Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-09-19 Finance Committee Summary MinutesFINANCE COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 12 Regular Meeting September 19, 2023 The Finance Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 PM. Present In Person: Burt, Lythcott-Haims, Stone Present Remotely: None Absent: None Chair Burt called the meeting to order. Assistant City Clerk Vinh Nguyen called roll and noted there was a quorum. Public Comments There were no requests to speak. Action Items 1. Recommend the Finance Committee Recommend the City Council Approve Three Contracts for: 1) a Five-year Contract with BrightView Landscape Services, Inc., in the Amount of $12,288,093 for Landscape Maintenance Services; 2) a Five-year Contract with Gachina Landscape Management, Inc., in the Amount of $516,740 for Landscape Maintenance Services; and 3) a Five-year Contract with Grassroots Ecology in the Amount of $529,459 for Specification for Habitat Restoration in Foothills Nature Preserve and Adobe Creek Pedestrian Bridge Native Plant Restoration; Approval of Contract Amendment No. 2 to Contract C18170810A with BrightView Landscape Services, Inc. to increase the Not to Exceed amount by $75,152 to provide weekend services for a three-month contract extension; and Approval of Budget Amendments in Multiple Funds (2/3 vote required); CEQA status - Categorically exempt per regulation 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304 (minor alterations). Community Services Assistant Director Darren Anderson announced that Parks Superintendent Lam Do would be presenting and that Community Services Department Mark Ribeiro was online to answer specific questions related to the BrightView contract, which he managed. He provided slides and discussed the City having conducted an organizational review in 1993. He noted that the Purchasing Department and the Community Services Department had put out an SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 RFP seeking contractors to provide services under a five-year contract, and they had received four proposals. Parks Superintendent Lam Do voiced that staff proposed three separate contracts be awarded of the four proposals. He displayed slides and discussed details of the three contracts. He noted there was an error in the Staff Report in that it did not list how the proposals had been rated and scored, but it had been based on cost proposal, experience, equipment, and quality proposal. He commented that the overall cost of the five-year contracts had more than doubled for landscape maintenance and habitat restoration. He outlined the factors contributing to the higher cost, which included additional maintenance sites, phasing out of glyphosate, services being added on weekends at 23 sites, increasing staffing level and materials, and material and labor cost increases. He specified that new and upcoming City projects were being added to the services, which included the Sherman Parking Garage, the Public Safety building, the Boulware Park expansion, and the Adobe Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge. He discussed the phasing out of glyphosate. He spoke of the City prescribing the quantities of materials, such as soil, seed, and fertilizer, in the contract with BrightView, which helped the renovation process. He voiced that the addition of the maintenance sites, phasing out the use of glyphosate, and weekend servicing resulted in a higher minimum staffing level and associated labor costs. He remarked that labor costs had increased from $22 to $30/hour in 2019 to $40 to $49/hour in 2023. Regarding compensation for employees of the proposed contractors, all employees received an hourly wage supplemented with health benefits, paid sick leave, and a retirement program. BrightView staff would receive $18 to $34/hour, Gachina $18 to $32/hour, and Grassroots Ecology $55 to $65/hour. Grassroots was an environmental nonprofit, so their services were delivered through a volunteer model, which would not cover salaries. Public Comments There were no requests to speak. Vice Mayor Stone asked why maintenance of the playing fields would be done in-house and if an analysis had been done of the tradeoffs on cost of in-house versus contracting it out. Assistant Director Anderson answered that maintenance of playing fields was done in-house because the City had a greater degree of control of the end result, which he explained. He understood that the audits in 1993 and 2005 had analyzed the tradeoffs on cost of in-house versus contracting out. Vice Mayor Stone thought a recent analysis of the tradeoffs on cost of in-house versus contracting out would be helpful. He inquired if there was knowledge of residents’ thoughts related to playing fields. He was interested in exploring that a little more. He queried if residents renting picnic areas on weekends would be able to use the trashcans. He was frustrated to see the increase in the contract cost and was interested in exploring how to mitigate that in the future or, at least, seeing an analysis of in-house versus contracting out. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 Assistant Director Anderson voiced that residents cared very much about field conditions, and they were not entirely satisfied with the fields, and staff was in communication with them about ideas and proposals for improvement. He expressed that extra servicing had been built into to the proposed contract. Residents renting picnic areas on weekends would be able to use the trashcans. Council Member Lythcott-Haims questioned if BrightView was a renewal. It looked to be more than a 100% increase. She noted that much of the increase had been predicted in the FY2024 budget, but $400K was being taken from the BSR, so she requested commentary related to budget forecasting. She asked why some sites were to be pesticide-free and not others and if all would be at some point. She asked if Assistant to the City Manager Melissa McDonough was aware of the provision related to homeless encampments and the possible removal of their belongings. Assistant Director Anderson confirmed that BrightView was a renewal. He explained why they started small as they transitioned away from herbicides. They had been progressively reducing herbicides, and herbicides had not been used at any park in five years. He noted that [inaudible] had been herbicide-free for five years, but it was not designated as such as an herbicide may be needed in the event of a future infestation. He was not sure if Assistant to the City Manager McDonough was aware of the provision related to homeless encampments and the possible removal of their belongings; however, he and Parks staff had worked with her recently on a few similar situations. Superintendent Do replied that the Parks Department and the Office of Management and Budget worked together to hedge, and they forecasted a 40% cost increase. They had not thought it would have be a 100% increase. They had not done as well as they would have liked in projecting the cost increases. He explained that they had asked contractors for one-off [inaudible], which was used as a cost gauge; however, material costs had also increased. Chair Burt inquired, regarding labor cost increases, if the slide presented was referring to employee compensation and if Packet Page 10 was referring to the billing rate from the contractor. He requested the percentage of increase for each of the seven contributing factors to the cost increases. He questioned how performance monitoring would occur. He requested consideration be given to developing a policy that all City staff out in the field be quality inspectors, which had to be through a broad training program. He queried if an additional $458K was needed in addition to the funding of $1.8M and if the $6M increase covered the three contracts. Superintendent Do confirmed that the slide presented referred to employee compensation and Packet Page 10 referred to the billing rate from the contractor. The largest cost increase was the collective need for a higher FTE, and the labor rate was associated with that, which was also SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 compounded by the labor rate increases. Material cost was the second largest factor in the increase. Assistant Director Anderson answered regarding performance monitoring that there were two park inspectors whose full-time jobs were to inspect playgrounds and monitor contractors to ensure sites were being taken care of appropriately. He explained that there was a tremendous amount of redirecting the contractors. Community Services Department Mark Ribeiro managed the BrightView contract and met with them on a regular basis, spot inspected, etc. Assistant City Manager Kiely Nose answered that an additional $458K was needed in addition to the funding of $1.8M, which she detailed, and the $6M increase covered the three contracts over the life of the contracts. Chair Burt noted that dividing 5 years by $6M would not be $2.3M per year. He asked why the increase over 5 years was $6M+ if $1.8M was added and there was approximately $500K beyond that in FY2024. He noted that $1.8M was above prior levels, not a total of $1.8M. Assistant City Manager Nose replied that the $1.8M was included in the adopted budget, and to reach the annual cost, the budget needed to be increased by about $460K, and the combination of the two funded a 12-month cost of the contracts, which was about $2.3M. Superintendent Do stated it should read that $1.8M was put in for the overall budget, not an increase. MOTION: Council Member Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone to recommend the City Council 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with BrightView Landscape Services, Inc., in the amount of $11,702,946, plus 5% for Additional Services of $585,147, for a total of $12,288,093 for Landscape Maintenance Services throughout the City for a term of five years, beginning on October 1, 2023, and ending on September 30, 2028 (Attachment A). The contract amount for the first year of the agreement will be $2,182,391, plus 5% contingency of $109,120, for a total of $2,291,511. 2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Gachina Landscape Management, Inc., in the amount of $469,764, plus 10% in Additional Services of $46,976 for a total of $516,740 for Landscape Services at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for a term of five years, beginning on October 1, 2023, and ending on September 30, 2028. (Attachment B). The contract amount for the first year of the agreement will be $90,624, plus 10% contingency of $9,062, for a total of $99,686. 3. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Grassroots Ecology in the amount of $481,326, plus 10% for Additional Services of $48,132 for a total of $529,459 for Habitat Restoration in Foothills Nature Preserve and Adobe Creek Pedestrian Bridge Native Plant Restoration for a term of five years, beginning on SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 October 1, 2023, and ending on September 30, 2028. (Attachment C). The contract amount for the first year of the agreement will be $90,660, plus 10% in Additional Services of $9,066, for a total of $99,726. 4. Amend the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Appropriation to align with recommended contracts including use of $404,342 of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. 5. Approve Contract Amendment No.2 to Contract C18170810A with BrightView Landscape Services, Inc. to increase the Not to Exceed amount by $75,152 to provide weekend services for a three-month contract extension (Attachment D). MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Chair Burt asked if staff had considered evaluating where turf should and should not be in Foothills Park and what water source might be used as an alternative to the Hetch Hetchy water and if there was a sustainable water supply in that area. Assistant Director Anderson stated the contract with Grassroots Ecology had what was called a lawn conversion, and expanding that had been discussed, which he thought could be expanded within the confines of this contract. The entire length would not be funded, and a separate CIP may be needed. 2. Recommend City Council Approve Financing Plan for a Local Salt Removal Facility at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and Direct Staff to Secure Financing and Solicit Bids for a Construction Contract and Construction Management Services Contract Public Works Director Brad Eggleston voiced that the local removal salt removal facility at the Regional Quality Control Plant was intended to improve the quality of recycled water. He provided some history of cost estimates. This meeting was to review the financing plan. He shared that a capital funding gap of about $40M that had been described last year had been closed to a federal grant and the City of Mountain View paying the remaining capital cost. He acknowledged that Mountain View Vice Mayor Pat Showalter was in the audience. Public Works Assistant Director Karin North spoke of staff’s recommendation to approve the financing plan for the facility, to authorize staff to amend the recycled water agreement between Palo Alto and Mountain View, to invite bids for construction, and to secure project financing through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF). She furnished slides and provided some history of recycled water. She reminded Council that this was a regional water quality control plant with multiple partner agencies. Director Eggleston clarified that Phase 3 was the project that had been discussed over many years, which was potentially expanding the system and building a pipeline to Stanford Research Park primarily. Phase 1 and 2 related to the proposed small facility. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 Assistant Director North presented a slide showing the location for the local facility. They were trying to produce higher quality recycled water and decrease the potable demand for irrigation use. She commented that the terms Phase 1 and 2 were for sizing. The construction would be to build a Phase 1, but it could be sized up quickly to a Phase 2. She discussed and shared a slide showing what it would look like. They had 100% design, which included the soil filter, storage tank, blending station, etc. She supplied a slide and spoke of different agency roles. Palo Alto would provide a little funding; manage design, construction, operation, and maintenance, which would be funded by [inaudible] plant staff; and distribute the enhanced recycled water managed by Public Works wastewater treatment plant staff. Mountain View would be funding the remaining capital and the ongoing O&M and distribute their own enhanced recycled water. She mentioned some benefits to Palo Alto included higher quality water, increasing recycled water to reduce discharge to the bay, possible recycled water customers within Palo Alto, etc. Associate Engineer Diego Martinez Garcia displayed slides and discussed cost estimates, capital cost share, O&M costs, total annual cost allocation by agency for the first 10 years of operation (Attachment A), and the current schedule of the project. They expected to address Palo Alto City Council next month. If the project should move forward, they would continue and close the SRF Loan Agreement for $27M, which would be paid by Mountain View and close and sign the grant with the Bureau of Reclamation for $13M, and the Recycled Water Agreement would need to be amended with Mountain View. They estimated that construction would start in mid- 2024 and be completed by the end of 2026. They recommended the Committee approve the financing plan to construct the project, authorize amendment of the Recycled Water Agreement with the City of Palo Alto, issue invitations for bids for construction, and secure financing through SRF for the remaining $27M. Public Comments Mountain View Vice Mayor Pat Showalter was at the meeting on behalf of Mountain View City Council because they had voted to move forward with the offer. They thought it was a great idea and hoped the Committee would also consider it a great idea and move forward with it. She thanked the Committee and staff for being wonderful partners for decades. She spoke of compelling reasons for funding this, which included reducing freshwater input into the bay, sustainability, recycled water being a drought-proof supply, recycled water having many good uses, and expected development with dual plumbing. She noted that Mountain View was using most of the recycled water and hoped Palo Alto would increase recycled water use over time, and Mountain View would be happy to move into Phase 2. Chair Burt explained the meaning of dual plumbing. He asked Vice Mayor Showalter if recycled water was needed for new development and how the cost of the water was priced to customers versus the Hetch Hetchy water provided for potable uses. Vice Mayor Showalter expressed why they were building dual plumbing for new buildings. The expanded need for recycled water was for new development but they planned to extend the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 recycled water system into the East Whisman area, which would not restrict the types of landscapes used there. She did not know the timeline. Assistant Director North answered that Mountain Views’ recycled water pricing was about 65% of their potable water. Chair Burt queried if that pricing was cost or market value based; if Mountain had a debt service; and who charged for the water. Assistant Director North replied that Mountain View did a cost of service analysis in 2013, which was being updated. She assumed their price may change, which would also depend on the quality of the water. They had a pipeline debt service. Palo Alto worked directly with Mountain View’s Water Utility, and the recycled water and water utility was under the same umbrella. Chair Burt addressed the City previously thinking of wastewater as an environmentally detrimental waste but was now thinking of waste as a commodity that could be upvalued after treatment. He indicated there was an input commodity value. He questioned how the value transfers would be sorted out between partner agencies, the Public Works Department, and Utilities. He thanked Vice Mayor Showalter for attending the meeting. Council Member Lythcott-Haims asked why Palo Alto had made limited use of recycled water to date and why it was decided that Greer Park and the golf course were suitable locations; if dual plumbing would be done for BASA; and how far Palo Alto’s direct potable reuse reached. Assistant Director North provided history going back to the 1980s related to recycled water, and she explained why Greer Park and the golf course were suitable locations. Regarding expansion of pipelines, staff had previously done a lot of analysis in the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan and a financial plan, and due to the cost, Council decided to continue to do more analysis at that time. In parallel, they were also told to reduce salinity, so a salt removal facility needed to be built before pipelines could be expanded within Palo Alto. The draft regulations of direct potable reuse were currently out, and it appeared there needed to be a pretreatment salt-removal facility and a post-treatment facility. If that should be desired in the future, the stage was being set for it to be done, but it would not be a lot of water. Chair Burt answered that dual plumbing would be done for BASA. He added that until now it had not been legal to have direct potable reuse, although indirect potable had been happening in some Southern California areas. For such to be safely consumed, a step was needed to break down synthetic organic materials. He queried if Palo Alto was able to tap into some of the water from the Advanced Water Recycling Facility at San Antonio that Valley Water was putting in. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 Assistant Director North replied that Public Works and Utilities staff had been working with Valley Water. Valley Water was to do more analysis on effluent availability, and they may not size the facility to take more of Palo Alto’s water. It was still being discussed. Chair Burt discussed the input water commodity of the wastewater and limited publicly owned land for such a purpose and not being able to get that water, and he questioned if the agreement could be redone. He addressed the rebuild of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, the Advanced Water Recycling Facility, and Phases 1 and 2 of Palo Alto’s salt-removal facility and all having relationships with each other, and he struggled with how each project related to each other and the benefits to Palo Alto. Council Member Lythcott-Haims asked what was meant by 90% of the design costs being in, if 100% could be predicted, and if 90% of the design was $56M of which Mountain View was to pay half. She requested the definition of the remaining 10%. Associate Engineer Garcia explained that the percents were the level of detail of the design. The original cost on the Visibility Study was 10%. It was never high level with details concerning material prices. He outlined that 30%, 60%, and 90% were definitions of the design. During the pandemic, they were struggling with inflation, supply chain issues, etc., that were increasing the cost of every phase of the design. He confirmed that 90% of the design was $56M, which Mountain View was to pay half. The definition of the 10% was completed between October 2022 and June 2023, but there would not be an updated cost estimate for the 100% until finalization of the plan. Director Eggleston added that engineering and construction projects go through a sequence of design, but there would not be an estimate for a percentage of a project. There would be a design contingency that would be a part of the estimate, and as the levels of design were proceeded through, the estimate would be lowered. The 90% design estimate included some design contingency that was meant to cover details that may be added. They were hopeful the estimate would not change or would, at least, be close. Vice Mayor Stone inquired if the total annual cost allocation by agency included administrative and staffing costs that would be ongoing; if as the years progressed Palo Alto could maintain some of the water share if needed; and if there were any reasons not to approve the financing plan. He did not see why this would not be supported. Associate Engineer Garcia responded that the total annual cost allocation by agency included administrative and staffing costs that would be ongoing, except for labor. The labor had been blended into the main Water Quality Control Plan Budget, as they expected one position that would be divided into a part-time chemist, part-time operator, etc. Assistant Director North answered, regarding Palo Alto maintaining some of the water share, that the costs were based on usage, so Palo Alto had a right to a certain amount of water now. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 In looking at the cost estimates moving forward for operations and maintenance, they had not increased that because they were not assuming expansion, but there would be water available for Palo Alto. As for reasons not to approve the financing plan, a lot of analysis had been done, Palo Alto had the grant, and Palo Alto had been in the queue for the SRF loan for a long time, and they heard the SRF was not going to take on new projects for a little time, so staff did not want to miss that opportunity, and the agreement needed to be signed before the end of the year. Director Eggleston noted that there were a lot of reasons to proceed. If Palo Alto never expanded its use of recycled water and a lot more of the water was not going to be used at Greer Park and the golf course, then Palo Alto could be working on an investment that would mainly benefit Mountain View. The relationship with Mountain View as a partner was very important to increase the use of recycled water in Palo Alto. The potential biggest downside was building this and Palo Alto getting only the listed side benefits without ever starting to use more of the water. Chair Burt added that $13M was in the Bureau of Reclamation grant and $16M from Valley Water, and Palo Alto would not necessarily have those options for Phase 2. If Palo Alto’s use should not be expanded, the nonlocal dollars would be wasted for a phase that Palo Alto would not get much benefit from. He asked if enhanced recycled or recycled water was used for the golf course and Greer Park; if the golf course and Greer Park used about 400K gallons of recycled water; if the golf course was redesigned for vegetation that could tolerate a certain salinity level; and if Greer Park blended recycled water with potable water to get the TDS down so vegetation would not be harmed by that water. Until an expansion is done for recycled water, he queried if there would be uses for the lower salinity recycled water other than having to blend for Greer Park. He asked where the purple pipe ran from Greer and how it was tapped into. He queried if East Palo Alto took some of Palo Alto’s recycled water. He was glad that Council Member Lythcott-Haims had brought up dual plumbing in the lower San Antonio area. He provided some historic context as to why Palo Alto had made limited use of recycled water and dual plumbing. He was hopeful that there would be a big investment of purple pipe in the Research Park and that they would be a partner once Palo Alto could supply them water for their vegetation. Assistant Director North responded that recycled water was used for the golf course and Greer Park, the golf course and Greer Park used about 400K gallons of recycled water, the golf course was redesigned for vegetation that could tolerate a certain salinity level, and Greer Park blended recycled water with potable water to get the TDS down so vegetation would not be harmed by that water. There were not currently uses for lower salinity recycled water other than having to blend for Greer Park. Other than the greens, the landscaping could probably use the enhanced recycled water, which would have to be a capital project. The purple pipe for Greer ran down East Bayshore to Matadero Creek. Staff had considered expanding recycled water into East Palo Alto to their playing fields, but at that point in time, there was no capital to SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 expand the pipeline. She provided details of where a little recycled water was used, which was not technically East Palo Alto. Director Eggleston would follow up further regarding the greens being able to tolerate salt. He explained that the water was not paid for by Greer Park or the golf course, and there was no recycled water rate in Palo Alto, which was part of the reason why other connections from businesses or others along East Bayshore and/or Embarcadero had not been established. He questioned if a rate should be established in the future to try to make more connections. MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Council Member Lythcott-Haims to recommend the City Council 1. Approve the Financing Plan for the Local Salt Removal Facility to be constructed and authorize staff to amend the Recycled Water Agreement with the City of Mountain View. 2. Direct staff to issue an invitation for bids for construction and secure financing for the project financing through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF). MOTION PASSED: 3-0 3. Accept California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Pension Annual Valuation Reports as of June 30, 2022 Assistant City Manager Kiely Nose declared that Budget Manager Paul Harper was in attendance to help facilitate the conversation. Budget Manager Jessie Dechamps mentioned that the CalPERS Actuary David Clement was also attending. She displayed slides and addressed the purpose of the overview, which transferred the CalPERS reports used to inform the FY2025 budget and the financial planning of Pension benefit. The goal was to accept the CalPERS reports. She furnished slides reviewing funding sources to pay pensions and the status of current and expected pension plans, which she detailed. Staff would return in December and January to review the long-range financial forecast, and as part of the review, staff would include pension trust contributions at the lower 5.3% rate and estimates for expected changes, such as the preliminary 5.8% return. This long- range financial forecast and input from the Finance Committee and City Council would be used to develop the FY2025 proposed budget. Deliberations with the Finance Committee to review the proposed budget would occur in May for City Council adoption in June. The action this evening was to accept the June 30, 2022, CalPERS valuation reports. Public Comments There were no requests to speak. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 Council Member Lythcott-Haims questioned when it was predicted that the ADP discretionary payments would be made and if it was on target. She asked how many California municipalities had a 115 Pension Trust. Assistant City Manager Nose replied that in 2017 they had not contemplated when the ADP discretionary payments would be made. When staff took the work with the Finance Committee to establish the Long-Term Benefits Funding Policy, staff considered a multivariable plan to manage pension liability. In theory, she thought the plan was on track to continue the funding strategy. She cautioned that there could be major swings in investment returns in any given year, which could create significant changes in the funding level, but she noted that Palo Alto was a long-term investor. She did not know how many California municipalities had gone the route of a 115 Pension Trust. A very small cohort of California cities started this in 2017, and the interest had grown exponentially over the years. CalPERS Actuary David Clement also did not know how many California municipalities had a 115 Pension Trust. Chair Burt added that the policy decision to set up the 115 was made in 2016, but at that time, staff had not been able to tell the Committee what dollar amounts should be contributed. Vice Mayor Stone inquired what this could mean for the FY2025 budget long-range forecast. Budget Manager Dechamps answered that in the long range last year, they had the preliminary 6.1% loss, which was materializing tonight, but the long range last year did program estimated costs for the loss. She did not anticipate too much fluctuation because that had been taken into consideration in the prior year long range. Assistant City Manager Nose wanted the Committee to be aware that as part of the funding policy the Committee had decided to assume a more conservative rate of return, so staff was assuming a lower rate of return when creating the calculations for budget. Some of the change was a change in the required contribution to CalPERS versus what would be going to the 115 Trust. There was some difference between them as they were contributing at a 5.8% rate versus CalPERS was achieving 6.8%, but it had been planned for. There would be some fluctuation in cost since it was based on payroll, but staff had done their best to include it. Chair Burt pointed out that Palo Alto was using a more conservative rate of return than CalPERS was projecting. In future reports, he wanted to see current and past projected employer contributions. He inquired if there had been a change from last year’s projection for the next eight years and if the long-range forecast had changed as a result of changes to Table 2. Budget Manager Dechamps replied that a chart would typically be included in the presentation that would use the current valuation and the two years prior showing the same projections for each year to see how it might have changed based on the issuance of the valuation. She SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 12 Finance Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 9/19/2023 explained why that had not been done for the current round. She detailed why the long-range forecast had not changed significantly because of changes to Table 2. MOTION: Council Member Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone to recommend the City Council accept the June 30, 2022 CalPERS Annual Valuation reports for the Miscellaneous and Safety Pension Plans. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Future Meetings and Agendas Assistant City Manager Keily Nose noted that tentatively there was one item, which was not time sensitive, for the October 3 meeting. She asked the Committee if they wished to defer the item so there would be a multiple item agenda, and meetings would likely resume October 17 and November 7. Chair Burt was interested in getting an update on the FTTP Program. Assistant City Manager Nose would coordinate with the Utilities Director, but they did an update at UAC, so she suspected it would be feasible to bring that same update to this Committee. It would not necessarily be an action item, but staff could request they provide update/study session information. She recommended the October 3 meeting be cancelled because there might be constraints in pulling a report together this week. Staff would look to October 17 and November 7 for that. Staff would also bring forward the print and mail service evaluation that had been agendized and they were looking at another item related to the Electric Integrated Resource Plan for 2023. Chair Burt asked if a December 19 meeting was being anticipated. Assistant City Manager Nose did not anticipate having a meeting on December 19. The dates after November 7 would be November 28, and the audit would come forward, and the final meeting of the calendar year would be December 5. She asked the Committee to let staff know if meetings needed to be cancelled or rescheduled. There would not be a meeting on October 3. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 P.M.