Call the meeting to order.

If we can have everyone their seat, please.

We're about to start.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon.

This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube with audio and captioning in English and Spanish.

Captions and translated audio are generated using artificial intelligence and may contain some errors.

Call the war.

Yes, please.

Member Kaplan?

Councilmember Dickinson?

Vice Mayor Talamantes?

Councilmember Plucky Baum?

Member Maple?

Councilmember Jennings.

Oops, I skipped.

Oh, fortuitously.

I skipped Mayor Pro Tim Guerra.

Councilmember Jennings is here, Councilmember Vane.

And Mayor McCarthy.

Councilmember Maple, Celeus in the pledge and land acknowledgement.

Please rise if you are able.

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

So the original people of this land, the Nissanon people, the Southern Mayview, Bali and Plains Miwok, Putinwinchin 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 remain standing.

Salute and pledge.

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

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

Okay.

Do we have a closed session report?

Okay, thank you.

First item.

Thank you.

Cheryl, where are you?

Oh, you have to come up because I want you and everybody to see the praise that we get to uh heap on you for your 31 years of service to the city of Sacramento.

Um thank you.

31 years is not something you see uh with employees, they bounce around, but what you've been able to give to the city of Sacramento, um, beginning in 1995.

What is it?

Associate civil engineer for the environmental and regulatory compliance section.

And from there with your Department of Utility leadership, what you've been doing for water planning and infrastructure projects, for stormwall water quality improvement programs for oversight in our engineering, and even serving as an interim director in our utilities department.

Umestly, you uh people don't see it and don't understand the impact that Department of Utilities has and what you've been able to do with our water and our water quality and keeping everything safe as we look can truly not be understated for giving over 31 years of your life to the city and and a true sign of leadership is when someone values investing in others, and it really needs to be highlighted because throughout every stage of your career, you have embody the spirit of collaboration, mentorship, and consistently striving to uplift lift those on your team and creating a supportive work environment.

There is so much praise that my office has heard from every step of the way who's ever had the opportunity and the chance to work with you.

Um I mean I got a lot.

You know, but I think it just really needs to be said that uh our city is great because of our employees.

And not often do you get recognized for all the work that you've done, but 31 years, it's been a pleasure.

Um and I always know that you have an answer uh if I have questions, and I hope that you have tons of plans uh of fun things in your upcoming retirement.

But just thank you for everything that you've been able to do with engineering and water services and quality and stormwater and the river arc um to name just a few.

We are honored that you have blessed us with 31 years, and before I turn it over to you, I just want to see if any of my colleagues uh want to say thank you before I'll let you have the mic.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

There's no need.

Okay, great.

Um thank you, Councilmember Kaplan, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members.

Um I really appreciate you guys taking the time this afternoon um to acknowledge my years of service.

I really have grown up in my professional career at the City of Sacramento and the Department of Utilities, and I'm really honored and privileged to be part of the great team that provide safe and reliable water, wastewater, and drainage to our residents and our businesses, you know, all the things, many of the things that DOU does is underground, out of sight, out of mind.

Um, but really we touch people in our city every day from the moment uh they wake up until they go to bed at night, whether it's a drink of water, brushing our teeth, flushing toilets, taking showers, doing dishes, um uh f uh in a storm a huge storm event at night, being able to go to bed and know that we're safe and dry.

And so it really has been an honor um to serve our customers, and again, I really thank you for the time and the acknowledgement today.

So thank you.

Well, before um colleagues, I want to invite all of you down, but I know Vice Mayor, you want to say a couple words.

Yeah, um, I also just want to thank you so much for all your work and everything that you've done for the city of Sacramento and keeping us healthy, keeping the water clean.

Um, and like Lisa said, or Council Mr.

Kaplan said, the work that you do is very much behind the scenes.

Um, but it's people like you that keep our city functioning day in and day out, and so congratulations and question for you what will you be doing with your spare time?

Because I know one thing about the city of Sacramento employees, they never fully retire, they go do more stuff.

So uh so what are your fun plans?

I'm gonna try to keep it to fun stuff, so we'll see.

Some traveling, I'm gonna work on my golf game.

Um, so yeah, I'm excited to see what this next chapter brings.

Love it.

Congratulations.

Colleagues and Cheryl will have you come down Michael.

No, I'm not golfing.

Tyler also it should be working out.

I don't get upset over that.

It should work now.

Okay.

Um just raise your hand, hope that's right.

Yes.

City manager, when you can um get your requested what does it say there oh that's the problem okay I will let them know the uh yep that's the problem just council members for this first um items that you want to speak old fashioned raise your hand and I'll keep note okay so consent items okay we do have one thing to read into the record for the consent calendar for item 12 part one of the recommend recommendations amended to read as follows pass a motion by two thirds vote to suspend rule seven K3B of the City Council rules of procedure which requires that the ordinance brought to council include the same text that was submitted to law and legislation commission excuse me committee the rest of the recommendation stands okay thank you okay please proceed with the consent calendar and note council members um mr mayor um i would love to pull item 11 for separate discussion and vote okay council member bang i was i was gonna put some items okay council member Jennings were left of yield anything okay yes brief comments eight ten seventeen and eighteen ten seventeen eighteen okay mr dickinson nobody else over here okay okay please proceed so do you we we're gonna poll number 11 we have 32 speakers for the consent calendar okay so we do comments from Kathleen and then do your comments and then do 11 is that the order you'd like sure okay council member caplan thank you just briefly of the 32 comments are we separating them out on just having item 11 I believe separately based on comments I believe they're generally related to that but when you sign up for the consent we only allow you to speak as the consent item for all so they're not separated out maybe something we look at because it would make more sense to hear those but that could be for another council meeting but if we have items that we pull wouldn't it make sense to have those comment items it it we've always as council rule council rules only allow two minutes for the entire consent calendar so we haven't there's not a way for us to to separate them out unless we know an items we pulled in advance of publishing I do believe based on the general comments that have been posted there relative to that.

Okay.

Sorry as an aside so on um item 10 uh I just or sorry item eight I just want to call out and thank staff it's the old Sacramento Waterfront State Lands Commission we've uh when you look at redoing old Sacramento there are many state local agencies that we have to uh comply with and this is just one major hurdle for updating old Sacramento um it is definitely a major tourism hub and I'm really excited to see that we are completing this so that we can get going on the next steps of uh redevelopment on item 10 um something interesting that I just wanted to call out um and uh this is hat funding for transitional age youth sheltering uh which I'd like to find out from whether DCR or staff um I know that this funding was originally given to COC uh they put out an RFP and found that the RFPs were inadequate and then so they're now transferring the funding over to the city which I really appreciate but I think it's important that um you know we've we find out are we creating new programs not new programs what I hear is the COC might have been creating something new of which those who provide transitional age use shelters didn't want to do something new with one time funding so um I'm hoping as we move forward from this we can coordinate better with the COC because um we know there's been cuts with transitional age use shelters and it's one of our more successful programs so I hope moving forward we can we can address that and um but I just wanted to to call that out and I know DCR is is working on that afternoon council members uh Tim Swanson assistant director of DCR yes council member um we are looking at that uh we don't plan to start any new programs with the TA funding that we're gonna be receiving from Sacramento steps forward but we agree with you that um you know tay tay funding for shelters is very important we're glad to get this funding thank you thank you um and then item 17 which is our combined sewer system pipe program replacement I'm just calling out that this is a um many of our combined sewer uh pipes are over 80 years old some are a hundred years old and this is just a uh small replacement and we actually have two point two billion dollars in infrastructure needs that we don't actually have

We're glad to get this funding.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, and then item 17, which is our combined sewer system pipe program replacement.

I'm just calling out that this is a uh many of our combined sewer uh pipes are over 80 years old, some are a hundred years old, and this is just a uh small replacement, and we actually have 2.2 billion dollars in infrastructure needs that we don't actually have a uh plan.

And if you look, why is this important?

What just happened in LA with the bursting of a really old pipe and the flooding of many city streets?

So I just want to call that out that um this is an issue I want us all to be conscientious of.

And and while nobody likes to invest in infrastructure, the 2.2 billion dollar in need for our combined sewer system, I think is really important that we look at a plan of addressing.

And finally, on item 18, I think it's important to call out so the public understands.

Um, this is public improvements for our rail yards project, which in actuality um we are now allowing because this is a pump station is coming online, so it means that future development.

One of the things you may not have realized is our rail yards uh with the stadium and the soccer stadium.

If they were to move forward, they needed to have a detention basin.

Well, they don't have room for a detention basin by this pump station coming online.

They now know don't need to have an extra detention basin and can move forward with the construction on this, which is also helping Kaiser and future residential because the pump station is coming online and being transferred to the city.

So just another call out of thank you for all the amazing work you guys do underground behind the scenes to keep our city going.

Um that's it with that.

I will move the consent calendar with removing item 11 separately.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Our first speaker, I'm gonna call if you could come and stand and line up, is AJ Albano, followed by Alexander Basin and Alexandria Estrella.

My name is A.J.

Albano.

I'm a resident of district four.

Nothing has changed about this contract since the last time it came before you, just last month when this item, item 11 was on the consent calendar.

Dozens of outraged constituents urged you to vote no.

That is because we remain grounded in the reality of the threat our community and especially our most vulnerable neighbors face through participation in the CCIC.

The Department of Homeland Security has amongst its ranks individuals who are distinctly committed to separating families, detaining people in inhumane conditions, and ultimately removing black and brown people from our communities by any means necessary, including by killing them in the streets.

Those individuals are operating here in Sacramento, wearing masks and driving unmarked vehicles, hunting our neighbors today.

Our city chooses to contract with mass surveillance companies like Axon and Peregrine, allowing the collection of license plate data, cell phone location data, digital identity, and biometric information, all without our consent.

That information is fed into large data sharing systems, including the CCIC, that support federal law enforcement priorities, which none of us have any control in defining.

The federal administration has explicitly directed agencies to use all law enforcement resources to faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States.

Councilmember Talamantes.

Councilmember Talamantes.

Despite all your confidence in the city manager, there's no local guardrails that can prevent this information from being shared.

That is in part why a state audit is ongoing to determine the extent and ongoing sanctuary law violations.

The only way to begin stopping the enabling of this system is to end relationships and infrastructure that give it access to our information.

That is the choice that you have before you today.

Will you stand with Sacramentans and frankly every other Californian that will be directly impacted by this contract, or will you once again defer to law enforcement and reinforce our city's complicity with the Trump regime?

Your comments.

Alexander Bazden, followed by Alexandra Estrella.

Is it Alexander here?

Alexandra, go ahead.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alexander Sereya, and I am with the California Immigrant Policy Center.

As both an immigrant and organizer, the issue is deeply personal to me.

Every day I work with immigrant families who are afraid that every that this very institution means to protect them could instead contribute to their surveillance or separation.

Public safety should build trust, not fear.

Our urging to vote no on item 11, the proposed agreement to fund Sacramento Police Department's participation in the Central California Intelligence Center.

I am disappointed to see that this item returns after the June 23 meeting.

I am disappointed to see that this item returns after the June 23 meeting, when community members and several council members raised serious concerns about the fusion center's role in sharing information with federal federal agencies, including ICE.

The lack of transparency surrounding its operations.

During that meeting, Sacramento police confirmed that information shared through the C CIC can be accessed by federal agencies, including ICE and the FBI, as well as other outside entities.

Once that information is shared, the city has little oversight over where it goes or how it is used.

This it this is about protecting the privacy and the safety of Sacramento residents.

Last month, San Francisco discovered that its residents' automated license plate reader data has been improperly accessed through the regional fusion center by federal and out of state agencies.

In response, San Francisco immediately cut the fusion center's access to the data.

California is now conducting a statewide audit of the fusion centers because of the concerns of privacy, civil liberties, and compliance with our sanctuary laws.

Thank you for your comments.

Annabelle Gonzalez, followed by Becky H.

and Christina Alvarez.

Annabelle.

Okay, Becky H.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Greater Sacramento is often considered the most at-risk region in America for catastrophic flooding.

But that system, just like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link, stated by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers on their website.

I'm Annabelle Gonzalez, a 12-year North Atomas homeowner.

Speaking on item 10.

The Army Corps came here in 1912 and never left.

Six billion dollars later, they are still here because this ground is still sinking.

NASA measured it half an inch every month, and the wall on our 350 million dollar floodgate, the Sacramento Weir, is sinking into unstable ground and won't be fixed until 2028.

We have 42 miles of levees around Atomas, a marathon and a half, over 100 years old.

They hold water back, not let it over.

If it overtops, the whole levee collapses.

Seepage is already happening underneath.

One atmospheric river, a storm that parks over us and rains for days, and 102 square miles flooded.

Floods do not wait for sunlight.

What happens to an elderly person in a tiny home at 3511 Arena Boulevard when the levee fells at midnight?

20 feet of cold water in the dark.

That property has three sides, three water sides.

10 feet down, it's all water.

That land was given to the city to stay open for drainage.

No structures.

A 60-inch storm drain runs down the middle, eight feet down, sewer and groundwater at 10 feet, gas lines, an ATT shack with AC running 24-7, and DCR wants to drill eight-foot screws into all of it.

No hydrology study.

Today, you're asked to approve nearly 9,000 for youth sheltering.

Leftover money rushed out before it expires on November 30th.

Steps forward already picked a provider before you even voted.

No shelter, no beds, no outcomes named.

And the auditor's 12 recommendations not mentioned once.

Six days ago, the homeless Sacramento Homeless Union sued the city.

DCR is scaling the people.

Thank you.

Christina Alvarez, followed by Christopher Silva and Danny Delgado.

Christina Alvarez.

Please feel free to line up in the audience or in the aisle.

Good afternoon.

My name is Christina Alvarez, and I'm an organizer with Sembrando Semillas Day Labor Workers Center here in the Sacramento region and Lockla Labor Council for Latin American Advancement AFL CIO.

Based on the council's discussion, just last month with SAC PD Lieutenant Dave Putnam confirmed that the city of Sacramento legitimately has no oversight or control over information that SAC PD shares, and if this contract is approved, will continue to share with the CCIC, or where the CCIC shares that information.

In a city and a capital of the third largest economy in the world that is directly surviving on the backs of workers, specifically immigrant workers.

I urge you, the city of Sacramento, to stand on morals to vote no on item 11, to vote no against allowing a federal grant that won't just fund SAC PD staffing, but would fund its participation in this Central California Intelligence Center.

We urge and demand that Sacramento vote no and end all SAC PD data and resource sharing with ICE.

Thank you.

Hello, City Council.

My name is Christopher Silver from District 6.

I currently serve our community as the Youth Action Board liaison through Waking the Village in conjunction with Sacramento Steps Forward and the Continuum of Care.

I'm here joining other concerned community members in calling on the Sacramento City Council to end all data sharing, collaboration, and interactions with the terrorist organization known as ICE.

During the time where fascism is on the rise and our freedoms and protections are being stripped and gutted by the Supreme Court, I find it appalling that the City Council would even consider passing additional funding to help survey, kidnap, and murder our neighbors and family members.

It shows how tone-deaf you are all to the situation.

US citizens are being murdered by ICE daily and kidnapped and taken from their families.

They are raping our children and holding them in concentration camps in Delaney.

All in behest of the pedophile in chief.

This is the agency that you are wanting to aid, that are you wanting to help fund, and you are inviting into our communities.

These flox cameras, these flock cameras are detrimental and a waste of funding that can be utilized to solve actual problems facing our community.

Instead, you insist on pouring money into law enforcement and surveillance instead of directing resources towards evidence-based strategies like economic opportunities, mental health interventions, and housing.

Police departments across the nation have already shown that they lack the moral aptitude to use these flock cameras for their so-called intended purposes, and have already used this weapon to sexually harass women and spy on children doing gymnastics.

And if you think that there aren't members of the SAC the next speaker is Danny Delgado, Eduardo Garrick.

Okay, Edwardo Garrick.

If you could please line up in that in the aisle, that would help this move faster.

Edward Garado Garrett, I'm sorry, Eduardo Garrick, followed by Fatima Garcia and then Francis Liu.

All right.

My name is Edgardo Garrison.

I am a resident in Sacramento and member of Sacramento DSA.

This is about item 11, the $800,000 federal grant.

We know the Fusion Center shares information for ICE's use.

You know that it will collude with ICE.

Four weeks ago, the lieutenant was kind enough to tell us both that the CCIC will aid and abet the DHS and ICE.

You know that we know, and we know that you know that we know.

Four weeks ago, you also passed a community immigration plan after kicking us out of deliberation, in which you as a body claimed you were ready to defend Sacramento residents.

This misuse of a federal grant is a clear no, and passing it will prove betrayal of your constituents.

It will prove that the word you gave to us was a promise you intended to break even four weeks ago, delaying this decision as a bold attempt to hide what side you're on from the people you asked to vote for you.

Are you going to allow the sentencing of a new batch of prairie land defendants who get 30 years just of Trump charters for anarchist zines?

What the hell?

This is insane.

And I think a lot of a hell of a lot of other people expect a hell of a lot better too.

So are you signing on your faces on the modern state violence and repression?

Or will you have Sacramento's back?

Not as fair weather friends who jump the ship, but through thick and I ask all of you not to pass item 11.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Mayor and council members.

My name is Fatima Garcia.

I am the executive director of Sembrando Semillas Day Labor Worker Center and the president of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement AFL CIO.

I stand before you in opposition to accepting this federal grant.

First, I want to thank Council Member Mai, Katie, and Lisa for having the courage to ask the questions that many of our communities are asking.

These questions deserve answers before this council member moves forward.

We continue to hear that because California has Senate Bill 54 or Sacramento has the sanctuary ordinance.

SB 54 limits certain cooperation between local law enforcement, local law enforcement, and federal agents like immigration authorities.

It does not prevent ICE from conducting its own investigation or enforcement actions.

The LA Times has reported that ICE has continued to identify and track immigrants with no criminal record in California, including in sanctuary jurisdictions through access to information that should be a wake-up call.

Calling ourselves the sanctuary city does not automatically shield our residents from federal enforcement.

That is exactly why this grant raises serious concerns.

If there if there is even a possibility that accepting these federal funds could expand information sharing, increase surveillance, or create another avenue for federal agencies to access information, then we should reject it.

We should not be creating new risk while telling our immigrant communities that they are protected.

Truth is earned through our actions, not our resolutions.

If this council truly believes in protecting immigrant families, then it should not have approve a grant that raises unanswered questions about privacy data sharing and federal access.

I urge you to vote no today.

Dr.

Francis Liu, PhD economist, organizer of incarcerate Sacramento.

I find it incredibly alarming but not surprising that this contract has returned immediately and been placed on the consent calendar.

Kevin McCarty has once again demonstrated his utter lack of respect and clear disdain for engaging with his constituents' concerns.

It's extremely exponential irresponsible given both what we do know and what we don't know about the CCIC.

What do we know?

The fusion centers are federal surveillance centers run by Department of Homeland Security ICE's parent agency, and one of their primary goals is to collect information about domestic terrorism.

And under Trump's NSPM7 definition, anyone who is anti-fascist, transgender, and in opposition to this regime can be considered a domestic terrorist.

And the FBI is bringing domestic terrorism charges against anti-IS Pro anti-ICE protesters, legal observers, and court watchers across the country.

This fusion center directly supports the FBI's joint terrorism task force, which we have been advocating for a Sacramento to exit for months.

Other cities have exited this task force in the past due to documented violations of civil liberties and discriminatory surveillance of Muslim communities.

We know that we have been, we know that there have been documented leaks of the and other California fusion centers, and there is an open statewide audit that has been opened since March 2026 due to concerns about leaking data, violating state sanctuary law and violating residents' constitutional rights to privacy.

Crucially, what we don't know is what is SAC PD sharing with the fusion center and what who does that fusion center share that data with.

And let me be very clear.

And we have no control over our data once it's shared with them fusion center.

I don't care what private assurances they have given you.

We cannot blindly trust SAC PD's vague, half-hearted answers that they are in compliance with SB 54.

And a 2023 California state audit, they were found to be illegally sharing license plate data.

We can also not share uh trust SACI, whose officers escort ICE agents actively at the John Moss building and assault and arrest local anti-ICE protesters.

We cannot trust the comments.

Harman.

Okay.

Jason Deesh.

Uh hello, my name is Jason Deach.

I'm from District 4 and a member of the Party for Socialism Liberation.

I'm speaking on item 11.

Uh, and I'm here with my commercial community urging you to protect Sacramentans from ICE and state terror by voting no on item 11.

It would be harmful and irresponsible to allow SAC PD's involvement in the CCIC when its data sharing practices are susceptible to breaches, are being shared with undefined private entities, and clearly violate our sanctuary protections.

This comes at a time in our communities where there is so much fear brought about by extreme ICE violence, including the murder of two people.

Uh Juan Guerrero and Lorenzo Orajo just this last week, making 11 since the Trump administration came to power.

In addition, we've seen tens of thousands of ICE arrests in the last month.

While ICE ramps up terror, these fusion centers have been used to support ICE violence, surveil minority and immigrant communities and anti-ICE protesters and community organizers who are using their First Amendment protected speech.

This is an egregious violation of privacy.

And by allowing this SAC PD to share information like Sacrament and license plate data, you'd be instilling more fear and risking more ICE violence in our city.

Now is not the time for an $800,000 approval that puts people at risk while working people are struggling to get by.

This would be an unpopular dangerous move that violates Sacrament and privacy and safety.

Thank you for your comments.

Followed by Joshua Hutchinson.

Hello, my name is Jack Ruiz, a community outreach coordinator with Ognai Filipino, a nonprofit organization that provides direct service work for Filipino workers, immigrants, tenants, youth and families, as well as the resident of District 1.

And I'm urging y'all to vote no on item 11 to end all data sharing collaborations and resource sharing with Ice, especially with a proposed agreement to fund the Sacramento Police Department participation in the Central California Intelligence Center.

Community members organizers, residents, and several council members raised serious concerns about the fusion center just last month, and seeing it in the consent calendar today is disappointing.

Just last month, we voiced out how this item, including its role in sharing information with federal agencies and the lack of transparency and accountability surroundings operation is not needed for our community at all.

The city has no oversight or control over information SAC PD shares with the CCIC or where the CCIC shares that information, especially since we know that these informations were confirmed to contain sensitive information that could specifically identify our communities.

So urged y'all to uphold the city's promises by taking proactive actions to ensure that no city data and resources are being used to support and collaborate with the federal government whose law enforcement is actively targeting criminalizing and harming your immigrant community members, not just in the United States, but also within our city of Sacramento.

And we must protect our immigrant communities who are the most vulnerable, especially with immigrant tenants, immigrant workers, immigrant children, and their families, and that their data information must be protected and not shared and surveilled.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joshua Hutchins, followed by Liana H and LR Roberts.

Hi, I'm Josh.

I live in District 4.

Um I'm I'm I'm disappointed.

I think it it seems like Sacramento City Council doesn't want to follow the law.

Uh SB 54 is there, and it says that you should protect our data.

We're a sanctuary city, and you've made promises to keep people safe.

And yet you want to be a bagman for the federal government and take 800 grand and hand it to the sheriff and hand it to the CCIC.

And we don't even it it doesn't benefit anyone in the city.

We don't need it.

It's only going to harm people.

We know the harm.

We've seen the people shot in the streets.

We've seen the arrests that are misidentified people or identified people that get kidnapped.

We we don't need any of that in the most diverse city on in America and the West Coast in California.

We're we need to protect the people that live here.

And taking this money doesn't benefit the city at all.

And supporting the fusion center and getting our data out there where now we've given the federal government a backdoor into all of the data that you guys collect.

I mean, I I think we should take down the cameras, but if you're not going to do that, at least don't let the federal government have a backdoor into all of them with your permission that you're accepting the money to give permission for them to have access to all of it.

Um I I really wish that I knew that everyone was going to vote against it.

I know I know some of you have have said that you you don't support these plans, but um I'm holding my breath for my fellow citizens in in Sacramento.

Thank you, Vianna H, followed by L.

R.

Roberts and Marbea Sala.

I didn't start talking yet.

You can restart my timer.

Please go ahead and you can restart my timer.

Please proceed.

I will keep talking after the two minutes.

I will have my two minutes.

You need to pay attention to your constituents.

You need to pay attention to your constituents.

I have watched you talking with every single person up here, not paying attention to the people that are telling you that their data is being shared, and it doesn't matter to you.

It doesn't matter to you.

You are totally fine because you're a sellout giving all of our data to a government that would put us in jail for hosting a leftist book club.

Okay, I would hope that all of you by this point have educated yourself on the Prairie Land 19 because we have brought it up a number of times.

If you haven't, do it fucking now.

One of those people is facing the charges because they hosted a leftist book club.

Anything that goes against this government aggressively, trans proything that goes against it in the slightest is now terrorism.

And you are allowing that to happen and allowing this government to have all of this information.

You will be held to account for every single life that is lost as a result of this, and I will fucking make sure of it.

This is not okay.

We are telling you over and over and over as your constituents.

Kevin, I need your fucking eyes.

Kevin, listen to me.

Stop being an asshole, dude.

Listen to your fucking constituents.

There are people talking to you.

All it is is two fucking minutes.

Yeah, it might be 30 times, but how much do you get paid to sit here to just listen to people comment?

You just got back from three weeks of vacation, so you can't just sit here and pay attention.

LR Roberts, please.

LR Roberts.

LR Roberts, please.

No.

No.

I'm not talking dead.

Two minutes.

No.

Stop selling our fucking data.

Stop selling out this city.

Stop selling out your constituents.

Ma'am, your time is complete.

Please.

Ma'am, you please do not disrupt the orderly conduct of these proceedings by continuing to speak out.

LR Roberts, please.

I'm LR Roberts, I'm in District 5.

I've lived there in Oak Park off and on since 1974.

We are a sanctuary city.

My husband and I helped got get that.

Um, and I have reported to you that our cops have escorted ICE agents off their property on 6 and N.

I reported to you that several uh cops, eight cops showed up and three supervisors showed up, and eight vehicles showed up and arrested people and put somebody in the hospital.

Um we should not get more involved in Gestapo government agencies.

That part, my father and father-in-law killed Nazis.

And Matthew Sizita.

Welcome back.

I hope you enjoyed your vacation.

I'm Marbeya Sale, I'm president of Garnland Northgate Neighborhood Association.

I measure you, representative for District 3, and I'm here to speak on item 27.

Um, and I want to applaud Vice Mayor Um Talamantes and her staff for pushing through this contract to have a wall finally on Northgate.

We've been since 1972, as far as I can recollect, have been pushing for that tattered fence to come down and have a wall that at least represents our community in a decent and beautiful way.

That's who we are.

So to have the contract being implemented, and it looks like it's gonna happen.

That's great.

We're really pleased with that.

What I do want to say is it's not enough.

Back in um 2020 or before that, Measure U awarded two million dollars for that uh wall, a beautiful wall to be on Northgate.

And because of COVID, it didn't get built, the money, everything got more expensive, and we're short of money.

So the wall is only partly it's only part of the way done.

What I ask for next year is that you really consider giving the funding that's necessary to complete the wall so that our neighborhood feels proud and and also you send a message to our neighborhood that you care, you notice, you see us, and we feel valued because right now it's gonna be it's almost there, but not quite, and it feels like we got short change.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Marcelina, followed by Matthew Sazica and Niran Paul.

Um hi, I'm an organizer.

My name is Marcelina, and I'm an organizer of the Sacramento Immigration Committee.

We're an immigrant rights mass organization that door knocks in South Sac, where I'm from, and it's in the districts of Myvang and Katie Maple.

We pass around know your rights info, and we're trying to build up community response to ICE operations because we want to be proactive and prepared for if ICE takes over our bodyos, because we know you won't show up for us.

I'm here today to let you know that I and the communities we represent are offended that this is being brought up, item 11 in the consent calendar under the noses of the public again.

Members of this council have assured us that data sharing isn't happening with ice, yet here we are about to approve a contract with the fusion center that shares data with them.

And to consent in bulk.

Who put it on there?

Pay attention, Kevin.

Make it make sense.

Are you guys trying to pull a fast one on us?

What other harmful things are you hiding in the consent calendar?

ICE may not be full throttle in the streets at the moment, but allowing them access to sensitive data has emboldened them to target specific people and operations across the country.

And those operations have led to four deaths in just the past few weeks.

And this is all after passing this bogus community immigration action plan a few weeks back.

A plan that at one point had data sharing protections, and then those were removed before passing.

So I ask that you stop playing in our faces because we see you the political theater.

Um, and we ask that you really ask yourself whose interests you represent and whether or not this is the position for you.

Because we will continue to reveal who you are and who your interests are to the people who are door knocking.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Matthew, followed by Naraj Paul and Tom Jakara.

Matthew here.

Hi, my name is Matthew Zacta, and I'm a Sacramento resident.

And um, I'm just urging you to vote no on 11.

Uh I mean, this is us, our data.

This is all the families around, like, and just to give it and it, and you have no control of it afterwards.

Um to like uh the federal government, which is currently killing people on the street, like um.

I just urge you to vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Followed by congate.

Is Naraj here, please perform come forward.

Oh, no.

Okay, pardon me at Cara.

Rhonda Rios Kravitz.

Richard Akala.

Rocky.

Rocky Science.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Rhonda Rios Kravitz.

I live in District 7, and I volunteer with NORCAL resist as a court watcher, and I'm a member of Alianza.

And I urge you to vote no on item 11.

This agreement continues Sacramento Police Department's participation in the Central California Intelligence Center or CCIC.

This is not simply about accepting federal funding.

It is about whether Sacramento will continue participating in a surveillance network that lacks meaningful public oversight and shares information with federal agents, including ICE.

Just weeks ago, this council heard serious concern from us as residents, and your own police department confirmed that information shared through the CCIC can be accessed by numerous federal agencies.

Once Sacramento's data centers enter the fusion center, this city loses meaningful control over who accesses it, how it's used, how long it is retained, and whether it is shared beyond its original purpose.

That should concern every person in Sacramento.

These are not hypothetical risk.

San Francisco recently terminated its fusion centers' access to city license flight data after discovering it at then improperly accessed by federal and out-of-state agencies.

At the state level, California lawmakers have authorized an audit of fusion centers because of concerns about transparency, privacy, civil liberties, and compliance with California's sanctuary laws.

Why would Sacramento deepen its participation in a system that is under statewide scrutiny?

If Sacramento is truly committed to being a sanctuary city, then those values must be reflected in its policies, not just its resolutions.

Sanctuary means protecting our communities from unnecessary surveillance and ensuring that city resources are never used in ways that could place immigrant families at greater risk.

If you are unwilling to reject this agreement this afternoon, then at a minimum you should delay approval until the state auditor completes its review, and this council adopts enforceable safeguards, including independent oversight.

Followed by Samantha Stringer and Sarah Connor.

Well, I know most of you.

And some of you.

American citizen here, Mexican American, and a veteran.

What I'm so disappointed in is that you are siding with a fascist regime.

And exposing our people, our citizens, and want to be citizens to the danger of IC.

And you know this, and you're doing it willingly.

And I don't understand it because I know some of you.

And um you need to vote no.

I think you need to look at yourselves.

Because I don't know how some of you can sleep on your decisions when people are being murdered, people being separated just for being wanting to be an American citizen.

It's just not right, okay.

And uh, so we're not Nazi America.

This is America.

We still have a democracy.

So we need to fight the fascist regime that we're headed towards in again.

Just think about it and look into your heart and give these people a chance.

Okay.

Thank you for your comments.

Samantha Steamer followed by Sahan.

Hello, I'm Samantha Stringer.

I am a resident of District 8, and I'm not affiliated with any specific organizations, but I would like to advocate that we do not pass item 11 because our data is going to be sent to ICE and the DHS, and I just want to share the story with you.

George Reitz was a 25-year-old disabled United States Army veteran who had his vehicle busted in by ICE agents when he was trying to explain that he was a citizen.

He was dragged out of his car, he was pepper sprayed and tear gassed, and then held in detention for several days, not being given a change of clothes and being forced to sleep with burning skin from the pepper spray in tear gas because he was not provided basic necessities.

This is not an isolated incident.

There's been hundreds and hundreds of stories of undocumented immigrants, documented immigrants, United States citizens and United States veterans being brutalized by ICE, being wrongfully detained by ICE, many of them practicing their First Amendment right and being wrongfully deported.

These are the organizations that will be we will be sharing our data with, and it is not just an endangerment to immigrants, it's an endangerment to the entire community of Sacramento.

I have been down to John Moss, and I've seen the way the ICE agents have escalated situations, pointing bear spray at people without them even beginning to provoke the situation.

Please do not share our data with these organizations.

Thank you very much.

Do not pass item 11.

Sarah Connor, followed by Tony Newman and then Becky H.

Is Sarah here?

Okay.

Tony Newman.

Sarah is here.

Hello, good afternoon.

Um my name is Sarah.

I'm a member of Sacramento DSA.

Um, I find it highly concerning to see the city considering uh the approval of $800,000 to staff the California Central Intelligence Center, which presents clear risks to the separation of local and federal law enforcement agencies, thereby putting working class Sacramentans' confidential data, particularly related to citizenship and immigration status, uh, in an incredibly vulnerable position.

This threatens Sacramento Sanctuary City and California's sanctuary state status.

I also find it noteworthy that the CCIC was audited by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2012, who found that many of the suspicious activity reports generated by the center consisted of racial and religious profiling.

This is not an issue which has disappeared from law enforcement agencies.

Last September, the Supreme Court gave ICE carte blanche to arrest people based on their apparent race or ethnicity, language, accent, or workplace.

Clearly providing cover for indiscriminate racial discrimination.

By investing in the CCIC with county staff, this council opens Sacramento residents up to heightened risks of discrimination and surveillance, putting their jobs, families, and lives at risk.

Additionally, we need to only look at Texas and the Prairie Land Detention Center incident, the Prairie Line 19, to see how terrorism charges are being weaponized to disproportionately punish anti-ICE protesters and people fighting for a better world.

The CCIC is in the county sheriff's relationship with the FBI's joint terrorism task force poses clear threats to public safety and integrity.

Sacramento's working class deserves better.

For all these reasons, I urge the council to vote no on item 11, or at minimum to freeze these sub award funds until the completion of the state audit of fusion centers.

Thank you for your time.

Hi, my name is Tony Newman.

I'm a constituent of District 3.

I did not plan to speak today, and I'm very nervous.

So I'm urging you all to uh vote no on item 11 as well.

I um a concerned citizen of the US of Sacramento of District 3.

It's our community.

We don't want to dismantle our constitutional rights to privacy.

We want to protect our country while it's still a democracy, while we're still able to be here to say we don't like this, while we still have the right to do that.

Um we are society is judged by how we treat the most vulnerable people.

We need to make sure we are that stalwart community that protects our vulnerable.

Um as one person said, um that anyone that doesn't agree with our current uh federal administration can be at risk.

And that means any of us, all of us, and we don't know what they won't like.

I just urge you to not have the status center.

We need to protect our privacy.

We need to do all that we can.

There's already too much um there's there's it's we're not it's not being protected enough.

We don't need to add another avenue for ways for people to have uh for the federal government to have access to private information.

Thank you all.

Hi, everybody.

My name's Becky.

I'm a member of DSA, and I'm also a concerned community member.

I was here on the 23rd, and I'm really super disappointed to be here again talking about this again.

So, according to your own staff report, uh, this $800,000 grant must be allocated to support law enforcement terrorism prevention oriented activities.

But actually, what it's doing is giving money to the terrorists, right?

It's it's just insane that uh that this money is going to intelligence and information sharing and combating domestic violent extremism.

Like, I don't know if you guys have thought about what the definition of domestic violent extremism is, but NSPM 7 makes that definition intentionally vague and broad and sweeping to include a variety of left-wing organizations and individuals that just don't agree with the current authoritarian regime, which is exactly what it is.

These people are just fighting for social justice.

They care about their communities and their neighbors, and they're being being given these outrageous prison sentences, as you guys have already heard, 30 to 50 years.

It's just incredible.

Like breaches have already taken place.

We already know that they're not gonna manage it properly, and you're opening us our most vulnerable community members up to harm and possibly violence and maybe even death.

Uh San Francisco, Oakland, and Seattle have already severed ties with these fusion centers.

Sacramento needs to follow suit.

So I'm just urging you all, please, please vote no on this.

Please don't give any more money to the federal government.

Thanks.

Our next speaker is doing by Fan Arza A.

Attention, Cabinet.

Hello?

Go ahead, please.

Oh, it's me.

Okay, sorry, this new system is it's hard to know when you're going up.

Um hi, my name is uh thank you for bringing it back whatever um person that passes so that we can access this virtually.

Um, whether it's the state or some other system.

I was just looking at the definition of cognitive dissonance, and I find it really interesting that earlier we partnered with not the first city in Mehiko.

And I'm just wondering how that makes sense when we don't even protect people from federal systems and from terrorists in federal uniforms.

I it's it it really just baffles me and it takes away my words.

Um I know people say make it make sense because it doesn't, but cognitive dissonance is the conflict that you feel when your belief in your actions aren't really in alignment.

And so cognitive dissonance, interestingly enough, so we can both learn and all learn today, that there is a spectrum to it, right?

There is a level of awareness that is there and the level of struggle that sometimes is there.

But simple things like you know, smoking and drinking too much can be bad for your health.

Cognitive dissonance can be clearer.

But it seems that with this constant going back to collaborating and then contradictorying or sanctuary city status, that that cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to be landing.

I'm not sure how y'all sleep at night when you make decisions like this.

I I really hope you understand that we are not going to allow this to continue.

We're gonna keep being here, we're gonna keep thinking of solutions that you simply can't make for yourself or make as a unified body of governance, and we're gonna show you how to take care of our community.

Thank you so much.

Colin Maron Rath, please proceed.

Hello.

Since 9-11, they have politically policed environmentalists, racial justice activists, feminists, just to name a few, all since long before the Trump administration entered office.

They are an abomination that flies in the face of the idea that we are still a democracy, if we ever indeed were.

DHS is run by white supremacists, and whitening the country in preparation for an even more extreme genocidal agenda of white nationalism is their increasingly explicit goal.

Tweets from DHS have celebrated the idea of deporting a hundred million people from the country.

They have also used very obvious Nazi dog whistles on their Twitter account and elsewhere.

This administration has done essentially everything that the Nazis did to marginalize disabled people prior to mass murdering them within 18 months.

It took the Nazi government six years.

Fusion centers are hubs to the exact kind of far right conspiratorial mindset within so-called law enforcement that led us to this moment.

In reality, we do not have law in this country.

We only have enforcement.

If this passes and you voted for it, and a Sacramentan is then murdered by these fascist thugs, you will be as guilty as if you pulled the trigger yourself.

And this community will treat you as such.

At this point, MAGA is an explicitly Nazi-inspired movement.

Elon Musk did a fascist salute at their inauguration, and Stephen Miller has been disowned by his own family for his Nazi belief, and is widely uh understood to be essentially acting as president.

Our next speaker is Sharon Baffin.

Sharon, please proceed.

Hello.

Um my name is Sherilyn Bethany.

I actually live in unincorporated Sacramento and I work downtown.

I am still um here today virtually to ask you to urge you to please vote no on item 11.

Um I have to say that many of the people who've spoken so far have already expressed most of my sentiments.

And um what I notice most right now is that nobody has spoken um in support of this item.

And I think that that screams that the people of the city in this county do not want this to pass.

We do not want flock cameras in our communities, and it should tell you as a representative of us to vote no on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That can least our speakers.

That can please the speakers on the consent calendar.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we want to advise uh prior to that.

Do you want to take the vote on the consent calendar?

And then okay.

Represent us.

Okay, we're looking for a um a motion to second on the consent calendar.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I just want to note one thing too.

And item number eight.

I know Councilmember Kaplan talked about this, but this is a big deal moving forward with the old Sacramento waterfront.

Um, the State Lands Commission uh worked with us for many months.

We also want to give a special recognition to our lieutenant governor at Sacrament and State Lands Commissioner who helped us finalize this, and this was a big deal uh two years ago in our final year in the legislature.

We got five million dollars to fix the docks, and so that is materializing, and two new tenants are moving in, one this summer, the beer garden in a few months.

We're gonna announce a new restaurant for the old Rio City Cafe, but bring in more activity and excitement to the waterfront and make Sacramento a better place, a more fun place for our residents, but also brings in more dollars to our city to address our economic development issues.

So that's that's a big issue that I want to um focus on.

And uh with that, we have a motion of second on the consent calendar.

Uh minus item number 11.

All is a favorite, please say aye.

Aye.

No is there abstentions.

One absence with Mr.

Gera.

So with that, item number 11.

Uh um, I know we have a few um uh questions from council members, but maybe if I could ask um deputy chief just to give a high-level um summary of what this item is and conversely what it is not, um, where the monies come from, general funds at a grant, um, what what it's what it's about.

Will who who we will and will be not coordinating with with other law enforcement departments, and then we'll get to uh questions from council members.

You know, public we already had your chance to speak already, and so we respected that process.

So now it's time for the council to deliberate.

So please allow us to do our work.

Um chief, deputy chief.

Good afternoon, mayor, city manager, and city council.

My name is Deputy Bryce Heinlein, uh Deputy Chief over the Office of Specialized Services within the police department.

Joining me today is Lieutenant Dave Putman, who serves as the director of the Urban Area Security Initiative, commonly known as UASI.

Also with us is Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, Lieutenant Rodney Grassman, who oversees the daily operations of the Central California Intelligence Center, or the CCIC, also known as our fusion center.

Thank you for the opportunity to present today's uh agenda item.

This is a funding action under the UASI that supports the Central California Intelligence Center.

This item includes a sub award of roughly $793,000 to the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office for staffing and operating the CCIC.

These federal funds are essential to meeting our regional homeland security obligations and ensuring that Sacramento remains well prepared to identify, prevent, and respond to both criminal and terrorist threats.

As mentioned before, these funds come from the federal UASI dollars, first accepted by the state of California through the governor's office in Cal OES.

When the state accepts these funds, Cal OES vets all contractual obligations to ensure California can lawfully accept and administer them.

The Sacramento UASI has funded the CCIC for nearly two decades.

The city began funneling grant money to the local fusion center shortly after the center's inception following the 9-11 homeland security restructuring in the mid-2000s.

Using the funds to better prepare to and respond to terrorism-related threats, active shooter incidents, natural disasters, including floods and wildfires and infrastructure vulnerabilities such as dams, levees, etc.

Members of the UASC include every fire department and law enforcement agency in Sacramento, El Dorado, YOLO, and Plaster Counties.

Communities in each of these uh counties have beneficial benefited from equipment technology and training funded through UASI.

Under Section 2006 of the Homeland Security Act, at least 30% of the UASI funding must support law enforcement terrorism prevention activities.

This pass-through sub award supports the funding of four non-sworn professional staff at the CCIC, which fulfills the mandatory requirement.

At the last council meeting, two important topics uh were raised that I want to speak to directly.

The first one being civil immigration enforcement, and secondly, the criminal intelligence sharing.

Let me be clear neither the Sacramento Police Department nor the Sacramento Sheriff's Office plays any role in civil immigration enforcement.

The City of Sacramento does not share personal identifying information with any agency for civil immigration enforcement, including the Sacramento Sheriff's Office or the CCIC.

We only share criminal related intelligence.

We fully adhere to the state and federal laws, including SB 54 in the California Value Use Act.

In fact, the CCIC does not accept any information submitted for immigration enforcement purposes and must follow the Sheriff's Office immigration policy.

We have ordered we have members from the diet from the public shouting out.

If so, if this continues, we will have to evacuate the council chambers.

Correct.

Correct.

So again, this is a public process, and we we allowed public to participate, and we're going to have back and forth with the police department and the council about this item.

We, the elected council and body, and if continues the disruptions from the body, we will again ask the council to leave the chambers and we will vote on this item again in public.

So the choice is yours, public.

If you want to watch us participate, you can allow us to engage.

If you continue to continue to um to uh interrupt us, we'll have to uh engage on our own.

So uh chief, please continue.

Yes, uh the CCIC does not accept or any information submitted for immigration enforcement purposes and must follow the Sheriff's Office Immigration Policy, along with SB 54 since the CCIC is run and overseen by the Sheriff's Office.

Additionally, the CCIC does not have unrestricted or direct access to Sacramento Police Department records or information systems.

Information is only shared with the CCIC when it meets established legal and policy requirements for criminal intelligence or criminal investigative purposes.

Generally, this occurs when there is a demonstrated criminal nexus that extends beyond a single jurisdiction or is relevant to regional, state, or national public safety.

In fact, the CCIC does not collect, maintain, or disseminate information for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, and information is not shared to facilitate civil immigration actions.

Any questionable intelligence sharing requests made by any federal agencies must be vetted through our city attorney's office in the Sacramento Police Department adheres to this policy without exception.

The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office policy mirrors SB 54, reinforcing compliance between both agencies.

The CCIC also maintains a civil liberties and privacy officer program and adheres to executive order 1233 28 CFR 23 in the Attorney General Guidelines.

This Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer Program ensures all intelligence and information sharing activities protect first civil liberties, privacy, and first amendment rights.

Beyond SB 54 and the Sheriff's Office policy, CC op CCIC operations must comply with the 28 CFR, Part 23, or the federal standard governing criminal intelligence systems.

These rules require reasonable suspicion before any criminal intelligence is retained.

Strict limits on dissemination.

The information must meet both the need to know and right to know, audit trails documenting who accessed what information and why, and a mandatory five-year review and purging of outdated records.

These protections prevent misuse, protect civil liberties, and ensure Sacramento remains eligible for federal funding.

At the last city council meeting, there were a few questions that came up from council that I'd like to address.

The first one was SB 54 does not allow sharing of information.

How can we assure the public that the police department is not doing that?

Well, we can assure the public by uh pointing to multiple strong enforceable standard safeguards at the state, federal, grant compliance, and operational levels, which I have covered today.

SB 54 prohibits us from sharing personal information for civil immigration enforcement, and we comply fully with that law.

We safeguard the public by having multiple layers of protection, strict FP uh SB 54 rules, Sacramento Sheriff's Office policies that mirror ours, CCIC's mandatory rejection of immigration only requests, code of federal rev uh regulation standards, civil liberty officers, privacy audits, and required training.

The Sacramento Police Department does not share personal identifying information for civil immigration enforcement under any circumstances.

The second question is there any way of sharing personal identifying information with the federal government?

Our agencies may share criminal intelligence with federal law enforcement partners, but only when it meets strict legal standards, serving as a legitimate public safety purpose and complies with the state and federal uh privacy protections.

However, no information is shared with the federal government for civil immigration enforcement.

SB 54 prohibits it.

The CCIC policy rejects and expunges such requests in the Sacramento Police Department and Sheriff's Office forbids it.

And then the third question that came up was the contract required compliance with federal statute eight USC 1373 and 1644 of the United States Code, which states that it prohibits state and local governments from restricting communication with the Department of Homeland Security regarding an individual uh citizenship or immigration status.

How do we balance the incongruency between state law and complying with this section?

Regarding these federal statutes, Attorney General Botton Bonta affirmed in 2021 that California agencies are not required to share personal information, such as home or work addresses with federal age immigration authorities.

His guidance makes clear that California's limits on information sharing comply with federal law and have been upheld in the courts.

Lastly, every community in Sacramento, El Dorado, YOLO, and Placer benefits from this program.

Without these funds, our region would be less prepared in disaster uh for disasters and major crime threats.

By approving the sub award, it will fulfill the federal requirement, preserve nearly three million dollars in funding for the region, and strengthen public safety.

Thank you for your time.

And we are available for any questions that you may have.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh start off, Councilmember Vang.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and I just want to take a moment to thank everyone who came to speak today.

I know that this item came um to mayor and council in June.

Um, and I did get an opportunity to ask questions to PD then, and I did get answers from them that reaffirm why we should still continue to vote no on this item.

Uh and I now will just lay it out.

Um, you know, as a sanctuary city, um, I actually think voting for this item is counter to the work that we're trying to do.

Um, and I will be voting no on the item today.

I know over the past few months uh we have worked incredibly hard with community to strengthen existing uh sanctuary policies, our immigrant protection measures to ensure that we are responsive.

And um supporting this item is I feel um counter to our commitment as a sanctuary city.

Um the item uh does allow our city to act as a pass-through agency for those federal dollars.

I think we heard that from PD as well.

Um, and if you read the staff report, and it would authorize federal grants to pass through the city of Sacramento to the county's office to the to the county sheriff's office so that they could staff the central um intelligence center fusion center, which uh carries out a lot of the provision of the law enforcement services by the federal government.

Um and in the staff report, it does note that the funds will support projects at the center that includes um they listed various areas, uh, but one in particular that I want to highlight in addition to just intelligence and information sharing is enhancing security for election.

And at a time when our election actually faced multiple threats from this administration, I am concerned how data at the fusion center would be used under the guise of federal national security priorities.

And um, it could be used and leverage in ways that align with the federal administration, um, align with their security agenda.

And in some ways, if we allow these dollars to pass through, uh, we would be enabling this.

Um earlier this year, I think a finer point is that earlier this year, State Senator Sabrina Cervantes actually requested an audit earlier because she noted in her statement that uh fusion centers uh she believes have undermined state policy that actually prohibits uh cooperation with federal law enforcement agency, and that audit is um in the queue right now.

Um, and she believes that uh these fusion centers are cooperating um for immigration purposes and have supported ICE in their activities.

Um I am in ongoing conversation.

My office is is having ongoing conversation with the community regarding PD's participation in federal task forces because I know that one of the requirements for being a pass-through is because you're also part of these larger task for these federal task force.

I just want to note that San Francisco, Oakland, LA, and even San Diego, which is a little bit more moderate, have removed themselves from these federal task force.

Um but we haven't as a city.

Um and I would actually like us to re-evaluate our partnership and oversight structure for these federal task forces.

Um I have mentioned it last month that uh council member Maple and I are having conversation about uh a council proposal that would evaluate these task forces.

And so uh until we get that a closer look at that, um, I will be voting no on this item, and I also encourage uh my colleagues to do so as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Thank you, Mayor.

So uh Senator Maria Elena Druazo uh authored Senate Bill 580 last year, and it passed.

It requires a state attorney general to establish strict model policies for state and local agencies regarding interactions and database guidance sharing with federal um immigration authorities.

How are we working hand in hand with the state on enacting these policies and how does these dollars interface with that?

How are we interfacing with how the Senate bills are being created?

Well, with the Senate bill that passed.

How how are how are we protecting the city of Sacramento?

City of Sacramento with Senate bill by Beatty.

We just received the guidance out of that from the attorney general's office, and we are currently reviewing with our uh PSU unit to make sure that all our policies are already in compliance on the initial read through by our policy unit.

We believe that we are already in compliance with all of the different guidance from the AG's office.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Is there anything else you like to add?

He was good.

Okay.

Um the city of Sacramento is a sanctuary city.

The city of Sacramento has an immigration platform.

The city of Sacramento is built, well, by immigrants, for immigrants, and will be for immigrants.

These dollars are a pass through.

And we are one of the most progressive cities on this issue.

If the city of Sacramento does not accept these dollars, other agencies who do not have the leadership that we do have here will apply for these dollars, get these dollars, and use these dollars without any of the safeguards that the city of Sacramento has in place today.

Hi Councilmember Jennings.

No, I just want to give you a couple of things.

Yes.

So I was saying the city of Sacramento is a sanctuary city.

The city of Sacramento has an immigration platform.

The City of Sacramento has progressive leadership.

We are a pass-through agency on these dollars.

And if we don't pass these dollars, other counties will apply for these dollars.

They will get those dollars, and we will have no safeguards to protect our immigrant communities here in Sacramento.

Because there will be another governing body that is not the city of Sacramento, the people here sitting here right now, who are also immigrants, protecting our immigrant community.

So for that reason, I will be voting yes on this item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seriously.

How do I turn this off?

Okay, this is the final notice.

Final notice.

We're gonna continue with the deliberation.

And if there's any more outbursts, we're gonna have to ask the audience to leave, and we'll go on our own.

Not the audience.

We're not audience.

We are the community.

You supposedly represent closed fucking doors.

How about this?

I'll leave.

How about that?

Yeah, why don't I leave for you?

We're all gonna leave.

You represent us.

You are our fucking audience.

We pay you.

We will be taking a brief recess so that decorum in the chambers can be established.

Excuse me, Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Chapter 5 and Government Code 549579.

Sergeant at arms, please clear the chamber.

Once the quorum is established, we will return.

You want to just make decisions to vote.

No, we have reestablished a quorum to continue with item 11.

Mayor, you may proceed and then we'll reopen after this item.

Um thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I will be very brief.

I don't have any questions.

I do want to thank um PD for taking the time to to brief us um and providing more information.

As you know, I had several questions um at the last hearing.

Um and so you know, I I appreciate and I and and some of it uh, as the vice mayor mentioned, are things that are safeguards that we have that do not exist in other jurisdictions.

Um I think that's really important, and it also aligns with our policies, our sanctuary city policies.

Um but with that said, um, there are a lot of things that I remain concerned about, uh, mostly things that are outside of our control.

Like we don't have control over what happens at the center, we don't have control over what the federal government will do, um, and we certainly don't have control if there are breaches or things that that um do happen, which we have seen already.

And so for that reason I'm gonna be voting now, but um, I do want to appreciate the time that you spent to educate me.

Thank you.

Do you have a further question from me?

No, okay.

We have a motion.

So move.

Okay.

Motion is second.

We know this is a very emotional topic.

And I can see how the the public um conflates these two issues, more money for law enforcement that has some partnership on some federal issues related to counterterrorism.

But we have a job to do to keep our community safe, and we stand by our values and vehemently object to the civil immigration actions that are taking place across the country, including California.

But at the same time, we can't turn our back on the work that we do to keep Sacramento and California safe.

And this is aligned with us, and you know, I fully support this, and thank you for clarifying the facts from fiction.

And uh and with that, we we support the our police department doing this important work and knowing where the line is and where our community and the council want the police department to focus their time and not to focus their efforts.

So uh thank you.

And with that, we have a motion a second.

All uh please call the roll.

Member Kaplan.

Aye.

Member Dickinson.

Aye Mayor Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Aye.

Member Plucky Baum is absent.

Member Maple?

No.

Guerra's absent.

Member Jennings?

Yes.

Member Vane?

No.

Mayor McCarty.

Aye.

Five.

We have five.

Thank you.

That completes our consent calendar on the item that was pulled.

We'll move on to public hearings.

Is it approved to bring the media the stuff again?

Okay, so we'll bring members of the public, any remaining members of the media back into chambers for our next item.

The next item is item 32, delinquent utility service charges with special assessments.

We'll wait a few moments.

Yes, yes, sir.

No restrictions.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, so there we should go over this disruptions thing because if we want to manage something in the future, we'd like to do that.

No, I know.

I spent my first six months.

I wouldn't give people like probation.

Like you can't come before the question.

No injury.

Oh, the same thing.

Okay, please proceed.

Ryan.

Please call the next item.

I will restating item 32, delinquent utility service charge.

Special assessment.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor McCarthy and Council Member.

My name is June.

Ryan Pam.

Your business services manager from the Department of Utility.

That the total amount to be levied as pressure assessment indicated in the SAP report.

Actually, um, Mayor, can I open the public hearing?

Yes.

Okay.

So thank you.

Has been reduced because of payment receipt.

The total delinquent amount to be levied as special assessment is 10 million 982, 956 and 31 cents.

Exhibit A of the STAP report have been revised to reflect these changes.

A copy is on file in the city clerk's office.

DUU staff update the list of account for on exhibit A of this resolution.

To reflect payments may prior to implement transmitting the list to the Sacramento County Auditor slash controller.

This concludes my prepared remarks.

Thank you.

And I'm here to answer any question that you may have.

Thank you.

Council.

You have public comment on this item?

No, sir.

We have no public comment.

Okay.

I'll uh move, I'll close the public hearing and move this item.

Okay.

Motion to close the public hearing and move the item.

Motion is second.

All is in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Any nose or extensions?

Hearing none, item passes eight zero.

Thank you.

Next item.

Item 33 is an ordinance revision to chapter 5.138 and 9.12, Article 2 of the Sacramento City Code relating to tobacco retailers.

I'd like to open the public hearing.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council, City Manager.

We're here today for the tobacco retailer updates.

And prior to that, we were here with City Council with some updates.

During the law and legislation committee, there were some questions about how close uh the county retailers are to the city limits, and this map uh shows that uh information here.

There's quite a few that are right near the borders in different areas.

Um in 2025, there was uh state law updates.

Uh, some of these updates, the biggest one for us was the uh unflavored tobacco list.

This made it where if the tobacco is not on this list, is is uh presumed to be flavored and not allowed to be sold in California.

It also stopped non-FDA approved e-cigarettes from being added to the unflavored list.

It allows for confiscation of flavored tobacco products by a law enforcement agency.

Uh, based on council feedback and CDD staff recommendations, the following highlights summarize the notable proposed amendments to the Sacramento City Code.

Uh as we mentioned, the biggest one is the removal of the healthy foods exemption.

Um we also updated and added key definitions that was missing from the city code.

We enhance our inspection authority, which would now be a license violation if they refuse or prohibit a tobacco inspection.

We also clarified flavored tobacco prohibitions.

Prior, if they had tobacco that was flavored in the store, it wasn't a violation unless it was uh displayed for sale.

And this kind of removes that loophole and doesn't allow it anywhere on the premises if they have a tobacco retail license.

And we also cleaned up some of the language that was uh outdated that uh caught up to the state code, which uh requires purchasers to be 21 uh years or older to buy tobacco.

Um I know you guys have saw the changes that were redlined in um legislatar, so we're available if you have any questions uh regarding the changes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor, we have 24 speakers on this item.

Okay, how many in person versus on the phone?

We have 21 in person and three by phone.

Okay.

Let's proceed within person.

Our first speakers are Ali Rimold, Andrea Gill, and Blythe Young, if you could line up in the chamber.

Good morning.

Good afternoon, council members and staff.

My name is Dr.

Ali Reimald.

I'm a constituent in District 6, and I'm also a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, Davis, leading research on the Sacramento Healthy Food Exemption.

I'm here today to share my research findings.

The intention of the healthy food exemption was to increase healthy food access and underserved areas of Sacramento.

My team set out to determine if the exemption actually improved healthy food access.

In February 2025, we received data from the City of Sacramento Code and Housing Enforcement on 33 retailers that used the exemption to open.

We then conducted in-store observations and mapped where each of these stores were located.

Based on our in-store observations, only six stores were in compliance with the healthy food requirements.

Less than half had fresh fruit, and only six had fresh vegetables.

Even the stores that stocked fresh fruits and vegetables often had limited or low quality options, and large sections of these stores were devoted to unhealthy products like tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, and ultra-processed foods.

Furthermore, only two of the 33 retailers that used the healthy food exemption opened in what the USDA classifies as low-income, low food access areas.

Together, these findings indicate that stores are not opening in underserved areas, and the stores that are opening are often not providing healthy food options.

Now, speaking as an individual, I urge City Council to remove the healthy food exemption and to support tobacco retailers and transitioning away from tobacco and towards products that strengthen their business while also promoting the health and well-being of the community.

Thank you.

Andrea Gill, followed by Blythe Young and Braylon Hill.

Good afternoon, Council members and staff.

My name is Andrea Gill.

I am a constituent in District 5 and a lifelong Sacramento resident.

I am also a PhD candidate in nutritional biology at UC Davis.

For the past year, I have followed research on the Sacramento Healthy Food Exemption.

In 2020, as you are all aware, the Sacramento City Council introduced the healthy food exemption that was intended to reduce the city's food deserts and promote sales of fresh foods in neighborhood stores.

However, this amendment has disappointingly created a massive loophole for tobacco retail.

I have observed the surge in tobacco uptake over the past few years in my college-aged peers.

Tobacco is the number one preventable uh cause of preventable deaths in the United States and annually costs California over 40 billion dollars in health care expenses and lost productivity.

Also, almost 10% of all tobacco deaths are a result of exposure to secondhand smoke.

This exemption is exp especially concerning, considering that Sacramento was a leader in progressive tobacco policies, including flavored tobacco bans ahead of the state.

This amendment is quietly undoing that work and is still not improving access to fresh healthy foods.

Speaking as an individual, I am all for policies that increase healthy food access and that help local businesses profit in Sacramento.

What I am against is selling tobacco under the guise of a healthy food exemption.

Therefore, I ask you to repeal the Sacramento Healthy Food Exemption.

Thank you.

Thank you, Blythe Young, followed by Braylon Hill and Brian Lamb.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

My name is Blythe Yag, and I am the region senior lead for community government relations with the American Heart Association.

I specialize in tobacco retail policies, and I'm here today to ask you to remove the healthy food exemption.

I also hold a Bachelor of Science and Nutrition Clinical Dietetics from UC Davis.

We know this exemption is not working as intended, and instead is creating a loophole for retailers to continue to be located in your youth sensitive spaces.

We respectfully ask for the removal of the healthy food exemption and some additional elements that would strengthen your enforcement program.

The study requires business licenses that include proactive compliance inspections for other types of retail.

The sale of harmful and addictive tobacco products deserves the same level of oversight.

Licensing fees are a standard cost of doing business and proactive compliance checks are essential to deter illegal sales, identify repeat violators, and protect children from a nicotine addiction.

Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and addiction often begins well before the age of 18.

We respectfully ask for the following amendments.

Updating your fee to fully cover your administrative administrative and compliance monitoring costs.

Inclusion of a mandatory minimum of proactive annual compliance checks with follow-up inspections upon violation.

A clear statement that the licensee is responsible for any monetary penalties.

You have quite high fines included in your ordinance, and this is an equity concern.

A clear we also ask for a clear statement that enforcement pertains to the retailer licensee and not to individuals who may purchase, use, or possess prohibited tobacco products.

I urge you to consider these updates.

These are best practices backed by the public health law center model, which is the state model for California, and these have become standard best practices throughout the state.

My coverage area includes the entire state of California.

Um and I've seen what works and does not work in these policies over the last seven and a half years that I've specialized in them.

I respectfully ask for the inclusion of these elements.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Braylon Hill, followed by Brian Lamb and Carol Maybum.

Dear council members, my name is Braylon Hill, and I'm a resident of District 4.

If the goal of this council is to promote community health, how is increasing accessibility to nicotine products, knowing that they kill, going to help our communities?

As an Afro-Latino pre-law student who has had ample policy experience, it is safe to say that this policy is egregiously ineffective.

Any increase in tobacco is not a proper solution to food scarcity.

You're creating a public health crisis.

My experience has shown me how many minority kids never had a chance.

The retailer density in Sacramento is ludicrously high.

I can count seven different tobacco retailers within a 1.5 mile walk to the city hall from my residence, let alone numerous cigarette butts on the floor or nicotine pouches.

As a college student, I am seeing the way that nicotine has affected my friends.

They can't go minutes in between a vape puff or a zin pool or their personalities change, or they can't breathe.

My campus is littered with cigarettes, vape cartridges, and dins on the floor.

It is an environmental hazard, yet the city has no fees implemented for tobacco waste mitigation.

As public servants, you all know the data.

You all know the health facts.

Even for non-smokers, secondhand and third hand smoke do not discriminate.

Why wait for more generations of youth to suffer before change is finally implemented?

A phase out of tobacco sales in the next three to five years is something that other jurisdictions have done to protect the communities with success.

Change is happening.

Support the tobacco end game.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brian Lamb, followed by Karen Maytum and David Tooley.

Hello.

Good afternoon, City Council and City Staff.

My name is Brian Lamb, and I'm here on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance.

We represent independent gas station convenience store retailers across the state, including here in Sacramento.

And as a local representative, I've here uh I've come here to just talk to you about my concerns with the healthy foods exemption repeal.

Um, you know, I I can understand the the council's intent, you know, trying to improve public health, but doing so by repealing the exemption will put dozens of businesses at risk and the and essentially risk their livelihood because you know I can be the first to admit that the aforementioned study does paint the city's retailers in a negative light.

Um but as with everything, it's it's kind of a nuanced view.

There's good and there's bad, and approaching it does require nuance.

Um, and unfortunately, a blanket repeal just lacks that nuance.

These are local business owners.

These it's not big tobacco.

These are people just trying to feed their families or trying to put food on the table.

And I would just request that the council uh look to protect these local business owners.

You know, dozens of them in the room with us right now.

Um, and just look to protect the gas station and convenience store industry in Sacramento at the very least to implement something to protect that license transfer.

I'm sorry, license transferability aspect.

I thank you for your time and consideration, and hopefully I'll look forward to collaborating with the city and staff on you know effective policy that we can all get behind.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Carol Matum, followed by David Thule and Elisa Tong.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members.

My name is Carol Madam, and I'm here as the chairperson of the Greater Sacramento Smoke and Tobacco Free Coalition.

I'm here in support of eliminating the healthy food exemption from Sacramento's tobacco retail license ordinance.

The healthy food exemption was created with the goal of improving access to nutritious food in Sacramento.

It was a thoughtful idea, but after several years, the outcomes tell a different story.

Rather than expanding healthy food options, the exemption has led to a substantial increase in tobacco retailers.

Since 2020, 33 businesses have received a tobacco retail license through this exemption, representing nearly half of all new licenses issued during that same time.

Sacramento now has 325 tobacco retailers, 115 more than recommended by population density.

To understand whether our exemption achieved its purpose, we assessed 29 of the 33 stores that opened under that policy.

Only six met the true reality of the healthy food exemption requirements.

Most lacked adequate selection of fresh produce with fewer than half carrying fresh fruit and only about five carrying fresh vegetables.

Even when available, the produce was often limited or poor in quality.

Instead, these stores were devoted much of their shelf space to tobacco products, alcohol, and sugary beverages.

The evidence shows that this policy has not delivered meaningful improvements in healthy food access.

Instead, it has expanded the availability of commercial tobacco.

I respectfully ask you to eliminate the healthy food exemption and continue moving Sacramento toward ending the sale of all commercial tobacco.

We've made difficult public health decisions in the past by removing products such as uh leaded gasoline and asbestos when the evidence showed they caused harm.

We have the opportunity to take another important step in the future to protect generations.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

David Tooley, followed by Elisa Tong and Gilbert Gilberto Gill.

Hi, Mayor and Council members.

My name is David Thule.

I have uh I spoke when we were here in March.

I think we were here on uh St.

Patrick's Day because I remember you had a uh uh council member Jenny and you had a good green tie or a bow tie or something, but um Tulu Oil Company, we have um we have 17 stores in the greater Sacramento area.

We've been a great, I feel like a good member of the community since 1978.

Um we employ about 200 people and we support um numerous charities and events throughout this county, and I think we're um woven into the fabric of Sacramento.

Um my concern, it's it's not even the just the healthy food or anything, it's the ability to um sell a store with no guarantee that someone that you sell when you sell a store that the new incoming retailer can get a license.

And with how this is set to go, you will not be able to get a license because there's too many.

So it almost makes a store unsellable, and it really takes away from your hard work that you've done for 30 years, maybe your business.

It's it's literally probably unsellable.

Um so my concern isn't I don't want to grow tobacco, I'm not even for tobacco.

This is really just a business issue, and I think um it's just finding a common sense approach to how we can um move forward with licenses or people that need to sell their business at some point in time and making a path that uh works for everyone.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Elisa Tong, followed by Gilberto Goul and Harmon Sandy.

Good afternoon.

Um my name is Dr.

Eliza Tong, and I strongly support uh the removal of the healthy food exemption from our city's tobacco retailer policy.

For identification purposes, I'm a professor of medicine at UC Davis, where I'm a doctor taking care of patients here in the hospital and the clinic in Sacramento.

I'm also the director of our tobacco cessation policy research center at our cancer center.

And I'm here representing myself as an individual, but I'm born and raised here in Sacramento.

Our policy center brief led by Dr.

Reimold, as you've heard, has shown that this unprecedented healthy food exemption has not led to healthier stores.

Um, the city of Sacramento already has an excessive number of stores, nearly 300, and over a third of these tobacco retailers are in Sacramento County.

Um this study was a big undertaking by this amazing student team led by Dr.

Reimold and Dr.

Falby that showed only six stores sold healthy foods per the policy.

So when I talk with my patients or medical students about a healthy lifestyle, I don't tell them about conflicting information that they can buy or use tobacco if they can buy healthier food.

I tell my patients to watch out for labels that are marketed by industries as healthier or less harmful for you.

I tell my patients with high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, cancer to avoid tobacco, but also sugary drinks, donuts, hot dogs, foods that are listed on this healthy food exemption list.

I tell our medical students that social drivers of health are important and includes where our patients live and work, and that place matters for preventing addiction, disease, and death in our community.

So my hope is that we can revisit our city's general plan that quote encourages a healthy lifestyle for Sacramento residents to improve overall public health, which includes discouraging tobacco sales points.

So, what should healthy stores in Sacramento look like?

Um, one easy recommendation to think of in future is even to stop the sale of tobacco in stores with a pharmacy license.

Um, as only 10% of drug stores or two chains with seven stores in the city of Sacramento sell tobacco.

Um, as a doctor, I want to tell patients which stores are truly healthier for them and which ones to avoid.

Let's work together about how we can better incentivize better business practices for the health of our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gilberto Gibb Gibb, Harman Sandu, and Kataya Oaks.

Good afternoon, City Council members.

My name is Hilberto Gil, and I recently retired after 34 years of teaching.

Despite my retirement, my heart and passion for helping students and their families is still very strong.

Today I'm here to respectfully ask you to re-evaluate the healthy food exemption.

Please consider terminating it, or at the very least, take corrective actions moving forward.

My concern is for our student population and their families.

Kids, middle school, high school, and even young adults, are in critical stages in which they are developing lifelong habits and behaviors.

Today we have an obligation where we purposely help them overcome from making poor decisions by limiting their exposure to harmful addictive tobacco products.

I have personally seen these habits form over time.

Their parents are social workers, and I have spent a significant amount of time helping students break away from these poor decisions.

It is exhausting and time consuming.

Please consider my concern on their health by eliminating or limiting exposure to harmful products and to encourage good healthy choices among students.

Last but not least, I am not against our community businesses as they seek to stay profitable.

But I do encourage the city council and our business community to seek other methods without harming our student community and their families.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Harmon Sandu, followed by Keita Oaks and Kessa Bruce.

Hi, good afternoon, Armus Andu.

A lot of familiar faces, uh, friendly faces.

So I just want to touch on uh I have a lot of UC Davis alumni family doctors as well.

Um, you know, and I hold UC Davison a very high regard.

I think the uh surveys were uh incomplete just from a perspective of I also got a tobacco license from the healthy food exemption, but it's a little bit more complicated than that.

Uh you know, we actually make more money from the healthy food than we do from tobacco.

And a majority of people with my same cultural background are against tobacco.

It's literally for the sake of driving customers into our store.

And I could selfishly say the healthy food exemption won't affect me any longer because I already got my license, right?

So my main point was what Mr.

Tooley said, uh, the transferability component of it.

We've you know spent years and years, decades, some people decades building up these businesses, and we don't have retirement plans.

Um, I'm all for I have two young daughters, and I'm against tobacco.

I use tobacco, and I'm still against tobacco.

You know, I don't advocate for tobacco.

I think there's some education that needs to go along with this where you know we work collectively.

We want to sell healthy food.

It's in our best interest.

We make more money off healthy food than we do off tobacco.

The standard margin, and correct me if I'm wrong is six to ten percent on tobacco.

The fruit is 30 to 40%.

Please address the council.

Sorry.

Um, you know, so we we want to sell the healthy foods.

It's and some of it is uh accessibility, right?

We have to personally run with all the other obstacles we're dealing with to Costco or or any any grocery store to get that fruit.

Our delivery trucks don't bring fruit, and those fruits go bad.

I'm donating fruit here in downtown where a lot of you have seen me.

Um, you know, it's we we're we're tied to the hip with you guys.

You know, we help you guys get elected.

We work with law enforcement collectively, and we want what's best for Sacramento, and that includes you know, preventing kids from using tobacco.

The only thing we're asking is that we don't get punished for wanting access strategy.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Kate Katya Oaks, followed by Kessa Bruce and then Kimberly Bankston Lee.

Good afternoon.

My name is Katya, and today I am speaking as a college student.

I urge the council to remove the healthy food exemption and strengthen the tobacco retail license program so it reflects its original public health purpose of reducing tobacco access.

Instead of bringing meaningful access to healthy food, the exemption has allowed more tobacco retailers to operate while offering only minimal healthy food options.

Healthy food should be measured by healthy food, not by permission to sell tobacco.

If residents' health was truly the priority of this exemption, then increasing tobacco access would never be considered as a plausible solution.

The profit from tobacco sales should not be placed above community well-being.

And although I understand that there are businesses out there against this, the public health and well-being of this community should be the only consideration.

Profit will not prevent addiction, nor will it save dying people.

Many of my friends began to their tobacco use when they were 15, attracted by fun flavors and easy access to these products.

Today, I have seen my friends grow so dependent on tobacco use that even their own desire to quit is not enough to escape these vices.

My loved ones are paying the consequences of an addiction that they formed when they were too young to know better.

Why are we waiting for youth to become addicted?

The city should be protecting us now by not allowing these products to be sold at all.

I urge the city to develop a three to five year plan to end the sale of all commercial tobacco products, including vapes, while expanding accessation services and protecting sacred tobacco use.

Our communities and residents deserve better.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Kessa Bruce, followed by Kimberly Bankston Lee and Naraj Paul.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Kisa Bruce, and I am the director of advocacy for the American Lung Association.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on strengthening Sacramento's tobacco retailer licensing ordinance.

The healthy food exemption was created to increase access to healthy food, was created to increase access to healthy food.

However, the evidence shows that it has not accomplished this goal.

Instead of increasing access to nutritious food, the exemption has increased access to commercial tobacco.

Researchers found that many participating stores offered few fresh fruits and vegetables while continuing to prominently display commercial tobacco products.

Sacramento has one of the highest concentrations of tobacco retailers in the region.

And research consistently shows that increased tobacco retailer density increases youth exposure, making quitting more difficult, and disproportionately impacts black and brown communities already experiencing health disparities.

Healthy food initiatives are important, but they should be pursued through policies designed to improve nutrition and not by creating loopholes that expand commercial tobacco sales.

The American Lung Association supports policies that genuinely improve healthy food access through nutrition focused programs.

However, these efforts should not be tied to permitting additional commercial tobacco sales.

The American Lung Association respectfully recommends eliminating the healthy food exemption from the ordinance, maintaining strong tobacco retailer density protections to prevent further proliferation of tobacco retailers, preserve non-transferable tobacco retailers' licensing to gradually reduce retailer density over time, ensure adequate licensing fees, support enforcement, and annual compliance inspections, and continue prioritizing evidence-based policies that reduce tobacco-related disease and health inequities throughout Sacramento.

Also, please include fees that for commercial tobacco product waste mitigation.

The American Lung Association respectfully urges you to remove the health.

Thank you kindly for your consideration.

Kimberly Bankston Lee, followed by Naraj Paul and Harmjee Kara.

Good afternoon.

You may know my affiliation with the Seoul Project, but today I am here as a resident of Sacramento in District 7.

My dream for Sacramento is that we no longer have people addicted to tobacco.

I lost my mother from a tobacco addiction.

She died at the age of 58.

We were heading in a healthier direction in 2009 when the city passed the buffer zone of a thousand feet.

We had about 220 retailers in 2020, and somehow we've gotten up to 311.

In our district, Mr.

Jennings, we went from 20 to 28.

In District 7, there's no sort shortage of healthy food.

We have Rayleigh's Bel Air, Sprouts, SF Market, Nugget, Grocery Outlet.

You there's probably more than that.

Yes, we do need to remove the healthy food exemption, but we need to be thinking bigger.

We need to end this epidemic.

And we can.

Let's reduce tobacco sales, not increase them.

I'm a business owner also, and I don't understand having a business that harms the community you serve.

When the market changes, I change my business model.

If we have a phase out approach, we can give these business people an opportunity to phase out their licenses and adopt a new model.

I think I heard one of them say they made more sales from fruits and healthy foods.

Wonderful.

That's where we should be going.

We can have a city and a world without commercial tobacco.

It is possible.

And it's time for Sacramento to lead once again.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Naraj Paul, pardon Jet Kara, and Plashet Robinson.

Good afternoon.

Probably gonna say stuff that's already familiar with most of you, but um here we go.

Um by passing this, you'll be taking away people's livelihood.

Most of these businesses are small businesses owned by mom and pops.

Most of them are minority owned.

The thousand foot rule uh that will be gone away with this will become most of these businesses become worthless.

If we pass this exemption for a reason, instead of removing it, why not just enforce it?

Um let's focus our enforcement on the bad actors, and why are we letting these bad actors hurt everybody else?

Um I'm unsure what specific problem that this is solving.

If we remove the healthy food exemption, and I can transfer, I can't transfer my store, people will just go across the street and buy tobacco.

I don't see this solving anything.

Um I'm just asking to keep this exemption that we have and protect small businesses and keep commonplace solutions in place.

Thank you.

Thank you, Parmjit, followed by Plashet Robinson and Rocky Malhee.

Good afternoon.

My name is Paramjid Kara, and um I'm a retailer, last 30 years.

So time to time, uh the laws changes, which is good for you know, our business for the kids and the community.

So we always agree with that.

And uh, of course, over the community, you know, for us, our kids, we don't want to smoke, and you know, our community doesn't smoke, so we are in a business to sell the cigarettes or tobacco.

Um is time for us to getting retired over business trying to you know transfer to our kids' names or so.

Basically, this was all our retirement.

So at this law, that will uh transferability, you know, we're not gonna able to transfer our business to our kids' name, or we sell.

So that's the retirement.

This is our biggest concern on this bill.

Um, so we urge to all the council, please uh do not uh vote on that and uh find some kind of solution for like uh by another uh colleague us, you know, there's some um people out there not you know follow the laws and stuff like that, especially uh my concern is like the 15,000 scarefoot stores are not as part of this, so the only under 15,000.

And our convenience stores and gas stations have made a lot, you know, we have to spend a lot of money to build the stores and uh compared to cigarette store.

So I I noticed it is there's a lot of a problem with this.

I will say cigar store because we we know it, we heard from different you know, sources, you know.

Uh so we have to find sign counts, some kind of solution where we have to separate us to you know, some kind of a made of like you know, we have exempt um you know 15,000 skid for maybe we have to find some of maybe the smaller store, the cigar store.

Comments, uh store.

So thank you.

Thank you, Plashette Robinson, followed by Rocky Mahi and Ryan Hooper.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Plashette Robertson.

I have proudly lived in Sacramento City Council District 8 in South Sacramento for the past 26 years.

I am the mother of three daughters, the grandmother of nine grandsons, and the owner of SACCultural Hub.com for the past 24 years.

Too many lives have been harmed by tobacco, nicotine, and vaping products.

They hurt our health, addict our youth, and leave dangerous waste in our neighborhoods.

I respectfully ask you to close the healthy food exemption, fully fund tobacco retail license enforcement, add tobacco waste mitigation fees, keep licenses non-transferable, and create one clear enforcement process.

I also ask you to begin planning a three to five year phase out of commercial tobacco sales, including vapes, while expanding quit smoking support.

Please help protect our children, our families, our vulnerable elderly population, and our pets.

Everyone deserves clean air and a healthier future.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rocky Malhee, followed by Ryan Hooper and Sammy Chowhan.

Hey, good afternoon, Council.

Council members.

My name is Rocky Molly.

I'm a I own few markets in the city of Sacramento.

I'm also with APCA, American Petroleum Convenience Association, representing the Sacramento chapter.

We support public health.

And we strictly enforce ID checks to prevent you taxes.

But these new rules punish businesses that are already doing everything right.

First, we are not tobacco shops.

Again, we are not tobacco shops.

We're community stores.

We sell groceries, milk, bread, and daily essentials.

Tobacco is a very small part of our shelf space, not our identity.

Second, many of us already meet your healthy food exemption.

Keeping tobacco under 5% of shelf space.

We followed your rules in good faith.

Removing that exemption now punishes compliance.

Now, most importantly, the combination of the thousand foot rule and non-transferability is a death sentence for our business business's value.

If a license cannot transfer, our store becomes unsellable.

This doesn't just regular tobacco, it destroys the retirement savings and years of hard work we have built.

It's unfair to change the rules and wipe out our life investments.

Finally, some of us already have sales in progress.

We ask that you protect them.

We ask for a balanced solution.

Cap new licenses if you must.

So do cap new licenses if you must, but allow existing compliant licenses to continue and transfer like liquor licenses.

California is already reducing licenses statewide.

Please don't destroy local, responsible, small businesses in the process.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you.

Ryan Hooper, followed by Sammy Chowhan and Tavir Samara.

Good evening, Mayor.

Good afternoon.

Mayor McCarty, members of the Sacramento City Council City Manager Smith.

Ryan Hooper with Thatch and Hooper here today representing the Tooley family.

You heard from my client a few moments ago.

They have made a significant investment in this city with multiple stores going back 30 some years in the city of Sacramento.

They've been a great operator, a great corporate citizen, and again have made a significant investment that they are concerned with.

Seeing that investment basically be rendered valueless upon the sale of a of the business because under the current proposal, it would strip the current new operator of being able to apply for a tobacco license.

Therefore, I've said it to you all previously, but distributing again for your convenience a red line that essentially allows and I would say as a starting point, we we support staff's uh proposal, their recommendation with this one modification to protect existing business owners by basically uh allowing new owners of existing gas stations to apply for a new license at that same location.

This would help ensure that businesses like the Tooleys and others that you've heard from have the ability to recognize the investment and the hard work that they've put in when they go to transfer their business.

So we urge um your support of, and I would also say um I should have mentioned at the outset that uh this concept was discussed uh rather thoroughly at the law and legislation committee meetings a few months ago and seem to have some traction um with the members of that committee.

So with that, um I would urge your support for our proposed red line and are here to answer any questions.

Thank you for your comment, Sammy Chuhan, Tavir Samara, and Valerie Scrugs.

Good afternoon, Mayor McCarty and Council members.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

I don't want to repeat what everybody's already said, but I want to talk about the value of the business.

First of all, we're responsible retailers.

So we did flavor ban, we supported it completely.

We didn't oppose it.

And it's a statewide ban.

If we do something like that, we're 100% supporting it.

But not being able to sell our business, devastates our business value.

It crushes foot traffic, which reduces daily customer counts, eliminates cross-selling, so fewer buyers means fewer sales, even healthy food sales.

It compromises commercial leases, triggers lease defaults with inability to sell may breach.

Continuing operation clause.

Sorry, I'm a little emotional because this really affects my business.

My father started this in 1992.

And if he wants to retire, and he can't sell his business, it devalues his business drastically.

Not five or ten percent, but we're looking at 80% discount in the value of his business that he's worked three decades building to retire.

We're asking that to repeal this to go against this uh repeal.

Financially it impacts our business but yields a zero exit strategy.

It makes this non-transferable and leaves us with uh just asset value that can't be sold.

And ruins our retirement ability.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Tajvir Smira and Valerie Scruggs.

Good afternoon, counsel.

Um, kind of just touching base on what the rest of my colleagues have said.

My family's been in the uh fuel business and uh convenience operations business since the late 80s, early 90s here in Sacramento and other areas surrounding.

Um I think the biggest thing for all of us is those of us that have been good operators, years and years, laws change, regulations change, we've adapted, we've operated.

Um I think, like Harman had said earlier, tobacco isn't a big part of our profitability and things we do.

It's more of a convenience item that brings customers in, and they know that we carry that product.

But like our legacy holders have said here that transferability is kind of our key component on what we are pushing for and what we'd like to retain.

And if that's something we can adapt into this law rather than just repealing the healthy foods option, we'd be open to that and would appreciate that as an opportunity for us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Valerie Scruggs.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Valerie Scrugs, and I'm speaking today solely as a community member and a Sacramento resident of District Three.

I fully support the removal of the healthy food exemption.

While it may have been centered with good intentions, it has been misused to increase the number of tobacco retail licenses without delivering on the promise of bringing healthier food options to our community.

This loop hope has weakened our public health protections for the vast majority of Sacramento residents who do not smoke.

We should not depart from sound public health policies that are designed to protect people from the harmful effects of smoking and vaping.

Smoke is smoke, addiction is addiction.

Our policy should provide clear, consistent guidance, not mixed messages.

We know that smoking and vaping can lead to addiction and long-term health consequences for those who use the products and as well for those people who are exposed to secondhand and third-hand smoke.

Those facts have not changed, and neither should our commitment to public health.

Regulations are only effective when they are consistently enforced.

By closing this loophole, providing the resources needed for consistent compliance and investing in enforcement, we can create a fairer system that protects our neighborhoods, supports responsible retailers, and advances the health and well-being of everyone in our community.

Several of this the retail owners have said that they make more money off of their core business, which is selling healthy food and other projects, products, not tobacco.

So it does not mean that that will be a detriment to them.

They will be safe.

And so let's remove the healthy food exemption and let's maintain our trend our non-transferability of licenses.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Joining us by phone is Messi Zai.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Macy Sha, and I am a rising senior at Mariloma High School, a Sacramento resident and a representative of the Breed Sacramento Youth Advisory Board.

I am here today to speak in support of the ordinance and to remove the healthy food exemption.

My high school is very heavily populated and diverse.

And throughout my years as a student, I have witnessed the impact of tobacco use among youth in my community.

And I have seen it affect students of all backgrounds, and it has become increasingly common among my kids.

This issue became even more personal when I call my own sister and her friends bathing in the restroom during the school day.

Seeing someone close to me, especially someone younger has such easy access to these products made me ask an important question.

Why are nicotine and vape products so readily available to young people in our community?

And although the food, the healthy food exemption policy was created to increase access to healthy food, it has instead allowed more tobacco retailers to open in our neighborhoods.

And I just want to emphasize that since 2020, 30 33 tobacco retailers have used this exemption, which accounts for nearly half of all new tobacco retail licenses.

And Sacramento now has 325 tobacco retailers, which is 134 more than the recommended ratio of one retail for every 2,500 residents.

And at the same time, this policy has failed to improve healthy food access.

And many stores qualify by selling little amounts of expired fruits and vegetables while continuing to primarily sell process foods and stats.

And this is not what the exemption was intended to accomplish.

Easy access to tobacco has serious consequences.

Nicotine is highly addictive.

It affects developing brain, increases mental health risk, and makes long-term addiction more likely.

And as a high schooler who sees the effects of youth tobacco use in my community every day, I urge you to protect future generations by voting in support of the ordinance and to remove the healthy food exemption.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Sarah G Shore.

So uh my name is Sergei Shore.

I just represent my parents who own one business in Sacramento City.

And my dad is 65 years old.

Well, or 66, who has multiple heart surgeries.

You guys already did the menthol flavor ban and then the flavor of tobacco ban.

We complied with it, and we are complying with every law that the city puts out.

This ordinance that you guys have brought forth against us, it's not the right thing.

I mean, my dad does not have a 401k.

This business is his 401k.

One of the speakers did say, oh, well, they'll be fine if they do not sell that many tobacco products.

That is not true.

That's like buying a home with only one bedroom, five bedroom house with only a bedroom bathroom.

That's part of our real estate that we can sell.

And my dad is willing to retire in the next year that he's looking.

So you guys will have already caught our needs.

What else do you guys want from us?

You know, we are we comply with the law, what the law tells us, and we still don't get recognized while complying with the law.

So how is that fair to the good people that are complying with the law?

Yes, there might be some who are not.

Maybe go after them.

But why do you always ask for punish the good people who comply with the law?

That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

That completes our public comment for this item.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh I know we have council member being punched up first, but I'm gonna ask Councilmember Maple if she can uh begin uh hearing us some perspective from the law and ledge committee process and helping outline where we go from here.

Sure.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um and just want to say thank you to everyone who came to speak today um and sharing sharing your perspective.

We did talk about this in the law and legislation committee at length.

I know my colleagues uh on this committee are also um here, and so you'll hear from them as well.

Um, but what I what I I can say what I heard um was from the committee was that there is a desire um to end the exemption because we saw the data and we've seen that that it is not leading to the outcomes that were originally intended.

Um, and I and that's something that I certainly support as well.

Um, but there also were other discussions that happened uh during the committee that I was hoping that would see come forth here for at least a discussion and a debate at the city council.

Um and one of the, and that was around um transferability and the existing licenses.

And the reason being is for some of what's already been said here today.

Um I I personally am very sensitive to the fact that, you know, like many of us up here, guess what?

We we have retirements um if many people who work for the state or who work for um, you know, a corporate business have have a 401k or something like that.

But a lot of people who are small business owners, they do not um and their businesses are um oftentimes their retirement plan.

And so I'm sensitive to that while recognizing that you know we need to we need to close a loophole that exists now uh moving forward, but also is there a way that this council and us can have a conversation about um how we can help at a minimum making sure that folks who have the licenses and are using these as as a retirement plan have a plan for themselves, um, and then also having a plan moving forward for what the future looks like.

And so that's those that's some of the conversations I heard.

Um, I did see that there isn't that in the staff report.

So I don't know if you want to touch on that on why we're not seeing the that conversation from Law and Ledge coming forward to today's meeting.

So in the description analysis of the report that was provided to council, we provided the request to move forward the amendments to uh 5138 and 912 of the ordinance.

We did highlight that there was a discussion at Law and Ledge about the transferability of um of the license.

Uh but it was chosen not to move forward to the full council.

It was just to be highlighted as a as with that we did discuss it.

Okay.

Um and that's and I I do appreciate that, but I think it's important information for folks to have that that was part of the discussion.

Um, and so I mean I'm eager to hear from my colleagues about what you think on this, but um I I live in kind of two minds of this.

One, I think we we have to move forward to the future.

Um, it's really important that we not include um exemptions that are not leading to the outcomes that we wanted to see, especially if that was the intended purpose.

Um, on the other end, I think whenever we make policy decisions here, they have consequences for people, real people and their families and their businesses and livelihoods.

And so I hope that we can um find a path forward that might include both of those minds.

Um, and uh with so that's I just wanted to share a little bit of my perspective, what I heard during the committee meeting, and then looking forward to hearing from you all.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh, council member for for laying that out there, and maybe just one uh follow-up question for you is that I I think that you're accurate that two things can be true.

We can focus on desired policy going forward, but the reality is that we have business owners who bought this with the understanding of these rules and changing them midstream is different.

So future people they know what they're getting themselves into.

Um was it at all discussed potentially that if uh business was grandfathered in there and they were able to sell it, that it would keep being passed over and over and over, or in other words, was there a is it was it all discussed that maybe it's a cap like it could be sold once, but the new person who buys it can't keep so eventually you would essentially be phased out as well.

Yeah, and actually, our city manager um alerted me that there are examples in other jurisdictions such as Santa Rosa where they've they've placed a cap on the amount of transferability, so meaning that you can only transfer it once or twice, depending on the jurisdiction.

So those examples exist.

We didn't talk about it um in that level of detail at the committee, um, because I I think we were hoping to hear from the full council on their thoughts about the issue.

Um, but I think that that could strike a good balance potentially.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

We'll come back, I'm sure.

Uh Councilman Ravane.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I I want to thank um Councilwoman Maple, uh, the chair of Law and Ledge for setting the stage.

Also just want to thank uh the entire L and L committee for your due diligence, uh, bring back this to the full council with updates to the ordinance.

I did get a chance to actually look at the last meeting as well, so that I could bring myself up to speed on this.

Um, and I also just want to thank all of the residents and the small businesses from both sides, right?

No matter what side you're on, um, who came today to speak out.

Um, and so I'm gonna share a few of my thoughts, and I know that this is um also would love to hear the full conversation for my colleagues.

I have some ideas on next steps as well.

Um, but first let me just say um, you know, public health is about creating the conditions so that residents can make healthier choices, right?

At the end of the day.

So, as a public health practitioner and a policymaker, our job then is to pass policy that actually creates the type of conditions for neighborhoods and communities to be able to make healthier choices.

And the healthy food exemption uh doesn't do that, it doesn't create the healthier conditions for our families and our communities.

Our 2040 general plan encourages us to um encourage our residents to have healthy lifestyles.

It directs us um in our EJ EJ policy um that we should just discourage the establishment of alcohol permits for off-site sales and tobacco sales points, especially near food deserts, food insecure areas, schools, um, and and those are our priority areas, right?

And so while I understand that the goal of the exemption was to increase healthy foods in low-income neighborhoods, um the research shows that it is really a loophole for the tobacco industry.

And at the end of the day, it is our low-income communities, our black and brown communities that are disproportionately impacted by tobacco-related harms.

And we know uh through studies through lived experiences that these communities have historically been targeted by tobacco companies and are more likely to experience that health outcome because these convenience stores are also minority owned in our communities.

Um that said, I also want to acknowledge the real concerns that I've heard from small businesses as well.

And um I understand that I'll pause real quick.

I'm not sure why that's happening.

We're looking at I'm not sure either.

Wait on that.

Okay.

Thank you, Ethan.

Um, I just want to acknowledge also at the same time the real concern small businesses have if this exemption was removed.

Right.

And I understand I heard from the businesses um that you know, you operate on very thin margins at the end of the day.

Um but at the end of the day, I also just want to share that big tobacco corporations are the ones that ultimately win.

Why?

Because one, they are profiting from the harm being done to our communities while actually using small businesses as leverage to sell their products.

So I want our small businesses to recognize a larger systemic problem.

I see the struggle that you are all facing, but y'all are also being used by these big corporations to sell these products, and I think that it's really important that we need to name that.

Because over time, the tobacco industry, corporations, they know that our minority-owned businesses are in our communities, and what's gonna happen is that they become reliant on these products because the customers who are addicted to them will come back and buy these products.

This isn't a sustainable model, it's actually a b a business model built on addiction, and that's the truth, and that needs to be set on record.

But I again, because this is the business model in this capitalist society, our job as policymakers is to be able to see that, name it, and course correct, which is the reason why I do support the removal of this exemption because ultimately our job is to protect our communities, support our small businesses, um, and to make sure that everyone is successful.

Um, so I do support this exemption, and I I look forward to hearing from my colleagues because I do think we at the same time, if this item moves forward, we do have to um explore various ways on supporting our small businesses.

Um, if this item passes, you know, I like to see the city manager explore how we can actually support small businesses through this transition, right?

How can we phase out this process?

For example, if we have a small business that is currently taking advantage of this exemption, could the city waive its annual business permit fee, like business fee for the next two to five years, right?

This can maybe help offset the cost adaptation and give these businesses time to adjust new requirements rather than just asking these small businesses to absorb the full cost immediately, because I know that they have to transition their business model.

Um I was also really concerned about the small business piece, and so I did ask my staff if there were studies that showed that if you remove tobacco from sales, would it harm businesses?

And there's been existing research over and over again that have shown that when cities do and tobacco sales, um, it actually doesn't produce significantly uh decline in non-tobacco retail sales, right?

And so that actually shares with us that if we pass this policy, there are more sustainable models that we could use to support our small businesses, and so I think that we can have a win-win situation.

Um, and I want to hear from my colleagues what they think about this item.

But if this items pass, which I hope it does, I do want to encourage our city manager to explore the ways in which we can support these uh small businesses because they are also the backbone of our city and our economy, and we need to make sure that they're thriving as well.

Those are my comments.

Thank you.

Councilmember Plucky Baum.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um questions for you guys.

Uh, is there anything we can do uh around waste mitigation for um devices like this?

We haven't been tasked to do any research or any um data or information on that yet.

I've been on enough, you know, uh park cleanups and river cleanups to know that you know cigarette butts are often one of the most common things we find floating around and the um downstream harmful impacts that they propose in terms of water quality and everything else, I think merit that kind of a um investigation.

I don't know what if other cities have done something like that that would that we could um you know borrow from, but uh if there's an opportunity to look at what we could do for waste mitigation, that that would be my um direction.

Um if we pass this ordinance today, uh what does that mean for the issuance of new licenses?

Would new licenses still be available?

Yes, we would go back to their our 2020 model where um license applications just have to go through the existing process.

The only and part of that is to follow the proximity requirements.

Um what it would remove is the um opportunity for those that apply and are within um 1,000 foot to another tobacco location, they wouldn't be able to get a license um using this healthy food exemption any longer.

Only only the current license holders that have that exemption would be able to keep it.

And then there's a um number of licenses within a census track that we use for an over concentration designation, or is am I misremembering that?

That's a bit that's alcohol, not tobacco.

Yes, not on tobacco.

Okay.

Um what about license transfer?

Or uh will licenses be able to be transferred either within a family or outside of a family to another party.

Get ahead, no.

No, it's clear in the in the ordinance that licenses are not transferable and it's uh consistent with state law.

If we make a decision in the future to end tobacco sales in the city of Sacramento, would these licenses be grandfathered in in some kind of way protected from a decision like that?

That would be the decision of this council how that would happen.

Okay.

Um I'm encouraged uh by the comments that Harman and um Tajvier and others made about uh healthy foods.

I appreciate that that you I didn't realize the margins were that good on healthy foods.

Um I I have friends that work in grocery stores.

I didn't think that that it was that good.

Uh but the um uh I think the direction that the not just the city of Sacramento is moving, but really the state of California and and uh many of the more progressive states is to end tobacco sales.

Um so what I'm looking for uh from staff and um um from our partners in the in the business community is to work on a constructive glide path because what we don't want to do is is harm uh the investments you've made in these businesses.

Uh we want to give you every opportunity to to think about how to um transition uh measuredly over time to um either health more healthy food sales or some other uh product that that uh delivers the return on investment that you're looking for to support your businesses.

Um so today I understand that um this healthy food exemption is not uh going to satisfy uh what we're trying to accomplish in in the public health space.

Um but what I think we're going to work toward as a community is a a transition to a tobacco-free city, and that that's certainly the direction I I want to move.

Um I know that'll be a big challenge and it'll be a disruptive to the to the marketplace, but um as you know, sort of the uh you know population shifts its its preferences in terms of how it's consuming um good goods and services.

I think we're gonna see more of that kind of a decision in the future.

But for today, I'm comfortable supporting the um the item is drafted.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Talamantes.

Thank you.

So I'm also supportive of removing the healthy food exemptions um ordinance that we have in front of us today.

But I am worried about our small businesses and what they have built throughout the years and then passing it down to their families, and like Councilman Plucky Baum said, it's creating a real plan.

So I'm open to what my colleagues want to do today, but um I'd like to make a motion to continue this item.

Um, or maybe well, I like to pass I like to remove the healthy food exemption, so have that pass and take a vote on that, but somehow provide direction and maybe help me with the motion here to see how we can do this, but provide direction to the city manager to work with our small businesses to figure out how we transfer or we don't transfer, whether you do two transfers and then you're done, um, and figure out a creative way to work hand in hand.

I'll second yeah, okay.

So I guess the motion would be I make a motion to remove the healthy food exemptions with direction to the city manager to work with our small businesses on the exception.

One chance one transfer.

Okay.

Okay.

Well that's or just to work.

Well, we'll come we'll come back.

So we'll we'll come back.

So um, but we have a motion and a second, maybe we can talk about that motion as we go along.

Councilburg Kaplan, Dickinson, and then back to and then Calsiber Dickinson I'll go and then we'll go to you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I think what I heard you say, Vice Mayor, is that we'll move forward with the healthy food exemption, but on section seven, which is 5.138090, which is dealing with license non-transferable, we'll pull that out and allow our city manager to work with uh our retailers and business on addressing the concerns with small businesses.

I think that works.

I think that's what I heard what the motion was gonna be.

So we pass the healthy food exemption and then come back and deal with so that we can have dialogue with our small businesses on transferability.

Okay.

Um I want to say that um I support that.

I think it was it's always good to try something new.

And I think the intent of the healthy food exemption uh was the right thing.

And I think there are some players that actually uh fully implement it, and some that may need to be held accountable, and that's where with our small businesses, those that are fully implementing it, we shouldn't we shouldn't harm our our businesses that are in play that are good players that are following the law, but we should also hold accountable to those who are not meeting their exemption who are supposed to be providing healthy foods.

Um Madam City Manager, I know you have experience uh in this and looking at transferability.

I think it would be wise in supporting that uh we allow um one transfer.

Um that is something that I am I'm interested in, but uh we'll give you the deference of working with the community because those who have run these businesses deserve to uh when they bought and they came in under healthy food exemption, continue to operate that at least for the sale.

Um California is and has slowly been doing away with tobacco, which I know a lot of our convenience stores are doing less and less with tobacco just because the accountability is not worth it, and I don't want to lump our convenience stores in with actual smoke shops.

Um they're they're very different, but to the extent because I know sometimes it's the county that comes through, is how do we work with the county to make sure healthy food exemptions um is uh is being complied with to the extent that we have, and then I think like Councilmember Plucky Baum said, we need to maybe have another conversation of where do we see the future of Sacramento in how do we want to address that we know that nothing good comes out of tobacco, but I'm also there's a little bit of libertarian in me that free choice, like you educate people and they still have a free choice, but let's not make it convenient, especially for our kids and our youth.

Um I think there is there is that balance.

Um I'm just not a fan of legislating on the dais, so I am I am fully supportive of what the vice mayor uh put forward, and I think there is a balance that we can strike of ending any future exemptions, but finding a way to fully address what our small businesses need and having that separate conversation, because I think one of the steps that maybe have missed is there might have been a conversation in January or February with the industry, but with the final language, I think wanting to make sure that there was another conversation with that.

Thank you, Councilmember Dickinson.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um I want to drill down just a little bit on section 1.38 point uh zero nine zero to begin with.

And I I I want to just uh understand because it occurs to me that perhaps I don't uh what happens with licenses today, the this section currently says a license is non-transferable.

And uh uh that seems then to apply to a change of of location or if the if the business is for which the license has been granted is sold, the new owner must obtain a license.

And and the proposals to add new must obtain a license for that location.

How does this operate in practice today?

So if any tobacco retail license is uh if the location is moved to another location, if the ownership changes, if they're closed longer than a period of time and not under active building permits, then they would have to apply for a um a new license.

We added the word new, but it was intended to be a new license, so they had to apply for a license fall under the existing code of proximity um requirements following state law having a another license, you know, their state license and such.

So going through the whole process.

Um everybody else would just stay the same as as normal.

It's just the transfer.

Um that that's where we're at right now.

So if someone sells their business and the same location.

Location isn't changing, but the business is sold.

The license is not transferred, is that right?

License would have to be transferred to a new owner.

There'd be a new owner of the business.

Right.

They would have to apply for a new a new license.

Well, the license is not currently transferable.

Correct.

You can't transfer.

We're we're we seem to be having a discussion as if the license is transferable.

That's what I'm I'm a little confused.

I think they're asking to make it transferable if you have a healthy foods exemption currently.

Um so that's the request is uh to to look at what it would look like to transfer that license.

Um we would you know so currently we don't allow it.

So that's the request is uh to to look at what it would look like to transfer that license we would you know so currently we don't allow it so the the what's forward before us is to make it a transferable it's to make it transferable if it's operating under the healthy food exemption.

That wasn't completely clear was there whether it's any business or just the healthy food exemption.

That's we I guess we have to figure that out still okay let me let me back up a step if a business is operating under the healthy food exemption and sells to a new owner same location do you currently treat that license as transferable?

No currently no license is transferable.

Okay.

That's that's what this language says so I just so we've heard from the the testimony which is compelling seems to seem to rely on the premise that a license is transferable.

I believe they're asking for it to become transferable.

Well clearly uh Mr.

Hooper gave us language that would make it make it clear that it's transferable under that circumstance but but it seemed uh maybe I've misunderstood maybe I misapprehended the the testimony because I've taken the testimony as as our licenses are currently transferable and and you're going to take that away when you eliminate the house healthy food exemption but that's not the case correct?

Correct the healthy food exemption only allows a location to get a license that's in with in violation of the proximity requirement so normally they wouldn't even build a get a license that is what the healthy food exemption allowed.

It didn't allow it didn't touch on the transferability at all so this this leaves me a a a little bit uncertain about whether we need to explore the issue of of transferability in addition to considering adoption of of the staff recommendation for amendments to the ordinance if if a license isn't transferable currently and if if we give direction to the city manager say please look at the issue of transferability we which we can do we're open we're potentially opening that door not not looking at a way of closing that door just so I just want I just want to make sure I understand that.

Okay I appreciate that.

The second thing that I wanted to ask we've we've talked about and I think the motion is to eliminate the healthy food exemption but there's more here you're recommending the flavors and other aspects in amending this ordinance correct correct there's many other parts to um bring forward the enforcement while we want to adopt all the staff recommendations with uh with the additional direction to to look at the issue of if you can make a friendly ask of the motion maker.

Yeah to adopt the full recommendation yes yes okay okay so um with that friendly amendment uh the other thing I I wanted to to ask about is whether we are interested in giving direction also to the city manager and the staff to look at the issue of becoming a a tobacco free jurisdiction in some uh reasonable period of time I I personally I think that should be our goal and others have others have spoken to that but I think we should move in that direction and so we need to do some work to figure out what that path would be with all the interested parties in consideration and so I I I'd make a suggestion is a friendly addition to the motion that that we add that direction to the city manager.

Yes.

Okay.

And then I think uh Mr.

Pluckybaugh you raised waste mitigation then should we give direction also to the city manager to explore that issue of of waste mitigation yes as as um as as the seconder I I would love to if it's okay pass it over to our city manager to maybe respond to some of that.

Yeah I think the I think there we've got a lot of conversations going on.

I think the first thing that we need to to talk about is one do we want to establish a cap, right?

I've had the same conversation at a dais about a year ago, right?

Um we have to remember as councilwoman said, we have retirement plans.

These stores do not have retirement plans.

So we need to find a way where there's transferability, but not increase the cap.

So I think we can go back to the staff and figure out what that looks like.

Um as we talk about um non-smoking jurisdiction or entity, I think that is a larger conversation, and I really need to have a discussion with the city attorney to see what that actually entails.

Um that's a heavier lift, that's a bigger lift, and I think that requires a lot more dialogue uh than what we're talking about here just in the tobacco retail license.

Um, I mean, we all know it's dangerous.

I don't think any of us want to continue to promote smoking, but I think we need to bifurcate these two items.

I think we need to talk about all right, what is the cap, what are the exemptions, um, what's transferability, and then we have a larger conversation about um do we want to be a non-smoking jurisdiction?

So I I I appreciate the those those comments.

Uh I don't know that what I'm suggesting as as an addition uh is uh is contradicts the that it's really saying if we want to make this policy statement in effect, we want to move toward being a tobacco-free jurisdiction that we're asking you to then look into that, and that and that may entail a different conver conversation.

So that that was my thought on on that point.

And uh, Mr.

Pucky Baum had raised the waste mitigation again.

That's that's a that's the issue that probably did needs some exploration, some depth to it.

And so put it in your lap and uh then you handle it as you see fit.

That that that was just my thought.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I I think our motion maker has agreed to to that, and that's well, I think that's a lot of a direction for our city manager.

City manager, do you feel like you have a good grasp on it?

Well, we'll we can clarify at the end again.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So I know Councilmember Yeah, I'm done.

Council Murray wants to go back to you for a second.

Just I want to say that I'm I'm in support of this.

I guess the big picture is it it's too easy for teenagers to get their hands on these things, and I certainly know that living here in Sacramento and being around teenagers.

But the reality is is that like with cannabis, people get them from places that aren't stores.

And so we could do all we want, they'll go on the internet or find illicit ways to acquire these.

So the fact that we can regulate flavors and you know, have make sure we have rules as far as age requirements.

Um I'm for all that.

And so I I think that we've done a good job with that.

I I do support um uh moving past the um healthy foods exemptions because on experience what we've had.

I I I do think that the um entrepreneurs brought up valid points and we're well willing to engage with that.

And whether it's a cap or not, or this uh that's not the issue.

The issue is that there's people who have these businesses and we have this new policy for prospective people, they made the argument that hey, we bought this for X amount, and if we knew these are the rules, we would have paid half of that or whatever it is.

And so then when they try to sell it, you know, they're based upon we kind of pulled the rug underneath of them.

And so I think we have to honor that, but I think it's just a one-time honor because the the proposition we're hearing is give us a chance to make sure we could sell it, and then the person who buys it knows what they're doing.

They're buying it at that understanding as far as what what's next.

And so I certainly um under understand um understand that as well.

So we we do have a a motion to adopt the policy outlined here, ending the healthy exemptions on the other pieces that Mr.

Dickinson noted with the direction to the city manager to focusing on existing licensees and bring back a potential um change to to allow the existing licensees to be grandfathered in for perpetuity for their ownership, or potentially having a transfer of a a one-time transfer.

So I think that's the clarity from uh our vice mayor, if I'm not mistaken.

Um councilmember Vang, did you have a follow-up?

Yeah, um, before I vote on the motion, just uh point of clarification.

Um, because I think that a larger conversation needs to be had, whether it's transferable, whether it's one or two times transfer, and because it it is an actual ordinance that we're voting on, I just need confirmation that um I'm I think it's great that the we're providing that direction to city manager to speak with our small businesses to figure out what the solution is, but I want to make sure that item comes back for us to discuss, deliberate and vote on because it is part of the ordinance.

Um, I'm not comfortable right now just to say I support the direction to explore transferring one or two times.

I think that we need to dive in a little bit deeper about that and have a larger conversation with small businesses with advocates to see if it makes sense.

If we're a city that we're trying to really um, and it's part of our general plan to eliminate like tobacco among food desers and food insecure areas, then if that's part of our EJ policy and our general plan, then we're passing policy that's counter to the general plan.

So I just want to make sure that this item comes for a full discussion of vote once the city manager is able to uh work through all of that.

Um, and so I just wanted to make sure that yeah, 100% is to explore it and bring it back to the council or vote on this.

That's the same thing.

Yes, it was not we're not doing it.

Administrative leaves for the council to vote.

And and we're voting on on the entire ordinance, right?

Approving as recommendation stack perfect.

It's the entire ordinance with recommendation to the city manager to come back on waste management, tobacco-free city, uh, one transfer, or exploring what that looks like to safeguard for the small business owners.

Okay, and then uh just a question for clarification since we are gonna pass this today, uh, because I also want to make sure, like, is out I don't know what the consequences are, like the time frame of the city manager having conversation with our businesses.

Um, is there a time frame like so folks don't get you know um citations or whatnot?

I want to make sure that there's a there's a time frame and in place.

When does this go into effect?

Does it go into effect today as soon as we vote yes?

30 days.

30 days.

Okay, and I just want to make sure that if they're in conversation with the city manager that 30 days from now, our small businesses isn't gonna be site cited too.

So I think just trying to figure out what that timeline looks like because our ordinance is takes effect in 30 days, and I don't know if we're gonna be, I don't want our small businesses to be to be get to get cited, and so just making sure we're thinking through that transition plan.

This would not subject any business to citation.

This would only subject to a new licensee.

That's right, oh, new licensee.

Okay, pay a license due to proximity.

Okay, but if this passes though.

Oh, that's right, because they already have the license, it would be new licensees.

Okay.

No, nobody would currently be able to transfer their license until we brought some.

Until we do until we decide that as a council.

Okay, thank you for the clarification clarification.

Appreciate it.

That's it, Mayor.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we have a motion and a second.

Um, we have clarity on all of that.

If not, we have the video to watch.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any no's or abstentions?

Hearing none, item passes.

Yes, our next item is cut council comments, ideas, and questions, AB123, four reports.

Okay.

We can ask the council.

You want to do this later?

Let's wait.

Yeah.

We'll we will and we do have a members of the public for matters not on the agenda.

We do, okay.

Okay.

For matters not on the agenda, Alexander Bazdin, followed by Becky H and Francis Liu.

Do we have Alexander Bazden, Becky H or Francis Liu?

If everybody could quietly enter, exit the chamber, that'd be helpful.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Dr.

Francis Liu, PHG Economics Research Data Manager, California Department of Social Services.

Um, you're claiming Sacramento is a sanctuary city, a progressive city, and we've been talking about our federal fascist government today, but what about our local officials?

What have you done that warrants you taking this money that will protect local protesters?

Like Karina, you're saying that we have to accept this money because you'll protect us.

What have you done to protect any of the federal charges against local protesters?

If anything, you want to arrest them and put them on probation because we heard you and Kevin McCarty talking about we have to talk about this disruptions things.

Yes, you were on mic.

Karina Talamantes, we should go over this disruptions thing because if we want to ban someone in the future and take them out, we have to point out and specifically say who is being banned.

Kevin McCarty, I spoke with the city attorney about that, and they said we can't do that.

Karina Talamantes, we did that last time.

Kevin McCarty, we can't.

I spent my first six months.

I wanted to give people like probation to say they couldn't come, and then Karina realizes they were on the mic and cuts it.

That's despicable.

People are here because they care about their community.

We are out there actually defending people, informing people about their legal rights, informing them about how this council refuses to cut any ties between us and SAC PD and federal law enforcement, including the FBI.

This is despicable, and you refuse to listen to us.

We've been here since last November, and you continue to gaslight us and ignore us, and now you want to criminalize us too.

Don't pretend you care about immigrant rights, Karina.

Your family should be ashamed of you.

And we will make sure your constituents know about this.

People see your public decisions, they see your votes.

No one is, everyone is paying attention to this right now.

We are not ignorant.

We're not ignorant.

And stop pretending like you can stand on that stand and say you're doing anything to protect us.

You're actively collaborating with this government, this fascist federal government that is criminalizing our immigrant neighbors and our organizers.

And we will make sure.

Ma'am, your time is complete.

Alexander Bazden, Becky H.

Okay.

Lambert Davis, followed by Lena H.

and Marcelina C.

M.

Mr.

Davis.

Could have been much worse.

First of all, they used to uh ask people to leave who disrupted this chamber.

They should do that because some people are not disrupting it, like me.

And I I think, and it's usually the same people, so it shouldn't be that hard to figure that out.

Also, uh a major announcement has happened.

I I was out of town and just got back.

Mr.

Dickerson should be excited, and some of the other people on the roster.

The Sacramento B has nominated to the Bandback Cheesecake for the best dessert and the best customer service.

I don't know about all of that, but that's tremendous for us because that's publicity that we don't have to pay for.

Shout out to the millennials.

They came up with that.

They also said what you can do is have people go to our website and answer one question, which would be do the pictures on the website make you want to buy a cheesecake?

Look how brilliant that is.

And if it does, vote yes for us.

If it doesn't, we we don't care anyway because we're looking for yes votes.

Also, you need to rethink what you just did today.

Because when I got back in town, it said that I had to register to come see you.

The last time I registered was to vote or to go to college.

You should not force people to register to come see you.

That's gonna be a violation of freedom of speech.

I had to talk to about five people.

I'm not a socialite.

I just come here to do what I do.

Thank you for your comments.

Lena H, followed by Marcelina C.

M.

and Matthew Satcha.

Okay.

Melissa Etchoa, good afternoon.

I'm here once again wondering why I have to keep showing up to let the council know that Sacramento does not want ICE in the city.

We do not want data sharing or surveillance by ICE.

This includes you, Kevin McCarty.

Thank you for looking up.

We care about our immigrant neighbors because they are humans, and if that's not sufficient, you'd have to know their immigration population helps prop the city up financially.

You have moved to approve this data fusion center funding in the name of counter-terrorism in the name of oversight by a progressive council.

But I ask, would a progressive council refuse to listen to its people?

I asked if counterterrorism has been defined, and who is considered a terrorist?

Am I considered one now?

After all, just last week I was followed by ICE.

I can only assume my plates were ran when they purposely parked behind me, and I can only assume pictures were taken of me as someone in a tinted vehicle drove up to the my window of my part vehicle to block me in.

This is happening in your city.

And ICE and ERO are getting braver because you're letting them.

And now you will be handing over data to them.

They drive the city streets erratically, run red lights, and make illegal U-turns to outrun activists trying to keep this community safe.

And if that wasn't enough, they follow activists and they box them in.

See, in a regular environment, law abiding citizens, even if they were in a tinted vehicle, would call SAC PD and say, hey, I'm being followed by a weird lady blowing her whistle.

In a regular environment, I would have called SAC PD to let them know that a large vehicle with tinted windows was stalking me.

But city resources are not showing up for regular residents in this city.

Earlier this year, the fire department refused to show up to the John Moss Federal building when someone someone who's attaining a medical attention hover city resources are being used against us.

Let's start acting like it.

Thank you for your comments.

We do have a caller by phone.

Arza A.

Please go ahead and make your comments.

Hello, can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Please start.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um yeah.

So interesting.

Uh where to begin.

I think one of the places where we can start is speaking to the public, speaking to the community members that we're trying to fight against ice and connections of policing that we know have a track record of corruption and um not serving us, quite frankly, in a lot of instances.

I think the moment where we realize and understand that these seats, we need to be more invested in who holds these seats.

We need to be more invested in the voting patterns of the people who hold these seats.

Regardless of how we decide to organize or what tactic we use, there's value in making sure that people like Karina Dallamantes don't have these seats of power.

Value in making sure that people like this mayor, who I mean, couldn't you just stay in your previous position?

I don't know why you thought coming here was gonna go well behaving like this.

But we gotta make sure that these people don't hold these positions.

Hello?

Please continue.

I'm getting I'm getting cut off by the audio that said I'm position one.

So sorry, that threw me off.

Um hopefully we can work on that because now I lost my place a little.

Well, all I have to say is when, not if, when funding goes forward, and then we see an issue and we find that things that the cops said they weren't gonna do, they ended up doing, or they ended up being you know culpable and ended up going against what they said, they swore they weren't doing.

Let's not be surprised.

And let's also change our tactics and not let these people hold these seats anymore.

Enough is enough.

When it comes to making things make sense.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

We do have one additional speaker in the chamber, Mayor, LR Roberts.

Um, I'm LR Roberts, I'm in District 5.

Um, we have a disconnect between what the residents say when I'm out and about and talking to people and what the city council does.

The public does not agree that we should spend a fortune on large number of cops on bikes and horses giving tickets to homeless people and throwing away their meager possessions.

I have attended four Oak Park events recently, and we we care about the shootings that we've had.

We've had three shootings, thank God the four-year-old was not killed.

And we care that the softball field is a hangout area for smokers and people who do other things.

Um, the public is horrified that by the proposed AI data center that's being proposed for the Northwest corners the way I understand it, and the signing of non-disclosure agreements regarding that AI data center.

The public says, heck no.

So I was at a meeting yesterday where there was maybe 30 organizations.

I didn't actually sit there and count, represented, and we talked about these AI data centers.

I didn't know we had 26 already, and some of them are just computer buildings, but these dangerous data centers, I didn't know more were being proposed.

I didn't know they had hired um uh Daryl Steinberg, used to be my lawyer.

Um, I didn't know that some people have signed non-disclosure agreements.

That is really concerning.

This is not something I want to have a non-disclosure agreement on.

This is going to affect us.

So I'm very concerned about it, and I'm not the only one.

Like I said, there was about 30 organizations in each organization was large.

Real quick before I go, uh, Roger and Kevin and did political work with my husband when he was alive.

And what killed Richard was second-hand smoke.

So it it affects people.

It killed my mother, it killed my uncle, and it killed my husband, and he never smoked.

Thank you for your comments.

That concludes our c our public comment.

Okay, thank you.

Uh with that, we will adjourn and reconvene in fifteen minutes, five forty-five.