Good afternoon everyone.

The Sacramento City Council and the Sacramento Housing Authority will come to order with

the clerk call the roll please to establish a quorum.

Thank you Mayor, Councilmember Kaplan, Councilmember Tao, Mayor Prutem Telemontes,

Councilmember Valenzuela, Vice Mayor Maifull, Councilmember Gatta, Councilmember Dennings,

Councilmember Vang, and Mayor Stainberg.

I am here, Councilmember Kaplan, would you please lead us in the land acknowledgement and the

pledge of allegiance?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please rise to the acknowledgement in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal

lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu, Vali and

Plains me walk, put win-win-tune peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancharia, Sacramento's

only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walked beside

us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice of acknowledgement

and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples history, contributions and lives.

Thank you.

Please remain standing.

Pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

the first time in the history of the United States.

Thank you very much, Councilmember.

Good afternoon to everyone.

We have the afternoon meeting of the Housing Authority where the City Council sits concurrently

and as the Housing Authority.

And then at five o'clock, of course, we have the afternoon evening Council meeting and

a closed session in between.

So let us begin with some very important items.

Begin with a consent calendar.

Are there questions or comments?

Are there conjectures?

What's that?

I don't know.

I don't know how to consent.

What am I looking at?

Okay.

Well, on my agenda it's a consent calendar.

Items one and two.

Okay.

There might have been a mix up here.

No problem.

We get right to the discussion calendar having dispensed with the consent calendar.

Let's take item three.

Go ahead.

I don't want.

This is the tax equity here.

Go ahead.

This is what I discussed.

I'm reading what's on my agenda, but please go right ahead.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council members.

Whitney Hinton Program Manager with SHRA.

Staff is requesting approval to hold a tax equity and fiscal responsibility act or

tougher hearing for the issuance of taxes and bonds by California Municipal Finance Authority,

CMFA for the 69th Street Apartments.

SHRA acting as the Housing Authority is the primary issuer of Mortgage Revenue Bonds,

affordable housing developments within the city of Sacramento.

In limited situations, SHRA's most family lending policies and mortgage revenue bond policies

permit alternative unit issuance, excuse me.

As a reminder, bonds provided low market rate financing for qualified affordable housing

projects.

Due to timing, CMFA, not SHRA will be the bond issuer for this project.

SHRA will have no local oversight to monitor the project, nor the ability to conduct compliance

visits, investigate residence concerns, on force property management replacement if needed.

In late March, the developer for this project, CRP, affordable housing and community development

reached out to SHRA regarding issuing mortgage revenue bonds after they received $26 million

award from the state's multi-family housing program and infrastructure infield grant programs.

Unfortunately, California debt limit allocation committee or sit-lack, the entity that oversees

bonds for the state now only has two bond applications per year, one in April and another in August.

As SHRA staff did not have enough time to write a report and receive approval from City Council

and the Housing Authority with such short notice.

So we agreed to an issuer that does not require similar noticing and hearing.

This is the second time this year, this has happened.

There are four staff currently investigating other options with bond council that will allow staff the ability to proceed

with bond inducements on short notice while still receiving governing a body approval.

If a solution can be found, we will return with our recommendation in the coming months.

169th Street Apartments is 130 unit affordable housing development proposed on 1.4 acre lot

at the corner of Folsom Boulevard at 69th Street.

The project will have one, two, and three bedroom units for residents earning between 30% and 60% of area median income.

Project based vouchers were awarded to 60 of the units and will be reserved for homeless households.

Aminities on site will include school age play structure or community room with a full kitchen,

a computer room, a lobby, a lounge area, a laundry room, resident service offices, and 72 covered parking spaces.

School was not included due to the lack of space.

Currently there are two businesses operating on the property,

Takeria Santos Laguna, and Hyper Thrive, athletics.

These businesses will receive relocation benefits according to their approved relocation plan.

Again, the developer is CRP affordable housing and community development.

This will be their first projects in the Sacramento region.

They are also working on a project in Elk Grove.

The S&JRA has approved John Swart Company as the property management company.

Lifesteps will be the resident service provider for all residents.

CRP has committed to provide a 10 hours after school programming.

In addition, lifesteps will provide three full time case managers to serve the 60 homeless households.

In closing, staffers requesting approval to hold a Teffer hearing for this project,

and staff and the developer here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much.

Do we have any public testimony on the item on the project?

I have no public comments on the item.

Members, I got Council Member Getta.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

Appreciate the opportunity here.

We're excited about this project.

It brings me back to 2002 when back then, two young individuals myself,

and Dr. Luke Wood, were student leaders at Sac State,

and we lobbied the City Council to redevelop this area for housing.

What became of either of you?

I don't have no idea.

But in that particular site was one of the areas where we talked about safety and how we needed more housing,

and particularly affordable housing.

In that area, it actually has developed quite a fair bit.

Most of it has been market rate housing, though.

And what we needed, though, was more affordable housing.

For those that have gone to Sac State and know some of the housing availability in the area,

there is one other family-style housing that's affordable housing, subsidized housing,

that had serviced a lot of the students on the campus.

So I'm very excited about moving this project forward.

But I do have some concerns and conditions here.

So I'd like the developer to please come up here.

Because I'm excited that one that they're working in Elgro, but they're also here on this campus.

So there's 130 units.

And Sac State has a FTE of 25,000, but 32,000 headcount.

So out of those 32,000 students, I'm pretty sure there are at least 130 students

that could meet the conditions of the 30% AMI for homeless, the 30% AMI extremely low income,

the 50% AMI very low income and 60% AMI.

And one management unit, obviously, maybe they are a graduate of the business school of finance and management there as well.

But what I would like as a condition here, and I want to hear from the developer,

is that as part of the recruitment process, and I don't know the process of how you look at applicants,

but we do have a lot of families that attend Sac State, and are part of the use of subsidized childcare,

and have to do extreme things like now or a half bus rides to just to try to get on campus,

and then manage their childcare options.

I think this is great that it'll have a playground, and those amenities for that success.

But is the applicant willing, as part of this application, to work with the university?

And I've contacted the president's office already, and they're ready to sit down and meet to look at the recruitment process through the campus.

Because what we do want to do is encourage people to come through the property, get an education,

be able to benefit from that subsidized housing, and it's close to transit.

There's a grocery store.

You know, there is an elementary school nearby.

It has got all the pieces that a working class family that's low income needs to succeed.

So the question to the applicant, will you work with the university to recruit as part of that?

And I know we can't condition who is allowed in there, but we can condition,

or we can agree to, is how your recruitment process goes.

I want to introduce myself.

My name is Gregory Nestler.

I'm from CRP Affordable.

So thank you guys all for considering the project.

To answer your question, we're happy to have those discussions and to meet with the school and to work with that and to make sure that we have the people who can benefit the most living on our project.

As you mentioned, there's a lot of great amenities there, so we think it's a perfect place for families to live and we're happy to have those conversations.

Very good, very good.

Are there any, are there a reason why you would not work to recruit from the campus and those low income families?

Because I remember being in that FAFSA, the financial aid student line, and it was a pretty long line.

You know?

There's no particular reason we just need to make sure that we comply with all the different regulations and rules.

So as long as we comply, we're happy to meet those requirements.

That's exact. That is what I wanted to hear.

Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that.

And with that, you know, Madam Vice Mayor, I'd like to open and close the public hearing.

I'm excited that you're going to be providing housing in the area there.

And again, it's the fact that we can provide also affordable housing to many working families.

And the average age on the campus is much higher.

And there's a lot of returning students.

My mother joined the campus at 50 years old there.

And so it never is too late to start.

And definitely was from a form working individual to that.

So with that, I'd like to open close the public hearing and move the item manager.

All right.

We have a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Any opposed?

Thank you.

And since we were talking about sex data, I forgot to mention I want to acknowledge their win against Nicholas State at 37 to have a time.

You'll be noted.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Moving on to item number two.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair and members of the Housing Authority Board.

My name is Vicki Smith.

I'm an management analyst with SHRA.

And the report before you requests authority to sell parcels in the Del Paso Nuevo project area that remained after the final phase of street improvements for the project were completed.

We have a short, very short video to show you just to give some background for folks that may not be familiar.

And this video is only about little over two minutes long.

There's no narration or sound, but just take a quick peek at some photos.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If you could put the PowerPoint up now.

So as you hopefully saw in the video, the project was awarded a homeownership zone designation by HUD in 1997.

That's the wrong one.

Sorry.

Yeah, that one.

1997, the project was awarded a homeownership zone designation by HUD and received over $10 million to receive money for the project.

And like I said in the video, the goal was 300 single family homes.

We actually were able to do 325 single family homes.

And those were developed in six phases.

51% of the units were sold to low income families in addition to two parks and detention basin and the other related infrastructure were also completed.

So this is a map of the overall project phasing and the phasing that we're talking about today is phase six.

So in phase six, the after these street improvements were finished, there were these eight small remnant parcels, remainder parcels that remained in the ownership of the housing authority after the final homes were completed and sold.

And those are on Fran Barker, Louise Williams, Avrogini, and Johnny Morris Avenue.

And all of these properties are really too small or have other obstructions or their size wrong.

And they just really aren't suitable for affordable housing development.

So staff conducted outreach to the property owners in the area to see if they'd be interested in taking ownership of the little remainder parcels and the majority indicated that they would.

So we are now seeking authorization to sell these housing authority owned properties to the adjacent owners.

Those will be sold at fair market value.

And upon your approval, we will take all required steps to make that happen with the goal of having the property sold and subdivided by early 2025.

So that concludes the presentation and we're here to answer any questions you may have.

All right. Thank you.

Councilmember Towne, wouldn't you start us here at your district?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. First off, I would just like to say a great job to staff at CTA on finishing the project.

I know this has been a long ongoing housing project, affordable housing project in our district.

A lot of members from the community were able to buy their first home through these developments, first time home buyer program.

Phase one, two, three, four, five, and six were where a lot of people to move from Dupasal Heights or from strawberry manners who were renting to be first time home buyer, first time home owners and create that generational wealth for their families.

And you know, this is a very unique development, you know, because it really highlights what Dupasal Heights is our and was in the past, you know, streets like Fran Barker, who used to be an advocate for Dupasal Heights.

Also work for the city of Sacramento, Luis Williams, who's a staunch advocate for strawberry manners, Johnny Morris, Aboriginal coach, Aboriginal who coach for 30, 40 years at Grant High School, Jimmy Pope and other streets names that were named after icons or Dupasal Heights.

And so it's really, you know, and so I've spoken to some most of the residents who will be happy to take ownership of this litter of land.

And again, I was told that this litter lands too small to develop or do anything of significance not even enough to build a community garden.

And so I feel that, you know, having the property owners take owner of it so they can manage it, control it and also take care of the property would really assist with the ongoing maintenance that a such a short and city has for these land.

So with that, I would like to open it close public hearing and move the item.

I'll second.

I do have two speakers on the item.

I'll take them, please.

I have two speakers, Gordon Lou and then Kay Harris.

Good afternoon, Council Mayor.

My name is Gordon Lou.

The current district to part commissioner.

And I want to speak about these parcels.

These parcels are not these remnant parcels.

They are not remnant parcels.

They're planning strips and they're used for the anesthetics of the neighborhood.

They add value to the neighborhood, environmentally, curb appeal, privacy, mental health and bird habitats.

The planning strips are a way for the city to increase its urban forest within this neighborhood.

There are existing trees and small shrubs within most of the planning strips already.

$13,000 is a small investment into the neighborhoods, urban forest.

We need more of these spaces within our neighborhoods, not less.

Selling off these spaces is a direct conflict to the urban forest plan.

The CPP aligns with the 2040 general plan.

ERC-3.2, tree canopy expansion, a 35% increase by 2045, prioritizing tree plantings and the tree maintenance in areas with the lowest average canopy cover and explore strategies to reduce barriers to tree planting and disadvantaged communities.

and keeping these planning strips will add to this goal,

are argued to invest in District 2's tree canopy

and maintain these areas for the betterment of its residents.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Kay Harris.

And I'm not sure of the last name.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kisha Harris and I'm a resident of District 4,

but I want to concur with the last speaker with these particular parcels

in District 2.

I did attend the Sacramento Housing and Re-Advelement Agency Commission meeting

a couple of weeks ago and I voiced my concern there as well.

And so I came to do the same today.

I also want to encourage environmental stewardship in these areas

for the parcels that are looking to be sold off.

Not all of the parcels are wanting or needed.

Not all of the parcels are going to homeowners who live in the community

and I'm asking that we consider those parcels going to residents

and business small community-based organizations in the area as well.

I was able to drive through this past Sunday and I have pictures.

I don't know if that you'll be able to see them,

but we're talking about sizable plots of land

that you can absolutely create a community garden, natural habitat,

just open green space, the tree canopy that was discussed before,

and I just encourage that we take that into consideration today.

If not, I ask that we open up the discussion for other parcels

that are available within District 2 and 4 and the other districts

that are in the community that are sitting underutilized,

they're sitting vacant and they can absolutely be refurbished

to benefit the community for the reasons that were listed before

and with the special emphasis on mental health.

Green space is important, being outdoors is important.

And if we're providing this space for the community

that only helps all of us with the other issues and concerns

that we have within the community,

I want to thank you for allowing me to speak today.

Thank you for your comments.

Beakers.

Thank you very much.

I see Councillor Patel still or did you have another comment, sir?

Okay, I got Councillor McGueta then.

Thank you, Mayor.

First, one I wanted to also thank the staff for the work on this.

This has been a long time coming.

It's been a project that we've been saying for,

I think since I started on the council.

And but I did have one concern and one question,

but I'm willing to support the council members' motion here.

And I'm not sure if you open to close public hearing already,

but I'll go ahead and second it if it hasn't been seconded.

But I think the constituents make a good point here

in the, when we have remnant parcels,

and while SHRA is trying to manage its costs for maintenance,

there are amenities that we're losing.

And I don't think that enough of that was done in consideration.

Some of these areas, as one mentioned,

could be large enough for trees,

and in fact it does have trees.

Most of these are small enough that they don't.

But you know less than .03.04 acres.

And so those, they may not be suitable for a public tree.

And at least for the concerns about tree canopy,

any tree removal would still have to go through the city's tree ordinance,

as well.

But I feel like there was a missed opportunity here

in our public works department and others thinking about the challenges

that suburban communities face when we're looking at ride shareables

and those amenities.

When you go to other communities, you'll see, in fact,

I missed the e-bikes, but you'll see a lot of scooters all over the place.

They're blocking the sidewalks,

and we don't have a number of locations to be able to do ride shareables.

So I think these could have been spots and plots

to figure out how to expand those service areas.

And I'd like to just put that on the table so that when we do look at

at remnant spaces, are there other departments that could say,

hey, you know this actually might work for a public bike rack.

We added public bike racks on 21st Avenue,

and that's where you see a lot of ride shareables get dropped off

and put on there naturally.

And so I wanted to put that on the record because I think it's important

that even though SHRA is separate, separate JPA,

when we look at any other future remnant's appartals that we'd be looking at

for all amenities for the public.

And so with that, Mr. Mayor, I'll go ahead and support the motion,

but I do have those, I think, concerns about future missed opportunities.

And then I know, I think Mr. Tao had actually requested a list of all the

Rossa properties as well, and his district,

but I'd like to get a list of all the Rossa properties that we have in the city of Sacramento.

Thank you.

And I did want to mention that we did reach out to the city about the parcels.

And we could try again, but it wasn't really within the capacity of the public

work department at the time is what I was told.

Understood. Thank you.

And then that message was clearly for a public work department too.

Thank you.

Questions, comments? Very good.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Aye. Opposed?

Epstein.

It passes.

No, nothing. Thank you.

Let's move now to item three, which is the Marine Avista Alder Grove item.

All right.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Mark Hamilton.

I am a Director in our Public Housing Department at SHRA.

I am here to provide an update on the community Wi-Fi project at the Marine Avista and Alder Grove Public Housing Communities.

First and foremost, this project could not have been done without the support of the city of Sacramento,

the efforts of our SHRA property management and maintenance teams, Liatata Floyd Elementary,

and our contractor Federated Wireless.

I did want to especially recognize Julie Sassen, who is with me today, who has been

an essential on this project on the SHRA side and Mr. Prasad Rampali, who is a retired Intel professional,

who originally approached SHRA for the pilot for this project.

He helped to lead our project through its original pilot implementation and has provided additional tech guidance on the current iteration of the project.

Also, we'd like to thank Manny Martinez from the city's IT department, who's worked with us hand in hand

as we've kind of gone through the process of building and implementing the Wi-Fi project here.

So really the goal of this project was to provide free access to high-speed internet to these communities and partners of the Marine Avista and Alder Grove Communities for at least five years.

SHRA and partnership with the city of Sacramento were able to utilize local funds in the amount of $1.4 million to support this project.

So originally we had a couple of questions.

So you know what led us to agreeing to do this project and what was the motivation.

And to answer that there are two very important terms to be aware of.

The first is the concept of the digital divide, and the second is that of digital inclusion.

The digital divide is the gap between individuals, households, businesses, and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels

with regard to both their opportunities to access information and communication technology and the use of the internet for a wide variety of activities.

This gap very much exists at these two properties, as most families make substantially less than the average median income for the area.

Digital inclusion is defined as the activities necessary to ensure that all individuals and communities, including the most disadvantaged, have access to and use of information

and communication technologies.

This project is one of those activities necessary to help bridge that digital divide between two of our largest affordable housing communities.

The most prominent display of this divide was seen throughout the COVID-19 global pandemic when this project was originally conceived.

It was discovered through the pilot process on this project that 25% of the children on the property who were utilizing remote learning were being dropped out of their classes due to a lack of internet connectivity or low bandwidth.

Our partners at the school were doing everything that they could to support their students, our students, including issuing hotspots.

However, the need for service rapidly exceeded the capacity of those hotspots, resulting in children continuing to be dropped out of their classes.

We introduced the pilot project at Marineavista in 2021, utilizing a group of 25 students to evaluate the potential use of the Federal Communication Commission's release of the Ban48 Citizens Broadband Radio Service or CBRS as the potential method of delivering large area Wi-Fi to the community.

The results of this pilot were very promising. As detailed in the staff report, 90% of the users found that the solution was as simple to use as normal Wi-Fi, and 93% would recommend the use to their friends and neighbors.

There were two results, however, that came back that we substantially wanted to approve upon. 85% said the connection made a daily work easier, and 87% said the connection was better than their home Wi-Fi.

When we were looking at the scale implementation of this project, we looked to partner with Federated Wireless, who was an expert in this space.

We tasked them with these following requirements in regards to the project. We had to one, maintain or exceed the sense of satisfaction with the use of this system.

Two, we had to make the system easier to use, and more comparable to standard Wi-Fi without any additional equipment needed by the end user.

We had to, three, improve the speed and reliability of the service to be provided to the family. Four, any hardware or technology should not impact the residents' utility billing or their living space.

Five, we wanted to provide all of these services, including maintaining these systems for a period of no less than five years.

That leads us to where we are now on the project. As of June 2024, a vast majority of the primary technology for the project has been installed.

We had a few bumps that we had to work through with preservation, who were gracious enough to work with us as we were looking to add 21st century technology to properties originally from the 1940s.

So throughout June, July, August, and to date, we've been working with the Federated Team to conduct connectivity tests throughout the property to ensure that there is a strong and stable connection throughout the properties.

And we expect these to be done before the end of the year.

We are continuing to work with our partners, both with the City of Sacramento, with Federated and our S&HRI teams to make sure that we are thoroughly testing this project and its implementation before we launch it.

So we'll be organizing different working groups on the properties, consisting of different demographics from our staff to elderly, to family, to school age, children, and so on and so forth.

At this time, I'd like to invite Julie's up if you would to read a letter from Sam Floyd, who is the principal of Leototafloid in regards to this project.

Thank you, Mark. Hello, everyone.

The principal Floyd wrote, during the pandemic, we saw an increased need for Internet access amongst our students at Leototafloid Elementary.

Through our community partners at S&HRI, Valley Vision, Future Tech, and others, we provided Internet access to families in need.

According to Pew Research Center, 43% of lower income families do not have access to Internet. That statistic generally mirrored our school population.

Our community partners saw this inequity and piloted a program to bring broadband access to our community.

This pilot, through this pilot, students could access the Internet to learn during the pandemic.

Of course, there were some hiccups. Yet, the pilot showed the potential of bringing broadband services to both Marine Avista and Alder Grove.

Access to the Internet is an important factor when we look at social mobility.

Bringing broadband services to the community will only help families by providing resources to negate inequalities their poverty produces.

With gratitude, my use to Am Floyd, principal Leototafloid Elementary School.

Thank you, Chiles. And we do have a quick video for you guys if we could have that cute up.

The world is changing now. Access to information really does draw the line between the halves and the have-nots.

I grew up across street. I felt like out of it.

I need to do more.

This school and this community are something special about it.

We have been talking Internet technology laptops for kids for good 10 years.

It started with just trying to get our kids some one-to-one devices.

And then we ran into the issue of Internet at home.

We were tasked with sending 350 laptops home with kids that access peace became the challenge.

And then COVID.

I think the pandemic really highlighted the inequity that was already there.

And broadband was a big part of that.

You know, when classes moved online, when work moved online, when everything said, oh, it's okay, just look it up if you need to enroll in food stamps.

And didn't fully connect the fact that there's a whole sections of our community that either because of lack of infrastructure or cost didn't have access to that resource.

The community is served by cable and they haven't stepped up to the plate.

So when Prasad came and asked about 5G, we thought, oh, cool.

We can start to use a new technology here.

Back in January of 2020, essentially enabled 150 megahertz of free spectrum.

You can easily blanket one square mile with an outdoor cellular radio.

The project that they're working on right now is installing the radio so that we can provide high speed Internet to all of this stuff.

The teachers have become really comfortable.

And the kids have really learned some skills that are going to help them transition to the new technology that we're all using.

The minute schools closed, food literacy center thought, well, our solution is that we could now possibly offer a virtual class.

We've gotten them addicted to vegetables and they still want to keep eating healthy at home.

So they could help the kindergartners, they might have lost the recipe.

Well, if they have Internet, they can get online and they can find that same recipe that they cooked in their food literacy class and they can make it with their family.

You know, the ultimate goal is to give the students the skills but to help increase their learning outcomes.

And I think those things have happened over time.

When we actually saw the system working very well, when we had all six or eight kids doing what they typically do and they were saying, oh, this is working very nice.

It was very gratifying. Whatever you work down is actually has shown results.

We are seeing very good results. We are getting good feedback.

And in some cases, we are seeing a speed of 100 megabits per second, which is phenomenal.

I am grateful for everybody that has made it possible for our kids being able to get 5G without any hassle.

And hopefully this is just the start. This is like a pilot. Not just for our community.

Hopefully it takes off to other communities that also need it.

People who care about this issue are all over and you want them to have a role in developing the technology that's going to serve the future.

This neighborhood has been ready for the type of attention and investment for a while.

I'm excited about what this means, not just for this neighborhood, but for other neighborhoods in Sacramento and around the state.

This is a technology pebble that's being dropped into a pond.

And the ramifications of the ripple of fets, I think, are going to be national.

We are committed to making digital equity a cornerstone of our inclusive economic development strategy.

And we're backing it up with real dollars. We spent millions of dollars of our CARES Act funding to help our school kids during the pandemic.

Those kids, our kids, deserve the same access to technology as kids from any other part of the city.

Thank you.

Councilmember Valenzuela and SHRA and everybody, really.

It's what it's all about. Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, some people make good ideas really easy.

And I remember when this first came to me, I was like, obviously, we would want to do this.

But I mean, for folks to remember, I mean, initially this pilot was reaching only a couple hundred households.

It was not neighborhood wide.

And this kid, this district, this area is like that elementary school that's named after Sam's mom is 100% public housing kids.

It is completely segregated from the community around it.

And so you have all of these kids that are going to the school that don't have infrastructure, don't have access, then going home to a neighborhood directly next door that doesn't have infrastructure, doesn't have access.

And I have to invoke a certain name because it was a tragedy that really led to us getting this money, right?

It was the death of seven year old Isabelle Martin.

And I really want her story to be included in this as we move forward because had it not been for that tragedy, had it not been for that community meeting, that was Shell in the mayor.

And I want to talk to you with our police lieutenant, it was just the four of us and there were 50 people in that room, a good chunk of them school staff who said we need you to do more city of Sacramento.

I'm sorry, we need more, we need more consistency, we need more investment that led to me asking in the mayor, granting us 2.5 million out of our ARPA money.

And we've been able to use that to stretch, like we have year-round programming at that school now with the why we have after school stuff going on with street soccer and ball out academy.

And we've been able to use a portion of this money to help get Southside Park pool financing over the finish line when that pool went down and none of the kids in the neighborhood access to a pool.

So they started breaking into the private pools in the nearby area, which you can imagine was not going well.

So we were able to stretch it, but I mean this asked from SHRA to say, you know what, if you just, we were able to get just a little bit of this 2.5 million, we could make this a five year program, we could make sure every single household in this area has access to broadband.

And it was just incredible. And so we're on the cusp of launching this and our city team has been working with you and we just got to celebrate AT&T, you just donated a bunch of laptops to the kids and we were there on, was that Thursday or Wednesday celebrating them and all of the partnerships that really made it happen.

But I just want to center these kids and I really want to center Isabel in this story because it was a tragedy that led her to lose her life, but it was also I think the wake up call that our city needed to really pay attention to this special.

Special special community and to partner with SHRA and all of these incredible partners to make this to make this happen. So, and I want a copy of that video, please.

I haven't seen it yet. You almost made me cry up here. That was beautiful. But yes, thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Lichelle, and your amazing team. I think it was like, yeah, this exceeds my expectations for the impact we could have had in this area in just a short amount of time. So really want to just thank everybody.

Oh my, I just want to talk about this all day and night.

But let's at least take a few minutes. I've got a couple additional things I want to say, but Councilmember Kaplan, please.

Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank, because everybody's leadership that made this happen. I was still a school board member when the pandemic hit.

I think we saw the stories of the kids that were in Natomas unified. And I can tell you, I think we all saw the stories of the kids who are at talk about looking for internet.

And I know collectively in our region, we were like, not our kids, and how can we make that change. One thing I can tell you that I hope as we move forward, because I know Natomas unified doesn't need to be the only one of where we can look and ask because Sac City.

I think is passing a bond and twin rivers has some infrastructure money and robla we used

in Natomas unified some of our art of funds and put an antenna on every single one of our

schools.

So there is actually a free internet within a mile of every one of our schools and so that

is kind of quote unquote meets the item of a facility so that bond funds can be used.

So how can we take what was done here and done in some other areas and look at expanding

it so that is no one district or no one school has to kind of go out and it be one by one.

How do we do this in partnership?

So I see this and I just see the potential and the possibilities because this is about

partnership and it is something that I have I've actually personally done a scholarship

for 15 years on Chromebook scholarship for our unhoused children in Natomas unified because

the digital divide and having access to internet and computers is baseline for their future

nowadays.

So I want to take like Mayor said how do we take this story and this positivity and make

it so that there is equity and that digital equity with every school site that we have

within the city of Sacramento.

It's just a thought and a vision and a larger thing but I think that there are partnerships

that can be had with our local school districts on making this happen more.

Mayor Perten.

You know having broadband access is almost as essential as having electricity and having

water and having that flushes it's so important for all our kids so I just want to uplift

my colleague and councilmember Valenz Well then the shell on the team for like making it

happen.

These projects aren't easy.

It requires constant focus determination and just plug in a way at it.

Once you get the answer is no you keep going at it until you get the answer is yes and

so just thank you so much for the work that you have done to get our kids connected and

making their lives better.

Gratitude really councilmember Valenz Well you look at you and say ChRA and everybody in

the community and the school for insisting that these children matter and I'm haunted

by both haunted and inspired by your reference to Isabel Martin and the fact that it and I'm

inspired and bothered by the fact that we were able to put almost 80% of our art for money

into our community because of the will of the city council and the prior city council

and that was one time money and it begs the question which I'm going to speak a lot

about on Thursday morning and I got to rewrite some of my speech.

Now what?

Now what?

Because there are a lot of communities like this and it's not just broadband.

Broadband is the happy example here.

There's so much more.

Run equity and inclusion.

It's our work and it's the work of the future council and the leadership of this city.

Thank you.

It's great.

Okay.

We move on now to item number four.

Do you have a move?

We don't need a vote.

That was a presentation.

Good afternoon, Mayor and council, Mario Laird, Assistant City Manager.

Before I turn it over to Brian and Kim who will take you through the formal presentation,

I just wanted to take a moment to make a brief remarks.

I wanted to say thank you first and foremost to the city, county, SSF, continuum of care,

SHRA staff that meet staff and leadership really that meet on a weekly, monthly, as needed

basis to problem solve.

But more importantly to the staff, both the city and county staff who are on the ground,

boots on the ground, the field staff who are out there on a daily basis, day in, day out,

providing outreach and services to the unsheltered community.

The city, county partnership agreement which we're going to talk about here in a minute

is a foundation for all of our collaborative efforts.

In dealing with one of the most complex problems that I've dealt with in my public service

career, the issue of homelessness, it's in the landscape keeps changing, it's dynamic.

The city, county partnership agreement provides a foundation for the collaboration that we're

doing.

It doesn't encompass all of the efforts of all of the agencies.

It is a work in progress.

It's not perfect by any means.

But we continue to work on it.

I think the data that will present this afternoon shows that we're making a positive impact,

but there's a lot more to be, we're learning from that data and there's a lot more work ahead.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Brian and Tim who will take you through the formal presentation.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, Brian Pedro director for the Department of the Community

Response. Today I am providing the six month update for the city, county partnership agreement

and addressing our homelessness.

A little spoiler alert I'll put up front is that we are all green on all areas.

So we have met all the requirements.

I did want to speak a little bit on the agreement itself.

As the city manager said, it is a platform for us to work off of.

I think it was a really good base and it was that strategic plan that got us some objectives

to hit putting a plan in place and going out and doing that plan and then getting back

some feedback out of that to see if we can be better or how we can do better.

And I really feel like we're at the point that we are now getting enough data from the

time that we've been in this where we can start making some adjustments.

And we are constantly, we meet weekly on both our end and then our field staff to figure

out how we can improve our numbers and provide a better, more effective approach to this.

So that being said, let's see where we're at here.

So when we provided this six months ago, we did break it out into four categories.

For consistency on this, we did break it out into the same four categories, outreach

services, shelter housing, training and information.

And as you will see, we went with the red, yellow and green dots again to determine red obviously

not being met.

Yellow, still on progress and green has been fully met the requirement.

With this in the outreach category, last time we looked at this, we hadn't fully hired

the 15 CalAM workers.

So that was part of our team that wasn't fully established.

It was, they were hired in full almost immediately after we did our last six month report.

And with that, what we have done as a city is we're deploying out our teams.

And these teams we've broken into five regions in the city.

The teams make up DCR staff, hope outreach workers, community health works, CalAM workers

and our behavior health team and then some impact officers.

And so there's about a team of 12 in each district out there every day providing services

and really working as teams in each district and communicating with each other.

We also have on here the encampment team will engage in 20 large encampments since we have

changed our dynamics out in our field.

It's changed a little bit and we don't have 20 large encampments to hit every month.

We sway in between 15 to 20 depending on, we focus on rapid teams.

Our coordinated gets a little bigger but we've knocked that down and with that we had to

change our model a little bit on how to engage our community and still keep our services

up.

That green is really reflecting.

All right.

So if we could see that, it would show all the services that we've provided during this

period.

Looking at the top, essentially we've gone to in the last six months, 6,339 unique locations

within the city, serving 2,235 individuals and providing a total of 43,904 services.

So those services are all of our teams providing all the services that we have.

So we have a coordinated access referrals.

We have providing, getting together to get vital documents as simple as an ID card, Social

Security card, providing food services and clothing and hygiene care.

And this number of services that we provided this six months versus the last was our last

one was 20,052.

So we've over doubled the services that we're providing out there.

Kudos to all of our teams that are, I feel like we're really getting our feet underneath

this and really working as a team, trying to not only provide services but making some

movement out there.

Speaking of services, of course we have our four core centers within the city.

We have our crib center on that's well space house on 7th and H. We have a crisis respite

center, Watt and Folsom.

And then Tim will, the county will speak about our behavior health outpatient treatments,

our FSPs.

Again, we have the Calam Enhance Care Management that the community health works as providing.

And we'll talk about the services.

There's so many services that we have out there right now.

And again, the county will speak on those that we are providing.

Shelter and housing, we've met our 12 month 200 bed sites and we're on track for the 200

shelter beds within 36 months.

We finalized our affordable housing plan previously.

And then of course additional funding, we're looking at waiting daily to see if we received

our in-camp and resolution fund.

Our H-Hap is any minute I'm hoping.

Yiyun is going to let us know any minute when the Hap 5 comes in.

And then it looks like hopefully we'll see Hap 6 in the future.

And then of course we have the Prop 1 funding that will speak on a little bit later as well.

Training and information, there was a few yellows on this as far as training provided.

I reached out to the county and really had them educate everybody that's out in the field

on all the processes to access the county programs.

I wanted all of our field staff to know what programs are out there, how to access them,

and just know that what's available.

So when they're engaging with somebody that we have all the information to all programs

that we have available.

And then the 5150 training was provided as well.

We're still working on some of the details on that of how we can issue a 5150.

There's a clinician requirement on that that we're still working on.

And lastly this is just an overview of all services are green right now.

Again, the partnership agreement, it's working well.

We just talked about partnerships working well.

I really feel that we've gotten to the point where we did the little forming and norming.

So to speak, we're past that.

Everybody knows what their jobs are.

We're out there in the field every day doing work and I'll turn it over to Tim and have

him finish up with the data that we have and all the work that we've done for this

period.

Thank you, Brian.

Good afternoon.

Tim Latt, Director of Health Services Sacramento County.

I'm happy to be here today to highlight our ongoing behavioral health services and response

for unsheltered residents in Sacramento.

I'll echo what others have said first off.

It is nice to see this really working as a partnership.

I know our teams are communicating far more regularly with good feedback, opportunities

for improvement, troubleshooting, certainly recognize the amount of work and effort that

all of our teams have put in to this work and appreciate them every day for being out

in the field, serving a really difficult population to wrap services around.

So for the behavioral health data, this report really reflects for us.

Hopefully, what you will agree is some finer tuning.

Every time we do this, we learn more.

We identify new questions, try and do better data analysis and targeting.

We want to make sure we're accurately reflecting services to the unsheltered population.

And also, as I go through this today, note that while certainly we talk a lot about the

heart team and their focus on encampment, outreach, engagement and our shelters, there's

a lot happening across our behavioral health services continuum.

And what we want to continue to do is learn where are we serving this population better?

How do we bring those groups together, learn from one another and try and get people unsheltered

on the streets, engaging more in services?

So first off, I want to provide, this is a high level highlight.

In the next few slides, I'll get into more depth on this, but just starting at highest

level, you can see in the upper left-hand corner, this first section is highlighting referrals

and linkages to the unhoused population, not including the heart team.

So this is all of our other behavioral health services that were working with the unhoused

population.

We made referrals for 757 individuals into behavioral health services in that six-month period.

And notably, 609 had an intake and either got linked to a Provider Mental Health

or Substance Use Treatment.

Again, 80% rate for the referral to the linkage really strong.

And then again, that's not including looking at our heart team.

So metric that I'll revisit in a bit because I think it's relevant to this discussion.

And then separate from that, as I said, is our heart contacts that are on the lower right

hand side.

You can see heart had 2,235 outreach attempts over this six-month period.

And 240 individuals actually agreed to engage with heart.

From that, what we saw is 209 were screened.

219 were referred to behavioral health services.

And then 81 of those were actually linked to behavioral health services.

So contrasting other systems within behavioral health, we had about 80% going from that referral

to linkage with heart.

We're seeing this one about 37%.

Notable difference and ways that we know when we continue to talk about how can we

do better engagement?

How do we get people to be more able to link once they make that referral?

And I'll note too, if you look, we included this on here and I'll talk a little bit about.

Can you go over just that last point again, one of our colleagues just wanted to hear that

chart going to go back about 20 seconds?

Yeah, can you expand on the 37%?

Yes.

You guys have reasons of why you're doing that?

I know it is a lot of numbers.

So what we saw from heart, if you look at that bottom number where it says, and apologies,

a couple of those tabs, there should be tabs where it says city and shelter out to show

that we're showing a header.

So 81 individuals linked to behavioral health.

That's how many actually, once they went through the entire process screening referral,

being to means they started treatment, they started engaging in services.

That 81 was from 219 as how many we referred in to say, hey, we recognize, we've screened

you, we have identified that you need treatment, you've agreed to engage in it.

But then there's that conversion rate of where we lose them.

They don't show up, they move, we lose them.

And so they don't actually then link to their first appointment.

The rate there is, is where I was saying the 37%.

And I think it's notable because you look at across the broader behavioral health system,

the upper left hand slide, you see 757 individuals that were referred there, 609 linked.

That's an 80% rate.

It's a huge difference between what we're seeing for heart across the encampments and what

we're seeing in some of our other service lines.

And not to recognize, there's a lot of data that it's good to have the data and we can

parse into it.

But I'm also trying to keep it high level, but happy to answer more in-depth questions.

What I'll talk about in a bit is if you look at where people are agreeing to be linked,

where people are agreeing to be referred and assessed, is typically in shelters right

now, not in unhoused on the streets.

And we have far, far greater success rate if they're in a shelter to be able to consistently

engage with them, develop trust and rapport, and help get them linked into services.

So I don't want to over complicate the discussion and apologies.

That one's also hard to read with the colors.

But really what we wanted to try and highlight with this is different pathways or front doors

into behavioral health.

And that's reflective of that broader number, not including heart.

And really when you distill this information down, there are three, you know, likely really

three primary front doors or pathways.

One is through the legal pathway.

So some of it's collaborative courts, some of it care court, care act when it comes online,

AOT.

Others are community-based outreach and crisis response.

Our heart team is one of those.

Community wellness response team, our crisis teams, our others.

And then our community centers for walk-ins, our core centers, cribs, and other types of

services.

For this discussion, what I'd really like to at least note here is a mental health

urgent care clinic and the adjoining mental health treatment center.

This is a place for individuals in mental health crisis to come in, get stabilized, linked

to services.

Importantly, they receive drop-in from law enforcement.

And we see these as a key resource as we implement SB43.

So direct law enforcement drop-off, it'll also be able to receive direct drop-off coming

December from ambulances in our EMS system.

Next spot that I really wanted to highlight here is the crisis receiving for behavioral

health or cribs.

This is operated by well space health.

It's voluntary short-term recovery, detoxification, recuperative care from the effects of alcohol

or drug use.

Also going to be another key resource for us in SB43 and law enforcement drop-off.

And we're looking at people in crisis, what's the most appropriate place to bring them.

And then we've talked a lot about our core centers, that's our outpatient treatment systems.

We do have two homeless navigator positions per core site whose job it is is to go out

into the community, identify the local encampments, try and get them to engage in services, try

and get them to come into the core center.

And we've expanded that program over this last year and are starting to track more results

on how effective that approach has been, recognizing we want the regional type of approach.

And then lastly I just want to note, CareCourt Care Act.

I know this is a question that is on a lot of people's mind.

We are set to go live this December.

And we see this as a great tool for us to help incentivize those struggling with severe

mental illness to engage in treatment.

There are limitations to the Care Act that we're going to have to continue to work through

and learn and we're learning a lot from cohort one counties, the counties that went first

in implementing.

One of the most challenging pieces is that this does not compel the individual to engage

in treatment.

It is done through a petition to the courts.

The courts then are ordering behavioral health to do an assessment and develop a care plan.

But it is not legally required in the individual to engage in those services.

We have to quickly lead to an appropriate conservatorship if the individual is not participating

in the care treatment plan.

Depending upon how assertive the petitioners are and making sure that the individual is

participating in their treatment plan.

And we see this, the most successful outcome is that they start to engage in that process

and they voluntarily start to go into treatment services.

And we've seen that a lot with cohort one counties.

Going through this, they receive assistance from legal services to represent them.

Which again, going back to conversations about whether that would lead to a conservatorship

or not really does depend on the individual there and their level of mental illness.

I think some of those we might see coming through SB 43 instead of care court or other

avenues.

So looking at all of our front doors then and what we're seeing in stats and that is

smaller on that as well.

So apologies for that.

It's in the main report as well if you that I think is a little easier to see than in

this slide format.

But what this is showing you is, first of all, on this upper left hand corner, it's showing

you how many individuals were referred to behavioral health by their housing status.

So there are 1,129 that were referred in that were identified as unhoused.

And then you could see the breakdown, how many were, met the definition of literal homelessness

and chronic, literal homelessness and not chronic.

Some through the shelters that we talked about, some through bridge or interim housing

and others, their transitional temporary housing.

Next when we look of moving over to the upper right hand side, you can see how many of

them were linked.

So of those 1,129, 800 then or 70.9% were actually linked to services.

And really interesting lower right hand corner is showing you where they were linked, what

services are they going into.

And I think what we see here is quite more reflective of what we would expect with some

of the needs of the population.

You can see 33%, the highest category were going into a substance use treatment residential

program.

And then another 27.5% were going into a mental health full service partnership.

And then 22% going into our core outpatient treatment program.

Then another 12% going into substance use outpatient.

Maybe as you're going just for clarity, because I think, you know, some of my colleagues

are pinging me a little bit.

And I just the information, let's take this chart.

We're talking about a base of 1,129 people.

That's what is that city and county or just city?

So this will include all unsheltered.

The challenge with unsheltered in the heart team, it's a lot easier because we know

where the heart team is deployed and where they're making the outreach.

At our core centers or through some of our other like access line, when they're homeless,

we don't always have a residence for them.

And we try and identify that, but it's not consistent.

And so it creates a lot of data gaps for us.

And in part because they're moving around.

And so sometimes they could be in the city, sometimes they could be in unincorporated

areas or another city.

But I understand the data is not perfect for the reasons you just described.

But if somebody is showing up to the 14th and X core center on a regular basis, can't

they be counted as somebody who's probably from the city with appropriate asterisk?

I think you could absolutely make those assumptions.

So is that, I mean, in terms of pushing here on the data, beyond my term here, is that

something that we are committed to trying to refine so that we do have a better idea

of the impact of the partnership agreement in the city.

We obviously care about everybody.

And a person is a person, but in terms of understanding the impact, positive impact

of the partnership agreement, is that, we talked about this in the 4x2, is that something

that we can commit to trying to refine even if it's imperfect?

I am committed to trying as I know.

Sherry, as I look back over there, Sherry Green, who's the division manager over these

programs, knows I have asked this question a number of times.

Because you know I'm going to ask it, I'm sorry.

And I want to know it too, frankly.

Let me put out my raw topology at the very beginning of the questioning here.

Because it's all in the spirit of what we're all about, right?

Just trying to help as many people as possible.

But I'm going to ask the questions anyway.

So let's, we need to refine that data, but let's translate this document just a little

bit.

And that the percent of referrals linked to mental health services, outpatient, FSP,

or residential treatment, and the number again is large.

It's 1,129.

We're not saying that all those people have actually been enrolled in some form of those

services, or are we?

We're saying in the period between January to June, of that 1,129, 800 agreed to be linked.

So that is they began treatment.

Of that 800, these percentages of each of the different treatment categories, that is

where they landed or what treatments are.

In rope when you say linked, I want to make sure linked means enrolled.

They were enrolled.

Okay, so that's not, that's, that's a better number than maybe some of the other charts,

say, um, um, um, imply or express.

And that's why I kind of want to, want to go through this.

So what you're saying here is 800 people from the city and county, because again, that's

a key question.

We have a million county that out.

Yeah.

So that's the, my famous question, that's 200 people over the last six months enrolled

in full service partnerships from the streets to, to, to, to a full service partnership.

Yes.

Okay.

And we don't know that breakdown city in county.

And then an additional 33% of 800, um, mm, mm, mm, uh, uh, 250 or so were actually enrolled

in residential treatment or substance use.

Yes.

Okay.

That's, uh, five, 500 people or so 500 people or so from the county over these last six

months that were, have moved from the streets into some form of intensive treatment.

Yes.

And we don't know how many of those people were from the city.

Okay.

And that's, okay.

Keep going.

Sorry.

I'll get to know.

I appreciate the questions because this helps us again.

Okay.

So as we come the next time, this is where we're looking to fine tune what we want to

get.

Maybe I'll get it all out of the way then because so then when you get to the heart

team, which is a subset, yes, that's where the numbers don't look as, yes.

And the last section of this is going to, you know, you get, you got 20 in the city partnership

agreement.

You get, well, you, you, the heart team touched in some way, 2,235 people.

That's in the city, right?

That is in the city.

That is in the city.

That is in the city and also the shelters.

Okay.

And 20 people plus the 60 in the shelters.

So in fairness, might be helpful.

Which slider you want.

I'm sorry.

I'm on the last one.

Okay.

So you're jumping ahead.

That's right.

But I, I'm really trying to help here to kind of, to kind of bring the information together

because what I just went through as you explained was heart plus.

It's the entire behavioral health homeless system.

We know 500 people went from the streets to residential treatment or at full service partnerships.

We don't know the differentiation between city and county.

Now the heart team, which is the 10 outreach workers plus the, the, the Cal Aime, the

health plan workers and the cities plus two shelter workers plus two shelter workers.

There the heart team touches.

2002 and 35 people.

Yes, they were averaging about 300 to 400.

Okay.

Outreach attempts per month.

And of course, the numbers keep going down.

And at the end of the day, 20 people get linked, which means enrolled in services.

We don't know what, how many, we don't know whether that's outpatient, FSP, residential

treatment.

If you look, 60 from the show.

Okay.

Might help get to what, what you're asking.

So this is heart specific.

Okay.

Go.

And this recognizing this is busy.

So and it lost headers on there.

Each of those lines should have said January, February, March, April.

So where you see those green lines, that's representing a delineation between each of

the months.

So that's six months worth of data.

So what you can see the top slide is showing you how many referrals and it's by program.

So purple is outpatient, blue is FSP, pink or substance use in our product treatment

programs or just substance use outpatient and light blue is substance use residential.

Only from the heart outreach.

This is only heart now.

And right.

Okay.

And the numbers are below.

They are.

And that's why I want to, and what I want to highlight here is I don't want this to be

reflective that heart is, is not out there working hard.

I, these are great people working their heart working their hearts out.

No punting, they are.

They are.

They are.

They are along with the city going for it.

A rate of 400 contacts a month.

They are, they are out there hitting the pavement.

But it begs a lot of policy questions here, which is what we want to talk about here today.

Yes.

Okay.

Not personnel questions or performance questions because the people, I know the people.

They're out there doing great work.

So policy.

So.

So.

So to your point.

Yes.

What we see is a much steeper drop off between what we get for referrals and linkages to

heart.

You'll notice the highest bar on there is the shelter outreach.

So where heart is most effective is where individuals are in a shelter.

And that's where we're seeing double triple the amount of people willing to engage, willing

to be screened and referred and also being linked to services.

So it's telling again of where we need to address the shelter piece totally as early as possible

because that is a key indicator for them willing to engage.

I have a clarifying question to get.

And there's only, there's probably no perfect way to present this data.

So thank you for working through us here.

So you would mention 80% success rate and then versus 37% success.

So obviously we ask why and your answer was shelters.

But when I look at this chart, it doesn't look like they're reaching 80% enrollment from

shelters either.

And so is that.

So I guess I'm still seeing a lower than normal trend.

Am I reading that correctly?

Yeah.

So because this the way that this breaks it down, it's, it's, if you were to add all the

columns up.

Okay.

From each of the categories.

So the shelter categories together, the city teams, because this also includes the county

teams.

Okay.

That's, we're basing that 37% off of the aggregate.

Yeah, I know.

I guess I just, the answer though is that you think it's because they're sheltered versus

unsheltered.

When I look at this sheltered numbers, because you've broken it out here.

So like we can use February's an example.

It looks like this chart's telling me that they made contact and referred 27 people from

a shelter in February, but only nine of those people actually linked.

And so that's less than 80%.

It's going to be very, definitely less than.

Yeah.

So I guess I'm just curious if there's other things.

And that might be a further discussion question, but it doesn't seem like it's as simple.

Shelter is not.

It's ain't sheltered versus unsheltered.

The only thing.

What we're seeing though is where we're engaging people cold.

That is otherwise not being in our system.

That's the most, right now what we're seeing is the most effective indicator to say, yes,

they're more willing to engage.

We still, the hardest one is still to get people that are even in shelters to agree to

substance use.

Whereas when we look at our other front doors, we're having much more success in linking

unhoused into substance use disorder and our task now on the behavioral health side

is to try and figure out why is that and what can we do to maybe replicate that.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we kind of jumped ahead.

I don't know if you, I think this does really summarize the last point, which is we

know where people are coming into our system broadly.

This information is presenting where the referrals are going from heart.

The vast majority of them, as you can see, are to outpatient.

Usually because that's what either the individuals willing to engage in, they're not willing

to engage in an FSP level service at that point.

And that's a safer entry point to then get them into an outpatient program that may

assess them for higher level NFSP substance use.

But that's where the focus typically is some refer directly into an FSP others directly

into substance use.

I'm happy to answer questions.

That was the end of our specific data piece, but again, happy to answer any other questions

you might have.

Okay.

Let's open up an OVS.

Waiting and others have been waiting as well.

Do we have public testimony?

I do know how, I have no public comment large for this item.

Okay.

Then let's really open up this discussion and turn over to OVS.

That was the end of your presentation, not just the data piece.

Yes.

Okay.

I was a sure point.

But happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

I'll turn it back over to Brian.

And thank you, thank you mayor.

I just really want to appreciate both the city and the county teams.

I know this is hard work, it's hard work.

It's, you guys have been through a lot over the last six months year and longer coordinating

together.

So I just really want to appreciate that because there's no road map for this.

You know, it's certainly something that we, you know, we've seen a massive increase over

in recent years and every jurisdiction is trying to figure out what to do.

So I think we're doing overall a great job in terms of our outreach and the efforts.

I did have a couple questions.

When I was reading through the data, I couldn't find anything that was, you know, how many

exits to permanent housing did we see in totality or in the city and the county?

I saw one graph that Brian showed me that I think was only the community health works team

and that was 13 people.

But I'm not sure, do we have a total number?

So you know, Brian and I were chatting about that before this because last time that,

that was a number that I think was generated from HMIS and realized it didn't get plugged

into our data.

So I think Brian has a preliminary number.

I will highlight to you one metric on this graph, which is the lower right hand side,

where the upper left is showing you when they entered our system, their housing status.

The lower right is showing you where they are today.

And why I think that's relevant and what I would highlight at least for our direct behavioral

health clients that we're looking at is we have about, from that, about 12% now that,

whereas prior to that, this was not a category.

They are now housed no imminent risk of homelessness.

So that translates to 95 individuals.

Additionally, we have more in bridge housing that are sheltered or transitional temporary

housing.

So that starts to speak to part of it, but that's just the picture for those in our behavioral

health system.

And I think Brian might have a broader number for the HMIS piece.

That's okay.

In fact, while he does that, I see him calculating over there.

I actually have an additional question for you and then he can come up.

So I know you mentioned care court.

I think we're coming up.

What is it, the December of this year?

So I just wanted to ask you, from the county's perspective, do you all feel prepared?

Do we know what that looks like yet here?

And have you had any conversations with some of the other counties that have already done

it about how well it's working?

Lots of conversations.

Okay.

I'm on the statewide task force that is looking at the cohort one counties, looking at

the data.

We feel comfortable locally that we're ready for it.

I think the hard part is going to be, and we talked a little bit about it on that item,

which is expectations of, it's a good tool and it's something that we really want to see

effective.

But one, I think it's going to take time to educate everybody on how to use it, particularly

because of the petition that has to be filed with the courts, which is pretty lengthy

where we want to make sure people have the resources to be able to complete those petitions.

And then also, because it doesn't compel the individual at this point, it's still, it's

going to require the ability to really engage with them and get that trust and their willingness

to go into treatment.

Hopefully the black robe effect helps.

But what a lot of the cohort one counties are saying is there's a high no-show rate for

those individuals in the court.

What is the black robe effect?

The concept of, even though it's not the judges are legally ordering them to receive services,

they're still going to a court, they're still having a judge tell them, you know, this

is what I would like you to do.

But again, then the judge's ordering behavioral health to do the report and assessment, not

compelling the individual.

Okay, that's really helpful.

Thank you.

And really look forward to continuing to see how this gets implemented and that could have

a big impact on our county and our city.

And then another question I have was related to the 5,250 requirements.

I know, Brian, you said that you're still working on what that looks like, but just wanted

to see if you could provide a little bit more detail for us about the process and some

of the challenges if you've had those.

I'm sorry.

For the 5,250.

So the 5,150s, the process is that you file an application with the county that you

meet the requirements to provide a 5,150 and part of that requirement is to have a clinician

on staff.

And there's a list of individuals that will meet that requirement physician, licensed

clinical social worker, registered nurse.

So we're looking into can we provide that service, what clinician do we have on staff that

would allow us to have that program and provide that service?

Okay, that's really helpful.

I say that more so for public information and knowledge is I think that sometimes, and

I certainly get calls about it from constituents that sometimes you're driving around or walking

around town and you see someone who you might think, oh my gosh, shut that person clearly

needs help.

They were talking to themselves or doing the other thing and I think people don't always

understand how, for good reason we have a lot of protections in place in our society

that makes it difficult for the government or anyone else to come in and take away

rights and tell you you got to be somewhere or put you away.

And so I think those are good things but I think we're trying to figure out as a government

and society, like what the line is and how do we help people who maybe not, might, may

not be able to help themselves and that's part of what we're all trying to figure out collectively

as a state.

And it's one of the challenges that we have when we're looking around especially on the

behavioral health components.

I just wanted to shout that out that we are in motion.

We're working together with us and the county to figure out how to best implement that

but I think that will be important.

Thank you.

And so there was some interesting studies of some cities that have overused the 5150

and by using it so much the end assessment result was that most of them that were placed

on 5150's really didn't meet the requirement and so they were then released.

So that's just something that we have to be aware of and be careful of executing too

many 5150's.

Yeah and I think we, I don't want to speak for Michael Aysfet.

I don't think that's something that we want to do.

But we really do want to be targeting people who need it the most potentially and so just

thank you for your work and then whenever you have the numbers maybe you can follow up

afterwards with all of us on the numbers for permanent housing.

But with that that's it for me Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Councillor Valenzuela.

Thank you.

First question is for Tim actually because I want to make sure I understand what isn't

is not included so I recently heard about a new program the county started which I'm

very, our starting which I'm very excited about.

You may have known that we have an issue with jail release downtown where people are released

from the jail into nothing and end up in the park or remember district or kind of wherever.

And so I was approached by one of the people who won the RFP because they're opening a clinic

in my district where they're going to catch people coming out of the jail who have

diagnosed mental illness with full service partnerships as I understand this is a new

program that you all are standing up and so I guess I wanted to just hear from you because

I know about the clinic in my district because I've been trying to help them like outreach

to the community and answer questions and stuff to support it because it's something that

way, way over do very excited to see it happen but I guess I'm just curious if you could

give any details on toward the scale of what this program will be and the timing of when

we expect it to roll out because I think the sooner we can start we know a lot of folks

on the street are ending up in the jail for a myriad of reasons and to catch them coming

out of that jail and a full service partnership seems like just a really great strategy so

I'm curious as to when and how many and all of that but also curious how that intersects

with the data you're collecting because I do think this could be I don't know if people

exiting the jail would be considered unhoused even if they weren't at house before they went

into the jail and so those are two related.

Well, and they are related because the fears of course it may be if they're not unhoused

now when they exit the jail they're high, high risk that they will be.

So there's actually quite a bit that we're doing in this space on justice involved population.

So I'll try and go through the litany of them and see if I think what you're referring

to is our thrive program.

So that is our historically we had called it forensics you know what we looked at how

we want to market manage and outreach to this program it's our thrive program.

So similar to our core centers we actually have two thrive outpatient clinics that we're

opening I'm looking at opening a third and Bay Area Community Services and and well

space health sorry I wanted to make sure I got that right.

We've had a lot of different RFPs lately are taking on those locations we see one naturally

at the Stockton Boulevard campus once that gets built out for well space and that is a spot

for people being released it'll help with our diversion programs and mental health

courts in general.

But then also as you described as we're trying to build out a network where are people

who release in the middle of the night right now we have co-hewow in their cafe that

is right next door to the jail and we're really trying to find a model where we can get

that going 24 or seven or link it with a second nonprofit organization that can help when

somebody's released we want you know at a minimum let's let's get them a place to sleep

let's get them some food some essentials and then get them linked into services.

And we also are increasing the number of FSP our thrive FSP slots by 200 more than double

what we were before those were we're hoping to bring online come November it's really

just as fast as the providers can get space higher people and and start to ramp up for that

program.

At the intersection of Calame what Calame's really doing for us now is providing much better

jail in reach and community-based linkages so we're doing a lot more or starting to do

a lot more assessments pre-release 90 days if we know 90 days out and making sure that

then when they do get released I'm essentially developing a transition plan like you would

in an emergency room where you you know where you're going to stay can we start to set

up housing resources what can we link you to outpatient treatment or residential if you

still need it those types of services when they get released so that ideally they're

not being released at 2 a.m. with with absolutely no resources.

Yeah now I want to thank you for hearing the plea and increasing the FSP slots by that

many because it is I mean just an incredible compliment I think to what the vice mayor

is asking about with care court to know that people with the agnospital illness in the

jail they can start outreach then and when they come out they're immediately caught in

a system that won't do housing whatever it takes as the mayor likes to say to ensure

that they're successful.

I mean honestly this is my theory is to why when you look at the point in time count and

the distribution between jurisdictions that the share in Sacramento has increased from

70 to 78% of the total unhoused in the county I think this is part of the reason why I mean

folks in up in the jail for like I said a myriad of reasons and then they stay there when

they're used to be a program and this is outside your jurisdiction so I'm just going to

say it into the ether hoping somebody at the county who controls this is listening the

share of used to give people right back to the jurisdiction where they were arrested

and during the daytime and drop them off at the probation office so even if they were

on probation they could immediately link and if they weren't on probation they had a phone

they had a bathroom they had a bus pass they had someplace they could go that was and

if they were arrested and outgrove they're not released down here in the middle of the

night they're actually taken back to outgroves so that they can reconnect to their community

down there whatever that looks like so that's just me I'm putting that out into the ether hoping

that program eventually comes back because it's stopped under the former sheriff and hasn't

restarted under the new sheriff and I still don't know why but thank you for that because I

think that program and I wanted to make sure my colleagues were aware that it's standing up

because yeah like I said I found out when the clinic operator reached out to me and said hey we

found a location your district are you okay with this and we said of course we are because either

way they're going to end up in our community right either because they were released in their

and how's now and they don't have a place to go at least this way they're just a writer who's

going to catch them in the full service partnerships which is great great progress so I just want

to thank you and my hope is with with Cal aim there is a transportation benefit we're struggling with

the managed care plans of how to get that to roll out and be as effective as we can for kind of

an as needed basis because ideally the vision would be they get out even if the sheriff's not doing

at Cal aim is able to provide the transport and we're taking them somewhere where they can stay

that night rather than just go out on the street which is fabulous yeah I've still never figured

out why that program stopped under the former sheriff and so whatever you can do is greatly

appreciated I will now have a question for Brian so thank you for that so I've asked a couple

meetings and when the last I talked to the city manager I was hoping for this presentation to

include an update on how our enforcement protocols have changed since the grant grants past decision

are you prepared to speak at all to that today I could it's so it's I guess it kind of folds

into this partnership because it does address how we deploy out our teams the so the change in

our protocol was to enforce the unlawful campaign and that was essentially the only change in

in how we're providing compliance and enforcement with the ins and management team it didn't

change how we prioritize it didn't change how we deploy our teams it was strictly the unlawful

campaign now the the unlawful campaign ordinance we have had and even prior to Supreme Court if we

had shelter space we were able to use the unlawful campaign ordinance and and we have in the past

and now with the Supreme Court decision now we can use an unlawful campaign period what that

means is that you kind of have camping you can't be you can't have a tent up you can have

camping paraphernalia you can be set up as a camp and that's the piece that is being

enforced now so essentially what that looks like if I have a tent set up you can't have a tent

set up you break down your tent if you have it folded up and you're mobile and standing there

then you are violating the unlawful campaign and I know when we adopted the enforcement protocol

I mean we did give the city manager leeway to amend the protocol if as he saw fit but I know we

also passed in the resolution direction to avoid citations as much as possible so could you tell

me if there's been any citations issued I can't because I haven't seen the data from from this

past week okay cool I would appreciate a follow-up on that thank you and then just broadly speaking

back to the county before I exceed my time I just want to I think publicly thank our mayor

per ten for her advocacy on behalf of the city and all of us who have river communities but

obviously those north of the river who've been directly impacted by some of the enforcement

the county has done along the river and I guess I just want to say that I think that we are all

obviously willing to spend the time and the energy to work together and to try to figure this out

and as was mentioned at the beginning this partnership agreement is a floor for collaboration

and not the ceiling and I see this is a perfect opportunity for us to be collaborating more together

to come up with solutions that will work best for both jurisdictions and rather than just pushing

people back and forth between county and city territory but that's all I'll say on that thank you

thank you councilmember vones we let mayor per ten telemantez go ahead thank you so much mayor thank

you councilmember ansuela and I have a question probably for s h r a and d c r everyone

sex steps forward I know one of the challenges that we had was with like the sharing of information

because of hip-hop and just rules in place to protect privacy for our unhoused residents and we

were working on a form to make sure that the information was mainstreamed yes can share and

collaborate more do we have something ready to go now yes we actually have a release of

information on our i form that we started reaching out specifically to the individuals who had

vouchers who were impacted by you know the fact that we were going into a shortfall situation

and I believe we had last time I looked over 400 individuals actually had signed the release of

information so that we could share information back and forth okay and so for d c r and our city

county teams that go out into the field is that form now part of you know something that people

can sign off on so if I could just speak to that so our focus was like I said on those individuals

who actually had a voucher and who were out searching so that's really who we focused on

originally but we did send it out and blanket and send it out to all of those people all of those

individuals who were searching for housing and that's why we received so many back I don't know if

we have actually got them out to the to the individuals who are out at the encampments at this

particular point I don't think so is that correct correct yeah we never came up with a final

agreement amongst everybody on how we're going to distribute and get signatures and what form

we were going to use for release of information so then I guess it's direction is sac steps forward

since Lisa you work with both the city and the county to make sure that we have something in place

so that the city and county and SHRA can work collaboratively and share information for our

in house population with I guess I just want to give direction so for the next time I'll ask about

it the more information we can work like share and the more information we have the better off we're

going to be in serving the people for Tim I have a question the city and the county numbers I mean

80% of people being connected to services in the county compared to our city low rate of 37% still

is like sitting on my mind in my heart like does the county have an or the city like do we have

an explanation of like or at least theories of why this is is it because the hardest to reach

populations are in the city limits is it because like what are the reasons aside from I mean like

is there any explanation as to why 80% versus 37% well keep in mind 80% is what we're seeing I mean

that's going to be our you know people coming into our core centers that's going to be people

coming out of jail that's going to be people you know linked across all like coming out of our

mental health urgent care so all of our other front doors I think what what we're seeing and

where that 80 versus 37% really speaks to is how challenging it is to get unsheltered homeless

on the streets to to really be ready to engage in services we know by trying to chip away at it

something that we a lever that we can use is shelter we're hoping and I we didn't really talk

about statistics but I will say some of the efforts that we're trying to do for like bridge housing

so we have 313 bridge housing units that were in process of developing out 80 are active right now

we hope those again our opportunities to then get somebody into a stable housing environment

and engage in services so we're we're looking at what what tools we can we can use to to help impact

that 37% but it's just coming up with enough shelter options for the need as we know it just the

heat need is huge. I hope to collect some of that evidence that 87% does

count those other front doors but those other front doors like the shelter folks are in one

place so those are folks coming out of hospitals so those people experiencing homelessness who are

hospitalized they have the opportunity to have that enrollment and have the provider come out and

talk to them we're looking at folks also discharging from jails to our collaborative courts so again

it's somebody who's a captive audience our crisis residential programs which are temporary

residential facilities so that 80% includes those situations in which people are temporarily housed

or institutionalized so I think that might have some impact on that overall number. Thank you

that's helpful and in the 4x2 you shared information about like our fire department,

UMS department being able to take not take people to the hospital because our hospitals are so

impacted in the wall time for our firefighters is serious and so can you talk a little bit about

that so that people understand like what are next options are going to be? Yes so we are in process

of rolling out our it's called a triage to alternate destination program and what that program

does will be one of I think three counties in the state that is rolling out this program

trying to address our historically high ambulance patient offload times and also

trying to get people to the right level of treatment when they're in mental health crisis

so what that will do is allow our ambulances to take people to certain designated drop-off points

so mental health treatment center is one of those locations crisis receiving for behavioral

health the crib is another we're in the process of bringing herda jokes online and Syrivis to

hospital and we can continue to expand that all of those locations then we'll be able to accept

people coming in and lieu of going to the to the ER and December is when we expect to be going

live with that program okay thank you and I have three more questions um how is the county

track in the city and county um tracking people that don't want to talk to us you know like we

have the data on the people that we can know hey maybe they're in the city maybe in the county

and hey we had a conversation they used a service we were but collect some data but there's a lot

of people that when you guys approach people and you say hey I'm Brian Pedro at the city they just

say go away and you just never know so like is there a way that you guys can track that and just

put person one reached out did not you know like I think HMIS if sorry I'll let the Sherry

in the field team be able to answer that question for the nuance I'm closer um we are attempting to

but it can be difficult because those folks could be duplicated so person number one might be

wearing a green hat today and we mark down person number one green hats has no and tomorrow they're

wearing a red hat and now it's person number one with a red hat so it's really difficult to

guarantee you are not accidentally duplicating folks um so that tends to be one of our largest

challenges yeah and I think it's okay if you're duplicating people because it's you're going out

there and if they say no then you go out there again it's a second attempt and it's hard to know

you know I mean track and completion closed you know but like having data to show um how many

times we're going out there I think it's so important just as important as people that say yes

and what services they prefer so um and then for the city attorney uh what as the county

implements care courts in December like what is the city's involvement going to be in this

or for Brian maybe um I don't know who but um for PD fire and DCR like what are we going to be doing

okay well I think the mayor wants to answer that question just well no it's it's I can tell you

what the law says and it actually leads to a question I was going to ask Tim um under the law

and by the way the city attorney has already done very good preparatory work on some of these

questions under the law city officials including the fire department entities like the DCR can actually

file the petitions under care court and that's different because cities don't have the authority to

file the conservatorship petitions for example um and so it raises the question that I wanted to ask

the county team here how do you feel about that how do you feel about the city um filing petitions

for people that are inside the city um that are unsheltered that to the lay person's eye and

the and the experience of the DCR the police and the fire department are in desperate need

of treatment and around on the streets how do you feel about the city filing

uh these petitions and actually seeking assertively to enroll more people into some former level of

surface I think this is a question that's going to be asked and and answered um past December

and from from my perspective I see it as an opportunity of if this if this helps to

move people to engage more in treatment and services I think it can be a benefit for us we want

to make sure we're ready so I think my fear is you know a a fire hose of um you know a hundred people

in in a week and can we keep up with it that hasn't been the experience and in other

um jurisdictions the cohort one counties and I and I do want to caveat and I'll go back and look

at this because my understanding is who can file petitions the participant can file it

adult who lives with the participant spouse registered domestic partner and other

relation essentially person who stands in the place of the parent um to the participant

director of a hospital to which the person was recently hospitalized director of a public or

charitable organization who is provided or is currently providing behavioral health services

to the participant and then licensed behavioral health professional who has supervised the treatment

of the participant for mental illness I don't have the statute in front of me but I know that city

officials can file these petitions um mr reek I concur which and if so that's I'm happy to

to do a follow-up with my team on that okay um so yes I I do think we would be expecting that

what we are hoping is that again we don't have floodgates because like any program it's going to

take time for processes to work themselves out make sure we have enough staffing make sure we

have the pipeline and ultimately again I would hope particularly if they're unhoused we want to

be able to have some type of a housing place to to put them go ahead uh mayor pretend that I'm

going to follow up on this line of questioning and then we'll conclude the hearing go ahead no

that's really helpful um I mean for everyone I mean I just just number one question I was asking about

care courts right um and I guess my next you know kind of my question but my ask is like in the

spirit of collaboration with measure O in this partnership agreement um the remaining $5.6

million from a summer mark coming a party to see if the city can be in the loop as it's allocated

I don't know at the county yeah that'd be great at the county board of supervisors I wasn't sure

what the what the direction was so if we can get yeah thank you for the question Shavon Kateri

Deputy County Executive um we are definitely intending to work with city staff um we're reaching out

to the staff now to get a list of um individuals who may have been displaced from the parkway

previously so that we can help to prioritize who goes into these services and absolutely we will

be having that discussion with city staff about any ideas they have thank you very good thank you

vice mayor I think I want to end here but may take a few minutes with where uh vice mayor

mayor Prattam Talamontis was sort of going and the question that uh she asked and then I followed

up with on care courts because it really strikes at the heart of the question so thank you by the way

for taking us through all the numbers and I just want to say uh from the outset here that I remain

hopeful and grateful hopeful and grateful to all the city officials and all the county officials

that are working their hearts out here to try to not only improve our collaboration but obviously

with the heart for the work no pun intended to to to to to help the people because that's I know

that's what you're about and the people you work with are about and I get into this

apologetic thing because despite the way that I really feel about all of you as professionals

I look at the system and I look at the numbers and I don't think the numbers are nearly good enough

there there just aren't enough people being enrolled in services period and the story and by the way

this is not a Sacramento County thing this is a statewide thing this is this was the impetus for

prop one with all of its controversy and I know many county partners not liking it because it

reduced discretion but it's seeking to beg a question how do we get more people the help that they

need and it's the question about the city having the ability to file the care court petitions as well

and you answered very honestly I appreciated your answer yes you'd welcome it but please

make sure that you don't go too fast or or too many because we may not be able to handle it and yet

there are still so many walking wounded people on our streets despite our 41 percent reduction

and which by the way we should take great pride in 8% up statewide 41% in the city and county

of Sacramento great pride so I remain hopeful and grateful and it's my job and it's been a lifelong

passion to do everything to make sure that nobody's left out there and there are too many people so

it begs a lot of questions here um why aren't the numbers better mayor Prattam Talamantez has

about the difference between the city and the county that the that's one question and I think

you answered it well but the bigger question for me is how let's just take the city is what let's

just take the city because I'm sure the same is true in the unincorporated county and other parts

of the county it's too statewide again the teams interdisciplinary teams touch 2235 people

and only 100 plus are referred to treatment what is are there lessons to be learned from this

I think whether it's a resource question or a systems question that we're not applying the

evidence-based approach of assertive engagement with people assertive engagement it means you

don't touch people one time who are who are I keep you know half naked and talking to themselves

and say do you want to do you want help or let me get your information that's not what that's not

the evidence-based practice the evidence-based practice is assertive outreach it means you

persist with that individual and if you persist and the outreach worker whether it's the county

worker the hope cooperative worker the turning point worker the calaim worker they develop that

relationship that trusting relationship with the individual over 50% of them in my experience

will then come in if we have something to offer them and the capacity and when I look at this

difference between 2235 and barely 100 people who are who are even being referred to treatment it

tells me that the outreach is not whatever it takes to actually make an even greater difference

on our streets and again this is a fundamental human rights issue it's a political issue it's still

the thing that causes the most concern and unhappiness by our constituents we've ramped up enforcement

council member vowsway there's no question about it grants pass allows it and it's where the

majority of the city council and I've changed even a little bit too not a lot but a little bit

it's the way it has to be we cannot have these big encampments but if you're just moving people

right from one corner to the next well you're not really providing relief to the people suffering

on the streets nor the communities that want a safer and a cleaner city so what is the

mode and method of outreach to the people on our streets especially those living with underlying

conditions because I don't think it's what ever it takes and why is that again not Sacramento

County alone not Sacramento City along because the city's partners here it's us too is this a state

wide is this the same thing where the governor is frustrated to sack everybody's frustrated right

and rather than point fingers we had to like analyze it there's now there's more money what happens

when you have good and great people and a flawed system I mean that to me is sort of

what we grapple with is as as policymakers here is it a resource question maybe the partnership

agreement as many of my colleagues have said the 10 outreach workers heart workers that's a

floor it's not a ceiling the whole behavior of health system together with DCR is

supposed to have brought a reach and so if there's a resource gap we better identify what that is

is it a systems question what is the gatekeeping that goes on you heard my concern about the core

centers another question that sort of begged in this data here is you have these core centers which

are not just day drop-in centers they are intended to be triage centers that's that's what you

know you talk about captive audience with the greater success with shelter right on that's when

when people are there and you can take the time and assess them well similar with the core centers

and yet I've asked the hard question and we still need to differentiate that data but it doesn't

appear that there are that many people in the city core centers are actually ending up in

being enrolled in mental health services and you know the untrained eye knows that the people that

are there are people who qualify for those services so this is real and we have to ask this and

and then is it a resource question is a systems question or do we need to look harder into all of our

our hearts not just this county the entire system and ask whether it's a question of will

because the people that are there are people that are so obviously sick that we're not applying

a sort of outreach to and why why not why not is it because rationally it's just too hard

is too hard that the population itself is that hard and there are too many too many people

maybe the system is flawed in that we are not providing you enough incentives to actually

make getting people from the core centers to being enrolled in the services a higher priority maybe

this whole system ought to be a lot more pay for performance with a lot more upside for

all of the providers the counties in the cities to actually get at the hardest to serve people

so i'm so mixed because i do have genuine gratitude and i'm so happy that we have this foundation

and it's gonna reap greater rewards i know what i know what i know it but i'm going to the end of my day

ask this question about why more people are not enrolled in in actual service because the numbers

are way too low no fault something we all have to grapple with together because the 41 percent

may not last we want to go down farther and even with that overall number being down the problem

is still serious and there are still the people who are most visibly ill out there and causing

harm to themselves and also causing a lot of distress to our communities so thank you

i hope that we continue to always push each other you know i know it's and it can be i know it

causes you know rank or sometimes especially between the electives and all this while you're

no this is what we have to do criticize us we got to push you you got to push us because

our communities dependent on it so thank you think it was a great hearing um let's go forward okay

thanks Brian got anything um what do you mean um i i i i i i mean you're spot on on this um and the

beauty of it is where we're at that we can now look at our system and see with actual data of

of where we need to improve i mean that's that's where we've gotten to at this point so

this is your last uh assertive out assertive consistent outreach that's what i'm calling for

more than one touch to the county in the city maybe we got to do one more at least before the

mayor leaves i think there would be a unanimous vote among the staff to vote no on that request but uh

we're going back for the next one we'll see hey thanks okay very good

um so mayor i have one public comment speaker for matters on the agenda and then if you

it's acceptable to you i'd like to adjourn this meeting to our close session i just have to

get you to the record our public's comment speaker is Gary McGlin

this is for matters not on the agenda

good afternoon i'd like to address you as a resident a tax player and a pedestrian

over the weekend or earlier in the week i heard the term emergency being used

and that got my attention but at one o'clock this afternoon i also got an emergency

phone call from the county telling me about an issue my question is about the concept of an

emergency several years ago not that many really uh sometime around five o'clock in the morning

i got another emergency phone call from the city police i'm half asleep i stumble over to the

phone this is the police calling what's going on i try to talk to the phone who's hurt what's

going on it's a recording okay that's okay maybe there's a flood maybe there's a fire maybe there's

mayhem somewhere no it's a 14 year old girl who's been missing since seven o'clock the night before

10 miles from my house as a result of that i tried to fix that i said you know that's not really

appropriate and it's a lot of things that really went nowhere the one thing i did ask i asked my

councilman for what's the definition of an emergency well he's not my councilman anymore but um it

was low he and i never did get an answer to that but in looking at what's happening with this

state of emergency in order to address issues with pedestrians i don't really think that that's

i think it's cynical i don't think it's appropriate it's not the truth okay yes i'm a pedestrian

i walk all over this city my application is hiking and i ride a bike and i can tell you it's

a lot worse riding the bike thank you for your comments your time is complete welcome to come back

thank you sir thank you so may we do have a special meeting agenda at four p.m. it's a closed

session for two items first item is pursuant to government code section five four nine five four nine

five six point nine d one to discuss matters pertaining to pending litigation city of Sacramento

versus three m company at al u.s district court for a district of south carolina mdl number two eight

six seven master docket number two colon eighteen dash mn dash two eight seven three second item

is pursuant to government code section five four nine five seven point six for a matter pertaining

to negotiations with unrepresented employees the city auditor and the purposes to confer with the

city's designated representative shelly banks robinson you do have a quorum of council in chambers

and i have no public on this comment on this item you a during the closed session what was that

docket number again right i'm a stosure had one comment before we drink go ahead and

address yes just one quick one quick comment i did get a question about the prop one funds

there's approximately six billion dollars in terms of bonds that we're going to be released by

the state four billion of be competitive grants for behavioral health treatment and two billion

is for supportive housing half of that will be a home key plus which really addresses permanent

supportive housing for veterans and the other billion dollar will be just regular psh so we are

following this closely we think that the no-foot will drop in november and probably applications

will be accepted in january so we'll be following that very good thank you so much we are adjourned

close session