All right, good.

It's in between morning and afternoon.

So welcome to the Sacramento City Law and Legislation Committee.

I now call this meeting to order at 11.04 a.m.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you.

Council Member Dickinson.

Here.

Council Member Plekibom will be absent today.

Council Member Jennings.

Here.

And Chair Maple.

Here.

You have a quorum.

All right.

So how about please join me in the land acknowledgement and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please rise if you are able.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgements in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains

Miwok, Putuan Wintun peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally

recognized tribe.

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

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

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

and lives.

Remain standing.

Salute and pledge.

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, liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

So members of the public who wish to address the committee may do so by submitting a speaker

slip, which can be found in the back of the room, and then bring it to the desk at the

front here with our amazing team.

Speaker slips must be turned in to the clerk prior to the beginning of each item, so please

take an opportunity to do that now if you can.

We will no longer accept speaker slips after the item begins.

You will have two minutes to address the committee.

So that everyone has an opportunity to address the committee, members of the public are asked to

abide by the rules of decorum, which can be found in the council rules procedure on our

website, or in the back of the room in the copies of the speaker slip.

You can find those summarized there as well.

So this meeting is being streamed live and can be viewed on the city's website as well.

So welcome.

So with that, I will now move to the consent calendar.

Do we have any members who wish to speak about poll items, make questions or comments on consent?

Seeing none.

Motion to move the consent calendar.

We have a motion and a second.

Do we have any public comment on the consent calendar?

Chair, I have no more speakers, no speakers on the consent.

All right.

Seeing no public comment.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstain?

That passes unanimously.

We now will move on to item number four, air business operations tax overview.

We welcome our team.

But quickly, I'll just say a few words to start us off, and then we'll pass it over to

a presentation from our team here.

Thank you for being up here.

This is a really important conversation to us as a city.

I think for all of us on this dais, for those who are on the full city council and to our

mayor, we recognize that it's probably about time that we modernize it.

That's actually been the case for several years now since it's been brought up by our finance

team, the need to bring us into the current time period that we're in.

And so for me, this isn't just about numbers.

It's about fairness, sustainability, and building a city that works for everyone.

The current structure hasn't been meaningfully updated since 1991.

That's more than 30 years.

Think about that.

The world has changed.

The cost of our city services has changed, but our tax system hasn't.

That's left us in a place where some of the biggest corporations operating in Sacramento,

companies with hundreds of millions in annual revenue, are still capped at paying just

$5,000 per year.

Meanwhile, small local businesses are struggling to stay afloat, doing their part to support

the various services those same corporations benefit from.

But just as the what is just as important as the what is the how.

So last year, we had a measure, or I guess that was 2022, two years ago, we had a measure

that was defeated.

And it's really important to me that we start this process with fresh eyes and making sure

that it is open, collaborative, and fair.

We know that the finance team here before you has been hard at work meeting with business

owners, chambers of commerce, our PBIDs, professionals and advocates across the city, and we thank

them for that.

Because no process is going to move forward without making sure that every single person

is at the table who deserves to be there and that we are hearing from them.

We do not want this to be a surprise.

We don't want anyone to come to this later on.

And this is just the very beginning of the process.

We're having the conversation.

We're starting it off.

But there's going to be a lot more conversations to come.

And we're going to continue to invite the community to come along with us.

And so I just think I look at this as a chance for us to take an antiquated system and to

rebuild it in the right way, grounded in equity, economic common sense, and long-term sustainability.

So those are just some of my comments and my personal beliefs as chair.

And we'd love to hear of our presentation.

And then I look forward to hearing from the community and hearing from my colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair, council members, and members of the public.

I'm Pete Cleto, the finance director.

Joining me is Jackie Rice, our revenue division manager.

And our revenue division administers the business operations tax.

And, you know, we felt like during the budget process that we've gotten direction from council

to bring forward a discussion about whether or not council wants to bring a ballot measure

to update our tax.

You know, as the chair mentioned, we have a lot of hard-coded dollar numbers in our business

operations tax, and those haven't changed since 1991.

And so obviously inflation has eaten away at the value of those dollars.

And, you know, I just want to say a quick thing about our approach and where we're starting today.

You know, as the chair said, this is the beginning of the process.

Staff's approach is we want to bring before the committee just an overview of the tax.

It's various components.

What are kind of various considerations and levers that the committee could look at as far as updates.

Get some feedback from the committee on which aspects the committee is interested in potentially amending or revising or modernizing.

And then we can come back with some options and associated financial impacts.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jackie, who is our resident expert.

Thank you.

Good morning, committee members.

I'm Jackie Rice, Revenue Division Manager.

I'm here today to give you a brief overview of the components of the city's business operations tax, or BOT.

I'll also provide a summary of our research pertaining to surrounding jurisdictions and similarly sized jurisdictions throughout the state.

And as Pete said, ultimately our goal today is to obtain direction from this committee as to what components of the BOT you would like us to focus on for a potential update.

The BOT was enacted in 1975 and last updated in 1991 with no inflationary updates since then.

It generates approximately $9 million annually in general fund revenues.

And the tax rate varies by business type, but the largest source of revenue comes from a 0.04% tax on gross receipts.

Across all business types, the maximum annual tax liability is $5,000.

We had outside consultants recommend modernizing the tax in 2010 and again in 2020.

And our last attempt to modernize the BOT was Measure C, which unfortunately was not successful.

The BOT is broken down into four main categories depending on business type.

The most common is a tax on gross receipts and this category has a $30 base rate on anything below $10,000.

Any gross receipts that exceed that $10,000 amount are taxed at the 0.04%.

And with the maximum annual tax liability of $5,000, businesses reach this cap at about $12.4 million in gross receipts.

Next we have our professionals and brokers category.

They have flat rates that range from $75 to $300 per principal broker or per licensed professional that receives profits from the business.

And then in addition to that, each additional licensed employee or person that reports to that principal broker is charged an additional flat amount of $30.

Next we have our contractors.

The BOT rate in this category is $0.40 per $1,000 of value that's used to determine the building permit.

And this is collected by the community development department upon the issuance of those building permits.

Finally, we have our housing and shelter category that includes residential, commercial, rental, and hotels and motels, and then as well as our short-term rentals.

Residential rentals and hotel motels have an annual base amount that ranges from $25 to $50 and a per unit charge that ranges from $0.75 to $1.75 per unit that exceeds four units.

Our short-term rental permittees are taxed at $50.

And the rental of non-residential property is taxed at the same using the same methodology as the gross receipt businesses.

Again, all four of these categories have a maximum tax liability of $5,000.

The chart before you depicts the percentage of the annual revenue that comes from each of those four components that I mentioned on the previous slide.

So as you can see, the majority of our BOT revenue does come from that gross receipt category at approximately 86%,

followed by the professionals and brokers at 6%, housing and shelter at 5%,

and then finally the contractors are 3% of the total annual revenue.

Staff studied the structure of business taxes in nearby, as well as similarly sized jurisdictions throughout the state of California.

And what we found is that it really varies by jurisdiction.

The surrounding jurisdictions that are really close to Sacramento tend to have flat fees that vary by business type.

And they do generally result in a lower business tax burden for our businesses.

The similarly sized jurisdictions, they tend to have higher maximums as a general rule.

And many have flat rates and maximums that do automatically index to inflation.

You can find a more detailed look at this comparison in the staff report today.

So many, if not all, of the city's current BOT components have been heavily impacted by inflation.

Namely, the maximum of $5,000, the current gross receipt minimum threshold,

and the base amounts across all four categories.

We also do have a flat penalty amount that is listed in the code.

So currently we are only assessing a $15 penalty when a business is 30 days past due,

and then again an additional $100 when the business is 60 days past due.

Some of the options that could be explored are adjusting the tax rate that is applied to gross receipts,

indexing all of the BOT components to inflation,

and then allowing for more flexibility in the penalty amounts by just adopting the penalty amount via resolution

rather than explicitly stating what the penalty amount is in the ordinance.

Increasing the gross receipts tax threshold and raising the annual maximum lessens the burden on smaller businesses

and creates a more progressive tax structure by generating a proportionally higher amount of revenue

from higher gross receipt businesses.

Whatever strategy is pursued, staff does recommend an automatic inflationary adjustment clause in the ordinance.

Some additional considerations to consider.

The current low, as I mentioned, the current low annual maximum creates a regressive tax structure.

The gross receipts tax is a top line tax, and so it does not take into account the cost of doing business,

and so it does impact lower margin businesses significantly.

High gross receipt businesses could also be high sales tax generators and employers,

and a higher BOT rate could drive business out of the city,

which could negatively impact other general purpose revenues.

Competitiveness with surrounding jurisdictions, excuse me.

As I mentioned in the previous slide, a lot of the jurisdictions immediately surrounding Sacramento

do have a lower business tax burden.

Businesses are also experiencing increases in other fees as well.

And then, of course, the cost of city services has significantly increased since the BOT was last updated in 1991.

So as far as next steps, as we mentioned, we're here today to seek direction from this committee

as to which aspects of the BOT you would like for us to explore.

Upon receiving that direction, we will analyze and return with options for updating,

and as well as revenue projections for those options.

There are two upcoming ballots for a possible BOT measure, June and November of 2026.

For the June election, we would need approval approximately in January of 2026.

And for the November election, we're looking at approval in June of 2026.

These are estimates, and so we would be able to provide more specific dates when the 2026 calendar is adopted in August.

And with that, I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

I think what we'll do first is hear from the public,

and then we'll call you back up with questions and comments from committee members.

And so with that, we'd love to hear from members of the public.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

I have seven speakers.

Kalaya, Olgerson, Jamison Parker, Matt McDonald, Tiffany Clark, Patrick Clark.

Welcome.

Welcome.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Maple and members of the Law and Legislation Committee.

As the City of Sacramento revisits the business operations tax,

the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce urges the City of Council to take a thoughtful and inclusive approach,

one that prioritizes economic fairness, transparency, and a meaningful partnership with the business community.

The current model is outdated and must be modernized to reflect the demands of Sacramento's evolving economy.

However, a policy of this scale cannot be developed in isolation or advanced in haste.

When considered alongside the host of other proposed fees increases going before the Council this evening,

the cumulative financial impact on local employers and businesses would be significant.

We respectfully urge the Council and City staff to pause and engage in a deeper, more deliberate dialogue with the business community.

This moment presents an opportunity to co-create a solution that responsibly addresses the City's fiscal needs,

while also promoting long-term economic growth and stability.

Moving forward without broader engagement risks compounding financial pressure on the very businesses that drive Sacramento's economy.

The Metro Chamber stands ready to collaborate on a modernized approach to the BOT,

one that ensures the City's sustainability without compromising our Region's ability to attract, retain, and grow the businesses that power our future.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Jameson?

Following Jameson and Matt McDonald?

Good morning, Chair and Committee members.

Jameson Parker with the Midtown Association.

We're a property-based improvement district.

Here in Midtown, representing over 1,300 properties with the mission of making Midtown the center of culture,

creativity, and vibrancy in Sacramento's urban core.

I want to start by thanking the committee and City staff for bringing this conversation to the business community early

and including us in the conversation.

We understand that there's a clear opportunity to modernize the business licensing and taxing of businesses

since the last time, as the Chair was mentioning, and it happened in 1991.

But we hope that there's a path forward, must strike a balance between fiscal responsibility

and economic vitality for businesses that are really the backbone of Sacramento.

As you restart this conversation, we ask that this be looked at in the context of all the other fees

that the City has either adopted in the last few years or are looking at in the future as well.

Just in the last few years, we've seen park impact fee increase proposals, DOU impact fee increases.

We're currently looking at a fire prevention fee increase as well.

And we just want this to make sure that we're looking at this holistically.

In addition to that, as part of this conversation, we are also asking that we are focusing on how do we attract businesses

and investments through strategic incentives.

That includes streamlined permitting and efficient building departments.

It includes being able to have predictable and transparent fee structures

and targeting tax delays or release for businesses that create jobs to revitalize vacant spaces.

If we continue to lay around fees and businesses and they shudder,

under that operating stresses, neighborhoods have the chance to become more vulnerable,

to blight, crime, and instability.

Empty storefronts and reduced foot traffic have real consequences,

and public safety is directly tied to those business vitality.

Again, we really appreciate the early outreach and letting the conversation begin.

We're here to be at the table and be a support to help shape the economic landscape in Sacramento.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Matt McDonald and Tiffany Clark.

Good morning.

Matt McDonald with the California Apartment Association,

representing over 3,000 members in Sacramento.

We would like to remind the committee that when the city tried to increase the BOT in 2022,

Sacramento voters rejected it resoundingly.

Only 38% of Sacramento voters agreed with the notion that increasing taxes on business

is a healthy response to the city's budgetary woes.

Only 38%.

It is very difficult to see BOT faring any better with voters this time around,

or excuse me, next time around, given the likelihood of recession ahead.

Later today, the full council will consider hundreds of new fee increases impacting not just businesses,

but every walk of life in the city.

62% of Sacramento stood against new taxes on business with Measure C,

costs that impacted them only indirectly.

What happens when the increases get passed directly to the voters?

We would urge the committee to remember this,

that for the person opening their wallet, there is no difference between a tax and a fee.

It hurts just the same, regardless of the vocabulary.

We hope you remember that as discussion of BOT further develops,

as well as when discussing the eye-popping number of proposed fee hikes later today.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Tiffany Clark, then Patrick Clark.

Good morning, committee members, chair, and staff.

Sacramento attorney Tiffany Clark here to reiterate what I shared with you

in my detailed written analysis and proposal and ensuing discussions,

namely that you have a unique and exciting opportunity here today

to direct staff to research a proposal that could more than eliminate

our city's projected budget deficits while jump-starting economic growth

and boosting our small business community

by following the lead of some of the city's own self-identified peer jurisdictions.

A proposal that could dramatically, that would dramatically increase fairness

and fairness amongst businesses and income sensitivity with four critical components.

The first, exempting small businesses up to a specified income level.

The second, replacing our flat tax rate with income and expense sensitive, sector specific, progressive tax rate ranges.

The third, eliminating, ultimately eliminating our flat tax, which are tax caps,

which are unusually low and non-existent in most peer jurisdictions.

And lastly, eliminating the unusually high income insensitive flat taxes.

Time is of the essence, though, if we want to create an inclusive and successful process.

Those rate ranges would be negotiated with business, the business community, to be successful.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Patrick Clark, then Chris Valencia.

Good morning, Chair Mabel, Council Members.

Patrick Clark, resident District 3.

I've been before you multiple times and just one of,

I'm a labor relations consultant representing more than 50 different cities.

I'm here in a personal capacity this morning, but I wanted to reflect on a couple of things.

I'm presently in negotiations with 11 different cities negotiating 29 different contracts, and I noticed a pattern.

The cities that I'm negotiating with that have any money at all during this round of labor negotiations have recently passed revenue measures.

Without exception, my clients that have not recently passed a revenue measure are either conducting layoffs,

or discussing furloughs, or at minimum are proposing contracts with no increases.

I'm pushing back gently on the mayor's notion that you should somehow try to do more with less,

and that you need to tighten your belts.

This is not a unique to the city of Sacramento problem.

This is a universal problem.

And I represent cities from El Centro all the way up to Oroville statewide.

This is a universal problem.

It's driven by the fact that Proposition 13 limits one of your largest revenue sources,

and the fact that you have no control of your PERS liability.

A couple of things.

I would be bold here.

Do not back down from the city's needs,

but by all means include the business community in the discussions.

That was not done with revenue measure C.

That's why it was defeated so resoundingly last time.

I think if you do that, you do have the opportunity to exempt the majority of businesses.

You're going to get labor support.

I think if done right, this thing can pass,

and it can resolve the majority of the city's revenue issues.

That's all that I have.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Chris Valencia.

Then Mo Kashmiri.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Chris Valencia,

and I'm here on behalf of the North State Building Industry Association.

I just want to echo a lot of what my colleagues have mentioned up here

in saying that please be mindful of everything that is being considered

and passed by the city council.

There are a lot of fees,

and we just urge caution with the city for the burden that they do put on business,

especially small business.

If many businesses are not able to be sustained, they can shutter,

and then we will have even more of a problem when there's not significant tax revenue coming in.

With that, I do urge caution on the council on their consideration of a holistic look at the fees being considered.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Your comments.

Mo?

Mo?

Following Mo is Joe Devlin, who will be a final speaker.

Welcome.

Hello.

My name is Mo Kashmiri.

I'm speaking as a private citizen, not in my work role at SEIU.

I wanted to speak, you know, what we know that the community wants is more services, not less.

What really hits neighborhoods hard is layoffs, service cuts, and less services.

We need to be increasing the amount of services in the community.

We don't have enough.

We need to be increasing the amount of public safety support we give.

We need to be supporting our schools better, and we haven't been doing that.

Instead of layoffs, we want everyone to make sure that they pay their fair share.

And I especially want to talk for a minute about Measure P.

There was a measure in Sacramento where I worked on before I moved here where we eventually sued,

and we were able to win a ruling saying that we can pass fee increases and tax increases by 50%

as long as it's done by ballot initiative of the people, not necessarily the council.

If the council places it on the ballots, it's two-third.

But if the people do a ballot measure, we can pass it with 50%, which opens up a whole new ballgame.

So my specific ask is this.

Ask staff to research the timeline for a ballot measure for community members for 26,

because I think we can still do it, and I think we can escape with we can pull this crisis into a potential win-win

if we do it right with our labor partners and others.

Again, please ask staff to research the timeline for a ballot measure for community members,

not one which I think they're already researching, which is if the council puts it on the ballot,

which would require two-thirds.

We want the 50% route.

If you have more questions, let me know.

I can always help you get more information later.

Our final speaker is Joe Devlin.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Joe Devlin with Northern California Cannabis Alliance.

The city of Sacramento has roughly 20,000 businesses located in this city.

The city within that has approximately 300 licenses that they issued to various cannabis companies.

Those 300 licenses represent about 200 different companies, meaning that 1% of your companies are cannabis companies.

But 1% pays roughly 40% of your entire BOT.

It is the proverbial goose that lays the golden egg.

And I'm here to tell you that the goose is sick.

And if it's not some sort of remedy or relief is granted, those revenues are likely going to decline as these businesses continue to struggle,

and their revenues decline and they close their doors.

One thing specifically that I would ask the committee to take a look at is the multiple layering of the BOT amongst common ownership companies that move across license types,

meaning if I'm a cultivator, I pay 4%.

I send that to my distributor, I pay 4%.

I send it to my retailer, I pay 4%.

And it's quite literally the same product that has moved through.

And so now I've paid 12% of gross receipts, which is actually more like 16% by the time it moves through because it compounds, on the same product.

And while that won't help every cannabis company, that will certainly help those larger ones and those ones that are more vertically integrated to remain more stable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no more speakers.

All right.

Thank you very much.

We really appreciate the members of the public and business community and others who came out.

And Joy and I just want to stress this very strongly that this is the beginning.

And I heard a few speakers say that they want to see a collaborative process.

We share that.

And so you have my commitment and the commitment of this committee and the council that we're going to work together because that's the only way we will be successful,

no matter what we end up deciding to do.

We may or may not move forward with the measure.

We may, you know, but let's get all the information that we can and make the best decisions we can.

So with that, I will turn it over to my colleague, Councilman Jennings.

Thank you so much.

I, too, want to thank you for coming out today.

The seven or eight speakers that spoke, we heard you loud and clear as far as a thoughtful and inclusive approach,

knowing that our current system is outdated.

We want to attract and retain and grow our businesses and modernize the BOT.

And so it's going to take a thoughtful and inclusive approach in order to be able to do that.

And I think that's what all of us want as well.

We don't want to hurt the businesses that are out there, but we at the same time want to make sure that we modernize a system that has not been modernized since I was 38 years old in 1991.

So it's time to do that.

And I think we will make sure that this process is thoughtful and look to our, our department's finance department to help us with making sure that it's a thoughtful process that moves the city forward in a way that we haven't done so in the last 38 years.

Yes.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Thanks, Chair.

I certainly agree with the comments made by my colleagues on the committee to this point.

I had a couple in addition.

And I had a question.

I'm assuming that using gross receipts as the marker is for administrative ease for both the staff and for businesses as opposed to net receipts.

Is that, is that a fair assumption?

So also, you know, I'll ask our assistant city attorney to weigh in as well.

I, you know, obviously it was said, gross receipts is a much easier to administer tax.

A hundred, that's a hundred percent true.

I don't know if any California jurisdictions have a corporate income tax like the state does, or if they're allowed to do so.

That would be much more difficult to administer.

Yeah.

And it may be so much so that it's, that even if allowed, it's not feasible.

But it's interesting to think about the differences that might apply if, if we use that instead.

But moving on from that, there, there are a few elements that I think in terms of guidance,

as you go out and engage with stakeholders and the public in, in this process.

The first I'd, I'd say is I would schedule to aim for the June 26th, excuse me, the June 26th ballot.

Because you can always, you can always go more slowly, but it's hard to go faster.

And so maybe, maybe in the conversations we have in the development of this, development of this, and for other considerations,

it's November that becomes more desirable.

But, but I would track for June at, at this point to give ourselves that option, that discretion.

Secondly, I would, I would tend to look at some sort of structure that's more progressive.

And, and less, less regressive than, than the current structure appears to be.

It, it, it doesn't seem to me that there's necessarily a lot of, of alignment structurally,

looking at the, especially the, what you've described as the peer jurisdictions.

But I'm curious whether they all come out in roughly the same place in terms of, of the, the, the tax that's levied on, on, on, on businesses.

Because, because their approaches are, are, are quite different in, in, in some significant respects.

And then, I, I certainly would support removing the cap.

And, I, I do think that that's, um, artificial and regressive.

And, uh, in, this world, um, in 1991, maybe it was less so.

But, but, but, I don't think that's still true today, if it was true then.

Uh, and, and I certainly would include indexing for inflation.

So that we don't get, in, in this, uh, place where we find ourselves now,

which often, often happens with, with, with fees is, or, or taxes.

They get, they get established.

Uh, then they don't get raised for a number of years for, for, uh, reasons we're all, all familiar with.

And then it becomes difficult to catch up.

Uh, and probably more painful and disruptive.

So those are just a, a, a few of the items that, that I think makes sense as you try to frame this for the, uh, development of, of a proposal.

And then the discussions you have with, um, those in the, in the community.

Thanks.

Excellent.

Great feedback.

And also some of, some of the questions I had, too.

So thanks, thanks for asking them.

Um, well, first of all, I just want to say thank you.

Um, I know that a lot of work went into the previous measure as well.

And whether or not people supported it or not, um, I, I do want to commend staff on the enormous amount of work that's gone into, um, not just the budget process and everything this year, but, but now looking back at this, um, is going to take a lot of work.

And we appreciate, um, all that you do.

And I think I'm hearing loud and clear from this committee that the preference is to have a very collaborative process for me, what that looks like.

And I'm happy to coordinate, um, through my office, help support through, um, through, um, our staff as well to do, uh, stakeholder meetings, um, to ensure that everyone's in the room, not just those who are here.

Thank you for being here today.

Um, but also others who maybe couldn't make it today, um, but should be at the table.

Um, and I think especially a lot of our small businesses, um, that, that certainly could be impacted by a potential measure in the future.

And, and ensuring that they're there, but also, um, representatives from, from the larger businesses too, right?

Because by what I'm hearing here, at least from, from, uh, you know, Mr. Dickinson and myself is I'm, I'm also interested in seeing what a cap removal would look like.

And, um, obviously that will impact, um, some of these larger businesses the most.

And so we need to hear from them, uh, both big and small to ensure that we're, we're creating something that's equitable, um, and that we're being transparent about what we're trying to accomplish here.

Um, I was really, um, heartened by Mr. Devlin's comments too, because as folks know, I, I used to work in the cannabis industry and it is without a doubt true that those businesses, um, do you have a, an, an, I would say a heavy burden on the tax structure in Sacramento.

And that, that not necessarily a lot of the other businesses are doing the same amount.

And that's not to say anyone's bad or good.

It's just the way that we've currently structured our system.

And so I think we should be looking at that, um, because the high line for me is I think everybody should be paying their fair share.

Um, and when I see, you know, very large companies that are doing millions and millions, billions in revenue, um, and certainly benefiting from a lot of the infrastructure and the services that the city of Sacramento offers, um, I think $5,000 for a yearly cap is, is far too low.

Um, and, and if anyone's heard me speak about, you know, various issues, including in cannabis, I really take issue with arbitrary numbers.

I see a lot of governments do this and it usually always comes back, um, to be an issue later in time.

When we go and just pick a number out of the air and we say, that one sounds good.

Um, eventually it comes back around and we realize that it's an issue.

And so whatever we do, I, I hope that we are creating a way for it to be able to flex and move over time as, as things change like they always do.

I know our staff are recommending, um, that we do a automatic inflationary clause.

I agree with that.

I think that is something that we should definitely have a part of our consideration in these discussions.

Um, I also was interested, I, you know, obviously we have not decided on any one path forward.

I heard Mr. Kashmiri say, well, what's, what would be the difference in timing and structure if we did a city led versus a citizens led, not we, but if the citizens were doing initiative,

I think that getting that information would be important for us in the public to know.

So, uh, yeah, just chair, just to address that, um, this would be a general, unless council were to put it on for a specific purpose.

If it's a update of a general purpose tax, you would only, you would need to send a 50% regardless of, um, citizen or council.

That's helpful to know.

Um, and so then this is just for the public, the many people who are watching at home.

Um, it's 50% no matter what.

And so, um, but that doesn't mean, of course, the citizens have every right to, to put on a ballot measure should they choose.

Um, one of the questions I had since my gross versus net question was, was, was answered is, and maybe we don't know what the thinking was 34 years ago,

but why do we have flat rates for some things and then not for others?

Yeah, I think, um, part of it was probably how the sausage was made, um, you know, with various interest groups.

Uh, part of it, you, you know, you do see, uh, in different jurisdictions have it set up very differently,

but you do see almost every jurisdiction have things kind of grouped, uh, with different rate or different, you know, setups for different industries.

Um, you know, some of that is because of, uh, that gross versus net, right?

So a gross receipts tax really will impact your, um, kind of low margin businesses a lot more than your high margin businesses.

Um, but part of it, I think, was just part of those negotiations that went on, uh, back in, in the 90s when they put it on.

That's really helpful, too, because I think about, you know, um, obviously we want to, what I would like to see is,

is to make sure that we're not overly impacting our, especially very small businesses, sole ownerships.

I'm one of those.

I own a small business.

I work out of my house.

I'm my only employee.

Um, and so, you know, like, I, I think that we need to make sure that we're careful about how we structure that.

But I don't know what the right answer is.

And I, I think that this is where the stakeholder meetings come into play, um, where we are really hearing directly from the various different businesses

and figuring out what makes the most sense, what makes the most sense for them and for us.

Do they, do they want to be in a separate category?

Do they prefer flat rates?

If so, again, that goes back to my original comment around arbitrary, right?

We need a way, we need a way to make sure that those numbers can change over time because everything changes.

And especially the city's costs.

One of the things that, um, I really appreciated hearing was from Mr. Patrick Clark, um, who said he works with several other cities on these issues.

And I've been doing some research before this hearing myself.

And I have seen, this is not just a Sacramento problem.

This is a problem that's happening all over California.

In fact, it's happening in other states as well.

Um, and it's, we have some of the barriers that I mentioned, Prop 13, our PERS liabilities.

We, there are things that we just absolutely cannot control.

So our costs continue to go up.

But if we don't have a way to then increase our revenues in some other way, and for me that means seeing some of these larger businesses pay their fair share.

That's, I heard our mayor at the last meeting, he said this is not a panacea.

It's not.

Um, at least from my perspective, I don't see this tax modernization effort as, you know, the, the golden, like, this is not going to solve all of our budget woes.

But it's one piece of the pie where we need to modernize what we're doing, make sure we're bringing it into current times that aligns with our current, the expectations of the public.

Which is that we provide really high quality services, not just for the residents living in their homes, but also for our small businesses who have expectations that their city serve them.

Uh, including picking up trash, including public safety and so on.

And so I think this is a really important conversation.

Um, the last thing I'll add here that I would like to see is, um, you know, it sounds like there have been several cities that have done this successfully in recent years.

I would love us to, um, maybe reach out to some of those cities, see if there's someone from, you know, we don't, I'm not going to have five speakers here, but if there's one that we feel like has done it particularly well, I'd love to have someone come speak to us and for the public and inform us.

What did that process look like? Because I think the process is the most important part, um, that, that people feel like they're included in the process.

They feel like they have a say. And I think that when you have a very inclusive and collaborative process that leads to language that then people can support.

Um, I think if we start the other way around and we start talking about language and we haven't actually done the outreach piece and then we're hope we're trying to mash it together, then that's where we get ourselves in trouble.

Um, and so that's, I would like to see what those processes have looked like. And so that would be a big part of what I'd like to see come back.

Um, and so that would be a challenge. And so with that, um, I, um, I agreed on, I agree also on June 2026, because as, um, Mr. Dickinson mentioned, we can always extend it. If we get to a place where we're like, we're still in negotiations, we feel like we haven't gotten to a, uh, a good place on language, then we can extend out. But if we, um, I think don't need for June, we might find ourselves in a position where we don't end up doing anything at all. And I think that would be, um, a challenge.

And so with that, do my colleagues have any other questions, comments, Mr. Dickinson?

Thanks. Uh, just, uh, just a couple additional things. Uh, first, first of all, I, I do think it's worth to the extent that it's possible to at least on a, uh, individualized, uh, example, example, um, think about what total tax burden is, um, from both the fees and the taxes standpoint.

So, uh, uh, for example, if it's a small restaurant and, uh, they're seeing an increase in fire, uh, inspection fees, that kind of thing.

To try and get a, a little bit, uh, more holistic idea of, of what's the impact of any particular approach on, on a business operations tax in that context.

I, I think that would be meaningful for both the community members as well as for, for the council members.

The second, the second thing that, that I just would mention is, um, in looking at what our surrounding jurisdictions do, um, I, I, I really don't think that we can model what, what they're doing.

They're, they're, they're quite different.

And, and, um, and frankly, their circumstances are quite different than, than the city of Sacramento.

So, um, they have advantages, they have disadvantages.

We have advantages, we have disadvantages.

But, I, I don't think that, that it's necessary, um, to, to, to try to, to model or, or match what, what they're doing.

I think it makes more sense to look at, at those jurisdictions that are more our peers or, or larger.

Thanks.

I completely agree with that.

Um, and I agree with also having the, the numbers.

I mean, obviously right now we're still in our budget discussions.

We don't know all of what may be included in a final budget, but we do know that there's a lot of proposals on the table.

And we do know that there will be decisions that are made that, um, that, that impact businesses no matter what.

It's the, the challenging time that we're in.

And so I think it's very appropriate that we talk about those things in context.

Um, and so, you know, I, I envision that through the stakeholder meeting process that, that we also have that information available and are able to have those conversations with, with our businesses so that we can, again, be as transparent as possible.

And so all really good comments and questions from my colleagues.

Um, this is, do you feel as though you have good direction?

Uh, yes, chair.

So I think, um, what we'll do is, uh, I've heard a number of themes around, you know, our regress, current regressive structure with the low cap.

Um, looking at ways to, uh, make that more progressive, looking at ways to, uh, lessen the impact on small business, looking at inflation indexing, and then having some thoughts around our categorization.

Um, I think the next step, um, is maybe to start looking at some of those stakeholder meetings and getting some additional feedback.

And then we can, uh, come back to the committee with, um, kind of what we've heard from the stakeholders and maybe some thoughts around addressing the issues that the committee's raised today.

That sounds like a great game plan.

Um, absolutely.

Okay.

So with that, hearing nothing else from my colleagues, uh, that concludes, this is not a, we don't need a motion on that item, right?

All right.

That concludes that item.

And that brings us to item number five, our council member proposal request for fireworks.

And with that, I do want to say, um, that, uh, after working with the industry advocates and, uh, there are some friendly amendments that council member Jennings will also be bringing forth.

So I wanted to say that prior to him, uh, seeing you on the floor.

Thank you so much, chair.

Um, each year we celebrate our nation's birthday.

We gather together.

And for many, this includes fireworks.

This is a time honor tradition that many of us have fond memories of yet.

Unfortunately for others, those memories are not as positive.

Council woman.

Kaplan and I are bringing forward a comprehensive plan to align our enforcement of the illegal fireworks.

And the illegal use of approved fireworks for our surrounding jurisdictions.

I want to thank TNT and phantom for their support of our overall concept.

And we agree with their three proposed amendments to our policy.

Number one changes to the required information given to all purchasers of fireworks.

Number two, when the temporary stands must be disassembled and when they must be removed.

And number three, language on long-term storage.

I have handouts of the details of the changes.

Uh, and the clerk will read them out aloud to for public, for the public record.

And, uh, then I'd love to have a conversation with my colleagues on these changes.

Thank you, council member.

I have three changes to read into the record.

The first one is in section 8.48.110, subsection F, um, safe use and disposal information.

The recommended, the proposed language says at the time of purchase, each customer shall be given a city-approved information sheet on the safe use of disposal of fireworks.

And the proposed change is at the time of purchase, each customer shall be provided instead of given a city-approved information on safe use of disposal of fireworks.

And the rationale for that is fireworks companies already fulfill this public safety requirement through a multiple city and county-endorsed methods.

Recommended change number two is section 8.48.130, subsection F, booth disassembly deadline.

The proposed language in the staff report says that all temporary stands shall be disassembled and removed not later than July 14th of that year.

And the proposed change is, um, all temporary stands shall be disassembled and all litter shall be cleared from such locations no later than July 14th and removed no later than July 20th of that year.

The third change is, recommended change is to section 8.48.152, wholesale storage restrictions.

The proposed language in the staff report states must be limited to June 1st through July 14th of each year.

And the recommended edit is to delete the new limiting phrase entirely.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

All right, anything further from that?

Okay, any public comment on this item?

Yes, Chair, I have three speakers.

The first is Red Baines, then Dennis Revel, and Marshall Mares.

Hi.

I want to talk about the illegal fireworks proposal that's out there.

We need to increase the fees to strengthen the current law.

It's very important to that, to, to really put a, a dent in this problem that we have.

We need to support our fire department for enforcement with the proper tools that are necessary.

Um, we need to protect our children.

As a child, I was on a school bus, and someone lit a, a, a, a firework on the bus, and the person that, that lit it lost three of his fingers, and another little girl had a disfigure on her face.

So, I have seen that, and I just think this is so important for the children of Sacramento to be protected from these illegal fireworks.

Um, last time I was here for the car shows to change the law there, and that's been tremendous to stop what's been going on in our neighborhood.

Uh, there, there, there's been no deaths.

There, there, they, I, I can't even hear them.

I've never even heard one again since this, this law has taken effect.

So, I think this is, it shows the importance of this, and how this, these kinds of things would work.

With maybe the fire department having, you know, the, the, the equipment to check out when these fireworks are going off,

because I can't run from one place to another when it was reported.

Um, I wanted to say, let's make a motion to start this important statement.

Thank you very much for listening.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Dennis Revel.

Good morning, Chair Maple, members of the committee.

Dennis Revel, President, CEO of Revel Communications.

Um, I have represented T&T Fireworks, uh, California's leading distributor of State Fire, Marshall approved Safe and Sane Fireworks since 1989.

It's my pleasure and honor to be here on their behalf this morning.

Uh, as we've indicated to you already in our email to you, we, uh, support the overwhelming majority, uh, of the ordinance, uh, amendments.

And we deeply appreciate the committee and, uh, Council Member Jennings, uh, move to make the requested, uh, changes that have been articulated here this morning.

Um, I think, uh, and, unless the, the committee would like me to explain any of those, uh, I would conclude by noting that while this ordinance seeks to align with the county code,

the city under the leadership of the chief and fire marshal Jason Lee has consistently outpaced the county and the quality and visibility of the fireworks enforcement, public education, and community engagement that has been delivered year in and year out.

Sacramento Fire has clearly set a statewide standard, uh, in this area.

And I, uh, have no reservations about complimenting and supporting their efforts.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Marshall Meyers is our final speaker on this item.

Good morning.

Um, first time I've done this, so.

Welcome.

Um, the reason I'm here today is because our neighborhood, uh, Park Bridge community back behind Natomas High School, it has been horribly, uh, with the, uh, fireworks, illegal fireworks that are going on at the time.

They are back in the industrial area.

Uh, there's a national drive.

There's a huge cul-de-sac that's back there that the 18 wheelers used to turn around.

Well, they're having car shows back there.

I've got all the pictures.

If you want to see them, I've got the tire marks all over that, that cul-de-sac.

There are burn marks from all of the, um, uh, fireworks are setting off.

And the thing is, is that it's usually on Sunday night, about 10 o'clock.

The first time they did it this year, uh, it went on for two and a half hours and people calling 911 police department.

No, we can't go back in there.

That's not us.

He says, well, who are we supposed to call the fire department?

Well, and then we find out later on that this is a county area because of all the industrial.

So do we have a phone number to call for the sheriff's department?

Uh, you know, have somebody come out there for that, but it's just getting to the point where it's ridiculous.

Uh, they're starting at 10 o'clock.

Like I say, all the kids are trying to get ready to go to school the next day.

They're all scared and nervous.

And it's hard for them to go to sleep.

All the pets that are in the neighborhood.

I got a little dog.

And when she starts hearing those things, she's just shaking like a leaf.

And I just try to hold onto her tight and tell her it's going to be almost over.

And she has just a horrible, horrible time with it.

And we have a very, very tight community back there.

We all watch out for each other.

And my concern is, is that one of the neighbors went back over there to film what was going on.

And they, people could turn on them, you know, uh,

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

So thank you.

Oh, you're okay.

So what I've done is I've taken down your contact information and I'm going to reach out to you and have our staff talk about this and we'll get you connected.

I've been to the Vice Mayor of Talamante's office and met with them and they've sent me some stuff.

So, um, that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Thanks.

All right.

That concludes our speakers.

Um, so I see that I have Council Member Jennings up.

Yeah.

Um, appreciate the comments from the public and, um, based on the presentation that was made earlier, I'd like to move the item as amended and, uh, hope my colleagues will support that.

Thank you.

Uh, I'll second.

I'll second.

I'll do that.

All right.

We have a second.

And then I'll pass it over to Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you.

Um,

Council Member, just a couple of questions.

I was just trying to look at the, uh, host liability under, um, 8.48.170 for unauthorized use of safe and sane, um, fireworks.

And, uh, is it, if, if, if you have an understanding, is it your understanding that unauthorized use would be, um, if the person in authority either knows or reasonably should know that the individual discharging the fireworks on his or her property, city property or just right away, um, uh, knows that, uh, is aware that that's being used.

Is that, is that what constitutes unauthorized use?

So I'm going to bring up the experts that can give you, uh, uh, an opinion of that.

So please.

Welcome.

I don't have a problem with what it's trying to do.

I'm just trying to make sure it's not.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, ambiguous.

Uh, let's see.

Good afternoon.

Um, thank you very much, uh, committee.

Uh, my name is Jason Lim, the Fire Marshal for the City of Sacramento.

For your question, the, uh, socials ordinance is what we use to, um, issue citations to, uh, uh, folks and property owners that allow illegal fireworks to be used on their property.

So what we do is we'll, um, look and, and document that activity and then we will actually issue a, uh, citation to the registered property owner who is overall responsible for that property.

Because ultimately the property owner is responsible for the activities that happen within their property.

Okay.

But just what I'm, I'm trying to understand is, is the, let's just take the, the private property owner of, and, um, a parent who has teenagers.

Uh, um, is, would you interpret this language if the teenagers go out with safe and sane fireworks after 10 p.m. on July 4th and, and light some of those fireworks off, uh, and the parent looks out the window and sees the teen.

And the parent is doing that, uh, teenagers doing that says, well, there's not much I can do with this.

It's going to be done before I can get out there.

Is that unauthorized use?

Yes.

If it's after 10 p.m.

Technically it would be, um, if it's 10 or one, we do have officer discretion, um, for safe and sane firework usage, but technically by the, by the, the letter of the law, they would be in violation if it's after 10 p.m.

Okay.

But, but that you would consider that technically to be unauthorized use as the parent is not exercising control over the teenager out there at, at the time.

Yes.

But, uh, yes.

10 o.m. or, or 11 o.m. whenever.

Uh, okay.

Exactly.

Okay.

And, um, I mean, this is new language as I, as, as I, um, see it in the proposal.

So, is there something, I mean, is that the current standard that you use, uh, for, this would, this would apply to safe and sane, to, to illegal fireworks?

Is it, those are illegal under any circumstances, so.

Absolutely.

Illegal fireworks are illegal, you know, no matter what.

But, for the, the Sabin's and fireworks, if you were to use Sabin's and fireworks after 10 p.m., then that would be against, uh, the city code.

Uh, so they would fall under the same category for citation, potentially.

Yeah.

I, I mean, I just want to make, make sure that there's not, uh, uh, uncertainty about, about that.

Uh, so, but it does, it is subject to discretion, obviously.

But, uh, what I'd like to say, Council Member, is that if it's 10-01, 10-02, and I see somebody using illegal fireworks, or, I'm sorry, using legal fireworks, I may just go up to them and say, okay, please just discontinue use.

Uh, if it's, you know, that close. If it's 11 o'clock or midnight, then that's a little different.

Yeah.

Uh, well, then it may be a question of whether they knew or should have known, uh, as well.

Okay.

Um, the other thing that, I don't know if this is a question so much, much for you, but the language, uh,

under, under section, uh, 8.48, uh, .180, that, uh, and this is actually under, uh, subdivision C, that adds, uh, administrative penalties, actually it's under the full section, uh, administrative penalties, um, and then under, uh, C2 gets to the failure of, uh, any person to timely pay, and so on.

Um, is it contemplated that, because it doesn't say it if it is, that a, uh, could, the administrative penalties could result in, uh, liens being filed against the property?

Um, they could, but I'd like to, um, ask that question to our, uh, legal.

I said I, I didn't know if it was a question for you so much.

Uh, hello, uh, committee.

This is Gary Lindsey, general counsel for fire.

The short answer is yes, it could ultimately, enforcement could lead, ultimately end in that.

Okay.

So this language is broad enough to, to, to permit that in your estimation.

That might, that might result.

Okay.

And because, um, I think that's a, a good tool to have.

And, um, as I read about it, that's exactly what Elk Grove is doing.

Elk Grove is using a code enforcement approach as opposed to a, a criminal approach with illegal fireworks.

And then citing people who are shooting off fire, uh, illegal fireworks.

We're unauthorized safe and safe, but illegal fireworks.

Uh, and, and then citing them for code violations.

And then if they don't pay the penalties, they don't quit.

They get, keep citing, keep getting cited obviously.

But then they will ultimately record liens against the property.

So that to me makes a lot of sense to have as a, as an option.

And I just wanted to make sure this, this language encompasses that option.

And so your opinion is that it does.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks.

All right.

Thank you very much.

I really appreciate the proposal.

I just want to start by saying, um, Oh, did you have a comment?

Okay.

I want to start by saying that I don't think that there's a single, um, elected official,

whether we're on this body or beyond in the County or anywhere, maybe in the state of California

where this isn't an issue.

Um, you know, I, every 4th of July, it is, it's a, it's a, it's a huge challenge.

And, you know, um, living, uh, living in Oak Park, which is where I lived and I'm sure all over the city.

I know that council for Kaplan's brought up the issues.

It's very disruptive to people's lives.

Um, first and foremost, and our furry friends, but also, um, very dangerous.

Uh, and we know that because I think I've heard from our fire captain and that, uh, when, when I asked him what day I should go for a ride along with them, he said,

he should go on July 4th, busiest day of the year.

It's the busiest day of the year because there's a lot of, there's a lot of fires and other dangerous activities that happen as a result.

And it's connected to fireworks.

So with that said, I, you know, I also know that this is a, this is an honor tradition in, in America and in Sacramento.

And I, I certainly want people to have the ability to, to celebrate, but we have to make sure that we have the right parameters on that.

So I just appreciate you, Council Member Jennings and Council Member Kaplan for putting your heads together, working in partnership with people who obviously know the best practices in other places.

Um, and also working with, um, TNT to ensure that we're not disadvantaging any particular businesses and helping them stay active.

Um, one of the questions that I have, um, many of which were covered under Council Member Dickinson's comments was, was around outreach.

So let's say we pass this and it moves forward.

It gets passed at council.

What will that look like for us to be able to engage with the community to make sure that they know what they should or shouldn't be doing?

So I'm gonna come back up.

One of the things that is new in the whole process is the QR code that when they're buying or purchasing, uh, fireworks,

um, and they have the opportunity to be able to now not just be given a sheet of paper, but have the QR code that tells them how to properly use fireworks in a safe manner.

So you might want to expand on that.

Sure. So we have a messaging for both, uh, save, attain use of legal fireworks and also what happens if you lose use illegal fireworks.

So, uh, there's a QR code that's provided by TNT and, uh, and other, uh, fireworks, uh, vendors, but also we sent a social media, uh, posts.

We send out, uh, uh, mailers.

We will do press conferences and get the information out.

So we do probably three or four press conferences per year prior to the 4th of July to get our messaging out for any of the new updates.

So that's what I plan to do for, uh, this new amendments.

Okay. That's helpful.

Yeah. I just, um, for me, obviously, um, you know, I think it's important that we, that we make these changes.

Um, but I also want to make sure that people know what's expected of them because it would be very heartbreaking for me if, uh, you know, someone in my district who, um, maybe cannot afford a fine such as this and did not know the time change to 10 PM or one of the elements of this proposal.

Um, is that now, uh, in a place where they can't, they can't afford to pay.

Um, and, and I think that would be, um, a tragedy.

So I, I, I really appreciate the outreach.

I hope that we're also, um, consider things like using social media, sponsored ads, things that, you know, kind of, we're, we know that oftentimes sometimes it's young people who might be doing some of these things.

So ensuring that we're really targeting the right audiences, um, so, and they understand what the consequences are.

Um, and then that brings me to back to the fines.

What are the current penalties?

Uh, so currently before the proposed changes, um, if you have one violation within a year on a property, it's $1,000.00. And then your second violation within one year is 2,500.00. And it goes up to 5,000.00.

Uh, with the proposed amendments, uh, for four different locations, that would, uh, fine would go up to $10,000.00. And that would be a violation of city park, uh, or a parkway, school, um, and also in a critical infrastructure area.

Um, and also in a critical infrastructure area. Those were the proposed changes.

Okay. So just so I understand the 10,000 number is only the case in those things listed parks, schools, and critical infrastructure, but not necessarily if it's on a private property.

And that's still the 5,000.00.00. That's correct. Okay. Um, okay. That's, that's good to know. And then I guess maybe you don't know this off the top of your head. It's totally okay if you don't. Um, but do we have a sense of how often these fines are being imposed and the amounts?

Sure. So, um, last year we, uh, did 55 citations to property owners. Uh, that total fine amount was about $100,000.00. And that was between the, uh, second, third, and the fourth, and the fifth of July.

And do we know how, like roughly what percentage of those are residential properties versus commercial properties?

Uh, those were all residential properties.

All residential. So we don't often find it to be the case where people are going to someone's like business, let's say, while they're closed and then lighting off fireworks and then that business is now.

Yeah. One of the difficulties is, uh, when we are to try to issue a citation at a city park is we have to identify that individual. So oftentimes with that person will have to be arrested or have to be detained to be identified.

And so the, between, uh, the task force, between the Sacramento police department, the fire department and city code enforcement, which is all part of the task force, our fire inspectors and city code officers, they don't go out and physically arrest people, uh, to detain them.

So it's hard to identify those folks. If we have a, from their information, we could issue a citation to them, but we have to identify those folks.

Okay, great. Um, and so then my, in my last question on this is, um, I think it's already been answered, but just to be super clear, what we're doing here is we're aligning what we're doing with our partners in the county. Right.

So, uh, I think that that's a really good thing overall. Um, I think this of all kinds of things. I think it's very challenging for people, especially if you're in my district where you might be on one side of the street,

be on one side of the street and you're in the city of Sacramento and on the other side of the street, you're in the county and the fruit Ridge finger.

Uh, it's really hard for those, um, individuals to know which rules that they need to be adhering to.

So I think whenever we can align ourselves with our partner jurisdictions at the state, all of that is a really good thing. Um, and it's really helpful for, for people to be able to understand what they're expected of them.

Um, I do want to register a little bit of a concern over the number, um, the $10,000 number. Again, I represent a lot of very low income communities where people, um, are struggling and they don't make a lot of money.

Um, and so, you know, while I understand there needs to be consequences for people's actions, I am a little bit concerned about something like $10,000.

And I recognize that's after multiple, um, uh, repeat offenses, but it's, and, or being in that, in those areas, I just want to be, um, I'm going to support this today, but I just want to be, you know, I want to be extra clear that those park schools critical infrastructure changes,

that those are communicated very well to the community, um, and that they know that that's what's expected of them.

Because I, I just, I have this like nightmare scenario in my head where someone goes out and they do it and, you know, next to a park.

And by the way, many of our parks also happen to be in people's neighborhoods. Um, so maybe you're across the street from your house and you're at the park instead of at your house and this happens.

And all of a sudden you're paying, um, some pretty severe fines. So just, I really do believe that we need to be great in our outreach, but I'm sure that we will be.

So with that sounds like the motion. Oh, council over Dickens. Pardon me.

You caused me to think of, of, uh, another question and that's, uh, with respect to the fee amount or the, uh, penalty amounts, um, uh, leaving aside the 10,000 for a moment, the, uh, the, and the other penalty amounts aren't proposed to be modified, but are those consistent with the, with the county's, uh, penalties are?

Yes, they are.

Okay.

Okay. Um, I, I, I share to a certain extent the chair's, uh, concern on the one hand about the 10,000. On the other hand, I, I can't tell you how many people have said to me, uh, in the district I represent that it's like, sounds like a war zone and it's not just July 4th.

Um, now this is not mostly safe and sane. This is, this, these are illegal, illegal fireworks. Um, but it is, uh, very disruptive and, and, um, very problematic for, for people to feel safe in their neighborhood, um, when there are illegal fireworks being used in or around their property and especially, um, so I, I, I, I, I certainly, um,

um, support, um, safe and sane fireworks for, for July 4th and, and, and the holiday. Um, and in fact, love them. Although I, I feel sympathy for pet and animal owners who, who find it difficult. Um, but this, this phenomena that seems to have, have grown over the years of, of, um, illegal fireworks is something that I think needs,

it needs significant attention. And in that regard, one of the strategies I think that makes a lot of sense. And I think that some other jurisdictions you're using are, are drones to identify people shooting off the illegal fireworks, fireworks. So again, it's one of those areas where I think for us to work better and smarter, we're getting, we're going to have to take advantage of, of technology to a much greater extent than, than we have.

I, I just also would add in the thanks to Council Member Jennings and Kaplan, um, for bringing, uh, this, uh, proposal, uh, to us. And I think it, it, it makes a lot of sense. Um, and there may be some fine points that, that we want to, uh, be more comfortable with. But, but in general, I think it's, it's moving very much in the right direction.

Council Member Jennings.

Yeah. I'll just close. I'll just close.

Okay.

You're watching me, right?

I'll just close with, um, I, I totally agree. Aligning with the county is really in the best interest of the city. And so that there's no, uh, uh, misinformation between city and county, especially in our areas of, of our districts that are one side of the street is county, one side of the street is city.

And so aligning with their rules and regulations, I thought was a very good thing for us to do. And so with this motion, we'll be doing that. I also think that we have to go to a higher form of education. Um, and so what we're doing every year, we get better in our attempt to educate the public on what they can do. So they can avoid those $10,000 fines.

But I think there's even more that we have to do as far as getting into our schools, into our, our communities, um, into the neighborhood associations.

I think there's a whole lot more that we can do if we choose to do it, uh, in order to make sure that it's just not the fire department that's out there doing the education, but it's all of us being included in that.

And we need to develop a process that starts earlier than July so that we, the kids and the families know what, what we're doing and make sure that they go with the safe and insane fireworks, um, as opposed to the illegal fireworks.

Cause really when we're talking about significant problems, we're talking about illegal fireworks.

I have spent hours chasing fireworks to try to figure out where they come from and try to go to that area so that I could see what could be done as far as turning in those people who were shooting off those illegal fireworks that we can see in South Sacramento from any point of an open field.

And so I've chased them and never been successful in finding.

So the whole question is, is how do we eliminate that whole process?

Because I think the safe and sane fireworks are pretty good as far as their ability to keep a safe environment.

Those illegal fireworks, I think are very dangerous for us.

We need to eliminate it.

We need to really put a plan in place to eliminate the illegal fireworks.

Very well said.

Thank you.

Um, and thank you to our partners.

Thank you, Jason.

Um, I will say if it's okay with both, um, the motioner and the seconder, um, my request is that when this does come to council, that that staff report include at least a general outline of what an outreach and engagement plan would look like.

Um, so that I can feel comfortable going to my constituents and, and letting them know that, hey, here's how we're planning on it.

Making sure that you know what's expected of you.

Got it.

Sounds great.

So with that, I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed to the state?

That passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

All right.

We move on to any committee comments, questions, ideas.

Seeing none.

Any public comments on matters not on the agenda?

Sure.

I have no public comments for matters on the agenda.

With that, we are now adjourned at 12.18 p.m.

Good to see you.

I didn't say hi when I...

any public comments from there?

Take care.

Love you guys in the audience.

Give me an invite!

See you next time.

Give me an invite.

Give me an idea.

We'll be right back.