National City council debates budget additions as staff flags $8.2M shortfall

The National City City Council on Tuesday spent several hours reviewing proposed additions to next year’s budget and debating whether to use reserves to fund new staff and projects while staff warned of a projected $8.2 million General Fund deficit.

City Manager Bruce told the council the proposed base budget shows “total revenues for the General Fund are $72,800,000” against projected expenditures of about $81,000,000, producing a roughly $8.2 million deficit; he said the items before the council are additions to that base and would increase the shortfall unless offset. That package of additions — across departments including public works, fire, police, community services and library — would raise the net change on the table by roughly $1.75 million, staff said.

Council members pressed staff on which funds drive the deficit and which requests generate revenue. Community Development Director Carlos Segura said some personnel costs (a code-enforcement reclassification and a new tobacco retail‑license program) would be partly offset by new citation and licensing revenue. Fire Chief Sergeant Morrill described a revived false‑alarm billing program that previously generated about $175,000 in a pilot year and said a part‑time Alarm Program Coordinator could support significant cost recovery; he also said a requested division‑chief position is intended to ensure a smooth succession when the chief retires.

Public commenters urged council to prioritize migrant legal and social supports and youth programs. “We would like to ask that the local reserves really be directed towards supporting those communities that would be disenfranchised,” said Dion, a member of Anak Bayan San Diego, calling for a legal‑defense fund and clinics for migrants. Ren Sano, a National City resident and student, warned that cuts to programs such as Section 8 would deeply affect families and youth.

Council debate focused on tradeoffs between ongoing personnel costs and one‑time investments. Police staff requested two community resource officers (non‑sworn positions) and new in‑car mounting systems tied to a technology refresh; public works asked to add custodial staff and a building‑trade specialist; community services sought additional recreation‑center supervisors; the library proposed a $50,000 upgrade to an integrated library system and expanded contracted security coverage. Several council members argued some items could be phased in or delayed to midyear to reduce short‑term pressure on reserves.

A substitute motion to accept all department requests and move the proposed city revitalization fund allocation into contingency with a larger initial allocation was moved and seconded during deliberations; the council recorded only the outcome of that motion as failed. After the substitute failed, council resumed line‑by‑line discussion of additions and possible compromises. No final roll call vote on a consolidated package was recorded in the meeting transcript.

Next steps: staff was asked to return with clearer midyear options and feasibility details for revenue‑generating proposals, and council signaled it will continue refining which additions to approve, which to defer, and how to use contingency reserves for the proposed revitalization work. The special meeting adjourned with staff directed to follow up and bring proposed ordinance or appropriation language back to the council for any allocations drawn from reserved funds.