San José Public Safety, Finance & Strategic Support Committee - February 19, 2026
San José Public Safety, Finance & Strategic Support Committee Meeting – February 19, 2026
The Public Safety, Finance, and Strategic Support Committee of the San José City Council met on February 19, 2026 to review the second quarterly investment management report, consider changes to the city’s investment policy, receive annual reports from the Fire Department on communications and emergency medical services, and examine the status of the Neighborhood Quality of Life Team (NQL) and the Enhanced Engagement Program. The meeting featured extensive public testimony and unanimous votes on all agenda items, including a directive for additional financial analysis on potential divestment options.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Investment Policy (Items D1/D5): A large group of community members urged the committee to adopt an ethical investment policy that would permanently divest city funds from corporations tied to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the prison‑industrial complex, and Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Speakers cited comparable policies in Dublin, Albany, and Alameda County. Several noted that the city’s 2020 fossil‑fuel divestment had no negative financial impact. One speaker, representing Jewish Voice for Peace, stated the city invests in Caterpillar, Alphabet, Microsoft, Honeywell, and Amazon, which together supplied $38.465 million to the Israeli government and military. Another speaker, a retired Green Beret who served in Gaza, testified to witnessing the use of technology from these companies in targeting civilians. A single speaker opposed divestment, arguing that international politics are beyond the city’s scope and that many Silicon Valley companies have ties to Israel.
- Neighborhood Quality of Life Team (Item D4): Dozens of speakers—including formerly unhoused individuals, advocates, and members of the Real Coalition—criticized the NQL team’s enforcement‑oriented approach, alleging harassment, property destruction, and lack of trauma‑informed care. They called for replacing police with social workers, therapists, and people with lived experience. Some speakers described arrests and towing of RVs without adequate notice. A representative of the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits noted that after eight months, the program has not documented any permanent housing throughputs. Several speakers appealed directly to housing and PRNS officials to meet with individuals facing displacement from RV sites.
Discussion Items
- Quarterly Investment Report (D1 & D5): The Finance Department presented the second‑quarter investment report as of December 31, 2025. Key statistics: portfolio size ~$2.5 billion, earned interest yield 4.018%, weighted average maturity 713 days, fiscal‑year‑to‑date net income ≈$53 million, and zero policy exceptions. Portfolio allocation: 45% U.S. government securities, 44% credit sectors (corporate notes, municipal bonds, ABS, MBS), 7% in short‑term liquidity (LAIF/JPA). The General Fund (13% of portfolio) decreased by $40 million during the quarter. Staff noted that the portfolio’s yield is exceeding LAIF and catching up to the BofA 1‑3 year index. Staff also highlighted $54 million in delinquent accounts and ongoing collection improvement efforts. Councilmember Kamei requested that when the item goes to the full Council on March 10, staff provide analysis of three divestment options for companies mentioned by the public (Caterpillar, Alphabet, Microsoft, Honeywell, Amazon): (1) no new investments, (2) restructure and divest over time at maturity, and (3) immediate withdrawal. Staff indicated they could produce that analysis by March 10.
- Fire Department Communication Annual Report (D2): The Fire Chief and Communications Division Manager presented data for FY 2024‑25. The department received 911 calls in 35 languages. Key metrics: call volume increased 19.14% since FY 2021 and 54.68% since FY 2011‑12. The call‑answer time standard (90% within 15 seconds) was not met due to dispatcher availability; the abandoned call rate rose from 7.76% to 10.26% over the same period. A reorganization approved in the FY 2025‑26 budget added 1.0 FTE (two new public safety communication specialist positions). The team filled all permanent dispatcher vacancies in August 2024, thanks to a new recruitment plan. Staff noted future capacity improvements from a nine‑console expansion funded by Measure T.
- Fire Department Emergency Medical Services Annual Report (D3): The Fire Chief and Deputy Chief reported that the department responded to over 111,000 calls in FY 2024‑25, of which 61% were medical calls (68,492). Notable trends: a 111% increase in abdominal pain impressions, a 19% decrease in alcohol‑related responses, and a 33% decrease in overdose responses. Due to a county paramedic shortage, firefighters provided 1,518 rescue‑medic transports and 2,132 patient escorts. The department is evaluating a community paramedicine program to connect patients to appropriate resources and reduce repeat 911 calls. On first‑responder fees (implemented January 2026), staff said implementation has been seamless and revenues will take time to materialize. Regarding the county’s pending RFP for ambulance services, the Chief expressed concern that a future exclusive‑operating‑area model could increase workload on the fire department and slow response times.
- Neighborhood Quality of Life Team (D4): The Police Department, PRNS, and Housing Department presented jointly. The NQL team, formed in May 2025, is a centralized unit of hand‑selected officers focusing on proactive patrols, enforcement in no‑encampment zones, and coordination with outreach. For Q2 FY 2025‑26, the team made 474 contacts with unhoused individuals, supported 49 abatement operations, and offered services 435 times (with 45 acceptances and only 3 direct transports to services). Enforcement types: roughly half misdemeanors, one‑third municipal code violations. Staff highlighted the arrest of a serial arsonist responsible for dozens of fires. PRNS reported that 25 miles of no‑encampment zones are established along waterways and near interim housing sites, but monitoring frequency has dropped to every 7‑10 days due to staffing constraints, resulting in over 100 re‑encampments in FY 2025‑26. The Housing Department described the new Enhanced Engagement Program, which reorganizes outreach into five quadrants and a downtown pilot, using a GIS mapping strategy to track engagements and connect individuals to the city’s expanded shelter system (2,000+ beds across 21 sites). Data‑sharing limitations between PD’s system and the county’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) were acknowledged; staff are working on a solution through the downtown pilot. Councilmember Kamei requested that future reports include unduplicated counts and a breakdown of warnings vs. arrests.
Key Outcomes
- D1 – Quarterly Investment Report: Moved to the March 10, 2026 City Council meeting for full adoption. Motion passed unanimously.
- D5 – City Investment Policy: Moved to the March 10, 2026 City Council meeting for consideration and adoption, with a request that staff provide expanded analysis on divestment scenarios (no new investments, restructuring over time, immediate withdrawal) for the five companies raised in public testimony. Motion passed unanimously.
- D2 – Fire Communication Annual Report: Accepted unanimously.
- D3 – Fire EMS Annual Report: Accepted unanimously.
- D4 – Neighborhood Quality of Life Team and Enhanced Engagement Program Status Report: Accepted unanimously. The committee directed staff to: (1) analyze ways to amend the county contract or develop an internal process to share data between PD and the Housing Department; (2) consider the concerns raised in the Real Coalition’s letter when evaluating the program moving forward. Councilmember Kamei also requested future data on unduplicated contacts and a numeric breakdown of warnings vs. arrests.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. Before we begin the PISVs, I wanted to remind the public safety finance and strategic support committee members and members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings. This include commenting on the specific agenda item only and addressing the full body. Public speakers will not engage in a conversation with the chair, council member, or staff. All members of the public safety finance and strategic support committee staff and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language. Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting, may result in removal from the meeting. This meeting of the public safety finance and strategic support committee will now come to order. Can the clerk office please take? Uh call the role. Tordios. Thank you. There's nothing on the consent calendar. So we can go straight to item D5 is to be heard concurrently with item D1. So please come on down. And I believe uh D1, we will have Kian Soon and Sylvia Jefferson to do the presentation. Good afternoon, Chair Done, Council members, committee members. My name is Sylvia Jefferson. I'm the assistant director of finance. And I'm sitting with my colleague Chin Yu-Sun, Deputy Director of Finance, who oversees Treasury and Debt Management. As you know, today we'll be presenting the second quarterly investment management report. And we will start out with a few items to note regarding the report. We're starting on slide six. Okay. So to note that investments meet the requirements of the city's investment policy and conform with California government code section 53601. Authorized investments are only highly rated fixed income securities. The investment policy is reviewed annually and was last adopted by resolution of the city council on March 11th, 2025. And the investment program is audited semi-annually for compliance purposes. Next, we'll talk about investment objectives and reporting. The finance department manages investments to meet the city's investment policy objectives, which are safety, liquidity, and yield. Safety is the foremost objective in the investment program. We do not take chances with losing principal, as this is public funds. Next is liquidity, which is the ability to meet our obligations when they come due. And finally, secondary to safety and liquidity is yield, which is a market rate of return of investment on the date which we purchase them. These reports are available to the public in a variety of formats. They're available online in the city's website under the finance department, in the public safety finance, and strategic support committee as we are here today, and in city council agenda packets. Next, we'll talk about our summary of our portfolio performance. The size of our portfolio is about 2.5 billion dollars. Earned interest yield is 4.018%. Weighted average maturity is 713 days, which is about two years. The fiscal year to date, net income recognized, is nearly 53 million dollars. And it's important to note that there were zero exceptions to the city investment policy this quarter. Next, I'll hand it over to Chin Yu Sun to present more detailed slides on her team's work. Thank you, Sula. Okay. The city's portfolio is in invested in a variety of asset classes. As of uh December 31st, 2025. Uh, 45% of the uh portfolio is in are invested in US government securities, including treasuries and agencies. And now the 44% are invested in credit sectors, including corporate notes, um, more uh municipal bonds, asset back securities, and uh mortgage backed securities. We also maintain a fair amount of liquidity in the portfolio. As you can see, 7% of the portfolio are invested in LAFE and the joint power of authority managed uh portfolios.
openpublica.com