Good afternoon, everyone.

It is um let's see.

Calling to order our special meeting of Tuesday, April 28th.

I note it is 2 40.

Our estimated start time or a scheduled start time, our agenda is start time is 2 p.m.

So we're running behind.

Apologies.

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

Supervisor Marquez present.

Supervisor Tam.

You supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas.

And President Halberd.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

We will proceed with public comment on closed session items.

Although I don't know, are we headed into closed session?

We won't be having closed session, but we have agenda as public comment on it.

If anybody would like to speak on a closed session item, we'll allow it.

Do we have any speakers?

Uh Chair No, we have no speakers, but I do would like to provide the instructions on how to submit a speaker's card and how to participate.

Please do.

Thank you.

For those attending the meeting would like to speak on an item on the agenda, please submit a speaker card to the clerk.

So your name can be called to speak at the appropriate place on the agenda.

Details instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines.

A link to the document is included in today's agenda to view an automated translated transcript or listen to an automated translated audio of the meeting from English into multiple other languages.

Please utilize the world worldly link in today's agenda or the QR codes posted throughout this room and select your preferred language from the drop down menu.

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

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

If you're calling in dial stock star nine to raise your hand to speak, when you are called to speak, the host will enable you to speak.

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

When called, you will have two minutes to speak.

Please limit your remarks to the time allocated.

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

And chair noting we do have one hand raised in Zoom.

Thank you.

Two minutes.

Thank you.

Blair Beekman.

You have two minutes to address the board.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Um thank you for this special meeting.

Um, as in the previous uh regular uh meeting of the Board of Supervisors.

Uh, this item uh there was a similar item on the regular meeting agenda.

So I just wanted to quickly comment uh the same as my previous at the public uh meeting on this regular meeting that uh good luck and how you can talk about this issue, the closed session agenda item issue.

Uh the work with uh AA SEG, I think is really important, and I'm hoping and I feel they can have an interesting point of view in this conversation.

And I think they can actually be a good third party to kind of help mediate things as needed.

As uh you know, the work between county and the city of Oakland on this item can get a little difficult sometimes, and I'm sorry that happens.

And uh hopefully AA SAG can actually I think be a good friendly mediator in some form.

So good luck your work on this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any more public comment?

That was our only speaker chair.

Thank you.

With that, we'll proceed to the next item on our agenda, which is an open session item, a federal state and county budget financial updates.

I'll turn the meeting over to our esteemed county administrator, Susan Ren.

Thank you, President Halbert.

Um, we're here at the work session today to provide an update.

We're gonna focus primarily um on the county budget as well as the current status of the economy.

Um, as you know, we had a budget work group meeting last week and went through um state and federal updates as well as the county budget and notably um identified our funding gap for the coming um fiscal year.

So Melanie is gonna provide an economic overview as well as focus on the maintenance of effort budget, as well as our funding gap and next steps with regard to budget balancing.

And following that, we will have an update as requested on the county's COVID-19 ARPA funding status.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon.

I'll go ahead and proceed with an overview of this first presentation.

Um, so I'm gonna start with the economic updates, proceed with an overview of the maintenance of effort uh budget policy for the developing fiscal year 2627.

Do an overview of the 26-27 funding gap that we identified at the budget work group, the latest budget workgroup meeting.

Do a recap of the approach to balancing the budget and then review pending factors as well as next steps.

So moving into the updated economic context, the Fed meets again today and tomorrow after leaving rates unchanged, interest rates unchanged at their previous meeting in March.

There have consistently been dissenting opinions among members on the Federal Reserve in recent meetings, with some favoring rate cuts to support employment, while others have been more cautious due to persistent inflation.

So in terms of unemployment, we're continuing to see tech companies scale back after years of rapid growth during the pandemic as investments shift towards artificial intelligence and automation and away from personnel, essentially leaving tens of thousands of workers searching for limited opportunities and an increasingly competitive job market.

And the most recent headlines, we're seeing Meta announcing plans to cut another 8,000 jobs or about 10% of its workforce.

In addition, thousands more Amazon workers are slated to lose their jobs today across California and three other states.

So in total, uh tech companies have issued more than 92,000 layoffs this year.

And if we look back to 2020, that is roughly 900,000 tech jobs that have been eliminated.

In its spring outlook, Beacon Economics highlighted the state's growing economy, noting that California's economic growth has outpaced the national average in 2025.

But the job market appears to be going in the wrong direction, with California having the highest unemployment rate of all 50 states.

Moving on, this next image illustrates just some of the financial and policy pressures counties face, including including our own some of the financial pressures include rising costs with increased service demands and unfunded mandates.

Policy pressures include obviously changing federal priorities and counties' limited ability to raise revenue.

As we'll get into and as we've uh presented many times before, the county is heavily reliant on state and federal revenue, uh, particularly to fund our program mandates.

So moving on to an overview of the current year budget for context.

Uh, the current year 2526 approved budget is a balanced $6.1 billion spending plan for county programs and services.

General front general fund spending authority totals $4.3 billion, which is an increase of $307 million over the previous fiscal year final budget.

And the budget supports a workforce of nearly 10,500 full-time equivalent positions, which is an increase of 9.46 FTEs over the prior year.

And taking a look at our current year budget, as you can see, the county's general fund is highly reliant on state and federal aid.

In the current year, you can see that the combination of state and federal aid, if we include Medi-Cal charges for services, is nearly two-thirds of our financing in the general fund.

Moving on to the maintenance of effort policy and budget guidelines.

Budget submissions from the departments that represent year over-year baseline changes.

Key aspects of the policy are outlined on this slides.

They include known salary and benefit changes as well as operational and internal service fund adjustments.

Listed here on this next slide are major changes on the program side in the 26-27 MOE.

We have a reduction in both expenditures and revenues of 43 million related to the transition of MHSA to BHSA as a result of Prop one.

In the public protection program, we're seeing a decline in public safety sales tax revenue.

There's a loss of 20 million in CalFresh revenue, which also includes impacts of HR1.

Revenues for the managed care plan are decreasing by 10 million because of a payment restructuring.

We have a projected increase of 12 million for election costs.

We're showing is 18 million.

And we have internal service fund increases totaling 33 million.

This last bullet of net salary and benefit adjustments of 41 million.

I'm going to go into additional detail on in the next slide.

So here on the slide, you're seeing the major components of the salary and benefit adjustments reflecting a gross total increase of 134.4 million.

As you can see, this is primarily driven by COLAS.

What's important to note here is that the gross increase is offset by a net retirement savings of 93.4 million, which results in that net salary and benefit adjustment of 41 million.

On the next slide, we are summarizing the net county cost change by program compared to the current year approved budget.

So as you can see, general government has an increase net cost of 6 million or a 4% increase public protection is 56 million or 10%.

Public assistance is 6 million or 8%, and healthcare is 9 million or 4%.

And then on the next slide, we are showing the comparison of net cost change on the non-program side of the equation.

Capital and major maintenance is increasing by 50 million.

Contingency is up by a half million.

This budget also includes an amount for the general reserves.

And non-program expenses and revenues are decreasing by 27 million, resulting in net change of 15 million on the non-program side.

So if we put those two sides of the equation together, on the next slide, you'll see what results in the 91.4 million dollar funding gap.

On the next slide, we're showing a chart that reflects the annual funding gaps that the county has experienced after the educational revenue augmentation fund was implemented in fiscal year 92-93.

So you can see we've had quite a bit of a cyclical nature to our funding gaps.

Since ERAF began, the county has closed funding shortfalls totaling 2.7 billion.

What I'll note here is we're showing the funding gap that we just presented of 91.4 million in the red there.

You know, we're we're this is a significant thing to underline because essentially what's happening on the program side is we're seeing significant increases that happen to be offset by one-time retirement savings that we're assuming in the budget for this fiscal year.

Unfortunately, program revenue is not keeping pace with the increase in net costs.

Our program revenue is essentially flat.

And so that is something that the county administrator's office is going to be working with departments to take another look at as we think about how we're going to close the funding gap.

So moving on to a summary of the approach for budget balancing.

As I've just noted, uh, what we have recommended to the budget work group is that we close the preliminary funding gap to develop a balanced proposed budget by working with county agency and department heads directly to focus on closing our structural funding gap.

Uh, you know, through a combination of strategies that will include reviewing program revenue, um, particularly because it appears to be so flat in the maintenance of effort.

The goal would be to identify ongoing adjustments to address the structural funding gap to the extent that we identify one-time strategies that will add to our future funding gaps.

So it's always more advantageous for us to identify ongoing strategies to address our structural funding gap issues.

Um we can also review our program budgets to identify potential further cost reductions.

We will be doing continuing to review vacant funded positions as well as other available departmental funds.

We will also review non-program revenue and expenses based on updated information.

And we'll be considering other countywide strategies that may help us reduce net cost.

Again, the goal is to continue to reduce our reliance on one-time strategies, including prior year savings, so that we're really addressing our structural funding gap.

The next slide is a list of our pending factors that we continue to consider that may impact the developing budget and future years.

We have unfunded capital needs, uh, some of which has been litigation related.

We have to continue to contend with the implementation of state programs and policy changes like Prop One.

We'll also uh including today be revisiting the implementation of Measure W as well as other board initiatives.

Um and then at the macroeconomic level, um, we've seen the impact of global finances, climate disasters, um large events of the like, having the potential to do significant economic harm um both globally and at the local level.

And then lastly, the potential of an economic downturn is always a concern, particularly given the county's heavy reliance on state and federal funding.

Uh so in terms of next steps, uh we have to keep in mind our long-term obligations, maintaining our triple triple uh credit rating, which is the highest possible ratings from the the big three rating agencies.

These have been uh this this rating has been uh reaffirmed by the the three major rating agencies, SP, Fitch, and Moody's.

Um, and then um our capital improvement plan.

We have over a billion of unfunded capital costs over the next five years.

Uh, the board has adopted a long-range capital financing plan, including the establishment of a special capital construction fund.

Uh so here's an outline of our next steps in the budget development process.

Uh, we will be reviewing and analyzing the impact of the governor's May revision.

We'll continue to update revenue projections and implement any cost containment or reduction strategies.

Uh working with departments will identify strategies to close the preliminary funding gap so that we can develop a balanced 26-27 proposed budget to present to the board at the end of next month.

Uh, we'll, as I've stated already, continue to review positions and vacancy factors, consider technology solutions and other efficiency initiatives to streamline our operations, continue to collaborate with labor as well as community partners to identify strategies to maintain a balanced budget and continue to provide critical services to our diverse communities.

And then lastly, work with uh county agency and department heads to close the structural funding gap through a combination of strategies.

Uh the next slide is a high-level overview of our budget development timeline.

Um, as you can see, we've gone uh we've now uh completed three of the major, well, uh two of the major milestones rather the department MOE submissions, the early budget work session that we had um earlier this month.

Um, and we have had uh a couple of budget work group meetings so far.

Um the governor's May revision uh is due by May 14th.

Uh, and we are planning to the county minister's office plan to submit the balance proposed budget to the board on May 28th with budget hearings and adoption to follow mid to late June.

I'll pause there for any questions.

Actually, can we go to public?

Is it the finishing of the report?

Is there any public comment on this item online or in person?

We'll do in-person first.

President Haber, we have no um in-person speakers.

I have signed up for this item.

I'm just checking online whether or not we do showing one hand raise in Zoom.

Where Beakman does someone do so?

Yeah.

Yeah, Claire Beakman uh once again.

Hi.

Um, yeah, I'm currently living in San Diego.

I lived in the Bay Area uh a lot of my uh life, and I was living in San Jose from 2014 onward, working on tech accountability.

So it was really important.

Um I'd often visit Oakland and Alameda County to work on Berkeley to work on tech stuff as well.

So um I've been in San Diego the past three years now, and they're in a really serious budget deficit crunch problem issue, the same as Oakland.

Um they're choosing austerity to work out of their budget things and they want to do things all at once to get out.

And um, it's I think offering problems.

I don't know if the county of Alameda, if you guys have to be with these funding issues, um, if that's related to deficits so much, but uh you know San Diego really needs uh revenue that the the residents don't want to add, you know, tax increases and those sort of things.

So they're doing the straight cuts.

Whereas I I just wanted to give yourselves a compliment, especially Oakland a compliment that in their deep deficits that they have, they want to take the slow approach, and that if you just mine the budget and and really be noting how you can work with it while still maintaining and working on social services and those important items.

Thank you for doing those sort of efforts and work.

Uh the work that you can do, it's great work to be able to do that.

It's part of an Oakland love life philosophy that I think is awesome.

I mean, that's it's ideas of peace and not war, basically.

And um, the work with tech tech uh surveillance tech and stuff, you can actually condense the use of surveillance tech to do the same amount of public safety, yet use less amounts of tech.

And good luck in those sort of efforts and what you can really be doing in in future looking for an AOPR vendor.

Um I'm confident, hopefully you guys will be.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

That was our only speaker for this item.

Very good.

Any questions of staff for this wonderful report?

Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you, but thank can you guys hear me?

Yeah, okay.

Um slide seven, I just want to confirm a understanding the general fund um category, the 4.2 billion, and then all funds.

I just want to clarify um all funds includes all of our ballot measures.

So CWA.

Uh this the 6.1.

So uh measure A is actually included in what we refer to as our general funds.

So measure A is part of the general fund.

Okay.

Um I don't believe we included C, we certainly didn't include W in the uh current year final approved.

No, it's not in the current year, so it's some of the other special districts are in Clier.

Yeah, that are included at other libraries are included in that difference.

Got it.

Okay, thank you for that.

Any other questions from any other supervisors?

I see what's not a bass.

Thank you.

Uh just a few questions on slide 13.

Um the net county costs change um for public protection, it's significantly higher than the three other programs at 55.8 million.

I am curious to hear what that's attributable, attributable to uh that's actually fairly common.

Um, and it's mainly due to the revenue mix compared to the other programs.

So general government, this is not just in Alameda County.

This is county government in general.

Um, sorry, public protection is highly reliant on general fund revenues.

Um, the the existence of Prop 172 or the statewide half cent sales tax on public safety, uh, was this the state's uh recognition of public protections reliance on the general fund and the impact of ERAF, the impact of shifting local property tax dollars to the state to backfill the cut for schools, um, impacted public protection in general.

Uh so that's the history behind why we have the half cent sales tax for public safety.

Um, unlike health and social services, uh public protection does not enjoy the benefit of being able to leverage uh as much state and federal revenue, so it is much more reliant on the general fund.

Can I just add to that that specifically looking at the numbers in the maintenance of effort of that $55 million increase?

$33 million of it is the revenue loss that Melanie had mentioned earlier, and that's uh revenue that is allocated on a program area-wide basis.

It's not in the individual public safety departments.

We budgeted as part of public safety revenue.

But that significant loss is a major component of the $55 million increase.

Thank you.

And do you happen to know how that compares year by year between the prior fiscal year and this fiscal year is this trending towards a higher level of loss in terms of the sales tax revenue?

So we did see losses year over year, I believe, in the prior year.

Um, but the recommended adjustment is essentially correction for what has been under realization of revenue in this budget.

Okay, thank you.

But it's also a state, it's a sales tax, so it doesn't trend as some of our local sales tax because it's a statewide sales tax with a different allocation formula in terms of how it's then allocated back to different counties.

Part of the factor that's impacting Alameda County with respect to Prop 172, uh, the way it's calculated takes into account our local sales tax performance relative to other jurisdictions, and that factor has been impacting us negatively in recent years.

Okay.

I um I know a little bit about uh this proposition.

I'm not quite sure how it might be benefiting or not benefiting, or be equitable or not equitable to us, you know, given the dynamics in our county versus the rest of the state, but that might be another topic for future lobbying.

Um, just two more questions.

Also on page 11, the internal service fund increases.

Could you speak um a little bit more as to what that is?

Uh sure.

So we are seeing just pulling up additional detail.

Um so the internal service funds uh include building maintenance, IT, um, which includes uh not only ITD main but also telephony and radio.

Um and I'm trying to uh pull up the detail.

Workers comp is also an internal service fund.

It is embedded as part of the salaries and employee benefits, um, but then risk management is also an internal service fund.

So those are uh the main components we are seeing um increases, particularly in um uh related to the radios uh because of uh needing to update equipment to be in compliance.

Um we're also seeing uh increases related to our workers' comp costs.

Trying to see if I still have the backup here.

Umce I find the detail, I can go here with that.

I think the primary increases in the internal service funds had to do with the rate, it's the interoperable radios.

It's part of the joint powers authority, those radios needed to be replaced, so there's an increase there, and there was a significant increase in workers' compensation in terms of both utilization as well as needing um to replenish part of the reserves.

So uh the 33 billion is primarily driven by uh increases, the building maintenance increase is about 18 million.

Uh communications and radio is 6.6 million.

That is a 50% change year over year.

Um, 3.7 million for motor vehicle in part driven by the cost of fuel, uh, and then a $7.2 million increase in risk management.

There was a slight decrease in IT of uh three million.

Thank you.

And in terms of the state budget, I know there's a little, there's a number of weeks before the governor will issue his May revise, and then from there up to four more weeks until the state budget is adopted.

It may be too early, but I am curious to hear whether there is anything in particular that we are you know optimistic about in terms of getting some relief uh from the state budget.

It's an interesting question because I think in even in the January budget, um, what we were seeing was essentially growth in the state's revenues, however, um no projected benefit to the counties, and so the state is essentially adding to its surpluses rather than us seeing it impact the local level positively.

So it'll be interesting to see the approach with the May revision and whether there's any relief that we might be able to incorporate before we present the project.

I think what we're also gonna see is just the restrictions that the state has, right?

Because they have their own provisions in terms of the allocation to the schools as well as to their own reserves.

So you know, I think on the program side there are some things that are floating out there, but we don't really have a lot of definitive information in terms of what might benefit from us.

And I think you know, we're concerned that obviously there'll be some further restrictions, especially on some of the funds that are coming through from the federal government.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Supervisor Tam, then Supervisor Marquez.

Um, thank you.

I just wanted some clarification on the internal service funds.

I know one of the pending factors is our pending litigations and settlements, and you know, given what we know, it's it's going to be pretty significant.

So, how is that captured?

Is that through the pulled insurance rate?

And and when is that going to get captured?

So part of that's reflected in risk management to the extent our premiums are going up because of our increased settlements.

Um, and then your board also you know has set aside some funds for litigation and settlement costs.

But I think it's something we need to continue to monitor because as you know, the potential risk we have there continues to increase.

Yeah, I'm just trying to understand um how we plan for that.

So that would be through risk management, both establishing our reserves as well as looking at our coverage on an annual basis.

Thank you.

Um, I know we're focused on this year, but I'm just wondering do we have any rough estimates in potential revenue losses for next fiscal year, given that some of the HR1 cuts are going to be going into effect later.

I believe we have some impacts, um, albeit arguably minimal, considering what we don't know at this point.

And there are some impacts that are assumed and built into the social services maintenance of efforts.

Um, but other than that, I think uh what we've acknowledged in our previous presentations is that the impacts from the federal level are largely unknown.

So we'll still have to you know take that into account as a pending factor and you know, potentially factor uh adjustments that we may need to recommend down the line.

Okay, that we just add to our gap.

Correct.

And then as we continue to monitor state and federal funding during these work sessions, we'll receive those updates at that time once those are known.

Okay, thank you.

Could I like to think about it?

Apologies, and I could chadrian uh director for Alameda County Health.

Um, in terms of the revenue impacts, like Melanie's saying, you know, we'll need to track and monitor it.

But uh, as you saw, so much of our budget is dependent on Medicaid revenue in particular.

So if we see um in the worst case scenario, like a 30% decrease in our medical enrollment, that will have ripple effects both for behavioral health, uh, H, you know, social services agency, as well as um our partners in at the Alliance and Alameda Health System and sort of across the the spectrum of health and human services.

Thank you for that um detailed explanation.

I'd like to thank our staff for the report.

I just would like to point out on page 15 and page 16.

We note that we have an annual budget gap, which is appropriations less revenues of 91.4 million.

On the next page, it shows that taking into account the annual funding gaps that have occurred since ERAF 2627 could have been a gap of 184.8 million.

The difference being the yellow part of that bar not being a funding gap.

And that's because our retirement liabilities were reduced because of decisions we made in the past, including 800 million dollars pay down of liabilities, is that correct?

So I just want to highlight that that helps us maintain our triple triple rating.

Yeah, and I think it is important to note.

I mean, we've tracked this, and you see the cyclical nature of the funding gaps, but it was you know an intentional strategy by your board to um set aside funds and look at paying down your future and some of your current unfunded liability um at the retirement system, which reduced your contribution rates and provided you know that savings.

But I think we should we should not forget that because it really does significantly reduce um the impact of what we're seeing of increased costs and flat or declining revenue, and that gap is continuing to grow in the next year.

We would also like to point out that in some years we know we're in maybe a macroeconomic depression.

We know that sales tax might be down, property tax might be down.

This is very different.

This is a funding cut that we don't really know the extent of.

In fact, I think for the most part, the economy in many regards seems uh aside from layoffs of some companies.

I don't think our sales tax is down too much, one two percent.

Is that right, Marilyn?

What's our sales tax and property tax that our part of our local economy?

Uh so the property tax, if you recall the assessor as part of his early budget um work session presentation noted that we are seeing declining growth.

It is still growing, albeit at a lower rate.

Um so it's lower than we've seen it, and the growth is lower than we've seen it in um some time.

Um our sales tax projections are relatively flat.

We are showing a significant decrease in public safety because our of our history of actuals as well as uh you know the projection on Prop 172 and how that's calculated differently from our other sales tax based revenues.

Um but but otherwise um I would say generally flat is an accurate assessment.

Have we ever seen the impending federal and state cuts at this level?

Maybe uh we've certainly seen significant shifts in responsibility from the state to the county level, unfunded management and have had to contend with that in previous cycles.

I think there was one year in particular where we were anticipating a pretty significant um impact tied to the state attempting to unwind the IHSS uh maintenance of effort arrangement.

Um that ultimately did not come to be um as severe as we had initially anticipated.

Um I don't think we've seen anything like this, at least in recent history, um, that we're anticipating uh from the federal level.

Um so this feels like new territory for us.

New territory.

Yes, thank you.

Um sorry.

A third attempt at Supervisor Marquez to ask questions.

Promise I'll be brief.

Um, just want to see what we can do to strengthen um when Assessor Fong Law presented to us.

I'm trying to look for the numbers that could be accurate, but I'm going off of memory.

But I believe it was 1.2 billion dollars in assessment of pills.

I don't know if someone recalls that number, but it was substantial.

Um, so I think we need to make that a priority to see what he needs so we could ensure that we're bringing in those dollars.

I also raised at the meeting on April 14th.

If there's something we could do with our state legislators to address the fact that he's projecting the um request for appeals uh filings are going to go up.

I think we're already close to like a little bit over 5,000 this year, and he's projecting over 7,000 next year.

So that's um money that should be coming back to our county for services.

So don't know the answer right now, how we mitigate that address that, but I think we need to make it a priority to problem solve around this because that's money that's not assessment appeals.

So that's something we're we're looking at in working with the assessor.

I think the other important factor is with the volume of assessment appeals rising, that's a potential loss of sales tax revenue.

I think that's the greatest, the greater risk that we have.

And so I think that's thank you for raising that.

Are we going to reserve for that or to are we gonna have somehow it's gonna be it's one of you know the pending factors and the reasons that we are setting aside funds or have reserves because we don't know, and you know there are some very large um pending assessment appeals, some large corporate appeals that could significantly impact the county in terms of having to return.

I think we really need to keep an eye on that.

Uh very good.

Thank you for the report.

We'll move on to our next item.

So we want to pivot to um an update on our ARPA funds.

Okay, also part of item one is an ARPA funding update.

To provide you with a status report on how the funds were allocated and how they've actually been spent.

And so Pat O'Connell is going to provide that update.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

I just want to go over real quickly the first the first slide.

We received CARES Act money for 330 million.

We've received ARPA money for 324.6 million for a total of about 654.6 million that we received from March 1st, 2020.

And we have until December 31st of 2026 to spend it off.

On the second slide, it shows what the eligible uses were for the funds that we had.

It was to support public health expenditures related to COVID, address negative economic impacts caused by the emergency.

Replace lost public sector revenue.

We could do up to 10 million dollars on that one.

Provide premium pay for central workers and then invest in some sewer and broad infrastructure products.

On the next slide, it shows things that we were not allowed to do with the money.

The costs that we could claim would have been incurred on or before March 3rd of 2021.

The funds had to be obligated, which we would call encumbered by December 31st to 2024.

And then we have to spend all those funds by December 31st of 2026.

And what I'm gonna do now is go through kind of the status where those funds are and how much is encumbered and how much we've actually spent.

On the next slide, you can see the allocations by our departments by category.

And they go down and they total to the 324.6 million.

And these are the allocations that we worked with and then we ported to the Treasury Department.

On the next slide, you can see the total allocation again by department, and then the expenses.

On the very first line, you'll see health care, their allocation 158.7 million.

They spent 137.3 as of March 31st.

There is 21.4 funds that are encumbered, and we're working with paying all those bills, and we need to get all those amounts that are encumbered paid for by December of this end of this year.

If we don't pay all those, we'll have to refund money.

And we're working on progress with all the departments so that we will not have to return any funds.

Treasury that we report on, it's very time consuming when you do the reports, and they have made us and they've made everybody.

When you report on a category or a program, you have to give them the encumbrance number and who the vendor is.

So they're tracking all that.

So we can't go in now and change encumbrances or vendors.

They're being very strict about it, and uh they've sent out emails, they're actually looking to really disallow funds so that they can recover a lot of money from the counties and the cities.

So, but we're fighting all of that.

On the next slide, you'll see health care's actual programs that uh vaccinations is number one.

The allocation was 27 million.

We spent 23.8, and we have 3.3 in encumbrances.

And again, we're working on making all those payments there.

And you can see hoteling, 50.3 million was the allocation, 43.5 spent, and 6.8 million encumbrances.

Their total encumbrances are about 21 million, and again, we're working real close with the departments.

We'll get all those spent.

Uh the next slide is social services, and you can see on this particular slide, food was 38 million.

We have spent all the funds for social services.

There's nothing encumbered, so it's kind of like we we made that goal on that one.

So we don't have to worry about any more payments to be made.

On the next slide is the uh CDA program, and you can see all their allocations total about 28 million.

We've spent 25.7.

There's about 2.3 left in encumbrance is a very small amount.

And again, we will have all those paid off.

Um, so it will not be an issue.

On the next slide, um, it's a combination.

You'll see the board community grants.

Um, you were allocated 15.5 million, all those have been spent.

The auditor had arts grant program for a million dollars, that was all spent.

ESP small business grants for 9.6.

We've spent all those.

And then on capital projects, we had a budget of 45.4 million.

We've had expenses of 13.9, and we have encumbrances 31.5.

We're working very closely with GSA to make sure that they get all those things spent in line.

It's going very well, and things are looking good.

And then there's this revenue loss program, which uh you could claim any revenue that you lost during the COVID period, or you could opt into the 10 million dollars.

And what it is is you up we opted into the 10 million, and then we could use those funds to cover general government expenses, and those expenses were incurred in different general governmental funds or departments, and we included those in the 2425.

So that 10 million went into the fund balance of 2425 for the county.

The last slide is just a breakdown on the capital projects.

Um the Cherry Hill Detox Roof Replacement, 0.3 million expenses, uh, no encumbrances.

The largest one is the next one facilities needs priority and design build packages for all the different buildings we're working on, has have expenses of 5.5 million, and we have encumbrances of 27.1.

So when we get to the bottom, we spent 13.9, 31.5 is encumbered for a total of 45, which would we would have everything expended.

Um we're again working real close with GSA and all the other departments to make sure everything is done.

Our ultimate goal is when we're all done when we get to December 31st, is not to return any money to the federal government.

And it it's been a challenge, but we're working very closely with the departments uh to accomplish that.

Spoken like a true financial manager, we're working on it.

So any questions.

I I do actually, and I'll go to my colleagues, but I the pay 8.

Page eight.

Okay.

I I understand that we may have an encumbrance for a capital project because those take time, but I'm not understanding an encumbrance of three million for vaccinations.

For my I feel like now, if they've already been done and we're it's an accrued bill, I can understand that.

But if we've been vaccinated, is this to say that we're planning to vaccinate between now and the end of the year, 3.3 million dollars more?

That's why it's encumbered but not yet spent because vaccinations have been done and issued.

Are we still issuing vaccinations at this dollar amount between now and the end of the year?

I don't have the detail with me, supervisor.

I can get that for you, but I will say that um, you know, there was the big wave of COVID vaccinations to start with.

And then um years ago.

But the the community wave uh we haven't had as uh large waves of the but the pandemic, you know, it's endemic.

So COVID is still with us.

There is still a need for vaccinations as the the vaccinations, you know, they come out, there's boosters.

Um there's a need to get those out to the communities, and our vaccination uh strategy was really focused on uh especially trying to reach communities where they may not have had as many resources available to just pop into the doctor's office, etc.

Um, but I'm happy to touch base with our public health team and I just would like to know truthfully costs that I I don't um argue the need at on some level.

I just feel like at some point um well I guess if we don't have everybody vaccinated boosters come out, I guess hoteling, another six point eight million dollars.

We were putting people in hotels to um prevent the spread before we had even vaccinations to allow for people to be um not in a congregated setting to prevent this.

This was all these were all things that we did.

What 6.8 million do we have encumbered that will be spent between now and the end of the year on COVID?

And and the reason I ask is if we can reallocate this to something that I if it's just spend it to spend it because we have it and it's allocated in this dollar amount for these things, but we could re Ms.

President, I don't think we can reallocate it.

We're locked in, aren't we, Pat?

No.

Currently, um, the way the feds have set it up, we had to encumber everything as of December 31st.

Encumbered 24 into an accountant contract.

You had to have a contract, purchase order, uh, the contract, whatever.

You cannot, they are very strict, you cannot change those.

Like an example where you could is if you had a vendor that was doing some work for you and went out of business, you could hire another vendor to replace them, but it has to be the same work.

Okay, that that makes so it I understand better.

I mean these we have several contracts for hoteling.

If the hotel person couldn't provide the service for some reason or whatever, you could bring someone else to do that.

You could not move that money and use it for vaccinations or communications or anything else.

Okay, it has to stay in that particular area.

I guess that's just the rules that we live under.

And the the feds are really looking at yeah, they want that service provided by the people that we said we're gonna do it.

So like I said, we're working with the departments, and um we have made some slight adjustments and things that are working, but um I think it just seems counterintuitive to me if it's not truly needed, but we have to spend it because it's or in this way because it's encumbered.

I guess I would still argue that spending it we need to remember these encumbrances were done two years ago.

Yeah, that's when the departments said this is what they need for that period.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Supervisor Miley have questions.

Oh, yes, thank you.

Um a few questions.

So, because I asked county administrator to get this report to us because I wanted to see where we were with our COVID uh funding.

So uh Pat, uh thank you for all the work you're doing on this with everyone.

So um, with CARES Act, we're we're good with CARES Act.

I'm sorry, yes.

Um it had different requirements, but no, we're good with that.

And we have had the single auditors come in and they've audited our programs every year, uh-huh.

And there haven't been any issues with any of the two programs.

Okay, so with the three 330 million dollars of CARES Act funding, um just to make sure I'm hearing this correctly.

Uh we don't expect any callback or anything, any true up, we're we're good there.

All that money has been signed off on.

Yeah, we're good there.

We if you remember, we had I think over 500 million dollars of CARES expenditures that we could have claimed, but we can only get to 330.

Okay.

So if there's any audit disalamor claw back, we have other expenditures that we're valid on those.

Okay, now with ARPA, this uh the 324 million dollars of um ARPA funds the audits haven't taken place, have they they the single auditors come in every year and look at all the federal programs?

So they have audited this through 2425.

And how's it looking?

We haven't had any problems with them, everything is fine.

Everything's fine, okay.

And it's just what's left over that we're concerned about, right?

That's correct.

Okay, because I'm gonna make sure we don't have you know we don't have to come up with any money, okay.

And then so we have with ARPA healthcare is about 21 million dollars, and then GSA has 31 almost 32 million dollars.

Um this is let's say May.

So what what's the plan?

I know you say we're monitoring it, but can you give us more specificity on the plan?

And if you can, if they can, well, now that 21 million is going to be used, recognizing we got you know restrictions, and then the 31 million, 31.5 if we could switch it, you know, move stuff around to other categories, but we we can't.

So if we if we it kind of gives a sense of because this is a very tight timeline now.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Kimberly Gasway, director of GSA.

These are the projects up on the Fairmont campus, as well as the Ashland Youth Center and the Youth Uprising facility.

So we are already we finished design and now are in construction phase.

Our project management um consultant, they're tracking the ARPA deadlines quite diligently and working every day with the contractor to make sure we meet the um the timeline.

So and we do report to the county administrator's office the status of where we are, and we are on target to spend the money.

Excellent.

What about health?

The Albina County Health.

Uh as the uh GSA director noted, so these are under contract, and I will need to follow up with my team to get you more updates on exactly how far we are on the spend down.

Okay.

End of the week.

And you okay.

So you're gonna send something to the county administrator and then supervisors, are we gonna have another report out?

It's I will work on that and with our team to to figure out what we can share with you.

Okay.

Because I know this probably hasn't been at the top of your agenda, Anika, because you have a number of other pressing matters that we've been pushing you on, but that's why I wanted to have this update so we can have a sense of where we are, because I knew the deadline was approaching the end of the year, and you know, if we can spend it all great.

If we ended up with you know a few hundred thousand here and there that we haven't spent, that's fine, but we want to try to spend it all, and then we want to make sure um none of it has to be um clawed back as well.

Um let me see if we've got any other questions, because are you gonna have some questions, Supervisor Tim?

You want to ask it?

No, no, I'll let you ask it.

I'll just I'll just finish up because I know Supervisor Tam was asking me a question, and I can't answer it.

So hopefully she's gonna ask it and we'll get an answer on it.

Um, this is great.

And I just want to remind the public and the board, you know.

Uh when we had COVID uh requests come in, we had over a billion dollars of request for uh support as a result of um uh COVID when it hit us from a community-based organizations and the public.

So it was over a billion dollars of request, and you we received about a half, I mean 600 million or thereabouts.

So we still we're very short of the the request coming in.

So I think that's one reason why we wanted to make sure we were able to umlocate the funds and get it expended within the the time frames associated.

And and Pat, one other quick thing with the feds have they always been this strict, or are they just more strict under this new administration?

Um actually they're more strict.

Um they're actually sending uh letters and stuff, daily email telling us exactly when things are due and how they're gonna look at it, and we need to come forward and give this money back.

It gets really um almost abusive to us.

Oh wow, yeah.

No, it's it's pretty okay.

Yeah, they've never been like this before.

Wow, and we've never had to provide that kind of detailed information that they had us provide on the encumbrances.

So they're just looking to see where they can get us.

Okay.

And it's not just us, it's it's probably all counties, cities, I guess, too.

Yeah, okay.

All right, yeah.

Okay.

All right, thanks.

That's it, Mr.

President.

I'm done.

It's too bad they won't provide flexibility.

Uh Supervisor Tim.

Um, thank you.

I'll ask the questions that Supervisor Miley didn't ask.

Um so on on the CDA administered programs because a lot of these uh it seems to be coming up again in terms of trying to seek measure W funding.

What was spent on the item that says stash repair slash rent registry, and did we develop um uh an existing program, and then in terms of tenant assistance, was that uh the you know rent subsidies and then uh on the sewer design, was that the one that is in Livermore that we talked about in terms of design and where is that at now?

Eileen Dalton with CDA here for Sandy Rivera.

I'll start with the easy one.

The sewer design project is underway.

It's actually the CEQA requirement as part of the design, and that will be expended.

It's encumbered, it will be extended by the deadline.

Um, as for the other, I'll probably have to report back and get more information on some of your questions.

But we did have funding that went into specifically um home repair, and that's for a healthy homes department, so I can find out what the expenditures have been like and what's occurred under those areas.

Um, I don't have the information.

And the rent registry is still not adopted.

So there was uh that's supposed to come not the rent, yeah, uh rent registry.

I think is supposed to be, I could be wrong.

Jennifer.

I can ask my colleague about the rental registry.

I might be talking out of school.

Well, it should it shows here on um on page 10 that uh half a million dollars was already spent.

There's no and there was no encumbrances that are left over.

I believe that was for actual repair um a repair program for rental housing that I'll have to confirm that with our okay, and then um just go back on the sewer design.

So we designed it, but is there funding to actually get it built?

There's actually quite a substantial amount of money set aside for the construction.

We're under design, uh basis of design, which is a pre-design effort with the city of Livermore that we've funded and that they're executing through a contract and through their staff that'll be done by the end of the year.

Um it was uh being prepared this way so we have a better understanding of the actual engineers' estimate because there's some um nuances to the design about where pump stations might go when that's done.

We'll actually do the actual design of the project.

The city of Livermore will be doing the construction drawings for the project, and then the county's public works agency will be constructing the actual sewer.

Um we have some money set aside in our measure W ask for that, and then there's other funding sources that have been assembled through uh district one economic development fund.

There's also been some um congressional allocations to the project for construction and some other set asides.

So the city of Labormore isn't relying on our funding.

We spent ARPA funding on the design.

Correct.

Okay.

We'll have that done and spent in the design portion.

Okay, and then uh I'm sorry, what what did you just say about the tenant assistance?

I'll have to get back to you because I'm I think I'm treading off what I know, and I'll have to report back on what was expended for repair and uh what is left to be spent and uh what accomplishments we have in all those areas where we have encumbrances remaining.

Okay, I I know there's a separate line item for uh the repair, and then we had the uh the pilot project of that was spent.

I think we spent $600,000 for that complaint-driven um tenant repair project.

Yes.

Okay, that's part of our next um program as well.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

Questions.

Okay, does that conclude this item?

Thank you very much.

With that, we'll move on to the next item.

An update on board initiatives.

This is a measure W home together and essential services funds update.

Yes, thank you, um, President Halbert, members of the board.

Um, we are here to report.

Sorry, I believe you took public comment on the first part of the presentation by Ms.

Ado, but not on the presentation by Mr.

Sorry.

Is there any public comment on the second part of this budget presentation?

Two minutes, please.

Yes, Chair, we do have two speakers with their hands raised in Zoom.

Blair Beekman.

You may unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi, thank you, Blair Beekman.

I was hoping to hear the presentation first.

Uh, maybe next time.

Um thank you for uh this item and having it.

Uh it'll be important to talk about uh the unhoused in Alameda County.

Um I know Oakland, best of all, of uh Alameda County cities and their recent passing of uh unhoused ordinance uh RV things.

Um I'm questioning it.

It relates, I've heard there's a grants pass that kind of started things.

San Diego has had their own real serious set of unhoused initiatives where more police are involved.

They kind of redefined police, the police role and what they can legally do.

I felt the previous system of what the police legally can do was already working well, and we didn't have to revise that really.

And so I'm just confused.

So I'm hoping Alameda County can be providing guidance and kind of a um a softer approach.

We are trying to address unhouse issues more.

And I just think it can be a softer approach.

Oakland is trying to address a lot of its litter issues along with that.

I think that's an important focus.

Good luck to mixed income housing ideas, truly mixed income housing where we can put people of different income levels in one neighborhood.

I think that can offer a lot of flexibility and choices that we're still afraid to do.

And good luck how to do that.

And to quickly try to mention with the items today, you know, good luck and care in your in your decision making at this time.

I hope that the AOPR policies with Clock, you just recently passed is only through until July.

And then from July onward, you really are seriously wanting to look for a new AOPR vendor.

And I hope you can make that clear to ourselves in the future.

It got a bit conflicted.

Good luck in that effort to make it a clear process.

And we all are understanding that and working towards a good clear future together.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

That was our only speaker for this item.

Last item.

Very good.

We'll move on to item two update on board initiatives.

Thank you very much.

At your board's direction, we're back to report on Measure W, primarily on the Essential County Services Fund, but we will also receive an update on the Home Together Plan.

I'm going to provide some background.

AC Health will report on implementation of the Home Together Plan as approved by your board, and Amy Schrager from my office will report on the Essential County Services Fund, including providing some recommendations for the next two years.

So just by way of background, I think your board is well aware of it, just since for the public and others, just as a reminder, it was in November of 2020 that your board placed Measure W on the ballot as a 10-year half-cent sales tax measure for general revenue purposes.

It passed with 50.09% of the vote.

The ballot language specified that revenue would provide essential county services, including housing and services for those experiencing homelessness, mental health services, job trainings, social safety net programs, and other general fund services.

The measure was at the time projected to generate approximately 150 million annually with annual audits and citizen oversight.

And while revenue collection began in July of 2021, funds were required to be held in escrow due to litigation, and it was not until April of 2025 that the courts upheld the measure and the funds became available for appropriation.

Important context to set the tone that this is voter-directed revenue that is now cleared legal review and must be deployed thoughtfully.

Wanted to walk through your board's direction to date and actions that you have taken since we were aware that funds were available for allocation.

So wanted to just walk through the timeline with you.

Going back to December of 2024, your board designated approximately $395 million for homelessness and housing services contingent upon the release of Measure W funds from ESPRO.

That action underscored the urgency of our housing and homelessness crisis and ensured that we were prepared to deploy funds immediately once litigation was resolved.

In June of 2025, through the 2025 budget adoption process, your board provided early direction by allocating 6.5 million, including four and a half million for food procurement, meal delivery, and food recovery efforts, and two million for the social services agency and the area agency on aging providers, demonstrating your board's commitment to addressing immediate food security and older adult needs while broader planning continued.

On July 22nd, the board adopted an allocation framework with guiding principles, oversight expectations, a designation between one-time and ongoing funding, a prudent reserve strategy, and the creation of two program funds, home together and the essential services fund.

Your board also designated 80% of ongoing revenue from Measure W towards the Home Together Fund and the remaining 20% towards the Essential Services Fund.

Shortly thereafter, on July 30th, your board reaffirmed your prior allocations and continued the 15 million nonprofit affordable housing stabilization fund, reinforcing the county's commitment to housing stability and nonprofit partners serving vulnerable residents.

In September, your board approved a one-year essential services fund expenditure plan for fiscal year 25-26.

That plan authorized capital and immediate need investments, directed development of a five-year plan in early 2026, initiated an expedited procurement process, and set expectations that staff would return with additional investment proposal marking the transition from high-level framework to operational implementation.

In October, your board allocated $3.6 million for legal assistance and support services for immigrant and refugee communities, which were drawn from the Essential County Services Fund and responded to urgent community needs.

Later in October, your board approved an additional $11 million in supplemental allocations.

These included funds for interim coordination for immigrant and refugee services, senior services coalition meals, food bank support, and services targeted to the intellectual and developmental disabilities community.

These investments addressed immediate service gaps while maintaining alignment with Measure W's voter approved intent.

In March of 2026, you authorized staff to develop a two-year expenditure plan for the Essential Services Fund that includes a one-time investment of $14 million for capital and major maintenance.

The principles that your board adopted are noted on the slide in alignment with Vision 2036, emphasizing equity prevention, long-term structural improvements, and transparency.

Your board also directed us to align the Measure W guiding principles which support 2036, and you can see your core principles and today's proposal that we will be presenting builds on this framework.

And finally, just to recap the allocations, one time and ongoing that your board has approved.

You've approved one-time allocations for affordable housing, housing displacement, critical county infrastructure and safety net service facility pre-development costs.

Additionally, up to almost 40 million in one-time capital investments were approved to address immediate known needs and strengthen county infrastructure.

So you see on the chart, the one time, the first column, which includes fiscal 2526 funding, 980 million in total, ongoing revenue that we are expecting, totaling 850 million, and for a total of 1.4 billion allocated for home the home together fund, 258 million for the essential county services fund, 170 million as a prudent reserve, and a total estimate of what we had collected as well as projected going forward until the measure expires of 1.83 billion dollars.

Thank you.

I thank the county administrator for this um background, kind of let us know what we did.

But what I'm puzzled about, I thought at some point, Supervisor Bass had us allocate any interest on measure.

The overage.

Yeah, the overage.

Initial right, you're correct.

In addition to the 80-20% split, there was a motion that anything that was received in excess of our estimate would go back to home together.

Based on an annual it would be based on annual, and we would not know that until the actual receipts came in.

So it would be have to be done in the subsequent year after the auditor closes the books to determine the actual receipts compared to what we estimated, and that if there is additional, would go towards home together as opposed to remaining with essential services.

So if there's an overage for 25, 26, we wouldn't know that until later in until the closed okay.

Um I don't I don't know if it's on the table for today, but I'd like to review that recommendation relative to the overage.

Yeah, at some point.

Okay, we can bring that back.

If there are no questions at this point on the introductory comments, we're going to turn it over to AC Health to give an update on the Home Together Plan implementation.

Thank you, Susan.

Um, and good afternoon, supervisors.

Uh, any catchary with Alameda County Health.

I have here with me, Jonathan Russell, Director of Housing and Homelessness Services.

So when we presented our MOE budget to you a few weeks ago, we did not include any Measure W funding.

And so the presentation today is to give some more detail into the overall HH budget as well as to share with you our plans for Measure Wome Together Fund planning for the next two fiscal years.

I'll turn it to Jonathan for the details.

Thank you, Director Chadry, and good afternoon supervisors.

Again, Jonathan Russell, director for Alameda County Health Housing and Homelessness Services.

Just a quick overview again.

We're going to present first our current budget.

So to give a sense of where we're at in terms of the current appropriation for this fiscal year and the Home Together Fund allocations to date up to today through this year.

And then shift briefly to refresh on the context of the Home Together Plan and Fund, lifting up the both the priorities and context for the overall investment plan in at a high level, and then look at two next fiscal year and the following year planned appropriations.

And then briefly discuss some pending factors, much of which we've brought to you before, but just to give some updates.

Next slide.

So in terms of the current budget and home together fund allocation, on this next slide, you'll see this is our adjusted budget for this fiscal year that includes 91 current FTE, that is our current staffing.

This is a breakdown of that budget that is totals just over 160 million dollars.

You can see that the total appropriation 109 includes above that the intra fund transfers.

Those are dollars we administer through from other departments.

So on behalf of, for example, our probation partners that administering housing funding, behavioral health department, et cetera.

So our total amount, you can see the proportion of state, federal and Medicaid revenue sources below.

And then the net county cost is, of course, the local funding going towards that total budget.

So just a slide to give you some context.

Next slide.

This slide represents the total allocations to date since the fund was designated that have moved forward.

You can see there's a roughly 116 million thus far that has been allocated and approved.

The majority of that is the one-time capital through highlighting there with the asterisk that those dollars are being administered primarily through our CDA partners for the homelessness and housing units that were awarded capital funding and coaster funding.

Coasters are capitalized operating subsidy reserves that go together with the capital units to help fund the ongoing operations, and then 11 million of that is administered through GSA.

Next slide.

A brief update on where we are in terms of staffing and infrastructure build out.

The status of our current home together funded positions is we have six positions filled and in operation.

Very happy to have the six wonderful new staff hoping to build out our teams.

23 positions currently in hiring or recruitment processes, nine positions are in the request process working internally with the county, and then additional positions in development as needed.

And just noting here also that we've also utilized the fund to pay for some existing temporary staff that have helped to fill some gaps.

Okay.

Zooming out a bit to look at the overall plan and investment for the fund starting first here with a refresh for you, just to also a brief update on where we're at with the Home Together 2030 plan.

Again, we are refreshing the Home Together 26 plan and excited to have had that work underway in great detail over the past year.

We've had two working groups working over the course of 2025 to produce some robust recommendations around our updated racial equity analysis and system modeling work.

Those have been shared with our Home Together Task Force, which is essentially the steering committee.

And we expect to have a draft to review for the task force in spring with plans for public engagement and hopefully a finalized plan adopted by this board in fall.

Again, just framing again that the plan really will serve as our ongoing guide for the investment of the Home Together Fund.

And these are the five program areas that we will discuss in more detail on the next slide that are the primary areas of investment of the fund.

Next slide.

So the priority program areas.

This is really the where of our investments.

Obviously, we will be investing in housing, that is housing for individuals experiencing homelessness and a great many varieties of the way that we fund and support people experiencing homelessness to enter and stay in permanent housing.

We will, of course, also be funding shelter of all the different varieties and ways in which we fund services, health care and shelters themselves in the purple.

The red here is prevention, that is homelessness prevention.

So specific programs designed to provide targeted and evidence-based services to help people stay out of homelessness or not return to homelessness.

Very excited to be launching this in a countywide way for the first time as a community.

We've we've discussed this very much with you.

The access category really incorporates the front door services.

So outreach, our coordinated entry services, ways that people can access the front door of our system and be assessed and connected to other resources.

Coordination is that it's a it captures a variety of resources, including the workforce development services, capacity building for our partners and leaders with lived experience, nonprofits, CBO partners, as well as a lot of our data infrastructure and administration and coordinating across a very complex system with many partners, many funders, and many compliance factors going throughout our system.

And then lastly, not an ongoing programmatic area per se, but the one-time investments in capital, which we'll also include on the budget here on the bottom, which is of course to develop and create housing, shelters and healthcare clinics.

Next slide.

So that was the where are we planning to invest, and the home to guess home together fund investment types is really the how.

So these are the three primary ways we've discussed with you in many ways in great detail as we've been dealing with the federal and state landscape.

The need for us to invest in these three key ways, which is to first and foremost sustain our critical existing programs that are operating effectively and performing well for any gaps or losses of funding based on policy changes or cuts, federal and state level.

In our current estimate, about 21% of the overall fund will go towards sustaining existing inventory.

This includes a conservative estimate around potential federal losses over the next six years and state funding as well.

These numbers, of course, are subject to change as policy changes, but this is our current estimation in the detail you will see on the on the next slide.

Enhance is really where we're looking to support current programs that need additional funding to really enhance and optimize what they do.

So these are areas of increased investment.

The most prominent example here is our expanded investments in our current county funded shelters, where we're significantly raising the bed night rate to allow for those services to be improved, to be deepened, to be widened, to help those programs perform better, not just stay in operation but experience enhancements for our residents.

And then lastly, expansion areas of new services, new programs, expanded interventions, some of which we provide, some of which we have not.

Homelessness prevention is a good example there.

That is a new program for us and a new partnership with our city partners, some of which have been doing that work as well.

And that represents currently estimated about 55% of the funding will be able to go toward those expansions.

This also includes, of course, large one-time investments in capital and otherwise under the expand category.

Next slide.

Okay.

So those back to the where and the color coding around the overall current investment area over the life of the fund.

This represents that total estimated 1.4 billion dollars and the different program areas by proportion.

You can see the housing bucket includes roughly 43% of the planned investments over the life of the fund, shelter at 23 million, 17%.

The capital there, asterisk there, that that of course is a is one-time investments, but it includes the vast majority of that is for housing, but it also includes funding for clinic and shelter improvements.

So it's capital of a variety of kinds there, but roughly 152 million is planned for that.

169 million or 12% to launch and sustain countywide prevention over the life of the fund, 116 million of roughly 8% to expand front door access, coordination, roughly 4%, and then at 5% over the life of the fund for the administration and indirect of the fund itself and the operations within HH and other county partners.

Important also to note here in imagining how these funds will be utilized.

Much of this is ongoing program, of course, for a seven plus year plan for the fund.

So as you envision these dollars, really most of this programmatically across this rainbow of colors will be launched in the first two years, and then it really becomes a maintenance of effort budget thereafter to sustain those programs over the life of the measure.

Okay.

We're now zooming in a little bit for two glimpses more directly in the near term at the next two fiscal years.

The first slide is shifting from programmatic investment areas to an aggregate budget of all of the funding sources that H will administer next year in our proposed budget, including the Home Together Fund and all other sources.

So you can see here adding the home the planned home together fund investments, which we will go into detail on the next slide, just the home together fund for next fiscal year, and our current maintenance of effort budget.

That total amount would be 449.4 million dollars.

More than 64% of that would be the added investment of the home together fund in that first really substantively launched year.

And then the balance of that you can see the proportion of that that is other sources, roughly 10% of that being federal funding, 5% state funding, the charges for services, the 16.2 million is largely Medicaid billing through the CalAIN program.

The net county cost, of course, is that as local funding, and then the intra fund transfers again, our funds we administer, some state, some local, on behalf of our partners in other departments that are doing homelessness funding that we administer on their behalf.

The next slide is also next fiscal year, but just the home together fund.

So essentially zooming in on the red part of the previous slide, that 288 million, but looking at it with programmatic detail by different areas of investment, similar the same to the ones we had showed you on previous slides between housing, shelter, access, prevention, coordination, adding the administration and indirect costs there at 3%, and then the capital investment.

The primary difference you'll see when we come to the next slide, which shows more of the steady state operations each year.

This next year will be the largest amount of single year investment for two reasons.

One, it's the last batch of that large capital investment, one of which we made this year.

The balance of that will be invested in this next year.

That of course bumps it up considerably because that's 93 million dollars of that one-time capital investment, and that will be the last round as currently planned of the capital that will make the numbers go up next year.

And then also a portion of that housing money includes what are called capitalized operating subsidy reserves that are operating funds committed alongside that capital to expand housing sites that are administered up front to those awarded agencies, and then they hold them over time to expend them.

So those two reasons are the reasons for that surge next year when we're really kicking off all of the programs and doing those one-time capital investments.

And then on the next slide, you can see the estimated as it currently stands budget for next fiscal year 27-28, where you can see there is a reduction in the overall budget, uh, not because we're reducing program investment areas, but because those one-time investments in capital are no longer included.

So more of a, as you might say, a steady state budget over the life of the revenue measure will look closer to this, whereas the home together fund portion of the budget will be roughly 158 million projected for that year and subsequent years.

And then lastly, just lastly, just a quick quick slide to highlight all the asterisks and caveats around pending factors.

We know that there is uh imminent release of next year's HUD Continuum of Care Grant that represents about 60 million dollars that comes into our local community each year.

We expect considerable changes in unknowns that could, though we have contemplated some of those, they could be different, considerable risk of lost funding in changing policy priorities at the federal level.

Of course, the significant impacts of Medicail eligibility changes and the increased risk for considerable delays and reductions in funding in both of those areas.

We also know there are potential state reductions as we await the May revise that was discussed earlier.

Um it's unclear whether what the HAP investments will look like next year.

And the under the January proposal from the governor, those were cut to 50% in half.

The Senate has proposed making those whole, so there are some real unknowns there, both for next year and beyond that.

Important to also note that in the proposed January budget, there was essentially no additional investments in homelessness and housing.

So there was considerable reductions, and we're contemplating that, as well as addressing the direct impacts of the Prop One BHSA changes within H.

So we had reductions affecting nine county staff that need to transition to other funding sources based on Prop One reductions in our trust health clinic and other areas.

So all those are real factors that are affecting the current and potential future funding landscape that will need to be factored in as those changes come forward, or we learn more about them or have new ones that we don't currently know about.

And then lastly, um non-insignificant change in terms of state legislation, AB 339 that has significantly expanded noticing of procurement requirements that will likely uh delay considerably procurements and contracting in the following year and ongoing.

So just some factors that will relate and impact the budget for next year.

I believe that's it for us.

Before we move to essential services, do you want to entertain any questions on the home together?

Okay, Supervisor Marquez, then Supervisor Miley and a supervisor for Jonato Bass.

And if they ask all those questions, I won't ask any.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I had a question earlier in the presentation, but I think you addressed it later with respect to increasing the shelter bed rate.

So just want to make sure that that is being captured in the spending plan.

Correct.

And that was under the expand category.

Yes, that will be well, that would be under the enhance category.

And so that is part of the allocation on the slide that shows allocations to date includes that, but that will not really show up until in the coming months.

We hope that a portion of that, sorry, just looking at my notes, will actually go through in this that we will we will we'll hoping to add about 70 million of additional allocations before the end of the fiscal year.

So get ready for more board letters.

Um, but those are included in the overall assumptions under the enhanced category.

Yes, you're correct.

Okay, and I should have jotted this slide number that I'm referring to, but I think I just found it.

Uh slide 17 under the shelter section that's colored in purple.

Can you expand on the nursing slash caregiving services?

Yeah.

So we um have opened a variety of shelter types.

One of the things that H has been focused on with a lot of our partners in recent years is diversifying the range or we what we might say levels of service we have for people in shelters.

So we know that while we have a wide variety of shelter types in our community, we've we've identified based on the needs of individuals that have complex medical conditions, are aging in place, have issues with um accessibility and otherwise, um, the need for higher levels of care, so to speak, in the context of sheltered environments.

So uh more than half of the 290 some beds that we are bringing on this year, um, some of which started opening in December through the home together fund.

So that's that initial 300 interim housing beds that we had shared with you that are included in the allocations to date.

A high proportion of those are to are for um high complex needs shelter that includes nursing and caregiving services that we uh fund in partnership with local health care providers to be included and embedded in those shelters.

So that those costs are counted in the shelter category in our budgets.

Okay, and then are we uh factoring respite care for um individuals that require 24 hours 7 24 hours 7 care and could be very demanding on a caregiver, sometimes they just need a break to reset so they could sustain that role.

We do include what we called medical respite or recuperative care, which is um respite uh for people that are experiencing homelessness exiting institutions, either emergency rooms or inpatient stays at the hospital.

That's that's a kind of care that we fund in room housing for people that are that otherwise would discharge to the streets to be able to discharge to a 90-day respite care program.

Um, and then again, we also are have some of these sites that are able to have up to 24-7 nursing care if people's needs identify that within the shelters.

Um, but I think that's a bit different than kind of short-term respite for someone to go into shelter, but otherwise is in housing and has a caregiver.

That's um that would be distinct, but it is a form of respite that we do for okay.

I hope it's something we could look into for the future in terms of being able to maintain that relationship and prevent um people from being displaced because of high caregiver um burnout.

And then um thank you for doing the regional meetings.

I've attended two in mid and south counties.

I appreciate the work around that.

Um, at one of the meetings I flagged, we don't see it captured here, but if we're doing anything creative around shared housing, specifically for young adults and elders that might be living alone, just to um provide emotional support, reduce isolation, and meet the needs of more than one person.

Do we have any type of innovative projects to address that need?

Yeah, that's a great example.

Thanks for lifting that up.

I'm big believer and an operator of shared housing for many years.

Um, while that's not called out here specifically, a variety of the different um funding that we plan to use can and very likely will, I think, be strategically deployed in the context of shared housing environments as well.

One good example is shallow subsidies, which we intend to use as a part of the homelessness prevention menu of services.

Those are shallow, which is to say not deep, they're patches or or supplements of funding for individuals that have a gap in their ability to cover their rent and needs.

Um, those often very work very well for older adults on fixed incomes and can be utilized in a shared environment to help supplement and cover um shared rental costs and otherwise, similar to our other short-term rental subsidies through housing and otherwise, there's a lot of opportunities for those rapid reass and otherwise to be used in in shared settings.

One of the things we're looking forward to as we move past the kind of really high-level roadmap um home together plan itself, which really provides the higher level framework.

A lot of our implementation planning will be looking exactly at those questions.

What are innovative ways that we can really focus on key target populations as part of implementation planning and shared housing?

I'm sure will figure prominently there.

Thank you.

And then with respect to the threats from the HUD funding, um, I thought I I believe I read somewhere that the threat is off for this year, but it could potentially come back next year.

Is that accurate?

That is mostly accurate insofar as based on the federal litigation with the intended changes that I shared in this room months ago this year, uh the litigation has so far been successful.

There has not been a final ruling in that federal litigation, but um so far um HUD has been required to renew grants in the first two quarters of this calendar year.

Um, and it's very likely based on the timeline that they need to release the subsequent NOFO that they will go ahead and renew all of the grants for the three quarters.

So, yes, 90% sure we're essentially covered for business as was usual again this year.

Um, but the NOFO for next year, they have messaged that it um is essentially gonna mirror what they released in November and then again in December.

And I I just got an email that we'll likely see it in May or June at the latest.

So we will be back in kind of scrambling with uh to to pivot and cover costs um in the same way we had um projected to do this year, short of litigation.

Okay, and that my last question, um, so all of this is based off the projections of bringing in 150 million dollars per year and the uh half cent sales tax.

What happens?

I know we've discussed if there's overage, but what happens if we don't meet that projection?

Well, this is just to clarify, then I'll defer to um uh county administrator and and others on the the overage question.

Um this is based on the assumption of the 170 is the is the estimated accrual, and then the 80% proportion, the roughly 130 for 35 million um going toward the home together fund.

This is based on those assumptions.

Um, but we're actually using based on the the fourth going into the fifth year of revenue accrual to date.

Our plan in the first four years is actually to draw down the accrued funding to date over time before spending new revenues.

So that provides some cushion for any fluctuations because we're not we're not turning around and planning to need to spend the dollars from the immediately preceding year in the initial years, we're spending what has already been accrued.

Um and so there's opportunity to adjust based on revenue fluctuations.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

Those are all my questions.

So I think I'm next.

Thank thank you.

Uh Vice President Lena Tam.

So I have a number of questions.

I've been waiting for this report for a while.

And um I might appear gruff, but I'm a nice guy.

I do.

So, first of all, this will probably be for the county administrator, county council.

So, when does the measure sunset?

Is it November 2030 or July 2031?

It's 10 years, right?

So it would be 10 years from the date it was adopted, which was November of 2020.

2020.

Okay, so it'll be November 2030.

Okay.

So that's my first question.

Second question is we have roughly less than five years to expend these these resources.

So do we have it mapped out?

The expenditures for the next five years and what we hope to achieve each year around.

How many?

Because you know, I'm going with a sense of moral imperative as well as um uh we need to get uh S done.

How many people are we gonna get housed?

And how many people are we gonna keep housed?

Yes, we have a very detailed plan for the expenditures over the next five um plus years.

So as we had shared previously, strategically, we think the best way to balance uh the urgency but also the sustainability uh needs to ensure the programs we stand up have appropriate length of time to operate um is to have a seven-year plan for the majority of operations.

So that would allow us to spend one year beyond revenue accrual into fiscal year 3132.

So over those seven years, all of these programs would scale up and we can provide very detailed projected impacts that would be in addition to our current system impacts, which house nearly 4,000 people a year.

So I I knew you were gonna say seven years, and I've been and I've kind of talked with your boss about it.

I'm beginning to have reluctance about a seven-year plan, mainly because I think the taxpayers in the public, they want to see us get as done.

They want to see people off the streets, they want to see people housed.

We have to have demonstrable metrics to demonstrate, and if we go out for a reauthorization, we're not gonna go out and in 2030 for reauthorization, or if it's voters, you know, if it's a voter initiative, or if the county puts on, we're not gonna probably do it in 2030.

We probably do it a year or two earlier.

So if we don't have demonstrable, if it's static, or God forbid it gets worse because of Prop One, HR1, the voters are not gonna be real kind to us about wanting to reauthorize this.

So my thing is I'm rethinking that seven years.

I really think we need to get S done.

Yeah.

Well, we'd really like to show you the plan before you rethink it, because we have very detailed metrics down to each of these investment areas that are going to be in the new home together plan that is going to read and feel very differently in terms of the practical metrics and performance.

And I think part of surging the investments considerably in the first two years to stand up these operations will provide uh not near-term, not just long-term impacts.

So we appreciate the thought and could not agree more.

It is my waking and sleeping thought to drive those impacts quickly.

Um, I think part of having those impacts happen fast in the next five years is standing up the kind of programs that require um operating past just five year cliffs, so we can still see the impacts that happen in the next five years.

We just need to create a sustainable fiscal runway to sustain those impacts, but it's still a surge, and I think it can, but but I'm happy to discuss it.

I hope you're you're right, Jonathan.

I know you're the expert, you and your people are the expert.

I'm just uh I'm just a policymaker, been around for a few years living in Oakland and how many countries.

Can we see if we can get through the report in the next uh 10 minutes or so and then take public comment and then deliberate and take action?

Would that be achievable?

And I'd like to ask the clerk how many speakers have already raised their hand, if any.

President has my word John Bass questions.

Yeah, and I didn't finish unless you want me to just stop abruptly.

No, I would like to interrupt briefly as chair.

Sorry, I'm back now, and I would like to ask, can we get the rest of the presentation?

It's completely full.

Okay.

How many speakers do we have online?

Oh, we have about 16 speakers.

With the hand raised in person.

Okay, if you're in person and want to speak on this item, please fill out a speaker slip.

I'm gonna close off public speaking in a little bit, and then online if you're online and want to speak to this item, please raise your hand.

We're gonna ask as many questions as we want.

I understand that.

Um, and so Supervisor Miley, I just want to take a time check on this.

You're you keep going, then supervisor Fortunato Bass, and just so I'm clear, has Supervisor Tam asked questions yet?

Not yet.

Supervisor Marquez, have you been able to ask questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll finish up.

Thank you.

Supervisor Howard, just to clarify.

So we just concluded the presentation on the update on the home together plan.

We still have the essential services fund presentation.

We might have to delay that.

I might have to continue that if we can't get it done.

So we we I mean, let's keep moving, please.

What what is our I mean, what is our estimated timeline for this meeting today?

We've been meeting since 9 30.

Yeah.

What is the estimated time?

I have a hard stop at six.

I will push that back if needed, but I want to be prudent with our time.

Well, in terms of presentation, we probably have another, I'll say 15 minutes, 15, 20 minutes, a presentation on the essential services fund.

I think the question is just the you know, level of engagement from the board, and we're gonna be seeking some board direction as well, and also your public input.

Are we gonna make a vote today?

Is this an action item?

It's not an action item, but we have recommendations and are seeking some board direction if you decide to proceed with uh Supervisor Miley.

Go ahead with your questions.

Thank you.

Yeah, because you know I'm I'm ready to do whatever you want me to do because I follow the lead of the president.

So you want me to keep asking questions?

Okay.

No.

Okay, all right.

So um, so yes, so I made my point about the seven-year approach, and I'm hoping you're right uh about this.

Um, because I'm I'm you know, I I just really feel that we really need to show results, and we need to show those results each year.

And otherwise, uh I think the public's not gonna be real real happy.

And um, and I know, and so in the health committee, you say Supervisor Tam and I we heard the report on housing first.

So, and you know, I talked about the need for prevention and treatment first.

So, once again, with this approach, um we can be assured that we're gonna get people housed, we're gonna get people off the street, and we're gonna keep people housed.

And we have and we have demonstrable numbers or metrics associated with that.

That's right.

Demonstrable and detailed that we'll be included in the plan as the performance metrics that um we will adhere to and track and judge ourselves uh according to.

Okay, and I and I know if we need to make adjustments, we'll be making absolutely absolutely because once again we have four years as far as I'm concerned, yeah to really show results.

And if we don't, then I just think there's um people are not gonna be pleased about uh measure w.

And then with the ratio, excuse me, with the uh equity analysis.

I know the city was talking to us about that quite a while ago.

We still haven't gotten that resolved yet.

We've been in, yeah, we've had ongoing conversations with the city and broader technical things.

Yes, yeah, the uh the city of Oakland and our other city partners.

So those we have those, we have the results of the updated racial equity analysis that are being incorporated into the plan.

Um, so that will all be represented in the performance metrics and the priorities and in the data and appendices that are included in the plan.

Okay.

And then my last two questions real fast, so we can get to Supervisor Bass.

Um, is in 2728, there's no capital funds.

So all the capital funds are gonna be utilized this coming fiscal year.

So suppose, because you know I raised it yesterday.

Suppose we want to try to get the Radison hotel that's sitting vacant.

We're how can we fit that into this plan?

That's a great question.

So uh in addition to the 60 some million uh utilized this year for capital, this current fiscal year, and that plan the balance of those funds, the vast majority that will be for uh new projects on the housing and shelter side.

Um, it's actually a great example of the kinds of projects that we're seeking to include in the priority for next year's capital program, this meaning this coming fiscal year.

While this year's program was primarily focused on um near shovel ready projects that we're seeking to leverage these funds as part of tax credits and new developments, next year's capital will be focused on a variety of project types, including hotel acquisitions and rehabs.

So when that RFP opens, projects like that will be prime examples of what we uh plan to fund and seek uh bids on.

So next year would be 26, 27.

2627.

This coming fiscal year, those kinds of projects will be uh the main uh one of the main focus types, including small and scattered side, a variety of kind of uh of development types, um, that that'll be a uh prime example of and just to kind of uh editorialize for a minute.

And just to kind of uh editorialize for a minute, the reason I focus on the Radison is I drive by it periodically, it's in East Oakland in my district where we purchase two other hotels.

And it's we used it during COVID, but it's since COVID, it's been sitting um vacant, and it's got a lot of hotel bids.

And I know Oakland's trying to get people out of encampments.

We need to have a place to put people, and I know I've talked to council person about the Radison, and he's open to that at least on a short-term basis.

So maybe I could convince them to be open to it on longer basis.

But the point is we need to have places to put people.

And then the final thing is I'll continue to push for the use of um of uh tax defaulted properties.

We I don't know how I've asked for an inventory of all of our tax defaulted properties, underutilized properties, and other uh properties that are available.

I'm not talking about public properties, I'm talking about tax default.

I'm talking about private sector properties that are either underutilized, tax default, et cetera.

That would give us an inventory of how we might be able to target resources to address this this uh this need of homelessness.

So we really get people off the street and we get S done.

And if nobody knows what S stands for, just think about it.

Thank you so much for this update.

Um, I have a few questions, and I'll try to be quick because I do want to get to the essential services fund.

Um, so given that the racial equity analysis, the system modeling tool, the 2030 home together plan is uh being developed.

Um will the board have an opportunity to hear about the updates, way in, and also have that inform the RFPs that will go out in the next set of allocations.

The plan is to by late summer, early fall, mid-fall, have uh a plan um before the board for review and adoption.

I think there will certainly be opportunities uh uh for public comment and presentations on those draft forms uh before that, but our hope is to have that finalized where those processes for feedback and uh input on the on the plan as recommended by the working groups and all the community engagement we've done by the fall.

So I think between now and then there will be a lot of that substantive engagement.

Again, the plan is um uh really broad framework based on a modeling priorities of these are the areas we um we believe that the investments would have the most impact.

This is what our data is telling us and all the rest.

So I think it it certainly can and will continue to inform the these investment areas.

Um I don't uh perceive that there would be market shifts left, right?

For example, on the kinds of things we would be procuring for between now and then.

Um, but I think by by summer and beyond, there should be a lot of good material for the board and the public to opine on in the plan.

Okay.

I am uh because equity and racial equity is so central to the existing home together plan and measure W.

If there are any significant shifts, I might be interested in talking uh one-on-one to understand those.

And you know, certainly the cities I represent are very interested in making sure that the investments continue to address racial equity.

Um, and is the PIT count going to come out soon, the point in time count, so that that also helps to potentially inform these investments?

Yes, great question.

Uh in May, I believe, um mid to late May, we plan um to do a release in our discussion with your uh board offices now around that uh planned release.

So that is certainly part of where um we've actually had a little bit of a delay in in sending a first draft to our task force because we really want to incorporate that really consequential data from 2026 to help inform the model because the primary data sources we're using are those biannual point and time counts, which really are significant moment in time captures on the state of the system, and then our annual data.

So it will both be substantively incorporated and really providing a lot of guiding direction as that most recent count as we launch into the new plan.

Um, and um significantly um uh included in the discussions and public material shared, and certainly happy to do a deep dive in in May or beyond once that release happens on the state of that uh of that count with with your board.

Great, thank you.

Um and I'd like to hear a little bit more about the prevention funds and maybe that's mostly the flex pool in particular, given that homelessness intersects with um mental health, um, also with justice involved individuals.

Um, I'd like to understand how we're prioritizing certain populations, especially um justice systems involved people for rental subsidies and other types of support around housing.

Yeah.

So to distinguish the flex pool from prevention, just to be clear, the flexible is primarily focused on not preventing new entries, but uh increasing uh permanent housing exits.

So the flexible will be used to expand tenant-based subsidies.

Think of those as homeless specific Section 8 housing choice vouchers that we will uh connect people to, provide them that rental assistance and help them move into the unit of their choosing.

Um, so that's what the flex pool will serve.

So we can come back to talking about the target populations within that.

Speaking specifically to prevention, yes, the the prevention fund, the majority of the prevention funding, um, which is a large proportion of what we plan to expand.

So, in that expansion category over the life of the revenue measure, our plan is for more than 155 million of that money uh dollars from that prevention fund to go directly to emergency financial assistance to help keep people housed.

So that will have a variety of flexible uses that, of course, can be back rent to help keep someone housed.

It can also be rehousing funding to help someone move to a more sustainable unit.

It can be flexible dollars to help pay for other housing costs that are putting people at risk of homelessness.

So that will be a big initiative that we're already underway planning, working in close partnership with our partners in the city of Oakland and others that have existing prevention programs to design a really integrated approach.

That that program, speaking specifically of prevention, will have a targeted um approach that really focuses on all of the evidence-based screening markers for folks that are most at risk, which includes some of the conditions you mentioned, some of the experiences and life experience, including justice involvement, will be screened for.

And then lastly, we'll be working really closely as our city of Oaken partners do with community-based organizations that have uh close relationships with key populations we know are most at risk, justice involved folks included, to really make sure we have an eye into that into that specific area.

Uh, and then the flex pool similarly has a lot of targeting for folks, specifically given that we're using the Behavioral Health Services Act funding and transitional rent from the state Calane program that is seeking to prioritize the behavioral health population of focus first.

So the first batch of subsidies we're using to braid uh into the flex pool is that um uh serving folks that have severe mental illness substance use disorder or both.

So there's a lot of prioritization in those pools that it speaks to and focuses on those populations and the continuing intersections of justice involvement and those things are areas of real continued focus, I think that will both be evident in the plan and in both of these program areas.

Great, thank you.

Um, just a couple questions.

This one I think is quick.

Um, we had approved 15 million dollars in a nonprofit um affordable housing stabilization fund.

This is probably for CDA.

Um, what is the timeline for getting those funds out the door?

Good afternoon, supervisor.

Is that for you?

I apologize.

You can answer it, Kimberly.

I'm gonna have Jennifer Pierce address the although I just didn't know what Kimberly was going to say.

I'll be brief.

Um, we've met with each of the developers, they've refined their requests.

Uh we have a board letter, and we're working on contracts uh concurrently with the discussions.

So we do anticipate contracts for that funding to come to the board within the next two months.

Thank you.

And I'm afraid this might have to go back to H.

Um.

We know that there is a dearth of shelters, and there have been several encampment closures, including in my district in Berkeley and Oakland, um, and and some other supervisors' districts where closures have happened and there's literally nowhere for people to go.

So I am really curious what your thoughts are about having sort of an emergency flexible pool of funds so that in certain situations we might be able to assist in supporting um shelter when closures may need to happen for some urgent reasons.

Yeah, appreciate the question and and definitely cognizant of that.

I think one thing that we're excited about amidst those strains is that we've opened more than 600 beds that the county has funded specifically since 2024.

So we've significantly expanded the inventory in a way that a good portion of what the home together fund will go toward is sustaining that expanded inventory.

To your question, that doesn't solve the fact that we don't always have an open bed for every closure, let alone at scale for large encampment closures.

So we're not opposed to discussing that.

I think the difficulty in thinking about that funding existing to support essentially pop-up shelter is there's not usually the availability that it's not usually a lack of funding, it's a lack of beds.

And so using an emergency funding to open a shelter that quickly is probably um difficult to imagine how that could fund a new shelter versus really short-term stains in things like hotels that are often pretty costly pretty quickly for the amount of people served.

So one of our strategies though is to work very closely with our city partners to actively house people out of our current shelters to create more vacancies quickly, which is why part of what we've done with the flexible is do housing fares and otherwise.

So I think this is a robust conversation we continue to have with our city partners, and I'm certainly not opposed, just really want to look at the most strategic way to create those vacancies, both in existing and in new sites.

Thank you.

And I totally agree, we need to move people through the system to get them from yeah, the streets to shelter into permanent housing.

Okay, uh, the last um the last issue is a comment.

So uh my esteemed colleague, Supervisor Miley mentioned the policy and the motion that I had made in terms of any excess funds above the 170 million per year that we anticipate collecting in Measure W would go towards the home together bucket.

And um just for as a reminder, I made that motion because home together as has a five billion dollar price tag, and we're talking about 1.4 billion in Measure W funds.

So there's so much more need than we have resources.

That said, I do recognize the impacts of HR1, Prop one.

Um, and I want us to be very, very thoughtful about the totality of everything we are trying to address with this budget because there's way more need than our county has the resources for.

But I just wanted to put that on the record.

I still think there's a lot of need for homelessness and housing.

Thank you.

Supervisor Town.

Uh I will keep this brief.

I really only have two questions.

The first is um on your pending factors uh on the HAP funding round seven, there's no new plan uh potential investments by the state.

Um can you kind of refresh what happened to the HAP funding?

Because we jointly apply for that with the city of Oakland in the prior rounds, because I know in round six, I don't think we the county got any funding from the state, right?

We did, yes.

So we have gotten our notice of award and are doing our signatories to get those funds now, the half round six.

The difficulty with the subsequent runs of HAPS five and six has been from the time that it goes into state statute to when they actually get the RFP out to when we get it, it's almost been two years, and we still don't have the funds as to when they were appropriated.

So there's the major delays in those which receiving us, but we have we've received that we were awarded the full amount that we were eligible for in that joint application.

So HAP6 is coming, it's on the way, and it's planned into our budget.

HAP6 is the one that is currently in the uh the discussions uh at the state level where the Senate has proposed making it whole at a billion dollars that would give us the same amount as HAP6.

Um, and so there's it's to be seen what that dollar amount is.

Um, but just to be clear, each time it's a one-time investment.

So then we have to, is there going to be a next one and and the like?

But we have six, and we will see how much seven is.

We're planning currently for its potential reduction.

Okay.

Um my next question has more to do with um the issue around sustainability.

Uh, when I looked at your budget without measure W, um this is the 109, and then you got it down to uh about 21.9 million dollars uh with um state and federal support.

And then uh with measure W, you're looking at 116.

At yesterday's uh health committee meeting, you mentioned that uh with housing forest plans that it's very expensive to maintain a shelter.

You said it was like 37,000 to 40,000 a unit.

And so if we expand and build all these shelters in uh Supervisor Miley scenario within four years, four and a half years, what happens to the funding to sustain those shelters?

Yeah, it's a great question.

Um when I mentioned that we have already expanded more than 600 new shelter beds since 2024.

I mentioned that intentionally to say that that, in addition to the 300 additional ones we've already funded in a matter of months since the decisions were made in July of last year, that really is the planned expansion that we have for beds.

So beds are already in the pipeline that we funded, or those we've already committed into that additional 300.

The majority of our other investments in shelter, most to all of it, is to enhance and stabilize our current inventory as directed by the board given the crisis and the need for stabilization.

So we are not planning, in addition to what we've already brought to your board to open hundreds of additional shelter beds on top of that on our own, but really to optimize and improve and stabilize that increased inventory of more than 1600 beds that we already fund directly as a county.

Um to your point, there will still be an end to that need for that, you know, and into that funding for the current inventory, but we are being very cognizant not just to surge that high cost intervention, knowing that those would need to be you know shut down in a matter of years.

We're seeking to do that more thoughtfully and um build on the beds we've already opened and use this to sustain them.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, um, for slide 13 and 19 and 21 and the other financial slides.

What has been spent actually spent helping people?

How much what has been spent to date is best captured, though partially uh to answer your question on slide 13.

That's funds that have been allocated and are in programs or planned and in the process of contracting or expenditure.

So, for example, within the housing bucket, uh that fund those funds have been awarded, and those projects and those contracts are underway, for example, in terms of the capital rather.

Um, in terms of spent, that would be an individual accounting contract by contract.

For example, the flex pool is spending that 10 million dollars of housing on new subsidies, and there's you know, X number of people have already moved into housing.

So the drawdown of the dollars contract by contract, we don't have that data here, but we have committed this 116 million with about 70 million more planning to pass through your board before the end of the fiscal year if all the stars aligned to get the board letters to you.

So we are ramping up those those contracting processes.

Um, but the best summary is that slide 13.

I'd like to see monthly how much we draw down, where it goes, and who's been helped monthly at their at their maybe at the health meeting or something like that, or quarterly at the very least.

But Supervisor Bass got 15 million dollars allocated to providers when six months ago, four months ago?

And it's not and it's it still don't have it.

Huh?

So I I guess I'm I'm concerned about the drawdown is what I'm and actually helping people because as I walk down the street from this building to Broadway to go to the ACTC meetings, I see the same things that I've always seen, and it's unbearable.

So to supervisor Miley's point, we need to see results on the ground.

Thank you for that, Supervisor.

And one of the things that um we are working on is figuring out how to have dashboards available so that it's just easier to track on the walk down the streets.

And and on the walking down the streets and what you see there, I do want to note that um you know, homelessness is a failure of so many different policies over years and times.

Um, and there are people who have really high needs who are gonna be maybe the people that you see regularly.

Um, but just because of the investments that we've made over the last five or six years, we did share with you all earlier this year that for the first time in four years, we saw more people exiting homelessness in our county than we did entering homelessness in our county.

So we are showing results.

It's just that the magnitude of the issue is pretty massive.

We agree with you that there's more to do.

And so our plan for measure W is to really continue to sustain those investments and to make sure that we keep doing what works.

Um, and some of it takes longer than other things, but here are you on the regular uh reporting back on the so, with regard to the never-ending need, I think it just big begs and the point and we have a plan that's five billion.

We only have 1.2 billion.

That's a plan for failure.

Unless we can get more money, we should be prioritizing.

And I don't, I would rather not see anything go to somebody that doesn't truly need it as much as the violent afflicted people that are zombie walking down the streets to have all of it spent on them before we spend anything on building a something like a million dollar apartment for somebody that would like to have a nice apartment.

I think we should be prioritizing the people that are zombie walking, and yet I see them on the street, and that's my but dashboard and the topervisor bass's point about the encampments that have been cleared.

And when I talk to people in the city of Oakland, and this is what my next point is.

We had a meeting with the city managers in my district, and they basically said, we're not sure that we can use this.

We would like to be part of this.

I am glad to hear this.

I don't want to give any direction until I hear from the city managers and the counterparts in the cities that say, yeah, this works for us.

So if you've already validated that with them, let me know.

But that's my metric of go forward.

And I know they're not elected to be in our seats, but I'm hesitant because it is a shared one thing I've learned in the last five.

This is we talked about this.

This is so shared.

So if they are in it to say, yeah, we can do this.

Then maybe we should have a joint meeting with the city of Oakland.

So we've we have uh completed most of our regional meetings.

The city of Oakland is our last regional meeting to have, but that doesn't mean that we haven't talked with them.

I think Jonathan's team has a minimum of four regular meetings with uh the city staff every month.

Um we've had conversations with the mayor's office with the city manager, uh, as well as with supervisors Miley and uh Tam.

And so um, you know, I think the the thing that we can all uh agree to is that we have a shared goal of reducing homelessness and ending homelessness and making meaningful differences in that.

Um, I would just caution us that um you know, we as staff sort of feel this pressure of move the money, but then we're not gonna get direction to move the money until cities agree, and that's just gonna take a lot longer.

So our recommendation would be that we get to continue to work with the cities and continue those partnerships and continue building on them because including in your district and in the other districts, what we heard was that um the cities want to engage with us on understanding which RFPs are going out so that they can plan for what might be out there.

We're not able to share RFP details with them.

Um, but what we what we are able to do is say, here are the categories that we want to fund.

Please think about projects, and once the RFP is out, they can apply to it.

Um, see I that that's just a system that I don't agree with.

We have to find a better system.

We have to find a way to um either make the RFP detailed directed on what they say they can use.

Um so that that's that's what we're those ongoing engagements are, right?

So for us to be able to hear from them ahead of time that you know, maybe in district one, they want to do hotel conversions, and in district three, they want to do a ton of safe parking.

I don't know, but it's it's that ongoing dialogue and conversation that I want to assure you does happen with with the uh at the staff level.

Um, and you know, we're all trying to move forward together.

With regard to the spending um and the districts, I would like to see this cut by district somehow.

Uh we've already had, and just to reaffirm, we've had a lot of dialogue about 58% of the need for homeless is in Oakland.

So they need 50.

We've agreed 58% of the funding.

And I don't remember what percent the other districts were, but I want to reaffirm that all of this is going to track to that.

We're going to make sure that that's what happens.

Using the point-time count allocations, and as we shared to your point around impacts to date, we will have the updated point in time count data in May and be sharing that with you in great detail.

And that will provide updated um direction for us on where the proportion of need is across the county to continue to track that very closely.

All right.

I don't have any other questions, but I I do note that um I want to hear from the public, but I also realize now that there's an essential services funds presentation to be made.

So I'm going to ask essential services presentation to be made.

Then we can ask a series of questions again as colleagues, and then go to the public.

Thank you.

Amy Schragel is going to present on the essential services.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

So just a quick uh recap of the Essential County Services Fund.

This shows our investment priorities that your board approved last year.

They align with prior allocations approved by your board in the early stages of Measure W development.

And there's some detail at the top of each of these columns as to where this programming lives within county departments.

Just as a reminder, back in October, these were the one-time capital investments that you approved, totaling 39.4 million.

And these are critical county infrastructure investments in the unincorporated area, and the work on affordable counting, affordable housing on county-owned properties.

This provides the detail of the immediate known needs expenditures as proved by approved by your board at the end of October and just recaps what has been what has been allocated to date as a reminder.

And so there was four 14, a little more than 14 million dollars remaining in that carryover to the five-year plan, which you can see in this slide here.

So our FY2526 allocations for the essential services fund total about 88.3 million dollars.

Um then we have one-time uh available of 14.8 million dollars.

So to get into our two-year expenditure plan, as a reminder, when we came to you last month with the recommendation to develop a two-year spending strategy for $34 million annually, aligned with Measure W guiding principles, and we broke it down into three spending categories, and in addition to one-time capital and major maintenance.

And so we worked with the departments to come up with recommendations in each of these spending categories.

So our first category is stabilizing the safety net, and it includes things like health pack network support, Prop One mitigation, Medi-Cal retention, targeted supports for vulnerable communities to get to the 20 million dollars each year.

This slide details the project and which department is responsible, and if we know the timeline in which those funds uh could be deployed.

And so you will see the investments vary across the two years based on the needs identified by the departments.

And this category includes, like I mentioned, health pack and Prop One, Medical Medical retention and promotion and uh supports for the LGBTQ community.

Um in some of these you can see that like there's not an investment in the first year, but there is in the second, and it has a lot to do with timing of current contracts that are um either just been entered into or about to be entered into, so that the contract wouldn't need to be extended or renewed until year two.

In our meet basic needs category, this is where our food assistance and senior services falls.

Um we have a total of seven million dollar investments in unincorporated food security for the Alameda County Community Food Bank, um, food and nutrition supports specifically for recipe for health program and supporting the SNAP education funds that were cut as part of HR1, and uh support for our adult and aging uh services, specifically to reduce the case log backload.

And um there are we've broken down the unincorporated area into two uh two discrete spending buckets, housing stability, tenant protections, and capacity building for a total in each of those for seven million dollars a year.

So in the housing stability um category, we have tenant landlord relations, rental property owner tenant outreach, rental registry, proactive rental inspection, rental rehab, and legal assistance.

And in the first year, it's 2.6 million as this programs are ramping up, and the second year it's four million.

And then in capacity building in the unincorporated area, um, we have 700,000 for CBOs in each year, um, investments in the economic development strategic plan implementation for the unincorporated area of uh 3.3 in year one and two million in year two, the commercial quarter inspection program, a financial literacy program, and depending on your board's direction, potential resources for an unincorporated area manager.

So the combination of both the capacity building and the housing stability um uh areas is seven million each year.

And then to break down investments in one-time capital and major maintenance.

We have resources to um carry to complete the Castor Valley Library project, um uh resources for the food hub, the Livermore Sewer and Martinelli Center, as Eileen mentioned, um, the Lorenzo Theater, the Sonova Sunol revitalization plan, and um money for safety net facilities, major maintenance, um, which uh which GSA has been um working with us to identify the the places where those investments will be made.

So to recap what is in those categories, and this is broken down based on your initial um uh agreements about the types of investments.

So we have unincorporated area, housing stability tenant protections, older adults and seniors are in our meet basic needs, food security is in our basic needs, and federal and state policy and budget impacts is in the stabilize the safety net and um our critical county infrastructure is another bucket.

This breaks down the various um proposed projects and programs within each of those for a total of 82 million dollars over the next two years, two fiscal years.

What we're asking your board to do is to to give us direction to incorporate these recommendations into the FY2627 recommended um proposed budget for your deliberation and adoption as part of our county budget process, and also give us further direction to incorporate the 2728 recommendations into the 20728 early budget process so you can um uh adopt it as part of next year's budget.

And then our plan is to return to you in the fall of 2027 to begin planning for the subsequent three years.

I'm happy to take any questions, and then we have each of our um departments who have been working on this with um with our office here to answer any more detailed questions if you have them.

Questions, supervisor Forts Nato Bass.

That was a lot of information.

I need time to digest this.

Okay, supervisor Miley.

Sure, thank you.

Uh thank you.

Um Amy, the administrator's office for the presentation.

So the first question is on stabilize the safety net, the 20 million.

So 15.2 would go to Prop one.

Is that gonna be enough?

Because we know with Prop one, we're talking maybe close to 60 million dollars that we would need bridge funding for.

So has the agency found the balance needed?

So all we're gonna need on measure W is 15.

Um, thank you for that question, supervisor.

So uh the initial uh funding gap that we had for the MHSA to BHSA transition was about 77 million dollars.

Um the behavioral health department has mitigated about you know another 24 million of that with uh carryover funds, and then um the number that you have in mind is the 52.7 million that was issued in program reductions to CBOs and county programs uh back in December.

So of that 52.7, um, we've been able to find about 15 within our agency.

We think there's probably another six that um we could do without because that might be consultants and training and you know, not affecting CBOs, um, and then the 15 million for um essential services fund.

So there would still be another gap of you know 14 to 17 million dollars, but our team is sort of uh taking a look at that, and we'll work with the CAO's office and and see if there's additional one time that we're able to uh come up with.

Um, but you know, it's a it's kind of a balance of uh figuring out what the CBOs need.

Um I just really want to be also clear that the request they're making we're making of a central services fund is just for one year, um, because what we've heard from the providers is that they need a longer ramp down time or to figure out sustainability plans, and so we would want to couple um some requirements for having sustainability plans so that we don't find ourselves in this space again next year.

Yes, and um I definitely agree with all of that.

Um, but the CBOs, they need to know that they can count on some bridge funding, and they like they need to know that like now.

Uh and we're gonna cue this up at the health committee um in another couple of weeks.

So that's why I'm raising this.

So if we haven't gotten this figured out, please get it figured out because I want to try to have the health committee provide direction on what we think needs to happen and make that recommendation to the board so the CBAs have enough time um to do what they need to do to preserve um uh the staffing and the services and this and the other.

And we can't wait to June uh for that.

Yeah, thank you for that.

And um on May 11th is when the BHSA plan will be at the health committee.

Um, and you know, if there's direction from your board, uh sort of green lighting some of this going forward, we can uh our team is already working on the back end to see what can be uh sustained where and you know, and they're gonna and again, as we said at the beginning of the process, we don't think that we'll be able to backfill dollar for dollar everything.

Um, but there are uh things that we need to look through in terms of what are mandated services, what are lawsuit things that we might need to backfill first, um, what are things that can be more sustainable in the long run?

Um, so there's a whole host of factors that are um being contemplated on the back end, so we hope to have some some information for you soon.

Okay, because um supervisor Bass mentioned that we have a lot of needs, um, and we need to have substantial resources for the home together.

Um, but keep in mind if we don't deal with the the mental health prevention piece, we're just gonna add to the homeless situation.

We might even add to the jail population.

So um we really need to deal with this, and I think um I think the board wants to get it done.

Okay, so um, because I hope I'm not speaking out of term, but I think I think the board wants to get it done.

Um then with the unincorporated the uh the funding it says capacity building seven million.

Is that seven million?

Seven million per year.

700,000 correction say again, it's 700,000, not seven million.

Oh, for each year.

Yeah.

Oh the CBO capacity building is 700,000.

We've we've um included under capacity building also um in general, like some of the other needs in the unincorporated area that don't fall in the in the housing space.

Um so the economic development strategic plan implementation, the commercial corridor inspection, financial literacy, and the potentially the the unincorporated area manager in that, but specific capacity building contracts um with CBOs uh is 700,000 a year.

But you're right, the total for the unincorporated area is seven million per year for a program of 14 million.

So it's uh 14 million over two years.

Correct.

And that includes housing housing um supports and capacity building.

So slides 35 and 36, right, Amy?

And the seven million um have that basically been um uh vetted the unaccorporate services committee or anything.

Have we seen this yet, Lena?

It's based on um feedback that we've received through the first round of um the one-time funding and other um community engagement that we've had around this topic.

Okay, so that reflects that.

And I see you you put in 300,000 for another corporate area manager.

Okay.

That's like you know uh seven to 14 million, and then the capital.

You know, I just hope the folks in the corporate area are okay with um what's being considered um in the amount of resources they're being considered.

funding and other um community engagement that we've had around this topic okay so that reflects that see so you you put in 300 000 for another corporate area manager okay that's like you know uh seven to 14 million and then the capital I just hope the folks in the corporate area are okay with um what's being considered um the amount of resources they're being considered um what percentages is this seven million what percentage of the allocation is it 34 the total allocation is 30 yeah about 20 percent okay all right and that doesn't um encompass the 14 million dollars in capital one time capital and and major maintenance um which is all uh almost all projects in the unincorporated area okay well i don't know about that sewer line that's a lawrenza theater we might have to know we might read need to rethink those those three those three capital I'm just teasing okay good good so we got 4.7 next year and then 9.3 the following year for capital okay yeah plus seven let me see here are we leaving any in the food hub is that the food hub up on Fairmont That's correct so the seven the 1.7 million is that to get the food hub um improved revitalized whatever so it's so we can put it back to use or something that's correct yep okay I'm trying to recall at the unincorporated services if we heard another there was another concern that was raised around capital oh I guess it's the church fire station we'll deal with that later okay all right uh thank you I'm good supervisor Tan uh I'm trying to I I know you're responding to what we had asked for in the prior meeting but I'm trying to like uh reconcile what's here with some of the requests that we got for example from the senior services coalition group because there's a lot of programs that we have here for um food security and this includes the unincorporated area of food security for low income the Alamie County food bank food and nutrition support adult and aging services um staffing which is also part of that coalition request and and we we don't exactly separate out the food programs for uh those are age you know 65 or 75 and over so um that's that's one uh comment I had and the other is I thought we had talked about uh moving some of the uh the tenant protections because they're part of prevention into housing uh rather than keeping it in the essential services fund but and then we talked earlier about the the ARPA funds and how uh like for example the rent registry program we spent half a million dollars but then we're spending another 1.3 million dollars next year and then we're also looking at um providing uh you know the some of the tenant protections that we talked about uh that is seems to me seems to be more conducive to trying to keep people in housing situations so uh how come it's in the essential services fund we moved um about four million dollars out of the essential services fund into home together that um uh that were for unincorporated area um housing preservation and retention um the ones that stayed in here are ones that um cd a determined were um and in conversation with healthcare were a better fit for the essential services fund in terms of um where the resources were actually going um so that's but we did end up moving about four million dollars out of the requests for the essential services fund into the home together fundament so we're we are spending four million dollars in housing stability in the unincorporated area after all of that yes and um um iileen or jennifer might have more details on exactly what those programs are um but that was the conversation between healthcare and cda about what what could fit under the um home together plan yes we moved um four million dollars total from essential services into home together fund for um housing production for new affordable homeless housing these are all for the unincorporated area for homeless housing construction programs and also preservation which could include I think we were thinking it would be around the mobile home parks and the um the land trust funds for affordable housing and so those were moved and just a clarification from the ARPA fund

Yes, we moved $4 million total from essential services into home together fund for housing production for new affordable homeless housing.

These are all for the unincorporated area for homeless housing construction programs and also preservation, which could include, I think we were thinking it would be around the mobile home parks and the land trust funds for affordable housing.

And so those were moved.

And just a clarification from the ARPA funding for rental registry, that was for the mobile home park rent registry from the ARPA funds.

And the new funds that we have set aside is for the overall unincorporated area rent registry that would go beyond the mobile homes to all units.

So it's a I think there are some lessons learned from the current program going into this next program, but it does still require some adoption of an ordinance for that program.

And it's um anyway, it's a new program with some staffing for the rental registry.

Okay.

Um I know we're gonna get a lot of speakers uh because we did get some correspondence.

So maybe when at that time we can try to explain how what we're proposing here matches what they're asking for.

Thank you, um, President Howard, and thank you for the work that's been done on this.

Um so I just have to state I also need to process this information, but I wanna be very upfront with the public what with why I feel at this moment I can't give feedback.

Um, number one, I want to hear public comments.

We have received some letters, but definitely want to hear from the public, but just want to share up front what I'm trying to reconcile, and it's a very long list.

Just when I thought I was done jotting down information, the list keeps on growing, but I'm just gonna list them out because for me to make a decision on this, um, I need time to sit and process, and I also need to make sure that we're um tying in these other outstanding issues, some of which that have been raised, but others that haven't.

So I wanna make sure I'm capturing what's top of mind for me in this moment.

So, number one, um, prop one, having that bridge and transitional plan is really really key.

I think I've been stating that since I want to say we had a work session back in October.

I know I've made it in other meetings, but wanna have a solid plan around that.

Also, in our meeting earlier today, I announced out that this Thursday, April 30th, under the Act Committee, we're gonna hear an uh presentation for the Office of Immigrant Refugee Affairs, the implementation study, and what's critically important in advancing that work.

And I will note that this was a recommendation from a report that Supervisor Vaya authored back in October of 2021 was to launch this office, which we've made some work in identifying two positions, but we definitely um need to play catch up with that given that one in three of our residents are immigrant or refugees in our county.

But in order to sustain the current contracts through June of 2029, that is an investment of 4.6 million.

So I know the timeline's a little bit off because this is a two-year plan, but we've also been very consistent that we need to keep these services in place through the duration of this current administration and then allows for some transitional period as well.

Um, so more to come on that and encourage people that care about this topic to listen or participate in our meeting this Thursday at three o'clock.

You can find the agenda and the PowerPoint presentation on our website, the county's website, and then another area I want to flag is uh I serve on the reparations commission, the ad hoc committee with Supervisor Miley.

They are also gonna be uh presenting their recommendations to the full board on June 30th.

That also has financial asset requests for staffing and work, and then we're gonna be having the care first jails last update in a joint public protection and health committee meeting in July.

Um, so also we need to kind of close a loop on that.

And I'm not saying this to say that we have to fund all of these requests, but we have to know what the requests are so we could do our best to address the needs.

Also flag with respect to that, we have made a significant investment in being able to launch EPIC.

The total investment is $60 million.

It's gonna take over a year to roll it out.

But we got an update on that in uh public protection and joint health committee meeting last Thursday.

Also flagging the request from the senior services coalition and layheap.

So that's everything that's on my mind right now, and that is a lot to process.

So I definitely want to hear from the community.

But I think before we can make any concrete decisions, we have to look at the full picture.

And I'm sure there might be other items that my colleagues want to add to the list.

But this is what I've been hearing from the community in the last three years that I've been in this role.

Thank you.

Supervisor Fortnite questions.

Yes, thank you.

Because it is a lot to digest when as was said by my colleague, you know, we're getting a lot of information and requests.

So it's hard to give meaningful input in such a short period of time.

But I will try to do my best here.

I do have a few questions.

Let's see, maybe starting with the Prop one impacts.

Yes.

So the 15.2 million requested of essential services would be in addition to another 14.7 million that we have found within our agency.

So altogether, that's you know, more than 30 million toward the 52.

Um, we also are taking a look at the um the full cut list and seeing where there are um, you know, managing for impacts on uh programs and services for for people compared to administrative things or uh there was also things in there that are one time um that were one time funded in the previous MHSA plan that maybe we wouldn't restore.

Um so uh with the Prop one, uh I mean sorry, the uh central services request as well as the money that we've already found within our agency, I think that covers about 60%.

Um, but we need to do it's again because it's not a dollar for dollar, um, the behavioral health department, H, and the public health department were sort of taking a look on the back end to see, you know, because we're putting in resources from public health or from homelessness, et cetera.

It's kind of looking at what the programs are, and you know they're gonna need to do some further analysis.

Um, but so we're doing that work, have this amount, um, and uh we've also plan to work uh with the county administrator and our teams to identify additional one-time resources, which may not materialize until later in the fiscal year.

Okay.

Um, and do you have a sense yet?

Uh, because some of the programs use uh MHSA, BHSA dollars to draw down federal funds, whether this bridge funding will help support those programs yet.

That is a question that um I might defer answering after I check in with the team because essentially when a program uh uses BHSA dollars, it's actually the county that's drawing down that funding, the the federal financial uh participation.

And so I think that that goes into the back end calculus of uh behavioral health as they're thinking about the broader system.

So to the but to the in a short answer to the extent that um behavioral health is using uh that BHSA allocation for federal match, then I assume that could continue.

Okay.

Um yeah, I think that is something important we want to look into.

Um, and in terms of the cuts to our health clinics at QHCs due to the state budget and the elimination of the PPS, the prospective payment system uh for individuals who are who have unsatisfactory immigration status.

How is that potentially being absorbed through this funding recommendation?

Because they're estimating a loss of I think 14 to 18 million dollars.

Yeah, so um that particular provision is uh slated to go into effect July 1.

However, we are aware that the um Senate uh budget committee has a proposal to potentially delay that um implementation for another year.

Um I don't know what the assembly is thinking, but so there is a possibility that that doesn't happen right away.

Um we would also want to sort of get more details from our clinics on exactly where those impacts might be more or less because the the distribution of the UIS population is not even across all of the clinics.

So some have more and some have less.

And so um I I would want just more detail on what that 14 million is and and where it hits.

Um the other uh piece with health packs, you'll see that there is a line for um health pack network uh uh mitigation, stabilization and mitigation in FY2627.

So that 3 million would be for uh health pack providers who are also taking a Prop One hit.

Um so that's to mitigate some of those impacts as well as to uh stabilize the the network and and bring on a couple of providers with uh startup funding that we think will be important to stabilize the broader network as we go forward.

Um, but because we've anticipated that um a large chunk of the uh health pack impacts won't hit until the Medical um work requirements go into effect.

That's why we've stacked that funding for the second year.

Okay.

Let's see.

Thank you for that.

Um, you know, just a note um I do want to we'll hear public comment.

I just really want to hear from our providers about what the impacts are, and I know there's a lot in flux, especially given potential state uh budget um support.

So let's see.

Next, I wanted to look at the LGBTQ community support.

So we already allocated 1.5 million.

Um is that not reflected in here?

Is the 1.8 million?

I mean, that's not for next fiscal year, but the next fiscal year.

So the 1.5 million we already allocated, that's done, so it's not reflected in here because this is a proposal.

Yes, so that 1.5.

Um, we're actually uh anticipating we'll be bringing the board letter for your approval to get that out in May.

So the idea is that that funding would be available for that year, so that's why we've not programmed it at 2627.

Okay, and I definitely appreciate um the board supporting the LGBTQ community with that 1.5 million dollar allocation and the AC health staff really working with our providers around a game plan for that.

So I think our only regular board meeting in May is on the 12th.

Is it coming to that meeting?

That's the plan.

Okay.

So before Pride Mont.

Thank you.

And then I wanted to also look in particular at um food.

So let's see, can you kind of walk through again?

There's a lot of paper here that I'm just seeing for the first time.

I think 11 million dollars over the next two years is the proposed um allocation to food security.

Is that right?

Uh we have four um $4 million a year to the Almida County Community Food Bank, a million dollars per year for recipe health recipe for health and SNAP ed and $500,000 a year for the unincorporated area of food security.

And then there is an investment in capital as it relates to the food hub of 1.7 million and uh 1.8 million.

Okay.

So I did want to note that the need for food is incredibly great.

Um, my office has been convening a food sovereignty roundtable, and we've been getting terrific participation, not only from the community groups across the county, um, also from staff.

And so I just certainly appreciate all the department directors who were having staff in those conversations because it's such a huge issue during this time when you know um I think Melanie said California has the highest unemployment rate.

We know that the cost of groceries and other things are skyrocketing.

Um there's so much need for basic things like food.

So I do think it's important to make sure that we at least match what we allocated through the essential services fund this current year for the next year, um two years possibly.

It's just a growing need, and so I am concerned that I don't think this is enough of an allocation to food, so I do want to explore that more.

And then I think others have already spoken to seniors.

I'm also digesting that information from seniors.

So I'll leave it there.

I want to be just very mindful around health care, mental health care, and food in particular.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Just to confirm these essential services, this is a plan, nothing's been spent so far.

This is the plan for next year and the year after.

Okay.

Is this also going to be allocated in the way in which the point in time count allocations are sort of this is separate?

This is separate from I guess what I'm saying is some of these are countywide, some of these are only in the unincorporated areas.

Is that right?

Or is it is this all unincorporated?

The essential services, it's countywide, and then we've designated the seven million each year for unincorporated plus a portion of the capital.

So it's basically countywide, and based on the board's allocation of the 20%, and our current estimate of sales tax proceeds, that would be $34 million a year for essential services fund.

And the plan before you is for next fiscal year and the following year.

Okay.

So how much of this is going to be spent in district one?

Or two or three or four or five.

Or do we know?

Or is there going to be some policy that says we're going to spend equitably so that every district is served.

I would say for the food contracts, they're countywide.

Um not by for all of the contracts, yeah.

Extend CBO immigrant contracts.

We have immigrants in district one.

Medi-cal and health care promotion.

I know that we don't have as many, but we have to those are countywide.

Countywide.

Okay.

So are we going to ensure that the money is spent in every district in the county?

Yes.

Okay.

I guess I'd like to see where it is spent.

Maybe that's when the contracts come, we should be looking at that.

Yes.

Okay.

Because then that would require that people we give contracts to would be able to serve countywide.

Is that right?

Okay.

So we can build that into our RFPs that if we have a countywide contract that they would agree to serve countywide.

And then when we go to see it done, we can confirm that it was done.

For those that will need to be procured, yes.

But some of these are already existing contracts.

Because I would just say, supervisor, that so there's countywide contracts, meaning that they serve the entire county, but then sometimes we also have a countywide strategy, which means multiple contractors across the county.

So it could take different shapes.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

And thank you for the questions.

I think we've all wanted to hear from the public.

So let's get to public comment.

Let's ask everyone who's in the room to fill out a slip.

I think they've already done that.

If you're online, raise your hand.

Let's take account.

And if the clerk could please let me know how many speakers we have.

President Habert, we have about 36 speakers.

That includes online and in person.

I will call the first three speakers in the room and then alternate between online.

We'll do two minutes each.

Okay.

And three and three would be fine.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Once you hear your name, please approach the podium.

Starting with the first batch, Yuri Sean Jose Feneath, sorry for mispronounce your name, and Janice Roberts.

The obligatory qualifier up to two minutes with the optional ditto.

What they said, I agree with them.

Possibilities.

So my name is Yeri Sean, and I represent Maru.

It's also known as Korean Community Center of the East Bay.

And for 46 years, Baru, alongside many CBOs here today, have served our county's most vulnerable residents, including extremely low-income monolingual immigrant and refugee seniors.

And all of the services that we provide together collectively are lifelines.

A few years ago, we engaged, for example, Mr.

Park, who is an unhoused senior, shared that he wanted to end his life.

And this is during a wellness check.

And since then, through social services, case management, meal program, and mental health services, we helped him ensure safety and access and access essential services.

And we're still supporting him today in his journey to healing and stability.

And today that work is under threat.

Um, navigating complex systems, healthcare, housing, public benefits, um, and many more is already extremely difficult.

And the current budget cuts will leave our most isolated elders with nowhere to turn to.

And that's why I urged a board to adopt a senior service coalition's recommendation.

And the recommendation is to invest 17.8 million over two years, because this will help every senior in this county to age with dignity, safety, and support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

What was the name of your room again?

It's Maru.

We just recently rebranded.

We're formerly Korean Community Center of the East Bay.

Thank you.

How do you spell it?

It's M-A-R-U.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisor.

Thank you for being able to really talk and share about Prop One and Preventions.

I know many of you are champions of the PEI, the issues that's been happening to our community.

My name is PSA Finnith, program director of Maru, formerly KCCEB and representative of the Prevention Matter Collaborative.

I am here again to address the ongoing concern of Prop One poses to our county mental health safety nets.

As Prop 1 shifts to state mandates towards lock facility, chronic homelessness, and even SMI population.

Especially with the changes under HR1.

For close to two decades, these programs have been no wrong door for over 56,000 immigrants and refugees annually, preventing the very crisis part one seek to treat after the fact.

We cannot wait for families to become homeless or hospitalized to act.

I urge the Board of Supervisors to prioritize the sustainability of UELP prevention programs by utilizing Measure W and other available Elameda County fund to bridge the gap as MHSA transition.

Prevention is the most cost-effective tool we have to reduce the burden of our jails, ER, and even suicide.

Please protect our community-based organization that have hold our vulnerable communities together.

Do not let Prop One dismantle the prevention infrastructure that we have spent decades building.

Thank you.

I urge the board to adopt senior services recommendation to invest 17.8 million dollars over two years to help support senior homelessness prevention services.

Truthfully, I don't totally understand how this folds into the budget we were just presented.

I can tell you my seniors make marginally like $100 more a month than those who are unhoused, found by UCSF.

This is reports from UCSF.

So I know that if they get our healthy groceries for free, that helps them have discretionary funds and to pay for rent and utilities.

So I'd specifically like to ask you to maintain the increased capacity dollars for senior food throughout the county and funding for food recovery.

And I'd like to give you a direct report from the field on your food recovery efforts.

And the first 60 days following your approval, the end of February, Mercy Brownbag has already secured, picked up, and delivered over 20,000 pounds of edible, healthy food for our seniors in need.

That was money from Measure W.

These efforts helped to counterbalance the 25% cut in USDA donated food that we have seen in this fiscal year.

It is an effective strategy.

Thank you for your support and your consideration.

Thank you.

Marie Alderate and Zoom.

You may unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Maria.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Maria Alderetti, and I'm the executive director of community kitchens.

We feed people who are left behind by traditional food systems.

While the food bank pantry model is critical and very effective, it doesn't reach everyone.

Today I'm here to advocate for feeding our unhoused community.

For someone living in an encampment, a box of groceries doesn't solve the problem.

Without a stove, afrigiator, or a place to prepare a meal, hot food isn't a convenience.

It's access, it's dignity and it's immediate relief.

The food bank pantry model was not designed for people without kitchens, and the funding for this core program is critical to ensure that everyone has access to food.

Unfortunately, the proposal before you allocates zero funding for feeding the unhoused.

Last year, the county provided 2 million in funding for feeding our unhoused.

This supported 17 organizations in every district in the county.

What you might not know is 30 organizations applied for the funding for a total of six million.

So while the 2 million is just a baseline, we need to make sure that it continues.

We have just under a thousand unhoused residents in our county, and over half are unsheltered.

While we continue to have a significant unhoused population, we need to continue this critical food program.

This funding provides hundreds of thousands of moments of relief, dignity, and nourishment.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

We'll hear from Dong Sa and then Alpha Rook.

Dong, you may unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors.

My name is Dongsa.

I'm the Chief Deputy of Administration at Asian Health Services.

Regarding our patients with unsatisfactory immigration status, unfortunately, we do not collect immigration status by patients, so we have to kind of try to find the best estimate as we can.

And current estimate is about 3,000 patients.

Also, we also have over 10,000 patients who are enrolled under Medicail expansion who will be subject to work requirement and six-month renewal.

We are actively trying to figure out how many of these patients will be exempt from work requirement.

However, if half of the 10,000 patients are disenrolled from Medicail, that would be a loss of about uh five million dollars.

Um, and for the UIS population, we're uh estimating roughly $2 million of uh loss in uh revenue.

Um, and we have redoubled our efforts to help our patients renew Medicail to ensure that they do not have any interruption in coverage.

And if they happen to be UIS, then they will they can keep their Medicail uh as long as they renew on time.

Uh, despite all these efforts, we're expecting a large increase in the number of uninsured patients, and therefore we're asking the board to prevent cuts to health pack and support to AC Health March 10th recommendation to use Measure W funds to increase the county's indigenous care budget to ensure access to patients who will lose Medicail.

Thank you.

You may begin.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Alina Farooq, and I work for resources for community development, RCD.

First, I want to thank you for your continued attention to residents in the incorporated areas.

We appreciate your focus on these communities.

Overcrowded housing continues to place significant pressure in many environmental justice communities.

These conditions affect residents at disproportionately high rates and are closely connected to broader health and economic challenges, including shorter average lifespans.

More than half of the residents in these areas also live in neighborhood experiencing concentrated poverty.

Measure W identified the unincorporated communities as a priority, and we appreciate that commitment.

It is encouraging to see this reflected in today's presentation and in the steps being taken to direct uh funding accordingly.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Moving to our in-person speakers, Chris, Kara, Caitlin Chan, and Ella Schwartz.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Chris Cara with Filipino Advocates for Justice.

Your take on the importance of prevention spot on.

Also wanna uh thank you for your leadership in the health committee, you know, as well in support of prevention.

So Filipino Advocates for Justice, we serve a uh uh the Filipino community.

It's it's a very large community, especially in parts of Central and South County.

Um yet um is a community with you know overlapping you know risks um being at risk uh due to the the housing crisis and also the uh uh immigration policy.

Um, without you know, without basically funding uh for our mental health and prevention programs, we uh we would we're actually at a at a point now where we're actually very close to telling staff to wind down.

Um, you know, and our programs are actually at capacity.

And so we appreciate your your your efforts to you know start to fill the gaps with measure W and also find other um other other resources, you know, as well.

Um but you know, for us and other uh underserved and ethnic language populations strongly consider um you know prioritizing um underserved you know populations for these services.

Uh thank you.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Caitlin Chan, and I'm the executive director at Legal Assistance for Seniors.

Um we are a member of the Senior Services Coalition, and we urge the board to support the Senior Services Coalition budget request of 17.8 million over the next two years.

Um this is to meet the needs of the growing older adult population.

This funding will ensure that trusted community-based organizations like ours can continue to mitigate the impacts of HR1.

We are trusted connections for the diverse older adults who urgently need help navigating economic hardship, including eligibility and benefits challenges.

My organization, Legal Assistance for Seniors provides free legal services across Alameda County in areas like housing, elder abuse, and public benefits.

We also contract with Triple A to provide health insurance counseling and advocacy.

This is one-on-one counseling with older adults to help them understand their Medicare rights and options and apply for, maintain and resolve issues with low-income programs, including Medi-Cal.

This ultimately ensures that they can access the health care they need at a price that they could afford.

So I would hope that county investments uh would reflect that.

Thank you.

Hello.

My name is Ella Schwartz.

I'm the Chief Impact and Partnerships Officer at Taversio Vasquez Health Center.

On behalf of our clinic, our providers and the patients we serve, we are asking you to maximize the allocation of Measure W and any county dollars to increase health pack contracts across the country.

Tabersio has the second largest health pack population after Alameda Health System, and our clinics are located in some of the most medically vulnerable communities in Alameda County.

In most of our communities, Tobersio is the only or one of a very small number of safety net providers that offer the full continuum of care, medical, behavioral health, dental vision, and social wraparound services.

This includes two clinics serving the unincorporated areas of Ashland and Cashau Valley, and the larger clinics we have in Hayward and Union City.

In Hayward, 90% of all residents in the city are enrolled in Medical, one of the highest rates in Alameda County and in the state.

These are not communities where other providers are able to step in.

If Tobersio does not sustain operations in these sites, there is no backstops.

Communities go without care.

80% of the patients we serve are Hispanic or Latino.

And CHCN estimates that up to a quarter of our population may be undocumented.

Hispanic and Latino patients and Spanish speaking patients more broadly are disproportionately represented among the among undocumented.

And each month, the Department of Healthcare Services releases data on re enrollment rates in Medi-Cal.

This year, it's Latino and Spanish speakers that are being disenrolled at higher rates than any other race or ethnicity group and at higher rates than ever before.

When coverage is stripped from this population, they don't find other doctors, and they arrive sicker and in emergency service departments at a greater cost to the county.

This creates a financial threat for our organization and is a health equity crisis.

So for each patient who loses Medi-Cal coverage and transitions to health pack, we lose reimbursement for an estimated per patient per year.

Thank you for your comments.

We're asking for a county partnership and maximized that we'll talk to you about the next guy.

Thank you for the thank you for the presentation.

You reached your time, but I have a follow-up question.

Could you repeat the 90% figure?

Um because our office are in favor and our clinic viewers having a lot of time.

90% of the video paper is enrolled.

And there are two large statements.

Okay.

90% of the residents.

I think that's that.

So 90% of 16,000.

We're not including unincorporated in like Hayward proper because that seems really high.

Their population is about 170.

Okay.

So I think we should flag.

We don't, I'm just gonna presume that it could include Cheryl Land Ashland, which is not it's unincorporated.

So thank you for flagging that for us.

I think we need to, if you could just share the source with us because I'm almost certain that's including unincorporated.

Yeah, thank you.

Otherwise, great comments.

Thank you.

Appreciate you.

Next uh speakers.

Thank you.

Moving to our online speakers, we'll hear from Patrick Izer, Krista, and then Blair, starting with Patrick.

You may unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Patrick Iser.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Patrick Iser, and I'm the executive director of the Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Activities League, better known as D Cell.

We want to begin by sharing our sincere appreciation for the ongoing work of this board.

We recognize the immense responsibility you carry in balancing many vital interests for a limited pool of funding, and we are grateful for your dedicated stewardship of Alameda County.

As we look forward to the future of our neighborhoods, we remain inspired by the vision of Measure W, which identified the urban unincorporated communities as a top priority.

We view our work together as a vital opportunity to keep future investments in strategic alignment with that original promise.

Because the county serves as the primary provider of local services for these areas.

There's a special municipal relationship with our residents.

To honor this unique connection, we advocate for a mechanism that ensures the unincorporated community receives a fair and proportional share of available resources.

DCL is proud to provide essential services that directly improve the quality of life for our neighbors.

In close partnership with the Sheriff's Office, our programs utilize a holistic approach by integrating physical fitness, diet education with mental health support and mentorship.

We view these resources as a foundational form of social medicine.

By engaging our residents, residences through this collaborative model, we are working together to strengthen public safety and build more resilient, connected neighborhoods.

While the loss of the 12 million dollars in Hayward Promised Neighborhood funding remains an active challenge for our region, it is also highlighted the incredible resilience of our network.

Through the Eden Area Communities Collaborative, we are proven foundation of partnership that is ready to deliver immediate meaningful results.

While DSL focuses deeply on the unincorporated areas, our services contribute to a countywide strategy that benefits all residents by investing in these areas.

You are fueling a scalable model of community-led successes that strengthens the entire region.

We look forward to our continued partnership to honor the promise of Measure W and to ensure our residents have every opportunity to survive.

Thank you for our time, your kindness, and your leadership.

Thank you.

Moving to Krista.

Krista Lucesi.

Hi.

Hi, thank you so much for this discussion today.

I'm Krista Lucese, and I'm with the Mercy Brownbag program.

I want to say ditto to the Senior Service Coalition's recommendations.

And I also know that you know how much of the uh senior population, how it's overrepresented in the unhoused population.

So please make sure that you continue to keep them in mind.

And just thank you so very much for your passion for the older Alameda County residents.

And this funding really makes a huge difference in keeping people in their homes and just in the quality of their life and keeping them in mind and knowing their stories.

I have the privilege of being able to visit someone who actually, Supervisor Miley has visited with a holiday box as well.

And this person is really right on the edge of becoming homeless.

And the fact that she is able to get some of this free food from Mercy Brownbag program, um, is really what is keeping her housed right now and keeping her well.

She has actually zero blood cells, uh, white blood cells right now.

Um it's a struggle every single day.

And just knowing that the county is caring about her really makes a difference in her health struggles and in her life.

So thank you so much for keeping all of the um the whole county, countywide, all the people uh in mind as you're working out how to give this money.

Thank you.

Claire Beekman Hi, uh Claire Beekman.

Uh I just uh I think I've said all I needed to say earlier.

Um thank you for uh taking my call and good luck to everybody what we're working on.

It's really nice to hear the concern and care what you're working towards.

Like I've said previous, and being from San Diego, uh with our uh we have uh deficit problems, and we're going through austerity as how to handle our issues.

Uh, in living in the Bay Area for so many years and working around Oakland, it's really nice to talk to you guys, and and the work that Oakland's done to address their deficit issues uh has been with a lot of care and to maintain social services.

And you're asking those exact questions at this time.

Oakland does have some good food programs are trying to continue.

Uh I don't know how long it can continue with uh the the looming uh federal cuts in the next few years, but um they can be a resource uh for yourselves.

Uh thank you for your work, what you're trying to do.

I hope you can talk to San Diego as much as possible to explain the you know uh social services as best practices to address deficits and uh we can we can um always put things off and and I've heard words about uh you know monitoring budgets and and keeping tabs on budgets.

We can do we can have a closer check prioritize, we can have a closer set of priorities in place to create more long-term goals of budget savings and maintaining social services in the meantime.

You guys sound like you're really trying for that.

Good luck, what you can explain to San Diego in these good terms and the work you have to do here at this time and with the cities of Alameda County.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll hear from in person, Caronica, Tony, Panetta, and Wendy Peterson.

Good evening, Board of Supervisors.

My name is Caronica, and I'm with Saba Grocers Initiative out here in Oakland.

I'm here to request the board to reconsider the seven million for basic needs allocation and at least consider matching what was allocated for food security for this year for the next physical year.

When I look around the room, I see a lot of you know, water, cookie, food, because everyone needs food, everyone needs nourishment, and the emphasis on food cannot be you know amplified enough.

We all know that.

And I do know that when we walk around the street, we do see a lot of problems, and when you see people on the streets asking you for a dollar or two, feeling hungry, going to bed, not having something to eat.

That can be very demeaning.

It can be absolutely absolutely demeaning.

And when I look at the breakdown for the 7 million for basic needs, I don't see a lot of aspects of the food system being considered.

The impact of HR1 is going to be alarming for all of us.

I don't think one institution is able to absorb everything that we are going to be experiencing.

And the board needs to reconsider that different CBOs that are working in different capacities, addressing different kinds of population needs and living experiences to effectively capture everyone else in that in that stretch.

So that's my take for today, and I hope the board really sits down, thinks through what food security is, what food sovereignty is, and how everyone else can be captured in this net.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tony Panetta, Chief Impact Officer for the Alameda Health Consortium.

You've heard from a couple of our clinic representatives today.

Our clinics in totality serve about 200,000 patients across Alameda County, about 85% of whom are currently enrolled in Medi-Cal.

But we know that we are projected to lose Medi-Cal coverage across significant volume of our patient population.

We do project that the clinics will be facing about 40 million dollars annually in lost revenues.

That's from a combination of state and federal policies, including HR1, Prop 1, as well as the increased cost of uncompensated care for patients who fall into that category of unsatisfactory immigration status, but still remain enrolled in Medi-Cal.

I want to talk to you a little bit about the policy discussion that happened earlier about the prospective payment system rate that applies specifically to federally qualified health centers.

Our clinics are a type of Medicaid provider that are facing rate cuts that no other Medicaid provider in the state is facing.

And that's going to drive at least $18 million in cuts on an annual basis based on the way the state has enacted this policy.

This is due to the interplay with a managed care delivery system.

Our state trade association estimates that if this policy is not repealed, the result will be that federally qualified health centers will only be reimbursed about 20 cents on the dollar for any unsatisfactory immigrant patient who remains in Medi-Cal.

Being reimbursed 20 cents on the dollar is not sustainable for our safety net.

So we wanted to raise awareness about this, and we recognize that there are difficult decisions that you all face today to provide direction on the use of Measure W funds.

We are asking for full consideration of Measure W or thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Thank you.

And to the members of the public, please be sure to enable your mic, please.

And just hit the speaker button.

There you go.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm Wendy Peterson with the Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County, and I am urging you to adopt our recommendations, our funding recommendations to invest 17.8 million over the next two years to meet the basic needs of older adults who are impacted by poverty and the chaos of HR 1.

This includes 2.2 million a year to continue to backfill cuts to triple A contracts and 3.5 million a year to continue Measure W funding for food security.

It also includes additional funding to bolster essential services that help older adults prevent and navigate crises, address mental health issues, and fulfill work requirements.

The recommendations put forward by staff today don't even continue the current Measure W funding levels.

The needs have not gone away, the needs are growing.

And I urge you to take our recommendations seriously.

I passed two elderly women today here on my way through the park, and both of them were not homeless, and they were asking for help because they were hungry.

Seniors tend to be invisible.

The systems don't see them.

And the senior services know how to touch them and reach them.

They are the safety net for older adults in our county.

There is a trusted connection for a really very diverse and very vulnerable population, older adults who need help navigating economic hardship, preventing homelessness, figuring out eligibility and benefits, uh challenges, mitigating hunger, and all the other destabilizing impacts that they're being hit with today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving to our Zoom speakers, we'll hear from you, Spectrum Com services and Titsy, starting with you.

You may begin.

Hello, and thank you, supervisors, for the proactive attention to Medicaid coverage disruptions and for recognizing the urgency of protecting access to health care to our Alameda County residents.

My name is Yui Nishike.

I'm a practicing nurse practitioner and the head of strategy and value at LifeLog Medical Care.

Life Long operates clinics in Alameda and Contra Costa County and serves 53,000 patients and 26,000 Alameda County residents each year.

And we're estimating about 25% or 6500 patients who are UIF in Alameda County.

And looking ahead, we're projecting major revenue losses from two major changes.

The first one is the loss of Medi-Cal payments beginning in July in a few months for our patients who remain the UIS.

The second is the loss of Medicaid reimbursement beginning January for the patients who lose coverage due to work requirements and the six-month renewal.

We're particularly concerned that the patients facing the greatest barriers, including unhoused individuals and those with significant behavioral health needs, will be disproportionately impacted by these requirements because of the administrative hurdles, even as we increase staffing to help support them.

And what I want to be very clear is that we will not we will not stop seeing these patients, regardless of coverage or ability to pay.

And because that is our mission of the FQHC.

But these financial realities are very real and existential.

And we are not, and when we're not here, these patients will seek care in an emergency room in much, much worsen conditions.

And this is why it's an essential for the board to prevent cuts from health pack and instead uh support Alameda County Health March 10th recommendation.

Thank you for your comments.

Moving to Spectrum Community Services.

Supervisors, thank you.

My name is Laura Calvert, and I'm the executive director of Spectrum Community Services.

And I really want to thank each of you for your the current Measure W funding.

It's already making a difference.

From January to March of this year, Spectrum delivered more direct funding assistance for extremely low-income households than we did the same time last year.

We helped four times more households than last year.

Over 1,900 total households came to us for assistance.

Last year we had to turn away almost 70% of the eligible applicants.

And because of your investment with Measure W.

This year, we only turned away 4%.

That is an impact for the families.

They're keeping their lights on, their hears running and staying housed.

It's helping them be healthy in their homes.

The essential services staff recommendation somehow does not include our 4.8 million dollar LIHEAP request.

And I urge you to add it.

Federal funding delays and uncertainty continue, and households we serve cannot wait.

Measure W is the backstop that helps us keep delivering this essential support.

In addition, I urge the board to adopt the senior services coalition's recommendation over two years.

County investments really need to reflect that.

Thank you for all of your hard work.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Halbert and members of Adameda County Board of Supervisor.

My name is Testata Kazadik with the African Communities Program at Parsinational Fort Trauma.

For the past eight years, we've been serving African immigrants and refugee communities in the BAS through the ULP program.

I'm here today on behalf of the Prevention Matters Collaborative to strongly urge you to include ULP mental health prevention program in Major W Essential Service Funding.

Pro POM funding cut place community-based prevention program at serious risks.

These are not supplemental service.

They're often the only accessible mental health support for immigrant communities who face language barrier, fear of system, lack of insurance, and deep historical mistrust.

Program like ULP meet people where they are.

We provide cultural responsive prevention-centered care-interested community space, long before crisis escalate into hospitalization, homelessness, or system involvement.

When prevention funding is reduced or eliminated, the consequences are not obstruct.

They are immediate and visible.

Increased untreated trauma, famine instability, job loss, housing insecurity, and high rates of homelessness.

At the same time, narrow diagnosis treatment system continue to miss many immigrant families entirely until crisis occurred.

We're asking you to consider what prevention actually saves lives, stability, and long-term public costs.

Investing in ULP is not only the right thing to do, it's a necessary public health strategy that strengths community resilience and reduce downstream system burden.

We respectfully but urgently ask you to protect and sustain this work by allocating Measure Wensual Service Funding to LP.

A proven culturally grounded prevention model that promotes equity, dignity, and long-term community well-being.

Thank you for your time and leadership.

We really appreciate your commitment and dedication in the prevention world.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving to our in-person speakers, Kari Malik, David Thompson, and Monica Kirkland.

Please be sure to unmute yourself with the right button.

Nice.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Kari.

I'm a community organizer and healing justice program manager representing Restore Oakland.

I'm also a member of the county's behavioral health advisory board, CareFirstGel's last ad hoc committee, and a member of the CareFirstGail's last Care First Community Coalition.

So when I speak today, I'm speaking particularly about the folks that we organize for and around and with who have been impacted by the legal system and who have serious behavioral health needs.

And I think for a lot of the conversation today, folks have supervisors and our agency leads have named the urgent need to provide supportive sustainable housing to the people in our community with the highest needs.

And a lot of those folks are people with serious behavioral health needs who are currently extremely low-income, sick, living on our streets or cycling through shelters, incarceration, and the psychiatric emergency system.

I really want to uplift the urgent need to use Measure W to fund an incredibly important and missing link in our continuum of care and housing called boarding cares, and particularly to sustain and expand the supportive housing community land alliances projects that create permanently affordable boarding cares for people with the highest needs in our community.

And I know that folks had shared, I think Supervisor Miley, when you were talking about getting us done, we need things that can immediately change the situation.

And SHCLA has projects that are literally vacant and ready to be used by dozens of our community's highest needs people, and we need them to be funded so that folks can get in there and actually provide get those housing and services provided so that we can see that urgent and immediate change that our communities need and deserve.

Thank you.

Thank you, Board of Supervisors.

My name is Monica Kirkland with Senior Services Coalition.

Economic insecurity has grown significantly among seniors in our county.

And there are over 340,000 seniors over the age of 60 in our county.

And one in every four of them are economically insecure.

One in every four.

So those who are 75 and older now have the second highest rate of poverty of any age group.

And at the point in their lives when they most need supportive services, they are least able to afford them.

More than half of seniors who rent our housing cost burden.

And for black and Pacific Islanders, it's more than three out of five.

Homelessness is growing among seniors.

On behalf of our over 40 member organizations, I urge you to adopt the Senior Services Coalition's funding recommendations to invest 17.8 million over two years to meet basic needs of older adults.

Thank you.

David Thompson.

Okay, if not John Poland.

Afternoon.

First, um Gentleman Z Poland, American Friends Service Committee.

Before giving direction today, which is making a decision, you and the public need to absorb the enormous information that's been presented.

This was posted without data, without recommendations, as an information item, raising serious Brown Act issues if you decide to give direction.

It's not clear why you would incorporate Measure W funds for essential services into the regular annual budget and not incorporate Measure W housing funds into the annual budget.

It's totally unclear from what was written.

I also want to share that digging into the data on BHSA funds and changes from Prop One, the county has more funds available than you've been led to believe.

One reason is that over the last five years, the county has never spent more than 75% of the funds budgeted for BHSA programs.

That's resulted in at least 76 million dollars in carryover from BHSA this coming year.

In addition, the county faces a reduction of only 15 million dollars in BHSA funds coming in the coming year, revenues in the coming year, not the 51 million dollars that is being cut.

For that reason, I support, of course, using the 15 million dollars in Measure W funds towards BHSA cuts.

But I also urge you to re-examine the numbers you are getting from behavioral health about what funds are available and how to use them.

Thanks.

Thank you.

We'll call to our Zoom users with EBRHA, then Cassie, then Sengita.

EBRHA, you may unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi, good afternoon, or good evening, supervisors.

Derek Barnes with Ebra and uh also serving the boards of Home Bridge and Home Rise.

Um, just some comments and observations.

I wanted to thank um Jonathan and Nika and Amy for um providing report yesterday in committee meeting and today.

Uh very illuminating and uh kudos for um lots of focus on prevention, prevention, prevention, uh, and then early intervention.

Um, always um good to solve these problems upstream.

I got that.

I think today's presentation said there was 12% of the uh budget allocated for prevent prevention services.

I thought it was 18% yesterday, but that's just a question.

Um, I would also focus on uh where there can be more innovation.

Um planning and permitting uh building and construction, uh loving the uh county's program around shift, um, which attempts to solve some standardization issues, navigation services of someone who sat through multiple district meetings.

I heard loud and clear that we're not meeting people where they are, and having a centralized hub would solve some of these problems.

Um, delivery outcomes.

I think all the supervisors have said this um being more results-based, um, and then developing sort of contracts that speak to the results that we want to um achieve.

I would also like to say that you know, we we've put forth a program of rapid rehab repair and rehousing that attempts to take vacant units that are not activated and activate them, and then also couple that with placement of our higher functioning individuals on the street, which we think that we can do um pretty swiftly.

And you couple that with you know, a focus on affordability uh for skills training and job placement that speaks to the sustainability aspect of some of these programs.

Um just some thoughts there, and the thank you for the leadership and direction, um, and look forward to hearing more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving to Sangita.

You may unmute yourself and begin your comments, Sangita.

Good evening, supervisors.

Are you able to hear me?

Okay.

Yes.

Good evening, supervisors.

My name is Sandita.

I am a ULP program manager at Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, also known as Seri.

I'm also a member of Prevention Matter Collaborative.

Seri works with communities who are survivors of war, genocide, tortures, and all other life altering traumas.

Our communities are facing mental health funding crisis duty due to the cuts of Prop One.

The ULP prevention programs we have supported our communities for nearly two decades are among the hardest hits.

Furthermore, the community survey UELP are the most affected by also immigration enforcement and housing and instability as well.

By supporting prevention services, we are able to support our unserved communities in ensuring that they maintain a stable housing, prevent homelessness and access to wraparound services to improve their quality of leaving.

We urge Board of Supervisors to ensure that these prevention programs, such as ULP programs, are continued through the essential services.

Our communities that are informed by years of development, influenced by the cultures, histories, and experiences of communities we work with.

This is urgent crisis that needs your immediate attention.

We really appreciate your leadership and commitment.

Thank you for your time and consideration today.

Thank you.

Moving to Cassie.

Casey, you may begin your comments.

Good evening, supervisors.

My name is Casey Bartholomew.

I'm a senior program manager at Stop Waste.

Stop Waste is a public agency.

We serve Alameda County, and we're also a coalition member of the Alameda County Food Sovereignty Roundtable.

And one of our top priorities is keeping surplus edible food out of landfills to help not only address climate impacts, but redirect surplus healthy edible food to community members across Alameda County.

In 2025, over a hundred community-based organizations recovered and redistributed close to 14 million pounds of food, which is the equivalent of 11 million meals to community members.

Many of these nonprofits continue to operate though with minimal staffing, facing major funding, transportation costs, and infrastructure gaps.

Um increasing economic strain and pushing community food security needs far beyond what existing funding can address.

So we're really hoping uh that you will increase the Measure W allocation of 7 million in the county's budget for the next two fiscal years.

It's just not enough for these strains.

And we um thank you for your leadership and support on this issue and hope and urge uh that you prioritize 20 million in Measure W funding for these essential food access and food recovery services in fiscal years 26 and 27.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Moving to our in-person speakers, Cynthia Arrington, Lavon Gibson, and Caleb Smith.

Good evening, supervisors.

I'm Cynthia Arrington, outreach coordinator at SOS Mills on Wheels.

I'm representing nearly 3,000 homeboys.

We serve each year, delivering nutritional meals and wellness checks to most of all of our most vulnerable neighbors.

We're asking the support for the seniors, service coalition recommendation for mercy for the Measure W Essential Services Plan.

We do this for our seniors.

Those who don't have people regularly checking in with them and can't afford or unable to get healthy meals.

Thanks to Measure W, we were able to serve every qualifying senior that came to us and haven't had to cut anyone from our program.

We are facing a crisis.

We were facing a crisis last year, needing to cut services right when the seniors needed us the most.

The Board of Supervisors took action in June to save our services for the year.

We thank you for that.

But the crisis is not over.

Measure W funds are also providing additional meals to most of our food insecure clients throughout our with our new AMP program, which provides five supplemental meals each week.

With our new AMP program, which provides five supplemental meals each week.

Meals that are tailored for the seniors, specific dietary needs, and make accessible for their deliveries through our home delivery service.

289 seniors have received these additional meal packs every week, delivering them with the supplemental meals, keeping the seniors healthy and allowing them to stay home.

The senior population in Alameda County is growing faster than any age group.

And the most significant growth is among the 85 year olds and older.

On a personal note, I was blessed to be able to take care of my parents as primary caregiver, both living to 86 years old.

Thank you for your comments.

Okay.

Good evening, supervisors.

My name is LeVan Gibson, Family Services Administrator for the City of Fremont, Human Services Division, specifically for the aging and family services department.

Out of grad school, I had the pleasure of working with adult protective services in Washington State.

I later oversaw APS for Contra Casa County, and now I'm on the services side with the city of Fremont.

What brought me here to Fremont and Alameda County was the innovative age-friendly work happening here.

The county's age-friendly progress is largely due to senior services funding and that that funding stays stable.

Without continued and adequate funding, the age-friendly systems that we've built over this past decade cannot be sustained.

We've already had to sunset our senior mobile mental health program that's been around for a decade and serves over 450 seniors, largely homebound and monolingual.

I urge the board to adopt the senior services coalition and recommendation to invest 17.8 million dollars over two years to meet the needs of the older adults in Alameda County.

The investment extends one year.

Backfield that prevents harmful cuts to the triple A contracts that we hold, including family caregiver support program and case management programs.

Our case managers go out into the field, they interact with unsheltered population, they make referrals to the housing and community sorts program and um and do a large amount in our community.

I respect respectfully asked that you protect and strengthen the services that allow older adults to age safely and with dignity in our community.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Kilb Smith.

I'm speaking here today on behalf of the City of Oakland.

Um we first like to reiterate our gratitude to the Board of Supervisors for earlier this spring approving funding for five very important Oakland housing developments, including projects like Liberation Park and 3135 San Pablo Avenue, which are projected to begin construction this year.

As uh was highlighted in Mayor Lee's most recent letter, uh, the city continues to seek uh continued collaboration with the county on the home together funds.

Uh, in particular, we would like to work with the county to ensure that as there are these upcoming funding opportunities, we can pursue effective city-county collaboration and most efficiently uh using resources.

So greater transparency into these upcoming uh expenditures will be helpful in facilitating that cooperation.

Uh, we also appreciated the points the board supervisors made earlier about the importance of targeting and about uh the limited time that these funds will continue to be collected.

Uh, we appreciate the hard work the county is doing to ensure that there's robust data collection about the outcomes of these measures, and we also understand the importance of upfront targeting to ensure that these resources are indeed reaching the neediest residents of Alameda County according to uh the previously agreed framework.

So uh we appreciate the ongoing collaboration between the city and the county, and we look forward uh to exploring the details in the coming weeks and months.

Thank you very kindly.

Thank you.

Moving to our Zoom speakers, starting with Jessica Montez, we'll be followed by Preet and then Dayana.

Jessica, you may meet your sock and begin your comments.

Thank you.

Good evening, supervisors and staff.

Jessica Montes with Alameda County Community Food Bank.

Uh, first, as always, I'd like to thank you.

We, the food bank would love to thank you for your constant support and investment in food security.

I'm here to uplift the voices and stories of the community.

These are stories of fear and struggle that we continue to hear from not just our partners but community members throughout the county of Alameda.

This is important, especially now, given the current reality happening at federal level, as we're seeing many groups starting to be impacted and beginning to lose access to things like cowfish assistance.

So given that we're now anticipating a higher demand for food and overall safety net services.

Please continue to advocate and invest.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jessica.

Moving to Preet.

Preet, he may unmute and begin your comments.

Good evening, supervisor.

Thank you for your time today.

My name is Britgore Saberwall, and I'm the clinical community program director at the Hume Center in their South Asian program, a prevention early intervention program funded through MHSA UELP funds.

For the past 13 years, my work is focused on the South Asian community, specifically the Punjabi community here in Alameda County.

As one of the few Punjabi therapists in the region, the UELP program has allowed me to create sustainable programs that are rooted in community-defined practices, language and faith-based healing, and other state sustainable approaches to increase mental health and wellness for the Punjabi community.

The South Asian community is often seen as wealthy, educated, and self-sufficient, but the stereotype masks the real challenges many face, which includes poverty, housing instability, mental health stigma.

This model minority myth leads to underinvestment in programs that could support our most vulnerable.

The MHSA funding has been a lifeline for the South Asian community.

Our community-based work provides an essential in breaking stigmas around seeking increasing access to care and preventing substance use, loss of housing, and gathering aggregated data to show the real needs.

Our unhoused communities aren't those that you see on the streets, but their needs are just as grave and just as vulnerable.

They are suspected, susceptible to elder abuse, immigration abuse, domestic violence, and navigate mental health and substance abuse struggles.

In fiscal year 2024-2025, our UELP program provided individual counseling to 108 participants and engaged over 5,500 people through community outreach.

As a member of the Preventative Matters Collaborative and the Behavioral Health Collaborative of Alameda County, we urge you to prioritize mental health prevention program recommendations for our immigrant refugee and indigenous communities as a part of the Measure W funding.

These community-driven culturally responsive programs currently funded by the county serve dozens of unserved and underserved and inappropriately served ethnic and language populations that are at risk amid upcoming funding shift.

Thank you for your comments.

Moving to Diana Montano, you may unmute yourself and begin your comments, Diana.

Diana Montano.

You are unmuted.

You may begin.

Yes.

Hi, good afternoon, our supervisors.

My name is Diana Montano with Eden Power Collective.

I am a worker and also a resident of the unincorporated area.

Every day I see the level of need in our community, which is why it's so important to allocate major W funds fairly so that resource centers like Eden Power Collective can continue serving our community.

We thank you for making sure that unincorporated requests are represented.

And we will continue to speak up for the needs of unincorporated residents.

Please do not leave us behind.

Invest in service that truly supports our families.

Thank you so much for the hard work you're doing.

Thank you.

Moving to in-person speakers, our last two in-person will be Linda Liu and David Thompson.

Hello, everyone.

I'm aiming for one minute, and may I applaud your meeting stamina.

Good afternoon, good evening.

My name is Linda Liu.

I'm the executive director of TCV Food Bank, serving our food insecure neighbors in Fremont, Union City, and Newark since 1970.

We serve families, children, seniors, immigrants, refugees in South County.

First, thank you, supervisors, for including food support in the current Essential County Services Fund, and thank you to the county staff for your hard work on the budget.

I'm here to request your consideration to increase the allocation of food security to at least match the current year allocation.

The need in our community continues to grow.

We see this every single day as a result of HR1 and other economic factors.

I do not envy your work balancing all of these budget priorities, but I do ask respectfully request uh additional funding from the county to make sure that our neighbors don't go hungry because we know that access to food keeps people healthy and access to food keeps people housed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

David.

Okay.

Moving to our Zoom speakers, we have five remaining.

We'll hear from Kayla, then Kay, Tosh, Valerie, and then Jet.

Starting with Kayla, you may unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi, everyone.

Thank you so much for this meeting and for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Kayla Dreyfus Mai, and I'm with All Good Living Foundation.

We connect families with food at schools with a focus on unhoused students.

I wanted to echo uh Supervisor Fortunato Boss's concerns about the severe cut to the food security in the essential services budget.

Last year, the allocation was in the ballpark of 15 million.

This budget proposes five and a half million per year.

I urge the board not to turn a blind eye on hungry families in Alameda County while endeavoring the difficult work of balancing these complex budgets.

I also echo what Maria from Community Kitchens and Casey from Stop Waste said regarding the need to provide food through multiple channels, not just the food bank.

We need to be focused on food recovery, prepared food, and as well as last mile food delivery.

Many organizations in those spaces have confided in me that they were left out of funding opportunities last year as they did not meet the stringent requirements in the RFP.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Moving to Kay.

Kay, you may unmute yourself and begin your comments.

Hi, good evening, supervisors.

Thank you so much.

And again, ditto to uh our the previous speakers who said for um thank you for the stamina.

We've all been here and thank you for hearing us out.

Uh my name is Kimberly Victorio.

I am the program coordinator coordinator with the Eat and Power Collective.

Um, our program, we work directly with families in the unincorporated communities.

And every day we see the strength and resilience of our community.

But we also see the needs that still exist and the importance of receiving a fair share of the measure W funds.

So, with that, we'd like to really thank you because we've heard recommendations to ensure that the unincorporated communities receive their fair share of this funding.

Uh so we truly appreciate the unincorporated requests being represented here in this in these meetings.

Uh, for many residents, like everybody knows, the county is their only local government.

That's why it's so important to continue making sure that these communities are represented represented and not left behind.

So we we're not asking for more than our share.

Just that you honor their recommendations.

So our unincorporated communities continue to be included in these conversations.

Uh, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Kay.

Moving to Tosh.

You may unmute yourself and begin your comments, Tosh.

Hi, this is Tash Wynn.

I'm the executive director of Restore Oakland.

We're based in the Fruitville in the heart of Supervisor TAMS district.

Um, we have three ways in which UEU can utilize Measure W funds to support people who are living at the intersection of homelessness, mental illness, and incarceration.

Number one, to increase increase patch funding to save hundreds of boarding care facilities that are in peril due to budget cuts from the state and feds, and to fund a quick and lean needs assessment on unmet needs related to mental health care that could be addressed by licensed and unlicensed boarding cares, which were not mentioned anywhere in the HHS presentation.

And we hope it can be a cost-effective priority that is taken into consideration.

Additionally, number two, to invest $2 million in the supportive housing community land alliances union project in West Oakland that is ready but sitting empty due to lack of operational funding.

And third, to allocate 125 million dollars annually to create and operate a care first flex pool that could provide 5,000 additional voucher-based housing subsidies.

These are urgent interventions, especially in the wake of the federal budget cuts to housing and safety net services.

Additionally, people who have been just as involved are ineligible for a lot of these services and subsidies through section eight, which is a part of the reason why justice involved folks are 30 times more likely to be housing precarious.

Lastly, many thanks to the CAO for agreeing to submit a proposed budget two weeks earlier than usual.

We hope that you all do not make decisions since we're all absorbing so much information and materials were not posted beforehand.

And we hope that the CASO's office can improve public noticing for the future.

Thank you for your comments.

We have two more speakers.

We'll have here from Valerie Guillo and then Jet Liu.

Valerie, you may unmute yourself and begin your two-minute comments.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Valerie Gallo.

I'm the executive director for the Behavioral Health Collaborative of Alameda County.

Um I would like to circle back to what Director Chagri had mentioned, uh, that Alameda County Health has uh discovered about 60% of the funding that was anticipated to be cut through the PHSA.

Um 66 programs within our uh member organizations, uh 62, I'm sorry, are anticipating final cuts.

Um to the extent that uh the health department can send written confirmation um to these organizations to let them know whether or not they will be funded.

Umperative.

These programs are making staffing and service continuity decisions right now.

So again, a written confirmation of their funding status is essential to provide clarity, uh, prevent unnecessary disruption and ensure providers can responsibly plan for behavioral health services for the people that they serve.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Jet, you may begin.

Good evening, uh Supervisors.

My name is Jed Liu, Debbie Director from the Mentor Health Association for Childish Communities, MJ ACC.

Thank you for being able to talk about a proposition one and early provision.

MHACC provides culturally responsible mental health support in Mandarin, Cantonese, and the English.

We operate the community-based service in Oakland, Castro Valley, and the Freema.

And our one night, which operated from 9 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

Uh, suppose over 2,000 contacts each month in Alambita County.

Participation in our service have been associated with 67% reduction in psychiatric hospital admissions, along with improved functions and engagement in ongoing care.

Last year alone, we have to certainly for individuals who were already experienced homelessness, not just with support, but with real intervention that is stabilized their situation.

I want to share one case.

A young woman experienced a mental health episode and the run away from home.

She was one of the industries confused and available, and the ward was sexually assaulted.

Her parents called our one nine.

They traced her location location near the Freeman Library, and our team worked with Dean to fight her and connect her to care.

She got treatment and returned home instead of continue to leave on the streets.

With all the tips, intervention, her situation could have come could have become long-term homeless.

This is why earning information looks night.

But today our ability to provide these service is at risk due to federal funding cuts.

Our stuff had been reduced from 70 to 13, and one operator pay has been cut by 50 percentage, and still demands continue to grow.

We are asking for use power to sustain this service so the family can reach her before crisis become tragedy.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

President, that was our last speaker.

Very good.

I think we'll bring it back for deliberation.

We're looking for uh direction of some kind.

Um echo comments by my colleagues that this is indeed a lot uh to process.

And so I think we're still doing that, yet our team needs uh direction.

Um I'll start here with Supervisor Miley.

Thank you, President Albert.

Um yeah, because today uh I just want to thank everybody, uh the speakers, uh, the staff.

Uh you know, this is a work session.

And if you think of it collectively in that context, uh the county administrator's office, you know, they've kind of given us uh some of their thinking on what we might consider uh providing direction on.

I think it's more like um uh a baseline or uh um a jumping off point uh so that everyone can weigh in, uh, the public, um, the staff, the supervisors, etc.

So I think if you take it in the context of a work session, uh we're not taking action because there's you know, there's nothing officially uh before us, and we don't take action at uh work sessions.

So I do think a lot's come at us today, and I just think we need to try to figure out how we um capture what we've heard and provide uh sense of direction so the county administrator's office can go back and prepare that and then bring it to uh the board and an official uh meeting um in May, uh, hopefully.

So I do think a lot's come at us today, and I just think we need to try to figure out how we um capture what we've heard and and provide uh a sense of direction so the county administrator's office can go back and prepare that and then bring it to uh the board at an official uh meeting um in May, uh hopefully, and uh then we can uh vote voted up, voted down, or modify or modified based on what's brought to us at that um uh uh board meeting in May.

Um that's what I would suggest May at the county administrator can make that work.

Now, I just want to say that initially, just to thank everybody because I do think this has been very helpful.

Now I'm gonna try to cover a few things.

Uh the board and care.

I believe with Supervisor Tam and I heard a report from housing and homeless yesterday on the um housing first uh uh initiative and you know and um principles uh uh we were told board and care is considered a part of that housing first, and I and maybe Anika could once again if she recalls the board and care.

Would that fit under the capital for 2026-27, or would that fit under housing?

Because I do think it fits somewhere in in the thinking.

Uh yeah, thank you for that question, supervisor.

So boarding cares are an important part of the housing spectrum, um, and they're actually like a housing and treatment spectrum, right?

So therefore for people who might need support all the time.

Um so we have um in our county it's a little bit uh mixed.

So because it's a licensed facility, that facility receives referrals from behavioral health.

Um, and uh our H team partners closely with Behavioral Health and sometimes administers it on on their behalf.

Um I can talk with our team and see if you know, in terms of the the capital pieces, if if that comes along, but usually because there's a licensing requirement, um, I'd have to find out a little bit more on exactly where it falls within the H plan.

But it is contemplated.

It it's a type of housing that we would want to support.

Definitely, yeah, that's what I thought, because I think we raised it yesterday or came up yesterday in the health committee.

So um, so I think that's further follow-up that's uh necessary.

So we get um both the board and the public gets further clarification on that.

Um and then uh I I think the uh uh the the staff I think needs to go back and clearly uh delineate what would be service stabilization and what would be uh supplemental uh food security because I think uh what we're hearing is we need to have additional funds in uh in food and maybe even stabilization.

Um what I'm looking at is the safety net.

I believe I believe we have that covered under the time limited bridge plus a central ongoing.

I think uh based on what was outlined here, but I think uh supervisor Bass pointed it out, and it's it's come up with the speakers that under the food piece, um, there is an ample uh funding there, and I think we need to figure out what additional monies we need to put into fiscal year 26, 27 and 27-28 to uh meet the food issue.

And I was asking the agency director of social services, for instance, with the triple A contracts.

Uh, how much are we presently providing for the triple A contracts for seniors?

And then what's what is the augmentation that's being requested for the next two years?

Um similarly, the funds that's being um considered for the food bank, that would go to augment the food bank's uh contract, but then they would then disperse additional resources out.

Um so uh we need to have a sense of whether or not that would meet the need of what people are saying in terms of you know, uh not necessarily looking at seniors, but looking at the broader population, or do we need to have additional monies there, or do we need to have additional food recovery um uh allocations that are separate from the food bank?

Because I know a few speakers spoke to that.

Um, and at the moment I don't think it's reflected in the seven million per year that we have here.

So I think there's additional homework that needs to take place there to bring that back.

So we have a sense of that.

I'm trying to be well, let's just see, raise hands if you're parked in the Alco parking lot and are at risk of being locked in at seven.

Is any anybody?

Huh?

No, the Alco parking lot that round.

I don't know you.

No, I think that's the music.

Okay, that's the meeting.

I don't know that anybody is is in Alco Parking, so we might not need to do it, Kimberly, but maybe we should just have somebody be just in case I didn't want anybody to get locked overnight.

And so if anybody here is parked in Alco parking lot, I would consider moving your car.

Okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

All right.

And once again, these are just my thoughts.

Uh take it for what it's worth.

Are those questions in there, Supervisor Miley, or just thoughts?

Uh both.

Both.

I'm trying to provide some guidance along the lines of the guidance are based on the questions that I'm raising as well as the thoughts.

Um with the unincorporated area, I do think, based on what we have presented today, I think it meets the needs of the unincorporated area, um, the seven and seven plus the capital of another is it another 14?

Another 14 for capital.

So it's seven and seven, seven fiscal year 2627, 7 for 2728 plus capital expenditures of another uh 14 million.

I think it uh it reaches the needs of the unincorporated, it at least that's my gut instincts at the moment.

Um then I think we we haven't gotten a real clear sense of, for instance, I appreciate what the senior services coalition has presented to us, but for instance, they're asking for uh a near nearly a million dollars in 2627 um and 2728 for mental health, and and I don't know if that would be absorbed through what we're gonna do with mental health under the stabilization piece.

Um so I'm just pointing that as an example.

So we need to determine whether what the senior services coalition is requesting, if some of that's already covered, either in the stabilization piece, as well as if we need to increase additional allocations under the food um uh the food and security piece, as well as whether or not there needs to be additional augmentations to the um triple A contracts, because I I do appreciate the fact that um senior services coalition has laid it out like this, and um for full disclosure, I'm speaking as county supervisor, not as the president of United Seniors, which is a member of the senior services coalition.

Um, but once again, I don't get any compensation from the United Seniors or the Senior Service Coalition, so there's no conflicts of interest.

We'll make sure I put that on the record.

Um and then it was mentioned from Spectrum that a lot that uh they're requesting additional uh five million or four million or thereabouts.

I'm not clear, and maybe somebody else is clear.

I know we approve by heap for an additional three million the last time.

Now it's spectrum asking for funding because they don't anticipate funding from the federal government.

Um and that's and we know that's gonna be a reality, or they're just trying to get into the queue, because as everyone pointed out, there are a lot of needs, and if this isn't a need we need to address presently, then we need to consider that.

Then I would um also state that the senior service coalition lays out additional um services that are needed for older adults.

I would once again want to know whether or not those additional services, employment, um what else?

Um uh other capacity building services, etc., if any of those are presently covered in uh social services, and if additional augmentations are needed uh from social services to meet those needs of seniors, and I and once again I don't know if the agency director can speak to any of that presently, not this evening, okay.

Uh have you seen the service senior services coalition request?

Okay, all right.

Um, because I think we need to get clarity on on that, and like I said, around the mental health piece as well.

Then finally, I know I've said a lot.

Finally, what I would say is if we find we need additional monies above and beyond uh what's being proposed for fiscal year 26-27.

What's uh county administrator, are we proposing $82 million for measure W from essential services for the next two years?

And the over and what was so the essential services amount that was designated by your board on an annual basis is 34 million each year.

That's what we're talking about, the estimate.

And that was you know, based on your board's direction that that 20% of the ongoing revenue would go towards the essential services fund.

Okay.

So if it's 34 per year, that's 68.

For the next two years.

So the so that 82 that you have here, what where's the addition?

Is that the additional amount of things?

Is a capital commitment that your board made previously?

Okay, so it's previous.

Okay, correct for essential service facilities.

Okay.

So what I'm saying is then if the 68, which breaks down to 34 per year, if that isn't sufficient to meet the stabilization needs, the food needs based on everything else we have looking that we're looking at, uh, and we need to have additional augmentation.

I would recommend that we consider taking it from uh the prudent reserve and allocating a portion of the prudent reserve towards this, because the prudent reserve it's it's 170 million, right?

Correct.

And 170 million over the next five years, um if we divide that by five, is 34 million.

So I would take some of the prudent reserve to address some of the needs of the next two fiscal years if we need to do that.

I'm not saying we need to do it just yet, because I don't think we've gotten a response back from the agencies on the request, all the requests we heard today.

Um, but if we did take some from the proven reserve, that's 34 million per year.

That's 68 million there.

And I don't think we need to use 68 million to meet some of the needs that we hit that we've heard this evening uh that we need to try to address over the next two years.

Then I would suggest, and I kind of talked this with Supervisor Bass, um, and I don't know if she agrees with me, but maybe she will.

Um, that if there's overage, we put that into the reserve.

We backfill and put that into the reserve.

So that's just a framework.

Said a lot, I'm done.

I appreciate that.

That certainly is an option, and I was going to mention, you know, the over.

I think there's many different ways to to look at you know, measure W because there's other one-time measure w that's already been allocated that may not be spent in the next year that could be redirected um for the short term if that's what's needed.

So I think there are options if that's the desire of the board.

But once again, I would re-emphasize.

I think there's requests out there that might we might be meeting already in the request that we aren't meeting, and I think the staff needs to do a little bit more homework around what we've heard this evening, so we can determine what's you know where are we falling short, and the board can decide based on where we're falling short, how we're gonna address that if you haven't come back with a proposal, a funding proposal any more, Supervisor Miley.

No, I say I thought you were just warming up you gave you know she ceded her time to me.

Supervisor Fort For the record, I did not.

Supervisor Bass.

Thank you.

Um I certainly appreciate this time.

I'm sorry, Amy wanted to respond to I just wanted to point by point.

You'd ask you'd asked about why heap.

Um there they uh the president's budget does propose to cut the program like it does every year, but as we know, the president's budget is never enacted as proposed, and it is a program that is incredibly important to Congress and they fund every year, just and despite what the president's budget proposes.

Last year there was a slight increase in funding for the LA Heap program, and our uh federal lobbyist CJ Lake anticipates that it will continue to be funded because it's important to Congress.

To follow up on that, I would just like to advocate that they be funded for operations.

If they get more money, then the funding goes away.

If they get less money, we increase the funding.

Can we be that nimble?

Because whatever we plan is just a plan, and they have money in the plan to take them through the end of the year.

And so it feels like we should be able to be able to send direction to be that flexible.

Can we do that?

That would be a policy decision on your board's part.

Um they haven't they have the program has not received federal funding cuts.

So they get proposed, it doesn't happen, and and they get they get funded as part of Congress's budget, whether it be a CR or an actual budget.

So there hasn't been a scenario.

Okay.

Thank you.

Was that it for the response?

Supervisor Fortunat.

Thank you.

Um, this has been a really uh productive conversation.

So I certainly appreciate all the work the staff did, as well as the dialogue among the board as well as the public.

Uh, it always would be good to have the information um in advance, and I hope we can continue to try to strive for that.

I am so grateful that we have Measure W.

Um, I was thinking about some of the other counties who were who are scrambling or did scramble to put measures on the ballot to raise revenue, and 170 million a year is really significant.

So while it may not cover all of our needs, I think it is incredibly meaningful, and we're very fortunate, as some of us have said before.

Um, you know, we're facing cuts to housing and homelessness, which measure W can help support as well as to our safety net.

So I do want to end on a high note and say that uh for home together in particular, I think our um our H department, our staff has done a great job.

A lot of the work of Home Together has been done uh very inclusively with our cities, with providers, um, is data driven, is equity driven, um, is really focused on results.

And while some of us may be very passionate and sometimes frustrated that we're not making enough progress, I do believe that we have a solid plan and we'll make some good progress such that the voters will see that uh these funds are being put to good use for both homelessness and our safety net.

Um I also want to share a little bit of a summary of uh the feedback I shared just so that it's just so it's clear.

Um, I am extremely concerned about the impacts to our safety net from HR1 at the federal level and from Prop One.

So I think that what we have in the proposal around addressing those impacts, especially as it relates to individuals who will lose Medi-Cal, um, to our providers who will lose funding, et cetera.

Um, that is really important.

And given that that plus the state impacts to Prop One and our mental health supports are really impacted.

You know, so much of this is very dynamic, and I want to make sure that we are making these decisions in sync with the community who's on the front lines, whether it's people who access those services or our providers.

So I think what we have here is good, and I want to figure out over the next month if there might be some additional ways we can both track how the landscape is changing, and yeah, just get some um some more engagement, even more engagement with our providers.

Um HR1 as well is also dramatically impacting CalFresh.

Thank you to SSA.

Um, we've been hearing a lot of great reports in our social services committee.

A lot of that has excellent data that's also breaking things down in terms of the need and the impact by supervisor district.

Um I think that's also really significant.

And I want to echo what I heard from members of the public from these reports.

We have allocated this fiscal year 14.8 million towards food security.

If you add in some of the food um security serving seniors, I believe it's about 16 and a half million.

So five and a half million compared to what we are investing this year from the essential services fund is a huge gap.

And I know the need is really great.

Um, so I do want to advocate for addressing the increased need for food.

Um thank you for addressing issues related to the LGBTQ community.

Supervisor Miley covered seniors, and I'm very supportive of really figuring out the needs there and where there might be overlap.

And then lastly, care first jails last.

It's a little bit challenging that that update is coming in July when we're going to pass the budget in June.

I don't know if there's anything we can do about that.

Um, but I do want to make sure that we're also looking at those recommendations that the board has approved and what the needs are.

Um finally, I will say that we clearly have more need than what has been what is available over the next two years for the essential services fund, including what we haven't yet allocated this year.

And so I do also support what Supervisor Miley said in terms of looking if we need to to the prudent reserves.

Um just looking back at what we've collected over the past four years.

I believe the lowest amount we've collected is 191 million, and we're budgeting 170 million.

So it is possible we could use a portion of those reserves and be able to backfill it.

So I do think we should keep that on the table because of the huge need.

And I think I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

Supervisor Tam.

Um thank you.

I really want to uh extend my appreciation to staff for recognizing some of the uncertainties that we're dealing with with TOP One and HR1.

I know, for example, with the 20 million dollars that was set aside uh to deal with the bridging, you know, the first year you're spending most of it in that transition between um MHSA and BHSA, and then the following year you're spending you know the same amount 15 million out of the 20 million dealing with the potential issues around HR1.

Um I know it covers a lot of the programming that uh we heard from the speakers, whether it's UELP, whether it's health pack, uh, we just don't have the exact magnitude at the moment.

So that's why that placeholder is there.

Um with respect to the issues around the prudent reserve um, yeah, I'm gonna quote something from mutual funds.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, and so I don't know what kind of volatility we're going to get in terms of our sales tax revenue.

And so I I don't want to fall short one year and then you know, use most of the reserves to cover that shortfall from the sales tax revenue.

But at the same time, I recognize and I think it's important that both Supervisor Miley and Supervisor Vortunata Bass mentioned that you know any overage can be used to deal with some of this uncertainty in the Essential Services Fund.

And I think that's a good way of looking at it.

And I know that the county administrator talked about the flexibility of you know, sometimes we may not end up fully utilizing a fund that we allocated and then maybe reallocating it to a need that's more immediate in that following year.

So I I think um most of what I saw from the senior um services coalition letter and what I heard uh seems to be covered in some way, shape, or form uh with different overlapping programs.

It's just not completely clear that it's geared toward one specific group because I know seniors constitute 73% of the population if they're over 60, but at the same time, there's also uh people that are from the black community and the Pacific Islander community that are overrepresented in the poverty groups.

Similarly, uh in the in the homeless uh space as well.

So I think there's overlaps in trying to meet those needs with these programming that are not necessarily targeted at one specific group.

So I I'm hopeful that that's kind of emerging in terms of how we look at this programming in the next go-round in terms of how we're meeting all these various needs.

So I I think it's a good start, and look forward to seeing more.

Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you.

Appreciate everyone's engagement on this topic.

I certainly learned a lot through public comment.

Just a couple of things I'll point out.

The joint uh health and public protection committee meeting in July that is to get an update on the CARES First Gels Last initiatives.

And so I'm really glad that representatives were here today to call out in advance to budget adoption.

They're asking about boarding care homes.

They certainly support those efforts.

Right now, I'm prepared to support the items that have been brought up that are time sensitive, but to deal with everything else where we still need more information.

And the long list of items I flagged earlier, Office of Immigrant Refugee Affairs, the work of reparations.

And so I think we still need to conduct a bit of a more comprehensive overview.

I guess my question is how flexible and nimble can we be?

I think we could get to some of these items through our budget adoption, but I don't see anything prohibiting us from taking up the balance of some of these issues in the fall because this is unprecedented what we're dealing with now.

And I'm saying that because we still need to conduct more analysis.

It sounds like there's support to use the prudent reserves, but at what level and what are we gonna fund with that?

So I guess that's my question to um I don't know, Amy or the county administrator.

So I think timing, you know, timing is everything.

And I, you know, we'll just kind of wrap up by saying we heard we were able to share a lot today, and you heard a lot, not the least of which was we have a six billion dollar balance budget now, a four billion dollar general fund budget that has a hundred and eighty million dollar funding gap going forward looking in next year.

We were able to close 50% of that through your board's um visionary leadership in terms of looking at a way to reduce some of our pension liabilities.

So we were able to reduce that, but we still have a 91 million dollar funding gap to close in our general fund budget going into next year.

So on that backdrop, we then pivoted to measure W.

And I guess what I would say is, you know, as has been mentioned, we have this unique opportunity because we have this discretionary sales tax funding.

Um, you know, we still have another four years after next year, and your board has you know already made some allocation decisions around that.

So I think you know what we're really focused on today is the essential services fund that's 34 million dollars.

So I'm just kind of trying to put it in perspective of the larger budget.

34 million dollars is what we came forward with for each of the two years based on your board's um direction.

So I mean, I think there's options, but I think we also need to think of it in the bigger you know, perspective.

And we also don't know the impact of HR one yet.

So I just think we need to kind of keep reminding ourselves of that.

We have a funding gap.

We don't know the impact of HR one.

We do have you know an opportunity that the board was able to create by having the sales tax um, you know, measure.

And I think there's room within that for the board to make some decisions in terms of you know priorities.

Um, you know, I do want to acknowledge, you know, my staff, the department has their staff in terms of the work that they did because it was also not easy to come up with a proposal because there were many more needs um and issues that everyone wanted to address, but we were remaining within your board's principles and guidelines and within the 34 million dollar framework that we had for the essential services fund.

So I just want to acknowledge that that the list was much longer, and I appreciated the comments from the public and our community providers, but we also did not have the benefit of many of those requests as we were considering this to bring forward today.

So I appreciate the conversation from the board and the feedback, and I think you know, we can go back to the drawing board and and fine-tune based on the feedback that you provided to us, including the comments about you know, potentially using looking at backfilling or moving some of the funding around.

Uh uh thank you.

More comments?

Just gone, yeah.

Last comment.

Um, and then I also want to be clear on um, it's not just the prudent reserves, but we we do have other reserve accounts.

I think one specifically was designated the first time Trump was in office.

Um that's also a potential funding source to look at use utilizing as well.

And I think collectively, we need to decide.

I let me be clear, I do not want to spend those dollars down, but I do think we need to look at utilizing a percentage of those funding of those funds.

I mean, I think that's kind of a theme.

We we don't know we don't know what we don't know.

Um, what I do know though is we've had a lot of nonprofits come and talk to us.

How many of these nonprofits have we sat down with department head and nonprofits, your team and nonprofits from social services and health care of what came and spoke today?

How many times?

How many times have you met with them?

Okay for social services for health, uh for health, because of the HR1 and Prop One Spectre.

Um, we're in regular conversations with the clinics as well as the behavioral health providers.

The the ones that spoke today, and we have a community you spoke to every one of them already, uh not in the aging and adult or senior services space because we've been focused more on the the health side of it, but the clinics, the clinics, yes, and and then so that's our providers separately.

How many of the city managers and staff in the cities?

I imagine you speak to Oakland all the time, I'm pretty sure.

But how many of the cities?

How often do you sit down with Fremont and Tri-Valley?

Hayward.

And my do they concur?

I guess what I'm getting at is for me to support this and for me to feel comfortable that our community is going to continue to support this at the ballot box.

I think that they need to see real strong alignment with that.

How many times?

Um, I mean, so I would I need to see more of that to Supervisor Miley's point.

We don't know if we need more.

I think we need more food, but I'm not sure.

The Supervisor Marquez's point, I think we need to dip in the reserves, but I'm not sure how much I feel like we need to see more how these numbers came up.

Is it is it just a percentage formula?

Or you know, I I I also don't see the costs to serve individuals.

And I I've asked for that before.

Um, it feels like we're trying to do a whole lot of things, which is very admirable, but doing too many things and not focusing on the most and like if you what it would be the most important thing to do and make sure we nail that that we the walking zombies are taken care of before we do anything else, and I don't see that prioritizing here.

I see we're gonna go swing for the fences, and I see a lot of planning on paper, but um to the point of a seven-year plan.

I'll give you a 20-year plan if you want, but I'm gonna take it back after year one if I don't see the result.

So I don't ask me for a seven-year plan because whatever I give you, I'm gonna want to pull back if we don't see the results.

And we started this in December of 24.

I would have hoped by now we would have really seen things that that we know work and know um, but then again, we don't know what's going to happen with HR one to Susan's point.

We have to be prudent about it.

So I would like to see more collaboration with our our nonprofits so that they can come and say, we've had input into this and we agree with this plan.

I would like to see more locking arms with our cities to that they can come to us and say, Yeah, we agree with this plan, and I would like us to go fast down the path of the things that we know we have to do, but with a cautious look back that after year one, all bets can be off if it's not working.

That's my feedback.

I'm just one guy here, but I'll finish with, and I need to see that the people in my district are being served.

And if that means we have to do something different in my district than we do elsewhere, then that's what we need to do because this kind of is feels like, and maybe we don't see it till the RFPs come out, but it kind of feels like a one-size fits all.

We've already been told that it doesn't, it might not work for the Tri-Valley.

So again, we're just looking for feedback here, right?

So that's my feedback.

Happy to like feedback to the Yeah, please.

Um, just respectfully, Supervisor, I think that with regard to what you're seeing there, there are, I can assure you, gazillions of spreadsheets on the back end and conversations with providers, and those are like our recommendations based on the work that we all do on a regular basis.

Um hear you on the cities, and especially with home together, we have a lot more regular engagement with cities on that end than we do on some of the essential services because essential services are more CBO-based.

Um, so hear you on all of that, and uh what we've presented to you is to really just sort of uh a best foot forward and our recommendations based on the information that we have available to us.

So another last point I'll make is we have two critical committees, health and social services.

We have a billion eight, subject to maybe it'll get extended, maybe it won't.

Um I would like to the committees.

Do you feel comfortable taking reports on an interim basis monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, measured W status reports with actual data, what's happened, like drawdowns and results.

Like I I don't want to wait a year to get results when we can get them along the way.

Uh yeah, President Halford.

I know um supervisor Tam.

Um she serves on both social services and health care.

And you know, we do have joint committee meetings.

We have them every other month, right?

So we can schedule an update, if not every other month, you know, periodically, but the two committees, two big committees, social services and health care, we meet.

Um, and then I know for a federal health care, we're meeting with the providers, we're meeting with the you know, federal qualified clinics, we're meeting with everybody, um, both at committee meetings and outside committee meetings.

And um, so I think we could accommodate if you want to have have us have a regular check-in.

It's just a matter of getting scheduled for at our joint committees.

I would like that to be a standing agenda item.

If it's a quick presentation, fine.

If it's an in-depth presentation, fine.

But on a meeting like this, I would hope that we could come where my colleagues that have seen this on an interim basis a year from now could say, yeah, we've seen this four or five or six times, and we agree that this is working, and we've seen the results on the ground, and we support continuation of this plan, no matter how many years we approve it or not.

I I want to see it brought to you guys, and you validating it would be a hope for me.

I I as shared social services, I know we can accommodate that request.

I just want to caution the practicality of it.

Uh you begin a program, you need to give the program some time before you get results.

So I I can't say I I want to find out every month what's going on when the program has even started.

Um, the other issue that I wanted to add to what Supervisor Miley said is I I know our office in particular meets with every mayor on a monthly basis in our district and every council member.

And lately we've had um agency staff meet directly with some of the council members and their staffs, just so that there's a common understanding of what the county is doing so they don't like over get overzealous and duplicate some of those efforts through some of their funding.

So there has been uh frequent communication, at least um at the city level at in district three.

Well, I'd like to see that continue.

Thank you for the feedback.

And President Howard, I think Anika said, and I would hope Anika and maybe uh Andrew Ford, they could get together because Anika said through healthcare, they're going to develop a dashboard.

Maybe we could develop a measure w dashboard that would, you know, we could find some comfort in.

Okay.

And I'll just add, similar to what Supervisor Tam said, um, I also meet regularly with uh leaders in the cities that I represent uh with home together, the measure the Measure W Home Together piece in particular, I've been highlighting what we've already done and making sure that that information is accessible.

I've been highlighting what we've already done and making sure that that information is accessible.

I believe it was the March work session where there was a really great rundown in terms of what we have already put out there and committed to in terms of the flexible funding pool, the capital funds, the shelter beds, et cetera.

So I'm really trying to work with my um my districts around understanding what the county is doing because I think sometimes it can be hard to assess.

And with Supervisor Miley chairing uh the CPAG and bringing together the health and mental health groups, um, that's a good space to get feedback.

Um, my office, including um Aliza, who's here and Dave as well, has uh a food sovereignty round table that we're convening, which staff also attends.

So I think there are spaces where there's there's good dialogue.

I think the issue is just that there is so much need, and we're starting, we're we're having to sort through that.

Very good.

That's good to hear.

Uh I try to stay in my lane with my cities, but I hear council members in other districts that maybe aren't in all those dialogues, and they call me up and complain to me.

And so anyway, I know, I know, I know.

We don't need to name names, but I I commend that I commend um my colleagues for doing that.

That's good work.

There's an interesting theme we're hearing from some of the city council members because a lot of the cities are facing budget deficits.

They'd like the county to take over some programs, and you've heard that same thing.

Yeah, but we have to avoid that.

I get I get that.

Yeah, shifting costs on us, we're always the backstop.

Hey, we've had enough uh feedback, I think.

Any last minute comments, next steps.

You're looking for spending of 34 million dollars for two years, right?

Well, I mean, are we all thumbs up on that?

The board's allocation.

So I just you know, confirming the board's allocation of the 34 million for essential services.

Um, if the board, you know, desires us to fine-tune the plan and come back, we would come back on you know, May 19th, which we'll be pushing it to try to get um you know the budget too on the 28th, but that's appears to be the board's direction, so we can do that.

Okay.

I mean, so we will be working on closing the funding gap as well as looking at how to allocate some of this additional funding.

I don't know about how detailed of a fine-tune uh I I appreciate that.

We do want to see it, but um maybe that's where we could get some further direction from the board.

I mean, some of them were you know very specific, like the unincorporated area had more specificity in terms of some of the actual you know projects.

I think others, you know, were a little broader in terms of some of the the program areas.

I think it would alleviate the comments earlier that this was a lot of information.

I don't know that it's still completely sunk in, but if it I don't know that we need another four-hour presentation on the 19th for this, so can it be uh last check-in colleagues, if that's what we're gonna do.

So Susan wants to bring back on the 19th.

We you have a scheduled work session on May 19th.

It would be a work session topic.

It would be a topic on the work session.

You want it to be the only topic?

What else do we have on the uh on that agenda?

So we have a couple of other things that we need to bring forward.

It's up to the board.

Not for four hours, but okay.

It'll be the first item of the work study session.

We'll start at 7:30.

Uh no, we won't.

I don't want to say that because then because then we'll have to start at 7:30.

She'll make me.

No, we're not gonna do that.

And you can never speak up.

Thank you.

Sorry, I can I just make a comment.

I wanted to just clarify because there was a public comment made that we were only going forward with measure w essential services in the proposed budget.

You know, our intent is to bring forward the home together.

Your board has already made some allocations, and so that amount will be included in the proposed budget.

I don't think I heard anybody say don't proceed.

Right.

Well, I so that was kind of just a point of clarity for uh it sounded like you want to hear more feedback and and uh or just more detail on some of the information, but at the same time, for some of the requests that we've put forward were kind of coming up against funding cliffs and need to be able to say, like, can we plan for this or not?

And so just trying to balance what the direction is that you need direction, and you need it quickly.

I get that.

I don't see anybody say don't do any of this.

I think there's different differing levels of questions and maybe wanting to tweak going forward and whatever, but I I don't know that none of this is bad.

I would just add to it, I would like to see the collaboration at least with in my district with the city managers and the their city staffs.

I see it's already going on in other areas.

Miley just wants to know do we need to dip into the reserves and do we have enough money for food and a bunch of other questions?

But I don't think it means don't go.

I don't think I heard anybody say don't go with this.

Is anybody okay with letting Anika go with the things she needs to do?

I I would just ask that you not and Andrea, yeah.

So we don't ask that you not provide any concerted activity, any any action that might be deemed as voting or polling on this because it is not an action item and it's only a discussion item.

Well, it's okay for you to you know present your own individualized uh feedback and comments.

Um just you know, the statement of are we all in agreement is is I guess I'm not understanding that because providing direction means if we're providing if we're individually providing directions, then I guess what this whole thing is about is it's they're already going to do it, unless we all say we're not gonna do it, or how either way it is not an action item, and you cannot take a position as a whole for each of you individually to express your own personal views.

Uh is in that case, bring it back as an action item, and until then, I guess you're stuck not being able to do any action.

Is that which is it?

I guess that's where we're at.

But make it be information and action if needed.

Can we do that?

Well we'll we'll come back and work with on how to frame that.

A work session is in fact a regular meeting or a special meeting, depending on how it's agendized.

You can take action on a work session meeting.

If it's properly agendized.

Okay, then are we clear?

Any last comments?

Susan, did you want to close it out with anything?

Just reminding everybody the you know, multiple things that everybody is balancing in the next 30 days.

So I think that's just one of the you know the challenges, which I think you all know.

So just one thing is certain we will have a balanced budget by June 30th.

We will have a balanced budget by June 30th.

Amen.

All right.

With that, seeing that all work before us has been accomplished today, we're adjourned.