Assembly Bill 2561Job Vacancy Status ReportStephanie SifuentesHuman Resources Director What is Assembly Bill (AB) 2561?•AB 2561 went into effect on January 1, 2025.•Adds language to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) requiring public agencies to assess and address vacancies.
What are the City’s obligations under AB 2561?AB 2561 requires public agencies to track vacancies and hold a public hearing to present on three things prior to Council adopting the fiscal year budget:1.the status of vacancies2.recruitment and retention efforts3.any obstacles, impediments, or necessary changes to polices, procedures, and recruitment activities.*During this hearing, bargaining units are also afforded an opportunity to speak or present.**Additional obligations may apply if the vacancy rate in a bargaining unit exceeds 20%.
Status of VacanciesAs of May 22, 2026, total number of vacancies was 141.•CMO (Risk & City Clerk) –5/23 vacancies; 21.74% of dept; 3.55% total FTEs citywide.•ED –3/7 vacancies; 42.86% of dept; 2.13% total FTEs citywide.•Finance –10/42 vacancies; 23.81% of dept; 7.09% total FTEs citywide.•Fire –7/93 vacancies; 7.53% of dept; 4.96% total FTEs citywide.•Housing –6/17 vacancies; 35.29% of dept; 4.26% total FTEs citywide.•HR –4/15 vacancies; 26.67% of dept; 2.84% total FTEs citywide.
Status of Vacancies (cont.)As of May 22, 2026, total number of vacancies was 141.•IT –1/13.5 vacancies; 7.41% of dept; 0.71% total FTEs citywide.•PDS –8/35 vacancies; 22.86% of dept; 5.67% total FTEs citywide.•Police –52/193 vacancies; 26.94% of dept; 36.88% total FTEs citywide.•PW –14/89.50 vacancies; 15.64% of dept; 9.93% total FTEs citywide.•Water –31/121 vacancies; 25.62% of dept; 21.99% total FTEs citywide.
Vacancies by Bargaining Unit(CAMP , IAFF, IBEW, Unrep, VPOA)•CAMP –19/121; 2.83% total FTEs citywide.•IAFF –4/83 vacancies; 0.60% total FTEs citywide.•IBEW –65/294 vacancies; 9.69% total FTEs citywide.•Unrep–12/47 vacancies; 1.79% total FTEs citywide.•VPOA –41/126 vacancies; 6.11% total FTEs citywide.
Recruitment and Retention EffortsFrom July 1, 2025, through May 22, 2026, the following recruitment and selection efforts were accomplished:•Participated in 14 career fairs•Opened 51 recruitments•Processed 3,826 applications (including public safety)–Processed 57 applications for Police Officer (Lateral)–Processed 269 applications for Police Officer (Entry)–Processed 934 applications for Police Officer (Recruit)•Processed approximately 70 new hires (including public safety)•Hired 12 Police Officers:–1 Laterals–1 Entry–10 Recruits Recruitment and Retention Efforts (cont.)•The City of Vallejo is a competitive civil service system.•We are required to post, advertise, and conduct some form of job-relevant testing (e.g., written, performance, interviews) for all classified positions.•Candidates selected for unclassified positions through a competitive process must submit to fingerprinting, backgrounds, and pre-employment physical.
Recruitment and Retention Efforts (cont.)Our goal in Human Resources is for staff to open at least two recruitments per week. This is dependent upon completion of staff training, HR being fully staffed, capacity of HR staff with competing priorities, the capacity of departments to participate in the recruitment and selection process, and whether or not departments have operational reasons for not filling their vacancies (e.g., potential reorganization, class specification revisions, space deficiencies, etc.).
Obstacles/Impediments/Recommendations•Civil service systems were created to ensure that everyone experiences fair and consistent employment practices. To that end, there's nothing in our process that I would recommend changing.
Obstacles/Impediments/Recommendations(cont.)What I do see as impediments to recruitment and retention are:1.Culture -Employees need to feel like they are valued and appreciated for their contributions and respected for their expertise. It creates a community, it builds loyalty and resiliency, even through tough times. If we show respect and practice professionalism through our actions and words, and show compassion for our community, City staff, and City Council in all situations, including those involving disagreement and difference, we demonstrate to our staff, community, and the rest of the world that we are a great place to live, work, and play. If we focus on forward-thinking, while building on history and lessons learned from the past, we demonstrate to our staff, community, and the rest of the world that we are a great place to live, work, and play.
Obstacles/Impediments/Recommendations(cont.)What I do see as impediments to recruitment and retention are:2.Total Compensation -Total compensation includes base pay; incentive/specialty pays; health, vision, and dental benefits; retirement; paid time off; and other perks such as tuition assistance, gym discounts, pet insurance, daycare or daycare subsidies, and more.
CONTACT(S)
Stephanie Sifuentes, HR [email protected] FY 2026-2027 Proposed Budget PresentationCity Manager’s Office and the Finance DepartmentJune 9, 2026 Staff Presentation Outline
•Overview of Budget Process•Proposed FY 2026-2027 Citywide Budget (All Funds)•Other Funds•Proposed FY 2026-2027 General Fund Budget•Budget Deficit Balancing Strategies•Measure P•Five Year Financial Forecast Overview of Budget Process
FY 2026-2027 Budget Development Process
Budget Policy as per City Charter•Per Charter Section 701, the City Manager submits a proposed budget to Council 45 days before the fiscal year begins. •General Fund proposed expenditures shall not exceed estimated revenues.•Estimated revenues include surpluses from the current year.
Baseline Budget: based on prior year expenditures
Remove prior year one time department request
Budget balancing options presented to City Council
Creation of balanced Proposed Budget as per Muni Code
Proposed Budget presentation
Final budget adoption
Proposed FY 2026-2027 Citywide Budget (All Funds)
Citywide Revenue ($326.82M)•General Fund (Including Measure P): $151.19M•Other Revenue Sources:oWater Fund: $61.30MoHousing Grants: $31.85MoOther Funds: $82.48M from various funds such as Fleet, CIP , and LMD managed by the CityCitywide Expenditures ($337.59M)•General Fund (Including Measure P): $142.14M•City Water Fund: $67.66M •Housing Fund: $33.17M•Risk Fund: $21.05M•Other Funds: $73.57M from various funds such as Fleet, CIP , and LMD managed by the City Proposed FY 2026-2027 Citywide Budget (All Funds)
See page 38 & 39 Proposed Budget
Other Funds
Other Funds!"#ABCDEF
GF+I##I#+B
-.-IL-GLFB
!"#ABG-L-#0F
NF.F#"FOFPEF#AIC"NFO
"4 RBSTB
NR4 UV:XURYB
NR4RV=R4
F#AI#+B
-.-IL-GLFB
!"#AB
G-L-#0F
!"#$$%$CDEDFGH G",-.G$/D
MG1H %OGP !"""""""""""""""""""""""""" #$%&""""""""""""""""""""" #$%&"""""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" 4$/G1-1%PGD5S$7P
8#/G1D5S$7P '%$()"""""""""""""""""""""" '%$&(""""""""""""""""""" '#$''"""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" *+$#&""""""""""""""""""" 5%9G1D5S$7 ($(,"""""""""""""""""""""""" ($,%""""""""""""""""""""" ($%*"""""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" ($(-""""""""""""""""""""" W#1%$#D5S$7 ($(-"""""""""""""""""""""""" %$#)""""""""""""""""""""" %$-#"""""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" ($((""""""""""""""""""""" ;,"<D5S$7 ($--"""""""""""""""""""""""" +$-(""""""""""""""""""""" *$+,"""""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" ($,'""""""""""""""""""""" !#1=%$CD5S$7 ($+'"""""""""""""""""""""""" %$%*""""""""""""""""""""" %$+#"""""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" ($%&""""""""""""""""""""" 4O,$,.%ODFGH G",-.G$/D
5S$7P '$,*"""""""""""""""""""""""" '$-#""""""""""""""""""""" #$,("""""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" *$)&""""""""""""""""""""" !S9"%OD8,1=PD5S$7P &+$,-"""""""""""""""""""""" %)$)+""""""""""""""""""" ,%$,'"""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" &,$)'""""""""""""""""""" >/?G1D!1,C1#.D5S$7P
DDD@,SP%$CD5S$7P ,$-)"""""""""""""""""""""""" &,$((""""""""""""""""""" &&$%#"""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" %$#%""""""""""""""""""""" DDDFG9/DMG1H %OGD5S$7P &$%("""""""""""""""""""""""" &$,)""""""""""""""""""""" ,$#%"""""""""""""""""""""""""" .($(+/"""""""""""""""""""" &$'+""""""""""""""""""""" DDDW%POD>/?G1D!1,C1#.D
DDD5S$7P +,$%+"""""""""""""""""""""" ,&$%-""""""""""""""""""" ,#$,'"""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" &-$(#""""""""""""""""""" A#-%/#"D!1,BGO/D5S$7P %-$*-"""""""""""""""""""""" %,$'&""""""""""""""""""" ,($%&"""""""""""""""""""""""" !""""""""""""""""""""""" %%$(-""""""""""""""""""" CSU>?B@UARVB!BCY4 !"#$%"&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& !%'$(!&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& !#)$')&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& *+$+',&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& !'-$)-&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Total Revenue: $174.31Total Expenditure: $195.45Use of Fund Balance: $21.10M Subsidies from General Fund to Other Funds -$3.30•Planning & Development Services: $2.22MoMoved from General Fund to a Special Fund in FY 2025-2026. Subsidy is needed to support operational expenditures. •Mare Island Causeway Bridge: $0.25M oFor ongoing bridge maintenance, consistent with the City's cost-sharing approach adopted in FY 2019-2020.•Mare Island Base Reuse: $0.10M oTo support ongoing development efforts on Mare Island.•Marina: $0.70M oTo cover cost of Debt Service payment •Empress Theatre: $0.03M oFor ongoing maintenance and repair.
Proposed FY 2026-2027 General Fund Budget
Proposed FY 2026-2027 General Fund Budget!"#$B"&&"'#() !"#!ABACDABAE!!"#!ABACDABAE! $*+(,&"#,
-.-./M$ $12'P'(,4$
FG+,--,-+!.LM,NM2NG!"P-4!FMNM-RG /56-M7$$$$$$$$$$$ /86/5$$$$$$$$$$$$$
SGLG-PGT
SGLG-PG!U9:MN ;YA=Y>!!!!!!!!!!! ;YA=EE!!!!!!!!!!!
?T G!9@!APBCNPT 9$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ -6/:
abCG-4,:PBGT
AMNMB,GT !M-4!FG-G@,:T ;<=6--$$$$$$$$$$$ ;;<68-$$$$$$$$$$$ AGBL,RGT !M-4!APCCN,GT <86M:$$$$$$$$$$$$$ <;6=;$$$$$$$$$$$$$ cG-GBMN!d,M2,N,:e! >6/5 >68-
f9T:!.NN9RM:,9-T !;/6<8)$$$$$$$$$$$$ !;86>:)$$$$$$$$$$$$ abCG-4,:PBG!U9:MN ;C;=;E!!!!!!!!!!! ;Yg=BK!!!!!!!!!!!
iG:!SGLG-PGMabCG-4,:PBGT !NAPBCNPTMNlG@,R,:PP!N.D"PNAg=EgP!!!!!!!!!!!! B=BB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a-4,-+!.LM,NM2NG!"P-4!FMNM-RG B=Eg!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AK=A>!!!!!!!!!!!!! nGMT PBG!o!SGLG-PG ;g=KA!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;g=KA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Revenue
Proposed FY 2026-2027 General Fund Revenues
See page 48Proposed Budget
Proposed FY 2026-2027 General Fund RevenuesProperty Taxes ($42.95M): 5% increase due to steady growth and development in the City.Sales Tax ($57.04M, including Measure P): 1% Decrease driven by lower fuel sales, slower consumer spending, and continued economic uncertainty.Utility User Tax (15.50M): 10% decline; reflecting reduced usage in electric and gas, and continuing structural shifts in cable and telecommunications.Franchise Tax ($8.15M): 13% increase; driven by rate increases.Transient Occupancy Tax ($1.49M): 13% decrease ; reflecting ongoing economic uncertainties. Business Licenses ($1.83M) : Decline to align with the actuals received in FY 24-25 and FY 25-26.Program revenues ($13.51M): Mainly due to SAFER Grant and wildfire-related reimbursement revenues.Other Revenue ($10.71M):Includes Property Transfer Tax $2.47M, Cannabis $1.6M, Water Rights $1.78M, Rental $1.20M, Six Flags $0.75M, Transfer/Investment Income $2.26M, Misc$.07M Proposed FY 2026-2027 General Fund Revenue Trend
Expenditure
Proposed FY 2026-2027 General Fund Expenditures
$142.14M
Expenditure by ClassificationExpenditure by Department
General Fund Expenditures•Most General Fund expenditures are being maintained at status-quo levels. oServices & Supplies have 3% inflation increase and a 20% overall reduction in Services & SuppliesoThis reduction excludes Utilities, Bank Service Charges, Bond Payments & Previously Contracted Services•General Fund reflects a total increase of $1.16M over prior FY 2025-2026 Adopted Budget. oThis increase stems from Salaries & Benefits net increasing by $9.73M (including increases in Overtime, Health Benefits and Pension increases)oAn additional $2.26M increase is also reflected in Services & Supplies.
Proposed FY2026-2027 General Fund Expenditures by Classification•Salaries & Benefits (80%) -$113.45Mo$62.89M -Salaries o$9.52M -Overtimeo$36.77M -Pensiono$17.87M -Health, Other Benefits & Leave Payouto($13.60M) –Projected Vacancy•Vehicle (3%) -$4.83MoMaintenance $3.17M & Replacement $1.66M•Utilities (2%) -$3.16Mo$.91M Gas & Electric / $1.41M Water / $.31M Waste / $0.53M Telephone•Services & Supplies (7%) -$13.30Mo$2.91M Police / $2.29M Public Works / $0.91M Fireo$6.48M Administration / $0.71 Citywide•Transfer, Subsidies & Debt (7%) -$9.71Mo$3.30M -Subsidieso$1.39M –Building Maintenance & Farragut Security & Leaseo$3.01M –Technologyo$1.01M –Debt Serviceso$1.00M –Litigation Deposit Fund (Jensen Hughes) Proposed FY2026-2027 General Fund Service & Supplies Breakdown (millions)DepartmentsProposedBoard and Commissions0.07City Attorney0.75City Clerk0.40City Manager*3.47Citywide0.71Economic Development0.57Finance0.59Fire 0.91Human Resources0.50Information Technology0.08Mayor/City Council0.06Police2.91Public Works2.29Grand Total13.30*City Manager includes $2.66M Animal Services !"#A%&D"(&) G%+#+)" ,
!"#ABCCD #EFGHCB"ID JBC KLMMHHHHHHHHHH
FED NFGHCB"ID JBC OLPPHHHHHHHHHH
C B " I DJ B HQHC R ! ! G DB C HS# A A DJ B HC R ! ! G DB C TH! " DEU DEV HQHB U J LWXLYPHHHHHHHHHH UF=BCHQH>FE?HCB"ID JBHJ@F"VBC XLPAHHHHHHHHHH
U"FD ED EVHQHJ#EAB"BEJB XLPMHHHHHHHHHH
! B HCHC ! F J B H" B EU F G XLPDHHHHHHHHHH
EFE D U#"D FG XLDAHHHHHHHHHH
@ " HCH" B J " R DU N B EU XLDYHHHHHHHHHH
CBJR"D UFH CB"ID JB XLDKHHHHHHHHHH
! B HCHJ # N ! R U B " H@ F " B G F " B HQHC # A U G F " BXLDHHHHHHHHHHH BGBJUD #E XLKPHHHHHHHHHH
" B I B ER B H# A A C B U HCHI F G G B E # HU # R " DC N HSI > DB WXLKDHHHHHHHHHH BRBCHQH!R>GD JFUD #EC XLKKHHHHHHHHHH
G B V F G HCH# R U C DB B HG B V F G HJ # R EJ DGXLKOHHHHHHHHHH G B V F G HCHDEI B C U DV F U D# ECXLKXHHHHHHHHHH
NFJ@DB "F HQHB IRD!H"B EUFGHQHAD"B HB IRD!NB EUXLHAHHHHHHHHHH JG#U@D E VH Q H RE D A#"NC XLHMHHHHHHHHHH
FRBD U XLHXHHHHHHHHHH
@#NBGBCCEBCC XLHXHHHHHHHHHH
NDC JHB IRD!NB EU XLXYHHHHHHHHHH
>#F"BCHQHJ#NND CCD #EC XLXJHHHHHHHHHH
C ! B J DF G HB I B EU C HSA B B HG F DI B " WXLXDHHHHHHHHHH ? CA XLXKHHHHHHHHHH
!#CUFVBHQHNFD GD EV XLXOHHHHHHHHHH
!R>GD JD UFHQHFBIB"UD CD EV XLXOHHHHHHHHHH
#AAD JBHC!FJBH"BEU XLXHHHHHHHHHHH
-.L0!NOPOL4R6T68NNNNNNN
General Fund FY 2026-2027 Expenditures Trend
Budget Deficit Balancing Strategies
FY 26-27 Budget Deficit Balancing Strategy –Pre Scenario Options !"#AB"CC"'#() !"#!ABACDABAE!!"#!ABACDABAE!AGH(,C"#,-.-.LMAA1O'P'(,4A F*+I--I-+!./MINM2N*!"P-4!FMNM-R*LRS-MTAAAAAAAAAAA LUSLRAAAAAAAAAAAAA S*/*-P*7VH: A H#4A '; <,OA =#O,( ; O"> ; ,4A O,?,#=,(@@RS@@@@RSLA1O'BOH`AO,? ,#=,( @aSLA@aS-@UP29:9MN;!Y*/*-P*7 !=.>?@AA@B!!!!!!!!!!! ?@AAEE!!!!!!!!!!! C7*!:a!UPYbNP7 bSbb -SLA
cd b* -4I9PY* 7UMNMYI*7 !M-4!F*-*aI97cHCHO",(AH#4A';<,OAPHd(MLSe-MLSeRf @bS-LRS-LG,#,g";(1,#("'# aMSAeaMSAAh,HC;<Ai,#,g";( eSUR RSLLM;<,OAG,#,g";( RSL@ ASMMN,H? ,A1Hd'=;( @Sbb @SbblH>H#>dABH#HB,`,#;AmA1'(";"'#An,4=>;"'#bSbb!@aSMb)AAAAAAAAAAAAo#;">"PH;,4Ap'`P,#(H;"'#A"#>O,H(,@SAb bSbbUP29:9MN;!7 MNMYI*7 !M-4!2*-*aI97 !=F>?@BAee!!!!!!!!!!! ??@Afe!!!!!!!!!!! U*Y/IR*7 !M-4!UPbbNI*7 bSbb bSbbl,<">C,A`H"#;,#H#>, aS@A aS@Al,<">C,AO,PCH>,`,#; @SMM @SMMT;"C";",( aS@M aS@Mc,O? ">,AH#4A(=PPC",( @-SLL@aSabG'#4(rAC,H(,(AH#4A';<,OA>'(;(@Sb@ @Sb@ VOH#( g,O( A H#4A c =i( "4",(@bSUMeSAbUP29:9MN;!7 *Y/IR*!M-4!7 PbbNI*7 !=g>@fACE!!!!!!!!!!!!! @?AB?!!!!!!!!!!!!! UP29:9MN;!*db*-4I9PY*7 !2*a:Y*!Y*IK2PY7 *K*-97 !=Fig>MN?CeAAA!!!!!!!!!!! ?ffAfC!!!!!!!!!!! l-9*YaP-4!Y*IK2PY7 *K*-97s,#,OHCAN"Hi"C";dA eSLR eSU-p'(;AoCC'>H;"'#( !@LSaU)AAAAAAAAAAAA !@USeA)AAAAAAAAAAAAUP29:9MN;!I-9*YaP-4!Y*IK2PY7 *K*-97 !=c>=fABC>!!!!!!!!!!!!! =CAfA>!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UP29:9MN;!*db*-4I9PY*7 !I-RN!7 MNMYI*7 !=Nic>!M!"?C?A?E!!!!!!!!!!! ?@mABf!!!!!!!!!!! n*9!S*/*-P*ocdb*-4I9PY*7!=UPYbNP7o=N*aIRI9>>!=.D">=AmAEm>!!!!!!!!!!!! BABB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! c-4I-+!./M INM 2N* !"P-4!FM NM -R*BAEm!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AfAAB!!!!!!!!!!!!! p*M7 PY*!T!S*/*-P* ?mAfA!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?mAfA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Budget Balancing Tools and Categories –Other Comments
•After the release of the Proposed budget on May 14, 2026. The City identified additional priorities.oDan Murphy Contract -$0.25MoPOAC Manager -$0.20MoCity Manager/Council Priorities -$3.75M•The City Staff has identified three scenarios for City Council consideration and direction.
FY 2026-2027 Budget Deficit –Scenario #1oVacancy Management & Position Reductions: $4.90MoReduce staffing by 44 FTEs + an additional filled 26 FTEs (total 70 positions)oSherriff Contract (Funding Shift): $1.93MoOriginally charged to the General FundoProposal is to reimburse the General Fund from the General Liability FundoMeasure P Fund Shift: ($1.52M)oOnly “Recommended” Measure P Committee are funded as intended -$0.76Mo“Not Recommended” items ($1.52M) are removedoProposed Savings of $5.31M FY 2026-2027 Budget Deficit –Scenario #2oVacancy Management & Position Reductions: $4.90MoReduce staffing by 44 FTEs + an additional filled 26 FTEs (total 70 positions)oSherriff Contract (Funding Shift): $1.93MoOriginally charged to the General FundoProposal is to reimburse the General Fund from the General Liability FundoMeasure P Fund Shift:oApprove all items presented to the Measure P Committee totaling $2.28M, including both the originally budgeted recommended and non-recommended items.oProposed Savings of $6.83M FY 2026-2027 Budget Deficit –Scenario #3oVacancy Management & Position Reductions: oMaintain initial staffing reduction of 44 FTEsoMeasure P Fund Shift:oApprove all items presented to the Measure P Committee totaling $2.28M, including both the originally budgeted recommended and non-recommended items.oInvestment Income Transfer: $3.07MoTransfer the investment income from FY24/25, FY 25/26 and Projected FY 26/27 into the General FundoSherriff Contract (Funding Shift): $1.93MoOriginally charged to the General FundoProposal is to reimburse the General Fund from the General Liability FundoSherriff Contract Savings: $1.70MoOriginal contract was for $9.20M from Measure P , staffing levels are coming approximately $1.70M under original projectionsoProposed Savings of $6.70M FY 2026-2027 Budget Deficit –Scenario Summary !"#$#BCDE)DGC+,-C./"M#1O,-C./"M#1P,-C./"M#14 !"#RC-+CD1SCTM-M+ U9P:;<:=U4O;P:=1111111111 U4O;P:=1111111111 U4O;P:=11111111111111 ,+"/+CG>1+#1?@#BC1+AC1B/$Ca$C.DM+)"C1?#.+"#@1E$+M#.B!"#"A#BCD"A"(FDFAG+"GGI-G-.A LMNMOLMNP4LRNSO LRNTOU"I(FGFVC:.;-G-.ACIFV<#G-.A =N>O >NRO >NRO TNPO?@FIG-DFCIFV<#G-.A!A?B ON=O ON=O ON=O ON=OCB a a ON=O ON=O ON=O ON=Ob.Cc?dBC-A#IF";FC.ACFe:-IFVC#.AGI"#G;CfAFGC.gCg-eFVC#.;G;hiNMO ONOO ONOO ONOO4OMCIFV<#G-.AC.ACV-;#IFG-.A"IBC;FI@-#F;C"AVC;<::k-F;iN>4 iN>4 iN>4 iN>4A"<;FCg<AV-A(Cg.IClFG-IFFCmF"kGmCnCA.ID"kC"AVCoBdC#.AGI-p<G-.ACCCCfPMMCg<AVFVhONPi ONPi ONPi ONPic.A;.k-V"GFCATC"AVCc.DD<A-GBCF@FAG;Cp<V(FGC<;-A(C#"IIB.@FICATCg<AV;iNOO iNOO iNOO iNOOrm-gGC;GIFFGCg<AV-A(CG.CsF";<IFCA iN4O iN4O iN4O iN4OA.GFAG-"kC-D:"#G 4iN4S4SNS=4iNPS iMNiS cBC1#T1dCBC"eCB1f1E.Cgh MiC1j C/B)"CBlF"kk.#"GFCtFAFI"kCa<AVC#.;GCG.CsF";<IFCA 4N4P ONMRCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 4N4PCCCCCCCCCCCCC RN>PCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC lFg<AVC.gCtFAFI"kCd-"p-k-GBCg<AVFVC;mFI-ggC#.AGI"#GC#.;G; iN>OCCCCCCCCCCCCCC iN>OCCCCCCCCCCCCC iN>OCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCd-D-GFVC;GI"GF(-#CIF;FI@FC<;Fs.A;"AG.Cg<AV; iNOO iNOO iNOO iNOOoA";;-(AFVCg<AVCp"k"A#F TN4M TN4M TN4M TN4M A.GFAG-"kC-D:"#G MN== MN>S >NT= iTNi=
dCeC.)C1C.A/[email protected]"::I.@"kT"kk.GCsF";<IFCnAI.:FIGBCGI"A;gFICG"eC<:V"GFCDDFV-"GF+"VD-A-;GI"G-@FaFFC<:V"GF;+C#.;GCIF#.@FIBC"k-(ADFAGCfAurvCa-IFhA"IZ-A(CFAg.I#FDFAGCIF@FA<FC-D:I.@FDFAG;c.VFCFAg.I#FDFAGCIF@FA<FCIF#.@FI-F;A.GFAG-"kC-D:"#G ONOO ONOO ONOO ONOO h#+/@ 9P:;<:94O;P:94O;P:94O;P:
NflfPmPN
FY 2026-2027 Budget Deficit –Staffing Changes
oBaseline Budget or Scenario #3: A reduction of staffing of 44.0 FTEsoDepending Which Scenario City Council Approves: Scenarios #1 or #2 include a reduction of additional 26.0 FTEs
POAC & VPD ReformVPD ReformoCurrent VPD reform budget is shared with Professional Standards Division of $.29MoJensen Hughes $1.00M oAdded (1) Program and Performance Project Manager (Limited 5 year term)oAdditional expenditure request for Dan Murphy contract: $0.25MPolice Oversight Accountability Committee (POAC): $0.50MoBudgeted in Police Department oTraining: $.056M oIPA and Assigned Attorney: $.44M oAdditional expenditure request: $200k See page 32 & 98Proposed Budget
Measure P fund status (including FY 2026-2027 staff requests) Measure P Funds
Measure P: FY 2026-2027 Department Recommended Requests
Measure P: FY 2026-2027 Department Not Recommended Requests *Council approves Public Works $1.52M this will shift savings to General Fund Five Year Financial Forecast
Five Year Financial Forecast
See page 41 & 42Proposed Budget
Conclusion
Conclusion•City continues to maintain a balanced General Fund budget per Charter Section 701. •Staff is requesting City Council to give direction on Scenario selection. •Approve proposed budget with Scenario selection•Approved budget will go into effect on July 1, 2026 Questions?
THANK YOUNalungo ConleyAssistant City Manager/Acting Finance [email protected] of Vallejo555 Santa Clara StreetVallejo, CA 94590www.cityofvallejo.net Dear Mayor, Council Members and City Manager Black, I want to respond to the email sent to MISTEA from Planning staff regarding the Fairview at Northgate project, also known as the Costco development. I appreciate Mr. Orozco’s honesty in finally acknowledging what I haven know to be true for some time. Costco is well underway and nothing has ever come to Council for approval regarding CFDs for the project, despite repeated assurances from the Assistant City Manager that oversees Mare Island and new development, “that all new developments would pay for Fire and Police services.” The email confirms that when this project was approved in 2020, no Community Facilities District, or CFD, was required. It further confirms that when the Council approved an increase from 178 to 245 residential units just two weeks ago, no CFD was added. Instead, the developer will create a homeowners association to maintain private streets, parks, trails, utilities, landscaping, wetlands, drainage facilities, and other common improvements. This is important because it directly contradicts repeated statements made by the Assistant City Manager responsible for development matters, as recently as February of this year, again on April 27, 2026 as well as April 2023, March 2024, and during other public discussions. The City Council and the public were told repeatedly that every new residential development would have CFDs to pay for police and fire services. Yet here we have a major new residential development with 245 homes and no CFD requirement whatsoever. Meanwhile, Mare Island residents continue to be singled out. We are the only neighborhood in Vallejo paying a CFD specifically for police and fire services. We are also the only CFD taxpayers in Solano County paying annual CFD charges of roughly $3,000 to $4,000 for public safety services on top of our regular property taxes. For years, residents and Council have been told by the Assistant City Manager that these extraordinary charges are justified because every new development must pay for services. This project, Tri Point and Vista Cove proves otherwise. The facts are, the City continues to approve new residential development without requiring CFDs for police and fire protection, while at the same time misleading the public, who have raised the inequity Mare Island taxpayers are saddled with. The larger concern is credibility. Council cannot make informed policy decisions when senior staff repeatedly provide information that is inconsistent with the City's own approvals and records. Whether these statements were made intentionally or through negligence, the result is the same: Council has been misled, and Mare Island taxpayers have been misled and continue to bear a financial burden that no other neighborhood in Vallejo is asked to carry. It is wrong.
I urge the Council to acknowledge this inconsistency, direct staff to provide a complete accounting of all recent residential developments and their service-funding mechanisms, and finally begin honestly addressing the inequity imposed on Mare Island CFD taxpayers for over 20 years. We are all owed an apology. Thank you. Sherianne Grimm Sent from my iPhone From: sherianne Grimm Dawn please add this to the record for tonight’s Council Meeting Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers, I am speaking regarding the Fairview at Northgate project and the City’s communications about Community Facilities Districts, and what those communications reflect about consistency and equity in how development is handled in Vallejo. The City’s initial written response was clear: the 2020 approval of this project did not include a CFD requirement. The 2026 amendment also did not add one. The only binding requirement for ongoing maintenance was a homeowners association. No CFD was part of the approved conditions. After public concerns were raised, the City changed course. We were then told the developer would “work with the City” to establish a project-specific CFD with a public safety component—but only after final approval, and before construction. That is not a condition of approval. It is a future, undefined negotiation. So the record shows a shift—from no CFD requirement, to a post-approval commitment to explore one. That raises a basic question: why was this not part of the entitlement process if it is now being discussed as part of funding public safety impacts? CFDs are not minor administrative tools. They are one of the primary mechanisms used to assign the cost of growth and public safety services. If they are not defined at approval, the public is left without clarity on how impacts are actually being paid for. But the central issue is not simply whether Fairview eventually has a CFD. The issue is whether any CFD, if created, is structured in a way comparable to Mare Island. For over 20 years, Mare Island homeowners have been subject to a CFD formula that places the maximum allowable burden on residential property owners before commercial square footage absorbs additional costs. That structure results in roughly $3,000 to $4,000 per home per year in additional public safety costs on top of property taxes, without equivalent credit due to how the formula is designed. City leadership has stated this is legal. But legality does not resolve fairness, and it does not address unequal treatment. So the question is this: if Fairview receives a CFD, will it impose the same type of residential and commercial responsibility structure, or will Mare Island remain the only community held to this level of burden? If it is different, then adding CFDs elsewhere does not solve the equity issue—it highlights it. I am asking for clarity on three points: Why a CFD was not included as a condition of approval in either the 2020 entitlement or the 2026 amendment. When the CFD concept was first introduced into this project. And how the City ensures consistent application of financing mechanisms across developments so that one community is not uniquely burdened. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone