In the PEIR, the LCWA agreed with the consulting Tribes that the Los Cerritos Wetlands is part of a tribal traditional cultural landscape (TCL) and could be significantly impacted by projects conducted within the wetlands.
Because the TCL was not formally documented, the LCWA has hired Cogstone Resource Management to conduct a TCL study. This will include:
A records search for a 5 mile buffer around the entire Los Cerritos Wetlands to put the wetlands into a larger regional context.
Conducting ethnographic and historic research to document past use of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, and wetlands in general, by the Tongva and Acjachemen. This would include documenting the collection of salt from the wetlands and the connection of the Cerritos wetlands to the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna.
Collecting oral histories from Tribal community members as recommended by the Tribal representatives and digitally record their explanations of current and past usage of the wetlands. At the end of the project, digital and hard copies of the finalized oral history will be provided to each participant and Tribe. Participants will be compensated for their time.
Currently we have government and private grant funding to compensate each Tribe's participation on TAG. Please see the LCW Tribal Advisory Group framework document attached which includes a more detailed description of this group. It is a draft, so we welcome any feedback you have.
Since there are multiple concurrent planning efforts taking place within the Los Cerritos Wetlands, we want to take this opportunity to clarify the differences between the LCWA's South LCW planning effort and the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project, a parallel planning process taking place within the North Area of the wetlands . While the LCWA's restoration plan (i.e. PEIR) does encompass the boundaries of much of the Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project, that project is led by Beach Oil Mineral Partners (BOMP) and not LCWA. The LCWA is a co-applicant of the project's Coastal Development Permit because the 5-acre property owned by LCWA is involved in the land swap. LCWA has been involved in the planning process in an advisory role to ensure the developed plans for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project are in line with LCWA's habitat restoration goals. While the LCWA maintains an active partnership with BOMP for the improvement of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, we do not oversee or advise on their day to day operations or tribal consultation and monitoring efforts.
The formation of the TAG is something the LCWA looks forward to, and we hope that you will join us! We want to schedule the initial intertribal TAG meeting on May 25, 2021 from 10am-12pm. The meeting will be held remotely.
Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority · El Encanto · 100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Road· Azusa, CA 91702 ♦ Office-626.815.10 19 ♦ Fax-626.815.1269 ♦
240
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 221
RE: Invitation to Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group April 27, 2021
Please contact Sally Gee, Project Manager, (1.) if your tribe is interested in participating in the TAG, (2.) if you can attend the initial TAG meeting on the date and time mentioned above, and (3.) provide us with the name and contact information of your tribal representative(s). If your tribe is no longer interested in participating, please let us know that as well. Ms. Gee is also available to answer any questions you may have. We look forward to working with you.
Sally Gee, LCWA Project Manager
100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Rd. Azusa, CA 91702
Office: 626-815-1019 x 104
[email protected]. gov
Sincerely,
Mark Stanley
Executive Officer
Attachments:
LCW Tribal Advisory Group_Draft Framework 2021.04
Project Location Map
Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority · El Encanto · 100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Road· Azusa, CA 91702 ♦ Office-626.815.10 19 ♦ Fax-626.815.1269 ♦
241
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 222
Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group
Draft Framework
Lead: Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA)
representatives from the State Coastal Conservancy and the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
Participants:
Tribes (traditional knowledge input, design input, and tribal cultural experts) LCWA Consultants (present and solicit feedback on designs/ stewardship) Goal of Tribal Advisory Group from LCWA perspective:
Establish a long-term relationship between tribal entities and the LCWA Incorporate traditional ecological knowledge and tribal perspectives into restoration designs and a Traditional Cultural Landscape Study for the LCW
Keep tribal community updated on progress of projects
Provide enhanced access to the LCW to tribal community
Suggested meeting schedule: 2-4 meetings annually depending on project milestones and need through the end of 2022, 2-hour meetings
Topics of discussion:
Tribal Goals and Objectives of restoration in the LCW complex Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project
o Restoration design input
Biological resources
Cultural resources
Landscape design
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
o Public access design input
Signage/ educational materials (future phases)
o Private tribal dedication area
o Cultural interpretation of technical studies
o Native American monitoring (data collection/ construction phase) o Traditional Cultural Landscape Study
Public programming/ stewardship activities (could happen now, no fundi ng) Initial meeting (May 2021):
Discuss role, purpose, and expectations of the tribal advisory group and compensation Establish membership and how to add members (LCWA expectation: start with 6 tribes who consulted on the AB52 process, allow other tribes to ask to join) Agreement on topics of discussion
Update status of LCWA's restoration planning
Funding: Each Tribe will receive a stipend to compensate representatives for meeting participation and document reviews. A Tribe may appoint multiple representatives to the project, but the stipend amount will not increase with additional members.
242
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 223
Exhibit A
Lakewood
Los Alamitos
SOURCE: ESRI
Huntington
Beach
D Program Boundary
Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program EIR
Regional Location
243
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 224
SOURCE: Mapbox, LC'NA Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program El R Figure 2-4
South Area
244
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 225
APPENDIX J. JULY 23, 2021 SITE VISIT SIGN IN SHEET
245
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 226
co~tone
PALEONTDLOGV - ARCHAEOLOGY- HISTORY
Name
Christina Conley
Christine Pereira
Dani Ziff
Sandonne Goad
Gabrielle Crowe
Clark Stevens
Amber Dobson
Sam Dunlap
Eric Zahn
Joyce Perry
Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Site Visit
7/23/2021
Phone
Gabrielino Tongva 626-407-8761
Indians of California
Coastal Commission 714-610-1864
Coastal Commission 310-991-5042
Gabrielino-Tongva 951-807-0479
Nation
Gabrielino-Shoshone 909-615-9837
Tribe
New West Land Co. 310-614-6636
Coastal Commission 562-590-5071
Gabrielino Tongva Tribe 909-262-9351
Tidal Influence 858-353-6 113
Juanefio Band of Mission 949-293-8522
Indians
Branch Offices
Email
Christina.rnarsden@alurnni. usc .edu
[email protected]
[email protected]. gov
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
sarndunlap@earthlinknet
[email protected]
[email protected]
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange. CA 92865
Office [714[ 974-8300
San Diego - Riverside - Morro Bay- Sacramento -Arizona
cogstone,com
Toll free (888) 333-3212
Federal Certifications WOSB. EDWOSB, SOB
State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE. UOBE
246
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 227
APPENDIX K. INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM AND QUESTIONS
247
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 228
cogstone
PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY-HISTORY
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscape S tudy
Cogstone will be conducting a stu dy to identify past, present and future use of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, led by Desiree Martinez, Cogstone Archaeologist. Interviews will be used for the landscape study for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of you r knowledge and expertise. Your participation in this research study is voluntary.
LARGER PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority has received funding to move forward on project level designs on 105-acres of wetlands in Seal Beach, near Heron Point, called the South Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Proj ect (South LCW Project). As part of the South LCW Project, the LCWA looks to accomplish the following:
• Conduct focused biological, geotechnical, and archeological surveys • Complete 65% restoration designs and project level CEQA • Complete a Traditional Cultural Landscape Study of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Cogstone has been hired to conduct the Traditional Cultural Landscape Study, including interviewing Tribal members from the Gabrielino Tongva and Acjachemen Nations.
WHAT SHOULD I KNOW ABOUT A RESEARCH STUDY?
• Whether or not you take part is up to you.
• You can agree to take part and later change your mind. • Your decision will not be held against you.
• You can ask all the questions you want before you decide.
WHY IS THIS RESEARCH BEING DOJ\TE?
This project is being done to better understand the Tongva and Acjachemen relationship to the Los Cerritos Wetlands, salt water marshes, and the greater cultural landscape, encompassing 3 miles around the Los Cerritos Wetlands, including the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna. The project outcomes- summary within the cultural landscape study to inform the restoration.
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Office [714) 974-8300
Branch Offices
San Diego - Riverside - Morro Bay - Sacramento - Arizona Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SOB
State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE
cogstone.com
Toll free {888) 333-3212
248
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 229
Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscape Study Interviews (Cogstone 5418) ARE THERE ANY RISKS IF I PARTICIPATE?
• Although unlikely, there may be questions which bring up sensitive topics. You may choose to not answer anything.
• You have the option of remaining anonymous within the report ARE THERE ANY BENEFITS IF I PARTICIPATE?
You will be compensated $250 for your participation. Furthermore, it is our hope that your communities and all people of Los Angeles will benefit from this research in the form of betterinformed policy and clearer understandings of what it will take for Los Angeles to become water sustainable and respect Indigenous sovereignty.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF IT AKE PART IN THIS STUDY?
If you volunteer to participate in this study, the researcher(s) will ask you to do the following:
• Answer the question listed in the document "LCW Tribal Interview Questions" • Interviewer will write notes during the interview
• Consent to audio recording of the interview
• Consent to video recording of the interview
• Consent to digital photographs to be taken during the interview You will be given a copies of:
• audio recording of the interview
• video recording of the interview, if any
• photos photographs to be taken during the interview
• transcript of audio and/or video recording
WILL INFORMATION ABOUT ME AND MY PARTICIPATION BE KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL?
If you choose to use your real name or consent to being recorded on a group video, your information will not be kept confidential.
If you request confidentiality, researchers will do their best to make sure that your private information is kept confidential. Even so, participating in research may involve a loss of privacy or a breach in confidentiality, especially if you are participating in conversation circles or events with other people beyond the research team. Study data will be physically and electronically secured, but with electronic data there is always a risk of breach of data security.
Use of personal information that can identify you:
cogstone .com
249
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 230
Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscape Study Interviews (Cogstone 5418) You will be identified as yourself unless otherwise requested. You may request to use an alias or to be kept out of a video.
How information about you will be stored:
Data produced by this project will include video/audio recordings of interviews and transcripts of these recordings, as well as written notes. These materials will be kept on a password protected server at Cogstone Resource Management. Participants will be provided copies of materials on a DVD or flash drive.
People and agencies that will have access to your information:
Research team members will have access to the recordings for the purposes of transcription and analysis. You can decide whether you want your name or an alias to be used in publications.
How long information from the study will be kept:
Videos, audio, written researcher notes and transcripts will be kept in perpetuity at Cogstone and may be donated to a research facility for future research.
WILL I BE PAID FOR MY PARTICIPATION?
Interviewees and conversation circle participants will receive a $250 honorarium in gratitude for your participation. Please fill out and return a W9 to Desiree WHO CAN I CONT ACT IF I HA VE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS STUDY? The research team:
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about the research, you can talk to Desiree Martinez [email protected] (626) 722-1938.
WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS IF I TAKE PART IN THIS STUDY?
• You can choose whether you want to be in this study, and you may withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time.
• You may refuse to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. cogstone .com
250
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 231
Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscape Study Interviews (Cogstone 5418) Los Cerritos Wetlands Consent Form
Name:
Tl'ibal
Entity :
Addl'ess:
Phone : I Email: I
Check all that apply :
I A2I'ee To: Yes No
... participate in this study □ □
... have my name used within the Cultural □ □ Landscape study ... audio recording during the interview □ □ .. . video recording of the interview □ □ ... photographs to be taken during the interview □ □
Signature: Date: --------------
cogstone .com
251
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 232
cogstone
PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY-HISTORY
Los Cerritos Wetlands Quest.ions
l . How did your tribal community use the Los Cerritos Wetlands in the past?
2. How did your tribal community use salt marshes in the past?
3. Have you or your family personally used the Los Cerritos in the past? If yes please explain how.
4. Do you know of other families that have used the Los Cerritos Wetlands?
5. Do you have any infonnation regarding the connection of the Los Cerritos wetland and the villages of Puvungna or Motuucheyngna?
6. Do you know of other places, villages, water sources e tc. that have connections to the Los Cerritos Wetlands?
7. What plants and animals within salt marshes, and Los Cerritos Wetlands in particular, are important to your tribal community?
8. What types of activities would you like to be able to do within the Los Cerritos Wetlands in the future?
9. What types of spaces would your tribal conmmnity like to have in the Los Cerritos Wetlands?
10. Anything to add?
11. Recommendations or other people to interview?
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Office (714) 97 4-8300
Branch Offices
San Diego - Riverside - Morro Bay - Sacramento - Arizona Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SOB
State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE
cogstone.com
Toll free (888) 333-3212
252
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 233
CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX L. SURVEY RESULTS AND EXTENDED
PHASE I TESTING LOCATON MAPS
253
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 236
APPENDIX M. SOILS MAP
254
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 237
Figure M - 1. Soils map
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
II ii Project Area
USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey 2021
- 112 - Balcom clay loam
- 125 - Bolsa silty clay loam
- 173 - My ford sandy loam (2 - 9% slopes)
- 175 - Myford sandy loam (9 - 15%
slopes)
- IJ00LA- Urban land (dredged fill
substratum)
- 1230LA - Bolsa, drained-Typic
Xerothents, dredged spoil-Typic
Fluvaquents complex
0 250 500 feet
11111111 N
0 50 I 00 Meters i
111111111 A
1 :6,500 1 in = 542 ft
255
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 238
CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX N. DPR SITE RECORDS
256
ENCLOSURE 2
257
All that glitters – Review of solar facility impacts on fauna P.A. Fleming
Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Lake effect
Microclimate
Green energy
Solar panel
Glint
Glare
Bird
Bat
Fauna
Wildlife
Sustainable energy solutions
Climate change
SDG15: Life on Land
SDG13: Climate Action
SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
ABSTRACT
Utility-scale solar facilities (‘solar farms’/‘solar parks’) represent vast altered landscapes – currently covering ~0.025 % of the earth’s land surface. The rapid transformation of landscapes necessitates urgent research into biodiversity impacts of solar facilities worldwide. Evidence for fauna impacts at both concentrating solar power (CSP) and photovoltaic (PV) solar facilities was analysed. Solar facilities impact fauna through habitat loss and fragmentation, altered microclimate, and creation of novel habitat. Evidence suggests increases in insect, bird and bat species richness and abundance around solar facilitates built over degraded landscapes, likely due to introduction of novel habitat and presence of generalist species, but a decrease when comparison is made with intact reference landscapes. CSP facilities attract large numbers of flying insects and therefore insectivorous birds, while both heliostats (CSP) and PV solar panels are attractive to waterbirds, with the timing and direction of bird movements indicating they are responding to linear polarised light reflections from panels. While generalist bat species make use of solar facilities, data to date indicates a decrease in bat species richness and activity around solar facilities. Extrapolating from USA studies, an estimated 17.3 million birds die at solar facilities around the world every year. Direct impacts of solar facilities include injuries and deaths due to collisions and burns, while entrapment, starvation and increased predation risk are also recorded causes of mortalities.
Solar facilities significantly impact local fauna, particularly attracting and affecting insectivores and waterbirds.
Further research is needed to fully understand these effects and develop mitigation strategies for sustainable solar energy expansion.
1. Introduction
Solar energy is a key component in the global shift towards transitioning to a low carbon future and achieving the emissions targets established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [1]. However, as the total capacity of solar power facilities has increased, the impact on living organisms, particularly birds and bats, has also increased [2–4]. Many industries who are making the transition to green energy are required to consider whether utility-scale solar facilities could have detrimental impact on migrating shorebirds (protected under international legislation) or waterbirds and bats, and the balance of those risks with alternatives [4,5]. Such information is required to meet the demands of Environmental Impact Assessments, and warrants a critical review of available data.
At the end of 2023, an estimated 37,886 km2 of the earth’s surface (0.025 % of the world’s land area, or about the area of Denmark) was covered by solar panels, with the area increasing dramatically year-byyear since [6,7]. The vast expanses of solar facilities (also known as ‘solar parks’ or ‘solar farms’) have unique impacts on fauna that we are only just beginning to identify. The reflective surfaces of solar panels can attract insects (e.g., [8,9]), providing new feeding opportunities for bird and bat species (e.g., [10–13]). However, the glare from solar farms can also create a visual disturbance (illusion of water surface) potentially changing animal behaviour and collision risk [3,14]. The physical presence of solar panels can therefore disrupt migratory flight routes as well as foraging and nesting sites [3,15,16].
There have been a great many reviews of the effects of solar energy generation on wildlife (e.g., [4,17]), including many that are specific to solar energy generation in California USA (e.g., [4,7,18,19]), or that have specifically addressed whether waterbirds are attracted to solar facilities (e.g., [14,20]). However, much of the work reviewed by these articles is unpublished reports [7], with notably fewer publications of raw data (reviewed by [21]) than reviews on the topic. A general consensus across all published reviews is a call for additional research on some of the potential impacts of solar facilities, and movement beyond hypotheses with little supporting evidence or those based on extrapolation from other human infrastructures [21].
The marked variation in solar radiation and technological advancement across the globe (Fig. 1) influences where solar facilities have been E-mail address: [email protected].
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2025.115995
Received 1 April 2025; Received in revised form 13 June 2025; Accepted 22 June 2025 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 Available online 15 July 2025
1364-0321/© 2025 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). 258
built, and therefore which biomes are affected [22]. However, there is also marked geographic bias in our understanding of the biodiversity impacts of solar energy, with the majority of studies of their biodiversity impacts coming from xeric environments in Europe or North America [20,21]. This geographic and climatic bias limits the generality of findings, providing insufficient insights into the potential impacts of solar infrastructure on diverse taxonomic groups across other ecological systems.
This review sets out to synthesise the potential impacts of glint and glare from solar facilities on insects, birds and bats, addressing four main questions.
1. Do solar facilities alter wildlife community species richness and abundance?
2. Do solar facilities attract (or cause avoidance) in volant species?
3. What are the causes of mortality associated with solar facilities?
4. What are the biodiversity costs of solar facilities, and can we mitigate these costs?
The conclusion briefly introduces some key remaining research gaps.
2. Methods
This literature search used the Harzing’s Publish or Perish platform to search through the Google Scholar platform on February 6, 2025. The search terms were ‘solar panel’ AND ‘glint’ or ‘glare’ AND either ‘bird’, ‘bat’, fauna’ or ‘wildlife’ (separate searches). Google Scholar was chosen in preference to other databases, as it picks up grey literature, including unpublished reports, theses, and other documentation that proved informative.
The literature search resulted in 954 articles, of which 207 articles were repetitions and 11 were unavailable (not English or publications not available through the Murdoch University library). The titles and abstracts of the remaining 736 articles were reviewed. The majority (651) were not deemed relevant to the topic. Many addressed glint and glare around airports and potential impact on humans (14), or environmental impact assessments (19). Others addressed topics such as glint and glare in terms of social acceptance and community preferences (7), but did not include fauna specifically. A total of 25 fauna-specific publications were revealed through this search. An additional 76 publications were added to this search by reviewing the references of key papers.
Solar power generation has two main types.
• Concentrated Solar Power (CSP): These plants use reflective flat (‘heliostats’) or curved (parabolic trough CSP system) mirrors to concentrate sunlight and generate thermal energy. The concentrated heat is directed to a central receiver to produce steam that drives turbines. This intense solar energy around concentrating towers can pose risks to flying animals, although trough facilities may reduce this risk. In a recent meta-analysis, Smallwood [7] reported 5.6 times more bird and 91.5 times more bat fatalities/MW/year at CSP projects compared with PV panels (Table 1). CSP was the first large-scale solar technology – and therefore there is more data on the biodiversity impacts of this form of solar energy (Box 1) – but CSP is now being rapidly surpassed by photovoltaic systems [25].
• Solar Photovoltaic (PV): PV systems use semiconductor cells to convert sunlight directly into electricity. Within the last decade, the price of PV systems has declined by 89 % [26] and utility-scale solar energy production is now rapidly increasing across the globe and is set to be the world’s largest renewable energy source by 2029 [27].
Because of the marked differences in the physical structure and mortality impacts of CSP and PV systems, their impacts are considered separately where data allows.
List of abbreviations including units and nomenclature
CSP Concentrated Solar Power
PV Photovoltaic
c-Si crystalline silicon
Fig. 1. The marked variation in solar radiation (background raster colours) and technological advancement across the globe influences where solar facilities have been built (dots reflect installed solar facilities, with relative size of the dots reflecting solar generation capacity), and therefore which biomes are affected. Sources:
Photovoltaic potential is derived from the Global Solar Atlas v2 [23], and represents the average daily totals. The data for operating solar facilities is sourced from Global Solar Power Tracker [24].
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 2 259
Box 1
Concentrating Solar Power plants
As of 2020, the least expensive utility-scale concentrated solar power stations (CSP) in the United States and worldwide were still five times more expensive than utilityscale photovoltaic power (PV) stations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrate d_solar_power) but CSP is one of the few renewable electricity technologies that can generate fully dispatchable or even fully baseload power at very large scale [25].
Therefore, despite its costs, CSP may have an important role to play in the decarbonisation of power grids as a dispatchable electricity source to balance the intermittent renewables, such as wind power and PV.
Southern California, USA, accounts for nearly 80 % of all utility scale solar facilities in California, and 50 % of all those developments across the USA [4]. Three large CSP systems located in the Mojave Desert of Southern California have been extensively studied for bird and bat mortalities (reviewed by [7]):
a.Solar One. The world’s first CSP plant was the 10-MW Solar One (1982–1988), which used water/steam as the heat transfer fluid. This was upgraded to Solar Two (1996–1999, using molten salt to capture and store the sun’s heat). Solar One was the first large-scale test of its kind and was one of the first utility-scale solar projects. Until its construction, the environmental hazards of solar power plant operation were unknown [28]. The only wildlife fatality monitoring reported before 2012 was in 1982–1983 at Solar One, with reports of birds being singed by concentrated sunlight from the heliostat fields at this CSP plant [28].
b.Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (‘Ivanpah’) (Fig. 2a). The 377-MW Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (2014 – present) [29] includes 173,500 heliostats that follow the sun’s trajectory, solar-field-integration software, and solar-receiver steam generators. Avian mortality due to singeing in high-flux regions in the air space above the heliostat fields at Ivanpah have been documented [3,30]. In these instances, birds had been exposed to concentrated solar radiation exceeding safe limits – estimated to be 4–50 kW/m2 for birds [31]. Exceeding these limits can result in fatal burns, highlighting the need for careful management and mitigation strategies [31].
c.Genesis. The Genesis Solar Energy Project (2013 – present) is a 140 MW CSP using solar trough technology, with a system of solar collector arrays composed of parabolic mirrors. Substantial bat mortality has been reported at Genesis, where the most dangerous project feature to bats was the evaporation ponds, followed by power blocks, fences, and solar collector arrays [7].
d.Other CSP facilities. Leading countries in CSP installations are Spain (total capacity of 2.3 GW), the USA (1.5 GW), China (596 MW), Morocco (533 MW) (Fig. 2b), and South Africa (500 MW). As of 2024, the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (Fig. 2c) facility has a total capacity of 950 MW, including a 100 MW CSP plant with the world’s tallest solar receiver tower (263 m), a 600 MW parabolic trough complex, and a 250 MW PV station.
3. Results and discussion
Here, I first describe studies that have examined insect, bird and bat communities around solar facilities, as the initial step towards understanding whether animals might be attracted to or avoid these sites.
Second, I present evidence supporting five potential mechanisms for why animals may be attracted to solar facilities, the ecological costs and potential mitigation measures for these aspects. Third, potential causes of mortalities are then described, and extrapolation from mortality monitoring is presented. Finally, this paper concludes by raising unanswered questions and identifying research needs to better understand the biodiversity impacts of solar facilities.
3.1. Do solar facilities alter wildlife community species richness and abundance?
A number of studies demonstrate significant differences in fauna diversity and community composition around solar facilities (Table 2; Table 3). Most fauna studies have been carried out through comparison between paired solar facilities and adjacent ‘reference’ habitat (see summary of data in Table 2).
In their meta-analysis, Blaydes et al. [32] analysed the weight of evidence to support 27 potential management interventions to improve and enhance biodiversity of insect pollinators, and report evidence for positive effects of presence of flowering plants, season-long access to resources, taller or structurally diverse vegetation, increasingly semi-natural or heterogeneous landscape, and proximity and connectivity to semi-natural habitat. By contrast, where the vegetation within solar facilities is heavily managed or removed (e.g. mown or heavily grazed), there is likely to be fewer insects.
There are contrasting results for birds, which could reflect the choice of reference landscape for comparison (Table 3b). Lower bird diversity and/or density have been reported for some solar facilities compared with adjacent untransformed land as reference [16,33,34]. By contrast, many solar facilities have been located on relatively flat, homogeneous terrain at sites where there was already substantial anthropogenic disturbance. In some such cases, for example compared with reference farmland, the addition of artificial resources at PV facilities can result in increased diversity of insects and birds (especially insectivores) [8, 10–12,17,35]. While there is minimal data available for bat communities, studies have shown reduced activity [8,13,36] and reduced feeding [37] for insectivorous bat species around PV facilities, but again highlight the importance of where the sampling is carried out (Table 3c).
This form of experimental design (comparing solar facilities with reference sites) has come under criticism, with preference for a beforeafter control-impact (BACI) approach identified as ideal [38]. It also needs to be recognised that there are survey limitations in terms of visibility and access constraints around PV facilities that can influence survey results [38], with visibility or acoustic recording interference at solar facilities compared with reference sites. Alternative experimental methods include quantifying measures such as reproductive success (e. g., pre-post disturbance [39], or comparison between habitats [35]), while Environmental Impact Assessments have necessitated the application of animal community composition at proposed sites with that at established solar facilities (e.g., [40]). The importance of comparable reference sites in interpreting impact of solar facilities [35], as well as experimental design appropriate to address the treatment difference, are therefore important considerations in interpreting results of these fauna studies.
3.2. Do solar facilities attract (or cause avoidance) in volant species? Five broad mechanisms have been presented in the literature to explain attraction to or avoidance of solar facilities. These include (1) the creation of novel habitats and resources, (2) the provision of water through evaporation ponds, and (3) increased foraging opportunity.
Furthermore, (4) the concentration of solar energy and (5) the reflection of light and sound from solar panels – representing large expanses of smooth flat surfaces – can create attraction or cause avoidance in animals. These five mechanisms are discussed below.
3.2.1. Lost, altered, and novel habitat
Utility-scale solar facilities have an enormous footprint, and consequent habitat loss is recognised as a key threat for fauna [19], with concerns raised for invertebrates, reptiles, bats, and birds (reviewed by [21]). About 2–6 ha of land are needed per megawatt (MW) of installed solar capacity [15]. The 10 largest solar facilities are in China, all measuring over 70 km2
, with the largest – Talatan Solar Park in China –
occupying ~420 km2 [43]. While the overall area required per MW for solar facilities is smaller than that required for wind farms (estimated 1–16 ha per MW to allow appropriate spacing to minimise interference between turbines), the degree of clearing for solar facilities is much greater than for wind energy (where only ~0.3 ha per MW clearing is required) [44]. As well as habitat loss and disturbance (e.g., [9,45]), solar facilities also contribute to habitat fragmentation, with large expanses of solar panels and other infrastructure (e.g., power lines and non-permeable fencing) creating barriers to species’ daily, seasonal, and migratory movements [3,15,16].
Solar facility installations have largely happened in deserts and across unused farmland or decommissioned industrial sites (e.g., [46, 47]). There, solar panels shade the ground and alter the microclimate underneath them [48], influencing the absorption and reflectance of heat and leading to both heating and cooling effects at different scales (e.
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 3 260
g., [49–52]). Studies have identified effects on soil moisture (e.g., [51, 53]) and the soil microbiome [51], which in turn influence plant growth [9,51–56].
PV panels can also provide thermal refuges for fauna that would be otherwise limited in specific contexts (e.g., deserts), or can offer novel foraging, roosting, sheltering, and nesting habitats [21]. For example, Harvey and Associates [30] recorded Common ravens Corvus corax and six raptor species perching on facilities at the Ivanpah CSP facility.
WEST [33] present comparative data for Ivanpah and adjacent desert, which demonstrate American kestrels Falco sparverius were seven times more commonly recorded at the solar facilities, where they were recorded frequently perched on structures (Fig. 3). At a PV facility in South Africa, Visser et al. [16] reported aerial hawkers using the panels as foraging perches, ground-dwelling francolins foraging in the shade under the panels, and five species nesting on the solar panel supports.
Jeal et al. [34] recorded Western barn owl (Tyto alba) roosting in torque tubes (hollow, structural elements that connect rows of solar panels).
Similarly, Golawski, Mitrus and Jankowiak [12] identified that PV facilities in Poland provided safe breeding sites for birds, while fences around the facilities served as observation points, foraging sites, and singing perches.
3.2.1.1. Costs. The transformation of landscapes under solar facilities can lead to dramatic loss of habitat and population connectivity, but also represents novel habitat that can benefit generalist species [33], altering food webs. These changes contribute to a general finding of more open country/grassland, aerial, and generalist ground-foraging birds [11,16, 33] and generalist bat species [13] at solar facilities compared with reference sites. Furthermore, while animals may benefit from the use of solar facilities for nesting, reproductive success at such sites can be reduced by the presence of predators within the facility footprint. For example, mammal and bird scavengers (e.g., kit fox Vulpes macrotis, coyote Canis latrans, Common raven) may be attracted to solar energy facilities by availability of unmanaged refuse and carcasses of birds that succumbed to operation-related injuries (e.g., collision with infrastructure) [3,18,33,57,58].
In addition to loss of habitat, fences create barriers to species’ movements, and can cause entrapment. For example, Visser et al. [16] noted that large-bodied birds become trapped between double fencing, lacking the manoeuvrability to take off. Similarly, water-obligate Fig. 2. Examples of concentrating solar power (CSP) facilities. (a) The eastern tower of the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, showing concentrated solar flux either side of the tower. (b) the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station in Morocco is the world’s largest CSP plant at 510 MW. Note the evaporation ponds to the southern boundary of the image (immediately above the scale bar) (c) The Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park, United Arab Emirates, including parabolic trough CSP and PV facilities, is one of the world’s largest renewable projects, which will reach 5 GW by 2030. Sources: (a) Craig Dietrich - Flickr: Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, (b) and (c) Google Earth.
Table 1
Average [95 % confidence interval] reported bird and bat fatalities/MW/year for three Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and 10 photovoltaic (PV) facilities in California, USA [7].
Average [95 % CI] fatalities/MW/year
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)
facilities
Solar photovoltaic (PV)
facilities
Birds 64.61 [41.74–149.95] 11.61 [8.37–17.56]
Bats 5.49 [0.25–11.65] 0.06 [0.01–0.10]
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 4 261
species that require water to take off are likely to be trapped by solar facility fencing [59], and Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus – which prefer to run rather than fly – are disproportionately represented in mortalities at Ivanpah (Fig. 4; [33]).
3.2.1.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?. Fencing solar facilities is vital for human safety and security of structures, but fencing design could be modified to reduce the chances of creating barriers and causing animal entrapment. To mitigate barriers to species’ movements [3,15, 16], it may be possible to create permeable fencing that selectively allows animal passage. For example, a photovoltaic solar facility constructed in Pahrump, Nevada, USA (Valley Electric Association), left the majority of native plants and washes in place when installing the solar panels, and kept 30 openings in the fences (25 cm wide by 18 cm tall) for desert fauna to freely pass [48] (Fig. 5). Wildlife movements for this pilot ‘wildlife friendly’ solar facility are being monitored, with tortoises, rattlesnakes, black-tailed jackrabbits, and kit foxes reported using the fence openings to date [60].
3.2.2. Evaporation ponds
Another reason birds and bats could be attracted to solar facilities is the presence of standing water in evaporation ponds associated with the facilities (e.g. Fig. 2b). Environmental dust on the panel surface prevents sunlight from penetrating the solar cells, reducing energy conversion efficiency [61]; washing panels and dust suppression management is therefore common practice in many facilities [19]. First generation monocrystalline and polycrystalline silicon (c-Si) PV panels contain hazardous chemicals such as lead, ethylene vinyl acetate, chlorofluorocarbons, and poly/brominated flame retardants, while second-generation photovoltaic panels include cadmium telluride (CdTe), copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS), and other heavy metal-containing materials [20]. Up to 18 metals can be released from solar panels, including aluminium from supporting structures, while substantial amounts of lead, cadmium and antimony leach from c-Si panels, and chromium, selenium, cadmium and lead leach from thin-film panels [62]. Acid rain can increase leaching, especially from broken or damaged PV panels [20]. Water is also used at solar facilities for turbine cooling, where it is often treated with chemicals (e.g. selenium) to prevent fouling and to control the pH [19]. The wastewater from these activities is then held in evaporation ponds to concentrate for disposal.
3.2.2.1. Costs. Evaporation ponds can act as a lure for fauna, but can also increase various risks for these animals. Pollution caused by leaching of chemical substances into evaporation ponds can increase exposure to toxic chemicals [63,64], and could be lethal to birds and other animals attracted to these ponds [19,20,65]. For example, selenium toxicity has been linked to high egg mortality and birth defects in birds using evaporation ponds [65].
Animals can also become trapped at the ponds. For example, Jeal et al. [34] reported 37 carcasses of 15 species (seven bird, seven mammal and one reptile species) around evaporation ponds at a PV facility in South Africa, compared with only 8 carcasses in the solar field.
The authors attributed deaths of half of the animals to drowning (the ponds had a slippery plastic lining, inhibiting escape), and noted entrapment and aggression could contribute to mortalities of young birds.
3.2.2.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?. Few studies have included evaporation ponds in mortality assessments for solar facilities [3,16,34] although – as the deaths of birds and mammals at these ponds verify – they are important to consider for future management improvements [15]. Fencing and bird-exclusion netting are important for restricting fauna access to evaporation ponds [34], but birds can become entrapped in the nets, creating an even greater impact; mesh size, thickness and maintenance are therefore important considerations [66]. For open waterbodies, providing ‘ladders’, reducing the slope of the pond margins, and non-slip pond lining are all good management options [34].
3.2.3. Increased foraging opportunities
Physical structures associated with solar facilities can provide novel niches and microhabitats that attract insects (see Section 3.1). For example, Diehl et al. [67] proposed that insects may be attracted to the prominence of solar towers at the Ivanpah CSP facility, as these tall features stood out in the desert landscape marked by low profile vegetation. Diurnal aquatic insects – including Diptera, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, Odonata, Heteroptera and Coleoptera species – are also attracted to polarised light reflected by solar panels [68,69], with many aquatic species seeing the panels as potential breeding sites (see Section
3.2.5). Changes in vegetation associated with management of the facilities can also attract insects. Unmanaged vegetation under solar panels may provide suitable habitat for insects [32] and therefore insectivores (e.g., [8,17]).
Table 2
Examples of differences in fauna species diversity, species richness, or activity/abundance between solar facilities and adjacent reference habitat.
Metric: Less at solar facilities No difference More at solar facilities Species diversity • Arthropods [8,41]
• Birds [17]
Species richness • Birds [34], [35]
B
• Bats [8]
• Arthropods [41]
B
• Birds [8,33]
• Bats [36]
• Arthropods [9,42], [41]
B
• Birds [11,17], [35]
B
Activity or
abundance
(e.g., counts)
• Birds [16]
A, [34], [35]B
• Bats [8,13,36,37]
• Arthropods [41,42] • Arthropods [9]
• Birds [8,10–12,17], [35]
B
A p = 0.06; B results depended on which reference habitat was compared.
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 5 262
Table 3
Examples of studies comparing solar facilities and reference sites for (a) invertebrates, (b) birds and (c) bats.
Study Solar facility Reference sites Conclusion (solar facilities compared with reference) a. Invertebrates
Montag, Parker and
Clarkson [8],
southern UK
11 PV solar facilities Nearby arable land (same farm) • Greater numbers of butterfly species (p = 0.008) • Nearly twice the numbers of bumblebees (p = 0.06)
Graham et al. [9],
Oregon, USA
1 single-axis tracking PV panel facilitya full
shade
Full-sun reference plots outside the solar
facility
• Lower pollinating insect density
• Reduced species richness
• Reduced species diversity
partial shade Full-sun reference plots outside the solar facility
• Greater species richness in summer
• Greater species diversity in summer
• Greater abundance in summer.
b. Birds
WEST [33], California,
USA
40 plots within the 377-MW Ivanpah CSP
facility
40 offsite plots (1–3 km from the
heliostat arrays; ‘desert’)
• Similar species richness
• Fewer birds (0.24-fold)
• Different bird species communities (one-way PERMANOVA calculated from data presented in their Table 2a; pseudo-F = 11.89, p = 0.028). Generalist species more common, e.g., black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata, house finch Haemorhous mexicanus, and horned lark Eremophila alpestris Visser et al. [16],
Northern Cape,
South Africa
5 transects within 96-MW 180 ha PV facility
(grass and low ground cover between the
solar arrays promoted after construction)
5 transects within adjacent
untransformed landscape
• Marginally fewer birds (0.70 times; P = 0.06).
• Similar numbers of species
• Different bird species communities - shrub/woodland
species largely absent, while open country/grassland,
aerial, and generalist species more common
Jeal et al. [34],
Northern Cape,
South Africa
8 ‘sub fields’ sampled within 50-MW CSP
parabolic trough facility
44 transects adjacent rangelands • Lower abundance (0.007 times; p < 0.001) • Lower species richness (p < 0.001)
Kitazawa et al. [35],
Hokkaido, Japan
3 PV solar facilities Wetlands (5 plots) or abandoned
farmland (5 plots)
• Lower bird species richness
• Reduced abundance
Pastures (6 plots) or cropland (6 plots) • Comparable bird species richness and abundance DeVault et al. [10],
Arizona, Colorado,
and Ohio, USA
5 PV arraysb 5 nearby airport grasslandsb (typically
mowed at least once per year during the
growing season)
• About twice the bird activity (mean across locations =
3.468 birds per ha) than in airfields (1.598),
• Estimated ‘bird hazard index’ (combined bird mass [kg]/ ha/month/location) not significantly different (p = 0.808).
Montag, Parker and
Clarkson [8],
southern UK
11 PV solar facilities Nearby arable land (same farm) • Greater abundance of insectivorous birds (authors attributed to greater floral diversity).
Jarˇcuˇska et al. [17],
Slovakia
32 PV solar facilities 32 adjacent grassland plots • Greater total bird species richness (especially insectivores) (p = 0.030)
• Greater diversity (p = 0.004)
• No difference in overall abundance (p = 0.903)
Copping et al. [11],
Fens, UK.
6 solar facilities – plots on ‘mixed habitat’ c Adjacent arable farmland • Greater (2.6 times) bird abundance • Greater (2.45 times) species richness
Same 6 solar facilities – plots with ‘simple
habitat’
d
Adjacent arable farmland • Greater (1.4 times) bird abundance • Comparable (0.96 times) species richness
Golawski, Mitrus and
Jankowiak [12],
Poland
43 PV facilities constructed over farmland
(sampled on boundaries of facilities)
43 reference sites ~500m away • Greater bird diversity (p = 0.008) • Different bird community composition
c. Bats
Montag, Parker and
Clarkson [8],
southern UK
8 PV solar facilities Paired plots on arable land (same farm) • Comparable bat species richness (p = 0.55) • Comparable bat activity (p = 0.09)
Szabadi et al. [13],
Hungary
15 PV solar facilities (each with a mosaic of
landuses)
Adjacent other human-altered habitats
(e.g., arable land, grassland and green
areas within settlements)
• Bat species that commonly adapt to anthropogenic habitat were commonly recorded at the solar facilities
• Detection of feeding buzzes at solar farms proved that bats not only commuted over this habitat but also foraged there.
Adjacent semi-natural habitats (forests) • Species of conservation concern – those that were more commonly associated with forest habitat – were less
common; 4 taxa: p < 0.01
Adjacent semi-natural habitats
(watersides)
• Reduced overall bat activity (all species grouped) (P <
0.001)
Tinsley et al. [36], UK 19 PV facilities on either grazed or mowed grassland, or on cut arable crops
Middle of solar facility and open
reference field sites
• Reduced activity (overall 0.33 fold difference); activity of 4 (of 8) species significantly reduced (p < 0.05)
• No effect on species richness (p = 0.282).
Boundaries of solar facility and reference
field sites (i.e., hedgerows, tree lines,
woodland or vegetated ditches)
• Reduced activity (overall 0.54 fold difference); activity of 4 (of 8) species significantly reduced (p < 0.05)
• No effect on species richness (p = 0.942).
Barr´e et al. [37],
Rhone Valley, ˆ
France.
9 PV facilities built on reclaimed industrial
sites and agricultural land
paired reference sites (100–500 m away) • Bats flew faster (+10 to +44 %) and straighter (+33 %) (changes in flight features that are explicit indicators of a decrease in bat feeding behaviour) with lower probability of prey capture attempts (− 18 to − 39 %).
a Panel movements allowing varying shade treatments.
b Both airfield and PV arrays likely to be affected by active bird control at one site (i.e., harassment and lethal removal). c ‘mixed habitat’: infrequent cutting or grazing of the grass around the solar panels, which allowed greater sward height and the presence of wildflowers). d ‘simple habitat’: vegetation intensively managed through cutting or grazing.
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 6 263
3.2.3.1. Costs. Insects attracted to solar facilities in turn attract foraging insectivorous birds and bats [3,68], which can increase their risk of collision and burn injuries [21]. For example, 41 of 47 recorded bird mortalities due to solar flux at Ivanpah were primarily insectivores, indicating they had been foraging around the CSP collection towers (by contrast, waterbirds and other birds that feed on vegetation were not reported to have the same burn injuries) [3].
3.2.3.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?. It may be possible to reduce attractiveness of solar facilities for fauna. For example, it has been noted that there are fewer insects within PV solar facilities where the vegetation is heavily managed or removed (e.g. mown or heavily grazed) [32], which in turn could reflect reduced bird and bat [37] activity. Clearing vegetation around CSP solar towers has also been implemented to make the area less attractive to birds at CSP facilities [70].
Curtailment options for CSP facilities – suspending operations at key migration times – has also been recommended to avoid migration periods when numbers of aerial foraging birds are likely to be greatest [70].
Preventing birds and bats from roosting and perching on panels may also reduce the likelihood of them foraging around the facility. For example, a range of potential deterrents have been trialled at Ivanpah, including LED lighting, perching-deterrent spikes, ‘BirdBuffer’ chemosensory deterrent, ‘BirdGuard’ sonic deterrent to deter avian species from entering this area associated with elevated flux mortality, and an Acoustic Technology Ultrasonic Bat Deterrence system to interfere with echolocation capabilities of bats [33].
3.2.4. Concentrated solar energy
Concentrated solar flux associated with CSP facilities can attract insects that would normally seek out solar radiation [21]. For example, the bright light and heat around CSP collection towers (e.g., Fig. 2a) attracts diurnal insects. Although absolute numbers were not quantified, Kagan et al. [3] reported many hundreds of killed butterflies, dragonflies and other insects at Ivanpah. Diehl et al. [67] assessed different survey methods to detect and observe animals flying near the Ivanpah towers. A modified x-band radar recorded 708,872 biological tracks in May (approximately equal numbers of insects and vertebrates) when insect activity peaked around mid-day and diurnal bird activity peaked late afternoon, and 428,207 tracks in September (about three quarters of traces identified as insects) when activity of both insects and vertebrates (bats and nocturnal birds not distinguished) peaked in early evening to midnight. By contrast, video imagery recorded an undisclosed number of instances of insects incinerated in the solar flux, but only detected a total of 37 birds or suspected birds near the towers. A total of 1922 arthropods were recorded in Malaise traps deployed on the ground around the facility, although these mostly represented terrestrial species, and did not reflect the species composition of burned insects accumulated on the ground. The insect activity associated with the CSP towers in turn attracts aerial insectivores including birds and bats [3].
3.2.4.1. Costs. Burn-related mortalities are a significant risk for CSP solar facilities. Birds can be burned or incinerated when they fly through concentrated beams of solar flux, where air temperatures may reach more than 800 ◦C (temperatures greater than 160 ◦C result in compromised keratin molecular structure and permanently weaken bird feathers, [71]). Because of these extreme temperatures, deaths of small animals flying around the CSP towers may be difficult to detect or identify [67]. Experimental work has shown that temperatures greater than 160 ◦C result in compromised keratin molecular structure and permanently weaken bird feathers [71].
Burn deaths at CSP facilities are specifically relevant to aerial insectivores (e.g., swallows, swifts and martins), which spend most of their time in flight and are therefore likely to increase the chances of encountering space where there is high solar flux [3,28]. Depending on the severity and length of exposure, exposure to the concentrated solar flux results either in immediate death (catastrophic loss of flying ability) or delayed mortality because of flight impairment [3]. Therefore, in addition to direct immediate mortalities, aerial foraging birds that are singed and injured would be unable to feed, and injured birds would be more vulnerable to predators [2,3].
The unique circumstances of CSP facilities was shown by Kagan et al. [3], who compared bird mortalities for three solar plants that had different technology: Desert Sunlight (PV), Genesis (CSP with trough) and Ivanpah (CSP with concentrating tower). Burn injuries were substantially higher for Ivanpah, where burning (‘solar flux injury’) (47 of 141 carcasses) was as common as collision trauma (43 of 141 carcasses) as a cause of death. Remaining samples (46 of 141 carcasses) were in too poor condition to determine cause of death (46 of 141).
The bright lights around CSP facilities could also increase collision risk due to glint and glare blinding. While Kagan et al. [3] noted that there was no evidence found for significant tissue burns or eye damage caused by exposure to solar flux around the Ivapah CSP towers, it is likely that visible tissue damage is not prerequisite for blinding impacts to nevertheless happen. For example, the issue of glare from large expanses of solar panels has been recognised as a significant health and safety issue in civil aviation, raising concern either from pilots or air-traffic controllers (e.g., [31,72,73]), and for drivers where solar panels line roads (e.g., [74]).
Although glint and glare hazards are recognised for humans, the question of ocular blinding has rarely been addressed in the wildlife literature. Jeal et al. [34] recorded that when flushed during the day, Western barn owls – normally only active at night – would swipe or collide with mirrors, suggesting temporary blindness due to the panels.
Collision due to acute blinding could also be exacerbated from high-speed predator-prey encounters in which either the prey or pursuer may collide with panels [7]. Smooth surfaces such as mirrors and smooth glass (on PV units) produce more specular reflections with greater intensity and tighter beams (and therefore greater risk for ocular hazards) compared with CSP trough solar receivers (which produce more diffuse reflections with lower solar intensities) [31].
3.2.4.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?. McCrary et al. [28] reported 13 of 70 recorded bird fatalities (19 %; 7 species) at Solar One CSP were likely due to burning, as evidenced by heavily singed flight and contour feathers. The authors concluded that the primary hazard was from heliostats in standby mode – when the heliostats focussed on four small areas (~5m in diameter) of sky around the tower at a height of 80 m (rather than on the receiver) [28]. By contrast with the high-temperature receiver itself, which emits a considerable amount of thermal radiation, it was recognised that the irradiance in the air around the receiver during standby was optically transparent, and it was unlikely that the birds were able to detect heat at high-flux regions around the receiver [31]. Using this information, computer programming has been developed to control heliostat angles during standby, thereby ensuring that air temperatures remain below 160 ◦C, reducing the incidence of ‘hot spots’ [31,71].
3.2.5. Solar panels represent large expanses of smooth, flat surfaces Many animals, including insects and birds, have well-tuned polarisation vision (reviewed by [75]) and use the information from polarised light for navigation and to locate resources (reviewed by [68]). Therefore, polarised light pollution – “light that has undergone linear polarisation by reflecting off smooth, dark buildings, or other human-made objects” – can represent an ecological trap for these species [68]. For example, orientation towards horizontally polarised light sources is the primary guidance mechanism used by at least 300 diurnal aquatic insect species (e.g., dragonflies, mayflies, caddisflies, stoneflies, diving beetles, water bugs) in their search for suitable water bodies to act as feeding or P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 7 264
breeding habitat, and oviposition sites [68]. Because of their strong horizontal polarisation signature, artificial polarising surfaces (e.g., asphalt, gravestones, cars, plastic sheeting, pools of oil, glass windows, and solar panels) are commonly mistaken for bodies of water by ‘polartactic’ species [68,69,76].
Smooth darker surfaces (such as solar panels) are more effective at producing polarised light than are brighter surfaces [68]. At the Brewster angle, solar panels polarise reflected light almost completely (degree of polarisation d ≈ 100 %, substantially exceeding typical polarisation values for water d ≈ 30–70 %). Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] demonstrated that both thin-film and c-Si solar panels are capable of polarising sunlight to a high-degree (visible maximum: 83 %; ultraviolet maximum 84 %), with at least 35 % polarised light over a narrower range of vertical angles, such as a bird would be exposed to Fig. 3. Raptor behaviour around Ivanpah and adjacent desert sites, showing flight height and perching. Drawn from raw data presented by [33 Table 6]. There were significantly more observations of American kestrels at the Ivanpah solar facilities than for the desert sites (Chi-test χ2 1 = 304.2, p < 0.001); none of the other raptor
species were significantly more or less common (p > 0.05).
Fig. 4. Comparison between ’avian use’ surveys (WEST, 2016 Table 2a; x-axis) and mortality monitoring (WEST, 2016 Table 7; y-axis) at Ivanpah. Species towards the top left of the graph show mortalities that are disproportionate to other species in respect to their relative activity around the heliostats. The ’bird use’ data presented by WEST (2016, Table 2a) show significant differences in bird species communities recorded between the solar facility and adacent desert (one-way PERMANOVA calculated from their data: pseudo-F = 11.89, p = 0.028), with species more commonly recorded using the heliostats including generalist species (in descending order of percentage contribution to the difference between solar facility and adacent desert by SIMPER analysis: Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata, Horned lark Eremophila alpestris, House finch Haemorhous mexicanus, Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta, Common raven Corvus corax, Rock pigeon Columba livia, American pipit Anthus rubescens, and Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus).
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 8 265
when they are flying over a solar facility.
Solar panels can therefore be mistaken for waterbodies by waterbreeding insects (e.g., mayflies, dolichopodid dipterans, and tabanid flies exhibit oviposition behaviour above solar panels), and may even be more attractive than waterbodies [69]. Similarly, it has been argued that birds mistake reflection from a solar facility for a water body and hone in on it, with the risk that solar panels can therefore represent ‘mega-traps’ [3,14]. This ‘Lake Effect’ Hypothesis [77] implies that (1) birds in flight perceive large solar PV facilities as water bodies, (2) reorient and descend toward those facilities, and (3) in some cases either collide with the panels or are unable to take off from the ground [14]. Evidence for these three steps is described below.
First, there is experimental evidence that birds can detect linear polarisation of light (reviewed by [78]). Certain waterbirds have been shown to be directly attracted to the bright reflection of light from pools of oil (in which they drown) presumably as they were searching for water [79]. Experimentally testing this concept, Bern´ath et al. [79] laid out shiny white and dark plastic sheets and recorded bird behaviour around the material. They recorded a range of species approaching and attempting to drink or forage. For example, White storks (Ciconia ciconia) and Great white egrets (Egretta alba) attempted to probe the surface, while Barn swallows (Hirundo rustica), House martins (Delichon urbia), and Sand martins (Riparia riparia) attempted to drink from and forage above the sheets. This field study suggests that the birds mistook optical cues of the sheets as the surfaces as small waterbodies.
Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] reported three experiments that similarly showed that birds could see terrestrial sources of polarised light, and use those cues to locate waterbodies. The authors showed the feeders with high polarised light properties were more conspicuous to wild birds and guided their feeding behaviour. Next, they simulated the polarised light visual properties of natural water bodies and tested bird responses to surfaces over 4 days. Finally, they compared ground-based water sources of different polarisation properties and showed that birds preferentially visited the treatment (black) with the highest degree of polarised light in both the visible and ultraviolet ranges for bathing and drinking. Their results confirm that many different bird species can Fig. 5. A ‘wildlife friendly’ photovoltaic solar facility constructed in Pahrump, Nevada, USA (Valley Electric Association), (a) left large open areas of native vegetation between banks of PV panels. (b) The ground was not bladed or graded at construction, and this resulted in an uneven/wavy placement of the panels, which would break up light reflection from the panels. (c) Mojave desert tortoises Gopherus agassizii were removed from the area during construction, kept in a holding pen, and then released back into the facility after construction was done. (d) Thirty openings at the bottom of the fences (25 cm wide by 18 cm tall) allowed tortoises and other wildlife to move in and out of the facility. Photos by Dr Jennifer Wilkening, Research Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 9 266
detect horizontally polarised light and that they can use that information to help locate waterbodies, as evidenced by feeding and bathing behaviour.
Second, there is evidence that birds will reorient towards solar facilities. Millions of migratory songbirds initiate migration around twilight, when the sun is near the horizon and the maximum degree of polarisation is present (typically 70–80 % in clear, blue sky) (reviewed by [78,80]). There is substantial experimental support from behavioural experiments that many migratory songbirds rely on this celestial information for compass orientation, responding strongly to manipulations in direction of light polarisation [78]. Conflicting results for experiments with different bird species suggest species-specific differences in the use of polarised light versus magnetic information for orientation, or differences in the ecological situations under which birds use both types of information [78,80].
Given the influence of polarised light in navigation and orientation towards waterbodies, it raises the question of whether animals are diverted from their migratory paths due to polarised light pollution from solar facilities. Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] used portable X-band radar to track bird movements at two PV facilities to see if birds changed their flight paths (directions or altitudes) toward PV facilities. Evidence for change in direction was inconclusive, which the authors attributed to relief in terrain overwhelming the potential influence of the presence of PV panels on direction of travel. However, south-bound birds (possibly migrating) were more commonly recorded descending, especially near midday, suggesting they were seeking water or refuge in the extremely arid landscape [14]. Takacs et al. [ ´ 81] used a drone-mounted polarisation camera to capture reflected light from fixed-orientation solar panels, showing the largest panel areas with exactly or nearly horizontal polarisation at sunrise and at sunset when in parallel with the panels, and around noon when the drone flew perpendicular to the solar panel rows. The degree of polarised light pollution from solar facilities therefore varies depending on the angle of approach, as well as time of day, and these time of day differences need to be accounted for when interpreting the birds’ behaviour.
Third, there is evidence that birds will collide with solar panels or become trapped on the ground. WEST [33] recorded four
water-associated species associated with the heliostats at Ivanpah (one record each of: American avocet Recurvirostra americana, Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca, Killdeer Charadrius vociferus, and Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla). Kosciuch et al. [82] synthesised results from fatality monitoring studies at 10 PV facilities across 13 site-years in California and Nevada, reporting 86 species amongst 669 avian detections. Waterbirds were recorded at all of the facilities in the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts Bird Conservation Region. Notably, 54 % of all carcasses were just ‘feather-spot’ remains, and of the intact carcasses, cause of mortality could also not be determined for approximately 61 % (86 % of ducks and geese, 93 % of grebes, and 100 % of loons), significantly limiting power of the study to make conclusions about cause of death in waterbirds at solar facilities [82]. Extending this work to live bird counts, Kosciuch et al. [59] recorded presence of aquatic birds at PV facilities. Together, these records provide compelling evidence that waterbirds have been attracted to solar facilities, suggesting they perceived the presence of water at the sites [59].
As well as birds, it is possible that solar facilities can interfere with bat movement patterns. The large expanses of flat solar panel surfaces reflect sound waves and can therefore interfere with navigation by microbats, causing echoes and reflections of echolocation calls. Bats perceive horizontal, smooth surfaces (‘acoustic mirrors’) as water due to their similar echo-acoustic properties, and may attempt to drink from these regardless of the material they are made of, as demonstrated in both laboratory settings [83] and in nature [84]. Echolocation was the main way these bats recognised water surfaces, taking dominance over conflicting sensory information provided by e.g., vision, olfaction, touch and taste. Solar panels would also reflect moonlight, and reflected polarised light from panels could be perceived as waterbodies by bats [85].
3.2.5.1. Costs. Collision risk is a major cause of death at both PV and CSP facilities, with flying wildlife (bats, birds, and aquatic insects) potentially colliding with reflective surfaces of PV panels or CSP heliostats, or associated infrastructure (i.e., power lines and perimetral fences). Direct mortality through collision is one of the most addressed impacts of PV energy [21], although most information comes from unpublished reports that employ non-standardised methodologies [7].
In the first study to report mortalities at solar facilities, McCrary et al. [28] reported 70 bird fatalities (representing 26 species) at Solar One (CSP with concentrating tower), with the most frequent cause of mortality identified as collision (evidenced as the presence of broken bones, usually mandibles or wings) accounting for 81 % of recorded bird deaths (20 species). Most (>75 %) collisions were associated with the mirrored heliostats. Similarly, Kagan et al. [3] reported that trauma – including impact, predation and undetermined trauma – was a significant cause of mortality for three different technology solar plants, representing 56 % of 61 mortalities at Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (PV), 30 % of 141 mortalities at Ivanpah (CSP), and 26 % of 31 mortalities at Genesis (CSP).
The linear polarised light pollution from solar facilities can cause diversion from flight paths for waterbirds. Kagan et al. [3] reported a greater proportion of waterbird mortalities at Desert Sunlight (PV) (coots, grebes and cormorants making up 48 % of all bird mortalities at this facility) compared with the two CSP facilities where aerial and terrestrial foragers represented most mortalities (Genesis 80 % and Ivanpah 89 %) (Chi-test assuming an equal proportion of air, terrestrial and water foraging guilds between the three facilities: χ2 4 = 17.35, p =
0.002; analysis carried out by myself based on data presented in their report). The difference was attributed to size and continuity of reflection from hard surfaces differing between facilities where the long banks of adjacent panels provided a continuous sky/water appearance at Desert Sunlight (compared with parabolic shape at Genesis and dark appearance from above at Ivanpah) [3]. By the time a bird may realise the panels are not water, it may be too late for the bird to stop its dive from the sky and fly away [86]. Birds that collide with the panels are also likely to be disoriented or injured and more vulnerable to predation [3].
As well as increasing the direct risk of collision and injuries, diversion off flight paths will increase depletion of energy reserves, potentially stranding animals and leading to mortality from starvation.
Obstruction from panels and fencing can also hinder birds from taking-off [3]. For example, water-obligate birds that require water for take-off (sensu [82]) – including loons (Gaviiformes), grebes (Podicipediformes), cormorants (Suliformes), coots (Gruiformes) and some ducks (Anseriformes; e.g., Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis) – and those that use water for some aspect of their life history (e.g., family Charadriidae) are amongst the mortalities at solar facilities. Stranding of these birds would contribute to the disproportionate number of waterbirds represented amongst the cases where starvation has been identified as cause of death [3].
Solar panels can also elicit aggressive behavioural interactions due to the novel reflective surfaces. Smallwood [7] argued that reflected self-images on CSP heliostats or PV panels might elicit aggressive responses of birds motivated to defend territory, as has been shown for collision with windows, where males and young birds can both be significantly overrepresented relative to their abundance in habitat surrounding the building [87,88]. Substantiating this prediction requires behavioural observation of how birds interact with the solar panels.
Finally, clutter due to physical structures causes echolocation challenges and confusion for microbats [37], and PV solar farms can act as sensory traps for bats, challenging their ability to navigate [36].
Furthermore, bats mistake smooth, vertical surfaces as clear flight paths, repeatedly colliding with them [89]. For example, Ingeme et al. [90] showed that many Critically Endangered Southern bent-wing bats P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 10 267
(Miniopterus orianae bassanii) collided with a smooth metal fence placed at 45◦ outside a maternity roost, and 1.03 % of juveniles consequently suffered critical injuries that warranted their euthanasia. More data on cause of death is required for bat mortalities to understand why they die at solar facilities.
3.2.5.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?. Approximately one-third of the incident light received by a solar cell is reflected [61]. Glare from solar panels around airports has been mitigated by considered locations, or blocking light reflection in particular directions by adding a tree screen around the facility (e.g., [91]). Alternatively, application of antireflective coatings and/or texturing to the panels (‘nanocoatings’) could be used to reduce associated glare and glint [92]. Nanocoatings redirect incident light to trap it – improving light absorption [61] and can substantially improve system performance [91,92], increasing panel energy efficiency by up to ~50 % [93,94]. Because they also reduce the degree to which solar panels polarise light, nanocoatings also have value in reducing biodiversity impacts of solar facilities. For example, Horvath ´ [95] reported that microtextured surfaces on solar panels greatly reduced polarised light pollution and reduced attractiveness to polartactic insects.
Larger scale modifications have also proven effective in reducing fauna impacts. For example, white outlines and/or white grid lines on solar panels – which result in a loss of less than 1.8 % in energyproducing surface area – reduce horizontally polarising light and are 10- to 26-fold less attractive to aquatic egg-laying insects than the same panels without white partitions [69,96]. Mechanical surface modification can also reduce the likelihood of bat collisions due to mistaking the surface for water. For example, Abdul Rahman et al. [97] placed string of different diameters across flat smooth plates, and showed that bats significantly decreased the frequency of drinking attempts with increasing diameter of the strings. It does not appear that similar detailed studies have been caried out with birds. Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] note that it is still not known how much polarisation is required to attract birds; such data is required to identify the required changes to PV facilities to reduce the effects of polarised light pollution for bird species.
3.3. Studies that have quantified mortalities of volant species Monitoring mortalities is an important tool for understanding the reasons for fatalities. Variation in where, when and how mortality monitoring has been carried out are informative about the causes of death.
3.3.1. Differences between sites – it matters where you monitor First, mortality monitoring results can be strongly influenced by where the surveys are carried out. A comprehensive Bird and Bat Management Plan developed for the Ivanpah CSP (initially written in 2013, latest version: [98]) was developed to document mortalities, use that information to develop and implement adaptive management responses, and report the monitoring results. Over nine years of bird and bat mortality monitoring using sniffer dogs and on-foot surveys (Table 4 and references therein), an average of 616 ± 360 (SD) birds per annum were recovered injured or dead around the facility. The timing of mortalities indicates strong seasonal patterns, peaking in spring and autumn, with migratory warblers and swallows making up 46–59 % of the identified cases.
A subset of the banks of heliostats were monitored over the first four years, but this monitoring was not continued. This change in where monitoring has been carried out has confounded interpretation of which species are impacted by the facility. The highest density of mortalities has been around the concentrating towers, which account for 30.6–98.5 % of reported mortalities. Waterbird mortalities were more likely to be recorded when more of the heliostat area was surveyed (Fig. 6). When only the towers were surveyed for mortalities, small insectivores (warblers and aerial foraging birds) represented the dominant records for mortalities. Finally, some mortalities (e.g., Greater roadrunner) have been specifically associated with the fencelines around the facility, and it is not clear whether the fences were systematically searched each year.
The change in where monitoring was carried out has also confounded interpretation of cause of death data. Mortalities at Ivanpah have included burn injuries (evident from singed feathers), collision (evident from broken bones), and other causes (e.g. entrapment or occurrence in the air-cooled condenser buildings, electrocution, vehicle strike, and predation), with a shift towards burn injuries as the surveys have altered their focus to only recording mortalities at the towers (mortalities from other parts of the facility were only recorded as incidental records) (Fig. 7). In the most recent reports, close to three quarters of the bird mortalities showed evidence of feather singeing (Table 4).
In a meta-analysis across different solar facilities [7], where mortalities were standardised on an energy-generation basis, the gen-tie has been identified as the most dangerous project feature to birds at some projects (i.e., risk of electrocution), whereas the solar collectors — PV panels or mirrors (i.e., risk of collision) — were the most dangerous at others [7]. On a project-wide basis, however, more birds died by collision with solar collectors [7].
Comparison between avian use surveys and mortalities can serve to identify which species are most at risk from solar facilities. For example, analysis of data presented by WEST [33] (their Table 2a and Table 7) indicated disproportionate mortalities for the Greater roadrunner, Mourning dove Zenaida macroura, and some of the sparrows and warbler species in the year of survey (Fig. 4). There were also marked differences between some of the bird guilds, with waterbirds representing only 0.9 % of avian use counts, but 3.8 % the fatalities. Similarly, aerial foragers (use: 2.1 %, mortalities 8.4 %) and raptors (use: 1.0 %, mortalities: 4.4 %) were disproportionately represented in the mortality counts.
3.3.2. It matters when you monitor
Mortality monitoring results can also be strongly influenced by when surveys are carried out. For example, mortality monitoring results can be biased low by insufficient monitoring duration [7]. Daily mortality monitoring at Ivanpah was compared with the timing of biologically relevant seasons, using the timing of migration determined through sightings reported via eBird website (www.ebird.org) and radar data from over 140 weather stations (synthesised on the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s BirdCast website; www.birdcast.info) [33]. The comparison was used to confirm that the entire spring and fall migration periods – when the majority of bird passages through the solar facilities were expected and also the majority of mortalities were recorded – had been included in their monitoring period. This study is an excellent example of ensuring an adequate monitoring period is addressed.
3.3.3. It matters how you monitor
The method of survey can also influence results for mortality monitoring. For example, Smallwood [7] reported bird fatality rates averaged 3 times higher at PV projects searched by foot rather than car.
There is also significant bias in species’ deaths reported. Many mortalities are assessed from feather-spots only, which significantly compromises identification of both species and cause of death. It is estimated that an average of 22 % of fatalities at solar facilities are unable to be identified to species using morphological methods [7]. The application of eDNA methods to identify bird species mortalities has recently been trialled, showing 84.1 % alignment with carcasses identified via traditional morphological methods [106]. eDNA methods may therefore help to reduce the proportion of unidentifiable mortalities for future monitoring.
Finally, mortality estimates require appropriate adjustment for scavenging, searcher efficiency, and the effect of body size on carcass detectability (many carcass removal trials have used larger birds than P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 11 268
the species that they are adjusting these values to) [7]. In a review of mortality reporting across 14 facilities in California USA [reports performed between 1982 and 2018 and obtained under California Public Records Act (PRA) and federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests], Smallwood [7] reported an annual statewide fatality estimate of 37,546 birds and 207 bats projected to California’s 2020 installed capacity of 1948.8 MW of CSP and 12,220 MW of PV systems (14,168.8 MW total). However, these estimates were biased toward identification of large bird and bat species. ‘Bridging’ these data to the species composition of adjacent habitat, Smallwood [7] estimated fatalities of 267,732 birds and 11,418 bats (Table 1). Extrapolating from these values to the total installed solar energy capacity globally [6,7], and assuming that only 1 % of this is represented by CSP solar [107] (but see [25]), mortalities at solar facilities around the globe are estimated to total 17.3 million birds per annum. Geographic bias in the mortality figures means that these data could be vastly different for mesic habitats.
4. Unanswered questions and research needs
Lovich and Ennen [19] recognised many areas where there was missing data around the wildlife impacts of utility scale solar facilities.
Despite a decade of science since their publication, there are still many knowledge gaps, especially in regard to the specific landscapes in which solar facilities are being developed. For example:
• There has been insufficient empirical data collected on the biodiversity impacts of solar facilities. Most of the knowledge on PV impacts comes from North American contexts (48 % of studies reviewed) for desert biomes [21], limiting generalisation of these findings to other environments like farmland, where most of the PV capacity is sited. We need further before-and-after studies collecting data for birds and bats across a range of habitats.
• Mapping and quantifying ecological and polarised light pollution impacts for solar facilities in different locations and with respect to migratory pathways for birds and bats will inform potential risks. A large proportion of migratory bird species (80 %) migrate under the cover of darkness [108], when light polarisation is minimal, raising questions about their navigation cues. In addition to celestial and magnetic sources of information, there is evidence that animals can use polarisation of moonlight to navigate [109]. Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] note that bird fatalities at solar facilities could not be attributed to a particular time of day, but Kosciuch et al. [82] noted the absence of large-scale mortality events of nocturnal migrants at PV facilities. Presumably all bat mortality events are taking place at night.
Table 4
Summaries of Annual Reports for Ivanpah bird mortality monitoring.
Year % heliostat area
surveyed
Mortalities recorded
(% at towersb
)
Causes of mortalitiesb Small unident.
birds
Warblers &
swallows / swiftse
Waterbirds Ref.
Singed
feathers
Collision Other Unident.
2013–2014 24.1 % a 703 (30.6 %) 47.4 % 51.9 % 0.7 %c 57.4 % 8 % 29 % 4.1 % [30] 2014–2015 24.1 % 1070 (60.3 %) 41.3 % 10.3 % 1.3 %d 47.9 % 6 % 26 % 2.1 % [33] 2015–2016 8 % 706 (88.5 %) 64.4 % 5.1 % 1.1 %c 29.3 % 10 % 43 % 4.4 % [99] 2016–2017 (~4 %) 499 (96.2 %) 69.7 % 4.4 % 1.4 %c 24.4 % 7 % 43 % 3.2 % [100] 2017–2018 0 % 531 (97.7 %) 76.9 % 0.8 % 1.7 %c 20.6 % 8 % 53 % 1.1 % [101] 2018–2019 0 % 358 (97.2 %) 65.2 % 2.3 % 1.4 %c 31.0 % 14 % 45 % 2.8 % [102] 2019–2020 0 % 737 (98.5 %) 61.3 % 1.9 % 2.3 %c 34.6 % 6 % 48 % 2.4 % [103] 2020–2021 0 % 296 (98.3 %) 72.5 % 1.4 % 2.7 %c 23.4 % 8 % 59 % 0.3 % [104] 2021–2022 0 % 265 (97.7 %) 71.8 % 0 % 1.9 %c 26.3 % 7 % 46 % 0.8 % [105] a Plus fenceline surveyed.
b Heliostat area surveyed varied between annual surveys; only incidental mortalities were recorded after spring 2016. The proportion of mortalities at the tower are therefore not directly comparable with subsequent years. From 2017 to 2018 onwards, only percentages as a proportion of the tower mortalities are reported. c Entrapment.
d Including electrocuted, struck by vehicle and predated. e Calculated from raw data presented as a percentage of identified mortalities. This represents a minimum for these insectivores, as the large percentage of small unidentified birds could also be within this category.
Fig. 6. Differences in waterbird and small insectivore mortality records according to distribution of monitoring surveys. Over the last 9 years, there has been a shift towards recording less of the heliostat area for bird mortalities.
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 12 269
• The scale of land surface under solar panels is increasing rapidly.
This raises a question about the cumulative landscape impacts of solar facilities [110], and whether large numbers of dispersed, or smaller numbers of concentrated, facilities are likely to have the greatest impact? Understanding animal movements is required to address this question and maximise solar energy generation benefits while minimising negative effects on wildlife [19].
• Other indirect effects of solar facilities also need consideration. For example, water consumption as part of operations is an important consideration, especially for solar facilities sited in arid landscapes [19]. Additionally, any system that produces electricity and heat increases risk of wildfire [111].
• Finally, the decommissioning and recycling of solar panels at their end of life also needs to be accounted for in consideration of total environmental impact [112]. Solar panels have an average lifespan of 20–30 years [20]. They contain potential contaminants (e.g., for example lead, aluminium, arsenic, cadmium and copper, depending on the type of panel) that need appropriate disposal or recycling [62].
5. Conclusions
In this study, we describe five key mechanisms to explain attraction to or avoidance of solar facilities by insects, birds and bats (Table 5).
Habitat loss, fragmentation, and the disruption of animal movement is inevitably detrimental for fauna. However, other aspects of solar facilities can be attractive to some animals. For example, solar facilities may offer additional foraging and scavenging opportunities, while the presence of water (evaporation ponds) or the appearance of water (the ‘Lake Effect’) can mislead and lure animals to entrapment. While some of these opportunities are likely to be benign, other aspects have potentially lethal consequences for birds and bats, increasing risk of collision or burn injuries, as well as exposure to toxic chemicals. For such species, Fig. 7. Causes of mortality identified at Ivanpah CSP over 9 years of monitoring. Over time, there has been a move away from monitoring the heliostats (percentages under x-axis).
Table 5
Summary of the five broad mechanisms to explain attraction or avoidance of solar facilities by insects, birds and bats, and the potential ecological costs associated with each of these mechanisms. Example references supporting these points are indicated.
Potential mechanisms: Costs:
1. Lost, altered, and novel habitat • Loss and fragmentation of habitat [9,15,19,45] • Barrier effect of solar panels and fencing [3,15,16]
• Microhabitat changes [48]
• Altered temperature (‘Heat Island Effect, or ‘Cool Island Effect’) and soil moisture [49–52]
• Modified soil microbiome [51,53] and plant growth [9,51–56] • Creation of novel habitats alter behaviour e.g., perching and nesting sites, reflective surfaces [12,16,34]
• Loss of habitat and population connectivity
• Increased risk of collision and injuries [3,28]
• Increased risk of entrapment [3]
2. Evaporation ponds • Attracts waterbirds [19,20,65] • Entrapment and drowning [3,16,34] • Exposure to toxic chemicals [63–65]
3. Increased foraging opportunities • Plant growth, flowering, and seed set can increase insect activity [8,9, 32]
• Insect presence attracts insectivores [3,68]
• Carcasses can attract scavengers [3,18,33,57,58]
• Altered food webs and altered species
communities [11,13,16,33]
• Increased risk of collision and injuries [3,28]
• Increased predation risk [3,33]
4. Concentrated solar energy • Attracts insects [3,67] and insectivores feeding on these insects [3,68] • Burn risk for animals flying through the solar flux [3,28]
• Glint and glare blinding [7,34]
• Increased risk of collision and injuries [3,28]
5. Solar panels represent large expanses of
smooth, flat surfaces
• Solar panels polarise light [14] and mimic water surfaces ‘Lake Effect’ [3,14]
• Attract diurnal aquatic insects [68,69,76]
• Waterbirds alter flight paths [14]
• Bats may attempt to drink [85]
• Reflective surfaces can elicit aggressive behavioural responses [7] • Clutter confuses echolocating bats [36,37]
• Increased risk of collision and injuries [14,86]
• Stranding [3,59,82]
• Diversion from flight paths [14]
• Wasted reproductive effort [68,69,76]
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 13 270
solar facilities can therefore act as environmental traps.
While mortality rates of birds at solar power plants have been substantial, this needs to be considered in context of other threats. Climate change is taking a significant toll on long-term survival of wildlife – e.g. through megafires and hurricanes; harmful algal outbreaks; habitat loss; and the spread of disease, pests, and invasive species [5] – and as such, there are dire costs to wildlife of not making the transition to sustainable energy sources. Deaths recorded at solar facilities have also been reported to be significantly lower compared to other anthropogenic landscapes and objects such as highways, buildings, or traditional energy sources [4,31,82]. For example, Walston Jr et al. [4] compared published mortality data for three solar facilities against other anthropogenic causes of avian mortality, and concluded that estimated annual avian mortality at solar facilities was far less than predicted from wind energy, fossil fuel power plants, communication towers, roadway vehicles, or bird strike at buildings and windows. Even the loss of habitat due to solar facilities has been identified as secondary to other anthropogenic changes, such as urbanisation [113], and the biodiversity costs of solar facilities need to be balanced out with the benefits of switching from fossil fuel to solar power generation.
However, despite these comparisons, it is still important to be cognisant that not all species are affected by solar facilities in the same way, and we need to monitor impacts appropriately to determine such effects.
Smallwood [7] makes a strong case for the need to account for bias in mortality estimates (e.g., carcass disappearance due to decomposition or removal by scavengers), and here I present data showing that the methods and location of monitoring also influences the interpretation of potential impacts (see Section 3.3, Fig. 7). We also need to understand the ecological and conservation significance of mortality impacts, which depends on quantifying implications of mortality on populations (i.e., size and trends) and life-history traits (e.g., pace of life and reproductive strategy) for threatened species [21]. For example, a recent study found that of 23 priority species colliding at wind and solar facilities, 11 (48 %) were vulnerable to population-level effects [114], especially non-local, nocturnal migrant species.
There is an urgent need to understand how ground-mounted solar farms affect biodiversity, as the exponential growth of this renewable energy source is resulting in large-scale land-use conversion throughout the world. At the end of 2023, an estimated 37,900 km2 of the earth’s surface was covered by solar facilities, which are likely to be killing an estimated total 17.3 million birds per annum. The vast expanses of solar panels as part of utility-scale solar facilities are a new type of anthropogenically transformed landscape. Understanding the potential risks to wildlife will help planning to ensure that we do not mitigate greenhouse gas at an avoidable cost to biodiversity conservation.
Credit author statement
Conceptualisation PAF; Data curation PAF; Investigation PAF; Roles/ Writing PAF.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Patricia A. Fleming reports financial support and article publishing charges were provided by Murdoch University. Patricia A. Fleming reports a relationship with Fortescue Ltd that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants.
Acknowledgements
Murdoch University for salary and meeting publishing charges.
Damien Cancilla, Lazaro Roque-albelo and Todd Edwards (Fortescue Ltd.) for comments and financial support.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] Maka AOM, Ghalut T, Elsaye E. The pathway toward decarbonisation and netzero emissions by 2050: the role of solar energy technology. Green Technologies and Sustainability 2024;2:100107.
[2] Hernandez RR, Easter S, Murphy-Mariscal ML, Maestre FT, Tavassoli M, Allen EB, et al. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 2014;29:766–79.
[3] Kagan RA, Viner TC, Trail PW, Espinoza EO. Avian mortality at solar energy facilities in southern California: a preliminary analysis. National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory 2014;28:1–28.
[4] Walston Jr LJ, Rollins KE, LaGory KE, Smith KP, Meyers SA. A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States. Renew Energy 2016;92:405–14.
[5] Brennan B, Murphy J, DeGennaro D. A guide to responsible development of wind and solar resources on public lands and waters. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation; 2023.
[6] Energy Institute. Statistical review of World Energy Data. 2024. https://www. energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads. [7] Smallwood KS. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. J Wildl Manag 2022; 86:e22216.
[8] Montag H, Parker G, Clarkson T. The effects of solar farms on local biodiversity: a comparative study. Clarkson and Woods and Wychwood Biodiversity. 2016. [9] Graham M, Ates S, Melathopoulos AP, Moldenke AR, DeBano SJ, Best LR, Higgins CW. Partial shading by solar panels delays bloom, increases floral abundance during the late-season for pollinators in a dryland, agrivoltaic ecosystem. Sci Rep 2021;11:1–13.
[10] DeVault TL, Seamans TW, Schmidt JA, Belant JL, Blackwell BF, Mooers N, et al.
Bird use of solar photovoltaic installations at US airports: implications for aviation safety. Landsc Urban Plann 2014;122:122–8.
[11] Copping JP, Waite CE, Balmford A, Bradbury RB, Field RH, Morris I, Finch T.
Solar farm management influences breeding bird responses in an arabledominated landscape. Bird Study 2025:1–6. [12] Golawski A, Mitrus C, Jankowiak Ł. Increased bird diversity around small-scale solar energy plants in agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2025;379:
109361.
[13] Szabadi KL, Kurali A, Rahman NAA, Froidevaux JSP, Tinsley E, Jones G, et al. The use of solar farms by bats in mosaic landscapes: implications for conservation.
Global Ecology and Conservation 2023;44:e02481.
[14] Diehl R, Robertson B, Kosciuch K. Investigating the “Lake Effect” influence on avian behavior from California’s utility-scale photovoltaic solar facilities. Energy research and development Division. California Energy Commission; 2024. Final Project Report.
[15] Kaplan G. Human-caused high direct mortality in birds: Unsustainable trends and ameliorative actions. Animals 2024;15:73.
[16] Visser E, Perold V, Ralston-Paton S, Cardenal AC, Ryan PG. Assessing the impacts of a utility-scale photovoltaic solar energy facility on birds in the Northern Cape, South Africa. Renew Energy 2019;133:1285–94.
[17] Jarˇcuˇska B, G´alffyov´a M, Schnürmacher R, Bala´ˇz M, Miˇsík M, Repel M, et al. Solar parks can enhance bird diversity in agricultural landscape. J Environ Manag 2024;351:119902.
[18] Karban CC, Lovich JE, Grodsky SM, Munson SM. Predicting the effects of solar energy development on plants and wildlife in the Desert Southwest, United States.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2024;205:114823.
[19] Lovich JE, Ennen JR. Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the desert southwest, United States. Bioscience 2011;61:982–92. [20] Anderson CM, Hopkins AP, Anderson JT. Assessing the impact of solar farms on waterbirds: a literature review of ecological interactions and habitat alterations.
Conservation 2025;5:4.
[21] Gomez-Catasús J, Morales MB, Giralt D, del Portillo DG, Manzano-Rubio R, Sol ´ ´eBujalance L, et al. Solar photovoltaic energy development and biodiversity conservation: current knowledge and research gaps. Conserv Lett 2024;17:
e13025.
[22] Rudman J, Gauch´e P, Esler KJ. Direct environmental impacts of solar power in two arid biomes: an initial investigation. South Afr J Sci 2017;113:1–13. [23] World Bank Group. World - photovoltaic power potential (PVOUT) GIS data.
Global Solar Atlas) 2024. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/ 0038641.
[24] Global Energy Monitor. Global solar power tracker, global energy monitor and TransitionZero. February 2025 release. 2025. https://globalenergymonitor.or g/projects/global-solar-power-tracker/download-data/.
[25] Lilliestam J, Ollier L, Labordena M, Pfenninger S, Thonig R. The near-to mid-term outlook for concentrating solar power: mostly cloudy, chance of sun. Energy Sources B Energy Econ Plann 2021;16:23–41.
[26] Roser M. Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?. 2020. Published online at OurWorldinDataorg Retrieved from: https://ourworldindataorg/cheap-renewabl es-growth [Online Resource]. Global Change Data Lab, UK: Our World in Data. [27] IEA. Solar PV; latest findings. International Energy Agency (IEA); 2020. [28] McCrary MD, McKernan RL, Schreiber RW, Wagner WD, Sciarrotta TC. Avian mortality at a solar energy power plant. J Field Ornithol 1986;57:135–41.
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 14 271
[29] Bechtel. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System. California, USA. Reston, Verginia, USA: Bechtel Corporation; 2024.
[30] Harvey HT, Associates. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan 2013-2014 Annual Report (Revised). Fresno. 2015. California:
Report Number TN#204258, 07-AFC-05C.
[31] Ho CK. Review of avian mortality studies at concentrating solar power plants. In:
AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing; 2016.
[32] Blaydes H, Potts SG, Whyatt JD, Armstrong A. Opportunities to enhance pollinator biodiversity in solar parks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;145:
111065.
[33] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan.
June. Nipton, California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2016. 2014-2015 Annual Report and Two Year Comparison. Prepared for Solar Partners I, II, and vol. III.
[34] Jeal C, Perold V, Ralston-Paton S, Ryan PG. Impacts of a concentrated solar power trough facility on birds and other wildlife in South Africa. Ostrich 2019;90:
129–37.
[35] Kitazawa M, Yamaura Y, Senzaki M, Kawamura K, Hanioka M, Nakamura F. An evaluation of five agricultural habitat types for openland birds: abandoned farmland can have comparative values to undisturbed wetland. Ornithol Sci 2019;18:3–16.
[36] Tinsley E, Froidevaux JSP, Zsebok S, Szabadi KL, Jones G. Renewable energies ˝ and biodiversity: impact of ground-mounted solar photovoltaic sites on bat activity. J Appl Ecol 2023;60:1752–62.
[37] Barr´e K, Baudouin A, Froidevaux JSP, Chartendrault V, Kerbiriou C. Insectivorous bats alter their flight and feeding behaviour at ground-mounted solar farms.
J Appl Ecol 2024;61:328–39.
[38] Valera F, Sˇalek M, Bolonio L, V ´ ´aclav R. Comment on “Solar parks can enhance bird diversity in agricultural landscape” by Jarˇcuˇska et al. J Environ Manag 2024; 366:121781.
[39] Smith JP, Lenihan CM, Zirpoli JA. Golden Eagle breeding response to utility-scale solar development and prolonged drought in California. J Raptor Res 2020;54:
154–65.
[40] Zaplata MK, Dullau S. Applying ecological succession theory to birds in solar parks: an approach to address protection and planning. Land 2022;11:718. [41] Tsafack N, Fang W, Wang X, Xie Y, Wang X, Fattorini S. Influence of grazing and solar panel installation on tenebrionid beetles (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae) of a central Asian steppe. J Environ Manag 2022;320:115791.
[42] Suuronen A, Munoz-Escobar C, Lensu A, Kuitunen M, Guajardo Celis N, ˜ Espinoza Astudillo P, et al. The influence of solar power plants on microclimatic conditions and the biotic community in Chilean desert environments. Environ Manag 2017;60:630–42.
[43] Wikipedia. List of photovoltaic power stations Wikimedia Foundation. Inc.; 2025. a non-profit organization.
[44] Gaughan R. How much land is needed for wind turbines?. 2022. [45] Saul-Gershenz L, Kimsey L, Williams NM, Zavortink T, Thorp R, Davis CA, et al.
Characterization of the impact on native bees from utility scale solar development in the desert (BLM Grant 2015-2016). 2018.
[46] Tinsley E, Froidevaux JSP, Jones G. The location of solar farms within England’s ecological landscape: implications for biodiversity conservation. J Environ Manag 2024;372:123372.
[47] Valera F, Bolonio L, La Calle A, Moreno E. Deployment of solar energy at the expense of conservation sensitive areas precludes its classification as an environmentally sustainable activity. Land 2022;11:2330. [48] Wynne-Sison T, Devitt DA, Smith SD. Ecovoltaics: maintaining native plants and wash connectivity inside a Mojave Desert solar facility leads to favorable growing conditions. Land 2023;12:1950.
[49] Barron-Gafford GA, Minor RL, Allen NA, Cronin AD, Brooks AE, PavaoZuckerman MA. The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: larger solar power plants increase local temperatures. Sci Rep 2016;6:35070.
[50] Guoqing L, Hernandez RR, Blackburn GA, Davies G, Hunt M, Whyatt JD, Armstrong A. Ground-mounted photovoltaic solar parks promote land surface cool islands in arid ecosystems. Renew Sustain Energy Transit 2021;1:100008. [51] Lambert Q, Bischoff A, Gros R. Effects of habitat restoration and solar panels on soil properties and functions in solar parks. Appl Soil Ecol 2024;203:105614. [52] Martin JC. Ecosystem enriching and efficient solar energy facilities: exploring the effects of pollinator-friendly solar facilities on ecological function and solar panel efficiency [MSc]. The College of William and Mary; 2022. [53] Adeh EH, Selker JS, Higgins CW. Remarkable agrivoltaic influence on soil moisture, micrometeorology and water-use efficiency. PLoS One 2018;13:
e0203256.
[54] Uldrijan D, Cerný M, Winkler J. Solar park: opportunity or threat for vegetation ˇ and ecosystem. Journal of Ecological Engineering 2022;23:1–10. [55] Tanner K, Moore K, Pavlik B. Measuring impacts of solar development on desert plants. Fremontia 2014;42:15–6.
[56] Tanner KE, Moore-O’Leary KA, Parker IM, Pavlik BM, Hernandez RR. Simulated solar panels create altered microhabitats in desert landforms. Ecosphere 2020;11:
e03089.
[57] Cypher BL, Boroski BB, Burton RK, Meade DE, Phillips SE, Leitner P, et al.
Photovoltaic solar farms in California: can we have renewable electricity and our species, too. California Fish and Wildlife 2021;107:231–48. [58] Visser E. The impact of South Africa’s largest photovoltaic solar energy facility on birds in the Northern Cape, South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town; 2016.
[59] Kosciuch K, Riser-Espinoza D, Moqtaderi C, Erickson W. Aquatic habitat bird occurrences at photovoltaic solar energy development in Southern California, USA. Diversity 2021;13:524.
[60] Riker S. Wildlife-friendly solar energy in the Mojave desert. Case study by the conservation and Adaptation resources Toolbox (CART). 2019. [61] Vargas-Bernal R. Nanocoatings for energy generation and conservation of solar cells. Sustainable approach to protective nanocoatings. IGI Global 2024:88–112. [62] Tammaro M, Salluzzo A, Rimauro J, Schiavo S, Manzo S. Experimental investigation to evaluate the potential environmental hazards of photovoltaic panels. J Hazard Mater 2016;306:395–405.
[63] Herbst DB. Salinity controls on trophic interactions among invertebrates and algae of solar evaporation ponds in the Mojave Desert and relation to shorebird foraging and selenium risk. Wetlands 2006;26:475–85.
[64] Tan LC, Nancharaiah YV, van Hullebusch ED, Lens PNL. Selenium: environmental significance, pollution, and biological treatment technologies. Biotechnol Adv 2016;34:886–907.
[65] Spallholz JE, Hoffman DJ. Selenium toxicity: cause and effects in aquatic birds.
Aquat Toxicol 2002;57:27–37.
[66] Nemtzov SC, Olsvig-Whittaker L. The use of netting over fishponds as a hazard to waterbirds. Waterbirds 2003;26:416–23.
[67] Diehl RH, Valdez EW, Preston TM, Wellik MJ, Cryan PM. Evaluating the effectiveness of wildlife detection and observation technologies at a solar power tower facility. PLoS One 2016;11:e0158115.
[68] Horvath G, Kriska G, Malik P, Robertson B. Polarized light pollution: a new kind ´ of ecological photopollution. Front Ecol Environ 2009;7:317–25. [69] Horvath G, Blah ´ o M, Egri ´ A, Kriska G, Seres I, Robertson B. Reducing the ´ maladaptive attractiveness of solar panels to polarotactic insects. Conserv Biol 2010;24:1644–53.
[70] Jenkins AR, Ralston-Paton S, Smit-Robinson HA. Birds and solar energy best practice guidelines; Best Practice Guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of solar energy facilities on birds in southern Africa. South Africa: BirdLife South Africa2015.
[71] Ho CK, Sims CA, Yellowhair J, Wendelin T. Tools to address glare and avian flux hazards from solar energy systems. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA: Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM); 2018.
[72] Mostafa MF, Aleem SHEA, Zobaa AF. Risk assessment and possible mitigation solutions for using solar photovoltaic at airports. 2016 eighteenth international middle east power systems conference (MEPCON). IEEE; 2016. p. 81–8. [73] Sreenath S, Sudhakar K, Yusop AF, Cuce E, Solomin E. Analysis of solar PV glare in airport environment: potential solutions. Results Eng 2020;5:100079. [74] Wang H, Guo L, Soares L. Energy Harvesting on New Jersey roadways. New Jersey: Department of Transportation. Bureau of Research; 2023. [75] Wehner R. Polarization vision–a uniform sensory capacity? J Exp Biol 2001;204:
2589–96.
[76] Kriska G, Malik P, Sziv´ak I, Horv´ath G. Glass buildings on river banks as “polarized light traps” for mass-swarming polarotactic caddis flies.
Naturwissenschaften 2008;95:461–7.
[77] Upton J. Solar farms threaten birds. Sci. Am. 2014;27:717–46. [78] Åkesson S. Polarization vision in birds. In: Horvath G, editor. Polarization vision ´ and environmental polarized light. Springer Series in vision research. third ed.
Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 299–306.
[79] Bernath B, Szedenics G, Moln ´ ´ar G, Kriska G, Horvath G. Visual ecological impact ´ of a peculiar waste oil lake on the avifauna: dual-choice field experiments with water-seeking birds using huge shiny black and white plastic sheets. Arch Nat Conserv Landsc Res 2001;40:1–28.
[80] Able KP. Skylight polarization patterns and the orientation of migratory birds.
J Exp Biol 1989;141:241–56.
[81] Tak´acs P, Szaz D, Bern ´ ath B, Pomozi I, Horv ´ ath G. Polarized light pollution of ´ fixed-tilt photovoltaic solar panels measured by drone-polarimetry and its visualecological importance. Remote Sens 2024;16:1177. [82] Kosciuch K, Riser-Espinoza D, Gerringer M, Erickson W. A summary of bird mortality at photovoltaic utility scale solar facilities in the Southwestern US. PLoS One 2020;15:e0232034.
[83] Greif S, Siemers BM. Innate recognition of water bodies in echolocating bats. Nat Commun 2010;1:107.
[84] Russo D, Cistrone L, Jones G. Sensory ecology of water detection by bats: a field experiment. PLoS One 2012;7:e48144.
[85] Horvath G. Polarization Sensitivity and insensitivity in bats. In: Horv ´ ´ath G, editor.
Polarization vision and environmental polarized light. Springer Series in vision research. third ed. Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 307–12. [86] Kuczek AB. Avian attractiveness to vertically polarized light. Annandale-onHudson. New York: Bard College Senior Projects Spring Thesis; 2021. p. 205. [87] Hager SB, Craig ME. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season.
PeerJ 2014;2:e460.
[88] Kahle LQ, Flannery ME, Dumbacher JP. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS One 2016;11:e0144600.
[89] Greif S, Zsebok S, Schmieder D, Siemers BM. Acoustic mirrors as sensory traps for ˝ bats. Science 2017;357:1045–7.
[90] Ingeme Y, Bush A, Lumsden L, van Harten E, Bourne S, Reardon T. Hit or miss could mean life or death for juvenile southern bent-wing bats. Australasian Bat Society 2018;50:59.
[91] Salata F, Dell’Olmo J, Ciancio V. Agri-voltaics near airport facilities. Reconciling the risk of solar glare with power generation. Sol Energy 2024;275:112653. [92] Kandt A, Romero R. Siting solar photovoltaics at airports. Solar 2014. San Francisco, California: National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL); 2014.
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 15 272
[93] Szaz D, Mih ´ alyi D, Farkas A, Egri ´ A, Barta A, Kriska G, et al. Polarized light ´ pollution of matte solar panels: anti-reflective photovoltaics reduce polarized light pollution but benefit only some aquatic insects. J Insect Conserv 2016;20:
663–75.
[94] Shanmugam N, Pugazhendhi R, Madurai Elavarasan R, Kasiviswanathan P, Das N.
Anti-reflective coating materials: a holistic review from PV perspective. Energies 2020;13:2631.
[95] Horv´ath G. Polarized light pollution and ecological/evolutionary traps Induced by it for polarotactic aquatic insects. In: Horvath G, editor. Polarization vision ´ and environmental polarized light. Springer Series in vision research. third ed.
Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 477–560.
[96] Black TV, Robertson BA. How to disguise evolutionary traps created by solar panels. J Insect Conserv 2020;24:241–7.
[97] Abdul Rahman NA, Firtha G, Szabadi KL, Jones G, Zsebok S. Mitigating the ˝ deceptive effects of smooth surfaces: subtle surface modifications can eliminate maladaptive drinking attempts by bats. Anim Conserv 2024;27:788–801. [98] Abmmp Ivanpah. Avian & bat monitoring and management plan. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Revision 2020;14.
[99] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2015-2016 annual report. Prepared for solar partners I, II, and VIII. July. . Nipton.
California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2017. [100] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2016-2017 annual report. Prepared for solar Partners I, II, and VIII. January.
Nipton, California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2018. [101] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating S. Ystem avian & bat monitoring plan.
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2019. 2017-2018 Annual Report.
Prepared for Solar Partners I, II, and VIII. January Nipton, California. [102] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2018-2019 annual report. Prepared for solar Partners I, II, and VIII. Nipton.
California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2020. [103] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2019-2020 annual report. Prepared for solar Partners I, II, and VIII. Cheyenne.
Woyoming: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2021. [104] WEST. Ivanpah solar electric generating system avian & bat monitoring plan. 2020–2021 annual report. Year 8. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Western EcoSystems Technology Inc.; 2022.
[105] WEST. Ivanpah solar electric generating system avian & bat monitoring plan. 2020-2021 annual report. Year 8. Prepared for Solar Partners I, II, and VIII.
Cheyenne, Wyoming: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2023. [106] Gruppi C, Sanzenbacher P, Balekjian K, Hagar R, Hagen S, Rayne C, et al. Genetic identification of avian samples recovered from solar energy installations. PLoS One 2023;18:e0289949.
[107] Hamed TA, Alshare A. Environmental impact of solar and wind energy-a review.
Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems 2022;10:1–23.
[108] Horton KG, Nilsson C, Van Doren BM, La Sorte FA, Dokter AM, Farnsworth A.
Bright lights in the big cities: migratory birds’ exposure to artificial light. Front Ecol Environ 2019;17:209–14.
[109] Dacke M, Nilsson D-E, Scholtz CH, Byrne M, Warrant EJ. Insect orientation to polarized moonlight. Nature 2003;424:33.
[110] Moore-O’Leary KA, Hernandez RR, Johnston DS, Abella SR, Tanner KE, Swanson AC, et al. Sustainability of utility-scale solar energy–critical ecological concepts. Front Ecol Environ 2017;15:385–94.
[111] Vaverkov´a MD, Winkler J, Uldrijan D, Ogrodnik P, Vespalcov´a T, AleksiejukGawron J, et al. Fire hazard associated with different types of photovoltaic power plants: effect of vegetation management. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;162:
112491.
[112] Toussaint DC. Chiropteran specialist report for phase 3 of the proposed soventixsolar Africa solar PV facility. Hanover, Northern Cape. 2022. [113] McCoshum SM, Geber MA. Land conversion for solar facilities and urban sprawl in southwest deserts causes different amounts of habitat loss for Ashmeadiella bees. J Kans Entomol Soc 2020;92:468–78.
[114] Conkling TJ, Vander Zanden HB, Allison TD, Diffendorfer JE, Dietsch TV, Duerr AE, et al. Vulnerability of avian populations to renewable energy production. R Soc Open Sci 2022;9:211558.
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 16 273
Main Office Phone:
310 - 798-2400
Direct Dial:
310-798-2412
Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
700 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
www.cbcearthlaw.com
Michelle N. Black
Email Address:
[email protected]
February 6, 2026
Via Email [email protected]
Mr. Shaun Temple
Planning Manager
City of Seal Beach
Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
City Council of City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Re: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Agenda Item H, City Council Agenda of February 9, 2026
Supplement to Comments of September 14, 2025
Dear Mr. Temple and Honorable Members of the City Council, The Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT) has advocated for the protection and restoration of Los Cerritos Wetlands for over twenty years. LCWLT continues this advocacy by renewing its concerns with the Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project (Project), last discussed by the Council in December 2025. In short, although LCWLT appreciates that the City may consider reducing the size of the Project, these potential changes will not eliminate or fully mitigate the Project’s potential environmental impacts raised in our comments of September 19, 2025. We hereby incorporate these comments by reference. They are attached as Exhibit 1.
Even if reduced, the Project will adversely impact biological resources, especially birds that mistake reflecting solar panels for water, subject recreational users of the area to glint/glare, and affect a known tribal cultural landscape. LCWLT supports the use of renewable solar energy where it is appropriate and environmentally friendly. A project sited within the wetland complex and within a tribal cultural landscape does not meet these criteria. Accordingly, LCWLT respectfully requests that the Council reject this City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Supplemental Comments
February 6, 2026
Project, and any reduced-size alternative, unless harm to the wetlands and its sensitive inhabitants can be eliminated.
LCWLT has attempted to review the new Project information posted by the City on February 4 and to respond by the City’s deadline of 5 p.m. on February 6. However, given the sheer volume of pages posted, the short timeline, and the fact that the City’s website was inaccessible on February 6, LCWLT reserves the right to supplement its comments prior to the conclusion of the Project’s public hearing scheduled for February 9, as permitted by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Given this, the City Council should also provide additional time for the public to comment and withhold its decision on the mitigated negative declaration (MND) and Project for at least one week.
The proposed reduction to the Project would eliminate one array, reducing the number of solar panels from 3,100 to 2,028. However, the system would still require concrete foundations and hundreds of 18-inch-diameter piers to be drilled 6 feet into the ground. A transformer pad will be required, as will the excavation of hundreds of feet of underground trenches. Construction would require “removal of the vegetative cover” and all organic matter “from the limits of the construction area.” (MND p. 12.) Even if reduced, Project construction will require significant disruption of a sensitive location.
Moreover, the purpose of the solar installation is not to provide green power for offsite use, but to “reduce the overall operating cost” of the oil facilities. (Staff Report, p. 2.) The California Legislature enacted CEQA to ensure environmental protection through governmental transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) CEQA requires full disclosure of a project’s significant environmental effects so that decision-makers and the public are informed of these consequences before the project is approved, to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) When substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant impact on the environment, an environmental impact report is required. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Under the CEQA Guidelines, “‘Substantial evidence’ means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (Guidelines § 15384(a), emphasis added; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 905.) LCWLT continues to believe the Project crosses this threshold.
The fair argument standard is a “low threshold” test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.3d 68, 84.) Review is de novo, with a “preference for City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Supplemental Comments
February 6, 2026
resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Architectural Heritage Assn. v.
County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1110; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602-1603.) The MND continues to inadequately disclose and analyze the Project’s potential environmental effects. As there is substantial evidence of a fair argument the Project may have significant impacts on biological resources, glint and glare, and tribal cultural resources, an EIR is required.
I. The Project, Even if Reduced, May Have Significant Impacts on Biological Resources.
The Project site consists of 4.66 acres in the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility, east of the San Gabriel River and north of Pacific Coast Highway.
The Project site is within and surrounded by Los Cerritos Wetlands. The solar facility would be constructed immediately north of 100 acres owned by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority, east of an additional 71 acres of wetlands owned by the Authority, south of 43 acres zoned open space-natural that serve as a County of Orange retention basin, and west of the Hellman Ranch Trail. (MND p. 2.) Both the Project site and surrounding lands contain sensitive habitats hosting special-status species. These species include, but are not limited to, southern tarplant, Least Bell’s Vireo, Belding’s Savannah Sparrow, and the Western Burrowing Owl. As solar panels often resemble water bodies from the air, and as the Project will require clearing the site of vegetation, the Project’s potential impacts on these birds and on rare plant species must be thoroughly evaluated and carefully mitigated.
A. The MND’s Biological Resources Surveys are Outdated.
The Response to our September 2025 letter asserts that the wetland delineation relied upon by the MND is not outdated because such delineations are valid for five years, “provided the site conditions haven’t changed. There have been no significant changes to the site area since the delineation.” (Response p. 1.) While less than five years has elapsed, site conditions have not remained the same since August 2022 and March 2023. As described in our previous letter, aerial imagery from 2024 indicated substantial ponding and flooding.
The Response further claims that botanical and Least Bell’s Vireo surveys did not need to be current because the Project includes mitigation for impacts to Southern Tarplant, Coulter’s goldfield, and the Least Bell’s Vireo. (Response p. 1.) However, mitigation is different from avoidance. The Project should be designed to avoid City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Supplemental Comments
February 6, 2026
populations of rare plants altogether. Outdated surveys prevent this from occurring.
Mitigation through replanting or transplantation is far less effective, often results in extirpation of rare species from a site, and is disfavored by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife when avoidance is possible.
The Response fails to explain how reliance on outdated surveys for the Least Bell’s Vireo permits informed decision-making about the Project’s impacts on a listed endangered species. Least Bell’s Vireo populations and nesting locations fluctuate annually. It does not. An EIR should be prepared that includes missing 2025 breeding season surveys.
B. The Project Site Contains Wetlands Not Disclosed in the MND.
During the record rainy seasons of the winters of 2022-23 and 2023-24, many depressional wetlands across Los Cerritos Wetlands held water for upwards of 6 months, allowing wetland indicators to present themselves. However, the MND’s jurisdictional wetlands assessment includes four photos taken in August 2022. The photos predate these record rains and do not accurately capture current site conditions. On the contrary, aerial imagery from February 2024 indicates substantial ponding and flooding of the Project area, which should be analyzed in the Technical Report and MND. Thus, substantial evidence demonstrates the area has recently been wetland, a fact not disclosed in the MND. Any wetlands designations or potential ramifications of the Project to wetlands or wetland-dependent species must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR.
City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Supplemental Comments
February 6, 2026
Figure 1. Aerial imagery from February 2024 with areas of flooded outlined in red.
The Response claims that the plant community onsite does not indicate wetlands, but these statements appear to be based on the 2022 assessment of the site. (Response p.
1.) The Response later claims that the ponding mentioned in our September comments was addressed in the Wetland Delineation Report, but our comments included the above 2024 photo. The Response never claims to have assessed the plant communities present after the 2023-2024 rainy season.
Southern California’s wetlands are notoriously ephemeral. The environmental review cannot ignore that the site’s hydrological fluctuations.
C. Least Bell’s Vireo Both Forage and Nest Near the Project Site.
LCWLT has performed surveys of the Least Bell’s Vireo population in the Heron Pointe Bioswale, nearly adjacent to the Project site, for the last 5 breeding seasons.
Individuals of this endangered species have been observed nesting, each year, within 100 feet of the project boundary and have also been observed foraging within the area the MND discloses would be subject to permanent Project impact. The MND acknowledges that 96-decibel noise is expected at the Heron Pointe Bioswale. Foraging habitat for Least Bell’s Vireo is protected by state and federal law. Impacts to this species could be considered a “take,” and warrant a mandatory finding of significant impact under CEQA.
City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Supplemental Comments
February 6, 2026
An EIR must be prepared to thoroughly disclose, analyze, and mitigate impacts to Least Bell’s Vireo.
The Response asserts that the Project will not affect Least Bell’s Vireo nesting due to limits on construction during the nesting season. However, the Project’s construction may also affect Least Bell’s Vireo behaviors beyond nesting. Foraging habitat does exist on and near the Project site, and disturbance of Vireo foraging through either construction or operation of the Project remains “take” under the Acts.
D. An EIR Must Evaluate Fuel Modification and Type Conversion Impacts.
Without support, the Response asserts that the fuel modification zones discussed in the IS/MND are required by the Orange County Fire Authority and part of the baseline.
However, even if true, the IS/MND does not address whether these fuel modification zones must be expanded if the Project is constructed.
Any fuel modification zones overlapping with the locations of special status plant populations require a coastal development permit. In order to ensure fuel modification occurs within a comprehensive plan, and that all fuel modification impacts are considered cumulatively, we renew our request for the incorporation of a mitigation measure requiring preparation of a permitted plan that covers all fuel modification practices throughout the property.
“Distichlis spicata – annual grasses” is a vegetation type that overlaps with fuel modification areas. Removal of this vegetation promotes invasion of annual grasses, causing “type conversion,” a significant impact on biological resources that is not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated in the MND.
City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Supplemental Comments
February 6, 2026
Figure 2. Aerial imagery from September 2025 indicating recent mowing of the Distichlis spicata - annual grasses herbaceous alliance.
E. The Project’s Mitigation Measures Fail to Ensure Project Impacts Will Be Reduced Below Significance.
LCWLT thanks the City for removing “To the extent feasible” from the language of BIO-2. (Response p. 3.)
The Project should incorporate a mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction jurisdictional wetland assessment be performed during the wet season most proximal to future construction.
The Project should also incorporate a mitigation measure requiring preconstruction surveys for Least Bell’s Vireo and consultations with both the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. While the Staff Report indicates this has occurred, we cannot independently confirm these conditions given the current technical difficulties with the City’s website.
LCWLT continues to believe that Project mitigation fails to eliminate the potential for significant impacts to listed plant and wildlife species and that an EIR is required.
II. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate Glint and Glare Impacts.
A. The Project, Even if Reduced, May Cause Glare to Recreational Trail Users and the Tribal Gathering Area.
The LCWA-owned Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project is located immediately south of the Project site. The restoration project – scheduled to begin construction in October 2025 – will contain a 6-foot earthen perimeter berm on its northern boundary. This berm will separate the Hellman property from the LCWA parcel.
As discussed above, the MND assumes implementation of that berm to justify its conclusion that flooding impacts from sea level rise will not occur. (MND p. 51.) Accordingly, implementation of said berm – and all its functions – should be incorporated throughout the analysis, including that of glare. We appreciate that the City looked into glare in an attempt to respond to our comments. However, we disagree with the conclusion that 18 minutes of sunrise glare from April to August (Response p. 4) is necessarily insignificant. Recreational walkers, cyclists, and other users are especially active at sunrise between April and August when days are longer. The same goes for recreational birders. The Project’s likely significant glare impacts should be analyzed in an EIR.
City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Supplemental Comments
February 6, 2026
As the perimeter berm/trail are irregularly shaped, and the selected observation points are located on portions of the future trail where the recreational user is walking east/west (parallel to the panels), we request an EIR with analysis of OP on the northsouth portions of the trail where the user is looking directly at the panels along that trail stretch as they otherwise enjoy their walk of the restored wetlands.
The Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project will include two public outlooks and one tribal gathering area on its southern boundary. It is unclear if the Response addresses these locations. An EIR glare analysis should analyze potential glare impacts to the public and to tribes who will use these outlooks and tribal gathering area.
The Response also fails to clear up the confusion about MND Table 3-1, which identifies OP1-8 and OP26 as “no glare with existing vegetation screening” whereas the other OPs are described as “no glare with or without existing vegetation screening.” We request the revised analysis include a “without vegetation” scenario for OP1-8 and OP26.
B. The MND Fails to Adequately Consider Glint and Glare Impacts on Birds, Which May Mistake the Panels for Water in Los Cerritos Wetlands.
The Response to our September letter confirms LCWLT’s concern that birds may mistake solar panels as water, increasing the likelihood of injury and mortality. (Response pp. 5-6.) LCWLT previously noted that solar arrays reflect light that, at certain angles, makes the panels appear to birds as bodies of water. This “lake effect,” can injure or kill birds that try to land in these nonexistent bodies of water. If affected birds include listed species known to inhabit Los Cerritos Wetlands, including state and federally-listed birds, the Project may “take” birds under the Acts. (Attachment 2, pp. 9-10.) Solar facilities may also interfere with songbird migrations for species relying on polarized light for orientation. (Attachment 2, p. 10.) A review of studies of solar facilities reported:
By the time a bird may realise the panels are not water, it may be too late for the bird to stop its dive from the sky and fly away. Birds that collide with the panels are also likely to be disoriented or injured and more vulnerable to predation.
As well as increasing the direct risk of collision and injuries, diversion off flight paths will increase depletion of energy reserves, potentially stranding animals and leading to mortality from starvation.
Obstruction from panels and fencing can also hinder birds from taking-off. For example, water-obligate birds that require water for take-off (ensu) – including loons (Gaviiformes), grebes (Podici-pediformes), cormorants (Suliformes), coots (Gruiformes) and some ducks (Anseriformes; e.g., Ruddy duck Oxyura City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Supplemental Comments
February 6, 2026
jamaicensis) – and those that use water for some aspect of their life history (e.g., family Chara- driidae) are amongst the mortalities at solar facilities. Stranding of these birds would contribute to the disproportionate number of waterbirds represented amongst the cases where starvation has been identified as cause of death.
(September 19, 2025 letter, Attachment 2, p. 10.) Given the presence of a large wetland complex surrounding the Project, and the higher prevalence of birds in the area, the Project’s location near water may exacerbate the Project’s potential harm to avian species. The potential Project size reduction will not mitigate these impacts.
In August, the City’s Environmental Quality Committee recommended that the Project be required to track, report, and mitigate adverse impacts to birds. It further recommended that the Project be required to terminate when oil operations end onsite.
We renew the Committee’s reasonable requests here. The Staff Report indicates these conditions have been incorporated into the Project. LCWLT is unable to confirm this incorporation at this time and asserts that these conditions must be concrete and enforceable. We further request that the one-year term for bird monitoring be extended beyond one year.
An EIR must be prepared to disclose, analyze, and fully mitigate these potentially significant undisclosed impacts on biological resources. Any mitigation must include conditions requiring the tracking and reporting of harm to birds at the Project.
III. The MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts on Tribal Cultural Landscapes.
The Project’s Cultural Resources assessment fails to recognize the Traditional Cultural Landscape that has been identified for this area in previously-approved environmental documents. The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority’s 2021 Program EIR and the 2024 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project both indicate that consultations with local tribal groups identified a Traditional Cultural Landscape throughout the current extent of the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex. The potential for this Traditional Cultural Landscape was first described by consultations performed by Coastal Commission staff regarding the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project. The LCWA’s 2023 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Cogstone, 2023) includes an evaluation of what is called the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PTCL). This evaluation determined that “The PTCL meets the criteria of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and has City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Supplemental Comments
February 6, 2026
sufficient integrity to justify being regarded as eligible for the Register. The area is recommended eligible for the National Register as a Traditional Cultural Property. Since it is recommended for the National Register, it is automatically recommended as eligible for the CRHR.” (Attachment 2.)
The proposed project’s assessment of Tribal Cultural Resources makes no mention of the PTCL and therefore does not consider potential impacts or offer mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any such impacts. Impacts generated by the proposed Project to this Traditional Cultural Landscape would be considered significant and unavoidable based on the LCWA’s previous CEQA determinations in the area.
We note that the Response states the Project completed AB 52 consultation and proposed a modification to the Project to satisfy tribal representatives. (Response p. 7.) Given that tribal representatives objected to the Project in December 2025, we await confirmation that affected tribal interests are satisfied with the potentially-reduced Project.
Conclusion
LCWLT again thanks the City for its consideration this solar project, sited within the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex in an area inhabited by endangered species. If action must be taken on February 9, we urge you to please reject this Project, even at the reduced size proposed just this week, until it has been fully vetted through preparation of an environmental impact report, or unless conditioned to ensure the protection of wetland species and habitats.
Sincerely,
Michelle Black
Enclosures
1. September 19, 2025 Comment Letter of Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust, with attachments
a. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, Cogstone (2023).
b. P.A. Fleming, All that Glitters: Review of solar energy impacts on fauna, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2025).
Special status species (rare, threatend or imperiled)
occurring in the Los Cerritos Wetlands include:
Belding’s Savannah sparrow,
California least tern,
Western snowy plover,
Least Bell’s vireo
and others.
Agenda Item B
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 9, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager
FROM: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Approval of the City Council Minutes
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on January 26, 2026.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
This section does not apply.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no environmental impact related to this item.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
No legal analysis is required for this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact for this item.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on January 26, 2026.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Gloria D. Harper Patrick Gallegos
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Brandon DeCriscio, Deputy City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Minutes - Closed Session, January 26, 2026
B. Minutes - Regular Session, January 26, 2026
Seal Beach, California
January 26, 2026
The City Council met in Closed Session at 5:15 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Landau
Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele
Absent: None
City Staff: Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Patrick Gallegos, City Manager
Barbara Arenado, Finance Director/ City Treasurer
Iris Lee, Director of Public Works
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: None. Mayor Landau closed oral communications.
CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Government Code §54957(b) Title: City Manager
B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Government Code §54957.6 City Negotiator(s) City Manager
Employee Organization(s)
Police Management Association
C. POTENTIAL THREAT TO PUBLIC SERVICES
Government Code Section 54957
Consultation with: Kevin Edwards, Information Technology Manager D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) – One (1) case involving the receipt of a claim under the Government Claims Act from Asad Holdings LLC DBA OrangeBlue General Contractors. A copy of the claim is available for inspection in the City Clerk’s office.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Landau adjourned the Closed Session meeting at 6:58 p.m.
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
Approved:
Lisa Landau, Mayor
Attested:
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Seal Beach, California
January 26, 2026
The City Council met in Regular Session at 7:04 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Council Member Kalmick led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Landau
Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele
Absent: None
City Staff: Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Patrick Gallegos, City Manager
Michael Henderson, Police Chief
Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance
Craig Covey, Orange County Fire Authority Division 1 Chief Iris Lee, Director of Public Works
Shaun Temple, Interim Director of Community Development Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Nick Nicholas, Police Captain
Mike Ezroj, Police Captain
Kathryne Cho, Deputy Director of Public Works
Sean Low, Deputy Director of Public Works
Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager
Michael Peterman, Human Resources Manager
Deb Machen, Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Jennifer Robles, Management Analyst
Lauren Barich, Management Analyst
PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS
• International Holocaust Remembrance Day – January 27, 2026 • 51st Annual Americana Awards Presentation
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: Timothy Kirkconnell, Catherine Showalter, Scott Newton, Lars Thorn, Ken Seiff, Jon Janecek, Theresa Miller, Chad Berlinghieri, and Kori De Leon addressed the City Council. Mayor Landau closed oral communications.
Nine (9) supplemental communications were received after the posting of the agenda; they were distributed to the City Council and made available to the public.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND
ORDINANCES
Council Member Senecal pulled items D and F for separate consideration.
Mayor Landau pulled item G for separate consideration.
Mayor Pro Tem Wong moved, second by Council Member Senecal, to approve the agenda.
AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
City Attorney Ghirelli reported that the City Council met in Closed Session regarding the four (4) items on the posted agenda. All five (5) Council Members were present, and no reportable action was taken.
City Attorney Ghirelli noted that the City Council provided direction to staff on Item D of the closed session.
Additionally, City Attorney Ghirelli noted that in response to Mr. Seiff’s email, he reached out to Long Beach’s City Attorney as a reminder that work cannot begin on the Hayne’s Generating Station Recycled Water Pipeline Project until a franchise agreement has been reached between the two cities.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager Gallegos reported his attendance at the Leisure World Working Group meeting.
Additionally, he announced that there will be members of city staff at the Chamber of Commerce Networking Open House on Wednesday, January 28, 2026.
Finally, he introduced Human Resources Manager Michael Peterman to the City Council and members of the public.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council Member Steele reported his attendance at the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control Board meeting, The Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACC-OC) Board Installation, the West Orange County Water Board meeting, and the Leisure World Working Group meeting.
Council Member Kalmick reported his attendance at the Watershed Conservation Authority meeting, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) meeting, the Lower Los Angeles and San Gabirel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy meeting, the Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACC-OC) Board Installation, and the Orange County – Council of Governments (OC-COG) meeting.
Additionally, Council Member Kalmick announced that phase 1 of the LCWA Restoration Project is underway. He noted that the first stage involves building a berm and the moving of soil with large excavators.
Council Member Senecal reported her attendance at the Pawfect Moments & Threads Ribbon Cutting Ceremony, and the League of California Cities meeting. She noted that she was appointed to serve on the Environmental Quality Committee for the League of California Cities.
Mayor Pro Tem Wong reported his recent trip to Washington D.C., with the Orange County Coalition and Supervisor Ngyuen. He noted that discussions were held with Washington D.C. Legislators about sand replenishment, the Seal Beach Lifeguard Headquarters and Police Substation, the McGaugh Swimming Pool, and Leisure World Covid-19 Vaccine Distribution Reimbursement.
Mayor Landau reported her attendance at the Bay Theater Harbour Chronicles showing.
COUNCIL ITEMS
There were no Council Items.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Steele moved, second by Mayor Pro Tem Wong to approve the recommended actions on the consent calendar with the exception of Items D, F, and G.
A. Approval of the City Council Minutes - That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on January 12, 2026.
B. Demand on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2026) – Ratification.
C. Monthly Investment Report (January 26, 2026) - Receive and file.
D. Report of City Manager and Department Heads Authorized Contracts - That the City Council receive and file the report.
E. Applications for Grant Funds for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Orange County Community Resources and Orange County Housing and Community Development Public Facilities and Improvements Grant - 1. That the City Council adopt Resolution 7725: a) Approving the application for grant funds related to the Orange County Housing and Community Development Public Facilities and Improvements grant program to apply Phase 2 upgrades to the North Seal Beach Community Center, and to accept any funds awarded through the program; and, b) Directing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to apply for, accept, receive, and utilize the grant funding to participate in the grant program, including incorporation in the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year proposed Annual Budget. 2. That the City Council adopt Resolution 7726: a) Approving the application for grant funds related to the Orange County Housing and Community Development Public Facilities and Improvements grant program to apply upgrades to the Seal Beach Senior Citizens Center, and to accept any funds awarded through the program; and, b) Directing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to apply for, accept, receive, and utilize the grant funding to participate in the grant program, including incorporation in the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year proposed Annual Budget.
F. Awarding and Authorizing Execution of Public Works Agreement with KYA Services, LLC for the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Court Resurfacing and LED Lighting Upgrades, CIP PR2501 - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7727: 1. Approving the scope of work, plans, specifications and other contract documents for the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Court Resurfacing and LED Lighting Upgrades, CIP PR2501 (Project); and, 2. Approving and awarding a Public Works Agreement to KYA Services, LLC in the not-to-exceed amount of $419,914.81 for the Project; and, 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Works Agreement with KYA Services, LLC for the Project; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager to approve additional work requests up to a $42,085.19 (approximately 10%) and inspection services up to $8,000.00 in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to-exceed amount of $50,085.19.
G. Approving and Authorizing Purchasing for the Replacement of City Vehicles - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7728: 1. Authorizing the purchase of four (4) replacement vehicles for the City's fleet from National Auto Fleet Group pursuant to the cooperative purchase contract with Sourcewell, Master Vehicle Contract #091521-NAF, for a not-to-exceed total cost of $237,131.63, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $61,616.52; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $61,616.52; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $59,977.60; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $53,920.99; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve purchase orders and any necessary related documents for the vehicle purchases; and, 3.
Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve payments, purchase orders and necessary related documents on behalf of the City to Hi-Standard Automotive, LLC, for vehicle upfitting work for the above-referenced four (4) vehicles pursuant to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.20.025(B) in the not-to-exceed amount of $75,459.54, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $18,268.24; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $18,268.23; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $26,484.20; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $12,438.87; and, 4. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-07-01 in the amount of $19,375.00; and, 5. Authorizing the City Manager to surplus existing vehicles upon the completion of the new vehicle and equipment purchases and upfitting.
H. Consideration of a Resolution of the Seal Beach City Council to find that the Adopted Housing Element is Consistent with State Housing Laws - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7729 to find that the Seal Beach Zoning Code is consistent with government code section 65583.2, subdivisions (c), (h), and (i) in meeting affordability requirements for non-discretionary review in which housing developments with 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households; and finding that the adopted Housing Element is consistent with government code section 65583.2 subdivision (g)(2) in making the required findings that substantial evidence was provided that the existing uses of nonvacant opportunity sites are not impediments to the City meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
I. Determination of Exemption from Public Bidding and Approving and Authorizing Professional Services Agreements with Costangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete and Cybereason for Legal and Forensic Cybersecurity Services, Respectively - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7730: 1. Declaring that Professional Services Agreements with Costangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete and Cybereason for legal and forensic cybersecurity services are necessary for the preservation of the property of the City per City Charter Section 1010, and Seal Beach Municipal Code Chapter 3.25, and finding that the Agreements are therefore exempt from bidding requirements; and, 2. Ratifying the City Manager’s execution of the Professional Services Agreements with Costangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, and Cybereason; and, 3. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-07-02 in the amount of $85,000.
The vote below is for the Consent Calendar Items with the exception of Items D, F, and G.
AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
D. Report of City Manager and Department Heads Authorized Contracts - That the City Council receive and file the report.
City Manager Gallegos called upon Council Member Senecal.
Council Member Senecal’s questions and concerns were addressed by Director of Finance Arenado, and Director of Public Works Lee.
Council Member Senecal moved, second by Mayor Pro Tem Wong to receive and file the report.
AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
F. Awarding and Authorizing Execution of Public Works Agreement with KYA Services, LLC for the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Court Resurfacing and LED Lighting Upgrades, CIP PR2501 - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7727: 1. Approving the scope of work, plans, specifications and other contract documents for the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Court Resurfacing and LED Lighting Upgrades, CIP PR2501 (Project); and, 2. Approving and awarding a Public Works Agreement to KYA Services, LLC in the not-to-exceed amount of $419,914.81 for the Project; and, 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Works Agreement with KYA Services, LLC for the Project; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager to approve additional work requests up to a $42,085.19 (approximately 10%) and inspection services up to $8,000.00 in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to-exceed amount of $50,085.19.
Mayor Landau called upon Council Member Senecal.
Council Member Senecal suggested continuing the item to a future meeting.
City Manager Gallegos recommended having staff provide an overview of the staff report.
Deputy Director of Public Works Cho provided an overview of the staff report.
A discussion ensued between Council Member Steele, Deputy Director of Public Works Cho, Public Works Director Lee, Council Member Kalmick, KYA Services, LLC, Sales Director Richard Contreras, KYA Services, LLC Territory Manager Deanna Rey, KYA Services, LLC Consultant Steve Newton, Mayor Landau, Mayor Pro Tem Wong, Council Member Senecal, and Recreation Manager Kelsey.
Council Member Senecal moved, second by Mayor Landau, to continue the item to a future meeting.
AYES: Senecal, Landau
NOES: Kalmick, Wong, Steele
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion failed
Council Member Kalmick moved, second by Council Member Steele to adopt Resolution 7727: 1. Approving the scope of work, plans, specifications and other contract documents for the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Court Resurfacing and LED Lighting Upgrades, CIP PR2501 (Project); and, 2. Approving and awarding a Public Works Agreement to KYA Services, LLC in the not-to-exceed amount of $419,914.81 for the Project; and, 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Works Agreement with KYA Services, LLC for the Project; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager to approve additional work requests up to a $42,085.19 (approximately 10%) and inspection services up to $8,000.00 in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to-exceed amount of $50,085.19.
AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Steele
NOES: Senecal, Landau
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
G. Approving and Authorizing Purchasing for the Replacement of City Vehicles - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7728: 1. Authorizing the purchase of four (4) replacement vehicles for the City's fleet from National Auto Fleet Group pursuant to the cooperative purchase contract with Sourcewell, Master Vehicle Contract #091521-NAF, for a not-to-exceed total cost of $237,131.63, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $61,616.52; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $61,616.52; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $59,977.60; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $53,920.99; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve purchase orders and any necessary related documents for the vehicle purchases; and, 3.
Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve payments, purchase orders and necessary related documents on behalf of the City to Hi-Standard Automotive, LLC, for vehicle upfitting work for the above-referenced four (4) vehicles pursuant to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.20.025(B) in the not-to-exceed amount of $75,459.54, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $18,268.24; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $18,268.23; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $26,484.20; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $12,438.87; and, 4. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-07-01 in the amount of $19,375.00; and, 5. Authorizing the City Manager to surplus existing vehicles upon the completion of the new vehicle and equipment purchases and upfitting.
Mayor Landau called upon City Manager Gallegos.
City Manager Gallegos called upon Director of Public Works Lee who called upon Deputy Director of Public Works Low to provide an overview of the staff report.
A discussion ensued between Deputy Director of Public Works Low, Mayor Landau, Council Member Senecal, Director of Public Works Lee, and Council Member Steele.
Mayor Pro Tem Wong moved, second by Council Member Kalmick to adopt Resolution 7728: 1. Authorizing the purchase of four (4) replacement vehicles for the City's fleet from National Auto Fleet Group pursuant to the cooperative purchase contract with Sourcewell, Master Vehicle Contract #091521-NAF, for a not-to-exceed total cost of $237,131.63, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $61,616.52; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $61,616.52; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $59,977.60; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $53,920.99; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve purchase orders and any necessary related documents for the vehicle purchases; and, 3.
Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve payments, purchase orders and necessary related documents on behalf of the City to Hi-Standard Automotive, LLC, for vehicle upfitting work for the above-referenced four (4) vehicles pursuant to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.20.025(B) in the not-to-exceed amount of $75,459.54, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $18,268.24; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $18,268.23; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $26,484.20; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $12,438.87; and, 4. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-07-01 in the amount of $19,375.00; and, 5. Authorizing the City Manager to surplus existing vehicles upon the completion of the new vehicle and equipment purchases and upfitting.
AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING
There were no Public Hearing items.
UNFINISHED/CONTINUED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished/continued business.
NEW BUSINESS
J. Receive and File the November 8, 2025, Strategic Planning Session Report - That the City Council receive and file the report.
Mayor Landau called upon City Manager Gallegos.
City Manager Gallegos called upon Management Analyst Barich.
Management Analyst Barich provided an overview of the staff report.
A discussion ensued between Council Member Senecal, Interim Director of Community Development Temple, City Manager Gallegos, Mayor Landau, Council Member Kalmick, Council Member Kalmick and City Attorney Ghirelli.
Mayor Landau moved, second by Mayor Pro Tem Wong to receive and file the report.
AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
K. Establishment of a Citizen-Council Olympics Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7731: 1. Establishing a Citizen-Council Olympics Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee; and, 2. Approving the formation of the Committee, to be comprised of (2) council members and five (5) at-large community stakeholders, with one stakeholder nominated by each council member, for a total of (7) committee members; and, 3. Requiring committee members to be stakeholders in the Seal Beach community and possess knowledge, education, or experience in event planning, multi-sport events, or community outreach, with experience related to previous Olympic Games preferred, or other expertise that will support the Committee’s purpose related to the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics; and, 4. All committee members are expected to actively participate by attending all meetings, engaging in focused discussions, reviewing and analyzing relevant materials, and providing recommendations to support the Committee’s objectives; and, 5.
Establishing the priorities for the Committee; and, 6. Establishing that the Olympics Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meet monthly, with meeting frequency subject to adjustment as deemed necessary by the Committee and based on the availability of staff and committee members; and, 7. Directing the City Manager or his designee(s) to provide staff support to the Committee; and, 8. Directing the City Clerk to post the Notice of Vacancy for the Committee and open the application process.
City Manager Gallegos called upon Recreation Manager Kelsey.
A discussion ensued between Council Member Senecal, Recreation Manager Kelsey, Mayor Landau, Mayor Pro Tem Wong, City Manager Gallegos, and City Attorney Ghirelli.
Council Member Senecal recommended having 10 community members on the Committee.
Recreation Manager Kelsey and City Manager Gallegos recommended having an odd number of community members.
Lastly, City Manager Gallegos suggested up to 10 community members.
Council Member Senecal moved, second by Council Member Steele that the City Council adopt Resolution 7731: 1. Establishing a Citizen-Council Olympics Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee; and, 2. Approving the formation of the Committee, to be comprised of (2) Council Members and up to ten at-large community stakeholders, with two (2) stakeholders nominated by each Council Member, for a total of twelve Committee Members; and, 3. Requiring committee members to be stakeholders in the Seal Beach community and possess knowledge, education, or experience in event planning, multisport events, or community outreach, with experience related to previous Olympic Games preferred, or other expertise that will support the Committee’s purpose related to the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics; and, 4. All committee members are expected to actively participate by attending all meetings, engaging in focused discussions, reviewing and analyzing relevant materials, and providing recommendations to support the Committee’s objectives; and, 5. Establishing the priorities for the Committee; and, 6. Establishing that the Olympics Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meet monthly, with meeting frequency subject to adjustment as deemed necessary by the Committee and based on the availability of staff and committee members; and, 7. Directing the City Manager or his designee(s) to provide staff support to the Committee; and, 8. Directing the City Clerk to post the Notice of Vacancy for the Committee and open the application process.
AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
L. Establishment of a Citizen-Council Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7732: 1. Establishing a Citizen-Council Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee; and, 2. Approving the formation of the Committee, to be comprised of two (2) council members and three (3) at-large community stakeholders, with one stakeholder nominated by each council member not serving on the committee for a total of five (5) committee members; and, 3.
Requiring committee members to be stakeholders in the Seal Beach community and should possess knowledge, education or experience in economic development, business support, commercial revitalization, or related fields that align with the Committee’s purpose in supporting economic development initiatives within Seal Beach; and, 4. All committee members are expected to actively participate by attending all meetings, engaging in focused discussions, reviewing and analyzing relevant materials, and providing recommendations to support the Committee’s objectives; and, 5. Establishing that the Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meet monthly, with meeting frequency subject to adjustment as deemed necessary by the Committee and based on the availability of staff and committee members; and, 6. Directing the City Manager or his designee(s) to provide staff support to the Committee; and, 7. Directing the City Clerk to post a Notice of Vacancy for the Committee and open the application process.
City Manager Gallegos called upon Management Analyst Robles.
Management Analyst Robles provided an overview of the staff report.
Council Member Senecal noted that she believed the committee was too small.
Mayor Pro Tem Wong voiced his disapproval of having a larger committee.
A discussion ensued between Mayor Landau, City Manager Gallegos, Council Member Kalmick, Council Member Senecal, City Attorney Ghirelli, Council Member Steele, Interim Director of Community Development Temple, and Mayor Pro Tem Wong.
Council Member Kalmick moved, second by Mayor Pro Tem Wong to adopt Resolution 7732: 1. Establishing a Citizen-Council Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee; and,
2. Approving the formation of the Committee, to be comprised of two (2) council members and three (3) at-large community stakeholders, with one stakeholder nominated by each council member not serving on the committee for a total of five (5) committee members; and, 3. Requiring committee members to be stakeholders in the Seal Beach community and should possess knowledge, education or experience in economic development, business support, commercial revitalization, or related fields that align with the Committee’s purpose in supporting economic development initiatives within Seal Beach; and, 4. All committee members are expected to actively participate by attending all meetings, engaging in focused discussions, reviewing and analyzing relevant materials, and providing recommendations to support the Committee’s objectives; and, 5.
Establishing that the Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meet monthly, with meeting frequency subject to adjustment as deemed necessary by the Committee and based on the availability of staff and committee members; and, 6. Directing the City Manager or his designee(s) to provide staff support to the Committee; and, 7. Directing the City Clerk to post a Notice of Vacancy for the Committee and open the application process.
No vote was taken or required as the substitute motion below passed 4-1-0-0.
Mayor Landau made a substitute motion, second by Council Member Steele to adopt revised Resolution 7732: 1. Establishing a Citizen-Council Business First Advisory AdHoc Committee; and, 2. Approving the formation of the Committee, to be comprised of two (2) council members and five (5) at-large community stakeholders, with one stakeholder nominated by each council member for a total of up to seven (7) committee members; and, 3. Requiring committee members to be stakeholders in the Seal Beach community and should possess knowledge, education or experience in economic development, business support, commercial revitalization, or related fields that align with the Committee’s purpose in supporting economic development initiatives within Seal Beach; and, 4. All committee members are expected to actively participate by attending all meetings, engaging in focused discussions, reviewing and analyzing relevant materials, and providing recommendations to support the Committee’s objectives; and,
5. Establishing that the Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meet monthly, with meeting frequency subject to adjustment as deemed necessary by the Committee and based on the availability of staff and committee members; and, 6. Directing the City Manager or his designee(s) to provide staff support to the Committee; and, 7. Directing the City Clerk to post a Notice of Vacancy for the Committee and open the application process.
AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Landau
NOES: Wong
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
M. Fiscal Year 2025-26 First Quarter Budget Update - That the City Council receive and file the Fiscal Year 2025-26 First Quarter Budget update.
Mayor Landau called upon Director of Finance Arenado.
Director of Finance Arenado provided an in-depth presentation regarding the Fiscal Year 2025-26 First Quarter Budget Update.
A discussion ensued between Council Member Kalmick and Director of Finance Arenado.
Mayor Pro Tem Wong moved, second by Council Member Kalmick to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2025-26 First Quarter Budget update.
AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Landau
NOES: Wong
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Landau adjourned the City Council at 10:11 p.m. to Monday, February 9, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary. __________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
Approved:___________________________
Lisa Landau, Mayor
Attested:____________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Agenda Item D
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 9, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager
FROM: Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/ City Treasurer SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach Annual Audit Reports for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council receive and file the following documents for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2025:
A. Audit Communication Letter
B. 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
C. Appropriations Limit Final Report
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
The audit firm, The Pun Group Accountants & Advisors (Pun Group), has completed the annual audit of the City for the Fiscal Year (FY) ending June 30, 2025. The audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatements.
In the opinion of the auditors, the financial statements fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position of the City on June 30, 2025. The 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) is included as Attachment B for information and use. The ACFR will be submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association to be considered for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The City has won the award for 23 consecutive years.
The purpose of the Audit Communication Letter (Attachment A) is to provide a mechanism for communication with the governing body, highlighting significant issues that may arise during the audit process. As indicated, the City’s financial statements were clearly presented.
The purpose of the Appropriations Limit Final Report (Attachment C) is to attest the calculation was performed using the correct methodology and was correctly calculated based upon the information provided.
On January 27, 2026, Sophia Kuo, from the Pun Group, gave a presentation to the City Council Audit Committee, and the item was thoroughly reviewed and discussed. Among the attendees were City Manager Gallegos, Director of Finance Arenado, Finance Manager Hoang, Mayor Pro Tem Wong, Council Member Steele, and Sophia Kuo from the Pun Group.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, because it is not defined as a “project” under CEQA.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
No legal analysis is required for this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact for this item.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council receive and file the following documents for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2025:
A. Audit Communication Letter
B. 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
C. Appropriations Limit Final Report
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
Barbara Arenado Patrick Gallegos
Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/
City Treasurer
Patrick Gallegos, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Audit Communication Letter
B. 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
C. Appropriations Limit Final Report
6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1200
Santa Ana, California 92707
December 18, 2025
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Seal Beach (the “City”) for the year ended June 30, 2025.
Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated June 2, 2025 Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.
Significant Audit Findings
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the basic financial statements. As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, the City implemented the following accounting standards:
New Accounting Standards:
GASB Statement No. 101 – In June 2022, the GASB issued Statement No. 101, Compensated Absences. The objective of this Statement is to better meet the information needs of financial statement users by updating the recognition and measurement guidance for compensated absences. That objective is achieved by aligning the recognition and measurement guidance under a unified model and by amending certain previously required disclosures. The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2023, and all reporting periods thereafter. Implementation of this Statement resulted in a restatement of the beginning fund balance as of July 1, 2024, as disclosed in Note 15 to the Basic Financial Statements.
GASB Statement No. 102 – In December 2023, the GASB issued Statement No. 102, Certain Risk Disclosures. The objective of this Statement is to provide users of government financial statements with information about risks related to a government’s vulnerabilities due to certain concentrations or constraints that is essential to their analyses for making decisions or assessing accountability. The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2024, and all reporting periods thereafter. The City has evaluated its exposure to financial risk stemming from concentrations and constraints. The City has not identified any risks requiring disclosure in the financial statements.
No other new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during 2025.
We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the City’s financial statements were:
• Management’s estimate of the investment fair market value is based on information provided by U.S. Bank, the custodial of the investments in the U.S. treasury securities, U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities, asset-backed securities, municipal bonds, corporate notes, negotiable certificates of deposit and bank notes based on institutional bond quotes and certificate of deposit pricing. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the investment fair market value in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
• Management’s estimate of the depreciation and amortization on capital assets is based on the industry standard and past experience on actual useful life of the asset groups. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the depreciation on capital assets in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. • Management’s estimate of the net other postemployment benefits (“OPEB”) liability is based on the actuarial valuation on total OPEB liability and financial statements on fiduciary net position. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the OPEB liability in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. • Management’s estimate of the net pension liabilities is based on the actuarial valuation on proportionate share of total pension liability and based on audited financial statements on fiduciary net position for CalPERS plans. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the net pension liability in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements were:
• Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
• Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans
• Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan • Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies
• Note 14 – Individual Fund Disclosure
• Note 15 – Restatements
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Management has corrected all such misstatements. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a whole.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report.
We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated December 18, 2025.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”), the Budgetary Comparison Schedules, the Schedule of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios, the Schedule of the Contributions – Pensions, the Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios, and the Schedule of Contributions – Other Postemployment Benefits, which are required supplementary information (the “RSI”) that supplement the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
We were engaged to report on the Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
We were not engaged to report on the Introductory and the Statistical Sections, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the City and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
Santa Ana, California
"//6"-$0.13&)&/4*7& '*/"/$*"-3&1035
%¸ìË~£èDzǰDzǴɱDzǰDzǵ
City of Seal Beach
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Prepared by the Finance Department
Barbara Arenado
Director of Finance/City Treasurer
City of Seal Beach
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTORY SECTION (UNAUDITED)
Letter of Transmittal ................................................................................................................................................. i Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting – Government Finance Officers Association ....................................................................................................... iv Organizational Chart ................................................................................................................................................ v Principal Officials of the City of Seal Beach .......................................................................................................... vi
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor’s Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements ............................................................... 1 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Required Supplementary Information) (Unaudited) ........................... 5 Basic Financial Statements:
Government–Wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position ................................................................................................................................ 18 Statement of Activities .................................................................................................................................... 20 Fund Financial Statements:
Governmental Fund Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet ............................................................................................................................................ 27 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
to the Government–Wide Statement of Net Position ......................................................................... 28 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances .................................................... 29 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government–Wide Statement of Activities ............................ 30 Proprietary Fund Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position ......................................................................................................................... 32 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position ............................................................. 35 Statement of Cash Flows ........................................................................................................................... 36 Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements:
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ......................................................................................................... 41 Statement of Change in Fiduciary Net Position ........................................................................................ 42 Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ................................................................................. 45 Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ...................................................................................................... 47 City of Seal Beach
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued)
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited):
Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund ........................................................................................................ 91 Notes to the Budgetary Comparison Schedule ............................................................................................................. 93 Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios ...................................... 94 Schedule of Contributions – Pensions .......................................................................................................................... 96 Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios ........................................ 98 Schedule of Contributions – Other Postemployment Benefits ................................................................................... 100 Supplementary Information:
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund ................................................................................. 105 Nonmajor Governmental Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet ............................................................................................................................. 108 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances ..................................... 113 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual Street Lighting Special Revenue Fund .................................................................................................... 118 Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund ........................................................................ 119 Detention Center Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................ 120 Police Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................... 121 Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................... 122 Park Improvement Special Revenue Fund .............................................................................................. 123 Traffic Impact Special Revenue Fund..................................................................................................... 124 State Gasoline Tax Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................. 125 Measure M2 Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................................... 126 Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund .............................................................. 127 Police Grants Special Revenue Fund ...................................................................................................... 128 Landscape District Special Revenue Fund .............................................................................................. 129 Heron Pointe Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................................... 130 Pacific Gateway Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................. 131 Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................... 132 SB1 Special Revenue Fund ..................................................................................................................... 133 Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................. 134 City Debt Service Fund ........................................................................................................................... 135 Internal Service Fund Financial Statements:
Combining Statement of Net Position ........................................................................................................... 139 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Net Position ................................................ 140 Combining Statement of Cash Flows ............................................................................................................ 141 Custodial Fund Financial Statements:
Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ........................................................................................... 145 Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position ........................................................................ 146 City of Seal Beach
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
STATISTICAL SECTION (Unaudited)
Net Position by Component ........................................................................................................................................ 150 Changes in Net Position ............................................................................................................................................. 152 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ...................................................................................................................... 156 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ................................................................................................... 158 Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property ............................................................................ 160 Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates ............................................................................................................... 161 Principal Property Taxpayers ..................................................................................................................................... 162 Property Tax Levies and Collections .......................................................................................................................... 163 Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type .......................................................................................................................... 164 Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding ............................................................................................................. 166 Schedule of Direct and Overlapping Debt .................................................................................................................. 167 Legal Debt Margin Information.................................................................................................................................. 168 Pledged-Revenue Coverage ........................................................................................................................................ 170 Demographic and Economic Statistics ....................................................................................................................... 171 Top 25 Sales Tax Producers ....................................................................................................................................... 172 Full-Time and Part-Time City Employees by Function ............................................................................................. 173 Operating Indicators by Function ............................................................................................................................... 174 Capital Asset Statistics by Function ........................................................................................................................... 176 This page intentionally left blank.
i
December 18, 2025
Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and Citizens of the City of Seal Beach:
City of Seal Beach staff is pleased to submit for your information the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) of the City of Seal Beach (City) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. Responsibility for both the accuracy of presented data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation including all disclosures rests with the City. In our opinion, the data is accurate in all material aspects, is presented in a manner designed to fairly set forth the financial position and results of operations of the City and contains all disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the City’s financial affairs.
The financial statements are prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) as promulgated by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). This report consists of management’s representations concerning the finances of the City. Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all the information presented in this report. To provide a reasonable basis for making these presentations, management of the City has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed to protect the City’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse, and to compile reliable information for the preparation of this report in conformity with GAAP. As management, we assert to the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects within the reasonable assurance of the internal control framework.
The City’s financial statements have been audited by The Pun Group, a public accounting firm fully licensed and qualified to perform audits of the state and local governments within the State of California. The audit was designed to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the basic financial statements are free of material misstatement. The independent auditor concluded, based on the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an unmodified opinion that the City of Seal Beach’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025, are fairly presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The independent auditor’s report is presented as the first component of the financial section of this report.
GAAP requires that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statement in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with that section. The City’s MD&A is immediately following the report of the independent auditors in the financial section of the ACFR.
PROFILE OF THE CITY
In 1904 J.C. Ord, a Civil War veteran, hired a 30–mule team to bring his small general store building from Los Alamitos to Bay City, where he set it down at the southwest corner of what is now known as Main Street and Electric Avenue.
J.C. Ord was one of five trustees voted into office in October 1915, the second Mayor, Postmaster, and the first Judge. His store on Main Street was the Post Office and Court House and the Jail House when it was necessary.
On October 27, 1915, the City was incorporated and governed by an elected five-member council. The new City had an area of 1.25 square miles with a population of 250. Bay City was renamed Seal Beach in August 1913 as part of a marketing re-branding by the Guy M. Rush Realty Company.
Another area of Seal Beach, Surfside Colony, was founded in 1929 and is credited as the one of the first beach resort communities of its type on the West Coast, following Santa Monica, Malibu Colony and Anaheim Landing. ii
In early 1944 during World War II, the Navy purchased most of the land around Anaheim Landing to construct the United States Navy's Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWS SB) for loading, unloading, and storing of ammunition for the Pacific Fleet. Today, NWS SB is the Navy’s primary West Coast ordnance storage, loading, and maintenance installation. Located entirely within NWS SB is the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in 1972 and protects habitat for threatened and endangered species.
Meanwhile Leisure World, a retirement community which comprises nearly a third of the city’s residents, opened in 1962. Construction of homes in the College Park East and West neighborhoods occurred in the early 1960s.
The City has an area of 13.23 square miles and sits on the coast as the gateway to Orange County between the cities of Long Beach and Huntington Beach and currently has a population of 24,350.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Local economy: Although the focus of this Annual Comprehensive Financial Report is the financial condition of the City at June 30, 2025, it may be best understood when it is considered from the broader perspective of the specific environment within which the City operates. The City has experienced a strong economic recovery after the challenging financial environment caused by the pandemic. As consumer demand increased and services returned to normal, the City ended the fiscal year in a positive position. Overall, the City’s General Fund revenue for the fiscal year increased by $1.2 million from the prior year. This increase is mostly due to tax increases.
Property tax is the City’s largest General Fund revenue source with revenues of $16.1 million, an increase of 4.3 percent over the prior fiscal year. Sales tax is the second largest General Fund revenue source with revenues of $12.4 million including transaction tax, an increase of 8.1 percent from the prior year. Additionally, Transient Occupancy Tax was $2.1 million, an increase of 6.9 percent from the previous year. The increase in Property Tax is due to the continued robust housing demographics in the City. The increase in Sales Tax, compared to the prior year, is primarily due to Measure GG which became effective the last quarter of 2025. In November 2024, Measure GG passed in Seal Beach with 68% voter approval, implementing a 0.5% increase in the local sales tax to support current essential City services.
Long-term financial planning: The City of Seal Beach continues to implement cost saving measures while providing the core services for our residents, businesses, visitors, and to protect all essential services that contribute to the high quality of life our residents expect. On a yearly basis, the City Council sets goals and priorities for the future. Each year the City develops a Five-Year Financial Outlook which is the guiding document for long-range fiscal planning and serves as the framework for development of the next adopted budget. The outlook is included in the budget process and incorporates a range of information on items that influence projected revenues and anticipated appropriation needs over the next five fiscal years. These projections inform the City Council and the public of the long-term costs of programs in the context of the City’s overall General Fund budget and projected revenue growth.
The City continues to be in good financial health due to its stable tax base, disciplined fiscal decisions, and strong governance. Conservative budgeting and sound financial policies have resulted in reserve levels that meet City Council policy. The City Council adopted policy seeks to maintain the reserve level between 20 to 25 percent of the General Fund adopted appropriations. The reserve may be used at the discretion of the City Council to provide resources during temporary decreases in revenues, in the event of an economic downturn while expenditure reductions are implemented, or to provide resources to meet emergency expenditures in the case of flood, fire, earthquake, landslides, or other natural disasters. At June 30, 2025, the reserve balance was $11.0 million or 22.3 percent of the final operating budget.
Major initiatives: The Strategic Plan goals are approved and/or affirmed by the City Council each year. Priorities included Organizational Efficiencies, Community Outreach and Capital Projects, Housing Element Updates, Local Coastal Plan, Fiscal Sustainability, Flooding, and Public Safety. Highlights of this year’s major initiatives reflect the City’s commitment to sustaining the community’s quality of life and fiscal health. Key accomplishments include enhancing public safety services through funding for emergency response and community policing, upgrading critical infrastructure such as streets and recreational facilities, and maintaining essential transportation programs like the senior shuttle and dial-a-ride program. The City also prioritized preserving beaches and neighborhoods, reducing the unfunded pension liability, and fostering community engagement. Notable achievements include the pier and street improvements, expanding recreation and community engagement, and revisions to the Housing Element. Despite fluctuating federal and economic conditions, the City remains fully operational, providing increased recreational programs, and continues to deliver essential services to the community. iii
FINANCIAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Internal control structure: Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure. Internal accounting controls are designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft, or misuse, and that adequate accounting data are compiled to allow for the preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance, that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of the control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived; and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits require estimates and judgment by management.
Budgetary controls: The annual budget serves as the foundation for the City of Seal Beach’s financial planning and control. The City Council adopts an annual budget and appropriates the funds necessary to provide the services and operations for the fiscal year. The City Manager may make appropriation transfers within and between departments which do not result in an increase in appropriations. The City of Seal Beach City Council must approve all appropriation changes that result in an increase in appropriations.
AWARDS
GFOA Award Program – Annual Comprehensive Financial Report The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Seal Beach for its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. This was the twenty-third consecutive year that the City has received this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. This report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements.
A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. City staff believe that our current Annual Comprehensive Financial Report continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program’s requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA again this year for award.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was made possible by the highly dedicated Finance staff with their dedicated efforts and teamwork, special thanks to the staff in the Finance Department. Sincere appreciation is also expressed to the City Council and City Manager for their interest and support, which made this presentation possible, and finally to the City’s auditing firm of The Pun Group for their professional assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Arenado
Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Government Finance Officers Association
Certificate of
Achievement
for Excellence
in Financial
Reporting
Presented to
City of Seal Beach
California
For its Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report
For the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2024
Executive Director/CEO
iv
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Administrative Control
Over All Departments
Agenda Preparation
City Representation in all Legal Matters Administrative Policies City Council Support
Computer Network Administration
Intergovernmental Relations
Special Studies/Projects
Policy Analysis
Risk Management
Financial Services/Reporting
Business Tax
Utility Billing/Cashiering Employee Benefits
Budget/Audit/Grants Classification/Compensation
Accounts Payable/Payroll
Debt Administration
Treasury/Investments
Successor Agency Administration
Engineering
Fleet Maintenance
Beach Maintenance
Water/Sewer Maintenance
Capital Projects
Planning Storm Drains
Building/Code Enforcement Building Maintenance
Development Review Street Maintenance
Community Development Block Grant Traffic and Transportation Land Use and Coastal Issues
General Plan and Code
Traffic/Patrol/Detective Services
Youth/Adult Class Activity Parking Control
Special Event Permitting Detention Center
Sports League/Events
Beach/Pool Safety
Jr. Lifeguard Program
Records Management
Election Management
COMMUNITY
PUBLIC WORKS
FY 2024-2025
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
CITIZENS OF SEAL BEACH
Orange County Fire Authority
Personnel Recruitment
MARINE SAFETY
FIRE SERVICES
CITY MANAGER
CITY ATTORNEY
HUMAN RESOURCES
COMMUNITY SERVICES
CITY CLERK
POLICE SERVICES
FINANCE
DEVELOPMENT
v
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
CALIFORNIA
Principal Officers
City Council
Lisa Landau, Mayor
Nathan Steele, Mayor Pro Tem
Joe Kalmick, Council Member
Patty Senecal, Council Member
Ben Wong, Council Member
Executive Officers
Patrick Gallegos, City Manager
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Administrative Personnel
Michael Henderson, Chief of Police
Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
Alexa Smittle, Director of Community Development/Assistant City Manager Iris Lee, Director of Public Works/Assistant City Manager Joe Bailey, Marine Safety Chief
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
vi
6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1200
Santa Ana, California 92707
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Seal Beach, California (the “City”), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the basic financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.
In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City, as of June 30, 2025, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAS”) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (“Government Auditing Standards”). Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
Other Matters
Change in Accounting Principle - Implementation of GASB 101 As discussed in Notes 1 and 15 to the basic financial statements, the City adopted new accounting guidance, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”) Statement No. 101, Compensated absences. The adoption of this standard resulted in the restatement of the City’s net position as of June 30, 2024. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Restatement due to Error Corrections
As discussed in the Note 15 to the basic financial statements, the City also recorded restatements due to error corrections in the governmental and business-type activities in the amounts of $2,622,626 and $2,652,594, respectively due to correction of capital assets. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
To the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
2 Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.
Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions.
Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.
In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards, we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements. conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control-related matters that we identified during the audit.
To the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
3 Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management’s Discussion and Analysis, the Budgetary Comparison Schedules, the Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios, the Schedules of Contributions – Pensions, the Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios, and the Schedule of Contributions – Other Postemployment Benefits be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the Required Supplementary Information in accordance with GAAS, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. The Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with GAAS. In our opinion, the Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
Other Information
Management is responsible for the other information included in the annual report. The other information comprises the Introductory and Statistical Sections but does not include the basic financial statements and our auditor’s report thereon. Our opinions on the basic financial statements do not cover the other information, and we do not express an opinion or any form of assurance thereon.
In connection with our audit of the basic financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and consider whether a material inconsistency exists between the other information and the basic financial statements, or the other information otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we conclude that an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information exists, we are required to describe it in our report.
To the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
4 Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 18, 2025 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Santa Ana, California
December 18, 2025
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
5 Management of the City of Seal Beach is pleased to offer this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, along with comparisons to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. All increases and decreases are expressed relative to fiscal year 2023-2024. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal and the City’s financial statements.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
• The City’s net position – the difference between its assets and deferred outflows of resources compared to its liabilities and deferred inflows of resources – was $150.6 million, an increase of $2.2 million or 1.5%. The net position of governmental activities increased by $1.8 million or 1.8%, while the net position of businesstype activities increased by $0.4 million or 0.9%. • The net position of $150.6 million consisted of $126.7 million of net investment in capital assets; $7.2 million of resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used; $2.9 million that may be used to meet the City’s obligations for its governmental activities; and $13.8 million to meet obligations for its business-type activities.
• Total revenues were $65.8 million and total expenses were $63.6 million. Revenues increased by $2.0 million or 3.2%, and expenses increased by $3.6 million or 6.0%. • As of the close of the fiscal year, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $48.4 million, representing an increase of $1.8 million or 3.8%. Of this amount, $17.5 million (the sum of assigned and unassigned fund balances) is available for spending at the City’s discretion. • At the end of the current fiscal year, unassigned fund balance in the General Fund was $11.9 million or
23.1% of total General Fund expenditures and transfers out. • The City’s Reserve Fund Policy aims to maintain a minimum balance in the Fiscal Policy Reserve equal to approximately three months’ worth of the City’s General Fund operating expenditures. As of June 30, 2025, the Committed-Fiscal Policy Reserve has a balance of $11.0 million, or 22.1% of General Fund expenditures (less transfers out related to capital projects). This percentage aligns with the City’s goals and is in accordance with the recommendation of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA).
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
This discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the City’s basic financial statements. The City’s basic financial statements are comprised of three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements; and 3) notes to the basic financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements.
Government-Wide Financial Statements – The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a view of the City’s finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business.
The Statement of Net Position presents information on all assets and liabilities, deferred outflows and inflows with the difference between them reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in the City’s net position are one indicator of whether its financial condition is improving or deteriorating.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
6 The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the City’s net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. These changes are reported on a full accrual basis when the economic event occurs regardless of when cash is received or paid.
Both government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government and administration, public safety, development services, public works, recreation, and all its component units that are legally separate but whose activities entirely support the City of Seal Beach. The business-type activities of the City include water and sewer operations.
The government-wide financial statements can be found immediately following this discussion and analysis.
Fund Financial Statements – The fund financial statements provide detailed information about the most significant funds and other funds – not the City as a whole. Some funds are required to be established by State law and by bond covenants. However, management established many other funds to help control and manage money for particular purposes or to verify that all legal requirements for using certain taxes, grants, and other resources are being satisfied.
The City’s three types of funds are governmental, proprietary, and fiduciary funds.
Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on how money flows in and out of those funds and the balances left at fiscal year-end that are available for spending. These funds are reported using an accounting method called modified accrual accounting, which measures cash and all other financial assets that can readily be converted to cash. The governmental fund statements provide a detailed short-term view of the City’s general government operations and the basic services it provides. Governmental fund information helps determine whether there are more or fewer financial resources that can be spent in the near future to finance the City’s programs. The differences of results in the Governmental Fund financial statements to those in the government-wide financial statements are explained in a reconciliation following each of the Governmental Fund financial statements.
The City maintains individual governmental funds organized by their type (general, special revenue, debt service, and capital improvements funds). Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances for the General Fund and Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund, which are considered to be major funds. Data from the remaining governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of the other governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements and schedules elsewhere in this report.
The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its General Fund, Debt Service Fund, and all of the Special Revenue Funds. Budgetary comparison statements have been provided to demonstrate compliance with this budget.
The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found immediately following the government-wide financial statements.
Proprietary funds are reported in the same way that all activities are reported in the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities. In fact, the City’s enterprise funds are comprised of the business-type activities reported in the government-wide statements but provide more detail and additional information such as a statement of cash flows. Customer charges for various City services are generally reported in proprietary funds. The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found immediately following the governmental funds financial statements.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
7 Fiduciary funds account for assets held by the City in a trustee capacity, or as an agent for other governmental entities, private organizations, or individuals. All the City’s fiduciary activities are reported in a separate statement of fiduciary net position and a statement of changes in fiduciary net position. These activities are excluded from the City’s government-wide financial statement because the City cannot use these assets to finance its operations. The basic fiduciary fund financial statements can be found immediately following the proprietary funds financial statements.
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements – The notes provide additional information that is essential to fully understand the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the basic financial statements can be found immediately following the fiduciary funds financial statements.
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) and Supplementary Information – In addition to the required elements of the basic financial statements, a required supplementary information section concerning the City’s progress in funding it obligation to provide pension and other post-employment benefits to City employees is included. Also included in this section are the budgetary comparison schedules for the general and major funds. The required supplementary information can be found immediately following the notes to the basic financial statements.
Combining statements and individual fund statements for nonmajor governmental funds, internal service and custodial funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The Government-wide Financial Analysis focuses on the City’s net position and changes in net position resulting from the City’s activities as a whole.
Analysis of Net Position – As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial position. The City’s combined net position was $150.6 million and $149.3 million for the years ended June 30, 2025, and June 30, 2024, respectively, as shown in Table 1. 2025 2024* 2025 2024* 2025 2024*
Current and other assets 62,614 $ 62,658 $ 19,596 $ 19,762 $ 82,210 $ 82,420 $ Capital assets 94,472 90,629 35,941 36,398 130,413 127,027 Total assets 157,086 153,287 55,537 56,160 212,623 209,447 Deferred outflows of resources 16,608 20,128 1,463 2,443 18,071 22,571 Long-term liabilities outstanding 52,923 52,856 7,742 9,637 60,665 62,493 Other liabilities 5,395 4,841 2,131 1,742 7,526 6,583
Total liabilities 58,318 57,697 9,873 11,379 68,191 69,076 Deferred inflows of resources 11,311 12,636 572 1,038 11,883 13,674 Net position
Net investment in capital assets 94,014 89,697 32,720 32,537 126,734 122,234 Restricted 7,188 9,915 25 25 7,213 9,940
Unrestricted 2,863 3,470 13,809 13,624 16,672 17,094
Total net position 104,065 $ 103,082 $ 46,554 $ 46,186 $ 150,619 $ 149,268 $ * 2024 balances were restated due to error corrections. (see Note 15 for details.) Note: a change in accounting estimate is treated prospectively, prior periods are not restated due to GASB 101 implementation and change in claim estimates.
(in Thousands)
Governmental Activities
Table 1
Business-Type Activities Total Activities
Condensed Statement of Net Position
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
8 As of June 30, 2025, the City continued to report positive balances in all three categories of net position for the government as a whole.
Net position – Net investment in capital assets ($126.7 million or 84.1% of total net position) represents capital assets, such as land, buildings, infrastructure, and equipment, less any related outstanding debt used to acquire those assets. This is an overall increase of $4.5 million, or 3.7%. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to the citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the investment in capital assets is reported net of related debt, resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities.
Net position – Restricted ($7.2 million or 4.8% of total net position) represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. This is a decrease of $2.7 million, or 27.4%. The majority of this decrease occurred in restrictions for public works which decreased $.9 million or 19.0%, and public safety had a decrease of .6 million or 41.9%.
Net position – Unrestricted ($16.7 million or 11.1% of total net position) represents a decrease of $.4 million or
2.5%. The governmental activities unrestricted of $2.9 million is a decrease of $.6 million or 17.5% primarily due to the implementation of GASB No. 101, which changed the recognition and presentation of compensated absences and related liabilities, increasing the liability by $656 thousand. As a result of GASB 101, certain employee leave liabilities are now required to be recognized earlier and more comprehensively than in prior guidance. This accounting change reflects a change in financial statement presentation. In addition, the total deferred inflows of resources on pension plans increased by $56.4 thousand as a result of net differences between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments. Generally accepted accounting principles require financial statement recording when a liability is incurred. However, the City, like many other governments, raises and budgets resources needed to liquidate certain liabilities during the year in which the liability is to be liquidated rather than during the year in which the liability is incurred. The City will continue to fund these obligations on an actuarial basis, contributing the full amount of annual required contributions every year.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
9 Analysis of Activities – The City’s net position increased by $2.2 million or 1.48%. The following Table 2 provides a summary of the City’s operations for the years ended June 30, 2025, and June 30, 2024. 2025 2024* 2025 2024* 2025 2024*
Revenues:
Program revenues:
Charges for services 9,633 $ 9,266 $ 8,835 $ 8,712 $ 18,468 $ 17,978 $ Operating grants and contributions 4,920 4,232 - - 4,920 4,232 Capital grants and contributions 2 1 - - 2 1
General revenues:
Taxes:
Property taxes 16,137 15,473 - - 16,137 15,473
Sales taxes 12,424 11,495 - - 12,424 11,495
Utility user taxes 5,401 5,510 - - 5,401 5,510
Other taxes 4,315 3,889 - - 4,315 3,889
Use of money and property 2,954 2,673 593 401 3,547 3,074 Other 573 2,108 - - 573 2,108
Total revenues 54,647 56,359 9,428 9,113 65,787 63,760
Expenses:
General government 9,322 7,834 - - 9,322 7,834
Public safety 29,492 26,933 - - 29,492 26,933
Community development 3,060 2,723 - - 3,060 2,723
Community services 1,945 1,208 - - 1,945 1,208
Public works 10,730 10,766 - - 10,730 10,766
Interest on long-term debt 12 34 - - 12 34
Water - - 6,350 7,128 6,350 7,128
Sewer - - 2,668 3,353 2,668 3,353
Total expenses 49,498 54,561 9,018 10,481 63,579 59,979 Change in net position before transfers 1,798 5,149 410 (1,368) 2,208 3,781 Transfers - - - - - -
Changes in net position 1,798 5,149 410 (1,368) 2,208 3,781 Net position at beginning of year 103,082 95,310 46,186 44,901 149,268 140,211 Restatement - Error Corrections - 2,623 - 2,653 - 5,276 Restatement - Change in accounting
principles and estimates (815) - (42) - (857) -
Net position at end of year $ 103,082 104,065 $ 46,554 $ 46,186 $ 150,619 $ 149,268 $ * 2024 balances were restated due to error corrections. (see Note 15 for details.) Note: a change in accounting estimate is treated prospectively, prior periods are not restated due to GASB 101 implementation and change in claim estimates.
Table 2
Condensed Statement of Activities
(in Thousands)
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Total Activities Governmental Activities experienced an increase of $1.8 million in net position as of June 30, 2025. The reason for the net increase of $1.8 million is due to error correction of $2.6 million offset by the changes in accounting principles and estimates of $815 thousand. Higher revenues of $1.7 million, partially offset by higher expenditures of approximately $5.1 million compared to the prior year, also contributed to the increase in net position.
The increase in revenues is largely driven by higher voter approved Measure BB revenues, the recognition of remaining balances upon the closure of the Fire Station Bond Fund, and increased investment earnings resulting from higher interest rates throughout the fiscal year. These revenue increase, combined with the timing of certain expenditure activity, contributed to the overall increase in fund balance.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
10 The cost of all governmental activities during the current fiscal year was $54.6 million, which is a $5.1 million increase from fiscal year 2023-2024. The majority of this increase was attributable to higher personnel-related costs, including salary and benefit increases, higher pension and OPEB expenses, and increased operating and contractual services costs across several departments. In specific, General Governmental expenditures increased by $1.5 million and Public Safety expenditures increased by $2.6 million. The largest operating cost was comprised of Public Safety, representing 54.0% of total governmental expenditures.
Business-type Activities net position increased by $0.4 million. The increase is due to the water and sewer rate increase adopted in 2025. Increases in operating costs were mostly due to repairs and imported water.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF CITY FUNDS
The City uses fund accounting to provide proper financial management of the City’s resources and to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements.
Governmental funds – The objective of governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City’s financing requirements. In particular, unreserved fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government’s net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. As of June 30, 2025, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $48.4 million. Approximately $11.5 million, or 23.7% of this total amount, constitutes unassigned fund balance. The remainder of the fund balance is reported as nonspendable, restricted, committed, or assigned to indicate that it is not available for new spending because it has already been designated to pay for encumbrances, loans, prepaid expenses, or advances to other funds or has been legally restricted for other purposes.
The General Fund ended the fiscal year with a fund balance of $42.3 million, representing a net increase of $2.9 million. In comparison, in the prior fiscal year, the General Fund had a net increase of $1.9 million to fund balance.
Fiscal year 2024-2025 had an increase of $1.2 million in revenues which was due to payments received from sales tax, property tax, and interest rate increases, offset by an increase in expenditures of $2.7 million. The primary reason for the increase in fund balance is due to revenues over expenditures of $4.7 million offset by net transfers and proceeds of $1.8 million. Net transfers and proceeds decreased by $2.5 million compared to the prior fiscal year.
The Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund balance of $0.2 million, represents a net increase of $147 thousand from prior fiscal year. In comparison, in the prior fiscal year, the Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund had a net decrease of $53 thousand. This increase accounts for resources used for the acquisition and construction of the City’s capital assets. Activity in this fund during the fiscal year reflects the timing of capital project expenditures and related financing, including transfers from the General Fund. The fund saw an increase in transfers net of capital project expenditures of $92 thousand compared to the prior year’s decrease of $53 thousand.
Changes in the Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund are primarily attributable to capital outlays incurred during the year, offset by available financing sources, and do not directly impact the City’s operating results.
Total governmental fund revenues increased overall by $2.1 million or 3.8% due to collecting higher tax revenues, offset by slight reductions in Bradley Burns, refuse services, and vehicle code violations, utilities users tax, and by increases in interest earnings due to rising interest rates throughout the fiscal year which caused an increase in the fair value of investments as of June 30. Overall expenditures increased by $2.5 million or 4.7%, as the City continued to support essential City services and support to residents and businesses.
City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
11 Proprietary funds – The City’s proprietary funds financial statements provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net position totaled $3.8 million and $10.0 million for the Water and Sewer Funds, respectively. The Water Fund had an operating surplus of $0.3 million and the Sewer Fund had an operating loss of $0.3 million. The City adopted the water and sewer rate fees that will address this.
GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS
When preparing its budget, the City attempts to estimate its revenues using realistic, but conservative methods to budget its expenditure appropriations in a prudent manner. Amendments were approved during the fiscal year to the adopted budget. The fiscal year 2024-2025 General Fund’s revenue budget was adopted at $46.3 million and had amendments to building permits, transfers, and rental property of telecom, of $0.2 million. The fiscal year 2024-2025 General Fund’s original (adopted) budget for expenditures was $47.6 million, and the final budget was $49.2 million, a net increase of $1.6 million. The largest changes were an increase of $0.6 million in Public Works due to rising labor and material cost and $0.6 million in Public Safety due to MOU agreements.
The General Fund balance reflected a net total positive budget variance of $15.0 million when comparing actual amounts to the final amended budget for the current fiscal year. Actual revenues show a positive variance of $5.1 million or 11.1% of the final budget due to unanticipated receipts of taxes and insurance reimbursement revenues due to a case settlement. Actual expenditures of $46.9 million generated budgetary savings of $2.3 million, or 4.8% of the final budget mostly due to savings in Public Works stemming from several factors, including (1) unspent funds in contract professional; (2) the message to overall reduce City-wide expenditures to meet future-year funding availability; and (3) carry-over of encumbrances of work that straddled two or more fiscal years. Additionally, although capital outlay was budgeted, project delivery extended across multiple fiscal years, and changes in project scope led to expenditures being lower than anticipated.
CAPITAL ASSETS
The City’s capital assets for its governmental and business-type activities as of June 30, 2025, total $130.4 million compared to $127.0 million (net of accumulated depreciation and amortization) as of June 30, 2024. The investment in capital assets includes land, land easements, building and improvements, machinery and equipment, vehicles, infrastructure, leases, subscriptions and construction in progress as summarized in the following Table 3. Additional information on the City’s capital assets can be found in Note 5 in the notes to the basic financial statements. 2025 2024* 2025 2024* 2025 2024*
Land and land easements 21,220 $ 21,220 $ - $ - $ 21,220 $ 21,220 $ Buildings and improvements 8,875 8,302 - - 8,875 8,302
Machinery and equipment 2,214 1,328 612 617 2,826 1,945 Vehicles 1,484 1,210 220 259 1,704 1,469
Infrastructure 47,686 47,978 31,174 32,042 78,860 80,020 Lease assets - 203 - - - 203
Subscription assets 219 450 120 202 339 652
Construction-in-progress 12,774 9,938 3,815 3,278 16,589 13,216 Totals 94,472 $ 90,629 $ 35,941 $ 36,398 $ 130,413 $ 127,027 $ * 2024 balances were restated due to error corrections. (see Note 15 for details.) Table 3
Capital Assets, At Fiscal Year-End
(Net of Depreciation, in Thousands)
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Total Activities City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
12 During fiscal year 2024-2025, major capital projects formally completed include:
• Pier Abutment Restoration (BP2201) - $566,186.99
• Annual Local Paving Program (STO2) - $781,832.25
• Almond Avenue Paving Project (ST2201) - $520,873.64
• Pier Restroom Renovation Project (BP2202) - $261,070.08 • Beverly Manor Well Rehabilitation (WT0904) - $674,360 • FY 24-25 Slurry Seal Program (STO1) - $242,358.58
• Heather Park Project (PR2203/O-PR-1) - $786,348.85
• West End Pump Station VFD Replacement Project (SD2401 / BG2401ex101-WEPS) - $232,373.22 • SB Tennis and Pickleball Center Sports Court Lighting Project (BG2105-Lighting) - $201,552.06 • North Seal Beach Community Center (BG2501) - $404,023.76 • Lampson Avenue Bike Lane Gap Closure Project (ST1811) - $2,288,746.39 • Pier Boat Ramp Repair Project (EM2501) - $47,580
DEBT ADMINISTRATION
As of June 30, 2025, the City had bonded debt, notes payable, subscription liabilities, claims payable, and compensated absence liabilities totaling $6.6 million compared to $7.2 million at the end of the fiscal year 2023- 2024. The City’s governmental activities maintained $3.1 million in lease revenue bonds, subscription liabilities, claims payable, and compensated absences versus $3.1 million last fiscal year, representing an increase of approximately $18 thousand. This increase reflects the implementation of GASB 101 during fiscal year 2024-2025.
The City’s business-type activities debt decreased $0.6 million from $4.0 million to $3.4 million. Debt in the business-type activities consists of lease revenue bonds, State loans for water and sewer capital improvement projects, subscription liabilities and compensated absences. The decrease reflects interest and principal payments made during fiscal year 2024-2025.
A summary of outstanding debt can be found in the following Table 4, and additional information on the City’s longterm debt can be found in Note 6 in the basic financial statements. 2025 2024* 2025 2024* 2025 2024*
Lease revenue bonds - $ - $ 965 $ 1,180 $ 965 $ 1,180 $ Leases - 210 - - - 210
Capital project notes - - 2,153 2,500 2,153 2,500
Subscription liabilities 234 456 129 205 363 661
Self-insured Claims Payable 222 331 - - 222 331
Compensated absences 2,669 2,110 182 169 2,851 2,279
Total $ 3,107 3,125 $ 3,429 $ 4,054 $ 6,554 $ 7,161 $
* 2024 balances were restated due to GASB 101 implementation and change in claim estimates. (see Note 15 for details.) Table 4
Outstanding Debt, At Fiscal Year-End
(in Thousands)
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Total Activities City of Seal Beach
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
13 ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR’S BUDGETS
The City of Seal Beach economy and tax base continue to support core services for our residents, businesses, and visitors contributing to the high quality of life within the City. The City has largely emerged from the pandemicdepressed revenues due to improved economic activity. For the upcoming fiscal year, revenues are expected to continue to improve. However, challenges from high inflation and supply chain issues temper the recovering outlook.
Property taxes are expected to increase as well, primarily from continued improvement in assessed value and the continued strength in the local real estate market.
The City prepared a balanced annual budget for fiscal year 2025-2026. Expenditures of the City were increased to maintain the current level of service with capital improvement projects to be supported primarily by the City’s General Fund Balance. The revenue projections for the 2025-2026 budget year were conservative and determined in partnership with the City’s consultants. In November 2024, Measure GG passed in Seal Beach with 68% voter approval, implementing a 0.5% increase in the local sales tax to support current essential City services and began in 2025. The City will continue to monitor revenue streams throughout the coming years and will adjust spending levels as necessary.
One of the City’s most significant challenges is the aging condition of its infrastructure. The City has completed and adopted several long-range planning documents, including the Water Master Plan, Sewer Master Plan, Master Plan of Drainage, Facilities Master Plan, and Pavement Management Plan, which collectively identify more than $160 million in needed infrastructure improvements citywide, excluding the impacts of market volatility and escalation. To address these needs, the City annually adopts a 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to strategically plan and prioritize construction projects.
The fiscal year 2026-2030 CIP recommends approximately $43.2 million in improvements over the next 5 years, including $2.5 million for implementation of Revitalization projects. The 5-Year Capital Improvement Program identifies needs in the following areas: Buildings ($14.7M), Beach and Pier ($2.4M), Parks ($1.7M), Sewer System ($3.6M), Streets and Transportation ($14.6M), Storm Drain ($1.2M), and Water System ($5.0M).
It should also be noted that a Water and Sewer Financial Plan/Rate Update was approved in August 2025 and includes a separate five-year CIP projection for water and sewer infrastructure. Because this analysis was not incorporated into the FY 2026–2030 budget projections, those water and sewer CIP projects are not reflected above and will instead be included in the FY 2027–2031 five-year projections.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
This financial report is designed to provide the City’s citizens, taxpayers, customers, investors, and creditors with a general overview of the City’s finances and to demonstrate the City’s accountability for the funds it receives. If you have questions about this report or need additional financial information, contact the City’s Finance Department at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740-6379 or call (562) 431-2527. 14 This page intentionally left blank.
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
15 This page intentionally left blank.
16 GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
17 Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Total
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and investments 47,813,704 $ 18,314,995 $ 66,128,699 $ Accounts receivable 1,513,719 1,206,937 2,720,656
Taxes receivable 4,416,579 - 4,416,579
Lease receivable, due within one year 335,844 - 335,844 Interest receivable 352,234 - 352,234
Prepaid items 119,534 49,000 168,534
Total current assets 19,570,932 54,551,614 74,122,546
Noncurrent Assets:
Restricted cash with fiscal agent 11,675 25,082 36,757
Lease receivable, due in more than one year 8,050,436 - 8,050,436 Capital assets:
Capital assets, not being depreciated 33,993,625 3,814,492 37,808,117 Capital assets, being depreciated, net 60,259,296 32,007,038 92,266,334 Intangible capital assets, being amortized, net 218,995 119,699 338,694 Total capital assets, net 94,471,916 35,941,229 130,413,145 Total noncurrent assets 35,966,311 102,534,027 138,500,338 Total assets 55,537,243 157,085,641 212,622,884
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred charges on refunding - 48,281 48,281
Pension related 15,479,312 1,110,952 16,590,264
Other postemployment benefits related 1,128,667 304,015 1,432,682 Total deferred outflows of resources 1,463,248 16,607,979 18,071,227 (Continued)
Primary Government
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2025
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 18 Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Total
LIABILITIES
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 3,532,553 1,794,750 5,327,303
Accrued liabilities 577,390 55,771 633,161
Accrued interest 36,804 490 37,294
Deposits payable 1,060,563 222,236 1,282,799
Retention payable 224,307 21,697 246,004
Long-term liabilities, due within one year 708,192 639,326 1,347,518 Total current liabilities 2,770,584 6,103,495 8,874,079 Long-term liabilities:
Long-term liabilities, due in more than one year 2,417,106 2,790,088 5,207,194 Net pension liabilities 47,794,537 3,773,268 51,567,805 Net other postemployment benefits liabilities 2,003,181 539,573 2,542,754 Total noncurrent liabilities 7,102,929 52,214,824 59,317,753 Total liabilities 9,873,513 58,318,319 68,191,832
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Pension related 1,398,133 124,749 1,522,882
Other postemployment benefits related 1,662,060 447,689 2,109,749 Leases related 8,250,988 - 8,250,988
Total deferred inflows of resources 572,438 11,311,181 11,883,619
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 94,013,748 32,720,435 126,734,183 Restricted for:
Community development projects 1,076,174 - 1,076,174
Public safety - 775,112 775,112
Community services 681,806 - 681,806
Public works 4,051,239 - 4,051,239
Debt service 25,082 - 25,082
Waste management, park in lieu, and I-405 corridor improvement 603,140 - 603,140 Total restricted 7,187,471 25,082 7,212,553
Unrestricted 13,809,023 2,862,901 16,671,924
Total net position $ 46,554,540 104,064,120 $ 150,618,660 $ (Concluded)
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Net Position (Continued)
June 30, 2025
Primary Government
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 19 Capital Grants
Charges for Operating Grants and
Expenses Services and Contributions Contributions Total Functions/Programs
Governmental Activities:
General government 9,322,342 $ 1,451,404 $ 142,922 $ - $ 1,594,326 $ Public safety 29,492,199 2,262,656 190,868 - 2,453,524
Community development 3,060,390 608,029 759,393 - 1,367,422 Community services 1,945,079 1,395,661 - - 1,395,661
Public works 10,729,829 3,915,149 3,827,488 1,872 7,744,509 Interest and fiscal charges 12,643 - - - -
Total governmental activities 9,632,899 54,562,482 4,920,671 1,872 14,555,442 Business-Type Activities:
Water utility 6,349,610 6,580,915 - - 6,580,915
Sewer utility 2,667,896 2,254,777 - - 2,254,777
Total business-type activities 8,835,692 9,017,506 - - 8,835,692 Total primary government $ 18,468,591 63,579,988 $ 4,920,671 $ 1,872 $ 23,391,134 $ (Continued)
Program Revenues
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Activities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 20 Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Total
Functions/Programs
Governmental Activities:
General government (7,728,016) $ - $ (7,728,016) $
Public safety (27,038,675) - (27,038,675)
Community development (1,692,968) - (1,692,968)
Community services (549,418) - (549,418)
Public works (2,985,320) - (2,985,320)
Interest and fiscal charges (12,643) - (12,643)
Total governmental activities - (40,007,040) (40,007,040) Business-Type Activities:
Water utility 231,305 - 231,305
Sewer utility (413,119) - (413,119)
Total business-type activities (181,814) - (181,814)
Total primary government (181,814) (40,007,040) (40,188,854) General Revenues:
Taxes:
Property taxes, levied for general purpose 16,137,118 - 16,137,118 Sales taxes 12,423,838 - 12,423,838
Franchise taxes 1,161,770 - 1,161,770
Utility users tax 5,401,062 - 5,401,062
Transient occupancy taxes 2,052,664 - 2,052,664
Other taxes 1,100,806 - 1,100,806
Motor vehicle in lieu- unrestricted 39,887 - 39,887
Use of money and property 2,953,712 592,779 3,546,491
Other - 533,315 533,315
Total general revenues and transfers 592,779 41,804,172 42,396,951 Changes in net position 410,965 1,797,132 2,208,097
Net Position:
Beginning of year, as previously reported 100,459,364 43,532,865 143,992,229 Error corrections (Note 15) 2,622,626 2,652,594 5,275,220 Change in accounting principals and estimates (Note 15) (815,002) (41,884) (856,886) Beginning of year, as restated 102,266,988 46,143,575 148,410,563 End of year 104,064,120 $ 46,554,540 $ 150,618,660 $
(Concluded)
Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Positions
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Activities (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 21 This page intentionally left blank.
22 FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
23 This page intentionally left blank.
24 GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
25 This page intentionally left blank.
26 Capital Projects
and Equipment Nonmajor
Capital Projects Governmental
General Fund Funds Total
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 834,424 39,850,968 $ 6,895,680 $ 47,581,072 $ Receivables:
Accounts - 752,565 761,154 1,513,719
Taxes - 4,296,572 120,007 4,416,579
Interest - 350,545 1,689 352,234
Leases - 8,386,280 - 8,386,280
Due from other funds - 725,401 - 725,401
Prepaid items - 119,534 - 119,534
Restricted assets:
Cash and investments with fiscal agents - 11,675 - 11,675 Total assets $ 834,424 54,493,540 $ 7,778,530 $ 63,106,494 $
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 490,264 2,258,355 $ 721,089 $ 3,469,708 $ Accrued liabilities - 566,132 11,258 577,390
Deposits payable - 1,060,563 - 1,060,563
Due to other funds - - 725,401 725,401
Retentions payable 109,812 8,750 105,745 224,307
Total liabilities 600,076 3,893,800 1,563,493 6,057,369 Deferred inflow of resources:
Unavailable revenue - - 369,294 369,294
Leases - 8,250,988 - 8,250,988
Total deferred inflow of resources - 8,250,988 369,294 8,620,282 Fund Balances:
Nonspendable 119,534 - - 119,534
Restricted 603,140 - 6,215,037 6,818,177
Committed 23,718,921 234,348 - 23,953,269
Assigned 6,037,300 - - 6,037,300
Unassigned (deficit) 11,869,857 - (369,294) 11,500,563
Total fund balances 234,348 42,348,752 5,845,743 48,428,843 Total liabilities, deferred inflow of
resources and fund balances $ 834,424 54,493,540 $ 7,778,530 $ 63,106,494 $ City of Seal Beach
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2025
Governmental Funds
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 27 Total Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds $ 48,428,843 Nondepreciable $ 33,993,625
Depreciable, net of $368,975 reported in Internal Service Funds 59,890,321 Amortizable, net of $0 reported in Internal Service Funds 218,995 94,102,941 Interest payable $ (490)
Subscription liabilities (233,861)
Claims and judgments (222,189)
Compensated absences (3,125,788) (2,669,248)
Pension related deferred outflows of resources 15,479,312 $ Net pension liability (47,794,537)
Pension related deferred inflows of resources (1,398,133) (33,713,358) OPEB related deferred outflows of resources 1,128,667 $ Net OPEB liability (2,003,181)
OPEB related deferred inflows of resources (1,662,060) (2,536,574) 369,294
538,762
Net Position of Governmental Activities $ 104,064,120
Long-term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and accordingly are not reported as fund liabilities. All liabilities, both current and long-term, net of $0 reported in Internal Service Funds, are reported in the Statement of Net Position:
Capital assets used in governmental activities were not current financial resources. Therefore, they were not reported in the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet.
Internal Service Funds were used by management to charge the costs of certain activities, such as insurance and equipment replacement to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of the Internal Service Funds were included in the governmental activities in the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position.
Revenue reported as unavailable revenue in the governmental funds when it is not received soon enough after year-end to be considered available. The availability criteria does not apply to the Government-Wide Financial Statements and, therefore, the revenue is recognized when eligibility requirements are met and earned.
Net other postemployment benefits liabilities and the related deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources are not due and payable in the current period or not available for current expenditures and are not reported in the governmental fund financial statements:
Net pension liabilities and the related deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources are not due and payable in the current period or not available for current expenditures and are not reported in the governmental fund financial statements:
City of Seal Beach
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the June 30, 2025
Government-Wide Statement of Net Position
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position were reported differently because:
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 28 Formerly
Major Fund
Capital Projects
and Equipment Citywide Grants Nonmajor
General Capital Projects Special Revenue Governmental
Fund Fund Funds Funds Total
Revenues:
Taxes 37,948,689 $ - $ 328,568 $ 38,277,257 $
Licenses and permits 1,066,988 - - 1,066,988
Intergovernmental 524,245 - 4,474,512 4,998,757
Charges for services 6,542,436 80,517 134,931 6,757,884 Use of money and property 3,261,969 - 233,695 3,495,664 Fines and forfeitures 1,491,069 - - 1,491,069
Contributions 94,105 - 66,936 161,041
Miscellaneous 632,186 54,951 7,445 694,582
Total revenues 135,468 51,561,687 5,246,087 56,943,242
Expenditures:
Current:
General government 8,527,678 - 65,935 8,593,613
Public safety 25,606,881 - 884,322 26,491,203
Community development 2,057,439 - 504,549 2,561,988
Community services 1,505,709 - - 1,505,709
Public works 7,776,429 182,500 717,952 8,676,881
Capital outlay 1,131,714 2,295,929 3,684,070 7,111,713
Debt service:
Principal retirement 259,045 - - 259,045
Interest and fiscal charges 12,153 - - 12,153
Total expenditures 2,478,429 46,877,048 5,856,828 55,212,305 Revenues over (under) expenditures (2,342,961) 4,684,639 (610,741) 1,730,937 Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in 986,866 2,489,962 426,214 3,903,042
Transfers out (2,825,813) - (1,051,866) (3,877,679)
Proceeds from issuance of subscription 34,005 - - 34,005 Total other financing sources (uses): 2,489,962 (1,804,942) (625,652) 59,368 Net change in fund balances 147,001 2,879,697 (1,236,393) 1,790,305 Fund Balances:
Beginning of year, as previously reported 39,469,055 87,347 (761,934) 7,844,070 46,638,538 Change in the financial reporting entity
(major fund to nonmajor) - - 761,934 (761,934) -
Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15) 39,469,055 87,347 - 7,082,136 46,638,538 End of year $ 234,348 42,348,752 $ - $ 5,845,743 $ 48,428,843 $ City of Seal Beach
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 29 Net Change in Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds $ 1,790,305 Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported in governmental funds.
Capital outlay, net of $0 reported in Internal Service Fund 7,111,713 $ Depreciation and amortization, net of $154,043 reported in Internal Service Fund (2,783,927) Net effect on disposal of capital assets, net of $59,451 reported in Internal Service Fund (71,202) 4,256,584 Repayment of debt principal, net of $207,226 reported in Internal Service Fund, is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but the repayment reduces long-term liabilities in the Statement of Net Position. 259,045
Interest expense on long-term debt is reported in the Statement of Activities, but do not require the use of current financial resources. Therefore, interest is reported as an expenditure in governmental funds. This amount represents the change in accrued interest from the prior year. (490) Inception of subscription liability, net of $0 reported in the Internal Service Funds. (34,005) Claims and judgment changes reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. 109,214 Compensated absences were reported in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities, but they do not require the use of current financial resources. Therefore, compensated absences were not reported as expenditures in the governmental funds. (559,736) Certain pension income (expenses) reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds, net of contribution made after the measurement period in the amount of $5,259,193. (3,064,413) Certain other postemployment benefits income (expenses) reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds, net of contribution made after the measurement period in the amount of $643,095. (225,723)
Revenues reported as unavailable revenue in the governmental funds and recognized in the Statement of Activities. (534,540)
Internal Service Funds are used by management to charge the costs of certain activities, such as insurance and equipment replacement, to individual funds. The net revenue of the Internal Service Funds is reported in governmental activities. (199,109)
Change in net position of governmental activities $ 1,797,132 Governmental activities in the Statement of Activities were reported differently because:
City of Seal Beach
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government-Wide Statement of Activities See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 30 PROPRIETARY FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
31 Governmental
Activities
Internal
Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Funds
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and investments 6,618,107 $ 11,696,888 $ 18,314,995 $ 232,632 $ Accounts receivable 821,294 385,643 1,206,937 -
Prepaid items 26,222 22,778 49,000 -
Total current assets 12,105,309 7,465,623 19,570,932 232,632 Noncurrent Assets:
Restricted cash 25,082 - 25,082 -
Capital assets, not being depreciated 2,724,644 1,089,848 3,814,492 - Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 13,624,159 18,382,879 32,007,038 368,975 Intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization 63,715 55,984 119,699 - Total capital assets 16,412,518 19,528,711 35,941,229 368,975 Total noncurrent assets 19,528,711 16,437,600 35,966,311 368,975 Total Assets 31,634,020 23,903,223 55,537,243 601,607
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred charges on refunding - 48,281 48,281 -
Pension related items 546,576 564,376 1,110,952 -
Other postemployment benefits related items 149,572 154,443 304,015 - Total deferred outflows of resources 767,100 696,148 1,463,248 - (Continued)
Enterprise Funds
June 30, 2025
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Net Position
City of Seal Beach
Business-Type Activities
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 32 Governmental
Activities
Internal
Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Funds
LIABILITIES
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 1,667,457 127,293 1,794,750 62,845
Accrued liabilities 29,795 25,976 55,771 -
Accrued interest 597 36,207 36,804 -
Retention payable 3,196 18,501 21,697 -
Deposits payable 212,666 9,570 222,236 -
Compensated absences, due within one year 5,432 33,904 39,336 - Long-term debt, due within one year 116,429 483,561 599,990 - Total current liabilities 735,012 2,035,572 2,770,584 62,845 Noncurrent Liabilities:
Compensated absences, due in more than one year 79,568 63,132 142,700 - Long-term debt, due in more than one year 180,569 2,466,819 2,647,388 - Net pension liabilities 1,856,405 1,916,863 3,773,268 - Net other postemployment benefits liabilities 265,464 274,109 539,573 - Total noncurrent liabilities 4,720,923 2,382,006 7,102,929 - Total liabilities 5,455,935 4,417,578 9,873,513 62,845
DEFERRED INFLOW OF RESOURCES
Pension related items 61,375 63,374 124,749 -
Other postemployment benefits related items 220,258 227,431 447,689 - Total deferred inflows of resources 290,805 281,633 572,438 -
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 16,112,324 16,608,111 32,720,435 368,975 Restricted for debt service 25,082 - 25,082 -
Unrestricted 3,762,754 10,046,269 13,809,023 169,787
Total net position $ 26,654,380 19,900,160 $ 46,554,540 $ 538,762 $ (Concluded)
Enterprise Funds
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Net Position (Continued)
Proprietary Funds
June 30, 2025
Business-Type Activities
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 33 This page intentionally left blank.
34 Governmental
Activities
Internal
Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Funds
OPERATING REVENUES:
Sales and service charges 6,580,190 $ 2,254,730 $ 8,834,920 $ 54,951 $ Miscellaneous 725 47 772 -
Total operating revenues 2,254,777 6,580,915 8,835,692 54,951 OPERATING EXPENSES:
Personnel expenses 733,102 1,263,291 1,996,393 -
Operating expenses 5,103,736 640,092 5,743,828 80,517
Amortization and depreciation expenses 491,034 637,069 1,128,103 154,043 Total operating expenses 2,540,452 6,327,872 8,868,324 234,560 Operating income (loss) (285,675) 253,043 (32,632) (179,609) NONOPERATING INCOME (LOSS):
Interest revenues 196,943 395,836 592,779 -
Interest expenses (21,738) (119,773) (141,511) -
Gain (loss) on sale of assets - (7,671) (7,671) 5,863
Total nonoperating income (loss) 268,392 175,205 443,597 5,863 TRANSFERS:
Transfer out - - - (25,363)
Total transfers - - - (25,363)
Changes in net position (17,283) 428,248 410,965 (199,109) NET POSITION:
Beginning of year, as previously reported 19,751,042 23,781,823 43,532,865 737,871 Error corrections (Note 15) (261,151) 2,913,745 2,652,594 - Change in accounting principals and estimates (Note 15) (17,979) (23,905) (41,884) - Beginning of year, as restated 19,471,912 26,671,663 46,143,575 737,871 End of year 19,900,160 $ 26,654,380 $ 46,554,540 $ 538,762 $ Enterprise Funds
Business-Type Activities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position City of Seal Beach
Proprietary Funds
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 35 Governmental
Activities
Internal
Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Funds
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Cash received from customers and users 6,748,852 $ 2,331,453 $ 9,080,305 $ 69,563 $ Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services (538,893) (4,833,425) (5,372,318) (29,291) Cash paid to employees for services (1,548,644) (1,242,351) (2,790,995) - Net cash provided by operating activities 550,209 366,783 916,992 40,272
CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL
FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Cash (paid to) other funds - - - (25,363)
Net cash used in noncapital financing activities - - - (25,363)
CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND
RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Acquisition of capital assets (523,150) (170,974) (694,124) - Proceeds from disposal of capital assets - - - 65,534
Principal paid on long-term liabilities (170,404) (467,027) (637,431) (7,056) Interest paid on long-term liabilities (21,854) (112,231) (134,085) - Net cash provided by (used in) capital and
related financing activities (1,102,408) (363,232) (1,465,640) 58,478
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING
ACTIVITIES:
Interest received 196,943 395,836 592,779 -
Net cash provided by investing activities 395,836 196,943 592,779 - Net change in cash and cash equivalents (156,363) 200,494 44,131 73,387 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS:
Beginning of year 6,442,695 11,853,251 18,295,946 159,245 End of year $ 11,696,888 6,643,189 $ 18,340,077 $ 232,632 $
RECONCILIATION OF CASH AND CASH
EQUIVALENTS:
Cash and investments 6,618,107 $ 11,696,888 $ 18,314,995 $ 232,632 $ Restricted cash 25,082 - 25,082 -
Total cash and cash equivalents $ 11,696,888 6,643,189 $ 18,340,077 $ 232,632 $ (Continued)
Enterprise Funds
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Cash Flows
Proprietary Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Business-Type Activities
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 36 Governmental
Activities
Internal
Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Funds
Reconciliation of Operating Income (Loss) to
to Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities:
Operating income (loss) 253,043 $ (285,675) $ (32,632) (179,609) $ Adjustments to reconcile operating income
(loss) to net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities:
Amortization and depreciation expenses 491,034 637,069 1,128,103 154,043 Changes in assets and liabilities:
(Increase)/decrease in accounts receivables 136,379 76,676 213,055 14,612 (Increase)/decrease in prepaid items (3,008) 436 (2,572) - (Increase)/decrease in deferred outflows of
resources related to pensions 419,846 57,951 477,797 -
(Increase)/decrease in deferred outflows of
resources related to OPEB 289,812 199,785 489,597 -
Increase/(decrease) in accounts payable 273,319 100,763 374,082 51,226 Increase/(decrease) in accrued liabilities (158) 3,075 2,917 - Increase/(decrease) in deposits payable 31,558 - 31,558 - Increase/(decrease) in compensated absences 4,097 8,907 13,004 - Increase/(decrease) in net pension liabilities (706,862) 266,247 (440,615) - Increase/(decrease) in net OPEB liabilities (515,685) (355,646) (871,331) - Increase/(decrease) in deferred inflows of
resources related to pensions (86,790) (32,037) (118,827) - Increase/(decrease) in deferred inflows of
resources related to OPEB (219,802) (127,342) (347,144) - Net cash provided by operating activities $ 550,209 366,783 $ 916,992 $ 40,272 $ NONCASH ITEMS:
Construction in progress deletion $ (7,671) - $ (7,671) $ - $ Retention payable 18,501 (33,607) (15,106) -
Amortization of deferred charges 12,071 - 12,071 -
Lease asset early termination - - - (200,390)
Lease liability early termination - - - 200,170
(Concluded)
Enterprise Funds
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Cash Flows (Continued)
Proprietary Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Business-Type Activities
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 37 This page intentionally left blank.
38 FIDUCIARY FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
39 This page intentionally left blank.
40 Custodial
Funds
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 646,562
Receivables:
Accounts 736
Taxes 3,047
Restricted investments with fiscal agent 984,945
Total assets 1,635,290
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Interest payable 91,611
Total current liabilities 91,611
Total liabilities 91,611
NET POSITION
Restricted for
Individual, organization and other government $ 1,543,679 Total fiduciary net position
June 30, 2025
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
City of Seal Beach
Fiduciary Funds
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 41 Custodial
Funds
ADDITIONS:
Assessment revenue collected $ 827,646
Investment income 59,738
Total additions 887,384
DEDUCTIONS:
Return of deposits 98,458
Payment of special assessment district debt service 826,282 Total deductions 924,740
Change in net position (37,356)
NET POSITION:
Beginning of year, as previously reported 1,581,035
End of year $ 1,543,679
City of Seal Beach
Statement of Change in Fiduciary Net Position
Fiduciary Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements. 42 43
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
44 This page intentionally left blank.
City of Seal Beach
Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
45 Page
Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies .................................................................................... 47 A. Financial Reporting Entity ....................................................................................................................... 47 B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus......................................................................................... 48 C. Cash and Investments .............................................................................................................................. 50 D. Fair Value Measurement ......................................................................................................................... 51 E. Property Taxes Receivable ...................................................................................................................... 51 F. Lease Receivable ..................................................................................................................................... 51 G. Prepaid Items ........................................................................................................................................... 52 H. Interfund Transactions ............................................................................................................................. 52 I. Capital Assets .......................................................................................................................................... 52 J. Unearned and Unavailable Revenue ........................................................................................................ 53 K. Compensated Absences Payable ............................................................................................................. 53 L. Claims Payable ........................................................................................................................................ 54 M. Pensions ................................................................................................................................................... 54 N. Other Postemployment Benefits .............................................................................................................. 55 O. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources ................................................................................................ 55 P. Long-Term Liabilities.............................................................................................................................. 55 Q. Subscription Liabilities ............................................................................................................................ 55 R. Net Position ............................................................................................................................................. 56 S. Fund Balances ......................................................................................................................................... 56 T. Use of Estimates ...................................................................................................................................... 57 U. Tax Abatement ........................................................................................................................................ 57 V. Implementation of New GASB Pronouncements .................................................................................... 58 W. Upcoming New GASB Pronouncements................................................................................................. 58 Note 2 – Cash and Investments ......................................................................................................................... 59 A. Demand Deposits ..................................................................................................................................... 59 B. Investments Authorized by the California Government Code and the City's Investment Policy ....................................................................................................................... 60 C. Investments Authorized by Debt Agreements ......................................................................................... 60 D. Fair Value Measurement ......................................................................................................................... 61 E. Risk Disclosures ...................................................................................................................................... 62 F. Investment in Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”) ........................................................................ 63 Note 3 – Lease Receivable .................................................................................................................................. 63 Note 4 – Interfund Transactions ....................................................................................................................... 64 A. Due From/To Other Funds ...................................................................................................................... 64 B. Transfers .................................................................................................................................................. 64 Note 5 – Capital Assets ....................................................................................................................................... 65 A. Governmental Activities .......................................................................................................................... 65 B. Business-Type Activities ......................................................................................................................... 66 City of Seal Beach
Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
46 Page
Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities ......................................................................................................................... 67 A. Governmental Activities .......................................................................................................................... 67 B. Business-Type Activities ......................................................................................................................... 68 Note 7 – Non-City Obligations ........................................................................................................................... 71 A. Heron Pointe Community Facilities District No. 2002-01 ...................................................................... 71 B. Pacific Gateway Business Center Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 ...................................... 71 Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program ............................................................................... 71 A. Description of Self-Insurance Pool Pursuant to Joint Powers Agreement .............................................. 71 B. Primary Self-Insurance Programs of the Authority ................................................................................. 71 C. Purchased Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 72 D. Adequacy of Protection ........................................................................................................................... 73 E. Claims Activity ........................................................................................................................................ 73 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans ............................................................................................................ 73 A. General Information about the Pension Plan ........................................................................................... 73 B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension ....................................................................... 76 Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan ............................................................................ 80 A. General Information about the OPEB Plan ............................................................................................. 80 B. Net OPEB Liability ................................................................................................................................. 81 C. Changes in the Net OPEB Liability ......................................................................................................... 82 D. OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB ............................................................................................................. 83 Note 11 – Net Investment in Capital Assets ...................................................................................................... 84 Note 12 – Classification of Fund Balances ........................................................................................................ 85 Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies ..................................................................................................... 86 A. Commitments .......................................................................................................................................... 86 B. Encumbrances .......................................................................................................................................... 86 C. Contingencies .......................................................................................................................................... 86 D. Grants ...................................................................................................................................................... 86 Note 14 – Individual Fund Disclosure ............................................................................................................... 87 Note 15 – Restatements ...................................................................................................................................... 87 City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
47 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
The basic financial statements of the City of Seal Beach, California, (the “City”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”) as applied to governmental agencies. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”) is the accepted standard setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The following is a summary of the City’s significant policies:
A. Financial Reporting Entity
The City was incorporated on October 27, 1915, under the laws of the State of California and enjoys all the rights and privileges applicable to a charter city. It is governed by an elected five-member council. As required by U.S.
GAAP these financial statements present the City (the primary government and its component units). The component units discussed below are included in the reporting entity because of their operational or financial relationships with the City.
In evaluating how to define the City for financial reporting purposes, management has considered all potential component units. The primary criteria for including a potential component unit within the reporting entity are the governing body’s financial accountability and a financial benefit or burden relationship and whether it is misleading to exclude. A primary government is financially accountable and shares a financial benefit or burden relationship, if it appoints a voting majority of an organization’s governing body and it is able to impose its will on the organization, or if there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens on the primary government. A primary government may also be financially accountable if an organization is fiscally dependent on the primary government regardless of whether the organization has a separately elected governing board, a governing board appointed by a higher level of government, or a jointly appointed board, and there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens on the primary government.
Blended Component Units
Management determined that the following entities should be reported as blended component units based on the criteria above. Although the following entities are legally separate from the City, they have been “blended” as though they are part of the City because the component units’ governing bodies are substantially the same as the City’s and there is a financial benefit or burden relationship between the City and the component units; and management of the City has operational responsibilities for the component units; and/or the component units provide services entirely, or almost entirely, to the City or otherwise exclusively, or almost exclusively, benefits the City, even though they do not provide services directly to it.
The Seal Beach Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) was formed May 8, 2000, pursuant to Articles 1 through 4 of Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the California Government Code, to create a joint exercise of powers authority between the City and the former Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency. The City Council of the City is the governing board. Management of the primary government has operational responsibility for the blended component unit. The Authority was formed to undertake the financing of public capital improvements. On June 12, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6741, to create the Parking Authority, and the Parking Authority became a new member to the Authority. On the same date, the Successor Agency Board of Directors adopted Resolution No.
SA 17-3, approving the Successor Agency’s withdrawal of its Authority membership. On June 28, 2017, the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency adopted Resolution No. OB17-03, approving such withdrawal.
Resolution No. OB17-03 became effective upon the State of California Department of Finance’s approval, received by the Successor Agency on August 18, 2017. The Authority does not issue separate financial statements.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
48 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) A. Financial Reporting Entity (Continued)
Blended Component Units (Continued)
The Seal Beach Parking Authority (the “Parking Authority”) was formed on June 12, 2017, pursuant to the Part 2 of Division 18 of the California Streets and Highway Code. The Parking Authority is governed by the Board of Directors which is the City Council of the City of Seal Beach. The Parking Authority is blended into the general fund. The Parking Authority does not issue separate financial statements.
The Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation (the “Foundation”) was organized under the laws of the State of California on August 27, 1984, to foster and promote civic advancement through activities related to cable communications, community promotion, and other public services deemed appropriate by the foundation. The Foundation is governed by a board of directors consisting of seven members, all appointed by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach. The Foundation is blended with the City as a special revenue fund. The Foundation does not issue separate financial statements.
B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus
The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. City resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled.
Government-Wide Financial Statements
The government-wide financial statements are presented on an “economic resources” measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all of the City’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, including capital assets, as well as infrastructure assets, and long-term liabilities, are included in the accompanying Statement of Net Position. The Statement of Activities presents changes in net position. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred. Fiduciary activities of the City are not included in these statements.
Certain types of transactions are reported as program revenues for the City in three categories:
Charges for services
Operating grants and contributions
Capital grants and contributions
Certain eliminations have been made in regards to interfund activities, payables and receivables. All internal balances in the statement of net position have been eliminated. In the statement of activities, internal service fund transactions have been included in the governmental activities. The following interfund activities have been eliminated:
Due from and to other funds, which are short-term loans within the primary government. Except between Governmental and Business-Type Activities, transfers in and out, which are flows of assets between funds without the requirement for repayment.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
49 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus (Continued) Governmental Fund Financial Statements (Continued)
All governmental funds are accounted for on a spending, or “current financial resources” measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, only current assets, current liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources are included on the balance sheet. The statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances presents increases (revenue and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in fund balances. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period.
Revenues are recorded when received in cash, except those revenues subject to accrual (generally 60 days after year-end) which are recognized when measurable and available. The primary revenue sources that have been treated as susceptible to accrual by the City are property taxes, intergovernmental revenues and other taxes. Business license fees are recorded as received. Expenditures are recorded in the accounting period in which the related fund liability is incurred. An exception to this general rule is principal and interest on long-term debt which is recognized when due.
Reconciliations of the fund financial statements to the government-wide financial statements are provided to explain the differences.
The City reports the following major Governmental Funds:
General Fund – The General Fund is the City’s principal operating fund. It accounts for all revenues and expenditures used to finance the traditional services associated with a municipal government except those required to be accounted for in another fund.
Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund – To account for major capital projects with various revenues sources but exclude the Water and Sewer Capital Improvement Fund. These sources get transferred into the Capital Projects and Equipment Projects Fund.
Proprietary Fund Financial Statements
Proprietary Fund Financial Statements include a Statement of Net Position, a Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position, and a Statement of Cash Flows for each major Proprietary Fund.
Proprietary funds are accounted for using the "economic resources" measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities (whether current or noncurrent), and deferred inflows of resources are included on the Statement of Net Position. The Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position presents increases (revenues) and decreases (expenses) in total Net Position.
Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred. In these funds, receivables have been recorded as revenue and provisions have been made for uncollectible amounts.
Operating revenues in the proprietary funds are those revenues that are generated from the primary operations of the fund. All other revenues are reported as non-operating revenues. Operating expenses are those expenses that are essential to the primary operations of the fund. All other expenses are reported as non-operating expenses.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
50 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus (Continued) Proprietary Fund Financial Statements (Continued)
The City reports the following major Proprietary Funds:
Water Utility Enterprise Fund – This fund accounts for the capital, operation and maintenance of the City’s water distribution system.
Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund – This fund accounts for the financial transactions of the City’s wastewater collection system.
A separate column representing internal service funds is also presented in these statements. However, internal service balances and activities have been combined with the governmental activities in the Government-Wide Financial Statements. The City has a Vehicle Replacement Internal Service Fund and an Information Technology Internal Service Fund that provides services directly to other City funds.
Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements
Fiduciary fund financial statements include a Statement of Net Position and a Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position. The City’s fiduciary funds represent custodial funds. The custodial funds are accounted for on the full accrual basis of accounting where the assets associated with the activity are controlled by the City and the assets are not derived 1) solely from the government’s own-source revenues or 2) from government-mandated nonexchange transactions or voluntary nonexchange transactions.
The City reports the following fiduciary fund:
Custodial Funds – To accounts for assets for the benefit of individuals and the City does not have administrative involvement with the assets or direct financial involvement with the assets or for the benefit of organizations or other governments that are not part of the City. In addition, the assets are not derived from the City’s provision of goods or services to those individuals, organizations, or other governments. The custodial funds account for the deposits for individuals and organizations and the debt service and related expenses for the Heron Pointe and Pacific Gateway Community Facility Districts.
C. Cash and Investments
The City’s cash and cash equivalents are comprised of cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturity of three months or less from the date of acquisition. All cash and investments of proprietary funds are held in the City’s investment pool. These cash pools have the general characteristics of a demand deposit account, therefore, all cash and investments in the proprietary funds are considered cash and cash equivalents for statement of cash flows purposes.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
51 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) D. Fair Value Measurement
Investments, unless otherwise specified, recorded at fair value in the financial statements, are categorized based upon the level of judgment associated with the inputs used to measure their fair value.
The three levels of the fair value measurement hierarchy are described below:
Level 1 – Inputs are unadjusted, quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets at the measurement date.
Level 2 – Inputs, other than quoted prices included in Level 1, that are observable for the assets or liabilities through corroboration with market data at the measurement date. Level 3 – Unobservable inputs that reflect management’s best estimate of what market participants would use in pricing the assets or liabilities at the measurement date.
E. Property Taxes Receivable
Property tax revenue is recognized in the fiscal year for which the taxes have been levied providing they become available. Available means due, or past due and receivable within the current period and collected within the current period or expected to be collected soon enough thereafter (not to exceed 60 days) to be used to pay liabilities in the current period.
Under California law, property taxes are assessed and collected by the counties at up to 1% of assessed value, plus other increases approved by the voters. The property taxes go into a pool, and are then allocated to the cities based on complex formulas.
The property tax calendar is as follows:
Lien Date: January 1
Levy Date: July 1
Due Date: First Installment - November 1
Second Installment - February 1
Delinquent Date: First Installment - December 11
Second Installment - April 11
F. Lease Receivable
The City is a lessor for leases of land and buildings and recognizes leases receivable and deferred inflows of resources in the financial statements. Variable payments based on future performance or usage of the underlying asset are not included in the measurement of the lease receivable.
At the commencement of a lease, the lease receivable is measured at the present value of payments expected to be received during the lease term. The City established a threshold of $5,000 for lease receivables. Subsequently, the lease receivable is reduced by the principal portion of lease payments received. The deferred inflows of resources are initially measured as the initial amount of the lease receivable, adjusted for lease payments received at or before the lease commencement date. Subsequently, the deferred inflows of resources are recognized as revenue over the life of the lease term in a systematic and rational method. The City used the interest method of revenue recognition.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
52 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) F. Lease Receivable (Continued)
Key estimates and judgments include how the City determines (1) the discount rate it uses to discount the expected lease receipts to present value, (2) lease term, and (3) lease receipts. The City uses incremental borrowing rate (IBR) provided by the financial institution at July 1, 2021 for existing leases or the current rate at the time a new lease is executed. The lease term includes the noncancelable period of the lease plus any option periods that are likely to be exercised.
Lease receipts included in the measurement of the lease receivable are composed of fixed payments from the lessee.
The City monitors changes in circumstances that would require a remeasurement of its lease and will remeasure the lease receivable and deferred inflows of resources if certain changes occur that are expected to significantly affect the amount of the lease receivable.
G. Prepaid Items
Prepaid items are payments made to vendors for services that will benefit periods beyond the fiscal year ended. The City uses the consumption method to account for prepaid items.
H. Interfund Transactions
Transactions between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as “due from/to other funds” (i.e., current portion of interfund loans). These are typically routine and temporary cash flow assistance from the General Fund to other funds in advance of receiving grant funds or other types of revenue.
Transactions which move resources from a fund receiving revenue to the fund through which the resources are expended are recorded as transfers.
I. Capital Assets
Capital assets, which include land, buildings, improvements, equipment, furniture, and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, sidewalks, and similar items), are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are valued at the estimated acquisition value on the date donated. City policy has set the capitalization threshold for reporting capital assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 and an estimated useful life of one year or more.
The City defines infrastructure as the basic physical assets that allow the City to function. The assets include street network, street appurtenances, and storm drains.
Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business-type activities is included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
53 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) I. Capital Assets (Continued)
The City established a threshold to recognize a right-to-use including lease asset or subscription-based information technology arrangements (“SBITA”) asset (“subscription assets”) in the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund financial statements right-to-use asset over $5,000.
Lease assets are recorded at the amount of the initial measurement of the lease liabilities and adjusted by any lease payments made to the lessor at or before the commencement of the lease term, less any lease incentives received at or before the commencement of the lease term along with any initial direct costs that are ancillary charges necessary to place the lease assets into service. Lease assets are amortized using the straight-line method over the shorter of the lease term or the useful life of the underlying asset, unless the lease contains a purchase option that the City has determined is reasonably certain of being exercised. In this case, the lease asset is amortized over the useful life of the underlying asset.
Subscription assets are recorded at the amount of the initial measurement of the SBITA liabilities (“subscription liabilities”) and adjusted by any subscription payments to the SBITA vendor at or before the commencement of the subscription term, less any incentives received from the SBITA vendor at or before the commencement of the subscription term along with subscription implementation costs. Subscription assets are amortized over the shorter of the subscription term or the useful life of the underlying IT assets.
All other capital assets used in operations are depreciated over their estimated useful using the straight-line method.
The lives used for depreciation purposes are as follows:
Assets Years
Building and Improvements 20-99
Machinery and Equipment 5-50
Vehicles 4-10
Infrastructure 20-60
The City generally follows the above ranges in determining the estimated useful lives of capital assets. However, in certain instances, management may assign different useful lives that are considered reasonable and appropriate under generally accepted accounting principles, based on factors such as the asset’s condition, usage, or industry standards.
J. Unearned and Unavailable Revenue
Unearned revenue is reported for transactions for which revenue has not yet been earned. Typical transactions recorded as unearned revenues in the government-wide and fund financial statements are grant revenues received in advance.
In the governmental fund financial statements, unavailable revenue is reported when transactions have not yet met the revenue recognition criteria based on the modified accrual basis of accounting. The City reports unavailable revenue when an asset is reported in governmental fund financial statements but the revenue is not collected within the availability period (within 60 days of year-end).
K. Compensated Absences Payable
Compensated absences comprise vested accumulated vacation and sick leave. The City's liability for compensated absences is recorded in governmental or business-type activities as appropriate.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
54 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) K. Compensated Absences Payable (Continued)
The liability for compensated absences is determined annually. The liability for compensated absences is recognized as leave is earned, based on the employee’s pay rate in effect at the financial statement date, including any applicable salary-related costs. The liability includes only leave attributable to services already rendered and that is more likely than not to be paid.
Under GASB 101, a liability must be recognized for leave that is attributable to services already rendered, accumulates and carries forward to future periods, and is more likely than not to be used or paid. This represents a shift from previous guidance, particularly in how likelihood and eligibility are assessed.
L. Claims Payable
When it is probable that a claim liability has been incurred at year-end and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the City records the estimated loss, net of any insurance coverage under its self-insurance program. Small dollar claims and judgments are recorded as expenditures when paid.
The City's self-insurance program is administered through California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA), which is described in Note 8 to the financial statements. The Authority is a public entity risk pool. Claims losses recorded in the Authority include both current claims and incurred but not reported claims (IBNR). Deposits to the Authority are recorded by the City as insurance expenditures in the General Fund when paid. These deposits are subject to retrospective adjustment. Favorable claims experience in prior years results in a refund of deposits from the Authority and such refunds, if any, are recorded as prepaid items in the General Fund since they will be used to offset future deposit requirements. Adverse claims experience in prior years results in the payment of additional deposits and such deposits, if any, are recorded as insurance expenditures when incurred.
M. Pensions
For purposes of measuring the aggregate net pension liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the plans and additions to/deductions from the plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by the plans. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when due and payable in accordance with benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
The following timeframes are used for pension reporting:
Valuation Date June 30, 2023
Measurement Date June 30, 2024
Measurement Period July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024
Gains and losses related to changes in total pension liability and fiduciary net position are recognized in pension expense systematically over time. The first amortized amounts are recognized in pension expense for the year the gain or loss occurs. The remaining amounts are categorized as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions and are to be recognized in future pension expense. The amortization period differs depending on the source of the gain or loss. The difference between projected and actual earnings is amortized straight-line over 5 years. All other amounts are amortized straight-line over the average expected remaining service lives of all members that are provided with benefits (active, inactive, and retired) as of the beginning of the measurement period.
Pension liabilities are liquidated principally by General Fund for the governmental activities.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
55 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) N. Other Postemployment Benefits
For purposes of measuring the net other postemployment benefits (“OPEB)” liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB, and OPEB expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the plans and additions to/deductions from the plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by the plans. For this purpose, benefit payments are recognized when due and payable in accordance with benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
The following timeframes are used for OPEB reporting:
Valuation Date June 30, 2023
Measurement Date June 30, 2024
Measurement Period July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024
Gains and losses related to changes in total OPEB liability and fiduciary net position are recognized in OPEB expense systematically over time. The first amortized amounts are recognized in OPEB expense for the year the gain or loss occurs. The remaining amounts are categorized as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB and are to be recognized in future OPEB expense. The amortization period differs depending on the source of the gain or loss. The difference between projected and actual earnings is amortized straight-line over 5 years. All other amounts are amortized straight-line over the average expected remaining service lives of all members that are provided with benefits (active, inactive, and retired) as of the beginning of the measurement period.
OPEB liabilities are liquidated principally by General Fund for the governmental activities.
O. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources
The financial statements report separate sections for deferred outflows of resources, and deferred inflows of resources, when applicable.
Deferred Outflows of Resources represent a consumption of net assets that applies to future periods.
Deferred Inflows of Resources represent an acquisition of net assets that applies to future period.
P. Long-Term Liabilities
Long-term debt and other long-term liabilities are reported as liabilities in the Statement of Net Position. Bond premiums and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the effective interest method.
Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond premium or discount.
Q. Subscription Liabilities
The City recognizes subscription liabilities with an initial, individual value of $5,000 or more with a subscription term greater than one year in the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements. Variable payments based on future performance of the City, usage of the underlying IT assets, or number of user seats are not included in the measurement of the subscription liability.
At the commencement of a subscription, the City initially measures the subscription liability at the present value of payments expected to be made during the subscription term. Subsequently, the subscription liability is reduced by the principal portion of subscription payments made.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
56 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) Q. Subscription Liabilities (Continued)
Key estimates and judgments related to subscription liabilities include how the City determines (1) the discount rate it uses to discount the expected subscription payments to present value, (2) subscription term, and (3) subscription payments.
The City uses incremental borrowing rate provided by the financial institution at July 1, 2022 for existing subscription or the current rate at the time a new subscription is executed. The subscription term includes the noncancellable period of the SBITA. Subscription payments included in the measurement of the subscription liability are composed of fixed payments.
The City monitors changes in circumstances that would require a remeasurement of its SBITA and will remeasure any subscription asset and liability if certain changes occur that are expected to significantly affect the amount of the subscription liability.
R. Net Position
In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund financial statements, net position is classified as follows:
Net Investment in Capital Assets – This component of net position consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, capital related debt, deferred charges, and retention payable.
Restricted – This component of net position consists of restricted assets reduced by liabilities and deferred inflows of resources related to those assets.
Unrestricted – This component of net position is the amount of the assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources that are not included in the determination of net investment in capital assets or the restricted component of net position.
When expenses are incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted components of net position are available, the City’s practice is to apply the restricted component of net position first, then use the unrestricted component of net position as needed.
S. Fund Balances
In the governmental fund financial statements, fund balances are classified as follows:
Nonspendable – Nonspendable fund balances include amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in a spendable form, such as unrestricted loans receivable or prepaid items, or because resources legally or contractually must remain intact.
Restricted – Restricted fund balances are the portion of fund balance that have externally enforceable limitations on their usage through legislation or limitations imposed by creditors, grantor, laws and regulations of other governments or enabling legislation.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
57 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) S. Fund Balances (Continued)
Committed – Committed fund balances are self-imposed limitations by the highest level of decision-making authority, namely the City Council, prior to the end of the reporting period. City Council adoption of a resolution is required to commit resources or to rescind the commitment.
Assigned – Assigned fund balances are limitations imposed by management based on the intended use of the funds. Modifications or rescissions of the constraints can be removed by the same type of action that limited the use of the funds. Assignment of resources can be done by the highest level of decision making or by a committee or official designated for that purpose. The City Council has authorized the Finance Director for that purpose.
Unassigned – Unassigned fund balances represent the residual net resources in excess of the other classifications. The General Fund is the only fund that reports a positive unassigned fund balance amount. In other governmental funds, it is not appropriate to report a positive unassigned fund balance amount. However, in governmental funds other than General Fund, if expenditures incurred for specific purposes exceed the amounts that are restricted, committed, or assigned to those purposes, it may be necessary to report a negative unassigned fund balance in that fund.
When expenditures are incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted fund balances are available, the City’s practice is to apply restricted fund balances first, then use unrestricted fund balances as needed.
When expenditures are incurred for purposes where only unrestricted fund balances are available, the City uses the unrestricted resources in the following order, except for instances wherein an ordinance specifies the fund balance:
committed, assigned, then unassigned.
T. Use of Estimates
The preparation of the basic financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
U. Tax Abatement
Tax abatement is a reduction in tax revenues that results from an agreement between one or more governments and an individual or entity in which (a) one or more governments promise to forgo tax revenues to which they are otherwise entitled and (b) the individual or entity promises to take a specific action after the agreement has been entered into that contributes to economic development or otherwise benefits the governments or the citizens of those governments. City policy has set the threshold for disclosing tax abatement agreements greater than $50,000.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
58 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) V. Implementation of New GASB Pronouncements
During fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, the City has implemented the following new GASB Pronouncements:
GASB Statement No. 101 – In June 2022, the GASB issued Statement No. 101, Compensated Absences. The objective of this Statement is to better meet the information needs of financial statement users by updating the recognition and measurement guidance for compensated absences. That objective is achieved by aligning the recognition and measurement guidance under a unified model and by amending certain previously required disclosures. The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2023, and all reporting periods thereafter. Implementation of this Statement resulted in a restatements of the beginning fund balance as of July 1, 2024, as presented in Note 15.
GASB Statement No. 102 – In December 2023, the GASB issued Statement No. 102, Certain Risk Disclosures.
The objective of this Statement is to provide users of government financial statements with information about risks related to a government’s vulnerabilities due to certain concentrations or constraints that is essential to their analyses for making decisions or assessing accountability. The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2024, and all reporting periods thereafter. The City has evaluated its exposure to financial risk stemming from concentrations and constraints and determined that none exist.
W. Upcoming New GASB Pronouncements
The City is currently evaluating its accounting practices to determine the potential impact on the financial statements for the following GASB Statements:
GASB Statement No. 103 – In April 2024, GASB issued Statement No. 103, Financial Reporting Model Improvements. The objective of this Statement is to improve key components of the financial reporting model to enhance its effectiveness in providing information that is essential for decision making and assessing a government’s accountability. Application of this statement is effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. The City has not determined the effect on the financial statements.
GASB Statement No. 104 – In September 2024, the GASB issued Statement No. 104, Disclosure of Certain Capital Assets. The objective of this Statement is to provide users of government financial statements with essential information about certain types of capital assets. This Statement requires certain types of capital assets to be disclosed separately in the capital assets note disclosures required by Statement 34. This Statement also requires additional disclosures for capital assets held for sale. The City has not determined the effect on the financial statements.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
59 Note 2 – Cash and Investments
The City maintains a cash and investment pool, which includes cash balances and authorized investments of all funds.
The City had the following cash and investments at June 30, 2025:
Government-Wide Statement of
Statement of Fiduciary
Net Position Net Position Total
Cash and investments 66,128,699 $ 646,562 $ 66,775,261 $ Restricted cash and investment
with fiscal agent 36,757 984,945 1,021,702
Total cash and investments 66,165,456 $ 1,631,507 $ 67,796,963 $ The City’s cash and investments at June 30, 2025 in more detail:
Cash and Investments:
Petty cash 9,000 $
Demand deposits 3,787,879
Restricted cash 36,757
Investments 63,979,927
Total cash and investments 67,813,563 $
A. Demand Deposits
The carrying amounts of the City’s demand deposits were $3,787,879 at June 30, 2025. Bank balances at that date were $3,635,102, the total amount of which was insured or collateralized with accounts held by the pledging financial institutions in the City’s name as discussed below.
The California Government Code requires California banks and savings and loan associations to secure the City’s cash deposits by pledging securities as collateral. This Code states that collateral pledged in this manner shall have the effect of perfecting a security interest in such collateral superior to those of a general creditor. Thus, collateral for cash deposits is considered to be held in the City’s name.
The fair value of pledged securities must equal at least 110% of the City’s cash deposits. California law also allows institutions to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the City’s total cash deposits. The City may waive collateral requirements for cash deposits, which are fully insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). The City, however, has not waived the collateralization requirements.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
60 Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued)
B. Investments Authorized by the California Government Code and the City's Investment Policy The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized by the City's investment policy and the California Government Code. The table also identifies certain provisions of the California Government Code (or the City's investment policy, if more restrictive) that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of credit risk.
This table does not address investments of debt proceeds held by bond trustee that are governed by the provisions of debt agreements of the City, rather than the general provisions of the California Government Code or the City's investment policy.
Maximum Maximum
Authorized Investment Type Maturity Portfolio* One Issuer* U.S. Treasury securities None 100% None
U.S. agency and U.S. government sponsored
enterprise securities 5 years 20% None
Obligation of the State of California
or any local agency 5 years 100% None
Registered treasury notes or bonds of any
of the 49 states in addition to California 5 years 100% None Bankers' acceptance 180 days 40% 5%
Commercial paper 270 days 25% 10%
Nonnegotiable certificate of deposit 5 years 100% None
Negotiable certificate of deposit 5 years 30% None
Medium term notes 5 years 30% 5%
Asset-Backed Securities 5 years 20% 5%
Supranationals 5 years 30% 5%
Money market mutual funds 5 years 20% 5%
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) None 100% 75 Million/account *The table is based on state law requirements or investment policy requirements, whichever is more restrictive.
C. Investments Authorized by Debt Agreements
Investments of debt proceeds held by bond trustee are governed by provisions of the debt agreements, rather than the general provisions of the California Government Code or the City's investment policy. The following table identifies the investment types that are authorized for investments held by bond trustee. The table also identifies certain provisions of these debt agreements that address interest rate risk, and concentration of credit risk.
Maximum Maximum
Maximum Percentage of Investment in
Authorized Investment Type Maturity Portfolio* One Issuer* U.S. Treasury securities None None None
U.S. agency and U.S. government sponsored
enterprise securities None None None
Bankers' acceptance 180 days None 30%
Commercial paper 270 days None None
Money market mutual funds 5 years None None
Investment contracts 30 years None None
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) None None None
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
61 Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued)
D. Fair Value Measurement
At June 30, 2025, investments are reported at fair value. The following table presents the fair value measurement of investments on a recurring basis and the levels within the fair value hierarchy in which the fair value measurements fall at June 30, 2025:
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for Significant Other
Identical Assets Observable Inputs
Investment Type Value (Level 1) (Level 2)
Investments:
US Treasury bonds/notes 15,026,190 $ 15,026,190 $ - $
U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities 6,195,601 - 6,195,601 Asset-backed securities 2,443,577 - 2,443,577
Municipal bonds 274,074 - 274,074
Corporate notes 6,136,387 - 6,136,387
Negotiable certificates of deposit 283,891 - 283,891
Bank notes 539,396 - 539,396
Total investments subject to fair value measurement 30,899,116 15,026,190 $ 15,872,926 $ Investments measured at amortized cost:
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 32,095,866
Investments held with fiscal agents:
Money market funds 984,945
Total investments 63,979,927 $
Fair Value Measurement
Investments in municipal bonds/notes, U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities, asset-backed securities and corporate notes are valued based on institutional bond quotes. Investments in negotiable certificates of deposits are valued based on certificate of deposits pricing. Investments in bank notes are based on an option-adjusted spread methodology provided by US Bank and are observable through corroboration with market data at the measurement date.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
62 Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued)
E. Risk Disclosures
Disclosures Relating to Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment.
Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment is, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. One of the ways that the City manages its exposure to interest rate risk is by purchasing a combination of shorter term and longer-term investments and by timing cash flows from maturities so that a portion of the portfolio is maturing or coming close to maturity evenly over time as necessary to provide the cash flow and liquidity needed for operations. The sensitivity of the fair values of the City's investments (including investments held by bond trustees) to market interest rate fluctuations is as follows:
Investment Type Amount Less than 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 Investments:
US Treasury bonds/notes 15,026,190 $ 3,158,245 $ 2,646,084 $ 3,161,420 $ 889,160 $ 5,171,281 $ U.S. government sponsored
enterprise securities 6,195,601 - 617,879 911,986 4,078,907 586,829 Asset-backed securities 2,443,577 - - 211,138 1,155,713 1,076,726 Municipal bonds 274,074 274,074 - - - -
Corporate notes 6,136,387 99,657 1,219,505 1,059,884 2,234,912 1,522,429 Negotiable certificates of deposit 283,891 - 283,891 - - - Bank notes 539,396 - - 539,396 - -
LAIF 32,095,866 32,095,866 - - - -
Investments with Fiscal Agent:
Money market funds 984,945 984,945 - - - -
Total investments 63,979,927 $ 36,612,787 $ 4,767,359 $ 5,883,824 $ 8,358,692 $ 8,357,265 $ Investment Maturities (in Years)
Disclosures Relating to Credit Risk
Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.
Presented below is the minimum rating required by (where applicable) the California Government Code or the City's investment policy, or debt agreements, and the actual rating as of fiscal year end for each investment type.
Minimum
Legal
Investment Type Rating Total AAA AA- to AA+ A- to A+ Unrated Investments:
US Treasury bonds/notes N/R 15,026,190 $ - $ 15,026,190 $ - $ - $ U.S. government sponsored
enterprise securities A 6,195,601 - 6,195,601 - -
Asset-backed securities AA 2,443,577 2,443,577 - - -
Municipal bonds N/R 274,074 - 274,074 - -
Corporate notes A 6,136,387 344,023 1,925,541 3,866,823 - Negotiable certificates of deposit N/R 283,891 - - 283,891 - Bank notes N/R 539,396 - - 539,396 -
LAIF N/A 32,095,866 - - - 32,095,866
Investments with Fiscal Agent:
Money market funds N/R 984,945 984,945 - - -
Total investments 63,979,927 $ 3,772,545 $ 23,421,406 $ 4,690,110 $ 32,095,866 $ N/R - Not required by the City's investment policy
N/A - Not applicable
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
63 Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued)
E. Risk Disclosures (Continued)
Concentration of Credit Risk
The investment policy of the City contains no limitations on the amount that can be invested in any one issuer beyond that stipulated by the California Government Code. June 30, 2025, the following investment represent 5% or more of total City investments:
Issuer Investment Type Amount Percentage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation U.S. Agency Notes 5,923,381 $ 9.4% Custodial Credit Risk
Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of the failure of a depository financial institution, a government will not be able to recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that in the event of the failure of the counterparty (e.g., broker dealer) to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of its investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of another party. The California Government Code and the City's investment policy do not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to custodial credit risk for deposits or investments, other than the following provision for deposits: The California Government Code requires that a financial institution secure deposits made by state or local government units by pledging securities in an undivided collateral pool held by a depository regulated under state law (unless so waived by the governmental unit). The fair value of the pledged securities in the collateral pool must equal at least 110% of the total amount deposited by the public agencies. California law also allows financial institutions to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the secured public deposits. At June 30, 2025, the City deposits (bank balances were insured by the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation up to $250,000 and the remaining balances were collateralized under California law.
For investments identified herein as held by bond trustee, the bond trustee selects the investment under the terms of the applicable trust agreement, acquires the investment, and holds the investment on behalf of the reporting government.
F. Investment in Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”)
The City is a participant in LAIF, which is regulated by California Government Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. As of June 30, 2025, the City had $32,095,866 invested in LAIF. LAIF is reported at amortized cost, which approximates fair value.
Note 3 – Lease Receivable
Lease receivables consists of agreements with other for the right–to–use of the underlying assets for land and buildings owned by the City at various locations for cell tower use and business use, respectively. The remaining terms of the business agreements range from 2 to 32 years with incremental borrowing rates between 1.5% and 3.87% and the cell towers range from 1 to 22 years with incremental borrowing rates between 1.5% and 3.67%. For the year ended June 30, 2025, the City recognized $474,178 in lease revenue and $164,019 in lease interest revenue for General Fund.
The outstanding lease receivable is in the amount of $8,386,280 in the General Fund.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
64 Note 3 – Lease Receivable (Continued)
The future receipts for the lease receivables, including interest, are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2026 335,844 $ 157,010 $ 492,854 $
2027 263,845 150,572 414,417
2028 233,718 145,622 379,340
2029 248,045 140,544 388,589
2030 215,980 135,417 351,397
2031-2035 1,322,345 599,594 1,921,939
2036-2040 1,784,271 436,740 2,221,011
2041-2045 1,449,522 259,063 1,708,585
2046-2050 1,073,724 146,259 1,219,983
2051-2055 993,196 74,293 1,067,489
2056-2057 465,790 7,386 473,176
$ 2,252,500 8,386,280 $ 10,638,780 $
Note 4 – Interfund Transactions
A. Due From/To Other Funds
At June 30, 2025, the City had the following due from/to other funds:
Due To Other Funds
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Total
$ 725,401
Due From Other Funds
General Fund
$ 725,401
The above amounts resulted from deficits in the pooled cash account and short-term borrowing to cover deficits.
B. Transfers
During the year ended June 30, 2025, the City had the following transfers:
Capital Projects
and Equipment Nonmajor
General Capital Projects Governmental
Transfers out Fund Fund Funds Total
Governmental Funds:
General Fund - $ 2,489,962 $ 335,851 $ 2,825,813 $
Nonmajor Governmental Funds 961,503 - 90,363 1,051,866
Proprietary Funds:
Internal Service Funds 25,363 - - 25,363
Total $ 2,489,962 986,866 $ 426,214 $ 3,903,042 $
Transfers in
Transfers of $961,503 from Nonmajor Governmental Funds were made to the General Fund for non-capital expenditures and closure of Detention Center Nonmajor Special Revenue Fund.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
65 Note 4 – Interfund Transactions (Continued)
B. Transfers (Continued)
Transfers of $25,363 was made to the General Fund for closure of Information Technology Internal Service Fund.
The General Fund transferred $2,489,962 to the Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund to pay for capital projects.
The General Fund and Nonmajor Governmental Funds transferred $335,851 and $90,363, respectively, to the Nonmajor Governmental for debt service-related and administrative costs.
Note 5 – Capital Assets
A. Governmental Activities
The summary of changes in governmental activities capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2025 is as follows:
Balance
July 1, 2024 Balance
(As Restated) Additions Deletions Reclassification June 30, 2025 Capital assets not being depreciated:
Land 20,319,847 $ - $ - $ - $ 20,319,847 $
Intangible asset-land easement 900,000 - - - 900,000
Construction in progress 9,938,321 4,882,682 (40,681) (2,006,544) 12,773,778 Total capital assets not being depreciated 31,158,168 4,882,682 (40,681) (2,006,544) 33,993,625 Capital assets being depreciated:
Buildings and improvements 17,211,064 265,879 - 718,395 18,195,338 Machinery and equipment 4,379,208 1,107,638 - 26,125 5,512,971 Vehicles 3,733,030 650,011 (156,117) - 4,226,924
Infrastructure 92,853,901 171,498 - 1,262,024 94,287,423 Total capital assets being depreciated 118,177,203 2,195,026 (156,117) 2,006,544 122,222,656 Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings and improvements (8,908,595) (411,517) - - (9,320,112) Machinery and equipment (3,051,455) (247,482) - - (3,298,937) Vehicles (2,523,236) (286,220) 66,145 - (2,743,311)
Infrastructure (44,876,034) (1,724,966) - - (46,601,000) Total accumulated depreciation (59,359,320) (2,670,185) 66,145 - (61,963,360) Total capital assets being depreciated, net 58,817,883 (475,159) (89,972) 2,006,544 60,259,296 Intangible assets being amortized:
Right of use - leased vehicles 363,368 - (363,368) - -
Right of use - leased equipment 110,331 - (110,331) - - Righ tof use - subscription asset 949,058 34,005 - - 983,063 Total intangible assets being amortized 1,422,757 34,005 (473,699) - 983,063 Less accumulated amortization for:
Right of use - leased vehicles (162,978) - 162,978 - -
Right of use - leased equipment (107,349) (2,982) 110,331 - - Righ tof use - subscription asset (499,265) (264,803) - - (764,068) Total accumulated amortization (769,592) (267,785) 273,309 - (764,068) Total intangible assets being amortized, net 653,165 (233,780) (200,390) - 218,995 Total governmental activities $ 4,173,743 90,629,216 $ (331,043) $ - $ 94,471,916 $ City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
66 Note 5 – Capital Assets (Continued)
A. Governmental Activities (Continued)
Depreciation and amortization expense was charged to functions/programs of governmental activities for the year ended June 30, 2025 as follows:
General government 329,520 $
Public safety 464,500
Community development 123,734
Public works 1,866,173
Internal service funds 154,043
Total $ 2,937,970
B. Business-Type Activities
The summary of changes in business-type activities capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2025 is as follows:
Balance
July 1, 2024 Balance
(As Restated) Additions Deletions Reclassification June 30, 2025 Capital assets not being depreciated:
Construction in progress-water 2,660,703 $ 63,941 $ - $ - $ 2,724,644 $ Construction in progress-sewer 617,088 520,431 (7,671) (40,000) 1,089,848 Total capital assets not being depreciated 3,277,791 584,372 (7,671) (40,000) 3,814,492 Capital assets being depreciated:
Buildings and improvements - water 73,284 - - - 73,284
Machinery and equipment - water 644,596 - - - 644,596
Machinery and equipment - sewer 829,189 21,220 - - 850,409 Vehicles - water 503,027 - - - 503,027
Vehicles - sewer 382,670 - - - 382,670
Infrastructure - water 34,382,051 73,426 - - 34,455,477 Infrastructure - sewer 38,622,844 - - 40,000 38,662,844 Total capital assets being depreciated 75,437,661 94,646 - 40,000 75,572,307 Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings and improvements - water (73,284) - - - (73,284) Machinery and equipment - water (507,144) (6,400) - - (513,544) Machinery and equipment - sewer (349,738) (19,306) - - (369,044) Vehicles - water (243,659) (39,560) - - (283,219)
Vehicles - sewer (382,670) - - - (382,670)
Infrastructure - water (20,784,507) (397,671) - - (21,182,178) Infrastructure - sewer (20,178,436) (582,894) - - (20,761,330) Total accumulated depreciation (42,519,438) (1,045,831) - - (43,565,269) Total capital assets being depreciated, net 32,918,223 (951,185) - 40,000 32,007,038 Intangible assets being amortized:
Right of use - subscription asset - water 197,421 - - - 197,421 Right of use - subscription asset - sewer 159,816 - - - 159,816 Total intangible assets being amortized 357,237 - - - 357,237 Less accumulated amortization for:
Right of use - subscription asset - water (86,303) (47,403) - - (133,706) Right of use - subscription asset - sewer (68,963) (34,869) - - (103,832) Total accumulated amortization (155,266) (82,272) - - (237,538) Total intangible assets being amortized, net 201,971 (82,272) - - 119,699 Total business-type activities $ (449,085) 36,397,985 $ (7,671) $ - $ 35,941,229 $ City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
67 Note 5 – Capital Assets (Continued)
B. Business-Type Activities (Continued)
Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of business-type activities for the year ended June 30, 2025 as follows:
Water Utility 491,034 $
Sewer Utility 637,069
Total $ 1,128,103
Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities
A. Governmental Activities
Summary of changes in long-term liabilities for governmental activities for the year ended June 30, 2025 is as follows:
Balance
July 1, 2024 Balance Due within Due in more
(As Restated) Additions Deletions June 30, 2025 One Year than One Year Lease Liabilities
De Lage Landen 3,046 $ - $ (3,046) $ - $ - $ - $
Enterprise Fleet 207,226 - (207,226) - - -
Subscription liabilities 455,855 34,005 (255,999) 233,861 113,820 120,041 Claims payable 331,403 34,492 (143,706) 222,189 44,438 177,751 Compensated absences 2,109,512 559,736 * 2,669,248 - 549,934 2,119,314 Total 3,107,042 $ 628,233 $ (609,977) $ 3,125,298 $ 708,192 $ 2,417,106 $ * The change in the compensated absences liability is presented as a net change.
Classification
The General Fund has been used to liquidate the majority of the liability for compensated absences.
De Lage Landen Lease Payable
On August 27, 2019, the City entered into a 60-month lease agreement with De Lage Landen Public Finance LLC for 22 copy machines for a monthly lease payment in the amount of $4,612. Lease payments are due on the 1st of each month. Interest on the copy machines accrues at 1.5% annum. In the event of default, the lease shall be deemed terminated. During the year ended June 30, 2025, the lease was fully paid off.
Enterprise Fleet
On October 25, 2021, the City entered into a 60-month lease agreement with Enterprise Fleet Management for 3 vehicles for a total monthly lease payment in the amount of $3,202. As of June 30, 2023 the City leased a total of 6 vehicles with terms of 48-month for a total monthly lease payment in the amount of $7,030. Lease payments are due on the 1st of each month. Interest accrues at 1.5% annum. In the event of default, the lease shall be deemed terminated. As of July 2025, the City terminated the lease with Enterprise and fully purchased all remaining vehicles.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
68 Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities (Continued)
A. Governmental Activities (Continued)
Subscription Liabilities
The City entered into subscription agreements with various vendors for software. The agreements expire from July 19, 2025 to June 30, 2027 with interest rates ranging 2.35 percent to 3.76 percent. Outstanding subscription liabilities at June 30, 2025 was in the amount of $233,861.
The future subscription payments are as follows:
Year Ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2026 113,820 $ 5,872 $ 119,692 $
2027 120,041 2,754 122,795
Total $ 8,626 233,861 $ 242,487 $
B. Business-Type Activities
Summary of changes in long-term liabilities for business-type activities for the year ended June 30, 2025 is as follows:
Balance
July 1, 2024 Balance Due within Due in more
(as restated) Additions Deletions June 30, 2025 One Year than One Year Private Placement
2011 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds 1,180,000 $ - $ (215,000) $ 965,000 $ 225,000 $ 740,000 $ Direct Borrowing
Sewer Capital Improvement Project #1 1,212,172 - (138,264) 1,073,908 141,859 932,049 Sewer Capital Improvement Project #2 929,237 - (82,562) 846,675 84,709 761,966 West Orange County Water Board Loan 358,855 - (126,654) 232,201 84,436 147,765 Subscriptions
Subscription liabilities - water 108,547 - (43,750) 64,797 31,993 32,804 Subscription liabilities - sewer 95,998 - (31,201) 64,797 31,993 32,804 Compensated absences 169,032 13,004 * 182,036 - 39,336 142,700 Total $ 13,004 4,053,841 $ (637,431) $ 3,429,414 $ 639,326 $ 2,790,088 $ * The change in the compensated absences liability is presented as a net change.
Classification
2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds
On March 2, 2011, the City issued 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds in the amount of $3,310,000 to pay off the 2000 Sewer System Certificates of Participation. The 2000 Sewer System Certificates of Participation were issued to provide for improvements to the City’s sewer system.
Interest rate on the 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds is 4.8%, and the outstanding balance of the 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds at June 30, 2025 was $965,000. In the event of a default the City may be required to pay all principal components of the unpaid installment payments, together with accrued interest at the overdue rate from the preceding interest payment date which will become immediately due and payable.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
69 Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities (Continued)
B. Business-Type Activities (Continued)
2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds (Continued)
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2026 225,000 $ 43,680 $ 268,680 $
2027 235,000 32,760 267,760
2028 245,000 21,360 266,360
2029 260,000 9,360 269,360
Total 965,000 $ 107,160 $ 1,072,160 $
Sewer Capital Improvement Project Loan #1
On April 6, 2011, the City entered into an agreement with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Control Board for construction of the Sewer Capital Improvement project. The City may borrow up to $2,644,356 or the eligible costs of the project, whichever is less. As of June 30, 2025, the City had drawn down the entire loan fund. The loan has an interest rate of 2.6% with maturities through 2031. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2025 was $1,073,908.
In the event of default, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Control Board may sue the City as it deems necessary to compel the payment of the loan.
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2026 141,859 $ 27,922 $ 169,781 $
2027 145,547 24,233 169,780
2028 149,331 20,449 169,780
2029 153,214 16,566 169,780
2030 157,197 12,583 169,780
2031-2032 326,760 12,798 339,558
Total 1,073,908 $ 114,551 $ 1,188,459 $
Sewer Capital Improvement Project Loan #2
On April 6, 2011, the City entered into an agreement with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Control Board for construction of the Sewer Capital Improvement project. The City may borrow up to $2,125,112 or the eligible costs of the project, whichever is less. At June 30, 2025, the State Water Resources Control Board had disbursed $1,652,742. The loan has an interest rate of 2.6% with maturities through 2031. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2025 was $846,675.
In the event of default, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Control Board may sue the City as it deems necessary to compel the payment of the loan.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
70 Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities (Continued)
B. Business-Type Activities (Continued)
Sewer Capital Improvement Project Loan #2 (Continued)
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2026 84,709 $ 22,014 $ 106,723 $
2027 86,912 19,811 106,723
2028 89,171 17,551 106,722
2029 91,490 15,233 106,723
2030 93,869 12,854 106,723
2031-2034 400,524 26,368 426,892
Total 846,675 $ 113,831 $ 960,506 $
West Orange County Water Board Loan
On December 11, 2017, the City entered into financial participation agreement with the West Orange County Water Board (the “WOCWB”) for relocation of the City’s allocated 14.3% ownership in the waterline. The City’s portion of project costs was in the amount of $894,928. The repayments are due quarterly on the first of the month commencing June 1, 2018. The interest rate ranges from 1.414% to 5.314% with maturity date on March 1, 2028.
The outstanding balance at June 30, 2025 was $232,201.
The annual debt service requirements are as follows:
Year ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2026 84,436 $ 6,764 $ 91,200 $
2027 84,436 4,370 88,806
2028 63,329 1,302 64,631
Total 232,201 $ 12,436 $ 244,637 $
Subscription Liabilities
The City entered into subscription agreements with various vendors for software. The agreements expire from July 19, 2025 to February 8, 2027 with interest rates ranging 2.35 percent to 2.80 percent. Outstanding subscription liabilities at June 30, 2025 was in the amount of $204,545.
The future subscription payments are as follows:
Year Ending
June 30, Principal Interest Total
2026 63,986 $ 3,287 $ 67,273 $
2027 65,608 1,664 67,272
Total 129,594 $ 4,951 $ 134,545 $
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
71 Note 7 – Non-City Obligations
A. Heron Pointe Community Facilities District No. 2002-01 The Heron Pointe Community Facilities District No. 2002-01 was formed to finance public facilities improvements within Heron Pointe. The debt service payments on the bonds will be included on property tax bills within community facilities district and will be collected by the City and then forwarded to the paying agent. A reserve fund was established in which the City may make withdrawals enough to cover any delinquent payments on the reassessments. The City has no liability for the bonds beyond the amount held in the reserve fund. The bonds are not secured by the general taxing power of the City, county, state, or any political subdivision of the state nor have the City, county, state, or any political subdivision thereof pledged its full faith and credit for the repayment thereof.
Since the City has no liability for these bonds, the reserve fund and debt service monies are stored in the Agency Fund and the debt is not included in the financial statements. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2025, was $2,200,000.
B. Pacific Gateway Business Center Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 The Pacific Gateway Business Center Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 was formed to finance public facilities within the Pacific Gateway. The debt service payments on the bonds will be included on property tax bills within the community facilities district and will be collected by the City and then forwarded to the paying agent. A reserve fund was established in which the City may make withdrawals enough to cover any delinquent payments on the reassessments. The City has no liability for the bonds beyond the amount held in the Reserve Fund. The bonds are not secured by the general taxing power of the City, county, state, or any political subdivision of the state nor have the City, county, state, or any political subdivision thereof pledged its full faith and credit for the repayment thereof. Since the City has no liability for these bonds, the reserve fund and debt service monies are stored in the Agency Fund and the debt is not included in the financial statements. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2025, was $6,065,000.
Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program
A. Description of Self-Insurance Pool Pursuant to Joint Powers Agreement The City of Seal Beach (the “City”) is a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (the “Authority”). The Authority is composed of 126 California public entities and is organized under a joint powers agreement pursuant to California Government Code §6500 et seq. The purpose of the Authority is to arrange and administer programs for the pooling of self-insured losses, to purchase excess insurance or reinsurance, and to arrange for group purchased insurance for property and other lines of coverage. The California JPIA began covering claims of its members in 1978. Each member government has an elected official as its representative on the Board of Directors. The Board operates through a nine-member Executive Committee.
B. Primary Self-Insurance Programs of the Authority
Each member pays an annual contribution at the beginning of the coverage period. The total funding requirement for primary self-insurance programs is based on an actuarial analysis. Costs are allocated to individual agencies based on payroll and claims history, relative to other members of the risk-sharing pool.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
72 Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program (Continued) B. Primary Self-Insurance Programs of the Authority (Continued) Primary Liability Program
Claims are pooled separately between police and general government exposures. (1) The payroll of each member is evaluated relative to the payroll of other members. A variable credibility factor is determined for each member, which establishes the weight applied to payroll and the weight applied to losses within the formula. (2) The first layer of losses includes incurred costs up to $100,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the first layer. (3) The second layer of losses includes incurred costs from $100,000 to $500,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the second layer. (4) Incurred costs from $500,000 to $50 million, are distributed based on the outcome of cost allocation within the first and second loss layers.
The overall coverage limit for each member, including all layers of coverage, is $50 million per occurrence.
Subsidence losses also have a $50 million per occurrence limit. The coverage structure is composed of a combination of pooled self-insurance, reinsurance, and excess insurance. Additional information concerning the coverage structure is available on the Authority’s website: https://cjpia.org/coverage/risk-sharing-pools/.
Primary Workers' Compensation Program
Claims are pooled separately between public safety (police and fire) and general government exposures. (1) The payroll of each member is evaluated relative to the payroll of other members. A variable credibility factor is determined for each member, which establishes the weight applied to payroll and the weight applied to losses within the formula. (2) The first layer of losses includes incurred costs up to $75,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the first layer. (3) The second layer of losses includes incurred costs from $75,000 to $200,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the second layer. (4) Incurred costs from $200,000 to statutory limits are distributed based on the outcome of cost allocation within the first and second loss layers.
For 2024-25 the Authority’s pooled retention is $1 million per occurrence, with reinsurance to statutory limits under California Workers’ Compensation Law. Employer’s Liability losses are pooled among members to $1 million.
Coverage from $1 million to $5 million is purchased through reinsurance policies, and Employer’s Liability losses from $5 million to $10 million are pooled among members.
C. Purchased Insurance
Pollution Legal Liability Insurance
The City participates in the pollution legal liability insurance program which is available through the Authority.
The policy covers sudden and gradual pollution of scheduled property, streets, and storm drains owned by the City.
Coverage is on a claims-made basis. There is a $250,000 deductible. The Authority has an aggregate limit of $20 million.
Property Insurance
The City participates in the all-risk property protection program of the Authority. This insurance protection is underwritten by several insurance companies. City property is currently insured according to a schedule of covered property submitted by the City to the Authority. City property currently has all-risk property insurance protection in the amount of $69,017,982. There is a $10,000 deductible per occurrence except for non-emergency vehicle insurance which has a $2,500 deductible.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
73 Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program (Continued) C. Purchased Insurance (Continued)
Crime Insurance
The City purchases crime insurance coverage in the amount of $3,000,000 with a $2,500 deductible. The fidelity coverage is provided through the Authority.
D. Adequacy of Protection
During the past three fiscal years, none of the above programs of protection experienced settlements or judgments that exceeded pooled or insured coverage. There were also no significant reductions in pooled or insured liability coverage in 2024-25.
E. Claims Activity
Claims expenses and liabilities are recognized when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of that loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities are based on estimates of the ultimate cost of claims, including future claim adjustment expenses, for claims that have been reported as well as those that have been incurred but not yet reported. These estimates are reviewed periodically and are subject to adjustment as additional information becomes available.
The City retains responsibility for workers’ compensation tail claims related to incidents that occurred prior to joining the Authority. These liabilities represent claims incurred before participation but settled or paid subsequent to joining. As of June 30, 2025, the estimated liability for these tail claims was $222,189.
A summary of the changes in claims liabilities for the past three fiscal years is as follows:
Balance Current Year
Beginning of Year Changes in Claim Balance
Workers' Compensation (As Restated) Estimates Payments End of Year 2022-2023 263,169 $ 2,366 $ (90,489) $ 175,046 $
2023-2024 175,046 188,743 (32,386) 331,403
2024-2025 331,403 34,492 (143,706) 222,189
Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans
A. General Information about the Pension Plan
Plan Description
The City contributes to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”), a cost-sharing multipleemployer defined benefit pension plan. CalPERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. CalPERS acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the State of California. Benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by State statute and City ordinance. Copies of the CalPERS annual financial report may be obtained from https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/forms-publications.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
74 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
A. General Information about the Pension Plan (Continued) Employees Covered by Benefit Terms
At June 30, 2023, the following employees were covered by the benefit terms:
Misc
Misc
PEPRA Safety Safety Fire
Safety
Police
PEPRA
Other
Safety
PEPRA
Active employees 28 31 29 - 12 2
Transferred and terminated employees 33 12 4 - - -
Separated 26 4 5 - 2 -
Retired Employees and Beneficiaries 157 1 98 37 - -
Total 48 244 136 37 14 2
Benefit Provided
CalPERS provide retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. Classic miscellaneous members become eligible for service retirement upon attainment of age 55 with at least 5 years of credited service. PEPRA miscellaneous members become eligible for service retirement upon attainment of age 62 with at least 5 years of service. Classic safety members become eligible for service retirement upon attainment of age 50 with at least five years of service. PEPRA safety members become eligible for service retirement upon attainment of age 57 with at least five years of service. The service retirement benefit is a monthly allowance equal to the product of the benefit factor, years of service, and final compensation.
The final compensation is the monthly average of the member's highest 36 full-time equivalent monthly pay.
Following are the benefit provisions for each plan:
Miscellaneous Rate PEPRA Safety Rate PEPRA Safety
Plan* Rate Plan Plan* Rate Plan
Hire date Prior to January 1, 2013 Prior to January 1, 2013 Benefit formula 2% @ 55 2% @ 62 3% @ 50 2.7% @ 57
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service 5 years service 5 years service Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life monthly for life monthly for life Retirement age minimum 50 yrs minimum 52 yrs minimum 50 yrs minimum 50 yrs Monthly benefits, as a % of eligible
compensation
1.426% - 2.418%,
50 yrs - 63+ yrs,
respectively
1.000% - 2.500%,
52 yrs - 67+ yrs,
respectively
3.000%,
50+ yrs
2.000%-2.7000%,
52 yrs - 57+ yrs,
respectively
* Closed to new entrants
Cost-sharing Rate Plans
Participants are eligible for non-industrial disability retirement if they become disabled and have at least 5 years of credited service. There is no special age requirement. The standard non-industrial disability retirement benefit is a monthly allowance equal to 1.8 percent of final compensation, multiplied by service. Industrial disability benefits are not offered to miscellaneous employees.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
75 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
A. General Information about the Pension Plan (Continued) Benefit Provided (Continued)
An employee's beneficiary may receive the basic death benefit if the employee dies while actively employed. The employee must be actively employed with the City to be eligible for this benefit. An employee's survivor who is eligible for any other pre-retirement death benefit may choose to receive that death benefit instead of this basic death benefit. The basic death benefit is a lump sum in the amount of the employee's accumulated contributions, where interest is currently credited at 6 percent per year, plus a lump sum in the amount of one month's salary for each completed year of current service, up to a maximum of six months' salary. For purposes of this benefit, one month's salary is defined as the member's average monthly full-time rate of compensation during the 12 months preceding death.
Upon the death of a retiree, a one-time lump sum payment of $500 will be made to the retiree's designated survivor(s), or to the retiree's estate.
Benefit terms provide for annual cost-of-living adjustments to each employee’s retirement allowance. Beginning the second calendar year after the year of retirement, retirement and survivor allowances will be annually adjusted on a compound basis by 2 percent.
Contributions
Section 20814(c) of the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”) requires that the employer contribution rates for all public employers be determined on an annual basis by the actuary and shall be effective on the July 1 following notice of a change in the rate. The total plan contributions are determined through CalPERS’ annual actuarial valuation process. The actuarially determined rate is based on the estimated amount necessary to pay the Plan's allocated share of the risk pool's costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, and any unfunded accrued liability. The City is required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution rate of employees. For the measurement period ended June 30, 2024 (the measurement date), the contribution rates were as follows:
Miscellaneous Rate PEPRA Safety Rate PEPRA Safety
Plan* Rate Plan Plan* Rate Plan
Required employee contribution rates 7.00% 8.25% 9.00% 14.50% Required employer contribution rates 13.26% 8.00% 29.09% 15.50% * Closed to new entrants
Cost-sharing Rate Plans
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
76 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions Used to Determine Total Pension Liability The June 30, 2023 valuation was rolled forward to determine June 30, 2024 total pension liability based on the following actuarial methods and assumptions:
Actuarial Cost Method
Actuarial Assumptions:
Discount Rate 6.90%
Inflation 2.30%
Salary Increases
Mortality Rate Table1
Post Retirement Benefit Increase The lesser of contract COLA or 2.30% until Purchasing Power Protection Allowance floor on purchasing power applies, 2.30% thereafter.
Derived using CalPERS’ Membership Data for all Funds
Entry Age Actuarial Cost Method
Varies by Entry Age and Service
1The mortality table used was developed based on CalPERS-specific data. The probabilities of mortality are based on the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. Mortality rates incorporate full generational mortality improvement using 80% of Scale MP-2020 published by the Society of Actuaries. For more details on this table, please refer to the 2021 experience study report from November 2021 that can be found on the CalPERS website.
Change of Assumption
In 2024, there were no changes in assumptions.
Long-term Expected Rate of Return
The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-block method in which expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class.
In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account both short-term and long-term market return expectations. Using historical returns of all of the funds’ asset classes, expected compound (geometric) returns were calculated over the next 20 years using a building-block approach. The expected rate of return was then adjusted to account for assumed administrative expenses of 10 basis points.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
77 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (Continued)
Long-term Expected Rate of Return (Continued)
The expected real rates of return by asset class are as follows:
Assumed Asset
Asset Class1 Allocation Real Return1,2
Global Equity - Cap-weighted 30.00% 4.54%
Global Equity - Non-Cap-weighted 12.00% 3.80%
Private Equity 13.00% 7.28%
Treasury 5.00% 0.27%
Mortgage-backed Securities 5.00% 0.50%
Investment Grade Corporates 10.00% 1.56%
High Yield 5.00% 2.27%
Emerging Market Debt 5.00% 2.48%
Private Debt 5.00% 3.57%
Real Assets 15.00% 3.21%
Leverage -5.00% -0.59%
100.00%
1 An expected inflation of 2.30% used for this period.
2 Figures are based on the 2021 Asset Liability Management study.
Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 6.90%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from plan members will be made at the current member contribution rates and that contributions from employers will be made at statutorily required rates, actuarially determined. Based on those assumptions, the Plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability.
Subsequent Events
There were no subsequent events that would materially affect the results presented in this disclosure.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
78 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (Continued)
Sensitivity of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The following presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability of the Plan as of the measurement date, calculated using the discount rate of 6.90%, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1 percentage-point lower (5.90%) or 1 percentagepoint higher (7.90%) than the current rate:
Discount Rate Current Discount Discount Rate
- 1% (5.90%) Rate (6.90%) + 1% (7.90%)
Miscellaneous $ 17,781,656 25,787,062 $ 11,192,028 $
Safety $ 33,786,149 49,244,879 $ 21,143,081 $
Plan's Net Pension Liability/(Asset)
Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position
Detail information about the plan’s fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued CalPERS financial report and can be obtained from CalPERS’ website under Forms and Publications.
Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability and Pension Expense The following table shows the plan’s proportionate share of the risk pool collective net pension liability over the measurement period:
Plan Total Plan Fiduciary Net Pension
Pension Liability Net Position Liability/(Asset)
Miscellaneous
Balance at: 6/30/23 (Valuation date) 57,305,152 $ 39,479,926 $ 17,825,226 $ Balance at: 6/30/24 (Measurement date) 59,325,499 41,543,843 17,781,656 Net Changes during 2023-2024 2,020,347 2,063,917 (43,570) Safety
Balance at: 6/30/23 (Valuation date) 108,683,799 $ 74,040,135 $ 34,643,664 $ Balance at: 6/30/24 (Measurement date) 113,168,657 79,382,508 33,786,149 Net Changes during 2023-2024 4,484,858 5,342,373 (857,515) Increase (Decrease)
The following is the approach established by the plan actuary to allocate the net pension liability and pension expense to the individual employers within the risk pool. (1) In determining a cost-sharing plan’s proportionate share, total amounts of liabilities and assets are first calculated for the risk pool as a whole on the valuation date (June 30, 2023). The risk pool’s fiduciary net position (“FNP”) subtracted from its total pension liability (“TPL”) determines the net pension liability (“NPL”) at the valuation date.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
79 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (Continued)
Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability and Pension Expense (Continued) (2) Using standard actuarial roll forward methods, the risk pool TPL is then computed at the measurement date (June 30, 2024). Risk pool FNP at the measurement date is then subtracted from this number to compute the NPL for the risk pool at the measurement date. For purposes of FNP in this step and any later reference thereto, the risk pool’s FNP at the measurement date denotes the aggregate risk pool’s FNP at June 30, 2024 less the sum of all additional side fund (or unfunded liability) contributions made by all employers during the measurement period (2023-2024).
(3) The individual plan’s TPL, FNP and NPL are also calculated at the valuation date. TPL is allocated based on the rate plan’s share of the actuarial accrued liability. FNP is allocated based on the rate plan’s share of the fair value assets.
(4) Two ratios are created by dividing the plan’s individual TPL and FNP as of the valuation date from (3) by the amounts in step (1), the risk pool’s total TPL and FNP, respectively. (5) The plan’s TPL as of the Measurement Date is equal to the risk pool TPL generated in (2) multiplied by the TPL ratio generated in (4). The plan’s FNP as of the Measurement Date is equal to the FNP generated in (2) multiplied by the FNP ratio generated in (4) plus any additional side fund (or unfunded liability) contributions made by the employer on behalf of the plan during the measurement period. (6) The plan’s NPL at the Measurement Date is the difference between the TPL and FNP calculated in (5).
Deferred outflows of resources, deferred inflows of resources, and pension expense is allocate based on the City’s share of contributions during measurement period.
The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability was as follows:
Miscellaneous Safety
June 30, 2023 0.14288% 0.27770%
June 30, 2024 0.14662% 0.27859%
Change - Increase (Decrease) 0.00374% 0.00089%
The amortization period differs depending on the source of the gain or loss. The difference between projected and actual earnings is amortized over 5-years straight line. All other amounts are amortized straight-line over the average expected remaining service lives of all members that are provided with benefits (active, inactive and retired) as of the beginning of the measurement period.
The expected average remaining service lifetime (“EARSL”) is calculated by dividing the total future service years by the total number of plan participants (active, inactive, and retired) in the risk pool. The EARSL for risk pool for the 2023-2024 measurement period is 3.8 years, which was obtained by dividing the total service years of 630,177 (the sum of remaining service lifetimes of the active employees) by 166,163 (the total number of participants:
active, inactive, and retired). Inactive employees and retirees have remaining service lifetimes equal to 0. Total future service is based on the members’ probability of decrementing due to an event other than receiving a cash refund.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
80 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued)
B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (Continued)
Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability and Pension Expense (Continued) For the year ended June 30, 2025, the City recognized pension expense for the miscellaneous and safety plans in the amounts of $3,030,478 and $6,628,087, respectively. At June 30, 2025, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources:
Deferred outflows Deferred inflows Deferred outflows Deferred inflows of Resources of Resources of Resources of Resources
Contribution after measurement date 2,031,324 $ - $ 4,644,473 $ - $ Changes of assumptions 457,025 - 832,421 -
Difference between expected and actual
experience 1,537,386 (59,987) 2,757,251 (89,649)
Net difference between projected and actual
earning on pension plan investments 1,023,666 - 1,633,070 - Differences in proportions - (447,859) 38,982 (619,572) Difference between City contributions and
proportionate share of contributions 186,000 (80,041) 1,448,666 (225,774) Total $ (587,887) 5,235,401 $ 11,354,863 $ (934,995) $
Miscellaneous Safety
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from the City’s contributions made subsequent to the measurement date in the amount of $2,031,324 and $4,644,473 for the miscellaneous and safety plans, respectively, will be recognized as a reduction of the collective net pension liability in the year ending June 30, 2026. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows:
Measurement Period
Ended June 30, Miscellaneous Safety
2025 707,273 $ 2,168,122 $
2026 2,250,220 4,061,401
2027 9,494 104,636
2028 (350,797) (558,764)
2029 - -
Thereafter - -
$ 5,775,395 2,616,190 $
Deferred Outflows/ (Inflows) of Resources
Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan
A. General Information about the OPEB Plan
Plan Description
The City provides postretirement medical benefits to employees who retire directly from the City under CalPERS under a single-employer defined benefit post-employment benefits plan. Eligible retirees can continue participation in the City medical plans (“PEMHCA”). For miscellaneous retirees, the City contributes up to a capped dollar amount which varies by bargaining unit, medical coverage, and years of service. For police safety retirees, the City contribution rate varies by date of hire and date of retirement.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
81 Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan A. General Information about the OPEB Plan (Continued)
Benefits Provided
Future Retirees are eligible for PEMCHA minimum medical benefits ($158 per month in 2025) if they retire at Age 50 and above. For legacy hires, reimbursements are generally subject to a maximum, which varies by bargaining group and service years. Dependents are eligible to enroll subject to service year requirements.
Employees Covered by Benefit Term
Active employees 107
Inactive employees entitled to but not yet
receiving benefit payments -
Inactive employees, spouses, or beneficiaries
currently receiving benefit payments 76
Total 183
Contributions
The City makes contributions based on an actuarially determined rate. 4.05% for 12 years, 2.52% thereafter.
B. Net OPEB Liability
The City's net OPEB liability is based on a roll-forward of the June 30, 2023 valuation with liabilities and assets measured as of June 30, 2024.
Actuarial Assumptions
The total OPEB liability in the June 30, 2023 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless otherwise specified:
Actuarial Cost Method Entry age normal
Actuarial Assumptions:
Inflation 2.30%
Salary increases 2.80%
Investment rate of return 6.40%
Healthcare cost trend rates 6.80% (pre-Medicare) / 4.17% (Medicare) in 2024, decreasing gradually to an ultimate rate of 4.14% by 2075.
Mortality rate Derived using CalPERS’ Membership Data for all Funds.
Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 6.40%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that the City contribution will be made at rates equal to the actuarially determined contribution rates. Based on those assumptions, the OPEB plan's fiduciary net position was projected to cover all future OPEB payments. Therefore, the discount rate was set equal to the long-term expected rate of return.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
82 Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan (Continued) B. Net OPEB Liability (Continued)
Expected Long-Term Rates of Return
Projected Real
Asset Class Rates of Return 1 Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Global Equity 6.90% 49.0% 34.0% 23.0%
Global Fixed Income 4.10% 23.0% 41.0% 51.0%
REITs 6.30% 20.0% 17.0% 14.0%
TIPS 3.90% 5.0% 5.0% 9.0%
Commodities 4.60% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1 An expected inflation of 2.3% used for this period
Target Allocation CERBT
Changes of Assumptions
The discount rate changed from 6.00% to 6.40%, the Pre-Medicare rate changed from 7.40% to 6.80%, and the Medicare rate changed from 4.20% to 4.17% from measurement dates June 30, 2023 to June 30, 2024.
Expected Average Remaining Service Lives (“EARSL”)
The effects on the total OPEB liability of (1) changes of economic and demographic assumptions or of other inputs and (2) differences between expected and actual experience are required to be included in the OPEB expense in a systematic and rational manner over a closed period equal to the average of the expected remaining service lives of all employees that are provided with benefits through the OPEB plan (active employees and inactive employees), beginning in the current period. The expected average remaining service lives (EARSL) for the current period follows. Note, however, that for calculation purposes, we use 1 when calculating amortizations if the EARSL is less than 1 year.
EARSL: 7.2 years
C. Changes in the Net OPEB Liability
Total OPEB Fiduciary Net Net OPEB
Liability Position Liability
Balances as of June 30, 2023 (Measurement Date) 11,553,425 $ 7,833,668 $ 3,719,757 $ Changes during the measurement period:
Service cost 312,604 - 312,604
Interest 688,211 - 688,211
Differences between expected and actual experience 103,577 - 103,577 Change of assumptions (462,805) - (462,805)
Contributions:
Employer — City's Contributions - 758,939 (758,939)
Employer — Implicit Subsidy - 200,085 (200,085)
Net investment income - 859,520 (859,520)
Benefit payments (591,598) (591,598) -
Implicit Subsidy (200,085) (200,085) -
Administrative expenses - (2,554) 2,554
Other Additions/Deductions - 2,600 (2,600)
Net changes during measurement period 2023-2024 (150,096) 1,026,907 (1,177,003) Balances as of June 30, 2024 (Measurement Date) 11,403,329 $ 8,860,575 $ 2,542,754 $ Increase (Decrease)
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
83 Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan (Continued) C. Changes in the Net OPEB Liability (Continued)
Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The net OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City's net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower (5.40%) or one percentage point higher (7.40%) follows:
Discount Rate Current Discount Discount Rate
- 1% (5.40%) Rate (6.40%) + 1% (7.40%)
$ 2,542,754 3,759,109 $ 1,506,298 $
Net OPEB Liability/(Asset)
Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Healthcare Cost Trend Rates The net OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City's net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are one percentage point lower or one percentage point higher than current healthcare cost trend rates follows:
Healthcare
1% Decrease Cost Trend Rate 1% Increase
$ 2,542,754 1,524,318 $ 3,716,524 $
Net OPEB Liability/(Asset)
D. OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB For the year ended June 30, 2025, the City recognized an OPEB expense of $306,850. At June 30, 2025, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB from the following sources:
Deferred outflows Deferred inflows
of Resources of Resources
OPEB contribution after measurement date 816,318 $ - $
Changes of assumptions 470,676 (1,064,598)
Difference between expected and actual experience 141,562 (1,045,151) Difference between projected and actual earning on
OPEB plan investments 4,126 -
Total 1,432,682 $ (2,109,749) $
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
84 Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan (Continued) D. OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB (Continued)
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB resulting from City’s contributions subsequent to the measurement date in the amount of $816,318 will be recognized as a reduction of the net OPEB liability in the year ending June 30, 2026. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB will be recognized in OPEB expense as follows:
Measurement
Period Ending
June 30,
Deferred
Outflows/
(Inflows) of
Resources
2025 (291,807) $
2026 (21,606)
2027 (335,961)
2028 (364,109)
2029 (358,343)
Thereafter (121,559)
$ (1,493,385)
Note 11 – Net Investment in Capital Assets
Net investment in capital assets at June 30, 2025 is reported as follows:
Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Water Utility Sewer Utility
Total capital assets, net 94,471,916 $ 35,941,229 $ 16,412,518 $ 19,528,711 $ Deferred loss on refunding debt - 48,281 - 48,281
Retention payable (224,307) (21,697) (3,196) (18,501)
Capital related debt (233,861) (3,247,378) (296,998) (2,950,380) Net investment in capital assets 94,013,748 $ 32,720,435 $ 16,112,324 $ 16,608,111 $ Enterprise Fund
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
85 Note 12 – Classification of Fund Balances
At June 30, 2025, fund balances are classified in the governmental funds as follows:
Capital Projects
and Equipment Nonmajor
General Capital Projects Governmental
Fund Fund Funds Total
Nonspendable:
Prepaid items 119,534 $ - $ - $ 119,534 $
Restricted:
Waste Management 102,622 - - 102,622
Parking In-lieu 178,239 - - 178,239
I-405 Corridor Improvements 322,279 - - 322,279
Supplemental Law Enforcement - - 124,632 124,632
Detention Center - - - -
Police Asset Forfeiture - - 167,372 167,372
Air Quality Improvements - - 10,685 10,685
Parks Improvement - - 57,173 57,173
Traffic Impact - - 206,565 206,565
State Gasoline Tax - - 2,537,975 2,537,975
Measure M2 - - 820,699 820,699
Community Development Block Grant - - 73,249 73,249
Landscape District - - 739,883 739,883
Heron Pointe - - 79,454 79,454
Pacific Gateway - - 183,588 183,588
Seal Beach Cable - - 681,806 681,806
SB 1 - - 531,956 531,956
Total restricted 603,140 - 6,215,037 6,818,177
Committed:
Fiscal Policy 10,991,159 - - 10,991,159
Economic Contingency 1,750,000 - - 1,750,000
Capital Project Improvement 10,977,762 234,348 - 11,212,110 Total committed 23,718,921 234,348 - 23,953,269
Assigned:
Community Development 769,710 - - 769,710
Public Works 439,341 - - 439,341
Pier Restaurant 1,792,805 - - 1,792,805
Compensated Absences 2,517,704 - - 2,517,704
Encumbrances 455,145 - - 455,145
Other 62,595 - - 62,595
Total assigned 6,037,300 - - 6,037,300
Unassigned (deficit) - 11,869,857 (369,294) 11,500,563
Total fund balances $ 234,348 42,348,752 $ 5,845,743 $ 48,428,843 $ City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
86 Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies
A. Commitments
The City has active projects as of June 30, 2025. At year-end, the City’s commitments with contractors for these projects are as follows:
Projects Commitments
Pump Station 35 Upgrades 1,355,043 $
I-405 Improvement Project for Waterline Relocation 245,447 SCADA Improvement Upgrade Project 33,968
B. Encumbrances
The City uses encumbrances to control expenditure commitments for the year. Encumbrances represent commitments related to executor contracts not yet performed and purchase orders not yet filled. Commitments for such expenditure of monies are encumbered to reserve a portion of applicable appropriations. Encumbrances still open at year end are not accounted for as expenditures and liabilities, but as restricted, or assigned fund balance.
As of June 30, 2025, the City had the following encumbrances outstanding:
Governmental Funds:
General Fund 455,144 $
Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund 293,246 Nonmajor Governmental Funds 952,307
Proprietary Funds:
Water 430,904
Sewer 1,264,057
Internal services 58,126
Total 3,453,784 $
C. Contingencies
The City is a defendant in a number of lawsuits, which have arisen in the normal course of business. While substantial damages are alleged in some of these actions, their outcome cannot be predicted with certainty.
D. Grants
Amounts received or receivable from granting agencies are subject to audit and adjustment by grantor agencies.
While no matters of noncompliance were disclosed by the audit of the financial statements or single audit of the Federal grant programs, grantor agencies may subject grant programs to additional compliance tests, which may result in disallowed costs. In the opinion of management, future disallowances of current or prior grant expenditures, if any, would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the City.
City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
87 Note 14 – Individual Fund Disclosure
Funds with deficit fund balances at June 30, 2025 are as follows:
Deficit
Police Grants Special Revenue Fund (195,962) $
Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund (173,332)
The City plans to eliminate the deficit fund balances with amounts due from grantors.
The following funds exceeded appropriation amounts for the year ended June 30, 2025:
Expenditures
in Excess of
Appropriations Expenditures Appropriations
Nonmajor Governmental Funds:
Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund 32,000 $ 32,056 $ (56) $ Landscape District Special Revenue Fund 88,450 97,234 (8,784) Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund 65,000 65,935 (935) Note 15 – Restatements
During fiscal year 2025, changes in accounting principle restatements and error corrections of beginning net position and fund net position are as follows:
June 30, 2024 Changes Within the Changes in
As Previously Financial Reporting Accounting Principals June 30, 2024 Reported Entity and Estimates Error Corrections As Restated Government-Wide
Governmental Activities 100,459,364 $ - $ (815,002) $ 2,622,626 $ 102,266,988 $ Business-Type Activities 43,532,865 - (41,884) 2,652,594 46,143,575 Total primary government 143,992,229 $ - $ (856,886) $ 5,275,220 $ 148,410,563 $ Governmental Funds:
Major Funds:
Citywide Grants Special
Revenue Fund (761,934) $ 761,934 $ - $ - $ - $
Nonmajor Funds 7,844,070 (761,934) - - 7,082,136
Total Governmental Funds 46,638,538 $ - $ - $ - $ 46,638,538 $ Proprietary Funds:
Major Funds:
Water Fund 19,751,042 $ - $ (17,979) $ (261,151) $ 19,471,912 $ Sewer Fund 23,781,823 - (23,905) 2,913,745 26,671,663
Total Proprietary Funds 43,532,865 $ - $ (41,884) $ 2,652,594 $ 46,143,575 $ City of Seal Beach
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
88 Note 15 – Restatements (Continued)
Changes Within the Financial Reporting Entity
The Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund changed from a Major Fund to a Nonmajor Fund (761,934).
Error Correction
The beginning balances of the Governmental Activities, Business-Type Activities, and Proprietary Funds were restated to correct errors related to capital assets resulting from assets that were not fully captured in prior periods and depreciation that was not calculated in accordance with the City’s capitalization and depreciation policies.
As a result, the Governmental Activities beginning balance was restated to recognize construction-in-progress of $1,079,358, depreciable capital assets of $543,664, and accumulated depreciation of $999,604.
The Business-Type Activities beginning balance was restated to correct accumulated depreciation of $2,652,594.
The Proprietary Funds beginning balance was restated to correct accumulated depreciation of ($261,151) in the Water Fund and $2,913,745 in the Sewer Fund.
Changes in Accounting Principles and Estimates
The Governmental Activities beginning balance is restated to adjust for claims payable changes in estimates ($160,200).
Implementation of GASB Statement No. 101, Compensated Absences Effective for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, the City implemented GASB Statement No. 101, Compensated Absences. This statement establishes accounting and financial reporting standards for compensated absences, including vacation, sick leave, and other paid time off. The implementation of GASB 101 resulted in a change in accounting principle, and prior year amounts have been restated accordingly.
Under GASB 101, a liability must be recognized for leave that is attributable to services already rendered, accumulates and carries forward to future periods, and is more likely than not to be used or paid. This represents a shift from previous guidance, particularly in how likelihood and eligibility are assessed.
The Governmental Activities and Business-Type Activities beginning balance are restated in the amounts of ($654,802) and ($41,884), respectively. The Proprietary Funds beginning balance is restated for the Water and Sewer Funds in the amounts of ($17,979) and ($23,905), respectively.
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)
89 This page intentionally left blank.
90 Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $ 36,168,983 36,168,983 $ $ 1,779,706 37,948,689 $ Licenses and permits 735,500 737,000 331,488 1,066,988
Intergovernmental 225,580 118,300 298,665 524,245
Charges for services 6,266,391 6,264,891 276,045 6,542,436 Use of money and property 1,169,000 1,116,000 2,092,969 3,261,969 Fines and forfeitures 1,596,000 1,596,000 (104,931) 1,491,069 Contributions 42,600 42,600 51,505 94,105
Miscellaneous 226,300 226,300 405,886 632,186
Total revenues 46,430,354 46,270,074 51,561,687 5,131,333 Expenditures:
Current:
General government 8,278,222 8,195,711 8,527,678 (249,456) Public safety 26,642,425 26,068,383 25,606,881 1,035,544 Community development 2,232,446 2,232,446 2,057,439 175,007 Community services 1,432,039 1,432,739 1,505,709 (73,670) Public works 9,057,686 8,434,091 7,776,429 1,281,257
Capital outlay 1,589,777 1,152,284 1,131,714 458,063
Debt service:
Principal retirement - 88,025 259,045 (259,045)
Interest and fiscal charges - 3,786 12,153 (12,153)
Total expenditures 49,232,595 47,607,465 46,877,048 2,355,547 Revenues over (under) expenditures (2,802,241) (1,337,391) 4,684,639 7,486,880 Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in 568,876 487,781 417,990 986,866
Transfers out (9,870,501) (10,699,626) 7,044,688 (2,825,813) Proceeds from issuance of subscription - - 34,005 34,005 Total other financing sources (uses) (9,301,625) (10,211,845) (1,804,942) 7,496,683 Net change in fund balance $ (12,103,866) (11,549,236) $ 2,879,697 14,983,563 $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 39,469,055
End of year $ 42,348,752
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Budgeted Amounts
Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund
91 This page intentionally left blank.
92 City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Notes to the Budgetary Comparison Schedule
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Budgetary Control and Accounting Policy
The City prepares its budgets on the basis of estimated revenues and expenditures and, accordingly, the budget amounts included in the accompanying financial statements are presented on a basis substantially consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
Encumbrance accounting is utilized during the fiscal year, whereby purchase orders, contracts and other commitments are recorded in order to control appropriations. However, at fiscal year end, all appropriations lapse. Accordingly, encumbrances are cancelled and generally are re-appropriated as part of the following year’s budget. Encumbrances are not included in reported expenditures.
Annual budgets are adopted for the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, and Capital Projects Funds. In fiscal year 2024-25, no budget was adopted for the Detention Center Special Revenue Fund. The City Council approves total budgeted appropriations and any amendments to appropriations throughout the year.
The budgetary level of control for all governmental fund types is the fund level. The City Manager has the discretion to transfer appropriations between departments within a fund, but transfers between funds must be approved by the City Council. 93 Measurement Date June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability 0.14662% 0.14288% 0.14559% 0.17295% 0.13777% City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 17,781,656 $ 17,825,226 $ 16,817,024 $ 9,353,495 $ 14,411,297 $ City's Covered Payroll1 $ 5,535,460 6,243,890 $ 5,164,779 $ 5,162,753 $ 5,243,738 $ City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll 284.78% 322.02% 325.61% 181.17% 274.83% Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 70.03% 68.89% 69.62% 82.21% 71.73% Measurement Date June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability 0.27859% 0.27770% 0.28126% 1.09047% 0.26123% City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 33,786,149 $ 34,643,664 $ 32,488,072 $ 18,526,366 $ 28,423,181 $ City's Covered Payroll1 $ 6,331,975 6,228,953 $ 6,401,398 $ 5,805,955 $ 5,607,704 $ City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll 542.40% 547.12% 507.52% 319.09% 506.86% Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 70.15% 68.12% 68.88% 79.77% 70.11% Notes to Schedule:
1 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.80% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2022 through 2024; 2.75% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2018 through 2021; 3.00% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2014 through 2017.
Changes of Benefit Terms: The figures above generally include any liability impact that may have resulted from voluntary benefit changes that occurred on or before the Measurement Date. However, offers of Two Years Additional Service Credit (a.k.a. Golden Handshakes) that occurred after the Valuation Date are not included in the figures above, unless the liability impact is deemed to be material by the plan actuary.
Changes of Assumptions: There were no assumption changes in 2023 or 2024. Effective with the June 30, 2021, valuation date (June 30, 2022, measurement date), the accounting discount rate was reduced from 7.15% to 6.90%. In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. In addition, demographic assumptions and the price inflation assumption were changed in accordance with the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. The accounting discount rate was 7.15% for measurement dates June 30, 2017, through June 30, 2021, and 7.65% for measurement dates June 30, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Miscellaneous Plan California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Safety Plan City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Last Ten Fiscal Years
94 Measurement Date June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability 0.12949% 0.12641% 0.12396% 0.12144% 0.11333% City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 13,320,233 $ 12,180,833 $ 12,293,741 $ 10,508,345 $ 7,778,736 $ City's Covered Payroll1 $ 4,713,200 4,721,968 $ 4,385,712 $ 4,226,024 $ 4,710,212 $ City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll 282.09% 258.44% 280.31% 248.66% 165.15% Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 73.26% 75.18% 75.11% 76.88% 82.15% Measurement Date June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability 0.25611% 0.25383% 0.24294% 0.24301% 0.23685% City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 26,243,693 $ 24,459,736 $ 24,093,096 $ 21,027,509 $ 16,257,122 $ City's Covered Payroll1 $ 4,833,363 5,137,216 $ 4,200,942 $ 4,454,998 $ 4,734,950 $ City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll 510.85% 506.06% 573.52% 472.00% 343.34% Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 71.27% 72.12% 72.09% 73.44% 78.58% Notes to Schedule:
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Last Ten Fiscal Years
1 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.80% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2022 through 2024; 2.75% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2018 through 2021; 3.00% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2014 through 2017.
Changes of Benefit Terms: The figures above generally include any liability impact that may have resulted from voluntary benefit changes that occurred on or before the Measurement Date. However, offers of Two Years Additional Service Credit (a.k.a. Golden Handshakes) that occurred after the Valuation Date are not included in the figures above, unless the liability impact is deemed to be material by the plan actuary.
Changes of Assumptions: There were no assumption changes in 2023 or 2024. Effective with the June 30, 2021, valuation date (June 30, 2022, measurement date), the accounting discount rate was reduced from 7.15% to 6.90%. In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. In addition, demographic assumptions and the price inflation assumption were changed in accordance with the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. The accounting discount rate was 7.15% for measurement dates June 30, 2017, through June 30, 2021, and 7.65% for measurement dates June 30, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Miscellaneous Plan California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Safety Plan 95 Fiscal year 2024-251 2023-24 2022-23 2021-22 2020-21 Actuarially Determined Contribution1 $ 1,781,962 2,031,324 $ 1,731,376 $ 1,575,633 $ 1,443,709 $ Contribution in Relation to the
Actuarially Determined Contribution1 (1,781,962) (2,031,324) (1,731,376) (1,575,633) (1,443,709) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Covered Payroll2 $ 6,243,890 6,418,719 $ 5,535,460 $ 5,164,779 $ 5,162,753 $ Contributions as a Percentage
of Covered Payroll 31.65% 28.54% 31.28% 30.51% 27.96%
Fiscal year 2024-251 2023-24 2022-23 2021-22 2020-21
Actuarially Determined Contribution1 $ 4,296,096 4,644,473 $ 3,915,610 $ 3,642,820 $ 3,231,920 $ Contribution in Relation to the
Actuarially Determined Contribution1 (4,296,096) (4,644,473) (3,915,610) (3,642,820) (3,231,920) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Covered Payroll2 $ 6,228,953 6,403,364 $ 6,331,975 $ 6,401,398 $ 5,805,955 $ Contributions as a Percentage
of Covered Payroll 72.53% 68.97% 61.84% 56.91% 55.67%
Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates:
Actuarial cost method
Amortization method/period
Asset valuation method
Inflation
Salary increases
Payroll Growth
Investment rate of return
Retirement age
Mortality
2.30%
Fair Value of Assets. For details, see June 30, 2021, funding valuation report.
For details, see June 30, 2021, funding valuation report.
Entry Age Actuarial Cost Method
The probabilities of mortality are based on the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. Mortality rates incorporate full generational mortality improvement using 80% of Scale MP-2020 published by the Society of Actuaries.
The probabilities of retirement are based on the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions.
6.80% net of pension plan investment and administrative expenses; includes inflation.
2.80%
Varies by entry age and service
2 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.80% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended June 30, 2022 through 2024; 2.75% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2018 through 2021; 3.00% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2015 through 2017.
Notes to Schedule:
The actuarial methods and assumptions used to set the actuarially determined contributions for Fiscal Year 2023-24 were derived from the June 30, 2021 funding valuation report.
California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Miscellaneous Plan City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Schedule of Contributions - Pensions
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Last Ten Fiscal Years
California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Safety Plan 1 Employers are assumed to make contributions equal to the actuarially determined contributions. However, some employers may choose to make additional contributions towards their unfunded liability. Employer contributions for such plans exceed the actuarially determined contributions. 96 Fiscal year 2018-19 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16
Actuarially Determined Contribution1 $ 1,076,211 1,076,211 $ 911,168 $ 791,754 $ 709,945 $ Contribution in Relation to the
Actuarially Determined Contribution1 (1,076,211) (1,076,211) (911,168) (791,754) (709,945) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Covered Payroll2 $ 4,721,968 5,243,738 $ 4,713,200 $ 4,385,712 $ 4,226,024 $ Contributions as a Percentage
of Covered Payroll 20.52% 22.79% 19.33% 18.05% 16.80%
Fiscal year 2018-19 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16
Actuarially Determined Contribution1 $ 2,509,250 2,509,250 $ 2,127,080 $ 1,748,129 $ 1,608,716 $ Contribution in Relation to the
Actuarially Determined Contribution1 (2,509,250) (2,509,250) (2,127,080) (1,748,129) (1,608,716) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Covered Payroll2 $ 5,137,216 5,607,704 $ 4,833,363 $ 4,200,942 $ 4,454,998 $ Contributions as a Percentage
of Covered Payroll 44.75% 48.84% 44.01% 41.61% 36.11%
California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Safety Plan California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Miscellaneous Plan 2 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.80% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended June 30, 2022 through 2024; 2.75% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2018 through 2021; 3.00% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2015 through 2017. 1 Employers are assumed to make contributions equal to the actuarially determined contributions. However, some employers may choose to make additional contributions towards their unfunded liability. Employer contributions for such plans exceed the actuarially determined contributions.
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Schedule of Contributions - Pensions (Continued)
97 Measurement period June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 Total OPEB liability
Service cost $ 285,492 312,604 $ 250,120 $ 269,955 $ 253,910 $ Interest 688,211 800,414 805,675 771,486 751,631
Differences between expected and actual experience (1,305,093) 103,577 (140,904) 122,199 (109,256) Changes of assumption (462,805) (915,746) 738,472 113,616 (49,484) Benefit payments (732,718) (591,598) (742,658) (720,545) (516,782) Implicit rate subsidy fulfilled - (200,085) - - -
Net change in total OPEB liability (1,867,651) (150,096) 910,705 556,711 330,019 Total OPEB liability, beginning 13,421,076 11,553,425 12,510,371 11,953,660 11,623,641 Total OPEB liability, ending (a) $ 11,553,425 11,403,329 $ 13,421,076 $ 12,510,371 $ 11,953,660 $ OPEB fiduciary net position
Contributions:
Employer - City's contribution 758,939 $ 981,209 $ 985,606 $ 963,042 $ 588,400 $ Employer - Implicit subsidy - 200,085 - - -
Net investment income 859,520 460,154 (1,069,356) 1,663,551 360,219 Other additions - - - - -
Benefit payments (732,718) (591,598) (742,658) (720,545) (516,782) Implicit rate subsidy fulfilled - (200,085) - - -
Administrative expense (3,561) (2,554) (2,016) (2,291) (2,768) Other deductions 2,600 (1,204) - - -
Net change in plan fiduciary net position 703,880 1,026,907 (828,424) 1,903,757 429,069 Plan fiduciary net position, beginning 7,129,788 7,833,668 7,958,212 6,054,455 5,625,386 Plan fiduciary net position, ending (b) 7,833,668 8,860,575 7,129,788 7,958,212 6,054,455 Plan net OPEB liability - ending (a) - (b) $ 3,719,757 2,542,754 $ 6,291,288 $ 4,552,159 $ 5,899,205 $ Plan's fiduciary net position as a percentage
of the total OPEB liability 77.70% 67.80% 53.12% 63.61% 50.65% Covered payroll $ 12,003,945 12,340,055 $ 11,640,947 $ 10,959,848 $ 10,666,519 $ Net OPEB liability as a percentage of covered payroll 20.61% 30.99% 54.04% 41.53% 55.31% 1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is implemented.
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Other Postemployment Benefits ("OPEB")
98 Measurement period June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 June 30, 20171 Total OPEB liability
Service cost $ 275,665 262,452 $ 267,961 $
Interest 786,251 736,104 752,721
Differences between expected and actual experience - (109,256) - Changes of assumption (413,262) (49,484) -
Benefit payments (406,031) (419,956) (454,685)
Implicit rate subsidy fulfilled (123,043) (136,833) (114,993) Net change in total OPEB liability 119,580 283,027 451,004 Total OPEB liability, beginning 11,221,034 11,340,614 10,770,030 Total OPEB liability, ending (a) $ 11,340,614 11,623,641 $ 11,221,034 $ OPEB fiduciary net position
Contributions:
Employer - City's contribution 710,200 $ 720,871 $ 567,185 $ Employer - Implicit subsidy 123,043 136,833 114,993
Net investment income 324,350 346,820 411,482
Other additions 3,763 - -
Benefit payments (406,031) (419,956) (454,685)
Implicit rate subsidy fulfilled (123,043) (136,833) (114,993) Administrative expense (2,323) (1,095) (1,995)
Other deductions (5,765) - -
Net change in plan fiduciary net position 657,335 613,499 521,987 Plan fiduciary net position, beginning 4,354,552 5,011,887 3,832,565 Plan fiduciary net position, ending (b) 5,011,887 5,625,386 4,354,552 Plan net OPEB liability - ending (a) - (b) $ 6,328,727 5,998,255 $ 6,866,482 $ Plan's fiduciary net position as a percentage
of the total OPEB liability 48.40% 44.19% 38.81%
Covered payroll $ 9,518,945 9,923,172 $ 8,807,230 $
Net OPEB liability as a percentage of covered payroll 60.45% 66.49% 77.96% Other Postemployment Benefits ("OPEB")
1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is implemented.
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Last Ten Fiscal Years
99 Fiscal year end 2024-252 3 2023-24 2022-23 2021-22 2020-21 Actuarially determined contribution2 $ 905,303 705,413 $ 810,473 $ 679,537 $ 794,339 $ Contribution in relation to the actuarially
determined contribution2 (959,024) (816,318) (981,209) (985,606) (963,041) Contribution deficiency/(excess) (110,905) $ (53,721) $ (170,736) $ (306,069) $ (168,702) $ Covered-employee payroll3 $ 12,340,055 12,685,577 $ 12,003,945 $ 11,640,947 $ 10,959,848 $ Contributions as a percentage of
covered-employee payroll 6.44% 7.77% 8.17% 8.47% 8.79%
Notes to Schedule:
Valuation date:
Actuarial cost method:
Amortization Method:
Amortization Period:
Inflation:
Assumed payroll growth:
Healthcare cost trend:
Rate of return on assets:
Mortality:
Retirement Rates: CalPERS Rates.
20 years
7.40%, trending down to 4.14%
6.40%
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Schedule of Contributions - Other Postemployment Benefits For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Other Postemployment Benefits ("OPEB")
1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is implemented. 2 The June 30, 2023 actuarial valuation provided the actuarially determined contributions for fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. 3 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.80 percent payroll assumption from fiscal year 2023-24.
Closed period, level percent of pay
CalPERS Rates.
Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates:
June 30, 2023
Entry age normal, level percent of pay
2.30%
2.80%
100
Fiscal year end 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-171
Actuarially determined contribution2 $ 755,936 763,351 $ 833,241 $ 812,317 $ Contribution in relation to the actuarially
determined contribution2 (847,033) (867,112) (843,914) (682,178) Contribution deficiency/(excess) (103,761) $ (91,097) $ (10,673) $ 130,139 $ Covered-employee payroll3 $ 9,923,172 10,666,519 $ 9,518,945 $ 8,807,230 $ Contributions as a percentage of
covered-employee payroll 8.13% 8.54% 8.87% 7.75%
Other Postemployment Benefits ("OPEB")
1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is implemented.
City of Seal Beach
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Schedule of Contributions - Other Postemployment Benefits (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Last Ten Fiscal Years
101
This page intentionally left blank.
102
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
103
This page intentionally left blank.
104
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services $ - - $ $ 80,517 $ (80,517)
Total revenues - - 80,517 (80,517)
Expenditures:
Current:
Public works - - 182,500 (182,500)
Capital outlay 9,448,826 10,364,262 2,295,929 7,152,897 Total expenditures 9,448,826 10,364,262 2,478,429 6,970,397 Revenues over (under) expenditures (9,448,826) (10,364,262) (2,397,912) 6,889,880 Other Financing Sources:
Transfers in 9,448,826 10,364,262 2,489,962 (6,958,864) Net change in fund balance $ - - $ 92,050 92,050 $
Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 87,347
End of year $ 179,397
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
105
This page intentionally left blank.
106
City Debt Service Debt Service Fund : To account for resources that are restricted for the payments of long-term debt.
Pacific Gateway Special Revenue Fund : To account for property taxes that are restricted for costs related to the maintenance of parks, parkways and open space within the District (Landscape Maintenance).
SB 1 Special Revenue Fund : To account for revenue received from the City's 1/2-cent per gallon gas tax and new vehicle registration taxes restricted for a wide range of transportation improvement projects.
Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund : To account for revenues derived from PEGS fees which provide for channel capacity to be restricted for public, education, or government use.
Heron Pointe Special Revenue Fund : To account for property taxes that are restricted for costs related to the construction and acquisition of certain public street improvements, water and sanitary sewer improvements, dry utility improvements, park and landscaping improvements.
Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund: To account for various federal and state grants that are restricted to expenditures for specific projects or purposes.
Landscape District Special Revenue Fund : To account for property taxes that are restricted for costs related to the maintenance of parks, parkways and open space within the Community Facility District 2002-02 (Landscape Maintenance).
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Detention Center Special Revenue Fund : To account for funds initially funded by monies seeded from the previous jail services vendor. The revenues also derived from sales of commissary items to the prisoners for their benefit.
Police Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund : To accounts for revenues derived from monies and property seized in Federal, State, and Local drug-related incidents.
Street Lighting Special Revenue Fund : To account for property taxes that are restricted for the maintenance of streetlights and to finance the electricity used by the streetlights.
Police Grants Special Revenue Fund : To account for various local, state, and federal grants that are restricted to public safety expenditures for specific projects or purposes.
Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund : To account for funds received from the State under the State Citizens Option for Public Safety Program. Certain procedures are required to be implemented prior to the use of the funds, and the funds cannot be used to supplant existing funding for law enforcement.
Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund : To accounts for supplemental vehicle license fee revenue distributed to Cities by the South Coast Air Quality Management District pursuant to Assembly Bill 2766. Expenditures are restricted for programs that will reduce air pollution by reducing, directly or indirectly, mobile source emission pollutants.
Park Improvement Special Revenue Fund : To account for the Quimby Act Fees received by developers that are restricted for the improvement of parks and recreation facilities.
Traffic Impact Special Revenue Fund : To account for fair-share based fees that will serve to offset, or mitigate, the traffic impacts caused by new development.
State Gasoline Tax Special Revenue Fund : To accounts for locally shared gas tax monies collected by the State. Expenditures are restricted for repair, construction, maintenance and right-of-way acquisitions relating to streets and highways.
Measure M2 Special Revenue Fund : To account for restricted funds for transportation improvements through the Measure M Transportation Investment Plan (M2) such as major improvement plans that target freeways, streets and roads, transit and environmental programs.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Special Revenue Fund : To account for funds provided by Federal Housing and Urban Development restricted for a wide variety of unique community development needs. 107
Supplemental
Street Law Detention Police Asset
Lighting Enforcement Center Forfeiture
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 153,171 17,860 $ - $ 187,372 $
Receivables:
Accounts - - - -
Taxes - 1,137 - -
Interest - - - -
Total assets $ 153,171 18,997 $ - $ 187,372 $
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOW OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 27,352 18,997 $ - $ 20,000 $
Accrued liabilities 1,187 - - -
Due to other funds - - - -
Retentions payable - - - -
Total liabilities 28,539 18,997 - 20,000
Deferred inflow of resources:
Unavailable revenue - - - -
Total deferred inflow of resources - - - -
Fund Balances:
Restricted 124,632 - - 167,372
Unassigned (deficit) - - - -
Total fund balances 124,632 - - 167,372
Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources,
and fund balances $ 153,171 18,997 $ - $ 187,372 $
(Continued)
Special Revenue
City of Seal Beach
Combining Balance Sheet
June 30, 2025
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
108
Air Quality Park Traffic State
Improvement Improvement Impact Gasoline Tax
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 57,173 10,685 $ 206,565 $ 2,520,442 $ Receivables:
Accounts - - - -
Taxes - - - 61,010
Interest - - - -
Total assets $ 57,173 10,685 $ 206,565 $ 2,581,452 $
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOW OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ - - $ - $ 25,456 $
Accrued liabilities - - - -
Due to other funds - - - -
Retentions payable - - - 18,021
Total liabilities - - - 43,477
Deferred inflow of resources:
Unavailable revenue - - - -
Total deferred inflow of resources - - - -
Fund Balances:
Restricted 57,173 10,685 206,565 2,537,975
Unassigned (deficit) - - - -
Total fund balances 57,173 10,685 206,565 2,537,975
Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources,
and fund balances $ 57,173 10,685 $ 206,565 $ 2,581,452 $ (Continued)
Special Revenue
City of Seal Beach
Combining Balance Sheet (Continued)
June 30, 2025
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
109
Community
Development Police Landscape
Measure M2 Block Grant Grants District
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 60,453 937,470 $ 263,460 $ 755,797 $ Receivables:
Accounts 12,796 98,738 216,595 -
Taxes - - - -
Interest - - - -
Total assets $ 73,249 1,036,208 $ 480,055 $ 755,797 $
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOW OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ - 208,867 $ 25,510 $ 15,369 $
Accrued liabilities - - 9,163 545
Due to other funds - - 445,382 -
Retentions payable - 6,642 - -
Total liabilities - 215,509 480,055 15,914
Deferred inflow of resources:
Unavailable revenue - - 195,962 -
Total deferred inflow of resources - - 195,962 -
Fund Balances:
Restricted 73,249 820,699 - 739,883
Unassigned (deficit) - - (195,962) -
Total fund balances 73,249 820,699 (195,962) 739,883
Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources,
and fund balances $ 73,249 1,036,208 $ 480,055 $ 755,797 $ (Continued)
City of Seal Beach
Special Revenue
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Combining Balance Sheet (Continued)
June 30, 2025
110
Pacific Seal Beach
Heron Pointe Gateway Cable SB 1
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 190,202 79,515 $ 644,322 $ 645,323 $ Receivables:
Accounts - - 35,795 -
Taxes - - - 57,860
Interest - - 1,689 -
Total assets $ 190,202 79,515 $ 681,806 $ 703,183 $
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOW OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 6,251 61 $ - $ 100,145 $
Accrued liabilities 363 - - -
Due to other funds - - - -
Retentions payable - - - 71,082
Total liabilities 6,614 61 - 171,227
Deferred inflow of resources:
Unavailable revenue - - - -
Total deferred inflow of resources - - - -
Fund Balances:
Restricted 183,588 79,454 681,806 531,956
Unassigned (deficit) - - - -
Total fund balances 183,588 79,454 681,806 531,956
Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources,
and fund balances $ 190,202 79,515 $ 681,806 $ 703,183 $ (Continued)
City of Seal Beach
Combining Balance Sheet (Continued)
June 30, 2025
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Special Revenue
111
Special Revenue Debt Service
Total Other
City Debt Governmental
Citywide Grants Service Funds
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ - 165,870 $ 6,895,680 $
Receivables:
Accounts - 397,230 761,154
Taxes - - 120,007
Interest - - 1,689
Total assets $ - 563,100 $ 7,778,530 $
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOW OF
RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ - 273,081 $ 721,089 $
Accrued liabilities - - 11,258
Due to other funds - 280,019 725,401
Retentions payable - 10,000 105,745
Total liabilities - 563,100 1,563,493
Deferred inflow of resources:
Unavailable revenue - 173,332 369,294
Total deferred inflow of resources - 173,332 369,294
Fund Balances:
Restricted - - 6,215,037 $
Unassigned (deficit) - (173,332) (369,294)
Total fund balances - (173,332) 5,845,743
Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources,
and fund balances $ - 563,100 $ 7,778,530 $
(Concluded)
City of Seal Beach
Combining Balance Sheet (Continued)
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
June 30, 2025
112
Supplemental
Street Law Detention Police Asset
Lighting Enforcement Center Forfeiture
Revenues:
Taxes $ - 139,551 $ - $ - $
Intergovernmental 194,663 - - 25,718
Charges for services - - - -
Use of money and property 4,857 - - 8,385
Contributions - - - -
Miscellaneous - - - -
Total revenues 199,520 139,551 - 34,103
Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - - -
Public safety 152,836 - - 211,007
Community development - - - -
Public works - 236,535 - -
Capital outlay 5,759 - - 20,000
Total expenditures 158,595 236,535 - 231,007
Revenues over (under) expenditures 40,925 (96,984) - (196,904) Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in - 96,984 - -
Transfers out - - (28,341) -
Total other financing sources (uses) - 96,984 (28,341) - Net change in fund balances 40,925 - (28,341) (196,904) Fund Balance (Deficit):
Beginning of year, as previously reported 83,707 - 28,341 364,276 Change in the financial reporting entity
(major fund to nonmajor) - - - -
Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15) 83,707 - 28,341 364,276 End of year $ 124,632 - $ - $ 167,372 $
(Continued)
Special Revenue
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances City of Seal Beach
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
113
Air Quality Park Traffic State
Improvement Improvement Impact Gasoline Tax
Revenues:
Taxes $ - - $ - $ - $
Intergovernmental - 8,173 - 719,501
Charges for services - - - -
Use of money and property 1,872 776 6,762 87,519
Contributions - - - -
Miscellaneous - - - -
Total revenues 1,872 8,949 6,762 807,020
Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - - -
Public safety - - - -
Community development - - - -
Public works - 32,056 - 42,970
Capital outlay - - - 410,088
Total expenditures - 32,056 - 453,058
Revenues over (under) expenditures 1,872 (23,107) 6,762 353,962 Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out - - - (79,966)
Total other financing sources (uses) - - - (79,966)
Net change in fund balances 1,872 (23,107) 6,762 273,996 Fund Balance (Deficit):
Beginning of year, as previously reported 55,301 33,792 199,803 2,263,979 Change in the financial reporting entity
(major fund to nonmajor) - - - -
Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15) 55,301 33,792 199,803 2,263,979 End of year $ 57,173 10,685 $ 206,565 $ 2,537,975 $
(Continued)
Special Revenue
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
114
Community
Development Police Landscape
Measure M2 Block Grant Grants District
Revenues:
Taxes $ - - $ - $ 119,174 $
Intergovernmental 180,000 555,603 208,625 -
Charges for services - - - -
Use of money and property - 29,933 - 24,101
Contributions - - - -
Miscellaneous - - - -
Total revenues 180,000 585,536 208,625 143,275
Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - - -
Public safety - - 520,479 -
Community development 180,000 - - 97,234
Public works - - - -
Capital outlay - 953,633 - -
Total expenditures 180,000 953,633 520,479 97,234
Revenues over (under) expenditures - (368,097) (311,854) 46,041 Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in - - 115,892 -
Transfers out - - - (31,400)
Total other financing sources (uses) - - 115,892 (31,400) Net change in fund balances - (368,097) (195,962) 14,641 Fund Balance (Deficit):
Beginning of year, as previously reported 73,249 1,188,796 - 725,242 Change in the financial reporting entity
(major fund to nonmajor) - - - -
Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15) 73,249 1,188,796 - 725,242 End of year $ 73,249 820,699 $ (195,962) $ 739,883 $
(Continued)
Special Revenue
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued) Nonmajor Governmental Funds
City of Seal Beach
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
115
Pacific Seal Beach
Heron Pointe Gateway Cable SB1
Revenues:
Taxes $ - $ 69,843 $ - $ -
Intergovernmental - - - 687,544
Charges for services - - 134,931 -
Use of money and property - - 23,024 46,466
Contributions 15,000 25,000 26,936 -
Miscellaneous - - - -
Total revenues 15,000 94,843 184,891 734,010
Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - 65,935 -
Public safety - - - -
Community development 7,577 59,129 - 380
Public works - - - -
Capital outlay - - - 1,556,669
Total expenditures 7,577 59,129 65,935 1,557,049
Revenues over (under) expenditures 7,423 35,714 118,956 (823,039) Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in - - - -
Transfers out (1,600) (26,000) - -
Total other financing sources (uses) (1,600) (26,000) - - Net change in fund balances 5,823 9,714 118,956 (823,039) Fund Balance (Deficit):
Beginning of year, as previously reported 73,631 173,874 562,850 1,354,995 Change in the financial reporting entity
(major fund to nonmajor) - - - -
Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15) 73,631 173,874 562,850 1,354,995 End of year $ 183,588 79,454 $ 681,806 $ 531,956 $
(Continued)
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Special Revenue
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
116
Special Revenue Debt Service
Total Other
City Debt Governmental
Citywide Grants Service Funds
Revenues:
Taxes $ - - $ 328,568 $
Intergovernmental - 1,894,685 4,474,512
Charges for services - - 134,931
Use of money and property - - 233,695
Contributions - - 66,936
Miscellaneous - 7,445 7,445
Total revenues - 1,902,130 5,246,087
Expenditures:
Current:
General government - - 65,935
Public safety - - 884,322
Community development - 160,229 504,549
Public works - 406,391 717,952
Capital outlay - 737,921 3,684,070
Total expenditures - 1,304,541 5,856,828
Revenues over (under) expenditures - 597,589 (610,741)
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in - 213,338 426,214
Transfers out (662,234) (222,325) (1,051,866)
Total other financing sources (uses) (662,234) (8,987) (625,652) Net change in fund balances (662,234) 588,602 (1,236,393) Fund Balance (Deficit):
Beginning of year, as previously reported 662,234 - 7,844,070 Change in the financial reporting entity
(major fund to nonmajor) - (761,934) (761,934)
Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15) 662,234 (761,934) 7,082,136 End of year $ - (173,332) $ 5,845,743 $
(Concluded)
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued) Nonmajor Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
117
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $ 141,000 141,000 $ $ (1,449) 139,551 $
Total revenues 141,000 141,000 139,551 (1,449)
Expenditures:
Current:
Public works $ 259,512 259,512 $ $ 22,977 236,535 $
Total expenditures 259,512 259,512 236,535 22,977
Revenues over (under) expenditures (118,512) (118,512) (96,984) 21,528 Other Financing Sources:
Transfers in 118,512 118,512 (21,528) 96,984
Total other financing sources 118,512 118,512 96,984 (21,528) Net change in fund balance $ - - $ - - $
Fund Balance:
Beginning of year -
End of year $ -
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Budgeted Amounts
Street Lighting Special Revenue Fund
118
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 155,000 155,000 $ $ 39,663 194,663 $ Use of money and property 1,500 1,500 3,357 4,857
Total revenues 156,500 156,500 199,520 43,020
Expenditures:
Current:
Public safety 219,181 219,181 152,836 66,345
Capital outlay 5,759 5,759 5,759 -
Total expenditures 224,940 224,940 158,595 66,345
Net change in fund balance $ (68,440) (68,440) $ 40,925 109,365 $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 83,707
End of year $ 124,632
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
119
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Other Financing (USES):
Transfers out $ - - $ $ (28,341) (28,341) $
Total other financing (uses) - - (28,341) (28,341)
Net change in fund balance $ - - $ (28,341) (28,341) $
Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 28,341
End of year $ -
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Detention Center Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
120
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 100,000 100,000 $ $ (74,282) 25,718 $ Use of money and property 100 100 8,285 8,385
Total revenues 100,100 100,100 34,103 (65,997)
Expenditures:
Current:
Public safety 356,339 356,339 211,007 145,332
Capital outlay 20,000 20,000 20,000 -
Total expenditures 376,339 376,339 231,007 145,332
Net change in fund balance $ (276,239) (276,239) $ (196,904) 79,335 $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 364,276
End of year $ 167,372
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Police Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
121
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 30,000 30,000 $ $ (21,827) 8,173 $
Use of money and property 100 100 676 776
Total revenues 30,100 30,100 8,949 (21,151)
Expenditures:
Current:
Public works 32,000 32,000 32,056 (56)
Total expenditures 32,000 32,000 32,056 (56)
Net change in fund balance $ (1,900) (1,900) $ (23,107) (21,207) $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 33,792
End of year $ 10,685
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
122
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Use of money and property $ 900 900 $ 1,872 $ 972 $
Total revenues 900 900 1,872 972
Net change in fund balance $ 900 900 $ 1,872 972 $
Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 55,301
End of year $ 57,173
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Park Improvement Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
123
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Use of money and property $ 3,000 3,000 $ $ 3,762 6,762 $ Total revenues 3,000 3,000 6,762 3,762
Net change in fund balance $ 3,000 3,000 $ 6,762 3,762 $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 199,803
End of year $ 206,565
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Traffic Impact Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
124
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 726,439 726,439 $ $ (6,938) 719,501 $ Use of money and property 10,000 10,000 77,519 87,519
Total revenues 736,439 736,439 807,020 70,581
Expenditures:
Current:
Public works 3,000 3,000 42,970 (39,970)
Capital outlay 1,654,934 1,763,000 410,088 1,244,846
Total expenditures 1,657,934 1,766,000 453,058 1,204,876 Revenues over (under) expenditures (921,495) (1,029,561) 353,962 1,275,457 Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out (30,000) (30,000) (49,966) (79,966)
Total other financing (uses) (30,000) (30,000) (79,966) (49,966) Net change in fund balance $ (951,495) (1,059,561) $ 273,996 1,225,491 $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 2,263,979
End of year $ 2,537,975
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual State Gasoline Tax Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
125
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 582,217 $ 582,217 $ 555,603 $ (26,614) Use of money and property 10,000 10,000 29,933 19,933
Total revenues 592,217 592,217 585,536 (6,681)
Expenditures:
Capital outlay 1,325,094 1,082,000 953,633 371,461
Total expenditures 1,325,094 1,082,000 953,633 371,461
Net change in fund balance $ (732,877) (489,783) $ (368,097) 364,780 $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 1,188,796
End of year $ 820,699
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Measure M2 Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
126
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 233,000 233,000 $ $ (53,000) 180,000 $ Total revenues 233,000 233,000 180,000 (53,000)
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development 230,000 230,000 180,000 50,000
Total expenditures 230,000 230,000 180,000 50,000
Net change in fund balance $ 3,000 3,000 $ - (3,000) $
Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 73,249
End of year $ 73,249
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
127
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 724,564 596,030 $ $ (515,939) 208,625 $ Total revenues 724,564 596,030 208,625 (515,939)
Expenditures:
Current:
Public safety 709,989 541,275 520,479 189,510
Total expenditures 709,989 541,275 520,479 189,510
Revenues over (under) expenditures $ 14,575 54,755 $ (311,854) (326,429) $ Fund Balance (Deficit):
Beginning of year -
End of year $ (195,962)
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Police Grants Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
128
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $ 140,000 140,000 $ $ (20,826) 119,174 $
Use of money and property 6,000 6,000 18,101 24,101
Total revenues 146,000 146,000 143,275 (2,725)
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development 88,450 88,450 97,234 (8,784)
Total expenditures 88,450 88,450 97,234 (8,784)
Revenues over (under) expenditures 57,550 57,550 46,041 (11,509) Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out (31,400) (31,400) - (31,400)
Total other financing (uses) (31,400) (31,400) (31,400) - Net change in fund balance $ 26,150 26,150 $ 14,641 (11,509) $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 725,242
End of year $ 739,883
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Landscape District Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
129
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenue:
Contributions $ 15,000 15,000 $ $ - 15,000 $
Total revenues 15,000 15,000 15,000 -
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development 9,484 9,484 7,577 1,907
Total expenditures 9,484 9,484 7,577 1,907
Revenues over (under) expenditures 5,516 5,516 7,423 1,907 Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out (1,600) (1,600) - (1,600)
Total other financing (uses) (1,600) (1,600) (1,600) -
Net change in fund balance $ 3,916 3,916 $ 5,823 1,907 $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 73,631
End of year $ 79,454
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Heron Pointe Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
130
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $ 66,300 66,300 $ $ 3,543 69,843 $
Contributions 25,000 25,000 - 25,000
Total revenues 91,300 91,300 94,843 3,543
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development 60,800 60,800 59,129 1,671
Total expenditures 60,800 60,800 59,129 1,671
Revenues over (under) expenditures 30,500 30,500 35,714 5,214 Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out (26,000) (26,000) - (26,000)
Total other financing (uses) (26,000) (26,000) (26,000) - Net change in fund balance $ 4,500 4,500 $ 9,714 5,214 $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 173,874
End of year $ 183,588
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Pacific Gateway Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
131
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Charges for services $ 110,000 110,000 $ $ 24,931 134,931 $ Use of money and property 10,000 10,000 13,024 23,024
Contributions - - 26,936 26,936
Total revenues 120,000 120,000 184,891 64,891
Expenditures:
Current:
General government 65,000 65,000 65,935 (935)
Total expenditures 65,000 65,000 65,935 (935)
Revenues over (under) expenditures $ 55,000 55,000 $ 118,956 63,956 $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 562,850
End of year $ 681,806
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
132
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 653,757 653,757 $ $ 33,787 687,544 $ Use of money and property 25,000 25,000 21,466 46,466
Total revenues 678,757 678,757 734,010 55,253
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development - - (380) 380
Capital outlay 1,995,962 1,570,000 439,293 1,556,669
Total expenditures 1,995,962 1,570,000 1,557,049 438,913 Net change in fund balance $ (1,317,205) (891,243) $ (823,039) $ 494,166 Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 1,354,995
End of year $ 531,956
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual SB1 Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
133
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental $ 2,582,860 2,082,860 $ $ (688,175) 1,894,685 $ Miscellaneous 25,000 25,000 7,445 (17,555)
Total revenues 2,607,860 2,107,860 1,902,130 (705,730)
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development 525,000 25,000 160,229 364,771
Public works 150,000 50,000 406,391 (356,391)
Capital outlay 2,121,843 1,507,312 737,921 769,391
Total expenditures 2,082,312 2,296,843 1,304,541 777,771 Revenues over (under) expenditures 525,548 (188,983) 597,589 72,041 Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers out - - 213,338 213,338
Transfers out (181,928) (181,928) (40,397) (222,325)
Total other financing sources (uses) (181,928) (181,928) (8,987) 172,941 Net change in fund balance $ 343,620 (370,911) $ 588,602 244,982 $ Fund Balance (Deficit):
Beginning of year, as previously reported -
Change in the financial reporting entity
(major fund to nonmajor) (761,934)
Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15) (761,934)
End of year $ (173,332)
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
134
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Other Financing (Uses):
Transfers out $ - - $ (662,234) $ $ (662,234)
Total other financing (uses) - - (662,234) (662,234)
Net change in fund balance $ - - $ (662,234) (662,234) $ Fund Balance:
Beginning of year 662,234
End of year $ -
Budgeted Amounts
City of Seal Beach
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual City Debt Service Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
135
This page intentionally left blank.
136
INTERNAL SERVICE FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
137
This page intentionally left blank.
138
Vehicle Information
Replacement Technology
Fund Fund Total
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and investments 232,632 $ - $ 232,632 $
Total current assets - 232,632 232,632
Noncurrent Assets:
Depreciable capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation - 368,975 368,975 Total capital assets 368,975 - 368,975
Total noncurrent assets - 368,975 368,975
Total assets - 601,607 601,607
LIABILITIES
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 62,845 - 62,845
Total current liabilities - 62,845 62,845
Total Liabilities - 62,845 62,845
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 368,975 - 368,975
Unrestricted - 169,787 169,787
Total Net Position $ - 538,762 $ 538,762 $
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Net Position
Internal Service Funds
June 30, 2025
139
Vehicle Information
Replacement Technology
Fund Fund Total
OPERATING REVENUES:
Insurance Reimbursement 54,951 $ - $ 54,951 $
Total operating revenues - 54,951 54,951
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Operating expenses 80,517 - 80,517
Depreciation expenses 154,043 - 154,043
Total operating expenses - 234,560 234,560
OPERATING INCOME - (179,609) (179,609)
NONOPERATING INCOME:
Gain on sale of assets 5,863 - 5,863
Total nonoperating income - 5,863 5,863
TRANSFERS:
Transfer out (25,363) - (25,363)
Total transfers (25,363) - (25,363)
CHANGES IN NET POSITION (25,363) (173,746) (199,109)
NET POSITION:
Beginning of year 712,508 25,363 737,871
End of year $ - 538,762 $ 538,762 $
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position Internal Service Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
140
Vehicle Information
Replacement Technology
Fund Fund Total
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING
ACTIVITIES:
Cash received from customers and users $ - 69,563 $ 69,563 $ Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services (11,619) (17,672) (29,291) Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities (11,619) 51,891 40,272
CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL
FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Cash (paid to) other funds (25,363) - (25,363)
Net cash used in noncapital financing activities (25,363) - (25,363)
CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND
RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Proceeds from disposal of capital assets - 65,534 65,534 Principal paid on long-term debt - (7,056) (7,056)
Net cash used in capital and related financing activities - 58,478 58,478 Net change in cash and cash equivalents (36,982) 110,369 73,387 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS:
Beginning of year 36,982 122,263 159,245
End of year $ - 232,632 $ 232,632 $
Reconciliation of Operating (Loss) to
Net Cash Provided By (Used in) Operating Activities:
Operating (loss) $ - (179,609) $ (179,609) $
Adjustments to reconcile operating (loss)
to net cash (used in) operating activities:
Amortization and depreciation expenses 154,043 - 154,043 Changes in assets and liabilities:
(Increase)/decrease in accounts receivables - 14,612 14,612 Increase/(decrease) in accounts payable (11,619) 62,845 51,226 Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities $ (11,619) 51,891 $ 40,272 $ NONCASH ITEM:
Lease asset early termination $ - (200,390) $ (200,390) $ Lease liability early termination - 200,170 200,170
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Cash Flows
Internal Service Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
141
This page intentionally left blank.
142
CUSTODIAL FUNDS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
143
This page intentionally left blank.
144
Community Community
Facilities Facilities
District District - Heron
Deposits Heron Pointe Pacific Gateway Total
ASSETS:
Cash and investments 170,562 $ 148,711 $ 327,289 $ 646,562 $ Receivables:
Accounts 736 - - 736
Taxes - 3,047 - 3,047
Restricted investments with fiscal agents - 264,274 720,671 984,945 Total Assets 416,032 171,298 1,047,960 1,635,290
LIABILITIES:
Interest payable - 27,839 63,772 91,611
Total Liabilities 27,839 - 63,772 91,611
NET POSITION:
Restricted for:
Individual, organization and other government 171,298 $ 388,193 $ 984,188 $ 1,543,679 $ City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
Custodial Funds
June 30, 2025
145
Community Community
Facilities Facilities
District District - Heron
Deposits Heron Pointe Pacific Gateway Total
ADDITIONS:
Assessment revenue collected - $ 255,935 $ 571,711 $ 827,646 $ Investment income - 16,743 42,995 59,738
Total additions 272,678 - 614,706 887,384
DEDUCTIONS:
Return of deposits 98,458 - - 98,458
Payment of special assessment district debt service - 260,560 565,722 826,282 Total deductions 260,560 98,458 565,722 924,740
Change in net position 12,118 (98,458) 48,984 (37,356)
NET POSITION:
Beginning of year 376,075 269,756 935,204 1,581,035
End of year 171,298 $ 388,193 $ 984,188 $ 1,543,679 $
Custodial Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
City of Seal Beach
Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position 146
STATISTICAL SECTION
147
This page intentionally left blank.
148
Page
These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City's financial performance and well-being have changed over time. 150-159 These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the factors affecting the City's ability to generate its property and sales taxes. 160-163
These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City's current levels of outstanding debt and the City's ability to issue additional debt in the future. 164-170 These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the City's financial activities take place and to help make comparisons over time and with other governments. 171-172
These schedules contain information about the City's operations and resources to help the reader understand how the City's financial information relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs. 173-176
Demographic and Economic Information
Operating Information
Statistical Section
Description of Statistical Section Contents
City of Seal Beach
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
This part of the City of Seal Beach annual comprehensive financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the government’s overall financial health.
Financial Trends
Revenue Capacity
Debt Capacity
149
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Governmental activities:
Net investment in capital assets, 73,939,948 $ 72,399,752 $ 72,667,466 $ 87,071,592 $ 84,530,565 $ Restricted 3,866,679 4,587,081 4,207,675 4,825,412 7,601,451 Unrestricted 4,713,193 (3,660,561) (4,911,027) (9,873,029) (11,716,752) Total governmental activities net position 82,519,820 $ 73,326,272 $ 71,964,114 $ 82,023,975 $ 80,415,264 $ Business-type activities:
Net investment in capital assets, 34,145,069 $ 33,109,258 $ 31,663,486 $ 32,937,448 $ 31,473,936 $ Restricted - - 25,082 25,082 25,082
Unrestricted 13,544,158 12,625,701 14,709,960 13,656,457 13,930,796 Total business-type activities net position 47,689,227 $ 45,734,959 $ 46,398,528 $ 46,618,987 $ 45,429,814 $ Primary government:
Net investment in capital assets, 108,085,017 $ 105,509,010 $ 104,330,952 $ 120,009,040 $ 116,004,501 $ Restricted 3,866,679 4,587,081 4,232,757 4,850,494 7,626,533 Unrestricted 18,257,351 8,965,140 9,798,933 3,783,428 2,214,044 Total primary government net position 130,209,047 $ 119,061,231 $ 118,362,642 $ 128,642,962 $ 125,845,078 $ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Net Position by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
150
2021 2022 2023 2024* 2025
Governmental activities:
Net investment in capital assets, 85,059,375 $ 84,447,535 $ 85,686,837 $ 89,696,485 $ 94,013,748 $ Restricted 7,201,479 8,759,394 10,354,192 9,915,238 7,187,471 Unrestricted (9,239,218) (10,011,404) 864,319 2,655,265 2,862,901 Total governmental activities net position 83,021,636 $ 83,195,525 $ 96,905,348 $ 102,266,988 $ 104,064,120 $ Business-type activities:
Net investment in capital assets, 30,784,313 $ 30,111,234 $ 29,928,878 $ 32,536,725 $ 32,720,435 $ Restricted 25,082 25,082 25,082 25,082 25,082
Unrestricted 14,359,332 14,386,432 14,713,140 13,581,768 13,809,023 Total business-type activities net position 45,168,727 $ 44,522,748 $ 44,667,100 $ 46,143,575 $ 46,554,540 $ Primary government:
Net investment in capital assets, 115,843,688 $ 114,558,769 $ 115,615,715 $ 122,233,210 $ 126,734,183 $ Restricted 7,226,561 8,784,476 10,379,274 9,940,320 7,212,553 Unrestricted 5,120,114 4,375,028 15,577,459 16,237,033 16,671,924 Total primary government net position 128,190,363 $ 127,718,273 $ 141,572,448 $ 148,410,563 $ 150,618,660 $ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
* 2024 balances were restated due to error corrections, GASB 101 implementation, and change in claim estimates.
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Net Position by Component (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
151
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Expenses:
Governmental activities:
General government 6,264,368 $ 5,894,947 $ 6,161,230 $ 6,479,347 $ 6,868,616 $ Public safety 16,972,880 19,867,060 19,877,068 21,497,362 24,079,442 Community development 1,100,110 1,218,902 1,593,008 1,499,652 1,581,361 Community services 1,036,627 995,468 964,634 945,425 866,786 Public works 6,956,443 6,992,604 7,367,882 7,752,351 11,180,509 Interest on long-term debt 349,652 342,951 225,675 143,040 88,274 Total governmental activities expenses 32,680,080 35,311,932 36,189,497 38,317,177 44,664,988 Business-type activities:
Water utility 4,102,228 4,977,160 4,668,618 4,909,193 5,444,834 Sewer utility 1,676,651 2,639,043 2,539,783 2,523,366 3,035,447 Total business-type activities expenses 5,778,879 7,616,203 7,208,401 7,432,559 8,480,281 Total primary government expenses 38,458,959 42,928,135 43,397,898 45,749,736 53,145,269 Program revenues:
Governmental activities:
Charges for services:
General government 2,074,448 1,913,909 2,062,987 1,913,201 1,207,956 Public safety 1,521,220 2,045,589 1,903,530 1,907,577 2,124,798 Community development 192,878 217,486 300,640 597,318 231,087 Community services 1,015,517 707,813 733,456 840,428 700,877 Public works 1,832,289 2,105,747 2,398,039 2,556,857 2,732,164 Operating contributions and grants 2,122,139 1,721,167 2,334,480 2,588,454 3,442,883 Capital grants and contributions 10,000 174,685 79,175 9,777,900 30,707 Total governmental activities
program revenues 8,768,491 8,886,396 9,812,307 20,181,735 10,470,472 Business-type activities:
Charges for services:
Water utility 4,261,566 4,782,468 5,097,807 4,851,274 4,268,610 Sewer utility 2,466,869 2,784,942 2,928,885 2,854,208 3,007,958 Total business-type activities
program revenues 6,728,435 7,567,410 8,026,692 7,705,482 7,276,568 Total primary government
program revenues 15,496,926 16,453,806 17,838,999 27,887,217 17,747,040 Net revenues (expenses):
Governmental activities (23,911,589) (26,425,536) (26,377,190) (18,135,442) (34,194,516) Business-type activities 949,556 (48,793) 818,291 272,923 (1,203,713) Total net revenues (expenses) (22,962,033) $ (26,474,329) $ (25,558,899) $ (17,862,519) $ (35,398,229) $ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
(accrual basis of accounting)
City of Seal Beach
Changes in Net Position
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year
152
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Expenses:
Governmental activities:
General government 7,231,812 $ 8,604,149 $ 6,778,212 $ 7,833,713 $ 9,322,342 $ Public safety 23,326,808 26,912,192 20,062,949 26,932,724 29,492,199 Community development 2,283,377 3,043,960 1,836,054 2,722,452 3,060,390 Community services 1,139,731 1,991,897 263,478 1,208,181 1,945,079 Public works 8,290,658 9,086,138 8,487,999 10,766,275 10,729,829 Interest on long-term debt 57,902 61,160 36,443 34,336 12,643 Total governmental activities expenses 42,330,288 49,699,496 37,465,135 49,497,681 54,562,482 Business-type activities:
Water utility 6,033,692 6,064,434 5,250,934 7,127,839 6,349,610 Sewer utility 2,651,801 2,323,027 2,292,687 3,353,390 2,667,896 Total business-type activities expenses 8,685,493 8,387,461 7,543,621 10,481,229 9,017,506 Total primary government expenses 51,015,781 58,086,957 45,008,756 59,978,910 63,579,988 Program revenues:
Governmental activities:
Charges for services:
General government 1,486,575 1,129,039 1,069,669 1,252,570 1,451,404 Public safety 2,361,646 2,547,127 2,282,044 1,976,293 2,262,656 Community development 221,140 434,955 499,835 508,638 608,029 Community services 985,542 1,244,430 1,221,628 1,328,884 1,395,661 Public works 2,596,848 2,842,031 3,588,535 4,199,836 3,915,149 Operating contributions and grants 4,287,922 9,362,550 4,165,836 4,231,563 4,920,671 Capital grants and contributions 10,692 655 889 1,199 1,872 Total governmental activities
program revenues 11,950,365 17,560,787 12,828,436 13,498,983 14,555,442 Business-type activities:
Charges for services:
Water utility 4,957,483 5,824,338 5,759,925 6,289,312 6,580,915 Sewer utility 2,885,699 2,432,441 2,371,663 2,422,870 2,254,777 Total business-type activities
program revenues 7,843,182 8,256,779 8,131,588 8,712,182 8,835,692 Total primary government
program revenues 19,793,547 25,817,566 20,960,024 22,211,165 23,391,134 Net revenues (expenses):
Governmental activities (30,379,923) (32,138,709) (24,636,699) (35,998,698) (40,007,040) Business-type activities (842,311) (130,682) 587,967 (1,769,047) (181,814) Total net revenues (expenses) (31,222,234) $ (32,269,391) $ (24,048,732) $ (37,767,745) $ (40,188,854) $ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Changes in Net Position (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
153
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
General revenues and other changes in net position:
Governmental activities:
Taxes:
Property taxes 10,408,505 $ 11,012,246 $ 11,180,197 $ 11,481,535 $ 12,358,059 $ Sales tax 4,228,730 4,379,341 4,303,618 5,546,264 9,108,334 Franchise taxes 955,922 1,016,938 1,059,581 1,097,774 1,034,280 Utility users taxes 4,445,180 4,177,713 4,186,554 4,061,031 3,941,877 Transient occupancy taxes 1,655,376 1,693,515 1,666,996 1,631,445 1,298,707 Other taxes 197,166 190,510 163,277 227,978 724,854
Motor vehicle in lieu, unrestricted 9,960 11,235 13,102 12,473 21,133 Use of money and property 1,004,572 425,014 300,817 1,692,720 1,862,213 Other 536,175 214,219 1,762,390 2,065,583 1,463,177
Transfers 378,500 378,500 378,500 378,500 376,483
Total governmental activities 23,820,086 23,499,231 25,015,032 28,195,303 32,189,117 Business-type activities:
Use of money and property 176,437 167,661 223,778 326,036 391,016 Other 20,107 - - - -
Transfers (378,500) (378,500) (378,500) (378,500) (376,483) Total business-type activities (181,956) (210,839) (154,722) (52,464) 14,533 Total primary government 23,638,130 23,288,392 24,860,310 28,142,839 32,203,650 Changes in net position:
Governmental activities (91,503) 23,499,231 25,015,032 10,059,861 (2,005,399) Business-type activities 767,600 (210,839) (154,722) 220,459 (1,189,180) Total primary government 676,097 $ 23,288,392 $ 24,860,310 $ 10,280,320 $ (3,194,579) $ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
Changes in Net Position (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
154
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
General revenues and other changes in net position:
Governmental activities:
Taxes:
Property taxes 12,926,895 $ 13,428,911 $ 14,468,211 $ 15,473,159 $ 16,137,118 $ Sales tax 10,146,964 11,443,583 11,666,838 11,494,982 12,423,838 Franchise taxes 1,067,098 1,101,243 1,175,046 1,236,189 1,161,770 Utility users taxes 4,129,727 4,508,593 5,349,003 5,510,087 5,401,062 Transient occupancy taxes 878,165 1,670,504 1,922,823 1,919,725 2,052,664 Other taxes 720,807 757,421 1,104,573 732,341 1,100,806 Motor vehicle in lieu, unrestricted 19,070 28,238 25,874 31,179 39,887 Use of money and property 151,196 (1,428,396) 781,761 2,673,147 2,953,712 Other 3,270,753 69,001 1,118,893 2,076,956 533,315
Transfers (324,379) 733,500 733,500 - -
Total governmental activities 32,986,296 32,312,598 38,346,522 41,147,765 41,804,172 Business-type activities:
Use of money and property 256,845 218,203 289,885 401,277 592,779 Other - - - - -
Transfers 324,379 (733,500) (733,500) - -
Total business-type activities 581,224 (515,297) (443,615) 401,277 592,779 Total primary government 33,567,520 31,797,301 37,902,907 41,549,042 42,396,951 Changes in net position:
Governmental activities 2,606,373 173,889 13,709,823 5,149,067 1,797,132 Business-type activities (261,087) (645,979) 144,352 (1,367,770) 410,965 Total primary government 2,345,286 $ (472,090) $ 13,854,175 $ 3,781,297 $ 2,208,097 $ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach.
Fiscal Year
Changes in Net Position (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
City of Seal Beach
155
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
General Fund:
Nonspendable 682,859 $ 2,877 $ 32,495 $ 33,795 $ 41,776 $ Restricted - 12,277 5,266 5,419 2,190,469
Committed - - - - 17,067,216
Assigned 7,610,286 7,478,281 8,289,150 10,152,504 4,370,059 Unassigned 20,811,037 19,770,202 17,491,623 11,922,370 3,509,871 Total general fund 29,104,182 $ 27,263,637 $ 25,818,534 $ 22,114,088 $ 27,179,391 $ All other governmental funds:
Nonspendable - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Restricted 3,866,679 4,131,203 4,110,558 4,819,993 5,410,982 Assigned - - - - -
Unassigned (51,254) (184,908) (34,159) (425,639) (671,694) Total all Other government funds: 3,815,425 $ 3,946,295 $ 4,076,399 $ 4,394,354 $ 4,739,288 $ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Fiscal Year
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
City of Seal Beach
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
156
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
General Fund:
Nonspendable 2,069,748 $ 51,506 $ 42,705 $ 2,978,558 $ 119,534 $ Restricted 2,046,356 2,034,271 1,935,127 1,309,234 603,140 Committed 17,546,968 23,523,980 25,322,120 23,224,408 23,718,921 Assigned 4,704,595 4,853,380 5,097,455 6,714,071 6,037,300 Unassigned 3,629,265 3,885,769 4,927,044 5,242,784 11,869,857 Total general fund 29,996,932 $ 34,348,906 $ 37,324,451 $ 39,469,055 $ 42,348,752 $ All other governmental funds:
Nonspendable - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Restricted 5,037,618 6,167,958 7,477,277 7,844,070 6,215,037 Assigned - - - 87,347 234,348
Unassigned (373,870) (554,027) (692,160) (761,934) (369,294) Total all Other government funds: 4,663,748 $ 5,613,931 $ 6,785,117 $ 7,169,483 $ 6,080,091 $ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
157
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Revenues:
Taxes 22,828,144 $ 23,368,371 $ 24,021,668 $ 25,903,080 $ 27,481,580 $ Licenses and permits 1,304,924 1,234,590 1,480,971 1,416,737 844,274 Intergovernmental 1,388,056 744,904 1,530,815 857,923 4,330,159 Charges for services 4,214,690 5,349,083 4,586,949 4,878,405 4,684,076 Use of money and property 1,004,572 426,418 347,117 1,772,775 2,003,529 Fines and forfeitures 1,110,606 152,845 1,089,515 946,048 1,239,154 Contributions from other governments 283,222 180,511 55,765 45,994 60,942 Miscellaneous 537,777 492,245 520,420 2,319,864 2,995,022 Total revenues 32,671,991 31,948,967 33,633,220 38,140,826 43,638,736 Expenditures
Current:
General government 5,351,130 5,673,309 5,757,859 6,169,490 6,083,705 Public safety 16,378,416 17,395,965 18,148,871 19,240,608 20,921,107 Community development 1,175,339 1,186,081 1,488,921 1,446,025 1,408,699 Community services 1,075,282 1,004,690 954,018 942,804 852,664 Public works 4,862,058 4,586,373 4,967,066 5,160,373 6,672,230 Capital outlay 2,645,823 1,506,476 2,567,080 7,378,774 1,729,166 Debt service:
Principal retirement 1,490,150 2,162,379 1,640,521 1,754,905 494,370 Interest and fiscal charges 355,819 353,322 231,779 152,863 88,612 Total expenditures 33,334,017 33,868,595 35,756,115 42,245,842 38,250,553 Excess (deficiency) of revenue over
(under) expenditures (662,026) (1,919,628) (2,122,895) (4,105,016) 5,388,183 Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 5,602,944 4,472,129 5,714,614 9,381,712 4,141,526 Transfers out (5,340,308) (4,262,176) (4,906,717) (8,663,187) (4,119,472) Proceeds on sale of assets - - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses) 262,636 209,953 807,897 718,525 22,054 Net change in fund balances (399,390) $ (1,709,675) $ (1,314,998) $ (3,386,491) $ 5,410,237 $ Debt service as a percentage of
noncapital expenditures 6.0% 7.8% 5.6% 5.5% 1.6%
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
City of Seal Beach
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
158
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues:
Taxes 31,711,229 $ 34,976,825 $ 37,716,674 $ 36,366,482 $ 38,277,257 $ Licenses and permits 771,615 926,792 1,027,232 939,640 1,066,988 Intergovernmental 2,195,977 6,754,322 1,622,005 5,632,109 4,998,757 Charges for services 4,853,170 5,118,769 5,821,082 6,791,306 6,757,884 Use of money and property 235,061 (1,197,815) 811,518 3,020,467 3,495,664 Fines and forfeitures 1,816,837 1,871,227 1,435,250 1,402,597 1,491,069 Contributions from other governments 106,528 76,817 77,023 69,471 161,041 Miscellaneous 3,431,013 240,917 1,291,231 661,060 694,582 Total revenues 45,121,430 48,767,854 49,802,015 54,883,132 56,943,242 Expenditures
Current:
General government 6,713,025 7,597,539 7,671,076 7,546,164 8,593,613 Public safety 21,895,428 23,892,990 24,570,207 25,508,597 26,491,203 Community development 2,203,834 2,185,707 2,218,015 2,699,327 2,561,988 Community services 1,131,906 1,174,593 1,219,014 1,399,938 1,505,709 Public works 5,748,811 6,884,360 6,625,681 8,746,664 8,676,881 Capital outlay 3,439,241 1,875,596 3,609,554 6,014,889 7,111,713 Debt service:
Principal retirement 496,920 532,556 789,974 808,805 259,045 Interest and fiscal charges 70,479 55,856 36,651 34,080 12,153 Total expenditures 41,699,644 44,199,197 46,740,172 52,758,464 55,212,305 Excess (deficiency) of revenue over
(under) expenditures 3,421,788 4,568,657 3,061,843 2,124,668 1,730,937 Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 2,858,654 2,697,577 4,359,511 4,621,337 3,903,042 Transfers out (3,657,439) (1,964,077) (3,274,623) (4,621,337) (3,877,679) Proceeds on sale of assets 119,000 - - - 34,005
Total other financing sources (uses) (679,785) 733,500 1,084,888 - 59,368 Net change in fund balances 2,742,003 $ 5,302,157 $ 4,146,731 $ 2,124,668 $ 1,790,305 $ Debt service as a percentage of
noncapital expenditures 1.5% 2.4% 1.9% 1.8% 0.6%
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
City of Seal Beach
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds (Continued) Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
159
Fiscal Year Taxable Taxable Total
Ended Assessed Secured Assessed Direct Tax
June 30 Secured Unsecured Value (Note 1) Unsecured Value Rate 2016 4,795,647,822 $ 285,081,875 $ 5,080,729,697 $ 530,597,248 $ 32,693,247 $ 563,290,495 $ 1.00% 2017 4,978,010,106 152,713,169 5,130,723,275 300,533,393 2,090,757 302,624,150 1.00% 2018 5,237,420,910 128,598,670 5,366,019,580 309,374,617 2,150,646 311,525,263 1.00% 2019 5,475,552,225 150,040,128 5,625,592,353 320,174,015 2,103,366 322,277,381 1.00% 2020 5,817,854,806 159,142,122 5,976,996,928 363,940,344 3,281,367 367,221,711 1.00% 2021 6,051,396,970 155,640,583 6,207,037,553 375,196,393 5,389,789 380,586,182 1.00% 2022 6,253,516,508 145,853,857 6,399,370,365 414,507,317 7,059,017 421,566,334 1.00% 2023 6,688,389,755 162,820,842 6,851,210,597 - - - 1.00% 2024 7,106,450,551 184,902,698 7,291,353,249 - - - 1.00% 2025 7,450,555,524 204,714,015 7,655,269,539 - - - 1.00% GENERAL NOTE:
Source: County of Orange, Auditor - Controller Assessed Valuations Detail In 1978 the voters of the State of California passed Proposition 13 which limited property taxes to a total maximum rate of 1% based upon the assessed value of the property being taxed. Each year, the assessed value of property may be increased by an "inflation factor" (limited to a maximum increase of 2%). With few exceptions, property is only re-assessed at the time it is sold to a new owner. At that point, the new assessed value is reassessed at the purchase price of the property sold. The assessed valuation data shown above represents the only data currently available with respect to the actual market value of taxable property and is subject to the limitations described above.
City of Seal Beach
Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property Last Ten Fiscal Years
City Redevelopment Agency
Note 1: Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022 is the last year tax increment within the former Seal Beach RDA boundaries will be received. For Fiscal Year ended June 2023, per Resolution of the Orange Countywide Oversight Board No. 22-001 Successor Agency to the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency was dissolved. Beginning with Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2023, the city receives the property tax per AB 8 process. 160
City of Seal Beach
Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates
Last Ten Fiscal Years
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
City Direct Rates:
City Direct Rate - Basic Levy 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 Overlapping Rates:
Orange County Bonds 0.06135 0.06001 0.06072 0.05881 0.05509 0.06379 0.05996 0.05880 0.04565 0.04572 Metropolitan Water District 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00700 Other Districts 0.07779 0.07367 0.09803 0.16561 0.13116 0.14183 0.12906 0.13106 0.11733 0.11512 Total Direct & Overlapping
Rates 1.13718 1.14264 1.16225 1.22792 1.18975 1.20912 1.19252 1.19336 1.16648 1.16784 GENERAL NOTES:
Source: HdL, County of Orange, Auditor-Controller
Fiscal Year
In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13 which sets the property tax rate at a 1.00% fixed amount. This 1.00% is shared by all taxing agencies for which the subject property resides within. In addition to the 1.00% fixed amount, property owners are charged taxes as a percentage of assessed property values for the payment of any voter-approved bonds. The City receives only a portion of this basic 1% levy. owners.
161
Percent of Percent of
Total City Total City
Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed
Taxpayer Value Value Value Value
Seal Beach Mutual 1, $ 18.09% 796,235,092 384,619,950 $ 15.67% CPT Shops at Rossmoor LLC 142,603,344 1.86% 134,285,323 2.64% Boeing 138,967,170 1.82% 135,437,922 2.67%
ASN Long Beach LLC 1.78% 115,879,354 136,195,312 2.28%
Terra Funding-Bixby Ranch LLC 102,992,613 1.35% 87,091,909 1.71% Ranch Town Center LLC 52,485,794 0.69% 44,347,031 0.87% AL United States Seal Beach Senior Housing LP 45, 0.59% 49,732,601 185,348 0.98% Hellman Properties 37,828,306 0.49%
OE 1729 Apollo CT LLC 36,878,160 0.48%
Farmers and Merch Bank 0.44% 33,560,036
Dendreon Manufacturing LLC 1.59% 80,596,746
Oxy Long Beach Inc 1.28% 65,000,000
$ 27.58% 1,549,978,148 2,111,316,033 $ 30.51%
Source: HDL Coren & Cone
City of Seal Beach
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
Principal Property Taxpayers
2025 2016
162
Fiscal Taxes Levied Collections in
Year Ended for the Percent Subsequent Percent
June 30 Fiscal Year Amount of Levy Years Amount of Levy 2016 7,536,350 $ 7,157,839 $ 94.98% 79,454 7,237,293 $ 96.03% 2017 7,692,829 7,549,591 98.14% 75,824 7,625,415 99.12% 2018 8,064,384 7,928,325 98.31% 73,467 8,001,792 99.22% 2019 8,681,340 8,278,388 95.36% 74,350 8,352,738 96.21% 2020 9,424,684 9,274,535 98.41% 81,504 9,356,039 99.27% 2021 9,740,869 9,591,161 98.46% 101,723 9,692,884 99.51% 2022 10,134,749 9,961,155 98.29% 95,453 10,056,608 99.23% 2023 10,819,610 10,662,521 98.55% 107,920 10,770,441 99.55% 2024 11,423,367 11,227,941 98.29% 144,439 11,372,380 99.55% 2025 11,955,234 11,719,905 98.03% 157,006 11,876,910 99.34% Source: Orange County Tax Ledger
City of Seal Beach
Property Tax Levies and Collections
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Total Collections to Date
Collected within the
Fiscal Year of Levy
163
Fiscal Year Pension Fire Total
Ended Obligation Station Governmental
June 30 Leases Bonds Bonds Climatec Subscriptions Activities 2016 - $ 3,461,000 $ 3,255,000 $ 1,368,208 $ - $ 8,084,208 $ 2017 - 2,414,000 2,835,000 672,829 - 5,921,829
2018 - 1,263,000 2,415,000 603,308 - 4,281,308
2019 - - 1,995,000 531,403 - 2,526,403
2020 - - 1,575,000 457,033 - 2,032,033
2021 - - 1,155,000 380,113 - 1,535,113
2022 237,517 - 735,000 300,555 949,058 2,222,130
2023 327,111 - 315,000 218,963 694,445 1,555,519
2024 210,272 - - - 455,855 666,127
2025 - - - - 233,861 233,861
Notes:
Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. *Data not readily available.
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Governmental Activities
City of Seal Beach
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type
164
Fiscal Year Sewer 2011 Sewer Total Total Percentage Debt Ended Water Board Installment State Revolving Business-type Primary of Personal Per June 30 Loan Agreement Agreement Subscriptions Activities Government Income 1 Capita 1 2016 - $ 2,565,000 $ 3,718,034 $ - $ 6,283,034 $ 14,367,242 $ * 613 $ 2017 - 2,420,000 3,538,201 - 5,958,201 11,880,030 * 483 2018 872,555 2,270,000 3,353,690 - 6,496,245 10,777,553 * 398 2019 783,064 2,110,000 3,164,384 - 6,057,448 8,583,851 * 345 2020 654,381 1,940,000 2,970,155 - 5,564,536 7,596,569 * 304 2021 569,945 1,765,000 2,770,876 - 5,105,821 6,640,934 * 266 2022 485,509 1,580,000 2,566,416 357,237 4,989,162 7,211,292 * 290 2023 401,073 1,385,000 2,356,639 277,614 4,420,326 5,975,845 * 241 2024 358,855 1,180,000 2,141,409 204,545 3,884,809 4,550,936 * 187 2025 232,201 965,000 1,920,583 129,594 3,247,378 3,481,239 * 143 Notes:
Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. 1 See the schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics for personal income and population data. *Data not readily available.
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Business-type Activities
City of Seal Beach
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type (Continued)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
165
Fiscal Year Private Percent of
Ended Placement Total Assessed Per
June 30 Bonds Bonds Bonds Value 1 Capita
2016 - $ 6,716,000 $ 6,716,000 $ 0.12% 273
2017 - 4,507,180 5,249,000 0.10% 213
2018 - 2,937,013 2,937,013 0.05% 118
2019 - 1,995,000 1,995,000 0.03% 80
2020 - 1,575,000 1,575,000 0.02% 63
2021 - 1,155,000 1,155,000 0.02% 46
2022 - 735,000 735,000 0.01% 30
2023 - 315,000 315,000 0.00% 13
2024 - - - 0.00% -
2025 - - - 0.00% -
NOTES:
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
1 Assessed value has been used because the actual value of taxable property is not readily available in the State of California.
City of Seal Beach
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Ratio of General Bonded Debt Outstanding
General bonded debt is debt payable with governmental fund resources and general obligation bonds recorded in enterprise funds. The City has no general bonded debt.
166
2024-25 Assessed Valuation: $7,652,712,979
Total Debt City’s Share of
OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT: 6/30/2025 % Applicable (1) Debt 6/30/25 Metropolitan Water District 17,155,000 $ 0.188% 32,251 $ Coast Community College District 854,816,084 2.910 24,875,148 North Orange Jt. Community College District 275,134,676 1.126 3,098,016 Los Alamitos Unified School District 213,215,227 48.222 102,816,647 Huntington Beach Union High School District 122,999,998 0.001 1,230 Ocean View School District 148,220,000 0.003 4,447
City of Seal Beach Community Facilities District No. 2002-1 2,200,000 100 2,200,000 City of Seal Beach Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 6,065,000 100 6,065,000 TOTAL OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT 139,092,739 $ DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT:
Orange County General Fund Obligations 429,065,000 $ 0.944% 4,050,374 $ Orange County Board of Education Certificates of Participation 9,120,000 0.944 86,093 Coast Community College District Certificates of Participation 660,000 2.910 19,206 Coast Community College District Pension Obligation Bonds 465,000 2.910 13,532 Los Alamitos Unified School District Certificates of Participation 27,037,816 48.222 13,038,176 Huntington Beach Union High School District General Fund Obligations 47,461,090 0.001 475 Ocean View School District General Fund Obligations 10,835,000 0.003 325 North Orange County Regional Occupation Program Certificate of Participation 6,880,000 4.355 299,624 City of Seal Beach - 100 -
TOTAL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT $ 17,507,805 TOTAL DIRECT DEBT $ -
TOTAL OVERLAPPING DEBT $ 156,600,544
COMBINED TOTAL DEBT $ (2) 156,600,544
(1) The percentage of overlapping debt applicable to the city is estimated using taxable assessed property value. Applicable percentages were estimated by determining the portion of the overlapping district's assessed value that is within the boundaries of the city divided by the district's total taxable assessed value.
(2) Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and non-bonded capital lease obligations.
Ratios to 2024-25 Assessed Valuation:
Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 1.82%
Total Direct Debt 0.00%
Combined Total Debt 2.05%
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
June 30, 2025
Schedule of Direct and Overlapping Debt
City of Seal Beach
167
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Debt limit 846,747,277 $ 820,537,899 $ 860,757,686 $ 892,030,484 $ 952,282,846 $ Total net debt applicable to limit - - - - -
Legal debt margin 846,747,277 $ 820,537,899 $ 860,757,686 $ 892,030,484 $ 952,282,846 $ Total debt applicable to the limit
as a percentage of debt limit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Note: 1Under state finance law, the City of Seal Beach's outstanding general obligation debt should not exceed 15 percent of total assessed property value. By law, the general obligation debt subject to the limitation may be offset by amounts set aside for repaying general obligation bonds.
Source: Orange County Tax Assessor's Office
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Legal Debt Margin Information
Last Ten Years
168
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Debt limit 930,063,188 $ 960,333,816 $ 1,028,618,366 $ 1,093,458,885 $ 1,147,906,947 $ Total net debt applicable to limit - - - - -
Legal debt margin 930,063,188 $ 960,333,816 $ 1,028,618,366 $ 1,093,458,885 $ 1,147,906,947 $ Total debt applicable to the limit
as a percentage of debt limit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2025
Assessed Valuation 7,652,712,979 $
Debt percentage 1 15%
Debt limit 1,147,906,947 $
Debt applicable to limit -
Legal debt margin 1,147,906,947 $
Note: 1
Under state finance law, the City of Seal Beach's outstanding general obligation debt should not exceed 15 percent of total assessed property value. By law, the general obligation debt subject to the limitation may be offset by amounts set aside for repaying general obligation bonds.
Source: Orange County Tax Assessor's Office
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Legal Debt Margin Information (Continued)
Last Ten Years
169
Fiscal Year
Ended Tax
June 30 Increment Principal Interest Coverage
2016 1,329,344 $ 545,000 $ 177,413 $ 1.84
2017 1,218,363 575,000 148,759 1.68
2018 1,125,053 600,000 118,302 1.57
2019 1,198,637 635,000 86,013 1.66
2020 234,102 605,000 53,078 0.36
2021 530,978 160,000 32,519 2.76
2022 - - - -
2023 - - - -
2024 - - - -
2025 - - - -
Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Pledged-Revenue Coverage
City of Seal Beach
Debt Service
Note: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. 2000 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
The bonds were fully paid off during the year ended June 30, 2021. 170
Personal Per Capita
Calendar Income Personal Unemployment
Year Population (in thousands) Income Rate
2015 25,078 1,141,053 $ 45,500 $ 3.9%
2016 24,890 1,164,182 46,773 3.5%
2017 25,984 1,199,969 46,181 3.2%
2018 25,073 1,277,436 50,948 3.3%
2019 24,992 1,370,609 54,841 3.2%
2020 24,443 1,398,936 57,232 8.2%
2021 24,846 1,426,979 57,432 6.0%
2022 24,647 1,538,564 62,423 3.4%
2023 24,350 1,649,508 67,741 3.9%
2024 24,400 1,680,348 68,866 4.7%
Sources: HDL Coren & Cone
City of Seal Beach
Demographic and Economic Statistics
Last Ten Calendar Years
171
Business
Business Name 2024 2015 Category
76 X X Service Stations
AT&T Mobility X Electronics/Appliance Stores
Bed Bath & Beyond X Home Furnishings
Boeing X Transportation-Non-Auto
Burlington X Family Apparel
Chevron X X Service Stations
Chevron X Service Stations
Chick Fil A X Quick-Service Restaurants
Crate Barrel Outlet X Home Furnishings
CVS Pharmacy X X Drug Stores
DTS X Business Services
Energy Tubulars X Petroleum Prod/Equip
EVLO Energy Storage X Energy/Utilities
Hofs Hut Restaurant & Bakery X Casual Dining
Home Goods X X Home Furnishings
In N Out Burgers X X Quick-Service Restaurants
Kohls X X Department Stores
Marshalls X X Family Apparel
Mobil X X Service Stations
Old Ranch Country Club X X Leisure/Entertainment
Original Parts Group X X Automotive Supply Stores
Pavillions X X Grocery Stores Liquor
Petsmart X Specialty Stores
Ralphs X X Grocery Stores Liquor
Roger Dunn Golf Shop X X Sporting Goods/Bike Stores
Seal Beach Chevron X Service Stations
Spaghettini X X Fine Dining
Sprouts Farmers Market X Grocery Stores
Staples X Office Supplies/Furniture
Target X X Discount Dept Stores
Toys R Us X Specialty Stores
Tyr Sport X Fulfillment Centers
Ulta Beauty X X Specialty Stores
Walts Wharf X Fine Dining
2024 Percent of Calendar Year Total Paid by Top 25 Accounts = 56.96% 2015 Percent of Calendar Year Total Paid by Top 25 Accounts = 58.52% Firms Listed Alphabetically: Period January - December
Source: Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates, State Board of Equalization, CDTFA, State Controller's Office City of Seal Beach
Current Year and Ten Years Ago
Top 25 Sales Tax Producers
172
Function 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024* 2025* General government 14.34 15.92 13.00 13.48 13.48 14.75 21.35 21.25 21.82 21.83 Public safety 74.12 77.19 78.50 79.82 79.82 80.78 82.05 86.90 84.02 83.44 Public works 4.97 3.98 6.00 5.00 5.00 17.99 17.99 17.69 17.30 19.51 Community
development/Services 17.25 16.53 13.60 14.76 14.76 13.88 13.50 12.44 17.22 18.72 Water 13.82 12.60 12.90 13.15 13.15 8.90 8.90 7.45 8.60 6.76 Sewer 7.11 7.69 6.71 6.89 6.89 5.86 5.86 6.99 6.56 5.66 Total 142.58 131.61 133.91 130.71 133.10 142.16 149.65 152.72 155.52 155.92 Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach
*Position count includes contracted employees in Community Development Total full-time equivalents exclude Commissioners and Reserve Officers but includes Council Members Fiscal Year
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Full-Time and Part-Time City Employees by Function
City of Seal Beach
173
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Police:
Arrests 790 781 854 787 709
Parking citations issued 19,264 18,319 19,929 17,663 20,913 Public works:
Street centerline miles resurfaced 1 - 1 1 4
Number of public right of way permits issued 184 259 231 253 242 Number of street related service requests 40 68 109 92 44 Parks and recreation:
Number of recreation classes 680 710 1,070 1,100 790
Number of facility rentals 557 585 1,030 1,045 690
Water:
Number of water meters replaced 76 56 49 49 104
Acre feet of water used 3,208 3,259 3,208 3,360 3,276
Sewer:
Number of feet of sewer cleaned 217,619 - 217,619 154,000 146,619 Number of catch basins cleaned 458 216 216 216 216
Source: City of Seal Beach
Fiscal Year
City of Seal Beach
Operating Indicators by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years
174
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Police:
Arrests 806 1,429 809 1,010 731
Parking citations issued 28,644 29,658 24,841 22,985 19,576 Public works:
Street centerline miles resurfaced 3 1 1 4 3
Number of public right of way permits issued 232 213 213 250 250 Number of street related service requests 39 258 258 300 388 Parks and recreation:
Number of recreation classes 1,113 955 828 752 810
Number of facility rentals 314 1,020 773 1,765 1,052
Water:
Number of water meters replaced 154 89 89 98 328
Acre feet of water used 3,471 3,086 3,086 3,331 3,929
Sewer:
Number of feet of sewer cleaned 126,563 190,569 190,569 105,607 114,519 Number of catch basins cleaned 217 218 218 454 226
Source: City of Seal Beach
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Operating Indicators by Function (Continued)
City of Seal Beach
Fiscal Year
175
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Police:
Stations 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Patrol units 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
Public works:
Streets (center line miles) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Sidewalk (miles) 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Signalized intersections 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22
Parks and recreation:
Parks 10 10 10 10 10 10 13 13 13 13
Community centers 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5
Water:
Water pipe (miles) 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
Reservoirs 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sewer
Sanitary sewers (miles) 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37
Storm sewers (miles) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sewer lift/pump stations 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6
Source: City of Seal Beach
City of Seal Beach
Capital Asset Statistics by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year
176
Áǝƺ!ǣɎɵȒǔ³ƺƏǼ ƺƏƬǝ
ȵȸȒɮǣƳƺɀƺɴƬƺǼǼƺȇɎƬǣɎɵ
ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɎȒƺȇǝƏȇƬƺɎǝƺ
ȷɖƏǼǣɎɵȒǔǼǣǔƺƏȇƳɎȒȵȸƺɀƺȸɮƺ
ȒɖȸɀȅƏǼǼɎȒɯȇƬǝƏȸƏƬɎƺȸِ
Áǝƺ!ǣɎɵȒǔ³ƺƏǼ ƺƏƬǝàƏǼɖƺɀي
0ɴƬƺǼǼƺȇɎƬɖɀɎȒȅƺȸɀƺȸɮǣƬƺ
xɖɎɖƏǼȸƺɀȵƺƬɎ
ÁƺƏȅɯȒȸǸ
¨ȸȒǔƺɀɀǣȒȇƏǼǣɀȅ
RȒȇƺɀɎۭƺɎǝǣƬƏǼƫƺǝƏɮǣȒȸ
City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
Independent Accountant’s Report on
Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures to
Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1200
Santa Ana, California 92707
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT ON
APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California
We have performed the procedures enumerated below to the accompanying appropriation limit schedule of the City of Seal Beach, California (the “City”) for the year ended June 30, 2025. The City’s management is responsible for the Appropriations Limit Schedule.
The City has agreed to and acknowledged that the procedures performed are appropriate to meet the intended purpose in meeting the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution. These procedures, which were suggested by the League of California Cities and presented in the publication entitled Agreed-upon Procedures Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIII-B of the California Constitution, were performed solely to assist you in meeting the requirements. This report may not be suitable for any other purpose. The procedures performed may not address all the items of interest to a user of this report and may not meet the needs of all users of this report and, as such, users are responsible for determining whether the procedures performed are appropriate for their purposes.
The procedures performed and associated findings are as follows:
1. We obtained the completed worksheets used by the City to calculate its appropriations limit for the year ended June 30, 2025, and compared that the limit and annual calculation factors were adopted by resolution of the City Council. We also compared that the population and inflation options were selected by a recorded vote of the City Council.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
2. For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule, we added the prior year’s limit to the total adjustments, and agreed the resulting amount to the current year’s limit.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. However, we noted that the City is not maximizing its calculation by using the County population factor for the year ended June 30, 2025 that will benefit the City the most. There is no impact as the City’s appropriations for 2024-25 are below the limit.
3. We compared the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule to corresponding information in worksheets used by the City.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
4. We compared that the appropriations limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit schedules matches the appropriations limits adopted by the City Council during the year.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, California