Vallejo City Council Considers Freeze on Vacant Positions

June 11 — The Vallejo City Council addressed the 2025-2026 budget on Tuesday, instructing staff to investigate pausing unfilled job roles, reducing costs by $1 million elsewhere, and looking into further options to close an estimated $8 million shortfall.

In order to address the structural shortfall more effectively, the council requested that employees furnish them with a five-year forecast featuring various levels of budget reductions. Additionally, they were tasked with presenting predictive models illustrating potential outcomes should the city lose federal funds, especially concerning their impact on housing initiatives.

Vice Mayor Peter Bregenzer stated, “The path of least resistance involves eliminating vacant roles.” He added, “We must brace ourselves for tough choices as we progress. While this won’t be simple, everyone concurs that these steps are necessary.” This proposed freeze would target solely non-critical employment slots, excluding those related to law enforcement, firefighting, or infrastructure maintenance.

The city’s financial team will share the findings of their study during the council’s scheduled meeting on June 24, or potentially at an additional meeting held sometime this month prior to its conclusion. Similar to numerous other local governments, Vallejo operates on a fiscal calendar extending from July 1 through June 30.

Councilmember Tonia Lediju stated, “These roles aren’t being eliminated; they might be put on hold instead. They won’t be removed from the budget.”

Mayor Andrea Sorce added that the proposed reductions were aimed at unoccupied roles rather than affecting current employees. She mentioned that they would identify savings within empty positions and subsequently present predictive analyses illustrating how these changes might unfold.

Using rapid calculations, City Manager Andrew Murray provided an approximate saving figure of $3 million: “If we consider the empty roles not related to police, fire, or public works within the general fund departments such as planning and development services, adding them together amounts to roughly $3 million.”

Murray additionally pointed out that several elements contributed to the estimate, such as certain vacancies having been accounted for in previous vacancy savings. He indicated they would need to determine the final impact: “So we’ll have to calculate what the actual net effect turns out to be.”

The meeting held on Tuesday followed two public budget sessions; the first took place on March 22, with the second occurring on April 12. During these events, both community members and council representatives listened to financial presentations provided by municipal employees and offered their feedback. Starting this preparatory phase sooner marked an early commencement for the annual budget procedure compared to past practices.

The Tuesday meeting kicked off with a presentation from Finance Director Reckha Nayar outlining a suggested budget for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2025, covering the period through 2025-2026.

The finance director proposed several strategies for balancing the budget, including reducing supply allocations to municipal services and covering retiree healthcare expenses through the Other Post-Employment Benefit Trust rather than from the general fund. However, the council asked employees to investigate additional possibilities, even though they did not reach any definitive conclusions.

The staff report suggested approving the proposed budget on Tuesday; however, the council asked the staff to investigate alternatives for achieving balance, such as freezing roles that are presently unoccupied.

After the presentation, during the ensuing discussion, Bregenzer commented on the suggested methods for achieving budget equilibrium among the team, stating, “It frightens me that we are using Measure P to balance our city’s finances when Measure P clearly outlines particular expenditures it should cover.”

“I believe we should engage in those difficult discussions, and we ought to address them prior to approving this budget. By endorsing it, we’re essentially committing ourselves to maintain our current expenditure habits, and the next year will arrive much more quickly than we expect,” Bregenzer went on to say.

The vice mayor expressed discomfort with approving this.

Councilmember Alexander Matias added his thoughts, saying, “Look at all the other cities… implementing major reductions. Each year as a citizen, I’d stand up and ask when will we begin trimming our budget? And those sitting where Mr. Murray does now always responded with ‘Just give us one more year.’ But here we are again, witnessing the exact same scenario play out annually.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, the numbers aren’t adding up, plain and simple,” Matias concluded.

“I anticipate a projected shortfall of $10 million for next year,” Sorce stated. “This doesn’t sit well with me. We must take action to reduce this figure.”

The members of the council often highlighted the fiscal challenges faced by various cities and counties in the Bay Area. They cited scenarios such as potential reductions in federal and state funds. As an illustration, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors agreed on Tuesday to adopt a budget aimed at maintaining current service levels while restraining spending.

Councilmember Lediju, who leads the San Francisco Housing Authority, warned, “Nationally, we are not distinct from any other city, and we must undertake this necessary work.”

From a federal standpoint, we have a housing authority, and it’s crucial to project what would happen if this city had to bear the costs associated with these housing funds. Which projections should we examine if we were to lose these financial resources? How will we proceed?

Subsequently, Sorce, an economics professor, remarked, “We have the capability to achieve this. Progress is being made. I don’t wish for people to be overwhelmed with pessimism. The challenge we face isn’t insurmountable. This issue isn’t entirely unprecedented to places like Vallejo.”

During her presentation, Nayar projected that the city’s general fund revenue for the next fiscal year would amount to $133 million, not including the anticipated income from the Measure P sales tax.

The largest portion of the general fund budget, amounting to $58 million, goes towards funding the police department, which makes up 39% of the total budget. Coming in second place is the allocation for fire services with $36 million, accounting for approximately 24%. Administration follows closely behind with an appropriation of $21 million, representing about 14% of the overall budget.

The citywide initiative receives $12 million, which constitutes 8% of the total public works allocation of $12 million as well, and Measure P secures $11 million, accounting for 7% of the overall general fund budget.

In the public feedback stage, local citizen Steve Hallett remarked, “Our community finds itself in a vulnerable fiscal state… It’s crucial for us to pay close attention to our expenditures.” Additionally, he stated, “I believe it would be unwise to finalize the budget prior to establishing our goals.”

During goal-setting meetings, council members outline the values and objectives they want to be incorporated into the budget. While this process began somewhat during the budget workshops, a dedicated formal goal-setting session has not been conducted yet.

During the public comments section, at least five individuals expressed concerns regarding council meetings concluding very late into the night. The previous two sessions had finished around 2 a.m.

During the entire meeting, both the mayor and city council members emphasized the importance of conserving time. Source deferred several matters, such as a contentious issue on the consent calendar concerning $2 million for police incentives, to upcoming sessions. The session concluded at 12:53 a.m. on Tuesday.