Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Palo Alto appoints planning and rent‑board members and begins FY 2026–27 budget review; staff cites $4.7M general‑fund challenge
Summary
Council appointed Christopher Kao to a full Planning Commission seat, named an alternate, and appointed Guruk Vakil and Devin Taylor to the Rent Stabilization Board; Finance Director T. Oku told council the proposed FY 2026–27 general fund shows a $4.7 million structural deficit and staff proposed balancing with one‑time reserves while reviewing options.
The East Palo Alto City Council completed multiple commission appointments and opened its FY 2026–27 budget study session, where staff laid out a proposed budget and identified a structural general‑fund shortfall.
Appointments: In a series of ballot votes the council appointed Christopher Kao to a full term on the Planning Commission and selected an alternate seat; Ravneel Chaudhary and Isabel Lopez Ismail were among candidates interviewed. For the Rent Stabilization Board the council appointed Guruk Vakil and Devin Taylor to two regular full‑term seats after reading ballots aloud and announcing the results.
Budget overview: Finance Director Tomo Oku presented the budget overview and said staff project a $4.7 million structural imbalance in the general fund for FY 2026–27. The shortfall stems from a combination of near‑term, policy‑driven items and longer‑term trends: reductions in the vehicle license fee (VLF) in‑lieu property tax component, a temporary decline in successor‑agency RPTTF receipts, and the Measure JJ revenue shift to a restricted housing fund. ‘‘The proposed fiscal year 26‑27 general fund budget reflects a $4,700,000 deficit,’’ Oku said.
Staff recommendations and council reaction: Staff proposed using one‑time reserves and an IT project fund drawdown to balance the coming year while pursuing structural solutions. Council members probed revenue assumptions (property tax growth, TOT recovery and developer‑funded fees), asked for comparisons of neighboring cities’ TOT rates, and pressed for clarity on how Measure JJ and RPTTF changes affected available general‑fund resources. Several council members and residents urged stronger code enforcement and more visible results from last year’s one‑time augmentations; others asked for an economic‑development focus to expand recurring revenues.
Planning and development questions: During the Community & Economic Development presentation, interim director Natasha Rayburn walked through departmental staffing and priorities, including a $200,000 request for an open‑space element update (AB 1889/SB 1425 obligations), continued Measure JJ program implementation, and a request to extend a limited‑term housing specialist split across housing and rent stabilization. Council members asked whether earlier, one‑time code enforcement funding had been spent and pressed for measurable outcomes; staff said funds had paid overtime and consulting support and that a fuller report will be returned to council.
What’s next: The council scheduled additional budget study sessions, asked staff for more detail on revenue sensitivity and scenario options, and will return with departmental presentations and follow‑up items on code enforcement, Measure HH procurement, and the planning/permits workload. Commission appointment outcomes were implemented immediately.
