September 2023
Introduction
Historically, California’s cannabis market has yielded racially disparate outcomes. Both pre- and postlegalization, cannabis enforcement policy disproportionately impacted people of color, especially black people. According to a report1 commissioned by Public Health Advocates and prepared by the UC Davis Center for Regional Change, from 1996 to 2016 blacks were arrested and charged with cannabis crimes nearly four times more frequently than whites statewide. The same report stated that in Yolo County blacks were arrested for cannabis crimes almost five times as much as whites were.
Meanwhile, the now-legal industry is lucrative and predominantly owned by white people. These juxtapositions indicate that cannabis legalization has not sufficiently advanced racial equity and that more must be done.
A growing number of cities have paired cannabis legalization with equity-related frameworks. The nature of these frameworks is diverse and experimental, but all entail the overarching goal of repairing harm done to communities in the name of cannabis regulation. Most equity policies are recent enough that outcome data is not available. However, this provides a comparative analysis of different jurisdictions’ equity frameworks to highlight predominant trends and useful tools. The focus of staff’s research is to ascertain which frameworks and strategies have been most efficient and effective.
Background
During the War on Drugs, operators in the cannabis industry were subject to heightened policing and prosecution practices. Nationally, the War on Drugs carried disproportionate consequences for people of color. Discriminatory enforcement practices can impact community well-being in a myriad of ways.
For those arrested, a large variety of factors — pretrial detention, cash bail, pay-to-stay practices, and being unable to work — can confer significant financial burden. Even without arrest, having a criminal record affects an individual’s eligibility for housing assistance, as well as employment prospects.
Finally, incarceration, family separation, and other aspects of intensive enforcement practices can confer emotional trauma on all individuals involved. These consequences contributed to the effect of the War on Drugs on communities of color. This is on top of disparities in lending and homeownership opportunities dating back to redlining by the federal government in the 1930’s.
A comparative lack of personal wealth is compounded by the fact that federal law makes cannabisrelated businesses ineligible for traditional financing relegates the legal cannabis industry to be one dominated by parties with private access to significant financial resources.
Jurisdictions are implementing equity frameworks with increasing scope, complexity, and financial commitment. Although there is a great deal of variation among the researched jurisdictions, plans can be broken down into several components: Identifying harm; identifying the equity framework’s goals to respond to that harm; and strategies to achieve those goals. Staff has examined various jurisdictional trends and highlights through this lens.
Harm Indicators
Because all equity frameworks are explicitly made in response to cannabis-related enforcement practices, all equity frameworks contain a mechanism for identifying harm associated with such practices. Two key concepts are used in these mechanisms: “equity applicants” and “disadvantaged communities”. As a reminder, West Sacramento contains areas designated by the State as 1 When the Smoke Clears- Racial Disparities in California’s Marijuana Arrests, UC Davis Center for Regional Change (2019) 766
City of West Sacramento
Cannabis Equity Policy Analysis
September 2023
“disadvantaged communities”. Per CalEnviroScreen 4.0, a large area of the City is disadvantaged including Bryte, Broderick, and those areas west of Jefferson Blvd. and Park Blvd. and north of the Deep Water Ship Channel.
Equity applicants are individuals who experienced harm associated with cannabis-related enforcement practices, and who are recipients of equity frameworks’ benefits and subsidies. Because equity frameworks generally focus on assisting equity applicants achieve ownership of cannabis businesses, the term “equity applicant” is sometimes interchanged with “equity business.” Although equity frameworks have been designed for the sake of amending institutional racism, none use race itself as an eligibility factor. One significant factor, presumably, has been legal viability. Ohio passed a stipulation in their cannabis regulations that 15% of permits must go to certain racial groups.
In a subsequent lawsuit, an Ohio judge struck down the stipulation, ruling that it speciously associated racial identity with economic disadvantage and that “the legislature failed to compile and review enough evidence related to the medical marijuana industry to support the finding of a strong basis in evidence for a compelling government interest to exist.” This delayed Ohio’s equity framework release.
Equity applicants are commonly identified via the following criteria:
1. Income: Depending on the jurisdiction and on the applicant’s other characteristics, income limits range from 80% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 400% of the FPL. Limits are set in comparison to area median income.
2. Area of Residence: More specifically, these criteria typically measure records of an individual’s past or current residence in disproportionately impacted areas.
Disproportionately Impacted Areas (DIAs) are typically demarcated by zip code and/or census tract and are deemed to have been especially harmed by the War on Drugs and its related enforcement policies. To be classified as a DIA, an area must have had an above average rate of cannabis-related arrests. In some jurisdictions, area median income is also factored into the method of classification. At this time, it is unknown if West Sacramento contains a DIA as defined above. However, West Sacramento contains areas defined by the State of California as Disadvantaged Communities. These areas are specifically targeted by the State for investments aimed in part at improving public health, quality of life and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities.
3. Prior Arrests: Having been arrested on cannabis-related charges typically confers categorical eligibility for equity applicant status. In many jurisdictions, having an immediate family member with cannabis-related convictions also counts towards equity applicant status.
In addition to their function in identifying equity applicants, disadvantaged community classification is also used to direct assistance efforts for equity frameworks that focus on socio-economic community revitalization.
Equity Goals and Strategies to Achieve Them
The most common focus in equity frameworks was on cannabis business ownership, which was also mentioned as an important focus by the City Council. This was featured in every surveyed jurisdiction.
In these frameworks, equity applicant status grants its holder some sort of subsidy or access to 767
City of West Sacramento
Cannabis Equity Policy Analysis
September 2023
assistance, with the ultimate goal of making ownership of businesses in the cannabis industry more accessible for equity applicants.
At their most basic framework, ownership-centric frameworks include waivers for permitting fees and/or some regulatory compliance assistance. These range from partial to full waivers, and basic regulatory assistance to full tutorial programs, where applicants receive legal assistance, technical business assistance and more. Many frameworks also created more substantial forms of financial assistance, including incubator programs, investment assistance and directly administering loans/grants, each detailed below.
A. Incubator programs: These are programs that grant cannabis permits to non-equity applicants in return for those applicants serving as incubators. In Oakland, incubator businesses are required to provide an equity applicant with 3 years of rent or rentfree space in which the equity applicant can operate their cannabis business. In other jurisdictions, such as Sacramento, incubators have a predetermined set of options by which they can fulfill their obligations, ranging from rent/facility assistance to transferal of partial ownership to an equity applicant.
In San Francisco, the incubator program is facilitated indirectly by vetting both incubator businesses and equity applicants. Approved equity applicants can view a list of interested incubator businesses on the City’s website but must reach out to them directly to coordinate partnership. The City itself is a neutral and non-endorsing party in these interactions.
B. Investment assistance: This is also conducted in a variety of ways. In Massachusetts, equity applicants are eligible for an extensive curriculum designed to teach skills necessary for ownership in the cannabis industry, including a course which is designed to help new business owners secure investors. If this option were deployed in West Sacramento, the timing of a launch for an equity business compared with non-equity businesses would have to be a consideration.
San Francisco has adjusted equity business requirements since the program’s inception. Whereas equity status had originally required that the qualified equity applicant have a 51% ownership stake in their business, the City modified its threshold so that qualified equity applicants were only required to hold a 40% ownership stake. This was done to increase the potential incentive and attract more potential investors.
C. Direct funding: Some jurisdictions have created funds drawn from non-equity permit fees or cannabis taxes to directly loan or grant start-up costs to equity applicants.
The status of such funds is contingent on local politics; some cities have codified the fund requirements but have not utilized them due to complications with federal law or have needed to divert this funding towards enforcement costs. If West Sacramento were to consider direct funding to the City by non-equity applicants, it is recommended that the framework be memorialized in an “Equity Program Agreement”, which would be attached to the Development Agreement between the City and the non-equity licensee.
In addition to making cannabis business ownership more accessible, equity programs in a variety of jurisdictions also include a focus on workforce development. The essential goals include incentivizing or 768
City of West Sacramento
Cannabis Equity Policy Analysis
September 2023
mandating a diverse workforce in the cannabis industry. This is the most malleable of the three goals, and fits into different jurisdiction’s regulations in a variety of ways.
A. Basic hiring requirements: Sacramento inserts explicit hiring requirements into its incubator program. There are several ways to be an incubator business in Sacramento, one of which being that the business hosts an equity applicant while also having 30% of its workforce (measured by hours worked) comprised of equityeligible employees.
B. Requiring businesses to create diversity plans: San Francisco does not have explicit hiring regulations but requires all cannabis businesses to submit “diversity plans” that support the City’s diversity goals. These are submitted and vetted every 120 days in order for the business to maintain its permit. Although there is a large amount of flexibility in what is approved, the highly-conditional permitting system allows the city a great amount of power in the current landscape. In the spirit of transparency, all diversity plans are listed on the San Francisco Office of Cannabis’ website.
C. Formal subsidy/guidance programs for people who wish to occupy non-ownership positions in the cannabis industry: Massachusetts is the most notable example of this. The state’s primary program focuses on technical assistance for equity applicants who wish to enter the industry. The entrepreneurial track is designed for those seeking ownership, but the program also includes tracks for those seeking management roles, entry level work (for those in reentry from incarceration), and a variety of ancillary roles, such as developing cannabis related accessories. The state is contracting with vendors to conduct this array of technical assistance.
Another component found in equity programs is community investment. Of the jurisdictions that pursue the goal of community investment, only one also pursues a workforce development angle.
Community investment is done to varying degrees and with diverse methods. Illinois is currently the gold standard for this framework, setting aside significant portions of cannabis tax revenue to fund assistance programs and designated non-profits which serve DIA’s. Others, like Massachusetts and San Francisco take a more indirect approach, requiring cannabis businesses to develop plans to benefit disproportionately impacted areas.
Analysis
In order to gain a more nuanced understanding of equity framework development, successes and difficulties, six jurisdictions were studied. Jurisdictions were chosen based on their frameworks’ implementation dates, with the assumption that those who have been operational for more than several months will have had enough time to encounter problems, adjust accordingly and provide a perspective informed by data and experience.
Unfortunately, data on the number and success of equity businesses is rare. For example, Sacramento’s cannabis program website (sacramentocore.org) lists 10 equity businesses for nonstorefront retail/delivery only and one storefront. It is unknown how well these businesses are faring.
Woodland, which recently began accepting retail cannabis applications, does not have a formal equity program although they do require a “community benefits and local benefits” plan as part of the application.
Even for jurisdictions that publicly share progress, equity efforts are recent enough that there is little to report in terms of equity framework’s accomplishments. Jurisdictions generally shared a feeling of 769
City of West Sacramento
Cannabis Equity Policy Analysis
September 2023
unsureness; even with fully operational programs, the near and long-term variables that determine an equity business’s vitality are numerous and exceedingly difficult to control. Perhaps most significant of these variables is the nature of the public’s engagement with such businesses: Will equity businesses be able to leverage their equity status in the market? How will consumer behavior respond to equity efforts?
The most common feedback staff has received in our research is to “be prepared for constant adaptation.” Implicit in this wisdom is that there should be both planning and funding in place to allow for adaptations. Of course, no two markets are alike, nor are any two contexts for the conception of a social equity framework. The following are broad guidelines based on the experiences of interviewed jurisdictions:
Administrative Cruxes:
Understaffing is a commonly cited obstacle to a jurisdiction's effectiveness. Numerous labor-intensive activities uphold an effective equity framework, including permit processing, outreach, and recordkeeping. When new information and needs shift personnel into different activities, other activities suffer. If staffing is kept above what the minimum requirements for “normal” functioning, this may occur less frequently.
Administrative organization is another factor that affects adaptability. Federated cannabis offices are more difficult to manage due to potentially competing interests of involved departments/offices. Ideally, the office administering the social equity framework should be autonomous. If the office’s behavior is restricted, it will be slower to adjust its framework when new problems, needs, and circumstances arise.
Because of a high need for adaptability in cannabis-related equity endeavors, most jurisdictions recommended that equity frameworks should be conducted by autonomous cannabis offices.
Financial Support for Equity Businesses:
Although barriers such as regulatory compliance or business know-how are significant, financial barriers for equity businesses seem to be the greatest obstacle noted in staff’s research. Because federal law inhibits cannabis businesses from using traditional financing, the cannabis industry has a natural tendency to privilege those who enter with pre-existing wealth or have independent financial backing. This is especially relevant for equity applicants, considering that income is a common criterion in determining equity applicant status.
The most effective and adaptable method of assisting equity applicants in starting their businesses is for a jurisdiction to directly loan or grant start-up costs. Access to capital is the main obstacle for potential equity applicants especially since one may incur considerable costs before even opening.
Jurisdictions that lack the funding or approval to do so unanimously cite this as their framework’s greatest weakness. Absence of funding can take place for a variety of reasons, one being internal pushback, in the case that deliberative bodies prefer that cannabis tax money fund other projects.
Another is that cities/states may take conservative stances on federal guidelines.
Perhaps the most successful example of direct loans is in the City of Oakland, where $3,000,000 was set aside to administer zero-interest four-year loans to equity applicants. The administration of these loans has been contracted to a non-government organization and has been structured into tiers, so that applicants can be eligible for loans ranging from $5000-$100,000. Since this addition to their equity program in mid-2017, over half of the original fund has been dispensed, and the city hopes to supplement it with state funding. The current size of loan is based on a $1000/square foot estimate for necessary operating space. In addition, this estimate was made specifically for retail and delivery 770
City of West Sacramento
Cannabis Equity Policy Analysis
September 2023
businesses. Most equity businesses elect to open cheaper enterprises, such as retail or delivery. Other types of businesses, such as production, processing, or other ancillary services, may require significantly larger loans to cover start-up costs.
In lieu of the ability to directly loan or grant equity applicants’ start-up costs, many jurisdictions have used regulatory power to financially assist equity applicants — as listed above, investment assistance and incubation. Both can be effective but involve significant tradeoffs.
For example, San Francisco, to draw more investors, has experimented with the percentage of shares owned by the equity applicant required for the business to maintain a permit reserved for equity applicants. Originally, the equity applicant was required to control 51% of the company. However, to adjust to low levels of investment, the requirement was lowered to 40%. This allowed the establishment of more equity businesses, but at the cost of the equity applicants’ ownership. In San Francisco, most equity applicants are not sole proprietors, but have partnered with landlords or investors. It’s unknown as to whether this will influence the generational wealth produced by these equity businesses, as intended in the framework. This tradeoff highlights a tension between control by social equity applicant and potential vitality of their business.
Incubation strategies also entail unintended consequences. Incubator obligations can be extremely costly. A common requirement is to supply “incubatees” with rent-free space for three years. Thus, the basic incubation format suggests that this strategy will create a vastly imbalanced market, containing social equity applicants’ businesses and businesses owned by those with enough wealth to fulfill incubator obligations. Moderating this market imbalance would be to lessen the support that equity businesses receive. However, in the absence of formal business loans (again, unavailable due to the federal status of cannabis), even these incubation services can be insufficient to get an equity business off the ground. Easing the requirements for incubator support could have negative impacts on the success of equity businesses, which suggests a tension between the extent to which an incubator strategy is able to assist equity businesses and its impact on the diversity and stability of the market.
Furthermore, the actual practice of incubation is messy. Some jurisdictions, like Sacramento, offer several different options for incubation. The options are intended to be equivalent but versatile so that the program can adjust to incubator business’s differing resources and situations. However, because the incubator program launched after initial permitting was conducted, the effectiveness of the program was greatly hindered as many potential incubators already have permits. Some businesses still assist equity businesses, but there is significantly reduced incentive to do so.
In Oakland, where the incubation program is more stringent and was launched in a timelier manner, challenges persist. Oakland requires three years of providing rent or rent-free space for incubators to obtain permits. However, there is insufficient data with which to delineate the needs of different businesses, so incubators get the same credit for helping retail businesses with rent as they do for larger growers or processors. Retail businesses require much less space, which makes them much less expensive for an incubator to support. Presumably, frameworks will become more advanced as administrations gather data and strategize but, in practice, incubation is a strategy that is vulnerable to regulatory interpretations that can favor incubator business’s interests.
Summary and Next Steps
Equity efforts that seek to assist disadvantaged communities’ capacity to build generational wealth can be roughly broken down into three basic strategies:
771
City of West Sacramento
Cannabis Equity Policy Analysis
September 2023
1. Ownership-centric frameworks without direct funding for equity applicants;
2. ownership-centric frameworks with direct funding for equity applicants; and,
3. community investment frameworks.
Regardless of how it seeks to get there, every strategy under consideration has the goal of repairing harm done to communities during the War on Drugs by helping them to generate wealth. Several factors that could prevent a successful equity business from generating wealth in a way that benefits a Disproportionately Impacted Area, even if the equity business had access to loans and was not subject to the investor/incubator-related complications as described above.
For example, one unsolved ambiguity surrounds the transfer of equity permits. If an equity applicant is only able to transfer their equity permit to other qualified equity applicants, they lose a great deal of autonomy in how they conduct their business. Ultimately, they may not be able to do what is in their best interest and this undermines the autonomy of equity businesses. If transfers are unrestricted, then it undermines the purpose of equity businesses, which is to cultivate generational wealth in underprivileged communities and persons. Unrestricted transfer leaves open room for exploitation by businesses and individuals with high spending power.
This tradeoff points to an underlying complexity in ownership-centric frameworks: The vitality and equitable development of a community is related to, but is not solely dependent upon, the vitality of individual business owners in that community. The full extent of this relationship lies in the autonomy of these business owners, their relationship to the community, and how they prioritize their financial bottom lines in the context of this relationship.
Complications will occur if a business owner is beholden to investors, lacks majority shares in their business, or is part of an imbalanced market that is naturally hostile to those without significant capital backing. In these cases, the proclivity of an equity firm owner may not be the same as that of the larger community targeted by the equity framework — and the equity framework will fail to impact communities on a systemic level. For these reasons, it is highly recommended that any attempt at an ownership-centric framework have significant financial backing in order to alleviate some of the strategy’s potential weaknesses.
Furthermore, staff recommends that the City consider the ideal conditions for an ownership-centric framework and whether it has the capacity to successfully implement one. Several crucial questions must be answered.
1. How many permits will West Sacramento grant, and how many will the market be able to accommodate?
2. What is the future of the West Sacramento’s cannabis industry? Unstable markets and the entrance of future firms puts into question the longevity of benefits conferred by an ownership-centric framework.
Alongside these considerations, West Sacramento should strongly consider how a community investment framework might function. There is a scarcity of information on community investment strategies, and even less information on how successful such strategies are in improving public health and economic outcomes of equity applicants. Although several jurisdictions are implementing a form of it, community investment frameworks are generally too new for data or are too locally tailored for 772
City of West Sacramento
Cannabis Equity Policy Analysis
September 2023
predictive analysis. Additional analysis could be done to determine what might be accomplished with a community investment framework, as well as which programs or organizations might be appropriate and effective recipients.
773
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 27, 2023 ITEM # 28
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 23-8 AMENDING THE WEST SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO MEMORIALIZE THE COUNCIL’S ONE CITY
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ X ] Council [ ] Staff
[ ] Other
Jon Robinson, Deputy City Manager
City Manager’s Office
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [ X ] Action
OBJECTIVE
This report requests that the Council consider first reading of Ordinance 23-8, which would amend Section 2.16 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code to add language embodying the Council’s One City governance framework.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council waive first reading and read by title only Ordinance 23-8 amending Section 2.16 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code to include the Council’s One City governance framework.
BACKGROUND
West Sacramento’s incorporation was made possible by residents of Bryte, Broderick and West Sacramento uniting and working together to seek a better shared future. Today, that vision of West Sacramento as a single city comprised of distinct, vibrant neighborhoods is still the source of the City’s strength. As the City’s electoral system transitions to a district-based model, the key to maximizing the benefit of this election format is to create conditions that encourage an appropriate level of focus on district priorities, while retaining a sense of community and attentiveness to the broader issues affecting the entire city.
While having the Mayor elected at-large will help maintain a balance in city-wide and district perspectives, staff believes this goal could be even better served if the Council adopted a conceptual framework that embodied its city-wide perspective for governance. The City’s transition to district-based elections represents a unique opportunity to institutionalize a One City vision which reflects the big-picture governance philosophy that has helped guide West Sacramento’s meteoric rise in regional prominence, while also appreciating the potential for varying priorities among residents of different districts.
At the Council’s strategic planning meeting in February, 2023, staff presented the Council with a set of principles intended to embody the One City vision. The Council discussed those ideas, and directed staff to return with a staff report to facilitate its public consideration and adoption of this framework. This report implements the Council’s 2023 Policy Agenda item, “Formalizing a ‘One City’ Governance Principle.”
ANALYSIS
This Council is in the unique position of being both stewards of West Sacramento’s tradition of visionary governance, and the first Council to lead in the context of a district-based electoral structure. This singular moment in history presents the Council with an opportunity to examine the unspoken governance principles that helped the City achieve its amazing growth and progress since incorporation, and intentionally weave those into a governance philosophy that will reflect the community’s values, and magnify the benefits of its new electoral system. By taking the One City perspective exhibited by multiple previous Councils, and superimposing that onto its new district-based system, this City Council can institutionalize a governance philosophy that embodies a commitment to both city-wide and district-specific issues.
The One City vision is predicated on the simple, yet powerful, concept that West Sacramento’s strength lies in its unity. It follows that if the city became less united, it would also become weaker and less effective. But if the Council can put increased focus on localized resident concerns while maintaining its historic, city-wide perspective, the community becomes even stronger. The One City vision is intended to facilitate this balanced approach to governance by serving as a guide for this and future City Councils. 774
Ordinance 23-8
September 27, 2023
At the Council’s strategic planning meeting, staff recommended the following governance principles as part of the Council’s One City philosophy:
Elect by Districts, Govern in the Interest of All Residents Elected officials in jurisdictions with districts are free to govern with a big picture mentality that takes into consideration the needs of the entire community, in addition to those of residents in their own district. This philosophy does not impair Councilmembers from attending to the specific needs of the residents of the district that elected them; in fact, a closer, more focused relationship with the electorate is one of the key benefits of district elections, and one that the Council and community embrace. However, an overt commitment to retaining a big picture view while serving district constituents offers the potential for the Council to maximize the net benefit of a district-based system with an at-large elected Mayor.
Any Resident Can Communicate Concerns to Any Councilmember As the City transitions to district-based elections, residents may naturally begin to focus on approaching “their” Councilmember with issues affecting their district. But a One City governance philosophy would institutionalize the practice where the entire Council continues to also be accessible to residents from any part of the community. This mutual accessibility would promote a desirable big picture awareness among Councilmembers, without detracting in any way from their ability to attend to in-district concerns. This approach would also encourage residents and representatives from different parts of the city to tackle issues together, helping residents develop a broader view of issues outside their district, and avoiding barriers between residents and representatives from different parts of the city.
Avoid Fostering Division
Promoting unity requires conscious effort. To that end, the proposed Municipal Code amendment encourages Councilmembers to govern in a manner that avoids divisive language and actions. Naturally, this does not preclude disagreement, discussion, and debate among Councilmembers, as sometimes the best policy decisions are the result of just such vigorous conversations. However, this principle does suggest that all such discussions occur within a respectful context in which all parties have the entire city’s needs front-of-mind.
Council-Manager Form of Government
Ordinance 23-8 includes a reminder that the City of West Sacramento operates legally under a CouncilManager form of government, in which the City Manager is responsible for administering the policies that are promulgated by the entire City Council, as opposed to individual Council members. While the current Council fully embraces this concept, the proposed language will serve as a guardrail to encourage future Councilmembers to seek consensus from their colleagues and rely on the City Manager for implementation, rather than independently attempting to effectuate policy changes for their district.
Current Practices Regarding Invitations to Community Events, etc. to Continue The City’s current practice of inviting the entire Council to events of interest in any part of the community promotes awareness of citywide issues and helps demonstrate to residents that the entire Council cares about their needs. This system has worked well historically, and is all the more important to continue in the context of district-based elections. Therefore, language to this effect is included in Ordinance 23-8.
Best Management Practices and Resource Allocations
Institutionalizing a big-picture view of City policy and budgetary planning will allow West Sacramento to retain the vision and strategic perspective that has helped make it great, while fully embracing the neighborhood-focused benefits that the district-based election system facilitates. To this end, Ordinance 23-8 contains language reminding future Councils that even resource allocation decisions that primarily affect one district must be approved by the entire Council.
City-wide Budgeting
The City’s revenue sources are spread throughout the community, and there is no inherent connection between where revenue is generated and where it is needed and expended. The City’s budget has historically been allocated based on areas of greatest need, keeping in mind the good of the entire community. Through a city-wide budget allocation based on Council priorities, the resource needs of the districts would continue to be considered by the full Council as part of the budget allocation and prioritization needs of the whole community.
775
Ordinance 23-8
September 27, 2023
Governmental Relations
As has been the historic practice, the City should endeavor to speak with one voice when interacting with other local jurisdictions, state or federal executive branch agencies, and the City’s state and federal elected officials. This helps avoid misunderstandings and duplicative effort, while reinforcing the City’s hard-earned reputation for organizational maturity and sophistication. To that end, if Councilmembers need to interact with any of these entities in their City capacity, that outreach should be coordinated through the City Manager’s Office, and to the extent possible, any resultant actions (tours, meetings, etc.) should be organized to include City-wide concerns rather than solely those of an individual district.
Relevance to Strategic Plan
Strategic planning has been central to the City’s ability to “punch above its weight” and undertake large, long-term endeavors that are beyond the means of many jurisdictions of similar size. Articulating that City spending decisions must align with the Council’s adopted strategic plan will help prolong the Council’s long history of fiscal discipline and strategic focus.
Each of the principles contained in Ordinance 23-8 articulates governance practices that are already being implemented by the City Council, which might cause some to question why the proposed Municipal Code change is needed at all. Quite simply, any idea has a better chance of surviving over the years if it is committed to writing.
This effect is amplified by memorializing the idea in a context, such as the Municipal Code, that requires a public hearing and majority vote of the Council to amend or modify.
West Sacramento’s renaissance following its incorporation has been made possible by successive Councils’ commitment to good governance principles, and to balancing local and city-wide resident needs. By memorializing its One City vision in the Municipal Code, this Council has the opportunity to make continued good governance a part of its legacy.
Environmental Considerations
This action is not a project that is subject to CEQA because it is not an activity that may cause either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c), 15378(a).)
Commission Recommendation
N/A
Strategic Plan Integration
The recommended action effectuates the Council’s 2023 Policy Agenda priority, “Formalizing a ‘One City’ Governance Principle.”
Alternatives
The Council’s primary alternatives are summarized below:
1. Waive first reading and read by title only Ordinance 23-8 amending Section 2.16 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code to include the Council’s One City governance framework.
2. Direct staff to incorporate the One City language into a different format, such as the City Council’s handbook, rather than the proposed Ordinance.
3. Direct staff to make specific changes to Ordinance 23-8 and bring it back for Council consideration at a future meeting.
4. Direct staff to discontinue work on the One City concept.
Alternative 1 is staff’s recommended action. Staff is prepared to effectuate any of the other options at the Council’s direction. However, as noted earlier, this Council is uniquely situated to articulate a vision of this kind, so should the Council choose not to move forward at this time, it may be more difficult to build consensus around a similar approach in the future.
Coordination and Review
This report was prepared by the City Manager’s Office, in consultation with the City Attorney. 776
Ordinance 23-8
September 27, 2023
Budget/Cost Impact
The recommended action will not have a budget or cost impact.
ATTACHMENT
1. Ordinance 23-8
777
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE 23-8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
ADDING SECTION 2.16.030 TO CHAPTER 2 OF THE WEST SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of West Sacramento does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Purpose and Authority. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Chapter 2 of the West Sacramento Municpal Code to add a provision establishing principals of governance.
Section 2. Additions. The following sections of the West Sacramento Municipal Code are hereby added to read as follows:
2.16.030 General Principles of Governance
The West Sacramento voted to transition to district-based elections in 2022 in order to assure that communities of interest throughout the City have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. While this change will bring a renewed focus on neighborhood priorities, it is not intended to fundamentally alter the City’s long-standing commitment to strategic governance that focuses on the good of all West Sacramentans, or to the Council-Manager form of government and related best management practices. This section outlines key governance principles that the Council intends to continue going forward.
A. One City Principle
The One City Principle is that West Sacramento’s strength lies in its unity. While acknowledging and serving the diverse needs of individual communities, Councilmembers will govern strategically, in the interests of all West Sacramento residents, regardless of the district from which they were elected.
1. Council districts are a construct that relates solely to the City’s Council elections process. City Council members are elected by district to serve the entire community.
2. Any resident can submit a concern to any Councilmember, without regard to the district that elected that Councilmember.
3. Councilmembers will serve their constituents in a manner that promotes unity, and avoid language or actions that foster divisions or rivalries between residents and elected officials in different Council districts.
B. Council-Manager Form of Government
1. The City of West Sacramento operates under the Council-Manager form of government, which means that the City Manager is responsible for administering the policies that are promulgated by the City Council, as opposed to individual Council members.
778
Ordinance 23-8
2. Historic practices regarding inviting all Councilmembers to community events throughout the City shall continue as a means of reinforcing connections between Councilmembers and the entire community.
3. Resource allocation decisions, appointments, policy changes, or other City actions that historically would have required direction from the Council will still be approved by the entire Council, even if they primarily affect only one district.
4. The City’s operations and capital budgets shall continue to be allocated on a line item and/or project basis for expenditure city-wide based on Council priorities and shall not be allocated on a district basis for budgeting by individual Council members.
5. All City-related interactions with other local jurisdictions, state and federal executive branch agencies, and state and federal elected officials will be coordinated through the City Manager’s Office and will focus whenever possible on the interests of the City as a whole, rather than those of any single district.
6. Budget requests must demonstrate relevance to the City Council’s strategic plan.
Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of those provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable.
Section 4. Effective Date and Publication. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption, and pursuant to Resolution 99-46 was published in summary format prior to adoption, and a summary will be published within 15 days after adoption in a paper of general circulation published and circulated within the City of West Sacramento.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento this ____ day of __________, 20___, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST: Approved as to form:
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney 779
Ordinance 23-8
CODIFY X UNCODIFY __________
780
THERE IS NO STAFF REPORT FOR THIS ITEM.
781
Attachment 1
Yolo County
Board of Supervisors
Resolution No. 22-
Declaring the Month of October
Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month
WHEREAS, in 1988 President Reagan designated October as the National Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month and since 2016, fifty states have proclamations honoring October 15th as the National Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Day.
WHEREAS, National Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness month is intended to increase awareness and understanding to support families going through this unimaginable grief process and offer guidance and support to provide comfort to parents/families after experiencing such a tragic loss.
WHEREAS, the Yolo County Health & Human Services Agency-Fetal/Infant Mortality Review (FIMR) Program and Sudden infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) program provides resources and bereavement support to families that have had babies die from stillbirths, miscarriages and SIDS or sudden unexpected infant death (SUID).
WHEREAS, local data for Fiscal Year 2021 to 2022 reported 5 fetal and infant deaths and 2 SIDS cases occurred to families in our county.
WHEREAS, with the ongoing identification of the necessary actions needed to prevent pregnancy and infant loss, the local FIMR program and community-based programs can assist in the prevention of prenatal and of infant deaths.
WHEREAS, it is imperative that all residents consider ways in which they can aid in providing comfort to those bereaved parents, and other family members to share their burden of grief.
WHEREAS, linkages and support among various providers serving families with infants be established to better engage those families in pre and post crisis events.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS PROCLAIMS THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AS PREGNANCY AND INFANT
LOSS AWARENESS WITH THE INTENT TO PROVIDE SOLACE AND VALIDATION TO
THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED A LOSS THROUGH MISCARRIAGE, STILLBIRTH, OR OTHER COMPLICATIONS.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of October, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Barajas, Villegas, Saylor, Sandy, Provenza.
_____________________________
782
Attachment 1
Yolo County
Board of Supervisors
Resolution No. 22-
Angel Barajas, Chair
Yolo County Board of Supervisors
783