Good night, Chair.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Let's call this council meeting to order.

Thank you.

Council Member Kaplan.

Here.

Council Member Dickinson.

Here.

Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Here.

We expect Council Member Plucky Baum momentarily.

Councilmember Maiple? Here. Mayor Pro Tem Guerra? Here. Councilmember Jennings? Here.

Councilmember Vang? Here. And Mayor McCartie? Here. If you have a quorum. Thank you. We're

going to ask Councilmember Dickinson to lead us in the land acknowledgement and

the pledge. The opening acknowledgments in honor of the Sacramento's

indigenous people and tribal lands. To the original people of this land, the Nisenan

people, the southern Maidu Valley and Plains, Miwok and Patwin-Winton peoples, and the people

of the Wilton Rancheria Sacramental'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 peoples' history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you, and you will now 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, with liberty and justice for all.

City Attorney, do we have a report out from closed session?

None.

Thank you.

So, Mayor, we move to special presentations.

Council Member Pluckibombs is the first, but I think we'll reorder the agenda.

We have Ken McCulloch, retirement, that you're presenting.

Yes.

Is Mr. McCulloch here?

Yes.

Okay.

You can come on up here.

Thank you.

And there is a story behind that jacket, which we'll get to in a bit.

But Ken retired about a month ago,

and we're acknowledging his 30 years of dedicated service to the city of Sacramento,

focusing on our parks and our recreation department, our youth,

and we really just want to thank you for your service.

And honestly, I want to thank anybody that served the city of Sacramento for 10, 15, 20 or 30 years.

But Ken is one of the five or so city employees that I know on a personal level for 20 years.

And Mr. Garrett, let me tell you a quick story.

So when I was running for the district six council seat, one of those neighborhood leaders down there, his name was Jermaine Gill.

I asked for his support.

And he says, if you win, you'll bring me back.

Little League Baseball to Southeast Sacramento. And I'm like, yeah, I'm a baseball guy, of course,

so I'll make it happen. And then I won the election in March, so I had like nine months

to figure it out. And he kept asking, I was like, man, what am I going to do? It's hard to bring

back Little Leagues. You have to get, you know, the parents, the scorekeepers, the coaches, the

fields. And then one day I was watching a Giants game and they said, donate your car to the Junior

Giants program. I'm like, Junior Giants? What is that? So I Googled Junior Giants. There was Google

back in 2004, yes. And I called up the Giants and said, hey, we would like to have a baseball league

program in Sacramento. And so I went back to Jermaine. I said, you want baseball here, right?

He said, yeah. I said, do you care if it's Little League or the Giants? He's like, no, we just want

kids to be able to play baseball who have been long forgotten in this neighborhood. So we put a big

application together. I asked then Parks Director, I think it was, who was before Combs?

We can't recall. Yeah. Yeah, I asked him who could work on this topic. He said, well we have this

outstanding guy named Ken McCullough. So Ken and I and Jermaine drove down to San Francisco,

met the Giants and says, hey we want to provide, we want to apply to have Junior Giants League here

in Sacramento and they said yes and they funded our league and there's been 10,000 kids who played

for free here every year and Ken was such an outstanding leader in this he actually won

he was recognized and he was nominated for the hall of fame for the junior junior giants community

fund by the giants he went down there and met Willie McCovey and was honored with that amazing

orange jacket I know it pains him because he's an A's fan not a giant fan

But he did an outstanding job running the league in Southeast Sacramento.

It's now grown to North Sacramento, Land Park as well.

So hundreds of kids get to play for free every year.

And there's no registration fee.

The Giants pay for their uniforms, their hats, their gloves, everything.

And so Ken did a great job in doing that.

And then 10 years or so into that, he says, you know, I got a promotion.

I'm not going to do Junior Giants anymore.

I'm gonna be focusing on workforce development,

our youth program, so we were saddened by that,

but somebody else came in, did an outstanding job, Scott.

So we just wanted to recognize you

and all the work that you've done for hundreds,

if not thousands, of kids, and they don't know your name.

My kids remember your name, but they've been able

to participate in workforce development programs,

youth programs, and really that's the mission

of Sacramento is focusing on the next generation.

And so I just really wanted to appreciate you

and recognize you on behalf of the Sacramento City Council

and a job well done.

And I hope you enjoy your retirement, Ken.

Did you want to say anything, Mr. McCullough?

I just want to thank you, Mayor McCarty.

And if we go back with the Junior Giants program,

Council Member Guerra came in after you left.

and all the programming that I do with the city.

It wasn't just me, but I had a support staff.

But I appreciate the recognition.

I had 30-plus years of working with the city.

I enjoyed it.

I'm enjoying retirement.

But thank you all again.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

While the mayor goes down here to give the recognition,

I do want to thank the mayor and Commissioner Ken, I would say, because you may say that they don't remember their name, but I still remember when I first got elected.

It was a special election, and I showed up to the first Junior Giants event, and there was one rock star in the room that everybody recognized, and that was Commissioner Ken.

So, you know, I disagree with that, Mayor, because it was.

And it was just exciting to see how many kids were excited about that.

And frankly, it has changed the Georgetown Community Center to brought in so much energy.

So congratulations on your retirement as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One more.

We will now move back to the first special presentation.

Councilmember Plekibohm is going to recognize the Sacramento History Museum on its 40th anniversary.

Sorry, I'm late. I was looking for the resolution, which I will deliver at a later date.

but first let me read some of the accomplishments

in his delta here.

I don't, there you go.

Come on, and bring whomever you want

to also share in this recognition.

The Sacramento History Museum has been a place

that has created a venue, a forum for us

to celebrate the rich diversity of people

that make up our city and an opportunity for us

to look at not just where we are now,

but where we've been and how we got here.

So I want to give you an opportunity

to say anything you might like to do

about the important work that you're doing

at the History Museum.

Oh, you brought costumes.

I am thrilled.

Thank you.

Can we have a few people here?

Yeah, please.

First, I'd like to thank all of you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council members.

I want to thank you all for putting the trust

in the Sacramento History Alliance

to manage the museum.

And thank you for honoring us

for our 40 years of being here.

Many of you have been to the museum before,

and we're very appreciative.

We also want to thank the team at the Convention and Cultural Services.

Megan Van Voorhis has been our partner and champion.

I just wanted to say a few things we've been doing the last year.

I came to the museum in 2019 just in time to close it

during the COVID restriction time.

But during that time, we had the time to pause and think about what we were doing.

What were the stories we were telling?

What stories were missing?

And did we reflect all of Sacramento's community, from the Native people who lived here for

thousands of years to the incredible breadth of immigrant families, first, second, third,

and beyond generations of people who came to Sacramento seeking new opportunities for a

better life?

We're remeeting our mission to make Sacramento's history accessible to all.

So since reopening, we've dedicated ourselves to highlight stories from the many different communities and cultures that make up Sacramento.

We want visitors to say when they come in our museum, either I remember that or I didn't know that,

and hopefully I want to learn more about that.

So in the past year, we opened a traveling exhibition about the Chinese pioneers, and we showcased the history of Locke.

We celebrated Lunar New Year with activities and performances for children.

We had free events such as the Spring Festival, complete with Dancing Around a Maypole.

Many of our living history here are part of that.

The Mom Tea Market, a day of demonstrations and vendors by California Native Americans.

We honored the 100 years of the Camellia Society and the Camellia Festival.

We opened an exhibition called Sacramento in a Can, featuring Sacramento's Campbell Soup plant,

retirees sharing their stories of, or not retirees, but former employees sharing their stories.

We had a time traveler's ball and four concerts called the West End Blues,

where we mixed music and stories of Sacramento's vibrant West End from the late 1800s all the way through to the 60s and 70s.

We showcased roots of Sacramento's Juneteenth celebration and partnered with the Sojourner Truth African Heritage Museum to create an exhibit honoring African American educators.

We hosted an exhibit that celebrates and is still going on, celebrates the 50th anniversary of Dia de los Muertos.

The ceremony here in Sacramento that is 50 years old and we did it.

It's celebrated through the art and activism of the Royal Tacoma Air Force.

During the opening celebration, we had poetry and music and dance and demonstrations.

We welcomed 50 delegates from Guadalajara to come to the museum.

Last minute, Council Member Guerra asked if we could bring the delegates over.

Many of us were in costume for the ghost tours, so it was kind of a unique experience.

We honored six Sacramento legacy businesses at the 7th Annual Burnett Awards and we ended

the year with Noon Year's Eve celebrating with over 400 kids and their families.

All the while we were doing this, we host roughly 15,000 school children each year with

our education programs.

We tour nearly as many of those people in our underground tours and we engage thousands

of visitors to Sacramento with our Living History folks. Oh, and then there's that little thing that

we did on social media with Howard and Jared and the print shop. Since beginning in 2020,

we began with just a few videos. We now post daily on several platforms, and we have 1 million

followers on Facebook, over 3 million followers on TikTok, and 3.75 million subscribers on YouTube.

The Sacramento History Museum is still the most followed museum on social media.

So I want to thank our volunteers that are here today and the volunteers that aren't even.

The Board of Directors and especially our Board Chair, Robert Cicado.

He's been with us for many years and he guided us through COVID and I appreciate him so much.

And then my staff, most of them still work here, worked through the COVID timeframe and are still working today.

And we have, they're working on things like bringing Sacramento's baseball history to the museum coming in April, just in time for spring training.

So I hope you'll make a point to visit the museum.

It's your museum.

We are a little museum with a big heart.

And I thank you for this recognition.

Thank you, Mayor.

I appreciate that.

One, I just wanted to thank Delta and all of your staff and your team.

Not only this Saturday at The Verge for the recognition for Royal Chicano Air Force,

but the artists recognized the exhibit that had been done for many of their members of

the Royal Chicano Air Force for the Dia de los Muertos who have passed away and moved

on and how honored they were that that was part of that recognition.

And also, it wasn't just Guadalajara, but it was the delegates, elected officials, and

mayors from the state of Michoacán, including the staff of the mayor's office of Morelia,

which is our pursuit right now and our process for a sister city, who were just blown away.

Not only by the in-costume zombie costumes, but also the history and the attention also

to our indigenous history here in Sacramento as well.

So I just wanted to say personally, as your neighbor, as you're here as well in District

6, and also Stephanie and others and Jessup from District 6 who are as well working with

the History Museum, we appreciate you.

And you've made an international impression on so many that want to come back.

So with that, congratulations again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If you'd like to join us for a picture and we'll Photoshop in the actual resolution later.

Good.

You look amazing.

How are you?

Can I get everyone in costume towards the front so we can see your costumes, please?

How are you, Stephanie?

Awesome.

Perfect.

Perfect.

So good.

Can I have...

Can I have...

Awesome.

Ma'am, in the back, can I actually have you switch places with the man in the burgundy?

Perfect.

Awesome.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you so much everyone.

Okay, thank you.

That concludes our special presentations.

We'll now conclude with the business of the night, including our consent calendar.

But before that, I wanted to officially recognize our new city manager.

Yes.

Welcome to the city of Sacramento.

I know you started last Monday.

And we've been talking about you for three or four months now.

So here's our moment.

But I know you're going to serve us well, not just the nine members of the city council,

but the 5,000 plus city employees and 500,000 people who live in the city of Sacramento.

So welcome to the city of Sacramento.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, let's begin with our consent calendar.

Thank you, Mayor.

Are there any items on the consent calendar that council members have comments on or wish to pull for a separate vote?

Councilmember Vang. I have questions on item 12 and then I'd like to pull item 21 for a separate

vote. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Dickinson. I just have a question on item 17.

Perfect. So let's start with Councilmember Vang on item 12. Thanks Madam Clerk. This item is

regarding license plate recognition system

and it is approving a purchase agreement

for a license plate recognition system

to not exceed 1 million.

I just had just a few questions for city staff.

First, I just wanna acknowledge the operational needs

of the parking services division

and I understand that technology and system

can play a role in supporting efficiency in our department.

But just given the national context

and just growing concerns around data use

and surveillance and we've also received some emails

through our office about this item,

especially under this authoritarian administration.

And I just wanna be able to ask these questions

so that you could reaffirm to the public

about us being responsible in terms of how we collect data.

I know that there's been instances,

even across the country with city,

municipality sharing data,

whether that's with private agencies or public agencies

and just wanna make sure that we're doing everything we can

to protect private data information.

So it's Stacy and Stacy, right?

Allison.

Allison, okay, they have,

because I had Stacy on the agenda item.

Okay, so the first question is really around data access

and any data sharing.

And this was a question actually from a constituent

that reached out to us.

And so wanted to ask in terms of this purchasing agreement

with this company in particular,

if there are any safeguards in place to ensure

that the license plate data collected through the system

is not somehow automatically enter into databases

that's accessible to like Department of Homeland Security

or Immigration and Custom Enforcement

or other federal agency.

Do we have those protection in place?

We do.

Good evening, my name is Alison Kerstetter.

I'm the fleet manager with the Department of Public Works.

The city does have an automated license plate reader policy

in place already and all of the parking enforcement

license plate reader data is stored in accordance with that policy on city owned and city managed

servers not in the cloud. The city does not participate in the Genetech Federation program

which would otherwise allow data to be shared with other agencies. So the city does not

share this information with federal agencies including the immigration and custom enforcement.

Thanks. I appreciate that. I also noticed that IP solution is actually a new vendor for the city. Can staff confirm that and just wanted to just reaffirm what was the reason for changing vendors? Is it primarily just a cost decision? If you can answer that.

Okay, IP is, the change to IP was related to vendor certification, not a change in technology or data practices.

Genetec is the manufacturer of the AutoView license plate reader technology, and we currently use that on our parking enforcement vehicles.

The previous vendor that we used is no longer a certified Genetec installer or a dealer,

So IP Solutions is the local authorized and certified dealer qualified to install and manage the system.

Okay, thanks.

And then just the last question, you kind of answered this in the first question,

but that the city does fully retain full ownership of the data and that there's no data sharing with license plates.

Is that accurate?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Those are all my questions.

I really appreciate you answering those questions because we did receive several emails today about this.

And I know that as we're moving as a city, we're going to be replacing and adopting new technology.

And so we just need to be able to move forward in a way that, you know, have clear guard rules, transparency,

and ensuring we're doing everything we can to meet our operational needs while also protecting the rights of the people that we serve.

So just really thank you so much for answering those questions.

Council Member Dickinson on item 17.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think I see Peter.

This is a quick question.

I was just curious whether or not the County Tobacco Prevention Council, as I think it

used to be called, still exists, and if it does, do you still coordinate through this

grant with the council and the other tobacco prevention activists in the county?

As far as I know, this money will be spent for the city to spend it?

Yeah.

Are you familiar with the county?

No, we don't collaborate with that county group.

Oh, okay.

I mean, I'm not thinking about giving them any money or anything.

Okay.

I mean, they were always an umbrella organization devoted to tobacco prevention.

We can definitely reach out and have that conversation with them.

Yeah, and I'm not absolutely certain that the council is still around,

but if they are, it just seems to make sense.

There's an absolute alignment of purpose.

Yeah, we definitely look into that.

It would be great if they still are and you could all pitch in.

Okay.

Okay, thanks.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

I have one speaker on the consent calendar with the exception of item 21.

Lambert would like to speak on item 3.

I wanted to comment on number three because I don't think I've ever seen the vice mayor and pro tem repeated.

I don't think I've ever seen that.

And I think it's a good choice because you need a breath of fresh air.

And to me, those two are outstanding people.

I don't really know Vice Mayor Telemontes, but I know Pro Tem Guerra because I met him on the road a lot when we were pushing cheesecakes originally out there.

And he was very kind to me.

His wife was very kind to me.

I think they had just had a baby.

And so I don't know how old his baby is, but whatever the first one is, we go back that far.

That's how I know.

So then I was going to stay till the end, but it's so long.

But I did want to come and welcome the new city manager because I'm a native.

And we met briefly at your, you had something, a press conference.

That's what it was.

And then they threw you right to the lines with a workshop.

So I stayed there the whole time, and I just wanted to welcome you because you're going to need people like me to keep you alert of what's really going on here.

And one of the best people that you can ever align yourself with is Minty Cuppie because she is the, what I call the integrity of City Hall.

and she will help you.

If no one else will, she will.

And when she gets through, then you can reach out to us.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I have no more comments on the consent calendar,

so we'll entertain a motion on items 1 through 20.

So moved.

I'll second.

Okay.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any nos or abstentions?

Hearing none, passes unanimously.

So we'll move to item 21, which is a contract rail yards master lease for digital billboards.

Do we want to take public comment for that first?

I'm not sure.

I'll just.

I have five speakers on this item.

Would you like to take those now?

Sure, we can.

Perfect.

Francisco Garcia.

Amir Dean.

Sonia Crable.

Nancy Williams and Pam Freeman.

Francisco?

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Francisco Garcia.

I'm a resident of District 2.

I'm also a member of Unite Here Local 49.

I work downtown at Golden Moon Center.

A lot of my coworkers cannot afford to live near work because it's really expensive.

when I leave my job late at night I see a lot of homeless people sleeping in in the streets

and even in the daytime I see this happening the housing situation in Sacramento is is really hard

it's it's kind of sad it's not okay when I see that the city is giving away hundreds of millions

of dollars to developers who plan to build just 6% affordable housing, it makes me feel

like our leaders are ignoring our problems.

And if you have the ability to make the real change here today or in the future, but instead

it seems like you're just giving us more of the same, the status quo.

And, I mean, you guys are all great leaders.

You know, we just ask you to do the right thing.

Thank you.

Amir Dean.

Good evening.

My name is Amir Dean.

I'm the president of Local 49.

When the rail yards development came forward at the end of 2024,

we met with a number of you,

and we heard many of you say that you didn't know the details of the plan.

And back then that made sense. The plan moved very quickly in the beginning.

But at this point, that's not acceptable anymore.

The residents of the rail yards rejected the EIFD, the $92 million EIFD last summer, because of a lack of affordable housing.

And instead of listening to the constituents and working towards a better deal, it seems like more of the same bad deal.

For you to bring this billboard deal forward on consent is really outrageous.

These billboard leases are a giant hidden subsidy for the rail yards developers.

The city has refused to disclose their value, but according to our calculations, the value of the 12 billboards is an estimated $115 million.

dollars. Council said this project is privately financed and that the city is only helping to pay

for infrastructure, but these billboards are not restricted to paying for infrastructure.

You should not vote on this deal until the value has been analyzed and shared with the public.

Sacramento should not be giving away an estimated $115 million in free leases,

but instead dedicate this money towards more affordable housing in Sacramento.

The current deal calls for just 6% out of 10,000 units.

We call for 25% affordable housing.

In San Francisco, the Mission Rock development will have 40% affordable housing.

Concord's Naval redevelopment is slated to have 25%.

The rail yards should have 25% affordable housing and a tenant stabilization fund.

and the funds from these leases should help to make that possible.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Sonia Crable.

Following Sonia is Nancy Williams.

Hi, I'm Sonia Carabell, and I'm here with Unite Here Local 49

and Rail Yards for All to oppose the latest phase

of this corporate giveaway rail yards deal.

It's outrageous that the city is still not disclosing the value

of this huge subsidy for developers in the form of billboards.

As Amr said, we estimate that the total 12 billboard leases that are currently planned for $0 are actually worth $115 million.

That's based on the rent that the city receives for clear channel digital billboards as of 2024.

$115 million is a lot of money, even more than the $92 million EIFD deal that residents rejected last summer.

It could be used to help achieve desperately needed affordable housing in Sacramento instead of the shameful 6% currently proposed.

City Council should postpone this vote until we know the value of the subsidy and can have an honest discussion about how to use it.

We have been advocating for 25% affordable housing at the rail yards, and we've heard that it's not financially possible,

even though Sacramento is suffering from an intense housing crisis that our members and many other people are feeling.

But we have a plan to achieve 25% affordable housing at the rail guards.

With $115 million from the billboards and 20% of the EIFD revenue, or $154.2 million,

Sacramento could pay its typical contribution of $120,000 per unit for 1,900 additional units of affordable housing,

which would bring the total to 25% out of 10,000 units.

There would even be money left over, which should be dedicated to a tenant stabilization fund.

20% of EIFD revenue is based on the 2021 Sacramento General Plan, which requires 20% of all EIFD revenue to be set aside for affordable housing.

Though the original EIFD is from 2019, we believe applying this 20% requirement would be a smart way to make 25% affordable housing possible, and it's the right thing to do.

So please have that discussion another day with the real figures in front of you.

Thank you.

Nancy Williams.

Nancy Williams and Pam Freeman. Nancy here? Thank you. And following Nancy is Pam.

Good evening. My name is Nancy and I live at the AJ Apartments out in the rail yard. Beautiful

luxury apartments and I'm in affordable housing. And I also was one of the residents who spoke out

against the rail yard deal last summer because of the lack of affordable housing. When Sacramento's

giving away millions of dollars in subsidy,

developers should be able to do a lot better

than 6% affordable housing.

We're asking for 25, you're gonna hear 6, 25.

You guys offered six, we need 25 at least.

A tenant stabilization fund would house people

and keep them housed.

There is nothing like recertifying

for your affordable housing

and know that you cannot live there another year.

You get a place, you move.

You get a place, you move.

It's absurd to vote on this billboard deal

without even knowing what you're giving away.

The billboard leases are a huge hidden subsidy.

We believe this money could go a long way

towards paying for more affordable housing

and a tenant fund.

But you need to be transparent about how much money

these leases are worth first.

That's a first step towards a better deal and trust.

You should postpone this vote until you have the numbers in front of you.

You're offering us 6% affordable housing.

We need at least 25% affordable housing.

No blank checks.

The city cannot afford a blank check.

I live in the rail yards.

When it's foggy, we have our own northern lights thanks to the G1C billboards.

What are we going to see when you add 12 more out there?

I face the stadium.

That's what I'm going to see.

Billboards.

Thank you.

Pam Freeman.

I'm Pam, and I live in the Wong Center.

Not the wrong center, the Wong Center.

And it's in the middle of the rail yards.

I was part of the majority of residents in my neighborhood who rejected the $92 million

rail yard deal six months ago. We said no because the project has just 6% affordable housing

out of 10,000 units. Most of us have been homeless and know how difficult it is and

how badly Sacramento needs more affordable housing. You, the city council had six months

to make a change. But you haven't. You haven't come to us. No one has come to us and asked,

what are the difficulties of living in the rail yard? There are a lot, let me tell you, a lot.

And when you build these two apartment buildings, you need to know what those difficulties are so

those apartments don't remain empty like so many buildings in this town.

You haven't come back to us to the negotiating table.

As to what we need, you haven't gone back.

You haven't wanted to make a better deal.

And now you're going on to vote these billboards without even knowing what they're worth for the people of this.

Thank you for your comments.

Mayor Pro Tem, I have no more speakers on this item.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Let me, this is a consent item that's pulled off consent.

Let me bring this back to the council.

Is there questions from the council?

Council Member Vane.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Appreciate it.

First, I want to just to thank the members for coming to speak today.

I also want to take this time to thank city staff for actually meeting with me on this item,

as well as the partners and developers from downtown rail yards as well.

I had an opportunity to meet with them as well.

and also unite here. I've met with all of the parties involved. My comments today in particular

is not about opposing the project but about making sure that as a city we are actually

thoughtful stewards of the city resources as we move forward. I just want to be clear that you

know I do support the rail yards project overall. I do believe that it is an important it's

incredibly important for the future of Sacramento especially because we want to make sure that we

have ongoing economic activity so that we can actually increase city revenue so that we could

be able to provide city services and provide affordable housing. However, despite that support

for the overall project, because I want to see economic development spur, I want to see more

affordable housing. I can't, I can't support the item today. And I kind of want to walk through

just my thought process so that my constituents and the voters know why I'm voting no on this item.

This vote in particular would approve a master lease between the city of Sacramento and downtown rail yards for two billboards.

This item is only for two billboards, not not all five.

I believe three additional billboards will be coming to council as well.

If the city approves the lease tonight, these leases would be for 34 years.

And once that master lease is signed, all billboard revenue would go to the developer for the entire term.

Now for me that raises serious questions only because we as a city are also in a budget deficit in this moment.

And my concern is really just straightforward.

I have repeatedly asked the same basic question.

What is the total value of signage revenue the city is giving up?

That is my question, right?

And to date, you know, I think staff did their very best to answer and the developers too based on what they could share.

To date, I have not yet received a clear or reliable answer or an estimate of how much these signs are actually expected to generate over the life of the lease.

It's been shared, and I just want to acknowledge that the construction loan for this project is contingent on finalizing the signage lease

and that the billboard revenue is needed to finance the project, right, and that it has already been baked into the deal.

And that's my understanding from my conversation with the developers and with city staff.

I also understand that the term sheet,

not between the city and downtown rail yards,

but between downtown rail yards and their lenders

are not made public.

That is between them and we won't be able to see that number.

So for me, that means the city council is being asked

to approve a 34 transfer of revenue

without knowing its value at a time when a city,

our city is facing a budget projected deficit.

And so I just think it's really important that,

you know, before we move forward,

we fully understand the long-term value of any revenue

that we are committing for going.

And so, like I shared with all of you,

just given our budget challenges,

and there are gonna be some tough decision

in the next few months.

We have an obligation as city council member,

as a city to protect long-term city revenues

and ensure that there's transparency

when any public assets are involved.

And so for those reasons,

I will not be supporting this agreement as presented today,

but I did have one question for Marco and city staff.

While I know that we don't have the exact dollar amount

of the billboard revenue,

and I know that whatever is generated from the revenue

as a developer's share that it will be 100% used

to basically pay back the loans to develop the project,

I wanna ask city staff,

do we have actually protection in place

for the master board billboard leases

if the project does not move forward.

That is of utmost importance for me.

No matter the answer, I'm still gonna vote no

because I don't know what that number is,

but I think it's important for the public to understand

the ways in which city staff have written the master lease

and so that there are some protection in place

even though no one's given me the actual revenue

for the billboards.

Thank you for those comments

and thank you for the question.

So the way that the master billboard lease is written

consistent with the comprehensive project agreement

that was approved at council last year.

If the projects, and we say projects as the central shops

and as the soccer stadium, if they do not move forward,

then there's no longer rights for any billboards.

So that's written into the lease,

and there's a trigger to ensure

that these are definitely tied to these projects

and will not move forward without those projects advancing.

Thanks, Marco.

Council Member Fleck-Evon.

Move staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Council Member Vice Mayor Tolomantes.

Thanks, Mayor.

Marcos, can you come back up here?

I know Council Member Vang just mentioned it, that it was, you know, it was a deal that was secured and it's part of the contract and it's part of the greater project.

There's a lot of moving pieces and there was a lot of negotiations that were done for this big project.

But as she also mentioned, we are stewards of taxpayer dollars.

And being accountable and transparent to the public is the most important thing that we can do,

especially after some of our debts to the Golden One Arena.

People compare this revenue to the parking garages, which they're totally separate.

But that's the comparison that I hear in the community.

so can you give me a rough estimate on the revenue side of what maybe you can disclose

and then I know we have the feasibility study coming for all billboard signage so if you can

touch on those two that'd be great. Absolutely absolutely so it gets a little tricky when we're

talking about the value of these signs right so the city has other leases that are standalone

that are on city property that are not tied to any projects catalytic economic development

projects moving forward. So a bit different in this instance, but if we were talking about one

of those projects, we could expect upwards of $180,000 annually attached to those billboards.

But I think the number that we probably want to focus on in terms of assigning a value to

this master lease is $325 million. So that's really the private investment that

is part of the overall deal, right?

So in terms of the central shops phase one,

in terms of the soccer stadium,

in terms of all of the associated infrastructure,

that's $325 million alone of private investment

that will be made possible

by approving the master billboard lease.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you, Mark, before you retreat.

I should have learned my lesson and just stay up here.

I just want to confirm my understanding that if the project, and namely the shops, don't go forward, then the leases, the two that have been referred to here, do not apply.

That's exactly right.

The lease would be terminated if the project does not advance.

And put, to a certain extent the other way around, absent the leases, which were part of the deal structure agreed to by the council previously, absent the billboard leases, then there would not be that funding to apply to the rehabilitation and improvement of the shops.

Is that also correct?

That's exactly correct.

So whatever the value is, and it may be far less than the numbers that have been shared,

the fact is that regardless of the amount of money it is, absent that,

the deal with respect to the shops at minimum would fall apart.

That's correct, yes.

The project does not advance without this billboard revenue.

Thank you.

Council member Kaplan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you for staying up.

I just want to clarify because there might be some confusion because you threw out $325 million.

Can you clarify what you meant by that $325 million?

Absolutely.

So that's the number that we've had in the original comprehensive project agreement, right,

when we talked about catalyzing Sac Valley Station,

soccer stadium in the rail yards

and the historic central shops.

$325 million represents the private investment

for the central shops phase one,

for a soccer stadium

and all the associated infrastructure.

So we're talking about a really large

upfront private investment

that wouldn't be made possible

if it wasn't for this deal that the council approved.

And so the billboards is to allow

for basically it's like the city investing our portion.

Do I understand that?

I would view the billboards as implementing that deal that council approved.

So this was attached to the comprehensive project agreement, the billboard lease.

So it's really an implementation step to really realize those projects advancing.

We all know how I feel about billboards.

And talk to me a little bit because light pollution is real.

what protections are there for light pollution absolutely so as part of the

CEQA analysis there are protections and mitigation measures for light pollution

on top of that each billboard location needs to go through site plan and design

review so everyone will have conditions in terms of being being sensitive to

surrounding uses and any light pollution and if there are impacts that they need

to be toggled or adjusted to account for those impacts.

So if council approves this tonight,

will it be as a package or will each billboard

and its approval come through the planning

and planning and design commission?

And if it is it a planning and design commission

only decision or council decision on the site review

and plans for the billboards?

So council will, so this is where the two signs

that are by I-5, the lease applies to all five locations

that are described in it.

Council will need to make findings

for all the three remaining locations

and then all of those locations

will need to go through site plan and design review.

That happens at a staff level.

Okay, and so will the public get another opportunity

to talk about the location

or the site plan of the billboards?

When council makes those findings, yes,

it'll be on the council calendar

and the public will have an opportunity to weigh in.

Okay, so whenever that comes,

be it a year or five years from now, there is still more opportunities for that.

Can you talk to me about, because many of those who spoke in opposition talked about

6% affordable housing, where did that number come from and is it part of a contract and

where is there council authority to change that?

Yes.

I believe the 6% number that they're referencing is referring to the mixed income housing strategy.

It's a complicated document.

and it talks about various housing types, levels,

in terms of how the project builds out.

That was approved in 2015 or 2016.

In order to change that document,

we're talking about potentially blowing up

the development agreement.

So it would be a huge unwinding of the project

that's been in place for about a decade.

So these billboard agreements and discussions

do not amend or change the development agreement?

They do not.

So it really is a separate thing

that we'd have to go through

to address the affordable housing.

Exactly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Jennings.

Thank you, Mayor.

This has been a great conversation.

I've heard a lot.

I believe that the council member of the district

has put a motion on the table.

I'd like to put a second to that motion

so we can move forward with this item.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

I just have some comments as well.

I'm in full support of this item

and I hear some of the concerns as far as

you know, corporate subsidy or handout

or fleecing the taxpayers and I'll say this is a good deal

and I know this when there's a bad deal

because I voted against the other deal

that was referenced 14 years ago

when that did put the general fund at risk

and it took away, now we're spending roughly

four million dollars a year of the general fund

to backfill that and so that isn't the deal

here, this is apples and oranges.

There was part of that, part of that arrangement there.

The ability through the project to have billboards

and those were of value and that was clear.

That was part of the subsidy back then.

I will say that's a bit apples and oranges

because here there's nothing there.

But for this project, there would be no value

in having billboards in the middle of that,

in the middle of that open infill development

which has sat fallow for decades.

And so this was many, many years in the making.

I think it's a fair compromise.

Again, no impact on the general fund.

And again, but for this development,

there would be no implication of having any value

for the billboards anyway.

And to answer the council members question from District 8,

if those developments aren't built there,

this whole thing goes away and falls apart.

So what's the upside of this?

One, we're finally after 40 years developing

the largest infill site in America.

That's a big deal.

The largest infill site in America, right here,

with a world-class soccer stadium for professional soccer,

hopefully MLS soccer, a music venue in the works here.

And I think it's hopefully going to be announced

in the near future about that.

but and this will bring in more excitement to the city,

but frankly more revenue.

We're trying to focus on increasing our city coffers

so we don't have to decrease money for our city programs

and public safety and parks and communities

and neighborhood programs.

So we need to grow our economy

and this is a big piece of the puzzle

and it was a fair compromise.

We went over this in great detail over the summer.

This was a piece of the puzzle

and we said we'd have to come back

and have several council votes and hearings on this.

This is one of them.

I'm not sure we can just do it all in one motion,

but we're going to be back multiple times.

And with that, I think the council has articulated their perspective on this.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any no's or abstentions?

No.

Hearing one.

Item passes eight to one.

Next item.

So, Mayor, we now move to our public hearings.

and item number 22 staff has asked that we continue that to February 3rd,

2026.

So if I can entertain a motion to continue that to February 3rd.

Second.

Thank you.

Motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

That motion passes unanimously.

We now move to item 23, which is the 2025 Title 17 Omnibus Ordinance and Ordinance Amending

Various Provisions of Title 17 of the Sacramenta City Code Relating to Planning and Development.

Mr. Conlon.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members.

My name is Kevin Collin.

I'm the Arizona Administrator.

I'll be presenting this item this evening.

let's get straight into it

I'll briefly describe what does omnibus mean

we'll talk about the amendments that are proposed

I'll summarize the review steps that have been completed

and are being reviewed this evening

and then conclude with our recommendation

what does omnibus mean

it means it's a law that covers a variety of topics

mixed bag of miscellaneous

various two for by with or from everything

I think another more functional way to think about this omnibus ordinance is routine maintenance.

We aspire to be before you on an annual basis to keep our Title 17 planning and development code well functioning and consistent with state law.

There are continually, every year, every legislative session, state laws to respond to, and this ordinance does that.

We characterize or categorize the amendments into three basic buckets.

They consist of state law consistency, streamlining existing policies without making a new one, or just clean up.

The ordinance before you tonight covers the first and the third topics.

In your background attachment to your staff report, we have described in detail the ordinance in terms of what existing regulations say,

what the issue is with our amendments

and how we are rationalizing a change through the amendment.

I will just briefly summarize

the state law consistency changes

relate to legislation from the 2024 session.

The bills are cited on the slide.

We additionally had a mid-year budget trailer bill,

a lot of changes that came through in particular AD 130.

The ordinance incorporates amendments to resolve all existing conflicts with those laws.

And the third bucket is administrative cleanup.

We have two changes that are proposed.

Just first concerning when appeals are considered timely filed.

And we also have an enabling provision for objective standards concerning accessory dwelling units at historic properties.

We have been before the Planning and Design Commission

as well as the Law and Legislative Committee,

Legislation Committee,

and received their approval recommendations

with the pass for publication at a previous meeting.

We're here for a public hearing tonight.

We are asking for the council to conduct a public hearing

and on conclusion pass a motion

determining this ordinance exempt from CEQA

and adopt that ordinance

amending various provisions in Title 17.

Thank you for your attention.

And with that, I'm available for any questions you may have.

So, Mayor, I have one public comment on this,

and at this time I'd like to open the public hearing.

Okay.

Muriel Strand.

Good evening, my name is Muriel Strand.

I live in North City Farms,

and reviewing this, it seems to be about infill.

So I just wanted to add a few things to my online comments,

but I wanted to start out on the topic

of land acknowledgements.

Land acknowledgements are great

and we need to acknowledge the land itself,

the flora, the fauna, the bugs, the birds,

the critters, the everything, so important.

About infill, having the urban rural balance that we will need to be sustainable going

forward really deserves your attention.

Again, this is just referring to my online comments.

And I just wanted to mention that pavement, all pavement, reduces the ecological carrying

capacity of the planet.

If there's pavement, you can't grow food on it.

And we will be needing food, especially if we have more infill and more density.

So we need to be thinking about those balances going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Mayor, I have no more speakers on this item.

Okay.

Council Member Plekibohm.

Move staff recommendation.

Second.

Okay.

So that includes-

Okay, so that motion is second to open and close the public hearing and approve staff recommendation.

All in favor, please say aye. Aye.

Nose or abstentions? Hearing none, one absence.

We move to item 24, vacation of a portion of the public road easement, proceeding number VAC 25-0004.

And at this time, I'll open the public hearing.

And, Mayor, I have no public comments on this item.

Okay.

Please begin.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor.

I'm Madam Clerk and Councilmembers.

My name is Thomas Adams with Indian Services Section of the Public Works Department.

Item 24 on the Council agenda is to request to vacate a portion of the public road easement

adjacent to the property located at 1541 Jesse Avenue in North Sacramento.

This portion of the easement dead ends at the subject property and is exclusively used for site access to that property.

This vacation request is conditioned upon the relocation of certain utility power lines and the reservation of public utility easements.

Once vacated, the area will be used to provide additional parking for members who utilize the existing on-site building for religious purposes.

City staff in coordination with reviewing agencies support this vacation request.

The recommended action is consistent with the 2040 general plan and

it is in compliance with the California streets and highway codes.

That ends my presentation.

Staff will answer any questions that you may have.

If there are no speakers, I'll move to open and close public hearing and adopt the resolution.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Do we have any speakers?

I have no speakers on this item.

Okay, motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any no's or abstentions?

Hearing none, item passes eight zero.

Passes nine zero.

Telemonicers just entered the room.

Thank you.

And I didn't hear an affirmative, correct?

Yes.

Thank you.

Next item.

move to item 25 on the discussion calendar which is labor agreement

international association of machinists and aerospace workers lodge number 2182

district lodge 190 and successor labor agreement memorandum of understanding

honorable mayor and members of the city council my name is Aaron Donato and I am

the city's labor relations manager I'm here to briefly summarize the successor

labor agreement with the international association of machinists and aerospace

based workers and explain how it balances support

for our city workforce with recognizing the city's

fiscal responsibilities and realities.

Before I do that, I do need to notate one Scrivener's error

in the published staff report.

On page two, the employee plus one dependent health

contribution is incorrectly listed as $16,740 per month.

That's incorrect.

The correct amount is $1,674 per month,

and so I wanna clarify that for the record.

This agreement establishes a new two-year term.

It includes a modest 2% wage increase

in the second year of the agreement,

a one-time signing bonus,

continued health and welfare contributions,

and the addition of Juneteenth as a recognized city holiday.

At a time when the city is facing significant budget pressure, this agreement was intentionally structured to avoid wage stagnation for employees while remaining financially responsible.

It reflects a shared understanding that labor stability matters, and so does fiscal stewardship.

I want to thank the IMAW business representative, Paula Barca, and the union's negotiation team for their professionalism and good faith engagement with the city during the negotiation process.

I also want to recognize the membership more broadly.

Our employees here at the city of Sacramento are the heartbeat of this organization.

The services that they provide to our community are very important,

and our residents and constituents rely on them every day.

Staff respectfully recommends the approval of this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a comment?

Mayor, I have no speakers on this item.

Okay.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

No comments or questions from council members.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

He knows your abstentions.

Hearing none.

Passes 9-0.

We move to item 26 with Sacramento Homeless and Housing System Partnership Structure Update.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Yaa-Yan Ayal.

I am the City Housing Manager with the City Manager's Office of Innovation and Economic Development.

Together with Brian Pedro, the Director of Department of Community Response,

we bring you this item today.

to provide direction on a homeless and housing system partnership option.

Before I get started, I wanted to provide a little bit of background.

The city, the county, Sacramento steps forward as the administrative entity for the city and county continuum of care

have been contemplating some form of partnership or governance for some time now,

including the establishment of a Sacramento Homeless Policy Council

and commissioning a consultant report on shared governance models.

More recently, we've been working with our partners on recommendations on a shared governance structure that seeks to address the concerns with our current structure, including better accountability, increased transparency, increased collaboration, and integration of our collective work.

With a clear, streamlined leadership entity that is driving performance targets, funding priorities, and policy direction for homelessness and housing.

On October 14th, city staff, we brought forward an item to city council to seek input and direction from the council on key elements of a potential new partnership structure and governing body and to weigh in on a county proposal.

At this October meeting, there was discussion including a joint powers authority as well as a reconstitution of the city and county partnership agreement.

But overall, the city council agreed on the need for a new approach for collaboration on housing and homelessness amongst the jurisdictions in Sacramento and to have one body to have these discussions held at.

On October 28th, a joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Sacramento City Council, and the mayors and council members of five of the six surrounding cities was held, facilitated by Darby Kernan and Matt Cate with Mosaic Solutions and Advocacy.

At this time, I would like to invite Darby and Matt up to share an overview of their work, findings, and recommendations.

Good evening, everybody.

I'm Darby Kernan, and this is my partner, Matt Kate.

We're going to kind of take a time to go over our report in the meeting that we had,

and then Matt will walk through the recommendations we make in the report.

In August, the city and county of Sacramento hired Mosaic Solutions and Advocacy, Matt and I,

to help facilitate a joint countywide meeting on October 28th,

focusing on homelessness with all of Sacramento's suburban cities,

Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Galt, Folsom, and Rancho Cordova,

the Sacramento City Council, all of you were there,

and the Sacramento Board of Supervisors.

Prior to this meeting, we had sent out a Qualtrics study to all of you,

the Board of Supervisors, the mayors, critical city and county staff, the COC, SSF, SHRA,

all of the partners in the housing and homelessness space, Sheriff, as well as Sacramento Metro.

All of this information was to be used for us as we were having interviews and conversations

prior to the October 28th meeting with all of you.

I do want to note that with all of the interviews we did, we had followed up with everyone.

The only people who did not respond to us was the COC as well as SHRA.

And SHRA was going through a transition at the time.

So we want to note that.

We also, after the October 28th meeting, held about 18 to 20 post-meetings with you as well as other electeds to talk about the 28th.

Some of the key things that we heard in those meetings and interviews was concerns about the lack of coordination and addressing homelessness across various jurisdictions, the lack of affordable housing in Sacramento.

The accountability issue was definitely something very present where there wasn't a lot of understanding between different organizations what was happening.

There was a frustration over the silos with housing and homelessness partners.

Sacramento does have a lot.

We have the COC.

We have Sacramento Steps Forward.

We have SHRA.

We have the, there was the Sacramento Housing Policy Council.

There's the homeless strategic leadership.

There's the city of Sacramento.

There's the county of Sacramento.

And then you have all of the suburban cities as well.

And so in that, there's a lot of decisions being made,

but there is nothing that really pulls everybody together to make sure that things are happening in a county-wide decision process.

The other key thing we really heard was concerns and frustration with Sacramento Steps Forward

and the fact that electeds did not have regular information or easy-to-understand data from SSF or the COC.

and in fact there was a lot of confusion over the relationship between the COC and

Sacramento steps forward was staff was set SSF the staff to the COC or were

they calling the shots more than the COC so that came up a lot in our

conversations other key factors that we heard from everyone was a need for

faster response time to constituent services a desire for formal forums for

regular coordination not just on homelessness but housing as well one

place where you can all talk and have a countywide conversation direct

involvement in resource allocation decisions and more preventive services

because we cannot build our way out of this there was consistency at the county

will countywide on these issues and even during the October 28th summit in a live

poll we did 99% agreed to keep working together and create something fast,

effective, that provides shared governance with protection of

individual jurisdictions resources. While we were going through this process,

HUD came out with a new NOFA that changed the focus of how the HUD funding

would be used and kind of gave preference to COCs that had electeds and law enforcement on their

boards. That played a big factor in our recommendations as well because what we saw was

the COC about to change considerably potentially and I know that got pulled back but you saw that

the factor of the lack of federal funding the changes in the federal jurisdictions really was

going to have an impact. And I guess the biggest thing we heard was that you, the elected officials,

want to have direct decision making in what is happening. You have 90% of the problem. You are

the county of Sacramento and the city of Sacramento spend funding to address 90% of the homelessness

problem in Sacramento. And you want to be part of the decision with even that other 10%

that you should be the ones, because you're being held accountable by your constituents,

that you should be the ones making these decisions.

And so now I'm going to kick it to Matt to kind of go through our recommendations.

Thanks, Darby.

Mr. Mayor and members of the council, as Darby said, I'm Matt Cate and Darby's business partner.

Our first recommendation for the council is to reorganize the leadership of the COC.

Uh, we recognize that a lot of great work has been done, but we also heard loud and clear that the electives in this body, those at the board of supervisors and those in the more suburban cities, um, really wanted to be more directly involved, um, in the process of deciding homelessness policy together in a single place.

And so we recommend that a majority, working with the COC, that a majority of its members be elected from the city of Sacramento, the county and the suburban cities.

We would also recommend inclusion of members of law enforcement, hospitals and health care, first responders, business and school officials.

and then finally we recommend that a number of members who are currently on

the CoC with lived experience and who bring that diverse view stay on the CoC

as well we think this will increase countywide coordination we believe it

will increase accountability we believe it will provide a primary driver of

policy in one area and we think it will help to this body and the county and

your sister cities to decide policy in this area going forward as we said in a

single place in a single venue. And just to add that there are federal

requirements that the CoC has to complete and do and those would be

maintained under the requirements the structure would meet the federal

requirements and the responsibilities that the COC would be maintained. It would grow though for

an opportunity to talk about the continuum of housing in Sacramento. Recommendation two,

we recognize that you can only constitute leadership within the COC if the COC

collaborates with you to do so and we recommend that due to the extreme

importance of timely change that you put a reasonable timeline on this and that

if you're unable or if they are unwilling to cooperate in implementing

recommendation one we would then recommend you then create a new border

Commission made up of city and county electeds so again you you find those

same goals are reached but with a new organization and then we would

recommend the dollars follow that organization and then finally as it as

it applies to the city we recommend that you go back to the county and update or

create a new MOU to ensure that the city and County of Sacramento if nothing else

work closely together to continue to improve

the issues around homelessness here in the city of Sacramento.

And we're open for questions.

Do we have public comment on this item first?

Oh, oh.

Do you want to come back for sessions afterwards?

Sure.

For the presentation.

Thank you.

Should we do public comment, please?

Yes, go ahead.

Yes, okay, thank you.

Thank you, Darby and Matt.

So before we get into more details on the options, this slide here kind of provides an overview

of a COC requirement.

So as you can see here, federal requirements is that there's a COC membership, organizations,

individuals who are working and participating in the homeless response system.

limited membership, meets a couple times a year,

participates on committees.

Secondly, there is the CoC board,

a smaller subset of the membership

that is the board that is directing the CoC functions

and providing direction to the collaborative applicant

and lead.

And then finally, there is a collaborative applicant,

HMIS lead, also referred to sometimes

as the administrative entity of the CoC.

In Sacramento, we're unique in that our membership and board are combined into one body.

It's up to 32 members.

They meet monthly.

And we did recently add elected officials, two city council members, and two board of supervisors to this board.

And then as previously mentioned, Sacramento Steps Forward is the administrative entity for the COC.

So the options for a shared partnership structure.

Under our current model, you can see here that the COC board is administering COC programs,

and the city and the city councils and board of supervisors are looking at community-wide strategy,

priority goals, and we have our own jurisdictional program administration.

We are funding programs.

We're making funding decisions.

We're managing our programs, making land use decisions, doing outreach, et cetera.

We currently, the COC board currently under this model only has authority to consider COC functions.

And similarly, the board and council, we are looking at decisions within our purview.

And there is no kind of cross-pollination between those two bodies.

The recommended option, staff hearing from our elected leadership that we want a structured body to have a place to discuss housing and homelessness as a whole and in one group, seeks to streamline and bring together this currently separate structure under one leadership governance entity.

This entity would provide oversight over the homeless response system under one board, as Darby and Matt mentioned, a reorganized COC board that would have a majority of elected officials and also include some key decision-making community leaders.

This option consolidates oversight of the COC and certain functions of local jurisdictions.

The board, the COC board would maintain

the currently HUD mandated COC functions,

but it would also expand the scope of the COC board

to consider countywide strategic planning,

such as the regionally coordinated

homelessness action plan, as well as priorities,

setting performance targets, policies, funding,

other things that might be delegated to the COC board.

It's envisioned that this newly reorganized COC board

would be staffed and supported

by the Strategic Leadership Group,

which consists of leadership staff from the county,

the city, participating surrounding cities, SSF and SHRA.

SSF as the lead administrative entity for the COC

maintains their functions, reducing the need

for a new administrative infrastructure.

And SHRA would be put into the fold

and be an active participant

of the Strategic Leadership Group

and continues to be governed by the board and council.

While the county and cities retain independent authorities

under this structure, they have the ability to delegate

as they so choose certain functions and authorities

to the COC board relating to housing and homelessness.

For example, HAP or other things are things

that the city could decide to go to the COC board

but ultimately still have come back to the council

for final authority.

As for the broader COC membership,

COC members would continue to lend their experience

and expertise on subject areas with their expertise,

either with delegated final authority by the COC board

or the opportunity to provide their analysis

and recommendations to the COC board.

However, the recommended option does require

willing participation from the COC board.

The alternative option shown here,

the COC board would continue to function as they do today

within the purview of the federally mandated functions

of the COC and a new board consisting of elected officials

right now called the Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board

would be created as a dedicated public space

for elected officials from local jurisdictions

to establish strategic direction

across all of our jurisdictions.

This creates several boards and spaces rather than one board bringing everybody together and unifying our homeless response.

This SHHB under the alternative option could be staffed, would be staffed by either the strategic leadership group or city and county staff participating jurisdictions.

And there would potentially need to be a shift in funding to help support the administration of this board.

There's no formal relationship between the COC board and the SHHB.

And finally, the JPA option.

It's an option that has been discussed by the city council for many years.

However, at this point in time, we believe that there are challenges to forming a new JPA and or using an existing JPA as the COC and lead governance entity on homelessness and housing.

The city and county's current JPA, SHRA, is soon going to be starting an in-depth evaluation and assessment of their functions as the current housing authority and housing entity for the city and county.

We recommend that we wait for that assessment to be completed and the findings brought forward between our governing bodies before we make any substantive changes, such as shifting homelessness responsibilities and funding to SHRA.

As for the creation of a new JPA, that process is lengthy, needs willing partners to participate in the JPA, but certainly something that staff could continue to look into, and also something that the future new COC board could also shift towards in the future.

Let's see. So the next slide. When Senator Ashby paused SB 802 to give local jurisdictions

time to consider a governance structure, the Senator included five requirements for city

and county housing and homeless response. We believe that the recommended option is

closer to meeting the intent of the five requirements than the alternative option.

I do want to note that this chart here is city staff analysis and interpretation only.

We had the opportunity to meet with Senator Ashby's staff last week to discuss these five requirements and share more about the recommended option.

The senator's staff asked thoughtful questions about the options, but ultimately expressed that they would need more details and information about enforceability,

the roles and responsibilities to consider whether or not the recommended option would fully meet their five requirements.

Finally, I wanted to provide a status and update from our surrounding partners and jurisdictions.

On December 9th, the County Board of Supervisors heard this item,

and they approved a motion that directed county staff to move forward to pursue the recommended option

to reorganize the COC with the majority of elected officials.

The board also included in their motion authorization for county staff

to work with any willing cities to establish the SHHB

per the alternative option if the COC board and cities are not interested

in pursuing the recommended option.

The surrounding cities will also be hearing this item

at the end of January and early February.

In December, the COC board considered a proposal

similar to the alternative option.

However, the alternative option that was presented

to the COC board did not pass at that time.

COC board leadership and members have expressed concerns

about their diminished role in this new restructured

COC board, a reduced participation from persons

with lived experience and a belief that the HUD mandated

COC functions are better served through a separate board.

We continue to have conversations with both the COC

board chair, vice chair and SSF staff.

And at this time, we believe that they are listening

to the input from the city councils

and anticipate possibly considering this item

again at their COC board meeting in February.

If the city, county, COC board and surrounding cities can all reach agreement on alignment on a recommended option in January and February,

then staff would begin working on the proposed details of board composition, roles and responsibilities, committee structure,

the administration of the COC board, and start hammering out and looking at the details of a potential agreement.

codifying the new COC board that we would then bring back to our respective governing bodies

for approval and to potentially seat members from our governing body to the COC board.

If this moves forward by the summer of 2026, a new governing body could begin meeting to take

actions to develop governing documents and other actions needed to begin with the recommended

option. City staff as such is recommending that we the City Council make a make and approve a

motion to move forward with the recommended option and direct staff to continue discussions with the

county SSF COC board and surrounding cities to work through the details on board makeup committee

structure roles and responsibilities. This concludes my presentation. Brian and I are happy

to answer any questions you may have.

And the county, SSF, SSF board, and COC board

are also in attendance at this meeting today

if you have any questions of them.

Okay, thank you.

We're going to go, we have three public comment participants.

We'll do those first, then we'll come back to.

Thank you.

Barb Ram, Lisa Bates, Jen Joseph Smith.

Hi, I'm Barbara. I'm District 4.

And, well, Phil Pluckybaum told me that all politicians lie

and that the sheriffs lie and the police lie all the time.

And the only time they don't lie is when they're under oath.

So you can't really believe anything.

My bang, of course, is accepted from that.

But this is absurd.

Please oppose and do not vote on this.

you're asking for all of the homeless network framework tens of organizations to vote on this

because of this one slide that these two people one slide that says keep elected officials and

leaders at the forefront of oversight and decision making hello when the Kevin and Phil

were running, they said, we have relationships with the county.

We're going to solve homelessness.

We are going to have an audit of what we're currently doing for the homeless, and it'll

be done by the end of the summer.

So if someone could tell me where that audit is, that would be great, Mayor, because that's

what you said you were going to do.

To think that there's another layer, another layer, without asking the 50 to 100 organizations

organizations that are currently working in this city to help the homeless.

It just seems absurd.

I didn't know I was going to be talking on this.

I can't believe we get one little slide with two brief little things about recommendations and how they got there.

It's absurd.

Please oppose this.

Please tell the truth that you can do something or you can't do it.

And then I just have to say, may you be happy and may you be well.

Next speaker is Lisa Bates.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Lisa Bates, CEO for Sacramento Steps Forward.

We're here today, obviously, because resolving homelessness remains one of the highest priority issues for Sacramento County residents,

our unhoused, and for you as elected leaders.

Over the last year, several governance proposals have emerged, including, as Yoyan mentioned,

the analysis initiated by SSF and the county that explored the creation of different models,

including a formal joint powers authority.

Most recently, as has been discussed, the county presented options to the board in December

based on the Mosaic recommendations.

We shared our perspective that among the two approaches, the alternative option with some

adjustments could offer the greatest flexibility for you to build a truly regional and coordinated

response and maximize the authority that you want as elected leaders at the right level.

The Board of Supervisors ultimately approved the staff recommended option.

Throughout this process, SSF has remained focused and will continue to remain focused

on supporting a collaborative regional solution that brings jurisdiction service providers

and decision makers into alignment around outcomes.

We know that for an effective response to homelessness, we believe political leadership

must be aligned.

There must be a regular forum to meet, deliberate, and take action.

And we must be clear about what authority is delegated for regional decision making.

It is even more important now given the shifting and dwindling funding streams from our state

and federal programs and agencies.

We today have not seen a lot of detail or clarity on what actions and decisions would

any of these options provide.

But we do know that alignment paired with accountability informed by data and technical

expertise community based partnerships.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our final speaker is Joseph Smith.

Mayor, Council, I'm Joseph Smith.

I'm the COC Board Chair.

The continuum of care's current governance structure reflects proven models used by high-performing regions across the country.

In these systems, an independent COC board governs HUD required responsibilities,

while a designated lead agency provides staffing, HMIS administration, and tech support.

This structure creates accountability and performance without turning the COC into a countywide homelessness authority.

Sacramento is not operating in an experimental space.

Communities like Houston, San Diego, Austin, and Tucson use this same approach.

In each case, the COC board retains authority over HUD functions and the lead agency supports system operations.

this model is widely recognized for improving transparency stability and

results the decision before us has real consequences and I would ask the

council to consider this outcome if the CoC does not align with the county's

preferred structure there is a risk that Sacramento steps forward could be

weakened destabilizing staff and system coordination if the CoC does align with

the county's proposal we risk losing an independent CoC and shifting authority

away from the community and toward elected bodies whose priorities may change over time.

It is possible that these decisions will cause harm to people living outside.

Even under intense pressure, we cannot jeopardize care coordination and stability

that people experiencing homelessness depend on every day.

People living outside should never be placed in the middle of governance dispute

or put at risk to force an outcome.

I'm running out of time, so I'm going to get to the ending paragraph.

If the city chooses to follow the county's lead,

as the COC board chair,

I will bring the decision to turn the continuum of board.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Mayor, I have no more speakers on this agenda item.

Okay.

Thank you.

Proceed now with council questions, comments, deliberation.

Council Member Maple, start us off.

Thank you, Mayor.

and thank you very much for the presentation.

I really also want to appreciate Lisa Bates and Joe for coming

and sharing your thoughts as well.

Mayor, I really appreciate the opportunity to serve on the COC board.

It's only been one meeting, one and another one early tomorrow morning,

so looking forward to that.

But I see it as a great opportunity to make sure that I'm well-educated

on the issues and the process.

So I do have a few questions to start with our staff.

Hi, Yagen.

and I know we've had quite a few conversations so really also want to

appreciate the work that you put into this and Brian I know it's been a labor

of love over a long period of time and kind of running running running a

marathon at some points another point sprinting so so thank you you touched on

this in your in your presentation a little bit so my original question was do

we have the authority to reconstitute the CoC board what I heard from me was we

don't directly but what we can do is bring let's say hypothetically if this council agrees that

you know the option that was passed by the county board of supervisors is the right thing to do we

can then bring that to the coc board and ask them to vote and say yes on that is that correct correct

okay and if they say yes then that's great and we can move forward with this model

If they do not agree, what is our next option?

If they don't agree, the Board of Supervisors made an alternative motion option to authorize county staff to pursue the alternative option,

which is standing up a separate Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board of Elected Officials.

The city council could also put out an alternative for staff to consider and provide direction on,

If not this, then look at this.

Or we could also continue to have conversations with the COC.

We've begun to have some of those conversations to look at the details

because we have heard that a lot of the concerns are maybe, you know,

devils in the details that we can consider to negotiate

and work through that option to see if we can reach agreement on the recommended option.

Okay.

And then just as we could go there and say, you know,

would you would you take a vote on this proposal we could also do that for other

things so for example if this council wanted to pursue a joint powers

authority is that something we could put forth and ask the CoC board to consider

sure okay and then just so I understand the universe of what this covers right

now the continuing care board oversees approximately 40 million dollars for

your 40 million of HUD no fo funds and then also the CoC is one of the

recipients of HAP funding.

Okay.

Amongst other funding, yeah, those are the main,

two main buckets.

Which we know varies and unfortunately is continuing

to decrease over time.

So under this new proposed structure,

would there be any consideration of the totality

of homelessness funds that we are spending

or will it still only be the approximately 40 plus million

dollars that's currently in their purview?

I think that is up to the COC board members

and the council board and the city councils.

Now HAP certainly is a natural funding source

because it crosses our three jurisdictions

and there is a regionally coordinated

Homelessness Action Plan that is typically required

of the HAP application.

But under the recommended option,

the COC board would consider that,

develop a regional plan, make recommendations

on the HAP funding.

but the local jurisdictions at this time

still have the final budget approval.

The COC board would likely make a recommendation,

staff would incorporate that recommendation

in a staff report for council consideration

when you look at that budget.

Now certainly in the future, the council could delegate,

they could say, you know, we would like to delegate

our HAP funding decision making to another body

and other things, so, but currently as contemplated,

if they would be a recommending body for certain aspects.

But, you know, there are many options

that could be moved over to them as well.

Okay.

Yeah, and I just asked those questions

because I think one of the reasons,

at least I can speak for myself,

but one of the reasons that I think we've ended up here

is because there's an acknowledgement

that there are silos,

that we have a lot of different pots of money,

we have a lot of different departments.

In fact, you can look across the city of Sacramento,

of the County of Sacramento, the other cities in our county, and you can find many different

departments and staff members and beyond that are all dealing with the issues of housing and

homelessness for obvious reason, because it's something that we're all experiencing and the

public has a demand that we deal with it. And part of the issue that, as I see it, is that we have

at times a lack of coordination. And I think also duplication of efforts in a lot of areas and

a lack of clarity to the public about what we're doing or not doing.

And I held that belief when I was running for office and before then,

and I have it even more so now in the years that I've been here,

seeing it from the inside and really understanding that it's really not a lack of caring.

Or I think we have a ton of staff and wonderful people who work here,

the county of Sacramento, all the cities in our county that care deeply about these issues.

We have wonderful organizations that are members of the COC and in our county, but we lack the governance structure that allows us to coordinate in the ways that I think we should and be efficient in the ways that we should with the resources that we do have.

And so that's a challenge that I see.

So those are my questions, but I just have a few comments, and then I'll pass it on over.

So, you know, I came into this with a very open mind.

And it's been no secret that I've been a very, very strong proponent for a formal joint

powers authority for years.

And I will continue to find myself in that place.

But I came into this with an open mind.

I truly was of the belief that it doesn't really matter what it's called.

It doesn't matter to me if it, you know, what acronym you want to slap on it that government

loves to do, as long as it meets the requirements in my mind of the challenges that have been

set forth.

And unfortunately, as I've looked at the options in front of me, I don't see those being met.

I see pieces of them being met, but I still see where there are gaps, and we really need

to coordinate in a much more formal fashion.

And so, you know, we've got, as I mentioned in my earlier comments, we've got layers of

bureaucracy across the city and the county, and that's just not my view.

That's also the public that sees this.

It's very challenging if you're an individual who's experiencing homelessness to actually

navigate through the system because you are often being pointed like this oh well

what jurisdiction are you in are you here oh well are you on this list and

that's again speaks to our lack of coordination it makes it very

challenging for an individual it also is very challenging for the constituents

in our communities who want to help it breaks my heart when I have you know

neighbor neighbors of mine that call and say hey I have got someone on the corner

I want to help them and there's really not a clear answer for them about how

they can navigate the system you know we tell them to call 2-1-1 well 2-1-1

sends them this way or that way and it's it's very heartbreaking and so in my

view what we need is not another workaround or an advisory structure or

another board that talks to another board that advises a board I think we

need a single visible accountable entity a place where all the our jurisdictions

meet regularly decisions are made in public and the community knows exactly

where to go and to me that means a joint powers authority this is especially

urgent because we know what's coming. The state and the federal funding is

tightening. We heard from our lobbyists this morning at our law and legislation

committee that the governor's proposed budget is at 500 million. That's half of

what it was just a couple years ago. We're going to continue to see cuts to

funding and that is going to impact all of our programs, our shelters and beyond.

We know that at the federal level we're going to see cuts. We're going to see

challenges under this administration and so I know that when resources shrink

that's when coordination matters even more.

I believe a JPA will allow us to have the efficiency that we need,

allow us to align our funding and our policy,

and to stop duplicating efforts across jurisdictions.

And we know this isn't a new idea.

Again, I'm going to sound like a broken record,

but 15 years ago, actually more than that,

now that we're in 2026, this body, the Sacramento City Council

and the Board of Supervisors, not only voted to create

or to designate Sacramento South Florida as the Continuum Care,

which we have here now, but at that same meeting,

they said we must also create a JPA.

The reason why they said that is because they knew

that there needed to be an accountability structure

in addition to that, that aligns funding and resources,

and that never happened.

And I think that we are seeing some of the issues

that we set out because of that decision,

because we never saw that happen.

And so I just want to use an example,

because oftentimes I hear some folks that are concerned

about, well, we really need to make sure

that we have the expertise in the room,

and we have a lot of expertise at Continuum Care,

I agree with you.

And I think a perfect example is something

like the Air Quality District, which I'm the vice chair of.

That organization oversees really complex and technical work

by scientists, by engineers, and our job,

for those who sit on that board,

is not to second guess experts,

it's not to supplant our judgment,

it's oversight, policy, and funding.

And so the expert staff at that organization

come to us and say, okay,

here's what all the data tells us,

here's, you know, we've read all of the information

and we come to you and we need a decision on X, Y, and Z.

I believe that is exactly the kind of model

that we need here.

We have the expertise.

Some of them are sitting in this room right now.

We have Joe Smith.

We've got many organizations on our COC board.

They must be a part of this.

They are the expertise.

We have the expertise within our own city departments

and our staff.

We need to use that expertise and the research

and our own data to inform our decisions.

And then the last point I just wanna make is,

I saw the slide related to SB 802.

I spoke personally with the majority leader, Ashby,

just a couple of days ago on this topic,

and I asked her, I said, you know,

here's what I'm hearing about this model,

what's your perspective?

And she said, no, this does not meet the requirements.

And so I think that something to keep in mind

as we go through this effort is,

are we gonna spend time pursuing a model that,

meanwhile, there's a piece of legislation

that's moving forward that might make

all of that work for not.

And I'm not sure that that's a good use of our time.

And so I know I've heard a majority of this council

express public support for a JPA, I'm one of them.

And I believe that we should act on that.

So my direction for this item is that we instead

spend our energy focusing on a JPA,

whether that's through legislation or partnership

with the county and other cities,

rather than these other models.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Thanks, Mayor.

I'm supportive of the recommended option

that staff recommended with the end goal

of creating a JPA that forces everyone to work together.

No more silos, bring homelessness underneath one umbrella

so that we can be more efficient with our dollars

and the taxpayers, they're demanding that of government

and any dollars that touch homelessness.

So that being said, I'd like to make a motion tonight

to move forward with the recommended option

while pursuing the JPA as Councilmember Maples said.

Second.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

My observation over the last year in particular,

and of course to a certain extent,

I can't avoid comparing it historically

to the wonderful world we enjoyed before the city decided it wanted to be part of trying

to solve homelessness about 16 years ago.

My observation over the last year is that we are just too segmented in terms of our

approach.

And of course, I mean, thinking back historically, it was the city that wanted to become much

more involved in addressing homelessness. Federal regulations changed or federal legislation

changed that gave rise to the COC becoming something that had an independent element

to it. And by definition, as a result, the landscape of governance became much more

more complicated.

The consequence of that, it seems to me, is that, as Council Member Maple alluded to,

we have seen inefficiency, we have seen gaps, we have seen duplication, we have seen lack

of coordination, notwithstanding the best of intentions and best efforts by all those

who are, I think, very sincerely dedicated to trying to reduce

and hopefully someday even eliminate homelessness

in our community.

But to get there, I think we do need to make change

in our existing structure.

And I think that that includes ultimately elected officials

local elected officials, constituting the majority of the ultimate decision makers.

And I phrase it that way intentionally because it doesn't mean that a governing body ultimately

has to be solely elected officials.

I would just remind all of us that there was a time when the Regional Transit Board was all appointed.

no elected officials, four by the city council, three by the board of supervisors.

And during the time that we were building the light rail starter line,

there were some council members who wanted to serve on the RT board.

And so it became a board that was mixed of some elected officials and some appointed officials.

We made both of those types of approaches work.

And ultimately, of course, as we all know, the board became solely elected officials.

We have lots of different models.

We have a variety of JPAs.

Council Member Maple alluded to the Air Quality Management District Board.

There are numerous others, as we know.

So each constructed in a way that hopefully meets the objectives of whatever the purpose is for which the JPA has been created,

but all with the recognition that ultimately it's a level of integration and coordination of policy and funding as well as implementation

that needs to be the outcome that's achieved in order to have a successful governing structure.

So I think in order to do that, as I noted, I think we need to look at a governing board that is principally elected officials but could have others who are unelected or not elected, members representing disciplines, represented on the COC board as members of that as well,

because we've got to achieve a better degree, I think, of policy integration

related to what we're doing with respect to addressing homelessness.

Now, I personally would love to have the smaller cities in the county

also be part of that structure.

But that, admittedly, may be a bridge too far,

and that really has to remain up to them.

If they want to participate, I hope they would realize

that addressing this issue is not one that exempts any part of our county

or any jurisdiction, that we are stronger and better

if we all participate together.

But that is not always something we've been able to achieve,

no matter what subject we've been talking about in our county.

So it may not be possible here.

We shouldn't let that be a barrier to moving forward

with what we do with the county as far as I'm concerned.

The other two things that I think are elemental,

although not necessarily directly framed in this discussion,

are operational integration.

I do not see how we can be successful with our efforts as a community

to try to reduce homelessness and help those who are on the street

to return ultimately to the mainstream of our community

unless we have operational integration.

And for that, from the city's perspective,

we have to be very much connected to our partners with the county.

They are the ones assigned the task of health and human services,

and they are the ones that have the resources related to those subjects.

The city of Sacramento and no city in this county has those resources.

So we are not going to be as effective as we want to be

without a full level of integration and coordination

as far as I'm concerned with the county of Sacramento

and with our community partners as well.

I would include them in that equation.

We need to be working in concert with those organizations who have demonstrated their commitment and, frankly, their capability and expertise to helping us address homelessness and help people back into the mainstream.

And finally, finally, my broken record comment, which is out of this has to come an increased level of priority and resources for prevention.

Maybe we do that, by the way, through working on the MOU with the county.

It's not really an element of that MOU.

Could be part of it if that's the way we wanted to go to articulate it.

But while I certainly support the initiative that the mayor has championed on tiny homes

and looking at less expensive ways to house people who've been on the street, the ultimate

truth of the matter is, and I think it is indisputable, until we prevent people from

ending up on the street, we will not succeed in ultimately reducing homelessness.

So those are the elements of this that are of most significance to me.

And where that leads me ultimately is to say that the recommended option or a JPA fit, at least conceptually,

the things that I think are critical to making real and significant and sustained progress on our efforts to reduce homelessness.

It could be the recommended option, as you've suggested, that leads to a GPA.

I'm not necessarily convinced we have to have a JPA,

but I think, frankly, either one can serve the purposes that I've outlined.

Thanks.

Thank you. Council Member Vang. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to thank Yian and staff and the members of Mozac. Thank you so much for the presentation. Just a point of clarification for our interim city attorney. I thought this was a receive and provide direction, not a voting item. Can you just clarify that? If it is a voting item, that's fine too, but I just wanted to make sure to get clarification because I read it as a receive and provide direction with no votes.

but if we're taking a vote, just wanted to get clarity on that.

Council Member, you are correct.

I was just chatting with Mindy.

Yes, this was for receiving file.

Council can provide direction and then come back for adoption of a JAP,

for a vote and adoption of a JAP in the future.

So it is not a vote?

It is not a vote.

Thank you for that.

Just wanted to clarify.

Thank you.

Okay, so I see a few of my colleagues in the queue, queued up,

So I actually would like to hear from them before I decide to support the motion on the table.

Kind of want to assess and have a conversation to see where my colleagues are.

But first, I just want to say I do support Councilwoman Maple's recommendation to move forward with the JPA model.

I think we know at the state and national level that cities will continue to receive less funding for homelessness,

which means that more collaboration is needed now more than ever.

And so for me, the best option is the JPA.

so that we're not working in siloed.

We definitely need to be more integrated

in terms of our dollars, our resources, our services.

And as they say, more hands make light work.

And it's also what the grand jury recommended.

Given that SB 802 is also in the queue

at the state level and the Senate side,

I just think it's also important

that whatever option we move forward with

or that we recommend also meets those requirements.

And so I actually do have a few questions

just for logistical purposes.

If Yagin can come up.

Have we taken the JPA option to the COC board

to actually vote?

I'm just curious.

No, I don't believe the COC board

has ever brought a vote on the JPA option.

Okay, so let me play out some scenarios.

I just kind of want to know how this goes down.

So let's say that it's not a vote,

but let's say that mayor and council comes

and has a consensus that we want to go with the recommended option

to reorganize the COC board in that manner.

And let's say that we went with this option.

Do we have the votes to reorganize the structure this way?

Like who actually, like we can say, hey, we want to reorganize it this way,

but there's an actual COC board.

Like I just.

Correct.

Correct.

They would need to take up that action at the COC board as well.

Okay.

and they would need to approve moving forward in that direction as well.

Okay.

And what's the likelihood that if we make that recommendation, like the votes?

I mean, I don't know because I know there's city staff on there, there's county staff, there's nonprofits.

Right.

So I'm just curious, like, have the, will you most likely just pass?

We know that when they brought the alternative option or a similar option like the alternative, that did not pass.

Oh, when COC presented an alternative.

Correct.

Okay.

At the COC board, that did not pass.

So I don't know if...

Yeah, so basically we all just need to work together

and have a consensus.

That's the only way it's going to happen

in terms of restructuring.

Okay.

Yeah, I only asked that because I wanted to get clarity

if the JPA option was actually presented to the COC.

But what I'm hearing is that it has not yet been presented

to the COC as well.

I think it's been like all of the options

have been contemplated,

but they have not had a formal action or vote

or discussion about that model specifically.

What happens if the COC opposes this recommendation?

Then what happens?

Does the county and the city just say,

hey, we're going to try to just start our own?

Like, I'm curious.

How does that work?

So that, you know, that is up to this council, right?

As I mentioned, the board gave county staff a secondary.

If the cities and the COC board do not want to go with a recommend option,

they gave county staff authority to move forward with the alternative option

to set up a separate elected official board.

Our city council could do something similar

or we could continue to try to negotiate the terms

to get something closer to a recommended option.

Really, that's the direction that we're looking for you to provide.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I think for me, maybe I also need to ask the COC board members

if the JPA was in front of them,

Is this something they would consider given that they haven't voted on it?

I mean, everyone has discussed it, but no one has voted on it.

Okay, thank you for that.

The other question I had, and I know I was looking at Mozak's recommendation

because the first was to reconstitute the COC.

If it doesn't happen, then the third step was that Sacramento City

and the county should enter new or updated agreements,

kind of like the MOU that we have.

And while we're not really talking about this

because we're talking about your recommended option,

I also just had some question around the third recommendation.

that mozac had is well actually just really quickly i know that we have a five year mou

and it ends in 2028 um do we have any plans to actually strengthen or continue this mou

or are we just letting it expire and then hoping that during that time we will somehow

develop the new restructure coca right um and i'll let brian respond to this in a second but

the city county partnership agreement is separate from this restructuring so that is a document that

would continue to be enforced no matter what direction we go on the governance structure

and I can let Brian speak to future plans around the partnership agreement that'd be great I know

it's really it's not the item but it is related so just curious to know when it's coming back

and I apologize I was trying to listen out of both ears so I didn't catch the

The whole question.

Partnership agreement, I know we have discussed it many times,

and we bring it to you every six months to talk about that agreement.

It has worked well for us.

One of the elements of the agreement is it's a five-year static agreement

in a moving environment that we're in with homelessness.

In just the last two years alone, we've changed so much,

and there's been so many changes at all levels

that the partnership agreement has worked for us at a baseline,

but we could certainly add many more layers onto it.

We've had care court come up since then.

We've had SB 43.

We've had Prop 1.

As Council Member Dickinson said,

we haven't fully addressed prevention in there.

So that itself has a lot of space.

Yeah.

Thanks, Mark.

I'm just asking about that because until we figure out our new restructure model, the only thing that we have binding to hold each other accountable is that MOU.

And so I just wanted to just uplift that.

And I know that it is a five-year MOU.

It's going to end in 2020.

and hopefully we can have discussion about what that looks like moving forward

and just not let it expire because hopefully we can move quicker on this structure model.

But I just want to make sure that I flag that just for Mayor and Council, so I appreciate that.

Those are all my comments.

I look forward to actually hearing from my colleagues on their, yeah,

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues to see which recommendation they would prefer.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Kaplan.

Thank you, Mayor.

As I said at our October 28th regional meeting on homelessness,

I think we need to have an official structure to ensure regional accountability

and meaningful accountability and progress.

And whether that means it's only a JPA with the city and county, so be it.

As I know, the surrounding jurisdictions don't have to deal with the, like, the pit count totals that the city and county, which a majority have, because it identified Elk Grove as only having 83.

So their investment.

And then that goes into, I believe the accountability needs to have elected official representation.

But I also think when we're dealing with the unhoused and the need for affordable housing, those with lived experiences, their voice is often not heard.

And that structure needs to include that the unhoused have a vote.

Somebody has a vote in whatever structure is created that it is constituted.

As I said on October 28th, and I'll say again now, elected officials change.

Political will changes.

politicians don't always follow through aka we've had many grand jury reports

16 years ago the council created the CoC with with coming back with the JPA

supervisor Dickinson or councilmember Dickinson was a supervisor then and

agreed to this and we are now 16 years later and that hasn't necessarily come

to be so I get the recommendation of reconstituting the CoC board but let's be

honest there hasn't been a history of strong follow-through and accountability

when a direction has been given so I think we need to look at what does the

framework of a JPA look like because by the way you know and maybe this is

something our acting city attorney can look into if council gave direction 16

years ago to do a JPA if no decision has been to change it then the council

direction is actually to move forward on a JPA. Like that hasn't changed. I don't

think another vote has come forward so that council direction still stands

according to the Brown Act and everything else. So staff should actually

be moving towards a JPA because that was on the books 16 years ago. So I think we

should move forward to that framework of a JPA but also I think we need a little help and a little

oomph and I am supportive of that accountability coming through with state legislation with

Senator Ashby because if council gave direction 16 years ago and it didn't come to fruition

what's going to change if we give direction that it's actually going to come to fruition

unless we know we have state law that comes into play that really says you must do this

and force that coordination because then it takes away, because state law sets this,

it takes away the political whimsiness of electeds who come and go and have different feelings about

how they see things because our unhoused and affordability is not a whim and it doesn't come

and go. We've only seen the cost of housing go up. We've seen our unhoused have needs that are not

met and the number one item when you talk to we're unhoused it's the affordability and i really do

agree with council member dickinson i think we've been missing the boat when we are not funding

prevention the number one item we hear it it costs in totality if we're bringing it down to the

limited resources we have and the state is taking more money and the feds have took more money we

have to look what works. Keeping people in housing actually costs less than when they go on the

street. And we just haven't been investing. And we know prices are going up. And we know things

cost more. And our seniors are on a fixed income. So we have to really look at what's working and

what's the most effective. And JPAs and requiring that accountability of elected officials,

especially if it's put into state law, is more than likely to keep us accountable to ourselves,

to the taxpayer dollars we use, and then listening and guaranteeing that voices are heard.

I hear about the recommendation for the reconstituted COC. Sounds good.

But let's highlight everybody is working in silos.

us. We don't have a homelessness master plan that says who's on first, who's on second,

who's on third, and how are we all going to coordinate with our limited resources to maximize

increasing affordable housing and getting unhoused off the streets because there is no one right

answer. So I have concerns with the recommended option because I don't know what the rules are.

I don't know what the responsibility.

I don't know where accountability is.

I don't know how to enforce it.

And by the way, if I'm not one of those elected officials on the COC, then my community doesn't have a voice.

And we all talk about equity here, but let's look at a different form that actually has words and things in place that we can point back to,

that I can point my community to so that we can hold ourselves accountable.

Honestly, the devil's in the details.

There's not enough details, and what's been done in the past, I don't trust because nothing has followed through on.

So I would be supportive of the direction to staff begin the framework of a JPA while working with Senator Ashby on what that form looks like in state legislation.

Because we do have to reconstitute the COC.

Elected officials do need to be involved, but why waste time on that CoC?

Why not look at what a comprehensive JPA looks like to actually follow through on council direction?

That was given 16 years ago that still hasn't happened.

So those are my two cents.

Thank you, Mayor.

Member Jennings.

Thank you, Mayor.

Much of what I have to say you've already heard,

but it does bear repeating.

Fifteen years ago, we created a JPA,

and I believe that the JPA option today is the best option moving forward.

It eliminates the too many moving parts.

It eliminates the lack of coordinated effort.

It eliminates the duplication of efforts.

It helps local leadership to be aligned.

So in my opinion, we need to simplify this process, and we need to make sure that what we do is move towards a JPA that we can hold accountable and make it as simple as possible.

without all the mess that's around it,

without all the different entities that are a part of it,

without all the concern and the fear of what happens if we move forward with

just a JPA,

I believe that JPA is the best option to do what we want to do,

which is help the homeless who are on the streets,

be able to get off the streets and have a life worth living.

So I would be in recommendation to support you, Councilmember Kaepernick, that the JPA is the way to go, and I would move that forward.

Councilmember Fleckyman?

Yes.

I support the recommended governance model.

Recommendation.

Oh, staff, you're so quick.

I just always wanted to.

Staff recommendation, okay.

Council member Maple.

Council member Garrett.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Look,

I think there are one first.

I just want to thank the,

the,

the staff here from the city and our county,

Mozak partners,

SSF over the holidays.

They have spent time meeting over and over again.

And I,

I think that the,

the,

the push of what we encouraged is to,

to make this happen.

That should happen much more regularly.

And that's exactly what we're trying to, I think, what I hear from my colleagues here is we're trying to accomplish a system that allows that to continue to happen more and more.

You know, a couple things here.

One, on whatever process we move forward here, I do think that inevitably we need to get to that point where we're at a simple organized structure like a joint powers authority that the public can understand.

Now, if this recommended option is a way for us to build that process out, build out the, you know, I think Council Member Dickinson framed it well, operational integration.

Like we have to go through that actual process of pulling that together.

I think those are important things.

And also to the point that was brought up by Council Member Maple of consolidating all our fundings.

And I know there's some skepticism on how we do that, but let's go back to just how funding is approved by the state to us.

The RCHAP is created at this point.

And at least in my understanding of this recommendation, the RCHAP would be created for everyone, the city, the county, and even the COC.

the state that we use that one that same plan to apply money for the state and then the state

sends it back to us it makes sense for us to be able to make sure that as we use that funding that

we use it collectively and organized in one location where the city and the county now i get

i think there are details that need to be worked out because if funding is submitted to to the city

then we're accountable to the state for that funding that we're collected.

But that goes to the point where we need a centralized place

to be able to basically group those points there.

I do think also this is the fact to the process that we need to recognize

that we're going through the oversight of SHRE at the same time.

And there was one criticism I brought up last time when we were talking about prevention,

and this was on how we use our home improvement dollars,

where I think the city has done an amazing job

about figuring out how we exercise that.

We know that many seniors who own their own homes

find themselves losing their homes

because their homes fall out of disrepair.

But we've been able to work with Habitat for Humanity

to be able to address that program prevention.

Yet on the flip side, on our county side through SHRA,

they were spending almost 60% of that money on administration

versus looking at an outside partner.

using a collective place that helps us be more efficient.

And I think, you know, I do want to recognize that, you know,

by pulling those resources and having a second look at it.

If I look at what I looked at here,

when we recently took back some of the shelter locations from SHRA

and made sure that we had a second point of view and a look at it from our city staff,

we saved up to $1.5 million per year.

that allows us to do more in that effort.

Now, I think that combination of our city and county staff

helps us move forward in that effort.

So I think for us, you know, here's the iterative process that the staff,

I want to make sure that the staff send that message

as they are going to the other cities.

I think the other cities are meeting in the next few weeks,

that there's this strong interest that we all be in that same table together.

And as our vice mayor mentioned,

that if this process leads us to the JPA,

then that's how we're going to build out the accountability.

That's how we're going to build out the operational integration

and how we can actually look at pooling and mixing our funding

because it's not easy to mix funding.

You know, some of them are very federally restricted.

And I do think inevitably this will be a result in a JPA,

but we have to go through that process right now.

I think my biggest call, right, is with our staff and our partners

is that sense of urgency to be able to go through that process of building it out.

When we did the partnership agreement, thank you, Brian Pedro, for talking about it,

we went through that back and forth to figure out how can we hold each other accountable,

clear benchmarks, not lofty goals, but clear accountable benchmarks,

and then a process that we can come back to.

I think we've exceeded that, and one request, Mayor, is that we schedule a time to go back

and update the partnership agreement sooner than later.

But that, I think, is an important piece moving forward

is figuring out how we develop those clear benchmarks.

So with that, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

I just want to share some overall,

maybe 40,000-foot perspective here

and maybe go back on the motion

and potentially we can work to clean that up

and focus on providing direction,

but a collaborative directive.

But the big picture,

I just don't want to lose focus on this is we're talking tonight about how we could better

coordinate our COC money from the federal and state level and serve more homeless individuals

and get off the streets. Because I guarantee if we go across the street, Cesar Chavez Plaza

and find the 15 homeless people over there and ask them do they want more analysis, another

more staff, they're gonna say no.

They're gonna say I learned about that in 11th grade.

It was called the military industrial complex.

And too often we have the homeless industrial complex.

And we spend all this money and all these pieces

and lose focus on the people that are sleeping

out here on the streets.

So I think that we need to keep our eyes on the prize

and zero in on how we can, through us,

who are elected bodies, through a JPA or whatever,

or whatever, to be accountable to the voters

and using taxpayer money and serve more people

that are on the streets.

And that is what people call us about every day.

So I think we need to keep a focus on that.

So the idea here tonight is to reconstitute

the COC entity via a partnership

with Sacrum of Steps Forward

to have more elected representative on there

to have directions how we spend that money.

Because there's tens of millions of dollars

that we get every year from the federal government

and the state through HAB that we don't know

if the biggest bang for our buck.

Yeah, I'd like to, as Roger said,

focus on strategic prevention,

but the majority of our constituents are saying,

people on the streets right now, who it's cold tonight.

It's gonna be hot in July.

Get people off of the streets

on a more effective, efficient way today.

And that's what we're doing here.

And that's what I'm in full support of

is having a new path for that part of money.

The second part of the equation,

which Council Member Maple and I

have been on this quest for three years,

you know, Council Member Maple

was a sponsor of my bill in 2023,

which called for a JPA for us to get together

and work on this issue.

So those are kind of two separate things

going at the same time.

There are a lot of parallel.

You look kind of look like a Venn diagram,

like 80% of it's the same thing.

So I think that we're heading in that direction.

But, you know, look, as far as you're looking at homelessness here in Sacramento,

our numbers have gone down.

We're doing better.

We have more coordination.

You know, last year prior to us coming on board when Steinberg was mayor,

he worked with the county and Councilman Garrett to open up the tiny home village

on Stockton Boulevard and also off of Roseville Road.

so we have more city and county cooperation.

We're focusing on more efficiency,

but we need to do more,

and I 100% concur.

And I think about, you know,

I used to be a council member like you all,

and I know people ask you,

are you really busy on the council?

And you tell your constituents,

no, I'm busy on all these boards and commissions,

because every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday,

you go to the library board,

the public transit board,

the air quality, the solid waste.

what am I missing? Sanitation, the sewer district, what else? There's more. Set a board and those are all good topics but if you ask 99% of the constituents in Sacramento, you'll be like, what about the most important thing we care about? Homelessness.

And so we need to get in the game of all of us working together on that.

And so I'm 100% in accord on that.

And so I think that we need to drive our own direction on this.

And I know that there are a lot of opinions on this.

And I told our city manager, welcome to city council.

You know, nine different opinions.

But majority of our kind of are going in the same direction.

and I think in some that we do want

to have the Sacramento lead and step up

and volunteer to serve on this body

with the county and other jurisdictions.

I'm not sure if you can force people to do it.

It's kind of like a shotgun marriage type approach.

Usually when you have cooperation,

you have better outcomes.

I think that's the most viable direction here

and the most viable path.

That being said, I think that the option that we laid out here that, what is the option,

excuse my, where's my paper here?

Option, recommend, yeah, the recommended option having majority elected officials but having

other entities on that body is a good one.

Maybe it could be an entity like I talked to other council members about, where on the

on the sewer and set up sewer board.

I think there's two bodies.

They do the COC work and that has the body

with the non-electives and then the other body

can focus on hey, how can we better coordinate

and use our hat money together?

How can we join in and apply for a state grant

in partnership together?

So I think this whole entity has the opportunity

to serve the dual purposes.

I do know that there was some confusion

on wanting direction and I'm taking a motion

So I think we have a revised motion

from Council Member Talamantes,

which is a motion to provide direction.

Yeah, I wanted to get the city attorney clarification

on that, on what,

because we can do a motion to give staff direction,

but not a motion on the specific item.

Correct, correct.

To come back with a draft JPA for your consideration.

Okay, okay.

So then my original motion stands clear that city staff will come back with variations of a JPA for us to fully vote on.

As Council Member Maple had stated on, you know, why the grand jury decided to do this for us and all the bullet points that she hit.

Is that clear?

Okay.

Yeah, I mean so is it so I we have questions like who do you want this JPA to be between?

Does it is it include the CoC? Does the CoC stand alone? Are they part of the JPA?

So those would be helpful parameters if you want us to come back with options or we can I mean there's a

There's hundreds of different options we could come back with right on how that could look

So I think a little bit more

direction on we want it to be between the city and the county and the CoC or

it's just the city and county or you know so it would be helpful to know who

you all want to be a part of this direction like who is this between and

then the specific functions I think would then give us better direction to

come back with various options of how a JPA could look do you want a new and JPA

or use an existing entity,

all of those things would be helpful.

Maybe just kind of revise the direction she was heading

for is if you could come back

and flush out your recommended option here.

Okay.

Recommend this new COC board,

having elected leadership on there,

as well as providing a JPA for the city council,

the board of supervisors for participating

outlying cities to work in partnership in tandem

on homelessness issues.

Okay.

Would that work?

To flush out the recommended option

is what I'm hearing you say.

Well, it's that plus.

Plus.

I think what you heard from the council tonight

is they're not adverse to what you're saying.

Right, right.

This option for the COC.

And that's why I tried earlier,

It's confusing because we're talking about

how we want to zero in on that money,

but there's also all kinds of ways how we work together

that are non-COC related, and that's this whole JPA.

So how can we dovetail those two things together?

So go forward with the recommend option,

but also bring a component of that

where the city would be a party of a JPA

with the county and the outlying jurisdictions.

On homelessness response in addition to the COC.

role. Okay. So yes. So if, if we outline the JPA of who would be in that, then would we,

where would that go? Because the cities and the counties would all have to agree to be in the JPA

and if none of them did, then it wouldn't be a JPA. Correct. We're just saying what we would

like to have. We could present it to, to the others. And, and I think that the, the confusion

here is the JPA that we had in mind,

that Councilor Maple had in mind,

it was just elected individuals.

It didn't have the non-elected,

which you must have in the COC piece.

So that's why we're embracing what you're saying

with the COC revisions,

but we also don't want to lose track

on having a JPA.

Okay, so the recommended option

is a reconstitution of the COC board,

which would bring elected officials and the COC together under that body.

Correct.

So that.

But then also look at what a JPA would look like between the jurisdictions,

the city, the county, and the surrounding cities related to housing and homelessness.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Council Member, Vice Mayor, is that kind of what you have?

Yeah.

Council Member Maple.

Okay.

Sorry, I'm a little confused by this.

I think maybe. So for me personally I think what I heard from what I think was five members of this

council is that there is support for pursuing a joint powers authority as the primary option

and not necessarily choosing the option that's been laid forth by the county. And so if that's

what I heard then I think what I would like to do is make a substitute motion and direct staff

to come back to the council with a joint powers authority option that includes all the partners

that we've talked about today. And in fact, you have it on one of the charts that you displayed

in your presentation. So it includes our partners at Sacramento Stats Forward and the continuum of

care. It includes the county, the other cities, as well as our housing authority. And that can

include different options. And come back to this body for consideration in a vote. And that,

because I think that that would just be more clear

and we can see where people stand on that.

But I just think let's be,

I want to be really clear about like,

let's take a vote on,

we want to pursue a JPA as an option

and then see where it goes from there.

So that's my motion.

I'll second that.

That's not much different than what I was saying.

So I'm fine with that as well.

Yeah, I think, can I just interject real quick?

I think what they're looking for specifically

is what you do with the COC piece.

And that's by law,

we have to address that and all these other functions and so I'm all for that

and we've been on this quest for a long time I just wanted to make sure we

answer the question as far as how we do it. Right and so hopefully I included that in my

motion that it would include partners at the CoC because if you even look at the

language of SB 802 it includes what the requirements are the federal

requirements for HUD which includes people with lived experience and all the

other things that come along with that so like there are ways either through

legislation or as a partnership between the county and the cities to create a

JPA that does all those things I think that's less of the problem I think the

question is we need to call the question is that's the direction we want to go in

okay so I am hearing two slightly different things I am hearing one which

is go forward with the recommended option at this time with reconstituting

the CoC board and look at a JPA but I'm also hearing just look at a JPA but

that's the substitute motion yeah I'm not adverse to that but I'm asking how

How does that relate to what we need to do

in our role with the COC path?

Yeah, I mean, I think that,

I don't, yeah, I think it would take more time.

So I think we would, you know,

have to come back to council

with a fleshed out potential JPA option

that this council would approve.

Then we would probably then want to go present that

to the county and the surrounding cities

and see do you want to be a part of this and the COC, right?

Do you want to participate in this, right?

Because they have to be willing participants in a JPA.

And if they say no, we're kind of back at square one.

If they say yes, then we can continue down that path.

The recommended option, you could get this COC, reconstituted COC board together,

and then that body can then, with the city, the county, surrounding cities,

and COC partners on this one board,

that board can then continue to look at a JPA option because then you

potentially have the players together in one body are ready to consider that so

that that's just another way to look at it. In both options you have to go to the

COC right to get their yes or no or whether or not they like it so no matter

what path we choose we're still going to need to go to the other jurisdictions

including the COC?

Correct.

Okay.

Yes.

And again, this is our preferred option from the city,

and then we would entertain other jurisdictions on that,

and it's not 100% our call, correct?

Correct, right.

Because, I mean, one of the reasons why we haven't formed the JPA,

which has been contemplated,

is our partners have not wanted to go that route, right?

So, yeah.

Do you understand?

Clear as mud.

Mayor?

Yes.

Council Member Kaplan.

So, I think there are two things could be true at the same time, but be completely opposite.

Let's just say that.

Okay.

What I am hearing is that this council wants to go back to the direction given 16 years ago to create a JPA.

I think the direction is have staff start flushing out what a JPA might look like,

which I think some of it has kind of been already flushed out because it could be part of the recommendation of a reconstituted COC is what the JPA might look at.

I also understand, and I think we need to make very clear, that we cannot do the JPA by our own, and that's where we need Senator Ashby and SB 802, because that's the only way that's going to make this JPA a reality.

So I think it's the, we know we need to potentially add more oversight and accountability to the COC, but we also need to understand that two things need to be moving at the same time.

But the priority does need to be the JPA and the framework that we want, where you hear five of us while we're working with Senator Ashby.

Because I think if we come up with a framework of JPA and we go to the other jurisdictions, they're going to go, nope, because we've already heard from them.

So we know that this really is at the state level, but we need to say what we want.

While at the same time, knowing that if legislation goes through and gets signed into law, it will go to effect until next year,

what do we need to do in the meantime to provide more accountability on the COC that a majority of us have all talked about,

but I think it comes down to the priority is actually a JPA.

Just maybe if I can interject, Councilmember Kaplan, is that the jurisdictions, not City

of Sacramento, have made it be clear that they can't be forced to join a JPA.

And whether it's RT or others, these JPAs that you serve on today, they establish them,

but the underlying city still has to say yes.

It goes back to the shotgun wedding type stuff, which is why-

But could state legislation make them?

No, that's not, they have plenty of legal opinions say the opposite.

So there's, I'm not sure if that's going to give us where we want to go.

It may make us make some people feel good, but we have to work in partnership.

And the good news is we're doing that tonight.

This is not easy.

The county had voted on to working more in partnership.

We met on the 28th with all of us.

We were all there, plus jurisdictions.

Many of us have sat down with supervisors in small groups since then, and they've expressed willingness to do so that they didn't do in 2023-24 when Councilman Maple and I pursued the legislation.

So I think we're in a much better place.

And again, I don't know if we have absolute 100% clear direction for you to go tonight, Yohan and team, but come back and bring us options on these pieces.

Okay.

And I think that's probably the most helpful thing to do.

You know that we'd like to have a JPA.

We know that we're one party of this.

We can't force others to say yes.

And so we know what elements are.

We also do know that the county and the majority of the city

want us to have more of a stake in how we have control,

elected body control over COC resources.

And so that's a certainty as well.

So let's focus on commonalities.

I'm hearing do both recommended option and JPA.

Yeah.

Just for the record.

Council member.

Let's go back.

Council member Maple.

Can you go back and have some more clarity on direction as far as where you would look?

Your motion.

I feel like my motion is pretty clear, but so I would like the staff to return to the council for consideration and a vote,

a draft JPA path forward that includes the city, the county, the other cities, and SHRA and the COC.

Options for that.

So to look into that and to bring this back for consideration and a vote.

What would that look like?

What would the process look like?

Councilmember Maple, could we also add, because there are concerns about federal compliance

with the COC, that it addresses, because I think we have to look at both of them.

Right. And I said in my earlier motion also that whether that be through legislation or

through a partnership on our own, again, my understanding is that the current legislation

that SB 802 actually meets all the requirements that's set forth by the federal government,

HUD, that includes all of the qualifications for the COC board. So as I understand that,

how that's drafted that it's possible.

So if, I don't understand why we couldn't also

produce a structure that meets all those requirements.

And did you intentionally leave off SSF

or did you mean COC which includes COC and SSF?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

And not pursue the recommended.

Yes, my substitute motion is only for the JPA,

which is, that's what makes it different.

Okay, Councilor Plucky Baum.

Yeah, and it's my understanding that if we pass the substitute motion that the county will proceed with the alternative option.

Is that correct?

I'm not sure what the county's next steps would be.

I think we'd have to have more conversations with them.

But, you know, for the alternative option, you also need council buy-in, right?

So the council could say, well, we want to do this other thing first.

We want to hold off on that.

So, yeah, I don't know.

Sure.

Good evening.

Emily Halkin, Director of the Department of Homeless Services and Housing with Sacramento County.

It's a great question, Councilmember Plucketbaum.

The direction that we were given at the board in December was to revisit it with all of the cities.

We do have the other cities scheduled.

So theoretically, the board could move forward with the balance of the cities.

I think that's very unlikely because obviously the partnership with the city of Sacramento is the best.

So if they saw that the city of Sacramento and potentially some of the other cities were not interested,

then yes, we were given direction to pursue what's called alternative option.

But I will say that when the board pushed it,

they were envisioning that the holdout might be the COC.

And so it does sort of change the conversation about forming a Sacramento

Homeless and Housing Board absent the city of Sacramento.

So certainly lots to talk about with city staff as they develop the JPA option.

Thank you, Emily.

Okay.

Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you.

With respect, I think the consequence of the motion as it's currently on the floor would only prolong the time it takes to get to some form of agreement.

The original direction that I thought we were pursuing was really the development in the alternative of a format for the recommended option and a potential format for a JPA.

It seems to me that that is the wiser course to take here.

It doesn't take a JPA off the table as a possibility.

But if we take an action that omits that opportunity to pursue the recommended option as a potential outcome,

then we are putting ourselves as a city in the corner.

And we are taking the risk that one or more parties, principally the county, says,

no, we're not interested in a JPA.

And as you have pointed out, Mayor,

we can't force people to join a JPA.

I would say as a footnote to this

that in my experience,

the prospect that state legislation being successful

where the local entities don't agree is unlikely.

And so I would not,

I would not want to rely on the thesis that if the city is interested in a JPA but other parties are not,

that somehow state legislation is going to result in forcing a JPA to be formed.

So it seems to me that the wiser, again, the wiser course, number one, is to keep our options open.

Number two is to keep the conversation going.

And number three, to develop alternatives that we then can advance depending on how we feel those alternatives meet the objectives that we have identified in the course of our comments about what we'll do the most, the soonest, to help us reduce homelessness and achieve the greatest effect for the resources we have.

So given that, I would oppose the motion, the substitute motion.

Council Member Maple.

I've got a question here.

Council Member Guerra, then Vice Mayor Talamontes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Look, I want to walk through this process here.

Maybe, Emily, if you could come up to,

because what I understand this process here is that you're going to,

not only the county made their determination on how they want to proceed,

They're asking each individual city how to proceed.

So this is, again, I wanted to remind you, this is an iterative process for us to move forward.

And to basically fill out what those gaps are in what a board would look like, what the responsibilities would be at.

So, you know, I do worry about what Council Member Dickinson just mentioned.

Does this prolong it?

But I also don't see, and I'm going to play the devil's advocate here, don't see that the city taking a position and saying, hey, this is what our preferred option is, and it's a negotiation.

When we went through the city-county partnership, we had different positions that we got to a joint position.

so maybe this is question for for uh emily or for um for our city team where does this put us

in the conversation of getting to a point because there this isn't this i don't think this is a

a binary decision for even for any other city it wasn't for the county so maybe can you discuss

that if this council was to go and say hey we're preferring you to look at a jpa but nobody else

does does that help or does that at least inform the conversations as you meet with other cities

and the county yeah I mean I can say from from the county's perspective the board of supervisors

has been pretty consistent over time that they're not interested in a JPA could that decision change

certainly they have not been asked that formally the only formal recommendation has been the one

that Yian shared with you so we we could ask them to agendize that and ask the city to come

and present this option they could take a vote.

They have not indicated any interest in that.

On the other cities, I do think that there is opening.

We do have scheduled to go to them.

Most of them at this point are preparing to take a presentation very similar to what Yaa-Yan shared with you

with the similar recommendations.

I certainly think we could or you could approach them and say,

we'd also like to ask you to weigh in formally on a JPA option.

It's not currently in their plan, as I understand what they're taking to their city councils.

So as we move through this process, maybe those other cities have a different idea or a different approach that they want to this.

If the city makes a decision here to say, hey, look, we have this concept of a JPA.

could our mayor and the chair of the board and the mayors of the other cities

begin even a you know a informal process where they start working with staff on

how to get to a a joint solution is that is that is that a possibility sure

and and if that was the direction then how do you see your approach in

approaching the other cities and the county this is maybe a question for the

city staff? So first of all, I would mention that council member Dickinson in his assessment of this,

if the recommended option, if we went with that option, it, it, it still goes through the other

cities and then it still has to have the COC vote on that recommended option. So there's some

pitfalls even in that, but if it went through that doesn't lock us into that for eternity,

that locks us into keep moving with what we're doing right now

and keep pushing forward with the JPA.

Both can be true at the same time.

Both can happen simultaneously.

But I caution that if we only go JPA,

that where we're at,

there is a lot of different directions this thing will go

because it changes all the dynamics that we've been working on to try and get a coordinated effort on this for now.

We've been working on this for months to try and get something in the books now

so we can continue to do the efforts of getting people off the streets

and continue to build a structure that will work until such time of 8.02 comes and brings us that direction

or if we decide that a JPA is the direction that we're going in, we get everybody on board.

But as it stands now, if we don't go recommended, and it doesn't have anything to do with the county,

but if we don't go recommended and the other cities don't go recommended, then we're where we're at right now,

and we'd have to figure out some other course to try and bridge that gap.

So back to the question then.

So let's walk through this process here again.

Maybe Emily, you will be going to the next COC board meeting with what the county is recommending.

Is that correct?

The COC has not agendized the county's recommendation.

We've been working with the COC executive committee and governance committee to hopefully get it on the agenda.

But that would be our hope, yes.

Okay. And then we have two representatives here on our council that are on the COC. So in essence, say the council decides to go for this recommendation, that vote may go to the COC as well.

And so then the COC board might have two questions to ask at that point.

Yes, I mean we could ask the COC to agendize the different options to consider.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, so let's go back kind of where we're at and I apologize for anybody watching this

from home, they're like what on earth is happening at the City Council hearing?

Yeah.

So we had a motion an hour or so ago from the vice mayor,

which said go forth with the COC board reform.

In addition, pursue the JPA.

Correct.

And then Council Member Maple,

substitute motion says no, just go forth with the JPA.

Correct.

And the COC reform will kind of be secondary

behind that.

And so you're expressing concern

that if we just do that,

that creates unnecessary challenges

and Councilman Dickinson outlined that as well.

So can you give us another clarity

on the two options before us here?

The risks and the rewards.

So with moving forward with both,

the original motion,

go forward and let's work on standing up this recommended option.

Of course, the COC and other cities need to agree to that.

That starts us right now, and I think we had said that we could probably have something,

if everybody is in alignment agreement, up and running by the summer, right?

You could be meeting as a new COC board this year.

In the meantime, we would also continue to flesh out a JPA option that includes all the partners.

What would this look like?

How, you know, all the parties that are involved and continue to have those discussions.

But the other option or the recommended option is moving forward and we are moving towards a one leader space while this is happening.

So that's one option.

The second one with the JPA option, it sounds like staff would need to go back and flush out a potential JPA option to bring back to the city council.

and once that is blessed, we would take that back to the county, the COC, the surrounding cities

for their participation, willingness to participate, negotiation, right,

to try to get us to an agreed-upon JPA structure.

In the meantime, it would be status quo, right?

The COC board would continue to meet as the COC board, cities and county would continue to meet at it.

So it would be in a status quo scenario

while we flush that out.

So I think that's what I'm hearing as the two processes.

So one, we would be able to make change now

while contemplating JPA.

The other one, we would be holding our current situation

while we contemplate the JPA.

And I would add the recommended,

that board is essentially your JPA

of who would be on your JPA.

But they will have already been working together

and the chances of successfully pulling a JPA together

when you have that recommended board already working,

I would say that this could be up in as early as April

or May if we go through February with the other cities

on board and take it to the COC and get a vote.

I think there is that much of, OK, city manager.

enlighten us. I was just going to say if we want to continue the conversation moving forward,

I think if we take the recommended option so we could actually take it to the COC and the cities

could actually vote, everybody's at the table. And if it's the will of this body, we can make

certain that we can take an option for to create or bring back what a JPA looks like with SSF,

COC, the city and the county. But what I don't want to do is continue to delay the conversation.

I mean, I think there's been a lot of time and a lot of funding spent on this. So I think maybe

if it's the will of this body to go ahead and move forward with the recommended option,

but also continue the conversation with bringing back a JPA and what that looks like. Because it

sounds like a JPA has been on the table for probably since I was in kindergarten. So maybe

we can bring back that recommendation as well to this body to make certain that you know we're

following through with your will right with SSF, COC, the county and the other cities because it

sounds like that is what the true pleasure of this body is is to create a JPA but what we don't want

to do is is you know stall the conversations we want to especially since the county has already

made a recommendation but you know it's the will of this body but I do want to keep the conversation

going.

Okay.

At some point, I'd like to ask Councilmembers

Maple and Talamantes

to respond to this,

but Councilman Reveen, in the meantime.

I was just going to say, can we just take a vote

for the direction? I just think

we can just take a vote

on the counter motion. If it passes, great.

If it doesn't, then the other motion is on the table.

So,

that's my recommendation.

Take a vote.

Yeah. Well that is, we do have the motion on the,

the substitute motion is the motion on the floor.

So you would like to proceed with your motion. Okay.

I'm asking me a second.

So call the question, so now we're subject to a vote.

Okay.

So I'm gonna repeat your motion one more time.

I'm not sure I need to, it's part of the record.

This is the council here.

Actually, or Mayor, can I interject or Council Member Ripple?

I think that we all have agreed that we want a JPA.

That is our number one priority.

This alternative option of reforming this, you know, and adding us to the board, that's cute, but that's not the goal that we want.

So right now I think we're, I mean, we could do the vote, but maybe we come back next week and Yaa-Yin and Brian draft a document for us to, like, actually fully vote on.

because right now we're, I mean, it's kind of like just creating it here on the dais.

And so I guess my motion would be just to come back next week

and setting number one as a priority as a JPA and come back to this body.

Well, that's the motion.

That's my substitute motion is for the staff to work on a JPA structure

and to bring it back to this body for a direction and a vote.

But would the report include this recommended option?

no it would be us none at all what you just said we know what we want to focus

on which is a JPA so we should work towards that and then have that be what

comes back so and this is where for me I agree with Councilmember Dickinson

where I want the JPA that's what I want but I also don't want to stop

conversations and if we can get everybody in the room together in April

that's sooner than next year and the more conversations that we have the

better. So I guess for me, like I, I, I will vote on the motion, but I also want staff to recognize

when you come back, like I want to know how fast we can move on things because I want to continue

the conversations. I don't want to just shut down dialogue. I think the next council meeting,

which is it next week or the 27th? Yeah, in two weeks. I can come back and just say,

will look at a JPA, but if you want me to bring something that's somewhat fleshed out,

I don't think that that, you know, that staff report needs to be finalized by next Wednesday, right?

So I don't think I have time in a week to bring back a fleshed out potential JPA option.

I think it's going to take some time, especially if you want it to be something that we've had an opportunity to discuss with our partners.

Now, I could just bring back a city only without discussing with our partners,

but I think if we want something to actually have a chance of moving forward involving our partners in those conversations are important.

Yeah, and that's for me, the JPA is my priority, but I just don't want to get rid of this recommended option

and not talk about anything at all because then we're just shutting down conversation.

And so that's one of my concerns.

So I don't know if the maker of the substitute motion can incorporate my concerns.

I guess I just have a quick question follow-up.

So in my view, I don't see how this body saying we would like to work towards the option of a JPA,

please bring us back what that looks like so that we can discuss and consider and vote,

how that would be shutting down the conversation with the county or anyone else.

I don't personally, and I've had many conversations with folks from all over the county on this issue,

I don't think that that's the case.

So I just don't want anyone that's sitting on this dais to think that if we express our desire,

which we know the county has expressed their desire they said what they want which I respect

that we have the ability to also say what we want and then that can be the starting point of the

conversation as well I don't think there's any point in time where we just lock ourselves away

and say we're not going to talk but I do think it is important that we share what our desire is

what we want to work towards and so that is the goal of my substitute motion is to be really clear

about what we want to work towards and have that be where the conversations go

Yeah, not to, I think, confuse this, but I think the issue we're hearing from the council

members is by doing that, we don't acknowledge the direction we're focused just on the COC

reform.

And by just talking about the GPA, which I'm in accord with you on, we leave that piece

blank in the meantime.

And I think that's the point that we have to hear.

But we have a motion.

don't want to belabor anymore. And just I know it was already earlier but we can

also bring what we decide to the CoC board so if we have a JPA model that

includes them that could also be a decision point for them not just the

model that's been proposed by the county so I just think that's an important point

to make.

There's a motion in the second correct? Yes please call the roll. So to clarify we have a substitute motion by

Maple and a second by Vang to give direction to the city manager to come

back with a vote on the JPA option. The motion is is to give direction to the

city manager to come back for a vote and the action would be taken at that that

time. Your motion is to give the city manager. Framework of a JPA.

Is that accurate?

Yeah.

Take the word vote, framework of a JPA.

So does that, okay, if that's the direction on the framework of the JPA,

then what we're saying is that we're precluding even the consideration of this alternative.

Is that correct?

Our focus will be on the JPA.

Council Member Kaplan?

Council member Dickinson?

No.

Vice mayor Talamantes?

Aye.

Council member Pluckybaum?

Aye.

Council member Maple?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Guerra?

Aye.

Council member Jennings?

Yes.

Council member Vang?

Yes.

Mayor McCarty?

Aye.

That motion passes.

Okay.

Your no's being Dickinson and Pluckybaum.

Next item, please.

We move to item 27, which is declaration of a critical need to hire an extra help program specialist position and authorized to hire a retired annuitant to that position.

I do have a read to the record.

In the staff report, there were two resolutions that need to be adopted.

The recommendation omitted the S, so there will be two recommendations you are adopting.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council, Matt Ironman, Director of Public

Works. I'm accompanied by Cicely Garnett, Support Services Manager. Tonight, we are seeking

City Council approval to certify a critical need and waive the 180-day waiting period

in order to appoint Lucinda Wilcox, recently retired Public Works Assistant Director, as

a retired annuitant in the program specialist classification.

The appointment would be a limited temporary basis

and is expected to last six to 12 months.

The I Street Bridge replacement is a once-in-a-generation

$300-plus million project

and the largest transportation investment in city history.

We are at a critical inflection point

and the city and its partners recently shifted

to a more complex financing structure to ensure funding, certainty, and protect a May 2026

construction start. This shift requires immediate access to highly specialized expertise to avoid

delays and mitigated risk. Ms. Wilcox led the development and execution of the project's

funding and finance strategy from the beginning. Her skill set and institutional knowledge

include established working relationships with the City of West Sacramento, Caltrans,

SACOG, and the STA. Her command of the revised financing framework are not readily replaceable

in this time-sensitive window. Staff evaluated alternatives, but the immediate

financing deadlines and complexity of the revised funding structure make a transition

or onboarding period infeasible without unacceptable risk to the project schedule.

The assignment is materially different from her former executive role.

It is narrowed scope, non-managerial, and time-limited,

focused totally on the bridge financing and mitigate risk.

Without this continuity, the city faces real risk to schedule, cost, and funding certainty.

For these reasons, staff respectfully recommends approval of this item.

Mayor, I have no public comments on this agenda item.

Okay.

Council Member Pluckybaum.

I have a motion by Council Member Kaplan and a second by Council Member Dickinson.

Okay.

All those in favor?

No public comment.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.