All right.

Good morning.

We have a long day ahead of us, so let's get this show underway.

Good morning.

I will now call the special city council meeting of Tuesday, June 9, 2026 to order.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Campbell.

Councilmember Whitburn.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember von Wolpert.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Here.

Councilmember Campillo.

Councilmember Moreno.

Councilmember Ila Rivera.

And Council President LaCava.

Present.

Also attending the meeting or Assistant City Attorney Leslie Fitzgerald, independent budget analyst Charles Matica, Council Affairs Advisor in the Mayor's Office, Coda Zeizer, and myself, your city clerk Deanna Fuentes.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

A quorum is now present.

We will begin this morning with the land acknowledgement and the pledge of allegiance led by Councilmember Whitburn.

We respectfully acknowledge that the Cubia Dayshid are the original inhabitants of the unceded layout now to San Diego.

Despite enduring the horrors of genocide and colonization, the Kobe I spirit remains unbroken.

We honor the resilience of their ancestors who fought to protect their culture at land.

Today they carry their legacy forward, ensuring that their traditions continue to thrive at gratitude and strength.

We stand with the Kubia Nation, connected to our past and committed to a thriving future.

Please face the flag, head over your heart, ready begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one day should under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Clerk, please go over how the public can offer their testimony.

Thank you.

I'd like to highlight the slide on the screen that reviews how the public can offer their public testimony during this morning's meeting.

The order can be found on the agenda summary found online or at the table in the back of the room.

If you are interested in speaking, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and bring it to the front of the room in the clear box.

Council ambassadors are available and can assist with questions and speaker slips.

No further in-person testimony will be taken once the council begins virtual testimony.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

Uh again, as a reminder, uh today is Tuesday, but we are not following the usual Tuesday agenda format as we announced yesterday.

Obviously, the early start is one signal on that.

Thank you for everybody engaging in that.

Uh to get into the most important item of today, uh one of the most important items of the day, which is the FY 2027 budget.

So, with that, we will now take up non-agenda public comment.

Council members respect and appreciate the public's input and are fully committed to protecting every participant's free speech rights at council and committee meetings.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

If you're in chambers, please submit your speaker slip to the front of the room.

If you're joining us virtually, please raise your hand by tapping the raise your hand icon or star nine if you're a calling participant.

Beck in the following individuals, please come forward to the yellow reserve seats, and then Apollo Madrigal, if you can please come up to the podium, and then we'll have Joy Senata and Max Schmidt.

You can come up to those yellow seats.

You'll have two minutes.

Please proceed when you get to the microphone.

Over here.

My name is Apollo Madrigal, president of Triton Democrats at UC San Diego.

This morning I'm speaking on behalf of Triton Dems, UCSD students, and young people across San Diego.

In addressing the impending budget crisis, to put it simply, we can do better.

And young people are well aware of this.

I want to firstly acknowledge the work that's been done by the council to restore many of the deeply troubling cuts to arts education, resources for the unhoused, and investment in our future through the Office of Child and Youth Success.

I, along with my fellow students, are cognizant of the positive impacts your effort will have on our great city and our community.

However, we students are well aware of the existential threat the mere proposition of these cuts have to our future in the city.

As students, while we still stare down the barrel of hundreds of thousands in student debt, and the pursuance of knowledge and the honor to contribute to our community, city responds by defunding the very resources that got us here.

The solutions that will keep our city green and sustainable.

And once again, attempt to reduce resources to the unhoused.

While students balance on the tightrope of a housing crisis and a tumultuous job market, our city quietly tries to remove the safety net.

I agree with the words of Councilmember Lee in saying that the artistic expression is what makes us human.

It's all the more unfortunate that our humanity is contingent on multi-million dollar donations rather than institutional support.

All the while, our council remains complicit in the funding of mass surveillance of its citizens through ALPR expansion.

Yet resources for our most vulnerable investment in our future and freedom of self-expression are deemed unnecessary or conditional.

We get the message.

Therefore, I, on behalf of Triton Dems, call on the city council to deny this new budget.

Because as young people, we are aware of what's happening, we are aware of what's possible, and we will keep showing up until we get there.

Thank you all.

Thank you for that.

I give a little bit of leeway to a first-time speaker.

This is not agenda public comment, so don't speak on anything that's on today's agenda.

There's a time for that.

I think you're probably in class today, so a little bit of leeway as well.

But for everybody else, this is not agenda public comment.

Appreciate it.

But thank you for your point.

Joyce and love the ambassador city clerk.

Okay.

Yesterday I said part one of my comments on the trash pickup fees.

Today I'll say part two, which is a batch of thank yous.

Thank you to the honorable San Diego Superior Court Judge, Yukita Oliver, for all of her work through the litigation process, especially her judicial discretion as applied to the outcome of this case.

Thank you to the former San Diego City Attorney, Mike Agueri, and his law partner Maria Severnson, the plaintiff's attorneys.

Thank you to Heather Ferbert, our current city attorney who signed off on the agreement.

Thank you to Councilmember Stephen Whitburn.

Thank you to Labor Leader and Port Commissioner Michael Zuquette.

Thank you to former mayor Kevin Falconer.

And thank you to all other involved attorneys.

And the biggest thank you of all is to all the public, all the public.

Many, many came, and your voices were heard.

Thank you.

You really roared, and we loved it.

So thank you to all of the public who spoke for and fought for.

They really did fight, didn't they?

They were a beautiful example of what that how that helps.

So they spoke for, they fought for this change of fees.

Oh, and one more thing.

Good morning, Mr.

Stump.

I hope you're listening.

I second the motion on your suggestion regarding the proclamation.

So it's going to be a beautiful day, love to all.

Thank you, Max Schmidt.

Hi, I just wanted to come out as an American mind control victim by liberal Freemasons.

It started in 2016 when I started doing lots of lots of grassroots protesting for Donald Trump, such as flag waving every single day for hours, and also posting online how the Zionist controlled white liberals are doing human sacrifices in the Masonic Lodge.

Um, basically, what it's called neurolinguistics, and you can look all into it.

Um telepathic masons like the ones on the city council can read your mind, and what they do is they use English words to um constantly say your thoughts, but the English words, but they say something, for example, it'll say like, how are you doing?

Well, and then my brain will interpret as you're going to hell.

And they'll like do things like that constantly nonstop.

And I sat here for three hours yesterday waiting to speak, and I've been praying all day that they hide behind 5150 laws.

They're communists.

If you try and speak about this, they will detain you with 5150 laws and throw you in prison like an animal.

So I just want to speak the truth and risk getting 5150 because this is America and the First Amendment's still alive to me.

I sat here for three hours yesterday and they tortured me.

The city council members tortured me.

They used neurolinguistics.

You can read all about it to constantly say my thoughts out loud, so I couldn't think for a single second.

The city council sitting right behind these desks tortured me yesterday for three hours, the same exact way I go out in public and get stalked and tortured.

And you'd better not 5150 me because the first amendment is live, and you know I'm not crazy, and you know you're guilty, guilty, guilty, and you know that you have done a human sacrifice in the Masonic Lodge, and you know you are cannibals, and you know you are telepathic.

How dare you try to mess with my head?

How dare you mess with my head in an American city council when I'm here to talk about my freedom and you try to question my freedom?

And you better not try to say I'm crazy because I'm not crazy.

Don't be a cult, I'm not crazy.

That concludes non-agenda public comment here in Council Chambers, going to those participating remotely.

We have five speakers in the queue.

Francine Maxwell, if you can please unmute.

Francine Maxwell, there you go.

Good morning, Francine Maxwell, Southeastern San Diego resident.

I want to thank um everybody for their due diligence and giving us 9 o'clock a.m.

appreciative.

Um, want to make sure that we're on the same page of what transparency means.

If the city of San Diego pays out 30 million and the taxpayers know you paid out a 30 million, why when we go and we scour and read closed session, it says no report, no report.

How can some payments be made public and then some payments are sealed?

We know that San Diego Police Department officers, former, current, are suing the city of San Diego.

We should be able to access the list of lawsuits, the uh payouts that are occurring to the San Diego police officers and the public, all within the same realm of transparency.

That is not occurring.

I pulled up closed session and I saw officer Art Scott and there was nothing there, nothing to report.

So you may still be in litigation, we may still be waiting for someone to sign off, but that does not negate the conversations that should be happening right now.

We have a couple that are divorced, and both of them are San Diego PD, and they're both suing.

We should have a conversation about that again.

As we continue to want to build a bridge of transparency, we want to build a bridge of trust.

Let's have hard conversations.

If you're going to settle, settle, no problem.

Turn around and let's just discuss it so that we can build on how not to do it again, how we are going to take what we settled for and build.

You have still yet to have the conversation about the 30 million.

What is the department doing different?

What has changed?

Those are the conversations that have to happen.

Respect that things are absolutely private, but when it comes to our tax dollars, nothing should be private.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you.

Next is Becky Rapp.

If you can please unmute.

There you go.

Good morning.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I'm here today to ask the city to prioritize public education and prevention regarding the risks associated with today's high potency marijuana products.

The science around marijuana has changed dramatically over the last decade.

An ever-growing body of evidence from researchers, hospitals, public health agencies, and now the federal government can no longer be ignored.

Just recently, the U.S.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration released a national advisory calling for health care providers to screen patients for cannabis use disorder and educate them about the risks associated with cannabis use across the lifespan.

SAMSA specifically highlights concerns related to addiction, mental health impacts, cannabis-induced psychosis, and increasing potency of modern products.

Many San Diegans still believe that marijuana is the same product that existed a generation ago, and it is not.

Today's concentrates, vapes, edibles, and high THC products can contain potency levels that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago.

Yet many consumers are unaware of the potential consequences, especially young people whose brains are still developing.

Consumers deserve honest science-based information so they can make informed decisions.

Parents deserve resources to recognize warning science, and young people deserve to hear the full story, not just the marketing.

An individuals struggling with cannabis use disorder deserve to know that there is help available.

I urge council to support stronger public education efforts, community outreach, and prevention campaigns that communicate the documented and science-based health risks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Judy Strang, if you can please unmute.

Hello, and good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak from my work site.

Nine had us all scrambling this morning, but thank you.

I wanted to share some information on behalf of those who work with children, particularly those that are concerned about their exposure to alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.

The research that comes out from the American Academy of Pediatrics is pretty clear about how they feel about marijuana use during pregnancy.

But now we're hearing warnings about pre-pregnancy, the interruption of the DNA process that produces the sperm and how it can affect the outcome for the baby.

The CDC has followed up with this and pointed out how important it is for us to recognize that epigenetic changes happen with marijuana use pre-conception, then conception as well during the time of babies being carried.

We are concerned that this information is not getting out to our young women and young men.

We also need to be reminded the CDC tells us that high potency THC marijuana crosses the placenta and passes into the breast milk, potentially exposing infants during these critical stages of brain development.

Many of us have young children within our purview of care, as do I, and recognize how critical these early years are, and that our children deserve to come into childhood with as many benefits as they can.

And we question if the promotion, the billboards, the normalization of the sea across the city regarding marijuana use is serving anyone well, certainly profiteers, but not our children.

Thank you for letting me share.

Thank you.

The five-minute time were to conclude during your comments.

There were only two speakers in the queue at that time.

Any additional speakers would not be taken.

Blair Beekman, your next speaker, and our final speaker is Hector.

Hi, thank you.

Blair Beekman, thanks for the meeting today.

An important meeting today.

Um, I had a clarifying question as you know the budget items will be at one o'clock, and you're expecting many people to speak on Clock, I'm assuming the future of Clock.

Um, it states nothing in that item that you know that is specifically meant to speak towards technology.

So it seems like non-agenda public comment.

I should be allowed to speak on the subject if I want to.

Just a clarifying question.

I won't speak, uh, wait for my comments on technology of today's later meeting.

Today at this time, non-agenda public comment.

I wanted to comment that um uh really a thank you in how uh city council has been working in the past uh few months in this budget time to really make clear the point on the on the purpose of uh uh social services and human care and care for our local neighborhoods as first, and then we can address budget deficit issues, budget deficit, and its austerity does not have to take an overarching precedence.

And we're I hope we're really learning that, and that's what we come back to next year in how to address our budget issues.

It's it's addressing our social service needs of our local neighborhoods first, and then we can address the deficit.

I know the deficit is a is a troublesome thing.

It may take a bit longer in years to fully work out, and we're gonna have to be in cutting measured practices for a while, but as long as we keep those social services in place, you know, and bring back library hours.

There are ways to learn how to do that, and we have to do all of that, and to continue the Neal Good Day Center.

So, good luck in those sort of good efforts, and that uh how we can talk about responsible tech use in our future.

And uh good luck to our afternoon meeting today.

What we can be doing.

Um, it takes a community and participation, not government dictates.

That's our future, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker is Hector.

Good morning, guys.

Hey, let's focus the city on building a state-of-the-art sewer plant on the Tijuana River, Lou, and turn it into drinking water and stuff.

Top of the line, we'll get money from tariffs from Mexico.

There's so much angles going everywhere.

Uh different things in the city and the county, and then let's focus on the sewer plant because the kids down there, the poor kids that have to live down there and breathe the air, are worth it.

Whatever color they are, they are worth it.

Mexico does not care about us one bit, they'd be fixing their own sewer plant, and any and that is gay pride month.

We the city should organize a slut walk from the city operations building down to where the sluts are hanging on National Avenue down there to raise money for the sewer plant.

That'd be great.

It would incorporate the gay community because they love sluts, and they could all walk down there and raise money along the way, do all these events to raise money on the sewer plant.

And then when the city really worked, the city of San Diego and the county and the state worked in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, because white men were running the show.

They did it.

So we should have white history month in July and celebrate the white guys that ran the show really well, and it had great accomplishments in the city at that time.

Now we're just down the hill, sliding to nowhere.

We're smelling Mexican shit for decades because the Democratic Party are thieves.

They're stealing the election in LA right now.

The Democrats are thieves, all you guys are.

But organize the slot walk and do your part.

The slut, the the gay guys could be a part of it too.

All genders, all three of them.

That concludes non-agenda public comment for today's meeting.

All right, uh, now an opportunity for non-agenda public comment from the mayor's office, city council members, city clerk, attorney, IBA.

Not seeing any.

All right, we'll move along.

Taking up today's discussion agenda.

Clerk, please introduce item 700.

Item 700 is the fiscal year 2026 third quarter budget monitoring report.

If you'd like to speak on this item, now is the time to submit your speakerships to the front of the room in the clear box.

And if you are participating remotely, please be sure to press star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, the staff settles in.

Um, introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Good morning, Council President McCovin.

Council members, I'm Ben Batalia, Director of Finance, and with me today is Rolando Charvel, Chief Financial Officer, and Amber Gutierrez, financial Operations manager.

We're here today to present the fiscal year 2026 third quarter budget monitoring report, and we'll need about 12 minutes for the presentation.

This is the third budget monitoring report for the fiscal year.

It was developed in coordination with departments based on nine months of financial activity.

It includes a full analysis of projected revenues and expenditures for all general fund departments, as well as a number of non-general funds.

Overall, general fund revenues and expenditures are both projected to be under budget, resulting in a slight net positive position for the general fund.

And both reflecting a variance of less than 1% from budget.

However, there are some sensitivities that are detailed in the report, including timing of expenditures and receipt of revenues that could have an impact on actuals at your end.

The report also includes a number of appropriation requests and requested authorities, which will be discussed in more detail.

I want to thank all city departments for their contributions in developing this report, and we've requested departments to attend today to help assist with any questions you might have.

I'll now turn it over to Amber to walk through the specifics.

Thank you, Ben.

At a high level, general fund revenues are projected to end the fiscal year 10.5 million or 0.5% under budget.

This is comprised of 6.9 million decrease in major general fund revenues and $3.7 million in departmental revenues.

General fund expenditures are projected to end the fiscal year $12.2 million or 0.6% under budget.

This is comprised of $28.7 million in fringe and non-personnel expenditures, partially offset by an overage of $16.5 million in personnel expenditures.

Based on projections included in the third quarter report, the general fund is expected to end the fiscal year with a positive $1.7 million ending that projected activity.

Before elaborating further, we want to pause to summarize the mitigation actions implemented this fiscal year, as well as positive developments that have improved the general fund's fiscal position.

These actions reflect intentional and ongoing strategies to maintain fiscal stability.

This includes the FY2026 budget mitigation actions memorandum issued in November 2025, which is which implemented a request to fill process limiting hiring to the most critical positions, directed suspension of discretionary spending and non-essential overtime, and required contract reviews for potential savings.

The city also advanced organization realignments to improve efficiencies and identified available funding sources to support to support or reimburse eligible costs.

Positive developments include reduced contributions to the public liability fund following receipt of one-time proceeds and improved performance of major general fund revenues since the MIDIA report.

Staff will continue to closely monitor revenues and expenditures through the remainder of the fiscal year.

For departmental revenues, the 3.7 million decrease is primarily due to lower bubble park parking revenue in parks and recreation due to shifts in the program's implementation timeline and adjustments to the fee structure.

Additionally, there are projected decreases in lease and concession, wayfinding kiosk and telecom revenue within economic development, reduced parking meter reimbursement and parking citation revenue in stormwater, a continued decline in cannabis business tax revenue and city treasure, and reduced reimbursements from the TOT fund for homelessness services based on lower expenditure projections.

These decreases are partially offset by increases in environmental services from higher reimbursements for code enforcement, abatements, sidewalk sanitation, and litter container container management, as well as work performed by the code compliance team.

Fire rescue is projecting higher reimbursements for lifeguard, junior lifeguard, and paramedic services, as well as strike team and deployments.

Police revenues are projected to increase due to additional reimbursements for special events and parking enforcement activities.

Transportation is projected to increase revenues due to higher transnet and gas tax support for eligible expenditures, while General Services projects an increase from higher reimbursements for tenant maintenance and repair activities.

As noted earlier, general fund expenditures are projected to end the fiscal year $12.2 million under budget.

This is comprised of $28.7 million in fringe and non-personnel expenditures, partially offset by an overage of $16.5 million in personal expenditures.

For fringe and non-personnel expenditures, the largest savings include $10.6 million in contracts, primarily due to reduced contributions to the public liability fund following the receipt of one-time insurance proceeds and updated claims and non-claims assumptions.

$5.5 million in transfers out, primarily due to reduced transfers to the San Diego Regional Parks and the Mission Bay Improvement Funds due to lower than anticipated mission bay lease revenues received by the economic development department, and $3.3 million in information technology due to lower non-discretionary costs supported by available fund balance and operational efficiencies to generate savings.

Additional savings across remaining categories include reduced water costs in the parks and recreation department due to intentional conservation efforts, deferred capital debt service due to lower than anticipated principal draws, and reduced principal and interest payments related to the fire rescue helicopter purchase.

For personnel expenditures, the 16.5 million overage is comprised of $15.5 million in overtime, primarily within the public safety departments, which account for approximately $74.4% of the total increase.

This includes increases in fire rescue to maintain constant staffing and police to support reimbursable activities such as special events and parking enforcement.

Additional overtime is also anticipated in the transportation and parks and recreation departments to support emergency response and callbacks and to maintain service levels during events and seasonal demands respectively.

Detailed on this slide are the changes that occurred between the mid-year and third quarter reports.

Compared to the mid-year report, revenues are projected to increase by $3 million while expenditures are projected to decrease by $15.4 million, resulting in a net improvement of $18.5 million.

For revenues, the increase is primarily in departmental revenues, and due to efforts to identify and maximize eligible reimbursements from other funds.

The four main major general fund revenues also reflect an increase, including higher franchise fee revenue following the receipt of the annual SDG cleanup payment in February, as well as stronger than anticipated transient occupancies tax and sales tax receipts collected.

These increases are largely offset by a decrease in other major revenues, primarily due to decline in interest earnings due to reduced cash balances.

On the expenditure side, the 15.4 million decrease is primarily due to reduced contributions to the public liability fund following the funds receipt of additional one-time insurance proceeds, as well as lower non-discretionary costs, including water and information technology services.

These decreases are partially offset by increases in personnel costs, primarily public safety in fire rescue to maintain constant staffing, and increased termination pay, primarily in police based on separations to date.

Here we have the general fund balances and reserve estimates based on the third quarter projections.

The projected available fund balance or excess equity is $1.7 million.

The third quarter report does not include any action items or for council consideration regarding the use of this balance, nor is it proposed for use in the May revision to the FY27 draft budget.

This is primarily because while a net positive position is currently projected, projections do remain sensitive to changes and underlying assumptions.

Should projected revenues or savings not materialize and the city end the year with a negative fund balance, the city would need to draw upon the general fund stability reserve to prevent a negative year-end budgetary fund balance.

This brings us to our requested authorities.

The first request is our standard annual request as part of the third quarter process, which allows appropriation transfers between departments to close out the fiscal year in compliance with the city charter and municipal code.

The second request is a contingency authorization to draw upon the stability reserve if needed in an amount not to exceed the level needed to ensure the general fund ends the fiscal year balance, consistent with applicable financial reporting standards and guidance on transparent disclosures of general fund balances and reserves.

Lastly, the following are the recommended appropriation adjustments for the general fund and select non-geners based on identified needs.

As noted, there are savings from the reduced contribution to the public liability fund.

Staff is recommending reallocating non-personnel appropriations among general fund departments to ensure continuity of operations and required obligations for approved economic development compensation agreements, fire rescue contracted helicopter maintenance, and transportation engineering and operational support.

We are also requesting authority to increase appropriations and select non-general funds supported by either increased revenue or available fund balance in those funds to support fire EMS staffing and updated PP GEMT program costs, golf course maintenance operations at Techalodi Canyon golf course, junior lifeguard contractual services, and special events and filming for notice of right to appeal support.

To conclude, the third quarter report projects a net positive position of 1.7 million, an improvement of 18.5 million from the mid-year report.

Mitigation actions and other positive developments have been critical to improving the general fund's position and will remain in effect through fiscal year end.

If actual results differ materially from current projections and resulting year-end deficit, the general fund would need to draw upon the stability reserve to maintain a positive balance.

The report outlined outlined standard year-end budget control authorities, contingency authority to draw upon the stability reserve if necessary, and appropriation adjustments.

The Department of Finance will continue to monitor revenues and expenditures and will provide an update with the release of the year-in financial performance report on October 7th of this year.

That concludes our presentation.

We're available for any questions.

Alright, thank you for the presentation of the good work.

We'll turn it over to the office of the IBA.

Charles?

Great.

Thank you, Council President and Council members.

On June 2nd, we released IBA report 26-17, which is an analysis of the third quarter report.

My comments this morning will be brief because Ben and Amber already covered the numbers well, and by and large, we believe those numbers to be reasonable.

It is worth noting that in comparison to the first quarter and mid-year reports, the third quarter projects an overall better fiscal position for the city, and there are fewer major surprises in it.

However, there are a few items that we believe are worth flagging.

On the revenue side, total general fund revenue is roughly $6.8 million below the adopted budget, but $3 million above where we were at the mid-year.

The four major general fund revenue sources, property tax, sales tax, franchise fees, and TOT all show better year-end projections than they did at the mid-year, although we note that TOT is still projected to end the year below budgeted projections, nearly equal to actual FY25 receipts.

Amber covered additional updates to our major general fund revenues since the release of the third quarter, specifically related to property tax, sales tax, and TOT.

I would just note that the FY27 budget recommendations from my office that we will discuss this afternoon already do take those updates into account.

There are some potential risks for other non-major general fund revenues.

Interest earnings are projected at negative 11.1 million dollars because the general fund has not maintained enough cash on hand to receive interest income.

This is a 16.6 million dollar swing from what was budgeted.

Um parking meter revenue is also coming in about five million dollars below the budget, largely driven by not implemented metered parking on Sundays, as well as usage changes, equipment costs from meter expansion.

Uh finally, we note that cannabis business tax is also slightly underperforming down about two and a half million dollars from the adopted budget.

The one largest risk associated with the projections was covered in DOS presentation, and that's the $7.4 million reimbursement from Cal OES for the January 2024 storms.

This reimbursement has not yet been finalized.

If it is not received by August, it would not count towards FY2026, and that would push our total revenue about 14 million dollars below what it was in the adopted budget.

On the expenditure side, we are projecting about $8.5 million in savings versus the adopted budget.

That is primarily driven by non-personal savings.

Um but we do caution that some of the assumptions associated with savings may be slightly optimistic and that they reflect uh generally past historical savings as opposed to savings associated with any specific action.

We also note that overtime, particularly in fire rescue and transportation continues to run above budget, which has been a persistent issue.

In general, our overall recommendation is to approve the appropriation adjustments that are requested, as well as authorized use of the stability reserve as a precaution, and in the meantime to keep a very close eye on the Cal OES reimbursement between now and actual year end.

We will continue to monitor and we will update this council as necessary as well.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Charles.

Always helpful.

Uh with that, clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

I would like to know for the record that this item receives your comments and favors, one comment in opposition via our e-comment form, which have been distributed to the council.

We have Joy Signata and Max Schmidt here to speak on this item.

Joy, if you can please come up to the podium, you'll be our first speaker, and you'll have a minute and a half.

Okay.

Uh a positive position for the general fund.

That's music to my ears.

Yet targets are going up and down, so there's still a lot of uncertainty.

And it's just so hard for uh us to really deal with that, but we're doing good.

So uh I didn't hear even one sentence.

I didn't even hear anything about the structural budget deficit.

So uh maybe it wasn't appropriate to include in this third uh third quarter report.

At the same time, it's there, and we've got to got to got to listen to it.

So uh IBA Charles Monica, good morning.

In your report, you talked about the reserves as they relate to the structural budget deficit, and I think you said that we're gonna have some information on that this afternoon.

I hope so, because I don't understand it, but apparently it's very, very critical to our structural budget deficit.

So uh I won't have time to do what I else I wanted to do, but Department of Finance, you're doing great job.

You said this wonderful statement uh a month or two ago about the structural devastation.

Thank you for that concluding comment, Max Schmidt.

Just come up to the microphone.

You'll have a minute and a half.

This is just an opportunity for you to make your comments.

Okay, um, I believe the total revenue for the third quarter budget was in the um hundreds of millions.

If I'm correct, is that correct?

Or like some indicator.

Anyway, um property tax, sales tax, and cannabis tax is theft.

These I do not trust the integrity of city council to be taking my money for property sales tax and cannabis tax when they don't care about the people.

If they cared about the people, they wouldn't be torturing me neurolinguistically and then mumbling, we're gonna 5150 you if you talk about it uh during your public agenda comment time.

So these people are communist.

These people's only goal is to create a one world government if they can do that by having more illegal immigrants, if they can do that by making more poor people homeless and then killing them off when they're homeless with mind control and depopulating the um country of patriots.

Like they're trying to depopulate me for being a patriot.

Whatever, whatever they can do.

These people do not care about human rights.

If they cared about people and the people of San Diego and human rights, why would they be neurolinguistically torturing me and then saying we're gonna 5150 you threatening me?

It's absolutely disgusting.

I just wanted to say down with the occult.

Down with Freemasonry.

I'm not crazy, and you know you're all guilty.

And how dare you treat me like this in a city council meeting?

How dare you?

I saw the five-minute timer going to those participating remotely, starting with Hector.

If you can please unmute whatever uh mental health system we have, that's that's how it's looking now.

So the mental mental health system is just as probably more crazy than the people that are really suffering from mental health, you know.

And uh, there's a difference between schizophrenia and organic brain disease.

Where organic brain disease, you do drugs and it fries your brain because you did it.

There are people that just have schizophrenia out of nowhere, you know, kind of thing, it just happens.

So, anyway, um, let's focus on uh when you do the financial stuff, make it simple.

Like yesterday we took out a loan to pay our short-term bills, and it what really wasn't explained.

Like it's gonna cost us, we're taking out 13 million 130 million, whatever it was.

How much is it gonna cost us over a year?

Just plain and simple.

It's like borrowing money from your dad.

I'm gonna borrow 50,000, it's gonna cost, I'm gonna pay him back 60,000 over a year.

If I don't pay him back, what happens?

You know, that's the cities keep it more just a clear interpretation of what's going on financially.

But uh anyway, good luck.

Okay.

Thank you, Nexus Blair Beekman.

If you can please unmute after that is Leonard.

All right, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Yeah, I think uh the best way to address um schizophrenia uh is through direct conversation and dialogue.

Uh people fall through the cracks.

It's through honesty and direct, you know, caring dialogue that I think really heals a lot of issues with our government too.

I think we're all trying to work harder to build a better government community and bureaucracy.

We do have bad patterns, and we want to address them.

Good luck that we all are trying to address our bad patterns, man, and and improve upon them.

And um that's working together.

And uh I hope we are finding answers.

With this item, you know, to offer, try to offer some just uh healing advice that um uh uh Charles Monica has stated continuously.

If we don't have revenue sources, we're gonna be in trouble.

Uh I've learned, you know, that you know, all the cities I've been talking about, Oakland, San Francisco, LA, they all have significant revenue sources, so they can uh stave off the deficit uh concerns they have over a longer period of time.

We don't have that in San Diego.

It sounds like this item, you guys are living, you know, just like by the you know, skinnier teeth to get through it.

Um so thank you for the efforts you're doing.

Um you know, I'm really disappointed that you know we can't.

I really hope we can have conversations about revenue, and that people really understand that we can't just cut services in order to create our future government.

Thank you.

Thank you, Leonard.

If you can please unmute.

Hi, yes, can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

All right, um, I've had I've worked for the city of San Diego for 25 years.

Nine years with firm environmental services, the cost of service report is deeply flawed.

The councilwoman Wilper is on point with the trash cans.

ESD could have purchased a two dollar RFID and retrofitted 200,000 green, blue, and black bins uh to save money.

The amount of new black and blue and green green cans were ground and recycled and it was a waste of money.

The ESD has committed the sin of oversaturating trash bins by selling them for $75 when they actually cost $45, who made the $30 on 300,000 bins.

I witnessed court proceedings and attorneys for the city of San Diego.

They were very incompetent witnesses.

Judge Oliver, for hearing the case, kudos.

As for the city attorney's expert witness, was a waste of taxpayers' money.

Bringing the people from Fresno that aren't in San Diego was a disaster.

HDR Healton and H F and H John Carlton consultants for the cost of service study, robbed and raped the city for seven million dollars.

You want to make money back, charge or make money off the recycling.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

That concludes public comment on this item.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

And with that, we'll turn it over to my council colleagues for any questions, comments, and entertain a motion.

And we'll start with the chair of the budget committee.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes, thank you, Council President, and thank you to uh Rolando, you and your team, and also to the IBA.

Um I think there is positive um news that potentially we can have a 1.7 million dollar um uh some excess equity.

Um can you just kind of fill in some more of the blanks on the Cal um OES and what that I guess what the issues are, delays, have we met our requirements, provided all the information they have, what they need.

We crossed our Ts, dotted our I's can you kind of shed some light and elaborate on that process and why it's so difficult to get the reimbursement?

Absolutely.

Thanks for the question, Councilmember.

Um my department as well as our OES uh department has been meeting with Cal OES over the last six months.

Uh we first met with them in December to get a status update on um how their review is coming along.

It's coming along very, very slowly.

As you can imagine, Cal OES has many, many um you know jurisdictions that they're they're working uh uh on right now.

Um at that time, the estimate uh for the current fiscal year was about a seven point four million, is what the city uh would receive related to the January 2024 storms.

Um we recently met with them over the last month or so.

They're still working through that now.

Um to date the city's received about thirty or forty thousand of that seven point four million.

We're hopeful that um uh a majority of that will come in this year.

However, it may be that that full 7.4 will not come in this fiscal year.

We do have until August of this year to be able to crew anything that comes in to FY26.

If it doesn't uh if it doesn't come in by August, uh the revenue will then be booked to 2027.

But we are working very closely with Cal OES, getting regular status updates from them, and our own OES staff are work for meeting with them weekly to get updates.

Um the city has provided all the information to Cal OES that they have requested today.

Okay, thank you.

Um for that uh and just so I'm clear, Charles, you kind of in in just casual conversation kind of said seven million to 10 million.

Is is the number is it the hard number 7.4 million, or is there things that are kind of being discussed, and that's a conservative estimate of what we're receiving?

7.4 is the current estimate.

Um I think the 10 million or so is what was submitted, and we get a percentage of that.

I think it's 70 or 80 percent of that total amount, if approved.

Okay, and and how does that make us uh I guess that's 7.4 million in regards to making us whole on what would were eligible reimbursements?

I guess you're comfortable we covered what we needed to cover or and included what we could include.

Yeah, if if everything was approved that we submitted, that's about a 70% um support from them.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Um, you know, every dollar counts, everything is important at this point.

So please keep all of us um updated.

Um I guess it's also good to see that we had the modest improvements with the property tax sales tax franchise fee.

Um, I think um, you know, at the same time, you know, with the I guess small margins when it comes to operations, um, I think as Ms.

Joy indicated, this deficit is still glaring at us, glaring at us every time we have a budget um conversation.

Um I think it's important that we continue to focus on that long-term or long-term solutions.

Um I think it's going to continue to have to take robust conversations by this body as we continue to move forward.

Um, even as we look at um, you know, we'll have further budget deliberations later this afternoon, but um, even with the um you know, recent settlements um is as we move forward as we talk about um certainty versus uncertainty, right?

We're adding you know, every decision we make has an implicit implication, and that um decision we just made does um some things we do have to consider as we look at that the long-term um structural deficit.

So um thank you for the work on this.

I will uh conclude my comments there and move staff's recommendation.

All right, thank you, sir.

We have a motion by council member foster to move the staff recommendation.

We'll go next to council member Moreno.

Thank you for the presentation and also thank you to the part to the Department of Finance uh for all your work.

Uh this quarter report I think does a good job of presenting the state of the current uh year's budget, which is challenging uh as you must utilize the most recent revenue data and project through the end of the year.

Um I do want to put on record that utilizing uh the stability uh reserves is something uh that should be the absolute last resort.

Um I know that the Department of Finance certainly recognizes this, and um could the Department of Finance outline the process the city would follow to access reserve funds if necessary.

Absolutely.

Um so if this council were to uh grant the approval to uh utilize the stability reserve if needed, as we're closing out the fiscal year, fiscal year 2026.

If we identify that um we have a deficit, and we'll know in the August-September time frame as we're closing the books.

Um we will then utilize um the reserves in order to close balanced for the city charter, the city has to close a general fund balance.

Got you.

So this the action today allows you to utilize the reserve fund, so you would not come back to this council.

That's correct.

Okay.

However, what we would do is we would come if we were to have to use the reserves, we would come back to council as part of the year-end performance report uh to notify you and to communicate uh whether we you know did use the reserves, and if so, how much?

Got you.

So it would be an informational item that would come to the council before utilizing the funds.

Uh it would be after.

After utilizing the funds, we would notify the council how much was needed if needed.

Got you.

So if the city does need a dip into the reserves, is the intent to provide the council with the plan to refund the uh stability reserve in the mid-year budget report?

Absolutely.

Yes, that will be part of the plan.

Um that is also part of uh the reserve policy as well.

If I could add to that council member, so let's there is a possibility, for example, as Charles was explaining and Ben, if the revenue from Cal ES, for example, is collected in October or November, that money would be in excess of what we've already budgeted in FY27.

So those funds, even though maybe would not be recognized in FY26, we would have the ability to use that late Cal OES reimbursement to replenish the reserves if we ended up having to use them uh because of you know things that are out of our control.

I have more questions on that.

But I do want to close up my my state.

Thank you for that though.

I appreciate that.

I appreciate your um explanation.

Um I am very hesitant to utilize the reserves.

Uh we didn't even do that during the pandemic, which was a sudden and unpredictable event, and that was before the CARES Act funding was available to the city of San Diego.

So I just want to point out I want to put on the record that I'm I would like to avoid that at all cost.

Uh regarding the $7.4 million OES funds.

Um will the funds go back to the general fund or will it get dispersed to each department that utilize the funds during the floods?

Uh it would be deposited into the general fund for general fund use.

Um 7.4 million is general fund.

There also is some additional funding for environmental services too.

It's about two million dollars.

So that would go into the enterprise fund.

For okay, environmental services was the only one that had an enterprise fund.

That's right.

That okay, and do you know that amount?

It's about two million.

Two million.

So we're looking at about five million uh roughly, considering that we get the seven million buck.

That's from OES.

It's on top of the 7.2.

Oh, that's on top of the 7.2.

7.4 is the general fund amount.

Gotcha.

Is there any other funds that we don't know about?

No, that's it.

Okay, you just mentioned um environmental services 2 million, which I didn't see in the documents, but that doesn't mean that it's not there.

Um, I would welcome this council and and the mayor to um utilize the fund for flood prevention.

Uh the beta, I don't know what we're calling the CIP now, the beta street channel in the back, is about last number was about eighty-five million dollars.

Uh, considering what Chief Logan expressed um regarding uh El Niño, um I think it's prudent for this council and this administration to put the money uh back into um preventing future funds.

Um, as um we're all grappling through the lawsuits that the city of San Diego has based on the 2024 floods.

I think it would be prudent for us to allocate uh the remaining um funds to that capital improvement project, and I believe it's beta street channel.

So I don't know the for the record, but um I am looking forward to seeing the updated information.

I think it's next month when we're gonna discuss um this issue again after the IBA has also provided their analysis, and I look forward uh to OES um reimbursing us, but thank you for that.

Thank you.

I'm sensing a decline to second the motion or did you I hate using reserve funds, but uh that's okay.

I'm I'm cool with that.

You don't have to.

I'm I'm okay with seconding the motion, thank you.

Okay, with that, we will so we have a motion by council member foster, a second by council member Moreno to move the staff recommendation.

We'll go next to Council Member Bon Wolpert.

Thank you very much, and thank you for the work um in the third quarter monitoring report.

Thank you to the IBA as well for your analysis.

Um I have good news that we're not projected to end in the deficit we thought we would be.

So that's great, you know, provided we have to get Cal OES to provide their funding, all of that.

I hope they do.

But I do have some questions in terms of you know TOT coming under revenue, and I sit on the airport authority as well, and we watched as Canadian Airline after Canadian Airline not only canceled their summer flights to San Diego, they actually took themselves out of the San Diego market.

They just stopped, they closed all their gates because of what the chaos in Washington DC is causing.

And we saw that coming.

Um our president was horrible to the Canadian government, and so they stopped coming here.

And so now we're seeing a result in the decline in international travel.

Um they're flying over us and going to Mexico, is what we've been told at the airport authority, which we can't control, of course.

Um, but were we able to offset any of that with the measure C appropriations we're now able to get, or is it still we're at a deficit because of travel?

We've seen over the last three months TOT has made a rebound, which was which is really good news.

So comparing FY26 year end projections to FY25 actual projections, it they're about the same.

So we're not seeing that the large decrease that we had assumed in uh the mid-year.

So we're hoping that this rebound continues.

Uh we have uh increased TOT uh revenue projections for next fiscal year, and we hope that that trend continues.

Okay, is that because we're charging a higher proportion because measure C or because we're actually seeing more travel?

Uh we are seeing more being spent, yeah.

Okay.

Um and then I have another question about uh police and fire overtime.

It seems that our police department for the first time is actually doing well on budgeting its overtime.

Um our fire department, unfortunately, I mean they have obviously different incidences, such as the fire in um Sereno Valley yesterday, which you cannot control how long and how lengthy the fire will be.

Um but I do want to keep monitoring how many recruitments we do, how many academies we do?

Because if we are able to fully staff the fire department, then they won't have to do as much overtime.

So I want to continue to watch that, but kudos to the police for actually reducing their overtime budget this year.

Um other questions about transportation, and I know that we needed more overtime based on the potholes, the rainy seasons, the floods.

How are we looking there?

Do we need obviously Bethany also is always telling us that we need more transportation funds, but do we need to make any more expenditures?

How are you doing?

What can we do to help with our streets and roads and sidewalks?

Good morning, Councilmember von Wilbert and Naomi Chavez Interim Director for Transportation.

As we continue to communicate to this council, our transportation's ongoing budget is uh significantly underfunded for the needs of the department.

Uh, we continue to need approximately six million dollars in overtime just to deliver the baseline level of service and the demands that come to the department.

Um so indeed with with this uh report we do need the appropriation and the allocation to be able to to close our our budget for the year.

And is that budget is that planned for in that is that appropriation that's done here?

Not for the current fiscal year.

Um I think uh Naomi is talking about for next fiscal year, they would need an additional six million of overtime to maintain or or increase their service levels to a certain standard.

For FY27?

Correct.

Uh historically our department burns approximately six million dollars in in revenue.

So this fiscal year, FY26, our baseline was approximately two million.

Our department came to council twice in September and in October to identify a couple of uh mitigation uh opportunities to free up some general fund dollars so that our teams would be able to deliver uh emergency services on overtime.

So we were here for uh the transfer of the in-house sidewax CIP for one point million dollars in September and uh came back in October for the 1.8 million CPD um allocation to the transportation department.

Okay, I remember those, and that's just how you've cobbled together the overtime you have, and next year we haven't identified how we're gonna do this.

Correct.

Next year we currently have I believe uh five million, a little over five million in the budget, which is which helps, but it's still not enough for for what we historically need.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And then I wanted to follow up on the questions about the reserve policy.

I know that every year we vote on the third quarter monitoring budget report and we grant authority to use the reserves.

I'm glad that last year we did not have to, but I is the authority unlimited, you know.

What if could you use all the reserves?

You know, what what are we granting here exactly?

Can we take that?

Uh it would be limited to the amount that we would need.

So for example, right now we're projecting 1.7 over budget, so then we would not need it if everything turns out the way the projections are holding.

If for whatever reason, for example, that Cal OES money does not come in, then that 1.7 would become closer to maybe negative 4 million.

So that we would need we basically we would be forced to tap into fund balance in the general fund in order to be able to mitigate that 4 million, which means really the only source would be reserves.

So it would be limited to uh, I mean, at this point now we're we're in June.

Uh so unless something catastrophic happens, it would be really a very small amount that we would be tapping into.

Um, and then from there the discussion would be how do we replenish it.

Okay.

But we haven't contributed to the reserves in the past few fiscal years because of our budget woes.

So that's why I'm getting more and more uncomfortable with the idea of ever even using reserves.

Um, and I'd prefer that this actually came back to council to talk about it if we did have to use the reserves, and so that's what I'm feeling.

You said you wouldn't know until around August or September.

We're dark in August, but in September, we're here.

So we could vote for that.

The next time we come back to council will be for um the year-end uh financial performance report, and that's in October, after essentially we've closed the books for the year.

We'll have uh as part of that report, we will communicate to the council and the public um essentially how we close the year, either positive or negative.

If negative, um that amount would be uh needed to be drawn for the reserves.

Okay, thank you.

I I feel at this point, I'd we'll be more comfortable if you if we came back and had a discussion about reserves, because there's a whole discussion we might have about our reserve policies and what that looks like.

So I'll just listen to the rest of my colleagues and hear what they have to say.

But thank you for all the work on this.

I appreciate it.

Councilmember, I will just note I think it's an important discussion, but it might also be somewhat academic as opposed to whether or not you authorize the use of reserves today or in August.

In as much as if we get to August and FY26 has a negative fund balance, we do not have any other way to close out our books without tapping into reserves.

So if you don't take action today and we end up needing to use reserves in August, you're gonna have an item presented to you where you really don't have any realistic choices but to approve what staff puts before you.

So we'll just say bear that in mind.

All right, thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you, Charles.

Uh, go next to Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, thank you for the presentation, and as always, uh it's amazing to see how how tightly we're we're trying to sort of stay in line with the projections and we're landing, and at least we're more on the positive side, all dependent on this Cal OES uh reimbursement.

Um, so maybe to follow up on some of the questions my colleagues have asked on this front.

I think last year in this third quarter budget monitoring report, there was an actual request for a specific amount, an up to amount to be drawn from the stability reserves as an anticipation if it was necessary to do so.

Last year it was roughly 10 million dollars.

Um, and ultimately we did not need it.

By the year end, you were able to show that we were able to mitigate that.

Is there is there not an ability to appropriate a specific amount here if if that would help to add to some comfort?

Potentially you could.

Um, let's say you were to approve up to a ten million dollar amount again, but we end up when we close the books.

If for some reason that amount is higher than 10 million, um, we would not have your your approval or your authority to go beyond that.

But as Charles mentioned, we have to be able to close the books at the end of the year balanced.

So I understand that.

I guess I'm just trying to understand last year how you decided to pick a number.

I think the number was really just based on the projection at the time.

Um we were, you know, luckily we're able to close the books um with uh right right on budget.

We did not have uh a deficit, so but council member if that's something you would want to entertain and just establish a limit, that's something we would be comfortable with as well.

Yeah, so I I think if I mean that was something that we had in practice last year, and I wonder if that would help with some comfort here, so that it's not just uh an unknown number.

Um, so I would propose that we uh amend this to uh limit pulling up to 10 million dollars in reserves similar to last year, that should cover if for some reason the Cal ES payment did not come in and any other issues that could arise in the next two and a half weeks, um, that that should help cover that.

So that would be one piece that I would throw out there.

The second is that um because this is contingent on a lot of this is really a discussion around the Cal OS reimbursement I would like to add an additional amendment that we direct that uh the Department of Finance would um fully reimburse the reserves utilizing the Cal OES reimbursement up to the amount of reserve funds that are utilized.

So I just want to be very clear that we don't find ourselves in a situation where those funds don't come in we pull from the reserves and then we start next year with a 7.4 million dollar uh increase in revenues and and that gets spent in some way I think this council because of the discussion we're having we'd like to ensure that that Cali OS reimbursement fully reimburses um any reserve funds stability reserve funds that are utilized in this case.

I'd be happy and supportive of that I think that's a great idea.

And I don't the 10 million I number I just sort of threw out there so Charles I'm gonna look to you if if that could be less it's fine too just want to be I mean you can cap that at whatever amount you want maybe to have it be more in concordance with the Cal OES grant maybe up to 7.6 million because if you draw more than that and the Cal OES grant comes in in October you can't fully reimburse the use of reserves with just that so okay so let's let's change that so this this will be an amendment that we authorize up to 7.6 million dollars to be pulled from reserves with the stipulation that once that Cal OS reimbursement comes back that would be used to replenish any uh amount of the reserves that are utilized I didn't write that up so it is the maker of the motion okay with that I am in just as I made my motion in the conversation that we had I thought it was totally dependent on the Cal OES the 7.4 that would essentially make us whole so I am totally in line with making that um part of the motion for clarity purposes and direction.

Okay and the second third of the motion yes I'm okay with that thank you all right uh so I know the city clerk's office will and the city attorney will scramble but just if I may I think I heard 7.6 where the number is 7.4 so I think the numbers should be 7.4 7.4 is the estimate okay 7.47 yes 7.4 so the city clerk and city attorney will craft that language and circulate it to the maker of the motion um and make sure that we got that correct um that concludes your comments sir it does thank you uh we'll go next to council member Ilo Rivera thank you council president um appreciate the presentation here and um the um work you did Charles and the work of my colleagues here um Charles as you were running through some of the variances actually before I I do that uh a question over transportation to what extent is the are the overages that we're seeing related to what was budgeted for because I'm seeing some correlation and and and I could be mistaken here and Charles feel free to jump in if I'm missing something as well between where we're underperforming or revenues coming in below where expected and where we're above budget and I'm trying to understand Naomi I think you kind of have an impossible job because the expectations have not changed but the the revenue that's come in has when do you throttle back when the revenue starts to to slide from where it was anticipated to be or projected to be in the approved budget.

Part of that is an operations question, then part of it is like a math question for Charles about making sure that I'm I'm not misreading where we're falling short there.

If I one just want to make sure I'm clear on the question.

Maybe this will help an only as well.

I assume that you're referring to less revenue coming in from parking meter operations to reimburse transportation for their work.

Yeah okay I so I'll let you handle the first question on that of how do you respond to what that happens, and then I'll jump in.

So operationally we ensure that the overtime is for essential services.

Of course, emergencies, callbacks, we had back-to-back storms, so we had to prioritize that debris clearing, street light, traffic signal, resets, knockovers, anything that's that's caused by by extreme weather or or storms in in this case this fiscal year.

Um we also make sure that we are prioritizing overtime for our paving projects.

So anything that's already funded that's gonna deliver the paving mileage that's budgeted for the fiscal year, and uh just being very uh just ensuring that it's the the either funded or something that is critical, something that's emergency and um or has a funding source attached to it.

Right, I guess that's where I'm trying to understand.

Naomi, I think there's a funding source attached, but we're we're we've got a gap that's accumulating across over the course of yeah, and this is where I'm kind of looking for some help here, Charles, because I'm what I'm hearing is that you've been tasked with a list of things to do, and we've allocated a certain amount of money for that.

You your list doesn't change even if the amount of money changes, and I'm trying to understand where in the fiscal year you get the direction hey the money is not what we thought it was going to be, so we need to change the list of things that need to be done.

Otherwise, we're gonna end up over budget.

So again, like kind of the there's like the understanding of the budget piece, which I'm looking at Charles for, and then understanding how you're being directed on the operation side.

I think there's a few things here on one on the operational side.

I mean, each department has analysts that goes over their budgets on a kind of day-to-day basis to see what's coming in, how much they actually have, what their expenditures are uh using that, and in consultation with the department of finance, presumably with the administration as well.

Um, if dollars are not coming in to the point they need to support activities, or if cost of activities are coming in higher than what was anticipated, there needs to be discussion on what can actually be done.

And then you get to the point where if the dollars are not there, uh you will have to see some amount of services that we asked departments to reform be cut back.

Um there is a process provided in our budgetary principles, which are agreed on each year, um, for when there are times that a department or the administration needs to pull back on services that are assumed to be delivered in the proposed or in the adopted budget, that there's notification sent to this council, and then that the budget and government efficiency take up a discussion of that item uh at its next available um committee meeting.

Um I believe that specifically to transportation, um they did send a memo like maybe last week um talking about the overtime use and other items that would be scaled back from that.

Maybe it's unfortunately timed uh in that we are very close to the end of the fiscal year, so there's not really much that an additional discussion can uh potentially change on that at this point, but um that is the process that we've got laid out and that was agreed to by both this council and the administration.

So I I guess kind of pivot, thank you, Charles.

Turning back to you, Naomi, and and anyone from the operation side of things, I think again you've been given a list, a to-do list, we've given you amount of at the beginning of the fiscal year, allocated you a certain amount of resources to do that with.

And this is I just I want to make sure that I'm clear on this.

There's a we're all on the hook for this because what I what I'm what I'm hearing is at least part of this is after we kind of gave you the fuel you were supposed to need to get to your destination, then we started siphoning fuel out of that tank, and your destination didn't change.

And so uh the the communication between operations and and the council isn't really important here because as decisions are being made to pull back on decisions uh that are related to revenue, we need to understand the operational impacts of that real time.

And again, that's that's not a youth thing, Naomi.

To a certain extent, I guess it is, but there's just a reality here that we're we're like continuing to defund activities that we've told you all that you want that we want done that everyone wants done, that the city wants done, the residents want done.

So what is a better way to communicate in real time, and whether it's Naomi or Rolando or whoever wants to jump in here about what the operational impacts would be of the decisions that the council is making when it relates to increasing or decreasing the revenue flow in after the budget's been approved.

I can take a first down, I know if Bethany wants to chime in as well.

I think it's comes back to just this philosophical discussion about both mayor and council are responsible for the budget, right?

So they it is none neither council nor mayor can unilaterally impact what is contemplated in the budget.

What could happen though, it is dynamic.

Uh you could have a January or a season where it's you know, this you know there's a much rainier season and there's a lot of potholes, and well, there could be an emergency.

So there are things that could happen during the year.

Right, I'm a little less concerned about the sorry the about the variables because I think that's understood, right?

2024 huge flood, and we've got we have to deal with the emergency.

But what I'm hearing Naomi said is something a little bit different, which is we were told to do this work.

We're working off our project list, and we're like, that's the job.

So head down, do the job.

And then I'm also hearing that revenues are coming in below projections, some of that related to policy decisions of the council, and when does the sinking up happen in that instance?

Because emergencies have to be dealt with.

We all have to pivot and make adjustments on the fly.

That's different than us decreasing revenue and keeping the workload the same, because the obvious result of that is going to be being a over budget.

If I may share an example, hopefully this answers your question.

For example, street lights, we're not resourced to do it.

We've we've communicated time over time that overtime is the only mechanism we have to be able to turn streetlights back on.

We don't do that throughout the year unless it's in CBDs because we receive that allocation, or it's an emergency, it's a knockover either from you know a driver or a storm.

So we would address the emergency, but that asset does not get touched because we don't have the budget for it.

So Bethany, to you.

So Bethany Bizak, chief performance and logistics officer.

So what I would add in terms of the mechanics about how this will function.

So transportation in the FY27 budget has a certain amount of overtime associated.

What transportation has done is they've looked at the year-over-year overages and which teams are incurring those costs.

So what we've done is we've established essentially allocations.

You all don't see that breakdown, but at the department level, the operations level, we're seeing a certain amount of overtime has been allocated.

Then what we are doing is we're creating individual funding centers for let's say the street light team, the traffic safety team, the pothole team, et cetera, based on what our typical spend has been.

Then what we do during quarter one, mid-year, third quarter, is see what individually those teams look like they're tracking at, and then I believe that's the mechanism where the operations then would follow into whether or not policy decisions and or revenue are trending accordingly to match the operations.

So I think that that's the best mechanism to essentially true up those things and to communicate.

But Rolando and I are happy to work with you if there's a better mechanism to demonstrate that.

I think we're just that when there are significant divergences in the expenditures or the revenues.

One, we hope that we can see that in the quarterly budget monitoring reports like we're talking about right now, and that bullshit's communicated clearly in those reports, as well as frankly, my office's analysis of those reports, um, when there's something that comes up between them, or there's gonna be real change to what operations can be provided.

That's something that should be communicated to this council through some kind of mechanism, be it a memo, be it uh presentation, whatever.

Uh, and then the final item I would note is you noted that some of the declines in revenue from what was in the adopted budget to where we are now are the result of some of the policy decisions that the council made after adoption of the budget.

I will be frank, the potential impacts of this council choosing to take actions that generate less revenue, uh those operational impacts should be presented to you at the time those items are brought before you.

Um and if they have not been by they should be.

Yeah, I think that in the future, I think that's an important part of the conversation, both for understanding the impacts, and for making it less likely that we end up in a situation where we end up uh over budget, um, because detaching the conversation about pulling back from the operational impacts, it's a tiny portion of the story.

And um, so I appreciate this is super helpful for me.

I I I think that something this year, one obviously we turned multiple switches last year on revenue.

There's less of that in this in this budget.

And moving forward, I think kind of all of us need to that that more holistic conversation needs to happen when we're discussing decisions related to increasing or decreasing revenue.

Um and then the the communication piece from the operation side.

I mean, quite literally, like this is what my list I I have this many projects to do, and I'm going to have to chop off the bottom 25% if you do this.

Like that's the sort of stuff that we need to wrestle with, because that's the reality of the decisions are being that are being made.

So anyway, just in in the presentation as I was listening, that was that particular piece, the transportation piece stood out to me.

Um, and I wanted to make sure that I wasn't conflating correlation with causation too much.

Um I I know that it's not quite as simple as that, but there also does seem to be um some causation um on the council side uh on this particular issue.

Anyway, thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, sir.

Uh, and uh for Council President Pro Tam Lee and Council Member Foster and Council Moreno, we have uh the new language up there.

So kind of make sure that you're that reflects what you all intended to, but we'll go to council member Bon Wolpert in the meantime.

Thank you.

Um for me, this amendment helps me in terms of cabining the future discretion we're granting, so I'm happy to support it.

But two, um, uh council, I think also part of this is the function of our committee system.

Bethany Naomi, you've come to the Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee over and over to brief us on how much we're our transportation department is suffering due to lack of revenue.

So part of it is just we're on different committees.

You have been the most transparent department I think we've had in terms of my office's experience of telling us exactly what's gonna happen, how many fewer potholes, how many more fewer miles, and I just appreciate that very much because it's been you know sending off alarm, but we don't have the revenue, of course.

But I just want to say for the our committee, you've done a very good job being open and transparent, and so maybe when we do the larger at full council, we can highlight that more for everybody because it's one of the most common complaints we get is roads and sidewalks.

And you know, we do the CIP monitoring report, but there's so much in it.

Maybe we can do a better job for that my rest of the colleagues to see that particular portion, because you guys have been sounding the alarm bell.

So I appreciate it.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Von Wolpert.

Uh Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, so we're waiting on the Cal OES.

I think I heard you mention that while excess equity is 1.7 to the positive right now.

You're seeing less in property tax revenue coming in since the third uh quarter butter.

I guess my question is if that trend continues, and you know, we end up with a, I mean, I don't know, negative excess equity, that's probably not a term, but uh and we need to use reserves to cover that.

Can you come back and get that from us if we're capping the 7.4 right here?

Yeah, I think on the property tax side, um, the the major shift there was related to RPTTF, uh, not the one percent.

Um we did get our our final uh RPTF um amount yesterday and it was down to 2.2 million about 200,000 difference.

It was slight it's slightly down.

So the the change to our third quarter projections is down about two or three hundred thousand dollars.

Okay, based on what we got yesterday.

Okay, so you don't anticipate the deed to go into reserves beyond the not for property tax.

Well, but I mean at all.

I just want to make sure that there's a mechanism if for whatever reason there's a need to dip into reserves beyond the 7.4 million from the Cal OES.

So we have a better mechanism to actually do that.

That's a great question.

So if council approves uh the action uh before you now, uh that's up to 7.4 million.

If for some reason we do end the fiscal year um with a deficit that's higher than 7.4 million, we will need to dip into the reserves in order to close that.

Uh we would um be bringing that information back to council as part of the year-end financial performance report.

Okay, so you'd be able to get that done if necessary.

Okay, thank you.

Sweater to make sure we had that back, and it's a good place.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Whitburn.

Um, I don't didn't see any objection to the language, so that it does reflect what the motion is.

Um I'll offer a couple of thoughts.

Um thank you for the good work that you bring forward.

Um, I'll put on the record that in my final budget memo I did suggest the 1.7 as kind of a mitigation.

That was wrong.

I do not support using the 1.7 uh identified in the third quarter for the budget conversation this uh this afternoon.

Um, and I appreciate how uh finance and the IBA has communicated that to folks.

Um I also want to make a reminder to folks we change the summer recess.

So we do come back August 24th.

Uh so there is a little bit of an opportunity as you begin.

And I think you know, to the I really appreciate the the conver out loud conversation by my colleagues.

I don't we shouldn't be under the illusion that what we're going to adopt at what we adopted in June or what we're going to adopt this afternoon fully funds the departments and the workload they have.

So right off the bat there is a disconnect between what the departments are hoping to do and the funds they actually get allocated, and that's what we're having to live with during eras of where we don't have the revenue to match the workload going forward.

So um, and I also, as you've often reminded us, the lag um, you know, would be great to get real-time information on this.

It doesn't come in real time.

There's a lag between when do you find out about property tax or sales tax or TOT.

Um, you know, we didn't get a third quarter report on April 1st when the first quarter or the third quarter ended the day before.

It takes a while for it to figure out.

So that's the balance.

That's a challenge we have in how you communicate with us, and it really strikes me the public is not here listening to this because we say all sorts of kinds of things in adopting the budget.

This is where the rubber meets the road.

How are we actually performing on what we talked about in June?

And at the risk of irritating everybody.

The one thing that's not being talked about out loud is that there actually is a mitigation for the OES, and that is to cut 7.4 million out of the FY27 budget this afternoon.

I don't think anybody wants to talk about that, but that would be the way to stop the talk about the reserve is to cut that money out.

And I'm looking at you and I'm not looking at them because I can imagine the looks on their faces going forward on that.

Um do want to make sure that there is an opportunity to the answer that you gave the council member Whitburn, that there is an opportunity to come much earlier to council when you the numbers start to really be manifest and really you start to get a handle, you'll know whether the OES money came in, so there is an opportunity to come back to council and get further authorization if that is what is necessary.

So, because things could happen in the fourth quarter.

We don't have the fourth quarter numbers yet, right?

You have probably a little bit sense because you guys are pretty smart.

Uh, but that's the challenge we have going forward.

So I think everybody on the operation side, the Department of Finance side and the council is doing the best with the challenges we have in front of us and trying to do that delicate balance because we do have so many needs that our constituents, whether it's libraries and parks, whether it's stormwater, whether it's everything else in between, and we're trying to figure out a way to do the best we can with those resources, still meet a balanced budget at the end of the day.

So I think that's part of the challenge.

I really want to emphasize what you produced on slide four, which was the mitigation measures that were taken in the operational changes.

I think to some of my colleagues' questions about when you begin to realize there's some problems and what actions are you taking to try to minimize the financial impact of those and begin to send a clear message.

Um I know for me I got the transportation memo.

I wasn't happy with it.

I asked for an explanation.

I'm not happy with that, but I understood that and support of why that memo had to come out, why those actions need to be taken, but that's the hard conversations that we all have.

I think we all understand we all own it.

So I'm a little bit nervous about putting the 7.4, but I understand I'll be supportive of it today or uh for this vote.

Um, but thank you for the good work and navigating all the challenges we have.

Uh and we'll go to Councilmember Foster.

Uh yes, I just wanted to add an additional comment.

Um, as we're talking about the excess equity in the 1.7.

Um, I think if I understand your comments, Council President.

Um, I have I do have concern about the um excess equity.

Um I would like to see it actually go to um our our reserves, as we my colleague just said, you know, we have not allocated dollars to our reserves over the past couple um of cycles, um, and also just knowing that as we look at future years, we have a deficit that we will have to address.

Um, and and I think at some point we really need to to dive in as we um look at uh this fiscal year and in um really in 28 and 29.

Um, I think it's um the more that we can secure and hold back, um, and I said it during this budget cycle is revenues increased, we still like to increase our expenditures where we need to to manage that a little better and hone in our core services.

So uh I actually like that idea of this one point seven and moving it over to to reserves if everything works and comes in right.

So, all right.

Thank you, sir.

Uh not seeing anybody else on the lights.

Uh we do have a motion uh by council member Foster, second by council member Moreno, which is staff recommendation as amended and as shown on the screen.

Uh and not seeing anybody else in the lights, please call the roll.

I'm sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes eight to one with council member Campbell voting no.

Thank you, Council President.

All right.

Uh thank you, City Clerk.

And again, thank you to the good folks at uh DOF and our CFO.

Um Clerk, please introduce item 701.

Item 701 is the fiscal year 2026 capital improvements program, CIP year-end budget monitoring report and CIP budget revisions.

If you'd like to speak to this item, now is the time to raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Yeah, I'll get it.

Just put it right there on the you can if you'd like to speak in person, please just face place your speaker slip in the clear box.

Ms.

You can just place it right there in the clear box.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, I see that you're seated.

Uh introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Good morning, Council President and members of the council.

This is Jyoti Pantalu, Assistant Director with the Department of Finance.

And presenting with me today is Michael Palayu, Financial Operations Manager, also the DOF.

We'll need about 10 minutes.

Alright, when you're ready.

Thank you.

This report is a semi-annual update to the capital improvements program.

It provides budget monitoring updates on the several of the more critical capital program funding sources.

This report also includes a consolidated action for council.

This request includes $69.9 million in appropriations, de-appropriations, and reallocations between projects.

I will turn it over to Michael to go through the details.

Good morning, everyone.

This slide shows a summary of the CIP budget adjustments, of the new appropriations, the largest amounts come from the development impact fees, transnet, and interest earnings on a CIP-related grant.

For the transfers, the largest amounts come from the RTCIP fund and the San Diego Regional Parks Improvement Fund.

For several years, the Department of Finance, Transportation, and Engineering Capital Projects Departments have been working together to monitor and prioritize the spend down of transnet funds held at Sandag.

Based upon current estimated revenues for the fiscal year, it is anticipated that both the congestion relief and maintenance transit funds will likely have available fund balance at the end of the fiscal year.

These requests are included as part of the consolidated action items of this report.

This graph shows where the city is in comparison to other agencies participating in the transnet program as of March 31st, 2026, which shows our transnet cash balance is about 100% of projected annual revenue.

The Transportation Department currently estimates that the transnet extension cash balance held at Sandag will be approximately $39 million by June 30, 2026, representing approximately 81% of the city's annual revenue.

The city continues to try and maintain low cash balances held at Sandag and has been consistently among the lower municipalities among others in the region that participate in the program.

The Department of Finance works closely with the Transportation Department to monitor and maximize the use of gas tax funding for right-of-way maintenance and improvements.

Both are volatile funding sources as revenues can fluctuate depending both on the price of gas as well as consumer demand, so we will continue to monitor through the end of the fiscal year.

Based upon current estimated revenues, it's anticipated that gas tax and RMRA funds may have available fund balance at the end of the fiscal year.

The gas tax is proposing to use the anticipated fund balance as part of FY26 as part of this consolidated action in this report, while the RMRA funding is being used in the FY27 draft budget as well as the FY27 May revision.

The Department of Finance also works with engineering capital projects and various asset managing departments to propose the best uses for the general fund contributions to the CIP, capital outlay, infrastructure, and climate equity funds.

This table shows the expected uncommitted fund balances anticipated at the end of the fiscal year.

The infrastructure fund is proposed to absorb additional debt service as part of this consolidated action to free up general fund resources, and the climate equity fund was included as part of the fiscal year 2027 draft CIP budget.

This slide shows the debt funded CIP appropriations and spend down as of the third quarter of fiscal year 2026.

These represent the bond funded appropriations budgeted and expended of the capital improvements program only.

And this slide shows the debt supported activity of both the capital improvements program and other capital needs that have been previously approved.

The city has spent down the 2024 A lease revenue bond proceeds.

The remaining authorized appropriations will be financed through future long-term financings, including the recently issued 2025 A lease revenue bonds.

This slide shows the spend down progress on the WIFIA loan.

Many projects have not entered into the construction phase, which is when we will see the spend down really start to ramp up.

Shifting gears to the capital improvements program, administrative budget updates, the fiscal year 2026 appropriation ordinance, authorizes the CFO to modify project appropriations for various fund or project management purposes under certain conditions.

These administrative authorities create efficiencies across departments by saving time and helping to promote and implement cash management strategies in the capital program.

Wanted to take this opportunity to highlight just a few of the various sections used during the second and third quarters of the fiscal year.

There are additional details and examples included in the report.

Section 2C5 authorizes the CFO to transfer and appropriate a maximum of 200,000 per project not to exceed 10% of the project budget from annual allocations or fund balance in order to complete the project.

Section 2C7 authorizes the CFO to swap revenue sources between projects as long as the reallocations do not result in a net project increase.

This authority was used to provide effective cash management and ensure diff funding was spent down timely while also ensuring items that could not be debt financed were appropriately funded by cash funding sources.

Section 2C8 authorized the CFO to appropriate revenue sources to projects from fund balance and to return existing revenue sources to fund balance within the same capital project where the net change in funding does not result in a net change to the project budget.

This authority was used to spend down older funding sources or to keep the right mix of funding sources between the public utilities funds for their projects.

Section 2C9 authorizes the CFO to modify capital project budgets in accordance with the city council approved financing plans.

As we move away from community-based DIFs and FBAs, this particular AO authority will likely be used less and less each year.

Section 2C12 was used to appropriate older funds that are being targeted for closing as they no longer receive revenue other than interest earnings.

Section 2C15 authorizes the CFO to modify the accounting of capital improvements program projects to ensure the use of the most appropriate project type.

Section 2C16 is similar in that it also allows a conversion if the project meets the thresholds to become a standalone project.

So in conclusion, this report requests the allocation or transfer funds between projects of 69.9 million dollars.

We continue to have success in the spend down of transportation funds, infrastructure funds, and bond proceeds.

This success is attributed to various cash management efforts and a strong collaboration between the Department of Finance, engineering capital projects, and various asset managing departments.

Look forward to continuing discussions on improving the delivery of infrastructure in the capital program, providing effective cash management of the program, and increasing transparency.

You'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Alright, thank you for the presentation and good work.

No report on the okay.

With that, clerk, please proceed with public comments.

Thank you.

Max Schmidt, if you can please come up to the podium.

After that, we'll be Joyce and Yata.

You can please come up to the yellow reserve seats.

How much time do I have?

Minute and a half.

I just wanted to say that this PowerPoint is the perfect presentation of how team-possessed progressives work to try to create a one-world government.

They've got 100,000 they're allocating for the Boboa Park mission bay or the Mission Bay golf course.

And then on their conclusion, they put continued success spending down transportation cost.

So they just basically spend money, then say we have continued success.

And I don't trust these people.

And the reason I don't trust these people is because I just want to open Pandora's box until the entire population knows what's going on.

Occult group rituals are so in the side the Masonic Lodge, they are so powerful that it allows these people to teleport and become possessed by demons, and then the demons command them to create a one-world government.

And that's what's going on here.

All these people are simping to Satan in the Masonic Lodge, and they basically live for a cult group rituals where they sacrifice humans in the lodge, become possessed by demons to feel like a living God to the point where they can teleport around and to the point where they can reincarnate, and then Satan commands them to create a one-world government, so they get together and say, all right, let's create a one world government.

A hundred thousand dollars for the Baboa Park golf course that we can just steal from the people to make them poorer, and then we can just put on the end of the PowerPoint conclusion, continued success, spending down transportation costs to make it seem like we're doing a good job.

This is an embarrassment.

Shame on all of you, and that's disgusting that you teleport around.

You should drive cars.

Tracy, if you can please come forward.

Thank you.

Is this on?

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you for your presentation and uh these CIP projects and the resources and the whole area is just so big and so complex, and I really appreciate the way you worked with it and how you showed us the uh the pieces of it.

So we certainly need collaboration and monitoring of the funds and the projects, and I knowing I know you're doing your best to make that happen for the public.

So I want to talk about the structural budget deficit.

What I want you to do is to speak to that on every single critical item.

Bring it to the table and look at it and incorporate it into what we need to do, what we are doing, both the long term and the short term.

Of course, the long term is very critical.

And I want to say this.

We need an officially, we need an officially adopted plan to return to structural balance.

We must bring this to the table now, not next year, not long, we'll we'll take long term and we'll speak to it and bring it up in two years.

Thank you for that concluding.

I'm sorry, the five-minute time we're going to those participating remotely.

Hector, if you can please unmute.

Thanks.

Okay, one of the biggest dangers we're facing is the water program.

So we should have updates on that every month.

How much is it gonna cost?

What are the billion dollar cost overruns?

Like the railroad, the high speed rail, huge overruns, and the city of San Diego, biggest fear, the biggest thing we got going, I think now is financially long-term overruns of that project.

We gotta do it month by month.

There's gonna be some big time extra bills coming.

So that's one thing we could do, and then uh we should definitely fund the slot walk, and maybe Max could be the grand marshal.

We could do it to raise money for the sewer plant that we gotta build.

However, we get the money, the design, we gotta build big facts down there like Olympic-sized swimming pools down there to hold it and to treat it.

So, but anyway, just keep it simple.

And then when you're trying to figure out how it's not working out, tell them one excuse is hey, the mayor's in the Philippines spending 450,000 dollars, and he's making the budget, and it's like the uh let them eat cake budget.

Let's defund everything and then just let them eat cake.

Well, that's blame it on the mayor.

We're in France and stuff, goes to France and takes the money.

Thank you.

Your time has concluded.

Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute.

Hi, Flair Beekman.

Um, thank you for the item.

You know, uh the CIP uh items uh is a real important uh revenue.

It has its own place of revenue that it can work from.

Uh good luck how we're reviewing such concepts that each department can be uh creating their own revenue.

Uh we talked about that yesterday with the um waste manage solid waste management issues and um uh that should be hopefully a regular conversation to have.

Um, you know, each department having its own revenue source source where it comes from.

Uh so thank you for the work of this department, what you can be doing.

Uh it's important to me to um really note that um I in your uh procurement uh for all these projects coming up in the next few years, when you include tech accountability in that procurement process, uh it makes something really clear to other cities that you're trying to talk with, or to other, you know, or cities or corporations or you know, private uh entities, whoever um what you what our goals and objectives are uh for the future of San Diego, and when you when you put that into the tech accountability into the process, it um it does something really important in expectations and best practices.

It just everything becomes uh a more uh understandable process, I feel uh which is what we're trying to do with the clock issues right now.

If you've noticed uh everyone within government is asked.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

And with that, we'll turn it over to the council for questions, comments, and retain a motion.

Um, happy to make the motion to approve the recommendation.

All right.

So we have a motion by council member Whitburn.

Uh we'll go next to Councilmember Von Wolper.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm happy to second the motion and thank you for the report um and all the work we're doing to try and get CIPs going.

My one question is what are we doing to try and contain our costs?

I feel that contractors, when they see the city coming, they uh they upcharge us for the price of everything from asphalt to building materials and you know, we're suing a fire engine company for overcharging us for the parts of fire engines, you know.

What are we doing to try and contain our costs here?

Good morning, Councilmember Ranya.

I'm a city engineer.

Um, the staff continue on monitoring all bids coming in and ensuring the all-with engineering estimates.

We also participate in multiple regional uh meet and meetings and collaboration with other agencies to ensure that our bids are coming in, are very similar in nature and then looking for ways to improve uh the scrutiny of all the bids and analyzing them as we go.

So we're keeping a really close tap on all the bids that are coming in and monitoring this one and comparing it on the regional level as well.

So, and then it's coming in.

I mean, a leaf can shed more light, but as we see new bids coming in, they are within the engineering estimate, and then if it's uh above the engineering estimate, we ensure this is justified and then compares to other um agencies within the region.

Okay, and what about in-housing?

I mean, is it cheaper for us to do a mile of mill paved in-house rather than AC overlay contracted out?

I mean, it's not comparisons apples to apples because the work are really included in the millennial teams is it's different in nature on what is uh comprised of the contract, such as the curb ramps, for instance, they're not part of the Milan TV delivery, so the cost is not really um comparable from that perspective, but something we uh both teams are comparing notes and then they're coming within the range, both of them.

Okay, I'm just I I'd love to hear if we you know taking out the curb ramps for the sidewalks.

I'm sure we could figure out how to do that in-house too, but I just the cost of RCIP keeps growing, and I just don't know what to do about it.

So, yeah, I mean, this is the the cost of doing business right now as the materials costs continue to fluctuate.

Another outside factors such as the tariff and whatnot really makes the the market a little bit unstable.

But as we again compare notes with other um agencies within the region, this is uh across the board, and probably you see the airport uh project, for instance, is coming way above budget and then the amount of change of orders.

So something we're trying to continue keeping a close stop on it.

In the meantime, we're looking for a way to improve our contract documents to not allow for any uh change of order as we award the contract as well.

This is something in our control, and this is what staff they're constantly working toward.

Okay, got it.

Um, luckily at the airport, we actually not are getting a lot of change orders on this portion of the terminal.

We're actually on budget, which is great.

Um, but uh, yeah, I mean the tariffs are something that we can't control, and small businesses are being price gouged by the the Americans are paying the tariffs.

We are the ones paying these tariffs.

It's been very clear, and so I just that's very hard for a city to have to absorb because we can't control whether or not the president of the United States puts on tariffs off and on.

So okay.

Well, thank you for answering the question, and I'm always interested to see what we can do.

All right, thank you.

And I failed to mention that we do have a motion by Councilmember Whipper and a second by Council Member Vaughn Wolper to move the staff recommendation, or maybe I did.

I don't know.

Uh, but we'll go to the council member Foster.

Um thank you for that, and um just really quick on my colleagues um question.

There's there's no way that a general contractor should be able to have a lower cost to do mill and pave.

If we just isolate asphalt work, that should not.

They should, we should be able to be very, very competitive.

Um, but I'll leave that there.

That's a conversation for another day.

Um I guess um just uh with the item one, thank you for the presentation.

I do have um just a couple of quick questions on some specifics.

I see um I do appreciate um in regards to uh Marie Whidman.

Um, that we are moving forward.

I see we are moving some dollars uh going from debt to cash to get our initial um work done on the demolition.

So I do appreciate um those efforts as you're working to get that done before our July 12th date for our big um Encanto um block party.

Um, but I do see that we are um taking that cash from the Paradise Hills Community Park Trail.

Can you give me an update on where we're at with that um project and when we will be um seeing that move forward, I guess, if I can ask that question, council member, we will get you the update on this one.

This is a project delivered by in-house park and rec staff, and then uh we will make sure to get you the update on this.

Okay, that's good to know.

Thank you.

Um, and just very quick back to the paving.

Um, most of the work now has been developed I mean, we give priority to our mill and paved teams, right?

We're trying to contract out the bare minimum as we go, those are the ones bundled with pipelines project and other work within the right of way.

So this is the direction that we're gearing toward that.

I understand.

I understand.

And I understand there's more work to do as we are um in and also the one thing that we need to be careful is is to make sure that we can execute, right?

We know the condition of the yard, we know the condition of certain things.

So we need to make sure that we are taking that into account too.

So I don't want to throw all of the miles on you at this point, but I just like to see it continue to improve and continue to expand.

So thank you for those um efforts.

Um what else do I have here?

Um also um I think um, and this is probably um another park and rec question.

Um, but I know we have some things going on with our tennis club there, um, and so I'll be following up with park and rec uh to make sure that we have that project um continuing to move forward um as we address some ADA paths and certain things.

So um looking forward to that one um coming on board as well.

Um I think uh with that, I don't have any um other um questions um or comments at this time.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Uh, we'll go next to Council President Pro Tam Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

And I'll be quick, um, appreciate some of the changes that are uh that we're seeing uh with this update, but I also just really wanted to give a special thanks to to Ranya and the entire NCP team as well because we know not every project is the same, some have challenges, so one of the items here is Solf Neighborhood Park, which has been difficult and has taken far longer than I think we all anticipated.

We've got another project in Mermesa that is ahead of schedule, and every single time I think just the willingness of the team to try to work with the community to understand the variability in these projects to try to figure out how we're keeping contractors um accountable to to what we put them towards.

It's it is a challenge, and so we appreciate the partnership in actually trying to use our dollars wisely, but also communicate with the public in a way that needs some trust as to how we're delivering these major um CIP projects.

So thank you to the team for the work on that front.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

Uh not seeing anyone else in the lights.

Uh, I'll add my thanks to the work and especially the effort that you started a few years ago, which to make sure that we don't have money sitting around in buckets that we do everything we can to put money in our hands to work, um, and I think it's made a significant difference in terms of being able to fund the CIP uh rollout.

I know that there is one change in my district, uh, but that'll be returning FBA funds back to the community and we'll look forward to reallocating um those dollars at a different time.

Um, you know, the only other thought that I had, which is probably as dangerous as the one that I comment that I made earlier, goes to one of my colleagues' comments about kind of getting updated and the decisions we make when projects start to get very, very expensive uh for whatever reason, and whether there is really a process.

I I think last year I kind of missed the moment that this is the moment to say something about a project and the increased budget that it is being identified with.

And do I still support one in my district?

Do I ask my colleagues whether they still support the allocation of funds, knowing that we use multiple buckets to be able to fund our very big projects, and you guys are amazing in terms of identifying those buckets, whether it's grants, uh community diffs, citywide diffs, etc.

etc.

Um, going forward.

But sometimes I pause and wonder about has this project just got beyond the pale.

Um, and maybe we should rethink it.

But I'll circle back.

It's I'm only talking about projects in my district, so I want to be clear about that.

But uh I'll circle back on that kind of conversation.

And I know it's just so difficult, takes so long.

So anyway, thank you for the good work.

So we do have a motion by Councilmember Whitburn, a second by Council Member Von Wilpert uh to move the staff recommendation.

Please call the roll.

Sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

And that passes unanimously nine to zero.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

Uh, with that, please, clerk, please introduce item 702.

Item 702 is the fiscal year 2025 annual reporting on development impact fees and other city planning managed funds, along with capital improvement program allocations.

If you'd like to speak on this item, now's the time to raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

And if you are here in council chambers, please be sure to submit your speakerships to the front of the room in the clear box.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

And as you settle yourselves in, please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Good morning, everyone.

I'm Samira Rao, Assistant Deputy Director with City Planning.

Uh I have with me Eduardo Hernandez.

We'll be making the presentation, and we will need 10 to 12 minutes.

All right, when you're ready.

Thank you very much.

Good morning.

Today we're presenting on the annual report of development impact fees as well as other city planning managed funds for fiscal year 2025.

This item includes a request for city council approval to appropriate development impact fee funds towards a list of specific capital improvement program projects to further spend down community specific funds that have been in the accounts for more than five years.

As mentioned before, this package includes uh three items.

The cities required by the mitigation by the mitigation fee act to provide an annual report on development impact fees, also known as DIF, to the city council.

This act mandates the local agencies with DIF program makes specific information available to the public and establish certain findings related to the DIF funds that have been in the account and unallocated for a period of five years or longer.

This annual report is being presented to the City Council to satisfy the requirements of the mitigation fee act.

We also have broken out the report to include a separate section for other fees collected by city planning, including habitat acquisition fee, climate equity, neighborhood enhancement fee, and the historic preservation fund.

In addition, we are requesting the city council adopt a resolution to establish a capital improvement project, also known as CAP record in the city's financial system solely for administrative and accounting purposes.

This action is necessary to facilitate reimbursement of eligible project costs using development impact fee funds that have been held in the account for more than five years.

Previous reimbursements were provided in the form of credits, establishing the CAP record will enable reimbursement in cash and does not constitute approval of a new project.

Lastly, we are requesting City Council approval to allocate community-specific development impact fee funds that have been in the account for over five years to two specific infrastructure projects.

The report provides information on the type and amount of fees collected, beginning and ending fund balance, amount of fees collected, including interest earned, project funded, and any interfund transfers or loans made.

It also provides findings for funds that have been in each account for over five years and have not yet been allocated to projects.

Development impact fees are fees imposed on projects to cover all or a portion of the cost of public infrastructure needed due to new growth and development.

All development impact fees must be expended in accordance with their associated Nexus study.

Next studies determine how much development impact fees can be charged to a new development and which types of projects are eligible for development impact fee funding.

There are two types of Nexus studies used.

One is plan-based next study, which lists specific projects on which the development impact fee funds can be expended, and the other is a standards-based next study, which establishes public infrastructure standards that must be met.

Under the prior system, each community had its own public facilities financing plan, which served as a next study for that community's development impact fee.

These plans define local infrastructure projects and fee structures, but over time led to inconsistent and outdated rates across communities.

The citywide development impact fee structure now replaces those 43 communities, community specific studies with four citywide nexus studies for parks, mobility, libraries, and fire rescue, along with an OTE Mesa mobility fee so that burden didn't fall on the entire city for that needed infrastructure.

All new development applications submitted on or after July 1st of 2023 are subject to these citywide development impact fees.

Since community-specific development impact fees are no longer updated, the public facilities financing plan that supported them no longer require revisions.

This shift creates a modern, equitable and efficient framework, ensuring consistent development impact fee rates unlocking unused funds and aligning fee expenditures with with citywide infrastructure needs.

As noted on the previous slide, the transition from community-specific development impact fees to citywide fees will take several years to fully materialize.

However, the shift is already well underway.

In fiscal year 2024, community deaf revenue represented approximately 64% of total debt revenue.

Whereas in fiscal year 2025, it declined to approximately 35%, with citywide debt revenue increasing from 36 to 65% over the same period.

It is, however, important to note that development impact fees are just one of several funding sources to fund infrastructure and continue to be a critical component and support the capital improvement programs budget to provide needed infrastructure.

While the report goes into a lot of detail regarding each of the funds, here's a glance of the revenue collected and expended.

The total development impact fees collected, including community and citywide for fiscal year 2025, is around $50.2 million.

And the city was able to expand around $81.1 million on infrastructure projects.

This is a step in the right direction as we have successfully expanded development impact fee funds on the much-needed infrastructure projects across the city.

This is helped significantly by the ability to access citywide development impact fees and make up any funding gaps left by community specific funds.

Under the Mitigation Fee Act, the city is required to make fundings for any development impact fee funds that have remained unspent for more than five years.

This ensures that all funds collected from development are actively programmed for eligible public improvements and remain consistent with adopted public with adopted public facilities financing plans.

For this reporting period, a total of 38 accounts have balances that meet the five-year threshold.

The good news is that most of those funds are already appropriated to specific capital projects and will be expended as those projects progress toward construction.

However, these five communities, Pacific Highlands Ranch, North University City, Sierra Mesa, Carmel Valley, and Mission Valley, they still have an allocated balances that now need to be addressed through new appropriations.

As part of the five-year findings required by the Mediation Fee Act, the staff is requesting City Council approval to appropriate these remaining community specific funds toward eligible projects identified in the corresponding public facilities financing plans.

The goal is to ensure compliance with the mitigation fee act, reduce and spend balances, and continue advancing infrastructure improvements in communities where these funds were originally collected.

Staff requests city council approval to appropriate community specific funds that have been in the account for over five years toward Creekside Park and Hickman Fields.

As part of the Department of Finances item presented earlier today, funds that have been in the account for more than five years for Pacific Highlands Ranch and North University City will be allocated to existing CAP projects.

Please keep in mind that these are funds collected from the community and can only be spent within the same community in which they were collected unless otherwise noted in their financial plans.

These appropriations will further support the city's efforts to reduce the fund balances in community specific funds.

The next few slides show the development impact fee revenue expanded cash balance and fund balances in fiscal year 2025, as well as the current fund balance as of quarter three in fiscal year 2026.

These community development impact fee amounts include all community-based funds, not including OT Mesa local mobility development impact fee, because it's a localized fee established in conjunction with the citywide development impact fees.

For all these slides, please note that the cash balance includes funds set aside for projects but not yet expanded.

Fund balance means the amount of money that has not been allocated to projects and is available to be allocated.

This slide shows information for the citywide funds, which are parks, library, fire rescue, mobility, and OT Mesa Local Mobility.

Now, the regional transportation congestion improvement program fund, also known as the Transit Extension or RTCIP fee, collected $9 million, expended $1.4 million, and had a fund balance of $7.8 million at the end of fiscal year 2025.

Although the Active Transportation Inloop fund did not receive revenue during fiscal year 2025, several development projects remain subject to this fee and are expected to contribute to the fund as they reach completion and undergo final inspection.

In addition, and over the years, the city has established several specialized funding mechanisms outside of the development impact fee structure to address emerging priorities, which includes habitat acquisition fund, neighborhood enhancement fund, climate equity fund, and historic preservation fund.

These programs were adopted independently of citywide and community development impact fees.

And have been collected under the respective authority sanctions since their inception.

Our annual report provides more detail on the amounts collected, expended and balances for each of these funds.

All current financial summaries for funds managed by the city planning department can be found by searching for City of San Diego planning financial summaries or by using the QR code or where or web address provided on the slide.

As an extra city planning staff continue to bring the annual development impact fee report to city council each year and are anticipating coming to council in the fall with an update to the citywide development impact for Nexus Studies in order to meet the infrastructure needs of community members across the city due to new growth and development.

And with that, we concluded our presentation.

Alright, thank you very much for the work and the presentation.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

If you can please come up to the podium, you'll have a minute and a half.

After that, is Joy Sonyata.

If you can please come forward to the other reserve seats, um another PowerPoint about revenue being basically stolen from the people of San Diego to spend with however you however you want to.

There's no transparency in these PowerPoints.

I wish that they would break down into more detail where exact actually the money's going.

Um all of you are trying to create a one-world government, you don't care about the people of San Diego, you care about the demons inside you commanding you to do things.

Um I'm a mind control victim, and part of being a mind control victim is they try and convince me I'm going to hell.

And the people in city council are using neurolinguistics to try to convince me I'm going to hell too.

And I'm Catholic, so I believe that I'm going to heaven, and I don't appreciate it.

And for this to be going on in city council, an actual um occult programming victim trying to speak his part and make his voice heard, and then people abusing him neurolinguistically trying to make him an abuse victim, is absolutely disgraceful.

And I even talked to the security.

Do you know what telepathic neurolinguistic harassment is?

And he said, No, I don't know.

And that's BS.

The security knows exactly what's going on.

So I actually demand every single one of you to not only step down from office but to turn yourself into the police for harassment.

Because saying scaring me so bad that it makes my um testicles tingle, and then saying we're about to make your testicles tingle, then threatening me neurolinguistically to make my testicle tingles is physical assault.

Town with the occult, I'm not crazy down with the occult.

Joy Signata, if you can please come forward after that is Mary Soriano.

If you can please come forward to the yellow reserve seats.

Uh, first of all, I want to say this.

Thank you, everyone, because this is great.

We've got a full dais, we've got the mayor's rep, we've got the operations department, and we have public speakers.

This is what it's all about.

So thank you so much for that.

All right.

So on this item in particular.

So city planning managed funds, CIP program allocations.

All right, we've got funds equal money versus allocations using the money.

We have revenues, expenditures.

This is the heart of the structural budget deficit.

It's really quite simple.

Money in, money out, and we've got to make it simpler because it is simpler.

And so I want to again say this.

I'm gonna repeat it.

This is kind of what I'm gonna focus on now as we move forward.

We need an officially adopted plan to return to structural balance.

Please let's get together on this, and I I just it's good to be here, love to all.

Mary, if you can please come forward, Mary Seriano, President La Jolla Town Council.

Uh development impact fees, La Jolla had its legacy fund, and I think I looked into it a couple years ago.

We had about $350,000 dollars.

Not sure what's happening with that today.

Um, but now I guess the city decided to put that all in one pot.

And what the frustrating is frustration is is that I could see maybe a point of imbalance that you mentioned because at one they were legacy funds, and other towns didn't have enough or had more, but at the same time, legacy funds actually allowed us locally to be able to put things into what we need in our local towns.

So I think we really need to look at a local perspective on this DIF fund.

It's been taken away from us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry the five-minute timer going to those participating remotely.

Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Claire Beekman.

Um thanks uh to the words of Max, who I started to hear really constructive ideas about, you know, actual items, uh agenda items, and it was really good comment from him.

Um, you know, I don't know if I fully agreed with it with his ideas, but it was constructive.

If he works on that on working on those terms, he's he'll be really good for the process.

And good luck uh he could do that, and we all understand his current feelings uh how he's being treated, and I respect his rights.

I think we all want to respect his rights.

If he speaks to the subject matter, man, we'll all be going good.

So good luck how he can be doing that.

I think he can do well with that.

Uh thank you.

I wanted to comment that um, yeah, we want to be positive.

So if we stick to the items, agenda items themselves.

Uh, like myself this time, I need to speak to uh uh an interesting item.

I I have questions uh for this item, you know, more than uh, you know, I mainly just questions about how do we address uh the future development fees.

Uh we do deal with it in terms of impact fees as consistency, or do we deal as it's a flexible variation, a continual variation as the normal standard practices?

It is a respectable way to work, it it accomplishes things.

Consistency is also a very respectable way to work, and uh I hope we can consider consistency in building our future projects.

Uh, impact issues uh for a number of issues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Hector, if you can please unmute.

It's good to hear the city's equal opportunity taking the money from the OIA, as they do like the golf place and everybody else.

Maybe that's a little equity showing through the city there now.

And then uh, I was wondering uh how you guys are gonna blame it on Trump, the votes you did for the city meters, the parking meters.

That's Trump's fault too.

Is it the terrorists fault?

You're probably gonna find a way to go throughout the day without blaming Trump, only one time a day.

You know, you just play the race card, Maggie.

I'll give you three times a day on the race card to play that.

Anyway, it's all about the money, man, and just uh we don't got any money, and that's the way it is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment on this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

We'll turn it over to the council.

Um please don't clapping while people are talking.

Simple ask.

Um, well, I'll turn it over to council for questions, comments, and entertain a motion, and we'll start with council member von Wolford.

Uh thank you for the report um on our diff fees.

I'm I'm glad that we have moved to citywide diff because it's enabling us to spend down the smaller diffs that weren't getting pots money into their pot.

That is great.

At the same time, I do not believe we are collecting enough diff revenue to actually provide the services that we promised our residents when new development comes in.

Um I know we're gonna have a larger conversation about that later, so I'm not gonna talk about you know the nexus and all of that, but what I do want to point out is that we are severely under collecting for what we need to build.

Um in my district, we have the trails and Millennium PQ and PQ Village, and I can't even think of all the other names of developments coming in, and they were supposed to build parks, but they're not.

You know, Black Mountain Phase 2 is already going to be cut in half, and so what do we do about this?

You know, they promise us all these parks and fire stations and whatnot, and they're not delivering.

How do we hold them to this?

Um, for the particular projects um that are at issue, I will have to confer with our development services department and get back to your office on the particular details of those um developments.

And then with respect to your questions of the overall funding, uh, we are constrained.

Um, development impact fees do fund or are able to fund the amount attributable to the burden posed by the new development, um, but we are not permitted to charge an amount that is greater than that amount.

Um, as you mentioned, um, the city planning department um is uh working on updating our nexus studies for the citywide development impact fees, um, and so I do anticipate and welcome a larger conversation in the coming months on that issue.

Okay, so then what we the planning department, we discuss how much diff should be, or say, you know, you guys brought forward the trails project, and they had promised, you know, 3,600 and recreational points value and um you know electric view, all the things they promised, and they're not delivering.

And so, what do we do about that?

Is that your department who enforces it or who?

So all permitting is done through the development services department.

Um, so any conditions related to park improvements provided on site would go through uh development service department, city planning department imposes the development impact fees.

Yes, but you also bring us the projects to approve, saying they're gonna build these parks, and then they don't.

Yeah, so that those projects are brought forward by development services department, um, and so uh we can connect with uh that department and get back to you on any specific details for those projects.

Okay, is anyone here who can answer the question since we're talking about this?

No, Councilman, I I don't believe anybody from development services is here.

I know um staff has met with your team a number of times on this project.

More than happy to continue meeting on this project to make sure that the promises made to the community are executed and delivered upon.

Um, but I think we would have to set up a follow-up call with DSD and your team to hash that out.

Okay, so this is a diff conversation.

So if somebody wants to build a project in anyone's district, they have 100 houses say, and instead of paying into the citywide diff for parks, the developer says we're gonna build the park on site, so then they don't have to pay the diff, correct?

There are certain procedures uh where you can be exempt from payment of the diff when you're providing on-site um parks, and so if a park is not being provided on site, then they do not receive that that corresponding exemption from the development impact fee, and they would be subject to the payment of that.

It's not always straightforward because we are restricted under state law under which fee schedule we can uh impose due to the timing of the application that that development came in, and so we would have to do um more of a deep dive analysis and get back to our office on what the particulars of that development impact fee would look like where the park is not being provided.

Okay, what about the fire station?

You know, the fire station in Black Mountain Ranch was supposed to be built way before I got elected by the developer, they never did, so the city picked up the tab and we're doing it now.

In the next, I'm not gonna prove another Nexus fee study if people say they're gonna do things and they're not.

You know, we have no teeth built in to actually require them to do this.

They can build all the housing they want, and then when it comes to the amenities, like, oh, it's too expensive.

Sorry, community, we're not gonna build these for you.

Why don't we put it that they have to build the park first or the fire station first before they can sell a house?

You know, I just um this is happening over and over in our community, and we're certainly not collecting enough diff fees to build out the fire stations that we need.

I mean, we just heard from the fire rescue department how they're working out of crumbling facilities, and we've collected over a million dollars in diff fees for our fire.

It's just this isn't working.

You know, we promise our communities they're gonna have amenities when we bring new development in, and then they don't.

And I just I don't understand how the planning department isn't engaged in enforcing the things that you bring to us, you know.

You know, so we're just left holding the bag over and over, and I'm not gonna approve a new Nexus study unless there's actual teeth to it.

So, just a quick point of clarification.

Uh, when Nexus studies are approved, the council adopts a resolution imposing the fees, and those are the fees uh that the planning department does impose on each project that comes forward.

There are some larger projects, particularly in your district that have separate discretionary approvals that outline certain park improvements that are being brought forward.

So the details of those particular project-specific approvals are um enforced through the uh permit process.

Um but with respect to the development impact fees, the nexus studies that the council approves and the corresponding fees.

Our department does impose for each development project.

Okay, well, we'll have to have this conversation when the nexus fee comes.

Um I'm just sick of the city left holding the bag when people promise us things and they don't do it.

So okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Von Wilbert, not seeing any of lights.

I'm gonna move the uh staff recommendation, and then a couple of questions.

One, um, as you brief me, this is an FY2025 report.

Uh so it's not where we are today, although there's some essence about the current fund balances, so that's appreciated.

Um, I know one of the conversations about our CRP process is which funds are most flexible, and let's pick those up first before we do the ones that are a lot of strings.

Is there anything that this council needs to do on a legislative or policy level that makes it easier to spend down the community diffs?

Um I can assure you that city staff has worked with many city departments, including each of the asset managing departments, engineering capital projects, and department of finance to as well as the IBA's office to identify ways to spend down this money in the most efficient way possible.

There are a lot of constraints that we are up against that the city unfortunately has its hands tied on due to constitutional limitations as well as mitigation fee act requirements procedurally.

Um it is also not as simple as amending state law because a lot of these requirements um stem from the constitution itself.

Um so those are the constraints that we have, but we do kind of do the opposite of what you said, is that we use the most constrained funding source first when we're funding a project.

Um, and department of finance uh works very carefully with our team in city planning um to be able to do that and make sure that we are leaving the more flexible funds for more flexible funding, but when we can allocate the projects um that have that more constrained funding, those do go first.

Okay, thank you for politely correcting me.

Um one of the things you noticed is this issue about the five-year limitation.

Um, I think you're resolving two of the communities.

I think there's still three left, two in my district.

Do we have a game plan?

Are we at risk or yes?

So we do um identify um the whole purpose of uh one of the main purposes of this report that is before you is that we are required to make findings to keep funds in the account for more than five years.

So the findings for each of those are included in the materials included as part of this.

Uh we do have additional projects identified for expenditure, and then um I'll let my team um speak to future allocations as well.

Um we have five accounts with monies in the account that has been in the five years, but no project.

So two of them we're bringing forward.

Two of them are being handled by DOFS item, and then one other one is Carmel Valley, which uh over the last three years we have reduced the fund balance significantly.

I think we had around 12 million dollars.

We brought it down to more like 1.2 million dollars.

There are certain active projects, but they don't have a funding need at this time.

But um, as construction progresses, there is going to be an opportunity, and that's how we will manage um the additional 1.2 million dollars that is still in the account.

We're not appropriating it to a specific project at this time, uh, but we will keep an eye out and work on that.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um, you have way too many buckets of money to manage, uh, but I appreciate the good work that you do and somehow uh take a hold of it.

Um the the community diff is still kind of the legacy from projects that were covered by the when we still have the community diffs, and so you still have to manage those and spend them down and track them and all that.

So thank you for that very good work.

So um I did move the staff recommendation.

We'll go next to council member Foster.

Yes, thank you, Council President, and thank you for the presentation.

Um I just wanted to as I look at this item.

I understand we have some uh DIF funds in say our encantile neighborhood possible if we can fall back, get a commitment, fall back, have some conversations and look at how we can deploy those dollars and get them actually in place.

I think would be a very, very good conversation if you're open to that.

Yes, council member.

There is about $800,000 in the DIF account for Encanto neighborhoods, and we're happy to work with your office to identify projects that that funding can be allocated toward.

Okay, I appreciate that.

And also, um, how are we doing in regards to our fire fire allocation?

We we have uh station 51 there that is still a temporary facility.

Um you know, I made this statement before, and I'll make it again.

I'm not going to be supportive of any other fire stations, and I'm referring to Fairmont Avenue Fire Station until 51 is we receive a permanent facility.

Yep, heard council member.

Uh I'll have to get back to you on the current status of fire station 51.

Uh, I do recognize the Fairmont Fire Station allocation as it reads in the report.

It is a look back to what was invested to get us to this point now, so no future allocations and it's not funding any future work, and so I think it meets the goal of not pursuing that uh until uh fire station 51 is resolved.

Um, I'll have to follow up with your office to get a uh update from ECP.

All right, thank you for that.

Um, with that, I will be um I will second uh the motion, Council President.

All right, thank you.

With that, we have a motion by myself and a second by council member Foster to move the staff recommendation, not see anybody else in the lights.

Please call the roll.

I'm sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes unanimously, nine to zero.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

And again, thank you to staff for the good work.

Clerk, please introduce item 703.

Item 703 is the allocation of fiscal year 2027 parking meter zone revenue for transportation infrastructure improvements.

If you'd like to speak to this item, please be sure to submit a speaker slip to the front of the room in the clear box.

Or if you're participating virtually, now's the time to raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

I see staff is coming to the dais.

Once you uh get yourself comfortable, please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Good morning, council president and council members.

My name is Alex Ubaldo, interim deputy director with transportation.

I'm also joined by Naomi Chavez, interim director, and we will need 10 minutes.

Ready?

By way of background, community parking districts were originally established to manage a portion of the parking revenue and ensure revenues are reinvested back into the communities where they are generated.

There are eight established parking meters zones.

Currently, there are five that are active downtown, uptown, mid-city, Pacific Beach, and Balboa Park.

Parking meter revenues must remain within the parking meter zone and support activities that benefit parking mobility and traffic safety improvements.

In October 2025, council pause CPD revenue allocations under Council Policy 100-18 through fiscal year 2027.

That's a two-year pause, allowing parking meter revenues to be prioritized for transportation infrastructure improvements.

Council allocated 1.8 million dollars to transportation department to accelerate delivery of transportation infrastructure maintenance work within the parking meter zones beyond their normal operations.

The intent was to provide additional capacity through overtime so city crews could make meaningful progress on long standing maintenance needs and transportation safety improvements.

Since that initial allocation, TD has completed a significant amount of infrastructure and maintenance work within the parking meter zones.

These are extra repair work being done on OT and CPDs are receiving enhanced services compared to non-CPD areas.

Improvements include over 2,000 streetlight restorations, more than 3,300 pothole repairs, sidewalk improvements, nearly 50,000 linear feet of crosswalk striping, nearly 100 intersections, traffic signage, payment markings, and over 20,000 linear feet of AB 413.

That's the red curving at intersections for daylighting improvements.

These investments directly support neighborhood safety, accessibility, and vision zero goals.

TD has been providing regular monthly updates to council offices on project status, the expenditures, and accomplishments to date.

So while significant progress has been made, substantial maintenance and safety needs remain within all parking meter zones.

Existing backlogs continue to include the streetlight repairs, the sidewalk repairs, traffic safety upgrades, and some vision zero related improvements.

Many of these requests originate from get it done reports or stakeholder feedbacks and ongoing operational assessment.

So continued funding will allow TD to maintain momentum and continue addressing these critical infrastructure needs without interruption into fiscal year 2027.

Again, the funding appropriation provides supplemental funding primarily through overtime to deliver transportation improvements beyond what can be accomplished through our normal operations alone.

We've continued to maintain ongoing coordination with CPD stakeholders, council offices, and community partners to discuss the transportation infrastructure needs and investment priorities.

At the end of uh May last month, we held four meetings requesting for their feedback on these priorities.

We also invited community and planning groups that previously had no role in the CPD funding.

We compiled a list of their priorities for fiscal year 27 and we'll be looking at those requests to see which ones can we can implement given the limited funding available.

We remain committed to regular communication, including monthly progress updates, and we'll work collaboratively with CPD stakeholders to promote transparency, accountability, and ongoing investments in the neighborhood transportation improvements.

So this item is essentially the fiscal year 27 continuation of transportation department's efforts.

We are requesting council to appropriate another 1.8 million dollars in existing parking meter revenue fund balances to continue the maintenance and safety improvements within downtown, uptown, mid-city, and Pacific Beach parking meter zones.

There are available parking meter zone balances within each community as shown on the far right column.

That would be the fund balance remaining after the 1.8 million dollar allocation.

Approval of this item will allow us to continue reinvesting parking meter revenues into transportation maintenance and safety improvements that directly benefit the communities where those revenues are generated.

And with that, we're happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you for the work and the presentation.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Joyce Linada, if you can please come forward to the microphone.

Allocation of parking meter zone revenue for transportation infrastructure improvements.

This is put back into the respective communities, and that's a wonderful, wonderful thing.

So thank you so much for that.

It relates to this.

Has our parking fee revenues been or will be impacted by errors on citations that were sent to the public.

Has litigate has a litigation ruling been done against the city on that.

Is there a possible appeal in the works?

I read something in the union tribune just recently, and I I stepped back because I thought, oh no, not another $10 million hit of something we didn't expect.

But it was in the Union Tribune.

I think like a week this week or last week.

So heads up on that public and everybody.

So dear transportation, please protect our revenues from cuts that we can control.

It's it's we've got to do that.

Okay.

Thank you so much for listening.

A great morning.

See you this afternoon.

Love to all.

Thank you.

That does include public comment hearing.

Council Chambers going to those participating remotely.

We just have one speaker in the queue, Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

Thank you for this item.

Good luck on addressing uh Sunday issues.

Uh I felt something was a little awkward in addressing the Sunday parking issues.

Um to reduce the parking hours as much as possible.

Uh good luck in that kind of effort.

Thank you for your effort.

I reviewed how you worked on the Balboa parking fee issue, and you did try to reduce the fees uh a lot.

Thank you for that.

I think you left the uh non-residential fees at $16 a little high.

That could have come down to 12, I think.

Uh good luck how we can work on such things in the future overall.

Uh good work.

Um we're trying to address our parking.

I wanted to quickly note uh I heard this anecdotal story uh when local governments try to over uh work on their parking issues, they have a tendency to become more conservative in their overall thinking and actions.

Um it's a good fair warning for ourselves um how we proceed, you know, uh to be wary of that.

Um we've had a lot of parking worries and had to deal with a lot of things.

Um, and I noticed that we ended up growing a bit more conservative in our thinking from that, uh, the way we were acting and working.

Uh that was a few months ago.

I hope we're coming out of that now.

You've tried to make some good choices, uh flexible choices with parking, and uh thank you for that.

Uh good luck how we work on this item continuously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hector.

If you can please unmute.

I'd like to thank the transportation department for paving the roads from Mission Valley all the way up to the Home Depot now.

Over the last few years, they've done a little bit road each time.

They've just done the last one by my house.

So it's a total luxury driving on freshly paved roads to the Home Depot in Claremont.

And now they're working on some Claremont to Tory Pines, so that'll be the next things going on anyway.

Allocate the money.

Uh I don't know, man.

I think should allocate it to the slutwalk, get that thing going to uh to get the guys going up there to raise money for the sewer treatment plant, the water treatment plant stuff, and no more studying things on how to do the money, no more studies for anything.

That would really save the city a lot of money.

Sorry, no more money for looking at the road condition.

Everybody knows the roads that need to be paved.

There's no use in wasting money on allocating any kind of money toward any kind of studies for anything, and you know, even the genders.

Well, now I realize there's three genders.

There's male, there's females, and mentally ill.

That's the third gender.

So I had a breakthrough in the gender game.

Instead of 15, now I'm going, there's only three.

Thanks a lot.

That doesn't include public comment on this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

And with that, we'll go back to the council for questions, comments, and retain a motion.

We'll start with Council Member Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh this program uh which has uh been adapted, really gives the city the opportunity to manage the parking revenues directly for a couple of years uh it able to the transportation department to deliver the approvements quickly.

Uh it reflect what the communities are looking for there.

It's allowed us to take immediate action on some pressing neighborhood needs like fixing street lights at Uptown and Downtown or Dorth Park.

Some crosswalks uh have been repainted.

It's really helped to improve uh public safety at another areas.

Uh and we've been seeing those results.

Uh there have been 185 traffic safety improvements, including due crosswalks and stop sites, striping, uh, red curb painting to comply with the AB 413 daylighting uh requirements.

Uh in uh District 3, we've seen 17 crosswalks down town 14, in mid-city 68 in uptown.

Uh anybody who's walked on B Street uh up the way here uh by that taco stand will notice that that sidewalk has been repaired, which was a terrible trip hazard for quite some time, but it uh has been fixed with the use of uh this program and the funds that have been allocated directly to the transportation department to uh do those things.

And I really want to recognize the communication uh by the Transportation Department.

Uh the monthly uh detailed reports that have been sent to the office and to the parking districts, have really outlined uh the great amount of work that has been done uh as a result of this program uh and just really appreciate uh the communication, but also the uh the teams that have been working overtime to get these projects done that otherwise uh quite likely would not have been well they would not have been done as soon as they are.

So this is proving to be a real benefit uh certainly for the communities that I represent that I want to express by appreciation of the transportation department, and uh I am happy to make the motion to approve the staff recommendation.

All right, thank you, sir.

So we have a motion by Council Member Whitburn to move the staff recommendation.

We'll go to Councilmember Elo Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

Um thanks for the presentation here.

Um I'll start by seconding the motion.

I I also want to say um thank you for the way that we're tracking and and monitoring the work that's being done with the parking meter funds.

Uh and we I think the emails that you send with those updates are super helpful for us.

Um, and when we communicate that back out to our community, um it's super helpful for them to know what work is actually being done.

I've had a few conversations with constituents who, while certainly not happy to be paying for parking, uh, felt differently when they knew um what had been done with with those resources.

That being said, uh we've had kind of uh an ongoing conversation between my office and transportation department and the mayor's office um about um being more and more um uh committed to having a conversation with the community about how these funds are invested.

And the reason I think this is important is because again, while no one likes paying for parking, there is a I think pretty unique opportunity with parking meter dollars to really draw the line between um a dollar invested by a community member in their city and seeing that dollar spent by their city.

Generally speaking, I I think the city does a pretty poor job actually of explaining uh how it is that we are spending tax dollars of letting folks know how the the money that they contribute to the city's coffers um get um spit out in uh by way of city services or resources or uh CIP projects.

And the line here is so short and straight.

You put a dollar into a meter, it gets spent in the immediate proximity of that of that meter.

Uh I think there's an opportunity here to develop more trust and more of an understanding of why revenues valuable.

So as you all know, we had a community workshop at Adams Avenue Rec Center on uh how the new revenue in normal heights should be spent.

I'm not gonna pretend like that was an entirely fun conversation.

It wasn't.

Uh and we walked out of there with a clear sense of what the community's priorities were.

We've kept that going with an online survey.

And so uh where I'm going with this is um I I really really think we should be leaning into this even more.

I know that we're putting signs up when work is done, saying this was work was paid for with parking meter dollars, but making the uh providing an opportunity at the time of the transaction for residents to provide their input on how dollars are spent is something that I think again could help build trust and help educate the public about why revenue is important.

So, Coda, I'll actually turn to you on this because I know it's a conversation we've been having.

As we we look forward into the next fiscal year, um, to what extent should those of us who have parking meter districts in our communities be expecting to have a little bit more prominent opportunities for community members to express their priorities for how this revenue is invested.

Yeah, and thank you for that question, Councilmember.

And I've really appreciated the collaboration with your office to make that effort at the forefront with your community engagement team being out in the community as Adams Avenue is rolled out, um, and then also your ideas and and feedback on the A-frame signs, the stickers, the social media posts.

But I understand, yeah, getting a little bit more priority and level setting of expectations, I guess, on the front end is helpful, and so you absolutely have the commitment to be more proactive before work is done to better understand um what the priorities of residents who live in CPDs are, whether that is a proactive survey sent out by your office, our office, and comms D, whether that's a QR code at the kiosk to take that survey or other forms as your community reps are out at town council meetings, planning groups, and things like that.

And so, yes, absolutely that commitment is there to continue collaborating to make sure that folks know um the dollars they're spending are getting reinvested back in their neighborhood.

I appreciate that, Coda.

And that QR code at the again at the point of transaction, I think actually is a really good opportunity for that.

Will everyone do it?

No, will some people mock it, yes.

Um, but there's I think again, two things that happen there.

One, the level setting of expectations, letting it be known what can and can't be funded with those dollars, and then two, for those who do participate in that process, um, they will see that work done.

Um, if we give them a transparent list of the work that can be completed, uh we can turn that into action.

Um, and um again, do I expect everyone to be supportive of parking fees?

No.

Do I expect a parade at the end of this?

No, but I do think we can meet a place where community trusts a little bit more the city to use its its dollars wisely and can better understand why revenue is an essential piece of the equation when um services and uh capital and investments are demanded rightfully so um by our residents.

So uh thank you for the the time there, Council President, and that concludes my second.

All right.

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

So we have a motion by Council Member Whitburn, a second by council member Ilo Rivera to move the staff recommendation.

We'll go to council president pro Tam Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, I just have uh one or two questions uh with this update.

Um, there was a lot of mention in uh the update that the funding that is being utilized to accomplish some of the additional work.

Is it all overtime funding?

For fiscal year 26, yes, and what we are bringing forward for you today is 1.1 million in overtime funding and approximately 700,000 in NPE.

In the future, do you anticipate this to continue to largely require the use of overtime in order to deliver the work that's specifically coming from the parking districts?

Yes, council president pro tem.

I guess I would ask how's that decision made as to what's actually coming out of time costs a lot more than the regular work of the department.

We're specifically expending overtime out of these parking districts, which to me just sort of means we're drawing down faster from them as we would with other projects in the city.

Hi, Councilmember.

Bethany Bizak, Chief Performance and Logistics Officer.

So if you look at the summary in the budget documents, it will outline the revenue associated with each parking meter area, and then it will outline by each department the eligible expenditures and the cost associated with them.

So there's plenty of work that's going on in regular time in these parking meter areas, and we actually have more eligible expenditures than we have revenue associated with it.

So what this is doing is trying to get extra time out of our transportation crews to try to mitigate some of the backlogs.

What we heard from a lot of the stakeholders as part of our engagement process is that they were looking for enhanced services.

So the overtime is what's providing that direct connection to the enhanced level of service.

Yeah, I and I only ask because I think it's it's fair to be transparent about it, which is I've always struggled with this item, recognizing that we're taking dollars that communities felt like they had a say in and that they thought were intended for projects that were over and beyond what the city is typically responsible for.

And so as much as I cherish, you know, I think everyone should celebrate additional street lights and sidewalks and crosswalks that are being done.

I also can't help but look at that sometimes and feel like in the system that was designed with the council policy previously, that's that part of the work should have always come from the 85% that came from the city.

But now we're celebrating that additional work being done by the city from the remaining 15%, which is largely funded through overtime, meaning it costs even more to do that work.

Um, and I know for some of them they would probably go back and pick other items that they had identified within their communities that were needed.

That's where I think the community feedback is important in the future because I'm sure when some of these parking districts were started, they didn't all intend to just spend that funding on the work that they thought the city was already responsible for.

They were hoping that it would help accomplish things that the city does not get to that the community identified.

Um and so, for example, in my district, if the Kearney Mesa convoy area is still being looked at as a potential area to add parking meters, I think that discussion will be very difficult without any active participation from the community parking district, which was formed before this policy basically eliminated them temporarily.

Um so I just I note that because I think that it'll be a challenge always as we're looking to the future.

Um I understand the the selling point is that we're able to accomplish more, but I think from a communication standpoint, we have to we have to be able to show them why that's doing something more and how their feedback is still valued, and not that this was just a way to supplant the city's lack of funding for our overtime needs.

Um so with that said, I I did not support this item last time this came a year ago.

I still don't support this item for the same reasons.

Um so I'll be voting on the motion.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

Um, not seeing anybody else in the lights.

Uh thank you for the work in bringing this forward.

Um, just a couple of questions.

Um I've heard from my constituents when we've done some sidewalk repairs that was caused by a street tree that the street tree was not replaced.

Um, is that not an eligible fund?

Uh, our use of these funds.

I'm not gonna ask you about specifics.

I don't actually know specifics, but are we allowed to replace a tree that was the wrong tree and caused root problems and why don't you get back to me?

That's not important for this vote.

But I I'd like to know and be able to answer the constituents.

Uh, the other part that I was curious about was when we took action in October, which was the first action, we allocated the 1.809.

And this time we're doing exactly the same amount.

Is there something magic about that dollar amount that you chose to do that or that is uh based on transportation department's capacity to deliver on the work?

Oh, okay.

So if we said hey, take more money because the fund balances are bigger, you would say no, thank you because we just don't have the capacity.

Okay, that makes a lot of it.

Yeah, and and to answer your first question, uh the parking funds are too uh for projects that enhance mobility and parking in the district, so um, tempted to say that the trees would not be an eligible expense.

Okay, all right.

Um sad to hear, but I understand the nuance uh there.

Um, and thank you for taking the time.

I know I had some questions when I we got the briefing on this, and you took the time to explain why there was such a small amount coming out of PB, but PB parking meters are relatively new, pretty small compared to the other parking districts.

So I appreciate your willingness to take the time to answer my questions.

So uh with that, uh, we have a motion by council member Whitburn, a second by council member Elo Rivera.

Please call the roll.

I'm sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

And that passes eight to one with Council President Pro Tem Lee voting no.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, again, thank you to good folks at transportation uh for your work.

So that brings us to the end of the morning session.

Uh, we will now adjourn for the noon recess and reconvene open session at one PM or shortly thereafter.

I almost did the clap once, but I guess we're up above kindergarten.

I'm your city clerk, Deanna Fuentes, and we're happy to have you here in council chambers for this meeting.

Hello.

Just wanted to make sure that if you have anybody seating time, make sure that you submit all of those speakers' lips together at one time so that we make sure that we give you that seated time.

If you like something, thumbs up.

If you don't, thumbs down.

Clapping doesn't allow the next person being called to actually come up to the yellow reserve seats.

And that's the last thing I'll say.

When I call your name, I tend to call some of them in uh in batches, so you can all come up to the yellow reserve seats to make it easier for you to come up to the microphone when it is your turn to speak.

So watch out for your name and thank you again for coming down and participating.

Have a great afternoon.

Um, I'm sorry.

Um, I'm not sure.

Yeah, I'm not real.

All right.

We're gonna get started.

The afternoon that you've all been waiting for.

So if we could all begin to settle down, there we go.

There we go.

All right.

Good afternoon.

I will now reconvene the city council meeting of Tuesday, June 9th, 2026.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Campbell.

Councilmember Von Wilper.

Here.

Councilmember Campillo.

Councilmember Moreno?

Present.

Councilmember Ila Rivera.

And Council President Lacava.

Also attending the meeting, our Assistant City Attorney Leslie Fitzgerald, independent budget analyst, Charles Matica, Council Affairs Advisor, Matt Yagagin.

Well, Matt Yagagin, policy director from the mayor's office, as well as the mayor himself.

And myself, your city clerk, Deanna Fuentes.

Thank you, Council President.

All right.

Thank you, Madam City Clerk.

A quorum is now present, so we are underway.

Speakers may address the council during public comment and also in connection with specific items of business on the agenda.

However, the city must make sure that no one person or group of people disrupt the meeting in a way that prohibits other speakers from expressing their ideas and opinions.

Excessive yelling and screaming or speaking beyond one's a lot of time are examples of that kind of behavior that disrupts the meeting.

It is not the content, it is the disruption that we're focusing on.

So to make sure that everyone here has an opportunity to address the council, I will alert an individual or individuals if I think their conduct becomes disruptive.

The disruption continues, I'll roll the individual out of order, and if the disruption continues further, we'll declare a recess so we can restore order.

At that point, I will direct the individual to leave the room, and if the individual refuses, police will escort the individual out of the building.

If we have to repeat this process of warning and recessing the meeting, all members of the public will be excused from the council chamber, credential media would be allowed to remain.

Once again, we have these practices and procedures to protect the rights of other speakers who wish to address the council and to allow the council to conduct the public's business.

So with that, clerk, please introduce item 704.

Item 704 is the approval of the city's fiscal year 2027 budget.

If you'd like to speak to this item, now is the time to please bring your speaker slip up to the front of the room into the clear box.

And if you are participating remotely, now's the time to raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

So this item, the staff is the Office of the Independent Budget Analyst.

So Charles kick us off and make sure we get an introduction of everybody who is speaking and how much time the team needs.

Great.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, we will need roughly 30 minutes to go for a presentation.

All right.

All right.

Um, so we are here this afternoon at the conclusion of this year's budget process to discuss our office's final budget report, uh, for which is before you today.

I am joined for this presentation by Amy Lee, Gillian Andalina, and Jordan Moore, although our entire team is also here for questions and follow-up discussion.

Our presentation this afternoon will largely cover the items that we discussed at Friday's final BRC hearing.

I will kick us off with a brief overview, and then my team will walk you through the bulk of our presentation before I wrap up with recommended actions and concluding thoughts.

I'll start with an overview of the last two months.

The proposed budget was released on April 15th.

That budget included a number of significant cuts, and those reflected the city's ongoing structural budget deficit.

In early May, this council heard hearings over the course of a week to walk through that budget proposal, and then the mayor released a May revise on May 13th.

That may revise identified 13.5 million dollars in additional resources, mainly from stronger hotel tax revenue and transfers to the general fund from the golf course fund.

They may revise, then use those resources to fund 13 and a half million dollars in expenditure restorations, including library and rec center hours in districts 4, 8, and 9, as well as shoreline restrooms and funding for youth drop-in centers.

Then on Tuesday, June 2nd, my office released IBA report 26-15.

That report identifies additional resources beyond those that are in the May revise, and we also recommend technical adjustments and corrections and finally incorporate the restoration of programs based on our review of council member budget memos that we received on May 20th.

The item before you today is the proposed budget as modified by the May revise, along with the additional modifications that are recommended by the IBA's office.

The task of this council today is to adopt a final budget.

In doing so, you can make additional modifications, but it is also essential and legally required that the budget that is adopted remains balanced.

Turning to our report itself, it is worth noting and highlighting that we identified resources that can support the restoration of all items that were included in a majority of council member memos.

This includes partial restoration of arts funding, as well as the Child and Youth Success Program, the film program manager position, CPPS, the Small Business Enhancement Program, and others.

At a high level, our report covers five main areas.

First, we recommend three modifications that can be implemented with no net impact to the city's general fund.

These are the restoration of arts and cultural funding, an alternative package for homelessness programs, and the transfer of the Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement to the City Attorney's Office.

These were all supported by a majority of council members in their memos, and my team will walk through each of them.

We then identify and recommend an additional $6.6 million dollars in general fund resources based on updated revenue projections, expenditure reductions, and technical corrections.

Of this amount, $4.5 million is ongoing.

Those identified resources can support all majority supported expenditures as well as other recommended adjustments, which altogether total $2.9 million.

That leaves $2.6 million in remaining ongoing resources and $1.1 million in remaining one-time resources.

Our office does recommend that the one-time resources be set aside either into reserves or held as excess equity to help protect against upcoming fiscal challenges, although ultimately that will be this council's decision.

While the budget that we are discussing today is balanced, it is also worth noting that it is not structurally balanced, and setting aside one-time resources today instead of spending them can help avoid that structural imbalance from growing.

That accounted for.6 million dollars in remaining ongoing resources.

While we have recommended funding all expenditures that were in the memos of a majority of council members, there were additional items that were not in a majority of memos, but were in the memos of four council members.

Our office has identified resources that cover that can cover some, but not all of those.

Chief among those requests was additional library and rec center restorations, along with some potential additional revenue resources.

In general, we present each of those items without a recommendation, although in some we actually recommend against pursuing them.

My team will walk through these as well.

Finally, we discuss additional considerations, the city's structural deficit, the impacts of the trash fee and Balboa Park paid parking settlement that was approved yesterday, and the city's enormous unfunded infrastructure needs.

Council should consider all of these as it engages in its final deliberations on the FY27 budget.

With that, I will turn this presentation over to Amy.

Thank you very much, Charles.

I will first start by highlighting the recommended modifications to the budget that would each have no net impact to the general fund.

First, our office proposes a restoration of up to six million dollars for the three arts and culture grant programs that were eliminated in the proposed budget.

All nine council members supported some type of restoration to these grants.

The proposed budget would pay $12.1 million of annual debt service on the 1998 convention center expansion bonds from the special promotional programs budget, which is also where arts and culture funding is traditionally coming from.

Our office recommends instead using up to six million dollars of Measure C funds to partially pay for annual debt service in fiscal year 2027.

This would in turn free up six million dollars in special promotional programs budget that could then go towards arts and culture.

While council may free up to the full 12.1 million amount by using Measure C convention center funds, we recommend against using more than six million dollars.

And there are two reasons.

First, the county of San Diego has committed almost three million dollars for arts program grants, and the Presbyt Private Foundation announced they would also provide three million dollars for arts and culture funding the next year.

And second, while the use of Measure C convention center funds to pay existing convention center debt services legally permissible, the convention center faces an operating deficit and large capital needs backlog.

The convention center will eventually need significant resources to move forward with a future expansion, which was the primary intent of Measure C.

Regarding the $6 million that we do recommend, we should suggest it be allocated to the three grant programs proportional to their fiscal year 2026 budgeted amounts.

And we previously suggested council consider implementing funding caps to ensure more organizations can be supported.

If council members do not support the restoration amount or caps, we recommend noting that in today's final budget action.

On homelessness services, the program reductions in the May revision most closely resemble option A from our office's review of the proposed budget, but includes the closure of Aero Drive safe parking instead of prevention reductions.

Our office recommends three modifications to the May revision.

The modifications were developed by the housing commission in a consultation with HSSC.

Six council members supported these program reductions, and a seventh council member supported three of the alternate reductions.

The recommended alternate reductions include first, a $1.6 million reduction to the 16th and Newton shelter, $1.3 million less than the May revision.

This would result in the reduction of 50 beds, which is less than the estimated 200 to 250 beds reduced in the May revise.

While 50 beds would still be reduced, they will be replaced by expanded capacity at another shelter.

Next, we recommend the closure of the 37 bed city funded lighthouse shelter due to operational challenges running two different service models at the same site.

This would reduce expenditures by $980,000.

However, these beds would continue to operate under a different program without city funding.

And lastly, we recommend the use of $406,000 in state grant funding for the family reunification program.

These three modifications net an additional $42,000 in savings, and we recommend they be used to support additional wind-down funding at the Neil Good Day Center as the program operator transitions to a scaled down services at a smaller site.

The elimination of security at the old central library and safe parking at Arrow Drive and Central Elementary remain unchanged from the May revision.

The last recommended modification without a net general fund impact is to restore one FTE program manager position in the Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement, and transferring all OLLC personnel revenue and expenditure from the city treasurer's office to the city attorney's office.

Once in the city attorney's office, grant and penalty funding can be used to offset OLSE general fund costs for a net zero impact.

We note that our office has made a technical correction to the table summarizing these adjustments in our report on page 10 to ensure they are budget neutral.

This proposal was supported by seven council members in their budget priority memos.

Next transitioning to our office's recommendations for ongoing and one-time revenue adjustments and resource modifications.

Like Charles previously mentioned, our office identified $4.5 million in ongoing resources and $2.1 million in one-time resources for a total of $6.6 million.

In later slides, Jillian will detail the exact expenditures, but we were recommending using $1.9 million in ongoing resources and $180,000 in one-time resources for a total of $2.9 million.

This leaves $2.6 million in ongoing resources and $1.1 million in one-time resources remaining.

Given the structural budget deficit and economic uncertainty, we'd like to stress the importance of not using any ongoing remaining resources for any new ongoing expenditures that could exacerbate the deficit.

Additionally, we recommend leaving one-time remaining resources as excess equity or reserves contribution to help address any unexpected needs in fiscal year 2027.

This table breaks down where our office identified ongoing resources based on revenue adjustments, expenditure reductions, and technical adjustments.

We identified additional ongoing revenue from the transient occupancy tax, sales tax, and an increased reimbursable amount from the low moderate income housing asset fund.

However, these resource increases are more than offset by decreases in property taxes, cannabis business taxes, and a reduced transfer from the parking meter operations fund to net $319,000 in reduced revenue.

Our office also identified budget expenditure reductions that could be made due to revised November election cost productions, revised property management cost projections for $101 Ash Street, and the reduction of one FTE public affairs program manager in the police department, the latter of which was supported by five council members.

These expenditure reductions net to $3.4 million in ongoing savings.

Lastly, we identified a technical correction to the transnet transfer to the general fund, adjusted the demolition of a building at Liberty Station as ongoing to instead be one-time, reverse the errant transfer of one FTE hazardous material inspector two from the refuse disposal fund to the general fund, and corrected the FTE count and personal expenditures of a recreation center restoration error.

These corrections net $1.5 million in ongoing savings.

Finally, we note that a report identified updated residual RPTF as a potential resource, but with an amount listed as TBD.

Since the release of a report, the RPTTF allocations were finalized, and they will have a negative impact of $185,000 on our fiscal year 2027 resources and recommends that be reflected in any final budget motion today.

This list breaks down the eight one-time resources our office identified that nets to $2.1 million.

Of these one-time resources, we would like to highlight the $621,000 in savings identified in the performance and analytics department after working with PANDA to identify additional savings.

These savings include budgeted personnel expenditure savings from holding three positions vacant and changes to the cost sharing for GIS mapping program licenses.

Excess equity in fiscal year 2026 is not proposed as a one-time resource to be used in fiscal year 2027 because of elevated risks associated with budgeted but not yet received revenue in fiscal year 2026.

Additionally, our office recommends leaving the remaining $1.1 million and unused one-time resources for potential excess equity or reserve contributions in fiscal year 2027.

Now I will hand it over to Jillian.

Thank you, Amy.

Now I'll go over our office's recommended expenditure modifications, which includes all majority supported items in council member budget modification memos.

They mostly fell within the category of ongoing expenditures, with seven items totaling $1.9 million.

First, there's $900,000 for council's community projects programs and service grants or CPPS, which equates to $100,000 per council office.

We note that this amount could be reduced or made one time to free up ongoing resources for other things.

Next is $336,000 to restore the Child and Youth Success Program Coordinator with $100,000 for contracted use services.

We also recommend placing this position in the Mayor's Office to strengthen policy involvement and coordination.

There's $263,000 to restore the city auditor's budget.

This is partially offset by a $55,000 one-time cut to the office it recommended or requested to take instead.

There's $215,000 to restore the filming program manager, $165,000 to restore the cut to our office to avoid staffing reductions, $21,000 for the addition of a deputy city clerk to in the clerk's office, which is net of anticipated passport revenue, and finally $20,000 for ongoing licensing costs for the new case management system for the ethics commission.

We also have three recommended one-time items totaling $980,000.

The first is restoring the base budget for the small business enhancement program at $750,000.

Second is funding for the Office of the Commission on Police Practices Complaint and Investigation Management System for $200,000.

This item actually has support from four council members, but we were able to identify savings within the office to offset much of the cost.

And finally is one the one-time portion of the new ethics commission software system for $30,000.

So that completes our formal recommendations, which again includes all majority supported items.

After funding them, we have $3.7 million in remaining resources, of which $2.6 million is ongoing.

When looking at items supported by four council members, they're an additional items totaling $4.4 million.

With the remaining resources, only a portion of those items could be funded, and because of that, we present the following items as potential additions and are not part of our recommendation.

Before going into them, we want to again stress the importance of keeping the city's long-term fiscal stability in mind and constraining the addition of any new ongoing expenditures, especially if they would worsen the structural budget deficit.

First is the full restoration of both recreation center and library hours, totaling $2.9 million.

For both of these, our office includes location by location costs to guide any partial restorations.

Next is $592,000 for the police department front-counter staffing, which would lift the hiring freeze for these positions.

Next is council funding for arts, culture, and community festival grants or ACCF for $450,000 or $50,000 per office.

There's $222,000 to restore $24-hour security at the Storage Connect Center in line with the initial agreement with the community.

We do note that security has been reduced since January, and both HSSD and the police report department report no operational impacts or security concerns.

However, if there was a break-in and any items were lost, that could have severe impacts on individuals experiencing homelessness.

Finally, there was support for restoring a chief operating officer by promoting one existing deputy chief operating officer.

The net cost would be about $194,000 based on timing and salary assumptions, which would vary if implemented.

Now I will cover additional potential resources supported by several council members or identified by our office.

Some have significant drawbacks, so we recommend against pursuing them as shown in red on the slide.

First is the elimination of Axon My 90 software in the police department.

This doesn't produce general fund savings because it isn't budgeted within the general fund.

Next is the implementation of two officer units in the police department.

We recommend against this item as it would result in a 40% reduction in patrol vehicles, which would lead to fuel savings, but would likely have detrimental impacts to response times, especially in divisions with large geographic service areas.

To address response times, it would require increased overtime costs, leading to likely no savings or potentially increased costs instead.

Another option is one that our office identified, which is reallocating homeless estate grant funds that support the regional task force on homelessness for its HMIS system used to report program outcomes and service utilization.

However, this would require the tax force to find alternative funding for this.

Four council members supported the exploration of cost savings through reductions to car allowances, cell phones, and non-essential travel expenses.

$616,000 is the maximum estimate we have for this since it doesn't account for increases related to employees submitting for mileage reimbursements or travel that's still likely needed.

Eliminating cell phone costs would also require labor discussions that may also have offsetting costs, so we recommend against that option.

Next is cancellation of the automated license plate reader or ALPR contract.

This is a service bundled with ubiquitous contract for the use of Smart Street Lights.

To cancel AO ALPR only would require contract renegotiation to determine a savings amount, which we don't have identified at the moment.

Alternatively, the whole contract could be deterred terminated with 30 days' notice, which would lead to $2 million in savings.

We also raised for consideration an item that would require action to make fees for public safety support at special events organized by nonprofits $100% cost recoverable instead of providing existing discounts.

This would generate up to $2.1 million.

And finally, four council members asked our office to identify $3 million in cuts to departments with higher unclassified staff, such as PANDA and communications department.

We identified $200, I'm sorry, $621,000 in one-time savings for PANDA, which is included in our recommendations.

Since this falls short of the $3 million target, we provided additional information on the major activities of both departments with associated costs, as well as high-level potential impacts of reducing these functions should council decide that they are no longer a priority.

It should be noted that other departments with higher proportions of unclassified staff are in other departments, including independent or elected official offices.

With that, I'll hand it off to Jordan.

Thank you, Jillian.

So before we conclude, again, there are additional considerations that we believe the council and the public should be made aware of and should be present in your minds as you go about making your final budget decisions today.

Next slide.

The first is the city's structural budget deficit.

And while some progress has been made on addressing the long-term structural budget deficit, the overall problem remains unsolved in the budget is currently constructed.

The May Revise is still structurally imbalanced by about $15.3 million dollars.

But if reserve contributions in line with the current reserve policy were included, that imbalance would grow to $95.4 million.

We know in our report, no reserve contributions have been made since 2023, and fiscal year 2022 was the last time the city had reserves in line with what the policy would have called for.

Additionally, while projections in April showed a smaller deficit of $32.9 million for 2028 and a potential surplus in fiscal year 2029, those projections are now no longer viable.

I'll discuss the impacts of the settlement from yesterday on the next slide, but the impacts of that settlement will result in long-term revenue declines.

There are also, however, additional cost pressures, such as both the finalized and still to be negotiated labor contracts, that while the ones that have been approved to date have limited cost impact in the near term, they're currently projected to increase costs significantly beginning in FY2029 and beyond.

There are also cost pressures from potential litigation and financial exposure due to failing infrastructure, which when combined with everything else suggests there is a lot more work that will need to be done to improve the city's long-standing financial issues.

It is crucial that the city consider how to right size the organization in order to avoid the perpetuating cycle of annual budget cuts and restore the public confidence that will be needed to address this as well as other issues.

As mentioned, the recently approved agreements from yesterday on solid waste fees and parking at Balbolo Park are not anticipated at this time to have an impact on the 2027 budget, but they will result in ongoing revenue declines.

On the solid waste fees, rates are now reduced for fiscal year 28 and 2029, which combined with mitigating actions that you heard about yesterday, will most likely result in an increased general fund spending of around $10.8 million in 208 and $10 million in 2029, and would potentially be that amount or larger in every year thereafter unless a new cost of service study is completed.

The mitigating actions again mostly include lower service levels, such as the elimination of bulk yet and pick them in weekly recycling, which, if the council did wish to maintain those levels, would require additional fund contributions.

Additionally, now that the fees are locked in place and with, as I mentioned, any unanticipated cost increases for waste collections, such as labor costs, vehicle maintenance, and disposal fees will require additional general fund resources to fund a service that is not provided to all of the city's residents, but those only provided a sum based on the municipal code.

Given this general fund exposure, our office recommends that environmental services develop and produce a five-year financial outlook that covers their operations, particularly but not exclusively funded by the solid waste management fund that can be presented alongside the general fund and PUD outlooks every year.

On Balboa paid parking, at this point and when we wrote this report, there was no anticipated impact for 2027.

Again, now that parking was set to remain in place through the end of the calendar year.

We had anticipated that revenue from the zoo would remain about three million dollars.

I will note this is possibly up in the air.

It is a rapidly changing development, but as far as our report was concerned, we assume that $3 million would stay.

For the non-Zoo parking lots, updated revenue projections with these lots are now based based on recent experience, would indicate that the overall revenues of paid parking had not been eliminated, would have been above the amounts included in the current budget.

Based on the half year of revenue and combined combined with the reduction in expenses to the non-zoo lots, would result in a net zero budget impact to the general fund for 27.

However, the low this would lower ongoing net revenue by about $9.4 million beginning in 2028 and obviously continuing thereafter.

Lastly, even if it is possible to right size the city's day-to-day operations with ongoing revenue, it would still not resolve the ongoing infrastructure funding deficit, which, as of the last CIP outlook was around $7.8 billion over the next five years.

As is usual, stormwater remains the driving force behind this ever increasing deficit with current with current capital budgets mostly relying on reactive needs and emergency funding.

However, stormwater is not the only major asset with a deficit, as there are also significant deficits for streets, street lights, sidewalks, parks, and public safety assets such as police and fire stations.

Without additional funding, mostly, I would note for capital renewal of the existing infrastructure or funding to add new infrastructure, call for and community plans or other documents.

The city's current infrastructure is basically set to go in a run to fail mode, which is mentioned will increase financial liabilities for the city, reducing resources for other operating services in the long run.

Additionally, maintenance of existing infrastructure continues to be underfunded, quickening the run to failure cycle.

While the May revision and the budget modifications presented do return some service levels, facility maintenance, which ensures the services have a place to happen is still being cut.

This is an issue that, due to its magnitude, will require significant new revenue, as even the wholesale elimination of some current city services would not generate the savings necessary to address the infrastructure funding gap.

And now I'll hand it back to Charles to conclude.

Thank you, Jordan.

So that brings us to our final recommended actions.

Taking these actions would result in the adoption of a balanced FY27 budget.

The first two actions on the slide are to adopt the proposed budget as modified by the May Revise and as modified by my office's recommendations.

We do note that our report identified $3.7 million in additional resources for which we do not make recommendations, and council could allocate this amount to additional expenditures today, although we do suggest that one-time amounts identified be reserved.

Finally, we make three recommendations that would provide for additional arts funding, provide an alternative package of homelessness program, as well as the transfer of the Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement to the City Attorney's Office, all of which can be accomplished without any impacts to the city's general fund.

With that, I will wrap up with a few observations.

Next slide.

First, there is some good news here.

Adopting a balanced budget for FY27 that includes meaningful majority supported service restorations is possible.

Our office identified sufficient resources to fund all of the modifications that were supported by a majority of this council.

The arts and culture restorations, the alternative homelessness package, and the OLSE transfer can all be done with no net impact to the general fund, and that is a real achievement given the fiscal environment that we are working in.

But I also want to be direct about what adopting a balanced budget today will not accomplish.

It will not solve the city's structural fiscal issues.

Our structural deficit will persist into FY28 with a gap of nearly $33 million projected out of the proposed budget that will likely grow.

The small surplus that was once projected in FY29 is also unlikely given the impacts of the settlement and labor costs that we discussed.

And the city's unfunded infrastructure backlog at nearly $8 billion over the next five years alone will continue to compound every year that it goes unaddressed.

The ongoing misalignment between the city's revenues and the cost of city services that residents expect, particularly around infrastructure, cannot be solved through cuts inefficiencies alone.

We have stated this before.

The numbers continue to bear this out, and addressing this misalignment will ultimately require a significant new revenue source.

Securing that new revenue will require a future public vote, and to that end, building and maintaining public trust cannot just be a consider a political consideration, but must be a fiscal consideration as well.

And so as you consider any additional modifications beyond those that my office was recommended, I urge each council member to weigh this reality against your final budget decisions.

The decisions that you make today will either strengthen or weaken the foundation for the conversation that the city needs to have with its residents about the true cost of city services and the revenues that are needed to provide them sustainably.

And to the members of the public that are here this afternoon.

For those of you that are here to advocate for more restorations, please consider that identifying what you want funded only addresses half of what's needed.

The other half is ensuring that the city has the ongoing resources needed to pay for them.

Our current resource constraints mean that any major restoration or new program can only be funded by cutting something else.

Without additional revenue, this will remain the case.

And additional resources, as I said, will ultimately require a public vote.

So if you are here today to ask this council to provide more funding for services that you rightly care about, I would also encourage you to have that same conversation with your neighbors, because this council alone cannot solve the resource side of that equation.

With that, my team and I are available and look forward to this afternoon's discussion.

All right.

Thank you, Charles.

Thank you to your entire office for the very deep and thoughtful uh identification of expenditures and resources, validating them as necessary, and the candor in which you express that uh throughout your team.

So with that, clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

We do have a little over two hours of public comment here in Council Chambers and about 16 people with their hands raised in the virtual queue.

So it will be one minute per person, as noted previously.

If I call your name in a batch, it's to come up to the front row in the yellow reserve seats to make it easier for you to get up to the microphone.

We will be starting with Greg.

So is South.

I'm sorry.

But you know.

I'm off to a bad start today.

My apologies.

But you have time seated to you by Rudy Lombaria.

Rudy, can you please raise your hand?

Rudy, can you please raise your hand?

Um, she does need to be or he or she they need to be present for them to see due time.

So I will go to Robert Morales.

Robert Morales, please come up.

You have time seated by Sarah Lopez.

Can you please raise your hand?

And then if I can have the following individuals, please come up to the yellow reserve seats, Dan Goodman, Fernanda Flores, Doris Wynne, Stephen Gelb, and Akila Templeton.

If you can all please come up to the yellow reserve seats.

Robert, you'll have two minutes.

Please start when ready.

Excellent, and thank you.

Good afternoon, Council President and Council members.

My name is Robert Morales, and I am the business representative from uh IOTC Local 122.

I represent more than 2,600 arts and entertainment convention and trade show workers throughout San Diego County.

I want to thank Council members Lee and Foster for spearheading a plan of action to address the proposed 2027 budget cuts to the arts and culture funding.

So kudos.

I also want to recognize County Supervisor Monica Stepp and the San Diego Previce Foundation for stepping forward and taking action to support our region's arts community.

These proposed cuts would have real impact on working families, local businesses, cultural organizations, and thousands of workers who help bring arts, entertainment conventions, and community events to life in San Diego.

Arts and culture are not expenses to be cut, they are investments.

They strengthen our community, enrich our neighborhoods, and create jobs.

I urge all council members to vote yes on this common sense proposal and demonstrate your commitment to preserving San Diego's vibrant art and culture sector.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Greg.

Is uh Rudy back in?

Thank you.

You'll have two minutes.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Uh good morning, Council members.

My name is Greg Sawizersal, President IATC 122.

I represent the workers who build, load in, run, and support live entertainment, theater, film, television conventions, and cultural events throughout this region.

Um, I'm here today to speak in favor of the budget before you.

I know this has been a difficult budget year.

Uh, and I want to acknowledge the work that has been done to listen, adjust, and respond to the community.

Uh, in particular, I want to thank Council President Protan Lee as well as uh budget chair Foster for the leadership and restoring arts and culture funding for the council and the council and IBA for preserving the city's film office position.

Arts and culture are uh just line.

Sorry.

Arts and culture are not just line items.

They are workers, stages, classrooms, neighborhood events, museums, theaters, music, dance, film, and the organizations that make San Diego feel like San Diego.

These dollars touched institutions like the Old Globe, the San Diego Opera, the Symphony, San Diego Musical Theater, and many smaller organizations across the city.

I also want to thank you for preserving the city's uh film office position.

That position is not just paperwork, it is the front door for productions that want to film here and be uh bring crew, hotel rooms, catering, parking, local spending, and national visibility to San Diego.

I also want to acknowledge the convention center.

For my members, it is not abstract.

It is one of the most important workplaces in this city.

Its expansion and modernization must remain part of the long-term conversation.

They are connected pieces of the same economy.

So I support this budget because it keeps the door open, but this restoration should be seen as a bridge, not just the finish line.

It gives the city philanthropy the city, philanthropy, labor, tourism, and the creative community time to build something more permanent.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Dan Goodman.

Dan Goodman, are you here?

Fernanda Flores.

Do you have to be present when they're here?

Fernando Flores, you have time seated to you by Matt Carr.

Thank you so much.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, uh, Chair La Cava and esteemed council members.

My name is Fernanda Flores.

I am also a 28-year resident of District 4 and a the political director with IATSE Local 122.

Um, today we're proudly representing 1500 stage hands throughout San Diego and Coachella Valley.

We urge you to vote yes on the updated budget proposal, including potential modifications by four council members.

Arts and culture is often viewed as an extra.

For the people I represent, it is not.

It is an economic engine and a source of employment for thousands of workers who keep our theaters, cultural institutions, and community spaces running.

When arts funding is cut, jobs are lost, opportunities disappear, and communities suffer.

As we look at the state of the world today, uncertainty is hitting workers at every level, from federal funding cuts, and economic stability, instability to challenges at the state level.

Working families are facing growing job insecurity and threats to their careers, wondering whether their jobs will be there tomorrow.

This issue is also deeply personal to me.

Growing up, I was a beneficiary of city-funded recreation center program.

For seven years, my father made sacrifices, so my siblings and I could take Taekwondo classes at in kind of recenter with Mr.

Evans, a veteran and a mentor who helped shape my confidence and discipline as a brown woman.

My father believed that investing in those opportunities would give us the tools, not just to survive, but to thrive.

Today I stand before you as proof of what public investment in community programs can accomplish.

The decisions you make today will determine whether the next generation of San Diegans has those same opportunities.

On behalf of IATSE Local 122, thank you for listening with empathy for finding solutions and continuing to stand with working families and investing in the jobs and communities that make San Diego the finest city.

Thank you.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Doris Wynne.

After Doris Wynne, we're gonna have Stephen Gelb, Akilah Templeton, Jim Whalen, Joyce Anyata, and Nicole Murray Ramirez.

If you can please come up to the yellow reserve seats.

Please proceed.

My name is Doris Newen, resident of District 1, speaking as a volunteer of San Diego 350.

I'm here today to ask that you fund the multimodal road safety team in the fiscal UR 27 budget.

Why?

Because cutting plans for bicycle lanes and crosswalks makes our communities less safe.

In addition, improving bicycle lanes, crosswalks, and other multimodal measures make it more attractive for people to drive less, reducing emissions and pollution that contribute to climate change.

We understand that resources are tight, but we believe there are places in the budget where money can be saved and used to fund multimodal road safety teams specifically.

Use transnet or MRA funds and prioritize safety over other transportation priorities, cancel the flock surveillance contract, and taxpayer-funded subsidies for police at FedCoke Park.

Thank you very much.

Without the team, we aren't going to see new bike lanes or crosshouse for a long time.

Thank you for listening.

Stephen Gill.

My name is Stephen Gelb and I'm the board president of San Diego 350.

I urge you to restore the multimodal team to the budget.

Consider that up to 30% of San Diegans cannot drive because of age, disability, license suspension, or not being able to afford a car.

Deprioritizing biking infrastructure at this moment, when residents are being squeezed by the cost of car ownership and high gas prices, sends the message that the city's transportation network is for those who can afford to drive and not for everyone.

I also support the River Park Foundation's push for the West Valley River Crossing.

I recently cycled across the river on Morena Boulevard, and cars whizzed by me and cut me off as they accelerated onto highway ramps.

The crossing would transform the situation.

It would also be a recreational asset, allowing San Diegans to enjoy the river's natural beauty.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Akilah Templeton.

Thank you.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President and members of the City Council.

Good afternoon, Mayor Gloria.

My name is Akila Templeton, and I serve as the CEO of Veterans Village of San Diego.

As you all can imagine, the initial budget proposal generated significant concern among our unhoused veteran clients, their families, and of course our staff.

Many fear displacement of the veterans who are currently residing on our campus to make room for a new opioid treatment program.

So today I'm here to first thank the San Diego Housing Commission for updating its budget priority memorandum to clarify that a site for these treatment beds has not yet been determined.

I'd also like to thank the independent budget analyst for noting in the budget modification report that Veterans Village of San Diego is no longer being contemplated.

And then lastly, because BBSD remains referenced in the mayor's revised budget.

Thank you all for your time and have a great afternoon.

Thank you.

Hey, Dan Goodman.

That's me.

Sorry, nature cold.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Dan Goodman.

I'm a local videographer with and a stage hand with IATSI Local 122.

People visit San Diego for the beaches and the weather, but what makes them stay and come back is and build a life here is the culture that we create together.

It's in the theaters, it's in the music, it's in the conventions, and it's in the festivals that bring our neighborhoods to life.

As someone who works behind the scenes, I can tell you that every performance represents hundreds of hours worked by local people here.

Workers, artists, technicians, and small businesses throughout our city.

This funding isn't just an investment in the arts, it's an investment in San Diego's identity, our economy, and our community.

I appreciate the leadership and the collaboration that has brought this proposal forward, and I urge you guys to support this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jim Whelan.

Good afternoon, Council President Lacava, members of the commission, the commission.

I'm not on the commission anymore.

Uh City Council and hello mayor.

I am here in my personal capacity because this is real life and it's important.

While the budget is important all around, I'm here for the arts and with some concern on Flock.

I want to thank Tony Ralphs, by the way, for consistently highlighting these issues and forcing me to pay attention better.

I like what I'm hearing about restoring the arts funding.

That's great.

And I would like to get it back to 100%.

Flock, however, is a different story.

Both sides have valid points here.

It is a force multiplier, indeed, but it also gives me concerns about empowering police on accountability.

There have been already some bad false identifications, not to mention the easy misuse of data.

That said, there is a value to Flock, and if we are going to fund any of it, at least why don't we use it where it should be targeted and where it's being needed?

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Joyce Nata.

Our city needs a new vision that fosters all components of our budget.

Dear public, all of you are at the very top of our city's organization chart.

Our city has a structural budget deficit.

For our city to become the great city we strive for so we can all thrive, we need a new vision, a noble vision, a noble vision.

Dear public, special shout out to our mayor.

What vision would you fight for?

What are we fighting for?

Do we really know?

In my opinion, a new vision is the kick start we need for the boldness we need and to unravel and solve our structural budget deficit.

Thank you for listening.

It's great to be here with all of you today.

Love to all.

Thank you for that concluding sentence.

Barry Edelstein, if you can please come forward to the microphone.

And then if I can have the following individuals, please come forward to the yellow reserve seats.

Marcella Taran, Larry Webb, Janie Emerson, Catherine Douglas, Bear Wolf, Nicole Lilly, Kevin Veno, and Karina Pugh.

If you can all please come forward to the first row.

Barry, you have time seated to you by James Lawson.

Thank you.

Peter Kamiski.

Oh, sorry, no, just by James Lawson.

They got connected.

You have two minutes, please proceed.

Thanks.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I'm Barry Edelstein with the Old Globe.

I'm here to urge you to vote for this budget.

This has been a tough process, and the conversations we've all been having have been hard.

But on behalf of a constituency of a quarter million people served by the old globe, 30,000 of them served for free, and on behalf of nearly 1,200 full and part-time employees, many of them union labor, I want to thank you all for your hard work.

We're grateful in particular to Councilmember Lee, Councilmember Foster for their innovative approach to solving this problem, and also to the partnership of the county and the Great Prebis Foundation for their visionary participation.

But you know, I want to thank the entire council because we know, those of us in the art sector, that all nine council members have expressed their support for the arts and culture in our city.

We see that, we recognize it, and we're grateful for it.

What's happened over this past month is that our sector has really come together.

It has expressed a sense of solidarity that I have not seen in the 14 years that I've been in San Diego.

I moved here from New York City where there is a very sophisticated approach to public funding for the arts.

We have a lot to learn from that place.

When I came here, I knew that my life was going to be enhanced.

I look back on 14 years and I see that I've been living an extraordinarily blessed existence to be the head of one of the greatest arts institutions in the country.

When I look at the hard work that this council is doing, the hard work that the city is doing to really express its understanding of what the arts can contribute to the quality of life of every San Diegan, it makes me want to redouble my efforts to find a really permanent solution, a stable solution that the city can boast about and we can go to New York and say we know how to fund the arts in a way that you guys haven't even dreamed of.

So I look forward to working with all of you and to you too, Mr.

Mayor, on a solution that's going to make San Diego proud.

Thanks again for your support.

Let's please move forward from here.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And as noted, I had some paper clip to a different speaker.

So Peter Kamiski or Kaminski and Jesus Martin, if you can please come forward.

And who's Martin, if you can please come forward to the yellow reserve seats.

Peter, you can come up to the microphone.

Yours was next.

It was just paper clipped.

Council President, members of the Council, Peter Komiskey Baba Pac Cultural Partnership.

Thanks for your overwhelming public comments regarding arts and culture and your shared dedication for a vibrant world-class San Diego.

If I had time, I could walk through each and every one of you and the great comments you have made in support.

I want to recognize the incredible collaborative work of Christina Martinez with Arts and Culture San Diego and Bob Lehman from Arts Matters, together with the hundreds of advocates and thousands of members of the general public who express their opinions through multiple channels.

Members of the Cultural Partnership are very grateful to Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee, Budget Chair Foster, Grant Oliphant from Prebs Foundation, and Supervisor Montgomery.

We urge you, we urge you to return arts and culture funding to the highest possible level, flagged by council, but at present Pro Tim Lee to ensure that we have no longer an ongoing battle that impacts arts and culture every thank you for that concluding sentence.

Jesus Martin.

The contradictions in this budget are impossible to ignore.

Somehow there's always more money for criminalization and surveillance, but not for investing in youth and working class people and in historically disadvantaged communities.

Passing a budget that only allocates the bare minimum for youth, public spaces, environmental justice, and housing protections is not fair for us.

It's not fair for the marginalized community members of East Village, Encanto, Convoy, Linda Vista, San Isidro, and Southeast.

If you truly value your communities as much as you say you do, then cancel Flock and allocate more funds for libraries, parks, stormwater infrastructure, and the Office of Child and Youth Sucela Terran?

Marcella, you have time seating, people seating you time.

Marty Zimmerman, if you can please raise your hand.

You'll have two minutes.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon.

My name is Marcella Turan.

I'm uh in charge of, as a volunteer of 92 block captains.

And I've heard everybody here, because I've been here many times, that safety is important, right?

Safety is important no matter what community we're from.

So my community of neighborhood watch watches urges you today to support the ALPR technology.

And a good example is the recent kidnapping of the woman who was taken by her ex-boyfriend and shoved in a car, and the way they found her was through the ALPR.

These are real life people, and I wish it wasn't such a hard decision, but we're talking about safety, safety in your community, safety in mine.

And cutting the San Diego police budget and removing a tool to help solve crimes in each one of our communities is really an effort to defund the police.

That's what we're talking about.

And that's great for all the people who don't like the police, but police cannot be judged as a general group.

You have to look at them, they're people and their individuals.

If you do cut out these tools and continue to put the pressure on them, it's going to allow decreased morale, and they're not going to be able to solve crimes as fast as they have been with the ALPR.

So please make your decision with an open mind and not prejudice, and I really appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Larry Webb, if you can please come forward.

Larry Webb, you have time to see it to you by Nikki Zimmerman.

Sorry, I just wanted to.

Thank you.

Thank you, council members.

Larry Webb, a founding member of the Coastal Coalition.

We strongly oppose defunding the San Diego police department.

To be clear, failing to fund the continued use of ALPRs effectively reduces the department's ability to protect the public.

Government's foremost responsibility is public safety.

There is no dispute that our police department is understaffed.

Eliminating a proven force multiplier multiplier will only worsen the challenges created by the current officer shortage.

While ALPR technology is not perfect, it remains one of the most effective tools available.

Until a better alternative exists, such as funding hundreds of additional officers, it should continue to be supported.

Cutting 40% of the beach maintenance positions from the park and rec budget may have significant unintended consequences.

This team is responsible for constructing the protective berms around Mission Bay each winter.

With a 40% reduction in staffing, the department may be unable to perform this critical work, increasing the risk of flooding for hundreds of homes.

Such floating flooding could expose the city to substantial liability and result potentially result in millions of dollars of property damage claims.

In addition, San Diego beaches are among the city's most valuable assets and a primary attraction for visitors.

Maintaining clean, well kept beaches is essential to preserving the visitor experience.

The decline in beach maintenance could negatively impact tourism, resulting in a drop in TOT and sales tax revenues.

We all recognize that certain items in our personal budgets are necessity, such as food and shelter.

We fund those needs before spending on discretionary items.

Government funding budgets should follow the same principle until public safety and long-term infrastructure needs are fully funded, discretionary.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Janie Emerson.

Good afternoon, council.

Safety is priority number one.

If we aren't safe in the city, then the rest of the budget doesn't make any difference.

I know there's a big concern about privacy relative to the ALPRs.

How many people here have a smartphone?

How many people have a smartwatch?

How many people are on social media?

Have an Alexis device in their house, have a ring doorbell, or do other things on Google and research things.

I'm here to tell you that if you do, worldwide, there's a profile on you on all of your preferences and everything you want.

You have no privacy.

The ALPRs simply read license plates.

They save lives and solve crimes.

Please continue to fund this key element of our San Diego police department.

Thank you.

Catherine Douglas, if you can please come forward.

Good afternoon.

This council has a choice.

Are you going to look at our communities in the face and say you're willing to give off a truly effective, accurate tool that has proven time and time again to accelerate the capture of murderers, human traffickers, robbers, burglars, hit and run drivers, fugitives, kidnappers, perpetrators of domestic violence, and perpetrators of other violent crimes.

Or are you going to do the right thing and fund this game-changing technology that has provided critical investigative leads that aid SDPD in solving cases faster and with greater accuracy.

ALPRs are investigative accelerator and force multiplier for our understaffed police department.

They generate real-time leads that result in far safer communities.

The expectation of privacy is moot.

We are all being tracked by our smartphones, smart TVs, voice assistants, security cameras, laptops, and wireless routers.

Do the right thing.

First of all, thank you for all of this opportunity.

Secondly, I come to you today not to speak to you, but to speak to your humanity.

As a college professor in the humanities, I can tell you, we teach at Miramar, we teach the police, we teach the fire force, and without understanding what humanity is, they are useless.

And also when it comes to these flock technology things of this nature, please do your research and not Google AI assistant, but actual research, like I tell my students.

These things do not work.

There are people getting arrested because the facial recognition is doing making mistakes.

And please remember that your daughter, your son, has a favorite story.

You have a favorite song.

That song got you through the worst breakup of your life.

These are the human things that we need because that's what defeats crime, and all the research shows that.

And I'll leave you with this quote from Dune, which everyone here knows about.

Once men turn their thinking over to machines in the hope that this world will set them free, they only permit other men to that question.

Thank you.

Nicole Lilly.

And if I can have Kevin Veno, Karina Pugh, Christine Martinez, Bob Lehman, Michael Warburton, Khalid, Alexander, Lucky Aidan, and Hamira Yosefi.

Please come up to the front row.

Please proceed.

Hello, my name is Nicole Lilly.

I'm a renter, resident of District 3, and the executive director of Our Time to Act.

The investments you make today have impacts far beyond the next fiscal year.

We're done pleading.

We are demanding investments in a future where all San Diegans can thrive.

Let me be clear.

That future is free of free from surveillance.

It is free from bloated police budgets and subsidies for the wealthy.

That future invests in the community.

It has a fully resourced office of child and use success.

It prioritizes stormwater infrastructure and housing.

It funds parks and arts and creates safe spaces for San Diegans to thrive amongst friends and family rather than under invasive camera lenses and abusive officers.

I am a queer organizer in San Diego.

I am a young person in San Diego, and I am telling you that flock surveillance and any kind of surveillance is harmful and dangerous to our communities.

It does not create safety.

It is a proven failure of technology and us having smartphones and technology is not a license to surveil our communities.

Thank you.

Kevin Venno.

Kevin, before you come up, we were doing really good.

I know that passion excitement with people you agree and disagree with is starting to bubble up.

The professor that spoke, I didn't hear it was last part of his probably excellent comments because people started getting excited by what he was saying.

Give everybody a chance, whether you like what they're saying or don't like, so that we can hear them clearly.

They took a long time to sit here and wait, wait patiently for their chance for one or two minutes.

So let's give everybody a chance to speak and allow all of us to hear them.

Go ahead, Kevin.

Uh thank you, council members.

Uh, my name is Kevin.

I'm with uh Our Times Act, a youth Led 51c3 nonprofit.

I'm a resident of District One and on the Oahoya Community Planning Group, and I'm urging you guys not to continue funding Flock.

Um, we do not want mass surveillance in our city, and this funding is millions of dollars that could be better spent in other projects that actually help citizens instead of stalking citizens.

We know that FOC has shared uh their data with the federal government that has been going after residents in our community.

Um, we would rather see this funding go to projects like OCYS, which is the Office of Child and Youth Success, which helps young people across the city.

They're very small budget, they're only 350,000, and they bring in millions of dollars in grant specific funding.

Um, right now in the San Diego Unified School District, 8% of students and their families are going to experience homelessness in the San Diego Unified School District.

So it is really critical that we give funding to the Office of Child and Youth Success to really help out with youth issues because it also affects the families that are supporting youth here in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Karina Pugh.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Karina Pugh.

My pronouns are she, her, and I am speaking today on behalf of the San Diego LGBT community center.

I'm asking the council today to take bold action and vote to pass a budget that invests in every San Diegan, especially our most underserved communities, including the queer and trans folks living in our city.

Time and time again, our community shows up to these budget hearings to ask our elected leaders to invest in us, the people.

Today we're asking you to do it again to invest in our youth by ensuring programs like the Office of Child and Youth Success remain funded and accessible to the public, to invest in our LGBTQ plus community by ensuring the opioid settlement fund allocation in the May Revise remains allocated to substance use disorder services for the community.

To invest in what we say makes San Diego America's finest city city, our arts, our culture, and the people who keep the creative heart of San Diego beating.

Please ensure that the city's budget invests in the entire San Diego community.

Thank you.

Christine Martinez.

Good afternoon.

I'm Christine Martinez from Arts and Culture San Diego.

I'm here to support Council President Pro Tem Lee and budget chair Henry Foster in their plan to restore much of the arts and culture budget.

Thank you to both of you, and thank you to all nine of our city council members who have been so vocally supportive of arts and culture throughout this budget process.

We appreciate you taking the time to listen to hundreds of our arts and culture community who emailed your offices, called, rallied, and gave public testimony.

It is obvious you understood the very real risk to our community.

We appreciate this plan to get us through to next year as we work toward a more sustainable plan.

Let's keep the arts and culture economic engine fueled and ready to work for San Diego.

Thank you.

Bob Lehman, if you can please come forward, Bob Lehman.

Good afternoon, Council President and City City Council members.

I'm here to thank Council President Pro Tim, Kent Lee, and uh Councilmember Foster for their great plan working together with the Prebis Foundation to restore much of the funding for arts and culture, and also more importantly, looking at the at the collaborative efforts of working with the county and foundations in the future to resolve this problem going forward.

We look forward to working with you and the mayor and the mayor's office going forward to make this something that doesn't happen every year, but a plan that works great for our entire region.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael Warburton, if you can please come forward.

I'd like to clarify something for the budget team.

The county's arts funding is going directly to artists and not for operational support.

That's important because the Monterey Road Museum, we need that operational support in shoulder seasons.

I look at the OSP funding as payrolls, right?

That gets us through the hard times.

And especially now, we're still going to be dealing with six months of hard times with the paid parking.

So thank you in advance for voting for this modified budget.

And also too, I'm really looking forward to leaning in with the arts community and with city council to really figure out a long-term solution for the arts funding.

It needs to happen.

It's been on the plan for what, 12 years now, something like that.

So let's finally pull the trigger and make this thing happen.

Thank you.

Colleen Alexander.

Yeah, hello, Council.

And ever since this guy over here was elected, and we had a majority Democratic sit up here.

I've never been as ashamed to be a San Diegan and as proud to be from District 4.

Uh today you have a very simple question.

You're gonna either vote to support and fund the police or you're gonna support the people.

We're asking you that you support the people.

Are you gonna support the police whose union dues go to funding the MAGA agenda, or are you gonna support people who are targets of the pro-MAGA agenda?

Uh we request that you support the people who are begging you to support programs that prevent crime and that you defund the police that continue to perpetuate the crime that we're talking about.

Support the people, fuck the police, invest in programs that prevent crime, not the police who perpetuated.

Thank you.

Lucky Aidan.

Good afternoon, council members.

Lucky eating with PANA and the Trust SD Coalition.

Over the past several weeks, you've heard directly from community members on what matters to us.

We asked you to invest in our neighborhoods, fund parks, libraries, arts, and youth programs, and the services that help uh families thrive.

We ask you to reject harmful technologies that disproportionately target civil, our marginalized communities, immigrant communities, communities of color, and young people.

Today your vote will show us whether you're truly listening to us.

Will you stand with San Diego, the San Diegans who repres repeatedly called for investment in people, or will you ignore those voices and move forward with policies that cause harm?

Many of you campaign on standing with immigrants, youth, working families in historically dis undeserved communities.

You spoke about equity, accountability and people, putting people first.

But your valleys are proven that during a campaign, these are the they are proven in moments like this.

Today is one of those moments.

The community is paying attention.

Thank you.

A lot of people seeding you time.

If they can please raise their hand.

Muse Darman.

Sorry.

Muse Darman.

Can you please raise your hand?

Thank you.

Mohammed Mohammed?

Abtend to a bik.

Thank you.

Fatih Masay.

Said.

Thank you.

You'll have five minutes.

Please proceed.

My name is Hamaira Yusufhi with the Trust SD Coalition and Senior Policy Strategists with PANA.

Today your vote shows where your values lie.

Do you stand with the community and the programs and services we all need as San Diegans?

Or do you stand with a Georgia-based company and give those vital funds that we need here in San Diego to an organiz to a company that has ties with the Trump administration?

Flock has been proven time and time again to be ineffective.

That even your own reports demonstrate that 99.97% of hits are completely useless.

That, and I wonder what you all think what happens when these hundreds of data points, hundreds of thousands of data points are collected on our communities, right?

Um, do you all think of the immigrant community, the LGBT communities, the Muslim communities, the black and brown communities who are put in harm's way because you all are current collecting this data?

A company that has so many problems that is so poisonous that 68 cities across the countries have ended their flock contracts.

If you all did the right thing here today, you would not be the first, and you will definitely not be the last city to end the flock contract.

Okay, this is a community, this is a cost that is not worth it.

It's not cost, it's not worth it for the community cost, the financial cost, and the legal liability.

More than that though, I just want you all to understand.

Today is about who do you stand with?

Councilmember Von Wolbert.

Every time we bring this to you, you cry and you have tears, and you talk about that one police officer that died.

I want to know what about our communities?

Are you are you sphere?

Where are the tears for our communities?

Where are the tears for our immigrant communities who are separated?

Where are the tears for the Muslim community who is recovering from a domestic terrorist attack on our communities?

Where's the tears for our children who are now because of what happened because of these two teenagers that came to our Islamic center and killed three of our heroes?

Where is the tears for them?

Okay.

Where are the tears for our children who are now afraid to go outside?

Who are bedwetting?

Some of them who have gone mute.

Okay.

Where is the tears for our communities?

Because we don't feel it.

You can say all you all want, all council members who are not who are not understanding the fact that this technology was used as a tool that actually pulled resources away from saving our three heroes that day.

I just want to make sure you all understand what you were voting for, okay?

Police relied on faulty flock technology rather than using common sense practices that could have saved the lives of our three heroes.

Stop saying that you stand with immigrant communities and urge the federal government to shut down ice or to fund state security.

Because you know what?

There's a vote in front of you right now that you can do to work with our communities and protect our communities.

When ALPR was first being considered in 2023, ICSD specifically said don't put it in front of our mosque.

Because they understood that our communities were going to be used and we're going to be put in harm's way if this technology was put in front of our centers.

Okay.

And so we understand that the president and the administration and those members of Congress who are calling us all terrorists and telling us to go back to our country are going to use technologies like this to weaponize against us.

So there are council members here, four council members, council Pro Tem Lee, Council Member Foster, Councilmember Shawnee La Rivera, and Vivian Moreno who have a proposal in front of you.

Please, I'm asking each one of you, Councilmember Lacava, Councilmember Whitburn, Councilmember Von Wilbert, I don't know, Councilmember Campbell, and Raul Campio.

We need you to actually stand with our communities.

We need these vital services.

Our community needs parks, libraries, our children need arts to recover from the pain that we are feeling.

And we are rebuilding a sense of safety and belonging, and we need those vital services.

We don't need any more flock ALPR technology.

So please stand with them.

Thank you.

If I can have the following individuals.

Thank you.

Can I have the following individuals please come forward to the microphone and to the yellow reserve seats?

Patricia Serrano, if you can please come to the microphone.

After that will be Lynel Brown, Shaheed Price, Mitchell Woodson, Mimi and Hernandez, Leila Aziz, Van Huang, Amelia Lopez, and Margarita Vales, as well as Belén Hernandez.

Can you all please come forward to the front row?

That speech was worth a round of applause.

Do it again.

Okay.

That one was worthwhile.

Sorry.

Patricia, please proceed.

Good afternoon.

My name is Patricia Serrano.

I work for Fana.

I just want to say that our friends and community members are holding because Flock enable this to happen and mostly stop and protect San Diego.

I want to speak directly to Marnie.

You have followed my maybles on how you are candidate for D Street 48.

And now how you stood up to Trump?

And voting for Flock is vote for Trump.

You don't understand our communities.

You have to act understand immigrant communities.

Today you have the choice to do is stand with our communities.

Our brothers and sisters, Muslim communities, our black communities, our immigrant communities.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Lynnell Brown.

Is not here?

Okay.

Uh, Shaheed Price.

Um, good afternoon, uh Council members.

Um, my community needs investment, it needs resources.

My community don't need surveillance or the continuance of over policing in our communities.

Why do we continue to give SDPD billions to harass the black and brown peoples in our communities?

My community is Southeast San Diego District 4.

Give my community the resources to thrive like other communities are able to thrive with resources.

Fund the Southeast drop in centers, fund the community and not the police.

You know, um smart street lights, LPR, drones, you know, these things don't keep us safe.

You know, I heard a lot of people come up here talking about thanking the police and the guy over there about uh how to keep us safe, but we know what really keep communities safe, and that's invested in our communities.

Michelle uh Woodson.

Good afternoon.

Uh Ali Woodson, I'm the legal director of pillars of the community.

I have one minute, one minute to tell y'all all the data about ALPR and its flawed technology.

I have one minute to share stories after stories about community members who have been harassed by the police.

I can do that, but one minute isn't enough.

We've spent hours at city council telling you exactly that, giving you the data, giving you the community experiences, and that's not enough.

But one message is resoundingly clear.

Our communities do not trust the police.

They do not prevent crime.

Instead, they enforce harassment, discrimination, and racism on our community members.

I see it every single day.

And this budget is a message of your values.

So are you deciding to continue to fund that harassment, discrimination, and racism?

Or are you deciding to fund prevention of crime by funding our communities?

That's on you, Mimi Hernandez Hernandez.

What's up, city members?

Um, we don't need a L P R.

We need C-O-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y.

And we need you to do the right thing by getting behind our people.

For those of you who are left to vote, we're gonna tell you now do not vote yes on that system.

Yesterday, four young, four young, including a minor black boys were pulled over and 30 cop cars for four young black boys just for them to go to jail for something that they weren't even involved in or didn't do.

It took us, the community, C-O-M-M-N-N-I-T-Y.

Community.

It took us to come and save those young black boys, not no damn system.

So we say it again and again and again.

Put the money where it belongs, put it in the right resources, allow us to do what we do, the community, think about it, they can take that way up north somewhere.

But what we see in Southeast San Diego District 49821, whatever, we don't see it nowhere else.

Thank you for that concluding sentence.

Layla Aziz.

Council President.

I'm not gonna waste my time on the others.

We know that they're not with us.

Um we got one about to run against a Republican as a moderate Republican, and I don't know how that's gonna turn out.

Lakava, you are going to give the San Diego Police Department technology when they are filing all complaints and oversight as miscellaneous.

Why would you not ensure that measure A is fully implemented, and there's good oversight, strong strategic oversight without giving them some power that they've already demonstrated.

If they have it, they'll do it what they want with it.

One time I saw Marnie ask them, Are you gonna do the right thing?

And they said yes.

It was like a cartoon.

We have the structure.

Get the CPP, get oversight together, and then you can have these other conversations, but if anything else, you're doing harm, thank you.

Van Huang.

His, did I call his speakers here?

In our group, just before I meet here.

I said he was in here.

Oh.

Please come forward.

Can you go to the microphone over there?

Okay.

Oh.

Hello.

Um, City Council and um Mayor and everybody.

I'd like to thank you for um allowing that money to come back in case it comes back.

If it comes back, you know, we appreciate it.

Um, you know, we've been doing a lot of work in this community, and you can see by the vote turnout.

You know what I'm saying?

We had a bunch of um parties, vote to party, we knocked on doors, and we got everybody to come out and vote for this district so that we can see if the change could be made.

And we turned it from one color to another, and that's thanks to the work that we do in the community.

You know, and um, we have the power to change things, so and we showed it by um going out there and having people vote.

So the change that we need to make is within us, but it's because of you guys.

So we need you guys to help us make a difference by you know, saying, um investing in our community, giving hands, you know, the drop centers.

We hear, we fight.

We got a feisty woman right here and leave me.

Thank you for that concluding sentence.

We need money.

Van Huang.

I can have the following individuals.

Please come forward to the microphone and then to the yellow reserve seats.

Van Huang, Amelia Lopez, Margarita Valdez, Belén Hernandez, Paloma Cuataniego, Victor Ponce, Kaylee Flores, Ashley Leva, Ana Ramos, Noah Yi Yik, and Janica Faulkner.

If you can all come forward, as well as Patricia Mandragon.

Van Huang, if you can please come to the microphone.

Oh, we're a group.

We're supposed to be someone.

Which group?

What's the name?

Okay.

You'll uh be managing your own time then because there's no uh box check.

Is it from Van Huang all the way to.

To Victor.

I don't got a victory.

One, two, three.

Okay, so Victor, that's six.

Please proceed.

Hello, council members.

Again, I'm here as the youth organizer with Mid City Can and a homeowner in City Heights.

I want to thank you all for the restorations to the library's park and rec centers in D4, D8, and D9.

I am here asking you to keep these restorations in the final budget that you vote for today and to fully restore the hours for our parks and rec centers.

Um, these spaces are especially useful to have for our youth during the summer, and it's a space to foster community, like the parks after dark events that we see.

The activities offered throughout these spaces help our youth have healthy outlets and the libraries provide a designated cooling zone during the hot summer days when streaks when heat strokes become a concern.

Our hope is that we continue to have parks that are open where we can hear laughter, smell food from gatherings, see diverse spaces, feel the metal of the slides, and taste the balletas from the paletero.

Again, please fully restore the hours for libraries, park, and rec centers, and thank you for what you have been able to restore so far.

Uh hello city council, my name is Victor Ponte.

I'm the leader organizer at Mid City Cannes, uh, where I've had the pleasure working with our youth council since 2018.

Since then, many of them have grown up, and I'm happy to say that they're all doing well.

So I have to continue their involvement in community work and now actively going back to contribute to the community in their own ways.

There are just a handful of examples, so it's possible when you invest in youth and set up to them to succeed.

The achievements demonstrate the incredible potential of young people when given opportunities and support, and I believe their ongoing contributions will continue to positively impact our community for years to come.

However, I believe the city also needs to support and contribute them and contribute to them by successfully restoring the by fully restoring the proposed cuts to the office of children's success.

San Diego's children's youth and youth deserve more than symbolic support.

There's a visible permanent and adequately funded office that can coordinate services, leverage additional funding, and ensure their um their needs remain at the center of city policy.

Uh, we just got a chance to go last week with our youth uh to the OCYS event that they hosted, and it was beautiful to see so many youth there in the space, just being able to gather once they amongst each other, being able to connect, being able to see the different resources are available to them in the city, and this isn't possible without the office putting it together and coordinating it.

Uh, that there's funding is limited, so I would recommend cutting the proposed block funding that's going there.

Um, we've seen that that's only harming our community, so we wanted to ensure that we can distribute the money from there um to the youth instead.

Thank you.

Okay, we are grateful for the restorations to parks that my colleague Paloma already mentioned, but we are also still disappointed and sad by the remaining cuts to the parks department, specifically three positions, which are two park designers, which each cost 170,000 per position with overhead, and the assistant deputy director of parks infrastructure and assets, 220k per year.

The park designers are part of the asset management team led by deputy director Michelle Abelachon.

They play a vital role in the delivery of minor capital projects in-house design in project completion in a shorter amount of time at less cost.

By eliminating these positions, you are effectively outsourcing their jobs to consultant contracts, which are significantly more expensive and take much longer.

For example, Fanuel Street Park playground improvement, 95k parks and rec cost in lieu of ECP playground improvement cost of three million, EB Script Sidewalk Widening, 290K parks and rec cost in lieu of ECP estimated cost of 3.2 million.

The parks asset management team works so effectively with the community and nonprofits that they produce high quality park designs and do it as a fra at a fraction of the cost that ECP does it.

That's how we got handwood park done for the first two years.

This team oversees 1.2 billion worth of capital projects with the ECP department in over 30 million of privately delivered parks and amenities.

They also manage and oversee 134 million grant funds outside funding coming into the city for parks and rec.

The moment you approve this budget today, you just made repairs more expensive.

Unless, unless you restore these positions, I ask you to at least restore the deputy director to keep the asset management team operational.

Please pick up your pen so that you can write this down and add it to the budget.

220K to restore the assistant deputy director of parks, infrastructure, and assets.

Can you do this for our youth in our parks?

Thank you.

I don't have a script or note, so I'm just going.

If they know there would be lines and lines and lines of people going in here, and that's all I have for you.

Happy Pry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kaylee Flores, if you can please come forward to the microphone after that.

After that, we'll have Ashley Leva, Anna Ramos, Noah Yick, uh Janika Faulkner, Patricia Mandragon, and Ian Cervello.

You can all please come up to the yellow reserve seats.

Kaylee, please proceed.

Hello, council members.

My name's Kayleigh Flores, and I'm here with Ace and the Community Budget Alliance.

So firstly, thank you for starting to show support towards the youth of San Diego by starting the restoration of the parks and starting to fund the youths and arts.

But I'm also here to plead with you all to do more.

Not only should San Diego be focusing more on funding our youth, giving them resources and opportunities to grow, but that includes providing funding towards places where they can feel safe.

Libraries, community resource centers.

Majority of the proposed budget is allocated to public safety, or I should say a version of public safety.

Definitely not my version, because my version of public safety is being able to walk the streets without fear of ice attacks to the people in our communities, the data tracking, the mass surveillance and stalking.

I'm pleading with you to cancel your contract with Flock.

Allocate those funds and resources to the youth instead.

Thank you.

Ashley Leva.

Good afternoon, City Council members.

My name is Ashley Leva and I live in District 8.

I am a member of ACE and a member of the Community Budget Alliance.

I am here as a concerned community member and educator.

The arts, it's incredibly incredibly important to me and many other community members because of the immense positive impact it has on the development of children.

I know I don't have to explain the benefits that the arts and other youth programs have in our community, but the disadvantages FLOC and the flawed police department present presence is concerning, especially when the already target art disenfranchised youth and communities.

Funding Flock will be a failure on your part.

I urge you to not fund VLOC and instead invest in the well-being and future of our children and communities.

Thank you.

Anna Ramos.

Hello, Council members.

My name is Anna Ramos.

I'm a community organizer with ACE and a member of the community budget alliance.

I want to start off by thanking you all for restoring the funding for arts and culture.

Like genuinely, these are the city resources that actually keep our community safe because it allows for people to build a genuine sense of community with each other instead of fostering a growing isolation and hate that leads to the violence around us.

But it is the bare minimum, and what we also need is to cancel the contract with the Flock.

This company has already violated public trust by sharing our private data.

So why should we keep throwing away millions of tax dollars to fund a violent mass surveillance technology that targets working class people?

And also this budget deficit will continue until we hold corporations like Flock accountable who are profiting and weaponizing their technology against us and corporations like Core Civic accountable who keep dehumanized immigrants and are continually allowed to profit off of violence and exploitations of human beings.

Thank you.

Thank you, Noah Yi Yick.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Noah Yick.

I'm a researcher with the Center on Policy Initiatives and a member of the Community Budget Alliance.

How many stories does it take for you to see, listen, and value someone?

Hundreds of San Diegans have told you their stories this year.

Sometimes about the joy they find through parks, libraries, and arts, sometimes about the challenges they face as young people in this city city with dwindling support.

Sometimes about the sorrow and anxiety of flooding every time it rains.

Always about what they need from this city to thrive.

Our communities have made it clear that more criminalization and surveillance do not keep us safe or help us thrive.

What I'm asking you to do is your job.

Listen to San Diegans, not to corporations, money or your next political ambition.

Listen to San Diegans, value our experiences, and invest in us.

Cancel the flock contract, fund youth success, libraries, parks and rec, the stormwater department, and installed the pedestrian beacon near Rosa Parks Elementary.

San Diegans have told you what they need to thrive.

Now show us you've been listening.

Thank you.

Janica Faulkner.

Janica, you have time seated to you by Chris Kennison.

If you can please raise his hand, as well as Itzel Magorza.

Thank you.

You'll have three minutes.

Please proceed when ready.

Welcome MAU to Menu Way.

I am Janika, a D4 resident with Alliance San Diego and a member of the Community Budget Alliance.

We all know San Diego is prone to floods, especially in black, brown, and low-income communities.

We did the work to prove our communities are asking for prevention of any future disasters.

We stand here more than two years later on the fence about providing preventative flooding in communities we have seen historically underfunded, undervalued, and overpoliced.

What are we saying to communities that had to swim through sewage to rescue their neighbors?

And uh after the city had been uh warned numerous times, and those those warnings were ignored.

The warnings came from the stormwater department, the IBA, and many other city officials.

Is cutting stormwater funding how you honor and uplift human dignity of those flood survivors?

We cannot continue to run this city as we have.

Council members, it's your most important job is to listen to your constituents.

Only four of you have heard our calls and have finally stood with us.

Thank you to Ilo Rivera, Foster, Lee, and Moreno for calling out what has been in front of us for so long.

We are wasting two million dollars annually to fuel ineffective and overpriced technology that solves less than one percent of crimes instead of thinking through real solutions that will bring back resources and trust into our communities to the rest of you, especially those of you who were running for other seats and uh that are up for re-election.

We remember, we will remember this when we go to vote.

Instead of funding rec centers, libraries, and parks, you have sat through hours of public comment and ignored us.

You have an opportunity today to do the right thing.

We are living through history, and the city of San Diego has the opportunity to take the lead in the state of California and the rest of the country.

Today you can follow the IBA's recommendations to reject surveillance dollars in our city budget and say no to the big corporations that are targeting our communities and further damaging our city.

We need bold ideas and real investments in our people, not punishment.

Please act now and uplift the people's budget and modify the budget to reflect the people's true needs.

And with that, we will again do a moment of silence for the flood survivors.

Patricia Mondragon.

After Patricia will be Ian Servello, Beth Givens, Claire Snyder, Juan Cordero, Christina Garibai Taylor, Maria Lorena Garcia, Franco DeMeo, and Ian Embry.

If you can all please come up to the front row.

Now, Patricia, you have time seated to you by Olivia Castille.

Thank you.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Council members.

Um, Patricia Mondragon with Alliance San Diego, a member of the Community Budget Alliance, Trust SD Coalition, and the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium.

We are district three residents.

As you finalize this budget, we urge you to invest in the programs that protect human rights and make our community stronger.

San Diegans have been clear about what creates safety, stable housing, youth programs, libraries, arts and cultural services, homelessness prevention, and infrastructure that protects families from flooding and climate disasters.

Yet this budget underfunds many of those priorities while continuing to invest in policing and surveillance technologies like Flock ALPR.

Just a few minutes ago, Congress voted to add 70 billion dollars for ice and border patrol.

All of you expressed anger after the Buena Forceta Ice Raid.

Today you can do something about it by ending the Flock contract.

We ask you to reject the false choice between public safety and community investment.

Real safety comes from preventing homelessness, supporting young people, keeping families housed, and ensuring neighborhoods have the infrastructure they need to withstand future disasters.

That means restoring funding for community service and the full 100 million dollars for stormwater infrastructure.

I want to end by saying my niece is here with me today.

She's a rising sophomore in high school at San Diego Unified School District.

This is her first city council meeting.

She's not ready to speak yet, but she's watching.

She's watching to see what her future is.

She's watching you guys to see if you're gonna invest in her future or in more surveillance.

I hope you choose people over technology, communities over monitoring, and adopt a budget that gives the next generation a city where they can thrive.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Ian Cervello.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Ian Ceruelo.

I am a member of the Asia Pacific American Labor Alliance, and I'm also the chairperson of the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium.

I am a practicing immigration attorney that defends many of our community members from deportation.

Every day I interact with immigrant families who are suffering from this cruel mass deportation policies of this administration.

For over a year now, the racist Trump administration has violently separated families, kidnapped community members, surveilled and racial racially profiled black and brown communities, denied due process and violated human rights of our community members.

Now, while the federal government is intending to intensify its attack on our communities, is the city of San Diego going to give them more tools to contact mass surveillance on us.

Is the city of San Diego willing to be complicit in these attacks against communities of color?

You have a choice, and I implore you to invest in our communities.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Beth Givens.

I urge you to cancel the Flock ALPR contract.

Nearly 70 cities have done so, including seven in California, primarily for violating city data sharing rules, inaccurate data, and residence objections to warrantless surveillance.

A San Diego man was wrongfully jailed for several weeks for a violent crime he did not commit because of erroneous flock data.

He's likely to sue.

Such errors have occurred elsewhere across the nation.

Further, the police department here, captain here, who pushed hard for Flock, was hired by Flock upon retirement.

That is shady, to say the least.

Flock's technology is flawed, and its leadership has thumbed its nose at city's rules by sharing data with federal law enforcement in violation of local laws.

The FBI is now seeking real-time access to ALPR data nationwide, according to recent news reports.

The money spent on Flock, two million a year, could well be allocated elsewhere.

Libraries, rec centers, parking.

We have Claire Snyder next.

Is a group that will be sharing time.

But if they can please raise their hand, even if they will be speaking so that I can put that time on the clock.

And I understand you have a PowerPoint as well.

Claire Snyder, Liliana Soriana, please raise your hand.

Alex Castillo, please raise your hand.

CJ Mendoza, please raise your hand.

Olivia Davis.

Tristan.

Carmen.

And Christian Huxson.

Thank you.

You'll have nine minutes.

Please proceed.

Hello, budget review committee and council.

Continuously during these past few months, you have heard from each of us on the importance on the importance of investing in youth through OCYS.

At Youth Will, we believe that every young person should have everything that they need to be happy, healthy, and reach their full potential.

One way of ensuring that vision is by having committed staff at the City of San Diego dedicated to driving critical investments in child care accessibility, youth leadership, and family support systems.