Progress.

All right, so good morning, everyone.

It's a bright Monday morning, December 8th, Health Committee.

Take the role.

Supervisor Town.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Present.

Right.

We have a three items on today's agenda.

Item number two has been pulled.

I guess we'll take that up next year, first part of next year, item two has been pulled.

We have items one, three, and four.

So let's start with item one.

Measure A1 fourth annual report.

Thank you, supervisors.

I appreciate the time on this committee's agenda.

We are presenting today for your consideration and hopeful that you will be forwarding it to the full board for adoption, the fourth measure A1 annual report.

This covers the period of July 2020 through June 2022.

Next slide.

As you know, and I'll just remind you that the Measure A1 passed with 73% of voter approval.

It requires an oversight committee and regular performance reports.

The fourth report covers this two-year progress period in our attempt to catch up on our annual reporting.

I will also let you know that we do have a website that has full up-to-date data, including uh financials and project performance.

Next slide.

The report covers an executive summary.

We continue to have our chapter called Bay Area Housing History, which looks at specific issues around housing in the Bay in Oakland and Alameda County.

And then we look at the two main programs, the rental program and the homeownership program, we do a deeper dive into accomplishments in each of those program areas.

And then the final chapter is generally the administration and financial expenditures to show what funds were spent and what staff accomplishments happened during that time period.

Next slide.

We wanted to just highlight that for the board to let you know that we took a look at everything that he did for the county as well as his commitment to housing and affordable housing and homeless issues.

Next slide, please.

During this reporting process, there were several delays, and I want to highlight that our current bylaws for the measure A1 oversight say that if a quorum is not met, the meeting must be canceled rather than turned into an informational meeting.

And because of that, over the last two years, we've had a very difficult time having a full committee meeting.

So we're gonna be proposing some bylaw changes to first this committee and then to the full board, actually, first to the oversight committee, then to this committee, and then to the full board that will allow us to meet even if we don't have a quorum.

That way information can be passed on to the members that are present, and we can continue to post things on the website and get the meeting out to the public, the information out to the public.

Next slide.

So during this period, we had 54 rental projects.

15 were in pre-development, 14 were under construction, and 25 were completed.

It was a total of over 3,900 affordable rental units.

And you know, we continue to highlight that the Measure A1 program generates $6 for from other funding sources for every one dollar of Measure A1 funding.

The other big thing that happened during this period was the launch of the doorway housing portal for Alameda County that allowed the single application period.

So that was a single application site for all residents that were interested in applying.

So that was exciting.

Next slide.

Under the two homeownership programs that we had up and running during this time period, we saw 173 homeowners assisted.

And you can see here some of the work that we did.

We had over 800 workshop attendees and 222 completed applications.

Our process was to work with first-time homebuyer organizations across the Bay Area.

Of course, we were looking for residents that lived or worked in Alameda County.

And so by working with you know folks in at the Richmond North Richmond C C and some other homeownership organizations, we were able to target folks that either lived or worked here, and 800 attendees ended up with 220 applications for the various lotteries that we held during that period.

Next slide.

And then during this period, we also acquired the two hotels with the state home key award, and we also used the acquisition fund to help us purchase those hotels.

And those started construction after this period, but we did run them as homeless shelters during the time from when we purchased them until construction started last year.

Next slide.

Since June of 2022, we have continued to see quite a few programs launch as well as more accomplishments.

So the homeownership program launched, and we have a habitat project in Hayward, the tax-defaulted properties program launched, and then we have our emerging pre-development, emerging developers pre-development loan program.

So you can see that we continued to implement the various innovation programs that we brought to this committee for approval.

Also in the rental development pipeline, we had a new project launched, so we had 55 projects completed, and a lot more of them got all the way through.

I think at the end of June of 2025, we had 46 completed projects.

So you can see that from 24 to 46 in that time period, really we get we get the units through the process.

Next slide.

One of the things that was really critical during the reporting period, which ended in June of 2022, is that COVID-19 really delayed our staffing.

And so since then we have fully staffed up, but there was a period during HCD's two years of 2020 to 2022 where we had over a 50% vacancy rate.

So that also slowed some of the implementation of programs.

But since then we've been fully staffed, and that's been a really big deal for us so that we could actually accomplish most of our work.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you.

A good update.

I know I have questions, but I always like to start with my esteemed colleague, Supervisor Lena.

Good morning, Chair Miley, and thank you for that presentation and summarizing all the achievements during this period.

I just had a couple questions because we in this committee have talked about trying to find a way to get like the measure C, measure W, and Measure A, the health committee, not the A1 part, consolidated into one committee, one oversight committee, and they meet more than just like once a year.

Is that something that would fit our work with A1 so that you could probably get some coordination because there seems to be some overlap with some of the work that's being done with measure W and potentially with Measure A1?

Well, Measure A1 meets four times a year, and uh during that two-year period since we started working on this report, we were only able to have a quorum in two of the four meetings.

So that was part of what slowed us down.

Um, this is a housing focused oversight committee.

Um, similar to the Measure A Oversight Committee, uh, the board appoints all of the folks, but there was a whole process that we went through to identify who should be on the Oversight Committee, and there is also city representation.

So several of the regions appoint someone to the committee.

So I'm not sure that it makes sense for us to completely abandon the A1 oversight uh process, and we'd have to take a look at that in more detail and report back to you.

So, what are you proposing in terms of trying to increase attendance so that you don't lose quorum?

Well, what we're what we're trying to do is change the bylaws so that informational meetings can be held, which is what we do in several other of our committees.

So it it we may not be able to have them take an action, but they can at least hear the item and give us feedback.

So that that is what we'd like to do is make that change to the bylaws and bring that to this to this committee for review.

Oh, so um, even if you didn't have a quorum, you could have a briefing as an informational item, and still hold the public meeting and still present the information, even if they can't take action on it without the quorum, the information is out with the public as well as with the committee members who are there.

Um in two of those cases, there was just one person missing, and I think it's a 11-member board, so it's still quite a few people that um that are there.

It's just you know, we had some vacancies, and we also had some folks not show.

Okay, thank you.

Um, can you refresh our memories about the home key funding uh that we used to acquire the two hotels over on EATS?

The 24 million dollars was was it a matching fund from Measure A1, or it was an acquisition that was um required by the state effort.

Both things are true.

Um, so uh in July and August of 2020, just as the pandemic hit, the state of California put out the home key um RFP process.

And so we applied uh for the first RFP that was ever released, and we submitted five different hotels that the county had leased and had options to purchase on through the leases that were negotiated with GSA.

The state of California selected two of our five applications, and those are the ones that we ended up purchasing, the ones out on EADS.

Uh, other sites that we submitted included one in Berkeley, one in Alameda, um, and another one in Oakland, which was not funded.

So we uh we we worked with what we had in that moment.

Um, the state did require that we have matching funds, and um we proposed to the board at that point in time that the op uh the acquisition and opportunity fund, the acquisition and innovation fund, sorry, which was a 35 million dollar fund that we divide it, put 10 million dollars into innovations, and uh 24 million dollars into or 25 million dollars into acquisition.

So uh the board uh made a decision in that moment to use the acquisition fund for the acquisition of these two hotels.

Um previously we had intended to create a revolving loan fund to do quick acquisitions, and we held an RFP and we selected the low-income investment fund to be the operator of that fund.

However, we couldn't reach agreement on the contract terms, and so at that point we were coming back to the board to suggest that we do another RFP, and instead we decided the board decided to use the funds on the acquisition of the hotels.

Did I know you said Oakland uh had also submitted an application?

The reason I'm asking is is this was unprecedented for the county to purchase the hotels and you know end up with a 50-year commitment to operate it.

Uh was there ever some discussion about um having the city of Oakland be the um the operator since they this is in the city of Oakland because since it's a county facility, it's not just Oakland residents that would be um I guess eligible.

And right now, a lot of the community-based organizations and the city of Oakland is trying to pursue home key funding to do exactly this again, and they're hoping to get matches from Measure W.

Um, so I was just trying to understand whether or not there's like some way in which this could be turned over to the city of Oakland.

We've not had a conversation with the city.

We have had conversations with the Oakland Housing Authority.

And they also have some significant issues with their current portfolio, and so they were not necessarily excited to take on this project, and so we haven't pursued that.

But we've not actually spoken with the city, and the city of Oakland has been very aggressive around going after home key properties.

I don't know the exact number, but they've probably got at least five, if not more, home key projects that they've already applied for and received.

So we can look at how many they're actually owning and operating in this moment, but um you know whether or not they'd want to take on these hotels.

I haven't had that conversation with the housing director.

So is uh the the reason I'm asking is uh these um home key applications that they're submitting that they're being very aggressive about.

Uh is there opportunities to match it with A1 or did they just have to rely on Measure W?

A one is fully committed except for the program income, which will be coming back to your board uh in January, hopefully.

Um all of those funds are committed to projects that are in the pipeline and being worked on right now.

There isn't a pot of funding that remains uncommitted.

Um, so we are tapped out in A1, except for that program income.

Um, as far as you know, the city is really wanting to leverage their dollars, they have Measure U, and their goal is of course, just like our goal, is to essentially bring in as many other resources as possible, and they're looking to Measure W to match and to lengthen out what they're doing with Measure U.

That's their goal, and that's their objective.

Okay, and is it the housing authority that tries to braid these?

Well, it's the city housing department, and they're working with private nonprofit um, you know, developers who own and operate the buildings.

They only in one or two cases I think are the actual owner operators.

So I'll have to take a look and see which are the ones they actually own versus which are the ones that are being sponsored by nonprofits.

Thank you.

And on these hotels that we acquired, obviously the acquisition costs it's one thing, but there's ongoing operation costs.

Do you have a recollection or estimate on the ongoing annual cost?

The ongoing annual cost for permanent supportive housing is significantly less than a shelter or a transitional unit.

And I, you know, what we are estimating for the operations of the building is different than the services for the building, but you can expect between 11 and 14,000 per unit per year, uh, per door per year in an operations cost.

I don't have the exact number for each hotel off the top of my head, and I can either Jonathan or I can bring that back to you.

The operating contracts are going to be running through H.

H went and was able to obtain uh federal continuum of care uh subsidies for these two buildings.

Unfortunately, as you know, there's a big shift going on with permanent supportive housing versus transitional housing.

Um it's unclear whether or not those resources will be available in the future.

I will say that in my, you know, since 1998 when I first started at the county, we've never seen a huge shift like this, and all of the continuum of care grants that we have gone after to support housing, have all stayed.

They've all been there for the last 25 years.

So this is a huge change away from you know standard practice, as I'm sure you remember Jonathan saying.

Right.

I recall um at the last work session, Jonathan did present uh the HUD funding and the continuum care and the gaps criteria, and also that we would be losing funding because we we have certain value like diversity equity and inclusion that is part of our programming.

Do we have a sense of how much we might have to back the at least for the hotels?

And our team doesn't have that information handy in terms of what our service commitments are for for the hotels, but we can get you that.

But I also just wanted to note that there are there's a few different flavors of the home key projects.

There's also ones where there are behavioral health service commitments, there's ones where there's PSH service commitments, and so we can we can uh follow up with you offline.

Okay, but in this situation, the city of Oakland's housing department you said braids these funds, or how how that's the coordination work with the county.

So each of the larger cities and the ones that had redevelopment agencies specifically have housing departments, and those housing departments have staff that work on the funds that each of those housing departments administer.

For the city of Oakland, the biggest source that they've had over the last several years is Measure U, which, like Measure A1 was a parcel tax, or general obligation bond, and a tax against real property.

So they've used those funds for several things, including street infrastructure and other improvements to public facilities, but they set aside some of those funds for affordable housing.

And their office, their housing department has been administering those funds, and I think it's in the 300 million dollar range, maybe more, and over several, over two RFPs.

They've identified projects, and the way the affordable housing world runs essentially is that local governments obtain funding of some kind, whether in the past redevelopment or the federal funds that are passed down to us from HUD.

We RFP, we send out a request for proposals.

We in order to meet the requirements that it be competitively procured, and then proposals are submitted to us, and we evaluate them based on a number of criteria.

Almost always there is a financial feasibility component, there's a component that we are ensuring that the properties are really well leveraged so that we're not paying 100% of the costs and that other sources are there, and that the property is being developed by an entity and being run by an entity that has the skills and the experience to do that, and that the state or the feds are going to consider that entity to have the skills and experience needed to do the project.

We don't want to fund an organization that won't be eligible or competitive at the state level for other resources.

So we're always looking at what their criteria is to ensure that it meets our criteria so that we're not out of line with other funders.

So the city of Oakland's housing department works very much like ours.

And when we had measure A1, we worked with our city partners and we allocated an amount of money and said, you go choose the project and you tell us what is the highest and best use in your community, and we'll fund it for you.

And so that's how we did it with all of the cities.

They all got the base city allocations.

There was some regional funds for measure A1, which was focused on homeless units and poverty-level units, and that was really the criteria we were looking at.

And those funds were also dispersed, and we worked with cities also to identify which were the best projects.

But for the most part, moving forward, if there's any new funding source, we think that it makes sense to allocate based on the formula that we brought to you in July, so that each city was really aware of what to plan for rather than to have some uncertainty with the regional pot.

I appreciate that explanation about the process.

What I'm trying to understand is like who's on first when it comes to braiding the funding.

So they're trying to get home key funding, they're trying to get their measure U funding, for example, in the city of Oakland, they're trying to get measure W funding.

They're they're all obviously sometimes not always aligned in terms of the timing of the RFP.

So how how does that all get coordinated and rated?

Right.

So the city, in this case, City of Oakland, issued their RFP for measure Uh before we were able to issue RFP for Measure W capital funds.

And so they are further ahead than we are, and they are issuing their commitments to projects this week.

And they're quite anxious to see that the capital RFP for Measure W be done as quickly as possible, and today is the due date, so that they can see which of the projects that they have funded are also going to be in alignment and get act be able to access the measure W capital funding.

Um I will let you know that it's 30 applications that are in the system right now.

It's a lot of applications.

Um I've got staff not taking any time off over the holidays in order to review these applications, and we will do our best, but it's not clear to us whether or not we're going to be able to bring to the board, you know, the list of projects that are recommended for funding in time for that very first tax credit round, which is February 2nd or 3rd.

And we'll do our best, but it will require a lower level of review than what we normally do to evaluate a project and its worthiness and whether or not it you know hits all of our requirements.

So we're trying to balance a thorough review with this timeliness issue.

Um we couldn't have started any any any sooner because we really did need the board to make their final decisions about how they wanted to spend Measure W.

And as soon as you did, we hit the ground running and issued the RFP and you know completed our process as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

All right, thanks for those questions and all of the responses.

So let's see, I'm gonna be all over the place, and Supervisor Tam on a few things that I wanted to kind of quiz you about as well.

But um let me just start with thank you for the report.

Thanks for all the great work.

Um measure A1 has generated over 4,000 housing units.

Yeah, I think, 36.

4400 now, 40 almost 4500.

Okay.

And did we have a goal?

Our goal was 3800.

38, so we surpass the number of housing units we wanted to create.

Okay, and then we leveraged six to one, so it's about two billion dollars.

Yeah, two and a half.

So that's good.

Now, in terms of once again, you're the expert.

Uh you know, I'm just a jack of all trades, and I try to remember all the stuff, and no Aaron knows it all, but um we provided a housing framework going forward, right?

We've approved that.

Okay, we have a we have a um we have a housing plan, and within that housing plan are our goals, which you approved at the health committee, and then we had a programmatic, a set of programs that you approved at the health committee last year, and then we brought an expenditure plan which allocated resources between all of those different programs, which you approved, and then the full board approved the plan uh in July.

Okay, but this committee heard last year each of those three reports.

Okay.

Um so does the board need to take action one way or the other not to move ahead with a reauthorization of a new bond measure.

Do we need to officially take action on that?

What do what do we need to do?

Because I know there's a you know, there's an effort afoot among the citizens to do something.

So the measure A1 bond is a 20-year bond, and so the use of those taxes are um in play for those 20 years, and when we get towards the end of those 20 years, um count uh the county administrator's office has indicated that we could consider going back to the voters and ask for an extension of that tax in order to then have new resources under measure A1, the measure A1 parcel, you know, bond tax that was exists.

Um, if the board wants a new tax to be approved, the board could place that on the ballot.

Um it would require a 67% vote of the people, and um, but that's another type of tax, but it would be a new tax, not the measure A1 tax.

Um we believe that we could go back to the voters somewhere in the early 2030s to uh because the initial uh I think it was 2017 that they started charging the tax.

So by 2037, the tax would be over.

So if in 2034 or 2032 they voted to extend the tax, then we could look at bonding against that extension.

Okay.

Um do you have any intelligence on what the citizens are planning?

I know there's a group that is working on it, um, but I don't have a lot of answers.

I know that they are uh discussing with the unions a PLA and what the what the relationship with the PLA would be.

As you know, um these are privately owned properties, and so the board can require that a PLA exists, but the terms of the PLA are between the trades and the private owners, and so uh NPH is working um on negotiating on behalf of the affordable housing developers, what those terms might be.

The other thing that the board can adopt is labor requirements, um, the small contracting, small and local contracting, um, I'm sorry, local contracting, small and local.

I was say that wrong, as well as uh, you know, local hire, and as you know, we've been tracking that for A1, and we've hit the ball out of the park with regards to our local hire and our local contracting.

So that's been a really wonderful boon to our economy.

Um, but waiting on uh NPH and the trades to reach some agreement is I believe where that citizens initiative is at right now.

Okay, I know the county has no role in this terms of this the citizens' initiative directly.

Um the um, I'm gonna talk and I'm gonna go talk a little bit more about the uh small business and local business in the uh economic um generation around A1, but before I go down that track, um, you know, I serve on the uh Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, and so um Office looking at maybe what might be considered for the entire region as well, and so I'm just trying to factor if there's a citizens initiative when that comes into play, our A1 region, because obviously we need additional resources, but it's just not resources.

We also need to work on cost containment and other things so that you know the cost of a unit is now you know over 750,000 dollars a unit, heading towards a million dollars a unit, and that's just really crazy.

So I'm hoping that um if there's a citizen initiative and the framework we've adopted, there's some potential alignment around um a whole array of housing possibilities.

Yeah, in the housing plan, we do provide for a much larger range in um than what we did in measure A1.

So we do have innovation, the innovation and opportunity fund where things could go in many different directions, but for the most part, what we really tried to do in the housing plan was identify multiple uh programs that could really bring more bang for our buck.

Um I do want to say though, there's there's a difference between cost per unit and investment per unit.

So the tax credit, rental development, multifamily development program might cost more per unit, but the investment by the county is lower than if we go with something like a tiny homes village where the cost per unit is half, but there's no state funding that would leverage those dollars, and therefore it becomes the county's responsibility to build it 100%.

And so our investment is actually higher on a per unit basis, and there's less leverage.

And so we really do try and weigh both things.

The other type of program that there is no really good federal or state resource for is emergency shelters.

So over the last 20 years, almost all of the new shelters that have been built or um navigation centers, they're almost always 100% locally funded.

So when we start thinking about how to expand, we also have to think about what other resources can come to the table to support that program.

And I know you didn't say it's we're not um considering a whole array, you're just kind of letting us know the complications around an array of housing options, yeah.

Because I do think you know, so I'm still a big proponent of tiny homes, even if um you know the state isn't helping to provide any offset there.

Um, we just have to do everything possible and I and obviously provide housing for the extremely low income and low income, etc.

But a whole array of housing needs to be provided, and it needs to be provided as quickly as possible.

Yeah, and I think Supervisor Tam was asking about the funding streams.

I'm a little concerned about the funding streams in terms of how the funding streams are working together to our in alignment so that we can get the most bang for the dollars the public sector has available through you, through behavioral health, through social services, through H, etc.

etc.

I know Supervisor Sam is talking about the city a lot, but I want to make sure our funding sources are really maximizing their alignment potential, and I don't necessarily um know the details, but I expect that you and Nika and Sandy and others would know the details and don't tell it you know, help us achieve what we're looking to achieve.

Yeah, any response there before I keep going?

Um, no, I just think that we meet on a really regular basis, and we're trying to hit every possible avenue.

Okay.

Now in the report, and you kind of talked about it a little bit through the procurement and contracting committee, we hear um a report on A1 with the workforce.

So I'm looking at the report.

So the goal uh all projects, local hires, was 30 percent, and you attained a goal of 42 percent uh in terms of hours.

That's do you do you recall um what that dollar figure would be?

I don't know that off the top of my head, but um I can find the last report and send it to your office.

Yeah, yeah, no problem.

Um under business goals, though, it says that 105 Alameda County businesses, local businesses, were involved in the construction contracts for about 180 million dollars, and then small, it has almost 79 million with 73 small local uh businesses.

Uh and and so the goal under local is 25% and under small was 20%.

So we met the goal in both categories.

In both categories, we've exceeded our goals.

And yeah, and I think um, you know, the tracking of that is is a lot of extra work, and the contractors are not happy about having to do all that tracking, but I think that that tracking demonstrates the economic impact of this kind of investment.

Yeah, because we re I mean you know this and I'm just gonna state it again.

It's really really important.

A one reduced over 4,000, almost 4400 units at this point of housing.

We've housed people, we surpassed our goal.

I'm not sure how many people we housed in that four 4400.

Um you probably know that the number of folks.

I don't have that number off the top of my head, but we can find it and make that public.

So we we did that, but then in addition, we provided employment opportunities for folks, which also helped the local economy as well.

So all of that's you know, obviously, the board made a decision.

I was I was on the board at the time, but the supervisor Carson and Jan to put housing as a health-related matter, because if people are homeless, then they can't get healthy on the streets, so we need to keep people housed, um, help them stay housed, get them housed, etc.

etc.

etc.

And we're constantly trying to move in that direction.

So we provided a lot of units, but in addition, and all the spinoff of that, we also provided resources for people to be employed and um put dollars back into the local local economy, which I think is extremely important.

Yeah.

I have two points I wanted to share.

Our goal with the homeless units was 20% of all units would be for people at 20% or below, and we actually hit 29%.

So that was and we did that in collaboration with the housing authorities and additional vouchers that were dedicated to these units, because when we house people at that income level, we need some kind of ongoing operating subsidy, which in this case we're hoping that you know Measure W will be available to help with um, you know, new units that might be produced under the Measure W program.

Um, in addition, I wanted to highlight that in January or February, we're gonna be bringing to the Pro and Con committee a union utilization report, and preliminary data is showing that 80 to 85 percent of all contractors that were hired under measure A1, regardless of whether there was a PLA or not, were union shops.

So we are hitting a very high percentage of union utilization, which um I think says a lot about our county and our county's ethos and the general contractors that we work with.

Okay, so let's go down another another track, another road here.

Supervisor Tam was talking about the hotels.

So, you know, we wanted these hotels because you know they're there, they're out there, they're underutilized or not utilized at all.

So we purchased the hotels, uh, uh the days in, and now I guess we're calling the other one the Eden Avenue community apartments.

One is run by five keys, another's run by a boat, 240 units.

How are things going?

Are they going well?

Because I keep saying I want to go out and take a look and tour.

I'm assuming things are good because I haven't gotten any feedback from the community or my staff about any issues or problems, but are things working well?

Yeah, so both projects are under construction right now, and we are going floor by floor, rehabilitating the rooms and turning them into rooms that people can live in and cook in and essentially, you know, be in the unit permanently.

Um, and once we're done, the units can become permanent housing rather than shelter units.

Um I would say that we're expecting to be done by next, you know, August, September, October.

Um, each of those hotels are on different time frames.

Um as far as how the operations and services are going, I I will let Anika and her team talk about it when they are um they could come up now, Jeanette.

Um, because those folks are managing those contracts and those relationships.

Okay, I will get to that then.

Um, trying to think how I want to say this.

I don't want to throw anyone on the bus.

But it's been stated that county's got all those hotels out there.

Um the Radisson.

Yeah, the Radisson is still empty.

Do we and I think um the Lau family they took the quality in.

So we have that, but the Radison is empty.

Do you know anything that's gonna happen with the Radison?

The old Radison Hotel.

I don't know, and at this point.

There was a proposal that kind of fell apart, and I don't I don't know at this point.

I would hope that we would be working in close partnership with the city of Oakland to see what they would like to see happen there.

Um at one point I think they applied for a home key project that didn't get funded.

So I'm not sure what the next step is.

Yeah, because I know we might have issues with the city of Oakland.

Um, I know some of the political people in Oakland don't want to see us put any more, you know.

You know, they're all about economic development and economic vitality, this that and the other.

They they don't want to see us convert any more hotels into um housing for folks who are um marginalized, let's just put it that way.

Um, but I'm I put every time I drive by there, I drive by there quite often coming from the airport and Eastmont, you have an office out there, just really gets to me that the Radison is simple is sitting empty and it could be providing housing for folks.

But then jumping across over on Hagenberger, uh, you know, when Libby Shaff was the mayor and uh Newsom, we got those those trailers out there.

Um what's going on with those?

Do we know?

Those are city of Oakland funded.

That's all Oakland.

Yeah, and then the and there's like a is it a teen uh a youth the transition age youth, yep.

And that's how the the trailers are.

The parking lot out there too, and all that city, all that city uh operated, managed, etc.

Okay.

So if the city is concerned about that, and if people are whispering in my ears their concerns, it's the county has we have no funding, no oversight, no responsibility for either of those.

Not to my knowledge, yep.

Okay.

Uh going back to your question, Supervisor Miley, related to the home key sites that the county owns.

Um so the Oak Day site and the EADs Avenue community departments on the supportive services side within H, we're in contract with both of the community-based organizations that provide the supportive services.

So right now they're providing the navigation services, and as the sites and the units transition to permanent supportive housing, they'll continue providing the sub sustainability services.

So there's no break in um coverage and services for the people who are at the sites.

Okay.

Because I do think, you know, Supervisor Tam, when she went down that road asking about the hotels.

I mean, I know we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what we wanted to do uh with those hotels.

And I and I just want to make sure it works to our, you know, not just to the county's advantage, to the public's advantage in terms of it was a you know, the county sees this opportunity, we did it, and it's being done well, and it's producing some good results over the course of time.

It's costing some money, but it was um worth the expense.

Um, but I'm just also as I said, I'm keep raising the spectrum of other hotels.

I'm not suggesting the waterfront plaza be converted, you know.

It's gotta, I mean, that's gotta be used for economic purposes, but um there might be other you underutilized hotels and motels in the city of Oakland that hopefully uh the city with our um collaboration.

I mean, we could put to use as um shelters or permanent supporting housing in terms of converting them and purchasing them or leasing them on a long-term basis.

Um let's see here, continuing through the report, but um back on the quorum.

So does a quorum for the committee.

Uh is the issue that people are not there physically there, or is the issue um, because then I think under the new law that starts next year, I believe, can a quorum be achieved by people participating remotely, or do you know?

Yeah, I I will say that in the last two years, we had almost every meeting was a quorum during the pandemic when we could meet remotely.

As soon as we came back to a requirement that we have in-person meetings, it was much more difficult to hit our quorum because people were coming from all over the county driving to our Hayward offices, which is the mid-part of the county.

Um, and that was one of the obstacles is that people had to stop attending um from a hybrid remote perspective.

Um so doing so so that new law plus allowing us to present information even if a quorum isn't met, I think will solve those obstacles.

Okay, so and I don't know if you know this, Michelle, if county council can answer it.

Uh so there's a new law when it becomes effective.

Once again, if you know, please let say so.

Will it allow for a quorum to be achieved if people are virtual?

That's uh SP 707 uh supervisor.

I am not as familiar as I should be with it.

No problem.

No problem.

Because I know uh it's my understanding County Council will be talking with all of us about the new law in the very near future because the implications around uh virtual participation of our boards and commissions.

Um I think there's significant implications there, so I just wanted to understand the quorum piece for now.

Okay.

Oh, we might have to take a little brief recess.

Yes, you've lost quorum.

I lost quorum.

So we're gonna take a five minute recess.

Oh no, it's okay.

We can take a five-minute recess and we'll come back because Michelle's been standing for a while.

She probably needs to rest anyway.

Recording stopped.

Recording in progress.

All right.

Well, we're gonna re reconvene the health committee meeting.

Um Clerk, want to take the roll?

Supervisor Town, present.

Supervisor Marley.

Present.

Okay.

So I want to continue my line of of uh inquiry with uh housing community development Director.

Uh let's see here.

Because I'm looking kind of going through the report, I kind of looked at it.

I just want to make sure I haven't forgotten anything I want to ask you about.

Okay.

I'm finished with the report now to the PowerPoint.

So the quorum.

Okay.

Yes, doorway.

Doorway is a great program.

And I'm really pleased that Alameda County is kind of instrumental in helping it be successful because it's uh part of the you know brought into it through the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority.

And so, what's been the the um the result of doorway?

Well, let me just start and say that the city of San Francisco started the concept of a single application portal uh about 10 years ago, and we quickly got on board and started working on our own version before Bafa existed and before the MTC programs in ABAG picked it up, and we built out in Alameda County using local funds that your board provided us, um, our own portal.

And in that process, married it to Measure A1 and required that all projects that received Measure A1 use that application portal, that one or whatever its successor was.

We made it free for all developers to list those projects, but we also did that so that they could use list their old projects.

So if there was a substantial vacancy at any of their existing properties, they could also use the doorway portal to host their uh lottery processes and their leasing up processes.

The way the doorway portal works is that you apply on a per-project basis, so you can submit your application, um, and the system will remember you.

And so the next time an application becomes open, you can log back in and your application is basically remembered and pre-populated, and you can just hit a button, update it, confirm everything is still correct, and then hit a button and apply for the next project.

Several years ago, um the MTC created the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency, and they received funds from the state of California to create a regional hub that would become a single application for all nine Bay Area counties, and so the way that worked was um uh they started working with San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to create that hub, and after they got their sort of beta testing model, um they asked us if we wanted to join, and we said that we would join once it was actually launched and ready to go because we didn't want to abandon what we had, and we were still leasing projects up.

So it did take us some time, but we transitioned our program over to that one.

It's it's at a cost savings to us.

We don't have to support the system any longer.

Um, but as the MTC starts you know implementing this Bay Area wide program, they're gonna have to come up with a funding source that will keep it sustainable, which might include fees for the developers, which we didn't have, and it might include fees for local government, but our assessment was that no matter what, it would cost us less to participate in theirs than to fully host our own.

So we will see next year what those costs are gonna look like to us, but we believe it will be less than what we were paying to support our own portal.

And I think in your in your slide, do we have any sense of as a result of the doorway housing portal the the if you know the uh the impact?

So the number of applications, Dylan.

Dylan's not paying attention.

Okay.

I will have to get back to you on that.

I think an early version that I saw a year ago was there were over 50,000 applications through the system.

Yeah.

And that that's how many applications had been submitted.

But basically, since that time, more units have leased up, and those folks all get an email to say, hey, there's a new one.

Go ahead and submit again, but then newer newer applications come in.

And is that when you say the 50,000, let's just use that as a number?

Is that in Alameda County or is that just Alameda County's portal?

Yeah.

And I think ours is much more developed than Bafa's was, and BAFA's probably like we we ours has been in place for three and a half years, four years, and theirs is only a year old.

So, you know, we continue to have more applications through Doorway.

Yeah, because my hope is that with Doorway and it being region wide.

Obviously, the hope is that it's gonna generate um results that are gonna help house folks.

Yeah, there's one other thing.

Our system was not built with um with a data system that allowed us to do easy reports, and so every time we wanted to get that level of data, how many people applied, how many people got housed, that kind of stuff.

It was actually a really like difficult process to pull that data.

The BAFA system is gonna have automatic reports so that we can just pull how many people applied in the last month, how many people were from Alameda County, how many people got housed?

That the kind of reporting that your board asks for, um, and it would have cost us a lot to transition the system to a different um, like we would have had to have gone to a sales force type data backend database system, and we didn't build it that way.

Um definitely I think it's worthwhile.

So, and then with uh BAFA mayor regional housing housing finance authority.

Um, what and we just talked about doorway and the value of doorway, um, BAFA uh is hopefully going to provide be able to provide public financing for projects, um, and I know I've raised it in the past.

What is our thinking in terms of maybe trying to provide resources to BAFA to help achieve that?

Obviously, those resources have to have return to source in Alameda County.

We don't want to provide resources to BAFA that are creating housing opportunities in Marin and other places if if we're doing this, we want to have them provide financing for housing in Alameda County.

Um, there's two.

Because I think I raised that when we talked about housing plan, yeah.

Yeah, we've talked about this.

I um things that are happening there.

One is BAFA needs to become a profitable entity that can cover its costs and have sources that it it loans out to the community.

And in the regional bond that they proposed, they were going to keep some of those funds so that they could create essentially an affordable housing bank, which you know, we are all in support of.

Um, I think that we would want to accomplish that if we're not the only ones doing it, I think it would um end up being pretty duplicative of staffing costs and administrative costs for us to give them a chunk of money only for them to loan it back to local government here or to projects here.

We have our own staffing costs, they are looking for a way to support their staffing costs, and so if we were to provide funds up, it would just be coming back down, and there's our staffing costs on top of their staffing costs.

So we have to be thinking about um you know what's the most cost-effective way of implementing a program in which there is an affordable housing bank.

One of the things that came out of the regional bond was a case study on the New York model.

Um, in the New York model, there they essentially had a hard and fast repayment requirement for all projects, whether it was home ownership or whether it was rental development.

In California, our tax credit projects have what we call a residual receipts program, meaning we get paid if the project kicks off income.

We don't provide as much deep subsidy as New York.

So in New York, they provide more money per unit and then they receive money back, and over a 40-year period, the project completely repays that original loan.

And then that money is available as program income to then reloan again and again.

And over the last 40 years, since they did their first sort of big bond issuance, I guess, they have been loaning funds that are quite significant.

We would really like to develop something like that here in Alameda County.

It will be a culture change.

It is a standard practice in California that we run tax credits in one specific way.

So starting to talk with our tax credit investors to starting to talk to our tax credit developers, starting to talk to the state of California.

How can we change this culture that would allow us to create our own affordable housing bank here in Alameda County, the Alameda County Housing Finance Agency, for instance, just like the California Housing Finance Agency.

What we want is a way to recycle our funds and pro and self-sustain.

And Aaron and I talked about this in great depth at one point.

And we're very excited about the idea, and it's also something that will take a culture shift.

So what's the next step in moving us towards that culture shift?

I'm having conversations with people now.

Okay.

Any anything you need from my office or myself to help you with that, let us know, or the board, you know, let us know.

Because I do think that's important.

Okay, and just a few more questions, and then I'll then I'll yield the floor.

Let's see here.

Now, the pre-development, the merging developer pre-development program.

Um I've gotten some recent feedback that the program itself, in terms of pre-development, I guess has been okay.

But then after people get through pre-development, there's no There's no new funding source.

Yeah.

What's what's the answer?

A new funding source.

Fingers crossed that the citizens initiative happens, and if not that, that we then you know have another resource to come forward.

Um we need we need more funding for affordable housing, obviously.

That this problem of affordability, it's not just ours.

It is a problem across the entire United States.

The homeless issue is a problem across the entire United States.

There is a drastic critical infrastructure problem around housing.

So it's not ours alone to solve, but the more we as local government propose change and propose new sources and new ideas about how to move it forward, the better off we will be.

Let me ask the director of the agency.

So measure W, we have we set aside some for capital, but do you know if there's any uh indication or anything around additional monies for capital?

Because you know, Michelle just said there's no funding source, and I've got these pre-development folks who are talking to me now that they've kind of gone through the pre-development piece, but now merging developers, but now there's no funding to go forward with possible projects.

Do you anticipate that we'll be able to put some resources there through measure W at 1.4 billion dollars?

So, what I can say right now, supervisor, is that there's so much that's in flux, right?

That what we proposed to you all um in July has shifted significantly because of the HUD stuff where we're anticipating like 30 to 60 million dollars that we hadn't anticipated measure W to need to take on from the um capital pot.

You know, the we had uh anticipated about a hundred million dollars that could go for this RFP that just went in now, as well as um additional RFP to do uh rehab of existing properties.

Um, but we're gonna need to sort of take a look at all of those as we shift where things are, and as Michelle was saying, right, there's a lot of um competing priorities and trying to figure out how to best leverage all of the funding.

Um, but we'll we'll be bringing some of that back to your board for consideration.

Right.

Just and I'm glad staff's aware of the of the the concern, the dilemma, yeah.

Um, not asking you to you know to create magic, but yeah.

I know we it's not our fault that federal governments doing what they're doing, putting additional challenges on us.

But you know, when the going gets tough, tough get going.

So I've got a lot of confidence that we'll figure something out, hopefully.

We're going hard.

Yeah, we'll figure something out.

Um, because people are leaning on us.

It's like everybody thought measure w is gonna be the godsend for everything.

And I keep telling folks, you know, it's it's it's good that we have measure W, but some of the impacts from the state and federal government uh that we're presently dealing with were not necessarily um under consideration at the time.

So we thought there'd be a different reality when we um ask Measure W than the reality we're presently finding ourselves in with the state and feds, like with Prop One.

Um, I think I think I have I got all my questions answered, Michelle.

So once again, I'm just very, very pleased that we have these updates in Measure A1.

It's done such a great job and um I was part of the board when we moved ahead with the bond measure and got it passed to that and the others.

So it's in you know, you've kind of talked about all the good things that have come out of measure A1 and what we're looking to do.

So we'll see if we're able to create another affordable housing big funding stream down the road through whatever mechanisms are available to us, collectively available to us.

Let's see if we have oh supervisor, you have anything else before I go to the public?

Okay, any public speakers.

I have no speakers on item one.

No public speakers, okay.

All right.

So thank you for the annual update.

And let's see, this is an action item.

Yes, it's an action item item one.

So I'll I'll move the items for a second.

Oh, second.

Okay, move by Miley, second by Tam.

Want to take the roll.

Supervisor Tam, yes.

Supervisor Miley.

Yes, approved.

Okay.

All right, and as I said, item two today has been pulled.

Uh we'll take that up next year, hopefully the beginning of next year.

So now we'll go to item three.

Housing and urban development notice of funding opportunity.

Good morning, supervisors.

Jeanette Rodriguez with housing and homelessness services, deputy director for housing.

Uh, sharing a brief update um and highlights in terms of the implications federally uh that we're seeing from the continuum of care notice of funding opportunity or NOFO, as well as local action plan and our next steps, building upon what Jonathan had presented to you all recently as well.

Next slide, please.

So our continuum of care or COC notice of funding opportunity, the NOFO is an annual process that is historically seeks to renew federal funding or our HUD grants or Department of Housing and Urban Development Grants.

That collectively represents about two-thirds of our federal assistance that goes towards homelessness in Alameda County.

Um so two-thirds of that is a 60 million of 90 million dollars annually, and helps us to apply for new projects and new resources in our community.

It's historically been one of the most consistent recurring and renewable funding sources in our system of care and our homeless response system, as you all know and are aware from Jonathan's previous presentations.

Is that really this year's um upcoming notice of funding opportunity um reflects some unprecedented impacts and um potential uh related to our federal funding resources?

So what HUD did was they they released the FY25 COC NOFO, they released that this past November, November 13th, that's later than typical releases in the past.

It's a quick turnaround and submittal time period of January 14th, which then includes a really truncated and accelerated local process for us to plan for.

So again, that's unprecedented.

It's historically been a longer period of time that we've been able to plan and to allocate for these resources.

What we anticipate with this truncated process also is that the grant renewals, which typically come online, will be delayed beyond May 2026.

So that could impact some of the sites or some of the projects that are currently in grant agreements right now.

As referenced earlier, this NOFO profoundly shifts our federal priorities for COC funding, and I'll go into those briefly in the next few slides.

Next slide, please.

As we have talked about previously, this represents some major changes within our homeless response system federal funding resources and reserves.

So what this then shows is that only 30% of our existing funding can be protected, and that protection means that historically there's a tier one and a tier two.

Our tier one in the past had been about 90%, which meant 90% of those funds would be protected.

And what this looks like in this process is 30% of the funding would be protected in the tier one realm.

This also reflects a shift from previous federal priorities in which 30% of the application can be put towards permanent housing.

So long-term permanent housing, rental assistance resources, supportive services.

Within our current continuum of care or COC's housing portfolio in alignment with previous federal initiatives, this had been about 86% towards permanent housing.

So now when we see this 30%, that this threshold that really greatly reduces from what was historically 86%.

This also shows a shift from housing first principles, and it changes then to an emphasis in other program models that require participation in services, require treatment, or require linkages to employment initiatives.

This also advances programs that align with public camping bans and has additional requirements that align with recent executive orders, including those related to DEI, gender identity, and harm reduction.

So it is impactful.

Next slide, please.

What this looks like locally to us is on the right hand side is a table that really represents our HUD COC federal funding, which is collectively 60 million dollars.

And then you see at the BIRO, the types of interventions and types of supportive services.

So PSH is our permanent supportive housing.

Federally, this then supports or locally this supports the majority of our permanent supportive housing in our portfolio locally.

And that represents, as you see there on the right-hand side, just shy of 1,700 units just in PSH units alone, and 25 grants that are represented.

And then below that you see rapid rehousing.

So rapid housing is time-limited permanent supportive housing, and those opportunities then are reflected of within seven different grants locally, and what you see there for TH and RRH is a joint component, which is transitional housing and rapid rehousing.

So those top three pieces that are highlighted in yellow really represent our permanent supportive housing, our permanent housing portfolio.

And below that you see the other types of continuum of care funding projects, which include transitional housing, supportive services, our coordinated entry, as well as our homeless management information system.

And on the left hand side, just reiterating what this looks like in our community is that this is $60 million in federal funding, of which we typically support $51 million in permanent housing.

What these changes mean is that then it impacts our tier one, as I said earlier, to reducing it to a tier one threshold to no more than $18 million in the current grants, can be protected in that tier one threshold.

And what that then puts is a 42 million dollar risk of those outside of tier one.

This also means that there's high impact and changes related to 33 million in permanent housing that must be reallocated or lost.

As I mentioned in previous slides, this is an accelerated timeline.

It has a January 14th submittal deadline.

That leaves us a really short timeline locally to be able to really ensure that we have the time and opportunities for community input for planning, and it truncates our application development process as we'll have to submit that through the HUD portal by January 14th.

As I mentioned earlier as well, the earliest grant awards will be in May 2026, and we have some grant agreements that actually would typically start before May, so that then impacts shortages or potential lapses in funding for some of the projects.

Next slide, please.

So our local action plan by H, that's been led in partnership with our Continuum of Care, has included the following.

There's been the creation of a NOFO response team.

So that's a cohort of five individuals that are tasked with really developing our funding priorities, criteria, and really our targeted goals are to preserve as much continuum of care federal funding as possible.

The response team is also going to support leading the COC and submitting the most competitive and least harmful application, as well as implementing local processes that are nimble, impact the least amount of administrative burden for grantees, and comply with the NOFO's required timelines, which again is accelerated in due January 14th.

We're also assessing our strategic use of local funding to backfill continuum of care funding, really to ensure no break in support and services and housing for thousands of individuals.

We're strategically looking an evaluation and evaluating new projects that would meet the HUD changing requirements and also fill local system gaps to offset projected local losses.

So really looking where we can be strategic in what this new NOFO parameters are and where we can then apply for potential other funding and projects.

We're coordinating with grantees that are most at risk of imminent lapse in funding.

We're really trying to ensure that we can mitigate impacts due to this late release and this truncated timeline.

Next slide, please.

I believe you've seen this graph before.

What this really reflects is on the right hand side is the 153 million of home together funding per year and the different types of supportive services and interventions we have targeted and reflected in the home together plan.

And on the right hand side, what you see in this shaded yellow graph is what Anika had referenced earlier, which is the potential loss of federal funding and what that really reflects is between 33 to 60 million dollars.

And as you see in terms of the overlay, that really impacts our ability in terms of our planning for the Home Together Fund to really ensure that we have no break in services and no break in housing for thousands of individuals.

Next slide, please.

Next steps, recognizing that we're in the early to almost mid-part of December at this point.

We have the NOFO response team has kicked off.

They'll lead the intends of planning.

There's been frequent meetings that have taken place thus far.

H has met with Bay Area counterparts and counterpart leaders to really strategize and to learn from one another and to assess regionally what other communities.

That's been led by Honathan Russell.

And then also planning for next steps.

Recognizing also that December 3rd was the local process launch date.

We'll come back to the board and provide further updates for you all, especially feedback following the January 14th submittal.

Next slide, please.

I'll pause for questions.

Okay, thanks.

So I'll start with the end, my esteemed colleague, supervisor Lena.

Damn.

Thank you, Chair Miley.

Um we obviously got a heads up about this at the last board work session.

So appreciate putting more details and the fact that staff is trying to be ahead of this issue by thinking strategically.

I just wanted to better understand the implications.

So by January 14th, uh we would need to reallocate the 33 million dollars in permanent uh supportive housing, uh, or it would be lost, and we would reallocate it to the services.

Is that what we would need to do as part of our January 14th submittal is recognize that 30% threshold for permanent support of housing, and that 30% is really capped at that 18 million of our 60 million, which means then the remainder is that what we'll plan for in terms of potential backfill needed, and then our intention as a community too is to still apply for 60 million dollars in federal funding.

So we're not leaving any funding unapplied for, um, and just really recognizing excuse me, the different project types that this uh new administration is targeting, which include supportive services only, uh HMIS coordinated entry, really thinking some innovative strategies to be able to apply for different project types while also recognizing the shortfall that's needed to support um other permanent supportive housing that would be below that $18 million threshold.

Okay.

So when we look, I'm just looking at bigger picture because several issues have come before this committee, particularly on Prop one shifting from early intervention and prevention to treatment and housing.

Now it seems like instead of housing first, uh the model that they want to fund is to participate or force participation in services and treatment.

So is there a way in which we could um basically move some of the funding into what was going to be potentially defunded from Prop One?

I can't speak to the proper HSA transitions.

I'm wondering if you wanted to add more.

Yeah, so um the Prop One transition supervisor are gonna be in addition to this, right?

And so for Prop One, the emphasis on the behavioral health side is to support people with more serious uh illness, and there's a required amount of spending that we have to do in the housing realm under Prop one.

Um, our county will hit that threshold.

Um, so the cuts that'll happen, uh there are um we'll we'll hit that threshold.

Uh I think what you're hearing from Jeanette in terms of you know, once we can say that 18 million dollars for the COC permanent supportive housing grants, right?

We would say here's 18 million that we want to keep as PSH, and uh anything beyond that, we could look at new types of programs that would fit things, you know, those are things that we may have otherwise funded with Measure W that we could look to see if we can you know get federal funding for those uh where it because we'll need to pick up some amount of PSH with Measure W because there are people who are being served by those subsidies right now.

Um okay, that's helpful.

Uh I mean, obviously I'm gonna rely on your expertise with this complexity of what qualifies and what the new change criteria will be because clearly we I mean you're on top of it, we want to maximize our ability to retain as much of the 60 million as possible because that is a very um crucial component of a lot of the programs that we have.

And so I I just want to get a better understanding of like how likely are we able to um reallocate and keep as much of that as possible.

I'm definitely aware of uh planning and strategies that are in place right now to develop to be able to ensure that we have an application that is solid and um in advance of the January 14th date that then recognizes the the um other project types which historically weren't emphasized in this federal funding, and then our primary strategy really is the retention of as much permanent support of housing as possible.

Um, supervisor go ahead.

If I could just add one more clarification, so um essentially you know anything that's not in tier one is subject to a competitive uh process review by the federal government, and because of some of the policy uh restrictions that they're putting on that, or some of the things that they want to see, um, that may or may not make our projects competitive.

Yeah, uh for those, and so that's why that range of you know 33 to 60 is is so large because uh they could decide to be very very stringent with their review.

Um, but our our goal is to put as as much in there that aligns with what they want to see.

Yeah, okay.

So you're helping me manage expectations.

Uh but the issue that I'm still struggling with is it requires that the programs that we submit align with the executive orders that relate to DEI, gender equity, and harm reduction.

I I mean how how do you tease some of these issues out because that's pervasive throughout the county on all of our programs at every policy level.

So I think that that's the difficult work that the NOFO team and the COC are doing.

So uh in terms of the other details, is that the process that we launched on December 3rd closes on December 14th, and so we'll have a sense of you know what that package could look like, and then the COC process will figure out how what fits best where, um, so that we can think through considerations like that.

Um, and I also want to note there are a couple of lawsuits uh uh against this uh NOFO as well, and so um there's one that's at the statewide level, one that is uh coalition of community and counties uh sort of nationally.

Um so depending on what happens with those, there could be injunctions or there could be um, you know, direction to the to HUD to keep the process as is for a little while, so we're also kind of keeping that in mind.

Uh I understand uh because we do discuss some of the issues around the lawsuits uh during the PAL committee, um, but you know, given some of the rulings as recent as yesterday and this past week, it's hard to be optimistic that that will be our saving grace.

Thank you.

Thanks uh Supervice Stan for raising all those questions because everything you raised was kind of things I wanted to kind of get a little bit more clarification around.

Um appreciate staff's responses.

I I do appreciate the fact that uh despite the lawsuits and if the best happens there that'd be wonderful, but I think we're being proactive.

We're trying to come up with strategies that are gonna allow us to get as much of that money as possible, and then um backfill and maybe have bridge money.

Originally Measure W wasn't going to be used um for existing services.

We wanted to enhance, but if you need to get direction from the board that we need to go down that road because of what's happening once again, it's beyond our control.

We we don't we can't control the federal government and we can't control the state government, and so if they're putting these challenges not just on us but counties and cities, um we can only do what we can do.

So if we have measure W, and the um the principle was we weren't gonna use it for existing services.

If we need to renege on that principle because of these new environments we find ourselves in, I think you need to bring that to the board.

Okay, thank you, Supervisor.

I I think there was when we shared um in July and and the previous conversations around Measure W, we did have enough flexibility built in there for in case there's a federal you know some sort of contingency um but we would like to be able to come and share those details with you so that it it says you know here's what we've had to do for backfill um because as you saw I think there's something like 2100 households that are served by this funding um and so we really want to make sure that people aren't losing their housing.

Yeah for sure I mean it's just gonna add to the crisis if if we don't do it yeah so um and as I you know as I said in the earlier presentation I think when measure w was passed we were I think under one set of circumstances in one type of environment we just didn't anticipate that we'd be encountering the difficulties that we're experiencing from both the state and the feds.

Now in the report Jeanette you said 42 million is at risk and 33 million.

Might could be lost so to that adds up to 75 million.

So what am I missing here?

Because I the big the graft or the not the graph the circle shows 33 to 60 million.

So am I missing something?

The 30 to 60 million is uh really speaking to what Anika was saying is our projection of um if if all of the 60 million was rejected from HUD um and then 30 million would be um the representation of the retention of the permanent housing and um within tier one.

So 18 million is within tier one the 30 million is the projection of between 30 to 60 million potentially at a backfill or shortfall needed it's because there's an overlap currently between tier one and the permanent supportive housing so we have a lot more that we can you know protect in those tier one and a lot more of it is uh permanent supportive housing just I understand it so can you put up that um local impacts again that slide on the I think it's slide four are you looking for the table.

Yeah.

Okay so 42 million and 33 million so you there's overlap is that what you're saying.

Changes mean um on the so the changes mean that 18 million in current grants can be protected so our 18 million is the threshold for tier one and uh 18 million is also the threshold which means the 30 percent uh that's allowable for permanent supportive housing so they're one in the same the 30 percent um cap is also the 30 percent cap with that can be um within tier one and 30% cap within um permanent supportive housing and then overall that puts the remainder of the 42 million at risk um and then collectively 33 million in permanent housing would need to be um reallocated or lost okay I think I follow that I think because we have 51 million in PSH right now uh 18 so 30% of 60 is 18 so uh you know we want to prioritize that for for PSH uh that means that there's 33 million that's left over um and then the 42 million that you're seeing is that there's also the 30 percent threshold for what can be in tier one, which is sort of the protected category uh so 60 minus 18 is 42, meaning that that 42 million is what's subject to competitive review from HUD.

Okay, okay so I so I shouldn't be adding 40 and 33 together.

No, it'd be the 42 plus the 18.

Yep.

Okay, got okay.

That's where I'm having some confusion.

Okay.

Okay.

Now, and then you're gonna keep the board informed because I am very, and I'm sure Supervisor Tam and other board members will be very interested in knowing what are the strategies we're considering and evaluating to try to um address the new HUD requirements as well as uh how are we going to try to deal with bridge money to uh because the fact that uh the funding won't be available at a certain period of time anyway, even if we're successful because of the you know the um uh the changes in the you know the their um the early grant uh uh the awards, the the the applications and getting the money.

Uh it's it's gonna run out before we even get funded.

So there needs to be bridge funding there and then strategies going forward.

And then, like Supervisor Tam was saying, you know, um all of you and others that are your colleagues are the expertise because I'm looking at the color of money.

So if we can move money around, you know, once again behavior health, you know, I know you're not social services, but uh within the agency or out of the agency or work with the county administrator's office, we need to look at the color of money and see where we can take from one pot put into another pot.

Because we're gonna now if the feds want to have more of an emphasis on this other, you know, situation that is uh not housing first.

How can we share that up with other resources and still you know um get money that meets their requirements around you know, DEI and gender and this, that and the other, so we're not running a file there.

So I know it's all complicated, but I'm just trusting that all of you working collectively and collaboratively have the level of expertise that can help us figure out how to you know the color of money where we can utilize it and get the most efficiencies in bank for our buck uh and and reduce the um the amount of loss that we might uh incur.

And as you know, and this is um supervisor Tam pointed out, and I know the agency is quite aware of it, you know, with Prop One, then Medi Cal and et cetera.

I mean, this there's a a lot of a lot of challenges, yeah.

Agree in terms of challenges, and then uh in terms of timeline that we continue to track things as they appear.

And actually, right, they just handed me that the uh that HUD uh withdrew the nofo today um and are working on revisions to it.

So we're tracking everything day by day and minute by minute, including these revisions, okay.

Right.

This regard for now, but we have a plan.

Yeah, well, I mean once again, you can't control the federal government to you know what they say today, they might do something different tomorrow.

You know the the guy in the White House, you know, he's a little um a little fickle if that's uh you know a kind way of saying it.

I I will say, Supervisor, that so uh because they're withdrawing it, um it would mean that there's delays.

Yep, and and so that issue of the bridge funding, we may need to come back to the board with uh some authorization to be able to pay providers.

Yeah, yeah, agreements have uh generally different star dates and different terms of time, so we are tracking and recognizing that there's uh more than a handful that that would be impact in terms of timing.

And I know you said your meeting with the um the CBOs.

Correct.

So they're aware of the situation and aware and concerned, yep.

Providing input and trying to help us and figure this stuff out, yeah.

Okay.

But like I said, if we need to look at the color of money and then also look at, you know, what you know, if we have to make some policy changes just to weather the storm, yeah.

So in the short term, and and kind of get get us through next year or two, and then we'll see where we are.

Okay.

Does it have any more questions?

Let's see if we have some public comment.

I have no speakers on item three.

Okay, because I thought I saw somebody's hand up at one point.

No?

Okay.

All right, and this is an informational item.

Okay, so thank you.

Oh, one other quick thing before I forget.

Do you know whatever happened with the uh Henry Robinson?

Yeah, and still funded by the city and it is also within the continuum of care nofounding.

So it is one of the grants that is historically been in our um federal funding portfolio.

And it falls as a transitional housing rapid rehousing component.

So it might be in jeopardy here.

All right.

Thanks.

All right.

So we have one last item before we take up that item we'll take another five minute recess.

That's okay.

Recording in progress.

Okay, so we're back from recess.

This is our last item of the morning.

If the clerk could talk take the roll.

Supervisor Tam.

Present, Supervisor Miley.

Present.

So our last item this morning is an information item on Alameda Health Systems governance options.

I asked County Council, County Minister's office to bring this item to us today so we could kind of get an update on what's going on.

And then we can go from there.

Okay, thank you.

Back in 2021, Supervisors Chan and IA created a subcommittee to discuss ways that uh the AHS governance could be changed to allow your board more input into the operations of the uh hospital authority.

Um that led to a series of, of course, um, that led to a series of meetings, uh, sixth in total that went from September through I think March of uh September 203 to March of Twenty Twenty Four, um, where the subcommittee uh considered uh different models, talks to uh health directors and other counties to sort of see how they run their hospital authority.

Um, and that resulted in a right uh two recommendations for options for uh your board.

The first recommendation, option A, was for your board to uh have the authority to make itself the board of governors or the governing body of the hospital authority with a subsidiary board of trustees that will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the um of the uh of the hospital.

The section second option, option B would have the board as being the point uh appointment authority for all trustees, but then have the board of trustees still be the the essentially the governing body.

With a subsidiary board of trustees to do day-to-day operations.

Next slide, please.

That selection requires some changes to be made to the enabling legislation that was passed in the mid-1990s that created Alameda Health System.

Uh, that is uh Health and Safety Code section one hundred one eight fifty.

And um it included provisions that that would effectively prevent your board from becoming the governing board.

So we um worked with outside council and developed draft legislation to accomplish uh the the goals of of creating a uh giving giving your board the authority to appoint itself if it desired to do so as the governing board and then having a subsidiary board of trustees do the day-to-day operations.

Last year we brought to you several several decision points that needed to be made with respect to the changes that will be required to the legislation.

The first of those was should the legislation expressly identified the board as the EHS governing body or provide flexibility for your board to make that election.

Um your board decided to go with the second option of flexibility, and so the uh section uh is we proposed the section be amended to say that notwithstanding any other law, the board of supervisors uh at the board of supervisors' discretion and if specified in the uh enabling ordinance, the governing board may consist of members of members of the Board of Supervisors or may include any number of members of the Board of Supervisors or County officers or employees appointed to represent the interests of the county.

So that was included in uh section 101-850C3 of the uh of the amended uh legislation.

Next slide, please.

The next question was how do you resolve conflicts of interest?

Um, there are concerns that under existing state law being a member of the governing board of AHS and of the board of supervisors could raise conflicts of interest concerns.

So uh your board opted to be as explicit as possible in the proposed legislation, which specifically will say notwithstanding state laws governing incompatible offices and conflicts of interest, including but not limited to sections 1090, 1099, 1126, and 87100 of the government code.

A member of the hospital authority administrative staff or governing board shall not be considered to be engaged in activities inconsistent, incompatible, or in conflict with their duties to either the hospital authority or to the county as a result of employment or affiliation with the other.

Um this is explicit because the legislature can essentially say it's not a conflict, then that makes it not a conflict.

So we wanted to make sure that the language spoke to everything that it could possibly be implicated.

This language is included in uh 101-850 AC, sub-paragraph one and AC, sub-paragraph two.

Next slide, please.

Third key decision point was should the legislation include express delegation language.

So this became an issue because the hospital authority has um, I'm sorry, I think I'm going down the wrong path.

Let me start this again.

California law generally permits the delegation of oversight of day-to-day operations by a board of supervisors to a subsidiary body so long as the governing board retains sufficient authority to maintain oversight over these operations and make key decisions.

Federal guidance requires that the delegating governing body of the hospital maintain final decision-making authority over the operations.

So uh your board uh opted to propose language to address that issue.

Uh section 108 101 850 C4 provides that the governing board may delegate day-to-day operational responsibilities to one or more subsidiary bodies.

It establishes consistent, consisting of members possessing relevant expertise.

Such delegation shall involve reasonable safeguards to ensure that the governing board retains ultimate control over the hospital authority consistent with applicable law.

This is meant to allow people who know how to run a hospital to run the hospital while you still are ultimately responsible for the for the the governance and the decision making.

Next slide, please.

Fourth, uh the you were asked whether the legislation should provide uh governance representation by the City of Alameda Healthcare District.

Uh AHS had entered into a uh an agreement that we are the county's not a party to, uh, that uh had uh gave the City of Alameda Healthcare District the power to appoint a member to their board of trustees.

Um there were options about dealing with this.

We could explicitly say that they couldn't do that anymore.

We could um say that they could do that and accept that for uh a uh hospital district that was affiliated with or part of AHS, and your board decided that it should provide that a district for a district design so long as the hospital district remains an affiliate affiliate of the AHS system.

Your board decided that there should be that should there be additional affiliated hospitals, and that affiliation results from a JPA affiliation agreement, that agreement must be approved by your board, unlike the one that happened with uh Alameda City Health District.

That was added to 101 850 C2.

Next slide, please.

There were two other other uh amendments that were sort of separate from the from the decision points.

Uh section 101 850 D would authorize the hospital authority to affiliate with or acquire ownership or control of additional public or private hospitals clinics or programs to further its mission at the discretion of the governing board.

This addresses the St.

Rose situation, and should that occur again, uh, and then the second is section 101850 M2, which would allow the hospital authority to operate through one or more corporations uh joint ventures or partnerships and maintain the private character of the private hospitals, clinics or health care facilities over which the hospital authority gains ownership or control.

This is another thing addressing the St.

Ritz situation or similar situations that may arise in the future.

Next slide.

So that's all I have on the uh changes to the legislation.

Um I will turn it over to Amy.

Um, so I'm here to share with you the process for turning this into legislation if that's how you want to move forward.

We're in the second year of a two-year session of the legislature.

Uh they will reconvene on um January 5th.

So the last days to submit bill requests to ledge council is the 23rd of January.

So your board would need to make a decision as to whether or not this is uh a bill you'd like to move forward, and we would need to find a sponsor.

And because this is the second year of a two-year session, many of our legislators already have their bill packages pretty solidified, so we would need to move quickly.

Um the last day to introduce legislation is February 20th.

Um, from there uh it would need to move through the process.

Because this is a bill that is unique to Alameda County and only applies to us, there is quite a bit of education we would need to do with legislators about why this is important to us.

And I will just remind you all that this is a very um busy year for the legislature as they grapple with both our state budget deficit and the pending issues with HR1.

They haven't contemplated what that looks like for them as the uh as the legislature or even how it impacts the budget.

And so we we are contending with that as we look to uh run a bill like this that requires a high degree of education.

Um so we would need to move quickly if we're gonna move forward and also be aware that there's a lot going on, um, and because of the level of education, it could be challenging.

All right, thank you, Amy.

So um, Scott, with your report, uh, when did the board first take this up?

Okay, it's like the the date.

I believe it was sometime in March or April of 2024.

I can get back to you on 2024?

Yeah, because I think Supervisor Viet and Chan were still with us at that point.

No, Supervisor Chan uh unfortunately passed shortly after the ad hoc committee was formed.

Okay.

I think before even the final um Dave is shaking his head away.

Yeah, please.

And introduce yourself.

Dave Dave Brown, Chief of Staff to Supervisor Nikki Fortin Auto Bass.

Um, it was it's true, Supervisor Chan had passed away, but the committee met in 2022 from January uh to June 2022, and Supervisor Valle was still part of the committee, and we brought it forth to the board after the recommendations were brought forward.

And at that point, I believe there were four supervisors that wanted to move forward with the process.

Yeah, thanks, Dave.

Because I thought I thought we had uh taken action on this many, many, many years ago, and for some reason it it hasn't been advancing.

Because I do recognize what Amy's saying, that we are uh at a constrained time at the moment, but I just want Supervisor Tam to know this this issue and the board making a decision around this uh was approved many years ago.

Um 2022, this is now 2025, we're getting right ahead into 2026.

So even though I know the committee's got a excuse, this is an informational item.

Um the uh this if this is before us, because I think the committee uh needs to give some direction to move this along to the best of our ability because I know labor has and I don't know if labor's talked to you, Supervisor Jam, but they've talked to me, and they're very um eager for the board to begin the effort at advancing the decisions that a prior board had made around AHS governance.

I think it would be beneficial too, and I don't want to put additional work on the staff, but I think it would be being beneficial, and Dave kind of uh provided some context if we could have a chronology, because I think because we have so many new board members, I'm the only one that's been living this situation for the last 25 years.

Um, I think it would be good for the new board members to kind of see the chronology of how this has all evolved over time to get us to this point of making the decision around governance.

Um, and I would be the first.

Sorry to talk first, Supervisor, my esteemed colleagues, Advisor Tam.

I uh I would be the first to say AHS governance today is not what it was historically over the last decade or two.

It's in a much better place.

Um under the leadership of James Jackson and the Board of Trustees.

We even have a former uh assistant county administrator, uh, who's retired, who's on the board of trustees.

We've got other uh competent people who are serving on the board of trustees.

I think um Rachel Richmond's on the board of trustees and Rachel and she and Rachel worked for Supervisor uh Chan and I don't know if she works for ViA, but uh Rachel's been a been around for a long time.

So I and I'm just mentioning those two, but the point is the Board of Trustees is very competent and with the leadership of James Jackson and his staff, they've been doing an excellent job of moving things forward and managing the affairs of Alameda Health Systems in a way that hasn't caused significant implications for the county, because I don't want to be long-winded, but I can and you've heard me say this before.

I can let you know when I was on the Oakland City Council back in the late 19 in the 1990s, um, and um the Board of Supervisors made a decision to establish the hospital authority.

You know, I didn't necessarily think that was the best idea for them to do, but I know Supervisor Carson um is often said it they did that because the board of supervisors were spending so much time dealing with Alameda Health System.

At that point it was Alameda uh County Medical Center.

Uh, they changed their name.

The board was the supervisors spending so much time dealing with Alameda County Medical Center out, which is Alameda County um Health now.

No, Alameda County, um Alameda County Um HS, Alameda Health Systems and get all these acronyms, Alameda Health Systems, uh which it is now.

The board was spending so much time that it was really taking away the ability for the board to spend time on all the other issues and concerns that the board of supervisors had to deal with.

And you know, I wasn't on the board at the at the time, but you know, when I got here, Supervisor Carson would constantly tell us about that, and some of the other supervisors, um, Supervisor Gail Steele, um, and maybe Eli Picker and others kind of um were familiar with that.

So board had been spending so much time with the medical center, felt they needed to spin it off and create this hospital authority.

So they created this hospital authority, but in creating a hospital authority, it produced a lot of other problems.

I think unintended consequences, because there were lawsuits, the hospital authority was suing the county, there's issues around property, there's issues around staff, etc.

I mean, all sorts of issues.

But the point is, uh, whenever those issues came up and to get them resolved, ultimately, if the board of trustees couldn't resolve them, it would land back on the shoulders of the board of supervisors and uh and Alameda County um health at the time.

So we wanted to create some reforms, governance reforms, um, not just the Board of Supervisors, but labor too.

And and so, long story short, that's why I think that chronology would be important for staff to put together so the other four board members are aware of it.

Long story short, we get to 2022, and as Dave just kind of uh indicated, um, we came up with some decisions around governance, and then Scott just uh reaffirmed by 2024 we were moving ahead, or we at least approved um this path forward, but to date we haven't moved forward.

Now we could be excused for not moving forward because of the pandemic.

I mean, pandemic really sucked up a lot of time and energy, et cetera, et cetera.

Um, but and labor has been very patient with us, and as I said, the current structure and leadership at Alameda Um Alameda Health Systems is really very uh competent, but once again, it doesn't necessarily mean it's always going to be that way.

Uh so I do think it's imperative that we try to take steps to get staff to start advancing this, see if we can get a legislative sponsor for this agenda.

If we can't, we can't, then we'll just have if we can't get it, then we'll have to wait until the next cycle in 2027.

Yes, we'd need to wait to uh unless there became some emergency where we would, you know, do a got an amend with someone.

And I think the next step would be for someone to bring it forward to PAL as a sponsor and a bill to seek sponsorship for, and then the board could decide and and then we can move forward with finding a sponsor.

So uh when you say someone to bring it to PAL, could this committee direct it to PAL?

Yes, you both could send it forward to to Pal for that.

Okay.

Because I know she chairs PAL.

Supervisor Tam is, you know, she's kind of all roads to the lead to supervisor, my esteemed colleague.

Yes.

So and you know you know I don't want to put Amy on the spot but Amy knows this stuff pretty well.

She was chief of staff for Supervisor Carson and she worked for um Keith for many many many many many years.

So I know Amy knows this stuff I knows the background like uh Dave was kind of pointing out he's been around here forever too um so I just think you know Supervisor Tam I know I've said a lot and I know it's gonna put some pressure on the staff but I think we should give it the old college try.

If we aren't successful with this coming legislative you know we're in the session the two years if we aren't successful then okay we're not successful then we gotta look for 2027 but I don't know if labor will be as um gracious and um patient with us if we say we want to wait yet another year before trying.

So I've said a lot and turn the floor back floor to you to see if you have questions and comments.

Um thank you Chair Miley I appreciate the historical context I do recall that um maybe it was two years ago we had discussed this at our special meeting in Livermore after the board retreat and we talked about some of these potential amendments.

So I want to just in your chronology maybe have like a a distillation of what is it that we're doing now that is not in compliance because I agree totally with Supervisor Miley that what we have now we have a a great board of trustees with extremely competent people we have an executive director that gives us reports that keeps us completely updated and we also have a board that has to confront a lot of issues that takes up an incredible amount of time and based on uh conversations that Supervisor Carson had discussed uh you know externally and internally um having a board member uh take on that role uh at the board of trustees has been very consuming for uh the board so what I'm trying to understand is the structure that we have now where we elect or appoint members of the board of trustees and where we have that delegated authority on day-to-day operations um what legislative fixes do we need so that we we can continue to have that um robust model right now yeah maybe before Scott or Amy speak let me also just state um hopefully this adds a little bit of clarity too prior to the hospital authority and maybe it's clear the entire board of supervisors took on the responsibility and then ultimately under the law we are you know the you know uh you know the last resort for the the the delivery of the insurance of safety net health services in the county so the board uh delegated some authority to the hospital authority so under this new approach it just gives us the ability to appoint a supervisor it's sort of like a SARA we have a we can appoint a supervisor or Sarah we don't have to right now we don't have a county supervisor on a Sarah.

Supervisor Carson or Supervisor Carson is still on the ASER board, but we can appoint someone to the SARA board.

Under this model, I would think we'd have the same ability to appoint a supervisor if we wanted, or at some point we're looking to point um Colleen to the um board of trustees or someone else.

So it would just give us that flexibility and deal with any conflicts of interest, uh that uh that sort of thing.

Um, and uh so I just wanted to kind of state that, but oh so it's back to the staff.

We have option B right now, and when I was uh trying to understand because like Supervisor Mahdi said, uh, we may appoint.

I mean, the language is not that we shall appoint somebody from the board of supervisors, and I think Dr.

Moss is on the board of trustees.

So I'm is he be is it somebody that came from the agency or uh maybe Dr.

Moss, he is on the board of trustees.

He he's appointed through what mechanism.

He's appointed uh through the board uh for the um, I don't know if it's an at-large seat or if it's a seat for the county.

Um and so uh prior to that we had our former HR director in that uh on that seat, and when she left Dr.

Moss is there.

And the reason we wanted to get either um like the agency head or a supervisor or because as I expressed before, the board of trustees is an independent body that has the responsibility for uh oversight and management of the Alameda Health Systems.

We're not privy to legal, we're not privy to uh labor negotiations, we're not privy to really in anything they take up in closed sessions, we're not privy to that.

And in the past, that's caused me a lot of frustration, particularly when the board of trustees would make decisions that would be detrimental, and then labor would come to us, and we don't have the benefit of the rationale behind those decisions in closed session.

So we always thought that maybe with this new structure, it would give us the ability to have more control over some of the decision making uh matters.

Okay, I I guess I need to understand that better.

Um, because I I know County Council has explained to me that under the prior model there was a board member that participated in the closed session when that was not technically allowed.

So even if you were to have a closed session with a board member from the board of supervisors, things that are discussed in that closed session uh cannot be shared, right?

Yeah, to the extent that uh anybody is appropriately in a closed session, that information cannot be shared outside of the closed session.

But Scott, the model that we're putting forward, we had delegate some responsibility to the board of trustees, but we would retain a lot of authority.

Yeah, I mean, the idea would be that the board of trustees who are subject matter experts in the operation of a hospital would be the ones doing the day-to-day stuff, and that the governing board uh would be responsible for you know ultimate decision making, but they could also just accept what the board of trustees have done.

Um, and to be clear, the proposed proposed legislation would grant your board the discretion to figure out what the makeup of the governing board could be.

Could be a complete identity of the board of supervisors, or it could be one or two supervisors, it could be your health committee, yes, uh, plus uh the health director and the uh behavioral health director and you know the uh the original medical services director.

People who are also expert expert in the in the uh functioning of uh medical facilities.

So the question is we don't have that authority currently.

Okay.

I mean, uh I I support trying to push legislation that gives us as much flexibility and is responsive to our um our working uh to the unions and the working families.

Uh I haven't had um a direct conversation yet with uh some of the labor groups.

I know uh the California Nurses Association has asked for a meeting with me, and I assume it might be related to this, but it may not.

Yeah, and I think the other thing too about this direction, and I'm just working from my own recollection, is by giving us it just gives us more of a comfort level around uh the overall operation and management of Alameda Health Systems if if we have a little bit more say input directly because it's like with the alliance, you know, you're on the alliance as a board of supervisor, we have the health agency director on there, so and so it just gives them more comfort level to the decisions that are coming out of the alliance.

If we had people we I don't know, I don't want to use the word say trust there.

Um it's not to say the this present board of trustees, you know, I've got a lot of confidence in them.

Uh but like I said, there was one time and um I know Amy will know this.

I'm Scott uh my and I know Dave knows it too.

I mean the whole board of trustees quit on us.

The whole board of trust they did they quit, they just left.

Many of them I was told they were asked to resign.

Yeah, there that was that was the way your board exercised power at that point before Mr.

Jackson came in into place, was to encourage every one of the board of trustees to resign and then start afresh.

And I think Supervisor Chan, you know, she had a lot of expertise in this, and we've really relied on her a lot, and though you know she got involved with some things behind close to us that maybe she shouldn't have.

The point is if we we can rectify all that with this new new approach.

So I just think nothing ventured, nothing gained if we uh move ahead at this point.

And I don't think it is if I don't know if it works in Amy's mouth, um, uh, but it's not as if the county administrators' offices said we absolutely fundamentally can't do this at this point in time.

They're they are saying they could give it a try with our with our lobbyist and with the staffs even get a sponsor.

So maybe this committee could direct this to PAL and get this out of the way.

You mean I'm directing myself to put it on the agenda.

I I'm comfortable with that.

I think uh if we give it the old college try, we should also truly make sure that we can uh get a coalition partners to be a part of this because it is unique to Alameda County out of the 58 counties in the state.

Uh yes, uh so we have a PAL meeting next Monday, and then um it sounds like uh it's gonna be canceled for the following two Mondays since both the both Congress and the legislature are on recess, and then we'll be back uh in in January.

So uh it could come Monday or in January.

Okay, that's fine.

So Supervisor Stamps, since you chair PAL, could we could we get it on for this coming Monday?

Is it possible to get it on for this coming Monday?

If your office is submit the the um request for sponsorship, it can certainly get on for Monday the 16th.

Um I don't think we could turn it around for the board or Monday the 15th.

I don't think we could turn it around for the board to take action on Tuesday the 16th because of our agenda publishing requirements.

Um so the board wouldn't be able to take up formal action until um until you return in January, but we could um certainly you know make sure our our lobbyist has the heads up that this is working its way through the process um so that we could start laying some groundwork.

Yeah, because I think if you if we if the PAL takes it up, then it still has to come to the board and it won't come to the board until after the first of the year, and then I think Amy said the window closes is like February 1st or something like that.

Uh, the last day for legislation, new legislation to be submitted to ledge counsel is the 23rd of January.

Oh boy, so we're it it's gonna be tight anyway.

Yeah, the next uh after today, the next two PAL meetings are councilled because of the availability of legislative staff at Sacramento and um in DC.

So we will be looking at the meeting in January, uh, because it's too late for today.

But what about next?

I think so you're not meeting next week.

The sixteenth is uh the 15th is still on the the calendar.

Um I believe it was that 22nd and the 29th that were going to be canceled, and so it could certainly come to PAL on the 15th and and then come to the board at your first meeting in January.

Because the meeting um for the board is on the 19th.

Tuesday the sixteenth.

Okay.

So Supervisor Tim, if you're comfortable with it, I can have my staff work with your office so we could get you know request to PAL jointly from the two of us, okay.

Okay.

All right.

The staff have any other quote questions or comments at the moment.

Let's see if we have speakers on this, Tisa.

I have no speakers on item four.

No speakers.

All right, well, make me don't I'm sorry, there's one speaker.

Okay.

Caller, you're on the line.

You have two minutes, David.

Hello, supervisors.

Um, thank you again for um taking up this important item for SCAU 1021 members.

Um, yeah, this conversation is is very important, and uh I appreciate the um honesty in putting all um you know the the timeline forward um and uh we look forward to the ongoing process.

Um I think um it would help address some um ongoing labor personnel concerns um and we'd be happy to to share more information.

So thank you again for um uh taking up this item in conversation today.

There are no more speakers.

Okay, I'll thank um uh Dave for speaking to this and appreciate Supervisor Tam uh being uh supportive of us sending this to PAL.

So I'll have Aaron from my office work with your office to get that request into the PAL committee.

Um thank staff of county council and county ministers' office for bringing this update to us today and Dave Brown for chiming in with a little bit of the uh background of the chronology.

Uh and I do think ultimately when it does get to the full board, we might want to have a more lengthy chronology for the full board to see uh in January.

And I guess the first board meeting January will be the 13th.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

The president of the board, David Halburn, informed us that we weren't gonna meet on the 6th of January.

I or at least I saw that from the county administrator.

So I think it's gonna be the fall.

I think I think we're we're gonna meet with you know committees and other stuff, but we won't have a board meeting on January 6th.

That's my understanding.

So I hopefully we can bring this to the full board on January 13th.

Okay.

Alrighty, thank you.

So do we have any public speakers on non agendized items?

I have no speakers for public comment.

Right.

Well, we are adjourned, so happy holidays, and we'll see you.

Because this is our last health committee meeting for the year.

Oh, okay.