May 19, 2026 — Finance and Budget Committee

Meeting Summary

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details — verify against the official recording and the transcript.

Staff presented the draft budget highlighting revenues trending at 74% of the target for the fiscal year.
Committee members questioned projection accuracy and the methodology used for calculating fund balances.
The budget document remains in draft status pending further discussion and necessary revisions.

Public Works Director outlined fourteen new projects including street paving and Libbey Park improvements.
Questions were raised regarding Measure C funding allocation for code enforcement personnel.
The item was designated for further review by the City Council without formal action.

Staff presented the investment policy confirming alignment with government code and best practices.
A committee member noted minor editing glitches from the previous draft that require offline correction.
The policy is to be considered annually with no immediate action taken at this time.

Discussion: A committee member requested a correction to the minutes from the previous meeting regarding the listing of City Manager Harvey and Finance Director Cho. The member noted they should be listed as official committee members rather than attendees.
Action: A motion was made to accept the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded.
Decision: The motion was approved without objection.

Discussion: Staff presented the draft budget document for the upcoming fiscal year, highlighting revenues, expenditures, and fund balances. Revenues for the top three sources (sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and property tax) were reported as trending approximately 74% of the budget through April, compared to 68% in the prior year. Staff attributed favorable revenue trends to strong local property values and improved revenue analysis projections.
Discussion: Committee members inquired about the accuracy of budget projections versus actual receipts and the methodology for calculating fund balances. Questions were raised regarding the exclusion of non-recurring expenditures from reserve policy calculations. Staff clarified that the current document reflects a draft calculation that updates from budgeted to actuals as the year progresses.
Discussion: Specific line items were reviewed, including the Sheriff motor officer line item, transportation subsidies, gas tax reductions due to electric vehicles, and community support for the Ojai Tent Town. A committee member requested the inclusion of a percentage variance column in future budget documents to assist with review.
Action: No formal motion to adopt the budget was taken. The item was reviewed as a draft.
Decision: The budget document remains in draft status pending further discussion and revisions.

Discussion: The Public Works Director presented the proposed CIP for the next fiscal year, including 14 new projects. Highlights included street paving, the ATP bicycle/pedestrian project, improvements at Libbey Park (restrooms and sewer), a playground at Sarasota Park, and stormwater drainage improvements.
Discussion: Staff indicated that specific projects, such as the Sarasota playground, are funded through external grants and will not impact the general fund or Measure C funds. Other items, including speed humps and trolley shelters, were discussed regarding funding sources and feasibility.
Discussion: Questions were raised regarding the funding of code enforcement personnel through Measure C, which is a proposed change from previous years. Staff noted the Measure C voter-approved language includes code enforcement.
Discussion: The salary study results were briefly discussed, indicating the city is within 5% of the market median. Staff proposed internal career ladder promotions effective mid-fiscal year.
Action: The presentation was reviewed as part of the budget development process.
Decision: No formal action or vote was taken; the item was designated for further review by the City Council.

Discussion: Staff presented the investment policy for review, confirming it aligns with government code and best practices. No changes were proposed to the policy text.
Discussion: A committee member noted that minor editing glitches from the previous year's policy had not been corrected in the current draft and would be addressed offline.
Action: The policy was reviewed.
Decision: No immediate action was taken; the policy is to be considered annually.

Discussion: Staff confirmed a second Finance and Budget Committee meeting is scheduled for June 2nd.
Discussion: The next meeting will include a presentation on the General Fund Expenditure Limit (GAN limit) by an auditing firm expert. Staff indicated the meeting will focus on addressing discrepancies raised during the current session and reviewing budget amendments.
Discussion: Committee members expressed support for a follow-up meeting to address numeric glitches and reserve policy questions before the item moves to the City Council.
Decision: The June 2nd meeting was confirmed.