Yes. We're recording yes. Okay, that's perfect. So if our recording is running, then we'll call the order of the meeting on the Sunday and November romance committee today is Wednesday, March 25th, November 26th, that's 4-0-1.
At this point in time, Madam Speaker, please take the roll. Mayor Gonzalez? Present. Vice Mayor Viveros-Walton? Present. Councilmember Aguilar? Present.
After each agenda item is presented, the mayor will ask for committee member comments and
then take public comment.
You will have two minutes for your comment.
The countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and attendees.
Okay, so at this point in time, we will move into the main substance of this meeting, which
is our discussion item.
a discussion of proposed FY 2027 mis-cycled. We've got director Nicole Gonzalez here on this side.
Thank you. The floor is yours to leave this discussion. Thank you. Good afternoon mayor
committee members. This afternoon we have a presentation for you related to proposed fiscal
fiscal year 27, Ms. Michael, update and proposed plan changes for fiscal year 20-29 on how
we will be building on the actual adjustments proposed with conspiracy 27.
So I want to provide background and context on why we're here this afternoon.
So we started the fiscal year 26 and 27 biannual budget last year and presented to the Finance
committee in April of 2025. At that committee meeting, the committee provided direction
to staff that fiscal year is 26 and 27, their expenses less than transfers would equal projected
revenue. At the beginning of fiscal year of 2028, all expenses, so expenses plus transfers
must equal projected revenue. So we had several meetings, we had a bunch of process with final
adoption on June 16, 25. The city did present a balanced budget for fiscal year
26, however in fiscal year 27 we did not necessarily meet that full objective and
a full goal and we still projected a use of unbalanced reserves to balance that
budget. Council at that time gave us grace and granted us more time to
identify ways to close the structural deficit in a meaningful way that
provided clear understanding of the impact the knowledge the community but
also to our organization. And so we are here this afternoon with the first presentation of the full
proposed reductions and updates for fiscal year 2027 mechanical so that we are preventing a
balanced budget starting fiscal year 2020. So this is just a picture that provides a little bit of
where we've been and where we're headed. We started the process with staff internally from
September to January really taking a look at the city's financial both revenues
and expenditures and making ideas and proposals in which we could propose the
council for considerations that we presented adopted by a balanced budget
for you for 2027. So in March we have a council retreat and we held two
committee engagement meetings earlier this month and we are here tonight at
the Finance Committee to present to you the City's proposal. In April we will
present, tentatively present as we are scheduled to, the 27 mid-cycle update to
the Council for a formal work session for consideration, scheduled for May and an
adoption of the updated fiscal year 2027 budget with commencement of that new
adjusted budget on July 1st. We appreciate the great work that came from
from the council retreat on March 6th,
I wanted to remind the finance committee
of the council's priorities for balancing the budget
and how these will help guide the budget process
and conversation as we move through
the next several meetings.
With that, one of the guiding principles
was ensuring that the city was meeting its reserve policy
or its fund balance policy.
And so before we get into what we are proposing
this evening to you for consideration,
wanted to kind of go over again what fund balance is. So I won't go into
specific detail, read off with the slide here, but did want to provide just some
some context on what a fund balance is for this committee but also those in
attendance this evening. So fund balance represents the difference between the
city's total assets and current future liabilities. Essentially it will show
what the net available resources are available at any given point. There are a
number of categories which are restricted or reserved for the planet's
expenditures and what the city's budget reserve policy focuses on really is
that area of unassigned or available for any type of purpose. So what is a targeted
fund balance? A targeted fund balance is a percentage that is referred to a
desired level of reserves or a desired level of amount you want to have in your
savings account at any given time to maintain in the general fund. We
often look to GFOA, which is the Government Finance Officers Association
for recommendations on best practices. They recommend that we have a
and maintain an unrestricted fund balance in the general fund of at
least two months of expenditures, less transfers which accounts for about 16.7
percent of your total expenditures. The city policy includes a target of 20%
fund balance and why is that important? There are a number of components that
can really help a city in the number of ways that they have a 20% fund balance.
It gives ability to pivot in a situation where you have unexpected expenses
without having to either go directly and make service reduction or borrow to fund
those unexpected expenses. It helps the city be able to weather economic
uncertainties or downturns, ability to remain operational during natural
disasters. It does impact your credit rating, leading to lower volume cost if
you have a stable outlook, financial outlook, and ultimately that 20% sits you
in a position where you have financial stability and resilience.
So as I mentioned, the city's current reserve policy or fund balance policy has really two
components in the unassigned bucket of money.
There's the economic uncertainty, which is 20% of expenditures excluding transfers.
And it goes a little beyond the recommendation that GFOA has, which is setting aside a target
goal of $5 million for major emergencies.
We did want to talk a little bit about, to high level, what the major emergency designation
is and what you can use it for, the 20% is very clear, it is intended for economic uncertainty.
It is an established goal of maintaining a balance of 5 million to respond to major emergencies,
what could be used for, it can be used for response to major emergencies, it is also
intended to address recovery efforts in the event that there is a natural
disaster which is creating major infrastructure issues things of that
nature so you can use it to recover from earthquakes, firestorms and any other
type of disaster including operational. So again just really kind of wanting to
benchmark the city of San Leandro and providing a little context for this
committee and for the members of the public that are here this evening. The
The city of San Leandro meets that minimum base of GFOA's recommendation of 16.7%.
The city has a 20% plus a 5 million set aside for major emergencies.
So you'll see that the majority of cities within Alameda County do hover or either,
they either meet that 16.7% recommendation by GFOA or they are kind of hovering in between that 20%.
There are a few cities that have a stronger, higher reserve.
Some of that is that it makes up a portion of our economic uncertainty but also for future
disasters.
So with that information in mind we wanted to provide some context around where we benchmarked
ourselves as far as reserves and sun balance and how that really kind of dictates the long-term
fiscal health of the state.
And so we'll shift to the general fund overview which we'll spend the most of our time today
discussing.
So, the table here is a picture graph of the city's general sign of financial
forecasts. It's our 10 year model with proposed changes which will be provided
more context and detail throughout the presentation today. We did want to start
at that bottom line that's highlighted in yellow, line 24. That is the, sorry, down
here, that is the city's 20% reserve policy and you will see with the proposed
changes being considered today, the city will be meeting or exceeding that 20%
reserve goal. I do want to shift your attention and your focus to the right
side of the screen so over here you'll see there's some three sets of numbers.
The first set of numbers represents a projected increase of about 700,000
ongoing starting in fiscal year 2028 and that is reflective of some increases in
programmatic revenue associated with the increase in recreation programs that we
are intending to offer with additional programming additional classes being
offered we are projecting an increase in that area. The second area the orange
section here represents the city's operation expenditures. You'll see by
of 2029, ongoing expenditures will total 8.2 million.
Just below that, in the kind of gold color,
are proposed reductions to transfers.
So transfers from the dental funds to other funds,
and we'll get a little bit more detail
into what that looks like.
And so beginning in 2029,
we are looking at a total ongoing reduction of $300.
So I want to.
because now we're going to give it to the me.
I just want to make sure that, because I've got questions about the background,
and I just want to see if others have any questions about the background.
Okay, so my question starts at the restrictions of funds.
And I'm trying to put some, make sure I really understand this,
because this is kind of a work of exemption throughout all the work that I'm not accessing.
Non-spendable.
I've never heard that term.
There's like no way that you could ever spend this money.
What does that mean, not to spend it?
So they're typically related to your debt
and things of that nature.
So and then restricted are external restrictions.
So if we have an obligation that we hold, you have it.
I'm really trying to get you non-spendable.
I'm wondering, so would that be what
that's been reserved for FICA.
We can put the money in for funding.
I can provide more detail on what's sitting in that account.
I'm happy to do that.
I just want to be sure you said it's not
critical for right now.
But what I think out of all of these,
committed, assigned, and unassigned,
all of those are technically flexible
in the counsel's direction.
That is correct.
Because when you said we were going to focus on unassigned,
So that's my first kind of clarification.
And then second clarification is because on the chart
that we had in the spreadsheet, so to speak.
And I'm trying to understand when
we talk about these increases.
So I'm going to just take column F and G as an example.
So from F to G, revenue goes up $3.7 million.
Is this saying that we're... that before it only went up by 3.7... 3.3 million?
And we juiced the revenue.
That's correct. So there are some escalation factors on our base for our revenues.
So we have escalation factors that we know related to property tax or sales tax.
Some of our taxes that we encounter on a regular basis are escalation factors.
So you are correct that this just represents the additional on top of the already projected
revenue growth that we have in each fiscal year.
And so to be clear, is the total in any given year $700k more, or is it $700k, does this
In any way, compound, I guess that's my question.
Not with that particular revenue.
I guess if we start increasing the costs of our classes,
there could be a compounded increase,
but it is specifically related to actual revenue collected
for a recreation class.
It's just gonna be a seven hour.
And we'll monitor that because we wanna make sure
that we are receiving that actual revenue projection
that we're in line with it.
will bring that provision to counsel for consideration, but if it's running at a higher rate we'll also bring that to counsel for consideration.
So if I go back and look at the last one of these that we saw and call them an L, instead of $182.5 million, the prior one of these said $184.8 million?
So it will be close. What I will say is that we have made adjustments as for example, our our sales tax
does vary we keep a pulse on what it's the economy is doing what we're doing not just
But Stanley Andrew economy if we believe that a new business is coming to the city of San Leandro
We believe a business is leading the city of San. Andrew. We do work very closely back on development. So it
I
I think we need to be transparent about how our numbers are changing and not we have to go and figure out.
So that number used to be 170 million and now it's 182.5.
This creates the impression that what's changed is we tweaked it by 700 billion and whatever it is that's going to be transparent about what we're doing.
because we just had a public meeting where we were telling people that our best estimate of numbers were
and we've changed that in two weeks, but I don't want anyone to believe that we're playing games.
Correct.
That will lower our credibility.
Similarly for expenses, so line number nine, is the only change the $8.2 million or are there other changes being put into that?
That is correct. It's the 8.2 million.
And I will clarify, yes, what we have presented in very recent presentations to both Council,
the committee, as well as to the public,
the changes that you're seeing today are just the 700,000.
The number has not significantly changed beyond what we have been presenting in the last month or so.
Perfect.
And then I know that I've been asking you about transfers.
I'm still struggling to understand, are we essentially one time by the time that he relates,
there's a one time three million dollar transfer for each year into the future we'll be transferring
three million bucks? Thank you for that clarification. So we will build up the reductions
to three million starting in uh 2029 and that would be the base. We would continue reducing beyond
Typically, and I know you sent me that information today, so I don't have it, but a quick eyeball
suggested that we transfer about five to six million a year? That's correct. That's an
historic one. On average. And so am I to understand, we as a committee, to understand
that future transfers under this module will be about two to three million dollars a year?
There are some areas you'll see, let me just point out, I apologize, specifically on this
line here for 2033, we are anticipating and including in that projection to replace a
fire vehicle.
So it is a one-time transfer.
And then that, the impact of these transfers, the reduced transfers, is that documented
in here?
Yes.
at portion of the presentation.
That is an answer that I should have had.
It's OK.
OK, thank you for.
A lot of information.
OK, if you can with this proceed.
OK.
So we will spend the next several slides
discussing in more detail what some of those proposals
look like as far as reductions in order changes,
and that changes to the general fund for fiscal year 27
and then 28 and 29.
So we have it broken into a variety of sections
or functional areas.
The first functional area that we will look at
is administrative and general government,
which includes the departments of City Manager's Office,
finance, human services, human resources, excuse me,
and information technology.
So the City Manager's Office has a cumulative reduction
of 234,000 or 3% of its baseline total budget.
And one of the areas that we have discussed as a proposed reduction is the elimination
of the city support, that's the city financial support to crossing our program that is offered
by the school district.
So this would eliminate 90,000 in support for the school district crossing our program,
which the school district will have to assume full cost of the program as they offer to
their students.
I will clarify that because this information will be provided beforehand,
we will be highlighting a few reductions so that we have plenty of time at the end
to answer questions for all of you.
And so we'll be speaking very high level at each of the departments as we move through these.
The finance department has a cumulative reduction of just under 440,000,
which is about 9% of its base budget.
A significant driver of our reduction being proposed
this evening is to eliminate or significantly reduce
the business license administration
that is currently run by a third-party consultant.
And I say reduce because we will do this
administrative, administration of the program in-house.
It used to be a program that was handled in-house.
But we will also retain services such as discovery
or audits, which will go into the community
make sure that people who should be having a business license do and will be
notifying the city if there are some that are delinquent. Human resources has an ongoing
reduction of 156,000 almost 157,000. Some of the areas of reduction include
reimagination of employer recognition events so we recognize the importance of
these events on our staff and on our employees and looking for ways to still
offer those types of recognition events at a much lower cost. We are also
proposing a reduction in contract services for external investments,
excuse me, investigations and other employee relations services, so cumulative
ongoing at 65,000. Information technology, while it is not a general fund, it's an
internal service fund, it is significantly funded through allocations
from the General Fund and so reductions to this internal service fund would have
an impact on the General Fund. And so they have a cumulative reduction of 700
almost at $140,000 which is about eight percent of its total budget. Some of the
areas of reductions you'll see here is a reduction in consultant services
including the elimination of the year-up intern. So the ongoing reduction would be
about $213,000 ongoing as well as the elimination of public Wi-Fi access so in
in our downtown and our parks.
So moving into culture and services,
the areas of library recreation parks and human services.
The library has proposed cumulative reductions of 863,
almost $864,000 reduction,
which represents about 9% of its total baseline budget.
At the City Council retreat,
we did discuss the changes in the weekly library hours
why we will be newly closed on Monday's we will be increasing the hours of
operation at Holyford and so a combination of the reduction with the
increases at Holyford will actually increase the number of hours of operation
in our library system by two hours. That is about 650,000 in reductions. There's
also the proposed elimination of the public arts fund as well. Recreation and
parks they have a total change of about 10% of its total budget which
represents about 1.2 million. What you'll see here is the increase of 715,000 in
revenue which directly offsets and reduces its reliance on the general fund
to subsidize its programming. We are showing an increase in the independent
contractor expenses so as we increase our offerings and increase our revenue
we do need to increase the cost in our budget to account for those independent
contractors offering classes. Another area of reduction that's discussed was
of the reduction of security services at large events
as well as active pools.
Human services have a total of about 550,000
in cumulative reductions, which represents about 14%
of its total budget.
Some of the areas that we discussed at the retreat
is the elimination of funding for the congregate winter
shelter.
That program is recommended to be discontinued.
continuing currently in the fiscal year 26 budget due to the lack of a qualified
provider and so we are recommending the elimination moving forward. There is also
funding changes for security services at the senior center which will result in
ongoing reduction of about $54,000. Public infrastructure which includes
public works and community development. Public works has a net change of a
million dollars or 10 percent of its current baseline budget. What we
discussed at the retreat included a reduction to the third-party
encampment enclosure which will result in about $400,000 in reductions. We did
provide additional information as we did here at the retreat. We were looking for some specific information
numbers around the number of encampments that are addressed each year and so in
2025. We had about 20 encampment cleanups that were performed. 16 of that was performed by that
third-party contractor and about four to six was actually performed by city staff. And to date in
2026 we've addressed 19 mechanical cleanups. 15 of those from the vendor in about four to six
is from the City's internal staff. If we move forward with this reduction, there will be an
overall reduction which may result in slower response time for our income. Community Development
has a proposed reduction of about 1.6, almost 1.7 million, which represents about 15 percent of
their total budget. Their reductions span across three slides, so I will hit a couple on each slide.
we'll see on this slide here we have a reduction in or excuse me the elimination of a vacant
permanent center position has been vacant for some time and so they are proposing to eliminate
that position with the internal recruitment and then elimination of that factor position.
So that would result in about $181,000 in savings.
Also included is a reallocation of the rent registry program.
So that was initially included in the 26, 27 budget proposal
and included in the long-time financial forecast.
As it comes forward to the city council for final adoption,
this amount will be included in a loan from the general fund
to really establish special revenue fund,
which will capture the costs and recovery
and repayment from that special revenue to the channel fund.
Further reductions to the First Time Home Buyers Program,
which will result in an ongoing reduction of 50,000.
This could result in reduced capacities
to manage and monitor the city's BMR program,
as well as a potential loss of a third party contract
or as part of this reduction.
And then lastly, we have the elimination
of the business incentive program
which was discussed at the retreat.
That would be an ongoing savings of 157,000
and this could potentially impact
the ability to recruit and assist unique
and special businesses to come here
to the city of San Landro.
It's, again, a possibility, not necessarily inevitable
that it will occur, but we will lose that funding for that.
Public safety, which includes both fire and police.
Fire is the only reduction of about 990,000 or 3%
of their contract total.
The first is the, there is a correction.
This is the typo on item number 59.
It is not eliminate.
It is a reduction to the city's retired medical contribution,
So, the city under this proposal would provide a payment of 10% of the total contribution required.
So, this represents a savings of 90% of its current operation.
And then the last on fire that I want to make sure that we highlight again is that reduction to the alternative response unit.
We did make some adjustments in cost from what you saw at the Council retreat.
There's a recalculation done, as a result of that recalculation,
we're actually looking at a savings of about 270,000.
Police have the proposed reduction of about 110,000,
representing 2% of its total budget.
Some areas of reduction for consideration
is the elimination of a vacant manhood
analyst position or a crime, which is being underfilled
with a crime analyst.
That would be eliminated with ongoing savings
161 to 152 thousand and then discussion around bringing and utilizing in-house
services for efficiency by eliminating the fleet management contract beginning in
2028. With that I will pause and turn it over temporarily to assistant city
manager Ewan who will discuss the next two slides. Thank you Director Gonzalez good
evening Mayor Gonzalez and council members this is an area as we are
forming our budget, then staff will appreciate some direction on this
evening to know how to program this in subsequent years. But the area of mayor
and council members of compensation is something that is defined in your
council handbook as well as the city charter and state statute. What you see on
this slide are two provisions from the handbook that give direction on how to
proceed on this specifically that first section is charter section 255 which
speaks of provisions of the government code of California relating compensation
benefits and reimbursements applying to general law cities but that it shall
apply to the council here in San Diego as well as far as setting compensation
and then that second bullet talks about when compensation should be considered
which is basically reevaluated in even years so that it can take effect at the
first of the odd year when a council member's new term shall start. This is
just some historical information from you. The prior compensation adjustment
took effect on January 1st of 2025. That brought council member compensation from
$1,300 at $23 a month to $1,900 a month and the mayor's monthly compensation
from $2,646 per month to $3,800 per month. And this is what California
Government Code section 36516 would allow for an adjustment basically for
every calendar year since your prior adjustment. The council may adjust for
five percent each calendar year or an adjustment factor equivalent to the
California CPI but not to a Z10 percent that's not relevant here because five
percent is your cap here for each year since the last adjustment and any
adjustment that council would decide on would be effective January 1st of 2027.
So as you make your budget deliberations this evening we ask that you
factor this into consideration as well. Thank you so transitioning it back to
some of the proposed changes we do provide I wanted to provide a overview
summary of the proposed staff changes for fiscal year 2027. Currently there are 455.1 budgeted
positions and the proposal would be to reduce or eliminate 8FTE in fiscal year
2027. So with that being said, now that we've gone through kind of all the proposals
and reductions we do want to transition to focus on inner fund transfers. We need to
talk a little bit about general fund transfers and what that means and so and
how that could impact the general fund long-term. And so wanting to provide
by context for the committee, but also those in the room,
to really understand what an inter-fund transfer is.
And so what an inter-fund transfer is,
it occurs when money is sent from one fund
to another fund within the same government.
In the case of today, we were talking about money
moving from the general fund to other funds.
Why are your funds typically used?
They are typically used to fund
large infrastructure, capital projects,
subsidization of budgets,
or to comply with legal policy requirements.
Inner funds can be ongoing or they can be one-time in nature.
So ongoing occurs regularly.
These are usually annual support for project and programs.
One-time are often to address either a budget shortfall
or to fund a very specific capital project.
Inner fund transfers in San Leandro,
the city has historically transferred fund out of the general fund to support
other funds that is typically around capital infrastructure to subsidize
funding needs as well as transfers to the city's pension fund in importance
with its pool policy. So I wanted to pause for a second and provide an
overview of the city's general fund transfers. Again those are transfers from
the general fund to other funds. You'll see in column B are actual transfers. The
city in 2025 transferred 9.3 million out of the general fund to support other
funds. And then columns C and D are the adopted planned transfers. And then
columns E and F are forecasted transfers to support capital infrastructure as
as well as operational commitments to the lake shuttle.
So with that being said, we wanted to provide examples.
This is no means necessarily a full recommendation
from staff.
We wanted to provide context on potential options
of the committee to consider and provide direction
to staff on what a reduction in 2027 would look like
as far as reducing a million dollars
in transfer obligations.
So in fiscal year 27 we have budgeted 4.8,
almost 4.9 in transfers.
And about four, the most significant part of it
is within our capital infrastructure.
And so the proposal shows examples of reductions.
So if we reduced by half, city building major maintenance
by $300,000, $200,000 reduction to major park maintenance
programs, excuse me, and then $500,000 for rehabilitation,
that would give you a million dollars.
And so that column D would be your proposed
or revised transfer commitment.
So again, these are just examples.
For fiscal year 28, again, we further reduce
example to building of parks as well as street rehabilitation that would result
we would retain that planned purchase of a fire station or excuse me fire truck
of about 1.5 million and not propose to reduce that in 2020. So you go from 5.5
to 4.5. In 2029 the new base again based on the prior reductions you
you would have 4.6, almost 4.7 in general fund transfers.
Again, examples of further reductions.
And then the ongoing support after 29
would be what you see in fiscal year 29, column D,
with the exception of the fire vehicle.
So there's a plan purchasing that fire vehicle in 29,
as well of 1.5 million.
The ongoing transfer support would be 100,000
for building major maintenance,
100,000 for park major maintenance,
and 1.7, almost 1.8 for street rehabilitation.
So that would bring that proposed transfer obligation
to 3.6, 3.7.
And before I move on to the next phase of the presentation,
I just wanted to reiterate a couple things.
The A-Transition Plan is a federal requirement
that we have that, which is why it's not an example
where we would do a reduction.
We also have a contractual obligation
with the Link Shuttle service,
which is why it is not included as well.
So I wanted to provide some context there.
I also wanted to provide context
on some reasoning behind our recommendation
to reduce transfers to other funds.
Typically, you want your general fund
to be in a very stable state
before you start transferring money to other funds,
to either subsidize or to continue to fund other programs.
So when there are fiscal prices is,
typically you will see the first area
that is reviewed are transfers.
You want to make sure that you can meet your obligations
for your core services in the general fund
before you start providing financial support
to other funds or programs.
With that being said, the city is still very much focused
ensuring it has the necessary tools and equipment to provide those core
services that we talked about. One of that is making sure that we have are
establishing a sustainable fleet fund. We have ongoing fleet needs and the city
has its non-public safety or city fleet that it manages. We have a police
fleet and a fire fleet. Some of the operational needs, these operational
are for providing core services to our community.
So without a police vehicle and we have a call for service,
but we have no car, we can't provide that core service.
So making sure that we have adequate funding
for these areas that provide core services
is really important.
So one of the challenges we're working with here
are procurement challenges,
the high cost of public safety fleet,
and one of the real large challenges
that we continue to encounter,
not just in the city of San Leandro, the county, but also other cities and other jurisdictions,
is the actual time in which you place your order for a fire vehicle and when it actually
arrives at your doorstep.
And it ranges anywhere from four to five, and I feel like every time I talk to somebody
in fire safety, that time continues to grow, and it continues to be pushed out.
And so, we do have to take into consideration the full life of our vehicles, but also consider
how long it takes for us to actually receive that replacement. And again, if we don't have
adequate fire vehicles, we are not able to meet that core service expectation. So what are we doing?
We've engaged with a consultant to assist with finalizing a very in-depth review of the city's
fleet bank. We're also working to develop a robust fleet fund policy and comprehensive
tenure financial forecast to better understand ongoing funding needs and
those impacts on the general fund. This again like I said is very vital for the
continuation of providing for services to the community and to avoid critical
failures. We do plan to return to finance committee with an update on the
policy forecasting tool and funding plan and either May or June. So shifting a
little bit from our proposed reductions we did want to provide an update to the
committee and to the community on ARPA, or American Rescue Plan. So again, as a
reminder to the committee, but also to the community and those in the room, you
know, what was ARPA? What is ARPA? It was a law that was signed in on March
11, 2021. It provided 1.9 trillion in economic stimulus package to address
the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and crisis. 65 billion of that in
indirect federal relief was sent to cities and counties
to address economic fiscal impacts.
ARPA dollars intended to assist cities and communities
recover from those impacts, and that included
supporting its communities and including its businesses
and its members of its community.
So how did this impact the city of San Diego?
The city did receive 18.6, almost 18.7 million
in local relief.
All ARPA dollars were obligated by its required date
of December of 2024.
And we are currently on target to be fully expended
by 2026, which are the guidelines
as I say with the receiving fee of the stimulus.
So this is just a screenshot, again,
summary of the ARPA appropriations
that was approved by council.
I won't go into each individual one,
but this does provide categories in which allocation
was set to fund programs and projects,
to support those who were negatively impacted
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
So ARCO really was intended for one time expenses.
However, the city reacted just like other agencies,
including the county, and making sure
that it was responding as quickly as it could
to its most vulnerable populations.
And so some of those programs and the projects
that were identified and established were successful.
And they created this expectation
of ongoing programmatic needs in the community.
And so you'll see in column A, there
are a number of projects that were funded initially
through the ARPA appropriations, which totaled about $4.1,
almost $4 million.
The ongoing base, so for 2027,
so that ongoing cost ARPA will end.
And so there's no more ARPA dollars.
And so if the programs continue to,
continue in perpetuity,
or for as long as the council deans fit,
there is a cost,
and that cost would be buried by the general fund.
There are some of the programs
that have offsetting costs with grants,
but the dollar grants that you see on the table here
represent the ongoing costs to the general fund.
And so you will see, if this were your 27,
there's an operational impact about 3.7.
Again, 3.7 and 28.
And then there's a reduction to 3.3 million.
And really where you see that reduction
is in the area of the ARU,
the proposed reduction, ARU starting in 29,
and then the reduction in in-campus cleanup, which is in line five.
So switching to critical failure funding needs,
it was a conversation that was had at the City Council Retreat on March 6th.
The city remains vigilant in making sure that it can address infrastructure needs
to avoid critical failure, especially when it relates to providing
core services to the community.
And some of those proactive investments
to avoid critical failure include painting
of both City Hall and the Royal Community Center,
each about $500,000, the roof replacement
at Fire Station 10, which would cost $625,000,
and then the CAD-RMS, which is estimated about $3 million.
And we did estimate what we believe
the cost would be over the next three years
for the implementation of that new system.
So potential options for funding critical needs.
Based on the policy of the city council
as it relates to this reserve policy,
we believe that the $5 million major emergency reserve fund
could fund the CAT RS.
It is an infrastructure need that if it does not operate,
will create a significant major emergency
which will be much more difficult and time consuming
to try and recover from rather than to be proactive
and address it immediately before it becomes
major catastrophic emergency, excuse me. The other option is that we can go back
to the table and increase expenditure reductions even further to fund these
critical failure units. What's not shown on this slide and is this could be a
consideration is to postpone councils directive beginning at fiscal year 28
that all expenses including your transfers, nothing or your revenue. So that is an option for
consideration but these are the potential options that the staff is looking at.
With that being said, we wanted to end with what the general fund forecasts or
the ten-year forecast would look like if we did nothing. We don't anticipate
that that's this committee or the council's goal or objective, but if the
council did nothing, you will see again focusing on line 15, we are not meeting
that reserve goal already beginning in 2027 if we do nothing. And then by 2030
you are negatively, you have negative money available for economic
concerns. You are not meeting that 20%. And then by 2032 you, this represents your
actual fund balance, you are negative. So you are out of the dollars and in a
position where you potentially are filing for bankruptcy. And so again, we wanted to end with
this picture to remind you of all the work that has been happening over the
last several months to avoid this. And so wanting to just provide that snapshot
for you all as well. With that, our next steps in the process today is to
pre-exact the City Council for a workshop session on the presentation
provided this afternoon and that would occur in April and then in May coming to
the City Council for adoption of the fiscal year 27 adjustments for the
mid-cycle budget. With that I will pause and look for Council to provide
feedback input on the proposed deductions and then recommendations to
present to the whole Council. Thank you for the presentation. A lot of work has gone into
this clearly. Let's talk a little bit with Council members. Do you have questions?
So, are the members here from the public who would like to address the council or the
committee on this particular committee?
This would be the time to approach where?
First, is there anyone?
Yes, we do have members from the public attending, but we have not received any speaker cards.
Okay, final call.
Someone else?
we will close public comment if no one has asked to speak so we will come back to council
members for questions, discussions, we will have a moment for rounds here.
Thank you so much for the presentation, thank you staff for coming back to propose some
of these receptions.
I have about eight questions, I have about eight questions and a couple of comments so
So let's start off with regards to the CMO, the Manager's Office, community sponsorships,
$60,000.
One is that, I know there's a line added, but what does that entail?
Thank you, Councilmember Aguilar.
We have Deputy City Manager Eric Engelbert come up to answer this question.
I think we've heard a lot about that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon committee members and Councilor Aguilar.
Thank you for your question today.
The background on this line item, essentially for a number of years now, we've had a program
known as the Community Investment Grants Program, which for the last, I'd say eight or so years,
give or take.
The council has included approximately $100,000 as an annual line item.
That's available for competitive grant, or not competitive, to the grant awards to members
the community or nonprofit organizations seeking support for community serving events or programs.
Typically one-time funding in nature, the typical grant award is capped at at not greater than $5,000.
The typical awards are usually in the order of, you know, $2,000.
Examples that I can think of in the past, you know, include sponsorships for events.
There's typically some funds that have been allocated to the Brooklyn Festival, other kinds of community serving events like that,
in order to be eligible to receive an award an organization needs to be a non-profit and they need to be located there in San Leandro
where the activity or program of their city funding score needs to be primarily targeted towards Santa Ana residents.
Of course need to also be
non-political in nature of those activities and
and then available to provide documentation,
or receipts, et cetera, to demonstrate
how those funds were used when they were issued.
And we've been looking, though, over the past years,
and kind of doing an audit of how much funding has
been awarded in the past years.
And typically, they are within this range.
So we don't believe there would be a net major impact
to the community as a result of the cut,
because essentially, we've been ordering
or it's consistent with these reductions, anyway.
So we believe on a kind of looking at a net global basis
there should be really minimal impact on the community
if this move's come for an activity.
Gotcha, thank you so much for answering there.
My concern was, you know, just doing simple math,
like, we donate $5,000 every month to SLIA
for their Friday events, I mean, that holds $60,000
I mean, I'm just saying that it's not going to impact any of these services that we sponsor.
What I can share is I'm not familiar with the allocation you're referencing to SLIA,
but I can assure you that if there's such an allocation that's taking place, it's not coming out of this line.
Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. And then my next question.
Okay, because I have questions on that slide too.
Okay.
How do you want to answer that?
That's right.
I'm going into IT next, but it will just be a short slide.
Just from a process perspective, we'll do each of the slides to the questions, so we
don't keep going back and sort this.
And I'm just going to use...
Thank you.
And thanks, Council Member Abhinav for your flexibility.
I actually had something on the earlier slide, on the projection slide, on slide 12.
I had a question around if we have any, and this is a brand new question, totally okay
for you to just come back to it.
terms of the city programming that we're expecting to see a bump I'm just
wondering just in terms of where we are in the economy did we see a dip in sign
ups or program delivery during the recession in 08. I will turn it over to
director Zuniga. I know that he was not here during that time. I don't know that
he'll be able to answer that.
We can absolutely look into that.
I wasn't here for that time period either,
but I'm happy to provide that research for you
and provide that after the meeting.
But given what we knew happened in 2008
in the Great Recession, I would absolutely suspect
that we had a significant decrease in programmatic revenue
as people continue to prioritize
their essential needs before leisure.
But I could provide what that number looks like for you.
And I think there are some parts of that
that are not considered leisure to a lot of families
that provide essential services, but it's
cashed under recreation.
I'm just trying to figure out how soft that number is.
It's not that much, but just at this point,
we're looking at programs of $90,000 reductions.
So I'm willing to look at every item.
Thank you for that.
So back to that slide for city managers and legislative.
I'm specifically on the crossing paths.
Have a concern there around,
and it's a combo of like accidents and that sort of stuff.
To try to figure out the correlation between
reduction in accidents pedestrian accidents during school time and us
providing or contributing to that program that the school district funds
the 90,000 do we know what proportion of the total program like what percentage
are we contributing to in that program thank you member by Councilmember
that represents a 50% cost share is the current structure.
As we kind of highlighted on this topic came up during the annual planning
session a few weeks back, the challenge is we do not control those costs.
Because the vendor is hired by the school district,
we don't control how frequently they put the project out to RMP.
We just essentially get bills each year for 50% of whatever cost structure that
that the school district decides to execute for the program.
And it's somewhat informal for sure currently.
Yeah, I'm thinking particularly around eliminating or reducing pedestrian accidents and vehicle
accidents around school when school starts and ends.
I'm just wondering if there is capacity, that number seems manageable to look for a grant.
I don't know if there are any, if we have already done that research and that doesn't exist,
or if we just haven't yet, just wondering, because that's a manageable number to look for a grant.
I can address that. I'm not aware of any grant programs for crossing guards.
With that said, we can certainly research that further.
The other challenge, though, with any of these things
is typically grants by their very nature
are one time in nature versus this is an annual recurring
cost, and that over time, always goes in one direction,
which is the increasing cost each cycle.
For context, when this framework was set up,
it was something like, let's say, around $20,000 a year
that the city was initially committing to
when the program, this cost-sharing framework,
was first established, and the price and the cost
continue to rise and escalate your recycle,
which again, say there's no direct control over it.
And so even if we were successful
in identifying a grant program,
which we don't know if one exists,
and we're successful at all,
seeing the word of being awarded those funds,
typically they would be one time in nature.
So that might get us one additional year,
but then we would lead back to the same situation
of how to fund the recurring bills
that would continue to be coming in.
Yeah, no I understand that. It's just if there is one less accident, one less person hurt, even if it's one time that it's just bridging them. Anyway.
Vice Mayor, if I may, what we're saying is not elimination of the program. Elimination of the city,
to the school district and not pay for the program.
So I'm not gonna know what Erica's working
with the school district.
We're at this time not in a position to say
this means this goes away which leads to more accidents.
I think that's another step.
We haven't heard from the school district
that they would eliminate the program
if we did not pay for this.
And to drill down a bit further on that,
I think with the city manager's comments,
also speak to his part of the reason
why the proposed execution data list
is a year further out at what, 28,
to give us that time to continue to collaborate with them
and work through those kind of very important details
and ramifications of this order to come to effect.
Thank you, those are all my questions on that slide.
Okay, so just for myself so that I can wrap this slide up.
Can we initiate payment for this a certain time ago,
like in the last few years,
or have we always carried this for, you know,
let's say two, a decade or two?
Thank you, ma'am, for your question.
My understanding based on our staff, our offices were new to the relevant administrative records
that still exist, is that the structure came about during the great recession era, probably
somewhere around in that 2008-2009 time frame, like everyone we were facing, there were massive
fiscal challenges, and my understanding is that this was an arrangement that was where
the city at that time had initially proposed an elimination of funding support for it.
There was discussion and a possible project with volunteer, community volunteers starting
creating the function, but I understand that that was not a successful effort to find someone
who was able to do it.
So ultimately, the solution that was identified was this 50% cost share.
And again, at that time, the actual net cost to the city was massively less than it is
today.
over time, those costs are just escalated.
And I do want to be able to just dive in and make sure
I understand these numbers of certainty.
So take row three as a hypothetical.
If I'm reading this correctly, the idea
is if we had, hypothetically, $184,160 budget for general
operating expenses, then you know for what would be $100,000.
OK, perfect.
Then the last question, just to piggyback a little bit of Councilwoman Raynaud's question,
I interpret this to be, I think your answer was, there's a Council has historically budgeted $100,000,
but this will do is say, going forward, it will be $40,000 in future years.
That's correct.
Perfect. Thank you so much.
No.
I'll pass it back to you Council Member.
Thank you for your comment.
Of course, thank you Eric.
My next question is on the IT slide.
So my concern is with regards to elimination of public Wi-Fi.
We are anticipating not funding that for fiscal year 28?
Yes, and this would be that system
is due for a major replacement.
It's very old.
And while there are ongoing costs associated
with that system, they're relatively small.
It's like less than $10,000 a year.
But the big cost is the upgrade refresh
of all the antennas, which is coming up.
And they last about 10 years.
And though we're 10 years old, it's
hundred and eight K to replace them all and the thinking behind this being on
the list is that not all cities provide this it's not and in this day it was
very important years and years ago when you know everybody didn't have one of
and it was heavily used and but now less so. So the other thing to note about
this is this does not include Cherry Festival Wi-Fi. Cherry Festival Wi-Fi is
funded by the Cherry Festival so we will maintain the annual Cherry Festival
people pay about Wi-Fi, those were recently replaced, and we're actually expanding them
a little bit this year, so they will not be removed in this proposal.
So, when we talk about cherry-festive Wi-Fi, that's for the day?
Yes.
And we could keep them turned on all year, it's really no cost, but the big benefit is
because vendors require them to take payments.
And so yeah, and for emergencies,
and there's so many cell phones flooding
the cellular networks, that having that backup
and having that service for vendors
is critical to the success of the shared vessel.
Gotcha.
I think what I see is during the pandemic,
there were some folks, parents who couldn't work
who are not getting income.
And so the vision of two little girls at Burger King,
logging onto Burger King Wi-Fi to do their homework.
I just can't get that out of my head.
And to see the folks that actually,
do we have data as to who uses,
or how many people would access public Wi-Fi in San Diego?
For me it's a low ticket income.
And to eliminate this just I'm just trying to figure out
If you know the pros and cons the pros that way the con should we do it should we not?
And that's just my concern right now where I looking at this I would say do not have one of the eliminate
We do have data, it's not that illuminating because it doesn't you know say who's right it doesn't it really doesn't tell tell us if
You know owners
Don't want our business owners child screaming Netflix all day long or is it you know?
But it we have you know how many how many connections how many unique connections per day things like that?
But it's definitely used
Less so in the parks
Okay
My thing was also to collect that you can put a firewall like when you log into
Airport Wi-Fi you can say how old are you?
gender and
you know many people register and log in and
Don't ever do that. Yeah. Excuse me. That's just like I just want I would like to see if it's worth it
and how we can advocate to to keep this because I think
called it Wi-Fi is
it's a
It's a free benefit of living in San Diego, I guess.
But I'll see how my other council colleagues feel, but I would like to keep this item rather than eliminate it.
So that's the only question I have on my ideas.
Okay, I'm sorry.
I do have questions on that, but I also have questions on business license.
So I'll put you all on the queue, business license.
So in terms of the IT and Councilmember Aitahila kind of asked some of my questions regarding the public Wi-Fi.
You mentioned that it's really the hardware that we're looking to that we have to replace.
Correct.
And what is...
Green, but it's green.
I know I'm colorblind, so...
Oh.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I didn't...
So when are we, if, if things were to remain the same, when is the hardware expected to
happen in place?
Is it fiscal year 28, 29?
Or yesterday?
It's yesterday.
It's, it's, it's, it has around a 10 year lifespan, it's over 10 years old.
So it should, it should be replaced.
going to start failing, we're going to have to start, it'll cause
other impacts in terms of continual maintenance and spending money that we
shouldn't be spending, trying to repair antennas as they fail, one at a time. So I
can say that we don't, when it goes down, we don't get complaints. That's
another thing. We've had outages and we rarely hear about them from any
community members so you know that's kind of anecdotal evidence but it is yeah.
Have we looked at or have y'all looked at if we were to eliminate public Wi-Fi
access and we wanted to bring it back in 2030 or we were to bring it back in 29
how much would it cost to bring an act up on that. There wouldn't be any additional cost really. We have the
basic infrastructure of the city Wi-Fi system for basically for city employees
to be able to conduct business. It's required. That's not an optional system. So
that core infrastructure for that system could be extended to the public. So it's
It's not like if we eliminated it and now brought it back in the few years that it would
cost more.
It's going to cost about the same.
Okay.
Thank you.
My other question was regarding item 19 on city software and cybersecurity tools.
Here in light of what happened to our neighboring city, I'm just wondering if we're being, I
forget the English saying of pound foolish, petty wise, whatever that saying is.
I apologize, I'll clarify, it's not easy to see, but that's an increase.
So we are adding, we added it here as an increase because it reduces our, it impacts our reduction.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, I'm sorry, yeah, you're right, sorry.
We've added 96k to the budget with unanticipated cybersecurity and other tools.
Okay, thank you. I did not notice the, non, okay.
Um, can we go back, those are all my questions on IT, but you have some, yeah.
Yeah, I just want to make a comment on the public Wi-Fi.
A number of people have their phones sent to jump onto Wi-Fi, but it's the end of it.
And so I am a bit concerned that there's a lot of hits from people who just default into it if they can,
as opposed to they need it.
The other thought being that in the city of San Alejandro
for San Francisco in particular,
during COVID, they handed out hotspots to the students.
So for us as a city, I'm a little bit less concerned.
I do think the last thought is that
through either universal access,
funds of some kind,
broadband America, I'll say it in their quotes,
I don't know whether that program would be called,
But just that concept that given our designation as a city,
that there should be some sort of state federal funding
available for access if we think that it's important
and that we can pursue.
So I'm not as worried about this one in particular
for those reasons.
Just one more question.
If the library's closed, but I am in,
I'm talking about the main library.
If I'm sitting on one of the benches,
am I still able to access Wi-Fi?
Yes.
And this is not an impact library of Wi-Fi at all.
Yeah, I'm just wondering if we don't provide
public access to Wi-Fi, but I really do need to do something.
I could sit outside of the library, even when it's closed,
and I have access to the Wi-Fi.
And that's in all library locations?
Mayden Manor. Mayden Manor. Okay, would we have that ability at Mulford?
We're still expecting that. Okay, that kind of eases it for me. Like just in terms of, I mean, there's lighting, but you do need to somehow access that. Okay, those are all my questions on this slide.
I will send in 49 million dollars when we're working at the library.
I'll leave it back.
Oh, I had a question on a previous, on the finance line.
Thank you.
My next question is regarding Public Works.
On the third-party encampment cleanup, we have a reduction of $386,000.
That is usually most of that ownership is that on Caltrans property, Uni-Pacific Railroad,
flood control.
I'm just trying to understand this, why are we paying if mostly all those encampments
happen on their jurisdiction, but under our city lines.
So how can we transfer this cost to those other entities
so that we're not fronting?
And does that include encampments?
I mean, there's also assembly and recreating.
Where that happens, I'm trying to understand this cost.
And does that not mean that we're not
What does that entail?
Good afternoon.
She is my inductee director.
So happy to report that the vendors that completed work for us and cleaned up in campus has been
the city right of way.
None of this work has been in the Pacific right of way or outside of the city.
Those cleanups we've been just in close collaboration with those agencies.
clean up for all of us. Where do we see most of these clearness happening? What are your shows?
Some of the hotspots and I think the first doors isn't public works director, but some hotspots are
new pressure park. I will pass the mic on. Thank you Sheila. Good afternoon big Tom. This is the
of public works record. Current house lights are near Grazer Park,
in the East, which is the extension of a Latin off of Washington,
Griffin through Burroughs, maybe a little bit currently.
We are currently, we are currently in a reoccurring cleanup in San Andro Creek at the
Guenor, Alvarado.
That is on city property, you know, we own property that goes back to San Andro Creek.
Those are the ones that come to mind.
If I may I'd like to point out that in the harvest live furthering in this presentation we mean
although the current budget is
$430,000 and that was very close to what we spent last fiscal year this fiscal year cost have trended down
We are projecting to spend only
$230,000 and the fiscal year 27 reduction that you see here will put us very close to that number
So so what you're saying is it?
The way this is projected is not what we're going to get in effect, creating this in the future.
In fiscal year 27, that reduction should not have an impact,
saying that the demand continues as it was this year.
However, we have additional reproduction proposed.
In fiscal year 28, we're cutting that almost in half,
and in fiscal year 29, we're cutting it almost to zero.
Question. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for your study.
I also have questions about that. How many sites are there for repeat sites,
repeat incandement sites? They're all repeat incandement sites. We typically will visit a
site and clean it up once a month for three, four, five, six months before
people decided it's not worth staying there. And then if we ignore it for six
months they could come back again. Right now we are currently cleaning maybe four
sites on a monthly basis. Thank you. I seem to remember Governor News having
some sort of press release regarding
encampment thing-ups, and something around
impacting possible city dollars
or local jurisdiction dollars.
Am I correct in that?
In that if cities are not coming up encampments,
that there could be some sort of decrease
in state or county, either state funding funnel
through counties, or is not at all related?
So, yes, kind of.
What the direction was, was for jurisdictions
to maintain encampments and to not let them grow
and to address them, but that primarily affects
the county funding, our funding,
many of our state dollars fund through the county,
and so it's contingent on the county to ensure
that the jurisdictions within our county bounds
are combined with any of that type of guidance.
And so, reducing this encampment cleanup and I understand
that staff's analysis shows that this would actually be,
is reflective of the level of service being provided
as of this fiscal year.
But the reduction does not put in jeopardy any kind of,
either state pass through funds to county
or any county funds.
Just trying to make sure that we need to keep some sort of level funding pot in order to be able to get access to those.
I just don't want to put a jeopardy in any kind of state county funding.
As of today, we haven't been told that would be the case.
Just to be clear, the reduction that Nick was talking about in getting to the level where we're staying is only for fiscal year 27.
Past that, we will be reducing loans within the effects you see of the impacts.
Right.
That was my question on that slide.
And so for me, just going back to 42, the 94,000 and the 82,700, I'm concerned about those two numbers.
I don't like them. I think we need to find some way to keep up a certain amount of attention to this and how we do that.
I think I just toss that back to you guys to figure out.
We'll see if we can get consensus on that,
but I just think that there's a lot of,
this is a lot of attention.
I just got a call, yes, two days ago,
about needles on the field at the Thrasher Park,
and right next to the fence.
And so I just, this gets, this gets a lot of attention.
So I am not at all offended.
I think we heard Council Member Molt at a prior session say,
absolutely, positively, positively.
We did get the clarification over here on this side.
I wanted to know what is the impact?
And what appears to be the impact is that essentially
our vendor, what we're talking about over here,
they handle about 80%, 75% of the load from the outsource.
So any way that you cut this, it is a material decrease.
So I'm going to answer about money for the two.
Can I give you a question while we go?
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next line I might have is for community development.
And Nicole, you had mentioned regarding
branch registry $648,000.
Can you repeat how that is going to be presented?
Who is going to?
How is this going to be taken out and presented to Council?
So let me provide high level and then I can turn it over to Tom or Avalon.
So when we prepared the biennial budget in the spring, we accounted for this rent registry
program as we continue to kind of explore what that looks like.
And so the general fund budget included about $650,000 for that program ongoing.
Our proposal of tonight and that you've seen in past presentations by Tom and Avalon is
this program will be created in a special revenue fund.
So as we collect revenue to support that program or related to that program, then that revenue
would support that program and hopefully in the near future would be self-sufficient.
However, it's a new fund.
So we need to remove the 650 ongoing operational expense
so that we can account for it in the newly established
revenue, such a revenue plan.
And then in the next several weeks, months,
what will be coming to Council from Tom
and Avalon for community development
is the plan and development of that special revenue
and what the projected revenue looks like,
any potential loans and or subsidies
from the general fund and what that loan payback
look like. So that has not been approved by Council yet, but first we do need to
remove this in an ongoing expense. Thank you for painting that picture. I again
thank you. So the next item I have with regards to community development is the
economic development study at $100,000. I think that, let's see, that is
I think that's with regards to economics I think this is a small investment that
could potentially turn into millions of dollars and you know taxpayer funds so
I'm concerned about this I just want to yeah I would like to see what the
potential ROI of this could be rather than eliminated like you have to make you
have to make the investment order to see returns on this and I think this is
something that is beneficial to the community and I think Tom or Alba maybe
can help me answer this economic development studies is this something
that we can that we can do I mean I I'm saying I'd like to see this but is this
something that we can do without thank you I want to hand it over to assistant
director Schultz and so this is a combination of two line items that we
have in our budget. One was for a specific study for industrial zones and
what kind of activities this need can take to help make those a commonly viable
unit in the future. The second line item was for an arts district evaluation and
placemaking plan and so the budget proposal preserves the industrial study
but it does eliminate the arts district evaluation and so once the industrial
specific, you know, evaluation is done, there would not be any ongoing funding
for future economic development studies beyond completing the industrial
evaluation. It is a great idea to have a, you know, placeholder in the economic
development consulting line for studies and innovations and new things that come
up that we want to look into and research, but in order to meet our
budget reductions these were areas that we felt we could maximize getting the
industrial plan done and then we would we would not continue with the art
system to valuation. And well that he said not to use that we can bring up
later on because I hate to see this not be funded because like I said there's
there's potential funding I don't know if this was discussed but do you do
do you think that there is the potential to have our one of this?
I mean, yes, all of the planned investments came out of the economic development strategy.
They were, you know, they were items that council the determined in that sense.
But we have, you know, been very strategic with our proposed reductions to maximize
the value of our investment.
anything that we listed here, you know, was deemed to be less important of the line items.
And we'll take direction from the finance director and his office in terms of counsel's decisions on what they'd like to see removed or added back and why not.
Okay, thank you. I'd like to see this line item, I'd like to see this move forward with the funding that, for me, I figure it's a small price tag.
But I think there there's a lot more ROI on this investment.
So that's it for me, I mean, community development.
Can I ask a question?
So we're in community development.
I know.
Yeah.
I'm not colorblind, but I forgot the red and green then.
So OK, so you asked a question about rent registry.
also have that. I'm particularly concerned about item 51 on slide 26
which is the housing consultants would want to see what the use the usage is
looking like, or I don't know who to direct the question to.
Oh, hi.
Oh, there you are.
Oh, hi, Tom.
That's why I didn't see you.
Sure.
Yeah, so I think, and were you particularly concerned about what kind of questions the
Lieutenant Landlord part?
Well, just as we're onboarding rent civilization and rent registry, and as that gets off the
ground, I'm just thinking about whether there's going to be just a lot more questions about
implementation and rollout, questions from landlords and tenants, and I don't know if
that portion of the education is the old end to the cost for rent civilization and
rent registry? Yeah, I think there is some kind of thoughts to that would be but I
think what we are trying to preserve under these labs and what's existing is
again we're just reducing. We're not eliminating and and the reductions are
not so for example I'll do it because this is a critical one it's a central
legala that they do legal defense eviction services but as well they also
provide housing counseling to their subcontractor echo so that's going down
about nine thousand dollars so that to us was critical to keep and we had
support from finance and the managers office on that so to wait to your point
so that's not going away it's that it is getting reduced because of course my
everybody has to feel some pain as we do this, but it is still being able to
provide a critical service that will help the supplement for that program. So
that's kind of how we spread it out about that reduction. But it's not going away and it still
should sustain and provide a reasonable level of service for the
I just wanted to add, sorry, for the new, the new rent program that's being
established through the Special Revenue Fund, there will be a proposed line item
for consulting that could include additional contracts with community
providers to help with with that program operationally. So that's separate from
the general fund but that's something that when you mentioned the new ordinance
and how that affects the workload that can be also resolved outside the general fund.
I'm concerned about the reduction to San Prolegal just because of the services
that they provide. So I'll just keep that on deck for the full council
discussion, see if there's any any other folks that are, any other of my
colleagues that also have that question. The downtown ambassador program funding
Is that an FTE, is that, do we just give them a set amount and they kind of pull their monies together?
I just want to untangle that a little bit and I'm not quite sure how to ask the question, so I guess I did ask the question.
And so if I understand your question is what is the impact with this purpose reduction in the downtown ambassadors, right, um
We understand that there will be likely changes in the available hours that the ambassadors can be available
We anticipate that cloak look like the loss of a morning shift because the amount reduction by
$29 is equivalent to what was added to their budget to add a more shift
but as this is stated, the costs continue to increase so
We don't have a definitive answer for you
But it I would assume it means either the loss of shift or the loss of D's of operation
Is what we've been told by a program operator
Okay, I'll keep that. I want to keep that for the full council discussion
I want to untangle that a little bit more.
We're still on the way to development, right?
In terms of, I think Council Member,
I think that brings up a good point around ROI
and the investments.
What I seem to understand from the economic development
studies is that the ROI horizon is actually much longer,
But in keeping in line with that line of questioning I'm looking at item 56 of branding and marketing funds
and
You know there are
that to me is
Somebody to tell me how that saying goes the pound foolish penny wise
Yes, well, you didn't say on the mic. So whatever that
Whatever the mayor just said
that to me is one of those things that
allows us to bring in new revenue to
Recruit new businesses and think about that. I mean there are some things in there like the
San Francisco business times advertising and the spotlight on San Leandro
We I could live without that I don't know how my colleagues feel
But I am concerned about the city's brand assessment and the marketing study and brand
limitations, I think that really does set the stage for more revenue and bringing in the types of
Industry and businesses that we want to attract. So I would like to look at that
the 70,000 for 27 85 10
As I do I do see that as a as a shorter horizon to see a return on investment
Those are all my that's just a comment on
On that and those are all my questions and comments on the community development
That is fully funded so the mark the brand study we were able to
RFP it and get it done. So we are reducing the budget allocation
But if we were able to fully find that effort, but the ongoing marketing materials budget is seeking of a reduction
They just want to share that for context.
Just to clarify the answer, the line that says reduction of city brand assessment and marketing study and brand implementation is the implementation element of that.
That would be.
That's correct.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, so that's the community development.
So a 951, a little bit, I'm unclear,
so there's a $9,000 for central development and echo housing?
So if I could, currently that's a one contract.
The main contract is central goal
and it's some contract with echo housing.
I think, yeah, as we mentioned before,
it's close to about $79,000.
So they work within, by those services,
led by Central Hall, I believe.
So it's not a separate contract.
So what we're proposing is that they're gonna get $79,027,
and by 2029, they'll be down to $7,000.
It'll be down to $70,000.
So it's a reduction, but as I said,
It's similar to what Vice Mayor said.
This is an important service,
so we are trying to retain it.
It is getting a little bit of a cut,
but it still should be
a fairly robust budgetary setting.
So most of the other comes from the outreach seminars
and the like.
And I, excuse me, it's that multi-family
rental assistance program needs analysis or study.
So I think that's a figure,
I think that might be about 25,000 people.
So that is nice to have,
but in this environment, those are not a must-have, so.
Okay, and then the last piece on that in particular,
are there elements of what we're doing
that we're currently doing
that would validly be part of the threat control process?
similar to what I wanted to mention. I think that's something that we're
factoring in as we bring to you the new budget, the new rent program budget. We
are basically making sure that we're factoring what may apply to that into
the new program and currently here these are services that will have some
supported and to their program for our separate. So, we've kind of had to
integrate that out. Thank you. On item 53, I was under the impression that the
Shopping Center is supposed to have some sort of, I'll call it, security for
control. Yes, I'll pass it over to you. They do, yes, and they do have a security
time. My comment there is that I'm particularly visible when I walk
downtown. So whether they're, what being present means is unclear to me. I think
that if their level of support as an organization was square I would
expected to be, this might not be as impactful. So I don't know if we have any
opportunity to coordinate with them, to discuss with them, kind of what our
expectations are, because I don't, based on what I understand, our expectations to
be, I'm not clear that they're meeting those expectations. If we're moving the
morning shift, and I know these are all approximate numbers, I'm not stressed
about the specifics. If living the morning shift was the 20K, what is the 51K and the
inter fiscal year 2028 represent?
So removing the morning shift was the 70K, Q1.
Okay, and that morning shift, you have to remember like it started 2 hours earlier, 5 hours. Do you remember it?
If it would so the director indicated it would
reduce so with
so in addition
continuing with flat funding
in 26 would eliminate one safety ambassador shift just at the
350,000 flat funding as the costs continue to go up and then a
elimination of
One of the morning safety ambassador position
which is 160 hours a month would be the impact in 2027 and
2028 impact would be elimination of two days of safety
Safety services per week. So for instance
The weekends or whatever days appropriate. So there would be five days of service provided
Okay, so
28 is when we see our first reduction and that's the elimination of A position
And that would be on this safety side or that it would be on the safety side not the cleaning side
Correct. The city does not contribute to funding for cleaning ambassadors
That is covered through the assessments. Thank you. And then what is the budget for being?
safety ambassadors
So the 350,000 current contribution was about 90% of the cost in fiscal year 24 or 25 and
so I don't know the total today but it escalates over time so it was about I think 440,000
with us paying a portion of that.
And so when I think I'm here you say ballpark again that we're not reducing this back
It it is currently at three hundred fifty one thousand four forty on this city share is
350,000
The total for the program is about
440 so then we will go from 350 to 280
Correct. Perfect. Thank you
and again i'll stand corrected it looks like i i do have that number 392 000 for the total program
in calendar year 26 of which the city uh is budgeted to contribute three hundred and fifty
five thousand thank you so much um when i'm i'll tackle 56 and 58 again another thing the court
theme there was, return on investment. Do we have a sense whether that provides a return on investment?
Can we point to examples where we feel it's generated a return?
We need to get back with you on that. I think those those two are harder to provide specific.
157 is a little more direct.
Yep.
So I think that before our work session,
so before making a decision,
these are inherently touchy-feely.
But I think there's a big difference between a brochure,
what you're trying to sell,
and going out and meeting people and building relationships.
I think relationships are a lot more powerful.
So I'm less concerned about paper.
I'm a lot more concerned about, are we meeting people,
are we working with the developer community,
are we meeting the investors,
we're going to be building stuff
with the time we send in our story.
And for those people, I'm not so sure
that anything in the newspaper
or the velocity behind matters too, too much.
There's a separate question,
and I think this is probably to the city manager's office.
Part of what we do in our brand and marketing of who we are as a city, comes through the
communications team and the work that they do around the content that they create and
how they promote that content online.
I don't think I saw a reduction in that arena.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Okay, I think that's all that I have on community,
I'm gonna turn it back to you, Councillor Howard.
Thank you, Mayor.
My next question is regarding fire.
And my concern was, I would like to understand,
I know that there's a reduction from four beds to two beds.
Can you help me understand how many beds are like,
What's the data around the ARU and the response?
And I know I have some folks in my neighborhood
who you can do the force to work.
You can't make a drink.
Are people actually utilizing these beds?
Are we transporting folks to utilize this program?
Good evening.
Paige Gulley, Alabama County Fire.
The beds are absolutely being used.
They are a full over 90% of the time.
When one opens up, we have a recommendation
to fill it with somebody else.
I think the only reason they're ever baking
is because we can't quite get them in there
and they don't want to move them.
So that means we had 10 minutes of it from any or more.
Thank you for that answer, so that brings concern to me
that we actually need more beds.
I just wanted to understand if they're actually being used
and why are we reducing from four to two.
Like you mentioned, if we had access to 10 beds,
we would fill them up.
I just, I think, you know, with my council colleagues,
I would hate to reduce the ARU program,
And I think that's, my colleagues feel the same way.
My other question is with regards to the 1.5 million,
I know that's not out of here,
but this was a question for Nicole.
You mentioned that the fire trucks,
and for some reason I put it under the same,
the same context, the same slide.
You said 1.5 million per truck,
but it takes four to five years to actually place that water.
And I saw three line items, four, one, one, five.
So I used to know we need to replace three fire trucks
within the next four years.
Correct, and one of them was that we did purchase
and receive a fire truck this year,
which was part of the 26th budget.
And then I believe it's in 27 and 20,
excuse me, 28 and 29,
and we were planning for two additional replacements.
and then there are two additional replacements
further in out years.
One of them being a much more expensive vehicle,
I think it's a 2.5 or 2.3 million dollar myself.
Wonderful, thank you for that explanation.
Paige, congratulations on your limit of the year award.
Thank you.
Thank you.
What is the impact of having an LBN versus an RN?
I believe that would be fairly minimal for this team,
but we anticipated the RN would be more utilized,
but with the nature of the clients
that the team is coming across,
that LBN could do some more type of referrals.
RN can prescribe more medications in higher level,
but with what we're doing,
they'll be in this very capable of the same thing.
Okay.
And so I see that the reduction is planned
for fiscal year 29,
which gives us a little bit of a runway,
which means that service delivery would,
just to be clear,
or to just confirm that my understanding is correct,
so we would maintain service levels as they are today,
up until June 31st,
2028, right.
The fiscal year 29 actually starts the year before, right?
Present.
Okay, so we have a little bit of a runway.
We want to somehow find some gap funding.
We have a little bit of a runway there.
What is the incremental cost of each bed?
So is there a space constraint,
whereas we can only fit x numbers of, x number of beds.
If we go beyond a certain number,
the cost goes way up because what I'm hearing is there's a lot more need than
what the program is able to provide. But I'm just wondering if there's a certain
if the space that they are now like we go beyond six beds it costs a million
because we have to look for a new space or is there a small incremental cost
between each bed? Give me a minute, we're trying to pull that up right now. Looks like one
One bed per year is approximately, I'll say, 135,000.
Her bed per year.
And what's the capacity for the space that is right now?
So there's four now.
Does it have capacity for more beds?
Or would we have to look for a new location?
It has capacity.
For how many more beds?
I'd have to give back to you.
Then the current test shelter, at least.
Okay, so we're not, I was just concerned
if it was like we wanted to do six if we found some anyway but you understand
I'm saying thank you that was my question for the ARU I think appreciate
the runway looks like we have some homework in terms of how we can figure
out some funding by June 30th or 31st of 28 to at least keep service where it is
now. I want to go back up to item 59. Why is it a discontinuation of the city's
contribution? It's actually not, it's a typo. Not a discontinuation. What does it
represents as a 90% reduction or discount. So the city will be paying for
its 10% towards that contribution to retiree medical for Omni County Fire.
Why were we doing it before and why can we start doing it now? So I will see a very
high level, and then turn it over to the city manager. She wants to try a
We have to have Alameda County Fire here to answer specific questions.
But it is part of our contractual obligation and our current contract with Alameda County Fire.
This was the shift that happened there both years ago.
But it is currently in our contract that we find that future obligation.
Can you explain it in another way? Because I'm not understanding it.
I'll pass it to Alameda County Fire because I don't know if I'd be able to do any better.
I'm going to pass it to our finance director,
but we'll do this much better than I want.
Hi everyone, I'm Josie, I'm the financial services.
So actually, for the clarify, Citi
is not discontinued or discounted the payment
for the medical payment.
It's actually, so Citi is actually
paying for the retiree medication payment towards the fund.
And then CDE is also paying for the share
of the unfunded actuaries determined liability
towards the retiree health.
So the reduction is actually the unfunded liability,
the additional contribution.
So there are usually three major portion
of the retiree health expenses every year.
It's the health expenses for the retiree,
the annual expenses and the employee contribution and the employer
contributions. So CED is paying for their 20.39% based on our budget
allocation model. So we have a third-party actuarial calculation every
year to determine the future liability of this carry medical expenses. So the
the reduction is do we do species share of land or pain towards the future
liability of medical payments? I still don't understand. Yes, I think that I've
heard two different answers, so that's why I'm confused. So there are two
portions. One, we pay for our fair value, the actuarial fair value, actuarially
determine the price of future obligations. For the retiree to help. For retiree to help.
Yes. Right, that's the, if you can grab your next question, I can do that, right? And so that's for future, that has
nothing to do with the past obligations. It is also the case that historically
in Alameda County Fire underfunded pension contributions.
And so the pension system, looking back,
developed an underfunded status.
Is that correct?
So pension and health.
I'm sorry, retiree.
So retiree medical was historically underfunded.
Correct.
Okay, so there's a historical obligation
and there's a future obligation.
Is this discount with respect to the future obligation
or the historical obligation?
It's a combination.
So based on the actuarial report,
CDE is currently estimated funding.
So we have some accounts created for each CDE.
So Alameda County Fire contracted with C.F. salianderol,
Newark, Emoryville, Union CDE, and Dublin.
So each city under our big umbrella
of the old HAP and trust account,
each city has a seven-count.
So currently, city of San Leandro
is a result of the merge, long time ago,
city's funding level now is 25.87%
out of the overall Alameda County Fire Department
future liability.
So every player contributes to a fair share
of this future liability,
because we do pay our retired employees
towards their medical benefits.
Yeah, but we're avoiding my question.
And I think that might get me away,
but it is very clear when you look at future obligations.
I'm bringing on an employee today
who's going to have future retiree medical expenses
20 years from now.
And I set aside money as a future
for the future.
There's a completely separate topic which is,
there has historically been underfunding of these accounts
and there is a catch-up payment that occurs.
Yes.
I'm distinguishing between those two
and are you able to distinguish between those two today
with the information that you have?
Since the come,
merch, the city employees,
the city used to have their own fire department,
and then city of San Diego firefighters
come to Alameda County Fire at some point.
They need to do some homework on what year that happened.
So my understanding is that
when we calculated those liabilities,
we don't go by the individual.
So I would say John Smith joined the fire department
in 1993 and the liability for paying that specific employee
is how much?
So yes, we are calculating the future liability,
but I won't be able to distinguish.
There's actually a process to,
based on the number of employees coming to fire department
at the time and the estimated retired age,
It's a shared future liability.
Okay, I want to go to the city number.
When we transferred those employees to Alameda County Fire,
did we at that time provide them any funding
with respect to their employee retirement benefits?
Per medical?
Mayor, thank you for your questions
and we can certainly research and give you the precise answers,
but at a high level, our contract is unique and distinct
because we were one of the earliest adopters
of joining ACFD.
Our contract with ACFD also explicitly states
in writing that the city has no obligation
to pay the benefits of the fire agency staff.
And that's my recollection, from when I was in the conversation.
I was in writing with that likely conversation.
With that said, her finance committee adoption,
I think several years ago, as a former city manager,
we agreed that prospectively the city
would be contributing towards those costs
as part of the annual billing cycle that comes out,
prospectively.
And that's why, for me, I just want to be very clear.
This is the city's letting.
We have a fiduciary obligation to the residents
of Santa Maria Llamis Corporation,
not the municipal corporation, the city of St. Andrew.
And so it needs to be very clear
on what portion of our payment
is for future-looking obligations
and what portion of the current payment,
if it includes any historical catch-up.
And I don't think that there's a clear answer here today.
So I don't want to belabor this anymore
because clearly I'm getting frustrated.
But to me, this is a long-standing issue.
And I called it out when I first arrived,
almost four years ago.
And I think that needs to be resolved
by June 30th of this year.
I am so done talking about this.
I'm done being polite about it.
We will, our contract says we pay going forward.
we don't pay for cleanup of past obligations.
We never had those obligations,
and we will not pay for those obligations
as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know if that's clarifying,
but we don't have the answer to your question.
We don't know what this 90% really means.
And so we need to be able to answer that clearly,
succinctly, and it's just math.
So this is not hard.
Someone just has to do the work.
Well those are all my questions on buyer.
I think you have one last question on buyer.
I am confused by the $135,000 per year per bed because that would capture going from
four bids to two because that's $270,000 divided by two is $135,000.
But what I also read up there is that we have cost savings
from the community health worker,
and we have cost savings by living from LVM to RN,
from RN to LVM.
And so I think that before we discuss this any further,
we probably need to be able to parse that out,
because otherwise the math is just not quite adding up.
If we're gonna take all of those things out,
And it's, you know, 135K per head times two beds, that's 270.
And that's the savings that we have there.
So some things missing in the analysis.
So that's more of a comment, a clean up later.
Before we go ahead and close it.
Unless I misunderstand it.
You got it?
We got it, yeah, I'm in.
Coming back, Council Member Eightback.
Thank you, Mayor Chazal.
So my next item is in regards to council member compensation.
I think, you know, I don't know about some of my colleagues,
but it basically, it costs me to do stuff.
So I would recommend no change and just continue
to stay at the 5% year-over-year increase.
And I don't know if my colleagues have any other comments on that.
The other item is FARCBA.
Mayor, if I could just, so the 5% is the max allowed by the law.
The council currently does not have, does not have a policy or
have provided direction that they will receive a 5% increase.
So we would need direction on what if a council so
choose to have an increase in salary, what is that number up to 5% for each of the years you know now?
So you're saying the 5% allows for the adjust... I mean the government could allow us for the
adjustment of the county here for 5%. The goal of the developers is given that to exceed 10%
each year. So we can add 5% for 2027 and 2028. So the last time the
council had an increase was 2025. The next increase, if the council was to have one, would be
2027. So you could do up to 5% per year for years 2026 and 2027, but not more than 10%.
I would recommend five percent per year.
It's just minimal.
My next question is with regards to ARPA.
And we have the navigation center and ARU,
a navigation center reduction.
Like the ongoing costs.
These are both high ticket items on here.
So with regards to the Navigation Center,
the grant that we receive from the state, from Project Home Key,
is this baked into this cost?
So is this cost really projectively funded or is this something that we are going to have to pay for?
Thank you Councilmember Human Services Director Jessica Lebron.
So to clarify there's there's no reduction for the Lilly Navigation Center this is our
general fund contribution for the next three fiscal years that we received funding for
five years and so all five years have been budgeted both with general fund as well as
funds. So this is the ongoing general fund contribution.
Gotcha. Okay, thank you firstly. That answers my ARU questions also.
Those are my comments for this question. Perfect.
Thank you. Let's see. So I think in terms of the Mayor and Council members' compensation,
I agree, that the new monthly compensation is definitely
if I were to divide that into a number of hours is minimal.
However, I would propose that we start the base
at the old monthly compensation, and then start a percentage
increase from there so that we don't start again I'm not saying that we should
go to the full 5% I'm just saying start again at the at least for the council
members to the 1323 start from there because right now current compensation is
1900 correct right so what I'm what I would like to propose I don't know how
this is going to land with my colleagues. But I do think that there is a shared load
that we need to carry in terms of the folks that are being services and folks
that might be impacted by service delivery reductions.
Yes.
I may just to be really clear, the old monthly compensation is what Council members and the
mayor were receiving prior to January 1st of 2025.
Your current compensation is that middle column right there.
That's right.
So you're saying to bump your compensation back down to the old one and add 5% on that?
To start from that, and then whatever percentage increase we land on, but have the new...
Yeah, start at 1323.
Well, that's what we would need to talk about, but what I'm proposing is to start at 1,323
to the pre-January 1, 2025 level.
not much but I think it shows to the community and to city staff that we're
sharing the pain that that's kind of what I'm thinking in terms of a proposal
that I think might be I don't know that's this I I just feel an obligation
obligation to share that
Reduction and what what would be the percentage I could do the match but if someone could do it in their head quickly
What would be the percentage change if we were to go back? What would be the percentage reduction if we were to go from
1323 to from nineteen hundred to one thousand three hundred twenty three
It would be a thirty point four percent reduction
I mean it's significant, but
And then we can play around with the percentage increase, right, which that percentage would change the overall.
I don't know if we want to talk about that proposal.
I know the mayor serves as a full-time mayor.
I don't know how many council members serve full-time.
I don't, but I know the mayor does.
so I don't know, Mary, you put thought into that and into the Council and Mayor compensation
or my colleague.
Well my colleague did share, but you Mary.
So the basic reaction is it's not a lot of money, it's $20,000.
I know.
I know.
I think the symbolism of a 30% pay cut is significantly different from anything that
staff is experiencing because we're satisfying this condition by getting
rid of jobs that nobody has. If we were to be laying off employees, if we were to have employees
taking pay cuts, if there were renegotiation of salaries and benefits
in the spirit of what Hayward is doing, I would be more amenable to it. But at this
this point in time, I would be perfectly fine with just keeping it where it is without an increase.
I don't see how a decrease makes a material difference too much.
So that's my hesitancy.
understand that it is symbolic and in terms of the actual impact of the budget
is minimal. I just wanted to throw that out there to see if there was any
anything we could come out of this committee to go through the full council.
I'm okay at leaving it flat at the current compensation or maybe finding
something in between number. It is not a lot of money. I know you do this full
time and it is if we were to calculate your hourly rate and you're less than
minimum wage at this point. Just to be clear for the record, I'm saying that these savings are not really popular, just tiny amount of money. I understand.
okay well I guess that's it okay coming back to you thank you Mary I appreciate
the stewardship of my vice mayor but I agree with the mayor that this is
minimal and I think of you detouring people from wanting to do this job like
Like I said, it costs me money to serve,
rather than many money.
So in this sense, it's a passion of love
and commitment about the community that you live in.
My question, I think with regards to some comments,
I would like to, I think they were looking for direction,
with regards to, I'd like to increase expenditure reductions.
And then also, with regards to, I'd like to see,
you didn't talk about overtime
and what department's experience of overtime,
is there a way that we can eliminate
a percentage of overtime?
Is that an option to further save on costs?
provides some context and information on overtime. There are a number of departments that are pretty
nominal. We do see overtime in police. We do have required minimum staffing levels and as a result,
when we have a high number of vacancies in the police department, it is often offset by ensuring
that we are meeting those requirements and have officers in capacity that are working overtime
to make sure that we are meeting those minimum staffing levels.
Occasionally, we do have some overtime in public works
as they respond to emergency after hours.
And so we can provide some context and numbers
around on what that looks like.
But really, it is dependent on our ability
to recruit the appropriate member of,
and fill the appropriate number of police officers
that were, again, meeting those minimum staffing
and for public works.
a lot of their opening weekend is in response to emergencies, and then after our call-outs.
Gotcha. Okay, thank you. I just don't want to see that slide if we stay as is without
making any changes we face going into bankruptcy, and that's something that I would love to
prove out.
I will expand it. We specifically look at personnel costs on a monthly basis so that
we are tracking on how much are we spending compared
to the budget as it relates to salaries.
And are we seeing an increase in overtime
and is there a correlation there?
And so it is something that we regularly monitor department
by department on a monthly basis.
And then we also meet with departments on a quarterly basis
to go through their budgets, including
how they're trending on overtime and whether or not
something that is potentially accessible.
Gotcha.
I think with regards to the police department,
I think some of our police officers,
in the right one that I've done,
a year or two ago, it's, you know,
some of these officers work long days,
they go home and sleep for eight hours,
I think they're 10 hours,
and then they come back and they're on the job.
So I just want to make sure their wellbeing
and their mental health is something that I care about
so that they can do their job
without putting themselves or the city at risk.
So that's just what I care about,
but I understand the overtime.
I'm just trying to figure out if there is a way
that we can look into the departments to save,
because I think in the past we've had some issues with,
I'll show you about this time card fraud.
So I just want to make sure that we're making sure
that we absolutely need to use over time if we need to.
That is something that we can look at for too long as one
directly.
I do think that given some of the high-profile examples
that you see in the news media with respect to overtime,
it's particularly important from a fiduciary perspective
that we have a counsel level for political risk,
for headline risk, et cetera, that we
be made aware of overtime and the what causes the cost because when it goes to
something like recruiting if we're paying someone essentially a double
salary but that really applies for their for their retirement is crazy numbers so
that takes me to item number two the last time that we had a finance committee
where CalPERS came we were able to see that our CalPERS contribution for
non-sworn, or non-numbing safety was something like 68 percent. So for every
hundred dollars we spend 68 percent on calipers. Some of that's historical, which
is a big chunk, and then there's like 25, 30 percent, whatever it is, for our
actuarially fair contribution. And so I just, because of that significant impact,
I get quite concerned about overtime.
The last piece there, this has nothing to do with this budget, but I'll just come to
us out there, because it's important that there's a record that has private conversations
about this, because of the significant element, the significant drawdown on our city's finances,
due to the pensions being so unfunded, I think we need to be spending much more time, and
you're starting to see it at Cal Cities,
we should spend much more time advocating
at the state legislature to address the pension crisis
that the state is facing.
Again, we've had private conversations for several years.
I just wanna be really clear and adamant
that we have a serious problem,
and that problem has only gotten worse
in the time that I've been here.
So there's a lot there to unpack.
I can see you itching.
human resources director. Yes Mayor I did want to clarify that over time it's not
actually pensionable compensation. Okay that's perfect so I'm wrong there and I
will accept that but as far as purrs you would agree with me? Yes. I get a lot of
head nods in the room so I take that as universal consensus from city staff that
we have a serious problem with pensions and it's like given how bad that crisis
and the director of, right? Because every dollar that we send to CalPERS, for our
historical underfundedness, that's a dollar that's not being used to keep a
library open. That's a dollar that's not being used to pay for road. That's a
dollar that's not being paid at a bonus to attract a police officer. All of that
stuff. And it's tens of millions of dollars in this city that are going to,
they're being paid for today because of past underfunding. So of all the people
in this room that is a serious problem and I just I'm not asking for an action
plan today but we need to do an advocacy work we need to be uniting with other
cities and advocate because this is a really big deal. Okay, my sub office is now getting crushed.
Well, that being said, did you have remaining items Council Member, okay, so I'm going to come now to you vice mayor
Yes, I wanted to
Talk about the critical failure for after the mess in a critical failure in 46
The CADRMS keeps me up since we talked about it at the Council strategic planning session,
and I'm thinking even though it's the largest ticket item in terms of critical failure,
I think that that's one of those things where it's really mandated to provide the service.
I don't, and I think there was some conversation
regarding city hall painting
and Marina Community Center painting
in terms of when was the last time they were painting.
They were painted, and we do not recall,
which is a bad sign.
So in terms of prioritizing these investments,
I would like to propose that we prioritize the CADRMS.
And to in terms of funding and I'm hesitant to further increase expenditure reductions.
So I would I'm leaning towards option one, which is using the major emergency reserve fund because I do think this is one of those emergency things.
would be catastrophic.
Wanted to have a little bit of conversation, also understanding the time that it's 6.23,
and so I'll just leave that there, I'll just leave that there, and then see if my colleagues want to dig into this today,
or if we just want to move this to the full council discussion.
If I can jump in a little bit about that 5 million, I just want to be clear, there's a couple bits.
If you choose to use that, it will not change the overall picture because we'll be using that designation.
But the policy is it's a policy to target that 5 million.
Yes, we want to keep it as a policy at that level.
Was it counseling the site at the duration if you want to phase in kind of refunding that 5 million dollars of course at a certain amount of time, but I just wanted to clarify that language and the policy that is a target to retain up to the 5 million.
I'd like to heart home what my vice mayor had mentioned with regards to I think critical
funding, hopefully we can go back.
One slide to, there we go, the CAD, RMS, I think that's something that we need to invest
in.
You know, all of these are priorities, I think we can figure out a way to begin to do all
work than you do, but I'd like to prioritize the CEDRMS as my home.
So my approach to this is between this and the capital that we're not going to be spending
to fix roads and other things, I think we need to start pulling money out of the 115
trusts.
We put that money aside specifically for the bubble.
We are now entering the bubble, so it's time
to start drawing it down.
I would draw it down.
I'm not sure what the balance is.
My recollection is at 23 million or something like that.
That kind of concerns.
So yeah, for the OPED, it's about 25.3.
So the pension is 38.6.
38.6?
OK.
I just think, you know, that money is squirrel money.
And it's time to start playing on that money.
But novel is supposed to last materially for five years,
six years.
It has to peak, and that's supposed to be coming down.
So that's going to mean there's going
to be relief in the future, in theory.
I remain a little bit cynical, which
is why I'm a big believer in going and advocating
in Sacramento.
And by the way, there is legislation out there
that could in fact increase pension costs even more.
The calicities is being more proposed to that,
because of how bad the situation seems right now.
But I think it's time to start releasing money.
I don't know what the exact math is on it.
Would you release $2 million from the OPEB fund
and $3 million from the pension trust fund?
I think that's for staff to figure out.
I would recommend coming back to that type of proposal.
but we need to start putting that money in.
And to the extent that this causes anybody
to feel like, oh, now it's time to know,
so now we can increase salaries more,
now we can renegotiate, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah,
not while I'm here.
This money has been set aside for this crisis
that we're in right now.
I think it's time to start tapping into that money
for this crisis, because we are in crisis.
Our system's gonna shut down for calls,
records. We're literally destroying our assets by not taking care of them. And it's because
all the money is going, it's because so much money is going to pay off pension liability.
And so this is what we knew would happen between Stephen Cassidy and Pauline Cutter and those
councils back then. They did a great thing by setting aside money. Now it's time to take
advantage of the gift they gave us. Small pieces. That's my recommendation.
I'd be open to some more analysis on that, just in terms of kind of what that drawdown
would look like. And kind of if there is a phased approach, again, I would. A couple
of things that come up for me is and please if y'all already have thought
about this excuse me excuse my but is City Hall a historically significant
building so it wouldn't trigger if we do painting it wouldn't trigger a whole
bunch of additional costs due to any kind of restoration or preservation or
anything like that. To warn all that you know, it's not historical buildings, painting would not
trigger any other additional trigger work or additional requirements. And neither would the
Marina Community Center? Correct. Okay. I'm just thinking about things that could just balloon
this into something that we were not expecting. And then in terms of the CAD RMS, I seem to
remember that we asked a lot of questions about what this number looked like and I believe the
the chief technology officer said that that number included both equipment, implementation,
rollout, that number is inclusive of all those things?
Yes.
Okay.
We do not have proposals, so it's an estimate at this time, but the estimate does include
full implementation.
Okay.
Yeah, I'm supportive of that, Mayor, of thinking through what that, if we were to let out a
little bit of the funds from those two pots, what that could possibly look like and when
and how.
So in our as a staff, that's a two-step process.
So the Opeth and Pynchon trust blanket only means for Opeth and Pynchon.
It can't pay for that, and I'm kind of following you here, because what I'm saying is that
you free up general fund dollars that would go to Pynchon and then you could use those
dollars to pay for this.
I just want to make sure that you understand how that works.
It's not that we can use that trust blanket for this.
So the analysis process of figuring out what would happen with pension and OPEP, what would
we draw on trust and the effects, long-term effects, we can do all that, that's no problem.
But today's question is does this committee want staff to recommend to the council paying
for any or all of these items?
The dollars would come from the general fund, how it's replenished, that's the whole pension
and OPEP thing, but the general fund paying for it is the question today.
Yes, well what I've heard is, okay, perfect.
All four, to be clear, all four.
Yes, okay.
Thank you.
That's the direction from this committee,
as far as the recommendation
that council follow in that direction.
And then the how is the discussion again, correct.
Have we done everything that we need to do today?
I think what we're looking for and we need from you today
is whether or not the proposal that we put for you
is what you are recommending for us
to bring to the full council for our work session.
Okay, let's go back very quickly through the items.
Let me look through my list.
And if we could just add up the numbers
that were there some questions.
Because I think what it should be is broken out into,
based on discussions that finance committee,
finance committee ideally unanimously agrees
that this should be adopted, finance committee requested
Council waiting on the following. I was in the private view whatever they want to do, but we've just spent three, two hours, two and a half hours
planning this. I just think that...
Okay, so we have...
the only thing that we have
majority or unanimous on is this right now. So we need you to tell us about it.
That's why we're going through this.
So let's go to the first stage.
Okay, there was one question that I didn't ask.
It was $2.35.
It was $232,000.
The election cost was fair.
The budget cost is a fair for commissions.
To me, I don't believe that we found a way to decrease election costs so
much as we took a closer look at the budgeting and the historical numbers and
estimates that are provided by the county and that even with the two elections this
year, the Special Election and the General Election, we were able to still come up with
the two hundred and thirty thousand dollars by looking at historical numbers.
Yeah, it does make a little bit of cushion in there, or just cleaning up the cushion.
Okay, so what I have on the City Manager's Office, there were questions about the School
crossing guards, but I also got a sense that it was time to work through that and the school
district might won't take that, so are we are we fine with passing this along?
I know it's gonna get pulled by at least one of my colleagues, just in terms of
about channeling my other colleagues they're gonna pull this and want to talk about it,
so I'm okay with passing it on, but I already know who's gonna pull it.
So then I think we all agree. Yeah, that's okay. That's their job. I don't have anything on finance.
I just, the business administration, business license administration. This is not a cut.
It's a proposed reduction beginning in fiscal year 28. We currently contact with HDL
to administer it cities license program
However with the efficiencies and technical support we're going to get to you. Yes. Yes. Yeah, I'm sitting cross it off my list
That's you now that you've said it. I remember you talking about it. I'm good on finance
So I think we are in agreement
that went unanimously on finance, on human resources,
and on having the awareness.
I don't have any data.
OK.
So review that in this place.
An agreement on human resources.
On information technology, the one place
where I saw some hesitancy, talking about regularity,
was on Wi-Fi.
And this was with respect to the antenna replacement.
Given the discussion that I've heard,
and given that it's a year out, what do you think?
I think, I mean, I trust what is being said.
I think that a lot of folks now,
with their plans, have access to identifying.
I just, like I said in the back of my head,
I think about some of those kids that just,
they got publicity that don't have access
I know San Diego Unified School District is giving out hot spots, but I just, you know, there's somebody who really, you know, sometimes some folks, it's a life line between accessing public Wi-Fi for free staff, so what have you, and, you know, just essential services, and just want to make sure that, you know, those folks who are on house who utilize our tech edge to this network.
I also tap into it. I have it listed on my phone and automatic default to
Public Wi-Fi on in San Leandro, so
I know it's a minimal cost, but I was concerned about that. There is a way that we can fund this
I'd be all for it, but I'm comfortable with living it as is and have a discussion I
Think the question is
Will this committee recommend this unanimously?
And have somebody at the City Council pull in?
Or would you like to say, no, we're not unanimous in particular, the outline of the we're concerned about is 14.
I'm concerned about 14. Okay, so then let's say this that the
The committee is unanimously in agreement on all aims except for 14.
Okay so just so that the committee and the community who hears this is that what it would still say is that the committee
recommends that there's two of you recommend this as it is. Right, but it's not enhanced.
And then it seems I think it's just to the extent that we can focus the discussion.
After all this money that we've done, I think it's just useful to be able to focus, focus the discussion.
anything else sir? No. Okay. Let us proceed then to
the library.
I don't think that we had anything here. Just I can tell you whether the
description should be reallocation of library hours. Before you had
reduction and now you say changes. It's just reallocation. I mean, you could honestly say
we're increasing like right now. I think reallocation does this because we're
expanding and we're reducing it some and expanding it others. But that setting that aside, which I consider being purely
administrative or ministerial, there's unanimous agreement from the committee on that, on
on recreation in parks,
the United Disagreement from the committee.
It did ask for some analysis
on the increase in programmatic and rental.
I just wanted to see how soft that number is
in terms of projections.
Fair enough.
So how would we like to handle that?
So you'll come back and discuss that more fully?
So just for clarity,
so I make sure that we do the correct assignment.
My notes say that your question
was regarding the 2008 recession
and was there a dip in recreation program
revenue during that time?
And we can come up with that answer.
So there's a question for you, Vice Mayor.
Would you feel comfortable saying
that this budget right here, the updated revenue
is in the financial forecast?
Yes, and not netting this in some way.
you will still be decreasing by 566, 140, and 10.
Correct.
But, you're saying, by the way, on the other page,
there's a revenue.
So, with respect to this piece.
Yeah, this is fine.
Okay, so you have unanimous agreement
on recreational and parks.
Human services, I don't have any notes on human services.
Yes, some of the things that we have questions on we talked about it at the strategic planning session
I'm good to go on this. Okay, so you have a unanimous agreement from the Committee for a recommendation on human services
on public infrastructure
Of public works my apologies, I just have a bunch of circles and legs and concerns around
42 same
so first this is just
You're not getting agreement of 42 seniors so no one from this committee agrees that this this should be done
Well, let me elaborate
Yeah, so that 20 fiscal year 28 and 29 incremental reductions
We're not agreeing to
because we believe that the 2019 is consistent with the current service levels.
Well, what we would say in that is that the committee recommends that we do not cut the funding in fiscal year 28 and 29.
Correct.
That you unanimously agree.
You unanimously agree.
Other than that, we agree online that it was 43 through 45.
That's correct.
Flipping through community development?
I don't have anything to add.
My questions on my item 50 were answered.
OK, so 46 through 50, unanimous agreement.
What about 51?
Have we had some discussion?
I am.
I don't want.
That is not a unanimous for me.
So I would like to hold that open.
Okay, so 51, where were you on 51?
So this is where we went.
And I'm sorry, particularly to the first part, the tenant landlord services,
the multifamily rental housing assistance and seminars,
that I'm okay to discontinue, but keeping the core third party tenant landlord services intact.
Okay, so then I'm going to come back to Director Liao.
If I'm understanding what you told us back then and those are correct, if we were to
keep the core third-party tenant level of services and housing assistance, just that
piece, that must be $79,000 to $70,000?
Correct.
So that would be $9,000.
So then instead of a $40,000 reduction, this committee recommends a $31,000 reduction.
So we recommend a reduction to 30,000 instead of a reduction of 40,000.
A reduction of 30 instead of a reduction of 40,000.
Would that be consistent with the central job being left unchanged?
Yes, I would come back to the comments.
It was your concern, Vice Mayor, would that satisfy you?
Yes.
Councilmember, would you like?
I guess.
OK.
So you have a unanimous direction recommendation
from this committee that 51 for the fiscal year 2027
say negative 30,000 instead of negative 40,000.
I think that we just need to talk about number 52.
There was no discussion, so I don't know if there's a future miss there.
53, I think there's a lot of discussion just in time.
So I didn't hear a recommendation from this committee.
We just need to put it out there and figure out what we're gonna do with that.
Well, the class is not until fiscal 28, so-
We have a year.
Right, we have a year.
So is there a comment that we can approve zero in 27?
Yes, I agree that zero twenty seven is okay.
I have no objection or comment to what you're saying.
I just want to be clear with the committee that the direction that we're
given by the committee and then the council was how we move forward as a city
structurally. And so as we reduce cuts into the future, it means we are not
meaning the direction of the future revenue versus expenditures and that's okay that's fine.
Well we've talked about this first nominally so you can lay out what the math is when we get the
network session or even before if you want to do two degrees but I think 53 we just need to
put it out on the table we're talking about it and figure out what the consequences of that are.
Council compensation
That's just going to be
Yeah
So my concern was with 58 did not reduce funding for
Economic development say okay. Thank you and vice-amer. Were you still on 56 also?
Um, my concern would be on the recruitment of new businesses so, but the actual physical collateral is fine.
I'm fine with that. I'm actually okay on all of these to go as proposed.
So 54 through 57, you have unanimous agreement from the committee to just move forward with
your recommendation. 58 of agreement with the Council, I'm ready, but let's talk about
it some more. Please come prepared and talk about ROI, if I can think about ROI, if I
not because we have three different we have the committee unanimously agrees
we have the committee agrees the company with only two agreed we have the
community makes a different recommendation so with 58 I need to know
are you saying that the committee we want this to be discussed by the board
Okay, so I have no recommendation either way
You recommend that we keep it?
I recommend that we keep this.
Two of us agree that we should keep it but it's 2.
Okay, so the committee recommends that it is...
Okay, let's see then.
No, it's not your now. It's two out of three.
The committee.
The committee?
Kind of like what the other one was where Councilmember Edina...
Council compensation, that's just for the council to have some funding.
Um, fire.
There was nothing on police?
I don't have anything on police.
Mine's not a word. Yeah, nothing on police.
Yeah.
So police's unanimous?
Police's unanimous, but before that, 529 is fire.
Yes.
Then there's just a lot to talk about there.
Um, let's see, let's take this in pieces.
Like, 59, we just don't have the information, right?
right? They're doing the math. What are their chocolate beans? So I don't think that it's fair for you to ask us to make a
recommendation. So unless someone disagrees and violently says, no, we have to have a position that needs a problem, or just doesn't matter.
The ARU, I hear that there's interest in discussing, I also hear that there's a recognition that we have two years to sort this out inside of this problem.
So I think, I don't know if we'll speak for you,
but that we're willing to accept this recommendation
by the cabinet, that we expect staff
to be working hard to find grant money.
I like the deadline, so let's do it.
I can share that normally we don't do budget work
in the evening here, but you guys gave us gracefully.
We really appreciate it.
But next year's an odd year, and that's
when we do discuss the budget.
So we'll be here anyway doing this all over again.
So that would be part of the discussion.
OK.
OK, then thank you for all the summaries.
And we started at the end first, if I'm not mistaken.
Do we not have agreement on the council compensation
to keep it at 1900, or keep it flat?
Which is why I heard council member Ami back say,
keep it flat at the 1900 and 3800.
Well, I mean, I'd like to include the 5%.
Oh, I don't.
OK.
So let's have fun with the whole concept.
All right.
I understand.
And then we did this last one already.
So you had already made it.
We didn't talk about transfers.
What is it that we needed to say about transfers?
Again, these were just examples of ways
in which we can reduce the transfers by a million dollars.
I think what we're looking for from this committee is if they are supportive of our recommendation to reduce...
I think the recommendation is, I don't know that you're going to get a recommendation because these are just possibilities.
We talked about releasing money to pay for the pensions, which will free up money, so we may not need to cut this.
So I think that's a holistic discussion to be had.
Yes, sir, we have everything we need.
That's good.
Okay, we're down to public comment on non-agenda items.
Madame Clerk, bring the cards.
We do not have any.
Okay, we'll close public comment on non-agenda items, give any comments.
Just a thank you to staff and to the team for bringing us a budget and spending your
evening with us on a council week so just my appreciation to the city team.
I echo the same things from the staff. So like for listening to us and coming back to us without operating deficit and that cheaper net revenue and hopefully we can come to a conclusion and improve this budget and move the city forward.
Thank you very much. We are making real progress. I see the commitment. It's been hard, it's not been easy, I know it.
So, but we're making progress, and that's what really matters, and we're taking steps.
We're not giving up, so each time we're making more progress. Thank you, thank you so much.
So with that, it is 6.53 and we are adjourned.