>> Madam President, we will
start the meeting in 15
seconds.
It's now 2pm you may call
meeting to order.
>> Thank you. We're going
to reconvene to our special
Multiagency VLF meeting and I
will pass it over to our county
attorney who has a few words to
share regarding this study
session.
>> Thank you, Madam
President. Just a couple
of words on sort of the
administrative end. I just
wanted to note that
Multi agency meetings are
permitted under the Brown act.
Specifically, section 54954.
Subsection B3 of the
Government code provides that
legislative bodies, including
for example city councils or
town councils, may participate
in a meeting of multi-agency
significance that takes place
outside of their jurisdictional
boundaries as long as the
meeting takes place
within the jurisdiction of one
of the participating local
agencies and the is noticed by
all participating agencies. I'm
informed that the county and
some
of the cities or towns here in
the county who are present here
today as legislative bodies
have separately noticed this
meeting and published an agenda
consistent
with these requirements.
To be clear, cities are towns
that have a quorum
of their council members
present at the meeting and
notice the meeting would be
participating as a legislative
body. I think there are
probably going to be some
agencies where just have some
representative short
of a quorum, but we'll see that
as we go. I wanted
to go ahead and turn this over
to the clerk though so that the
clerk could share
with the public the means by
which they can participate or
comment at a later point
in the meeting. And I think
we'll also have interpretation
of those instructions as well.
>> Thank you. Members
of the public, the instruction
to participate
in today's meeting can be found
on the public agenda. The
instruction provided
information on how to submit
written comments and also how
to participate via Zoom.
Because this is a special
meeting,
public comments is limited
to identify agenda items only.
As with all public comments,
members of the public who wish
to address the board should
complete the speaker slip to
make public comments and hand
it to the board clerk.
Speakers are limited to 2
minutes subject
to the description
of the board president. Live
interpretation of this entire
meeting will be provided in
Spanish. To assess live
interpretation services in
Zoom via laptop or computer,
please click the interpretation
globe icon and select Spanish
language. If you're using a
smartphone or tablet,
please locate the three-dot
menu, select interpretation and
select Spanish language. And
finally click done. At this
time, I'll ask our interpreter,
Victor Hernandez
to provide these instructions
in Spanish.
>> Can I ask you
to press the button there?
Oh, is it not working? We're
going to have...
Yep. Can you try again?
>> Thank you.
>> Oh, perfect.
>> There we go.
Thanks, Madam Clerk. Good
afternoon, President Corzo and
all honorable supervisors.
Mr. Callagy, Mr. Mates, Mr.
Nibbelin, all county staff
Member, this member
of the public. Victor
Hernandez, Spanish interpreter.
[SPANISH SPEAKING]
Thank you very much.
>> Okay, thank you for that. I
will now ask the clerk of the
Board of Supervisors
to take a roll call
for the board
of supervisors and for each
city and town council that will
be participating in this
meeting as a legislative body,
the clerk will now take roll
call. And I wanted
to also specify that
for the cities, the clerk will
be naming the city or town.
And then we'll be asking
members of that city or town
to come up to the mic, state
their name and say that they
are present. And with that,
I will hand it over
to the clerk.
>> Thank you, Madam
President.
[CALLING ROLL]
>> All supervisors present, we
will now be passing a wireless
microphone for
to take the roll call for
participating cities and town
council. First, we are going
to call the city of Atherton.
>> Looks like we can move
to the next city.
>> Okay. Next, we have
Belmont.
>> And maybe if you're from
Belmont, you can just stand.
So.
>> President Julia Mates.
Mayor, we do not have a quorum.
>> Next Brisbane. Next, we have
Brisbane. Burlingame?
>> Michael Brownrigg, the mayor
of Burlingame we do also. We
also do not have a quorum.
>> Okay, perfect.
>> Next we have Daly City.
>> We skipped Colma.
>> Colma.
>> Cary slaughter, town of
Colma, No quorum.
>> Next, we have Daly City.
>> Yes. Glenn Sylvester, mayor
of Daly city. And we do have a
quorum.
>> City Councilmember Juslyn
Manalo.
>> Thank you.
>> Pamela de Giovani, Daly
City.
>> Next, we have East Palo
Alto.
>> Ruben Abrica, Vice Mayor.
And we don't have a quorum.
>> Next, we have Foster City.
>> Art Kiesel mayor, Foster
City. We do not have a quorum.
>> Next we have Half Moon
Bay.
>> Okay.
>> Hillsborough? Menlo Park?
>> Hello. Betsy Nash, Mayor,
Menlo Park. We do not have a
quorum.
>> Stephen Rainaldi, Mayor
Millbrae. And we do not have a
quorum.
>> Pacifica.
>> Christine Bowles, mayor. I'm
here with Vice Mayor Wright.
And we do not have a quorum.
>> And I'm vice mayor Wright.
>> Portola Valley.
>> Hi. Council member Judith
Hasko from Portola Valley.
We do not have a quorum.
>> Redwood City.
>> Good afternoon. Mayor
Elmer Martinez Saballos here
from Redwood City. We do not
have a quorum.
>> San Bruno?
>> Rico Medina, mayor
of the city of San Bruno. We do
not have a quorum.
>> San Carlos?
>> Prita Venkatesh, San
Carlos. We do not have a
quorum.
>> San Mateo.
>> Good afternoon. Adam
Loraine, Mayor of the City of
San Mateo. We have one
colleague, but we at this time
do not have a quorum.
>> Thank you.
Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash, San
Mateo city council.
>> South San Francisco.
>> Good afternoon. Vice Mayor
Mark Nagales. We do not have a
quorum, but I am joined by one
of my colleagues.
>> Flor Nicholas, Council
Member, South San Francisco. We
don't have a quorum.
>> Woodside? Okay, Madam
President, that's the end
of the roll call.
>> Okay, so before we move on
to take action
to set the agenda, I want to
say that this is actually our
Shina's first time clerking a
meeting and it's the most
complicated meeting I've ever
had to run. So, can we give her
a hand of applause, please?
[APPLAUSE]
With that, we will move on
to take action
to set the agenda.
Specifically, we will
for the county board and for
each participating city and
town, in alphabetical order,
consider a motion
to do the following A set,
adopt and approve agenda
of the County Board of
Supervisors as the agenda for
this multi-agency meeting and B
approve the president of the
County Board of Supervisors as
serving as chair and presiding
over this multi-agency meeting.
And if I am
to step away approving the
Vice President of the County
Board of Supervisors
to serve as chair and preside
over the Multiagency meeting
and C approve the clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
to take minutes,
receive and manage public
comment, and to provide
requested translation services
and ADA accommodations
to the extent required
under applicable law
for this multi-agency meeting,
each of the foregoing items
will be approved by one action
on the part of the county.
After the county has adopted
the above motion, we will move
to each participating city and
town and ask that these items
be approved by one action for
each participating city and
town.
>> Madam President, if I could.
I think that actually given
that we only have one city
with a quorum,
it would only be Daly City that
we would have to take that
action from.
>> I love that.
So, we will be able
to trim things
down so much more simple.
Perfect. With that said,
can I get a motion
from a member of the
Board of Supervisors
to approve the agenda?
>> So moved.
>> Thank you. We have a motion
by Supervisor Gauthier. A
second by Supervisor Speier.
Roll call vote,
please.
[CALLING ROLL]
>> Motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you. And now we'll do
roll call for the City of
Daly City.
>> If we could get a motion
from the City of Daly City.
>> Glenn Sylvester. So, moved.
>> Second.
>> Can we just see a show
of hands as to approval
of the motion and the second.
It's unanimous. Three. All
three present.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. With that being done,
we will now move on
to item number six. And I will
be turning this item over to
County Executive Callagy. And I
believe he will be working
with county staff and staff
from participating cities and
our labor partners to take us
through this item. County
Executive Callagy.
>> Thank you, President Corzo
and members of the board. This
truly is a historic meeting,
but it shows how we stand
shoulder to shoulder in a time
of crisis. And I want
to thank all my colleagues, the
city managers who have come
together very quickly, who have
been thought partners and
working with us
on this very unique problem,
along
with the elected officials,
our non-profits who are here
with us also certainly our
unions and our wonderful
government employees. The
staggering loss
of the positions,
as you will hear
in just a few minutes, will be
catastrophic, and I mean
nothing less than catastrophic
to this county. It will change
the face of delivery
of services to our residents.
There will be widespread
impacts of a historic nature.
And let me just reiterate that
nowhere in the history
of the state of California can
we find a situation where one
county is targeted
to the extent of losing $236
million is staggering. And it's
particularly galling
in the face of the fact that we
have done collectively,
this county and the cities,
everything we could do
to fill
unfunded mandates
by the state,
including being a leader on
Prop 1 and SB 43, certainly
being a leader in the care
courts and home key. And
to now as a county entity,
look at a 15% reduction
in our general fund. It's
staggering. It is staggering.
So, what I'd like
to do is run this board through
what those impacts would
potentially be and really
inform the public what we're
looking at here. So, if I could
have the clerk bring up the
first slide. Thank you. So, the
unfunded VLF shortfall
for the county would be $134.2
million. At risk is 603
positions. And I'll go
into detail about that
in a few minutes. The reduction
to date. And I've asked our
department heads,
our wonderful department heads
on a very short notice to go
into their budgets and identify
what this could look
like if we have
to sustain this cut. And we've
come up so far with 120.4
million, we still have another
13.8 million to go to
to fill that gap. I can go
on the next slide, please. And
you can see we've tried
to break it down the 603
positions in various buckets.
Safety net services of 49.9
million, public safety 42.2
million and community services
28.3 million. But those
are. I think Ms. Lynn talked
about just statistics. We need
to understand what really that
means. So, if we can go on
to the next slide. So, let's
start
with safety net services. You
can see the positions and the
impact to our Medi Cal
recipients and what that would
mean to them and the positions
in our human services agency
in matching funds. And I don't
think a lot of people consider
the fact that as we reduce our
workforce we will also lose
out. And as we reduce services,
we will also lose out on state
and federal matching funds.
So, the detail,
this table really shows some
of the cuts.
But what does it mean? It would
really make it harder
for thousands
of vulnerable residents
in this county to access
essential healthcare and
benefits. Of the 191 potential
staff cuts
in health department, 90% or
171 provide direct patient care
and services, including nurses,
physicians, licensed mental
health professionals. They
would include the reductions
in closures
of specialized health services
for children, chronic
conditions and disabilities and
seniors and individuals with
serious mental health issues,
behavioral health services
for some of the county's most
vulnerable residents would be
reduced staffing restrictions
would reduce or eliminate
specialized services
for people with serious mental
illnesses or substance abuse
disorders or some of those
13,000 medical beneficiaries
who rely on us each year. It
would also likely shift more
people
toward emergency departments,
inpatient care and higher cost
interventions. Reducing staff
would also have the impact
to respond to elder abuse and
neglect cases and slow in-home
support for nearly 10,000 of
our older and disabled
residents. Service cuts,
particularly impact service for
youth would include a 1/3
reduction in nurse home
visiting programs that support
pregnant individuals and
families with young children.
The reduction of elimination
of specialized health services
for teens and elimination of
school based mental health
programs. Additionally,
by eliminating our ability to
identify health and mental
health conditions early,
connect with residents with
care resources will worsen
health outcomes. In San Mateo
County, cuts to the workforce
that administer public health
benefits will reduce access
to critical safety net. We lose
approximately 100 HSA staff,
including benefiting and social
workers. It will create longer
wait times even given the fact
that HR1 has now complicated
that and required that we do
verification twice a year.
Larger backlogs and delays
of residents seeking
to apply renewal eligibility
for food assistance and
position losses would also
reduce the county's capacity to
conduct timely and effective
child abuse investigation.
Something that we take pride
in, in making sure that we
safeguard kids and then adding
insult
to injury. I talked a little
bit about this. It will result,
those reductions would result
in 15 million additional funds
in matching funds that we
receive. So, now let's go on
to the public safety services
in the county. You would see
52 sworn deputies and as you
all know on this board and
in the audience,
it is so difficult to fill
sworn positions and what they
have to go through and the
money that we invest in making
sure that we have qualified
people out there policing our
communities, we'd have over
1,000 people potentially lose
supervision from probation
with the elimination
of potentially 40 positions
in probation, 23 positions in
the district attorney's office.
And I can't even begin
to say how our DA
right now really runs a very
lean department and prides
himself
on making sure that we are,
we set the standard in
making sure our victims are
taken care of and prosecuting
those and holding them
responsible. And
to cripple him with these
cuts would be just devastating.
And then 400 plus partners
would lose emergency
coordination.
But what does that,
I mean those are again numbers.
But what does that really mean?
You know, when we look
at the overall Public Safety
Communications 911 would lose
eight employees and slow
down services for some of the
300,000 calls that they take a
year. Half
of those being emergency calls.
The 52 sworn potential
reductions would include 44
deputy sheriffs, eight
sergeants,
eight patrol deletions with
slow response and thin coverage
in our unincorporated area,
North Fair Oaks and
Burlingame Hills and La Honda
Skyline. And we would close the
North Fair Oaks and Broadway
substations potentially to
reach that full reduction
target. Sheriff may also have
to consider closing a jail
facility and transferring
incarcerated people out
of the county at a higher cost
and certainly separating them
from their loved ones.
We don't look at closing
specialized law enforcement
units like the Narcotics Task
Force and Gang Intelligence
Unit and SWAT and Marine
patrol and bomb squad. All
of those would be impact along
like I said earlier
with our dispatch services.
The 40 cuts
in probation would again lead
to us not being able
to supervise over 1100 people
that are currently being
supervised probation on
probation including court
ordered drug,
alcohol and GPS mining.
Reduced supervision for 284
domestic violence offenders and
end supervision of 178 clients
in Veterans Treatment Court.
All of these devastating
effects and impacts to our
criminal justice system and
again to cut the 23 out of the
district attorney's office
potentially would have long
lasting and really cripple our
criminal justice system. So, we
can go on to the next one.
Community services just really
quickly. You know, these are
the things that this board has
worked so hard for and this
board has done an incredible
job to be very judicious,
judicious in what we do and
what we spend money on and
to save and in the money that
you have put aside to really
impact our unfunded liability
and lead the state in that all
of these things would be
in jeopardy with
this devastating loss.
Fewer county resources
available to maintain the
community's quality
of life and infrastructure.
You talk about our parks or
wildfire and flood risk
hazards, climate resiliency
initiatives and certainly the
delivery of capital
improvements which we've prided
ourselves on
in the last several years. It
would increase obviously our
operating costs to our parks.
It would be devastating. And,
and we've got so many beautiful
parks that would just. We would
not be able to staff anymore.
We'd have to close them down to
fewer hours and less
maintenance in order
to do that. And you think about
the beautiful beach park we
just opened up today, Don
Horsley County Park at
Tunitas Creek Beach. Certainly
the residents of this county
would experience slower and
reduced response
across all essential county
Functions including building
and planning and permits and
code enforcement and pesticide
investigations and election
services and property, and
on and on and on. All those
vital services that our
residents rely on daily
to get business done
in the decrease
in communications,
community engagement. You know,
we pride ourselves in hearing
from the community and reaching
out to the community. All
of that would be impacted. And
of course, the impacts
on technology and our ability
to stay competitive and
innovative would all be
impacted. So, these are some of
the things that we are looking
at being impacted by. And
you'll hear from the residents
of our cities next who will
suffer similar devastating,
irreparable harm
to their communities because
of these cuts. Again, no fault
of our own. This is a broken
system. We gave up something
in 2004, and we were promised,
promised by the state
to get that back through the
property tax allocation,
through VLF. And they have now
singled us out and reneged
on that. And shame
on them for doing that to
a county that has supported
them and been the leader
in this state in almost every
initiative that they had put
forward. Even those
initiatives were unfunded.
So, thank you, President Corzo
and members of the board, for
letting me have a few minutes
to really talk
about the devastating impacts
to San Mateo County
with the loss
of these VLF funds.
>> Thank you. Before we move
on to a presentation
from our other partners, do we
have any questions or comments
from the board? Okay. Do we
have another presentation from
a city or labor partner?
>> I think we're going to start
with our labor partner. Ms.
Lynn would like
to come up and start. And, you
know, I think she did such an
incredible job talking about,
these are just not statistics.
These are wonderful employees
who have dedicated their life
to public service and who we
value so much. And we train and
they're here. They show up
every day
to provide a service, whether
on the front lines or
behind the scenes. They're the
economic. They're the engine
that makes this county work.
And that's not lost on us
at all.
>> So, I would like to
personally welcome our
legendary labor leader, Julie
Lind. We give her a round
of applause for all
of the work she's doing on this
and many other important issues
in our county. Welcome.
>> Thank you. It's not work if
it's something that you love.
Thank you
for your kind words, County
Executive Callagy, and thank
you, everyone on the board,
for your support. As was
stated, I'm Julie Lind
with the San Mateo Labor
Council, and I was asked to
this afternoon reiterate
several
of the points that I made
during the press conference,
because quite frankly,
the real human impact
of this bears repeating. As I
said, we in the labor community
are deeply concerned
about the possibility
of losing as many as 1000
public sector jobs. These are
good family sustaining careers
held by people who've built
their lives here. They pay rent
and mortgages here. They buy
groceries, eat
at local restaurants, pay
for child care, and support
small businesses throughout
San Mateo County. When those
jobs disappear, we don't just
lose the services the workers
provide. We pull millions
of dollars
in wages and spending out
of the local economy. And that
affects another set
of workers and businesses. And
the impact continues
to ripple outward. But there's
something else I hope we don't
lose sight of. Many of these
employees have dedicated years
and sometimes decades
of their lives
in public service. They chose
careers taking care
of our residents,
maintaining our communities,
and making this county a safe
and healthy place to live.
They responded during storms,
fires and other emergencies.
They've helped families find
housing and services. They've
cared for people experiencing
mental health crises. They've
maintained our roads,
staffed our libraries and
parks, and done the everyday
work that keeps local
government functioning. They
built careers
around serving this community.
They're in this room right now
because they love this
community. And now,
through no fault
of their own,
they're being asked to live
with the possibility that those
careers could simply disappear.
For a worker, a layoff isn't an
abstract budget reduction. It
means asking,
can my family afford
to stay here? Where do I find
another job that allows me
to support my family in one
of the most expensive places
to live in the country? San
Mateo county can't afford to
lose experienced public
servants either. Once that
experience and institutional
knowledge walks out the door,
rebuilding it is incredibly
difficult. We appreciate the
board's leadership and that of
our state legislative
delegation.
In confronting this crisis,
labor is committed to standing
with the county and our
communities and demanding a
permanent state solution.
These workers have spent their
careers showing up for San
Mateo County, and now the state
of California needs to show up
for them. Thank you,
>> Madam President. I think now
we have a list that. That you
have for the cities,
but could we ask that Foster
City go first? Apparently, the
representative has a plane
to catch.
>> Okay. I welcome the
representative from the city
of Foster City. And let's get.
Do they have a slide deck?
No. Okay. Welcome. Please
introduce yourself. Marlene.
>> Good evening, President
Corzo, members of the board,
county staff,
and everyone who's here
in the chambers. I'm here
with our mayor, Art Keisel,
representing the city of
Foster City. I'm Marlene
Subhashini, Assistant City
Manager for the city of
Foster City. And I'm here today
to stand with San Mateo County
and our fellow cities
in urging the state to fully
restore the VLF funding owed to
our communities and
importantly,
to provide a permanent solution
for Foster City. This is not an
abstract budget issue. Our VLF
shortfalls for fiscal year
2526 is approximately $4.34
million, more than 6% of our
general fund operating budget.
For a small 4 square mile,
largely built out city like
Foster City, that is
significant. We don't have
large areas of land,
developable land
to generate new property taxes.
We have a relatively small but
stable commercial tax base and
real limited opportunities
to expand our revenue streams.
Yet our responsibility to
provide essential services does
not change. To put $4.3 million
loss in perspective, that
amount is roughly equivalent
to the annual cost of 13
positions
in our organization, including
12 of those
in our police department and
one in our building safety
department. And the impact just
doesn't end there. Foster City
is a 20% partner in San Mateo
Consolidated Fire. Our share of
the fire department's VLF
shortfall adds approximately
another $660,000, bringing the
total impact to our community
to roughly 5 million
in just one year. We were
reminded just last week of
exactly what these essential
public safety resources mean
to our community. The major
structure fire at 815 Sea spray
Lane required an extraordinary
emergency response. Our
firefighters and public safety
personnel responded when a
community needed them most.
These are precisely the
essential services that this
funding helps sustain. And this
comes at a time when the cost
of providing these services,
from public safety
to infrastructure, continues
to rise. Foster City has worked
hard
to be fiscally responsible, but
reserves are not a permanent
revenue source. And local
governments should not be
forced to choose between
maintaining essential services
and absorbing a state created
funding shortfall. We stand
united with the county and our
neighboring jurisdictions
in asking the state
to fully fund its obligation,
restore the dollars owed to our
communities and enact a
permanent fix so that we are
not back here fighting the same
battle and year after year.
Thank you very much.
>> Thank you so much,
Marlene. And thank you,
Mayor.
>> Excuse me.
>> Welcome.
>> Because of the relating
to the fire, we have our fire
department or a consolidated
fire department,
but we had a lot
of mutual aid. And what happens
when that mutual aid is not
there? Thank you.
>> Thank you. So, I am going
to ask that County Executive
Callagy invite the cities
because I do not have the list.
I could go alphabetical.
>> Yeah. Either way.
President Corzo.
>> Is there A list that. Yeah.
>> Okay. Oh, it is
alphabetical. Oh, okay. It's
just alphabetical. I thought it
was a different list. Does the
city of Belmont have a
presentation or something?
They would like to welcome
Mayor Mates.
>> Good afternoon, President
Corzo and members
of the board. I'm here with
City Manager Afshin Oskoui. I
want to thank you first
by allowing us
to come and speak
with you. I'd like
to thank your county staff for
your leadership and persistence
in advocating
for what is right, not only
for the county, but for all 20
cities that rely
on these revenues to provide
essential local services. We
also appreciate our state
delegation and all
of our partners who continue
to carry this message to
Sacramento. We recognize the
state has significant fiscal
challenges, but as I said
at the press conference,
those challenges cannot
continue to be addressed by
shifting the burden onto local
governments that have very
limited tools to respond. For
Belmont, this is a serious
budget issue. We are a
community of about 27,000
residents with a very lean
organization and a relatively
small general fund. Our council
has been extremely disciplined
in managing our resources,
finding efficiencies,
controlling costs,
and using reserves responsibly.
But there is a limit
to how much we can absorb. Our
current VLF exposure is
about 10% of our general fund.
At that level, this is no
longer something we can simply
manage through efficiencies.
If this funding continues
to erode,
we will ultimately be forced to
make difficult choices
affecting police services,
street and park maintenance
infrastructure,
child care and youth programs,
senior services, housing
implementation, and other
crucial services our residents
depend on. We've been asked to
demonstrate what those impacts
could look like,
and it is sobering. These
aren't services we want
to reduce. These are the
services our community needs us
to provide,
and it's our responsibility
to provide them. That's why I
appreciate the county's
leadership
in bringing us all together.
This isn't a request
for additional state funding,
that it is a plea to restore a
funding mechanism that local
governments have relied upon
for years
to provide essential services.
We stand with the county,
our fellow cities, our labor
partners,
and our state delegation
in continuing this fight
for a permanent solution.
Thank you again
for your leadership and
for allowing us to share
Belmont's perspective today.
>> Thank you. And I believe we
do have someone here from
Brisbane, and I may be wrong.
So, let's move on to
Burlingame. Welcome, Council
Member Brownrigg. And I'm
sorry, I don't know your name,
but please introduce
yourself.
>> Thank you very much,
President Corzo. It's Michael
Brownrigg. With the mayor of
Burlingame and Lisa Goldman,
longtime city manager
for the great city of
Burlingame. I want you
to know that our city council,
our city staff and our 31,000
residents stand shoulder
to shoulder with you
in this fight for fairness.
Thank you very much for your
commentary this morning. We
affiliate ourselves and
appreciate those strong words
today. As I reflected
on this, I took a step back.
To me, the relationship between
the state and its many cities
and counties ought to be one of
a strong working partnership.
We're all serving California
residents and we all should
want our state, our cities,
our counties
to be the best run
in the country. For our part,
the city of Burlingame has
answered Sacramento's call,
for example, on housing. Our
city has added 1,800 new homes
in the last six years,
a 15% increase. We have another
800 homes in the pipeline that
would yield a 20% increase
in housing. And we accomplished
this by promising our residents
that we could invite more
people into Burlingame, deliver
extra water and sewer and parks
and safety services
for our new neighbors without
impairing service quality.
That was the promise we made.
We also accomplished our
housing goals by breaking one
of the cardinal rules
of local city government,
which is we took about 100
acres of commercially zoned
property and we rezoned it
for mixed use housing. Now,
that's perceived as a money
loser by traditionalists,
but that's the way we wanted to
make sure that we could deliver
on these promises. Now, I want
to be clear. We made those
changes because it was the
right thing to do
for our state,
for our city and
for working families,
not because we were told
to do it, but we did. We did
assume that Sacramento would at
least have our backs
financially, given the
governor's and the
legislature's constant talk
about housing. Instead, the VLF
incompetence reflects, and I
think the county manager got it
right. Sacramento reneging
on its financial promise
to cities and counties. And we
take that personally. And this
couldn't come at a worse time
for the city of Burlingame.
With revenue from hotel visitor
tax still today, six years on
from COVID not as high as it
was before COVID hit. We're
still digging our way out. We
went through virtually all
of our reserves to get
through that period. And as we
dig our way out,
we're counting on VLF
to get us there. So, I have a
message for our partners in
Sacramento. Stop telling us
what to do if you're not going
to pay us what you owe. Thank
you very much.
>> Thank you. And just
to clarify, Councilmember
Brownrigg, I know your name. I
just didn't know your city
count. City manager's name.
Thank you. And now I'd like
to welcome someone representing
Colma, and Colma is not
present. So, I'd like to
welcome the four council
members from Daly City. I know
there's four of you now.
>> Good afternoon, Madam
President.
>> And the City Manager.
Welcome.
>> Thank you. I'm Tim Nevin,
the Assistant City Manager.
And today Mayor Glenn
Sylvester will be speaking
on behalf of the city.
But I also wanted
to note that Council Member
Proano did also join after roll
call this afternoon.
>> Welcome.
>> Thank you. I'll let the
mayor speak.
>> I wasn't prepared. Tim,
thank you so much. I'm Glenn
Sylvester. Those
of you who know me, everything
is dynamic and it's fluid. I
tried to take experience
by what happens. So, I'd like
to first start off
by saying hello to Madam
President Corzo, the rest
of the Board of Supervisors,
the county staff,
and the other staff. Okay,
thank you so much. I'd like
to preface before I start with
a commentary I heard earlier
by Supervisor Jackie Speier.
And what you said is the reason
why you are wearing red because
you are hot mad. Well, those
of you and those a lot of folks
know I'm law enforcement
centric. And if you're not
in law enforcement, you would
not understand the tie that I'm
wearing. Well, basically,
it's the thin blue line, which
is probably what you'll have
due to the loss
of public safety. So, I'm
Glenn Sylvester, the mayor of
Daly City. Thank you to the
Board of Supervisors for
hosting this press conference
and bringing our cities
together to address what is
fundamentally a state of
California funding issue. I
would like
to thank our city manager, our
assistant city manager and
staff for keeping us all up to
date because this is a very
complicated situation,
and I appreciate them
for that. As you hear me speak,
you will hear some
redundancies. And the only
reason why you're going
to have redundancies because
it goes
to show that we are on the same
page and that we understand.
The message from Daly City is
simple. And I promise I already
had this written. But I did
hear some phrases today,
and I'm going to repeat them.
The VLF shortfall is not just a
budget problem. It is a threat
to essential public services
to our communities and
to the partnership between the
state and local governments.
Daly City is one
of the lower income cities in
San Mateo County. We have a
limited tax base and we already
operate with a very lean budget
for the fiscal year 2025
through 2026, Daly City is
facing a 12.15-million-dollar
VLF shortfall. That could mean
the loss of nearly 50 positions
and more than $12 million
in services and expenditures.
As Julie Lind said earlier,
and this is the first,
the first redundancy. This is
not numbers on a spreadsheet.
They represent people, programs
and services that our residents
depend on every day. If this
shortfall becomes reality,
they represent people,
programs and Daly City could be
forced out
of a fire engine company.
Remember we had a fire
representative who said
about saving the child. Took
them six minutes. Well, many
times I've said on council
on the response time,
six minutes. It takes me six
minutes just to get out
of bed. This will also
terminate our mental health
clinician program
to which the Board of
Supervisors approved quite some
time ago. It would eliminate
library and recreation programs
and close senior centers and
recreation facilities. That is
the first level of impact and
that's the local level. It
means fewer emergency responses
on our streets. It means fewer
opportunities
for our children and families.
It means fewer services for our
seniors and residents who need
mental health support.
But the significance
of this issue goes beyond
Daly City, which brings me
to the second level,
and that is regional. Every
city is connected. When one
city loses essential services,
the pressure does not stop
at our borders. Residents
travel across jurisdictions,
public safety agencies,
they work together. You heard
the term earlier, mutual aid.
Libraries, parks and
transportation and housing and
social service serve a regional
population. A funding decision
made by the state can therefore
create consequences through
San Mateo County. So, I talked
about the first, I talked
about the second. Now there is
a third level and that's the
statewide significance. This is
about fundamental relationship
between Sacramento and
California cities. Local
governments are closest to the
people and we are responsible
for delivering many of the
services that residents rely
on most. But cities cannot
Simply fund another $12
million. Cities like Daly City
have limited ability to raise
local revenue while the demand
for police, fire,
mental health services,
libraries, recreation and other
essential programs continue
to grow. When Sacramento
reduces funding
for local government,
Sacramento does not deliver the
service cuts the local
communities do. The cuts happen
in our neighborhoods. They
happen when a fire engine is
taken off the street. They
happen when police staffing is
reduced. They happen when a
mental health program that
disappears. They happen when a
library program is eliminated.
They happen when a senior
citizen or recreation facility
closes. This is why it is not
simply a Daly city issue or
even a San Mateo County issue.
It is a California issue. We
need the state to recognize the
real-world consequences of the
VLF shortfall and fully restore
the funding that local
communities rely upon. The
state must partner
with local governments,
not force cities to choose
between public safety, mental
health, libraries, recreation,
and services for our seniors.
Daly City stands with San
Mateo County, our fellow
cities,
and our state representatives
in demanding a solution. Our
residents deserve better. Our
communities deserve better.
And California must keep its
commitment to the cities that
provide essential services.
Every day we call on the state
of California
to do the right thing,
restore this critical funding,
protect local government
services, and protect the
residents that we were elected
to serve. Thank you all very
much. And I'll turn it. I'll
turn it over
to assistant city manager
for any things that I may have
missed.
>> No, thank you.
You covered everything.
Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. With that, we
will be inviting council member
Abrica, representing the city of
East Palo Alto and your city
manager. Welcome, Assistant
City Manager. So, I'm just
going to stop guessing. You all
introduce yourselves.
>> A lot of things going
on today, so don't worry.
We're all worried.
But my name is Ruben Abrica. I
currently serve as vice mayor
the city of East Palo Alto.
And today with me, Shiri
Klima, our assistant City
Manager. First of all, I want
to thank all of you for the
work that you're doing all our
sister cities. And I know that
our city manager,
who's not able
to be here today, and Shiri
and others have been working
very closely with your staff
to try to figure this thing
out. I also want
to take a second to recognize
Supervisor Gauthier for having
served our city honorably, all
supervisors, of course,
and also Jackie Speier
for having been one
of the founding members
of our city. I want to say
in my younger years,
I was involved
in the incorporation movement.
We are the youngest city, one
of the most vulnerable,
and I had the honor of serving
on the first city Council.
What I can tell you is that we
have come a long way. We have
had many difficult periods
of time in our city. This
shortfall would really become
one of the most difficult
economic situations because I
feel, after all, people are
already suffering so much
in their daily economic life
across the country,
across the state and this
county in East Palo Alto. This
is the kind of thing that would
be catastrophic
for many families,
for the government, too. So, I
feel like I want to be positive
and I hope that the governor
and the legislature will solve
this. But I also want
to prepare for the worst. And
this is my thought
for my city. And that is that
as elected officials and
management who run our cities,
we have to work very closely
with our employees. We have
to work very closely with our
union representatives and the
community. And that's why this
is important that you're
holding this public meeting
to let everyone know.
But I really feel at other
times that's what we've done.
We've been able
to get through. We have
to work
with the heart and soul
of a city,
which is the people who run it
on a day-to-day basis,
and that to the employees
in their unions. So,
with that, I'll let Shiri
share a few of the details,
which are not unlike what other
sister cities are going to be
facing if this happens.
>> Thank you, Vice Mayor.
For the city of East Palo
Alto, the revised VLF estimates
increase our Projected general
fund revenue loss
from approximately 2 1/2
million to 4.6 million
annually. This may not sound
like much relative to some
of the other cities, however,
represents roughly 13% of our
general fund operating budget.
Unlike larger organizations,
East Palo Alto has a relatively
small lean workforce and has
operated
with these lean staffing levels
for many years. 13% staffing
cuts would reduce our already
limited capacity and to provide
our predominantly low-income
Latino community of about
30,000 people the level
of support that it relies
on so deeply and deserves. We
are not today prepared to list
precisely which positions could
be cut. And to avoid layoffs,
East Palo Alto will look
at all the alternatives.
Freezing vacant positions,
employee furloughs, etc.
However, we are one of the
lowest income minority
communities in the state of
California and these
alternatives will not last long
and our residents will be very
critically harmed
in this process. East Palo
Alto calls on the state to fix
this dire problem immediately.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. With that, I'd
like to invite representatives
from the city of Half Moon
Bay. Oh, let's now invite
representatives from the City
of Menlo Park. I skipped
Hillsboro because I was told no
one's here from Hillsboro. Am I
wrong?
>> That's right.
>> No, I'm right. Okay.
Welcome.
>> And I'd just like
to correct that.
Council member Jeff Schmidt
is here with us tonight.
>> Welcome.
>> Great. Good afternoon,
President Corzo, Vice
President Mueller and honorable
members of the board. I'm
Justin Murphy. I'm the City
Manager for the City of Menlo
Park. Menlo Park's 34,000
residents are served by 292
full time staff and over 100
temporary staff. Dedicated
employees are the most
important asset that we have
to deliver critical services
to the community. It pains me
to appear
before you today and speak
of potential devastating
impacts from the loss of $5.4
million of VLF funds, which
represents approximately 6% of
the city's general fund budget.
Our personnel expenses comprise
60%
of our general fund budget.
In order to absorb $5.4 million
annually. As a reduction, the
City of Menlo Park may be faced
with a loss of 27 positions,
which equates
to a 9% reduction
in permanent staff and the loss
of a comparable number
of temporary employees. These
losses would be
across every department
in the city. And I'm about
to provide an illustrative
of what this could look like,
its potential cuts. This is
just to paint a picture
of what the City of Menlo Park
may need to consider. Loss
of positions in the police
department could result
in the significant reduction
in traffic enforcement. This is
one of the services that
address high profile community
concerns aimed
at improving pedestrian,
bicycle and vehicular safety.
This elimination coupled
with the elimination of
community services officers
would result
in slower response times.
calls for service given the
increased impacts
on our patrol. The loss
of positions
in public works engineers,
project managers and
transportation planners would
result in failed infrastructure
and safety concerns, more
potholes, poor and failed
streets,
prolonged street light outages,
delay, delayed replacement park
playgrounds and continue
challenges implementing
Vision Zero projects. The loss
of sustainability positions
would reduce capacity to
achieve community identified
priorities in the City's
Climate Action Plan and
environmental justice element
impacting the cities to support
statewide climate goals. Loss
of positions
in community development
across planning, building and
housing would reduce capacity
to provide timely review of
entitlements and plan check
services to the community,
jeopardizing the city's ability
to meet minimum state statutory
requirements. Implementation of
housing element programs
including work on affordable
housing and anti-displacement
efforts would also be severely
impacted. Finally, the loss
of positions in our library
Community services could resume
could result in reducing
library hours significantly,
up to a 50% reduction
in library hours. Coupled
with that would be a reduction
in library programming for
which there could be the
elimination of story times,
ESL, conversation clubs,
summer reading, no book groups
and no teen events. Again, this
paints a picture of the
potential decisions that the
city will be facing
in the coming months and year.
The loss of $5.4 million
annually, which would be a
significant impact. So, again,
thank you all on the board
for bringing this attention
to this matter and devoting
time
to this important topic.
>> Thank you so much
for joining us. With that. I'd
like to welcome the Mayor of
Millbrae and any other
representatives from
Millbrae.
>> Thank you. Madam President
Corzo, esteemed Board of
Supervisors, County Executive
Callagy. As the Mayor of
Millbrae, we're incredibly
appreciative that you've
brought this issue
to the forefront. We really see
the value
in having this session
to everyone else. Good
afternoon. This $226 million
VLF shortfall facing San
Mateo County is not just a
number on a spreadsheet
represents real impacts to the
services our residents rely
on and to the people who
provide those services.
For the City of Millbrae, this
shortfall means approximately
about a 5% hit
to our general fund. To absorb
that loss responsibly,
we'll have to make difficult
choices including deferring
infrastructure projects that
our community needs. That means
projects like Safe Routes to
Schools, which improves traffic
safety and helps protect
children and families will have
to wait. We'll also have to
defer infrastructure
investments that address long
term flooding challenges. And
unfortunately, Millbrae is not
the only community facing
difficult choices. Some cities
in our county are being forced
to consider layoffs. I want
to pause for a moment. These
aren't simply positions
on an organizational flowchart.
These are members
of our community. They're our
neighbors, our family members,
fathers, friends, parents,
children. When a city loses
employees, families feel that
impact and it ripples
throughout the whole entire
community. The bottom line is
simple. When local government
loses 226 million, our
communities don't just lose
dollars. We lose services,
projects,
and stability. I'm grateful
that at this point, the city
of Millbrae does not anticipate
laying off staff. We are very
aware of the seriousness
of this situation. We're
closely monitoring the impacts
of this shortfall and looking
for every responsible
opportunity to tighten our
budget and operate more
efficiently. The goal is clear.
We don't want to be in a
position tomorrow where we have
to choose between the services
our residents need and the
people who provide them. Thank
you.
>> Thank you. I'd now like
to welcome my colleagues
from the city of Pacifica.
Mayor Boles, are you the mayor?
I can't remember. Okay, see,
I forget. But welcome.
>> Thank you so much
for having us here, Noelia, and
all of you. We know that
Pacifica is a very special place
to each one
of you. I'm here today with
Vice Mayor Wright and our
Assistant City Manager, Julia
Carter. I'm tired of going to
Sacramento. I was very grateful
to be there with all of you and
really appreciate the county's
leadership because we couldn't
do this by ourselves. Right.
So, we are all stronger
with you as the leaders,
with the county attorney, also
with deep ties to Pacifica.
Hello, John. And I would
like us all to be wearing red
the next time we have
to go because, yeah,
we're all fighting mad.
They're taking our money and
they're taking our time that we
need to be doing other work,
you know, instead. So, Pacifica
is already struggling with a
3.8 million structural deficit.
A million of that this year
that we processed was because
of the VLF funding cuts
from this year. As a city
that's 94% residential, we
simply do not earn enough tax
revenue to maintain our city.
We're working on that. We're
doing a lot
of economic development work,
looking at some hotels,
increased housing and mixed
use. But all that takes time.
Our previous councils for years
have cut our budget and our
staff. And if you look
at comparable cities, we're 20%
understaffed already today.
Our employees work so hard
to make up this gap,
but recruitment, retention,
and the ability
to handle extra work in an
emergency are very difficult.
I'm going to give you one very
specific example. We had only
one senior public works
engineer. Roland Yap,
wonderful guy.
In a normal city,
he would have managed about
three public works projects.
In our city, he had to manage
10. It was already a lot. And
unlike other cities,
our permitting also has to go
through the Coastal
Commission, so we have extra
burden on our staff and time
for our projects. And as you
know, we're the canary
in the coal mine
for climate change,
our impacts
of a warming ocean.
In my district alone, we've
already lost three apartment
buildings and 11 homes. And I'm
terrified
about this coming super El
Nino because we have more
in harm's way right now. Our
pier collapsed on June 4, one
month into our new City
manager, Sean Charpentier's
tenure. And, you know, we,
without warning,
we had a structural report.
There was nothing imminently
wrong with that portion
of the pier. So, there
was nothing we could have
done ahead of time to deal
with that. But that was the
straw that broke the camel's
back. We lost that senior
engineer to another city
because he has a life,
he has voice. How can you
expect a city employee
to give and give and give, and
at some point,
it is just too much. We've just
lost our public works director,
too. So, we're really
struggling as it is
with these budget cuts. Through
our budget process this year,
our council and our staff have
worked really hard
to find those cuts
to balance the 2.8 million
deficit affecting programs,
services, staffing,
and public safety. We just had
a special meeting last week
because we're trying to solve
this problem ourselves. We
voted unanimously
to put a 1 sales tax measure
on our ballot. That puts us at
10.75% sales tax. I think that
would be the fourth highest
in the whole state. Right. And
we need to get special governor
approval that we're still
waiting on to make sure we can
even do that. We're trying
to take care
of ourselves and not ask
for more money.
But isn't it maddening that
to put something on the ballot
and then that is proposed
to raise $5 million
for our city, and now next
year, the state is looking
to take away 4.5 million extra,
you know, from the VLF. It's
maddening. How do we promise
our residents that we're
finally going to take care of
roads that have never been
paved in Pacifica since we
incorporated that we're going
to take care of our
firefighters who have no place
to decontaminate. You know, we
have so much deferred work
because we've been short
on budgets for a long time.
We're making these promises
to our community,
hoping that they'll agree
to this really high tax rate
to help save our city. But then
now the rug is being pulled
out from underneath us. It's
not fair. And I'm freaking mad,
too. We'd, you know, if
this went through, we'd have
to look at cutting another 20
to 25 positions, about 15%
of our already small workforce.
These cuts would be
devastating, threatening,
threatening our ability
to even survive as a city. And
just as we're the canary
in the coal mine
for climate change,
I think the county and all
of our cities are the canary
in the coal mine
for what is happening
at the state level. There's
only three counties now,
but it's growing. This whole
metric of school funding is
going to continue to worsen
for the whole state. And I hope
that the legislators and the
governor pay attention because
this is something that needs
to be solved for all of our
communities. I really
appreciate you all,
and we'll continue to stand
with you 100%.
>> I'd like
to invite representatives
from the city of Portola,
from the town of Portola
Valley. Town. Yes. Okay.
Welcome.
>> Good afternoon. I'm council
member Judith Hasko of
Portola Valley, and
with me is Darcy Smith, our
town manager. I want
to thank you, President
Corzo, and all
of the supervisors here today
for giving us the opportunity
to share our experiences. It's
very important for us
to understand what all
of the jurisdictions in this
county are going through.
First, Portola Valley supports
the efforts by San Mateo
County that we are here
to discuss today entirely.
Portola Valley is a small
jurisdiction in San Mateo
County. The state's
inconsistent approach to
vehicle license fee allocations
over recent years has prevented
us from including our town's
full vehicle license fee
allocation in our annual
budgeting process, which, given
our limited town budget and
very lean staffing,
creates substantial challenges.
Portillo Valley is highly
dependent on San Mateo
County's support
in many important respects,
including notably the county's
provision
of law enforcement services.
Our contract costs have
increased from 1.37 million
in fiscal year 21-22 to 2.54
million in fiscal year 26-27, a
total increase over five years
of 85%. I don't see that
increase stopping anytime soon.
We have tapped our reserves
to cover this cost increase,
but our reserve fund will fall
below the minimum reserve
policy level by the end
of the year fiscal year 27-28,
and will be depleted
by the end of fiscal year
29-30. The inability to plan
for and receive our allocation
of VLF is quickly draining our
reserves and is not
sustainable. Because of this
and other circumstances,
we are now intently working on
a broad fiscal stabilization
plan, including a proposed
ballot measure to establish a
1% real property transfer tax.
If that tax is not approved
by the town voters on November
3rd, our town will need
to consider its next steps
toward fiscal stability, which
may include declaring a fiscal
emergency,
something we really do not want
to do. At that point, the town
may be forced
to make deep budget cuts.
Having more consistent
treatment of VLF allocations by
the state will enable our town
to implement critical budgeting
and planning processes
at this time. The enormous
budgetary restrictions that the
county will be forced
to make as a result
of the state's proposed
takeaway of the VLF allocations
will dramatically reduce law
enforcement services provided
by the county to our town and
potentially greatly increase
our cost of obtaining these
critical services.
At the exact moment when
Portola Valley seeks to
stabilize its finances and
adopt enhanced safety and
emergency preparedness
measures, I urge the state
to recognize its responsibility
to work with our county and the
jurisdictions within it
to avoid drastic reductions
in our county services, and in
particular our safety related
services and infrastructure,
and to craft a more equitable
and resilient approach
for these allocations. Thank
you again, we appreciate the
opportunity.
>> Thank you. With that, I'd
like to invite Mayor Elmer oh
my gosh, why am I blinking?
Saballos. That's what's the
first part. Martinez oh my
gosh. I'm sorry. Elmer.
Welcome. And is this your also
a council member, City
Manager?
>> That's right. Good morning,
President Corzo and members
of the board. I'm Mayor Elmer
Martinez Saballos, joined
by our City Manager Patrick
Heisinger and many
of our city staff. First, thank
you for the opportunity
to speak and thank you for your
leadership and county staff's
leadership on this issue.
Like many cities in San Mateo
County, Redwood City is deeply
concerned
about the continued uncertainty
of surrounding the vehicle
license feedback fill. And
while we appreciate the
legislature's partial funding
this year,
it's only a temporary solution
to what's become a long-term
structural problem
for local governments. And I
also want to emphasize that
this issue did not arrive
in a vacuum.
For the past four years,
Redwood City has been preparing
for more difficult financial
times. We have made proactive
and often difficult decisions
to strengthen our financial
position while protecting the
services that our residents
rely upon. During the COVID 19
pandemic, the city adopted
multiple stabilizing budgets
even as a community's need
for public service continued
to grow. In 2024, our city
council advanced an update to
the city's business license
tax, and our business community
stepped up to help fund
essential public services.
Last year, the City Council
made the difficult decision
to use general fund reserves to
balance our budget rather than
reduce city services. Our
residents have also stepped up
by absorbing higher utility
rates and other costs that help
sustain our city operations.
Simply put,
our businesses have stepped up,
our residents have stepped up,
and our City Council has
stepped up. Now it's time
for the state to do its part by
restoring the VLF revenues that
rightfully belong to San
Mateo County and its cities.
Unfortunately, the continued
uncertainty means we've
exhausted many of the
traditional tools available
to us. And if this funding is
not permanently restored,
cities like Redwood City will
be increasingly left
with only one option. Reducing
public services.
At the county's request, we
prepared a scenario showing
what that could look like in
Redwood City. And we identified
approximately 40 frontline
positions. These positions
include firefighters and police
officers, librarians,
community service officers,
planners, parks and recreation
staff, and administrative
professionals who help deliver
the services our residents rely
upon every day. Many of those
services are especially
important to our most
vulnerable residents, our
seniors, children, families,
and individuals experiencing
homelessness. We want to be
very clear that this isn't a
staffing plan,
but it's an advocacy tool, one
that illustrates what continued
state
in action could eventually mean
for the people that we serve.
So, it's clear
to us that a permanent solution
to the VFL backfill issue is
essential if local governments
are going to continue providing
the public safety, libraries,
parks, planning services,
and other core functions of
government that our communities
expect and deserve. Thank you
again, everyone,
for your leadership and
for continuing to advocate
on behalf of all of our cities
in San Mateo County. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And let me
sincerely apologize
for butchering your last name.
Mayor Elmer Martinez Saballos.
I bet you all didn't know that
my name is actually Noelia
Corso Solorzano. But no,
I love your last name,
and I will never do that again.
So, up next, we have the city
of San Bruno. And I also,
before I invite the mayor up,
I just wanted
to let everyone know that
in a couple of minutes, I will
be stepping away because I am
chairing the Coalition to End
Violence, Abuse, and
Exploitation. And I personally
invited Assembly Member
Catherine Stefani several
months ago to come and present
on the domestic violence
legislation that she has
championed at the state. And I
don't want to not be there
since I invited her months ago.
So, with that, welcome, Mayor
Rico Medina.
>> Good afternoon. Since the
City Manager of San Bruno had
already spoken,
he gave you a lot
of the information and the data
of how it is, has effect and
will affect the city of San
Bruno. As a former city
employee, myself of San
Bruno, a shop steward,
it is crucial and critical. We
have, as most
of my colleagues have said,
we have a lean staff. Proud
of them. They go
to work every day. They do the
and provide the services. What
I am proud of is also the
Board of Supervisors, County
Manager, that we're all here
together. This is one time that
irrelevant of what city or town
you represent, that we're
in this boat together and all
of us will feel the pain and
the suffering if the state does
not change their path and their
course. I appreciate all
of you stepping forward to
represent this county. I am a
lifelong San Mateo County
resident and proud
of it. I am a lifelong member,
third generation, to the city
of San Bruno where I've lived
my entire life. And I'm proud
of it. City of San Bruno has
been challenged at times when
we had the explosion or the
active shooter. We've had
people come to our community to
lead and give aid and mutual
support and we do the same. But
this is one time that we all
have to find it
within our heart and spirit
to unite and find a way to
ensure that the state does what
they need to do so that all
of these folks here, all
of us, can work
at what we need
to provide our leadership to
our staff and our communities.
It has been and is an honor
to serve and it's an honor
to be here with you today. And
I appreciate what you're doing.
And we are in it to win it.
And we stand resolute and we
stand side by side. Let's do
this. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much. And
preach. Okay. I did not know we
were going
to church right now.
With that, I'd like to invite
representatives and council
members from the City of
San Carlos. I'm going
to try to stay till the end
of the cities,
but I don't know if I can.
>> Thank you for having us here
today. I'm not going to preach
to you, but I'm here with
Kathy Kleinbaum, City Manager
of San Carlos. The City of
San Carlos is facing a VLF
shortfall of $4.4 million.
This could grow as large as $6
million in future years if
additional school districts
flip. The current amount is
equivalent to over 6% of our
annual opening operating
budget. As a small city that is
leaning staffed,
a revenue loss of this
magnitude is not something we
can absorb without facing
tangible reductions
in services in our residents
and businesses. This shortfall
could potentially translate
to hiring freezes or rejections
of 5 public safety positions
and 14 general staffing
positions
across our city departments.
This equates to roughly 10%
of our total staff. The
resulting services impacts to
our residents and businesses
include delays in permit
processing times and
construction support services
which could delay the
completion of our much-needed
housing developments. Delays
in critical staffing, safety
improvements and reduce
enforcements. Reductions in
maintenance levels and response
times for necessary repairs
in our parks, senior and youth
recreation centers and library.
Reductions in support services
for small local businesses.
Reductions
in senior support services,
recreation program and
community and cultural events.
We urge the state to provide
the funding that is due to all
of us, to all the cities in
San Mateo County. This funding
is essential
to maintaining our quality
of life.
>> Thank you and I'd now like
to welcome my mayor, mayor
Adam Lorraine and council
member Lisa Diaz Nash and city
manager Alex Khojikian.
>> Good afternoon supervisors,
City Council members, staff and
everyone who has joined us here
today. I am Adam Lorraine,
Mayor of the City of San
Mateo, and with me is City
Council member Lisa Diaz
Nash, City Manager Alex
Khojikian, who addressed the
public in the press conference
earlier. We also had a
Assistant City Manager
Jennifer Yamaguma here and
other city staff. I want
to thank you
for the opportunity to give
some more related comments
about how this lack of funding
will affect our great city of
San Mateo. Of course,
receiving the news
of an even greater reduction
in VLF funds was not welcome.
Our city cannot afford it and
neither can our residents.
This deepened cut
to VLF is substantial for the
City of San Mateo. We're losing
an additional 5.7 million
in this fiscal year,
which takes us from a 7.1
million shortfall to $12.9
million. Many have illustrated
this afternoon that we're not
just talking about budgets,
of course, but the people who
provide services and are part
of our community. And it's no
different in our city.
In fact, approximately 80%
of our budget is tied to the
people who provide city
services to our community.
These are people who provide
homelessness, outreach, youth
and senior programs and
emergency services. This
additional 5.7-million-dollar
loss will have a direct impact
on people, staff, and
of course our residents, we
in our city took the
opportunity
to begin forecasting.
Of course, we already had
to plan
for the previous VLF
shortfalls.
But now we have taken a look
to determine. What would it
look like if the City of San
Mateo had to cut 10%
of its general fund budget.
Our fear is that this would
become a reality. We currently
have some reserves that can
tide us over for some time. But
unless there's a permanent
solution to this shortfall
at the City of San Mateo, this
lack
of funding currently equates
to us potentially cutting up
to 70 positions. What could
that look like? It could
eliminate our proactive
homelessness outreach. It would
eliminate our mental health co
responder unit with police. It
would close a fire station. It
could eliminate the Office of
Emergency Services Division
of San Mateo Consolidated
Fire. On top
of those complete eliminations,
we would have many more
reductions,
including programming
for youth and seniors,
reducing facility operations,
library open hours, park
maintenance, slower response
times and greater risks.
These, of course, as has been
noted, are not simply numbers
on a spreadsheet. These are
real services provided by real
people that our residents
depend on. We need a permanent
solution to the VLF shortfall
so our cities can continue
providing services and our
communities can get what they
expect and deserve. Thank you
for your time.
>> Okay, I will now invite the
City of South San Francisco and
I will also say goodbye
for now. And I do believe
there's a PowerPoint
presentation that we have
for you all. So, welcome.
>> Thank you so much.
>> And I'll hand it over to
Supervisor Mueller
to chair.
>> Great. Good afternoon,
everyone. I am here. I am
Laura Snideman, the South San
Francisco City Manager, joined
with Vice Mayor Nagales and
Councilmember Nicholas. We too
are asking for the state's
leadership making good on their
promise correcting this
unintended revenue shortfall.
Property tax in lieu of vehicle
license fees represent 8.3% of
our total general fund revenue.
This funding allows us
to provide all
of these essential services.
Public safety, childcare,
adult daycare, library,
many other services. South San
Francisco, if you'll see
on the next slide, is facing a
cumulative VLF funding
shortfall
in the past three years of
$13.2 million for which the
state has not made us whole.
Without a permanent fix, our
community too would face severe
service cuts
in all service areas.
Examples, sort of a package
of things that we would have
to reduce, that we would have
to consider
in the next slide, again,
would affect all areas
of our community.
In public safety,
it would mean closing a fire
station, eliminating 13
firefighter positions and
increasing response times
across the city. Eliminating
four police officer positions,
including our school liaison
officers who have come and that
our school district has come
to rely on to build rapport
between law enforcement and
students, families and school
staff, as well as our community
outreach officers who work
closely with the unhoused and
connect them with mental health
and county resources.
Eliminating fire and building
inspectors would weaken our
prevention and safety oversight
throughout the entire
community.
Beyond public safety, our youth
and our seniors would be hit
very hard. We would have to
eliminate potentially all
subsidized child care. This is
preschool, early learning and
after school care. Impacting up
to 815 children. Leaving
working parents scrambling
for an already scarce resource.
Eliminating our adult day care
program. Removing this respite
and support service
for caregiving families.
Potentially losing progress on
creating new affordable
housing. Leaving families and
seniors
without housing options.
Community access to learning
and wellness would also narrow.
Libraries and pools would close
one day a week. A community
learning center could close.
Ending after school. English as
a second language, adult
literacy, computer and STEM
programs relied upon
by all residents. This is only
a partial list of items of
services demonstrating how the
most vulnerable in our
community would be impacted.
All told, the program and
service losses could risk job
losses for over 100
individuals. Frontline workers
who keep our community safe,
responsive and resilient. This
is
about equity and keeping faith
with local communities. 55
counties are already made whole
by the state's approach. San
Mateo county should be treated
equally so our residents do not
lose essential services due to
a shortfall that was never
intended. We're not asking
for more. We're not asking
for a handout. We are asking
the state to keep its promise
to make us whole on this
revenue source so we can keep
our promise to the community of
providing these vital services.
Thank you for your leadership
and attention to this matter.
We will continue to work
with all of you so our state
and our state leaders
to save our South San
Francisco services. Thank you.
>> Thank you. So, I just first
want to extend my gratitude
to all the cities
for coming today and for
sharing so transparently the
situation that you face. This
was a very tough decision
to be made at the county and
at the cities to share this
information this transparently
because it causes quite a bit
of anxiety obviously within our
workforce amongst those who
receives the services. And I
think it's a testament to the
leadership throughout the
county that we're being so
transparent at this time when
it's so precisely needed. What
we're going
to do now is we're going to go
ahead and discuss next steps.
And I'm going to go ahead
at this time. I know
Supervisor Speier has some next
steps. I do as well. And I can
turn it over
to my colleagues as well. But
we have prepared some and I'll
let I go first. So, what I'd
share today with everyone is
that today we obviously went
through this process earlier
this year, not that long ago.
We have between now
until the end of August, and
frankly, it's a shorter time
period than that to try to get
into the Legislature's trailer
bill,
which wraps up their budget.
After that,
we're pretty much closed
for this year. Our ability
to address this issue will end.
And so
in the next week or two weeks,
the most important thing
for your cities
to be doing and
for those who you're
interacting with is to be
contacting our governor's
office, sharing the
information, transmitting it
here, having people send
emails, having people
communicate just what that
impact is. As we try to move
toward the end of this, and
frankly, also our legislative
leadership, our Senate
president's office,
our speaker of Assembly's
office, all of those entities
are coming together now
to wrap up this trailer bill.
And we want to be in it and we
want a permanent fix in it.
That being said,
if we are not successful there,
what comes next is that we
cannot go quietly
into the night and wait until
next year's budget session. We
need
to begin organizing our cities.
All of you know
in your cities,
and if you're watching this
at home, all you know that
within our cities we have
networks outside
of city hall. Those who are not
with us today, for example, are
our special districts and all
of those who we know so well,
our school districts, we have
to reach out
into those parent communities.
We have
to tell them what the impact is
to their safe streets. We have
to reach out into our senior
communities and tell them what
the impacts are. We have
to share with all
of them so that every,
every city together is
mobilized
behind your leadership,
telling Sacramento this has to
be addressed and this is what
the impacts are
into next year. So, a next step
is to organize your city
into a piece of the thunder
that will come next year
during our budget process. And
then finally, what I would say
to you all as we go
into this is we're going
to come
into your cities next year.
Why would I plan
on doing next year,
should I be board president?
Is to do study sessions
in each of your cities
during the first five months
of the year as we head toward
the budget so that when we come
into your city, you bring the
thunder and the noise of
everyone who you have organized
so that we keep that, that
momentum up and that pressure
so that as we move toward it,
each city is moving. And so,
we will be coming
into your districts. And then
the last,
and I should have said last
time,
but the most important thing
in addition to all of that is
that I would ask you all
to tell everybody you know
to start contacting the
Becerra campaign. We know who
our next governor will be
on almost certainty. We have a
good idea and most certainty
based on polls. We need
to start contacting them now.
So, contact both candidates
just in case. But contact the
Becerra campaign and tell them
how big of the impacts that
this is going to be in our
county and start working those
issues now so that next year
it's not a surprise and it's
on the list
of things that get addressed.
There's going
to be probably a new head
of the Department of Finance
who we're going
to be negotiating
with next year.
In all likelihood may not be,
but there's some likelihood
there will be. The governor and
his administration will be
making that appointment. And
when we want that appointment
made, we want that person
on their first day in office
to understand that this is one
of their priority number ones
to get resolved. With that,
I'm going
to go ahead and turn it over
to Supervisor Speier.
>> Thank you. And thank you so
very much
for being here. I mean, having
the very specific cuts that you
would have to deliberate
on is powerful in terms
of making Sacramento know that
this is real. Now, having been
there decades ago, I can tell
you there's a cynicism there.
You know,
counties come up whining about
one thing or another and
there's a tendency
to just think, oh, well,
so when Supervisor Mueller said
that we've got to contact all
of these elected
representatives,
that's really important. What I
would like you to do is we have
a very short window right now
in terms of getting this fix
into a trailer bill. It's
really short. So, if you make
it your priority today and
tonight to contact everyone on
your address book and ask them
to call the governor's office.
We need a hurricane. You called
it thunder. I'm calling it a
hurricane of people calling the
governor's office
to say this is unsustainable,
that will get their attention.
The problem
with press conferences,
it's a blip. It's a onetime
event. But if they continue
to hear this drumbeat from
San Mateo County,
from everyone
in your community that's
in your address book from all
of your nonprofits from every
imaginable and all your school
districts, all of the parents
in all
of your school districts,
that will be very important.
The other thing, many of you
have lobbyists. I have a
particular view of having these
lobbyists because I don't think
they do enough. But to the
extent that you have lobbyists
for your cities, I urge you
to call them and say, you need
to help us now. You need
to help us
in the next two weeks, get this
passed and have them come up
with a plan for you. And then
Supervisor Mueller said that he
wants to come to each
of the cities as the board to
hear your experience. I don't
think we can wait till May. I
mean, this budget for July is
going to be determined in
January, February, March. So,
we need to have all
of that kind of cooked
by then so that we are
in the budget. Otherwise, July
1st will come. We'll see
another $200 million. And what
each of you pointed out was
that's the cuts you're going
to sustain this year. What are
the cuts you're going to
sustain next year if it's
another $200 million? Mayor
Sylvester said something that
was very important. You know,
the governor and the
Department of Finance and
frankly, the legislature can
ignore us and the result is
their hands are clean because
the cuts are imposed locally.
So, we get the heat. So, we've
got to turn the heat on and up
to them. And I think that the
way we do that is
by a constant churn
of contacting them. So, it's
the governor's office,
it's the state president Pro
Tem's office, it's the state
assembly speaker's office, it's
the budget committee chairs and
probably what am I missing?
But all
of those should be part
of your list in terms
of contacting them. And I
think, and this is,
we're going to become family if
we aren't already family,
because we're going to be
in this working very hard,
either in the next couple
of weeks or for the next six
months because we've got
to get a permanent fix put
in place in the process
by early next year. And you've
made some powerful statements
today. Thank you all.
>> Colleagues
do you want
to add anything?
>> I just want to thank all
of you for being here today.
It is so powerful when we come
together and tell our story.
My question here to
Sacramento, does Sacramento
care about San Mateo County?
And if the Finance Committee
and the governor was sitting
in our shoes right now,
what would they suggest we do?
You're harming the people who
have supported you all along. I
know that I have campaigned
for this governor. He cannot
forget the many lives that are
here that are going
to be impacted by these cuts
at a time when we're already
under so much strain
from the federal government.
So, how does California say
stand by and do this
to a county when we already
know by the H1, the HR1 cuts
that are already impacting our
cities? I don't understand it.
I don't think Sacramento wants
to show that they don't have a
heart. But right now,
I wonder if Sacramento has a
heart for the residents of
California, in particular,
San Mateo County. Thank you for
all that you're doing. I agree
with my colleagues. Please,
please. I think we need
to get a campaign together
by even district
to help our cities to identify
who you should be reaching
out to. We can also put
together a draft form,
letter or email that can go
out so that it's very easy
for residents. Because if we
don't make it easy
for residents, everybody is
super busy and doing so much,
just trying to barely hang
on right now. We can't take
anything else. So, let's
continue to fight. We are here
with you, and I appreciate you
for taking your time to come
to San Mateo County today.
>> Thank you very much. You
know, first of all,
let me just thank Supervisor
Speier and Supervisor Mueller
and the county staff, really,
just so folks know they are the
driver of a lot of the things
that we're doing here on the
San Mateo County, the VLF.
So, can we give them a round
of applause?
[APPLAUSE]
>> You know, let me just say
this I was once a city
council member,
and I understand tough budgets.
And, you know, what's
before us is monumental.
And I remember many of you I
might have served with,
and we had to deal with the
Great Recession. We dealt
with some issues around
Lehman Brothers. And there's
all sorts of challenges that
have been upon us. But what
we've shown time and time again
is one,
we have incredible council
members, very smart people,
city staff, city managers. We
have people who are just, we
know how
to solve problems here. Now,
this is a problem that,
to be quite frank with you,
is rather large.
But I think what Supervisor
Speier and Supervisor Mueller
did today in setting this up is
really trying
to bring us together
through cohesion. I think the
urgency of looking
at a trailer bill is prudent.
And I think it's important,
you know, as we move forward,
just to the cities.
And I want to recognize our
Nonprofits provided providers.
If you're a nonprofit provider
here today, our CBO's,
please stand up.
Give a round
of applause.
[APPLAUSE]
And I see Ana
Pulido at the Healthcare
District. Thank you
for being here. And so,
as we advance this work, you
know, we always get
through it. It's tough and it's
challenging. The numbers are
huge. Mr. Callagy, I didn't
like the 18 positions
in the assessor's office.
But, you know,
on a serious note,
just thank you
for participating, Jackie.
You've been just an incredible,
incredible leader. I have many
friends and they say, oh,
Jackie called again. Jackie
called again. And they said it
in a great way. And they said
it because she is really
dedicated to making this happen
and protecting this county.
And I just want to say,
personally, Jackie, you're
doing an incredible job
reaching out to people nonstop.
I don't know your endurance,
but it's calling people late
night, all my friends, but it's
amazing what we can do
together. And so, there was a
president, one
of my favorite presidents,
that was President Obama. And
President Obama believed
in hope. And we always have
to have hope
in these tough times. And I
think we'll pull together.
So, thank you. Should I say
Mr. Chair to be. Mr. President
to be. But thank you so much
for the opportunity.
>> Thank you. Thank you,
Supervisor Canepa.
We need
to take public comment
at this time. So,
at this time, on behalf of the
county and each participating
city,
we will take public comment
on the agenda item. Because
this is a special meeting,
public comment will be limited
to the identified agenda items
only. As
with all public comment,
members of the public who wish
to address the board or any
participating city should
complete a speaker slip to make
a public comment and hand it
to the board clerk. Speakers
are limited to one minute,
subject to the discretion
of the board Vice President.
We will start
with public comment
from those here in person, and
then we'll take public comment
from those who have joined us
online.
>> Thank you.
Vice President Mueller.
There is no speaker slip
at this moment
from the chamber. We will now
look at Zoom. If you wish
to make a public comment,
please raise your hand. No
hands is raised Vice
President.
>> Okay. Well, I just want
to thank you all for coming.
And the fight continues
together at this time will go
ahead and adjourn.
>> The time is 3:45pm and the
meeting is adjourned.