4.19.22 Meeting Summary

Last night the Council discussed a couple significant items:

We introduced an ordinance regarding Military Equipment Use.  Due to new legislation we are required to adopt such a ordinance prior to requesting, seeking funding, acquiring, or collaborating with other jurisdictions about the deployment or use of such equipment.  Clayton has a limited amount of equipment that would qualify under this ordinance, and often this equipment qualifies only because it is specifically designated as such.  Less lethal bean bang and sponge rounds fall under this policy, along with the standard issue rifles that are nearly ubiquitous among law enforcement.  We introduced this ordinance and it will go into effect shortly after the 2nd reading at the next meeting.  The vote was 5-0.

We discussed the city's treatment of the Concerts in the Park that occur each summer.  It was not clear who the actual sponsor of the events were - the information indicated the city, however the actual activity of the concerts including the inflows and outflows of cash were not readily apparent.  We determined that the activity was actually being recorded on the books of the city, but in a way that it would not be visible unless specifically reporting on it.  The activity of the concerts were not visible in any of the budget documents, the inflows were never recorded as revenues, and the outflows were never recorded as expenses.

We did establish a few things, and gave direction on a few items going forward:

- The concerts are a city event

- The way activity has been recorded for the concerts and other city events has not been appropriate and will be changed to be recorded properly.

- We need more information on the types of funds and their benefits and restrictions to determine what type of fund should properly capture city events.

- We need to appropriately allocate the full load of the costs incurred as a result of these events so the activity can be properly recorded.

- We need to establish and formalize succession planning around the administration of the events so that they can continue going forward.

Upcoming Council Meeting 4.19.22

Tomorrow will be the first regular meeting we are holding in person in over two years.  We had a special session earlier last month but there was no one from the public in attendance.  

Tomorrow there are a couple significant items on the agenda:

• An ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy.  We are required to have such a policy prior to requesting, seeking funding, acquiring, or deploying or using military equipment.  This would include things like less lethal launchers (beanbag or sponge rounds), command trailers, and select fire center action rifles.
  
  
• We will discuss how the city handles the Concerts in the Grove and associated financial arrangements.

If you have any thoughts or questions on the above please let me know.

4.5.22 Meeting Summary

Last night the Council met and discussed two significant items:

• We adopted a treatment for our ARPA funds that requires less onerous reporting with no restrictions on the use of funds. With the new guidance, any ARPA funds under a certain threshold (which we qualify for) would be allowed to treat the funds received as wholly revenue replacement. This means that effectively the entirety of the $2.9M the city received functions as unrestricted reserves. Consistent with past action, we will be segregating these dollars in a separate fund for tracking purposes.
  
  
• The Council adopted a resolution opposing an upcoming ballot initiative. The initiative purports to expand the definition of a "tax", require voter approval for state taxes, changes the approval requirements for local taxes to align with state taxes, and requires that allowable uses and duration of state and local taxes to be specified. There wasn't much discussion around this item. While it does seem like a poor general practice to tinker with the state and local budgets through constitutional amendment, in CA it seems like that ship has sailed.  In reading the staff report, I couldn't help but think it wasn't presenting objective information. The Legislative Analyst Office summary is here: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2021-042.  I voted no not necessarily because I support this initiative, I'll reserve judgment for now, but more because I'm not sure the city needs to take a position on this.  The vote was 4-1.

Upcoming Council Meeting 4.5.22

At the next Council meeting we will be discussing a couple significant items:

• We will discuss adopting a treatment for our ARPA funds that requires less onerous reporting with no restrictions on the use of funds.  Initially when the Treasury distributed ARPA funds, there was guidance that suggested we'd need to report on our uses and how they met the eligible use criteria.  That criteria only allowed spending for a limited set of categories.  With the new guidance, any ARPA funds under a certain threshold (which we qualify for) would be allowed to treat the funds received as wholly revenue replacement.  We need to make an election to designate our funds this way.
  
  
• We will discuss adopting a resolution opposing California statewide ballot initiative 21-0042A1 sponsored by the California Business Roundtable.  The Legislative Analyst Office summary is here:  https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2021-042  This initiative would expand the definition of a "tax", require voter approval for state taxes, changes the approval requirements for local taxes to align with state taxes, and requires that allowable uses and duration of state and local taxes to be specified.  Staff and Cal Cities is recommending opposing this ballot initiative.

While the next meeting will continue to be virtual, the following meeting scheduled for 4.19.22 is expected to be a hybrid with the Council being in person with whomever wants to attend, along with participants remotely as well.  More information on this to follow as it's available.

Please let me know if you have any thoughts or questions on the above.