Okay, I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll and establish a quorum?

Good morning, Supervisors Kennedy.

Here, Desmond, Rodriguez.

Here.

Chair Cerna.

Here.

And we do have a quorum.

This budget meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is live and recorded with closed captioning.

It is cable cast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and Direct TV Uverse Cable Systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro14Live.SACTCounty.gov.

Today's meeting replays Friday, September 5th at 6 o'clock p.m.

on Metro Cable Channel 14.

Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at youtube.com/slash metro cable 14.

The Board of Supervisors fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation, civility, and the use of courteous language.

The board does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed towards any meeting participant.

Seating is limited and available on a first come, first served basis.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to make a public comment and are limited to making one comment per agenda off agenda item.

Please be mindful of the public comment procedures to avoid being interrupted while making your comment.

Comments made by the public during the Board of Supervisors meetings may include information that could be inaccurate, misleading, particularly concerning topics related to public health, voter registrations, and elections.

The County of Sacramento does not endorse or validate the accuracy of public statements made during these open public forums.

The recordings are shared to provide transparency and access to the proceedings of public meetings.

To make a comment in person, please fill out a speaker request form and hand it to clerk staff.

The chairperson will open public comments for each agenda off agenda item and direct the clerk to call the name of each speaker.

When the clerk calls your name, please come to the podium and make your comment.

If a speaker is unavailable to make a comment prior to the closing of public comments, the speaker waves their right, their request to speak, and the clerk will file the speaker request form in the record.

The clerk will manage the timer and allow each speaker two minutes to make a comment.

Off agenda public comments will take place for a maximum of 30 minutes.

The remainder of the agenda comments will take place at the conclusion of the time matters in the afternoon.

You may send written comments by email to board clerk at SACCounty.gov.

Your comment will be routed to the board and filed in the record.

If you need an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or from medical or other reasons, please see clerk staff for assistance or contact the clerk's office at 916-8745451 or by email at Board Clerk at Sat County.gov.

Thank you in advance for your courtesy and understanding of the meeting procedures.

Additionally, please note that there may be intermittent moments this morning that the video screens in board chambers lose video.

This issue is isolated and the content on the screen will return within 15 to 30 seconds.

This issue may affect viewers both in chambers as well as well as online.

Our audiovisual team is aware of the issue and is working to resolve it.

The content of all of the presentations shown during today's meeting are available online at agenda net.sat county.gov slash board of supervisors.

And that concludes my announcements this morning.

Great.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Uh let's see.

How about uh Ms.

Thomas?

Will you please uh help us uh recite the Pledge of Allegiance this morning?

All right.

Again, I'd like to uh welcome everyone to uh this morning's Board of Supervisors uh meeting and uh again uh invite members of the public who have joined us here in chambers to uh certainly um address the board if you so choose.

Um you have the option of addressing us on matters of on our published agenda or on items not on our uh agenda.

Uh we are restricted uh for those um members of the public that choose to address off agenda matters.

We cannot have extended uh discussion uh about those matters, but we certainly welcome your input and um again, if you would complete a speaker slip and see that our clerk receives it.

Uh I will take those speaker slips uh in the order that I receive them.

We'd ask that you please keep your comments to no more than two minutes.

That way, everyone who wishes to address the board has that opportunity to do so.

All right.

With that, Madam Clerk, our first item.

Our first item is public comments relating to matters not on the posted agenda.

I have not received any public comment requests.

Okay, very good.

Next item is item number two.

It is to approve the Sacramento County In-Home Supportive Services.

Public Authority Fiscal Year 2526 revised recommended budget.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is John Kazitza.

I'm currently holding the role of executive director for the Sacramento County In Home Supportive Services Public Authority.

As you can note on the attachment A andor attachment, excuse me, attachment one or attachment two, which has detailed the changes that we've made from proposed back in June to final after we have a fund balance.

And with that, I'd ask if you have any questions for on any of those items.

All right, very good.

Any questions?

Okay, seeing none.

Well, I think I heard a yes back there.

I'm not sure that matters.

But uh did that count?

I don't think that counts.

Uh all right.

Um, madam clerk, uh, anyone uh from the public that wishes to address us on this matter.

I do not have any.

Okay, very good.

Then at this uh point I would entertain a motion.

I'll go ahead and move the item for approval.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Please vote.

And that item does pass unanimously with those members present.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Next item, please.

Item number three is a workshop on potential federal and state funding impacts on future county budgets.

Good morning, supervisors.

Um, as uh deputy county executive Siobhan Katari makes their way up.

I just wanted to provide some uh um content as to what why we're here or why we're bringing this item before you.

Um, this is not something we usually bring before the board before budget, but given the impact um of the recent HR one, which was approved by the butt by the gov by the president um on July 4th, 2025.

Um there's some potential impacts that may be hitting us, but not only on the federal side, but also on the state side as it relates to our funding streams.

And we wanted to share some information with you.

And these are impacts that are not reflected in today's budget or in the budget for 25-26, but we expect this to probably hit us in future budget years.

We felt it was incredibly critical to bring these items before you now ahead of the budget to give a clear, clear picture of what's ahead of us for the um coming fiscal years.

Siobhan will focus these on uh her comments on the potential shifts that could affect the services that we provide in our social services departments.

Um, while these projections represent our best understanding at this point, there are still sometimes um, but uh sorry at this point um we want to make sure that we are positioned correctly for 26-27 fiscal year and beyond as these funding sources evolve and program adjustments become necessary.

Um, you know, these adjustments are affecting our most vulnerable populations, especially in the social services.

While there are some positive things on some other programs within the county, um, the biggest impacts that I think will be facing us in our budget and our services and our population is those that are affected by social services.

We're still waiting for outcomes to come out of the administration as far as the federal interpretation of what those will look like as far as guidelines, and then we're also looking to see what the state will do to maybe um counter some of those things in their budget decisions, which we haven't heard yet.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Siobhan and let her go ahead and speak.

Before Siobhan starts, thank you, David.

Uh, I just want to note um that uh all five of us at one point or another, whether it be uh here in chambers during uh past public hearings uh or during one-on-one uh meetings with uh our county executive and his team have expressed great concern and have asked for this uh this workshop so that we all hear the same thing at the same time, and the public does as well.

Um I don't think we're uh unique in the state of California in terms of uh counties that have uh and continue to express concern about uh what may be at risk, especially as it relates to the disposition of the administration and federal agencies that uh have direct bearing on the services uh and the infrastructure that uh we're expected to provide the public.

So this is very relevant, and uh I think we're all gonna be listening very intently this morning.

So thank you.

Thank you, supervisor.

Thank you.

Um good morning, Chair Cerna, members of the board.

I'm Shivan Katari, Deputy County Executive for Social Services.

I wanted to start out by thanking my team who helped put this presentation together and and for their ongoing um uh monitoring of the federal impacts, particularly my teams at Department of Human Assistance, Health Service, Health Services, and my planner Abby Nase.

Federal and state policy changes are restructuring how health care, food assistance, and other safety net services flow to Sacramento County.

These changes were enacted into law and with implementation rolling out over the next three years.

The reality, three realities frame our current situation.

First, the cascade.

Federal changes and cuts flow to states, and then states have to determine how they'll respond to them, and those responses become county realities.

The state is still in the process of determining what it can absorb and what it will pass on to local jurisdictions.

Second, everyone pays.

The impacts of these federal changes will hit the entire community through time, money, and health and safety.

The time that it takes to get services, not only for the people losing health care coverage, but for the whole community who rely on our network of health care providers, the money that must be absorbed by the county and our providers to meet the mandates as our resources decline, and the health and safety of our community when we don't have the sufficient services to prevent emergent health care issues, which can impact first responders and emergency rooms.

Our safety net behaves like a balloon.

You press here and it expands there.

And when preventative care thins, people don't vanish, they reappear, often in crisis.

The pressure doesn't leave, it just relocates.

And third, strategic choice.

We can't remove all pressure, but we can decide where to place it.

Although we are assessing the overall picture, this board, along with our leadership teams and our partners, will be required to make tough and strategic decisions in the coming months and years concerning where we put our resources.

Flexible funding sources will be reduced, which will have a cascading impact on our ability to address local challenges, especially related to public health.

Some provisions of HR1 are still in rulemaking or tied up in litigation, so the exact impact is still unclear.

This workshop today is intended to inform upcoming budget and policy discussions, as well as the strategic choices we will need to make to protect our most vulnerable residents and the overall well-being of our communities.

As mentioned, the state is in the process of finalizing how they will respond to federal changes and therefore what the impact will be on counties.

Once guidance is finalized, all able-bodied adults without dependence or ABODs, as we call them, will be required to meet federal work or community engagement requirements.

While still not 100% clear what form this will take, we anticipate community engagement or work requirements will entail working, volunteering, or participating in school 80 hours per month.

Key exempt categories are narrowing.

The age cap increases from 54 to 64 years of age.

Parents who were previously exempt for children under 18 will now only be exempt if they have children under 14.

And homeless individuals, veterans, and former foster youth aged 18 to 24 will lose exemptions.

Additionally, new federal rules also disqualify many non-citizens, including refugees, asyles, and trafficking survivors from receiving CalFresh.

I will address those specific populations later in this presentation.

These changes will increase food insecurity among vulnerable populations while imposing significant administrative burdens on community members, many of whom face barriers such as unstable housing, chronic health conditions, and caregiving responsibilities.

Approximately 270,000 people currently receive CalFresh locally, and we estimate that about 30% of those could be affected by these changes.

This slide demonstrates the populations that will be impacted.

Taken together, those who will be required to meet community engagement or work requirements, those who will lose coverage due to their age or the age of their children, those who are ineligible non-citizens, such as refugees, parolees, and asyles, and those who are homeless veterans or former foster youth comprise the estimated 80,000 Sacramentans that may lose coverage.

As you can see from this slide, starting next October 2026, the cost burden will transfer from the federal government to states and ultimately will result in a higher cost burden to counties.

The shift is expected to cost Sacramento at least $9.3 million in local funding next federal fiscal year for CalFresh.

In preparation, the Department of Human Assistance has implemented a partial hiring freeze and is exploring further cost-saving measures, including potentially reducing public-facing offices.

Additional federal matching requirements are expected in the future, although the total impact is unknown at this time.

Over the next two years, Medi-Cal will see significant changes in regards to who is eligible in cost sharing amongst those who are eligible and in requirements to maintain eligibility.

This slide demonstrates some of those key changes.

The result is that individuals who likely currently can't afford to make ends meet will have to make difficult choices between whether to access health care or meet other basic needs for themselves and their families.

Additionally, as the paperwork and documentation burden increases, we anticipate some individuals may not be able to meet the administrative requirements, even if they are eligible for services.

Medi-Cal is a vital safety net services, providing medical, dental, mental health, and substance use treatment, as well as addressing other social determinants of health through the CalAM waiver.

The impacts will not only be felt by those individuals who can no longer access care, but by the community as a whole.

These federal changes will reduce reimbursements to the county and our local health care partners, including hospitals and clinics.

And as healthcare is a major is an industry that is a major economic driver in Sacramento, reductions in Medi-Cal will have a cascading effect on our economy as a whole, on jobs in the healthcare sector, and on the county's ability to meet our mandates, as well as the community's ability to access care even for those with private insurance.

It says monthly premiums for undocumented adults.

Can you elaborate a little bit further in terms of what that may mean or does mean for our healthy partners program?

Yes, I can.

So, and I'll be addressing this a little bit further later regarding healthy partners, but um in January 1st, 2026, the enrollment freeze, so people who are undocumented 19 and 19 and above, who do not currently have Medicaid, will not be eligible to enroll in Medicaid.

The monthly premiums will kick in January 1st, 2027, and what that will look like to to the best of our knowledge and they're still working through rulemaking is about a 35 dollar per month premium for individuals who are undocumented to keep the coverage so those are for folks who are already enrolled they won't lose their coverage unless during recertification they're no longer eligible but they'll have to start paying a premium to get the coverage in 27 in twenty first twenty twenty seven now in terms of our healthy partners program which is our program in the county that the board made a policy decision about years ago to cover undocumented folks what we're intending to do is this winter our teams are working through an analysis right now with consultants this winter we will be bringing back to you some scenarios about what the costs associated with covering some of the populations that will be losing coverage what those costs will be and then the board will need to make some policy decisions as you know we have two programs CMISP which is county medically indigent services program and then the Healthy Partners program was added later to cover folks who were undocumented so we will be discussing that later this winter when we have more data and the costs associated with it so the board can make some decisions would that would that or should it include um the county actually assuming the cost of the premium increase or the new premium I guess so certainly counties can look at making those decisions we are I will uh say we are waiting to see what the state does specifically in relationship to these populations hopefully the state will be able to absorb some of that which won't flow to counties because it will be a huge impact on not only our county but counties across the state and I'm sorry the timing again as to when it would come back and we'd have an open public discussion this winter.

So let me ask this if we have that uh discussion and it's the will of the board to act swiftly so that there's no gap in terms of um uh coverage for our uh undocumented population would it amount to now I'm looking to Amanda would that amount to having to consider a mid-year adjustment if we wanted to not skip a beat or am I getting the timing wrong?

No so it'll come this winter so 2025-26 the premium costs won't take effect till January 1st 2027 okay so whatever the board would like to do in that respect will take effect before next federal uh next fiscal year okay um for context just while we're on this I was gonna address it later but just for context in terms of cost in 2008 2009 the CMISP program cost the county 51 million dollars 32 million of that came from the general fund and the balance came from health realignment funding um since then that health realignment funding that came to us specifically for this purpose has been redirected at the state level so we're working with CSAC we're working with case and other partners to determine if there's some advocacy efforts to get some of that money back but I will say for context that was 2008 2009 dollars it doesn't take into account 16 years worth of inflation plus it didn't cover behavioral health services at that point in time so the costs will not be insignificant I guess I just wanted to it's a very valid point.

Shivan thank you can you clarify between coverage changes for non-citizens are non-citizens those who are undocumented and green card holders that's a really good question.

So and I'll address it a little bit later but just for just because I do refer to non-citizens and I do refer to undocumented folks and it's two separate populations often so undocumented folks are folks who are here with no legal status non citizens can refer to these other populations uh ineligible non-citizens will call them in this context, they're losing eligibility for these services.

These are refugees, parolees, asilees, trafficking survivors, and other humanitarian groups that came here legally.

So the U.S.

government gave them uh legal or lawful status to be here, whether it was temporary or ongoing.

So these are the populations uh in that third bullet that will be losing eligibility as well as the undocumented populations.

And parolees being those who are non-citizens but parolees.

Humanitarian parole.

So not talking about legal pearls.

Yeah, humanitarian parole.

So really talking about folks who came here because maybe they come from a worn-torn country or a situation that they were escaping.

I'm glad uh Supervisor Rodriguez asked the question because when you when you're talking about eligibility here, uh, you're not talking about eligibility for citizenship.

You're selling talking about eligibility for the programs.

Correct, eligibility for the programs.

Great, thank you.

And every so often I'm gonna poke my eyes over to Ethan just to make sure I'm on track.

Okay, alright.

A nod, okay.

Supervisor Kennedy.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, just since you you mentioned that uh you're going to be coming back letting us know what the impacts would be if we were to further fund these programs.

Um I hope that somewhere in that discussion is also an analysis, and I realize that some of this is crystal balling, so it's difficult to quantify, but also a part of that discussion needs to be how much it will cost the county if we don't fund these things.

Absolutely.

I think that's one of the points I'm trying to um make today is we're trying to impact not only the direct impact but the downstream effects as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you.

And I want to briefly go back, sorry to belabor this point on the uh refugees parolees, asylumes.

They for that group that lost their temporary protected status, they don't have the option to pay a premium and continue any coverage at all.

It is completely cut off with that exception.

Correct.

From the federal government, and that's where we're awaiting guidance from the state to see and and SIV holders.

I know you've asked that question, Supervisor Desmond, that's special immigrant visa holders.

Also unknown what the state's gonna do in those situations, but we are awaiting guidance from the state about whether or not there'll be a transition of that population onto a state program.

So the SIV holders though, so the SIV holders, no indication yet from the federal government about them specifically losing their protected states.

So it's still unclear.

They didn't name them specifically, and on a later slide, I'll I'll show you how many folks in each of these categories we know about that will be impacted.

And for the other categories that lost that temporary protected status, at some point then they will be in the category of undocumented as well, correct?

I mean, they're no longer legally federal government.

Yeah, legally I won't opine, um, but I will say that correct.

There are some of these populations that will lose their temporary legal status as well, which puts them in the undocumented bucket.

Supervisor Rodriguez.

Uh Shivan, I just to um add on a question to what Supervisor Um Desmond asked initially for refugees and asyles, it was never intended to be an ongoing program for support.

It was temporary and it was their understanding that it was going to be a temporary support until they were sufficient and on their own.

Is that correct?

Typically, I would say yes.

Okay.

There are um, and certainly Ethan can speak to the uh specifics of this.

You want to, yeah.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair.

I'm members of the board.

So the to your question there's kind of two separate buckets to that as well.

So folks who came over, there was a program called the refugee cash assistance program and refugee refugee medical assistance.

That was a 12-month program for folks to get acclimated to the U.S.

and go through and and become self-sufficient here.

That was cut back to four months in January, which took effect, I believe, in March.

And then the regul the regular refugees, prolees, and asilees, it was a regular Medi-Cal program just for where it was ongoing until the person was uh either self sufficient, uh, were able to pay their own medical dues, much like any of citizenships.

And do you have the figures associated to where we started and where we potentially um can't will be impacted in terms of individuals?

Yeah, I have a slide.

You do, okay.

Okay, that's fine.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

So, yeah, hopefully, when I get to that slide, that will answer some questions.

First, though, I wanted to say uh over 510,000 residents currently receive Medicail in Sacramento County, and more than half of them may be affected by these changes.

Among adults covered under Medicaid expansion, 205,000 are subject to new community engagement or work requirements, though some may qualify for exemptions.

Some of these individuals may already meet the work requirements.

However, we don't have the data in our system to demonstrate that yet.

Undocumented adults, ineligible citizens, such as refugees, parolees, asylums, and trafficking survivors will also lose eligibility for most services.

That leaves about 48% of those covered now, including children, seniors, and disabled individuals for whose who coverage should not be impacted.

Can I put a fine point on that first number you have on that?

That means every third person in this county is on Medica.

Yeah, and I would just add that this these are the folks who are enrolled in Medi-Cal, the 510,000, over 600,000 are eligible for Medi-Cal of folks who aren't receiving them.

So yes, it does impact a lot of our county.

Thanks.

Thank you for that.

Approximately 26,000 Medi-Cal enrollees and nearly 29,000 CalFresh recipients could lose benefits due to changes in immigration-related eligibility.

Refugees, asyles, Afghan evacuees, temporary protected status holders, and humanitarian parolees are not here illegally.

As I mentioned, each has been given permission by the U.S.

government to live here legal or lawful protections under legal or lawful protections.

However, these populations will no longer be federally eligible, and it's still unclear what steps the state may take to cover them.

Cuts to federal public health programs threaten immunizations, maternal and child health, and STI HIV prevention and treatment.

SNAPED, a $2.2 million annual program that has promoted nutrition and physical education, has been eliminated entirely.

Public health emergency and hospital preparedness funding have cut resources that support our community to prepare for disasters, disease outbreaks, and hospital surges.

These reductions together shrink our public health workforce both within the county and amongst our CBOs, weakening our ability to prevent and respond and putting the health of our community at risk.

Our departments are closely monitoring evolving federal and state guidance and preparing for a range of funding and policy scenarios.

As more information becomes available, as I mentioned, we will come back to the board with the necessary policy decisions and to propose mitigation strategies and community outreach efforts.

For example, we are partnering with consultants and statewide organizations to model the cost of reestablishing and scaling a CMISP or Healthy Partners program to serve those who may lose coverage.

And while counties are mandated to provide such programs, their scope depends largely on available funding.

And as I mentioned earlier for context, the scope of it is pretty large.

So it was 51 million dollars for just CMISP in 2008-09.

Other departments are also preparing for the broader cascading impacts of federal changes beyond Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and public health.

For example, reduced HUD funding, especially for immigrants, may increase demand for shelter and housing support.

Potential cuts to child abuse prevention and basic needs programs could drive up welfare child welfare referrals.

IHSS clients may lose in-home care, leading to costly out-of-home placements.

Reduced social services block grants, new eligibility restrictions could delay adult protective services and limit support for vulnerable seniors and dependent adults.

Loss of prevention and treatment services may lead to more behavioral health crises and conservatorship cases, and inadequate funding or placement options will challenge care coordination and our most vulnerable residents.

These impacts may not be immediate, but they will be significant and cumulative.

Key planning questions include: how can we support residents in meeting new work or engagement requirements to maintain benefits?

How do we coordinate across departments, providers, and community partners to prevent coverage loss and address growing indigent care needs?

How should we prioritize limited resources?

What services, which populations, and delivered by whom?

How do we balance mandated services with long-term savings and the human benefit of prevention?

And where should we focus advocacy efforts for flexibilities for waivers or restored funding?

While we face serious challenges, this is not the first time major policy and budget shifts have tested our health and human service systems.

What makes this moment particularly difficult is the contrast between recent progress and the scale of the cuts that are now looming?

I'm proud of the skill, creativity, and commitment our teams bring daily in finding efficiencies and new ways to do more with less, but we cannot absorb the cuts and make up for the gaps with local dollars alone.

In summary, we're still assessing the full impact of HR1.

Cuts to safety net services may yield short-term savings but will carry longer-term community costs, and strategic data informed decisions about where and how to invest our limited resources will be critical in the months and years ahead.

So with that, I just wanted to thank you, and my team and I are happy to take additional questions.

Thank you, Siobhan.

And we do have uh some members here that are in the queue.

Uh, but I'm going to start.

Um so in terms of the the planning uh and the unfortunate list that you just uh gave us, um you know, I I you mentioned scale being kind of a distinguishing characteristic of that list being um making it different than in years past when we've had to deal with uh realignment and and other um policy shifts.

I would add to that the inconsistency that is coming from the federal government uh as well is a challenge to deal with.

And then I guess what I I what I'm kind of um starved for here is a better understanding in terms of how we best plan.

What is it, and it goes back to my earlier line of questioning.

How much of that uncertainty and the scale, uh, the combination of the two can or is likely to affect us between budget cycle, uh between um budget deliberations, because as we have come to um be familiar with the current administration, literally, in some cases hourly, things are changing dramatically, right?

And um, because we have a set policy that makes voting threshold more challenging between uh our standard budget deliberations, in order for us to be um equally nimble in terms of how we make important decisions about uh responding with uh resource allocation on something as important as what you've just explained health care and social services, uh adult protective services, all the above.

Um, what is it in that list that we should be cognizant of today that moving forward after we conclude our final budget for uh 25-26 that could happen or is likely to happen in the interim, leading us to maybe having to come back here exploring the prospect of a four-fist vote to make changes.

Really good question.

So, what I'll say is that one of the reasons why we wanted to come to you with this workshop today is because as we start to plan for next year's budget, which the planning process is already underway, and Amanda will describe what that process will be.

We're gonna be coming back to you this winter to talk about budget and budget priorities and those types of things, and we're hoping to have some of our analyses, as I mentioned, back to you by that time.

For this fiscal year, I think the things that are impacting our budget already are mostly in the public health space.

The cuts to Medicaid, the cuts to CalFresh, those cuts will not really be impacting our budget until next fiscal year and beyond.

And so I think we're safe to say that the budget you approve today is likely not going to need to change significantly.

Once again, I'll let Amanda opine on that.

But I will say that what we want to do is really be thoughtful about the investments we're making today, knowing that we might have different investments we need to make tomorrow.

And so I think that that's how I would.

I don't know if David or Amanda want to add.

Supervisor, one of the things that we're planning to do is to bring something before you late November, early December, to kind of talk about what does next year's budget 2627 look like.

We'll have a little bit more information.

We thought we would have much clearer information and context to provide internal optimist.

Yes.

Always half full.

Um unfortunately, because of lack of guidelines, the state's intervention, and frankly, a whole host of lawsuits that are going on against all these things are making it not bring clarity but making it more uncertain.

So we're hoping within the next um 60 90 days, we'll have a more clarification and bring those um back as another workshop for you.

And like I said, about December, as things get continue to be clear, we'll bring more back to you, especially on the federal level.

And um it's my understanding, like Siobhan confirmed, that this is really going to hit us next year in 26-27.

Um, yeah, I'll just leave it at that.

No, I appreciate that.

And and for Amanda, just to reassure me and us here that uh we put into place um a few years back a uh a contingency for each annual budget.

If you know um there were to be some interim dramatic change other than what uh Siobhan has just explained, we're expecting for for next fiscal year.

Um I assume that we could come back and revisit that contingency in the in mid-year, and that remind me, does that um also require a four-fifths vote, or did we park that contingency there expressly to kind of avoid that uh the hyper uh majority that we would need to get things passed?

Uh so you're correct that the budget does include uh this year it's a nine million dollar contingency in the general fund, which is essentially available for sort of unforeseen costs not budgeted, and while we don't anticipate impacts this fiscal year, as Siobhan described, you know, were there to be any and that you know that um would be the available source of funding, it could be redirected.

Um, but like pretty much all budget changes after adoption of the budget, it would require a four fifths vote of the board, and that's that's um according to the county budget act.

That's state law.

So let me ask county council what what would it take if we wanted we the board wanted to revisit the policy of a four-fifths uh requirement for contingency use during uh mid-year between uh final and and consideration of uh the next year's recommended budget.

You're asking what would it take?

Yeah, would it would it just take a resolution?

Would it okay?

That's something I'd like us to think about because I I'm feeling more and more nervous, uh, and we're only what to seven months, eight months into this administration.

We've got years ahead of us, and I I don't predict that the uncertainty is gonna get uh you know uh any less.

Um so I think being uh able to again, it's not to subvert um voting by any means.

We'd still have to get a uh three out of five of us, hopefully five out of five of us to make um important decisions about the use of contingency.

But that is something that I would like to see um a draft resolution of so that we can at least have a conversation about that because I think now is the time to to think clearly about adding some flexibility to that process.

And supervisor, we can take that on um because there's a lot of layers here.

There's one is county policy, which absolutely the board can change.

Um there's some state law, and uh Amanda mentioned there's some state laws that they're uh impact this decision also.

So we can bring those forward.

Setting the money aside and contingency and affecting that is definitely within the board's board's authority the spending of the money is is the piece that I think gets into the state realm.

Okay.

Supervisor Desmond thank you Mr.

Chair I appreciate that conversation I'd support that it seems to me you could probably get around the the legal impediment by by pulling it out of contingency and dedicating it for a specific purpose today and knowing they would have to come back today.

But not to not no dedicating it not not spending it yet but I'm sure there are ways we could we could structure that but I'd support that too because it doesn't occur to me that we're gonna need to I just I feel like we're gonna need to have these discussions way before our our budget meetings next year.

And I just think about just even how the different populations are are treated you know undocumented we have a little more time with their payment of premiums which that's one discussion about whether the county picks up the premiums what would the with the non citizen the refugees and others we're not gonna have that same time frame to deal with am I correct Siobhan and correct and I would also add some undocumented folks have already lost coverage and and won't be able to enroll and well certainly yeah no one else is getting our rules right now.

Exactly exactly so the impacts to individuals will be now although the impacts to our administrative budgets will not be until next fiscal year if that makes sense.

And I I mean my colleagues up here have heard me many times with the especially with the well all the populations we're talking about here with the with the refugees and asylum most of whom were brought here by our US government and resettled here.

I think that's an important point to just remind people of here um the other the question or reason I keyed up I just want to ask you Sioban we had a little bit of this discussion in terms of the uh um asset limitation and the work requirement efforts I mean we're not Sacramento County is not evaluating evaluating this on our own right we're we're doing it in conjunction with other counties and CSAC can you explain those efforts a little bit so we're yeah well so with regards to the asset um limits those are increasing and that's not per county that's per the asset limits will increase per federal government regulations.

And asset limits what they really are and and Ethan can get into specifics is what they really are is the amount of assets you can have on hand if you're elderly disabled blind etc and still um be able to qualify for these services so these are often folks as as an example in long-term care facilities who can still own their home as an example.

The work requirements yeah so those those are being set by the federal level the state then will respond it will respond to what they can absorb or what what kind of uh administrative requirements are associated.

So an example of a work requirement or a community engagement requirement is what kind of documentation are we going to need to demonstrate that this person is actually into work and are there only specific types of work that will be accepted or not those are the rules that are still being worked out at the state level and yes those are where we're uh where we're engaging with CWDA and CSAC in case to sort of determine how do we get the most um uh how how do we create rules in a system that can benefit folks in a way that administratively we're not keeping folks out of receiving benefits right and that was my concern I mean because those the state will obviously um form some some of the guidelines of how those work requirements are verified but it's gonna be up to the counties to actually verify it directly it's not gonna be the state yeah so I'm just wondering are we we're not gonna be doing it on our own just Sacramento County we're working with other county yeah and we're part you know we have a single statewide system Cal SAS and Cal SAWs was working alongside the counties to determine how do we even document those requirements once we have those documents in hand we need a place to repository to store them.

Ethan did you want to add anything or did that okay?

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you uh supervisor Hume.

Excuse me.

Thank you, Chair uh obviously, there is a lot about this topic that is the electrified third rail, so I'm gonna avoid um uh editorializing here.

Um but I would say that there's an aspect of this that when you um monitor comments online or you listen to sort of the talking heads in different media uh enterprises, that with our social contract, there's an expectation of being participatory.

And so for I I think a lot of the the noise that's happening right now are people who see the that they're pouring into the social contract and they're seeing the buying power of those resources be diminished by uh, you know, this was a question that was brought up.

A lot of these programs were intended to be temporary or transitory, and yet they're becoming sort of uh extended, prolonged, protracted.

Um, and so what I try and tell people when they you know express concern to me is that changes in administration often follow the law of pendulum, and so the farther something gets pulled one way, the farther it's gonna swing back the other way, and then eventually it will find a new stasis.

And so um I think the point that was brought up by Supervisor Kennedy resounds with me in that I would like to see more data surrounding this issue, not just on the cost of the effects of this, but also um, you know, if there is a work requirement, I want to know how that correlates to our unemployment average, right?

So have we seen it are there not jobs available and we're saying you've got to go get a job and there's nothing out there, or is the obverse true?

So I think as we get uh more data uh and including whatever this potential resolution would look like, uh I do get wary about loosening the the sort of the hurdles of of doing uh big spending changes because um you know that oftentimes leads to unintended consequences.

But I appreciate the information.

I think it is a changing environment, and I do think being seven, eight months in that pendulum right now is as pulled back as taut as it's going to be, and it will probably start coming back as these things uh play out a little bit more and the dust starts to settle.

So thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

And I alluded to this just briefly, but one of the things that we're excited about is really figuring out how do we partner with groups like SETA, how do we partner with adult education?

How do we partner with the community colleges just to make sure that we're being very proactive in messaging to the community?

Hey, a year from now there'll be these requirements.

What can we do as counties, as community-based organizations to really get people those opportunities to work volunteer and to participate in uh in college or whatnot?

So we are excited about the opportunities to really engage with people differently in that way.

Supervisor Rodriguez.

Shalan, I need a a little history lesson here.

So in the previous administration, when we had individuals that were countries that were in crisis, we then had an influx of refugees and individuals seeking asylum, correct?

And uh our country at the time opened up the borders to accept these individuals in i into our country.

Was it the federal government's expectation that they would provide the services and the financial support for these individuals?

And then we had a change of administration that said that basically uh sort of um hunkered in on the fun on the financials of our country, and now they're saying, well, no, we we're not gonna support these individuals.

Is that pretty much what happened?

That's my understanding.

So a lot of the refugee resettlement organizations and other services for refugees were and other groups, asylum, parolees were funded by the federal government until just recently.

The state did come alongside and fund some additional resources above and beyond what the feds did, but my understanding was that was the expectation.

And I'm gonna look over to these resettlement organizations were they were the middleman for the immigration process.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I I do bel I do agree that uh um, you know, I uh my understanding is that the help was going to be temporary anyways, and so it just got accelerated.

And and I do believe that partnering with organizations uh can help individuals get into jobs.

There are many jobs out there that are uh that the many industries that are looking for workers and I think helping people get into these jobs.

I don't think that are uh individuals who are seeking asylum or refugees.

I I don't think they came to this country with the intent of uh being depend government dependent for their needs.

And so uh, you know, just the ones that I I've met is they are looking for that opportunity, you know, to seek the American dream, and so uh uh financially is it fair to say that the impact that will come to us over the next couple of years would have dwindled anyways on the the demands and the needs from the county or the state or the beds.

Is that a fair statement?

I would say, yes, some of the resources that were associated with refugees were really intended to be temporary.

This board's invested in some really important services through REDA and care as an example to really help give refugees the language skills and the the job skills necessary.

We you're right, we've met several people who are doctors and lawyers and whatnot in their country who come here and really have to figure out what they can do for a work perspective.

So those organizations are really vital to being able to transition folks to work.

But you're right, the federal government assistance was intended to be more temporary stop gap as folks were getting back on their feet.

So then is it fair to say that the impact that would have happened in 26-27 would have been a lot more, it would have been minimal in comparison to some of the numbers that we're looking at now.

Because the numbers that we're looking at now, for me, is that what there was an intention to support these individuals and and their families through you know Medicaid or SNAP or any other programs, but technically that was that would have been minimized come in the next couple of years.

And I guess what I don't know the answer to, and we can have the teams research, but it's sort of that inflow and outflow is how many more refugees or asylums or parolees would we have gotten into the system.

Um so that's the unknown to me, but I'm I'm happy to have the team take a look at your question.

It's a fair one.

And just to clarify, it was their intention that it was also temporary.

When they came here and they got all, you know, they got some of these services.

It was their intention that it was a temporary support until they were in uh independent.

That's my understanding that it was their understanding that it would be a temporary support.

That's my understanding.

So the one area that I do struggle with is when we look at this contingency and we look at this nine million dollars.

You know, I am constantly reminded by the issues that we delve down to into the county is that we have some pretty significant and serious needs for individuals who are Sacramentans.

And you know, I I I want I want to keep my focus on the fact that we have people here in our county that need issues that that have issues that need services that need support, um, and there are programs that are not being fulfilled because of the finances.

We're on this structural deficit.

Where we will be in a year or two from now is uh is going to be pretty serious if we have to tap into our rainy day fund to meet some of our just everyday current needs.

And so I just want to keep that at the forefront is we as a county we have many more needs, and so I I'm I'm a big supporter of individuals who um who came to this country as asylum and refugees that we get them all the help and support they need to be able to become self-sufficient because that was their expectation as well.

So that's it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate the conversation.

I think um, you know, I'm just thinking primarily the Afghan refugee community, which, as you know, Siobhan, I spent a lot of time with them, a lot of them in my district.

And I think the ones who came over as special immigration visa holders who helped our U.S.

military and and other families and people who are connected who are at risk of uh the Taliban when they when they re-emerged in Afghanistan and were relocated here by our country.

I think there always was the understanding that yeah, the the a lot of the assistance was gonna be temporary, but there was never uh a discussion or a thought that their status would change to the extent that they're no longer eligible for Medicail or SNAP benefits.

Is that would that be?

Yeah, I think that's correct.

So, and that's I think is where the rub is.

It's not necessarily these some of these temporary supports, which we've tried to get more from the the state and federal government, which we've been unsuccessful, and so we have used some general fund dollars to backfill some temporary supports for these communities.

But I believe 100% in helping these members, these communities become self-sufficient and giving them the resources they need to reach that level.

But the bottom line is once since they're losing the status, they're no longer eligible for anything.

Yeah, thank you for clarifying that.

That's correct.

All right.

It's been a good discussion thus far.

Thank you again, Shabon.

Madam Clerk, do we have uh members of the public sign up to speak on this matter?

We do not, sir, right.

Uh again, David, thank you for hearing us and uh bringing back the the workshop that we requested, and we look forward to this winter when the conversation will continue.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Supervisors.

So, item number four on the agenda, you'll be acting as the Board of Supervisors and the Sacramento County Water Agency.

This is a public hearing on in consideration of possible provisions to the fiscal year 2526 approved recommended budget and capital improvement plan and also approving the fiscal year 2526 adopted budget resolutions.

Okay, good morning, Chair Sarna, members of the board.

I'm Amanda Thomas, the county's chief fiscal officer here today to talk about the fiscal year 2526 revised recommended budget.

Before I get started, um I did just you know, following off on Siobhan's presentation, you know, as we talked about while those impacts aren't expected to hit us this fiscal year.

I think certainly that's a lot of the work that we're going to that the county as a whole is going to be doing and looking at as we head into next fiscal year, and I think it's a really good example of the type of work that does go into budget development.

So as we um you know culminate this this um fiscal year 2526 budget process, I would like to acknowledge all of the hard work and really creative solutions that come from all the folks who contribute to the budget process.

So that's the department leadership and budget teams, um, the executive team and support staff in the office of the county executive, and then the budget analysts on my team who I rely on tremendously, and uh just wanted to say thank you to everyone as we as I said as we culminate this year's budget process.

So um, in terms of um overview, as you all know, the fiscal year 25-26 recommended budget was approved in June after a comprehensive consideration of all requests and available funding, and so really what we're doing now in September is we're trueing up the budget to reflect changes based on new information that we have available.

So that includes rebudgeting of grants, capital projects and and other contracts, things that were not completed in fiscal year 24-25.

Um it also reflects unaudited ending fund balances for the general fund and other funds, um, as well as changes in dedicated funding and associated expenditures.

And then finally, we do also have revised estimates of our discretionary revenues, including our property taxes and sales taxes.

Um, so uh again, just sort of big picture in terms of overview in the general fund.

Um, unlike in prior years, we do not have a large change in resources available as a result of all of these updates, and so as a result of that, um we are not able to fund the prioritized growth and reserves that were identified in the recommended budget, and that we said we would fund if we had additional resources available in September.

Um, so most of my presentation today will focus on changes in the general fund budget.

Um, but the next few slides just speak to the budget as a whole, really to provide some context um for the overall county budget.

So, overall, this revised recommended budget includes nine point two billion dollars in total appropriations, and that's a 239 million dollar increase compared to the budget that was approved in June.

Um the general fund actually represents a relatively small share of that.

It's just uh 16 million um dollar appropriation increase, and then the 223 million dollar appropriation increase in all funds is nearly all resulting from base budget changes, so that includes that rebudgeting that I talked about on the prior slide.

Um, it does include a small amount, about 529,000 of growth in the non-general fund budgets.

Overall, that 9.2 billion in total appropriations includes 2.1 billion dollars of transfers between county funds.

So that's money that's just moving around within the county, but not actually resulting in expenditures.

Okay, so looking at that $9.2 billion in total appropriations across all funds, as I just mentioned, $2.1 billion of that is transfers between funds.

And then $3.1 billion is in non-general fund budgets.

So that includes enterprise funds, special revenue funds, other internal service funds, essentially funds where all of the funding is dedicated to a particular use.

Excuse me, Amanda.

Thank you, Chair.

I mean, just for clarification, the $2.1 billion in transfers.

That's completely different.

That's not like what we did in 2008, 2009 when we did the interagency loans, which we actually spent years having to use for another phrase, suffer the consequences.

But that's this is different.

Correct.

Yes, thank you for clarifying.

So this is this is a typical budgeting practice where if, for example, we have a restricted revenue fund where we're recognizing the revenue, and then that revenue gets gets transferred into the general fund to fund eligible expenditures.

There's a lot of that, or if we have a department in one fund that's paying a department in another fund for their services.

So those are the kinds of transfers we're talking about.

Thanks for the question.

Good question.

Okay, so then looking within the general fund, so we know we sometimes we use the term general fund to mean discretionary funding, but really within the general fund, we have different types of funding.

So within the general fund, $2 billion is funded with departmental or non-discretionary revenue that is also dedicated to a particular purpose.

So that's a lot of state and federal revenue for specific programs, some of which Siobhan just talked about.

It also includes fee revenue for general fund departments.

Also in the general fund, we have a billion dollars that is funded with what we call semi-discretionary revenue.

So that is 1991 and 2011 realignment and proposition 172 public safety sales tax revenue.

These funding sources are largely based on statewide sales tax.

The county gets a share of that for various categories.

And we call it semi-discretionary because there is some discretion over where to allocate those funds generally to the county's social services and public safety departments.

And we often refer to the expenditures funded with this source of funding as net county cost.

So this chart shows how that $7.1 billion in net appropriations.

So when we take out all of those transfers, how those net how that spending is distributed by major functional area in the county.

So the largest share is 36% for social services, including the departments shown here, and next largest share for community services, then 16% for public safety and justice, and then administrative services at 12% and general government at 6% represent smaller shares of total spending.

So turning now just to look at the general fund and really focusing on the changes from the budget that was approved in June.

The increase in overall discretionary resources compared to the June estimates results primarily from one time fund balance carry forward and reserve releases that are being released to fund related expenditures.

The largest component of this is $19 million interim cost settlement that was received in 24 25 related to behavioral health services, which I will address in more detail on the next slide.

We also, in terms of changes in the general fund on the expenditure side, have some additional growth that's recommended to meet county obligations related to the May's consent decree.

And after funding that, the remaining available resources in the general fund only partially fund the reserve contribution that's called for in the county's reserve policy.

So as a result, as I mentioned, due to lack of available resources, we are not recommending funding the prioritized growth and reserves that were identified in June.

So I mentioned the cost settlement received in fiscal year 2425, and just sort of by way of background here, the county receives cost settlements from the state based on reported expenditures for behavioral health services.

And the $19 million cost settlement received in 2425 was based on a preliminary review of fiscal year 2016-17 services and costs, which remains subject to full audit.

Those final audits may result in disallowed costs, and in the past, the county has at times been required to repay substantial amounts as a result of those audits.

And then in addition to that final audit of the 1617 cost report, the state has indicated that cost reports for the remaining seven fiscal years all must be completed by 2027.

So that could result in multiple fiscal years of recruitments being due in a single fiscal year.

So in order to provide a source of funding for amounts that may be owed, that $19 million cost settlement is recommended to be held in the audit report payback reserve, which is consistent with our past practice for these large interim settlement amounts.

So looking at the changes in discretionary resources and sort of holding that cost settlement off to the side.

So there's a there's $5 million in additional expenditures for base budget costs and those new obligations that I mentioned, and then three million dollars of reserve contributions, which are either legally required or called for in the county's reserve policy.

So this is a chart that I'm sure looks familiar to those who have seen prior budget presentations, and what we're showing on this chart is the general fund available fund balance carry forward, or another way to think about this is the amount that was unspent from the prior year.

So looking at this chart, the top of the bar is showing the total amount that is available during that budget year.

And the blue portion is showing how much of that is funding expenditures in the budget, and the orange portion is showing how much of that is set aside in reserves.

And you can see as we've talked about before, sort of in the pre COVID years, we had fund balance, you know, in the 50 to 70 million dollar range, we saw that really increase in the COVID years, due to a combination of factors.

I mean, you know, lots of reasons why the entire budget wasn't being spent, vacancies and difficulty filling positions, project delays, and supply chain issues, and also additional sort of unanticipated revenue coming in, both to the county and some stimulus funding that was spurring you know economic activity.

So CARES Act and ARPA, so some direct funding to county sort of offsetting what we might have otherwise spent money on, but also money going into households and increasing spending, which resulted in more sales tax revenue and I have to believe the man of the pronounced bars for 2122 and 2223 is primarily CARES Act and ARPA.

So I would say that there's some revenue impact there.

I think primarily what we're seeing in those years is lack of spending in the county budget.

It's a lack of spending and more revenue than anticipated as the combination of those two factors.

Well, certainly wasn't a lack of spending of the federal assistance, though.

No, no, no.

But but um I think when you think about the fund balance, it is it's there's an amount that's budgeted to be spent, and anything that isn't spent, right?

That becomes an amount that rolls over to the next fiscal year.

Um, so we've definitely seen those impacts subside, right?

As we've moved further away from the pandemic, you can see starting in 2324, we had a lower fund balance than the prior year, that continued in 2425, and that has continued into the 2526 fiscal year.

Um, so that when we now look at 2526, you can see that that that not only has that amount continued to reduce compared to the prior year, it's very close to the amount that was estimated, and at about 73 million dollars in total, with 70 roughly 70 million of that funding ongoing expenditures.

And really, what you can see both for this fiscal year and the prior fiscal years, right, to the extent that you have an amount in a year that's less than what was being used to fund expenditures in the prior year, you've created a funding gap, right?

Um, which is you know the the structural deficit that we talk about and why we like to avoid using these what are really one-time resources for ongoing costs.

So uh turning now just to talk about appropriations in the general fund of that 16 million dollar increase in general fund appropriations that are funded with all sources, so not just discretionary resources, um 12 million of that results from base changes in the budget, so that includes that rebudgeting that we talked about.

Um, and then there's also some additional state funded programs or other costs that are already approved by the board but not reflected in the budget.

Those are also considered to be base changes.

Um, and then within that base budget, as we've already talked about today, we um we have a contingency of nine million dollars, so we are recommending um maintaining that contingency at the level that was approved in June.

Um I will note that that nine million dollars is less than the 15 million dollars that was included in the 24-25 budget, and that we ended up using nearly all of that, all but about a million and a half dollars of that was used to fund expenditures during the year, so it was released from contingency and funded expenditures.

So, in addition to the 12 million dollars in base budget changes, um, we have four million dollars of recommended growth, with two million of that being net counting cost again to fund those um new obligations.

So, looking at the growth overall in the budget, um, I'll just mention that that the approved budget included 70 million dollars in growth with 45 million dollars of that in the general fund.

Um, and though all of those amounts are still in the revised recommended budget, as I as I mentioned, the approved budget also prioritized an additional 20 million dollars of general fund growth, primarily for roads, and that growth is not recommended due to lack of available resources.

Um, so as mentioned, this budget does also include $4 million dollars of additional general fund growth, with approximately $2 million dollars of that, that net county cost or discretionary funded growth for new county obligations, and then the other two million dollars funded with departmental revenue.

So the detail for the additional general fund growth is shown here with the first two items, again funded with net county cost.

So that's for both the sheriff and correctional health related to the intensive outpatient program or IOP expansion in the jails, again, as required by the May's consent decree.

I will also just point out that due to the mid-year implementation of this expansion, the staffing and the contract amounts shown here represent only five months of cost.

So, you know, we'll have more than double this amount of cost in the following fiscal year and subsequent years.

The final two items listed here are the funded growth.

So in addition to that net county cost growth, health services is adding 1.4 million dollars in state funding for nine positions associated with the Behavioral Health Services Act, and then the public defender is adding two limited term positions again associated with state revenue for state prison unit cases.

So turning now to look at general fund reserves, overall the changes recommended in this revised recommended budget result in an $18 million net reserve increase compared to the approved budget.

So that includes the $19 million dollars for that audit report payback litigation settlement to reserve due to the cost settlement that I mentioned.

It also includes three million dollars in required contributions associated with administration of the TETER plan, which has to do with the apportionment of property taxes in the county.

Um, which is uh short of so that's short of the $3.8 million that's required to maintain a balance of 10% of discretionary revenue that's called for in the reserve policy before funding any additional growth.

And that's again why we are not recommending that additional growth, and why we are also not recommending the $20 million reserve for jail capital improvements that was also prioritized in the approved budget, but we do not have the resources available to fund.

So with the changes shown here, the recommended discretionary non-dedicated reserves total $214 million, which remains at about 5.5% of our total revenue, and that is compared to our policy target of 17%.

So again, that policy target is sort of a long-term target that we are building towards.

Our reserve policy gives us steps to get towards that.

So for example, that contribution to general reserves to maintain the 10% of discretionary revenue balance, that is one of those steps, but it also recognizes in years where we don't have the funding available to fully fund the base budget, we're not likely to be making large contributions to reserves.

So not included in the budget, but also for the board's consideration today, the city of Ileton requested an $800,000 loan from the county, which is to be repaid over 10 years with interest.

Proceeds of that loan would be used to repay a $500,000 bridge loan from a private lender, and then amounts that the city owes to the state employment development department and the small cities organized risk effort.

The county would have the ability to deduct loan payments from city property tax revenues.

And this loan is not included in the budget and is not being recommended by staff, really for one, because the loan would need to come from the general fund, and so any any amount loaned wouldn't be available for any other use until it was paid back.

So as we've already noted, our contingency is already lower than it was last year, and our reserves are well below our target level, so we will be needing to redirect funding from those sources were we to enter into this loan.

Additionally, there is a repayment risk due to the size of the loan compared to the available revenue, which is about $1.6 million annually for the city in terms of their total general fund revenue.

And then also, you know, I think important to note there is a history of financial mismanagement in the city, which again highlights the repayment risk, and that includes operating without budgets and also being several years behind on audits.

And finally, the loan is not being recommended because it's not likely to be a long-term solution to some structural issues faced by the city, which may ultimately result in bankruptcy or possibly disincorporation with or without a loan from the county.

Amanda?

Yes.

Can I ask?

So have we did have we concluded any cost analysis or run scenarios where the city of Violeton actually does go bankrupt to determine what statutory costs we may incur as the home county for hosting that particular municipality and does that then trigger administratively trigger disincorporation, and then didn't, you know, have we looked at what what additional especially municipal service costs we'd have to assume if we uh if the city were to be re-absorbed into the unincorporated county?

So I would say we haven't looked at it in great detail, I think in part because you know some of the records really are not there to understand what those costs have been for this.

Another bullet point as to why you're making the recommendation.

The one thing that I will note is that the county is already providing law enforcement services under contract with the sheriff, and that would likely be one of the larger cost items.

So, provisor Rodriguez.

Thank you, Amanda.

I I I uh I'm I'm probably in support of what the staff's recommendation is, but I do have a question.

If we were to loan the city of Battleton the funds, are the buildings could the buildings that they own be a collateral for that funding, or are the buildings already tied up in the previous loan?

So my understanding is that some of them may already be tied up in a previous loan.

I think what we looked at in terms of you know a protection for the county would be this ability to deduct the payments from property tax revenues.

Um, however, and I'm welcome county council to weigh in on this.

My understanding is that in bankruptcy that doesn't give us any priority necessarily over any other creditors.

Got it, thank you.

Um, so just to round this out, while we're not recommending um uh the loan, one of the recommendations that I will go over at the end is that we are asking the board to consider the request and then provide any direction to staff as needed.

Okay, and then finally, as um as we wrap up this year's budget.

We are planning some changes for board input to the budget process for next fiscal year, and I think um uh David and Siobhan already alluded to a little bit of this.

Um, so just as a reminder or refresher in prior years, um uh the board has adopted budget priorities in December, and that was following resident surveys and focus groups that we conducted to better understand the community budget priorities, and then separately, um, staff have held public public budget workshops in September to provide more information to the public about the county's budget.

Um, so for next year's budget, um, what we are proposing in order to provide more of an opportunity for board input into the 26-27 budget.

We're proposing a board workshop in December that would include an overview of the county's fiscal environment and outlook, a summary of those prior year survey results and focus groups.

Um because these have been very consistent year to year, we are not proposing to conduct another survey this year, but would rather be providing an overall summary of what we've heard, again, very consistently the last several years.

And then this workshop obviously will also include an opportunity for public comment and input, and then we would provide recommendations regarding the initial allocation of discretionary resources to departments that we would be asking the board to approve in advance of the budget process, and we would we would um and those would serve as the starting point for departments in developing their budgets.

And so that our hope is really that getting this input early on in the budget process will help to ensure greater alignment with the recommendations that are ultimately presented in June.

And with that, um this slide just displays the recommended actions before you today.

I will note that this first recommendation, which is to approve the fiscal year 25-26 adopted budget resolutions.

Um, this is a bit of a process change for us.

So in prior years, we've asked you to direct the Department of Finance to prepare the resolutions and then come back at a later meeting in September.

So we're sort of we're trying to be more efficient and um accomplish that all in one step today.

Um should there be any changes, um, we would be revising um those resolutions to present those changes.

Um, then um another the second recommendation is consistent with prior year recommendations, and this is really authorizing the director of finance to transfer money between funds to support the general fund during cash deficits due to timing of receipts in the general fund, directing the department of the director of personnel services to prepare an administrative salary resolution for the position changes.

We are also asking you to approve the project changes and new projects for inclusion in the CIP.

So those were listed as attachment one to the board letter, and then finally, as we just discussed, um, asking to consider the loan request from the city of Ileton and provide any necessary direction, and that concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to take any additional questions.

Thank you, Amanda.

Before we hear from Supervisor Hume, let me just um ask County Council can we take consideration of all five if we're generally in agreement that there's not going to be need for separate vote because of a difference of opinion on one of those five items.

Could we treat all five as one motion?

Yes.

Okay, very good.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, first some general questions about the uh recommended changes, and then I'll I'll delve into the uh the literal 800-pound gorilla that's uh in the audience here.

Um so my first question is uh relative to the health services recommended growth.

I just want to clarify that something that I read in the staff report or in the uh in the um attachment three is slightly different than how it was presented on the slide.

And so in this attachment, it says this request includes 48,000 and some change, et cetera, et cetera.

Funded with State of California Department of Health Care Services revenue.

The California Department of Health Care Services revenue in funds the entire 1.387 million, not just that 48,000, and that's why there's no net county costs.

That's correct, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Second question, then is um when you look at the uh the governmental funds summary uh specifically the uh ARPA administration and the uh ARPA CBO capacity building, which is where you're recommending an additional release of reserves.

Um obviously ARPA was a result of the pandemic situation and was always intended to be something that would be drawn down and eventually go away.

It looks like by reading the starting fund balance and what's being recommended for release and then the resulting fund balance that next year will be the last year if we spend it that that fund will be available.

Correct.

So we are still spending ARPA funds, um, and you don't see those specifically shown here.

What we're what I think you're referring to is the ARPA administration reserve, which is the money that we set aside for the staff costs associated with the administration of the ARPA spending that's happening.

Um by you know, federal guidelines that all of that money, the ARPA funds must be spent by December of 2026.

So by the end of calendar year 2026.

So, yes, we anticipate that the 26-27 fiscal year would be the last year of ARPA administrative costs.

Okay, and so then my question is as we are forecasting weaning ourselves off of reliance on fund balance in order to shore up our budgeting, uh and those funds are drawn down completely.

How do we account for that, or does the workload simply go away?

And now it's that we don't have those expenses anymore?

Right, right.

So the so yes, the workload will be going away.

Um much of that work is being accomplished by limited term positions that were added at the beginning of the ARPA process and really intended to cover the period of time that that work would be happening.

So, so I think the answer to your question is yes, the workload would go away.

That is what we have been planning for.

Okay, and so that uh brings me to my final two questions relative to the budget generally, and then we'll dive into to some other things.

Uh the first being is that the public defender positions are also funded, but they're also considered limited term.

Does this does the funding ride with the full term of those positions?

Yeah, and so those are added as limited term because they're really at this point sort of related to an increase in workload for that unit that may not be permanent.

Um it's really driven by you know the the number of those state prison cases that that office is handling.

So when they do that work, they're able to bill the state and get reimbursed, but that hasn't necessarily been a consistent funding source, which is why those um positions are being added as limited term.

And so if I can kind of break down what you just told me into more simple terms, is there a risk that eventually the county will have to fund these positions uh that would come out of net county cost?

So I think the reason that they're being added as limited term is so that when that funding goes away, the positions would also go away.

Okay, thank you.

So then speaking of uh limited terms, you mentioned that the the two biggest uh growth requests, a little over a million two million dollars for correctional health services and the sheriff, those positions are only five months for the amounts that's being shown.

So is it safe to assume then that for next year's budget, essentially double that amount will have to be contemplated in the baseline um budget?

Correct.

So some of which will have already so we will have five five million or sorry, five months included in the base budget, and then that um the remaining seven months would be additional cost in next year's budget.

Okay.

Would that show up as a growth request or simply as new new base?

New base cost, it wouldn't be an additional growth request.

Okay, and then finally, um, before I uh address the ILTO request, uh, you know, given our financial situation and the fact that we're running pretty lean and mean, I was loath to request any uh amendments to what you've presented here today, but I did have one particular item relative to our uh EMS and uh the I believe it's called image trend software that allows for real-time monitoring of the emergency rooms and of the ambulances uh being deployed.

Um we have done a great job uh in the past year and a half or so of bringing our APOT numbers down from 72 minutes down to somewhere in the 29 minute uh category.

We have not met the goals that we set for ourselves of being at 25 minutes in July, and so I think there's still work to do.

So, anyway, this is important to me to I think to continue our positive momentum.

Uh I had a number of 250,000 that I was quoted.

I believe the the county exec you said that number has now gone up to a little over 400,000 with ongoing of about 350,000.

I just want to get it on record.

We are pursuing a uh different funding sources for that, including cost sharing, recognizing that it's an important need, and and that although we won't bake it into a growth request necessarily for this budget, that we are cognizant and pursuing it and do consider it to be an important priority.

Supervisor Him, that's correct.

Um we had talked about it and the numbers that you referenced are are for close enough, yeah, they're right on target.

There is a 7% escalator for that annual cost going forward.

Um, there is a um a grant, a CDC grant called the infrastructure grant that we've already been awarded.

We just need to seek approval from the federal government as to redirect those funds uh for this particular expenditure.

Also, um EMS is also doing a fee study, and so they're working forward with their moving forward with their fee study, and hopefully that'll be included in future fiscal years to include that cost in that also.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Uh all right.

Then now to to the request for Myleton.

And and this is a very sticky widget, as you can imagine, uh, for a lot of the questions that the chair asked relative to the what-if scenarios that play out uh relative to this.

And so the first thing that I just want to say is that in talking with the contracted city staff, there is a cost associated with bankruptcy.

A cost which Isleton can't afford to bear at this point.

It's kind of like if you bounce a check from the bank and then the bank charges you a fee, an overdraft fee, and you're like, I didn't have the money to cover my check.

Why do you think I can cover a fee to pay you?

But uh, and so and the other issue is is that with municipal bankruptcies, they do not have the same um relief uh uh allowed to them that a personal bankruptcy would when you go through reorganization.

And so the debt would remain.

Um so that's something to be explored, but I think it needs to be teased out uh uh a little bit more.

Then when you get to the issue of disincorporation, should that become an eventuality, that's an even stickier widget in that that has to be voted upon by the residents of Ialton uh to say that yes, we voluntarily choose to disincorporate.

So even if they have no functional city government left, they could vote to remain as a city because if they choose to disincorporate whatever outstanding debt does not just go away, it now transfers over to the responsibility of the residents of Ialton.

And so for uh what I'm just gonna characterize as poor decisions that were made, um not necessarily with the residents' input or involvement, uh, they would be ultimately left holding the bag on that.

All that being said, I appreciate staff's recommendation.

I understand that this is there's more to be um explored here, and so as we consider this request, and the mayor is here and he's will probably provide some comments uh on this.

I ask that if if the uh you know majority opinion of the board is to uphold staff's recommendation to not move forward with the loan request at this time uh that we do so with the idea that we're keeping the door ajar, and I will uh continue to work with our staff with the city of Ileton staff to try and flush out um what the financial future of Ileton looks like.

They did receive a state grant to hire on uh an auditor uh to basically go back and rebuild their financials for the last however many years.

That's a positive thing.

That's gonna give us a good picture, it's gonna inform this decision a little better uh than where we are today.

Um but they're they're in a pretty significant tailspin right now, and and there's no easy way to pull up and and write the plane.

Um so anyway, that would be my request is if the if that we want to uphold staff's recommendation because I think from staff's point of view, they are doing their job of being you know fiduciary stewards for the county.

Um, but nonetheless, these are still county residents that that need some help and need some support, and I'm offering to lean in uh if my colleagues would would give that opportunity.

Thank you.

Appreciate that, Supervisor Hume.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and and thank you, Supervisor Hume.

So I I want to talk a little bit about um the uh recommended growth or the growth not being recommended with the roads.

Um, I think my colleagues up here would would expect no less from you me to uh advocate for my my constituents.

And you know, I I unlike a lot of people, a lot of normal people, I wake up in the middle of the night thinking about our municipal governance in Sacramento County and our governance structure, and I think to myself that we are we are are effectively the equivalent of the largest city council in this county, and our our county exec is is the equivalent of the the mayor of the largest city.

Uh our our county council is the is the city attorney for what is effectively the largest city that's the unincorporated county area, and uh it's in times like these where I have the dubious distinction to represent almost 46 percent of that unincorporated county population.

So we have made um a lot of decisions over the last several years to fund our use general fund dollars to um supplement some of the dedicated funding we get through SB1 here and to supplement some of the funding we get through SACOG and other state and federal funding sources for transportation.

And I think we we obviously financial times were a little better, but I think we recognized that those investments were important because as our uh we are we are among the worst counties in the state in terms of the condition of our roadways on the unincorporated roadways.

I mean, literally, I think the only county worse than us is Imperial County.

And this is something that the residents of the unincorporated communities, they see this.

This is their first impression of their government.

I mean, obviously, our social services obligations are of paramount importance to me.

That's the most important thing.

This is this is a close second.

It also occurs to me that all of the effort that this board and the county is taking in reinvigorating our community development review process, trying to attract investment to some of these unincorporated areas, trying to get more housing developers to invest in infill housing projects and people to relocate their businesses.

There's a direct correlation between the success of those efforts and the quality of our public infrastructure that we have to offer.

In fact, I was at a uh meeting last week.

It was hosted by the Carmichael P Bid, and it was bringing together brokers from all over the area, mostly Sacramento County, but to talk about opportunities and talk about our community development review process, everything that Sacramento County is doing to try to attract investment to try to get more infill housing.

And multiple brokers said, you know, it's hard to get people to look at your unincorporated areas when your roads are so bad.

That is a disincentive to investment.

It is a oftentimes it leads to blight in these communities.

So, you know, considering I know the situation we're in with our structural imbalance, um, I understand that, I appreciate that, but I want to throw it out there and see if there's any support from my colleagues to set aside some funds, and maybe that means we dedicate less money to reserves um this year to the tune of uh $10 million to supplement our road fund in Sacramento County.

Um I think maybe and maybe we structure it in a way where it's dedicated towards just the commercial corridors that is consistent with our um community development review priorities and maybe it's dedicated toward just the roadways that are on the verge of slipping from an overlay into reconstruction, which is gonna cost us a heck of a lot more money.

But I I want to throw that out there to my colleagues to see if there's any support for any uh amount of money to set aside for our uh to supplement our our SB1 funding for our roads.

Um so I'll I'll leave it at that and see if there's any comments about it.

Okay, before we get to Supervisor Kennedy, I would be in complete support for the 10 million dollars uh that Supervisor Desmond has requested.

I can't agree enough with him in terms of all the rationalities uh explain in terms of the investment that is at this point uh I think the wise thing to do.

Supervisor Kenny.

Thank you, Chair.

Um couple things.

First of all, Amanda, um, thank you for giving only the second most depressing report today.

Um appreciate that.

There's a reason I asked Ivon to go first.

Um the uh the 19.1 million dollars cost settlement uh in the future if we could get some kind of a historical perspective on how that has played out uh to give us context.

Uh it won't, you know, it'll be making with just a little more data, making those decisions.

I'm I'm not saying I disagree with it in any way, but just to give that context on the public as well.

Uh as far as the ILTA loan goes, um, I do not support it, but I do support Supervisor Hume's direction and and your analysis I think is is accurate.

I don't think right now the county is in a place to bail out ILTE with $800,000.

Um that's not to say that we can't figure something out down the road and appreciate your leadership on that.

Now the hard part, Mr.

Desmond.

Um, but I I I think I'm on the minority here anyway, so um, but I I I don't support using general fund um for roads at this time.

I have in the past uh and think it was a good investment.

And for all of the reasons that you said, um, you know, you talk about investment in unincorporated is difficult to come by when you have the the condition of our roads.

Well, you know, I think that when you have a community facing all the cuts we've talked about that I don't think are potential, I think they're likely uh to negatively impact our community's health, uh access to uh food, um, uh I think that if anybody thinks that these cuts that are coming down from the feds and state, they don't think it's gonna increase our homeless population after we have invested so much and worked so hard to you know address that.

I think that that this is going to so you know investment when more people are living on the street, less people are healthy.

Um I just think that it's not a question is of do we need to spend more money on our roads?

Yes, to me it's a question of right now, can we?

And it's competing forces, and I just think that the human toll that is coming down uh the pike here is there's by the way, two transportation analogies at the same time is going to be uh devastating to families and people in Sacramento County, and so I I I would not support that.

Um and also uh as far as with cutting into reserves, as we see a dark cloud approaching, I think this is absolutely when we should not be cutting into reserves uh and and we do.

Um you know, I was not here in in 8-9 um chair got there a little bit after that, but he saw more directly than I did uh what the cuts that come when you don't make the hard decisions up front with laying off hundreds, even a thousand people or more, you know, uh, and this the draconian cuts that we then looked at utilizing our emergency rooms, and you talk about wall time uh as mental health facilities, um, because I thought I think that we saw a cloud coming and didn't properly or adequately prepare for it.

So I I am not supportive of reducing the reserves uh for a road fund this year.

Thank you.

Okay, Supervisor Rodriguez.

So I just want to say this is sort of preliminary um information, but I I have been getting information from our Department of Transportation on the unincorporated parts of Sacramento County when it comes to their roads, and what would it look like to go to voters and ask for a temporary tax that would allow us to uh um seek from the tax from the voters um to be able to get some of their roads fixed, just the unincorporated and um it would be a temporary tax and it would ensure that we would be able to uh I think it improve the roads in the unincorporated area.

Um so I I I think I'll just continue to wait until some of the information comes back uh from county council on what that would look like, but I think it isn't probably the only way that we can at this point fix the unincorporated roads that in many areas of the county have not been um fixed in over 50 years.

And so I think until we wait on that information, I'd love to come back and give you and present to you guys what um what uh county council comes back with as far as what would that look like.

Um but I think uh a temporary tax and roads only, roads and bridges, but but that would be it.

No other uh funding would get uh uh pulled into this, and then that would ensure that we can improve some of the areas of the unincorporated.

Uh as far as tapping into our general fund for transportation related issues, I I I don't support that at this time because I think we have I don't know what our budget will look like in a year or two, and so I I rather look at potential other potential options.

And um, you know, I don't support uh bail you know bailing um the city of Ileton out.

However, I do support um any uh advice or recommendations that Supervisor Hume brings up to this point where um his leadership can you know figure out what how he can help the city of Ileton at this point.

That's it.

Okay.

I know that the uh mayor of Isleton is here, and I'm assuming uh that he'd like to address the board.

So I think I'm gonna hold since my colleagues have already kind of explained their position.

I'm gonna wait uh until we hear from uh the mayor, and then I'll I'll state my position and we'll take a vote.

Uh Madam Clerk, do we have others sign up to speak?

We do.

Okay.

Well, thank you, supervisors, for allowing me to take priority here in the discussion.

And today I'm gonna avoid making overly specific comments on this proposal because our staff did an excellent job of making the proposal with council approval.

I will say that I want to take the long view on this, and I'd like to go through an intellectual exercise, and that is let's imagine the Ileton we all want, an amazing historical legacy, absolutely outstanding agricultural land surrounding the city, opportunity for sphere of influence expansion.

Within only half a square mile, there's undeveloped premium land for housing.

There are dozens of opportunities for new enterprise development in the historic corridor.

That's very rare.

It's in a strategic location between San Francisco and Sacramento with the improvements that Sacramento is making to attract business and equity into the region.

Ileton is uniquely situated.

If a city is going to be revitalized after a legacy of unmet challenges, it's going to happen in Ileton first, and everybody knows it.

There are four new businesses on Main Street, and the entrepreneurs consider Ileton to be the unicorn in their portfolio and the hope of their entrepreneurial concept.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that now we add in to the factor the concerns for finances, and those are all very unique to each specific obligation.

One of those obligations mentioned was a result of trying to uh provide continuity in public safety and environmental considerations to prevent untreated water from entering into the Georgiana slough or onto the streets of Ileton.

And that money is coming.

It is not been canceled.

We have had disruptions at the federal level, which we all know about, and notionally it's believed that those have impacted communities.

And when those impacts are felt, communities in an opportunity zone, communities with a legacy of uh disadvantages and lack of services that have been unable to compete or comply with federal funding to meet those uh concerns.

Um those impacts are felt uniquely, and often they cannot be successfully met.

Ialton has is facing what I believe to be its most successful future in terms of professional municipal management and quality of elected leadership.

This is largely due to education.

The public as a community is now awakened to the idea that for a small city your individual impact is multiplied, orders of magnitude depending on the size of the city, and when a city is in crisis and has to innovate or invent, hearing from the public and having that engagement is paramount.

And I think that the knowledge of general law, the knowledge of the way the state of California works is beginning to take hold in the uh concepts of the residents that it's not just one isolated community.

We have an obligation to the region, and we the obligation to fiduciary responsibilities, transparency, and uh generally accepted practices.

So, what I would say is that long term, a city with this potential can be remediated.

The advice that I receive all the time, unsolicited from the state and county officials, from uh other electeds in other cities is you grow out of these problems.

You develop capital improvement programs, you improve your infrastructure through eligibility uh for federal and state funding, you compete for these things and you do it in a compliant fashion.

You you audit your your finances, you uh produce your budgets, you you you cause yourself to remain in good standing with your state and your county, and that's how this is uh solved.

So, the uh in conclusion, our professional staff, our electeds are deeply grateful to the county's participation thus far.

And we look forward to more rounds of decision making because we are no longer content as a community to do that on our own exclusively.

We are not manic about local control when we need uh collaboration and assistance from our state and county.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and let me just um give you uh some thoughts here because I think it's it's pretty clear that the votes are not going to be here today uh to um agree otherwise compared to staff's recommendation.

Uh I as has been mentioned by everyone, certainly support um what Supervisor Hume has committed uh to do, and uh I think it was keeping the door jar.

Uh and this the prospect of uh an outside audit, I think is um additional information I agree with him that I think is necessary before we would uh be ripe for reconsideration of of anything other than what's being recommended today.

I guess uh as someone um who has grown up here and long before I was even on the board of supervisors, uh ILT has had its um administrative and political challenges for decades.

So I guess the question I have, and you don't necessarily need to answer now, but please take it back to your counsel is what's gonna change.

Um I mean, if you're gonna be uh eventually coming back to us saying, listen, it's now a binary decision, either you provide a loan or you don't, or we go bankrupt or we we don't.

I I guess there's a thirst for understanding what is gonna finally change in Isleton when it comes to leadership and ability, and I get it, I I get it.

It's a small, small community, it draws from that community for people like yourself to sacrifice like we all do up here and run for office.

Uh, but it hasn't just been on the elected side, it's also been on the managerial side over the years.

Um, and so there's there's a lot of accountability that rests all the way down to that food chain, actually to the people, to the voters of Ialton, quite frankly.

So, so I guess I'll just leave you with that question.

What what can we expect would ever change in Ileton?

Because that to me is the fundamental question here.

I believe you're correct, and I've shown restraint thus far in opining on what that will entail.

But this goes to the heart of democracy.

Council members are not green berets, they're not Navy SEALs, they're neighbors.

And what you need is the catalyst of education, you need a change of will, and that is what it looks like is going to become part of the ILTO history.

We're going to reverse this legacy of shame and noncompliance and isolation.

The will is at the individual level, which is where this democracy relies.

You cannot provide any other guarantee other than if you invite oversight, you invite collaboration, you participate in your public agencies where you're prescribed to represent, then you will see that change.

The quality of the community is changing.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Next speaker is Francis Liu.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Is that working?

Okay.

Um, before I get started, I'd like to introduce myself.

Uh, my name is Francis Liu.

I'm a resident of District One, and I'm an organizer with Decarcerate Sacramento.

I currently work at California Department, um, California Department of Social Services as a manager, so I really appreciate the conversations today about the budget.

And before I get started, um, last Wednesday, August 27th, Sheriff Cooper and three deputies threatened to arrest volunteers of Decarcerate Sacramento and the anti-police terror project who are offering mutual aid outside the county's main jail.

The volunteers are part of a monthly jail support program that provides vital resources to individuals being released, including re-entry resources, clothing and transportations, and these are resources that the jail itself should be providing.

Instead, we have systematically documented that people are being released after business hours without any support.

Sheriff Cooper and his deputies do not cite any laws when while threatening to arrest members if they refuse to leave.

And when asked why, Sheriff Cooper said, and I quote, I am the boss, and I'm not going to argue about this.

This event was a cute clear abuse of power and a violation of First Amendment rights.

And by illegally threatening the rest of our volunteers, he also threatened their health, safety, financial well-being, and job security.

And what transpired outside of the jail last week is not a unique experience.

It is reflects the deep pattern of abuse and lack of care exhibited inside the jail as well, as established by the court case May's versus Sacramento.

I am here to ask the county to hold the Sheriff's Department accountable for its actions rather than award it additional funding.

The revised budget includes requests for an additional 541,000 to hire five more deputies to comply with the May's consent decree and 529,000 to build a fence at RCCC to prevent suicides.

Hiring more deputies will not help the county comply with the May's consent decree.

Clearly, these deputies will prioritize harassing volunteers who are trying to meet the basic needs of people that their jails have neglected.

A new fence will not address the conditions and lack of mental health care people face inside RCCC.

Instead of giving more money to the sheriff and building a fan fence, you could address the severe staff shortage of behavioral health service workers, restore and expand the public defenders' nationally recognized pretrial program and bolster additional local funding for social services.

Sorry, one more point.

As a member of Decarcerate Sacramento, I'm also here to say that our jail support program is here to stay.

We will continue to help meet people's basic needs and treat them with care and compassion, and we will continue to monitor their experiences inside and outside of that jail.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Next is Christopher Copal.

Uh well, the speaker's making his way to the podium.

Uh Mr.

Jones, I Mr.

Jones, I suspect you're taking copious notes.

Uh, because I believe the next two speakers are probably likely to be speaking to the same subject.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Cool.

Good morning.

Uh Patrick Kennedy, Rich Desmond, Phil Cerna, Rosario the Digas, Pat Hume.

As a very good pleasure, wearing the cowboy hat and the cowboy boots for you, Patrick Kennedy.

Um, and I will be doing so moving forward.

Uh my name is Christopher Camillo.

I'm the program and campaign coordinator for Descartes Sacramento and an appointed member of the public safety and justice agency advisory committee.

Last June, the sheriff stood before you and misled the public in to believing their budget was being cut.

In reality, the sheriff's office received a net increase, millions more than the year before, while vile community programs are slashed.

I remember two children coming here and pleading with you to protect their programs, including the jail diversion treatment and resource center, which would lead to 40 to 80 youth to be likely reincarcerated with this defunding.

And yet today, you're being asked to reallocate one million dollars more, 550,000 to increase the sheriff's budget, and 530,000 for a no-climb fence at RCC.

Imagine what else that one million dollars could do, keeping families together, keeping roofs over people's heads, putting food on their table.

This will leave a more lasting impact on like a more investment into the carceral system.

Justice February, after years of community advocacy, you officially suspended the two billion dollar jail annex project in place that consultant you hired, CGL recommended Sacramento County to look at all alternatives to the AJL Annex to comply with a May's consent decree.

One of these alternatives, as asserted by the consent decree, is to substantially reduce the jail population, but the county's own PSJA data shows arrests are going, are going up even though crime is rates are going down.

That trend directly undermines compliance with a May's consent decree, which I remind you requires population reduction as a primary path forward.

By the sheriff, by giving the sheriff more money to hire deputies, you're locking the county into ongoing costs and moving forward out of compliance with Mays.

The choice is clear.

And with the last 20 seconds, I just want to say I'm just trying to care for my community.

I sure I'm sure all of you are as well.

And I think we need to get a more uh empathetic moving forward, right?

And I would love to work with y'all um to find that solution.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Our final speaker is Keon Bliss.

County Board of Supervisors.

This isn't rocket science.

Uh this is actually like this is our resource dollars that are being allocated towards uh reasons that uh towards purposes that need to be aligned with our communities and the needs and priorities of our shared communities, not just a handful of the population.

You live in a county of 1.5 million people who are who have consistently struggled, not just since uh not just since COVID, but long before that, even with the Great Recession and uh and beyond.

And as we learned in June, uh from the county's own presentation, which I didn't see uh in today's presentation, uh 70% of our disc of a billion dollars of discretionary revenue goes towards law enforcement and the jail.

And here you are with the revised budget, uh putting in no less than, according to uh the chief financial officer, uh committing ourselves to at least one point uh one million dollars in cost to hire five new security positions for the sheriff's department because that's gonna double in the uh in the next fiscal year, and then in addition, 2.4 million dollars for correctional health.

That'll double in the next fiscal year.

On top of that, I noticed in there a five hundred twenty-nine thousand dollar one-time expense for a no crime mesh barrier uh to address suicidal ideations and harm uh and potential risk for harm inside the jail as part uh as condition for uh additional correctional health services staff, even as you're recognizing that a lot of your one-time costs are gonna be going next year.

Why are we putting so much money into a law enforcement department that consistently disrespects you as well as members of the community who doesn't respect our basic civil liberties or civil rights?

Like being outside on a sidewalk just offering hot food, drinks, and information for people that are getting outside of our jail.

Most of like many of whom are unhoused, or like more than half of whom are suffering from severe mental illness and don't have access to treatment.

You don't have to do any of these, like uh allocate these costs.

This is your power over the sheriff's department to actually hold them accountable, but unfortunately you don't.

That's why we have continuously rewarded his like the department's bad behavior, whether it's under Jim Cooper or Scott Jones or whoever comes up before.

10 over 10 years of consistent budget increases year after year without a single critical thought or analysis about why we are spending so much money on the like on the sheriff's department on law enforcement, and not even asking what we're getting for it.

Can we get your final thoughts, please?

Yes.

We actually need like for that money, you could be putting more money into more reliable community care programs, as was mentioned before.

We could be addressing the severe staff shortage of behavioral health service workers.

We could be restoring and expanding the public defenders' nationally recognized pretrial program, and we could be subsidizing public transportation for those great people who need to have treatment.

Thank you.

These are just basic ideas among many others.

Thank you.

That we're not considering here as a board.

All right.

Madam Clerk.

That concludes our public comment.

All right, very good.

Okay, so um appreciate the uh uh again, the mayor of Alton being here and members of the public that have uh addressed us on our final budget for 2025 and 2026.

Um some of my thoughts.

Uh first of all, um, I've alluded to uh I think a bit of my uh disposition as it relates to Ialton already, so I won't cover that again.

Um of the uh I guess frustrating um parts of our uh continual responsibilities to uh think about our infrastructure that I share with my colleague uh supervisor Desmond is that um while I understand uh to Supervisor Kennedy's point that um we have finite resources, no doubt about it.

Um but I also think you know we can walk and chew gum too.

So um my point being is that uh yes, critical to invest in uh social services, and uh as we heard uh prior to our budget consideration, be prepared when we see uh some of the threats that have already materialized, especially from the federal government uh in recent months.

Um so I think again it's wise to to do just that to prepare for it, and that's again was my line of question during the presentation about what we're gonna be asked to do later this uh winter, and even going as far as um asking for a resolution to come back for us to consider as it relates to lowering the voting threshold for contingency.

Um, however, when it comes to infrastructure um and especially roads in this county, I think it's it has to be said every time we choose to um look at an opportunity to provide some more uh funding, some necessary funding to address what is just the um amplified need every time we don't do it of our deteriorating deteriorating roadways, is that this will eventually come back at such greater expense that it's uh you know pennywise pound foolish, I think uh to continue to kick this can, excuse me, for my transportation allergy down the road.

So um to me, I think uh Supervisor Desmond's request is a reasonable one.

Um yes, I represent mostly the city of Sacramento, uh, but I am also here as one of five to work in the best interest of the entirety of the county, which means uh as was stated, uh we have the largest population in this county is in the unincorporated county.

And whether we agree now or not about whether we should be in the municipal service business.

Well, that that decision was made for us a long time ago.

We are in the municipal services business, which means we have the responsibility uh to care for our roads.

And I don't know if um others here, staff, my colleagues have driven down uh South Watt in uh recent days or even Watt Avenue where our borders many of our uh districts intersect.

The teeth rattle out of my face.

It is that bad, and it's not gonna get any better.

So if there's not a third vote, and we haven't really heard from Mr.

Hume on this for for this particular matter, but um if there's not uh the uh the will to uh to address it today based on Mr.

Desmond's uh ask, you know, maybe um it's it's a lower number or a different number.

So I I see Mr.

Hume has chimed in, so I'll I'll break with some of my comments here to hear from him.

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, as I come to conclusion, concluding comments, I just want to express my appreciation for staff of their professionalism and the responsibility uh and the prudence that they showed in the development of this budget.

I think it uh uh the revised budget, I guess is more appropriate.

Um, and I also want to just express my appreciation for colleagues up here on the dais, you know, to think about uh concluding this potentially in the morning session when we had three days blocked out for it.

I think is remarkable.

And it speaks to the fact that we are all sort of rowing in the same direction, and while we have differences here and there, we we basically are are all very mindful of the constituencies we serve, the limitations we have and and the unknowns that are always looming.

Uh, that being said, I want to address a couple of things.

First being Ileton.

I heard you loud and clear, and it's some of the same concerns I had is what in this request prevents the backslide back to bad behavior or bad practices that would end up.

And so I think one of the things that I've been exploring with Ialton's uh contracted uh CFO is uh it is essentially establishing a memorandum of understanding or some sort of loan agreement that sets those guardrails that during the period of repayment should they not meet these benchmarks that have been elucidated in the grand jury report, then that would cause a default of the loan and and we would be right where we so we we will work on that and uh you know I appreciate that the the fundamental difference between approving it today and and me coming back after uh with a more fully fledged request is that four fifths threshold as opposed to getting two uh supervisors.

But I I think hopefully it will be unanimous um one way or another um after the work that's been done.

Then I want to ask to to back to the question of roads.

I was sheepish to even bring forward the two hundred and fifty thousand dollar request for the EMS.

And I I heard in the county executive's comments that you you held up the uh uh impending uh fee study as a potential for funding that that's not what we discussed yesterday, and I do not support accelerating that that fee increase as a way of of meeting this gap.

I think we are still not meeting promises made to this this consortium of group that are collaborating to try and address the the APOD issue.

So hopefully there is some other grant funding out there.

Uh, then we get to the issue of roads.

Uh and uh I can say that um for district five constituents, if you back everything out, the number one thing I hear the most about is roads and the quality of roads.

And when I talked about the buying power of people who are pouring into the social contract, roads are one of the things that they expect their taxes to pay for.

Um, good, bad, or indifferent, that's the the sort of construct that we've built.

Um, and I can't imagine what it would be like if I had 46% of the unimportant unincorporated population in an aging neighborhood area, such as what uh my my friend, the colleague from uh district three represents.

So we pay for uh yes, indeed.

My teeth.

And I will say if there's any uh you know uh bright uh silver lining to this.

Uh I can take you down to roads down in the Delta that'll make you feel pretty good about our water.

And some bridges that we narrowly avoided uh which Ron Vicari, you're gonna drive over that uh coming up pretty quick.

So glad to see work progressing there.

Anyway, this is a long way of saying uh this is a tough time to pull money out of reserves.

Um and 10 million dollars is a bit is a big commitment, it's less than the commitment we've been making annually uh for the last uh three years that I've been here.

But um, so I I will support the request because I I know it's a need.

I know that the soon as we take our foot off the gas for another uh transportation analogy, as soon as we take our foot off the gas of just trying to keep up, we're right back into a deteriorating situation.

So it's not much and it's not gonna go far, but uh at least it it signals our commitment so that we can stand on principle with our constituents.

Thank you.

Uh out of the queue, okay.

Uh back to the Phil Cerna part of the programming here.

Um, so uh one of the other things that I wanted to uh do was bring up because I see she's in the gallery here is our parks director, Liz Billis.

If I can ask her to come to the podium.

We have a couple questions.

This would not be a budget hearing if I wasn't gonna talk about parks and the parkway, right?

So uh morning, Liz.

Good morning.

Um in the recommended budget, um you and I had talked and I had during those hearings, um, we had considered uh the prospect of a dedicated, I don't even know what we're calling it, a marine unit for for parks or a boat, uh vessel of some sort.

Um, and I think at the time I found it a little hard to believe that we had to rely on other sister agencies for waterside coverage and things like you're doing your your folks are responsible for uh rangers are doing right now, um, sometimes very unfortunate in terms of body recovery and uh but just you know having the ability to be more present waterside, I guess is the way I'd put it.

Uh one of the things that I don't think kind of survived staff's recommendation for final budget was a about a 20,000, maybe it's even less than a $20,000 request out of a nine point one billion dollar budget uh for a vessel.

So can you tell me a little bit about what that need is?

Correct.

Um so we have a request in for a zodiac style boat, which would allow our ranger staff to be on the river during low flow uh water events and to uh continue our work in drowning prevention.

Um we've been very fortunate this summer that the water levels remained high for a very long time.

So we're able to use uh a boat that we have currently to patrol and to to do those rescues, but a zodiac boat would allow us to be there in these low flow situations that we are in currently.

Uh the request was for $17,980.

Um, plus we have some matching funds of I believe it's $7,020 out of um a restricted fund to get us to the total amount needed for that boat.

Gotcha.

Okay.

And then so what happens when during low flow conditions, we have to rely on a different approach.

Does there what are there any cost considerations with that?

So for us, that means that we are um putting our personnel on shore and uh trying to prevent drownings the best that we can from the shoreline.

Um unfortunately, sometimes that also means that we might have to tap into overtime um staffing, uh, just because of the sheer amount of staffing uh increase that requires to have that type of response.

Good.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

That that I think that uh that's all the questions I have for you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um and I'll just say too, as someone who was out on the water just this weekend um with his family in his boat, uh, cruising up the American uh near Tuscornia, um it was it was great to see so much um interest by the public and using that that asset that part of our parkway to uh to cool off and do so safely, and it's good to see that our vests are being used.

And but you know, it was a little disconcerting at times when we had swimmers that were pretty far out from the shore.

Um, and you know, it never uh is lost on me this how um dangerous it can be, especially at a confluence like that.

And uh I know in years past that's unfortunately been an area where we've lost way, way, way too many lives.

Uh so my humble, my humble request uh by my colleagues is that we uh do consider that um uh roughly $20,000, 17 plus change, whatever it is, um appropriation for uh the zodiac that uh parks has requested.

I don't think it's a heavy lift.

So um with that, Mr.

Villanueva.

Um, supervisors um in your packet includes a uh resolution that in has been laid out as we presented the budget.

Any changes to that, we'll need some time to make some corrections to it or adjustments to it and ask to come back.

We can come back at two, or you give us half hour, hour.

Let's do that.

Okay, yeah.

So an hour?

Is that what you asked for?

An hour you do have closed session too this afternoon.

Okay, fine, perfect.

All right, so uh with that, we will stand in recess until about we need you to vote on it first to tell us what to change.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

I thought you were gonna come back so we can vote on it.

No, we'll vote on the reservations.

I think you're okay for a concern.

Yeah, I think we need to understand what exactly you would like to change.

Then we will bring that you're correct.

You then we'll bring it back for vote.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Desmond.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you.

Uh David.

So would you like to take this all as one?

Yeah.

Let's do it all as one.

So and and feel free to clarify this if necessary.

So I I move to but one direction, yeah.

Well, I think he's getting there.

Are you gonna get there?

I I you can get there, but I don't think everybody agrees on everything.

I would take everything else.

I was wondering, should we take it maybe I'll just make a motion specifically about the roads first?

I would take it one roads and then yours, and then yours.

Okay, that's and then everything else.

That's fine.

Go ahead.

Yeah, the floor.

Then I I would I would move approval to, and I don't know if it needs to be have this specificity, but redirect ten million dollars at the proposed budget for uh roadways, roadway maintenance um on this year's for this year's budget and could I include the the boat as well and the funds necessary for the ring for the boating marine?

I wouldn't because um do it separate, I would do everything separately.

All right, all right, then roads on the roads okay.

So let's vote on that.

Everyone's clear on the motion, right?

Okay, that does pass with supervisors Kennedy and Rodriguez voting no.

Okay.

Uh I will move uh that we um adjust appropriations to include.

Did we do just the roads so to uh include uh an appropriations adjustment for the necessary and requested marine unit for uh regional parks?

Okay, okay, motion second, please vote.

And that does pass unanimously.

All right, thank you.

And then what else?

Just to be clear for the record.

Standard recess.

Um, if you want anything on ones, does anybody else want yeah?

Is there any other formal direction on ILTO?

It sounds like we're just keeping the discussion going.

We're not granting the approval, which would take the affirmative vote, right?

Right.

Because we're technically taking staff's recommendation, it sounds like and every nobody else wants anything else changed.

Well, I mean that's an open question now, isn't it?

And then you're coming back, you're doing closed session now.

Correct.

And then you're coming back at what time?

Well, we'll just come back at uh one o'clock.

Great, okay.

So we are in recis until one o'clock.

Okay.

Okay, I'd like to call back to order this meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll and reestablish your quorum?

Supervisors Kennedy here, Desmond, Rodriguez.

Here, Hume, Eric, Cerna.

Here, and we do have a quorum.

Great, thanks.

Amanda, you're back.

I'm back.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for uh allowing us to have to a break to reflect the changes that were approved by the board um earlier today.

So we do have a handout and um I think we'll be able to display here on the overhead um those changes and how we are proposing that they be funded.

Um so the the uh top box on this chart is showing where the funding would come from.

So what we were are recommending for the 10 million seventeen thousand nine hundred and eighty dollars um required in general fund funding, is that that would be a release from the service stability reserve.

So you can see the current balance of that reserve is about 90.6 million dollars.

That's a reserve that we established um in order to to be able to maintain service levels during future economic downturn or um uh interruption in revenues.

So we would be taking that reserve um down from ninety point seven million to about eighty point six million, um, so ten million dollars less in that reserve.

I will note that this 80.6 million, um, that's a component of our overall discretionary reserve.

So I I talked to you earlier about how those were at 214 million, which was 5.5 percent um of our general fund revenues relative to the 17% target.

This this change would be taking that number down to 204 million, which would be 5.2 percent versus that 5.5% that we had earlier.

And then the way that that um 10 roughly 10 million dollars is being used is displayed um in this larger table here.

Um so you can see we have 10 million dollars that's being transferred from the general fund to the roads fund.

Um we also have the twenty five thousand dollars um for the boat for regional parks with just under eighteen thousand of that coming from general fund discretionary resources um and this reserve release, and then seven thousand funded with a reimbursement from the parks restricted revenue fund.

You'll see below that we're showing the 10 million dollars in actual spending in the roads fund.

So we talked earlier about the transfers between funds.

This is this is one of those ways that um we end up with the the double counting in the budget, um, and then in the the parks restricted revenue fund there's no actual change in appropriations because what we will be doing is releasing contingency in that restricted revenue fund to fund the transfer to the general fund I think that covers all the changes but I'm happy to address any other questions.

Any other questions of Amanda if not um thank you uh for for coming back and taking about an hour's time to give us some clarity um and excuse me chair cernas sorry I just didn't want also want to clarify um the resolutions have been revised so resolution one and two are now revised to reflect these changes in those total appropriations very good and so the action that we have uh left to take is simply to um approve the resolution correct as amended yes multiple resolutions chair will go ahead and move the adoption of uh the amended budget resolution okay it's been moved and second yes I I'm not sure I'm clear what's where we're doing right now we have made the changes to from earlier correct and so what are we saying yes to I'm sorry what was your question we're saying what are we saying yes to these changes yeah so so the resolutions so um action item one before you today was to approve the budget resolutions the resolutions themselves have now been modified to reflect these changes okay so the in the previous decisions that we had when we where it was yes no and we were we had change or uh differences those still stand so this is now I'm just approving the changes I'm not clear I guess on the entirety of the budget yeah this the entirety of the budget as a changes including those changes got it okay thank you please vote.

And the item does pass unanimously great thank you very much thanks again to uh our chief fiscal officer who uh is always given the heavy lift this time of year and in June appreciate your um uh uh ability and um capacity to bring to us uh your thoughtful um uh recommendation for final and uh I also want to thank the county executive um and the balance of his team uh who uh always provide the detail that we are um typically interested in hearing about uh thanks again to Siobon in particular for the workshop earlier um Mr.

County executive do you have any final thoughts I just want to confirm that the action you took encompasses all the five of the recommended actions that we have the five and if I could have metro cable if you could bring up the presentation from item four and go to the final slide.

Sorry about that that's why it always gets confusing we don't we take action on some of the other stuff early and no the presentation.

I heard yes Lisa agree with yes and then the final slide there we go.

There we go so those would be the recommended actions in the motion that you took now as amended with the changes that Ms.

Thomas brought forward to you.

Perfect so is the record clear that sounds like everyone's in agreement recording clear okay very good thank you for the comment clarification so okay I just my only comment would be thank you to the board uh for helping us and providing the clear direction to the board as we or to the county and myself as we go forward.

Also want to thank Amanda and her team she works it seems like we do budget all year round in her shop, and um, but it's not uh it's not done without the incredible support of all the departments and the department heads and the administrative staff of those.

So I'd like to appreciate them and say thank you to them.

And last thing is to also thank everybody sitting at this table with me.

They do a fantastic job bringing forward the recommendations.

This year has gone over fairly well, I think, and without controversy, at least a lot of controversy, and um hopefully we can keep that going.

So thank you for your support this year.

Great, thank you.

Okay, any other comments from county executive?

We're on to that portion of the agenda.

No comments today, thank you.

Okay, uh, we're on to supervisor comments.

Anyone anyone yes, Supervisor Kennedy?

Thank you, Chair.

Um, would the CEO please um get back to the entirety of the board?

Uh just just uh don't overthink it, but just what it would take for the for uh the county to um opt into the microenterprise home kitchen operations, um, which the mekko I guess is what it is, um, just what it would take to do that, and uh it doesn't have to be done in a formal presentation, just maybe send a soul a memo.

Thanks.

Great, thank you.

Uh any other comments or suggestions from my colleagues?

Okay, seeing none.

Uh are there any adjournments this afternoon?

All right, thank you.

Uh if there's no further business, then before this board we stand adjourned.