Good evening.

Welcome to the Monday, August 18th, 2025 meeting of the Measure U Community Advisory Commission.

The meeting is now called to order.

My name is Jacob Bredberg.

I am with the city clerk's office, and I'll now uh call the roll.

Uh member McGee.

Present.

Member Smith.

Member Salah.

Present.

Member Cook.

Present.

Member Wolf is absent.

Member Johnston.

Present.

Member Goris.

Present.

Member Novello.

Present.

Member Gorofsky.

Present.

Member Pascal.

Present.

Member Fry Lucas.

Present.

Member Rosa.

Present.

Chair Georgioff is absent.

As we as we do not have our vice chair or chair here today, uh, or this evening, we will need to do uh per council rules procedure a uh motion for a temporary chair.

Is there a motion?

So moved.

I'll second for which member.

Um deputy uh city clerk.

Um I will make a motion to um for uh member Salah to be the chair.

Oh that's McGee.

Oh, sorry.

We're gonna make a motion.

I'll retract that.

I'll make a motion for Member McGee to be and I'll second that.

All right, I have a motion by Member Goris to elect member McGee as the temporary chair uh for this meeting uh with a second by member Novello.

All in favor say aye.

Aye any opposed any abstentions?

The motion passes, and member McGee will be our chair for the evening.

Thank you.

With that, uh I would like to remind members of the public in chambers that if you'd like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in the speaker slip when the item begins.

Uh you will have two minutes to speak once you are called on.

After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We'll now proceed with today's agenda.

Um the first order of business being the land acknowledgement and pledge of allegiance.

So uh please rise for the opening acknowledgement in sack in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

Um to the original people of this land, the Nissan people, the Southern Maydu, Valley and Plains Miwok, Pat Win Wintoon 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 and stress ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples histories, contributions, and lives.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right, thank you guys.

Our first order of business this evening is the approval of the consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips on this item.

Okay, thank you.

And so with that, we are going to move forward in our agenda.

Well, first, we do need um we do need a um any discussion or a uh motion on the consent calendar to pass the consent calendar.

Absolutely, please.

Anyone any discussion on the current consent calendar?

And if not, can we have a motion?

I'd like to bring up one point.

Please go ahead.

Speaker on.

Yeah.

So uh this is related to the approved measure you budget.

Um I think that was presented last month.

And what I noticed when comparing this against what was presented in May 2025 is a pretty material difference in the measure you expenditures for FY25 versus what is actually approved more specifically.

In May 2025, uh recall the finance team came here and said Measure U FY25 expenditures around 137 million dollars.

They had the slide on the screen, it showed the two million dollar deficit.

But was actually approved was 161 million dollars.

I'm I'm bringing this to this uh commission's attention because it's a material enough swing that I think it justifies at least some type of acknowledgement in that the measure you fund for fiscal year 25 is only generating 135 million dollars in revenue, but it's actually going its obligations are approximately 161 million.

Um when I attempt to find answers internally, it seems that the answer that I'm getting is that it's okay because the measure you fund is the excess spending of the measure you fund is being covered by the general fund.

So therefore, this whole thing's kind of a wash, it's one pile of money.

But the challenge that I have, and one of what I want to address to like this commission is that I'm having trouble reconciling that.

If the measure you fund has a structural spending problem, it's spending 161 million versus 135 that's collected, and if the general fund also has a structural spending or structural imbalance, um how do we justify like backfilling one deficit with another?

To me, like that does not compute, and I'd like to bring that to this commission's attention to see if there's a perspective on it, or even if there's an opportunity for us to like make recommendations on how we can instill like fiscal guardrails to ensure that the measure you fund is fiscally responsible in like future years.

Because if you play this out, you'll see based on the own like the budget office's projections, measure you fund is going to spend 230 million dollars more than what it's gonna collect in the next five years, and that whole thing has to be covered by the general fund.

To me, that seems like a problem, but I don't know if this is the form to address that solicit feedback, but I want to put that out there to the public.

Thank you.

Um member Salah or Member Spith.

Um I think you make a very valid point, and I'm wondering if this is something that could be brought up with the finance people to have that discussion.

Um at some point bringing them in and just bringing this up and having them explain it and figure out and answer your question that you have or your statement.

But I don't think any of us, at least I don't feel I have the capacity, but I would like to understand why that's happening, get a better sense of that.

So can we put them on the agenda for um half an hour or or send an email to them or yes, at a minimum, we'll definitely get you a written response.

I can also extend an invitation if it would be appropriate for them to attend the meeting.

Um yeah, I mean, I would love to try to answer this question.

It's just uh I and unfortunately I should preface this.

I did um email commissioners stating the uh finance staff would be available tonight.

Unfortunately, they're not available tonight.

That's my mistake.

I should have checked with them first.

Uh, typically they would uh be present if they were available.

Um but yeah, it it is true that um the general fund does offset deficits in measure you, and there's a variety of reasons for that.

I think maybe one example to to think about is if we quote unquote balance the general fund, um we would still probably retain we probably wouldn't be cutting programs, they would just then be funded by the general fund.

Instead, what you're currently seeing is the measure you portion.

Let me back up just to kind of level set.

Measure U is a portion of the city's general fund, and so um the general fund itself is balanced.

Okay, so um, even though there's a discrepancy between the revenues and expenditures within measure you, the general fund as a whole is balanced.

Um and so as I say this, I recognize it is um it is a challenge just to explain it and kind of explain the rationale, and again, I'm not like a finance person, um, but we can get back to you with a kind of an official note.

Uh attempting to explain this by saying the city budgeting process is complex, kind of hand-waves away the severity of the issue, and that at its core the obligations of the measure you fund are greater than the revenue that it collects.

I I think I'm happy to be proven wrong that the spirit of this ballot was that it would be self-sustaining and independent, i.e., the revenue it collects would fund the programs, but it's neither self-sustaining nor independent because of the structural deficit I've described.

Again, I could totally be wrong on this, but like it just seems to me that the city budget office has acknowledged that the general fund has a structural spending imbalance.

And then now to say that the general fund is being used to cover the measure you fund, which also has a structural spending imbalance, that does not reconcile to me.

I definitely understand your point.

I just wanted to clarify the piece on the structural deficit.

The general fund is balanced.

So even the structural deficit is what needs to be closed in order to balance the general fund.

But by the time you get to the approved budget, it is it is balanced.

I I saw that it was I I hear you, I agree with you.

I just think a nuance that I saw through the footnotes is that it's balanced by like excluding 1.8 billion dollars in deferred maintenance.

This is like roads, bridges, buildings, etc.

This is way beyond the discussion of the measure you fund, but I I have to push back on this premise that on an accounting basis.

I acknowledge the general fund is balanced, but if you look at it pragmatically, what's being excluded to ensure the fund is balanced is like basic road repairs and and and that has a downstream effect to the measure you fund, which now is also imbalanced.

So Commissioner Cook?

Yes.

Um this commission mostly makes recommendations.

Would you be more comfortable if we formatted our recommendations such that we prioritized funding certain programs over the others?

Ultimately, it's going to be the city council that makes the decisions as to what gets funded and what doesn't.

Yeah, I certainly appreciate that.

I think that's the that's ultimately what I was trying to express, perhaps not so eloquently, is that is there a mechanism for us to make a recommendation to the city council that puts forth a vision of what a balanced measure you fund could look like, acknowledging that ultimately it's at their uh discretion to approve or deny we have a few speakers a few speakers in the queue.

Chair McGee.

Um twofold in terms of my um my statement.

So, first thing, um Commissioner Cook, to your point, like definitely work with your council person um and bring that to your councilperson because they are the ones that are gonna come to the city council and push that.

Um I guess it's a question that I have and a statement.

Is there like in government, right?

You have your budget and then it budget passes, and then halfway, like in the fall, there's a reappropriation, they relook at the budget, and then you have your budget cut.

So a lot of times in government on contract, you're trying to spend up those monies and secure your vendors before that second budget wave comes where they're going to realign to make sure that they're closing those those deficits and those gaps.

Does the city kind of operate like that in terms of measure you and our funds and what we support?

Are we able to have that budget realignment to kind of close in that gap?

I know we would make the recommendation, but is that a mechanism that that can also be in play that helps balance measure you to the general fund based on that reappropriation of funds and money and and pots of where the money goes based on what is coming downstream after the initial budget from spring.

Uh meaning like future additional unanticipated revenues, right?

Or deficits, right?

Possibly.

I mean, those are I think it wouldn't address uh Commissioner Cook's point, which is at the time of adopting the budget, it shows that at that point in time there's still a gap between the revenues and expenditures.

Um but we can we can explore.

I mean, I think we would encourage the commission to kind of continue to discuss this and and come back to us with recommendations.

Um but yeah, and then we'll we'll get you a more detailed response from finance.

Um member Fry Lucas or Member Rosa.

Yeah, I um I wanted to applaud Commissioner Cook for bringing this up.

And I think it has to do with a bit of the identity crisis of Measure U and a bit of the challenge in working in government of a big pot of money like this feeling like a slush fund being set it's being used for one thing, being actually used for another, other than us having this responsibility to the public and the taxpayers to make sure it's being stewarded on behalf of the citizens and represent you know the people we represent, uh then also recognizing the fact that we have no actual power or will to say what actually happens with the funding in measure U.

So it seems like we have this constant back and forth of wanting to do something practical, but also having to reconcile the fact that we're sitting in a position that's highly performative, and whether or not we make a recommendation, it doesn't have to be acknowledged, whether or not we make any decisions, they don't have to be respected.

So I think there is this dynamic that's fundamentally not been really addressed or built in to the to the structure of how us as a commission and measure you functions.

And I think for a long time it's been left like that because it makes it easy and convenient, and I think that's one of the things that a lot of us here keep wrestling with it seems problematic, or it seems like an opportunity to be exploited by people with um less than positive intent.

So it's a lot to wrestle and it's a lot to like work with.

Member Cook?

Oh, sorry.

Uh Member Johnston.

Yeah, I am now I'm unmuted.

Uh good points.

I I think overall we should just ask if someone from finance can come next time because my reading of this was uh it was a kind of a technical movement of funds because it's all the general fund that some of it is carrying over from prior, or that there was, I think I was reading it here, um that there was a technical change, a technical adjustment funding for the homelessness program that was included in the proposed budget forecast, but needed to be formally added to the approved MU Measure U budget.

So I maybe I misread that and I just it was a big thing that I missed.

I don't so I don't think there might be a structural deficit.

I think this is just an accounting of we either had prior funds, and that's why we're overspending this year, or that we it's already gonna be spent by the general fund, but measure we're putting in measure you because of the previous funds.

I don't know.

But I think this establishes that this is something we should talk about.

And I think you I appreciate you flagging it, and I I'd be open to putting it as an agenda item for next meeting.

I guess one thing I'll add at the risk of uh uh putting the foot in my mouth.

Um, you know, about five years ago, um the current measure U that was adopted, which doubled the original measure U from a half cent to a full cent, substantially funded public safety, meaning police and fire.

Uh, in response to this body's recommendations, um, due to what was perceived as uh kind of a disproportionate allocation of measure U to these public safety uh budgets.

We the city staff did kind of a realignment and and looked at how we would account for measure U less towards public safety and more towards these community programs.

What's really important about this though is those public safety positions didn't get cut, they just got moved around between the general fund and measure you.

So even if we were to kind of do an exercise where we brought measure U into balance, that wouldn't necessarily mean that those programs got cut, they just wouldn't be accounted for in kind of the information that we provide to you all.

Um and that information we do provide is just uh it has a higher level of transparency um to to help kind of fulfill your oversight obligations as a commission and to kind of provide these detailed recommendations to the city council.

So that was kind of the only piece I wanted to leave you with is like um I think the everyone is kind of raised really valid points.

At the end of the day, though, um, you know, the measure you is an accounting mechanism that is exists within the general fund.

And so if we were trying to try to just bring this small part of the general fund into balance, you know, it the general fund is the remaining portion of the general fund is just gonna offset that.

So in that again, in that case of how there was a realignment of public safety positions, you know, those positions didn't get cut.

We we basically started accounting for other programs um that were funded with the general fund, uh, accounted for those as measure U, and then we stopped accounting for the public safety positions that were previously funded by uh measure U.

So with that, I don't want to put my foot in my mouth any further, um, but it will we'll kind of invite the finance staff to to appropriately respond to your concerns.

Sorry for my uh we just got a little bender bender on the way here, so that was fun.

But uh everyone's fine.

So that'll be no big deal.

Um but yeah, uh it looks like next is Member Solar, Member Smith.

Yeah, um really good discussion, and actually it was kind of a discussion we had with our um ad hoc outreach, similar to having a real clear understanding of what measure U is and what it is not um in accordance with the ordinance, but I but I agree with um Ash in that I was here when 75% of measure U funds was going to public safety, and because in the ordinance it did say it was for public safety, and the firemen felt that the reason measure you passed was because of their advocacy, and so that was their that that that's what they told the people to vote.

That's the reason they said vote for this because um money's gonna go towards public safety.

And so originally um I saw 75% of it, but I was I came in at the tail end, so I'm I wasn't responsible for that advocacy of changing that, but uh chair, commissioner um uh flow, what's her last name?

Cover COFER, COFRA I want to say something else.

Uh uh Commissioner Kofer, she was the chair, and the other um commissioners fought and advocated for that to be changed, and and um it changed, but like Ash said, it was a shifting of the cups.

Was just a shifting of the cups.

Like, where is it now?

Um but for the for the people they felt like okay, that that was more with what we were voting.

That being said, I think it's really important that when we have the finance people come and get a better understanding that we two things that happened, and it was um because of during the budget discussions that for the first time I heard finance agree to meeting early on in January with the commission to instead of what we're what we've always done, it's always been frustrating, is we start making our recommendations after the dis the budget is out, after the decisions are made.

So we we have very little impact because the decisions are already made, and we can we can just say oh make our recommendations, but the decisions have been made, and what we struggled with was um saying we want before the decisions are made, before it's out there, we want to have an a say and in the budget with the with uh the budget department.

And I think I heard that they would meet in January, correct?

And start working on that.

So that's a win.

But equally important is I don't think as a commission, we've had um a discussion collective.

You know, we do our own advocacy with our own members, but collectively talk about our concerns and about um how we feel um or lack of um respect that we get from the city council for recommendations or decisions.

We don't have to say lack of respect, we could come up with something else, another word, but we should have a discussion with the city council and say we'd like to feel like our time is valuable and appreciated, and this is what it would look like, and have an exchange because it's never happened, at least the time I've been involved.

I mean, I've done my own advocacy, and I know all of you have, but collectively, I don't think it's happened, and it might be worth you know, an hour of uh time where we can have all of us in the same room.

What do they call those town halls?

Yeah, um, that we can have that kind of discussion.

That would I think be valuable for us to have.

So uh Member Drovsky, your member Noveo.

It would be me.

Um good afternoon, everybody.

And I actually appreciate all the comments and and and it's a learning experience where a lot of us were new to understand now the behind uh thought process of a lot of these points, and uh actually uh fortunately a lot of this things already happen.

So there's not much that can be changed until we actually figured out what is a mechanism or what is it that we're gonna do so the next time we make the recommendation, we have everything that we need to really um make again, not only the appropriate recommendation that is okay with us, but also to the constituency that we represent, which I believe is point eight, I mean point five on our agenda or our charging.

Is there actually a motion on the consent calendar already?

No, there isn't.

I haven't heard of it.

No, no, I'll make that motion.

Um but uh the there's a pointing where we really need to start to really narrow down and figure it out comprehensively as a group, how is it that we're gonna work together?

What are the goals that we're gonna set?

What this period of identity that we want to proceed.

So when that recommendations are presented, whether they are uh you know, uh adopted as we present them, or at some point the spirit is there.

Um is something that is truly representative of now us, because then it will be us, for instance.

Um in the war plan, right now we're supposed to have a Sacramento Polylibrary Authority presentation, which I don't see them here.

Um and so there's a lot of movement pieces, and there's a lot of things that still need to be worked on.

Um, and I encourage us to really move and direct our energy towards that because that's the things that we can control at this point.

Uh member Cook.

Thanks, last point.

Uh I appreciate the comments and thank you for clarifying, Ash, like the accounting process through which funds from one program are moved to another without actually reducing any head count.

That makes a lot of sense.

Like here's my concern.

The finance team's gonna come here, they're gonna explain to us how the general youth the general fund is solvent based on all the characteristics that you describe, and like nothing really changes.

I think at its core, like I have this thesis that this this measure you fund is supposed to be self-sustaining.

Like the revenue the expenses of the measure you fund are less than the revenue, like it spends that's the goal.

We're not there yet.

Uh like I would my hope, North Star, is that this discussion will ultimately produce some recommendation to the city council on what a met a balanced measure you fund actually looks like, and then it's up to the city council to say yes or no.

But at a minimum, we can all take solace in knowing that we acknowledge that there was a deficit in the measure you fund, we put forth the recommendation, and the city council ultimately just move forward with whatever path they did.

But I'm worried that if we get the finance team to come here, it's gonna be another meeting, and it's gonna be another meeting.

Meanwhile, in fiscal year 26, you can see based on um the finance team's own projections, we're gonna be the measure you fund is going to spend 40 million dollars more than it than it collects in revenue.

So to your point, Juan, what we could do in that scenario is maybe we use FY26 as like the budget that we try to uh use to create a financially sound balanced, I don't know, plan for 2026.

Like why not?

Maybe we could try that.

But um, that's what I would like to have this team discuss maybe at the next meeting or something in between.

Yeah, I guess my comment on that.

Um I think I agree that you know, obviously, balance uh budget should be balanced.

The one question then would be uh as we say cut programs for measure you, which are being funded by the general fund, that would just maybe not really be cutting it, it would just be like moving it into the general fund, right?

And so at that point we start meddling outside of our scope or the predefined scope, which would be like, okay, what are we putting into general fund that is currently in measure you or vice versa?

Um I'm not sure.

Uh is that something that city council wants us recommending?

We we're more than welcome to propose it, but I guess we'd have to figure out what that end goal looks like.

You know what I mean?

Yeah, I just can't, I just can't reconcile the table that says measure you spends 160 million but only collects 135 million like that just doesn't compute.

Sure.

Yeah.

Um that being said, I guess given like the recent discussion that I've been hearing, it almost sounds like we kind of want to talk about discussion calendar number five, because it's like almost like we're just kind of like we're just teetering on actually just discussing it.

So maybe we should just reorder and talk about number five first and get that out of the way, and then we can move on to other items.

Is that makes the people?

Um but uh we would vote on the consent calendar first because I guess um that was brought up.

So I guess we need a motion and a second to uh and do we have any public comment on this?

Uh we have no public comment.

We have a motion by member Novello.

Okay, I'll second.

And a second.

And then we can just do this by voice.

Yes.

Um all members that approve say aye.

Aye, any abstain or any uh deny, reject.

No, okay.

Cool.

Then we will move on from the consent calendar, and I guess we'll go to item five.

So we'll cover four later.

Um yeah, so this is basically an item uh to review the measure you community advisory commission work plan.

Um there is the work plan linked in the the attachment, um, which shows last year's, and we'll talk about you know, sort of what do we want to do in this next year's work plan.

I think from the people that I've talked to on this committee or commission, um almost everyone has said let's reduce the amount of time that we hear presentations.

Um we love those presentations, but we want them to be short and sweet, so we have more time to ask questions rather than um sort of like hour-long presentations that maybe take too long, and by the end of it, we're like we don't even have time to discuss.

Um so we should consider that and how we want to factor that into the agenda, but I would also be very open to hearing um you know what other people are thinking and thoughts around um yeah, or 2026 items and deliverables if there's anybody who wants to cue up.

I guess for me, I think one of the things that we should do is given the all the presentations we were given last year.

Um, do we feel we still want to do those?

Do we want to have people come from all the departments and present to us?

I assume the answer is yes, but just want to confirm with people, but it would just be in a shorter spurt.

Maybe we get those presentations ahead of time.

Um yeah, okay, cool.

Um member Goris.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So, you know, I'm gonna really be frank.

Um, being the president of my neighborhood association, just like uh member Salah, um, you know, those presentations are really valuable for me as I'm educating my my neighbors.

So um I would like not to see them cut or reduced, in my opinion.

Um they're really helpful and they're really rich in information, and definitely I can make the contact eye to eye with the people that are doing it, and I could get the phone numbers, and so to me they're important.

Make sense.

Uh member Johnson.

I agree with Commissioner Goris, but I do think that there needs to be a conversation about how to do it more efficiently because they one was like an hour and a half, one was 30 minutes.

I think if we say, you know, a time limit and provide us beforehand so that we can at least review the I know some of them did, but I think it'd be really helpful if we focus maybe on questions instead of them just reading a PowerPoint that we may have already done.

But I agree, seeing them in person, hearing the details and updates has been incredibly valuable to me.

Great.

Um Member Salah or Member Smith.

Um I like hearing them, but I want to since we've all we're all seen the same presentations, maybe just not repeat the same information because we already know the basics.

So at these presentations, they spent a lot of time just laying the groundwork, and that was important because there was a lot of new members, but we all know that um and that they spend less time on doing the groundwork and just get down to the money went for this, this is what uh it funded this, and this was the impact.

I I think would be efficient, because that's what I want to hear at the end of the day, is I want to see um we it the measure you was utilized for for this, and this was the impact.

They can do a brief, they can do two slides just doing a quick little brush over of um you know how many FTs they are and that kind of stuff.

Not that's that's quick, they don't have to go in depth in that.

Um it would be more efficient versus going to all of um the kind of what they do when they present to the city council, they have uh a special session at the city council where they do they do spend like an hour, but um and that's fine for them, but I don't think I don't think it needs to happen here in the same manner.

Okay, member Pascal.

Um I would agree with everything that's been said.

I also think at some point this should ideally dovetail with the data project.

Like we should be asking folks a standard set of questions so that we can do you know more of a kind of apples to apples um evaluation.

Um I do think it is valuable, like some of the organizations like the um restorative justice group.

I don't remember what the name of that department is, but um when they brought in people who were like personally impacted, I you know, I I think the qualitative as well as the quantitative is important, but um when there's not a standard sort of set of questions that folks are answering, then it's hard to really uh look across departments to say you know where is the money most effective.

Uh member Fry Lucas or Member.

Yes, I was just gonna agree with everyone and say that we do need a time limit when people talk for two hours, it's hard to pay attention.

They don't get to the point.

And we're kind of brain-deed at some point.

So it and the advantage of a time limit is that we can talk to more people.

Right?

We can get more people, it's important for them to be here.

I'd like to see a way that we can also talk to I call them clients, but the people receiving the services.

We're talking to the people who are getting paid.

I want to talk to the people who are actually being impacted by what they're doing.

And I and I found those um discussions far more informative than people just talking about, you know, because they're the ones being paid.

That's all.

Um member Cook.

I agree with what everyone's saying on on like time limit time limiting it, hearing from the community, that all makes sense.

On like the work plan component.

So is is the ask to approve the work plan agenda that's in the document with the specific milestones or what is being requested right now?

Yeah, the idea here is like we have uh the 2025 one that's shown there, right?

So 2026 is going to be a different one.

Yeah.

I think the idea now is to present it to the group, think what are we like a little bit of ideation, what do we want our goals to be?

What sort of agenda items do we want to plan for next year, and then likely a member or two will go off and create a draft of this work plan, and then we'll bring it back at some point and like finalize that.

Yeah.

Does that make sense?

I'll just add that um you can also talk about the remaining three meetings for this year, uh, September, October, November.

So just uh don't lose sight of that as well.

Fair enough.

Uh there was also a comment around talking to the budget department earlier.

Uh we already talked, uh, I think member Salah brought it up.

Yeah.

Um Pete basically reached out to uh one of the meetings.

Uh I don't remember which one.

Um we were just happened to be sitting next to each other and he said he wanted to start a little bit earlier.

Um he didn't give an exact time frame of what that exactly earlier means, but I think like the initiative was there.

Um we'll see.

I think we'll I have actually a connection with him coming up in the next month, see what what that exactly means.

Um I'll let you guys know.

Um does that make sense though for the we would add that in the work plan.

Uh add that in the work plan.

The meetings with the budget department.

Yeah, starting that.

Correct, that would be part of it.

Yeah, we should plan for like when we would want that to happen.

Yeah.

Um again, again, this is sort of just like a bit of an ideation phase.

Like, what are we thinking for like how do we feel about 2025?

What do you want to see going into 2026?

What do we want to change?

Um, and I do want to talk about goals as well at some point, because we kind of just talked about meetings.

I think it was a bit of a consensus that uh we do want them to come, we want them to be present, obviously be here to ask questions.

I completely agree with that.

I think just maybe capping it to like around 30 minutes or something and trying to get the presentations and figures ahead of time.

I don't know if we can ask them standard questions ahead of as well.

I think that's actually a good idea, being like, hey, these are the things that we would like to know when you come and present.

Um, because we did get quite a few times where we would ask questions and they didn't have that data already, and I feel like they kind of maybe should have.

We just didn't prep them for the kind of questions we would ask.

Um so getting that getting them the or getting staffed those questions ahead of time would probably be useful.

So if people have questions, maybe we can collect them in some way um ahead of time and send it to Ash or what have you, and you can forward those on.

Um but okay, that will probably then, given we have less time per department, likely we can do fit that within like maybe the first two to three meetings, and then the rest of the meetings can be free to discuss what whatever.

Um given that we should have our recommendations to the budget committee faster than May, like ideally, uh well, actually, maybe it would just have to be May again.

Because we last time we approved the budget recommendations at that point, but we didn't submit until June, if I'm not mistaken.

Is that correct?

I'm on the schedule.

I don't know if you remember Ash, but it's about right, yeah.

Okay.

So I think we could be one month faster, basically, in that regard, um, which would be great.

So we basically would approve our budget recommendations.

Um, well, we we would make them in the 21st, approve them on the 19th-ish, and then be able to submit them to the next budget audit at around May, June, May, June, July, June.

Yeah, June.

Okay.

It's still tight, but yeah, a little better, I guess.

I think one important consideration is if the commission thinks it's in a position to make recommendations before you actually see what the proposed budget is.

Yeah.

I know that that can be a challenge, but to the extent that you all are able to set some priorities, um, it'll make it easier to kind of react in real time to when the budget's actually published.

Also, knowing that most of the budget stays very similar in terms of percentages, it's like we can basically talk about almost last year's budget and carry that uh advisorship forward.

Uh member Cook looks like you've killed it.

Maybe March or April will meet with these individual departments, they'll present to us like you know their budget priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, all of the amazing success that they're having.

And then that the content from those presentations will be used to inform what we recommend to the city council in the May June time frame.

Is that like directionally accurate?

That's the way I'm seeing it currently.

Um, but I'm, you know, this is the time to speak if you have other ideas for sure.

Cool.

My my final point, uh, then I'll promise I'll be quiet is I had the opportunity to go through all of the uh department presentations last week as a function of the metrics subcommittee.

It was an enlightening experience, and what I learned is that the these departments, like I don't doubt they're doing amazing work, but it seems like the mechanisms that they use to track productivity is the quantity of FTEs and like activities completed or task complete.

So for example, DCR closed 900 311 tickets in the past 90 days.

I don't doubt like that required work, but it's hard to it's hard to like extrapolate how if 900 tickets from 311 are closed in the past 90 days.

Does that materially help DCR achieve their mission of like eliminating homelessness?

You know what I mean?

It's really the the metrics that are being presented in these PowerPoints don't actually measure the effectiveness of the programs, they measure the quantity of employees and the number of tasks completed.

So if we could push the needle a little bit, maybe as part of these presentations in this upcoming year, we can ask these departments to present their perception of what performance based metrics look like as opposed to tasks or activities complete.

Yeah.

Um member Fry Lucas or Member Israel.

Yeah, I've had a couple of questions.

I'm not sure if this is the right uh time to ask, but it's regarding data.

My question is do we know how it's going to be collected?

Do we know how it's going to be stored?

And do we know how it's going to be responded to?

Is it going to be responded to online by departments?

Is it going to be responded to us in person?

And when those things happen, how do we store the data?

I think we have it depends on what you ask, I think, and what department you're asking.

So if you can give me an example of what your request is, um, because for example, one of the avenues for us to receive data is of course having those questions prepared ahead of time before they come and present, and then we can get that data that way.

Of course, it's in their presentations as well.

Uh as member Cook mentioned, we've been sleuthing through those presentations to try to extract all that data for our purposes because it's a lot to go through.

Um I think another way is there's sort of the standardized process that's happening right now where they're gonna collect all these metrics and put them hopefully somewhere centralized.

Um I don't know if you have Yeah, that's my point.

Where?

Where will we where is the data looking at?

Where would we have access to all these information and where do we store our information so that the people we're evaluating can see that also?

Yeah, that's a great uh point.

I think what we're trying to fight for, and maybe we're talking about this in the next agenda item is basically trying to get that into our quarterly reports, uh quarterly budget reports for measure you.

And so basically having a column where we can say this is these are the metrics we want you to report on every quarter.

Um and basic in getting that in written down.

So that would be where it's stored and available to us.

So is the idea that departments will have a spreadsheet, and they'll be put it in how many FTEs they have and how many this and that.

So if we extend a sale on that Excel sheet, and then we have standard questions, not some standard but some very specific questions to that program.

Are we able to do that?

Because what we're speaking about now, and I agree, we're looking at the quantitative part and not the qualitative part.

But as we spoke of in our our program subcommittee, we really are the ones that ask the qualitative questions.

And so we have it covered, but it's just not on that piece that we're looking at right now.

I also like the idea of asking questions ahead of time.

Because we don't have people, we don't have time for people to come back.

They're not coming back.

Let's get real.

I mean, people got things to do.

So if we're able to standardize questions, which they can be, I have standard question, qualitative questions for programs.

It's like five or six of them you can ask ahead of time, then their time is used better, our time is used better, and we're able to organize our data because if we bring in all this stuff like an octopus and it's all over the place, it is absolutely useless.

Couldn't agree more.

Um, and I think we're gonna dive into that further in the next agenda item as well.

Um sort of talking about this 2025 work plan.

Then one of the things one of the components of this is the 2020 or the 2026 goals.

Like we as a committee want to achieve what um in the past.

I'll just read these quickly the top the three goals that we had were um getting department presentations to the commission, um, high level budget presentations.

So there's interest in conducting high-level presentations on measure U to ensure commissioners are informed about fiscal priorities.

Okay, and then three was the further development of the outcome-based performance metrics.

So I think we're still probably working on three.

We're talking about shortening one and two, they be more um front loaded, and I think that leaves us quite a bit of time to do other things.

And so I'm curious to hear what other members would um like think our goal should be for next year.

What do we want to achieve?

Um I know it's a big question, but um, yeah, if there's any burning thoughts, I'm happy to hear members.

Um we met last week, the outreach data um ad hoc outreach committee, and in that we we felt that we we need to be engaging more with the community, and when we did the focus group Stamford Settlement did the focus group thing that although it was small, but the information we heard wasn't anything new.

They said they liked the dashboard, and they also um appreciated the information, but they wanted to know outcome, like what so the money went here in the dashboard, so but um what's the impact it's having?

And I know we're we're the data, the quantitative data is we're far from getting there, but we will get there.

But being able to figure out a way without spending that kind of money because we're not gonna get it, is doing focus groups engaging with the community, and we would work with community engagement department to figure out how we could do some smaller ones.

Um, whether it's we just do one in each district, and one of us take that on and do it uh in the planned way with our council person, something else that's going on, leverage what else is going on, work with community engagement and see how we can just do simple questions, get that qualitative perspective and bring it back.

And so I would like that figure that out in and as part of one of our goals because it continues to be uh the community does not really understand who we are and what the money is being spent with for, and now with measure L being out there, there's confusion about measure L and measure U.

There they're seeing that it's it's the same thing and it's not um so I would like that to be as one of the goals uh member cooking alluded to this to alluded to this as point two, then this might be aggressive, so feel free to push back if no one agrees.

It would like if I could wave one like a wave of wand and achieve one thing with this commission, it would be to present a balanced measure you budget to the city council.

Like that is the thing that I think we have an obligation to do, and technical definition balance budget for the measure you fund is uh expenses or less than revenue.

And I'm looking at like the FY26 projection.

You can just see as of today, revised forecast end of year 26 is negative 40 million.

That means negative 40 40 million is going to have to be covered by the general fund.

Probably will be, but let's try, let's try to put forth the presentation where some way somehow we come together as a collective team and say, here's what a balanced measure you budget looks like for fiscal year 26.

Uh member Smith or Member Sullivan.

Oh, those me.

Um, so I guess I'm responding to a couple of different things.

First, uh to Commissioner Cook's um priority as he just expressed it.

I don't disagree, um, but I think it's important for all of us to remember that um this year in particular, we are standing on sand whenever we make recommendations.

Um I think uh Commissioner George Off that you uh said that the numbers don't change that much.

Unfortunately, I think that they're going to have to this year.

We've got a lot of uncertainty.

Uh a lot of the monies the city gets or are passed through monies, and that's how we fund a lot of our programs.

Um those monies are in jeopardy currently.

Um if they're coming from the federal government, we have a president who is hostile to some of our spending priorities as a state and has said openly and has suggested openly that the federal government should cut off funding for law enforcement and uh fire protection here.

Uh, if you're talking about things like homelessness, um again, it's you know the amount of money that we can anticipate getting is probably going to be cut.

So um we've always faced those challenges as a state and as as a local government, but I think that they are particularly cute this year.

Additionally, um there are challenges that were detailed in the budget document that uh uh Commissioner Cook was just speaking about um for the upcoming year, uh, those being that uh the California employment uh employees retirement system is unfunded, uh the unfunded liability craw costs will increase by 25.7 million.

Liability insurance uh premiums will increase by 32.7 million.

Uh there's uncertainty uh with regard to labor costs and approximately 1.8 billion in unfunded capital needs between 25 and 2030 are not included in the initial forecast.

We're dealing with some pretty soft numbers here.

So while I agree with you, yes, um, we should have something that is balanced, uh or we want it to be as balanced as possible.

Um, our ability to do that realistically pragmatically, as you say, is going to be somewhat limited, I think.

I feel I could be wrong.

Uh I hope I'm wrong, but um, these are just some of the challenges that I see before us.

Um, secondly, I think um that as we take a look at how uh we talked about standardizing some of the presentations that these departments are making.

Um, and we're in the process of trying to determine what would be appropriate performance measures and performance targets for the departments that are funded with mark measure you funds.

Um that's a negotiation more so than than um a decision that this this commission can make.

Those departments are going to come and they're gonna make presentations to us, and we're gonna say, hey, we think we we think that you should have these five measures that you report out on, and they're gonna say, yeah, that doesn't really if they're generous, they're gonna say that doesn't really capture what we do.

And if they're not generous, they're just gonna say no.

Um I'd like to suggest an alternative, which is that as we talk, we we also mentioned about having shorter presentations that were very structured.

Why don't we have them speak to the performance measures that are common to the programs that they are trying to get funded and that they are prepared to live with?

And if they can't, they need to tell us why.

And that's all I got.

Uh member Johnson.

I too am gonna respond to kind of uh a few comments.

I I I in terms of balancing the budget, I would like to wait until we have a finance person to come next week.

Because I really think we're talking about like I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but it's like saying the Indian Ocean is unbalanced compared to the Pacific Ocean.

It's like you can't they can't be unbalanced because they're all part of one ocean.

You can say you're moving one water from Pacific to Indian, but it's all gonna be the same.

It's either the water's too high or the water's too low, but they all go high or too low together, right?

So I think if we're talking about a structural budget deficit, that's the overall, it's not just a measure you fund.

Um, I think I'm pretty sure that's kind of my understanding, but I want to talk to a finance person because it might just be an accounting thing where they say, well, we're gonna move this program from one side to the other, but it's still gonna be all part of the measure or all part of the general fund.

But that goes into, I think the other point as well is because we are part of the general fund, what we're doing here is a little bit of the tail wagging the dog, right?

We're trying to get metrics to figure out how measure you money is spent.

The same time we're figuring that's going to downstream of potentially seeing how the general fund money is spent better, right?

Because it's all kind of one commingled.

And yet there's nobody here, right?

We're an advisory commission.

I'm not gonna pretend people want to come out here on a Monday night to talk about to somebody that's job is to recommend something to another body.

But if they feel maybe not confident or able to speak to the city council about their perspective on how measure uh how general fund money should be spent, this is a real listen, right?

We had one guy here every time we listen to him, and he has you know stuff to say.

Um, so I think if we pitch this to the community, as I think we need to get more community involvement.

This is how I'm bringing back to the other thing about what measure you does and how important it is to the city budget.

More people might be here and feel confident talking to us as part of our recommendation to the city council on how the greater budget should be allocated.

You know, we're all citizens involved in the community community.

If we write op-eds or if we do something and say, hey, the measure you sits here by itself every Monday talking about things that are trying to improve our city's budget.

I don't know, maybe we'll get a few people.

But I don't know what other ideas, but I I definitely think that we need to get measure you and what we do.

I see plaques, I go to the libraries, I point to my son, I'm like, that's what I do on Monday night, sees three, so it doesn't understand.

But I still try to like see the measure you signs, right?

But that's like that's a small thing that I don't know a lot of people see.

So I think there's a lot of things that we can do.

I think that should be one of the points we do the next year, is trying to get people citizens, and I've worked on campaigns.

I've knocked on doors.

I know how hard it is to get people to care about civic engagement, and something like this is gonna be even harder, but that's why we're here, right?

And so I want that to be a part of our plan for this upcoming year.

Um yeah, I guess I'll jump in here real quick.

Um, because I'm also gonna talk about all the things that were said.

I completely agree with the community engagement.

I think um member Johnson probably said it best.

Um it'd be great to have a goal of like getting more people to sit out there.

I think that would be something that we could achieve.

Um and that comes through making it feel like it's important.

So not just feel it important, but it is, right?

Like I think those are earned, right?

And sort of sort of like with the credit of um how the city council views this commission.

I think that is earned rather than like asked for.

Um, and so we need to like show the value.

And I think through you know, community engagement, we might get a little bit more of that.

On top of that, I think we are sort of disamorphous, like you mentioned, tail wagging the dog sort of thing.

Uh, we are trying to get concrete um uh metrics and goals to be written down so we have those um non-subjective data points, but we also would love to have subjective data points of people coming in and saying, How did you like those services, right?

Um, because a lot of times data doesn't show that.

Um and so getting that all combined would be great.

I think the data organization is standardizing is is a fantastic goal.

Um, I think we're well on our way to achieving at least some of that.

Um, and I remember nothing is like it's written in stone.

So as soon as we get one iteration of our quarterly report with like a few metrics in or a few goals in, we can start modifying and adding or removing.

And to the point uh that um the uh member Smith made was basically just uh getting them to be accountable for the metrics that they say are what they should be evaluated on.

And so, like basically getting them to when we first our full idea actually was that we would give a straw man and they would sort of correct it to be more aligned with what they actually believe to be reflective of their impact.

Um, and we should definitely be able to hold accountable then to what they've then modified, right?

Uh we are getting a little bit onto the next agenda item in that sense, and so I'll I'll trail back a little bit uh until we get there.

But yeah, and then in terms of balancing a budget, um, I kind of agree that it is like the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.

I think it's a great metaphor because it all is one ocean.

Uh the general fund is one thing.

Um the fact that we've categorized measure you as some arbitrary slice of it is frankly that.

Yes, measure you does raise funds um and contribute to that ocean, but it is still an ocean at the end of the day.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't uh evaluate the whole ocean then.

Um because it seems like we have to in order to do to evaluate the little part of it.

So yeah.

Anyway, member cooking if we're looking for like reasons to not pursue this activity of balancing a budget, either as a result of the broader interconnectedness with the general fund, or relying on feedback from the finance team first or fill in the blank reason XYZ, there's gonna be a million reasons to not do this.

Or fill in the blank reason XYZ.

There's gonna be a million reasons to not do this.

I I think like we have an obligation.

The citizens voted on this.

They approved a one cent supplemental sales tax.

And we should at least try to present some type of mechanism that shows the funding from measure U is aligned with the priorities of the citizens and is balanced, meaning expenditures are less than revenues.

Like however, the finance team tries to present something uh given the accounting principles that they'll implement for the broader general fund.

I don't dispute that.

I acknowledge the general fund is balanced based on the criteria we discussed.

But at a minimum, at a minimum, we should try to present something that say, hey, this general this measure you fund is directionally solvent based on the revenues it independently collects.

Okay.

Um I guess moving forward then.

Uh is there anyone who is interested in coming like because I think we can also you know sort of take a think on it and um you know, if you you sort of lay in bed or the shower and you're like, yeah, you know what, that's actually something I wish I would have said.

Um we uh we can iterate on this.

But is there someone who sort of wants to take charge in writing you know what the summary of what we've come up with here?

Come up with sort of like uh again, a straw man for the for the next year agenda, and then present it maybe in in a month.

Um anyone acutely interested in that.

If not, I'm happy to like maybe take that on.

But no, okay.

All right.

Well, in that case, um there's nothing to vote on for this agenda item, so or as far as I'm aware.

There is okay.

Item five Cash Motion approving updates and revisions to the 2025 work plan.

So from what I heard, you're asking for a member to volunteer to write all this down to possibly then change it in the future.

Yeah, because I don't think we would be able to do it now.

Do we need it now?

No.

Are you changing anything in your 2025 work plan?

Yeah, not currently.

Then I don't think you need to vote on it because um the really the other part on the 2026 work plan was just to begin discussing that.

And so at the next September meeting, we can bring forth an item to begin developing your annual report, which is where your actual 2026 work plan will be embedded.

Um so yeah, I don't I don't unless anybody disagrees, I don't think you need to vote on this.

Yeah, I guess then the question comes like does anyone have issue with September, October, November's current um work plan, although I don't think it's really reflective of what is reality at this point.

Right.

So the I mean the goals are probably still consistent.

Um the actual just to explain what happened with the presentations, you all came to us with your work plan and said, you know, these are the departments and the order we want to hear these presentations.

We were looking at the timing of the budget and how the departments were being grouped together to present to the city council.

Uh so we just kind of replicated that model.

We just wanted to streamline things, and so we basically mirrored what the council was getting uh in terms of their presentations to for you all to get the same presentations at the same time.

So this creates a little more space in your work plan for September, October, November.

Okay.

So you you'll um having said that, you know, your um annual report will kind of be the big item to close out the year.

But if there's any other recommendations around outreach or metrics or other items, you can continue to discuss those for the remainder of the year.

And what's shown here with September, October, and November, Department of Public Works and Department of Utilities, etc.

I mean, they we've already had presentations from so correct.

Okay.

Um then it'll probably be more open than what it's shown here, and that's okay, because we've covered what we've planned to do already in the year essentially, um, minus the annual report.

And so um, yeah, those basically those months are free to discuss what we choose.

Um, so then no vote is required.

All right, then let's move on, unless anyone has last thoughts.

No?

Okay.

Great.

So going back up uh the agenda to number four, obviously we've been teetering on this one too, but um the program outcomes.

Um so I'll briefly introduce this one as well.

Umber Cook as well as the uh metrics ad hoc were able to discuss meet a couple times um around this.

And eventually we came to sort of what you have and attached here, and I know it's long and lengthy, but most of that comes from just the status of the program, which already exists in this document.

Uh the status and purpose of the program that we kind of put there just so you have um context of what that line item is.

Uh but the only thing that we've added is two things.

Uh one is this FTE percent of expense.

So I think most members here have sort of put forward this idea that they really want to see what amount of um that budget is spent on full-time employees versus the program itself or what have you.

Um so that is a column now, which should be fairly easy for them to calculate.

And the other one is um metrics or goals.

Um right here it says extracted metrics or goals.

I thought we changed that to the newer one.

I took what you gave me.

Oh, I sent you a read redo, but that's okay.

It's no no big deal.

Um basically what this is is the goals uh the the sorry, the metrics that we going through all the slides and presentations, they've included some things, right?

And we just basically sort of tweezed them out into one spot.

And this is what ideally what would happen for us, because doing this every time is quite exhaustive or exhausting.

But uh having these metrics here would be great.

So, for example, number of participants for a program, number of three 311 calls uh answered.

Now, as member cook uh sort of already brought up, a lot of these are action-based, right?

Uh it's sort of like how many boxes did you tick.

It's not you know, results based of you know how many people were positively impacted by said service.

Um this is where I would say uh we can iterate, right?

Like let's figure out, let's start with a baseline where ideally this is sort of when we talked with staff, this is like the zero additional work cost because they've already collect these metrics, right?

We're not asking for new things to be collected.

Um they you know, this is sort of run of the mill.

It's just like, okay, we take it from one place to another.

Um, but of course, at some point we should be assuming we get this in motion.

It sort of creates this framework and um I don't know what you call like foundation to start modifying and saying, hey, you know what, actually this metric isn't so great.

What about you know, A or B?

Um and then working with staff to as well come up with metrics that they feel accountable towards, um, as Member Smith alluded to earlier.

So um yeah, I just want to sort of introduce it.

Um hopefully you guys got a chance to just at least look at it and obviously not read the whole thing because it's quite extensive.

Um there's also a lot of columns in here that are just like none found.

Like we don't have metrics for these, and they didn't report any on them either.

And so those are like things we should be focused on as well.

But yeah, I wanted to open it up and see if there's anyone who has thoughts or concerns um and yeah, just to discuss uh maybe this and next steps.

Uh member Pascal.

So what do you envision as the next step for this?

Um well, to be frank, it was like come here and present this is like a strong man, that was the next step.

Um but I I think eventually we would say, okay, um, you know, Pete, what do you think about this?

Like sort of a a quick quick budget department check-in.

Um and then assuming that goes pretty well, because as we've been, I've been kind of keeping them in the loop, and he's aware because he was at the meeting when we presented this to the budget.

Um the yeah, the budget committee.

And so I think after that, it would be like, okay, let's get it, get the process updated.

And I don't know, actually, we'd probably have more information on how that would go about.

Um, but like how these how all the data would get input into this.

Like is it something we have to take to the city council and ask them to require the departments to provide this information to us?

So when we went to um the budget committee, they basically did not take a vote on it, meaning they didn't like stamp it as this will happen.

However, there was like this agreance upon like, so they didn't have to make a vote on it, that us and the departments and the budget department would sort of just work together on it and come to something by the end of the year.

Um and if we felt that there was a lack of progress or what have you, then we would just go back to uh the budget audit committee.

Yeah, or subcommittee.

Yeah, I'll just add um we have a meeting scheduled for Monday, so next Monday, week from today.

So I think from our perspective as staff, we want real clarity on what it is that the commission's asking for, and then we can react to that.

Um at this point, you know, we've we've heard a lot of different ideas.

Um I will just be candid with you.

Our direction has been to move toward fewer performance measures, not more.

And so, you know, our perspective on reporting uh performance measures for all 90 measure you funded programs would not necessarily be consistent with that direction, but I think there's potential compromises and opportunities to kind of reach some consensus with the commission.

In order to get there, I think we just need real clarity on what exactly um you're asking for.

So you know, based on this discussion item in the document that's in your agenda, if that's exactly what the commission um is really asking staff to produce, um, you know, we'll we'll talk about it next Monday and and figure out if if there's a way to make it happen.

And what's the status of the there was some discussion at some point that the city was doing its own kind of performance metrics project, and where is that and how does it compare to this?

Because I think it's like if there were something off the shelf that we can have, like we'd be ahead of where we are, right?

Yeah, so as we've presented this analogy to you before in the past, it's like turning a ship.

Um we were really looking to get the current budget approved.

That would that's where all the focus and attention was.

Um we are still in the beginning of that process.

There's no new major updates to report at this time, aside from we have done an internal inventory of all the performance measures that are tracked right now.

It's it's clocking in around 730 performance measures across all departments.

Um we're trying to distill that down to something that we can just deliver to you all so you have a longer list to look at.

Um I will say at the end of September, this is really important.

I I should have led with this.

The city council is having another off-site uh kind of strategic planning session, and so um that will be led by consultants.

They will hopefully develop priorities that come out of that.

And so, based on those city council priorities, uh, I think that'll really set us in the direction of where we go um, where we want to go in terms of establishing more robust uh performance measures.

Umber Cook.

I think what I heard from one of the prior like talking points is that there exists a set of performance metrics today that are floating around internally.

It might be 700, it might be 900, there's some number today.

That the what we did with this analysis is we went into all of the PowerPoints and said, here's how these programs are being presented to the public to measure the effectiveness.

And you see, like just picking one randomly, economic development administration has been critical to implementing priority economic development projects uh that have been instrumental to the city's success and innovation and development.

No KPIs, there's nothing.

I don't I don't say that like sarcastically.

I'm sure there's work that's being done.

So in the spirit of like instead of us dropping this like analysis on these all programs and saying, hey, you're not tracking anything, can we just see what's being tracked today and use that to like inform what we want presented to us in the upcoming work plan?

Is that like a reasonable next step?

I mean, if that's a question, I guess towards me a little bit, but uh yeah, I think you know, as you collect these this sheet of X number of metrics, I think the idea was we would eventually get that copy, and then we'd be able to try to sort of create relationships between the things that are being collected and the programs that are in our uh quarterly report.

And then if there are metrics that we feel like we would like to see, um great, let's do that.

I think on top of that, we kind of wanted to create some standardized metrics, is what I'm hearing, and like what were those, what would those look like.

I think one of those would probably be like FT% of budget, stuff like that, or number of FTEs, etc.

Um, which we already have.

But yeah, I think at some point there's there's just gonna be this iterative process where like every six months or every year we're kind of working with the department to be like, maybe this isn't the right thing to track.

Maybe this is a maybe we have something else that we would be better.

Um this, you know, these are the things we're missing because we ended up tracking X instead of Y.

Um, maybe there's an equity lens we want to uh put onto it.

I don't know.

There's just there could be lots of iterations, and I think it's gonna also come down to like what each member here cares about most, right?

Um, because there's a lot of items on this list.

And in fact, we are told multiple times by staff to like just pick three or four of them and like just look at those four, like what do you care about most?

And I'm just like, no, I don't want to do that.

Like, I want to look at the whole thing because we manage the whole thing.

So we have members up here who probably care about something more than oh, others, and I would love for like them to be like the I'm gonna take this one and figure out like what metrics are the best and work with that department, and we're gonna you know jam on it.

Great.

Then like we start, you know, splitting up the work.

We start um discussing uh a bit more broadly about these or more specifically, I should say.

Um and then we just keep iterating.

And I think this will be more transparency for the public, it'll be better evaluation for us.

We'll be able to actually tell what each program's doing from an impact perspective.

Um, and then from that we can balance a budget because I don't know how I would c choose what to cut or or remove when I can't even figure out you know what's being done.

So um I think that's like it has to be in that sort of sequential order.

Um, but that's just my opinion.

Um I'm definitely you know, just one person of this group.

So uh member Sala or Smith.

Um so first things first, let me compliment you on this work.

This is really excellent.

Um, and I know how laborious the the the project like this is.

Um I'm actually a published author author on gov on govern uh performance and government programs.

Um I have had to sift through documents and and efforts like this many times.

So thank you for for doing this.

That being said, um I think that we have potentially admitted one critical step, and we've kind of alluded to it here and there, and I just want to bring us back to that, which is that in the formulation of whatever metrics we decide that we are going to use, and I strongly suggest that it should be case by case.

Um seems clearly that that's the direction that uh this uh the the ad hoc committee's been going in.

Um at some point we've got to take those metrics uh back to the back to the public and say, hey, what do you think about these?

Is this what you want this program to achieve?

Yeah.

Um either that or to build on an earlier idea, and I don't remember who brought it up.

Uh I think what might have been Commissioner uh Johnson.

Um we use that as a springboard or uh or or a lever to to get more butts and seats.

Um maybe I don't know.

Anyway, I'll leave my comments there.

Uh member Drosky or Navio.

I um I'm gonna try to make this make sense.

Um I agree, I like the idea of us adding in the measuring of metrics that they're already capturing, like we said, um, that makes it easy, they're already capturing it, they can give it to us in a really succinct way.

And to go along with that, you know, the more that we ask to be required in data collection, the less money actually goes to the c community, right?

Or goes to the actual programs because that takes time and that takes staff to actually do those evaluations.

I think though, and this is I think part of the conversation that we're going to have around um the community engagement part of like what is measure you and us being able to then, you know, when you look at the dashboard, you see the programs and it says like, okay, what's the purpose of the program?

What's the status that's already in there?

But can we actually map then that purpose back to what we are saying?

Measure you is, right?

So when we say this is what measure you is, yes, this program is this is the purpose of the program, but does that purpose actually map to what the goals of measure you are?

And then, you know, I'm gonna use an example that stands out to me, which is the police hiring pipeline, because it's a large part of the budget.

The purpose of it is to increase hiring and diversification.

They talk about like the programs in the camps that they have, but then so they're like they can talk about oh, we have all these participants, here's how many we have.

A very small percent actually end up being hired.

Are those that are being hired actually meeting diversification?

Are they coming from neighborhoods and communities that actually represent the communities, right?

So those are other questions that we can ask, and they can actually then map to the purposes.

So it's almost requires kind of a logic model to go along with the program.

So here's the program, here's what the inputs are, here's the activities, and here's the desired outcome short, medium, long term.

And then here are kind of the assumptions that we can have or the ways that we can evaluate it, and us being able to say, like, okay, yes, this does map back to what we say, measure you is here to do.

So if we're saying that public safety is a goal, does that hiring pipeline even work towards public safety, right?

And if it does, is it actually effective, right?

Because we're not a very small percent are actually being hired.

Like that's just an example.

So, but I think there are multiple that we could could do that with where we can map back, like, does this program actually meet what we think measure you is and what it's for uh member McGee.

To that point, when we're raising all of these um new a new rubric for them to adhere to, I think that we have to have the discussion be very transparent, even though we don't have the formative power to say yay, nay, yay or nay on the final budgeting of what they receive, that they understand that if they don't meet the criteria that we put forth and they're not showing that they're being physically fiscally responsible and meeting what we've set out as parameters that they know very clearly that we're gonna make the recommendation and that they are not funded by measure you.

Or whatever that what whatever the other side of that coin is, right?

I think they making that clear as well.

So to add that into the conversation.

Yeah, and I'll I'll add again to that, Commissioner McGee, that I think being able to and to what Commissioner Johnson said was you know, this is a place then where community members can come and they can have an opportunity to speak.

If you've ever seen a city council meeting, it's impossible, right?

To be able to have an opportunity to speak.

Um it's very difficult, it's packed.

Um, the meetings are fast, there's a lot in the agenda, but this is a space and a place where the community could hear those presentations and really have the opportunity to be heard on them.

Um even if the community doesn't come, it's us going and asking the community what is it that you want these funds spent on, and then whether the community's here or not, it's public record that we ask these questions and they weren't able to answer them, or we had these metrics, and this is what they told us, right?

So even if the community isn't here, we're here to represent the community.

We're here to ask the questions that the community has when we're talking to them.

People who don't have the opportunity or the privilege to be able to come here on a Monday night when they don't have child care or they don't have transportation, we're asking those questions the community, and then it's for the community on behalf of the community, and it's on public record now, right?

Um, so that transparency is there, that accountability is there for these programs, whether the community is here to ask it or not.

That's we're here to represent them.

Now member McGee.

Oh, I didn't have I didn't have anything further, but absolutely to your point, right?

We're doing the job and laying out, even though you know we don't have the final say, but that we make it very clear that you know that we are here to represent the public and it's not what we desire, it's what they desire.

And if it's not what they desire and they're not going to modify, then what that looks like for them, because that's part of the responsibility too, right?

Is to be very clear and very transparent, because the hope is is that if we are funding um programs that aren't meeting the needs of the community and we can um justifiably show that, then you know we've done our diligence in being fit financially and fiscally responsible on behalf of measure you dollars, um, separate from whatever might come through and be funded on the budget, but at least like you said, it goes on record.

I think I want to jump in here real quick because I I like this idea of like, does it tie back the goals of Measure U?

I think the question is what are the date, what is the data, both quantitative and qualitative that we would need to make that decision?

And so getting that into that quarterly report, I think is my objective here.

So if we can say, okay, given us given that you've told me X, Y, and Z about this program, I can determine whether or not we are meeting the criteria of yes, it it it embodies Measure U and it's having the impact that we desire, great.

Check, like now we move on to the next program, right?

Or it's not, and how do we modify or how do we adapt to the new situation or how do we improve, right?

Given that it doesn't.

So I think um I agree.

I think the question is how do we get to a point where we have the things that we need to make that call, both for us and if there are people of the public who wanted to, you know, make that decision for themselves and talk about it.

Um I think that's like to me, like a good iteration on this next, like sort of a next step.

Um, but uh go ahead, member Johnson.

Uh yeah, I just like to continue to try to go back to well, first I want to thank Commissioners Cook and George Off for the time.

I know how much time it took to go through the presentations that we already went through and then and to pull out the data.

Because I agree that's our job, right?

I'm I always try to go back to what our what our scope of our responsibilities are, and it's kind of all over the place a little bit, but I think the resolution establishing this commission is probably the the most helpful document in terms of what the city council asked us, and the purpose is highlighted to ensure that the expenditures of city resources reflect council and community priorities.

The committee shall review, report, and make non-binding recommendations on revenue and expenditures of certain funds from the taxations and use tax.

So, you know, it's vague, but review and report, we gotta have some metrics, right?

And I think I'm just gonna reiterate everyone saying I think we're on the right track, and I do think we should be specific spending the substantial amount of our time figuring out how do we review these expenditures because that's at the end of the day what our core responsibilities are and the ambiguity and the the language I think is to our benefit.

We can say we're gonna it's part measure you is part of the general fund, right?

Like if they want to say that it's part this is our little environment, and then we have to do that.

But that's you know, again, I keep using this tailwagon the dog, that's not our fault, right?

We are trying to do our job in terms of assessing the the effectiveness of these programs, and I think we're on the right track.

I don't think today we're gonna be able to say I want it to look like X, Y, and Z, but I definitely think this is on the right track so far.

I just wanted to reiterate that.

So what I really like what you said, and I think it's important that we be able to map, and I think what you said um, commissioner um about mapping what we know it's intended to fund and whether it's it's matching up, and then saying, is this how you want it spend so we can get people more engaged?

Because I watched Measure L.

I went to their meeting, and there was a lot of people attending, and their advisory.

I thought that they had the final say, but they didn't.

They made the recommendations just like us, and they um and it attracted a lot of people and a lot of feedback and engagement, but they were advisory as well, and the city council had one they didn't really make any changes, but they could have made changes.

They left it with it's it's in our hands, and we're gonna review your recommendations and we'll come back and either say yes or no.

But the community was engaged because they felt they had it, there was um an opportunity to weigh in on where the money was being spent.

And I think why we don't have people is we haven't been successful in portraying that like they have a rec, they they have an ability to have their voice heard in our recommendations to the city council, and it's up to them to either embrace our recommendations or not.

And um, and the community was there when they were making their decision, and there was people supporting you know what was being recommended and people that weren't supporting, but it was truly a process of I felt the community um engaged in in how that money was going to be spent.

That's what's lacking here, and if we can do something like that and attract the community to say, yes, you're you're gonna have a say in our recommendations.

Is this making sense for you?

And they feel like they can participate.

We'll get more people to come here for sure.

And and the key, the challenge is how do we now go out because measure you has been around for several years.

So, how do we now go about attracting the community to want to come in and participate in our recommendations?

And yes, we do represent the community, but how do we get um and we need to do both where we go to the community because it is a uh a privilege, I think, to come to city council to come to these meetings and people who are working and have families, they don't they don't have that privilege of time.

So we need to do both is is ensure that they come and we have a dialogue.

But how do we as commissioners go out and try to present it at the local level in our districts and engage people who may not have an opportunity to come here?

And I think that's that's the challenge.

And we I mean, we're already we're talking about what we talked about in our in our um ad hoc committee.

So but I I I really I like the suggestion of making sure that we can show them this is where it's going, and is is this where you want it to go?

Does it make sense?

And is it having in your viewpoint having an impact in your life because of of this program?

Um I see, like on the City of Sacramento website, City Auditor Report.

I don't know if it's still the thing.

There's an annual community survey, and it covers many aspects about the live the livability of Sacramento, many, many questions.

And there's an entire section.

I don't know the end size or anything, but there's an entire section related to like prioritizations of measure you funding, like how should the city prioritize the programs that get funded by measure you.

And granted, this is like a year old, two years old.

Uh can this survey be ran again for 2025 to get the feedback of what the broader community thinks.

Yeah, there was a gap in the um frequency of that survey, but the city auditor's office is gonna begin developing the next survey at some point this year.

I don't know if it'll go out this year, but um we will we plan to engage the commission in terms of if it wants to ask those same questions or a variation on those questions, so we'll definitely reach out.

So it's up to them, like it's it's an it's an optional survey, or do we push it, or like what are the mechanics to make the survey happen?

Sure, so high level, it's a scientific uh sample of um, you know, it's a representative sample, I should say, so all the results are statistically significant, so um they even over-sample underresponsive areas of the city just to kind of um compensate for areas that are more have a higher propensity to respond to surveys.

It is a survey that's mailed out by paper.

Um, so but that's how we control for all of the demographics and everything.

Um there's a separate survey that asks the exact same questions, it's called the open-ended survey.

So um we end up presenting both versions um of the survey, but the usually there's an emphasis on the uh representative sample that's statistically significant.

And then our influence on that, you said you would reach out if we had input on whether so historically, um I'm not even sure when it began, but at some point um one or more commissioners had interacted with the city auditor's office and kind of came up with the I think it was a request from the commission um to be able to ask specific questions specifically around community priorities um and measure you, and so um those of the three surveys, the three most recent surveys, um, it was a pretty similar question, but each year it varied a little bit.

And then in the most recent survey, which I think was 2022, that was when they actually asked if there was interest in participating in a focus group, and if so, to provide their contact information, and that's how you ended up with your focus groups that that occurred earlier this year.

The latest one was 2022, you're saying.

I believe so.

You have it.

2023, okay.

Maybe reported then or something like that.

Okay.

Got it.

So it's been a while then.

Yeah, so it used to be done every year, and then there was an idea of moving it every two years.

I I'm not even getting all of this right, I think, but um I I think the decision was to kind of move from annual to every two years.

So that's kind of the explanation for the current uh timing.

Oh, go ahead.

Sandra.

Oh uh go ahead, Member Fry Lucas.

Yes, and I'll put that in already see it.

Um the community's not here because we're not engaging.

You know, um, so we need to figure out how to do that.

That um I would be interested in learning more about how Measure L engages the community.

That'll give us a path.

I would also um be interested in knowing more about the neighborhood associations.

There are already groups that are established that we can go in and work with without putting together a separate activity.

I think that when we start putting separate activities together, it's even harder to get uh the common folk to come out.

If we use a core group like a neighborhood association and branch from that, we'll have a captive audience, and that's what I think we really need to move on, a captive audience.

People are there already, and to provide an incentive for them to answer some questions.

It may not be a focus group, it may be focused questions, and we have to look at it in a very creative way, and not because sometimes you talk about focus groups, uh low-income folks and folks in certain categories, they give us kind of a feeling about that.

So, you know, even when you talk about surveys and stuff, people you know can be intimidated by those things.

So we need to meet them where they are.

We don't need to create a separate situation.

Um member Salah or Member Smith.

So um asked me.

Because we were like we wanted to see the questions that were asked, uh, the last three surveys.

And we were at and I think I asked Ash, and he was gonna look in to see the auditor, they're getting ready to do their survey again.

If we can have a discussion with them about the timing and and having um additional questions around measure you at this survey.

The and they're very open to it, and we it was a collaborative effort because I remember the questions were bought, and the commit all commissioners weighed in on what at least the last two on the on the questions that should be asked, and um the auditor was yes, uh that'll work, no it can't because it could be too long, and there was all those issues.

But anyway, we had measure you questions in there, and that was good.

The only thing and all of us struggle with that is it is random and it's fire very scientific in the way it gets out, gets mailed out.

It's kind of a long survey.

And when you look at the demographics of who responded to it, it does not reflect our community because for all the reasons we know why.

They're not gonna respond to a lengthy survey, they don't have time for that.

Some of it they don't understand what it is, they don't even know how to respond to the questions, and so they don't, and it doesn't reflect our communities.

And and much the auditor this last time really tried to figure out a way, and I forgot what they did to try to try to get more uh diversity in the response.

They did something I can't remember what it was.

Do you think yeah, that was the oversampling method I talked about?

So basically, you know, they sent out a certain number of surveys to each neighborhood, but then in neighborhoods where they have there's like a low propensity to respond to surveys, they just sent it out to more households, and that kind of offset the the low propensity to respond.

I remember this survey.

That's the one that went out primarily in English, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so um we may have to delve a little more deeply into that issue.

I I mean I can't speak for any other district in the city, but our district um likely has at least four to five major linguistic groups in it.

Um we can't absolutely can't tell you uh because the census data that should apply to this aren't specific enough to indicate which groups are but but we do know um because of census data that um more people in district two are uh linguistically isolated, meaning they uh speak in the ling a language other than English and do not speak English proficiently to communicate with more than two or three members of in their family.

If these are the people who are receiving the survey, um we may have to engineer our uh our response mechanisms a little bit better than just sending out a paper survey in in in a language they don't understand and saying, hey, can you tell us what you like?

Yeah, yeah.

Just saying.

So I do want to quickly like break so we're we're definitely moving into like item six, which is like the outreach section of our discussion calendar.

Um as a final uh what we we are just rolling through it, yeah.

Um basically I just want to or sorry, so I want to put a cap on number four, uh, which is basically the uh the like spreadsheet of all the metrics that we've extracted.

Um I want to make sure that the commission is like I I think I a few senses that like this is in the right direction.

Obviously, we want to make changes to it eventually, and I think I mean myself included.

Um but given that we have a meeting in about a week with Pete and some others, um, it's just does is there anything that is like you know, big red flag, like this is something I want to change, or um I definitely want to go into that meeting thinking about how like we eventually want this to be impact driven, right?

Yes, it's currently just like what you're collecting.

I think that's like a very large consensus from the group, but um, you know, we'll we'll hopefully we can work our way there.

Um is there anything else that I guess um stuck out that people want to ensure gets mentioned in that meeting or um as we work through this, what are the things that you feel like are missing?

Yeah.

Um okay, go ahead, uh member Trotsky or Navya.

Um my point is actually related to this, uh, and I'm gonna appreciate that conversation and piggybacks to what uh Commissioner Fry Lucas mentioned before, and this is also probably uh a little bit more if you can provide um Ash on clarity.

How is all this data now being collected?

Make sure that it makes sense so it can then be presented not only to the public, but then to each one of our commissions.

And does that come to a pointing where if we do all of this, which it seems that it will, it should add on to everything else that staff is doing, or does it come to a pointing where out of this commission we need to start to figure it out a way, a mechanism in which we can make some sort of allocation so a few more FTEs can be added to a department.

So all of this can happen and then can be disseminated to then be utilized not only internally but externally.

Is that something that um can we do or can we set up as a priority that can not only impact the work that we do in, but also all the commissions, including um the mayor and the city council.

That's definitely uh a recommendation you can make.

The city does have a new data and analytics office within the IT department.

They're currently Do you know how many folks?

Uh it is about seven, six or seven folks, but what I was gonna say is nobody on that team is dedicated to doing that work.

They're all pulled from other IT related jobs, and so um, you know, it is an effort that the city does want to move forward, but we we could definitely use more resources in terms of moving that along.

Um I will just say, you know, our primary um platform for publishing performance metrics is the city budget.

And so um that's kind of the only place where we really have an external focus.

This list I referenced earlier of 700 plus performance measures, most of those are just used internally to drive internal um data-driven decision making.

And so um, you know, as a result of this work though, and depending on on where it goes, you know, we'll have the ability to kind of think more strategically about how we publish data externally and kind of um you know, look at ways to improve those processes.

Uh member Fry Lucas.

Uh yes, I had a question, and then I had an observation.

My observation is that when we get documents, they're all under different formats.

And it makes it very difficult to follow our priorities.

I have seen three different spreadsheets and all have something different on them.

I have a spreadsheet that doesn't have any of this stuff that was on the latest spreadsheet.

It would be nice if every spreadsheet showed our showed our priority in order the same way.

When reports are given to us, I think it's important to do that in those reports also.

As I go through these documents and I've gone through a lot of them, it's almost as though we're being set up to be confused.

Because it makes no sense the way the data is coming to us, is all over the place.

So we need to establish how that information comes.

And being an elder in this group, I am not one who can compare documents on the computer.

I require hard copies because I like to go back and forth and put them together and this and that, and all those little things at the top are too confusing for me.

And so when I have a when you when you experience these reports and hard copy, it will be a different experience for you.

You will see more discrepancies than you will catch with all those little flags across the top of your computer.

So I advise y'all to look into that.

My question to Teddy is when you go and talk to the budget office, is this document what you're gonna talk about without any questions about the quality of what they're doing?

Are we just focusing on numbers?

I think you know um this is not a catch-all meeting, right?

It's just like one of the few avenues that we're pursuing as a commission, right?

Um and I think there's definitely a concern about um quality, but it's not the objective, at least of this meeting, in my view, to like focus on that yet.

I think there's definitely a concern, right?

And like I said, I really want to be this is like uh to be frank, um it was like quite difficult to negotiate to even get something that would be done.

Um like we have to already agree that we're gonna use metrics that are already captured, right?

We're not presenting new metrics.

Um we had to wait till after budget season was done because they were busy during budget season.

Uh so there's a lot of negotiations to like compress and confine, you know, what we're even asking for.

Simple simple ask, right?

And I really hope that like this is again sort of like our way in to springboard and do all those things that we all care about.

Um which I think everyone here has had great suggestions and recommendations.

Um but we need to find a way to like you know, sort of chisel our our way into the process, and then once we're in that process, let's talk quality.

Let's talk uh impact versus um just numbers or chick tick boxes checked or whatever, and let's talk um you know accountability, let's talk impact.

Let's talk community qualitative.

Uh let's talk how does it measure up to measure use actual objectives, right?

Does it?

Um and so, yeah, for me that my goal is to really just like get some sort of process rolling and then have an iterative process, and then all these things can sort of hold it.

Well, you know, while you're chiseling, it's gonna be important to build trust, yeah.

And you need to let them anticipate what we're going to be asking.

And we don't want to go on there, you know, with a bunch of stuff and they're not anticipating that we're gonna do that.

Because the thing that they can do to stall us all is to say, well, you said we need to have this, and now you're talking about this, this, and this.

So I I'm hoping that you'll lay out some expectations.

They say things like, if you hired um the the police department's working on diversity, they've hired 40 people.

Out of those 40 people, how many are diverse?

Two.

That's a different picture.

You have more, the one to how many you got all these folks, and only two are diverse, and all these people are recruiting those two people.

That's quality.

Um the idea of the golf situation here, I think is very interesting.

We're paying the lease for all of the golf courses in Sacramento.

How many of our people are on those golf courses?

What's that for?

One.

One out of okay, because he's you know, he always wants to cause trouble.

But you are you absolutely understand what I'm talking about.

Because you did it as an adult.

I'm talking about our young people, and I and I suspect that on these golf courses, they're not children or are young people like me running around or like any of these folks.

So I'm not really interested in paying release.

So that's the qualitative part.

Now, for me, I love the fact that like those two things you mentioned, I feel like emerge from even just like the little bit of data extraction that we've done, right?

And so I think the more that we kind of like roll on that ball, the more things that'll come to the light, as you said, start comparing side to side.

Uh we'll get you a printout for sure.

Yeah, I mean, really.

Uh, you know, we'll we can go from there.

Okay, so it sounds like again, no everyone's sort of okay, we're going in this direction.

Um it'll be iterative, it might take a little while to get where we want, but um, yeah, it sounds like at least most of us agree.

Cool.

All right, I don't think there was anything to vote on for this as well.

It's just like sort of a discussion item.

So we will move on to well, actually, we should probably do the 30-minute thing.

We should, yes.

We will need a motion to extend the meeting.

Is there a is there a motion?

Uh have a motion.

Second.

So I have a motion by member Wolf and a second by member Goris.

Okay.

And we'll try to be quick, but um all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, extensions.

How much was that?

That was I.

That wasn't I oppose.

Oh, you opposed, okay.

Oh, yeah, one opposed.

Uh member uh Rosa opposes.

Uh with that the motion passes, and the meeting will be extended an additional hour.

Also, if you do have to leave, you're more than welcome to.

We still have quorum.

Um the last item, again, I I hope we can be quick because we've actually already talked about it quite a bit.

Um, but we'll be number six, which is the community outreach and engagement.

Um obviously, I think we all think this is extremely important, and given that we talked about it in our goals, um, I I would agree.

But uh Member Sala, do you want to sort of introduce this since you so just to reiterate um the members on this committee, and um I apologize for those that weren't able to attend, but um it's Commissioner Fry Lucas, Commissioner Goris, Commissioner Pascual, Commissioner Rosa, and Commissioner Wolf are on this um outreach committee, but not the ones that were able to attend was Commissioner Lucas, Commissioner Goris, Commissioner Pascual.

Oh, and I forgot you, Commissioner, you're on there as well.

Did you get my email?

I did.

Oh, okay.

Um so and it was only an hour, and it was our first meeting, and we I gave uh just an overview of what had been done in the past with this ad hoc committee that existed before uh we got rid of the ad hoc committees, or not we, but um the city council did away with the ad hocs, and we we struggled to everything basically when the ad hocs went away, everything just didn't happen.

But prior to that, we were struggling with the same thing we're struggling today is how do we get how do we engage the community and how and at that point we were we were the debate was really focused on how do we get people to know what what measure you is and what is measure you funding.

So that's why you see those signs, and we came up with the logo funded by measure you and the U, we spent quite a bit of time in the city worked with us on coming up with that, and the intent was that everyone who receives measure you funds needed a advertise that that this was funded for by measure you.

I don't think that is the case in every situation, but it it's there's more signs like that than there was in the past.

We did we did talk about having each commissioner include some kind of verbiage in um in their newsletters about measure you.

Did you know measure you funded this, or this is what measure you is and doing, and um that they could put in their newsletter because each council member has a newsletter.

That never really happened.

I it yeah, didn't really happen, other than commissioners talking to their council members, letting them know what um the and they usually take notice around budget, like what do you what are your recommendations going to be?

And they might inform us this is what we would like the priority to be.

So I I gave that overview.

Um and then we had a discussion.

I think uh Commissioner Fry Lucas brought that up, and and we've touched on it in this whole discussion is that if all of us are on the same page of what is measure you and what was the ordinance that was passed, and really on the same page, and we thought we haven't had that discussion amongst ourselves as commissioners.

We're assuming that we all are on the same page and we have the same understanding, but we're not sure.

So um we thought that that would be really important, and then also the the ordinance, really knowing what the ordinance says.

He's good, he reads it, and um and I um I kind of when I first got on, I I didn't I kind of read it, but not really.

So it was an eye-opening experience for me to realize what we can't, we're only making recommendations, and etc.

So anyway, so that was the other one is we we spoke and we already spoke about it here, is how do we engage the community?

Because there are communities not engaged and there our voices aren't being heard, and so we thought of the focus groups and maybe not using a focus groups, but I really like your idea, and I think it's it's a good one, is um going, you know, each in each of our districts there are um neighborhood associations, and we can say once we have something to present other than that the dashboard, this is what we are, but really something to present to them.

This is where the money's going.

What do you think about it?

This is what they're saying is happening.

How is that um is that go along, or you agree with it in the way you voted for it?

Because there is a disconnect between what we voted for and what the ordinance actually said.

So and I and the city always comes back and says, Um, but it's in the ordinance, so it doesn't say it has to go for this specific thing, even though when we voted for it, that's what we were told that it was it was to really fund uh neighborhoods that were historically disadvantaged.

The um and so we've already spoken a lot about how we're gonna engage, and I think we we need to come up with a definitive plan, and this was our first meeting, so we're not there yet, but uh we uh we spoke about the auditor and the surveys.

We need to go back and meet with them and collaborate and see if it's even possible, and I'm also aware too that because of all the um reductions that have happened.

Maybe they didn't they didn't um lay off anybody or reduce FTs, but they're still being their expectation is you're gonna do more with less.

And so, how does the staff manage that?

And the auditors being asked to do a lot more with less because they couldn't hire, they couldn't fill those open positions, those were the savings that they were doing or having to make.

But if they do do a survey, I would like for us to look at how we can insert questions and and look at what the past questions were, and does that make sense, or do we want to change it and um and oh I would we already talked about the focus groups and definitely community engagement?

It's kind of been for me an important piece because that that whole department they have like six FTEs that is completely funded by Measure U.

But I I want to see how how that can be um uh partner with us, and they can really help us in what we're trying to do in doing um community engagement.

I'll give you an example.

They have a monthly city connect meetings, and I haven't I've I I try to go to most of them, but and and commissioners you should also go because there are I've seen some of you, but but a lot, and I thought for the first time I saw you because you're a commissioner now.

Um so but I there's nothing there, the dashboard's not there, there's nothing there, they don't need they don't even have the sign that we're we're funded by measure you that promotes measure you, and I would I would like that to change, but um Lynette, the director, she was out of the country, so she didn't attend our first meeting, but I'll make sure that she's in attendance in our all of our meetings.

I want to make sure that um that department supports our efforts, and um there was one issue that came up and that kind of I think related to the budget was um Commissioner Fry Lucas says she's been asking about and asked it several times, we've never gotten an answer, and maybe you can find the answer.

Three million dollars of measure you fund is funding three full-time three FTs, and the thing is where is that money going?

It's 11 million dollars, it's three million dollars for three full-time equivalent FTs.

What is that office and what is it, and what are those FTEs doing?

And and I remember you asking that to the finance, and they they couldn't answer it.

They was very vague, their answer was very vague, and they said something about insurance and liability and something didn't make sense.

So I I think that's it.

Did I did I cover everything?

Yeah, or did it actually a miscellaneous cost of 11 million, and then in the revised one I see is the cost of a 10.5 million and uh basically the uh explanation is that we're paying for retirement and a whole bunch of stuff.

Yeah, but I would just like to see, and I've suggested to the group that it be a prototype and how we inquire what what does that 11 million dollars do for those three FTEs specifically?

And like you say, the three million, are they getting three million each, or you know, what is that?

How does that look?

Um so I'm just uh basically supporting what you're saying.

What kind of support we have FTE, we have 888 FTEs that we fund on the measure U as of that last year budget, so we're 62 percent of the budget, but when we ask for a stapler, we have to big.

I don't get it.

It's always an ask.

But we're we're funding all this stuff, but uh I just don't understand what we're getting out of funding all these people for all these things.

And um we are still hustling trying to get three or four inches of stuff printed, so we can look at it.

Uh every time you want to ask somebody, I feel like that people don't feel like they can ask the city to do anything.

I don't understand it.

Maybe I'm not picking up on it uh the right way.

But when we're we're throwing this, these kind of dollars around, advisory or not, most of us are advisory groups.

If you don't know you're an advisory group, you may as well go home.

If you don't think you have import, just go home.

You know, advisory is advisory, and in advisory can have impact.

But again, on that 11 million dollars, I feel like we are really not getting support as a commission uh for a lot of money that we're putting out there, basically.

That's where I'm coming from.

I can be a little tough sometimes, but hey, probably won't change.

And so um the goal is for us to well, one is would it would be nice to get that answered.

So if we're gonna have our next meeting of finance, that should be one of the questions that were asked.

And they should be able to respond.

Oh.

Can someone just send me an email?

Because I um I have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, but what?

I I just I was searching through for the 11 million or the three FTEs, and it's well again the documents are so uncon inconsistent until I will send it to you.

But I think that where you captured it is in this area on one of these.

I print out everything.

Um look, I'm an OG, I can't be going through all the other stuff.

Um it's 11 point, no, it's 10.6 million.

And then you oh, here it is.

Um the front page is called Measure U budget modifications, and then on page four of seven, it says miscellaneous cost, 10.8 million dollars, resources for commission stipends for various commissions with an S, expanded technology support, Sacramento utility rate assistance program, citywide employee services and benefit costs related to staffing by measure U.

This is the first document that didn't have the FTE on it.

And if you look at the document, there's several little things on here that doesn't have the FTE on it.

So I'm just saying that's an observation.

It's not a judgment, it's an observation.

I think I remember asking about or that being asked last time, and it was basically the increasing costs due to like insurance and um yeah, various other costs that come with uh having employees.

Um I don't remember exactly where it was on that sheet.

I'm trying to find it in the measure you budget dashboard.

I don't know if like it seems like since we we've updated it to the newest, maybe it's not even on here anymore.

I'm not sure.

No, the updated version that I got here has the miscellaneous, but it doesn't have the FTE listed.

Okay, and the others have the FTE listed, but under miscellaneous, it's paying for FTEs.

That's the inconsistency if you read it, you know.

Yeah, I'd like to see it all the same.

If miss if all the other reports have the amount that they're spending on, they have uh uh topic, public safety, they have the amount that public safety received, and then they have FTE listed.

I'm sorry, this is a very simple answer.

There are no FTEs funded under miscellaneous.

So that's so why are we paying benefits and staff funded?

It says here we're paying um citywide employee services, benefit costs related to staff funding.

Yeah, so we can get you a breakdown on what the miscellaneous expenditures are.

I'm just saying that they're not um going to FTEs, so that's why it's just not listed as FTEs.

But we're paying for benefits.

Uh it sounds like it.

Okay.

Yeah.

I think to your point, Sandra, uh, this might be aggressive.

You guys can tell me completely off base.

Or my feelings.

I've submitted public information act request acts to the city of Sacramento, like for certain types of information that I have not been able to get through other channels.

Like that is a mechanism you maybe we can pull is if the level of specificity you're getting with respect to like the 11 million dollars doesn't meet your criteria of detail that you want.

Submit a request act.

I'll submit like a public information request act on your behalf.

Um that's another lever you could pull.

To me, that's like the end game because it's going to force a response, and now you're in like a queue of a much broader like review committee.

But it works.

Well, I I well it I don't want to do that.

I think I don't think I should have to do that.

Me neither.

I think that if they're reporting on one thing, they should report it that one thing on everybody.

There's there's obviously some clear blanks here.

If we're paying for staff benefits and we're paying for services, and I'm gonna let this go, but you'll hear it again.

Why aren't where's the FTE and who are they?

What do they do?

Why do I have to use all my ink printing all this stuff?

I'm just saying, so you know, I'm not trying to resolve it here.

Thank you.

I did end up finding um the 6.28 million uh on our measure U dashboard.

The you just have to search for the priority for miscellaneous.

And as Ash said, there is zero FTE, but it is paying for like insurance of full-time employees or termination costs of full-time employees.

So it's like inadvertent, like I guess this is where it's like kind of weird.

It's like it's not actually a full-time employee, but it's in proxy too.

Uh that's just not enough for me.

I'm sorry, it's not I'm not saying it to you, Teddy.

I'm just saying it's a point of frustration for me because I'm used to more consistency in documents, and I just I don't know, I'm not feeling it.

I hear you.

I'll just the other point I'll make is just that um the document you're referencing is reflecting July 1st, 2025, which is about 48 days ago.

And so um we just haven't gotten to the point yet where we provide more detail, which is in the quarterly update.

So the first quarter update will cover July, August, and September, and so hopefully in October, November we'll have that update for you.

Um so at that point we'll have a lot more detail.

I think we'll try to expedite this and just get it a little bit sooner.

Because I, you know, I'm just curious what's in you know this year's 10.8 million for miscellaneous, but um typically we would have that detail in the first quarter update in that standardized format that we're used to in okay.

Um wanna move on to member Salah or Member Smith.

That did come up in the focus groups we had.

People caught saw that because we used the dashboard and they saw the miscellaneous and they asked and we couldn't answer it.

So if we're gonna go out and do engagement and really um share information, it has to be transparent.

So when you asked the question, the finance should have broken it down, just said, okay, so much is going for benefits, and this is what it is, and so much is going they should have broken it down, they never did.

So it left it very vague, and we're still trying to figure out, and I I um I agree with you.

And then the last piece, so part of our goal is is to come up with a draft plan of what our engagement would look like, and that we want to um have uh, and if if it doesn't work for the majority of the group is on the second, the second Wednesday of every month at a um Zoom meeting is for us to meet and start working on um coming up with some kind of draft plan that I don't know that we can do it for the September meeting, but maybe for the October we meet in September and we can have a draft plan of what that would look like and present it um for discussion uh to the commission in October.

That's it for me.

Uh member Wolf.

Yeah, sorry, I'm gonna premise what I think I'm going to say with a question just to make sure I'm not putting my foot in my mouth.

Um Ash, do we we we requested participatory budgeting be funded again?

We sent that to city council.

What's the status of that and what has happened?

The city council is not acted on your recommendation.

Is it been overtly or you know denied, or is it like I think one year I'll just describe to you what happened.

The letter that you all submitted to council, it had like five recommendations.

One of them was participatory budgeting.

They basically gave your other four recommendations and didn't give you the fifth one.

That's unfortunate.

I mean, because you know, we're on this conversation of community outreach and engagement.

And I really feel like the participatory budgeting project really kind of touched all of those boxes simultaneously in a really unique way.

Um it got the public engaged in what we were doing, it made them give us input into what projects they wanted funded in north or south Sacramento in a variety of different ways.

Um, and it's like it's it was like the lion's share of work that this committee did before I got involved over you know nearly four years ago.

And I don't know, I just think that was like a really unique time for the for the thing.

I don't I don't know if like I don't know, I I guess I'd be interested in hearing reasoning, right?

But that's probably a closed session meeting of some sorts.

Um, you know, obviously the former chair of this committee ran for mayor and you know, probably used that at some point as a launching pad for whatever she was doing with that.

But yeah, I don't know.

That project really just kind of was a catalyst for so many different functions of what this committee does and our kind of our mission, at least it was given in the city charter and in the the ordinance language.

Um so it's disappointing that you know we're not getting a full direct answer on it.

Because I really feel like it touches on number six on our agenda in a very thorough way.

Um I'm overstepping here, but I just want to say like the way it's been publicly discussed, because these are public meetings, is just it was the requests are coming at a time in of deficit when cuts are being made, and so the framing of why the the recommendation wasn't acted on was on the basis that there wasn't funding available, and if there was, there would have to be cuts made somewhere else.

And so I think the opportunity for the commission would be to attempt to articulate like how is participatory budget like part of the city's sort of governing philosophy where it's not seen as extra spending, but it it's part of of just how it does budgeting.

And so I guess I'm overstepping here, but it really is the you know, reasons we're given were around the deficit.

Yeah, I mean at the end of the day, right?

The city's budget's over a billion dollars.

This was a million million dollars that we you know had some kind of discretion over to allocate to truly good causes that benefited a lot of people in the community.

So um it is it is a little disappointing from my perspective that we can't find the funds to do that.

That's my my thoughts on that.

Uh member cook.

This is an observation on community engagement, specifically around like reaching out and connecting to people who are perhaps lower on the socioeconomic ladder, disenfranchised communities, grew up poor, stuff like that.

I think about like how I grew up in Del Paso Heights with my parents in like the 90s and the 2000s, and I I look back look back at them not once, not once than anyone in the city council or city government or some associated nonprofit proactively reach out to those and to my mom or dad.

And I'm saying this quite anecdotally, but like my thesis is that these individuals who would perhaps benefit the most from like measured youth funds as a result of like where they are in the social and economic ladder, they're not going to, they're not like they're working, they're not going to like to community outreach programs responding to emails.

They're not doing that.

I don't think they are.

It could be proven wrong, but I don't know, this might be a hot take.

Why why don't we go to like the Auton Del Paso Lat Rail Station and talk to the people or go to Seafood City and South Sack and talk to the people there and get feedback from normies instead of the one percent who has who wants to participate in city government?

Like my office is right across the street from Arden Del Paso Light Rail.

Would love to host you.

This way you have bathroom access.

Nice.

Let's make it happen.

Yeah.

Where's your office where's your office?

Uh literally on the corner of Arden in Del Paso, where the building with tools painted all over it, right across from the light rail station.

We just go like one day to the light rail station and ask people, hey, what do you think about measure you?

Do you know what it is?

Here's what we're here's what how it's being spent.

Do you like it, love it, or hate it?

Is that aggressive or can we do that?

I love it.

It has a social media campaign.

Talk to normies.

Yeah.

I could easily see a TikTok reel of that.

Special place in my heart.

Yeah.

I think like one of the things that we talked about some time ago, way before I became chair, was like getting socials up and running.

I think actually, remember Wolf was like, let's get a Facebook page or something.

I don't remember exactly what like, but I think we were not allowed to or something.

Um I don't think I we ever got a formal answer back on that either.

So I feel like No, no, no, we have.

We've we I don't I'm not gonna remember the exact reasons, but it it just has to do with being an official the city has a social media policy, there's certain rules around that.

Um but I can get back to you with this.

We we wouldn't have creative control of said account, correct?

Or we could have input on it or something.

I I I really don't remember either.

I don't remember getting a specific answer back.

I might have missed, but I've missed a few meetings, so all right.

You did give an answer.

That's the only I just and I'm happy if if there are any questions between meetings, like feel free to reach out, like I'm super available.

Um I just don't want you all to feel like like we're like withholding information or ignoring you or anything like that.

We are happy to um answer any requests you have.

I just we have to kind of tease out like what's sort of just an off the cuff comment from the dias versus something that you're like, oh, I want to follow up and use gatekeeping in this city, Ashley.

Do give us a name.

Tell us who it is.

That being said, though, I think like working with Lynette is probably the right answer, right?

So let's keep that connection strong.

And then um, yeah, go ahead, member Salah or Smith.

Um, so when we presented our recommendations to the budget and audit, because that's where it went, and then from there, because we were so behind it.

Um that was it, and they were gonna incorporate it, or with the budget was already done when we presented a budget and audit.

And the only one who really supported our request for participatory budgeting was um council member um Ma Yang, and she she went and advocated for it.

She was supportive of it, but she was the only one, no one else.

Uh but I really agree with you that participatory budgeting was a great example of true community engagement.

The communities came out and they they gave their feedback where they think where they thought the money should go and what should be funded, and then they stayed engaged and then they voted for the top top ideas that came out of all of this discussion.

So it was a it was a great model of um community engagement and the people being able to weigh in on the budget, a small million dollars, but but so I don't know how to and maybe that should be part of our plan, and we just keep hitting and hitting and just saying that we need to fund participatory budgeting because it also helped um.

I mean, when they the city talks about wanting participate people to participate in the budget.

This past year was horrible.

There was no participation from the community in the budget discussion.

Uh so but they want they want um community to participate, but they don't get they don't they don't know how to do it, but participatory budgeting with that.

So that should be I think part of our plan as well.

And we just keep mentioning it and just saying that that's uh community engagement, not only for measure you, but also for the budget process for the city.

I think for me, the um two avenues of success for that was is one proving through the data that it was more effective use of money than putting it elsewhere, which I think we frankly did do.

Um and the second uh path of that is when we can't we had all this individuals here who receive funds and first telling us about all they've done, almost all of them agreed that they would show up one day if we went to the uh city council and were like asking for these funds that they would plead their case of like how many people they were able to help, like impact and value.

Um those two things combined.

I feel like you have a pretty strong case for you know a million bucks, like you know a million bucks.

A million bucks.

Small role of a million bucks.

Yeah.

Um so I think it should be a goal, yeah.

Um member Pascal.

I think if we're gonna make that our like a primary goal for the next year, we ought to spend more time, like really making a robust plan around it, where you know, we lay out a timeline where every one of us goes and meets with their council member, where we all reach out to community groups and ask them to write letters and support, where we go back to all the people who participate and ask them to write letters, we get them on the agenda with more than like two days' notice.

Um so it's like we really bring all of the resources that we have to bear in terms of connections, you know, knowledge of the process and all of that, and focus it on that one thing.

I think we'd have more success.

Thank you, Ms.

Chair.

Um, yeah, so I just want to kind of uh piggyback on the com the last comments.

I think um Commissioner Saul is absolutely right.

We definitely have to keep this on the radar and keep mentioning and tipping away.

This was not something that just happened over a year of discussion.

We chipped away at this for about three years, going back and forth, going back and forth.

So we have to keep it going and keep it.

I definitely think it should be a priority for the 2026 um work plan.

Thank you.

I know I'm always quick to bring up the uh ad hoc, but to me it sounds like there may be some space here for participant participatory budgeting ad hoc.

Um because I agree, I think it takes a lot of advocacy to get something like this going, and that does involve meeting with the city council members.

It does involve reaching out to those groups, having meetings with them, right?

Which we can't really do effectively here, I feel.

Um, so like you know, going to some cafe with all the people who receive funding, whoever's willing to show up and coming up with a plan.

Um, but I don't want to like push that ad hoc uh thing too frequently.

But we have them now, so I feel like we should use them if we can.

You want to say something?

It looks like you're about to just I mean you have an outreach ad hoc already, but so if you if you feel a need to create a new ad hoc, I think it's in your progress.

Okay, all right.

It could be housed at community.

I think participatory budgeting can be outreach.

That's the that was that was the argument to try to keep it.

Let's merge it into one, and then I guess the outreach uh community group um can sort of wing put that under their wing as like participatory budgeting is a thing, yeah.

Because the truth is the logistics group.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, it's the same thing.

Yeah.

Um I'm curious of I I thought that the the groups because there was a lot of youth that were funded through the participatory budgeting and youth programs.

And I I felt like they were it was it was a starter for them to show how effective it was.

Do you know if any of them applied or received um funds for through measure L.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh sorry, um, I don't want to speak out of turn.

So I I kind of reviewed some of the applications as a representative of this body, and we did have some um return um agencies that came came back to the table.

So um it's going through the process now, but we did our little rate sheet and everything for them.

Good, good.

Good.

Okay, is there anything else on this item?

If not, we can continue going once, going twice.

Okay, cool.

For the record, we had no public comments on this item.

Thanks for that.

Um so the next item is budget ad hoc committee updates.

I think we covered that in item number four.

Um and metrics as well.

I actually I take that back.

Metrics ad hoc committee updates were covered.

Budget ad hoc has not met since uh because I guess that would be the group that's gonna need to do the yearly report potentially.

Um and it's they still have time.

So and then community engagement.

I think it also there's a lot of crossover between metrics and ad hoc, or sorry, metrics and metrics ad hoc and budget ad hoc, and they're kind of doing the same work.

So um, yeah.

That being said, community engagement outreach ad hoc committee updates.

I feel like we also just got those.

So that's covered.

Um commissioner comments, ideas, and questions.

Uh so feel free to does anyone have any ideas and questions.

Uh member Wolf, go ahead.

Sorry, we are we closing it?

Since the end of the meeting, right?

Yeah, so I'm gonna talk for a little bit.

I mean, obviously, I think the city has a unique set of challenges, right?

I mean, most government agencies are not doing fantastic right now in terms of revenue.

Um City of Sacramento is no different in that right aspect.

SCIU 1000 is most of you saw was able to get their work at home extended another year.

So the same conversation will be coming back.

Yeah, I mean, it saves the state a couple hundred hundred million dollars, right, to do it that way.

Wait, we all want government to be more efficient and more effective.

Um same time, right?

The city of Sacramento, therefore, is has less foot traffic during the day, which they've relied on for decades to bring people downtown, mostly state workers shopping, getting lunch, etc.

So it's like I don't know, the city is not a unique place where it's kind of like needs to make up that budget shortfall.

And I don't know, I think this is a unique opportunity for like where's the city going, right?

There's a lot of positive things happening, right?

Let's not say there isn't.

Right.

The rail yards development, like there's so many good things that are happening when I like read the news or look outside.

Um but yeah, it's just like there's still the the downtown core is still like very underutilized in my mind.

A lot of those buildings are continue to sit vacant, um, unappreciated and definitely unused.

So it's like I don't know, I'm hoping people can start making deals and form some things and get those like get those big things accomplished for like at least the city's downtown.

When I moved here in 2013, I saw the city skyline, right?

As a young person going to Sack State, and I was like, wow, there's a downtown here.

There must be like tons of things happening, and like people, you know, but it's like this the downtown is this really underutilized.

People don't live here, right?

And it makes it harder for bars and restaurants to survive, and all of that affects the city's revenue as well.

Um so I don't know.

I think we need some some big some big ideas to really start bridging those gaps.

Um unfortunately, I will not be here for the foreseeable future to help bridge those gaps.

Um I'm just announcing that tonight's my last meeting.

Um I'm I've taken on some new opportunities and I'm moving to Los Angeles.

So Yeah, I uh thank you.

Yeah, so I just wanted to say thank you to everybody.

I appreciate all of your input and your your advocacy and your activism.

Also the city staff.

Sorry, I'm you know being being a little harsh tonight, but I know you guys work really hard on very technical, very technical items, and you're burdened by laws, unfortunately, that prevent you from moving as quickly as you'd like to sometimes.

And I know the work you guys put in every day is very uh is it shouldn't be overlooked and it should be appreciated.

So that's that's it from me, and thank you all of you for your time.

And it's been a it's been a joy to serve here with you.

So when would you gonna be doing it now like just there's a few jobs that are reaching out to me?

I work in campaigns and that kind of thing.

So I right now I'm remote.

Um but yeah, it's a it's a good opportunity for me, so I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna go while while it's available.

Oh well, have fun down there, and thanks for being a part of this committee.

I mean, you've been here third longest on the group so far, I think.

So like time flies when you're having fun.

Yeah.

Um so you will need to appoint a new uh or elect a new vice chair next meeting.

Okay, next meeting.

All right, uh Member Pascal.

Well, I don't know how to follow that.

Um, but congratulations.

Congratulations uh to our vice chair.

Um I guess I wanted this is I'm a little late, but I just wanted to give a shout out again to the um the data metrics team.

Um since literally day one when I joined this committee, we've been uh lamenting the lack of data and saying we really need more data, we really need more data.

And you guys actually have moved the ball.

Um and so I just wanted to thank you because I know it's a lot of extra effort, but hopefully we'll not go unrewarded.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Uh member Goris.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I before we wrap up, um, I would be remiss being you know the District 8 representative and not flexing my heart and hustle.

Um, so a great community engagement opportunity.

We have the fifth annual South Sac Festival happening um Saturday, uh August 23rd at Meadowview Park from 11 to 3.

So come on out, talk to community and come hang out.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Uh I also wanted to do one last thing, which was member Noveo actually went and met with the diversity equity group and had a good conversation.

Luckily it was recorded, so I got to watch it.

Um, but I really appreciate you doing that.

And I thought a lot of cool stuff came from that.

And hopefully we can have a bit more of a working uh relationship with them in the future.

So there's definitely a lot more conversations.

Yeah, yeah, for sure.

All right, and with that, uh any public comments matters on the agenda.

No speaker slips.

Uh then we are adjourned.

Yeah, I'm not gonna be a good thing.