We're ready when you are uh good evening.

Welcome to the April 27th, 2026 Measure New Community Advisory Committee uh meeting.

The meeting is now called to order.

Will the court clerk please call roll to establish a quorum?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, if you can please unmute your microphones.

Vice Chair McGee is absent.

Commissioner Smith?

Here.

Commissioner Solo?

Here.

Commissioner Cook?

Here.

Commissioner Miller?

Here.

Commissioner Johnston?

Here.

Commissioner Ruiz Benidez is absent.

Commissioner Novello?

Here.

Commissioner Durofsky.

Yeah.

Commissioner Bashal.

Here.

Commissioner Fry Lucas?

Yeah.

Commissioner Rosa is absent.

And Chair George.

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

I'd like to remind members of the public and chambers that if you'd like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip before the item begins.

After the item is called, we'll no longer accept speaker slips.

You'll have two minutes to speak once you are called on.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

Um member Droski, would you be willing to lead us in the pledge in the right and honor Sacramento's independent block?

Hadouan Wentu Peoples and the people of the Wilton Rancheria.

Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' history contributions and lives.

Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

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

Thank you very much for that.

Normally we would have a consent calendar, but we actually don't because this is a special setting, uh special meeting.

So we just go straight to the discussion calendar.

So we will start with just the one and only item, uh, which is the approval of the measure you budget recommendations.

Um I want to start by just doing a quick little intro.

Um there's been a few people who have come to me and asked for like to us to expedite how we operate.

Um I guess I want to level set the forum for what we're trying to accomplish here, which is not to debate in this environment.

I think the idea is like get your points out of what you want to say, but realize we're gonna have disagreements, and that's okay.

So we're gonna move to voting almost like as as fast as possible.

So essentially once everyone has said their piece on something, we'll we'll take a vote, we'll be like, do we agree with this amendment or not?

And then we'll move on.

Um just try to expedite things along.

I think the place for debate and long form discussion is in ad hoc, right?

And we have those available to us, and so we should use those to do that.

Um but without further ado, um we can get into it.

I would also recommend that obviously every program that we have in Measure U is important and has some impact, some positive impact in some way.

Um, and so when someone's like uh generally advocates for an increase in spending in some program or another, that budget does have to be balanced at the end of the day.

So that also means that it has to come from somewhere.

So for us to just constantly uh to be frequently say, let's uh enhance this program or let's build on this program.

We need to figure out where's that money coming from, and so which program does it get pulled from, meaning what are we reducing as well?

And I think that's the harder question because it's very um easy to come up and say, yes, this is an important program.

They're all important programs, but where is that money gonna come from?

So I'd encourage people if you're gonna say let's put more into this or more into that, um, that they also come with a plan of where that's coming from.

Okay.

Um members, I invite you to speak.

Member Smith.

Um, well, I would recommend that we strike points three and four in any and all uh content in the document.

Um related to points three and four.

I'd also recommend that we um we uh take up uh additional um recommendations specifically related to one participatory budgeting, uh which we've said that we would like to see more of in the coming years.

We have not made a request, we have not made a recommendation regarding that issue.

Uh and also regarding um issues that people were good enough to come here and testify before us.

Last week we had uh record attendance, which I was thrilled about, um, but people also didn't get to testify.

In fact, materials were submitted related to a public bank.

That uh those folks recently appeared at a city council meeting.

Uh the request was for uh 250,000 to fund a public bank.

I uh agree with your recommendations around uh point one.

Um if it if we are not going to fund uh the police department, it seems as though we have ample funds to um recommend be spent on other programs like a public bank.

Um I'm also kind of partial to the tree guy who showed up a couple of months ago.

Uh I'd love to see that guy get something because the the pro I'd love to see funding for the program he was advocating for because um I just I love trees, what can I say?

Anyway, uh those are that's pretty much what comments thank you.

Um I wanted to focus my comments are more I even just start with some questions around the outsourcing recommendation.

The first thing I wanted to understand is I the finding around the programs um that 50% of the budget are made up of 50 of FTEs, is that um or half of every dollar goes to city labor and benefits before service is delivered.

I guess maybe I'm reading the materials wrong, but my understanding was that the labor cost is a part of delivering the service.

So um I think that's an important distinction.

Um and then I guess I wanted to um just note also that um I think this recommendation has some potential like long-term implications, like for example, if costs are being cut by paying contractors with that provide less wages and less in terms of benefits.

There's a cost to that in terms of the city economics, there's a cost in terms of the future, you know.

If people don't have, you know, one of the notes here is that oh, there's a significant cost around retirement benefits, but if people retire without a solid pension, then they're gonna be using other social services.

So I think there's a lot um built into that that um we need to consider.

Um, and also to consider that um government employment is also um an important sort of um equity path.

Um particularly for um um historically marginalized communities.

Uh that's an important pathway into the middle class um that isn't always available in other places.

Um union contract provides enforcement against discrimination and uh other poor employment practices that folks um outside of the public sector haven't always had.

Um so uh just wanted to throw that out there.

I will disclose I I uh work a lot with labor unions.

I bring a certain perspective to this issue.

I don't work with any of the labor unions that the city um uh workforce is represented by, but um those are just some kind of concerns I bring from working in this area um for a long time.

Member Solar Yes, um thank you.

I so I just want to understand the process.

We're gonna talk about the overall document and recommendations, or are we gonna try to take on each recommendation put forth and have a discussion and then agree or not agree?

Is that the process?

Yeah, the process I would like to do is essentially everyone uh talk to their big points first.

I'm writing every single one of these down, um, and then we'll go through them.

Okay.

Um so I agree, I don't so I don't agree with one and two, and the reason is I know that maybe it needs to be um a different name, but I was here when um high schoolers came.

I was at the city council when high schoolers came and talked about the academies that exist in their schools in Valley High, and there was another maybe it was Grant, and they spoke about what it meant to be part of the academy, which the pipeline program funds these academies that lead to the eventually a community resource officer that eventually will lead to them applying and getting into the police academy.

And we we when I was when we were voting a couple years ago on taking measure U money from funding these programs, it was because we want eventually our the police department and the fire department to reflect the community they serve and also and and both also to build trust between the community and these elements, these two departments that could in underserved communities a lack of trust.

So getting doing away with these programs, and what I heard in the when these students came, they didn't come here, they went to city council, and there it would be it was full of students, mainly black and brown students, talking about the impact these programs has had for them in being part of it in the fire department.

You have the um girls' summer camps and what and they've all testified about the importance of that and what it's meant to them.

It's a long-term project that maybe you we don't see exactly the outcomes and the numbers we want, but it's gonna pay in its dividends and and doing away with the funding of these programs.

I I don't support because it's ultimately gonna affect the community and these young people that that's turning them on to the possibility that they can't be uh police officer or they can get be uh uh firefighter.

So I I don't agree with that.

And then the other I don't agree with three, so much like our um Commissioner Smith indicated, I don't agree with that as well because our libraries they're they act as a they provide a lot of services, they're not just a place to have books, they they provide a lot of services in our community for young people for seniors to come and have respite to access programs to access computers when during COVID, they were essential, they were essential to our young people and to our seniors.

It was their way of being connected to the world.

So I I it's not only just books, they're they're a resource in our community, and especially in underserved communities, that there's no other place for young people to go or older or seniors to to go.

So I I don't, and then outsourcing.

I I as you all know, I I I attend most of city council meetings, and I remember clearly, and I did verify this because I thought maybe I misunderstood, that there are certain council members that are stating that they want to get away from outsourcing work because that's money that could go to to a current staff person or hiring a staff person.

Um that leads to long-term employment, long-term stability in our community, economic stability, because if you're hired here as a city employee, you get benefits, retirement, and stability.

It's a great job, and I don't want to encourage outsourcing.

The reason why it's inexpensive is because it contractors don't pay, they'll pay minimum wage, they won't give them benefits.

There's a lot of things that um subcontractors do to come in and get the lowest bid from the city.

So I don't agree with that, and I think that should be um it's not a proven record.

It is it does reduce costs, but in the long term, it affects our community.

And um the others are are okay.

The other there's a couple things that are not mentioned here.

I'm gonna can I move on to someone else and then we'll come back to you just to keep time going.

Okay.

You don't mind, yeah.

Sure.

Uh member Johnston.

Yes.

So I have um a few comments.

Um and first I want to confirm that Commissioner Smith, you're talking and Commissioner Saul talking about 1.3 and 1.4, not three and four.

Because I'm looking at there's a big point four.

Bullet points three and four and the content in the report that's related to the you're talking about the accountability framework and the alignment notes.

Oh, you're talking about the headline calls.

So I'm referring to the library's issue and the outsource edition.

Okay.

So it's like 1.3, 1.4.

Okay.

Yeah.

So there's I I first would like the ad hoc committee, which I think might be you doing most of the work, kind of giving more explanation on some of this because I've sat here through all of them and I kind of remember a lot of the details, but it'd be helpful to kind of put the pieces together on the justification behind these a little bit more than what's in here.

Um in terms of specifics here.

I don't have strong feelings about 1.1 and 1.2.

I have strong feelings about 1.3, and um I I just want more explanation on it.

Though I will say about 1.3.

I understand that the community survey report put in terms of preference uh libraries a little lower, but it was still very high, 70% more.

My concern is I'm just never gonna vote for a lower fund ring of libraries.

That's the only two things.

That was one of the only services that was on both ballot propositions for 2012 and or 2012 and 2018.

Always forget the years 2016, 2018.

Yeah.

And a whole host of other things.

Uh it was in our recommendation last time.

I don't see any evidence to change that.

Our focus group, though I think our focus group had some limited scientific value there, unfortunately, said it was a priority.

City voters voted overwhelmingly for measure you not too long ago, which was to guarantee funding for libraries, and I think that's a really good objective measure of the community support for libraries.

Um just my personal experience, I'm very biased towards the libraries.

I'm there almost every other week, and I see a lot of people getting value out of that.

So it's really hard for me to see ever supporting any even a hold on it.

But I think the bigger concern for me is this is I feel like I'm beating a dead horse that this is all kind of arbitrary, anyways, because we're talking about the line drawing of what should the measure you budget be, but the measure you budget is part of the general fund, and who decides how it's decided to put in the measure you is um I don't want to say arbitrary, but it is subjective, right?

It's the policymakers and the data set goes here.

There's no it's it's no wonder why Yipsi is so into measure you.

They're not gonna defund if they move it out, they're still gonna get the money out of the general fund, right?

So my concern is that this recommendation is inhibiting our ability to do our job, because our job is to make sure that measure you funds are being spent in terms of how the community wants it.

And the only way to do that, I've come to the conclusion is by looking at the entire general fund.

And I've been meaning to write this memo, I've been writing it, I promise.

I will, I'm doing my best to get it next, is looking at all the ballot propositions and the city resolutions, and then just trying to think of like and tracing the money.

At the end of the day, I think it's just like we it's it's arbitrary.

So if you say like we want to lower library funds, there's no way the city council is gonna lower library funds.

They might lower what measure you says it is, but they're still gonna get the same amount of money anyway.

So it's kind of in my opinion, a little bit of a whack-a-mole to just look at this this line drawing measure you.

And I this is not the first time I brought it up.

But I think the point here is specifically made in the uh the non-measure you fit costs, right?

Shifting the lines from to from measure you to general funds.

Well, we could argue that could be for anything, right?

And so at the end of the day, it's not really I I don't want to say we're wasting our time here, but I want to say like we really need to look at the whole general fund to do our job of looking at how measure you funds, because else it's not looking at thinking looking at the full picture.

I think it's our obligation to look at it.

And I don't think that should be controversial, right?

Because everyone comes in here, even I've asked the police chief last week, and she said I consider it all part of the general of the general fund, and she's not the only one to say something, maybe not as explicit, but that is what they have all said.

Is like I look at it as kind of a big pie.

Might be a little bit for Yipsey because they get all their method from years you and some of the other ones, but at the end of the day, it's all general fund, and people may disagree, but I I think it's been pretty well established.

So um that's that's all to say is I just don't think we have enough information to really make a competent recommendation.

I've tried my I've been here for every meeting, we're all but one meeting.

I've looked at all the presentations, we've talked through, we're getting presented what is described as measure you budget, but that's not necessarily the commingle measure you funds.

So I tried my best, and I think um uh Commissioner George Raff Points is correct.

It's at some point you can't just advocate for everything to be in because you at some point you need to balance the budget, right?

So I was thinking, like, well, what do I feel most competent doing in making a full recommendation?

And it's sadly saying spend measure you funds the same way you have been doing, but with a promise to ourselves to have a more rigorous review over the next year that we've learned a lot.

We've now have a lot of consistency.

I think a lot of people have been here for a good amount of time, and to really look at the full scope of the budget and making recommendations based upon our purview of measure you of how it should be sent for the community.

So I I would be fine voting on the recommendation minus the library one, um, because at the end of the day, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference in terms of moving this back and forth.

I do think it sends a message, which is important, but I really I think one thing that I do want to articulate most strongly is I do think the accountability framework is really good, and I really like that because at the end of the day that's we spend a lot of time on the metrics and some form of accountability and the review cadence is really helpful.

Um, but I I that's the hill that I'm gonna die on is at measure you at the end of the day, is the general fund, and the general fund is measure you.

And I just don't I can't figure out a way to say one is the other and and sleep at 10 of things.

So that's my piece.

Sounds good.

Um we'll continue this for another like 15.

Uh assuming hopefully they'll be finished by then.

But uh member cook or member Miller.

I'll try to be brief and like organize this into the response in this document as well as like the co-mingling of the general fund with the measure you fund, which I do think is an overarching problem.

I think with respect to uh this document number one point one, uh, which is cutting public safety, we should really like reevaluate.

I think we can all agree that uh funding the youth, particularly those from underserved communities is a priority for measure you.

And if you look at what the public safety and law item is going to right now, it's exactly that.

Uh that program being funded by Measure U is the community service officer program.

These are young people who are from low-income areas, low-income high school, low-income communities who who are given high paying jobs.

I mean, think about um think about the affordability crisis the youth is experiencing today in the city of Sacramento.

Everything is really expensive for them, and the city is actually doing something to serve this people.

It's giving these young poor kids a high-paying job, and the icing on the cakes is that it's cultivating interest in public safety.

To me, like that is the best possible outcome is it's the intersection of both of those.

I I truly do think it's short-sighted to cut the community service line item, given all of that.

Moreover, the community service role is actually a community-facing role.

It is a wall between law enforcement officers and perhaps those lower priority non-emergency issues that the community service officers can actually do.

So it's really there's no downside to funding that that program.

And it actually aligns with the priorities of the city of Sacramento.

Read the last server that that just went out.

So if we are going to continue to fund the community service officer program, like where do we cut there are four departments that did not attend a single meeting this calendar year?

Community development, public works, community and culture, city attorney.

I just wanted to jump in and just clarify this was due to the amount of time on your agenda.

They provided written reports, and so I just want you to be cautious about admonishing departments and by implying that they're unwilling to present when they are.

I hear what you're saying.

I think we'll have to respect uh just agree to disagree.

Great minds can disagree.

Many reasons why they did or did not attend, but the facts are that these four departments did not attend.

We should put that in the recommendation that they should be prioritized for some type of defunding.

Number two, number three, there are $8 million of measure you funds that are covering general fund expenses.

That's $31 million.

That's that's an opportunity for cost savings right there.

So to put this all uh on a bow for you guys, number one remove the maintain uh remove the recommendation for public safety elimination that runs counter to the actual vision of measure you.

Number two, add a line that says we should prioritize defunding or addressing programs that did not attend a single meeting this year.

Uh number three we gotta decouple the measure you from the general fund.

I I I agree totally with with what you're saying, but because general fund and the measure you fund co-mingle together, it's very hard to draw a line in the sand where one end and one begins.

So we must make a recommendation that they must remain separate.

To me, that's the best possible outcome.

Thank you.

Member Droske.

Um, so I just wanted to say, like, I agree with um Commissioner Smith, what most of the commissioners who have mentioned, you know, wanting to kind of strike um three and four the library and the outsourcing from those recommendations.

Um I also think that just generally looking at the language in it, we're kind of reaching kind of beyond our role and our space in it.

There's a lot of like strong subjective language in there, calling things colossal failures, kind of like I I don't know how to best describe it, but a little bit like it was like uh like just kind of taking notes as someone was kind of talking through a process a little bit where you know you're like, well, you know, libraries aren't used that way anymore.

Like maybe we should just have less books and talking through it, and that's not really our role to make those types of recommendations.

I think we need to have like the actual data and information to justify it, it needs to be objective, it needs to be grounded in that data, and also what we've heard from the community, and as Commissioner Johnson said, you know, our job is to make sure that the funds are being used for the purpose to measure you's priorities.

It's not necessarily our role to find deficiencies in how the city government operates, um, but we can hold them to a standard and hold them accountable for reaching those goals when they come in and they give those reports and making sure that those programs are being operated in the spirit of measure you, that they are being effective, that they are having the goals and the outcomes that we're looking to achieve.

Yes, we can have those conversations with them then asking questions about like how could you make this more effective?

Have you looked at partnering with community organizations?

Have you done all of this?

Um, but I just think that some of the language in there is a little bit overarching or stepping beyond where we are.

It's uh a lot of opinions and not a lot of like objective information for us to be able to kind of um ground it all in.

Uh member Johnson.

I I know I already spoke, but I just want clarification because one, I I agree, but that language we got circulated, I think an updated draft that a lot of that taken out.

And I are we voting on the updated draft, are we voting on the new draft?

And I also want clarification.

I don't remember, I don't see point one point one.

Yeah, it's an agenda, but then we've also has been an updated one, yeah.

Um there's one available at the front on paper if you want it, and then there's also like I guess you just gave it to Clerk, it's stuff is moving quick.

Apologies, I should have said that earlier.

Um, but it's mostly the same.

Like the points still stand, but some of that language has been toned down.

Yeah, especially the language uh for the libraries.

But then I also I maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't see one removing fund recommending removing funding for the police hiring, it's just a restructuring.

So this is again, I think maybe a point of clarification of what are what are we actually voting on in terms of these recommendations, just because uh maybe we all have different understandings of what they mean.

Yeah, member Sulla.

Um, so can is there a way since you didn't get enough printed to to put it up there for everybody to see what we're talking about?

I think there's one that's printed down there.

We might be reading more copies, but then if you have it on laptop, that's the best because we have limited copies.

Oh, okay.

But I I can't get it up there, you know.

Okay, so I I have more to say, but I I don't want to say what I have to say unless everyone is done with the first round of discussions.

No, go ahead.

No, okay.

Um the executive summary, I I would like to.

This was good, but but I would like to use some of the language to remind everyone and remind ourselves what the language says.

The the first part of the ordinance says what were the measure use intended to fund, and that's for under so maybe up front, reiterate that again, just as a reminder.

Um, and then something positive, because we did some good work and finance.

We moved from presenting our recommendations after the fact to doing it before, and that was because the finance department has worked with us very and that should be acknowledged, and it should be acknowledged and be a positive thing that has happened, and there's no acknowledging we go right into pointing out um what you know, some deficiencies, and I think that I would like to see that in the executive summary, a positive because there was some good things that have occurred this past year with the finance department that never happened before, and the bit well, the benchmarking and all the work that you've been doing with the finance department, and that should be acknowledged.

Um then I'll say this and then I'll be done.

So the office of um the office of um violence prevention, there is no mention of them there, and I would like to see at least at a minimum, we mentioned that they should be funded for the next three years.

It's not increasing their monies, it's just saying for the next three years they should be funded, and that should be mentioned because if we don't mention it, um, it may or may not be overlooked, but that should be one of our priorities that we put in there and it should be mentioned.

And then with Yipsey there's no mention of Yipsi and there's a few things that last year we funded and I know there I realize the budget there has to be cut somewhere but at a at a minimum the this the stipends and scholarships that went to individuals that didn't have the resources to participate in their programs both senior and youth we should we should call that out as a priority that it you know and that um because in these underserved communities oftentimes they don't have the five dollars to pay to go and swim and if they don't have it there's a process that that can be waived or they don't whatever program a summer program they want to participate they don't have the resources and we can and if we call that out and continue it because last year we funded that measure you and then the and maybe it's going to be cut maybe not but it should be a priority for us that um the free bus program be funded again that's for youth and I've heard they've already been advocating for that this and maybe not for senior I was thinking senior but just maintain the free ride program for the youth the transit because it serves not only for them getting to where they need to get but also jobs.

And um I and there's no mention of it in here at all.

And then the last point and I know that economic development we barely had them present and there was no real discussion and there's no mention of do we want to continue to support that or do or not support it there's progress there's programs in economic development that are a priority like what they're doing on um in Del Paso and continue to support that the the community engagement maybe they can there can be some reduction but but we didn't have a time we didn't have a chance to ask questions and get a better understanding but there's no mention of them here and maybe it should be left up because we don't really weren't thoughtful in being able to look at those programs so um and then the last piece in I know the I don't agree with um Commissioner Cook as to saying I don't agree with that because we will lose credibility if we present saying if you don't come and present to us and give us the data and you don't come to our meetings we're not gonna fund you I don't agree with that because the city ultimately the city council will just blow us off and say you you can't you you we're who are you to say because they didn't present in front of you you're not gonna fund them I don't agree with that we can encourage that to happen and we need to do a better job of getting those departments we want to present and give us data to encourage that but to say we're not gonna fund you if you don't do it I I completely disagree with that and it's threatening and I you know we should be collaborative and we should be working with everyone and not just be penalizing those that we we believe didn't we couldn't schedule them to present or give us the accurate data um so that's it um member Miller is it yeah I guess I just want to follow up on what commissioner Sala just said about the um you know sort of punishing departments because they weren't able to present to us for reasons that were beyond their control.

Maybe we can just put this to a vote real quick because it's one of those things that I have on my list of like let's just take a vote and then we'll come back to your public comment if does that sound good or your comment uh so can we just take a quick vote is um do we want to add something around language about department if the departments don't attend then we should actually um do you want to do the wording for this uh like what do you want to say we prioritize funding in exchange for programs and departments that took the time to present like for example the gang prevention task force what a great opportunity they took the time so we can work with it together the essence is to drive compliance and accountability and I think that's what most taxpayers want.

Okay um let's go ahead and take a quick vote if you don't mind yes thank you chair commissioners if you can please unmute your so this is just like a vote for you not necessarily pretty much yeah motion and a second oh it's that's why I was yeah I don't know what the motion is what you guys agree on or is it like are we actually taking like I guess it's kind of like at the end of the day this is going to change our recommendations so whatever you guys feel is appropriate if it's unofficial enough then we can just do a quick one if it's if you feel it needs to be official then we can do something more official I don't know.

Maybe you just let me know.

Okay.

I would say then if all these things are fairly unofficial.

I just want to like put uh to bed like the conversation so that way we keep we don't kind of keep circling on it between different people.

I just want to like get it out of the way and just like move on.

Um so I guess we'll keep it unofficial then, and but I'd still like to hear everyone's uh roll call.

Yeah, for sure.

Okay.

I have a question.

What are we voting on?

We're voting on the fact of if we want to add to the a section to the uh budget recommendations that state if uh a department doesn't show up, then we should encourage city council to deprioritize them, or we will encourage deprioritizing them because they didn't take the time to come and um share with us what they are doing.

Is that fair?

Okay.

All right, so commissioners please unmute your microphones.

Vice Chair McGee is absent.

Commissioner Smith.

Uh I want to hear more about this.

Commissioner Salah.

So no means I don't agree.

Correct.

No.

Commissioner Cook.

Yes.

Commissioner Miller.

No.

Commissioner Johnston.

No.

Commissioner Ruiz Benitez is absent.

Commissioner Novello?

No.

Commissioner Dorovsky?

No.

Commissioner Paschal.

I would say yes, with the caveat that we've made provided plenty of opportunity for them to come and work with their schedule and so forth.

That's a yes.

Commissioner Fry Lucas.

No.

Commissioner Rosa is absent, and Chair George Office.

This does not pass.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um go ahead, uh Member Miller, continue with your comment.

Um, and then I just wanted to on um another thing that uh Commissioner Sala talked about with the programs related the police department programs.

Um, you know, I I think that there's a there's a value there that goes beyond just serving as a jobs pipeline.

Um they provide a lot of value to the community.

Um, we can debate how much that's worth in in you know monetary terms, but I think that we should we should consider you know their value that goes beyond just simply a uh as a jobs pipeline.

Um then I guess I also kind of wanted to.

I'm not sure how to how to say this, but Commissioner Johnson, you you said something about um we're sending a mess all we're really doing is sending a message to council when we make these recommendations or something like that.

Um and I think I mean that is that that's kind of that is all we can that's all we can do, really.

I mean, our recommendations are not binding.

And so I guess I just wanted to reiterate that I think that is that's what we're for that's what we're here for is to send a message about what we prioritize as representatives of our community.

Um I don't know if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with what you said.

I I can't remember exactly what you said, but um I guess I just you know we're not they're not gonna just take our recommendations at face value without some kind of debate uh and conversation.

Um so I I mean I I guess I just think that that's our role is to send a message about what we think is important.

Fair enough.

Um real quick, just as a time check.

I said we would do this for another 15 minutes.

Um I see there's two more hands.

Let's go through those, but if please nobody else cue up.

Uh member Smith.

Oh, I can do this really quickly.

I opposed um both points three and four.

The reason I opposed uh four uh specifically was that I felt that it was kind of in addition to the fact that clearly there's some things to trip over with regard to uh labor negotiations and whatnot.

Um the city already has standards for when they can outsource these were adopted in 2023-2024.

Um they're already doing it, and I think it's important that what we put in this document is relevant is a real issue, frankly.

Um, if the city is already doing this, then let's not beat them over the head with a report that tells them to do stuff they're already doing.

That's all I got.

Uh member Pascal.

I just wanted to say I neglected to say this the first round, but that I really appreciate the um the work that went into putting this document together.

I think it's easy, like we're all going around and picking holes in it, but we can't we could not have had the conversation if someone hadn't done the effort to put this all down on paper, and having been involved in that process uh in prior years, it's hard and it's hard to you know try to capture conversations that happen in all these different places and just like start with a blank piece of paper.

So I just want to say, like, even though I think we're giving critical comments, there's that's still a really important part of the process, and it's a hard one, so thank you.

All right, can we do a public comment now before we move on to the next section?

We do have one public comment, Lambert.

This is becoming very peculiar to me because uh last week I was here and I saw this place packed, and I saw people that I haven't seen in this place ever, and I know them, I know their parents, I know their grandparents look at it tonight.

Why?

Because the group that you allowed, and I'm gonna pull Mr.

Cook from under the bus and join him because they should be held accountable.

What makes them uh be in a position, and then Mr.

Rogani said something about it, monishing and all that.

That's his opinion.

Everybody has an opinion.

I didn't hear anything last week.

There was nine minutes left, and this is gonna come back to haunt this city.

In nine minutes, you had a chance to acknowledge the public.

There's a lot of people here from the public that never came here.

Instead, you went with a group that should be scrutinized.

That's a very powerful group, that department, economic development.

I've had many issues with that department.

They brought up something called gardening economics.

You ought to study that concept.

That's uh a concept to eliminate a small company and make bigger companies bigger.

It's a it's it's a beautiful statement, but it's a hidden agenda behind it.

It's called gardening economics, and they brought that up.

They should be held accountable, they should have been brought here tonight.

They work here, they could have come right down the elevator and came and gave you that report again.

And if you go back and look at what they were doing, to me, they were making a mockery of you.

They were over there celebrating because they didn't have QA.

They should be subjected to QA.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

We have no more speakers.

Okay, um, so I guess there's a lot of ways we could slice this pie.

Um, there's a ton of comments that I've written down, and every section has notes.

And so um I think it's best we just go through them kind of top to bottom and we'll time box it like maybe 20 minutes each.

Um and then I'll like again be pushing for sort of these votes like we just saw, because I want to get you know traction.

So the first one is um the executive summary.

I think one thing that I heard that I agree with um is that we need to emphasize more um positivity in the programs that we want to see.

Although I started this conversation saying I think this is the easy thing to do.

Uh I still think it's important to do.

And so there were a couple programs that people voiced um of around like reinforcing, for example, the free bus pass, I believe it was.

Um there's the uh Office of Violence Prevention Program.

I think generally we have all felt pretty positive about these programs.

Um are there other things that people would like to add, or do we agree that we should add some things that like a section of essentially keep funding these um there is a part of that down at the bottom in like that table where we say budget act action recommendations like grow these, hold these, but maybe something at the the top should be included.

Do we think that's a good idea?

Maybe just some nods or shakes uh or don't care is okay.

I see yeses, mostly yeses.

And so then I guess I I would ask commissioners like what programs do you want to see besides Office of Violence Prevention and uh free bus uh free bus pass.

That's what it's called free bus pass.

Ride free.

Ride free, okay.

Um member cook or member Miller.

Um the Office of Economic Development, even though we don't have any time for questions.

One of their slides was how they for every like member who came into one of their programs, they were able to eliminate three thousand dollars of consumer debt and increase savings by over three thousand dollars.

That's like amazing given like the the set like the segment of society they serve that should be called out.

Uh member Joske.

Oh, sorry.

Member Smith, sorry, apologies.

Oh yeah.

Um well I'm gonna advocate for the people and say that we really need to fight for funding for participatory budgeting again.

Um I would also you know uh mention again the programs uh that have come before the city council uh recently, um the public bank idea.

Um again, there's literature uh related that was submitted to the on uh to to this uh commission on this item um at the last meeting.

And uh uh let's see what else do we have.

Sorry.

Uh while you look, let me call member Drowsky.

And yeah.

Those two would be those two would be fine.

Okay.

Um I think uplifting the work that the fire department was doing um because what they were doing was taking their measure you funding and leveraging it for um staff to be able to go out and get additional grants um and be able to increase the funding to be able to do their youth programs um and outreach that they do.

I thought that was a really great example of a unique way to do it.

And yes, it's it's paying for their staff, but they're able to go out and get those grants and increase the amount of funding they have and their effectiveness for those programs.

And I thought that was a really great use of the funds and a good example that we should be uplifting.

Okay.

Um we say in general.

Can we say that generally so that there are quite a few programs that use funds in the city to find grants?

Maybe we can just elevate that as a okay, cool.

Um okay, I also have participatory budgeting, uh, Office of Economic Development, Office of Violence Prevention, and the ride-free program, and then um you mentioned the public bank.

I don't know enough about this to feel confident in voting for it.

Um I don't know how other commissioners feel.

Uh, but I guess I would move to say all except for the public bank.

If someone's feels very strongly except for member Smith about the public blank, I'm I'm happy to hear it.

Um and we can include it.

But this would be the list then that we elevate.

Um can we get a I guess uh this would be my motion.

Do I have a second?

Can we add the specific of the three-year ongoing funding for the Office of Violence Prevention?

Yes, we can.

And this is for the um executive summary section.

Okay.

Do you are you seconding, or were you just yes, also seconding?

Okay.

Can I ask a question?

Yeah, sure, go ahead.

Is that I guess I don't really understand what you mean by the same.

Yeah, I'm gonna put essentially somewhere in the executive summary.

I will add a section, whether it be under the headline calls, um, that says these are the programs we feel have done particularly well this year, uh, and want to call out as like um exemplary examples of how we're spending measure you funding.

Maybe that's something like this.

And it would list these and not gonna attach uh a dollar value to these programs.

These programs do have dollar values, although public bank wouldn't.

Um but the rest and participatory budgeting doesn't necessarily have a dollar value, but we can talk about previous years of like a one million dollar or something like this.

Um yeah.

I guess there's a there's another version of the document that's attached to the agenda that I didn't get.

Is that what you're talking about?

You are on the latest version, actually.

I think the one that's attached to the agenda is the older one.

Yeah.

So somewhere floating around here, there is the current one.

Correct.

It's very similar though to the one that's on the agenda, so you can use that one as a referring to an executive summary, but I don't think they're there.

Should be one on the on the even the old document.

Okay.

At the top.

Ah, okay.

Thanks.

You see it now?

Okay.

So something there.

Are we all clear on what we're any other questions?

Okay, I think we're good then.

All right, so we got a motion by Chair George off and a second by Commissioner Jarofsky.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Vice Chair McGee is absent.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Sala?

Yes.

Commissioner Cook?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller.

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson?

Yes.

Commissioner Ruiz Benitez is absent.

Commissioner Novello?

Yes.

Commissioner Jarovsky?

Yes.

Commissioner Pachal?

Yes.

Commissioner Frey Lucas?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosa is absent, and Chair George.

Yes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Awesome.

Okay, so we'll make sure we have that.

Um, let's move on to the next section, which is the police 1.1.

Obviously, quite a few comments on this.

Um, I think the overall sentiment is that we value this for the youth development side of it, not the hiring pipeline side of it, and that's fine.

For me, when I put this on here, I felt that when I hear the term hiring pipeline, what I think of is how many officers did you hire, right?

And I think the goal behind the program originally may have been that, but it's okay if the program changes its goal into some sort of youth development program.

It's just we should maybe change the name then.

Um and then also like goal, not on how many people are recruited into the PD as sworn officers through this program, but rather um what is the value that we gave to the youth uh who participated in it?

Uh is there anyone who still thinks that this should have a cut, a further cut.

I guess I would like to hear that.

And if not, then we can probably remove this item entirely.

Um outside of maybe saying we'd want to change this at like how it's gold, but I don't even think that leads leaves enough substance, I guess, for to keep it around.

So yeah, I'd like I'd look for opinions here.

Is there anyone who has their hands up or these old hands?

I guess I wanted to understand just a little bit better.

Um it seems like I agree with you that the the naming of the program is confusing because it seems like the bulk of the money is actually being used to pay for unsworn officers, right?

Like people who are doing like one of the I as an example, someone broke into my garage and they sent out a community service officer and they did like took all the reports, like they were acting in the capacity of a law enforcement officer, but without carrying a gun, essentially, right?

So this is confusing in that it's it appears like we're spending all this money.

If you divide that by how many officers are hired, then it seems like an outrageous amount of money.

So um I guess well, I think you've called this out here.

Like we should call it what it is.

And uh and just call uh call and I don't know if this goes back to frankly the I think there was a you know a prior conflict about measure you funds being used for law enforcement, and so maybe that's why it's sort of being snuck in under a different name.

Um but I guess uh in my view, it would be fine to keep this money here if that's what it's being used for, but we can't but it is misleading to the public, and I think that's an objective of ours is to be transparent with the public, right?

It's misleading to say that we're spending five or almost six million dollars to recruit people into jobs because that's someone what's happening.

So I don't think I answered your question, but I guess helping it helped me talk it through, so thank you for the time.

Sure.

Uh any other opinions on this?

We we have time if people have thoughts.

Uh member cook.

Oh, member Miller, sorry.

Can we um can we say that we approve you know continued funding on the condition that the I mean I don't know if we can tell them how to label their program, but can we can we say we'll you know we we conditioned this funding on sort of re labeling the program as one that is more of a youth development program rather than calling just just say change the name and you get you you can get the money not just change the name but also institute some I mean if I'm sure they have some youth development goals already, but make those clearer to us and to and and to council sure um member Smith Yeah very quickly um going back to the actual text of measure U.

Um public safety was called out specifically um youth development by way of um employment opportunities I don't recall that that was does anybody can anybody offer a counterpoint to the can someone remind me if I'm wrong in that youth development or youth specifically was um through employment opportunities was not but there was actually economic development as well, which included which highlighted youth, and so from that perspective you could argue that job um job growth of youth is part of measure you's original uh intended purpose.

Uh two interpretation, yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

And I and you know, I think that's where that's a potential uh uh footfall for the or it's a potential obstacle for for this commission.

Uh the public has felt or voiced concerns to me personally that uh measure you is not being used what it was intended for, and it's not being very transparent in that way.

Um on one hand, I agree with you that this is a valuable program, but the question of whether it's valuable is separate um from the question of whether or not it's valuable for the purposes of measure you.

Um and I think that's something we have to pay attention to as we um as we move forward in the same way that measure you funds were used to pay for uh disabled access to City Hall.

Is that valuable?

You bet you're yes, it is valuable, but is that what measure you funds should have been used for?

And I can think of a few different examples um that are like that.

So um and I don't know how to how to frame the the the question around this, but uh that's something I think we have to consider as we move forward uh member Salah.

Um I I was here when there was the discussion of um the funding for the police, the uh excessive amount of funding that measure you monies was going to police, because in the ordinance it does say funding for safety and police.

And when we when measure you under the leadership of um Dr.

Kofer, they they came and said the reason measure you passed was because of our afficacy was both police and fire, and in the ordinance it clearly says that.

So, but we didn't agree with all that money going for that.

It shouldn't fund the police, and what we we um had a discussion said we really want ultimately, and you can see the diversity in the current um makeup of the police and fire.

It it they're making some headways for women, but not for um black and brown members in it is it's very it's it doesn't reflect the community, and that we had a discussion said we want it's important that they reflect the community.

So um, in that we had a discussion of how does that happen, and that's when maybe that's how it came with the pipeline, but it's it's twofold.

It's it's helping youth and youth development and keeping kids um off the streets and getting into trouble and feeling like they have a place and belonging being part of the police academy that's in these various high schools and underserved community.

So in that way it does meet measure you's objective.

And what happens is they get involved, they get they they um feel compelled to I want to pursue this and I want to become a uh community resource officer one.

It's getting their feet wet, and and hopefully they get hired in there and they have priority because they participated in the academy, they graduated from high school, they kept their GPA, and they get in and eventually when they complete a component for the community resource officers, you gotta at least enter community college or college, they do that, and that helps them to ultimately get into the academy that ultimately will result in hire and our community will benefit because the police department will reflect the community that serves, which right now it does not.

So that was our thinking when we were deciding how um how to fund part of the police department, but it not go to funding police officers, et cetera, which at the beginning that's what it was doing.

So I think Member Drowski.

Yeah, um, I agree with everything uh Member Saul is saying, and I think um it's difficult to know what the I think it's I think that they need to kind of decouple this a little bit to make it a little bit easier to understand.

Um there's the cadet program, there's the CSO position, and there's the hiring pipeline, and I think that they can flow into one another.

And um the chief gave us some good clarification last week when we met where you know she mentioned that it's not that we only it costs us, you know, five million dollars to hire eight people.

It's that once those people are hired, that money is being used to support the role and support the person so that way they can go through community college and get that associate's degree or whatever they need to be able to go to academy.

But I think maybe we need to make it easier for us to understand it and justify it, maybe decoupling and saying we have the cadet program.

Here's here are the goals that it has.

One of those goals is that they'll become a CSO.

Then we have the CSO program.

Here are the goals it has one of them is that they would hopefully become a sworn officer for us, right?

Um, and that and that that um would reflect the diversity of the communities, and I think that would be really helpful for us to be able to better understand and justify such a significant sum of money going there because on its face value, it doesn't look like it's successful, right?

It looks like they hired eight people for five million dollars over the course of a year, and over the course of six years they've hired 48 people.

But I think there's actually more to it, and then I think on the heels of all of that, um, you know, youth development is public safety.

I think we get really caught up in what defines public safety, and that it's just police officers, but a lot of the stuff on here is public safety, having clean streets is public safety, libraries are public safety, youth development programs are public safety, economic development is public safety, free bus rides for kids are public safety, access to the pool is public safety.

All of it rounds up to being public safety, and so especially when we're focusing on the money and the funding going to these marginalized, underserved communities, that's where we're gonna see that benefit, not just immediately, but also long term, and we're gonna see dividends on the investments that we've made on the communities long term.

We're not gonna see it in the next report potentially, or even the next one, or maybe when we're not here, but long term you're gonna see that investment that's been made into the community and in the youth, and I think making sure that what we're putting in here is that we are focusing on those underserved and marginalized communities and the ones that are most at need and need that uplifting is really crucial to be able to help with all of this.

Um I ask for clarification, yeah.

So let's say that we accept at face value that this is related indeed related to uh to public safety going forward.

What sorts of metrics that weren't presented by the chief, should we insist on being presented in the future to demonstrate its value to public safety?

So I think you know, decoupling it into the separate programs would be really helpful.

I think we can very much it's easy for us to justify, you know, potentially be able to justify sworn officers being more diverse, and then also the CSO position.

But as far as the youth program is concerned, what neighborhoods are they serving?

What are the outcomes that we're seeing for the young people, right?

What's their kind of like theory of change that they're seeing?

Is it grounded in evidence?

Yeah, uh, you can do both, right?

So are youth who go through the program more likely to graduate, right?

Are they more likely to end up going to college compared to their peers that did not participate in the program that have similar demographics as them?

Are they reporting um whenever they're you know, when you look at qualitative or we could do quantitative for it too, looking at their reported um, you know, um ability to problem solve, to think critically, to um, you know, be calm in the face of adversity, right?

They're showing skills of resilience, those types of things, um, feeling like they are belong in their community and part of it, right?

Those are things that can be measured through a youth program, and even if that youth doesn't end up in that pipeline, doesn't end up becoming a CSO, you've seen beneficial outcomes for that young person because I mean, you can't say that it's all because of the program, right?

But compared to their peers, the ones that went through that program have better outcomes in those areas that we're measuring that would show long-term benefits for them, less likely to end up in the system, anything like that.

Um, that we're seeing those outcomes for the young people.

Yeah.

Okay, so um it sounds like the general consensus of this section is that we want to keep it.

There's some value here, but in a completely different form.

The form is more in the uh in splitting it into three programs.

So the recommendation is split this into three programs so that we can better goal against each one of them.

One of them being the uh CSO funding, which is basically just gonna goal against you know public safety directly.

Um, and I guess some youth, since the CSOs are generally younger, um, then we have the youth part of this, and then we have the hiring part of this, um, youth being non-CSO based.

I think there was what is it like 50 um kids or something in the program?

I'm not exactly sure the exact number forgot, but and then based off of each one of those, we would recommend some specific goals for each one of these, and that way it would allow both greater transparency and uh better way to evaluate these programs, but we wouldn't change the budget.

Did I capture that correctly?

Does anyone have different opinion to what I just stated?

Uh member cook.

My understanding is that uh the public safety line my understanding is that the uh um that seven million dollars of measure you funding to public safety is going to the community service officer function, like exclusively.

If that's incorrect, please correct me.

It's a little bit it's more it's commingled.

So like it's a cadet pipeline, etc.

Correct.

Uh and it's five million now, because I think they got cut, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Um does that sound good within everyone.

I guess we'll take any other last notes, or we can just vote on this and then continue.

Um I hear nothing.

I'll I think this one is pre-unanimous.

I don't think there's any disagreements.

So can I just do like a vocal?

Um, if you agree with this, say I.

Does anyone abstain?

Does anyone uh not wish to proceed with this?

Okay, cool.

Can I just ask for clarification?

So the last one we actually made a motion and a second.

Yeah.

Now are we just kind of collectively wanting to do like a poll and not an entire like yeah, the motion was seemed unnecessary, actually.

So um I think it's just a poll is fine.

Okay, I just want to be clear.

Okay, thank you.

I don't know why it felt like that one needed a motion when it didn't, but um yeah.

Okay, we're all trying to just do this together, aren't we?

Yeah.

Okay, moving on to the next section, which would be the fire diversity and outreach recruitment.

Um there wasn't too much comment on this, I felt like specifically, but definitely I think member Salah, you said no.

Um, and then I think is that it?

Uh maybe someone else also felt uh the need to remove this.

Uh any comments on this are now welcome.

We'll discuss it for the next like 15 minutes or so.

Um member Drofsky.

So I think that this is the program we talked about as being a good example of them leveraging it, because they only have when you look at measure you, they only have one line.

Um, and it is this, and it's that pipeline that they have where they're they're using it to pay for their um staff, and then they're also using it to fund kind of the needs of the people who are going through the program.

Um so they were using it to help them with like uh like if they're going to school, right?

Like them getting laptops, um, them being able to get books, um, things like that.

So, like ensuring that the folks who are going through the programs are able to continue, like have the support that they need to be successful in it and not necessarily need to drop out because of economic challenges or anything like that.

And then those staff people who work at the fire department are also using that to um get additional grants and funding for it.

So I think earlier we added in that it was a great example, and now we're recommending it being removed because they're fully staffed.

I would like maybe Ash, if you know this.

There, I have on this like two line items.

One is like the fire suppression.

Did that one get removed?

It is not removed.

They just didn't present on it.

It just didn't present on it.

So they are getting, as far as I'm aware, nine million.

Um, of which six million goes to, I guess in my item called fire suppression, another three million to the diversity outreach and recruitment.

Um, and then in terms of like the grants awarded, they got they got 1.5 million, or sorry, total grants awarded is 3.6 million, but I don't know, they have grants awarded 1.5.

Maybe this is total through the history of it or something, but 1.5 million grants awarded.

So they didn't quite like double their money, for example.

They actually only like they took three million and made 1.5.

But then of course they provide services on top of that, like EMS trainees and stuff like this.

So I guess my opinion on the matter is like one, it's hard to tell.

Again, this is like we have these programs where like they're too trying to do too many things at once, right?

Okay, is this a is this a line item where we're using funding to get more funding, and then based off of those grants, we give them to EMS trainees or something along those lines, or is it diversity outreach for um uh like actual full-time uh fire men or firewoman?

And then on top of that, I think I heard the chief say like the biggest change we did to diversity was just changing our policies.

Like he said that when he was presenting here, not the last time, but the time before that.

Um it was around like allowing for family hours and stuff like this.

Um, and that allowed for more different types of people to come.

Um it would be my opinion that I think this m money is not well suited, but I am open to taking to a vote, and also we have some time to discuss.

So if anyone has other opinions, um member Saul, I think you said no, so yeah.

So I maybe I I don't want to I agree with you as far as um the way they're using the monies, but I think it's really important because they have several programs that it going back to what we articulated about the police.

They have programs in the high schools, they have summer programs and programs throughout the year that are very valuable to youth.

And if last year, I think some of the beneficiaries to these programs, the young the young individuals that have benefited, it it meant a lot to them being part of this.

It it exposed them to the potential of going in being a firefighter, but it also was a preventive measure and an increased um diversity.

Ultimately leading to now with their new um EMS program, they are a lot of individuals um in underserved uh um communities would love to be part of this program because if you if you want to be uh EMS or ENT, there are um private businesses that will charge you to be trained and pay, and then and this program can get without in an underserved communities and under and um you can become in you can get into this program without having to pay all this money up front, and so I I just think we need to maintain it and keep it because these are great jobs for um individuals in our communities that otherwise wouldn't have an opportunity like this, and it's been successful, so um, because they're successful doesn't mean that they shouldn't get funding because they were creative.

Uh I was just gonna comment.

I really didn't see any diversity in anything that we're doing personally, um, and that's my concern.

Um I would like to see them do a more aggressive approach, such as the one that I saw this afternoon.

I think it's in Monterey or someplace, where they actually went out and have a group of young women from underserved communities training them hands-on how to do this kind of work.

Um too many times these programs use uh diversity very loosely, and um the data is not um spread out so that we can see ethnic diversity.

A lot of times when these programs say they're diverse, they're talking about women, period, of all colors.

So my feeling is yes, their intentions are good, but there's nowhere in there where I saw that they were able to bring in um the same with the police department, um, black and brown students.

When they said diversity, you could they clearly are saying all you just hear women, and that's not the only uh call for diversity.

So for me, uh when we start um putting together recommendations, I would like these numbers broken down more.

Um I don't think they should just be all get off with saying we're diverse, we're DEI.

We're that doesn't mean anything.

There's a lot of racists that run and and people that ride on the coattails of diversity, and they do not reflect our communities.

So that's just an observation.

I I have I have to protest now.

Do I have a chance to speak?

No, you you do you already gave your public comment.

Oh, you guys are talking about several different items.

It's actually all the same item.

Um it's not diversity is not the same firehouse.

I mean, this is I don't know what you want to do about this, but it's not acceptable.

I don't get to speak, but I sit here and listen to you go through all these topics.

I understand that it seems like we're doing a lot of different topics, but we are only doing one topic, which is the approval of fiscal year 2026-27 measure you budget recommendations.

Okay, so I want to like quickly talk about um this one last time, and then we'll take a vote.

Um, you know, just because I think again, this isn't the forum for debate.

Um, but I did want to address you said that there are a lot of events attended.

I think that section of this program was defunded, and so they are no longer attending events, even if they get the money.

Um and then on top of that, there has been about 28 uh EMS trainees since 2023, and this program has received multiple millions of dollars um every year since then.

And so the number of EMS trainees this year is looking like 17 for three million.

Just seems like it's out of whack.

But um that's all I have to say.

Um we can go to uh vote, I guess, on like do we want to remove this section?

So first we'll define if we want to remove it.

If we don't want to remove it, we can figure out what we want to write.

But I think removing it is the first option.

Um let's go ahead and do a roll.

Just like a poll.

Yeah, just a poll, please.

All right, commissioners.

Oh my gosh, please unmute your microphones.

Can you repeat?

Yeah, so the idea here is like, do we want to keep the 1.2 at all?

If we say no, then that means you want to get rid of this section completely.

We'll remove it from the document.

If you say yes, we can continue to discuss for about five minutes what we want that to say exactly, or maybe even less.

Um, but yeah, that's the idea.

Everyone cool.

So can you repeat that?

Yeah, one more time.

So if you want to remove 1.2 fire section, then you would say I I guess the answer is uh the question will be do you want to remove this?

And so you'll say, Yes, I want to remove this, right?

If you don't want to remove it and you want to say something in here about this program whatsoever, then we can and by the way, we've already mentioned it in the um the top header section as like a use of funding that um applies to or like that generates more funding through grants.

But um, yeah, so the question is do you want to get rid of this one dot two fire section?

And if yes means get rid of it from the document, no means we discuss for quickly what we want here.

Cool.

All right, all right, commissioners, please unmute your microphones.

Vice Chair McGee is absent.

Commissioner Smith?

No.

Commissioner Sala?

Yes.

Commissioner Cook?

No.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnston.

Abstain.

Commissioner Ruiz Benitez is absent.

Commissioner Novello?

Yes.

Commissioner Jarowski?

Yes.

Commissioner Paschal.

Yes.

Commissioner Fry Lucas?

No.

Commissioner Rosa is absent.

And Chair George.

No.

It's close.

That's yeah.

Five to four.

Yeah.

Um, well, it's removed.

We'll just move on.

Okay, so the next section is libraries.

Um I know there's some strong opinions about this.

Uh, I just want to frame the conversation around the the fact what yeah, I can um make I I I have a comment.

On the fire one?

No.

Oh, no.

Separate.

I don't know why.

I I don't agree with not allowing um this lamber to come and make comments maybe after each section.

He I don't think he understood, and it wasn't clear that when you make public comment, you're talking about the whole document.

He doesn't even know what that whole document says.

And so he's hearing one by one what we're discussing, but we're not allowing him to speak.

And I I don't support that.

I would like some way to allow either um after we have all this discussion for him to speak and make his comments, or do it as we're going through each of these elements because he doesn't so fair enough.

I heard um, I think after we're going through this, because I want to make sure that we do go through it all.

We can invite Mr.

Lambert up for a final public comment.

Okay.

Um so back to libraries.

Uh, I just want to frame this the reason that this can't even came up because obviously again um every program is important, right?

Uh but this was placed it was between 11 and 10 out of 12 on the city survey.

So it has a exorbitant amount of cost for the priority that people are giving it.

My opinion aside, I actually think libraries are are quite important.

Um, but I that's why I put it in here, just because I wanted to actually use what the public was kind of advocating for.

But I'm open up to anyone to discuss uh this item.

And I I think um member Johnson, you were probably the strongest on this one, so I opened all I'd love for you to open it.

If you have anything else to add.

I don't have anything else.

I gotta reiterate my points on why I don't think that needs to be done.

And okay.

I I I will just say addition, I I understand the community survey there, but it still has 85% of respondents saying it's either high or medium priority.

So, you know, they put them all pretty high, and it was a 450-person response, I think.

And there's also the non-response bias in there, so all surveys are flawed.

I think it's an important metric to consider an important piece of data, but I'm not gonna make my decision off of this survey.

Sure.

Uh member Smith.

Uh, yeah, just to say that that um one's assessment of the priority for a program or or a city department um is not necessarily uh not necessarily reflection of the cost.

Um, uh just in terms of city services generally, nobody thinks very that sewers are very important until one overflows.

Um yes, it's incredibly expensive to to to repair.

So um that being said, yeah, I I tend to agree with with uh Commissioner Johnson Johnson.

Um that's all fair enough.

Um, yes.

Libraries are essential.

I think my biggest concern was why would we pay him for a library that's been closed for two years?

That's what I would like to hear a clarification on.

Um in our lower income communities, our libraries are used for the purpose of improving literacy, tutoring, after school care, our communities you like use library facilities for meetings.

Um we cannot assume that because our people our young children have computers, that they're using them for the right reasons, and sometimes they have to come to the library to figure out how to use it.

They are also people who do not have computers at home, and they come to the library to use computers.

So I just want to make sure that um that's on record.

Uh members actually that's it, right?

Okay.

Um then we could wait for member Miller to come back, but I think the general sense I'm getting is like again.

I want to do a quick vote of like, should we just remove this section?

Um can we do a actually we'll just do a call, and if it's like within one vote, we'll just get him to just weigh in.

All right, is everybody clear this time?

So again, same thing as last time.

Yes means remove 1.3 library section, no means keep it, and then we'll discuss what we keep if we keep it.

No means keep it, correct?

Yes means delete.

No, wait, no.

I think I'm just gonna do that.

Wait, was that opposite?

Oh maybe I didn't know how to perfectly.

Oh no.

Okay, let's just let's just say instead of a yes or no, let's use delete or keep.

So instead of using language yes or no, we'll use the language of delete or keep.

So when they call it you, you say delete it or you say keep it.

All right.

Um perfectly.

Yeah, you can do the conversion later.

When we say leave it, what does that mean?

That means we're gonna discuss what we what we talk about for libraries and and leave a chapter in here or like a paragraph in here for it.

Um but if everyone's just like no, we shouldn't even like let's just move on.

We don't we shouldn't include libraries whatsoever, then you delete it.

Um by the way, member Miller, we're just doing a quick vote on if we're gonna even keep the library section as well.

So you just delete it or keep it.

That's the that's your response uh when it gets to you.

All right, commissioners, please unmute your microphones.

Vice Chair McGee is absent.

Commissioner Smith?

Delete.

Commissioner Salah?

Commissioner Cook.

Commissioner Miller.

Delete.

Commissioner Johnston.

Delete.

Commissioner Ruiz Benitez is absent.

Commissioner Novello.

Delete.

Commissioner Jurofsky.

Delete.

Commissioner Pachal.

Delete.

Commissioner Fry Lucas.

Now, when I say delete, what am I saying again?

That's basically like no.

It's just backwards language.

Yeah, delete means removing it.

Yep.

Which means what?

It means that it's not gonna exist in our final draft that we give to.

All right, Commissioner Rosa is absent and Chair George.

Delete it.

All right.

Delete it is.

That was quick, easy peasy.

We can move on to 1.4 outsourcing.

Uh this one was maybe a little bit uh also contentious.

I think um Pascal, I think you maybe have the most opinion about this, given um like the view here is that if we provide jobs through the city, then um there's like economic development that happens because of that.

Um also uh it's like a pathway to the middle class, I think is sort of the argument against this.

I guess maybe you can quickly review your point.

You didn't want to what was the what was the outcome of this?

Yeah.

Let's not bring something up that's not relevant in this report.

They've already got standards, they've already got standards.

And there's a 43 question process that they go through to clarify whether for themselves whether or not a service should be um outsourced.

So let's not beat them over the head with the suggestion that they do something they're already doing.

Then would you still view it as acceptable to recommend that we encourage that they use that, or are you just saying like don't even go there?

I would we're gonna encourage them to use a process that they're already using.

Uh yeah.

I guess the idea here is that not everyone is that seems pointless to fair enough.

Um I think the idea here is that not every uh department is using outsourcing, right?

Where they could.

And so the question becomes then do we need I'm sure they went through their 43 question process.

Is every program is forced to go through that?

Uh it seems to suggest that it is.

All right, fair enough.

Um I guess we can do another vote.

Is anyone have comments on this?

Member Drossy.

Yeah, I think I think maybe I hit the off button so I think maybe the spirit of what we're trying to get to here is that they're demonstrating fiscal responsibility and being good stewards of the measure you money that they're receiving.

One way that they could find cost efficiencies could potentially be outsourcing, but maybe it's a metric that we ask them to demonstrate is that how are they using the dollars, not just that the program's effective, right?

But how are you doing this efficiently, right?

And using those, how can they demonstrate that instead?

One way could be outsourcing potentially, or partnering with community-based organizations rather than um having internal staff.

I think that's maybe the spirit of what this is getting to, is that we want to see a demonstration of them being good stewards of the dollars and utilizing them effectively, um, as effectively as possible and stretching that money um as effectively as possible, and maybe getting to that would be a better way to approach it.

Are there additional things outside of outsourcing that you can think of that would fit in that bucket?

Because if we can come up with like three items, like okay, have you have you check your outsourcing?

Um, maybe look for grants, um, and maybe there's a third one or something like that to like wrap it together.

But utilizing additional staff, um, finding youth youth staffing opportunities for potential programs, right?

Because they're gonna be a little bit lower cost, right?

Um, and provides opportunities for them.

I think I don't every program is so different, right?

Their needs are going to be different.

Um, and so I don't think that we can put concrete parameters around like can you check these boxes, but instead, can you demonstrate how your kind of you capitalizing on this money is as best as possible, right?

And being good stewards of the money.

Do we think then it would be good to change this section to essentially say something along those lines, which is more rather than saying specifically outsourcing, it's like we're trying to advocate for, yeah, basically to be good stewards of the dollars that are.

They've explored cost-saving measures.

Yeah.

Um, I think you're right, that was the essence of the paragraph.

It's just a matter of phrasing.

Um other thoughts on this.

Let's see, member Cook remember Miller.

I think in the spirit of like being good stewards of taxpayer funding.

I generally agree that it's like a multi-prong approach through which outsourcing could be one component.

Definitely think maybe making a specific recommendation on outsourcing might be too precise.

And perhaps the other like vehicles of being good stewards, cost savings that could be added.

But I have not seen any meaningful capacity across any department that has spoken or provided input.

Is there approach is their approach to addressing fraud, waste and abuse?

I I don't for just out of an abundance of clarity.

I don't think that fraud waste and abuses uh permeates across all departments within the city of Sacramento, but it is concerning that there has been no language around how departments are ensuring that fraud, waste and abuse does not exist within the city of Sacramento.

And that should be something that should be included in the broader discussion of being good stewards of taxpayer funding.

You did oh sorry about that.

Um in terms of fraud, waste and abuse, we have a c we have a city auditor.

Um that is that person's job in part to uh look into issues that um of misappropriation and such.

Um in terms of um in again, I think that we're we're looking at outsourcing as purely from the from the standpoint of being um a process that we can a process that we can use to deliver services more efficiently.

It is certainly the case that outsourcing can deliver some services more efficiently, however, efficiency is not the only consideration for outsourcing.

There are a myriad of other things that we have to consider, like number one, legally, can the city abdicate a responsibility to an to an outside source.

That is the first question that the city has to ask.

Could the city outsource the police if they wanted to?

No, of course they can't, because it's in the city charter, basically.

This is a responsibility they have to provide.

Um there are a myriad of other services that fall into that category, and um I don't think that anything we can really craft here is going to be able to comprehensively encompass all the considerations that the city has to make when they have the discussion around whether or not they should outsource.

And I'll or take a number of different actions.

So anyway, I'll leave it at that.

Member Salah.

Yeah, I just want to say I agree with um Commissioner Smith.

And I just briefly looked at that document, and there is a law they have to answer, and they are looking at efficiency and does it make the most sense.

So I don't even think we need to go there and even open up that can of worms because it doesn't it doesn't fall in our preview of what we're we're recommending priorities to the city council, and they have a document.

So I I do think we just need to stay away from that altogether.

Okay.

Um I agree that this could be reframed, it could also be removed.

So I think let's take a quick assuming there's no more speakers on this.

Let's take a quick vote on that.

I think the idea is either reframe it to be uh this sort of multi-prong approach, steward of good, uh steward of funds, or remove.

So um yeah.

Yeah, reframe or remove are the two keywords here.

All right, commissioners, please unmute Vice Chair McGee is absent.

Commissioner Smith?

Move.

Okay, remove.

Remove.

We keep a track of this.

I'm trying.

Let's wait for your name, please.

Okay, I got removed from Commissioner Smith.

Commissioner Salah.

Oh remove.

Commissioner Cook.

Reframe.

Commissioner Miller.

Remove.

Commissioner Johnston.

Reframe.

Commissioner Ruiz Beninez is absent.

Commissioner Novello.

Remove.

Commissioner Jarovsky.

Reframe.

Commissioner Pashal.

Remove.

Commissioner Fran Lucas.

Remove.

Commissioner Rosa is absent, and Chair George Hoff.

Reframe.

Another four five, four, I think.

Yeah.

Wow, we are so agreeing today.

Uh love it.

Yeah, that we're recommending.

Yeah, pretty much we by the way.

This is like somewhat of a concern I'm having as we go through these, right?

Like we have essentially removed three sections.

Um, and so right now, the only thing we have is an introduction and a um like police like soft recommendation, just like split into three categories, right?

Now I think it's still worth continuing, because I would like to get one of that aren't mentioned.

And there are funds, there are things that well, that was part of the beginning, right?

Was the I think this is again the the something I called out in the beginning, is like we want to continue to fund it.

Basically, we're our suggestion as the measure as of now is measure you uh believes we should continue exactly as we are, right?

Like that's primarily it.

Um there's not we're not emphasizing any changes in funding.

We're just saying continue the path, and then not include with the exception of maybe you can add some participatory budgeting, but we haven't even explained where that money's gonna come from, which is another problem.

Like we have we want to fund maybe a million for just participant participatory budgeting.

Where's that million coming from?

Um yeah, I think as of now these suggestions uh are getting axed, but that's fine.

If we can't agree on a recommendation, um so be it.

So I think let's move on to the next section, because I think this is the one that we actually all agree on, um, which is non-measure U fit costs, right?

Basically getting the ADA compliance, the uh insurance costs, which by the way, those insurance costs may be for just measure you programs.

I believe they are just for measure you programs, if I'm not mistaken, if you know that off the top of your head.

Okay.

Um and IT as well for just measure you things, but that doesn't mean it should just have to come out of measure you.

Uh I think the maintenance of like facilities doesn't make any sense, like HVAC and stuff like this.

So is there anybody who wants to change this section or like or remove it?

Um please raise your hand.

Oh, we are now in 1.5.

1.5.

Okay.

I'm gonna just do the vote then of keeping it and we're removing it then.

And it sounds like it's just gonna be keep it.

Um unless there's any last people still reading.

Maybe I'll give another like minute.

I think they were like pulling it up that we have.

Yeah.

Take your time, you'll uh member cook, member Miller, which one?

I like the section.

I I think it might be understated.

Um like we've talked about the golf administration.

That's not listed.

We talked about like the city cemetery.

That's not listed.

I don't want to like, I I know like perfection is the enemy of done, and this is a great section, but I actually think there's more that could be added if we were to really go through uh the 25 spend categories again.

Uh member Johnson?

I'm just gonna reiterate my point that I think this is like saying we should vote to move water from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean.

So probably gonna stain because I don't see the point in it.

But I like the idea behind it, and I would if we if the city can does change it, I'd be really interested in what gets put back in, right?

Or are we saying because there's a shortfall in the measure you budget that we're reallocating this to the general fund and balancing the measure you that's the intent behind it?

Correct, yeah.

Basically, right now measure you is subsidized through general fund uh by about that much.

Um and so if we just move it back to this is a balancing at least the measure you budget.

Okay.

I didn't I didn't get that nuance from this, and that's helpful context.

Um I prefer balanced over unbalanced.

Can I ask the question, Commissioner Johnston?

I'm uh I I get like making the measure you budget balance, but let's say we put this in, they say yes, now it's in the general fund.

Isn't the city doesn't the city still have the obligation to reconcile the general fund budget?

And if they cannot find a line I if they cannot find a budget category for facility ADA compliance program as an example, it will get cut.

I mean, just forcing this category of spend to go to general fund, it still has to be evaluated under the lens of the general fund, right?

I mean, it's not just an accounting trick.

Well, it's still in the general fund, is my point, is it's measure you, right?

Measure you is in the general fund.

So I I haven't been convinced that it's not an accounting trick.

Um, but I don't know the rigors of the general fund made putting in there is a an additional step that you have to do, but because it's measure you money, it's still technically in the general fund.

You're just moving it from one bucket to the other.

But I like the idea of forcing that conversation and having that conversation of saying, look, these we agree that these aren't within the realms of what we think is appropriate measure you allocations, even if it is moving it from the one side of the bucket to the other side, because it's not two different buckets, really, it's just one side to the other.

Um but maybe I'm missing a nuance.

If there is some additional legal requirement that they then have to do to find a line item within the general fund beyond just the measure you step.

I I don't know.

I'm the I'm not aware of one.

Yeah, my guess is right now if you look at the general fund budget, you'll see a line item that basically says like I don't know the exact number, but like eight million to measure you or something like that, right?

And it's this would just like shove all that and replace that line item with the list out that we have here.

Um it wouldn't necessarily have to get like re-evaluated, but they're reevaluating all the time, and so like if measure you if they're I believe there's some use and utility to this because they would probably look at it differently if it's in measure you and like within that bundle of goods versus the general fund.

Well, maybe not because they look at all the same, but like I don't know.

I think there's still utility in this because it either way it makes the budget of measure U cleaner, and that's fine.

Um I think we've discussed this already with 1.1.

Is that like with the police?

Um, it would be nice if this was cleaner, right?

Like we it's hard to evaluate.

And so with all these things in here, it's like taking attention away from maybe the things that could be focused on.

Um anyway, member Salah.

Yeah, so I agree with you, and I was just gonna say that when we first saw that measure you was funding example ADA compliance.

We were like, what?

So my reaction to to that was why why are we using measure you funds to fund something that the city should be funding?

And for the community and the public, it's important for them to see the distinction, even though it is shifting monies really, because it is general fund, but for the community at large to see the distinction of what measure you funds in accordance with what the ordinances and what we pass versus what's the obligation for the city to pay for okay.

I think then generally it sounds like people will like this section, want to keep it.

Um there was maybe a small modification, which is like adding the golf uh maintenance and then also cemetery maintenance.

I think the golf one is a one cost, it's actually over.

I'm not sure it continues.

Um so it it wouldn't be for next year, it would only it only applied this year because it was a one-time cost.

I don't know about the cemetery one though.

Um but either way we can speak to it if people feel that it fits.

Um but I wouldn't be able to include it in like this is the budget for next year that needs to be removed, right?

It would be a little bit different.

Um I don't have the cemetery one on me.

Do you have that one?

148,000.

We've got 10 minutes.

Okay.

Um then let's just do a quick vote of like keep or remove, I guess.

Uh or modify, maybe.

Yeah, like I think keep or modify.

Not delete.

I don't think it's an option.

1.5.

Is that what we're talking about?

Yes, 1.5 now.

So on to the next one.

Yep.

Keep or modify.

Um, yeah.

Let's do it.

Yeah, go ahead.

So that's saying modify.

That would be including what we talked about adding.

Uh no, I think not, because as we just the only thing that we said that would add is golf, but that's actually a one-time expense that happened already.

And I can tell that you're already anxious, so let's just do keep or delete.

Not anxious.

I just nuanced between like is modify subsumed with keep.

Is it correct?

So let's just keep or delete.

And I think because there is no modify at this point, so it's fine.

Keep or delete.

Okay.

Yes.

Save again.

We are either gonna keep or delete section one dot five, which is the non-measure you fit, which by the way, that title needs some work, but non-measure you fit costs uh section.

Is there a reason why golf administration is not in there?

Uh it good point, it was just because it was a one-time cost.

I don't think it there is a cost in golf for next year.

I thought there was an ongoing cost for golf administration, and why are we paying for golf and low-income communities?

No.

Well, say that again.

Sorry, couldn't you?

I said I thought that there was some ongoing maintenance with golf administration.

I could be wrong.

I don't think the other question is how does that serve underserved communities?

Whatever that is in golf.

Yeah, I think that's I think that's fair.

Um that's a good point.

Thank you.

Uh good suggestion.

I think what we'll do is say ad hoc can go and research the golf thing, and if they feel that it's appropriate to put in because there is continued expenses, we'll include it.

If there's not continued expenses for this coming year, we will not include it.

And can they talk to us about how it serves the community?

And and that'll be part of that group too.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so keep or delete.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Vice Chair McGee is absent.

Commissioner Smith?

Keep.

Commissioner Salah?

Commissioner Cook?

Keep.

Commissioner Miller.

Keep it.

Commissioner Johnston.

Keep.

Commissioner Ruiz Benitas is absent.

Commissioner Novello?

Thanks.

Commissioner Jurofsky.

Commissioner Pashal.

Commissioner Fry Lucas?

He.

Commissioner Rosa is absent and Chair Georgeov.

All right.

We have a section.

Let's go, guys.

All right.

Um moving on then to before we move on.

Can we vote to extend the extra?

Yes.

We can.

Um we get a motion and a second vote to extend the meeting past two hours.

Uh I will make a motion to extend it by one hour.

Second.

Second by member Miller.

And then we can take like a five minute to go to the bathroom if you want.

Okay, sure, fair enough.

Do you want to all in favor or just uh yeah, all in favor say I for the extension?

I any abstain?

Any refuse?

Okay.

I guess we have a guess.

Okay, we can continue.

All right, we'll try not to use it all.

Um okay, moving on to budget action recommendations.

This is section two.

Um, which is this get categories of growhold and reduce it in restructure.

I think at this point there are many changes that need to happen to this.

Um we've already talked about some of them.

One of them, you know, like police, whether it be the fire, um, both of these would probably have to be removed.

I think I would challenge us to figure out what fits in the reduce and restructure column or the row.

Um, because at this point, I feel like the only thing that we've really reduced is like the re uh attribution of which funds count as measure you, but they would still exist, we're not saying to stop them.

Are there any programs that anyone feels that exist today that they would feel comfortable decreasing funding for really no?

And I think that's like the crux.

Oh, Member Smith.

Yeah, uh let's see.

Uh I haven't looked at my comments on this in a while.

Um, but uh one of the programs uh utility uh assistance program.

Um again, while I think it is a valuable program, I don't think that it is valuable in the context of measure you.

I think something that I'd like to clarify just my question a little bit, is like um regardless of general fund or measure you, uh, do you feel that this program should be reduced in funding?

Because at the end of the day, I you know, even one of the okay, yes.

I'm sorry, yes, I did.

Okay, and the reason is because it doesn't offer a policy solution for a real policy problem.

Okay, member uh cook or member Miller.

I do think we should exercise more fiscal restraint with DCR.

Homelessness is a very important issue in the city of Sacramento.

It's on every survey we see, but to me this is if we just like think about this like a dispassionate kind of approach, DCR is either succeeding in their vision of reducing the homeless population in the city of Sacramento.

So if there truly are more homeless, if there truly are less homeless people in the city limits today than a year ago, then two years ago, then why should that program receive more money?

Like that that doesn't reconcile with me if if there are a few if the goal of DCR is to reduce the homeless population and they're achieving success.

Why is the budget going up?

Conversely, if DCR is failing in their vision of reducing the homeless population, that failure should not be rewarded with additional funding.

The taxpayers don't have the stomach to support programs that don't deliver outcomes.

So whether DCR is succeeding or failing.

The recommendation to increase funding to DCR, like just that isn't reconciled to me.

So I if you're asking the question, what programs or departments should be reevaluated for funding?

DCR should be the top of the list because it's the num it's because homeless and homeless adjacent spending is the largest category of spend within measure you.

Thanks.

Yeah, I'll just add real quick that um you can still think the program is important too, right?

It's just a matter of like these are all trade-offs, right?

We have a budget at the end of the day, and we have to like trade off one program for another.

So all these can be extremely important.

It's just a matter of like you know, a trade.

Okay, member Johnston is or Salah, actually, I think.

Member Smith, are you next?

This is another, yeah, it's an old hand, right?

So members member Solo, is that your old hand or no?

Yeah, yeah.

Um so I want to understand why you think the utilities program that subsidize in um individuals who don't have enough to pay their utilities bill.

Why that help me understand your comments about that that it's it does it's not solving a problem.

Well, really, it doesn't.

Uh at the end of the day, people are gonna be no more capable of paying their bill next year than they are this year through the actions of subsidizing them.

It may tide them over until their economic circumstances change, and that's certainly true.

But the reality is also this the city is not going to cut them off, they're not gonna stop collecting their trash, they're not going to stop um uh uh allowing them to use the public sewers or or um or probably even cut off their water.

Yeah, but if they don't pay their bill, um they'll go after them in collections and it will create a problem because the the and and um the costs of everything is going up, it's not going down.

So the issues of poverty the issue is poverty, but I know, so but we can't solve it, and the city can't solve it because it's a bigger problem.

But this is respectfully the property, it's worth something itself, so they'll attach a lien to the property.

Okay, so I one of the things I said at the beginning of the meeting is that I didn't want to get into like you know, people are gonna have different opinions, and that's fine.

So um, I don't think this is the forum to like hash out those opinions with each other, and so right now I'm just looking for more examples of okay things that would yeah, okay.

So I just want to all fair questions.

Yeah, yeah, I just want to fair questions understand.

Yeah, yeah.

And then um because at one point I benefited from this program, and so it is personal for me because I did benefit.

Anyway, um, the other thing DCR homelessness.

So we don't know la two years ago there was a reduction in point and count.

And I know I'm not gonna get into the debate because there's people say it wasn't accurate.

The fact is it decreased, and because of that, it would Sacramento was successful in their efforts.

The state cut quite a bit of money that came to the city to fund the projects.

Now there was another point in two years later, they they did another um count, but we don't have the results.

So we really don't know.

Did it get better, did it get worse?

We we don't know until those numbers come out.

I can only speak personally from my experience in my neighborhood.

I've seen improvement, it's a long ways to go.

We need more, it's a complicated issue, and and maybe and not giving them the funds that they need to continue on their path to success and and addressing the homeless issue.

I in almost every community you go in, that's the number one thing that the mayor gets jammed up about.

City council members get jammed up about is how are you addressing the homeless issue?

My community, I see this and that, and how are you addressing it and how are you making it better?

So and it is a priority, it is one of our priorities that measure you, and it is a priority for the city.

So I I don't agree that I think we need to fund it.

They're gonna be re they're gonna be asked to reduce every department because of the budget is gonna have to come up with a reduction, but I want to be on the record saying we support DCR and their efforts and giving them the funding that they need.

Uh member Johnson.

Uh yeah, I I agree on the the community response.

I think there's just macro issues that it's outside the department's control.

I I do think it gets a lot of money, and I appreciate the comment, and we should, and I think this is our job is to make sure they're spending the resources well, and I haven't seen any evidence that they're not yet.

Um, but my greater point again, it's not a sound of broken record that this is I think this is hard for us to figure out where we want to cut because we're presented with a budget that looks like everything should fit generally within measure you um because that's how it's designed.

I'm not I'm not saying there's anything but prescribing Malentan.

I would do the same thing, right?

This is part of the budget that should fit in measure you, and we're putting in measure you, and it's balanced if we reallocate that eight million generally.

So I'm looking through this, and I have been looking through this, and there's a lot of stuff that I'm just not seeing a lot of um a lot of obvious things sticks out because we're only seeing one size of the pie.

If we're looking at the whole general fund, there'd be things that we'd be advocating for, I think, more easily.

Um, but I I think it's just our job is very difficult in finding.

So and now if we reallocate that eight million, generally measure use balance, so it's hard to advocate for cutting something when we're is any of recommendations today increasing as of yet.

There's just a lot of hold, right?

Well, so section two does have grow as a section, right?

I think the idea of a budget recommendation generally would be like grow these, hold study with these and reduce these, right?

Those are the that's generally if you're doing a like an audit of a budget, you would have those recommendations, right?

Because that's what they're actually the only three options.

Um and so uh I think the idea is right now we're pretty much all everything hold, right?

And so I'm curious, like if that's fine with the committee, then great.

Um by the way, I use committee and commission interchangeably.

I don't know if we've changed it now twice, whatever.

Um, but yes, uh I think I'm trying to understand if there are any items that people are willing to reduce so that we can have the grow, right?

Um and I think as of now, I've heard you know, two examples of you know, either the utility assistance program, um, which I personally would say probably not too, but you know, I I do agree that it is a band-aid.

Um and then DCR homelessness, um, I think I've seen enough statistics to say that they're doing a good job for what they've get gotten.

And I also factor in the equation that if um we say to defund DCR or like reduce their funding, I should say, um, there isn't much funding in DCR from the general fund compared to like police, for example, right?

So I take those into consideration when we're when we're making those decisions.

Uh and you can too if you want to like you you are allowed to look at the budget and like in full and then be like, okay, I I'll make a decision based off that rather than just like squinting my eyes and putting up blinders to like just the measure you.

I think it's fair to make all these evaluations in context of the entire city's budget every single time.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I'll just add then that I think if we would reduce if if we were in charge of measure you and we reduce DCR, it would just increase other parts of measure and of the general funds.

That's what I think it would probably be.

I don't I think that's correct.

So if you're saying, let's just say for take an example like directly library.

If I say let's reduce the funding of the library from 15 million to 10 million, even if I directly was in charge of it, right?

I would now have five million dollars in excess budget that I could then spend on something else, whether it be gang prevention increases or whether it be you know homelessness services, right?

So it's about moving that money around, not just like take it out of measure you and put it in general fund.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, I know what I'm saying.

That's what you're saying.

If if the measure you, if you had that and you said reduce overall all of library's funding by five million dollars.

That's what that is what I'm asking today, is like of all general fund or measure you collective general general fund, yes.

Got it.

Yes, of which some things are partitioned into measure you, but like that's kind of not the point that I'm trying to hit at.

Yeah.

So I'm saying which programs do you think should be reduced?

You know, just like the city council would see when they evaluate the program, which programs do you think should be reduced?

And it would not be refunded by the general fund, it would be reduced.

And then we would free up money to go elsewhere.

That's what I'm trying to get at.

Yeah, all right.

That would be so I appreciate that.

Yeah.

Um just given where we're at and the amount of information, I think a hold would get the most votes because there's doesn't seem to be a lot of increasing justifications and decreasing justifications right now.

Yeah, I think that's fair, and that's okay if that's where we end up.

Um member Pascal.

I was gonna say this won't make me popular, but um, if I were looking to cut something, I'd probably look at the four million dollars for arts and creative edge.

And I love art and I love public art, but um at a time when we're having to cut things, it's probably something that is not strictly necessary.

So there's um, you know, number of programs which sound great, but um you know aren't life sustaining.

Sure.

Um member Drowski.

Yeah, I would be um a strong advocate for at minimum holding, but most likely increasing DCR for a variety of reasons that we could get into at a different time, um, mainly being that a lot of the federal funding is being cut.

Um, and so that gap has to be made up, and also a lot of federal funding is being cut that are drivers of uh people being coming unhoused.

So the problem is more than likely going to get larger um than smaller, and not because of a lack of effort from the city and trying to get people rehoused, but because people are becoming unhoused more rapidly than we are able to provide them with services.

Um and then if we had to cut something, much like uh member Pascal, I think you know, this is uh not me saying that I don't agree with uh with this, but um in the um community engagement, their inclusive economic development.

I think going into reducer restructure for them.

I think there are a lot of like accessory activities that are maybe happening, like developing zines and uh producing podcasts and things like that, where maybe focusing more on the workforce development pro like the more programmatic aspects of of the work versus kind of the more um fun outreach aspects of it would be um uh better use of the money and would able to be able to potentially reduce the funds while still being effective.

Member Cook or Miller uh Office of Public Safety Accountability, 1.8 million dollars, no metrics submitted, did not attend a meeting.

That we should recommend them.

City attorney office, city attorney department, 279,000.

No metrics provided, purpose of program increased staffing to address legal mandates to release the police videos and documents.

Cut that now we're at two million dollars.

I mean, top of my head, those don't.

Oh, is your first one?

Sorry, Mr.

Office of Public Safety Accountability, 1.8 million dollars.

Not saying public safety accountability is not important.

I'm saying that they provide no metrics, nor did they actually attend a single session this year, and it's 1.8 million dollars.

Okay, I think um one thing I want to get a sense of is like I've I view this section as important because I think it's like a condensed version of like the actual like I actually I love that people said a few things because I know it's hard because obviously these programs like give different value, and they're don't gonna be stakeholders that care a lot about them.

But these are the decisions that our actual decision makers have to go through every single day.

And so, like, um I think the section is extremely important.

Um, but I'm also willing to uh make a lot like I feel like there's gonna be a it'll take a lot of effort for us to agree on what goes into this section.

Um and so I'm trying to debate on how I want to approach this.

But I think first I want to gauge on whether or not people think we should uh stick keep this section, and then if so, we can talk about how we want to change it.

Um and I think like the process though of getting us to agree on these is gonna be pretty difficult.

Um but maybe we can go through each of these and be like, do we agree with them or not?

Um how much time do we have?

40 minutes, 50 minutes for account.

Okay, and then the last one we have was okay.

Before we I'm gonna move on, because I want to come back to this because I'm gonna put this at the end because I think this is gonna be like the longest section.

Um let's move to section three before we take any votes on section two and talk about that.

Does anyone not want the accountability framework to be part of this?

Which is again number three.

So right after that chart.

Or does anyone have modifications they would like to see for this section?

Uh member Salah.

So I I think just to keep it clean.

I I would like for this section not to be part of our recommendations.

It it um or maybe condense it a little and say the accountability framework, because that's what you're working on, and we're and you're we're really working to get there to develop the um matrix and um benchmarking and all of that, and that just that's a different um process and a different doc it should be a different document completely, and but we should say something about the importance of accountability and the framework and what you're doing, Teddy, but not just detail.

That's that's my preference because I think it just gets um it it loses the the budget recommendations and our findings why we're recommending what we're recommending, should just stand alone with some ending comments, and that could be our ending comments is accountability, but not this detailed so essentially summarize a little bit better.

Yeah, okay.

Any other thoughts on this section?

Uh member cooker, member member Miller.

Um I guess just to I guess this is more of a question for Commissioner Salah.

I mean, what would you take out?

I mean, this seems pretty like bullet point, very simple.

Uh like what is what do you want to get rid of there?

Um I I just I just feel like at our at the end of our recommendations, it should just be one paragraph that that we we say what we read reiterate what we've already said, and then we make for future this is the the direction we want to go into as measure you and and it just be another paragraph and instead of all of this.

That that's I I don't know, just my opinion.

And then you would follow that up later with another document.

Yes, with more detail, more thought out and more yeah, in a separate recommendation that because we're just I feel from my perspective, we're just starting in this whole direction, which is the first time, and it's under your leadership.

You're you have a um an ad hoc that's doing this, and uh it's gonna require more thoughtfulness to put forth, and I just I know I know you were trying to get it in there because you want the importance of it stressed under the recommendations, but I don't think I don't feel comfortable because I I haven't this is some of this stuff is the first time I'm seeing it.

So is there anyone who wants to remove this section?

Because then if not, I can change the how we proceed.

You do want to remove it.

Okay, fair enough.

Um then given there's no more comments on it, let's take a quick vote of keep or remove and then keep if we keep wins, we'll talk about how we want to modify.

Maybe that includes you know, taking a chunk out and making it as an appendix or however um like more color instead of just up and down votes saying like this many is that too complex or hold row, just so there's some additional.

It seems like we're never gonna get agreed on every single line item for growhold or reduce, but having like a majority voted for this and maybe oh sorry, I'm not going on two, I'm on we're on three.

Three oh, we're on three.

I thought we'd talking about shifting over there.

No, so two, I'm gonna I push to the end.

Okay, like we'll talk about that one later because it's gonna take the rest of the time.

Um and I wanted to make sure that we got through the the rest of the document before we went back to that.

Yeah, so we're on like just the accountability framework right now.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Um do you want to get rid of account?

Okay, because I remember you said it.

Okay.

Um then let's just do that keeper uh remove for accountability framework.

And then assuming we have keep, we'll discuss quickly how we want to modify it if we do.

Member Salah.

Okay, so keep or delete, but but are you so if if I say delete it, then does it allow for some a paragraph or a few sentences that talk about the accountability?

That would be keep, and then we'll talk about how we modify it once we keep it.

It's either like strike it completely, and we need to get rid of this section entirely, or we keep it and then we'll discuss how we modify it after that.

So you would be a keep if that's your position.

Let's do it.

All right, commissioners, please unmute.

Vice Chair McGee is opposite, Commissioner Smith.

Keep Commissioner Salah?

Keep with modification.

Commissioner Cook?

Keep Commissioner Miller, keep Commissioner Johnston.

Keep Commissioner Ruiz Bunitas is absent.

Commissioner Novello?

I'll keep if modify.

Commissioner Drovsky.

Keep with modifications.

Commissioner Bushal?

Keep with modifications.

Commissioner Fry Lucas.

Keep with modifications.

Commissioner Rosa is absent, and Chair George Off.

Okay, cool.

Let's figure out what these modifications are then.

Um do we have a sense of I think the options are like either we keep it as is, or the only modification I've heard so far is that we keep maybe like the first paragraph, and then we say, like uh with more information or details of how we want this accountability framework to work, please see attached document, and we just include the 3.13.2 section in that.

That's the that's what I heard is your suggestion.

Yes.

Are there any other suggestions on how they want to how you anyone here wants to modify this?

Oh, I have a question about these lightweight.

Are you gonna use that word?

Lightweight accountability.

We can remove lightweight if you oh yeah, thanks.

Um, member cook or miller?

3.2 mid year annual review.

Uh the program reporting progress should be in person.

question about these lightweight are you gonna use that word lightweight accountability we can remove lightweight if you oh yeah thanks sure um heavy weight yeah okay any other oh member cook or miller 3.2 mid year annual review uh the program reporting progress should be in person five this is the second bullet point in three dot two is that correct yeah each program reports progress towards its dated goal it I mean twice a year two hours out of two thousand eighty hours that work I think they could swing it okay I see so that's bullet point one bullet point two you want both of those to be in person the mid year and end of annual yes okay two meetings a year okay I I think it's hard just because we have limited time right like we'll be basically listening to commission or like listening to departments every time but I heard your review we'll put it up there thank you um okay so we have two modifications which we can vote on is there any other modifications we have member Pascal um I would just maybe the ending part about programs that cannot write this will not get recommended approval like I might just state that in a more positive way like the committee will consider these factors when we're making our recommendations going forward does anyone disagree with that because I can just no okay we'll just like check I I disagree and I I don't I don't want to keep being a dead horse this is the last time I just think the lack of specificity has been the problem with this commission and actually taking a position and saying we're going to recommend X if you don't do Y could be uncomfortable it could be worrisome but it's we're actually taking a position which we should be doing as opposed to making qualitative statements that are abstract in execution okay uh member Drowski um I think that you know uh saying more in the lines that we're going to prioritize programs that can show measurable outcomes and um metrics and data um and I think that maybe the goal template is something that needs work from us as a commission moving forward that's not necessarily something that should be included in this but more holistically that we'll be including it in and also I definitely do not think that they should have to come in person.

Sure.

Okay and then member Smith very quickly this falls under the under the category of wordsmithing in three decimal one point four named accountable owner instead of a person maybe a position simply because people change jobs all the time sure okay cool then let's do quick votes on these um first thing is sorry guys I know it's like annoying but um we're almost there um okay the first thing was do we want to change to a more positive bottom statement of like programs that cannot write this will not get recommended we'll change it to something along the lines of we will prioritize funding for um programs that are able to follow with this but if I mean I think what we need to do actually first is vote on if we're even keeping 3.1 because I think uh member Trotsky's suggestion was we remove 3.1 is that correct I I just don't think it's necessary we're making budget recommendations not conduct recommendations I think that it doesn't need to be in here I don't care if it's in there I just don't think it needs to be okay um well let's vote on that first do we think three dot one should even exist in here or actually I don't know member saw this also comes your point do you want to put it as an appendix or do you just want to like get rid of it completely 3.1 personally I would just like to get rid of have a little paragraph and get rid of it because I don't think it's well developed enough that we can put it forth because there you can see the difference perspective of whether we say if you don't come and present then do this you're not gonna get funding you should be here twice twice a year in person etc I I would like further discussion about that and I don't know that we're ready for that because there's still there's still other things that we need to sure finish on here.

So okay so then for the sake of those who want that countability framework then I would I I'm okay with it being an appendix if that would okay so I yeah and I'm not sure I have good signal on that it sounds like there's quite a few people who really like three dot one and there's people who do not like three dot one so what I want to do is get a sense of that through a vote real quick um so keep or remove three dot one commissioners please unmute vice chairmage is obstinate commissioner smith uh keep there we go commissioner salah remove commissioner cook keep commissioner miller uh keep but I think you incorporated into the check ins I think that's is that what we're talking about potentially we'll put it into appendix yes but into the first two bullets on the three point two oh the the thought of having them come in person is not a thing yet that we're voting about that part I'm just talking about didn't we just check in with modifications?

Uh keep, but I think you incorporated into the check-ins.

I think that's that what we're talking about.

Potentially we'll put it into appendix, yes.

But into the first two bullets on the 3.2.

Oh, the the thought of having them come in person is not a thing yet that we're voting on.

I'm just talking about check-ins.

With modifications.

Yeah.

We did, but is this like one of them?

This is a modification.

Okay.

This is a modification we're voting on.

Do you if you have a different way of doing this?

I'm all in the same way.

I guess I was confused.

The modification we're doing right now is removal of 3.1.

Because the the set the sense I was getting from the group was that okay, we want to keep a accountability framework.

Yes, that was already been voted on.

But is the idea we're just gonna have a paragraph at the top?

Are we going to just have a paragraph at the top and include as an appendix, 3.1 or 3.2?

Or are we gonna keep the entire accountability framework basically as is with maybe a few like you know pencil changes?

That makes sense yes.

Okay, let's continue.

Keep with an appendix.

Keep in an appendix.

Okay.

Uh moving on.

Uh Commissioner Johnson.

Ape.

Commissioner Ruiz Benides is absent.

Commissioner Novello?

Remove.

Commissioner Jarovsky.

Remove.

Commissioner Pachal.

Keep.

Commissioner Fry Lucas.

Remove.

Commissioner Rosa is absent and Chair Georgia.

Okay.

Very close again.

Uh, but it is keep.

So we'll keep it.

Uh, I think there's the vote of whether or not people have to go in person.

I I already have a feeling that that's gonna not be approved.

Um, so I'm just gonna do a quick anyone, does anyone approve this?

Sorry, what are we?

Uh we're voting on sorry, you're right.

Let me frame it.

We're going quick.

Um the thing we're voting on right now is if you believe people should have to present in person and that be added to the review cadence part on 3.2.

Meaning the departments would have to come and show up and talk about these twice a year.

My own my only point on this is then you know, I'll put it to bed one way or the other, is that in our professional lives, when we work in the professional ecosystem and we ask for budgets, we have to present the results of that spend.

It should be no different in municipal government.

If departments are asking for funding to achieve X, they should present if they've achieved X with that funding, and it should be in person, and we should be able to ask questions.

It seems incredibly non-controversial, so I'm having trouble reconciling why this is such an issue.

Yeah, I think the controversial I'll speak on myself.

Um is that like that we are limited to three hours every month, of which I don't want to spend all of it doing uh department presentations.

Two, I think that we are not their primary customer, right?

They do present every year, and in fact, probably every month to the actual people who make decisions about whether or not they get to keep that budget.

Uh three is that we can go and seek these this information, right?

And we should be put it on ourselves to do so, right?

Like all that information is publicly available.

You can schedule up meetings with departments if you want to ask more questions poignantly to like maybe just DCR or whatever you care about most, and I and I encourage everyone here to do that.

But I don't think filling like there's a lot to discuss that we do discuss, and it's not just listening to departments' presentations.

That would be my opinion of it.

Um can I offer like a compromise then if if perhaps only once a year is possible?

I'd even be willing to have like a written response, but it can't be like two days before the meeting, like what happened last week.

Like those four departments that didn't speak, they jammed in their presentations like at the very last minute.

If we're gonna do if we're going to enable remote or virtual or email-based presentations, there has to be sufficient lead time.

A week, two weeks, etc.

Also possibility.

Yeah, I agree with this.

And I also think that like questions should could be ongoing.

So if you have questions about a department that like you just thought of, like, okay, great, like hit up Ash, hit up me, whatever, and we'll try to get those like data answered, or I think you added a question about like DCR data and that like that sort of stuff.

I think it's totally fine.

Sort of ad hoc like.

Um member Fry Lucas.

Uh, do we have anything in here that says that we would like for them to submit a written report?

That they all submit a written report.

Uh not in this section, no.

Oh, where is it?

Oh, sorry, name.

Oh, cedar that we try to do that.

We have three.

I think that a rewritten report should be considered.

I mean, I don't think one three point one.

Yeah.

I guess it's like that's the report.

Yeah, it it could be formed in the written written report, yeah.

I guess I guess it depends what you mean by written report.

Yeah.

Well, my concern is this may not fit everyone's reporting structure.

Are we assuming it does?

That everybody's gonna report on the same thing?

Yes.

That's what the goal we're assuming they're going to report on the same thing.

On 3.1, yeah.

That would be the goal.

Hmm.

And so their written report would all be structured like this.

That would be a section of it.

I not to like overcast the other reports that we get, which are like you know, the success of programs or something, something like how they're getting funded by measure you.

I'm not trying to like replace that per se, but that's probably a larger question.

I don't know.

Not something I I would be, I don't know if we can answer that now, but yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh sounds like this is a keep.

So we're gonna move on to um the next.

So actually there was keep with modifications from like three people or four people, I forget.

It was Membersala, um, who else was it?

No, I'd like to modify.

I just want to keep you wanna just keep it.

Oh no, I I I I said keep, but I'd like to modify it as a okay.

Then I guess the discussion is don't think that has to happen here because the motion before us is um whether or not we're gonna uh authorize the ad hoc committee to finalize and forward the approval.

Yeah, almost certainly we will.

Um the only question now then is like the modifications that people wanted to this section.

I was trying to like identify with that.

Um, and I think we said keep with modify for section three, and then we also did the same thing for 3.1.

And so the question is what is the modification?

And is I think the only one that's on the table right now, besides the small edits, was put 3.1 and 3.2 into an appendix.

Is that the only suggestion that people have so far, or is there an alternative to how you want to structure the accountability framework section?

Specifically 3.1 and 3.2.

Are we looking at an appendix?

Is that the only one?

Okay.

Assuming silence means yes, which means I'm gonna move to quickly vote on this of do you want this to be in an appendix or not?

Uh meaning keep it as is or move it to an appendix.

Cool.

All right.

Let's keep them going.

Commissioners, please unmute Commissioner Smith.

Abstain.

Fair enough.

Commissioner Sala.

Move it to the Move it to appendix or keep it as is.

Move it.

Commissioner Cook?

Keep it as is.

Commissioner Miller.

Keep it as is.

Commissioner Johnson?

Keep it as is.

Commissioner Novello.

Move it to appendix.

Commissioner Jarovsky.

Commissioner Paschal.

He does this.

Commissioner Fry Lucas.

Abstain.

Commissioner Rosa's absent and Chair George off.

Keep it as is.

Okay.

So we'll keep it as is.

Um now let's move on to the last one, which is section four.

Unless there's any other comments on section three.

I assume not though, and I'd obviously kind of want to move us on.

Okay, cool.

Um measure you alignment notes.

Um we can remove this section or we can keep it.

Um I don't I don't know if I think it kind of feels a little bit redundant at this point and like honestly not needed, but um yeah, I think it's I I would probably just vote to remove this section.

But if there are other people who think otherwise, I'm happy to hear.

Okay.

Then let's just take a quick vote of remove it.

This section four measure you alignment notes.

Okay, so we remove our keep section four.

Commissioner Smith.

Uh uh.

Do you not know?

Delete it.

Get rid of it.

Delete it.

Commissioner Salah.

Oh, sorry.

Delete.

Commissioner Cook?

Delete it.

Commissioner Miller.

Delete it.

Commissioner Johnston.

Delete.

Commissioner Novello?

Commissioner Jarovsky.

Delete.

Commissioner Pashal.

Delete.

Commissioner Fry Lucas?

And Chair George.

Yep, let's delete it.

Okay.

That's we've gone through the document, but we have to go back to number two.

We may.

Uh Mr.

Lambert, would you like to come up and give public comment on all the things you've been hearing so far before we go back to number two?

Number two.

Uh number two being the budget action recommendations in this specific document, but still number one on the uh agenda.

Everything I can to keep my poised right now.

Um this right here is an example of why the city's in the structural deficit.

Just tonight.

Now I flew in here this afternoon, and if I would have known when I looked at this and my family showed it to me, I said, Oh, I'll be in and out of there.

But when you look at this, it has nothing to do unless you go to attachments when I look at it.

I would have never known what this agenda was tonight.

I mean, there's no way I could have figured out what you just talked about.

There's so many things you talked about that I wanted to comment on.

But uh when I look at time, I can do I can summarize it.

Um I'm one of the few people in Sacramento that's ever come in front of the city council, budget added to.

And I said, I personally believe as a native that the staff, not all, but the staff is the reason that this city is in a deficit.

Otherwise, uh, what's the problem?

Everybody knows how to do math.

If you use the same math at your house that you use here, you would be homeless.

You would be out there homeless.

I don't know about unhoused.

But fiscal responsibility is the key to this thing.

I didn't know about this till somebody gave the article to me.

It had an article of my district to rep pleading guilty to some things, and he's not the only one that's guilty of that because I remember during COVID, I applied for a lot of money, and a lot of people, including him, told me, Oh, you can't get it.

Now we look and we see why we couldn't get it because people's hands were in the cookie jar.

Yes, that's what's going on down here.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

We have no more speakers.

Okay.

Um so back to number two, budget action recommendations.

Um, we didn't vote on anything with this.

I do want to get a sense of like, do we want to keep this section or not?

Um is there anyone who wants to remove this section?

I'll make it easy.

Two section two budget action recommendations.

Section two.

That it's a budget action recommendations.

So we went back up because I think we can remove it.

I mean, this is that's basically the whole thing, yeah.

I would agree, but but remove, I mean you can remove this this format, yeah.

Okay, I suppose it could go in a different format, but and like we've kind of already have suggestions above, right?

We have the non-measure U fits, and we're gonna have the police um suggestion to break it into three programs.

The rest of them will be deleted.

Um, but this is like the the last sort of maybe substance stub substantive section that we have um outside of the accountability framework.

So, yeah, does anyone want to remove this section?

Otherwise, I'm gonna have to put the vote.

No, okay, cool.

Member Salah.

Yeah, I have comments.

So no, I don't want to remove the section, but I I almost think that should be up front, and then the other um the findings should be after that because that's the crux of what we're saying, and that should be up front, and the first thing that people see right away, and it gets lost, it gets buried down there.

And we're talking, we put number one is findings.

I I don't the order needs to change.

Um, and then my last comment is are we gonna there are several programs that we called out that needed to be included in here?

Are we not gonna do that?

We did say that, and we're we were gonna put them in the executive summary section, which was like the ride-free stuff, the office of violence prevention, uh, three-year contract, the ego development, stuff like this.

That can fit in this chart if you want.

Actually, that might even be a better way of framing it rather than putting it in like more bullet points of the executive summary.

Yeah, okay.

Cool, I agree with both those changes.

Um, does anyone disagree with those?

Great.

Um member Cook.

Uh it's actually me.

Uh member Miller.

Just for some clarification.

This chart or this table.

Um I mean, we're essentially we're saying hold on pretty much everything, just calling out a few programs.

So you're gonna get rid of the numbers.

Is that is that what you're saying here?

Yeah, I'll I'll have to modify those numbers.

Um we did specifically call out um like things to put in grow.

I think that we have a list.

Um and I can total up what those cost.

So the number could still exist.

It's just a matter of changing the number to what the new programs are.

Okay, but the reduced restructure, I think we're gonna yeah.

Um well, there were some suggestions put out, arts and creative edge, the community development part, the umffice of public safety and accountability, uh DCR was brought up, but I have a feeling that it will not pass.

And then the utility assistance program was also brought up.

Um, and then yeah, those were the three the five or six that people have stated so far that we could put into reduce and restructure.

But I we'll have to agree on those in the next 20 minutes.

Okay, uh member Drowski.

Um I think to simplify this section, it might be easiest to just only list the things that we're recommending to reduce a restructure because the reality is probably not much is gonna grow this year.

Um, and then everything that's not grow or reduce and restructure is gonna be hold.

So to make this maybe a little bit more simplified, it might be better to just as a group discuss the reductions.

That's just my recommendation because we're not gonna grow everything else, would be hold.

So I think what it does though is show like a bit of a prioritization.

So like if it goes to city council and they're like, okay, yeah, I see you put something in hold, but like eh, we're kind of middle on it, then like but if we but if we have it in the grow section, it's like oh, they clearly care highly about it.

So it doesn't matter.

In that executive summary, these types of programs, programs that prioritize this are things that we want to have continued funding or enhanced funding or long-term funding, then here are the programs that we think maybe we can find reductions to ensure that these prioritize programs get the funding that they need.

If we're gonna restructure this document so that this table lives basically right under the executive summary, I think member Salah mentioned that like we could just put those that list of things into the grow section of this.

Um, and then yeah, okay.

Do you agree with that?

You're good with that?

Okay, cool.

Then Member Sola.

Yes, um there was one more program that we and I I was I forgot about it, but it's an important one, and it's not adding anything more.

But last year, measure you funded the fuel network for 500,000.

And I would just like to call that out, especially current with the current.

I would like to give it more money, but we're not gonna grow it because if but I I think we should call it out that we're we um fund the fuel network in light of everything that's going on.

Can you explain what the fuel network is?

Oh yes, the fuel network, it's it's a combination of different community organizations that are specifically dealing with immigration issues.

So you have NORCAL resist, and you have several organizations that help um immigrants with not only those newly arrived, those that are being targeted by ICE that that need assistance, whatever in whatever form it needs for the immigrants, and then of course now it's shifting to help immigrants who are being detained, going to court hearings, being observers.

There's a lot, and the f it's a valuable program.

And last year 500,000 was adequate.

This year it's not because the increase in all of the activities with ice, but for the purposes of not putting more of an impact on the budget, at least saying the funding the fuel network at the level was funded last year.

Okay, fair enough.

Um I see no more hands.

So I think what I want to do here is uh are there any objective or objections to the section that we talked about?

Sorry, uh I'm just gonna actually move on from that because I think we agreed on this.

So then the the real question is um what we want to put in the restructure or reduce section.

So again, the options are uh utility assistance program, DCR, arts and creative edge, community development, um, sort of like the fun outreach YouTube, Instagram part of it.

Is that correct?

Yeah, like the podcast, podcast stuff.

Um, and then there's the office of public safety and accountability.

Uh the best way to do this is is frankly to probably go through these quickly, um, like one at a time.

I guess uh let's just do that.

Um, so the utility assistance program.

Can we take a quick vote on that?

Yes or no.

Yes or no?

Yeah.

So it'd be like adding utility assistance program to the reduce and remove section of our chart.

Is that clear?

Will you state the the budgetary impact or or no?

Like you can.

Of course.

Yeah, I think I think it'll be on the ad hoc then to uh grow that, like whatever that becomes.

Although if it's fits in just this graft, maybe there isn't really much space for that besides like the rationale.

But I think it's up to the ad hoc if they want to like add a little details under it, like this is why we pick this or the budget.

I guess actually to answer your question, the the fiscal year like amount will still be there.

It'll be calculated.

So you'll see the budgetary impact of that.

Was that your yeah?

I just think I just think like not all these programs are equal, like utility assistance uh program.

Really you get a good bang for the buck, it's 5.4 million dollars versus like the city attorney department, 279,000, right?

So attorney numbers, so yeah.

I know, yeah, yeah.

Okay, um let's go ahead and do the vote then quickly on the um utility assistance program, adding it or not.

Okay, commissioners please unmute Commissioner Smith.

What are we voting on?

Utility assistance program.

Do we add it to the reducer restructure?

And yes means add it, no means don't add it.

Yes, add it.

Commissioner Salah?

No.

Commissioner Cook?

Add it.

Commissioner Miller.

Uh okay.

Saying add it means we want to reduce it.

Correct.

So no.

So you do not want to reduce it?

No.

Correct.

Commissioner Johnston?

No.

Commissioner Novello?

No.

Commissioner Jurofsky?

No.

Commissioner Bashal.

No.

Commissioner Fry Lucas?

No.

No.

Okay, so it's two yeses and the rest no's.

Um so we'll move on to the next one.

Uh DCR.

I'm just gonna do this one vocal because I think it'll be faster.

Um who wants to remove DCR or put it on the reduce and restructure section?

Um can I get all yeses to say I?

I can I get abstains.

Can I get objections?

Uh speak now.

Okay, so we have everyone except for one.

I'll abstain.

Um for like eight to one.

And then so we'll we won't add that.

Um arts and creative edge.

Can we add can we do the call on this one?

Because I have no idea what this is uh gonna pan out.

Commissioner Smith.

Uh reduce.

Commissioner Salah.

The answer, I yeah, I like this format better.

Reduce it, meaning reduce it or um don't include, which means don't or don't add it.

Yeah.

This is for arts and creative edge.

Don't include.

Okay.

Commissioner Cook?

Included.

Commissioner Miller?

Include.

Commissioner Johnston.

Don't include.

Commissioner Novello?

Don't include.

Commissioner Jurofsky.

Include.

Commissioner Pachal?

Include.

Commissioner Fry Lucas?

Um, I'll abstain.

And then next is community development.

Same, same thing.

Uh, this is now I guess like community development is a quite a large program.

So I guess like, is there a line item that you community engagement, right?

Yeah, and it's like one engagement.

It is for the most part one kind of big one.

We just checked.

Um let me bring it up so I can look at it.

Yeah, they have one big line item that's like 1.6 million dollars.

Um, and it's inclusive of their like workforce programming.

They do outreach and trainings and workshops and um like empowerment services, all of that is awesome.

I think all of that programmatic stuff should stay.

I love it.

Um, but then there's like additional things that they do, like a podcast, a zine, like it looks like they do multiple different types of newsletters.

I think that's where it's like reduction, maybe, and a focus more on just like the programmatic aspects could be beneficial.

Yeah, I think then we'll just leave it to the ad hoc to call that out specifically since it's gonna be like maybe just add clarity to like that position then.

Okay, so let's take a roll on it.

Commissioner Smith?

Reduce.

Commissioner Salah?

Reduce.

Commissioner Cook?

Reduce.

Commissioner Miller.

Uh don't reduce.

Commissioner Johnston?

Don't include.

Commissioner Novello.

Don't include.

Commissioner Jarovsky.

Include.

Commissioner Pashal.

Reduce.

Commissioner Fry Lucas.

Reduce.

Chair George off.

Okay.

So that one passes, so that one's in.

Um so right now we only have uh sorry, not only, but we have arts and creative edge included, and we have community development uh included.

The last one is Office of Public Safety and Accountability.

Um last comments on that one.

On office of public safety and accountability, the rationale is that um they provide no measurable outcomes, they didn't attend any meetings.

There's no like mechanism to assess whether or not they're producing results that the public wants, and therefore that it should be considered for removal.

Uh looks like Member Pascal, is that at hand that's new?

I think Member Sala was on there first.

Oh, okay.

She's back.

Oh, okay.

Um I guess for this one to me, the goal sounds very important about promoting trust and the relationship between the city and the community.

This has been a very fraught issue in the city, and so I understand why we would be investing in this.

I do agree that there's no information provided as to what is actually being done.

So I would maybe propose that we put them on the list like with some caveat, like pending some data that we haven't seen yet.

Um we would uh make a recommendation to reduce in the absence of data or until some data is provided.

It does seem like uh member Saul, go ahead.

Sorry.

I I have a question.

Is this the office that reported two years ago?

Did that um that study and they presented a city council on the abuse of stopping cars?

Um, and then finding out that the ones they stopped and and searched their cars were African Americans.

Is that is that the office that does that report?

No, that was the ACLU.

No, no, we have office here.

Oh, that also did that.

Yes, it was presented, and it was it was about two years ago.

So I'm asking you, Ash.

And unfortunately, my answer is I don't know.

Um the only clarification I can provide is um OPSA, the Office of Public Safety Accountability, they report directly to council, and that's because the police department reports to the city manager.

So I remember them coming and doing quite an extensive report and exposing the police department and their disparities or um their bias in who they stopped and comparing it with who they didn't stop, and um and then they showed a little video of them going in and uh barging down a door when a little girl answered an African American little girl and barging the door and scaring her because they wanted to search the house and they didn't have a search warrant.

It was very impactful, and so the work they do is is not is very important, and I think since we don't really understand everything because they didn't come and present, um, but it's a valuable program because I was here when they presented.

Um I I don't I'm uncomfortable saying don't fund them.

So I don't think they should be on the list.

Okay, Commissioner's unmute.

Commissioner Smith Reduce Commissioner Salah.

Don't reduce Commissioner Cook.

Reduce.

Commissioner Miller.

Don't reduce.

Commissioner Johnson.

I'm gonna speak here just to explain that I appreciate everyone's effort and try and find reducing, but I'm gonna just vote flat out not to do based off of the data and lack of data and whatever.

So I appreciate everyone's effort of trying to do it here, but I don't like to just ad hoc do kind of things here and there quickly without deep research.

I appreciate the time and effort, but I'm going to vote not to include it.

Commissioner Novello?

Not to include.

Commissioner Jrovsky.

Don't include.

Commissioner Pachal.

Abstain.

Commissioner Fry Lucas.

Don't include.

And Chair Georgia.

I'll abstain as well.

So that got most votes for don't include.

So then the only two are going to be arts and creative edge and community development outreach section, which we'll put in the reduce and restructure part.

Grow, we've already listed out.

Hold.

We might just like get rid of because it's basically everything else.

Does that sound accurate?

Okay.

Then I think we are done.

Any last comments?

I think we do have to like yeah, uh give the ad hoc the permission to go ahead and move forward with this.

Um looks like there's some comments, so member Sala.

Yeah, so ad hoc will.

Oh, I just want to mention that um you did an amazing job of putting this together, and to be honest with you, he did all the work.

We um Commissioner Cook and myself just gave um feedback, but um you did all the work.

So thank you for that.

And we are where we're at because of you, so thank you.

I really appreciate that.

I just need to know.

Um, so next Tuesday, who's gonna present.

We have to have this done by tomorrow to submit, so it makes it to slides.

Yes, and then who's gonna present and budget an audit on Tuesday?

Sorry, budget audit is not it's not tomorrow, it's like no next week from tomorrow, yeah, May 5th.

Yeah, 11 a.m.

I will be in Seattle, so someone else will have to take that.

Oh, yes, the vice chair.

I think it can be up to the group, but uh because I'd want to make sure that uh member McGee is actually available as well.

And if somebody is available here, then maybe we can establish that today.

Okay.

Um well, first let's just do a quick vote on that the ad hoc.

Well, no, let's let's establish both in one vote.

Uh so the the vote will be the ad hoc gets to go to finalize this and submit it by tomorrow with slides.

Cool.

And then on top of that, somebody from this group needs to sign up to present, or we just submit without presentation.

Is anyone wanting to do that presentation?

You could also present on May 26th if you wanted.

Um obviously that's much later in the process, given that the month of May is really we could submit and present later.

So like submit ASAP, present later.

No, you know, you're not you're kind of giving me the well, because if it would be an agenda if you didn't present, it would be a consent item on the agenda, and at that point it would just be a receive and file versus um if it's on a if it's a discussion item, then you would present it and potentially they could choose to vote to forward it to the full city council for consideration.

Okay, well, I guess is there really no one who wants to do that presentation on the I'm willing to do it, but um bear in mind uh I think uh I voted against everyone else in all of the distributed viewpoint.

So if you want to put me up there, put me up there in front of them.

I mean, part of the job is to like express the will of the commission whole, right?

Not your opinion.

And I trust that you can't ask questions.

Okay, well, maybe we do just uh oh I don't know, like is it was that a joke, or do you actually want to?

Yes, well then let's just do the presentation later.

If it's willing to I mean I I can I can step up and do it on fortunately retired if that's helpful.

Okay, so then the vote will be maybe this is together, maybe not, but like the ad hoc will get permission to do it, and then we'll have member Smith uh make the make the presentation.

Okay, okay.

Let's do a last final roll call.

And this is actually uh I this is actually a motion, so I need a second for this one.

I said that you can make a motion.

Yes, I'll just clarify it's I it's implied, but the motion is to a approve the recommendations as discussed and b authorize the 26 2026-27 budget recommendations ad hoc committee to finalize and forward the approved recommendations to the city council's budget and audit committee on behalf of the full commission for consideration.

Yes.

And draft PowerPoint slides.

And that's due tomorrow by like end of the day.

But not the PowerPoint.

Yes.

Everything.

Oh, everything.

Yeah, by Wednesday morning, if you want to stay up all night on Tuesday.

Can you confirm that the GROW item has been removed from section two?

Are we only looking at presenting reductions?

It has all the sections that we agreed to originally that we were originally going to put in the key exact summary, but we've moved that now to the grow section.

So we're going to recommend reductions as well as growth opportunities and not just reductions?

Correct.

And growth is what's in the table at this time?

Grow is not what's in the table at this time.

Grow is currently what we agreed on in the executive summary, which is ride free office of violence of prevention, three-year contract, participatory budgeting.

Um, and uh uh I think it was just like programs that use funding to like get grant money, which like the fire department being one of them.

Um have issues with any of those things that I just said.

I think there was also the fuel network, but we didn't vote on that one from Mersala.

Uh does anyone have a problem with the fuel network being included in that?

I I actually don't know this line item.

Like I don't see it in the budget.

Um, I don't see it.

Is it are you sure we fund it?

We have enough time to vote too.

I want to make sure we have like two minutes.

I don't want to miss it.

Uh we actually have we actually have six because we started five minutes.

That will be part of our that will be our research.

The ad hoc to clarify that.

Okay, we'll throw that to the ad hoc to decide.

Ad hoc will have a bit of privilege here to like, but within reason of what we voted.

Um I have the motion to do what Ash clearly specified.

Um is there a second?

I'll second.

Okay, let's take a vote.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Smith.

Aye.

Commissioner Sala?

Yes.

Commissioner Cook?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson?

Yes.

Commissioner Ruiz Benet Benitas is absent.

Commissioner Novello?

Yes.

Commissioner Jurofsky?

Yes.

Commissioner Pachal?

Yes.

Commissioner Fry Lucas?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosa is absent.

Commissioner McGee is also absent, and Chair Georgov.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Well, that's go.

Okay.

And that is everything.

I don't think there's closing.

Anything else?

There is.

Any commissioner comments, ideas, or questions that are not on the agenda?

Um, members all, do you actually have one?

Or is this okay?

Cool.

Um, then we adjourn.