Connect with us

Finance

South Pasadena faces budget delays amid mounting tensions and financial concerns

Published

on

South Pasadena faces budget delays amid mounting tensions and financial concerns

The meeting was only one-third of the way through, but the exasperation in the air was palpable.

“There’s a level of frustration that’s happening throughout the room, and I don’t mean just up here, I think it’s everybody,” said South Pasadena Councilmember Janet Braun, who serves as the City Council’s liaison to the city’s Finance Commission.

Braun’s comments at this week’s Finance Commission meeting came as tensions continue to mount over the proposed fiscal year ’24-’25 budget, which the South Pasadena City Council is set to adopt next Wednesday, July 31.

1 of 5

Advertisement

Expand

Despite efforts to finalize the financial document, its adoption has already been delayed by about a month after city officials expressed concerns about discrepancies on June 27.

While the Finance Commission meetings are meant to solve these issues, recent events suggest the budget may face further delays, adding to uncertainties about the city’s financial outlook after it narrowly avoided a $3.7 million deficit.

“Based on an impasse between the Finance Commission and the Finance Director during its two commission meetings on July 16th and July 23rd, I am not sure if the Finance Director can close the gap,” Mayor Evelyn Zneimer said in an email on Thursday, July 25.

Zneimer expressed concerns about the “true numbers of the revenues and expenditures,” noting that the Finance Department has not reconciled the city’s monthly bank statements since February 2024.

Advertisement

“If the Council is not satisfied with the explanation from the Finance Director and the Finance Commission does not recommend adoption, then we might have to postpone the July 31st meeting to the next regular council meeting,” she said.

South Pasadena Finance Director John Downs announced his retirement in April but was brought back on a temporary basis to finalize the FY 24-25 budget, city officials said.

When reached by the phone on Thursday, July 25, Downs, citing a busy schedule, declined the interview at the time. However, during the Tuesday, July 23, Finance Commission meeting, Downs defended his approach. He also said the staff will present an updated budget document to the City Council next week.

“That will be presented to both of you at the time,” he told the commissioners. “Everyone here has received a copy of the punch list, so everybody has a list of the punch list, those things will be incorporated into the document.”

But the commissioners expressed concerns that they won’t have a copy of the budget report before next week’s meeting.

Advertisement

“My assumption was that these working sessions last week and this week would be included in a revised document. John was working under a different set of assumptions. I’m glad it finally came out,” Finance Commission Chair Peter Giulioni Jr. said.

According to the proposed FY 24-25 budget, as of July 1, 2024, the general fund balance is estimated to be $22 million. For FY 24-25, the city expects to receive $41.2 million in revenue and spend $39.9 million.

South Pasadena has faced a tumultuous year, beginning with budgetary missteps that included a projected $3.7 million deficit.

During a joint City Council and Finance Commission meeting on Feb. 21, a third-party consultant, NHA Advisors, LLC, estimated that the city’s expenses would outpace its general fund revenues over the next five years, with deficits ranging from $1.8 million this fiscal year to $3.9 million in FY 28-29.

In response to this dire forecast, Braun recommended forming an ad hoc committee “to address the immediate financial and operational situation.”

Advertisement

According to her, the city’s financial problems began even earlier with the City Council’s adoption of the FY 23-24 budget in June 2023, which included a $2 million deficit.

That budget was approved on the condition that the Finance Commission would work with staff to understand the negative fund balances and provide a five-year projection, she said. The City Council received this projection on Feb. 21, along with a mid-year budget report.

“Accompanying that report was the mid-year budget report, which projects not the $2 million deficit originally approved and on which the five-year projections were built, but maybe that is incorrect, I’ve learned,” Braun said. “But an actual deficit for the current year of $3.7 million. We have been delivered a financial nuclear bomb.”

She also criticized what she described as “the staff’s resistance to work with the Finance Commission over the past several months, despite the direction from the City Council last June.”

Following Braun’s alarming assessment, the ad hoc committee was formed. It consisted of Zneimer, Braun, Giulioni, and Finance Commission Vice Chair Sheila Rossi.

Advertisement

However, this committee was nearly dissolved after complaints from former Finance Commissioner Ed Elsner, who argued that the committee violated Brown Act because its discussion and formation were not listed on the Feb. 21 meeting agenda.

During a meeting on March 20, Councilmember Jon Primuth argued that the committee “had a very strong political agenda.” Councimember Michael A. Cacciotti described the committee as “a duplicative body” and “a waste of time, a waste of our resources”.

The City Council subsequently voted 3-2 against reauthorizing the committee, with Primuth, Cacciotti and Councilmember Jack Donovan voting against reauthorizing, Zneimer and Braun voting in favor.

But public concern over the deficit projections grew, prompting the City Council to reinstate the committee on May 1. The panel decided that the committee would be resurrected after July 1, by which time the FY 24-25 would’ve been adopted.

Nevertheless, that plan also fell short.

Advertisement

While the City Council had hoped to adopt the FY 24-25 budget before the current fiscal year ends on June 30. However, during a June 27 meeting, the panel, citing discrepancies in the numbers in the financial report, voted to go with the Finance Commission’s recommendation to delay the budget adoption.

Instead, the panel approved a resolution of continuing appropriations, authorizing the city to use appropriations for ongoing projects for 60 days or until the adoption of the budget, whichever comes first.

Using continuing appropriations could lead to administrative inefficiencies, restricted financial management and uncertainty for long-term planning, according to a staff report. However, the pros of this method are that it could help avoid government shutdown, maintains the status quo and provides more time for budget negotiations.

According to a staff report, the proposed FY 24-25 budget is balanced and shows a projected surplus. In addition, the previously projected $3.7 million deficit was mitigated by the discovery of unused funds.

But there are several problems with the proposed budget, Rossi said in a recent interview.

Advertisement

“I don’t really have a lot of trust in the numbers that are in the budget, because we still haven’t received the third quarter financials,” she said. “They gave us the third quarter summary, but it turns out that they haven’t finished their bank reconciliations for February. “

Rossi also expressed concerns that the revenue projections in the proposed budget are overstated by $700,000 to $900,000 based on the projections from two third party consultants the city hired.

Meanwhile, the city has hired LSL finance consultants to help with back-office accounting and reconcile the bank statements, the mayor said.

“Hopefully LSL could clarify the true numbers so that by August 21, we might be able to adopt the budget subject to any conditions that the Council might impose,” she said. “But then I have the other four Councilmembers to weigh in on the situation and I don’t know where they stand. So everything will depend on how the meeting will go on July 31.”

The city has also been dealing with a string of staff departures, which culminated in the stepping down of former City Manager Arminé Chaparyan on June 24. She received a lump-sum severance benefit in the amount of $307,500, $1,727.10 of unused management leave and a cash payment for all properly accrued and unused vacation time.

Advertisement

On Friday, July 26, the City Council approved a resolution appointing Donald Penman to serve as interim manager. Penman previously served as city manager for the cites of Arcadia, San Fernando and Baldwin Park.

He will start on Monday, July 29.

Rossi said “nothing is at stake” if the City Council doesn’t passes the budget next week.

But one thing was expected: A long night.

“The best we can do is to create a punch list and that we all need to bring our pajamas and cots on the evening of the 31st, that it’s going to be an extraordinarily long evening, if we are going to ask the City Council to either reject or accept each line item that we’re discussing right now,” Giulioni said.

Advertisement

Finance

When making travel plans, timing and financing are major considerations

Published

on

When making travel plans, timing and financing are major considerations

For the true travel fan, there’s often a built-in conflict on how best to plan for your next adventure.

On the one hand, the world awaits. Spin the globe, cover your eyes and point. Or, throw a dart at the map! Then it’s time to dig in and research your next dream destination.

On the other hand, getting the best bargain can be a last-minute proposition. There may be a fare sale today, but not tomorrow. How does that mash up with your bicycle tour in Italy? Or your friend’s wedding in Hawaii?

Spreading out all the options on the table can be daunting. It’s a bit like taking a sip from the fire hose. And we all have varying degrees of tolerance for changing prices, tiny seats and geopolitical uncertainty.

So let’s take a snapshot of what’s happening now, knowing you won’t likely drink from the same river, or fire hose, twice.

Advertisement

Since most of today’s snapshots are on the phone, there are some handy settings: You can zoom in for a closer look at that fruit and cheese platter, frame it up nicely for a good shot of your seatmate, or look out the window and get a nice view from 30,000 feet.

Fares we love. There are just a few fares to zoom in on right now.

Anchorage-Chicago. Three airlines will offer nonstop flights this summer: Alaska, United and American. Alaska and United fly the route year-round. There are just a couple of months where travelers have to stop in Denver or Seattle on the way. Right now, the Basic price is $349 round-trip. United has the least-expensive Main price of $429 round-trip. Alaska charges more: $449-$469 round-trip.

The rate to Chicago is steady throughout the summer, as long as you’re open to flying on other airlines, including Delta and now Southwest, starting May 15.

Anchorage-Dallas. Choose from four airlines with competitive prices. United and Delta offer great rates starting on March 30, for travel all summer and into the fall for $331 round-trip in basic economy. Remember: Basic economy means you’ll be sitting in the middle seat back by the potty. There are few, if any, advance seat assignments permitted and you’re the last to board. Don’t expect to accrue many frequent flyer points. Alaska will give you 30%. Delta and American offer none. United is axing MileagePlus points for basic travelers soon.

Advertisement

Delta and United offer the chance to pay $100 more for pre-reserved seats and mileage credit. Of course, they may charge you more for a nicer seat on the plane. But that’s another story.

American Airlines charges a little bit more, about $20 more for a round-trip, to fly nonstop. It’s a nice flight.

Anchorage-Albuquerque. Delta is targeting this route with a nice rate: $281 round-trip in Basic or $381 in Main. But it’s just between May 23 and June 29. Why? Well, it lines up nicely with Southwest’s launch on May 15. Who knows why airlines cut their fares during a traditionally busy season? It’s just a hunch.

Looking at airfares more broadly, there are a few more bargain rates out there, but most only go through May 20. Airlines are hoping for a robust summer — so prices go up after that.

For example, between March 29 and May 20, Alaska Air offers a nonstop from Anchorage to Los Angeles for $257 round-trip in basic. For pre-assigned seats and full mileage credit, the main price is $337 round-trip. Prices go up to $437 round-trip in the summer.

Advertisement

The view from 30,000 feet is pretty clear, although past performance is no guarantee of future results. Several carriers, including American, Delta, United, Southwest and Alaska are adding flights for the summer. There will be robust competition, which means lower fares. Just last week, Alaska Air dropped the price from Anchorage to Seattle to $210 round-trip. That rate is gone, but others will come along.

Charge it. Banks own the airlines by virtue of their popular credit cards. Do they own you, too?

Sifting through the various credit card offers and bonus points emails, it’s easy to forget that banks, not travelers, are the airlines’ biggest customers. At a Bank of America conference last year, Alaska Airlines reported it receives about 15% of its total revenue from its loyalty plan. That adds up to more than 1.7 billion in 2024. Delta has a similar deal with American Express, which paid the airline about $8.2 billion last year.

Think about that the next time the flight attendants are handing out credit card applications in the aisle.

Zooming in, if you’re going to play the Atmos loyalty game on Alaska Airlines, you have to have an Alaska Airlines credit card from Bank of America.

Advertisement

I carry the plain-old Alaska Air card. I used to have two of them, primarily for the $99 companion fare. That’s still a compelling offer. But to get that benefit, you have to charge it on an Alaska Airlines Visa card.

So the question is: Is it worth it to pay $395 per year for the new Summit Visa card from Bank of America?

If you use your credit card for your business or if you regularly charge thousands of dollars every month, the Summit card may be the card for you.

One of the foundational benefits is for every $2 you charge, you earn one status point toward your next elite tier, such as titanium. It’s possible to charge your way to the top tier of the frequent flyer ladder without ever stepping on a plane. If that’s your level of charge-card use, then the Summit is for you. For the lesser Ascent card like mine, you earn one status point for every $3 spent.

For a little wider view, consider that your other travel costs, including accommodations, can hit your budget a lot harder than an airline ticket. It’s one reason I carry a flexible spend credit card in addition to my Alaska Airlines card. Here’s a snapshot of some popular options:

Advertisement

1. Bilt Rewards. I finally signed up for a Bilt account, although I haven’t yet received my card. There are two big benefits with Bilt: You can charge your rent and transfer points to Alaska Airlines. There also is a scheme to charge your mortgage, but it’s more convoluted. But the charge-your-rent option is a stand-alone gold star for the Bilt program, even if you don’t fly Alaska Airlines.

In addition to the link with Alaska Airlines, Bilt points transfer to other oneworld carriers like British, Japan Airlines and Qatar Air. Hotel partners include Hyatt, my favorite, and Hilton. A big bonus comes with the “Obsidian” card, $95 per year: three points for every dollar spent on groceries.

But there’s also a Bilt card with no annual fee. And there are no extra fees incurred when you charge your rent.

2. American Express. If you fly on Delta, the American Express card is a natural choice.

The two companies really are joined at the hip. The last American Express card I had was a Delta “Gold” card, which included a 70,000-point signup bonus. Cardholders get a free checked bag, although Delta offers two free checked bags for SkyMiles members who live in Alaska, and 15% off award tickets.

Advertisement

The Delta card is free for the first year, then $150 per year thereafter.

There is a dizzying array of American Express cards available, including some with no annual fee. But with Delta there is a narrowed-down selection, including one that’s more than $800 per year. That includes lounge access and some other benefits, including a companion pass.

American Express cardholders also can transfer their points to Hilton and Bonvoy as well as to 15 other airlines.

Capital One offers the Venture X card, which offers cardholders 75,000 points plus a $300 travel credit at their in-house travel service. The cost is $395 per year. Get the slimmed-down Venture card for just $95 per year. You still can earn the 75,000 bonus points after spending $4,000 in the first three months. Plus, there’s a $250 credit with Capital One Travel.

Airline partners include EMirates, Singapore Air, Japan Air and EVA Air, from Taiwan. Hotel partners include Hilton and Marriott.

Advertisement

I’ve carried several Chase cards for years. Right now I have the Chase Sapphire Preferred card, for which I received 80,000 bonus points. But that was several years ago. More recently, I got the Chase-affiliated Ink Business Cash card to harvest a 90,000 point bonus. Previously, I carried the Chase Sapphire Reserve. I got a 100,000 point bonus for that. But I dropped that card when the fee went up to $795 per year.

Stacking the cards like that — getting more than one — has helped me to get more bonus points, both for American Express and for Chase.

The best value for Chase points that I’ve found is for Hyatt Hotels. Right now, it’s the best redemption ration, but that can change. Chase also allows for transfers to Emirates, United, Singapore Air and Southwest, among others. The Chase travel portal is managed by Expedia, so you can redeem points for other hotels at a lower redemption rate.

The long view: All airline mileage plans are now credit card loyalty plans. Terms and conditions change, along with signup bonuses and other features of the cards. Last year, Chase dropped its airport restaurant feature, which offered $29 per person at select restaurants in Los Angeles, Seattle and Portland. A couple of years ago, the Priority Pass affiliated with Chase dropped the Alaska Airlines lounges as a partner.

It takes some time and effort to keep up with the programs and get the best value. But airline credit card plans are here to stay, even if the frequent-flyer programs are watered down year after year.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Finance

Lawmakers target ‘free money’ home equity finance model

Published

on

Lawmakers target ‘free money’ home equity finance model

Key points:

  • Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a bill that would classify home equity investments (HEIs) and shared equity contracts as residential mortgages.
  • Industry leaders have mobilized through a newly formed trade group to influence how HEIs are regulated.
  • The outcome could reshape underwriting standards, return structures and capital markets strategy for HEI providers.

A fast-growing home equity financing model that promises homeowners cash without monthly payments is facing mounting scrutiny from state lawmakers — and the industry behind it is mobilizing to shape the outcome.

In Pennsylvania, House Bill 2120 would classify shared equity contracts — often marketed as home equity investments (HEIs), shared appreciation agreements or home equity agreements — as residential mortgages under state law.

While the proposal is still in committee, the debate unfolding in Harrisburg reflects a broader national effort to determine whether these products are truly a new category of equity-based investment — or if they function as mortgages and belong under existing consumer lending laws.

A classification fight over home equity capture

HB 2120 would amend Pennsylvania’s Loan Interest and Protection Law by explicitly including shared appreciation agreements in the residential mortgage definition. If passed, shared equity contracts would be subject to the same interest caps, licensing standards and consumer protections that apply to traditional mortgage lending.

The legislation was introduced by Rep. Arvind Venkat after constituent Wendy Gilch — a fellow with the consumer watchdog Consumer Policy Center — brought concerns to his office. Gilch has since worked with Venkat as a partner in shaping the proposal.

Gilch initially began examining the products after seeing advertisements describe them as offering cash with “no debt,” “no interest” and “no monthly payments.”

Advertisement

“It sounds like free money,” she said. “But in many cases, you’re giving up a growing share of your home’s equity over time.”

Breaking down the debate

Shared equity providers (SEPs) argue that their products are not loans. Instead of charging interest or requiring monthly payments, companies provide homeowners with a lump sum in exchange for a share of the home’s future appreciation, which is typically repaid when the home is sold or refinanced.

The Coalition for Home Equity Partnership (CHEP) — an industry-led group founded in 2025 by Hometap, Point and Unlock — emphasizes that shared equity products have zero monthly payments or interest, no minimum income requirements and no personal liability if a home’s value declines.

Venkat, however, argues that the mechanics look familiar and argues that “transactions secured by homes should include transparency and consumer protections” — especially since, for many many Americans, their home is their most valuable asset. 

“These agreements involve appraisals, liens, closing costs and defined repayment triggers,” he said. “If it looks like a mortgage and functions like a mortgage, it should be treated like one.”

Advertisement

The bill sits within Pennsylvania’s anti-usury framework, which caps returns on home-secured lending in the mid-single digits. Venkat said he’s been told by industry representatives that they require returns approaching 18-20% to make the model viable — particularly if contracts are later resold to outside investors. According to CHEP, its members provide scenario-based disclosures showing potential outcomes under varying assumptions, with the final cost depending on future home values and term length.

In a statement shared with Real Estate News, CHEP President Cliff Andrews said the group supports comprehensive regulation of shared equity products but argues that automatically classifying them as mortgages applies a framework “that was never designed for, and cannot meaningfully be applied to, equity-based financing instruments.”

As currently drafted, HB 2120 would function as a “de facto ban” on shared equity products in Pennsylvania, Andrews added.

Real Estate News also reached out to Unison, a major vendor in the space, for comment on HB 2120. Hometap and Unlock deferred to CHEP when reached for comment. 

A growing regulatory patchwork

Pennsylvania is not alone in seeking to legislate regulations around HEIs. Maryland, Illinois and Connecticut have also taken steps to clarify that certain home equity option agreements fall under mortgage lending statutes and licensing requirements.

Advertisement

In Washington state, litigation over whether a shared equity contract qualified as a reverse mortgage reached the Ninth Circuit before the case was settled and the opinion vacated. Maine and Oregon have considered similar proposals, while Massachusetts has pursued enforcement action against at least one provider in connection with home equity investment practices.

Taken together, these developments suggest a state-by-state regulatory patchwork could emerge in the absence of a uniform federal framework.

The push for homeowner protections

The debate over HEIs arrives amid elevated interest rates and reduced refinancing activity — conditions that have increased demand for alternative equity-access products. 

But regulators appear increasingly focused on classification — specifically whether the absence of monthly payments and traditional interest charges changes the legal character of a contract secured by a lien on a home.

Gilch argues that classification is central to consumer clarity. “If it’s secured by your home and you have to settle up when you sell or refinance, homeowners should have the same protections they expect with any other home-based transaction,” she said.

Advertisement

Lessons from prior home equity controversies

For industry leaders, the regulatory scrutiny may feel familiar. In recent years, unconventional home equity models have drawn enforcement actions and litigation once questions surfaced around contract structure, title encumbrances or consumer understanding.

MV Realty, which offered upfront payments in exchange for long-term listing agreements, faced regulatory action in multiple states over how those agreements were recorded and disclosed. EasyKnock, which structured sale-leaseback transactions aimed at unlocking home equity, abruptly shuttered operations in late 2024 following litigation and mounting regulatory pressure.

Shared equity investment contracts differ structurally from both models, but those episodes underscore a broader pattern: novel housing finance products can scale quickly in tight credit cycles. Just as quickly, these home equity models encounter regulatory intervention once policymakers begin examining how they fit within existing law — and the formation of CHEP signals that SEPs recognize the stakes.

For real estate executives and housing finance leaders, the outcome of the classification fight may prove consequential. If shared equity contracts are treated as mortgages in more states, underwriting standards, return structures and secondary market economics could shift.

If lawmakers instead carve out a distinct regulatory category, the model may retain more flexibility — but face ongoing state-by-state negotiation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson

Published

on

Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson

Cornell University administrator Warren Petrofsky will serve as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new dean of administration and finance, charged with spearheading efforts to shore up the school’s finances as it faces a hefty budget deficit.

Petrofsky’s appointment, announced in a Friday email from FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra to FAS affiliates, will begin April 20 — nearly a year after former FAS dean of administration and finance Scott A. Jordan stepped down. Petrofsky will replace interim dean Mary Ann Bradley, who helped shape the early stages of FAS cost-cutting initiatives.

Petrofsky currently serves as associate dean of administration at Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences.

As dean, he oversaw a budget cut of nearly $11 million to the institution’s College of Arts and Sciences after the federal government slashed at least $250 million in stop-work orders and frozen grants, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.

He also serves on a work group established in November 2025 to streamline the school’s administrative systems.

Advertisement

Earlier, at the University of Pennsylvania, Petrofsky managed capital initiatives and organizational redesigns in a number of administrative roles.

Petrofsky is poised to lead similar efforts at the FAS, which relaunched its Resources Committee in spring 2025 and created a committee to consolidate staff positions amid massive federal funding cuts.

As part of its planning process, the committee has quietly brought on external help. Over several months, consultants from McKinsey & Company have been interviewing dozens of administrators and staff across the FAS.

Petrofsky will also likely have a hand in other cost-cutting measures across the FAS, which is facing a $365 million budget deficit. The school has already announced it will keep spending flat for the 2026 fiscal year, and it has dramatically reduced Ph.D. admissions.

In her email, Hoekstra praised Petrofsky’s performance across his career.

Advertisement

“Warren has emphasized transparency, clarity in communication, and investment in staff development,” she wrote. “He approaches change with steadiness and purpose, and with deep respect for the mission that unites our faculty, researchers, staff, and students. I am confident that he will be a strong partner to me and to our community.”

—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.

Continue Reading

Trending