Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany council approves $226,000 spending plan for sugar‑sweetened beverage tax, funds crossing guards and youth programs
Summary
The City Council voted unanimously May 19 to allocate projected sugar‑sweetened beverage tax proceeds for crossing guards, bike safety classes, swim lessons and a community fitness event; staff said the tax continues to yield less revenue than in earlier years.
On May 19, 2025, the Albany City Council voted to adopt a preliminary spending plan for proceeds of the city’s sugar‑sweetened beverage (SSB) tax for fiscal year 2025–26. Staff projected $226,000 in SSB revenue for the year. The council’s allocation was unanimous, 5–0.
Assistant City Manager Isabelle Leduc summarized the existing SSB‑funded programs and delivered staff’s revenue estimate: $226,000 available in FY2026 if the council wished to fund programs consistent with the ordinance’s health‑and‑wellness language. The programs considered included the crossing guard contract, elementary school bike safety education, a pilot “Albany Swims” program to provide youth swim lessons, the Move & Groove community fitness event and a school farm curriculum partnership.
After public comments from Albany Unified School District representatives and local program leaders — including Drew, the aquatics director, and AUSD representatives Linda Wu and Kim Trutane — the council reached a prioritized allocation. Mayor Lopez moved the preliminary spending plan and the motion allocated funding as follows: $188,407 for crossing guards; $15,000 for the Transportation Commission’s bike safety program; $15,000 for Albany Swims; and $2,500 for the Move & Groove community fitness event. The motion was seconded and carried on a roll‑call vote (Jordan, Mickey, Vice Mayor McQuay, Mayor Lopez and Hans Romero voted yes).
Council discussion noted several constraints and tradeoffs. Staff emphasized the tax is general fund revenue but intended by the council to support health‑related activities; Leduc said spending beyond the projected $226,000 would render the FY2025–26 operating budget unbalanced unless offsets are found. Councilmembers and speakers discussed sustainability concerns for crossing‑guard funding and suggested partner or general‑fund options for long‑term support. Several commenters urged continued funding for swim lessons and bike safety programs, and others proposed new ideas — including a community medicinal herb garden — for future consideration.
The ordinance that authorized the tax (Measure O1) does not legally earmark proceeds; the council retains budget discretion but has historically directed SSB proceeds toward programs that promote healthy lifestyles and safe routes to school. Staff will include the council‑prioritized projects in the proposed operating budget for adoption and will work with program partners to finalize scopes and contracts.
