Say Hello To Another Subpar Budget

By: Bella Ahwal & Andy Bianchi

Tuesday, June 10th was a big day for the City of Sacramento - the day the City’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/2026 Budget was finalized. At the 5p City Council meeting, we heard a budget recap from Pete Coletto, the City’s Finance Director. Among other things, he presented the funding restorations for budget items that were almost cut.

*for more information on FY2025/2026 budget restorations see pg. 2 of this staff report

These restorations include funding for the following staff positions and programs: 

• Administrative Analyst for the Office of Diversity and Equity: $112,831

• No charge for Residential Parking Permits: $960,882

• FUEL Network (The Sacramento Family Unity, Education, and Legal Network for Immigrants- a coalition of more than 80 community partners that work to address the health, legal, and information needs of Sacramento’s immigrant and refugee population): $500,000

• Youth Violence Prevention Contracts: $1,300,000

• No fee increase for residents of Sacramento to participate in the City’s senior programs (however there will be a fee increase for non-residents)

*A “Fiscal Year” is: the year the funding is for as opposed to a calendar year. Those things might be the same, but often aren’t. Here in Sacramento the Fiscal Year starts in June so the budget is titled Fiscal Year 2023/24 because it runs from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. It’s like a school year.

While these are important wins, they still deserve a critical analysis. For example, these are RESTORATIONS, meaning they were once just simply in the budget, as a given. While getting them back in the budget is a win, we also recognize that these programs should have remained in the budget the whole time. 

Overall, some bare minimums were met: the budget addresses the structural deficit (although next year’s structural deficit is projected to be $60 million), it maintains funding for homeless services and the Transportation Safety Team, includes funding for infrastructure and facility improvements, and has policies in place to address unfunded liabilities (future obligations that don’t have an allocated funding source). 

But do those bare minimums make for a City Budget that reflects the needs of its people?

We say NO.

There were some big issues around the bloated budget of law enforcement, particularly when we measure it against the Sacramento Police Department’s inability to provide true community safety. In fact, a lot of public commenters pointed out the irony of having a City Council that defines public safety as going beyond policing while refusing to fund alternatives.

Two screenshots from this resolution can be found below, the second of which summarizes what the City is affirming by passing the resolution.

One commenter, Paul Andrews, said: 

“The city adopted a resolution in 2019 that stated public safety included more than just the police, it includes preventative measures, measures to interrupt violence, measures to address the needs of disenfranchised people before they become desperate… and then Council proceeded to give the police raises in the [following] years totaling one hundred MILLION dollars”

Keyan Bliss poked at why the Council is so willing to give away so many city dollars, pointing out that…

“Since 2014, the Sacramento Police Officers’ Association has funneled over $90,000 in campaign contributions to 7 out of 9 council members here. How much has SPOA paid each of you for tonight’s vote? $6,800 each for Councilmember Dickinson, Councilmember Pluckeubaum, and Councilmember Guerra. Over $8,000 for Councilmember Kaplan. $10,950 for Councilmember Jennings. And $13,000 to Councilmember Talamantes. Congrats Mayor McCarty, you are the blue ribbon winner, you received a whopping $38,000 since October”

DeAngelo Mack spoke further on the immorality of this budget:

“We know that there is money in a place called police budget. There are vacancies sitting there, while people are dying. You got answers in the audience begging you to give them the funds to support the community THEY know, and the community that trusts THEM, and you are sitting on your hands for vacancies”

Flo Cofer showed up and talked about her experience working at Sacramento New Tech Early College High School with 28 black children, the lack of ethical balance in the budget, and brought attention to the way that kids are not really cared for by the city:

“We focus on the kids who can’t stay home by themselves, but once we think you’re okay...we just send thousands of kids home with nothing to do, until school resumes in August. Our budget should be invested in THAT”

Flo Cofer makes a public comment at the 06/10/25 City Council meeting

Most of the Council didn’t have much to say to any of these compelling comments, and as Flo Cofer and Kenneth Duncan, another member of the public, pointed out…they probably weren’t even listening. However, Councilmember Vang mentioned that the Sacramento Police Department IS eliminating 23 vacant Community Service Officer positions…even though they still have over 150 vacancies left open.

Councilmember Vang drew on the wants and needs of the community, and told a story that illustrated how the proposed budget went against what she knew the community was in favor of. 

“We went out to the community at large and we asked them, ‘if you had to cut something, what is the first thing you’d cut?’ and if you look at the survey results, you’ll see that the number 1 reduction option identified by the community that city staff went out to ask, was the police department and if you look at the lowest rank option, it was youth and parks and our enrichment program and community development”

Not surprisingly, this budget doesn’t seem to address those needs at all. Councilmember Vang voted no on the FY2025/2026 Budget, because as she said, “the budget as a whole doesn’t reflect the transformative change that we have to make as a city.”

Councilmember Kaplan also voted no, though she made it clear that her decision had nothing to do with how she felt about our City’s allocation of funding. Instead, her decision to vote no was based on the fact that she thinks the budget needs to be planned further in advance, and along with that, be promoted more transparently to the public, so that they can engage with the process. While it was problematic (yet expected) that she had no criticisms of the budget itself, additional transparency leading to more mobilization around the budget is always a positive thing. Aside from Councilmember Vang and Councilmember Kaplan, everyone was in favor of the budget, and it was adopted. 

But one last thing- Mayor McCarty made it clear to us at the end that he doesn’t have an understanding of the City’s shared definition of public safety. Reader, I am sure you are unfazed by the fact that McCarty DIDN’T know something - again - but here it is, in his exact words:

“We did not negatively cut public safety- police and fire- which was the top priority I heard from the overwhelming majority of our city council and the community. ‘Don’t cut core services like public safety’”

Mayor McCarty clearly isn’t up to date on what falls under the large umbrella of public safety, and we doubt he has any interest in catching himself up on it. 

Don’t feel too let down regarding this budget, because the budget process happens yearly. If it felt too late to mobilize around the FY2025/2026 budget, then get a head start on advocating for what you want to see in the FY 2026/2027 budget, because that process kicks off essentially NOW. It is really important that we are able to work together in shifting the narrative on what the budget process should be, and who gets to be involved. There is so much more that we can do with the budget than the story our elected officials tell us.

Here is a layout of the yearly budget process. October and November are VERY important advocacy months, prior to even the Midyear Forecast!