Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk Howard Chan, City Manager John Colville, City Treasurer Budget and Audit Committee Report
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2022-00467 March 1, 2022 Discussion Item 03
Title: Update on the Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program and Playbook
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Receive and provide feedback regarding implementation of the Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program to the Measure U Community Advisory Committee.
Contact: Ash Roughani, Special Projects Manager, (916) 808-7751, [email protected]
, Office of the City Manager
Presenter: Members of the Measure U Community Advisory Committee
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-February 2022 Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program Playbook
File ID: 2022-00467 Discussion Item 03
March 1, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: On February 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-0044, which formally established the Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program (PB Pilot) and authorized $225,000 to be used for planning and implementation activities. Following a competitive process, the City awarded a contract to The Participatory Budgeting Project, Inc. (PBP) to serve as the lead program development and implementation consultant. The City awarded a second contract to Third Plateau Social Impact Strategies to perform an independent program evaluation. Both consultants initiated their work beginning in September 2021 in collaboration with the Measure U Community Advisory Committee (Measure U Committee).
On June 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Approved Budget, which allocates up to $1 million in Measure U funds for residents to propose ideas and vote on proposals that may be funded through the PB Pilot. Because participatory budgeting is not a process that the City has traditionally engaged in, staff is relying on the Measure U Committee to serve as the primary advisory body for the PB Pilot. To establish expectations among the City Council, staff, and members of the public, the Measure U Committee approved a Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program Playbook (Playbook) on February 1, 2022, that outlines how the PB Pilot will be implemented. The Playbook was developed by the Measure U Committee’s Participatory Budgeting Ad Hoc Committee with the support of PBP.
The Measure U Committee invites feedback on the Playbook from the Budget and Audit Committee prior to the anticipated public launch of the PB Pilot.
Policy Considerations: City Council Resolution 2018-0393, adopted October 2, 2018, specifies that a primary power and duty of the Committee is to, “[w]ork with City staff on community engagement with respect to the Transactions and Use Tax.” On February 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-0044, which formally established the Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program.
Economic Impacts: None.
Environmental Considerations:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This report concerns administrative activities and governmental fiscal activities that do not constitute a “project” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(4) and are not subject to the provisions of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3)).
Sustainability: None.
File ID: 2022-00467 Discussion Item 03
March 1, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento
Commission/Committee Action: The Measure U Committee approved the Playbook on February 1, 2022. At the February 8, 2022 Budget and Audit Committee meeting, Councilmember Vang requested a status update on the PB Pilot from the Measure U Committee.
Rationale for Recommendation: Providing feedback on the Playbook to the Measure U Committee will ensure that the City implements the PB Pilot with input from members of the City Council.
Financial Considerations: None.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): None.
Participatory Budgeting
Sacramento Pilot Project
Playbook:
Your Voice, Your Choice
(FY 2021-2022)
February 22, 2022
City of Sacramento
Measure U Community Advisory Committee
Introduction and Welcome!
This Playbook has been developed to guide the City of Sacramento Participatory Budgeting Pilot Project for 2021-2022. It includes: background information about Measure U, Participatory Budgeting (PB), how the PB process will work and how you can get involved. Members of the Measure U Community Advisory Committee’s (Measure U Committee’s) Participatory Budgeting Ad Hoc Committee (PB Ad Hoc Committee), staff from the City of Sacramento, staff from The Participatory Budgeting Project (Oakland) and Third Plateau Social Impact Strategies - the entity working to evaluate the impact of the pilot, have been working together since September 2021 to develop this DRAFT Playbook for the Sacramento PB pilot process. This Playbook is a living document and can be revised for future iterations of the process based on resident engagement and experience realized during this pilot project implementation.
What is Participatory Budgeting (PB)?
Participatory Budgeting is a democratic process that gives ordinary people direct control over a portion of a public budget resulting in binding recommendations for funding. It empowers residents to engage in processes that lead to finding solutions
while increasing relationships among community members. Leaders in over 3,000 cities and municipalities have implemented participatory budgeting as a way to listen to citizens, build trust between citizens and city leadership and, perhaps most importantly, spend portions of budgets that reflect and align with the values of community residents, particularly those whose voices are not typically included nor heard.
As cities and communities across the country demand that budgets be radically restructured, now is a perfect time for the City of Sacramento to adopt and embed Participatory Budgeting in the same way the city has embedded Measure U as an ongoing funding stream. California cities, including Long Beach, Oakland, Merced, Vallejo, Fresno, San Francisco, San Jose and San Francisco County, have implemented PB. This process reinforces the Mayor and Council’s commitment to inclusive economic development and efforts to meaningfully engage and listen to community members. Participatory Budgeting does not replace the Council’s duty to effectively budget City resources, rather it complements it by creating a process to give voice to community members and build trust, stronger relationships and partnerships between the community and elected leaders.
1
Why PB in Sacramento?
The impact of Participatory Budgeting is clear. Independent evaluations have demonstrated the positive impact of increasing engagement of residents not previously active in civic discussions; and including youth and adults from diverse racial and economic neighborhoods to create real solutions to the most pressing issues in historically excluded, underserved and under-represented communities. PB embodies the most fundamental and important lesson of community engagement – those closest to a problem should be involved in solving it.
PB advances Measure U and the City’s commitment to equity and inclusive economic development. PB can, has and should be used to intentionally and strategically address economic disparities based on systemic and institutionalized racism within and across neighborhoods. PB can also help us radically reimagine how to structure funding and how ‘inclusive’ we are in engaging Sacramento residents in historically underinvested communities in shaping funding priorities. Sacramento has the chance to lead with ‘economic inclusion’ through participatory budgeting.
Measure U and Participatory Budgeting: History and
Background
In 2018, Sacramento voters were asked to weigh in on continuing the Measure U sales tax and increasing it to one cent from ½ cent – 57% said, yes, let’s keep Measure U, which voters had originally passed in 2012 and also voted to make it permanent.
The November 2018 ballot initiative built upon Measure U sales tax original focus – supporting public safety – police/fire—and Youth, Parks & Community Enrichment, but also added the promise of support to needs of historically underserved and ‘disadvantaged communities’ in areas such as homeless services, affordable housing, libraries, youth programming, park maintenance, high-wage job promotion and inclusive economic development strategies through meaningful investments to benefit underserved neighborhoods.
Responding to the goal of economic inclusion, the Measure U Committee recognized that more equitable investments must be made for neighborhoods and community members most adversely affected by racial and economic disparities. Toward this end, the Measure U Committee began to investigate Participatory Budgeting (PB). Since the spring of 2019, members of the Measure U committee have investigated and researched the PB process and made requests for
financial support from City Council members.
2
Finally, in February of 2021, the Council approved providing $1 million to support a Participatory Budgeting Pilot Project and an additional $225,000 for planning, implementation and evaluation of the Pilot Project. Since July, 2021, members of the Measure U Committee’s Participatory Budgeting Ad Hoc Committee have worked with City staff to: develop the consulting requests for proposals (RFPs); participate in interviews; and make recommendations for which consultants to hire. Once the consultants were brought on board, the PB Ad hoc Committee has been working on a bi-weekly basis with the consultants and City staff to: develop the vision, guidelines and processes for implementing PB; and work with evaluation consultants to develop metrics for assessing the PB process and PB pilot1.
About the Measure U PB Ad Hoc Committee & Supporting
Consultants
For the 2021 - 2022 pilot cycle, Participatory Budgeting in the City of Sacramento is led by the Measure U Committee with City staff. The Measure U PB Ad Hoc Committee is serving as the primary decision-making body, or “steering committee” for this initial, pilot PB cycle. Similar to most participatory budgeting steering committees, the Measure U PB Ad Hoc Committee wrote the playbook for this process (this document), and will help coordinate and oversee the process to ensure the process runs smoothly, the goals speci
fied for this pilot process are met, and Sacramento residents have the resources, access, and support they need to meaningfully participate in the participatory budgeting process.
Measure U PB Ad Hoc Committee Members:
Debra Oto-Kent, Measure U Committee Member representing a member with experience in community trauma, mental health or community based crime reduction has served since 2019. Ms. Oto-Kent is the Founder and Executive Director of the Health Education Council, the focus of which is to reduce health inequities in the Sacramento region.
1 A detailed timeline for the Committee’s investigation and work on PB can be found in the Appendix of this document
3
Cathy Creswell, Measure U Committee Member since 2019 and has a background in affordable housing issues. representing “ Affordable Housing” sentence or two about your work
Dr. Dana Kivel, Measure U Committee Member since 2019 representing District 4.
Currently, a Professor at Sacramento State, Dr. Kivel was a co-founder of Community Against Sexual Harm (CASH) in Sacramento and co-founder and former director of the Lavender Youth Recreation & Information Center (LYRIC) in San Francisco.
Gina Lujan, Measure U Committee Member since 2019 was appointed by District 6 Councilmember Eric Guerra. Founding CEO of Hacker Lab. Serving on regional boards such as Sacramento Metro Chamber, Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Valley Vision Board, SESI, and Mayor’s Tech Council.
Kim Williams, Measure U Committee Vice Chair, serving on the Committee since 2019, was appointed by District 7 Councilmember Rick Jennings.
Responsibilities include:
● Develop overall goals and guiding values for the PB pilot project. ● Determine approach to implement the Participatory Budgeting steps to include in the Playbook.
● Work with consultants to design and implement processes. ● Communicate with City staff, City council members, Measure U Committee and community groups about PB implementation, development, and outcomes. ● Provide oversight to ensure the process continues to meet its goals as well as the evaluation metrics and outcomes.
● To prevent any potential con
flicts of interest, all Measure U Committee members
will not be able to submit ideas, serve as Proposal Delegates, or vote on the final ballot.
City Staff:
● Ash Roughani, Special Projects Manager, Office of the City Manager serves as the lead staff person of the Measure U Committee and facilitates communication between the Committee, City Council members, and City staff. ● Elizabeth Boyd, Senior Planner, Community Development Department co-leads the City’s Neighborhood Development Action Team (NDAT) and provides a convene and connect role between the Committee and NDAT initiatives.
4
The Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP):
● PBP serves as the implementation consultant and facilitator for the pilot process. The PBP team provides guidance and support using their experience consulting and facilitating participatory budgeting outreach, workshops, idea collection, proposal advocate sessions and voting processes across North America.
● They also provide facilitation support for the playbook workshops, idea collection events, and Proposal Delegate meetings.
Third Plateau, Evaluation Consultant
● Designs and implements the evaluation for the pilot process. Based on stakeholder input, they create the Theory of Change and measurement approaches for the process, as well as direct and conduct the data collection through methods such as surveys, interviews, and direct observation. The “Theory of Change” is a clear and accessible visual description of the intended activities of the participatory budgeting process, and how these lead to the desired outcomes for the process.
5
What Does the Participatory Budgeting Process Look Like? It is comprised of five key process phases:
Phase 1, Design the Process:
The “steering committee” (typically a group of residents appointed or selected by the City) develops a playbook for the process that outlines how participatory budgeting will work for a specific cycle (if recurring annually, cities generally convene new steering committees each year. The playbook outlines goals and guiding principles for the process, and makes decisions on such topics as: what, if any, focus the process should have, who is eligible to participate in each phase of the process, and what outreach and engagement tools and strategies will ensure community members can participate in the process.
Phase 2, Idea Collection:
Idea collection includes all the ways community members provide suggestions for how to spend the money allocated to the participatory budgeting process. Ideas can range from a couple-word project label “road repairs in X neighborhood” to extensively researched project proposals. Ideas are often collected in a variety of ways: in idea collection assemblies or town halls, in online submission portals, and in boxes left in 6
high-traffic areas like schools and libraries. Typically, idea collection processes are designed to be as open as possible so that any and all ideas can be considered.
Phase 3, Proposal Development:
While the idea collection phase is winding down, community members are recruited to serve as Proposal Delegates (sometimes referred to as “budget delegates” or “proposal advocates”). Proposal Delegates take the ideas that have been collected and work together and with City staff to: vet the proposals (select those that will be eligible and possible to implement, or “feasible”), use a standardized ranking system to prioritize those ideas that best
fit the values and goals for the process, and then develop out the project ideas that will appear on the ballot into full “proposals.” A finalized proposal generally includes a detailed description of the project, its expected impact, a cost estimate, and timeline.
Phase 4, The Vote:
Once the proposals are ready and placed on the ballot, community members have the opportunity to vote for their preferred projects. Participatory budgeting processes have used both digital and paper voting systems, and often a combination of the two. While voting systems can vary slightly (some use ranked-choice voting, for example, while others don’t), generally the projects are ordered from those that received the most votes to those that received the least, and projects are funded in that order until the entire budget is used up. The results of the vote are then announced publicly.
Phase 5, Project Implementation & Monitoring:
Winning projects are then implemented and monitored to ensure they are initiated, built, or opened to community members within any relevant timeframe and to the speci
fications identified in the project proposal.
Evaluation: During implementation, each of the phases above will be evaluated (usually by a third party evaluation contractor) so that they can be learned from and improved upon for each following cycle.
More detailed information is included below, beginning on page 9, about how the different phases have been adapted for the 2021-2022 pilot Participatory Budgeting Sacramento process
7
Participatory Budgeting involves a cycle of engagement that is combined with the regular budgeting process. It sparks a variety of powerful, lasting impacts across a community:
● More equitable and effective spending.
● Broader political participation, especially from historically marginalized communities.
● Stronger relationships and trust among residents, City government, and community organizations.
● New community leaders.
● Increased civic engagement.
What is a Playbook?
As participatory budgeting is intended to facilitate community-led decision-making and is adaptable to the circumstances, needs, interests, and visions of specific communities, no two participatory budgeting processes look the same. To tailor the participatory budgeting process to these local conditions and ambitions a group of residents (sometimes referred to as the “steering committee”) is typically brought together to “design” the process for each unique cycle (in Phase 1, as detailed above).
These decisions are brought together in the Playbook: the document that allows community members, participants, and other stakeholders to get a sense of what the process will look like in practice.
This Playbook was developed by the Measure U Community Advisory Committee’s (Measure U Committee’s) Participatory Budgeting Ad Hoc Committee (PB Ad Hoc Committee), representatives from various City departments and ratified by the entire Measure U Committee. Together they have worked to guide the City of Sacramento’s Participatory Budgeting pilot project. The purpose of this Playbook is to establish the guidelines for carrying out the 2022 Participatory Budgeting initiative. These guidelines re
flect the unique needs, interests, and issues of Sacramento communities and the Participatory Budgeting process. It provides details for who can be involved, how decisions will be made, and provides information about the kinds of investments community members can recommend. It is a living document that is meant to be revised annually.
8
In addition, it is important to recognize the purpose of the pilot program is to identify how PB can be most effectively implemented in Sacramento. The pilot will help identify strategies and processes that worked effectively as well as what changes might be needed to ensure it meets the stated goals. Because the pilot project was approved with a $1,000,000 modest investment, this shapes the scope and types of funding projects. The goal of the Measure U Committee is to learn from the pilot program and to identify clear metrics for success that will enable PB to continue and grow.
The content below reflects the specific decisions and guidelines set out by the Measure U PB Ad Hoc Committee and will provide the container or foundation for the 2021-2022 cycle.
Community Agreements
In developing the Sacramento PB Playbook, the PB Ad Hoc Planning Committee came to the following agreements that served as the foundation of the playbook decision-making process. They are also intended to provide all community members participating in the process with a shared-set of norms or agreements they can refer to when building safe, constructive, and mutually-supportive environments for civic cooperation.
● Listen well - “No one knows
everything. Everyone knows
something. Together we know a
lot”
● Move forward, move back / make
space, take space
● "Yes, and…" - We value
everyone’s opinions and thoughts
in this space. We want everyone
to feel comfortable speaking, and
to do that, we you an open
orientation and build off each
other’s ideas (not a “but”); and
consider how we converse as
opposed to pitch our perspectives
and ideas
● No bad ideas… (be open to
learning)
● Assume best intentions and
attend to impact
● Spell out acronyms
● Moving towards safer & more
courageous spaces
9
● Value the process and the
outcomes
● Self and community care - let’s
pay attention to our needs, and
one another and offer support as
needed
● Respect pronouns and social
dynamics that exist (group
agreements)
● Stay away from politics and focus
on people
● Not knowing is ok and asking
questions is important
Guiding Process Decisions:
Process Goals
The Measure U Ad Hoc PB Committee voted on the following goals for the participatory budgeting (PB) process, which will guide decisions about how the process should work, communicate why this matters to the public, help measure effectiveness, and define success. They are as follows:
Equity: PB Sacramento prioritizes equity as a guide to process and practice and as a description of desirable outcomes. An equitable PB process brings historically excluded voices into decision-making processes, and is made accessible by addressing and repairing barriers to participation. Equitable outcomes address and work to repair structural forms of injustice, racism, discrimination, oppression, exclusion and inequality.
Inclusion: The PB process is accessible (e.g. language, culture, technology, time, location, childcare etc.) and respects diverse voices, particularly those of people most often excluded from decision-making processes, e.g. residents that live in under-resourced neighborhoods.
Transparency: The process is clearly communicated to the community including the expectations of the process, existing accountability mechanisms, and any limitations.
Mistakes are acknowledged and rectified quickly where possible. 10
Community capacity building: Community members increase understanding of how the local government city system works and are better prepared and feel more included to participate in and influence larger decision-making processes. New community leaders emerge. Residents better understand and feel invited to exercise their power.
Local government elected and staff officials expand their understanding of the capacity for participatory budgeting to increase problem solving, community led decision making, and model how City initiatives can generate equity and inclusion.
Centering community engagement and grassroots leadership: PB prioritizes historically excluded residents and funding decisions reflect their voice, and values proximity and lived experience. Community leaders and nonprofits leading meaningful work in the community are informed and empowered.
Building trust: PB builds trust and relationships between community members and the City. It supports better alignment and understanding of issues and solutions facing our city by bringing honesty, empathy, and integrity to our interactions.
Repairing and avoiding harm: PB works to facilitate and integrate an understanding of how COVID, gentrification, redlining, and other systems affect communities with intention.
Process Scope & Project Focus
Neighborhood-based Geographic Focus
The Measure U Ad Hoc PB Committee elected to ensure the process is equitable and focused on allocating resources to those communities that have historically received little to no investment while remaining an inclusive and participatory process. To do so, the Measure U Ad Hoc Participatory Budgeting Committee used the City’s Community Vulnerability Index and the California Healthy Places Indexto identify specific neighborhoods with the greatest need to focus investment for this first Pilot year. See Appendix B for a more detailed explanation of the neighborhood selection methodology. Those neighborhoods, grouped into two larger areas in Northeastern Sacramento and Southeastern Sacramento, are listed below:
11
Southeastern Sacramento
● Parkway
● Meadowview
● Woodbine
● Brentwood
● South City Farms
● North City Farms
● South Oak Park
● Central Oak Park
● Lawrence Park
● Fruitridge Manor
● Avondale
● Southeast Village
● Glen Elder
Northeastern Sacramento
● Village Green
● Parker Homes
● Youngs Heights
● West Del Paso Heights
● Del Paso Heights
● East Del Paso Heights
● Hagginwood
● South Hagginwood
● Gardenland
● Strawberry Manor
● Northgate
● Cannon Industrial Park
● Ben Ali
● Richardson Village
● Willis Acres
● Noralto
● Old North Sacramento
● Swanston Estates
Neighborhood Focus and Participation Across Each Phase
Project Implementation: To appear on the ballot projects must be implemented in one or more of these designated neighborhoods. Proposal Delegates - the participants who will work together to vet ideas and develop those that will appear on the final ballot into full proposals - will also be recruited from these neighborhoods.
Idea Collection: To ensure all residents in Sacramento can participate in the Participatory Budgeting process any Sacramento resident 14+ years old is invited to propose ideas.
Proposal Development: To allow residents and stakeholders of the focus areas to determine how funds are spent in their communities: anyone who lives, works, attends school, or is the guardian of someone who attends school in a focus neighborhood can serve as a Proposal Delegate, as long as residents make up a majority of each area’s Proposal Delegate committee. Volunteers will be recruited through community-driven outreach efforts.
12
The Vote: Voting in each area will be limited to residents of focus neighborhoods 14+ years old to ensure residents have the final say over what projects are funded in their communities.
Project Eligibility
There will be no limitations on the type of projects suggested or developed into proposals. Both capital (one-time, fixed investments like buildings or infrastructure repairs) and programmatic projects will be eligible so long as specific project proposals are deemed feasible by Proposal Delegates and City staff during the proposal development review process. Past participatory budgeting processes have funded a wide range of projects, from pot-hole repairs to green biodomes, public school lap-tops, and protected bike lanes.
Fund Distribution
The $1,000,000 approved for this 2021-2022 Sacramento Participatory Budgeting process will be split equally into two $500,000 allocations: one for each focus area (in the Northeastern Sacramento and Southeastern Sacramento areas, respectively).
Decisions for Phase II: Idea Collection
Who will be able to submit ideas
We believe that everyone has good ideas; therefore, any Sacramento resident can submit an idea for how to spend the funds allocated to this pilot participatory budgeting process. Idea collection will likely take place through multiple submission outlets and activities (such as an online submission portal, idea boxes in public places, and virtual idea collection assemblies or townhalls).
Decisions for Phase III: Proposal Development
It was elected to change the name of those who support in this phase of the process from “budget delegates”, as can be commonly used in other PB processes, to “Proposal 13
Delegates”. Community members volunteering as Proposal Delegates will review the ideas for feasibility together with City staff, prioritize projects for the ballot that best meets the goals of the process, and develop them into fully-fledged proposals.
Who can serve as a Proposal Delegate?
Community members acting as Proposal Delegates will review the suggested ideas for feasibility, prioritize projects for the ballot that best meets the goals of the process, and - with the support of City staff - develop those project ideas into full proposals complete with cost estimates, timelines, and impact assessments. Anyone 14+ years old who lives, works, attends school, or is the guardian of someone who attends school in a focus neighborhood can serve as a Proposal Delegate (one of these relationships to a focus neighborhood being a sufficient qualification to act as a Proposal Delegate).
In the unlikely event that more community-members volunteer than the support staff and Measure U Ad Hoc PB Committee can coordinate, an accessible and uniform application process will be developed to select Proposal Delegates.
Decisions for Phase IV: The Vote
Who will be able to vote?
For this 2021 process, voting will be open to community members who live in one of the focus neighborhoods (see list on pages 8-9) and are 14+ years old. Residents will vote on the specific area ballot (Northeastern or Southeastern) that their neighborhood is included in.
Voting Process
There will be two voting processes, one for each area, conducted using both online and in-person voting processes. They will be traditional “approval” votes in which residents of those areas will be asked to select a certain number of projects (determined by Proposal Delegates for each area based on the number of projects or “proposals” appearing on the ballot for that area). The projects receiving the most votes will be recommended for funding in order of votes received until the total funds ($500,000 for 14
each area, respectively) are used up. The City Council may need to approve the final list of winning projects or individual projects that exceed the City Manager’s spending authority, as required by the City of Sacramento Charter or Sacramento City Code.
Contingency Planning
Measure U Participatory Budgeting Ad Hoc Committee members will consult with and support the Proposal Delegate committees for each area to develop contingency plans in the case there is a tie or in the case that a project can only be partially funded with the remaining portion of the funds.
Outreach and Engagement Phases
Focus of Engagement
Outreach and engagement activities to meaningfully involve Sacramento residents into the participatory budgeting process will prioritize the focus neighborhoods identified on pages 8-9.
Outreach Strategies Using T echnology
Examples of digital tools and strategies:
● Collaborations with community-based organizations (CBOs), faith-based organizations, and other neighborhood groups to actively engage Sacramento residents.
● A mini-grant program to support and compensate residents and community organizations to conduct their own outreach and engagement efforts ● Councilmember newsletters
● Sacramento Public Library email distribution lists
● Neighborhood and community email distribution lists
● Mailchimp
● Remind, a two-way mass texting platform
● Social media
15
Outreach Strategies without the use of T echnology
Examples of non-digital tools and strategies:
● Outreach to and with Community-Based Organizations, particularly those that serve communities in the focus neighborhoods.
● In-person outreach events (COVID requirements and protocols permitting) ○ Idea collection events + tabling
○ Proposal Delegate recruitment events + tabling
○ Pop-up events
● Phone and/or text banks
● Spot canvassing
● Earned Media
● Sacramento Public Library Bookmobile pop-up events and outreach Project Timeline
Education + Initial Outreach: February 14 - March 31
Idea Collection: April 4 - May 15
Transition: May 15 - May 22
Proposal Development: May 23 - July 24
Transition: July 25 - 31
Vote: August 1 - 31
Evaluation: February 7 - August 31, 2022
16
Appendix A
Measure U Participatory Budgeting Project Timeline
10/19/2019 – The Participatory Budgeting Project of Oakland presented an overview of PB to the Measure U Committee.
1/27/2020 – Measure U Committee approved a letter to Council to define and clarify the Committee’s focus and priorities. This letter recommended that:
“ A minimum of $5 million of Measure U Funds be set aside annually to (1) fund a participatory budgeting process in priority neighborhoods, (2) fund priority programs and projects consistent with the purposes of Measure U identified by the participatory budgeting process in those neighborhoods and (3) provide ongoing City staff support and technical assistance to implement this recommendation.” 7/20/2020 and 8/17/2020 – Measure U Committee finalized and approved recommendations for how to implement Participatory Budgeting; and the Committee approved a motion requesting that the City Council adopt the July 20, 2020 recommendations.
12/1/2020 – Measure U Ad Hoc Committee made a presentation to the City Council Budget and Audit Committee proposing a timeline and set of activities to pilot PB. 1/26/2021 – The Measure U Committee re-submitted its July 20, 2020 recommendations to the Budget and Audit Committee to spend at least $15 million of Measure U annually on PB as part of its Fiscal Year (FY) 2020/21 Midyear Budget Priorities.
2/2/2021 – During its discussion of the FY2020/21 Midyear Budget, the City Council requested that the City Manager propose allocating $1 million toward developing a Participatory Budgeting Pilot Project for the FY2021/22 Proposed Budget. 2/9/2021 – Based on a request from the Measure U Ad Hoc Committee, the City Council requested that $225,000 in Measure U funds be allocated for planning, developing and implementing a PB Pilot Project.
2/16/2021 – The City Council allocated $225,000 in Measure U Funds to establish Multi-Year Operating Project for the Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program. 3/15/2021 – Measure U Committee established the 2021 Participatory Budgeting Ad Hoc Committee to work with staff and steer the PB Pilot. The Ad Hoc provides updates to the full Committee as a standing item at each meeting. 17
6/15/2021 – In adopting the FY2021/22 Budget, City Council allocated $1 million for the Participatory Budgeting Pilot Project.
Since 7/1/2021 – Once the Council approved the $1 million allocation for Participatory Budgeting, the Committee requested an additional $25,000 for consulting services to set up the program and support evaluation.
The request was approved and the PB Adhoc Committee worked with City staff to:
● develop the consulting RFPs
● Participate in interviews and
● made recommendations for which consultants to hire.
Once the consultants were brought on board, the PB Ad hoc Committee has been working on a bi-weekly basis with the consultants and city staff to:
● Develop the vision, guidelines and processes for implementing PB ● Work with evaluation consultants to develop metrics for assessing the PB process and PB pilot
Appendix B
Geographic Focus and Neighborhood Selection Process: Resources and Methodology
To ensure the the $1,000,000 of Measure U funds earmarked for allocation through the 2021-2022 Participatory Budgeting Sacramento pilot process are prioritized on an equity basis in historically low-investment parts of the City, the Measure U Participatory Budgeting Ad Hoc Committee recommends that eligible projects should be implemented in specific neighborhoods.
To determine which neighborhoods to focus on for this pilot cycle Committee members, Participatory Budgeting Project staff, and City staff compiled a set of resources to determine which neighborhoods to include. These resources include:
● The City of Sacramento’s Community Vulnerability Index (CVI), which provides data, metrics, and severity indicators for 1) health insurance coverage rates, 2) 18
education levels (high school or less), 3) gross rent as a percentage of income, 4) poverty rates, 5) unemployment rates, 6) and disability rates ● The California Healthy Places Index (HPI), which combines 25 community characteristics - including economic, education, transportation, environment, and housing indicators - into a single indexed HPI score. Scores are listed as percentiles (0-100, where 0 = the least healthy and 100 = the healthiest) relative to conditions in the rest of the state.
As these resources both measure community conditions at the census tract-level, the group was able to create an overarching database comparing CVI and HPI data for census tracts across the City of Sacramento. The Ad Hoc Committee experimented with multiple different
filters or sets of selection criteria to see if a) there was geographic clustering in specific regions within the City, and b) what population sizes were included with each selection criteria to ensure the area was large enough to include a significant portion of Sacramento residents, yet focused enough to ensure projects would still be implemented in communities that have historically received little or less investment than other areas of the City.
After reviewing and weighing a few different options, the Ad Hoc Committee decided to recommend that the Measure U Committee focus the process on the neighborhoods included when using the following filtering or selection criteria: census tracts with two or more severe indicators (dark red for a given measure on the map) on the Community Vulnerability Index, and a percentile score lower than 15 on theCalifornia Healthy Places Index. This area creates two distinct geographic clusters, one in the Northeastern section of the City and one in the Southeastern section. The Ad Hoc Committee then mapped these census tracts against the City’s Neighborhood Mapto make sure any place-based designations used in the Participatory Budgeting process would align with the neighborhood names and boundaries residents are most familiar with. A final review further filtered out entirely industrial, commercial, or park-run areas. The two areas together include a population of approximately 116,000 residents or approximately 22% of the Sacramento population.
19
20