Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule to Add the Classification of Street Light Maintenance Technician; Amending the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule to Remove the Streetlight Technician; Upgrading Two Maintenance Worker II Positions to Streetlight Technicians, Effective March 12, 2022. (Finance 10024056) [Continued from March 1, 2022]
60 is adoption of resolution amending the fiscal year 2122 budget and adoption of resolution amending the City of Alameda City Employees Association salary schedule to add a classification of streetlight maintenance technician and amending the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers salary schedule to remove the streetlight technician. Upgrading to maintenance work positions to streetlight technicians. Effective March 12, 2022. Thank you. And then are do we have all the staff we need on screen? We're promoting. Jennifer, tell who's going to be giving the presentation. Okay, good. And Madam Mayor, if I could. Say as a city manager. Yes. Yeah. So I'll just very briefly introduce I think Ross McCarthy may also get promoted into the into the screen. And so just so you know who those two folks are. Ross McCarthy is our new relative, still relatively new city controller in the finance department. And so welcome to Ross and then Jennifer tell you all know as our budget manager and Jennifer will be doing the presentation this evening. So over to you, Jennifer. You know, Jennifer Taylor, she has a whiteboard. Not today, I hope. Hopefully won't need it tonight. And welcome, Mr. McCarthy. All right. And, Mischelle, the floor is yours. Good evening, Mayor and council members. Jennifer, tell budget manager in the finance department. I will be discussing the mid-year budget update for fiscal year 2021 to 22. Madam Clerk, are the slides available? They're getting them up now. Okay. Next slide, please. And one more slide. Thank you. First, an overview of the topics we'll cover tonight. We will provide an update on current year revenue projections. Go over the mid-year budget requests from departments and review the proposed pension and other post-employment benefit payment per city policy. Following this presentation, the city manager and department heads are available to answer questions. Next slide, please. Staff are projecting a net increase in general fund revenues of approximately $6.3 million. This includes increases to property tax and property transfer tax due to change of ownership at higher assessed value. We are also seeing that transient occupancy tax or hotel tax is recovering from the pandemic downturn and the transaction and use tax that went into effect in 2019 is to continuing to perform strongly based on online transactions and large construction projects within the city. The AMP transfer to the General Fund was under budgeted, so this is a technical correction and recon park is experiencing increased class enrollment following reduced activity during the pandemic. Next slide. We are projecting a net increase in non general fund revenues of approximately $936,000. These changes include increased reimbursement or in residual payments from HUD for the home and CDBG programs. Grants from the Office of Traffic Safety and the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Private funds from the Sweeny Park Foundation. And Blue Rise Ventures. Under budgeted developer contributions from Catullus for Alameda Landing. And an update to the levy for the recently established Alameda Point Community Facilities District. Next slide, please. Now we will discuss the mid-year expenditure adjustments requested by staff. Next slide. The city manager's office is requesting $50,000 from the General Fund for developing a strategic communications plan. Next slide. The Community Development Department is seeking to appropriate the additional HUD and residual payments funding for the home program to increase the under budget professional services accounts in the Fleet Industrial Service Center or FISC Fund. And to carry forward the previously unspent budget for transportation demand management and Alameda Point staff is also seeking to increase the part time pay budget for in-house legal counsel in lieu of using contracted legal services for Alameda Point. Next slide, please. The fire department is seeking additional one time appropriations from the General Fund for engaging a consultant to conduct a community risk analysis or standards of coverage. Analysis of staffing and deployment. A local march of about $55,000 for an assistance to firefighters grant for procuring portable radios to comply with fire industry standards. And replacing the self-contained breathing apparatus, air compressor and fire station to next slide, please. The Information Technology Department is seeking appropriation of $60,000 from the fund balance of its internal service fund for enhancing the city's tools for cybersecurity and forensic monitoring. Next slide. The Planning, Building and Transportation Department proposes to reallocate 25% of the personnel charges for four code enforcement staff from the Planning and Building Special Revenue Fund to the General Fund in order for staff to dedicate a portion of their time to enforcing non building ordinance ordinances. The staffing costs to the general fund through the remainder of the fiscal year would be approximately $45,000 or approximately $135,000 annually. Next slide. The Police Department's fleet maintenance cost allocation was under budgeted, so the increase was about $37,000 is a technical correction. The department is also seeking to appropriate the Office of Traffic Safety grant funds discussed earlier. Next slide. Public Works is seeking one time general fund appropriations for improvements at the fast run animal shelter, barn conversions at City Hall and City Hall West, a citywide facilities security upgrade project and acquisition of a sweeper for protected bike lanes, the Alameda Landing, Alameda Point and Marina Cove community facilities districts would also contribute a portion of the cost of the new bike lane sweeper. Public Works is also seeking to upgrade to maintenance worker. Two positions, two streetlight technicians. Next line. Do you little landfill maintenance was under budgeted in the SA solid waste surcharge fund. So this increase is a technical correction. Staff are seeking one time appropriation of integrated waste funds for engaging a consultant for a zero waste implementation update as well as carry forward of unspent bottling can funds from prior years. Staff is requesting a budget increase in the parking and facility maintenance funds for emergency repairs to the Civic Center garage conveyance and a technical correction for the transfer from the Bayport Fund to the General Fund. Next line. Staff requests a one time increase for seaplane lagoon ferry terminal roof maintenance. A one time allocation from the Bay Farm Island Dike Assessment District for Northern Shoreline Repairs and an allocation to the Cross Alameda Trail Connector Capital Project from County Grant Private Funds and measures BMB Bike Pedestrian Moneys. Finally, technical corrections are needed for the sewer payment in lieu of taxes and an arbitrage rebate report for the 2012 sewer revenue bond. Next slide, please. The Recreation and Parks Department is seeking a one time general fund support for emergency repairs to the stalled storm damaged internal boat launch, Shoreline Park, asphalt repairs, smart irrigation clocks for conserving water and emergency repairs to the Lincoln Park fence. As discussed earlier, master class activity is returning to pre-pandemic levels, so additional budget is requested for the increased class activity. The department is also proposing to reallocate 50% of the personal charges for park maintenance for person 44 person from Marina Village to the General Fund to increase Alameda Family Services, Case Management Services at Mastec and to appropriate private funds from the Sweeny Park Foundation for a Monarch Butterfly Garden. Next slide. Non-Departmental adjustments include clean up of city debt service transfers with the net savings to the general fund due to shifting the police building debt service payment from the General Fund to the Construction Impact Fee Fund. There are increased costs associated with a new letter of credit for the 2003 Alameda Point Revenue Bonds and PA's administration of the OPEB or other post-employment benefits trust fund vacation pay off from employee retirements and resignations was also under budgeted in the OPEB internal service fund. Next slide. Per the city's pension and OPEB funding policy, the city commits half of the general fund surplus from the end of the prior fiscal year, assuming the 25% operating reserve target has been met in order to accelerate paydown of unfunded pension and OPEB obligations. As of June 2021, this amount is approximately $9.2 million. By policy, 75% of the sample or $6.9 million would be paid to CalPERS, and 25% or $2.3 million would be contributed to a Section 115 Trust for Future Payment of pension expenses. The city manager recommends reviewing this budget item further with City Council as part of the mid-cycle or budget year two work session in May. Next slide. In total staff recommend increasing revenue expectations citywide by approximately $7.2 million and increasing expenditure budgets by $4.6 million. With the proposed pension OPEB payment of $9.2 million. Citywide expenditure budgets would increase by a total of $13.8 billion this fiscal year. I will now turn it back to assistant city manager Bohdan. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Estelle. Mayor Council and really concludes our presentation this evening. We're open to any questions that you may have and as as budget manager tell mentioned, we, we have department directors available to answer questions about the requests as well. And obviously all of us on the screen can jump in to. All right. Well, thank you very much. Nice presentation, Estelle. And I'm sure the ABC if you contributed to it. So before we go to any public comment, do we have public comment that I'm quick? We do not. Well, then we'll close public comment on this item at this time. And Councilmember. And that's when I see your hand. Thank you. I just a quick question that popped up during during the presentation, the across Alameda Trail Connector project. What is that? So I realized I didn't catch that when I asked you when we met earlier today. Just short answer. It's just I think I see the assistant city manager and meeting. So I'm assuming he wants to take that one. Is that. Correct? I actually don't. I. I was going to look into the backup that we have for this doctor for these items. So give me one moment. And Mr. Howell may be doing the exact same thing. So we'll get the we'll get you the answer. Hold that hold that thought. And anybody else have a comment or question while we're waiting to hear about the cross our media trail item. I'm afraid I don't have further detail on that project, but I'm hoping that perhaps someone from Public Works might be able to elaborate. Is watching and can. Well, we'll bring you onscreen. So would that be like it? That Public Works director Aaron Smith has rejoined us. Welcome back. Can you can you enlighten us about this item in the budget? Yes, sir. I'm I'm also just double checking with our city engineer. This is the connection at ninth and one street. That makes that section whole in there. So grant dollars. I'm sorry I'm live time getting some additional information from our city engineer, so bear with me. So it is the connection at Nathan Wood to connect to Sweeney Park. And is that just for the public's clarity and mine? Is that read those two nice mosaic columns. Ah, is that ninth hills where. That's what you know that you. Don't think so. I think further up. I remember correctly. Okay. Okay. Nice and good. Okay. I'm getting actually. Amy, are you sure? You're welcome to jump able. To help and. So. Happy for me. Maybe I'll get right back to you. Also Redux, as. You say, while we're. We're waiting for Amy to log it, I'd be happy to make a motion to approve the budget as recommended. Sorry, I didn't mean to get. I was really hoping this was like I. I was thinking. I was thinking that I would just convene a full staff. Yeah, because we've got 50% right on screen. Hi, this Walter. It's welcome. Hello, Mayor. I can provide a quick answer. So we received a grant from Ictsi and it's for for connection points from the cross Alameda Trail through Sweeney to to the south to the neighborhoods at eighth and Wood. And the 1 to 8 is the lovely mosaic columns. And then two on the north, one that connects toward triumph, the one that connects toward Challenger. Thanks, Amy. I'll just round it out because I finally found what I was looking for. There's other money coming from private and from private sources as well for this for this project. So it's a team effort. Yeah. And those are really important connections to and that that project just gets better and better. But I will look forward to not being down that path on my bike. But it is, it's I mean, it's good now, but it's going to be great. Okay. I'm sorry. Not sorry. You made a motion, did you? I did, yes. I moved. I moved approval. The budget as recommended. Okay, I. Do. It is right. To have a second. Then hold the discussion. Here is second. Okay. And then let's open the floor for discussion. Council member Harriet Spencer. Thank you, Mary. So the item has to resolutions a mid-year budget and a mid-year workforce change. And first of all, I want clarification that the motion has actually to approve the two proposed resolutions. Promoted. If it is. That's your intent. And secondly of the motion, you would concur. You're nodding yes. Yes. All right, then. I'm trying to figure out which one of these motions, and I don't. Maybe it's the first one. Includes the. Movement of the 9. Million to pay down the. OPEB unfunded pension liabilities. Or is it not included in either of these because it's going to come back later. Assistant city manager. But it is included in the. It's included in the first resolution and it's part of the non department pension OPEB discretionary advance pay down. And, and the idea is that we would we would take care of that the policy itself would be something that we would come back to with the, the mid-cycle discussion and the budget workshops . Which are already scheduled in May. Is that correct, Mr. BURBANK. We were talking about this today. I'm not sure that we have the dates yet, but we are scheduled. We are we are planning for budget workshops in May. Okay. Well, we won't announce them then at this moment. Go ahead. Bet. You bet. I bet you can. Over here, Spencer. Thank. Thank you. So, assistant city manager. So what language is the language that speaks to the 9,000,000th to pay down the unfunded pension liabilities? There's a there's an exhibit attached to the resolution, which includes which includes a non-departmental item towards the bottom of the table on page one of two. It shows the $9.2 million payment. Okay. So there's this. Okay. So I do want to make a comment because when you read the resolution itself, it doesn't speak to the $9 million items specifically. And that is, in fact, the most expensive, I believe, item we're being asked to approve. And there is other language that describes other things that are being included or whatnot. But I think that that's a significant ask and I and I would like it to be more specific in the future. I have also asked what is the current amount. Of reserves. If before this 9 million and after this 9 million, and how much has been paid today. From the reserves to. Pay down the unfunded pension. Liabilities. Under this policy? So maybe I'll try and I'll try and answer the question generally. And then I think budget manager tell has a, has a table that's been put together that summarizes the, the set asides that have been made and payments towards our pension and OPEB obligations based on the policy since it was adopted six or seven years ago. But really, the way the policy, the intent. Of Mr. Burton before you continue. Sorry for the interruption, but we'll. Mr.. Will be able to actually share that table because I don't believe it was in the staff report as the pay down amounts. It is not in. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Please continue. Though. So I will say that the the intent of the policy is to to be able to set aside funds when there's when there's a surplus of revenue that comes in. So above the set amount, the surplus is set aside and then put towards pension and OPEB. So the the intent behind the policy was to take it in the, in the good years when the Reserve has been met for the General Fund, but it was identified by council that additional money would be, would be allocated towards the the ever growing pension and OPEB obligations that the city is facing. And so that that is that is how the $9 million was derived. Times the funds that were part of the budget process because of COVID and for a variety of reasons that budget manager tell mentioned when she opened up the presentation. Revenues came in strong. Expenses were also kept under, kept, contained. And so there was a significant surplus this past this past year. And so we are in a position to be able to follow the city policy as it exists today and set aside the $9 million towards that pension obligation. And and I hope that answers the question. I'll turn it over to budget manager tell to to show the table because I think it's easier to describe it in that way. Thank you. I'm sorry. That's the first part of the question. Yeah. And we'll get the the data that you asked for and then it probably maybe will show up in the tables. You're going to show us. But didn't we suspend payment to this this fund during the during the pandemic, I thought. Mr. Levitt. Correct. You were not. I think because there was so much uncertainty right in the beginning, we didn't know what our finances were going to look like. Mr. LEVITT. Yes. No, we were very we were conservative in many of our estimates. As as as you well point out, in May and June, when the budget was passed in 2020, No. One and that this budget was passed in May, June 2020 or the previous one was. And at that time, no one knew quite what we were facing moving forward. And so we were we were very concerned at that time. That was right during the start of the lockdowns and across the state. And so we weren't sure how long ago and what the impacts would be to multiple businesses. Thank you, Mr. Levitt. Okay, Mischelle, on to you. I will share my screen to show hopefully this document so that this first table, hopefully is visible, shows the payments that have been made since the policy was adopted in 2017. So as we just discussed, fiscal year 20 1920 is when we opted not to make that that discretionary payment. So the amount was lower then. And in this last year, as part of the mid-year process, we contribute about $10 million. So comparable amount to the 9.2 proposed. Now as a result, so year excuse me, not year to date, but since inception of the policy the city has paid to CalPERS or contributed to pension OPEB trust funds $37.5 million. And I believe was there also question about the sort of the alternative scenario, had we not been the status of reserves, had we not been making the payment? Spencer I was looking at. Thank you, Mayor. I'm actually looking at the shared screen right now so I can see people. But my other question goes to what has happened to the reserves during this time? Where where were we? Yes. So we so with Comptroller McCarthy today, we put together this table showing and apologies. There's a lot of a lot of numbers here. But this this has been our actual general fund, year end fund balance for each of these fiscal years since 2017. And column E shows where we would have been had we not made any pension or OPEB contributions during that time. And so it's it's effectively adding together what would have happened had we not made the contribution with our net annual activity, which is our sort of finance way of saying revenues, less expenditures, and then getting to that that ending fund balance for the general fund. May I continue? Yes. And just a clarifying question. Does this include finance charges we pay on outstanding debt? Or does that even apply? Well, if it's an obligation that is part of the general fund, it would. But if it's another funding source, then it may not be captured in this table. Yes. Continue and please continue from her center. Thank you, Mary. So is the current. The the reserves. Because there's not on these reports that we received. There's not a line item. That says reserves. And when I'm looking at this, I still don't see an item entitled reserves. So is the reserves. This actual general fund ending balance? Fund balance. Are you calling out the reserves or what are the what is the amount of the reserves? Yes, that's the reserves. So. Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Bowden. Either way. Yeah, I might actually defer to Comptroller McCarthy. This is more of an accounting question than a budget question. You're kidding me. Excuse me. Yes, you're correct, Councilmember Spencer. Ah. Ah. Accounting terminology for fund ending balance is reserves. I guess opposite the reserves equals the funding balance. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And if the city had spent more during COVID. Then we would have less money spent more on the community during COVID. Then we would not have as much money available now left in reserves or available to sweep from reserves to pay down the pension fund. The pension. Yeah, correct. I think that the the pension the pension set aside or the funding policy that was created with regard to pensions is really it's a balancing act. The idea is that we're still maintaining a flow of of revenue for ongoing organizational and community needs, while at the same time acknowledging that long term pension and OPEB obligation that the city has. And so we're just really trying to make sure that we're putting resources towards both of those competing interests in the in the near term and with the long term perspective. And can we go back to the slide that shows the pension contributions in the past for it was. Four years or something? Five years. So this proposed 9.2 is actually would be the second highest contribution and ironically is occurring during COVID, which suggests to me that we actually, as a city should have been spending more money on people and their needs. And we have many people who are hurting right now as we in fact, we heard from a tenant earlier who were deferring rent on. So I have concerns that we're thinking that during COVID we are having. The quote was In the good years and this isn't it. I don't know how we as a city can be saying we're having good year and acquiring all this excess money instead of spending it on the community. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I think that I am look forward to discussing the this policy and whether we need to revisit it and maybe make some modifications when we implemented it back in, I guess, 2016, 2017. The I mean, we still do have the issue of our unfunded pension liabilities with 2020 hindsight, but I'd like to see a little more steady go into it. The formula might be a good one, but perhaps we should cap the amount that we will put toward this in any given year. But that's, you know, again, subject to discussion in our May budget workshops. The other thing I would say is every time I talk about this policy is we want to make sure that we're. We're not stringing beads without a knot at the end. So we have to make sure that we're doing something to. Get a handle on our pension and our OPEB costs and, you know, find some constructive ways of doing that. I know I have not had a chance to follow up, but I sent to city staff some relevant city staff materials for. It's either tonight, maybe it's tonight's Hayward City Council meeting. Unless they met last night. Where? Or maybe there's a special finance committee meeting where they're looking at how they can address this very topic so we can learn from others. This proposal came from a presentation to the League of California Cities that many years ago. But, you know, I think it's probably good too to look at some other approaches OC other council members council data. Well, thank you. You know, this isn't the first time I have, along with other council members, expressed deep concerns about the formula that was arrived at in I believe, in March 2017 or sometime in 2017, because my concern really comes down to this. So what we're seeing over the four or five year period in which the formula has been put in place, we're seeing a cumulative 37 million, $37 million to buy down our pension obligations, as well as our outstanding OPEB unfunded obligations. And let me make sure to be clear, clearly, we have to pay down those obligations because we have $356 million in unfunded. That's unfunded. We don't know which we know we're going to have to pay this much, but we don't know where the money is coming from. We have $356 million in unfunded liabilities towards. OPEB and and CalPERS of the 2.356 million 277 is CalPERS. So clearly we have to figure out a way to buy down pay down that unfunded liability. But I as I said one year ago, the formula that's in place I don't think is the right formula, largely because. For two reasons. One is, any time that you're going to desert, you're going to spend thousands. A magnitude order of magnitude amount of dollars, like $37 million on something. I think clearly the people of Alameda need to be involved in it. There have been many things for which the vote the people have voted on that was much less than than $37 million because at the end of the day, the people need to under make it be involved in making a choice. Where do we want this $37 million to be spent? Or the other question is maybe it's not $37 million, but maybe it's $20 million, but whatever. So it's really that formula that has kind of driven this kind of. Incredible amount of spending without, in my opinion, the proper involvement of the residents. And on top of that, $37 million, now we're budgeting $9 million. So. So the so that's my my first concern. It's it's one of public involvement in transparency. I think the second. Concern is saying, oh. Sorry to hear that again. The second concern that I have about this reserve is that you have to understand that especially in the past two fiscal years, as demonstrated in our comprehensive annual financial report. TAFFER So this is an audited budgeted statement. So last year we had budgeted a certain amount of spending. That's we budgeted at the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2021. But we actually came in the actual spending came in under that by $13 million. And it came in under that for obvious reasons. You know, there was COVID. But in the previous year it was also similar on the on the similar order where we had budgeted a certain amount of dollars. But the actual that that we actually we spent for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2020 also was roughly around $13 million. The issue is, is that when we're actually underspending that which we originally budget. What's happened is that the savings, if you will, guts put programed into the reserve. And so what happens is that we're kind of overexpressing the reserve and by overexpressing the reserve, we're also therefore because of the formula where resulting in this amount of dollars that that it just. In my opinion, it's just wacky. So. You know, I expressed the same concerns last year and I think two years ago as well. So I think for tonight, I mean, I think for now, I'm just going to have to vote no because we really have to fix this. Now, let me end on saying this. I'm not saying don't spend I'm not saying spend $0 of your reserve towards paying down that. $356 million in unfunded liability. I'm not saying $0, but by the same token, I think $37 million is just out. You know, it's just that order of magnitude is just. Wait, wait, wait out there. And and I'm also saying that I think the residents need to be involved. I think the residents will be supportive of us having some kind of formula. Don't get me wrong, I think they would actually be supportive, but I think they also want to know that the formula is reasonable. Thank you. Thank you. Our city manager, Eric Levitt, has patiently had his hand up. So I'm going to go to him next. Mr. Levitt. Mayor, mayor and city council. First of all, I want to say a lot of good points have been made regarding the pension in relation to the mid-year budget. I totally understand and appreciate those those statements. I think the Council was proactive in trying to set up a policy and set a policy. We're seeing some of the differences that that creates for you and what we've done in the past two years. And I just want to make sure everyone's aware of what I'm recommending for this mid-year is the same as what we did the previous two years, is that you put it as set aside, but it would not be going to the pension, to the pension, to the pension obligations until you get to your budget workshops in a in a couple months. And the reason I say that is because we put it in because that's the policy that's in place. But I also understand there's a lot of things that are also priorities that you're trying to deal with currently. And so I'm just saying set aside, but you could use it, you could decrease it. So for instance, two years ago we did the same strategy and then COVID hit between the mid-year and the annual budget. And at that time, the council did not move any money towards the pensions because obviously we were trying to deal with an emergency that was was coming at us very strong. And then last year, we had, as it was pointed out, a big amount that was going to pensions, but the council decided to reduce it somewhat, still quite significant dollars towards the pension obligation. But to reduce it, I'm recommending you do the same strategy where we have the 9 million at this point the mid-year, but that before you passed the final budget that you may want to adjust that amount because this 9 million represents the policy. But as a council, I think you should be reviewing that policy annually. Thank you, Mr. Levitt. And elsewhere, we're next with your hand up, please. Thank you. But I guess I have a few questions in December. I think it was December. We passed the Vision Zero Action Plan and a part of that. As part of that, there was a direction from the council to start putting $2 million a year towards additional new safety projects. And I don't see that in this in this is staff deciding that that's a that's a year or two of the budget item. The. I guess it didn't. Sorry. It just didn't dawn on me until halfway through the presentation. I know. Thank you for that. And and also, we we did answer your question about the cross-sell immediate area where those expenditures were. And so. Mr.. Mr. Bowden, I don't think this is one for Mr. McCarthy. Do you do what can you tell us about visions, your expenditures? Well, I'll I'll jump in. We do not have the $2 million set aside budgeted currently, but that does not mean that in the budget workshop for a year or two of our our annual budget process, that we we can't have that in place for you. And just just to maybe step back a little bit, the the the mid-year budget is is really an opportunity in most cases when we don't see the kinds of surpluses that we're seeing to do technical fixes, clean ups, and just make sure we're in good shape. And the mid-cycle budget is really our opportunity to kind of bring some policy discussions back into the mix, which is why we were talking about the pension policy, and we'll certainly talk about hopefully some city council priorities that come up. So apologies for not having the $2 million as the $2 million transportation related item in the in the list this evening. But we certainly can for the next full year budget discussion, which would be the budget workshops in May and hopefully adoption in June for for the next fiscal year. That's very nice. From my comment will be I think we spoke pretty clear clearly and pretty loudly that what we were doing in December was taking fast and decisive action. And I appreciate that. You know, there may be some reasons why I feel like we actually we gave direction and I'm a little surprised that we don't, especially with the large surplus. You know, one could have taken $1,000,000 in it in the in the budget for this year. But I understand that we may wanted to wait for the next one. You know, my concern is that we should not be waiting to think about what we're doing with that money until July. Right. When that in the next year's budget and whatever else. And I just, you know, I, I understand the process and all that, but I guess my concern is that there was kind of a let's figure out how to hit the ground running and get some contracting in place. You know, here's the state manager's recommendation included, you know, kind of using that to get contracts in place and whatnot. And I'm just a little concerned that that we're going to be waiting to even start talking about it in May and that we're going to be a fall or the end of the year or possibly beginning of next year before we can even start doing that. Which is which is a year after our commitment in December. I don't need it. I mean, I see the same managers and I will I don't need a response to that. I'm just going to flag that, that that is kind of a concern. And, you know, my expectation really will be at the provider workshops that that that that there is a funded program based on council direction that is a part of that a part of that budget and that and that we are we have we have begun work on that so that we're ready to hit the ground running when the year to budget hits. And before I call on the city manager also note that we have a council priority setting workshop coming up even before the May budget hearings, which is yet another opportunity for the Council to emphasize and prioritize where it wants to see staff work and and expenditures directed. So City Manager Eric Leavitt. So councilmember and city council and mayor and city council to answer that we can bring that back as part of the annual budget or mid-cycle budget. But in addition to that, after that direction from City Council, I had meetings with the transportation director as well as the public works director. And where they want to try to emphasize is two ways to try to expedite the projects that they already have in the pipeline. And they were saying they already have the funding. It's just trying to get that funding spent. So adding 2 million doesn't necessarily spend it, but they're trying to actually spend faster. So I can get an update of where we are and what we can do to continue to try those efforts. Because I understand what the council wanted to do in that was expedite the transportation. I did have initial meetings, I haven't followed up and I will do that now. Sort of an x y. I guess we've had conversations before the council meeting. The comments were made at the council meeting. It was written into, I believe, the resolution that that money was was made available to get consulting and contracting things in place to increase the capacity. And so I guess I'm all I know we're I don't want to get too far off, but but I just, you know, I I'm a little concerned that we're giving budget direct, that we're giving budget direction and then decisions are being made that we can't use the money. And, you know, the commitment that the council made to the community in December is is is going to be on hold until we have a different plan. So I'm just. Anyway, I've already moved approval of this budget. I'm not asking to make changes here, but but with the workshop coming up, I want to make it really clear that that. We need a plan. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Levitt, back to you. So I just received a message from the Public Works director and that those those actions based on that action, are in the mid-cycle review right now. To come back to you as part of the mid-cycle. And I understand what you're saying as far as expediency. But I also want to let you know that she did just communicate that those were while heard. And they are in the mid-cycle right now. Thank you for that. Okay. We've had a motion. We've had a second cast member. Disagree? Yeah. Just got it. I will vote no. But it is with utter respect to our city staff, city manager and assistant city managers. But, you know, is that I think, you know, you guys did good, great work. And so you gave us the information to have this kind of public dialog with it. So I certainly appreciate it. But for now, I'm going to vote no. Hopefully we can work things out several weeks from now. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Are we ready for that vote? Madam, quickly, we have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember Dechant know. Her as Spencer. No, actually, I avella. I may. As Ashcraft fly. Like carry 3 to 2. All right. Thank you. And yes, I second that. Councilmember De Saxe, thanks to staff all of you on screen, off screen who joined us briefly. Thank you. And this is important information. And as soon as we get those dates nailed down for the May, budgets will make that budget hearings will make that information public. And I think maybe did I hear that we're going to use some tools that help people do some. Planning or flight awareness dealing with thunder. So come to the budget hearings. It'll be great. Hurray! Thank you, everyone. Okay, at this time, we have to finish the continued agenda items, but we are going to take a break because we've been at this two and a half hours and my zoom rules are 2 hours and we take a break. Let's be back at ten oh ten. It's 1958. You got 12 minutes, everybody. See you at ten at 10 p.m.. Thank you. And thanks again, Steph. Okay. Harvey, everyone. I think we have quorum. Yes. Laura, are you ready? We are. All right. Okay. Welcome back, everyone, from break. This is still the city council meeting for the city of Alameda. It's March 15, 2022, and we are moving on to the regular agenda. Would you please introduce the next item? Presentation by the Alameda Point Collaborative on the Alameda Williams campus at McKay Avenue.