The City Treasurer's Quarterly Investment Report serves as a crucial mechanism for ensuring transparency and accountability in the management of public funds. Presented to the Huntington Beach City Council, as evidenced by the meeting transcript from February 18, 2025, this report provides a comprehensive overview of the city's investment activities, portfolio composition, and financial performance over a specific period. It allows council members and the public to understand how taxpayer money is being managed to meet the city's financial obligations and strategic goals.

At the heart of public fund investing, as explicitly stated by the City Treasurer, lies the fundamental mission of the preservation and return of investments. Unlike individual investment strategies that may prioritize high growth and accept greater risk, the primary objective for a public entity is to safeguard the principal and avoid financial losses. This cautious approach reflects the fiduciary responsibility of the City Treasurer to protect taxpayer dollars and ensure the availability of funds for essential public services.

The principles guiding public fund investing in California are firmly rooted in state codes and regulations, which impose significant restrictions on the types and maturities of permissible investments. For instance, unlike personal investment accounts, state law explicitly prohibits public fund investing in stocks or stock mutual funds. To further solidify these safeguards, the city establishes its own investment policy, which is reviewed annually by the Investment Advisory Board and adopted by the City Council. This policy, certified by the California Municipal Treasurers Association, provides a framework for legal and suitable investment practices.

Public fund portfolios operate under a unique set of requirements dictated by the city's ongoing financial needs. These needs include the consistent payment of bills and salaries, the funding of capital projects, and contributions to pensions. Such obligations necessitate a high degree of certainty regarding fund availability, which in turn prioritizes principal safety and liquidity over the pursuit of maximum income. This fundamental difference shapes the investment strategies employed by the City Treasurer, emphasizing readily accessible funds to meet the city's diverse financial responsibilities.

California Government Code Section 53600.5 formally outlines the primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives of public fund investing. The safeguarding of principal takes precedence, followed by meeting the liquidity needs of the agency, and finally, earning a market rate of return within budgetary and economic cycles. Moreover, the City Treasurer acknowledges the inherent political risk associated with public fund management, emphasizing the importance of responsible investment decisions to maintain public trust.

Given these stringent regulations and objectives, public fund investing differs considerably from personal investment strategies or the dynamics of Wall Street. The California state code establishes allowable securities, purchase limits, and maximum maturities, typically five years for commonly used investments like US Treasuries and corporate bonds. Furthermore, public fund investing adopts a passive investment style, primarily holding funds to maturity rather than engaging in active trading to time the market. Consequently, directly comparing the return of a city's portfolio to that of personal investments or market indices is deemed incorrect and inappropriate. The true measure of a public fund portfolio's success lies in its suitability, ensuring sufficient liquidity, appropriate risk levels, adequate diversification, legal security holdings, and the achievement of a market rate of return over time.

As of December 31, 2024, the Huntington Beach City Treasurer's portfolio held a book value of $39.1 million. A significant portion of the funds for overnight availability was invested in the California Asset Management Program (CAMP), a AAA-rated pool focused on high-quality short-term debt obligations. Other investments included US Treasuries, US Agencies (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), supranationals (like the World Bank), and A-rated corporate bonds. The portfolio maintained a weighted average maturity (WAM) of approximately 1.75 years, with a distribution across various maturity ranges to balance liquidity and potential returns.

For the quarter ending December 31, 2024, the portfolio saw a total investment of $25 million and $8 million in maturities. Earnings for December amounted to $98,886, representing a significant increase from the previous year. The fiscal year-to-date earnings reached $5.8 million, also showing substantial growth due to increased interest rates and a higher average portfolio balance. The book yield was reported at 3.27% with an effective annual return of 3.17%. Notably, the portfolio maintained full compliance with the requirements set forth in the California government code and the city's investment policy, including limitations on corporate bond holdings (maximum 30% of the portfolio, 10% per issuer, and a minimum "A" rating) and restrictions on long-term maturities to ensure adequate near-term liquidity.

The proliferation of electric bicycles, or e-bikes, has presented both opportunities and challenges for communities across the nation. Offering an eco-friendly and efficient mode of transportation, e-bikes have gained significant popularity. However, this surge in usage has also raised concerns regarding safety, regulation, and enforcement, prompting local governments to take action. The city of Huntington Beach, California, as evidenced by discussions during a recent City Council meeting, serves as a compelling case study in how municipalities are grappling with the increasing presence of e-bikes within their jurisdictions.

Recognizing the growing prevalence and potential issues associated with e-bikes, the Huntington Beach City Council initiated a proactive approach. On September 5th, 2023, Council Member McKean brought forth an "H item" to discuss the feasibility of numerous action items related to e-bikes. This motion signaled the city's intent to thoroughly examine and address the various facets of e-bike usage within the community, encompassing safety, legal frameworks, infrastructure, education, and accountability measures.

In response to this directive, City staff undertook a comprehensive effort to mitigate potential risks and promote responsible e-bike usage. Key initiatives included the development of a safety video, which featured an introduction by the then Mayor Strickland and participation from the private sector. This video was made available on the city's website and distributed to local bike leasing businesses. Furthermore, the City Council adopted a new Municipal Code specifically addressing e-bikes, which has since been successfully implemented. Collaborating with schools, the city established an e-bike program requiring students at all junior high and high schools to complete a safety class before being allowed to park their bikes on school property.

Beyond these initial steps, Huntington Beach has actively engaged in community outreach through various channels, including public safety announcements on social media, targeted enforcement efforts at known e-bike gathering locations, and educational presentations at events like the Citizens Academy and street fairs. The city has also distributed flyers detailing e-bike laws through water billing and school districts. Recognizing the need for broader legislative solutions, Huntington Beach is working with Representative Dixon's office to explore potential statewide legislation for e-bikes.

Enforcement has been a significant component of Huntington Beach's strategy. The city has treated illegally modified e-bikes, such as surrons and talarias, as e-motorcycles, leading to impounding and associated storage fees for offenders. Targeted enforcement operations, sometimes involving undercover personnel, traffic officers on motorcycles, and even a helicopter, have been conducted at locations prone to large e-bike ride-outs, such as the Sea Cliff shopping center near Huntington Beach High School. These efforts have resulted in citations and the impounding of e-motorcycles, with at least one juvenile being booked on a felony charge for evading officers with willful disregard for public safety.

Data collected by the Huntington Beach Police Department in 2024 revealed 146 e-bike collisions, representing approximately 56% of all bicycle-related collisions. While this indicates a rise from 2023, possibly due to the increasing number of e-bikes, the primary collision factors in both years were riding against traffic, unsafe speed, and unsafe turning movements. Interestingly, collision involvement was highest among those under 18 and over 50 years old, with the latter often attributed to inexperience or discomfort with riding. The Fire Department's statistics mirrored this trend, with 40% of their e-bike related calls involving individuals under 18 and 28% involving those over 50.

The community response to e-bikes in Huntington Beach has been varied. Residents have voiced concerns about safety, particularly regarding young riders operating recklessly and the dangers posed by e-bikes with no lights at night. The City Council has acknowledged these concerns and emphasized the importance of obeying traffic laws and riding safely. The proactive measures undertaken by the city, including increased enforcement and educational initiatives, reflect an understanding of the community's anxieties surrounding e-bike usage.

In conclusion, Huntington Beach's experience with e-bikes underscores the multifaceted approach required to manage this evolving mode of transportation. By implementing safety programs, updating municipal codes, conducting targeted enforcement, and pursuing legislative solutions, the city is actively working to balance the benefits of e-bikes with the need to ensure public safety and address community concerns. The ongoing data collection and analysis of e-bike collisions will further inform the city's strategies as it continues to adapt to the changing landscape of personal mobility.

Huntington Beach is currently engaged in a debate over the selection of library materials and the role of community review, as evidenced by recent discussions at a city council meeting and two citizen-led petitions. The petitions reflect differing views on the appropriate level of community involvement in library decisions.

Two petitions related to library policies were addressed at the Huntington Beach City Council meeting on January 21, 2025.

• The first petition sought the repeal of Ordinance 4318, which established a Community Parent Guardian Review Board for the procurement of children's library materials. This petition also proposed the addition of Section 2.3.090, concerning the selection and use of library materials.
• The second petition aimed to add Section 230.010, entitled "Public Operation of Library Services," to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. This proposed section would potentially grant the public greater budgetary discretion over decisions made by the City Council.

The City Clerk presented reports on both petitions, detailing the verification of signatures by the Orange County Registrar of Voters (ROV). The ROV confirmed that both petitions had gathered a sufficient number of valid signatures to qualify for submission to the voters.

Several council members voiced concerns about the petitions. Some noted that residents reported signing the petitions under false pretenses, such as being told the library would be sold or books would be banned. One council member said that the exercise was looking for operational efficiencies in every single City Department.

Council members expressed concern that the petition process could be misused to challenge any policy decision made by the council. One council member stated that the petition "essentially takes away the budgetary discretion from the city council".

Despite these concerns, the council voted to accept the certification of signatures for both petitions and order a report on the effect of the proposed initiatives.

One council member noted that restricted library cards were being issued, saying that the action was "an acknowledgement that there does need to be some some parameters set up whether it be a commission restricted cards both so so I think that was a validation that there is um a need to keep an eye on the materials and make sure it's age appropriate".