JUST A LITTLE HISTORY WITHOUT GOING TOO IN DEPTH ON WHAT THE APPROPRIATION LIMIT AND HOW IT CAME ABOUT.

SO JUST AT A HIGH LEVEL, THE APPROPRIATION LIMIT WAS A VOTER INITIATIVE BACK IN 1979, INITIATED BY THE VOTERS AS THEY HAD SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS AS TO THE STATE AS WELL AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

HOW COULD THEY HAVE SOME GUARDRAILS, SAFEGUARDS TO LIMIT THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM OVERSPENDING? AND AS WE CAN SEE HERE, SOME, FOR EXAMPLE, EXPENDITURES OUTPACING POPULATION GROWTH.

SO THE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SPENDING MORE THAN WHAT THE ACTUAL POPULATION IS OR INSTEAD OF GROWING, IT'S ACTUALLY DECREASING.

OTHER CONCERNS ARE JUST THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY BEING MORE TRANSPARENT, WHICH IS WHAT THE APPROPRIATION LIMIT ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS.

OTHERS ARE LIKE MENTIONED EARLIER, THE GUARDRAILS TO PREVENT THE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM GOING INTO A DEFICIT.

YOU'RE SPENDING MORE THAN WHAT'S ACTUALLY COMING IN, AND THAT'S NOT HEALTHY, WHETHER IT'S FOR PROFIT OR NONPROFIT.

AND LASTLY, AGAIN, PREVENT GOVERNMENTS FROM EXCESSIVE TAX INCREASES TO FUND PROGRAMS. AND SO PRIOR TO 1979, THERE WASN'T ANY MECHANISM TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS FROM THE VOTERS.

AND THAT'S KIND OF A GAVE THE STEM TO THE APPROPRIATION LIMIT.

AND SO THE LIMIT FOR THE 2023, 2024 FISCAL YEAR IS 31 MILLION.

THAT'S OUR CEILING.

WELL AND CALCULATED AFTER EXCLUSIONS, WE START OFF WITH 10 MILLION IN PROCEEDS.

EXCLUSIONS ARE 4 MILLION AND WE NET WITH A NET SURPLUS OF LIMIT IS 6.1, WHICH GIVES US THAT CUSHION OF LITERALLY $25 MILLION, GIVE OR TAKE.

AND WHAT WE CAN SPEND AND WE CAN SEE HERE A VISUAL WE FOCUS ON.

I HAVE A QUESTION. OH, GO AHEAD.

YOU DEFINE WHAT EXCLUSIONS ABSOLUTELY GOES UNDER EXCLUSIONS.

YES. SO EXCLUSIONS ARE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT ARE OVER $100,000.

GOOD QUESTION. NO, GOOD QUESTION.

OH, I'M SORRY.

PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY. AND SO THIS GRAPH JUST SHOWS A VISUAL OF THE PAST TEN YEARS ACTIVITY OF THE LIGHT PURPLE IS TEN YEARS OF THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT, THE CEILING THAT'S BEEN SET YEAR OVER YEAR.

AND THE DARKER PURPLE IS THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE CITY.

AND AS WE CAN SEE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT GAP IN TERMS OF THE CEILING AND WHAT THE CITY'S LIMIT IS AND. THAT CONCLUDES THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PRESENTATION.

BLESS YOU.

ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS, MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU, MEMBER MEDINA.

NO COMMENTS. MEMBER REINA.

NO COMMENTS. MAYOR.

[00:45:02]

MEMBER SALDANA. NO COMMENTS.

AND I HAVE NO COMMENTS.

I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MADAM CLERK, CAN WE HAVE THE VOTE BY ROLL CALL? MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MEDINA TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION.

MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

[f. Approve a Resolution Adopting the Annual Statement of Investment Policy, and Find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required]

MOVING ON TO ITEM F, APPROVE A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 15 06C3, NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

MR. PEREZ-HERNANDEZ OKAY.

HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL HERE AGAIN PRESENTING THE INVESTMENT POLICY.

SO JUST WHY DO WE HAVE AN INVESTMENT POLICY? IT'S JUST FOR EFFECTIVE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF GOVERNING AND INVESTMENT DECISIONS.

SO WE HAVE TO HAVE A GUIDE AS HOW WE PLAN TO INVEST CITY FUNDING FOR PRUDENT PROJECTS.

AND WE HAVE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO FUND THOSE PROJECTS AND TO MEET THOSE OBJECTIVES, WE NEED TO HAVE RISK TOLERANCE.

HOW MUCH RISK IS THE CITY WILLING TO TAKE WHEN INVESTING IN CERTAIN VEHICLES AND THE PERFORMANCE OR THE YIELD? WHAT IS THE INTEREST EARNED THAT THE CITY RECEIVES WHEN INVESTING THIS MONEY? AND AGAIN, OVERARCHING AND LEVEL OF A HIGH LEVEL OF PRIORITY, FIRST AND FOREMOST IS SAFETY, LIQUIDITY AND YIELD.

SO THE INSTRUMENTS THAT THE CITY INVESTS IN, THEY MUST BE SAFE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT FUNDS KEEPS THE ENGINE RUNNING FOR THE CITY LIQUID. IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A PROJECT OR AN EMERGENCY, WE NEED TO HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE FUNDING.

THEY CANNOT BE LOCKED IN FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME.

AND LASTLY IS YIELD, WHICH IS THE INTEREST GAIN ON THE INVESTMENTS.

SOME LEGAL REQUIREMENTS HIGHLIGHTED THE TOP THREE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT OBLIGATES ALL CITIES TO PRESENT AN INVESTMENT POLICY TO THE CITY.

THE VERY FIRST BULLET AND THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE ARE ALLOWED INVESTMENT VEHICLES THAT CITIES AND EVEN THE STATE CAN INVEST IN.

AND LASTLY, A LIST OF INSTRUMENTS THAT CITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT INVEST IN BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO RISKY.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO IN AND INVEST CITY FUNDS IN PENNY STOCKS WHERE THEY'RE HIGHLY VOLATILE.

THAT IS NOT THE PRACTICE OF THE CITY OR ANYONE PRUDENT INTEREST INCOME REVENUES.

THERE WERE SOME A COUPLE REVISIONS TO THE INVESTMENT POLICY AFTER DISCUSSING WITH ONE OF THE CONSULTANTS AND ONE OF THEM IS ON PAGE 202 OF THE AGENDA PACKET, WHICH THERE IS NO LONGER AN MBA MUNICIPALS INVESTOR SERVICES.

SO BACK IN 2020 THAT WAS ELIGIBLE, GOT IT WAS DISMANTLED AND AT THAT POINT IT NO LONGER NEEDS TO BE IN OUR INVESTMENT POLICY. SO THAT IS ONE REQUEST FOR US TO REMOVE THAT PIECE.

AND ALONGSIDE THAT ALSO INCLUDING THE JPA JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, WHICH I'LL TOUCH ON A LITTLE BIT.

THE OTHER REVISION IS TO THE TABLE.

SO THERE'S A TABLE OF INVESTMENTS THAT WE CAN INVEST IN, FOR EXAMPLE, LIVE CDS, TREASURY AND BUT THERE WAS MISSING THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY INVESTING IN THOSE INSTRUMENTS.

AND LASTLY, THERE WAS A FOOTNOTE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE MBA THAT NO LONGER IS APPLICABLE TO THE INVESTMENT POLICY.

SO JUST AS AN EXAMPLE OF [INAUDIBLE], WHICH IS ONE OF THE SAFEST INVESTMENT VEHICLES FOR THE CITY, AS WELL AS MANY CITIES UP AND DOWN THE STATE, I DOUBT THE STATE IS GOING TO GO BROKE IF YOU INVEST WITH THEM.

BUT JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, AT THE END OF MAY 2023, [INAUDIBLE] WAS GENERATING 2.99% COMPARED TO THE JPA, SUCH AS CLASS 5.2% AND CAMP AT 5.16%.

SO IT'S REALLY ALMOST DOUBLE THE PERCENTAGE AND AS WE CAN SEE IN AN EXAMPLE.

SO IF WE WERE TO START ON JANUARY 1ST OF 2023 WITH $5 MILLION, AGAIN, THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO.

[00:50:06]

WE START WITH $5 MILLION AND ON MAY 31ST, WE WOULD ACCRUE 61,864. BEING THAT IT'S 151 DAYS FROM THE DAY THAT WE INITIALLY INVESTED, THE FUNDS DIVIDED INTO 365 DAYS PROVIDES US THAT A YIELD OF 2.99% GOING BACK TO THE PRIOR CHART FOR LEAF COMPARED TO THE JPA CLASS, THERE'S THE DIFFERENCE FROM 61 TO 107, THAT'S $45,000 THAT IS BEING LEFT ON THE TABLE.

AND SUPPORT FROM THE LEAGUE OF CITIES CALIFORNIA CLASS IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE LEAGUE OF CITIES.

THEY'VE BEEN VETTED AND BEING FULLY REPRESENTED, AND CITIES ARE STARTING TO INVEST IN CLASS AS ITS INTEREST.

EARNINGS HAVE BEEN VERY FRUITFUL AND.

AND I'LL STAY ON THIS SLIDE.

ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT'S THE.

FOR US TO MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION AS WELL.

NOT ONLY IS A SAFE INSTRUMENT FOR THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, BUT THERE DUE TO THE THE FRUITFUL EFFORTS FROM OUR CITY MANAGER, THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL SETTLEMENT FUNDS THAT WILL BE COMING IN THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY AND INSTEAD OF PARKING THOSE FUNDS, IF WE CAN INVEST THEM AND AND THESE TYPE OF VEHICLES.

THEY CAN PAY OFF DIVIDENDS FOR YEARS AND IT'S JUST A SNOWBALL EFFECT ON ITS OWN.

SO. THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF NEW FUNDING STREAMS THAT ARE COMING IN FOR THE CITY TO INVEST AND JUST CONTINUE TO INVEST WISELY AND BEING FINANCIALLY PRUDENT IN THEIR INVESTMENTS.

AND THAT WRAPS UP THE INVESTMENT POLICY.

ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS? MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA.

AND NONE AT THIS TIME, REMEMBER MEDINA.

SO THIS IS JUST A PRESENTATION RECOMMENDING THAT DOWN THE ROAD WE GO THIS ROUTE WITH FUTURE FUNDS, OR SO THIS PRESENTATION WAS TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE INVESTMENT POLICY, SINCE IT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL SINCE 2020, AND BECAUSE THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT NEED REVISION AND TWEAKING BECAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER APPLICABLE, IT'S BEST TO PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL EDUCATION AND BUT ALSO THAT IT IS IN OUR INTEREST TO HAVE A JPA AS A VEHICLE TO INVEST IN.

HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

YES. SO I GUESS IN THE FUTURE THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF PRESENTATION ON VOTING GOING THAT ROUTE, RIGHT? AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY OR WE CAN IN WHEN WE HAVE THE CONSULTANT, WE CAN HAVE THE CONSULTANT HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR THE COUNCIL IN TERMS OF OF CLASS AND HOW IT OPERATES.

AND WE CAN GO IN MUCH MORE IN DEPTH IF, BUT IF I, CAN MAYBE INTERPRET YOUR QUESTION, THE INVESTMENTS IN THE VEHICLES THAT WE CHOOSE HAVE BEEN ARTIFICIALLY LIMITED TO LIFE IN THE PAST.

THIS CATEGORY OF JPA INVESTMENT VEHICLES HAS IS NOT NEW, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY BECOME MORE WIDELY ACCEPTED.

OUR POLICY GOT STUCK IN A WORLD WHERE THIS MEDIA BY NAME WAS ANOTHER VEHICLE THAT WAS AVAILABLE.

THE PROPOSAL TONIGHT IS TO CHANGE THE POLICY THAT SAYS WE CAN DO[INAUDIBLE] AND WE CAN DO JPA BASED VEHICLES THAT HAVE BEEN VETTED.

THEY MEET THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THOSE THOSE STATE STATUTES THAT DEFINE WHAT THEY ARE ALLOWED AND NOT ALLOWED TO DO WITHIN THAT CATEGORY.

CLASS AND CAMP ARE TWO THAT FIT INTO THAT CATEGORY THAT HAVE BEEN ALREADY PASSED THROUGH THE THE STATE APPROVAL AND THEY'RE AVAILABLE FOR CITIES TO USE.

SO THIS IS REALLY A TWO STEP.

ONE IS APPROVE THAT CHANGE TO OUR POLICY TO REMOVE THE OBSOLETE LANGUAGE PUT IN THE MORE GENERIC LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS US TO CHOOSE FROM CAMP CLASS AND WHATEVER JPA MIGHT BE APPROVED IN THE FUTURE OR SAY CAMP GOES AWAY AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE MIGHT REPLACE IT.

SO THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY BEING CONSIDERED TONIGHT.

YOUR OTHER QUESTION ABOUT EACH INDIVIDUAL DEPOSIT FROM OUR BANK ACCOUNT RESERVES INTO AN INVESTMENT VEHICLE IS NOT BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL INDIVIDUALLY.

[00:55:02]

YES, THE APPROVAL OF THE POLICY ALLOWS THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND MYSELF TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AS AN OPERATING DECISION ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS.

OKAY. AS AS MR. PEREZ POINTED OUT, WE WILL HAVE SOME DEPOSITS TO MAKE THEIR SHORT AND MID KIND OF TERM DURATION ON THE GRANT FUNDS THAT ARE RECEIVED AS A BLOCK.

SOME OF THOSE CAN BE PARKED THERE AND EARN BETTER INTEREST, NOT QUITE TWICE THE INTEREST THAT WE WOULD IN LIFE WITH COMPARABLE SECURITY AND LIQUIDITY.

BUT I THINK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE WOULD NOT BRING INDIVIDUAL DEPOSIT DECISIONS TO THE COUNCIL, BUT THOSE DECISIONS WOULD BE MADE WITHIN THIS POLICY. OKAY.

SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY.

SO CURRENTLY ALL WE DO IS LAUGH, RIGHT? SO SOME OF THE INVESTMENTS, WE'RE HEAVILY RELIANT ON LIFE.

WE ALSO INVEST WITH CHANDLER INVESTMENTS, WHICH IS A DIVISION OF OUR CSG, WHICH IS OUR INSURANCE FOR LIABILITY AND WORKERS COMP.

IT'S A POOL WHERE CITIES IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY JOIN AND INVEST AS A WHOLE, AND THAT'S ANOTHER INSTRUMENT.

WE ALSO INVEST WITH UNION BANK.

I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THE WAY THEY HAVE IT SPELLED, BUT IT WAS BOUGHT OUT BY US BANK AND PRIMARILY THE INVESTMENTS THAT OCCUR.

THERE ARE CDS THAT ARE LADDERED EITHER SIX, 12 MONTHS, A YEAR AND A HALF, TWO YEARS ARE LADDERED OR OUR TREASURY BILLS.

SO THOSE ARE THE THREE MAIN VEHICLES THAT ARE BEING USED TO INVEST THE CITY FUNDING.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

MEMBER REYNA THANK YOU, MAYOR.

LET ME FIRST SAY THAT YOU'VE BEEN VERY GOOD ABOUT LOOKING FOR WAYS FOR THE CITY'S MONEY, THE PEOPLE'S MONEY TO GROW.

I WANT TO SAY THAT UP FRONT.

WE USED TO INVEST IN UNION BANK, DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, DEPOSIT METHODS OR MEANS. AND YOU BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT WE COULD GO TO [INAUDIBLE] AND EARN A MUCH BETTER RETURN ON OUR INVESTMENT.

AND I'M FOR THAT.

YOU KNOW, I AM FOR EARNING BETTER MONEY.

YOU HAD SOME SAMPLES THEREOF HOW MUCH MORE WE COULD EARN ON HALF $1 MILLION.

AND YOU MENTIONED THAT INTEREST RATES ARE HIGH NOW, BUT INTEREST RATES ARE NOT GOING TO BE HIGH FOREVER.

YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THAT BENEFIT OF THAT.

AND SO THIS RESULTS FROM CLASS AND CAMP 5.20 AND 5.16 RESPECTIVELY, WILL PROBABLY NOT BE THERE FOR THE LONG RUN. AND SO THE ONLY THING THAT I WANT TO ASK YOU IS JUST LIKE YOU WERE PREPARED TO BRING UP, YOU KNOW, TO A DIFFERENT INVESTMENT VENUE OR METHOD, WOULD YOU BE THEN BRINGING BACK, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR POLICY OR WOULD WE NOT HAVE TO DO THAT? BECAUSE AT THAT POINT YOU WOULD LOOK FOR OTHER WAYS TO INVEST OUR MONEY WHERE THIS NOT PERFORMING, NOT TO PERFORM TO THE LEVEL THAT THEY'RE PERFORMING NOW, WHICH IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN, RIGHT.

SO WITHIN THE INVESTMENT POLICY, THERE'S GUIDELINES AS TO HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTING AND EVALUATING OUR INVESTMENTS MONTHLY.

BUT AT ANY POINT, IF WE ARE NOT RECEIVING A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, THE CITY HAS TO MOVE THEIR FUNDS AGAIN.

BUT FOLLOWING THE STATE GUIDELINES, WE CANNOT BE INVESTING IN HIGHLY RISKY INVESTMENTS AND MOVING FUNDS FROM, FOR EXAMPLE, CLASS AND LIFE OFFERS A BETTER YIELD.

IT WAS IT WOULD BE IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST TO MOVE FROM CLASS TO CAMP, FROM CLASS TO LIFE, BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE OF THE EARNINGS THAT THE CITY RECEIVES.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT YOU PROVIDE A MONTHLY INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE REPORT, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO RECEIVE.

I SHOULD SPEAK FOR MYSELF, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE AWARE THAT THIS IS A TEMPORARY THING.

THIS HIGH INTEREST RATE IS A TEMPORARY THING, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY.

AND IT'S LIKELY TO TO DROP.

YES, TO BE SURE. YES.

I THINK THE GOAL HERE WITH THIS POLICY MODIFICATION IS TO GIVE US AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY WITHIN APPROVED VEHICLES BY THE STATE AND REINFORCED BY OUR OWN POLICY OF A LIMITED NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF VEHICLES THAT WE CAN BE NIMBLE AND CHOOSE THE BETTER RETURNS AT ANY POINT IN TIME.

AND IF [INAUDIBLE] MOVES IN THAT RIGHT NOW, LIFE IS SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW THESE OTHER OPTIONS.

[01:00:03]

OUR OLD POLICY, UNTIL PERHAPS TONIGHT DIDN'T ALLOW US TO GO INTO THESE OTHER VEHICLES.

THE WORDING IN THE NEW POLICY GIVES US SOME FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THAT CATEGORY TO THE TWO KNOWN VEHICLES AND PERHAPS IN THE FUTURE.

OTHER UNKNOWN, WE WOULD GENERALLY, AS PART OF OUR STRATEGY, NOT LOCK OTHER THAN IN THE SENSE OF A LADDERED CD STRATEGY WHERE YOU HAVE SHORTER AND LONGER TERM INVESTMENTS.

WE WOULD GENERALLY TRY TO AVOID BEING LOCKED INTO ANY INVESTMENT WHERE THE LIQUIDITY WAS SACRIFICED SO THAT WE COULD REACT TO BOTH A NEED OR A CHANGE IN THE RETURNS.

SO I THINK THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES, WE WOULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MOVE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING WITH RELATIVELY SHORT NOTICE.

I GUESS ONE MORE QUESTION. I DO WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING YOU SAID.

MAYBE I MISHEARD YOU.

YOU DID SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THIS INVESTMENTS NEED AT LEAST TWO OF THE REQUIREMENTS, THE RECURRENCE BEING THREE, SAFETY, LIQUIDITY AND YIELD.

DO THIS CLASS AND CAMP MEET ALL OF THEM? YES, THEY DO.

AND THE TWO I WAS REFERRING TO WERE FROM THE PREVIOUS SLIDE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS DEFINING WHAT VALID INVESTMENT VEHICLES ARE ARE ALLOWED. IF WE COULD BACK UP TO THAT SCREEN WITH THE THREE GOVERNMENT CODE CITATIONS, ONE MORE THERE THE TWO THAT DEFINE WHAT IS ALLOWED AND THE ONE THAT DEFINES WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS SPEAKING. YOU WERE REFERRING TO WHAT WAS NOT ALLOWED.

I WAS REFERRING TO THE TWO, THAT IT DOES QUALIFY AND OBVIOUSLY IT QUALIFIES BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE THIRD LIST.

THESE ONES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED IN THE POLICY ARE NOT ON THE INELIGIBLE INVESTMENT LIST.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE INVESTING IN ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT MEET ALL WE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO COMPLY WITH ALL THREE OF THOSE BULLETS.

I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS.

I THINK IT'S GREAT.

AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING.

THANK YOU. WE'RE STILL DONE.

I THINK I SKIPPED YOU. DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NO. I'D LIKE TO JUST ECHO WHAT MR. [INAUDIBLE] AND I SAID THANK YOU.

BECAUSE, I MEAN, FOR ME, I WAS COMING IN AND LEARNING ALL THIS.

IT'S EXCITING TOO, ESPECIALLY IF YOU GUYS ARE ABLE TO INVEST AND MAKE MONEY FOR THE CITY.

TO ME, THAT'S A WIN WIN SITUATION FOR ME.

SO I THANK YOU GUYS.

THANK YOU. AND I HAVE NO COMMENTS.

I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MADAM CLERK, CAN WE HAVE THE VOTE BY ROLL CALL, PLEASE? YES.

ITEM G. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY'S FISCAL YEAR 2023, 2024 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND 2023 TO 2028 CAPITAL

[g. Adopt a Resolution approving the City’s Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Annual Operating Budget and 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Program, and Find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c) (3), no environmental review is required]

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATE GUIDELINES.

THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 1560 C THREE, NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.

MR. PEREZ-HERNANDEZ HONORABLE MAYOR.

MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AS WE DISCUSSED THROUGH THE BUDGET WORKSHOP ON MAY 25TH, THIS IS A RECAP, PERHAPS HALF THE SLIDES THAT WE WENT OVER.

SO JUST THE BUDGET OVERVIEW PROCESS PROCESS.

ON FEBRUARY WE HAD THE MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW, WE HAD A COUNCIL STRATEGIC WORKSHOP ON ON MARCH 4TH AND LEADING INTO THE BUDGET WORKSHOP ON MAY 25TH, THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET ISSUANCE ON JUNE 16TH.

AND LASTLY BEFORE YOU IS A PRELIMINARY BUDGET REVIEW AND ADOPTION FOR TODAY.

THIS IS JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE CALENDAR AS TO ALL OF THE MILESTONES THAT THE CITY HAS AS HAS GONE THROUGH LEADING US UP TO THIS EVENING. SOME OF THE UPDATES, THERE ARE NO DEPARTMENT REQUESTS.

SO FROM OUR LAST BUDGET, PRELIMINARY BUDGET AND CIP WORKSHOP, NO CHANGES TO THE DEPARTMENTS OR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ITEMS CONTINUE TO BE A BALANCED BUDGET HEALTH OF THE CITY.

AS MENTIONED AT THE PRIOR WORKSHOP, THE GENERAL FUND IS IN A HEALTHY POSITION.

WE HAVE A 35% BENCHMARK FOR OUR UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE.

WE ARE WELL OVER THAT 47%.