Recording in progress.

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to call to order today's meeting of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

Would you all please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Pledge of allegiance.

Thank you.

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

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunatabas.

President Halbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Very good.

The next item is Board of Supervisors' remarks.

I'll recognize Supervisor Tam.

Thank you, President Halbert.

I wanted to take the opportunity to thank our first responders, the Alameda County Fire Department and the Sheriff's Office for their rapid response and helping to address the fire that occurred on Eastwood Welling in Ashland on December 11th.

And also for their work, especially the fire department in providing mutual aid to Washington State for the flood and storm damage that had occurred as well.

And I'd like to adjourn today's meeting in memory of Rob Reiner, who worked alongside the late supervisor Wilma Chan as one of the key architects for Proposition 10, which then led to funding the first five programs, and it's an integral part of Alameda County's uh early childhood care um programs.

And I also wanted to take the opportunity to um celebrate Hanukkah and reaffirm that this board um is committed to making sure that there's an inclusive environment in every part of our county and uh to denounce any acts of anti-Semitism, uh, some that occurred very recently uh in my district in San Lorenzo.

Thank you, Supervisor Marquez.

Uh thank you, uh Vice Chair, for those comments.

I um have the same sentiment with respect to the passing of Mr.

Reiner, and also just want to um request, if possible later today, if we could just provide a status update to the public with respect to next steps with the explosion that occurred last Thursday in Ashland and um find out if I know that the Red Cross is involved with providing support and um housing for the folks that have been displaced, but if we can get an update on additional support and services that can be provided to the people that were injured, those that are still hospitalized and those that are recovering at home.

So just um really unfortunate set of circumstances, but hope that we can debrief and learn from the situation so that it does not um repeat in our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Marquez, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Thank you, President Halbert.

Um and thank you to my colleagues for your comments as well.

I uh definitely concur and empathize with them.

Um I wanted to just take a brief uh few seconds to thank the organizations that my office has been able to partner with during the holiday season, including raising leaders who worked with us on uh Thanksgiving bags to McClyman's high school families, um, also to the Linda Han Foundation who did their annual Joy of Giving event and uh assembly member Liz Ortega, who helped deliver literally um hundreds of thousands of diapers to families in need.

Um, I also wanted to um wish everyone a happy and peaceful holiday, I know with some of the recent events that is not that for everyone, and I hope it will be a time that people can connect with their loved ones, and while that might be hard for those of you whose loved ones might have passed, who may be incarcerated, who may be detained or deported, um, it is really a season where we need to reflect on uh the care and compassion that we all have for each other, and I hope it's with that spirit that we'll be able to have a peaceful holiday.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I'll echo uh all of our shared concerns.

Uh, indeed, this is a bittersweet holiday with uh the Hayward explosion, the murder of Ashlyn, Ashland, the murder of Rob Reiner.

Uh, I also will, while I don't typically weigh in on uh in international incidents.

I think what we saw in Australia was deplorable.

I think 16 people dead, 42 injured among the Hanukkah celebration.

So that's the bitter part, the sweet part.

I'd like to thank everyone who showed up.

I think many of us had holiday events where we collected toys and food.

Over 500 toys collected at my event, a ton of food, the very next day, going out to members in the community in need.

I'd like to thank also rising leaders at bike distribution.

Just yesterday, outstanding work.

That's the sweet part of our holidays.

So with that said, we'll conclude board remarks and I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes that are attached and corrected on our board agenda today, and then we'll go to public comment.

Mr.

President, I will move the minutes for the I uh for the meetings that are included in our agenda package attached as corrected.

I'll second that.

Motion's been made and seconded.

Any public comment on the minutes?

Seeing none, I'll ask for roll call vote.

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excused.

Supervisor Fortunatabas.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Hi.

So we'll go to public comment on items on the agenda except those listed as set matters.

This would include closed session items as well as open session items, again, excepting with the exception of those listed as 3 APM set matter.

Any public comment, we'll take in-person first three first and then online and rotate back and forth.

I'll ask the clerk to please call the first three in person.

Ranji Tate, item 45, Ben Wang, item 27, Winnie May, item 27.

Please kindly line up.

Hi, uh good morning.

My name is Ranjit Tate.

Um I'm here to speak on item 45 in support of redelegating investment authority to the treasurer.

Um, I'm a member of the Alliance of South Asians taking action and also a member of JVPA.

And I'd like to state that, you know, I'm in celebration of Hanukkah with my friends and colleagues in JVP, the Jewish Voice for Peace with the Bay Area.

Um I know many of you are as fed up with this sort of delays on the EIP as you know uh lots of us are, and perhaps this is just a regular procedural matter.

I do see it as part of the extended and uh what I consider to be ultimately futile attempt by those who are in favor of being complicit in crimes against humanity to abet the genocide by one um state authority.

Um this has just been going on.

There were like delays in bringing it up to agenda.

Um they sort of incorrectly brought up a two-year-old divestment, um, you know, mistakenly analyze the financial returns from that.

They linked all of the money for community services to what looks to me like the differential return on the anti-ethical investment uh part of our investment that which doesn't make any sense at all.

Uh they attacked the treasurer, they added dilatory, you know, oversight requests, and I wonder what is next.

So I would just in closing, I would ask you to redelegate authority, investment authority with the treasurer, support your treasurer, um, rescind the so-called, you know, unnecessary oversight, and please implement the ethical investment policy as soon as you can.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Ben Wong with Asian Health Services, and I am here to uh support uh yes on the uh language access resolution.

Um so at Asian Health Services, our community healing unit has provided holistic healing services in language and culturally concordant to over 400 survivors of violence, hate, including homicide cases, home invasions, robberies, hate crimes, elder abuse, and more.

And we've seen the uh success that providing linguistically and culturally concordant services is so key to providing this rapid care, this rapid response interventions to prevent uh the ill effects of untreated trauma and the uh also to prevent the overutilization of emergency room costly services to interrupt these cycles of violence and trauma, and by investing in bilingual and bicultural healthcare workers and lay counselors and providing the necessary interpretation.

It empowers our patients and community members to really have a voice in their care and to have a positive impact on their community.

So here to support the language access resolution.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Winnie Mai, and I am also from Asian Health Services, a clinic here in Oakland that provides services in many different languages from our patients.

Um language access remains critical to our patients, and today I'll be sharing a story and quote from one of our patients.

Prior to her knowing about AHS, when she was ill, she described it as feeling helpless, not knowing how to access proper care.

After being able to talk to doctors in her own language and ask questions, she described that she felt much more at ease, knowing that she was able to communicate her needs and her problems.

She quoted, getting translation services isn't just about language support.

It's about respect and understanding when we can express our pain and understand treatment options in our own language.

Our health is guaranteed and our dignity is protected.

So I also support the language access resolution bill.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Jake Peterson with Jewish Voice for Peace.

I'm a district five resident.

Um, yeah, I want to thank the board for recognizing the horrors that went on in Sydney.

Um JVP.

Uh we believe that violence, whether driven by anti-Semitism, racism, Islamophobia, or any other form of bigotry must be stopped.

And we honor the bravery of Ahmed Al-Achmed, the bystander who risked his life to protect those under fire.

Um the lesson is all too clear.

The safety of Jews, the safety of non-Jews is bound together.

Um and we hope that we can fight for human rights worldwide.

To that end, I'd like to ask you in regards to item 45 today to redelegate investment authority to the treasurer.

Um the treasurer has been subjected to some financially illiterate baseless and frankly anti-Semitic attacks, which I would implore you to ignore.

The accusations that he is hiding money behind the scenes, hiding losses, um, is deeply upsetting to me and to many others who have worked on this.

Um it's anti-Semitic, it's political in nature, despite not being uh openly so.

And I hope that you'll vote yes today on item 45.

Thanks.

Spectrum, go ahead.

Good morning, President Halbert and supervisors.

My name's Laura Calvert, and I'm the executive director of Spectrum Community Services, the only organization that provides LIHEAP and weatherization services throughout Alameda County.

I'm here today to strongly support the approval of item number two on your agenda.

Um, this one-time measure W investment will allow us to serve more income-eligible Alameda County households and turn away fewer families who are currently seeking help.

For the residents we serve, a utility shutoff is rarely an isolated issue.

It is often the tipping point that destabilizes a household and puts people at risk of losing their housing.

This funding will also allow us to invest more in homes across the county, providing safe, healthy living environments through emergency weatherization.

These improvements reduce hazards, stabilize housing, and help low-income residents remain safely housed so they can continue to work, care for their families, and be strong members of our communities.

Importantly, this action supports the county's broader homelessness prevention strategy.

By stabilizing households upstream, this investment reduces the number of residents who may otherwise enter homelessness, allowing our county and nonprofit partners to be more effective in reducing the total number of people living on our streets.

We're grateful for your leadership and respectfully urge you to approve item number two today.

Thank you for your time and continued commitment to the Alameda County residents.

Caller, go ahead.

Hello, my name is P.

Say Finnith, program director at Korean Community Center of the East Bank.

KCCC KCCEB provides bilingual bicultural health education, navigation, safety net services, mental health and wellness services, and advocacy to Asian communities in Alameda County.

I'm here to support the Language Access Resolution.

Language access determines whether many Alameda County residents can meaningfully participate in daily life and in local government.

For individuals who do not speak fluently, a lack of interpretations of translated materials can turn routine interaction, seeking medical care, applying for benefit, responding to an emergency, or attending public meeting into overwhelmingly and sometimes dangerous experiences.

When language needs are not met, the burden shifts onto families and community members to fill the gaps, often forcing children to interpret for parents or leaving elders isolated from essential information.

This situation became a crisis for many immigrants and refugees communities during COVID, especially for the Korean community.

Many of our speaking Korean-speaking community families did not receive timely information about shelter in place, where to get vaccinated, and when to get vaccinated, resulting delays in care and access to vaccination.

In response, KCCEB launched the language equity readiness action project, LIRA.

In partnerships with Asian, sorry, in partnerships with AC Health, KCCV conducted a system language assessment to support many immigrants and refugees community to better accessing COVID-19 related language resources and developing strategies to best address language equity in preparation for the next public health emergency.

Today's resolution to ensure Alameda County's commitments to equitable language access to all residents is a critical step forward.

Thank you for your leadership, Supervisor Tamman Marquez.

Davida Scott, item 23, Simeu, item 11, 12, 19, 54, public comment.

Buffalo items 11, 19, and 54.

Good morning.

I just wanted to say thank you to everybody.

The first shout I want to give is to Deb Seka because she's now our county librarian, and I wanted to thank all the libraries that are work sites for our students underneath her, the Alameda County Fremont Library Facilities Fleet, Alameda County Fremont Library Literacy, the Alameda County Fremont Library Makerspace, the Alameda County Library in Albany, the Alameda County Library in Centerville, the Alameda County Fremont Library with their IT services, the Alameda County Library Mobile and Outreach Services.

Whoo Lord have mercy.

The Alameda County Library Newark, the Alameda County Library in Union City, the Library in Dublin, the Alameda County Library in San Lorenzo, and the Alameda County Library in Castro Valley.

In the last two years, they've given us 44 placements, and I just wanted to say congratulations to Deb and her placement, her position, to her team, Eric Berman, and all the libraries the support.

They gave us free books every year for our clothing store and our Christmas drive.

They gave us 280 free books for all of our students.

I wanted to let you guys know that also I'm so thankful for everything you guys did for our Thanksgiving drive.

In a total, we served 700 families.

We had almost 20,000 items in all the bags for the 700 families across 53 schools.

Shout out to probation for delivering every single bag.

The sheriff's office for setting up for us and the fire department for being there for us as well, and everybody else that was there.

Today we have our Christmas drive, and we're gonna help 150 kids.

Del Val gave us 51 refurbished spikes yesterday, so thank you for that.

I wanted to let you guys know as well that we're finishing up our fall 2025 workshop cohort tomorrow.

In District One, we had 12 students complete.

District 261.

District 3, 38 students, district four, 74.

In district five, we had 14.

That means we had a hundred and ninety-nine students finished out of our 200 that are required, and I'll have that last one finish on Friday.

Thank you, you guys.

And if we could take a picture.

We'll proceed with public comment.

Thank you.

We have to do right by God and God's people.

This is wrong.

Like I told them, he showed me uh they didn't got no place to go.

We can join George's fool.

We got proposition once we build the mental health hospital, so we wouldn't have this problem.

That man in Southern California, family, they have no problem.

They have nowhere to go.

That's what I'm trying to get these outreach programs so we can get them off the streets.

They ain't gonna come to you, you gotta go to them.

It's sad you do about you.

You know we need women's shelters cold here.

The homie base, y'all need to open back up for winter shelter.

That's what we're supposed to be.

Plus, housing on uh Oak No, Alameda, and we're still going to base.

The housing goes to the homestead of me can't under the Constitution.

Okay.

I work with the Constitution.

I go in the round, and it's sad that you won't do right by people, but they got to get some help, y'all.

We're asking for help.

You're taking people from another country, put them over your people.

Sad.

Who just found your men?

I didn't know.

It's my job.

It's a homeless union.

The money, the people's out here.

What they need, what we need.

And it's sad we can't get nothing.

But everybody else can.

Born and raised here, can't get no ice creams.

You got veterans, homeless.

My brother in my building right now is a homeless program.

He's in Navy.

He's homeless.

Why can't it make sense, man?

You got 17,000 guy, truck drivers, got CDL didn't take a test.

Now they come out and cost one truck driver shop.

He had three beers in his truck.

17,000.

They gave it to him, San Jose.

Y'all keep people scoring up.

They have censorship all that.

It's inconstitutional.

We read that right.

They use that system.

Yes, thank you.

Buffalo here.

Greetings, one and all.

I'm gonna tell you these here's special appearances I've been forced to make before you.

Just wearing me out.

Uh I didn't know we had a uh comment section on the minutes again.

Uh corrections for a year's worth of minutes approved.

Uh I'm trying to go through the minutes I got of your meetings and figure out what was all corrected.

See, down in the city hall, they talk about unexpected financial urgencies, but they never spoke on it.

Instead of speaking on the rest of it, I'm gonna speak on item 11.

We have a problem here, and that is treatment and process policies.

Uh one of the buildings devoted to uh low-income housing, the CL Delham's building, our local representative is one to erase it and pimp off the flesh.

Now, when a man who is paid his rent there, senior citizen, known suffering from mental disabilities, has an episode, and they don't call the ambulance, the eviction.

We have a problem.

When housing authority is outside of your control, and I go to them to find out about applying for a place of CL Delmas building, they were very careful to keep my name off of any paper.

What I'm saying to you first as refers to item 11.

There is a glitch in the policy of those personnel hired to manage buildings.

We sort of have the same problem on the national level, that is to say, some people that's trying to skim that are not adequately briefed on their job.

Um there are a lot of rectifications.

We're all looking at the trail left nationally.

I say locally.

When the manager of a building devoted to senior housing and handicap, puts somebody out, doesn't call the ambulance, just evicts them when they've paid rent.

Last speaker, Julia Liu, item 27.

Good morning, President Halbert and distinguished members of the board.

My name is Julia Liao, CEO of Asian Health Services, and I'm here to express support of the language access resolution.

Our county is one of the most linguistically diverse in the nation with tens of thousands of residents who speak a primary language other than English.

At Asian Health Services, we serve 50,000 diverse patients throughout Alameda County in 12 Asian languages.

We know that interpretation, translation, and culturally responsive communication ensures that residents can understand their rights, comply with requirements, and fully engage with our county programs.

At Asian Health Services, we see that without these supports, language barriers can lead to delayed care, preventable crises, and deepened inequities, especially for our seniors, our people, our committee members with disabilities and most vulnerable low-income families and children.

So I really want to thank Supervisor TAM, Supervisor Marquez for your joint leadership and putting forth this language access resolution.

This resolution articulating the county's commitment to language access comes at a critical time when our federal administration is dismantling language access support and services with the recent executive order declaring English as primary language of the nation.

So we respectfully ask that the language access resolution be approved.

Thank you.

I can close public comment.

We're going to now recess into closed session.

As we do, I'd like to make a little announcement that in the foyer outside the elevators, we have some celebration cookies, coffee and tea.

Members of the public are welcome to join.

We will also take a photo with the rising leaders on our way to closed session.

With that, we are recessed.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'd like to reconvene to open session.

We're convening from our recessed closed session.

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

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor TAM, present.

Supervisor Miley.

Excuse.

Supervisor Fortunatabas.

Present.

President Halbert?

Present.

We have a quorum.

Since we're reconvening from closed session, I'll ask our county council.

Is there anything to report out from close session?

Thank you.

I'd like to report that in the matter of Crane Ridge Vineyard Owners Association, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Alameda Superior Court Case Number 24 CV 103095 at a closed session on October 14th, 2025, the board authorized settlement authority.

And I'd like to report that that matter is now finally settled in the amount of the county paying 150,000.

The vote was unanimous by all five sitting supervisors.

Additionally, I'd like to report that in today's closed session in the matter in the matter of California v Trump, case number 25-1725, First Circuit, and Watson v.

Republican National Committee, case number 24-1260, United States Supreme Court.

The board authorized the County of Alameda and or the ROV to sign an amicus brief supporting the brief filed by public to be filed by public rights project.

In those cases, that completes.

Oh, and that was on a vote of 4-0 with supervisor Miley excused.

So the other supervisors voting in favor.

Thank you very much.

Before we take up our mass motion and additional items, I would like to read a statement, recognizing that we have members in the community from the community here with us today.

We all know that there was uh explosion in the Ashland community, and I would like to make a statement on the East Llewellyn Boulevard project or this recent incident.

The East of Welling Boulevard upgrade is a long-awaited project to improve the crucial transportation passage in Ashland, an unincorporated community in Alameda County.

The county is proud to have worked with neighbors and the broader community, including two neighboring schools, to identify the goals and to continue investing in its unincorporated communities.

The project spans a portion of East of Welling Boulevard, a critical thoroughfare between Meekland Avenue and Langton Way.

The event last Thursday was unsettling.

Our hearts go out to those injured and the nearby residents who experienced property damage.

We are grateful to all the first responders, including Alameda County Fire, who are trained and entrusted to respond to these events.

We also thank PGE for their timely response.

As with any project similar serious incident, an investigation is underway by Alameda County Fire, and we are collaborating with the National Transportation Safety Board and Calosha.

The goal of the East of Welling Boulevard Project is to beautify the neighborhood, create safe pedestrian and cycling options, upgrade a railroad crossing, create high visibility crosswalks and intersections, and to promote safe passage for students at two schools within the project area.

We hope that project work will resume in the weeks ahead with a continued emphasis on safety and security.

For specific questions, residents are encouraged to review the project website.

In addition, the county reminds all residents that calling 811 is crucial for both residents and contractors when there are questions about gas or electrical infrastructure.

Anyone that would like to contact ALCOPIO at ACGov.org can do so.

This will be issued as an immediate press release as well.

I just want to end by having the community know the board has heard the concerns.

We share them.

We're deeply deeply unsettled by this, and we will it will get to the bottom.

Thank you very much.

With that said, well, move on to our back to our agenda.

I note that we have a consent calendar, items 72 through 89 to take up before we then take up our mass motion.

Is there any questions or comments?

Mr.

President, on your consent calendar, item 79 has been pulled.

Thank you very much.

That item will not be read in the consent, will not be part of the consent calendar.

Mr.

President, I will move items 72 through 89 without item 79.

I'll second.

Thank you very much.

A motion's been made to approve the consent calendar 72 through 89 with the exception of item 79.

I may have a roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excused.

Supervisor Fortune on the Boss.

Aye.

President Halper?

Aye.

Our next uh item before us is the mass motion.

Mr.

President, I would like to move items two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven.

Comments on 11?

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.

I have comments on 27, 28, 29, 30, 31's an ordinance, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 are ordinances, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 is an ordinance, 46, 47.

Comment on 47?

48, 49, 50, 51's an ordinance, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 has been withdrawn, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64.

Comment on 64.

65 has been pulled, and 66, and 67 are ordinances 68 and 69.

Vice President Tam, just a correction, item 65 is not included in the motion.

It will be taken up separately.

Okay.

Very good.

A mass motion has been made by Supervisor TAM.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Supervisor Marquez.

Uh may I call for roll call vote, please?

Comments, yes.

First uh comment is uh Supervisor Marquez comments or questions on item 11.

Uh thank you, President Halber.

Um item number 11 is um to approve a resolution adopting the ambulance services contract policy pursuant to the state of California Health and Safety Code, Section 1797.230.

Our interim AC Health Director, thank you for being here.

Um can you please just for the public's knowledge just recapture the discussion and summary points just to make it explicitly clear uh with respect to uh employee and incumbent labor standards when it comes to the transition of an ambulance contract.

Thanks for that question, supervisor.

So the ambulance contract item is at the 3 p.m.

set matter.

This item is a separate matter that um has to do with uh uh us getting into compliance with some state law that came out around uh ambulance counties that have uh RFPs and ambulance services awarded by those RFPs.

So this item 11 is just for the purposes of making sure that we're aligned there where uh there are certain recommendations one second.

So essentially, here the county is adopting uh a policy that says that um any ambulance procurements we do would have employment retention requirements within them for the incumbent ambulance services uh that they would demonstrate experience serving similar populations in geographic areas, um, that you know there would also be financial requirements, including requiring the private ambulance service provider to show proof of insurance and bonding, and a description of that uh ambulance provider's public information and education activities.

So, and also diversity and equity efforts addressing the unique needs of vulnerable and underserved populations in the current service area.

So this was for a long time, these have been standing practices with how Alameda County has done its ambulance uh contracts.

Um, but there was a state law that was passed in 2022 requiring counties to have it on the books.

So, this is basically memorializing it in a resolution.

We're um complying with state law, yes, should we approve a contract later today with our set matter?

Right, and uh whatever option you go with in the uh set matter, we would need to have this on record anyway.

Okay, so thank you so much.

Next item with questions and comments, Supervisor Tim, item 27.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh, Supervisor Marquez and I are bringing this board letter forward to affirm Alameda County's commitment to equitable language access for all residents, regardless of immigration status or language spoken.

As some of the speakers mentioned this morning, Alameda County is home to a culturally and linguistically diverse population of 1.6 million people, one-third of which were born in another country, and 46% of these immigrants speak a language other than English at home.

Residents speak more than 100 distinct languages from across the globe, and the county is the fourth most diverse county in the state of California.

Ensuring language access is a statement that Alameda County stands by our principles and the county's vision 2036 values of inclusion, dignity, creating safe livable communities, and resilient populations.

I want to thank our county agencies and departments for their efforts to provide language access services to our limited English proficient population.

Thank our county administrators' office for procuring eight authorized language access vendors who provide interpretation andor translation services, and a vendor that provides multilingual telephone interpretation services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that all county departments, agencies, and service contractors can use.

Language access is essential for our residents to receive emergency alerts, health guidance, disaster information, and public safety updates.

When residents can understand critical information, the entire community is safer regardless of immigration status.

Reaffirming this commitment signals that local government will not waiver on fundamental rights.

So it is essential that all county departments, agencies, and community-based organizations have the knowledge about language access service resources and information they need to serve our limited English proficiency residents.

Especially a comprehensive evaluation will be needed to determine the annual reports for all the self-assessments that we um that we need to see across all county departments and have that independent review of the language access service and the quality and effectiveness of that service.

So we recommend that the county administrative office staff compile and prepare a one-year language access utilization report with monthly data by department and languages as well as recommendations on how to improve employee and community knowledge and awareness of the language access services to report to my committee, which is the Personnel Administration and Legislation Committee before the end of FY 2026, and to present at a Board of Supervisors work session on an annual basis.

And I wanted to thank Serena Chen for my staff who's taken the lead on this, Nina Sanchez, and Alex Boskowitz from Supervisor Marquez's office.

And I know Supervisor Marquez also has some comments as well.

Yes, thank you, Vice President Tim, for your leadership on this, and I'm excited to partner and collaborate with you, as was mentioned in the board letter, it's important that we strengthen language access in this county.

All of our districts here in Alameda County are rich and diverse, and individuals are born outside of this country.

And I do want to note that District 2, it's 45.9% with the cities of Fremont, which I share with President Halbert, as well as Union City, Newark, and Hayward.

This is data from the public health department that was provided for the years of 2019 through 2023.

So it is critical as we continue to launch efforts to strengthen the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs.

This is another step in the right direction to make sure that language accessibility is strengthened in this county.

I also want to acknowledge Asian Health Services for their commitment to elevating this and the incredible work that they're doing.

We heard from them earlier in public comments.

Also, want to thank the CAO's office, Supervisor Tam, and which was already mentioned, her office has been instrumental in doing the research, but I want to specifically also thank Serena Chen, Mina Sanchez, and Alex Boskowitz, my chief of staff.

Thank you for looking at uh San Francisco County as a model and best example in what we could do here in Alameda County to ensure that we are providing accessibility to our diverse community members.

So I hope my colleagues will be joining us in supporting this board letter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item with questions and comments.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass items 47 and 64.

Thank you, President Halbert.

And also regarding the prior item, thank you, Supervisor Chan and Supervisor Marquez, for bringing your board letter forward.

I'm fully supportive of the important opportunities with language access.

So item number 47 is our proposed fiscal year 26-27 budget development strategy and policies from our county administrator.

I wanted to thank the administrator and her team.

I have been asking for more transparity in terms of our budget process, and I really want to appreciate the fact that this calls for the proposed budget to be submitted to our board by May 30th, which is two weeks earlier than the typical middle of June.

And so I think that will allow us as well as members of the public more time to digest and deliberate.

I know it will also mean adjusting the schedules of our staff.

So thank you very much for making that um making that change.

And then secondly, item number 64 is our community wildfire protection plan from our fire chief.

Um I really just wanted to give some visibility to this item.

This is an update uh for this year, and I think it's been several years since it was updated, and it's very comprehensive.

I really appreciate the community engagement, the stakeholder engagement.

Um, chief, I don't know if you want to say a few words of how important this is and um just lift up uh this item a little bit more for the visibility of those of us who really care about wildfire prevention.

Uh thank you, Supervisor Fortunato Bass, members of the Board of Supervisors.

Yeah, this is our third um community wildfire uh protection uh plan.

Uh we original the original one was in 2012, and it really brought together members of the Alameda County Fire Chiefs Association, the Hull's Emergency Forum, and the Diablo Fire Safety Council in developing and coordinating the activities amongst those agencies to be able to deal with uh fuel mitigation, home hardening and defensible space practices.

And it's been a wonderfully collaborative agreement or process that we've been able to put together, and I think it uh brings together all those agencies in wanting to make sure that we can uh educate the community in those efforts and also in keeping their own homes uh very fire safe.

Thank you very much, and I also look forward to raising um more awareness about this update so that people have the tools they need to prevent wildfires.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Very good.

With the questions asked and answered, we are now able to take a vote on the mass motion.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye, Supervisor Miley, excuse Supervisor Fortunato Bows.

Aye.

Present Halbert?

Aye.

Those items passed.

We now have seven ordinances.

The first one I think is 31.

One other item.

So the first ordinance is item 31.

It's a second reading of an ordinance amendment.

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 wait the full second reading and adopt the ordinance under item 31.

I'll second.

The motion has been made and seconded to approve item 31.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor TAM.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excused.

Supervisor Fortunato Bows.

Aye.

Present Halbert?

Aye.

Your next item is 37.

It's a second reading of salary ordinance amendments.

And I'm also required for the Brown Act to read into the record uh wages for your appointed officials.

Do you want to make a motion first and then I can read the information into the record?

Okay.

All right.

Let me go ahead and read them into the record.

Uh Grobation Officer 11 480 cents.

County Librarian 10,00148.

Director of Community Development 1256803.

GSA Director 1273893.

Alameda County Health Director 11282 40.

Child Support Services Director 13495 82.

Human Resource Services Director 11880.

County Administrator 2847135.

Chief Deputy County Administrator 1682436 and Deputy County Administrator 12977 29 cents.

Yeah, and those are the bi-weekly amounts.

Very good.

Is there any other reading of title of the reading that needs to happen?

An ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2025-2026 County of Alameda Salary Ordinance.

Mr.

President, I will move to waive the full second reading and adopt the salary ordinance amendments as specified in 37A and 37B.

I'll second.

Motion's been made and seconded to approve items.

Item 37A and B.

May I ask for roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor TAM.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excuse.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Aye.

That item passes.

Item 38 is the first reading of salary ordinance amendments deleting uh obsolete classifications in the county salary ordinance.

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

Mr.

President, I will move to waive the full first reading and introduce the salary ordinance amendments as described in 38A and B.

I'll second it.

Motion has been made by Supervisor TAM seconded by Supervisor Fortunatter Bass to approve items 38A and B.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor TAM?

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excuse Supervisor Fortunato Bas.

Aye.

President Halbert?

Aye.

Item 45 is a second reading of an ordinance amendment delegating your board's investment authority.

An ordinance reauthorizing section 2.58.100 in chapter 2.58 of Title 2 of the Administrative Code of the County of Alameda relating to the delegation of investment authority to the county treasurer tax collector.

Mr.

President, I will move to waive the full second reading, adopt the ordinance amendment to enable the annual reauthorization of the delegation of the board's investment authority to the treasurer.

I'll second.

Motion has been made and seconded.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor TAM.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excuse Supervisor Fortunately Bows.

Aye.

Present Halbert.

Aye.

That item passes.

Item 51 is also the second reading of salary ordinance amendments, and I want to read into the record the chief information officer biweekly wages of 1633 525.

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

Mr.

President, I will move item 51A, which authorizes the HR department director to proceed with the separate recruitment for the appointed positions of the registered voter and the chief information technology officer.

And item 51B, I will move to wave to full second reading and adopt the related salary ordinance amendments as described in B small rollment I and small rollman two.

I'll second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor TAM seconded by Supervisor Marquez to approve item 51A.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor TAM?

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excused.

Supervisor 400 Bas.

Aye.

President Halbert?

Aye.

Item 65 is not an ordinance.

They are approval of salary amendments related to adjustments in the fire department.

I want to read into the record the fire chiefs' biweekly wages of 1330584.

This is not an ordinance but seeks your board's approval of salary.

I'll move approval.

I'll second.

Motion's been made and seconded to approve item 65A and B.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor TAM.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excuse Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Halbert?

Aye.

Congratulations, Chief.

Item 66 is the second reading of vehicle and traffic ordinance amendments in the unincorporated areas.

An ordinance amending chapter one relating to traffic regulations, uh Dash County Highways of Title VI relating to vehicles and traffic of the Alameda County Public Works Traffic Code.

Mr.

President, I will move to waive the full second reading and adopt your ordinance amending chapter one relating to traffic regulations as described in 66 item 66.

I'll second that item.

Motion's been made and seconded for item 67.

Roll call vote, please.

This is for item 66.

Um supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor TAM.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excuse.

Supervisor Fortinet Bass.

Aye.

Present Halbert?

Aye.

That item passes.

Okay, now on to 60.

Your last ordinance is a second reading of ordinance amendments affecting building codes.

An ordinance repealing chapters 15.08, 15.12, 15.16, 15.20, and 15.24 of the Alameda County General Ordnance 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, the California Green Building Standards Code, the California Existing Building Code, the California Historical Building Code as Chapter 15.08, the California Electrical Code as Chapter 15.12, the 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 thereto and finding adoption of this ordinance to be exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Mr.

President, I will move to wave the full second reading and adopt the ordinance as described in 67A, small rollman one, two, three, and four, and also under 67B authorize the clerk with the board to publish publish a displayed advertisement for the ordinance in accordance with the government code.

I'll second.

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi.

Supervisor Tim.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, excused Supervisor Forton on the Boss.

Aye.

President Hubbard.

Aye.

That item passes.

That concludes our mass motion, including all ordinances.

Before we move to the 3 p.m.

set matter, which we will have to wait to 3 p.m.

to do.

We have one more item before us, and that is public input on items not on today's agenda.

If any member of the public in person or online would like to speak to items not on today's agenda but within the purview of this board, we ask that you would fill out a speaker slip.

And if you're online to raise your hand, I'll wait a minute to see if anybody fills out a speaker slip for this item and/or raises their hand before we take account and then uh proceed with public comment.

Again, this is items not on today's agenda.

Our three o'clock set matter items will be taken up at three o'clock.

You can fill out a speaker slip at that time, or if you do, it will be segregated for that time.

Um we will take up three p.m.

set matters at 3 p.m.

How many?

May I ask the clerk in-person speaker slips.

Do we have and how many online hands are raised for these items?

There are 14 in person and zero online.

Very good.

Well, we're going to then allow a minute for each person public comment.

We'll take them all on in person, and we'll ask the clerk to call three at a time and ask that speakers can line up at the podium uh at the microphone and give their public comment.

Um after another.

First three in person, Kathy Rodriguez, Mike Morgan, Kyle Shaw Powell.

Kathy Rodriguez.

Next is Mike Morgan.

Kyle Shaw Powell.

Please line up.

Okay.

To confirm for the clerk.

We're going to close the opportunity to submit a speaker slip or raise a hand online.

If your hands already up, keep it up.

If you have a slip in, get ready, but we'll otherwise close that.

Thank you.

Where should we go?

I want to have them go first.

Welcome.

Hello.

My name is Mike Morgan.

Uh, I run uh one of the dispensaries that is four doors down from the explosion.

And I just want to talk about like I understand, you know, the work of the of the construction down that um the Welling Boulevard.

I mean, I I get the concept of trying to make it look you know neater and I I understand the logic, but since the construction has happened, it's uh it's detrimental to the businesses, not just mine, and also the ones that are around, and as far as like being able for parking, um, taken away uh parking in front of our our our facility and um after this whole uh explosion incident.

I mean, there's nobody that's allowed to even be able to get to our establishment, which is basically uh, you know, it's detrimental to the whole entire business, and it's uh very impactful of it.

And I feel so far sorry for the the people that are around me that is impacted, and it's just um I mean I wish I had a little more time, but it's it's um it's not it's not a comfortable feeling.

Thank you.

Because the items not on the agenda, we can't really engage in discussion, but we'll be in touch with you.

It's okay.

Okay, I just wanted to get my point across.

That's all.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name's Kyle Shaw Powell.

I'm the owner of the appliance shop next to the explosion.

Uh my mother and dog were in the house at the time, and it's been very traumatic because of what's happened.

Um, I lost my father Jeb 12 years ago from ALS.

So I almost lost my other parent in uh something that I think should have been taken care of properly and by the either PGE or the fire department in conjunction.

I'm just thankful that no one died.

My neighbors got out.

We only one pet or two pets actually perish, but the whole construction has created a lot of stress in that neighborhood as well as um hurts a lot more than just one or two businesses.

But um we feel terrible for the people that have lost more than us, and we're thankful that we have our lives still, and um, very blessed to be able to speak to this committee and just please or whatever you can help with us and determine everything.

We're we're very, you know, we're here.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

My name is Kathy Rodriguez, and I'm a homeowner for 21 years on East of Welling Boulevard.

I am very appalled that Public Works, Daniel and Amber Lowe have violated our civil rights um by taking our property.

They took three feet of three to five feet of our property.

They have exposed us to harm and danger.

Six people were hurt.

Um the safety concerns that we have, the explosion, there's gaps in our property, the sidewalks are extended too far, electrical wire exposures, there's electrical shortages, there's families who are displaced.

They are homeless right now.

There's businesses that are displaced.

We've had flooding on our property, loss of personal property.

Personally, they took three of my cars off my personal property.

Um there's been fences that have been destroyed.

There's been municipal codes because we are a commercial uh property, they're supposed to be from our from our building to the street, 20 feet.

Now it's down to 15 feet.

They can't even follow their own municipal codes.

My concern is that we need quality assurance, your time is.

Excuse me.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is over.

I have to go to the next speaker.

I'm gonna have to ask for the next speaker, but we've heard you.

We've heard you.

The next three speakers can be called.

Please, thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Kelly.

Um, I think that a lot of people don't understand how the county is connected to this explosion in uh uh Ashland.

Um people thought it was exploding in Hayward.

Um, Alameda County gave the public works agency 14 million dollars to carry out this project.

And as of a month or two ago, they were reporting that the work was 65% complete and was scheduled for completion in May 2026.

They even gave a nice uh empty uh happy feelings uh statement on the explosion just uh a couple of a few an hour or two ago.

Um, but uh there's also an office of risk management under the county administrator.

They take the they're responsible for these kind of risks and liabilities.

Uh so this county is deeply involved in the explosion.

It paid for the explosion, and um maybe uh the the they should have called 811 when the gas was leaking, and they should have been knocking on doors.

The next three in person, or do we have more online?

No, okay, thank you.

Ann Lee Jose Reynolds, Michelle, please kindly line up, good afternoon.

My name is Ann Lee.

I'm experiencing a significant financial hardship in paying the mortgage, property taxes, and ensuring that I have been able to rent or sell my house, do you?

Ongoing construction that has been lasted nearly two years.

On top of that, my house is only two houses away from the explosion house, and I have a lot of debris that causing me a lot of stress.

So please help.

That's all I have to say.

Hello, my name is Josera Reynolds.

I just want to express my concern on the safety issues.

I'm the neighbor right behind where the explosion happened.

And I just want to address something that you guys, the president mentioned that the PGE responded in the timing manner, but I believe that's not true.

Even though they were on site at 7 30, they didn't uh uh kind of uh address to all the neighbors that it was a gas leaking.

So I guess that's not true that the statement that you made, and also I I I want you guys to make sure that this all the safety concerns that are happening in the area, especially in my house, because right now, up to this date, I'm not able to use the gas, and I don't want to use it until you guys make sure that the that's the everything that has been done.

That's all I want to say.

I know and just don't vote on anything that you don't know until the final study.

Thank you.

Cassandra Bernal, Kim Holland, Paramits Singh, Cassandra Bernal, Kim Holland, Paramits Singh.

Hi, my name is Cassandra Bernal, and I'm with one of the neighbors that lives right in front of the house that where the explosion happened.

Um, it just never made sense to me why we never had um like why they never told us that there was a gas leak at 7 30 in the morning, why we weren't evacuated.

Maybe my neighbors wouldn't have been hurt.

Um this day is very nerve-wracking, and I mean my family are like traumatized by this event.

We don't even know if it's even safe to be at home, to even use the gas, like we can't even sleep at night.

Like we have headaches, just thinking, and it's just very stressful living in front of that home where the explosion happened.

Um, I wish things would have been done differently.

I wish like we would have gone told to evacuate, or yeah, it's just very like stressful and have also like the parking.

Like I have to, I work at three in the morning and I have to walk three blocks down just to get to my car because of the whole street being locked out.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

My name is Kim Holland, and um I'm a local business and property owner at 897 East Lowelling Boulevard, and I'm here today to speak about the significant and ongoing impacts the recent street expansion project has had on my property, my business, and also the people rely on it.

It's been a hard 10 months.

While I understand and support infrastructure improvements, this project has caused real harm to our community.

Um, my property has sustained damage from flooding, access to my business, people were hurt.

Um I concur with all of my neighbors and um people in the community that have already talked before me, and I know I have 18 cents or 18 seconds left.

We need to improve access to customers to our businesses.

Um we need better oversight with this project, and I'll leave you with this.

Local businesses are a vital part of this community too.

Um, we should not become collateral damage in projects intended to improve our community.

Thank you.

Hello, everybody, my name is uh Mitzingh.

I live at 807, East Lwelling Bolivar, Hayward, 94541.

The explosion happened.

It was very, very, very like scary.

And I got very panicked.

Like very nervous.

And um I felt a big big like um my house was shaking.

And I thought it's a big pot quick.

Then I came out.

It was a big fire.

Three houses away from my house.

And um we were reacted by the police.

So we're trying to get help.

My land is taken uh from the front yard, and uh it's it's it's not safe.

So we are requesting it's like a safety issue for the life of all the people live on Lowell.

Thank you for your comment.

That's all I have to say.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next speaker, James Brito, Mary Paranakis, Alicia Flores.

Hi, I'm James Brito, and um I have a compilation of issues and concerns from over a dozen other residents that we've been talking for the last two days.

Um the main concern was the length of this project and uh the the seemingly lack of coordination between PGE, the subcontractor, and whoever else in the county is supposed to oversee this.

The main concern we have, especially in the sensitive digging around these gas lines, which are owned by PGE, some of which are over 80 years old.

You can make everything on top of the ground look nice, but if under the bottom is rotting away, what good is it?

It's gonna end up getting what happened to us.

It blew up.

It is no good.

It has to be, I don't I don't even know where to begin.

Uh all my neighbors at since we've been meeting, these are the concerns, and and hopefully the county can see it in their heart to provide some mental health counseling for those who have been traumatized by this in some way or another.

And for the displaced folks as well.

So I know my time's up.

I hope we have more of these meetings.

Hello, my name is Mary Pirunakis, and I ordered my name is Mary Pirunakis.

Okay, and I own a some houses around the area where the explosion has this.

One of them is a place where the gentleman has a business.

He has not been allowed to have any place to park there.

The people that they come shopping, so he has to close down.

He also has works at the flea market, and he brings two bands every night at home that they are full of stuff, and nobody's letting him park inside of his driveways.

This has been very difficult for my tenant, and it's hard on him.

I also have a board and care home just two blocks from the facility with 12 residents, and we're all very scared that the PGE is not doing the right job, and something can happen that my clients are not able to get out the house.

We just don't know what to do.

We have the paratransit buses coming in to pick them up and they are not allowed in the streets.

The clients they can go to the program.

Thank you.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Alicia Flores.

I'm here on behalf of my parents, Cortino and Enedina Flores.

They reside at 468 East Lawelling Boulevard.

So they were impacted by the construction project.

Um, I'm here to implore you.

I don't know how to go about this, but in front of their house, the gas line is fully exposed.

The integrity of this line is has been compromised.

So it's another tragedy waiting to happen.

I'm extremely concerned.

Um, I'm leaving my contact information.

I am helping my parents just navigate this process of everything that's been happening ever since the construction project began.

So I hope that you will take the time to look over the photos.

Um, and again, um the it's the they're still supposed to move like a utility poll, so there's gonna be ongoing construction close in close proximity to this gas line, and you can see that it is bent.

Um it's clearly bent.

So if someone could contact us and help us with this matter, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

May I leave this with you?

Thank you.

And Bo Yan.

One vote, yeah.

I'm the one suing you at May for you taking my land for free and build the four-inch high sidewalk in front of my house, and uh you remove this high sidewalk, but you don't remove the curb that leading the high street.

That leading the shallow driveway, all the water back in, and uh our house already flooding for three times, and I wrote three email before uh at November and you ignored, and you're still building this high street, make our house permanently flooding property at the explosion morning.

You are building the street at that morning, and you doubled my surcharge this year, even it's uh second unit is built decades ago, and no one in this county being double charge of sewer for the old unit, no new permission, no new construction, but you double my surcharge.

And only I did is I told Miss Daniel I had another unit legal built decades ago.

It's not this is the driveway too small.

I want a bigger driveway like before.

This is only I did this year.

Thank you for your comment.

They didn't correct my driveway, they doubled my sewer charge.

Ildie Ortiz, what are you?

Ma'am, your comments are over time's over.

Is there another speaker?

Ortiz.

There are no more speakers.

Okay, then we're going to close uh public comment on items not on the agenda.

We have a few minutes before three o'clock.

I just want to reiterate the comments that I made earlier.

And I'd like to thank the speakers that came.

I understand this is a um uh passionate uh topic.

We all grieve for those that lost property for those that were injured, for those who are recovering, for those who were affected.

Your comments do not fall on deaf ears.

However, we have to recognize this is not an agendized item.

We have recognized that we are deeply investigating this.

We're working with our fire department, public works department, the national transportation safety board, and Cal OSHA.

And um, we will be continuing the investigation as needed.

With that said, we're going to recess for a few minutes and come back at the three o'clock for three o'clock set matters.

We have several of them.

We're now recessed.

Recording in progress.

Well, we're going to now reconvene to open session to finish our meeting.

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

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor TM present.

Supervisor Miley, excused, supervisor for Toronto Boss.

Present.

President Howbert?

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

I do note that we should be uh expected to be joined by Supervisor Miley online when he comes online.

We will make note of it.

With that said, we have three items under our three o'clock set matters, a proclamation.

I understand Supervisor TAM will be presented instead of Supervisor Miley.

Item 70.

Then we have a public protection item 70.1, a health care services item 71, and then time permitting an informational item by Supervisor Fortner Bass.

So four items at the three o'clock set matter time frame.

I'll now turn the microphone and the meeting over to Supervisor Tam proclaiming December 2025 as HIV and AIDS Awareness Month.

Supervisor TAM.

Thank you, President Halbert.

Supervisor Miley and I serve on the health committee of the Board of Supervisors and are pleased to proclaim December 2025 as HIV and AIDS Awareness Month.

The World AIDS Day was on December 1st, and it offers an opportunity to honor the more than 40 million people worldwide who are living with HIV and the 630,000 who have died of HIV-related illnesses.

In 2023, 9,667 people were living with HIV in the Oakland Transitional Grant area of Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

With nearly one quarter out of care and about 32% not virally suppressed, HIV positive residents in Northern Alameda County are more likely to maintain care than the other areas of the county.

Gay and bisexual men account for nearly 70% of new HIV diagnoses with the highest rates among Latino gay and bisexual men and communities of color make up most late diagnosis, including 42% Latino, 25% African American, 22% multiracial, and 8% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Only 67.4% of the people with HIV in the region are linked to care.

75% of those are retained in care, and 68.6% are virally suppressed, with black people experiencing the lowest suppression rates.

People who inject or use drugs and transgender women of color face disproportionate HIV burden and HIV prevalence among black cisgender women at 70 714.3 per 100,000 is 10 times higher than among white women at 70 per 100,000.

Among the people engaged and retained in the Ryan White funded HIV care program, 90% are virally suppressed, and those who are suppressed cannot transmit HIV through sex.

The Alameda County Public Health Department through its HIV, STD, ACV section, and in partnership with community organizations, is committed to preventing new infections, expanding high quality care, and biomedical prevention, addressing disparities, and organizing a day of celebration and a month of events in December 2025 to support residents living with HIV.

Therefore, this board proclaims December 2025 as HIV and AIDS Awareness Month in Alameda County and urges all residents, nonprofit organizations, school systems, public officials, health care providers, and ally groups to participate in an efforts to raise HIV and AIDS awareness and invest in long-term sustainable strategies to prevent, treat, create, support, and provide access to care for people living with HIV.

I understand that Curtis Moore, Joe Hawkins, Carmen Foster, and Alia Bilal are here to accept the proclamation from the board today.

Why don't we come up and accept the award?

Maybe make a few comments.

We'll present the proclamation and take a photo.

We'll take public comment.

Welcome.

Curtis Smalls section direct to HIV SD and viral hepatitis for the division of for the division of communicable disease control and prevention.

I'm the section director over those three programs, and I really want to thank you for giving us this opportunity and having this proclamation.

And as the data states, 90% of individuals who are under Ryan Light program, actually virally suppressed, which is one of the goals that we're aiming for.

And for that, I encourage the Board of Supervisors to ensure that that funding gets to the CBOs that we work with as a county without clinics.

Come on up and maybe raise the microphones.

So there you go.

Can you hear me?

Thank you, Supervisor Tam.

Uh, my name is Joe Hawkins, CEO and co-founder of the Oakland LGBTQ Community Center.

I want to thank um Supervisor Bass for ensuring that this issue was not erased from this month's agenda.

Thank you all for not surrendering to the federal government, which announced that it will no longer recognize World AIDS Day.

The center currently operates a total of six separate sites, two sexual health clinics, one on Lakeshore and one in East Oakland, a youth club near Lake Merritt, a trans wellness center in East Oakland, and our new LGBTQ Elders Drop-in center that will be opening in the 26th.

The past 11 months have been a wild and hate-filled ride.

It's no secret that in January 2025, nonprofit organizations serving the LGBTQ community, people of color and immigrants became became direct targets of the Trump administration.

The attack was swift and intense almost immediately.

Our center saw a significant drop in funding opportunities and donations.

We were then notified by one of our major corporate partners that they would no longer be serving us and it uh supporting us, and to make a deteriorating situation even worse.

We abruptly received a notice uh that a $600,000 federal grant that we had would be was abruptly stopped.

It felt as if the most powerful man on the planet had placed a target on the backs of our community.

HIV and AIDS disproportionately impacts the LGBTQ and people of color communities in 1998.

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors acknowledged that AIDS was devastating the Black community and declared a state of emergency, which is still in effect today.

According to the county's own data, black and Latin people still make up the vast majority of new HIV infections during a time when we have made major advances to not only treat HIV, but we can now prevent HIV with powerful drugs known as PrEP.

But the conditions that create HIV is not just a medical issue, it is a societal issue that takes into account the social determinants of health.

If we are ever to get to zero new infections, stigma has always been one of the greatest contributors to the spread of HIV.

We are now watching medical institutions and local nonprofit clinics and hospitals scrubbing LGBTQ language from their website out of fear of losing federal funding.

This only contributes to stigma and the distrust of medical professionals by LGBTQ people and people of color.

Good afternoon, President and Honorable Members of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

My name is Alia Bilal, and I'm the director for the HIV and the Transvision Program at the Bay Area Community Health.

On behalf of the Bay Area Community Health, we thank you for this recognition on the World AIDS Day that we uh we deeply honor.

The Bay Area Community Health BAC is a community rooted, patient-centered, federally qualified health center committed to advancing health, equity for communities that have historically been underserved, stigmatized, and left behind for decades.

HIV care has been central to who we are and why we exist across Alameda County and Greater Bay Area, but provides comprehensive wraparound HIV services that meet people where they are.

This includes HIV testing and prevention, prep and pet access, linkage to and retention in care, medical case management, behavioral health support, and cultural responsive services for the LGBTQ plus communities, immigrants, refugees, and people experiencing homelessness and community of color.

We also bring care directly into neighborhoods through mobile clinics and trusted community partnership, reducing barriers, building trust, and saving lives.

On this world AIDS Day, we reaffirm our commitment to ending the HIV epidemic and supporting every person affected by HIV.

We honor the resilience of our clients, many of whom navigate complex challenges with extraordinary strength.

We uplift the dedication of our staff who lead with compassion, expertise, and unwavering commitment, and we recognize the critical partnership, especially with Alameda County that makes this word possible.

I also would like to emphasize that our fight or our efforts to control the HIV is incomplete without considering HIV prevention, surveillance and data collection and analysis and also research, and I hope this will be always integrated as a message when you're advocating for the HIV and the people living with HIV.

Together we continue to champion equity, expand access access to prevention and care, and ensure that every individual is treated with dignity and respect without judgment, fear, or barriers.

Thank you for your leadership, your partnership, and your continued investment in the community-based care.

With your support, we move closer to a future where HIV is no longer a public health crisis and every person has an opportunity to thrive.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

Thank you all for being here today.

As we come together in recognition of World AIDS Day, we gather with purpose and with heart.

Today is a moment to honor the journey that has brought us to where we are, marked by progress in care, resilience in the face of challenges, and an unwavering commitment to one another.

As you look around the room, you will see the many organizations and partners who have worked side by side over the years, united by a shared goal and a deep sense of responsibility.

Through difficult moments, we have stood together and we will continue to stand together, carrying this vital work forward with intention and care.

We are here to affirm that this work continues, driven by compassion and determination.

We stand in solidarity with those whose voices are not always heard, and we hold close the memories of those we have lost, ensuring they are never forgotten.

Their lives and legacies remain at the center of why we do this work.

Not only today, but always we ask for your continued commitment to remain engaged to take action and to support this work with the same dedication that has brought us here.

Thank you for your presence, your partnership, and your enduring commitment.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

We have five speakers.

Let's call them up and then we'll come down and take a photo.

Jonathan Cole, Winford Len, Sergio Garcia.

Jonathan Cole, Winford Lynn.

Sergio Garcia.

Before other items.

Seventy.

We're on item seventy.

Maybe they made a mistake.

Okay.

If anybody in the audience would like to speak on this item, just approach the podium.

Online we have.

Caller.

Go ahead.

This is on item 70.

Hello, I'm Jonathan Cole.

Go ahead.

Thank you for the time.

My name is Jonathan Cole.

I'm a former AMR employee.

I worked as an EMT.

Yeah, that's a different item.

We're going to ask that you lower your hand, and when we get to that item, you can raise your hand again.

If we could lower everyone's hand, and then ask for those that are simply here to talk about HIV and AIDS Awareness Month to re-raise your hand.

That's the only item we're taking public comment on at this point.

There are no speakers.

Seeing none, we're going to close the public comment on item 70.

We're going to present the proclamation to our speakers who can come back up and we'll take a group photo.

Okay, I know that we have a curious numbering system.

Is what we just did.

HIV and AIDS Awareness Month.

We have seventy point one, a sheriff's item.

Point one.

Not to be confused with item seventy-one, which will be Alameda County Health approving the recommendations for ambulance service providing item seventy-one.

Then we have item seventy one point one.

After that, an update from Supervisor Forts Not Abbas.

If time permits, so we're now going to move to item seventy-one, a sheriff's item, which has seventy point one.

See, that's pretty complicated.

70 point one, approving the following recommendations, which we'll ask the sheriff's department to present on.

After the presentation, we'll ask questions and comments, and then we'll have public comment.

We'll have plenty of time to discuss this item.

Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon, sir.

Good afternoon, board.

It's might be item 70 point one point one A.

Just throwing that out there.

Uh I'm Captain Dan Brody of the Alameda County Sheriff's Office.

I am the captain of support services.

I believe I said this last year as well, that I am not the military equipment coordinator.

The military equipment coordinator is Lieutenant Gus Mora, who works for me.

Last year he was in training, so he avoided it.

This year he and his wife welcomed a new life into the world, so congratulations to him.

But he avoided it again.

It's a it's a very expensive, long lasting way to get out of having to present.

And if he makes me do it again next year, I'm gonna begin to believe he doesn't like me very much.

So I have a number of other people that are here for subject matter experts who I thank for volunteering to help me out with this, should questions arise.

But I want to start off by uh introducing Commander uh Clippinger, Lieutenant Boyd, and Lieutenant Galardo, in case they have to come up to answer questions.

They'll be my primary uh help here.

So this is the military equipment annual report presentation.

This is almost identical to the presentation that was provided during the public meeting.

I've only added a few slides since then, uh which I'll touch on as we go through.

So it is working, excellent.

So what is the what is all this?

It's California Assembly Bill 481.

It requires all law enforcement agencies to report on the acquisition, funding, and use of military equipment.

The goal, of course, being transparency, accountability, and public input regarding military equipment.

It was enacted in 2021.

We had our first matter on this in 2022, and now here we are in 2025, almost 2026, which is scary how fast it's moving.

Military equipment is defined in California law to include drones or small unmanned aerial vehicles, armor vehicles, command vehicles, specialized firearms, projectiles, diversionary devices, and certain less lethal tools.

The Sheriff's Office does not possess any tracked vehicles, any 50 caliber or greater weapons, or weaponized aircraft.

And for those who may remember, we did eliminate the 50 caliber that we were carrying before as part of this process.

What do we use the military equipment?

It's to safely resolve critical incidents, protect public and officer safety, minimize risks during dangerous events.

Equipment is deployed only in specific circumstances by trained staff, staff that are trained to use it, following strict agency policies and of course state law.

We have transparency and oversight.

Annual reports must detail the equipment use, complaints, costs, and training.

A public meeting is required within 30 days of the report for community discussion and for questions.

The ACSO inventory includes some small unmanned aerial systems or vehicles known as colloquially, I can't speak today as drones, armored technical armored tactical vehicles, robots, command vehicles, specialty firearms and ammunition, less lethal launchers and projectiles, and chemical agents.

Most equipment was purchased before the adoption of the ordinance.

We have a few new items that we've been acquiring so far.

This is the QR code for the actual military equipment report that we have.

It's also available on our website.

If you Google Alameda County Sheriff's Office Military Equipment, I believe it is still the first hit on our homepage, but it has our full military equipment annual report.

So our top five items by operational use, and this excludes the use of the small unmanned aerial vehicles.

You'll see there's a number, higher amount of use of those.

We go from the Bearcat armored vehicle with 38 uses down to our command post at 16 uses and the ones in between there.

So key purposes were personnel and equipment transport, high-risk warrant services, and scene security and tactical support.

We had no recorded uses of military equipment at Santa Rita jail during this reporting period, which we touched on last year's reporting period as well.

Here's a graph of the most used, showing I think this is the first nine, if I'm not mistaken.

And then we get into the drone or small unmanned aerial vehicles.

756 total deployments of those.

Top models being used are the DJI Matrice, the Mavic 3, and the Mavic 2.

And primary use is we use these small unmanned aerial vehicles for overwatch during operations, for search and rescue, and for scene documentation and for mapping.

And here's a chart of the vehicles that were used, the unmanned aerial vehicles.

So costs and funding.

Annual expenses include the acquisition, maintenance, training, and replenishment of consumable devices or consumable items.

And equipment purchases and costs are reviewed for necessity and cost effectiveness using public funds and some grant money.

Again, only trained and certified sheriff's office members may use military equipment.

We have in-house training, which ensures current skills, state-manded state state mandated safety standards are followed.

And we had no reported policy violations or misuse of equipment during this year.

We have a number of ways to submit complaints and comments regarding our military equipment, and we received no complaints during this year regarding our use of military equipment, either through the military equipment direct contact, the anonymous contact forms, or even through our internal affairs.

If you were to make a complaint via that, it would then be reported out if it was connected to this.

Community members can submit concerns via email or through the civilian complaint form reviewed by IA as I mentioned.

And that email address, ACSO-mill-equip at ACGov.org is the primary one for military equipment.

Again, however, if any email address received a comment or complaint, it would have been routed to us.

And then that's our website.

So we have we conduct evaluation of our equipment.

It's early detection of wear and tear.

Regular evaluations to identify issues that may impact functionality.

Technology reviews to assess potential upgrades, comparisons with new models to evaluate existing equipment against new models to assess improvements in efficiency, safety, and capability, and transparency and trust.

We have systematic evaluations to demonstrate the agency's commitment to responsible governance and governance, excuse me, and oversight, which includes a review of continued needs as necessary.

So projected acquisitions.

The Sheriff's Office seeks approval for several new items, such as additional less lethal launchers and projectiles, as well as replacement items for damaged equipment.

All projected acquisitions follow review and approval processes.

So these are the ones that were reported out at the community meeting.

They're on the primary military equipment list.

So it's eight new rifles, eight extended range uh pepper ball launchers to complement our current supply of launchers.

And I will note that in the military equipment report, it indicates that we had six pepper ball launchers.

That's because the inventory is drawn at the time of the report around August, September.

Since then, we've acquired our full complement of 25 pepperball launchers.

And as we mentioned last year, we're in the process of working through supplanting or replacing our FN303 system with the Pepper Ball system.

An additional, or not additional, a thousand of these live max projectiles, which are extended range chemical irritant projectiles, a thousand extended range marking projectiles to mark individuals with paint, 500 jammer rounds for various electrical devices, 500 glassbreaker projectiles, and then the additional 4,000 UC for the marking projectile, the LiveX and the inert.

Those are the projectiles that we were approved last year.

We were approved for 2,000 of each one.

That was an error that we had.

We meant to post and ask for 6,000 each at that time.

We ended up doing 2,000, so we want to acquire up to 6,000.

That's 4,000 plus 2,000.

Last time I did my math was 6,000, but please check it.

And then an additional one since the creation of the report to now is we seek to have a replacement armored vehicle, not a new one, just a replacement for our current authorized capacity of four vehicles.

That was posted to the website on October 16th.

ACSO remains committed to transparency, civil rights, and minimizing risk with the use of military equipment.

Equipment is used to support the safe resolution of high-risk events, protect the community, and to meet legal standards.

We held a community engagement meeting on Tuesday, October 21st at 6 o'clock at the Cherylon Community Center, 278 Hampton Road in Hayward, California.

We presented in person and online.

We had two people who viewed the presentation.

There were no questions or comments or anything made during that time.

So our next steps, or here we are, is submit the report and seek board of supervisors approval to receive this annual equipment report, approve the military equipment use policy as required under government code, and to approve our acquisitions listed in projected acquisitions section.

Looking ahead, we'll continue our annual review and public reporting.

Hopefully, not me next year, hopefully, Lieutenant Mora.

We'll maintain focus on responsible equipment use, transparency, and fiscal accountability, and we will continue to strengthen training and community engagement.

Any questions?

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Actually, I think we should go to public comment if we could now.

If a member of any member of the public in person should fill out a speaker slip.

If you're online for item 70.1, the sheriff's presentation that we just saw, please raise your hand.

I'll also note that we have been joined by Supervisor Miley, who is participating remotely.

We welcome you, Supervisor Miley, and thank you for being here with us online.

Any speakers on this item?

Public comment.

We call the in-persons first.

Jennifer II, John Lindsay Poland.

Jennifer II, John Lindsay Poland.

Close public comment on this item.

Thank you.

How many speakers?

Let's allow for two minutes for each speaker.

Up to two minutes.

Go for it.

I'll try to be brief.

Thank you.

Okay.

Jennifer too with the American Friends Service Committee.

Thank you, Supervisors, for hearing this item today.

One is the number of FN 303 munitions.

It's slightly over 7,000.

The proposed pepperball munitions increase that you're hearing today is 18,000.

I'm going to play a 15-second excerpt from last year's October 29th public protection committee meeting.

The speaker is Captain Faruzia from the Alameda County Sheriff's Office.

Once we get rid of the SM303s, and if if we get approval to get the pepper balls, the munitions will be a one-for-one replacement as well.

So it's not, we're not increasing 6,000 munitions.

It's a one for one replacement.

And so last year at public protection, what Alameda County Sheriff said was that their intent was for the pepper balls to be a one-for-one replacement on both the launchers and the munitions, between the pepper balls and the FN 303s.

State law AB 481 instructs governing bodies such as this one to only approve military equipment if there are no reasonable alternatives.

There are, in addition to the FN303 that the Sheriff's Office is asking to replace, there is also a 40 millimeter system.

Either the launchers or the munitions, and also to ban scatter shot munitions.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, John Lindsay Poland of the American Friends Service Committee.

As Jennifer mentioned, the Sheriff's Office has thousands of other less lethal projectiles at its disposal.

Now, even though the sheriff deputies didn't use pepper balls this past year, they want between 14 and 18,000 more.

The numbers have shifted some between the report and what is presented today.

The board should hold the sheriff to her word and cap the number of pepper balls at what was approved last year, which was supposed to be a one-to-one.

Pepper balls can be fired at an extremely high rate, up to 10 per second, according to its manufacturer, or as fast as an officer can squeeze the trigger.

Pepper ball launchers hold 160 rounds at a time in a hopper, so many can be fired in just a few seconds.

This by itself is an escalation from the types of less lethal munitions the sheriff had and used previously.

This is an example of what it looks like when pepperballs are fired on someone.

This happened on the bridge to Alameda on October 22nd here in Alameda County.

This was a federal agent.

This was not a county sheriff, but this is what it can look like when someone is fired upon with a pepper ball, which holds a chemical payload within it as well as the projectile, which um has its own effect.

Scatter shot or multi-projectile munitions are projectile rounds that can cause an indiscriminate spray of munitions that spreads widely widely and cannot be aimed.

There is no way to precisely aim these projectiles.

There is a much greater risk of injuring the eyes.

The UN special repertoire on torture, Amnesty International, physicians for human rights have all urged their prohibition for law enforcement.

Oakland PD recently informed us that it will eliminate scattershot munitions they have because they are dangerous.

The sheriff should do the same.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

My name is Wendy Alftson, and I'm speaking here today on behalf of the Berkeley Friends meeting.

Also speaking in to urge you to ban the scatter shot multi-munitions, and to decline to authorize the increase in the pepper ball uh launchers and munitions and to retain them at the current uh level uh as was said before, they haven't been used this year that they they were used in Oakland uh by the uh federal agents and cause injury, which can be significant and life-threatening.

And there's no need for them when the sheriff has adequate numbers already and has the FM 303 launchers and those systems as well for just imagine.

I mean, 180 rounds firing in less than three minutes, means that so many people can be injured at first, and if the 33 requested launchers, apparently you have that many, so you can fire them all at once.

You know, that's thousands and thousands of Alameda County residents are going to be shot at one time.

Uh it's it's not necessary for public safety, it's not necessary for officer safety, and we strongly request that you not make this uh authorization.

Thank you.

Gene Moses.

Hello, my name is Jean Moses.

I live in District 3, and I'm calling to support the position of the American Friends Service.

I ask you urgently to stick to less to require the sheriff to stick to less lethal munitions, and I ask that you not authorize the purchases for of scattershot and projectile launchers that are being opposed by the American Friends Services.

And I want to add that as the widow of a person who died of AIDS, I would really, really prefer to see the investment of what I think is about a hundred thousand dollars go to community support and in particular to the support of the AIDS group that was just presenting prior to this.

Thank you very much.

Alison, go ahead.

Hello, Alison Monroe here speaking for myself.

I also support the position of the American Friends Service Committee.

We need to not buy multi-projectile weapons, um, scattershot weapons, as a lot of groups have said, they're they have no legitimate law enforcement use, they can't be targeted.

And I would like the pepperball purchases to be restricted to what they said last year, they would do.

I also question the idea of needing military weapons at all.

There's got to be some alternative.

There is no war going on here.

There is no war between the administration of the county and the people of the county.

It's an extremely creepy idea.

I plan to continue to go to demonstrations.

I've been to a lot in my life, and I suspect next year there will be plenty.

And I want to feel safe from.

You know, in the presence of people at work for the county.

I really this money was spent on something else.

Thank you very much.

Jonathan Reyes, Haleem Harris.

Joel Sean Esteg.

Hello, everyone.

Uh my name is Jonathan Reyes Carranza.

I grew up here in Deep East Oakland, and I went to public school here.

And I returned home after studying human development and family studies.

And so at the pinnacle of the pyramid of uh the philosophical purpose of a city is to provide public safety.

And you may feel that there's an element of policing to ensure that promise, but police are civilian peacekeepers.

While the military are trained to violently engage with enemy combatants, these tools and tactics developed for campaigns abroad have inevitably found their ways back home.

People have a protected right to protest, and our citizens are assets, not liabilities.

We ought to use dialogue as a progressive way towards opportunity as opposed to physical violence as a punishment pathway.

If individuals cause conflict during peaceful protest, we should identify those targets and remove them with precision and not put public in harm's way within discriminate rounds.

The Alamina County Sheriff's Office proposed the authorized use of pepperball munitions for crowd management and civil unrest, even though the state law highly restricts the use of these uh projectiles in crowd situations.

The Board of Supervisors has a responsibility under law AB 41 to only approve military equipment when there is no reasonable or more cost-effective alternatives to meet safety objectives.

Removing scattershot munitions from the sheriff's office inventory would be the most cost effective, would still protect civil liberties while still achieving the same public safety alternatives.

So to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, I strongly urge you to listen to these people.

And if not them, then please listen to the youth.

We'll inherit our county from us.

There is no resource more vital to the continued existence and integrity of our communities than our children.

So I pray you do not approve the sheriff's office request at this time.

Thank you.

Hello, board members.

I am Jay Shawn Estus, an Alameda County High School student.

I'm a sophomore at Midwest High School, and I intern with BPs.

The police are asking for more pepperball launchers and more lethal ammunition.

Honestly, it's comical how pointless how much they're asking for considering they haven't had a reason to use them in over a year.

18 to 20,000 18,000 to 21,000 rounds.

Do they plan on taking the city under?

I think the whole thing is stupid.

And then they want to pair those rounds with 33 grenade launchers again to fight to fight against threats that up until now don't exist.

They're wasting money gearing up for an invisible battle that doesn't solve anything.

And God forbid ice comes in and just starts kidnapping our community members with the same equipment that they are claiming are here to protect us again from absolutely nothing.

I believe scattershot rounds make no sense and hopes in hopes to call the actions of a few, you punish the many.

God forbid an innocent bystander might be walking by.

That could be anyone.

A pregnant woman, a mother, a father, an elder, a child, a teacher, anyone.

And the cause of the punishment is what?

Honestly, if you ask me, I see no justifiable reason to go through with having more scatter shots.

If an innocent is hit, then what?

They'll say sorry.

All they'll do is make it worse by getting sued and causing our city to lose even more money and opportunities.

And being that the state of our city is in no way a positive one, I'd say they hardly know what they're doing to begin with.

And the argument that they're less lethal also doesn't sit right with me.

Just because they are less lethal doesn't make them not lethal.

If I go from shooting someone in the chest to stabbing them in the arm, what changes?

There's still excess violence involved.

I strongly urge you all to reconsider approving any requests for more militarized equipment.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Haleem Harris's son.

Most people know me as Addicus Harris.

I am an Alamanic County high school student, and I'm an 11th grader in at Metwest High School.

Law enforcement are supposed to be seen as peacekeepers and protector of the people.

It's their job to arrest suspects engaging in criminal activity and people who are dangerous for the rest of the public.

So what is the purpose of a weapon that is taxed without discriminatory without judgment?

How does this ensure public safety?

Innocent people get hurt by these weapons.

What did a group of high school students do to get hit by this weapon?

What did some old lady do when she was just on her daily walk?

What did the public do to get hit by this weapon?

There is no judgment when this is when this weapon attacks people.

If it's one suspect, we have other weapons that can take them down.

We have tasers and we have much more that can get the job done more efficiently, efficiently.

So what is the point of using a scatter shot?

As people before me has probably already described, a scar shot or is a grenade-style weapon that sends dozens of rubber balls at high velocity from 50 feet away.

So, what's the point of having this weapon?

If at the end of the day, it's just gonna hurt people that did nothing.

This m the money that's going into buying these weapons could be used for funding so much more.

We can use it to fund schools, we can use it to fund mental health treatment.

I am a victim of not being supported in my life.

I that's the rest of the time I have left.

Thank you for letting me um talk or speak right now, and I strongly urge you to listen to the people.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh hi, board of supervisors.

I appreciate your time this afternoon.

Um, my name is Ariana Castellanos, and I'm calling from Hayward.

I'm a small business owner and a homeowner here.

And I also wanted to support uh AFSE's position on the scattershot munitions and the pepper balls.

Um, specifically because um what some of the scattershot munitions, Oakland PD has recently also informed us that they're eliminating the scattershot munitions because they feel that they are dangerous.

Um, so a little bit about hey, we're you know, with a couple thousand dollars, we were able to uh use some of that money in my neighborhood uh as part of the people's budget to support um a matching grant for updating the park.

And in the last two years, we've been able to use the park um and had just a dramatic increase in public safety um and just kind of like a feeling of community in the neighborhood.

And so, you know, I really wanted to second the other comment that was shared about finding other ways to invest this money as part of that people's budget initiative was also the creation of the heart program, which Hayward recently lost.

And it's unfortunate because the police department um really supported that program and its outcomes.

And so I think that um being able to use even just a couple thousand dollars to redirect um some ideas for investing in our community and kind of how we want to approach public safety, I think is really important.

Um, because ultimately the this equipment is made to be used on our residents, um, even if they are in a place where they're experiencing a lot of distress or there is a lot of um, you know, asocial and antisocial behavior, um, instead of meeting their needs and really making that investment in the infrastructure that's gonna prevent recidivism, um, attacking our own residents is not the solution to public safety that has been shown to work.

So um I just wanted to echo all of the comments that my community members have made.

And also um I live in Hayward and that meeting was not well attended and I think well publicized.

So I would love an opportunity for another uh meeting to really Cynthia Nunes.

Hi, good afternoon, supervisors.

Um, my name is Cynthia Nunes.

I'm from Hayward.

My family, my friends, and the young people that I work with through my job, um, also live in Hayward and all across the county.

Um, and these are the folks that are gonna deal with the consequences of this decision.

The sheriff's office already has thousands of so-called less lethal weapons, including six pepper ball launchers, um, that were not used last year.

But still the sheriff's office is asking for 33 more pepper ball launchers in 18,000 projectiles.

Last year, this board was told that it was a one-for-one replacement.

Um, this request today proves that that in fact was a blatant lie.

Um, and in fact, they are looking to do an expansion.

Pepper balls are not de-escalation.

Uh, one launcher can fire 160 rounds in uh in seconds, up to 10 per second.

It's not a calming uh situation, it's overwhelming people with chemical force, especially in crowd settings where state laws sharply limiting their use.

We've already seen the harm here in Alameda County, including pepper balls being fired at an interfaith vigil.

Um, when these weapons are deployed, it's our communities and our youth who are harmed under AB 481.

You can only approve military equipment when there are no reasonable or more cost-effective alternatives.

Buying tens of thousands of more projectiles when only 23 rounds were fired last year, fails that test.

I'm wondering why add more now.

De-escalation doesn't come out of a hopper that fires 160 rounds.

Every extra projectile that you approve today is aimed at the young people that you claim to protect.

Thank you.

There are no more speakers.

Okay.

With that, we're gonna close close public comment, bring it back for deliberation by our board.

We'll go with um questions or or comments.

Actually, would the sheriff's department like to comment on any of the comments made and clarify?

If not, we'll probably have questions that would allow for that.

Um seeing none, we'll just go to Supervisor Tam.

Questions, comments.

Um, thank you, President Havert.

I just have a couple questions.

Uh I appreciate the presentation and the plans um to look at um less lethal types of tools.

Um the question I had pertained to community engagement.

You mentioned that the October 21st community engagement meeting in um the Cheryland Community Center in Hayward, a couple of people attend, and then you also mentioned that there is um a website uh and ways that community members can email.

And also, I understand last year, but I don't know about this past year, the public protection committee typically hears um some of these issues beforehand.

And I'm just wondering, given that many members of the board probably received the comments that you heard today.

Um, were they presented at those prior meetings and and how were they addressed if they were presented, and can you address some of them today, particularly the issue about um the number of projectiles and the ammunition potentially going from you know 2500 to whether it's 18,000 or 13,000 um in terms of uh where the need is and why there's that um, I guess emphasis on on stockpiling?

Some of them, Captain Brady, can I interject real quick before you respond?

Um, so in the board letter that the sheriff provided for this item, there was mention that the public protection meeting, which was scheduled for Thursday, October 23rd, was canceled per my request.

I'm the chair of the public protection committee, and that is accurate if everyone recalls that day we had federal agents at Coast Guard Island.

So we did cancel that meeting with I think it was 24 hour notice due to what was occurring in our county.

We felt that I felt we needed to be responsive and closely monitor that situation.

I just wanted everyone to know the reason why that meeting was canceled.

So this year is different because there wasn't an opportunity to vet this item aside from the community member community meeting at Cherry Land, there would have been an additional opportunity at PPC that did not occur due to the current landscape.

And so today being a set matter, and the public's been well aware of this um item being agendized.

This is the opportunity for the public to engage, but do want to flag that that was one less opportunity.

Yeah, and so um none of those issues were raised at the community engagement meeting at all, so none of those were brought up at our time.

What I can speak to is with the inventory increases for pepperball.

So the as I mentioned in the presentation, what's on the report showing six launchers, we've already acquired up to our full complement of 25.

That was previously approved last year.

That's the one for one between the 25 FN 303s and the 25 pepper balls.

The additional um purchases of I think it's six of the VXRs, that's the enhanced pepper ball.

It's really more for range.

Uh, it it enables us to use those extended range um cartridges or projectiles.

So when you look at the number increasing from what is 6,000 total, 2,000, 2,000, 2,000, between the LiveX projectile, the inert projectile, and the marking projectile, those are the projectiles that work with the original launchers, the 25 that we have.

The marking being for marking individuals, live X has the chemical irritant, and then the inert projectile is for training, it's not meant to be used in situations like with people.

We had a clerical error again where we we posted only for 2,000.

We we do want to acquire 6,000 of each of those so that we have the inventory necessary to use those tools throughout the agency.

The other increases the glass breakers are 500, the jammers are 500, the VXR, which is the extended range marking, and then the VXR Live MAX, that's the extended range chemical, those are we'll be acquiring those from zero if we can acquire the new launchers that utilize them.

So that explains some of that increase.

Part of the reason for the main increase of the ones that we're already asked for is we're a relatively large agency.

We have a lot of duty stations, and when we start to divide up these items, the the projectiles and the launchers amongst duty stations.

It's not like we're stockpiling, if you will, at one location, we have to spread these devices out throughout the agency.

Another concern is that as we use these, and when we replace, we're on track to replace the FN303 by I believe the first quarter of 2026, if not the second, we'll be able to get rid of the FN303 to refresh your memory.

The FN303 is not a viable platform anymore.

This manufacturer no longer supports it.

There's no longer um replacement parts available for it.

So we've been cannibalizing our supply to make our FN303 launchers work.

Um, is that as we put the pepper ball launchers throughout the agency and with that inventory?

Should we, and absolutely don't want to, and as we haven't used them, which is fantastic, and we hopefully never have to use them.

That would be wonderful, but should we have to use them?

If the event is something that's beyond a single local event, a regional event or a nationwide event, we would have to compete against every other agency that utilizes this platform to be able to replenish.

In addition, replenishment timelines could take anywhere from one to three months, depending on getting quotes, working with manufacturers, getting approval to purchase, issuing POs, getting that stuff delivered and disseminated.

So keeping an adequate inventory on hand for the sheriff's office in an agency of our size providing mutual aid across all over the place is necessary for us to have those functions.

I appreciate that uh explanation about the multiple sites and the distribution.

When you mentioned mutual aid, um there was one speaker that brought up the situation that occurred at Coast Guard Island.

Um, was it the same kind of weapon that was used on that individual?

I think he was identified later as a as one of the faith leaders.

And then when you talk about mutual aid, if if we have this tool, but let's say the city of Oakland doesn't, or some of the other law enforcement jurisdiction doesn't, how is that coordinated and who gets to use what tools?

So I'm unfamiliar with the device that was used at the Coast Guard Island.

I can't speak to what which platform was used.

With respect to mutual aid, if we're gonna operate on mutual aid, we operate to our specified uh policies procedures, including all of this procedures around military equipment, and the equipment will only be used by sheriff's office staff.

That's the approved military equipment by a certified people who can use it.

So you can use it in the city of Oakland, even though the Oakland Police Department may not use it.

Is that how it works?

So the way it works is anytime we respond, it doesn't matter what city in the county, we do follow our own policy, that's how we train.

We don't train on Oakland's policy, it's far different from ours.

Um we stand by our training, it it falls within state standards, uh, it goes beyond state standards as far as the training that we actually do with our staff.

Um if we go into a city and it's there's chaos, we have to use what tools are with us.

We can't, we can't just not use them in let the city burn um and and let people be in danger.

And and I've said it time and time again our job is to make sure that people are we're preventing harm upon people.

Um that's our first and foremost.

And if we see people actively harming other humans who are there to do a very peaceful protest and have a voice on what whatever they're speaking to, we have we have a job to make sure that they are safe in doing so.

So we go into a city, um, if if there is a planned um action that's gonna be taken, the city manages that.

And if they can't handle that situation, that's when we come in.

That's when they call for mutual aid, when they've depleted their resources, when they've done all they can with the staffing that they have, and we go in, but we follow our own rules.

Okay, that's very helpful.

Um, I I definitely appreciate the challenges and the trade-offs that you have to make in in keeping the peace and making sure everyone is safe.

And I know there are challenges working with different jurisdictions, but I understand that when the sheriff's office is called and they go in, they follow the sheriff's office's training and guidelines, irrespective of what other jurisdictions may or may not allow.

Is that correct?

Thank you, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Um, thank you for the information.

Uh firstly, I wanted to just understand um a little bit about what the history has been under the state law over the past few years.

So I heard that we did not the sheriff's office did not receive any complaints this past year.

Has there been a history of complaints over the course of the few years this law has been in place?

So the entire time I've been involved with this, there's been no complaints whatsoever.

Um I can't speak to before that though.

Okay.

And then um, has there also been sort of a trend to reduce some particular munitions or militarized equipment over the few years that this law has been in place at the state level?

Absolutely.

We went through our military equipment inventory.

We we used to have 50 caliber firearms, those have been returned and we no longer carry those on inventory.

Uh, we carried Humvees on inventory that were replaced, that we're returning, they're off our inventory now.

Um, and then we also carried uh additional multi-projectile rounds, the foam batons, which were removed from inventory after we did an analysis of the multi-projectile munitions that were raised in previous um meetings.

So we've settled down to the uh the stingball grenade, the multiple wood, and the multiple rubber.

Those are the those are the rounds and multi-projectile rounds that we still use.

Thank you for sharing that.

Um I do want to understand a little bit more in regards to the comments we heard from members of the public.

So, in terms of the pepper balls, um, and I know Supervisor Tam asked these questions.

Um, could you please um help me understand a little bit more what the potential uses are?

So training, crowd management, and civil unrest are some of the uses that were shared.

Um, but I understand that uh at least for crowd control, state law restricts some of the uses for pepper balls.

Could you sort of walk me through what this will be used for?

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Tom Boyd, I'm a lieutenant with the sheriff's office, and I'd like to address that.

Uh as far as crowd control, we are completely forbidden by a policy for using multiple munitions within crowd control situations.

So if the Oakland police department were to call for mutual aid from us, we would not deploy a stingball, any multiple munitions whatsoever.

It seems that there's some confusion as to pepperball being a multiple munition, it is not.

Uh, it may be hopper fed, but every time a trigger is pulled on a pepper ball launcher, one projectile goes out.

So that can be controlled by the operator.

It's not indiscriminate, it would not hit an unintended target.

The reason we would like additional launchers is has different capabilities.

We would like to get rid of the FN303 completely as it's not serviceable any longer.

However, the range of the pepper balls that we currently have is 60 feet.

That goes from 150 feet from the FN 303, and then the new launchers would cover that gap.

So that's how it would be used, the pepper ball within a crowd control situation.

I'm sorry, what's the increased range from 60 feet to 60 feet to 150 feet usable range?

Okay.

And so um, what's a potential scenario where you would use something like this?

Say there is some kind of civil unrest.

It's focusing in on for a situation of civil unrest, like a traditional uh riot situation, it would be an individualized suspect who is maybe throwing a Moltoff cocktail our way, or something which's immediately assaultive to either us or a member of the community.

Okay, and have um has the sheriff use the pepper balls over the past year or the past say two or three years?

No.

Zero zero deployments at this time.

Okay.

And so, um, the requests is to go from the current 7,000 plus to 18,000 pepper balls munitions, is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

And is there also our requests uh for additional launchers?

Yes, the additional launchers are the ones to gap the limitations of the pepper ball launches we currently have, and then replace the FN 303 at the longer range.

They have a 0.68 caliber fin stabilized round that can go farther and is more accurate, and that's what we would use to break windows.

We would use it to knock out cameras to block cameras in a tactical situation, and also we can use it for the marking that Captain Brody spoke about in a crowd control situation.

So it's a longer, more accurate projectile.

I see.

Okay.

And in terms of the increase from the current inventory, is there a particular reason for that increase given that it hasn't been used in the there was originally a clerical error where we didn't ask for enough and it really wouldn't cover us in a situation of a national or regional emergency?

So we need to have those on hand.

Uh we have almost a thousand sworn employees that we need to get through the training for pepper ball from our FN 303 for the people who are going to be deploying that.

Uh, and that takes a lot of rounds to get through our training and certification as well.

And are there law enforcement agencies that have sort of a similar geography or population to us, including our mutual aid responsibilities?

What is their typical inventory for this type of munition?

I'd have to get back to you on that.

I think we know a little bit about Los Angeles County, but that's really not a comparable county.

I I can get that information to you, ma'am.

Okay.

The closest analog we have so far, San Diego County, uh slightly around double the size of us, has almost 55,000 total pepperball rounds in inventory, so significantly more than we're asking for.

Can you say those numbers one more time, please?

Sorry.

Uh San Diego County, which I believe is about double the size of Alameda County.

Has over 53,000 or almost 55s, 53 in change, and then some other rounds are purchasing of pepperball, specifically the pepper ball chemical inert on their medical, I'm sorry, on their military equipment report.

So thank you for all of that.

Um I do remain concerned about understanding um the need for the increase, but I'll go on to my last set of questions.

Um, in terms of scattershot munitions, um there is not a request to increase this uh part of the inventory.

Is that correct?

I'm sorry, I I missed it.

Um there is not a request to increase the scatter shot munitions, is that correct?

Absolutely not.

No, okay.

So the issue that we heard from members of the public is uh really about whether um we should continue to use this because it is um apparently indiscriminate in terms of how it targets.

Is there any conversation with the sheriff's office about reducing this inventory or potentially eliminating the use of this type of munition?

I got it.

So, yes, it's constant discussion.

Um, it it has been part of our recent discussions.

We are working towards either identifying a another tool um or just removing it altogether.

So we are working towards that effort.

And and just for clarification on the F um the Pepper Ball, the increase is for a different model that has a greater capability than what we have in the FN303.

So we are trying to move away from the FN303, and that new increase is for like we'll say the pepper ball 2.0.

We have 1.0, and then we have 2.0.

The 1.0s is for you know our current inventory, but the 2.0 is the one that extends the distance from our current model 1.0 from 60 feet to 10 feet, 150 feet, sorry.

So, does that make sense as far as the increase?

It's a different model with a different capability.

So you need both the new launchers and the new pepper balls.

They're not compatible with the new launcher, the new um improved 2.0.

We can get rid of the FN303s and remove those from our inventory.

I see, okay, that may not might not have been clear to me.

I note uh Supervisor Miley is uh online.

He's also a member of the public protection committee.

I'll just ask Supervisor Miley any questions or comments at this time.

Well, thank you, David Howard, Supervisor Howard, President Howard.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

Well, first of all, I just want to thank the sheriff for wearing a Christmas hat.

Santa hat looks very cute on her.

She looks less intimidating.

So, sheriff, thank you for that.

And you know, I just want to first of all ask a question, because you know, I I push the sheriff's department very um diligently to eliminate the 50 caliber.

Uh, can you describe the difference between a 50 caliber and one of your um you know launchers that are non-lethal?

I'm no firearms expert, but the 50 caliber is a lethal firearm firing, a rather large projectile.

Uh or as a the less lethal or non-lethal launchers are designed to fire projectiles that are indeed less or non-lethal.

Like a almost like a paintball.

Right, exactly.

So when we talk about weapons of war, a 50 caliber, it's clearly a weapon of war, and that's one reason why I pushed hard on the sheriff's department to eliminate the 50 caliber, because there's a distinction between a weapon of war and a tool, as we've been hearing, a tool that's used for non-lethal engagement, non-lethal crowd control.

Anything that's non-lethal could potentially injure someone and could end up causing, you know, a fatality.

But the purpose of that launcher is it is non-lethal.

I it's no.

I'm definitely supportive of the sheriff and the department, because I don't want to put officers in a position of you know, having to use lethal force where they have a non-lethal tool at their disposal.

Where we talk about crowd control, we could be talking about a mutual aid response in any of the 16, I believe, counties uh that the sheriff's department has responsibility for um mutual aid and disaster preparedness.

We want to make sure that they have sufficient tools to carry out their responsibilities wherever they might be.

Furthermore, people who might be engaged with a non-lethal encounter with one of these um uh projectiles might not even be Alameda County residents, they could be residents of another county.

The Sheriff's Department could be in another county.

The Sheriff's Department might need to use these in a setting at Santa Arena jail or some other place.

I think it's great, as it's been pointed out that they haven't had to use it.

It's better to be prepared and not uh to uh have the tools you need than not be prepared.

I think it would be a disservice as a county supervisor to not allow a sheriff's department to have the tools to protect the 1.6 million people of this county, and I don't know how many millions of people are in the region.

So I think the Sheriff's Department is going about this in a rational, responsible way of trying to have sufficient tools on hand to discharge their responsibilities in a way that ensures public safety for not only the general public but for themselves as well.

So there's no surprise you shouldn't be shocked.

I support the sheriff's department.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Mark.

And furthermore, furthermore, President Albert, I wanna say I have shot some of these items and I've seen the Sheriff's Department utilize some of these items in drills.

So I'm confident that they will discharge them appropriately if necessary.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Marquez, the other half of our public protection committee.

Yes, thank you, President Howbert.

Um, so I just want to start my comments with uh really acknowledging the work of the Sheriff's Department.

I would highly recommend everyone when you have some downtime to watch the public protection meeting from November, the state of the jail, it was really impressive and incredible.

Updates, and just want to publicly acknowledge you, since we have a large audience today for also the work in saving so many lives at Santa Rita Jail.

Um, when this item was brought up a few years ago, the sheriff made public commitment to not use these weapons within um the behavioral health unit, but my understanding is they haven't been used at all.

So I just want to acknowledge that we are um trending in the right direction.

But with that said, I am still very concerned about the large inventory request and not um as a reflection of this office because I think you guys are doing really good work.

This is a tough job, but I just continue to see more community engagement, uh, the sheriff's willingness and openness to uh modify policies to receive feedback.

Everything is trending in the right direction, but from my personal opinion, what is not trending in the right direction is the state of our federal administration.

And we we see ice here in our community on a regular basis.

We know what happened in October.

So my fear is we can't control that.

And having a large supply of inventory, I am worried about what could happen in the upcoming year in terms of uh civil unrest.

And um, you know, we have to weigh out everyone's public safety, but we also have to acknowledge that we are facing um an unprecedented administration that likes to deliberately attack the Bay Area.

Um, so before I land on a decision, I do have a couple clarifying questions.

Also, want to acknowledge two years prior, the community engagement meeting was in Castor Valley.

Um, per the recommendation of public protection.

There was an ask.

Let's move it out of Castor Valley.

Let's go.

That is unincorporated Alameda County, so is Cherryland, so is Ashland San Lorenzo.

Let's provide it in other opportunities where people that receive direct service from the Sheriff's Department live.

Um, I seen your flyer.

I shared your flyer, but can you just speak to the outreach efforts to publicize that community meeting and just what your takeaways were, why there really was no one that showed up?

Yeah, sure.

We we we blasted so to speak that on social media between our platforms, social media platforms.

We should we shared it with supervisors, we shared it with intent to be networked amongst uh different groups.

Uh we tried our best for the outreach there.

I actually believe I think with the increased attention upon the ICE stuff, the federal government stuff as you reference, I think that's where people's attention was, and that's why it may not have been attended.

But we hosted it at the community center, it was a beautiful location.

Love to do it again there next year.

Um, just nobody attended.

I I got some more to add to that too.

If you follow our social media, the sheriff's office is out there in the community all the time.

And so we are constantly sending the message that they we are open, we're accessible to any questions or concerns, and we have a great relationship with our communities.

We have a number of undocumented residents that live in unincorporated Alameda County that we serve.

We serve as far as a law enforcement entity, and they love us because they trust us, and it's because we're out there and we're serving them regardless of their documented status.

We don't ask any questions, and the fact that we're accessible at all times, it does not surprise me that we didn't have a large turnout for this because we're out there all the time.

I'm accessible, I'm out there when I can be.

And we also are sharing and have been sharing the fact that we have a public portal that they can send anonymous complaints, they can send any concerns to us on the web through social media.

Even our undocumented residents know, and we've been partnering and hopefully we we have a new updated video that will be going out to the community as far as what to do if they see ice in the area in partnering with ASLIP, um, with the the ad hoc committee that has been developed.

We have been a good partner in making sure that our folks feel safe.

So, you know, I I hear you as far as the current administration and the challenges that we face with that, but I think that speaking to some of the youth that have come up here to share how to de-escalate before we have to intervene.

I I say I think that's I think that's wonderful, and I'm hopeful, and we've seen in previous demonstrations against you know the the current federal administration that we have in place right now have been peaceful.

And you want to know why?

It's because we have individuals that are part of those protests, those peaceful actions that are making sure that disturbances are not occurring, and we are relying on you to hopefully do that and keep the peace so that we don't have to show up, so that if we show up, it's just to be there so that there's a visibility that we you are safe and we're not we're not there to to disrupt or intervene in any voice that you have.

So that's kind of my response, maybe a little too expanded, but I did hear you know some of the concerns that were brought forward, and I just want to make sure that our community knows that we're not there to escalate situations, and we are hopeful that those or participating in those demonstrations that you are part of that solution to help keep that peace and and move those I guess infiltrators, the people who are really trying to take away from the message out of those demonstrations, uh and last clarifying question, Sheriff.

Um, you said that you are looking at, I just want to make sure I'm clear.

Is it the um pepper ball launcher is what you're looking at eliminating?

No, we're we're looking to eliminate the FN303 launcher and replacing it with the pepperball.

I'm calling it the 2.0 just for easy, you know, reference.

And is that a manufacturer issue?

The fact that it's not currently available for the FN303, it's outdated technology, and it the pepper ball is a better tool.

And then that is available on the market.

Yes, it is okay.

Okay, because I thought I heard you say you had to purchase a higher inventory of the pepper balls, but that there was um a wait period on the on the the launcher of that.

There's a waiting period as far as procurement.

That's the only thing.

Only because we have to follow county procurement rules, which take a long time.

It's government work, that's the timeline.

Everything's available now, it's just that having to go through procurement will delay us onboarding the inventory.

And with respect to the mutual aid we provide to surrounding jurisdictions, have we received any comment or any concerns about our inventory list?

From surrounding jurisdictions, we have not received any complaints or concerns.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll round out our comments.

I just I do have a few questions.

Um it seems to me that some of the more updated technology and tools are designed to be safer than their predecessors.

Is that correct?

Absolutely.

I understand that comments were made that I mean, we're talking about uh oftentimes situations of crowd control.

I don't think we go into a crowd control situation, attempting to do harm to an innocent bystander.

Is that correct?

Absolutely not.

Our training wouldn't allow for that.

Absolutely not.

If you're in a crowd control situation, would you deploy any of these without first calling for dispersal?

People leave, go home, it's time to go, whatever.

Dispersing the crowd before any of these tools would be utilized?

Would that be?

Absolutely not, unless there was an event that occurred at that time, immediately we found an immediate danger to life or assaulted behavior that we need to act on.

Uh, but absent that, of course, like you said.

We did hear some comments about military equipment, and we shouldn't be using that if alternatives are available.

Could you just one more time explain what military equipment, if any, are we using when there's a equal or better alternative?

Does that happen?

I no, and I think a lot of things get added into being called military equipment, but the unmanned aerial vehicles, those are similar things.

Anyone can go buy at a store.

They're not military equipment, but that's just what it's called in the law.

With regard to the amount of materials, um, I I assume we have to do training.

Do we use any of this um inventory to train with?

Absolutely.

Yes.

So we have a large team, we can always use more because we're understaffed.

A large but yet understaffed, and we have to train.

So those materials can be used for training.

You know, do we have enough to train with and have us enough to utilize if needed?

We do for now, but this this inventory increase would ensure that we would be able to meet both those goals, particularly when we call it the inert projectile that is made explicitly for training and for qualification.

Very good.

Um of the other slides talked about drone deployment 756 times.

Um have we solved crimes using drones?

Absolutely.

Do they help solve crimes in a safer way than say a direct pursuit situation where we can employ a deploy a drone and take the heat off of a in the moment pursuit, but still solve a crime?

Very much so.

We can use them in for pursuit situations to get an overwatch of the area to guide people in better to be safer where we are, uh, and are improving our safety, safety of bystanders, safety of the suspect we're trying to apprehend.

I'm gonna finish by saying I trust our law enforcement agency.

I trust that you're finding the best equipment that will be the safest available, transitioning in whatever long time frame it requires us to do, Sheriff, but you're monitoring that that you train appropriately, that we have procedures and protocols, that we're not indiscriminately firing upon innocent bystanders.

I'm not sure I understand innocent bystander after being asked to disperse.

I don't understand that.

I thank you for using the best technology available to solve crimes, i.e., drones, more crimes solved with technology in safer environments, safer ways to do that.

So I also hear the community either you believe that we're doing a good job protecting our community, or you believe that we don't need all these things.

I do hear the community and I do hear their comments, but I just have to say that from what I can tell uh our law enforcement teams are doing a great job.

So I want to thank you.

With that said, I'm supportive of this item.

I'll entertain a motion if there is one.

And or more comments if Supervisor Fortinata Basque of additional comments.

Yes, I um Supervisor Miley actually jumped in as I was as the sheriff was answering my last question.

I wanted to just make sure I understood exactly where things stood with the um scatter shot munitions.

Um so sheriff, you if you don't mind.

Actually, before before I ask this again, um, you know, I do want to reiterate that um AB 481.

You know, the purpose seems to be to make sure that there is more accountability and transparency and public engagement in how our sheriff and other law enforcement agencies operate, and I think that is only to the benefit in terms of building more public trust, which we need in order to have uh law enforcement and members of the public who can all work together and build the trust that our sheriff spoke of.

So, you know, this is really in regards.

My questioning is really in regards to having more of that transparency in line with the state bill.

Um it's not anything else, and I I do want to just understand the scatter shot munitions a little bit more because this is an annual report.

Um, so sheriff, you mentioned that um you are looking at whether this could potentially be phased out.

Can you just speak a little bit more in terms of any specific plans?

You know, next year, for example, um, will we have less inventory?

I guess that depends on whether or not we use them and deploy them.

Um, but what what what specifically do you think is the future for these munitions?

I am really concerned about the indiscriminate nature that many human rights organizations have reported and whether this is necessary.

Well, that's definitely part of the discussion as far as the options that are out there, uh, whether and I know that there is an argument like you don't use it, so why do you need it?

But it's the same thing as our firearms.

We don't want to use them, we don't use them, thankfully very often.

We have had to use them, but we need them, we need to train with them because there is definitely a number of people that have some pretty high-powered uh weapons out there that even we don't have access to or own or or possess.

So we've taken high-powered um fully automatic weapons out of houses and off of people during traffic stops, and so we have to prepare for that.

We don't have fully automatic weapons, but I mean that that's a reality of the environment that we're working with in.

So it's really about the potential of having to use it, um, whatever circumstance, maybe not even with individuals, but with a certain situation where we need to have some sort of distractionary device deployed, and that is a good tool for that.

So, really still looking towards an option, an alternative, um, and then even if there's other tactics that we can develop or use that would make that tool unnecessary.

So, those are things that we are looking at, and it takes a lot of research, it's nationwide research, also looking at what other countries are doing too.

So it doesn't happen overnight, it's not something that we're we're, you know, just doing kind of like a quick rundown on the internet about.

So it is gonna take a little bit of time.

I don't know what a timeline looks like.

I can't, you know, I can't give you that, but know that our office is actively looking at either alternatives or the necessity as far as what we would need to keep it in inventory for.

So we are definitely taking those concerns seriously.

We're we're having a conversation.

I I guess we have a little bit more information from one of our commanders though.

Commander Clippinger.

Thanks, Sheriff.

Good afternoon, board.

I'm Commander Ross Clippinger.

I'm the division commander of our management services division.

And you probably met me before when I was working at the jail.

I did not have a mustache then.

So I look different.

So I just want to give you a couple of real world examples of when what we're calling scattersh munitions might still be useful.

I want to start by saying that scatter shot munitions are not used during crowd control.

I just want to be clear on that.

I know it's been said, I want to say it again.

So the two different types of scatter shot, multi-projectile munitions is really what they're called, that I'm going to talk about are the wood baton and the rubber baton.

They're fired out of our 40 millimeter launcher system.

They each contain three projectiles.

Um because of the way they're fired, they're relatively accurate, but obviously, because of concerns during crowd control, we can't guarantee where those projectiles will go, so that's why we don't use them during crowd control.

Uh, regarding the rubber baton, um, I want to take you back 10 years almost to Mario Woods in San Francisco.

So if you remember the details of that circumstance, um, Mr.

Woods was alleged to have slashed somebody in the arm with a knife when San Francisco Police Department responded, he was still holding the knife and refused to put the knife down.

Uh, Mr.

Woods was walking down the street, refusing commands to drop the knife.

He was hit with single projectile beanbag rounds by San Francisco Police Department.

There was no effect.

There were multiple single projectile rounds, two beanbags, and I believe one foam uh exact impact round.

He was also pepper sprayed by those officers, again to no effect.

There was a lot of discussion at the time around de-escalation and the usage of a taser.

San Francisco PD did not have tasers at the time.

Now, tactics and de-escalation aside, um, we can look at the taser, and if you recall from watching the video as I did, he's wearing Mr.

Woods is wearing a jacket and turning his body sideways, sideways frequently during the contact.

A taser may not have been effective.

I've personally used a taser in a circumstance where someone's wearing a heavy jacket, it's not gonna work.

You have to transition other force options.

Had San Francisco police department potentially deployed a rubber baton with those three projectiles, it may have had enough kinetic energy to get him to stop moving at least and fall to the ground, giving them an opportunity to either disarm him or compelling him to drop the knife.

That's just one example of the use of a rubber baton.

Uh regarding the wood baton.

So just a few weeks ago, we had a situation in unincorporated Hayward in a donut shop, glass storefront for the building, right?

The uh suspect was inside with a large knife.

There was an employee and two elderly gentlemen still inside the business.

Fortunately, in that situation, the employee was able to self-evacuate and was able to give us keys for the business.

So we were able to lock and unlock the door as needed during the situation.

Those elderly gentlemen, we were able also to evacuate.

Had that situation not gone the way that it did, had we not been able to evacuate the people inside and isolate the suspect, had we not had keys to the business, we would have needed a projectile to break part of the glass door front of the business to go inside and ultimately, you know, render aid and or apprehend whoever's inside.

Because we had the keys, we didn't need that.

But if we didn't have the keys, a wood baton with those multiple projectiles would have been a very effective way to drop one of the sections of the glass storefront and allow our team to make entry to render the situation safe.

I'm gonna take you back to 1991 now.

I was 11 years old.

Um my dad was working for the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department at the time.

Does anybody remember the good guys' hostage situation in Sacramento, South San Francisco, South Sacramento?

Okay.

So it was very uh intense for me.

My dad actually deployed to that scene to be part of the perimeter.

My mom pulled me out of school early that day.

She was a little bit worried.

She had actually recently retired from the Sheriff's Department also.

As that incident unfolded, there are hostages tied up on the ground inside the good guys' business.

Um it went on for hours.

Multiple gunmen inside, multiple suspects.

At some point, a member of the Sacramento County Sheriff's special enforcement detail used a uh a long-range rifle to attempt to shoot one of the hostage takers.

That round was slightly deflected by the glass storefront door as it closed, and it was somewhat effective, but not as effective as it should have been.

In the ensuing delay with the entry team going into that business, the hostage takers shot multiple victims who were laying on the ground.

Again, had a tool like the wooden baton been available and had tactics been different at the time, that tool could have been used to potentially prevent the three deaths and the 11 more shooting injuries that occurred.

So as we gain more knowledge and use of the pepperball system, it may well replace these other multi-projectile munitions, but we don't know enough yet to know that it would actually be useful and render these situations safer than the tools that we currently have.

Do we have any follow-up questions?

Thank you for that exhaustive and extensive explanation.

It was very much appreciated.

Very much any other follow-up questions.

I think it's time for a vote.

Is there a motion to approve or not?

Yeah, so uh the subject is accept the Alameda County Sheriff's Office Annual Military Equipment Report, approve increases to previously approved items and the acquisition of new items, review and make required determinations, and adopt a resolution making required findings pursuant to assembly bill 481 regarding general ordinance code Title IX, Chapter 9.45, military equipment use policy.

So please listen carefully because I do have a modification.

So the recommendations in the board letter are listed as items A, B, C, D, E.

I'm not going to read them all, they're in the board letter, but my motion includes one modification to item B, which is approve.

So basically approve the baseline inventory of last year for the pepper ball less lethal launcher and projectiles.

So that is a modification to everything that's before us.

I'll second that.

Just to clarify a question before I make a substitute motion, is there a reason for doing that?

Yeah, I wasn't uh personally satisfied with the rationale for such a stark increase from last year to let's bring it requested this year, and given that there hasn't been uses in the last three years.

With that, I'm gonna make a substitute motion that we accept the sheriff's um uh presentation uh and accept item 70.1 as presented.

That'll be a substitute motion.

If it gets a second, we'll vote on it first.

Is there a second to that?

Oh, I'll second it.

Okay, Supervisor My Lee seconds that that's a substitute motion.

Is there any discussion on that?

And I'll just say, yeah, mine is as is because again, um I have heard the sheriff's department and uh our agency make a compelling argument.

I believe that these are items that will help us train, help us keep us safe, and I I trust our team.

So with that said, um, that's the reasoning for accepting uh this proposal as is.

President Halbert, yeah.

May I ask just clarification?

Um, so Supervisor Marquez, uh, your motion keeps the same quantities of the pepperball uh ammunition, which you're saying the the FM303 is now outdated and you're planning on replacing that.

Yes, and so is your motion to allow the replacement, but keep it at the level that it was when it was an outdated equipment.

Yeah, thank you for that clarification.

So yes, I concur with uh allowing the displacement of uh the the launcher, but in terms of the inventory for the actual projectiles, the pepper ball is keeping it at baseline to last year.

So just a clarifying question, last year's baseline I thought was a clerical error.

So last year they meant to order six, only ordered two.

Now they're ordering four to get back to six, which is which is essentially baseline from last year's intent, even though there was a mistake to last year.

Is that right?

Correct.

I'm seeing heads, be up to 18k, correct?

18,000, yes.

Yes, but also remember we're talking about they a different weapon replacing an FN 303.

The way that they are they operate is more like a paintball, so you know that.

Well, not that you know, maybe potentially is the drum has a number of rounds in it, it's just a different operation.

So, and I also need to point out, too, and I think Supervisor Hobber pointed this out, there's a number of training rounds.

There's hundreds of training rounds that are involved in this inventory too.

They're just not all, you know, full use rounds, and we train a lot with these uh weapons because we need accuracy when we're going to be deploying them, and we're responsible for every round that comes out of these weapons.

I'll just be clear with that.

We answer to every round.

Any other clarification, Supervisor Tam?

Yeah, I I guess it's more of a comment.

Um I I agree with you that it's a good thing that we aren't using it.

That means the de-escalation has occurred and we've been very successful in that.

Um and most of the issues that we've heard today uh seem to be, especially around the equipment, seem to be more around replacement and updating and providing um the tools for the training that's necessary.

I I guess if you end up using ammunition and training, it's no longer usable again.

So the sheriff is correct.

I I see her everywhere.

I mean, she was at toy drives at Little League, everywhere, and and so she has injured and engendered a lot of trust in the community, and I've had the opportunity uh to tour the facilities, tried a taser gun, was not successful with it, but still uh I will be uh touring the facilities more to get a better understanding of some of this equipment.

Um, but I I guess I'm not understanding the need to keep um the munitions at uh certain level from when the equipment was outdated.

So that's the question I'm trying to sort through.

Sheriff, why do you need this number of munitions?

So I also want to remind uh folks that we have expiration on munitions as well, they're they're not lifetime, so they do expire.

So we need to make sure that our inventory is refreshed.

And as far as the number of rounds, I'm gonna put it to my training folks to speak to the specific number of rounds because they are more um of our subject matter experts as far as the rounds per weapon, and we have a number of weapons, we have a number of duty stations, we're responsible not only for this county but for multiple counties.

So we need to make sure that we are prepared.

And I understand 18,000 sounds ridiculous.

It does, it sounds ridiculous, but if you look at the coverage, the the amount of space that we have to cover, it's reasonable.

So are are you are you satisfied with the answer, I appreciate that clarification.

Um, I I'm trying to give deference to the people who are on the public protection committee, that's why I'm trying to understand the differences.

Well, I also appreciate the public protection committee members.

It wasn't discussed, we didn't meet.

That's why we have committee members.

It seems that maybe there's a split between them.

But indeed, we are responsible for governing as a board.

So we have to we have to take take the decisions on our own.

Again, I think it's come down to what we see the two different uh items is a discrepancy in the number.

And so, you know, again, I just have to ask.

And if you defer to your team, that's fine.

But I presume that you're asking for the this number of munitions because it it will keep us well trained and safer.

Please justify the number because you're either gonna get lower number or you're gonna get the number you've asked for, depending on the explanation of why this go, Lieutenant.

Sorry about that.

I think a point of clarification is when we decommission the FN303 platform, we'll be getting rid of 10,000 rounds approximately of FN303 out of our inventory as well.

So we'll have to make up for that that gap there.

A lot goes into these calculations, and I don't know that we can dissect, you know, all of this.

May I mean but I guess it's a question of trusting my team.

Um I'll just gonna call for the vote if it's okay unless there's any other comments.

We're gonna first vote on accepting the item as presented.

If that fails, we're gonna go to vote on the original motion.

One more comment, too.

If so, if we're there's a vote to not onboard our additional pepperball um weapons, then we stay with the FN303.

And by staying with the FN303, because it is outdated and because we have to ourselves put pieces together to make them work, the failure rate is higher than a newer technology weapon.

So I just I have to throw that out there.

Failure rate is higher, outdated technology.

That's all built into my trust for your presentation.

This is why you do it.

We're not going to get to the bottom of every little nuance, but that's I understand.

So with that said, uh, call for a roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Um, let me just say I I do trust the sheriff's expertise and everyone and as well as the advocates, but like I mentioned earlier, we are um in unprecedented times in this country, so I just think the the risk is too high.

So that's my concern.

So I will be a no on President Howard's motion.

Supervisor Tim.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortune on the bus.

No.

President Halbert.

I vote yes.

So the motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Uh thank you for all the presenters, the public comments.

I'm gonna take a five-minute recess.

We'll come back at five minutes to five.

We're gonna get started in one minute, guys.

One minute.

Recording in progress.

All right, I'll say good evening, everyone.

It's now after five o'clock, that's when the evening starts.

Thank you for bearing with us.

The next item of our three o'clock set matters is a health care services presentation and uh consideration of alternatives here for our EMS ambulance services.

Before we get to that though, I'll ask the clerk to please call the role to establish our quorum.

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor Tim, excuse Supervisor Miley.

Here.

Supervisor Fortune on the bus.

Presence.

President Hubbard?

Present.

We have a quorum.

Very good.

With that, we will turn to our Alameda County EMS system update presentation by Laurie McFadden and Anika Chowdry.

Anika, welcome.

Good evening, Supervisors.

Anika Chattery interim Director for Alameda County Health.

Um, and uh Lori McFadden, our EMS director is actually gonna uh go over the very brief presentation we have for you.

But I just wanted to take a moment to thank you all for giving this item the additional time and attention that it deserves.

And the highest possible standard of care for our community is the foundation of our work and remains our top priority.

So this will be our third presentation for you, and with your direction and support over the past few months, you know, we've zigged and zagged our way from a traditional contract to a hybrid approach that maintains our exclusive operating area while we do additional work to explore another system redesign that meets the unique needs of Alameda County.

So the decision before you today is primarily to select an interim provider while we do that exploratory work.

And lastly, I just want to thank all of our system colleagues in the room.

You know, many have spent a lot of time with us here, and it's been bumpy.

But I'm hopeful that as we finalize next steps today, we can move forward with trust and again keeping the highest level of care for Alameda County residents as our singular priority.

So I'll turn it over to Lori.

Thanks, Anika.

Lori McFadden, EMS director.

Good afternoon.

Here we are, long time no see.

So we'll give a quick update and then we'll move into interim system options and timelines and then have our recommendations and requested board action.

I'm just gonna talk about the one thing we've been through this slide before, and we added the one section where it says that we reported our initial findings to the board of supervisors, and your board has asked us uh to do additional analysis on interim options.

So that is what we have done in the past few weeks.

Oops.

And so just to uh give you remind you of the background and the redesign innovations.

I'm not gonna go through all the words on this, but the innovations are key to the success and setting us up for success in the future.

The 911 nurse navigation at dispatch will remove low acuity patients from the system and leave our ambulances open to get to those high acuity patients.

911 patient navigation, sentinel events, still there are things like uh response times will spill still be very short for time-sensitive uh incidents like heart attacks, stroke, things like that.

But we are basing the metrics really on clinical performance, and that is where the rubber meets the road, right?

That is how our patients get taken care of, and that is what we are gonna be tracking, and not only that, but we're gonna drill down into population-specific performance measures because there's been some very compelling research that not everyone gets treated the same.

So we want to assess that and make sure that in this county everybody gets the same kind of care, no matter where they're from, what their skin color is, what their gender is.

And uh we're also asking that the provider do behavioral health training for EMS clinicians.

We still have the community assessment and transport team, but there will be more required training for all of the field people because having been in the field myself so many times, it's not just a medical emergency, it's a combined medical and mental health emergency.

So to have all of our people trained in at least de-escalation and how to handle people that are difficult is very important.

And we obviously are absolute ultimate goal is quality care for Alameda County residents and visitors with equity of service, but we also need to consider system stability and reliability as well as sustainability.

So we came to your board on November 25th, and through the discussion, we decided that it is wise while we look towards the future to maintain Alameda County's exclusive operating area so that there is one provider that's it's easier for oversight and better patient care outcomes, we believe.

And then you asked us to continue to explore alternate system designs with stakeholders and then return to the board with our regular updates.

So we've we're already committed to doing that.

But then in the meantime, we need to select an interim transport provider.

So we at that board meeting at the work session offered awarding, bless you, awarding AMR a five-year contract, but the uh your board expressed concerns about the length of the contract, and then the other option was to um bless you, is to do a two-year term with an option to read uh renew for another year, and then there was questions about the innovations if we stayed with the current provider.

So we took that and we uh did some research and we met with Falc.

Goodness, what is up there?

Now you need to say it out loud.

So anyway, um, so since then uh we've met with FALC to explore potential innovations that could be implemented under the extension of their agreement, and we also met with AMR to explore the potential for a shorter term agreement with the innovations that were written into the RFP.

And so, based on procurement rules and things of that nature, we have two different interim provider options.

The first one is the extension of the current agreement with FALC for two years through June 2028 with an option for an additional year, and that maintains a status quo service delivery and workforce, or move to a new agreement with a six-month implementation period from January to July of 2026, and a three-year service term from July 1st, 2026 through June 30, 2029, and all other terms and conditions as negotiated per the RFP remain the same.

The innovations, the equipment, the reporting, the contractual obligation to hire workforce and to honor the current bargaining agreement, and as well as we built in more workforce protections around wellness, satisfaction, recruitment, retention.

And so the timelines would look like this.

If we stayed with Falc, we would continue research and planning for alternate system and plan to hold the first work group meeting in February of 2026.

And then that for that report would be around September 2026 with regular six-month cadence, and then we would determine no later than December of 2027 if an additional year would be required to extend FALC.

And the intent would be to implement the work group determined system at the latest by July 1st, 2029.

And similarly, but adding a six-month transition period with AMR January 2026 through July 2026, the focus would be 100% on transition and the successful implementation of services.

And then after that, once the service is up and running, and then we would move into the work for the alternate system in August, with the first work group meeting no later than September 2026, and then moving to a regular six-month cadence with the intent to implement the work group determined system the same July 1st, 2029.

So we come to you now.

The first one is thank you for agreeing to maintain Alameda County's EOA.

And then you also directed us to explore the alternative service, which we are 100% on board for and excited to look at what we can do in the future here in Alameda County that's specific to Alameda County.

But now we need to choose an interim transport provider.

So you have two choices in in the research that we did, and based on the direction the board gave us, extend the existing FALC contract for a two-year term with option to renew for one additional year, or award AMR a three-year contact contract with six-month transition period starting um at the beginning of the year with service implementation from July 1st, 2026 to June 30, 2029.

So that is all I have, and I appreciate your time and your direction.

Let's go with clarifying questions first before we go to public comment.

Um I defer to the health committee experts.

Supervisor Tan.

Thank you for that presentation and summarizing uh what we we can and cannot do in the interim.

That's the confusion that we have been experiencing, or at least I have.

Saying that they're ready and willing to provide these innovation services that are part of the AMR three-year contract.

Can you help us sort through how that's not reflected in the options?

Yeah.

Thanks for that question, Supervisor.

Um, and when we met with FALC, we did uh explore those options with them.

So uh under their current contract, uh, they did have a pilot where they were doing telehealth in the field at some point, um, but that didn't have a lot of uptake.

Um, so their proposal for going forward would be to contract with um you know a subcontractor to provide those services when we look at our county procurement rules.

Um, that is a substantive enough change to their current contract and what was procured uh for that current contract that it would require a new procurement.

Um so we don't have much option there to add on a thing that is um substantially different, and essentially what we also uh bid out in the other RFP.

And so similarly for uh for contracting rules, uh you know uh the AMR agreement, as that's been agreed to, the only thing that we could shift in there was the timelines.

So you're saying we do have the flexibility to shorten the time frame from uh the proposal, but not to add a whole new contracting agency as part of the scope of work?

So for the FALC contract, our option is to extend the contract as is.

So usually as with any other contracts that come before your board when we ask for extensions, um the way that we can do that is by making sure that the um the contract is not doing anything that's substantially new enough to warrant a new RFP.

Okay, that's helpful.

Um, my recollection uh, but I haven't been here that long, is that whenever um the county in the past um changes ambulance transport providers, uh, typically the workforce goes to the new provider because obviously there's only so many paramedics and EMTs that are available, and that there's different unions with the different providers.

Can you help us understand if this is going to be a similar situation if one was provide was one was chosen over the other, given the innovations?

With the um the way the contract is written, they would bring over all of the the workforce that EMTs and paramedics, and per labor rules, they would maintain that union until they opted to renegotiate, or if um the union decided that they wanted to move to a different union.

There, there are national labor Relations board rules around all of that.

But for now, they would have to um to uphold the current collective bargaining agreement.

Okay, that's helpful.

Uh the one thing that uh I personally enjoy uh in my city is uh if I besides the fact that we were grandfathered in uh with the fire department, we do have um an adjunct that the county helped pilot called the care team that's uh that responds to like mental health care emergencies or are our different kinds of um behavioral health issues that uh that doesn't require law enforcement to be a part of that response team.

Do you see that service with either option being available?

So at this point, we would still have our CAT team, which is right now actually we're we're piloting a new way around um uh triggering the CAT team.

So right now, law enforcement is is the entity that that requests it, but we're doing a pilot with Oakland Unified School District to for letting them trigger the the response and so we're we're really thinking about in a stepwise manner making that available without law enforcement being involved first, but we're doing it in a very careful manner because we want to make sure that the CAT team is available and um that there's nothing that any unintended consequences which we don't foresee, but we we do need to do it in a very calculated manner.

Okay, and how is that work with for example Oakland's macro program?

So Oakland's macro program is is one of the many other groups in the in the county.

We have many, many from Alameda County Behavioral Health Department.

We have the Met team, the MCT team, they're just all different configurations so that they meet different populations in a different way.

So macro is peer-driven so that they can they're very um non-threatening, they understand, and they they do a lot of outreach, literal outreach rather than being called for service, but a lot of the other um services are a clinician and a law enforcement person, two clinicians, etc.

So we have many, many mental health teams across the county that meet different populations where they are.

So we'll just continue to add to those.

Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you.

The other half of our health committee.

Supervisor Miley, any questions or comments before we go to public comment?

Or the board members, yes, uh President Halbert, thank you.

First of all, I just want to thank uh Lori for all the work she's done on this over the many years.

I have a lot of respect for for you, Lori.

And um, you know, my vote today is not anything uh based on you know personalities, it's just based on ultimately what I think I need to do.

And I appreciate the Nika as the interim agency director uh working with you on this very difficult um decision and effort forward.

Um, the way the recommendations are if we go with AMR, we can get the innovations.

If we go with folk, we can't get the innovations.

Is that correct?

That is our assessment, yes.

Okay.

If we stay with Falk, we don't have to do a transition, right?

Correct.

Okay.

So you've answered those questions.

Can I ask the fire chief?

Is the chief in the audience?

Chief is in the audience.

Fire chief, chief Chief Chief McCamin.

I'm McCamin.

Yes, I'm here, sir.

Good.

Thank you.

So is fire capable of helping us implement any of these innovations at this point in time.

Supervisor by the members of the Board of Supervisors.

We would be if allowed by the Board of Supervisors, we would be very pleased in starting up a nurse consultation service in our dispatch center.

We would uh be willing to do that during this uh period of time that we're bridging between uh now and uh the end of false, excuse me, the end of false contract and when the new innovations become available.

So, yes, we we are willing to and able to start a nurse consultation service in our dispatch center, provide that service.

Chief McDonald, right?

Yes.

Yeah, I don't know why sometimes I call you Chief McCamin.

My apologies.

Sometimes I I go back to former chiefs, but anyway.

Um okay, so thank you, Chief.

And then the other thing is, you know, I've got I've got friends on both sides, and you know, I've been around when we've when we had AMR, and then we went over to Paramedics Plus, then five or so many years later we went to Falk and now we're at this juncture again.

And I do think these innovations are important, but I also think a transition would be more challenging.

So if we can get some of this stuff through fire, I kind of know where I want to go with this.

Okay, so thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Fortnite.

Thank you.

Thank you to our staff for all of the hard work for a very long time that you've uh put into this and to everyone who's been participating.

Um I wanted to share that I think uh from the conversations we've already had, one thing is clear, and I just want to underscore that, um, which is that in terms of um item number C on our agenda, directing the EMS agency to research an alternate system design for 911 transport, including and including non-exclusive open system and third service options and report back to the board.

That is something that we all agree on.

So I just want to underscore that.

I think this has been a very um long and thorough process, and I think it's noteworthy that there is consensus on our board about moving in that direction.

Um, I certainly heard throughout this process that uh moving towards a system that is more long-term, if not permanent, will really help us get the innovations that I know you've been working so hard to achieve.

Um the question really is what do we do with the interim?

And I do want to share that from my perspective.

I've heard a lot of concern about the turnover that we have had as each of these contracts have changed, and so to me, it doesn't make sense to change providers while we're developing a new system.

Um, you know, what was laid out would mean we would have Falk through June 30th, we would have AMR for three years, and then either either an open area system or a third system, and that's a lot of transition and upheaval in a system where longer term we're really trying to go to um something that will work more long term and permanently for us.

So um I just really want to make sure that we're able to focus on uh providing stability during this time.

It's really great to hear from Chief McDonald that fire can provide some um nurse consultation through their dispatch.

I think that helps get us closer to the innovations we're looking for longer term, and um I'd really like to have more stability in the interim system until we develop the longer term system so that we're really focusing on uh more of our effort rather than dealing with more transition, dealing with getting to those options to the board where we can focus on quality care, equity, and a system that uh might be new, but will ultimately be um something that will work much better for our county.

So that's a little bit of where I am.

I don't think I have any questions, other than if there is any more information along the lines of what Chief McDonald shared in terms of you know what the current system could provide while we're working to build something that gives the board some options.

Thank you, Supervisor Marquez.

Supervisor, was that a question to answer?

Yes.

If there is anything to add, in addition to Alameda County Fire, um, providing some potential nurse consultation through their dispatch, is there anything else that's new or different that could be provided during a transition from the current structure to whatever the options are?

I think the challenge there is that we would then be trying to do certain things within a system that we've heard complaints about for the last six years.

And so if there is a structured way for us to implement those things, that's kind of what's offered in that option.

Um, I will note that uh, you know, we would work with uh our fire partners to implement uh things that um are possible, but I do think that what the chief is proposing is different than uh what is what was envisioned in our RFP.

Um, so that's one nurse at the dispatch center.

We haven't had additional conversations about what that looks like, um, as opposed to in the AMR option, there is a giant call center, which is available at all times and uh just has a deeper bench to do the thing.

Is that answering your questions?

Supervisor Marquez.

Uh thank you, President Howard.

I appreciate everyone's hard work on this, um, getting us to this critical moment and um for the way that the board letter was written to provide us with options and hearing all of our input from June as well as um the work session back in November.

Just wanted to clarify.

Um, in the actual language on the agenda, it says for item number C that the report back through the board of supervisors would be at the health committee at every six months, but in the presentation I heard come back to the full board.

So can we just clarify?

I think this is uh important issue that we're all tracking.

So I just want to ensure that the cadence, the updates will come to the full board and no disrespect to our health committee members who do an amazing job, but I think we're all closely um engaged in this conversation.

Was that the intent, or that was probably a real estate issue on the PowerPoint in terms of number of words?

Um, but we're happy to share back at whichever venue your board would approve.

Okay, and then since our so my preference would be the full board, and I'll let others um chime in.

But since we last met in November, has there been any other engagement?

We know that AMR Falk has been highly engaged in this, but has there been any updates from um the mayor's conference, all of our representative of our mayors here within Alameda County or any other city managers?

Has there been any other feedback or commentary that your office is aware of?

We've not engaged the mayors and city managers on this.

Okay.

Um, with respect to uh Alameda County fires willingness to explore some of these innovations.

Um I don't know, county council would that be like an MOU, or what would we need to do to memorialize that in the future?

I think that requires more discussion.

Okay.

Those are all my questions for now.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for the presentation.

Indeed, um, a lot of good information and very crisply and cleanly presented the alternatives, and I especially like the page that has the EMS, the system redesign innovations that we're trying to get that improve patient care.

When I read some of them, for example, Sentinel events, clear standards and expectations for events that should never occur in the EMS system, like failing to take a trauma patient to a designated trauma center.

So, does that happen?

I know it doesn't happen often, I'm gathering, but it can happen.

It can happen, but it does not happen often.

We actually track that.

Unusual.

Okay, and it but it feels like we ought to do whatever we can to uh achieve that even in the current Falk agreement if we extend it.

That's what I'm confused about.

This is largely a wording change because we moved into clinical metrics.

So that's how we brought in the Sentinel events.

They involve both operational as well as clinical.

So that that's it's just a a way to present that information.

So that's why.

Behavioral health training and EMS clinicians, enhanced training regarding assessment of behavioral health and de-escalation and preservation of the CAT team.

Is there a barrier to enhancing training of behavioral health and de-escalation to extending the fault contract?

That is in the contract for AMR, that is up to Falk in their discretion.

Okay.

Population specific performance measures, clinical performance measured not only for the entire county's population, but also for specific at-risk and underserved populations.

We are Alameda County.

Do we not already do this?

And are there barriers to doing this?

Period.

So I would say that for uh all of those things, those are always goals for our EMS system and how we approach things.

Um the difference you're noting here is that because of the way the EOA is governed, um, we use the contract to hold the provider accountable to those things, right?

So it's not to say that Falk could not suddenly I mean, I think that the system metrics thing would be a big uh data systems change because we don't necessarily collect data uh in that way right now, so that's a huge operational lift.

Um, but there is a uh, you know, it sort of requires us to go back and negotiate things with them in a contract that has already been negotiated previously per a different RFP.

All right.

Well it's just I I take what you say uh at face value.

I understand it.

It just seems to me that we should be able to get a lot of these.

Anyway, but I just asked to clarify for sure, the Falk agreement, and Falk stands ready, willing, and able to implement all of these things with a six month or whenever if we if we go that route.

That's what was in the contract.

That's why they they won the AMR.

Yeah, AMR.

MR.

I'm gonna say AMR.

Yes.

Okay, all right.

Um jury's still out in my mind, so I'll look forward to public comment.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

We'll go to public comment.

If members of the public are in the room, now would be the time to fill out a speaker slip card.

We're gonna cut it off in a few minutes.

If you're online, now is the time to raise your hand.

We will cut it off in a minute or two.

I note that this is on item 71, not 70.1 or 70, and not 71.1.

Raise your hand or get filled in speakers.

How many slips do we have?

We have 17 in person and three online.

We'll allow two minutes for each speaker.

17 plus two.

Two plus three, twenty times two, forty minutes.

Up to two minutes.

Doesn't mean it has to be a full two minutes.

People can also say ditto to the speaker before them.

I concur, that's another one.

Very good.

Call the first three um in person, please.

Amy Skags.

Nathan Merritt, David Torres.

Thank you.

My name is Amy Skags.

I am a paramedic from AMR in Contra Costa County, and I am also the chief shop steward for the union.

I'm here to let you know that the union members of UMSW Local 4911 support AMR for the RFP in Alameda County.

Thank you.

Hello, good evening.

Thank you for being here.

Supervisors.

All right.

Hello, good evening.

Thank you for being here.

Um, supervisors.

Uh my name is Nathan Merritt.

I'm an EMT.

I was hired in this county in 2003.

I urge you to approve the time only extension to the current FOLC agreement.

Falk is the incumbent 911 provider and is already fully integrated into the county's 911 system.

Extending the agreement creates no financial impact to the county and most importantly, it avoids the unnecessary direct disruption to emergency medical services.

A provider change of this size introduces real risks, staffing instability, operational delays, and transitional issues that directly affect patient care.

Extending FOLC maintains continuity, preserves an extended experienced workforce, and keeps response reliability intact.

This extension also gives the county time.

It already has directed staff to take time to thought fully evaluate and alternative ENF EMS system designs without getting into a long-term commitment with the new vendor.

It will give the non-transporting fire agencies time to enter into a power joint powers agreement and offer transporting services without fracturing the EOA.

It will also give stakeholders time to evaluate how destructive an open EA system EOA system will be to EMS services.

Approving Falk is the safest, most fiscally responsible option and it keeps patient care at the center of the decision.

I respectfully request that the board support the Falk extension.

Thank you.

President Hobbert, supervisors and county leadership.

My name is David Torres, and I'm the managing director of Fall Alameda County.

Thank you for taking the time to consider not just the contracts and timelines, but the people who make Alameda County EMS system work every single day.

I sincerely appreciate the board's recognition that workforce stability is not a secondary issue.

It is foundational to the success, reliability, and safety of EMS in this county.

Any transition from one provider to another is difficult.

But for the paramedics, EMTs, mechanics, uh VSTs who show up every day and night for this community, those transitions bring real uncertainty.

They disrupt careers, families, and livelihoods, and they pull attention away from what matters most, caring for patients in this county.

We have been here before.

I have been through two transitions myself.

During systems transitions, only about 85% of the incumbent workforce ultimately makes the move.

Highly trained professionals, deep system knowledge and years of service to this community.

And that statistic comes from transitions where the workforce wanted change.

That desire simply does not exist today.

Our workforce is unified in support of a Falk extension and not a transition to AMR.

Losing that many skill providers would be catastrophic for this system.

These are not interchangeable positions.

These are trusted clinicians who know this county, its hospitals, its neighborhoods, and its patients.

They've built relationships, mastered local protocols, and committed themselves to Alameda County.

That experience and dedication deserve protection.

If Foul Contracts extension does exactly that.

It allows FALC to continue making meaningful investments in the infrastructure that supports both the workforce and the community we serve.

I ask that you consider real human and system impacts of this decision and to choose a three-year extension for Falk, which provides stability for the workforce and for our patients and community.

Thank you.

Mr.

Torres, while you're here, and I'll ask others as well.

We all we all agree.

And indeed, on this recommendation that says the county will continue to explore.

Are you going to help participate in the discussion of an open system?

Or are you going to oppose it?

Absolutely.

Falca's committed to this county and will stay in this county under any system.

Thank you.

Just had to ask.

Am I not speaking directly into the mic?

Correct.

Yeah.

Sorry.

He heard me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Collar, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

IPhone.

Michael, you have two minutes.

Hi.

My name is Michael White.

I'm an EMT currently in the county.

Not only am I EMT on the ambulance, I'm also a cat EMT, as well as a domestic violence, substance abuse, and uh volunteer facilitator at Allen Temple Baptist Church.

So I've been working in Alameda County for a while.

I really think that disrupting the service is going to do a disservice to Alameda County, especially our under our our less fortunate um population.

I urge the board to extend Falc's contract.

I also ask that you guys take the time to maybe talk to the workforce and pull ideas from them and see what they think would work.

Um we're the ones that are out running the calls, we're the ones in the streets.

We have ideas, we have things that we believe would improve the healthcare system in Alameda County.

We work it.

You know, we have the experience.

Um that's all I really got to say.

I I really hope that you guys extend it, and I hope that you take into consideration maybe pulling advice from the work field who's actually out running the calls.

That's it.

Keith Brown, go ahead.

Good evening, President Halford and Supervisors Keith Brown speaking on behalf of the Alameda Labor Council, representing over 130,000 working families across Alameda County.

Um, we urge the board to approve recommendation one, um, the time-only extension with Falc.

This option ensures stability and continuity of a critical public service, allowing our system to function without the risk inherent in a major transition.

Um, we believe that maintaining the current provider is the most responsible choice for uninterrupted quality care.

And um, just to concur with the previous speaker, it's critical that um the board uh prioritizes engagement with our vital um frontline stakeholders, um, the workers uh of NAIGE and FIRE LOCLE 55.

Um, any decision um that is made must have the participation of our frontline emergency uh professionals.

Um, they must be um included at the table in collaboration to come up with a long-term vision for the future of quality and EMS in our county.

So again, the Alameda Labor Council, we urge you to improve approve the recommendation one, the time only extension would file.

Thank you.

Scott White, Troy Hagen, Nate King.

Good evening, my name is Scott White.

I'm the Regional Managing Director for Falc.

I want to thank the board for the collaborative approach they've taken during this process.

Extending the current contract with Falc creates time and space, this board and staff for this board and staff to thoroughly determine what the next chapter of Alamedas County's EMS system should look like, and one that reflects the priorities and values of the board and your districts.

It allows innovation and system enhancements to continue while giving you the flexibility to evaluate long-term positions without the pressure of an immediate transition.

FALC has been and remains committed to being a constructive and flexible partner in those discussions and is open to working with all stakeholders.

Our goal is to support the county in determining how best to serve our residents and visitors in the most effective and efficient and equitable way moving forward.

The contract extension with FALC ensures that the labor standards and protections or the incumbent workforce is a top-level priority in those discussions.

This contract extension ensures continuity, operational stability, and continued improvements of the EMS system.

As the board indicated in June, with its four no votes and one abstention.

An AM, an award to AMR under the previous RFP effort is not what's preferred by the workforce nor this board, and it's not worth, and it's not what's best for the residents of Alameda County.

Falc is in place providing quality service to the community now, and we are committed to continuing service throughout the contract extension, maintaining the consistency the residents and workforce deserves as was identified as a priority throughout this process.

Thank you again for your attention.

President Halbert and Honorable Supervisors, my name is Troy Hagen.

I'm the chief commercial officer for Falc.

First, I want to thank the county leadership for the time, care, and diligence being put into strengthening Alameda County ZMS system.

Falc values this partnership and the shared commitment to continuous improvement in patient-centered care.

As you may know, Falcon formed the LEMSA in writing that we are able to implement innovations under the existing contract and that we are willing to move forward with them immediately.

There'll be nothing about status quo.

We've been innovating and changing and our service delivery since day one, and we commit to you that we will continue to do so into the future.

While Lemza has indicated these enhances cannot be mandated by the current contract, Falc has chosen to voluntarily commit to advancing them in collaboration with the county as we have previously done with innovations throughout the duration of this contract.

Our existing contract contemplates adding enhancements such as patient navigation in sections 3.1.7, section 14.3.1, which allow for continued system development and the deployment of pilot programs.

We can do a lot of different things through pilot programs, even if it's not in the contract, and we commit that we will continue to work with the county to do such things.

Among several other innovations, we launched a field initiated telehealth capability, and with a coordinated effort of LEMSA and the Alameda County Fire Department, their communication center, we're prepared to work with them to implement a nurse navigation type program or a physician level program, which is what our current offering is.

We can launch that program very quickly utilizing our own.

We could do that within three months of working with them with that collaboration.

But again, we'll work with the fire department to look at their program and continue to work with the LEMSA.

To ensure transparency and accountability, FALC is committing to quarterly updates or as directed by the board on implementation and performance of these innovation updates.

Our view is that progress should continue with longer term system decisions are being evaluated.

We can clearly continue to move forward together under the existing contract to ensure that the county and its residents benefit from ongoing system enhancements and innovations.

Thank you.

Evening supervisors, back here again.

I'm Nate.

I'm an EMT here in Alco.

I live in Oakland.

I could rant again about how AMR is a monopolistic anti-labor behemoth owned by oligarch PE firms, but I won't.

I would like to bring up a couple salient points though.

Nurse navigation, I believe, is a nice idea.

However, I do not believe it is the Panacea Panacea, apologies, that AMR and the LEMSA think it to be.

Nurse navigation was implemented in East County, San Diego in 2023.

For the San Diego Union Tribune and AMR themselves, nurse navigation reduced EMS response by just 7%.

It feels a bit like a pittance when we're faced with massive cuts to public health care over the coming years.

Slashes in Medicaid and Medicare will lead to increased reliance on EMS and emergency rooms as primary care as it was before.

For a remote nurse to refer someone to primary care, how would they do that if they don't have primary care?

In light of that, we have tumultuous times ahead.

Changing providers in the county is always disruptive to the workforce, our partner agencies, and to our patients.

Given what's happening to our public health system, I fear it could be even worse this coming year.

I urge you to stick with Falc, see it through three years.

We'll chat again then.

Thanks for your time.

I ran hospitals in this county.

Um I worked for the county, both the public health department and when it was healthcare services agency.

And so I come here not as only as a national Medicaid expert, but also as a mom in this county.

I'm coming here really worried about HR1, which I haven't heard much about.

We will have a large number of uninsured in our county, and we need to figure out how we're gonna keep our non-emergent folks out of our emergency rooms.

And I haven't heard many alternatives.

I hear this AMR versus Falk argument back and forth.

I certainly understand the labor-related issues, but I appreciate FIRE saying that they're able to talk about these now these innovations, but there is a big difference between nurse consultation and nurse navigation.

Now, this issue around nurse navigation has been an issue around the country for a very long time.

Um it is in over 30 communities in about 14 states.

Um I've been uh part of large Medicaid um innovations, and this is one of them.

Um, it's usually done in conjunction with other large entities like GMR or AMR and others.

It's done in Seattle, Baltimore, Riverside, Clackamas County.

It's not just to give primary care as the gentleman previously before gave, it's also to just keep people out of the emergency room by keeping your non-emergent care.

So I would just make sure that we're making um some decisions as a mom in this county.

That makes some sense.

Thank you.

Good evening, President Hopper, board members.

I guess I'm representing the oligarchy today.

Um, my name is Tom Wagner, and I serve as the national president of operations for AMR and our parent company GMR.

I heard a lot tonight about stability.

Um, no EMS organization in the country is more adept at doing these transitions than we are.

We do more than anybody else, and we are ready to stand in and provide the services over the next few years while we work together with all of you, our fire partners, in developing a fire based system.

Our proposals loaded with enhancements.

You saw some of them tonight.

And the recommendation was delivered by an independent board that clearly scored our proposal as the best for Alameda County.

So I think it's important to note when we start talking about what other people may do or can do, that's secondary to what we proposed and what was scored by an independent panel.

The county deserves more than just the way it is now for the next three years.

And we are committed to working with our fire partners to get to that next level.

And while we get to that next level, we'll be delivering these innovations.

Heard a little bit about nurse navigation a while.

I appreciate the chief.

I've known him a long time, but what they're willing to stand up, that is a that's far different from what we're operating.

It has taken us close to 10 years to be able to hone in on what a nurse navigation program can do and how best to deal with the community and how best we can deliver services and provide service to the right patient at the right time.

We have have over 250,000 patient encounters with our nurse navigation system.

So it's just not like you can start it up.

We started up and we made lots of mistakes early on in our process, and we've learned from those mistakes, and now you can see how this is expanded through numerous cities across the United States.

As far as the workforce goes, we're the largest union shop, and we are welcome all of the workforce to come over to us and we embrace them as family members.

We're ready to invest in Alameda County.

Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you for everything.

Tom Quaint, same question for you.

If the decision is to move to AMR, will you work diligently to achieve an open system or a third party system as we've mandated?

Not only will we, we have more experience doing that than any other provider in the country.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Seth Ole, your president, Oakland Firefighters.

And I just want to say right off the bat uh I did not wake up this morning and think that I was gonna learn this much about pepper balls.

That was incredible.

So I am consider myself educated, so thank you for that.

Um I just want to touch on a couple items.

The first and uh first something I want to touch on is that uh President Savino and I of Nage 510 have had extensive discussions, and we wholeheartedly support uh Falk being the interim provider here for the two to three year period.

Uh we're committed to working together and we have discussions frequently.

Um, and then lastly, I just want to say uh congratulations on the retirement of Lauren McFadden, uh, as her retirement from Alameda County EMS.

She's been announced, I'm just giving her congratulations.

So, well, let me let me retract that statement and say that I appreciate the hard work she's done over the decades and thank you for your time.

I appreciate up to two minutes.

Thank you, and have a good night.

I'll be here all week.

Sean Burroughs, Nick McGuire, James Smith.

Good evening, President Hauber, members of the board, Sean Burroughs, President of Alameda County Firefighters Local 55.

When the board made the decision in June on the AMR decision to uh reject the contract, I think what we all knew at that point in time is there was going to need to be an extension of the existing provider so that we could really dig in and get the work done with all of our stakeholders and all of our partners on what a system that really works and functions for all of our patients, all of our end users and all of our providers would be.

And we we really did believe that that extension would be with the current provider to avoid disruption.

Not only in the service that's provided, with all of the intricacies that takes to bring a new provider into such a large area like here in Alameda County, and to have a six month ramp up, which we experienced with Falk when they became the provider in 2018.

I think we could all agree that that did not go as smoothly as we had hoped for.

Local 55 uh and fire based labor stand here in support of NAGE 510 and their workforce we think of disruption in their workforce as they've articulated and I think as Supervisor Fortnotta Bass articulated would be disruptive to our system we do believe we have the ability to sit down and work collaboratively and to solve the challenges and issues that are before us I encourage you to uh vote on a two year Falk extension with the potential for a third year and direct your LEMSA agency and healthcare agency to begin the hard work of designing a system that is effective for all of our patients within Alameda County thank you.

Good evening supervisors my name is Nick McGuire I'm the executive secretary for NAGEL510 the decision before you today is not abstract.

It has immediate consequences for patient care system stability and the paramedics EMTs and support staff who have served this county for decades who are serving right now.

Falc is operating today ambulances are staffed today by experienced EMTs and paramedics who know the system know our hospitals and know our communities that continuity matters any disruption without enforceable protections for the incumbent workforce creates instability instability and an EMS instability costs time and time costs lives supervisors we always advocate for innovation but innovation cannot be built on uncertain on an uncertain foundation that continues to change when the workforce is distracted by job insecurity systems do not improve they struggle to maintain their baseline stability is a prerequisite for progress I urge you to make a decision today that prioritizes continuity protect those already serving this county avoid unnecessary risk to patients support Falc support NAGE prevent another band-aid transition to another EMS provider thank you and happy holidays.

Good evening President Halbert and board members my name is James Smith President Livmore Pleasanton Firefighters local 1974 local 1974 stands in support of Falk's contract extension approving this extension with Falk will preserve continuity within the county including maintaining the same employer for the NAGE membership represents their EMT and paramedics.

This continuity is critical as it allows the stakeholders to work collaboratively toward developing a system that best serves our patients and all of our communities without the disruption of a transition once again we strongly urge your support for the Falk extension thank you for your time and consideration Coleman Doyle David Redberg Winford Liu Good evening everyone my name's Coleman I'm currently a paramedic with Falk in Alameda County and have been so for about a year now.

I come from out of county and obviously overseas and I can say that working in Alameda County provides a diverse opportunity and it's a very engaging county to work in I speak today in opposition to the change of ambulance services and in support of Falc as the continuing EMS agency.

This support stems from my perspective as a field paramedic and coming from seeing an increase in stability both internally as a workforce and externally in relations to us as providers and our community over my time here.

This increased stability has improved patient care and management workforce relations, subsequently allowing field employees to focus more on patient care and Falc to focus more on more community-centered things, more community outreach and more community-based um innovation possibilities, sorry.

If the provider were to change, especially in the timeframes stipulated in agenda 71, it would be a significant disruption to the provision of emergency services in Alameda County.

Resulting in an overall step backwards in pre-hospital care.

This reward motion would have the greatest detriment to the community.

Placing members of the county, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends, and greatly a great state of unnecessary risk.

Not to mention increasing the strain on our partner agencies as they scramble to fill the gaps left in the transition.

It is from this that I encourage you to continue Falc as the incumbent EMS provider in Alameda County.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Good evening.

Good evening, President Howard, Board of Supervisors.

I'll be short and sweet tonight.

My name is David Rudberg.

I'm a Livermore resident and a firefighter with uh Livermore Pleasant and Fire Department, local 1974.

I stand for you today to show support for a uh urge you guys to vote for a two-year extension with Falk with an option of a third year.

Thank you.

I was born and raised in Oakland, been a resident for more than 50 years in Alameda County.

I work for AMR.

I just hit my 30 year mark with AMR.

15 of it was with AMR at the beginning.

So I was there when we lost the contract to Hermitage Plus and then so on.

So I've seen it all in I truly believe what County EMS thinks what we should do.

We weren't picked before, twice.

And I think that maybe this time we might have a chance to provide what this county needs, the county that I live in.

So I hope you decide what you think is best for us.

Hopefully it will be AMR.

Thank you.

Sergio Garcia Allison.

Good evening, Board of Supervisors.

I have worked here in Alameda County for AMR since 2000 and when we lost the contract.

And I'm not gonna stand here and talk naked about any organization or agency.

We all know that every organization has pros and cons.

But what I will say is I I know and I feel AMR is the best choice for Alameda County because they are an established provider with extensive resources offering skilled staff of all levels with numerous of specialized vehicles, ambulances, and innovations that use technology like telemedicine, nurse navigator, aiming to provide the best immediate care to the citizens of Alameda County.

I have seen and been a part of the training AMR has focused on leadership to become better leaders for our clinicians out in the field, how AMR makes the effort to work closely with unions and demonstrate teamwork and support our employees both in on duty and off-duty.

I'm gonna keep it simple.

We owe it to the communities and alcohol.

The rest have been tried.

It's time to come back to the best.

Hi, my name's Allie.

I'm currently working as an EMT in Alameda County, and I stand before you in opposition to the AMR contract here.

Having previously worked for AMR in another county, I can attest to the fact that their organization does not care for the workforce, the county, the medicine, or the community they say they want to protect.

To keep it short, at the end of the day, the only people who truly suffer from this change are the community members who we here as Falc are day in and day out trying to keep safe and healthy.

Lastly, in the past five years, AMR has already lost multiple contracts, including Sonoma County, San Bernardino, Lewis County in Washington, and Boulder, Colorado.

So to end, remember why AMR was asked to leave in the first place and why they've continued to lose contracts.

There are no more speakers.

Okay, we'll bring it back for discussion and deliberation.

I'll start with Supervisor Fortunato Bass and then go this way.

And Supervisor Miley, thank you for hanging in there.

I know it's late where you are.

We'll get to you.

Thank you, President Halbert, and thank you to everyone who's been participating in this conversation and certainly to our staff and others who have really been uh doing a lot of work to get us the system that will work for the entire county.

Um I will just say that after hearing the public comments, I really resonate and agree with having continuity and stability of our current system so that we can get to the longer term vision that we have all expressed an interest in, which is uh the alternate system with the option for either a non-exclusive open system or a third option.

So knowing that it's late, including in uh um the area where Supervisor Miley is, I would just go ahead and like to share where I'm at and make a motion, and that motion would be to approve uh option number A one.

Uh I can read the full motion uh at the appropriate time, uh, but to approve option A1, which is a second amendment time only extension to the ambulance transport provider agreement with Falk, B, to authorize the interim director to negotiate and finalize the agreement, and C to direct the EMS agency to research the alternate system designs.

And again, I can read the full motion, but let's go through a board member comment before we actually do that.

But I appreciate you.

That's where I am doing that.

Um, where you're at, exactly.

Supervisor Marcus.

Yeah, thank you everyone for the engagement.

Um, you know, this is tough.

Uh this is a critical decision that impacts um everyone in this county, especially our patients, and um as was mentioned, everything occurring with HR1.

This this is a critical decision.

But um, as I've made comments in the past, I'll be consistent just as um a young person, a lay person age 18, working at an emergency room that no longer exists, Kaiser and Hayward.

Um, you know, I've just always kind of been on the peripheral seeing what was happening with the contracts in the rotation.

And that's not me being involved in local government, but just tracking like why is the change, why is what we're doing in Alameda County not working.

So I do feel that we're at this critical moment where we can collectively come together to design a new system.

So I am also in support of the motion that was made.

I'm happy to second it, which is one minor modification with respect to item number C, just asking that the six month intervals, the updates come back to the full board.

And um, we'll note that uh during those six month intervals, we should also be receiving an update from the fire department in terms of their projectory and their status on um bringing online some of the innovations.

Supervisor Tam.

Thank you, President Halbert.

Um, after hearing from all the speakers and also from our fire department and their willingness to uh look at the innovations that are going to be necessary as we look at a longer term option, whether it's under a non-exclusive operating system or a third uh service option.

I think having them start right now with getting um accustomed to what and what the innovations are needed, including diversion away from the emergency room, as one of the speakers had talked about more than just providing nurse navigation, providing um more um higher level of consultation and having the resources with Cat the CAT team.

I'm comfortable with the first option of the motion, Supervisor Miley.

Well, thank you, President Halbert.

As I mentioned earlier, on, I've seen a number of transitions since I've been on the board from AMR to paramedics Plus to Falk.

And here we are again, and I know we need to have these innovations, and I know a transitions take a while.

They can uh cause a lot of disruption.

So I'm I'm comfortable with the fact that uh Chief McDonald said that um fire can work on some of these um innovations uh during the um you know the the period going forward with trying to come up with a uh a model that um clearly uh meets the needs of all of the folks in Alameda County to the best of our ability.

So I'm comfortable with the emotion that's gonna be before us, I think.

Thank you.

Um I would also like to thank the speakers.

I'd like to thank uh our team for putting together a very uh compact and efficient presentation, easy to follow.

I'd like to thank um our speakers and and both companies before us I know having contracts around the country, both large and capable companies.

Um I stand committed as I was before to exploring and moving toward a non-exclusive open operating system, as was mentioned, allowing for stability to occur by extending the fault contract, seems to be the safest bet.

However, I would like to um add one additional component to the report back to us every six months.

What I heard was that within the existing contract with Falk, there allows for continued evolution, even piloting programs.

They're a company that they say are progressive.

I note that some of the things that we talk about is innovations can be implemented in addition to reporting back every six months to this board, likely at a work study session, that in addition to reporting back, progress on evaluating and moving toward an open operating system or an alternative to that, that we also get a report back on the progress made toward implementing innovations in our system, and so let me can I reframe my my motion.

I won't think it's causing confusion, so let me be clear.

Um, everything is on the record.

This is a public record, so let me rephrase my comment and the six-month uh interval status updates.

My request is to come to the full board.

I will um resend my comments with respect to calling out any specific entity to come and give updates.

I will just say anyone that would like to give updates on this matter in public comment.

It is a public meeting, but I don't think um it's appropriate for us to specify a potential entity that may be bidding on a contract later.

So I just want to keep it clean.

So I resend that comment, and obviously these are public meetings.

Anyone could provide um commentary and updates as they see appropriate.

I see um staff jumping up and down.

Please talk.

I don't want, I I I remember the discussion that we had at our last meeting around the contract that we have in place, so let's make this more of a question for clarification.

It's a good point.

The last time we met on this, it was discussed that to get innovations, we have to move to the new contract.

We can't get them with the current contract.

Today I heard our current contract allows for changes, allows for piloting new innovative ideas.

So I'm trying to get in my head the either it's pretty hard and fast.

Anything that's in the RFP, anything that's considered a new innovation that Falk didn't win, just they cannot do.

I'm juxtaposing that with them saying they can.

Where is it?

I'm trying to understand that because today you have before you a recommendation, and Supervisor Fortnotto Bass has put what she plans to make as a motion before you.

And you've chosen based on what the proposed motion is.

You have chosen to extend your existing bidder, as the healthcare director told you that that would be on the terms of the contract, as it exists now.

My recommendation to you today would be to if that is the will of the board, and the votes are there.

But if that is the will of the board to vote the motion that she put in front of you, Supervisor Fortinotto Bass put in front of you.

And that what can be done in the future with respect to innovations.

Let's um figure that out another day.

Well, no, I mean I think that there can be conversations in the next six months six months about that, but I would advise your board not to give any direction on that topic.

Yes, about who's gonna do what, and you know, somebody's gonna bring something back, um, and just vote the motion that's before you.

So I I support the motion as is with the only caveat for item C is that the six month updates come to the full board.

That's it.

And I would accept that amendment.

Very well.

Motion's been made and seconded.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

I.

Supervisor Tam?

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

So I supervisor Fortunato Bas.

President Howbert?

Aye.

That item passes.

Very good.

We'll now say that.

Like to thank everybody.

We're gonna take a two-minute recess.

Recording in progress.

We're gonna reconvene to open session.

Would the clerk please call the roll?

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor Tam?

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Uh you're muted, Supervisor Miley.

Miley, you here?

You're on mute.

Supervisor Miley.

He's here.

Yeah.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Present.

Present Halbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Very good.

We will proceed with our um three o'clock set matters.

And this item is item 71.1.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass will make a brief.

Brief comment.

Thank you.

Item 71.1.

This is an update from the November 6th Alameda County Together for All ad hoc committee meeting.

Myself and Supervisor Marquez voted to put this on our agenda to give it more visibility to the board as well as to members of the public.

We heard a very robust uh presentation from members of the AAPI community about impacts on the federal.

Supervisor Miley, welcome.

I see that you are unmuted now.

You're here.

Yes, I couldn't hear anything to begin with, but now I can hear you.

Thank you so much.

Great.

So this is an informational item.

Again, the Act for All Committee wanted to put this on the agenda to give it visibility.

We heard at our November meeting from a number of organizations that serve the AAPI community in terms of how they are impacted by the current uh federal immigration enforcement.

And I will just say that we have a very robust memo and set of materials in the packet.

There were a number of organizations who presented, and they lifted up that about 18% of ICRS during the first half of this year was people from Asian and Southeast Asian countries.

So it's a community that is very impacted, and there's more information in the packet for you to read through.

I'll also say that they are not the only uh community that is impacted, as we know, the Mexican community, other Latino communities, the Afghan community has been impacted.

There are many other communities, but we really wanted to lift this up because our immigrant community is so diverse.

This is an opportunity to see what's happening with the Southeast Asian community in particular.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

With that said, I'd like to entertain a moment of silence in memory of Rob Reiner, but also I'm going to add to that please the victims who on that beach.

If we could have a moment of silence and then adjourn in there.