I was here.

I haven't found that I think I'm doing well, Steve.

And you okay.

Good morning.

This is Cammy Southward.

I'll be clerking the meeting today.

We'll need about 30 seconds before call to order so that our team can start live streaming the media on the meeting online.

Okay, we are live, so Chair, whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much.

Well, uh good morning, and welcome to the March twenty-fifth uh twenty twenty six meeting of the City of Sacramento's Compensation Commission, which is an independent commission uh created by Article Three, Section Twenty-Nine of the City of Sacramento Charter that was approved by the voters in two thousand two to establish the compensation for the mayor uh for other uh members of the city council and public members of city boards and commissions.

Uh the meeting is called to order.

And uh Ms.

Southward, would you please introduce yourself uh and call the role and state whether there is a quorum for the meeting.

This is Cammy Southward from the City Clerk's office.

Um I will now call the role, Commissioner Cohn.

Here.

Commissioner Kawada.

Absent.

Commissioner Pray?

Here.

Commissioner Riviera?

Here.

And Chair Scotland.

Present.

All right, Chair, you have a quorum.

All right, thank you so much.

Um, before we get started, uh, could you uh please introduce yourselves to those uh attending this meeting uh by streaming video?

Or if they come in uh into this chambers uh and give a brief uh summary of your background.

Let's uh do that in alphabetical order.

Stephen Cohen, please uh introduce yourself.

Tell us a little bit about your background.

Yeah.

Good morning.

Uh Steve Cohn, uh former city councilman for some twenty years, uh, and uh also a former in-house attorney at SMUD.

And lately I've been uh working on variety of nonprofit boards.

Thank you.

Uh Elizabeth Prey.

Uh, thank you, Elizabeth Pray.

I also go by Lisa.

Um I have multiple degrees in computer science and accounting.

And I've worked uh in both of those fields um doing um human resource management and um, of course, computer programmer.

I'm retired from the federal government.

I've also been self-employed as a business consultant.

Thank you, and Ms.

Rivera.

Thank you.

My name is Theresa Riviera, and I was on Measure You I don't know what else to say.

That's fine.

That's it.

Thank you.

And uh I'm uh Arthur Scotland.

I was uh born and raised in Sacramento.

I've lived in the city of Sacramento for 73 of my 79 years, and as a retired judge, uh I serve as the chair of the compensation commission and have done so since uh 2019 uh because the city count uh city charter specifies that the chair must be a retired judicial officer.

So uh members members of the public, I see no one in this chambers, but if there is any members of the in the of the public, oh excuse me, are you uh with staff?

Okay, you're with stealth.

All right.

So uh members of the public, if you were uh viewing this uh uh on streaming, um you are welcome to uh speak uh if you would like to to this commission on an agenda item.

Uh by the way, uh members of the commission and uh members uh of the general public were provided with the agenda package and all the materials last week.

Uh so if any members of the public wish to speak uh to this commission on any uh uh agenda item, we welcome that.

Uh if you want to comment uh you're present here, you have to turn in a speaker slip before the item is called uh for discussion and after the item is called for discussion.

Uh the commission will no longer no longer accept uh speaker spic speaker slips.

So uh and by the way, members of the public will have two minutes to speak when uh you are called on.

Uh before proceeding uh with the consent calendar and the discussion calendar, I'd like to explain the manner in which uh the agenda items will be addressed.

When an agenda item is called, the presenter will go first so that the commission and members of the public uh know exactly and hear exactly uh what is before the commission.

Following the presenter, members of the public who submitted speak speaker slips to comment on an agenda item will be given the opportunity to do so.

Again, uh you have two minutes to speak when you're recalled.

Uh then the commit uh commission will discuss the item, ask questions uh directed to the presenter or staff and decide what action to take on the item.

So, Ms.

Southworth, would you please uh call the consent calendar item number one, approval of minutes of the compensation commission meeting on May 22nd, 2025.

Sir, did you want to do the land acknowledgement and pledge for the uh you know?

I think we should do that.

My apologies.

Thank you.

Uh would you please um lead us in the um in that please?

Yes, please rise if you're able to the original people of this land, the Nissanan people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains, Miwok, the Putwin Wintoon peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these 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.

Please salute and pledge.

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

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

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Southword.

Let's uh please call the consent calendar item number one, approval of minutes.

Well okay.

There's one item on the consent calendar.

It is item number one approval of the compensation commission minutes.

File ID 2026-0066.

All right.

Uh there's no presenter on this uh item.

Uh Ms.

Southworth, are there any members of the public that uh wish to speak on that item?

Chair, I have no speakers.

All right, thank you.

Um are there any members of the commission who wish to speak on that item?

All right.

Uh is there a motion and second to approve the minutes as set forth in the consent calendar item number one.

I so move.

Thank you.

Second.

Thank you.

And uh we have a motion uh and uh second.

Uh any discussion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Oppose or abstain?

None.

All right, thank you.

Motion passes with one absence, and that's uh Commissioner Kawada.

Thank you.

All right, uh Ms.

Southward, would you please call the discussion calendar item number two, the annual review of the compensation of the mayor, city council members, and public members of city boards and commissions.

Moving on to the discussion calendar, we have item number two, it's the annual review of compensation for mayor, council members, and public members of the city boards and commissions.

File ID 2026-00729.

And for our presenter, we have Miss Ebony Heathen.

Sorry.

Thank you.

And before we take the presentation on this item, I am going to provide background on the responsibility of the compensation commission.

Article 3, Section 29 of the City Charter, which charter which was adopted by the voters in 2002, requires the compensation commission to annually set compensation for the mayor and council members that is, quote, reasonable and consistent with other cities similar in size and structure, unquote.

In my job as a former judge, I and my colleagues interpreted and applied codes.

In doing so, we applied established rules of statutory construction.

If the words of an enactment are not ambiguous, their plain meaning governs and the words must be given their ordinary, usual meaning construed in the context of the apparent purpose of the enactment.

Applying those rules to Article 3, Section 29 of the City of Sacramento Charter, similar commonly means nearly but not exactly the same as.

Size means population.

Structure in this context commonly means the manner of organization and the operation of integrated parts of the whole, such as whether the work of the mayor and council member is full part-time or part-time, how often the council meets, whether they also sit on city committees and boards, whether they have regular office time for consultation and with constituents, whether they attend constituent events during the day or evening, whether the government uh local government includes a city manager and other such factors.

Quote, responsible means logical, sensible, justified by the facts and circumstances, prudent.

Consistent means in conformity with, in accord with, and the ordinary, usual meaning of the word compensation is not limited to the employees' salary.

It also includes incentives such as travel allowances, health insurance, retirement, and other non-cash benefits as incentives for employees to accept and perform the responsibilities of the position.

Thus the test that the compensation commission must apply is the amount of total compensation paid by the city of Sacramento to its mayor and council members must be logical, sensible, prudent, and justified by the facts and circumstances in conformity with the compensation that other cities nearly uh nearly the same in population and structure of their city councils pay to their mayors and council members.

At its uh meeting on February 13th, 2019, this commission applied this test based on an independent consultant's research and report presented to the commission.

Uh we identified nine uh cities similar to Sacramento in the size of their populations and the structure and manner in which their city councils operate.

The uh those cities are Fresno, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Denver, Portland, and Seattle.

With respect to compensation, a question, pardon me, a question raised by members of this commission at the February 13, 2019 meeting, was whether the work of Sacramento's council members is the equivalent of a full-time position or whether they work part-time in performing their duties.

In presenting a summary of the history and scope of the compensation commission, supervising deputy city attorney Gustavo Martinez explained, although Measure 5 that created a full-time mayor was silent as to whether council members are full-time, it did not imply that they are part-time.

Thus, the council members should not be paid less simply because they are not characterized as full-time.

Instead, the compensation commission's obligation is to independently evaluate what council members do and the amount of work and time they devote to their positions, and then arrive at a compensation level that is reasonable and consistent with the salaries of council members in comparable cities in size and government structure.

Mr.

Martinez also told us that the Sacramento Charter Review Committee in 2009 noted, quote, the responsibilities of council members are inescapably full time.

As elected officials serving in local government, the level of government closest to the people, council members are expected to be knowledgeable and active in a wide array of governmental and public service activities.

Council member service requires substantial time to attend community functions, meet with officials of surrounding local agencies, maintain contacts with state and federal elected officers, and be accessible to city staff, concerned set residents and responsible shareholders in their city hall offices.

On any given day, a council member can easily be expected to attend meetings and functions beginning before breakfast and ending well after the dinner hour.

In fact, the time devoted to these activities is the measure many voters use to rate the quality of their own elected official service.

Unquote.

Thus, the Sacramento Charter Review Committee recommended that if the charter is amended, the council members be identified as full-time council members.

And in response to a question from the commission, Mr.

Martinez, who for many years has attended compensation commission meetings and also has observed the many various functions performed by council members, responded that he could not speak for the city attorney's office, but when asked his personal opinion, not as a lawyer but as a participant in city government, he replied that based on his personal observations over the years, the work of council members on a day-to-day basis is the equivalent of full-time duties.

He also noted the demands on council members have increased substantially as the city has grown in population and geographic size.

Following a consultant's presentation on comparable cities, the consultant was asked whether the information acquired by her shows the work of Sacramento Council members the equivalent of full-time employment.

She did not directly answer the question but said that having gathered the comparative information and spoken to all the agencies working with the city clerk's office to identify how they operate.

It appeared to her that the expectations and degree of board rep responsibilities of Sacramento's council members seem to be very much on the higher side, and that in her words, their level of work is different and what I would be thinking is a larger scale of responsibility.

And in response to a question from the commission, the city of Sacramento's then human resources director, Shelley Banks Robinson stated, setting salaries for any job classification does not take into account any other income or job a person has, salary is based only on the work the person does and the person's capacity, in other words, the person's position in state government.

At the request of this commission, a survey was that survey was then prepared and submitted to council members.

All the survey questions and council members' answers were included in the agenda packet provided to the commission and the public for the commission's April 3rd, 2019 meeting.

I will highlight a few.

As to how many days in the typical work they work, meaning council members that are fulfilling their duties as council members, they replied replied six to seven days a week.

As to how many hours in the typical work they devote to council member duties, their responses were 48 hours, 50 to 60 hours and 60 hours, with three reporting they typically perform their duties well after 5 p.m.

up until 9 or 10 p.m.

All reported working a significant number of hours on weekends performing council member tasks.

When asked what impact, if any, the salary of a council member might have on a person's interest and ability to serve as a council member, one replied, quote, it would be helpful to have full-time salary to better manage time and devote full attention to council duties.

Part-time pay with full-time duties as a major detriment to individual health and ability to serve city responsibilities.

Another said, quote, the current salary of a council member requires most council members to have another source of income, and appropriate salary would enable more time during the day to meet with our employees and set in preparation and responding to constituents' needs.

The job is very demanding, so early morning and evening meetings, calls, and site visits are required to be effective and meet family obligations.

The third council member said, quote, full-time pay will make this position more attractive to quality individuals who will devote the time to the job that it requires.

This will probably lead to more turnover in elections and more competitive elections.

Those three also commented on the important decisions they must make and the demanding nature of their duties as council members, including making themselves available to constituents and addressing, as one phrased it, the quote, intensity of the duties of council and the impact of modern world life, which included 24 hour schedules with emails, texts, social media, and the need to engage on continuous impacts of homeless public safety and neighborhood concerns that don't confine themselves to a normal work day.

Based upon the evidence outlined above, the commission made a factual finding on April 3rd, 2019, that the work of Sacramento Council members, City of Sacramento Council members is the equivalent of a full-time position.

I emphasize this background and finding because in March 2022, a member of the public asked why council members are allowed to pursue jobs on the side, why they aren't isn't a limit on the amount of time they can spend on profit-oriented ventures and why other compensation earned by a council member does not have a bearing on the annual compensation he or she receives from the city of Sacramento.

In response to those questions, the City of Sacramento's Human Resources Director explained that as long as the city uh employee fulfills the responsibilities of his or her job, the city has no power to prevent an employee from holding another job, has no authority to limit the uh hours put into that other job, and has no power to consider the employer's additional income as a factor of compensation for the employees' work of the city.

So, with this with this uh background in mind, uh the compensation commission has the annual duty to review and set the total compensation of the City of the City of Sacramento's mayor and other council members for the coming year.

Uh we start by asking the city's human resources director, Ebody Heaven, to formally present the analysis that was provided to the commission members and the public last week.

So thank you.

And that's so in fairness to the public who comment, we can consider their comments when we ask questions of the presenter and discuss the issue.

So Ms.

Evan, please begin.

Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Ebony Heaven, Human Resources Manager for Employment Services of the Human Resources Department.

As the chair already stated, Article 3, Section 29 sets guidelines for the way we conduct salary surveys for mayor and city council members.

It's important to note that the agencies we survey for mayor and council do differ than those we survey for our unions because there is different charter language that establishes establishes requirements for that group.

I'd also like to point out that the agenda packet that you have, you'll see salary surveys both with and without San Francisco.

This is because in previous years we've been asked to include them.

However, despite them being similar in size and structure, the cost of living in San Francisco is substantially higher than that in Sacramento.

Last year, both mayor and city council members received increases in compensation.

As you can see from the report, the mayor's base salary has increased to 184,464 dollars annually, and council members increased to 111,324 annually.

In the agenda packet, I provided a copy of a spreadsheet that would allow me to perform calculations for you as the discussion progresses regarding the surveys.

The spreadsheet provides six options.

Should you want to provide a percent increase if you want to look at an average or a meeting of other agencies or by changing total compensation.

In addition to the salary surveys, a red line version of the resolution covering mayor and council is also included in the agenda packet.

What you'll see in the packet is an update to health care contributions.

We have also included language that would allow changes to health care premiums to match that of non-sworn employees once health care contributions are identified for 2027.

During last year's compensation meeting, human resources was asked to include cost of living adjustments for each comparable agency.

Those adjustments are reflected in the compensation surveys as an ERI adjustment.

ERI stands for economic research institute, and an ERI adjustment applies to geographic cost of labor and cost of living differentials to salary data to ensure a more accurate market comparison.

It is also used to normalize compensation data across jurisdictions that differences in regional economic conditions do not skew the analysis.

We were also asked to provide comparable agencies total budget and illustrate the portion of the budget represented by the mayor and council member salaries.

That is reflected as attachment four in the agenda packet and is reflected as percentages shown both the monthly base salary and the total compensation in relation to the agency's total budget.

In previous years, the commission requested that we provide a summary of increases of what our unions have received and unrepresented staff have received.

The report due to the when it had to be submitted for the agenda shows no increases for fiscal year 25-26 for representative employees.

However, yesterday, council approved a new labor contracts for local 39 A, B, and C.

The new labor contracts include salary increases of 1% effective September 20th, 2025.

I'm sorry, would you say that again?

Included what?

A salary increase of 1% effective September 20th, 2025, and an increase of 2.5% effective September 19, 2026.

Lastly, I'd like to note that the city's health care contribution has increased from $2,051 to 22 2230 dollars as allowable by section 3.1j of the resolution covering mayor and council.

Due to the timing of the staff report for the compensation meeting, the increase is not reflected in the salary survey conducted by the consultant, but has been updated in the spreadsheet that I will use to perform calculations for you.

Thank you for your the thoroughness of your presentation.

The commission now invites uh public comment on the uh agenda item.

Um are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Chair, I have no public speakers.

All right, thank you.

Um so uh at this time uh please uh respond to the uh excuse me.

Now's the time actually for commission uh members to ask you questions and discuss the agenda item and the action we deem appropriate to comply with the state charter.

And as chair of the commission, I will begin by asking you, Ms.

Heaven, uh, to respond to the following questions.

Um you've already noted that the uh description analysis provided by your office in the agenda package uh submitted to this commission and the public correctly states that the current annual salary of the city of Sacramento's mayor is 184,464 dollars uh of salary.

Excuse me.

Uh the chart your office prepared regarding uh salaries, cash supplements, and insurance benefits uh currently paid by Sacramento to its major mayor and paid to by nine cities, including San Francisco, similar in size uh and structure to their mayor shows that compared to the amount of compensation received by the other cities' mayors, the compensation of Sacramento's mayor is ranked seventh of ten.

Would that be an accurate conclusion?

And I'm sorry I didn't warn you ahead of time.

It's just specific question I would ask.

I'm sorry, did you say with or without San Francisco?

Um comparing the um the uh salaries, cash supplements, and insurance benefits currently paid to Sacramento's mayor compared to those paid by nine cities, including Sacramento that are similar in size and structure.

Um that indicates that the uh compensation of Sacramento's mayor ranks seventh of ten.

Is that appear correct to you?

Um, including San Francisco, I show that it ranks five if you're looking at base cash and um base pay.

So cash and incentives like the same.

I'm talking about the because our compensation has to include the other aspects, correct?

Yes.

So are we talking about total compensation?

Correct.

Yes, I'm sorry, yes, seventh.

Okay.

Correct.

And then excluding San Francisco, the amount of total compensation received by Sacramento's mayor ranks sixth of nine.

That is accurate.

Okay, thank you.

And then applying the cost of living adjustments, uh, the annual compensation received by Sacramento's mayor ranks fourth of ten compared to the mayors of the other county uh cities and counties, including San Francisco, and third of nine excluding San Francisco.

Is that correct?

Does that sound right to you?

That is correct, yes.

Okay.

Now you you spoke about uh cost of living uh adjustments and um why they should be included in our analysis.

Would you kind of summarize that again, please?

Absolutely.

Um, typically speaking, when you're looking at comparable agencies, a cost of living adjustment is applied because the uh cost of living in one area and the labor market generally is a huge differential, and San Francisco is a really good example of that.

Um so applying an ERI adjustment or cost of living adjustment essentially normalizes the data so that it's looked at equitably amongst the agencies.

All right, thank you.

And let's turn to uh city council members.

Uh the description uh analysis provided by your office uh in the agenda package that was submitted to the commission and the public states the current annual salary of city of Sacramento uh and just talking about salaries right now uh is one 11 uh 324, is that correct?

For city council, yes.

Okay.

And the chart your office prepared uh regarding salaries, cash supplements, insurance benefits uh currently paid by Sacramento to its council members and paid by nine uh other comparable cities, including San Francisco, uh Sacramento's council members uh what they receive is seventh of ten.

Is that correct?

Does that look right to you?

Yes, that's accurate.

Okay.

And then excluding San Francisco, the amount received by uh council members were talking just about salary is uh ranked sixth of nine.

Is that uh correct to you?

That is correct, yes.

And then applying the cost of living adjustments, the amount received by Sacramento's council members uh ranks fifth of ten, including San Francisco, and fifth of nine, excluding Sacramento.

Does that sound does that look right to you?

That is correct.

Okay.

So in your professional opinion, as a human resources manager, uh what significance should uh the commission give to those cost of living adjustments?

You've really already answered this, but I I wrote it out, so I'm gonna ask it anyway.

What uh uh what in your professional uh opinion uh should this commission give to the cost of living adjustments in determining the amount of 2026-2027 fiscal year compensation for the City of Sacramento's mayor and for uh its uh council members uh that would comply with the requirements of Article III, Section 29 of the city charter that was adopted by the voters in 2002, stating that the compensation must be reasonable and consistent with other cities similar in size and structure.

You know, I don't think there's really a right or wrong answer here.

Um, in a perfect world in the market analysis, we generally will exclude San Francisco and Las Vegas because the salary survey indicates that they're generally higher in cost compared to other jurisdictions.

However, the board typically does not include an ERI adjustment or cost of living adjustment in their analysis.

It was asked for in consideration.

I think that given all the data points that you are presented with in this report, it should all be considered in totality.

Um generally what I would recommend is at a minimum provide them an increase based on what other managers receive.

However, as reflected in the report, management classifications have not received any increases with the exception of um a change to the state attorney salary, which was 1.3%.

All right, thank you.

And um you you did mention this, uh, but we'll go over the end just to make sure we all uh understand it.

Uh, what are the reasons for the increases in the health care benefits that are received by the city's mayor and council members as proposed in the draft uh resolution?

Um the increases are because there is language in the unrepresented reso for mayor council that allows us to align the um health care contributions with uh that of any non-sworn staff that had gone to table and ratified a contract for 2027.

At the time that we had presented the uh the compensation commission last year, the contract, I'm sorry, the uh contributions had not been decided for 2027.

So you'll see that reflected in the on rep reso.

All right, thank you.

And then the um 2026, apologies.

I'm sorry, what?

2026, apologies.

Okay, no, that's fine.

Uh the draft resolution also lists compensation covering uh city boards and commissioners uh as of March 15th, 2026, um, other than the compensation commission, because we are not compensated for the service that we provide.

Um the draft resolution proposes no increases in such compensation for the 2026-2027 fiscal year.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Um, if any significance should the compensation commission give to recent news accounts that the city of Sacramento is facing a projected uh 66.2 million dollar budget deficit for the fiscal year 2026-2027.

What significance is, if any, should the compensation commission uh give to that?

That's a great question.

Um, Article 3, Section 29 of the City Charter directs that the salaries of mayor council members be reasonable and consistent with those of other cities of similar size and structure.

While the charter does not explicitly require consideration of the city's financial condition, I think the term reasonable may be interpreted to include the awareness of broader contextual factors, including current fiscal considerations.

At the time, it's important to recognize that compensation actions across the city have varied in recent years.

Um, with some employee groups not receiving base salary adjustments, even as broader economic factors such as cost of living uh pressures and marking competitiveness have impacted our workforce.

Ultimately, the commission's role is truly to ensure that the compensation remains market-aligned, um, internally consistent, and reflected of prevailing economic conditions while remaining mindful of the city's overall fiscal impact.

I'm very impressed by your response.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um and my last question.

Okay.

On what date should the 2026-2027 compensation that we said, on what date should that begin?

Um we typically recommend implementing increases at the start of the fiscal year, so July 1st.

Salary changes for current employees always do need to land on the beginning of a pay period.

So if you implemented increases on June 13th, 2026, the increase would hit the first paycheck in July.

Um I provided some options if you wanted to explore what that uh what the other options look like.

We can definitely look at that, but effective July 1st with the first salary or with the first paycheck being uh July 11th is when it would be effective if you were to implement it as an effective date of June 13th.

So if uh for example we uh ultimately uh decide uh not to increase uh anything, then the date to set it would be July the first.

If we do decide to increase any compensation, the appropriate date would be July the 13th, is that correct?

The effective date would be June 13th.

Yes.

I said July, I said July.

Okay.

Effect.

All right.

Um thank you for indulging me in my questions.

Do any uh other members of the commission have questions for Ms.

Evan?

Yes, Mr.

Cohn.

Thank you.

Um first question is um the charter specific in requiring that uh the city pays its council members and mayor um the the cash supplements the way that we do, in other words, some cities um pay a salary that uh without additional cash supplements, whereas we have for the city deferred comp, auto, cell tech, and other.

So is that required that the compensation commission has to do it that way rather than simply uh having a set salary?

No, it's within your discretion to be able to make that decision.

I'm sorry, I couldn't do that.

But then your discretion to make that decision as the compensation commission.

So you can remove the cash supplements and then in totality increase the overall um range of the classification.

You can change the supplements at more reduced, those are things that are within your power to do.

All right.

And is that true of deferred comp or is that not part of uh uh I thought the city had as part of its, I forget what number, but 401 or 457, whatever it has.

I thought that all employees had to be part of that.

Can you I can answer that, Samantha Hardy, interim human resources director and benefit services manager.

So um we have a 457 B deferred compensation program available voluntarily to all employees.

It's their choice, that's their own money going into it.

Um this is referencing a mandatory participation 401A plan where the plan document specifies the employee will contribute a certain portion and the city will contribute a certain portion.

We can always amend that plan document to reflect any change in either portion or stopping the contribution.

Um but um the plan document would be amended based upon whatever this commission chooses to do specific to that 401A contribution.

All right.

And the reason I asked those questions, you know, I of course have a personal history on the council going back to 1994 when our salary total was based on how many meetings, you know, you get paid per meeting.

And so there was no compensation commission, and of course it was, you know, there was some pressure not to be raising your own salary, which is why eventually the compensation commission was formed.

But this notion of all these different supplements was sort of created as a way to make up for the fact that there was no real salary.

Um that you were just getting paid per meeting.

So I don't know that uh we have to change that.

Well, I know we don't have to, but at some point I I wonder what's the real reason.

It just complicates our analysis, it creates uh five or six more columns than maybe we need on these spreadsheets.

So I raised the idea that if not this year, that maybe we think about for next year, uh consolidating the cash supplements as as part of the salary.

Now that's separate from the insurance benefits, which um most cities also provide that, and most jobs uh good jobs provide.

If I may, I would like to just point out that while the amounts are different, um, items like auto, sell are consistent with what other exit management staff will receive in the city.

Right.

Okay.

So there's if I may add on to like the auto and sell as Ebony um mentioned, consistent with our unrezo for unrepresented managers or even our represented managers.

Um often it is kind of a standard practice, especially a city of our size and a volume of employees to set a specific dollar amount, which lessens the burden on the employee and the finance department having to do submit mileage and do mileage reimbursements and submit reimbursements for cell phones, you know.

The stipend is is a fairly common practice.

I understand that, but are you suggesting them for the other cities that don't have uh supplements for those categories?

The council members are submitting and mayors submitting those separately, or when would it not be possible just to say here's your salary and you cover your own auto uh cell?

We would have to look into that.

I don't have that information in front of me.

I just wanted to articulate that our practice now, especially amongst the other management level groups, is in line with what is how council and mayor are receiving these and the practice is the same.

I would also just add that specifically to the technology allowance.

It is highly probable that they may not see receive an allowance, but they may receive a phone paid for by the agency in place.

So those are just things to consider also.

All right.

Um that for that reason I'm not gonna propose that that we think about consolidating for for this year, but I would like to have us uh consider uh whether there'd be a benefit to simplifying and uh the way other uh cities re uh pay their elected officials.

Um my second line of questions and goes to the table that is uh let's see how do I describe this the one that's um annual budget comparison?

Well, I'm actually looking at the I think it's the fifth table in the uh one, two, three, four, five.

Yeah, it's yeah, annual budget comparisons the title.

So it shows mayor and council on the same page.

Yes.

With um uh 11 or 12 different columns.

So this is where you added the um column showing the annual budget of each agency and the percent that the compensation to elected's uh uh represents.

That is correct.

Um just as a point of comparison, since we're comparing salaries, uh, I thought it would be of some uh relevance to also compare what percent those salaries represent of the total budget.

If I'm reading this correctly, it appears that the city of Sacramento, the total compensation, so looking at the very far right column is the highest percent of the Sacramento's budget compared to all the other cities.

Is that correct?

I believe Denver is the highest so they would be second highest in total components.

I may have for mayor.

Oh, on council, yeah.

Are you looking at council?

Uh I think you're correct on council.

On mayor, I believe Sacramento's way around.

It's the other way around.

So mayor for the mayor, Sacramento represents the second highest.

For council, it is the highest.

Okay.

All right.

And um I think that's another way of considering what you know we talked a lot about the amount of work that a council member does, and in my experience, there's no question it's a full-time job.

And the one thing I would add to your summary, uh, Mr.

Scotland, is that um I in my view the the charter only mentioned the mayor and not the council.

I think was more this is my own recollection.

So I'm not saying it it can be relevant in a court of law.

But my own recollection is the intent was we definitely wanted the mayor not to have another job.

We want to be sure the mayor was solely focused on this his job or her job as mayor.

The council members, there wasn't the same uh thought that they should not ever be able to have another job.

Uh the thought was, well, you know, we're if we pay enough, hopefully they don't need to, but there was no thought that they should be prohibited from outside employment.

So that was, you know, my recollection, and of course, at that time the salary was much less, too.

As the salary has gone up, I think there is an expectation more and more the council members devote uh their time to full time, but still there's no rule that says they cannot have outside employment, or maybe you know, some of them had an existing business that they still need to spend some time on.

Um I spent uh four years working only on council, my last four years, but my first 16 years I had another job.

So I've seen both sides, and I have to say I was probably more effective as a council member when I was working full-time as council member and not having to work at another job.

Soffice it to say it's a uh it should be considered a full-time job, whether or not an individual has the capacity and willingness to to do something else on the side.

Um just so I understand the the comparison we were just the tables we were just looking at, as well as the previous four tables, those are all based on the current uh salaries or current compensation.

Okay, all right.

Um I think that uh covers my question.

Before I call any other commissioners to uh share their thoughts, I just wanted to respond uh to your comment, uh Mr.

Collins, uh, of about the supplements.

Um I think for several reasons, I think it's best to keep those supplements identified.

It shows more transparency, I think, to see what what these council members and and what the mayor are getting for these types of supplements.

I think that's better to be transparent.

I also think that for the reasons that were stated, uh, if you don't have that, then you've got to go through to all of this paperwork and time and effort in all of that to go through all the the claims for you know going through uh the amount you purchase it.

It's just uh uh a little bit more difficult uh to do that, and I think uh uh lacks the transparency that the so that's my position on that, but I certainly understand and respect your thoughts about that.

Um Mr.

Cohen, particularly since you were a member of the city council uh in the past.

So other members, uh please.

Uh yes, thank you.

Um first of all, I want to thank you so much for including including that ERI cost of living column because it really helped me to see um how we were shaping up with the comparable cities, and it also brought the question to mind.

So I understand why you would remove San Francisco until you do the cost of living.

But it also brings to mind why are we including Long Beach?

Um Long Beach is a is a distinct outlier.

And because it's so low, I'm assuming.

I mean, the mayor, for the mayor, it seems comparable, but for the city council, I'm I can only assume that they do not consider city council members to be full-time.

Um or else the I don't know why you would run.

Um but it does seem to be an outlier.

I wonder why we are including that.

Um in 2019, a salary survey and was conducted and presented to the commission, and it was voted on that these were the 10 agencies that we would use for salary surveys moving forward.

So if we wanted to make modifications or changes to those agencies, I would recommend that we do a new survey.

Um it is ideal to have at least 10 comparators when we are looking at compensation data.

So if we're removing one, we would want to replace it with one.

So it would be ideal if we did that via a salary survey.

I'm sorry, not salary survey, a survey that a consultant would do.

I just did for my own self.

I took Long Beach out, and of course, it raises for city council, it it raises um the average substantially, you know, enough to be considering.

Um the second thing is, and this is just a comment really, not a question, but looking at the annual budgets for the various jurisdictions.

We are the second lowest uh annual budget.

I'm shocking to me that Fresno, which has a comparable population to the city of Sacramento, is so much higher.

They can somehow get $700 million more into their budget than we can.

Um I don't know where that money's coming from, but we'd sure would like to shop that one around that idea around.

But it does strike me that we have a very low city budget compared to other um comparable jurisdictions, and that's just a comment.

I take that for whatever you want.

Um that's pretty much all mine, but I do thank you so much for the cost of living adjustment.

Um it really brings San Francisco into line.

It really does.

So thank you.

Absolutely.

I do have a question.

Is it on oh thank you for the report?

I really appreciate it.

I just for kind of looking at this.

I just have a comment also in reference to this report when it comes to the supplements, the cash supplements.

There's a column there that says other, and no other city has other on there.

However, for this the mayor and the city council, we do.

But what is considered other?

What does that mean for transparency purposes?

Is that the three percent?

Jennifer, do you know what the other is for mayor council?

Can you come to the can you can can she come to the podium, please?

That's what I thought.

Yeah, that's what I think it is as the 30%.

I think that's the breakdown between one moment.

And for the mayor is 461.

What would they use those monies for?

Yeah, um, in what is it?

3.1 of the resolution covering mayor and council.

Um it states in addition to city contribution received above, the mayor's the all members shall receive three percent of base salary to apply to optional benefits.

So it's an optional benefit.

Is that in the report?

Yes, it's in the resolution covering mayor and council.

Because I didn't see it, that's what I was asking.

It's on 3.1 J of the resolution covering mayor and council.

Thank you.

Um any other questions from members of the commission.

All right.

Yes.

Mr.

Co.

Yeah, actually, the last question uh that was in the answer does lead me to believe that maybe we should at least eliminate one column and just add the other to the salary rather than a column for other the that has no specific content other than they can use it for whatever they want.

Well, that's basically what salary is.

So in my view, it would make sense to just take that 461 for the mayor and two seventy eight for council members and just add it to the base salary and just leave the deferred comp auto and sell tech as cash supplements.

Um I would suggest perhaps for next year, our meeting next year, you might at least address that question in the information you provide to us.

Understood.

It's in alignment with the NREP reso, so it doesn't specify it's in alignment with the represent or the resolution covering Mayor Council.

Um it doesn't specify what the 3% has to be used for because they are for optional benefits.

So it is intentional the way the language is written and is also consistent with what is written in the unrepresented resolution also.

I'm sorry, for charter officers.

Well, yeah, we have a new the appointed officers have moved into their own resolution out of the UNRAP, and so our charter officers receive a similar benefit.

As well as it has never specified a specific person uh specific purpose other than how it has consistently been written in the resolution.

Thank you.

Um let me continue on with the discussion uh here uh as the chair.

Um I spent a lot of time looking at this and uh the data provided to us in file ID 2026 00729, the annual review of compensation for mayor council members and public members of the city boards and commissions, shows the annual compensation currently paid to Sacramento's mayor and council members is consistent with that of other cities similar in size and structure.

I know there were variations in the amount of money, but it's it it's certainly consistent with our mandate, and applying the cost of living adjustments, uh the annual compensation received by Sacramento's mayor ranks fourth of 10 if we include San Francisco and third of nine if we exclude San Francisco, and applying the cost of living adjustments, the annual compensation received by Sacramento's other council members uh ranks fifth of ten, including San Francisco, and fifth of nine, excluding San Francisco.

And in my view, these rankings at or near the median compensation satisfy the requirement of Article 3, Section 29 of the city chart uh charter adopted by the voters in 2002, that the compensation commission annually set compensation for the mayor and council members that is quote reasonable and consistent with that of other cities similar in size and structure.

And uh furthermore, um by not increasing the compensation when it is consistent with that of other similar cities is reasonable.

Um despite the uh city's projected budget deficit because maintaining the current compensation wouldn't add to any deficit.

So accordingly, I I conclude that this commission uh should, consistent with the mandate of uh the city charter, um should set the 2026-2027 fiscal year uh uh compensation as the uh at the same amount as the current annual compensation received by Sacramento's mayors and council members.

And because the proposed resolution proposes no increase in the relatively small compensation paid to public members of city boards and commissions, other than us, uh we receive no compensation.

I concluded the current amount should be maintained for the 2026-2027 fiscal year.

That's how I look at it.

I welcome the comments of others on the commission.

Um thank you so much for uh recognizing me.

I have a couple a question regarding the um the resolution.

Um there's a section in there, and let me get down to it here.

It's 3.3 life insurance.

Um and it says city paid basic life insurance shall be for the mayor 150,000 for the council members a hundred thousand, and then in section B it says insurance over fifty thousand members may purchase at their expense supplemental life insurance subject to limitations specified by the insurance carrier.

So does that mean that we're gonna provide the hundred and fifty thousand for the mayor, and he doesn't really have to pay a hundred thousand dollar gap in there?

Is that correct?

Let me keep it.

Uh yes, so the the 150,000 for the mayor.

Sorry, I have to put my glasses back on.

The 150,000 for the mayor and 100,000 for the council member is employer paid or city paid.

Perfect.

Um, same standard in which the city pays a certain amount for our other represented employees and even our unrepresented employees.

And then through the city's life insurance policies that are available, um, if you receive employer paid life insurance, um, there are supplemental amounts that you may purchase at your own cost up to a max.

So that and that starts at kind of this 50,000 cap.

Um, so yeah, they can purchase what's called like choice supplemental life or one times, two times, three times.

And um those options are voluntary but available to them, and just like to our other.

So just a couple of questions then.

What's the cap?

Um, so the cap is three times your annual compensation up to a specific limit of 250,000.

Okay, thank you.

Um the $50,000 is totally tied to the uh the internal revenue code.

Yeah, there's any amount that you receive over that it's taxable.

Yeah.

Um, my question is are these adequate amounts for our very public-facing um representatives with increased violence against elected officials?

I'm concerned that this is not adequate insurance for our public, uh our elected officials.

Uh just I don't have a max or anything like that, but I just I am concerned.

We we've noticed certain elected officials in other states have been assassinated, and it just is worrisome to me.

Um, so that's the one thing.

The second thing I want to kind of talk to Art a little bit about this, uh, Chair Scotland, that we're comparing last year's amounts, and we have no idea what possible increases other cities may be giving their elected officials.

And so if they're giving them anything, now we're falling behind.

And and we've done this before, where we did not give an increase, and then we needed to kind of recoup the following year because the other administrative cities had given increases and now we were well below.

And I caution against that.

I don't feel like a large increase is necessary.

I see that the city staff appears to be recommending two percent, and that to me seems reasonable.

It doesn't make up for inflation, but it it's keeping on a path that will prevent a larger increase being needed down the pike.

So that's just mine.

Thank you for your sharing your thoughts.

So Elizabeth, I think that was a really great question that you asked about the life insurance.

What I would like to see because of this life insurance, and which she has indicated Elizabeth said about the assassinations about the injuries that other elected officials have had, I'd like to see a comparison.

I'd like to see a comparison from the the counties that are the cities that we are looking at.

What do they pay for their life insurance for their people?

What's the max?

Because Elizabeth did indicate something that is close to me, and that is that the injuries that have occurred to elected officials.

So that's my comment.

Yes, uh, thank you for that feedback.

We've noted that.

Um I want to um, if I may, just a couple more sentences about our life insurance.

Um the mayor's life insurance amount does match the city manager's life insurance amount currently, and then the council members' life insurance amount, the city paid life insurance amount does match our charter officer's life insurance.

Um to we can certainly we'll take that back and have um you know have that analysis done on what life insurance amounts are being provided by the agencies listed, right?

And in the information you have to compare to for the life insurance amount to change, and we could do this in advance of the next meeting.

We would need to get a quote from our life insurance uh provider to have a full picture of understanding how it would change the city's rates to increase that dollar amount if we're going to provide more.

Um there is typically an additional cost to the city from and potentially uh the way they rate um may mean that um like the city manager who receives 150,000, the charter officers who receive 100,000, the way they rate everything to get together to give us the fairest rate.

Um so we'll need to also get that information to bring back for a fuller discussion on any implications surrounding an increase in life insurance coverage as paid by the city.

I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware um of that.

Well, the other comment that I wanted to make is again with the supplement.

I'm gonna go back to that.

The other cities do not have an additional supplement for other none of the other cities is just Sacramento does.

So I just don't make that comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Clone.

Um just so I understand uh Chair's uh proposal uh you you are including in your uh proposed well, I guess it's not a motion yet, but your but your proposal that the health care and other benefits would go up.

It's just the the salary itself that you're suggesting freeze, or are you also suggesting that the um other benefits be frozen?

No, I think that the well in the resolution it deals with uh a few uh some of the changes in terms of uh that are consistent apparently with uh other employ uh uh employees that's correct.

Yeah, so those would stay uh if we in the resolution, yeah.

Well, I I'm the way I propose we go through this is let's first look at the uh annual uh compensation including salary and and that uh based on the information we have of the other uh comparable cities in size and structure, then go to the uh council members.

Um and it would be uh so so let me state my let me state my motion.

I'll just do it on the motion.

So here's uh uh first I'll ask is the is there a motion uh and second to set for fiscal year 2026-2027 effective July 1st uh 2026, the mayor's current annual salary at 184,464 plus the insurance and other benefits set forth in file ID 2026-2027.

We're talking about that, the uh resolution, uh including the city's contributions for a member enrolled in city-sponsored medical plan as set forth in the proposed resolution.

So that is are any of you uh willing to make that motion?

I I might be, but I I do have a question, one more question.

Um the two percent that was shown on the table that you could adjust if if we wanted to put in a different number, uh that was just shown as just uh a space just uh to have somewhere to show a starting point.

Correct.

That was just an example it was not a recommendation.

Yes, we can modify that based on whatever you'd like to see if you want to change the percentage, it was just included as an example of how we can demonstrate the salary ranges.

So under the motion you're contemplating that would be zero rather than two, if I understand correctly.

So what uh what is the uh inflation rate that the city um has calculated for COLA if we were to is it two percent or was that just an arbitrary number?

Uh it was just an arbitrary number.

Okay, is for other purposes has the city the way Social Security does every year done a cola assessment or not?

Uh no assessment, however, changes to salary has to be negotiated for represented employees and part of their um labor agreements, and in the uh salary service that you have, there is no cost of living adjustment for Sacramento.

All right.

All right, and what um uh I I'm not gonna say the right uh reference here, but um when uh this if the city were to calculate uh uh inflation rate for its budget or other purposes, is there a particular inflation factor that you use, and if so, what what would that be?

I don't have that information.

It's not something that we typically use as a factor.

It's just an overall consideration in the analysis when salary surveys are done.

Generally the ERI adjustment covers cost of living adjustments, but because there is not one applies to Sacramento, that's not considered because we're we're comparing the other agencies to Sacramento, so bringing them down to an economic level equivalent to Sacramento.

What was the ERI adjustment?

Uh it varies by city, and I don't have that percentage because it was done by a um consultant.

All right.

Uh I think Social Security was around two, but that that uh that's a very unscientific recollection in my brain of what my social security check went up this year.

Um I think it was 2.5 last year, and uh I don't I'm not sure what it was this year.

Um at any rate, I um I can answer that if you would like.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um it's 2.8 percent beginning in January 2026.

But then there's usually a corresponding increase in the Medicare Part B premium as well.

So thank you.

Yes.

I I uh I appreciate that.

Um so that you know gives you kind of a general flavor, the but they use a different uh, you know, I I think theirs ended at uh I I don't know what date they picked, but it wouldn't have been December 31st, 25, because they calculated that in advance of that.

So it was probably uh through the fall or something.

At any rate, I think we we all know inflation is kind of a factor that's going up and down, and of course, this month with the way oil prices are going, it it's been going up, but who knows what the future will be.

I am sympathetic though to uh the the budgetary consideration uh particularly this year, and we did give a um a um large increase last year.

I'm not suggesting it was out of generosity, it was it was out of it's compelled.

Compell by the factors that we need to take into account.

Um by the same token, I I do um appreciate our commissioner's point that uh we not allow the same thing to happen, but I I think one year is not the same as if we do that two or three years in a row.

So I I think it is appropriate this year not to raise the salary.

We are going to be increasing some of the other benefits, and um you know, I think other cities will be facing the same budget pressures that Sacramento has, but even if they aren't, we have the smallest or second smallest budget of all the other cities.

So in uh the budget press is hitting us pretty hard in the city.

So given that we're still within the range as uh the chair pointed out, I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion that before we make the motion, yeah.

Oh, oh did you on June 27th?

So what was it July 27th?

Uh June 13th.

June 27th, sorry.

June 27th or July 11th.

Okay, well let's do uh so you want to include that.

So this the question is the motion would be to set the fiscal year 2026-2027 effective June 27, 2026.

June 13th would actually hit the first paycheck in July.

So it would be June 13th for the first paycheck in July.

If you go later than that, it's gonna be effective later in July.

All right.

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and then and make the motion that we adopt the uh proposed resolution without any change in the salary and making the the uh total changes effective June 13, 2026.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right.

Thank you.

So just for clarity, then let's make sure this is it.

We have a motion and a second to set for fiscal year 2026-2027, effective June 13th, 2026, the mayor's current annual salary at 184,464 plus the insurance and other benefits set forth in file ID 2026-2027, including the city's contributions for a member enrolled in a city-sponsored medical plan as set forth in the proposed resolution.

Is that an accurate yes?

Okay, and so we have a uh motion and a second.

Uh any further discussion?

Yes, yes.

Um I want to point out I I oppose this, I'll just say that because I do believe we're gonna have a big catch up at some time in the future if we don't at least do some minimal increase just to stay pace with our comparable um statistics that we receive.

My other point that I would like to make is to increase by say two percent the mayor's salary will cost a total of three thousand six hundred dollars.

To increase a city council members by two percent would increase by uh a little bit over two thousand dollars, twenty-two hundred dollars out of a budget gap of sixty-six million dollars.

This is very small amounts of money that we're talking about here to create in the future a larger increase being needed.

So I I really um I want to point that out as how the impact on the budget deficit, which is serious, not to be disregarded, is not that great.

All right, thank you for your thoughts.

Um we have a motion of a second.

Um all in favor?

Aye.

And the mover.

So that's uh three.

Uh any abstentions or excuse me, any um uh oppose?

Okay.

So uh we have three in favor and one opposed, so that motion passes.

Um is there a motion and second to the fiscal year 2026 20?

Why don't I just make this motion?

What the heck?

I chair can make a motion, can't usually it is respectfully you don't you ask somebody else to do it.

Okay.

Uh uh I move uh and is there a second to set the fiscal year 2026-2027 uh effective uh June 13th, 2026.

Council members' current annual salary at 111,324 plus dollars plus the insurance and other benefits set forth in file ID 2026-2027, including the city's contributions for a member enrolled in a city sponsored medical plan as set forth in the proposed resolution.

Uh there's a motion anybody second that second uh commissioner uh cohen um all in favor?

Aye.

Uh we have three and uh those nay.

Okay, thank you.

Um then is there a motion uh well I will move to set the fiscal year 2026-2027 uh effective June 13th, 2026, uh the current compensation of members of city boards and commissions as set forth in the proposed resolution.

We have a second.

I second.

All right.

Uh all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

There's none.

Thank you.

That passes.

Um is there a motion, well, I will move to adopt an amended resolution titled resolution covering compensation of the mayor, council members, and city boards and commission that includes the compensation figures and effective dates just approved by the commission.

We have a second.

We didn't know where to do that.

No, we said we set it, and now we we're now we're just approving the resolution just for clarity.

Just for clarity.

Okay.

Because we what we did is we voted and agreed on the amounts, and now we're talking about the resolution.

So second.

Okay.

Um all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposition, none?

Okay.

Uh, and that includes all the compensation figures and effective dates that we just okay.

Uh so that passes.

All right.

Uh actually I I have to commend all the commissioners.

I mean, it's it's nice to be in a group of people that really think hard and long about things and um share their views.

And it's it's obvious to me that you you've all spent a lot of time and thought.

And uh so I compliment uh my colleagues here on the commission.

So this brings us to the last item on the discussion calendar.

One second.

Yes, Chair Scotland.

Before we move on, can we just make sure that um the commission's expectations are clear for human resources staff um for when we come back to this item in the future?

Um looking for us to uh identify have the consultant identify these life insurance amounts.

Um correct.

And and maybe um display on the charts that optional benefit with a maybe a different title, I think.

Um I think we're probably all in agreement that we would like to have any additional information that would be helpful to ensure just wanted to clarify so we meet your expectations in the future.

Please do that for our next meeting.

Thank you.

Um optional benefits are not typically included in the salary survey.

Are you comfortable with that being a separate attachment?

I just wanted to clarify.

Yes, I think that should be the case.

Thank you.

And you want the consultant to determine whether Long Beach should be included, right?

Yes, please.

You know, we we here's the problem.

I mean, we we we decided this back in 2019.

If if we're going to um change the the cities, we're gonna have to spend a lot for a consultant.

It's very time consuming.

It was it was amazing, it was long, very expensive, time consuming that you'd have to go through and pick it.

So to me, you know, I understand the the the actually the structure and the number of uh council meetings is all the same, uh, but they just don't pay their city council members as much.

Uh nonetheless that it is a similar in size and population, and it's similar in the structure of of local government.

So it is legitimate within that.

What it does is it skews a little bit uh if you're you know where we sit uh among those, and you can and this commission can take that into consideration.

So my feeling is I I don't think we should try to revisit that because it would just be very expensive.

Can I just um so for me the it maybe we don't change it out, but we have been keeping San Francisco or taking San Francisco out of the calculation in the past?

Um now that we have the cost of living adjustment where it really brings San Francisco into good focus.

Maybe we can just take Long Beach out, um, like we were taking San Francisco out on an alternate, not just for have it in there for the overall one, but then take it out as an outlier, maybe what I would suggest is um uh we we didn't take San Francisco out.

We just had calculations that didn't include, and I think you could do the same thing with Long Beach.

Yeah, that's what I would say.

Rather than taking it out of it.

Just for the city council, because the mayor is actually pretty comparable.

So uh for clarity, uh are we requesting that we have three salary surveys presented to the commission, one with San Francisco and Long Beach, one without San Francisco, and then a third one without San Francisco and Long Beach.

Is that clear?

Is that what we're asking?

Are we just asking for two with the one in which we don't include San Francisco?

We're also going to exclude Long Beach.

I just want to clarify how many surveys we're looking at.

We should have three surveys.

We should have understood.

One in the exclusive San Francisco.

One that includes one that excludes San Francisco.

One that includes Long Beach excludes Long Beach.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

So now Ms.

Southward.

Would you please call discussion calendar item number two, selection of vice chair for calendar year 2026-2027?

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this?

I have no uh speakers for item number three.

Okay.

David Kawada uh was a vice chair of the commission for uh calendar year 2025, and he was unable to attend for very good reason uh today's meeting, uh, another commitment that uh he had made long before this was calendar.

Um so does any let me ask this question.

Uh I I think he would be happy to be vice chair again.

Uh he I didn't talk with him about this.

Um does any commission member present here want to uh serve as vice chair uh in the next reading.

I'd like to nominate all right.

Is there a uh and uh are you interested at all?

Okay.

Um so uh is there a motion and second to select uh Elizabeth Prey to serve as vice chair?

Oh, by the way, are you willing to do that?

I am willing, yes.

Okay.

To serve as vice chair of the capitalism commission for uh calendar year 2026.

Uh is there a motion and a second?

One okay.

I'll I'll move the Elizabeth be the Liz uh be the vice chair.

Okay.

Uh I think she made the motion you make you second.

Second.

Okay.

All right.

Um further discussion.

All in favor?

I no one opposed.

Uh that passes.

Uh the next item on the meeting agenda is just a general item.

Uh Commissioner comments, ideas, and questions.

I think we've c we've already shared that with uh with Ms.

Heaven.

Any anything else that anyone wants to?

Yes, go ahead.

I I do want to say that I'm you know very pleased to be on this commission to work with you all.

In a sense, we don't agree on everything at the same time, but we do understand and continue to work as a cohesiveness group.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um any other comments, questions?

All right.

Um public comments not on the agenda.

Uh are uh any public comments?

We have no speakers.

All right, thank you.

So uh thank you uh to the members of the public.

Well, for your input, but there was none.

Okay, so uh thank you, Commission members uh and city staff for your uh very careful consideration of the issues before us.

Um really appreciate very very impressive.

Um is there a motion and a second to adjourn this meeting?

So moved.

Second.

All right, it's been moved and seconded.

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposition, no?

All right.

Well, thank you.

Uh the meeting is adjourned.

See you next year.