Staff presented the proposed budget at the Special Budget Study on April 23, during which they took council questions and heard public comments. Four Council members were present in chambers, with Mayor Pro-Tem Fred Jung, once again, joining remotely. Those in the City Council chambers had difficulty hearing the Pro-Tem as he spoke softly and mumbled, so it was difficult to understand his participation in this meeting.

The proposed budget was lean. Each department requested thoughtful expenditures that reflect the City’s most urgent needs and numerous tech and equipment upgrades to enhance internal efficiency and service delivery. Most were one-time costs that did not add recurring costs. However, the projected revenues are unfavorable.

As streets are always top-of-mind in our City, an option to consider financing for street work was presented. ARPA (replacement funds) have allowed for more than the average number of street projects in the past few years. Unfortunately, those funds have now been fully allocated, and the City will need to transfer $1 million in General Funds to offset some of the loss to street improvements. The City has also applied for a $6 million grant for Harbor Blvd. However, given the projected shortfalls, this may not be the time to incur more financed debt. More importantly, the City projects that it will not be able to meet its MOE ( Maintenance of Effort) of $5000 required to receive OCTA Measure M2 street funding by the 25-26 budget year.

Other areas of concern include a gap of roughly $10 million between revenues and expenditures in the General Fund for the 24-25 budget year. This will be covered by dipping into reserves from last year. To create greater financial stability, the City set a goal of maintaining a 17% contingency reserve a few years ago. While it has met that goal the past couple of years, due to an operating deficit, that goal will not be reached in ‘25-26 and will fall below 10% as early as 26-27.

While we all appreciate and have enjoyed the benefits of filling staffing vacancies with well-qualified staff, it is critical that revenues grow to keep pace with the realities this imposes. Staff presented a short list of alternative budget options for consideration. Some included longer library hours, a fourth ambulance Paramedic Unit, a Police Investigative Tech, and an Economic Development Project Manager, to name a few. Despite the low public attendance, the few speakers who voiced their preferences for budget consideration played a crucial role. Their input, whether it was for longer library hours, improved park maintenance, funding for homeless services, or economic development, was valued and considered by the council.

The council unanimously favored funding economic development staffing and strategies. They are actively working to identify all possible grant or subsidy offerings and are addressing the public’s primary and repeated concerns about street improvements, public safety, and homeless issues.

The annual budget is one of, if not the most, important task a City Council is responsible for. Public participation is the most significant opportunity to voice concerns and preferences and to hold representatives accountable. You can find meeting schedules and agendas at CityofFullerton.com or call the City Clerk at (714) 738-6350.