Measure U Community Advisory Committee Meeting Summary - February 24, 2020
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Measure U Community Advisory Committee Meeting Summary - February 24, 2020
The Measure U Community Advisory Committee met on Monday, February 24, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. The committee approved prior minutes, received a conflict of interest policy presentation, considered funding recommendations for four inclusive economic development projects, revised ad hoc committee memberships, and heard reports on investment committee data and city manager initiatives. Several votes were split, reflecting concerns about process and transparency.
Consent Calendar
- Approved the committee minutes from December 16, 2019, and January 27, 2020 (agenda identified the second date as January 20, 2020; Chair Cofer noted the discrepancy). The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion Items
Conflict of Interest Policy (Item 2 — Receive and File)
- Deputy Senior City Attorney Michael Sparks presented an overview of the city's conflict of interest policy for the committee. Key provisions:
- Direct interest: a member, spouse, or dependent child may not receive or apply for Measure U funds.
- Indirect interest: a source of income or business entity in which the member has a financial interest seeks appropriation, and the receipt would have a material financial effect.
- Members with a conflict must be disqualified from related decisions; if their interest receives funds, they may be removed from the committee.
- Christopher Lodgson in public comment raised concerns about overlapping membership between this committee and the city manager's investment committee.
- Committee members asked about board service, charitable contributions, and the scope of disqualification. No action was needed.
Inclusive Economic Development Investment Funding Recommendations (Item 3)
Staff recommended four projects for city funding under the Inclusive Economic Development Investment Funding Guidelines. Presenters:
- Fresher Sacramento (Rabbi David Aizen) — $84,000 for pre-development and strategic planning for a neighborhood meal production and distribution network.
- Marysville Grand South (Greater Sacramento Urban League, Cassandra Jennings) — $85,000 for pre-development of a mixed-use housing and commercial project in Del Paso Heights.
- Fruit Ridge Community Collaborative (Pro Youth and Families and Pivot Sacramento) — $85,000 for a sustainability plan for a 14,000–16,000 square foot community facility serving 14,441 people annually.
- Alchemy Kitchen (Alchemist CDC) — $90,000 for a food business microenterprise academy and incubator, serving low-income and people-of-color entrepreneurs.
Public Comment
- Christopher Lodgson criticized the process, saying proposals were received only a week prior. He urged rejection of all four, specifically opposing Pro Youth and Families due to eviction of a black-owned dance company from Fruit Ridge Community Collaborative, and opposing Alchemy Kitchen because its first cohort was 60% not people of color and technical assistance without capital is ineffective.
Committee Discussion
- Members praised the presentations but expressed serious concerns about lack of financial information: total Measure U funds available, prior council allocations, and breakdown of all 203 applications. Chair Cofer and others said they could not make informed decisions without this context.
- Members asked individual applicants about cost breakdowns, sustainability, and urgency.
Votes
- Fresher Sacramento: Motion to recommend funding failed (4 ayes, 4 abstentions, 1 nay).
- Marysville Grand South / Urban League: Motion passed (6 ayes, 2 abstentions, 1 nay).
- Fruit Ridge Community Collaborative: Motion passed (4 ayes, 3 abstentions, 1 nay, 1 recusal).
- Alchemy Kitchen: Motion to recommend funding failed (4 ayes, 4 abstentions, 1 nay). The chair abstained on all four votes.
Updates to Ad Hoc Committee Membership (Item 4)
- Member Ferguson joined the Finance Ad Hoc Committee unanimously.
- The committee established the Measure U Annual Report Ad Hoc Committee, appointing Members Pray, Dickinson, and Ferguson unanimously.
Agenda Log (Item 5)
- Members requested a running financial statement of Measure U funds, a full report on portal applications (proposals vs. pre-proposals, districts, categories), and earlier access to proposals. The discussion continued on process improvements.
Ad Hoc Committee Updates
- Establishing Priorities Ad Hoc Committee: A letter based on the committee's principles was on the next day's city council consent agenda.
- Other ad hoc committees gave no formal reports.
Investment Committee Report
- Member Perez shared data as of February 5, 2020:
- 203 applications: 112 full proposals (55%) and 91 pre-proposals (45%).
- Total funding requested: $81 million; median request: $100,000.
- Total project cost: $597 million; median project cost: $260,000.
- District breakdown: D1-6, D2-27, D3-13, D4-19, D5-37, D6-18, D7-10, D8-29, citywide-42.
- Funding types: 37 pre-development/planning, 33 technical assistance/capacity, 32 new/expanded programming, 28 construction/development, 11 other.
- Categories: 34 program services, 22 workforce development, 12 economic development, 11 creative economy, 10 commercial kitchen, 9 neighborhood revitalization, 7 innovation/entrepreneurship, 6 housing, 5 cannabis, 2 homelessness.
- It was noted that one proposal presented to the investment committee (Time to Launch women's co-creator incubator) did not come to this committee due to additional work needed.
City Manager's Office Report
- The project portal closed January 31, 2020. Staff are triaging applications and will touch base with every applicant.
- The city will reopen the portal in early March for affordable housing applications specifically, likely funded through bond proceeds but possibly from Measure U funds.
Key Outcomes
- Minutes approved unanimously.
- Conflict of interest policy received and filed.
- Two of four funding recommendations advanced to city council: Marysville Grand South (Urban League) and Fruit Ridge Community Collaborative.
- Fresher Sacramento and Alchemy Kitchen funding recommendations failed on split votes.
- Ad hoc committee changes approved.
- An informal working group (Chair Cofer, Vice Chair Williams, and a Finance Committee representative) will meet with staff and bring process recommendations to the next meeting.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. We have a quorum, so I am going to call this meeting to order. Do you please call the role? Member Dickinson. Member Lucas. Member Kivill. Member Clark. Member Ryan. Member Creswell. Member Ferguson. Member Perez. Member Otto Kent. Member Murakami. Member Williams. Madam Chair Cofer. Here. The quorum is present. Thank you. Thank you. The recording will be available on the city website. If you're here tonight to speak before the committee, you will need to complete a speaker slip and turn it into the assistant clerk prior to the start of the agenda. If you need assistive living uh listening or speaking device, please see the clerk as well. I would like to remind you that uh to check your cell phones or other devices to ensure that they've been silenced. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much. Um first on our agenda is the approval of our measure you committee advisory committee meeting minutes from our meetings in December and January, as a reminder, because our meeting in January was a special meeting, because we had not yet approved our calendar, we were not able to engage in our routine tasks, such as approving the minutes from the previous meeting. So now we are looking at the meeting the minutes from December 16th as well as January um 27th. I believe that's listed incorrectly here on the agenda. And so if anyone has any comments, please jump on the speakers queue. Member Pray. I move that we uh accept the minutes as written. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Okay, the vice chair is second. Sorry, I missed that, Member Ferguson. Um so it's been moved improperly second that we approve the minutes from the December 16th and January 27th meeting. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed any abstentions. Okay, that passes unanimously. So we move to the first item on our discussion calendar. This is our conflict of interest policy, and um this is a receive and file, Mr. Jasso. Are you doing the presentation? Leave um uh from the city attorney's uh office by the sparks would be present. Okay. Hello, uh, I'm Michael Sparks. I'm a deputy senior city attorney in the city attorney's office, and I am here tonight to give you um sort of broad overview of the conflict of interest policy um for the committee. Um so before I jump in, um the the purpose tonight is to give you sort of a high-level sort of low tech um walkthrough of the conflict of interest policy. Um it's not to um get into the minutia of it, it's really to uh just sort of give you a general familiarity with it so that you can start to think about it, and um, I'd be happy to answer sort of general questions, but if you have specific questions that maybe deal with your particular situation, I think those would be better handled through staff and um through the committee's regular attorney.
openpublica.com