June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting – Item G.3
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At the Council’s Operating Budget workshop held on May 28, staff presented a draft 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating budget of $378.8 million, of which $78.1 million would be General Fund spending. The draft budget included funds necessary for existing programs and service levels, carryover strategic initiatives, and certain new programs or cost increases in excess of normal inflation. After factoring in estimated budget savings, the conservative two-year cumulative General Fund surplus was projected to be $1.6 million.
During the budget workshop, Council requested additional General Fund expenditure budget of approximately $1.2 million over the two-year period. Some of that comprised one-time expenditures while some costs would be ongoing well beyond the life of the two-year budget.
During the workshop presentation, staff identified a number of unknowns that could affect the City’s budget in the coming years. These included economic uncertainty, inflation, labor contracts, COSTCO timing, CalPERS returns, and the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure.
While we now have more clarity on some of these items (like COSTCO and the ballot measure), other items remain uncertain.
Specific to labor contracts, the draft budget contains a placeholder for a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per year. While that figure does provide some budgetary guidance, it does not take the high inflationary environment nor the City’s competitiveness with other jurisdictions into account. The 3% figure also does not take inequities revealed through the Classification and Compensation study into account.
As we all know, it is vital that all parties involved in the negotiation process continue to maintain their abilities to negotiate in good faith.
Because of this, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the additional General Fund budgetary requests directed at the Budget Workshop and consider suspending General Fund expenditures for new programs or service levels until negotiations are complete. By doing so, the City Council maintains the City’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the employee associations.
To be clear, this is not a request to eliminate the additional spending altogether, but rather to delay consideration of these requests until the negotiation process is complete – hopefully in the near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________
June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting – Item G.3
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At the Council’s Operating Budget workshop held on May 28, staff presented a draft 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating budget of $378.8 million, of which $78.1 million would be General Fund spending. The draft budget included funds necessary for existing programs and service levels, carryover strategic initiatives, and certain new programs or cost increases in excess of normal inflation. After factoring in estimated budget savings, the conservative two-year cumulative General Fund surplus was projected to be $1.6 million.
During the budget workshop, Council requested additional General Fund expenditure budget of approximately $1.2 million over the two-year period. Some of that comprised one-time expenditures while some costs would be ongoing well beyond the life of the two-year budget.
During the workshop presentation, staff identified a number of unknowns that could affect the City’s budget in the coming years. These included economic uncertainty, inflation, labor contracts, COSTCO timing, CalPERS returns, and the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure.
While we now have more clarity on some of these items (like COSTCO and the ballot measure), other items remain uncertain.
Specific to labor contracts, the draft budget contains a placeholder for a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per year. While that figure does provide some budgetary guidance, it does not take the high inflationary environment nor the City’s competitiveness with other jurisdictions into account. The 3% figure also does not take inequities revealed through the Classification and Compensation study into account.
As we all know, it is vital that all parties involved in the negotiation process continue to maintain their abilities to negotiate in good faith.
Because of this, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the additional General Fund budgetary requests directed at the Budget Workshop and consider suspending General Fund expenditures for new programs or service levels until negotiations are complete. By doing so, the City Council maintains the City’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the employee associations.
To be clear, this is not a request to eliminate the additional spending altogether, but rather to delay consideration of these requests until the negotiation process is complete – hopefully in the near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________
June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting – Item G.3
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At the Council’s Operating Budget workshop held on May 28, staff presented a draft 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating budget of $378.8 million, of which $78.1 million would be General Fund spending. The draft budget included funds necessary for existing programs and service levels, carryover strategic initiatives, and certain new programs or cost increases in excess of normal inflation. After factoring in estimated budget savings, the conservative two-year cumulative General Fund surplus was projected to be $1.6 million.
During the budget workshop, Council requested additional General Fund expenditure budget of approximately $1.2 million over the two-year period. Some of that comprised one-time expenditures while some costs would be ongoing well beyond the life of the two-year budget.
During the workshop presentation, staff identified a number of unknowns that could affect the City’s budget in the coming years. These included economic uncertainty, inflation, labor contracts, COSTCO timing, CalPERS returns, and the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure.
While we now have more clarity on some of these items (like COSTCO and the ballot measure), other items remain uncertain.
Specific to labor contracts, the draft budget contains a placeholder for a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per year. While that figure does provide some budgetary guidance, it does not take the high inflationary environment nor the City’s competitiveness with other jurisdictions into account. The 3% figure also does not take inequities revealed through the Classification and Compensation study into account.
As we all know, it is vital that all parties involved in the negotiation process continue to maintain their abilities to negotiate in good faith.
Because of this, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the additional General Fund budgetary requests directed at the Budget Workshop and consider suspending General Fund expenditures for new programs or service levels until negotiations are complete. By doing so, the City Council maintains the City’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the employee associations.
To be clear, this is not a request to eliminate the additional spending altogether, but rather to delay consideration of these requests until the negotiation process is complete – hopefully in the near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________
:ƵŶĞ Ϯϱ͕ ϮϬϮϰ ŝƚLJ ŽƵŶĐŝů DĞĞƚŝŶŐ ʹ /ƚĞŵ '͘ϯ
,ŽŶŽƌĂďůĞ DĂLJŽƌ ĂŶĚ ŽƵŶĐŝů DĞŵďĞƌƐ͕
ƚ ƚŚĞ ŽƵŶĐŝů͛Ɛ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ ƵĚŐĞƚ ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ ŚĞůĚ ŽŶ DĂLJ Ϯϴ͕ ƐƚĂĨĨ ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚ Ă ĚƌĂĨƚ ϮϬϮϰͬϮϱ ʹ ϮϬϮϱͬϮϲ KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ ďƵĚŐĞƚ ŽĨ Ψϯϳϴ͘ϴ ŵŝůůŝŽŶ͕ ŽĨ ǁŚŝĐŚ Ψϳϴ͘ϭ ŵŝůůŝŽŶ ǁŽƵůĚ ďĞ 'ĞŶĞƌĂů &ƵŶĚ ƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ͘ dŚĞ ĚƌĂĨƚ ďƵĚŐĞƚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ĨƵŶĚƐ ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ ĨŽƌ ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ůĞǀĞůƐ͕ ĐĂƌƌLJŽǀĞƌ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐ ŝŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ ŶĞǁ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ Žƌ ĐŽƐƚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ ŝŶ ĞdžĐĞƐƐ ŽĨ ŶŽƌŵĂů ŝŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶ͘ ĨƚĞƌ ĨĂĐƚŽƌŝŶŐ ŝŶ ĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚ ďƵĚŐĞƚ ƐĂǀŝŶŐƐ͕ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝǀĞ ƚǁŽͲLJĞĂƌ ĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞ 'ĞŶĞƌĂů &ƵŶĚ ƐƵƌƉůƵƐ ǁĂƐ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚ ƚŽ ďĞ Ψϭ͘ϲ ŵŝůůŝŽŶ͘
ƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ďƵĚŐĞƚ ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ͕ ŽƵŶĐŝů ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů 'ĞŶĞƌĂů &ƵŶĚ ĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞ ďƵĚŐĞƚ ŽĨ ĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJ Ψϭ͘Ϯ ŵŝůůŝŽŶ ŽǀĞƌ ƚŚĞ ƚǁŽͲLJĞĂƌ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘ ^ŽŵĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞĚ ŽŶĞͲƚŝŵĞ ĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐ ǁŚŝůĞ ƐŽŵĞ ĐŽƐƚƐ ǁŽƵůĚ ďĞ ŽŶŐŽŝŶŐ ǁĞůů ďĞLJŽŶĚ ƚŚĞ ůŝĨĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƚǁŽͲLJĞĂƌ ďƵĚŐĞƚ͘ ƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ƐƚĂĨĨ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ Ă ŶƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ ƵŶŬŶŽǁŶƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĐŽƵůĚ ĂĨĨĞĐƚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ďƵĚŐĞƚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŵŝŶŐ LJĞĂƌƐ͘ dŚĞƐĞ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ƵŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚLJ͕ ŝŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ůĂďŽƌ ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐ͕ K^dK ƚŝŵŝŶŐ͕ ĂůW
Z^ ƌĞƚƵƌŶƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ dĂdžƉĂLJĞƌ WƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ 'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ ĐĐŽƵŶƚĂďŝůŝƚLJ Đƚ ďĂůůŽƚ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞ͘ tŚŝůĞ ǁĞ ŶŽǁ ŚĂǀĞ ŵŽƌĞ ĐůĂƌŝƚLJ ŽŶ ƐŽŵĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞƐĞ ŝƚĞŵƐ ;ůŝŬĞ K^dK ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ďĂůůŽƚ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞͿ͕ ŽƚŚĞƌ ŝƚĞŵƐ ƌĞŵĂŝŶ ƵŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ͘
^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ ƚŽ ůĂďŽƌ ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐ͕ ƚŚĞ ĚƌĂĨƚ ďƵĚŐĞƚ ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶƐ Ă ƉůĂĐĞŚŽůĚĞƌ ĨŽƌ Ă ϯй ĐŽƐƚͲŽĨͲůŝǀŝŶŐ ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚ ƉĞƌ LJĞĂƌ͘ tŚŝůĞ ƚŚĂƚ ĨŝŐƵƌĞ ĚŽĞƐ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ƐŽŵĞ ďƵĚŐĞƚĂƌLJ ŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞ͕ ŝƚ ĚŽĞƐ ŶŽƚ ƚĂŬĞ ƚŚĞ ŚŝŐŚ ŝŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶĂƌLJ ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ ŶŽƌ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ĐŽŵƉĞƚŝƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐ ǁŝƚŚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ ŝŶƚŽ ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚ͘ dŚĞ ϯй ĨŝŐƵƌĞ ĂůƐŽ ĚŽĞƐ ŶŽƚ ƚĂŬĞ ŝŶĞƋƵŝƚŝĞƐ ƌĞǀĞĂůĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƚŚĞ ůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ŽŵƉĞŶƐĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚƵĚLJ ŝŶƚŽ ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚ͘ Ɛ ǁĞ Ăůů ŬŶŽǁ͕ ŝƚ ŝƐ ǀŝƚĂů ƚŚĂƚ Ăůů ƉĂƌƚŝĞƐ ŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞ ƚŽ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶ ƚŚĞŝƌ ĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ƚŽ ŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚĞ ŝŶ ŐŽŽĚ ĨĂŝƚŚ͘
ĞĐĂƵƐĞ ŽĨ ƚŚŝƐ͕ / ƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŽƵŶĐŝů ƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ ƚŚĞ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů 'ĞŶĞƌĂů &ƵŶĚ ďƵĚŐĞƚĂƌLJ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ ĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ƵĚŐĞƚ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƐƵƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ 'ĞŶĞƌĂů &ƵŶĚ ĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐ ĨŽƌ ŶĞǁ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ Žƌ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ůĞǀĞůƐ ƵŶƚŝů ŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĂƌĞ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ͘ LJ ĚŽŝŶŐ ƐŽ͕ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŽƵŶĐŝů ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƐ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ĂďŝůŝƚLJ ƚŽ ŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚĞ ŝŶ ŐŽŽĚ ĨĂŝƚŚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ dŽ ďĞ ĐůĞĂƌ͕ ƚŚŝƐ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ Ă ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ ƚŽ ĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ ĂůƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ͕ ďƵƚ ƌĂƚŚĞƌ ƚŽ ĚĞůĂLJ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ ƵŶƚŝů ƚŚĞ ŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ŝƐ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ ʹ ŚŽƉĞĨƵůůLJ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŶĞĂƌ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘ dŚĂŶŬ LJŽƵ ĨŽƌ LJŽƵƌ ƚŝŵĞ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Lisa Youngblood
June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting – Item G.3
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At the Council’s Operating Budget workshop held on May 28, staff presented a draft 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating budget of $378.8 million, of which $78.1 million would be General Fund spending. The draft budget included funds necessary for existing programs and service levels, carryover strategic initiatives, and certain new programs or cost increases in excess of normal inflation. After factoring in estimated budget savings, the conservative two-year cumulative General Fund surplus was projected to be $1.6 million.
During the budget workshop, Council requested additional General Fund expenditure budget of approximately $1.2 million over the two-year period. Some of that comprised one-time expenditures while some costs would be ongoing well beyond the life of the two-year budget.
During the workshop presentation, staff identified a number of unknowns that could affect the City’s budget in the coming years. These included economic uncertainty, inflation, labor contracts, COSTCO timing, CalPERS returns, and the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure.
While we now have more clarity on some of these items (like COSTCO and the ballot measure), other items remain uncertain.
Specific to labor contracts, the draft budget contains a placeholder for a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per year. While that figure does provide some budgetary guidance, it does not take the high inflationary environment nor the City’s competitiveness with other jurisdictions into account. The 3% figure also does not take inequities revealed through the Classification and Compensation study into account.
As we all know, it is vital that all parties involved in the negotiation process continue to maintain their abilities to negotiate in good faith.
Because of this, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the additional General Fund budgetary requests directed at the Budget Workshop and consider suspending General Fund expenditures for new programs or service levels until negotiations are complete. By doing so, the City Council maintains the City’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the employee associations.
To be clear, this is not a request to eliminate the additional spending altogether, but rather to delay consideration of these requests until the negotiation process is complete – hopefully in the near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________
June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting – Item G.3
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At the Council’s Operating Budget workshop held on May 28, staff presented a draft 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating budget of $378.8 million, of which $78.1 million would be General Fund spending. The draft budget included funds necessary for existing programs and service levels, carryover strategic initiatives, and certain new programs or cost increases in excess of normal inflation. After factoring in estimated budget savings, the conservative two-year cumulative General Fund surplus was projected to be $1.6 million.
During the budget workshop, Council requested additional General Fund expenditure budget of approximately $1.2 million over the two-year period. Some of that comprised one-time expenditures while some costs would be ongoing well beyond the life of the two-year budget.
During the workshop presentation, staff identified a number of unknowns that could affect the City’s budget in the coming years. These included economic uncertainty, inflation, labor contracts, COSTCO timing, CalPERS returns, and the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure.
While we now have more clarity on some of these items (like COSTCO and the ballot measure), other items remain uncertain.
Specific to labor contracts, the draft budget contains a placeholder for a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per year. While that figure does provide some budgetary guidance, it does not take the high inflationary environment nor the City’s competitiveness with other jurisdictions into account. The 3% figure also does not take inequities revealed through the Classification and Compensation study into account.
As we all know, it is vital that all parties involved in the negotiation process continue to maintain their abilities to negotiate in good faith.
Because of this, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the additional General Fund budgetary requests directed at the Budget Workshop and consider suspending General Fund expenditures for new programs or service levels until negotiations are complete. By doing so, the City Council maintains the City’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the employee associations.
To be clear, this is not a request to eliminate the additional spending altogether, but rather to delay consideration of these requests until the negotiation process is complete – hopefully in the near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________
June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting – Item G.3
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At the Council’s Operating Budget workshop held on May 28, staff presented a draft 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating budget of $378.8 million, of which $78.1 million would be General Fund spending. The draft budget included funds necessary for existing programs and service levels, carryover strategic initiatives, and certain new programs or cost increases in excess of normal inflation. After factoring in estimated budget savings, the conservative two-year cumulative General Fund surplus was projected to be $1.6 million.
During the budget workshop, Council requested additional General Fund expenditure budget of approximately $1.2 million over the two-year period. Some of that comprised one-time expenditures while some costs would be ongoing well beyond the life of the two-year budget.
During the workshop presentation, staff identified a number of unknowns that could affect the City’s budget in the coming years. These included economic uncertainty, inflation, labor contracts, COSTCO timing, CalPERS returns, and the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure.
While we now have more clarity on some of these items (like COSTCO and the ballot measure), other items remain uncertain.
Specific to labor contracts, the draft budget contains a placeholder for a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per year. While that figure does provide some budgetary guidance, it does not take the high inflationary environment nor the City’s competitiveness with other jurisdictions into account. The 3% figure also does not take inequities revealed through the Classification and Compensation study into account.
As we all know, it is vital that all parties involved in the negotiation process continue to maintain their abilities to negotiate in good faith.
Because of this, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the additional General Fund budgetary requests directed at the Budget Workshop and consider suspending General Fund expenditures for new programs or service levels until negotiations are complete. By doing so, the City Council maintains the City’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the employee associations.
To be clear, this is not a request to eliminate the additional spending altogether, but rather to delay consideration of these requests until the negotiation process is complete – hopefully in the near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________
Sarah Yuwiler
June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting – Item G.3
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At the Council’s Operating Budget workshop held on May 28, staff presented a draft 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating budget of $378.8 million, of which $78.1 million would be General Fund spending. The draft budget included funds necessary for existing programs and service levels, carryover strategic initiatives, and certain new programs or cost increases in excess of normal inflation. After factoring in estimated budget savings, the conservative two-year cumulative General Fund surplus was projected to be $1.6 million.
During the budget workshop, Council requested additional General Fund expenditure budget of approximately $1.2 million over the two-year period. Some of that comprised one-time expenditures while some costs would be ongoing well beyond the life of the two-year budget.
During the workshop presentation, staff identified a number of unknowns that could affect the City’s budget in the coming years. These included economic uncertainty, inflation, labor contracts, COSTCO timing, CalPERS returns, and the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure.
While we now have more clarity on some of these items (like COSTCO and the ballot measure), other items remain uncertain.
Specific to labor contracts, the draft budget contains a placeholder for a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per year. While that figure does provide some budgetary guidance, it does not take the high inflationary environment nor the City’s competitiveness with other jurisdictions into account. The 3% figure also does not take inequities revealed through the Classification and Compensation study into account.
As we all know, it is vital that all parties involved in the negotiation process continue to maintain their abilities to negotiate in good faith.
Because of this, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the additional General Fund budgetary requests directed at the Budget Workshop and consider suspending General Fund expenditures for new programs or service levels until negotiations are complete. By doing so, the City Council maintains the City’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the employee associations.
To be clear, this is not a request to eliminate the additional spending altogether, but rather to delay consideration of these requests until the negotiation process is complete – hopefully in the near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________
June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting – Item G.3
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At the Council’s Operating Budget workshop held on May 28, staff presented a draft 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating budget of $378.8 million, of which $78.1 million would be General Fund spending. The draft budget included funds necessary for existing programs and service levels, carryover strategic initiatives, and certain new programs or cost increases in excess of normal inflation. After factoring in estimated budget savings, the conservative two-year cumulative General Fund surplus was projected to be $1.6 million.
During the budget workshop, Council requested additional General Fund expenditure budget of approximately $1.2 million over the two-year period. Some of that comprised one-time expenditures while some costs would be ongoing well beyond the life of the two-year budget.
During the workshop presentation, staff identified a number of unknowns that could affect the City’s budget in the coming years. These included economic uncertainty, inflation, labor contracts, COSTCO timing, CalPERS returns, and the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure.
While we now have more clarity on some of these items (like COSTCO and the ballot measure), other items remain uncertain.
Specific to labor contracts, the draft budget contains a placeholder for a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per year. While that figure does provide some budgetary guidance, it does not take the high inflationary environment nor the City’s competitiveness with other jurisdictions into account. The 3% figure also does not take inequities revealed through the Classification and Compensation study into account.
As we all know, it is vital that all parties involved in the negotiation process continue to maintain their abilities to negotiate in good faith.
Because of this, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the additional General Fund budgetary requests directed at the Budget Workshop and consider suspending General Fund expenditures for new programs or service levels until negotiations are complete. By doing so, the City Council maintains the City’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the employee associations.
To be clear, this is not a request to eliminate the additional spending altogether, but rather to delay consideration of these requests until the negotiation process is complete – hopefully in the near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________
Andrew Swift
June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting – Item G.3
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At the Council’s Operating Budget workshop held on May 28, staff presented a draft 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating budget of $378.8 million, of which $78.1 million would be General Fund spending. The draft budget included funds necessary for existing programs and service levels, carryover strategic initiatives, and certain new programs or cost increases in excess of normal inflation. After factoring in estimated budget savings, the conservative two-year cumulative General Fund surplus was projected to be $1.6 million.
During the budget workshop, Council requested additional General Fund expenditure budget of approximately $1.2 million over the two-year period. Some of that comprised one-time expenditures while some costs would be ongoing well beyond the life of the two-year budget.
During the workshop presentation, staff identified a number of unknowns that could affect the City’s budget in the coming years. These included economic uncertainty, inflation, labor contracts, COSTCO timing, CalPERS returns, and the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure.
While we now have more clarity on some of these items (like COSTCO and the ballot measure), other items remain uncertain.
Specific to labor contracts, the draft budget contains a placeholder for a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per year. While that figure does provide some budgetary guidance, it does not take the high inflationary environment nor the City’s competitiveness with other jurisdictions into account. The 3% figure also does not take inequities revealed through the Classification and Compensation study into account.
As we all know, it is vital that all parties involved in the negotiation process continue to maintain their abilities to negotiate in good faith.
Because of this, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the additional General Fund budgetary requests directed at the Budget Workshop and consider suspending General Fund expenditures for new programs or service levels until negotiations are complete. By doing so, the City Council maintains the City’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the employee associations.
To be clear, this is not a request to eliminate the additional spending altogether, but rather to delay consideration of these requests until the negotiation process is complete – hopefully in the near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________
From: Jaci Parsons
To: =yCouncil Members; webCityClerk
Subject: Management Analyst & Interns vs Equity Analyst Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:25:48 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Esteemed Mayor & Council Members
I am 20 year resident of District 2.
I understand what is trying to be accomplished with the Equity Analyst position that was suddenly suggested and approved during the budget workshop.
As with most if not all pressing issues the City faces, resolution is the same. The city hires a consultant to create a program specific to Brentwood’s conditions, and then a city staff member runs the program.
The city currently uses a program to screen all hiring exam questions for equity, has hired Dr Whitaker to do multiple DEI trainings and assorted coffee talks, and the employee polling results show the openness the employees already have for hiring, working with, and promotion of people all abilities, races, religion and identity. I think Dr Whitaker can create that DEI program specific to Brentwood, and a more universal titled person such as a Management Analyst or Special Projects Coordinator can oversee the program. This allows quicker adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Such as the concern if in 2034, is an Equity Analyst still the right name? And how has that position evolved?
As Council Members you can still have all the accolades that go with getting Brentwood’s DEI program up and running and a long term program in place.
Just by using a more universal title you can also have the same DEI success at the same time with consultant developed programs for sustainability, fleet electrification, and environmental issues such as PFAS and microplastics. Rather than hiring a specific titled person for each one.
I would also love to see money used to hire multiple 1000 hour interns. Giving more opportunities to future entry level staff in the community is always a good thing.
Thank you for your consideration, John Parsons
June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting – Item G.3
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At the Council’s Operating Budget workshop held on May 28, staff presented a draft 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating budget of $378.8 million, of which $78.1 million would be General Fund spending. The draft budget included funds necessary for existing programs and service levels, carryover strategic initiatives, and certain new programs or cost increases in excess of normal inflation. After factoring in estimated budget savings, the conservative two-year cumulative General Fund surplus was projected to be $1.6 million.
During the budget workshop, Council requested additional General Fund expenditure budget of approximately $1.2 million over the two-year period. Some of that comprised one-time expenditures while some costs would be ongoing well beyond the life of the two-year budget.
During the workshop presentation, staff identified a number of unknowns that could affect the City’s budget in the coming years. These included economic uncertainty, inflation, labor contracts, COSTCO timing, CalPERS returns, and the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure.
While we now have more clarity on some of these items (like COSTCO and the ballot measure), other items remain uncertain.
Specific to labor contracts, the draft budget contains a placeholder for a 3% cost-of-living adjustment per year. While that figure does provide some budgetary guidance, it does not take the high inflationary environment nor the City’s competitiveness with other jurisdictions into account. The 3% figure also does not take inequities revealed through the Classification and Compensation study into account.
As we all know, it is vital that all parties involved in the negotiation process continue to maintain their abilities to negotiate in good faith.
Because of this, I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the additional General Fund budgetary requests directed at the Budget Workshop and consider suspending General Fund expenditures for new programs or service levels until negotiations are complete. By doing so, the City Council maintains the City’s ability to negotiate in good faith with the employee associations.
To be clear, this is not a request to eliminate the additional spending altogether, but rather to delay consideration of these requests until the negotiation process is complete – hopefully in the near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________