Good morning and welcome to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors meeting for Tuesday, June the 2nd, 2026.

May I have roll call, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

I also need to disclose today that I'll be participating remotely using just cause under government code section 54953.8.3 C3, due to a medical condition I have today that I have to treat from home throughout the day.

Thank you.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

President Howard excused.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Please rise if you can, and we will start with the pledge of allegiance.

Would you like to go through instructions on participation?

Detailed instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines.

A link to the documents 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 worldly link in today's agenda or the QR codes posted throughout the room.

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

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

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

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

As a reminder, you may always just observe.

I will continue when called, you will have two minutes to speak.

Please limit your remarks to the time allocated.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

So happy election day.

Are there any board of supervisors remarks or comments at this time?

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Thank you, Chair Tam.

I just wanted to uh reiterate again it is election day.

There's an important primary happening, and the uh polls, including our vote centers and drop boxes are open until 8 p.m.

today.

Every vote does count.

Um, also wanted to share that earlier this morning.

Myself, Supervisor Tam and staff from our other board of supervisors, uh, raised the pride flag uh here in front of the county building.

And so wanted to wish everyone a happy pride as well.

And we will be proclaiming that later.

Thank you.

Chair Tampa.

Any other board?

I do.

Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Fortano Bass for the comments.

I do encourage everyone to vote.

The voting centers will be open this evening until 8 p.m.

If you were in line, when you arrive, you're still legally allowed to vote.

I know a lot of people are working, so encourage everyone to submit their ballots and exercise their right.

I also wanted to give a huge congratulations and shout out to Michelle Starret and her team here in the county as well as Eden Housing and the City of Newark.

Uh, this past Friday, we celebrated the grand opening of Timber Senior Apartments.

These are 79 affordable apartments for seniors here in the city of Newark.

Really proud that we were able to utilize 5.4 million dollars in Measure A1 bond funds as well as $3.2 million in Alameda County home funds.

Um my team and I were there.

I encourage you to watch the video on our social media.

We had a chance to actually tour a couple of the apartments and interact with the seniors, and they are beyond ecstatic to live in this amazing uh apartment.

They definitely have built already a strong sense of community.

So just congratulations to everyone who's made that possible.

This is another demonstration of our investments being utilized and being put to work in housing much needed uh community members in our community.

So thank you and congratulations to all.

Thank you for those comments.

Uh are there any other board comments?

Hearing none, I will go to public comments on closed session items.

These are just on closed session items.

Do we have speakers?

We have one in person for closed session.

Simeu Raimi.

Good morning, I'll be kind.

My name is Simeon Ray.

I'm with the National Homeless Union with General Health Outreach for Independent Living.

But we have a more thing is sad.

I just finished I was in Chicago in January.

I had to remember if you could say it over and over.

A man we're in a house with no heat in close there.

But it is no good.

No the job, the money is not going to the people.

It's going to people is not doing anything.

Need to get to people just doing anything, so we can keep this going.

It's a breakdown society.

You have an abbot in China.

Got 27 years in prison.

I abbot it's a red world and guy.

We gotta go back to God.

Gotta go back to good things.

Can't go back for money.

We have to go for the call.

Gotta love hug your brother and sisters.

This is wrong.

Yeah, people out there can't take care of you, but you got to walk in the street.

You spend two blocks away.

Just not right.

Yeah.

They can't help themselves.

Yeah, all four worked all their life.

They're taking a house and raising taxes and stuff like the door ministry.

This is wrong.

The government has to stop.

So her saying this, if you got her money, you ain't doing right.

You got people living there, don't suppose to be there.

You're going to jail.

I have him in Little Rock.

He's in Little Rock right now.

When I left, he came.

I told him when I come over, he's coming here.

We're going around the country from clean house.

It's wrong.

Have people on the street that needs to housing people to get the house and don't need it.

They can walk around around.

Yeah, old folk can walk.

Be homeless.

So that's it.

I don't try to disrupt your organization.

I just come here and do what I do.

Thank you.

Sharice McBride.

You have two minutes.

Go ahead, please.

Hi.

My name is Dr.

Sharissa McBride.

I'm here to speak on behalf of the agenda item about the closures of the deaf counseling and community services having the funding from Alameda County.

This is for closed session items only.

Okay.

I guess I misunderstood.

There are no more speakers.

Thank you.

At this time we will recess the closed session.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We are reconvening from closed session.

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

Supervisor Marquez present.

Supervisor Tam present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas, excuse President However.

Present.

We have a quorum.

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

Yes, Mr.

President, there's one item to report out.

On May the 12th, 2026 in closed session in the matter of Ronald Milton Poole, aka Sabir, Jamil Almansor, United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, case number 25-4175, WJL 13.

Your board voted to authorize the retention of the bankruptcy firm of Cornfield, Nyberg, Bendez, Cooner, and Little PC to represent the county in the matter.

The vote was unanimous with supervisors Halbert, Tam, Miley Marquez, and Fortunato Boss voting yes.

We have no other reportable action taken in closed session today.

Thank you very much.

The next item before us is public comment on all items on the agenda except those listed as set matters.

We have one o'clock set matters items listed.

Those are not for public comment now.

We will take those up at that time.

Public comment on all items except one o'clock set matters.

Um I'll ask the clerk to uh well ask members of the public online.

Now would be the time to raise your hand if you're looking to comment on items on the agenda, except for those listed as set matters, and I'll ask the clerk to please count the number of speaker slips that we have and count the number of hands raised so that we have a good gauge.

We have 10 in person, and we have 10 online.

Very good.

Um we'll allow two minutes up to two minutes for each speaker, calling the first three in the room and then rotating to online and alternating back and forth.

The first three in person, Mark Evanov speaking on item 62, Simeu Rainey, item 14 and 15, Glenn Kirby item 62.

Caronika item 86.

Honorable members of the board, thank you for this opportunity to speak.

I would urge you to vote no on an item 52.

This is to execute a contract in the uh terms of the informal RFP, um 902725, to have a campaign analysis and strategy development, just build up high-level strategic recommendations for election outreach to overturn for measure D, and describe a strategy that will develop to focus voter attention on measure D, specific election strategy recommendations, and provide recommendations for ballot arguments.

This is far more than a poll, it's not appropriate to use public funds to um prepare a ballot strategy to amend Measure D and to give that authority with the board of supervisors.

Thank you very much.

Members of the board, I'm Glenn Kirby, and Hayward.

Um, same topic as the previous speaker.

Item 62 is a um RFP to um uh it's presented as a polling opportunity.

But uh looking back at my time in the planning commission in my years in another city in the East Bay, um, generally, if there is a document that's going to be referred to in the staff report, it's included as an attachment.

It was not included in the staff report, but looking at the actual RFP, it's clear from the language that the intent is to do polling analysis and actually a strategy to essentially re-establish the board as the legal authority to amend the East County area plan, which is contrary to the intent of uh Measure D, the voters initiative that was passed in 2000 and amended again and brought up to date in 2022.

It's not appropriate for public money to be spent on developing a strategy that will become a campaign to um overturn or uh nullify the will of the voters in that campaign.

So I urge you to vote no.

Hi, good afternoon, board of this.

My name is Caronica and I'm with Saba Goshes Initiative.

We're out here in Oakland providing corner stores with fresh produce and affordable and healthy board use.

And I would like to say thank you to the board for considering a revision of the Measure Wential Funds last month.

And I would like to say that I'm as an organization that runs a market match program.

We are at the brink of reducing our services because of lack of funding, and I'm hoping that this may revise continuous to support market match programs in the county because access to fresh food use also contributes to people having the choice to choose what's healthy for them, and that affects the health.

And so thank you very much for item 86.

Thank you.

John Lindsay Poland, go ahead, you have two minutes, please state the item you're speaking on.

Good morning, uh afternoon.

I'm speaking on uh item 18, which is supposed to be bridge funding for uh groups, CBOs, uh, the many that have been impacted by cuts in uh behavioral health services act funding.

Um, there's a been a board letter that's supposed to be posted, but it's still not posted.

So I guess I'm wondering whether someone is going to pull this item.

Um, because there's no board letter with that item.

Um, as you know, many uh services depend on that funding, and many CBOs around the county are laying people off.

There are some are even closing their doors because they have no commitment from the county as to what is going to happen, even though um the behavioral health has been working on bridge funding.

Uh, if if it is being pulled, I hope you would give some direction to healthcare services and behavioral health to communicate with those CBOs about what is going to occur, and give some commitment about it.

Um, in particular, uh many of us are very concerned about um uh bridge funding for uh FERC, which uh provides family services, the family carever and advocacy support office that operates out of John George, the supportive housing community land alliance, which has some funds we understand in the bridge funding, but um not enough in order to um make a licensed boarding care in West Oakland called the union actually go forward.

Um, so hoping that uh from the Dais and and separately um you as supervisors will communicate the urgency of communicating with those who are impacted by these funds this funding um by health care services and behavioral health.

Thanks so much.

Alison M.

You have two minutes.

Go ahead, please.

State the item you're speaking on.

Hello.

Alison Monroe here with FASME.

I'm speaking on items 17 and 18, which together I've been looking at to try and figure out what programs again are being cut for reasons related to the Behavioral Health Services Act and Proposition One.

Um, the programs I'm concerned about include ones mentioned by the last speaker, for example, the supportive housing community land alliance, uh FERC, the family education resource center, um, the family advocacy project at John George, and the some wellness centers belonging to BACs, including one used by the guy that sleeps on my couch.

So we would like to know whether these things are going to be cut or not.

We've been wondering for weeks.

Uh the materials discussed and the discussions we had at the health committee and at recent board meetings, don't tell us what's going on.

As John Lindsay Poland said, the letter that was supposed to explain all this was not attached to the agenda.

And so perhaps it might be a good idea to pull this from the agenda until we can get a written statement of what's in and what's out.

Thank you very much.

Tamara, you have two minutes to speak.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

Hi, yes.

Um, I'm I'm here on behalf of Friends of Open Space and Vineyards, and I'm speaking on item 62.

Spending money on a poll to change measure D is an unnecessary expense.

Tri-Valley Conservancy just completed a poll of Tri-Valley residents, those who are most impacted by changes to Measure D and found high levels of support across all demographics for open space protection and urban growth boundaries.

Agriculture was supported, but to a lesser degree.

In view of these findings, the board should be wary of spending money on a poll that will likely end up telling you what we already know.

A more productive approach would be to do what worked in 2022 when stakeholders work together to come up with reasonable amendments to Measure D that were widely supported by the voters.

If the agricultural community is seriously interested in updating Measure D, the best thing would be to sit down and come up with workable solutions with stakeholders.

This could be run through the AAC with county staff support.

If necessary, the money that would go to a poll could be spent on professional a professional mediator.

Since the staff report does not mention the nature of the amendments to be polled, I am also concerned about a potential effort to get measure D.

Certainly, the right to vote on substantive changes protects the people from the influence of special interest money at the board level.

People should not be asked to give up voting rights in this day and age.

This should not be a potential amendment question.

Complete transparency is needed as to any poll conducted.

The board should not approve any poll on measure D without disclosing the nature of the amendments to be considered and how these questions will be framed.

This idea needs more consideration.

Please do not move forward with a poll at this time.

Thank you.

Please say the item you're speaking on.

Yes, I am speaking on uh item number 62 and item number 150.

Um item number 62.

Um I am support 100%, and I hope the board supports um the um uh survey to go out and see what they think of measure D.

It was adopted over 25 years ago.

A lot of the people that voted for it are not even alive today.

I'm a rancher in the area.

Um, I also um very much involved in the agriculture area, and measure D has not in any way showed helped agriculture.

So if there's something that we could do through a um a poll to find out how to help agriculture, I am all for it.

And it's time to revisit it.

It's um needs to be a little bit more um evolutionary and um it evolved with time and what's going on.

It the FAR, there's so many unattended consequences.

I heard one of them yesterday um at the meeting regarding a um a walkway.

It was unbelievable.

It was uh considered under the FAR.

There's so many unattended consequences that need to be changed.

The next item quickly is on item 150.

We vote for our supervisors.

We have confidence in our supervisors.

I'm getting doggone tired of Sacramento.

So that item is on that item's a one o'clock set matter.

I'm sorry for the caller.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I'm sorry, I'll go back to measure D then.

Let's uh let's get this survey done, see what we got to do to approve it.

Um, and um and move on.

Uh agriculture needs it, and um uh please vote for it.

It's long overdue.

Let's get this um survey done.

Okay, thank you guys.

Thank you.

Shirley, you have two minutes.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

Thank you.

Uh, I'm my name is Shirley Londowski, a 39-year resident of Dublin.

I want to publicly comment on item number 62 on the agenda regarding Supervisor Howbert's request to spend 149,000 100 to poll county residents about changes to measure D.

This is a misuse of taxpayer money, my money.

Who whatever entity wants this poll to be done by a consultant should privately pay for it and not use public funds.

I request the board not approve using 149,100 of taxpayer money to poll county residents.

In the past, when there's been a concern about Measure D, the Board of Supervisors appointed a working group of constituents to meet and consider what amendments might be appropriate and reasonable.

If consensus is reached, then a recommendation could be made to the Board of Supervisors to draft an amendment to Measure D.

In the early 2020s, consensus was reached and Measure D 2022 was drafted, put on the ballot and approved by 70% of those casting votes.

That's how it should be done again this time.

It should be done right.

Board of Supervisors, do the right thing.

Don't spend our money unwisely and irresponsibly.

Thank you.

The last five in-person speakers are Chris Kara, item 18, Margo, item 18, Alyssa, item 18, Aheed, item 18, and I say item 18.

Hello, this is Chris Caro with Filipino Advocates for Justice.

We are part of the Prevention Matters Collaborative who serve underserved ethnic language and populations, UELP.

We are taking taken aback by how item 18 is stated.

We were led to believe that programs impacted by Prop One will be provided Measure W Essential Bridge funding.

However, we are finding out today that the provider list is incomplete and missing 10 UELP programs, including Maru, formerly Korean Community Center of the East Bay, my organization, Filipino Advocates for Justice, Siri, the Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, the Hume Center, the International Rescue Community, the Afghan Coalition, Bay Area Community Health, Partnership and Trauma Recovery, and Richmond Area Multiservices and Asian Health Services.

We serve communities, most destabilized by impacts to Prop 1, HR1, immigration enforcement, and the housing crisis, and are particularly disappointed in the lack of transparency.

County Healthcare Services has shown through the process.

We are also concerned that the early intervention option by County Behavioral Health fundamentally changes these programs effectively, eliminating prevention.

We ask that the board work with uh county behavioral health to fully restore prevention during the bridge period, and that um other funding sources such as the reserved or any other unspent funds be used to keep UELP prevention programs whole.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisor.

I'm PSA Finnith, program director for MARU, formerly KCCEB, and representative of the Prevention Matter Collaborative speaking on agenda.

Agenda item 18.

Um, we definitely oppose agenda item 18.

We have advocated our prevention matter collaborative for UVOP prevention for the last two years.

We have been here months after months and also meeting each of you individually.

But looking at the bridge fund attachment exhibit A, again, many UVLP prevention organizations are missing.

Maru, formerly KCCEB, Filipino Advocate for Justice, Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, Hume Center, International Rescue Committee, Afghan Coalition, Bay Area Community Health Partnerships and Trauma Recovery, Richmond Area, Multi-Services, and Asian Health Services.

The opt-in was not a real choice.

When Prop 1 restructured MHSA to BHSA, it eliminated prevention funding with no breach funding, no replacement grant, no alternative pathway.

Organization like our transition into early intervention Medicare model, not because it fits our works, but because it was the only way to keep our doors open and our staff employed.

This was survival, not endorsement.

The early intervention model is fundamentally different from prevention.

It required medical enrollment and a clinical diagnosis.

By definition, exclude the people prevention is designed to reach undocumented residents, the uninsured, and people not yet in crisis.

UERP prevention has been eliminated effectively.

BHSA transfer prevention to the state with no local continuity continuity of guaranteed decades of built trust, language access, and community relationships are being dismantled, and they cannot be rebuilt overnight.

The community is bearing this loss are African American communities, Latin X, A Southeast Asians, immigrants, refugees, and other indigenous communities.

This is a public health crisis in the making.

We urge the board to restore UELP funding, prevention funding from Azure With Reserve or other means necessary, including the 10 organizations that transition into EI and provide stability while long-term solutions developed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have been a deaf uh and hard of hearing educator for the last 26 years.

My daughter is deaf.

She came to me through the foster care system after moving from Guatemala at 11 years old with zero language.

She had never been diagnosed as deaf.

She came to me after abuse with by her father, and she still had very little language because of being in and out of school because of the abuse.

When she came to me, she was placed at the school for the deaf.

Since that time, she has been doing counseling with DCCS.

Their funding is going to end with this measure.

They have made it possible for her to communicate her feelings, her comprehension, and things that she would never have made it to without those services.

She graduated high school on Friday with far more understanding of what that means than she would have without DCS.

When she came to me after the abuse, she needed therapy.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alyssa Lamont, and I am a clinical case manager with the Deaf Community Counseling Services Program.

I've had the privilege of working closely with deaf and hard of hearing individuals and their families and have seen firsthand the impact this program has in our community.

As a hearing clinician who signs, I have seen how important it is for clients to feel understood, respected, and connected.

While I continue to learn and grow my ASL skills, being able to communicate directly with clients has helped build trust, straightened therapeutic relationships, and improve engagement services.

Many of our clients have shared that in DCCS.

It's one of the few places where they see they feel seen, heard, and supported.

CCCS provides more than counseling.

We help clients navigate housing, medical care, education, benefits, and other systems that can often be difficult to access.

For many individuals, we are bridged to resources and support that they might not otherwise receive.

The deaf and heart of hearing community deserves equitable access to mental health services.

Program like DCCS are not allegory.

They're a necessity.

I urge you to consider the importance of preserving specialized services that ensure deaf and hard of hearing that is as accessible, culturally informed, and effective.

It's time for us to listen with our eyes, not just with our ears.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, board and super board of supervisors, clerks, staff, and community members.

My name is Ide Palamena, and I've had the privilege of working with Felton Institute for 22 years.

Of all the programs I've served, deaf community counseling services has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.

I come before you not only as an employee, but as a mother of children of different abilities, an advocate, supporter, and a community member who believes deeply in serving others.

Through this work, I have witnessed firsthand the importance of providing cultural, linguistically accessible services to the deaf and hard of hearing individuals and their families.

While my role is as an administrative manager, I expanded my responsibilities and became a community health worker because I saw a need that was not being fully met.

As a bilingual Spanish speaker, I assisted parents, caregivers, and family members in navigating services and completing intake paperwork in their native language, helping remove barriers and improve access to care.

What I learned through this work is accessibility is not simply about meeting a requirement, is about identifying gaps, listening to the community, and creating solutions.

When I saw a crack in the foundation, I worked to help repair it.

That is exactly what this program has done for the deaf community.

Today I respectfully ask to consider providing bridge gap funding to allow these critical services to continue while long-term solutions are explored.

This would help prevent disruption in care and ensure that deaf and hard of hearing individuals do not lose access to specialized supports they depend on.

Every person has value, dignity, and purpose.

I respectfully ask that you consider.

We'll have on this deaf and hard of hearing individuals and their families and the community.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and to your commitment to the community.

Thank you.

God bless.

Good afternoon.

I would like to comment on item 62.

My name is Donna Cadvan.

I live in Livermore.

I am also an executive committee member for Sierra Club Tri-Valley Group.

We urge you to vote no.

We oppose spending 149,000 of public funds on a survey.

What a waste of money.

In the past, best practice has always been to form a working group of constituents who study and evaluate what amendments might be reasonable for any changes to Measure D.

This consensus is reached at the working group level.

New recommendations could be made to the Board of Supervisors.

This has worked very successfully in the past, and using a working group for possible amendments is a much better option.

We are experiencing difficult economic times.

$149,000 would be much better spent helping the homeless and those with urgent health and medical needs, many as many speakers have mentioned today.

This is not the time to be wasting $149,000.

Secondly, the proposal should not be eligible for a waiver.

This proposal should have to follow normal competitive process.

There is no emergency on this issue.

There is no reason to make exceptions.

Again, we urge you to deny the hundred and forty thousand dollar poll.

And it's here to the required competitive process.

No waiver, no funding.

Thank you very much for your time.

You have two minutes, please state the item you're speaking on.

This is Jean King.

I am speaking on item 62.

And I agree with the points that Mr.

Kirby has made and Tamara has made, and Shirley has made, and Donna has made.

So I will not repeat all of those, but I do want to emphasize the fact that they're going about this in the wrong way.

You don't conduct a poll now.

You usually conduct a poll when you've got your ballot measure already, and you want to see what you need to do to get it passed.

What you need to do now is to get in conversation with all the stakeholders that are interested in this, the ranchers.

And I sympathize very much with that rancher who says maybe there is something on measure D that needs to be changed, but you don't do this with the public poll.

You go out and talk to the stakeholders, get them together, and find out what kind of things do you really want changed.

It's much too early to have a poll of the community who might be voting on this.

We've done this many times before, and I know that um Supervisor Miley has been around for many years, and he has organized these stakeholder meetings.

We had one where we got together, ranchers, uh, grape growers, um, different people, and they couldn't come up with a consensus.

They couldn't come up with something that they thought would help them that would do.

So nothing happened with that.

Later on, we got stakeholders who were interested in the equestrian things, that they needed a bigger arena shelter.

So we got hold.

What did you exactly need?

How would it work?

And so that went forward.

You've got to get down to the nitty-gritty of things, and also like when we changed it so that there would be more floor ratio for the winery people and they needed it.

It was needed, it was worked out, it could do, and it worked.

You're going about this the wrong way.

Let's get those stakeholders together, decide what you want to do, and then spend a whole $149,000 some other way.

So do not do this.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Uh I'm speaking on item number 62.

Um, I'd like to thank the Board of Supervisors for allowing me to give some public comment.

Uh I know you've had quite a few testimony from some other individuals that are against uh item number 62.

The the nitty-gritty of this whole thing is that the ag industry has been impacted.

You have heard in previous meetings uh from numerous agriculturalists in East County and Alameda County in general that have been impacted by Measure D.

Um, I don't have a fancy organization name like Friends of Open Space and Vineyards, but what I do have is boots on the Ground, uh boots on the Ground from a family that's been in Alameda County since the late 1880s.

That's participated in agriculture since that time.

There has been no other times in this county that's been so detrimental since Measure D has been put in place.

Um, it was touted as save agriculture and Open Space.

Measure D, as you've heard for many years has not protected AG.

And my question, I guess, to the board is an understanding of what's wrong with performing research.

What's wrong with being educated in a topic and how a topic might work, which is a key to good governance.

I would say agriculturalists are not special interest.

As some of the previous speakers have touted, uh, agriculturalists are the people that put food on everybody's plate, the local agriculturalist uh provide food at farmers markets and bring a true farm to table aspect, which is being detrimented by Measure D.

Special Interest is a Sierra Club, special interest, our friends of open space.

So I hope that the board can move forward with item 62 and protect agriculture and the people that aren't special interest and true agriculturalists.

Thank you.

Kelly, you have two minutes, please state the item that you're speaking on.

Good afternoon, President Halbert, and members of the board.

I'm speaking on behalf of Mission Peak Conservancy regarding item 62.

Unlike the anonymous previous speaker, um, you know my name, and um, we asked the board to reject the contract with uh team civics.

This is not a public survey, not education.

It's developing a political strategy and hiring a put campaign manager.

The county's own administrative code, section 4.12.040 limits informal bid procedures to contracts of 100,000 or less.

This contract is 149,000.

Using an informal solicitation for a contract this size was improper from the outset.

The county received one bid, found that exceeded the informal threshold, canceled the solicitation, and then simply awarded the contract to that same single bidder, anyway, asking the board to waive competitive bidding after the fact.

That is not a cure, that is a bypass.

Section 4.12.090 of your own administrative code makes contracts awarded in violation of this chapter voidable by this board.

We respectfully ask you to exercise that uh that option today.

This contract concerns potential amendments to Measure D, a voter-approved open space protection.

The public deserves transparency, and real competition in bidding processes.

Um, you know, that's why you have competitive bidding and you shouldn't bypass it.

Please reject item 62 and direct your staff, general services agency, um, community development agency uh to conduct a proper formal procurement and bidding process.

Thank you.

You have two minutes, please state the item you're speaking on.

Please unmute and state the item you're speaking on.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Uh good afternoon, supervisors.

Thank you for your time today.

My name is Bree Thorsepperwell.

I'm the clinical community program director at the Hume Center in their South Asian program.

I'm here to speak um in uh in collaboration with the Prevention Matters Collaborative about the MHSA UELP prevention funds.

I'm here to urge a no vote on item 18.

As I look at the bridge funding exhibit A, many UELP prevention organizations are missing.

Maru, formerly KCCEB, Filipino Advocates for Justice, Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, Hume Center, International Rescue Committee, Afghan Coalition, B area community health partnerships and trauma recovery, Richmond Area Multi-Services, DHTI and Asian health services.

With the transition to BHSA, the EI opt-in for UELP programs has changed our program to a medical treatment program.

We are only provided with 10% of outreach and engagement capacity for communities that are already unserved and underserved, creating devastating reality that many will have little to no access to mental health services at all, which is contrary to the county's priorities and the state's commitment to equity and access for vulnerable communities.

We are appreciative of Alameda County Behavioral Health for keeping us whole next year.

However, we are being asked to change our service delivery.

So we aren't preserving our UELP prevention program services.

We are only supporting treatment services.

I want to offer that clarity that UELP prevention services aren't being sustained.

They're being dismantled and still need to be funded.

As a member of Prevention Matter Collaborative, we urge you to prioritize mental health prevention programs recommendations.

We urge you to double down on prevention for our communities.

ULP funding needs to continue so that we can focus on prevention first and rather than fall back on fail first approaches.

The gap funds need to be available to all of our UELP providers, regardless if they opted in to transition to EI with Alameda County Behavioral Health or not.

These services are essential for our communities.

Thank you.

Maria, you have two minutes.

Please say the item you're speaking on.

Good afternoon.

I'm speaking on agenda item 86.

My name is Maria Alderetti, and I'm the founder of Community Kitchens, a frontline food justice nonprofit that feeds people who are left behind from traditional food systems.

I want to thank this board and county administrative staff for your leadership in proactively addressing the impact that HR1 is having in our community.

I support Alamina County Food Sovereignty Coalition's request for 17 million in funds to help address the critical food need in our community.

At community kitchens, the number of clients we serve has doubled since November last year, and we must prepare for future increase when SNAP work requirements begin in October.

A great example of how our coalition works together is community kitchens receives sheet trays of recovered food from Daily Bowl.

Last week, they provided us with roasted lamb and cooked pasta that our chef took and added ingredients from the food bank to prepare delicious meals that went out our door within four hours.

This is how working together works.

We're stronger if we work together and we were able to produce meals at 25% of the cost of normal meal production.

Please approve the agenda item 86 to maintain the county's investment in our food security system that supports the health and well-being of our community.

Thank you for your time.

Sharice, you have two minutes, please state the item that you're speaking on.

Thank you very much.

My name is Dr.

Sharice McBride, and I'm speaking on item 18 regarding the mental health funding.

I am speaking on behalf of as an advocate for my sister Nettie, who is deaf.

I don't know if you have these statistics, but deaf and hard of hearing individuals are two to three times more likely to experience serious mental health conditions.

Up to 40% of the deaf community experience mental health issues, which is twice the rate of hearing individuals.

I think a key part of this is the access to language.

It is very frustrating to not be able to communicate in your language, and the deaf counseling or community counseling services is crucial in helping to bridge that divide.

I say this especially to um representatives Halbert and Marquez who work in the Fremont and represent the Fremont areas.

Fremont is home to the California School for the Deaf.

That is a place that helps many, many people.

And because of that, there is a large deaf population here in the Bay Area, not just there but beyond.

It's really important to offer services that will meet the high mental health needs of deaf individuals.

And it studies have shown that deaf individuals who have positive experiences with mental health professionals largely say so.

74% of those who have positive experiences have deaf or ASL fluid providers.

So I'm um asking for the bridge funding to be provided for DCCS, which my sister has benefited from after moving from the Central Valley where these services were not available.

She is um been here for about 10 years, and we have found those services crucial in her healing from trauma and from neglect and the lack of language access.

Thank you.

Chad, go ahead, you have two minutes, please state the item you're speaking on.

Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Thank you for your time and the leadership.

My name is Jet Liu, Deputy Director of the Mente Heart Association for Chinese communities.

I'm speaking, I'm urging you, uh supervisor to vote low on the item 18.

As a committee considers major W transition founding today, I respectfully ask that that audition is serving on the served as an egg and the linguistic communities, including the mental health association for Chinese communities, a lot left behind.

MHC is it provides culturally responsible mental health support and the crisis interventions for Chinese and Asian immigrant families facing language barriers and stigma.

Recently, a young man in Oklahoma called Al Wonni during our mental health crisis, he has brought bleach and plan to harm himself.

I'll stop state on the phone, coordinate emergency response and uh connecting to treatment.

Today he has a graduate is working and doing well.

The lot of just prevention is intervention that saves lives and the change long-term outcomes.

Without the programs like MHACC, many families may have nowhere to turn until crisis become hospitalizations, homeless or tragedy.

We risk respectful as a county to ensure that community-based organization like MHCC and other organizations remain part of solution.

Thank you.

Hi Griffin, you have two minutes.

Go ahead, please say the item you're speaking on.

Hi, I'm speaking on item number 62.

Good morning.

My name is good afternoon.

My name is Griffin B.

Miller, and I'm here to urge the supervisors to vote yes on item number 62.

I'm a rancher and a wine grower and a small ag business owner here in Alameda County, and my family and myself face a lot of challenges with making agriculture viable here for those of us who are in the unincorporated agricultural areas.

Measure D is not theoretical.

It affects whether families can remain on the land and whether agricultural businesses can adapt, whether the next generation can live and work here, and whether policies that were written decades ago still match today's realities.

We risk losing family farms unless we do something soon.

I support the waiver uh also of the competitive procurement process in this case because the timeline is so short.

Uh the contract only runs from June 2nd to July 31st, and if the county is going to be able to gather meaningful public opinion data in time to inform next steps that work needs to begin now.

It's not a vote to approve a change to measure D, and it's not a vote to get a better information.

Sorry, it is a vote to get better information before we decide what, if anything, should be put before the public.

It's the exact kind of due diligence that I expect our county to be doing for those reasons.

I respectfully ask the board to approve the contract, approve the resolution, and authorize the budget adjustment.

Thank you.

Hi Alison, you have two minutes.

Please state the item that you're speaking on.

Good afternoon.

Alison Pratt with the Alameda County Community Food Bank.

I'm speaking in support of item 86 and specifically the continued allocation of Measure W funding to support food security in our county.

Just this morning, the Food Bank hosted a quarterly meeting of our network partners.

And we were hosted by the Alameda Food Bank in Beautiful District 3.

And we heard from our partners at the Alameda Food Bank that after the long weekend, um, they served 960 families in a single day.

They shared that they have experienced a lot of growth in a short amount of time, and they are not alone.

By a show of hands in the room this morning, and there were probably maybe 125, 150 partners present.

Most are seeing more people attending their food distributions.

And we talked together about the challenges we're facing and the challenges that lie ahead.

We've looked at which zip codes in Alameda County will be most impacted by the HR1 cuts.

Measure W funding is helping hundreds of organizations right now to meet the need in their communities.

As Maria shared a few minutes ago, we are in this together, and we appreciate the continued support from this board.

Thank you.

Please, I didn't know that she has two minutes and to state her item.

She needs to unmute and she needs to share a video.

Yes, we can.

Okay, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, members of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

My name is Stephanie Litz Gonzalez.

And I operate a group home for deaf plus adults, meaning deaf adults that had additional disabilities in Newark.

And I'm also a counselor for deaf and hard of hearing students at Ohlone College in Fremont.

I'm here to speak in support of the Deaf Community Counseling Services, DCCS.

Or deaf, deaf, blind, hard of hearing, deaf plus.

Access to mental health services has never been equal.

Many of us have had to spend years and years struggling to find counselors who we can communicate directly with in American Sign Language to ensure that we have full access and not just availability.

Mental health care is very personal and requires a high degree of trust, linguistic access, cultural understanding, and a sense of safety for deaf, deaf blind, and deaf plus individuals who may rely on interpreting services or one-on-one with providers that may not have full comprehension of our life experiences, which creates barriers for people to get the support that they really need.

The deaf class community experiences severe gaps, and deaf plus individuals have additional communication needs, trauma history, and additional supports that they must have that access to affordable health care.

Otherwise, they are very vulnerable.

So I ask you to protect and support and invest in DCCS and do not allow this critical program to be reduced or eliminated.

We really need DCS, DCCS services.

Thank you.

I'm speaking to item number 62.

And I wanted to note for the record that the offsetting revenue are the type of funds specifically addressed in SB 1193.

And we want to know why is it that Supervisor Hauber is directing these funds, especially funds to a political measure when the voters have always made their decision.

It's this type of spending, which is why 1193 is so important to all residents of Alameda County.

Jerry, you have two minutes, please state the item you're speaking on.

Item number 62.

Hi, my name is Jerry D.

Miller.

I'm a longtime resident of Sinnol, and we have a little agribusiness out here.

I want to speak in favor of the poll.

Uh it's been almost uh 25 years since Measure D passed, and I think we need to take a look at what's working and what isn't working.

In particular, uh, I was I was gonna propose that the board take a little junk to Switzerland and watch how beautiful the countryside is when there's a wonderful mixture of open space and agribusinesses.

So that's my suggestion.

Have the board take a little trip and see how beautiful Switzerland is.

Let's try to make Alameda County that way.

Thank you.

There are no more speakers.

Very good.

With that said, um, our next item for us.

I'll let the clerk figure out if we have another speaker.

Just call the speaker, that's fine.

Yep.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Uh can his light be turned on?

There you go.

Thank you, supervisors.

I'm Dick Schneider, co-author of Measure D uh 2000.

I respectfully request that you not approve this funding for a poll and campaign plan to amend Measure D.

If private parties want to fund a poll and collect signatures for initiative, that's their right under the elections code.

But county taxpayers should not be funding this effort.

I want to recount some history.

In 2017, when the idea of making substantive changes to Measure D by technical amendment was proposed, there was an uproar.

Supervisor Miley might remember attending a meet public meeting at the Martinelli Center in Livermore, convened by former district one supervisor Scott Haggerty, approximately 150 county voters attended, and their message was clear and loud.

Measure D cannot be substantially amended by technical amendments, substantive changes require a vote of the people.

As a result, your board appointed a measure D stakeholder group to see if consensus could be reached for compromise amendments to measure D.

Ultimately, that didn't occur.

We met 17 times, couldn't reach a consensus, mainly because only one member from the AG community made a specific uh suggestions about why covered equestrian arenas needed more floor area.

The rest of the suggestions were just vague, nothing specific.

So although those meetings turned out not to be fruitful, um, members of the environmental community kept meeting with members of the ag community, finding out what the needs were, particularly for the wine industry in South Livermore, and came up with two measures.

A measure D 2022, which expanded the floor area ratio for covered riding arenas and using the point oh two five floor area for greenhouses for all agricultural buildings, and also measure P in South Livermore was put on the ballot to extend sewer through the Livermore urban growth boundary to allow sewer service to to this to that area.

Consensus can be reached if work is done.

There are no more speakers.

Okay, very good.

The next item before us then is approval of the minutes for the meetings listed.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Miley.

I'll second.

We'll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas.

Aye.

President Halbert.

I vote yes.

Our next item is the consent calendar items 5152 to 155.

Is there a motion?

I will move the consent calendar.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Tam, seconded by Supervisor Miley.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunatabas.

Aye.

President Halbert.

I vote yes.

That motion passes.

We're now then to the mass motion.

Items to be pulled.

Do the set matters.

Yeah.

Um, I do note that um we are past the one o'clock uh listing of set matters.

We can defer the mass motion and which will which will include comments until after we take up the mass motion, the the set matters rather.

Um, for that, I note that people are on the call.

Because it's past one o'clock.

And so what I'd like to do is to take public comments on the set matters now.

After we do that, we will go through and take action on the set matters, including the commendations.

And so if we could um now ask people in the room or online, if you are here to speak on the set matter items, now will is the time to take public comment.

Those are items, Mr.

Mr.

Chair, the um the items dealing with public hearings, can we hold off on those?

Because we'll have to open up the public hearing and call the public hearing.

On all of those items 144, 145, 146, 147, and 148.

So if we could hold off on those okay for now, all right.

Then um, check in with county council.

If we were to allow public comment on 141 42 and 143, as well as 140, uh 150.

Supervisor, I would recommend that you uh take public comment on 141, 142, and 143, and hold the other items until various presentations andor public hearings are conducted.

Which is the item that we think most people are also here for.

What I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

1414 142 and 143 can take public comment as a grouping if that is your intent.

Um the other items 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 are require public hearings.

They're um annual tax measures.

Um, and then 150 has a presentation that should be given before you take public comment.

I think that's the same also for 151.

I'm just trying to balance um, well, let's let's do that.

Let's take public comment on items 141, 142, 143.

I note it's also 130, and we um have to take a break at some time.

So um let's take 141, 142, and 143.

Well, you're looking to take a break, supervisor by the way.

Uh okay.

All right.

The first one is proclaiming June 2026 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month.

Before I read this, is Cadest Khadibi in the room?

And are you Sonia Frost?

You're both here.

All right.

Thank you for all you do.

We're going to recognize June as Elder Abuse Month in Alameda County.

In doing so, we proclaim that older adults are valued members of our community and deserve to live safely with dignity, respect, and security.

Elder abuse is not just a personal issue, it's a public health and human rights issue that impacts families and communities across the world.

We have a proclamation to give, and um we're going to have public comment in a few minutes, but we're going to get through each of the proclamations and then have public comment to be efficient with time.

The next is proclaiming May of 2026 as Jewish American Heritage Month.

Is Jonathan Engelman here?

Jonathan, thank you for being here.

Although we are now in the month of June, we are proud to take a moment to recognize and celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month 2026 here in Alameda County.

Jewish American Heritage Month provides an opportunity to honor the rich history, culture, traditions, and contributions of Jewish Americans who have helped shape communities across our nation and here in Alameda County.

For generations, Jewish Americans have contributed to public service, education, business, science, the arts, philanthropy, community life, helping to strengthen the social and civic fabric of our communities.

Today we are also pleased to recognize the Jewish Community Relations Council, JCRC of the Bay Area, for its long-standing commitment to the community engagement, education, and partnership throughout the Bay Area.

Jonathan, when the time is right, we'll bring give you this proclamation.

The next item is Supervisor Tam Fortunato Bass and Midley proclaiming June 2026 as LGBTQIA Plus Pride Month.

Thank you, President Halbert.

Um it's my pleasure to jointly with in partnership with my colleagues to proclaim LGBTQ IA Plus Pride Month.

So this is a three-part um presentation.

I will start with the proclamation, then Supervisor Fortunata Bass from District 5 will acknowledge the community-based organizations that include the Oakland LGBTQ Center, Lifelong Medical Care, Bay Area Community Health, Pacific Center for Human Growth, and Side-by-Side Youth, and Supervisor Miley from District 4 will recognize PFLAG, a national organization with chapters in Oakland and the East Bay.

So the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual plus or LGBTQIA Plus Pride Month proclamation honors and acknowledges LGBTQIA plus people as an important part of Alameda County's cultural, civic, and economic life.

It connects to the Stonewall riots of June 1969, which marked a pivotal moment in the modern LGBTQIA plus rights movement.

Alameda County has a long and proud history of embracing diversity, inclusion, and equity equality for all residents, which closely aligns with our county's vision 2036 goals and values, fostering a community where everyone is respected and valued, and stands firmly against discrimination, prejudice, and violence based on sexual orientation, gender equity, or gender expression.

This month we honor and celebrate the contributions to the LGBTQIA Plus community while addressing the struggles faced by the LGBTQIA plus individuals, including disparities in health, employment, housing, education, and discrimination against the trans community.

We encourage Alameda County residents to engage in celebrating LGBTQ IA plus Pride Month, fostering understanding and creating a more inclusive society.

So at this point, I'll turn it over to Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Thank you, Supervisor Tam.

I will just uh add that we recognize the importance of the LGBTQIA plus community.

And uh our county, including our health department, has also recognize the deep disparities that exist within this organization as it relates to health, to housing access, uh, to mental health, to suicide, and a number of other very critical issues.

Um, I would like to also mention that um at our Alameda County Together for All or Act for All meeting last year.

We did invite some of our LGBTQ IA allies to share with us uh what they were seeing on the ground as this current federal administration was starting, and we heard very loud and clear a need to invest in more resources to reverse those disparities as well as to ensure that we are protecting our communities and really standing together with them.

So, in addition to the pride flag raising today, this proclamation, I also wanted to mention uh that uh at our board's recommendation, we will be um looking at an allocation of 1.5 million on June 16th, our next board meeting, which I think is a good sign of continuing to deepen our investment uh in this particular community.

Um, I wanted to share that uh we will be recognizing uh two organizations which happen to be uh headquartered in District five, which are very critical to supporting our community.

Um, that includes the Oakland LGBTQ Center, which provides services to over 4,000 LGBTQ IA plus youth and elders who experience mental and other health-related needs.

They are also a leader in the LGBTQIA Plus Cultural District, which I was able to support as a former council member.

The Oakland Pride Parade and Festival, which will be in August, and also partnered with the Lakeshore Business Improvement District just last week on weekend on a very successful spring fair.

All of that is incredible in terms of activating, supporting, and making sure our community knows that everyone in our county belongs.

And then secondly, we are going to be honoring the Pacific Center for Human Growth.

The Pacific Center utilizes nearly 200 volunteers and 11 staff members to provide direct services for Alameda County and the Greater Bay Area's LGBTQIA Plus communities and currently serves over 3,000 people per year through their programs and leading the Berkeley Pride Resource Fair, which had its first annual fair last year in August.

And please stay tuned for uh the next fair in Berkeley that is coming up this August.

Thank you.

And I'll pass it to Supervisor Miley.

Okay, thank you.

Supervisor Bass.

So P P-Flag Tri-Valley, we want to recognize them.

You know, the Board of Supervisors, we value and celebrate the contributions of our LGBTQ plus communities all year all year long.

And we especially recognize them during the month of June to highlight uh and encourage all county residents to support our LGBTQ plus communities.

The county is proud of its history, embracing diversity, inclusion, and equality for all residents, fostering a community where everyone is respected and valued and stands firmly against discrimination, prejudice, and violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

P-FLAG is the nation's largest organization dedicated to supporting educating and advocating for LGBTQ people and those who love them.

In 1973, PF was founded as a unified family-led movement grounded in love.

Fifty years later, an inspiring alliance of LGBTQ people and their loved ones continue to fuel PF.

In 1980, PFLAG began to distribute information nationwide to local communities, including educational institutions and communities of faith, establishing itself as a source of accurate and helpful information for the general public.

In 1990, PFLAG chapter in Massachusetts helped pass the first safe schools legislation in the country in 2000, excuse me, in 2020, PFLAG programming expanded widely to include PFLAG Connects Communities and our Read with Love program.

PFAX network of over 360 chapters and more than 550,000 members and supporters are helping create an equitable and inclusive world where every LGBTQ plus person is safe, celebrated, empowered, and loved.

Today PF continues supporting families, educating allies, and advocating for equality through its network of supporters, members, and chapters across the country.

So this county and this board and this part of the state, we hereby honor PFAG Tri Valley for the leadership, compassion, and tireless service.

Its work reflects the very best of what it means to be a change maker in our community.

And we and we thank it for its lasting contributions to the people of this county.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley.

Are the representatives of PFLAG make it two years in a row?

Did you have another place for accommodation to go on the wall next to last year's?

Does that complete the commendations?

So we've had all three commendations read aloud.

I'll take public comment on these items.

And as such, if you are a recipient of a commendation, now would be the time to uh make public comment.

Come up and say a few words.

So come on up and then members of the public.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Again, my name is Sonia Frost.

I'm a division director in the Department of Adult and Aid and Services, and we are accepting the proclamation for we add World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.

So it is a privilege to receive Alameda County's proclamation raising awareness for Elder Abuse Awareness Month, highlighting the risk of elders face and how we can make a difference.

As a program manager and division director overseeing adult protective services, we know all too well the toll of elder abuse on our seniors and the broader community.

Since 2006, World Elder Abuse Day on June 15th has raised visibility on elder abuse, promoting older adult safety around the globe.

Elder abuse takes many forms financial, emotional, psychological, physical, sexual, social, neglect, or a combination.

It can occur once or many times and can vary in severity from subtle to extreme.

Often elder abuse is carried out by someone they know.

Abusers can be close family members, more distant relatives, friends, or strangers.

And while technology advancements present many new opportunities for older adults, they can also open the door to newer and more sophisticated scams.

But our state and county are fighting back, and here are a few updates.

Alameda County Adult Protective Services, or APS, is working hard to align with the upcoming implementation of federal national regulations by May of 2028.

APS is exploring new technologies to leverage all tools available to respond quickly to elder abuse.

As the elder population and reports of abuse continue to grow, appropriate prioritization of cases is both mandated by federal and state regulations and necessary.

If anyone needs to make an APS report, just a reminder, the phone numbers are 510 577-350 or 1866 call APS.

Thank you.

It's a great plug.

Thank you.

We'll be down in a second to give you your proclamation.

Next speakers.

Hello, Board of Supervisors, and thank you for this recognition.

It has been only since 2003 that the decriminalization of homosexuality was enacted.

The history, the historic government section sanction sanction criminalization of LGBTQ people has caused long-term negative mental and economic impacts in the lives of our community.

Even today, religious and political attacks against our community are in full effect, and from the highest levels of government to include the president of the United States.

Every intersectionality, every intersectionality that you can think of can be found under the LGBTQ umbrella.

The neglect and discrimination of our community has created health disparities in every category, including people of color, youth, elders, families, and our trans community members.

We thank Alameda County for uh conducting a comprehensive health needs assessment for our community, which you presented in November of 2024, acknowledging that our health disparities are broader than just HIV.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you.

Thank you, board.

This is Joanna Holden, Development Director with the Oakland LGBTQ Community Center.

I wanted to thank the Board of Supervisors for their bravery and audacity in funding this initiative to present uh protect our community, the LGBTQ community, which is under attack right now at all our intersections, as Joe just mentioned, with a special focus on the well-being of our youth, our elders and our trans community.

Um it is everything is very difficult right now, but one thing that brings me joy every day is knowing that when we pay our sales taxes here in Alameda County, we'll we will we will be funding gender affirming care uh support for our youth and mental health so that we can weather this crisis together.

Your bravery and audacity are a model for what government should be.

Let's continue to work together for long-term solutions.

Thank you.

My name is Jonathan Engelman, and I serve as the assistant director of government affairs for the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Bay Area, the largest collective voice of Bay Area Jews representing over 70 synagogues and organizations across the region.

Want to thank the Board of Supervisors for this proclamation recognizing Jewish American Heritage Month here in Alameda County.

We're so grateful for your continued partnership and leadership.

Jewish American Heritage Month is a time to celebrate the profound contributions Jewish Americans have made to California and to our country in civic life, culture, science, labor, the arts, and beyond.

From helping build California's early communities to shaping its universities, businesses, social movements, Jewish Americans have long been part of the fabric of the state and nation.

At the same time, we'd be remiss not to acknowledge that anti-Semitism remains a real challenge.

Many Jews, including here in the Bay Area, continue to encounter bias and exclusion.

Moments like this, when communities come together in recognition and partnership are an important part of building understanding and belonging.

And that's why this proclamation matters.

It makes clear that here in Alameda County, the Jewish community belongs.

It tells Jewish residents and families here and in neighboring communities that they are seen, valued, and an integral part of this county's story.

We look forward to continuing to work with Alameda County to ensure Jewish identity is understood, included, and represented in civic life.

Thank you so much.

Hello, my name is Lainey Pascal.

Say them she, her pronouns.

I am the education chair for P Flag Tri Valley, and I'm here to say thank you to the county and to this board for the proclamation for Pride Month.

Um, I didn't really have anything prepared to say other than thank you and pride is about resilience and joy.

And so thank you for celebrating with us.

We'll go to public comment by non-recipients, and then we'll go to photos with the recipients.

Is there any public comment on this item?

These items?

There are no public comments.

Seeing none, we'll take some photos.

The board's gonna take a brief recess.

I'd like to call our board meeting back to order.

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

Supervisor Marquez present.

Supervisor Tamp present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

President Hauber.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Our next item is healthcare services item one hundred forty-four, an Alameda County uh public hearing.

I need to take a motion to open a public hearing.

So move.

Second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Miley.

Second by Supervisor TAM to open the public hearing.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Haubert.

Yes.

Item one forty-five is related to the emergency medical services.

We're on 144.

144, I'm sorry.

Vector Services control.

So this is opportunity to adopt a resolution.

Do we need to take public comment if there is any and then close the public hearing and then adopt the resolution?

If anyone here is uh like wanting to make public comment on item 144a, the public hearing for the Alameda County Health item as presented.

Do we have any public comment?

There are no public comments.

Move to close the public hearing and move to adopt the resolution.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Miley to close the public hearing and adopt the resolution 144B.

Second by Supervisor Tam.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Haubert.

Yes.

Item 145 is a recommendation that your board conduct a public hearing and also adopt the uh rate for emergency medical services benefit unit.

Move to open the public hearing.

Second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Miley, second by Supervisor Tam.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Yes.

Is there any public comment on item 145A?

There's one online comment.

Kelly, go ahead, please.

You have two minutes.

Your board and your staff has never taken uh undertaken a real serious effort to compare, contrast, and analyze the rates that injured people on the streets of Alameda County and their insurance companies have to pay to get uh transported to a hospital somewhere.

And that's what these uh emergency medical services some of them are doing, right?

And these rates that you just approved without taking public comment.

I just heard you take a vote without hearing any public comment.

Is that a is that the how you uh conduct business?

It's it seems like it.

That's what I just observed.

Um it's not the right way to conduct business, is it?

Um these rates uh were investigated by the um Alameda County uh grand jury just a couple of years ago, and although they they came back with a glowing and upbeat and uh and positive report on the state of emergency services in Alameda County.

They did note that uh these uh services, once you got your new contractor in place in the 2018 or 2019, that they started raising rates by like 13 or 14 percent a year every year.

I wonder how how many percent per year did you just now raise the rates in the vote you just took?

Do you even care?

Thank you.

Any more public comment?

There are no more comments.

Move to close the public hearing and move to adopt the resolution.

I'll second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Miley, second by supervisor Tam.

Close the public hearing and adopt the resolution 145B.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Sorry, I supervisor Marquez.

Aye, Supervisor Tam.

Aye, Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Halbert.

I vote yes.

Uh item 46 is from the fire department, and as a correction on the record, your board is sitting as the board of supervisors, not as the board of directors of the fire department.

It's also the recommendation that you conduct a public hearing and that you subsequently adopt a resolution confirming the rate uh for the paramedic program.

It's a 2.48 percent CPI increase, 54 cents per benefit unit.

Move the open public hearing.

Second.

Motion has been made by Supervisor Miley.

Second by Supervisor Tam.

Open the public hearing, roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Are there any public speakers?

No, this is just to open up the public hearing.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Haubert.

Yes.

Is there any public comment on this item?

Yes, there's one online.

Kelly, go ahead.

You have two minutes.

Thank you.

I want to thank you and your uh county administrator who might be an accountant for all I know.

And actually presented the um the uh rate increase of two and a half percent for the uh for these emergency services this year, which is in line with inflation.

So at least you know what you're voting on.

Thank you very much.

Any more public comment?

Seeing none, Supervisor Miley want to make a motion.

Yes, move to close the public hearing, move to adopt the resolution.

Second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Miley, second by Supervisor Tam to close the public hearing and move for adoption of 146b.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Bath.

Aye.

President Halbert.

I vote yes.

Motion passes.

I would item 147 is from the public works agency.

Also, that your board conduct a public hearing and also adopt the clean water fees for 2627.

There's a 20,000 increase and expected additional revenue of 400,000.

Move to open the public hearing.

Second.

Motion has been made by Supervisor Miley, second by Supervisor Tams.

Open the public hearing of 147A.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bath.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Yes.

Any public comment on item one forty seven A?

No public.

One hand.

Yes.

Kelly, go ahead, please.

Yeah, I know that your uh works agency is probably too busy to explain what a clean water program is.

So I thought I'd just give you a brief uh rundown.

You know, when you uh build those uh uh lakes and dams and uh um uh uh paved areas and roads and uh private parties or by the county, it doesn't matter.

Um large acreages of uh uh new um impervious services all over the county.

Um, there are a lot of uh you know um stormwater uh mitigation uh measures that need to be taken and reports with the file with the state and inspections and all of those those things are part of uh the Alameda County has a uh a permit with the uh with the federal government um and with through the through this uh regional water board uh for these kind of discharges.

So this is what your money is going for.

Thank you.

Any more public comment?

No more move the close public hearing and adopt the resolution, second motion has been made by Supervisor Miley, second by supervisor Tam to close the public comment of 147a and adopt resolution 147b.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez, aye, supervisor Tam, Supervisor Miley, so Supervisor Fortunato Bass, President Howbert, yes item 148 is also from the public works agency.

Request that your board conduct a public hearing and also consider the assessments for fiscal 26-27.

There are no change in the assessment rates.

Move to open the public hearing, second motion's been made by supervisor miley to and seconded by supervisor Tam to open public hearing 148A.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez, aye, supervisor Tam aye, Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye, President Haubert.

Yes, any public comment on 148?

No public comment.

Move to close the public hearing and adopt the resolution, second motion's been made by supervisor Miley, second by supervisor Tam to close the public hearing 148A and adopt the resolution 148b.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez, aye, supervisor Tam.

Aye, Supervisor Miley, aye, supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye, President Howbert.

I vote yes.

The item passes.

General Mission Administration.

Our next items at notes 149 has been withdrawn by the department.

Item 150.

Supervisor Miley's requested a status update on SB 1193.

Uh yes, I requested this update.

I think the county administrator staff prepared to give us an update, and I certainly have some comments to make.

President Halbert, members of the board.

Amy Costa, your state legislative advocate and lobbyist in Sacramento from Full Moan Strategies is online and prepared to provide an update for your board.

Thank you very much.

I believe the clerk has a presentation that she can share with your board.

Good afternoon, President Halbert and supervisors.

As noted, I have a brief overview and summary of SB 1193 by Senator Wahhab to present to the board.

Can you go to the next slide, please?

Thank you so much.

I'm going to start with just a brief legislative history as it's pertinent to the bill that you have requested an overview of.

Each supervisor within Orange County was given control over COVID-19 relief funding, totaling 65 million dollars countywide.

In late 2023, reports began to emerge that one supervisor of that board had directed some of his funds to an organization run by his daughter without any public disclosure.

And of course, news reporting at the time noted uh additional issues, including missing audits, uh work that was not completed.

And as those reports became louder, policymakers, in this case, assembly member Valencia introduced AB 2946.

That measure uh specifically required for Orange County and majority board approval uh for discretionary awards, public reporting of those funding decisions and restrictions on certain funding actions uh that occurred within 90 days of an election.

Uh, and so in current California law, within the government code section, there are restrictions placed on Orange County.

Um, and it's notable because the bill that I'm providing an update on, SB 1193 builds on that current body of law.

Next slide, please.

Just briefly an update on the progress of SB 1193.

The bill was introduced in uh February 19th uh of this year.

Uh it was amended for the first time April 16th.

Uh it was then heard by the Senate Local Government Committee on April 29th.

The motion at that time by the committee was to pass it as amended based on committee amendments, and it did pass that committee unanimously.

Uh we saw those committee amendments in print on April 30th, and those will be the details that I'll be providing today as the most recent version of the bill.

Uh the bill then went on to the Senate floor on May 19th.

Uh, it passed with 37 ayes to abstentions and no no votes.

Uh, next slide, please.

Clerk, can we see the next slide, please?

Thank you so much.

Uh, coming out of committee, these were amendments that were negotiated between the senator and the committee chair.

Um, and a couple of things of note.

Um, it defines discretionary funding, and how the bill defines that are funds that a member of the board or less than a majority of the board request the board to award to community organizations, nonprofit organizations, and private entities in their supervisorial district.

The bill excludes the Alameda Health System from these provisions.

Uh, it allows for these funds to be awarded by a majority vote of the board.

The awarding of these funds must include a description of how the funding provides resources of countywide significance and the public service the award provides.

There are additionally some reporting requirements for your board.

Um the board would have to post a log of the appropriated discretionary funds on your website along with a couple other details.

It includes some of the same election prohibitions that we see in current law, which is that 90 days prior to an election, a board member on that ballot shall not place nor vote on a discretionary funding item on the board's agenda.

And then lastly, it would prohibit a member of the board from attending events hosted by the discretionary funding recipients unless it was specifically within that supervisor's honor.

Next slide, please.

So we have as of uh May 1st, the verified support and opposition of the measure.

You can see we have one uh entity in support, the retired public employees association.

They were the only entity to come forward when the bill was heard in Senate local government.

You can see a list of the opposition, and I would note that more recently um CSAC, UCC, and RCRC submitted a letter of opposition on this measure.

And so we'll see that in the legislative record when the bill is heard next in assembly local government, generally, as a matter of course, uh in the legislature for letters to be entered into the analysis or the legislative record, they must be received by that committee one week prior to the hearing.

Next slide, please.

So this bill has been referred by the assembly rules committee to the assembly local government committee.

They're in possession of the bill at this point.

Uh, should it pass there?

It would go on to the floor and then to the governor's desk for consideration.

Um, of no, the last day for policy committees to hear bills within their respective houses is July 2nd.

Because it's a non-fiscal measure, we can anticipate that it would likely be heard mid to late June.

Um, generally committees want to take the fiscal measures first to give enough time for them to go to the respective appropriations committee.

Next slide, please.

Just wanted to provide you with a membership of the assembly local government committee.

You can see it's chaired by assembly member Carrillo, and here's a list of the members.

Um, we do not have a member of our Alameda County delegation in this particular committee.

Um, next up for uh full moon strategies on behalf of the county is obviously we will meet with committee staff as well as the chair to communicate uh your board's um concerns with the measure.

Um, and um we'll report back to the board at that time uh what we hear from both the chair as well as the committee staff.

Um, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

I'd like to go to clarifying questions of uh Amy before we go to public comment and then back for deliberations.

Are there any clarifying questions of the report?

I do have one.

Um Ms.

Costa, the retired employees association.

Retired public employees association.

Is that uh is that a California-based association?

Who is that?

Yes, so they're a nonprofit actually headquartered here in Sacramento on their website.

They know that they fight for the well-being of its members and retirement.

Okay.

And so there's probably an executive director of that association or um a board of directors or something like that.

You know, I'm not sure of their governance.

Um, I'm happy to take a look.

They do have members, and so I do think that they have a governing body, President Humber.

Okay.

Um, if you could research who there is the best person to speak to their level of support for this and the impetus for that.

I would appreciate it.

Happy to do any other, yeah.

Are there any other questions or comments?

If not, um public comment.

Are there members of the public who wish to comment on this item?

We have two online speakers.

Chef, you have two minutes.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you.

Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this item.

I heard a little bit about it, read a little bit about it.

And I'm very concerned that um this county seems to be losing its ability to manage uh what goes on.

The state seems to want to get involved more and more in what is going on in our county.

You know, I um we elect our leadership and we elect good leadership, and we trust our leadership to spend money where they need to spend it, and to expedite some of these programs that need help immediately.

You start putting a bunch of bureaucracy around getting money to a needed group.

That's insane.

And you know, I I'm just if um Senator Wahab wanted to be involved in our county, maybe she should run for county supervisor instead of Congress, because I'm fed up with what I see going on with the state directing the county of what they can and cannot do.

Um, you know, if pretty soon we won't need a board of supervisors.

We just have a um uh the state tell us how we're gonna live and what we're gonna do.

So um very frustrating.

Um I hope that um you guys fight this.

Um I hope the groups that um are not in support of this will put some money behind a lawsuit and uh stop this in its tracks.

I I certainly respect and depend on our supervisors to make the right decisions about where they put money.

I don't need to be looking over your shoulder on every dime you spend or you asking permission to spend it.

If you don't do a good job with it, we just won't vote for you again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Kelly, you have two minutes.

Go ahead, please.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

Yes, um, I'm I'm here to um to inform you that uh Mr.

Moore's uh trust in faith in your in your um uh reporting for um uh you know uh discretionary expenditures, he has misplaced his trust.

Um let's go back to the item that uh Mr.

Moore uh uh to uh that he endorsed so wholeheartedly.

He was uh he was strongly in favor of item 62, which I which uh I opposed.

Um and uh if you look at item 62, you notice a pattern of of it's right here on on item 62 C.

Uh the that the auditor controller is instructed to take 150,000 and spend it on behalf of the community development agency.

So you've got a accounting record right here of the 150,000 dollars spent by the community development agency.

But if you look back at the approved budget of the district one fiscal year 2526, which is ending very soon, it's ending within a month or two, right?

It's ending right now that approved budget.

Um that that does that where are you reporting your discretionary expenditures that uh uh as part of that approved budget?

Um most of the expenditure of the discretionary expenditures are uh listed as items like something like supervisor Miley dash or hyphen, and then it says uh authorize the board to spend whatever as discretionary funds from your um prior year savings or whatever that is.

This doesn't go like that.

This is buried way deep in in your in your in your uh agenda today.

You're that the money is coming from discretionary funds from district one.

This is a kind of hidden uh expenditures, personal uh personal spending, and then you you're laundering it through the community development agency to go fund a uh a uh uh uh a public relations campaign to overturn measure D.

This is what we need to be uh we need to be reported, and you need to find some accountants who can report your discretionary spending for a change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Your time is up.

Mitch, you have uh two minutes.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you, and good afternoon.

I'd like to begin by thanking Supervisor Halbert and Supervisor Miley and this entire board for your unanimous opposition to SB 1193.

Your leadership on behalf of the nonprofits and this and families in this county mean everything to us.

My name is Mitch Sigman.

I'm the co-founder and CEO of School of Imagination and Happy Talkers in Dublin.

25 years ago, next month, my wife Charlene started a small daycare out of her home with a promise to never turn away a child with a disability.

Word spread fast, and within months, more than 100 children were coming through our home each week.

We outgrew that home.

We fundraised for years.

We fought for a permanent home for these kids and families who had nowhere else to go.

And when we finally got there, when we finally had the building, we had nothing left for the therapy equipment our children needed.

The Board of Supervisors' discretionary funds were there.

When the UC Davis Mind Institute was looking for a center to certify in their breakthrough model for children with autism, the early start Denver model, we raised our hands, but the certification isn't free.

And the small nonprofit doesn't have it's sitting in a grant cycle.

The Board of Supervisors, discretionary funds were there again.

And because of all this today, we are the sole remaining integrated child diagnosis therapy and education center in the region.

As we expand, there'll be moments between grant cycles again that need competitive funding that can't reach us in time.

This is what the discretionary funds do.

They fill the gaps for nonprofits and they move at the speed of need, not the speed of bureaucracy.

SB 1193 would end all of that.

It's not just a 90-day blackout where it's six months of blackout.

For a child in early intervention, six months is not a delay, it's a developmental window that closes.

Alameda County already requires the four fifth supermagenda.

Susan, go ahead, you have two minutes.

Hi, my name is Susan Muckner, and I'm president of a nonprofit in Livermore Tri Valley Partnership, Tri-Valley, and I wanted to speak in support of the Board of Supervisors United NSVO to oppose SP 1193.

Um, our nonprofit, when we received funds from the county, had to go through a vetting process that took well over a year, included financial documentation, understanding our mission, and several meetings with the county supervisors and chief of staff.

What's concerning to me most is we've seen through government shutdowns in the past 12 months the suspension of SNAP benefits, which there are 175,000 people in Alamanti County receiving SNAP benefits.

And when we saw that happen last year in October, there was a significant increase of the need of crisis support to support our food banks, to support emergency assistance for rental assistance and things like that for our clients.

And the county was able to move quickly to help us support with the use of discretionary fund.

What we see in Mahab's own comments in her town hall meeting on May 7th, that she says, quote unquote, the outcomes are uneven.

The county performed well on income, educational attainment, but to this basis of severe affordability and homelessness pressures.

And what's so interesting about that is that this bill is completely targeted to Alameda County, and yet she covers in her own statement, Santa Clara County as well.

In their point in time survey for 2025, they saw an 8% increase in homelessness versus our last, which is biannual, which was in 2024.

There was a 3% decrease with 11% being in our unsheltered homelessness.

So the nonprofits in our county are working hard to support it.

And I can speak as a nonprofit leader to say that the county's discretionary funds have been a lifeline for us at times when funding was short.

And so I do appreciate the work we're doing to oppose this.

Thank you.

Pastor Langford and Zach T.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Halbert, President Molly's President Bass, and Supervisor Tam, and also to Supervisor Marquez.

Pastor Langford, the Oakland Private Industry Council, and I'm here to strongly encourage the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to oppose assembly bill 1193.

One is the senator that's putting forth this bill represents a portion of Alameda County that is not reflective of parts of Oakland and African American, Latino, and other community groups of color that are impacted.

Thirdly, is that I'm a graduate of UC Irvine.

I lived in Orange County.

Orange County is one of the most affluent counties in the world.

I know it is in America.

And so it's unfortunate what happened in Orange County.

But my 30 years of service to Alameda County, never has there been a negative report against any supervisor and their discretionary funding and support to local community-based organizations.

The local community-based organizations are the safety net of Alameda County.

And oftentimes many of these organizations, if we are not awarded to RP through the county, we have to then turn to the county, and that supports come from the offices of our local supervisors.

And oftentimes you all work together to ensure that local agencies get the critical funding that they need for to address re-entry services, housing services, homely services.

We partner with the local law enforcement to keep the crime down in our communities.

And this would be disastrous if our local county does not have the flexibility to fund and award local agencies to doing the great work.

Appreciate the perspective of what the state is doing, but right now it's not the state of California that's saving local organizations.

It's Alameda County, and we hope that you would strongly oppose it.

And we certainly do.

If many organizations were aware, like I have become aware of this, this room, this um this room would be full of organizations opposing assembly bill 1193.

Thank you.

Um 1193 is a way for the county and the city as joint actors to get out of bankruptcy of Purdue Pharma and Otta Jensen Pharmaceutical.

Right here, I present to you as the original stock certificate for Moderna, which the county and the city uh took me to court over, bankrupt me, and because of the billionaire tax is now used as a form of the Slap Act.

We justify that as acts of regression or moratorial assessment, property, casualty damage, and that of um forward guidance of loss of family members for blatant gross, malice, and intentional negligence.

Seen as a tri-regional and a community issue.

This stock certificate is the original stock certificate issued in Washington, DC for Moderna and Biotime, which I did consist, augment and validate operation work speed with Elizabeth Marie Brunswick Fair King Lions.

Based on the regression of the view of the state because of this bankruptcy, and this, the billionaire tax that was amended, measured, and passed by the state allows for acts of well called violence or uh accountability against members of the city, the county, and the state for gross, malice, and intentional negligence.

This certificate is a valid form of what the stock was originally at.

The money that was used for the stock has been put into bankruptcy, taken to court against individuals that said they worked for the corporation and has taken uh against the corporation.

I have not been able to get any of my financial uh dues because of it.

I've been denied asylum for it, and I ask that that be understood.

There are no more speakers.

Very good.

Thank you.

We'll bring it back for discussion and deliberation.

I'd like to thank members of the public who participated in public discussion today.

Um supervisor Miley.

President Howard, you have a number of comments to make on this matter.

Uh, so um, with your indulgence and bear with me.

So um, you know, I think the board, I know the board's taking the appropriate position to oppose SB Senate Bill 1193.

1193 is an overreach on the part of the state, it's an overreach.

Alameda County is a charter county.

We have certain responsibilities as elected officials, and as a charter county, we have the ability to do certain things.

The fact that there was corruption in Orange County is no excuse for targeting Alameda County.

As far as I know, there's been no corruption.

The scope of the authority that this bill is looking to impose would usurp our authority.

And I feel and I do think it would be um if we have to litigate it, uh, it will be determined to be uh unlawful.

As I pointed out, as far as I know, there's been no wrongdoing on the part of this present board of supervisors, nor prior board of supervisors in the use of uh discretionary funds.

Speakers have pointed out how valuable this discretionary funds are to them, as well as the fact that uh going through a lengthy process at times can be burdensome and can take anywhere from six months to 18 months uh to receive uh uh funding.

And in some cases, that's just untenable for uh nonprofits, whether they're small nonprofits, large nonprofits, et cetera, it can be untenable for them.

The county has had a long-standing practice of uh prior year savings and using discretionary funds.

Uh, you know, the board set up his whole prior year savings approach, you know, before I was on the board of supervisors, uh, so that when it came to budgeted budget balancing and dealing with um the fiscal year, uh county agencies, departments, and um supervisors uh were encouraged to try to have savings to help go towards uh balancing the budget as opposed to spending all your savings so that um they wouldn't be available to help with budget balancing.

You know, the counties face some challenging times in the past as we are currently facing challenging times, but fortunately now we have measure A, Measure A1, Measure C, Measure W, all of those things help us to have additional resources to address some of the challenges that are unprecedented that we're presently facing, but that hasn't always been the case.

So this budget balancing effort, it's uh prior-year savings was something that was established many, many decades ago in order to help us uh balance our budget.

So, once again, as opposed to just spending the money, spend it or lose it.

County agencies departments and supervisors and others were encouraged to use that savings, and it could be carried over and put into uh use to balance budget and put towards use in the in the future uh at the discretion.

Um, which I thought, which once again I thought was a good practice when I got here.

I'm really surprised that our friends in uh the Senate allowed this to go through.

I'm hoping our friends in the assembly will stop this.

Um all of our friends in the assembly, both our delegation here from Alameda County as well as other friends in the assembly that we know from other counties, because this is just unconscionable the action on the part of the state senator to allow for this to go through, it would be a slippery slope.

Because I said this is an overreach by the state.

If the state can do this to Alameda County when there's been no you know wrong-doing malfeasance and they're not applying this uh to all counties, then what's to say the state won't and try to impose this on yet another jurisdiction, another county for that matter, on a city.

So it's beyond the pale of rationality.

Um, if this was thought to be uh for good public policy, then it should be applied to all counties statewide.

But that's not the case.

Alameda County is being targeted for reasons uh that I'm not quite sure of.

I'm not sure of the senator's uh motivations around uh while she why she's putting this legislation forth, nor why the other senators supported it, but I'm hoping uh the folks in the assembly see the the irresponsibility and the unconscionability uh and potentially the illegality of this particular uh measure because it it looks at discretionary funds, for instance, and discretionary funds.

The voters have approved measure W, the voters have approved measure A, the voters have approved measure C, the Bros.

have approved measure A1.

These are some measures, all of which I've worked on since I've been here, all of which I've helped to get passed, which I've been here, and it's not the state that controls those measures, those measures are controlled by what the voters have approved.

The state has no role in telling us how we should use those funds, and that's just one specific example.

There are others as well.

Um to go on uh on the day's agenda, we got items 45, 46, 47, 49.

People have pointed out item 62.

But the the question is if this measure is about transparency, well, these items are on the agenda.

Pure transparency.

These items require, as it's been pointed out, four-fifths of vote for them to go through.

Um, these items are before the public.

They're before the public, they're before the press, they're before the taxpayers' association, before anyone who wants to look at them and questioning them.

And once again, it requires four-fifths vote.

I have never had any supervisor, um, what's the word, um, use it as a slush fund, or even use it as some type of quid pro quo uh with either other supervisors or even with um uh the the nonprofits in the organizations and others who have been receiving these discretionary funds.

Now, I listen to county council.

I've listened to Richard Winnie when he was uh the county council, Donna Ziegler when she was the county council, and now our interim county council uh Andrew Weddell.

And I know I try to follow the uh Levine Act pretty carefully.

So when I have uh contributions or anything like that, I recuse myself.

And even on items I don't necessarily have to recuse myself with United Seniors, for instance, I bring that to the attention publicly disclose that I'm the president of the United Seniors, I get no compensation from the United Seniors, um, and I leave the room and supervisors can vote on an item for the United Seniors uh voted up or down.

But the point of the matter is the United Seniors is a small nonprofit organization that receives support on occasion from the county to do the work that it does to help seniors.

And I have no uh apologies for being a strong advocate of seniors of older adults.

County council informed me a couple of months ago that I should also disclose if a family member uh works for the United Seniors, and I just started to disclosing that recently uh because my daughter came back from graduate school in September after being at Leola and getting her master's in social work and she works for the United Seniors starting in September.

And when anything came to the board once county council informed me of this, I've disclosed that my daughter is uh an employee of United Seniors, but she's you know a um an adult and a non-dependent.

So I just disclosed that at the advice of county council.

So for me, I just don't understand what this is all about.

And if the senator or anyone else feels there's corruption, I know the FBI's talked to me in the past, not to me personally about any corruption that I might have been involved in, but I'm sure they keep an eye on me.

Uh, but they've talked to me about other people.

So if they if people feel there's corruption, if Kelly feels there's corruption, then go to the FBI.

Go to the FBI.

I encourage you to do that.

Because they're always looking and they budget people.

I mean, they just budget the you know, the mayor of Oakland, uh, was it a year or so ago?

Can't remember, but they're always out there looking for you know misconduct.

So what I say is this is a slippery slope.

There's no justification for it.

If we yield to this, we not only yield our authority, we do it in a manner um that I think is inappropriate, a disservice to the electorate, a disservice to the residents and taxpayers of Alameda County, and we then allow the state to get out of its lane and begin to dictate um beyond the scope of its authority, and once again, if it can do it to Alameda County, it can do it other counties and other jurisdictions.

Um, there's no court order to do this, there's no evidence of any corruption or anything like that to do this.

This is based on whatever motivations the senator has.

And I once again I'm very discouraged, disappointed in our state senators who I thought were friends and had more sense to support this.

I can't believe they did it.

So I'm hoping our friends in the state assembly um don't support it.

And I'm hoping if they do support it, the governor vetoes it.

And if all else fails, then I guess we'll see them in court.

Supervisor Miley, thank you.

Supervisor Tam.

Um, thank you, President Halbert.

I appreciate the update from our government affairs um lobbyists in Sacramento.

I think the definition of discretionary funding in this bill has grown increasingly problematic.

Um it seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

A lot of the uses the funds, uh, whether it's measure A, C, W, are often used because we have to deal with unfunded mandates at the county.

We get cuts by the federal government, as we saw from HR one with Prop 1 shifting from the state.

We have to look at some offsets, and the examples that you see today, for example, under item number 27 for district one, that's funding Tri-Valley Seek and Save to provide temporary housing and long-term housing referrals.

The state cut our help funding in this proposal.

And this doesn't just benefit district one, it benefits the entire county.

Item number 30 is also uh a discretionary funding that is being used under enhanced vision in 2030 uh 2036, so is item number 38, which is funding the San Francisco Foundation to support families impacted by HR 1.

And that's for the entire county.

That's not just District 2 who requested the allocation.

So and the four-fifth vote is a built-in measure for all of our budgetary items, not just for discretionary funds, because we are moving funds from a designated account to the specific use.

And that's why all those items requires a four-fifths vote in accordance with the policies and practice.

So I am very um frustrated to see how this bill has progressed in a way that is not helpful to our constituents in Alameda County.

Thank you, Supervisor Tem.

I note Supervisor Marquez, you have your hand raised.

Yes, thank you, President Howard.

I will echo many of the same comments my colleagues have made.

Just want to point for the public's reference, if you look at our items on the agenda, starting with 45 through.

So in my opinion, along with the fact that my colleagues have already mentioned that this does require a four-fifths vote.

This is has to be published on the agenda.

We legally have to take public comment on the items.

And then the other items that were uh just piggybacked discussed by Supervisor TAM, uh 27 and 32, these have an actual contract.

So it's even more specification and specific standard service agreement in terms of goals and objectives.

So, in my opinion, I don't think anyone here is being irresponsible with public dollars.

We are demonstrating the exact use.

And as you've heard from many of the nonprofits, they depend on these non-restrict restrictive, flexible funds to help meet their budget challenges.

We continue to face hits not only from the state and federal government, but as was mended, uh mentioned many uh uh unfunded mandates.

So we are doing our best here as county supervisors to meet the need of the community.

If there was any wrongdoing that would be flagged by public comment or by our other colleagues, we would not be supporting each other's um unique requests.

We only support those that are protecting and advancing the safety net and our goals for 2036.

So I continue to remain opposed to this legislation and really just um disappointed in the time and energy that's been spent on this because there has not been any allegations of wrongdoing or misappropriation of funds because everything has to be agendized, vetted, and viewed by the public, and anyone that has a concern has the ability to weigh in.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Marquez.

I'd like to ask our county administrator to explain a little more deeply because I believe that we have been characterized here as less than transparent.

And when in reality, I believe we are more transparent than many counties throughout the state.

Um, and I'd like our county administrator to explain more deeply the ways in which we here in Alameda County exhibit good governance and transparency and how we operate.

Thank you, President Howard.

Members of the board, just to follow up on some of the comments that were made.

It's been your board's long-standing practice to bring items where you are spending your discretionary funds uh to the board on your regular agenda.

So the items are submitted through my office, they're reviewed by the auditor's office, county council's office, and other relevant departments before being placed on the agenda.

They are placed on your regular agenda, not as consent items.

Um, so again, they're on the regular agenda, which is posted 72 hours in advance.

In addition, um, we require through a form that was developed by the auditor's office, um, that your office uh fill out this form for each of the organizations for which you're providing funding.

I think you're familiar with the form, it's quite detailed.

Um, it includes um identification of the organization that's going to receive the funds, their mission and purpose, the purpose of the the funds that you are allocating to them, its alignment with your board's vision 2036.

It also requires that the recipient organization signs the form and acknowledges the purposes for which they will use the funds, and there's also a requirement that they provide a report back.

So you know, I want to be clear again as Supervisor Miley indicated that this is the process for prior year savings as well as other discretionary funds that your board may be spending.

And again, um the four-fifth vote is a requirement because these funds are not included in your operating budget.

So the prior year carryover funds are maintained in a separate fund by the auditor and not until and after your board takes an affirmative action to approve the allocations.

Do those funds get transferred for disbursement?

Thank you.

Um bill language was introduced.

Did the senator confer with our county counties county uh administrators' office?

We were not contacted.

So they didn't.

She or her staff didn't ask how we currently operate.

She didn't do her homework is what it feels like.

Did the Senate committee ever ask us?

Do we have transparency or not, or do we follow the things that are many of the things listed in this bill we already do, or we do even exceed?

Did we ever get contacted by the Senate committee?

We did not get contacted by the legislation.

Is I guess is Amy still on?

Yes, I am.

Yeah, did they did they ever ask you any of this?

We did.

We had multiple meetings with the committee consultant, President Halbert, and we did actually provide a blank copy of the form that your board is referencing to committee staff.

Uh, and I handed it out in person when I testified on behalf of the county at the committee hearing.

All right, so that fell on deaf ears.

Did the senator ever confer with you before writing this language?

No, okay.

I mean, um, there's just a big disconnect, and I don't um, I mean, I know the Senate committee has a lot on their plate, so um right now we're at the standpoint of at the point of uh having to uh as supervisor Miley mentioned work with our assembly members as this bill is um transferred over there, but it just seems to me very clear that um very little homework was put into this before it was done.

Otherwise, it would have been known all the things that we already do.

Um, I'm I'm concerned about what a com one of the comments.

Well, I'm concerned about a lot, and I echo everything my colleagues have mentioned, but Supervisor Miley mentioned that this is an overreach and it could very well be past the point of lawfulness.

In fact, it can be unlawful conflict with state government code, and that should be very concerning to um members of the committees, and ultimately, if this is passed to the governor, if he were to decide to sign this, which I would suspect maybe not if it's unlawful.

I'm also concerned because language in this bill is tied very clearly to the election cycle.

Our nonprofit organizations do not operate tied to our election cycle.

They have needs, 365 days a year.

To me, that just proves well, I'll say it another way.

The language that was developed for this, this entire this language of this bill was added after members of this board endorsed another candidate.

Then this comes out, then this targets Alameda County, then this ties to an election cycle.

It's very clear this is an election stunt.

Very clear this is an election stunt.

I note that it ties us or compares us or insinuates that Alameda County supervisors are anything like Orange County.

What happened in Orange County was unexcusable, and it has nothing to do with Alameda County.

I'm offended that the Senator would outright accuse us and compare us to what happened there.

I would also like to remind everybody that we are closer to our community than the state of California.

We are the ones on the front line that know our communities very well.

They do it without transparency, they have these uh pork type projects.

So this to me wreaks of rules for thee, but not for me.

The senator might want to consider making rules of state law that apply to them.

I'm disappointed that this bill is a spot bill targeted at one county when in reality that's not allowed.

You don't tie a bill to one county unless you can show that it's not needed and not appropriate to apply to other counties, and that's exactly what this does.

As Supervisor Miley mentioned, if this is good business good governance, then apply it to everybody.

If you can't show that it shouldn't be, then it shouldn't be a spot bill.

So I think maybe we need to re-educate uh on state law.

Um, this is an overreach.

I may have disappointed that it went through the Senate, but again, I think a lot has been said since then.

And I think Supervisor Miley and and his staff, and I I know my staff and the uh nonprofits that I've talked to have driven awareness about this, because without that, this might just get swept under the rug.

But people are starting to understand exactly what's really happening here, and um much has been said since the Senate um took this up.

Um, I'm hopeful that much will continue to be said.

I'm hopeful that the assembly and we will be reaching out to our assembly delegation members to uh arm them.

We will be reaching out to members of the committee in the assembly that will be hearing this and educating them on the truth about this bill, and so um I am cautiously optimistic that we can speak some truth into this, that Sacramento will listen, and as Supervisor Miley said, if they don't, we may see them in court.

Supervisor Miley.

Yeah, thanks for the Halbert.

And I just want to say, um, since I've been on the board, it's not as though the state legislators uh be the senators or the assembly folks have always agreed with Alameda County.

I mean, we've had disagreements, but never have I had a senator or an assembly person take actions that are so egregious as this, and that's what really gets on, you know, just gets makes me boil because this is egregious, it's out of line, it's unconscionable, um, and um it's it's quite frankly taking over our responsibility that we've been um delegated to have as elected officials.

Uh I would also like to ask the auditor, Melissa Wilk, to speak to um how she scrutinizes these things.

You know, she's an elected auditor, auditor controller recorder for Alameda County.

I don't think she or her staff get bullied or coerced or anything like that to move things through, but if she could just speak to how she ensures the integrity of what we're doing.

Good afternoon.

Uh, Supervisor Miley said, my name is Melissa Wilk.

I'm the Alameda County Auditor Controller Clerk Recorder.

Um, and I don't want to reiterate everything that the board members have said about the actual process of approving um payments uh through the form uh 110-49 or following procurement rules for other discretionary funding.

Um but I did want to say that um there's probably not any department or elected head around in the county that doesn't know how um serious our department takes compliance with county rules and our manual of accounting policies and procedure.

Uh we ensure that all of the payments that are issued through our department are in compliance with um the procurement rules, the manual of accounting policy procedure, they have the uh requisite Board of Supervisors approval.

Um I also want to state that uh our department spends a lot of time training staff.

We do Board of Supervisors, annual trainings, we do trainings for new electeds, new department heads, we do quarterly accounts payable trainings.

Uh we work with the general services agency as well to do procurement trainings.

Um, and a lot of that covers the accounts payable process along with uh the board discretionary funds.

Does that um okay?

I I I'd like to add by saying that um and reiterating I think this is um mean-spirited and vindictive, but I also want to point out that every one of the nonprofit organizations that we provide funding to, which are doing good work in our community.

A few to name today, NAMI, the National Association for Mental Illness, Goodness Village, who helps alleviate homelessness, um spectrum community services, meals on wheels, hers, breast cancer.

These are good organizations, but we provide funding literally hundreds of nonprofit organizations across the entire county.

Every one of them should be appalled at this, and every one of them should be opposed to this bill.

So continuing to create awareness and continuing to fight this is something that I'm committed to.

With that said, this is just an update.

Um, do we want to bring it back for any summary?

Uh uh action directions, Supervisor Miley.

Any comments?

Well, this yeah, this I just requested this come to the board.

Um, and I requested that uh President Howard and County Administrator put this on the board agenda as a said item, so we get a status report on where we are and where we're going.

And I hope based on our comments, uh the public understands this, um, that the electeds in Sacramento understand this, that our lobbyists can use this in her efforts at trying to convince the assembly not to support this, and ultimately, if it gets to the governor, the governor not to support it.

You know, um, yeah, I think it's it means a lot.

It's this is very important, and we spent a lot of time on it that we we shouldn't have to spend because we got a lot of other things we got to deal with, as well as those folks in Sacramento.

But I just hope today's airing of this provides sufficient um information, ammunition, um, uh for um our lobbyists and others uh to go forth and do the right thing.

Yeah, thank you for that, Supervisor Miley.

It just you reminded me of one other point, which is um uh we have a lot of other things on our plate, they have a lot of other things on their plate.

I'm not convinced that this isn't a deflection from other examples of waste, fraud, and abuse that happen in California.

Look at uh other examples in Southern California with hospice care and uh other examples throughout the country.

Um, the state should probably be looking in its own backyard before coming after $500 contributions to the types of organizations that we provide um assistance to.

So anyway, enough's been said, unless there's anything else seeing none this was.

I'd like to thank the auditor.

I'd like to thank the administrator.

I just asked Supervisor Benz, if she agrees, you want to go on record.

Um we have already uh we have already approved as a board our opposition to this legislation, and um, I think a lot has been said, and the bottom line is that we have some uh very responsible uh policies in effect uh for our discretionary spending, and um I think that uh given the context in terms of uh no issues that any of us are aware of with our spending that is inappropriate that we as a board should be able to work together to uh continue to make any improvements that might be necessary to ensure that there's the accountability and transparency that we are all committed to, and that the public also understands what these funds are, how we spend them, um, and what the impact can be.

Thank you.

Very well said, Supervisor Fortnite.

Thank you for adding that.

Um with that, we will move to let's see.

We have item 151, public assistance item, which is our social services agency, department of children and family services status update on the findings of the state auditors' report to the joint committee on legislative audits.

This is an item continued from a previous special meeting of May 19th.

Good afternoon, President Halbert, members of the board and community, Andrea Ford, agency director for social services.

Just would like to introduce Michelle Love, the assistant agency director for Department of Children and Family Services, and she will provide um status update number nine on the um findings of the state auditors report to the joint committee on legislative audits, Michelle.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Today we're gonna go over where we are today.

I'm gonna cover the report audit timeline, the follow-up from the previous Senator Wahab's task force meeting, um, an update on the California Department of Social Services on-site visit.

Information disseminated at the April 10th and April 27th.

Our open referrals and investigations, emergency response status, child welfare staffing update, hiring of bachelor's level, child welfare workers, child welfare supervisor staffing, child welfare training hours, open referrals, investigations over time dashboard, the 2025 survey of DCFS staff, department highlights, status and implementation of recommendations, collaborations with systems serving children, the interagency timeline for AB 2083, continued outreach for recruitment, our caregiver appreciation, and there is um now a text and a glossary of frequently used terms and the full um written recommendations from the audit.

So, um review of the 2024 audit timeline.

Um things that we are anticipating coming up in the next two months.

We will have the findings report from CDSS, likely at the end of June or the beginning of July.

And we'll have our 12-month progress report that goes back to the state auditors in September of this year.

So, at the California at the last task force meeting, Senator Dr.

Wahhab had the California State Auditor represent the findings from the audit.

Grant Parks did this presentation.

I think he's the person over the auditor's office.

His staff had previously done this presentation, but they've added a few things.

So the presentation included the following audit next steps.

A recommendation to follow up annually over the next three years.

This item in and of itself is not unusual.

Our department has been involved in two other audits, um, where we were randomly selected by the state auditor's office, and there's often an annual update following the audit's conclusion.

What is new is that they have added a staff's communications channel.

The email address is on the slide.

We're on page five.

Well, it's moving it.

Thank you.

There is a concern from Senator and from Mr.

Parks that although we are not implementing, although we are implementing policies that they may not really be being implemented by staff.

So they've created a hotline for staff to call in and share where they think we are not implementing the audit recommendations.

There is an irony in that as the people implementing those recommendations are the staff that they would want to call in.

So California Department of Social Services on site review.

This occurred March 26, 26.

As part of the on-site, they did focus groups with child welfare staff and supervisors, total of 26 workers and supervisors were part of focus groups.

They did individual interviews with 15 child welfare workers and an entrance conference with all of our program managers and the division directors of the department.

In addition to the interview, CDSS conducted a case review on April 26th of a combination of cases and referrals open from July 1st, 25 through March 13th.

As I stated earlier, we are expecting a report of findings and recommendations, 12 weeks from the date of the on-site visit.

Next slide.

So information disseminated by the department at the April 10th, 26th Task Force meeting, and the April 27th Social Services Committee, how concerns and complaints are addressed.

The department addresses concerns and complaints as follows.

Complaints or concerns that rise to the level of a civil rights violation are sent to the Social Services Agency Human Resources for Investigation and Resolution.

CFS client concerns are received from several quarters portals.

They come through phone calls or letters to the assistant agency director, myself, or the agency director Andrea Ford.

Agency-wide client concern emails are sent to client concern at ACGov.org.

Depending on the nature of the client concern, the issue may be reviewed by the child welfare worker of record, child welfare supervisors, program managers, or division directors.

CDSS has several ways for clients and staff to file complaints about a worker or the agency.

There is the social worker hotline for child welfare staff, and there's also a foster youth ombudsperson.

I think there is a concern by the task force that we do not have an ombudsperson, but it's important to note that an ombudsperson for the department is not required by either state or federal statute.

Next slide.

So open referral investigations, emergency response.

We do have some referrals that date back that we are looking at getting closed.

We've had a 7.2% increase in open referral since April 6th of this year, and a 47.6 increase in investigated referral volume in March 26, and a 24% increase in investigated referral volume in April compared to the 2025 average.

So basically what we're saying in March and April, the number of referrals received through our child abuse hotline greatly exceeded the numbers we had received in the prior year.

There is also 11.4 decrease in the referrals that are still open, one year or longer.

Right now we have 370 referrals that are pending closure.

That means the investigation has been done and it is waiting for the supervisor to review and close it.

Next slide, please.

Chat welfare worker staffing update.

So this slide gives you an idea of our staffing from 2024, 25, and 26.

We have continuous filing deadlines for exams.

July 15th is our next exam.

September 15th, and then November 16th.

And I want to note that's a 10% decline since the audit report was released in September.

We think that's in part to our aggressive online social campaign, the commercials we did, and the continuous hiring.

So the hiring of bachelor's level child welfare workers.

From 23 to 25, we hired 48 bachelor's level child welfare workers.

They were assigned to various program units throughout the department.

Of these 48, 38 are still employed with the department.

There has in one of our recommendations, it says that 50% of staffing in emergency response should be bachelor's level staff because there is there was a belief in the audit report that they are easier to hire.

So currently there are 13 ERU and DI staff that are bachelor's level child welfare workers, which is 25%.

The remaining bachelor's level child welfare workers are assigned to other programs as follows.

There is one in our intake screening or the hotline as some people refer to it.

There are six in family maintenance, nine in family reunification, and nine in our permanent youth connections program.

Next slide, please.

So child welfare supervisor staffing.

We have a vacancy rate of 17.6 for child welfare supervisors.

This includes all positions, which is a number slightly larger than our actual funded FTEs.

We are gonna have our supervisor list expires June of this year of this month, and our next recruitment will be July 2026.

It's important to note though that despite the 17.6 vacancy rate, there are no uncovered units.

So right now we have no place to put additional supervisors.

It's just a vacancy rate.

As your staffing declines, there's less need for supervisors, and we've done what we could not to promote people and take people off the line.

So that rate exists without units for them to go to.

Next slide, please.

So child welfare training hours.

We put in a better monitoring process of training hours in the fall of last year following the audit report.

As you can see, the supervisors are on the left and the child welfare workers on the right.

At every quarter since our new monitoring process began, the number of hours has increased.

Supervisors are now including in their regular conference memos with staff, a reminder about training hours, and it's also incorporated into their evaluations, which was the request of the auditors.

We are also following up with staff that are not where they should be at the threshold to make their 20 hours with the expectation of that completion before the end of the year.

So this is a snippet from our actual audit dashboard that is on the website.

And for those listening who may not be aware, all of the recommendations for the DCFS audit can be found on the Social Services Agency website.

This slide looks at open referrals over time.

So important to note a couple of things.

If you look at the number of open referrals in August 2021, before we lost staff, that is when you can first see our referrals going up.

Prior to that time, we had a pretty steady influx of number of open referrals.

When we were at the height of not having sufficient staffing, our open referrals climbed, and right now we are at the point of reducing them through concentrated effort.

It says there's 1734 open referrals.

That does include the 375 referrals that the investigation is completed, and we're just rating for closure.

So that number of investigations pending is just under 1500.

Next slide, please.

So survey of our staff, I presented this to you all previously, but it's a good reminder because we've moved pretty far along.

We are a part of the National Partnership for Child Safety, and we had a survey about how staff are doing and their opinions of the department.

The top three measures are significant because those are the ones that relate most significantly to children uh staff retaining their positions, psychological safety, whether team members feel accepted, respected, and feel free to speak up and take interpersonal risk.

Mindful organizing, 71%.

This is how teams monitor, plan, innovate, learn, and support from number from one another.

Workplace connections, 77% of staff felt they were free to go to co-workers within the agency.

Also important, emotional exhaustion.

Only 34% of the staff felt that they were emotionally exhausted.

63% of them were able to recognize this exhaustion.

This study was voluntary as most surveys are within the department, and our response rate was 54%, which is higher than most voluntary surveys, which leads some credence to what the survey said.

Next slide, please.

So here's where we are in terms of the progress with the year-long survey.

We presented to staff and conducted focus groups through March of this year.

We've identified themes and staff feedback for area of improvement.

We're expecting a plan to go out to staff this month.

We will continue to have ongoing staff communications about the survey instrument and results.

The intention was not just to gather information from staff, but to pay to take their real-time feedback to look at things that they think need to be improved in the department.

Most recently we were looking at staffing, and I have sent to the agency director the concrete ideas that the staff said that would make them feel safe.

Most of them are easily accomplished, things like security guards going around the building more often, better lighting, things that are easily accomplished.

Our annual survey will be readministered beginning in July of this year.

Next slide.

Um in July of this year.

Next slide.

And next week we'll be celebrating our independent living program graduation on June 11th.

That was conducted on May 27th.

We are having a border network human rights training, which is an immigration rights training for our foster parents, the community and staff on June 15th.

We're also having a safety convening.

This is a safety and well-being convening, training on safety science for the community, staff, our relevant stakeholders will be inviting the courts, other Bay Area Child Welfare Directors.

We are having our key state keynote will be Vanessa from case, Vanessa Durantes from KC Family Programs, and Mike Cole, who is one of the leaders in Safety Science will be explaining that work to the participants.

Next slide, please.

So the status of implementation of recommendations.

We have implemented seven of the 15 recommendations.

Those were shadowing opportunities for new workers, improving documentation and court reports, relative identification process, updating our system improvement program improvement plan, I'm sorry, holding staff accountable for training hours with progressive discipline, training accountability system, and adding timeliness measures to all contracts.

The measures that or the audit recommendations that are still pending are improving timely measures and supervisor review of emergency response referrals, reviewing and identifying impediments to initiating completely completing referrals timely, strategies to address impediments to initiating and completing referrals timely, serving staff on retention and recruitment and developing an action plan.

So again, that action plan will be completed this month.

Hiring more bachelor's level CWWs, improve the MOUs with interagency partners, policies for transitional shelter care facility, and our quarterly evaluation of transitional shelter care facility performance.

I would note for 11 and 12, all the policies have been completed and submitted to the auditor's office.

But due to the delay in opening of the assessment center and not having any children at the facility, we can't put the policies in place.

All right, next slide, please.

This is a reminder the collaboration with systems serving children.

We have our governance body.

This is our interagency coordinating council.

These are executives at my agency director's level.

Some members of stakeholders in the community.

Then we have our interagency leading team.

This is our problem solving group that looks at system youth that are costing multiple systems and how do we serve them best.

This is a group that I participate in.

And we also have an ILT subcommittee that works on coordination.

How do we better facilitate coordination between staff?

Next slide.

So interagency timeline.

So in 2021, they launched the California Youth Behavioral Initiative.

This was adopted and became the AB 2083 MOU for interagency work.

In 2024, there was a certified wellness program developed.

2026, we began looking at identifying priorities for renewing our MOU.

We anticipate the renewal of the AB 23 MOU will be completed in 2027.

Next slide.

Next slide, please.

Our appendix just has a glossary of terms and the full definitions of each of the audit recommendations.

Next slides.

It's the glossary, frequently used terms that come up when I'm presenting.

And those are the full audit recommendations.

I don't include them in the body because the language is lengthy.

Questions?

Thank you for the presentation.

I'll bring it back for questions.

I note that you've probably given this presentation to our social services team before.

Do you think I know we've seen some of this information as well?

Supervisor Tam, questions.

Yeah.

Thank you for the update.

I know we um had to continue the item because we had a full agenda and appreciate your flexibility.

Um just had a couple of I think more clarification questions, particularly on slide 13.

If you can help us pull that back up, so when we look at open referral investigations, um you have the target value of 800, and uh you we track the actual um number of open referrals, and then you mentioned that um we're about to close 375 out of the 1,734 this year or about this month.

Do you um do you know why we have the 800 uh baseline?

Yeah, so the 800 looks at one the number of staff we have, and because referrals count from any point in the month.

So we count two and a half months out because their 30 days is continuous.

So that 800 is reflective of the number of staff, the number of possible referrals they can receive over two and a half months.

So because at any point they could be closing those cases.

So it's reflective of how many if they were completely current on all their cases, how many they would have.

That number will change the as we put more staff in emergency response.

Okay.

So about like March of 2021, we had enough staff and we were keeping up, and then we lost staff, and our open cases kind of skyrocketed.

Yeah, they did.

Um I think what's clear in all the data from the audit is in as we lost staff, things kind of fell off.

We have fewer staff to do the work, people become overwhelmed in emergency response, especially because immediate cases are the ones that we need to go out in 24 hours.

So staff focus on the immediate cases, those may move on for assignment, and the 10 days, the ones that you have more time, those you have less time to work on.

Okay.

So uh since this is from DCFS, I assume that other um, it's a pretty standardized way of looking at uh open referrals and investigations and tracking it through the dashboard.

Do other counties have something similar?

And how do we compare, for example?

So do I don't know if other counties are tracking it this way?

Um I think this is in part due to the audit.

I think comparably it's difficult.

I think you could probably pull it up.

We all have a number of different cases.

For example, San Francisco, their workers get an emergency response about five new cases a month.

Ours, the average is 12, and that's a new caseload standard down from 15.

So you could, we probably wouldn't put on our audit dashboard because we want to keep that clean, but we can look at comparing it over time.

Um we could we could, yeah, we can look at other counties.

I think we can find that.

So if I went on, for example, Santa Clara County's uh social service website, would I be able to find a similar audit um tracking?

No, this is unique.

This audit dashboard is was requested by the board, and no, you wouldn't.

There are other areas you can look at the date data is always six months behind.

You see, Berkeley has a website that is behind uh about six months behind that's how long they say it takes to update it.

Um you could pull it up.

My only caution is to remember that all counties are different, right?

And so um it doesn't give you you can definitely compare the information.

Well, I appreciate that counties are different and with unique demographics and needs.

Um, but the the senator did cite um a lot of examples from Santa Clara County, for example, and so I'm just trying to get a sense of like is there um a model that we should be looking at?

Is how did they address their staffing issues?

So Santa Clara is different.

I try not to speak too much about other counties, but I would say I I don't know.

I think we're compared to Santa Clara often because of the size, it's unique to that particular office.

Um trying to figure out a polite way to say this.

A few years ago, there was criticism that they weren't removing enough children, and they actually removed fewer children in Santa Clara than we did in Alameda County.

So that's what I mean by unique things.

It's always easy to look and say this county is doing better than you are in a measure.

I think what's most important is looking at how many cases are you getting and whether or not you're doing what you're supposed to.

But it was just a few years ago, Santa Clara was heavily criticized in the media because they weren't removing enough children, and they felt that led to harm.

They've made changes in their policies to do that.

So I I that's that's what I mean though.

There's always gonna, I'm not really clear the why we are so frequently referred compared to Santa Clara.

I think that would director, we all try to focus on our own counties and making sure that our work is done as directed.

Um do you happen to know?

I I since Supervisor Fortunato Bass and I also serve on the PAL committee.

We we've been getting uh periodic updates about the state, um, looking at providing emergency response funding.

Do you know in terms of where things are at, whether we can expect some relief or some support from the state?

I will have a better idea about that next week.

Um, I had heard that it was it wasn't being cut when I was given the update of things that we definitely weren't getting.

And just a reminder, the last um ERU enhancement funds we used as retention bonuses for staff staying in ERU.

Okay, I I mean, when you look at the trending, obviously uh we're making progress because our referrals are going down, hoping to get the staff ratio to meet at least the 800 baseline.

So I'm hopeful that uh we will get there soon.

And I'm just also hopeful that there's an effort that they recognize that this is an effort we're moving toward in terms of um reducing our vacancies and filling up our um our staffing so that we can address the referrals.

Any other questions?

Supervisor Fortunately, thank you.

Some of those proposals.

So right before this presentation, Supervisor Sam, you did ask me about the Title 4E stipend project.

Um may revise, um, the proposals to cut it.

Um, and for the Senate, they are approving the $18.4 million general fund and they add an additional 4.5 million.

So that's a change from May revised.

And then the assembly, who just met yesterday, they're approving the May revised funding.

They're rejecting $4 million stopgap requested by Alameda County and CWDA.

And you also asked about the emergency response stabilization money.

So the May revise on the proposal was to cut it.

Um, the description is 100 million dollar response funding from 2122, and it's not being renewed.

And for the Senate, they didn't mention that in their proposal, but for the assembly, they approved 20 million dollar general fund one time requested by Alameda County and CWDA.

So those are the changes since the May revised, and you'll hear just a little bit more about it next Monday at the Joint Health and Social Services.

Yeah, and I understand that they have until June 15 to kind of collapse the two the Senate and the Assembly reconciled.

Yes, okay, thank you.

So um, I'd just like to add on to the point about the Title IVE funding.

That is going to have a significant impact for potential hiring of staff coming to this field.

That Title IVE funding provides stipends to people to go to school to get their master's degrees.

The CSUs also use it for their bachelor staffing, right?

So to get a MSW from UC Berkeley is about $25,000 a year, and this funding cover the majority of that.

So in a time where our pipeline of people being not interested in doing child welfare, the cutting of that funding is gonna have a significant impact for child welfare in the coming years.

Okay, there goes my optimism.

Sorry, still be optimistic.

Supervisor Fortune pass.

Thank you for this update as well as the ongoing updates.

Um, maybe just uh remind ourselves, you know, I think this board is incredibly committed to making sure that this work is leading to our children being safe and being safer.

So to the extent that we're able to really understand that abuses of neglect uh cases of uh abuse and neglect are investigated in a timely fashion, that we have adequate staff who have reasonable caseloads, and also that we have safe places um for children to go, whether that's family members, foster homes or other shelters, all of that is what we're really striving towards.

Um I didn't want to say that on page 19.

I did appreciate uh Director Love you adding a slide about collaboration.

I believe that was one of the things that um I asked Director Ford about last time we talked.

Um, it's good to see that slide on collaboration with various agencies on page 19.

Can you talk a little bit about how service providers fit in?

Like, is there also a collaborative space where service providers are able to share any um trends, concerns, do troubleshooting with the rest of our partners?

So there are a couple of places where this occurs.

I do believe in the past, the ICC, the governance body has had an executive from the alliance present.

I think it's real important for your board and for the community at large that the alliance does not speak to the cult, the totality of community providers in Alameda County.

I think in the last few years that has been lost, and the other child serving partners don't aren't included in that discussion.

I think primarily because of wealth and who has access to make those comments.

We also quarterly have a child abuse, we have a prevention network of stakeholders, which is upwards of 50 to 70 providers, most of whom do not receive any county funding to do their work, but they are serving the same children.

We meet quarterly, we have an active, what we call the CalPrevents website where each stakeholder takes turns updating it, letting people know all the things that are happening in the community.

So there is a couple of ways of how people are defining community.

Um I think it's very important that we not define community, is the people who have greater access and know to come to a supervisor.

I know that there have been members of the alliance who have felt that the agency wasn't as open to them, and we don't collaborate with them, and there is a great, not nostalgia, but a want for us to go back to our days of ICPC, which was the interagencies children policy council that was absorbed into all in under supervisor Chan.

Um was also when we had the Title IV waivers, so we could give money for anything you could try.

These are different budget times.

So I do think there is a want for that.

The ICPC though was greater than department.

It was literally all the child serving systems, and that was actually led by the board.

So there we are.

I know there is a want for that, but I do think there's two halves of this community, and there's a half of this community in Alameda County that comes to the table regularly with no ask for money and continues to serve our children, um, and they get lost in the debate about who we are connected with.

Okay, that's that's good to um understand.

I might want to follow up offline later.

Um, just a couple more questions.

In terms of the on-site review, um, it looks like there were 15 child welfare workers who were interviewed.

I'm just curious, sort of what percentage of uh the CWWs that is.

Is it a big portion of that staff?

Um it isn't a big portion, it was the number they requested.

So they wanted 65 total.

And you know, we're trying to be transparent.

So we didn't take all our superstars.

We wanted to give them a full understanding of the department.

So we gave staff that great staff who may struggle a little bit.

Um the interviews, half of them were with emergency response, though.

That was their caveat that for the in-person interviews, they really wanted to hear what was happening in ERU.

But the number um of total interviews with child welfare workers and everyone, that was determined by the state and how many people they could bring out to do interviews on that day.

They did it all in one day.

So okay, it sounds like it was a diversity, diversity of viewpoints.

So that's positive.

And then I think that slide said that there would be a report on findings and recommendations from the interviews, from the case reviews in about 12 weeks.

So is that coming relatively soon?

Yeah, I had a conversation with Angie Schwartz, who's over the children's bureau.

She said she's anticipating the report um in the coming days.

Uh, she's out of the office next week so she's hoping to complete it.

Um, because uh Senator Will Hop had asked for this when she did, she asked for um the head of CDSS to be present um in her meeting with them.

And so the report now needs to go to higher levels after Angie, and then it'll circle back to us.

So, depending on how long it takes for that additional review.

I'm anticipating hopefully by the end of June or the beginning of July, we'll have that report.

But they're trying to be sure to include all the people that were in the initial meeting with the senator to have a chance to review the findings.

Okay, thank you.

And then I appreciate seeing the slide in terms of how concerns and complaints are addressed.

How is that information disseminated?

Like how would somebody know if they have a concern to share, how to share that?

So I think we have been, we after that.

If I'm correct, I don't know if it's on.

Is that has been we're planning to update that to our website so people can see it?

But um client concerns generally they hear back from us directly.

Um in terms of it being public or knowing to get this.

Um in terms of uh the general public and our clients knowing proactively if they happen to have a concern, how do they share that?

It looks like we've got an email, we've got a form, like how do we proactively make sure that people look that we're open that we're open to hearing comments and concerns?

Um thank you, Supervisor Force Nattle Bass.

I will supplement whatever Michelle adds.

But um, it's available on our website.

Um there are telephone numbers.

Um again, if there is an allegation of discrimination, um, there's uh an email for that that'll go directly to the HR civil um civil rights um employee.

So there are multiple ways, but it's all transparent, it's all available to the public on our website.

Now, what I can't confidently answer is if it's all in one place, and so we're working to make sure it's all in one place, and what Michelle just um presented about client concerns and some of the other information we would like to, if it hasn't been done, add that to the um audit website as well.

Okay.

Um then once a concern is submitted, just briefly, how is that handled?

You know, do people hear right away that it's been received and what the timeline will be, who will be contacting them, etc.

So sometimes it varies, it depends on the concern.

Um generally we get back to people to let them know.

Sometimes it's a letter.

I have one person who calls me two or three times a week, and we're just connecting and explaining things again to him so he feels comfortable in them.

But often we get back to people to let them know the status, what we can do, what we can change, if there's any concern that we can address.

So typically the people hear back from whoever was the last person to review the concern.

Yeah.

So it could vary on a case.

It varies from case to case.

Okay.

I'll leave my questions there.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Supervisor Marquez.

I see you have your hands up.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the update.

Um, just want to start off with when will we be getting another update?

I know this is the ninth update, and they're going to Social Services Committee.

Do we have the next meeting date scheduled?

It will likely be um the fourth Monday of June.

If there's a social services committee meeting, it would be the next social service committee.

The 29th.

The 29th, okay.

Thank you for that.

Um, and then just go ahead.

And one last thing, um, we're scheduled to present to the um task force on the 12th of June, another update.

Okay.

And that's still the regular cadence.

I think they're meeting every other Friday, but I believe there's been a few cancellations.

Yes, every other Friday with exception, yes.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

Um, just wanted to flag on page eight.

I know this was discussed already with respect to the open referrals and the 7.2 increase since April.

Uh, and we still have a backlog of 370 uh referrals pending closure.

Just want to have a better understanding in terms of what type of operational changes are going to be made to try to reduce that backlog since we still have a relatively high vacancy rate.

So a couple of things are happening.

We are in a meeting confer with the supervisors union about um expectations for closing cases.

We actually have a former child welfare supervisor who has been assisting with closing cases.

She's also um been working on some problematic cases.

So we can figure out why some of these really old ones are still present.

We have a retired annuity that is coming back that will just be closing cases that will be able to assist.

Okay, great.

And then with respect to the survey, I understand that it's gonna be an annual survey being conducted with the staff.

Do we have a breakdown in terms of who's actually filling out the survey, whether or not they're direct line staff, supervisors or support staff?

We do have a breakdown and we can get it.

We have it by division.

The survey went out to the entire department.

So all classifications participated in this survey, but we do have a breakdown and we can include that in our next presentation.

Okay, thank you.

And then how will we know that the feedback by employees is taken into consideration and what changes are being implemented based off their input?

So if not at the June Social Services Committee, then the July Social Services Committee part of my presentation will include the plan that was developed based on the feedback provided to staff.

Staff will be updated of the plan, and then they will see the things that we can concretely be able to implement based on their recommendations.

So to the board, it probably won't come to you until the social services committee of either June or July.

Staff will see that um sooner.

I would comfortably say July.

If we can turn it around in a couple of weeks.

Okay, thank you for that.

And with respect to the assessment center, how are things going there?

Have we had any young people there?

Just what's the overall status update?

We have had a young person there a couple weeks ago.

We had our first um entry into the assessment center.

Um we are under a couple of edicts from the state that we do everything possible before a child actually gets to go there.

So we've only had one so far, but um we expect there will be more.

Okay.

And any changes with service providers, or does everything remain intact in terms of the previous location?

So we will be coming to your board on the 16th.

Our current service provider has asked to not go for it with the remaining two years on their contract.

So we will be asking for an extension with a different um provider while we do a RFP for a completely new provider.

Okay.

And then I'm going back to the slide presentation on page 18.

It indicates that seven um recommendations have been fully implemented with eight remaining.

They're still pending.

Out of those eight, can you just kind of articulate for us which have the greatest risk?

What are you most concerned about in terms of getting us to complete implementation?

So items one through three are all about emergency response.

Oh, where'd she go?

They're all about emergency response and staffing.

I am hopeful um we continue to close the referrals, but I am hoping hopeful that our meet and confer will resolve, and then we can let the auditor know what we're doing to monitor the closure of cases because those are in part about closing, but they're also about the monitoring process, not necessarily the closure of the referrals.

Um then the hiring of more bachelor's level CWW ones into ER unit, as CWW allows.

We may just move bachelor's level staff in there.

We have been putting master's level staff whenever possible, master's level staff can actually have a greater impact into closing the cases because of the volume of caseloads they can carry.

Um so those two would be the primary ones.

We're actually doing fairly well on our vacancy rate.

If you were just to look at our uh vacancy rate for FTEs, it's actually like 22%.

So I do feel the hiring of staff has picked up, and we're pretty pleased with how that's going.

The other ones, um will be done before September.

Okay, great.

And we'll continue to get these updates at um the social services committee meeting.

Um just thank you for the progress in the work.

I know everybody's working incredibly hard to uh protect the safety and well-being of young people in our care.

So I do appreciate the updates and the frequent touch points, and just hope that we can get to implementation before the deadline, but appreciate the information that's been shared so far, and hopefully we could continue to accelerate the hiring.

Um, want to make sure we're also uh tracking the attrition rate.

Um, don't know if we're still seeing a lot of people retiring or separating, but I think it's important to um monitor that as well as conduct exit interviews to get a good sense of as to why people may be separating.

Thank you.

So, supervisor, um we are on that slide with the hiring.

We actually have a bar for attrition.

So you can see that we are tracking it with um resignations and other things.

Um what slide is that?

Sorry, what is that?

That is number nine actually includes attrition for um 24, 25, and 26.

Okay.

So we have been tracking that.

The department does exit interviews for every staff person that leaves the department so that we have an idea of why people are choosing to leave.

I would say um the biggest indicator typically is workload.

This is challenging work, and that work life balance is difficult.

So I see that now.

Thank you for flagging that.

But yes, the rationale would be important to know too, but glad to see we're tracking the numbers.

Thank you.

Um, and we are tracking the rationale as well.

Um, for the master's level, is typically retirement is the highest percentage.

Um attributed to um to staff leaving.

It's retirement for the master's level.

Okay, thank you.

Those are all my questions for now, thank you.

Supervisor Miley.

Oh, yes, I'm not trying to prolong this, but I thank you for such a thorough presentation.

Thorough responses to the questions.

My question is, how often will this be coming to the full board?

So far, it seems like it comes every couple of months.

Okay, I would like for this just to go to committee.

I trust Supervisor Tam and Marquez.

Excuse me, Supervisor Tam and Bass to receive this.

That's why we have, I mean, I'm not fussing at you, but that's why we have policy committees.

We have a lot of other things on our agenda, even today into this lengthy, a couple hours on this.

It's important.

I was on social services for 24 years, child welfare is important.

I do understand it, but we have policy committees since we've heard this quite a bit.

I would respectfully um encourage the board to just let this go to the policy committee, and when they feel it needs to come to the full board, either like this or at a work session, bring it to us.

But that's just me.

I think we ought to let them do the job.

I'd like to thank you for your report.

I know you have a difficult job.

Your staff has challenges, and that's true of any county.

Well, we're very different.

Sometimes job is very difficult no matter where you are.

And you've done this job for a long time.

You've seen changes come and go.

The space is very highly regulated is not the right word, but we got a lot of laws governing what you do, what you can't do, and what you must do.

I'd like if you could help me understand changes that you've seen in this space, laws that have been passed that have helped you do your job, and laws that have hindered you from doing your job that you and maybe other directors of your comparables in other counties find not as helpful.

We've talked about this before, Andrea Ford and I talked about this before.

I want to get to that because I want to be as helpful and advocative, if that's the right word, be able to advocate for you as possible.

Could you just help me understand better the pressures that you have?

So what I would say is everyone wants children to be healthy, safe, and well.

So as a result of that, lawmakers often want to focus on child welfare to give more work, right?

Everybody has an idea about how this work can be done better.

What it results in is more work, right?

So I have been on, I've been in child welfare for 30 years this summer, and I have been in the seat for 15 years.

And what I would say, I've been a co-chair of the state's workforce committee for child welfare.

Everything child welfare workers did when I was a social worker in 96, child welfare workers continue to do today.

There's been nothing that has been taken away in that time.

But in that time, we are one of the most heavily um mandated groups that there is.

And so when people say the workload is too high, it is too high.

We are part of a workload study that is looking at what can you take away from child welfare.

The state has six counties involved.

I was able to get in because we were doing a case assistance program, and I wanted to be able to bring to your board justifications for a lower level position that can do some of the administrative tasks that are assigned to child welfare workers.

And so that study is part of being run by Anita Barbia out of the University of Kentucky.

I think the state is starting to recognize that this job may actually be the job of two workers, and they are looking at how do they split it so that two workers can do that job.

And things that have been added to your plate that are uh mandates that you find to just not be very helpful as a professional.

I I think it's not that I don't think they're helpful.

It's hard because there's so many.

I just think some that we don't need to do anymore.

Like, for example, we are now doing cans with the child abuse and needs assessment to develop a case plan that takes five or six people to get together to do a case plan that used to take the family and the worker.

It's based.

Do you know what I mean?

So every time you add something that's adding four hours to what a worker needs to do, it lengthens out the work.

Um, the number of child family teamings staff do, they're great, they take time.

Um so we have things like we're getting a new computer system.

May or may not work, but it's coming.

It's hard to say which things don't work, but some things are duplicative.

And I think as a state system, we need to look at what's duplicative and what isn't.

Off the top of my head, I can't give you a lot of those, but I know that they that is what when I am with other directors, that is what we talk about.

We're doing a lot of the same things over and over, and this work doesn't really require a social worker.

Um I would also say that as a system, we look to improve the system ourselves.

So we put forth and the board through PAL, supported it, AB 1846, right?

So that children can stay with their families because the court often gets involved, and then families lose priority at a certain point in the system.

And this gives families priority throughout the system.

So if an aunt shows up a year and a half in, they still have the right to have their kin placed with them.

Have you been able to voice some of these um duplicative activities, additive on additive upon additive theme that I'm hearing?

Are you able to voice those?

So I do, um, and specifically in these task force meetings that you have with the senator.

So I would say, and I'm gonna see this in a clip for asking something about the senator.

I think the focus of those task force meetings is the audit and what the senator chooses to discuss.

Is there been anything helpful that's come out of that for you that you've been able to say, hey, that's really good.

That helps us.

Anything I would say, um this is always a tough question, Albert.

I appreciate your directness, because I'm gonna, I I don't find the forum the most helpful way to move this work forward.

I don't um, I believe the role of a child welfare leader is to look and how do we improve our systems, and that can be done through collaboration, and part of collaboration is the spirit in which we come to the table, right?

I don't think the task force is necessarily um here to that.

I will say that.

It's it's directed by the senator and her staff.

So I would say it's a one-way street.

Um, I would say I have staff that participate and listen to those meetings, and I've had staff stop me in the hall and thank me for standing up for this department, um, which is unusual.

Anyone from the state there?

There is somebody that takes notes from the state.

They find anything helpful.

I can't speak for CDSS, that wouldn't be.

They don't report as a one black box, they just take notes and don't share it back out.

You take notes and provide them to their leadership.

Okay.

How much time do you spend preparing for those meetings?

Participating in those meetings, reflecting on what was said at those meetings.

Obviously, it doesn't feel like a lot of implementation from those meetings, but it still takes a lot of your time.

How much time does it take?

So if we are doing a presentation, it could be eight to twelve hours, eight to ten, it feels like going through and preparing a presentation, making sure we have adequate answers and data to reflect the questions.

But I would say some of the content is also shared at the social services committee meeting.

So that eight eight to twelve hours, eight to ten hours, could be for both, and then duplicative, yeah.

And then a task force um lasts no in most cases no longer than one hour.

Supervisor, I feel your pain that we have a lot on our plate and we have to do a lot, and you want to see this come back to our board when they feel it's necessary, because we have a lot to do.

We need to feel their pain, they have a lot to do, and I'm hearing a lot of duplication.

I'm hearing a lot of one-way communication.

I'm hearing a lot of not as helpful as we would hope it might be.

How many more of these meetings you say till July?

And then is there an obligation for you to be doing these task force meetings?

This isn't a requirement, right?

This is not we're not requiring you.

I hope we're not requiring you to be there.

We haven't been told that we did not need to be there.

And I answer these questions because I'll tell you, you don't need to be there.

We haven't told you you have to be there.

If we don't tell you have to be there, then I don't think you've been told we don't need to be there.

If nobody's told you that, it's optional.

We should make that very clear.

It's at your discretion.

Your professional staff, you do what you need to do.

Unless we've told you you need to be there.

So it's my understanding, supervised President Halbert, that the board cannot direct Michelle not to be there.

Well, okay.

Did we direct her to be there?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

We didn't say you'd need to be there.

We haven't told you you don't need to be there, and we haven't prohibited you from going.

So it's up to you.

I just want to be clear about that.

So it's up to you.

So and I personally don't see that you've demonstrated the value and the need, and you've demonstrated it's duplicative.

I would hope that there might be something.

I really do.

I spoke with the senator before.

I would hope that there would be things that we could collaborate on to your word you used, good uh good word to collaborate on.

But I have just one last question, which is to say, because I'm not hearing anything useful come out of this.

Do they have press people that attend this?

And are they reporting out?

Are we missing something that they're reporting out that they're finding very useful out of this?

Um Senator Dr.

Wahop has indicated that the media is present.

So she invites the media in to watch these things.

This is not that feels like nothing more than a political stunt, a publicity stunt, a media stunt that we have been commandeered into participating.

And I just want to be I'll apologize if it hasn't been clear how optional this is for you and your teams.

In my opinion, it is very optional.

So participate to your own pleasure, and if you're not getting anything out of it, I would encourage you to do your job as we need you to do.

And if you're getting the great things out of it, great.

Otherwise, and I'm not hearing any of it.

Has any of our teams that participate?

I know sometimes my staff watches in, but I have not heard of a single thing that has been helpful with these things.

So anyway, we don't need to belabor it.

We're not going to see this again until you decide it needs to come to us.

I think at least I've heard Supervisor Miley express that.

Yeah, they'll they'll hear it.

Yeah, don't get me wrong.

You our team will hear it because that's their job.

That's the committee that they're on.

But I would encourage you that if you don't better come up with some things that are very helpful.

Because I'll be asking the senator the same thing directly.

What if you come up with that is helpful?

And if I get different answers, then I'll be pretty concerned.

But I don't need to spend or you to spend a bunch of time on something that you're not.

But again, I would also push back.

It does need to be collaborative.

And if you're not given the voice or the opportunity to say what things say, Senate can do to make your job better, what laws they can pass that might help you, what laws they can take away that have been duplicative that have added more and more and more and more work on your plate without taking anything away.

Does that sound like Sacramento?

That is that is Sacramento.

Push back, I would encourage you.

If there are things that your professional experience has taught you that you can show them how you can streamline your job, ask them to take some stuff, make better laws, take some laws off the books if they don't need to be there, change some laws that they put on you that don't work anymore or that have never worked because they haven't lived in your shoes.

If you can't have a two-way street, I would skip them.

Thank you.

You have my permission.

Seeing none, we'll move on to a hundred and fifty other items that we have to take.

Supervisor, before you move on to it.

Uh, just for clarification, it's my understanding that the direction had been from your full board in a work session for these uh presentations to occur on a frequent basis.

So you'll need uh consensus or motion or some direction to countermand your prior action.

I'll make a motion that these presentations be referred to the social services committee, and that the committee determine if and when the full board needs to hear an update.

I'll second it.

Okay, a motion has been made by Supervisor Miley and seconded by Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

I want to say I agree wholeheartedly and I'm not going to make another motion but I would want to that gives them the ability to cease these task force meetings at their own discretion but I think that's been made clear.

A motion's been made second by supervisor by Miley seconded by Supervisor Fortunato Bass is there any discussion on the motion.

Yes I have a comment chair ah I'm sorry I didn't see your hand raised go ahead that's okay just raised it and I appreciate the conversation appreciate the frequency and the touch points I will not be supporting the motion I am one of the supervisors that asked for the frequent touch touch points to the full board because I think our agendas for this meeting are a lot easier for the public to understand a process um in terms of consistency and demonstrating to the public that we are making efforts to address these recommendations um so understand why people want to take a different approach but just want to share my preferences that we continue to have updates here to the full board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Miley go ahead yeah yeah with all respect the the reason I I think we've had a couple of updates to the full board um how many three three updates to the full board so it's not like we are dismissing the the concerns of child welfare uh in the agency the social services agency we're definitely aware of them but we have policy committees that um we've used to uh monitor these um policy matters and the full board's heard this on three occasions now and I'm just I mean I'm just anxious because our agenda today has been for ver very lengthy and we still haven't even gotten to the the the items on our agenda that many speakers came to speak on and I'm just anxious about that we got other staff agency heads department heads that are waiting um meanwhile we've heard what was this three hours on child welfare I don't know if it was I don't know if it's three hours two hours whatever but it seemed like it was three hours and so didn't rush it along but I just think we've done enough that this can be referred to the committee so the committee could track it let us know whether or not we need to have a full update and I mean a supervisor is always at liberty to uh listen to the committee meetings as well as request of the president and the county administrator that it come to the full board for an update as well I just don't think we need to have it set on a cadence we just need to do it as um necessary and let the committee do its job um because yeah quite frankly I want to get to some other stuff that I've been waiting to get to today.

President Howard I just to clarify um the board's earlier direction was that it go to the social services committee meeting and then it come to the full board at a work session so just for your recollection it's on today's agenda because you continued it from the May 19th work session.

That's right when work study sessions are busy with lots of other things to do too I I want to say it got bumped a few times maybe that was previous updates.

Any other discussion on the item motion made and seconded sure um I appreciate your comments supervisor marquez I do think that there are going to be um times when there's more information to bring to the board I think when the uh report of findings and recommendations from the on-site visit and uh you know the interviews etc comes to us that will be sort of a bigger deal that we will want to bring to the board so um you know I I do I just wanted to say I I appreciate what you're saying and I also think that hopefully our committee can decide when there's really substantial new information that would warrant bringing it forward and it may be that it's every other work session versus every monthly work session um I'm also just trying to make good use of our time knowing that there's so much on our plates and if the chair of social services wants to weigh in would like to hear what she thinks too um i'm in agreement with supervisor marquez in terms of our original direction um we don't need to change our direction just because we weren't disciplined enough in managing our work sessions because we kept um having some items um in a very expansive way repeatedly so i'm going to not also support the motion so why do we have a social services committee i mean it so they're making largely the same presentation twice not necessarily uh for example in this presentation they incorporate it because of the timing uh their last meeting with uh senator wahabs task force information and recommendation so a lot of that also is tied to the timing yeah i'll withdraw the motion why don't we just take the vote oh you know okay yeah i'll just withdraw the motion because the chair of social services is spoken so well can't i mean uh fair enough but i do i want to say i'll weigh in and say i trust our committee committees to bring to us the cadence and the timing of when that would happen if we have to redefine regular fine do your job in your committee and if you do you can bring it to us when there are more important uh enough of important things to do but um withdraw the motion supervisor bez she told me she seconds my withdrawal whatever the parliamentary procedure is okay well uh everyone's had a chance to weigh in and so um I've said my piece Marquez go ahead again supervisor marquez the floor is yours thank you I just want to flag I think this is um obviously not a discussion for today and it's not an agenda so I'm not gonna get into the weeds but clearly we've had issues with agenda management and um not being uh realistic at how long it's going to take certain items you know many items get continued so just hope that in the near future we can have a wider discussion in terms of why this keeps on happening and just back to why I wasn't going to support the motion I think anything that has to do with safety wellbeing especially of children within Alameda County we have to continue to give it the time and energy that it deserves that's not to say that the committee isn't doing their work this is just a way to elevate that work and share with the public what updates are being done and where the gaps are still are so that way we could continue to advance the work and I feel that that's done when items are brought to the full board.

So thank you.

All right the items then finished comment on the item you have your consent calendar and the regular calendar did we not have public comment on this item on all that matters didn't we wait to you did not no we tried to have them on the set matters but is there public comment on this item only there are no public comments okay no public comment with that we will move to um the mass motion of the day why we're all here part of why we're all here somebody ready to make a motion or do we have um I think we have some comments from our county administrator on uh items 18 and 62 so item 18 is is not recommended to be included um in your motion and I understand that item 62 was continued to your special meeting on Thursday June 4th.

Okay.

Um so I will move items two three four five six seven question on seven nine ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen nineteen twenty twenty one twenty two three twenty four twenty five twenty six twenty-seven twenty eight twenty nine thirty thirty one thirty two thirty three thirty-four thirty five thirty six thirty seven thirty eight thirty nine forty forty one forty two forty three forty four forty five forty six forty seven forty eight forty nine fifty fifty one fifty two fifty three fifty four fifty five comment on fifty five fifty six fifty seven fifty eight fifty nine sixty sixty one sixty three sixty four sixty five sixty six sixty seven sixty eight sixty nine seventy seventy one seventy two seventy three seventy six seventy nine eighty eighty one eighty two eighty three eighty four eighty five eighty six comment on eighty six eighty seven eighty eight eighty nine comment on eighty nine ninety ninety one ninety two ninety three ninety four ninety five ninety six ninety seven ninety eight ninety nine one hundred one hundred and two one hundred and three one hundred and four one hundred five one hundred six one hundred seven one hundred eight one hundred nine one hundred ten hundred eleven one hundred twelve one hundred fourteen one excuse me one hundred and thirteen one hundred fourteen one hundred fifteen one hundred sixteen one hundred and seventeen questions on one seventeen one hundred eighteen question number one eighteen one hundred and nineteen one hundred and twenty one hundred and twenty one hundred and twenty three one hundred and twenty four one hundred and twenty five one hundred and twenty six one hundred twenty seven one hundred twenty eight one hundred twenty nine one hundred and thirty one hundred thirty one hundred thirty two hundred thirty three one hundred thirty four one hundred thirty five one hundred thirty six one thirty seven one hundred and thirty eight one hundred thirty nine and one hundred and forty I'll second that motion and item 18 will be taken up separately right okay correct oh that's a good point we need to um it's not been item 62 was not made part of the mass motion correct correct also we should note that um item 62 will be continued until our Thursday fourth and um that's right the kidney until Thursday June 4th 12 30 is the start of your meeting sometime during that that meeting I'll work with the administrator to define the time if needed it should it was a set matter today it should be a set matter but um the contract itself wasn't uh attached to the agenda and that was a comment made by member of the public and so out of an abundance of caution it will be continued to Thursday but item 18 will be separately discussed today not continued but also not part of the mass motion correct that's correct motion's been made by supervisor tam seconded by supervisor miley roll call vote please oh we have questions i'm sorry the first is questions uh item seven supervisor fortunately basque questions comments yes so this is the measure w bed night rate increase um i didn't see any details in the board let in the board letter about the uh new bed night rate or the shelter standards so will these be developed and incorporated into the contracts um i also am curious how the 13 million um amount was um ascertained i'm gonna ask my colleague um director childry to stand before you with me good afternoon supervisors um so in terms of the uh what you're seeing here this is part of a two step process so the first was for us to work with the shelter providers to understand what their costs were uh beyond the bednight rate for the the first year and so that's where we're leveraging existing SSA contracts to be able to make supplemental payments to uh help them meet those needs and it goes back to july one um in terms of how the uh numbers themselves were ascertained I think that that was uh conversations with uh the staff and with the um contracted providers where they shared their budget information with us um so it's based on need um and then in terms of the shelter standards that is work that's continuing uh separately I believe that it's going to be ready for public comment soon um and so uh our H team will be putting together an RFP that is intended to start new contracts as of January 1.

And so that's where the the shelter work will transition to H from SSA thank you and it's a lot later here because our agency will make these grant payments about the details of work out right okay thank you I appreciate hearing that supervisor Miley uh questions comments on 55 yes I just want to uh thank the county community development agency and the housing and uh community development uh department for bringing this item forward the you know liberation uh park is in district four in east oakland at the near right there at the eastmont town center where I also have uh an office and um this uh funding it's about uh six six six million yeah six point seven million dollars four point six is for uh uh go to the loan for capital development and construction and two million is for operations and that's and I've been informed had we not come through with this um this helped to close the the funding gap um the the director's shaking her head and so I'm just very very pleased 119 units of permanently affordable housing and you know it breaks down so many you know below market so many medium so many you know 50 etc etc and this is just a real good thing because that property where liberation park is located in the black culture zone used to be a um uh a good year tire shop that closed down many many moons ago so this is going to be very good for um uh east oakland good for the community and I just wanted to acknowledge our agency and our department for their for their good work and once again it's putting measure w money to work thank you thank you for your comments supervisor miley 86 86 questions comments yes 86 comments on eighty six once again it's putting measure w money to to work which is a great great thing um and let me see 86 is also the fact that we have we are altering modifying amending our policy associated with um the the excess measure w funds and like i said um at the work session uh in the past but before we approved how we were going to use measure w funds super bat supervisor bass and ever you know kind of have a conversations about how much should we go go towards housing how much should go elsewhere and and then and she finally supported I think 80% going to housing and 20% going to central services with the excess going back to housing but I think she sees the wisdom of the need to put more into essential services yes two years she sees the wisdom of that based on what we're confronted with at this point in time so I just appreciate Supervisor Bass for her understanding and the fact that we'll be able to put more money into essential services because it's definitely needed.

Anything to add to that supervisor force not a bass yes I actually do have a question um I am very uh pleased as well that we have measured W for both housing and homelessness and essential services my question is um when will the expenditure plan for the 20 million dollars come back to the board will that be a specific item coming to the board or part of our budget.

So I think our intent was to um bring this forward as an adjustment to the final budget in which case we could do that if that's your board's pleasure during the budget hearings.

Or prior to that you know you had a initial preliminary um summary sheet that we put together based on just the public testimony that we heard at that one work session when your board provided direction.

So the options would be the meeting on the 16th or the 16th or we could introduce it as part of the budget hearings okay so on the 18th the other option is you wait until after you adopt the budget and it could also come back after the budget and then would amend the next year's budget right um I'm sure that the groups um who will be supported through those funds would like to have the certainty sooner versus later so the 16th if possible and if not the budget hearing would be great.

So the slide that we're showing is just a draft of um what the staff put together again based just on the public comment as well as some of your board's comments at the work session I'm sorry can you clarify on this slide where the UELP allocations are not included in this I think uh Anika can report on their inclusion in the bridge funding or the other mitigation funds that we have available but they were not contemplated in that 20 million dollar overage.

So you don't anticipate eating the overage to address the bridging yeah it's it will be addressed as part of item 18 okay so we presented that slide in a previous work study session I think.

Is that right?

Um so that's public.

That's out in the public.

Correct.

Feedback that I've received is that food recovery countywide.

Half a million dollars.

Is that the only funds for food recovery?

No, this was would be an augmentation from the 20 million in excess receipts.

So when we come back, we can display by the major categories in your essential county services fund uh resources that have already been allocated or committed to those specific service areas.

I would like to see that.

Thank you.

Very good.

Okay.

The next item is 89.

Yes, so 89.

I pulled I pulled 89 just for some questions because I'd like county council to, or uh, think of a county council unless county administrator wants to do it to explain just what's going on here.

Supervisor, I'm glad to do so, but I think Supervisor Marquez had her hand raised on items 86.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

I just have a general comment.

I really appreciate um Supervisor Miley for flagging all the measure W items and the substantial uh significant investments we're making.

Just have a request.

I'm hoping that we approve these items so we can continue to allocate funds to our community.

But when um the central services item comes back for adoption, if we could just have an overview of what we've approved thus far, I just want to be very clear on the numbers.

There still is a lot of confusion in the community.

They seem to think we're sitting on all these dollars.

They're not clearly understanding that funding will be collected over the life of the measure.

We don't have all of those funds up front.

So just want to make sure we're very clear on those figures and educating the public on what actually is occurring.

Thank you.

Good points, thank you.

Can you just certainly be glad to like what we're doing here?

Because I want to speak to it.

Very good.

So uh item 89 is uh similar to an item that your board uh took up, I believe, in uh the fall of last year related to the clearing of the various uh title documents that currently encumber the Coliseum Complex properties um based on the historic bond encumbrances that were the bonds that were issued.

And so what we are doing in this particular instance is um having defeased the arena bonds on February 1st of this year.

Uh, we are now going through the process uh of terminating the historic ground leases, master leases and other uh documents that uh establish the structure for the bond debt encumbrances, and then when will we take up um have we already done the same on the Coliseum?

Yeah, the stadium parcel was addressed in the fall of last year, 2025.

Uh those documents have been approved and executed by the city, the JPA, and your board, and have been recorded.

Um, and so once this action is taken, uh we should be very quickly recording this termination agreement, and that will remove the title encumbrances related to the bonds, and basically with this action and with what happened with the stadium, the city, the county, uh we own the property free of debt.

We own the property free.

It's like like paying off your mortgage and owning your and owning your house or whatever.

There is no debt.

We own it free and clear, and I just think it it's and I didn't bring it up last year because I was waiting for this to happen.

But this, I mean, this is uh a friggin' big deal, let's put it that way.

This is a big deal.

We have paid off the mortgage basically on the arena and the Coliseum in the city and the county own it uh outright.

And I just want to, and you know, I mean, I don't I don't like to celebrate you prematurely, but this is uh a celebratory moment, and I never thought I'd be would be here, you know.

I was hoping I'd be alive, but never thought I'd still be an elected official when we paid off our mortgage.

Because I was around when we took out these bonds in 1986 and brought the Raiders back and to do all that stuff with the stadium, and then do then do what we had to do with the arena of for the Warriors, and and then ultimately did the refinancing in 2015.

So to have this all done, I I'm giddy, I can get up and do a jig, but you don't know if you want to see that.

Is this a champagne moment?

This is a champagne moment.

This is a champagne moment.

We're still working on the other champagne moment.

Well, that's in the globe.

I didn't want this to go by unacknowledged and unrecognized.

Because this is really a big deal.

Thank you.

I'm glad that our wise elder is able to appreciate this moment.

Supervisor Miley, thank you for showing us all up.

You also have item 117 with questions and comments, followed by 118.

Yes.

So if the chief could just come on up.

So with 117, we're basically entering to a contract around dispatch with uh Falk.

Yeah, that's correct.

Good evening.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Thank you for having me.

So this one basically extends our contract that we have with Falk.

So as you may recall, we dispatch all the Falk ambulances throughout the county.

So we've been in agreement with Falk since they've come into the county, and we're just basically continuing this for another two years.

Yeah, so that's what I thought.

And it's an additional um 10 million dollars for two years.

No, those the that's the total increase on our contract value from when we first started.

So we actually for this next two years, we actually increased their rate 18% year over year.

So next fiscal year, it's 4.85 million.

And for the 27 28 fiscal year, it's five point uh five point seven million dollars to dispatch their ambulances.

But it is 10 million dollars for the two year extension.

Correct.

Over two years.

Thank you.

For two years, yes, yeah, yeah.

Um, and if we weren't extending it with Falk and we had another provider, we'd still have this cost or more.

That's correct.

Okay, okay.

Okay, that's what I was just trying to wrap my brain around.

Okay, then 118.

Oh, 118.

I just want to have the uh chief, assistant chief more, right?

Deputy chief.

Deputy, I always get you guys to know who's the system who's deputy.

But um this the um Lake Chabot Public Market, it's in Castro Valley, it burned down.

It was a very popular uh community uh facility that people would go and shop at and eat.

Um, and unfortunately it burned down.

Was it two years ago?

Yeah, yeah.

And uh and before it was a public market, if you it stood um vacant and eventually we were able to uh make it into public market.

It was unfortunate that it did burn down.

But it's sort of like as a result of that, something good's happening because now you know the fire department has a station across the street, almost kitty corner, and that's one of the stations we want to um rebuild.

And so that's why we're purchasing this property to rebuild over there.

But go ahead, sure.

Maybe just a quick update.

So ACFD as a district owns that property.

We bought that probably about a year and a half ago.

So this request that you see today in front of you, supervisor, is for us to go out and uh seek RFP to get construction company to come and actually finish the demolition project on the remaining walls.

So we're really just looking to make sure that we can move this project forward.

We're gonna complete the sequa, we're gonna complete sort of our bridging architects, and then this is our next station to be slated in phase two of our bond measure.

So thank you.

And I just want to try to keep the public aware.

This is your measure X dollars, you know, paying dividends, a couple of stations in my district, a couple of stations in Supervisor Dam's district, and then a dispatch um uh training facility, right?

In Dublin.

That's correct.

Okay, yeah, very good.

And we have really good news.

We have our groundbreaking as a reminder next June 11th, this coming June 11th next Thursday at three o'clock at station 25.

So if anyone can make it, we'd be greatly appreciated to have you come out to the groundbreaking.

Thank you.

Very good.

The mass motion has been made by Supervisor TAM, seconded by Supervisor Miley.

Questions asked and answered.

I know we still have some ordinances and also item 18.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marcus.

Excused.

So Supervisor Marcus.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Haubert.

Yes.

Let's take up item 18.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I just want to say I pulled 18 out of the mass motion.

But because I wanted to have the agency director talk about what's occurring here, because I think some folks from the public might not be aware that other concerns are being addressed in this item.

Yes, good afternoon, supervisors.

And Anika Chadry, I'm the director for Alameda County Health.

And I also have team members from the behavioral health department, Vanessa Baker and Tracy Hazleton, who can uh join the Zoom room if you have more detailed questions.

So we put together a few slides just to walk through the uh the board letter essentially.

Um and before I do that, I just want to, well, I'll correct it when I get to the that piece.

So next slide, please.

So just by uh to kind of review the timeline.

Um, so late 2025 and early 2026, uh, the behavioral health department needed to issue about 52.7 million dollars in program reductions.

And this is largely because uh the behavioral health services act or Prop 1 uh requires different ways of spending uh the uh Prop One funding, and there were also revenue reductions uh uh per the state's estimates.

Um at the May 11th Health Committee, we brought forward a one-year uh bridge plan for the committee's consideration.

Um, and that was using revenues that we had found uh uh within the agency, as well as uh the board had committed through Measure W Essential Services Fund.

Um, and the health committee was interested in hearing about a broader package, which we brought back to your full board uh at your May 19th work session, where you uh authorized us to bring back a plan of up to 45.7 million dollars uh for the bridge, and we're here today with a final one-time bridge of 37 million uh to reduce uh uh to restore Prop One affected CBO contracts and minimize the impacts of the transition.

Um, and so uh because the numbers are are different.

I just kind of want to go through a little bit of the rationale.

Next slide, please.

Um, so again, just as a review, the our operational framework for this bridge is to really provide additional time for providers to responsibly sustain transition or end programs.

Uh, it would be limited to one year for the fiscal year of 26-27.

Um, and uh we have communicated with providers that you know we would want to avoid the same funding cliff in the following fiscal year because all of the funding resources we have available are limited uh in time.

So uh we plan to continue engagement with providers and county agencies, and we would require all bridged organizations to submit a plan to us by the end of this calendar year, which would sort of let us know what their off-ramp or sustainability plans are, and then really wanting to coordinate within our agencies uh within our departments at AC Health to co-plan and ensure clarity on next steps.

Because as I'll touch base or I'll touch on a little bit later, there's a lot of system-wide shifts that are happening in multiple departments, and so part of how we want to move forward is to really be aligned in those spaces.

Next slide, please.

Uh, so in terms of, you know, thinking about the bridging principles and uh where we would want to recommend restorations.

Uh, we really wanted to look at sustaining continuity of care and ensuring health equity across our broader systems of care.

Um, and that goes beyond uh behavioral health, so to include all of the AC health departments.

Uh we really needed to also ensure adherence to various behavioral health mandates, regulations, and compliance requirements with uh our legal settlements and network adequacy requirements per the state.

We wanted to minimize disruption to the safety net and the communities we serve.

And then, you know, again, thinking about the broader systems impacts, wanting to align with state and local priorities for behavioral health, public health, homelessness response, as well as care for indigent populations.

And this really weighed into the some of the considerations that we made, especially for long-term sustainability of programs.

Next slide, please.

So this slide just sort of is a sorry that some of it is blocked by the uh the words there.

But this is just to give a breakdown of the 52.7 uh million.

Uh, so we you'll see this is what we're sharing with you today is about 37 million dollars in restoration, and that comes from solutions found within the agency, about 18 million dollars in Measure W E CSF, uh and about 7.8 million in the Home Together Fund.

Um we also included about 15.8 million dollars in programs and reductions that are not restored.

This includes 7 million that we recommended to not restore uh at the health committee on May 11th, as well as another uh additional 8.8 million that I'll describe in a little bit more detail as we go forward.

And just before we leave this slide, at the top right is where we have.

Sorry, Amy, uh just a snippet of I think Supervisor Tam, this is what you were asking about in terms of the measure W request.

So from the Essential County Services, this is not of the overage, but the initial 34 million.

Uh, your board did dedicate 15.2 million toward the Prop One transition, as well as three million for uh stabilization of the health pack network, and that includes components of Prop One as well.

Next slide, please.

Uh so in the board letter, what you have uh is a list that shows all of the programs that were recommending for restoration in the 36.9 million.

Um and I do want to acknowledge that there was a typo, so Filipino advocates for justice is restored and should be on that list.

So our apologies for that.

Um I was able to catch them in the hallway, so they're aware of that.

Um, and then uh the programs that we heard for the deaf community uh at Felton, those are also restored.

They it's just that we had three programs listed under Felton, but they weren't explicitly called out.

So those are also uh included.

Um so we'll we'll update the list and resubmit a letter for the CAL and the clerk.

Um so just in terms of going over some bridge funding, the high-level categories.

So you'll see here that it covers a variety of services for different ages, different integrated care is kind of where you see some of the um primary care and uh behavioral health uh programs.

So that includes some of the FQHCs.

Um you see $6.7 million in prevention here, as well as you know, various uh various categorizations that we did of the programs.

Um, and I want to talk a little bit about prevention in particular, um, because you've heard a lot about that and just to clarify a few things.

So our last MHSA plan for over the three years included about 26 million dollars in prevention and early intervention.

As you know, that PEI category is not uh a category within uh the BHSA.

And so programs that are strictly prevention only are not eligible to be paid for by behavioral health funding or BHSA funding.

And so over the last year and a half, as the department has been doing uh planning, they were able to identify that about 18 million of that PEI could account, could be eligible for BHSA funding under the early intervention mental health services piece.

And so this is where you heard multiple UELP providers talk about the early intervention cohort.

So what behavioral health has done is there's 13 UELP providers, 11 of them opted into this cohort.

And essentially, we think this is a good thing for the future in terms of, you know, we really rely on those providers to help meet the needs of the community.

And this provides an opportunity for them to become billing providers, which ultimately increases their ability for revenue in the long run.

It's absolutely a shift in the model and what they need to do.

However, we think that in the longer term sustainability that's good.

So the thing that I'll note is that you didn't see all of the UELP providers on the list because they didn't actually get a cut in terms of this 52.7.

So under their early intervention contracts, they're being kept whole for the fiscal year 2627 calendar year.

So whatever their contract was before, it's the same.

So it's not a cut, but I they are asked to do slightly different work, which sets us up for a more sustainable system in the long run.

So we did not add additional funding on top of that because that would also go beyond their current contracted amount.

And those are covered under multiple categories.

So that includes some of the integrated care programs, some of the age-specific services, as well as school-based services.

The one other thing I'll note just about prevention in general is that, you know, while that shift to early intervention is difficult, there's just so much happening at the state that we kind of need to take a step back and look at what we want to do with prevention as a system.

And so we've talked about this a little bit at the community provider advisory group, but I think that we can do more to be talking with all of the providers.

We've talked about it with the public health department, which, you know, as the state shifts that prevention money from counties to the state public health department, there will be a role for local health departments to do some convening and thinking about this.

So there's opportunities for us to examine prevention as we move forward.

Next slide, please.

So a little bit of detail on what types of things were not restored.

So we've got these broken down by the four categories you see on the left.

The first one is pretty self-explanatory in terms of consultation education and training.

So about 2.9 million dollars in fellowships and various workforce and education programs that we've had.

A lot of these are internal facing to behavioral health, as well as uh consulting services that uh we either left at a reduced amount or just decided not to um not to restore.

There were about 1.8 million dollars worth of one-time MHSA funding, and so this was a variety of programs, some big tickets, some small ticket that were always known to the providers to be one time funding.

Um, and so we did not uh restore those.

Uh there was a systems alignment bucket of about $7 million.

Um, and so this includes some programs that were budgeted in the last three-year plan that never started, but because they were budgeted, we have to account for unbudgeting them.

Uh there are also services related to active or recent RFPs, and this is particularly in the homelessness space.

So, as we were looking at some of the wellness centers, for example, um, not all of the wellness centers were restored.

And this is partially because there are active RFPs and new um new contracts that we're entering into for uh for housing resource center services.

And so there's overlap there where we think it's sufficient to move forward with the new RFP.

Again, looking at longer term sustainability and really providing that technical assistance and looking at what programs can be billable in the future.

And then, you know, just looking at internal uh AC Health programs.

So for example, this includes some funding for uh the schools team as well as Health PAC.

Um, and so we've decided figured out how to absorb that in other ways.

Um, and then lastly, there's about 4.2 million dollars in um programs that the behavioral health department would have either uh created new or expanded, should they have funding.

Um, and this is something that they had always sort of had on the side as they would do if state revenues um changed, and so we just decided to take those off of the restoration table.

Next slide, please.

And then I think these uh next three slides are just kind of going through the lists of uh what you see in the board letter, again with the corrections that I made earlier.

Um what we you know, essentially the the point I want to make here is that if you're not on the list, it means that either you received a notice from Behavior Health earlier, uh earlier in the year that says that maybe you were partially um cut, so it maintains that, or uh you were not restored, or you fall under a category where um it's programmed a programs administered by the county.

So that's true for some of the school-based services because those are administered through our healthy schools and communities.

Um we just want the providers to know that uh individual provider notifications will be issued very shortly, and uh we'll have clarity on moving forward.

Next slide, please, and maybe just skip to the total, and and this the one other point that I'll just make about the 36.9 million is that it includes uh largely CBO-facing programs, but it does include some um programs that are uh for county programs.

So uh there's staffing for the trust clinic as well as uh the reach Ashland Youth Center.

Um, and so the but the vast majority of it is community-facing.

Next slide, please.

So just a note on the financing behind the proposed bridge uh is uh 11 about 11 million um in funding across AC Health Departments, 18 million from the Essential Services Fund, and another 7.8 from the home together fund for a total of 36.9.

Next slide, please.

Uh so just finishing up with next steps.

Uh we plan to do provider notifications and come back to your board with contract amendments consistent with what we've shared previously.

We'd want to uh if if these are um approved as a part of the budget, uh then we come back to you in uh July with contract amendments that would be dated July 1 so that we minimize any uh disruption to providers and we'll work with the auditor as needed.

Um and uh, you know, we need to get going on the implementation of the one-year framework and doing some uh continued systems alignment work.

I'm happy to take any questions.

So, Rosemile, questions?

Uh, yes, questions and comments.

So with the next steps.

The board.

Well, well did you say we need to pass this as part of the budget?

What if we pass it today?

What?

Because I'm confused because I want to make sure the providers know that they can be, you know, rest assured that this is money's coming.

Yes.

And I apologize.

I don't want to mess up the technical piece of that, so I might ask for an assist from the county administrator.

But my understanding is that you're approving this today.

Um, and uh it would be built into our 2627 budget.

So that provides the providers the assurance.

But the the but the assurance is based on what we do today, right?

Correct.

Okay, okay.

It'll just be included in the budget for the next fiscal year, but the approvals are today.

Yes.

So you would be approving the plan as recommended with the change in the amount.

You would be approving generally the funding um sources.

Uh two of them are measure W, and those funds have already been allocated and will be included in the proposed budget.

My office is still working with AC Health on the details around the 11 million of one-time funding that AC Health has within their budget, but that's us working with them in terms of which specific sources.

But if the board approves the plan and the amounts, uh and the you know, the timing and generally the sources of funding that we can proceed.

Okay, because I think obviously uh I think the board as well as the providers are very um eager and concerned about making sure that the providers know that they can stop any projected downsizing um reduction in services, this that and the other, because this money is going to be forthcoming.

This first thing uh because we're because like some providers have said, they've been talking to the talking to us about this for quite a while, and the fact that I I think the board uh is poised to approve this.

I think this sends a powerful message, and once again, it's putting measure W monies uh to use, um, appropriately, as I would say, to use, um, because there is a sunset on measure w and we and the these essential services are essential.

I mean, there's no other way of cutting it.

Um, so I want to make sure we're doing that.

Secondly, if contracts are going to come to the board in July, did you say?

What's the time frame for people getting their money?

Um, I know the county administrators here.

Have you talked to the county administrator, the auditor, or your financial people about some type of um uh uh you know uh upfront percentage so that they can get some money sooner than you know, might take three months for them to get the contracts signed and everything else, but in the meantime they might need money sooner than later.

Yes, my understanding is that um our finance team is uh aware of that issue and knows how to work with the contract uh with the auditor's office on the specifics of making that happen.

Um so we're committed to not having huge gaps in payment.

Okay, because if you need board action on that, you know, I'm gonna be on you know on you about this.

I think this board action today will cover that.

Okay, very good.

So um I want to thank the agency director, the director of behavioral health care, uh, Dr.

Tribble and all the staff and members of your executive team that worked to get us to get us to this point.

Um I know some of the providers were a little concerned because they didn't see everything and they didn't know everything, but hopefully this provides the comfort that they need now hearing this explanation.

Um, and furthermore, um if there's any other issues or concerns, obviously we want to take those up at you know with at the health committee, but I think this this should uh cement us for the moment and and as it's been pointed out, this is only a one-time relief.

So the agency director and the health committee, we have a lot of work ahead of us to try to prepare for the next fiscal year, and we can't wait for you know the next fiscal year to start preparing.

So once we do get this resolved we'll be really working on um the future and I know you'll be talking with the providers but I know the providers need to also be contemplating what they need to do to be supportive because you know obviously this is not sustainable so um we don't want to find ourselves at the same at the same place when we come around for fiscal year 2728.

Obviously we're probably need to do additional relief this and the other but we don't want to be at the status quo because quite frankly if we are the situation's going to be even worse so we've got to really be on top of this so we have a lot a lot of work to do in terms of rolling up our sleeves relative to um the future um fiscal year and then beyond but I just want to acknowledge you and thank you for all the work that you've done on this because I know we've been pushing you thank thank you supervisor.

I'll just note that um just to underscore the point about um the the systems work and and kind of all of the other things that are coming so you know some of the providers that are affected by Prop One many of them are also affected by HR1.

And so as we're kind of looking at those two things together um you know really trying to not play whack a mole with all of the holes that HR1 is creating um but really think about it as uh what can we do that can support the the broadest system possible um and you know really want to thank the the providers uh for uh all of their partnership up to date and also for future partnership and helping us think about how to do things differently.

Supervisor Fortinata Bass.

Thank you and thank you to our agency director for the presentation and the clarifications I wanted to touch upon um the UELP prevention providers the underserved ethnic language population providers.

In terms of Filipinos advancing justice FAJ, they should be included in this board letter and is it that they were omitted by mistake or what was the typo we have the funding in there but the incorrect agency name.

Oh I see so that what is the list of agencies that we need to apologize to.

Do you happen to know what it's listed as in the board letter.

Yes so the amount is 31672 um Tracy or Vanessa if you have the typo Andy it was listed as diversity and health training so it was just a um mistake in the transfer of agency names.

Okay great so I see that yes I see it on on page five diversity in health training is supposed to be FAJ 316572 thank you for that and there's also inclusion of Felton for um uh another um segment of our population okay that's helpful to know um you know I think hearing from the UELP uh providers I think they make a really good case that all of the work that we have done collectively as a county around prevention that whole infrastructure with the shift is essentially and potentially going away and so um it's moving from prevention to a very clinical medical based framework and that's you know that's a huge shift and it's something where I think we have to focus on state advocacy um and I think it also just underscores um the providers requests which is for a collaborative community process and so I wanted to hear um you know, what are the plans to be very communicative with this segment of our providers around the shift.

Yeah so um we will be, we we've talked about it a little bit internally uh within the agency as well as uh slightly at the community provider advisory group.

Uh but essentially one of the um because the funding is going to the state health department, uh they will have uh some small amount of funding available for local health departments, so our public health department would have funding to be able to convene a table around prevention.

Um as uh, you know, some of the back end sources that are going into uh funding some of these programs are from the public health department as well.

And so public health and behavioral health are working together to figure out how to forge those relationships with providers that have been in the behavioral health space, but uh helping them to connect with public health so that they can understand what the work is.

And as you know, uh public health, you know, prevention is one of their key pillars.

Uh so there is a um I don't have a good answer for you in terms of what exactly that process will look like, but that is something that we're committed to doing in this coming year.

Okay.

It's good to hear that you're committed to it.

And more broadly for the broader behavioral health providers and this early intervention space.

Um can you talk a little bit about what the staff's plans are to support these programs and help figure out what the off ramps are and the longer term sustainability plans?

Yeah.

Uh so I wonder if um Vanessa uh or Tracy may have some thoughts on that, but you know, in general, uh so on the PEI side or on the early intervention side, the team has a lot of technical assistance and uh work built in to help those providers bill for Medi-Cal and to make that shift.

Uh so there's a lot of support um that our team is is offering.

Um, in terms of figuring out the off ramps, I think that's going to be a little bit uh provider dependent.

Um, and so our hope is that as we continue to work with them throughout the year.

Um, so for example, there are uh there were some uh services in there that are homelessness facing.

And so again, kind of like what we're doing with public health is making those connections is really working at behavioral health and H to say, you know what what does this program need to look like in the future and is there something that is a better fit in the HH system?

Um so it'll be provider dependent.

Okay, thank you.

And I also wanted to thank our ASL interpreters working today.

Okay, Supervisor Sam.

Um thank you.

I also want to echo my appreciation.

I know this is not easy, especially since I think we shifted more burden onto your agency department.

Um, I just tried to understand the two, four, six um listing for mental health association.

Does that include the mental health association for Chinese communities as one of the UELP providers?

Uh Vanessa or Tracy, can you take that one?

Supervisors referencing.

Um the Mental Health Association for Chinese communities, they were not um, they are not part of the the UELP cohort is a very specific model.

Uh, and so the Mental Health Association for Chinese communities received funding for a mental health app that they developed along with several other CBOs under innovation funding that we had under MHSA, and then they also received a small amount of capacity building funding with the other NAMIs under the Mental Health Association.

But it would seem like this would be a program that would be a UELP program, but um they came along a little bit later and not have the same model.

So what does that mean in terms of their uh their access to funding at which juncture in time?

So at this time, oh go ahead, Anika.

Sorry.

Oh no, go ahead, Tracy.

So it's my understanding at this time that um the uh the mental health applications, the majority of them were one-time applications, so those are not on the restoration list.

Um I need to go on mute for a second to answer your second question to understand about the small amount of capacity building money if we had restored that piece or not.

So I could I can look for that for you.

And and while Tracy's doing that, Supervisor, I'll just note that um so one-time funding uh and small amounts of it to do specific pieces.

Uh we've also been made aware of a letter that's making the rounds, an advocacy letter, and that funding is um not a prop one cut, so it's outside of this particular process.

Um, and so you know, again, like as we think about what prevention looks like in the future, we could uh consider um, because we're gonna need providers to make sure that we're doing prevention in language.

Okay, um, I know uh we had talked about 10 million when we were at health committee.

Now it's 11.4 coming out of AC Health, but uh I also um thought uh the behavioral help was uh trying to provide some support for the AHS IOP program.

So the AHS IOP PHP conversation is also outside of this.

Um that is related more to the the proposed RIFs that HS was doing.

Um so we are having conversations with um the AHS team and our behavioral health team to see if there are ways that we can support them.

Uh we wanted to explore whether that program can bill Medi-Cal.

Um, right now it only bills Medicare, which is a higher rate.

Uh, we were also going to work with them to see if there's other supports or referrals that our system can offer for that program to sort of help with um throughput uh and having people transfer to other levels of care.

So that's a separate side conversation.

Okay, so this is they will have nothing to do with the at least the bridge funding from the transition between MHSA to BHSA, but will they be integrated into some aspect of the BHSA um no?

My understanding is that it that's a different thing altogether.

Um, and so that uh yeah, our and and just to be clear, it is not our intent to take over that program.

And so um, but we are uh wanting to partner with HS to see how we can be supportive.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

Sure.

Supervisor Marquez has any questions or comments from you.

Um yeah, just I'll be quick.

Um, my questions were already asked.

Um thank you for clarifying the technical support that will be offered to UELP uh program agencies to help them with the transition and get them to actually actualize billing through Medi-Cal and have long-term sustainability.

So happy to hear about that.

And just want to clarify with regard to the um agency.

Were you guys referring to Filipino advocates for justice?

I wasn't sure if I heard that correctly.

Yes, that was the organization that was left off.

Okay, perfect.

So thank you for that clarification.

And then you've already confirmed that DCCS is preserved.

That was another error.

It was it's one of the programs through the Felton Institute, and that is being preserved.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, so just want to get updates at health committee in terms of the plan in the next year.

I'm I'm glad that we're doing this.

We're finding the one-year mechanism for a bridge, but I am worried because a year feels like it'll be here before we know it.

So really want to make sure that we're tracking um communication and I really like the idea of committing to having more touch points with the providers, strategizing and see how we can minimize the impacts, because unfortunately, the year will be here before we know it.

So want us to get ahead of that planning as much as possible, but really appreciate the health committee and your entire team for coming up with these recommendations.

I know this was not easy, and I know that um we got the letter and PowerPoint published a little bit later, but I think once people see the information, they'll be pleased to see the significant progress that is made.

And again, just thank you to everyone for passing measure w because if it wasn't for measure w, we would be hurting even more right now.

So just really um thankful that we have this opportunity to expend those dollars in a responsible manner.

So thank you to everyone who worked hard on this.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Anika, the City of Fremont age-specific services listed twice.

What is it?

What does that mean?

Um, so wherever you see any organization listed multiple times, it's just that those are specific programs uh with that organization.

Um, so uh the Fremont program, I believe is uh senior services uh program, and then the smaller amount is another adjunct to that where they um I think it's a stipend program.

Okay, but both are both are senior serving, and then I as you ask that supervisor.

I also just want to note that you know the uh behavioral health budget is uh close to 800 million dollars or a little bit over.

Um, and the MHSA funding or BHSA funding is about a quarter of that.

So there are a lot of organizations that are um funded through BHSA as well as through other behavioral health contracts.

Yeah, this is a slice of the picture, not a whole picture, um, which is part of my part of my struggle with with this.

I understand why we're doing it.

We have to do it.

It's a good thing that we're doing it.

Um backfilling the essential services that uh would otherwise we wouldn't have the funds to do if we didn't have measure W.

But which of these?

So what I'm struggling with is are all of these, or which of these are meant to be sort of countywide, and which are only in a certain district.

Um I'll just pick on refugees and immigrants, WET 230,000.

Is that going to be any of that spent in Fremont, for example?

Or do we know?

Tracy, do you know the answer to that?

Um, so that is a uh workforce education and training program that is designed to provide support to um clinical and non-clinical staff, and so that that would be considered a countywide program.

Um that agency is listed in Oakland or resides in Oakland, but it is open to countywide uh for those services.

So then I guess what I would like to understand is um that if I were to contact this group and ask them where and when they'll be in district one, they would be able to tell me, and or if they're not the ones doing it because they're listed in Oakland, but somebody else is doing it.

Somebody on staff can point me to the people that are providing that service in district one.

Um my understanding would be yes, okay.

Um, I'll have my team work with you and your staff to make sure that the services um that are meant to be district-wide can be uh performed as required.

This is outstanding indeed.

If we didn't have measure w, this wouldn't be um, we wouldn't even be talking today.

So thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

Is this an action item?

I guess I'd like to like to make the motion to move this item.

Oh, second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Miley, seconded by Supervisor Tam.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye, Supervisor Fortunato Bath.

President Haubert.

Yes.

Believe we have some ordinances next.

So item 74 is the second reading of salary ordinance amendments.

The title of the first ordinance is an ordinance amending the June 25th, 2023 through July 3rd, 2027 memorandum of Understanding between the Alameda County Management Employees Association, General Government Union, and the County of Alameda.

The title of the second ordinance is an ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2025 through 2026 County of Alameda Salary Ordinance.

Mr.

President, I will move to waive the full second reading and adopt the ordinance amending the MOU between the county and acne as described in 74A.

And I will move to wave the full second reading and adopt the salary ordinance amendments as described in 74B, Roman 1 and Roman 2.

And I will move to update the designation for the county's representatives for labor negotiators.

Second, a motion's been made by Supervisor Tam.

Second by Supervisor Miley.

Roll code vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Mr.

President, can we make a clarification?

The um item C was approved at the last meeting.

It is not an ordinance, so it did not require two actions.

And so you I would ask that you exclude item C so that we don't duplicate the approvals.

Okay, thank you.

I will only move 74 A and B.

Very good, thank you.

Roll call, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortinado Bass.

Aye.

President Haubert.

I vote yes.

Item 75 is also from Human Resource Services.

It's first reading of salary ordinance amendments affecting a SARA as well as the probation department.

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

Second.

A motion's been made by Supervisor TAM, seconded by Supervisor Miley.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Hauber.

Yes.

Motion passes.

The human resource services department is the salary ordinance amendment establishing a new unclassified veterans commissioner classification.

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

Mr.

President, I will move to wave the full first reading and introduce salary ordinance amendment to update Article 1 as described in 78A and B.

Second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Tam.

Second by Supervisor Miley.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor for Tornado Bass.

President Halbert.

Aye.

Item 101 is the second reading of an ordinance provided by the Sheriff's Office.

Prohibiting the use of fireworks in the unincorporated Alameda County.

An ordinance adopting chapter 9.46 of the Alameda County ordinance code to prohibit the use of fireworks in the unincorporated Alameda County.

Mr.

President, I will move the way to full second reading and adopt the fireworks ordinance for Alameda County as described in 101.

I'll second it.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Tam, seconded by Supervisor Miley.

I'll remind everybody if they want to buy fireworks, they can still go to Union City.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Aye.

Your last ordinance is item 22.

Is the second reading of an uh ordinance amendment affecting traffic regulations in the unincorporated area?

An ordinance amending chapter one relating to traffic regulations, county highways of Title six relating to vehicles and traffic of the Alameda County Public Works, ACPW traffic code.

Mr.

President, I will move to wave the full second reading and adopt the ordinance amitting chapter one related to traffic regulations as described in item 122.

Second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor TAM, second by Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Hi.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Hi.

President Howard.

That concludes your regular calendar.

I'd like to um take public comment on items not on the agenda.

And as I announce that, I do want to say that we will also be adjourning this meeting in memory of Keith Fleming and I have some thoughts to read about Keith.

Is there any public comment on items not on today's agenda?

Yes.

Yes.

Pindale, a request for Krim Khan and Audrey Flowers, please.

As a prisoner of war who was denied asylum and is being forced to live in poverty for impeaching the current president.

And that the UK and Queen Marinella increase acts of force against the United States, including mortuary assessments for compliance under the Department of War help.

The cues related to Nuremberg and Ekman due to the day-to-day management and become more aggressive due to the gross malice and intentional negligence subjected by that of state actors.

A request as a prisoner of war that was denied asylum.

In view of the clear and blatant rule that a Trinity test atomic bomb, a use of the peacekeeper be used as an anniversary present for 9-11 and the continued use of the SLAPTAC against the United States for purposes of active theater for the blatant gross malice and intentional negligence done by that of state actors, those that are correlated, those that put into bankruptcy, and those that have denied the asylum view.

Thank you.

Kelly, go ahead.

A formal 550 point scoring rubric, and county staff interviewed the bidder before awarding the contract to Team Civics of Arinda.

That's in Contra Costa County, I think.

CDA knows how to do this bidding procedure correctly, like it did just last year.

Your board should ask your contract auditors and compliance staff.

Why didn't they follow the process for measure D, overturning measure D?

We're also concerned, we at Mission Peak Conservancy that when the 2026 IRFP was issued to your board, uh Team Civil uh, well, it was issued to um uh in February.

Team Civics of Arinda was already in.

This item was on the agenda.

Yeah, we can um thank you.

In comes of contractors, I'm not talking about no more speakers.

No more speakers.

With that, we are going to adjourn in the memory of Keith Fleming.

And it is with profound sadness that we acknowledge the passing of Keith Fleming of IEDA, a cherished friend, trusted advisor, and extraordinary partner to Alameda County for more than four decades.

Keith devoted over 53 years of distinguished service to IEDA, where he served in numerous leadership roles, including negotiator, president, and most recently chairman of the board.

He also served as employer trustee co-chairman for the Teamsters Benefit Trust, reflecting his lifelong commitment to fostering strong labor management relationships and advancing the interests of both employers and employees.

Throughout his remarkable career, Keith earned the respect and admiration of colleagues, labor leaders, and political officials alike through his integrity, wisdom, and unwavering dedication to the principles of collaboration, fairness, and service.

Keith's relationship with our county spanned 41 years, beginning with the first agreement between Alameda County and IEDA, effective July 16, 1985, and approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 30th, 1985.

From that moment forward, Keith became an integral part of the county's labor relations history, helping to shape and strengthen relationships that endured across generations of county leaders, employees, and labor representatives.

Keith was far more than a labor relations consultant.

He was a trusted confident, a respected counselor, and one of the most dedicated professionals.

Anyone could have the privilege of knowing and working alongside.

His unwavering commitment to excellence, tireless work ethic, and a deep sense of responsibility earned the admiration and respect of all who worked with him.

Keith possessed a rare ability to build bridges, foster trust, and navigate even the most complex labor relations challenges with integrity, professionalism, and genuine care for the people involved.

His counsel was sought not only because of his exceptional expertise, but because of his fairness, his wisdom, and steadfast commitment to achieving positive outcomes.

Over the course of his dedicated career, Keith cultivated enduring relationships with county leaders and labor organizations alike, earning the trust of all sides through his honesty, credibility, and respect for others.

He understood that successful labor relations are built upon strong relationships, open communication, and mutual respect.

And he dedicated his life's work to advancing those principles.

His legacy will live on through the countless agreements he helped forge, the partnerships he strengthened, and the many individuals whose lives and careers were enriched by his friendship, mentorship, and unwavering dedication.

Keith will be deeply missed, and his impact on Alameda County, its workforce, and the labor community will be remembered with profound gratitude, admiration, and affection for generations to come.

I'd like to thank our county administrators' office and whoever wrote this.

Labor relations.

Margarita.

Outstanding.

Thank you.

Keith would be proud.

I'd like to thank our team for allowing us to read this.

Let's have a moment of silence, please.

Thank you all for participating there.

Seeing that all business before us has been achieved, we're now adjourned.