Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2021-22 and 2022-23; [City Council] and Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting the Budget for FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23; [SACIC] and Adoption of Resolution Approving Workforce Changes and Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule in FYs 2021-22 and 2022-23 Effective July 1, 2021. [City Council] (Finance 2410)
Adoption resolution approving in adopting the operating capital budget for fiscal year 21, 22 and 2223 for the City Council, and then also the operating budget for the CIC and adoption of resolution approving workforce changes and amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association salary schedule. Thank you. And I see that we're joined by our finance director and he to welcome is too. And also by Robert Vance from Public Works. Yeah. And Aaron Smith Public Works director they're all. And. We've got of course we still have Jennifer tell. So Mr. are you are you leading off on this one? Yes. Thank you very much, Mayor Sears Pratt. Good evening. Members of the City Council and City Manager Levitt, assistant city manager, building, city attorney and members of the public. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present the budget to you. This is my very first year with the city and very pleased to report that the the executive team and the team Almeida is just very wonderful to work with, very pleased that we are able to work collaboratively to develop this fiscal year. 2122 budget. The operating and capital budgets are were developed based on a lot of collaboration between the departments and it was great to see so much cooperation from city staff. The proposed general fund budget for fiscal year 2122 is approximately one $112 million and $115 million for fiscal year 2223, with the proposed employees totaling about 470 470 employees. I would like to give special thanks to the City Manager Levitt and Assistant City Manager Bo Dean for their guidance and leadership in developing this budget. And this is the first year that we were able to use open govt to develop the budget. It went very smoothly and Genova town did a lot of heavy lifting to make it possible. So I would really like to thank Jennifer for her words and also I would like to give special thanks to Public Works Director and what it means for the development of the capital budget. It looks beautiful. I've seen the draft copy. It just looks very well put together and I wanted to make sure that what? That I want to thank all the residents of Alameda for their input as well. Without their input, we wouldn't have been able to develop this fiscal year 21, 23 operating and capital budget. And we are able to do so by preserving critical and essential services supporting the Alameda residents and businesses during these unprecedented times. So thank you all for your leadership and support. And with that, I'd like to turn over to our wonderful budget manager, Ms.. Jenna Patel. Thank you. Thank you. Finance Director, you need to. Hello again, Madam Mayor. And Council Members and the Finance Department. I'll provide a brief overview of the proposed to your operating budget and changes to the budget that have been made based on direction provided to council at the Budget Workshops on May 11th and 20th. Then I will turn it over to Public Works to provide an overview of the Capital Improvement Program Budget. Next slide. Next slide. Jennifer. General fund expenditures are proposed at $114.4 million in the first year of the budget and $118.7 million in the year to the largest category of the operating budget is employee salaries and benefits, followed by operating expenditures for services and supplies. Next slide. Citywide. The budget is proposed at $272 million in the first year and $273.2 million in the second year. These amounts include entire fund transfers and annual allocations for capital projects. Amounts do not include carry forward of encumbrances of existing appropriations. The proposed budget resolution provides for encumbrances for valid purchase orders and contracts in effect as of June 30th to be carried forward into the following fiscal year budget. Next slide. For this budget cycle, we are implementing an online budget, but as finance director two mentioned and this will provide for web based navigation of the budget, we will also publish a PDF version of the budget by the web and PDF versions of the adopted budget will be available on the Finance Department's website by July 1st, and many of the budget summary reports that will be included in the budget book are available to view now on the city's Open Govt transparency portal. Next slide. As mentioned earlier, these are the only changes to the city manager's recommended budget that have been incorporated in this proposed operating budget as staff received direction from City Council at the May budget workshops. Additional changes to the capital budget will be discussed by public works. The operating budget changes include funding for the Civic Spark, fellow Almeida, Family Services, mental health support, police auditor and reform measures, and a one time allocation for the land tax. I will now turn it over to ising civil engineer Robert Vance and public works to discuss the capital budget. Thank you, Jennifer. And good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members. Can we have the next time, please? I'm Robert Hanssen, the supervising simpleton here in public works. And I manage our capital improvement budget. And tonight I'd like to review the capital budget and some of the changes as directed in the budget workshops in May. Next slide, please. The proposed capital improvement program. Budget totals approximately $67 million over the two year period, including more than $18 million in grant funding. It also includes $1.2 million per year in general fund contributions, which is approximately 3 to 4% each year of the capital budget. The general funds are supporting projects such as our street lighting program, Urban Forest Management and our park and playground improvements. The budget also supports several city council priorities, including traffic safety, climate action and resiliency, recreation and park facility improvements and element of point infrastructure. Exhibit three for this item includes an overview of the budget for the full budget and one page descriptions for each project. And the next slide, please. The resources are shown on the left hand side of the screen. Many of those sources are restricted in nature. For example, sewer services go toward sanitary sewer rehabilitation program. There are transportation related funds through Measure B and vehicle registration taxes and other fuel taxes and other dedicated funds. On the right hand side, as shown, some of the project categories that we have and approximately half of the budget is dedicated to transportation projects. About 20% is for the sanitary sewer program and then shown here about 11% for building facilities, 2% for parks, and the remaining for stormwater projects and sea level rise adaptation. Looks like things. Here to show some of the changes to the capital budget based on the the workshops. The first is are matching funds for a safety improvement project, which is approximately a $250,000 grants that we are receiving through Caltrans. There are also general fund contributions for the urban forests to support species specific tree trimming and increased funding for the urban forest master plan. Update. The budget also includes increases for park maintenance to support park improvements and amenities at parks. There's a budget reduction shown here for $400,000 per year. This is based on the updated agreement with Rita that was discussed on the May 4th city council meeting. These were capital funds that for parking lot improvements that will now be funded through the operating budget. And finally, the grant, a grant for the West End bicycle and pedestrian crossing project, which totals $1.555 million, which is a grant through Alameda, CTSI, which will be discussed later in tonight's meeting. And with that, I'd like to close and. Take any questions you might have. Thank you, everyone, for your presentations. So I know, Councilman Knox, I think you had a had a question. Why don't you lead? I will ask it again. So I just wanted to confirm that tonight's presentation is consistent with the direction we gave at the end of our last two workshops. Yes. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Okay. Any questions, Councilmember Desai? Well, thank you. And is this kind of similar to the question raised by Councilmember Knox, but more focused, particularly on the park maintenance issue, the $200,000 a year, one $200,000 year or two. My understanding of that was that it was for the for the tennis court resurfacing and pickleball, but that the Parks Commission is going to kind of weigh in and give us the read their recommendation. So is that correct? That's what I recall. But Mr. Vanska head now, you guys. Thank you. Yeah, that's my understanding of the of the direction was that it was an increase in funding for park improvements with the specific projects to be determined at a later date. Okay. Councilmember Knox, what does your hand go up against? Yeah, I just wanted to pick up on the nuance that Mr. Grant's said, which is it's for it's not specifically for tennis court or pickleball. It's for projects that the Parks and Rec Department or Commission identify, which could be beyond that. Just so that there was clarity on what they were, Jarmusch was. Okay. All for you, Councilmember. Now, I disagree. That's it. Okay. Vice mayor of L.A.. So you had. That. I was just going to clarify the direction relative to the parks, which were not quite recovered. Okay. All right. Any other clarifying question before we go to public comment? Okay. Madam Kirk, do we have public comment on this item? We have two speakers. The first up, number three is Linda Carter Loney. All right. Good evening, Speaker Carr Loney. And so right now we just have three speakers. Everyone gets up to 3 minutes. Good evening. We're ready. Yes. This is Linda. Cannelloni. I live in Alameda and I am a member of the board of directors of the Golden Gate Audubon Society. Unless I'm mistaken, the budget does not include funding for the master planning of the park. So I'm here to urge the Council to fund $250,000 in this year's budget for the master planning of DuPage Park has long been promised. But not yet implemented. Do you pay? Park represents a unique opportunity to sequester carbon. Accommodate sea level rise. Provide habitat for wildlife. And to give us a special place to teach and learn about nature as well as a place for people to experience the peace of natural areas, which is, of course, a rare opportunity in the inner bay area. The impact this is a special place because it's whatever we do it deep will be magnified by the fact that the VA is creating and improving the adjacent wetlands, which makes the total area much more impactful than the sum of the two areas the city leads to, in. My opinion. Live, live up to its climate emergency declaration and its Climate Action Plan, which specifically calls out debate, park and fund the amount needed for master planning in order to better position the park to obtain grant funding for its. Construction. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker. Jacqueline Zipkin. Good evening, Speaker Zipkin. Good evening, Madam Mayor, and honorable councilmembers. My name is Jackie Zipkin and I'm an Alameda resident. Tonight, I'm speaking on behalf of Transform Alameda and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the city's proposed budget for the next two fiscal years. While we appreciate all the hard work that went into crafting this budget and balancing priorities, I wanted to highlight a disconnect relative to specific direction provided previously by Council on Police Reform and Equity. Item six SI Later in your agenda lays out progress that's been made by staff in addressing concerns by the community, raised by the community and following Council's explicit direction. However, several important items discussed in that staff report have budget implications, yet no funds for those items have been allocated in the proposed budget. Specifically in the staff report for item six, C staff recommends 100,000 for facilitating development of Citizen's Police Account Accountability Board and 20,000 to create citizen's oversight out of the city manager's office until there can be a more formal citizen's oversight body established. These are important steps to implementing. The steering committee is a number one recommendation, and it's something the council has repeatedly formally endorsed. Yet, as we understand it, no funding for this effort is actually included in this budget and council would need to return to identify further appropriations. We want to see funding allocated in the budget now for beginning this oversight process and delivering on the commitments the Council has made to the community. We recognize that doing this oversight right will take time, but there's no excuse for administrative delays, like requiring a separate budget action. Thank you. And transform Alameda looks forward to further collaboration with the city in future years on the budget adoption process. Take your next speaker. Lauren Lyon, co-owner Shalem. Good evening. Speaker like Salem. Evening, everyone. First I want to say thank you too much to the city staff for their work on this budget. The first year I really dug into it. And I was just struck by how much work and nuance goes into it. So round of applause for all of you for working on it so hard. I did want to echo the previous speakers comments regarding the lack of funding in this budget process and Police Accountability Board and the temporary oversight that would come out of the city manager's office and far more formal oversight body bodies established. As we know, these were recommended by the steering committee and approved by this council. Funding for this should be in this budget, not require council to have to vote against. So I would strongly urge you to amend this budget to include funding for those items as discussed by the previous speaker. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. And our next speaker. Before we call our next speaker. We now have seven speakers. So the time to 2 minutes. Yeah. And our next speaker is Josh Guyer. Good evening, Speaker Guyer. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor. So I would like to echo the the calls by other members of Transform Alameda to fully fund the the the steering committee, the Police Reform Steering Committee recommendations. I just want to hearken back to when Marty Gonzalez was killed by Alameda police. We had identified before that, I believe, 42% of police funding that currently goes to things that police are not needed actually to respond to. And we've been waiting I've certainly been waiting to see where the movement's going to be on that number, going from going from where we are in terms of the funding for the police to where we want to be, which is getting the police out of the way of mental health responders and economic supports and housing supports for people when when there is no public safety risk in when there when there are other other issues happening that do not required response. So so that we can not have to repeat and have a repeat of what happened to Marty Gonzales and other people who don't need that kind of response. These efforts need to be fully funded, and we need to move we need to move faster so that, again, no one else can be can be hurt or killed by by people that we pay with our tax dollars. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker. Laura katrina. Good evening. Speaker Katrina. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. I am calling in with the results of the People's Budget Survey. Alameda Transform. Alameda decided to go out and survey the community to understand because the city's budget demonstrates our city's values. What indeed does our city value? And so we had an online survey with 158 responses with approximately 25% coming from the West End East and central Alameda and 12% from Bayfront. And we asked respondents if they'd prefer to increase, decrease or maintain the current level of service for 20 different kinds of care. Our kinds of city services in four major categories. And those categories were basic safety needs and safety net community care and well-being, public works and city administration and emergency response. And if we look at the overall sentiment, basic needs and safety net were at 75% and we calculated that number by subtracting the promoters, those who voted to increase service a lot or increase service a little from the detractors, those who voted to decrease service lot or decrease service a little. It was pretty interesting to see that emergency response was at 0%, and I wanted to call out that. That was including community crisis response responders with 83%. But that then equaled the votes to decrease services for the police, which was 65%, and fire department 17%. So that basically went to zero in terms of sentiment by area. The top five areas to increase and these are where we got more specific was community care crisis responders. 88% of responders agreed and increased a lot or a little. Ongoing mental health and wellness. 86% of respondents. Food security. 84% of respondents. Housing security and community medics. 82% of respondents and education and schools. And they were indicating they'd like the police. 80% of respondents fire department and city administration to be decreased. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker. Melody Montgomery. Good evening, Speaker Montgomery. I. Thank you all. I don't think I. Have like a statement to say. It's more like a it is a statement of confusion. I keep hearing you give direction to staff to do a thing. And then I keep seeing budgets come back without the thing that you asked for. And I'm not sure if that's because it's a it's a miscommunication between what you're asking for or it's just something that maybe staff doesn't want to happen. And it feels very frustrating to me to see this budget come up with none of the things that we've been working so hard for and so a hard on. I didn't see anything for unbundling services. I didn't see anything for any of the recommendations that your steering committee and the people that worked on on those to do so. I sit here watching and listening in confusion. I'm not sure what else the people can do. We've spoken. We showed up. We did the work. We keep showing up. We keep doing the work. We keep telling you what. We want to. See. And I'm not sure what it takes for that to happen at this point. So yeah, I think I just want to say, oh, that's interesting and confusing. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Deborah Mendoza. Good evening, Speaker Mendoza. Am I unmuted? Yes, you. Are. Okay. Good evening, dear Mayor and City Council members. How and what we spend money on in the city of Alameda shapes our well-being, quality of life and safety. COVID and the murder of George Floyd have assured the nation into a new era where communities everywhere are forced to reckon with racism and police violence sooner or later . Alameda is no different. Actually, we are very much the same. We have our own version of George Floyd and his name is Mario Gonzalez. While on the task force after reviewing calls for service and meeting with police in dispatch, we reported back to you that well over half of 911 calls are non-criminal in nature. And that at a. Minimum, we should immediately divert police calls that involve mental health, substance use or homelessness and have that. Responded to by. Community based mental health professionals. That's not the fire department. With over half of 911 calls non-criminal. We need not only a divestment from the police budget, but also a comprehensive audit of the Alameda Police Department and an examination on which positions could be civilian ized moved out of APD or a combination of the two. This is not in the budget. We should be decreasing the police budget, not increasing it, nor hiring to fill vacancies even before shifting services. Instead, we should be reducing the police budget. Yet the 2021 budget would increase the police budget again today as the pandemic begins to end. We all realize that things will never go back to the way things were before and nor should they. We are forced to reexamine what really keeps us safe. With this in mind, I ask Where in our budget is that divestment from law enforcement? Where is funding to continue the work of the Task Force on Policing and Racial Equity? I urge you to make these adjustments. Thank you. Our next speaker. Alexia rocha. Good evening, speaker our. Good evening, everyone. I'm calling in. I support the statement of Jackie Zipkin on behalf of transfer me to. And I'm also wanting to echo what Laura Katrina's statement was. All of these ideas and requests are not new ideas. They didn't magically come out of the Transform Alameda survey. They've been things that we've been discussing and commenting on for over a year now that the public has been working on. And I really hope City Council takes more immediate action and prioritizes accordingly instead of constantly talking about it or creating processes that pay lip service to it instead of action. Melody Montgomery's confusion feels very similar. I've been absent from the last few city council meetings due to life happenings, and yet I feel like it's more of the same. People are making demands. People want less money spent on police. People want less police. And we're still here debating where and how to spend this money instead of creating immediate change that could have immediate impact. While more conversations can still be had. I agree with all of the previous callers statements and hope that council is listening closely. And as Debra said, where is the divestment? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker. Marilyn Rothman. Evening, Speaker Rothman. Hello. I am in agreement, of course, with all the previous speakers on this matter. Unbundling of police means shifting resources, i.e. money out of the police department to other services, especially mental health. In the same vein, I am opposed to the Felt and Trust Felt institute as it operates in conjunction with law enforcement, not separately. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Our next speaker is a telephone. Call her with a phone number ending in 2 to 5. Okay. Just need to press star nine to unmute. Hi there. My name is Heinrich Alberts. I would like to urge that we include funding in the current year to develop the master plan for D Paved Park. I think this is a really important issue for our city. It's very forward looking and a very proactive approach to trying to deal with climate change, associated sea level rise. And I think that this will be an important investment for the city in that having a solid plan and getting us closer to actually doing the necessary work means we'll be in a far better position to apply for other kinds of funding for this project. I think the $250,000 that's been discussed, well, of course, that's significant money that it will really be, well, money well-spent and be very useful and productive and protective for our city going forward. Thank you very much. Thank you. And our next speaker. Vinny Camarillo. Good evening. Speaker Camarillo. Are you able to? There you go. You're married. Hi. Good evening, Madam Marian Council. As a former member of the Unbundling Services Subcommittee, I'm upset, as a lot of other committee members are, that none of our countless hours of work has been reflected inside of this budget. I wanted to echo a lot of what Melody had said. It's upsetting to see that we have worked hours and hours since September towards March on these recommendations for this year's budget, but nothing has changed or has been reflected. Why are you all continuing to find policing when the community has specifically demanded that mental health resources, social services, etc. has not been funded extensively in this budget? It's just upset, upsetting to see that policing has gone up instead of has gone down since we've requested that. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Gordon. Good evening, Speaker Gordon. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, just fine. Hi. I am a homeowner. I'm a mother and an educator living here in Alameda. And I'm calling because I'm also feeling really disappointed and confused about what is going on. Last summer was really clear that we needed to make some really dramatic changes to our city to ensure the safety and well-being of all of us. And in March, you guys approved a whole bunch of things to move forward to to really get us there. And this budget just is so minimal in terms of what it actually says we're going to do. It doesn't convey a seriousness about this. And it's really frustrating. And I I'm frustrated that these are the only two that the only two options that the city manager office has come up with are the Felton Institute and the fire department. I'm frustrated that a number of us have offered to support the city manager's office in researching and connecting with other options and helping to figure this out. And we have been really largely ignored. We have not been invited into the process into any kind of a real way to make some things happen. So it's frustrating to see these two options as the only things. Given that these are the only two options that you guys are being offered, I definitely think we should go with the Bellevue Institute at this point because of the police involvement. Speaker Gordon, I hate to ever interrupt the speaker. Right now we're talking about the budget item. There is a later item where you could speak again on those choices that you're referring to. Okay. What I'm saying, though, is about the budget right at the beginning. What this budget represents are not the real options that we need to see. And it's really frustrating. And I look forward to better from all of you. And thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Jennifer Rakowski. Good evening, Speaker Rakowski. Hi. Thank you. I hope my internet holds out. Um, I wanted to say. There. Is a lot of momentum for change and this budget for sure. There are some hints at movement, but it feels like it's all around the edges. And as someone who was looking at the budget at the exact same time, I'm wrapping up being on the police task force and a family member of mine is a victim of a crime. It was really clear to me what keeps us safe and what doesn't keep us safe. And three police cars did not. Increase the safety of my daughter. A firetruck did. Not improve the medical care provided to her being. Billed. For a911 call for an assault in a city park did not feel like comfort and support from the community I live in. So both on the where we invest our dollars and also how we collect our dollars, there is deeper work to be done. Please look deeper at the work of the task forces. And. The work the community is recommending, and I will close with that. Thank you. Our next speaker is Abby. Good evening. Speaker Abby. Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. I am speaking on behalf of Community Action for Sustainable Alameda and though we are supporting the inclusion in the capital improvement budget of $250,000 for the DE Pave Park Master Plan, Deep Park is has been envisioned to be a wetlands education park and demonstration site for educating the entire Bay Area about the impacts of sea level rise and the accommodations for welcoming the water. It really will be a jewel of the city. It's some it's it's planned to be a part of a continuation of the parks around the seaplane lagoon, some of which will be developed when the surrounding lands are redeveloped by and paid for by developers. We have a unique opportunity with this park to receive funding from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, and the City Council did approve the application for a grant last year that was denied. And part of the reason it was denied is because there was no city funding, no skin in the game to demonstrate the city's participation in the park. We are really recommending that you allocate some funding to $50,000, $100,000 to the beginning of the master plan to demonstrate to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority that this project has city support. I've also been invited and we have course enthusiastically supporting the community outreach project to be initiated over the summer to invite the surrounding neighborhoods on the West End and in Alameda point to have a tour of the sites and to understand better what the options are and to support and to provide a guidance for the plan moving forward. This would be preliminary prior to the master plan, so we were really supporting that process. But we encourage the City Council now to allocate funding for the future application, which will be coming back to you this fall in order to submit to this RFP restoration authority. Thank you. And our next. Speaker, Aaron Frazier. Good afternoon. Good evening. Speaker Frazier. I want to. I wish I could just. Plus one, what Mellody Montgomery said. I agree with everything she said with with a couple of caveats that I also want to thank folks from the city manager's office who took part in meetings to educate some of us on the budget process. And I guess want to take away one thing from that meeting, which was so helpful and informative. And that is a lot of the budget is basically the same as last year. Right. That's sort of how the budgeting process works. You start with last year, you make a few changes and then you have this year. And I think certainly in 2020, a lot was different, but there weren't too many changes. There were some direction that attempted to make some changes, but some of those were overridden later. So I think now we have two years hence from 2019, and I think it's not the same as last year and you should make some real change. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. That was our last speaker. Okay. Then with that, I'm going to close public comment, but I'm going to ask our city manager, Eric Leavitt, to just address some of the concerns that were raised about what this budget does and doesn't do where some other funding may lie. I will emphasize that this is a public comment. It is not Q&A. But when I hear so many of the same questions coming up over and over, I feel a responsibility to make sure the public has a thorough understanding. So, Mr. Leavitt, if I could ask you to just clarify some things for us. Mayor says the Ashcraft and City Council I can clarify that and I'll I'll start off and and say what we have done and what has been worked on through the study sessions. And then also, Jennifer, Andy and Jerry are here to add if they if I missed something. We have combined between two funding sources, about 1.3 million that we have added to the police or to alternate police, in particular for mental health, the police audit function. So things that were recommended by the committees, we've put in about 1.3 million, not specifically to those, but so that you had that access to money as we moved these reforms forward. In addition, we do have budgeted the crime analysts in the in the budget, and I believe we also have added more money for homeless programs in the in the committee development budget. In addition, you will have access as we move these reforms forward, as you talk further at a future agenda item. You have access to ARPA if there are ARPA eligible. And also we do have contingency funds that we can always come back and reallocate those contingency funds into further. If as we move forward, if the council wants to and any savings that would be accrued in the police department could also be be allocated that direction. Thank you, Mr. Levitt. And when you reference ARPA, that's the American Recovery Plan Act funding, that 29 million or so is coming our way into allocations over the next two years of this year and the next year. Thank you for that. Okay. We have completed I have a come in and thank you, Mr. Levitt. So let's go to the council now. I see Vice Mayor Valley's hand up. They just want to make I think it's important to kind of clarify and very plain speak for folks who are not familiar with the budgeting process. What the city manager just said without using acronyms or anything else, which is to just say that even if there are items that are not included in this budget, the Council can always add or change amend expenditures as we see fit. And there are in fact later budget items, later items that would potentially include directions to use city funds from various funding streams to fund some of the things that that our public commenters were requesting. So I just I think it's really important that we kind of address that question directly, which is one we can always amend our budget to. We can always add expenditures. And three, there are later agenda items tonight that do address some of the concerns that were raised. So I do want to just make it very clear for that. I do hope that the folks that were commenting will look at our agenda and perhaps participate in that later conversation. I did have a question on relative. There were some some requests relative to park. I know that we had talked earlier about the additional allocation to our rec and park funds potentially. Is that part of the conversation, too, to utilize some of those funds relative to that request? And who's in a position to answer that? We don't have Mr. Wooldridge on the call in the meeting. She's available. But if you're prepared, Mr. let it go. I was going to say the 200,000 could be as well as I believe Michael Wooldridge also was looking at combining with grant funds and looking at that and as I'm speaking, she is actually appearing. It's great. Like magic. I love it when that happens. Welcome, Ms. WOOLDRIDGE. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor and Council. The intention for the 200,000 each year in the previous Council budget discussion was for the Recreation Parks Commission and my staff to determine current facility recreation facility needs that were requested by the community. And we had at present I had presented a list that included things like pickleball, tennis, skate park, BMX, bocce, those types of facilities. So while I strongly support the park, that was not the current intention. But that certainly is something that council could direct or that that we could we could discuss the Recreation Park Commission level. The reason that wasn't in the original list is because. The the facilities that are on the list are ones that are really near difficult to get funds for other than the general fund. There aren't grants to resurface a tennis court, for example, but do Pave Park. There is a grant that we will be that we applied for last year. We didn't get it. We got really good feedback. We intend to apply again this year. So I felt that that was something we could fund through grant funding. It certainly would help our grant application this year if we show that the city has essentially some skin in the game and has put some funds toward the project, even though it's not required, it always makes the grant application more competitive. But we wouldn't have the master fund done prior to that grant application October regard, even if it were funded right now. If I can just follow up on your comment and I see Councilmember De so you're next when you talk about it would be helpful to show that the city has some skin in the game when you go forward. Another time for a grant, some grant funding for Dave Park. How much skin are we talking about? Does it need to be six figures because well, I have a whole bunch of other concerns. But what's your sense of that? You've done a masterful job of bringing grant funding to our city over the years you've been here. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's a really hard question to answer. Whether it needs to be six figures. It certainly helps whether it needs to be 250,000. It may not need to be that much, but even a smaller amount, I think 50 to 100000 could could certainly help. But I don't I'm sort of throwing numbers out, honestly. I don't have a strong sense because the grant does not require any type of funding match. But but they do they have expressed that they appreciate it, showing they want to see that the city has some kind of commitment to the project. Okay. Thank you, Kalahari Desert. Well, thank you. I'm basically going to say the same thing that I said. I believe that on May 20th, at the end of the budget workshop then and you know, like many budgets, whether it's the operational or the capital side, you know, there are things that that that you dislike and dislike very much. But then there are also things that you like and and that, you know, you had a had an influence in in kind of shaping. And so looking at this budget from that angle, I still believe that this is a budget that I can live with. I do appreciate, for example, the discussion that we had with regard to the recreational facilities, the $200,000 a year for the next two years. And I do now remember, yes, indeed, that the direction was, you know, to have those recreational entities, you know, who are who have who have organized themselves and are very active and whose needs for for improved recreational facilities are immediate. So, so and so it's you know, we for that reason, we've increased, you know, the cap amount for the recreational facilities by $200,000. It's not guaranteed that'll go to tennis courts. It's not guaranteed that'll go to Pickleball or to BMX. But but you know, it's an opportunity for them to work with our Parks Commission to to make their case. And I would encourage to go for us to continue to go in that route, because I hear the need for a paved park. But my sense is that that's more of kind of a study, a master planning, whereas this is for for real immediate needs. So and I would love to work with my counsel, my colleagues to figure out different ways to to to fund and pays park to come up with the money that can assist Park Director Woolridge in going after grant funding for that. But, but, but I hope that we, we, we stick to the much what we had discussed very much and on May 20th, a workshop. I mean, there are things, you know, that I don't like in here and I've expressed a dislike over the years. But but I think it's not just the not just the recreation facilities increase, but but I also like. The fact that we're. Setting aside money for, you know, not to to to implement an alternative way of doing policing. So we're, you know, following through on the on the issues that were raised by the committee members. So maybe not, you know, to the to to the 10th degree that that that some would like. But but in significant ways though so this is definitely a budget that I can live with and I will continue to support it. Thank you, Counselor de SAC Vice Mayor Vella. So what I would like to do is actually make a motion to approve the budget. And with with a little bit of extra clarity and direction, I do understand and I think it's really important that we have a community led process relative to our parks. And my understanding is that Director Aldridge and Rec and Park is really trying to facilitate that conversation with CASA and APEC and the residents that are near to pave. And so provided that that process yield some sort of forward movement, that that goes through the process with rec and park and African Park wants to add or utilize that, that $200,000 that we moved over to the city relative to pay based off of those community led conversations. I'd be fine with that. So so that's just to add a little clarity to that. I think the overall intention of the Council, which is to help Director Aldridge best utilize the city funds. For a recognized career goal. Let me let me do this. If I could ask you to make the motion because I have lost where the motion might have started and stopped and where your comments help us with the motion you're making, and then you'll get a second and then we'll do discussion. Can we do that? Because one of my my resolutions going forward is that we try to be really clear in the motions we're making. And I, I want to make sure I get this gentleman notes, so let's go on top. Okay. So I'm going to make a motion to make I guess I can read it off of the agenda item. Approve and adopt the operating and capital budget for fiscal years 2021 and 20 to 20 2021 to 22 and 2022 to 23 and approving and adopt. Do we need to make do I need to make them all separately or. I love. The budget. Yeah, the budget and the workforce change and the workforce changes. City Attorney which. And Madam Chair and Madam Vice Mayor. One single motion could do if that is your intention. So I want to move approval after all three of the budgets that are listed. Perfect. We have a motion by Vice Mayor Vela. I see Councilmember Knox White's hand go up. Would that be the second? We have a second by Councilmember Knox. Right. Let's have discussion. Vice Mayor, why don't you lead the discussion? Just I think that as to to clarify, that director will work with the rec and park process, understanding that there's already underway an effort to involve and have a community led conversation around park and that potentially the additional allocation to the city could be utilized to move forward. DP Park If if that is in line with the recommendations and process through rec and. Parks. Overall master. I think it's was it the master plan list for our parks? Miss World is, in fact. That's correct. In your head? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything further in your comments, Kels? However, I mean, Vice Maravilla. I just look forward to the later conversations in this meeting. Definitely. Okay. Other comments? I have a question and a comment. You go first. Councilor Harris. Spence, raise your hand up. I'm sorry. I'm happy to wait. No, go ahead. I am waiting for you. Sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't have any questions with this man's comment, so I. Didn't have any questions or comments on this item. Okay. All right. I guess I didn't want to respond to the vice. May sound like you had wanted to. I had want to just make my general comments. No, this is the time. We've had emotions. So now we're going to have our discussion. Then we're going to take the vote. So please. All right. So thank you. And I first of all, I want to thank the staff for all their efforts on this item. I think it's very important to acknowledge that at all. This is a very heavy lift and it's extremely comprehensive. Secondly, I want to thank the community for all of their input. And I also want to acknowledge that some some of the speakers this evening and I have received emails also that have concerns in regards to the budget that is being presented, but I believe will be adopted this evening. And if it truly reflects the community's values and the statements of the budget is reflective of the city's priorities, I do hear loud and clear. And I also want to thank my colleagues because there were many compromises on this budget throughout the process. So I think it's very important to acknowledge that. That being said, I will not be supporting the budget. I, I do not believe that there were. I'm not I'm not exactly. If you want to say on the same page, then I think coming out of or moving forward after having the pandemic the past 15 months, mental health is extremely important to fund. I would have liked to have seen AUC, Almeida, Unified School District and Almeida Family Services requests fully funded. I have advocated for more funding for recreation and parks. The data shows mental health as well as physical health being compromised in the past 12 to 15 months. And I fully expect that we will see more side effects moving forward. I do fully support the funding of the 250,000 for de pave part planning. I think that when our council and our community supports climate action, which I actually did not support the plan and this goes to actually some of my concerns. We spend a lot of money and time on plans and then things like this that I, I think are a big part of the plan are left behind and and have it come out of the park budget. I don't think there are sufficient funds there. I also have concerns with which I don't even recall being discussed. The firefighter safer grants positions transitioning to the general fund and that was it is discussed in the correspondence from the city manager is an attachment and if you go to the bottom of I believe it's page three. And maybe. Four, but it shows that for fiscal year 21, 22, 532,000 is coming out of general fund to pay for those firefighters. And then 20 in the fiscal year, 22, 23 is 1,792,000. And I think as much as we're looking at how to improve policing, I think we have to also consider analysis of the firefighters just to make sure that that is money well spent. If you look at also in that letter shows clearly that the reserves are being depleted. And there's actually a really nice chart in that letter, which I believe it's exhibit one to this item, but it speaks to. Okay. We're going to drop below, but we try to do 25% operating reserve at the end to have that. Starting. I guess it's by the time 20 to 23 and then at the end of the five years, 24, 25, we're at 12% of projected expenditures and you'll see the contributions to the unpaid pension liabilities. I believe it's 10 million, 5 million, 3 million. But I really think we need to spend more time looking at that. I think since we are what I calls sweeping funds annually, we take that percentage of what's left in the reserves after we do the budget, and then we use that to pay down the unfunded pension liabilities . That is a significant chunk of money. And I personally think we should actually. And that money goes to employees and then there are their benefits. So as as was already shared a large part of the budget is for employees and then their pensions and unfunded pensions and unfunded pension liabilities. But at the end, I think that if we are in fact going to deficit spend, that is appropriate to deficit spend for mental health and physical health and recreation and parks. I think it all goes together. I would have liked to see a lot more money allocated to that. And then also, of course, the Deep Park, I think that's something that I actually do think at some point my colleagues will come up with a way to fund that because I think it is a priority. But I do think that's one of those things sooner rather than later because and we had some great speakers this evening and we received a lot of emails on this. If you if we really are serious about climate action and then also working with the veterans as they spring in their clinic, then I think it is appropriate to fund that at this time. And and I also want to commend our director of Record Park, Amy Walters, that I see here, because she has, in fact, applied for the grant before. Sadly, it was denied. Grants are extremely competitive and. I think that it is critical that I actually do not expect the grant to be and of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. I do not expect it to be successful until the city does, in fact, put some money in and maybe it's 50,000 or 100,000 if we're not going to do the 250,000, I don't actually know where the 50,000 a dollar figure came from. But I do think that the and also I would have liked to see in scholarships to participate and an increase in scholarships to participate in the recreation and parks activities. And I know we have some I'm going to submit that there is much greater demand this year. And so I think that and when you look at the budget, you can see we're using up the reserves. So at the end, I was suggesting, you know, we've gone through the process of this is what fully what I expect the budget to be. But I do think that when we are deficit spending anyway, that it is appropriate to spend it on community members, which also includes library the services when you call the ambulance, if that has to be paid somewhere. I actually and I want to thank the speaker that spoke to we have a victim of a crime. You have nine loved one called and then you have an ambulance, of course, and then you have the victim receive a bill for the ambulance. And I understand that that can actually be thousands of dollars. And I had another had a mother reach out to me and say that a similar thing had happened and that it was their son that they had called because of a threat of suicide. And again, they received this bill. And so things that we can look at to improve our expenditures. I appreciate everyone's comments and thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Herrera. Spencer let's see. Councilman asks, why did you want it? And I just want. To give you my thanks to staff, I think did a great job of coalescing everything into a budget that we agreed upon last month. I'm ready to call the question, but I know you probably have some comments, so I will. Okay. Listen, called the question takes a whole other motion second. I know we're not going to do that. No, my my honor, pretty brief. I want to just clarify a couple of things that. So maybe City Manager Levitt, you can help me. I was under the impression that we did fully fund the request from HST and from Allenby to family services for mental health services. Can you help us understand those items? I might need help. I think it's 125,000 that we funded for that. Is that correct? That's correct. Yeah. Oh, Michel. Yeah, and that was it. My recollection was that's what we were asked to fund. I'd have to go back to our Gary, my assistant city manager. My father. Your car? Yeah. So they the. The PTA and the school district representatives have raised $75,000. They needed $25,000 to top up a position that'll be in the school system. The second are the remaining $100,000. This fiscal year will be used to support both the this I'll call I'll call it school but it's also school and family. They have a program that will help not just survey us but other other students across the community, plus family needs. And so the idea that there be two people in that position, what we've learned since the last budget workshop is that AFS may be back. The the PTA contribution is not necessarily in place for the second year. And so whether that school district funded or PTA funded or city funding is still a question. But we have set aside $125,000 in both years for mental health related items. And I would I would say that there'll be more to come for a year or two on that topic. Thank you, Mr. Bowden. And this is something that I have been skimming the report and trying to find it, and maybe it was in my imagination, but I thought I saw a table and this would have come in your community development department. And in one fiscal year we had funding for Village of Love, but not in the second year. There was the first year, but not the second or the second, but not the first. But is it does anyone recognize that item? And my question was simply why would we not be funding Village of Love over two years? But as I as I sit here today and this too, if you happen to know where that might live, or maybe I just feel like I made a note somewhere, but I'm not finding it impacted. It's sorry, mayor. This note, please help me. This is in the mental this is in the police reform staff report. One of the I know is there's a two column there and. I believe. There's just funding sources coming from a number of different areas. Okay. You know what? Mr. Burton, thank you so much. I'm not losing my mind, at least not at the rate I thought I might be. But when we come to that item, I'll ask my question. I knew I had had, you know, flagged it in my notes, but I got it. Yes, there's more budget discussion to come. So then the only other thing I would say, and I agree with three of my former colleagues and then certainly some of what Councilmember Harry Spencer said, that when it comes to whatever funding is or isn't allocated to Dave Park, I just want to say that I very much respect and want to honor and give space for the work of our boards and commissions. They do important work on our behalf. They, they bring items to us, I mean, but based on city council priorities and direction and whatnot. So I have complete faith in Mr. Aldridge and the Recreation Parks Commission, which she staffs, to bring us the information we need. If she feels that she needs Ms.. Aldridge feels she needs some additional funding to really amp up that grant funding. Like I said, she's she's really a master of grant funding applications, successful grant funding applications. She'll let us know and we can we can take action then. But anyway, I am very satisfied with this budget and I'm ready for a vote. Except I see Councilmember Sykes hand up there. Oh, well, thank you. You know, I'm still going to hold to my comments in terms of the way that I framed my view of this thing, even while I would want the $200,000 per year over the next two years dedicated to hard or active recreational uses, improving active amenities or infrastructure for active recreational uses such as Pickleball or BMX or those roller skate people or tennis court resurfacing. You know, I think I think like I said, you know, you have to look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that we weren't getting the $200,000 per year for over the next two years prior to this decision. I do think that to taking some of that money to use it to to as kind of leverage to to match as matching funds for grants, it will, you know, lessen the amount available for active recreational users, improving those infrastructure. But like I said, it's a it's a compromise that I can live with. And, you know, it'll just be it'll behoove the stakeholders. Whether they're pickleball people or BMX people or tennis court people, you know, to continue to make their case as well as the stakeholders on behalf of the park. So I'm still going to support this this budget, but I do I think a point raised by Councilmember Herrera is worth repeating because, you know, several years ago, points were made that, you know, when the safer grant funds for fire departments is exhausted, well, that's you know, that's going to end the project. But the reality, though, is the Safer grants is being exhausted, but we are now backfilling it with general fund money. And that's, you know, one potentially $1.7 million out of general fund money. But, you know, these are the type of difficult decisions that we have to make. I still think that on balance, that we're moving in the right direction, but we've got some larger issues to deal with. For example, that and for those who are fresh to this, you probably won't know this issue. But we still have larger issues to deal with, like how to revamp hopefully the pension, the additional pension set aside so that we do buy out the reserve. So we do need to look at that policy. But like I said, you know, on balance, I could support this. I think there's more good in it than and challenges. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thanks. Councilmember Garza, Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de Stark. Yes. Herrera. Spencer. No. Knox Fike. High Avella. I may. Or as Ashcroft. I might carry a 4 to 1. Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right. With that, we close. We actually adjourned this special city council meeting of the city council and successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission. And excuse. Me, we move on to the regular agenda item. May we have roll call please? ROCCA Husband noted five present. And also there were at 1.102 attendees on the zoom and it's down to 99 now. Oh. Mayor, we can't hear you. Your mike is all right. Sorry. Thank you for remembering to do the count for us. Okay, so Raqqa has been noted. And then. Do we have any agenda changes? I think so. Councilmember Harry Spencer, were you raising your hand? As you know, I do have. A question in regards to pulling items, wanting to speak on them and not just voting no. Is that on the consent calendar? Yes. Sure. But you're not you're not suggesting that we change the order of the agenda, right? Yeah. Okay. We will hear you when we get to a consent calendar momentarily. Well, maybe a few more minutes from now. All right. So then we move on to item three, which is proclamations, special orders of the day and announcements. And we do have a proclamation declaring this month, June 2021, as Elder Abuse Awareness Month, and you'll find that online on the city's website.