Thank you.

Sacramento City Council.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kaplan.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Vice-Mier Talamantes.

Councilmember Pleckibom.

Councilmember Maple.

Mayor Prattamgata.

Councilmember Jennings.

We expect Councilmember Vang momentarily.

And Mayor Cardi.

Here.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Can you lead us in the land acknowledgement and the pledge?

These rides for the opening and acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and

tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu, the Valley,

and Plains, Miwok, Patnwyn, Winton, and peoples, and the people of the Winton, Wilton, excuse

me, Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us

today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice

of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions

and lives.

Thank you.

And now please join me in the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which

it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, the Brazilian nationalist for all.

So may we move to the consent calendar?

Can I ask if any council members have comments, questions?

Council member Kaplan.

We have comments on item 45, 4N5.

We're in 5.

Casing no more.

Number 6.

Number 6.

And then I have two speakers on the consent calendar.

May we take those now?

Sure.

Thank you.

Mac Wurthy and then Lisa Sanchez.

I'm on this basis on trying to educate the people in this city of how money is spent.

This is what we're saying of which should have been done years ago.

Pipes inspection.

We have dug into Gavin Island's pipes for gas just coming through.

Not a Gavin Island's pipes here for water.

Before you're saying you're going to do the inspection, what will be the results and bring

it back for you to do the inspection.

You could be working for million or years for the inspection here.

The fabulous Party wrote a rudder.

You got pipes there.

Those people spent enough fortune for pipes.

That's what you're going to do with inspection.

How you're going to do it?

District by district.

Who go there and identify what needs to be inspected.

People this is waste or fund.

Thank you for your comments.

Lisa Sanchez on item 5.

Thank you.

Is the projector for photo imaging not working?

I'm not sure how to be able to present.

So, ma'am, you can't use that.

The rules of procedure don't allow that.

If you have copies, you can give them to clerk to distribute.

Okay.

I can do that.

So, for the item 5 with education efforts for strong model pollution prevention, I

just wanted to pass a agree to pass the motion.

I have worked not only directly with Department of Utilities and also the company's agent that

they are going to be using for this outreach.

And I think that they have been fantastic with their public education about the storm

water pollution and prevention.

I volunteer with River City Waterway Alliance, which is directly related to that, cleaning

our creeks and waterways.

And so, I don't think that there is enough non-pollution things being shared around.

We used to have that back in the day and we don't any longer.

So, anything that is again preventing the storm water pollution from our creeks and waterways,

I would say, please pass.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Mary, I have no more speakers on the consent calendar.

Councilmember Kaplan, you in comments?

Absolutely.

Item four, I think, is phenomenal and I do want to call out that the city is still looking

to get federal grants to help us study and support the water forms objective to preserve

and protect our fishery wildlife aesthetics and our recreational resources.

I did confirm with our city because, well, I think it's important that when these grants

show up, we do apply for them knowing that they could be cut at any moment and that we

also just don't prespend.

Any resources and response to this, but I think it's also an opportunity to highlight

that maybe there might be partners in California.

We can look to to make sure that we stay on top of some of this.

The studying of what we need for our riverway and our waterways to keep them clean and supportive.

So I am supportive of that, but just highlighting and confirmed with staff that while we go

for these, we are abundantly clear that federal funding may maybe take in from us or these

grants given and then removed.

And then moving on to item five, thank you.

I participated in a cleanup with the River City Waterway Alliance this weekend, cleaning

up our canals in our waterways to make sure that the sickening amount of debris that

comes from our unhoused does not enter our storm drains is absolutely needed.

If you have not partnered with them, please do so.

They are expert at this, but it is a really sad thing to see when you're out there.

Tons of waste of material, chop shops, we're gathered this weekend from our flooded waterways

in Natomas and Steelhead Creek.

And I know that affects as it goes on down to district two and district three that the

more we work together to clean up is really needed.

And highlighting this on five is council member Rick Jennings and I went to a presentation

of one of these education done at one of the schools in his district and they do it every

year at a couple of schools in my district and probably each one of yours.

But I say it is really, really important that this generation understands the effect of

pollution and what it does to our storm water in our drains.

And so I really want to thank the city and all those involved to make sure that this

outreach continues to our schools because it is so very important that this next generation

understand that we've got a lot of work to do to clean up our waterways to make sure

that we don't break our storm waters and our pipes and our waterways cleaned.

So I will move consent.

I'm motion a second.

And Mayor I believe you had comments on item six.

I did.

I did.

I wanted to comment on this item which is in Mr. Pluckybaum's district number four.

This is the Southside Park pool which has received a lot of attention the last couple years.

So just to you six and seven because it fills district now.

I know the history of this more than me but in late 22, it was decided that the pool needed

to be rebuilt essentially and not renovated.

Then council member Tala Montes asked me in early 23, hey, McCarty can help find some state

money to fix Southside Park pool.

And so we announced I believe it was Mayor June of 23 that we had set aside $500,000 to

fix the pool.

It was unfortunate that it took a whole year later to actually award a contract to start

the construction and the rehab of the pool.

It wasn't finished by last summer.

Look, we can't cry or spill milk but the pool needs to be open next summer for the kids

in that neighborhood.

So I think that this should be some lessons learned as far as how can, especially when

we have resources available to the city, make sure that projects are delivered on time

that the community is counting on and expect.

So excited that we have this contract order in front of us and so it's our expectation

that the spring time is just around the corner that Mr. Plucky-Bomber and I will be out there

doing canoballs.

Is that a deal?

Deal.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

We will do canoballs whether or not the city rules allows to or not.

So anyway, we'll be out there in a few months.

Outside residents know that your pool is being fixed finally and excited to see this

come to fruition and with that we have a motion of second on the entire consent calendar.

And now we have, let me tell us a bunch of stuff.

No.

Okay.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

And he knows your abstentions.

Hearing none, consent calendar passes.

Thank you, Mayor.

That passes unanimously.

We move on to the discussion calendar.

Item 7 is the City Auditor's Fiscal Year 2023-24.

Audited cannabis business operations tax amount for the Sacramento Children's Fund.

Good afternoon, members and mayor, members of the City Council, Jordan Swini, principal

fiscal policy analyst with the office of the City Auditor.

The recommendation that is before you is to approve the City Auditors Fiscal Year 2023-24

audited cannabis business operations tax amount for the Sacramento Children's Fund.

This is our first year auditing C-Bot revenue and the city charter requires that we audit

this number annually.

The Sacramento Children and Youth Health and Safety Act, also known as Measure L, was passed

by voters in 2022.

This established City Charter Section 120, the Sacramento Children's Fund, and requires

the City Auditor to publish an audited amount of C-Bot each fiscal year.

The general fund equivalent of 40% of the audited amount of C-Bot is allocated to the Children's

Fund.

The objective of this project was to fulfill the requirement outlined in Section 120, the

Children's Fund, specifically Section C2 of the Sacramento City Charter by publishing

an audited amount of C-Bot for the prior fiscal year.

We determined that contracting with the city's external auditors would be the most efficient

use of resources to complete this audit.

As such, the external auditors completed the audit in accordance with generally accepted

auditing standards and government auditing standards.

The results of the audit show that for fiscal year 2023-24, C-Bot revenue came in at 23,351,809

dollars.

During the budget process each year, the city makes an estimate of C-Bot revenues and

budgets and amount equivalent to 40% of the estimated C-Bot revenue to be transferred

from the general fund to the Children's Fund.

During the fiscal year end process, the finance department performs a true up to ensure

the contribution to the Children's Fund reflects 40% of the actual C-Bot revenue for that

fiscal year.

So the numbers on the right side of this slide show an example of the process.

And for fiscal year 23-24, the estimated C-Bot revenue was approximately 22 million.

And therefore approximately 8.8 million in general fund dollars was contributed to the

Children's Fund.

The audited amount of C-Bot revenue was approximately 23.3 million coming in slightly higher than

estimated.

Therefore the finance department did a true up to contribute approximately 550,000 more

to the Children's Fund.

The total amount contributed to the Children's Fund for FY24 was approximately 9.3 million.

As the City Auders' responsibilities established by Measure L require two annual reports, we have

generated a new web page as a central location for the Council, Management and the Public to

have access to these reports.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much.

I said the auditor, we have any public comments on the side.

I have one speaker on this item, Macworthy.

I think I just called the City Auditor, didn't I?

City clerk, sorry.

It's okay.

I actually like our City Auditor, right?

That's actually compliment.

City, we line something new each time we look at this.

Why would you put marine water on the children's farm, which has decreased, have devastated

children's life?

Then you put the other money into Jill Ponds, so we don't know how the money is spent.

Now when you talk about children, always done nonprofit organization, that's from Washington,

ZC, down, put ponds in those things.

So what you have done, have lied to the kids.

You killed them day after day.

How many cases we have that the marine water is used by the parents and the kids get

out of the house.

What is to be said is since 1981, increase insurance death.

Now we got this here and we would like to know that policy was put into not to do this,

but see if people, 44 years ago, I raised the same thing.

44 years ago, you still at that killing babies in drugs.

How many kids in high school with Rick Jennings program that we can identify to drugs use,

that parents use?

You don't have those statistics, but babies is being used.

The fellow government talks about this very strong of use of marine water for kids in

message with the brain.

So people, please wake up and quit the line to people's babies.

These types of meetings should be when all people can show up.

This type of meetings should go to the neighborhood.

I paid the money for this, people.

Nobody else.

I paid out of my pocket $2,000 an hour for this, for two hours and a few minutes to send

a wake up, Sacramento, wake up.

Thank you for your comments.

Mary, I have no more speakers on this item.

Okay.

Thank you.

Have a few members signed up to speak?

Council member Vang.

Thanks, Mayor.

Hi.

I just wanted to take this moment to say thank you so much for all the hard work.

And really saying true to the intent of the voters and checking our sea ball to make

sure that we're readjusting the difference based on our projections.

And so just two questions and then maybe a suggestion, maybe you have already done this.

Even just the difference in the approved children fund and the real estimate, I'm assuming

those dollars just get readjusted back into the actual Sacramento children's fund.

Is that correct?

Yes, the finance department performs the true up at the end of the year.

So they've already moved the extra money into the children's fund.

Okay, great.

And then I just wanted to also make a request.

To have this presentation, I've been presented to the Sacramento Children's Fund oversight committee.

We are getting on the agenda for their May 1st meeting.

Okay, great.

Yeah, that was my only suggestion, but glad that you're already on the agenda.

And just really wanted to say thank you just for all your hard work.

And it's good to see that we were under actually.

It's a good problem to have.

So thank you so much for your hard work.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Council member Kaplan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just follow up kind of an alignment with Council member Vang.

Sad.

Is it normal when you do a true up that there will be reconciliation almost every year?

Yes, it's statistically unlikely they're going to hit the number exactly when they do the estimate at the beginning of the year.

So they'll always have to do a true up at the end of the year to make sure it matches actual.

Because I want to make sure that the public understands because sometimes this can be confusing.

So basically we'll go through and you'll make an estimate again for next year.

And then we'll see you about a year from now again to do another reconciliation.

Is that kind of what the process a little bit is going to be?

Yes, the finance department will make their estimate, which will get approved as part of the budget process.

And then we will come in at the end of the year and do an audit to make sure that the actuals that the finance department has in their books appear correct.

And then the finance department will do their true up and move the money to make sure that the children's fund is made whole.

And I think that's important that we also educate our commissioners on that so that they understand because I think the community will have questions.

They'll think, oh, they're hiding money other than this being the typical process.

And then personally, I would always urge to be somewhat on the conservative side because it would break my heart if we go, we think we're going to get 24 million next year in reality.

We only get 22.

And then that means like 600,000 is going to be have to take out of the children's fund back.

So I always kind of prefer to transfer more money in for a little bit of push versus take it out of if that helps you.

Think about things in the finance department.

I would rather be a little bit more on the the conservative side so we don't have to remove money.

You know, because it's always harder time to do it.

But otherwise, thank you.

I know this is new for the auditing team as we're now doing this and figuring out the the eyes and the tease and making sure it's done right.

And bringing it to us.

So, but want to thank you for that.

I'll move the item mayor.

Thank you.

Motion in a second.

Public comments already.

We have motion in a second.

All's in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any nos or abstentions?

Hearing none, the item passes 9-0.

Thank you, Madam.

We move on to item number 8, which is the city auditor's fiscal year 2023-24 baseline funding verification for the Sacramento Children's Fund.

Hello, good afternoon.

Mayor, members of the city council.

Again, Jordan Swini, principal fiscal policy analyst with the office of the city auditor.

The recommendation that is before you is to approve the city auditor's fiscal year 2023-24 baseline funding verification.

For the Sacramento Children's Fund.

This is our first year conducting the baseline funding verification and the city charter requires that we conduct this verification annually.

The Sacramento Children and Youth and Healthy Safety Act, also known as measure L, again, was passed by voters in 2022 and established city charter section 120,

which required the city auditor to calculate and publish the baseline funding amount by December 31, 2023.

We've fulfilled this obligation and calculated the baseline funding amount to be 22.9 million.

Moving forward, the city auditor is required to verify whether the baseline funding amount was expended each fiscal year.

The objective of this project was to fulfill the requirement outlined in section 120, specifically section E1C of the Sacramento City Charter by verifying that the baseline funding amount of 22.9 million was expended in fiscal year 23-24.

The scope of the project was city expenditures for fiscal year 24 are those made between July 1st, 2023 and June 30th, 2024.

To achieve our objective, we distributed individualized youth program identification worksheets to departments requesting they provide information on programs identified during the baseline funding calculation last year.

We also requested departments identify any new youth programs and services offered in fiscal year 24.

Additionally, we gathered and analyzed general ledger data to support and supplement the information provided by the departments.

We researched programs identified as potential youth programs aiming to gain an understanding of their key characteristics.

To confirm that a program qualified towards the baseline funding verification, we conducted an analysis to verify its compliance with the city charter.

This analysis specifically involved identifying expenditures from fiscal year 24 net of program revenues confirming their source as unrestricted general fund revenue, aligning the program with one or more fund goals and verifying that expenditures did not fall into prohibited categories.

We maintained ongoing consultations with the city attorney's office throughout this process seeking their guidance to enhance our comprehension of the city charter compliance and its practical application to the tasks at hand.

All program expenditures counted towards the baseline funding verification were paid for from either the city's general fund or the measure use special revenue fund.

In instances where a program description did not specifically address a fund goal, we considered the potential benefits of the type of services provided by the program to ensure fun goal alignment.

We encountered several challenges with youth program tracking and identification. For example, as we progress through this process, it became evident that in certain situations, the most appropriate method for determining the correct allocation of youth related expenses.

The most appropriate method for determining the appropriate costs of the budget was to rely on management's estimates.

In specific cases, we employed management's estimates to determine the appropriate distribution of administrative costs among eligible youth programs.

Additionally, we depended on management's assessments of youth program participation to isolate and allocate the youth related portion within programs that had a partial youth component.

We also identified the attendance records. It's important to note that we did not conduct independent audit procedures to validate the accuracy or completeness of management's estimates.

Additionally, in some cases, departments identified youth programs with eligible youth expenditures that were not identified during the baseline funding calculation.

We reached out to the city attorney's office to determine whether the baseline funding amount could be adjusted post publication.

The baseline funding amount has a pined that the baseline funding amount is final and cannot be adjusted.

Our office understands measure L contemplates youth expenditures as a whole, providing the city the flexibility to adjust youth programming based on changing youth needs.

Accordingly, any youth program with eligible expenditures was counted as eligible towards the baseline funding verification, whether or not the program was included in the baseline funding amount.

This slide summarizes the programs, amounts and fungles counted towards the fiscal year 24 baseline funding verification by city departments.

It is important to note that the table doesn't encompass all youth program offerings in the city of Sacramento.

Instead, it highlights those with eligible expenditures in the fiscal year 24 that met one or more fungles and fit the baseline funding criteria of the Sacramento Children's Fund.

After reviewing the cities of Sacramento's youth programs and related expenditures for fiscal year 24, we have verified that the city expended the baseline funding amount for the Sacramento Children's Fund.

The report goes into further detail for each department and their own programs, including total amounts considered and descriptions of each program.

Amounts considered generally refers to the amount of fiscal year 24 expenditures, net of revenues for a program or group of programs that we considered for the fiscal year 24 baseline funding verification.

In some instances, we identified expenditures that were not eligible for city charter criteria.

Common reasons for reducing the amount included as eligible towards the baseline funding verification were due to an ineligible funding source, prohibited expenditure category or programs with only a partial youth component.

Appendix A in the report lists youth programs and services with excluded expenditure amounts and exclusion reasons.

This is another slide of our new webpage that we created as every year going forward, we will have two annual measure out reports.

So as outlined in this charter, our primary responsibility is to ensure that the baseline funding requirement has been met.

In this report, we not only verified compliance with the baseline requirement, but also provided additional analysis to enhance transparency and accountability.

Specifically, we identified the amount of funding above and beyond the baseline requirement, detailed the total expenditures considered and the amount included in meeting the baseline cataloged all programs included in the analysis and those excluded along with explanation for their inclusion.

This approach ensures a comprehensive understanding of how the city meets its youth funding obligations and provides a clear framework for future verification.

So we are producing a report at this level of detail requires significant time and resources. While we believe this thoroughness adds value, especially in the first verification report, we want to ensure our work aligns with the council's priorities.

As such, we requested feedback from the budget and audit committee on the level of detail and future baseline funding verification work.

Their direction was to provide the council with a detailed report every other year.

In the correction, our approach would be to produce the same level of detail as this report in even numbered years.

Then in odd numbered years, we would remove the total expenditures considered, remove the exclusions appendix and remove the catalog of programs.

However, we would still provide a summary, which includes the falling information broken down by department, eligible amounts, number of eligible programs, and fungal alignment for the overall department.

We seek the full city council's direction on this proposed approach. Your guidance is crucial in helping us strike the right balance between fulfilling the charter's requirements and addressing the city's overall audit priorities.

I look forward to your thoughts and welcome many feedback or direction on how we can best meet your expectations moving forward.

This concludes my presentation and I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

I have one public comment around this. So we take that before.

Yes, please proceed. Thank you.

Macworthy.

Follow the dollar.

Now, what's somebody like?

You put in a charter to get money for children.

Then you put the bonds and the jump bonds and you only show $9 million that you for children. What did the other 22 go?

Could you tell us that?

Are you just going to lie along with the reaction your question because see when you go to a jump on that money can be used any way that they see fit and the kids never know it.

Public understand.

I was in business for 59 years and I did study accounting and I got a B in business law over at America River. Somebody go paid a price here.

If it was an independent audit.

Would we find the same figures?

When you advertise for bait for children fun, did you tell them you're just going to put it into jump on?

No. That same thing went on home as money.

You lied. You lied. Home as money. You didn't put that money into homeless.

You put that money elsewhere and the same thing you do it to people babies in the city.

Thank you for your comments. Mary, have no more speakers.

Thank you. You council members.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thanks for the presentation and I would say that I think you have accurately reflected what the budget not a committee expressed as it's sense of how this should be approached in future years.

I had a couple of questions as I thought about this since we heard it in the committee.

The first has to do with the amounts that were excluded from the baseline consideration but in the verification.

So that difference between 25.3 million and 22.9 million.

I've looked at the attachment, the exhibit that you made reference to but I'm still a little unclear on why some of this money and that difference that delta was excluded.

For example, capital expenditures or general operational support.

The narrative of the report indicates that where it wasn't identified as being, it sounds exclusively for youth purposes that then that was eliminated or subtracted from the 25.3 million.

I wanted to ask you to give some elaboration on or maybe some examples even of funds that were subtracted from the 25.3 million for those reasons that are indicated in the report.

Yes. So an example of general operational support would be where the city has agreements with other entities for example Fairytale Town and the Sacramento Zoo where we provide them funding and they absolutely have youth programs and services.

Which moves into a little bit of what you were saying about things that were exclusively youth. So we did, we did include partial youth programs.

Good example of that is Aquatics and Yipsey. They do programs for adults as well. And we used program participation records to determine the percentage of youth versus adult and take those calculations.

However, the city charter does have some specific criteria for capital. And so for that, it has to be the primary and direct use by youth. And so we chose a methodology that set a definition of primary and direct at 50% youth participation.

So for programs that did not meet that, some of their capital expenditures would be excluded. But for programs that did meet that, then their capital expenditures would be included.

Well, so positing from a moment on the general operational support, that whatever that number is, was considered not part of it.

It wasn't apportioned as I understand it. It was because I gather the program staff said, well we're not sure how much would have gone to support youth activities versus other general activities that it was excluded entirely.

Is that the case?

So we did not do the same level of detail analysis on those particular funding sources because we first looked at the agreements and consulted with the attorney's office on whether or not the agreement itself would lend itself to a program that could qualify.

And at that point, the analysis came out as no, this agreement does not lend itself to being eligible towards the baseline funding amount due to the language and the agreement.

So we did not then go forward and look at the particular program because it wouldn't have been eligible.

Okay, I think I followed what you said, but I'm still not sure I understand.

So if there was a amount of funding provided to the zoo for general operational support, just in terms of your process of handling this audit, then when you talk to the staff administering the zoo, and they said, gee, this was general operational support.

Sure, I'm sure some of it kids were the beneficiary of other not, but after your consultation with the city attorney and other factors you listed, that nonetheless would have been excluded.

Yes.

And so tell me again, I think you did, but I'm not sure I got it.

Why you didn't portion that money? Was it because the zoo staff couldn't give you any estimate of what it would be or some other reason?

No, it's more that the city doesn't have control over how the money would be spent upfront. Yes, we could ask the zoo to provide us data at the back end of what they spent it on.

However, money is fungible.

And it went back to the nature of the agreement we have with the entity. And unless the agreement specified youth services in it, then we considered it not eligible.

Okay. Now it's more clear to me. Thank you.

I would just suggest maybe that's an area for further consideration as you go into the next audit for this purpose because the intent at least as I perceive it of measure L and the establishment of the baseline funding was to try to figure out all the funding essentially for maintenance of effort purposes is dedicated to young people.

And so if there's something, if there's an error to be made, the error should be made on the side of counting the money toward the baseline of youth services as opposed to excluding it would be at least my view.

And that may not be a shared view, so I don't represent it as more than my view, but I do think it raises the question that's that's ripe for discussion as you look at at the next go round on this.

I wanted to ask one other one other thing.

You have concluded with this audit that 22.9 million is the baseline funding figure that's appropriate for 2324.

I noticed the measure you committees report to us annual report identified 28.67 million for just for youth directly in measure you funds.

Now, their report was 2223 so different fiscal years, but it made me wonder whether you in the course of your audit looked at or talked to any of the measure L committee members or staff tried to compare so you could see whether you're both looking at the same thing or there's a difference or if there's a difference why that difference exists, what adjustments might be appropriate.

If there is a different any kind of any kind of conversation along those lines.

We did not speak with any of the measure you commissioners. We did speak with staff who work with the measure you committee on things like participatory budgeting and some of those programs were counted as eligible.

So, I guess without looking at the report would be that it comes back to the city charter criteria that's set for measure L. For example, it does the definition of youth align measure L goes to age 24 if the measure you committee is doing up to age 25 26 that could change the numbers.

So, we can look into that more and make sure that we are reconciling those things.

I think that would be justified because obviously measure you was part of the general fund dollars you were you were looking at so it's I think again worth taking a look at because the measure you committee and I just picked one category the biggest category but they had much more than that.

So, not all directed at youth to be sure but I suspect that their number would probably be higher than yours came out and if that's if that's so the question is why is that so and are there explanations such as you suggested or is there an adjustment that might be appropriate again for future years.

Thanks mayor.

Thank you.

Next up Councillor Neill.

Appelin and can we please have the audience refrain from.

Thank you.

Thank you mayor and thank you to my colleague Councillor Dicconson I think he highlighted as our auditor staff is two years in on this how confusing this can be especially taking item seven and now taking item eight and why the numbers are so different.

So, just to clarify that I have it right with the last item it's verifying what how much cannabis tax we brought in.

Yes.

And that 40% of whatever we verify goes towards dedicated youth services that meet the requirements that were in measure L of how they should be spent.

40% of the Seabot revenue we get goes into the city's children's fund which then has their own oversight planning and commission and you guys get reports and decide how that money will be spent.

The second item here about the baseline funding verification actually has nothing to do with that pot of money.

It's general fund money but defined in the charter that really means the general fund plus measure you.

So that money and that they have to keep the same level of expenditures that they had in FY23 which was 22.9 million based on our calculation.

And so we just need to determine whether or not they spent the 22.9 million every year going forward from the general fund or measure you.

So basically measure EU required us to do two things.

One have a separate pot of money which we now know with the reconciliation will be 9.3 million and that has to meet how that's going to be spent that will measure you or measure L.

But it also required us to figure out and you guys are auditors for the first time to go through and look at all of our city departments.

While there is no was was no mechanism and figure out how much was dedicated for youth services to establish a baseline for which every year going forward the audit you've presented to us has to verify we've at least met that initial baseline and haven't reduced our spending on youth because measure L now has its own.

Yes correct am I am I making sure that I have both of it correctly you have both of that correctly and on top of the youth services they also have to align with one of the fund goals that was defined in measure L which could also be a difference between the measure you report and our report as we do have to ensure that it meets one of those five fund goals.

So it could be like just following up to keep consistency like measure you said okay 20 may 8 million was youth but maybe one of those expenditures didn't meet one of the five and that's why it couldn't be used for the baseline is that a good exam that is a possibility yes.

And then I want to go because you did bring it up and wanting to and I've talked with our auditor.

Can you describe like how much time it takes to come up with a report that was presented to us today in this item.

Sure this level of detailed report took us about three quarters of an FTE so to date we're over 1500 hours on it and we expect a few more to close out the project on the end and this is something we have to do annually.

And so part of what you're asking is should we do this detail level of report every year or as was discussed in about budget and audit I heard potentially every other year are there other clarifications if we move forward with doing this every other year that the city auditor staff needs.

So moving forward even if we do a less detailed report it's not necessarily that we're going to cut our number of hours on this in half we still have to do a lot of the underlying work to make sure that the programs are eligible however it will save us a good amount of time in some of our quality control standards because the report will be shorter but we will still have that detail.

For clarification when measure all was passed we were not given any additional resources in our office so we've had to absorb this work between all of our staff and so when I say three quarters of an FTE I do not mean over the course of a year generally speaking we have to wait until the books close and that happens in late November early December and then the charter mandates we publish this by January 15th.

So we get started basically right after the fiscal year starts reaching out trying to get some preliminary numbers and then come December we're all hands on deck and so it is actually our entire office working in a very short amount of time is and over the holidays to try and get this report out in the charter mandated deadline.

And so I think that's something for us colleagues to just take into consideration if we were to ever go out to voters maybe like I hear the January deadline but like adding another month February would it still be enough time to do that for reconciliation just because you go November to January and basically you're having 1500 hours put into that time is there any reason we have to have this number verified at this time does it relate to the budget.

Or does if we did this a month later do we still have are we still you know I'm not sure why the language for the measure was written the way it was so I would have to defer to whoever wrote that but to my knowledge our work on the baseline funding verification doesn't necessarily impact the budget although maybe because if we don't meet the baseline they do have to adjust and make sure that we have to do that.

So I think that's a good thing to do is we're going to have to make sure that they add that to the next year but even if this was presented in March it's still while we're preparing the budget so that would be time so colleagues I don't know when that time will ever approach but also something to potentially think about with will still get this number in time for budget but also think about as we're looking at slimmer time and a lot of staff putting in hours and a short amount of time over the holidays just to be something to be mindful of.

I think we should keep in mind but I also I'm curious of on the non-full year what my colleagues think about if they're doing the audit and they go oh it meets the baseline that how much further should they go because of how much time this does take and we know we're going to be doing a full one every other year on that non-year as long as we say they've met the baseline how much more detail should we want hearing about all of the data.

So I'm going to have this knowing they have the short amount of time. I'm curious.

Thank you. Counts member Van.

Thanks Mayor. Just really want to take this moment to thank Jordan for his to thank you just really staff for all your hard work for the baseline of verification.

And what I will what I will say from just talking to staff is that I know every year we're going to reach the baseline and I say that because when we think about direct use services that's playing paying our employees and they get raises every year and they have step column so I will say to folks that we will meet the baseline every year no matter what I think for me in particular I think it's really important.

I think the work that you do is really important I think it also goes to the question of do we have systems in place to ensure that we're tracking all of our youth funding programming right because it is something even if we move to buy annual which I'm okay with I'm hearing that from our budget and audit committee we still need to make sure we have a system in place so that in terms of scope of work you're not overwhelmed right that we have a system in place staff is putting in those numbers or those dollars in while they're doing the youth programming so for me it also seems like on the system side.

We have to make sure that we have that set up. I also just want to acknowledge I think because Jordan you had mentioned that on the city on otter had absorbed some of that cost to do this work.

Just wanting to reconfirm with our city attorney as well of my understanding is that the measure also set aside operational funds I know for implementation that's on the Yipsi side but can some of those dollars also be used on the auditing side as well to support this work.

But I am so cognizant that if we do that it does take money from our direct youth services but I do believe that this is really important and want to make sure that there's dollar allocated for this even if we move to every other year as well.

So just wanted to put that out there as well because I know that that is a council decision as well but we did set aside dollars for admin what not right and I see this as part of that part of the work of ensuring that we stay true to the intent of the work.

So we are going to do the intent of the measure and the voters.

You're correct and we did collaborate with Yipsi and we are getting reimbursed for our hours from that bucket of money that you mentioned.

So when we talk about absorbing some of the cost we're more talking about that's less audit work that we can do in our office.

And so we are already a small office and now this position while it can be or this work can be funded by that pot of money it's still less audit work that we can do which adds value to the city.

So I think that's a good thing.

So just for clarification then on this item I know we're putting a motion right it's an action item and so I just definitely want to hear from the rest of my colleagues is that a direction you all want to take in terms of doing this every other year I think for me I think one of the flags that I just want to mention is that I think because this is ongoing whether that's every other year it's going to be really important for us just to have a system in place.

So I think that's really important for measure L or measure you or for the city in general in terms of budgeting I think even of measure L was in an existence it's important for us to know how much dollars we're spending on parks how much dollars we're spending on fire how much dollars we're spending on our young people in the city.

That's really important making sure that we have that system in place in our city I think it's of most importance in hoping that staff is thinking about that as this is something that's required of us to do and so just making sure that we're ahead of that game so you're not trying to just scramble for information on data and money.

When we can have a system set up so it's easier on your end so those are my comments.

So before we get to Kelsa McGurray are you asking for a different timeline for the?

No I'm just curious to know what my other colleagues think because the requirement is to have the students every year but I'm hearing that it is very time it takes a lot of time from the city auditor's and that it takes away from other work.

I would be open to every other year I think for me it's more about having the right system in place on the back end because I think once we have that system in place

the work may not take as much it sounds like we don't have a system on the back end to collect this data and that's the reason why it's so it's so time consuming and just making sure that we have that system set up on the back end is really important.

Okay Kelsa McGurray.

Those are just my comments and want to hear from my colleague.

Yep Kelsa McGurray.

Thank you Mayor. I'm going to go ahead and move the item and with also the direction that we go to every other year as well as I mentioned in budget or not and I think that

I have trust that the auditor's office are going to look to make sure that we get the appropriate information on the off here as well and also for purposes of our annual budget.

What do you call it the correlation and also not only that but even if we did fund the auditor's office we would still have to hire more people like at the end of the day we still we have a personnel issue on the auditor's side as well.

So that's my motion Mr. Mayor I think it during budget and not I think we discussed a little bit about you know how things have been shifted but every other year would be fine with me and that's my motion.

Okay.

Do we have a second to the motion?

Okay we have a motion a second.

I have a question comment but first Kelsa member Dickinson.

Thanks Mayor I just wanted to to agree with with with councilmember Gera with respect to how we pace this and thinking about it as the chair of the budget committee.

That's likely to get us there in any respect but but I do think that we can use a full audit even in the off year to help us measure in that off year whether whether we're achieving what we not only are required to achieve but what we want to try to achieve.

So that's I think why at least for me and I think for the budget committee members we were comfortable with with going to every every other year especially in light of the workload requirements that all of you have been have been talking about.

Thank you I have no qualms going along with that I know you debated this and talked about some more at the budget committee I guess my question is to the auditor and or the chair or Mr. Dickinson is two things one this is a new program so we're rolling it out there and two we have an uncomfortable budget situation where we may be making some adjustments to departments potentially hopefully not but our youth program and so there's issues in there about so plant

and so we're not seeing so how will this all be reconciled especially in the early year.

I think the measure tells us what we we have to do I mean we have to have maintenance of of effort so notwithstanding whatever our overall budget condition may may be we're going to have to we're going to have to satisfy what the measure requires of us.

We're not concerned at all by having it every audit every other year that that would enable us to have issue of understanding whether or not we're following the spirit of the measure.

I don't I don't think so I mean it would certainly be interested in the auditor's perspective on this but but it it seems to me that even if you're looking at a down cycle you know what it was the year before and you know what you have to hit as a baseline number so.

Yeah I would also add there there won't be no supplanting because we're going to reach the baseline as well I mean as long as we verify the baseline then there is not going to be any supplanting really because we have already verified the baseline and the children's fund is on top of that so.

Well our understanding here is yeah the charter requires us to do this report every year but the report that it requires us to do is just confirming that the baseline is met and so the report that you have before you is more thorough and detailed than that so our understanding from what we got from by general audit was do this super detailed report every other year and then the off years we still come to you and let you know that the baseline has been met it is.

It's just going to be kind of the one table that's in the 90 page report really that's what we're going to be summarizing and what Jordan mentioned is like creating that one table is still a lot of work on our side that we are required to do by the charter every year it's just it will save us some time and resources by not having to do that more additional work.

I'm assuming that the functional difference is every other year you'll do an audit to the extent that this one goes into depth and in the in between years you'll stop counting when you see that's hit the baseline.

Yes. And say okay hit the baseline we don't need to do more work.

Yes and that's where we wanted to get clarification is like do we continue and get the full number or stop when we hit the baseline so it sounds like we can stop when we hit the baseline.

Yeah I will. I can I. Yeah good. So I think that makes sense to stop when you hit the baseline but I do think for me and I you know whether council agrees with me or not I do think that not on the off years but in year I think it's important to yeah and I think we're an agreement that having that throw that that throw audit of our youth programming in our city is important not just for measure L before measure you and for for for better.

For for budgeting purposes right knowing how much we're actually spending on young people in the city for me it's a priority of mine I think that's important so off year I totally get but I do think in every other year I think doing that throw audit is important especially for the intent of the measure so yeah.

Okay thank you no more questions and comments we do have a motion in a second.

All's in favor please say aye aye any no's or abstentions. Hearing none item passes 9-0 next item.

So Mary you moved to item number 9 which is city auditor's Department of Utilities Water and Waste Water Funds Review.

All right good afternoon may our members of the city council for ish the Rory the city auditor with me today is Brian Bass from our consultant

Raf Tellas who was the project manager for these fund reviews the recommendation that is before you it is to approve the city of Sacramento water and

wastewater fund reviews. The Department of Utilities provides three major services water wastewater and storm drainage each service is funded primarily from its own fund water from the water fund

wastewater from the wastewater fund and drainage from the storm drainage fund. In 2020 we completed a review of the storm drainage fund at the request of the Department of Utilities due to the success of that project the Department

of Utilities Water Funds requested that we perform a similar project and analysis for the other two major funds the water and the wastewater funds to determine their fiscal stability.

While this is one agenda item it is two different reports are we're going to be talking about one for the water fund and one for the wastewater fund.

This time I'll turn it over to Brian to go over the results and Department of Utilities and our office are so available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Good afternoon mayor and members of the city council again my name is Brian and I was the project manager for this engagement next slide please.

Our overarching purpose was to assess the physical stability of the city's water and wastewater funds this slide here is a bird's eye view of the project objectives.

I say that because the the work we conducted was extensive with the city over a year conducting the analysis and the fiscal and the reports reach over a hundred pages long for today's meeting I just want to point out the main objectives and how it culminated into a financial plan

with the ultimate purpose of reviewing the fiscal stability for the water and wastewater funds.

So our major objectives here were to conduct a review analysis of the fiscal policies and procedures.

We also reviewed the expense revenue and funding histories for both the water and wastewater funds.

We evaluated the service level and capacity to water and wastewater systems.

We also investigated the relationship and impact of deferred maintenance and the capital investments for the water and the wastewater infrastructure.

And then we also conducted a fiscal forecasting next slide by developing financial plans for both the water and wastewater funds.

The forecasting component is where we took the results from the previous objectives that I just mentioned and we incorporate those recommendations into the analysis and determine if the if the forecast.

If there was impact there would be for the water and wastewater funds. So for example, will the city be able to achieve its absolute for floor debt service coverage ratio for the water and wastewater funds which is 120% of the.

Of the of the debt service would have been able to do that for status quo, which would be the current conditions and we also evaluated that for different financial planning scenarios.

We also looked at with the city city be able to achieve its operating reserve target of 120 days of O and M expenses and would have been able to achieve the capital reserve target of next year's pay go for the water and wastewater funds.

So what is that financial planning process next slide please.

This slide shows a brief overview of the cash flow analysis that we calculated so we project forward the revenues for water and we also look at the other revenues any loan proceeds that the city is expecting to have as well as development impact fees.

And then we also project the revenue requirements over the same study period so we look at the operating expenses and how those projected to increase over time and a capital projects from the CIP schedules and then we also include debt services so the cash flow analysis we look at the revenues compared to the expenses and see if those revenues meter exceed those expenditures.

While also meeting the fiscal policies and objectives I just mentioned with the deserter coverage ratios and the reserve levels.

Next slide please. And so before I go into the status quo and the results of the different financial plans, I want to talk about some of the drivers that would impact the scenarios and financial plans for water and sewer.

The ones that you see on this slide aren't just specific to the city of Sacramento, but these are drivers that water and wastewater utilities throughout the state of California and across the nation are also facing in their in similar situations. So there's inflationary pressures that we're all familiar with.

There's also feature borrowing terms and assumptions that's a part of the equation that drives some of the rate increases more stringent regulatory requirements. That's another another thing that impacts rates.

And so there's a lot of water sales. This would be a lot of utilities are facing.

Flat growth or very minimal growth. So without rate increases, you know those baseline revenues aren't growing because of the growth necessarily.

And then still maintaining those cash reserves which are helpful to mitigate those unexpected crises or emergencies and having the cash to be able to do that without just raising rates and also without happening to borrow each time something happens.

And then also the capital reinvestment that's necessary with aging infrastructure. And so these are our drivers that every utility faces. And so on the next slide.

We list out some specific rate increased drivers for the city. So with the inflation power chemicals equipment cost construction costs personnel cost. These are all operating categories that are increasing year over year.

And then the future bond debt. That's another area where that putting financial pressure on the water and wastewater utilities.

And then the biggest one is probably the multiple years without a rate increases. So there's been several years since the city's had a rate increase for water and wastewater rates.

There still be another few years before rate increases can be implemented even at this point.

And then there's also the firm maintenance and capital investment. Those are some other financial drivers. And then on the regulatory side, we've all seen the news articles with the peak wash regulations. And so there's a lot of uncertainty, a lot of unknowns that are putting financial pressures on the utilities to be prepared to

to remove those substances as well as there's been recent hexabena chromium regulations that have passed in the state of California.

That also puts pressure on the water and wastewater utilities. And then there's also been regulations that have passed different assembly bills for California regulations for making conservation a California way of life.

And so all these affect the water and wastewater utility and go into the different scenarios that I'll talk about here just a second.

Next slide, please. And so I'll start with water. And this is just a a snapshot of the status quo without any rate increases to show you where things are at now.

So the the far left bar that you see that's the ending balance. But first I want to start off by talking about the middle bar. That's the revenue bar. So without any rate increases, you can see that dark green bar in the middle is staying about the same height when you go from year to year from 25th, 25th, 25th, 25th, 29th.

The far right bar is the revenue requirements so you can see that those are growing more and outpacing the revenues over time.

And as it does that, since there aren't any rate increases here, you can see that ending balance is being used to to mitigate that to address those needs. And so by the time you get to fiscal year 28 that left that far left bar in each of those groupings is less than the capital reserve target.

And then by fiscal year 29, the ending balance is actually less than both the operating and the capital reserve target. And then what's not shown here is that fiscal year 20th, if fiscal year 2030, the water fund would not meet is that service coverage absolute flow requirement of 120% that's necessary and mandated per the rate coming in your in your official statement for your funds.

And so next slide. And so what we did here is after we looked at the status quo to determine that that revenues as they are would not meet revenue requirements, we looked at OK, what if we include the 30 years the IP and just your multi year operating projects.

And what rate increases will be necessary to meet just those needs. So we're not including anything additional at this point.

And the study period is from fiscal year 25 to fiscal year 2049. So over 25 year period, the total rate increases for this scenario for just a 30 years the IP and just those my ups will be 74%.

Now, if we go to the next step and we begin to include the additional necessary O and M that that's been identified by the different departments in the city as well as additional multi year operating projects as well as additional and necessary capital for those deferred capital investments and additional repairing placement costs.

Then those then that rate increase increases from 74 to 82% total just summing all the rate increases in those years. And then when we look at the third financial plan scenario, the only differences here is now are including all those additional repair and replacement costs.

The total rate increases go up from 74 to 82 up to 90%. This doesn't reflect compounding. This is just the straight sum of the increases just to show the difference in the financial plans themselves.

The next slide.

And so the importance of this slide is to show the timing of some of those increases because at first when you think 25 year period 74% versus 90%.

It seems like okay, that's over 25 years, but we do want to point out that because the city hasn't had any rate increases for some time as not projected to have a rate increase between now and fiscal year through 27 because you have to wait until 28 for that first rate increase at this point.

There is a bit of a spike there in each of those scenarios. More so when you look at financial plan three because here every single cost is included every additional operating costs through the every additional repair and placement costs.

So this is everything is included in that financial plan three. So you can see that in fiscal year 28 that 22% rate increase is actually at 45% rate increase.

So again, I want to point out that this isn't a rate study, but this was just the fund analysis just with the ultimate objective determined this stability rate study be done at a later time where a cause of service analysis will be done and compliance with prop to 18 to dial in what, you know, specific rate increases would be needed and actually calculate what those rates would be into going back to those kind of things.

So we want to look at the fiscal stability of the water and wastewater funds. Next slide please.

And so we did the same thing on the wastewater fund. Just want to show you here that when we look at the two left the far two bars, the middle bar and the far right bar.

So in the year 27 that far right bar, the revenue requirements for operating capital are actually higher than the revenue requirements through the rest of those years there.

So then you can see the impact to the ending balance in the first couple years, that ending at ending balance for wastewater stays about the same because revenues are there approximately revenue requirements.

So at a third year fiscal year 27 when those revenue requirements exceed the revenues and that that any balance is starting to come down.

And then by fiscal year 28 similar to water, it would not meet the capital reserve target, which is, you know, one year of a pay go.

And then by the second, by the next year fiscal year 29, it wouldn't meet the operating or the reserve target. And then also similar to water was not shown here is my fiscal year 2030 the wastewater fund would not meet the absolute floor that's a recovered requirement of 120% as well.

So this is the baseline without any rate increases and in this next slide.

Similar to water shows just the comparison of different financial plans here. So financial plan one just a just a reminder that includes your original baseline 30 years, the IP, the multi year operating projects, no additional operating or capital costs are included at this point.

So over the 25 year study period will be about 147% in rate increases. And then for financial plan to if we include the additional on M in my up that was identified by the different departments throughout the city and the additional capital that was deferred from previous years as well as what that point that would be it.

And at that point, the total rate increases are 172% and then if we go to the next financial plan there, number three, and include those additional repair and replacement costs that have been identified throughout the for the study, the total rate increases go up to 206%.

Next slide, please.

Again, this just to show the magnitude in the earlier years from the not having the rate increases.

And and fiscal year 28, you see it is quite a bit of a spike there, fiscal year 29 same thing. And then after that with the exception of financial plan three, the rate increases are have been smoothed out quite a bit there in the seven to five percent. And then eventually over time you get down to 3%.

And in a reason why I said the not having the rate increases in 2526 and 27 have such a dramatic impact is usually you can smooth out that spike by starting those rate increases a little bit sooner and build up to it.

Without without being able to do that, that has a pretty big impact here, but again, this is not a rate study that's something that will be looked at in greater detail with the rate study to calculate with those costs of service rates would be of compliance for prop to 18 and to look at actual calculator rates and actual bill impacts that each customer class would pay under different conditions.

So with that, I'll go to the next slide and that's all I have and just turn it over you for any questions.

Okay.

Public comment first.

I do have one speaker on this item, Mac worthy.

Out of the state and Texas, I have a lot of information on wastewater for my parent, my wife people own property there and it's very tricky.

When we went to meet us here, we asked the questions.

People were finding out two lots in South Dallas.

We, I had a demolition and we rebate in a wastewater and the real water exceeded to value other lots.

So what we've done, we got one soul and we walked away from it and we look at it here.

You got some things about water, people you're going to pay through the nose.

You look at the property that the city going on and the water they use, who paid for that water?

This is the thing about it.

These are the things that you should be talking to the public about.

This is the reason I had tried to sow the previous mayor, the low income housing should be the people on them and they'll get the settlement dollars so they could pay these fees.

As they go up, but no, they went with developers.

That's what you went with, developers.

It could have been that the people here, parlayed equity in that property together and build the low income housing.

But they did.

People, I won't live to see it but you're going to suffer some consequences of water in other California.

You're going to suffer some hell of a price on water in California.

So people, get started now digging in and do some legal studies of what is waste water and what is real water.

If you're comments, Mary, have no more speakers.

Thank you, Council Member Gera.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think there's a lot more discussion.

This again was an auditor to review what the scope, not necessarily a rate study.

So I'll go ahead and move approval of accepting the auditor's report but also provide some direction to staff to bring back to council or at least in some format how we're going to address the water fund on the pay go side or what strategy we have when we in 2028 because we won't have any.

If we move forward with the rate increases, we won't have any funds and will be below our reserve or capital reserve on that.

So I'd like to get a report back on what the strategies are on the on pay go for 2028 and with that, I'll just move approval accepting the auditor's report.

The motion is second. Council Member Dickinson.

I just would note that the scenario is that we're presented include rate increases that are substantial.

And I think that the objective should always be to the extent that rate increases are necessary and of course the first question is whether they're necessary.

I certainly appear to be based on the report but there's further work that can be done I'm sure but nonetheless smoothing out those rate increases I think would be a primary objective.

And if that means getting to a rate increase sooner, for example, not waiting till 28.

I recognize what the legal requirements and constraints can be in doing that but looking at especially these two in combination leads to very, very sizable increases over 2829.

So to me, one of the primary objectives ought to be to try to find a way to reduce that impact in the indicated years from 20 and 22% for example on one side to something that's much more manageable.

Thanks.

Thank you, Council Member Capone.

Thank you, Mayor. And I just want to echo but I think knowing that we have the prop 218 which requires a certain process.

I agree with Council Member. Let's get it back to Council as soon as possible hiring and starting that process.

But I think it also deserves a council conversation of what are we looking at in the meantime of how does it take this long but also the more information we have we can start talking with our community members because that's part of it what happens if we can't get to rate increases.

So what can we do in the meantime for creating solvency and what is all of that that look like that probably should be a little bit more of a council workshop so that we also understand and can get out to our community members where is rate assistance.

So we have they already signed up for this and then what does a 22% 10% rate translate to roughly so that our community members can start preparing for that while your staff is going through the 218 process and everything else.

But I think the more we communicate and that we can communicate to our constituents what's coming and why sooner would be better for all of us.

Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Mayor Talumentiz.

Kind of along the lines of my colleagues. I know during my briefing we did the math of how much 22 translates into into just dollars.

So when you come back to Council and you do the presentation on the variety of methods instead of seeing like 7% 10% 50% what is that actually translate to is it $5 at 55 cents $2 for a single family.

So having those dollar amounts I think is going to be helpful for me in terms when I when I go out to the community and start having these conversations.

So let me borrow just to put dollar amounts as best as you can. I would be greatly appreciated.

Hello everyone. I'm Pravani Vandyan the director of utilities. I appreciate that that is important for the public to see.

However, one of the challenges we face is that our rates are based on various things related to water and wastewater.

So it's not an across the board amount for like a single family residence.

So my challenge is I can give you percentages. I can give you examples for some single family residents. But it's residences.

Thank you.

Thank you. Back to Councillor McGherr.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to thank again the DOU Governor Lufair's team for responding after our budget nodded committee. And I appreciate their very intent focus on ensuring that we are aggressively pursuing prop 4 funding.

And because until we actually receive or are awarded or can compete and get that money, then prop 218 is going to require us to get that to price appropriately in those fees.

And so I just wanted to again thank the staff for their understanding on how sensitive it is that we be successful in that effort because if not it is those numbers that we that we saw just today.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you. We had a motion and a second. Correct.

All those in favor please say aye.

Aye. Any no's or abstentions?

Hearing none, the measure passes 9-0.

We have one public comment.

Yes, Lisa Sanchez.

Different ideas not on the agenda public comment.

Miss Sanchez.

Well, my timing could not be better because I am actually speaking on behalf of requesting additional funding for DOU.

Unbeknownst to me that this was going to be on the agenda until this morning when I looked.

As it was stated which was surprising that there would not be any additional rate increases about until 2028.

It is a big increase and from experience working with DOU they need some additional funding now.

Obviously with what we usually see with DOU is infrastructure for the pipes and sewage and water and so forth.

But what we do not see and do not recognize is the trash abatement that they have to actually deal with in order to do their job which tends to eat through their budget because of the increase of homeless population that are within our creeks and waterways.

So the amount of debris that has to actually get removed and separated before they can even do their infrastructure job has been increased exponentially over the years even through COVID.

So I am actually here to speak on my own behalf but to request additional funding for them with the revenue requirements exceeding the revenues.

I would really love to be able to work with them to get trash capture devices for our creeks and waterways which are actually not really something that they can install right now because that is not part of the budget.

So any who just wanted to kind of let that be known that that is something that is kind of a hidden secret that is not on the forefront.

And so I would like to bring that and address that to everybody as what the Department of Utilities has to deal with with again the trash abatement and the additional funding that they do need.

So I highly encourage people to maybe find a way to provide them additional funding prior to the 2028 budgets.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Mary have no more speakers but if it is okay with you we can adjourn this meeting to our closed session.

Yes, please adjourn the closed session.

So we do have a 3pm closed session special meeting. That closed session purpose there is three items on that agenda.

Pursuant to government code section 54957.6 for a matter pertaining to negotiations with recognized employee organizations Sacramento City exempt employees association Sacramento Police Officers Association International Union of Operating Engineers Station or Engineers local 39 Sacramento area firefighters local 522 Sacramento Sierra building and construction trades council.

Plumberan pipe fitters local 447 auto marine and specialty painters local 1176 Western Council of Engineers International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers.

The purpose is to confer with the city's chief negotiators, Jelly Banks Robinson, Aaron Denado and Tim Davis.

Item number two is pursuant to government code section 54957B for a matter pertaining to personnel performance evaluation of the city attorney.

Item three is pursuant to government code section 54957B for a matter pertaining to personnel performance evaluation of the director of the office of public safety accountability.

I have no public commenters on any of these items. You may adjourn the closed session.

Thank you.