Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget and Approving Workforce Changes in the City Manager’s Office and Public Works Departments. (Finance 2410)
Good evening again, Mayor and members of the council. Elaina Dare, finance director. So tonight, as you will see, we're going to take a look at the city's budget. As a reminder, the fiscal year 1516 budget was originally adopted about a year ago. Well, was prepared and then adopted in June 2015. Today, we're going to discuss the mid-year update to the 1516 budget. It will include General Fund, which will be probably the main focus, but it also provides some updates to other city funds. So the first slide you will see is really a summary of the general fund and we tried to build a story for you. The very first column you will see is a the adopted budget. That's exactly how it was presented to you back in June of 2015, and that's how it was adopted. Then during the year, actually up to now, we've made some revisions and you will see those listed in their revised budget column and those happened between September and March timeframe. The large one, as you may remember, when the budget was adopted, the concern was what should we do with the available balance within the fund? And then in September we got back and you have taken several actions on allocating some of those funds across various programs within the city. So tonight we're actually proposing additional amendments to the budget. And I'll go in detail through those as well. And the very last column, assuming those amendments are approved, that's where the staff is projecting to be for the general fund at the end of the fiscal year. So this is not actual this is a projection what we believe would be the best estimate at this time. So that said, we expect that by the end of the fiscal year, by June 30th, we will end up at about 24% of available fund balance for the general fund. Okay. So some of the items that you will see. First one we're going to talk about is property tax. So we're asking you to update the budget and increase property tax component of the revenues by $1.3 million. And really, the main component of that 1.3 is what we call the water fund waterfall funds from the Dissolution of Redevelopment Agency. What happens is once all the bills and all the obligations have been paid that the city put on required obligations, schedules, the remaining funds are then distributed among various jurisdictions and city is one of them. So we've gotten, I would say, a waterfall of funds from that. We originally expected it to be around 1.1 million. We're expecting to get probably an additional 750,000. This would be more of a one time funds. Again, those moneys are really dependent on what the obligations are of the redevelopment agency, and we provide those to the State Department of Finance annually starting this year. And so it depends on what the obligations are. We also had some small increases in other property taxes. So that made up the difference of 1.3 and about 750,000. Another revenue we would like to update is motor vehicle license fee. And Lou, that particular revenue has the same way of increase as the property taxes, even though it's called motor vehicle license fee. In lieu, it is collected through the property tax and as the property tax. GROSS So this particular revenue source as well. So our property tax went up and therefore we are getting a little bit more money on this particular revenue source. Property transfer tax. We would like to increase it by a little over $2 million. And again, this particular revenue source is. A reasoning for increase change in ownership. So the more homes are sold, new homes are sold and the appreciation, the home prices. So this is really a combination of the two. Just a quick question. Do you know if there is one or two projects that drove the $2 million in transfer tax increases? Or is it generally across the board that the appreciation? There were a few transactions that happened that were fairly large and more of a business to business type of transactions. But there were some properties that were residential and happened to exceed actually which keep track of those that are over $25,000. So there were quite a few that were in that amount. Great. Thank you. Okay. Utility user tax. So in this particular source of revenue, unlike the other three you just saw, it's actually a declining revenue source. So proposal for us, based on the receipts that we're seeing to date, we're actually suggesting to decrease this revenue source by $150,000. Again, we collect utility user tax on four different utilities, gas, electricity, telecommunications and cable. The major decrease is actually within the telecommunication services or attributable to that service. Can you be more specific about landlines? Is that what you're talking about? It includes variety. Yes. Landlines is one of them. So telecom kind of encompasses many different things and landlines is one of them. And landlines do decrease as people stop using landlines. And use cell phone. Is that correct? Get more use of the cell phones bundling services. Thank you. Transient occupancy tax is actually going up and we're asking to increase it by about $220,000. And our consultant who helps us out with projecting the revenues, some of the larger revenues also mentioned to us that the rates, hotel rates are going up and were up about 13.2% from the same time frame compared to last year. So that really is increasing for us. The revenue source in this case. And the more people travel, the better the economy. We receive more revenues. Investment income. It has a slight increase, but we wanted to recognize that as well. That's the increase on our investment portfolio. So the increase again based on the market condition, but $30,000. Going into. So those were more of a general tax revenues. These are going to be now the departmental revenues. So we have variety of those as well. The largest one by significant amount, 655,000 increase is in the fire department revenues. And what it's made up of is mutual aid reimbursements from the state. The department is also doing a good job and doing inspections. They report their inspection fees are going up and the largest one is GMT reimbursement and it's ground emergency management transportation. And the fire chief is here in case you would like to get details on that particular program. But it's something the department is actually providing a service and then submits to the state for the reimbursement. It's fairly new program that was established by the state and we're expecting about $300,000 to receive back from the state. Okay. The next one is police department. We expect we actually already received an $80,000 grant. You may remember a while back, actually in 2015, around June, July timeframe, you approved the purchase of a boat, which was funded also by a grant. So we got the money and we're recognizing that particular grant public works department is actually having a decline or a reduction in the revenues, approximately $100,000. And the reason is decline in the fuel prices, therefore. It's going down. QUESTION Mr. Chair, can you just explain that? So how is it that a decline in fuel prices led to a decrease in public works department revenues? So the department actually. Gets buys the fuel, and then they charge it out to all the departments that end up using that fuel. So all in it's a charge to other department. And as a result, because the cost went down, they are not charging as much and therefore it comes back to them with the lower amount. But then, isn't there also a corresponding decline in the expenses of other departments that buy that fuel? Correct. Public works is kind of your central department. So once you start spreading it across all the departments, the changes are small where it wasn't really wanting to actually make an adjustment. Thanks. So this is actually our first. We told you that changes are happening and hear the words this time around, we actually giving you a picture. So hopefully a picture will worth a thousand words and it kind of gives you a more of a graphical presentation. The sources of funds are the how we receiving a where we're getting the revenues from and the uses of funds is where those revenues are actually being allocated too. You will see that the largest one by far is a transfer tax, which is talked about that. But with all the uses that we currently have, they're not nearly significant and we're still adding to the bottom line of the available balanced general fund of close to $3.3 million. So we also thought it would be important to kind of summarize for you some of the transfers out that we have. So obviously, we just kind of lumped them in some cases together and this gives you a little bit of a breakdown of the transfers out. The part of the requested amendments we're asking to allocate about $25,000 to Capital Projects Fund, and this is for the Dock Replacement Library, asked for an additional $15,000. And that and I'll go in a little bit of detail on that on all of those as we move forward. But Library is asking an additional amount for payment to their part time employees because of the wage increases that were effective January 1st and $575,000. You may remember back in September, you originally approved a transfer to cover the cost of building demolition at base reuse or Alameda Point. And we evaluated or actually the bases director validated that we didn't need those funds. And so we're returning them back to general fund. So this is again, it's actually a repeat of a slide, but on a budget update summary. This is more of of why this is what we just talked about kind of a glance. Again, this is what it looks like as a reminder. And one of the items that's always been asked is, well, what is the general fund balance? Because what we generally present to you is the available balance. So what is the total fund balance for the general fund? This particular presentation gives you an idea. It gives you all the components that we have within general fund. The total general fund balance is. $30.7 million or close to that. And so we have four components. And the largest by far is the available balance. And that's what we like to refer as 20%. That's the our mark sort of speak. But the reality is, as we said, by June 30th, our expectations will be at 24% of total expenditures of the general fund. So that in a nutshell is the general fund and the changes to it. So now we're going to talk a little bit about all the other funds that are asking for changes. As I've mentioned earlier, library is requesting $15,000, which is the wage increase effective January one, 2016. And that was not something that the city decided to do. This was a state enactment or law, and so we're just complying with that. In addition, the library received a $23,000 grant, and that's for library materials. So library is asking to adjust its revenues and expenditures, but $23,000. Base for use. Increase in leasing revenues of 871,000, which is actually offset by a contractual services for a payment to the consultant that assists the city. And actually within their base of use areas in Alameda point with those leasing activities. And again, you will see an adjustment here. This is the other side of the transfer that's being reversed on General Fund for the contribution for building demo. Rent Stabilization Program. You may remember that you have adopted or approved an allocation from general fund, $300,000 for the rent stabilization costs. A lot of them actually majority of them go to housing authority for the operations and management of this program. We are asking to actually appropriate it now within the rent stabilization program. We've made the transfer out of general fund. This is more, I guess you would say, an accounting reason so that we have the ability to spend the money. Again, $80,000 covers contractual services within the city, which actually includes the fee study. And 220,000 will go to the housing authority. Alameda lending. We're asking to increase Alameda lending funds expenditures by $34,000. And the only reason is we missed that particular budgeted item during the regular budget season. It was a brand new fund, so it was really just an omission. But we have to bring it back to you for the approval. Arbor Bay Assessment District A. An additional increase in the budget for payment to the wedo for ferry services. Capital improvement projects. I've mentioned earlier, $25,000 for the install dock replacement. There are three additional ones and I just noted them as really the accounting changes. Particular reason is this particular funds were included as part of the governmental funds. However, they are more out of a restricted sources, so we're just trying to put them in the right bucket. So there's no dollar changes. It's just simply moving it from one fund to another. Vehicle replacement. We're asking to increase the revenues and expenditures in a vehicle replacement, $130,000. And again, the expenditure is to do the ambulance remount funded with the proceeds from the bowls ambulance. One of the items that the fire chief brought up is a way to assist paying for ambulance remount. And one of the ways was he looked at B-list ambulances that a program that stopped it was a pilot program. However, likelihood of restarting is going to be a little bit of time. By then, these particular vehicles would probably be outdated. So while they still maintain the value, the thought is to sell it and actually use it for something that the city can utilize. And $30,000 is to purchase a park maintenance truck. Again, one of the trucks that the city had was in the accident and funds by really insurance proceeds partially and also the reserves that are within the Parks Department contributions that already happened. Superfund. The Department is actually proposing to reduce the assessment revenues. You may all know that the sewer assessments are collected through the property taxes. So those are the assessments that we're trying to reduce by $1.9 million. Original budget, when it was put together, was done actually before the sewer fund fee study was completed. And. This is an adjustment to pretty much be in line with the fee study report that was done. Just as a note, the department's expectation because the fee study was done with assumptions of whatever the revenue supposed to be, wasn't relied on what the budget necessarily said originally. All the EPA decrees that require us to do so were replacement. They were still calculated into what the revenue was expected, not the one that was actually in the budget and therefore they're still expected to be on time and have sufficient collections to do the replacement. $622,000 was actually a revenue increase and this is in the connection fees. I consider those more to be of a one time type of source of money. As you have new development, you get the connection fees. They're not necessarily repeating all the time. And again, sure, project capital projects where we for accounting purposes moving to were related projects back to the sewer fund. And if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them as well as the stamp. All right. The first question I have is the presentation, as far as I could tell, went with the budget. And there's a second part of this item that we're being asked to approve workforce changes in the city manager's office and public works department or someone else to be addressing that part. I can address that. So and I was my right. I apologize for that. So there are a couple of changes that are happening. And one of them, as you mentioned, within the city manager's office, the. I.t. Director original allocation was to be funded half and half between general fund and alameda municipal power. However, when the director actually came on board and. Pretty much evaluated the work and amount of work and what needs to be done between the city and Alameda Municipal Power. It was determined that there won't be as much time be spent and allocated to AMP. Therefore, the Department is requesting and an adjustment in allocation of the salaries which is going to be changed to 25% AMP and 75% General Fund. And the second one is for public works department. The department is proposing to upgrade the position of program manager one to a program manager two. And really, this is based on the need of the department, the program manager, to give us a little bit more responsibility and supervision. We're program manager one duties do not encompass that. And for just operational needs, that position is more appropriate. And what is the dollar amount for the I.T. director that's shifting from AMP to the general fund? There won't be any impact actually for 15, 16 fiscal year. And the reason is the position was expected to be hired in September of 2015. However, because the hiring didn't actually happen till early spring of 2016, what happens is there's sufficient savings from that position that we're able to cover the cost for additional 25% that's been paid out of general fund in 1516. In 1617. As we go through the mid-cycle update, we will provide you 16, $17. What's the difference in the position? All right. Thank you. A member Ashcraft. Thank you and thank you, Mr.. Nice presentation, as always. I had a question on page four of the staff report and this is when we're talking about. Up at the top of page four, it says that the police department expenditures budget is proposed to be reduced by $450,000. This decrease is to recognize the labor savings due to difficulty in filling vacant positions created as a result of retirements in the department. So my question is how will we address adding back the money into the LAPD budget when suitable recruits are found and hired? So in each fiscal year we and we did it actually for 1516, we worked with the department to determine what their expectations are in actually hiring new personnel or additional personnel to fill their vacancies. That said, we've already assumed certain savings. If you may remember, back in June, actually about half a million dollars for the general fund in savings from the position not being filled. A lot of them were actually for APD. So what happens is even though the department is filling the positions, they actually had quite a few retirements this year. Sometime in December, I believe that wasn't exactly expected. And the feeling of positions subsequent to that is not happening as fast as they would like. So what happens is it created additional savings to the department. So when we go into 1617, we still budget at the authorized position level unless the department tells us that we having issues are filling the positions and then we'll rely on some of the savings. Okay. So this is a one time savings in the local level. They're not going to be able to fill those positions until the fall or the next fiscal year. Correct. They're actually expecting to feel quite a few positions this year, but it still is not fast enough to fill them all. And we still have savings. Yeah, because we're getting coming to the end of a fiscal year, aren't we? Yeah. Correct. All right. Thank you. Vice Mayor. I have two questions. The first is if you could elaborate a little bit more on the impact of the overstatement of almost $2 million in sewer fund revenues, that the line and the staff report says that in spite of this, we should be able to hit the target. How do we lose $2 million of revenue and still hit the target for replacement? If if that can be explained and then this the second is. When we approved the budget last year. We approved a two year budget this year budget. This year's budget was in the in the positive about. I think it was $1.2 million. And then next year's budget is supposed to be in the negative by one point. Uh, it was. Well. So we're, we actually actually a little bit more. So there's a small deficit if you look at the two years and then I see the trend in, in police and I have the same concern that Council member Ashcraft expressed about. These one time savings, if you will, and I understand adjusting the budget to looking backwards, but looking forward, we're going to have an increase there or at least have the same amount so that you answer that question, we'll have the same amounts will be able to staff fully. I also look at the trend for the fire department and we went from an 800 addition to the budget in our mid-year cycle and now we're almost a million over. So how does how do we continue to do that and face a budget in our next year that's going to have a deficit? And that's a rhetorical question. I'd like us to come back and resolve that because we're not going to be able to sustain that if that trend continues as. Is that accurate? Well, one of the items for the fire department actually is even though the increase in the fire department budget is large, a lot of those expenditure increases are offset with the revenues that the department is bringing in. So it's almost like you have to look at the net impact of the department and on the department's budget. And the net impact is actually just to let you know, is is under 357,000. Correct. But. Even even so when we look and some of those were one time right and and temporary they're not continual except for that transfer of the GMAT. Correct. That's a pilot program or is that that's a new program. That was a new program that was established by the state. And so department actually has to ask for reimbursement. So the services happen, they have to ask for reimbursement and the state is actually paying back. So this is something that already happened and it wasn't actually quite expected. It's fairly laborer's, as I understand, and I'm sure fire chief can speak to that as to what information needs to needs to be submitted to the state. And they actually review it fairly closely as to what type of. Operational indicators they actually have to provide in order to receive a reimbursement. So and I would like to maybe ask the. But needless to say that that trend, looking at a second year of the two year budget that projects a deficit. I'd like us to get a full report on what we're looking at. Are we looking still at that $1.2 million hole, or are we going to adjust our revenues knowing what's been built? To recalibrate that second year of this two year budget. And we are we are going to bring back mid-cycle update for you, which really looks at two fiscal year 1617 and it's expected to happen in June. Thank you. Okay. And Brody with your questions there. Mr. Galan's going to talk about. All right. Yeah. All right. Madam Mayor, members of the city council. I'm Liam Galan with the Public Works Department. Yes, I can understand that. You might have taken a deep breath when you saw that. What was happening is we had two processes going on at the same time. We had the cities adopting a budget and then we had at the same time setting sewer rates for the next five years. And the mistake I made was not having those sewer rates set enough far in advance so we could plug in that revenue number in the final adopted budget. So none of the work plans we've developed, including that the five year study was based on 20 years worth of work and the financials related to that, none of that work dependent on this placeholder number in the budget. So it's the rate study number that really is the it's the real money. And for that, there's no changes whatsoever that's on target because that makes sense. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Remember? I think the question I had was just answered about, you know, what the next steps are when we're going to get an update again. And just to make sure that as we get that update, you know, we see kind of the big picture. We're looking at these very minute like maybe quarterly nine month numbers, but not seeing like the yearly picture, the five year picture. And that information will be included. It's going to have the general fund for the full fiscal year with all the updates, whether it's revenue related or expenditures related. We'll obviously include the update on the labor costs, which is the largest. But as you mentioned, we are looking at the revenues as well. And it's going to come back to you. It's going to be a full fiscal year. And in addition, with the five year projection. And, you know, has is our request, usually we can just make sure we know what's one time, you know, and what things we're going to have to think about that are going to be recurring. Remember Daisuke. Well, thank you. When I look at the. More extensive sheet, not the PowerPoint presentation, but the other exhibit one. The Budget summary Yeah. When I look at the budget summary, the thing that catches my eye is based upon what we adopted in FY 1516 that we adopted on July 1st, 2015, and then that was subsequently revised in the following September through March period. And then that subsequently revised even more, which is the point of tonight's discussion at the end. You are projecting a 24% reserve ratio. Okay. And to me, I like that number and. And I want to say that because. You know how while we had a really high reserve ratio previously of 38%. And there was, you know, great desire to move, to bring it down to 20%. I think the thing to think about any reserve ratio is that it's not like a thermometer in a house. It's not like you can set your hair thermometer and then, you know, your house will be of a certain temperature. The reserve ratio instead. It's a byproduct of all these transactions. And on the revenue side. Revenues that come in or perhaps don't come in at. But on the expense side, holding down expenses. So I like the fact that we're above the 20% ratio and I have no desire to. Now go down to 20% just because 20% is some some number. I won't argue with anybody that 38% was high. But I think, you know, we should. Position ourselves against thinking that we can be engineers, that we can engineer a permanent 20% ratio. It'll always be something north or something south. But we want to have a certain target. And I think at 24%, there's a certain cushion. Between 20% and 24%. That makes me feel comfortable. Um. I just wanted to make sure to note that because to get to where we are, I mean, we did spend a lot of money our previous reserve amount. And I'll be the first one to say, hey, that helps pay for the. That's a citywide transportation strategy. So I'm not going to bite the hand that these but that you know, I always am cautious that, you know, you're lucky to have whatever ratio, reserve ratio you have and the higher the better. All right at this time. I'm sorry. Thank you. My questions go to first of all, in regards to when we vote on the adoption of the fiscal year amending the fiscal year budget here, does that have to be today? Well, we prefer to be for it to be today because some of the departments kind of relying on their. Budget to be set for expenditures so they can move forward with their programs or projects that they have in place. We were also supposed to hear this two weeks ago. I'm sorry, that wasn't my question. But what is your state that you need this voted on by? Or is there a certain date? It we wanted it voted on as soon as possible. So the departments know for the last couple of months in the fiscal year how much their budget is going to be, otherwise they can't go forward and do the projects that they're intending to do. All right. So there doesn't appear to be a date certain. So I'm going to continue with my questions. Then on here. The library is asking for an increase because of the increase in minimum wage. I didn't see that reflected in other departments, for instance, REC and Parks. What about other departments that have employees that are at the minimum wage level? So with Park and Rec, they actually expected in their rates an increase. And so that was already calculated in their budget. Unfortunately, library did not take that into consideration. So out of all of our departments, the library is the only one that will require an increase to cover the increase in the minimum wage. Correct. If the other departments needed additional funding, which some of them have asked for it, they had sufficient other appropriations within their departments to cover those increases. So they don't ask for an additional money. Okay. What about the items that were in our parking lot? Because this has some new items and yet we had had as a council a parking lot. When does that come back to us for funding or. That's tentatively coming back right after the legislative break of September, when we have a better idea of what the close of the fiscal year budget is going to be. So why are these and why are these requests given a priority over requests the council had had in the past? For us to look at. I can answer one question. One answer to that question just one is the necessity of funding the rent program. That correct. So rent. Stabilization. Rent stabilization programs. Madam Chair, if I might just ask, question and clarify because. So I participated in the parking lot discussion and that was last September. And that parking lot discussion, my understanding was that that discussion was concluded. And I'm I am not aware of other parking lot issues that we're tracking right now. So maybe if you could help us understand what you're referring to. Because I'm not aware of any other parking lot issues. Okay. I thought that there are items on the parking lot. I'm thinking Alameda Museum may have had a request. And we had. The art. I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm sorry. We did have a list. And, you know, we had a fair amount of money and we made sort of decisions where that money was going to go. And some places we said no. And that may have been one of them, which was, I think you're thinking in the Carnegie. No. The Burmese army to museum. I thought they might have been asking for money, but I think that we spent some money at that time and the other items we didn't necessarily fund because we didn't know if we'd have money to fund them. But now we're being asked to make other expenditures. So I personally would have thought, and I'm happy to, we can review the parking lot and see what items on there. Weren't funded thinking we didn't have money to fund. But there's new items here that are being raised, and I would have thought that they would we would consider them all together because we didn't fund everything. On the parking lot is my recollection. So and then also in regards and I want I want to move on because we also received some emails in regards to these items and one of them spoke to the army to police department reduction. And the commenter here seemed to think that you had concerns that we do have a need for increased police, for instance, on the street, patrolling for more visibility, doing to help residents feel safe and comfortable in the neighborhood shopping districts. More officers could be used to increase community outreach and community building and more interaction with you, things like that. And did you have a response in regards to that? So again, we did work with the police chief and the captains in figuring out what their budget would be and if they have the ability to fill their positions. Unfortunately, trying to hire a police officer, the recruitment is quite a challenging process. It's not like hiring somebody for finance or public works. Unfortunately, even though I look for the best people. You know. I'm sorry. I already got the. We all look for the best people out there. But police certainly has a different standards. They look at certainly greater details about the people when they hire them. So their success rate in hiring hasn't been as good as they really wanted it to be. They're doing it for them currently as a continuous recruitment. So it's not like they just open and close it. It they really they receive applications every day and they try to do their interviews, preliminary interviews weekly if not biweekly. I'm not sure. If that. The chief, I'm sure, talks to the city manager and gives more details on that. But we have to talk to the department and that was their expectation. They want they certainly wanted to hire everybody and fill all the positions yesterday, but unfortunately, that's just not working out for them. Okay. So at this point, our city does need people to apply to be police officers and applications are being accepted currently. All right. So I think that's important to share and that that is part of the issue then. So will we actually have fewer officers on the streets during this time because of these retirements and not being able to fill these positions, but in practice that have on our community. Or the patrol? I'm not sure that's a fair question to ask of the finance director, is does the city manager and assistant city manager want to step in every city to different areas? And here I would just throw in my $0.02 worth. There's a reason we have a high quality police department because we do go through a very stringent recruitment and assessment evaluation. A member and I appreciate that, but I think staff could. So I'm asking the questions right now. If you could hold off, if you feel uncomfortable, I'm happy to hear from someone else. Okay. So, Mayor. Yes. So the police department, as the finance director said, is recruiting. They recruited and one person through that was going through the police academy did not continue on. And so there are actually one position short than what they hope to be, but the police chief is going to do continual coverage of officers and he is not asking for additional officers. He's just trying to fill the positions that have become vacant. It's not unusual. It's actually a typical thing that you're constantly replacing police officers as there's retirements and I'm going to other departments. But it is a it's not an issue that the police chief raised as something to be addressed tonight. So I appreciate hold on. I want vice mayor. Yes. Isn't the point, though, that. The $450,000 delta, the reduction between now and June has no impact. We're looking for impact. Like if it has no impact, they can hire somebody now. They have enough money to get whatever done it has. Is that correct? Yes. It's salary savings from previous. So we did receive this email which was shared with staff in advance. And I think it's important to answer the questions posed by our community. And it doesn't have to be, but I think it is important that these be addressed. And we we read that and I talked to the police chief about that particular email, and it was actually a compliment of the police department as, first of all, thanks for the savings. Second of all, we want to make sure I think the misinterpretation of that is that the funds meant a decrease in services, and we haven't done that. We just had salary savings previously. And I have a question for Mr. Himax. So the implication of the email the mayor read or alluded to seemed to suggest that we're somehow not fully staffed on a shift. But that's not my understanding. That is not our understanding at all. It's we meet the minimum police requirements for staffing. So actually, I would suggest that this email suggests that we could have greater police visibility and out and on the streets. So that I want to share with you, I think it's appropriate to consider at least when this is showing a reduction. The next email I want to speak to was regarding the fire department and that in the past it was commented that we would be exploring of them reviewing the fire department expenditures or staffing. Is my recollection actually staffing? Do we anticipate that that's going to be coming back at some point? The. Our chief. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council Member City Staff. Dugong. Fire Chief. So what was the stuff in question? I'm sorry, Mary. It's my recollection. And there's an email as to this that was also shared with staff in advance that in the past there had been discussion by counsel and in regards to revisiting or looking at staffing as my recollection of the fire department without review, without repeating the entire email. And I thought that that was going to come back to us at some point. I you know, that's something that we can look at. I think the couple of times that we've had this conversation, I think the last time we had this conversation was on Safer grants. And I think we decided that we were not going to have that conversation. So, you know, I think, Chief, and I think you do that and say if this is if that's the will of the council, that's you know, that's something that we can that we can bring back. But I think at this. There hasn't sort of been that general consensus direction to staff about about that. All right. The next time. So. Thank you, Chief, then. Oh, it's nice to see you. That's. Okay. And then. Okay. So those are my my questions. We remember, Audie. And are subject to any additional comments, I'd like to move adoption of the resolution amending Fiscal Year 1516 Operating Capital Improvement Program Budget and approving workforce changes in the city manager's office and public works departments. Okay. And I would request that that be separated into bifurcate into two separate motions. We have a resolution. Can we hear from the city clerk what that would do to us? And that's a request. Is that something we vote on? That's a friendly, friendly wash. She wants to buy for. Kate, and I would like it to be too much there. Either a friendly amendment or a substitute motion that would have to be seconded. And just to answer, Councilmember as the Ashcroft's question, I don't know what the bifurcation would be. It would maybe be back hitting the two now, therefore, be it resolved sections and then. At this point certified. I think we're just seeing if we have a second. What's the. So the and approving workforce changes. I thought that that should be a separate vote. As opposed to being included with the fiscal year operating and Capital Improvement Program budget. During no second. I'm going to go ahead and proceed with the any comments on the motion? I would like to make the comment. I do think it's important. When we because two items came up on the largest expenditures in the in the general fund there was. And we had comments from the public on their comments on the state of the police department budget and the state of the fire department budget. And I know what we've voted for in the past, but I would like to make sure that we evaluate those. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, the chief had talked about reallocating staff and the ambulances on Bay Farm Island. I think that's still worth talking about, especially in light of looking at whether we are and we not. One will find out in June a deficit in the second part of this, in the second part of this two year budget. So I think it's very important that we actually do look at the largest portion of our general fund, the police department, the fire department, the trends, and then what that second year looks like and can we sustain it? And I think that was the discussion that was alluded to in that one email. Right. And I. But you're not referring to the motion to buy. Forget the. Work. No, no, I'm talking about. That's a good direction to staff to. Put in this motion so that we're set up for having that evaluation and discussion when it comes time to looking at the second half of this two year budget. Okay. And I want. That because I'm confused where the deficit. Is. I'm confused about a deficit. Well. It's from the. Movie. From the two year budget. The first year was projected at $1.76 million, $1.176 million surplus in the budget. F Y 15, 16 and FY 1617 had a $1.229 million shortfall. Okay. But on the. Yeah. We passed a balanced budget sort of. Right. But the numbers we're seeing today are actually an improvement over what we adopted back last year. Yes, but I want. To. Show the numbers that if they're approved, tonight will change the. We'll come back when the mid-cycle and we'll have updated revenues and updated expenditures. And that change might, you know, the deficit and the shortfall in the surplus might be different. And so we'll report on that. As far as the police and fire, if there are issues with I mean, we could do some calculations on what the trends are and growth. Is that what you're. Yes. Talking about for police and fire, both for personnel and revenues and expenditures? Yes, exactly. But just big picture, sort of like what we do at the CAF or is data that shows trends. Yes. And any time we're beholden to the state, I worry because when the budget bursts, the state is the first to pull back. Right. So we'll include the, let's say, for grant information and say for Grant. Yes. That's another one that as long as the economy is rolling along, the state is fine. But we all know what happened when the economy adjusted. And I just want to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up for another fall. Madam Mayor, if I can just quickly say, I think former council member Doug Duncan used to say it well when he would say to make sure to keep an eye on the what he referred to as the out years. So I think that's part of what we're talking about is not just looking at the amendments that we're contemplating this evening, which is to get us to the end of fiscal year 1516, but to also contemplate when we begin the discussions for the new cycle of two year budgets, not only looking at that particular cycle, but the out years beyond. 16, 17. 17, 18. And but that's the practice that that we've done quite frequently. And it was my understanding that we would see a longer term that go out five years or even more than that because we have been approving contracts. And it's my understanding that we would see projections of farther and I would say five years is actually the minimum because I think we need to see at some point ten , 15 years. But whenever we're going to hit them all, if there's going to be a wall hit where where we are long term. And I think that was actually agreed upon with staff that we would see a longer term projection. With the understanding. I mean, five years is typically what you go as far out as you go to, because after that it is anyone's guess, especially with the volatility of the economy. So yeah, I mean, I agree with most of the comments, you know, being said and I think that's kind of what I shared in the questions that I wanted to see how this looked long term. But I just want to make sure that, you know, we're not creating a false narrative out there that the city is running a deficit because we have a two year budget cycle. And over that two year budget cycle, we're not running a deficit. And for the first year of that two year cycle, we've actually added more revenue over expenses and we've actually increased our fund balance. So, I mean, I know you can pass and you can pick and you can choose and whatever statistic you want to say, it probably fit whatever narrative you want to say. But I just want to make sure we don't get it out there that, you know, we're operating in a deficit. And I believe Safer Ground is a federal grant. But I think the question still remains that, you know, we need to look long term on how we're going to fund these these positions. And I would agree, we need to look long term based upon our contracts. We have long term contracts. In fact, we have contracts that we've agreed to that are six year contracts. So if we're only looking at two years, I don't think that's appropriate. And I think we do have to do our best when we do commit to six year contracts that actually have liabilities that go much beyond that. So that and that being said, I want to add that staff's report showed a two part recommendation. And unfortunately, in my opinion, it was included in one resolution. And in the future, I would prefer that we hold in fact, keep it two parts, which is what was in staff's report. And I will not be supporting a single motion member. Jason, I. Just want to conclude by quickly saying I'm going to support the motion, because I think the issue is to a deal with the positive revenue news that we got a deal with it to allow us to get to the end of this fiscal year. And in dealing in dealing with that positive news, we are also able to deal with immediate needs that the citizens require, i.e. the need for funding the rent stabilization project. That was not part of the discussion when we had last year, when we were talking about how to spend down from the 38% reserve to ultimately the 20% reserve. This is the new information and new money. And fortunately, we're in a position to do that. And I'm also going to support this finally, because in terms of the workers that I worked at talking about, for the most part, we're giving authority to hire to try attempt to fill vacant positions. So it's not additive for the most part. So that's why I support. And I'll just chime in to that. We talk about the increase the state increase the the minimum wage, which was a good thing to do to to $15 an hour. And so, I mean, but you stop and think, people who are making $15 an hour, that's still not a lot to live on. And so many of the issues we deal with at this council have to do with being able to afford the cost of living here. So we're certainly not going to be grudge the the for the most part, part time workers that we have in the city who are making those hourly wages. Are they mostly part time? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So anyway. We have another question, right. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose. Motion carries for two one. Thank you. And now six be have been pulled because there was an agreement reached between the tenant and the landlord. So then we have six C. It works. Provide direction staff regarding general policies, municipal code requirements and potential amendments to the General Plan of Municipal Code to address development sites with mixed use zoning. Yeah. No.