Okay, so it's 702 and I'm calling this meeting the San Landro City Council to order today is a work session
It is April 13th
2026 at this point in time at madam clerk. Would you please take rolled?
Councilmember James Aguilar present
Councilmember Victor Aguilar present
Councilmember Fred Simon is currently absent
Councilmember Bowen present vice mayor Vivier else Walton
Present present
Councilmember bolt
Present and mayor Gonzalez present. Thank you. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I
Will start with my announcement the city of San Leon or conduct sorely meetings to fulfill its mandate
Discriminatory statements of conduct that would potentially violate the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and or the California Fair Employment and Housing
at California Penal Code sections 43 or 415 are per se disruptive to a meeting
and will not be tolerated. Please see the City Council Handbook and City Council
meeting rules of decorum for more information. If you would like to make a
public comment during the meeting you can do so in person or via zoom. If you
are present at the meeting please complete a speaker card and submit it to
the city clerk before the item is presented. If you wish to participate in
public comment via Zoom you can use the raise your hand tool when the item is
called. During public comment session speakers will be invited to speak and
will have a set time to share their comments. A countdown timer will appear
for their convenience and when the time is up the microphone will be muted. All
raised hands outside of public comment will be lowered to avoid confusion. Once
public comment is opened hands may be raised to speak. We'll proceed to item
Number three, is there a report coming out of closed session?
Thank you, Mayor.
On item 3A, a reportable action was taken,
but because it's still in the legal process,
no report is required at this time.
No report was taken on item 3B,
but direction was provided to staff.
On item 3A, more information may be forthcoming
in the coming weeks related to the same.
And more generally, direction provided to staff.
Thank you.
here we go thank you so much for that we will move to item 4a this is our item
for today's agenda I'll just very begin I'll begin briefly by just reminding
council that we are in a difficult situation with our budget each of you
has expressed concerns and I'm very grateful for all the work that you have
done in recognizing the gravity of our situation and the work that has gone
quickly. And I want to show you
how we've gone thus far into
proposing some solutions to the
challenges that we face. With
that being said, I will
introduce finance director
Nicole Gonzales to take us
through what we need to achieve
today.
Great, thank you. Good evening,
mayor, members of the city
council, Nicole Gonzales from
the city's finance director.
Today is a work session which
will review proposed changes for
the fiscal year 27 mid cycle
of the slide here which is why we're here this evening. So in June of 2025 we
adopted a budget that was balanced for fiscal year 26. For 2027 the city did not
present a balanced budget it did project a use of reserves to balance that budget.
Council granted staff more time to close that structural deficit in 27 and beyond
in a meaningful way that was much more clearly understanding the impacts for
both organization and the community, and so the direction at that time was our
expenses should equal our revenues for fiscal year 26 and 27, not including
transfers, and then in 28 and beyond, all of our expenditures plus our transfers
should equal revenue. I will pause for a second here. This is just a roadmap of
where we've been and where we're headed. A lot of the slides that you will see
tonight have been presented in a number of different council settings of the
last several months so I will not be spending great detail on every slide
but did want to provide a snapshot on where we're at. Again high-level this is
the City Council's principles for balancing the budget that was agreed
upon during the council retreat on May 6th. So again I won't spend a significant
amount of time but wanting to remind council the principles that were adopted
and agreed upon as we move through the continuation of this budget process. The
next few slides provide an overview of the city's reserve and fund balance.
We've talked about this a number of times so I'm going to go ahead and skip
through these slides. They are in your packet for further review if you'd like
to ask questions at the end. And I'm going to move directly into the proposed
general fund reductions which are being considered by this work session tonight.
So the departments are broken up into functional areas. First we'll look at
the city managers office finance human services human resources excuse me and
information technology so the finance committee supported all of the
recommendations they were unanimously agreeing for total reductions for the
city managers office that's three hundred and seventy six thousand dollars
finance department the finance committee unanimously agreed to the proposed
reductions by the finance department totaling just under four hundred and
40,000. Human resources again the finance committee unanimously agreed to all the
proposed reductions which totaled about a hundred and fifty six almost a hundred
fifty seven thousand dollars. Information technology all of the items were
unanimously agreed upon by the finance committee with the exception of item 14
which is the proposed elimination of public Wi-Fi in department excuse me in
downtown and parks. However, there was a majority agreement to support this
reduction moving forward, so the total reduction being considered for
information technology is just under $740,000. Moving to culture and services,
libraries, the finance committee recommended unanimously agreeing to all
of the proposed reductions related to library services, which totaled about
863 just under $864,000. Recreation had a proposed net cumulative change of 1.2
million which was unanimously agreed upon by the Finance Committee. Human
Services had a total change in proposed changes of just over 150,000 and that was
unanimously agreed upon by the Finance Committee as well. Moving to public works
and community development. The finance committee unanimously agreed to items
43 through 45 and then a unanimously agreed to the reduction proposed on line
42 which is the third party encampment cleanup so they agreed to the reduction
for 2027 but directed staff not to make a reduction in 28 and 29 so those
reductions were restored. The total reduction supported by the Finance
Committee was 823,250. Moving to community development, there is a proposed
net cumulative change of about 1.5 almost 1.6 million. On this slide here,
the Finance Committee did unanimously agree to support all of the reductions
shown on this slide. On this slide, they unanimously agreed to 52, which is a
reduction and first-time homebuyer program. However, for item 51, which is the
reduction in housing consultants, there was a recommendation to retain funding
of 10,000 for core third-party tenant and landlord services, which we included a
reduction of 30,000, which would ultimately discontinue the multifamily
rental assistance program needs assessment and seminars and outreach.
Furthermore, on line 53, this was proposed reductions for the downtown
ambassador program funding. There was no recommendation by the finance committee
and either direction so for or against this reduction. On the third slide for
community development, all of the items 54 through 57 were unanimously agreed to
by the Finance Committee and item 58 was majority recommended that no
reductions to this particular line item be included in the proposal. So bringing
that overall cumulative reduction for community development about 1.6 million.
Moving to public safety and fire and police, 59 is the reduction in the
city's retiree medical contribution towards Alameda County. This amount is
being continued discussed with Alameda County Fire. We do not anticipate that
this cost will change significantly, however we'll bring before this
committee, excuse me, this council, before adoption the actual reduction amount
being proposed. Overall, Alameda County Fire's cost has a proposed cumulative
net change of 973,000. For police, the Finance Committee supported unanimous
agreement with all the proposed reductions totaling just over eight
hundred and ten thousand dollars. Now pausing for a second and shifting to
mayor and the council compensation, it is something that is revisited and reviewed
evaluated every even year in accordance with the handbook and government code.
to coincide with new council members being seated. And so part of what was
presented to the Finance Committee were these slides. This was a informational
slide which showed the new adjusted rate for council and mayor effective January
1st, 2025. You'll see that current monthly compensation is the compensation that
council and the mayor are currently receiving. Possible compensation
adjustments as we're reviewing and evaluating and seeking input from
council this evening is in accordance with Government Code 36516 which
allows adjustments for each calendar year and there are two options one being
a 5% each calendar year since the last adjustment or the equivalent of the
California CPI but not exceeding 10% and so with that CPI right now is 3.1%
for each year since the last adjustment. And this adjustment would be effective
January 1st, 2027. When presented to the Finance Committee there was no formal
recommendation to move forward with any specific and so we are again seeking the
full Council's discussion and direction on how to move forward with Council and
Mayor compensation. This is a high level summary of the proposed changes. We did
talk a little bit about those in some of the slides previously presented. Those
changes for 2027 will result in a reduction in FTE or full-time
equivalent employees of 9.1 FTE. Now pausing for a second and transitioning
away from our operating expenses including staffing want to spend some
time talking a little bit about transfers and inner inner fund transfers.
So the general fund does provide support financially and transfers money
out of the general fund to other funds to support infrastructure needs as well
as funding future pension obligations or some of the things that the City of
San Leandro transfers funds out of the general fund to other funds. With that
being said this slide here provides a summary of the general fund transfers
that have occurred in fiscal year 25 what is budgeted for 26 and 27 and
potentially plan for for 28 and 29. The slides that will follow this summary
slide will be recommendations from staff to the council seeking recommendation
and support for our recommendation which is to reduce transfers of a million
dollars in 2027, another million in 2028, and another million in 2029. So a total
of 3 million in reduced transfers from the general fund to other funds. This is
a typical way in which when cities are facing financial challenges that they
are looking at ways to balance their budget. Transfers to other funds from the
general fund should be considered once the general fund is in a financial
position that it can sustain itself and support itself before it starts
subsidizing or providing support to other funds. So for fiscal year 27, there
is a recommendation to reduce by a million dollars. You'll see on lines 4
through 6 are the recommendations, being 300,000 reduction to facilities, 200,000
for parks, and 500,000 in street rehabilitation. And so moving from 4.8
million to 3.8 in fiscal year 27. In 28 we propose an additional reduction. We
are not proposing a reduction to the Fleet Fund on line 6 as you will see as
that is planned for the purchase of needed fire vehicle so the city
continued to provide core services to the community. Again a further reduction
to facilities, parks, and street rehabilitation for a total of a million
dollars. So bringing the baseline from 5.5 million to 4.5 million. And 29 again
another million so moving that from 4.6 to 3.6. Further reductions in building
maintenance, park maintenance and street hip rehabilitation, the ongoing support
for those funds after 2029 will be a hundred thousand each for building and
parks and about 1.7 1.8 million for street rehabilitation and as way of
clarification the Finance Committee made no recommendations on reductions to the
general fund transfers during the Finance Committee. We talked a little bit
high-level about the need to provide funding for our fleet specifically as it
relates to providing core services to the community. We have ongoing fleet
replacement needs not only in the city's non or public safety fleet but police and fire. We are
facing challenges with that specifically with procurement as it relates to our fire vehicles
which requires a four to five year delivery date from the date that it is ordered to the date that
is actually delivered but oftentimes we need to provide payment up front so that they can begin
construction of those vehicles. So we've engaged with a consultant to help us
prepare not only an update to our policy but also development of a 10-year
forecast to allow us to really understand how much funding we
need to ensure that we have the vehicles to provide those core services to the
community. And so that will be brought forward to the finance committee in May
or June both the policy and the forecast and the recommended funding plan. So
So switching gears a little bit, we're going to talk a little bit about the American Rescue
Plan Act, or ARPA, which is commonly referred to.
So what was ARPA?
Again, high level.
This was signed into law in March of 2021.
It provided $1.9 trillion in economic stimulus package to address the impacts of COVID-19.
The city of San Leandro received $18.6 million in local relief.
I will say that all dollars were obligated by December 2024 and currently on target
to be fully expended by 2026.
So the City of St. Landry has been very diligent in its responsibility, if you do share responsibility,
in receiving those ARPA dollars and using those to help support both the organization
and the community.
So here's a high-level summary of ARPA appropriations, which totaled $18.6 million.
ARPA was a wonderful way stimulus to help cities and communities recover. It
really was intended for one-time expenses, one-time ways in which we could
support our organizations and our community. However, a number of projects,
not only here in the city, but you know other agencies did very similar things
in which it created programs that were successful, that really supported the
community in ways that was very beneficial and very impactful. As a
a result some of those programs also will require, excuse me, ongoing support
from the general fund to continue to operate as they are today. And so this
here provides what the original appropriation was for each of those
projects but the ongoing cost to provide those programs to the to the community
which totals between 3.3 and 3.9 million each year. The city also has a
the number of infrastructure needs that is required to avoid critical failure.
And so what are some of those funding needs that have been talked about?
And so we discussed a little bit about this during the retreat, which is proactive investment
to avoid critical failure.
And so some of those projects include significant painting projects at both City Hall and the
Marina Community Center totaling a million dollars, a roof replacement at
fire station 10, and then the CAD RMS replacement which is three million
dollars estimated which is the city's 9-1-1 dispatch and records management
system and is a critical infrastructure need to avoid failure and the inability
to provide core services to the community. Finance Committee recommended
that we fund these critical infrastructure needs,
supporting unanimously all of the recommendations by staff.
So what is the budget objective for 2027 and beyond?
Why are we here tonight
and what have we been doing over the last year?
Ultimately, the goal is long-term fiscal stability
and to avoid reoccurring structural deficits
which are not sustainable.
So during the fiscal year 26, 27, biennial budget process,
There was a very clear budget objective and directive
that we received from this council.
The first again to remind you
was that fiscal year's 26 and 27,
all expenses less transfers should equal projected revenue.
And we met that goal for 2026.
And we have met that goal for 27
by way of presentation for tonight.
Beginning in 28, all expenses should equal
a two projected revenue.
So both expenses and transfers.
And again, by way of the proposal this evening,
staff has met that goal.
With that being said, I wanted to provide an update
on the city's general fund tenure forecast,
really focusing on line 24.
That's our policy, our 20% policy
for economic uncertainties.
The city is meeting that goal
with a proposal this evening.
And I wanna commend council for the hard work
that has happened over the last several months.
We've had really hard conversations
both the retreat, the finance committee as well,
and really allowed us to stay course,
to course correct that we are in a direction
of stability, financial stability.
And so you'll see we're meeting that goal
until about 2033, where we start to dip a little slow.
A lot can change between 2027 and 2033.
We also have built-in here recession,
which has slow growth recovery.
It's something that we do as we model
for long-term forecasts.
I suspect that when we get to that point,
we will be either at 20% or exceeding that goal.
And so wanting to really highlight the great work
that has been happening behind the scenes with staff
and the courageous conversations that council has had
over the last several months.
With that being said, should no recommendations be made
and we steer off course,
this is what the financial picture looks like
that stands today with no course correction.
Again, focusing on line 15,
you will see that by 2027 and column D,
we're at 19.5%, which is below the 20% reserve policy.
And significantly, drastically dropping from there
with a negative available for economic uncertainties
by 2033, and then out of cash,
you start to see that red box,
negative nine point four million in 2032 where the city is out of cash sometime in that fiscal year
Well, I'll say is this council has been very dedicated
Staff has been very dedicated to ensuring that we course-correct and that this is not the picture that we are working towards
In the in the future. And so again really wanting to commend council for for the conversations that have been had over the last several months
With that
It is an opportunity for us to have a discussion and feedback
We're asking council to provide feedback and input on the proposed reductions and then recommendation
For adoption and I would like to highlight this slide here, which is what staff is seeking from council this evening
The first is does council support the proposed expenditure reductions
direction on council compensation
Does council support the proposed general fund transfer reductions and
Does council support the funding plan to avoid critical failure which was recommended by the finance committee and then last but not least
Does the fine it does the council recommend moving forward with the 2027 mid cycle update for adoption?
Which was recommended by the finance committee
Okay, thank you for the presentation and all the work that's been done this far
what I'd like to do is take input from the public and then we will come to
council members for robust discussion. So madam clerk do we have any cards or
hands up online? Thank you mayor at this time we have not received any comment
cards from in the room and we currently have four hands raised online. Okay so we
have opened and we have closed public comment in person. Let us open up public
to comment on the. Our first
speaker is Douglas Spalding.
Thank you. And good evening,
Council members. First and
foremost, citizens and San
Leandro. We have to vote in a
city revenue measure this
November. I don't think that's
accounted for in the budget
the alternative response unit.
I see that the number has gone down,
but the ARU is cost effective.
It saves us money in the long run
because we have trained professionals
responding for less money than it takes to pay
a sworn officer to go out
and maybe not know what they're doing.
Your cuts have to go deeper.
So I do have some ideas.
First of all, you talked about eliminating security
I remember the discussion about the dudes
at the senior center, absolutely.
There are plenty of staff there
and those security people do nothing
but really hang out on their phone at the pools.
Definitely, I volunteer my son and other people
and there are probably other places in the city
where we have security.
I think we should take that money
and train staff and de-escalation procedures,
not put people in the position
where they're gonna get hurt and then sue the city.
But just being there, the presence,
I think will go a long way.
I think there are many, many contracts
to the sum of millions and millions of dollars
that we need to more carefully evaluate as we go along
because we just kind of put them on the consent calendar
without questioning them.
I think it would be great if the city council
would voluntarily freeze their pay as an example.
But if not, the number that comes to mind
in my mind is 0.65% of CPI or the lesser of 3%.
If you're asking landlords to do that, why not do yourself?
Freeze the police budget, defer whatever you can.
And, you know, let's hope the economy increases.
Thank you, your time has elapsed.
Our next online speaker is Melissa Wong.
Melissa, Melissa Wong, I can see you unmuted yourself.
If you wish to speak, this is your opportunity.
We cannot hear you.
The next online speaker is
San Leandro Chamber of Commerce.
Hello everybody, good evening.
Emily Grego, CEO of the San Leandro Chamber of Commerce.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment tonight.
So, in looking at all of this, it's concerning that there are some cuts that are directly going
to impact the business environment. It seems that funding should prioritize what directly supports
a safe environment, business investment, and a strong local economy. They should not come at
the expense of programs and investments that directly impact the business environment or the
city's ability to attract and retain businesses, especially when the business community is a primary
large contributor to the city's revenues. Programs like the ARU and the downtown ambassador program
matter. They have contributed to a safer and more stable and welcoming environment.
The third-party encampment cleanup is essential. Maintaining conditions of a clean city impacts
whether businesses choose to locate and stay here. Downtown conditions have improved and those
outcomes influence business decisions. San Leandro is competing with other cities for investment
and other cities are actively marketing themselves. Reducing funding for branding and marketing does
not save money in the long term. It weakens the city's ability to compete and delays economic
growth. Some investments are essential. In this moment, the focus should remain on what drives
a safe environment, supports businesses, and sustains a strong local economy. If San Leandro
is a place where businesses can invest and succeed, the rest follows. Please consider
any cuts to the items I've mentioned. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will go back to
Melissa Wong.
Melissa, if you're there.
Going to our next speaker, Alvaro Ramos.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Okay.
The city is in the grasp of a failed economic model
that stopped working a long time ago.
Governments have forgotten the original purpose
of law enforcement.
Policing was a method to force people
to play by the same rules.
We do not have economic growth.
We do not have rising productivity
that we can reliably depend on.
And that is why your revenues are down.
Police are trying to enforce the rules
when there's no game to play.
That means police are obsolete and totally pointless.
Police is nearly one third of the general funds.
People are not receiving any benefits from that in return.
I find it extremely ableist that all cities are focused
on creating police jobs that not everyone can do.
And then the other city departments have greater demands
that citizens actually need.
Police cuts must be deeper, not just around the edges.
Last year, there were no cuts to police.
Libraries should be open on all weekdays.
I have been at the main library on a Monday.
The kids, they get out of school on Mondays
and then they go to the library
because they need a place to study.
Or maybe they need a place to stay
for their parents to come and pick them up.
We have a literacy gap as a consequence
of the COVID-19 pandemic
because children received inadequate education.
We have kids who are basically going through
our education system, they cannot read.
don't be fooled. These cuts increase costs for the city by decreasing revenue, by decreasing
economic activity, which delivers to us a larger budget deficit in the future. The city
is not preparing sufficient resilience for the crises of this year.
Thank you. Your time has elapsed. I'm our last speaker going back to Melissa Wong.
Hi, can you hear me now? Yes.
Oh, thank goodness. I have no idea. But anyway, I'm not that technically great. But here I
am. Good evening. I want to comment on public engagement on the budget process in the last
for years and how we measure performance and results.
Make it easy, let's just count only the budget forums.
I simply call them meetings.
Do we know that that number in attendance,
each meeting, who are not staff, council, or contractors?
Of the residents which districts are represented.
These are not loaded questions I've asked before.
How do you measure success here?
On the flip side, five years ago, we had a six-month appointment, 28 people.
They met twice a month, six months.
They were represented by each district.
Four fold, at least four fold.
So everybody showed up in those meetings.
So aside from attendance, we didn't have a structural deficit back then,
but now we have one last June.
I recall it was 7 million, eight months later, 15 million.
We have a lot of cuts in June.
Now we have more cuts.
I have no doubt staff has worked a lot on it and so does council but nobody talked about
public input during the last presentation. As a result as a resident reducing any amount
in any department doesn't mean anything because we don't really understand the uses of each
department. So let's talk about budget to actual utilization. Let's talk about age of vacancies.
don't get me started with ARPA. I have lots of thoughts about that. So I have no doubt
about this, but please consider the creation of a task force and maybe one day we could actually
remember to pilot the budget participatory program. Remember that? Then after all these
efforts, I guarantee you, you guys will remember us. So thanks. Please include us. Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor. There are no more speakers online.
So we are closing public comment online, come back to the council members,
then we'll look for your input, your questions, and recognize that we can go around multiple times.
So who would like to go first? Councilmember Bowen please.
Thank you, Mayor. First, it's been said a number of times, I don't think it can be said too often,
but I really appreciate the work that all of the staff have done.
looking out there. I know like this is the real work that you have to do every single day and I
want to make sure that as a city organization, as a workplace, that it is one where we can still
maintain high quality morale and job security. So I really appreciate the work that everybody
is putting into that. I also really appreciate the finance committee's efforts into looking
at the full council's recommendations from our priority meeting and I just want to make
a few comments about some of the changes, recommendations that came out of it.
I'll start with the number 53 for the downtown ambassador program funding, can we go to that?
no recommendation either way.
I do think that when we think about our city services
and what the critical needs are,
public safety infrastructure,
the safety ambassador program is incredibly,
I think, effective considering the cost of the program
and the way that we are trying
to proactively build out the downtown.
When we talk about economic development,
we were talking about getting people to be here
and having a safe space and a perceived safe space
is incredibly important.
And so I would like to advocate for having
that ambassador of program funding for the downtown.
And then in terms of number 58, economic development funds,
I have from day one, and certainly when I was
on finance committee talked about the importance
economic development you know we prioritized it I think that the team has
done a phenomenal job over the last few years really looking at economic
development in San Leandro trying to build up programming and for us to have
the economic development studies right now I feel like if we were going to be
able to keep that $100,000 if we could actually not eliminate the business
incentive program and put some of the fun towards that that makes much more
to me because we actually have small businesses here that could use assistance
especially during these economic times. If we were to continue to do more
economic development studies, which I already think we have a robust start to,
we don't have the ability right now to do something with that information. We
could absolutely do it later on, but I really think about the urgency of what
we're trying to do right now. So keeping that versus other and then eliminating
doesn't make sense to me, trying to think about how do you actually encourage the businesses
that are already here or trying to be, continue their businesses here, that makes more sense
to me.
And I think that's it right now for, oh, just to clarify too for I know the conversation
question, because that's one of the questions you're going to have at the end for Council
direction at five percent that's ninety five dollars correct that's the math on
it okay and that will go so so it'd be 1995 1995 effective January 1 from the
current 1900 okay thank you we will can we will continue with council member
for a regular.
Thank you, mayor.
And first of all, thank you staff.
I genuinely appreciate the time that you put in
to see giving us what we have here.
And I, of a lot of people understand that it's hard.
This is hard work.
And if anything that I wanna elevate,
it's that this is not easy,
knowing that we are in a really, really tight situation.
And so I just hope that the public really understands
that we have little wiggle room here.
We are in a crisis scenario
and we are trying to plan for that and adjust for that.
And so I think that's really important to elevate here.
But with that being said,
couple of things else to elevate.
The fact that staff put in so much work
into these recommendations up here,
but also the work of the finance committee.
And so I genuinely appreciate that time.
And so when I see unanimous agreement
on all of these items, I see that that work has been done
and significant hours of thought have been put into that.
And so the bulk of my comments
and the bulk of my questions tonight go toward the items
of which had no recommendation
or might've said majority, lean either way.
And so the first thing that I wanna elevate
is something that council member Bowen brought up
and that would be item 53.
I also wanna advocate for the ambassador program.
I had a downtown tour just last week
and I was shown a boatload of data
that shows that we are headed in the right direction
with the ambassador program, with downtown,
and all of the changes that we're looking to make downtown
in addition to, I think, what the ambassadors do
that our police department does not have the capacity
to fully follow through with.
And so I also want to throw that out there
that my support goes toward keeping
the Ambassador Program funding
because I see the importance physically,
I see it in the data of keeping the Ambassador Program
as it is now.
And so that's one thing that I'll kind of say around that.
Another thing that I would like to bring up
would be item 21.
And initially, I was a little worried.
The arts are an extremely important thing in San Leandro.
It gives us the life and the vibrancy
that I think that we have.
And I'm really grateful to have had
a conversation with staff today.
And so I just wanted to elevate a question for later,
depending on how this is gonna be facilitated.
But I was taught that it's not a complete elimination
in the sense of there are other pots of money.
There are other places to find money
in the city of San Leandro for the arts in San Leandro.
And so I felt a little bit more comfortable with this item
and with the recommendation knowing
that there are other places in which people
can find dollars to support the arts.
So that was a positive for me.
I would like, I'm trying to decide
what I prioritize for right now.
I would like to go to item one.
And item one was around the School Crossing Guard Program,
which might to a lot of people seem very minute,
but our schools are the foundation of a city.
Schools make a city what a city is.
And so I think that that requires us to engage
in an authentic partnership with the school district
and requires us to also put in.
And with that being said, I don't necessarily agree
with eliminating the crossing guard program,
but I would definitely love to hear the discussion
from finance and hear a little bit of the rationale.
And so that's kind of just my thought around that is,
I would love to hear the rationale
before going full throat advocacy.
But that's important to me, especially as someone in schools.
but I think for right now just highlighting 21, 53, and one,
and then going about the discussion,
however the rest of council would like,
and hearing through is kind of where I'm at right now.
Oh, and then what I'll say about council compensation,
I'm not in any way support of increasing our compensation
at this time, nor my support of decreasing.
I think that we need to maintain
and just move from that conversation.
Although I would like to hear what council members
have to say about that as well.
Those are my comments for now.
Thank you, at this point we'll go to council member Aguilar.
Thank you Mayor Gazos, and thank you Nicole and staff
for listening to the finance committee
and coming back to us, you know,
not at an operating deficit.
So I think that a lot of the hard work has been done
in finance and hopefully we can move forward tonight
on city council with regards to this adoption.
So the questions are, does council support
the proposed expenditure reductions I do
with regards to the direction on council compensation?
For me, it's all or nothing.
Either we support the current rate
what we what we get paid with a five percent or we do this for free so that's
that's my my concern with regards to supporting the proposals general fund
transfer reductions I support I support that and I also do support the funding
plan to avoid the critical failure we do need City Hall painted we do need the
Marina consent Marina Community Center painted we also need the fire station
number 10 roof replacement and the CAD RMS replacement.
And I also do agree that, you know,
we should move forward with fiscal year 27,
mid-cycle update for adoption.
Those are my concerns.
Thank you.
Okay, I'm going to go online to council member Bolt.
Thank you, mayor.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Great. This to me is a continuation of our retreat.
Thank you for bringing this back up
for us to move forward with.
Yes, there's a lot of things in here
that we don't want to cut but have to cut.
It's a tough situation,
But I do, I am looking forward to staff
kind of explaining some of these things,
specifically one I heard from Council Member Aguilar,
where it was, you know, there's one way to say this,
we're cutting the crossing guard,
but that's not the case.
Like the school district is still gonna have
their process with the crossing guards.
We just won't be participating at the level we were.
So, and that goes for quite a few
of these different line items that we have.
We're not 100% getting rid of all of these things.
We're just not participating at the level we were.
So, I wish I was in the room.
I feel weird saying it from here
and I don't want to be on very long because of it.
Lastly, I do not support an increase.
I do support us giving back,
whether it's we do it for free as council member,
Victor Aguilar said,
I wish I could do the accent you do mayor,
but I'm not that good.
So I'll just say council member Victor Aguilar does.
his recommendation of doing it either for free or going with the 5%.
I would actually agree for a year that we don't take compensation.
If all these positions are looking at getting what I like to call a haircut,
then I have no problem taking one too.
If libraries are going to be cut on hours,
Every department is doing something and I don't have a problem with us doing something. So
Just yeah, but I'm gonna stop there because I it's got to be weird I don't
Being on this side. I know it is. Thank you
Thank you. I do want to clarify one thing just coming back to councilmember are you louder Victor out?
Were you?
suggesting
zero
for the compensation or zero increase
So that we don't get paid this year.
Okay, perfect.
Thank you.
Coming back to Vice Mayor.
I was actually, I was part of a really robust finance committee discussion so I was actually
putting myself at the end so that my colleagues that were not part of those discussions would
be able to speak.
We will come back to Council Member Bowen.
Thank you.
I just wanted to add some context to Councilmember James Aguilar's concerns around the school
crossing guard program.
That one was obviously number one as well.
I have had numerous conversations with San Leonardo Unified School District superintendent
as well as principals at Wolf & Croft, Washington, many parent groups and one of the things that
I did learn was that the district is very supportive
of having crossing guards and has been open
to funding more crossing guards or funding the program.
It has always been a very positive conversation
and so obviously I'm not saying that they promised anything
but certainly the conversations are there
and the city does work actively
with the school district in partnership that goes beyond the $90,000 for the crossing guard.
For example, both the mayor and I sit on Alameda County Transportation Commission and I'm on
the policy community that supports the Safe Routes to School program and this is something
that we talk about quite often and one of the things that's really important is the
actual Safe Routes to School and there is a proposed plan that the district has it,
city has it and I know for a fact that the city public works has done significant progress
to try to do some of the items on that list and so there's certainly a lot of robust conversation
and action towards that and you know council member Bolt said it where it's I mean a lot
of what we're talking about right now is trying to figure out ways to shave things so that
we can maintain where we're at and I think that that's really where we're at is like
we want to maintain critical services we want to maintain public safety work maintain infrastructure
so that the cuts aren't deeper later on.
And so I could say that I'm uneasy
about most of all of these cuts, right?
If I had a choice, I would give more money.
I remember we had conversations at one point
in the beginning about more positions.
I was like, yes, let's do it.
We're not there right now,
and so I am really proud of us for being in a place
that we can at least maintain where we're at,
and we're already a really lean organization.
In terms of council member compensation,
I'm, you know, I think to keep it as is,
considering where we're at is fine.
I am not supportive of cutting compensation for the year.
The reality is the compensation is not reflective
of the work or the commitment the council members have
in the role that's, you know, it's an absolutely like,
it's not equivalent to that, but at the same time,
we do as people living in this world,
I would have a very difficult time being able
to do the calculus of doing the work
and putting the effort in the way that I have chosen to
without the compensation and also the symbolism
of that compensation that the work is valued
and matters as well.
and also the opportunity for people to serve on the council
because it does require you to commit in ways
where if you took the time that you committed to this role,
you could do other things for certainly significantly more
than what we are making.
And certainly nobody's doing this for the money.
It's mostly for the glamor, I think.
Vice Mayor, please.
Thank you.
appreciate the work of the team of the city team and the folks who joined the
budget forums and to the folks that are listening to us tonight. I have two
questions and then I'll jump over to my comments. So we have a five-year
runway on a 1.5 million dollar asset, which is the fire truck. And I'm thinking about
how are we able to protect ourselves should the truck not come through. It's a significant
investment. So I'm thinking about how are we protecting ourselves and that investment
and that asset, that if there are issues with it or if we don't get it, it sounds like we
to pay up front and then we get the vehicle five years down the road I'm
just trying to figure out how to how do we protect that investment yeah that's
a great question I know that our Alameda County Fire Chief is here as well okay
oh I'm sorry I didn't realize it was too far away and so maybe you can speak a
little bit to that but I will say that you are correct that in order to fulfill
the order essentially we do have to pay up front and there is a long lag time in
which it takes to actually manufacture and build the fire vehicle. It's
something that agencies across the region as well as California they're
experiencing and so I can defer to the fire chief to kind of talk a little bit
more about securing that asset. Thank you Mayor Gonzalez, members of the council. I'm
Willie McDonald, the Alameda County Fire Chief. The requirement for us to pay for
the apparatus in advance is really to secure a position in line if you will to
be able to have the fire truck built. There is a bit of a discount that's
provided if we pay up front to actually secure the money but I agree with you
it's a very long lead time, longer than it's been or all the time that I've
been a firefighter. The protection I guess is the commitment that a truck
will be built at some point and that we won't lose the money that has been
and pledged to provide the vehicle.
But beyond that, I don't know that there's any protection
that we would be able to identify to not pay the funds
in advance to be guaranteed to get the vehicle.
Okay, sounds like I'm just thinking about any protection
from our city attorney as we think about this asset.
I'm thinking about the impact of 1.5 million in five years
and what we can do this year
and what avenues we have to secure our spot
and make sure that we have the asset
to maintain city services.
But we're looking at a 1.5 million,
zero interest, money upfront,
which we don't do that.
I mean, we don't,
I don't know of any other type of contract
where that is the case.
So, are there any, is there any wiggle room here?
I'm just concerned about the amount.
I think that what an alternative could be
to order the vehicle.
I don't know that we have to pay up front.
I have to look at my budget manager.
I think that we can order the vehicle
and not pay up front to receive the discount,
but I have to check on that to make sure.
We have to come in.
We could also just kind of, is this one of two hearings?
I also don't wanna use up on my time about that.
City Manager, please.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, thank you, Vice Mayor.
So tonight is just a process of hearing your feedback
and overall consensus direction.
If we're able to, then we would come back
for adoption of this budget,
but the council could direct us to do this again
and then come back for adoption another meeting.
since we're only at council's direction.
I'm thinking about, so just to kind of,
I wanna secure the vehicle on the acquisition of the vehicle.
I wanna be clear and thank you chief for the clarification.
But I'm thinking about interest not made on 1.5 million.
I'm thinking about protecting 1.5 million
in terms of what if the company goes under,
what if there are impacts to the price of steel,
and all of a sudden we don't have a truck.
There have been significant issues in logistics
and manufacturing that just makes me very weary
of making this kind of investment
without protecting the city and that investment
and acquiring the asset.
In the spirit of efficiency,
I'd appreciate if you would actually continue
for an additional five minutes.
I have one more question and then I can leave my comments
and do another round.
I'm informed that we could order the vehicle
without paying up front,
but the city would have to encumber the funds.
But you could, I guess, maintain it in an account
with earning interest during that period of time.
City Manager, please.
I think it'd be, and thank you, Chief McDonough,
I think it's something that we can come up
with some more detail because what I also know
about ordering fire trucks is that
if you don't pay for it up front,
you may have to pay more in the end.
So the interest that we could earn
to be eaten up in the cost in the future.
Also I think the really important part is,
and we can negotiate this, whether it's 50% upfront,
there will be an upfront cost,
is that we have deferred the ordering of trucks.
We should have ordered three trucks years ago,
but because of our financial situation, we've deferred it.
So we're kind of at that critical point where,
for example, this current year, fiscal year 26,
so we are in right now,
the Alameda County Fire was kind enough to help us
with getting that truck pre-ordered
without the city paying for it.
But as the truck was finished, completed on time,
it was either you pay for it or you lose the truck,
which then goes into fire service in our city.
And so we had to pay for that truck to get it delivered.
Okay, thank you.
The other one is kind of a question,
but also a comment kind of in both.
And I'm thinking about evaluating
and combing through our existing contracts
and thinking through where some of those cost savings
and the existing contracts, contracts that are coming up
before us or before the city managers,
that are within the city manager's authority,
I would like to explore ways that we can evaluate them
and protect the city from risk and or whether there's
some cost savings in those contracts as they come up.
Either they expire and they're up for renewal,
but also looking at, you know, contracts that we have with.
And I know that the team has already done this
because there's several contracts here
that y'all are proposing for elimination.
So appreciate that, but there are some contracts
that we can go back to the table
once they are at the end of their lifetime.
So that's just a comment and a question about,
that's more of a comment.
I'll leave that there and I'll throw it back
to my colleagues and I have some more comments
specific to some of the issues that they brought up.
So if you don't mind, I would like to get your thoughts
as I take notes for council compensation.
Sure, my proposal that I discussed with finance committee
was actually to revert our compensation to the previous amount. I believe it was the
old monthly compensation if we're looking at slide 30 where it wouldn't eliminate the
Council's compensation but it would roll it back to that. There was no there was
no consensus on that on the finance committee. That would be my proposal to
roll it back to the old compensation. Perfect and then the only other person I
councilmember James Aguilar on that piece in particular I would welcome your
thoughts. I'm inclined to I'm inclined to support maintaining the compensation as
it is. I think councilmember Bowen really summed it up for me in that I we on this
council do a lot of work but also recognizing that staff does a lot of
work as well and the image behind it matters the symbolism of it matters but
I I would love to hear more from council about proposals about about what they
suggest because I appreciate Vice Mayor Viveros Walton's proposal as well so I
I guess right now where I'm at is maintaining,
I would like to hear more from council.
Okay, thank you.
My question I think focuses on the arts mini-grants.
I saw for art, I saw a reference to the comedy festival,
so whatever, unfortunately I didn't have
the number written down.
So eliminate the Library Public Arts Fund.
And then over on the side,
you mentioned something about the Comedy Festival.
So if you can remind me how that plays out.
Sure, thank you for the question.
I will actually turn this over to Director Brian Simons.
Good evening Council, this is Library Director
Brian Simons.
The way that would play out is of the 50,000,
this last year, 20,000 was allocated out of that,
the public arts funds for the comedy event.
So going forward, if the 50,000 were not there,
without the city funding, we would have to explore
other funding in order to continue that program.
So what our plan is to do is to try to do some fundraising
within the community to do that.
However, we would like to explore it sooner than later,
but we do have it covered through some funding
that we received this past year
that we'll carry forward into fiscal year 27.
Some grant funding and some gift funding,
the Carnegie Grant and a gift from Alta D. Davis
that we'll be carrying forward.
And we already earmarked that to use
for the comedy event in fiscal year 27.
So we've earmarked it as such,
but is it limited to that purpose?
For those grants?
No, it is not.
For the grant and the gift, it is not.
So part of the reason that I ask
is it's obviously public information
that there's a comedy in the Plaza event
being run by Brian Copeland
in collaboration with the Davis Street.
So I'm wondering if we could reallocate money
to the arts mini grants.
It's an option if the city would not
want to hold the art or the comedy event.
That is an option.
The other question that I guess the comment that I would offer,
thank you very much for that.
The comment that I will offer with respect to the compensation
is that we just went through a process of providing salary
increases to staff, and I'm not quite sure
what the rationale would be for eliminating
all council compensation.
I mean, I get the publicity benefit of that,
but I don't really see how it's logical
when we're increasing compensation for staff,
and then saying, oh, by the way,
we're gonna cut our salaries to zero.
So I'm not supportive of that at all.
I think they're just staying the course
with no CPI increases and indicator.
We're just gonna keep it steady.
The other thing to recognize is that the budget cuts
that are being taken in the budget cuts,
no staff person is having their salary cut.
We're eliminating empty positions.
So I think that, again, it's very telling of the approach.
If we were out there terminating employment
in reducing staffing, right, actually having layoffs.
I think I would feel a little bit different about that,
but that's not the situation that we're in.
We may be there one day, but we're not there right now.
So let's, I would not be supportive
of cutting council compensation.
At this point in time, I'll go through my thoughts on,
do I support the proposed expenditure reductions?
The answer is yes.
I do have a question around the mini grants
particular and I have a question about the the ambassador program those are the
two that really catch my attention many grants and ambassador because the
ambassador impact does not occur until the next fiscal year if I remember
correctly can you check me on that I think that's one of the reasons that
we're willing to to hesitate and to pause whoever controls that yeah so it
It doesn't happen until next year.
So we bought ourselves some time.
So I have no problem supporting
just the overall reductions as is.
So that's kind of big picture, a check.
But just for the record,
the ambassador program I think is highly effective.
And the mini grants,
I would propose that we reallocate
the money from Comedy in the Plaza
because someone else is doing Comedy in the Plaza.
You've got my thoughts on compensation,
the general fund transfer reductions.
The answer is I agree with Council Member Victor Aguilar.
Just because we have to right now,
this is not long-term sustainable, period full stop.
We cannot run our city this way.
We have to invest in our infrastructure and in our roads.
But for the purposes of where we are today,
for the next X number of months,
while we continue to figure out how we move forward,
I have no problem with that.
I also agree that we should be supporting
the funding plan to avoid the critical failures.
And I would move forward with a mid-cycle adoption
subject to the comments that I have made.
I'm gonna come back, circle back around to council members
as they continue to weigh in.
Vice Mayor, please.
Thank you, so just to kind of frame my approach as I went straight into questions but I did
want to share about my approach to how I'm viewing this budget and the kind of screens
and filters and lens that I'm using to evaluate my decision making and at this point prioritizing
core services and specifically focusing on those services that allow people to work,
people to be able to ensure that their children are safe in public facilities programming.
And so, and also really proud that at this particular point, we're having to make really
hard decisions on programming and some diverting the current costs to future years to ensure
that we're protecting the jobs of the people who actually perform these services.
I'm proud that we're able to be having these hard conversations and having really combing
through this budget to ensure that we're protecting and continuing core services but
also protecting the jobs of the people who work on behalf of the residents and businesses
and community members of San Leandro. I do want to highlight a couple of bright spots
in this budget. I want to give hats off to a recreation and park department who is looking
at revenue generation and looking at those contracts and I know that a lot of
the other departments are also looking at that and maybe you know as a cost
center you can't necessarily generate income but as a service provider I just
want to appreciate the work of the parks and recreation department it's it's in
it's in the budget as revenue generation. I also wanted to highlight the ARU that
has had positive, significant, tangible, positive results in the community, but
particularly with not just the business and the kind of perception of folks
around that, but really engaging thoughtfully and deeply with the folks
who are in need of those services. I think that's what I'm proud of. That is
For me, that's what makes this program successful, just recently.
And I'll just leave that there in terms of the ARU.
In terms of some of the things that were brought up regarding some of the discussion items,
the encampment, which I am blanking on the number.
I did not write it down.
Can anyone know the number of the line item?
42, thank you.
We dug deeply into this.
I think finance committee, I'll speak for myself.
The reduction in 2027 reflects the amount
that was actually spent on cleanup encampments
by third party.
So that particular number doesn't mean
that there will be a reduction in service.
That number is reflective of the current use of the program.
So we didn't use all of the funding
that was originally allocated to that fund.
So that cut what essentially maintained the service as it is.
So I just wanna, there's folks listening
and to the business community
and also to residents who go around the city
and call us and email us about the encampments.
What this means is that it would maintain it where it is
for third-party encampments.
We talked about the crossing guard,
so I'll cross that off, well, that's redundant,
cross it off my list, encampment.
So I will leave my comments at that for now.
I am overall supportive of this as it stands.
I was the person out of Finance Committee
that wanted to ensure that the housing advising on the number
community development. The reduced housing is item 51. I wanted to retain the funding
for core third party tenant and landlord services, particularly around onboarding and ramping
and the implementation of rent stabilization. So I just wanted to make that kind of bring
and I'm trying to figure out
how to get it out into the this
discussion. Those are all my
comments for now and then I
don't have any time to see it.
So, thank you. At this point
in time, we will go to council
member James Aguilar. Thank you
and just appreciation for those
who are providing me context and
background because I'm the new
beyond the council who's joining
the conversation this late and
so, I appreciate the context
around crossing guards. I
around the ambassador program and specifically director
Simons for touching up a little bit about the arts grant.
So I think with all of that packaged together,
going backward up, I support moving the mid cycle update
for adoption, support the funding plan
to avoid critical failure,
support the general fund transfer reductions.
And then of course we can go with the flow
in the conversation on council compensation.
Still like to hear a little bit more
about the ambassador program.
But generally speaking, the whole package,
the whole thing, I am supportive of.
Okay, I'll come to Council Member Bowen next.
Thank you, Mayor.
I did want to ask my colleagues if they had thoughts
about academic development studies.
We haven't talked about that,
but that's a significant amount that we're keeping in
$100,000. I mean if we're talking you know the debate that we're having a
council compensation I think it's a total of $3,000 between the six of us
and and I'd like for us to talk about this I would like to understand the the
thoughts that the finance committee had on this particular item I don't remember
anybody talking about it at our retreat and trying to understand how if the
priority is to generate revenue to maintain a balanced budget to increase
economic activity in the city there are other items that I think would have a
a higher rate of return in the short term than eliminating, than keeping the economic
development studies. And again, I love economic development. I'm not knocking that. I think
we should do, I think we have a really strong start now. And so I don't, I don't understand
why this, this one to me is, is what I'm having a hard time with.
May I just clarify your question or comment? So are you saying that instead of in 2027
cutting the 50k on or I guess you would propose potentially cutting the 50k and moving that
over into business incentive programs or just fully funding the business incentive programs
or how are you thinking about that?
If ideally fully funded but I understand where we're at and so I would say I would rather
have at least that $50,000 towards business incentive program than academic development
study.
If I thought that we could do something with that development study, if we had a great
idea and we still can't do anything with it, that it would just sit there for now.
And the reality is the landscape changes all of the time.
So it doesn't make sense to me to put that money right there right now.
would probably be useful city manager to have someone from the economic
development team come and discuss a little bit about the decision of why
this versus not that. Thank you mayor I see economic development manager Katie
Bowman on her way to the mic now. Thank you Katie. And if we could clarify which
one we want me to start with. So at the very bottom we had talked we had some
discussions in finance about should we have the study should we not have the
studies and I think you know we had mixed perspective on that. Council member
Bowen is asking about the line immediately above that so why are we
eliminating these incentive programs and potentially could we maybe cut the
economic development studies and move that money up or maybe from some other
source to keep that so that's just kind of framing and you can run with it
however you will. Okay so for the business incentive program I will just
start by seeing the funding is flexible so it's not an all-or-nothing so
certainly we have developed a new business boost grant that's $5,000 grants
a smaller method so with smaller amounts we would likely do more of those the
larger grants are typically $45,000 so but we've been getting positive response
on that. So I think we'll take, we're happy to work with what we are able to. It's strictly
speaking a discretionary program, but it's, you know, and we just had tough choices to make. So
it's not, you know, in the perfect world none of these would be cut. So, and then on the studies
side, yes, so if, you know, for instance, if typically in years about 25, a baseline of about
25,000 for studies is helpful so that we may respond as opportunities come up as potential
developments come up that the city needs to up front fund before we get reimbursed.
So that that might be an option and then remaining funds going towards incentives
might be an option to consider for that. Back to you council member.
I appreciate the adapting with that new information because I think that that would
would be a great idea.
It's really important, especially when
we're thinking about governance and what our role is up here
and thinking like long term, right?
Like there's a reason why we do the studies and the surveys
and create these plans.
So that information is really important.
I also think we have to be realistic about where
we're at right now.
And we often talk about inflation,
but we are in times that are abnormal with,
I mean, I just think about the fact that if gas is 20% more
expensive across the board and you're having to travel for work and you're
having to do all these things like we're not making the same decisions we would
in normal times and so I want us to just be trying to be creative about how
where we cut but also where we can sort of subsidize and promote and fill in
gaps in terms of what the community needs and the reality is again in terms
of economic development you know the one of the reasons why it really pushed for
is a priority was that it really does impact how we can run as a city. At the same time,
the priorities of public safety infrastructure and the critical services, like that is the
priority that is first, right, like what we're mandated to do as a city. But if we can, if
the council would be willing, I would love to be able to adjust 57 to 58 so that we continue
you to fund the business incentive program in some capacity,
as you suggested.
Okay, so that is duly noted as a suggestion.
Coming next to Council Member Bolte online.
Great, thank you, Mayor.
And Council Member Bowen, I have no problem with that.
What I would suggest is maybe, I agree,
We should not be doing a study right now that seems like we can use that money in a better
way.
And if it is in a pot to grant to small businesses, I like that.
I liked the 5,000 type grants compared to 145,000.
But I would be willing to switch it, but then cut that in half.
So now we even got $50,000 more off of the budget.
But what I know about this is if we don't cut heavy and hard right now, in a year from
now, the cuts may be doubled or tripled.
So if we look at this scenario and we stick to what we have, you know, been cordially
agreeing on going down this path, I think it's better.
I think it's better that we cut what we can now.
Um, yes, it's tough.
We want the community to have the, the comedy shows and the arts and everything.
I believe me, I love it, but right now I would love to just cut a, so much more.
That the budget is easy to swallow because next year, if things don't change.
Um, and right now in the geopolitical world, it doesn't look like it is.
We may be sitting here going, you know, with a much heavier knife cutting
deeper, so I'd rather us just dive in, stick with, with what we're going towards.
And, and I would support you council member born in this because I do
believe that the small businesses, the backbone, and so if we can keep those
Grants alive, let's not do the study right now,
but I would wonder if you're amenable to just $50,000
and not a hundred.
And so we lose half of that, which is, hey,
it's better for us, putting it back in the pocket.
And yes, additionally, no compensation for the,
but I would go as far as saying, and I said this before,
no travel, no training, it's just one year.
I'm not saying the rest of our political careers or the rest of the city's leadership career.
I'm not talking about just council when I talk about training and travel.
I'm saying for one year, no travel for anybody, no training for anybody.
Let's stay home, let's do the work we got to do, and let's do this in a way that is
productive because you're right, it is only 3000. We talk about compensation increase.
But if we look at this thing as a whole and we take everything out, I think we're looking
at something much bigger. And so I'd rather see us just gut it all just for one year.
I'll stop there. So council member bolt just to dig in a little bit to make sure that my
notes are correct. So currently the business incentive program is completely eliminated
and currently we have $100,000 of economic development studies. You spoke about $50,000.
So are you saying let's expand the cuts, or are you fine with just transferring the
economic development study money to the business incentive program?
I got a big machete.
Let's expand it.
Let's transfer that $100,000 over, but cut $50,000 of it off.
So transfer $50,000.
So on net, we're going to increase our cuts by $50,000, correct?
Yes, that's okay. Thank you. I'm gonna ask you a couple
Okay, so let's
No worries, that's why I won't so right now
Originally, there was a proposal to cut one hundred thousand dollars from the economic development studies
Finance committee did not push that through so that was reversed
It was a reversal. So now we're back to spending that one hundred thousand dollars on economic development studies
Currently in the budget that's up there
157,000 has been cut from the business incentive
Programs
So as I as I understand councilmember bolts description is that instead of moving the hundred?
That got restored for the economic studies
You know I had asked would you be fine if that hundred moved up?
To the incentives and he said no, let's only move up 50
Which means that on net?
We're cutting an extra 50 from this budget
Okay
Councilmember bolt just coming back to you
And I know that there's a just some very slight nuance in some of these questions
But I just want to kind of get your your your your feel on this
So one of the questions that we've been asked is whether the council supports the general fund transfer reductions that are listed
Are you a yes or no on that or subject to change?
But yes
Yes, perfect. And then does council support funding plan to avoid the critical failures?
that was a list of the cat RMS and I think the fire truck and
Addressing Marina and
City Hall painting in the fire station, not the fire truck. Thank you. The fire station roof.
So are you a yes on that or you a no on that? That's where we were keeping, we were gonna redo
the roof and we were possibly gonna take money from the emergency fund to do the painting,
is that correct? And we were gonna separate it by two years. We had two buildings to be painted and
we were gonna paint one one year and one the following year. So it wasn't such a big hit at
one time. So I know that we did speak about that at the council retreat so what
I'm going to do is clarify with Finance Director Gonzalez with respect to I
understand this to be happening all in one year but can you just confirm that?
Yes thank you. Yes it was a recommendation and what was proposed to
the Finance Committee last month and what was proposed was to fund the
the 4.6 million which would be the painting at the City Hall facility and
we're in a community center as well as a roof replacement and CAD RMS
replacement would occur all in one fiscal year and so that was what was
recommended by the Finance Committee. So coming back to you Councilmember Bolt
do you support the Finance Committee's recommendation? Oh dang it I wanted to
split it in half and put it in two years, but if this is where we're at, this is where
we're at, I'm not going to hold it up on this. If finance committee says it and staff is
recommending it, I'm not going to just throw a complete wrench in the system, but gosh
dang it, if we could split it out, that pain will last one more year, I guarantee it.
Okay thank you. We do have, and again I know there's been some some nibbling
around the edges, and we're gonna get to a formal motion, but I'm just trying to
do temperature checks here. In the grand scheme of things, do you support these
recommended updates? Just the overall, there's a number of reductions that have
of input in place.
Do you accept those recommendations subject
to that adjustment that you were requesting on the 50K?
I do support the reductions.
Okay.
Thank you.
At this point in time, I'm gonna come back to Vice Mayor.
Thank you.
And just a point of more clarity for the folks
who are tuning in and might listen to this later.
So we are doing a mid year review of a two year budget,
which is why we have to do things specifically
in the upcoming fiscal year.
And we're forecasting some cuts to avoid getting
to the, to not fall below the threshold
of what we need to have in our general fund
to maintain our credit rating and our good standing
in order that we're able to borrow
And also, it's a good fiscal management practice.
And so what we're looking at just to kind of,
in my effort, my New Year's resolution
that I shared with all of you in January
was to make the implicit explicit.
So this is why we're looking at a one year runway
for these critical failure costs.
But we're projecting costs into the future
to ensure that we do not fall below that threshold.
I am supportive of funding the critical failures
for this fiscal year, as long as they're appropriated,
if something happens and they need to get pushed
to the next fiscal year because of capacity,
we can always do that.
But what keeps me up at night is that conversation
that we had with the chief at our retreat regarding the CAT-RMS replacement.
It is a significant investment that we need to do.
It is imperative and if we do not do this, we will have an emergency on our hands and
we will not be able to respond in a timely way for folks who are in need of support from
the police.
So I think if we were, I know that we are appropriating the funds and we're going to
use this, I would like to prioritize the CAD-RMS replacement in terms of the order of operations,
the complex project.
It needs a lot of coordination within the departments, but that keeps me up.
It has kept me up.
Every time I think about the budget and I think of chief talking to us about what's
happening to our cat RMS. Is there any other point of clarification mayor that
you need from me in terms of getting some general takes general transfers
please I'm supportive of it I would with the caveat that I would like to keep the
money for streets but it's just not where we are right now but I am
supportive begrudgingly of it okay just I'm going to go quickly to council
Member Bowen, general fund transfer reductions?
Thank you.
I think Vice Mayor said it well
when she was begrudgingly going to accept that
because again, I think I've mentioned infrastructure
every time I've talked about priorities
and it doesn't make sense for us
to not spend money on the roads
when we're trying to focus on infrastructure
and that means roads, but okay.
The other thing that I wanna share
since I have the mic on is,
and I appreciate Vice Mayor's continued effort
to share context around what and why we're doing
because we're constantly talking to each other, staff,
and then the general public which are different layers
of information that we have to share out.
So what I'd like to say about that is that nobody
psychologically is happy losing something
and so much of that is how we frame
what is happening right now to me.
I don't think that we are losing things.
We are, I mean, and it makes me sound like a politician.
But I think it's really important
that we're actually like maintaining services
and we're doing really fantastic things for the city.
And I, when I walk around the city
and I talk to people, people are really excited
about San Leandro and people are happy
and they want more things.
But that means that we have to have
really honest conversations about what
and why we're doing these things.
And so I've spoken at length with city manager
about the importance of public engagement and outreach
and education around what we're doing
and why we're doing it, that we aren't cutting programs,
but rather we're just having to maybe, you know,
shift things around so that we can maintain them.
And I really appreciate this report and this presentation
because I think it really does do a good job
of explaining where we're at.
The reality is we're spending one-time funds
and on big projects and then we wanna keep them going,
but how are we gonna do that?
And those are just hard conversations to be had.
I think I answered all the other questions, Mayor.
Critical funding failures.
So Cat RMS, was that a yes?
I think that's where, okay, thank you.
Yes, and then I'm fine with the $50,000
towards the Small Business Incentive Program
that Council Member Bolt had proposed
as I didn't compromise if you were wondering.
Okay, just trying to track all the notes
and all the different items.
Council member Aguilar, Victor Aguilar,
is there anything that you'd like to add
to this discussion at this point?
Okay, thank you.
So let me tell you where I think we stand
and then I'll turn to city manager to see
that's where you're reading everything
that has been said thus far.
we might be there or we're pretty close. Council compensation. It is my
perspective that if we get a motion to change the council compensation it will
not get enough votes to pass. So I am assuming and I'm looking down council
roll to see if anybody's ready to jump in and make a motion that council
compensation will remain unchanged yes councilmember bolt please yes though though I think I'm
jumping in at the wrong time but I will say it since I got the mic on we we talked about
that cat RMS reboot that vice mayor was just talking about and we thought that we would
possibly be able to take that from our emergency funds which wouldn't affect the budget is
that still the path we're going down? I know some things have changed. I missed
the very first part of your sentence. CAD RMS. Yeah. So I'm going to come to
Finance Director on this. Thank you. Yes, to clarify, I did bring up the slide on
what the recommendation from the Finance Committee was and you are correct that
the CAD RMS replacement was a directive to use the major emergency reserve fund.
So we will be utilizing that for fiscal year 27.
However, as part of the policy is that the five million is to be retained and
restored and so that five million is restored beginning in 2028 so that we
retain the five million each year for major emergencies and the 20% for
economic development so or excuse me economic uncertainties and so you are
correct that that was directive. The other three items the two painting
improvements as well as the roof replacement will be drawn down on the
fund balance. Does that answer your question Councilmember Bolt? It does thank
you. You're welcome. Okay so city manager are we set on council compensation? Okay
that we have. And then we'll
move to the next item. It is my
read that you have unanimous
agreement that the council
supports the proposed general
fund transfers. You heard a
number of comments that is kind
on the list does council support funding plan to avoid the critical failures the answer is yes
and I think that is by unanimity also and so now I'm gonna ask I'm gonna go to finance director
because in the end I'm looking for the distinction between number one and number
If I answer number five, it might de facto answer number one.
On this slide here.
Just to clarify.
I just want to make sure that we're getting the team what they need in terms of the council
direction.
I think to clarify for item one, I think we would need to have at least four council members
that would support any of the recommended changes that were brought forth.
For example, the one about the $50,000 being reallocated, we would need some consensus
from the council as a body of at least four that would support that in order to address
number five.
And so if it supports number five, which is to move it before the council.
But my point is, if we answer number five, will we have answered number one?
Correct.
So why is being proposed today?
Yes.
So I'll just focus on number five
to try to build that consensus.
OK, so on my notes, I've heard significant questions,
challenges about the Downtown Ambassador Program.
So I'm going to put that here.
I've heard the desire to move economic development studies
money to mini grants.
One, I think you might have actually agreed in your proposal
that it would be 50K instead of the 100K.
So I'm going to just assume that that will come
in the form of a proposal around which we
try to build consensus.
I had some discussion about the arts mini grants.
And in particular, given the comedy in the plaza event
scheduled for July whether money could be reallocated so I'm not quite sure
exactly how that fits into this but I heard that. What else? I did hear
something about the crossing guards but I was unclear if it was expression of a
frustration or request to reverse the recommendation. Yes please. More so
context building. Thank you. So I feel comfortable moving forward with that one. Thank you. Are
there, and everyone's provided a lot of context, are there other items? Please share them now.
Vice Mayor, please. There was, I brought up the ARU, but I did want to,
But can someone, what is the item number for ARU?
Hold on, see if I have it on my, if I, 60.
Slide 27, oh, I got it, okay.
So just to clarify regarding the ARU is that
this is funded through 2028.
So we, the team put together a plan
where we would be able to have a bit of a runway
to plan for that.
So that was brought up in one of the public commenters.
I also brought it up during finance discussion and tonight,
but I just wanted to clarify that that is a cut
that is forecasted for FY 29,
not for the upcoming fiscal years.
And to ride along with that,
My recollection is that the ambassador cut
is also in the future, which was one of the reasons
that finance said, well, let's just,
we're willing to put that on pause
in terms of saying no, no, no.
Do you remember where that is?
I think that's next year, the ambassadors.
Correct, that begins in 2028.
Thank you.
So I guess I'm gonna lump the two, the ambassadors
the A. R. U. That is the rationale that finance came up with for allowing it to continue with
the recognition that they are high priority programs that we don't have to make the decision
for 20 27 that we should continue to look for funding that it is a priority of this council.
so with that in mind when we say we're approving the 2027 mid-year adjustment
are we literally moving 2027 are we moving the full plan city manager thank you mr. mayor
so the council would be once we get to the meeting for adoption you would be adopting
the budget for fiscal year 27. So that's July 1, 2026 through June 30th, 2027.
With the out year, so I'll just take the ambassador program, why that is important today if you want
to delete it, as our finance team continues to refine the budget, look at the forecast,
they want to know where are we going so they can bring it back to you. And as the vice mayor
eloquently put it, we're working on one year because normally we do a biennial budget and so
so we needed to work on it.
But we will be back here in this room
doing this again in a year.
Because next year is when we set the biennial budget
for fiscal year 28 and 29.
Maybe we will be in an excellent financial position,
things will turn around, there will be lots of revenue
and the numbers will be better than we see it today.
And then the council in a year could say,
you know what, we're in a much better position.
We can then fund these out-ear items
or look at them some other way.
And so the mayor's correct.
The decision is about fiscal year 27,
but you're informing us to have to put together
the forecast for the future.
So with that in mind, I think that you have,
if not unanimity, the majority of the council
providing direction that the ARU,
the downtown ambassadors are very high priorities
for this council.
Okay, there seems to be agreement on that.
But that we would be willing to, for this point in time,
let the 27 adoption continue
because those items are not impacted,
and continuing to get a majority of head shakes on that.
So then that just leaves us with kind of two items.
There has been a proposal
with respect to the economic development studies
to move $50,000 up into the economic
you know, if you have a
small business economic
incentive grant program, we
have at least two council
members that are open to
that approach where the net
effect of all this would be
a further reduction of 50K.
So I'm going to look for
consensus, I see Vice Mayor,
I see, okay, I've got James
Aguilar, I support that, so
you've got a majority of
support on that.
And so then the last piece
the mini grants of trying to support the mini grants through reallocation of
monies that could be freed up by not having the comedy in the plaza because
there we are getting a comedy in Plaza that's privately funded right now the
Brian Copeland is putting on so I'll have it looks like I've got library
director coming back up with any concerns now is it time to speak your
piece. No, no, this is great. This is really good. And I'm glad we're thinking outside
of the box. If the direction from council is that we no longer would like the city to
fund a comedy event like Comedy in the Plaza or Comedy Festival, what have you, then that
is something that we could, a couple things. So let me backtrack a smidge. So you had mentioned
the Copeland event is in July.
The city's event is planned for June 27th,
so it's in this fiscal year yet.
However, if we're already looking down that road
and saying, well, we're no longer gonna do this,
we don't have, well, we have emails going back and forth
with the Ball Theater in agreement
that that's where we would hold it.
And we have emails saying that we would like to pursue
agreement, but we don't have anything signed by either party an agreement with a producer.
We don't have anything signed by anyone. I'd have to defer to our city attorney, whether we're in
already in a legal position to honor that or not. But if we are not, one of the things we may want
to consider is not doing it this fiscal year and carrying that funding over to fiscal year 27,
as well as as you recommended mayor looking at those other two gift and
grant funds that I mentioned earlier which would then be it's about 22,000
from this fiscal year and then those gift and grant funds add up to about
23,000 total so this is for fiscal year 27 correct so for the gift funds do we
need to spend those funds this year?
Is there any sort of requirement?
We do not.
We can carry those forward for as long as we need.
OK.
And it sounds like there are two separate pots of money,
the money that's already been at least planned for.
Correct.
Comedy in the Plaza event at the Ball Theater.
Correct.
OK.
And then in the future, so in 2027,
you were saying there would not be that event.
Correct.
Let me just ask a question of legal counsel.
So I want to understand if this lays the foundation for being
in contract, and if not, and kind of where we stand.
City attorney, please.
So my understanding from the library directors,
we do not have any signed contracts.
That is correct.
And that, of course, all contracts
are subject to appropriations from the council.
So we are not in legal risk, if you will.
If we do not execute it, we notify the parties
based on direction.
How much did we give an arts mini-grants
for things like the downtown planter
and some of the other things that we did?
This current year, which is the active cycle,
the mini-grants are 5,000 per applicant.
the year prior they were 10,000 per applicant.
And I'm looking back to my assistant director
because he's the one that chairs the,
or secretaries the commission.
Cycle that we just ended were 10,000
for nonprofit organizations, 5,000 per individual.
So with the current cycle, which are under consideration,
actively consideration by the commission,
It's 5,000 for either nonprofit organization
or individuals, so the same amount.
What is the total amount of funding?
So for this year, the ones that we are considering currently,
it's $27,500 available for grants in fiscal year 26.
OK, thank you so much.
And you were talking about 22,000 from the other sources?
Yeah, $22,500 from this year's, what we have allocated
for this year's comedy event could be carried forward.
OK.
So it sounds like we've got some flexibility in what we do.
So it is my proposal that through whatever method
your creativity comes up with, that we maintain the arts mini
grants at the current level, which is already a decrease.
I think we've cut it twice over the last two years.
But there's a certain amount of momentum
that goes with having the program
and being able to put small pieces of art
in different places in the city.
And it's so nominal, but it's such a feel good thing.
And the PR that we get from it is very positive.
And in the end, we can get matching money
from donors or NEH, et cetera, NEA, not NEH, sorry.
So that would be my recommendation.
That, so I've got at least, but I need one more.
Okay, I've got four.
Okay, so with that, yes, please, city manager.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
just for clarity, and Director Simons, thank you.
Please correct me if I get this wrong.
So what the mayor and thus the council is proposing
is that this cut to 50,000 would stand,
but what it is currently,
what the funding for the grant program
would come from a different source.
But that's one time dollars.
And so what's not proposes future general fund dollars
for that purpose.
we just want to make sure that that's clear for the record.
As of this time, we're dealing with 2027.
So the 2027 will have, whatever, $20,500 or whatever
the number happens to be.
OK, one challenge at a time.
One challenge at a time.
And it's such a small amount of money for the feel good effect.
OK, I think we have managed to do all of this
before nine o'clock so okay so with that being said it's 858 and we are returned