Current City Council Goals (Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023)
In July, 2021, the City Council adopted the FY 22 and FY 23 Operating Budget which included the following goals:
- Develop a Financially Resilient Organization that Relies on Local Revenues and Resources
- Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure Including Streets, Facilities, and Incorporates Green Energy Practices
- Promote Economic Development Activities that Create Opportunities for Quality Employment and Increase the City’s Tax Base
- Ensure Neighborhood Equity from City Services Including Public Safety, Streets, Parks, and Recreation
- Promote Availability of Safe, Affordable Housing for all Gilroy Residents
These goals were subsequently used by staff to produce the City’s workplans which is reflected in many of the projects and programs that the City completes and provides.
Potential Council Priorities for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025
Street maintenance: In the prior budget cycle Council authorized funding for Years 1 and 2 of a 5-year street maintenance plan. In order to complete the 5-year street maintenance plan, funding for years 3 and 4 would need to be identified in this budget cycle.
Santa Teresa Fire Station: Council has authorized staff to move forward with construction of a 4th fire station, however provisions in the current development agreement with the Glen Loma Corporation that require them to pay for a substantial portion of the fire station have not yet been triggered and, thus, the City will construct a temporary fire station a few blocks from where the permanent station will ultimately be built. The City has identified the balance of the capital funds necessary to construct the station when the timing per the development agreement is triggered.
Tenth Street bridge: Like the Santa Teresa Fire Station, this bridge was initially contemplated as part of the 2005 Glen Loma Development agreement. The agreement provides for construction of the bridge (a continuation of 10th Street over Uvas Creek west of Gilroy High School) to be paid for by the City. Its current $28 million price tag requires a funding source we don’t currently have but may be forthcoming through a federal transportation grant, leaving us responsible for only a portion of the cost, say 20% for example. Even 20% of a number as high as $28 million is still a big number, and Council will need to decide where this fits in the list of priorities on which we want staff to focus. The City is currently conducting environmental analysis work in order to make the project “shovel-ready.”
Increasing Police Presence/Patrol: Whether to increase officer presence throughout the city in response to our businesses and residents is a subject for Council to consider as we prioritize the budget. We have already approved and are funding a partnership with Gilroy Unified School District for two police officers committed to school safety, known as School Resource Officers (SROs), and two Qualify of Life officers dedicated to encampment issues and connecting people to available help.
Drug rehab and mental health facilities at St. Louise: The city has no jurisdiction over the County hospital or the services it provides, and we do not receive our own funding for social services or behavioral health, but Council may direct city staff to pursue specific requests with the County and ensure our proportionate share of County funding and programs.
Non-permanent housing: These are shelter structures that are not on permanent foundations and are often referred to as emergency or interim housing. They come at no cost to the inhabitant who, in some instances, may reside there indefinitely. The cost of providing such sites comes primarily in funding the ongoing behavioral, case management, security and maintenance services that are required of any subsidized temporary or permanent housing program. I have visited two different sites – one in downtown San Francisco and another in South San Jose. The San Jose site is operated by HomeFirst, an independent provider of services and shelter for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. (Santa Clara County contracts with HomeFirst to operate the Gilroy Armory on Wren Ave. near Las Animas Park.) The annual operating cost of the San Jose site is $3.3 million for 80 inhabitants, which translates to an ongoing cost of $41,250 per person per year. At this site, over 90 percent of the inhabitants who occupied units when the site opened two years ago have not transitioned out and are still occupants today. The funding source for the ongoing operating costs determines who has the authority to place conditions on those who occupy a unit. The City of San Jose provides their own funding to cover operating costs and, therefore, has the authority to make their non-permanent housing sites drug and alcohol free. Most cities in Santa Clara County however, like Gilroy, depend on County funding for social services and are not permitted to place their own conditions on temporary housing sites. This is a very complicated issue that the Council has dedicated significant time and resources to and I expect that we will continue those discussions as part of the upcoming budget cycle.
Public Transportation messaging: As a VTA Board member and active alternate since 2018, I can attest to the disproportionate allocation of public transportation services that continues to exist from south county (Gilroy and Morgan Hill). As lesser expensive housing attracts residents to move farther and farther away from job centers to the north, viable public transportation options are critical to addressing our worsening highway congestion. While not under the control or jurisdiction of the Gilroy City Council, we can recognize that but for the VTA 68 bus line, we are without a single “high-quality transit” option, which is defined as a line of public transportation with a frequency of 15 minutes or less. Gilroy’s bus lines are mostly hourly (but for the 68 bus and the 568 bus that depart the Transit Center at 15-minute and 30-minute intervals, respectively), and train service is limited to 3 weekday trains departing Gilroy at 5:54am, 6:31am and 6:52am. Council may prioritize what role in messaging city staff should play to publicize public transportation options that do exist and may work for some, as well as stronger staff support through our Technical Advisory Committee for proportionate allocation of transportation services.
Recreational Facility Needs: At several city council meetings last year we heard requests to pursue various recreational facility initiatives. A community center was considered as part of the ice rink additions to the Gilroy Sports Park, but the location was deemed too far from central to the city and less ideal for residents of all ages and all neighborhoods to access. The City was also approached about recreational facilities for pickleball and a BMX park. The development process for some of these facilities, such as a community center, takes years in the making, but it’s time we form a plan to work towards addressing the recreational needs of the entire community.
Agricultural uses on residential property within city limits: At one of our recent City Council meetings, the council majority chose to consider permitting agricultural activities, including beehives, on residential property within the city, activities that are currently allowed in the unincorporated parts of Gilroy only. Housing density is far higher in the city than in the county, making agricultural uses of property potentially more sensitive among neighbors. Also to be considered are the disadvantages that present to those who cannot afford properties that provide some buffer from the agricultural activities of their neighbors.
