Measure U advisory committee finalizes recommendations, strips library section and tasks ad hoc to send budget package to council

The Measure U Community Advisory Committee met April 7 in Sacramento and approved a set of FY 2026-27 budget recommendations after a day of debate over what should be held, reduced or reclassified in the Measure U spend plan. The panel voted to remove the draft libraries section, reframed language on outsourcing into a broader stewardship recommendation and authorized its ad hoc committee to finalize the recommendations and prepare presentation slides for the City Council’s Budget and Audit Committee.

The committee, chaired by Chair Georgiev and later presided by Chair Jerowsky during votes, began by agreeing on a streamlined process for the special meeting—brief remarks followed by quick votes—so members could focus detailed debate in ad hoc groups. “We’re going to move to voting almost like as fast as possible,” the chair said when explaining the meeting’s format.

Commissioners took several formal and informal votes. A motion to add an “elevate” list of exemplary programs to the executive summary — naming items such as participatory budgeting, the Ride Free youth transit pilot and the Office of Violence Prevention for continued funding — passed on roll call. The committee ultimately voted to delete the library section from the draft recommendations after members questioned the relative priority and cost of libraries in the Measure U portfolio.

On outsourcing, multiple commissioners argued that inserting prescriptive outsourcing language would overreach the committee’s remit and repeat municipal processes already in place; the body voted to reframe the paragraph into a recommendation that departments demonstrate stewardship of Measure U dollars and explore cost-efficiency measures (which could include partnerships or grants), rather than explicitly directing outsourcing.

The panel also discussed public-safety line items that fund youth-facing programs, such as the community service officer (CSO) and cadet pipeline. Several commissioners urged keeping the money but restructuring it into clearer categories so each program could be measured on distinct goals and outcomes.

Public comment included one speaker, Lambert, who criticized the absence of some departments from presentations and urged the committee to require in-person accountability. The committee debated whether departments should present in person for mid-year and annual reviews but did not adopt a strict in-person requirement; rather it emphasized improving reporting cadence and clarity.

After a sequence of votes on individual sections and line-item candidates for reduction, the committee authorized its Measure U ad hoc to finalize and forward the FY 2026-27 recommendations and slides to the City Council’s Budget and Audit Committee. The motion to authorize the ad hoc passed by roll call; a commissioner volunteered to present the package when it goes to the council committee.

The ad hoc was directed to reconcile the committee’s decisions — the executive-summary “elevate” list, the reframed stewardship language, and the reduced/restructured items the committee identified (notably some community development outreach and arts/programming items) — and to submit materials by the agreed deadline for the council review.