Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council not to absorb 27 grant-funded police positions, call for housing and prevention spending
Summary
Hundreds of minutes of public comment at the Fresno City Council budget hearing focused on proposals to absorb expiring grant-funded police posts. Speakers urged the council to let 27 organized-retail-theft positions lapse and redirect millions into eviction protection, youth services and Advance Peace.
Ruben Espinosa, a District 5 resident, told the Fresno City Council during a public-budget hearing that absorbing 27 organized-retail-theft grant positions into the general fund would saddle the city with roughly $2.3 million this year and about $4.7 million annually thereafter and urged the council to vote no.
"Permanently absorbing these 27 positions will cost us $2,300,000 this year and $4,700,000 every year thereafter," Espinosa said, asking councilors to prioritize eviction protection and youth programming instead.
The hearing opened with a three-minute public-comment block; dozens of speakers urged councilors to shift funds away from policing and into prevention. Ariana, speaking for Fresno for People's Budget, said the expiring retail-theft positions and other police additions amount to several million dollars the city could redirect to programs such as childcare, food access and mental-health supports. "This is not about little numbers — it's about where you choose to spend taxpayer dollars," she said.
Other commenters pressed the council for transparency in budget accounting. Luke Prete asked the council to publish a budget procedures manual and a clear, public definition of how the city calculates and records “savings by attrition,” arguing residents deserve a ‘‘Rosetta Stone’’ to interpret line items.
Council leadership did not act on the public comment during the session; the hearing continued with departmental presentations by transit, utilities and public safety staff. No formal vote on absorbing the 27 positions was reported during the meeting record. Councilors and staff said the proposed budget still requires follow-up work: staff will present departmental budgets and any proposed re‑allocations or formal motions will be scheduled under future agenda items.
The public comment marked a clear community priority: many residents want councilors to consider trade-offs between expanding law enforcement staffing and investing in social services that advocates say prevent violence and homelessness. The council will review the budget over the coming days and is expected to take further procedural steps before adopting final appropriations.
