Recommendation to Amend the General Fund and Other City Funds for the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget by Allocating the $14,500,500 in Excess of 20% Reserve Requirement from the General Fund Reserve. (Finance 2410)
Write recommendation to amend the General Fund and other city funds for the fiscal year 20 1516 budget by allocating 14.5 million in excess of the 20% reserve requirement for from the general fund reserves. Before you continue, did either of you want to go first and express your concerns or how did you want to proceed? Yeah, I don't think I need to hear of the presentation I just had, you know, one. One item to point out. All right. Thank you for being patient on this. I kind of recall when we had the discussion on the 6 million, we were going to talk about purse smoothing and OPEB funding. And one of the options may have been, you know, 2 million for existing retirees, 2 million for per smoothing and 2 million for current employees. I know you're going to come back with, you know, a more media analysis on what to do with that 6 million. But I just wanted to make sure the record was clear that that was one of the things that I suggested during that discussion. Any other comments? Member de Saag. Thank you. You know, I just wanted to make two points. One was I did have a deep and abiding concerns about the money set aside for the emergency water supply and study. I have no doubt that it's needed, but in my mind I just felt like the substantive analysis was never there. At least, you know, I couldn't recall and I still can't recall it being there. So I really had wonders about $800,000 being devoted out of the 14.5. So it's a continuing concern. The second point I want to raise is. And before I raise a second point, let me just make sure to preface my remarks by saying I support my vote that I voted before and I will continue to do so. And as I think it would be bad faith not to do so. But I think it's worth. Expressing. Some. Hesitancy about, you know, the vote that we're going to be taking. And I think it's worth expressing that hesitancy or reluctance because, you know, for example, we mentioned measure O, you know, for Measure O for the library, that was a $10.6 million bond, $9.6 million that we had to take the people to to confirm and ratify. And tonight, you know, we're making a vote of basically 13 to $14 million. I recognize that, you know, as one of five council members, you know, that is that's one of the authorities that we have. And we make that work in conjunction with the with the city manager and executive staff. So it's not done in a vacuum. But I think, you know, when you put it in the context of how much we had to go out for a vote for something like Majuro at $10 million. And now we're making a vote on 13 to $14 million. I mean, that's. It gives me pause. But I'm going to remain consistent with how I voted previously. So, no, but I think it's important to note that as as I had voted previously, I would prefer to continue to not vote for emergency water supplies. So if it's okay, I'd like to move adoption of everything but emergency water supply. I didn't vote for it last time. All right. So there were some we got in response to member de SACS comment. There are multiple items here that were not unanimous. However, they're presented as one item for us to approve. Except of the majority. So there was a majority on each of the items. However, there are multiple items that were not unanimous, but they are being presented as a package here. So if council wants to. Approve it as is so we can see how we have emotions and whatnot and see what you want to do with that. Vice Mayor I would like I understand the comments and I would like to make a motion to, to, of vote for this measure that. Allocates these funds. And I think the different distinction between measure row and this is measurable. We're asking the people to indebt the city to the tune of $10 million. This is money that's already been collected. And this is this is our fiduciary responsibility to manage the budget. And the budget includes this. But these funds that that are in our hands, it's not like we're going out and asking for the city to indebt us for $10 million. So that's the distinction I drew and I, I move that we approve five d as recommended by the staff report. Sarah Second Circuit Member Ashcroft I can do. The comment just to the vice mayor. I mean, what we did with Metro, the 10%, $6 million bond is the voters property owners are voting to tax themselves. But the city was certainly paying the debt service on that money. And for every dollar that comedians put in, we got to back. But nonetheless, as is often the case in a council vote, we don't have unanimity, but of course we vote by a majority rule. So I'm perfectly comfortable seconding this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. It sounds like the sense of the council that we go ahead and vote for this as a package. I would kind of. I originally voted for the the water supply. But, you know, you look at the number 800,000 and you look at the other items that are comparable. You know, Alameda point buildings that was in the news. We had a couple of meetings on that estuary park and we've had a number of meetings on estuary park, the Tidal Canal. We've had a number of closed session and open session meetings on that. The EOC also the same thing. And, you know, I think in you know, in hindsight, it would have been nice if we had a little bit more public discussion on that in the 5 minutes we had on it during this budget meeting late at night. But unless there's know a sense that more than two of us want to revisit that, you know, I'm prepared to support this. And I'll add member Ashcroft. Well, no, go ahead. I didn't want to cut you off the sentence. I was going to add that in regards to the emergency water supply, it's 800 of the 875,070 5000 will be coming back. And we'll have a more comprehensive presentation at that time, is my recollection of what we agreed to at that back on. And this came just before September 15th, and I plan to support this. There were items within this list that I voted against. However, this we operate by majority. We are giving direction to staff. And I think that person I would have liked to have seen the September 15th vote included in the presentation or if that can be somehow linked so that it's easy to see that break out. I think that would be helpful. And I think that this includes many items that benefit the public, that the public will see a noticeable change and improvement in our community. So I think I appreciate council support to vote on this on these items. And I would say the first one that member I believe already referenced, Alan, made a point buildings 575,000. I think that that is critical that we move forward on that. We do have valued members of our community that live near that area. And I think it is imperative that we do our utmost. And I think that's what the community will see to support all members of our community. So I think that this list and that's just one of the items, I think there are multiple items here that it's very important that we move forward for the benefit of our community at large. Member J So did you want. Mad at me? I just want to make two points. The first point is that, you know, I will support the motion. I don't think, you know, making this grant a grandstanding vote of voting no, it doesn't serve anyone any good because there are some things without a doubt that the public benefits by. No one disagrees with that. There are no doubt that we've had a series of meetings for a number of items. No, no, no one disagrees with that. But I think it's safe to say that any time you're dealing with magnitude of dollars, that we're talking about $14 million. You know, I think a special consideration is certainly triggered at that amount. For the same reason that, you know, when we are going after $10 million for our measure out support measure, only asking the voters for that, you know that the level of consideration was given. But, you know, let's move forward. I agree. I have my reluctance about the emergency water supply. But, you know, I've made my point and. You can be convinced. One member already. Did you want to comment? I just. You convinced me. Another person. Never. Ashcroft. And just to wrap up, I think Mayor Spencer, it was almost like we were reading from the same notes, because I would have said just what you said. And I think you look at these expenditures and bear in mind, we know this is one time many and we are these are one time expenditures, but they're also things that had been on our list. You know, they're not all sexy, but we are going to do some needed clean up and, you know, abandoned vessels. And as far as the emergency water supply, I think this is what the mayor was also saying. Sure. I'd like a more robust discussion of what that looks like and what all the different ways we can approach that are. But having come off of and I'm not even sure we're done with the fire season in this state and just seeing the horrendous impacts in counties not that far from ours, I think emergency water supply is something that this island community that's, you know, prone to earthquakes does need to look into. So, yes, I want to I want a fuller and more robust discussion, but that can still come even after this vote. Thank you. All right. That being said, I'm going to call the question all those in favor. I motion passes unanimously. Thank you, counsel. Our next item. A six day.