The council spent a significant portion of its meeting debating a proposal to consolidate workforce and economic-development functions into a new investment and community department structure (referred to in testimony as CFID/CFIT/CAFT). Councilmembers raised questions about the plan's true costs, staffing implications and the potential impact on federal-grant administration.

Concejala Rodrdguez introduced a modification to recommendations 5 through 8 of the economic-development report and framed her ask as preserving a standalone economic-development department while exploring efficiencies. She said the "costo verdadero" of consolidation had not been fully identified and urged the body to "medir dos veces y cortar una vez." (SEG 1306'SEG 1374).

CEO office staff responded with estimated figures. An office representative reported identified short-term savings of about $3.0 million and projected personnel and operating savings in later years, while also noting that full savings would not materialize in the current fiscal year and that one-time integration costs for systems and space remained under review. The staff noted a possible maximum personnel cost of about $2.8 million connected to establishing a separate department (SEG 1549'SEG 1575; SEG 1570'SEG 1575).

Councilmembers exchanged arguments about whether consolidation would preserve technical expertise for economic development and how federal funding (CDBG and other grants) would be managed. Multiple members emphasized the difficulty of restoring functions once transferred and the need for a complete cost estimate that includes IT integration and office space (SEG 1356'SEG 1750).

Procedurally, the council voted on competing items and modifications. The transcript records a roll-call on a proposed modification that failed on a close vote, "7 a favor, 8 en contra" (modification fails) and subsequent roll calls on other related motions with varying tallies; the clerk later summarized the sequence of competing motions and advised members that if multiple competing motions pass, the last prevailing motion would control the council's position (SEG 2047'SEG 2060).

The debate closed after a procedural motion to end debate passed and the council proceeded to roll-call votes. The council then announced it would consider a set of three related motions for the economic-development recommendations (including the Rodrdguez modification and competing reports) and took separate roll calls for each. The transcript indicates at least one later motion was announced as approved by the presiding officer ("la mocion de Price Soto Martinez para adoptar el reporte de Desarrollo Economicos se aprueba") though multiple roll-call tallies were recorded earlier for the competing votes (SEG 2016'SEG 2070). The record shows disagreement among members about costs and program alignment, but the transcript does not include a consolidated, itemized cost schedule in the public record.

What happens next: the council referred some items for reconsideration and called for follow-up details about estimated integration costs, staff positions to be retained or eliminated, and the share of general fund support required for any new department structure. Councilmembers asked staff for more granular fiscal analysis before any final administrative consolidation is fully implemented.