CITY COUNCIL
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor
Angelique Ashby, Vice Mayor, District 1
Sean Loloee, District 2
Jeff Harris, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Jay Schenirer, District 5
Eric Guerra, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney
Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor
Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency
Successor Agency
915 I Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Discussion Item 21
21. Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Midyear Review
File ID: 2022-00174
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the FY2021/22 Midyear Budget Report.
Contact: Mirthala Santizo, Budget Manager, (916) 808-5078, [email protected]; Emily Combs, Director of Finance, (916) 808-7914, [email protected], Department of Finance
Description of Attached:
1) Letter from Councilmember Mai Vang and Councilmember Jay Schenirer regarding the Midyear Review
February 8, 2022
Dear City Council Colleagues,
The midyear budget review provides the City with an opportunity to assess how well its programs and services meet the needs of residents and their communities. It is a time to consider the re-allocation of funds towards higher impact strategies, particularly those that are already in operation and, with the appropriate resources and infrastructure, could be expanded to serve more individuals.
Through the allocation of CARES and ARPA dollars, the City expanded current and implemented new programs that addressed the impact of COVID-19, particularly on young people. When the one-time CARES funds expired, many of the CARES-funded projects reduced services and, in some cases, had to cease operating altogether. However, the needs arising from the pandemic are not “one-time” as many of them already existed prior to the crisis and were only exacerbated as a result of the crisis.
Finally, as Council and City Staff both acknowledged through reflection and lessons learned on the administration and implementation of CARES and ARPA funds, the City must build its internal capacity to keep pace with the various functions involved with contracting, disbursement, management, and evaluation of City dollars. Again, the midyear conversation can and should be an opportunity to support City staff to successfully do their jobs now and into the future.
Given the above, we are recommending an investment of $5.5M in the following areas:
1) Youth Workforce Development ($5M: the majority one-time expenses except for 2.0 FTE as permanent ongoing positions)
This proposed investment would continue previously CARES-funded projects that align with our adopted City’s Youth Workforce Goals and Citywide Youth Development Campaign Plan, support collaborative investments addressing a much-needed holistic approach to workforce development, and ensure adequate City infrastructure to address long-overdue internal needs.
These investments would prioritize the following:
▪ Previously successful CARES-funded projects: There are several successful youth workforce development programs in our high-demand industries that were supported by City CARES funds. These identified programs are not eligible for support under the forthcoming CaliforniansforAll youth workforce grant nor are there sufficient ARPA funds allocated for youth workforce development specifically. ▪ Workforce development employment continuum: While job placement and long-term employment in quality jobs are the ultimate goals for any workforce development system, the City is one of many entities supporting a person towards achieving success through the employment continuum that spans stabilization services, basic skills, job readiness, and, finally, employment. Moving forward, the City should strategically invest in these efforts, setting realistic outcomes based on where programs fall along the continuum.
▪ Gaps in ecosystem: Funding from this allocation should prioritize those populations and services in workforce development ecosystem that do not qualify for government- subsidized programs such as WIOA and CalWORKs.
In addition to the above, this proposed investment cannot occur without long-term investments in City youth workforce development staff which currently stands at 1.0 FTE. If our intent is to move forward with the City’s youth workforce development strategy, a portion of this proposed inviestment must be considered as the initial permanent, long- term funding for an additional 2 FTE that are integrated into the City’s baseline budget.
These positions would be tasked with managing grantees, deepening relationships with employers, and engaging with partners and collaborative groups to further our City’s work.
2) Youth Sports Teams and Outdoor Athletic Field Permit Fees ($200,000: ongoing expense) Literally leveling the playing field by increasing access to safe spaces for youth, City outdoor athletic fields should be available to youth sports teams at no cost. Reducing the barrier of field permit fees allows all youth sports teams, regardless of how well financed they are, the opportunity to benefit from our City parks and recreation resources and offer young people positive activities during high juvenile crime hours. The cost savings of public safety response would offset any lost revenue related to this long-term investment.
3) Youth- and Family-Serving Community-Based Organizations Stabilization Fund (“Fund”) ($300,000: ongoing expense)
The proposed investment creates a Fund that will offer general operating support grants mirroring the long-standing Office of Arts and Culture’s Cultural Arts Awards program, which provides multi-year funding for general operating expenses. The grants will support a nonprofit’s mission rather than specific projects or programs; allow for expenses such as
salaries, facility rent, supplies, marketing, and other day-to-day costs; and ultimately lead to better program delivery. The Fund will also support the delivery of tailored capacity-building opportunities for CBO partners that lead to greater sustainability, diversity of funding, and increased collaboration and alignment across the field. Topics could include improved integration of promising and evidence-based program practices into program design; strengthening administrative and management activities; and leadership skill development.
We have spent our respective careers working toward quality and sustainable investments for our children and youth, and we’ve made considerable progress. However, the City has fallen behind in providing meaningful and consistent support, leaving our City staff and CBOs to struggle both operationally and programmatically to support our kids. We ask that, during this midyear budget process, a foundation be laid to address our City’s capacity to provide quality investments in our children and youth. We, as Councilmembers will do our part to explore policies to better serve our young people such as creating more youth-dedicated seats on other City Boards and Commissions, including an advisory seat our own City Council, and seek opportunities in our City’s efforts to gather community input to elevate and strengthen youth voice.
As Councilmembers representing some of the most historically under-resourced communities in the City, and with our deep commitment to providing quality and equitable supports to young people across the City, we look forward to a robust Council discussion.
Thank you for considering our recommendations.
Sincerely,
Mai Vang Jay Schenirer
Councilmember, District 8 Councilmember, District 5