Speaker 0: Years 20 1516 and 20 1617 and approving adopting the successor agency to the Community Improvement.
Speaker 2: Commission budget for fiscal year 2015.
Speaker 0: 16 and 1617.
Speaker 1: And before we start, do we have any speaker slips on this item? We do have to speak. Okay. Just so I know. All right, you make it. Okay. The presentation.
Speaker 2: Just a brief introduction. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And Council. So tonight we have before you what we hope is the final budget in a in a form that you can adopt tonight. This is the last of six meetings that we've had on the budget for fiscal year 15, 16 and 16, 17. Ms.. Adair, our finance director, will be going through the presentation with you tonight. A couple of things that I just wanted to point out to you. We have prepared new sheets based on some comments that we received in the last couple of days. It's nothing. Nothing super. I guess it doesn't change anything. It just provides a little bit more description about our OPEB contributions. And so we've provided those to you which you can insert into your binders for tonight. And it's said, Ms.. Adair, we'll talk about it in more detail, but it's essentially to recognize the contributions for the OPEB contracts that we approved last month. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that I've been keeping a list of parking lot items as the term that we're using. We have. We know that. Well, have you've seen over the past month or so, we do have a fairly significant reserve. And there are some items that have we've been discussing that we might want to look at funding, and I'm happy to review those with you when we're done and we can kind of discuss how we want to move forward on those issues. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Ms.. Adair.
Speaker 1: And before you start now, I have to. Speaker slips when you. When would you like to have speakers?
Speaker 2: Probably so. Have Ms.. Adair do the presentation. And then if you have any clarifying questions and then we can do the speaker slips.
Speaker 1: And questions from council members as you're going through the presentation. That. All right.
Speaker 2: That's fine. Or you can hold them at the end. That's fine. You know.
Speaker 1: What? Let's see how it goes. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay. Madame Mayor, members of the City Council. Good evening, Eleanor. Dear Finance Director and I will be doing the presentation for the budget adoption. Okay. We'll go through an outline of what some of the things we're going to discuss will look at all funds budget overview. We will take a look at the General Fund budget overview. We'll look at some of the adjustments that we have discussed during the last six workshops that we held. We will go over some personnel changes. We'll talk a little bit about the capital improvement program and then we'll find out what the next steps will be. Hey. Fiscal year 15, 16, 15, 16 and 1617 proposed expenditures. So this particular slide is a presentation of the proposed city wide expenditures, and it's presented here by the fund type. As you are well aware, we have various types of funds within the city. General Fund is really the only one that provides discretionary funding. All the other funds are restricted by its nature. In looking in this particular slide, the expenditures proposed for fiscal year 1516 are near $188 million. 1617 it's $174 million in the primary. Difference of the drop is really the capital improvement program. It's about $12 million, and that really is depending on what projects public works primarily is moving forward, which projects are in their pipeline and therefore once they budget for them and they may not repeat necessarily in the following year. Kay. This particular slide is presenting exactly the same city wide expenditures, but in a little different format. Prior one was based on the fund type. This one is by department. So this presents all of those same expenditures. But now, I guess sliced and diced in a little different way. And looking into this particular presentation, you will see that Public Works Department is actually the largest one in the city. And again, this is part of the public capital improvement program that they administer. Of course, the second largest and the third largest that come up are fire and police. Moving on to the General Fund budget overview. Will transition, I guess, into more of specific fund? And again, as I mentioned before, general fund is your discretionary funding. In this particular slide. Again, we're providing you with a recap of the five years. So the two years under budget, the one we are asking you to approve, and then an additional three years of forecast. As presented before. We are expecting by the end of fiscal year 1516 to have a fund balance reserve of 30%, and that's a 38% of annual expenditures. That includes transfers out within general fund. It does drop in the second year to the 36% level. Part of the. Workshop on April 16th. We did ask in actually on May six as well. We asked for some directions and recommendations of what some of the items would be palatable to the City Council on how to address the deficit. There were a few items. One of them, as you will see presented here, use of fiscal year 1516 surplus. And there are a few other items that we will be discussing a little later in the presentation. I also wanted to point out to you, as Ms.. Warmer Dam just mentioned there, a couple of pages that we replaced and again, there is a request was made to maybe provide a little bit more information as to where the funding is coming from in terms of funding the OPEB contribution based on the contracts that got approved. So we've added a memorandum items explaining what other reserves that the General Fund has and that would be found on your page, a one that was replaced. Again, it provides the not only available fund balances now, and that's the one that you really have a discretion of determining how to use it. But it also has the restricted funds that general fund has, which you really can't go ahead and spend it because they've been either restricted or committed by actually you.
Speaker 1: Before you move on. Are you getting ready to move on on this page?
Speaker 2: No, not.
Speaker 1: Yet. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay. Another part is included in your packet for the staff report. Specifically, I'm referring to page a 15, and that's general fund budget summary. That particular page provides a little greater detail of the revenues and expenditures of the general fund. I would like to draw particular attention to the fiscal year 1516 General Fund is getting a repayment of a loan from Alameda Municipal Power of $2.2 million. I just want to stress it out that even though on this particular slide, it doesn't show because we summarized it, it is a one time funding and we trying to explicitly say that it's a one time funding that we receive and it will not be repeated again and again as a reminder also to everybody. When we were putting together the general funds budget, we did review all the expenditures and we tried to identify some of the one time type of revenues that we may have received. Good example would be property transfer tax. We did review them and there are transactions that were more of a business to business sales that we did not expect to repeat again. They were fairly large and likelihood of them happening every year is not very high. So those were taken out. And just to point out, we didn't take into consideration all of the one time revenues. In addition, there are some transfers in that the general fund is getting in, as you can see, even on this slide. They're actually remaining the same $489,000, to be precise. And three of those are related to the parking meter fund, which is about 380,000. And we did discuss this also in detail at the April 16th meeting. We also get about $50,000 from Bayport Municipal Services District and from an assessment district, which is a sea of about $60,000. In that particular one is a trust fund. The purpose of the transfers is to really pay for the police services that they provide for municipal services district. We also make an a transfer from the parking fund because police does the enforcement and regulates the parking. When we presented I just as another reminder to everybody in terms of the fund balances when we did a presentation back in April, on April 16th, one of the additional slides that was added was related to the budget and what we thought it might be back in spring of 2011. And I'd like to remind again everybody that the expectation was that we're going to be about $22 million in a deficit. So the reason I'm bringing it up is because now we are certainly looking way better. Our fund balance specifically, and it was a combination of variety of things that included the improvement in the economy. So therefore revenues gone up and that certainly assisted our fund balance. But on top of that, the prior counsel that was sitting here back in 2011 as well as the departments, made great strides in fixing some of the expenditures and eliminating and taking care of some of the issues that occurred back then to not have this issue . And so the combination is a result that we've seen today.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So before you move on from that one, I wanted you to speak of possible pressure to when you see the difference from our revenues and our expenditures. There's. The expenditures are greater and that amount increases over time such that the annual operating results or this this coming year 1.2 million positive. By 1920, the forecast is 5.3 million deficit. So when you say so, can you speak to that? Because this is what this is what we are actually. Tonight. We're not. We're we're being asked to approve a two year budget, which doesn't go through all those years, however, based upon your forecast. This is when you carry it out. And so if you can speak, speak to that.
Speaker 2: Sure. Again, just like you've mentioned, the particular attention is in the first two years just because we are approving this. However, the city has been prudent in trying to do a forecast going forward so that we know where we may end up being. So should there be an issue, we will take certain measures now and not wait till it's too late. So as you see, we do have a deficit, annual deficits in the forecast. And one of the items that was already discussed is that the city needs to address this particular issue. Now, the increases are certainly or deficits are not large at this point in time. A lot of them are attributed to increases in the retirement contributions that CalPERS governs, and that's not necessarily something we can easily change. It is what it is when it comes down to it, and we have to make those contributions. But one of the things that the city already made strides to is working with the bargaining groups to actually address some of the OPEB type of issues. Although it's been presented and we did say it's not exactly solving our issues 100%. It certainly is helping us. And it's more of a long term solution, not just necessarily a short term solution. So part of it we started to make negotiated with the employee groups to start making certain contributions who would paying and the other post-employment benefits which specifically health. We further have to come back and review what's in the expenditures. And you're right, correct some of the structural deficit issues that we have now. Part of it is also looking, as we get closer to those years of reviewing the revenues and where we're going to be any time it goes further out into the years, even in year two. The best we can do is assume where the economy is going to go based on what we know now. A year from now, even two years from now, we'll know better where revenues are going to bring us as well and where the economy is going to end up. So that's one of the things that I think needs to be addressed as well. We are doing our best to estimate what they will be, but its budget is not necessarily a science, it's an art. And to the best of our knowledge and being again conservative in where we think it's going to go, we have certain expectations now whether they will change. Of course they will. As I said, the more we know, the the more information we'll have at that point in time. So there's a multitude, I think, of items that have to be addressed. It's not only the expenditures, it's also the revenues and where it's going to lead us in trying to negotiate, whether it's through the contracts or any other ways to figure out what can we do to balance it. So I don't think it's necessarily a one way fits all. It's going to be a combination of things.
Speaker 5: Member Ashcroft along those lines. And Mr.. You had actually made a reference to something I was going to ask about a little earlier when you talked about these one time transfer funds that are large and not likely to be repeated, because that's in, I think the last fiscal year we saw the sale of a couple of very large apartment buildings. But normally these are holdings that are held for some period of time. And I do remember some discussion at one of the earlier budget meetings where we talked about the fact that there are those, I think, five different sources of revenue in the general fund that are used to calculate salary increases. And it's the BREE Right.
Speaker 2: Balanced Revenue index.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And there has been some question of whether that particular item, the one time transfer funds, should indeed be be included. And I tried to look back and everything else I was looking at to prepare for the media. I tried to look back and find the comments and what, if anything, we said we were going to do. Looking at that moving forward, what did we write?
Speaker 2: Right. So the transfer of.
Speaker 5: Fresh might.
Speaker 2: Actually is not to you, it's the transfer tax. Yeah. Which a portion. You know we think I wouldn't say that all of it is one time we always get some amount of transfer tax. There's usually, you know, but there's usually some amount that is one time like like what you mentioned about the the apartment complexes. And I think what we discussed was potentially looking at in the future, trying to eliminate that from the from the BRY. But that would be something that we would need to negotiate. As currently that is the balance revenue index does currently include the transfer tax and that's something that we would need to negotiate with.
Speaker 5: So that's in the bargaining agreements, correct?
Speaker 1: Vice mayor.
Speaker 4: And just to be clear, the true one time revenue that's used to balance the first year of the budget. It has a 1.2 positive at the end expenses of revenues is the repayment of the loan $2.2 million? That correct.
Speaker 2: That contributes. Absolutely.
Speaker 4: So that one. We can. I. I have concern over that. And that that's something talked about in January. You're highlighting it. I am assuming that we don't have any other outstanding loans that can carry us through this year. So I'm looking at. Asking for ideas, not tonight, but asking for ideas on when we talk about fixing our structural problems. All I hear is structural problems. I'd like to have it pinpointed so that we can attach a fix to it. And I understand budgeting is is not exact, because the if we look back on history, the projections property tax and transfer tax. Are are variable and there are certain things out of our control that affect those numbers. But I think we have the benefit of history and looking at those and we can make those a little tighter at least. Based on what I saw from the look back of four years. But I'd like to look at. Some caution and some steps, some checkpoints that we have as the first year rolls out is how do we plug the gap that we how do we address the gap that we plugged with $2.2 million from the beginning ? Because we could say that we have actually a $1 million deficit in the first year because it was $2.2 million of one time, really one true one time money, not vagaries of the transfer tax, but truly one time money.
Speaker 2: I actually would like to address that as well. The loan repayment from Alameda Municipal Power is $2.2 million, but in order to repay it, in essence, there was, if you want to call it, a swap of revenue, because I am in essence prepaid portion of their franchise I'm sorry, pilot in advance. Yes. They advanced us some money. So that advance is already in the general fund. So instead of funding both and pretty much trying to eliminate advance and making it more of you know, they pay us as the year comes this particular year, 1516 is when they not going to pay us $1,000,000, but instead they will repay in full the $2.2 million. So if you actually take the net of the two, the net really true increase and true one time money is $1.2 million that is being added to the fund balance in 1516. So should.
Speaker 4: Win it. It's temporary. It's only going to happen this year.
Speaker 2: Correct. Because in essence, per direction that was given at the last meeting that we've had on the budget. One of the things that was discussed is council agreed that maybe we should use portion of the fund balance which is in essence your surplus from 1516. They happen to be the same toward 1617 year as part of the balancing component. So if I can add on to that. So I think what Adair is saying is that the net one time is 1.2, not 2.2. Correct. So I just want to make that clear. The other thing is there are two thoughts on structural deficit. One is a utility users tax. And I do plan on coming back on that. And I've been doing a little bit of research just on my own. We really need to take a look at that. We've met with an attorney that specializes in utility users tax, and they're going to give us an estimate about really how much money we're leaving on the table because our ordinance is so outdated. So I will be bringing that back to you. I think the other issue that we haven't talked tonight about, but we've talked many, many times about is the smoothing effect, which we know is a five year effect. And so, I mean, I think what I think it's a really good we do these projections because we need to keep our eye on the ball and we need to recognize that we cannot we we need to continue with our bite, our belt tightening, and we don't want to go on any spending sprees. But they are projections. And I think we need to continue to be frugal. But we do have I think there are some tweaks that we can make, some adjustments as we go along that I think are going to that are going to assist us in our fiscal essentially being sustainable. So.
Speaker 1: Member, Daisuke.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms.. Adair. I think the charge that you have here is very helpful in many regards. And let me just kind of go over possibly three issues. I think what this chart shows here is that, you know, on the expenditure side, when it comes to budgeting on the expenditure side, it's something that for the most part we can pretty much control to the extent that, you know, we have labor agreements and that wages and salaries comprise such a large portion. And I'm speaking only of our general fund, of our general fund budget. And to the extent that, you know, we have certain expectations with regard to, you know, equipment and other kind of non-salary things which come up on a routine basis. So on the expenditure side, it's pretty much something that that is not just within our grasp of the two years, but over perhaps the next 3 to 4 now out to five years. So when you look at just the expenditures alone from the two year budget of 80.7 million to 83.3 million to the forecasted of 86.2 to 80 8.7 to 91.0. Basically what you're seeing is on an annual basis, you're seeing expenditures are expected to rise 3.2% from 16 to 17, 3.5% from 17 to 18 , and then 2.9% from 18 to 19, and then from 19 to 22.6%. And when you compare the expenditure annual increases versus the Conservative revenue estimates, you can see that the rate of growth, the annual rate of change in most cases almost doubles. The expenditure rate of change on an annual basis doubles what? The revenue rate of changes. And actually that's good, though, because what that means is that staff is coming into this on a conservative basis. As we you know, we don't want we don't want staff to come up with these numbers that that we want to at least know, you know, that we're going to come into this. So this so I appreciate this chart on the on the expenditure side and the revenue side as I think ultimately what this is, is this is this structural deficit in summary form for those of you, you know, who are here this evening or listening in the public, you know, what the structural deficit basically refers to is that on the expenditure side, you've got certain costs that are baked into the cake and you know that they're going to happen. And then on the revenue side, for the most part, you really don't have the the the revenue that's generated on a yearly basis to cover those costs , forcing you to therefore dip in to what savings you have. Fortunately, in the city of Alameda, you know, we've got this our savings is the general fund balance. And for a variety of reasons, you know, we've had a very good general fund balance. I mean, the policy that was put in place was set way back in December 5th, 1989 of having a general fund balance of 25%. It's now I think our policy is officially 20%. But nonetheless, I think the city council past has been proactive in making sure to have a good policy in that regard. So that's something that that I want to make sure to keep. So that leads me to the third question is because one of the things that we ended off last time was the possibility of having some kind of program put in place to move us down from from the 30% plus fund balance that we have to 20% , which in my mind I felt was I was very skeptical of, because I think for a variety of reasons, you know, you chip away at your fund balance. Is it really necessary to have a specific, tailored program to get us to 20%? I mean, you know, things happen. So I guess one of the things that I'd certainly like to hear in the course of the conversation is, is the what? Whatever happened about that? And let me just end by this. And later on this evening, I do want to go into the Parks and Rec budget. I think there's been some good news there that I think we should share. But I also want to mention the Parks and Rec budget and in the context of when I compare it to, say, the public safety budget. But I'll do that later. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Member.
Speaker 6: Ody is probably. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just not to put too fine a point on it, but if you look at I don't have the dollar to just have the percentages. But in the purse, the purse smoothing you talked about in our contribution in 1415 is is 53. It goes to 55 for safety in 15 1658, three basis points jump 16, 17, 61%, another three basis point jump in 17, 1863 to 2 basis point jump in 1819 and then another two in 1920 to 65 and then it levels at 65 and then we expect that to stay at 65. We expect that to go down. Or do we not know or what system?
Speaker 2: Actually, I was at one of the conferences actually participating in governmental accounting and auditing conference and the chief actuary for PERS was one of the speakers and as a matter of fact, is one of the questions that was kind of inquired during the conference as to where the rates will go. And very interesting thing that he did say, again, this is his kind of, I guess, thinking doesn't mean that it's going to necessarily happen that way. But he didn't really expect the rates to go down. They will probably be at that level. But he didn't expect them to just drop. So I can't you know, obviously it's not necessarily something he said officially or any of that, but that's just a conversation that happened during that particular conference. And he did say that.
Speaker 6: So I guess then, you know, we're seeing these increases in expenses and there would be some expectation then that that would level off, you know, going out five years. You know, it is not, you know, not a science. It's it's an art. And there's so many things that can happen. But going out five years, we would expect when we start seeing the 2021 and the 21, 22, you know, that we would see a leveling out of our cost increases if we're attributing all of our cost increases or most of our cost increases to this smoothing
Speaker 2: . Correct. Now, you also have to remember, Perce is trying to be conscious of what they're doing as well. So just like the city is in trying to address its liabilities, so PERS is going to do potentially similar things. So whether they going to revise their assumptions or not, this is something that city does not control at all. And as I mentioned before, you know, which is because we remember and it really is out of our control, we'll just we'll have to pay or contribute exactly what they tell us to do. And at this point, yes, you're correct. Our expectation is it's going to level off. But I can't predict it again. We've talked about it actually in prior meetings as well. Purpose is just one component. We also have help for active employees and things like that. So it's again quite a combination of items to look at and not just just one thing, but I don't think it's really prudent to just focus on one.
Speaker 6: But as we move forward, I hope we can, you know, one, recognize that that's the main route of our annual operating result deficit and that, you know, we also don't lose sight of that and that we, you know, continue to focus on on ways we can be more efficient and control our costs.
Speaker 1: So I'd like some clarification then. You don't anticipate a reduction, though. So when you look at the year 1920 and you see the 5.3 negative. A balance or deficit. At a minimum, would you anticipate. We would not have a reduction in the next year. We would continue with the 5.3 million deficit.
Speaker 2: Provided that we keep revenues as they are, and if we don't review the expenditures and look at any other items. So there are certain things that are locked in in our expenditures. Yes. Those are the ones that we can control. More so, but more maybe in terms of we obviously have the operating expenses that are in there. There are certain components of the salaries and benefits that we can control, but a lot of them might be locked in. So but in five years, we may come up with other ideas as to the contract, because we do have a number of contracts that are coming up for renegotiations. I understand the safety are now locked in, but there are some other items.
Speaker 1: Can you clarify? Wasn't it through December 20.
Speaker 2: 19, 2021 and 2021?
Speaker 1: That's actually the next year after this. The contract is locked in for public safety.
Speaker 2: Right. But that doesn't mean that. Yes. You can't have those conversations and have these conversations outside of the country. You know, we were within the time frame. The contracts were valid, and we think that.
Speaker 4: Was part of the motion to extend. There had been ongoing labor surveys.
Speaker 1: You know, based on the current contract, it ends December 20, 21, as I just said. Correct. Okay. So given that the facts we have currently in front of us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Any other comments on that one? Thank you. You may continue.
Speaker 2: Right. So this particular slide shows the revenue sources again within general fund by various I guess the source of the revenue in the top three. I just want to point that out. The top three revenue sources are property tax, sales tax and utility user tax, as his former name just mentioned. And we've presented that before. The way we've seen the current trend of utility user tax, it's going down year after year after year. And so one of the items that we need to address is the city. What can we do about that particular source? Because it's not that we're not receiving utility user tax, but one of the reasons is our ordinance is outdated and there's so much more new technology that's out there that our ordinance is not capturing that. We could have been receiving revenue from that. Just as a point the transfers in and loan repayments and other section. It's kind of a lavender color. 5% does include that particular $2.2 million of loan repayments. So I just want to make sure and identify that that particular source is a one time. True, one time. Okay. This just shows you the second year under budget. Our revenues in this year, again, exactly the same. You would say a story. Top three revenue sources again as property tax, sales tax and utility user tax. And in both years, it accounts for just a little over 50%. We've talked earlier about city wide expenditures that we showed by department. In this particular case, this is a presentation of just the general fund expenditures by department. A little different picture, but again, it's only one fund. The two largest departments, as expected, is police and fire. We have lots of people. It's a service organization. Labor cost is pretty much it and therefore that's majority of the staff we have in those departments within general fund. And so it's expected that they would be the largest ones and it's about 70% in each year and it pretty much stays the same the percentage wise in both fiscal years. This is a little, again, different presentation of general fund expenditures. Again, exactly the same amount, all of those same expenditures, but now being reversed and rather presented by type of expense or category as you see salaries and benefits, the largest, which is the labor component. And then we have the operational costs, which is your material supplies, any contracts or agreements that departments have in cost allocation. Again, if you look and add together to salaries and benefits, it's about 80%. And again, same thing. We are a service organization. Labor is primary things that cities providing. It's a service 80% it's going to be usually the labor cost is the highest. Just as a point, the operational costs, we did not include any increases in there unless contracts agreement actually specified increases. So if what's already part of the contract, then obviously we'll go with that. Those been approved already. But there's no cost of living adjustments included as just a point probably going forward because cost of living does increase and cost of services increases. At some point it wouldn't really be sustainable to not provide any increases because it's in essence. A cut to the departments if they cannot provide those services if they grow. 1517 adjustments. So we've talked about during our April 16th and May six meetings. What are some of the ways that we can address the deficit within 1617 budget again? 1516 fiscal year. We are rather adding to the fund balance, $1.2 million, but 1617 we have an annual deficit. So the staff provided a listing link and a menu item in essence, for the Council to consider based on the directions that was given. In our understanding, these are the adjustments that are currently included in the general fund budget as it is presented to you tonight. We have eliminated the proposed Administrative Services Coordinator position again because originally it was included. It would have affected both years and by reducing it, you see it impacts both year one in year two. We also reduced the transfer out to the vacation fund by $75,000. We've reduced the contribution for police and fire fleet in total 100,000. We have increased per the request of the Council and we're giving additional transfer to the library. It's $100,000 in both fiscal years. But if you look in the projection, the projection includes those funds all the way in a five year period. $100,000. What it provides is it giving library to be open additional 2 hours on Wednesdays, and it also provides additional funding for library material purchases.
Speaker 1: So which library will be open more on Wednesdays?
Speaker 2: I believe it's the main library. That's correct.
Speaker 1: So does that mean that the main library will have more, more hours than the other two? Even more. Because it currently has more hours than the other two, doesn't it?
Speaker 2: Jane, could you come up? Yeah.
Speaker 0: That evening. Jane Psaki, Library Director The $100,000 represents adding 2 hours we chose Wednesday. Wednesday would allow hours at the main library to open on Mondays and Tuesdays at noon and close at eight, and then Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, open at ten, and then have their closing days instead of having two days that open, you know, at one time and then another day where it's odd and then it goes back to a different day. It gave us some uniformity. Wednesday mornings will allow us to do more class visits and offer more programing in the mornings that we currently can't do. We looked at the flow and the kinds of programs that we reduce, the number of programs offered in selecting the Wednesday morning. And yes, the main library has more hours than the two neighborhood libraries.
Speaker 1: And how much of the money is for extending the hours. $40,000 and the other 60,000 or.
Speaker 0: The materials budget.
Speaker 1: You know what type of materials you don't know at this point.
Speaker 0: The money that goes into the materials budget is up to the book selectors. But we intended to be print and e-book and media. And since it's only two years, we would not start a subscription like a new database or periodicals.
Speaker 1: Any other questions on the library? Yes.
Speaker 5: In just an hour, the new material is distributed across.
Speaker 0: Yes. Our library has what we call a floating collection. So if there's a book at the main library that's of interest in the branch library, we can send it out to the branch. And when it gets checked in there, it belongs to the branch until it's needed someplace else. So it eliminates the need to buy a lot of multiple copies. And if the branch library and thinks their branch is a little short on cookbooks, they can go to another library, shop the cookbook selection and send it out to the branch library until they don't need them anymore.
Speaker 5: Meredith. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: It's not so much on the library. Actually, it's for finance director there. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, yes. Thank you very much. Now this chart on the fiscal year 2016, 2017, basically what you're saying is when we last met and it was, I believe April or I can't remember there was that and I have it in front of me. There was that chart that had what would happen in the 1.4 reduction option. So of the 1.4 reduction option, there were 11 items. Most of them were in 1617, fiscal year, 1617. There was one kind of thing in 1516. But of the 11 items, there was two that really popped out was, for example, the community resource officers. We had a member of the public asked to speak up on behalf of that. And also I think there was recently a letter to the editor on that. And also, well, that was the one that popped out for me. And so what we're basically saying is of the 11 items that were in the chart from May eight, May discussion six, basically we're covering it now with the that one time and that one time is basically the 1.176 thousand that you see here. So here's the question that I have. And I'm going to speak specifically to the fire issue because we spoke at length about the ambulance issue. So we're I believe that the way that I'm reading this is we're going to cover that $408,000 in expenditures that we see needing to occur in 16 to 17. So the question, though, is that if we cover it that year and once we hire the people to cut it for those positions, that means that in 17, 18 and 18, 19, those staff members are there.
Speaker 2: Well, I think there's two different things that we're mixing up the ambulance that we're we're proposing as one of the cuts, potential cuts for the department. Those people already here, I believe the one you're talking about is actually the grant from the county, and that would be additional positions that are limited term positions. So I think it's two separate items.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. And I think that was the issue is that the ambulance is there already. Just don't want to see it go away.
Speaker 2: Correct. And so it's not on the list.
Speaker 3: So even as it is not on the list anymore for 64 hours. 16, 17. It also still means, though, that we have to make accommodations in subsequent years because it's still there.
Speaker 2: That's correct. So what you the projection that you see right now, the five year projection. So all of those items that were proposed to say should council decide to eliminate, it will eliminate. But because we didn't, they are within those projections. So those are.
Speaker 3: Rolled into the cost. Yes. Oh, that's important. That was.
Speaker 2: Correct. So those are part of that budget. So we did not take them out.
Speaker 3: So in a way, when we make a decision with regard to the for keeping the ambulance which is there now at Harbor Bay, attitude to a two and a $408,000 in 1617. We're making basically we're baking that into our cake for 17, 18, 18, 19.
Speaker 2: That's correct. And that is also what's you know, those are all those costs are contributing to your your structural deficit.
Speaker 3: Exactly. Exactly. So but these are the type of eyes wide open decisions that we have to make.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: Member member Ashcraft.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And so I'm I'm not sure if we are talking about this as well, but it does involve the fire budget. And I'm looking now at exhibit one, which is the fiscal year 15, 16 and 1617 budget transmittal letter, and it's on page six of 11. There's a paragraph about the community peer medicine grant. So just to recap, in October 2013, the fire department was provisionally accepted by the State of California Emergency Medical Services Agency to represent Alameda County in the Community Peer Medicine Pilot Project. And yet I see Chief Light coming up. And so.
Speaker 0: A.
Speaker 5: Couple questions. Remind me how long the pilot program lasts and what happens when the pilot program ends. Because I'll just get to the you know, the entirety of the note I made while improving health care needs and outcomes is a laudable goal, we're trying to keep people who chronically use the emergency room of the hospital, our local hospital, as their primary care provider. It's a laudable goal, but it's not a city mission and is more appropriately underwritten by mental health systems. That is now the county that is running both Alameda Hospital and Highland. So that was really long. Tell me if you want me to go back over any of it, but I'd love your input.
Speaker 4: No, I. I understand. The funds that we received from Alameda County to fund this project is for two years of once those funds run out, the the program will be dissolved if if it isn't funded in another way. We're hopeful that the the program will show a large savings to the local hospitals and that they may come up with a plan to help continue the program. But other than that, once the grant funding that we've received is gone, if there isn't anything else in place, the program would be dissolved.
Speaker 5: And so then I just want to share that I have at least begun the conversation with Alameda Hospital just in an informal basis, because I ran into one of their administrators at a function and said, you know, this is a great program and really helps you. And and what she wanted was empirical data. And so I'll talk to you offline. But I you know, you may already be in contact, but.
Speaker 4: I and we are we'll collect a large amount of data. And I think there's an awful lot of people out there that will be served by this this program that will decrease the cost of emergency rooms and therefore the hospital overall.
Speaker 5: Right. And I don't dispute it one for 1/2 in at least a couple of us on this board served on the board of directors at the hospital. But we're a city and we don't have a city health department. And I you know, I want the savings in cost to the emergency room operation the hospital, to be borne by the appropriate but very appropriate party. But it was very prestigious for our department to be chosen. And I think, you know, you've done a great job, from what I understand.
Speaker 4: And we just we just found out that the 13 programs that are starting in the state, only three started on time as being one of them. And the community medic that started on Monday was actually the first one in the state. Oh, we're real proud of that.
Speaker 5: And it's thanks to you online.
Speaker 1: Brody.
Speaker 6: Before you go. Sorry. Sorry again, not to put too much of a finer point on this, but, you know, this is the point of pilots, right? You know, if they don't work and we don't do them anymore and then we don't get the money, but then we don't spend the money because we don't have the program. And then it they do work and it serves as an incentive to policymakers such as US or in HHS or in the state to say this is something that works, this is something that saves money, this is something we want to fund. And then we we can have something longer term like that's okay.
Speaker 0: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I also wanted to add, when we're talking about filling some of these vacant positions, my understanding that we won't require as much overtime. So there are some savings, is my recollection based on the last presentation. And I don't know if that's these positions that we were speaking to a few minutes ago that came up. But I think some of the vacancies in police and fire. We'll be filled. That's a word authorizing feeling if you're.
Speaker 2: Referring specifically to the fire department.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. I just thought that there was a discussion about savings of overtime by so.
Speaker 2: Many times a position you you save overtime.
Speaker 1: But not every. But that's only in departments where overtime is available and that's what but I think for these positions in public safety.
Speaker 2: That was I think referred specifically to the fire department because the proposal by the department was by reducing the hours for the ambulance or eliminating that particular ambulance, those people that are currently on the ambulance will go back to our regular emergency services operations, which means they have more staff and it will reduce to over time, in essence.
Speaker 1: I thought we were filling some vacant positions, though, as part of this budget.
Speaker 2: That's right. You did have some vacant positions that were on your list. This was from May 6th. Um, and we. That's right. So one of the things that we offered at that time was to not fill your vacancies.
Speaker 0: Um.
Speaker 2: And we chose not to do that. We, we, this council chose to go ahead and fill the vacancies. So I think that's one of the items that was proposed, as you may remember. One of the things that we have done in this particular budget in both fiscal years is we reviewed what are the current vacancies or the vacancies that we believe will happen. Let's say when we come to July one, 2015, and then looking at the vacancies and the number of vacancies we've reviewed with the departments as well as with Human Resources Department, to figure out what are the realistic timeframes that we will be able to fill those vacancies. So for that particular reason, they we've identified in saying in certain cases, even though we have a position available on July one, it's going to be unlikely due to not sufficient resources, let's say, in H.R. to fill that vacancy on July 1st. So it may take them other than the actual recruitment time, but it may take them to get to that particular vacancy recruitment some period of time. And again, various department departments have vacancies. It's a competing priorities among all of those departments which vacancy to fill first. So by looking at those, we've estimated, what will the vacancy savings be based on the hire date, expected hire date of those particular people in those positions? So this particular budget. Takes into account those known vacancies. On top of that, when we were doing a proposal as to, okay, what are some of the ways to eliminate our deficit, we said, Well, what if we will not fill those vacancies at all? Let's say for I believe it was 12 months, period, 18 months in what would actually give us. What are the savings going to be? So that was part of the presentation to potentially not fill those positions, in which case council did vote saying, no , let's not do that, and therefore it wasn't included in this particular budget.
Speaker 1: Oh. Do we anticipate that this budget will address the overtime issue for public safety in regards to reducing it?
Speaker 2: So you so in the fire department, I believe they have how much budgeted for overtime? It's about 1.2 million. 1.1. So the issue in the fire is that in the past they've had the safer grant for six positions that Safer grant expired. And so what they have done is to fill those slots essentially with overtime because they don't have those positions funded and they've submitted the application again for the safer grant. And we should be hearing within the next couple of months whether or not we get that. And if we do, and I think maybe this is your what you were talking about was if we do fill those positions and we do get the safer grants, that will eliminate that overtime, not not 100%, but I think we're about half a million dollars to half a million dollars. So by filling those positions, you're correct that it reduces the amount of overtime.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then if at some point then will we be looking at staffing levels for. Public Safety or fire department specifically in order because of my understanding, that's part of how we end up with over time. Will we be looking at the staffing levels? Is that part of this? Will that come up separately?
Speaker 2: I mean, that's up to the council. If that's something that I mean, I think what we had heard, at least from the fire department, was that if we were no, that would we could look at that and that would be something that would affect the service level. But if that's something that the council wants us to review, that we can do that.
Speaker 1: Now, that's something in our parking lot.
Speaker 2: That's I don't have that in my parking lot right now, but I absolutely can add that. Look at the staffing levels.
Speaker 1: So I personally will want us to look at that at some point, regardless of the overtime and whatnot.
Speaker 5: And I think you and I agree. I mean, I think we need to look at everything. I think that's that's a fair item to look at. I do recall from when this came up before we talked about the overtime and there was the prospect of eliminating the Bay Farm Harbor Bay Ferry Ferry. Hello, ambulance. We're taking them by water. Now that the problem is, yes, these folks are racking up a lot of overtime and it's a problem not only for budgetary reason, it's a problem for our personnel because especially when you're doing the kind of work that public safety is doing, in this case, it's fire. They're more prone to injuries and therefore, you know, loss of time because of that, an expense to the city from from medical costs. So we do need to find that balance. We don't want to be stretching our personnel, you know, beyond the limit. They should be stretched. And at the same time, we we want to, I'm sure, staff as cleanly as possible. And the other thing I always think about is, yes, we can add new, new members so we don't have to use so much overtime. That's a good thing. But remember, in addition to that salary is also that new employees benefits. And then, you know, we've wrestled with this whole issue of health care for our current employees. Retirement costs, retirement costs, I mean, health care costs after they've retired and, you know, all the other expenses. So it's there's a lot to be considered, but yeah, a fair discussion to have. And at some point we should look at that.
Speaker 1: Remember Audi.
Speaker 6: But if the safer grant comes through, then that's really not an issue, though this budget. If the safer grant is there, funds the staffing levels that Iris asked for?
Speaker 2: That's correct. I don't know how long the save for Grant is good for. Is that one year to year. Two years. So, yes, it eliminates the issue for two years.
Speaker 6: So, I mean, I'm not sure the value of looking at it if the safer grant is awarded. But, you know, if it's not awarded, then, you know, we do have something we need to look at.
Speaker 1: And you clarify, I thought you said that that would deal with half a million of the anticipated 1.1 million.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: So just 600,000 was never going to address Korea. You're never going to not address the entirety?
Speaker 2: Well, you're never going to eliminate over time 100%. I mean, that's the nature of of of their I mean, they have the most number of staff. They have one roughly 100 each. You're always going to have some amount of overtime, so you're never going to get it to zero.
Speaker 1: So I think we should be looking at everything is there. So we had two council members that spoke to that at this point and I was once pictured now just a vice mayor.
Speaker 4: Just a couple of things on the Safer grant. Part of it. We should be looking at what happens if we don't get it and if we do get it, we still have to plan for what happens when it disappears at some point. Because it will. So we're just postponing that. And I think looking at the nature of the calls. Mostly being medical. How do we evolve the system in the practice to match with the service that has to be delivered today? And are there some things that traditionally have been in the service that may be handled by another department and or another function of the city? Hazmat type work is is one that comes to mind that might be spread apart. And we can look at other models. I know Sunnyvale and Rohnert Park have cross-training between police and fire, and I think those were brought up a few years ago. And those things we might have to look at.
Speaker 1: Another member comes at this time, you may continue. Thank you.
Speaker 2: I do also want to clarify that the current budget, as it stands right now, assumes that we do not get safer ground. So just as a just clarification point.
Speaker 4: That's a good thing is.
Speaker 6: Not.
Speaker 2: Does not not.
Speaker 6: So that's what 2 million.
Speaker 5: A little over 1 million, isn't it? It over the two years, 511,000 a year.
Speaker 2: I'm going to look to. Okay. Fire departments prior, chief.
Speaker 6: 2.2 million over two years.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. So that would basically like eliminate our 1.2. Operating deficit for the second year?
Speaker 2: I don't believe so. The amount of overtime that we've currently added because we don't have six additional firefighters was half a million dollars.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 4: So that's one of those one time revenue. So I think we need to be careful with that.
Speaker 5: They were.
Speaker 2: Correct. Grant funding. There's no way to predict that you will receive it every year. True. So. Correct. And hence why the department is hoping to get this particular grant, because it certainly would be helpful.
Speaker 6: Thanks for clarifying.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: Can we move on?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 2: So just to address a quick item here, we talked about it a little bit earlier is the use of 1516 surplus. We've talked about all the other items. But again, just to bring it up again, one type of one time source, in essence, using a fund balance that is proposed here again as what we believe was a council direction. Personnel changes. New full time equivalent positions. So what are the positions that we've added in this particular budget? I.t. I.T. director of technology and innovation, part of the city manager's budget. And it also includes the information technology coordinator. Just as a reminder, those positions are within I.T.. However, half of each of the position is funded in split, actually equally is funded by General Fund, and the other half is municipal power.
Speaker 1: Come on. I'm sorry. That was for the second position. The information box.
Speaker 2: Both positions 50% funded by General Fund. And the other 50% is funded by AMP.
Speaker 1: Okay. So that's something that I think we could add to this chart. But note this is a page here that could be added. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Community development. We're adding a management analyst, and this is specifically to support economic development. And we're also adding supervising building inspector. For base reuse. We're adding redevelopment project manager and executive assistant. For Public works. We adding a project manager to that particular position will be partially funded by air and public works.
Speaker 1: And for having that on there.
Speaker 0: Pardon me.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having that on there.
Speaker 2: Of course. And then additional positions. Public works, maintenance worker to. There are also various upgrades to the existing positions that are incorporated in the budget for all the city funds in 14, 15, 16. The cost of the upgrades is 145,000, and in 1617 it's about 187,000.
Speaker 5: And Mrdak, can you just remind us what do you mean when you say upgrades to existing positions?
Speaker 2: It's going to be an upgrade, let's say, from a a clerk level to like, say, in executive secretary type of position. Okay. Moving on to your craft.
Speaker 0: Well.
Speaker 5: All right. Um, the, um. Yeah. If I can find it. Oh, for the the i t director. The positions that you just showed us. Um. Does that include an update on the status of our electronic records management and retention program? I know I've discussed this a little bit with the city manager's office, and this was something that started in the previous administration, I want to say, back in 2013. And it's it wasn't completed before. Alex Nguyen, I think, was the assistant city manager who was handling that. Will that come under the umbrella of this new department? This new department? Okay, great. We'll look for redactions on that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay. So moving on to the capital improvement program. Over the two year period, we expect to spend about $55 million. And this particular graph presents the type of categories that we will spend a $55 million on. As you see, we have sewer, storm, water, streets, parks, pedestrian and bikes, various city facilities and some other categories. The other really included some of the very small projects that. Individually. We're quite small, so I kind of group them together. But if you need to see all the details, it really is coming from the CHP budget that's included in your budget book. So this particular table shows some of the major projects that are expected in this two year period. As you see that, I tried to group the categories and again, this is not 100% that's listed. These are the very large projects that are individually large. Some of the larger ones you see is rehab of the sewer. 11 and a half million streets, pavement management program, $10 million. And again, this is city wide and its variety of various funding sources that's included, including Measure B-BBEE grants that department gets and a variety of other contributions.
Speaker 1: You clarify with an emergency water supply fall under something like this. But it.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 4: Emergency water supply. Bob Hahn, Public Works director, has traditionally been under the fire department purview. So if you're talking about emergency water supply for if the water system goes down with the estuary crossings, saltwater pumps, etc., that have been discussed, that's basically a fire department program, not a public works program.
Speaker 1: Okay. And that would come out. Traditionally, that comes out of the fire department budget.
Speaker 4: That's correct. That would if it ever happened.
Speaker 1: Okay. So historically, it has not happened in this city because we don't have it, right?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. So if we wanted to start something like that, we would we would be looking at the fire department budget to fund that the emergency water supply.
Speaker 4: It's my understanding that's a parking lot issue.
Speaker 2: That a lot of people have that on the list.
Speaker 1: Right. But it doesn't come out of capital improvement. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Yeah, in just for clarification, in in Madumere, you were talking about emergency water to fight fires when you were talking about the pumps. And so, I mean, it is it may be an overstatement to say we don't have that supply, because if I understand correctly, we have a fire boat that has capability of pumping water from the bay, from the estuary. So, I mean, we have we don't have the kinds of pumps, portable pumps you may be speaking about. But to say we have no emergency water supply, I think might be an overstatement.
Speaker 2: Is it? Well, I think Chief Long wants to talk about this. I think what we talk I think last I heard.
Speaker 5: Was that may be too strong a term, but it.
Speaker 2: Was. Trucks being able to pump out of, you know, from the fire boat into water tanks. But we don't have water tanks.
Speaker 4: We don't currently have water tanks. We actually started training today using the fire boat and supplying a fire engine on land. We were successful at that. We need to find out just exactly how far we can pump into town. But using the fire. But we won't be able to reach the entire town. So we'll need to come up with some sort of alternative system and we'll be forming a committee to research that. We'll bring something back to the council.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Can can we just get a timeframe on this? Because I know it's been it's been raised a number of times, sir. When when would you anticipate either of you this warmer damage, if long?
Speaker 2: But you're talking about. Sure. About what I was just talking about.
Speaker 5: You know, report back about ways the city is going to explore addressing emergency water supply in an emergency in a disaster.
Speaker 4: Situation for months.
Speaker 2: Four months.
Speaker 4: We have recently researched some of the different types of systems that are out there. We need to research how each of the different, different ones we could deploy effectively in the city and then weigh each of those as far as cost.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And I'm not trying to arrest you with an answer, but just just to get an idea, because I know the topic does come up. And so it would be nice if you all could look to then getting something on our agenda.
Speaker 4: For 20 years.
Speaker 5: From now.
Speaker 4: And we wanted to involve the community in this in this project also. So it's a matter of putting a community together and getting getting started.
Speaker 1: My question really started in regards to does it fall under this capital improvement program? I didn't know that it would come out of the fire department budget for this. Not actually sure.
Speaker 2: No, it would not. I mean, yeah, yeah. That's a parking lot issue. I mean, the parking lot issues, essentially, just so we can talk about it really quickly, is you have, you know, in your general fund, you have roughly, you know, you're looking at 38% right above your reserve level. So you have a delta there, which I think we decided is about $15 million. And give or take a little bit depending on whether you want to do 20 or 25%. And so what do you do with that money? And that's what the parking lot is. We have a list. And when we're done, we'll we'll talk about that, what's on that list and then how we're going to bring that list back to you. Right.
Speaker 1: And before we continue at 1030, we need a motion to consider the remaining item, which is for be appropriation limit, which should only take a few minutes. As my.
Speaker 0: Understand.
Speaker 2: That's a very, very short item.
Speaker 1: And that requires four votes. Do we have a motion to do that.
Speaker 0: Move.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 1: All those in favor.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Oppose abstentions. It carries unanimously. Thank you. Right now. Member de sa.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. On capital improvements, I just want to make sure to say what we have before us are a whole list of capital improvement items. At the last council meeting when we were going over the budget, I had inquired about the distribution of certain capital improvement projects across the city of Alameda because speaking bluntly, I think . Speaking bluntly, I think a lot of West Centers sometimes feel they're shortchanged. But the reality, though, in terms of the data that was presented by city staff, when you look at the fiscal year, just one fiscal year alone, in eyeballing the maps that were prepared, for example, for sidewalk repair, it looks pretty evenly distributed with a slight nudge towards central Alameda, but it looks pretty evenly distributed. And that's when it comes to sidewalk repair for fiscal year 2014, 2015. You know, previous years, other years, I don't know. But I think going forward, maybe this is one thing that council said, you know, make sure to regularly ask so that we're gathering this this type of information and making it publicly available so that so that authorities don't become. Other than stories. Likewise for Age of Pavement. When you look at the ages of the streets, we're looking at, for example, streets that are. Younger than, I think, five years or anything. My eyes are combat street streets that are 6 to 10 years and the streets that are 11 to 15 years and etc., etc.. When it comes to the ages of our pavement, you know, the new streets seem to be pretty well distributed relative to across the different parts of Alameda, West and central and East End. So again, there, you know, it's good to gather this kind of information and perhaps making it a part of the ongoing community improvement project discussion. So I just want to also say thank you very much to Public Works director Bob Hahn and to Public Works staff member Liam. Them calling for.
Speaker 5: Mr. King to be here to.
Speaker 3: Know, for generating the information. Very much appreciated.
Speaker 6: Ben Brody And just to follow up on that, I mean, and in this book, you know, there's a big part of the city that's not even on this map. So we also need to take care of the West and we also need to make sure that we take care of Bay Farm Island.
Speaker 2: Know that.
Speaker 6: It'll always be in every map.
Speaker 0: There on my maps. Okay. Moving along.
Speaker 2: Okay. So the next step we are asking or the staff is asking you to adopt a resolution approving the operating in the capital budget for fiscal years 15, 16 and 16, 17. And there is a second resolution. We're asking you to adopt a resolution for the successor agency. And again, for two fiscal years, 15, 16 and 16, 17. That concludes my presentation. And if you have any more questions, I'm here to answer them as well as all the department directors.
Speaker 1: So we do have two speakers on this. Member Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mary Spencer. I think I just have to, um. Thanks, Mr.. For the nice presentation. I'm looking again at the the budget transmittal letter and on page eight of 11, there's the section on base reuse. And these are bullet points. This is what the, the objectives of our different departments are for these next couple fiscal years. And so for base reuse the, you know, facilitate the transfer use and development of formal federal lands by effectively implementing planning and contractual development, etc.. The last bullet is facilitate state legislation to restore tax increment funds to former military properties. And I was just wondering, what does that mean? Well, I mean, who's who's facilitating? Is this our lobbyist in Sacramento or maybe. Well, state legislation implies Sacramento. Mr..
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers Jennifer Ott Chief Operating Officer for a point. So we do have a state lobbyist that we.
Speaker 6: Coordinate with the city manager's.
Speaker 0: Office and are working towards right now, not actively, because there have been some infrastructure financing bills that have been passed.
Speaker 6: Recently.
Speaker 0: But there's something we're kind of watching on an ongoing basis to see if there might be other infrastructure financing tools available to help finance our $600 million.
Speaker 4: Infrastructure.
Speaker 0: Tab at Alameda Point. So it's just kind of an ongoing thing, just watching the bills that are going on, making sure we're lending our support, working with our lobbyists, identify ways to possibly improve those those bills and to help.
Speaker 6: The to help the city.
Speaker 0: But also mainly the base.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I imagine we'd be keeping in close touch with our elected assembly member, whom I have some contacts in. Who's was them? Yeah, I forget his name. Assemblymember Bonta. And then I guess our state senator, too?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Especially if there were something very.
Speaker 6: Immediate, a bill that we're actively.
Speaker 0: Pursuing, then we would be working very closely with those members.
Speaker 5: Okay. Well, that sounds good. Thank you for doing that. And I guess.
Speaker 4: Maybe just just one clarification. The state infrastructure bills that have passed are of no use to us. Correct?
Speaker 0: I know. Might be a strong word, but there.
Speaker 4: In practical terms, is that correct? Yes. There's two state infrastructure bills that were passed are effectively of no use to us because they they're impractical to bond against. Correct. Yeah. Well, it's it's the fact that.
Speaker 0: Before under redevelopment, it would redirect about 80% on average of the 1% tax dollar. Under these bills, it's really just the city's funds, which is about 26%. And so that is you know, that's a lot. And I don't mean to say that that's not.
Speaker 6: But what.
Speaker 0: Without that other money and then you have to mitigate the impacts to the general fund, because our basically means is redirecting property tax funds away from.
Speaker 6: The general fund towards.
Speaker 0: Infrastructure financing, which may make sense.
Speaker 6: If you can mitigate it with some other way. But when you mitigate.
Speaker 0: It, then you're reducing your ability to fund infrastructure through a special tax. So it ends up almost being a wash and not making sense without having that additional tax money from the other taxing entities.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: So I have a question in regards to the parking lot issues. Will we be asked to approve the budget without addressing the issues in the parking lot?
Speaker 2: Yes. I mean, I think because you're your parking lot issues. Are looking at your reserves. Right. So your annual budget, what we're asking you to do is approve two years worth of annual budget. Your parking lot issues are sort of below the line. These are all your reserves, which you have and you continue to have. So you can you could do that at any time. You can address those. I mean, I think you should we should address them sooner rather than later. But these parking lot issues don't really affect your budget.
Speaker 1: However, they could, if you cut something else to fund something in the parking lot issue or not, all the parking lot issues are one time.
Speaker 2: So, I mean, if you're looking at cutting other things, I mean, hopefully you we would have already had that conversation. Right. I mean, that's what the conversation was. The last time was if you're looking to cut things, that's we asked you to do that last time. The parking lot, really? I mean, we have a laundry list. You know what we were thinking that parking lot was you have a you know, you have.
Speaker 1: So, for instance, I've asked about looking at part time employees and we haven't had that discussion and that would be ongoing. And I'm not sure how that how we would fund that out of just the reserves. I don't think you would. I think that that would.
Speaker 2: Oh, you're you're absolutely right. We are not prepared to have that conversation right now about how much it would cost to fund all of our part time employees with full benefits.
Speaker 1: So I actually didn't say, oh, I've been waiting to have that conversation. And some measure other than just having it parked in the parking lot before and I don't know what other items, there's not a page here that specifies everything that's been in our parking lot, but there may very well be other items on the parking lot that would be considered ongoing.
Speaker 5: If I.
Speaker 1: Remember.
Speaker 5: Along those lines, I think that's a really meaty question that is going to take some staff time to do that analysis. And one of the things that and right now what's before us is trying to pass this two year, two fiscal year budget. We I mean, and that isn't going to be part of it. I just I don't realistically see how it could be, but it's definitely, you know, something you've asked to have looked into. One of the things that I've mentioned to to the interim city manager, when when we've managed and she meets with all of us on a regular basis, is I would like to see sometime after we get past the budget, after our summer recess, our August recess, to have a priority setting workshop for the city council, because I think we all have a lot of great ideas and innovative things we'd like staff to look at. But we and I appreciate that that staff, especially Mr. Modum, are keeping this this running list, this parking lot. But there's also only so many hours in a day and some items might take precedence over others. And that, of course, is a council decision, but a council decision with staff input and I think community input too. So right now I'm content to know that these items are out there on a parking lot. I want to see a site and I, you know, applaud the folks who have worked so hard and all the departments because we saw your presentations over the last couple of months. But I think the next step then moving forward is how are we going to look at this in a course? It can all happen at once. So we'll hopefully we can do this some sort of priority setting process and figure out what will be addressed and when.
Speaker 1: So can you go over what's in your parking lot?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. So we have and this is a no.
Speaker 1: Right? So there's.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Prioritization things out.
Speaker 2: There, just things that you have on your list. The all the buildings at Alameda Point. So those are buildings that we know are falling down. And and. I'm not going to address how we think we're going to address it just yet, but I'll just go through the list. Price smoothing. OPEB for an OPEB trust for current retirees. Building maintenance. Emergency water supply. Part time employees going to being fully benefited.
Speaker 1: I'd say some benefits, some discussion about our part time employees.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, we have to have the full information. We can't do we can't just we can't just run the numbers for some employees and not others, an issue that's very near and dear to my heart, which I'm not sure you all agree, but abandoned vessels in the estuary. And then I just heard, you know, staffing and public safety. But obviously that's a much longer conversation. I'm not even sure that belongs in the parking lot, but that's I just took a note on that. So that's what I have in the parking lot right now. I have smaller items that we I'm not putting on the list. For example, the CD-ROMs in the library, we're going to do that. That's not going on a parking lot. Those kinds of things that are sort of small. But that's what I have right now. And if if I've missed something, I'm completely open to adding to it.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: I don't think we ever voted on this.
Speaker 2: No, that's.
Speaker 4: Correct. We just heard.
Speaker 2: Through them out and I caught them. Yeah.
Speaker 4: And and I think we should probably agenda this, this list for consideration and then have the council give direction out of that and the public can have input into that and also help guide some of the prioritization. But I think to to act on any of those tonight is is not appropriate. But what is appropriate is to have the discussion that Councilmember de SA reminded us of is do we restrict some of the the general fund night as part of this budget, the general fund balance.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: So and I'd like to advocate for that because I think that some of that money. And you mentioned 14, $15 million. Some of that money should go to things, things, physical things that we have not fixed because we had no money. And that's part of the way we built this this this surplus over the years. I'm not just talking about the last few years. I'm talking about over time. And to look at some of those unfunded issues that we know we're going to have to pay in the future. And I'd like to be to follow council policy and. Have counsel restrict everything over 20%. And then that way we can talk about the parking lot. We can talk about things that we've deferred. And make the investment. And because we have the money now. Those moneys should not be used for operations. And I know it as we're going to go through and manage this budget. It's going to be frugal. And I know the projections are extremely conservative, so I don't think we have an inordinate risk of failing to operate the city by doing so. That's what I'd like to do, but I think we have a couple of speakers I'd like yes, I'd like to hear.
Speaker 1: Too. Council member Ashcroft.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I was just going to finish my questions, which and this is the last one on.
Speaker 0: It's not a letter.
Speaker 5: All right. We have the disappearing notes. Okay. On the again in the transmittal letter. And there's a discussion that adopting a two year budget saves staff time, which is great, and then it can free up staff for doing other things. And the example was that many jurisdictions use the time saved to develop more robust strategic planning efforts, including additional engagement with the public. And I my question was, I would like to see a more participatory public process next time we do our two year budget. And may I quickly hasten to add that given everything that transpired in an interim city manager taking over for a departing city manager and, you know, and and departing assistant city manager, I think it's very impressive all that's been accomplished. But I know a number of us have seen, for example, some things that the city of Walnut Creek has done, some publications and that were an outgrowth of some workshops. I get that Walnut Creek has more money than we do, I think. But although we heard from them the other night, they still have their challenges. But anyway, my question was, and just something to think about and to get back to is I guess, but how do the interim city manager and finance directors see this.
Speaker 0: More.
Speaker 5: Participatory public process happening in the future?
Speaker 2: So I think it's a great idea. I mean, I think don't forget in there, there was also a transition of finance director.
Speaker 5: There was indeed, yes.
Speaker 2: Which is probably more important than city manager or assistant saving, in my opinion. No, I think that's a that's a great point. I think we you know, we can take the show on the road. I would hope that we would have better participation than, let's say, for the performance measures. We don't often get a lot of people very excited about this. Well, but I we are totally open to suggestions.
Speaker 5: Right. And so as not to reinvent the wheel at a League of California Cities meeting probably a year ago in the fall, almost a year ago now, some of the folks from Walnut Creek who did what they did came and spoke to us about how it was done. And it was I mean, it sounded like it was pretty exciting and engaging. And and I think we can do that here, you know, so it's just, you know, might as well find out what other people did. And and since Walnut Creek is copying us on, you know, some things in their business parts, we can we can learn from them, too, and from other cities as well. Thank you. That's all for me. Thanks.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to go ahead and call our public speakers, Ken Petersen and then Rob Rato.
Speaker 2: Mr. Peterson isn't here.
Speaker 1: All right, Rob Rando. Come on up. And those are the only speakers I have for this item.
Speaker 4: Okay. Hi, Rob. Writer, executive director of the Park Street Business Association, soon to be the downtown Alameda Business Association. Don't worry, the invitations will someday be in the mail. But that's another issue. Listen, I get to do a fun thing tonight. I get to do something that the five of you do not hear very often? And the rest of the third floor does it here very often. I'm here to commend you. For showing the leadership that you're showing this evening in terms of the two year budget and not requiring cuts in that second year, taking a little bit of that reserve to pay for the. Deficit and then coming back in two years, one year, whenever you're going to start the next two year process and assess it is one of the fun things in my job is I get to speak and talk to a lot of people that are way smarter than I am. I know, Tony, it doesn't take a lot, but that's okay. And most of those people have assured me and have the opinion that. This town's doing pretty darn well now. And I think that at the end of your 1516 budget, you're going to see a significant jump in your income. And we understand you would be silly and you would not be doing the job you should be doing if you made that kind of projection at this point. But we think that at the end of that first year alone, you're going to see a significant increase in the revenue. And certainly at the end of 1617, you're going to see even a bigger jump. And then the council can then and staff can then make the appropriate adjustments in the next two year budget. So God bless you and you're doing a good job. Okay. And thank you very much, because God knows you guys get enough hammering, you know, in the in the in those wonderful newspapers of ours and those blogs. And, you know, everything on the blog is true. It's got to be because it's on the blog. Right. Which leads me to one thing off the item, because I've now thank you and God bless you and keep up the good work. Mr. Horn does not me need me to defend him because he needs no defending, but I'm going to support him because some of us went through a process about ten years ago for that building over on Central Avenue, and some of the things that we got called on the blogs and in that, you know, and in the in the papers. And I just hope and I know all of you folks and I know most of these folks because it's mostly staff sitting behind me. You know, they're the blogs and everybody's happy. You know, everybody's got a nose and an opinion, even if it's right. And I have been working with Mr. Horn since back in the library days and him dealing with poor Dwayne Watson because he broke one of his windows and he has done an exemplary job for this city. And, you know, again, people are certainly entitled to their opinion, but as Councilmember Ashcraft said, there's no reason to get nasty about it. So thank you all. Thank you all the staff for making a two year budget that's going to work for the city. And let's get some more revenue going.
Speaker 1: Thank you. In the other, we don't have any other speaker slips. Any other comments from Council member de Sok?
Speaker 3: Oh, yeah. Thank you very much. I think, you know, we've gone through a lengthy budget process. It was very informative. I know all the public was gripped by the information that was presented and are very excited about how we're moving our city forward. I appreciate the work of all the department heads and their assistants, but also I want to especially say thank you to Finance Director Mas Adair for her job, especially coming so recently to the city of Alameda. So thank you very much. I also thank you very much to the interim city manager and the previous city manager and his team. John Russo, interim city manager as well as former Denver for getting us here. You know, when we went through our issues on how to close a 1.4 they the $1.3 million so deficit city staff came up with the 1.4% across the board cuts. And as a council, we raised concerns and how might we address it? I appreciate that staff looked into it and figured out, okay, we can figure, we can deal with maintaining the fires. The ambulance service on Harbor Bay Bay Farm. I think that's important. But for me, more importantly is figuring out a way to maintain the resource officers that our police a largely because you know residents advocated for that while we can't we're not Santa Claus and we can't promise everything. It says something when people take the time to come out to meetings like the budget meetings, or when people take the time to write, you know, thoughtful pieces in our local newspapers about the importance of. And so to the extent that we able to reasonably accommodate those needs, I hope it shows that this city hall is one with its doors wide open on all issues, including the budget. So so I am happy with the budget process that we went through. I think we all know that, that where we have a structural deficit, I don't think we're on our every day jumping up and down and saying we've got a, you know, 30% fund balance. You know, we're so far ahead of, you know, what our policy is. I think we're we're reasonable in our assessment of how to treat that. So but I think as as as citizen Rob Boratto had indicated, you know, we are making some reasonable buy downs into the general fund balance to pay to close that the gap that is warming em had identified previously so that we can continue to have the swimming pool maintenance people so we can continue to have the ambulance service operating so we can continue to have the resource officers, among other things. But all this means, though, is that on the revenue side of things, we're going to continue to have to be, you know, proactive to to grow more revenue so that we can shrink that structural deficit that we all know that's there. So let me say this much, though, because one of the questions that interim city manager Wareham Adam had raised is the possibility of pursuing the utility user tax. You know, as part of this budget process, one of the things I really wanted to stress in from my perspective is having a budget that's there for for youth and and the seniors of the town. And to me, that's why it's important of the Parks and Rec budget. And, you know, I think there is some good news. I mean, the proposed budget for Parks and Rec for the year. While 13 the All Funds Park and Rec budget was $1.3 million. Now, I don't kind of like the all funds budget because I think there is also the there's also some golf money in there. So I kind of controlled it and so I took out the golf money. So if you look at the all all funds, park and rec without the golf assets, you had $6.4 million that was proposed. And and to 1213. So four years later now three years later, we're looking at $7.1 million for the All Funds Park and Rec, excluding golf for 15, 16 and 7.1 again for 1617. So over a four year period, you're looking at a growth of of $700,000 in the park and rec funds, which it represents over that time period of 10.4% increase. Now to me, that's good news as it means that we're trending in the right direction. But I also want to raise that because in looking at each of the what I did was I looked at the the proposed budgets for 11, 12, 12, 13, 13, 14, 14, 15, and the proposed budgets for 15, 16, 16, 17. Well, the budget that we have before us, in looking at each of the budgets, you know what you see when you look at the rate of growth for public safety. And let me be clear for it, the chief of our chief and the police chief and also the men and women who work for him. You know, what you guys do, obviously, is is so critical to our city or our well-being. But the reality, though, is that the rate of growth over that same four year period, it was 20.6% for public safety combined. So that's double the rate of growth of of Parks and Rec, excluding golf courses. By the way, you don't want to include golf courses because if you included golf courses, actually the numbers go down. So. So anyways, you know. So the point, though, is there. So if we're going to pursue the utility user tax as one way to to achieve a more structural to to to move towards a more structural budget. I'm not saying that, you know, we're going to specify what the utility user tax is right now. But I would say, though, that, you know. Ah, for me too. To support a utility user tax. That's not. Ending towards. Youth or even our libraries. Because the fact of the matter is, and I mean this with all respect, the public safety is well taken care of. But our Parks and Rec budget, while it is growing, it is good. I mean, the rate of growth could could be better. So that's my my response to you on the leap. Now, what that means, though, is that if we have a targeted utility, that actually means gets a 66% threshold. Okay, I get it. But I think the public get that, too. So let me end by saying this. I think staff has done a yeoman's job in terms of putting together the budget, educating the public on the issues, getting out information, addressing the questions and concerns raised by council members. And and we know that we still have a lot more challenges ahead of us. But I think we're we're we're heading in with the wind behind us as opposed to the headwinds against us.
Speaker 1: And Brody.
Speaker 6: Think you met Amir? I had. Question. And then I kind of wanted to go into my remarks if that works for everyone. So through the chair to the Vice Mayor, what was what is your proposal on restricting the fund balance? And we have a little more discussion on that or. Did you have, like a number in mind or.
Speaker 4: A 20%.
Speaker 5: It is that with your motion?
Speaker 1: So what does that really mean? Would that money be set aside and some other fund know?
Speaker 2: So what that does is you have an available fund balance and then you have restricted fund balance and your ability fund balance is what you have seen here. So in 1415, you're available ending available fund balances close to $30 million. And what what Vice Mayor Maharishi is saying is that he wants to say any amount that is above the 20% reserve would become restricted, and that's restricted in the general fund. So all that really means is it's not. It means that we would have to come back any time we wanted to spend it and any time we want to spend money, any way we have to come back. But this is just another layer of of control that it's restricted. And if we wanted to spend it, we'd have to come back and actually designate, you know, what we would be using that money for.
Speaker 4: Very similar to the money that was used seed the.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Exactly. We did it.
Speaker 4: At $3 million. Doesn't is general fund restricted that's on top of the 29 million that we're starting this budget with, correct?
Speaker 2: That's right. Mm hmm. Did you want. Yes. I just wanted to add, though, the $3 million was restricted for a specific purpose. So when you were actually considering restricting this additional funds above the 20%. If you just say, Well, I just want to restricted without really specifying it for anything else, it's almost like, well, it's available because you're going to spend it on whatever you're going to say. You're going to spend it eventually. You didn't really actually restricted to anything. You know what I mean? So you're just saying. Yes. And Ms.. Warmington was right, saying that any time we want to use any of the money out of fund balance, we have to come back to council and ask for ability to use it if it's above and beyond what's already in the budget. So it's not something that the staff can just come in and say, Well, we're just going to take it and go with it. So it has to come back to you anyway. So I just wanted to warn you in terms of saying what we want to restricted, because I don't think we are quite ready yet, from what I'm hearing, to say this is where we want to apply the particular funding and how much. But just by globally saying, well, let's just set it aside, it's just equivalent to it sitting where it is right now. There's no really you're not really placing in your restriction on it.
Speaker 4: Because I haven't stated. But my my point.
Speaker 6: Is, we're going to do that. Is your plan to do that today or.
Speaker 4: That was my plan.
Speaker 6: Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: Hmm. I want to do that. Can we have that discussion now, then? I'm ready to try to make other comments that you want to make.
Speaker 6: I do have other comments, but.
Speaker 4: I really want to answer.
Speaker 6: I mean, I was you brought this up.
Speaker 1: So we're going to go ahead and do our 11:00 motion of any three to go beyond 11:00 and happens to be 1104. We have a motion.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Better make.
Speaker 4: Move.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 1: All those in favor I. That motion unanimously passes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank.
Speaker 6: I mean, through the chair again, I was. I like the idea. I think the minutes show that I was very enthusiastic about the idea. Like the idea. I just want to be clear on what it is that we can do today and what what we have to wait until a future meeting and then, you know what the mechanics are. So we're going to bring this this 29.6 down to a number that equates to 36% and say that that amount of money set aside. And then, I mean, is is your proposal to dedicate that today to something or I can save my comments to later if you want to have this discussion now, if you'd prefer
Speaker 4: . Just have it. If I what my position is, is that I'd like to have this council consider restricting everything above 20% of the current general fund balance and apply it to those capital. I hate to use the word project, but those capital needs that have been deferred, deferred maintenance on parks, on buildings, on streets, on sidewalks. On our sewer system. Or to fund other capital assets. And I'm thinking the biggest example is the oft discussed saltwater pumps. These are nonoperational. Expenditures, only capital expenditures.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 1: Mary Church Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 5: I think those are all worthy ideas to consider, but not tonight because I feel like we're. So I'm just looking at. What was noticed in were approving and adopting the operating and capital budget for fiscal the next two fiscal years. I would like some input from staff. I know we heard when we had the presentation, I think at the last meeting about the consultant the public works has retained to look at all of our properties and come back to us with a report on a triage list, if you will, and, you know, with direction on what to address first. I mean, I would I would love to step up addressing that. I think the pumps are something interesting to consider. I'm also mindful of the fact that in at least one neighboring jurisdiction, Berkeley, they did that by a vote of the public because it's pretty sizable. I, I don't feel that I would be in a position to vote to do something so specific tonight, because I don't think we or the the public have the information to to base an informed decision on that.
Speaker 1: A member of the SAG.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess my issue is that I'm not quite getting it, because the whole point of the budget process, including the CHP process, is to identify. And we went through a lengthy process to identify what are our community improvement needs a for it for and how we're going to budget towards it. Now. Parallel to that, we know that we've got this large needs, whether it's for streets, sidewalks or whatever, because of deferred maintenance and how that happens. So let's just say hypothetically, let's just say hypothetically that, you know, we spend $5 million on streets improving our streets this year. And on every year we spend $5 million. Let's say hypothetically, we should be spending $7 million. So really, the delta that we should be doing is $2 million. Well, then why create? An account that that special specifies that were at a park that $2 million a how to treat it if you want to spend it spend it in that year you know, make that budgetary decision or not. The way I look at a budget the. You know, unbalances, you know, is just this thing that that happened because of this, you know, turnover and certain properties. And it's a certain windfall that that we got. And we got several of them to the extent that now it's. $29.6 million. That's a lot of money, but. A portion of that can just it can easily be the next year, you know, $25.8 million or or or something even south of that. I mean, things change really quickly. So I don't know. I just think that the budgeting process that we have in place to deal with current needs as well as long term unfunded needs. That's why we've got the process. And you make the decision, then you don't you don't have to create, you know, this route Rube Goldberg mechanism on accounting certain dollars aside make the decision I think council members were the deciders.
Speaker 1: So a concern of mine is we have a parking lot and I thought that we were going to be looking at the reserves to fund the parking lot. And not all of those items are capital improvements. And if in fact, that's what we're going to be limited to, because if that's the if that's what I'm hearing, then I have a concern supporting this budget because honestly, I wanted to be able to look at the parking lot items in it. And it sounds like if it's not a capital improvement, we're not going to be looking at it. Well, that's a concern of mine, right?
Speaker 2: I think I think. It's just a best practice. If you if you have one time money, which arguably this is, although some of it may not be. But I would say majority is you want to spend it on one time things and that's just a best practice. So I mean that's.
Speaker 1: So the parking lot then there were some items on there, for instance, abandoned vessels and etc.. Would you anticipate that that's a one time item or that's something that happens periodically?
Speaker 2: It happens periodically, but it's not a it's not a you know, it's I think the the number was $10,000 per, you know, and so it's you know, we were we were thinking about putting aside, let's say, $50,000 a year for the next two years. It's not a lot of money. But just in the event that we have a bat and boats that we want to haul out of the estuary.
Speaker 1: Okay. And other items were OPEB trust purse smoothing. Those are not capital expenses. Correct.
Speaker 2: No, no. The OPEB for retirees, though, would could be considered one time. So not necessarily capital, but it could be considered a one time deposit into a trust, for example. And the first smoothing is kind of a hybrid. I mean, we kind of think that that is sort of a it's a discrete. Period of time, it's going to last for you know, it's going to last for five years. I mean, that's what Perse is telling us. So we know that is not going to continue to increase. So that's you know, one could argue that that is one time ish in maybe in nature.
Speaker 1: So that's not the definition I heard, though, of what to do. Right. Right. Capital needs deferred and other capital assets versus one time, which I think is a different I know it's a different definition, remember.
Speaker 5: And I think you're right, Mary Spencer. And I think this also perhaps points to the fact that tonight, right now is not the time to decide that. I think what was said earlier applies to all of these proposals. Let's bring them back. They they have not come before the council and the public fully for consideration.
Speaker 2: Right. The other issue there and thank you for raising it, is the reason. One of the reasons why we need the time to do the analysis is because some of the things that we're talking about, there are other ways that we can fund them. For example, Al made a point, we've already talked with Ms. that about using some of their money to take care of those buildings. If we have other funds to take care of some of these issues, I would highly recommend you not using the general fund money. Streets and sidewalks, for example. Now we may actually do that. However, we just had b b pass. We need to look at that. We need to see how much do we think we're going to actually be getting over time. And is that the best source, you know, best use of those funds? We have not had that opportunity to do that. We need to take a look at that and come back to you and say, you know, these are your parking lot items. This is how we recommend that you fund them and we're not prepared to do that.
Speaker 1: But some of them could very well be funded from these reserves.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Well, absolutely.
Speaker 1: And and then a motion limiting that could preclude. That could preclude if we're using it for specific.
Speaker 4: But I think that the point is I think the point is to. Not to put an intention not to use these reserves over and above the 20% for operations. That's the first point. Right. Because we have to at some point, we have to live within our means or day to day operations. We have to look at with our best guess. Our best estimation, I guess, is best estimation of what our day to day revenues are. So I'd like to cut out all of. As much as I can. The the revenues that have been gathered on one time events, and I think that's important to do. And then applying these on a priority basis to I'm not going to say one time expenditures, but those long term capital expenditures that cities do once in a lifetime. And we've deferred a lot of those. And I think that's broad enough to capture this. And if people want to say it's 25% or they'll look at those unfunded liabilities that we have with regard to Purves. And with regard to OPEB. That's a discussion that we can have. But I think we have to separate those things out from what is our operating general fund reserve. And I think the sooner to do that, do we do that, the better. Then we can talk about the specifics of the parking lot issues or the other needs that are on the public works list. The other improvements that we've delayed, city replacement of the pools, graphene fields that are in wretched shape. There's all sorts of things that we need to look at. And the list is long, right?
Speaker 1: I remember the member de Saag.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So. Listening to the conversation. If we just can say we want to say anything over 20 or 25%, which might be a little more conservative, we're going to set aside and then have a discussion at a later meeting, hopefully soon, and then addressed what we're going to do with that. You know, whether it's, you know, over 25 or whether it's over 20, you know, looking at the at the 1920 projection of 19% reserves, I mean, I'd be more comfortable with a 25 number. But if, you know, the council thinks 20 is good, that's fine, too. But I do think, you know, we re maybe not getting into specifics because again, it hasn't been agenda. But I do think the concept that the vice mayor raised that, you know, we should set aside, you know, X percentage over our what we want to have in reserves and then consider ways to apply that to some of these deferred and long term or one time projects. You know, I think that that's something worth worthwhile.
Speaker 1: Remember Data.
Speaker 3: I think the way to the straightest, greatest line between two points approach to this thing is to basically say, okay, let's come up with a strategy with regard to how to treat unfunded unfunded capital improvements. The once you know what your strategy is, then you're going to have policies that are going to from which emanate how you approach that, deal with that. We're kind of doing it backwards. We're kind of saying, okay, we've got this revenue now, let's look for strategies. You know, I think let's understand what our what our wants or needs are and strategize around them and then and then fit the revenue availabilities that way. To me, that's more straightforward way to do it instead of like, okay, on that. So that's, that's my point is this is just, just these different moving parts that seem a little odd to me. It's like, okay, if, like, if it's unfunded liability, unfunded capital improvement projects, then create us. Let's create a strategy of it priorities I low, medium and then you know and then and then and then have policies with regard to the fund balance. Now on balance and then that's fine. You get my point.
Speaker 1: So for me, we were putting stuff in a parking lot. I was expecting to be able to have a conversation for every item on the parking lot, whether or not it falls under a capital expense, one time expense or whatnot, and it would be funded out of the reserves. So I would not be willing to support it attaching any of these strings, because otherwise, honestly, I don't know. I think then we needed to spend more time on the items in the parking lot if we were going to make a decision at this point not to fund them from the reserves. Remember Ashcroft?
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 5: I think if I understood member Otis proposal correctly, we're not making any specific decisions one way or the other, but just saying that we're going to set this certain amount, whatever the percentages aside, have that discussion at a later date and with agenda items. The vice mayor noted earlier that, you know, the council hadn't decided on any of the parking lot items and the same could be said for all the suggestions that were that were raised tonight. But but let's do it. And I and can I just throw in that let's give staff just a little tiny breathing room because I think they've been living and breathing budget for I don't know how long, but, you know, months on end now. So I don't expect this to come back. I'm speaking for myself, but please consider this my colleagues that gosh, even before the August recess, because it seems like we've got pretty full agendas coming up. But but, you know, I'd like to hear from staff if you know how, how and when, because I do like a timeline. I don't like things to just be open ended. I will get back to you. But what what do you think is realistic and in what form would you anticipate bringing this back to us more, Madame?
Speaker 2: Well, I think, you know, we could absolutely do a more thorough job if we could bring it back in the first meeting in September. I know that's a long way away. I think, you know, if you ask us to bring it back at the end of July, it's going to be a much more. Cursory review and maybe not as fleshed out. So I understand there's a balance between you want to you know, you want to get this done quickly and you don't want that money sort of hanging around and, you know, the the temptation to spend it. So, I mean, I think obviously we would prefer the extra time to do the analysis.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like we're being asked to set aside. I'd like to focus on this one issue before we move on. There was the issue already raised and we've had several speakers, I mean, vice mayor and now member already. If we're setting aside a certain amount, this is a proposal that we would set it aside for certain things such as one time expenses or or just, if I heard correctly. Number two, use that, just set it aside and you open in regards to what percentage?
Speaker 6: I'm kind of open to the you know, now that I heard Councilmember Discogs suggestion that, you know, maybe we come up with a strategy and if giving you until September, you know, helps that maybe we come up with a strategy on, you know, capital improvements come with the strategy and unfunded liabilities and then, you know, that mean . I think we should at least come up tonight with a number saying, you know, we want to set aside, you know, X dollars above either 20 or 25% as of the end of the school year 1617. And then, you know, we give staff direction to come up, come back with these strategies because, you know, now that I hear that, you know, it does kind of sound like we're putting the cart before the horse.
Speaker 1: So look at this.
Speaker 0: And I, you.
Speaker 1: Know, remember. Okay, hold on just a minute. We had it. Mr. De, you spoke to this and you made your response was, unless you're going to set it aside for something, you don't need to set it aside.
Speaker 2: Well, I think what you can do this is what I would suggest you do. I would recommend anything above 25%. 25% is one quarter's worth of our expenditures. So what? You just give us direction and say anything. You know, set your 25% target in 16, 17 and anything above that staff come back to us at September and give us your recommendation on how you think what would be the best way of allocating those funds. And, you know, we can give you we can give you our recommendations after looking at all the needs that we have, knowing where the other funding sources are coming from, and provide you with that those suggestions.
Speaker 1: So why would that need to be done now as opposed to in September when you come back, when you're showing a side? Well, all.
Speaker 2: You're doing is providing a direction of that. You want to set your reserves at 25%.
Speaker 1: But I haven't looked at the items yet. So it's an arbitrary number.
Speaker 2: You're not does have a policy for anything. You currently have a policy of setting your reserves at 20%. That is a council policy that that's what we've always tried to strive for. We in the past couple of years have suggested 25% because of the recession and because 25% is actually a quarter one quarter's worth of expenditures.
Speaker 1: But when this comes back, we could very well say at higher or lower that we're not committed to that.
Speaker 2: You're never committed to that.
Speaker 1: So tonight, really, we're being asked to approve a budget. And I'm I'm not sure that it adds I would defer to Mr. Derrick's comments in regards to unless you're going to set it aside for something specifically.
Speaker 2: But we're not suggesting you restrict do that. We're not suggesting a restrict it. And that's what.
Speaker 1: Mr. Harris. Actually, I'm not. So I'm still falling back on that, I believe Member de SAC. I said that we don't need to set aside a percentage at this point. Today we were being asked to approve a budget. When it comes back, we could set aside money for something if we desire, but that we're not.
Speaker 2: Well, I.
Speaker 1: Think we need to do that.
Speaker 2: I think you want to have reserves set at a certain level. That is good practice. You don't want to just say, well, whatever it is you want to.
Speaker 1: Have tonight, we're being asked to approve a certain budget that has reserves there. That's what the question in front of us is, is not to spend all these moneys.
Speaker 2: And we're not planning on doing that. There's sort of a two step process. We're asking you to approve the budget, as is what we have presented to you. And if you want, you can do that and then we can have this conversation afterwards. Right. So we're asking you to approve this budget, as is the way it's proposed. And then after that, we're asking you to give us direction to come back and say, okay, right now in 14 or 16, 17, you have 38% in reserves and back staff. And tell us, if we allowed you to go down to 25%, how would you spend that money?
Speaker 1: So that's not actually the conversation I was thinking we were going to have. I thought at some point we were going to be looking at the parking lot, going over all the items, and then we can decide what we want to do moving forward.
Speaker 5: And and at some point we will. But the point just isn't tonight. And I would I would suggest I think we're moving cautiously. I like the 25% number. Council policy has been a 20% reserve, 25 shows that were being a little more conservative, a little more cautious. It's always good to set aside more rather than less. But there's a delta between, you know, the actual reserves that we have in that 25%. And I want to make sure that whatever is taken away with the list of the items to come back to the council, that we make sure that we address all the items the mayor is concerned about, that that comes back before the council, all the items the vice mayor is concerned about.
Speaker 1: And and everyone, we have a list.
Speaker 5: Right. So. So in.
Speaker 1: Its entirety.
Speaker 5: But and I think I think we would be acting prudently and responsibly and and then having a fuller discussion. And I also favor the beginning of September, because you stop and think about it, to rush this before the end of July, and then we go on August break. What's you know, what's the point? And let's give staff a little well-needed break as well. But anyway, that's what I think we accomplish. Everything.
Speaker 2: Yeah. One other comment. Excuse me. We did this November. I don't know if you recall, but we did this very exact same exercise in November with the prior council. We had a surplus of $11.5 million. And this is exactly what we did with them. We brought we said, here are the areas that we think that you should put these funds. We funded the equipment replacement fund. We funded technology services, compensated absences, workers comp insurance. We designated different places where we thought this money should go. So we've done this before. It's it's a prudent method. I think it's separate and aside from the budget. And I think, as Councilman Councilmember Ashcraft said, we can absolutely come back with all these items for you in September.
Speaker 1: But at this point, could we have a motion to approve the budget as. The two approve the budget and then we to give direction subsequently.
Speaker 3: Well, I'd like to move to approve the budget. That's recommendation.
Speaker 1: Right. Do we have a second?
Speaker 6: I'd second most likely to have my comment time.
Speaker 1: Richard like to make your comments.
Speaker 6: I second that so.
Speaker 1: Okay, Beth, I said you want to make some comments?
Speaker 6: Anyone else want to do. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to thank staff for all the hard work in putting this together, and I want to thank my colleagues for the discussions. I mean, they've been very enlightening and educational, and I appreciate everyone's thoughtfulness in discussing the budget. It's a two year budget. You know, I look at the budget. You know, we've done a couple of things which I think are important. You know, we started to address some of our maintenance. Our deferred maintenance started to address some of our long term liabilities. We've showed restraint, you know, and we've also started to restore, you know, some of the cuts that that we've had to suffer through in the last few years in the Great Recession. You know, I think when you look at a budget, it reflects your values, your values as a city. And I think as I vote for one, I want to make sure that it's a budget that reflects my values. And I see many things that do reflect my values. First, I just want to point out the growth in the public safety. You know, if you look at that, I think that's most entirely attributable to the smoothing and the increase in the purse costs. So, you know, nobody's, you know, making out or, you know, getting huge, you know, sources of money. You know, this is something that the state is forcing us to do and we really don't have much of a choice in it. So when we talk about the growth in public safety, let's keep that in mind. But, you know, also the person warning is out there and that is an issue we have to address long term and apparently now even longer than the five years that we anticipated. So that's something I want to keep on the parking lot and make sure we we pay attention to. But if you look at the budget overall, you know what we're doing, we're doing a budget for two years and we're balancing that budget for two years. I think that's a strong value to have. You know, we we began this year to address OPM, and I think doing that is a strong value to have. You know, we started we have money in there for Estuary Park and Jean Sweeney, open space. You know, taking care of expanding our parks is a good value to have. And we haven't cut services, you know, after the last four years to have a budget that has no cuts to services. I think that's a strong value to have. We have no cuts to public safety. So everything we do, you know, all of the values of our property, the strength of our businesses, you know, it comes down to having safe streets knowing that the police department is out there protecting our citizens and protecting our residents and our businesses properties, and that if if there is a fire or a natural disaster, an emergency, that our fire department will be right there to respond. And I think having a budget that has no cuts to public safety services, you know, that reflects my values and I think it reflects the values of of most Alameda. Now, we the staff has listened to the council and, you know, the whole discussion of one time revenues and excluding them. You know, that's a discussion we have to, you know, keep keep on going and keep going forward on. And I think that reflects our values. We've added to the library, we're adding materials to the library. We're adding hours to the library. Now, that reflects my values, and I think that reflects the values of the city. And the last two things, you know, we've restored the drastic cuts that we had to our to our IT department . And now that department can kind of catch up and we can actually be in the 21st century as far as our i.t. And I think that's critical. And we've been also prudent and judicious in the other positions that we're adding. You know, we're adding in public works and parks, base reuse, economic development. You know, we're not having a huge expansion of payroll. I think it's prudent, it's judicious, and this is where we need to do so. Again, the budget reflects our values. It reflects my values. I think it reflects the values of of the mass populace in Alameda. And I'm I'm honored to cast a vote for this budget in my my first budget approval.
Speaker 1: All right. Any other comments from the council? We have a motion to approve the budget in the second. And Raqqa.
Speaker 5: And then are we we're going to come back with consideration of what, if anything, to do on Iraq.
Speaker 1: Then there's also another budget on here we're being asked to write letters to. All right. So. I plan to support this budget. I did not support the public safety contract of the that was approved 3 to 2 by this board. When I look at the budget, I see some departments that have been seriously left behind over years. For instance, I.T., I think that this is a step into correcting other departments that have truly been left behind. And our community depends upon all of these departments. My opinion, public safety is still 70%. It's a very important part of our community. I did support the emergency operation center. I supported the new fire station. Those to me go to the safety of our community. I do want to look at staffing at some point. I am concerned about the overtime. I think that that will be addressed by filling some of these vacancies, which I think is very important, not only because then we know.
Speaker 0: What.
Speaker 1: We're, but the money is being spent on and not want to control overtime. That's an extra expense. It also goes to protecting our police officers and firefighters in regards to the number of hours that they are out there working. I think regular hours as opposed to overtime is important. And we did hear some of that earlier in regards to funding our library, things like that. The parks of that is critical. So I see this as a step in the right direction to serving the city at large, which is why I am able to support. I see this as a good compromise, but the corrects. Some of these departments have been left behind. All right. So no other comments.
Speaker 0: Of advice.
Speaker 4: There. I just want to say a couple of things. One is that I intend to support this this budget. But I also want to address a I think in an inflated general fund reserve. And I'm looking forward to that conversation of I think we've put a cap on the addition of head count, particularly where it's very needed . Although I still am wary of hiring project managers, I think they are a cost of the project. And I'd like to be very conservative to that, but I don't see support for that approach. And that is a city a city management function. I think we've had I want to emphasize that we've had years of deferred maintenance, and I'm looking at allocating one time funds to that purpose. And we cannot live on one time funds to our operation. And most of those, most of the reserves that we've built up have been on one time revenue sources. I'm really looking forward to that part of the conversation.
Speaker 1: Amber Ashcraft.
Speaker 5: So I was under the impression that the vice mayor was going to bring a motion after we voted on the budget that I was prepared to support. So. Okay. So it sounded like you were kind of saying that the the opportunity had passed. And I don't think it has at all.
Speaker 1: And I want to thank staff and the community for attending all these meetings, stepping up, really educating us, asking good questions and being part of the conversation. I really think it was a very informative budget process. All those in favor.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: Oppose abstentions passes unanimously. Thank you. Now we have. Thank you. We have another budget we're being asked to approve tonight. Do you want to separate it?
Speaker 4: We approved this other budget and so.
Speaker 1: I'd like to do the CIC. It's real quick, I think.
Speaker 5: But why don't we stay with what's related to the budget we just passed? Now they've heard enough.
Speaker 0: We leave.
Speaker 6: This then.
Speaker 4: Then I'd like to. To make a motion just to start this discussion. They'll say this just to. Yes. Form the discussion. Hearing what I heard and what my intent is, I'd like to recommend that. The City Council gives direction to the city manager to. Provide us with a strategy that involves. Allocating money in excess of 25%. Of the current general fund.
Speaker 2: Balance this year or in 17 this year.
Speaker 4: To items that fall under nonoperational activities. I think that's general enough. To. Oh accommodate most of the items in the parking lot. And those items that are operational or parking I think are a budget item, a general fund budget or a fund budget discussion. And should not be carried on either one time revenues or non project related revenues.
Speaker 1: Okay. So is there a second.
Speaker 5: Way that was just staff direction listening because that was the emotion. Was that emotion?
Speaker 1: I thought it was emotional, very restraint.
Speaker 4: And to say the word direct staff.
Speaker 5: But all the all the observations about what was and wasn't. Operational or one time items. I mean.
Speaker 1: So he's not speaking to them.
Speaker 2: We don't need a motion. But if there's general consensus on that, I mean, I have it here.
Speaker 1: But okay. So this means that we won't be looking at the whole parking lot. We will only be looking at certain items.
Speaker 2: I am planning on bringing.
Speaker 1: Back that direction.
Speaker 2: No, I know.
Speaker 5: But I would add that to staff direction. It could be a hybrid.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, I think I think.
Speaker 5: To find funding sources, it might not be.
Speaker 2: Exactly. And I think. Frankly, the issue about the part time is an ongoing issue. And I think that's something that it's a longer discussion. This discussion on this on the one time is a much easier discussion because it's one time and we can identify them and the discussion on the benefits for part time. Right. I absolutely plan on bringing that back to you. But that's a more.
Speaker 1: That's a more.
Speaker 2: Difficult conversation. Staffing and staffing. Yes, that's another issue, too.
Speaker 4: And I think we need to have that conversation to see if that's something we want to direct you to do.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And and and if there what the details of our and I'm I think that's our parking lot discussion go through each item have that but again to reiterate to reiterate the direction I'd like to say see is that 25%. Anything in excess of 25%. We have you come back to us to address. That fund to one time expenditures. And the rationale is because they were largely gathered on one time revenues. And we can't operate on that surplus. Okay. I think we're in trouble.
Speaker 0: Member.
Speaker 1: Did you want to become a member of SAG?
Speaker 3: Well, the problem, though, I mean, the mechanics of it, of course, will be will be ironed out by our city staff. But let's be clear about something. Our fund balance is $29.6 million, roughly out of $81 million $80 million budget off of our $29.6 million fund badge fund balance. 25% would be 19.9%, and the remainder would be $9.7 million. So there's two issues here. One is that and of course, you know, the details and the mechanics would be would be worked out. But it's because there's a certain murkiness that that leads me to think I can't support this. For now is that, you know, I think there's a certain hubris that, oh, we can always keep a $19.9 million, because that's what we're basically saying going forward. We're going to have a general fund balance of 25%, that that amounts to $19.9 million. Or maybe it goes up because, you know, our overall budget goes up and down and that we're going to lock in the the remainder, which is 9.7 million. We're going to lock that into some kind of one time ballot of funds. Well, I don't know. You never know. I mean, things can happen such that, you know, maybe you have to dip into that that $19.9 million, that 25%. And then if you dip into that 25%, does that mean that. Well, that other $9.7 million, the 12.1%, that that that's frozen now, that's a separate account. So I think the mechanics of this are kind of like unknown. So in the second point that I want to get at is that in building up the $29.6 million fund balance, it just didn't just happen because of one time revenues where in time revenues happened. But it also happened because, you know, staff made some decisions with regard to our employee base and how much we set aside for that. So I still think which leads me to believe that rather than chasing the money and figuring out how to spend it, we have to come up with what is our strategy, what are our needs and wants, and how to strategize around that and then figure out spending. I think that's that's the way the appropriate way to go about it instead of looking at it from the money side and figure and without recognizing that the money side, you know, for a variety of reasons, we can say 25% all we want, but it's going to go up and down and up and down. So I don't know. I at this point, to me, it's I think this is too substantive an issue to you not have a very detailed discussion and variety.
Speaker 6: I think you've had a mayor. I think what we're trying to say here is. We have this surplus, are we going to let it sit there and use it to. Absorb the operating deficits that are projected out in the next five years, which I think the vice mayor has made clear he thinks is not an appropriate use . And, you know, I kind of agree with him on that one, or if we're going to say let's set a policy that we're going to have a reserve of 25%, and then we take that excess and we address some of these things that we haven't addressed or like OPEB that we we need to address. I mean, I think maybe the city manager may have said that the most eloquently right before we did the motion is that, you know, we say come back with these strategies on, you know, what our options are and maybe. Or Councilmember de Saag. One of those options is doing nothing and leaving it in there, you know, and keeping it there and using it for something like. And taking care of deficits. I'm not inclined to do that at this point. But maybe that's an option that, you know, maybe has three votes. That we could do. But, you know, my only concern about the way that the current direction is, is I think that 25 should be as of the end of 1617 since we did a two year budget and not not 1516 but.
Speaker 4: First year of our deficit. Second budget.
Speaker 6: And we've already taken we've already taken 1.2 million of that surplus.
Speaker 4: We're already started chipping away at the fund balance. And that concerns me. And the only reason that I'm not concerned enough to vote against this budget, because I think the Delta is so small that it's in and the projections are of revenue, are so conservative that when we come to the end of this first mid term and the end of the first year of this year budget, we're going to see that we're in better shape than our projections had originally anticipated. And that's I see the all the buildings that are coming out of the ground right now are going to add to the property tax role where they're not now and they're going to add to the transfer tax. So we're going to see a big, big bump in those two. And our projections are much more conservative. I think what's actually going to happen just based on the number of housing units that are being built right now. So I think we have a margin of error that we can work with there. But I think if we if we don't keep the pressure on ourselves, temptation is to spend that money down and to not just not spent, not just to spend the money down, but also to continue deferring maintenance on things that have been wanting for years. Anybody drive down Eagle Avenue over there lately? The street is falling apart. If you look at the Veterans Memorial Building. Veterans Memorial Building is in sorry shape.
Speaker 1: So it's out on the parking lot?
Speaker 4: No, no, I'm not. I'm just using those examples. But that's so I'm not going to throw stuff into the parking lot, but I just say it. But that's an example.
Speaker 1: But I think that's what has.
Speaker 4: Been deserve deferred for years because we've had no money. We got the Carnegie Building across the street and it's kind of it should be a museum. And we're trying to get some private nonprofit to fund the rest of the rehab in there. And we could do that with this. I mean, there's. Bob Hohn has the list. So the strategy is to allocate the money. That's the strategy. And then the mechanics of of spending the money is, is evaluating the list and picking it.
Speaker 3: But that's not what you said. I was the one who came to us.
Speaker 4: That's exactly what.
Speaker 3: We've got to have the strategy first. You've got to have your priorities first. Then you figure out.
Speaker 1: Money member.
Speaker 5: ASHCROFT So I've honestly lost track of whether we had you made a motion. You did make a motion. And and I support it and.
Speaker 4: Lack of it.
Speaker 5: You didn't give us a chance to second it. We're still talking. Don't get impatient there. I, I actually do support the motion, and I would second it, and here's why. There is a cost to deferring maintenance. And we you know, we want to be smart with our money. I think there is. I don't see the harm of having staff come back with a list of what we might do with this, you know, amount above a 25% reserve. We can always decide yay or nay at that point, but let's let's at least give staff the opportunity to delve into all of the things we've we've put out there tonight. And we'll we'll have a chance to look it over. We'll have a chance to give more input. But I think it is a smart use of our money. I don't disagree with with Councilmember Desert that we need to always have that rainy day fund. But I think we're doing that. But I think we can at least take the next step and see what would it look like, what would it count, what would it cost? And we can make our make our decisions about allocating the funds or not when it comes back to us. But I certainly think it's productive to to have the opportunity for council and the public to take a look at what staff comes up with. So with that, I second your motion.
Speaker 1: So can you clarify, are you looking at everything on the parking lot or only certain things? Okay, so repeat what you said that you're willing to look at.
Speaker 4: Non-operational was the only restriction.
Speaker 1: But that's a restriction. So your second is to then?
Speaker 5: Well, it is to keep it neat and clean. But I also believe that I have heard the interim city manager take our direction that and I've heard her acknowledge more than once this evening that she will also come back to us with the items on the parking lot. But they will not necessarily come out of the surplus because some of them might have other funding sources, and it still has to be a council decision. All of this does what's going to be just because we throw out what our favorite projects are, it doesn't mean it's by acclimation. So yes, parking lot will come back. But for the purposes of this motion, I'm seconding the motion that was said.
Speaker 1: That that's to fund non-operational expenditures. All right. So we have a motion on second any other discussion?
Speaker 6: I like the concept on just the restrictions of the motion. I'm really not that comfortable with and I'd feel better if we didn't restrict the no didn't restricted to just non one time things and you know we consider the idea that we use it for operations maybe we'll reject that. I mean I'm not in favor of that, but I think it should be discussed and that, you know, we look at everything on the parking lot and that, you know, I think that this does a couple of things off that are important to some of us on the board.
Speaker 1: So so I won't be able to support it. I think it's contrary to actually all of our budget discussions where we had a parking lot. If we were going to restrict it, then we should have had the discussion as we went through the process.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm also going to vote no, but I'm going to vote no for a very simple reason. The whole point of the month long budgeting process was to identify what our long term unfunded capital needs. We all know that. I mean, we we were part of the that that poll report that came out in 2010, and we've always talked about it. So to suddenly say, well, now we got to create this policy to begin to treat these unfunded capital projects. Hey, I don't mind about that. But you know what I think? I think the straightforward thing would have been to say, okay, we got to pay. We got to spend more on capital improvement projects for the budget that we just voted on, but we didn't. To me, that's just the simple, straightforward thing is understand what your needs and wants are. And then and accordingly, particularly with regard to, you know, the unfunded capital expenditures.
Speaker 1: So do we need to vote on that? There is three. Go ahead, Mavrodi.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. You may remember. Thank you. I mean, are you open to modifying the motion to, you know, not be as restrictive? And that might satisfy.
Speaker 1: So I wonder.
Speaker 6: Whether saw hunger.
Speaker 1: So at this point I anticipated that the next step would become the timeline that. City manager shared. Come August or September, the staff would come back. We'd look at the parking lot, start developing strategies, or see what can be funded different ways. And then I think at that time we can start deciding where, well, we have this budget.
Speaker 5: Well, we do have a motion on the table. And I think the question it was just around.
Speaker 1: And I already had expressed concerns.
Speaker 5: But I think the question was just asked about willingness to modify in some way. You were asking the vice mayor, were you?
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I was trying to answer that in regards to what I think is how how we were discussing it.
Speaker 6: Which is kind of where.
Speaker 1: I am from.
Speaker 6: I don't want.
Speaker 1: To tell.
Speaker 4: You out. I want to hear what I mean.
Speaker 6: I want to vote no on this because I think it's a good thing to do. But I just don't like the restrictions. And if if we could.
Speaker 4: Just if I modify the motion to take the restrictions off.
Speaker 6: And just say we're going to have a 25%. Have staff come back at half.
Speaker 4: Staff, come back with the recommendations on what to do with the amount over 25%.
Speaker 6: Yes, I would be. I would be.
Speaker 4: Then I will make that modification just to keep this.
Speaker 2: And it's 15, 15, 16, right.
Speaker 4: Well, yes, because I'm going to hang on that one, because we're starting that slide to deficit projection.
Speaker 6: I'll give on that one.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: We got it.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 6: So you gave a little. I'll give a little.
Speaker 1: So there's emotion. Are you second unit?
Speaker 4: Then she.
Speaker 0: Started.
Speaker 5: Checking in with the modification. Modification? I will.
Speaker 1: All right. Any other discussion? So I will not support this. I don't think it's appropriate. I think that we will always have that opportunity and I think it loccisano unnecessarily. And I would actually say contrary to advice, yes, it no, we're we're choosing a number. We're choosing a number that I don't think is appropriate that is actually contrary to direction from this idea that you don't need to choose a number unless you do have something that you want to restrict, which we don't have here. So I won't be able to support it. Any other comments? All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose. Motion carries 3 to 2 if I have it correct. You're a. All right. One. So we have another budget to approve S.A.C.. It's a resolution on here. We have.
Speaker 2: There's no report. That's essentially just a second.
Speaker 1: Any discussion? Constat. So it's my understanding that this is. Just something that we need to do.
Speaker 2: That's right. It's just another it's another body that you sit as that body. So you're just approving essentially the same thing you just approved before. That's correct. You're just essentially approving just the successor agency's budget just because it's an an entity, separate entity will have to approve a separate resolution for it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Any other comments? All those in favor.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Oppose. Abstentions passes unanimously. Thank you.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: And at this time, I believe it's appropriate we can now adjourn.
Speaker 0: No items for B, B.
Speaker 1: O or B, that's another one. Okay, we're.
Speaker 2: Running. We have to go back to session.
Speaker 0: Well, they're going to establish the proposition.
Speaker 2: For appropriations limit for fiscal year 20 1516. An adoption of resolution.
Adoption of Resolutions (1) Approving and Adopting the City of Alameda Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years (FY) 2015-16 and 2016-17 and (2) Approving and Adopting the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Budget for FY 2015-16 and 2016-17. [CITY COUNCIL AND SACIC] (Finance 2450)