City Council - Regular Meeting

🎵 🎵 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Are we ready? So once KCRT is wide awake, as the City Council is, we will begin. This is the open session to hear public comments before closed session. May we have roll call?

Yes. Councilmember Brown?

Here.

COUNCILMEMBER JIMENEZ? PRESENTE. COUNCILMEMBER ZAPATA?

HERE.

COUNCILMEMBER WILSON?

HERE.

VICE MAYOR ROBINSON?

HERE.

MAYOR MARTINEZ? HERE. AND FOR THE RECORD, COUNCILMEMBER BANA IS ABSENT FOR ROLL CALL. DURING CLOSED SESSION, THE COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. ITEM 1C, I MEAN C1, SORRY. LIABILITY CLAIMS. CLAIMANT K. MEYER, AGENCY AGAINST CITY OF RICHMOND. And the second liability claim is claimant Lynette Parker, agency against city of Richmond. Item C2, public employee appointment, title interim city manager recruitment. Item C3, public employee appointment, title city manager recruitment. ITEM C4, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, TITLE CITY MANAGER. ITEM C5, CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS. AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES INCLUDE SHARON TAYLOR, JACK HUGHES, AND LISA CHARBONNEAU. EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDE SEIU LOCAL 1021 FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME UNIT. IFPTE LOCAL 21 MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT UNITS. Richmond Police Officers Association, Richmond Police Management Association, IAFF Local 188, and Richmond Fire Management Association. Item C6 is Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. There are two cases. Item C7, Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. This is significant exposure. There's one case. THEN ITEM C8, CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1689 REGATTA BOULEVARD. AGENCY NEGOTIATORS, NANETTE BEACHAM, NEGOTIATING PARTIES, DICOM, FIBER OPTICS, INC. UNDER NEGOTIATION ARE THE PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. WE DO HAVE ONE REQUEST OR TWO REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. CORDELL HENDLER, CLAUDIA CITRONE, YOU BOTH HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH.

CORDELL? So good afternoon, Mayor Martinez, Council. For the record, I am Cordell Hamlin. I have three things to share regarding the closed session. So when you go back in there, I would appoint a deputy city manager because she has the experience. She has been in Sasha's place when she's not here. So when you go back in there, I would request you would appoint either a deputy city manager or a department head. That's one. And number two, The city manager recruitment, you have Bob Murray and Associates. So let them take that on because they have experience of finding the right people for the position. So that's two. And then the third thing, as far as the shots are curled, she has done an outstanding job. And she has got Richmond way off the financial audits list. So that was wonderful she did that. Whoever her next successor will be, he or she will have to make sure that Richmond is staying afloat. That's three. And then the final thing is like for the unions. They have worked tirelessly to make sure that Richmond is a good place to work and play. So when you go back in there, Let those thoughts circulate in mind. So with that, Claudia, it's all yours.

Our next speaker is Claudia Cicero.

The public has a legitimate interest in knowing who council selects as leadership positions based on what qualifications and why council believes they are the right choice. In the past, you had insisted that the community sees the candidates, and there were public meetings where the community could ask questions. With the city attorney, I know it's not the topic, that was supposed to be secret with three people and a committee that is not acceptable. So let me continue. I wrote this also so you have it in writing. The authority does not make the entire hiring process immune from public scrutiny or relieve the council of its obligation under California open government laws. We demand transparency around the election process. We also request to have access to public record meeting materials, employment records, and all of that. Again, as I pointed out, there was a YouTube meeting and all of this before with another city manager. That city manager you chose was fired. The other city manager was also fired. The fire chief you had chosen was also fired. So I think the community needs to be involved. And also the decision should, the new city attorney, the city manager should continue to shift all contracts to outcome driven models and incorporate performance metric models instead of relying on qualitative consultant data who have historically had close ties to council members. The next city manager shall continue to seek feedback from the community and providers throughout this process. The income city manager shall focus on reducing the multi-billion unfunded budget which exists, shall also focus on financing the fire department.

Thank you. We do have one online speaker.

If that speaker is Kevin Tisdale, Kevin, you'll have two minutes to speak. You can go ahead and start.

Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Kevin Tisdale, City of Richmond President, SEIU. I want to just make a couple comments as far as the city manager improvement, leadership, dependability, morale, you know, cohesiveness. We need somebody that's going to work with the city, with the unions, with all the city to bring them together, not only take from the city as a Maybuilder, but to bring economic development and positive energy into the city to increase morale and help the employees, again, do a job, but do it in a way that's positive and efficient. So as you go back, think about that and choose the best candidates you can. Thank you.

Thank you. That was the last speaker.

All right. In that case, the public comment is closed. And we will retire to closed session.

you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . . . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you you you Thank you. you Thank you. so so so Thank you. so so Thank you. Thank you. you

All right, check one, two, let me get on it.

You have a message?

Thank you.

been really loud oh yeah how was that check check check you clear check check check one two e e e one two one two check check check one one two check check check is it clear you can hear me okay good how about let me hear you Test 1, 2, 3, 4. Test 1, 2, 3, 4. Check 1, 2. Check, check, check. 1, 2. How about there? I'm going to do an auto. Okay, here we go. Check, check. Let me work on that because I might have to put a box on it. Okay, bye.

Thank you. Thank you.

Check the audio, my audio. All right. How's that?

Any noise?

Any noises? Check. Wait. Yeah. How's that? Hey, hey, hey. One, two. Clean? Clear? I think so. All right. How's that? How's that right there? Check, check, check. Yeah, that's better, right? That's just me right there. No echo because, I mean, I have... Oh. Oh, I was only giving you the left side? Oh. Oh, wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Interesting. All right, well, yeah. All right, I need one more cable to do the left side, the right side. Hoy, let me try something else. Let me try something else. Stay there. Let me see if this is going to work.

Thank you. Thank you. . . . . . . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Hey, one, two, one, two, check, check. Hey, hey, hey, one, two, one, two, check, check. Good. Both channels and it's clean. It should be pretty clear because I don't see any noise anymore. Awesome. Okay, thank you.

All right, bye-bye.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . you Thank you. . . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. . . so so . . . . . Thank you. Thank you. . . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . .

It is now time for the regular meeting of the Richmond City Council, and we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call.

COUNCILMEMBER VANA. COUNCILMEMBER BROWN.

HERE.

COUNCILMEMBER JIMENEZ. PRESENTE. COUNCILMEMBER ZAPATA.

HERE.

COUNCILMEMBER WILSON.

HERE.

VICE MAYOR ROBINSON.

HERE.

AND MAYOR MARTINEZ.

HERE.

OUR NEXT ITEM IS STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. ARE THERE ANY? HEARING NONE. OUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA REVIEW. I DO NOT HAVE ANY Changes to the agenda. Okay, our next item is report from the city attorney of final decisions made during closed session.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILS. I DO HAVE ONE CLOSED SESSION ITEM TO REPORT. THE CITY COUNCIL MET IN CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER. THE CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TOOK ACTION IN CLOSED SESSION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH A SELECTED CANDIDATE. AND IF THE SELECTED CANDIDATE DOES NOT, IF THAT FALLS THROUGH TO A SECOND CANDIDATE FOR THE POSITION OF INTERIM CITY MANAGER AND TO RETURN TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. THAT'S MY ONLY REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION. THANK YOU. OH, AND ONE MORE THING. I MISSED. THE VOTE COUNT WAS UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OF THIS DIRECTION.

Our next item is report from the city manager, and this will include a new employee report.

GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY. GIVEN THE NUMBER OF ATTENDEES THIS EVENING, I AM NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE FULL POWERPOINT AND DIRECTOR SHARON TAYLOR WILL PROVIDE HER REPORT AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. BUT I DO WANT TO PAUSE AND EXPRESS MY SINCERE GRATITUDE TO ALL OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS. who have served our community through several deeply difficult incidents in recent weeks. As many of you are aware, there was an incident on Key Boulevard with an active shooter. There was a fatal hit and run on 23rd Street, and there was also a quadruple homicide on 15th Street. Our public safety service staff exuded professionalism, courage, and they coordinated in a responsive manner doing these critical incidents that help protect our community and bring suspects into custody. They also are being supported to deal with these difficult tragedies in a way to meet them where they are and to fully take advantage of wraparound health and wellness services. I am very grateful to every member of our public safety team and the fire department, police department, as well as the communication center, as well as our partner agencies who responded, investigated, and continue serving DURING AN EXTRAORDINARILY CHALLENGING PERIOD. IN PARTICULAR, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK, AND I DID THIS EARLIER TODAY IN PERSON WHEN I MET WITH THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP TEAM, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK BOTH CHIEF OSARIO AND CHIEF SIMMONS WHO HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF APPOINTING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ROLES. FOR THEIR ONGOING PROFESSIONALISM AND FOR BEING EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE WITH THEIR TEAMS THROUGHOUT THESE INCIDENTS. SO IF WE CAN ALL PLEASE GIVE THEM A HAND OF APPLAUSE, I'D REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OUR NEXT ITEM IS OPEN FORUM. IF THERE'S ANYONE JOINING US ONLINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING OPEN FORUM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. I need to get a full count of how many speakers we have. We have one speaker in the auditorium and so far we have 12 speakers in person. Okay. Open forum is an opportunity to address the council on items that remain on the consent calendar or items that are not on the agenda. Tonight no items have been removed from the consent calendar. During open forum, dialogue between the council and the speaker is prohibited. When your name is called and you are an online speaker, please be ready to unmute yourself and begin speaking. For speakers in the chambers, when your name is called, please come forward and line up behind the speaker's podium closest to the wall. And for safety reasons, all the aisles including the area behind the speaker's podium and staff presentation area must remain clear. All speakers should state their name and your city of residence is optional. Please terminate your address to the council when your time expires. So tonight we have a total of 16 speakers. 16 to 24 speakers, a maximum of one minute and a half. The City of Richmond welcomes your comments and requests that you present your remarks in a respectful and appropriate manner within the established minute and a half time limit. We'll go to the speakers in the auditorium, and Patrick, please call the speakers.

Thank you, Madam City Clerk. Tonight we have just one speaker, Zolina Zizi. Please approach the microphone. And you have one minute, 30 seconds to address the City Council.

Hello, Mr. Mayor Martinez and fellow citizens. and we cannot hear super close okay hello mr mayor martinez and fellow city council members my name is zelena zizi born and raised in the beautiful city of rich am i too far or is it not on born and raised in the city of richmond uh you made me lose track okay my mother corny valetian family are enrolled members of the three affiliated tribes out of north dakota i am with the richmond powwow committee and would like to formally invite you to our 16th annual richmond powwow which is a free event this saturday the 19th from 9 to 6 pm at the Richmond Auditorium, where I'm currently, oh, I'm on camera.

Sorry.

Which I'm at. I hope to see you all there. Also, you don't have to be Native to attend. Just bring yourself and loved ones and enjoy a great family-friendly event. There will be vendors and food, so make sure to bring your wallets. Thank you guys so much and have a blessed night.

Our next group of speakers, as I call your name, please come forward and line up behind the speaker's podium. Closest to the wall, Cordell Hendler, Tequista Hapton, Don Gosney, Nujari Smith, Jessica McDowell, Cecily Hunter, Thomas Shields, Arania Delamora, Ben Terriot, Mark Wasberg, Jill McLemore, and Tarno Abbott. Those are our in-person speakers.

CORDELL HENDLER. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR MARTINEZ. COUNCIL, FOR THE RECORD, I AM CORDELL HENDLER AND I AM PASSING SOME INFORMATION FOR YOU. EVERY MONTH I GET E-MAILS FROM CPS HR CONSULTING AND I FIND THE INFORMATION TO BE VERY INFORMATIVE. SO WHAT I'M SHARING WITH YOU ALL the vacancies, so once again, I'm here to advocate to make sure that why our vacancy rate is 12%, not a little higher, should be more, because we trying to like fill these critical positions, and I mean it, because I looked at other surrounding cities with similar positions and they pay their employees more, so if we wanna compete with other cities, we need to, one, update our job classifications, so we're trying to entice future employees to come to Richmond future. So that's one. And then number two for the future agenda is to invite Caitlin slide to come present to us on the food bank of Contra Costa and Solano County, because I talked to other cities and they interested in having her to present at their council meetings. So if she, if they can present at their council meetings, so can she. So with that, I'll yield my time.

Takista Hapton?

Takista Hapton?

I'm here. I'm asking you for assistance regarding my transfer of my business. cigarette license. I'm currently 73 years old. I have been waiting to retire after 33 years owning and operating Carson Full Market, 1481 Carson Boulevard, Richmond. I have found a buyer who is interested to purchase the business, but the sale cannot move forward unless the cigarette license can be transferred into the new owner name. I was hoping you would be able to help me with this. I know it is typically not allowed, but given the circumstance, I was hoping to find a solution that would allow my return. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community. I'll be very grateful for any help you can offer.

Don Gosney.

You know, part of Richmond's uniqueness is their system of neighborhood councils where neighbors can get together to discuss issues of importance to their own community. These might be crime stats, issues with schools, traffic, businesses, the list goes on. But how can these neighborhood councils get their message out? How do they share information about dumpster days, scheduled neighborhood council meetings, community events? One tool used by some of our neighborhood councils are the newsletters. The neighborhood councils draft the newsletters and does the computer work and the city prints them. I'm an East Richmond kind of guy. We don't have a newsletter that is sent out. My good friend, Otto Rutila, with the Fairmead Hilltop Neighborhood Council, puts together a rough daft and allows me to polish his text, add some graphics, and assemble everything so it's ready for the printer. All too often, though, twice so far this year, the city has decided that they would not print what was provided, saying that we need to send them, has to be, quote, unquote, in line with legal requirements. The problem, though, is that up until this afternoon, no one in the city wants to share with us what those legal requirements are. Primarily, we provide information. That's it. For instance, we shared that this November there's an election for the mayor of Richmond and that there are an unusually large number of state and local measures involving tax measures. Without explaining why, we were directed to delete this comment. Another included that when we meet the state mandate for new residential units, this will also require close to a billion dollars worth of new schools with no source for funding. Once again, without explanation, we were directed to delete this. How are we supposed to know what we are allowed to share and what is verboten in the city if they won't show us, in writing, how these comments are illegal? City Attorney's Office, up until this afternoon, would not reach out. I'm optimistic, though. Since I'm out of time, let the censorship continue.

Najari Smith.

Good evening, City Council. My name is Najari Smith. I'm a Richmond resident, and I'm here to speak in support of turning the new paved lot in the marina, open next to Laura's Fine Dining, into a community square that could include a roller skating area and bike area. The lot was recently capped because it's a contaminated site. DTSC mandated the city address the dust that had been blowing over the neighborhood for decades. But now that it's paved, It's a big, safe, blank slate. What I'm proposing is a temporary roller rink and bike area and drawing on Richmond's cycling and roller skating communities. This is a low cost, low lift activation that doesn't require new construction, just support to program the space. We would like guidance from staff on how to move this forward while there's still a lot of community energy behind it. WE UNDERSTAND THE STAFF PRESENTATION IS COMING LATER THIS MONTH AND WE WELCOME THE CHANCE TO PARTNER ON NEXT STEPS. THIS IS A CHANCE TO TURN A SITE PEOPLE HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT INTO SOMETHING THE COMMUNITY IS PROUD OF. THANK YOU.

JESSICA McDOWELL.

GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. JESSICA McDOWELL, I'M A RICHMOND RESIDENT FOR 20 YEARS AND I LIVE near the edge of Nickel Park. And my comment is about the potential removal of trees. So the city paused the removal of four eucalyptus trees in response to concerns and commissioned an independent arborist assessment. But we've been told that the four trees will be removed But residents have not been told, given any access to that report. And we were told that we must file a formal public records act. So I'm asking that the council have the report released before any irreversible decision is carried out. and that we have an opportunity to review it. I'd also like to direct the council to Richmond's own general plan 2030, an urban greening master plan. The city's plan policies recognize wildlife habitat as part of Richmond's urban forest and its own environmental analysis. Specifically, recognizes eucalyptus as a potential habitat for raptors and overwintering monarch butterflies. THOSE BUTTERFLIES ARE ALREADY IN THE TREES THAT ARE SLATED FOR REMOVAL AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THERE'S A BIOLOGIST REPORT AND THAT THE EVALUATION OCCUR.

YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CECILY HUNTER.

HI, GOOD EVENING. CECILY HUNTER. I'M A RICHMOND RESIDENT. in Richmore Village, also right behind Nicolle Park. And I'm here also to talk about the four eucalyptus trees that are slated for removal. Just going to reiterate what Jessica said. We have requested several times in writing to have access to the independent arborist report, which is supposed to have assessed the trees number one, number two, number three, number four individually. We understand that the trees have potential problems and may have liability to the city of Richmond. but we want the opportunity to see the report and to understand how the decision was come about and also to understand the plan that is supposedly in place to re-green that portion of the park. Those trees have an enormous impact on our neighborhood. They are full of wildlife. They provide us amazing rodent control. We have so many hawks and owls living in those trees. The monarchs are already beginning to arrive to overwinter. I took a photo of probably half a dozen with their wings open in one little tiny cluster. We just ask that this be slowed down and that we have access to the report and we can understand it. We're happy to work with the city as a community, but we want our voice to be heard about those trees. Thank you.

Thomas Shillies.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Thomas Schleiss. I'm a Richmond resident as well, and also a neighbor of the Nickel Park eucalyptus. There's more of us behind us that are really feeling the same way. The whole neighborhood is really asking for clear documents on I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A FOLLOW-UP FOR THE E-MAIL SENT BY MARK TILLEY TO OUR COUNCILMEMBER AS WELL AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE PARK AND REC, ASKING FOR ACCESS TO THE REPORTS. I'LL JUST GO ON AND SAY THIS IS CLEARLY SOMETHING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CARES ABOUT AND WOULD LIKE SOME FOLLOW-UP ON IT. THANK YOU.

Hello, good afternoon. So I'm happy that there's a lot of people at City Hall today, because yesterday I went to the St. Paul City Hall meeting, and there was no one there, and it was very lonely. And I hope people in San Pablo start going to those meetings, because those meetings also affect Richmond, because the Contra Costa meetings, I suppose, they have meetings over all Contra Costa there, which Richmond is included. And I saw Cesar Zepeda there, ha ha. I know he's not very happy with me, probably. But anyways, I'm here today because I want to remind everyone to come out and vote for November 3rd. I'm going to pass out flyers, Richmond and San Pablo, whenever I have time. I'm not going to tell them who to vote for some of the time when I'm out for Claudia Jimenez because I would like her to vote. I shouldn't do that. But anyways, it is good that people come to City Hall so they can see what the City Hall members spend their tax money on. Because all these $2, $5, $10 million that they talk about when they're supporting organizations, they get this money from our taxes, which I am against high taxes. But everybody and every Democrat apparently is against higher, higher taxes, which we all pay, which makes our lives harder. So anyways. For example, the City Hall of Richmond is trying to do a master plan at Parkchester Village, which is with our tax money. And the people at Parkchester, they don't even know what the master plan is because a lot of people didn't come to the August 25th meeting. But that basically eliminates half or more of our parking. And I would like to stop that. Thank you very much.

Good evening, Ben Theriault, President of the Richmond Police Officers Association. On September 3rd, Officer Justin Church drove to Key Boulevard because A3, the county's own crisis team, asked for police. Not a raid, not a warrant, a welfare check. He was shot quickly after he arrived. A woman is now charged with eight counts of attempted murder of police officers and fired dozens of rounds. A second officer sat inside a patrol car when her car was hit as well. Families in Richmond were pinned in their homes behind drywall, and what did Richmond families have to get that out, get out of the danger? Nothing. We had to borrow armor from the park district and the sheriff, and then we waited. Six weeks earlier, this council, debated on that exact vehicle. The chief told you we borrowed one nine times last year. He asked whether you would wanted to wait two hours. The mayor called the vehicle scary and this council sent the chief back to the drawing board. Let me tell you what's scary. It's rifle rounds hitting a patrol car with an officer inside. It's a child on Key Boulevard sheltering in a bathtub while the city waits for a neighbor to lend us a rescue vehicle. And now you have some activists telling everybody in Richmond that the police presence is what escalated this. Absolutely ridiculous. You folks need to get your shit in order. We cannot take care of the public. We cannot protect the public if you do not give us the tools to do it. All of you are responsible if you do not vote to give us something where we can protect the people of Richmond. Thank you.

Mark Waspert.

Right now in Ireland you have the Roman Catholics and Protestants gaining forces against the government. I told my, I quoted, I said, you need to keep shooting. You need to keep attacking the police to overthrow the government because the Ireland government has let all these criminals, these immigrants come into their country. They're changing the laws. They're changing their religion. They're just totally making a mess. Crime has went three folds. I told them the only way you're going to stop it is to overthrow the government. And now what they're doing is they're going after the immigrants. They're kicking them out of their homes. They're burning their homes. I told them, you need to keep fighting. The only way you're going to get rid of it is to overthrow the government. Look at what happened in Spain. They let all these immigrants, they're all criminals, come from Morocco. They opened up the prison. They're just flooding the country. Now crime is up three-folds. I mean, this is one of the most stupidest things I've seen in my entire life. And the same thing has happened here in the United States. I told you people, it's time for you to lock and load. You have the constitutional right to buy all the weapons and ammo you can. Because in about another two, three more months, if these radicals take over our government, there's going to be lead flying everywhere across the United States. And these people are not messing around. Like in Ireland, they're forming their own militias. They're forming their own government. You people are going to have to wake up. And it's these people that are sponsoring it. Jill McLemore.

Well, what can I say?

I'm Jill McLemore, and I live here in Richmond, born and raised in Marin County. And I'm here to talk about public safety. I live on Hoffman Street, and I'm requesting a traffic speed monitor. People are just driving so fast, and our neighborhood is just bursting with all kinds of cute kids now, and all the high school kids from the marina. And so I'm requesting that. But also another issue is my neighbors on Hoffman the states we all met on Saturday in reference to public safety, mental health, police faster response. I shouldn't have to convince a police that there's a safety issue. Like I woke up Saturday morning and a man had been camped out in front of my house to get inside my fence. And he was over six feet, almost 300 pounds. It looks like mentally ill. I've never seen him in my life. And I had to really work hard to get two Richmond police officers there with speed. I'm only a block away from the police station. But we have to really look at mental health. All my neighbors were dealing with somebody that's prowling, going into everybody's yards between 3 and 4 in the morning. We all have to have our gates locked. This is getting to be something else in that I have a son that's 51. I have three adult sons. And I should not have to be responsible for somebody else's sons. These are all males I'm dealing with that they have major behavior issues and there is a safety issue.

Your time has expired.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Our last in-person speaker is Tarnel Abbott.

Good evening. Tarnel Abbott, resident of Richmond. I am very concerned about the open AI robotics factory, which is coming to Richmond. I have heard that the city has no say whatsoever over it, and I don't understand how that is even possible. Your job is to protect the public. We have been hearing in the last few days the overarching problem of AI being an existential threat to humanity. So do what you have to do. Don't let that monster come in here. It will be the end of us. You know, ICE is purchasing robotic dogs. The Pentagon is panting to have more AI weapons and tools in their arsenal. What happens when AI doesn't need us anymore, when the robots can build the data centers? They won't even need us for building data centers. So this is something that we are going to have to take up. It's on many, many fronts. And if you are not paying attention, you need to be. Earlier this month, one of the insiders, one of the tech insiders who trains these machines gave us a very strong warning. And he said that the people who are building these are aware that it is an existential threat. So you should take it seriously. This isn't just hysteria on the part of public.

Your time has expired.

Thank you.

That was our last in-person speaker. Now we'll call the three online speakers.

Those three speakers are Tania Pulido, Jennifer Brass, and the user by the name of Audrey's iPhone. Tania Pulido, you'll have a minute and 30 seconds to speak. You can go ahead and start.

Good evening, City Council. Tania Pulido, Richmond resident and roller skate enthusiast. I'm here tonight to advocate for an outdoor roller rink in Richmond. It's been a vision that many of us have worked towards for many years. And I recently visited the freshly paved lot next to Laura's Fine Dining. And it's the perfect location for an outdoor roller rink. And it even has enough space for bikes, dance classes, and more. In Richmond, we used to host successful, really successful roller skate events at the Richmond Craneway, where we had probably at the peak, probably close to 300 people. We partnered with Soulful Sunday at Miller Knox. We've partnered with Urban Tilth on the Roller Disco. so we know that people in richmond really love to roller skate and would would come out to a space like this right like oakland has township commons they have panthers skate which are like really vibrant beautiful events that happen along their shoreline and in richmond you know that's one of our biggest assets is the richmond shoreline And I think it's going to, one, activate and bring people out to the shoreline. But it also could be an educational opportunity, right, to have people learn about the shoreline and the plants and sea level rise and more. So we can really make it like all inclusive, all wheels, family friendly fun. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Jennifer Brass. You can go ahead and unmute yourself and give your comments. Yes, hi. Can you hear me? Yes.

Hi, I'm a resident of Richmond. I have lived here for 25 years. I should say, and Jennifer Brass, my name is Jennifer Brass. The residents of the city of Richmond, including myself, have worked tirelessly for decades to elect city council members who believe in a government of, by, and for the people. A city council who holds true to the values of our participatory democracy and our community where all are welcome and respected, where we all have a voice. After the book about our beloved city refinery town became known even outside our country, we've been a beacon of hope for all who still hold hope for a better future and a healthier planet we've been fighting for. We took our refinery town out of the jaws of Chevron and their fellow polluters, the perpetrators who are solely responsible for the red line of cancer, aka the refinery corridor. We need to hold true to our values and continue to be an example to the East Bay and the rest of the country rippling out beyond our borders and pass the 45-day data center moratorium. It is the least that we can do. These data centers aren't the data centers of our recent past. They are enormous by comparison and steal water and electricity from our communities as well as contaminating the air, water, soil, and create intolerable noise pollution.

Someone is speaking to an agenda item. So you'll be able to say that when the agenda comes up.

Oh, okay. So this clock isn't for me anymore?

No.

Okay.

Okay, next speaker is Audrey's iPhone. You'll have one minute and 30 seconds to speak. If you could please state your full name for the record, you can go ahead and start.

Hi, my name is Audrey. I'm a North Richmond resident.

Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay. I know I go on these web things very often. But yeah, I just wanted to chime in. Najari and Tanya spoke about activating the space for skating in the marina. And I just wanted to ditto what they said earlier. as the person that was helping along with um setting up some of those skate events um i get calm every time i see people they're oh when are you gonna have another skating event and you know people really like to get out and skate and be outdoors and it just seems like it would be a good opportunity to keep that um that energy going um i can't tell you how many times i get stopped um by little kids and adults and people who uh would love to continue to skate and it just seems like it would be a good opportunity to keep that going um so i just wanted to uh come to the forum to show my um support in possibly having that become something that um could be a part of the community again on a regular basis and not just like a weekend thing here and there but something that you know people can uh CONTINUOUSLY GO TO AND HAVE A SPACE TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO MEET HERE, LET'S GO SKATE, AND IT BE A REGULAR PLACE THAT YOU CAN GO AND NOT JUST ONCE A YEAR OR ONCE A MONTH. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. AND THAT WAS THE LAST PUBLIC SPEAKER.

NEW SPEAKER ALL RIGHT.

NEW SPEAKER OUR NEXT ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. AND AS A REMINDER, NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

All right. I need a motion.

I move to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

I second. Okay.

Council Member Brown?

Yes.

Council Member Banna? Yes. Council Member Jimenez? Yes. Council Member Wilson? Yes. Council Member Zepeda? Yes. Vice Mayor Robinson? Yes. And Mayor Martinez? Yes. The vote is unanimous. Okay, moving forward, our next item is under budget, item 01. It has to receive the fiscal year 25-26 quarter four financial report for the period ending June 30th of 2026 and the fiscal year 25-26 quarter three financial report for the period ending March 31st, 2026. Adopt a resolution to appropriate proposed fiscal year 25-26 year end administrative budget adjustments. APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AGREEMENT FUNDS IN FISCAL YEAR 26-27 FOR THE RICHMOND PROMISE PROGRAM AND PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE TIMING OF THE LIMITED TERM REVENUE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS AND ITS COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC SAFETY LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED PLANS, STUDIES AND ASSESSMENTS. WE HAVE A TOTAL OF Seven in-person speakers. If there's anyone joining us online that would like to address the council on the budget item, item 01, please raise your hand at this time. Thank you.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ENRICHMENT COMMUNITY MEMBERS. THIS EVENING WE HAVE A VERY COMPREHENSIVE REPORT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PERTAINING TO FISCAL YEAR 25, 26, YEAR END, Q4, Q3, AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF OTHER ITEMS THAT HAVE FISCAL IMPACT AND WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT CITY STAFF RETURN WITH POLICY DIRECTION. SO THIS EVENING WE ARE ASKING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS. WE DO THIS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IN ADVANCE OF THE AUDITED FINANCIALS COMING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE TOWARDS THE BEGINNING OF THE CALENDAR AS YOU MAY RECALL, ON MAY 26, BY A VOTE OF 7-0, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO COME BACK WITH FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO RICHMOND PROMISE. AND SO THIS EVENING IN THIS BUDGET ITEM, YOU WILL SEE FOR CONSIDERATION THE UTILIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AGREEMENT INTEREST INCOME TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE 1400 SCHOLARSHIPS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE ALSO ARE REQUESTING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION ON THE TIMING OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOR LIMITED TERM REVENUE AND THAT IS BECAUSE WE CONTINUE TO HAVE ONGOING MOU NEGOTIATIONS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY UNITS AND SO THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR THAT REMAINS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME. NEXT SLIDE. TO GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION, WE WILL START WITH THE CITY'S BROADER FINANCIAL OUTLOOK AND THE PRESSURES THAT CONTINUE TO SHAPE OUR LONG-TERM BUDGET PICTURE. FROM HERE, WE WILL WALK THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY YEAR IN REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 25-26. and explain how the proposed administrative adjustments help maintain our general fund reserve and limited term revenue balances. We also highlight key grant and capital project activity from the fourth quarter as directed by City Council on May 26th. Again, we'll provide a recommendation pertaining to Richmond Promise funding. We'll also go over options for timing pertaining to limited term revenue community engagement processes. It's important for the city council to be aware that many of your staff that are involved with labor negotiations would also be leading the limited term revenue community engagement processes. And so there is staff capacity issues pertaining to moving those things forward simultaneously. IN ADDITION, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN PROVIDE DIRECTION ON HOW TO BEST SEQUENCE THE WORK ALONG WITH ONGOING PUBLIC SAFETY LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER DIRECTED COUNCIL PLANS AND ASSESSMENTS. NEXT SLIDE. SO THE RECOMMENDED ACTION IS HERE ON THE SCREEN. WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THE COUNCIL TAKE FOUR ACTIONS THIS EVENING, THAT YOU RECEIVE THE FOURTH QUARTER REPORT, THAT YOU ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED YEAR END ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS. THAT'S BECAUSE WE WANT TO HAVE A GREAT AUDIT. AND THIRD APPROVED ECIA FUNDING FOR RICHMOND PROMISE FOR FISCAL YEAR 26-27 AND I DO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD THE RICHMOND PROMISE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 YEARS AS YOUR CITY MANAGER AS DIRECTED SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL FOUNDED THE RICHMOND PROMISE ONE OF MY DUTIES IN ADDITION TO A NUMBER OF OTHER ACTIVITIES AS I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF THE RICHMOND PROMISE BECAUSE THE CITY IS THE FUNDER FOR THAT NONPROFIT WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED THAT WE ESTABLISH. FINALLY, WE'RE ASKING FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE TIMING OF LIMITED TERM REVENUE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES. NEXT SLIDE. AND WITH THAT, I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALL OF THE STAFF THAT HAVE WORKED ON PUTTING TOGETHER THE PRESENTATION THIS EVENING PRIOR TO TURNING IT OVER TO EMILY COMBS, OUR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. I ALSO WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE FINANCE STAFF THAT ARE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AND ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT ARE PRESENT FOR ALL OF THEIR GREAT WORK. IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THE OTHER STAFF THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH THE BUDGET WHICH IS A HEAVY LIFT AND WE'RE PROUD TO REPORT DESPITE SOME NEEDS TO USE INTEREST INCOME, WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL WITH AN ONGOING BALANCED BUDGET, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE CITY COUNCIL IS AWARE THAT MOVING FORWARD YOU MAY WANT TO REFINE SOME OF THE POLICY DIRECTION. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MS. COMBS.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor and city council members. You're on the right side. Okay. So I'm going to start with a real high-level financial outlook, and we'll go into this in a little more detail throughout the presentation. So the preliminary year-end results show that the city is able to maintain its 21% general fund reserve and also preserve our $48.5 million limited-term revenue balance. But we're able to do that by applying available interest earnings from funds outside the general fund to close the preliminary about $3.5 million shortfall. And we'll go over that in the next slide. So while this approach allows us to meet our reserve requirements and to make sure that we don't touch that limited-term revenue, relying on one-time interest or any one-time funds to close an operating gap is not a sound long-term financial strategy. SO WHEN WE EXCLUDE THE LIMITED TERM REVENUE FROM OUR CALCULATIONS, WHICH WE'LL SEE, THE CITY'S TRUE OPERATING PICTURE BECOMES EVIDENT. THE GENERAL FUND FACES APPROXIMATELY FOR 25-26 OF THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR ABOUT A $9.8 MILLION STRUCTURAL DEFICIT AFTER YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS. SO BEATING THIS RESERVE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT RESOLVE OUR UNDERLYING IMPALANCE BETWEEN OUR ONGOING REVENUES AND OUR EXPENDITURES. So this slide summarizes how we're able to maintain both that 21% reserve level of the general fund and the full $48.5 million in limited-term revenue. We start the year with about that $62.8 million number, which is the number at the very top of the table. That's straight out of the ACFER. That's been audited. That's our audited beginning fund balance number that we have in reserves. So then our preliminary results. AND WHAT THAT REPRESENTS IS JUST OUR REVENUES MINUS OUR EXPENDITURES AND WHAT WE HAVE LEFT OVER IS 40.2 MILLION. THAT INCLUDES OUR LIMITED TERM REVENUE NUMBER. REVENUE OF THE 50 MILLION. SO THAT BRINGS THE ESTIMATED ENDING FUND BALANCE TO JUST OVER 103 MILLION AFTER WE SET ASIDE OUR RESERVE REQUIREMENT. Okay, so that leaves us with about a $3.4 million gap. So to close that gap, the staff is recommending that we're using available interest earnings in both American Rescue Plan Act funds and Environmental and Community Investment Agreement, ECIA funds. Next slide. So we're going to go back in time here. So what you're looking at right now is a general fund forecast that was presented during your budget hearings, the legislative process. And it was presented on May 7, 2024. And I just want to point out that for each forecast cycle, Every year, as part of the budget, we present a pessimistic, a middle of the road, and an optimistic. And that's a best budgeting practice for municipalities. So it kind of helps us understand how the city's outlook shifts under different economic conditions. So across all three scenarios, as you move throughout the years, you're optimistic, Assumptions pretty much stay the same, as do your middle of the roads, as do your optimistic. Did I say that already? Okay, yeah. So I just wanted to note that as well. Also, within each year across those three scenarios, the personnel costs stay static. They stay consistent. There's no such thing as pessimistic personnel costs. We do have pessimistic, optimistic, middle of the road, non-personnel costs that are often tied to inflation. Now, on the revenue side, for all three scenarios, if we know Let's say, I know we already have a Costco. Let's say a second Costco's opening. It's opened. They're running their business. If we know we're going to get extra sales tax revenue, we will include that in our forecast. So there are... EXCEPTIONS. SO THESE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES SHOW THAT AND I'M GOING TO GO PRETTY FAST THROUGH THEM SHOW THAT REGARDLESS OF THE SCENARIO FOR THE MOST PART THE CITY HAS CONSISTENTLY PROJECTED OPERATING DEFICITS IN THE FUTURE YEARS. SO INDICATING A LONG STANDING STRUCTURE ON BALANCE RATHER THAN JUST A SINGLE YEAR ISSUE WHICH IS WHAT WE SAW THIS YEAR. So here you're looking at, from the same year, the pessimistic forecast. And this shows deficits in all years of the forecast, showing that revenues were not able to project or keep pace with our expenditures. But this, again, is the pessimistic forecast. Then moving to the next slide, we see even with our optimistic forecast back in 2004, we were still projecting deficits. This is before we had the limited-term revenue flowing through our forecast, which you're going to see on the next slide. So this forecast was exactly as a snippet straight out of the presentation from June 17th, 2025. I MEAN, HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD SCENARIO, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE WERE PROJECTING A DEFICIT IF YOU ARE TO REMOVE THE LIMITED TERM REVENUE. SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, YOU SAW THIS IN 2026 AND WE'LL SEE IT ON THE FUTURE SLIDES, WE JUST INCLUDED IT IN THAT REVENUE NUMBER. SO HERE YOU WOULD EXPECT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, IN 26, 27, WE WERE THINKING WE'D HAVE 45 MILLION LIFTOVER BUT THAT INCLUDED THE LIMITED TERM REVENUE. Here is a pessimistic scenario showing us using that revenue as well. And moving on to the optimistic scenario. Again, just a snippet from the presentation. So all three scenarios in this year continue to show that expenditure growth was going to outpace our revenues. And now moving to the current, which is what we just saw yesterday. This was from May 26, 2026. This forecast separated out the operating results from the limited term revenue. So this is the first time we sort of segregated it out like that, making the structural deficit easier to see. BASED ON COUNCIL DIRECTION. SO THIS IS THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD SCENARIO. WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE A TEMPORARY BALANCE IN THAT FIRST YEAR. BUT THEN WE SHOWED RETURNING TO DEFICITS STARTING IN 27-28. AND THIS IS FOR THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. NEXT SLIDE. AND HERE WE HAVE OUR PESSIMISTIC SHOWING DEFICITS RANGING FROM 12 MILLION IN 27-28. THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THE RED and then reaching 41.5 million in 3031. AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS ONE, IN OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO WE DO SHOW A DEFICIT IN OUR OPERATING RESULTS OF ABOUT A MILLION IN 27-28. WE WERE ABLE TO BALANCE 26-27 JUST LIKE WE WERE ABLE TO BALANCE 25-26. AND THEN WE DO SHOW A BIT OF A SURPLUS GOING FORWARD WITH OUR OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO AND THIS IS DEFINITELY AFTER GOING BACK THROUGH OUR REVENUES AND MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE PROJECTING NOT TOO CONSERVATIVELY. So this sort of reinforces that the structural imbalance is sort of long standing and not driven by this year's conditions alone. All right, next slide. All right, so this slide brings together the middle of the road forecasts. IT'S KIND OF A LOT. FROM 2024, 2025, AND 2026. SO ACROSS ALL THREE YEARS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD SCENARIO, WE SHOW OUR COSTS INCREASING FASTER THAN REVENUES. WHICH MEANS THAT THE CITY HAS VERY LIMITED CAPACITY TO TAKE ON NEW COMMITMENTS. SO THIS COMPARISON IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT SHOWS THE CHALLENGE or tied to this single year. The structural gap has appeared in every forecast cycle, at least going back to 2024, no matter how the scenarios were modeled. Next slide. So this slide brings together those middle of the road forecasts that are presented each of the years, but this is for just for 25-26, so this year that we're ending that I'm presenting right now. SO IN EACH OF THESE FORECASTS WE SHOWED THAT THE OPERATING REVENUES WERE PROJECTED TO FALL SHORT OF EXPENDITURES IN FUTURE YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CITY HAS KNOWN THAT THE GENERAL FUND WOULD NOT REMAIN IN BALANCE. WE WERE ABLE TO BALANCE BACK IN 25-26 WITH A COMBINATION I BELIEVE FROM VACANCY SAVINGS AS WE DID AGAIN FOR THE 26-27. SO ALTHOUGH WE PLAN TO AVOID USING LIMITED TERM REVENUE TO SUPPORT OUR OPERATING BALANCE, THE FORECAST CONSISTENTLY SHOWED THAT DEFICITS WOULD EMERGE AND THAT LIMITED TERM REVENUE WOULD ULTIMATELY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN STABILITY PARTICULARLY IF PERSONNEL COSTS CONTINUE TO RISE WITH RECENT MOU INCREASES. SO WE HAVE SOME STRUCTURAL All right, and with that, I'll turn it over to our Deputy Finance Director, Mubin Khadr.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL AND MAYOR. THIS SLIDE ACTUALLY TAKES YOU BACK INTO LAST FIVE YEARS AND SHOWS HOW THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND HAS GROWN OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS. IT SHOWS THAT IN THE FISCAL YEAR 21-22, THE GENERAL FUND REVENUES WERE $203 MILLION AND AS OF 25-26 FISCAL YEAR, IT'S GROWN TO $312.5 MILLION. WE CAN SEE THAT IN EACH MAJOR CATEGORY OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE. ALL OF THOSE HAVE GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY. HOWEVER, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN THE OTHER REVENUES, WHICH INCLUDES THE LIMITED TERM REVENUES OF $50 MILLION. AND YOU SEE THAT IN YEAR OVER YEAR, IT'S LIKE 11%, 6%, 7%, AND 22% INCREASE AND OVERALL IT'S ABOUT 53.6% INCREASE. SO IT SHOWS THAT THE CITY HAS COME LONG WAYS IN TERMS OF REVENUE GENERATIONS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. This slide indicates some of the challenges that the current economic environment is posing for the city's financials and budgets. It does show that the core PCE for the national level is above the Fed's target level of 2%. It is at 3.3%. And it also shows that how Bay Area continues to be, you know, even higher than that, given that it's Bay Area and more expensive. So it is at 3.8%. It does mean that it does have direct NEGATIVE IMPACT OR THE COST PRESSURE ON THE CITY'S OPERATIONS, COST OF DOING BUSINESS, BUILDING THAT PARK, PAVING THAT ROAD IS MORE EXPENSIVE. AND IT ALSO MEANS THAT CONTINUOUS HIGHER INFLATION RATE CONTINUES TO POSE A PRESSURE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY WHICH MAY TRIGGER FURTHER NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE CITY'S REVENUE SUCH AS REDUCED SALES TAX, REDUCED BUSINESS TAX IF IT CONTINUES TO BE VOLATILE. AND IT ALSO POSES MORE CHALLENGES WHILE WE TRY TO PLAN IN THE LONG RUN FOR THE CITY'S FINANCIALS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS HOW THE CITY'S PERSONNEL COSTS HAVE INCREASED SINCE 2005 AND PLEASE NOTE THAT IT ONLY INCLUDES THE BASE WAGES AND DOES NOT INCLUDE OTHER INCENTIVES LIKE EDUCATION INCENTIVES OR LONGEVITY INCENTIVES AND IT DOES GIVE ESCALATION IN COST BY BARGAINING UNIT AND YOU SEE THAT RANGES FROM 51.25% UP TO 72% ACROSS DIFFERENT UNIONS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. This is just a snapshot of the current status on personnel costs and labor agreements. We also would like to add more to the context that staffing has grown from 581 FTEs, full-time equivalents, to 679 from the year 2021. THROUGH 25, 26, WHICH IS ABOUT 98 POSITIONS, ABOUT 17% AND 98 POSITIONS INCREASE. AND WE ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT AND ADD TO CONTEXT THAT THE PERSONNEL COST EXTEND BEYOND THE WAGES. IT DOES INCLUDE, IT DOES ADD, ADDING ONE POSITION ADD IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, MORE PENSION COSTS, WORKER'S COMPENSATION COSTS, HEALTHCARE COSTS, OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT COSTS. SO UNFUNDED LIABILITY ALSO GOES UP AS WE ADD ONE POSITION OR MORE THAN ONE. SO IT'S LIKE EXPONENTIAL IMPACT ON THE COST. And we also want to point out that the city in 25-26 finalized MOUs with SEIU Local 1021, Local 21 Mid-Management and Executive Management, and Local 188, which is the Richmond Fire Department. FIGHTERS UNION, AND THOSE ARE RETRO TO JULY 1, 2025, AND WE ARE CURRENTLY PENDING NEGOTIATIONS, WE ARE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH R.P.O. AND POLICE MANAGEMENT, FIRE MANAGEMENT, AND THE IMPACTS OF THESE MOU NEGOTIATIONS WILL FURTHER LIMIT THE AVAILABILITY OF THE LIMITED TERM REVENUES. SO THAT MEANING, LIKE, WE THE BUDGET THAT WE INCLUDED, IT DOES LEAVE THE $48.5 MILLION SEPARATE, HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE COST OF THESE PENDING MOUs, SO IT WILL BE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THOSE REVENUES. WE ALSO WANT TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT THE FISCAL YEAR 26-27 BUDGET BALANCED BUDGET RELIES ON THE 12% VACANTY SAVING, WHICH IS ABOUT $16.5 MILLION OF THE BUDGET, AND AS WE CONTINUE TO FILL MORE POSITIONS SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S INTO THAT SAVING THAT WE HAVE BUDGETED. And in general, as Emily pointed out, that personnel costs and all overall operating costs continue to outpace the revenue growth. So it's just, we believe it's an important information that would, council would like to, would be aware of this, should be aware of this. Next slide. Over to Emily.

So this slide pulls together all of our major citywide plans, studies, and assessments that are currently underway. Some are legally required, some are grant funded, some are just operational, and some are council directed. The purpose of showing this list is to illustrate just all the work that is already in motion. many of which their efforts overlap in timing, consultant demand, staffing demands, and community engagement. So as we move to the next slide and discuss limited term revenue engagement options, we thought this context is important. It helps show why sequencing and coordination matter. and why the timing of that engagement should be aligned with these ongoing efforts to avoid duplication and reduce community fatigue. Next slide. So just picking up from that last slide, now that we've shown how much of our major work is already underway across the city, this slide lays out the options for when to begin that limited term revenue community engagement process. We're asking for council direction here because the timing really matters, as I mentioned, not just for workload, but also for the city's financial picture. So option A suggests waiting until the facility needs assessment plan is finished and identifying places where we can streamline or coordinate other projects. Option B suggests waiting until public safety labor negotiations are completed so we have a clear sense of long-term fiscal impacts. And those fiscal impacts are still very much unknown, as Mubeen mentioned, which is really a key factor. AND ALSO AS OUR CITY MANAGER MENTIONED EARLIER IN REGARDS TO LABOR NEGOTIATION, A LOT OF THE EMPLOYEES, MYSELF INCLUDED, THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ARE CURRENTLY AT THE LABOR TABLES AS WELL. SO THERE'S OVERLAPPING STAFFING THERE. SO EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE LISTED AS SEPARATE OPTIONS, THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. IN FACT, STAFF DOES SEE THE COMBINATION OF A AND B AS THE STRONGEST AND MOST PRACTICAL APPROACH. So waiting for both the assessment and labor negotiations would give us better clarity on workload and the city's financial picture. It's pretty simple. So in the option C would just be we are proceeding with community engagement regardless of what's happening with labor or with the facilities condition assessment and the other plans. And we'll have this slide again at the end.

Next slide.

So this slide summarizes two major emerging obligations that will increase costs in the future years. First, we have our California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority Supplemental Liability Assessment. We were made aware of this in the last year. And we are going to need to pay about 5.6 million over 10 years. And that's probably going to have to be out of the general fund. IS THE REGIONAL INSURANCE RISK POLL THAT THE CITY PARTICIPATES IN FOR LIABILITY COVERAGE. SO SECOND, AS WE'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, WE HAVE ASSEMBLY BILL 1383 WHICH WILL INCREASE PENSION COSTS BY LOWERING THE SAFETY RETIREMENT AGE FACTOR FOR OUR PEPRA EMPLOYEES. SO THAT HAS AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST ANYWHERE BETWEEN 400,000 AND A MILLION. When's implemented and this assembly bill has passed through the assembly. It's passed through the Senate It landed on the governor's desk on the 9th, and he has 30 days to sign that and And this will also, it could also, I guess this could be changing, give our bargaining units the ability to negotiate retirement formulas within a parameter.

Excuse me. There's a conversation going on in this room and it's distracting me.

The translators.

Oh, the translators? Okay.

Do we have translation on? Okay.

Translation. So let's see. Can translators do it elsewhere so it's not actually when it's over in the corners it acts like a chamber or sound chamber and the sound comes up here. So we do need translators. It's just a matter of how to do it so it's not

Okay, much appreciated. Possibly in the back?

Please. Okay. So staff, council members, do your best at speaking directly to the speakers so the translators will have an easier job.

You got it.

Mr. Mayor.

All right.

Sorry, do we not have the translation on as well? I can't see the other TVs, but usually we have it on. We have it on? Okay. Thank you.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE CITY CONTINUES TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL GRANT AND CAPITAL PROJECTS PORTFOLIO. AS YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE ABOUT 336 MILLION IN ACTIVE GRANTS THAT EXCEEDS OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET. WE HAVE ABOUT 31.4 MILLION ANTICIPATED AWARDS AND WE'VE SUBMITTED ABOUT 86.5 MILLION AND THIS IS PROBABLY OUTDATED BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN LAST WEEK SO I'M SURE THERE'S PROBABLY MORE. WE ALSO HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME PROJECTS HERE FROM OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THAT WERE COMPLETED DURING QUARTER FOUR AND THAT INCLUDES THE COMPLETED AUTOMATED TRANSIT NETWORK STUDY, THE REOPENING OF SHILDS REED PARK IN JULY AND CONTINUED WORK ON THE LIBRARY INFRASTRUCTURE, BRIDGE MAINTENANCE, PAVING AND ACCESSIBILITY AND THE CITY ALSO INSTALLED 11 SOLAR STREET LIGHTS WITH ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED FOR THE NEXT PHASE. SO FOR FISCAL YEAR 26-27, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE ALLOCATION OF 2.2 MILLION FOR RICHMOND PROMISE AND THIS WOULD BE FUNDED ENTIRELY BY INTEREST INCOME EARNED IN OUR, I FORGOT THE ACRONYM ALREADY. I KNOW IT'S ECIA. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AGREEMENT. THANK YOU. RESOURCES. THIS RECOMMENDATION ALIGNS WITH COUNCIL'S UNANIMOUS DIRECTION BACK ON MAY 26 TO IDENTIFY A SUSTAINABLE FUNDING PATH FOR THIS PROGRAM. AND AS OUR CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, THIS SUPPORTS APPROXIMATELY 1,300 SCHOLARS EACH YEAR AND THIS INVESTMENT WILL HELP MAINTAIN THAT SCHOLARSHIP AVAILABILITY. AND WE DO, I BELIEVE WE HAVE CHRIS WHITMORE HERE FROM RICHMOND PROVINCE AS WELL IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT. SO YOU'VE SEEN THIS TABLE ALREADY SO I'M NOT GOING TO RUN THROUGH IT AGAIN. THE REASON WE'RE SHOWING IT A SECOND TIME IS JUST TO UNDERSCORE THE POINT WE'VE BEEN MAKING. SO EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ABLE TO MEET THAT 21% RESERVE REQUIREMENT AND PRESERVE THAT 48.5 MILLION IN LIMITED TERM REVENUE BALANCE THIS YEAR, WE'RE DOING THAT WITH ONE TIME INTEREST EARNINGS. SO THIS SLIDE IS HERE JUST AS A REMINDER THAT THE RESERVE CALCULATION DOESN'T CHANGE THE UNDERLYING STRUCTURAL DEFICIT THAT WE'RE FACING. RIGHT, NEXT SLIDE. SO THE PRELIMINARY UNAUDITED YEAR END RESULTS SHOW OUR TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES OF APPROXIMATELY 311.8 MILLION, WHICH INCLUDES THE 50 MILLION IN LIMITED TURN REVENUE. EXPENDITURES TOTAL ABOUT 268.4 MILLION. SO ALTHOUGH TOTAL REVENUES EXCEED EXPENDITURES BY ROUGHLY 40.2 MILLION, THAT INCLUDES THE LIMITED TERM REVENUE. IF WE WERE TO EXCLUDE IT, THAT MEANS THAT EXPENDITURES ARE ESTIMATED TO EXCEED REVENUES BY 9.8 MILLION AND THAT DOES INCLUDE THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE'LL GO OVER IN A LITTLE BIT. SO BEFORE YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS, THE MARGIN IS ABOUT 43.4 MILLION. AFTER APPLYING THE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS, THE REVISED RESULT IS ABOUT 40.2 MILLION. And again, that positive number that you see there is driven almost entirely by our limited-term revenue. Next slide, please. And I'll hand it back to Mubeen.

Thank you, Emily. So this slide presents the variance analysis of the revenues, general fund revenues. Overall total general fund revenue is above budget by 1%. However, the several various categories I'll go over. So the major categories are property taxes with 97% of the budget. The negative variance is due to the floating liens, which came in lower than expected, which is due to the slower real estate market. Sales tax was better than expected because all major retailers in the city reported better than expected sales. Utility users tax includes cable, TV, gas, electricity, and telecom. AND IT IS BELOW BUDGET BY 3%, AND THE DECLINE IS DUE TO THE PGE RATE REDUCTION IN ELECTRICITY AND GAS RATES, WHICH WERE REDUCED FROM 2.5 TO 3% IN THE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, SO THAT BASICALLY IMPACTED THE REVENUES IN THIS CATEGORY, AND THE OTHER TAXES IS 97%, AND AFTER THE LICENSE PERMITS AND FEES, WHICH INCLUDES THE MEASURE, IT'S ABOVE BUDGET BY 6%, AND THIS IS THE FOURTH YEAR WHEN WE REPORTED THE MEASURE, WE ASSESSED THE MEASURE, THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX BASED ON THE GROWTH RECEIPTS RATHER THAN THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, SO WE CONTINUE TO SEE THE SUCCESS IN THAT CATEGORY AND CONTINUE TO EXCEED THE REVENUES. And yes, next slide, please. This is a visual representation of the same chart, and it shows budget versus actuals, same information.

Next slide, please.

We'll go further deep into the revenue. This slide shows the detail behind the business tax revenue. It shows that it's pretty concentrated. 53%, more than 53% of the total revenue was collected from 25 business filers. And then it shows the further detail, how it, you know, cumulatively expands to other, more number of taxpayers. And it also shows how between each categories, each business class, WE SEE THE MAJOR ONE REMAINS RETAIL SALES 21% AND MANUFACTURING 21% AND RENTALS 21% FOLLOWING BY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AT 16% AND THEN ALL THE OTHER CATEGORIES ARE GIVEN SHOWN THERE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A QUICK UPDATE ON THE CANNABIS BUSINESS TAX FOR THE COUNCIL DIRECTION EARLIER IN THE CALENDAR YEAR. Fiscal year 25-26, the city received $1.6 million from the cannabis businesses, from the 12 total businesses. In 24-25 fiscal year, there were about 13 cannabis businesses, and this does provide a breakdown of the cannabis revenue collected from different categories the industry. Even though the other cities have seen cannabis businesses struggle with things like regulatory changes and competition from illegal market, the city has not seen the same widespread issues in the city of Richmond. Only one operator is not fully current and one has asked for temporary payment plan and has already started paying down their balance. SINCE THE SECTOR IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND IS GENERALLY STABLE, STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES TO THE CANNABIS TAX FEES OR REGULATION RIGHT NOW. MAKING ADJUSTMENT AT THIS POINT COULD REDUCE CITY'S REVENUE WITHOUT SOLVING AN ACTUAL PROBLEM. CITY WILL KEEP MONITORING THE SECTOR AND IF CONDITIONS SHIFT, THE STAFF WILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL WITH AN UPDATE. Next slide, please. This slide shows the variance of the city's expenditures. Total expenditures are 98% of the budget, below budget, which is good. However, if you look at the major categories of the expenditures, we do see the salaries and benefits exceeded the budget, which is primarily due to the COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED IN LAST FISCAL YEAR, EFFECTIVE JULY 1. SO WE SEE THAT THOSE WERE EXCEEDING THE BUDGET AND WE ALL KNOW THAT WE DID NOT REALLY BUDGET FOR THOSE COLLIDE INCREASES. HOWEVER, THOSE ARE ABSORBED BY VACANCY SAVINGS THAT THE CITY HAS BUDGETED AT THE TIME OF BUDGET DEVELOPMENT. SO THESE INCREASES IN THE SALARIES AND BENEFITS WERE OFFSET BY THE SAVINGS IN NONPERSONNEL COSTS SUCH AS PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OTHER OPERATING AND UTILITIES. OVERALL AS I SAID THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES ARE ONLY 98% OF THE TOTAL BUDGET. NEXT SLIDE. THIS SLIDE IS VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. So next slide, please. So this slide shows the level of cost recovery within the general fund across different departments of the city. On top is community development with 31% of cost recovery, then community services with 15%, public works 6%, and fire 4%, police and economic development with 3%. WE, YEAH, SO THAT IS JUST THE REPRESENTATION OF HOW THE GENERAL FUND IS COLLECTING, RECOVERING ITS COSTS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IS PRIMARILY CODE ENFORCEMENT, PUBLIC WORKS IS PRIMARILY ENGINEERING SERVICES AND FIRE PREVENTION AND POLICE CAT DISPATCH AND PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES FRANCHISE FEE FOR SANITARY SERVICES WHERE THE COSTS ARE BEING RECOVERED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

Can I ask a question, Mr. Muir?

Let's finish the presentation.

OK. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER. THIS SLIDE PROVIDES MORE DETAIL AROUND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND ENGINEERING PROGRAMS, LIKE HOW THEIR EXPENDITURES IN EACH PROGRAM WERE LIKE $2 MILLION AND RECOVERY WAS ABOUT $1 MILLION IN CODE ENFORCEMENT. AND SAME, NOT SAME, BUT LIKE THE SAME CHART ENGINEERING SERVICES HAS LIKE $1.6 MILLION EXPENDITURES AND OF HALF A MILLION RECOVERED. AND IT ALSO SHOWS LIKE WHAT THE ACTUAL BURDEN ON THE GENERAL FUND IS, 57% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES WERE ABSORBED BY THE GENERAL FUND AND SMALLER PART OF THE EXPENDITURES WAS RECOVERED THROUGH FEES AND REVENUES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. This chart is a summary of the non-general funds by category. Overall total non-general fund revenues were 66%. And the chart shows the major categories of the funds where these THESE ARE ROLLED UP OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS, INCLUDES SEVERAL FUNDS WITH ALL THESE CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE BEING FUNDED FROM. IT'S AT 34%. SO MOST OF THESE ARE GRANTS, WHICH ARE MULTI-YEAR, AND THE RECOVERY HAPPENS AS THE PROJECTS MOVE AND GET COMPLETED. REVENUE IS GENERALLY BEHIND IN THESE AREAS AND THEN WE HAVE DEBT SERVICE FUND WHICH IS BASED ON THE DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE AND GENERALLY DOES FALL AS BUDGET SO NO SURPRISE OVER THERE. AND THEN THERE'S ENTERPRISE FUNDS. IT DOES INCLUDE SOME OF THE FUNDS THERE ARE PORT OF RICHMOND, WASTEWATER AND KCRT FUNDS ARE PART OF THAT 82% AND I THINK IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE SAME SLIDE SHOWING EXPENDITURES. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES ARE 60% OF THE BUDGET. AGAIN, SEVERAL OF THESE FUNDS HAVE GRANTS IN THEM, WHICH ARE MULTI-YEAR, AND THE EXPENDITURES ARE AS THE PROJECTS MOVE FORWARD AND THE GRANTS ARE REIMBURSED AND EXPENDED. NEXT SLIDE.

So here you're looking at our general fund year end required adjustments totaling 3.1 million. I do want to point out that this is already included in the table, the reserve calculation. We've included those already. So this wouldn't be an addition to the gaps that we've been talking about earlier in the presentation. SO IT INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY $578,000 IN THE KCRT FUND TO SUPPORT A YEAR END CORRECTION OR A NEGATIVE FUND BALANCE RESULTING FROM DECLINING CABLE RELATED REVENUES. WE ALSO HAVE AN ADJUSTMENT, OUR PENSION TAX OVERRIDE FUND CAME IN LOWER THAN WHAT WE HAD BUDGETED. SO THE REVENUES CAME IN LOWER. WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE NEED TO LOWER THE TRANSFER INTO OUR GENERAL FUND. SO ALTHOUGH THIS SHOWS ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE, WHEN THE PTORS OR THE PENSION TAX OVERRIDE FUND COMES IN LOWER IN REVENUES, THAT MEANS IT'S LOWER REVENUES IN THE GENERAL FUND BY WAY OF A TRANSFER IN. AND THEN WE HAVE SOME FLEET REPLACEMENT ADJUSTMENTS AS WELL. Next slide. So here are all of the proposed budget adjustments that include general funds and all the funds in this table. SO FOR THE GENERAL FUND AS I MENTIONED THE MAIN ITEMS ARE THE KCRT RESTORING FLEET REPLACEMENT TO COVER HIGHER VEHICLE REPLACEMENT COSTS WHICH WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT PROBABLY FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW AND THE REDUCTION IN THE P TOURS AND ON THE NON-GENERAL FUND SIDE WE'RE RECOGNIZING LATE YEAR IMPACT FEE REVENUE AND COVERING OVERAGE IN OUR WASTE WATER AND STORM WATER OPERATIONS AND HERE YOU'LL ALSO SEE THE ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE INTEREST EARNINGS. AN AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OR ARPA AND THEN OUR ECIA FUND AS WELL SHOWS ON HERE. SO IN FRONT OF YOU WE HAVE OUR OPTIONS THAT WE HAD ON EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATIONS, OPTION A, B AND C. STAFF IS REQUESTING TONIGHT COUNCIL DIRECTION ON WHICH OPTION TO PROCEED WITH. AGAIN, OPTION A IS TO WAIT FOR UNTIL THE FACILITIES NEEDS ASSESSMENT IS DONE. OPTION B IS WAIT UNTIL LABOR NEGOTIATIONS IS DONE AND C IS JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REGARDLESS OF THESE EFFORTS. So here are our next steps. Staff will continue working with our auditors to complete our annual comprehensive financial report for fiscal year 25-26. Again, the numbers that were presented tonight were unaudited. They probably won't change very much. We expect to return to council in early 2027 with those audited results. And if council approves tonight's administrative adjustment, staff will incorporate them into the year-end closing process. And then, of course, we'll implement whatever community engagement approach the council desires. And here is our recommended action. Just to close, staff recommends to receive the fourth quarter and attached third quarter financial reports, adopt the resolution, approving our year-end administrative adjustments, AND WE ALSO RECOMMEND APPROPRIATING THE 2.2 MILLION IN ECIA INTEREST EARNINGS FOR RICHMOND PROMISE JUST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2627 AND THEN FINALLY WE'RE REQUESTING CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE OPTIONS PRESENTED FOR OUR LIMITED TERM REVENUE ENGAGEMENT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I WOULD LIKE TO do each of the recommended actions separately. And we will begin with receiving the fiscal year 2025, 2026, quarter four to begin with. So we, I guess we could start with public comment on all of them. And then after that, we'll go to questions from council.

Mayor, if I may, for you as a chair, so are you suggesting that, for example, on page 42 there are four different items and that in terms of voting you want to vote on each one separately? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, we have a total of seven in-person speakers. We have a total of three online speakers and we do not have any speakers from the auditorium. Okay, so we'll start with the seven in-person speakers, Cordell Hendler, Claudia Citroen, Stephanie Zhang, Megan Cepanta, Tom Villan-Villa, Jari Smith, and Erica Sayo. Cordell, you have two minutes to address the council.

I'll get my two minutes. Great. So good evening, Mayor Martinez, Council, Cordell Handler here, Richmond residents. So thank you, Emily, for that presentation. So as I was looking at this, I said, wow, I would allocate those funds for the Richmond Promise because they have done a lot for Richmond. These kids are going to college today. 10 years, this is amazing. So what I would do, as Emily pointed out, I would go with all, if you want to do it separately, great. But I would recommend it, allocate the funds for the rich and promise and just approve this item as is. So I looked at the resolution. I don't have no problem with this. So it's done. So Claudia.

Claudia Citroen.

How much time do I have?

Two minutes.

So first, when the police department had their budget presentation, Wilson suggested that they order a bulletproof limousine. The mayor, however, didn't educate himself between the difference of an armored vehicle and a Bearcat, which was requested. So you did know about it. Secondly, I also want to discuss that You have an urgency memorandum on AI buildings tonight, but you don't have an urgency memorandum on traffic on the crimes which happened in town and happened in recent weeks. You should be focusing on that, and you don't. Thirdly, the budget, I mean, there's so many loopholes in this budget. There is adjustments and there is, again, you don't mention the unfunded liabilities. It's embarrassing. I have a few more things. I forgot it because I wanted to mention it on M and I was not called. I also want to mention it is embarrassing that the mayor allows, again, speaker speak on items which are not called and that when I ask the city manager, she points at you. You should run the meetings. You don't. And I use my time. I'm too angry to say more. Stephanie Zhang.

Just speak.

Great. Good evening, Mayor Martinez and Richmond City Council members. My name is Stephanie Zhang. I am an organizer at APEN, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, a local environmental organization in Richmond. For over 100 years, Chevron has polluted our air while reaping billions of dollars And our families have paid the price. Just last night and over the weekend, the flaring at Chevron's refinery spewed toxic gases and pollutants into Richmond. Two years ago, we made polluters pay by winning a $550 million settlement. And multiple times, city council has committed to using that funding to improve the lives of our residents and invest in a just transition away from fossil fuels. Now we need to deliver on that promise. More than ever, people are struggling. Generations of our members' families continue to suffer from asthma and cancer as a result of the refinery pollution. And these funds can be a lifeline. Our members envision these funds creating community centers, affordable homes, even a local hospital so we can better access the care we need. So we need to move forward with the community engagement process to address our greatest needs in Richmond and not for paying off the city's debt obligations. Of course we are open for ways to efficiently use data for purposes, for multiple purposes, but pushing back the community input process further is unacceptable. The city mentioned staff capacity from labor negotiations as an issue that's delaying this process. Why then did the city vote seven months ago to hire a consultant specifically to run this process? And wouldn't this consultant add capacity to the city? I WANT TO END BY JUST SAYING THE PEOPLE OF RICHMOND DESERVE TO BE HEARD SO I URGE THE COUNCIL TO VOTE FOR OPTION C AND PROCEED WITH THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE FUNDS. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. I'M THE RICHMOND ORGANIZING DIRECTOR FOR APEN AND I THINK MY COLLEAGUE WAS ABLE TO GET TO MOST OF OUR POINTS AND I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO READ TESTIMONY FOR A MEMBER THAT IS ON THE LINE BUT I DO JUST WANT TO ECHO THIS PIECE THAT it's really important for our community members we're hearing time and time again from our members from people we talk to from our allies that you know council voted in the beginning of this year to see a community engagement process through we won this settlement two years ago and we want to we want a voice our member our members and our community residents need a voice in this process And again, we definitely want to hear the ways that different processes that are already moving through the city and different engagement processes can be connected. But I don't want to hear that police negotiations are pushing back this important input process. This is really important. So thank you for your time. And yeah, thank you.

Okay, our next speaker is Tom Viongvillai.

Good evening mayor Martinez and members of the city of Richmond My name is Tom. We are really I am a longtime resident of Richmond and also a member of a pen I'm here to strongly support moving forward with the community engagement process for the settlement funds these funds belong to people of Richmond and and the people must decide how they are used. When my parents and I immigrated to this country as refugees, we didn't know the air we were breathing was toxic. We simply wanted a safe place to call home. But over the years, this hidden reality took a devastating toll. I watched both of my parents diagnosed with lung cancer, even though they never spoke. No one should worry that the simple acts of breathing air would cut their life short. This is environmental injustice. So let's protect the residents and build a Richmond where we can all breathe free. So I urge the city council to move forward with option C and let our community have a voice. We need transparency, we need engagement, and we need it now. Thank you.

Majaree Smith.

Good evening, City Council. My name is Najari Smith. I am asking you to select option C, moving forward with the limited-term revenue community engagement process now, concurrently with the public safety labor negotiations and other council-directed plans and studies. Deferring engagement until the facility needs assessment or labor negotiations wrap up as provided in options A and B, risk pushing community input to the back of the line again. Community engagement shouldn't be treated as something that we can wait until everything else is settled. Waiting also risks compressing the engagement timeline later resulting in a rushed process that doesn't reflect real community. Please select option C so community engagement on this revenue isn't delayed. Thank you.

Our last in-person speaker is Erica Sale.

Hi, good evening City Council. My name is Erica Xiao. I'm a researcher at Communities for a Better Environment Richmond. I've been part of the coalition to plan and distribute the Chevron settlement funds in service of a just transition in Richmond alongside APEN and other partners. Our communities have been waiting for two years to see this money spent and we urge Council to not delay this process further and to vote for option C. For the past year, I've been lucky to work with a group of four CBE member researchers in a participatory project to investigate health care access in Richmond. These members who were born and raised in Richmond have worked tirelessly to identify challenges as well as solutions to improve their community. We've interviewed and surveyed close to 100 Richmond residents, and we found that high costs and insurance issues have led the majority of respondents to need to leave Richmond to access their basic health care needs. Coming out of this project, CBE member researchers have created a list of policy solutions such as investing in a new public hospital or funding existing community clinics to improve our public health infrastructure. We've been ready and eager to engage in the city's community process with respect to the settlement funds, and we've been counting on it. I also know that this small and mighty group of Richmond residents is not alone in coming up with solutions. The Richmond Our Power Coalition has been meeting regularly and collected dozens of projects that Richmond community members want to see. These are actionable solutions for a healthier and better Richmond for all. Please do not delay this process or make residents wait any further for a future that's very much within reach. Thank you.

That was our last in-person speaker. Now we'll move to the two online speakers.

And those speakers are Lisa Johnson and Ray Scampavia. Lisa Johnson, you'll have two minutes to speak. You can go ahead and start.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Lisa Johnson. In this election year, RPA Council members have repeatedly told voters they saved taxpayers $84 million by restructuring the 2005 pension bonds. They conveniently omit the back half of that story. The city's own financial advisors table showed $84 million in lower payments through 2034, followed by 119 million in higher payments from 2035 to 2044. That is not savings. It is a projected $35 million net cost pushed onto future taxpayers and councils. And those increased payments start coming due right at the last Chevron payment arrives in fiscal year 2034-35. Staff numbers tonight raise more concerns. Without settlement money, the general fund has a $9.8 million structural deficit, and the forecast shows growing deficits reaching 15.4 million by 2031. Personnel costs grew from 146 to 201 million in five years, and the budget relies on 16.5 million in vacancy savings. Staff is also asking to delay settlement fund engagement until public safety labor negotiations finish. Those contracts must come first, and RPD must be fully staffed. Meanwhile, Measure Q asked voters to $120 million in fire station bonds, nearly $250 million with interest paid through a new property tax. So property owners and renters are being asked to fund infrastructure with new taxes while the settlement money is held. The council approved up to $300,000 for a consultant to ask residents how to spend that money. But your own forecast shows some of that money may be needed just to balance the budget. And that's before the higher bond payments even begin in 2035. That is false hope at taxpayers' expense. Please stop calling deferred to hirings and vacancy savings, hiring beyond what the city and taxpayers can sustain, and tell residents how you will plan for 2035 and beyond. Thank you.

Thank you. And the last speaker is Ray Scampavia. You'll have two minutes to speak. You can go ahead and start.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor Martinez and Richmond City Council. My name is Ray Scampavia. I'm a Richmond resident. I'm a mom, I'm a scientist, and I'm also a member of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. I'm here to comment on item number 01 and call on City Council to honor the commitment they've made multiple times to spend the short-term revenue from the settlement funds for a just transition for Richmond and invest in the needs of the community. We need to advance community engagement process that you've already committed to and let people have a say on how those funds are spent. And just a little bit about me. My husband and I moved to Richmond in 2021 in search of a place that we could start a family surrounded by community. And in that regard, Richmond has delivered beyond our wildest expectations. The city has blessed us with its rich and thriving culture. We have neighbors who look after each other and a sense of belonging that we've never experienced anywhere in our lives. What we didn't know when we moved here was that the air that our newborn son would be breathing every day was already compromised. And a recent Bay Area Air District report has corroborated what our neighbors and many families here have already known for years. that rates of cancer and other chronic illnesses in Richmond residents, even in our children, exceed legal thresholds due to Chevron refinery emissions. My son's now four years old and a shocking number of his friends and classmates suffer from asthma. The air is poisoning our children. Meanwhile, across the Carquina Strait, the city of Benicia has already received $82 million in 2024 and $40 million in 2026. It already has plans to use, while the money that Richmond received two years ago has yet to be earmarked and will continue to lose purchasing power with the rate of inflation while residents suffer. Council members, I urge you to proceed with option C so that we can move this process forward now and start addressing the needs of my neighbors, our children, and our community. Thank you.

Thank you. And that was the last speaker.

Thank you. Public comment is closed. And it is now time for council members. Council member Bonner.

Thank you. It is time for questions or comments, too?

Either one.

Okay. Quick question on slide 34, please. The cost recovery. I didn't get the concept. 5.3% RECOVERY.

DEPARTMENTS THAT PROVIDE SERVICES THAT ARE THEN ABLE TO BE CHARGED BACK FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED SUCH AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, ENGINEERING, THE DATA ON THE SLIDE INDICATES WHAT THE COST RECOVERY IS THAT IS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE SO THAT AS THE STAFFING HAS INCREASED AT COUNCIL DIRECTION, THE COST RECOVERY HAS NOT KEPT PLACE WITH THE STAFFING INCREASES AND SO THOSE COSTS ARE BEING ABSORBED BY THE GENERAL FUND.

Okay, that cost recovery, the percentage is set or it's calculated based on the?

It's calculated based on the amount of revenue that is collected on an annual basis from the respective department. So, for example, the top line says community development expenses 3.3 million, recovered 1.03 million.

Thank you. No, my question was about that 5.3%. I was wondering if it was a policy.

That is the average between those departments.

Okay, so there's no set point. Thank you. So my comment is about the timing. While I really appreciate the nonprofit organizations who worked very hard, like APEN and CBE, I think the community has a right to make an informed decision. So my question is, on option A and B, what is the time estimate for those information?

IT'S SUBJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DISCRETION BECAUSE CITY STAFF FOLLOW THE COUNCIL DIRECTION PERTAINING TO BARGAINING.

YEAH, BUT COULD YOU SHOW OPTIONS? COULD YOU SHOW THE SLIDES FOR OPTIONS A, B, C, PLEASE? CERTAINLY. OKAY. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, YOU'RE RIGHT. HOW ABOUT THE FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT PLAN? WHEN IS IT GOING TO BE DONE?

IT'S CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS. DANIEL, CAN YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

ANY ESTIMATE IS APPRECIATED.

And then you saw the council directed plan studies and assessments. So what staff is trying to convey here is that Staff is happy to move forward with option C, but if that is the option the Council wants us to proceed with, then you may want to look at attachment six in your binder. That has the items that the City Council, since 2024, THERE'S 55 ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL, AND SO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF MAYBE THE COUNCIL AGREES TO PAUSE THOSE THINGS SO THAT THERE COULD BE A FOCUS ON THIS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, BUT TO THINK THAT ALL OF THE PLANS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN MOTION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE OUTREACH PROCESS CAN ALL HAPPEN SIMULTANEOUSLY, THERE ISN'T STAFF CAPACITY TO DO THAT. SO THERE HAS TO BE SOME DISCUSSION AROUND SEQUENCING AND PRIORITIES BECAUSE SOME OF THE SAME STAFF ARE AT MULTIPLE TABLES AND LEADING MULTIPLE INITIATIVES. AND FOR EXAMPLE, PERHAPS DEPUTY CITY MANAGER WHITE AFTER MR. TRAVARIA CAN GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SHE'S CURRENTLY WORKING ON FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER.

THANK YOU. BUT MY ISSUE IS WITH THE WAY IT HAS BEEN FRAMED INTO OPTIONS A, B, C. I think it's important to view it from the angle of informing the community, then getting their input about the process. Community engagement is very important, should be done as soon as possible. At the same time, they shouldn't be kept in the dark. They should be informed.

no no we agree but the issue is what do we say regarding the amount of funds that's available like we don't feel comfortable saying we can have a community engagement process for 550 million dollars if there isn't 550 million dollars remaining and so that's the the rub is that we're trying to understand how does the council want to frame this if we're operating with unknowns like we as staff we would never commence a community engagement process IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE REMAINING BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD, IT FEELS LIKE YOU'RE NOT BEING AS TRANSPARENT AS, LIKE WE HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS, RIGHT? I'VE MET WITH APEN BEFORE AND OTHER COMMUNITY GROUPS. So we have values where we want to be in alignment with the council and community-based organizations, but we also want to be forthright and truthful around how much revenue is remaining, and that's an unknown at this time. So as long as everyone is fine with saying we don't know how much revenue there is, that's why we're having this conversation so it's transparent.

I understand. I believe you are saying the same thing. Perfect. That the community has the right to know.

Right.

So when will the community know about that assessment plan?

Good evening, Mayor Martinez, Councilmember. For the record, my name is Daniel Chavarria. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the original question. I just heard my name. Okay.

KCRT, could you bring the slide up again so Director Chavarria could see it? So option A says defer the limited term revenue community engagement process until completion of the facility needs assessment plan.

Okay. So what we can say in public works right now is that our estimate is we have about $1.5 billion in infrastructure needs in the city of Richmond. That is between the maintenance that we need to provide the infrastructure and bringing facilities up to date. So that includes, for example, bringing all the fire stations, remodeling, like the bond that is going on in the upcoming elections. That's $120 million out of the $1.5 billion. We made a presentation here at the city council THAT WE WERE ESTIMATING $275 MILLION IN MAINTENANCE AND WE WERE NOT COUNTING YET THE MAINTENANCE THAT WE NEED FOR THE STORM WATER SYSTEM AND SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. SO WE ESTIMATE THAT IS AT LEAST $300 MILLION IN MAINTENANCE. NOW, THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO HAS RECEIVED DURING THE BUDGET SEASON THE 10-YEAR unfunded lease of projects that add up to a little bit over $1.1 billion. So that's how you can start adding up everything to the $1.5 billion need. So we are working right now in all our programmatic approach and putting all those NUMBERS TOGETHER, BUT DEFINITELY AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO NEED WHAT THE CITY MANAGER IS SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO NEED WHAT IS THE NUMBER THAT WE CAN COUNT ON BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO GO AFTER THE PROCESS WITH THE COMMUNITY, OF COURSE, IN THE DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. SO WE HAVE $1.5 BILLION, AND IF OUT OF THE ORIGINAL 550 MILLION, THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDES THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE 200 MILLION TO INFRASTRUCTURE. SO, WELL, IT'S 200 MILLION OUT OF THE 1.5, THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE PRIORITIES.

SO IN THE INTEREST OF PROCESSING THAT COMMUNITY process to get it started. The community needs to know what projects are urgent, you know, like red, yellow, green, green can wait, I don't know, 30 years, 10 years. The red has to be done this year or within the next three years so they can make a decision.

Well, there are different competing needs, right? I mean, I'm just guessing that some community members would prefer some priorities, and other community members who prefer other priorities, and that's something that is going to be part of the discussion. One part that Public Works is committed to do is to be engaged in those conversations and be part, I mean, once we have a consultant, be part of those initial conversations and hopefully be part of the presentations to the community. Maybe part of those presentations is going to be Here is where the $1.5 billion infrastructure needs come from. These are the cost in parks, the cost in paving, the cost in safety, the cost in fire reduction, all those costs, right? The cost in improving all the fire stations, all our facilities, replacing roofs, HVACs, and these are all the costs. And so the community can have like a real picture of what we're facing.

Thank you. So you're saying that you do have those itemized that the committee can decide? We're working on it.

We're working on it.

So when is it going to be ready to be presented to the public?

I think by the time we have the consultant, we'll be ready. Okay. So there's no way on that. When we talk about $1.5 billion, right, and we don't even have $550 million for infrastructure only,

But you're not going to throw that number of $1.5 billion to the public. You're going to say these have priority and it's doable.

Well, I'm doing it right now. I'm doing it right now. But I think it's important that everybody knows that number. But also it's important to say when we're talking about that $1.5 billion, and the question is, do you know it to the dime? No. DO WE NEED TO KNOW IT TO THE DIME? IF IT'S MAYBE $1.4 MILLION, WHEN WE ONLY HAVE LESS THAN $150 MILLION, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT IMPORTANT. NOW, IF WE WOULD HAVE $1.1 BILLION, THEN IT'S WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. NOW WE HAVE TO GO MORE AND MORE. I CANNOT GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER, COUNCIL MEMBER, OR THE COMMUNITY UNTIL MAYBE SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, A YEAR FROM NOW, BECAUSE WE NEED TO DIG DEEPER. BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DIG much deeper just to present the community, these are all the buckets. And this bucket is 120 for the fire department, for example, because that's the bond that we're going after, 120 million. This is our, for example, for paving, we're talking about $200 million, right? This is paving, right? This is the other bucket, I mean, different buckets, and then that adds up to $1.5 billion.

Thank you, so the community can make decision like if paving is important to them, if parks are important, if you have that table. also with some color codes to show sense of urgency.

Yeah. The things that we can say, for example, in Polyworks, whatever you're talking in the public right away, you're talking about combining complete streets projects with safety improvements. Paving, the paving budget is going to be key because you can leverage that to do other improvements. And of course, the city goes after grants. But what we need to be very careful now is, okay, how much is the grant going to cost us? Because we can receive $20 million in a grant, and everybody, let's go, but wait, wait, wait, let's run numbers. This grant, $20 million, obligate us to put $50 million, for example. to have a $70 million investment. And maybe those $50 million are needed in other needs. So that's why always it's going to be important to separate the buckets and receive the information from the community, and that would allow the city council to give us direction what is going to be our priority.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your efforts to enlighten the community to provide the best input to the process. Thank you.

Okay, before we go on, I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE'S ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT RECEIVING THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET. OKAY. SO LET'S KEEP THE CONVERSATIONS TO THE BUDGET AND NOT TO THE OTHER ITEMS BECAUSE WE'LL GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THE OTHER ITEMS WHEN THEY COME UP TO VOTE. SO FOR THE FISCAL, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON RECEIVING? NO? OKAY. THEN COUNCIL MEMBER GIMENEZ.

Yeah, thank you for the presentation, and I think it's difficult for me divide all of these as the mayor say, but I will try. So I think it will be good for us to see past projections, five year projections of like four or five times before. And I will say that because when I get to the city council the first time, before I got here, there was a $19 million in deficit. And when I got here, they were $20 million in surplus. And I know that like, I think like what we are trying to get here is that we are in the unknown with projections, with how we are presenting this information in some ways, because it's projections. We are thinking about what is the best outcome or the pessimist outcome. There are some things in the projections that I would like to know. AS THE MEASURE U, RIGHT? AND WE KNOW THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE MEASURE U CHANGED THE WEIGHT WITH TAX, BUSINESS LICENSE TAX, AND THERE IS AN UNKNOWN ABOUT HOW MUCH SHARE RENT WILL BE PAID WITH THE NEW MEASURE U. And that, I don't think, has been put in these projections because we don't know.

But we're not allowed to talk about specific taxpayers in open session? Yes.

So I am not asking any question. I am just making that comment, right? Yeah, we're not allowed to do that. So one of my things that I want to say here is that also the projections are projecting the status quo that we have, like how much we are going to receive. There is no new information about maybe if we have an investment in a new technology or a new business, how much that, because we don't know. And the idea of us voting last time to have a consultant to help us to guide this process is not only that the community, we want to see what the community wants also, but also get informed by experts on how WE CAN INVEST THIS MONEY SO THE PROJECTIONS THAT WE ARE SEEING RIGHT NOW WITH DEFICIT CAN CHANGE OVER TIME. AND MAYBE IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T PUT THAT IN PROJECTIONS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHAT WE ARE NOT SEEING HERE IS WHAT IF WE HAVE THIS, WE CAN HAVE A GOOD AND SMART INVESTMENTS. that can help us in these 10 years to have a better revenue. and move away from that dependency that we have right now from one industry to other industry. And this is key for us. And I know that we will need some staff time, but this is why the consultant is important to add that capacity. We have an item to look into the liability. We have been working on that. We haven't heard that much about that, right? So these are things that we can start working if we have the right people and the right expertise, and this is why the community is asking let us to be, to participate. Yes, we don't know a lot of these things because we don't know like maybe there is a economic crisis, right? like there is a lot of unknowns but i think like what we know is that we are going to have 550 million dollars uh that if we are responsible and we are using it in a way that can help us to bring more revenue or to do a smart investment and also to make sure that we are responding to this unfunded and deferred maintenance, we can be in a better situation in the future, right? I hear what staff is saying, but I think it's key to have this process and move it forward so we can address some of these issues that you are presenting in your projections, right? So I would like to have, you can email us all the projections and I will email to you So we will see how the projection in other years has done, good or not, had been accurate or not. Because my experience, as I said, when I came here, was that there was a deficit of $90 million. The council had to make a lot of difficult decisions, and then we had $20 million in surplus the next year. So thank you.

Mayor, if I may, I just want to add that $20 million episode was not during my tenure as city manager. And so I think it's really important, if we may, to hear from Deputy City Manager White and then the finance director to assist in giving context around how this work is impacting what they're trying to do and how to help navigate the city council's requests.

Actually, I think we need to continue with the City Council and we will give you a chance to respond after the Council has had their questions. So Council Member Vice Mayor Robinson.

Thank you. So I too have a lot of questions about this budget and the budget analysis and some of them have to do with our surpluses. and decisions that were made during the course of the year to allocate surplus funds, yet now we're being told that there's deficits. So, for instance, on your slide, I'm not sure what number slide, is it slide 8? There was a, presented on May 7th in 2024, there was a protected deficit of 11 million plus dollars. And what I want to understand is where did that year actually close? What was the actual end close of that year? And I also want to understand how many, how much in surplus funds were allocated and spent during that year?

Let me make sure I understand the question correctly. So we're looking at slide eight, and this is for fiscal year 2020-24. 23-24. Right.

There's a projected deficit.

Okay, right.

According to this projection. THIS MIDDLE OF THE ROAD PROJECTION, PROJECTED DEFICIT OF $11 MILLION PLUS ALMOST $12 MILLION. WHAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IS I WANT EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO ALSO UNDERSTAND THIS IS THE PROJECTION, BUT WHAT WAS THE ACTUALS?

NO, I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY.

ALSO, DURING THAT TERM, WHAT WAS ALLOCATED IN TERMS OF SURPLUS FUNDS TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS? WE DO THIS ALL THE TIME. WE GAVE $3 MILLION TO A PARKS gave money to Safe Streets. I can't remember how many million that was in this year that supposedly have a deficit as well. So I just want to understand what was the actuals

WE UNDERSTAND. WE'LL DO THE ACTUALS AND WHAT WAS ALLOCATED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR BY CITY COUNCIL ABOVE THE BALANCED BUDGET AND WE'LL SHOW.

NO, NOT WHAT WAS ALLOCATED BY CITY COUNCIL. I'M TALKING ABOUT AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE YEAR WE ARE TOLD THERE'S ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT WE COULD ALLOCATE TO DIFFERENT THINGS. CORRECT. AND IF WE'RE SUPPOSEDLY IN A DEFICIT, HOW IS THERE ADDITIONAL FUNDS? RIGHT.

So that was before Ms. Combs' time, so she can go back and pull the administrative record. But concurrently, the city council has been making appropriations throughout the fiscal year in excess of what was budgeted.

And what you're trying to say is that the full budget deficit is the result of city council allocations. That's not what I said. Okay, I just want to make sure I understand. I'm going to make sure we all understand what you're trying to say.

No, I said concurrently. That means, right, concurrently.

So I want to ask another question. We have a number of different projects that are happening. Many of those projects are grant funded, but some of those projects are general fund funded, right? Like Daniel was here a minute ago. If we are projecting a budget deficit, why are we using excess general funds from all of our areas, Public Works included, to spend money that we, according to you, we don't have? I would imagine that some of the projects that Public Works is moving forward on are not things that are bleeding that need to be done exactly right now. And so if we are over budget, Why don't we just pull back some?

You could certainly do that. But this is for a fiscal year that you've already concluded. So this fiscal year, so it's like the way that you should think about it is this is done, right? So you're having a true up for what is already done. And you're thinking about.

I'm also looking at a process. Because in fiscal year 25-26 that we're talking about now, that's when we allocated money for projects like the extra park projects and the lights and the street safety improvements because we were told there was additional money. But if we were actually facing such a deficit, why would we do that? Why were we advised to do that?

There's two things that happened. I think you're conflating fiscal years with 23, 24, 24, 25, and 25, 26. I am not conflating fiscal years. So we can go back and look.

I am not actually conflating fiscal years.

If you want me to answer the question, I can try or you can talk over me, whatever you prefer.

Yeah, I just want to make sure we're talking about the right thing. I don't mean to talk over you, but I definitely, I first started off with, an example with a fiscal year that's totally closed. And now I'm talking about the current fiscal year that we're talking about now, this 25-26 that is in the process of having the final numbers on. And in this current year that we're in the process of having numbers on, what I don't understand, that if we actually had this budget deficit, why were we advised to allocate additional funds to projects because we had surplus funds if we're facing a deficit. Why do we get that advice from staff?

That's your position. My position is that the city council in fiscal year 24-25 and 25-26 has allocated funds throughout the fiscal year in excess of what was budgeted and You had community meetings with community groups and you asked us to finish built environment improvements to a high standard That's what you told us to do AND YOU APPROVED MOU INCREASES IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE SUGGESTED. SO IT'S A CONFLUENCE OF FACTORS. IT'S NOT JUST ONE THING THAT LED TO WHERE YOU ARE TODAY. IT'S A CONFLUENCE OF FACTORS BECAUSE IT'S AN ENTIRE BUDGET. IT WASN'T JUST ONE DECISION. IT WAS A CULMINATION OF DECISIONS. SO WHEN WE STARTED FISCAL YEAR 26, 27, WE SUGGESTED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HONE IN ON PRIORITIES. We suggested that. We suggested that the city council consider reducing priorities, and that was not heeded. So we've been trying to proceed as directed, and where we have been led as directed requires the city council moving forward to make some difficult decisions. That's the bottom line.

I believe that we really need another... opinion on this matter.

You'll have one on October 3rd.

I don't think that we have all of the information we need.

I think the council doesn't like the truth and the facts and it's really difficult because we're working really hard to give you a balanced budget and you're refusing to accept that everyone here is working with a high degree of integrity. that we've really tried hard to achieve the city council's policy direction. And instead of accepting that we're leading with integrity, we are being chastised because of the decisions you've made. And that's not fair to staff.

So just to back up for a sec. What was the surplus amount of money that we allocated in 25?

We'll look in the administrative record and provide it to you. Because I think it was... We'll look in the administrative record and provide it to you. Normally we don't do budget by...

This is not usually... Was it?

We will look in the administrative record and we will provide it to you.

Right.

But you also approved MOU increases in excess of what we suggested.

Our deficit projected for this year... According to your numbers, it's 10 million. There are numbers.

We're a team.

10 million.

There are numbers. We're a team.

Okay. It's 10 million. If we were told we had a surplus of 12 million, but we had a 10 million deficit, I don't understand why we wouldn't use the surplus to cover the deficit. It just seems simple. I don't understand why would we be directed to spend that additional money we needed to cover a deficit.

Every year the City Council has criticized us for having a one to three percent UNSPENT FUNDS. THAT HAS BEEN WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ME EVERY YEAR AS CITY MANAGER. AND EVERY YEAR AS CITY MANAGER, I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE NUMBERS BEFORE THE ACFER WAS COMPLETED SO YOU COULD APPROPRIATE UNSPENT FUNDS. AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE DID. IF YOU LOOK AT THE REVENUE PROJECTIONS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE REVENUE CAME IN LESS THAN was projected in many cases. So you had a confluence of factors in that you spent more and you took in less.

So my request to staff is that we have a simple chart that shows what the projected amount, middle of the road, whatever it is, was for each of the budget years that we're looking at, starting from 23-24? What was the projected either deficit or surplus? What was the actuals? And then what was the amount of surplus funds that was allocated at some point of that year towards additional projects? I just want to see those numbers clear and straight. That would be really helpful for me. The other part of what I want to say and what I want to bring up is that there is so much deferred maintenance in this city. We understand that. It's a hugely important process that we've gone through to do an assessment. That assessment has brought back the news that we were all expecting. Most of our buildings, most of our assets have not been taken care of. There's a huge bill to take care of them. But I think it's really important for everyone to really be clear about, and I think I'm correct about this, I might be wrong, but it is not physically possible to do all 1 billion plus projects all at once in the same year. That is not possible. So no matter what, we are going to have to prioritize things and spread them out over a term And that is true for all of the projects in front of us because it is not actually physically possible to do every single one of the things that is in that assessment all at once. We will never need a billion dollars all at once. It's not the way that works. And so to talk about it that way is incorrect and it creates an incorrect perspective.

Your time is up, but I'll let you finish. Okay. Council Member Cepeda.

All right, numbers, thank you for the presentation. I have similar questions as well, but I want to look at, let me see here, which slide am I looking at? Slide, we can go to slide 13, please. I'm going to use a pessimistic one just to be more on the, they're trying to understand, so I'm trying to understand the numbers here too. So we've got our revenues, we've got our expenditures, and then this tells us in the red here, plus or minus, whether we have, we spend more than we brought in, correct?

FOR WHICH FISCAL YEAR? FOR FISCAL YEAR 25-26?

ALL OF THEM, JUST THE RED LINE. THE RED LINE IS IN PARENTHESES IS NEGATIVE. SO THAT MEANS WE SPENT MORE OR WE'RE PROJECTED TO HAVE SPENT MORE THAN WE BROUGHT REVENUE IN.

EXCEPT FOR 26-27 IS CURRENTLY BALANCED UNTIL YOU APPROVE THE MOU'S FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. SO RIGHT NOW, it has a dash there and it's showing that it's that it's balanced because it doesn't have the mou increases for police that remain outstanding and some of fire

YES, AND ACTUALLY IF I MIGHT ADD, WHAT WILL END UP HAPPENING IS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE ON FISCAL YEAR 25-26 ON THE SLIDE, WHICH IS THE SAME THROUGHOUT THOSE THREE SCENARIOS. SO THAT 13.1 MILLION, THE NEGATIVE IN 25-26 FOR THE BUDGET, THAT 13.1 MILLION REPRESENTS THE UNSPENT FUNDS THAT WERE APPROPRIATED ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE. as well as any appropriations made throughout the fiscal year. I just wanted to point that out.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And the expenditure line, I want to just make sure that I understand each line. So the expenditure lines, that is, is that both what we budgeted and what we spend, or is it just what we spend regardless of where we budgeted?

Do you mean is there an opportunity to reduce the expenditures council members paid?

What I'm trying to figure out, because if we budget, so I'm just using a random year here. So if we budget for 25, 26, let's say we budgeted $250 million and then we overspent for whatever reason. So I'm just trying to understand that expenditure line is above what we budgeted already. It's forecast. It's a forecast.

It's all forecast. It's 25, 26 is budget. It's not showing actuals. So none of these is actuals. It's a dream.

Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So again, I don't want to use real numbers. I'm just trying to just figure out the line items. Like what sort of what each line looks like. So if we had 24 and 25 on here, we could look at that number and then that's an actual. But the actual is after.

Yes, when we get the act for the beginning of the year.

Yeah, and I want to understand sort of at the beginning-ish, because we get this throughout the year, is does it have both the budget number that we say we're going to spend this much and then how much more we overspend? So, yes.

Yes, and if there is some, right, so look, like if you remember when we started the presentation, we showed 24% in unspent. That's because there's generally a carry forward, right? So you're carrying forward money and you're spending money, and so then that's why it's a projection. So it's not like this isn't meant to be an exact science. It's an estimate. It's the back of the envelope. But the point that we're trying to make is that when you hire 90 some odd staff people, right, and we're doing all of these built environment projects concurrently and costs are increasing, you can't, we are at the point now where we're going to likely not continue to have unspent money because we have such a significant increase in headcount. AND SO THAT'S WHAT HAS CHANGED. THE HEAD COUNT HAS DRASTICALLY INCREASED, RIGHT? AND ALL THE DEPARTMENTS ARE MOVING QUICKLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY DELIVERING PROJECTS, SO OUR EXPENDITURE RATE, OUR BURN RATE HAS GOTTEN MUCH FASTER BECAUSE STAFF IS REALLY MOVING QUICKLY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. THEN GOING DOWN THE LINE HERE, SO THE LIMITED TERM REVENUE, BECAUSE THIS IS THE HALF A BILLION DOLLAR QUESTION I THINK EVERYONE IS HERE FOR. SO THEN HOW I WAS DESCRIBING IT TO SOMEONE. We get a check so far from Chevron for 50 million, but the second it hits our bank account, it is no longer 50 million because 1.5 goes to Kids First. So we can't spend it all right. Kids First can spend it, but we can't spend it towards anything else. So then it goes to 48.5 right off the bat. That's how much we can go shopping with. We got 50, but we can only shop with 48.5. And then from there, depending on what it is we're doing with it, It may or may no longer be 48.5.

Correct. That's what we're trying to illustrate. And so that way, if the city council wants to move forward with option C, everyone has the same landscape analysis of that. It may not really be $48.5 million unless the council wants to then decrease expenditures somewhere else, which would require city council policy direction.

Thank you. And I want to make sure that everyone understands that, because I get a lot of people saying, well, what about the 50 million? What about the half a billion? I say, well, first off, half a billion, we don't have in the bank yet. Right now in the bank, we have 100 million. But that one's for next fiscal year. So right now, we could only spend the 48.5. It's no longer 50. And then from there, we've already spent some of that money. because of negotiations or other stuff. So that number continues decreasing. So I just want to make sure that as we move forward with community conversations that we have that number. And then if we go to the slide, the one that has all the options, I think it's slide 22. I don't know, there's several places. Thank you. So here, I want to make sure that I understand.

So with option A, we're looking at, say... We need to stick to approving this budget. You're moving over to one of the other items that we'll be talking about later.

Well, yeah, no, but this is part of approving the budget, because I'm trying to just figure out, I'm not trying to figure out A, B, or C, I'm just trying to figure out the numbers. So if we approve the budget as it is now, Mm-hmm. We have somewhat of a number of what, for the next conversation, which is what to do with the half a billion, right? But we're saying, should we go with A?

Actually, the budget doesn't talk about half a billion. It just talks about the money for. I'm just, that's why I use quotes.

So it's a 50 million, so. But if we're saying, because it's no longer 50 million, so if we say let's figure out what the facilities needs are so that we can know how much lesser of 50 it is, that's where that is going. So we don't want to go out to the community and say what do you want us to do with the 50, because it's no longer 50. So it's what do you want us to do with the 30? And that's more or less, or maybe even less, after option A, or option B. But we might also need to wait for option A and B together, because those are two additional costs that we haven't taken into consideration. So I think we need like an option D. So when we go to option C, we can truly be honest with the community about how much is left. It is not 50. Even right now, it's not 50. We haven't even had more of a conversation. It's at least 48.5. So to get to option C, we need to know what those numbers are. And to get those numbers, it sounds like the budget needs to come back to tell us these other.

You have to conclude that in order to have a true up, you need to conclude public safety negotiations and have ratified MOUs. And then that timing. That is we refer to the city council. It's this is a city council policy decisions regarding we as staff follow city council policy decisions regarding the meeting confer process.

SO THEN THAT WILL COME BACK AND TRUE UP AND SAY OUT OF THE 50, NOW IT'S 40, NOW IT'S 30. THANK YOU.

UNLESS THE COUNCIL WANTS TO REVISE THE BUDGET SOME OTHER WAY. THAT'S THE CITY COUNCIL'S PREROGATIVE.

THANK YOU. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE I SPEAK MY OTHER QUESTIONS AT. SO THIS IS JUST FOR THE FIRST ONE IS THE FISCAL YEAR REPORT. For on slide 28, regards to this reporting, I want to understand the fines and forfeitures. It's 691%. That's a huge increase. Where do we get the rest of the money? It's $1.1 million extra. Who do we go after? Who do we find and can we find them again?

Can we respond back via email to some of these questions because I want to be thoughtful about time that there's a lot of Members in the audience or is that okay?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I will love to know the variances, especially the really high ones. What are the differences of them? Certainly, where do we get additional? Okay, where the budget kind of differentiated that there sure And I put on there it's like 32 And same for slide 32, if we could just know a little bit more about the variances. and how we got from one, from the original budget to revised budget to actual year ends. And that could be over email as well if you don't have the response now. But just wanna know, I think salary and wages is gonna be due to, we hire more individuals along with benefits. But some of the other costs I would like to know a little bit more about as well. So, and if that comes over email, that would be good. Thank you. And that's it for now. For that section.

Because your time just ran out. Perfect. Yeah. All right. So do we have any others to speak to the... Your time was up. So...

I wanted to... This point of order, I haven't spoken yet, but I actually just want to speak to the provide direction on limited time revenue. So I don't know if now is the right time or not. It's not the right time. Then I will wait.

Okay. So if there's not any more questions about the approving or receiving the budget, I need a motion to receive budget.

I'll make a motion to receive the budget.

I second it.

Okay. ROLL CALL.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN.

YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER BANA.

YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERMANES. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ZAPATA.

YES.

VICE MAYOR ROBINSON. ABSTAIN. AND MAYOR MARTINEZ.

YES.

THE MOTION PASSES WITH VICE MAYOR ROBINSON ABSTAINING.

Okay. Now we'll move on to adopt a resolution to appropriate proposed fiscal year 2025-2026 year-end administrative budget adjustments. And so. Sure.

Okay. I just have one question for all of the staff. Is it good fiscal policy to balance a structural deficit using short-term revenue?

It's never a good fiscal policy to balance a budget with any one-time resources.

So what's the way that you should balance a structural deficit?

By way of pursuing additional revenues or cutting your expenditures.

Thank you.

Okay. And it looks like adopt a resolution to appropriate proposed year and administrative budget adjustments should have been part of the received fiscal budget. So we'll make a motion for that.

Excuse me. I am a little confused about that because they are, we have, There are some recommendations. I'm part of that recommendation if we approve ABC. So can we? Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So then we'll go on to appropriate environmental and community investment agreements funds for Richmond Promise. So that will be the next topic. Do we have...

I MAKE THE MOTION.

WE NEED PUBLIC COMMENT.

OH, SORRY.

OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN. SO IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AMONG COUNCIL MEMBERS?

RICHMOND PROMISED BUDGET.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ECIA.

OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION.

Hello again. Can you tell me which bucket is this coming out from? WE HAVE A LOT OF BUCKETS.

THIS IS FROM YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AGREEMENT FUNDS. I WASN'T HERE DURING THE TIME BUT WHAT THESE FUNDS ARE ARE THE INTEREST EARNINGS THAT WE ACCRUDE OVER THE YEARS BY HAVING THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROGRAMMED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. So these were funds that had been building up in an account and now we're able to make the recommendation to fund a Richmond Promise with those funds.

So now is this all of the funds? Were they all accumulating this together and then we just divvy it up? IS THAT A CASE?

YES. SO THE ECIA AGREEMENT ONLY INCLUDED APPROPRIATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ALLOCATION FROM THE GRANTOR TO THE CITY. IT DID NOT ADDRESS OR DIRECTED ANY ALLOCATIONS FROM THE INTEREST EARNINGS. HOWEVER, HAVING THE FUNDS IN THE CITY BY DEFAULT EARNS INTEREST BECAUSE WE DO NOT KEEP UNDER THE MATTRESS. IT JUST, YOU KNOW, ACCUMULATED ALL THOSE FUNDS. THOSE WERE LIKE TOTALLY LIKE, I MEAN, PART OF THE FUND. NEW SPEAKER.

SO NOTHING IN THERE SAYS IT'S GOT TO GO BACK TO THAT BUCKET THAT IT WAS ORIGINATING FROM. NEW SPEAKER. NO, NOT.

AND WE REVIEWED THE AGREEMENT SEVERAL TIMES.

NEW SPEAKER. OKAY. THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER. NO OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT.

NEW SPEAKER. COUNCILMEMBER GEMMENDEZ.

NEW SPEAKER. I THINK ALONG THE WAY WITH COUNCILMEMBER DORIA, ARE THESE FUNDS CONSIDERED SHORT-TERM FUNDS?

They are considered short-term funds. Any interest earnings we'd consider short-term, one-time funds.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. If there's no other questions, then I need a motion.

I second.

All right.

I HAVE, CAN I MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION? YES, YOU MAY. I WANT TO MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION. THIS IS AROUND THE THREE OPTIONS?

NO, THIS IS FOR THE APPROPRIATIONS TO RICHMOND PROMISE FOR 2.2 MILLION. THE RICHMOND PROMISE? YES.

OKAY. SORRY.

GO AHEAD. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BONNER, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BROWN. And this is for the appropriation, appropriate environmental and community investment agreement funds fiscal year 26-27 for the Richmond Promise Program. Okay. Councilmember Brown? Yes. Councilmember Bonner?

Yes. Councilmember Jimenez?

Yes. Councilmember Wilson? Yes. Councilmember Zepeda?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Robinson?

Yes.

And Mayor Martinez?

Yes. The motion is unanimous.

I need to make a clarification. ON THE TO RECEIVE THE BUDGET AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. THAT WAS COMBINED.

NO. NO.

SO WE HAVEN'T DONE THE.

RIGHT. OKAY. THANKS TO COUNCILMEMBER JIMENEZ I WAS ABLE TO SEE THE ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE PROPOSED YEAR END ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS.

WE'RE WAITING. WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT.

YEAH. OKAY.

THANK YOU.

So now we are to the provide direction regarding the timing of the limited term revenue community engagement process.

MR. Sorry. So what are we doing with the adopting the adjustments?

MS. We're doing it last.

MR. We're doing it last. MS. We're doing it at the end? MR. Yeah. MS. Okay. MR. Yeah, because it includes MS.

Depends on A, B, or C. MR. Because it depends on A, B, or C.

So the adjustments depends from A, B, or C?

Yes.

THEY DO NOT, ACTUALLY.

NO, IT DOESN'T.

THEY DO NOT.

THAT'S WHY THERE ARE FOUR SEPARATE THINGS. THE ABC OPTIONS ARE ABOUT THE PROJECTS AND THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTS AND ALL OF THOSE.

WELL, THEN, I STAND CORRECTED. WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2025-23 YEAR END ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

on what you just said.

Yes. Okay.

Now I'm confused. Sorry. Where are we? What page is that? Page 38.

Page 38.

Page 3 or page 3, Bon, if you're at the beginning. What we're voting on is what's on page 38. Yes. Oh, okay.

It's duplicated in the PowerPoint.

Right. But it's more clear on page 38.

Got it. Okay. I second it.

Okay. Okay. That was a motion by sorry.

Motion.

Second by council member Bona. Okay. Motion by council members of paid a second by council member Bona. That's to adopt a resolution to appropriate proposed fiscal year, 25, 26 year in administrative budget adjustments. Councilmember Brown?

Yes.

Councilmember Bonner?

Yes.

Councilmember Jimenez? Yes. Councilmember Wilson? Yes. Councilmember Zepeda?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Robinson?

Abstain.

And Mayor Martinez?

Yes.

The motion passes with Vice Mayor Robinson abstaining. Okay.

All right, now we'll go to provide direction regarding the timing of the limited term revenue community engagement.

Can I make a motion?

Do we have conversation on that? Yeah, I have a question. Yes, go ahead, Council Member Brown.

Yes, thank you. So if we already set aside funds for a consultant for the settlement engagement process, what would be the hindrance?

in option C. Can we allow deputy city manager white to speak now?

Yes.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager for Community Services. So just to provide a little additional information about what it means to actually do a community engagement process. So yes, Council did approve an item for the city to move forward to negotiate a contract with a consulting firm to support this process. The city staff still have to be very much involved in supporting and managing the contract with the consultant. Yes, a consultant helps. They come in. City staff have to often, you know, I've done many community needs assessments. We meet at least probably weekly with a consultant. We have to review every question they ask. We review every plan they have developed. We really are doing it in collaboration with the consultant to make sure that the consultant is doing what the city council has directed to be done and that it's in alignment with our different policies. We also, as staff, we know community. We know our community-based organizations. Consultants often do not, and so it's up to us to make those connections if they wanna do surveys, if they wanna do focus groups, if they wanna do community meetings. City staff are at the table providing a lot of support to make connections, to do follow-up, because people will respond to our emails before they respond to a consultant's emails to request time and assistance. AND SO WE OFTEN WILL SHOW UP AT FOCUS. WE'RE REALLY AT THE TABLE ALONG WITH CONSULTANTS. IF THE TEAM THAT WOULD BE CONVENED TO SUPPORT THIS WORK ARE TEAM MEMBERS THAT HAVE DONE COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS, ARE COMFORTABLE doing this work have engaged with community in the past, it is often the same city staff that are involved in other things. We have numerous other assessments that are happening, Black Resiliency Fund, a mental health assessment right now. We're about to start the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Needs Assessment. So those same individuals that are skilled in this will have to be pooled to be able to support the limited term revenue assessments. Not that it can't be done, but it just means that city council needs to be aware that it's the same staff that are working on other things. So we may have to come back to council to just be transparent about the timing of some of those other projects that I know are also important. As an example for myself, I'm involved with black resiliency, public lands policy, mental health assessment, Richmond Fund for Children and Youth, MLK Center, Harbor 8, municipal ID expansion, arts and culture, public works. That's me personally in terms of where I am either providing a lot of support and direction or I'm at least at the table providing support to another department. So it just, again, it just will have to be a transparent conversation about what it means to have an effective community engagement process and what staff we have to pull to make that happen.

Okay, so it's about capacity that we don't have.

We, if this is the direction that council wants, it will have to be, to me, a reassignment process.

Yeah, because that's where I get I get the reassignment. Yeah, I get confused when we have the option. But if we can't do it, why is there an option if it's not feasible? And so what I'm trying to understand is that if we don't have the capacity now, when will we have the capacity to proceed with the limited fund in community engagement, because this is something that I thought that was supposed to happen. And we were supposed to have some sort of like results from this by the end of the year.

I don't want to answer that question alone. However, what is in front of the council is a decision about can we at least wait? There's three pieces to it. Can we wait till the union negotiations are complete? Some of the same staff people that may be involved are at the union table. And then that way it also gives you a better sense of what the dollars are that community has to spend. Also, can we wait for the facility needs assessment to be done? So council and community understands that. A piece of option A, if I'm not mistaken, is also for city staff to be able to look at all of the assessments that are actually out there and come back to city council with a proposal, a recommendation about how can we better align all of those assessments. I know we like to, as a city, make sure we're hearing from community before we make decisions, which is important, but there's a lot of assessments happening right now. And so I think there just needs to be some more conversation. around those things i can't give you timing alone in terms of when we could start but again it might be that this if this is a priority of council it just may be that some other things that city staff are working on have to take a little longer or wait a little longer doesn't mean that it can't happen just it has to be to me a reassessment a reassignment of priorities.

Okay, thank you. So the so basically option C, city staff are unable to do this concurrently to all the other obligations.

In my opinion, no.

Okay. Not successfully. So I'm almost convinced with Council Member Zepeda when he said we need an option D because you basically said that option A and B needs to happen before we can even get into C. It's a recommendation if Council thinks that that is what is necessary. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all.

Okay. Council Member Cepeda. Are you finished? I'm sorry.

I haven't spoken at all. I literally haven't spoken on this item yet.

Do you want to go? And I haven't either. And neither has those other people. So patience.

Excuse me.

Do you want to go in front of me?

No.

Oh, you're done? Okay. Council Member Cepeda.

All right.

I JUST WANT TO I KNOW I ASKED IT BEFORE BUT THAT WAS THE OTHER BULLET POINT. I GUESS THE RIGHT BULLET POINT. SO NOW OPTION A, B, AND C. ONCE WE GET THE FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT, WILL IT BENEFIT US TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY SPEND FOR IT? SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT DO WE DO THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG WHICH SHOULD BE COMING FIRST. Should we do the assessment first so we know how much we need, actually need? I know it's over $1 billion, $1.5 billion, but do we need that to be done first? Or do we go and ask the community what do they want? Because when I was hearing Mr. Chavarria, he was, in his mind, for the 1.1 billion is parks, infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera. We hear probably comments that also talk about just transition, for example. And that is not something that Public Works is working on. So I just want to figure out how do we marry, because they're all important, how do we make sure, how much money do we have for just transition? How much money do we have for whatever? So I'm trying to figure out which one should be coming first so that we can really go out and tell the community this is how much we have.

I know you don't. It's a policy decision. It's what information and data do you want to have available to yourself as council members, as elected officials, and what information do you want to have available for a community to know before they're making recommendations or suggestions about how to spend the money? They can provide recommendations without knowing and then council comes back and makes a decision or they have as much data as we can provide available to them so they make an informed decision. It just, it depends. I'm not saying, I think either way can happen. Our recommendation as city staff is to allow some of these assessments and plans to move forward, union negotiations to be completed. before we engage in a community engagement process. The money is sitting in a fund. It's growing. Um, we definitely hear community and their desire to have, um, input, but again, our recommendation is one thing, but it is a city council decision around what goes first.

Okay. Thank you. I'll pause for that. I'll come back later. Thank you.

Council council council vice mayor Robinson.

All right, thank you. I want to ask a few clarifying questions about the sequence and funds. So waiting until the MOUs are finished is supposed to be so we understand how much money we will need for the additional costs in salaries and wages, correct? Correct. Right. the best fiscal policy to use short-term funds to pay for additional costs and salaries and wages?

It is not.

It is not. And in fact, we've been told from the beginning that these short-term revenues should not be used for salaries and wages. That is correct. Correct. So whether or not we know, you know, whatever happens with the short-term revenue, we still have the problem ongoing that our, structural budget is growing and we need to find another way if we're going to be fiscally responsible to balance that budget besides using the short-term funds. Am I correct? Absolutely correct. Right. So what I would like to do is the responsible thing tonight and ask staff to go back and find a way to balance the structural budget in anticipation of the deficit that you're showing today that would reduce expenses. IN RESPONSE TO THAT ESTIMATED INCREASE, NOT DEPENDENT UPON SHORT-TERM FUNDS. WOULD THAT BE THE MOST RESPONSIBLE FISCAL THING TO DO?

YES, AND WE WOULD LIKELY GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT ONE-TIME FUNDS WE HAVE CURRENTLY IN OUR BUDGET AND CARRIED FORWARD IN OUR FORECAST AND WE CAN BRING THOSE FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL AS POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

ONE-TIME FUNDS TO BALANCE THE BUDGET?

We would be looking to correct our, we have one time, we have programs that are year to year that we carry forward in our forecast. So what I'm saying is we would not be able to bring forward a recommendation for something that we already have a commitment for, such as salaries and benefits.

Right. Right. But we could look at other things like, for instance, things that we're doing in public works that are optional, things that we want to do, things that we know they're good, but maybe we just can't afford it right now. And we need to be big kids and, you know, not spend money we don't have. Correct?

Usually when you're not spending one-time funds, it's not for built environment improvements. It's more for programmatic things. Right.

But we can make the policy decision to decide if it's built environment or if it's programs or whatever. We can make that policy decision. Or contracts. Or contracts, whatever. We can actually look at all of the things that are optional and figure out how to reduce our structural budget so that we are balanced without using short-term funds. Right? Right. And so, you know, I'm a big parks person. I love parks. I want to do as much as we can with parks. But if we're at the point where we're saying we can't afford to do parks at the pace and the scale that we're doing it, then that means that we need to pull back. Right? Like that's the responsible thing to do, to pace our spending with our income. Correct? Right. So I feel like the option of that includes waiting until after the MOUs are signed is actually not addressing the real core issue there. And I'd rather address the real core issue. which is we have a budget estimate that is not balanced and we need to find a way to balance it in a fiscally responsible way. Two. Many of the items that we're talking about in that long list of undone, unfinished plans and community processes, as we have heard, cannot all be done at the same time. It's not physically possible, similar to that $1 billion money of built environment things. So instead of talking about let's just pause, because that doesn't actually address the problem, what we really need to do is we need to actually have a process to prioritize. AND UNDERSTAND HOW MANY THINGS WE ACTUALLY CAN DO AT ONCE AND THE REST WILL NEED TO GO INTO SOME KIND OF AN ORDER AND THEN THEY WOULD COME UP AS WE ARE ABLE TO TAKE THEM ON AS AN ORGANIZATION. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S THE REAL OPTION THAT WE NEED HERE AND NOT JUST PAUSE. BECAUSE JUST PAUSE JUST KICKS THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE CORE PROBLEM WHICH WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE THESE THINGS.

WE SUGGESTED THAT DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS AND THE COUNCIL WAS NOT AMENTABLE.

I don't think that that's true. I think that we are, I think that we would be amenable to prioritizing these projects.

So when you talk about going back, are you suggesting for 26-27? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING?

DEFINITELY BECAUSE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO POSSIBLY GET IN FRONT OF IT.

THINGS LIKE BLACK RESILIENCY OF 1.5 MILLION OR IMMIGRATION, THOSE ARE THE THINGS.

IMMIGRATION IS ALREADY SPENT.

NOT ALL OF IT. I'M USING THIS AS AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE WHEN WE ASK THE CITY COUNCIL DURING 26, 27, Were you amenable to any of the 55 things?

You only chose council projects but did not look at the whole organization and all spending. I would like to see all spending together with council projects so we can make an informed decision about what we can hold and what we can't across the organization, not only the council projects. That's what I would like to see. Because maybe there are things that we do not need to do right this second, that we can do in future years, that we can do it at a different pace. And maybe some of these things are also including some of these council projects. Maybe we don't need to do those two. But I would like to see them together. And then we can collectively, we would have to vote and talk about it, come up with a plan to reduce our budget so that we're not spending more money than we bring in.

THAT'S WHAT WE DID THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2627 BUDGET PROCESS. WE WENT THROUGH EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT AND HAD EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT DESCRIBE IN EXTREME DETAIL WHAT IT IS THEY WHAT ARE ALL THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE?

THAT'S NOT REDUCING THE BUDGET SO WE DON'T HAVE A PROJECTED BUDGET DEFICIT.

NOBODY SAID WE REALLY LIKE THAT YOU'RE PLANTING TREES, BUT ACTUALLY WE'RE OKAY PLANTING 100 LESS TREES. THERE WAS NO TALK OF, YOU KNOW WHAT, BY DEPARTMENT.

THERE WASN'T AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE ABOUT THAT. I feel like for me, from my perspective.

The painful process was painful.

From my perspective, there wasn't an opportunity to ask critical questions around what all of the, I definitely got a clear picture of everything that everybody in every department was doing. What I didn't get was which things could we not do in order to reduce expenses. That was not a conversation that was had. It was not teed up. It was not an opportunity to do it. There was not questions around it. That's what I'm missing here. That's what I'd like to see. Not that I want to cut from every department. I don't. But I want to understand what even what everybody in their departments believe might be something that they couldn't even do this year or don't really have capacity to do. If there's too much work on the plate and we can delay things and take it out of the budget, that would help us.

Your time is up. So if you can wrap it up.

So what I'm believing is I think maybe similar to Councilmember Brown, I feel like we need an option D. And that option D is to come back with a way to balance the 2026-27 budget using expense reduction and not short-term funds. And I think we need to also have a near-term goal to prioritize all of the projects and not just prioritize them but understand how many realistically can be done at any one time and then create the budget from that realistic capacity.

Okay. Council Member Jimenez.

Yeah, thank you.

You're on the queue.

You are on the queue.

I think I just wanted to say that the other things that I believe is important and this is why I want to continue this process of the community process and to look at the finances of how we are going to invest this 10-year revenue that we are getting is because that might also solve some of these five-year projections. For instance, we decided that we are going to do some investment and we have return of investment in some of these monies that we can invest, then we can start thinking about new revenues. I feel like for me is that all of these projections are not taking into account what we can do if we invest this money. And I understand, as I said before, that sometimes you don't need it. You cannot use that what if. But if we don't start right now with a serious community engagement and with a serious process where experts help us to think about what are the decisions that we can make to invest that money then we are not going to be able to take important, we are not going to be able to make important decisions about how we invest this money and what could be the benefit of that. And I feel like if I understand that there is, SOME OTHER PROJECTS, BUT I THINK THIS SHOULD BE ONE OF THE PRIORITIES. WE HAVE ONE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY WITH MONEY THAT WE WERE NOT PLANNING TO HAVE BEFORE. IF IT WERE FOR THE PROGRESSIVE CITY COUNCIL THAT IS STILL HERE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EVEN DREAM ABOUT HAVING $550 MILLION EXTRA THAT INCREASE THE BUDGET. The task that we have is to know what are the decisions that we are going to make so we invest that money so the projections that we are seeing change in a positive way as well. We cannot become a city that is leading with scarcity policies. We need to be bold to say this is how we are going to invest, this is how we are going to lead. And I know that for me, what I see is that when you show me the projection that has been done before and the actuals of this year, we are going to see a different picture that these projections were not quite accurate. AT THE BEGINNING. BECAUSE I SAW SOME OF THESE PROJECTIONS BEFORE. SO I JUST WANT US TO THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE AND HOW WE CAN INVEST THIS MONEY AND HOW WE CAN MOVE THE CITY SO THAT WE CAN HAVE MORE REVENUE. AND IF THEY ARE THINKING OF REDUCING SPENDING BECAUSE WE CAN be able to pay. We have opportunities with a money that we were not projecting to have in the other projection and we got it to be able to invest and to change these figures in the near future.

So thank you. Council Member Wilson.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. So I'll just say it plainly that I think getting public input is really important. And it isn't something that we can afford to wait on. I went and looked at, I guess, what we call the administrative record for this item. And on January 27th, we voted to hire a an outside consultant in order to conduct this public input on how to spend the $550 million settlement. And the reason that we hired an outside consultant, and we were criticized, we spent $300,000, is to take the pressure off of staff. And so I think we've heard loud and clear about the capacity issues, and that's why we did not cheap out. We did not say we're going to spend $20,000 on a consultant and we're going to expect Ms. White to do all the work. What I was hoping we were getting was a full service operation for that. What I'm going to say is I know staff hates it when city council micromanages, so I'm not going to try to do that. I know you're a great manager, and I'm not going to try to tell you here's what to do, but I've been in similar positions working with staff and consultants, and I would just encourage staff. to really lean into relying on the consultants to do this job. And I know you want to put our personal touch on it and do it to the highest quality. And I think that's a really great impulse. But I really want to emphasize that. IN JANUARY WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS. SO SINCE JANUARY, I'VE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE AT NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS, I TRY TO GO TO EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL IN MY DISTRICT ANY TIME I CAN. WHEN PEOPLE RAISE THINGS LIKE WE NEED MORE STOPLIGHTS, WE NEED MORE STOP SIGNS, WE NEED MORE SPEED BUMP, WE NEED MORE FLOOD CONTROL HERE, WE NEED MORE PUBLIC SAFETY, WE NEED everything, everything, everything, I tell them, you know, we're doing this public input process. And so I really encourage you to bring these ideas forward and we're going to put it all on the table. And I started to feel ridiculous at some point because we approved it in January. I think we approved a contract in April. And it's September now. And I'm still saying that, but nothing's happening. And so what I noticed on this agenda is that Council Member Jimenez and Council Member Robinson, we're not going to get to it tonight, but on this agenda is a vote on asking the staff to come back to us with a report on the status of it. which I realize maybe created a sense of pressure or urgency. Like, to be frank, I have no idea why we're having this discussion about a particular contractor as part of the Quarter 4 and 3 financial report. It seems a very artificial insertion to me. And so I think it's related to the fact that some pressure was put on staff to address the fact that it's been out since January. And by the way, I'm not mad about that. I know we've overburdened people. I'm not coming at this with like, how dare you, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But I just really want to reiterate that it's extremely important, especially since we've been saying it since January, that we're going to gather this input, that we do it. And that, you know, find a way, et cetera, et cetera. And if you want me to give more specific micromanaging advice I could but I won't I don't I don't think you want that you don't want that for me in terms of the uncertainty question to me I mean the capacity issue I think is a real issue the the uncertainty issue to me is a little bit bogus I we never have total certainty about anything in a city. There's always open contracts. There's always economic uncertainty. There's always a question of how much all the buildings are going to cost. Remember, we're not asking the public to actually set our budget. If you're setting a budget, you need all those detailed information. But if you're just making recommendations about what you prefer, would you rather have speed bumps or parks or firefighters or cleaner air through some project? You don't need to know whether it's $50 million or $30 million because members of the public don't necessarily know what those things cost. And so I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that we're going to hold up on asking for input until such a time that we somehow locked down every variable about our budget and about our future expenses.

To me, that's a little bit of a distraction.

So anyways, I encourage us all to vote for C. By the way, I also think, you know, actually Councilmember Zepeda, Robinson and I did have a couple of meetings. I think I got busy. Maybe they did as well about finding a way to prioritize city council items. And I think we, you know, whether it's us or somebody else, I do think that we should continue working on that. Other cities do have actual formal systems for ranking things that city councils decide on about what should be done first and second. Berkeley has a system. I STARTED TO LOOK AT IF SOMEONE WANTS TO LOOK INTO THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE SOLVED TONIGHT. I THINK WE SHOULD JUST VOTE ON C. LET'S GO COLLECT THIS INFORMATION AND WE CAN COME UP WITH A WAY TO PRIORITIZE SEPARATELY.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH C. BUT I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT COMMUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN SUFFICIENT amount of information. So all the examples that Council Member Wilson said about the items that the community may want, I'm sure they're all on the list of Director Chavarria for the streets and parks and everything. The point is how much do they cost, how feasible are they, how urgent are they, are we going to save money if we do them sooner like pavement before they deteriorate. those kind of things. So the information is very important to be provided to the public before they make a decision. We don't want, you know, random answers. We want something that's feasible, best for the city. And it's our responsibility to educate them and make sure they know. So I have no problem with option C as long as the public is aware. Director Chavarria said he'll have the information by then. I hope the consultant, you make the consultant aware that they should provide that information to the public for the community engagement process. And I believe you already set the budget and approved it, so if any council member has any idea, and it's not a bad idea, actually, that the budget needs to be balanced by itself without tapping into a one-time resource, then we need to work on next year's budget. And graphs shown that our revenues are going to be less over the year, less and lesser than our expenditures. We need to start working on that. So thank you for that. Thank you for your patience. And I would like to thank the public for their patience, too. I know they've come for other items. I really feel bad for keeping you waiting, but we'll do our best. So I cut it here. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, Councilmember Cepeda.

Because I see on there it says me, so I figured me was me.

No, me is me, but you is Cepeda. Me is me.

All right, thank you. I just want to, a while ago our city manager had, I believe it was you who might have mentioned, I forget who now, that we take the full amount and we just invest it and then the revenue that comes from that investment without touching it could potentially give us enough revenue to run the city without having to rely on any big companies or any other revenues that may or may not be shifting. CAN YOU REMIND US A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT?

I WAS SUGGESTING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AVOID SPENDING DOWN THE PRINCIPLE BECAUSE JUST LIKE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AGREEMENT, RIGHT, THAT'S SPENT DOWN A VALUE OF $90 MILLION. AND NOW WE'RE DOWN TO THE LAST COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS. SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT HOW TO CREATE ESSENTIALLY AN ENDOWMENT AND THEN YOU JUST SPEND WHAT IS EARNED FROM THE INVESTMENT, THEN YOU HAVE THE MONEY IN PERPETUITY AND IT GROWS. SO THEN THAT WAY THERE CAN BE ONGOING PRIORITIZATION OF COMMUNITY NEEDS IS WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION WAS. THAT STILL STANDS, BUT I THINK WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET THE COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND THIS EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBER ZAPATA, AS IT RELATES TO THAT, IS THAT YES, THERE ARE, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY STAFF THAT ARE WORKING ON THINGS THAT ARE NOT COUNCIL PRIORITIES OTHER THAN DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS AND CONTRACTS. SO SINCE WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW TO MOVE FORWARD, IF WE HAVE 34 ITEMS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING CURRENTLY FROM THE COUNCIL THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED, IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OPTION C, STAFF CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THAT. THERE JUST NEEDS TO BE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME OF THOSE 34 ITEMS AND WE CAN COME BACK WITH A WRITTEN REPORT ARE GOING TO BE PAUSED. or the council may want to have a meeting and continue consider not doing some of them but we can't do everything well simultaneously we've been asking for the council to prioritize and so far there hasn't been consensus to stop putting new items on the city council agenda or to prioritize and so that's what we've been asking the council to do

Thank you.

And I just want to just put out there that we actually said we were going to go get community input back in 2024. Not pointing fingers anywhere, right? That is what we said when we voted to take that money and us at the dais, delayed it to go out into the community to really put it out there and say, we're going to do what we said we were going to do. So it's also on us that we're having this conversation today. We should have had this conversation with the community back in 2024 when we originally said we were going to do it. For one reason or another, we didn't get to it. I started doing it. The only cost was actually somebody donated the paper sticky notes, and I started getting community input. My colleagues didn't like it, so we wanted to spend $300,000 to get someone. And here we are today still without any community input. And community input is very important. We have to get out there somehow or other to get you to tell us what's important to you. When you open the front door, what's your need? So we want to make sure that we get out there as soon as possible. That's important. But we also now need to make sure that we bring into the conversation how much we actually have to spend. Because we have this bond that's coming due, or that's going to be coming to the November election. And people are asking, why don't you just use the half a billion dollars? And we don't have that. So we need to make sure that we're being transparent with the community when we're going out there to let them know what we're trying to do. There's various ways that we can try to get that community input and then fitting it back in. So that is it. Thank you. OK.

Thank you. I guess now it's my turn. Can we have slide 15? I'd like to look at slide 15 while I speak. All right. This is a middle of the road general funds forecast comparison. And I think the conversations we've been having are the wrong conversations. We've been talking about $550 million or $50 million as if they're special funds, but they're not special funds. They're limited time FUNDS. BUT THEY'RE PART OF THE GENERAL FUND. SO THE CONVERSATION WE NEED TO BE HAVING, AND IT SEEMS AS IF COUNCILMEMBER WILSON HAS BEEN HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, IS ABOUT THE ENTIRE BUDGET. WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE BUDGET, NOT JUST PART OF THE BUDGET AS IF IT'S SPECIAL MONEY. IT'S NOT. IT'S PART OF THE GENERAL FUND. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE HAVE THE BUDGET FORECAST AND WE HAVE IT WITHOUT THE LIMITED TERM FUNDS THAT WERE NEGOTIATED. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE FUTURE YEARS THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEFICIT. THAT DEFICIT WITHOUT COUNTING NEGOTIATIONS THAT ARE IN PROCESS NOW, THAT DEFICIT KEEPS INCREASING YEAR AFTER YEAR. THAT'S MONEY THAT WE'VE ALREADY COMMITTED OURSELVES TO. NOW, WE TALK ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO USE LIMITED TERM FINANCES FOR EMPLOYMENT. THAT'S TRUE. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE MONEY FOR EMPLOYMENT, FOR SALARIES, AND TAKE AWAY MONIES THAT ARE NOT LIMITED TIME AND WE END UP MOVING THAT MONEY TO EMPLOYMENT SO THAT EMPLOYMENT GETS PAID WITHOUT LIMITED TIME FUNDS BUT IT HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. So if it doesn't come from other projects that are not limited time funds, then we have an issue. But what happens is that the money gets moved around and the limited time funds is used for the projects that end up being defunded because we need to move the money around to pay for employment. So if we look at this, we can see how much of the limited term funds that was negotiated is being used to balance the budget. So we can either not use that money and lay off people, or we can get rid of programs that we have all put on the books and agreed to do and just say sorry we don't have money for that so we need to stop talking about special funds or using our budget as special funds we need to look at it as an entire budget and decide what do we want to do with this money? Now, I have told the council over and over again, I've told public, that the city council came together, we agreed on goals and objectives, and many of the goals and objectives are environmental goals and objectives. SO WHY AREN'T WE SITTING UP HERE DISCUSSING THOSE SORTS OF THINGS INSTEAD OF DISCUSSING OTHER THINGS? SO WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT OUR PRIORITIES ARE AND I LIKED WHAT VICE MAYOR SAID. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT OUR PRIORITIES, BUT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT OUR PRIORITIES AS ONE BUDGET, NOT AS SEPARATE PIECES OF MONEY. And that's the only way that we'll end up balancing the budget and moving forward. I like the idea of Council Member Jimenez, which is to find a way to grow the money so that we're not dependent on monies that aren't out there. So we do need to look for new ways to make money. But until then, until then, that's it. So that's...

I would like to make a motion to approve this item with option C so we can start the community process and really think about how we invest this money so we can start addressing some of the revenue issues problems that we are seeing in the projections.

Can I make a friendly amendment to that? My friendly amendment, can we have the options up on the on the screen. So option C includes it says that we would proceed with the limited term revenue community engagement process concurrently with public safety labor negotiations and with the other city council directed plan studies and assessments. My friendly amendment is that we will the last part instead of saying and the city council directed plan studies and assessments that we would prioritize city council directed plan studies and assessments so that we only put forward what we could accomplish within the fiscal year and other things are waiting in a queue. Along with that, I'd like to also add that we would look across the budget, across the organization to reduce expenses and that at least equals the amount of the projected budget deficit which from that last screen looked like about $8 million. THAT WOULD BE MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

I THINK IT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. CAN YOU SUMMARIZE IT AND CONCISELY SAY IT AGAIN, PLEASE? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU HAVE IT ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE?

SO WE PROCEED WITH THE LIMITED REVENUE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. We prioritize the existing list of Council directed plans and create a short list that can be done within this fiscal year with the remaining on a list for future fiscal years. And that would be based on staff capacity. And secondly, we would direct staff to come back with a list of budget reductions across the organization that could make our budget structurally balanced. So you'll be looking for, I think, $8 million in reductions across the organization so that it's structurally balanced so we do not need to dip into short-term revenue to cover the projected budget deficit.

That's it. IF I MAY, WE NEED TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY IF THE SECOND ITEM RELATED TO THIS AGENDA ITEM.

I THINK SO. YEAH. I MEAN, THAT CAN BE PART OF HER AMENDMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AFTER COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, I ALSO HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

Is that a second? Respectfully, I think there should be a new agenda item on at a subsequent meeting because this isn't involving fiscal year 26-27. So I disagree with the city attorney.

Yeah, I think it's complicated. What I am afraid is that all of these will delay the process of the community engagement.

It wouldn't delay it because that would just move forward. So where we're being asked in all of these options is to wait because there are going to be implications to our current budget for the costs of these things. And I'm saying instead of worrying about waiting for the implication to the current budget, let's take the projections now and make budget cuts so that we don't have to worry about the implications. We are already planning for it. And then we can move forward with the process without needing to worry about having a deficit because that process is just so people can weigh in on what they want to see.

I think I would like to, before we agree on like cutting cuts and projections, because the projections, I would like to do an analysis of how all projections have been done and if it's real, because I also think that these projections are not getting other monies that we will bring from Measure U. So we are going to be starting thinking about cuttings when maybe it's not needed.

So I will agree with your... Can I make one more point? So if we were to move forward with this proposal and make reductions in spending at this time and it turns out that our budget projections were incorrect and we actually at the end of the term have more money than what we thought, We'd be back to the point where we have a surplus, right? And then we could use it in that way, right? No? Yes? No?

But remember that surplus becomes one time So I think it's a little more complicating that we are putting it here. So I would like to have a motion that is motion seed. And I agree with your friendly amendment of prioritizing things for these fiscal years. So we know that we are not going to be doing everything at once. I will accept that. I NEVER HEARD A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND THE ITEM.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE CITY BUDGET. AS A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS. Because it's the budget that we're talking about. We keep looking at the money as special funds that we can decide on how to spend. And we need to think of the entire budget. And by looking at the entire budget, we're actually addressing the issues that Vice Mayor has brought up. and that other council members have brought up, that there are things that will be cut if we don't look at the budget in its entirety. Someone's proposing that we look at the budget and then make cuts so that we can have a balanced budget while we look at the limited term funds separately. But to me, that doesn't make sense. That makes the limited time firm funds appear to be a special fund. Am I off on that?

Yes, Mayor, you're correct. What we were trying to do with option A, B, and C is to focus on things that do not explicitly indicate fiscal year 26-27 because the subject of this item is fiscal year 25-26. So whatever the council wants to provide in terms of general direction, THAT COULD BE BROUGHT BACK IN Q1, BUT UNDER THE OSPICES OF WE HEAR THE COUNCIL, BUT IT IS NOT AGENDIZED FOR 2627 BUDGET DIRECTION. AS IT RELATES TO POTENTIALLY CUTTING PROGRAMS.

ACTUALLY, THERE WAS APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AGREEMENT FOR 26-27.

THAT'S ONE LINE ITEM FROM INTEREST INCOME. IT WASN'T THE OVERALL CITY BUDGET. IT WAS VERY EXPLICIT. SO THEN WE COULD FUND RICHMOND PROMISE NOW.

SO THAT FUNDING, EVEN THOUGH IT'S FOR THE FOLLOWING BUDGET YEAR, COMES FROM MONEY FROM THIS BUDGET.

We put it in here so that the kids can have scholarships.

That's not what I asked.

Yes, you're right. But the rationale was we...

Right. I understand the rationale. I just needed to know whether or not the monies came from this budget and that was the reason it was included.

It wasn't previously appropriated in 25-26, and so in order to appropriate the money now that the council asked us to find in May, we're recommending it now. We didn't do it earlier because we were concerned around how the fiscal year was going to end, and we didn't have a strategy to have a balanced budget.

Understood. Okay.

Can I say something? We already voted for things one by one, and what we are voting here is whether we are going to do the process of the community engagement for the limited funds available, and this is what we are going to vote here for in terms of the process.

I made a substitute motion. I need a second.

I'LL SECOND IT.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE MOTION IS.

I'M SORRY? CAN SOMEONE REPEAT THE MOTION? THE MOTION IS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE CITY BUDGET. I THOUGHT THIS WAS TO PICK A, B, OR C. IT IS. SO I'M MAKING D. OKAY.

HEARD YOU.

OKAY.

POINT OF ORDER, DIDN'T WE ALREADY APPROVE A CONTRACT TO GATHER INFORMATION ON THE USE OF THE LIMITED TIME REVENUE, NOT ON THE WHOLE BUDGET? LIKE HAVEN'T WE ALREADY MADE THIS DECISION BOTH IN JANUARY AND APRIL?

The contract has not been finalized because we don't have all of the variables needed to provide, to generate a good scope of work. So the contract is with the city attorney's office and with the city manager's office to finalize. Once we know we can have a good scope of work. We can't just start a community engagement process on $300 million, right? You have to have finite information that you're giving this consultant to proceed with. Or we say the city council said start with unknown variables, which we're happy to do. BUT MYSELF, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SAYING START WITH UNKNOWN VARIABLES OF THIS MAGNITUDE FOR SOMETHING THIS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. SO I WANT THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.

MAYOR, CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION?

YES. MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION WAS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE TIMING OF THE ENTIRE BUDGET, ENTIRE CITY BUDGET. as a community engagement process. And it's coordination with public safety, labor negotiations, and other city council-directed plans, studies, and assessments.

Can I make a friendly amendment to that, if you'll accept? That we pause the city council directed plans and bring that back to the council separately so we could work on the prioritization of that because it's been expressed that capacity is what's holding up staff from assisting in this process. So agreeing to the process but putting a pause.

I think the issue with the pause is that many of them already are in process. So we don't want to stop work on things that are...

Okay, so I'll clarify. Not stopping the work on the things that are in process, but the things that the 32 something that was mentioned, that we don't move forward on those things until we work out what the prioritization is, the list. That would be really helpful.

That's attachment six. It's 34 items that are color blue.

I would accept that. Okay.

I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. I'm unclear on your motion. Can you say it again?

Okay. To provide direction regarding the timing of community engagement concerning the city budget in total. With the amendment given by Councilmember Brown, which is to pause on council directed issues which have not been started.

Are you saying that the community should know the city budget to provide input?

Yeah. Instead of looking at part of the budget as if it's a special fund. We look at the entire budget so that we know that when a certain amount of money is spent here, it's affecting the money over here.

That may be a little too much for the community.

I don't underestimate our community.

It takes sessions and sessions for us to receive the budget.

Can I make a comment before we vote? My comment is that when we went through the whole settlement process, we made it really clear to the community that they would have a chance to weigh in on how those funds were used. These funds, although they're in the general fund, they are short-term, limited-time funds, which are different. They're absolutely different than funds that come in from our regular revenue sources. They are treated differently by our auditors. They are treated differently in that the auditors don't look kindly on using short-term funds for anything across the budget. Am I right about that? Yes. So we should be treating them differently because they are treated differently in terms of the way that you should be using them in your municipal budget. We promised a community process. And what I'm hearing today is that you want to take away that process and have a budget process, which we have a budget process every year. Staff conducts a budget process every year where they ask the community what their budget priorities are for the whole organization. That already exists. What doesn't exist is a process for people to weigh in on these particular settlement short-term funds.

But that is part of the budget. So when we look at the budget, we will be looking at that money.

Okay. This is the substitute motion.

Can't vote yet because I haven't accepted the friendly amendment yet. So quick clarification point. What? I said we can't vote yet because I haven't accepted the friendly amendment. I was your seconder. Oh, okay. And I just have a quick point of clarification. So on Attachment 6, THE STATUS ARE EITHER ONGOING IN PROGRESS, IF I UNDERSTAND THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS TO PAUSE THOSE THAT HAVEN'T STARTED.

AND THEN PRIORITIZE IS WHAT I HEARD.

RIGHT NOW THEY'RE ALL ONGOING OR IN PROGRESS. THERE'S NO WAY OF KNOWING WHICH ONES HAVEN'T BEEN STARTED YET, I GUESS IS MY POINT.

SO WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IS THAT STAFF WOULD PROVIDE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE AND THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN EXERCISE TO PRIORITIZE THE 34 ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED IN BLUE. ON ATTACHMENT SIX.

OKAY. SO THEN YOU'LL COME BACK AND TELL US WHICH ONES HAVE NOT STARTED YET?

Right. Or which ones are X percentage of the way done and so forth. Okay.

Okay. And when will that come back?

Don't say October 6th. Administrative Chief Patrick Seals works on this department with all the department heads. So I would hope that it would probably be your first meeting in November. Okay.

Thank you. Okay.

Council Member Brown? Yes. Council Member Bonner?

No.

Council Member Jimenez? No. Council Member Wilson? No. Council Member Zepeda?