you

the meeting.

Good morning, everyone.

The welcome to the personnel and public employees committee meeting.

The meeting is now in order.

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

Thank you, chair.

Remember, telemante's?

Remember, Valenzuela?

Here.

Vice Chair Maple is absent and Chair Kaplan.

Here.

Welcome, everyone.

Would you like to do the land acknowledgement?

I think it's fitting for today.

Yeah, absolutely.

Please rise if you are able for the opening acknowledgement of Sacramento's Indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu, Valley and Plains, Mewa, Pupwin, Winhtoon peoples,

and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento is only federally recognized trying.

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 together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous People's history, contributions and lives.

Thank you.

Now please salute and pledge.

We can do the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, war nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Valenzuela for that.

Our first order of business today is consent.

Jacob, is there any speakers on consent items?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips on this item.

Any comments?

I'll move consent.

Move by Councilmember Valenzuela.

Second by Councilmember Talamante's, all in favor.

Aye.

That passes.

We are now moving on to the discussion calendar.

An item too is review of the applicants for the compensation commission.

Jacob, would you mind getting into the record?

Thank you, Chair.

The seats need in recommendation today for the compensation commission are seats A and D.

The requirements for seat A are as follows.

The members shall be a retired judicial officer and a resident of the city of Sacramento.

The requirements for seat D are that a member is representative of the public at large and a resident of the city of Sacramento.

We have two applicants for review today.

Our first applicant is Judge Arthur Scotland.

Come on, App Judge.

Welcome.

Good to see you.

Good morning to members of the council to city clerks and to the assistant city attorney.

My name is Art Stotland.

I am an applicant, as you know, for the compensation commission, the chair.

I was a retired judicial officer and until I retired as a presenting justice at the California Court of Appeal 30 Pellet District, my entire adult career was in public service, both locally and statewide.

When several years ago I learned that there was no chair of the compensation commission.

I was a retired judicial officer because as has been stated it requires a retired jurist to be the chair and then had applied.

I volunteered to fill that longstanding vacancy and I have served this chair, I think, for four years.

And if you, the council thinks I'm worthy of another term, I will continue my pursuit of public service.

And I'm having to answer any questions you might have.

I'm going to ask you to make sure that you're being here today.

We're going to hear from David and make a decision there from.

Thank you so much.

Our next applicant is David Kauata.

Hi, my name is David Kauata and I currently serve in C.D. of the Compensation Commission.

I have enjoyed my work on the commission.

I am proud of the fact that I am representing and serving the citizens of Sacramento where I was born and raised.

I would like to continue to use the knowledge I gained during my time on the Compensation Commission.

While on the commission I've learned many things about the compensation of the mayor city council and members of boards and commissions.

Such as looking at equivalent compensation in benchmark cities, which are cities based on similar size and government structure.

During my time on the commission we reevaluated the list of cities to determine if they continue, if they should continue to be considered benchmark cities based on their comparability with the city of Sacramento.

Also during my time on the commission in addition to salary we have analyzed and made recommendations on employee retirement contributions and expense allowances.

I have experienced serving on commissions as I've been a member of various citizens bond oversight committees for the Natona Unified School District continuously since June of 2013.

I've been a member of the bond oversight committees for measures D.J.N.L.

In the past I've been the vice chair of measure D, the chair of measure J, and the chair and vice chair measure L.

Also for six years I served as a member and vice chair of a city government of a citizens planning advisory committee for the county of Sacramento.

In addition I've gained knowledge of city government functions by being a graduate of the city of Sacramento's citizens planning academy.

When I first applied for the compensation commission I was recommended by staff to the PPE committee because of my 15 years of experience as an internal auditor for the state of California where I was trained to gather facts or gather data and make recommendations based on data and set criteria.

Very similar to what the compensation commission does.

So I hope I'm considered for reappointment. Thank you.

Both Judge Scotland and Mr. Coada as a chair privilege and member of the bar.

Myself I and knowing that David is a D1 resident and has been active as long as back in the days I was a school board member.

I think for this commission there's nothing better than reappointing to experienced individuals that are serving our community well.

So I would make a motion that CA be filled by Judge Scotland and C.D. by David Coada.

I make that motion. Do I have a second?

Second?

By...

Yeah I'd cute up to thank both members for their service.

It's a lot of work to look at all those numbers but we appreciate that you're willing to do it and I'll second the motion.

Thank you councilmember Valenzuela. Any other comments? All in favor aye?

Aye.

Thank you. You will continue your service for the next four years. We appreciate both of you.

Thank you very much.

Now moving on to item three which is review of the applicants for the Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors.

Jacob.

Thank you chair. The seats needing recommendation today is seat C.

The requirements for seats C are as follows.

Member who is not a current employee of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Department of the Interior, California Department of Fish and Game, or State of California's resources agency and appointed by the City of Sacramento.

Additionally, the member must not be currently compensated by the Natomas Basin Conservancy for services rendered to it within the previous 12 months, whether as a full time, report time employee, independent contractor or otherwise.

This excludes any reasonable compensation paid to a director as a director, or any brother, sister, ancestor, descendant, spouse, brother and law, sister and law, son and law, daughter and law, mother and law, or father and law of any such person.

We have one applicant for review today, Chandra Sikkar, Chilma Curry.

And I do not believe they're in the audience today.

And I know that Chandra is the current chair currently of the Natomas Habitat Basin Conservancy.

And if you look over their qualifications, I don't think we can find anybody more qualified of the issues.

And I have heard no concerns, absolute support, that they would continue their service.

Move by Council Member Talimantes. Second by Council Member Valenzuela. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you so much. And Jacob, I know this, but when we reappoint somebody, when does an email or call go out to inform them?

I try and get an email out right after this meeting, letting them know that they're recommended by the P&P E Committee.

And then I'll give them a tentative date of when the actual confirmation report will go to Council.

Perfect.

So for confirmations today, tentatively, they will go to the October 22nd meeting.

Perfect. Thank you. That is good to know.

And then to item four, which is review of the applicants for the Sacramento Environmental Commission.

Thank you, Chair. The seat needing recommendation today is seat C.

The requirements for seat C are as follows.

I remember appointed by the Sacramento City Council, who is not an elected official or employee of a government agency of Sacramento County.

And we strive to appoint from one of the following vocational discipline areas of interest or experience.

Health or legal services profession, industry, engineering, transportation planning, environmental health or legal services profession.

Oh, my apologies.

An environmental group, toxics or hazardous materials, environmental health, industrial hygiene, water quality, waste disposal, land use planning, vector control or chemical reuse or recycling.

And we have one applicant for review today, Jacqueline Todeck.

Good morning. Thank you for having me here today. And allowing me to introduce myself.

So I am currently sitting on the Sacramento Environmental Commission in the seat.

And I was appointed just last year to fill a vacated seat. So I am seeking reappointment in the seat as a bit of background.

I work in the private sector in the engineering industry, doing environmental consulting.

And I have had the privilege of working on a number of the types of projects that you alluded to in the requirements for this role.

Probably dominantly working on water projects, but also transportation, transportation planning, land use, solid waste, you know, really across the spectrum.

I also have a master's degree in environmental natural resources and my undergrad and an associate's degree in environmental and sustainability related fields.

And I've spent the last 10 years using those degrees in my profession. And I am interested in continuing to serve in this role because I have only been in it less for less than a year.

But I have gained a lot by working through this inter jurisdictional committee and reviewing a number of the guiding documents for the city and county of Sacramento, as well as Folsom, Ileton and Galtz.

Looking at the climate action and adaptation plan, the city's urban tree plan, a number of other really important documents that help to ensure that the city will continue to be sustainable in all aspects and desirable place for all of us to continue to live and work.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you so much for coming today. Any comments, questions, council members?

Councilmember Valenzuela? Well, thank you for taking time to come and the midst of a really robust professional life. And I'm really grateful that you're willing to continue to spend your time on this important commission.

So happy to make the motion to reappoint Jacqueline Totec to seat C.

I'll second by councilmember Talamonte's. All in favor?

Hi.

Thank you for your service.

And now moving on to discussion item five, which is a councilmember proposal request for committee consideration.

I will turn this over to councilmember Valenzuela as you submitted this to introduce it.

Thank you.

This councilmember submission reflects a conversation we've had on this commission a few times about there being somewhat of a gap in the code about how commission recommendations would proceed when the commission's identified recommendations to be considered.

So my recommendation is briefly that the commissioners follow the same process that we do is council members where they can submit their requests and it get referred by the mayor to the appropriate policy committee for it to them be considered by the council just like any of our proposals are just like my proposal is today.

So I wanted to thank the folks who've already reached out with feedback including our city auditor, Frisha who's been auditing our commissions and had thoughts about how to better improve the suggestion that I had put out here.

One thing that I think would be important that she recommended would that there be a consistent form similar to that that the police commission uses that all the commissions use just to provide consistency and what information is requested and what sort of information they get back to track those recommendations.

And so thank you for it for bringing that forward that was based on both the police commission review as well as the ethics commission review.

Another point of feedback I got both from Frisha as well as from some of the commission chairs was around timeline for staff for there to be a response.

So one thing we had talked about in a different context was kind of creating a 90 day backstab you know that it be referred in some manner within 90 days of being submitted just so the commissioners have some sort of timeline of their flexibility on the council but also some you know timeline to know when that will be referred and it gives the mayor and you know the city team that chance to decide what they want to do with those recommendations.

So those were two suggestions that I've gotten since submitting this and that getting posted publicly on the agenda last week and so really thankful to folks for engaging in that.

My request is maybe that we consider option to on the motions list because this is a pretty straightforward change that does get reviewed by staff and written up and then sent to council for consideration just because there's this is an active active issue that I would like love to see resolved soon as commissioners are starting to work on recommend you.

So I'm starting to work on recommendations for subsequent time frames and I see our city attorney has a question on that so I will stop and let him ask it before we go to public comment.

I do the only question I wanted to ask council member is when you look at rule 17 which is for their advisory body reports rule 17 C refers to the annual reports which come here to this body and then rule 17 D talks about other recommendations are we talking about other recommendations or all.

Other recommendations yeah and so the proposal is up to twice a year that we be that the commissioners be allowed so we don't want something like because we wanted to create a reasonable workload where it's not like someone can submit every single month and want this recommendation that recommendation it has to be from the commission so it has to be approved by the commission it can only be up to twice a year but it creates a process it doesn't mean that those wouldn't still show up in the annual report because obviously that's work that they've completed but it just means that if there's actual policy recommendations currently the

process as I understand it is that we as council members need to submit it using this process and then getting it referred to committee and so this just nearly creates a formal process for those recommendations to be considered so.

Chair so just a quick question before we're going to put the comment so then you're saying if a commission has a recommendation for a policy proposal it gets submitted as a council member request proposal as we do now but does it come to

us it would go to the budget audit and pp and e in the different committees that we have so it depends on what the topic is so if it's procedural it would come here if it's budget it would go to budget not it part of what this is also trying to address the city attorney we've had issues in the past with items coming to multiple committees on the council and brown at concerns and I see Breton hotty because we've had a couple issues that it's like should this be budget or should this be law and ledge when it's both and so

I think by having it come to pp and then referring it to another committee we'd be bumping into established brown act issues at the city attorneys already flag so this would essentially take it to the mayor as our proposals do and then the mayor working with the clerk and city manager would decide which committee heard that commissioner recommendation.

And then it would follow the same process you look similar to today either they decide they don't want to proceed they decide they need more work they send it back you know et cetera.

Okay and I guess we're going to do public comment let's do public comment and I'm sure we'll have another robust conversation.

Thank you chair I have two speakers today on item five our first speaker is Victoria Vazquez.

Good morning council members clerk staff council.

Thank you so much for bringing this item because as the chair of the parks and community enrichment commission my name is Victoria Vazquez I'm

browning out my fourth year the end of my first term and I've never participated in an annual report process so I feel like bringing this forward is a really good way to standardize across so we do have that connection between our commissions in our city council and it doesn't slip through the cracks so first of all thank you so much council member

Valensuela for bringing this item at all it's important and I appreciate you I think that the connection of two times per year is really great I like the suggestions that I heard you just recommend they're both good and I'm in full support and I think this would be really

really important for the parks commission to go forward with their business and to have a formal way to address the city council to have a formal way to present to them every year I think that's something that is really positive so thank you for doing this.

Thank you for your comments our final speaker is can bliss.

Greetings city council I just want to thank you all for having this important conversation today as was rightly noted by council member Valensuela this has been a particular point of interest for not just the police review commission but for all commissions which some of you may remember as far back as 2022 when seven commissions including the measure you

commission and ethics commission had suggested when we were discussing reviewing chat or amending chapter 2.40 of establishing such a process and I think this is a important and much need to step in the right direction and I appreciate the note around the timeline piece I think that you know basic like considering our commission has submitted now

178 recommendations but only one of which has really received consideration or discussion around an approval from the council I think that 90 days makes a lot of sense that's one of the timeline recommendations that the seven commissions that wrote the joint letter back in August 2022 it suggested and I think it's also important to discuss you know if it's a

question around which committees go like go where I think it like some of these are more intuitive than others I mean one of the things that the commission oftentimes is is suggested going to anything that's related to budget items be considered by the budget audit committee and then anything that's regards policy or changes to city code or charter even go to the law and legislation committee but I think that's something that I think

that's something that any mayor can easily figure out but also to that the commissions could also incorporate into our recommendations to suggest which council standing committee makes the most sense for this item for the recommendation so appreciate your time and I hope you did use talk about this.

Chair I have no other comments on the side.

Great council member Talamontes.

Okay we have 26 boards and commissions if each one submits 3 to 10 recommendations that's 260 recommendations I don't like I don't even know how we're going to find the hours to be able to do this even our

council member proposals right now are like delayed so I understand the intent where our boards and commissions don't feel heard and so and then we have the annual report that everybody does and then they have the recommendations that they give you know council and then we've been putting it on the consent counter which has been a point of frustration for our commissions but it's also something where it's like okay then do we allow each

commission to come to council then we have to change our procedures again to come to council do a presentation right I don't know if this necessarily gets to where we all want to be at least the boards and commissions and like I guess I'm me being sensitive to staff time in our time and I just I don't quite understand so if you can elaborate on like my concern on that like just that's a lot of recommendations going straight to the mayor and council.

Okay that's a good thank you for asking that question that way and so the goal would be that it's outside I'm muted never mind all right so I want to give a little more context because I realized that I didn't fully explain the context this idea was not mine this idea came from brown x circle with the mayor council member Jennings and council member Gary that really started around the police commission and part of why I pulled this out is because during those conversations I said you know this actually makes sense for all the commission

so if we're going to do this for one commission we should do it for all the commissions you know there should be the same venue available to everybody right and so the idea that we talked about was you know eliminate to up to twice per year so it doesn't mean it has to be twice per year but it's up to twice per year if there's a recommendation that comes up it has to be approved by the majority of the body has to be submitted by the commission chair and or vice chair so that it's not just any commissioner emailing the mayor saying hey here's my recommendation there's a process I think the goal is that this goes to the mayor and then gets referred to the appropriate committee

because I think to your concern and one that's been expressed in this group before the annual report doesn't quite feel like the appropriate venue and so we've had recommendations submitted as a part of the annual report to this committee we forward the annual report to council they discuss it but we can't vet like a budget committee recommendation right you know like actor transportation commissions and other great example they submitted those 10 requests right of here's things we want you to consider so essentially what happened was council member vang and I pulled those out and just submitted them as a council member request so that it could go to budget and audit

so this is just trying to formalize a process this kind of informally become begun already where it's you know how do we use the existing process and kind of close a loophole where's like where does the commission recommendations go and and and and leans on the existing process that it doesn't have to go to the full council completely

unvetted through an annual report you know that it's the mayor says hey this is a budget record I'm going to send it to budget audit budget not it that's it and only when they decide hey we want to pass this to the full council

as it go to the full council and so it's trying to be thoughtful about brown act limitations about process limitations to ensure that once a recommendation comes to the full council

for actual consideration there's been a process you know we've had discussion we've had public comment in our committees and it's something that feels fully vetted you know

so can I just follow up and I ask a couple of questions because I think this is time to like start looking at because this was a new process

how is it working where are the gaps where can we solve gaps or you know the kinks may potentially work themselves out so I think it is

appropriate that we're like having this conversation and where do we want to get to because you know annual report I think is really good

that has created a transparency process and also it gives each commission to come present to us so the question then becomes when we

thought it went to consent for the full council is like the annual report had been presented to us at P. P. N. E.

this was four council members to review but I also understand now there's inequality because some council members may want the full report to be presented to

councils so I think that's one thing we need to look at on the annual report do we just make every board and commission or do we give them an option

to come present to council don't present to council and then also being mindful I think I'd want the question from staff how much time does that take does that does that fit

but how do we create a consistent process I know the consistency is all boards and commissions and their annual report should at least come to us

you know so there is the question and the vetting process and then the next part of it is like the recommendations and the goals that they want to work on

how do we best handle that because one of the things for context is we're changing a lot of our boards and commissions to be council appointees so a little bit less of P. P. N. E.

and a little bit more of council appointees so one of my thought processes was and I don't know if this works right or not but this is a good

conversation to have was as it becomes council appointees if recommendations come forward we are the elected body do we choose does your does the council member choose of

whomever they appoint to that body want to take up that and submit the proposal themselves so it comes from the council members because it's a balance of these are voluntary boards and commissions you know but we are the

elected body and where is the fine balance of giving them say and control but also realize like ultimately it comes it comes through us I I have I want to have this discussion I'm not sure we're baked

descended on because I'd also like to hear feedback from the clerk's office on what you brought up council member talonontes of time and everything else so I'm yeah so and this is where I don't know if

this proposal will accomplish what we need it to do which is streamline me making it quicker allowing for more efficiencies and like making the boards and commissions heard I do think that like having them put in all this work come present to us and then having their

report on consent is making people feel bad and I don't want them to feel like they've put in countless hours so I don't want them to feel like I did all this work and it was just passed on

consent like that is wrong so then maybe we do like a council workshop day where we do like we notice this pp and e meeting as a full council meeting and every single board and

commission and we do two two Tuesdays of that and then everybody comes for 15 20 minutes and they present their annual report say these are the

record our top three recommendations for the year these are the top three and this is what I would love for this annual this year's focus to be and then we all hear we all say okay that's a great

idea and it gets directed by the full council and then following year we see if it was implemented and what happened I mean that could be kind of like I'm kind of

meaning the middle I mean definitely I want to appreciate the comments about the annual report because I agree like there we should clarify this I do think it makes people feel bad to have their whole work for

a year just kind of be put on consent for the main council and that could be a great solution I think the problem is like there's no vetting at that point necessarily depending on the recommendations and we've seen that happen with the ethics commission recommendations where staff was like hey we have some concerns with this we think this is duplicative and we kind of were like

we have a chance to sort of say hey wait this isn't fully baked hey can PD can you get back to us on this hey you know many can price on this so it gives us a little bit more back and forth before the full council gets involved and again it kind of gets around those pesky ground act issues that we've hit on a couple issues where it's like you know I really want the racial equity committee to hear this sorry if you do that long let's can't you know I'm not going to do that

on my way I'm not going to do that I really want the racial equity committee to hear this sorry if you do that long let's can't hear it and it's like so I don't know how we hear things at PMP and then refer them to other committees so this is what and and so just to finish my sentence if I may I think this is intended this will always be more work because we aren't doing it now and so I think there's a certain tension that I feel that like we're not really we don't really have a process for recommendations now you know some of them have been heard some of them have not and so there's a natural tension of like yes this is not really

this will be more work because we're currently right now only hearing those few recommendations that gets submitted by council members for follow up and so to give there to be a formal process I don't think it should be up to anyone council member to decide if a committee that was approved by the whole council gets a chance to come forward gets a chance to come forward for council consideration and so I guess this is just for me it's a fairness question it's a process question it's like how do we create clear expectations with everybody.

And so that's sort of the idea here so um Mr. City attorney question because I like we brought up like the Brown Act on like double referral but my question comes can you clarify why that would be a Brown Act if they're publicly noticed meetings if it goes to two separate ones.

I haven't been in those conversations but I could see where there's a problem arises because you've got you'll have more than four hearing the same item and making recommendations and recommendations made to them in a non-noticed city council meeting.

So four of you here and then it goes to budget not it and you add and you add a number of how you've got five.

So we had this happen at Lon Ledge not that long ago I think it was on one of the cannabis items that like either racial equity or budget not it had heard

and we wanted to weigh in because we had heard and so we essentially had to coagentize it as a council meeting which is not impossible it's just you know it's that's something we've gone back and forth in the city attorney's office is being cautious as I appreciate them being but yeah.

Yeah well I think just for those who haven't been part of the conversation that thank you for that because it is a little bit of like how do we do this appropriately what is the timing so one of the other conversations that has also been had is you know I think the annual report is great because it allows each committee to say what they're doing it allows the public to see what they do and then the question comes in how do we appropriately handle the recommendations and is it part of the annual report.

And then do we handle recommendations differently like the annual report comes they talk to us but like how do we then create a separate vetting process that then streamlines but I also want to be extremely mindful of I want to do all of this but in the back of my mind I go to one we've got budget cuts to where's our staff capacity in all of this everybody's doing more with less and I'm going to do that.

And I want I want to make sure that whatever is decided it actually accomplishes the streamlining goal and doesn't further delay things because staff and nobody has time to get two things and then how does it affect if you've got committee recommendations and commission recommendations who has priority to council members do commissions and if we can't make the 90 days like so I want to and I really think it's important that.

You know vice mayor maple also ways in she's a Paul she apologize she can't be here but I also want to have time for the clerk's office to look at like how do we accomplish this is there a way to streamline this because I want to get to where you want to go is how do we streamline this i'm just not sure right now i'm comfortable saying how it's proposed is going to do that and should we explore council member telemontis idea of the plan.

So I'm comfortable i mean our city clerk is here providing direction the city clerk to come back and provide us with like three options of what your proposal consists of my concerns but also maybe like council workshops where we decide to do that.

And we do need their recommendations heard.

I'm comfortable i mean our city clerk is here providing direction the city clerk to come back and provide us with like three options of what your proposal consists of my concerns but also maybe like council workshops where we discuss the annual reports and the three goals or five goals whatever it is recommendations right because.

We do need their recommendations heard they spend a lot of volunteer time we all agree on that and it's like how do we do it.

So that it's efficient and also timely so that people don't feel like we're wasting their time and so maybe we provide direction to minister say clerk to come back with three options and then we could discuss again because I think you're on something I think you're like it's run the right place but I just don't know how we can.

I mean I definitely appreciate the concern I will say the council member proposal request process was intended to address these staff concern issues by not let making staff work on things until some committee of the council had said hey we want you to work on this and so I think there's a little bit of you know I like I said I'm worried about the full council hearing recommendations before staffs had time to vet and I don't want to make staff vet things if a subcommittee of the council is not going to be able to do that.

So it's like how do we balance that efficiency with process that will be as meaningful as possible without drawing on staff so like all this does is require the mayor to say hey I want this on the agenda and then that committee to hear and decide if they want staff to work on it before they start doing things so it could be hate you know what staff there's 176 recommendations here we only want you to work on look at these 20 that we've prioritized and we're going to work on that.

We've prioritized like let's let's start there and you know we can kind of direct staff at the subcommittee level to do the appropriate next step so that's kind of what I just wanted to leave with is that was you know the only thing that this would do for the clerk differently then we'll really want to do anything differently because what we're saying is right now the individual members of the commission council can submit recommendations I've done that three times I think in the last year so it's sort of six one way half dozen another but I do think this provides consistency right and it just ensures that we're not out

of the way and that's asking staff to review things until a subcommittee of the council has said yes we're interested in this and then it gives you know the staff the appropriate time to weigh in with the committees before it gets to the full council so that there isn't you know we have the benefit of that feedback so that's the idea here.

So I really appreciate this and I think we want to continue the conversation and I like the thought process that council member Talamontes has is having the city clerk work with you to kind of fair it out and and bring back different ideas that might address where we're really trying to get at and understand you know I want you know cost added to it potential staff timeline the normal stuff that we want to do.

So we request when things come come forward to do that and then have it come back so that we can we can fair at this out and see if we can't find something that accomplishes what you're trying to get at council member valence.

Is it possible that I request this come back before my last meeting of the year for a PMP.

I will leave that to you in the clerk to figure things out and work on it.

Thank you.

Yeah I'm happy to do a special meeting too.

We'll get it done. Thank you.

All right with that direction.

Are we good? Do we need a motion by Talamontes, second by Kaplan kind of having the clerk and valence wala work and bring back something.

I'm like I'm like option one.

Okay I make a motion to do option one and maybe even bring up a special meeting so that we can get this through.

All right I will second that all in favor.

All right thank you so much for that Jacob do we have any public comments on items not on the agenda.

Yes we do.

We have one speaker.

Key on bliss.

City council I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue that's going like that's going into this conversation around how best to honor the dedication and commitment that your appointed commissioners have been making in this.

I like the parks and recreation commission chair and routing out my first term and currently the chair and I think it's important that this item move.

I think that's going to be a good move as quickly as possible.

One of the things I keep hearing about is you know the amount of time that it take like that this could take for staff and for council to hear all of these potential recommendations that come up within a 90 day time limit which is understandable.

You know you're all like we're all people here and we all have important things that we want to do but the difference between your appointed commissioners and city staff as well as council is that we are doing this work for free.

We do not like 50 a 50 dollar stipend for a meeting which some of us do not even accept including myself is not like is not cons supplement for a way just not really a reasonable stipend and.

Sad city staff are paid to be here paid to work full time including members of city council and the mayor so.

If we're we're we're doing this work we're volunteering our time to really engage in this process.

Why is it why is there a question of how we end up doing this if like we pay city staff at least six like mostly five to six figure salaries to hear deliberate and decide on recommendations and the and our laws that includes members of city council.

If they're not here to do that then why are commissioners working for free to do like to do the same thing to have your time is.

Thank you for your comments or time is complete as I see no more.

Thank you.