We're recording, yes.

Okay, that's perfect.

So our recording is running.

We'll call the order the meeting of assembly of the finance committee today is Wednesday, March 26th.

That's 401.

At this point in time of Madam Clark, please take rules.

Mayor Gonzalez.

Present.

Vice Mayor Vivaros Walton.

Present.

Council Member Aguilar.

Present.

And will you please make your announcement?

Madam Clerk.

After each agenda item is presented, the mayor will ask for committee member comments and then take public comment.

You will have two minutes for your comment.

The countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and attendees.

Okay, so at this point in time, we will move into the main substance of this meeting, which is our discussion item.

Review and discussion of proposed FY2027 cycle update.

On this side committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Committee members.

This afternoon, we have a presentation for you related to the proposed fiscal year 27 mid-cycle update and proposed plan changes for uh fiscal years 2029.

Um however we will be focusing on the actual adjustments proposed for considerative 27.

Um so I wanted to provide background and context on why we're here this afternoon.

And so we started the fiscal year 26 and 27 biannual budget um last year and presented to the finance committee in April of 2025.

At that committee meeting, uh the committee provided direction to staff that fiscal years 26 and 27, their expenses less than transfers would equal projected revenue.

In the beginning in fiscal year 2028, all expenses, so expenses plus transfers must equal projected revenue.

So we had several uh meetings throughout the budget process with final adoption on June 16th of 2025.

Um the city did present a balanced budget for fiscal year 26.

Um, however, fiscal year 27, we did not necessarily meet that full uh objective and a full goal, and we still projected a use of uh fund balance or reserves to balance that budget.

Council at that time gave us grace and granted us more time to identify ways to close the structural uh deficit in a meaningful way that provided clear understanding of the impacts not only to the community but also to our organization.

And so um we are here this uh afternoon with the uh first presentation of the full proposed reductions and updates for fiscal year 2027 with cycle, so that we are presenting um a but uh uh a balanced budget starting in fiscal year 2027.

So this is just a picture that provides a little bit of where we've been and where we're headed.

Um we started the process with staff internally from September to January, really taking a look at the city's financial both revenue and expenditures and making um ideas and uh proposals in which we could uh propose to council for consideration, so we presented adopted by balance budget for you for 2027.

So in March we had the council retreat and we held two committee engagement meetings um earlier uh this month, and we are here tonight at the finance uh committee to present to you the city's proposal.

Um in April we will present um uh tentatively present as we are uh scheduled to uh the 27 mid-cycle update to the council for a full work session for consideration scheduled for May and an adoption of the updated fiscal year 2027 budget with commencement of that new adjusted budget on July 1st.

Um we appreciate the great work uh that came from the council retreat on March 6th and wanted to remind the finance committee of the council's priorities for balancing the budget and how these will help guide the budget process and conversation as we move through the next several meetings.

Um, with that, one of the uh guiding principles was ensuring that the city was meeting its um reserve policy or its fund balance policy.

And so before we get into what we were provided proposing this evening to you for consideration, we wanted to kind of go over again what fund balance is.

So I won't go into um specific detail, I don't read off of the the slide here, but did want to provide just some some context on what a fund balance is for this committee, but also those in attendance this evening.

So fund balance represents the difference between the city's total assets and current and future liabilities.

They essentially will show what the net available resources are available at any given point.

There are a number of categories which are restricted or reserved for planned expenditures, and what the city's budget reserve policy focuses on really is that area of unassigned or available for any type of purpose.

So what is a targeted fund balance?

A targeted fund balance is a percentage that is referred to a desired level of reserves or desired level of amount you want to have in your savings account and any given time to maintain the in the general fund.

We often look to GFOA, which is the government finance officers association for recommendations on best practices.

They recommend that we have a and maintain an unrestricted fund balance and a general fund of allow of at least two months of expenditures, less transfers, which accounts for about 16.7% of your total expenditures.

The city policy includes a target of 20% fund balance.

And why is that important?

There are a number of components that can really help a city in a number of ways that they have a 20% fund balance.

You have the ability to pivot in a situation where you have unexpected expenses without having to either go directly and make service reductions or borrow to fund those unexpected expenses.

It helps the city be able to weather economic uncertainties or downturns, ability to remain operational during natural disasters.

It does impact your credit rating, leading to lower borrowing costs if you have a stable outlook, financial outlook.

And ultimately, that 20% sits you in a position where you have financial stability and resilience.

So as I mentioned, that the city's current reserve policy or fund balance policy has really two components in the unassigned bucket of money.

There's the economic uncertainty, which is 20% of expenditures, excluding transfers.

And it goes a little beyond the recommendation that GFOA has, which is setting aside a target goal of 5 million for major emergencies.

We did want to talk a little bit about just high level what the major emergency designation is and what you can use it for.

The 20% is very clear, it is intended for economic uncertainty.

It is an established goal of maintaining a balance of $5 million to respond to major emergencies.

What could be used for?

It can be used for response to major emergencies, but it's also intended to address uh recovery efforts in the event that there is a natural disaster, which is creating major uh infrastructure issues, things of that nature.

So you can use it to recover from earthquakes, fire storms, and any other type of disaster, including operational.

So again, just really kind of wanting to benchmark the city of San Leandro and providing a little context for this committee and for the members of the of the public that are here this evening.

Um the city of San Leandro meets that minimum base of GFO's recommendation of 16.7%.

The city has a 20% plus of $5 million set aside for major emergencies.

So you'll see that the majority of cities within Alameda County do hover, either they either meet that 16.7% recommendation by GFOA, or they are kind of hovering in between that 20%.

There are a few cities that have a stronger higher reserve.

Some of that is that it makes up a portion of for economic uncertainty, but also for future disaster.

So with that information in mind, we wanted to provide some context around where we benchmarked ourselves as far as reserve and fund balance and how that really kind of dictates the long-term fiscal health of the city.

And so we'll shift to the general fund overview, which we'll spend the most of our time today discussing.

So the table here is a picture graph of the city's general fund financial forecast, it's our 10-year model with proposed changes, which will be provided more context and detail throughout the presentation today.

We did want to start at that bottom line that's highlighted in yellow, line 24.

That is the right down here.

That is the city's 20% reserve policy, and you will see with the proposed changes being considered today, the city will be meeting or exceeding that 20% reserve goal.

I do want to shift your attention and your focus to the right side of the screen.

So over here you'll see there's some three sets of numbers.

Uh the first set of numbers represents a projected increase of about 700,000 ongoing starting in fiscal year 2028, and that is reflective of some increases in uh programmatic revenue associated with um the increase in recreation programs that we are intending to offer with additional programming, additional um classes being offered, we are projecting an increase in that area.

The second area, the orange um uh section here um represents the city's operation expenditures.

You'll see um by 2029, ongoing expenditures will total 8.2 million.

Um, just below that, in the kind of gold color, are proposed reductions to transfers, so transfers from the general funds to other funds, and we'll get a little bit more detail into what that looks like.

Um and so beginning in 2029, we are looking at a total ongoing reduction of three million dollars.

So I want to before the opener.

Because now we're gonna get into the meeting.

Correct.

I just want to make sure that because I've got questions about the background, and I just want to see if others have any questions about the background.

Okay, so my question starts at the restrictions of funds.

And I'm trying to put some make sure I really understand this because this is kind of a working assumption throughout what we can not access.

Uh non-spendable.

I've never heard that term.

There's like no way that you could ever spend this money.

What does that mean not to spend?

So they're typically related to uh your debt and things of that nature.

So um, and then restricted are uh external restrictions.

So if we have an obligation that we hold, um I really try to get you non-spendable.

But I'm wondering, so would that be what's be reserved for FICA?

We just put the money into a fund.

I can provide more detail on what's sitting in that account.

I'm happy to do that.

All of those are technically flexible at the council's direction.

That is correct.

Okay.

Because when you said we're going to focus on that assigned, correct.

Um that's my first kind of clarification.

And then the second clarification focuses on the chart that we had next, the uh spreadsheet, so to speak.

And I'm trying to understand when we talk about these increases.

So I want to just take column F and G.

So from F to G, revenue goes up 3.7 million dollars.

Is this saying that we're that before it only went up by 3.0 3.7, 3.

It went up by 3 million?

And we juiced the revenue?

That is correct.

So there are some escalation factors on our base for our revenues.

So we have escalation factors that we know related to property tax or sales tax.

Um, some of our taxes that we we uh encounter on a regular basis, there is escalation factors.

Um, so you are correct that um you know this just represents the additional on top of the already projected revenue growth that we had each fiscal year.

And so to be clear, is the total in any given year 700k more, or is it 700K?

That does this in any way compound question.

Not with that particular revenue.

Um, I guess if we start increasing the costs of our classes, there could be a compounded increase, but it is it is uh specifically um related to actual revenue collected for recreation classes.

It's just gonna be up 700.

Correct.

And we and we'll monitor that because we want to make sure that we we are receiving that actual revenue projection that we're in line with it.

Um if we're below, we'll bring that uh revision to council for consideration.

But if it's if it's growing at a higher rate, we'll also bring that to council for consideration.

Thank you.

And so if I go back and look at the last one of these that we saw at column L instead of 182.5 million dollars, the prior one of these said 181.8 million dollars.

So it it will be close.

What I will say is that we have made adjustments as, for example, our sales tax does vary.

We keep a pulse on what it's with the economy is doing.

What we're doing, not just like the state of California, but Stanley Andrew economy.

If we believe that a new business is coming to the city of San Landro, we believe a business is leaking the city of San Landro.

We do work very closely with economic development.

So before going to council.

So that number used to be a hundred and seventy million, and now it's 182.5.

This creates the impression that let's change because we tweaked it by 700,000.

And whatever it is, I just want to be transparent about what we're doing.

Because we just had a public meeting, but we were telling people what our best estimate were.

And if we've changed that in two weeks, but I don't want to anyone to believe that we're playing eight.

Correct.

That will lower our credibility.

Similarly for expenses.

So lines line number nine.

Is the only change the 8.2 million dollars, or are there other changes to that?

That is correct.

It's the it's the um 8.2 million.

And I will clarify yes, what we have presented in very recent presentations to both council, the committee, as well as to the public.

Um the changes that you're seeing today are just uh the 700,000.

The number is not significantly changing beyond what we have been presenting in the last month or so.

Perfect.

And then I know that I've been asking you about transfers.

I'm still struggling to understand.

Are we essentially one time by heaven accumulates?

There's a one time three million dollar transfer or each year into the future, we'll be transferring three million dollars.

Thank you for that clarification.

So we will build up the reductions to three million starting in uh 2029, and that would be the base.

We wouldn't continue reducing beyond 2029.

Typically, and I know you said good information today, so I don't have it, but quick eyeballs suggested that we transfer about five to six million a year.

That's correct.

That's the historical change.

On average, and so am I to understand?

We as a committee to understand that future transfers under this model will be about two to three million dollars a year.

That's it, that's correct.

Okay.

Perfect.

There are some areas you'll see.

Let me if I can just point out, I apologize.

Um, on specifically on this line here for 203.

Um, we are uh anticipating and including in that uh projection to replace a fire control.

Perfect.

So it is a one-time transfer.

And then that the impact of these transfers, the reduced transfers.

Is that documented in your yes?

And we will we will go through that um at portion of the presentation.

That is the answer that I should have had.

It's okay.

So thank you for a lot of information.

Okay.

If you have no please proceed.

Okay.

Um, so we will spend the next uh several slides discussing in more detail um what some of those proposals uh look like as far as um uh reductions and or changes and that changes to the to the general fund participant year 27 and then 28 and 29.

So we have it um broken into a variety of uh sections or functional areas.

The first functional area that we will look at is administrative and general government, um, which includes the departments of city manager's office, finance, human service, human resources, excuse me, and uh information technology.

Uh so the city manager's office has a uh cumulative reduction of 234,000 or 3% of its uh baseline total uh budget.

Um, one of the areas that we have discussed as a proposed proposed reduction is the elimination of the city support, and that's the city financial support to crossing guard program um that is offered by the school district.

So this would eliminate 90 uh thousand in support for the school district crossing guard program, uh, which the school district will have to assume full uh cost of the program that they offer to their students.

I will uh clarify that um because this information was provided beforehand, we will be highlighting a few reductions, so we have plenty of time at the end to answer questions for all of you.

Um and so um we'll be speaking very high level at each of the departments as we live through these.

Ugh.

A significant driver of our reduction being proposed this evening is to eliminate or significantly reduce the business license administration that is currently run by a third party consultant.

And I say reduce because we will do this administrative administration of the program in-house.

It used to be a program that was handled in-house, but we will also routine services such as discovery or audits, which will go into the community and make sure that people who should be having a business license do, and we'll be notifying the city if there are some that are just delivered late.

Human resources has an ongoing reduction of 156,000, almost 157,000.

Some of the areas of reduction include reimagination of employee recognition events.

So we recognize the importance of these events on our staff and on our employees and looking for ways to still offer those types of recognition events but at a cost, a much more lower cost.

We are also proposing a reduction in contract services for external investments, excuse me, investigations and other employee relations services.

So cumulative ongoing is 65,000.

Information technology, while it is not a general fund, it's an internal service fund, it is significantly funded through allocations from the general fund, and so reductions to this internal service fund would have an impact on the general fund.

And so they have a cumulative reduction of 700, almost 740,000, which is about 8% of its total budget.

Some of the areas of reductions you'll see here is a reduction in consultant services, including the elimination of the year up intern.

So the ongoing reduction would be about 213,000 ongoing, as well as the elimination of public Wi-Fi access, so in our downtown and our parks.

So moving into culture and services, the areas of library, recreation parks, and human services.

The library has proposed cumulative reductions of 863, almost $864,000 reduction, which represents about 9% of its total baseline budget.

At the finance, excuse me, at the City Council retreat, we did discuss the changes in the weekly library hours, but while we will be newly closed on Mondays, we will be increasing the hours of operation at Mulford.

And so a combination of the reduction with the increases at Mulford will actually increase the number of hours of operation in our library system by two hours.

That is about 650,000 in reductions.

There's also the proposed elimination of the public arts fund as well.

Recreation and parts, they have a total change of about 10% of its total budget, which represents about 1.2 million.

What you'll see here is the increase of 716,000 in revenue, which directly offsets and reduces its reliance on the general fund to subsidize its programming.

We are showing an increase in that independent contractor expenses.

So as we increase our offerings and increase our revenue, we do need to increase the cost in our budget to account for those independent contractors offering classes.

Another area of reductions as discussed was the reduction of security services at large events as well as active schools.

Human services has a total of about 550,000 in cumulative reductions, which represents about 14% of its total budget.

Some of the areas that we discussed at the retreat is the elimination of funding for the congregate winter shelter.

That program is recommended to be discontinued.

It is continued currently in the fiscal year 26 budget due to the lack of a qualified provider.

And so we are recommending the elimination moving forward.

Public infrastructure, which includes public works and community development.

Public Works has a net change of a million dollars or 10% of its current baseline budget.

What we discussed at the retreat included a reduction to the third-party encampment enclosure, which will result in about 400,000 in reductions.

We did provide additional information as we did here at the retreat.

We were looking for some specific information and numbers around the number of encampments that are addressed each year.

And so in 2025, we have about 20 encampment and close uh encampment cleanups that were performed.

16 of that was performed by the third party contractor, and about four to six was actually performed by city staff.

And to date in 2026, we've addressed 19 camp cleanups.

Is from the city's internal staff.

If we move forward with this reduction, there will be an overall reduction, which may result in slower response time for our encampment.

Community development has a proposed reduction of about 1.6, almost 1.7 million, which represents about 15% of their total budget.

Their reductions van across three slides.

So I will hit a couple on each slide.

Here we have a reduction in or excuse me, the elimination of a vacant permit center position.

It has been vacant for some time.

So that would result in about 181,000 in savings.

Also included is a reallocation of the rent registry program.

So that was initially included in the 20627 budget proposal and included in the long-time financial forecast.

As it comes forward to the city council for final adoption, this amount will be included in the loan from the general fund to a newly established special revenue fund which will capture the costs and recovery and repayment from that special revenue to the general fund.

For the reductions to the first-time home buyers program, which will result in ongoing reduction of 50,000.

This could result in capacity reduced capacities to manage and monitor the city's BMR program as well as potential loss of a third-party contractor as part of this reduction.

And then lastly, we have the elimination of the business incentive program, which was discussed as a retreat.

That would be an ongoing savings of 157,000.

It's again a possibility, not necessarily inevitable that it will occur, but we will lose that funding for that.

Public safety, which includes both fire and police.

From what you saw at the council retreat.

There was a recalculation done, and as a result of that recalculation, we are actually looking at a savings about 270,000.

Police has a proposed reduction of about 110,000, representing 2% of its total budget.

Some areas of reduction for consideration is the elimination of a vacant management panels position or prime, which is being underfilled with a prime analyst.

With that, I will pause and turn it over temporarily to assistant city manager Human, who will discuss the next few slides.

Thank you, Director Gonzalez.

Good evening, Mayor Gonzalez and Council members.

This is an area as we are forming our budget that staff will appreciate some direction on this evening to know how to program this in subsequent years.

But the area of mayor and council member compensation is something that is defined in your council handbook as well as the city charter and state statute.

What you see on this slide are two provisions from the handbook that give direction on how to proceed on this.

Specifically, that first section is uh charter section 255, which speaks of uh provisions of the government code of California relating to compensation benefits and reimbursements applying to general law cities, but that it shall apply to the council here in San Leandro as well, as far as setting compensation.

Uh and then that second bullet talks about when compensation should be considered, which is basically re-evaluated in even years so that it can take effect at the first of the odd year when a council member's new term shall start.

This is just some historical information from you.

Uh the prior compensation adjustment took effect on January 1st of 2025.

Uh that brought council member compensation from $1,323 a month to $1,900 a month, and the mayor's monthly compensation from $2646 per month to $3,800 per month.

And this is what California Government Code Section 36516 would allow for an adjustment basically for every calendar year since your prior adjustment.

The council may adjust for uh five percent each calendar year or an adjustment factor equivalent to the California CPI, but not to see 10%.

That's not relevant here because uh 5% is uh your cap here for each year since the last adjustment.

And any adjustment that uh council would decide on would be effective January 1st of 2027.

So as you uh make your budget deliberations this evening, we ask that you factor this into consideration as well.

Thank you.

Uh so transitioning back to some of the proposed changes.

Um we do provide uh wanted to provide an overview, a summary uh of the proposed uh staff changes um for fiscal year 2027.

Um currently there are 455.1 budgeted uh positions, um, and the proposal would be to uh reduce or eliminate um uh eight FTE in fiscal year 2027.

So with that being said, now that we've gone through kind of all the proposals and reductions, we do want to transition uh to focus on inner fund transfers.

We need to talk a little bit about general fund transfers and what that means, and so um and how that could impact the general fund long term.

And so wanting to provide context for the committee, but also those in the room uh to really understand what an inner fund transfer is.

And so, what an interfund transfer is it occurs um when money is sent from one fund to another fund within the same government.

Uh, in the case of today, we're talking about money moving from the general fund to other funds.

Um, why are interfunds typically used?

Um they are typically used to fund uh large infrastructure or capital projects, to uh subsidiation of budgets or to comply with legal policy requirements.

Umner funds can be ongoing or they can be one-time in nature.

So ongoing occurs regularly.

These are usually annual support for project and programs, one time or often to address uh either a budget shortfall or to fund a very specific capital project.

Um, interferen transfers in Fanny Andro.

Um the city has historically transferred funds out of the general fund to support other funds that is typically um around capital infrastructure to subsidize funding needs as well as transfers uh to the city's pension fund uh in accordance with its pool policy.

Um so I wanted to pause for a second and provide an overview of the city's uh general fund transfers.

Again, those are transfers from the general fund to other funds.

Um you'll see in column B are actuals uh transfers of the city in 2025 uh transferred 9.3 million out of the general fund to support other funds.

Um, and then columns C and D are the adopted uh planned transfers, and then columns E and F are forecasted uh transfers to support capital infrastructure as well as um operational commitments to the lake uh shuttle.

So with that being said, we wanted to provide examples.

This is no means necessarily a full recommendation from staff.

We wanted to provide context on potential options the committee could consider and provide direction to staff on what a reduction in 2027 would look like as far as reducing a million dollars in transfer obligations.

So in fiscal year 27, we have budgeted 4.8 almost 4.9 in transfers.

And about four the most significant part of it is within our capital infrastructure.

And so the proposal shows examples of reductions.

So if we reduced by half city building major maintenance by 300,000, 200,000 reduction to major park emergency or maintenance program, excuse me, and then 500,000 from street rehabilitation.

That would give you a million dollars.

And so that column D would be your proposed or revised transfer commitment.

So again, these are just examples.

Again, we further reduce example to both building and parks as well as street rehabilitation.

That would result, we would retain that planned purchase of a fire station or excuse me, fire truck of about 1.5 million and not propose to reduce that in 2020.

So you go from 5.5 to 4.5.

In 2029, the new base again, based on the prior year reductions, you would have 4.6 almost 4.7 in general fund transfers.

Again, examples of further reductions.

And then the ongoing support after 29 would be what you see in fiscal year 29, column D, with the exception of the fire vehicle.

So there's a plan purchase of that fire vehicle in 29 as well of 1.5 million.

The ongoing transfer support would be 100,000 for building major maintenance, 100,000 for park major maintenance, and 1.7 almost 1.8 for street rehabilitation.

And so that would bring that proposed transfer obligation to 3.6, 3.7.

And before I move on to the next phase of the presentation, I just wanted to reiterate a couple things.

The ADA transition plan is a federal requirement that we have that, which is why it's not an example of where we would do a reduction.

We also have a contractual obligation with the link shuttle service, which is why it was not included as well.

So wanted to provide some context there.

Typically, you want your general fund to be in a very stable state before you start transferring money to other funds to either subsidize or to continue to fund other programs.

So when there are full crises, typically you will see the first area that is reviewed are transfers.

With that being said, the city is still very much focused on ensuring it has the necessary tools and equipment to provide those core services that we talked about.

One of that is making sure that we have our establishing as a sustainable fleet fund.

We have ongoing fleet needs.

So some of the challenges we're working with here are procurement challenges, the high cost of public fleet safety fleet, and one of the real large challenges that we continue to encounter, not just in the city of San Landro, Alameda County, but also other cities and other jurisdictions is the actual time in which you place your order for a fire vehicle and when it actually arrives at your doorstep.

And it ranges anywhere from four to five.

And I feel like every time I talk to somebody in fire safety, that time continues to grow and it continues to be pushed out.

And so we do have to take into consideration the full life of our vehicles, but also consider how long it takes for us to actually receive that replacement.

And again, if we don't have adequate fire vehicles, we are not able to meet that core service expectation.

So what are we doing?

We've engaged with a consultant to assist with finalizing a very in-depth review of the city's fleet fund.

We're also working to develop a robust fleet fund policy and comprehensive ten-year financial forecast to better understand ongoing funding needs and those impacts on the general fund.

This again, like I said, is very vital for the continuation of providing core services to the community and to avoid critical failures.

We do plan to return to finance committee with an update on the flute policy forecasting tool and funding plan in either May or June.

So shifting a little bit from our proposed reductions, we did want to provide an update to the committee and to the community on ARPA or American Rescue Plan.

So again, for the as a reminder to the committee, but also to the community and those in the room, you know, what would what was ARPA?

What is ARPA?

It was a law that was signed in on March 11th, 2021.

It provided 1.9 trillion in economic stimulus package to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and crisis.

$65 billion of that in direct federal relief was sent to cities and counties to address economic fiscal impacts.

ARPA dollars intended to assist cities and communities recover from those impacts, and that included supporting its communities and it including its businesses and its members of its community.

So how did how did this impact the city of San Andreas?

The city did receive 18.6, almost 18.7 million in local relief.

All ARBA dollars were obligated by its required date of December of 2024, and we are currently on target to be fully expended by 2026, which are the guidelines associated with the receiving the ARPA stimulus.

So this is just a screenshot again, summary of the ARPA appropriations that we approved by council.

I won't go into each individual one, but this does provide categories in which allocation was set to fund programs and projects to support those who were negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

So ARPA really was intended as one-time for one-time expenses.

However, the city reacted just like other agencies, including the county, and making sure that it was responding as quickly as it could to its most vulnerable populations.

And so some of those programs and/or projects that were identified and established were successful, and they created this expectation of ongoing programmatic needs in the community.

And so you'll see in column A, there are a number of projects that were funded initially through the ARPA appropriations, which totaled about 4.1, almost $4 million.

The ongoing base, so for 2027, so that ongoing cost, ARPA will end.

And so there's no more ARPA dollars.

And so if the programs continue to continue in perpetuity, or for as long as the council deems fit, there is a cost, and that cost would be beared by the general fund.

There are some of the programs that have offsetting costs with grants, but the dollar amounts that you see on the table here represent the ongoing costs to the general fund.

And so you will see in fiscal year 27, there's an on an operational impact about 3.7, again 3.7 and 28, and then there's a reduction to 3.3 million, and really where you see that reduction is in the area of the ARU, the proposed reduction area starting 2029, and then the reduction in campment cleanups, which is in line five.

So switching to critical failure funding needs, it was a conversation that was had at the city council retreat on March 6th.

The city remains vigilant in making sure that it can address infrastructure needs to avoid critical failure, especially when it relates to providing core services to the community.

And some of those proactive investments to avoid critical failure include um painting out of both City Hall and the Maria Community Center, each about 500,000, the roof replacement at Fire Station 10, which would cost 625,000, and then the CAD RMS, which is um estimated about three million.

Um, and we did estimate um what we believe the cost would be over the next three years for the implementation of that new system.

So potential options for funding critical needs.

Um based on the policy of the city council as it relates to its reserve uh policy.

We believe that the five million dollar major emergency reserve fund could fund the CAT RS.

It is an infrastructure need that if it does not um operate will create a significant major emergency, which will be much more difficult and time consuming to try and recover from rather than to be proactive and address it immediately before it becomes a major catastrophic emergency emergency, excuse me.

Uh the other option is that we can go back to the table and increase expenditure reductions even further to fund these uh uh critical failure days.

What's not shown on this slide and is is could be a consideration is to postpone council's directive uh beginning in fiscal year 28.

Um that all expenses including your transfers um uh money we're revenue.

So that that is an option for consideration, but these are the potential options uh that that staff is looking at.

With that being said, um we wanted to end with what the general fund forecast or the ten-year forecast would look like if we did nothing.

We don't anticipate that that's the committee or the council's goal or objective, but if the council did nothing, you will see again focusing on line 15.

Um, we are not meeting that reserve goal already beginning in 2027 if we do nothing.

And then by 2030, you were negatively you have negative money available for economic uh answer.

You're not meeting that 20%.

And then by 2032, you this represents your actual uh uh fund balance.

You were negative, so you are out of the dollars and in a position where you potentially are filing for bankruptcy.

And so again, um, we wanted to end with this picture to remind you of all of the work that has been happening over the last several months uh to avoid this.

Um, and so wanting to just provide that uh snapshot for you all as well.

Okay, with that, uh our next steps um in the process of the stance today um is to present the city council uh for a workshop session on the presentation provided uh this afternoon, um, and that would occur in April and then in May coming to the city council for adoption of the fiscal year 27 adjustments for the mid-cycle um budget.

With that, I will pause um and uh look for council to provide feedback input on the proposed reductions and then recommendation to present to the full uh council.

Okay, thank you for the presentation.

A lot of work has gone into this clearly.

Um the council members do you have questions?

We'll just take public comment at this time so that we can get more deliberation.

So are the members here from the public who would like to address address of the council or the committee on this particular time to approach where is there anyone from the yes?

We do have um members from the public attending, but we have not received any um speaker cards.

Okay, final call.

Someone we will close public comment if no one has asked to speak.

Um so we will come back to council members for questions, discussions here.

Council member again.

Um thank you so much for the presentation.

Thank you, staff for coming back to propose um some of these reductions.

Uh I have a lot of questions.

I'm sorry, yes, thank you.

I I have about eight questions and um a couple of comments.

So let's start off with regards to the CMO, the um manager's office community sponsorships 60,000.

What is that?

I know there's a line item, but what is that entail?

Thank you, Councilman.

We're having deputy city manager in your came up to answer this question.

Good afternoon, committee members and Council Ragular.

Thank you for your question today.

This is line item essentially for a number of years now.

We've had a program known as the community investment grants program, which for the last maybe I say or so years, give or take.

Council has included approximately $100,000 as an annual line item that's available for competitive grant or the grant awards to members of the community or nonprofit organizations seeking support for community serving events or programs.

It's typically one-time funding in nature.

The typical grant award is capped out at not greater than $5,000.

So typical awards are usually in order of a few thousand dollars.

Examples that I could think of in the past, you know, include sponsorships for events.

There's typically some funds that have been allocated through the festival, other kind of community serving events like that.

In order to be eligible to receive an award in organization needs to be a nonprofit, and then either be located in San Diego or the activity or program that they're seeking funding for needs to be primarily targeted towards San Diego residents.

And we've been looking though over the past years and kind of doing an audit of how much funding has been awarded in past years, and typically they are within this this range.

So we don't believe there'd be a net major impact to the community as a result of the cut.

Because essentially we've been we've been ordering you know it's consistent with these reductions anyway.

So we believe about kind of looking at a net global basis, there should be really really minimal impact on the community if this if this proposed cut were enacted.

Gotcha, thank you so much for answering there.

My concern was you know, just doing simple math, like we donate 5,000 every month to SLIA um for their um their Friday events.

I mean that totals $60,000 five times.

I mean, I'm just you know, just saying, but you're saying that it's not gonna impact any of these these services that we sponsored.

What I can what I can share is I'm not familiar with the allocation you're referencing to Slater, but I can I can assure you that if there is such an allocation that's taking place, it's it's not coming out of this line item.

But okay.

Thank you.

And then uh my next question.

How do you want to?

I um I'm going on to IT next.

But we'll just slide.

Just just from a process perspective, we'll do each of the slides with questions.

Keep going back in circles.

Uh next slide, please.

Thank you.

And uh thanks, Councilmember Agina, for your flexibility.

Um I actually have something on uh the earlier slide on uh on the projection slide on slide 12.

Um I had a question around if we have any, and this is a brand new question, totally okay for you to just come back to it.

In terms of uh the uh city programming that we're expecting to see uh a bump.

Um I'm just wondering, just in terms of where we are in the economy, did we see a dip in sign-ups or program delivery during the recession in 08?

Um I will turn it over to uh Director Zuniva.

Um I know that he was not here during that time, so I don't know that he'll be able to answer that.

Um we can absolutely look into that.

Um I obviously I wasn't here for that time period either, but I'm happy to provide that research for you and provide that after the meeting.

But given what we knew happened in 2008 in the Great Recession, I would absolutely suspect that we had a significant decrease in programmatic revenue as people continue to prioritize their essential needs before leisure.

Yeah, but I can provide what that number looks like for you.

I think there are there are some parts of that that are not considered leisure to a lot of parents, a lot of families uh that provide essential services, but it's couched under recreation.

I'm just trying to figure out how soft that number is.

Um it's not that much, but just at this point, you know, we're looking at programs 90,000 reduction, so I'm willing to look at every item.

But just at this point, you know, we're looking at programs 90,000 reduction, so I'm willing to look at every item.

Thank you for that.

Um so back to that slide for city managers and legislative.

Um I'm specifically on the crossing guards.

Um have a concern there around.

Um, and it's a combo of like accidents and that sort of stuff.

It's to try to figure out the correlation between a reduction and accidents, pedestrian accidents during school time, and uh us providing or contributing to that program that this that the school district funds.

The 90,000, do we know what proportion of the total program?

Like what percentage are we contributing to in that program?

Uh thank you, member, uh council member's walton.

Uh, that is represents a 50% cost share is the current structure.

Um, as we kind of highlighted on this when this topic came up during the annual planning session a few weeks back.

The challenge is we do not control those costs because the vendors hired by the school district, we don't control how frequently they put the project out to RMP.

We really we just essentially get bills each year for 50% of whatever cost structure that the school district decides to execute for the program.

It's a somewhat informal structure currently.

Yeah, I'm thinking particularly around um eliminating or reducing pedestrian accidents and vehicle accidents around school when school starts and ends.

And I'm just wondering if uh there is capacity that that number seems manageable to look for a grant.

I don't know if there are any if we have already done that research and that doesn't exist, or if we just haven't yet uh just wondering, because that's a manageable number to look for a grant.

I can address that.

Um I'm not aware of any grant programs for crossing guards.

With that said, we can certainly um research that further.

The other challenge though with any of these things is typically grants by their very nature are one time in nature versus this is an annual recurring cost, and that over time always goes in one direction, which is increasing costs each cycle.

Um, for context, when this framework was set up, it was something like I want to say about $20,000 a year that the city was initially committing to when the program was this cost share framework was first established, and the price and the cost continue to rise and escalate year every cycle, which again the city has no direct control over.

And so even if we were successful in identifying the grant program, which we don't know if one exists, and we're successful at all.

Yeah, no, I I understand that.

Um it's just if there is one less accident, one less person hurt, even if it's one time that it's just bridging the anyway.

Vice Mayor, if I if I may, um what we're saying is not elimination of the program, elimination of the city donating to the school district to pay for the program.

So I'm not gonna know what year because working with the school district.

We're at this time not in a position to say if this means this goes away, which leads to more accidents.

I think that's another step.

We haven't heard from the school district that they would eliminate the program if we did not pay for this.

Okay.

And to drill down a bit further on that, I think with the city manager's comments also speak.

There's part of the reason why the proposed execution date of this is a year further out in 428 to give us that time to continue to collaborate with them and work through those kinds of very important details and ramifications of this order going to effect.

Thank you.

Those are all my questions on that slide.

Okay, so just for myself, so we can wrap this slide up.

Did we initiate payment for this a certain time ago, like in the last few years, or have we always carried this for you know, let's say two decades or two.

Thank you, Mayor, for your question.

My understanding, based on my or our staff, our offices were group of relevant administrative records that still exist, is that this structure came about during the Great Recession era, probably somewhere on that 2008-2009 time frame when like everyone we were facing massive fiscal challenges.

And my understanding is that this was an arrangement that was for the city at that time had initially proposed an elimination of funding support for it.

There was discussion on possible project of volunteer community volunteers starting for it to function, but I understand that that was not successful effort to find someone who's able to do it.

So ultimately the solution that was identified was this 50% cost share.

And again, at that time, the the cost, the actual net cost to the city was massively less than it is today.

And over time, those costs are just escalated.

Okay.

As a hypothetical.

If I'm reading this correctly, the idea is if we had hypothetically 184, 160 budget for general operating expenses, then you know what would be 100,000.

Okay.

Perfect.

Then the last question, just to pig back a little bit on uh council rainbow's question.

I interpret this to be, I think your answer was there's a the council has historically budgeted 100,000.

What this will do is say going forward, it will be 40,000 in future years.

That's correct.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

No, I'll pass it back to you, Councillor Ruby.

Of course, thank you, Eric.

Uh, my next question is uh on the IT slide.

So um my concern is with regards to elimination of public Wi-Fi.

Um we are anticipating not funding that for fiscal year 28.

Yes, and um this would be that system is um due for a major replacement, it's very old.

And um while there are ongoing costs associated with that system, they're relatively small, it's like in the less than $10,000 a year.

Um, but the um the big cost is the is the upgrade refresh of all the antennas, which is coming up, and they last about 10 years and over 10 years old, and it's 108k to replace to replace them all.

And the um thinking behind this being on the list is that not all cities provide this.

It's not and in this day, it was very important years and years ago when you know everybody didn't have one of these, and it was um heavily used.

Um and but but now um less less so.

So the the other thing to note about this this does not include Cherry Festival Wi-Fi.

Cherry Festival Wi-Fi is um funded by the Cherry Festival, so we will maintain the uh the annual Cherry Festival uh Wi-Fi.

Those were recently replaced, uh, and and we're actually expanding them a little bit this year.

Uh so they will not be uh removed in this proposal.

So when we talk about Cherry Festival Wi-Fi, that's for the day.

Yes, and we could we could keep them turned on all year, it's really no no cost, but it the big benefit is because uh vendors require them to take payments, and so yeah, and and for emergencies, and there's so many uh cell phones flooding the cellular networks that having that backup and having that service for vendors is is critical to the success of the cherry festival.

Gotcha.

I I think what I see is during the pandemic, um, there were some folks of parents who couldn't work who were not getting getting income.

And so the vision of two little girls at a burger king logging on to uh burger king wifi to do their homework.

That I just can't get that out of my head, and to see the folks that actually do we have data as to who uses or you know how many people would access public Wi-Fi in San Diego.

That's I mean, for me it's it's a low ticket item.

Um to eliminate this, just I'm just trying to figure out if you know the pros and cons, the pros outweigh the cons.

Should we do it?

Should we not?

Um that's just my concern.

I mean right now we're I we're looking at this.

I would say do not eliminate eliminate public Wi-Fi and downtown parks.

We we do have data, it's not it's not that illuminating because it doesn't you know say who's using it.

Right, doesn't it it really doesn't tell tell us if uh you know owners owner business owner's child who's streaming Netflix all day long, or is it or the you know what it we have you know how many how many connections, how many unique connections per day, things like that.

Um but it's definitely used.

Um less so in the parks.

Okay.

I I I I might think with also to collect the FBC by the firewall, like when you log into airport Wi-Fi, you can say, how old are you?

Um people register and log in and then we don't have to do that.

That's just my I just want I I would like to see if it's worth it and how we can advocate to to keep this because I I think public Wi-Fi is uh it's uh you know a free benefit of living in San Diego, I guess.

Um button.

Uh I'll see how another council colleagues feel, but I would like to keep this item rather than eliminate it.

So that's only question that I have on the IT side.

Okay, I sorry, Mary.

Um I do have questions on that, but I also have questions on business license, so I'll I'll I'll put y'all on the queue business license.

Um so in terms of the IT and council member kind of asked some of my questions regarding the um the public Wi-Fi.

Um you mentioned uh that it's really the hardware that we're looking to that we have to replace.

Correct.

And um what is green?

But it's green, it's my phone color blind.

So I oh just make them flow there.

I need help on this one.

Um so when are we if things were to remain the same, when is the uh hardware expected to have been replaced?

Is it fiscal year 28, 29?

Or yesterday.

It's yesterday.

It's it's oh it's it's it has around a 10 year lifespan, it's over 10 years old.

So it should it should be replaced.

It's going to start failing, it's going to we're gonna have to start it'll cut it'll cause other impacts in terms of continual maintenance and spending money money that we shouldn't be spending, trying to repair uh antennas as they fail one at a time.

So I I can say that we don't when it when it goes down, we don't get complaints.

That that that's another thing.

Like like it we've had outages, and we we rarely hear about hear about them from any community members.

So you know that that's kind of anecdotal evidence, but but it is uh I yeah.

Have we looked at or have have y'all um looked at if we were to eliminate public Wi-Fi access, if we wanted to bring it back in 2030, or if we were to bring it back in 29, how much would it cost to be able to do that?

Do we need the additional costs really?

We we have the basic infrastructure of the city Wi-Fi system for basically for city employees to be able to conduct business.

It's it's required.

That's not uh optional uh system.

So that that core infrastructure for that system could be extended to the the public.

Um so it it's not like we if we eliminated and now brought it back in a few years that it would cost more.

It's gonna cost about the same.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh my other question was regarding item 19 on city software and cybersecurity tools.

Here in light of what happened to our neighboring city.

I'm just wondering if we're being, I forget the English saying of pound foolish penny wise, whatever that's saying is.

I apologize.

Um I'll clarify it's not easy to see, but that's an increase.

Yeah.

So we are we are adding night.

We added it here as an increase because it reduces our uh it impacts our reduction.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, I'm sorry.

Yes, you're right.

We see we've added 90 96k to the budget with unanticipated cybersecurity and uh and other tools.

Okay, thank you.

Did not notice that non okay.

Um can we go back?

Those are all my questions on IT, but if you have some, yeah.

Yeah, I just want to make a comment on the um public Wi-Fi.

A number of people have their phones set to uh jump onto Wi-Fi if it's at the end of it.

And so I am a bit concerned that there's a lot that we can get a lot of hits from people who just default into it if they can as opposed to they need it.

Um in the city of San Leandro for San Marketing by particular during COVID, they handed out hot spots to the students.

So for us as a city, I'm a little bit less concerned.

I do think the last thought is that either universal access funds of some kind, broadband America and Northwest, I don't know really what that program would be called, but just that concept that given our designation as a city, that there should be some sort of state federal funding available for access if we think that it's important and that we could pursue.

So I'm not as worried about this one in particular for those reasons.

Just one more question on that.

Um if uh if the library's closed, but I am in, I'm talking about the main library.

If I'm sitting on one of the benches, am I still able to access Wi-Fi?

Yes.

Okay.

And this is not an impact library or Wi-Fi at all.

Yeah, I'm just wondering if if we're if we don't provide public access to Wi-Fi, but I really do need to do something.

Uh I could sit outside of the library even when it's closed.

Yes, we and I have access to the Wi-Fi.

Okay, and that's in all library locations.

Main and main and main and manner.

Okay.

Would we have that ability at uh uh Mulford idea?

We're still okay.

That that kind of eases it for me, like just in terms of I mean there's lighting, but if you do need to somehow access that, okay.

Um those are all my questions on this slide.

I don't know.

I will say that for nine million dollars for the library.

I'll just I'll leave it at that.

Coming back to the next slide.

Oh, I had a question on a previous on the finance line.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Um my next question is regarding public works uh on the third-party encampment cleanup.

We have a reduction of 900 396,000 dollars.

That is usually most of that partnership is that on like Caltrans property, Union Pacific Railroad, flood control.

Um I'm just trying to understand this.

Why are we paying if mostly all those encampments happen on their jurisdiction, but under our city lines?

So how can we transfer this cost to those um other entities so that we're not fronting and and does that include like encampments?

I mean, there's also the San Leandro Creek where that happens.

So I'm trying to understand this cost, and uh does that does that not mean does that mean that we're not going to clean up?

What does that entail?

Good afternoon to my piece of public works director.

Um so happy to report that the vendors that completed work for us in cleanup encampments has been in the city right-of-way.

Um none of this work has been in Pacific right away outside of the city.

Those cleanups we've been just in close collaboration with those agencies.

So these cleanups that's listed here are all in city right.

And where do we see most of these clean that's happening?

What location?

Yeah, some of the hotspots, and I mean the first tourist isn't public works director, but some hot spots in your pressure park.

Um I will pass the mic on.

Thank you, Sheila.

Good afternoon, Pink Tom.

This is a public work director.

Um current hotspots are near Draft for Park, uh lineage, uh, which is the extension of Aladdin off of Washington.

Um Burrows, maybe a little bit currently.

Um we are currently we're currently getting a reoccurring cleanup uh in San Leandro Creek at the uh near uh Alvarado.

Um that is on city property.

We own we own property that was down to Center on the degree.

Um those are the ones that come to mind.

Uh if I may, I'd like to point out that uh in the Arbor slide further in this presentation.

We said that although the current budget is $430,000, and that was very close to what we spent last fiscal year.

This fiscal year costs have trended down.

We are projecting to spend only $230,000, and the fiscal year 27 reduction that you see here will put us very close to that number.

So what you're saying is it the way this is projected is not really gonna affect us in the future.

In fiscal year 27, that reduction should not have an impact that the demand continues as it was this year.

However, we have additional reduction proposed.

Question okay, that makes sense like you very slaves.

I say I also had questions about that.

Um repeat sites, repeat encampment sites.

We're all repeating encampment sites.

Uh we typically will uh visit a site and uh clean it up once a month for three, four, five, six months before uh people decide that it's not worth staying there.

Um and then if we ignore it for six months, they could come back again.

Um right now we're currently cleaning uh maybe four sites on a monthly basis.

Thank you.

Um I seem to remember um Governor Newsome having some sort of press release regarding encampment cleanups and something around impacting possible city dollars or local jurisdiction dollars.

Am I correct in that in that that if cities are not cleaning up encampments, that there could be some sort of decrease in state or county, either state funding funnel through counties or is that not at all related?

So yes, kind of um what the direction was was for jurisdictions to maintain um encampments and to not let them grow and to address them.

Um but that primarily affects the county funding.

Um our funding, many of our state dollars fund through the county.

Um, and so it's contingent upon the county to ensure that the jurisdictions within their county bounds are combined with any of that type of guidance.

And so reducing this encampment cleanup, and it I understand that staff's analysis shows that this would actually be reflective of the level of service being provided as of this fiscal year.

Um but the reduction does not put in jeopardy any kind of either state pass-through funds to county or any county funds.

Just trying to make sure that if we need to keep some sort of level funding pot in order to be able to get access to those, I I just want to put don't want to put in jeopardy any kind of state county funding as of today.

Yeah, we haven't been told that would be the case, just to be clear, the the reduction that Nick was talking about and getting to the level where we're saying it's only for fiscal year 27.

Has that we will be reducing what's within the effects you see of the impacts.

Okay.

And so for me, just going back to 42.

The 94,000 and the 82,700.

I'm concerned about those two numbers.

I don't like them.

I think we need to find some way to keep up a certain amount of attention to this and how we do that.

And then just toss that back to you guys to figure out.

Um we'll see if we get consensus on that.

But I just think that there's a lot of that this is a lot of attention.

I just got a call yesterday about needles on the field at the Rasher Park.

And right next to the feds.

And so I just gets this is this gets a lot of attention.

So I am not at all offended.

I think we heard Council Member Bolt at the primary session say absolutely positively not.

We did get the clarification over here on the side.

What we're talking about over here, they handle about 80%, 75% of the load the outsource.

So I mean, any way that you cut this, it is a material decrease.

So I am concerned about that before you too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Nicole, you had mentioned regarding grants registry of $643,000.

Can you repeat how how that is going to be presented or who is going to how is this going to be taken out and presented to council?

So let me provide high level and then I can turn it over to Tom or Avalon.

So when we prepared the biannual budget in spring, um, we accounted for this wrench registry program as we continue to kind of explore what that looks like.

And so the general fund budget included about $650,000 for that program ongoing.

Our proposal of tonight and and uh that you've seen in past presentations by um Tom and Avalon is um this program will be created in a special revenue lab.

So as we collect revenue to support that program or related to that program, it would then that revenue would support that uh program, and hopefully um in the near future would be self-sufficient.

However, it's a new fund.

So we need to remove the 650 ongoing operational expense so that we can account for it in the newly established revenue uh special revenue fund.

Um, and then in the next several weeks, months, um, what will be coming to council from Tom and Avon from community development um is the plan and development of that special revenue and what the projected revenue uh looks like, um, any potential loans and/or subsidies from the general fund and what that loan payback will look like.

So that has not been approved by council yet, but first we do need to remove this as an ongoing expense, which all of that.

Thank you for painting that picture.

I again thank you.

So the the next item I have with regards to community development is the economic development study at 100,000.

I think that's that is item 58.

Uh, I think that's with regards to economic, I think this is a small investment that could potentially turn into millions of dollars and you know, taxpayer funds.

So I'm concerned about this.

I just wanted to, yeah, I would like to see what the potential ROI of this could be rather than a limit.

It's like yeah, you have to make you have to make the investment in order to see returns on this, and I think this is something that is beneficial to the community.

Um, and I think Tom or Allah maybe you can help me answer this economic development uh study.

Is this is this something that we can that we could do?

I mean, I I I'm saying I like to see this, but is this something that we can do without you?

I want to hand it over to assistant director Schultz.

After you, um, so this is a combination of two line items that we had in our budget.

Um, one was for a specific study for industrial zones and what kind of um activities we can take to help make those economically viable, you know, into the future.

Um, the second line item was for an arts district evaluation and facemaking plan.

And so um the budget proposal preserves the industrial study, but it does eliminate the arts district evaluation, and so once the industrial specific you know evaluation is done, uh there would not be any ongoing funding for future economic development studies beyond completing the industrial evaluation.

Um it is a great idea to have a you know placeholder in the economic development consulting line for studies and innovations and new things that come up that we want to look into and research.

But in order to meet our budget reductions, these were areas that we felt we could maximize getting the industrial plan done, and then we would um we would not continue with the arts district evaluation.

And will that I said not continue if that's something that we can bring up later on?

Uh because I I hate to see this not be funded because like I said, there's there's potential funding.

I don't know if this was discussed, but do you think that there is the potential to have ROI on this?

I mean, yes, the all of the uh planned investments came out of the academic development strategy.

They were you know they were items that the council had determined made sense.

Um, but we have you know been very strategic with our proposed reductions to maximize the value of our investment.

So anything that we listed here, you know, was deemed to be the less important of the line items.

And we'll we'll take direction um from finance director and city manager's office in terms of uh council's decisions on what they'd like to see removed or added back, why not?

Okay, thank you.

I'd like to see this line item.

Um I'd like to see this move forward um with the funding that for me I figure it's a small price tag, but I think there's a lot more ROI on this investment.

So that's it for me on the community development.

Um we're in community development, right?

I know, yeah.

I'm not colorblind, but I forgot the red and green.

Um so uh you know my hands seeing expense.

Okay, so you asked a question about rent registry.

I also had that.

Um particularly concerned about item 51 on slide 26, which is the housing consultants.

Um would want to see um what the use the usage is looking like, or I don't know who to direct the question.

Oh, there you are.

That's why I didn't see you.

Sure.

Um so I think uh and were you in particular concerned about um or have questions of the tenant landlord part?

Um well, just as the as we're onboarding rent stabilization and rent registry, um I'm and as that gets off the ground, I'm just thinking about whether there's going to be just a lot more questions about um implementation and rollout, questions from landlords and tenants, um and I I don't know if that's being if that portion of the education is being was rolled into the cost for rent stabilization and rent registry.

Yeah, I think there is some kind of discussion uh thoughts to that that there would be, but I think what we are trying to preserve under these labs and what's existing uh is again we're just reducing some of the we're not eliminating and and the reductions are not so for example, um I'll give you one because this is a critical one.

It's uh central adolesce that they do um legal uh defense eviction uh services, but as well they also provide a housing counsel because they're subcontractor echo.

So that's going down about $9,000.

So that to us was critical to keep, and we had support from finance and manager's office on that.

So to point to your point, so that it's not going away, it's they it is getting reduced because of course everybody has to feel some pain as we do this, but it is still being able to provide a critical service that will help the supplement for rent program.

So that's kind of how we uh have scattered out about that reduction.

So it's not going away, and it still should sustain and provide um a reasonable level of uh service for the NFC.

Yeah, oh sure, yeah.

I just wanted to add sorry, um, for the new the new rent program that's being established through the special revenue fund, um, there will be a proposed line item for consulting um that could include additional contracts with community providers to help with with that program operationally.

So um that's separate from the general fund, but that's something that um when you when you mentioned the new ordinance and how that affects the workload, that can be also resolved outside the general fund.

Okay, I'm um concerned about the reduction to centro legal um just because of the services that they provide.

Um so I'll just keep that on deck for the full council discussion to see if there's any other uh folks that are any other of my colleagues that also have that question.

Um the downtown ambassador program funding.

Um is that an FTE?

Is that do we just give them a set amount and they kind of pull their monies together?

I'm just I I want to untangle that a little bit, and I'm not quite sure how to ask the question.

Uh I guess I did ask a question.

Um so if I understand your your sorry your question is what is the impact with this proposed reduction in the downtown ambassadors?

Right.

Um we understand that there will be likely changes in the available hours that the ambassadors can be available.

Um we anticipate that could look like the loss of a morning shift because the amount reduction by uh 29 is equivalent to what was added to their budget to add a morning shift.

Um, but as has been stated, costs continue to increase.

So um we don't have a definitive answer for you, but it I would assume it means either the loss of shift or the loss of Ds of operation, um, is what we've been told by the program operator.

Okay, I'll keep the um I want to keep that on that for the full council discussion.

I want to untackle that a little bit more.

Um we're still on committee development, right?

Um sponsor shift in terms of I think council member I brings up a good point around ROI and the investments, and I what I seem to understand from the economic economic development studies is that the ROI horizon is actually much longer.

But in keeping in line with that line of questioning, I'm looking at item fifty-six of branding and marketing funds.

Um and um, you know, there are that to me is somebody to tell me how that saying goes, but Pamelish penny wise complication.

Yes, well, you didn't say it on the mic, so whatever that whatever the mayor just said.

Um that to me is one of those things that um allows us to bring in new revenue to recruit new businesses and think about that.

I mean, there are some things in there like the San Francisco Business Times Advertising and the spot line up in San Leandro we I can live without that.

I don't know how my colleagues feel, but um I'm I am concerned about the city's brand assessment and the marketing study and brand implementation because I think that really does set the stage for more revenue and bringing in the types of industry and businesses that we want to attract.

So I would like to look at that.

Um the 70,000 for 27, 85, 10.

Um I I do I do see that as a as a shorter horizon to see a return on investment.

Um those are all my that's just a comment on uh on that, and those are all my questions and comments on the community development.

Council member for Sultan, would you be okay to respond real quick on the brand study?

Um that is fully funded.

So the market the brand study we were able to RFP it and get it done.

So we are reducing the budget allocation, but we were able to fully fund that effort.

But the ongoing marketing materials budget is seeking a reduction.

Um I just want to share that for context to clarify the the answer.

The the line that says reduction of city brand assessment and marketing study and brand implementation is the implementation element of that that would be that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so back to community development.

So on line 51, I'm unclear.

So there's a $9,000 for central adult and echo housing.

So currently that's one contract.

Echo housing.

I think yeah, as we've mentioned before, it's a close to about $79,000.

So they work within by those services led by Central Ingal as the lead.

So it's not a separate contract.

So what we're proposing is that they're going to go from 79,000 to 27, and by 2029, they'll be down to 70,000.

It'll be down to 70,000.

So it's a reduction, but as I said, it's we've similar to what uh Vice Mayor had said, this is an important service, so we are trying to we're retaining it.

Uh it is getting a little bit of a cut, but um it still uh should be a fairly uh robust uh budgetary straight.

So most of the other comes from the the outreach seminars and the like and I excuse me, it's that multi-family of animal assistance program needs analysis or study.

Um so I think that's a bigger I think that might be about 25,000.

So that is a uh nice to have, but in this environment, those are not a must have.

So okay, and then the last piece on that in particular are there elements of what we're doing that would that we're currently doing that would validly be part of the uh rent control process.

Uh I think similar to what uh Avalon had mentioned, I think that's something that we're factoring in as we bring to you the new budget for the new rent program budget.

Uh we we are basically making sure that uh we're factoring one may apply to that into the new program, and currently here, these are services that will have some uh supported uh to their program are separate, so we kind of have to kind of read that out.

Thank you.

On item 53.

I almost under the impression that the shopping center is supposed to have some sort of security control.

Isn't that correct?

Yes, um, I'll pass it over to your current developer and your comment.

Thank you.

Yes, and they they do have a security card.

My comment there is that they're not particularly visible when I walk downtown.

So whether they're what being present means is unclear to me.

Um I think that if their level of support as an organization was where I would expect it to be, this might not be as impactful.

Um so I don't know if we have any opportunity to coordinate with them to discuss with them kind of what our expectations are, because I don't based on what I understand our expectations to be, I'm not clear that they're reading those expectations.

Um removing the morning shift, and I know these are all approximate numbers, so I'm not stressed by the specifics.

If removing the morning shift was the 20K, what is the 51k the year fiscal year 2028 representing?

Um removing the morning shift was the 70K.

Um that morning shift, you have a little number late started two hours earlier or five hours, I think.

So the director indicated it would uh reduce so with so in addition, uh continuing with flat funding um in 26 would eliminate one safety ambassador shift just at the uh 350,000 FLAT funding as the costs continue to go up, um, and then um a elimination of um one of the morning safety ambassador position, uh which is 160 hours a month would be uh the impact in 2027, and 2028 the impact would be elimination of two days of safety safety services per week.

So for instance, um the weekend sort of whatever days appropriate, so there would be five days of service provided.

Okay, so I'm just trying to wrap my head around these numbers.

2028, I guess when we see our first reduction, and that's the elimination of a position, and that would be on the safety side, or that it would be on the safety side, not the cleaning side.

Uh correct, the city does not contribute to funding for cleaning ambassadors.

Okay.

That is uh covered through the assessments.

Thank you.

And then the what is the budget for being safety ambassadors?

Um so the 350,000 current contribution uh was about 90 percent of the cost in fiscal year 24 uh or 25.

And so uh I don't know the total today, but uh it um escalates over time.

So it was about I think 440,000 with us paying a portion of that.

And so when I think I'm here, you say ballpark again that we're talking about reducing this back to 350.

Uh it is currently at 351,000.

The city's share is 350,000.

Um the total for the program is about 40.

440.

So then we would go from 350 to 280.

Correct.

Perfect.

Thank you.

And and I'll stand corrected.

It looks like I I do have that number, 392,000 for the total program in calendar year 26, of which the city uh is budgeted to contribute 351,000.

Thank you so much.

Um I don't talk a little 56 and 58, but yeah, but I think the court theme there was return on investment.

Do we have a sense whether that provides a return on investment?

Can we point to examples where we feel it's generated a return?

Would need to get back with you on that.

I think those those two are harder to provide specific.

Um 57 is a little more direct.

Yep.

So I think that before our work session on certain format decision, um these are inherently touchy-feely.

Um but I think there's a big difference between a brochure where you're trying to sell and going out and meeting people and building relationships.

I think relationships are a lot more powerful.

Um less concerned about people.

I'm a lot more concerned about are we meeting people?

Are we working with the development community?

Are we meeting the investors?

Uh would be building stuff really telling the side of a story.

And for those people, I'm not so sure that anything of the newspaper or a glossy week behind matters too too much.

Um there's a separate question, and I think this is probably to the city manager's office.

Um part of what we do in our brand and marketing of who we are as a city comes through the communications team and the work that they do around the content that they create and how they promote that content online.

Um I don't think I saw a reduction in that arena.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, I think that's all that I have on community uh feedback to your console collector.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

My next question is regarding fire.

And uh concern one, I I would like to understand.

I know that there's a reduction from four beds to two beds.

Um you help me understand how many beds are like what what's the data around uh the ARU and uh the response and you know I I know I have some folks in my neighborhood who you can either force to water, but you can't make a drink.

Are people actually using utilizing these beds?

Are we transporting folks to utilize this program?

Good evening, Paige Bowie.

Um the beds are absolutely being used.

Uh they are full over 90% of the time.

Um when one opens up, we have a recommendation to fill up with somebody else.

I think the only reason they're ever vacant is because we can't quite get them in there on the day we want to move them in from so that means if we had 10 minutes in your film and more.

Thank you for for that answer.

So that makes that brings concern to me that we would actually need more beds.

I just wanted to understand if they're actually being used and you know why are we reducing from four to two?

If like you mentioned, if we had access to ten beds, we would fill them up.

Um I just I think you know with my council colleagues and I would ate to reduce uh the ARDU program, and I think that's my colleagues the same way.

Um my other question is with regards to the 1.5 million.

I know that's not on here, but this was a question for Nicole.

You mentioned that the fire trucks, and I for some reason I put it under the same the same content in the same slide.

Um you said 1.5 million per truck, but it takes four to five years to actually place that order.

And I saw three line items for 1.5 million.

So are you saying that we need to replace three fire trucks within the next four years?

Correct, and one of them was that we were we we did purchase and receive a fire truck this year, which was part of the 26 budget, and then I believe it's in 27 and 20, excuse me, 28 and 29 that we were planning for two additional replacements, and then there are two additional replacements further in um years.

Um one of them being a much more expensive vehicle, I think it's a 2.5 or 2.3 million dollar uh price.

Wonderful.

Thank you for that explanation and page.

Um congratulations on your limit of the year work.

Thank you.

Um is the impact of having an LVM versus an RN.

I believe that would be fairly minimal for this team that we anticipated the RN would be more utilized.

Uh but with the nature of the clients that the team is coming across, the LBN could do similar type of referrals.

You know, the RN can prescribe more medications and higher level, but with what we're doing, the LBN is very capable of the same thing.

Okay.

And so I see that the reduction is planned for fiscal year 29, which gives us a little bit of a runway, which means that service delivery would just to be clear, uh, or to just confirm that my understanding is correct.

So we would maintain service levels as they are today up until June 31st 2028.

Right?

Because fiscal year 29 actually starts the year before, right?

Correct.

Okay.

So we have a little bit of a runway.

We want to somehow find some gap funding.

We have a little bit of a runway there.

Um, what is the incremental cost of each bed?

So is there a space constraint whereas we can only fit X numbers of X number of beds?

If we go beyond a certain number, then the cost goes way up.

Because what I'm hearing is there's a lot more need than what the program is able to provide.

But I'm just wondering if there's a certain um if the space that they are now, like if we go beyond six beds, it costs a million because we have to look for a new space, or is there a small incremental cost between each bed?

Give me a minute, we're trying to pull that up right now.

Looks like one bed per year is approximately, I'll say a hundred and thirty-five thousand per bed per year.

And what's the capacity for the space that is right now?

So there's for now, does it have capacity for more beds, or would we have to look for a new location?

It has capacity for how many more beds?

I'd have to get back to you then the current shelter at least.

Okay, okay.

So we're not okay.

I was just concerned that if it was like we wanted to do six.

If we found some anyway, but you understand what I'm saying.

Um thank you.

That was my question for the ARU.

I think appreciate the runway.

Looks like we have some homework in terms of how we can figure out some funding and do by June 30th or 31st of 28 to at least keep service uh where it is now.

Um I uh want to go back up to item 59.

Um I why is it a discontinuation of the city's contribution?

It's actually not, it's a typo.

Okay, it's not a discontinuation.

Um what this it represents is a 90% uh reduction or discount.

So what um the city will be paying for is 10% towards that uh contribution to retiree medical for uh Alameda County fire um why were we paying it before and why can we start doing it now?

So I will say very high level um and then turn it over to the city manager if she wants to try digital comments.

We also have Alameda County Fire here to answer specific questions, but um, it is part of our contractual obligation in our current contract with Alameda County Fire.

Um this is a shift that happened a couple of years ago, um, but it is currently in our contract that we fund that uh future obligation.

I don't under Can you explain another way because I'm not understanding it.

I'll um Al May County Fire because I don't know if I need to do any better.

And I'm gonna pass it to Lara who will do this much better than I will.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Um I'm Josie on the financial services manager with audio fire.

Um so actually further clarify, um, CD is not discontinued or um discounted to payment for the medical payment.

It's actually so um city is actually paying for the retiree medication payment towards the fund, and then um CD is also paying for the share of the unfunded actuary um determined liability towards the um retiree health.

So the reduction is actually the unfunded liability, the additional contribution.

So there are usually three major portions of the retiree health expenses every year.

It's the um health expenses for the retiree, the annual expenses, and the employee contribution and the employee ear contribution.

So CD is paying for their 20.39% based on our um budget allocation model.

So we have a third-party actuarial calculation every year to determine the future liability of this um entire e-medical expenses.

So the reduction is to reduce the C's share of liability paying towards the future liability of medical payments.

Is that answer the question?

I still don't understand.

Yes.

Okay, I can give it this another shot.

Okay, I want to go with this answer because I I think that I've heard two different answers.

So that's why I'm confused.

Okay.

So there are two portions.

One we pay for our the fair value, actually or fair value, actuarially determined price of future obligations.

Correct.

For the retirement health for retiree health, yes, right.

That's the yeah, if you can grab everyone excessive.

Yes, right.

And so that's for future.

That has nothing to do with the past obligations.

It is also the case that historically Alameda County fire underfunded pension contributions.

And so the pension system looking back developed an underfunded status.

Is that correct?

So pension and health.

I'm sorry, retiree.

So retiree medical was historically underfunded.

Correct.

Okay.

So there's a historical obligation, and there's a future obligation.

Is this discount with respect to the future obligation or the historical obligation?

It's a combination.

So based on the actual railroad report, um CD is currently estimated funding.

So we have subaccount created for each city.

So Alameda County fire contracted with City of Salandral, Newark, Emberville, Union City, and Dublin.

So each city under our big umbrella of the OPAP trust account, each CD has a subaccount.

So currently CDF Salandrel as a result of the merge long time ago, CD's funding level now is 25 point 25.87% out of the overall Alameda County fire department future liability.

So every player contributes to a fair share of this future liability because we do pay our employees, uh retired employees towards their medical benefits.

Yeah, but we're avoiding my question.

And I think that like immediately, but it is very clear when you look at future obligations.

I'm bringing on an employee today who's going to have future retiree medical expenses 20 years from now.

And I set aside money as a future for the future.

There's a completely separate topic, which is there is has historically been underfunding of these accounts.

And there is a catch-up payment that occurs.

Yes.

I'm distinguishing between those two.

And are you able to distinguish between those two today with the information that you have?

Since the um merge, the CD employee CD used to have your own fire department.

Um and then CD of Sal Andrew's fire firefighters come to Alameda County fire at some point.

Um I need to do some homework on what year that happened.

Um so my understanding is that when we calculate a dose liabilities, we don't go by the individual.

So I would say John Smith joined fire department in 1993, and the liability for paying that specific employee is how much.

So yes, we are calculating the future liability.

Um, but I won't be able to distinguish there's actually a process to um based on the number of employees coming to fire department at a time and the estimated retire age.

Um it's a share of future liability.

Okay, I'm gonna go to the study now.

When we transferred those employees to Alameda County fire, did we at that time provide them any funding with respect to uh their employee retirement benefits for medical mayor?

Thank you for your question, and uh we can certainly uh research and give you the precise answers, but at a high level, there our contract is unique and distinct is because we were one of the earliest adopters of joining ACFD.

Our contract with ACFD also explicitly states in writing that the city has no obligation to pay the benefits of the the fire the fire agency.

And that was my recollection for when he was in writing with that like the conversation with that said per finance committee adoption several years ago on the former city manager.

We we agreed that prospectively the city would be contributing towards those costs as part of the the annual billing cycle that comes out prospectively.

And that's why for me I just want to be very clear.

This is the city's money, we we have a fiduciary obligation to the residents of San Andreas for this corporation, that you use corporation, the city of San Leandro, and so it needs to be very clear on what portion of our payment is for future looking obligations and what portion of the current payment, if it includes any historical catch-up, and I'm I don't think that there's a clear answer here today, so I don't want to belabor this anymore because clearly I'm getting frustrated.

But to me, this is a long standing issue.

And I called it out when I first arrived almost four years ago.

And I think that needs to be resolved by June 30th of this year.

I am so done talking about this, I'm done being polite about it.

We will our contract says we pay going forward.

We don't pay for cleanup of past obligations.

We never had those obligations, and we will not pay for those obligations as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know if I can clarify, but it we don't have the answer to your question.

We don't know what this 90% really means, and so we need to be able to answer that clearly succinctly, and it's just math.

So this is not hard, someone just has to do the work.

Well, those are all my questions on fire.

Um I do have one last question on fire.

I am confused by the 135,000 dollars per year per bed.

Um because that would capture going from four bids to two, because that's 270,000 divided by two is 135.

But what I also read up there is that we have cost savings from the community uh community health worker, and we have cost savings by moving from LVN to RM from RN to LVN, and so I think that before we uh discuss this any further, we probably need to be able to parse that out because otherwise the the the math is just not quite that enough.

If we're gonna take all of those things out, and it's you know 135k per per bed times two beds, that's 270.

And that's the savings that we have there.

So some things missing in the analysis.

So that's that's more of a comment clean up later before going to council.

Unl unless I misunderstand it.

You got it.

We got it for it.

Coming back to council member.

Uh thank you, Mayor Grazult.

So my next item is in regards to um council member compensation.

I think you know, I don't know about some of some of my colleagues, but this yeah, it I have it basically it costs me to do this job.

Um so I would recommend no change and just continue to stay at the five percent um year over year increase, and uh I don't know if my colleagues have any other comments on that.

Um the other item is ARPA and um Mayor, if I could just so the five percent is the max allowed by the law.

The council currently does not have does not have a policy or a provided direction that they will receive a five percent increase.

So we would need direction on what if the council still chooses to have an increase in salary, what is that number up to five percent for each of the years you have an hour?

So you're saying the five percent allows for the adjustment.

I mean, the government code allows for the adjustment of the county year for 5%.

Um developers to give it not to exceed 10% for each year.

So we we can add 5% for 2027 and 2028.

So the last time the council had an increase was 2025.

The next increase if the council was to have one would be 2027, so you could do up to five percent per year for years 2026 and 2027, but not more than 10%.

Gotcha.

I I would I would recommend 5% per year.

That's just minimal.

Um my next question is with regards to ARPA, and we have the navigation center and ARU, um the navigation center reduction, like the ongoing costs.

Um these are both high ticket items on here.

Um we so with regards to the navigation center, the grant that we see from the state from Project Home Key.

Is this baked into this cost and is this cost already projectedly funded, or is it something that we are going to have to um pay for the future?

Thank you, Councilmember Human Services Director Jessica Luberon.

So to clarify, there's there's no reduction for the lowing navigation center.

This is our general fund contribution for the next three fiscal years.

So this is the ongoing general fund contribution.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Thank you, Fritzley.

That answers my ARU question as well.

So those are my comments for exposure.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Let's see.

So I think in terms of the mayor and council members' compensation.

I agree that the um the new monthly compensation is definitely if I were to divide that in the number of hours is minimal.

However, um would propose that we start the base at the old monthly compensation and then start at a percentage increase from there, so that we don't start again.

Start again at the at least for the council members, um, to the 1,323, start from there.

Because right now, current compensation is 1900, correct?

Right.

So what I'm what I would like to propose, I don't know how this is gonna land with my colleagues, but I I do I I I do think that there is a um a um a shared um load that we need to carry in terms of the folks that are being um services and uh folks that might be impacted by service delivery reductions.

Um may just to be really clear, the old monthly compensation is what council members and the mayor were receiving prior to January 1st of 2025.

Your current compensation is that middle column right there.

That's right.

So you're saying to bump your compensation back down to the old one and add 5% on that to start from that and then whatever percentage increase we land on, have but have the new yeah, start at 1300 1323.

What percentage of price from here?

Well, that's what we would need to that's what we would need to talk about.

But what I'm proposing is to start at 1,323 to the pre-January 1st, 2025 level.

Um it's not much, but I think it shows to the community and to city staff that we're sharing the pain.

Um that's kind of what I'm thinking in terms of uh a proposal that I think might be that's that's I I just feel an obligation to share that reduction.

And what what would be the percentage?

I I could do the match, but if someone could do it in their head quickly, what would be the percentage change if we were to go back?

What would be the percentage reduction if we were to go from 1323 to 1900 to 1,323?4% reduction.

Okay, so I mean it's significant, but and then we could play around with the percentage increase, right?

Which that percentage would change the overall okay.

I don't know if we want to talk about that proposal.

Um I know the mayor serves as a full-time mayor.

Um I don't know how many council members serve full-time, I don't, um but I know the mayor does, so I don't know, mayor, if you put that into that um into the council and mayor compensation or my colleague.

Oh, my colleague did share, but you mayor.

So my basic reaction is it's not a lot of money, it's 20,000.

I know I know.

I know.

I think the symbolism of a 30% pay cut is significantly different from anything that city staff is experiencing.

Because we're satisfying this condition by getting rid of jobs that nobody has.

If we were to be laying off employees, if we were to be to have employees taking pay cuts, if there were renegotiation of salaries and benefits, kind of in the spirit of what Hayward is doing, I would be more amenable to it.

But at this point in time, I would be perfectly fine with just keeping it where it is without an increase.

So that's my hesitancy.

I know you do this full time, and it is if you if we were to calculate your hourly rate and your less than minimum wage at this point.

I'm saying that these savings are not really popular.

I understand about just tiny about what I understand.

Okay, well, I guess that's it.

Okay, coming back to you, Plust member.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think you know, I appreciate the stewardship of my vice mayor, but I I you know I agree with the mayor that this is minimal, and I think it'd be detouring people from wanting to do this job.

Like it said it costs me money to serve um rather than uh many funding.

So in this sense, it's uh I mean it's just it's a passion of love and commitment about the community that you that you live in.

Um my question, my I think you know, with regards to some comments.

I would like to, I think they were looking for direction with regards to um I'd like to increase expenditure reductions, and then also with regards uh you know, to I'd like to see what I we didn't talk about overtime, and what departments experience over time?

Is there a way that we can eliminate um a percentage of overtime?

Is that is that an option to further um save on costs?

Um provide some uh context and information on overtime.

There are a number of uh departments uh they're pretty nominal.

We do see overtime in police.

Um we do have required minimum staffing levels, and as a result, when we have high number of vacancies in the police department, it is often offset by ensuring that we are meeting those minimum requirements that have officers in capacity that are working overtime to make sure that we are meeting those minimum staffing levels.

Um occasionally we do have some overtime in public works as they respond to emergencies after hours, and so we can provide some context and numbers around on what that looks like.

Um but really it is dependent on our um ability to uh recruit uh the appropriate number of and so the appropriate number of police officers that we're again meeting those window staffing and for public works, um a lot of their opening weekend is in response to emergencies and after hour call-outs.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

I just you know, I just don't want to see that slide if we stay as is without making any changes, we face going into bankruptcy, and that's something that I would love to prove that I will expand it.

It we we specifically look at personnels on a monthly basis, so that we are tracking on how much are we spending compared to the budget as it relates to salaries, and are we seeing an increase in overtime and is there a correlation there?

And so it is something that we regularly monitor um uh department by department on a monthly basis, and then we also meet with departments on a quarterly basis to go through their budgets, including kind of how they're trending on overtime and whether or not something that is potentially accessible.

Gotcha.

I think with regards to the police department, I think some of our police officers and the right along that I that I've done.

I think uh a year or two ago, it's you know, some of these officers work long days, they go home and sleep for eight hours, and then they're 10 hours, and then they come back and they're on the job.

So I just want to make sure you know their well-being and their mental health is something that I care about so that they can do their job without putting themselves or you know the city at risk.

So that's just what I what I care about, but I I understand the the overtime.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is a way that we can look into the departments to save because I think in the past we've had some um some issues with um how should I put this uh time card fraud?

Uh so I just want to make sure that we're we're making sure that we absolutely need to use overtime if we need to.

One directly, I do think that given some of the uh high profile examples that you see in the news media uh with respect to overtime, uh, it's particularly important from a fiduciary perspective that we have a council level for political risk, for headline risk, etc., that we be made aware of overtime and causes the cost, because when it goes to something like recruiting, if we're paying someone essentially a double salary, but that really implies for their for the retirement is crazy numbers.

So that takes me to item number two.

Um the last time that we had a finance committee where CalPers came, we were able to see that uh our caliper's contribution for non-sworn or non-public safety uh was something like 68%.

So for every hundred dollars, we spend 68% on CalPers, and some of that's historical, uh, which is a big chunk, and then there's like 25, 30 percent, whatever it is for our actually fair contribution.

Um so I just of that significant impact, I get quite concerned about overtime.

And then the last piece there, this has nothing to do with this budget, but I'll just toss it out there because it's important that there be a record we've had some private conversations about this because of the significant element of the significant drawdown on our city's finances due to the pensions being so unfinded.

I think we need to be spending much more time, and you're starting to see it at Cal Cities, we should spend much more time advocating at the state legislature to address the pension crisis that the state is facing.

Again, we've had private conversations for several years.

I just want to be really clear and adamant that we have a serious problem, and that problem has only gotten worse in the time that I did here.

So there's a lot there to unpack.

I can see you itching human resources director.

Yes, Mayor, I did want to clarify that overtime is not actually pensionable compensation.

Okay.

That's perfect, so I'm wrong there, and I will accept that.

Uh, but as far as PERS, you would agree with me?

Yes.

Yes, I get a lot of head nods in the room.

So I take that as universal consensus from city staff that we have a serious problem with pensions.

And it's like given how bad that crisis is and the direct impact, right?

Because every dollar that we send to CalPers for our historical underfundedness, that's a dollar that's not being used to keep a library open.

That's a dollar that's not being used to pay of a road.

That's a dollar that's not being paid and a bonus to attract a police officer.

All of that stuff, and it's it's tens of millions of dollars in this city that are going to they're being paid for today because of past underfunding.

So of all the people in this room, that is a serious problem.

And I just I'm not asking for an action plan today, but we need to be doing advocacy work.

We need to be uniting with other cities and advocate it, because this is a really big deal.

Okay, my subbox is now getting crushed.

Um that being said, did you have remaining items?

Council member feedback.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I'm going to come now to you by spare.

Uh transfers I seem to recall.

Uh yes, I wanted to talk about the critical failure for active investment and critical failure in 46.

The Cat RMS keeps me up since we talked about it at uh at a um at the council strategic planning session.

Um I'm thinking even though it's the largest ticket item in terms of the um critical failure, I think that that's one of those things where it's a we're legally mandated to provide the service.

Um I don't, and I think there was some conversation regarding city hall painting and marina community center painting in terms of when was the last time they were painting they were painted, and we do not recall, which is a bad sign.

Um in terms of prioritizing these um investments.

I'm I would like to propose that we prioritize the CAD RMS.

Um to in terms of funding it.

Further increase expenditure reductions.

So I would I'm leaning towards option one, which is using the major emergency reserve fund because I do think this is one of those emergency things that um would be catastrophic.

Um wanted to have a little bit of conversation, also understanding the time that it's 6.23.

Um so I'll just leave that there.

Um I'll just leave that there and then see if my colleagues want to dig into this today, or we just want to move this to the full council discussion.

If I if I can uh jump in a little bit about that five million, um it is I just want to be clear, there's a couple things.

Um if you choose to use that, it will not change the overall picture because we'll be using that designation.

Um but the policy is it's a policy to um with a target at 5 million.

Yes, we want to keep it as a policy at that level.

Does the council can decide um at the duration if they want to phase in kind of refunding that five million dollars over the course of a certain amount of time?

Um but uh just wanted to clarify that language and the policy that is a target to uh retain up to five million.

Okay, uh I think I'd like to uh harp on what my uh vice mayor had mentioned with regards to I think um critical funding, I think we can go back one slide to there we go, the CAD RMS.

I think that's something that we need to invest in.

Um all of these are priorities.

I I think we can figure out a way to get the funding to do all the work that we need to do, but I might like to prioritize uh the CAD RMS.

Well that's my comment.

Okay.

Um so my approach to this is uh between this and the uh capital that we're not going to be spending to fix roads and other things.

I think we need to start pulling money out of the 115 trusts.

We put that money aside specifically for the bubble.

We are now entering the bubble, so it's time to start drawing it down.

Um I would draw it down.

I'm not sure what the balance is in my recollection, is like 23 million or something like that.

Um so yeah, for the OPED, it's about 25.3, but pension is 38.6.

38.6.

Okay.

Um I I just think you know, that money is squirreling, and it's time to start pointing on that money.

Uh the bubble is supposed to last materially four or five years, six years.

And then it's supposed to be coming down, so it's gonna mean there's gonna be relief uh in the future in theory.

I remain a little bit cynical, which is why I'm a big believer going and advocating in Sacramento.

And by the way, there is legislation out there that could, in fact, increase pension costs even more.

The council uses Volley close to that because of how bad the situation seems to be right now.

But I think it's time to start releasing money.

Would you release $2 million from the OPEB fund and three million from the pension trust fund?

I think that's for staff to figure out.

I would recommend coming back to that type of proposal.

But we need to start cleaning that money.

And to the extent that this causes anybody to feel like, oh, now it's time to know, so now we can increase salaries more, or now we can renegotiate.

Not while I'm here.

This is money that's been set aside for this crisis that we're in right now.

I think it's time to start tapping into that budget for this crisis.

Because we are in a crisis.

For calls for records.

We're literally destroying our assets by not taking care of them.

And it's because all the money is going, it's because so much money is going to pay off pension liability.

And so this is what we knew would happen between Stephen Cassidy and Pauline Cutter and those councils back then.

They did a great thing by setting aside money.

Now it's time to take advantage of the gift that they gave us.

Small pieces.

That's my recommendation.

And kind of if there is a phased approach, again, I would a couple of things that come up for me is and please, if y'all already have thought about this, excuse me, excuse my, but I is City Hall a historically significant building.

It's not interesting.

So it wouldn't trigger if we do painting, it wouldn't trigger a whole bunch of additional costs due to any kind of restoration or preservation or anything like that.

To our knowledge, no, it's not a historical building, so uh painting would not trigger any other additional trigger work or additional requirements.

And neither would the marina community center.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay, I'm just thinking about things that could bump that could just balloon this into something that we were not expecting.

Um and then in terms of the CAD RMS, I seem to remember that we asked a lot of questions about what this number looked like, and I believe the um chief technology officer said that that included that that number included both equipment, implementation, rollout, that number is inclusive of all those things.

Yes.

Okay.

We we do not have proposals, so it's an estimate at this time, but the estimate does include the whole implementation.

Yeah, I'm I'm supportive of that, Mayor, of thinking through uh what that if we were to let out a little bit of the funds from those two uh from those two pots, what that could possibly look like, and when and how so the um in our eyes of staff that's a two-step process.

So the OPEP and pension trust money can only be used for OPEP and pension.

It can't pay for that.

Um kind of follow me here because what ends up saying what I'm saying is that then you free up general fund dollars that would go to pension, and then you could use those dollars to pay for this.

I just want to make sure that you understand how that works.

That it's it's not that we said trust life for this.

So the the analysis process of figure out what would happen with pension and OPEP, but we draw down the trust and the effect long-term effects, and we can do all that, that's no problem.

But today's question is does this committee want staff to recommend to the council paying for any or all of these items?

The dollars would come from the general fund, how it's replenished, that's the whole pension OPEP thing.

But the general fund paying for it is the question today.

Yes.

Well, what I've heard.

Okay, perfect.

All four, to be clear, all four.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

That's the direction from this committee.

As far as a recommendation that council follow that direction.

And then the how is the discussion that we had code.

Have we done everything that we need to do today?

I think what we're looking for, we would need from you today is whether or not the proposal that we put before you is what you were recommending for us to bring to the full council for a work session.

Okay, let's go back very quickly through the items because it'd be useful if we can just add up the numbers that whether some questions so that I think it should be broken out into based on discussions at finance committee, finance committee ideally, uh unanimously agrees that this should be adopted.

Finance committee requested that council wait on the following.

I was saying the project do whatever they want to do, but we've just spent three two hours, two and a half hours vetting this.

I just think that okay, so we have um the only thing that we have majority or unanimous on is this right now.

So we would need you to tell S app.

That's why we're going through.

So let's go to the first page.

Okay, sorry, I think I mean people 50.

Okay.

Okay, there was one question that I didn't ask.

232,000.

How do you cost disappear for commissions?

Come here, I don't believe that we found a way to decrease election costs so much as we took a closer look at the budgeting and the historical numbers and the estimates that are provided by the county, and that even with the um two elections this year, the special election and the general election, we were able to still come up with the 230,000 dollars by looking at the historical numbers.

Sounds like there was a little bit of cushion in there.

Okay, so when I have on city manager's office, there were questions about the school crossing guards, but I also got a sense of little time to work through that, and the school district might well take that.

So are we are we fine with passing this along?

I know it's gonna get pulled by at least one of my colleagues.

Just in terms of if I'm channeling my other colleagues, they're gonna pull this and want to talk about it.

So I'm okay with passing it on, but I already know who's gonna pull it.

So I think we all agree.

Yeah, and that's okay.

Okay.

Uh that's their job.

Um I don't have anything on finance.

Um I just the business administration, business license administration.

Um this is not a cut.

Is it a cut?

It's a cut.

It's a proposed reduction beginning in fiscal year 28.

We currently contract with HDL to administer the city's business license program.

Um, however, with the efficiencies and technical support we're gonna get to.

I just didn't cross it off my list.

That's right.

Now that you said it, I remember you talking about it.

I'm good on finance.

So I think we are in agreement unanimously on finance.

On human resources, I don't have to do that.

I don't have anything on the space and agreement on human resources on information technology.

The one place where I saw some hesitancy for you that was on Wi-Fi, and this was with respect to the antenna replacement.

Given the discussion that heard, and given that it's a year out.

What do you think?

I think I mean it, you know, I trust what is being said.

A lot of folks know if their plans have access to Wi-Fi.

I just, like I said, in the back of my head, I think about some of those kids that just you know they got publicity that don't have access to what I know something I do unified switching.

My library was giving out um hot spots, but I just, you know, there's somebody who really, you know, some sometimes some folks until it's a lifeline between accessing public Wi-Fi for a free standard, so we're happy to um you know, just essential services, I just want to make sure that you know those folks who are on house who utilize or attack it to this this network.

I mean, I I also tap into it, I have it listed on my phone and automatically default to public Wi-Fi on sounding address.

So I know it's a minimal cost, but I I was concerned about that.

There is a way that we can find this, I'd be all for it, um, but I'm comfortable with leaving it as is and have discussion.

I think the that the question is will this committee recommend this unanimously or have somebody at city council pull it?

Or would you like to say no, we're not unanimous, and in particular, the outline item that we're concerned about is 14.

I'm concerned about 14.

Okay.

So then let's say this that the the um the committee is unanimously in agreement on all aims except for 14.

Okay, so just so that the committee and the community who hears this, is that what it would still say is that the committee recommends because there's two of you recommend this as is.

Right, but it's not unanimous.

And then see, because I think it's just to the extent that we can focus the discussion after all this betting that we've done, I think it's just useful to be able to focus on focus the discussion.

Anything else there?

No.

Okay.

Let us proceed then to um library.

Sorry, I'm trying to get up and that's my own.

Yeah, you're fine.

I don't think that we had anything here.

You before you had reduction, and now you say changes.

We could change that.

It's just reallocation.

I mean, you could you could honestly say we're increasing library hours here.

I think reallocation just says because we're expanding, you know, reducing it, some and expanding at others.

Um, but that setting that aside, which I consider to be purely administrative or ministerial, uh, there's unanimous agreement from the committee on that.

On recreation and parts, unanimous agreement from the committee.

I did ask for some analysis on the um increase in programmatic and rental.

I just wanted to see how soft that number is in terms of projections.

Fair enough.

So how would we like to handle that?

So you'll come back and assess that more fully.

So just for clarity, so I make sure that we do the correct assignment.

My notes say that your question was regarding the 2008 recession, and was there a dip in recreation program revenue during that time?

And we can come back with that answer.

So the question of you, uh Vice Mayor, would you feel comfortable saying that this budget right here?

Um the updated revenue is in the financial forecast not netting this in some way.

You will still be decreasing by 566, 140, and 10.

Correct.

So it's but you're saying, by the way, on the other page, there's no revenue.

Yeah.

So with respect to this piece.

Yeah, this is fine.

Okay, so you have unanimous agreement on recreation and parts.

Human services.

I don't have any notes on human services.

Yes.

Some of the things that we have questions on, we talked about it at the strategic planning session.

I'm good to go on this.

Okay, so you have human unanimous agreement from the committee for a recommendation on human services on public infrastructure.

I just have a bunch of circles and lines and concerns around 42.

Same.

So this is just you're not getting agreement on 42 segments.

So no one from this committee agrees that this should be done.

Well, let me let me elaborate.

Yeah, so that 20 uh fiscal year 28 and 29 incremental reductions.

Um not agreeing to because we believe that the 219 is consistent with the current service levels.

So what we would say in that is that the committee recommends that we do not cut the funding in fiscal year 28 and 29.

Correct.

Unanimously agree.

Other than that, we agree on line items 43 through 45.

That's correct.

Um flipping through community development.

I don't have anything to add.

My questions on item on line item 50 were answered.

Okay, so 46 through 50 unanimous agreement.

What about 51?

And we had some discussion.

I am I don't want I'm that is not a unanimous for me, so I I would like to hold that over.

Okay, so 51.

Where were you on 51?

So this is where we want to.

And I'm sorry, particularly to the first part, uh the tenant landlord services, the multifamily rental housing assistance and seminars.

That I'm okay to discontinue, but keeping the core third-party tenant landlord services intact.

Okay, so then I'm gonna come back to Director Liao.

If I'm understanding what you told us back then, those are correct.

If we were to keep the core third-party tenant landlord services and housing assistance, just that piece, that was the 79 to 70.

Correct.

So that would be 9,000.

So then instead of a 40,000 reduction, this committee recommends a 31,000 reduction.

So it's our closer to 10,000, sorry.

Okay, 10,000.

So we we recommend a reduction to 30,000 instead of a reduction of 40,000.

A reduction of 30 instead of reduction of 40,000.

Would that be consistent with the central legal being left unchanged?

Uh yes, I would be going back to it.

It was your concern by some mayor.

Would that satisfy you?

Yes.

Councilmember Aguilar?

I guess.

Okay, so you have a unanimous direction recommendation from this committee that 51 for the fiscal year 2027 say negative 30,000 instead of negative 40,000.

Um I think that we just need to talk about number 50.

52, there was no discussion, so I don't know if it was unanimous there.

53, I think there's a lot of discussion to be had.

So I don't, I didn't hear a recommendation from this committee.

I just we just need to put it out there and figure out what we're gonna do with that.

Well, the cuts not until fiscal 28.

So we have a year.

Right, we have a year.

So is there a comment that we can approve zero and twenty-seven?

Yes.

I agree that zero and twenty-seven is okay.

I I have no objection or comments of what you're saying.

I just wanted to be clear with the committee that the direction that we were given by the committee and then the council was how we move forward as a city structurally, and so as we reduce cuts into the future, it means we are not meeting the direction of the future um revenue versus expenditures.

And that's okay, that's fine.

Well, what we've talked about this far is nominal.

So you could lay out what the math is when we get to that work session or even before if you want to say two degrees.

But I think 53, we just need to put it out on the table and talk about it and figure out what the consequences of that are.

That's just gonna need to be put up for the council.

Yeah.

I think there's another slide in addition to this.

27.

Oh, my word.

Thank you.

So my concern was with 58 did not reduce funding for economic developments and okay.

Thank you.

And Vice Mayor, were you still on 56 also?

Um yeah.

Um my concern would be on the recruitment of new businesses, so the actual physical collateral is fine.

I'm I'm fine with that.

I'm actually um okay on all of these to go as proposed.

Okay.

So 54 through 57.

You have unanimous agreement from the committee to just move forward with your recommendation.

58 of agreement with council right now.

Let's talk about it some more.

Please come prepared and talk about ROI and how to think about ROI.

If I not sufficient ROI or so, yes.

Because we have three different, we have the committee unanimously agrees.

We have the committee agrees, the committee with only two agree.

We have the committee makes a different recommendation.

So with 58, I need to know.

Are you saying that the committee we want this to be discussed by the full council?

Okay, so no recommendation either way.

You recommend that we keep it.

I recommend that we keep this.

Okay.

I said two of us agree that we should keep it, but okay, so the committee recommends that this hundred.

Okay, that's unanimously.

No, it's not unanimous, it's two out of three.

Oh, I'm sorry.

The committee.

Kind of like what the other one was where council member, yeah.

Okay.

Uh council compensation.

That's just for the council to have some fun with fire.

There was nothing on police.

I don't have anything on police.

Mine's not a word.

Yeah, nothing on police.

Yeah.

So police as you have.

But that's police as you now, but before that, maybe 29 is fire.

Yes.

That there's just a lot to talk about there.

Um let's take this in pieces.

Like 59, we just don't have the information, right?

59 is a mess.

We don't understand what it means.

Yeah, so I don't think that it's fair for you to ask us to make a recommendation.

So, you know, unless someone disagrees and like violently says, no, we have to have a position that means that's a message.

Um the ARU, I hear that there's interest in discussing.

I also fear that there's a recognition that we have two years to sort this out and solve this problem.

So I think I don't know, let's speak.

Or you but that we're willing to accept this recommendation with like a cabinet.

We expect staff to be working hard to buy grant money, though the last time.

I like the deadline, so let's do it.

Well, I can share that um normally we don't do budget work in the even year, but you guys gave us grace, we really appreciate it.

But next year's an odd year, and that's when we do discuss the budget.

So we'll be here anyway, doing this all over again.

So that will be part of the discussion.

Okay.

Perfect.

Okay.

Then thank you for all the summaries.

And we started at the end first, if I'm not mistaken.

Um, do we not have agreement on the council compensation to keep it at 1900?

Or keep it keep it flat, which is what I heard, Councilmember Ami Lak say, keep it flat at the 1900 and 3800.

Oh, I yeah, well, I I mean I'd like to include the 5%.

Oh, I don't.

Okay.

So let's have fun with it at the full council.

All right.

I understand.

Um, and then I did this last word already, right?

So you have our thing you need.

What about transfer?

We didn't talk about transfer.

heard council member Ami Lak say keep it flat at the 1900 and 3800 oh I yeah well I I mean I'd like to include the five percent oh I don't okay so let's have fun with it at the full council all right I understand um and then I did this last word already so you have our thing meeting what about transfer we didn't talk about transfer what is it that we needed what is it that we needed to say about transfers um again these were just examples of ways in which we can we can reduce um uh the transfers by a million dollars um I think what we're looking for from this committee is if they are supportive of our recommendation to um reduce I think the recommendations uh I don't know that you're gonna get a recommendation because these are just possibilities but we talked about releasing money to pay for the pensions which will free up money so we may not need to cut this so I think that that's a holistic discussion to be had okay yes sir we have everything we need that's beautiful okay we're now taking public comment on non-agenda items Madam Clerk do we have any cards we do not have any okay we'll close public comment on non-agenda items could any number comments just uh a thank you to staff and to the team for bringing us a budget um and spending your evening with us on a council week um so just my appreciation to the city team thank you I echo the same sentiments so much for listening to us and coming back to us with uh uh you know without an operating deficit matching or never revenue hopefully we can come to a conclusion and approve this budget and move the city forward thank you very much we are making real progress I I see the um the commitment it's been hard it's not been easy I know that so but we're making progress and that's what really matters and we're taking steps we're not giving up so each time we're making more progress so thank you thank you so much so with that it is 633 and we are journaling for