[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.