I am very concerned about our city’s fiscal health. In fiscal year 2024-2025, the city is projecting a budget deficit of $10.6M. Funding would come from developer fees for long-range planning that could be used for other top priorities. As a constituent and candidate for city council, I want to advocate for responsible management of our budget.
In March 2024, the council unanimously approved the General Plan, which set a timeline for updating our historic resource policy. Four months later, on June 17, 2024, a majority of council members elected to expedite the original timeline, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $500,000.
While it’s important to preserve our history, the costs of updating our process now are too high, especially given our budget constraints and pressing unfunded capital improvement projects, which are estimated at $240M.
Drawing from my extensive experience as a CEO/Executive Director, as well as my current role, I possess a deep understanding of managing budgets and staff efficiently. Throughout my career, I have consistently balanced fiscal responsibility with the need to support and develop our workforce. I have successfully overseen large teams and substantial budgets, ensuring that resources were allocated effectively to meet organizational goals. This background equips me with the skills necessary to advocate for prudent financial management and the well-being of our dedicated city staff.
I do not support the decision to expedite the historic resource policy work plan ahead of the approved General Plan timeline due to the following:
• High Cost: Changing the process now in light of the significant deficit will further diminish our reserves, strain staff capacity, and potentially compromise our service quality. We can’t afford this right now.
• Ineffective Changes: We already have a process for designating historic sites. The city council can decide which sites are historic. Even if we update our process, it can and is being bypassed by applications appealing for historic designation directly through the State Office of Historic Preservation. Investing $500,000 in a local policy that is easily bypassed means our efforts and money could be wasted.
* Inequity: HIstoric designations that can be imposed on property owners without their consent could increase the cost of maintenance and remodels and, therefore, increase the risk of displacement of low-income San Mateo residents. The risk of displacement is particularly acute in our equity community priority areas in North Central and North Shoreview. Some council members stated that historic districts should not be limited to wealthy areas and suggested expanding the designations to other neighborhoods. This reflects a concerning view that disregards the financial impact of historic designations on low-income residents.
Given these points, spending an estimated half a million dollars of our reserves on a new historic designation process is premature. I urge the city council to focus on fixing our structural deficit.
Let’s work on solutions that strengthen our finances and ensure our resources are used for the most important needs of our residents. I am committed to advocating for our dedicated workforce of 600 employees and allocating resources to align with our General Plan vision that directly benefits our community.
