April 27, 2026 • 36 mins
This episode covers the April 23, 2026 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District meeting, featuring the proposed FY 2026–27 budget and fee schedule, staffing and vacancy reports, and public feedback on the Community Emissions Reduction Plan. Key highlights: the proposed roll-up budget of $49.6M revenue and $56.1M expenditures (use of fund balance), a proposed 2.72% CPI fee increase, five vacant FTEs unfunded for 26–27, updates to the restricted incentives fund and a six-year forecast, and plan revisions addressing tree canopy, truck routing (AB 98), and local jurisdiction comments. The meeting included public hearings, motions to approve actions, and a closed session with no reportable actions.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Good morning. We will call to order the April 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Sacramento Metropolitan
(00:09):
Air Quality Management District. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Aquino? Here.
Director Desmond? Here.
Director Dickinson? Here.
Director Guerra? Here.
Director Hume? Here.
Director Kennedy? Here.
Director Lopez-Taff? Here.
Director Pratton? Here.
(00:30):
Director Rodriguez? Here.
Director Sander?
Director Serna?
Director Swinn? Here.
Director Vang?
We do not have quorum yet.
We also have Director Middleton here on behalf of
Director Lopez-Taff.
Okay.
Are we getting close?
(00:52):
I think we got it.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
We got it? Yes.
Okay. Perfect. If you would all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(01:18):
Alright. Selina, if you would please read the board clerk announcements.
Yes.
Members of the public are encouraged to observe the meeting in real time at metro14live.saccounty.gov.
Participate in person via Zoom video or teleconference line and by submitting written comments to boardclerk at airquality.org.
(01:42):
Comments will be delivered to the Board of Directors.
Public comments regarding matters under the jurisdiction of the Board of Directors will be acknowledged by the Chairperson,
distributed to the Board of Directors and included in the record.
This meeting of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District is live and recorded with closed captioning.
It is cablecast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on Comcast and direct TVU versus cable systems.
(02:06):
Today's meeting replays on Saturday, April 25, 2026 at 2 p.m. on Metro Cable Channel 14.
Thank you very much.
We are going to be taking things a little bit out of order today just to ensure we can get our business done with the quorum.
But we will start with the consent calendar.
Do I have any questions from any of my colleagues on the consent calendar?
(02:28):
Seeing none, do we have any public comment on the consent calendar?
Not at this time, Chair. I'll move consent.
Second.
Alright, and we have everybody in chamber today, so all in favor please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed? Abstained?
Okay, that takes care of the consent calendar.
Moving on to item 6.2, fiscal year 26-27 proposed budget and fee schedule.
(02:50):
Good morning, Patty.
Good morning, Chair Aquino, members of the board.
My name is Patty Kepner.
I'm the controller for the district, and I'll be presenting the fiscal year 26-27 proposed budget and fee schedule today.
This is the first of two public hearings for our budget process.
We have a very straightforward agenda today.
(03:16):
I'll be going over the proposed budget at a high level for the general fund, which has most of our operating activities in there,
our general revenues, salary, wages, benefits, capital, professional services, etc.
And then I'll be briefly looking at the building fund, and then finally the restricted revenues fund,
which is what houses our incentives for the public.
(03:42):
Then we'll look at the proposed 26-27 fee schedule for stationary sources fees, and then finally we have recommended board actions.
Every year we try to improve the way that we put the budget together in our planning process to make sure that it's streamlined,
and this year we really did a deep dive into the budget to make sure that every single expenditure
(04:04):
and every revenue was looked at for every account, every department, every division,
and we really wanted to put together a realistic budget that totally supported our core operations and projects.
So basically we included essential expenditures, things at realistic amounts, lower priority items were excluded,
(04:26):
and we did include known cost increases so that we did have some contingency in there.
So the whole idea was the thoughtful balance of having some contingency without overbuilding the budget,
as well as making sure we had all the funds in there to support the goals for the district next year.
Just a little background on our budget so you get an understanding of where our revenue and expenditures come from.
(04:52):
So for our revenue in the general fund, we have about 75% of our revenue is coming from what I call stable sources.
So it's stationary sources fees at that 42%, DMV at about 20%, and DMV is authorized through 2034, and we expect that to be extended.
And then we have Measure A, which is related to the county sales tax, a little under 10%, and that is effective through 2039.
(05:18):
So we have a stable base for those three sources, and then we have our grants.
So you can see we're not overly dependent upon grants.
For example, for federal grants, it's a smaller percentage than that, actually less than 8%.
And then we have state grants, and then the other is primarily interest income.
So diversified base, over 70% stable, that each one does not adjust to inflation.
(05:47):
Only really the stationary sources does.
So on the expenditure side, it's probably pretty common that we have about 75% of our expenses related to employee services,
which are employee salary, wages, and then the employee benefits.
Most of our benefit dollars relate to retiree benefit contributions, not retiree, but the district contributions for retirement,
(06:11):
and then our health insurance premiums that the district contributes for employees.
Services and supplies, a little less than 20%, and that would be our public outreach, our professional services, capital, rent.
All the things that make the district operate are included in that category.
And then capital is a very small percentage,
(06:32):
and that relates to capital expenditures for our air monitoring stations and lab equipment,
air monitoring equipment, and some information systems capital.
So since the employee services piece is such a large portion of our budget,
spend a moment here on what we're expecting for staffing strategy.
So for the fiscal year 25-26 approved FTE staffing, we have 105.8, and we're actually planning 101 for 26-27.
(07:02):
That's what our proposal is.
So we reduced five FTE positions in the budget.
In other words, we didn't fund it.
And those are vacant positions right now, and we don't have any plans to fill them in fiscal year 26-27.
And I did want to emphasize that they are approved positions.
So if we do need them, they are approved.
They would just need to be funded from other sources.
(07:27):
Cost of living is 2.9.
This includes the class and comp market adjustments,
and then it also includes the internal restructure for the new division,
the Office of Community Air Protection and Monitoring, with no overall impact on FTE.
So the notable changes in the budget are revenues are increasing, primarily for stationary sources fees.
(07:48):
There's a CPI adjustment of 2.72 percent.
And then interest is also increasing year over year.
And then our expenditures, the increase, as I said, is in employee services.
It's the COLA.
The retirement and group insurance contributions actually are increasing at a rate higher than COLA,
which I'm sure you see elsewhere.
Those continue to march on at a higher rate.
(08:10):
And then the decreases in expenditures are professional services.
We have grants that are at different points in their development,
so they perhaps don't need as much professional services support.
And then our area software project is nearing completion, so we have less investment in that for next year.
And then finally, rent.
We've refined our allocation of rent to the district,
(08:32):
and we're charging that based on occupied square footage,
and the vacant square footage remains in the building.
So here's the budget table, as I call it.
So the columns here are we have the 25-26 approved budget, the 25-26 projected year-end finish,
and we do that as part of the budget process.
(08:53):
And then the fiscal year 26-27 proposed is in green.
So we are proposing 26.9 in revenue for the general fund, 28.6 million of expenditures.
And so that is a use of fund balance of 1.7 million.
Our ending fund balance is 27.7 million projected at the end of the year,
and that is well above our required reserve balance of 120 days of expenditures being funded in the general fund.
(09:20):
So we were very pleased with the outcome of this budget, seeing that we do have the revenue increasing,
and we've kept our expenditures flat year over year.
Just a couple comments on the building fund.
It's a much smaller fund than the general or the restricted revenue fund.
So the building is still listed for sale and or lease.
(09:44):
I shouldn't say and, probably just or lease of the vacant space.
And our budget assumes that there is no sale or any tenant.
So it's conservative in that nature.
And again, I mentioned the district is being charged for occupied space, not for the vacant space.
Expenditures are not changing materially.
And then just that note down there, we do have our final payment on our certificates of participation,
(10:09):
which is our debt on the building, and that's going to be paid off next year in 26-27.
So that's very good news.
Here's the budget table for the buildings.
You can see it's much smaller.
I'll just focus on the proposed in the green.
So you see we have 634,000 of revenue proposed, which is rent revenue,
and then 975,000 of expense for use of fund balance of 342,000,
(10:35):
and then a little under $6 million in fund balance.
And again, that fund balance is well above our required reserve balance.
Moving on to the restricted revenue fund.
And I did want to make a comment just to describe the restricted revenue transactions.
And so we get revenue primarily from state grants up front.
(10:59):
They are not reimbursement grants.
So we will get those monies within two years of authorization.
And then we have a period of time after that to get those incentives to the community.
So there's normal variation in that.
And I think right now our two main state grants, state-related grants, have eight years to make those expenditures.
So there's the advance payment, and then we have the expenditures coming after that.
(11:22):
So you'll see peaks and valleys, normal variation in that account.
Besides our heavy-duty vehicle programs, you can see in the second bullet point the other programs
that will be a key focus on the incentives fund for this year,
and I think we've heard about those at recent meetings.
And then we had a pretty big adjustment to interest income
(11:44):
when we took a look at historical trends and forecasting on that,
so we did include that in the budget.
So here's the budget table for the restricted revenue fund.
Again, on the green highlight there, we're proposing $22 million of revenue.
That's new awards coming in.
$26.5 of expenditures going out to the community for use of fund balance of $4.5 million.
(12:06):
That leaves us with an ending fund balance slightly under $76 million.
And I did want to make a comment on that.
That fund balance has grown over the past few years,
primarily because of those dynamics of getting the advance payments up front
with the expenditures coming after that.
And many of the projects that we currently have in the queue are infrastructure-type projects
(12:27):
or greening projects which take longer to develop,
and they usually are paid toward the end of the project versus at the front of the project.
So that's a little bit on that.
We did take a look at a forecast on that restricted revenue balance.
This is the fund balance, to say where do we think that's going to end up over the next
(12:48):
and this is a six-year forecast.
So what we're looking at here is a continual use of fund balance
and wanted to make you aware of that.
Through the time period here with an ending fund balance forecasted at about $44 million.
And that balance is probably where we would pretty much stay flat and consistent with
(13:10):
because it represents about two years of grant funding.
So it's kind of the working capital we need to fund the projects that are in the queue.
So that's the value or the amount of fund balance we're targeting at this point
for the restricted revenues fund.
Putting the funds all together, this is the roll-up.
So we, with our general, our building fund, which we also call proprietary,
(13:34):
the restricted revenue, we have revenues of $49.6 million proposed, expenditures of $56.1,
a use of fund balance of $6.5 million primarily out of the restricted revenue fund,
and then a projected fund balance of $109.6,
which is very healthy in our fund balance at the end of 2027.
(13:55):
So that concludes the review of the budget.
Just a moment on the proposed fee schedule.
We do adjust our stationary sources fees, the fees that are allowed to be adjusted
based on our rules by a standard CPI index.
And that is 2.72% is the proposed increase, effective July 1, 2026.
(14:16):
And it's of note that this is the lowest increase we've had in the last five years.
So it's, again, it's our practice to adjust the fees by our CPI index each year.
With that, the summary is we're proposing a sound and balanced budget for 26-27,
and one that makes sure that we can fund our core operations and projects.
(14:40):
So the recommended board actions are to open and close the public hearing
on the fiscal year 26-27 proposed budget and fee schedule,
provide direction to staff regarding the development of the final budget,
and set the public hearing for the adoption of the fiscal year 26-27 budget
and fee schedule for May 28, 2026.
And that concludes my presentation.
(15:03):
I'm happy to take any questions you may have at this point.
Thank you, Patty.
Any questions or feedback for Patty?
I have no request to speak at this time.
Okay.
Then we'll go ahead and open the public hearing.
Do we have any requests to speak?
I don't see anyone.
We will close the public hearing.
(15:25):
I'll entertain a motion.
I will move the recommended action.
Thank you.
Do we have a second?
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstained?
Okay.
Thank you, Patty.
No, thank you.
All right.
We're going to go very quickly back to the consent calendar.
We have people coming to this meeting just because they love what we're
doing, even if they're not on the board.
(15:47):
Councilmember Middleton is not the approved member or alternate for the
City of Citrus Heights.
So without her, we did not have a quorum when we passed the consent calendar.
So we need to redo that.
I'll move consent.
Thank you.
Second.
All right.
All in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
(16:08):
Abstained?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
We are going to move to closed session now.
And then we will come back and do the rest of the items after that.
Thank you.
If I can have all board members go to the conference room.
Got it.
Okay.
It's not on.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
We have nothing to report out from closed session.
(16:35):
Selina, I believe that takes us to Item 6.1.
Vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts calendar year 2025.
Who is that?
Denise?
We have Denise Booth in chamber to take a presentation.
Good morning.
(16:58):
Chair Aquino and members of the board.
My name is Denise Booth.
I'm the HR officer for the district,
and I'm here to talk about AB2561, vacancy and recruitment and retention
efforts.
So per the Myers-Mellius-Brown Act,
public agencies must annually report at a public hearing on items involving
vacancy status, when you describe our ongoing recruitment and retention
(17:22):
efforts, and then outline any policy or procedure changes that may impact
hiring.
This all needs to be done prior to the adoption of the budget,
and the Sacramento Air District Employees Association, SADIA,
was asked if they'd like to present today,
and they respectfully declined, but they are given the opportunity to do
so.
(17:43):
So at the end of 2025, we had eight vacancies.
Seven were in the SADIA general unit for a vacancy rate of 9.7%,
and one was in the supervisory unit for a vacancy rate of 6.3.
Considering our unrepresented positions,
we have 106 of those positions in 2025 with eight vacancies,
(18:06):
so a vacancy rate of 7.5% overall for the organization.
And you may be asking yourselves, what were those eight vacancies?
Well, we had two because of internal promotions.
Two were new positions not yet filled,
and four were vacant due to typical employee turnover.
And as Patty Kepner reported earlier, of those eight vacant positions,
(18:29):
five are recommended to be unfunded for the 26-27 budget year.
And since we're reporting for 2025,
I will note that the one supervisory vacancy has since been filled
internally with a promotion,
and the three remaining vacancies are currently being recruited.
The district does not anticipate any change to the recruitment
(18:50):
or hiring process.
The process includes an approved request to fill by Dr. Ayala,
a lateral transfer posting period, external posting if we need to,
multi-round interview process, background and reference checks,
and then, of course, a job offer.
So in 2025, we only had two recruitments.
It was the lightest recruitment year since I've been with the district,
(19:13):
and the time to fill for those was the average of 57 days.
And our retention efforts focus on maintaining competitive salaries
and benefits, fostering open and transparent communication,
offering hybrid work schedules, supporting training
and career development opportunities,
and then, of course, strong forward-thinking leadership to guide us.
(19:34):
So these efforts contribute to a stable and experienced workforce
for the district.
Forty-three percent of our employees have been with the district
for more than 15 years.
Our average tenure with the district is 12 years.
So with all of that, we don't anticipate any changes
to our recruitment process this next year.
That's the extent of my presentation.
Do you have any questions for me?
(19:55):
Thank you, Denise.
Any questions for Denise?
Okay.
We will open the public hearing.
Do we have any requests to speak?
Okay.
Then we will close the public hearing.
And that's it.
We don't need to take any action, correct?
Okay.
Thank you, Denise.
All right.
That takes us to Item 7.1,
Public Comments on Draft Community Emissions Reduction Program.
(20:18):
Janice.
Great.
Good morning, Chair Aquino and members of the board.
My name is Janice Lambsnyder,
Director of the Community Air Protection Program.
Today I'm going to be doing our presentation
with Mr. Paul Philly here.
We're going to be tag-teaming the presentation.
He's going to be addressing some local jurisdiction comments.
(20:39):
So for the past few months,
we've been bringing you pieces of the Community Air Emission Reduction Plan.
And today we're going to narrowly focus on the public comments
that we received on that plan and how we've addressed them.
Next slide, please.
(21:10):
So I just wanted to give a broad overview of the total comments that we received.
It was 98 comments over 19 submissions.
They came in in various different forms through a public workshop,
through emailed letters and emails from the public in general.
So some general comments that we got,
(21:32):
we did get a lot of support for the plan.
And a lot of them were supporting the tree canopy
as well as safe and resilient streets.
We also did get one comment of opposition
that was providing some concern on the funding allocations
for tree canopy in relative to other priorities.
(21:55):
And so the comment also expressed a concern
that it did not represent community priorities
and suggested that we restart the process.
We did have this conversation with our Steering Committee members
for this one particular comment.
And the Steering Committee did reaffirm
(22:17):
that they've done a lot of work with the community
and they do feel that that does represent community priorities
and it remains a priority for them.
In addition to that, the funding allocation comment
was addressed through the conversation of...
(22:40):
There was concerns about whether or not they were going...
Whether or not that particular funding was...
The concern was whether or not the city...
That there were other... Sorry.
That there were challenges,
that there were similar efforts in the county
(23:01):
and the city for tree canopy.
And that historically it's been a challenge
for these jurisdictions and partners
to maintain the survivability of the tree canopy.
And there are specific provisions in our grant programs
that does allow to support infrastructure
(23:23):
and support survivability of these trees.
And so we were able to talk through that
with the Steering Committee
and they felt like that had addressed the comment.
And Janice, quick question.
The comment in opposition,
that organization had representation
on the Steering Committee, correct?
Correct.
And their representative supported the communities program?
(23:47):
The representative was there to develop the strategies.
They had maintained a abstained vote for the plan.
OK, thank you.
All right.
There were other questions, other comments
such as clarifying questions on technical chapters
such as like, can you share with us
how you got the foundation for economic growth and population?
(24:14):
There was also some thoughts from the Steering Committee
about including co-benefits of the strategies
in addition to direct emission reductions.
And then there was some questions
on how can residents and community organizations
continue to participate
in supporting the implementation of the plan.
(24:39):
Some specific comments on strategies.
As I expressed, there was lots of support
for increasing tree canopies, safe and resilient streets.
There was also some questions on
how are we going to implement
the increasing tree canopy strategy?
How are we going to track,
(25:00):
have a good tracking mechanism?
What are some of the metrics?
And so I think how we were able to address that
is that because the funding and the projects
have not yet identified, there will be mechanisms
during the implementation process to identify
and hold the project partners
to identifying those metrics as well.
(25:22):
There were other, the last three here
was about school idling enforcement.
There is a strategy in the plan
that talks about reducing idling in schools.
And there was some encouragement from the public on,
hey, signs are great, but is there any way
for there to be actual enforcement
of idling around schools?
(25:45):
Idling in general, like duty idling, is permissible.
And so we will be working very closely
with the school to identify
to see if there's other possible ways
of encouraging non-idling in those areas.
There was also a comment on bus stop modifications.
(26:06):
And the comment was about that there may be
more efficient ways of doing the bus stop lines
where there may be less bus stops
to make it more efficient.
And there's lots and lots of things
that I think goes into SACRT's plan
(26:27):
in terms of how they decide how many bus stops.
And so we had encouraged the community member.
And as we're working with RT, sharing with these,
sharing with them the concerns
that were brought up during this process.
And then the last one I have here
is identifications of additional partners.
(26:48):
So in the plan, there's an area
where we've identified certain partners
for each of the different strategies.
And there wanted to be some space on
are there additional opportunities
for partners to join us?
And the answer is absolutely that there is.
These are the ones that I think
are currently initially identified.
(27:09):
But there's certainly opportunities
as we're implementing the plan
to bring in these partners to join us in this effort.
With that, I'm going to pass it to Mr. Philly
to talk about comments from local jurisdictions.
Thank you.
Paul Philly, Transportation and Climate Change.
The vast majority of total comments
(27:30):
did come from the local jurisdictions,
City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento,
City of Elk Grove.
And we really, really wanted to make sure
that this community plan
that crosses so many different boundaries
included everybody who has some authority
or say or implementation process
so that this can be a very cohesive
(27:51):
and implementable plan.
A big part of that was identifying
all of the efforts that are happening
over the next five years,
such as climate action plans,
community development plans, corridor plans,
transit plans, those pieces,
and making sure that those were included
into the SERP and that they all work together.
There was a lot of commitments to collaboration.
(28:13):
And I do want to say that City, County,
and Elk Grove City staff
spent a lot of time and effort
in making sure that the different department heads
and different authorities were aware
of what was going on
and making sure that the plan worked
with those upcoming events.
Probably the biggest change that happened
(28:34):
between draft and what is before you
is AB 98, which is a state law
that looks at warehouse and truck routing
and making sure that our timeline
for having the community look at this
lines up with state mandates
and the City and County and Elk Grove's work on this.
(28:56):
And so the steering committee did vote
to change that timeline
so that we're going to be moving up
the AB 98 truck study
to be consistent with County, City,
and Elk Grove processes
and trying to do that
in a more community-wide focus
instead of just within our individual lines
on a page.
(29:17):
There is also a lot of discussion
about the 50% tree canopy goal
in the sense that not every location
can support 50% tree canopy,
and in some places you want higher,
in some places it's lower.
And so we added in flexibility
because we know that differently,
like you do not want tree canopy
(29:38):
over a soccer field, as an example.
So we're looking at the extent feasible
and making sure that the locations selected
are appropriate to community plans,
to the jurisdictional guidelines,
making sure that there's going to be
appropriate maintenance procedures,
and it's consistent with the Urban Forestry Master Plan
that the City of Sacramento has recently passed
and the one that the County is currently working on.
(30:02):
And with that, I will ask for the next slide
and I will kick it back over to Director Lamb-Snyder.
All right, so with the 98 comments that we received,
there were a few main updates based on the comments.
First, all the comments and the responses
were shared with the Steering Committee
(30:24):
and a lot of them were discussed.
And so what we did was that we added
an executive summary of the strategy
so that we can get to the point for the community
up front in the plan.
We have also listed targets
for listing all the co-benefits of the strategies.
As Paul had mentioned, we merged two strategies into one
(30:47):
to get into alignment with the timing of AB 98.
And along with that, we reallocated the incentive funding
to the truck route study strategy.
So the final draft of the SERP
(31:08):
is going to come before you at the May board meeting.
And as I mentioned, we've discussed it
with the Steering Committee, made updates
and it's gonna be coming.
It was approved by the Steering Committee in March
and we'll be bringing it to you for board action next month.
With that, I'll conclude our presentation.
(31:30):
Thank you very much.
Vice Chair Maple.
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you so much for the presentation.
I know we had more detailed comments on this
in a previous board meeting, so I won't go into depth,
but I just wanted to really appreciate you
and the staff for working with the city of Sacramento
on the comments in our letter.
And I heard from the staff that they were really pleased
(31:51):
with the teamwork and that.
So I'm looking forward to that
and appreciate all the work on this.
All right, thank you.
I don't see any other requests to speak.
So thank you both.
And we will move on
to the Air Pollution Control Officer's Report.
Thank you.
I'll make my remarks quick.
And looking forward to May and having the final SERP
(32:13):
so that we can pass it on to the state.
A couple of meetings ago,
Director Rodriguez asked for some information
on air pollution and public health.
And our communications office put together
a very nice accessible flyer for you all.
You should have it in your packets.
Put it on your social media, on your websites,
take it to your community events.
(32:35):
It's meant to be accessible.
But the bottom line is the evidence is pretty compelling
and fairly well established.
Air pollution and noses don't mix.
And to the extent that you can reduce that,
it's a good thing.
And then the next thing I want to comment to you
(32:56):
simply because it literally just came out yesterday.
The American Lung Association
has been doing for 27 years
a state of the air report.
And I think it's a wonderful piece
simply because it raises awareness
across California and the U.S.
about the importance of controlling air pollution
(33:19):
for public health.
I particularly like this one because,
and they gracefully invited me to be on a press event
when they released this a couple days ago,
but I particularly like this one
because when it comes to ozone pollution,
the Sacramento region, the greater region,
we drop to number 17 on the list
of the worst air pollution in the country.
(33:42):
You may recall that we had been as high as 5 at one point.
So now we're 17.
And then on the list of particle pollution,
we're not even on them.
So again, to me is again just a testament
of what we can continue to do with your support
and obviously the region, the businesses and the residents.
(34:03):
So I just wanted to highlight that for you.
You're going to read about it in the news
if you haven't already seen that.
So that concludes my APCR report.
Thank you.
Director Rodriguez.
Director Ayala, I just want to say
how much I appreciate this.
I think educating the public is really important
because oftentimes people don't realize
the correlation of how we live our lives
(34:24):
has so much to do with our health.
And even now that I've been more, I think,
exposed to environmental cancers that affect people.
And so I will definitely take this to my community meetings
and share that.
I share that with our constituents.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Director Gatta.
Yeah, thank you.
(34:45):
And then I appreciate you participating
in the press conference.
One thing that I would ask is that particularly
when the Air District is speaking at different events,
to take a step forward and think about, you know,
is there a board member that fits
with that particular event?
For example, if we're talking about particulates
(35:06):
and it has to do with ag industry,
well then maybe we want to look at some of our board members
from either Galt or Elk Grove or the South County or whatnot.
Or if it has to do
with the industrial manufacturing area or whatnot.
I think that adding that voice from a local perspective
(35:28):
with the scientists I think is important.
So that's all.
Chair.
Thank you.
Director Suen.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to add a point of emphasis.
I agree with everything my colleagues just said
and just want to, you know,
emphasize that air quality drives everything.
When we talk about transportation plans,
we look at our land use plans.
It's all, you know, for our residents looking at home,
(35:50):
it's all to meet air quality standards and goals.
And Director Rodriguez really hit the nose on the head
about our health and the rise in cancer rates
and things that are affected by this.
So the importance of your work can't be overstated.
But I also want to take the opportunity to thank you
and express our appreciation in the way
(36:12):
that you're trying to implement these policies
that can not harm everyday businesses and households.
And so that balancing act is very tough.
And so we appreciate your work in all this.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you very much.
That concludes the comments.
That takes us to item number 10,
board ideas, comments, and AB 1234 reports.
(36:34):
Does anyone have anything to share?
Seeing none, that takes us to item 11.
Selena, any requests for public comment for items
not on the agenda?
Okay.
Thank you.
Then we will adjourn at 1018.
Thank you, everyone.
Good morning. We will call to order the April 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Sacramento Metropolitan
(00:09):
Air Quality Management District. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Aquino? Here.
Director Desmond? Here.
Director Dickinson? Here.
Director Guerra? Here.
Director Hume? Here.
Director Kennedy? Here.
Director Lopez-Taff? Here.
Director Pratton? Here.
(00:30):
Director Rodriguez? Here.
Director Sander?
Director Serna?
Director Swinn? Here.
Director Vang?
We do not have quorum yet.
We also have Director Middleton here on behalf of
Director Lopez-Taff.
Okay.
Are we getting close?
(00:52):
I think we got it.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
We got it? Yes.
Okay. Perfect. If you would all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(01:18):
Alright. Selina, if you would please read the board clerk announcements.
Yes.
Members of the public are encouraged to observe the meeting in real time at metro14live.saccounty.gov.
Participate in person via Zoom video or teleconference line and by submitting written comments to boardclerk at airquality.org.
(01:42):
Comments will be delivered to the Board of Directors.
Public comments regarding matters under the jurisdiction of the Board of Directors will be acknowledged by the Chairperson,
distributed to the Board of Directors and included in the record.
This meeting of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District is live and recorded with closed captioning.
It is cablecast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on Comcast and direct TVU versus cable systems.
(02:06):
Today's meeting replays on Saturday, April 25, 2026 at 2 p.m. on Metro Cable Channel 14.
Thank you very much.
We are going to be taking things a little bit out of order today just to ensure we can get our business done with the quorum.
But we will start with the consent calendar.
Do I have any questions from any of my colleagues on the consent calendar?
(02:28):
Seeing none, do we have any public comment on the consent calendar?
Not at this time, Chair. I'll move consent.
Second.
Alright, and we have everybody in chamber today, so all in favor please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed? Abstained?
Okay, that takes care of the consent calendar.
Moving on to item 6.2, fiscal year 26-27 proposed budget and fee schedule.
(02:50):
Good morning, Patty.
Good morning, Chair Aquino, members of the board.
My name is Patty Kepner.
I'm the controller for the district, and I'll be presenting the fiscal year 26-27 proposed budget and fee schedule today.
This is the first of two public hearings for our budget process.
We have a very straightforward agenda today.
(03:16):
I'll be going over the proposed budget at a high level for the general fund, which has most of our operating activities in there,
our general revenues, salary, wages, benefits, capital, professional services, etc.
And then I'll be briefly looking at the building fund, and then finally the restricted revenues fund,
which is what houses our incentives for the public.
(03:42):
Then we'll look at the proposed 26-27 fee schedule for stationary sources fees, and then finally we have recommended board actions.
Every year we try to improve the way that we put the budget together in our planning process to make sure that it's streamlined,
and this year we really did a deep dive into the budget to make sure that every single expenditure
(04:04):
and every revenue was looked at for every account, every department, every division,
and we really wanted to put together a realistic budget that totally supported our core operations and projects.
So basically we included essential expenditures, things at realistic amounts, lower priority items were excluded,
(04:26):
and we did include known cost increases so that we did have some contingency in there.
So the whole idea was the thoughtful balance of having some contingency without overbuilding the budget,
as well as making sure we had all the funds in there to support the goals for the district next year.
Just a little background on our budget so you get an understanding of where our revenue and expenditures come from.
(04:52):
So for our revenue in the general fund, we have about 75% of our revenue is coming from what I call stable sources.
So it's stationary sources fees at that 42%, DMV at about 20%, and DMV is authorized through 2034, and we expect that to be extended.
And then we have Measure A, which is related to the county sales tax, a little under 10%, and that is effective through 2039.
(05:18):
So we have a stable base for those three sources, and then we have our grants.
So you can see we're not overly dependent upon grants.
For example, for federal grants, it's a smaller percentage than that, actually less than 8%.
And then we have state grants, and then the other is primarily interest income.
So diversified base, over 70% stable, that each one does not adjust to inflation.
(05:47):
Only really the stationary sources does.
So on the expenditure side, it's probably pretty common that we have about 75% of our expenses related to employee services,
which are employee salary, wages, and then the employee benefits.
Most of our benefit dollars relate to retiree benefit contributions, not retiree, but the district contributions for retirement,
(06:11):
and then our health insurance premiums that the district contributes for employees.
Services and supplies, a little less than 20%, and that would be our public outreach, our professional services, capital, rent.
All the things that make the district operate are included in that category.
And then capital is a very small percentage,
(06:32):
and that relates to capital expenditures for our air monitoring stations and lab equipment,
air monitoring equipment, and some information systems capital.
So since the employee services piece is such a large portion of our budget,
spend a moment here on what we're expecting for staffing strategy.
So for the fiscal year 25-26 approved FTE staffing, we have 105.8, and we're actually planning 101 for 26-27.
(07:02):
That's what our proposal is.
So we reduced five FTE positions in the budget.
In other words, we didn't fund it.
And those are vacant positions right now, and we don't have any plans to fill them in fiscal year 26-27.
And I did want to emphasize that they are approved positions.
So if we do need them, they are approved.
They would just need to be funded from other sources.
(07:27):
Cost of living is 2.9.
This includes the class and comp market adjustments,
and then it also includes the internal restructure for the new division,
the Office of Community Air Protection and Monitoring, with no overall impact on FTE.
So the notable changes in the budget are revenues are increasing, primarily for stationary sources fees.
(07:48):
There's a CPI adjustment of 2.72 percent.
And then interest is also increasing year over year.
And then our expenditures, the increase, as I said, is in employee services.
It's the COLA.
The retirement and group insurance contributions actually are increasing at a rate higher than COLA,
which I'm sure you see elsewhere.
Those continue to march on at a higher rate.
(08:10):
And then the decreases in expenditures are professional services.
We have grants that are at different points in their development,
so they perhaps don't need as much professional services support.
And then our area software project is nearing completion, so we have less investment in that for next year.
And then finally, rent.
We've refined our allocation of rent to the district,
(08:32):
and we're charging that based on occupied square footage,
and the vacant square footage remains in the building.
So here's the budget table, as I call it.
So the columns here are we have the 25-26 approved budget, the 25-26 projected year-end finish,
and we do that as part of the budget process.
(08:53):
And then the fiscal year 26-27 proposed is in green.
So we are proposing 26.9 in revenue for the general fund, 28.6 million of expenditures.
And so that is a use of fund balance of 1.7 million.
Our ending fund balance is 27.7 million projected at the end of the year,
and that is well above our required reserve balance of 120 days of expenditures being funded in the general fund.
(09:20):
So we were very pleased with the outcome of this budget, seeing that we do have the revenue increasing,
and we've kept our expenditures flat year over year.
Just a couple comments on the building fund.
It's a much smaller fund than the general or the restricted revenue fund.
So the building is still listed for sale and or lease.
(09:44):
I shouldn't say and, probably just or lease of the vacant space.
And our budget assumes that there is no sale or any tenant.
So it's conservative in that nature.
And again, I mentioned the district is being charged for occupied space, not for the vacant space.
Expenditures are not changing materially.
And then just that note down there, we do have our final payment on our certificates of participation,
(10:09):
which is our debt on the building, and that's going to be paid off next year in 26-27.
So that's very good news.
Here's the budget table for the buildings.
You can see it's much smaller.
I'll just focus on the proposed in the green.
So you see we have 634,000 of revenue proposed, which is rent revenue,
and then 975,000 of expense for use of fund balance of 342,000,
(10:35):
and then a little under $6 million in fund balance.
And again, that fund balance is well above our required reserve balance.
Moving on to the restricted revenue fund.
And I did want to make a comment just to describe the restricted revenue transactions.
And so we get revenue primarily from state grants up front.
(10:59):
They are not reimbursement grants.
So we will get those monies within two years of authorization.
And then we have a period of time after that to get those incentives to the community.
So there's normal variation in that.
And I think right now our two main state grants, state-related grants, have eight years to make those expenditures.
So there's the advance payment, and then we have the expenditures coming after that.
(11:22):
So you'll see peaks and valleys, normal variation in that account.
Besides our heavy-duty vehicle programs, you can see in the second bullet point the other programs
that will be a key focus on the incentives fund for this year,
and I think we've heard about those at recent meetings.
And then we had a pretty big adjustment to interest income
(11:44):
when we took a look at historical trends and forecasting on that,
so we did include that in the budget.
So here's the budget table for the restricted revenue fund.
Again, on the green highlight there, we're proposing $22 million of revenue.
That's new awards coming in.
$26.5 of expenditures going out to the community for use of fund balance of $4.5 million.
(12:06):
That leaves us with an ending fund balance slightly under $76 million.
And I did want to make a comment on that.
That fund balance has grown over the past few years,
primarily because of those dynamics of getting the advance payments up front
with the expenditures coming after that.
And many of the projects that we currently have in the queue are infrastructure-type projects
(12:27):
or greening projects which take longer to develop,
and they usually are paid toward the end of the project versus at the front of the project.
So that's a little bit on that.
We did take a look at a forecast on that restricted revenue balance.
This is the fund balance, to say where do we think that's going to end up over the next
(12:48):
and this is a six-year forecast.
So what we're looking at here is a continual use of fund balance
and wanted to make you aware of that.
Through the time period here with an ending fund balance forecasted at about $44 million.
And that balance is probably where we would pretty much stay flat and consistent with
(13:10):
because it represents about two years of grant funding.
So it's kind of the working capital we need to fund the projects that are in the queue.
So that's the value or the amount of fund balance we're targeting at this point
for the restricted revenues fund.
Putting the funds all together, this is the roll-up.
So we, with our general, our building fund, which we also call proprietary,
(13:34):
the restricted revenue, we have revenues of $49.6 million proposed, expenditures of $56.1,
a use of fund balance of $6.5 million primarily out of the restricted revenue fund,
and then a projected fund balance of $109.6,
which is very healthy in our fund balance at the end of 2027.
(13:55):
So that concludes the review of the budget.
Just a moment on the proposed fee schedule.
We do adjust our stationary sources fees, the fees that are allowed to be adjusted
based on our rules by a standard CPI index.
And that is 2.72% is the proposed increase, effective July 1, 2026.
(14:16):
And it's of note that this is the lowest increase we've had in the last five years.
So it's, again, it's our practice to adjust the fees by our CPI index each year.
With that, the summary is we're proposing a sound and balanced budget for 26-27,
and one that makes sure that we can fund our core operations and projects.
(14:40):
So the recommended board actions are to open and close the public hearing
on the fiscal year 26-27 proposed budget and fee schedule,
provide direction to staff regarding the development of the final budget,
and set the public hearing for the adoption of the fiscal year 26-27 budget
and fee schedule for May 28, 2026.
And that concludes my presentation.
(15:03):
I'm happy to take any questions you may have at this point.
Thank you, Patty.
Any questions or feedback for Patty?
I have no request to speak at this time.
Okay.
Then we'll go ahead and open the public hearing.
Do we have any requests to speak?
I don't see anyone.
We will close the public hearing.
(15:25):
I'll entertain a motion.
I will move the recommended action.
Thank you.
Do we have a second?
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstained?
Okay.
Thank you, Patty.
No, thank you.
All right.
We're going to go very quickly back to the consent calendar.
We have people coming to this meeting just because they love what we're
doing, even if they're not on the board.
(15:47):
Councilmember Middleton is not the approved member or alternate for the
City of Citrus Heights.
So without her, we did not have a quorum when we passed the consent calendar.
So we need to redo that.
I'll move consent.
Thank you.
Second.
All right.
All in favor, please say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
(16:08):
Abstained?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
We are going to move to closed session now.
And then we will come back and do the rest of the items after that.
Thank you.
If I can have all board members go to the conference room.
Got it.
Okay.
It's not on.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
We have nothing to report out from closed session.
(16:35):
Selina, I believe that takes us to Item 6.1.
Vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts calendar year 2025.
Who is that?
Denise?
We have Denise Booth in chamber to take a presentation.
Good morning.
(16:58):
Chair Aquino and members of the board.
My name is Denise Booth.
I'm the HR officer for the district,
and I'm here to talk about AB2561, vacancy and recruitment and retention
efforts.
So per the Myers-Mellius-Brown Act,
public agencies must annually report at a public hearing on items involving
vacancy status, when you describe our ongoing recruitment and retention
(17:22):
efforts, and then outline any policy or procedure changes that may impact
hiring.
This all needs to be done prior to the adoption of the budget,
and the Sacramento Air District Employees Association, SADIA,
was asked if they'd like to present today,
and they respectfully declined, but they are given the opportunity to do
so.
(17:43):
So at the end of 2025, we had eight vacancies.
Seven were in the SADIA general unit for a vacancy rate of 9.7%,
and one was in the supervisory unit for a vacancy rate of 6.3.
Considering our unrepresented positions,
we have 106 of those positions in 2025 with eight vacancies,
(18:06):
so a vacancy rate of 7.5% overall for the organization.
And you may be asking yourselves, what were those eight vacancies?
Well, we had two because of internal promotions.
Two were new positions not yet filled,
and four were vacant due to typical employee turnover.
And as Patty Kepner reported earlier, of those eight vacant positions,
(18:29):
five are recommended to be unfunded for the 26-27 budget year.
And since we're reporting for 2025,
I will note that the one supervisory vacancy has since been filled
internally with a promotion,
and the three remaining vacancies are currently being recruited.
The district does not anticipate any change to the recruitment
(18:50):
or hiring process.
The process includes an approved request to fill by Dr. Ayala,
a lateral transfer posting period, external posting if we need to,
multi-round interview process, background and reference checks,
and then, of course, a job offer.
So in 2025, we only had two recruitments.
It was the lightest recruitment year since I've been with the district,
(19:13):
and the time to fill for those was the average of 57 days.
And our retention efforts focus on maintaining competitive salaries
and benefits, fostering open and transparent communication,
offering hybrid work schedules, supporting training
and career development opportunities,
and then, of course, strong forward-thinking leadership to guide us.
(19:34):
So these efforts contribute to a stable and experienced workforce
for the district.
Forty-three percent of our employees have been with the district
for more than 15 years.
Our average tenure with the district is 12 years.
So with all of that, we don't anticipate any changes
to our recruitment process this next year.
That's the extent of my presentation.
Do you have any questions for me?
(19:55):
Thank you, Denise.
Any questions for Denise?
Okay.
We will open the public hearing.
Do we have any requests to speak?
Okay.
Then we will close the public hearing.
And that's it.
We don't need to take any action, correct?
Okay.
Thank you, Denise.
All right.
That takes us to Item 7.1,
Public Comments on Draft Community Emissions Reduction Program.
(20:18):
Janice.
Great.
Good morning, Chair Aquino and members of the board.
My name is Janice Lambsnyder,
Director of the Community Air Protection Program.
Today I'm going to be doing our presentation
with Mr. Paul Philly here.
We're going to be tag-teaming the presentation.
He's going to be addressing some local jurisdiction comments.
(20:39):
So for the past few months,
we've been bringing you pieces of the Community Air Emission Reduction Plan.
And today we're going to narrowly focus on the public comments
that we received on that plan and how we've addressed them.
Next slide, please.
(21:10):
So I just wanted to give a broad overview of the total comments that we received.
It was 98 comments over 19 submissions.
They came in in various different forms through a public workshop,
through emailed letters and emails from the public in general.
So some general comments that we got,
(21:32):
we did get a lot of support for the plan.
And a lot of them were supporting the tree canopy
as well as safe and resilient streets.
We also did get one comment of opposition
that was providing some concern on the funding allocations
for tree canopy in relative to other priorities.
(21:55):
And so the comment also expressed a concern
that it did not represent community priorities
and suggested that we restart the process.
We did have this conversation with our Steering Committee members
for this one particular comment.
And the Steering Committee did reaffirm
(22:17):
that they've done a lot of work with the community
and they do feel that that does represent community priorities
and it remains a priority for them.
In addition to that, the funding allocation comment
was addressed through the conversation of...
(22:40):
There was concerns about whether or not they were going...
Whether or not that particular funding was...
The concern was whether or not the city...
That there were other... Sorry.
That there were challenges,
that there were similar efforts in the county
(23:01):
and the city for tree canopy.
And that historically it's been a challenge
for these jurisdictions and partners
to maintain the survivability of the tree canopy.
And there are specific provisions in our grant programs
that does allow to support infrastructure
(23:23):
and support survivability of these trees.
And so we were able to talk through that
with the Steering Committee
and they felt like that had addressed the comment.
And Janice, quick question.
The comment in opposition,
that organization had representation
on the Steering Committee, correct?
Correct.
And their representative supported the communities program?
(23:47):
The representative was there to develop the strategies.
They had maintained a abstained vote for the plan.
OK, thank you.
All right.
There were other questions, other comments
such as clarifying questions on technical chapters
such as like, can you share with us
how you got the foundation for economic growth and population?
(24:14):
There was also some thoughts from the Steering Committee
about including co-benefits of the strategies
in addition to direct emission reductions.
And then there was some questions
on how can residents and community organizations
continue to participate
in supporting the implementation of the plan.
(24:39):
Some specific comments on strategies.
As I expressed, there was lots of support
for increasing tree canopies, safe and resilient streets.
There was also some questions on
how are we going to implement
the increasing tree canopy strategy?
How are we going to track,
(25:00):
have a good tracking mechanism?
What are some of the metrics?
And so I think how we were able to address that
is that because the funding and the projects
have not yet identified, there will be mechanisms
during the implementation process to identify
and hold the project partners
to identifying those metrics as well.
(25:22):
There were other, the last three here
was about school idling enforcement.
There is a strategy in the plan
that talks about reducing idling in schools.
And there was some encouragement from the public on,
hey, signs are great, but is there any way
for there to be actual enforcement
of idling around schools?
(25:45):
Idling in general, like duty idling, is permissible.
And so we will be working very closely
with the school to identify
to see if there's other possible ways
of encouraging non-idling in those areas.
There was also a comment on bus stop modifications.
(26:06):
And the comment was about that there may be
more efficient ways of doing the bus stop lines
where there may be less bus stops
to make it more efficient.
And there's lots and lots of things
that I think goes into SACRT's plan
(26:27):
in terms of how they decide how many bus stops.
And so we had encouraged the community member.
And as we're working with RT, sharing with these,
sharing with them the concerns
that were brought up during this process.
And then the last one I have here
is identifications of additional partners.
(26:48):
So in the plan, there's an area
where we've identified certain partners
for each of the different strategies.
And there wanted to be some space on
are there additional opportunities
for partners to join us?
And the answer is absolutely that there is.
These are the ones that I think
are currently initially identified.
(27:09):
But there's certainly opportunities
as we're implementing the plan
to bring in these partners to join us in this effort.
With that, I'm going to pass it to Mr. Philly
to talk about comments from local jurisdictions.
Thank you.
Paul Philly, Transportation and Climate Change.
The vast majority of total comments
(27:30):
did come from the local jurisdictions,
City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento,
City of Elk Grove.
And we really, really wanted to make sure
that this community plan
that crosses so many different boundaries
included everybody who has some authority
or say or implementation process
so that this can be a very cohesive
(27:51):
and implementable plan.
A big part of that was identifying
all of the efforts that are happening
over the next five years,
such as climate action plans,
community development plans, corridor plans,
transit plans, those pieces,
and making sure that those were included
into the SERP and that they all work together.
There was a lot of commitments to collaboration.
(28:13):
And I do want to say that City, County,
and Elk Grove City staff
spent a lot of time and effort
in making sure that the different department heads
and different authorities were aware
of what was going on
and making sure that the plan worked
with those upcoming events.
Probably the biggest change that happened
(28:34):
between draft and what is before you
is AB 98, which is a state law
that looks at warehouse and truck routing
and making sure that our timeline
for having the community look at this
lines up with state mandates
and the City and County and Elk Grove's work on this.
(28:56):
And so the steering committee did vote
to change that timeline
so that we're going to be moving up
the AB 98 truck study
to be consistent with County, City,
and Elk Grove processes
and trying to do that
in a more community-wide focus
instead of just within our individual lines
on a page.
(29:17):
There is also a lot of discussion
about the 50% tree canopy goal
in the sense that not every location
can support 50% tree canopy,
and in some places you want higher,
in some places it's lower.
And so we added in flexibility
because we know that differently,
like you do not want tree canopy
(29:38):
over a soccer field, as an example.
So we're looking at the extent feasible
and making sure that the locations selected
are appropriate to community plans,
to the jurisdictional guidelines,
making sure that there's going to be
appropriate maintenance procedures,
and it's consistent with the Urban Forestry Master Plan
that the City of Sacramento has recently passed
and the one that the County is currently working on.
(30:02):
And with that, I will ask for the next slide
and I will kick it back over to Director Lamb-Snyder.
All right, so with the 98 comments that we received,
there were a few main updates based on the comments.
First, all the comments and the responses
were shared with the Steering Committee
(30:24):
and a lot of them were discussed.
And so what we did was that we added
an executive summary of the strategy
so that we can get to the point for the community
up front in the plan.
We have also listed targets
for listing all the co-benefits of the strategies.
As Paul had mentioned, we merged two strategies into one
(30:47):
to get into alignment with the timing of AB 98.
And along with that, we reallocated the incentive funding
to the truck route study strategy.
So the final draft of the SERP
(31:08):
is going to come before you at the May board meeting.
And as I mentioned, we've discussed it
with the Steering Committee, made updates
and it's gonna be coming.
It was approved by the Steering Committee in March
and we'll be bringing it to you for board action next month.
With that, I'll conclude our presentation.
(31:30):
Thank you very much.
Vice Chair Maple.
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you so much for the presentation.
I know we had more detailed comments on this
in a previous board meeting, so I won't go into depth,
but I just wanted to really appreciate you
and the staff for working with the city of Sacramento
on the comments in our letter.
And I heard from the staff that they were really pleased
(31:51):
with the teamwork and that.
So I'm looking forward to that
and appreciate all the work on this.
All right, thank you.
I don't see any other requests to speak.
So thank you both.
And we will move on
to the Air Pollution Control Officer's Report.
Thank you.
I'll make my remarks quick.
And looking forward to May and having the final SERP
(32:13):
so that we can pass it on to the state.
A couple of meetings ago,
Director Rodriguez asked for some information
on air pollution and public health.
And our communications office put together
a very nice accessible flyer for you all.
You should have it in your packets.
Put it on your social media, on your websites,
take it to your community events.
(32:35):
It's meant to be accessible.
But the bottom line is the evidence is pretty compelling
and fairly well established.
Air pollution and noses don't mix.
And to the extent that you can reduce that,
it's a good thing.
And then the next thing I want to comment to you
(32:56):
simply because it literally just came out yesterday.
The American Lung Association
has been doing for 27 years
a state of the air report.
And I think it's a wonderful piece
simply because it raises awareness
across California and the U.S.
about the importance of controlling air pollution
(33:19):
for public health.
I particularly like this one because,
and they gracefully invited me to be on a press event
when they released this a couple days ago,
but I particularly like this one
because when it comes to ozone pollution,
the Sacramento region, the greater region,
we drop to number 17 on the list
of the worst air pollution in the country.
(33:42):
You may recall that we had been as high as 5 at one point.
So now we're 17.
And then on the list of particle pollution,
we're not even on them.
So again, to me is again just a testament
of what we can continue to do with your support
and obviously the region, the businesses and the residents.
(34:03):
So I just wanted to highlight that for you.
You're going to read about it in the news
if you haven't already seen that.
So that concludes my APCR report.
Thank you.
Director Rodriguez.
Director Ayala, I just want to say
how much I appreciate this.
I think educating the public is really important
because oftentimes people don't realize
the correlation of how we live our lives
(34:24):
has so much to do with our health.
And even now that I've been more, I think,
exposed to environmental cancers that affect people.
And so I will definitely take this to my community meetings
and share that.
I share that with our constituents.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Director Gatta.
Yeah, thank you.
(34:45):
And then I appreciate you participating
in the press conference.
One thing that I would ask is that particularly
when the Air District is speaking at different events,
to take a step forward and think about, you know,
is there a board member that fits
with that particular event?
For example, if we're talking about particulates
(35:06):
and it has to do with ag industry,
well then maybe we want to look at some of our board members
from either Galt or Elk Grove or the South County or whatnot.
Or if it has to do
with the industrial manufacturing area or whatnot.
I think that adding that voice from a local perspective
(35:28):
with the scientists I think is important.
So that's all.
Chair.
Thank you.
Director Suen.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to add a point of emphasis.
I agree with everything my colleagues just said
and just want to, you know,
emphasize that air quality drives everything.
When we talk about transportation plans,
we look at our land use plans.
It's all, you know, for our residents looking at home,
(35:50):
it's all to meet air quality standards and goals.
And Director Rodriguez really hit the nose on the head
about our health and the rise in cancer rates
and things that are affected by this.
So the importance of your work can't be overstated.
But I also want to take the opportunity to thank you
and express our appreciation in the way
(36:12):
that you're trying to implement these policies
that can not harm everyday businesses and households.
And so that balancing act is very tough.
And so we appreciate your work in all this.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you very much.
That concludes the comments.
That takes us to item number 10,
board ideas, comments, and AB 1234 reports.
(36:34):
Does anyone have anything to share?
Seeing none, that takes us to item 11.
Selena, any requests for public comment for items
not on the agenda?
Okay.
Thank you.
Then we will adjourn at 1018.
Thank you, everyone.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.