Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - November 29, 2018Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 29, 2018 Page 1 of 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINANCE COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 29, 2018 MEETING MINUTES I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Crystal Cove Conference Room, Bay 2D, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem/Chair Will O’Neill, Council Member Scott Peotter, Council Member Diane Dixon, Committee Member William Collopy, Committee Member Joe Stapleton, and Committee Member Larry Tucker ABSENT: Committee Member (VACANT POSITION) STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Grace K. Leung, Finance Director/Treasurer Dan Matusiewicz, Deputy Director/Finance Steve Montano, Administrative Specialist to the Finance Director Marlene Burns, Public Works Administrative and Financial Manager Jamie Copeland, Fire Administrative Manager Angela Crespi, Budget Manager Susan Giangrande, Senior Accountant Theresa Schweitzer, Revenue Manager Evelyn Tseng, Budget Analyst Jason Loya, Assistant Fire Chief Jeff Boyles, and Real Property Administrator Lauren Wooding Whitlinger OTHER ENTITIES: John Bartel (Bartel Associates, LLC), Julio Morales (Urban Futures, Inc.), Jim Netzer (Netzer & Associates), and Hillary Davis (The Daily Pilot) MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Jim Mosher, Carl Cassidy, and Sam Christensen III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair O’Neill opened public comments. Jim Mosher suggested adjusting the electronic bookmarks on the online version of the agenda, inquired as to various aspects of the City’s insurance limits, and requested information related to the delay in filling the current vacancy on the Committee. Carl Cassidy requested an agenda item related to contracts and policies, and requested further information related to the “Riverwatch” matter. Chair O’Neill stated he would respond to Mr. Cassidy’s inquiry at the end of the meeting as that would be the appropriate time to address this matter. Noting there were no other members of the public who elected to speak on this item, Chair O’Neill closed public comments. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 29, 2018 Page 2 of 11 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2018 Recommended Action: Approve and file. MOTION: Committee Member Tucker moved, and Committee Member Stapleton seconded, to approve the minutes, with proposed amendments by Jim Mosher and Committee Member Collopy. The motion carried 5 – 0, 1 vacancy, 1 abstention (Peotter). V. CURRENT BUSINESS A. PRELIMINARY PENSION FUNDING RECOMMENDATION – FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 Summary: Staff and consultant(s) will summarize the funded status, required contributions as of the latest valuations, June 30, 2017, and provide preliminary funding recommendations for CalPERS pension plans for Fiscal Year 2019/20. Recommended Action: Provide feedback to staff regarding recommendations. Finance Director Matusiewicz provided a staff report and a PowerPoint Presentation was displayed. He noted CalPERS financing is complicated and acknowledged the City’s CalPERS contributions and obligations are among the most important financial matters to be addressed by the City at this time. The City is currently funded at 66% (PowerPoint Slide No. 3), although he would prefer the percentage was higher at this point. Finance Director Matusiewicz reported Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is moving “downward” in the Cities of Irvine, Laguna Beach, and Newport Beach. The CalPERS actuary provided a projection for 2018 and five years forward; assuming a 7% annual return sees the plan moving toward a healthier state. “Normal cost” is the normal operating cost of pension plans, assuming all actuarial assumptions. Normally, there is very little movement, unless there is a change in an actuarial valuation. It was stated that it will be “decades” before there will be a lowering of costs as a result of PEPRA (pension reform) and Tier II. Committee Member Collopy inquired as to how staff develops an exact UAL contribution number in the annual budget. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the number is the result of the arithmetic difference between the required payment and the normal costs. The impact of discount rate changes would require $34.5 to $35 million to pay down the UAL in 15-year period. However, that action would significantly impact the City’s ability to allocate funding toward other City activities. Council Member Dixon inquired whether the UAL is increasing every year and how the City’s normal costs compare to other municipalities. Finance Director Matusiewicz responded the discount rate increases. There is a presumption that payroll will grow annually by approximately 3% and the City has limited authority over management of normal costs. He noted City staff has been reduced by approximately 100 positions over the past several years; however, that does not significantly impact on-going costs until Newport Beach employees or former employee no longer collect CalPERS retirement through mortality or other reasons. Council Member Dixon acknowledged the annual 7% increase in UAL is still a very high amount for municipalities to manage. Chair O’Neill clarified the 7% number includes two “baked-in” numbers, the increase in payroll and reduction in the discount rate. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated normal costs do not typically fluctuate. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 29, 2018 Page 3 of 11 Finance Director Matusiewicz introduced John Bartel of Bartel Associates, and Julio Morales of Urban Futures, an expert in refinancing debt. John Bartel stated there would be a financial impact resulting from the decrease in discount rate and hiring new employees who come in at a lower pension rate. Finance Director Matusiewicz referenced the PowerPoint Slide No. 5, Net Employer Cost Projection. He is projecting to budget $35 million for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 and it will not dramatically change the current UAL appropriation. The total “all-in” pension cost, including normal costs and amortization of the UAL for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 is approximately $52 million. Negotiations with employee groups to “kick-in” employee contributions have come up to approximately $11 million. The net pension costs are approximately $41 million, $35 of which is related to the UAL. Employee contributions have been very helpful, and the City is also benefitting from a robust economy. John Bartel noted the City of Newport Beach, at a net employer cost of 2.3%, is doing very well as compared to his other clients. Typical clients are experiencing a larger increase, and very few are making discretionary payments. Finance Director Matusiewicz noted other agencies are still “riding the costs upward”, whereas the City of Newport Beach adjusted upward early to address the financial impacts of the liability. The success in paying down the UAL has come from the City’s practice of Additional Discretionary Payments (ADP) and the previous “fresh starts.” Council Member Peotter inquired whether the $8.8 million of ADP for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 (PowerPoint Slide No. 5, Net Employer Cost Projection) represents discretionary funds. Finance Director Matusiewicz responded that it is, and the “other part” of UAL payment has become compulsory as the result of a previous fresh start. He referred to PowerPoint Slide No. 6, CalPERS Tier Summary. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the City had adopted its own employee benefit Tier (Tier II) prior to the adoption of PEPRA (pension reform). He referred to Slide No. 6, CalPERS Tier Summary, which displayed how the Tiers and PEPRA have impacted the City’s financial position. John Bartel added there have been increases in the number of PEPRA employees and Tier II “classic” employees; however, savings as related to these two methods will be realized in a much longer term. Council Member Dixon stated Tier II also includes lateral transfers. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated that the City’s Tier II policy is good in the long run; however, it hurts the City in terms of lateral recruitments, particularly for “seasoned” executive/management level employees. Chair O’Neill acknowledged the difficulty in recruiting senior-level employees due to the Tier II system. Finance Director Matusiewicz noted if all cities adopted Tier II, recruitments would not be a problem. Although the Tier II strategy will result in long-term savings, the unintended consequences are its impacts on recruitments. Finance Director Matusiewicz referred to PowerPoint Slide No. 7, Amortization Schedule. There will be a “level” amortization instead of a level percent increase. He noted if the City maintained the default payment schedule; it would take an additional eight years before the City is at “square one” of the original liability. The proposed new policy would not include a thirty-year payment option. The City can pursue a “partial fresh start” combining multiple amortization bases or the City can opt to pay the UAL through an ADP. Julio Morales stated the amortization by CalPERS is oriented towards reducing volatility by adding a base and spreading it out over time. There is a need for “inter-generational” equity. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 29, 2018 Page 4 of 11 The City has the option to “true up” its portfolio every year, and noted CalPERS valuations lag two years. Most cities do not have the resources to “true up” year to year. There is a two-year lag and a five-year phase in, resulting in a total seven-year process. Chair O’Neill commented there is a political nature to the “inter-generational” equity argument and may be related to elected officials avoiding the pension issue until they are no longer serving in elected capacities. The City of Newport Beach is not engaging in that strategy as it is paying down the UAL using ADP’s. Finance Director Matusiewicz referred to PowerPoint Slide No. 9, Funding Options and noted that the City is administratively challenged to manage eight separate bases for the various employee groups, and staff is proposing rolling several bases into one “fresh start.” This is reflected in staff recommendation, Option 3A. Chair O’Neill inquired as how to explain “fresh start” to the public in “layperson” terms. John Bartel suggested explaining the “fresh start” as a method to take existing debts and restructure them into a single payment with the same interest rate. This will spread them over an average period, a portion of which included the UAL. The original “fresh start” was twenty years and it now has fifteen years remaining. Each individual “base” has a shorter or longer period; however, consolidating them all together results in a twenty-year period. These do not include the ADP’s. Council Member Dixon stated this clarified her understanding. John Bartel described how “fresh starts” happen. Finance Director Matusiewicz added it was the City Council’s sensitivity to increasing the required contributions that led staff to propose a “happy medium” of twenty years that does not result in a significant change in the annual UAL payment. Julio Morales stated this method is like a consolidation term, which may be shorter or equal, yet the percentage remains the same, at 7%. This is more an administrative tool, one that is encouraged to be paid sooner. Chair O’Neill stated the answers to Committee questions are likely found on PowerPoint Slide Nos. 16 and 17. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated there are two default options. The assumption change is spread over twenty years, and investment gain is spread over thirty years. In 2018, if the City let things go and only paid the minimum, the payment schedule would lose efficiency. A full fresh start would have an efficiency ratio of 160%, and the City would save $21 million in today’s dollars. Option 2 is a hybrid and includes $20 million spread over twenty years. Option 3 includes continuing discretionary payments from operating payments not to exceed $30 million. This would realize a total saving of $45 million, a present-day value of $22 million, to be saved as compared to following the default option. Committee Member Tucker summarized by saying there is only fifteen years left on the original “fresh start” plus the 2018 proposed fresh start resulting in a fixed schedule of obligatory payments. The City has had a series of different impacts since the 2013 fresh start, including gains, losses, and assumption changes. This series would now be converted to payments on a twenty-year term while monies that are due to the City would otherwise be on a thirty-year term. With the original “fresh start” from 2013 and a new “partial fresh start” from 2018, the City will amortize over fifteen years. He noted this will only deal with today’s problems and will not address any changes in assumptions or investment shortfalls in the future. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 29, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Julio Morales stated his clients all want these problems to go away and cities are now required to actively manage their pension liability. He noted this is the “past due” bill and next year there will be a market value adjustment. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the City is obligated to pay based on the 2017 valuation. The City has electively chosen to factor in results following the 2017 valuation. Committee Member Tucker inquired whether the “fresh start” is an obligated payment and the ADP is an optional payment. Finance Director Matusiewicz responded if the City stays with the default option, it would still be required to make discretionary payments. He is recommending an administrative “clean up” utilizing the partial fresh start and where to apply the discretionary payment. Council Member Dixon stated the recommendation makes sense. Committee Member Tucker inquired as to whether the “partial fresh start” can be applied to a net gain or net loss position. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the “partial fresh start” could be applied in either position. John Bartel added with the gain base the City must extend the amortization period. There are technical reasons for why this is not a recommended strategy. Committee Member Tucker stated he understood the logic for the twenty-year process. Finance Director Matusiewicz noted starting with 2019, new investment losses would be twenty years, which is reasonable. This action would place the program on “autopilot,” and in twenty years the City would not have large amortization bases. He referred to PowerPoint Slide No. 8 of the presentation. Julio Morales stated the City of Newport Beach proactively addresses their liability, where his other clients have not. In the past, some cities did not make contributions because they did could not make the payments. The cities with the greatest financial distress are not making proactive financial decisions. Finance Director Matusiewicz referred to PowerPoint Slide No. 12, UAL Payment Comparison – All Options, which illustrates the minimal impact in the short- term. Staff is not recommending increasing the payment amount currently. Chair O’Neill inquired as to the twenty-year term versus the fifteen-year term. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the twenty-year term would include no additional discretionary payments. Option 3A, which is proposed by staff, will not change the proposed budgeted amount. He expressed a preference for the City to get to $35 million and “level out.” Committee Member Collopy acknowledged the City would have reduced from twenty-years to fifteen-years. Chair O’Neill commented the previous “fresh start” was conducted after the last election and was based upon the 2013 valuation. The 2014 “fresh start” dramatically increased the default amount, which the current proposed “partial fresh start” does not. Given the parameters, he expressed support for the “partial fresh start.” Finance Director Matusiewicz responded it would not “move the needle” much more than what the City has already been doing; however, it makes the bases much easier to administer. Council Member Peotter stated the ADP would be applied to the currently proposed “partial fresh start.” Chair O’Neill stated this would further assist in explaining the benefits of the “fresh start” to the community. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 29, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Finance Director Matusiewicz stated lowering the discount rate is still on the table as “risk mitigation.” If investments earn less, the CalPERS Board could reduce the discount rate even further. Council Member Peotter inquired if the expected rate of return was projected to decrease. John Bartel responded there is an argument the Board should reduce the discount rate; however, he does not anticipate the Board has the “appetite” to move forward with that strategy. Julio Morales mentioned an overall reduction in inflation and a “run-up” in the market recently. Another item that must be considered in portfolio review is the mortality component. At some point, there has been discussion of a reduction in the actuarial rate of return. General Committee discussion ensued on the potential for adjustments to CalPERS investment policies. Council Member Dixon stated CalPERS has a current investment policy concerned with “social” investing and inquired if this strategy will continue. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated one Board member lobbied based on that path and he referenced his discussions with other Chief Investment Officers. Although there is discussion related to CalPERS investment strategies, the differences in investment philosophies do not “move the needle” that much. Council Member Peotter inquired as to the performance of CalPERS as compared to other portfolios. Finance Director Matusiewicz encouraged long-term views on investing. In the short- term equity growth is expected at approximately 6% return over the next 10 years. He expressed support for utilizing 7% as a good average in the long-term. Council Member Peotter inquired how the CalPERS investment strategy compares to other similar retirement systems’ investment strategies over the long-term. John Bartel stated a comparison could be conducted relative to other large retirement systems in the United States. He mentioned return comparisons are dependent on the period one is analyzing. He estimates CalPERS is likely underperforming in the short-term. However, long-term they are comparable to other systems. He did note CalPERS is the single largest retirement system in the country and they do represent the market. He is not too concerned with CalPERS underperformance. Chair O’Neill opened public comments. Jim Mosher requested clarification related to the discretionary payment decreasing. Finance Director Matusiewicz responded, by definition, the ADP should be dropping, given a ceiling of $35 million for UAL payments. If payments are going up and the “cap” is $35 million, discretionary payments will go down. Committee Member Collopy noted this was a one-time discussion for a “fresh start.” Council Member Dixon stated the proposed “partial fresh start” would allow the City to accomplish its other continuing goals and objectives while proactively addressing pension costs. Carl Cassidy thanked staff for their work and proactive efforts to manage pension costs. He referred to PowerPoint Presentation Slide No. 4, Funded Status Trend and Projection. He also called attention to the efforts of City of Newport Beach who have “stepped up” their contributions to their pension obligations. Chair O’Neill closed this portion of public comments, noting he would reopen public comments after the Section 115 Trust presentation. Finance Director Matusiewicz provided an overview of the Section 115 Trust investment option. He noted the potential benefits come from flexibility and control at the local level. CalPERS is Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 29, 2018 Page 7 of 11 very diversified, and it would be challenging for the City to design a portfolio, which would be a direct hedge against the existing CalPERS portfolio. Finance Director Matusiewicz further explained a Section 115 Trust could allow the City to access a broader “universe” of stocks and bond investments. He would caution against holding equities less than five years. Investment volatility could be reduced with a more conservative mix of equities. He expressed concern regarding utilizing equities as a “rainy day” fund. Committee Member Collopy inquired as to the liquidity of funds investment in a Section 115 Trust. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated funds placed into a Section 115 Trust could only be utilized for pension payments. Chair O’Neill confirmed the dollars invested by the City in a Section 115 Trust may only be utilized for paying down pension obligations. Committee Member Collopy thanked the Committee and staff for clarification. Council Member Peotter provided an example of utilizing a Section 115 Trust for infrastructure needs in the future; assuming higher return rates could be achieved. Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the City of Mission Viejo utilized a similar strategy; however, a “swap” would have to be conducted. Discussion ensued related as to how the “swap” could be conducted, as infrastructure projects would not be directly funded. Finance Director Matusiewicz also mentioned this strategy would likely double the fund administration costs. Committee Member Collopy explained the City could place $10 million in a Section 115 Trust, continue to make ADP payments, and continue to pay obligated pension costs. At a future date, the City could decide to take funds from the Section 115 Trust to make ADP payments and use the General Fund money that would have gone to the ADP payments towards funding an infrastructure project. Council Member Peotter mentioned that he does not recommend funding CalPERS any higher than the average. He suggested getting up to 70% and not paying any more than the City is obligated to pay. Council Member Peotter inquired as to consequences of municipal “default,” and whether it will affect overall return on the fund. Julio Morales explained each City would still receive their own return, as they are each considered their own “silo” from an accounting perspective. Each City is “immunized” from the actions taken by other agencies. He further noted UAL are now “fixed” payments due to the increase in retirees. John Bartel responded if there were an agency that defaulted; it would be their own respective unfunded liability, which would be “hit.” There would be no additional liability assumed by the City of Newport Beach. Committee Member Collopy stated that he does not envision large returns from a Section 115 Trust investment overall. Committee Member Collopy expressed interest in taking the $8.8 million total and placing it in a Section 115 Trust. Committee Member Tucker does not want the General Fund reserve to be diminished. It is the City Council’s prerogative to determine where the $8.8 million will be allocated. Committee Member Collopy inquired whether there are prohibitions related to contributing or taking funds from a Section 115 Trust. John Bartel noted there are no legal prohibitions; however, he recommends a pre-determined City plan for making and withdrawing funds from the Section 115 Trust. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 29, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Committee Member Tucker stated the key question is whether the City should implement a Section 115 Trust effort to “potentially” receive a higher rate of return. Committee Member Collopy does not support the use of Section 115 Trusts for ADP payments and prefers their use as part of a General Fund reserve strategy. Chair O’Neill stated it would take approximately 10 years of earnings prior to the City having the ability to pay the ADP using interest on a Section 115 investment. Committee Member Tucker stated the only reason to invest in a Section 115 Trust is anticipation of a higher rate of return. He acknowledged more information is needed prior to making any recommendation in this regard. Committee Member Collopy stated the City has a reserve of $50 million and he considers it generous. In his opinion, if the City maintained a reserve of $35 to $40 million, it could utilize the approximately $15 million difference for other opportunities. However, he did note this would come at a cost of flexibility and liquidity of the funds. He expressed a preference for retaining flexibility and liquidity of the reserve. Council Member Dixon inquired whether this was an appropriate method to save for infrastructure projects, and acknowledged it is a different investment strategy as related to the City’s past practice. Committee Member Collopy stated ADP payments are discretionary. There is potential for “refreshing” the reserve with the ADP payments and utilizing the earnings in the Section 115 Trust to make the ADP payments. Committee Member Stapleton stated $10 million was a “high risk” assuming the City needs to move forward and would prefer a “dollar cost averaging” method. Chair O’Neill reopened public comments. Carl Cassidy requested this item appear on a future agenda for further discussion and expressed interest in whether the City can maximize investment returns utilizing Section 115 Trusts. Noting there were no other members of the public who elected to speak on this item, Chair O’Neill closed public comments. MOTION: Chair O’Neill moved, and Council Member Dixon seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of Option 3A, the partial “fresh start,” as proposed in the staff report. The motion carried 6 – 0, 1 vacancy. There was no further action taken on this item. B. CONSIDERATION OF HARBOR FEES FOR THE NEW HARBOR DEPARTMENT AND SELECT RENTS Summary: The Harbor Commission reviewed, and recommended for Council adoption, updates to harbor fees and changes to select fair-market rent categories. Staff will summarize the various updates for Committee input. Recommended Action: Staff welcomes comments and recommendations related to the proposed Harbor Department fee and rent updates. Based upon Finance Committee input, staff will bring the proposed recommendations to the City Council for formal action. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 29, 2018 Page 9 of 11 A staff report was given by Senior Accountant/Revenue Division Theresa Schweitzer related to the Harbor Department Fees and Select Rents. A PowerPoint Presentation was displayed. The City recently began managing Harbor Operations. A fee study analysis and fair market analysis of rents were conducted utilizing consultants and in-house staff. The proposed fees and rents were reviewed by the Harbor Commission who recommended approval with minor changes. The proposal included various “clean-up” fees, fines, and rents. Overall, the study noted a potential revenue increase to the City of $458,354. Chair O’Neill stated fees, fines, and rents are governed by City Council-adopted ordinances. The City Council is the only legislative body that can waive or reduce fees, fines, and rents, as exemplified by the Junior Guards program. The Finance Committee has limited jurisdiction over this process; however, it is important for them to receive informational updates in the context of their responsibility to review the proposed budget each year. Committee Member Tucker does not see the Finance Committee as the appropriate party to determine fees. He is interested in whether the City is recovering costs for service Chair O’Neill stated this item was mainly for general review and the City Council will determine the Finance Committee’s role in reviewing fees, fines, and rents. Council Member Dixon shared Committee Member Tucker’s sentiment in whether the City is recovering costs for services in general. It is of interest to the Finance Committee to review these types of items related to how costs are determined and apportioned. Committee Member Stapleton stated staff provided a very in-depth review and study of this item. He inquired whether the large vessel study has been completed. Lauren Wooding Whitlinger stated the Harbor Department has made a recommendation related to large vessels. Committee Member Stapleton noted the City would need to readjust fees for cost recovery. Chair O’Neill acknowledged each City Commission and Committee might have items that may warrant review by the Finance Committee. Chair O’Neill opened public comments. Carl Cassidy attended the Harbor Commission meeting when this matter was addressed and acknowledged the in-depth and professional work conducted by staff and the Harbor Commission. Jim Mosher expressed concerns that there have been changes to the proposed study subsequent to its approval by the Harbor Commission, which are now being forwarded to Council and recommended clean-up of minor details within the study. He referenced charges for “racks” and requested clarification on the cost difference between empty racks and those with vessels stored on them. He noted the proposed study lacks clarity, including the listing of the interval of assessed fee charges (per night / per year / per day). He also requested clarification of the $100 appeal flat rate, noting it is not an hourly fee. Chair O’Neill questioned whether the proposed dingy fee is $50 per night to store. Theresa Schweitzer clarified the dingy storage fee is currently set at $50 per night. Lauren Wooding Whitlinger mentioned the proposed fee is for vessels left at the public pier and acknowledged there were various other “clean-up” items in the study. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed rate based on on-shore guest mooring when a party has not returned Finance Committee Meeting Minutes November 29, 2018 Page 10 of 11 to pick up their property. This is based upon 0.625 per linear foot/per night and is more comparable to the on-shore mooring fee. Noting there were no other members of the public who elected to speak on this item, Chair O’Neill closed public comments. MOTION: Council Member Dixon moved, and Council Member Peotter seconded, to support the proposed updates to harbor fees and changes to select fair-market rent categories as presented by staff and recommend the matter to the City Council for their consideration. The motion carried 6 – 0, 1 vacancy, 1 abstention. There was no further action taken on this item. C. WORK PLAN REVIEW Summary: Staff has provided the Committee agenda topics scheduled for the remainder of the calendar year. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Chair O’Neill suggested a comprehensive review of Section 115 Trusts and preparation for the Finance Committee’s review of the upcoming Fiscal Year City budget at the January/February 2019 meetings. He requested topics from the Finance Committee related to these items. Additionally, he requested an item be placed on an upcoming agenda related to a request from the Beacon Bay residents to review and reevaluate their lease. Committee Member Tucker requested an informational agenda item regarding “accrued liability,” including development of actuarial numbers. Chair O’Neill noted the next Finance Committee meeting is scheduled for December 13, 2018. The City Council will review Finance Committee appointments in January 2019. Marlene Burns will send an email to Finance Committee members regarding the 2019 meeting dates. Chair O’Neill opened public comments. Noting there were no members of the public who elected to speak on this item, Chair O’Neill closed public comments. The item was unanimously received and filed by the Committee. There was no further action taken on this item. VI. FINANCE COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM) VII. ADJOURNMENT The Finance Committee adjourned at 5:06 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Finance Committee. Filed with these minutes are copies of all materials distributed at the meeting. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on November 21, 2018, at 1:29 p.m., in the binder and on the City Hall Electronic Board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive.