Recording in progress.

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to call to order the Tuesday, December 9th regular meeting of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to order.

I would like to request everyone, please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance.

Will the clerk please call the role to establish our quorum?

Supervisor Marquez.

Supervisor Tam present.

Supervisor Miley, excused.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass present.

President Halbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

I would like to welcome members of the public, both in person and online.

We uh welcome you and appreciate your input and feedback.

If you're in person and wish to comment on an item before us, I'd ask that you fill out a speaker slip.

And if you're online, we'll have the clerk now provide brief instructions for how you may participate remotely online.

Detailed instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines.

A link to the document is included in today's agenda.

If you are joining the meeting using a computer, use the button at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand to request to speak.

When called to speak, please unmute your microphone and state your name.

If you are calling in Dal Star 9 to raise your hand to speak, when you're called to speak, the host will enable you to speak.

If you decide not to speak, notify the clerk when your call is unmuted, or you may simply hang up and dial back into the meeting.

As a reminder, you may always just observe the meeting without participating by clicking on the view now link on the county's webpage at acgov.org.

When called, you will have two minutes to speak.

Please limit your remarks to the time allocated.

Public comment will generally alternate between in-person and online speakers, as determined by the president of the board and subject to overall time limits.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next item is Board of Supervisors remarks.

Chance for the board to make any comments or remarks on things going on.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Anything to chime in on.

Yes, um, good morning, everyone.

I wanted to just uh note that last Thursday, our Alameda County Together for All ad hoc committee met, and we covered the topics of public charge as well as food security.

And for those interested in the public charge issue, we had a great presentation from our lobbyists as well as Bay Area Legal Aid.

There's also a presentation in addition to there's a slide presentation in addition to the verbal presentations that you can take a look at if you're interested.

And uh PAL, our legislative committee on Monday will be reviewing a comment letter.

Uh that's a very important issue in terms of our safety net services and our immigrant community.

And then secondly, we covered the issue of food security and had an opportunity to hear from the food bank, Oakland Thrives, and others about food security during the government shutdown, and it was really heartening to hear that many many partners were able to leverage the board's commitment of 16.5 million dollars, and we were also able to raise 2.1 million in private funds to support a range of smaller to mid-size organizations that are part of the food security network.

And uh President Halbert, I presume that either you or our administrator are going to welcome the new addition to our team, and I'll reserve my comments for that.

That will be uh reserved for our esteemed county administrator.

Which she can do right now.

Thank you, President Halbert, members of the board.

I'm pleased to announce that we have a new clerk of the board, Brittany Davis, who joined us yesterday.

Want to welcome her, and I know she had a chance to I think meet all of the board members, and she'll be obviously working directly with you and your staff as well as with the department heads in my office.

Good morning, everyone.

I'm Brittany Davis.

I am your new clerk of the board.

It is an honor and a privilege to be here to serve you in my current capacity and to support the administration.

And I look forward to working in partnership with you all and carrying out the administration's priorities.

Pleasure to be here.

Would you like to say where you came from?

Yes, absolutely.

I come from Oakland, City of Oakland.

I was working there as their assistant city clerk for the last three and a half years.

And prior to Oakland, I was with the city of Dunwoody, Georgia, for five years as their assistant city clerk.

So it's a pleasure.

Thank you.

Welcome.

We're glad to have you.

Thank you, President Halbert.

Does that include your remarks?

If I may, I would just like to welcome Brittany Clerk as the clerk of the board.

And I had the privilege and the pleasure of working with her at the City of Oakland.

I really admire her professionalism, her commitment to being impartial as all clerks should be, and her level of detail so an organization.

So I'm really looking forward to having a new member to our county team that can help support the important work of our board and our county.

Thank you.

Very well said, as I often say, as goes Oakland, so goes Alameda County.

So we're one big happy family.

Thank you.

Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you, President Halbert Halbert, and welcome.

Excited to have you here, Brittany.

I'm glad you've joined the team.

Just wanted to say good morning and happy holidays to everyone and just share an update.

Last night my office hosted a Measure W Town Hall in Indian City at the Senior Center, and we heard information from Abode, from our youth advisory board, and from people with lived experience.

So that video and slides I believe will be posted within the next day or two, but just wanted to thank Jonathan Russell, the director of housing and homelessness services.

We were able to provide updated information with respect to the Measure W fund and next steps.

And also just want to put a plug-in for everyone to please save the date.

Our point in time count is going to be on Thursday, January 22nd.

I believe this is the fourth time we've done a count here in Alameda County because I've participated in three, so it should be the fourth.

So it's really important that we get updated data from our individuals that are impacted by housing insecurity and that unfortunately are living in the streets.

And I'm sure all of you can relate.

And it's been very cold here in the Bay Area.

So please consider what you can do as an individual to help others in need.

Also, just wanted to thank and acknowledge the city of Newark.

They had an amazing tree lighting ceremony on Friday night.

The city of Hayward had one on Saturday, and wanted to acknowledge their strong partnership with Hard, Hayward Area Recreational Department.

They had a Ferris Wheel and Rides all for free hot chocolate for the community this past Saturday.

So it's just another incredible example of partnerships, which we all need or need and are very important in our community at this time.

I also attended a tree lighting ceremony at the Masonic home in Indian City on Thursday night, and that was also a beautiful community celebration.

So I hope everyone takes the time to connect and be in community.

It's been a very challenging year, but I'm just happy to be serving with my colleagues here and to the amazing employees with Alameda County.

So just wanted to acknowledge their incredible work this year.

Even though the year's not over, we still have more meetings, but just wanted to say thank you to everyone.

Supervisor Tam.

Thank you, President Halbert.

And I also want to welcome our new board clerk.

Um we are very busy board.

You will get inundated.

Unfortunately, I um have a sad announcement.

I would like to adjourn our meeting today in memory of uh former mayor Steve Cassidy from San Leandro.

He passed away this past weekend, and when appropriate, I will um recount uh some of his achievements today.

Well, thank you.

Indeed, we are in holiday season is upon us.

Um, I'm was blessed to attend two parades on Saturday night, the beginning of the Pleasanton parade, for which I then navigated the back streets to Livermore and became the end of the Livermore parade, two parades in one night, also in the Niles parade the week before, and um we're just into that part of the season.

And indeed, I thank my colleagues who are also I know raising uh awareness of uh people with food and security collecting food uh and toys for those that can't afford them.

Um we're going to have the district one on this Thursday.

I know district two is going to have Thursday as well.

We're all very, very, very busy, but I have some other exciting news.

Last week I attended the California State Association of Counties CSAC annual conference.

Um I attended as the vice chair of the housing and transportation committee, but uh also as our voting member was selected to be a member of the California State Association of Counties Executive Committee.

As I think we all know, Alameda County has had a seat on the executive committee for decades with uh the retirement of Supervisor Carson.

Um we skipped a year, but we got back on it.

So I'm excited for that, and uh thank you very much.

Thank you for that.

Um, so those conclude my remarks.

Let me say that the next item on our agenda is for public comment on all items on the agenda except those listed as set matters.

Our set matters today are listed at one o'clock.

Those are a few proclamations from Supervisor Marquez and and our board.

So we're going to have public comment on all items, including closed session and any of the items listed as regular matters, but excluding the 1 p.m.

set matters.

Um, after this time, we will then um approve the minutes and then go into closed session, for which we will spend um we have a long closed session agenda, and we'll come back and deal with the one o'clock set matter um uh after that.

Um so again, for now, if you're online or in person, fill out a speaker slip if you're in person.

If you're online, raise your hand.

We'll be taking public comment on all the items, including closed session and the regular calendar, but not the one o'clock set matters.

We will do those later.

If I could ask the clerk to count the speaker slips and count the hands raised and give me a count, I would appreciate it.

Nineteen total.

All right, um, we will allow two minutes for each speaker.

I guess today, up to two minutes, people don't have to take the entire two minutes.

They can speak for less than two minutes.

First, we always do in-person three, and then online three, and we'll rotate accordingly.

The first three in-person Rebecca Specter on item 34.

George Smith for close session, and Stephanie Wedge for closed session.

Good morning, supervisors.

Good morning, President Halbert.

My name is Rebecca Spector.

I'm the executive director of the Tri-Valley Conservancy, and I'm here to support item 34 recommendation from the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee to approve a grant to TBC for acquisition of the Altamont Hills property.

Uh TVC is a nonprofit land trust in Livermore, and we protect more than 6100 acres of agriculture and open space lands in Alameda County.

TVC is seeking to acquire the Altamont Hills property, which is 32 acres of grassland just before the Altamont Pass.

It's been identified as a priority area for the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy.

It's an unincorporated county, and it is zoned for agriculture.

As I mentioned, it's been identified as a priority area for wildlife habitat.

It's highly visible open space and viewshed, which is important as it's the entryway to the beauty of the wine country.

It's also adjacent to a very important wildlife crossing.

TVC applied for funding to acquire the property from the Altamont Landville Open Space Committee.

And the committee did recommend a $500,000 grant to TVC to acquire this property.

And just as a refresher, the committee provides funds for acquisitions for open space lands in Alameda County.

And the priorities for these acquisitions are lands that preserve biological diversity, wildlife habitat, and have significant value for visual character.

After, so TVC is currently in negotiations with the landowners, and we need this $500,000 secured in order for us to purchase the property.

TVC will make up the remainder of the cost of the property.

Currently, the property is listed at 1.050.

The appraisals, which there have been two, have come in at 876 500.

So TVC is hoping for this 500,000 to be recommended from the Board of Supervisors to ratify the approval of the funding, and then TVC will uh pay for the remainder of the funding.

So we do ask that this committee uh ratify that the funding is consistent with the Altamont Landfill open space requirements, which it is because of the what I stated earlier, and um support ratify that the money can go to TVC so we can move forward with purchasing this property.

Thank you very much.

Next speakers.

My name is George Schmidt.

I'm a resident of pleasant for over 49 years now.

Yesterday I attended the ad hoc meeting of the Alameda County Fair Board, and it was reported that there would be no horse racing, and that the fair board did not intend to apply for dates for horse racing at the Alameda County Fair this year.

It is in direct violation of the contract you have with them under Section M.

And I would urge you to do what you can to force them to adhere to that contract, and hopefully we'll have horse racing in Pleasanton again.

I'm speaking, obviously, under the potential litigation section because that's what you have to do, I believe, at this point.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, supervisors.

I heard yesterday that the Alameda County Fair is not having horse racing in 2026.

This violates Section M of their contract.

I asked the board of supervisors to sue or litigate the Alameda County Fair.

Thank you.

Lori Weinstock, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Hello.

Um, Lori Weinstock.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

I have been a resident and homeowner in Alameda County for over 25 years.

And I am here to comment on item 61 regarding recommending the reauthorization of the investment authority of our treasurer, Hanky Levy.

And I would like to make it clear that it has been um written in in, you know, it is um, it is a fact that the pool and investments that Mr.

Levy have made has made are in the very high percentile.

The investment pool has generated close to 400 million in income during the last fiscal year, the highest amount ever recorded in the investment pool of Alameda County's history.

So there should be no reason to um take away Mr.

Uh Hank Levy's authority to be our investor.

I am happy to see my tax dollars invested by him.

And I highly recommend that you pay attention and not listen to those who come to represent big money in Alameda County and try and manipulate the truth.

They will be exposed.

The people of Alameda County would like to see our treasurer remain in place with his authority to make investments, excuse me.

Investments that have been successful, and to um continue with our position as the people of Alameda County who desire an ethical perspective on our tax dollars and our investments.

Thank you very much.

Jean Moses, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Hello, this is Jean Moses.

I am in District 3, and I wanted to echo the words of uh Lori Weinstock that she just spoke.

Uh I believe that Treasurer Levy has done an awesome job.

I would also, with regard to item 61, like to encourage you guys strongly to include the authorization of formal implementation of our approved ethical investment policy.

I would like to really encourage you not to spend more money and to waste more time on reevaluating the really excellent work that has been done by Treasurer Levy and his chosen consultants.

So please use this opportunity to authorize implementation of the uh ethical investment policy.

Thank you very much.

Jake Peterson, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Jake Peterson, District 5 resident and member of Jewish Voice for Peace.

I'm dialing in today to voice my strong support for item 61, the reauthorization of delegation of the board's investment authority to the treasurer.

I urge you to ignore the sabotage artists who have attempted to derail your confidence in a treasurer who has served our county well for eight years now.

The hack job, so-called financial analysis put forth by critics has betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the way investments work.

It's not clear to me that they even understand the differences between stocks and bonds.

As a Jewish person, I cannot help but note that our treasurer, also a Jewish person, is being slandered and targeted because of his faith.

Anti-Semitic rhetoric should hold no place in our county's work.

And I was horrified to see false accusations directed toward Treasurer Levy, accusing him of hiding losses and deceiving the public and the board.

Please discard the concerns sent to you about Treasurer Levy.

The criticism is not genuinely financial in nature.

It is purely political in its motivation.

The next three in person, David Elliott on close session, Anthony Cordova, close session.

And Johnny Tagata, close session.

Good morning.

I too was at the ad hoc committee meeting yesterday.

Um it was stated by the Alameda County Fair Board that they do not plan on offering horse racing this year at the 2026 Alameda County Fair.

And hence in direct violation of paragraph M of the existing contract that they have with the county.

As I witnessed that meeting yesterday, I didn't see any movement whatsoever by any of the Alameda County Fairboard would absolutely insist that they complying with paragraph M of the current contract that they have in place.

Thank you very much.

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Uh, in regards to the ad hoc meeting as well from yesterday.

Honestly, I was kind of shocked by what I learned from the fair board.

Timing is of the essence right now to bring horse racing back to the Alameda County Fair.

And Supervisor Halbert, I appreciate your enthusiasm, your passion for horse racing, and the words that you you spoke last night.

But there just seems to be a lack of interest from uh folks who don't understand how important this is.

And obviously they realize that they're in clear violation and breach of paragraph M.

I think it's something that needs to be uh addressed immediately.

We have an open window of time to bring a really fantastic experience back to Pleasanton.

We're a lot of people are ready to do it.

And uh I think today's the day to make some important decisions.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Johnny Tabuta.

Good morning, supervisors.

Um, I was there yesterday at the AHAP meeting as well from the uh fairgrounds uh board meeting.

Uh watching um basically, but they presenting their plan for 2026.

We should completely lack so forth racing, they're disregarding horse racing, and they really are not conserving our heritage, our community, our cultural heritage that it be that is horse racing, as you know, is the one is the oldest one mile there mile in the country.

So for me, it was disruptive to hear this.

So I'm speaking under the closed section item potation litigation, asking the board of supervisors to enforce the contract to force the fair to adhere to the paragraph M and other other and welfare horse racing in 2006.

If not, the board should find association membership of pursuitation by the core.

Thank you so much.

Bob Johnson, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Uh thank you, President Halbert and members of the board and the public opportunity to speak today.

Um I'm Bob Johnson.

I live in Livermore in District One.

Um I'm active with the Friends of Wadi Fakin, the Friends of Wadi Fakin' Circle at Asbury United Methodist Church.

Um, I too wish wish to speak in favor of and support of um item 61 and ask that the board approve it today.

Uh I too support uh Treasurer Levy and the work he does.

Uh I feel that the attacks against him have been unfounded and inappropriate.

Um I also, like other speakers, would like to see the immediate implementation of the ethical investment policy that was passed uh back in October.

Uh really do not see any reason for further delay.

Um, and so on both of these issues, uh, yes on item 61, please, and please proceed uh now with the implementation of the ethical investment policy so it can be in place, can be uh put to use, and we can put this behind us and move on to other issues.

Uh thank you for your time and your consideration today.

Tamara Rose, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Hi, good morning.

Yes, um, I'm Tamara Royce.

I am a member of the board of the Tri-Valley Conservancy.

I'm here to speak on item 34 today.

I want to echo what our director said, um, and emphasize that an opportunity to get uh funding to purchase a property uh such as the Altamont Hills property is a rare opportunity in my experience um as a board member, and we were grateful to get these Altamont settlement uh funds from the committee.

Um our goal is to hopefully work out an opportunity to purchase the property um and then transfer it to an organization such as LARPD, and we would continue to hold an easement on it.

As our director said, these funds are justified because this property has tremendous value as the wildlife corridor and habitat for endangered and threatened species.

And there are, as a staff report indicates, there are opportunities for trail connections that will provide recreational opportunities in the east of Greenville area in our county, which is a real drawing point for the community and for the wine country.

Beautiful vistas, lovely areas to walk.

These bring people into the area who want to experience all that we have to offer.

Michael Yoshi, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Michael Yoshi.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Thank you.

Michael Yoshi, retired of United Methodist Clergy, co-chair of friends of Wadi Fu King.

I'm here, as with others, to support item 61 and the reauthorization of the investment authority for Treasurer of Henry Levy.

But I also want to underscore a grave concern that I've had about the political attacks that have been taking place against the Treasurer, particularly at the October 3rd Board of Supervisors meeting.

And instead of wasting money on a consultant, that consultant should be hired to implement the policy.

That would be the prudent use of county funds.

Also, is a year ago that this policy was mandated by your board on human rights day, December 10th, 2024.

Tomorrow is human rights day as well.

And we know that at the heart of the ethical investment policy is the language of human rights, that we do not profit from the abuses of human rights anywhere around the world.

And I really believe that if you reflect on this moment in time and today, that you will do the morally right thing and to correct the inaction, the uh unfortunate action that took place on October 3rd.

We send that and then use money to hire the consultant to implement the policy.

Next three in person, Joel Reinstern for item 61.

Tim Drew for item 61.

And Chris Moore, item 61.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Gerald Reinstein.

Uh, I live in Oakland.

I'm here to speak uh as well in support of Treasurer Henry Levy.

Uh Levy, excuse me, and uh in support of renewing his investment authority with the county.

Treasurer Levy has clearly acted with integrity and engaged very sincerely and thoughtfully over the course of over a year with members of this community on an issue of great importance to our community.

Specifically that our county's investments reflect our values of opposing racism and standing up for human rights.

It's obvious that he's coming under attack right now because of that stand that he took, in accordance with our values against racism and against uh apartheid.

Uh the times we live in are not the time to be giving in or appeasing attacks, frankly, from racist groups against a loyal public servant.

So I urge you to renew Treasurer Levy's investment authority and continue to stand for human rights.

Thank you.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Tim Drew.

I'm a district five resident and member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

I urge the board to pass item 61, which would continue the board's delegation of investment authority to the elected treasurer.

Treasurer Hank Levy rightly divested from caterpillar bonds in December 2024 and developed an ethical and effective ethnic investment policy.

Since the board approved the EIP on October 3rd, Treasurer Levy has been under political attack from an individual who opposes its implementation.

Let's be clear, let's be clear about what's going on here.

The board is taking spurious financial advice from a single member of the public who is pursuing political objectives, masquerading as concern for the financial well-being of the county.

Just yesterday, this person contacted all the supervisors suggesting that you discontinue delegation of your investment authority.

Since we heard about this contact late last night, we delivered well over 400 letters to each of you and your staff at as of the start of this meeting.

These hundreds of constituent letters represent two true democracy.

They come from hundreds of your constituents who demand that you reauthorize your delegation of investment authority to the treasurer and rescind your decision to relegate the ethical investment criteria to a redundant peer review committee.

The Treasury Oversight Committee is meeting this Thursday from 1 to 3 p.m.

I urge you to attend this meeting, listen to Treasury staff and consultants, and facilitate the immediate implementation of the EIP.

Thank you very much.

Chris Moore.

Item 61.

You know, when residents raise concerns about the treasurer's transparency, did you happen to notice the treasurer did not respond with facts refuting our analysis?

He responded with personal attacks against me.

And this is particularly troubling since Levy described himself as an activist in the October 3rd meeting.

So activism really has no place in running a treasury.

It becomes dangerous when facts are replaced with rhetoric, especially when you're managing eleven billion dollars in public funds.

On October 3rd, the board voted an independent review of his office.

On the 19th of November, Levy sent you a memo urging you reverse that decision, even though he agreed with it.

His justification, of course, more personal tax, but also a claim that Alameda County was a stellar performer in the top 10%.

Well, I checked his peer analysis, and guess what?

I found he misrepresented the numbers again.

And please have your staff check the numbers.

I sent an email to all of you.

He inflated Alameda County's return percentage.

The county actually ranks second from the bottom in his own peer analysis.

He tried to convince you to counsel council oversight based on at best very sloppy work.

I don't think he's actually doing this on purpose.

I think he's just not paying attention.

So, so the this is the core concerns.

Activists argue with uh narrative, but the facts are missing.

Treasurer must argue with facts, and right now you're getting a narrative.

So put it on the next regular meeting, and I think uh you should ask those questions.

I'll end with uh some facts about my experience, as Henry questioned it.

I have an MBA in finance from Berkeley.

I spent 10 years with one of the largest auditing firms, auditing the city of Berkeley, County of Solano, um, the Port of Oakland, and the Treasury functions in those organizations.

I'm well versed in what uh I'm talking about here.

Thanks for your time.

Gina Bonano, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Good morning, supervisors and county staff.

This is Gina Bonanno.

Uh, I'm a longtime Livermore resident and currently a member of the Tri-Valley Conservancy Board of Directors.

Previously, I've served on the Livermore City Council and on the Livermore Planning Commission.

I'm speaking this morning on item 34 and agree uh fully with the previous comments made by our executive director and by my fellow board member, and respectfully request that you ratify the award of the $500,000 to the Tri-Ballley Conservancy toward the purchase of the Altamont Hills property.

This property is an open space gateway to the Livermore Valley Wine Country, its rolling hills are an important part of the beauty of the region and welcome visitors coming from this direction to our region.

This property has the potential as a special species habitat and is identified as a unique and important wildlife crossing.

TBC's ownership and stewardship would ensure that this crossing is conserved and any special species are protected.

TBC has proven its commitment and its ability to preserve open space for the benefit of the environment, for the support of a robust wine country economy, and for the community overall to enjoy.

I urge you to concur with the open space committee's approval to award TBC $500,000 toward the purchase of this property as per your staff recommendations.

Thank you.

Ranwa Hamami, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Hi, thank you so much.

Um, my name is uh Ranwa Mami.

Um, I live in District 5.

Uh, I am a Unitarian Universalist Muslim and uh a minister, and I wanted to speak uh on on item 61, and I want to uh support the proposal to renew the authority of Treasurer Levy.

Um I don't have a lot of financial background, but what I can say is that Treasurer Levy has acted with deep integrity and accountability to his community, to uh a range of individuals with a variety of perspectives, has taken in information from consultant after consultant and has done nothing but informed work.

And so I would urge you to please renew his investment authority.

Uh the recent attacks that have come against his authority are nothing but um a political ploy.

Um, to uh remove any sort of ethical stance from our county, and I would hope that our county would engage in ethical behavior, um, because if we don't, then what are we saying to the world?

Um so I really do encourage you to renew his investment authority and then to also um, as many of my other beloveds who have spoken already this morning, um, to rescind the decision that you made on October 3rd to thank Treasurer Levy for the intense work that he has done, um, and to implement the ethical investment policy immediately.

It is a not just a waste of county resources to put it through this unnecessary process, but just deeply troubling to see um a public servant be disrespected in this way who has done nothing but serve the people and the county.

Thank you.

Owner, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Oh, good morning.

Uh, my name is David First.

I want to speak to item 34.

I am a Livermore resident, and I am the Sierra Club representative to the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee.

And I urge you to approve the $500,000 grant to TVC.

As a committee, we voted to grant money to purchase the Altamont Hills property, due in part to our desire to preserve open space and also to purchase this specific property to preserve its biodiversity.

The purchase of this property will also make possible a regional trail that will potentially go from south of Highway 580, cross under the freeway and an existing undercrossing, and go through the Altamont Hills property and then head north to Brushy Peak.

The Altamont Hills property also has a potential to be an open space park with a potential staging area on the east side of the property.

I therefore urge you to approve the grant funding.

Thank you.

Barbara, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Barbara, you're on the line.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

You have two minutes.

I am speaking on the litigation regarding horse racing.

And thank you for the opportunity to speak.

When there was horse racing in Pleasanton, it made Alameda County special and it set it apart from the other Bay Area counties.

I'm concerned that the Fair Association had a proposal and they declined it.

This violates their contract, and the Board of Supervisors should hold the association in breach and litigate if the fair does not provide horse racing pursuant to paragraph M in the 2017 agreement.

Thank you.

The last three in-person speakers are second speaking on 60, 54, 48, 41, 39, 38, 36, 23, 19, 13, 12, 11, 10, and 3.

Simeon Ramey speaking on item 11, item 12, item 13, and Buffalo speaking on item 87.

Good day, board.

I'm here to address the compliantal state.

Each one of these requestments were supposed to be individualized based on the chartership of this county.

In compliantal stance, we are applications between district to superior court based on closed session.

Knowing that Richard Daniel, um Levy Press and Schmidt, via the impeachment process as the agent that uses API, according to Citizens United, a release uh case less than an hour ago in view of the cost of living based on what's happening with BlackRock.

In view of FM Incorporated, also known as Frost Manhattan under Citizen United, I wish to challenge the state compliance in the county in view of requestment against First Republic and SVB.

The noted applications I do have as an individual, as Princess, and define as a grant allocator to allocations.

I have issues with a view to allocated fund and service requestment based on each procurement contract.

Individualization was supposed to be attained by that of the administrative board and US fiduciary agents.

And compliant will review questionable variances indicate line item requestments based on the procedure of enactment.

In this application under the Fifth Amendment, due processes identified under the uh 18th Amendment, the application for taxation.

I wish to challenge the state compliances in these noted applications.

Some of the majority of these are actually asking for increased capital than what they are seeking.

I wish to ask this to the Farm to Fresh Boards under the SNAP project and view a US V Spectra and Fernandez via the United States.

I wish to challenge this in compliance.

Thank you.

My name is Simeon Raimi.

I'm with the California Oakland Homer's Union for Mental Health Outreach for Independent Living.

We have a national program of homes and mental health.

On Sunday, September, February 25th, the San Jose Mercury News on Galvanus.

Resolve telephone long debate overhealth while running for government in 2018.

Calvin Newsom plans to make minimal health reforming High Park Party, calling for a command structure.

That's us.

And to standardizing care and hold caregivers accountable.

That's us.

Over the last two decades, Prop 63 has pumped billions in dollars into these service.

However, California still has an immense population of unhoused and untreated victims of Milan Health.

200,000 of that.

Oh, excluding me and um on poverty.

We have to address this issue.

They give us the everything.

They have our society.

We cannot just throw them away.

Throw yourself away.

But whole point is the federal government is pushing me to do this.

I got federal funding to have this done.

We waiting on y'all.

Give me a land or we're gonna do this and I'll be counting.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Two minutes.

How can I do this?

First, out of made these seven.

In San Francisco, when these clowns do construction, they do inform the bus company ahead.

Over here, AC Transit is disrespected, and the fools that set out them cones are not compliant with county code.

I would strongly advise you to work with AC transit so that the buses can be notified of construction before it occurs.

A.

And B, tighten up the slack on the slavenly contract doors.

It's as simple as a 10-foot easement right of way so that buses and cars can pass through.

It's been real slack in Oakland.

I don't know about the rest of the county.

That's proposition 87.

Now let's get to some meat.

I don't know whether this is a question of point of information or a point of parliamentary procedure.

I don't know how close you are to operating by Robert's rules of parliamentary procedure.

But I do know our commentary time has been shrinking over the last two years since you found out it's a matter of public record, and every now and then your errors get perceived by somebody that ain't in this room.

How we shrunk public speaking time down to two minutes total as opposed to two minutes issue, I don't know, but I do know approving minutes of a number of meetings.

I question that I question the parliamentarian and whatever attorneys you have for that amount of slippage in due process.

Ed R, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Yes, Loe, you can hear me.

Yes.

Um, thanks.

Hi, um, my name's Ed Romano.

I'm with the East Bay DSA, and I'm here to speak in favor of item 61.

Uh to renew Treasurer Hank Levy's delegated investment authorization.

Um, you know, so by dropping the counterpillar bonds back in 2020 uh December 2024, he made us really proud for shedding light on the continuous ethnic cleansing and apartheid that goes on in Israel.

And furthermore, for developing the ethical investment policy, which was uh under a vote this past October 3, and was outrageously delayed.

Um I know, you know, Treasurer Levy is looking to implement this as soon as possible, and I encourage the board to resent that decision to delay it and actually push this forward, right?

The gentleman that took the stand uh a couple of beats ago saying that there's no place of uh there's no place uh for activism in these kind of spaces is wildly in error, like I see that in 1985, this very board divested from South Africa, and that is what we're asking this EIP to do, right?

From like the most egregious uh uh uh issue, egregious horrors we're seeing before us, right in the form of a genocide.

What would we say about uh uh slavery that happened in the past, like just because we extracted what 70% of US GDP that it should stand?

I mean, let's let's really pay attention to the ethical part of this ethical investment policy and stand true to it, please.

Thank you.

You're on the line, you have two minutes.

Hello, Board of Supervisors.

Thank you for taking our comments.

Uh, my name is Diana Roberts.

I'm the conservation manager for the Tri-Valley Conservancy, and I would like to encourage the adoption of item 34 uh related to the recommendation of the Altamont Land Fill and Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, uh, for a grant of $500,000 to acquire a beautiful property in North Livermore.

We believe that it uh more than qualifies for the priorities for the funding for significant value of native biodiversity and wildlife habitat um and incredible significant value for visual character.

Uh, this funding is especially important for the process of acquisition.

Um, we need to be able to know uh when negotiating uh what funds we have um in terms of matching funds, Tri Valley Conservancy is putting up the remainder of the funding as well as receive grant funding from other entities such as the California Council of Land Trusts uh to be able to facilitate this process.

Uh and we need this remaining funding to be able to carry out the transaction.

Uh we appreciate the time uh and attention that you've been playing or that you've been paying to this uh item, and we very much encourage your resolution and ratification of this uh item today.

Thank you.

Sebastian Dairy, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Hi, can you hear me?

I just can't tell if this is working.

Yes.

Uh I okay.

I just want to say I'm a normal uh like I'm not an activist, I'm just uh normal person here who lives in Rockridge, and I'm here to support uh renewing Hank Levy's uh authorization.

Um, from I I have a few lawyer friends, and from what it's been explained to me, this is just the normal course of procedure to renew his authorization, and you would only do that in some sort of extreme circumstance.

And I've been looking into Hank Levy's performance and their portfolio, and I just like what he's doing.

I'm just like a normal guy in Rockridge.

I looked through um where our funds are allocated, and it looks like you know, he's investing in like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and housing and local development, and I just I think he's doing a phenomenal job.

I just like Hank Levy, and I'm not speaking as an activist, I'm just speaking as a guy who's like, hey, this guy's doing a good job, just let him keep doing a good job.

If people have some like big problem with him, then they're you can deal with that in an election or something like that, but like just let him do his job.

I'm super pro Hank Levy, and just keep like just keep it flowing.

Like, yeah, he's he's great.

I really support what he's doing, in person Tuan speaking on item 61.

The county is responsible and entrusted with investing billions of dollars of public funding.

We have a fiduciary duty to make sure our funds are well cared for because that money is needed to care for elderly folks who need food, meals on wheels, disabled seniors.

We have immigrants who need services.

We have a petra of problems that we need to deal with, and we need resources for us to have over a hundred and sixty million dollars to spend on much needed resources is crucial to fixing and addressing the needs of the community.

It is incumbent on us and on the board of supervisors to perform oversight and to have fiduciary duty, and I think it's important that we have transparency in our investment in how much return we get, what the benchmarks are.

Unless we have transparency, we don't have public trust.

How can you invest billions of dollars potentially losing close to 200 million dollars and endangering close to two billion dollars without oversight?

Normally, this kind of money comes with multiple levels of oversight.

Before you authorize, you need to trust and verify and make sure that the public's trust in our taxes in our investments is well founded.

Do your due diligence, protect the resources to provide for the needs of the community.

Thank you so much.

Tamara, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

I'm here to speak on item 61.

Our taxpayers' funds are at stake.

Can we focus on something truly urgent?

We have a crisis in Alameda County.

In Auckland, only 42% of high school students can read on the grade level, and only 13% are proficient in math.

In Berkeley, only 20% of black students are proficient in math compared to 76% of white students.

Unemployment among high school graduates is 22%.

The most ethical investment our county can make is into improving education for our children.

Instead of dealing with abysmal state of our own education and obvious racial injustice here at our home, our treasury finds money and time to get involved in the issues of foreign policies.

Alameda County must focus on the maximum return and safety of our investments and fund education in the first place.

Independent review of investment of investment policy does not cost money.

Ineffective investment does.

I support your decision on transparent and independent review of the investment policy.

Thank you.

Robert Edelman, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Robert Edelman.

I'm a resident of Oakland since 1986.

And I'm speaking on behalf of item 61.

I think there's a serious transparency problem with Mr.

Levy.

And that he should be reviewed for this.

The county has a fiscal responsibility to everyone, as the previous speaker just mentioned.

As far as I could tell, the uh action of selling the uh catapored bonds, uh, which doesn't affect catapor at all, uh, cost us in the short term $300,000 plus $20,000 in a consultant's fee on determining uh what to do what to do with the money.

Um I just so I think that we should continue this independent uh review of Mr.

Levy's uh activities.

I also want to say one other thing.

I didn't want to get into this, but uh um I'm a supporter of Israel.

I think that um Israel is 60% colored uh people of color.

Uh 20% of the population is Arab and they have full voting rights, including presence and their their Knesset, their parliament, and they've even had a Supreme Court justice.

This is not an apartheid state.

Sure, they have some problems, but so do we in this country.

Um, they were ruthlessly attacked, and um, I think uh we're not talking about the emirates, which are funding a genocide against Sudanese or China with the Igars, and uh, and I think this is a biased uh one-sided opinion that Mr.

Levy and his supporters are taking.

Thank you.

Lara Gabriel, you have two minutes.

Hi, thank you.

Um, I just want to say, look, people are using item 61 to talk about the ethical investment policy, but this is really about oversight and about the the treasurer, and we need to err on that on the side of more oversight and not less.

Um, you know, it's not very good policy to have somebody with really strong political opinions making decisions about the money that we pay as taxpayers.

There are real transparency issues in um Hank Levy's office, and I would ask you to please um vote for more oversight and not less.

Thank you.

Michael Selden, you have two minutes.

Yep, can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Thanks.

Uh my name is Michael Seldon.

Uh, I'm a homeowner in West Oakland and a rank and file member of CWA 9423.

I'm speaking in favor of item 61.

My background's in finance.

I worked in venture capital for 10 years.

The right-wing attack on Treasurer Hank Levy shows a total misunderstanding of how finance works.

Treasurer Hank Levy's stewardship of Republic Money has been exemplary.

He's in it all in the face of a very complicated political environment.

If the board removes his ability to look after public funds, it'll mean the board is caving into right-wing influence in order to shoot our county in the foot.

As a member of the Jewish community, anti-Semitism is super important to me.

Do not let a few right-wingers imply that our Jewish treasurer Hank Levy is somehow an evil puppet master, like activist, quote unquote rubbing his hands together behind the scenes doing something sketchy with our money.

Don't let these wackos lie and say that Treasurer Levy didn't respond to their ignorant and critique with facts.

He did indeed respond with facts that are publicly available.

As someone who works in finance, um, these attacks on Treasurer Levy are politically motivated and they're completely unword from financial reality.

The returns that we're getting in Alameda County are excellent.

Uh, we already have independent review.

I don't know why people keep saying we need it.

We already have transparency.

I don't know why people keep saying that.

Taking away his ability to invest will make the process significantly more opaque.

These nutcases just cannot read.

Continue Treasurer Hank Levy's ability to steward our public money.

Ignore right-wing anti-Semitic attacks on him.

Please vote yes on item 61.

Thanks.

Naomi S.

You have two minutes.

Uh, you know, I've been uh hearing a lot of um discussion about uh returns on investment today.

Um, you know, I have to ask the question, um, is the goal of the municipal government um to make profit.

Um, is uh a county a business or a corporation.

Um and are we concerned with returns above the sanctity of human life and human dignity, um, because that is a very um slippery um path to walk.

Um, and one that quickly leads into very morally compromised um decisions, um, you know, for profiting return, you know, for uh prioritizing returns above um all else, yeah.

That speaks to a priority of money uh over humanity.

I think that's a very perverse logic.

Um, you know, there are cases where money is not everything.

There are cases where we have an obligation, um, as human beings, um, to do what we can um to stop gross injustices.

You know, we're here in the home uh of the Black Panther Party, and some 60 years later, roughly, um, the same oppressive conditions that they arose to confront are still very much present.

Um, but rather than the war in Vietnam, we now have the genocide in Palestine as a rallying cry um for resistance to oppression.

Thank you.

No more speakers.

Very good.

I'd like to thank the members of the public who came and participated today.

As I mentioned, um, we will take up the matters in the regular agenda after we return back from closed session.

We're about to recess in the closed session.

Before we do that, I'll ask for a motion to approve the minutes that are listed on today's agenda.

Is there a motion to approve?

I will move approval of the minutes, including the ones that require corrections as listed on the agenda.

Second, thank you very much.

A motion's been made by Supervisor Tim to approve the minutes listed on today's agenda as corrected.

A second by Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excuse supervisor for Tornado Bas.

Aye, President Halbert.

Aye.

Very good.

We will now recess into closed session.

Um, we do have an extensive closed session agenda.

I can't say when we will return, but it will be um quite some time.

It will be before the one o'clock set matter.

Thank you.

We're now recessed.

Recording in progress.

Good afternoon.

We're resuming our meeting from uh closed session.

Reporting out uh asking county council, is there anything?

Well, first let's take role to establish our forum.

Supervisor Marquez present.

Supervisor Tam.

Present, Supervisor Miley.

Present.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Present, President Howbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

County Council, is there anything to report out from closed session?

Thank you.

I understand that we are likely to return to closed session for the end of the meeting, but at this time I'll report out that in the matter of Gonzalez et al.

V.

A.

Hearn et al.

United States District Court, Northern District of California, case number three colon 19-CV-07423-JSC at a closed session on February 27th, 2024.

Um the board authorized settlement.

Um, and I'm reporting that this matter is now settled in the amount of three hundred thousand dollars.

Uh the vote was unanimous with supervisors Miley, Halbert, Tam Marquez, and Carson voting yes in support of settling this case.

Thank you very much.

And as noted, we will be going back into closed session.

We have not concluded closed session.

However, we do have a 1 p.m.

set matter, two items, which we will now go to proclamations.

Recommendations item number 91, Supervisor Marquez commending Elena Metz for her outstanding service, leadership, and dedication to the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention commission.

Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you, President Howard.

I'm actually gonna read the commendation because the whereas is very similar in both, and then I will highlight the distinction of Lena Metz and Luis Anderson.

Thank you so much both for being here, and thank you for your patience, as well as to my colleagues, our staff and the public.

Whereas the juvenile, so I'm gonna take up item 91 and 92 at the same time.

Yes.

Whereas the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention commission of Alameda County is a state mandated court-appointed body charged with inquiring into the administrative and juvenile court law to ensure that the rights and physical, mental, and moral welfare of children in Alameda County are protected.

And whereas the commission is dedicated to promoting an effective juvenile justice system rooted in credibility, dignity, fairness, and respect for youth, their families, and their communities, recognizing that the well-being of young people is essential to the strength and the safety of Alameda County.

The Commission's responsibilities include the annual inspection of juvenile justice facilities, including jails, lockups, shelters, detention centers, and group homes used for the confinement or placement of minors, along with conducting public or closed hearings on matters related to juvenile law and advocating for needed services and supports for youth involved in the justice system.

Whereas the critical work depends on the leadership and dedication of commissioners who volunteer their time, expertise, and passion to ensure that Alameda County continues working toward a fair youth-centered and rehabilitative system of justice.

And whereas for more than two decades, two decades, Commissioner Elena Metz has distinguished herself as a fiercely committed social change maker, innovative educational leader, and dedicated school and community partner, improving academic social and emotional outcomes for young people born furthest from opportunity.

And whereas the founding co-director of the Moving Forward Institute, Ms.

Metz has supported schools and systems across California in strengthening school, climate, culture, equity, and social emotional learning initiatives while remaining deeply rooted in service to the Bay Area communities.

Whereas Ms.

Metz joined the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Commission on October 11th, back in 2017, and served at it as its vice chair for eight years as providing steadfast leadership, advancing effective systems, change to better support young people who are currently or formerly incarcerated, and ensuring that their voices, needs, and futures remain at the center of the commission's work.

Miss Metz's unwavering belief in the potential of all youth, her commitment to justice reform and her light, her lived dedication to community well-being, exemplifying the highest ideals of public service in Alameda County.

Now, therefore, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors commends Elena Metz for her outstanding service, leadership, and dedication to the Juvenile justice Delinquency prevention commission and expresses its deepest appreciation for your enduring commitment to improving the lives of young people and families throughout Alameda County.

Let's hold the applause because I want you to hear how amazing Luis Anderson is as well.

Following her retirement from the city and county of San Francisco in 2010, Luis C.

Anderson devoted the majority of her time to advocating for young people and advancing meaningful reforms within the juvenile justice system.

Miss Anderson entered, I'm sorry, and earned her Master of Library Sciences degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and first applied her expertise through volunteer service in Oakland Unified School District Middle School and at the Alameda County Library within the Juvenile Justice Center.

Ms.

Anderson joined the Alameda County Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission in 2013 and completed three full terms of service, concluding in October of 2025, during which she consistently championed youth well-being, equitable treatment, and improvements to the juvenile justice continuum.

She continues to support young people through her volunteer work with the Juvenile Justice Center college team, helping youth enroll and complete both online and in-person courses through Peralta Community College.

Miss Anderson also serves as a board member of the League of Women Voters of Oakland, where she has facilitated voter education and youth voter registration efforts at the Juvenile Justice Center and Camp Sweeting, empowering young people to understand civic engagement and their role in shaping community.

And in addition to her extensive public service, Ms.

Anderson is an avid cyclist who enjoys spending meaningful time with her family and her new granddaughter, reflecting her commitment to both community and family life.

Now, therefore, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors commends Luis C.

Anderson for her exceptional service, leadership, and unwavering dedication to the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention commission and expresses its sincere appreciation for your enduring commitment to strengthening opportunities, education, and justice for youth across Alameda County.

So please join me in thanking both Luis and Alena for their dedication to young people in our care.

And I hope the two of you feel very proud.

There are several items on today's agenda that points to your leadership, your vision, and improving outcomes for young people in our care.

So thank you for volunteering your time.

Thank you to your family for sacrificing time with your loved ones so that they could take on this important work.

So as the chair of public protection, you were appointed by the courts for this commission, but I felt it was really important that we uplift your work and publicly thank you for your service.

We don't have flowers, we have a plant for you and a nice mug with tea.

So hopefully you can enjoy this holiday season.

If you would like to say a few words, and then we'll also present you your accommodations, and we'll take a group photo with the entire board.

I don't see Chief Ford here, but if he happens to be around, he could also join us for the photo or any of our other justice partners.

But congratulations and thank you again for your service.

Thank you so much.

What an honor to be in front of you.

The last time I was here, I think I had a laundry list of things that weren't going so well within the county and social services, behavioral health probation.

And so I'm so excited about the vision that you all have set forth with your partner agencies.

I really have seen some progress towards supporting our young people that need the most support in our county.

And I'm just going to say that, you know, even though Luis and I have kind of timed out our volunteer on the commission, we are still very committed to serving and supporting all of the young people in Alameda County.

And I'm really hoping that all of you continue your investment in supporting our young people furthest from opportunity, because they need it.

And all the young people that are in juvenile justice have experienced extreme trauma and really looking and being able to address that when they're younger, being able to provide them the support they need, being able to figure out how we repair our social services agencies so that they're catching and supporting families and young people that were providing educational resources and support, young and all of these pieces are going to help to prevent young people from entering the system, which is what we all want.

So thank you so much.

It was such an honor to serve this county.

And I know that we'll be partnering in the future on other other projects.

It was a labor of love all those years, and I don't intend to not.

Um that we need, and you guys are in charge of those agencies that we need to be stepping up, and I appreciate all that you do.

Thank you both.

And just want to publicly say you have my commitment to continue to collaborate with the two of you.

You've raised some critical issues and we've made um positive strides in many areas, but obviously there's more work to be done.

So just thank you for your candor, and I've enjoyed our our times together where you've um shared some significant concerns and we do take them seriously.

So thank you so much for uh your commitment to be the voice for a young people that can always engage with us.

Well, thank you for listening.

Yes, absolutely.

And we're gonna take a group photo and then we will get to public comment if there is any on this item.

But if everyone could please join us for a group photo, thank you.

Do we have any public speakers on this item?

No speakers.

Okay, as mentioned before, we have to adjourn uh recess back into closed session, and uh we will do that now.

Thank you.

We're recessed in a closed session.

Recording in progress.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We will now reconvene to close the session from closed session.

I will say that we still have more business in closed session.

So we're going to come up and take uh care of the mass motion today, but we will then be uh recessing back into closed session.

Uh we're prepared for a long day today.

With that said, uh there's no reportable action in closed session.

And I'll ask the clerk to call the roll to establish our quorum.

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Present.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Present.

President Howbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

We have four cent calendar first.

Yeah.

Susan comments?

Did you have?

I do have some comments.

I didn't know if you wanted to take the consent calendar first.

I don't have any comments.

I think we'll take approval of minutes.

Um I think you did.

I did that.

Okay.

So then let's do the consent calendar and then I have comments before you entertain a motion.

And actually, before we do that, uh Supervisor Marquez would like to make some comments related to our prior session before we went back into session.

Yes, thank you, President Hauber.

We just heard before this last iteration of closed session items 91 and 92, and I was trying to make it back to my seat before the meeting was recessed.

So I just wanted to quickly acknowledge Dante Cerroni with uh assistant chief probation officer representing Chief Ford.

Thank you for being here for that accommodation and also wanted to acknowledge Brenda Gomez on my team, my advisor on public safety who works closely with the two individuals we commended.

So just wanted to make that brief statement.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Then do we have I'm happy to move the consent calendar, which is items 93 through 102.

I'll second.

Motion has been made by Supervisor Marquez, second by Supervisor Tam to approve today's consent calendar.

May we please have uh roll call on it.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Howbert.

Aye.

Consent calendar passes.

Um administrator Mernishi.

Any comments, questions, or uh President Halbert?

Yes, I wanted to announce that item 41 is pulled off of your agenda.

I also want to read into the record a correction on item 52, which is a recommendation from the General Services Agency Director.

The wording on the letter indicates that your board is being asked to authorize an amendment.

In fact, there is not an amendment.

So the recommendation should read to execute the contract, and this is with a contractor.

Um triple A generator services.

So we should strike amendment as it is actually in fact a contract.

So that's item 52.

And then I will read into the record when you get to item 65 some information.

So 41 is pulled, and I've read a correction into uh the record on 52.

And a comment on 65.

I'm gonna leave that out of the motion and take that up separately.

Very good.

Then is there questions, Supervisor Miley?

All right, Supervisor Tam.

Would you uh make the mass motion?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I will move items two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty.

Questions on eighteen.

Twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty five, thirty-six, thirty-seven.

Comments on thirty-seven.

Eight, thirty-nine, 40 is in ordinance.

41's been pulled, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 has been amended, 53, 55, 56 is an ordinance, 57, 58's an ordinance, 59, 60, 61 is an ordinance, 62, 63, 64, I'll jump to 66, 67 is an ordinance, 68.

Question on 68.

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, questions on 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 is an ordinance, 88, 89 is an ordinance, 90.

And that is it.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Tam.

Oh, second.

It's been seconded by Supervisor Marquez.

We'll go through questions and comments on the mass motion.

The first one I see is Supervisor Miley questions on item 19.

No, it's item 18.

Question on 18 also.

Item 18.

It was 18.

Yes, at the agency internal director.

I just want to um the vendor pool was established in 2019, just you know, a year or so before the pandemic, and you know, we're approaching 2026.

So I wanted to get a little bit of once again a refresher on the establishment of the vendor pool when we anticipate uh going out for another RFP, and the funding source for the vendor poll.

And then the final question is there's been 226, almost 227 million dollars that has been awarded in the vendor pool, and 145, almost 146 million that's been expended to date.

Actually, as of of 2024, fiscal year 2024.

Um, so do we anticipate the rest of it being expended before the vendor pool um expires?

Good afternoon, everyone, Anika Choudry, interim director for Alameda County Health.

Um, and thank you for the question, Supervisor Miley.

So, as you noted, the vendor pool uh was one of the mechanisms that your board authorized for us to be able to expedite.

Um, uh getting homelessness services uh funded and awarded and out into the community.

Uh the vendor pool covers three different categories of outreach engagement and benefits enrollment, um, health and uh supportive services and then housing and uh property related uh um services so uh this uh the item before you is to accept the report for fiscal year 2324 um and uh uh to uh as of uh June 2324 we've had 88 vendors qualify into the pool, and that's one of the mechanisms whereby it's a rolling um rolling procurement so uh vendors can apply to join uh throughout the year, uh and once they're in, they're not necessarily guaranteed a contract, um, but it allows us to uh be able to contract with them quickly once we have a funding source available.

So the different types of funding that go into it, uh for example, we've done HAP funding.

Uh we've used it to deploy some measure W funding.

Uh it depends on what funding source we have and what we need.

Uh so we might do like a quick RFI, or if we know that there's a vendor who can meet the specific need, uh, we might contract with them.

Um, so uh as you noted, through uh fiscal year 2324, uh we've expended uh nearly 146 million dollars uh through this uh program across 49 vendors.

And uh we've also included a variety of outcomes uh in the report that we've tracked so uh you know more than 6700 people enrolled in coordinated entry um because uh the housing access uh points are one of the um contracted services through through the vendor pool.

Uh we've uh you know done more than uh 6,500 housing assessments, uh 48 more than 4800 crisis assessments in that year.

Um this is also the housing and community support uh services, which is a Calame uh component that we use.

Um we've served more than 3,000 individuals in that program um through this and uh uh provided out street outreach to more than 1,500 um unhoused individuals through more than 8,000 encounters.

So there's a variety of programming that that goes through it.

Um in terms of next steps.

So your board uh did um authorize the vendor pool to go through June of 2027, the current version, uh, so that we can continue to be uh in contract and get money out.

Uh however, we anticipate doing a new procurement um in the coming months.

So early next year in 2026, uh we will be doing a new procurement, and that would allow us to kind of think about how we structure some of the different services that are uh required or you know how we might um qualify people into it.

All right, thank you for that um refresher and that update.

And just so you know, I wasn't picking on you.

When Colleen was here, I would always always ask her about the vendor pool.

So thank you.

Yeah, I I understand.

I'll recognize Supervisor Marquez who would like to make some comments on some social service items.

Yes, thank you, President Harbor.

I just wanted to give my um sincere appreciation, gratitude to um our SSA team.

Um items six through ten on the agenda are extremely comprehensive.

They're tackling workforce development issues with refugee and assaily community members, housing for our foster youth, um programming to de-escalate challenges.

I just want to give um our staff the acknowledgement.

We see the investment and just really excited about item six through ten.

Just wanted to uh thank you for that work and investing in our young people as well as our um refugee and assaily community members.

I just wanted to highlight those items.

Thank you.

Very good.

Our next item uh is uh comments by Supervisor Nikki Fortunata Bass on items 28.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to point out that this item is um the contribution from my district five office as well as the district one office of enhancing vision 2036 funds to the Russell City Redress Fund.

Um, just really proud that we are able to contribute to that effort, which Supervisor Marquez and Supervisor Miley are leading with the Hayward and Russell City former community, and I'm proud to be uh making this contribution.

Hope the work is going well.

I'll join you in that.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Our next item uh for discussion or comment rather is um item 37, a comment by Supervisor Miley.

Yes.

Thank you, Ms.

President.

Yeah, this is just a comment.

Um because I appreciate the fact that uh first Presbyterian church in Castor Valley, mind you.

No, it's not in Hayward in Castro Valley, uh unincorporated Castor Valley.

Um the um I just want to uh mention that I know the downtown streets teams, of which I, you know, really felt they were a best practice working with the homeless, giving them opportunities uh for you know to give back to the community, providing services to the community, helping them uh with their you know with their life and their their their enrichment, uh helping them move move forward in terms of their development.

Um, you know, the downtown street team has gone out of business, it's uh really sad.

Um, but I'm really pleased that at least um the funding that was associated with downtown street team, and I think maybe even some of the staff, I'm not sure, at least in in the unincorporated area, will be um associated with first presbyterian church of Castro Valley.

Uh, thank you, Supervisor.

Yes, uh, Michelle Starrett, Housing Director for Alameda County.

Um, yes, the downtown streets team staff are transitioning over to First Pres staff.

So they will continue to do the same work, just under a different fiscal sponsor.

Um, they're hoping to create their own nonprofit eventually, but right now First Prize is going to be acting as the coordinator of that work and they agreed to take this on in a very short period of time.

So we're grateful.

Extremely grateful.

So thank you.

Thank them, and you know whatever I can do to be that my office can be to do to be supportive.

We want to do that, because I really do feel they do a great, great job.

Well, thank you to your staff because you're the ones that helped us facilitate that.

Okay, our next item with uh discussion is uh supervisor Miley question on item 68.

68 now.

What is 68?

68.

Oh, 68.

L D Lewis is in the house.

So I'm very interested.

Come on up here, LD.

Represent the DA, our great DA, Arsa Jones Dixon, our great DA, Aldina Lewis is representing her.

So the CARES Navigation Program, you know, we really are very supportive of that.

And I just want to know how many facilities are we gonna have open?

Uh so we'll have a total of two open when the new location um uh opens up, hopefully early next year.

Thank you, everybody.

Hi, it's good to see everybody.

And uh, where will they be?

Um, so absolutely outside of Oakland, our current existing facility is in West Oakland, and so we're looking to be outside of Oakland and more accessible to unincorporate areas to um Castro Valley, Hayward, uh, Tri-Vally area.

So we've been looking in Castro Valley and Hayward and areas like that, um, but we have not settled on the specific site location at this time.

So the so the one will continue in West Oakland, and we're looking for another location outside of Oakland.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thanks.

That's just wanted to have you make those comments.

Thank you.

I'd like to go back to item 64 for question or comment from Supervisor.

Actually, LD Lewis, don't leave because I'd like to chime in.

Um I know a location hasn't been secured, and I will just flag that uh significant investment with proposition one dollars is coming to um the city of Hayward, whether it's St.

Rose, La Familia, BACs, it's positive we want to be able to serve our community members, but I will just respectfully ask if a location is identified within the city of Hayward.

It is really important, important that we communicate and coordinate with the mayor and council, their police department.

There's just a lot of community members raising concerns, and these are programs I fully support.

We just have to have like a communication plan and be very clear on the programming, and I'm just elevating that as I've said in other work session items because of the significant amount of programming that is coming online specifically within the city of Hayward.

So just want an opportunity for us to coordinate, communicate and and problem solve together any anticipated challenges, which I don't believe, but we always know members of the public seem to have uh different views of what these services mean.

So just want to make sure um we're having comprehensive discussions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, item 64 questions, comments.

Supervisor Marquez.

Yes, item 64.

I wanted to flag and congratulate um the great work.

This is uh significant grants and investments coming into our community.

Wanted to flag the um Alameda County Health Youth Financial Tools and Solutions Program.

They're gonna be receiving $50,000, which we know financial literacy is so important for our young people.

And also wanted to congratulate the public defender's office providing access to treatment and healing programs path that is a pilot program.

And I wanted to give a huge uh acknowledgement and shout out to Chief Brian Ford and Hilary Bass who joined me in New Zealand, and they've received through their efforts of advocating for $50,000 for a BOTU justice initiative based on the successful restorative justice framework that we all learned about in New Zealand.

This is a program with the Brotherhood of Elders Network to facilitate the development of restorative accountability and success plans focused on bringing victims, offenders, and community members together to address pathways to atonement, positive life outcomes, engagement with family and community networks, and transformation.

So just wanted to again uplift the investments we're making and young people and healing.

So just congratulations on those grants and um Alameda County is willing to partner and accept more money from philanthropy any time.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And Supervisor Marquez uh side 74.

Do you have questions, comments?

I do uh seventy-four.

I just wanted clarity.

I believe my office maybe another office wanted clarification on the item.

So if the under sheriff could just um clarify for us, this is not an expansion of equipment.

Can you just clarify what exactly this um board letter is referring to?

Thank you for the question.

With respect to flock speaks specifically.

Absolutely.

Thank you for the question, Supervisor April Luckett Fahimi Undersheriff Sheriff's Office.

Uh, just to clarify, it is not an expansion of equipment, it is to maintain and to provide the subscription for the flock equipment that we already possess.

Thank you for that clarification.

Okay, unless there are any other questions or comments, we'll do the ordinances uh next.

But for now, the mass motion uh has been uh we have comments and uh additions uh Susan, you wanted to on the mass motion.

I I just wanted to be sure that you read into the record that it's on item 52 as corrected.

Okay.

So the mass motion was made with as uh supervisor Tam uh made the mass motion, noting that soup uh item 52 had been amended and it was seconded as such.

Are there any other questions or thoughts that need to be communicated for the mass motion?

And item 54 is not in the mass motion, right?

Item 54 is an ordinance or it's not in the no item 54 is not in the mass motion, yeah.

With that, an item uh the motion was made by Supervisor TAM seconded by Supervisor Marquez.

We're ready for the roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi, Supervisor Tam.

Hi.

Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunatabas.

Hi, President Halbert, aye.

Mass motion's been passed.

Then we go to ordinances now, or you have the you have another your next item is item 34 from the community development agency related to the Altamont Landfill.

Uh this item, as you know, was continued from your board's prior planning meetings as well as your special meeting of November 25th.

Yeah, no real questions other than um I I would like to say I know the property in question, it's in my district, and I know it very well, it's very um scenic property as was mentioned.

I can't support this for several reasons, and number one, the requested amount, well, a couple of things.

Number one, there's no contract in place, no purchase contract in place, and it was even mentioned in public comment that there's a desire to show an amount and get a grant for an amount, and then go negotiate the purchase price.

And it should be the other way around a purchase, all of these land purchases should come with a negotiated contract in hand before requesting a dollar amount, in addition, that dollar amount negotiated and requested for, in my opinion, to be prudent with our dollars, taxpayer dollars, should not exceed the appraised value of the property, and it does beyond that.

Um this property has been in and out of discussions with the city of Livermore, they're no longer interested in purchasing it.

I think that there's a path forward for this, it will happen, but I think that it has to first go back to this Altamont Open Space Committee, which has not met, I have not been able to meet with them since this request was approved by them.

Um and have purchase agreement in place before approving a deal.

I mean, this essentially tells the parties how much we're willing to pay for a property.

So anyway, those are the those are the questions uh the concerns that I have.

Again, I would request that this item go back to the Altamont Open Space.

I think the only way to do that is to send that direction or send that message, but to otherwise I think the proper course, the proper process, the only thing I can think of is to vote this no for now, but to say take it back to the drawing board and let's bring it back the right way.

So um that's my issues with this, and that's why I'll be voting no, and I'm happy to answer any questions from my colleagues that they may have questions about that.

But otherwise I'll make the motion that we uh I'm Mr.

President.

So they can respond to your questions because I think they're good questions, and I don't know the answers, and I'd be curious to know the response.

Okay.

Fine.

Uh Sandy Rivera Community Development Agency Director.

Uh just for reference, uh Altamont uh landfill uh open space committee uh is formed by the settlement agreement from the expansion of the Altamont landfill.

So just for uh everyone's reference.

Now the the committee does uh uh function um pretty much independently, and it's uh really their recommendations on the the use of the funds and concurrence with the board of supervisors, whether it meets the landfill settlement requirements.

With regard to uh President Humbert's um uh considerations, and he wasn't at the meeting when this was uh approved, uh, for uh you know recommended for for moving forward to your board uh that uh tri-valley conservancy could apply again, it they wouldn't be it wouldn't be out of the question for them to uh apply with the Altamont Open Space Committee again.

So just uh for reference as it relates to uh President Hobbert's notes.

Thank you for clarifying that because I just assumed that would be the case, but you clarified that.

Okay, so when was this established?

Because I know this has been around for a while.

Uh since the Altamont Open Space Committee it's been uh a few decades.

Uh do you know the date?

Okay.

Yeah, it's been because I know at least since I've been on the board, this has been pretty pro forma.

But what I don't understand is this has been continued for quite a bit.

Correct.

So uh if Supervisor Halbert had issues and concerns, it's in his district.

Was there any reason why the parties didn't get together with his office to get this resolved?

You might ask that question of me.

Oh, okay.

And I thought I answered it when I said that they haven't met since this came before us.

It's been continued several times.

They don't meet every month, and but when they do, sometimes their meetings are canceled.

So they haven't had a meeting since that's the that's the thing.

This was continued.

For the board planning meeting um uh a couple of months ago and that uh twice at the board planning meeting and then at the latest uh November work session.

So three continuances.

So it's over the course of three months or uh over the course of three months uh the issue had not been resolved.

So there was no time over the course of three months to get there to get this resolved.

Yeah, could you?

Yeah.

If I may pursue it to the terms of the agreement that governs this committee, the the way the process is designed to work is that that body takes an action and then they refer it to the board and the board is to um make the finding or not make the finding.

Um if if the board does not make the finding, then it goes back to the committee for further um consideration, but there is no obligation on the part of the committee to negotiate its findings with individual members before um, you know, based on your continuances, um, when it comes to this once it's been referred to this board.

So that's that's not part of the process that they unilaterally decide to reconsider after they've taken action at that body.

Gotcha.

And then you mentioned the findings.

So what findings do we need to make?

It's stated in the recommendation.

That's consistent with the settlement agreement criteria.

And in terms of that settlement criteria, is that it meets um the goal of uh having conservation open space in the East County.

That's the only finding.

That's that's the main criteria, right?

Supervisor Halbert, once again, your objections are well.

Um it's a waste of taxpayer dollars to spend what amounts to 20 25% over appraised value, number one.

Number two, uh attempting to secure open space by asking for a grant before a contract is even in place, doesn't seem to be achieving the process.

It may not even go yet a land purchase.

The proper course should be a purchase and sale agreement in hand before money is requested, and it should be consistent with an appraised value.

So I can't find the findings to be consistent with good practice.

Supervisor Tan.

Thank you, President Halbert.

Um, I just need some clarification based on what the speakers have said.

So the Tri-Valley Conservancy is asking for a to submit a grant application, an approval of a grant application for $500,000.

And this is to purchase property that was appraised at 1.050 million, but they are trying I didn't understand um where they were going to get the difference other than they were saying they can get 876,500.

I I believe they said the appraised value was at 800,000.

But TVC is here, the executive director, so if uh you want further clarification, I'm sure if she'd be able to explain the details of their negotiation.

I see.

Okay.

So it was a we're paying for more than the appraised value.

I think initially when it came to the application for the open space committee, they had uh estimated the the land to be a million dollars, and so they were asking for half, so 500,000 that the Altamont Open Space Committee funds would um uh take care of half of the property value, and then they were searching, uh they would have to make fill in the gap for the remaining amount, but uh Rebecca's uh specter is here if you'd like to speak to her.

Appraisal done on the property, yes or no?

Very much.

I really appreciate the the opportunity and for the questions.

Um I'm sorry for the confusion.

Yeah, so the uh listing price is currently 1050 as you as you noted the appraisal.

There's been two appraisals.

The first one was in 2023 at um 872, and the one we just did in July of this year was 8,765, and so the TVC board is committed to only paying the appraisal price, and TVC has committed to paying the difference between the 500,000 um and the appraisal price from our from our TVC funds.

Um the other thing I do want to address is that we can't get into contract without knowing when the funds come in because of our of the close, so we can't set a closing period until we know if we're getting these funds.

So, for example, the the owners want a 30-day close.

I can't do that unless we know the funds are ready.

So that's one challenge we're facing.

And so my understanding is that the board, this board can ratify that it's consistent with the settlement agreement, and then the money's available, it doesn't come to us until there's a deal.

Then it either goes directly into escrow or it comes to us right before the close.

So it's not that the money comes to us and we hold it.

Um, and so I understand President Halbert's concerns, but it's very hard for us to uh put in a strong offer with we can't have a strong close.

It's just that the open space organization has made numerous acquisitions and they've all been able to accomplish a purchase consummated in hand before coming back.

You might not even know that you get this, and yet we've earmarked money for it.

Is there any reason why?

And again, if they say they need a 30-day close, then that's a negotiated term.

They've been waiting months and months and months.

In fact, they've been trying to sell this property for years and years and years.

So I would just suggest that a Thursday day close of escrow ask is worthless, and that you should be able to get a purchase contract consummated at the price that you're going to pay before we commit funds that could otherwise be sitting there.

That's all.

So I I understand that, but again, the funds are they're not gonna be moved until we're in contract.

So that's why I'm not clear.

We'll always be there.

Right, but we can't we have to put in a a um competitive close, right?

So I mean we can't we already tried putting in a long close, and they they told us that was not negotiable.

We put in an 120-day close, and they said that that was they would not consider that.

So we did try a long close, um, so that is one of the negotiating terms that we are faced with.

The other thing I do want to add is that TVC, um, we do have easements across the Tri-Valley, not just in South Livermore.

So that while that is we were created out of the South Livermore Valley area plan, we have easements beyond that, and our mission is beyond just South Livermore.

It does include the whole Tri-Valley.

So I did want to just um add that.

So thank you.

I know that.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, uh, just one more clarification.

So the findings that we are to make in terms of approving the grant application, is um whether or not it's consistent with the Altamont landfill settlement agreement.

And in that was that the uh decision that the Conservancy made in the meeting that Supervisor Halbert mentioned that he couldn't attend.

Yeah, yeah.

So the committee did did recommend that it's consistent with the settlement agreement, and then the county's role is just to ratify that that is the case that it is that it does have open space value, wildlife corridor value, biodiversity value, and visual uh value, which it does.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you very much.

Um you mentioned the two different appraisals.

The other thing that I note is that I I believe that it's I don't have a list of all the open space acquisitions, but it's three, four, five times the per acre price of anything else that's been but what is what is driving that appraised value increase of over all the other acres out there?

Any no?

I mean, the the what as you know the appraisal is comparisons of similar properties, so it looks at the same properties in unincorporated, zoned the way it's zoned.

Um so you know, in the appraisal, it has the the comp the comparables for other properties that are similar.

It is of highly uh visible property, so I I do think that's one potential why it's uh where it's at, but it was based on the other comparables of what has sold uh other similar properties that have sold.

Is there any risk of this property being sold for development?

No, there's not.

It's currently um under the Williamson Act, so it can't be developed.

The next purchaser would have to um change that, and then there's a 10-year period, so it could potentially be developed later.

Um, there are other limitations to development on the site as well, including limited water and limited um road access.

I can't imagine it ever being developed.

Is there any risk that it doesn't remain open space?

Excuse me.

Is there any risk that it doesn't remain open space?

I mean, what we've heard from the realtor is it's possible somebody could want to purchase the property and build a house on it.

So that's not impossible.

If I could add that because the grant money has criteria for uh open space and conservation, that if the if they were to sell the land or if there was going to be a change of use, the money would have to be returned back to the uh Altamont open space committee.

Sure.

I think it's covered by measure D.

So somebody put a house on top of it.

Uh it it depends if it's a hundred acres or more, or if in the 160, depends what the zoning and general plan area is.

How many acres is the site?

32, I believe.

So there's no danger of it going into development or again.

I don't see why this shouldn't be more consistent with all the other land acquisitions.

But that's my question.

So any other questions or comments.

Can I ask?

Um, I don't know if staff or county council could answer this.

Um, let's say the offer um for whatever reason doesn't go through.

What are our safeguards at the county?

The money would just be returned.

Can that just be explicitly explained?

Well, they'll have to go through their purchase process, and if as Rebecca stated, they don't get the money right away.

So uh when they are ready, then at that time the transfer occurs.

So if it doesn't, if it falls through, the money stays with the Altamont Open Space.

What's the balance of that fund at this time?

20 about 20 million.

20 million, okay.

And the grant of 500,000, is that is there like an eligibility criteria?

Like how is that number determined by the committee?

The 500,000.

I know there was an application.

So when we were in front of the committee in July, they approved um a conservation easement, and the the committee paid for the whole amount of that conservation easement.

So there's no criteria of that the committee will only pay for a certain percentage of an acquisition.

Um they have paid different amounts, including a full amount for an easement.

So there isn't a percentage requirement from the committee.

I will add though, uh there are they as a value land throughout the East County, based on whether or not there could be wildlife corridors or the biological uh value is what they look at.

So I'm sure that's part of the criteria that the committee looks at when they decide how much to grant.

And that's another um topic for the committee that I'm trying to get them to focus on, which is to have a um wide biological survey done so that we can compare property parcels against uh one another and have a holistic um uh approach that we could have a strategy behind the acquisition of parcels as opposed to just one offs.

I note that you said it's listed at a million and fifty, you're going to be uh committing to pay no more than eight hundred and seventy-six thousand dollars.

So is that part of the grant application?

Is that committed by you, or is that I mean what what holds you to that verbal statement?

Is it is it's in with us?

Well, partly we're accredited by the land trust alliance, um, and so that accreditation uh has very strict requirements for land trusts not purchasing land over appraisal value.

So we're we're held by that standard more than anything because our LTA accreditation is critical to us as a land trust.

So the delta of that nearly 200,000 dollars, is that going to be a barrier to your negotiations with them as opposed to the 30-day close?

I mean, it sounds like it is absolutely where it's we're in negotiations.

I mean, that's part of the negotiation, but again, we would hope that we if we know that this amount is available and secured for us, if and when we need it, we would continue the um negotiations.

I would commit to you that indeed um up to 20 million dollars is available for all this land.

I would just say go get a deal.

We're trying.

Uh you have a broker, yes.

What does your broker say about that?

I don't know if if if uh he wants me to say on the record.

I mean, he wants us to just negotiating, assuming he negotiated this deal and was can't get a longer than 30 day close and things he can get almost 200,000 less than appraised value.

I mean, anyway, uh, I mean, they did recently lower the price, it was higher prior to this, and so I think perhaps they're going to see if anybody wants to buy it at that purchase price since they did lower the price.

I think it was listed at 1.2, perhaps.

It's not on uh it's not uncommon for people to ask for a lot more than the properties worth.

I would just uh again rather see a deal in hand, and if it takes them to negotiate with you that they would negotiate with you, but I don't think you should feel that this money's going away or not available to you.

Right, but it as an example, we these were these were um recommended by the committee to us in July, and now we're in December, and we still don't have the funds committed from this board.

So it would it would be incredibly helpful for us if we could know the funds that this board has ratified that yes, the funds are consistent with the with the settlement agreement and that the money is there, so that if we are able to negotiate a deal, we can do we can close right away, but otherwise we have to go through the whole process again, which this just took six months, and there's no way we can do, they will not do a 120-day close.

I don't think most landowners will.

When does the board meet?

The committee.

Do you know how to January?

I'll commit that we'll get this done in January.

Okay, so you're you would like us to go back to committee.

To go back to the uh uh Ultimat committee.

Yes, that's that's another option we could table it to go back to the Ultima.

And then it has to come back, but I what I'm not clear on is what will change between now and then.

I think the process that the Ultimate is basically problems will be better, explained, but the process has been in place for many years already, and so and it's always come with a purchase in hand, never come without a purchase agreement, from what I understand.

But um look I again um I would rather see your broker get a deal in hand to have this I can't do that without knowing what a close I can't and I can't put in a short close without knowing that these funds are committed you you must understand that.

Uh I just need one clarification based on the dialogue you're having with President Albert so President Halbert is asserting that because this land is protected under Measure D, you said it's under the Williamson Act that it um it's protected open space essentially why did the committee decide to purchase this parcel and what funds are going to be needed in terms of providing the the criteria the biodiversity and the changes that might be necessary.

Um well first of all the lands for sale so there's a lot of land in the Altamont that's open space that's not for sale right so when a piece comes up and usually there's an entity that wants to buy it to preserve an open space the committee is if it meets the criteria there that's that's the goal right is to get that money into protected open space.

So TVC is a land trust and our mission is to keep it in open space make sure that the wildlife corridor is in fact protected.

So somebody could buy the land they could put a bunch of trash on there they could put a house on there they could do all kinds of things that would impede the ability for it to be used as a wildlife crossing they could put speakers and have waves there they do that up here in in the Oakland Hills right I mean I understand though they can't put a house on it because we have measure D they can't put trash on it because we have code enforcement they can't have raves on it because that would violate the law and indeed it's right there by the freeway so I don't these are not well consistent with we know that there's garbage on county land the committee the board just paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up garbage right near there.

So TVC our job is to protect open space we're on the land every year multiple times a year in some cases to make sure there's no trash on it there's no squatters on it.

That's what we do and that's why the committee approved these funds so you made a comment that projects come before you before the board that comply and again here if it came with a listing value of 876 which is the appraised value then it would comply I would submit that it hasn't come before you in a compliant manner simply because it's asking price is above the appraised value where again I think if you were to go to them and say give me a compliant parcel that I can actually act on then you got a deal and if they're not willing to do that then they don't you don't have a compliance deal it should come to us with an appraised value and an asking price that match but again that's just my opinion doesn't comply I'm not saying to not do it I'm saying they have to be negotiable and or they're going to continue to hold something that will not be able to sell I was just gonna add so uh supervisor are are you saying that the application that they provided to the open space committee at that time it was a million dollars in terms of the expectation.

And so there's been some changes to it, and so that's part of the negotiation that that they work uh with.

Uh they didn't have an appraisal at the time it went to the open space committee.

Um that was the estimated amount.

I believe it started at 1400 1.4 million, went down to one million, and now there's still I guess I'm even more incredulous now to hear that the Altamont Open Space Committee is even entertaining compliant projects, what they call compliant, when they have no appraised value to them.

They're just making numbers up, it feels like this is really a conversation, which is why I want this to go back to the open space committee.

This is really a conversation for the open space committee.

It's really a conversation for how we comply with the settlement agreement.

So why it has to go back.

And I'm sorry that this I a project is caught up in that, but for process and for protection of dollars and for just being in comp in compliance.

I don't see how we can.

So I'd much rather go back and come back.

In January, we can put it, it could be the first item on the agenda.

And we all know now that we all know, even the seller knows we got 20 million dollars to go spend, but it should be done the right way.

Now, what I what when I say it has to come before us, we probably have a meeting in a week or two of that January Altamont Open Space Meeting.

We have a planning meeting, bless you.

We have two meetings in January, not January 6th through Prize Miley.

We're not going to meet on January 6th.

But we have a planning meeting, uh, I guess on the eighth.

On the eighth.

Uh the Altamont Open Space Committee, I understand is uh the last week of the month.

So it'd be the toward the end of January.

A meeting right after that in February.

Correct.

That look, that's that would be my that would be my preference.

We're gonna be wrestling with the Altamont open space and parcels for years to come.

We have 20 million dollars to go spend.

I would like to see it have a holistic plan in place.

I would like to have it see guardrails in place.

I would like to have it see processes in place that protect the dollars and that do it the right way.

That's all.

So with that, I'll I'm just gonna make the motion that we deny this project with the clear direction that it go to the Altamont Open Space Committee in January and to us at the very next board meeting.

President Halbert, can you um modify your motion to have it go before the open space without the denial?

Um I guess uh would that be tabling it?

Or I I mean, to me, it's um I guess six of one half dozen of the other.

I don't know from a legal standpoint what our legal counsel would say.

I think I was feeling that it should have some finality to it for that, but I'll ask Donna to the So pursuant to the terms of the Altamont settlement um agreement.

Your board is supposed to make a decision within 60 days of the referral of the matter to your board.

So you're now substantially beyond that.

But as I said earlier, your um your options when it comes to you are either to make the finding or not make the finding.

And the process is that if you don't make the finding and you say, you know, we we don't we don't find that it is consistent, um, then it goes back to them.

And we can discuss it and come back to us.

And they do what they do and they could okay bring it back.

That discussion could happen at the meeting, and then they could bring it back to you.

Does that answer the question?

I I'm still puzzled because the findings are pretty prescriptive within the settlement agreement, and the findings that um the committee of the conservancy made was that it meet certain criteria for their acquisition.

So they're asking the board to determine whether it's consistent with those findings.

The issues that supervisor or President Halbert is talking about has to do with the process and how they prioritize which parcels to purchase and all of that is not necessarily part of the settlement agreement criteria, correct?

Correct, but I let the director speak to that directly as they submitted the board letter um recommending that your board make the findings.

And I don't understand that exactly.

The only criteria seems to be that it's open space.

I think it's reasonableness of criteria to say that it would be consistent with raised value.

Is that the findings that the committee that you're chairing makes?

Um, so I've only been at one meeting.

Okay.

And they've canceled one or two meetings since then, and we meet again in January.

These are all great questions for that committee to answer.

Mike, I suspect that they got here because maybe they don't.

That's why I have concerns.

Um I think I might share it.

Yeah.

Again, I've attended only one.

And uh I think I did share the meeting.

I wasn't sure if they were just being nice and letting me chair, or if I could share.

So I don't know to modify if that makes sense.

Again, it's gonna go back to them anyway, whether it's without a denial.

It's a denial is not going to mean don't do this.

No, what I'm trying to understand is the denial is that it is not consistent with the criteria set forth in the ultimate landfill settlement agreement.

And what I was trying to find out is was were these the findings that the committee that you chair, but have been at one meeting, that they made those findings, and they found that it was open space.

That's it.

Indeed, it is.

No argument there.

I think that the staff, the CDA staff, so they should be able to speak to the findings.

Uh the open space committee does have criteria.

Of course, they have uh and I think it's in your packet as well, uh, the multiple layers that they look at in terms of biodiversity and whether it meets criteria to their modeling of of that biodiversity and establishes corridors or even for recreation.

So uh this uh site did meet that criteria, and City of Livermore initially had uh had uh intended to buy it, they they had uh decided not to, then TVC took up that uh arm.

So it was uh reviewed a couple times that it did meet the criteria of that biodiversity.

In that process, did they address some of the issues that President Halbert was talking about?

Like, how do you prioritize which open space parcel to purchase and at and at what price, especially if the risk for it not being open space is not as high as in let's say some other parcel.

I can't speak to uh the pricing, and maybe Ally Aborts, whose staff to the committee can can speak to that, but they did uh create at least a map, they went through uh modeling, I think a couple years ago in terms of what parcels would be ideal in order to create either wildlife corridors or enhance certain species in particular area.

So they did go through that process, and maybe Allie can speak to how they deal with the pricing.

So if I can speak too much to how they um prioritize pricing, I can say that the when an application comes before the committee, they take a look at.

I just actually pulled up um the prioritization map.

Um, and this one, this property lights up as uh about a point nine out of a total of one, so 90%, you know, um, in terms of the criteria.

And then they're weighing, of course, uh any appraisal prices, but they're also weighing more than just its market value.

They're also looking at the value for biodiversity, for habitat, which are things that are harder to quantify.

Um, so their charge is to look at the value of the property as consistent with their committee's um purpose, which is preservation of open space for habitat, natural beauty, etc.

Thank you.

Did they do a biological survey of the Tri-Vally?

Actually defer to the deck, yeah.

This has already been identified as a priority area by the uh by the county.

So it's um by the um East Alameda County conservation strategy, it's already been identified as um in a conservation high priority area, and also by UC Davis as a wildlife corridor, essential wildlife corridor area in the Altamont.

Isn't that pretty much most of Livermore north of the month?

I think there's a specific uh wildlife crossing right underneath 580, so um, like the property um the wildlife crossover east of Greenville and then go down underneath the highway where the um the underpass, and it's also it's at a bottleneck in the Altamont, which is also really important area to preserve um for wildlife corridors.

So it's yeah, part of like the bottleneck right by the Altamont.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah, so you know, umce we have the money, and we have um 60 days, 60 days to uh make a determination well past that.

I don't see that this isn't headed anywhere, but possible, Supervisor Halbert, we can't hear you because you're not speaking into the mic.

Sorry, yeah.

No, I think um I think what I heard about a 60-day time frame and how this has been continued and has gone longer, six months.

Yeah, I understand that, and as I said from the beginning, I don't think this is going anywhere but um an acquisition, it's just a matter of the right process, and with the commitment that nothing more than this appraised value will be spent.

I don't want to see another appraised value come in because sometimes people say appraisals are as good as you make them.

I'm willing to say this appraised value, and while you're now negotiating with a seller, I guess if anything, you can tell them that this is the upper limit, maybe that helps your negotiating strategy, but if it's nothing more than this amount, then maybe we shouldn't let process get in the way of completion, because we'd like to get stuff done.

So I will withdraw the motion to send this back to the committee, and instead make the findings, that as long as it's this appraised value, and that it's done in 30 days, because they want a 30-day close, they're gonna have a 30-day close, right?

But what's done in 30 days?

Well, like from today.

That's a good point because it might take you a while to get them to negotiate a lower price.

Right.

I mean, I again, but when it does, it's gonna have a 30-day close because that's what they want.

What how long would you think it's gonna take to get we don't want money just sitting out there?

Well, it's sitting there anyways, though.

So I'm not clear on this argument.

So it's in the fund, it's invested.

It doesn't come to us until there's a deal.

So we want the deal to happen as soon as we can get it negotiated, but I can't say how long that will take.

Okay, you've just represented that they need a 30-day close and they can't do but we'll good well good luck go get it.

Thank you.

So to say I'll make the motion then that uh it's approved with the understanding that the purchase price is no greater than eight seventy-six.

Thank you very much.

I think I'll go I'll second the motion, but I'll amend it a little bit.

I just want to make sure that we are consistent with the findings that we have an obligation to make as a board that it is consistent with the ultimate landfill settlement agreement, and don't particularly want to get into their negotiations.

If I may, the item before you is not to approve the purchase price.

The item of before you is um to make the findings to approve a grant application from the Tri-Valley Conservancy in a mat an amount in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to fund the purchase, and then to delegate authority to the agency director or designee to negotiate and execute the agreement with the Tri Valley Conservancy to fund the purchase in fee title of the Altamont Hills property in an amount not to exceed five hundred thousand dollars, subject to review and approval as to form by county council and return and execute a copy to the current clerk of the board for filing.

So I believe your the action before you and your role is to approve the grant application amount as opposed to the overall purchase price.

I guess I have no problem with the grant amount, although I think the question then becomes again uh what if people want to submit a grant for the full purchase price or a third of the purchase price, or this happens to just be a round number of 500,000, but it is up to up to five, up to five hundred.

That you're approving.

Is that the most that any of the grants are, or they could have speak to it because it's their board letter, but uh uh grant amounts as we were discussing before vary, and so uh there have been other purchases that have been a million or more, so in this case it's just 500,000.

All that stuff, all right.

So somebody came up with the number of 500,000 and okay, so President Halbert, your motion is to approve the grant application up to 500,000 and make the finding it.

It is consistent with the ultimate landfill settlement agreement.

Is that correct?

So I have a simple separate question.

Yeah, I'll uh understand that.

Um I want to understand better this ultimate open space settlement agreement and how we have a process that allows for a committee to make a decision that it doesn't seem to be guardrailed around raised values, doesn't seem to be guardrailed around percentages of of we don't need it's not part of the agreement.

Uh President Halbert, um it may be um the director or county council, it's a settlement agreement.

So those are the terms that we ultimately settled upon.

And if I recall correctly, the the fund is constantly being replenished as well.

If it's for us having the, you know, bringing the garbage out to at the Altamont.

I think the agreement was from the nineties.

Is it was it that uh two thousand it was two, uh we confirmed that it was for 2000.

It is for the landfill expansion, and there was a settlement agreement that included your sanitary districts as well as some of the municipalities, but excludes Dublin.

And they aren't they do uh receive uh 75 cents per ton, so it is as supervisor Miley noted it continually gets replenished with the landfill use.

We'd be happy to talk to you, you know, offline more about the agreement and the provisions of the agreement.

Okay, very good.

Um, so what's before us is a settlement agreement for 500,000.

Grant application grant application for 500,000.

Uh which is the result of the 500,000 dollars and delegate authority up to the 500,000 dollars.

So when we say up to 500,000, why would we ever say that?

How will it ever be below 500,000 dollars?

Who's gonna determine that?

How's that to be negotiated?

And could that be a uh agreement with our CDA directing our CDA director to go get this done that um it would be contingent on a purchase price of 876, or what direction can we give our CDA director to go for this done?

Of course, TV C is negotiating the price, and and there is uh a note that they were not going to um purchase the property for more than the appraised value.

Uh, I'll trust that.

How about that?

And with regard to uh the purchase price, uh it was the grant application that sets the amount uh whether or not TV C doesn't need the entirety of the 500,000 in the end, that might be where the not to exceed amount comes.

It is typical contract language, um not to exceed, but uh what before you is is not necessarily the purchase price, but that it's consistent with the settlement agreement criteria.

Okay, I guess um we'll go evaluate this when it's done, and if it's above 876, then maybe it's not for the full $500,000.

It's up to you.

We're delegating that right, because this is that's what we're asked to do.

Delegate this.

Yeah, the that's the item before you is to authorize what's requested in the recommendation, and which includes delegating authority to negotiate up to 500,000.

That's as the CA director indicated.

This is the way it's typically brought before your board.

Okay, with that said, then I'll make the motion that we approve the grant request for up to $500,000, and I'll stop there.

How's that?

But can you just approve the matter as recommended?

Because that's essentially what it is.

I'll make a motion that we approve the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

I'll second the motion.

The clerk please call the role, Supervisor Marquez.

Aye, Supervisor Tam.

Aye, Supervisor Miley.

Aye, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye, President Howbert.

Aye.

Congratulations.

Let's not cancel the January meeting.

I guess that's up to the chair.

No, it's not.

Okay.

Your next item is item 40, which is an ordinance, uh presented by the office of the county council as an ordinance amending uh the administrative code regarding pre-election residency requirement for members of the board of supervisors.

It's the first reading, an ordinance amending section 2.04.020 of Title II Chapter 2.04 of the County of Alameda Administrative Code regarding pre-election residency requirements for members of the Board of Supervisors.

Mr.

President, I will move to weigh the full first reading and introduce the ordinance as described in item 40.

Second, roll call vote, move the second roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Haubert.

Aye.

Your next item is item 54.

It's a matter that's continued, a recommendation from the General Services Agency, Alameda County Health, and the Social Services Agency.

All right, this one's me.

So come on down.

Who's who's gonna come up to bat on this?

Because you know, I pulled this initially because I was very concerned about the limitation on the number of folks who applied.

And then I was concerned that we're gonna be giving a contract to a New York firm for transportation, and I just don't understand.

We don't we don't have any transportation.

Um vendors capable of doing this in Alameda County.

And if we do, why didn't they apply?

So now if you can answer all those questions to my satisfaction, I'll support it.

If you can't, then I'll vote against it, and the board can do what the board wants to do.

I can I can answer the last one.

I can't speak to why no one else that's local did not apply.

We do have one vendor who is local that did apply.

And Nico will give a little bit more detail about that.

Um so supervisor, it's our understanding that uh there were two vendors before uh one of them did not apply, one of them did apply, and then for this procurement, we uh only had two vendors apply.

So one of the critical components here is that there's five levels of transport that we're requiring, and so this is essentially for people.

Last time you had asked, like who are the the people who are served.

Um so this is people who are in the LPS pathway, like to conservatorship.

Uh so there are people in the public guardian's office as well as in uh the behavioral health department.

So uh the vendor who is uh not local, um, essentially they were the one who bid on um the blue level of uh transport, which is specific to locked assisted transport with emergency medical technician supervision for people who are on a gurney.

Um so essentially, you know, uh we needed to have that level of service.

The other vendor, the local vendor did not bid for that.

Um, and so having both of them in the mix allows us to have that option.

So essentially for behavioral health, um, you know, there are people who are in the conservatorship pathway initially who are in locked settings.

Uh they might need to go to and from court dates, they might need to go to more acute or subacute levels of care.

They might need to go to state hospitals.

Um, and when in the past, uh, I think there have been uh instances where you know Uber or Lyft was not the best uh mode of transport.

Um, and so uh, and there are people who have um psychological and medical conditions that might require them to be uh a little bit more restrained.

Okay, so I made a mistake, it's not New York, it's Washington DC, right?

Oh, correct.

Yeah.

So walk me through this procurement again, only three bidders.

Three bidders and one was disqualified, and the final two are being recommended for contracts.

And and you're leaning leading us to believe that this is like a specialized sort of service that is needed, and there's no like okay, so and it was advertised how extensively.

According to the letter, it was advertised on uh LinkedIn and the county and GSA website for 30 days.

Uh also went to chambers of commerce, um, and uh was emailed out to uh uh vendors who are interested in our email lists.

And um, this is the second procurement for this contract.

The one vendor Rye Trance was was um had was under contract prior to this procurement for five years.

So that five year period ended.

We reprocured, they bid it again.

The one who was part of the second one did not rebid this time, and with the first five-year contract, probation was also a partner in it for this particular effort on probation decided not to continue.

In this type of service, is it something that an ambulance company would offer?

Uh I think that um not the 911 transport, so this could be something that uh, you know, there are intrafacility transports that happen with ambulances from hospital to hospital or hospital to settle and royal or somebody, yeah, yeah.

But uh, you know, it I think given this, you might not always need an ambulance, but my my understanding is that the um it would be up to the provider to figure out how to um get that emergency medical technician.

So for the gurney bound passengers, I think you would need an ambulance for that.

Okay, and then this procurement is for three years, yes.

I know you're trying to convince me, and I'm trying to be convinced.

Um, and I'll just stop for the moment and breathe and see if anybody else has anything to say, can you tell us the number again?

54.

The agenda items.

54 that was continued from your last meeting.

I I guess my comments is of course, um, in a perfect world and scenario, we would love to reinvest all of our local money to local vendors.

However, I think with this process um that did not come into fruition, uh, knowing the specialized transportation service that is a very, very unique population.

Um, I think we can only um work with the existing vendors to look at.

I don't know if there's an option for capacity building for future procurements, but I think for this time around, we definitely need the service, so I will be supporting the um approving the item and one vendor is local.

One vendor is out of San Leandro.

That's this, is that the sub contracting?

No, uh Ride Trans is local, and then they're also subcontracting with Barry and Men's Health.

Okay.

Is that a motion?

I'm I'm happy to move the item 54.

Second.

Roll-call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

A reluctant, yes, supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Aye.

Next item.

Item 56 is the second reading of a salary ordinance amendment.

Oh, I'm yeah, salary assistance.

An ordinance providing for the compensation and designation of the number of officers, boards, commissions, assistants, deputies, clerks, attaches, and other persons employed in the offices and institutions of the county and providing rules and regulations rela relative there too.

I will move to waive the full second reading and adopt the ordinance for the 2025-2026 salary ordinance as described in item 56.

Second.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Howbert.

Aye.

Your next ordinance is item 58.

Is the first reading is salary ordinance amendments affecting unrepresented M designated and non-management employees related to management classifications, providing salary adjustments as well as making adjustment for the director of child support services.

An ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2025 to 2026 County of Alameda salary ordinance.

Mr.

President, I will move to wave the full first reading and introduce the salary ordinance amendments under 58A to update Article 1, Section 1-1 on the pay rate schedule and also 58B.

The men Article 3, um, as listed in the description, and that will be it.

Uh a second.

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi, Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Howbert?

Aye.

Item 61 is a recommendation from the Treasurer Tax Collector.

It's the first reading of an ordinance enabling the annual reauthorization of delegation of your board's investment authority to the treasurer tax collector.

It's a first reading.

Yes, uh, President Howard, before we get a motion on this, I have a few questions and comments want to make about this.

So if county council initially could explain uh the legal obligations of the board relative to um uh section 2.58.100 and any other pertinent um sections regarding the uh delegation of authority uh around investments of that's that's the first question.

Uh sure I can I can go through sort of where we the status of where you are right now, um uh and your responsibilities and the treasurer's responsibilities, and then what happens if if this ordinance um is is not passed.

So uh the treasurer currently has delegated investment authority um over the the county funds and the treasury and the county treasury um related to that, and by statute, the treasurer is required to serve as a fiduciary related to that, and by statute, the treasurer is subject to the prudent investor standard, and also related to that, and by statute, the board is not a fiduciary and is not subject to the prudent investor standard um by way of such delegation.

Now, this delegation, um, if it's not renewed, is going to expire on December 31st.

If it is not renewed, then the board um will have investment authority over the county treasury and the county funds, um, and and all of those responsibilities I I had iterated, if it is not renewed, they go to the board.

The board will be required to serve as the the fiduciary over these funds and the and the treasury pool, the board will be subject to the prudent investor investor standard, and then um Farron or County Council uh do we have discretion relative to who we um assigned investment authority to um not in connection with this sort of um sort of the the delegation of responsibilities so uh for for instance you could conceivably um contract with somebody to to help money manage these funds, but that but you wouldn't be able to transfer um the fiduciary duties um outside of yourselves.

You wouldn't be able to transfer that prudent investor standard.

Those would remain upon you.

This uh the statutes speak uh of a special delegation solely to the treasurer um in connection with these responsibilities where the treasurer then picks up the fiduciary standard and picks up uh the prudent investor standard in lieu of the board holding those direct responsibilities.

Yeah, and in my time on the board of supervisors, we've always passed um investment uh you know, approved um delegating the investment authority to the treasurer or the board of supervisors.

I don't recall that ever not occurring, uh maybe it occurred before I was on the board, but I don't recall it ever occurring.

Um, I don't know if staff.

I'm not aware that the board has annually delegated that authority, is my experience.

So I thought um and then the board as elected officials, we too have a fiduciary responsibility, don't we?

Regardless, you know, because them funds um the six billion dollar budget that the county is you know, the re-approve annually of which uh some of this funding is um managed by the um treasurer.

I if I understand your question, I think you're asking generally, do you have a fiduciary responsibility?

And I think that's probably true.

I mean, you have a duty to, you know, manage the the county funds ethically and whatnot, but this this specifically, there's specific statutory fiduciary obligation and the standard that um deputy county council Khan speaks of, um, that that applies with respect to this treasury pool.

And what happens if someone fails to discharge that fiduciary duty?

Is the party subject to fines, penalties, criminal?

I mean, do we know?

Um, for uh charges of a failure to live up to the prudential uh prudent investor standard and and failure to act um as a fiduciary, yes, there's there's liabilities attached to that.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And you know, um, from my research, fiduciary duty is a legal and ethical obligation requiring a person or entity to act in the best interest of someone else.

The person with the duty, the fiduciary must put the other party's interest, the beneficiary above their own.

A fiduciary duty is a responsibility to act with loyalty and honesty and care toward another person's interest, especially when you have been trusted with their money, rights, or well-being, and typically the components are duty of loyalty, duty of care, duty of good faith, and elected officials of which we are and the treasurer is, you know, are subject to that uh fiduciary responsibility.

Um, and as I said, this has been pretty pro forma, and you know I I know the the treasurer, and I've known the former treasurer, and uh we've never not um allow for the delegation of these responsibilities.

Um, if people are concerned about an ethical investment uh policy, I mean, I think from my perspective, giving the authority to the treasurer to continue with the investments is something that I think is reasonable and responsible.

Otherwise, I think as county council pointed out, that would fall on us.

Um, and I think it's better, at least the boards over the last 20 plus years or so have felt it'd be better to uh to delegate that to the treasurer, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't continue to do that.

But I also think when it comes to the ethical investment policy, the fact that we want to have the finance committee of which it's composed of the county administrator, the president of the board, county council, and the auditor comproller, recorder, um, review an investment policy, and then determine whether or not it should have an independent review.

I think that's still being very uh for my perspective, uh prudent and responsible.

Um, and there should be no, you know, no um no major concern why that's taking place.

I would dare say if the treasurer had come back and said, well, we don't want to do an ethical investment policy, there and the people would be asking us, um, that needs to be reviewed.

Well, the treasurer came back and said we do need to do one, and all we're saying is that needs to be reviewed by the finance committee and potentially an outside source.

So to me, we should continue to give the treasurer this responsibility of you know of discharging the investments uh prudently and uh without as a fiduciary, but we also that's in alignment with once again allowing for an ethical investment policy that has been uh reviewed appropriately by um both um county staff that I think have um a responsibility as uh county staff and employees, and then also if the if so warranted by an outside uh entity, because as I stated, and I'll reemphasize that.

Had the treasurer not come with an ethical investment policy, people would be saying that's not good enough, and that should be reviewed.

And since it did come back with one, I know I raised some concerns about some of the aspects of that, and I just think that's too should be reviewed, but it shouldn't hold us up from passing this ordinance.

So I just wanted to go on record and to express myself on this subject matter since we've heard so much testimony about it today from the public.

Well, um, Supervisor Molly, that was sure a mouthful.

I think the last few sentences of there's a process in place, and we shouldn't let that hold this up, was a summary.

And I would agree.

Um delegating this authority, which has been done time and time and time again over the years.

It also does not override our investment policy.

It also does not override the decision that we've made, which is to ask the finance committee to issue a peer review.

None of that is changes a peer review of the ethical investment policy.

While they're related in that it all deals with the treasurer, it all deals with his responsibility.

They're kind of two different things.

The decision today to delegate this authority does not change the decisions we made in the last couple of months.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

The uh the county investment policy also goes to the board um for approvals and for any amendments.

Um, also something that we do every year, and so as we continue down that path, other path, this will be before us in any year.

Again, right?

This exact same decision.

Okay, yes.

This this comes back to you every year.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Thank you.

Um, I am certainly supportive of delegating the board's investment authority to our treasurer as this board has done in prior years.

Um I wanted to state on the record uh appreciation for Treasurer Levy's November 19th memo to the board regarding our investment pool review.

Um it's been interesting to hear all these comments that are focusing on return on investment, and I think this memo to our board really hones in on some of the additional um responsibilities of our investments and particularly around safety and liquidity of our assets, not only the county's assets but um other assets that we also manage, and also wanted to highlight uh in the report that 400 million dollars in income was accrued last last fiscal year, which is the highest in the pool's history on record.

So um I think it's unfortunate that there's uh misinformation out there, and um all kinds of opinions about how to manage our assets when in fact some of this is mandated by the state, and uh this memo that we all received, I think is a sound indicator of our treasurer's um expertise in this um area of work, and I'm happy to support this item.

Supervisor Miley can make the motion, and then Supervisor Fort was read.

An ordinance reauthorizing section 2.58.100 in chapter 2.58 of Title II of the Administrative Code of the County of Alameda relating to the delegation of investment authority to the county treasurer tax collector.

Move for moved away the first reading of the ordinance and move for introduction of the ordinance.

All seconds, we'll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez, I with appreciation for Treasurer Levy's expertise.

Thank you.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye, Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Hi, President Howbert.

Aye.

So your next item is item 65.

It's a recommendation that your board appoint Deborah Sika as the county librarian for the Alameda County Library effective December 7th, 2025, uh, based on her uh long experience, breadth of experience, and serving as your uh acting county librarian for the last 20 months.

Um, I do want to read into the record that the recommendation is that your board appoint her as the county librarian effective December 7th at a salary of 9,205.60 cents bi-weekly.

Um is Miss Silk online by any chance?

Oh, she's right here in person.

Why don't we actually appoint you first?

So I will move I will move the appointment.

I'd like to say that this 15.

I'd like to second the appointment.

Motion's been made by Supervisor TAM, second by Supervisor Marquez.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Absolutely.

Supervisor Tam.

Yes.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Aye.

Come please.

Enlighten us.

Wow, it's here.

We did it.

Oh my gosh.

Well, good evening.

And I just want to say, President Halbert, Board of Supervisors, County Administrator Miranishi, who has walked with me this entire process, and my colleagues and the community members.

I've been in libraries for many years now, and I've had many different positions.

And the trust you're placing in me today as the Alameda County librarian is humbling.

This moment has me reminiscing of all the various roles I've had in libraries, and I'll save you the long-winded history.

But from my first work study job, paging books tonight clerk as uh tonight library clerk.

I've been a teen librarian and an archivist and a researcher, and um all of those years are culminating in this very moment right here.

So I'm grateful for the opportunity.

I look forward to serving the people of Alameda County.

Our mission is to grow learners, break barriers, build filter, build futures, and it's very clear that we're an essential resource, especially in a time of great censorship, low literacy rates, and as we face a human epidemic of loneliness and isolation.

The libraries are all of our bridges.

We have no threshold of entry, and everybody has equal service access.

And it's just I'm very proud and very blessed and um humbled by this moment.

So appreciate all of the support and um we've got lots of work to do.

So let's get at it.

Let's do it.

So thank you.

Your next ordinance is uh item 67.

It's a joint recommendation from the county administrator and the director of human resource services.

Um, and it the recommended recommendations are that your board authorize the human resource services director to proceed with separate recruitments for the appointed positions of registrar voters and chief information officer, and that your board also adopt related salary ordinance amendments that sunset the additional 25% compensation base pay that your board uh designated when the chief and now chief information officer serves as the registrar of voters concurrently, and also that you adjust salaries for both the chief information officer and the registrar of voters based on a more current salary ordinance, uh salary review.

So the recommendations before you are that you recruit for a registrar of voters and a separate chief information officer and adopt related salary ordinance amendments, uh thank you.

I just want to make the comment that I I think this is um a topic that I don't know.

Is it we talked about this in open session?

This is something that people are expecting to have happen.

Yeah, commission.

Well, I would say it's consistent with um the recommendations that came forward from the election commission that your board established in 2023, as well as certainly comments from some of the civil grand jury reports and prior years.

Very good.

Supervisor Miley.

I guess I just want to speak to the item.

Um, I definitely support this.

I know when the board historically uh combined the two positions, it was around the time of um the uh debolt um voter machines and people are concerned about the technology, and so uh we thought it would be prudent to have someone from information technology, the director at the time, uh, be the registrar of voters to bring that level of expertise to the ROV office because of the voting machines.

Because people were suspicious of the machines and this that and the other uh and that was you know historically speaking uh many many many years ago uh fast forward because of people's suspicions with election integrity you know we've heard a lot about that um over the last few years a lot and uh ROVs have been under a lot of uh public scrutiny a lot of criticism um and and mind you some of that criticism I would say has been uh not necessarily um warranted but nevertheless there's been a lot of criticism of ROVs in some cases the their lives have been uh threatened and in jeopardy um not just in the state but throughout the country uh because of you know the rhetoric associated with uh election integrity I think uh the fact that the board's made a decision or will make a decision to decouple information technology from ROV at this point in time I think is definitely prudent um the ROV I think needs to be really focused on um all aspects of the elections and you know in Alameda County elections are much more complicated and challenging because we have multiple languages that ballot has to come out in we got a couple of jurisdictions that do rank choice voting that makes it much more challenging we've got you know a couple of jurisdictions I think it's a couple no maybe it's just one that allow for uh youth voting uh in school board elections so there's a lot of additional responsibility for our ROV um uh as well and the people are concerned with you know mail in ballots all mail ballots they're concerned with you know when is when is the reporting gonna take place on election you know if the elections take place uh they they want it to be more instantaneous this that and the other so I just think um and then as I think it was pointed out we created an elections commission supervisor Carson um led that effort and the commission has recommended this and I know supervisor Tam has weighed in on as well so I just think uh taking this step is uh very appropriate at this point in time my hope is that we'll be able to make things work appropriately because we do have an election in about six months and that's right around the corner and then a big federal election um you know uh general election in November so in our our our ROV if we bring on someone soon enough or the interim he or she will definitely have uh their hands full so I just want to speak to that and once again I don't put cast any dispersions on our current ROV uh Tim Depuis I really stand behind Tim Depuy uh in the work that he's uh tried to undertake uh during these challenging times is that a motion supervisor Miley would you like to make one?

Do you need to read anything?

An ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2025-2026 County of Alameda Salary Ordinance.

Moved away the first reading of the ordinance move for its introduction.

So you will also authorized uh 67A the separate recruitments yes that's why you are the engineer on the board because you make sure we get it right so thank you.

I will second the motion and also wanted to thank our current registrar because um he's had a very challenging couple years and I think um some of the responsibilities that Supervisor Miley identified are pretty challenging especially given the four different cities that have different rank choice votes.

We have youth votes in Berkeley and Oakland.

And we have a number of technological changes and with higher level of scrutiny that we're seeing.

So that was a second motion's been made by Supervisor Miley, seconded by Supervisor Tim I also have to echo.

Thanks.

ROV and IT directory.

I think this is I think it was mentioned, but it wasn't mentioned enough.

We absolutely have the most complicated system in the country.

It is absolutely by choice and by design.

It is absolutely something that I don't think is optimal and the right thing to do.

That said, it certainly can't be done by one person having two hats.

I don't know if we need to hire two people to get this done, one to hire uh somebody to go take care of all the other complicated uh miss methods of voting, uh and including uh underage voting, including different versions of rank choice voting, and somebody to just run normal uh everyday elections.

Um, so but anyway, we're gonna split the two and have somebody do each, and uh we'll continue to have the most complicated election system in the country and see if we can manage it.

Um, but that's a self-inflicted problem, in my opinion.

That that said, a motion's been made and seconded roll call vote.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye, Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Pass.

Aye, President Howard.

Aye.

You have two more ordinances.

Item uh eighty-seven is public from the public works agency, a first reading of an ordinance amending vehicle and traffic codes in the unincorporated areas, an ordinance amending chapter one relating to traffic regulations, county highways of Title Six relating to vehicles and traffic of the Alameda County Public Works ACPW traffic code.

Mr.

President, I will move to waive the full first reading and introduce the ordinance amending chapter one related to traffic regulations as described in item 87.

Second, motion's been made by Supervisor TAM, seconded by Supervisor Miley.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez, aye, supervisor Tam.

Aye, Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye, President Halbert.

Aye.

Your last item is from the public works agency.

It's the first reading introduction of an ordinance amending several codes to be in compliance.

First reading.

An ordinance repeating chapters 15.08, 15.12, 15.16, 15.20, and 15.24 of the Alameda County General Ordinance Code, and adopting and amending the 2025 editions of the California Building Code, the California Residential Code, the California Energy Code, the California Wildland Urban Interface Code, California Green Buildings Standards Code, the California Existing Building Code, the California Historical Building Code as Chapter 15.08, the California Electrical Code as Chapter 15.12, California Mechanical Code as Chapter 15.16, the California Plumbing Code as Chapter 15.20 and the 1997 Uniform Housing Code as Chapter 15.24 of the Alameda County General Ordinance Code, including previously approved county amendments there too and finding adoption of this ordinance to be exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Mr.

President, I will move to waive the full first and reading and introduce the ordinance as described in 89A, small room Roman 1, 2, 3, and 4, and also authorize the clerk to advertise to your ordinance in accordance with the government code.

Second.

Motion has been made by Supervisor TAM and seconded by Supervisor Miley.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez, aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Aye.

I believe that concludes a regular item.

And I don't know if before we go back to closed session, you want to take public input on items not on the agenda.

Let's take public input on items not on today's agenda.

There are any speaker slips in person.

Otherwise, go online.

Do we have there are no speakers.

Public comment on items not on today's agenda.

Is now concluded and closed.

Mr.

President, if I may, um, before we adjourn, I'd like to have a moment of silence um in memory of former mayor Stephen Cassidy.

Um it is with deep sadness and profound sense of loss that we honor the life and legacy of former mayor Stephen Cassidy of San Leandro.

He was a dedicated public servant.

Mayor Cassidy's devoted his life to the well-being and the prosperity of our cities, and his leadership vision and commitment to the community left a major mark on all of us.

He was elected mayor in 2010, and then he led a vision and integrity of advancing initiatives that promoted economic development, civic innovation, and community engagement.

He his guiding principles were fiscal responsibility, transparency and government, and positioning San Leandro as a center of innovation in the Bay Area.

He had put together the program, took the leadership with what the program called Lit San Leandro to build high speed fiber optic broadband network.

He was instrumental in working with the county, particularly supervisor Wilmachan in saving San Leandro Hospital when the city's only acute care facility faced closure.

And he also worked very closely at that time with the agency director David Kears.

He initiated a civic engagement and inclusivity by launching coffee with the mayor, and he included the first the city's first language specific forms were Hispanic, Latino, and Chinese speaking communities.

He also took bold stance on civil rights, proposing the flying of the rainbow pride flag at the city hall in San Leandro in support of marriage equality.

He was not just a mayor, he was a friend, a mentor, a neighbor, and he believed in the power of community, and he dedicated himself to building bridges, not just between government and residents, but also between different diverse groups in the city.

So as we adjourn in his memory later, let's reflect on how we can each contribute to making the county and his city uh work that he works so tirelessly in terms of unity, compassion, and progress.

Thank you.

Thank you all for joining us in that moment of silence and indeed uh former mayor Steve Cassidy was a great public servant.

With that, we're going to recess back into closed session.

Recording stopped.

Resuming back from closed session, may I have roll call to re establish quorum?

Supervisor Marquez, excuse.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bath.

Present.

President Halbert, excuse.

Do we have any reportable actions from closed session?

The board did not take reportable actions in closed session.

Thank you and have a great evening.

This meeting is adjourned.