HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/20/2021 Item 10, Price
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Barry Price <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 10. 2021-23 FINANCIAL PLAN - STRATEGIC BUDGET DIRECTION AND
MAJOR CITY GOAL WORK PROGRAM REVIEW
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Council Members:
It’s often said that a city’s budget is a statement of its values. In response to last summer’s powerful uprising for
Black Lives, the City of San Luis Obispo made a statement of its values by establishing a Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion (DEI) Task Force to advise the City on ways to advance equity and inclusion goals. This was an
important step in giving a voice to communities most impacted by systemic racism. In January 2021, the Task
Force presented its report and recommendations to the city including specific funding proposals for the
upcoming 2021-23 fiscal cycle.
The Strategic Budget Direction Report acknowledges a Major City Goal (MCG) to “advance the
recommendations of the DEI Task Force” with the expectation to “Involve marginalized communities and
diverse voices in program development and delivery to ensure current lived experiences are understood,
priorities are addressed, and the City’s efforts are relevant and meaningful.” Unfortunately, staff’s proposed
budget does not accomplish that goal and the actual budget numbers do not seem to match the lofty rhetoric. I
appreciate that the City has committed substantial funds to establish an Office of DEI and continue the High-
Impact Grants and other Grants in Aid to support non-profits that promote social and economic development.
Nonetheless, there are numerous elements of this budget proposal that fail to live up to those objectives and
expectations.
It does not seem as if any Task Force members were actually involved in development of this budget proposal.
If they had been, I do not believe we would see any of the following items included in the DEI budget.
$300,000 for Cheng Park and Mission Plaza capital improvements;
$100,000 for a design study for remodeling fire stations;
$40,000 for ADA Transition Plan Implementation;
$35,000 for state-mandated police training and data collection.
The DEI Task Force did not address ADA accommodations or park improvements in any meeting, and it is
highly inappropriate to take these costs out of DEI funding when past City budgets have addressed them
separately. These initiatives should be assigned to other departments where they are more appropriately lodged.
Parks and Recreation improvements should come from their budget. DEI funding should be used only for
initiatives proposed and supported by the Task Force. DEI funding should be reserved for initiatives that truly
do “advance the recommendations of the DEI Task Force.”
One of the major recommendations of the Task Force, which came up repeatedly during their meetings and in
their report, was the need for a multicultural center, a safe space for people of color to gather together. It is
disappointing that a mere $5,000 is allocated for a feasibility study in that regard. We don’t need studies, we
need action. Why can’t funds be used to access one of the numerous empty downtown storefronts, some of
1
which have been vacant for years? These are a blight on our downtown and should be put to beneficial use. If
the owners can’t do so, the City must.
I also note with dismay and sorrow that this proposal increases the SLOPD budget by 12% while the DEI
budget is reduced by 16% over the same two-year period. To do so is not only unjust, it is cynical in light of the
police violence and abuse of power we’ve witnessed over the past year. I remind the Council that it has been
less than a year since SLOPD unleashed chemical munitions and other weaponry against unarmed protesters.
Less than a year since they recommended outrageous felony charges against a group of young people
expressing their right to gather and protest exactly that kind of violence and abuse, and just a few months since
they retaliated against a community organization who dared to speak publicly about the problem. There are
other examples. We can’t reward police violence and abuse of power with even more money and power. Those
funding increases must be rolled back.
More insidiously, in addition to the police budget that already comprises some 30% of our total spending,
additional enforcement funds are distributed throughout other portions of the budget proposal. For example,
nearly $500,000 for the Police Department is lodged within Economic Recovery Item 1.4. More than $35,000
for state-mandated training and data collection (AB 953 and SB 230 requirements) is included in DEI funding.
Additionally, the proposed budget allocates more than $1.5M over two years for policing our unhoused
population, rather than providing actual services for that community (think restrooms, showers, storage, trash
disposal, health care, or \[heaven forbid!\] a roof over their heads). These expenses should come out of the
existing police budget without further increase.
To summarize, the work programs proposed by staff do not appropriately fulfill the Council’s stated vision
for the MCGs, especially regarding DEI. Decreasing DEI investment by 16% over the two-year term of this
budget proposal does not reflect an on-going commitment to these values. Rather, we must continue to
increase our investment in communities of color by expanding the DEI budget and fully funding initiatives
actually recommended by the Task Force. Moreover, it is crucially important to make SLOPD pay for its
equipment, personnel, training, and other needs out of its existing funds, not the DEI budget, homeless
services, economic development, and other budget sectors, without further expansion of the police budget. If
not, DEI becomes just another space for the city to ignore communities of color.
I urge the City Council to send staff back to the drawing board.
Barry Price
2