Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pacifica council adopts midyear budget amendments, 3–2
Summary
The Pacifica City Council on March 11 adopted midyear budget amendments that roll forward prior commitments and add targeted appropriations for facilities, evidence storage, and public works; the measure passed 3–2 after council debate over ongoing staffing and reserves.
Pacifica’s City Council adopted amendments to the fiscal year 2025–26 operating and capital budget on March 11, approving midyear adjustments that staff said align the adopted budget with current revenues, expenditures and previously approved carry‑forward items.
Assistant City Manager Yulia Carter and Finance and Administrative Services Director Marisol Gomez presented the midyear review, saying the General Fund shows a net revenue increase of roughly $462,000 and proposed expenditure increases of about $1.9 million (3.7%), the bulk of which reflects previously approved appropriations carried forward and several department requests.
"We review proposed budget adjustments line by line," Marisol Gomez told council, summarizing the largest changes: a request to reclassify a part‑time police evidence clerk to full‑time after a failed recruitment; about $48,000 for refrigeration equipment to preserve evidence integrity in the Police Department; and roughly $87,000 for asbestos and mold remediation in city facilities that public works said was needed after recent incidents at the police department and the library.
Staff described a strategy to balance the General Fund that combines captured revenue gains, one‑time reserve use set aside in prior budget planning, and modest salary savings. With those actions, staff reported the city’s projected unassigned General Fund balance would remain above the Government Finance Officers Association recommended floor.
Councilors pressed staff on which items were one‑time costs versus ongoing commitments, the source of reductions to county senior‑services grants and the longer‑term funding implications of converting limited‑term positions into permanent staffing. Vice Mayor Wright and other council members emphasized that several line increases reflect temporary or contract‑driven work and would be addressed in the FY26‑27 budget process.
Council debate focused on an economic and housing development specialist position included in the midyear package; some council members said they preferred to review that long‑term staffing change during the full budget cycle rather than on a midyear amendment.
After discussion, the council approved the midyear budget amendments by a 3–2 vote. The minutes record the motion as made by Council Member Beyer and seconded by Council Member Beckmeier; the public record notes no votes by Council Member Espinosa and Mayor Bowles.
Next steps: staff will implement the authorized budget adjustments and bring any necessary ongoing staffing proposals or policy changes back to council for consideration in the FY26‑27 budget process.
