Category: governance

Sac City Council 2025-05-13

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Sacramento City Council will meet Tuesday, May 13, 2025 (today!) at 5:00 PM. There are two items that might be of interest to transportation advocates.

Item 02 on the consent calendar is ‘Approve Criteria and Guidance to Accommodate Active Transportation in Work Zones Policy’. There is a staff report, and the policy itself. Though items on the consent calendar are not expected to be controversial, and will only be discussed by council if a council members pulls it from consent calendar, this is nevertheless worth supporting. This policy has been delayed for years. It is not perfect, but it is an immense improvement over existing policy and practice.

Item 09 on the agenda is ‘Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Proposed Budget Overview‘. The budget should reflect the priorities of citizens in Sacramento, but it only partially does.

quick build at SacCouncil 2025-03-25

Dan Allison4 Comments

The Sacramento City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 (agenda), starting at 5:00 PM (not the 2:00 meeting) will consider a proposed quick build program. Agenda item 21 is ‘Transportation Safety Initiative: Establish Positions, Establish Quick Build Capital Improvement Project, and Suspend Competitive Bidding and Approve an Alternative Procurement Process to Install Signing and Striping and Quick Build Improvements (Two-Thirds Vote Required)‘.

This quick build proposal is worth supporting, whether in person at the council meeting, or ahead of time using the eComment capability on the Upcoming Meeting Materials page. Transportation advocates have been asking for a quick build program (also called tactical urbanism, though they are subtly different) for years. When Councilmember Caity Maple and others proposed an emergency declaration over traffic violence, advocates pushed for quick build to be the top element of that proposal. The city has done a few such projects, such as the closure of a block of 2nd Avenue at Broadway and 34th Street to increase safety for bicyclists and simplify complex intersections. Photo below. But this new program would greatly accelerate the implementation of quick build projects. Some will be at the location of major crashes, while others will be at locations where crashes might be expected and where prior city neglect of lower income neighborhoods has resulted in more unsafe walking and bicycling.

photo of 2nd Ave and Broadway delineators
Sac_2nd-Ave-Broadway_delineators

The program would have a Traffic Safety Team staff of six FTE (full time equivalent), paid with funds from existing budget categories in Public Works. The program would suspend competitive bidding requirements so that projects could be implemented quickly.

The Vision Zero or Safe Systems approach to roadway safety is to immediately change the street design with temporary fixes that slow or channelize traffic, and then to eventually replace these with permanent design changes. The Street Design Standards update (category: Street Design Standards) and Strong SacTown (tag: Street Design Standards), the Active Transportation Plan, Neighborhood Connections and Streets for People Active Transportation Network, and many other efforts align with the quick build program. Most of the traffic calming measures in Neighborhood Connections (SacCity Neighborhood Connections) and and many of the traffic calming measures in Streets for People Active Transportation Network visual gallery – pedestrian and visual gallery – bikeway can also be implemented in quick build, as the photo below shows, a temporary curb extension with vertical delineators.

photo of Land Park Dr & 8th Ave curb extension
Land Park Dr & 8th Ave curb extension

The SacATC 2024 Annual Report is also on the agenda, item 1 on the consent agenda. It is not expected to be controversial, but it would be nice if a couple of people spoke in support, just to remind council that advocates are interested and supportive.

SacCity Council: last night, the people won!

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Sacramento City Council last night voted to reject the agenda proposal to extend City Manager Howard Chan’s contract for a year. Actually for two years, as the contract had another year extension if Chan wanted it.

There were a long line of big business and labor leaders speaking in support of Chan, and the extension. No wonder. Those have been treated well by Chan during his reign as mayor, whoops, I mean City Manager (he thinks of himself as a strong mayor, but even stronger). Police and fire of course support him because he keeps giving them raises, and increasing their budgets. There is a downtown power structure in Sacramento that wins almost all political battles, or has in the past. Last night, they lost.

There was an even longer line of just plain citizens who spoke against extending Chan’s contract, some quiet with salient points, and some very vocal about ways in which the City Manager has harmed the city, and homeless people, and has refused to reign in the biases of the police against people of color.

Several small business owners also spoke, most opposed to Chan but some in support. It is small businesses that the city should be supporting, but too often they come down on the side of big business. Big business is used to getting its way. Maybe we are moving into a brighter future.

Flo Cofer, who lost the election for Mayor be a very small margin, also spoke. She had previously said that she would move separate Chan if she won.

Council discussion quickly shifted from what many expected to be a done deal when a motion to reject was offered and seconded. Though every council member spoke in praise of Chan’s work, 8 years as City Manager and 22 with the city, there was clearly a lot of discomfort with his arrogant style and refusal to follow council direction on many issues. Though stability had been raised both by the power players and council members, it became clear that the council wanted transition to new leadership, and wanted it now, not a year from now. Roger Dickinson (D2), Karina Talamantes (D3), Caity Maple (D5), Eric Guerra (D6) Mai Vang (D8), and Mayor Kevin McCarty all voted for the motion to reject the extension. Lisa Kaplan (D1), Phil Pluckebaum (D4), and Rick Jennings (D7) voted against the motion. Therefore, 6 to 3.

Several council members indicated that they had been leaning toward supporting the extension until an executive session of three hours. Though council members can’t share what was said in executive session, it was clear that two, maybe three, members changed their mind. I’m guessing that Chan was resistant to any compromise, and some council members were not aware that the one-year extension would like turn into two.

I of course spoke, my comments below.

  1. The City Manager is not working for the citizens of Sacramento. The council-manager governance model only works if the council holds the City Manager accountable. It has not. 
  2. The City Manager has routinely ignored direction of council, most egregiously on homeless issues. The SacBee has reported a number of dishonest if not illegal actions. 
  3. The City Manager has a false view of public safety, that increases to the police budget solve the public safety challenge. 
  4. Most important to me, as a transportation advocate, the City Manager has refused to allocate significant funding to traffic safety and the reduction of traffic violence. You are going to consider an emergency declaration in part due to the failure of the City Manager to act. If the City Manager had truly been addressing public safety, it is unlikely we would have an emergency. 
  5. Several leaders have expressed that extension would provide stability. Stability of what and for what? For a form of governance and management that does not work for the citizens of Sacramento? I hope not. 

SacCity Council to consider extending Howard Chan

Dan Allison5 Comments

On the agenda for the Sacramento City Council for this Tuesday, December 10, is an extension of Howard Chan’s contract for one year, to December 31, 2025. Approval of an Amendment of the City Manager’s Employment Agreement

I am opposed to this extension. The city is in crisis, a crisis due to both the City Manager form of government, and to the individual in the position of City Manager. Both must end, as soon as possible. Extending Howard Chan for a year ensures that the crisis will continue, for at least a year.

What is the crisis? There is a budgetary crisis. The City Manager failed to see a reduction in tax income coming, and so there was a sudden need to balance the city budget by cutting critical programs, but failing to reduce excess staff. The budget crunch is now being used to justify all kinds poor decisions by city staff and city council. There is a homeless crisis. The City Manager has failed to follow the direction of council to address homelessness by opening more homeless shelters, specifically in every council district.

Most importantly, there is a traffic violence crisis. The rate of traffic crashes resulting in fatalities and severe injuries continues to escalate, putting Sacramento at or near the top of most dangerous cities in California. Yet Howard Chan has refused to allocate city general funds to address this issue, beyond the minimum necessary for grant matches. The grants are long term solutions, when what is also needed is immediate change to roadways, called quick build, at high risk intersections where the fatalities and severe injuries occur. Howard Chan has refused to fund this. The city is considering Declaring a State of Emergency Regarding Traffic Deaths. If Howard Chan had not resisted funding for real solutions for the last eight years, it is unlikely that we would need this emergency declaration. Not that we would not have traffic fatalities – Vision Zero has been a failure for many reasons – but the rate would likely be much less.

Howard Chan believes that the only solution to the public safety crisis is to add more police officers. This is a misunderstanding of public safety. Expenditures, and staff, should reflect actual threats to the public. In Sacramento, they do not. The number of people killed in traffic crashes is similar to the number of people killed by gun and knife violence. Traffic collisions increase, the police budget increases, but the police budget does nothing to address the problem.

Darrell Steinberg, in his ‘exit interview’ with Ryan Lillis earlier this week at New Helvetia Brewing said that a partial solution for the failure of the City Manager model would be to give the Mayor hire and fire authority over the City Manager, subject to review by the council. If this had been in place, we might already have a new city manager. Darrell said that he had a good relationship with Chan, but clearly the council does not, and Darrell acknowledged that the City Manager model is failing Sacramento.

What are the alternatives? The National League of Cities has a page: Cities 101 — Forms of Local Government, which outlines five forms of city governance. Sacramento does not have exactly any of these categories, but is closest to Council-Manager. Sacramento elects its mayor as a specific office, not a rotating selection. Most significantly, in Sacramento, the council actually has very little control over the manager. I believe we need something closer to the Mayor-Council model, where the city manager works for the council, which governs on behalf of the citizens. could a council-manager model work? Perhaps, but only with a strong council or mayor that is willing to stand up to the city manager and hold that person accountable.

Sacramento voters have twice rejected a strong mayor model, probably in part due to getting burned by Kevin Johnson who wanted to be a strong mayor. It seems unlikely that voters would support a strong mayor. What I want to see is a strong council model, where the council proactively directs the City Manager, and fires that person if they are not following direction. Something must change.

Our city is in crisis because we have a failed governance model, and the wrong person in the City Manager position. Rather than just extending the City Manager for a year, the council must come to terms with the crisis, and determine a solution. As quickly as possible.