The City Has "No Plan"?

Opponents claim the City has “no plan.”

That is not accurate.

Why the City isn’t detailing future spending

Based on guidance from legal counsel, the City Council is not allowed to advocate for a ballot measure or describe in detail how it would use funds that may be freed up by a voter-approved parcel tax. This is a legal constraint—not a lack of planning.

The City has already identified its needs.

The City has extensively documented its financial challenges and priorities in publicly available materials, including:

• Budget presentations 
• Long-range financial outlooks 
• Capital and infrastructure project lists 
• Pension and reserve analyses 

These materials are available on the City’s website and have been presented publicly over time.

What those materials show

Across multiple presentations, the City has consistently identified:

• Structural operating deficits 
• Pension obligations 
• Significant infrastructure needs (approximately $80 million over 10 years) 
• Depleted reserves 
• Rising public safety costs 

These are not new issues—they are well-documented and ongoing.

Why the claim Is misleading

The claim that there is “no plan” confuses two separate things:

1. Legal limitations on what the City Council can say about a ballot measure
2. The existence of documented financial needs and priorities

The City cannot campaign—but it can and has clearly outlined its financial condition.

The reality 

• The City has identified its needs
• The information is publicly available
• The constraints are legal—not operational

The bottom line:

The question is not whether the City has a plan.

The question is whether the City has the resources needed to address those well-documented challenges.