[10:12] >> Madam President, we will

[10:14] start the meeting in 15

[10:15] seconds.

[10:28] It's now 2pm you may call

[10:29] meeting to order.

[10:32] >> Thank you. We're going

[10:33] to reconvene to our special

[10:38] Multiagency VLF meeting and I

[10:40] will pass it over to our county

[10:42] attorney who has a few words to

[10:45] share regarding this study

[10:46] session.

[10:47] >> Thank you, Madam

[10:48] President. Just a couple

[10:49] of words on sort of the

[10:50] administrative end. I just

[10:51] wanted to note that

[10:54] Multi agency meetings are

[10:56] permitted under the Brown act.

[10:57] Specifically, section 54954.

[11:00] Subsection B3 of the

[11:02] Government code provides that

[11:04] legislative bodies, including

[11:05] for example city councils or

[11:07] town councils, may participate

[11:08] in a meeting of multi-agency

[11:10] significance that takes place

[11:12] outside of their jurisdictional

[11:13] boundaries as long as the

[11:14] meeting takes place

[11:15] within the jurisdiction of one

[11:17] of the participating local

[11:18] agencies and the is noticed by

[11:20] all participating agencies. I'm

[11:21] informed that the county and

[11:23] some

[11:24] of the cities or towns here in

[11:25] the county who are present here

[11:27] today as legislative bodies

[11:30] have separately noticed this

[11:31] meeting and published an agenda

[11:32] consistent

[11:33] with these requirements.

[11:35] To be clear, cities are towns

[11:36] that have a quorum

[11:37] of their council members

[11:38] present at the meeting and

[11:39] notice the meeting would be

[11:41] participating as a legislative

[11:42] body. I think there are

[11:43] probably going to be some

[11:45] agencies where just have some

[11:46] representative short

[11:47] of a quorum, but we'll see that

[11:48] as we go. I wanted

[11:50] to go ahead and turn this over

[11:51] to the clerk though so that the

[11:52] clerk could share

[11:53] with the public the means by

[11:55] which they can participate or

[11:56] comment at a later point

[11:57] in the meeting. And I think

[11:59] we'll also have interpretation

[12:01] of those instructions as well.

[12:02] >> Thank you. Members

[12:04] of the public, the instruction

[12:05] to participate

[12:07] in today's meeting can be found

[12:08] on the public agenda. The

[12:11] instruction provided

[12:12] information on how to submit

[12:14] written comments and also how

[12:15] to participate via Zoom.

[12:17] Because this is a special

[12:18] meeting,

[12:19] public comments is limited

[12:20] to identify agenda items only.

[12:23] As with all public comments,

[12:24] members of the public who wish

[12:26] to address the board should

[12:27] complete the speaker slip to

[12:29] make public comments and hand

[12:31] it to the board clerk.

[12:32] Speakers are limited to 2

[12:34] minutes subject

[12:36] to the description

[12:38] of the board president. Live

[12:39] interpretation of this entire

[12:41] meeting will be provided in

[12:42] Spanish. To assess live

[12:44] interpretation services in

[12:47] Zoom via laptop or computer,

[12:48] please click the interpretation

[12:50] globe icon and select Spanish

[12:53] language. If you're using a

[12:54] smartphone or tablet,

[12:56] please locate the three-dot

[12:58] menu, select interpretation and

[13:00] select Spanish language. And

[13:01] finally click done. At this

[13:03] time, I'll ask our interpreter,

[13:04] Victor Hernandez

[13:06] to provide these instructions

[13:07] in Spanish.

[13:20] >> Can I ask you

[13:21] to press the button there?

[13:22] Oh, is it not working? We're

[13:23] going to have...

[13:24] Yep. Can you try again?

[13:25] >> Thank you.

[13:26] >> Oh, perfect.

[13:28] >> There we go.

[13:29] Thanks, Madam Clerk. Good

[13:30] afternoon, President Corzo and

[13:32] all honorable supervisors.

[13:34] Mr. Callagy, Mr. Mates, Mr.

[13:37] Nibbelin, all county staff

[13:38] Member, this member

[13:39] of the public. Victor

[13:41] Hernandez, Spanish interpreter.

[13:43] [SPANISH SPEAKING]

[14:49] Thank you very much.

[14:54] >> Okay, thank you for that. I

[15:04] will now ask the clerk of the

[15:06] Board of Supervisors

[15:07] to take a roll call

[15:08] for the board

[15:09] of supervisors and for each

[15:11] city and town council that will

[15:12] be participating in this

[15:13] meeting as a legislative body,

[15:16] the clerk will now take roll

[15:19] call. And I wanted

[15:21] to also specify that

[15:23] for the cities, the clerk will

[15:25] be naming the city or town.

[15:26] And then we'll be asking

[15:28] members of that city or town

[15:29] to come up to the mic, state

[15:31] their name and say that they

[15:33] are present. And with that,

[15:36] I will hand it over

[15:37] to the clerk.

[15:38] >> Thank you, Madam

[15:39] President.

[15:41] [CALLING ROLL]

[15:53] >> All supervisors present, we

[15:54] will now be passing a wireless

[15:55] microphone for

[15:57] to take the roll call for

[15:58] participating cities and town

[16:01] council. First, we are going

[16:04] to call the city of Atherton.

[16:08] >> Looks like we can move

[16:09] to the next city.

[16:11] >> Okay. Next, we have

[16:12] Belmont.

[16:15] >> And maybe if you're from

[16:16] Belmont, you can just stand.

[16:18] So.

[16:19] >> President Julia Mates.

[16:20] Mayor, we do not have a quorum.

[16:28] >> Next Brisbane. Next, we have

[16:40] Brisbane. Burlingame?

[16:41] >> Michael Brownrigg, the mayor

[16:42] of Burlingame we do also. We

[16:43] also do not have a quorum.

[16:52] >> Okay, perfect.

[16:54] >> Next we have Daly City.

[16:55] >> We skipped Colma.

[16:56] >> Colma.

[17:00] >> Cary slaughter, town of

[17:01] Colma, No quorum.

[17:04] >> Next, we have Daly City.

[17:06] >> Yes. Glenn Sylvester, mayor

[17:08] of Daly city. And we do have a

[17:09] quorum.

[17:15] >> City Councilmember Juslyn

[17:16] Manalo.

[17:18] >> Thank you.

[17:23] >> Pamela de Giovani, Daly

[17:25] City.

[17:31] >> Next, we have East Palo

[17:32] Alto.

[17:38] >> Ruben Abrica, Vice Mayor.

[17:39] And we don't have a quorum.

[17:45] >> Next, we have Foster City.

[17:53] >> Art Kiesel mayor, Foster

[17:54] City. We do not have a quorum.

[17:59] >> Next we have Half Moon

[18:00] Bay.

[18:07] >> Okay.

[18:08] >> Hillsborough? Menlo Park?

[18:18] >> Hello. Betsy Nash, Mayor,

[18:20] Menlo Park. We do not have a

[18:21] quorum.

[18:29] >> Stephen Rainaldi, Mayor

[18:31] Millbrae. And we do not have a

[18:32] quorum.

[18:37] >> Pacifica.

[18:42] >> Christine Bowles, mayor. I'm

[18:43] here with Vice Mayor Wright.

[18:45] And we do not have a quorum.

[18:50] >> And I'm vice mayor Wright.

[18:55] >> Portola Valley.

[19:00] >> Hi. Council member Judith

[19:02] Hasko from Portola Valley.

[19:03] We do not have a quorum.

[19:06] >> Redwood City.

[19:10] >> Good afternoon. Mayor

[19:12] Elmer Martinez Saballos here

[19:13] from Redwood City. We do not

[19:14] have a quorum.

[19:17] >> San Bruno?

[19:21] >> Rico Medina, mayor

[19:22] of the city of San Bruno. We do

[19:24] not have a quorum.

[19:29] >> San Carlos?

[19:33] >> Prita Venkatesh, San

[19:35] Carlos. We do not have a

[19:37] quorum.

[19:39] >> San Mateo.

[19:42] >> Good afternoon. Adam

[19:44] Loraine, Mayor of the City of

[19:45] San Mateo. We have one

[19:49] colleague, but we at this time

[19:52] do not have a quorum.

[19:57] >> Thank you.

[19:58] Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash, San

[19:59] Mateo city council.

[20:06] >> South San Francisco.

[20:10] >> Good afternoon. Vice Mayor

[20:11] Mark Nagales. We do not have a

[20:13] quorum, but I am joined by one

[20:14] of my colleagues.

[20:16] >> Flor Nicholas, Council

[20:18] Member, South San Francisco. We

[20:19] don't have a quorum.

[20:26] >> Woodside? Okay, Madam

[20:32] President, that's the end

[20:34] of the roll call.

[20:36] >> Okay, so before we move on

[20:38] to take action

[20:40] to set the agenda, I want to

[20:44] say that this is actually our

[20:47] Shina's first time clerking a

[20:49] meeting and it's the most

[20:52] complicated meeting I've ever

[20:54] had to run. So, can we give her

[20:56] a hand of applause, please?

[20:59] [APPLAUSE]

[21:03] With that, we will move on

[21:06] to take action

[21:08] to set the agenda.

[21:09] Specifically, we will

[21:11] for the county board and for

[21:13] each participating city and

[21:14] town, in alphabetical order,

[21:16] consider a motion

[21:17] to do the following A set,

[21:19] adopt and approve agenda

[21:21] of the County Board of

[21:22] Supervisors as the agenda for

[21:24] this multi-agency meeting and B

[21:26] approve the president of the

[21:28] County Board of Supervisors as

[21:30] serving as chair and presiding

[21:32] over this multi-agency meeting.

[21:36] And if I am

[21:37] to step away approving the

[21:39] Vice President of the County

[21:40] Board of Supervisors

[21:42] to serve as chair and preside

[21:45] over the Multiagency meeting

[21:46] and C approve the clerk

[21:48] of the Board of Supervisors

[21:50] to take minutes,

[21:51] receive and manage public

[21:53] comment, and to provide

[21:54] requested translation services

[21:55] and ADA accommodations

[21:56] to the extent required

[21:57] under applicable law

[21:59] for this multi-agency meeting,

[22:01] each of the foregoing items

[22:02] will be approved by one action

[22:04] on the part of the county.

[22:06] After the county has adopted

[22:08] the above motion, we will move

[22:10] to each participating city and

[22:11] town and ask that these items

[22:13] be approved by one action for

[22:15] each participating city and

[22:17] town.

[22:19] >> Madam President, if I could.

[22:20] I think that actually given

[22:23] that we only have one city

[22:24] with a quorum,

[22:25] it would only be Daly City that

[22:26] we would have to take that

[22:27] action from.

[22:28] >> I love that.

[22:29] So, we will be able

[22:30] to trim things

[22:32] down so much more simple.

[22:34] Perfect. With that said,

[22:36] can I get a motion

[22:37] from a member of the

[22:38] Board of Supervisors

[22:40] to approve the agenda?

[22:41] >> So moved.

[22:42] >> Thank you. We have a motion

[22:45] by Supervisor Gauthier. A

[22:46] second by Supervisor Speier.

[22:48] Roll call vote,

[22:50] please.

[22:51] [CALLING ROLL]

[23:00] >> Motion passes unanimously.

[23:01] >> Thank you. And now we'll do

[23:03] roll call for the City of

[23:04] Daly City.

[23:05] >> If we could get a motion

[23:06] from the City of Daly City.

[23:11] >> Glenn Sylvester. So, moved.

[23:17] >> Second.

[23:18] >> Can we just see a show

[23:19] of hands as to approval

[23:20] of the motion and the second.

[23:21] It's unanimous. Three. All

[23:24] three present.

[23:25] >> Thank you.

[23:31] >> Okay. With that being done,

[23:33] we will now move on

[23:34] to item number six. And I will

[23:36] be turning this item over to

[23:37] County Executive Callagy. And I

[23:39] believe he will be working

[23:41] with county staff and staff

[23:42] from participating cities and

[23:44] our labor partners to take us

[23:46] through this item. County

[23:48] Executive Callagy.

[23:51] >> Thank you, President Corzo

[23:52] and members of the board. This

[23:54] truly is a historic meeting,

[23:56] but it shows how we stand

[23:59] shoulder to shoulder in a time

[24:02] of crisis. And I want

[24:05] to thank all my colleagues, the

[24:08] city managers who have come

[24:10] together very quickly, who have

[24:11] been thought partners and

[24:13] working with us

[24:14] on this very unique problem,

[24:17] along

[24:18] with the elected officials,

[24:20] our non-profits who are here

[24:22] with us also certainly our

[24:24] unions and our wonderful

[24:26] government employees. The

[24:29] staggering loss

[24:32] of the positions,

[24:33] as you will hear

[24:35] in just a few minutes, will be

[24:36] catastrophic, and I mean

[24:38] nothing less than catastrophic

[24:40] to this county. It will change

[24:42] the face of delivery

[24:44] of services to our residents.

[24:46] There will be widespread

[24:48] impacts of a historic nature.

[24:51] And let me just reiterate that

[24:54] nowhere in the history

[24:56] of the state of California can

[24:57] we find a situation where one

[25:00] county is targeted

[25:02] to the extent of losing $236

[25:06] million is staggering. And it's

[25:09] particularly galling

[25:12] in the face of the fact that we

[25:14] have done collectively,

[25:16] this county and the cities,

[25:18] everything we could do

[25:20] to fill

[25:23] unfunded mandates

[25:27] by the state,

[25:29] including being a leader on

[25:31] Prop 1 and SB 43, certainly

[25:34] being a leader in the care

[25:36] courts and home key. And

[25:38] to now as a county entity,

[25:40] look at a 15% reduction

[25:42] in our general fund. It's

[25:44] staggering. It is staggering.

[25:47] So, what I'd like

[25:50] to do is run this board through

[25:53] what those impacts would

[25:55] potentially be and really

[25:57] inform the public what we're

[25:59] looking at here. So, if I could

[26:01] have the clerk bring up the

[26:17] first slide. Thank you. So, the

[26:20] unfunded VLF shortfall

[26:21] for the county would be $134.2

[26:26] million. At risk is 603

[26:29] positions. And I'll go

[26:30] into detail about that

[26:32] in a few minutes. The reduction

[26:35] to date. And I've asked our

[26:37] department heads,

[26:38] our wonderful department heads

[26:39] on a very short notice to go

[26:40] into their budgets and identify

[26:43] what this could look

[26:45] like if we have

[26:46] to sustain this cut. And we've

[26:47] come up so far with 120.4

[26:50] million, we still have another

[26:52] 13.8 million to go to

[26:54] to fill that gap. I can go

[26:57] on the next slide, please. And

[27:00] you can see we've tried

[27:03] to break it down the 603

[27:06] positions in various buckets.

[27:08] Safety net services of 49.9

[27:09] million, public safety 42.2

[27:13] million and community services

[27:15] 28.3 million. But those

[27:17] are. I think Ms. Lynn talked

[27:19] about just statistics. We need

[27:21] to understand what really that

[27:22] means. So, if we can go on

[27:24] to the next slide. So, let's

[27:25] start

[27:26] with safety net services. You

[27:28] can see the positions and the

[27:30] impact to our Medi Cal

[27:32] recipients and what that would

[27:34] mean to them and the positions

[27:36] in our human services agency

[27:38] in matching funds. And I don't

[27:40] think a lot of people consider

[27:42] the fact that as we reduce our

[27:44] workforce we will also lose

[27:46] out. And as we reduce services,

[27:47] we will also lose out on state

[27:49] and federal matching funds.

[27:51] So, the detail,

[27:54] this table really shows some

[27:56] of the cuts.

[27:57] But what does it mean? It would

[27:59] really make it harder

[28:00] for thousands

[28:01] of vulnerable residents

[28:03] in this county to access

[28:04] essential healthcare and

[28:06] benefits. Of the 191 potential

[28:07] staff cuts

[28:08] in health department, 90% or

[28:09] 171 provide direct patient care

[28:12] and services, including nurses,

[28:15] physicians, licensed mental

[28:16] health professionals. They

[28:18] would include the reductions

[28:20] in closures

[28:21] of specialized health services

[28:22] for children, chronic

[28:23] conditions and disabilities and

[28:24] seniors and individuals with

[28:27] serious mental health issues,

[28:29] behavioral health services

[28:31] for some of the county's most

[28:33] vulnerable residents would be

[28:34] reduced staffing restrictions

[28:36] would reduce or eliminate

[28:37] specialized services

[28:38] for people with serious mental

[28:39] illnesses or substance abuse

[28:41] disorders or some of those

[28:42] 13,000 medical beneficiaries

[28:45] who rely on us each year. It

[28:47] would also likely shift more

[28:49] people

[28:50] toward emergency departments,

[28:51] inpatient care and higher cost

[28:53] interventions. Reducing staff

[28:55] would also have the impact

[28:58] to respond to elder abuse and

[28:59] neglect cases and slow in-home

[29:02] support for nearly 10,000 of

[29:04] our older and disabled

[29:06] residents. Service cuts,

[29:08] particularly impact service for

[29:10] youth would include a 1/3

[29:12] reduction in nurse home

[29:14] visiting programs that support

[29:15] pregnant individuals and

[29:16] families with young children.

[29:18] The reduction of elimination

[29:19] of specialized health services

[29:20] for teens and elimination of

[29:21] school based mental health

[29:23] programs. Additionally,

[29:25] by eliminating our ability to

[29:26] identify health and mental

[29:27] health conditions early,

[29:29] connect with residents with

[29:31] care resources will worsen

[29:32] health outcomes. In San Mateo

[29:34] County, cuts to the workforce

[29:36] that administer public health

[29:38] benefits will reduce access

[29:40] to critical safety net. We lose

[29:42] approximately 100 HSA staff,

[29:44] including benefiting and social

[29:46] workers. It will create longer

[29:49] wait times even given the fact

[29:50] that HR1 has now complicated

[29:54] that and required that we do

[29:56] verification twice a year.

[29:58] Larger backlogs and delays

[30:00] of residents seeking

[30:01] to apply renewal eligibility

[30:04] for food assistance and

[30:06] position losses would also

[30:08] reduce the county's capacity to

[30:10] conduct timely and effective

[30:12] child abuse investigation.

[30:14] Something that we take pride

[30:17] in, in making sure that we

[30:18] safeguard kids and then adding

[30:19] insult

[30:20] to injury. I talked a little

[30:21] bit about this. It will result,

[30:23] those reductions would result

[30:25] in 15 million additional funds

[30:27] in matching funds that we

[30:28] receive. So, now let's go on

[30:31] to the public safety services

[30:34] in the county. You would see

[30:36] 52 sworn deputies and as you

[30:38] all know on this board and

[30:40] in the audience,

[30:42] it is so difficult to fill

[30:44] sworn positions and what they

[30:45] have to go through and the

[30:47] money that we invest in making

[30:49] sure that we have qualified

[30:51] people out there policing our

[30:53] communities, we'd have over

[30:56] 1,000 people potentially lose

[30:59] supervision from probation

[31:00] with the elimination

[31:02] of potentially 40 positions

[31:04] in probation, 23 positions in

[31:06] the district attorney's office.

[31:08] And I can't even begin

[31:10] to say how our DA

[31:13] right now really runs a very

[31:15] lean department and prides

[31:18] himself

[31:19] on making sure that we are,

[31:21] we set the standard in

[31:24] making sure our victims are

[31:27] taken care of and prosecuting

[31:30] those and holding them

[31:31] responsible. And

[31:33] to cripple him with these

[31:34] cuts would be just devastating.

[31:35] And then 400 plus partners

[31:37] would lose emergency

[31:38] coordination.

[31:39] But what does that,

[31:40] I mean those are again numbers.

[31:41] But what does that really mean?

[31:42] You know, when we look

[31:44] at the overall Public Safety

[31:45] Communications 911 would lose

[31:48] eight employees and slow

[31:50] down services for some of the

[31:52] 300,000 calls that they take a

[31:55] year. Half

[31:57] of those being emergency calls.

[31:59] The 52 sworn potential

[32:01] reductions would include 44

[32:02] deputy sheriffs, eight

[32:04] sergeants,

[32:05] eight patrol deletions with

[32:08] slow response and thin coverage

[32:10] in our unincorporated area,

[32:11] North Fair Oaks and

[32:13] Burlingame Hills and La Honda

[32:14] Skyline. And we would close the

[32:17] North Fair Oaks and Broadway

[32:19] substations potentially to

[32:22] reach that full reduction

[32:24] target. Sheriff may also have

[32:25] to consider closing a jail

[32:27] facility and transferring

[32:28] incarcerated people out

[32:30] of the county at a higher cost

[32:32] and certainly separating them

[32:34] from their loved ones.

[32:36] We don't look at closing

[32:38] specialized law enforcement

[32:43] units like the Narcotics Task

[32:45] Force and Gang Intelligence

[32:47] Unit and SWAT and Marine

[32:50] patrol and bomb squad. All

[32:52] of those would be impact along

[32:54] like I said earlier

[32:56] with our dispatch services.

[32:58] The 40 cuts

[33:00] in probation would again lead

[33:01] to us not being able

[33:03] to supervise over 1100 people

[33:04] that are currently being

[33:05] supervised probation on

[33:07] probation including court

[33:08] ordered drug,

[33:09] alcohol and GPS mining.

[33:11] Reduced supervision for 284

[33:13] domestic violence offenders and

[33:15] end supervision of 178 clients

[33:17] in Veterans Treatment Court.

[33:19] All of these devastating

[33:20] effects and impacts to our

[33:22] criminal justice system and

[33:24] again to cut the 23 out of the

[33:27] district attorney's office

[33:29] potentially would have long

[33:31] lasting and really cripple our

[33:34] criminal justice system. So, we

[33:36] can go on to the next one.

[33:38] Community services just really

[33:39] quickly. You know, these are

[33:41] the things that this board has

[33:43] worked so hard for and this

[33:44] board has done an incredible

[33:46] job to be very judicious,

[33:48] judicious in what we do and

[33:49] what we spend money on and

[33:51] to save and in the money that

[33:52] you have put aside to really

[33:55] impact our unfunded liability

[33:57] and lead the state in that all

[33:59] of these things would be

[34:00] in jeopardy with

[34:02] this devastating loss.

[34:04] Fewer county resources

[34:06] available to maintain the

[34:07] community's quality

[34:09] of life and infrastructure.

[34:12] You talk about our parks or

[34:13] wildfire and flood risk

[34:14] hazards, climate resiliency

[34:16] initiatives and certainly the

[34:17] delivery of capital

[34:18] improvements which we've prided

[34:19] ourselves on

[34:20] in the last several years. It

[34:22] would increase obviously our

[34:24] operating costs to our parks.

[34:26] It would be devastating. And,

[34:28] and we've got so many beautiful

[34:29] parks that would just. We would

[34:32] not be able to staff anymore.

[34:33] We'd have to close them down to

[34:35] fewer hours and less

[34:37] maintenance in order

[34:39] to do that. And you think about

[34:40] the beautiful beach park we

[34:42] just opened up today, Don

[34:44] Horsley County Park at

[34:47] Tunitas Creek Beach. Certainly

[34:50] the residents of this county

[34:51] would experience slower and

[34:53] reduced response

[34:55] across all essential county

[34:57] Functions including building

[34:58] and planning and permits and

[35:00] code enforcement and pesticide

[35:04] investigations and election

[35:06] services and property, and

[35:07] on and on and on. All those

[35:09] vital services that our

[35:11] residents rely on daily

[35:13] to get business done

[35:14] in the decrease

[35:15] in communications,

[35:16] community engagement. You know,

[35:18] we pride ourselves in hearing

[35:20] from the community and reaching

[35:22] out to the community. All

[35:23] of that would be impacted. And

[35:27] of course, the impacts

[35:28] on technology and our ability

[35:29] to stay competitive and

[35:31] innovative would all be

[35:33] impacted. So, these are some of

[35:35] the things that we are looking

[35:37] at being impacted by. And

[35:39] you'll hear from the residents

[35:41] of our cities next who will

[35:44] suffer similar devastating,

[35:47] irreparable harm

[35:50] to their communities because

[35:52] of these cuts. Again, no fault

[35:54] of our own. This is a broken

[35:56] system. We gave up something

[35:59] in 2004, and we were promised,

[36:01] promised by the state

[36:03] to get that back through the

[36:06] property tax allocation,

[36:07] through VLF. And they have now

[36:11] singled us out and reneged

[36:13] on that. And shame

[36:15] on them for doing that to

[36:16] a county that has supported

[36:18] them and been the leader

[36:20] in this state in almost every

[36:22] initiative that they had put

[36:24] forward. Even those

[36:26] initiatives were unfunded.

[36:28] So, thank you, President Corzo

[36:30] and members of the board, for

[36:31] letting me have a few minutes

[36:32] to really talk

[36:34] about the devastating impacts

[36:35] to San Mateo County

[36:36] with the loss

[36:37] of these VLF funds.

[36:41] >> Thank you. Before we move

[36:44] on to a presentation

[36:47] from our other partners, do we

[36:49] have any questions or comments

[36:51] from the board? Okay. Do we

[36:55] have another presentation from

[37:00] a city or labor partner?

[37:02] >> I think we're going to start

[37:03] with our labor partner. Ms.

[37:05] Lynn would like

[37:06] to come up and start. And, you

[37:08] know, I think she did such an

[37:10] incredible job talking about,

[37:11] these are just not statistics.

[37:13] These are wonderful employees

[37:15] who have dedicated their life

[37:17] to public service and who we

[37:19] value so much. And we train and

[37:20] they're here. They show up

[37:22] every day

[37:23] to provide a service, whether

[37:24] on the front lines or

[37:25] behind the scenes. They're the

[37:26] economic. They're the engine

[37:28] that makes this county work.

[37:30] And that's not lost on us

[37:32] at all.

[37:35] >> So, I would like to

[37:37] personally welcome our

[37:40] legendary labor leader, Julie

[37:42] Lind. We give her a round

[37:43] of applause for all

[37:44] of the work she's doing on this

[37:46] and many other important issues

[37:47] in our county. Welcome.

[37:51] >> Thank you. It's not work if

[37:53] it's something that you love.

[37:55] Thank you

[37:56] for your kind words, County

[37:57] Executive Callagy, and thank

[37:58] you, everyone on the board,

[38:00] for your support. As was

[38:01] stated, I'm Julie Lind

[38:03] with the San Mateo Labor

[38:04] Council, and I was asked to

[38:05] this afternoon reiterate

[38:07] several

[38:08] of the points that I made

[38:09] during the press conference,

[38:10] because quite frankly,

[38:11] the real human impact

[38:13] of this bears repeating. As I

[38:14] said, we in the labor community

[38:16] are deeply concerned

[38:17] about the possibility

[38:18] of losing as many as 1000

[38:20] public sector jobs. These are

[38:22] good family sustaining careers

[38:24] held by people who've built

[38:25] their lives here. They pay rent

[38:27] and mortgages here. They buy

[38:28] groceries, eat

[38:29] at local restaurants, pay

[38:31] for child care, and support

[38:32] small businesses throughout

[38:34] San Mateo County. When those

[38:35] jobs disappear, we don't just

[38:37] lose the services the workers

[38:38] provide. We pull millions

[38:39] of dollars

[38:41] in wages and spending out

[38:42] of the local economy. And that

[38:43] affects another set

[38:44] of workers and businesses. And

[38:45] the impact continues

[38:47] to ripple outward. But there's

[38:48] something else I hope we don't

[38:50] lose sight of. Many of these

[38:51] employees have dedicated years

[38:52] and sometimes decades

[38:54] of their lives

[38:55] in public service. They chose

[38:57] careers taking care

[38:58] of our residents,

[38:59] maintaining our communities,

[39:01] and making this county a safe

[39:02] and healthy place to live.

[39:03] They responded during storms,

[39:05] fires and other emergencies.

[39:08] They've helped families find

[39:10] housing and services. They've

[39:12] cared for people experiencing

[39:14] mental health crises. They've

[39:15] maintained our roads,

[39:16] staffed our libraries and

[39:17] parks, and done the everyday

[39:18] work that keeps local

[39:19] government functioning. They

[39:20] built careers

[39:21] around serving this community.

[39:22] They're in this room right now

[39:24] because they love this

[39:25] community. And now,

[39:27] through no fault

[39:28] of their own,

[39:29] they're being asked to live

[39:31] with the possibility that those

[39:32] careers could simply disappear.

[39:33] For a worker, a layoff isn't an

[39:35] abstract budget reduction. It

[39:36] means asking,

[39:37] can my family afford

[39:39] to stay here? Where do I find

[39:40] another job that allows me

[39:42] to support my family in one

[39:44] of the most expensive places

[39:45] to live in the country? San

[39:47] Mateo county can't afford to

[39:48] lose experienced public

[39:49] servants either. Once that

[39:51] experience and institutional

[39:52] knowledge walks out the door,

[39:54] rebuilding it is incredibly

[39:55] difficult. We appreciate the

[39:57] board's leadership and that of

[39:59] our state legislative

[40:00] delegation.

[40:01] In confronting this crisis,

[40:02] labor is committed to standing

[40:04] with the county and our

[40:05] communities and demanding a

[40:06] permanent state solution.

[40:08] These workers have spent their

[40:09] careers showing up for San

[40:10] Mateo County, and now the state

[40:12] of California needs to show up

[40:13] for them. Thank you,

[40:19] >> Madam President. I think now

[40:21] we have a list that. That you

[40:22] have for the cities,

[40:25] but could we ask that Foster

[40:27] City go first? Apparently, the

[40:29] representative has a plane

[40:30] to catch.

[40:32] >> Okay. I welcome the

[40:34] representative from the city

[40:36] of Foster City. And let's get.

[40:40] Do they have a slide deck?

[40:43] No. Okay. Welcome. Please

[40:46] introduce yourself. Marlene.

[40:50] >> Good evening, President

[40:52] Corzo, members of the board,

[40:53] county staff,

[40:54] and everyone who's here

[40:55] in the chambers. I'm here

[40:57] with our mayor, Art Keisel,

[40:59] representing the city of

[41:00] Foster City. I'm Marlene

[41:02] Subhashini, Assistant City

[41:04] Manager for the city of

[41:05] Foster City. And I'm here today

[41:07] to stand with San Mateo County

[41:09] and our fellow cities

[41:11] in urging the state to fully

[41:13] restore the VLF funding owed to

[41:15] our communities and

[41:17] importantly,

[41:18] to provide a permanent solution

[41:21] for Foster City. This is not an

[41:23] abstract budget issue. Our VLF

[41:25] shortfalls for fiscal year

[41:27] 2526 is approximately $4.34

[41:28] million, more than 6% of our

[41:34] general fund operating budget.

[41:37] For a small 4 square mile,

[41:40] largely built out city like

[41:41] Foster City, that is

[41:43] significant. We don't have

[41:45] large areas of land,

[41:46] developable land

[41:48] to generate new property taxes.

[41:50] We have a relatively small but

[41:51] stable commercial tax base and

[41:54] real limited opportunities

[41:55] to expand our revenue streams.

[41:58] Yet our responsibility to

[42:00] provide essential services does

[42:02] not change. To put $4.3 million

[42:06] loss in perspective, that

[42:08] amount is roughly equivalent

[42:10] to the annual cost of 13

[42:12] positions

[42:14] in our organization, including

[42:16] 12 of those

[42:18] in our police department and

[42:19] one in our building safety

[42:22] department. And the impact just

[42:24] doesn't end there. Foster City

[42:26] is a 20% partner in San Mateo

[42:28] Consolidated Fire. Our share of

[42:31] the fire department's VLF

[42:32] shortfall adds approximately

[42:34] another $660,000, bringing the

[42:35] total impact to our community

[42:38] to roughly 5 million

[42:40] in just one year. We were

[42:42] reminded just last week of

[42:44] exactly what these essential

[42:46] public safety resources mean

[42:48] to our community. The major

[42:50] structure fire at 815 Sea spray

[42:53] Lane required an extraordinary

[42:55] emergency response. Our

[42:57] firefighters and public safety

[43:00] personnel responded when a

[43:02] community needed them most.

[43:05] These are precisely the

[43:07] essential services that this

[43:10] funding helps sustain. And this

[43:13] comes at a time when the cost

[43:14] of providing these services,

[43:16] from public safety

[43:17] to infrastructure, continues

[43:19] to rise. Foster City has worked

[43:20] hard

[43:21] to be fiscally responsible, but

[43:24] reserves are not a permanent

[43:25] revenue source. And local

[43:26] governments should not be

[43:28] forced to choose between

[43:29] maintaining essential services

[43:31] and absorbing a state created

[43:33] funding shortfall. We stand

[43:35] united with the county and our

[43:37] neighboring jurisdictions

[43:38] in asking the state

[43:40] to fully fund its obligation,

[43:42] restore the dollars owed to our

[43:44] communities and enact a

[43:46] permanent fix so that we are

[43:48] not back here fighting the same

[43:50] battle and year after year.

[43:52] Thank you very much.

[43:56] >> Thank you so much,

[43:57] Marlene. And thank you,

[43:58] Mayor.

[43:59] >> Excuse me.

[44:01] >> Welcome.

[44:03] >> Because of the relating

[44:05] to the fire, we have our fire

[44:08] department or a consolidated

[44:10] fire department,

[44:11] but we had a lot

[44:13] of mutual aid. And what happens

[44:14] when that mutual aid is not

[44:15] there? Thank you.

[44:20] >> Thank you. So, I am going

[44:23] to ask that County Executive

[44:25] Callagy invite the cities

[44:28] because I do not have the list.

[44:30] I could go alphabetical.

[44:33] >> Yeah. Either way.

[44:34] President Corzo.

[44:37] >> Is there A list that. Yeah.

[44:46] >> Okay. Oh, it is

[44:48] alphabetical. Oh, okay. It's

[44:49] just alphabetical. I thought it

[44:51] was a different list. Does the

[44:54] city of Belmont have a

[44:56] presentation or something?

[44:58] They would like to welcome

[44:59] Mayor Mates.

[45:04] >> Good afternoon, President

[45:05] Corzo and members

[45:07] of the board. I'm here with

[45:08] City Manager Afshin Oskoui. I

[45:10] want to thank you first

[45:12] by allowing us

[45:14] to come and speak

[45:15] with you. I'd like

[45:16] to thank your county staff for

[45:17] your leadership and persistence

[45:19] in advocating

[45:20] for what is right, not only

[45:21] for the county, but for all 20

[45:23] cities that rely

[45:24] on these revenues to provide

[45:25] essential local services. We

[45:27] also appreciate our state

[45:28] delegation and all

[45:30] of our partners who continue

[45:31] to carry this message to

[45:33] Sacramento. We recognize the

[45:34] state has significant fiscal

[45:36] challenges, but as I said

[45:38] at the press conference,

[45:39] those challenges cannot

[45:41] continue to be addressed by

[45:43] shifting the burden onto local

[45:44] governments that have very

[45:46] limited tools to respond. For

[45:48] Belmont, this is a serious

[45:51] budget issue. We are a

[45:53] community of about 27,000

[45:54] residents with a very lean

[45:56] organization and a relatively

[45:58] small general fund. Our council

[46:00] has been extremely disciplined

[46:02] in managing our resources,

[46:04] finding efficiencies,

[46:05] controlling costs,

[46:07] and using reserves responsibly.

[46:10] But there is a limit

[46:11] to how much we can absorb. Our

[46:13] current VLF exposure is

[46:14] about 10% of our general fund.

[46:17] At that level, this is no

[46:19] longer something we can simply

[46:21] manage through efficiencies.

[46:22] If this funding continues

[46:23] to erode,

[46:25] we will ultimately be forced to

[46:26] make difficult choices

[46:27] affecting police services,

[46:29] street and park maintenance

[46:31] infrastructure,

[46:32] child care and youth programs,

[46:34] senior services, housing

[46:36] implementation, and other

[46:38] crucial services our residents

[46:40] depend on. We've been asked to

[46:42] demonstrate what those impacts

[46:44] could look like,

[46:45] and it is sobering. These

[46:47] aren't services we want

[46:49] to reduce. These are the

[46:50] services our community needs us

[46:52] to provide,

[46:53] and it's our responsibility

[46:55] to provide them. That's why I

[46:57] appreciate the county's

[46:58] leadership

[46:59] in bringing us all together.

[47:00] This isn't a request

[47:02] for additional state funding,

[47:03] that it is a plea to restore a

[47:05] funding mechanism that local

[47:07] governments have relied upon

[47:08] for years

[47:10] to provide essential services.

[47:12] We stand with the county,

[47:13] our fellow cities, our labor

[47:15] partners,

[47:16] and our state delegation

[47:17] in continuing this fight

[47:19] for a permanent solution.

[47:21] Thank you again

[47:22] for your leadership and

[47:23] for allowing us to share

[47:24] Belmont's perspective today.

[47:34] >> Thank you. And I believe we

[47:36] do have someone here from

[47:37] Brisbane, and I may be wrong.

[47:43] So, let's move on to

[47:46] Burlingame. Welcome, Council

[47:52] Member Brownrigg. And I'm

[47:55] sorry, I don't know your name,

[47:56] but please introduce

[47:57] yourself.

[47:59] >> Thank you very much,

[48:00] President Corzo. It's Michael

[48:01] Brownrigg. With the mayor of

[48:03] Burlingame and Lisa Goldman,

[48:05] longtime city manager

[48:06] for the great city of

[48:07] Burlingame. I want you

[48:09] to know that our city council,

[48:10] our city staff and our 31,000

[48:12] residents stand shoulder

[48:14] to shoulder with you

[48:15] in this fight for fairness.

[48:16] Thank you very much for your

[48:18] commentary this morning. We

[48:20] affiliate ourselves and

[48:22] appreciate those strong words

[48:26] today. As I reflected

[48:29] on this, I took a step back.

[48:31] To me, the relationship between

[48:33] the state and its many cities

[48:34] and counties ought to be one of

[48:36] a strong working partnership.

[48:37] We're all serving California

[48:39] residents and we all should

[48:41] want our state, our cities,

[48:42] our counties

[48:43] to be the best run

[48:45] in the country. For our part,

[48:47] the city of Burlingame has

[48:49] answered Sacramento's call,

[48:51] for example, on housing. Our

[48:52] city has added 1,800 new homes

[48:55] in the last six years,

[48:57] a 15% increase. We have another

[48:59] 800 homes in the pipeline that

[49:01] would yield a 20% increase

[49:03] in housing. And we accomplished

[49:07] this by promising our residents

[49:10] that we could invite more

[49:13] people into Burlingame, deliver

[49:15] extra water and sewer and parks

[49:16] and safety services

[49:18] for our new neighbors without

[49:20] impairing service quality.

[49:22] That was the promise we made.

[49:24] We also accomplished our

[49:25] housing goals by breaking one

[49:27] of the cardinal rules

[49:28] of local city government,

[49:30] which is we took about 100

[49:31] acres of commercially zoned

[49:33] property and we rezoned it

[49:34] for mixed use housing. Now,

[49:36] that's perceived as a money

[49:38] loser by traditionalists,

[49:40] but that's the way we wanted to

[49:42] make sure that we could deliver

[49:44] on these promises. Now, I want

[49:47] to be clear. We made those

[49:49] changes because it was the

[49:50] right thing to do

[49:51] for our state,

[49:52] for our city and

[49:53] for working families,

[49:55] not because we were told

[49:56] to do it, but we did. We did

[49:59] assume that Sacramento would at

[50:01] least have our backs

[50:03] financially, given the

[50:05] governor's and the

[50:07] legislature's constant talk

[50:09] about housing. Instead, the VLF

[50:12] incompetence reflects, and I

[50:14] think the county manager got it

[50:17] right. Sacramento reneging

[50:19] on its financial promise

[50:21] to cities and counties. And we

[50:22] take that personally. And this

[50:25] couldn't come at a worse time

[50:26] for the city of Burlingame.

[50:28] With revenue from hotel visitor

[50:30] tax still today, six years on

[50:31] from COVID not as high as it

[50:34] was before COVID hit. We're

[50:36] still digging our way out. We

[50:39] went through virtually all

[50:41] of our reserves to get

[50:43] through that period. And as we

[50:44] dig our way out,

[50:46] we're counting on VLF

[50:47] to get us there. So, I have a

[50:50] message for our partners in

[50:52] Sacramento. Stop telling us

[50:55] what to do if you're not going

[50:57] to pay us what you owe. Thank

[50:59] you very much.

[51:04] >> Thank you. And just

[51:05] to clarify, Councilmember

[51:07] Brownrigg, I know your name. I

[51:08] just didn't know your city

[51:09] count. City manager's name.

[51:12] Thank you. And now I'd like

[51:14] to welcome someone representing

[51:19] Colma, and Colma is not

[51:23] present. So, I'd like to

[51:26] welcome the four council

[51:29] members from Daly City. I know

[51:32] there's four of you now.

[51:36] >> Good afternoon, Madam

[51:37] President.

[51:39] >> And the City Manager.

[51:40] Welcome.

[51:41] >> Thank you. I'm Tim Nevin,

[51:43] the Assistant City Manager.

[51:45] And today Mayor Glenn

[51:47] Sylvester will be speaking

[51:48] on behalf of the city.

[51:49] But I also wanted

[51:50] to note that Council Member

[51:51] Proano did also join after roll

[51:52] call this afternoon.

[51:54] >> Welcome.

[51:55] >> Thank you. I'll let the

[51:56] mayor speak.

[51:58] >> I wasn't prepared. Tim,

[52:00] thank you so much. I'm Glenn

[52:02] Sylvester. Those

[52:03] of you who know me, everything

[52:05] is dynamic and it's fluid. I

[52:07] tried to take experience

[52:08] by what happens. So, I'd like

[52:10] to first start off

[52:13] by saying hello to Madam

[52:15] President Corzo, the rest

[52:17] of the Board of Supervisors,

[52:18] the county staff,

[52:22] and the other staff. Okay,

[52:24] thank you so much. I'd like

[52:26] to preface before I start with

[52:27] a commentary I heard earlier

[52:29] by Supervisor Jackie Speier.

[52:37] And what you said is the reason

[52:40] why you are wearing red because

[52:42] you are hot mad. Well, those

[52:44] of you and those a lot of folks

[52:47] know I'm law enforcement

[52:50] centric. And if you're not

[52:52] in law enforcement, you would

[52:53] not understand the tie that I'm

[52:55] wearing. Well, basically,

[52:57] it's the thin blue line, which

[52:59] is probably what you'll have

[53:01] due to the loss

[53:02] of public safety. So, I'm

[53:05] Glenn Sylvester, the mayor of

[53:06] Daly City. Thank you to the

[53:08] Board of Supervisors for

[53:09] hosting this press conference

[53:11] and bringing our cities

[53:12] together to address what is

[53:14] fundamentally a state of

[53:16] California funding issue. I

[53:19] would like

[53:21] to thank our city manager, our

[53:22] assistant city manager and

[53:24] staff for keeping us all up to

[53:26] date because this is a very

[53:28] complicated situation,

[53:30] and I appreciate them

[53:33] for that. As you hear me speak,

[53:34] you will hear some

[53:36] redundancies. And the only

[53:38] reason why you're going

[53:40] to have redundancies because

[53:42] it goes

[53:44] to show that we are on the same

[53:45] page and that we understand.

[53:49] The message from Daly City is

[53:53] simple. And I promise I already

[53:55] had this written. But I did

[53:56] hear some phrases today,

[53:58] and I'm going to repeat them.

[54:00] The VLF shortfall is not just a

[54:03] budget problem. It is a threat

[54:05] to essential public services

[54:08] to our communities and

[54:10] to the partnership between the

[54:12] state and local governments.

[54:15] Daly City is one

[54:17] of the lower income cities in

[54:20] San Mateo County. We have a

[54:23] limited tax base and we already

[54:25] operate with a very lean budget

[54:29] for the fiscal year 2025

[54:30] through 2026, Daly City is

[54:34] facing a 12.15-million-dollar

[54:39] VLF shortfall. That could mean

[54:43] the loss of nearly 50 positions

[54:46] and more than $12 million

[54:48] in services and expenditures.

[54:53] As Julie Lind said earlier,

[54:55] and this is the first,

[54:58] the first redundancy. This is

[55:01] not numbers on a spreadsheet.

[55:03] They represent people, programs

[55:06] and services that our residents

[55:08] depend on every day. If this

[55:11] shortfall becomes reality,

[55:13] they represent people,

[55:15] programs and Daly City could be

[55:18] forced out

[55:20] of a fire engine company.

[55:23] Remember we had a fire

[55:25] representative who said

[55:27] about saving the child. Took

[55:29] them six minutes. Well, many

[55:30] times I've said on council

[55:32] on the response time,

[55:33] six minutes. It takes me six

[55:35] minutes just to get out

[55:42] of bed. This will also

[55:43] terminate our mental health

[55:44] clinician program

[55:46] to which the Board of

[55:48] Supervisors approved quite some

[55:50] time ago. It would eliminate

[55:51] library and recreation programs

[55:52] and close senior centers and

[55:55] recreation facilities. That is

[56:00] the first level of impact and

[56:02] that's the local level. It

[56:06] means fewer emergency responses

[56:08] on our streets. It means fewer

[56:10] opportunities

[56:11] for our children and families.

[56:14] It means fewer services for our

[56:16] seniors and residents who need

[56:18] mental health support.

[56:22] But the significance

[56:24] of this issue goes beyond

[56:26] Daly City, which brings me

[56:28] to the second level,

[56:31] and that is regional. Every

[56:34] city is connected. When one

[56:37] city loses essential services,

[56:39] the pressure does not stop

[56:42] at our borders. Residents

[56:45] travel across jurisdictions,

[56:48] public safety agencies,

[56:51] they work together. You heard

[56:53] the term earlier, mutual aid.

[56:56] Libraries, parks and

[56:57] transportation and housing and

[56:59] social service serve a regional

[57:02] population. A funding decision

[57:06] made by the state can therefore

[57:08] create consequences through

[57:10] San Mateo County. So, I talked

[57:12] about the first, I talked

[57:14] about the second. Now there is

[57:17] a third level and that's the

[57:20] statewide significance. This is

[57:23] about fundamental relationship

[57:26] between Sacramento and

[57:28] California cities. Local

[57:31] governments are closest to the

[57:34] people and we are responsible

[57:36] for delivering many of the

[57:38] services that residents rely

[57:41] on most. But cities cannot

[57:43] Simply fund another $12

[57:45] million. Cities like Daly City

[57:49] have limited ability to raise

[57:51] local revenue while the demand

[57:54] for police, fire,

[57:56] mental health services,

[57:58] libraries, recreation and other

[58:00] essential programs continue

[58:04] to grow. When Sacramento

[58:09] reduces funding

[58:10] for local government,

[58:12] Sacramento does not deliver the

[58:13] service cuts the local

[58:16] communities do. The cuts happen

[58:20] in our neighborhoods. They

[58:22] happen when a fire engine is

[58:25] taken off the street. They

[58:27] happen when police staffing is

[58:30] reduced. They happen when a

[58:31] mental health program that

[58:34] disappears. They happen when a

[58:38] library program is eliminated.

[58:41] They happen when a senior

[58:42] citizen or recreation facility

[58:43] closes. This is why it is not

[58:47] simply a Daly city issue or

[58:53] even a San Mateo County issue.

[58:54] It is a California issue. We

[58:59] need the state to recognize the

[59:02] real-world consequences of the

[59:03] VLF shortfall and fully restore

[59:06] the funding that local

[59:08] communities rely upon. The

[59:11] state must partner

[59:14] with local governments,

[59:17] not force cities to choose

[59:19] between public safety, mental

[59:24] health, libraries, recreation,

[59:27] and services for our seniors.

[59:30] Daly City stands with San

[59:32] Mateo County, our fellow

[59:35] cities,

[59:37] and our state representatives

[59:39] in demanding a solution. Our

[59:43] residents deserve better. Our

[59:46] communities deserve better.

[59:48] And California must keep its

[59:51] commitment to the cities that

[59:53] provide essential services.

[59:55] Every day we call on the state

[59:57] of California

[59:59] to do the right thing,

[1:00:01] restore this critical funding,

[1:00:03] protect local government

[1:00:06] services, and protect the

[1:00:09] residents that we were elected

[1:00:12] to serve. Thank you all very

[1:00:16] much. And I'll turn it. I'll

[1:00:17] turn it over

[1:00:18] to assistant city manager

[1:00:19] for any things that I may have

[1:00:20] missed.

[1:00:24] >> No, thank you.

[1:00:25] You covered everything.

[1:00:26] Thank you so much.

[1:00:29] >> Thank you. With that, we

[1:00:33] will be inviting council member

[1:00:35] Abrica, representing the city of

[1:00:37] East Palo Alto and your city

[1:00:38] manager. Welcome, Assistant

[1:00:41] City Manager. So, I'm just

[1:00:43] going to stop guessing. You all

[1:00:44] introduce yourselves.

[1:00:47] >> A lot of things going

[1:00:48] on today, so don't worry.

[1:00:50] We're all worried.

[1:00:53] But my name is Ruben Abrica. I

[1:00:55] currently serve as vice mayor

[1:00:57] the city of East Palo Alto.

[1:00:58] And today with me, Shiri

[1:01:01] Klima, our assistant City

[1:01:04] Manager. First of all, I want

[1:01:05] to thank all of you for the

[1:01:07] work that you're doing all our

[1:01:09] sister cities. And I know that

[1:01:12] our city manager,

[1:01:13] who's not able

[1:01:15] to be here today, and Shiri

[1:01:17] and others have been working

[1:01:18] very closely with your staff

[1:01:20] to try to figure this thing

[1:01:21] out. I also want

[1:01:24] to take a second to recognize

[1:01:27] Supervisor Gauthier for having

[1:01:29] served our city honorably, all

[1:01:33] supervisors, of course,

[1:01:36] and also Jackie Speier

[1:01:38] for having been one

[1:01:40] of the founding members

[1:01:41] of our city. I want to say

[1:01:43] in my younger years,

[1:01:44] I was involved

[1:01:46] in the incorporation movement.

[1:01:48] We are the youngest city, one

[1:01:50] of the most vulnerable,

[1:01:52] and I had the honor of serving

[1:01:53] on the first city Council.

[1:01:55] What I can tell you is that we

[1:01:57] have come a long way. We have

[1:01:59] had many difficult periods

[1:02:02] of time in our city. This

[1:02:05] shortfall would really become

[1:02:07] one of the most difficult

[1:02:10] economic situations because I

[1:02:13] feel, after all, people are

[1:02:15] already suffering so much

[1:02:17] in their daily economic life

[1:02:20] across the country,

[1:02:22] across the state and this

[1:02:23] county in East Palo Alto. This

[1:02:26] is the kind of thing that would

[1:02:28] be catastrophic

[1:02:29] for many families,

[1:02:30] for the government, too. So, I

[1:02:33] feel like I want to be positive

[1:02:36] and I hope that the governor

[1:02:39] and the legislature will solve

[1:02:42] this. But I also want

[1:02:44] to prepare for the worst. And

[1:02:46] this is my thought

[1:02:47] for my city. And that is that

[1:02:49] as elected officials and

[1:02:51] management who run our cities,

[1:02:54] we have to work very closely

[1:02:57] with our employees. We have

[1:02:59] to work very closely with our

[1:03:02] union representatives and the

[1:03:04] community. And that's why this

[1:03:06] is important that you're

[1:03:07] holding this public meeting

[1:03:09] to let everyone know.

[1:03:11] But I really feel at other

[1:03:12] times that's what we've done.

[1:03:14] We've been able

[1:03:16] to get through. We have

[1:03:17] to work

[1:03:18] with the heart and soul

[1:03:19] of a city,

[1:03:20] which is the people who run it

[1:03:21] on a day-to-day basis,

[1:03:22] and that to the employees

[1:03:23] in their unions. So,

[1:03:25] with that, I'll let Shiri

[1:03:27] share a few of the details,

[1:03:28] which are not unlike what other

[1:03:31] sister cities are going to be

[1:03:34] facing if this happens.

[1:03:38] >> Thank you, Vice Mayor.

[1:03:40] For the city of East Palo

[1:03:41] Alto, the revised VLF estimates

[1:03:44] increase our Projected general

[1:03:46] fund revenue loss

[1:03:47] from approximately 2 1/2

[1:03:49] million to 4.6 million

[1:03:51] annually. This may not sound

[1:03:54] like much relative to some

[1:03:55] of the other cities, however,

[1:03:57] represents roughly 13% of our

[1:04:00] general fund operating budget.

[1:04:03] Unlike larger organizations,

[1:04:05] East Palo Alto has a relatively

[1:04:08] small lean workforce and has

[1:04:10] operated

[1:04:11] with these lean staffing levels

[1:04:13] for many years. 13% staffing

[1:04:16] cuts would reduce our already

[1:04:18] limited capacity and to provide

[1:04:19] our predominantly low-income

[1:04:22] Latino community of about

[1:04:24] 30,000 people the level

[1:04:28] of support that it relies

[1:04:30] on so deeply and deserves. We

[1:04:33] are not today prepared to list

[1:04:35] precisely which positions could

[1:04:37] be cut. And to avoid layoffs,

[1:04:40] East Palo Alto will look

[1:04:42] at all the alternatives.

[1:04:45] Freezing vacant positions,

[1:04:48] employee furloughs, etc.

[1:04:51] However, we are one of the

[1:04:53] lowest income minority

[1:04:55] communities in the state of

[1:04:57] California and these

[1:04:59] alternatives will not last long

[1:05:02] and our residents will be very

[1:05:04] critically harmed

[1:05:06] in this process. East Palo

[1:05:08] Alto calls on the state to fix

[1:05:10] this dire problem immediately.

[1:05:11] Thank you.

[1:05:18] >> Thank you. With that, I'd

[1:05:20] like to invite representatives

[1:05:22] from the city of Half Moon

[1:05:26] Bay. Oh, let's now invite

[1:05:29] representatives from the City

[1:05:31] of Menlo Park. I skipped

[1:05:33] Hillsboro because I was told no

[1:05:34] one's here from Hillsboro. Am I

[1:05:36] wrong?

[1:05:37] >> That's right.

[1:05:38] >> No, I'm right. Okay.

[1:05:39] Welcome.

[1:05:50] >> And I'd just like

[1:05:51] to correct that.

[1:05:53] Council member Jeff Schmidt

[1:05:54] is here with us tonight.

[1:05:55] >> Welcome.

[1:06:00] >> Great. Good afternoon,

[1:06:02] President Corzo, Vice

[1:06:03] President Mueller and honorable

[1:06:05] members of the board. I'm

[1:06:06] Justin Murphy. I'm the City

[1:06:08] Manager for the City of Menlo

[1:06:10] Park. Menlo Park's 34,000

[1:06:12] residents are served by 292

[1:06:14] full time staff and over 100

[1:06:16] temporary staff. Dedicated

[1:06:17] employees are the most

[1:06:18] important asset that we have

[1:06:19] to deliver critical services

[1:06:21] to the community. It pains me

[1:06:22] to appear

[1:06:23] before you today and speak

[1:06:25] of potential devastating

[1:06:26] impacts from the loss of $5.4

[1:06:29] million of VLF funds, which

[1:06:31] represents approximately 6% of

[1:06:33] the city's general fund budget.

[1:06:36] Our personnel expenses comprise

[1:06:37] 60%

[1:06:38] of our general fund budget.

[1:06:41] In order to absorb $5.4 million

[1:06:46] annually. As a reduction, the

[1:06:48] City of Menlo Park may be faced

[1:06:49] with a loss of 27 positions,

[1:06:52] which equates

[1:06:53] to a 9% reduction

[1:06:54] in permanent staff and the loss

[1:06:55] of a comparable number

[1:06:57] of temporary employees. These

[1:06:59] losses would be

[1:07:01] across every department

[1:07:02] in the city. And I'm about

[1:07:04] to provide an illustrative

[1:07:06] of what this could look like,

[1:07:07] its potential cuts. This is

[1:07:09] just to paint a picture

[1:07:11] of what the City of Menlo Park

[1:07:12] may need to consider. Loss

[1:07:14] of positions in the police

[1:07:16] department could result

[1:07:17] in the significant reduction

[1:07:18] in traffic enforcement. This is

[1:07:20] one of the services that

[1:07:22] address high profile community

[1:07:23] concerns aimed

[1:07:24] at improving pedestrian,

[1:07:26] bicycle and vehicular safety.

[1:07:29] This elimination coupled

[1:07:30] with the elimination of

[1:07:31] community services officers

[1:07:32] would result

[1:07:34] in slower response times.

[1:07:35] calls for service given the

[1:07:36] increased impacts

[1:07:38] on our patrol. The loss

[1:07:42] of positions

[1:07:44] in public works engineers,

[1:07:46] project managers and

[1:07:47] transportation planners would

[1:07:48] result in failed infrastructure

[1:07:49] and safety concerns, more

[1:07:50] potholes, poor and failed

[1:07:51] streets,

[1:07:52] prolonged street light outages,

[1:07:54] delay, delayed replacement park

[1:07:55] playgrounds and continue

[1:07:56] challenges implementing

[1:07:58] Vision Zero projects. The loss

[1:08:02] of sustainability positions

[1:08:04] would reduce capacity to

[1:08:06] achieve community identified

[1:08:09] priorities in the City's

[1:08:10] Climate Action Plan and

[1:08:11] environmental justice element

[1:08:12] impacting the cities to support

[1:08:14] statewide climate goals. Loss

[1:08:17] of positions

[1:08:18] in community development

[1:08:20] across planning, building and

[1:08:22] housing would reduce capacity

[1:08:23] to provide timely review of

[1:08:25] entitlements and plan check

[1:08:26] services to the community,

[1:08:28] jeopardizing the city's ability

[1:08:29] to meet minimum state statutory

[1:08:32] requirements. Implementation of

[1:08:34] housing element programs

[1:08:35] including work on affordable

[1:08:37] housing and anti-displacement

[1:08:39] efforts would also be severely

[1:08:42] impacted. Finally, the loss

[1:08:44] of positions in our library

[1:08:45] Community services could resume

[1:08:48] could result in reducing

[1:08:50] library hours significantly,

[1:08:51] up to a 50% reduction

[1:08:53] in library hours. Coupled

[1:08:55] with that would be a reduction

[1:08:57] in library programming for

[1:08:58] which there could be the

[1:09:00] elimination of story times,

[1:09:02] ESL, conversation clubs,

[1:09:03] summer reading, no book groups

[1:09:06] and no teen events. Again, this

[1:09:08] paints a picture of the

[1:09:09] potential decisions that the

[1:09:11] city will be facing

[1:09:14] in the coming months and year.

[1:09:16] The loss of $5.4 million

[1:09:17] annually, which would be a

[1:09:19] significant impact. So, again,

[1:09:21] thank you all on the board

[1:09:22] for bringing this attention

[1:09:24] to this matter and devoting

[1:09:25] time

[1:09:26] to this important topic.

[1:09:29] >> Thank you so much

[1:09:30] for joining us. With that. I'd

[1:09:36] like to welcome the Mayor of

[1:09:40] Millbrae and any other

[1:09:41] representatives from

[1:09:42] Millbrae.

[1:09:49] >> Thank you. Madam President

[1:09:50] Corzo, esteemed Board of

[1:09:53] Supervisors, County Executive

[1:09:55] Callagy. As the Mayor of

[1:09:57] Millbrae, we're incredibly

[1:09:59] appreciative that you've

[1:10:00] brought this issue

[1:10:02] to the forefront. We really see

[1:10:03] the value

[1:10:04] in having this session

[1:10:05] to everyone else. Good

[1:10:07] afternoon. This $226 million

[1:10:09] VLF shortfall facing San

[1:10:10] Mateo County is not just a

[1:10:13] number on a spreadsheet

[1:10:15] represents real impacts to the

[1:10:17] services our residents rely

[1:10:19] on and to the people who

[1:10:21] provide those services.

[1:10:23] For the City of Millbrae, this

[1:10:26] shortfall means approximately

[1:10:29] about a 5% hit

[1:10:31] to our general fund. To absorb

[1:10:33] that loss responsibly,

[1:10:35] we'll have to make difficult

[1:10:37] choices including deferring

[1:10:38] infrastructure projects that

[1:10:40] our community needs. That means

[1:10:43] projects like Safe Routes to

[1:10:44] Schools, which improves traffic

[1:10:46] safety and helps protect

[1:10:47] children and families will have

[1:10:50] to wait. We'll also have to

[1:10:52] defer infrastructure

[1:10:54] investments that address long

[1:10:56] term flooding challenges. And

[1:10:58] unfortunately, Millbrae is not

[1:11:00] the only community facing

[1:11:02] difficult choices. Some cities

[1:11:04] in our county are being forced

[1:11:07] to consider layoffs. I want

[1:11:08] to pause for a moment. These

[1:11:10] aren't simply positions

[1:11:12] on an organizational flowchart.

[1:11:14] These are members

[1:11:16] of our community. They're our

[1:11:18] neighbors, our family members,

[1:11:20] fathers, friends, parents,

[1:11:23] children. When a city loses

[1:11:25] employees, families feel that

[1:11:28] impact and it ripples

[1:11:30] throughout the whole entire

[1:11:33] community. The bottom line is

[1:11:35] simple. When local government

[1:11:36] loses 226 million, our

[1:11:39] communities don't just lose

[1:11:41] dollars. We lose services,

[1:11:43] projects,

[1:11:44] and stability. I'm grateful

[1:11:46] that at this point, the city

[1:11:47] of Millbrae does not anticipate

[1:11:49] laying off staff. We are very

[1:11:53] aware of the seriousness

[1:11:55] of this situation. We're

[1:11:56] closely monitoring the impacts

[1:11:57] of this shortfall and looking

[1:11:59] for every responsible

[1:12:00] opportunity to tighten our

[1:12:02] budget and operate more

[1:12:04] efficiently. The goal is clear.

[1:12:06] We don't want to be in a

[1:12:08] position tomorrow where we have

[1:12:09] to choose between the services

[1:12:11] our residents need and the

[1:12:12] people who provide them. Thank

[1:12:13] you.

[1:12:18] >> Thank you. I'd now like

[1:12:20] to welcome my colleagues

[1:12:22] from the city of Pacifica.

[1:12:36] Mayor Boles, are you the mayor?

[1:12:37] I can't remember. Okay, see,

[1:12:39] I forget. But welcome.

[1:12:41] >> Thank you so much

[1:12:42] for having us here, Noelia, and

[1:12:46] all of you. We know that

[1:12:48] Pacifica is a very special place

[1:12:49] to each one

[1:12:50] of you. I'm here today with

[1:12:54] Vice Mayor Wright and our

[1:12:55] Assistant City Manager, Julia

[1:12:58] Carter. I'm tired of going to

[1:13:01] Sacramento. I was very grateful

[1:13:04] to be there with all of you and

[1:13:05] really appreciate the county's

[1:13:07] leadership because we couldn't

[1:13:10] do this by ourselves. Right.

[1:13:11] So, we are all stronger

[1:13:13] with you as the leaders,

[1:13:15] with the county attorney, also

[1:13:17] with deep ties to Pacifica.

[1:13:19] Hello, John. And I would

[1:13:24] like us all to be wearing red

[1:13:26] the next time we have

[1:13:27] to go because, yeah,

[1:13:28] we're all fighting mad.

[1:13:29] They're taking our money and

[1:13:30] they're taking our time that we

[1:13:32] need to be doing other work,

[1:13:33] you know, instead. So, Pacifica

[1:13:35] is already struggling with a

[1:13:37] 3.8 million structural deficit.

[1:13:39] A million of that this year

[1:13:41] that we processed was because

[1:13:43] of the VLF funding cuts

[1:13:45] from this year. As a city

[1:13:47] that's 94% residential, we

[1:13:49] simply do not earn enough tax

[1:13:51] revenue to maintain our city.

[1:13:53] We're working on that. We're

[1:13:54] doing a lot

[1:13:55] of economic development work,

[1:13:57] looking at some hotels,

[1:13:58] increased housing and mixed

[1:14:00] use. But all that takes time.

[1:14:04] Our previous councils for years

[1:14:06] have cut our budget and our

[1:14:08] staff. And if you look

[1:14:10] at comparable cities, we're 20%

[1:14:12] understaffed already today.

[1:14:15] Our employees work so hard

[1:14:17] to make up this gap,

[1:14:18] but recruitment, retention,

[1:14:20] and the ability

[1:14:21] to handle extra work in an

[1:14:23] emergency are very difficult.

[1:14:25] I'm going to give you one very

[1:14:28] specific example. We had only

[1:14:29] one senior public works

[1:14:31] engineer. Roland Yap,

[1:14:33] wonderful guy.

[1:14:34] In a normal city,

[1:14:36] he would have managed about

[1:14:37] three public works projects.

[1:14:39] In our city, he had to manage

[1:14:42] 10. It was already a lot. And

[1:14:46] unlike other cities,

[1:14:48] our permitting also has to go

[1:14:49] through the Coastal

[1:14:50] Commission, so we have extra

[1:14:51] burden on our staff and time

[1:14:52] for our projects. And as you

[1:14:55] know, we're the canary

[1:14:56] in the coal mine

[1:14:57] for climate change,

[1:14:58] our impacts

[1:14:59] of a warming ocean.

[1:15:00] In my district alone, we've

[1:15:02] already lost three apartment

[1:15:03] buildings and 11 homes. And I'm

[1:15:05] terrified

[1:15:07] about this coming super El

[1:15:08] Nino because we have more

[1:15:10] in harm's way right now. Our

[1:15:13] pier collapsed on June 4, one

[1:15:16] month into our new City

[1:15:18] manager, Sean Charpentier's

[1:15:20] tenure. And, you know, we,

[1:15:23] without warning,

[1:15:25] we had a structural report.

[1:15:26] There was nothing imminently

[1:15:28] wrong with that portion

[1:15:29] of the pier. So, there

[1:15:30] was nothing we could have

[1:15:31] done ahead of time to deal

[1:15:34] with that. But that was the

[1:15:35] straw that broke the camel's

[1:15:36] back. We lost that senior

[1:15:37] engineer to another city

[1:15:40] because he has a life,

[1:15:42] he has voice. How can you

[1:15:44] expect a city employee

[1:15:45] to give and give and give, and

[1:15:46] at some point,

[1:15:47] it is just too much. We've just

[1:15:49] lost our public works director,

[1:15:50] too. So, we're really

[1:15:53] struggling as it is

[1:15:55] with these budget cuts. Through

[1:15:57] our budget process this year,

[1:15:59] our council and our staff have

[1:16:00] worked really hard

[1:16:02] to find those cuts

[1:16:04] to balance the 2.8 million

[1:16:07] deficit affecting programs,

[1:16:09] services, staffing,

[1:16:11] and public safety. We just had

[1:16:14] a special meeting last week

[1:16:16] because we're trying to solve

[1:16:18] this problem ourselves. We

[1:16:19] voted unanimously

[1:16:21] to put a 1 sales tax measure

[1:16:25] on our ballot. That puts us at

[1:16:28] 10.75% sales tax. I think that

[1:16:30] would be the fourth highest

[1:16:32] in the whole state. Right. And

[1:16:34] we need to get special governor

[1:16:36] approval that we're still

[1:16:37] waiting on to make sure we can

[1:16:38] even do that. We're trying

[1:16:40] to take care

[1:16:41] of ourselves and not ask

[1:16:42] for more money.

[1:16:45] But isn't it maddening that

[1:16:46] to put something on the ballot

[1:16:48] and then that is proposed

[1:16:50] to raise $5 million

[1:16:52] for our city, and now next

[1:16:53] year, the state is looking

[1:16:55] to take away 4.5 million extra,

[1:16:58] you know, from the VLF. It's

[1:17:02] maddening. How do we promise

[1:17:03] our residents that we're

[1:17:04] finally going to take care of

[1:17:06] roads that have never been

[1:17:07] paved in Pacifica since we

[1:17:09] incorporated that we're going

[1:17:10] to take care of our

[1:17:11] firefighters who have no place

[1:17:13] to decontaminate. You know, we

[1:17:15] have so much deferred work

[1:17:16] because we've been short

[1:17:18] on budgets for a long time.

[1:17:19] We're making these promises

[1:17:20] to our community,

[1:17:22] hoping that they'll agree

[1:17:24] to this really high tax rate

[1:17:26] to help save our city. But then

[1:17:28] now the rug is being pulled

[1:17:30] out from underneath us. It's

[1:17:32] not fair. And I'm freaking mad,

[1:17:39] too. We'd, you know, if

[1:17:40] this went through, we'd have

[1:17:42] to look at cutting another 20

[1:17:44] to 25 positions, about 15%

[1:17:46] of our already small workforce.

[1:17:49] These cuts would be

[1:17:50] devastating, threatening,

[1:17:51] threatening our ability

[1:17:52] to even survive as a city. And

[1:17:56] just as we're the canary

[1:17:57] in the coal mine

[1:17:58] for climate change,

[1:18:00] I think the county and all

[1:18:01] of our cities are the canary

[1:18:02] in the coal mine

[1:18:04] for what is happening

[1:18:05] at the state level. There's

[1:18:06] only three counties now,

[1:18:07] but it's growing. This whole

[1:18:09] metric of school funding is

[1:18:13] going to continue to worsen

[1:18:14] for the whole state. And I hope

[1:18:16] that the legislators and the

[1:18:18] governor pay attention because

[1:18:20] this is something that needs

[1:18:22] to be solved for all of our

[1:18:24] communities. I really

[1:18:25] appreciate you all,

[1:18:26] and we'll continue to stand

[1:18:27] with you 100%.

[1:18:37] >> I'd like

[1:18:38] to invite representatives

[1:18:40] from the city of Portola,

[1:18:41] from the town of Portola

[1:18:43] Valley. Town. Yes. Okay.

[1:18:44] Welcome.

[1:18:51] >> Good afternoon. I'm council

[1:18:54] member Judith Hasko of

[1:18:55] Portola Valley, and

[1:18:57] with me is Darcy Smith, our

[1:18:58] town manager. I want

[1:19:01] to thank you, President

[1:19:03] Corzo, and all

[1:19:04] of the supervisors here today

[1:19:05] for giving us the opportunity

[1:19:07] to share our experiences. It's

[1:19:09] very important for us

[1:19:11] to understand what all

[1:19:12] of the jurisdictions in this

[1:19:14] county are going through.

[1:19:17] First, Portola Valley supports

[1:19:19] the efforts by San Mateo

[1:19:20] County that we are here

[1:19:22] to discuss today entirely.

[1:19:24] Portola Valley is a small

[1:19:26] jurisdiction in San Mateo

[1:19:28] County. The state's

[1:19:30] inconsistent approach to

[1:19:32] vehicle license fee allocations

[1:19:33] over recent years has prevented

[1:19:35] us from including our town's

[1:19:37] full vehicle license fee

[1:19:38] allocation in our annual

[1:19:41] budgeting process, which, given

[1:19:43] our limited town budget and

[1:19:45] very lean staffing,

[1:19:47] creates substantial challenges.

[1:19:50] Portillo Valley is highly

[1:19:51] dependent on San Mateo

[1:19:53] County's support

[1:19:54] in many important respects,

[1:19:56] including notably the county's

[1:19:57] provision

[1:19:58] of law enforcement services.

[1:20:01] Our contract costs have

[1:20:02] increased from 1.37 million

[1:20:05] in fiscal year 21-22 to 2.54

[1:20:10] million in fiscal year 26-27, a

[1:20:13] total increase over five years

[1:20:15] of 85%. I don't see that

[1:20:18] increase stopping anytime soon.

[1:20:21] We have tapped our reserves

[1:20:22] to cover this cost increase,

[1:20:24] but our reserve fund will fall

[1:20:25] below the minimum reserve

[1:20:27] policy level by the end

[1:20:28] of the year fiscal year 27-28,

[1:20:31] and will be depleted

[1:20:33] by the end of fiscal year

[1:20:35] 29-30. The inability to plan

[1:20:37] for and receive our allocation

[1:20:40] of VLF is quickly draining our

[1:20:41] reserves and is not

[1:20:43] sustainable. Because of this

[1:20:45] and other circumstances,

[1:20:47] we are now intently working on

[1:20:49] a broad fiscal stabilization

[1:20:51] plan, including a proposed

[1:20:53] ballot measure to establish a

[1:20:55] 1% real property transfer tax.

[1:20:57] If that tax is not approved

[1:20:59] by the town voters on November

[1:21:01] 3rd, our town will need

[1:21:02] to consider its next steps

[1:21:04] toward fiscal stability, which

[1:21:06] may include declaring a fiscal

[1:21:07] emergency,

[1:21:09] something we really do not want

[1:21:10] to do. At that point, the town

[1:21:12] may be forced

[1:21:14] to make deep budget cuts.

[1:21:16] Having more consistent

[1:21:17] treatment of VLF allocations by

[1:21:19] the state will enable our town

[1:21:21] to implement critical budgeting

[1:21:23] and planning processes

[1:21:26] at this time. The enormous

[1:21:28] budgetary restrictions that the

[1:21:30] county will be forced

[1:21:31] to make as a result

[1:21:32] of the state's proposed

[1:21:34] takeaway of the VLF allocations

[1:21:36] will dramatically reduce law

[1:21:38] enforcement services provided

[1:21:40] by the county to our town and

[1:21:42] potentially greatly increase

[1:21:44] our cost of obtaining these

[1:21:46] critical services.

[1:21:48] At the exact moment when

[1:21:49] Portola Valley seeks to

[1:21:51] stabilize its finances and

[1:21:54] adopt enhanced safety and

[1:21:55] emergency preparedness

[1:21:58] measures, I urge the state

[1:21:59] to recognize its responsibility

[1:22:01] to work with our county and the

[1:22:03] jurisdictions within it

[1:22:05] to avoid drastic reductions

[1:22:07] in our county services, and in

[1:22:09] particular our safety related

[1:22:11] services and infrastructure,

[1:22:14] and to craft a more equitable

[1:22:17] and resilient approach

[1:22:18] for these allocations. Thank

[1:22:20] you again, we appreciate the

[1:22:21] opportunity.

[1:22:27] >> Thank you. With that, I'd

[1:22:30] like to invite Mayor Elmer oh

[1:22:34] my gosh, why am I blinking?

[1:22:36] Saballos. That's what's the

[1:22:38] first part. Martinez oh my

[1:22:40] gosh. I'm sorry. Elmer.

[1:22:41] Welcome. And is this your also

[1:22:43] a council member, City

[1:22:45] Manager?

[1:22:46] >> That's right. Good morning,

[1:22:49] President Corzo and members

[1:22:51] of the board. I'm Mayor Elmer

[1:22:53] Martinez Saballos, joined

[1:22:54] by our City Manager Patrick

[1:22:56] Heisinger and many

[1:22:58] of our city staff. First, thank

[1:22:59] you for the opportunity

[1:23:00] to speak and thank you for your

[1:23:01] leadership and county staff's

[1:23:03] leadership on this issue.

[1:23:05] Like many cities in San Mateo

[1:23:07] County, Redwood City is deeply

[1:23:08] concerned

[1:23:09] about the continued uncertainty

[1:23:11] of surrounding the vehicle

[1:23:12] license feedback fill. And

[1:23:14] while we appreciate the

[1:23:15] legislature's partial funding

[1:23:17] this year,

[1:23:18] it's only a temporary solution

[1:23:20] to what's become a long-term

[1:23:21] structural problem

[1:23:23] for local governments. And I

[1:23:24] also want to emphasize that

[1:23:26] this issue did not arrive

[1:23:27] in a vacuum.

[1:23:28] For the past four years,

[1:23:30] Redwood City has been preparing

[1:23:31] for more difficult financial

[1:23:33] times. We have made proactive

[1:23:34] and often difficult decisions

[1:23:36] to strengthen our financial

[1:23:39] position while protecting the

[1:23:40] services that our residents

[1:23:42] rely upon. During the COVID 19

[1:23:43] pandemic, the city adopted

[1:23:45] multiple stabilizing budgets

[1:23:46] even as a community's need

[1:23:48] for public service continued

[1:23:50] to grow. In 2024, our city

[1:23:52] council advanced an update to

[1:23:54] the city's business license

[1:23:56] tax, and our business community

[1:23:57] stepped up to help fund

[1:23:59] essential public services.

[1:24:01] Last year, the City Council

[1:24:02] made the difficult decision

[1:24:03] to use general fund reserves to

[1:24:05] balance our budget rather than

[1:24:07] reduce city services. Our

[1:24:09] residents have also stepped up

[1:24:10] by absorbing higher utility

[1:24:12] rates and other costs that help

[1:24:14] sustain our city operations.

[1:24:16] Simply put,

[1:24:17] our businesses have stepped up,

[1:24:19] our residents have stepped up,

[1:24:21] and our City Council has

[1:24:23] stepped up. Now it's time

[1:24:24] for the state to do its part by

[1:24:25] restoring the VLF revenues that

[1:24:27] rightfully belong to San

[1:24:29] Mateo County and its cities.

[1:24:31] Unfortunately, the continued

[1:24:32] uncertainty means we've

[1:24:34] exhausted many of the

[1:24:35] traditional tools available

[1:24:37] to us. And if this funding is

[1:24:39] not permanently restored,

[1:24:40] cities like Redwood City will

[1:24:42] be increasingly left

[1:24:44] with only one option. Reducing

[1:24:46] public services.

[1:24:47] At the county's request, we

[1:24:48] prepared a scenario showing

[1:24:50] what that could look like in

[1:24:52] Redwood City. And we identified

[1:24:53] approximately 40 frontline

[1:24:55] positions. These positions

[1:24:57] include firefighters and police

[1:24:59] officers, librarians,

[1:25:01] community service officers,

[1:25:02] planners, parks and recreation

[1:25:04] staff, and administrative

[1:25:06] professionals who help deliver

[1:25:08] the services our residents rely

[1:25:09] upon every day. Many of those

[1:25:11] services are especially

[1:25:13] important to our most

[1:25:14] vulnerable residents, our

[1:25:16] seniors, children, families,

[1:25:18] and individuals experiencing

[1:25:21] homelessness. We want to be

[1:25:22] very clear that this isn't a

[1:25:23] staffing plan,

[1:25:24] but it's an advocacy tool, one

[1:25:25] that illustrates what continued

[1:25:26] state

[1:25:27] in action could eventually mean

[1:25:28] for the people that we serve.

[1:25:30] So, it's clear

[1:25:31] to us that a permanent solution

[1:25:33] to the VFL backfill issue is

[1:25:34] essential if local governments

[1:25:36] are going to continue providing

[1:25:37] the public safety, libraries,

[1:25:38] parks, planning services,

[1:25:41] and other core functions of

[1:25:44] government that our communities

[1:25:46] expect and deserve. Thank you

[1:25:47] again, everyone,

[1:25:48] for your leadership and

[1:25:49] for continuing to advocate

[1:25:51] on behalf of all of our cities

[1:25:52] in San Mateo County. Thank you.

[1:25:57] >> Thank you. And let me

[1:25:58] sincerely apologize

[1:26:00] for butchering your last name.

[1:26:03] Mayor Elmer Martinez Saballos.

[1:26:05] I bet you all didn't know that

[1:26:06] my name is actually Noelia

[1:26:09] Corso Solorzano. But no,

[1:26:14] I love your last name,

[1:26:16] and I will never do that again.

[1:26:18] So, up next, we have the city

[1:26:21] of San Bruno. And I also,

[1:26:22] before I invite the mayor up,

[1:26:24] I just wanted

[1:26:25] to let everyone know that

[1:26:26] in a couple of minutes, I will

[1:26:28] be stepping away because I am

[1:26:30] chairing the Coalition to End

[1:26:32] Violence, Abuse, and

[1:26:33] Exploitation. And I personally

[1:26:34] invited Assembly Member

[1:26:37] Catherine Stefani several

[1:26:39] months ago to come and present

[1:26:42] on the domestic violence

[1:26:43] legislation that she has

[1:26:45] championed at the state. And I

[1:26:46] don't want to not be there

[1:26:48] since I invited her months ago.

[1:26:51] So, with that, welcome, Mayor

[1:26:53] Rico Medina.

[1:27:00] >> Good afternoon. Since the

[1:27:02] City Manager of San Bruno had

[1:27:03] already spoken,

[1:27:05] he gave you a lot

[1:27:06] of the information and the data

[1:27:08] of how it is, has effect and

[1:27:10] will affect the city of San

[1:27:11] Bruno. As a former city

[1:27:13] employee, myself of San

[1:27:15] Bruno, a shop steward,

[1:27:18] it is crucial and critical. We

[1:27:21] have, as most

[1:27:23] of my colleagues have said,

[1:27:24] we have a lean staff. Proud

[1:27:26] of them. They go

[1:27:28] to work every day. They do the

[1:27:30] and provide the services. What

[1:27:32] I am proud of is also the

[1:27:35] Board of Supervisors, County

[1:27:37] Manager, that we're all here

[1:27:40] together. This is one time that

[1:27:42] irrelevant of what city or town

[1:27:44] you represent, that we're

[1:27:47] in this boat together and all

[1:27:49] of us will feel the pain and

[1:27:51] the suffering if the state does

[1:27:53] not change their path and their

[1:27:56] course. I appreciate all

[1:27:59] of you stepping forward to

[1:28:02] represent this county. I am a

[1:28:04] lifelong San Mateo County

[1:28:07] resident and proud

[1:28:10] of it. I am a lifelong member,

[1:28:12] third generation, to the city

[1:28:14] of San Bruno where I've lived

[1:28:16] my entire life. And I'm proud

[1:28:18] of it. City of San Bruno has

[1:28:20] been challenged at times when

[1:28:23] we had the explosion or the

[1:28:24] active shooter. We've had

[1:28:27] people come to our community to

[1:28:28] lead and give aid and mutual

[1:28:31] support and we do the same. But

[1:28:35] this is one time that we all

[1:28:41] have to find it

[1:28:43] within our heart and spirit

[1:28:45] to unite and find a way to

[1:28:47] ensure that the state does what

[1:28:48] they need to do so that all

[1:28:51] of these folks here, all

[1:28:52] of us, can work

[1:28:54] at what we need

[1:28:56] to provide our leadership to

[1:28:58] our staff and our communities.

[1:29:01] It has been and is an honor

[1:29:04] to serve and it's an honor

[1:29:06] to be here with you today. And

[1:29:08] I appreciate what you're doing.

[1:29:10] And we are in it to win it.

[1:29:12] And we stand resolute and we

[1:29:14] stand side by side. Let's do

[1:29:16] this. Thank you.

[1:29:22] >> Thank you so much. And

[1:29:24] preach. Okay. I did not know we

[1:29:26] were going

[1:29:27] to church right now.

[1:29:29] With that, I'd like to invite

[1:29:30] representatives and council

[1:29:32] members from the City of

[1:29:34] San Carlos. I'm going

[1:29:36] to try to stay till the end

[1:29:37] of the cities,

[1:29:38] but I don't know if I can.

[1:29:40] >> Thank you for having us here

[1:29:41] today. I'm not going to preach

[1:29:42] to you, but I'm here with

[1:29:44] Kathy Kleinbaum, City Manager

[1:29:46] of San Carlos. The City of

[1:29:48] San Carlos is facing a VLF

[1:29:50] shortfall of $4.4 million.

[1:29:53] This could grow as large as $6

[1:29:55] million in future years if

[1:29:57] additional school districts

[1:29:59] flip. The current amount is

[1:30:00] equivalent to over 6% of our

[1:30:02] annual opening operating

[1:30:05] budget. As a small city that is

[1:30:07] leaning staffed,

[1:30:09] a revenue loss of this

[1:30:11] magnitude is not something we

[1:30:13] can absorb without facing

[1:30:16] tangible reductions

[1:30:18] in services in our residents

[1:30:20] and businesses. This shortfall

[1:30:21] could potentially translate

[1:30:23] to hiring freezes or rejections

[1:30:25] of 5 public safety positions

[1:30:26] and 14 general staffing

[1:30:28] positions

[1:30:30] across our city departments.

[1:30:31] This equates to roughly 10%

[1:30:34] of our total staff. The

[1:30:36] resulting services impacts to

[1:30:39] our residents and businesses

[1:30:41] include delays in permit

[1:30:42] processing times and

[1:30:44] construction support services

[1:30:46] which could delay the

[1:30:48] completion of our much-needed

[1:30:50] housing developments. Delays

[1:30:52] in critical staffing, safety

[1:30:53] improvements and reduce

[1:30:55] enforcements. Reductions in

[1:30:57] maintenance levels and response

[1:30:59] times for necessary repairs

[1:31:00] in our parks, senior and youth

[1:31:03] recreation centers and library.

[1:31:06] Reductions in support services

[1:31:07] for small local businesses.

[1:31:10] Reductions

[1:31:11] in senior support services,

[1:31:12] recreation program and

[1:31:14] community and cultural events.

[1:31:17] We urge the state to provide

[1:31:18] the funding that is due to all

[1:31:21] of us, to all the cities in

[1:31:22] San Mateo County. This funding

[1:31:23] is essential

[1:31:25] to maintaining our quality

[1:31:26] of life.

[1:31:33] >> Thank you and I'd now like

[1:31:36] to welcome my mayor, mayor

[1:31:39] Adam Lorraine and council

[1:31:41] member Lisa Diaz Nash and city

[1:31:43] manager Alex Khojikian.

[1:31:50] >> Good afternoon supervisors,

[1:31:52] City Council members, staff and

[1:31:54] everyone who has joined us here

[1:31:57] today. I am Adam Lorraine,

[1:31:59] Mayor of the City of San

[1:32:01] Mateo, and with me is City

[1:32:02] Council member Lisa Diaz

[1:32:04] Nash, City Manager Alex

[1:32:05] Khojikian, who addressed the

[1:32:07] public in the press conference

[1:32:10] earlier. We also had a

[1:32:12] Assistant City Manager

[1:32:14] Jennifer Yamaguma here and

[1:32:16] other city staff. I want

[1:32:17] to thank you

[1:32:19] for the opportunity to give

[1:32:20] some more related comments

[1:32:22] about how this lack of funding

[1:32:23] will affect our great city of

[1:32:26] San Mateo. Of course,

[1:32:27] receiving the news

[1:32:29] of an even greater reduction

[1:32:30] in VLF funds was not welcome.

[1:32:32] Our city cannot afford it and

[1:32:34] neither can our residents.

[1:32:36] This deepened cut

[1:32:38] to VLF is substantial for the

[1:32:40] City of San Mateo. We're losing

[1:32:42] an additional 5.7 million

[1:32:44] in this fiscal year,

[1:32:46] which takes us from a 7.1

[1:32:49] million shortfall to $12.9

[1:32:51] million. Many have illustrated

[1:32:56] this afternoon that we're not

[1:32:58] just talking about budgets,

[1:33:00] of course, but the people who

[1:33:02] provide services and are part

[1:33:03] of our community. And it's no

[1:33:05] different in our city.

[1:33:07] In fact, approximately 80%

[1:33:10] of our budget is tied to the

[1:33:11] people who provide city

[1:33:13] services to our community.

[1:33:15] These are people who provide

[1:33:17] homelessness, outreach, youth

[1:33:20] and senior programs and

[1:33:23] emergency services. This

[1:33:25] additional 5.7-million-dollar

[1:33:27] loss will have a direct impact

[1:33:30] on people, staff, and

[1:33:32] of course our residents, we

[1:33:35] in our city took the

[1:33:36] opportunity

[1:33:38] to begin forecasting.

[1:33:39] Of course, we already had

[1:33:40] to plan

[1:33:41] for the previous VLF

[1:33:43] shortfalls.

[1:33:45] But now we have taken a look

[1:33:46] to determine. What would it

[1:33:48] look like if the City of San

[1:33:50] Mateo had to cut 10%

[1:33:51] of its general fund budget.

[1:33:53] Our fear is that this would

[1:33:55] become a reality. We currently

[1:33:57] have some reserves that can

[1:33:59] tide us over for some time. But

[1:34:02] unless there's a permanent

[1:34:04] solution to this shortfall

[1:34:06] at the City of San Mateo, this

[1:34:07] lack

[1:34:08] of funding currently equates

[1:34:09] to us potentially cutting up

[1:34:11] to 70 positions. What could

[1:34:14] that look like? It could

[1:34:16] eliminate our proactive

[1:34:18] homelessness outreach. It would

[1:34:20] eliminate our mental health co

[1:34:22] responder unit with police. It

[1:34:24] would close a fire station. It

[1:34:27] could eliminate the Office of

[1:34:29] Emergency Services Division

[1:34:30] of San Mateo Consolidated

[1:34:32] Fire. On top

[1:34:34] of those complete eliminations,

[1:34:37] we would have many more

[1:34:39] reductions,

[1:34:41] including programming

[1:34:43] for youth and seniors,

[1:34:44] reducing facility operations,

[1:34:45] library open hours, park

[1:34:48] maintenance, slower response

[1:34:49] times and greater risks.

[1:34:52] These, of course, as has been

[1:34:53] noted, are not simply numbers

[1:34:55] on a spreadsheet. These are

[1:34:57] real services provided by real

[1:34:58] people that our residents

[1:34:59] depend on. We need a permanent

[1:35:01] solution to the VLF shortfall

[1:35:03] so our cities can continue

[1:35:04] providing services and our

[1:35:06] communities can get what they

[1:35:08] expect and deserve. Thank you

[1:35:09] for your time.

[1:35:16] >> Okay, I will now invite the

[1:35:18] City of South San Francisco and

[1:35:21] I will also say goodbye

[1:35:23] for now. And I do believe

[1:35:24] there's a PowerPoint

[1:35:26] presentation that we have

[1:35:27] for you all. So, welcome.

[1:35:29] >> Thank you so much.

[1:35:30] >> And I'll hand it over to

[1:35:31] Supervisor Mueller

[1:35:32] to chair.

[1:35:33] >> Great. Good afternoon,

[1:35:35] everyone. I am here. I am

[1:35:36] Laura Snideman, the South San

[1:35:38] Francisco City Manager, joined

[1:35:40] with Vice Mayor Nagales and

[1:35:41] Councilmember Nicholas. We too

[1:35:43] are asking for the state's

[1:35:44] leadership making good on their

[1:35:45] promise correcting this

[1:35:47] unintended revenue shortfall.

[1:35:49] Property tax in lieu of vehicle

[1:35:51] license fees represent 8.3% of

[1:35:53] our total general fund revenue.

[1:35:55] This funding allows us

[1:35:57] to provide all

[1:35:58] of these essential services.

[1:36:00] Public safety, childcare,

[1:36:01] adult daycare, library,

[1:36:03] many other services. South San

[1:36:04] Francisco, if you'll see

[1:36:06] on the next slide, is facing a

[1:36:07] cumulative VLF funding

[1:36:08] shortfall

[1:36:09] in the past three years of

[1:36:10] $13.2 million for which the

[1:36:13] state has not made us whole.

[1:36:17] Without a permanent fix, our

[1:36:19] community too would face severe

[1:36:20] service cuts

[1:36:21] in all service areas.

[1:36:22] Examples, sort of a package

[1:36:24] of things that we would have

[1:36:25] to reduce, that we would have

[1:36:27] to consider

[1:36:28] in the next slide, again,

[1:36:29] would affect all areas

[1:36:30] of our community.

[1:36:31] In public safety,

[1:36:32] it would mean closing a fire

[1:36:33] station, eliminating 13

[1:36:35] firefighter positions and

[1:36:36] increasing response times

[1:36:38] across the city. Eliminating

[1:36:41] four police officer positions,

[1:36:43] including our school liaison

[1:36:44] officers who have come and that

[1:36:45] our school district has come

[1:36:47] to rely on to build rapport

[1:36:48] between law enforcement and

[1:36:49] students, families and school

[1:36:50] staff, as well as our community

[1:36:52] outreach officers who work

[1:36:53] closely with the unhoused and

[1:36:55] connect them with mental health

[1:36:56] and county resources.

[1:36:59] Eliminating fire and building

[1:37:00] inspectors would weaken our

[1:37:02] prevention and safety oversight

[1:37:03] throughout the entire

[1:37:04] community.

[1:37:06] Beyond public safety, our youth

[1:37:08] and our seniors would be hit

[1:37:10] very hard. We would have to

[1:37:11] eliminate potentially all

[1:37:13] subsidized child care. This is

[1:37:15] preschool, early learning and

[1:37:16] after school care. Impacting up

[1:37:18] to 815 children. Leaving

[1:37:22] working parents scrambling

[1:37:24] for an already scarce resource.

[1:37:26] Eliminating our adult day care

[1:37:29] program. Removing this respite

[1:37:30] and support service

[1:37:31] for caregiving families.

[1:37:34] Potentially losing progress on

[1:37:36] creating new affordable

[1:37:39] housing. Leaving families and

[1:37:40] seniors

[1:37:41] without housing options.

[1:37:42] Community access to learning

[1:37:43] and wellness would also narrow.

[1:37:45] Libraries and pools would close

[1:37:47] one day a week. A community

[1:37:49] learning center could close.

[1:37:51] Ending after school. English as

[1:37:53] a second language, adult

[1:37:54] literacy, computer and STEM

[1:37:56] programs relied upon

[1:37:57] by all residents. This is only

[1:37:59] a partial list of items of

[1:38:01] services demonstrating how the

[1:38:03] most vulnerable in our

[1:38:05] community would be impacted.

[1:38:07] All told, the program and

[1:38:08] service losses could risk job

[1:38:10] losses for over 100

[1:38:13] individuals. Frontline workers

[1:38:15] who keep our community safe,

[1:38:17] responsive and resilient. This

[1:38:18] is

[1:38:19] about equity and keeping faith

[1:38:20] with local communities. 55

[1:38:21] counties are already made whole

[1:38:23] by the state's approach. San

[1:38:24] Mateo county should be treated

[1:38:26] equally so our residents do not

[1:38:27] lose essential services due to

[1:38:29] a shortfall that was never

[1:38:30] intended. We're not asking

[1:38:32] for more. We're not asking

[1:38:33] for a handout. We are asking

[1:38:35] the state to keep its promise

[1:38:37] to make us whole on this

[1:38:39] revenue source so we can keep

[1:38:40] our promise to the community of

[1:38:42] providing these vital services.

[1:38:44] Thank you for your leadership

[1:38:45] and attention to this matter.

[1:38:47] We will continue to work

[1:38:48] with all of you so our state

[1:38:50] and our state leaders

[1:38:51] to save our South San

[1:38:52] Francisco services. Thank you.

[1:39:01] >> Thank you. So, I just first

[1:39:03] want to extend my gratitude

[1:39:06] to all the cities

[1:39:08] for coming today and for

[1:39:10] sharing so transparently the

[1:39:11] situation that you face. This

[1:39:14] was a very tough decision

[1:39:15] to be made at the county and

[1:39:17] at the cities to share this

[1:39:19] information this transparently

[1:39:21] because it causes quite a bit

[1:39:23] of anxiety obviously within our

[1:39:26] workforce amongst those who

[1:39:27] receives the services. And I

[1:39:29] think it's a testament to the

[1:39:31] leadership throughout the

[1:39:32] county that we're being so

[1:39:34] transparent at this time when

[1:39:36] it's so precisely needed. What

[1:39:38] we're going

[1:39:40] to do now is we're going to go

[1:39:41] ahead and discuss next steps.

[1:39:43] And I'm going to go ahead

[1:39:45] at this time. I know

[1:39:47] Supervisor Speier has some next

[1:39:49] steps. I do as well. And I can

[1:39:50] turn it over

[1:39:51] to my colleagues as well. But

[1:39:53] we have prepared some and I'll

[1:39:56] let I go first. So, what I'd

[1:40:01] share today with everyone is

[1:40:03] that today we obviously went

[1:40:05] through this process earlier

[1:40:07] this year, not that long ago.

[1:40:09] We have between now

[1:40:12] until the end of August, and

[1:40:14] frankly, it's a shorter time

[1:40:15] period than that to try to get

[1:40:17] into the Legislature's trailer

[1:40:19] bill,

[1:40:20] which wraps up their budget.

[1:40:21] After that,

[1:40:22] we're pretty much closed

[1:40:24] for this year. Our ability

[1:40:26] to address this issue will end.

[1:40:28] And so

[1:40:29] in the next week or two weeks,

[1:40:31] the most important thing

[1:40:32] for your cities

[1:40:34] to be doing and

[1:40:35] for those who you're

[1:40:37] interacting with is to be

[1:40:38] contacting our governor's

[1:40:40] office, sharing the

[1:40:41] information, transmitting it

[1:40:43] here, having people send

[1:40:45] emails, having people

[1:40:46] communicate just what that

[1:40:48] impact is. As we try to move

[1:40:50] toward the end of this, and

[1:40:51] frankly, also our legislative

[1:40:53] leadership, our Senate

[1:40:55] president's office,

[1:40:57] our speaker of Assembly's

[1:41:00] office, all of those entities

[1:41:01] are coming together now

[1:41:03] to wrap up this trailer bill.

[1:41:04] And we want to be in it and we

[1:41:06] want a permanent fix in it.

[1:41:09] That being said,

[1:41:10] if we are not successful there,

[1:41:13] what comes next is that we

[1:41:14] cannot go quietly

[1:41:17] into the night and wait until

[1:41:18] next year's budget session. We

[1:41:21] need

[1:41:22] to begin organizing our cities.

[1:41:25] All of you know

[1:41:27] in your cities,

[1:41:28] and if you're watching this

[1:41:30] at home, all you know that

[1:41:31] within our cities we have

[1:41:33] networks outside

[1:41:34] of city hall. Those who are not

[1:41:36] with us today, for example, are

[1:41:38] our special districts and all

[1:41:40] of those who we know so well,

[1:41:42] our school districts, we have

[1:41:44] to reach out

[1:41:46] into those parent communities.

[1:41:47] We have

[1:41:48] to tell them what the impact is

[1:41:50] to their safe streets. We have

[1:41:52] to reach out into our senior

[1:41:54] communities and tell them what

[1:41:56] the impacts are. We have

[1:41:57] to share with all

[1:41:59] of them so that every,

[1:42:00] every city together is

[1:42:01] mobilized

[1:42:02] behind your leadership,

[1:42:04] telling Sacramento this has to

[1:42:06] be addressed and this is what

[1:42:08] the impacts are

[1:42:09] into next year. So, a next step

[1:42:11] is to organize your city

[1:42:13] into a piece of the thunder

[1:42:15] that will come next year

[1:42:17] during our budget process. And

[1:42:20] then finally, what I would say

[1:42:23] to you all as we go

[1:42:25] into this is we're going

[1:42:27] to come

[1:42:28] into your cities next year.

[1:42:30] Why would I plan

[1:42:31] on doing next year,

[1:42:33] should I be board president?

[1:42:34] Is to do study sessions

[1:42:36] in each of your cities

[1:42:38] during the first five months

[1:42:40] of the year as we head toward

[1:42:42] the budget so that when we come

[1:42:43] into your city, you bring the

[1:42:46] thunder and the noise of

[1:42:48] everyone who you have organized

[1:42:50] so that we keep that, that

[1:42:52] momentum up and that pressure

[1:42:53] so that as we move toward it,

[1:42:55] each city is moving. And so,

[1:42:56] we will be coming

[1:42:58] into your districts. And then

[1:43:01] the last,

[1:43:03] and I should have said last

[1:43:05] time,

[1:43:06] but the most important thing

[1:43:07] in addition to all of that is

[1:43:10] that I would ask you all

[1:43:12] to tell everybody you know

[1:43:14] to start contacting the

[1:43:16] Becerra campaign. We know who

[1:43:18] our next governor will be

[1:43:22] on almost certainty. We have a

[1:43:24] good idea and most certainty

[1:43:25] based on polls. We need

[1:43:28] to start contacting them now.

[1:43:32] So, contact both candidates

[1:43:34] just in case. But contact the

[1:43:37] Becerra campaign and tell them

[1:43:40] how big of the impacts that

[1:43:41] this is going to be in our

[1:43:43] county and start working those

[1:43:45] issues now so that next year

[1:43:47] it's not a surprise and it's

[1:43:49] on the list

[1:43:50] of things that get addressed.

[1:43:52] There's going

[1:43:54] to be probably a new head

[1:43:55] of the Department of Finance

[1:43:56] who we're going

[1:43:57] to be negotiating

[1:43:58] with next year.

[1:43:59] In all likelihood may not be,

[1:44:00] but there's some likelihood

[1:44:01] there will be. The governor and

[1:44:03] his administration will be

[1:44:05] making that appointment. And

[1:44:07] when we want that appointment

[1:44:09] made, we want that person

[1:44:10] on their first day in office

[1:44:12] to understand that this is one

[1:44:14] of their priority number ones

[1:44:16] to get resolved. With that,

[1:44:18] I'm going

[1:44:19] to go ahead and turn it over

[1:44:20] to Supervisor Speier.

[1:44:21] >> Thank you. And thank you so

[1:44:22] very much

[1:44:24] for being here. I mean, having

[1:44:25] the very specific cuts that you

[1:44:29] would have to deliberate

[1:44:30] on is powerful in terms

[1:44:33] of making Sacramento know that

[1:44:36] this is real. Now, having been

[1:44:39] there decades ago, I can tell

[1:44:42] you there's a cynicism there.

[1:44:44] You know,

[1:44:45] counties come up whining about

[1:44:46] one thing or another and

[1:44:48] there's a tendency

[1:44:50] to just think, oh, well,

[1:44:52] so when Supervisor Mueller said

[1:44:57] that we've got to contact all

[1:44:59] of these elected

[1:45:01] representatives,

[1:45:03] that's really important. What I

[1:45:04] would like you to do is we have

[1:45:05] a very short window right now

[1:45:07] in terms of getting this fix

[1:45:09] into a trailer bill. It's

[1:45:11] really short. So, if you make

[1:45:13] it your priority today and

[1:45:17] tonight to contact everyone on

[1:45:19] your address book and ask them

[1:45:22] to call the governor's office.

[1:45:24] We need a hurricane. You called

[1:45:27] it thunder. I'm calling it a

[1:45:29] hurricane of people calling the

[1:45:30] governor's office

[1:45:32] to say this is unsustainable,

[1:45:35] that will get their attention.

[1:45:37] The problem

[1:45:39] with press conferences,

[1:45:40] it's a blip. It's a onetime

[1:45:42] event. But if they continue

[1:45:44] to hear this drumbeat from

[1:45:46] San Mateo County,

[1:45:47] from everyone

[1:45:49] in your community that's

[1:45:51] in your address book from all

[1:45:52] of your nonprofits from every

[1:45:54] imaginable and all your school

[1:45:57] districts, all of the parents

[1:45:58] in all

[1:46:01] of your school districts,

[1:46:03] that will be very important.

[1:46:04] The other thing, many of you

[1:46:06] have lobbyists. I have a

[1:46:07] particular view of having these

[1:46:10] lobbyists because I don't think

[1:46:13] they do enough. But to the

[1:46:16] extent that you have lobbyists

[1:46:18] for your cities, I urge you

[1:46:20] to call them and say, you need

[1:46:22] to help us now. You need

[1:46:24] to help us

[1:46:25] in the next two weeks, get this

[1:46:27] passed and have them come up

[1:46:28] with a plan for you. And then

[1:46:31] Supervisor Mueller said that he

[1:46:35] wants to come to each

[1:46:37] of the cities as the board to

[1:46:39] hear your experience. I don't

[1:46:43] think we can wait till May. I

[1:46:45] mean, this budget for July is

[1:46:47] going to be determined in

[1:46:49] January, February, March. So,

[1:46:51] we need to have all

[1:46:53] of that kind of cooked

[1:46:55] by then so that we are

[1:46:58] in the budget. Otherwise, July

[1:47:00] 1st will come. We'll see

[1:47:02] another $200 million. And what

[1:47:04] each of you pointed out was

[1:47:06] that's the cuts you're going

[1:47:08] to sustain this year. What are

[1:47:10] the cuts you're going to

[1:47:12] sustain next year if it's

[1:47:14] another $200 million? Mayor

[1:47:16] Sylvester said something that

[1:47:18] was very important. You know,

[1:47:21] the governor and the

[1:47:23] Department of Finance and

[1:47:24] frankly, the legislature can

[1:47:27] ignore us and the result is

[1:47:33] their hands are clean because

[1:47:35] the cuts are imposed locally.

[1:47:38] So, we get the heat. So, we've

[1:47:40] got to turn the heat on and up

[1:47:42] to them. And I think that the

[1:47:45] way we do that is

[1:47:48] by a constant churn

[1:47:52] of contacting them. So, it's

[1:47:54] the governor's office,

[1:47:57] it's the state president Pro

[1:47:58] Tem's office, it's the state

[1:48:00] assembly speaker's office, it's

[1:48:02] the budget committee chairs and

[1:48:07] probably what am I missing?

[1:48:11] But all

[1:48:13] of those should be part

[1:48:15] of your list in terms

[1:48:18] of contacting them. And I

[1:48:21] think, and this is,

[1:48:22] we're going to become family if

[1:48:24] we aren't already family,

[1:48:25] because we're going to be

[1:48:26] in this working very hard,

[1:48:27] either in the next couple

[1:48:28] of weeks or for the next six

[1:48:30] months because we've got

[1:48:31] to get a permanent fix put

[1:48:33] in place in the process

[1:48:36] by early next year. And you've

[1:48:38] made some powerful statements

[1:48:39] today. Thank you all.

[1:48:41] >> Colleagues

[1:48:44] do you want

[1:48:45] to add anything?

[1:48:47] >> I just want to thank all

[1:48:48] of you for being here today.

[1:48:50] It is so powerful when we come

[1:48:51] together and tell our story.

[1:48:53] My question here to

[1:48:54] Sacramento, does Sacramento

[1:48:55] care about San Mateo County?

[1:48:57] And if the Finance Committee

[1:48:59] and the governor was sitting

[1:49:01] in our shoes right now,

[1:49:03] what would they suggest we do?

[1:49:06] You're harming the people who

[1:49:08] have supported you all along. I

[1:49:11] know that I have campaigned

[1:49:13] for this governor. He cannot

[1:49:16] forget the many lives that are

[1:49:19] here that are going

[1:49:22] to be impacted by these cuts

[1:49:24] at a time when we're already

[1:49:25] under so much strain

[1:49:27] from the federal government.

[1:49:28] So, how does California say

[1:49:31] stand by and do this

[1:49:33] to a county when we already

[1:49:34] know by the H1, the HR1 cuts

[1:49:38] that are already impacting our

[1:49:40] cities? I don't understand it.

[1:49:42] I don't think Sacramento wants

[1:49:44] to show that they don't have a

[1:49:46] heart. But right now,

[1:49:47] I wonder if Sacramento has a

[1:49:48] heart for the residents of

[1:49:50] California, in particular,

[1:49:52] San Mateo County. Thank you for

[1:49:54] all that you're doing. I agree

[1:49:55] with my colleagues. Please,

[1:49:57] please. I think we need

[1:49:58] to get a campaign together

[1:49:59] by even district

[1:50:01] to help our cities to identify

[1:50:02] who you should be reaching

[1:50:03] out to. We can also put

[1:50:05] together a draft form,

[1:50:09] letter or email that can go

[1:50:10] out so that it's very easy

[1:50:11] for residents. Because if we

[1:50:12] don't make it easy

[1:50:14] for residents, everybody is

[1:50:16] super busy and doing so much,

[1:50:17] just trying to barely hang

[1:50:19] on right now. We can't take

[1:50:21] anything else. So, let's

[1:50:23] continue to fight. We are here

[1:50:25] with you, and I appreciate you

[1:50:27] for taking your time to come

[1:50:29] to San Mateo County today.

[1:50:32] >> Thank you very much. You

[1:50:33] know, first of all,

[1:50:35] let me just thank Supervisor

[1:50:36] Speier and Supervisor Mueller

[1:50:37] and the county staff, really,

[1:50:40] just so folks know they are the

[1:50:41] driver of a lot of the things

[1:50:43] that we're doing here on the

[1:50:46] San Mateo County, the VLF.

[1:50:47] So, can we give them a round

[1:50:49] of applause?

[1:50:50] [APPLAUSE]

[1:50:54] >> You know, let me just say

[1:50:56] this I was once a city

[1:50:58] council member,

[1:51:01] and I understand tough budgets.

[1:51:03] And, you know, what's

[1:51:06] before us is monumental.

[1:51:08] And I remember many of you I

[1:51:10] might have served with,

[1:51:11] and we had to deal with the

[1:51:12] Great Recession. We dealt

[1:51:14] with some issues around

[1:51:16] Lehman Brothers. And there's

[1:51:18] all sorts of challenges that

[1:51:20] have been upon us. But what

[1:51:21] we've shown time and time again

[1:51:23] is one,

[1:51:25] we have incredible council

[1:51:26] members, very smart people,

[1:51:28] city staff, city managers. We

[1:51:30] have people who are just, we

[1:51:33] know how

[1:51:34] to solve problems here. Now,

[1:51:36] this is a problem that,

[1:51:37] to be quite frank with you,

[1:51:38] is rather large.

[1:51:40] But I think what Supervisor

[1:51:42] Speier and Supervisor Mueller

[1:51:45] did today in setting this up is

[1:51:46] really trying

[1:51:48] to bring us together

[1:51:50] through cohesion. I think the

[1:51:52] urgency of looking

[1:51:54] at a trailer bill is prudent.

[1:51:57] And I think it's important,

[1:51:59] you know, as we move forward,

[1:52:02] just to the cities.

[1:52:03] And I want to recognize our

[1:52:05] Nonprofits provided providers.

[1:52:07] If you're a nonprofit provider

[1:52:09] here today, our CBO's,

[1:52:10] please stand up.

[1:52:12] Give a round

[1:52:13] of applause.

[1:52:15] [APPLAUSE]

[1:52:18] And I see Ana

[1:52:19] Pulido at the Healthcare

[1:52:21] District. Thank you

[1:52:23] for being here. And so,

[1:52:24] as we advance this work, you

[1:52:26] know, we always get

[1:52:28] through it. It's tough and it's

[1:52:29] challenging. The numbers are

[1:52:31] huge. Mr. Callagy, I didn't

[1:52:33] like the 18 positions

[1:52:34] in the assessor's office.

[1:52:37] But, you know,

[1:52:38] on a serious note,

[1:52:40] just thank you

[1:52:42] for participating, Jackie.

[1:52:44] You've been just an incredible,

[1:52:47] incredible leader. I have many

[1:52:48] friends and they say, oh,

[1:52:49] Jackie called again. Jackie

[1:52:50] called again. And they said it

[1:52:52] in a great way. And they said

[1:52:54] it because she is really

[1:52:57] dedicated to making this happen

[1:53:00] and protecting this county.

[1:53:02] And I just want to say,

[1:53:04] personally, Jackie, you're

[1:53:06] doing an incredible job

[1:53:07] reaching out to people nonstop.

[1:53:09] I don't know your endurance,

[1:53:11] but it's calling people late

[1:53:13] night, all my friends, but it's

[1:53:15] amazing what we can do

[1:53:16] together. And so, there was a

[1:53:19] president, one

[1:53:22] of my favorite presidents,

[1:53:23] that was President Obama. And

[1:53:25] President Obama believed

[1:53:27] in hope. And we always have

[1:53:29] to have hope

[1:53:30] in these tough times. And I

[1:53:32] think we'll pull together.

[1:53:33] So, thank you. Should I say

[1:53:35] Mr. Chair to be. Mr. President

[1:53:36] to be. But thank you so much

[1:53:38] for the opportunity.

[1:53:39] >> Thank you. Thank you,

[1:53:41] Supervisor Canepa.

[1:53:43] We need

[1:53:45] to take public comment

[1:53:47] at this time. So,

[1:53:48] at this time, on behalf of the

[1:53:50] county and each participating

[1:53:51] city,

[1:53:52] we will take public comment

[1:53:53] on the agenda item. Because

[1:53:54] this is a special meeting,

[1:53:55] public comment will be limited

[1:53:57] to the identified agenda items

[1:53:58] only. As

[1:54:00] with all public comment,

[1:54:02] members of the public who wish

[1:54:03] to address the board or any

[1:54:04] participating city should

[1:54:06] complete a speaker slip to make

[1:54:07] a public comment and hand it

[1:54:09] to the board clerk. Speakers

[1:54:11] are limited to one minute,

[1:54:12] subject to the discretion

[1:54:14] of the board Vice President.

[1:54:16] We will start

[1:54:17] with public comment

[1:54:18] from those here in person, and

[1:54:19] then we'll take public comment

[1:54:20] from those who have joined us

[1:54:22] online.

[1:54:23] >> Thank you.

[1:54:25] Vice President Mueller.

[1:54:26] There is no speaker slip

[1:54:27] at this moment

[1:54:29] from the chamber. We will now

[1:54:32] look at Zoom. If you wish

[1:54:34] to make a public comment,

[1:54:35] please raise your hand. No

[1:54:38] hands is raised Vice

[1:54:40] President.

[1:54:43] >> Okay. Well, I just want

[1:54:45] to thank you all for coming.

[1:54:47] And the fight continues

[1:54:49] together at this time will go

[1:54:51] ahead and adjourn.

[1:54:54] >> The time is 3:45pm and the

[1:54:57] meeting is adjourned.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on 2026-08-13 1:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORSMeeting of Multiagency Significance Pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 54954(b)(3)

Agenda

Transcript