Sacramento City Council Regular Meeting - May 12, 2026

The Sacramento City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, May 12, 2026, beginning at 2:06 p.m. and adjourning at 4:21 p.m. (with a scheduled reconvening at 5 p.m.). The meeting included consent calendar approvals, public hearings on code enforcement fees and citywide fees, and discussion items on the Budget Equity Tool (BET) and the 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The council also received public testimony on multiple agenda items and matters not on the agenda.

Consent Calendar

• All items on the consent calendar (Items 1–14) were approved by a single motion (9-0) except Item 12 (Sutter’s Landing Park ADA River Access Trail Project Concept Plan), which was continued to May 19, 2026, due to public concerns.
• Item 2 (Granicus contract renewal): Several council members expressed dissatisfaction with Granicus’s user-friendliness and ADA accessibility, but supported the renewal with direction to improve accessibility. A public speaker (Karina Pullen, Disability Advisory Commissioner) urged pulling the item, citing failed accessibility tests and less expensive, more accessible alternatives.
• Item 3 (HHAP-5 grant transfer to Sacramento Steps Forward for HMIS): Councilmember Kaplan requested clarity on how HMIS data accuracy is ensured. Staff explained the funds support tracking housing needs and service usage.
• Item 12 (Sutter’s Landing ADA trail): Multiple speakers opposed the plan as insufficient for blind/low-vision users. Speakers included Regina Brink (California Council of the Blind), Chris Smith (who felt the feasibility study and outreach were inadequate), and Tom Biloni (Friends of Sutter’s Landing), who invited council to visit the site. Councilmember Guerra and Vang requested a one-week continuance to meet with advocates. Mayor McCarty supported the project, citing co-equal goals of environmental protection and access. The item was continued to May 19.
• Items 4-7 (Landscape maintenance and lighting districts): Approved after public hearing scheduled for June 9, 2026.
• Item 8 (Envision Broadway in Oak Park): Approved, including budget adjustments and AHSC grant acceptance.
• Item 9 (Del Paso Sewer Improvements): Approved contract change order.
• Item 10 (Workers’ Compensation services): Approved contract supplement.
• Item 11 (City Auditor’s recommendation follow-up): Approved.
• Items 13-14 were continued (Water Forum FY26/27 budget) and adopted (Midtown PBID renewal) as noted.

Public Hearings

• Item 15 (Housing and Dangerous Buildings Case Fees): The council conducted a public hearing and adopted Resolution 2026-0119 as amended, making unpaid expenses (total $284,061.85 on 161 properties) special assessments. Staff noted nine properties were removed from the list. A property owner, Ray Derby, argued the fee ($1,725) was subjective and his property had been fixed; the city explained the fee covered only the notice and order cost, and he had a hearing opportunity.
• Item 16 (Code Compliance Case Fees and Penalties): The council adopted Resolution 2026-0120 as amended for $939,636.30 in unpaid fees/penalties on 424 properties, with 12 properties removed.
• Item 17 (FY26/27 Citywide Fees and Charges): After a public hearing, the council adopted Resolution 2026-0121 approving fee updates (83 new, 523 modified, 19 deleted) projected to generate $7.4M for the general fund and $652,000 for other funds. Public speakers included: Max Susi (business owner in Old Sacramento) opposed parking fee increases; Madeline Knoll (Downtown Sacramento Partnership) supported annual CPI adjustments but urged transparency and strategic partial cost recovery for activities that generate long-term value; Chris Valencia (North State Building Industry Association) cautioned against increasing planning fees given housing costs ($109,000 per door already); Curtis (event producer) opposed an automatic annual escalator tied to Bay Area wages, arguing it contradicts the city’s goal to be the best place for entertainment businesses; Kayleigh Ogleson (Sacramento Metro Chamber) urged reconsideration of development-related increases to avoid discouraging investment. Council members discussed transparency (including fee studies), parking fee impacts on low-income residents (indigent payment plan described by Parking Manager Stacey Kranitz), balancing housing affordability with fee increases (Matt Hurdle explained the zero-dollar impact fee program and director’s discretion for affordable housing), and parking management strategies (Councilmember Guerra questioned evening rate increases vs. nighttime economy; Public Works Director Matt Iron explained market-based rates and validation programs). Councilmember Jennings asked about support for senior citizens facing code enforcement; Director Hurdle noted the tenant protection program and commitment to strengthen outreach via senior centers.

Discussion Items

• Item 18 (Update on Application of Budget Equity Tool on CDD and Finance Department Budget Reductions): Diversity & Equity Manager Aimée Zenzele Barnes presented on the refinement of the Budget Equity Tool (BET), launched in 2024 with a focus on service and location impacts. She noted that in FY25-26, 39 budget change proposals from Sacramento PD, 7 from SacFire, and 1 from Finance applied the tool, and several departments now use it for augmentations as well as reductions. Key lessons included shifting perspective from purely financial to community impact and the need for early engagement and cross-department training. Public comment: a speaker (Lambert?) criticized lack of equity in city processes and questioned the pace of implementation. Councilmember Vang asked if all budget strategies have gone through the BET; staff confirmed not all have, but are working toward integration. City Manager Smith affirmed equity as a priority and committed to further implementation. Council commended the work.
• Item 19 (2026-2031 Capital Improvement Program): Senior Budget Analyst Carol Renix presented the proposed five-year CIP totaling $512.6 million for 155 projects, with a $2 billion funding gap. The FY26/27 budget includes $129.8 million for 143 projects. Public speakers: Mark Velasquez criticized zero funding for Vision Zero school safety (page N-51 and O-38) and urged more investment; Lambert Davis argued Measure U revenues have been improperly blended with the general fund and need separate tracking. Councilmember Kaplan highlighted the use of park impact fees for North Natomas projects (all-weather soccer field, shade canopies) and questioned why a shovel-ready park (North Natomas Regional Park) remains Tier 2. Councilmember Dickinson inquired about the Marysville Boulevard Vision Zero project; staff explained that committed but not yet obligated grant funds (e.g., from SACOG) are not reflected in the CIP until signed agreements are in place. The council asked for a dashboard to track awarded but unobligated funds for public transparency.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar: Approved 9-0, except Item 12 (continued to May 19, 2026).
• Public Hearings Items 15 & 16: Resolutions adopted as amended (9-0 each).
• Item 17 (Fees): Resolution adopted (9-0). Council directed staff to include fee studies in future annual presentations for transparency, and to explore amnesty programs for code enforcement and better coordination with business owners (direction from Councilmember Guerra).
• Item 18 (Budget Equity Tool): Reviewed and commented; council provided direction to continue integrating BET into all budget strategies and report back on progress.
• Item 19 (CIP): Reviewed and commented; council requested development of a public dashboard for tracking awarded grant funds that are not yet obligated.
• Item 20 (Notification of Parcel Map – 3448 Y Street): Received and filed.
• Public Comments (Matters Not on the Agenda): Several speakers addressed cemetery needs, oversight of board-and-care facilities (referenced to county/state), inequitable resource distribution, and homelessness management transparency (e.g., exact locations and operators of shelters). Council noted the comments and offered follow-up assistance.
• City Manager’s Report: None.
• Council Comments: None.