Okay, I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for Tuesday, October 21st, 2025.

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

Good morning, Supervisors Kennedy.

Here.

Rodriguez.

Hume.

Chair Cerna.

Here.

And for the record, Supervisor Desmond is absent and we do have a quorum.

Very good.

If you can please read our statement.

This 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 verse cable systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro14Live.gov.

Today's meeting replays Friday, October 24th at 6 o'clock PM 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 or 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 comment, the speaker waves 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 also send your written comments by email to Board Clerk at SAT County.gov.

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

If you need an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or for other medical reasons, please seize clerk staff for assistance or contact the clerk's office at 916-8745451 or by email at Boardclerk at SatCounty.gov.

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

Very good.

If you would uh please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Well, again, good morning and uh welcome to those who have joined us here in chambers uh for today's proceedings.

Uh friendly reminder.

Uh we certainly welcome uh any member of the public who wishes to address uh the board on uh any posted uh and published agenda item for uh today's meeting.

Uh you're also welcome to address the board on any item that's not on our uh agenda.

We ask that you please keep your testimony to uh two minutes or less.

Uh that way, everyone who wishes to address the board has that opportunity.

Uh please note that for off agenda items uh we are restricted by the Brown Act.

We cannot have any uh prolonged detailed discussion about off agenda matters.

Uh but uh you certainly have that uh opportunity to petition your uh Board of Supervisors.

So with that, Madam Clerk, our first item.

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

We have one member of the the public requesting to speak, Mr.

Nathaniel Elvis Demian.

Sorry, this is my first time speaking on a podium like this.

Hi, my name is uh Nathaniel Damien.

I work for a building parts and inspection.

Um, and I help main the main uh general like call line.

I've probably helped uh a thousand two thousand of your constituents, you know, various building permit matters over the past year.

Um, and I I do enjoy my work.

I actually enjoy people, you know, because the whole building prayer process is a point of friction for developing the county, you know.

Yeah, to worry about plan review, intake, all this other stuff, and I actually enjoy helping people navigate that.

Um, my only qualm is I I do make a little bit more than McDonald's worker for it, but that's that's a job class thing.

I understand that.

Uh my major point of contention is this whole controlled leave policy as it applies to me.

Um, you know, uh I've been through some difficulty over the past year.

Um, but uh I just think it's overly punitive.

Uh, I said I enjoy my work, but it's depressing to be told that if I'm half hour late, I can't use vacation time.

Uh this is as I said, this is for someone who handles 40 to 90 calls a day, uh, probably two to three times the volume of my co-workers, and who handles it at a higher level than my co-workers, and it's depressing to be told that if I happen to wake up late that I can't use vacation time to uh you know make up for it, I have to take it as an AWOL.

Um, yeah, that's all I want to say.

I just think it's overly punitive to one of your most productive employees to apply that policy as it's being applied right now.

So great.

Thank you, Nathan.

Okay.

I think is that conclude our off agenda speakers?

That concludes our off agenda speakers.

Okay.

And this one, if we'd like to go through our consent calendar, items three through fifty-five.

I do have some clerk notes to read.

So for item number three, we are adopting um an ordinance amending various sections of chapter 2.08, 2.09, 2.46, and 2.61.

Excuse me, madam clerk.

Could could you keep please keep the conversation to a minimum at the back of the chambers?

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, and 2.61 of the Sacramento County Code to delete obsolete sections, establish the departments of the clerk of the board, public information office, and office of economic development.

Reorganize government structure and implement various related changes and authorize the Department of Personnel Services to process the salary resolution agreement amendment.

This was waived the full reading and continued from the meeting of October the 7th.

Also, a note on item number eight.

We are authorizing the county executive to amend the management leave program, introduce an ordinance amending section 2.100.080 of the Sacramento County Code related to management time.

This morning we're waiving full reading and continuing to November the 4th for adoption.

Item number 32.

I have a note that there is a title correction on this item.

Um currently, um, the title, I'll just read the title correction.

It's to approve a salary resolution amendment reallocating 1.0 FDE IT manager position to 1.0 FDE IT division chief position, reallocating 1.0 FDE senior IT analyst position to 1.0 FDE supervising IT analyst position, reallocating one F 1.0 FDE administrative services officer position to 1.0 FDE administrative services officer 2 position and deleting 1.0 FD IT um applications analyst level two positions.

Item number 37, we are introducing an ordinance amending Sacramento County Code Title Six, Chapter 6.28, Section 120 related to wells and pumps enforcement.

And wave the full reading and continuing this item to November the fourth.

And lastly, um item number 39.

We're adopting an ordinance amending section 2.61 1.101 of section chapter 61.101.

Title 2 of the Sacramento County Code regarding correctional health services, authority for payment of claims for medical services for inmate patients.

We rate the full reading and continue this item from October the 7th, 2025.

And we also have public comment on items number 9 and 11.

Okay.

Thank you for that long list of clarification here.

Um, please also add to that uh that I would like the record to reflect my abstention on item number 19.

Um, no need to take a separate vote.

So I'm looking to my colleagues.

Any uh member of the board wish to pull item for separate vote or consideration or comment.

Seeing none, I think we'll move on to the comments from the public on the two uh consent matters.

So the first public comment is for item number nine, Ms.

Deanna Rakowski.

Item number nine is to authorize the director of the Department of Personal Services to execute agreements with Boucher Law PC, Bouche Buhler, Trapani, LLP, CPS HR Consulting, Darren Investigations.

Dougan McQueen Law Corporation, Cramer Workplace Investigations, Levinfield Winner LLP, Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP, Palicon Group, Richards, Watson and Gershen, and Sloan Sakai Young and Wong LLP to provide outside investigative services for the period of November 1st, 2025 to October 31st, 2028, not to exceed 300,000 per agreement.

So we have Deanna Rutkowski.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and Board.

Uh my name is Deanna Rakowski, and I am here today to raise questions and concerns about the county's procedures for handling citizens' complaints against county employees, particularly in situations where outside investigations are initiated, and the cost and they are costing taxpayer dollars, which is the line item today.

The process appears to lack transparency, timeliness, and balance.

In one recent case, a county employee has been accused of perjury in a civil harassment proceeding, as well as failing to protect or report said harassment.

This individual who has um the individual reporting this has a documented pattern of filing repeated complaints, restraining orders, and other unsubstantiated claims within Sacramento County.

Despite this history, an outside investigation was reportedly initiated, and four months later, yes, four months later, the employee still has not been contacted for their statement and their response.

I respectfully request the board to address several key issues.

The funding transparency.

How much county funding has been allocated to outside investigations of employees in the past fiscal year regarding citizens' complaints?

And what are the criteria or thresholds used to determine when an outside firm is brought in instead of an internal review of complaints, especially around citizens' complaints?

Procedural standards.

How are external cases identified and prioritized?

Are there written timelines for completing investigations?

And who monitors the compliance when those time frames are not met?

Four months without direct contact with the subject of an investigation is excessive and raises concerns about both efficiency and fairness, as well as the spending of taxpayer dollars.

Safeguards against abuse.

What checks exist to screen for credibility when a complaint comes from a known serial filer or someone with a documented history of false statements or misuse of legal processes and retaliation?

The county's commitment to accountability must include protecting employees from prolonged to unfounded or politically motivated investigations, just as it protects the public's right to have their complaints heard.

I urge the board to review the policies governing complaint intake, investigation contracting, and duration standards, and to consider adopting clear reporting requirements on investigative investigation expenditures and completion rates.

Thank you for your time and your ongoing fair attention and fairness to fiscal responsibility and transparency in county operations.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh before we get to Supervisor Hume, who's in the queue here, I'm looking to our county executive, and I'm uh wondering, I guess requesting now, uh Mr.

Villanueva, can you um follow up with your appropriate um executive team members to uh maybe provide what we can uh as uh the speaker referenced to ongoing investigation?

I don't know the details of any of that.

Uh I know there are particular sensitivities around um investigations, but uh to the extent that we can provide uh our constituent with maybe a little um greater understanding of um protocols and procedures as it relates to uh what's occurring that she has referenced.

Um I think she deserves that she's taken the time to come down here and address the board so uh to the extent that you can uh work with your team to to make that happen.

I'd appreciate it.

Yes, Supervisor Center, we can do that.

I heard lots of questions that we could share information on.

So there are some that are sensitive, but we can't share several.

So thank you.

Very good.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

Obviously, we can't uh delve into this too much because the policy is not in question on the agenda today, but would somebody forward me kind of what our procedures are and the timelines expected uh for cases like this?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you again for your time.

Thank you.

Uh next next speaker.

So for item number 11, we have two speakers, uh, Mike Morondo and David Brady.

And number 11 is to approve appropriation adjustment request in the amount of 10 million eight hundred and forty-three thousand one hundred and forty eight dollars for the administration of the November 4th, 2025 statewide special election.

Mr.

Morando.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Mike Morando, and pursuant to uh reference to item number 11.

I am greatly concerned about their transparency relative to the process of the actual ballots.

The ballot envelopes.

Oh, thank you.

The ballot envelopes themselves.

Uh the placement of the punched holes, especially in the signature block, I found very troubling.

I personally believe this is not done by accident.

Other counties have either not used holes or they have had holes in different places.

The reasonings that the county had given uh for the holes themselves, frankly, just don't hold water.

Votes can be seen through these uh through these holes in at least three ways that you fold the ballot and put them back in the envelope.

Now you might say that, well, just fold it back so the white part uh shows through.

Why should voters have to be concerned with that in the first place?

Secondly, the amount of money here, almost 11 million dollars.

I would urge the supervisors to vote no on this.

Send a message that this expenditure is way out of line.

I worked for several years at the Department of Motor Vehicles, and I find it interesting that in this case uh we're told that three vendors had uh bid in terms of printing, mailing, and stuffing the envelopes.

At DMV, we had just one.

So take a look at that, and I would uh greatly encourage a no vote on it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

David Brady, I'd open my uh comments to uh echoing uh the sentiment about the 10.8 million dollars, and just pose the question: what could the county of Sacramento do with 10.8 million dollars from the state general funds if it wasn't for this election.

Um about uh two weeks ago I received my ballot and I immediately voted no on Prop 50.

Excuse me, can you give us your name for the record, please?

David Brady.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

About two weeks ago I received my ballot and I immediately voted no on Prop 50 because I don't think it's a good idea to give up our constitutional right to citizens redistricting to the very very politicians.

The independent commission was meant to protect against.

When I dropped my ballot in the envelope, I noticed my no vote was clearly visible on one of the holes meant to assist the visually impaired right inside the signature law.

You can see it right here.

Perfectly perfect fit.

Um I later saw several media reports about this issue, including one on ABC 10, in which the county election spokesperson Jana Haynes was interviewed.

Ms.

Haynes was asked how this could happen.

She responded the county used three vendors, one to print the ballots, one to print the envelopes, and one to mail them out.

My first reaction was doesn't anyone in the elections office proof these items before they go out the door.

Why is this important?

Well, because of where it is placed.

Uh a no vote is clearly visible to anyone verifying signatures in the signature block.

Uh, if that person sees a no vote and looks at that signature more closely, even if subconsciously, they have now tipped the scales in terms of fair treatment of that ballot.

Um, I brought this issue up to my supervisor Phil Cerna and asked him to investigate it.

He responded by calling me names and blocking me on Facebook.

Uh, it's a peculiar way for a so-called public servant to respond to one of his constituents.

So I guess I'm appealing to the rest of you to look into this, not necessarily why this occurred, but how this occurred.

Um, your politics may wrap up, please.

Allow you to acknowledge the uh, can you wrap up, please?

Your time is yes.

Um I I just think it's important whether your politics allow you to acknowledge uh this in terms of the uh election integrity.

It is a matter of election integrity.

Thank you.

And I urge you to investigate it, please.

Thank you, how it happened.

That include our speakers.

That concludes our speakers for public comment.

All right, very good.

All right, so uh at this point, yes.

Thank you.

I just wanted to address this issue because it has uh been on the news and caused uh a little bit of consternation uh uh within the organization here.

Um I do believe it was an unfortunate coincidence, but it's one that should not be repeated.

The secrecy of someone's vote uh should be sacrosanct.

I'm old enough to remember when we used to go into uh a little cubicle and pull the curtain behind us so that nobody could see how we were voting.

So it is an important part of our exercision of democracy.

And what I've asked our staff is since we do control the printing of these ballots, we need to make sure that that area that is visible in those punched holes for whatever reason those punch tolls are there, that they are blocked out, cross-hatched out, or left blank intentionally so that this doesn't happen again.

So, unfortunately, we're too deep in the process to go back and correct it at this point, but I think we can guarantee that it doesn't happen again.

Supervisor Rodriguez.

I just want to state Mr.

Brady and to the other gentleman that um right after that came to our attention.

Um I did have a meeting with our county executive and who did research on um to ensure that this does not happen again in the future.

So I just want to let you know that there was action taken on on our end um to uh question how this happened alongside with the voting locations for in-person voting.

That's it.

All right, we're good.

Um at this point, then entertain a motion on consent.

I would move consent, second.

Then moved and seconded.

Please vote.

The item passes unanimously with those members present.

And with the record showing an abstention by Supervisor Cerna on item 19.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right, next item, please.

The chair will move to item number sixty three, which is our board um and commission's nominations and appointments.

Okay.

So we have continuing to the meeting of November the 4th, 2025, adult and aging commission, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Citizens Advisory Committee, Fair Oaks Community Planning Council, the Natomas Community Planning Advisory Council, the North Highlands Community Planning Advisory Council, Orangeville Community Planning Advisory Council, Sacramento County Behavioral Health Youth Advisory Board, South Sacramento Area Community Planning Advisory Council.

Continuing to the meeting of November the 18th, 2025 is the Cemetery Advisory Commission, the Cosumnus Area Community Planning Advisory Council, Developmental Disabilities Planning and Advisory Council, Disability Advisory Commission, Galt Arnold Cemetery District, Human Services Coordinating Council, Inhome Supportive Services Advisory Committee.

Continuing to the meeting of December the 9th, 2025, the Children's Coalition, Cordova Community Planning Advisory Council, the Delta Citizens Municipal Advisory Council, the Elk Grove Cosumnus Cemetery District, and the Sacramento County Treasury Oversight Committee.

Today's items are the Area 4 Agency on Aging Advisory Council.

Chair Cerna, there is one Sacramento County seat.

Chiefs are recommending the reappointment of Melissa Jacobs.

Thank you.

For the Carmichael Recreation and Park District.

Supervisor Desmond, I have in my notes continuing this item to November the 18th, 2025.

For the Foothill Farms Community Planning Advisory Council, I have Supervisor Desmond continuing this item to November 4th, 2025.

For the local child care planning and development council, Chair Cerna, there are four seats.

Chiefs are recommending uh continuance of the item to November 18th.

Thank you.

For the Public Health Advisory Board, um, Chair Cerna.

There are two community member seats.

Chiefs are recommending the continuance to November 18th.

Thank you.

For the Sacramento County Youth Commission.

Um, Chair Cerna, there is one district one nomination.

Uh for the first district, please continue the item to November 18th.

November 18th, thank you.

And Supervisor Rodriguez for District 4.

Please continue the item to November 4th.

And Supervisor Hume for District 5.

Please continue the item in November 18th.

Thank you.

For the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission, Supervisor Hume.

Also continue this item to November 18th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And for the Sheriff's Community Review Commission, Supervisor Hume.

Uh we'll look at November 18th for this one as well.

Sounds great.

Okay.

For the Southeast Area Community Planning Advisory Council, Supervisor Hume.

Why break a good trend?

Let's go to November 18th.

For the Vineyard Area Community Planning Advisory Council, Supervisor Kennedy.

Please continue November 18th.

Thank you, Supervisor Hume.

Uh, we're going to push this one out to November 9th, please.

Thank you.

And that concludes our nominations and appointments.

At this time, it'd be appropriate for a recess until 10.

Our first item.

Okay.

Uh, then we will stand and reassess until 10 o'clock.

Thank you.

Okay, I'd like to call back to order this meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for Tuesday, October 21st, 2025.

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

Supervisors Kennedy.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Hume.

Chair Cerna.

Here.

Again, we do have a quorum with Supervisor Desmond absent.

Okay, next item, please.

We're going to go to item number 56, which is the county service area number one, zone one, public hearing on the benefit category change and levy of increased service charges for the Excelsior Oaks Division, APN 227-0010-002.

Good morning, members of the board.

I'm going to tell the county engineering.

Make sure we can hear you, hold on.

I know, right?

I was like, is this not working?

Okay.

Uh the Excelsior Oaks subdivision is located at the northern terminus of Excelsior Avenue and approximately 1,000 feet east of Hazel Avenue and consists of 21 or excuse me, 12 single family lot subdivision and associated site improvements.

The project was approved and with a tentative subdivision map, special development permit, design review on September 23rd, 2024.

In response to the project's condition of approval, prior to filing a final map, the project proponents submitted an application requesting the initiation of the benefit category change process.

In response to that request, a notice and proposition 218 protest ballot was mailed to the property owner on September 25th, 2025.

The project's existing parcel is currently in the safety light only category and is assessed two dollars and fifty-six cents annually.

After the benefit category changed to the enhanced street and safety light residential category, the increased annual service charge will be approximately $787.44 cents.

If there are no questions from the board, we recommend the board open the public hearing, consider written and oral testimony, any objections and protests, and close the public hearing, then direct the clerk to tabulate the returned protest ballot.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh as per the uh explanation by staff, I'm hereby opening the public hearing.

Madam Clerk, do we have anyone's time to speak on matter?

We do not chair.

I am here by closing the public hearing.

That's the clerk to tabulate, please.

Office is receive one protest ballot from 820 Excelsior Avenue LLC.

Parcel number 227-0010-002 site address Excelsior Avenue Orangeville, California with one yes vote.

Okay, thank you.

Since there are no majority protests, we request the board adopt the attached resolution to confirm the levy of increased annual service charges for the Excelsior Oaks subdivision.

Um, and I would like to read the fill-ins for the resolution.

In section two at the close of the hearing, the board receives zero written protests in section three at the close of the tabulation.

The board received one protest ballot totaling one hundred percent of the total service charges to be levied, of which one hundred percent was in favor of the service of the excuse me of the change of benefit category and zero was in excuse me, and zero percent was in opposition to the change of the benefit category.

Very good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um this time, then I guess we uh would entertain a motion on the resolution.

I'll go ahead and move the recommended action for approval.

Okay, it's been moved in second, please vote.

That item does pass unanimously with those members present.

Very good.

Thank you.

Next time item number 57 is PLMP 2025-00108.

This is the Johnson Cosumnus Williamson Act Amendment, a board review for partially rescinding existing Williamson Act contract 73-8P-030, and simultaneously entered into a new open space easement agreement pursuant to the Williams Act for a floodplain riparian mitigation bank, consisting of approximately 214 acres located in the Delta Community APN 146-0230-033, and the environmental determination is exempt.

As said, this is Project PLMP 2024 00108.

It is the Johnson Consumeness Williamson Act conversion.

It is to partially rescind an existing Williamson Act contract and enter into an open space easement agreement for a floodplain riparian mitigation bank.

This property is 214 acres and it is located at 8700 Twin Cities Road in the Delta community.

This site is undeveloped, it is used agriculturally, and the Casumness River also pretty much runs through the center of it.

Um the property in the surrounding area is zoned AG 80, and they are generally used agriculturally.

So this property and an adjacent parcel are currently under Williamsonat contract 73 AP 30.

The applicant Westerveld Ecological Services is proposing to use this 214 acres as a floodplain and riparian habitat mitigation bank.

So as you all are aware, open space is specifically excluded as a compatible use under our Williamson Act contracts.

However, the Williamson Act statute itself does permit rescision of the Williamson Act contract and entering into an open space easement agreement, which is what they are proposing today.

So the item before you is that parcel rescission of their existing Williamson Act contract and then entering into that open space easement agreement for Westerveld to do their floodplain and riparian habitat mitigation bank.

This is the site plan, and this is the 214 acres where they propose to facilitate the conversion of that contracted land into a mitigation bank, and their overall use would include restoration and enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the Kasumness River and also Laguna Creek.

So this did go to the agricultural advisory committee in September of this year, and they did vote to recommend approval of the proposal.

However, they were also recommending agricultural mitigation.

So the Williamson Act statute does permit rescision of a Williamson Act contract and entering into that open space easement agreement, provided that the board does make findings regarding the lands value as habitat and open space.

These are included in the staff report and the attached resolution to your staff report.

Further, the zoning does permit what we call wildlife habitat, wildlife preserve in the AG 80 zoning district, and this project has also been found to be exempt from CIGA.

Therefore, staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors recognize that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CECRID guidelines, and then approve the partial resolution.

I mean, I'm sorry, parcel rescission of that Williamson Act contract 73 AP 30 that you adopt the resolution to accept an open space easement resolution and then you enter into that open space easement agreement.

I can answer any further questions you may have.

The applicant, Westervelt Ecological Services is also here, and I think they have also prepared a brief slideshow for you to show their project in a little bit more detail.

Okay.

Thank you, Leanne.

Any questions for staff?

So then your preference in the end is for them to do their slideshow now.

If you would like it's up to the board, I just wanted to let you know that they were here, and they did have a brief slideshow for you.

Thank you, Chair.

Not to uh subvert the process here, but I am in support of this.

I've I've followed the project uh since its inception contemplation really.

I understand the Williamson Act, and the primary purpose is to provide for property tax relief in order to make it more uh palatable for uh property or domain and agricultural preserve.

It has acreage requirements associated to it.

Um this says that that it's allowed to do this kind of like switch and switch, but functionally, what does this action do?

So functionally, it's under an act of Williamson Act contract.

Okay, which is essentially a property tax.

Yes, it's a property acts exclusion, but also it is a contract with the county, specifically the Board of Supervisors, and within that it specifies that there are certain uses that can occur on the property, right?

Because the primary idea is to restrict it so that active agricultural commercial agricultural is happening.

And then what happens is we have the uses that you can do, the uses that we consider compatible as the county, and then we even went so far as as to exclude a couple uses, and we did exclude like agriculture, I'm sorry, open space type uses.

So that is currently how our contract works.

Um, so what has to happen is as you're right, in the statute itself, it does allow for this swap.

So basically, what we're doing is we're saying we're going to rescind this Williamson Act contract portion.

We're going to enter into this open space easement agreement, which basically also provides restrictions and runs for the same period as the Williamson Act contract would, and it allows them to do these other uses on this property.

Um, that's the functionality of this one.

I think maybe what you're thinking of, if I can make that presumption is sometimes we come with you with this, we're going to reascend and enter into this open space easement, and then sometimes we're we're going to add open space and these other uses as being compatible with your contract.

Um, for staff, what we look at is that if it is going to primarily be a conversion functionally, where they're not going to really be doing any more agricultural use, then we have you swap into the open space easement.

If it's looking like, yes, there's going to be an easement on it, or they're going to be doing this other use, but there's still going to be an agricultural component, then we add the open space or the other use back as a compatible use.

If that's what that's kind of a layered easement, then okay.

And so I know in the Williamson Act, it's like a 10-year runway if they want to completely get out from under it and no longer take advantage of the things that it provides for.

Um that's not the case in this situation.

Well, that's not the case.

They're not doing a non-renewal.

Right.

What we are basically doing is we're basically it's like a swab.

So basically, we're swapping an active Williamson Act contract for an open space easement agreement, which would still have restrictions and would still run along the same timelines as a Williamson Act contract.

Okay, so let's focus on that for a second then.

How long is the Williamson Act contract typically?

Um for us it's generally 20 years.

20 years, okay.

And so I would assume this contract has been in place for a while.

This contract has been in place for a while, yes.

And I would assume, and I can ask the applicant this, but that these there are mitigation credits that might be sold as a part of this bank?

That would be my assumption.

And the assumption would be that those credits remain in place in perpetuity.

And so what I'm wondering is is why we would have this open space easement ride with the term of the contract when the contract itself is fairly well expended at this point, as far as the original contract.

Am I correct in that assumption?

The the contract themselves are always in effect.

Essentially, what happens is unless you file for a non-renewal, which takes the 10 years to get out.

So essentially, what happens is you're always in the contract, and then the statute is a little odd, but it always is like, hey, I've spent a year in contract, I have this contract term, but basically on your anniversary date, it like basically adds another year, so you're always under contract unless you specifically file for a non-renewal, which is kind of like a point in time which starts you getting out in that 10-year period.

And so now we're at the crux of the issue here, which is if the remaining acreage were to file a contract for non-renewal, I don't know why they would do that because they're in an area that's they're not gonna be able to change their use to a developed use.

Um, but if they were to file for non-renewal, this open space easement cannot have that same exit strategy because those are perpetual easements at that point.

Right, but what we but what we're doing is we're the we're basically keeping the Williamson Act on the other piece, we're doing a partial rescision.

So we're doing it for this 214 acres and entering into the open space easement agreement specific to this 214 acres.

The thought is that the original Williamson Act contract would still ride on what is left, and they could then go back and modify it as they chose if they wanted to.

On the remaining piece, but not on this piece.

Not on this piece.

This piece is the open space easement agreement piece.

So then that would be a separate process.

And so let me come right out and ask the question that I'm that I'm driving towards here is it seems to me that there's quite a bit of administrative time and expense, certainly on the part of the applicant, probably on the part of the county as well, to go through something that is um kind of perfunctory and bureaucratic in nature.

Could we not have just accomplished this by saying, yeah, that's an acceptable use?

We agree that that's permitted in an agricultural preserve and not gone through this whole process.

I guess, in theory, but basically it is perfunctory because what has happened is the board in 1973 entered into a contract with these property owners, and everybody stipulated to a set of uses that would occur, and now they're proposing to ask to do something slightly different than what was originally allowed, and there are the ability to modify, but at staff level, we can't say yeah, you're fine because the contract was entered into with the board, it has to go back to the board to make that decision.

Okay.

I feel like I'm protracting this process at this point unnecessarily.

And it's more like I would say it's more a function of like contract law versus actual planning, which I think is part of the issue here.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions for staff?

All right.

Seeing and uh remind me again, Supervisor Hume, forgive me.

Uh, did you want to hear from the presenter?

Uh, I will leave that up to them.

If there's no other public comment, I'd be happy to move the item.

Okay.

A second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Uh, we don't have any members of the public sign to speak.

We do not.

Okay.

Please vote.

And that item does pass unanimously with those members present.

Thank you, Leanne.

Next item.

We're gonna go back in our agenda item number two.

This is a presentation of resolution honoring Barry Chamberlain upon the occasion of his retirement from Sacramento County.

I'll set this.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Um I'm gonna say a few opening remarks and then we will proceed to the uh some of the whereas's in the resolution.

Um thank you.

This is a bittersweet occasion uh when we have the opportunity to recognize Barry on his retirement.

And I say bittersweet, because Barry has been a leader and an advocate for code enforcement, someone that has contributed tirelessly to his community, and someone that has been a champion for his team.

Barry is passionate about his work, and he leads his team with that same passion.

Code enforcement, as we all know, is a difficult job that involves complex issues.

Barry has been a leader in his field, not just locally but statewide.

He's run countless programs, including vehicle abatement, illegal dumping, rental housing, and several other innovative programs that have benefited our community.

He's been very active in Casio, which is the um statewide organization for code enforcement officers and leadership.

Um, professionally, Barry has always made himself available to the community and has been willing to tackle the most difficult issues in our community.

He's worked at countless community meetings to address issues or educate the public as to the role of code enforcement.

Beyond that, he has mentored multiple staff members in Sacramento County and surrounding jurisdictions.

On a personal note, Barry and I have bonded over shared life experiences.

Barry is a dedicated father, husband, grandfather.

And I know he's looking forward to spending time, uh, his free time with his wife, his grandchildren, and his children.

Barry, we've all benefited from the service you've given to this organization and to this county.

And I want to congratulate you on your retirement, and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart uh for all that you've done for this community.

As to the whereas, uh, which I will be a little less emotional on.

Um Barry began his career with Sacramento County in 2005 as a code enforcement officer, where he quickly demonstrated a commitment to community safety, equitable enforcement, and public service.

Barry's leadership abilities and technical expertise led to his promotion to a senior code enforcement officer in 2007, a supervising code enforcement officer in 2013, and a program manager in 2015.

And then ultimately to his current position as Chief of Code Enforcement.

During his tenure, Barry has been instrumental in developing policies and program that improved our operational efficiencies and strengthened partnership with county departments and community stakeholders and enhanced our neighborhood revitalization efforts.

His steadfast leadership has guided the code enforcement division through complex challenges, including some of those that I named earlier, and in addition to that, cannabis compliance, fireworks compliance, zoning and housing, and things that continue to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of our community.

Barry has served as a mentor and a role model, as I had mentioned earlier, and he's fostered a culture of professionalism, integrity, and collaboration that will benefit the department for years to come.

His distinguished career reflects his dedication to excellence, his passion for community service, and his lasting impact on the residents and neighborhoods of Sacramento County.

And with that, I'd like to present Barry with this resolution and thank him for his steadfast service to our community.

And then I'll hand it over to Barry to say some words.

Second greatest baseball player of my era, Roberto Clemente.

Alright.

There's only one number one.

He wears 24 for the Giants, Lily Mays, which which started the whole thing with me in baseball.

So thank you.

This is great.

You called it days.

This woman, Jenny, Christina, Crystal, kind of.

Susie's my legal counsel.

Which kept me from getting sued.

And then there's this other lady that was here.

She's up there, June Palma's.

She's been mean to me a couple times when we went to trial on stuff.

Hey, you're you know what?

You're not alone.

Yeah.

And this lady right behind me here, Sarah Britton, who also was our my county counsel at some point.

See, I had an issue with running them off until I got a hold of Susie.

Um my wife is here.

Peter, you can come up here if you want.

Peter Limos, who's the chief for the city of Sacramento, he's probably wants to come to the county now when he sees how well you treat me, probably.

Probably not.

But anyway, it was my pleasure to serve the county.

I worked in the grocery business for 28 years.

I learned a lot of communication skills with angry people.

Um, so it prepared me for this.

I I looked at where I was going, and I wanted to come somewhere that was closer associated, which my degree was with criminal justice.

So this was a perfect fit, and I think I knew within a couple weeks that I wanted this position.

And because of my because of my ability to be involved with the board of supervisors early on, the chief at that time basically threw me out there and said, Here, go do what you do.

So, anyway, I want to thank you for having me for 10 years as chief for 20 years as an officer.

It was a pleasure serving Sacramento County, and that's about it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a few board members in the queue.

I'm going to start us off by uh saying a few words.

First of all, you said that uh you um kind of refined your uh ability to uh work with angry people and and uh you've honed your communication skills over the years.

Um if you happen to go into consulting in your retirement, I could actually use your services.

So uh so, in all seriousness, I had a chance to uh join some of my colleagues uh last week at uh um the the luncheon that uh was held uh in your honor uh rightfully to celebrate your uh years of service to to Sacramento County Barrie and and you can tell at the at the uh lunch uh that there was just a lot of kind of love in the space and um you know uh I've said it uh uh many times uh here in these chambers about uh the fact that I don't think any of us just kind of come to work and treat work as uh assault mine.

We come here as public servants, and you certainly have I think really masterfully uh exemplified what it means to be an effective uh and committed public servant, someone who uh shows up every day and um wants to make life better for uh the people of this community.

And I can tell you as a uh supervisor, and I'll speak for my staff.

I know my chief is here in chambers as well, that uh we all lean on you.

We all lean on you and your staff hourly sometimes to help us with uh challenges that our constituents face and um some departments uh get called more frequently than others.

I would have to believe code enforcement's probably up there in terms of uh the frequency with which um the you know your staff and you are being contacted by the by board members, and uh I could say over uh my time here that uh I've done nothing but enjoy working with you, I've learned from you.

Um we have uh uh focused on some parts of the district and the county that I think really needed some um some focus because it had been long ignored ignored, and you helped immensely with uh the ability to help clean up uh South Oak Park.

And uh I think that legacy of Sacramento County being perceived as um local government who cares uh for its people in that part of Sacramento County is really uh quite frankly very attributable to you and your staff.

So I want to publicly and for the record, thank you for uh all that you've done to help us uh in the first district uh respond and and be um continually and consistently responsive to the needs of our of our constituents.

So uh please stay up there because we're gonna continue to heap some praise on you, and uh we'll hear from a few of my colleagues and then certainly open up the floor if there's anyone that has joined you here in chambers that wants to share any any words uh as well.

So we'll start with uh Vice Chair Rodriguez.

Good morning, Barry.

Um, one of the great joys of sitting up here is when exceptional uh county employees get to retire, and we get to hear um a lot about their um efforts and contribution to the county.

Um I've had the pleasure for the past ten months of working with your team, and most recently, more often just because of so many issues that are rising up in parts of the county, and they are exceptional.

But you can't be exceptional without having an exceptional leader, and so um without having gotten to really know you, um, I think in the past few months, we I have gotten to know you better, but I can tell a lot about you from your leadership um and your team, and they are just exceptional in customer service and knowledge, and I've learned so much from them, and so uh I just want to thank you for 20 years of service to the county, and I appreciate all that you have done.

And I hope that that team that you support are the giants.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, Barry, I think your t-shirt is very appropriate.

I just happened to watch a documentary on Roberto Clemente the other day, and um how grateful he was for the opportunity that life gave him to the point where he would remain in the stands or in the stadium, rather, signing autographs.

Often the rest of the team had already gone, he'd missed his transportation, you'd have to catch a ride with somebody to get caught up.

And I think that level of humility and gratitude um doesn't come for everybody.

And you know, I mentioned this at your luncheon the other day.

You know, as county employees, I think the majority know how to do their job, they know what their job is, they know when they're supposed to be doing their job, they know even in the complexities of uh remote work or being in the field or return to office, they know where they're supposed to be doing their job, but sometimes people get lost in why we do our job.

And I think you have held on to that perhaps better than anyone else, particularly given the complex and uh sometimes contentious nature of the work that you do.

Uh, to realize that we're here to serve our constituents.

We're here to serve our our residents, and we're here to make sure that um everybody enjoys the same access to quality of life, and that those that sometimes um impede that quality of life uh need a little coaching and correcting and not necessarily the hammer of government to come down on them.

And so the way you have gone about doing your job, I hope is an example to your team.

I hope it is an example to all of us in the county, and I hope that you enjoy your new uniform that you can wear from here on out.

So thank you for your service.

Thank you, sir.

Great.

Thank you, Supervisor Hume.

Is there anyone in the gallery who would want to share any words?

Co-takers.

All right.

Well, again, uh very just again uh wish you well.

Uh go enjoy retirement.

Stop thinking about abandoned vehicles and uh and garbage piles and the gutters and and uh go uh enjoy um uh what is uh I think rightfully deserved in terms of um you know looking back on a terrific legacy, and uh we all wish you very very well.

Thank you.

Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Okay, item number 58 is to review and approve revisions to the transient occupancy tax grant program allocation policy.

Good morning, Chair Serna, members of the board.

I'm Amanda Thomas, the county's chief fiscal officer here this morning to present uh recommended revisions to the transient occupancy tax or TOT grant program allocation policy.

So, as you know, the TOT grant program has been in place since 2017 and provides financial support to nonprofit organizations for community-based programs and services through a competitive application process.

Uh since its inception, the policy has periodically been revised to best meet program needs.

Most recently that happened in June of 2024.

And then following the most recent grant cycle, the TOT grant program um review panel, TOT grant panel, met in July and August of this year to discuss revisions to the policy heading into the next grant cycle.

So, based on those discussions, um, we are recommending three policy changes today to align program requirements with actual experience and to streamline the process.

The first change is to reduce the maximum funding level per application from $50,000 to $35,000.

And this change is in alignment with actual amounts that have been awarded and provides a more realistic expectation to grantees of the amount that they could expect to be awarded.

So as shown in this chart, the number of grants awarded exceeding $35,000 has been less than three per year, sort of reducing each year in the last three grant cycles, which is really consistent with the trend that we have seen over the life of the program towards a greater number of awards at a smaller dollar amount per award.

Amanda, can I ask a question about that?

Sure.

And it's interesting timing because I think in the all the time that our office, like all the other four offices, have been subject to a TOT policy as it relates to how we allocate and make decisions about kind of scarce TOT funds per district.

This was the first year calendar year where the first district actually made a TOT grant from our district funds right at 50,000.

And that had to do with a specific need that was is considerable, obviously.

So I'm just wondering is there is there any way that this is how hard and fast I guess is what I'm asking about this drop from 50 to 35.

Because I think what we're seeing is, you know, we're living in some unusual times, and I think the trend may be a little different moving forward than it has been looking backwards in terms of specific initiative needs by various nonprofits.

So maybe you can speak to that.

Sure, sure.

It's a great question, thank you.

First, I'll just clarify that the changes that we're talking about today apply only to the grant program, so that's the million dollars per year, so would not affect district TOT community or neighborhood funds.

Um so you would not have a cap um on uh you know the the per award amount for those funds.

Those funds also could be used if you wanted to supplement awards that were made as part of the TOT grant program.

So really what we're talking about are limiting the the application amounts through this grant program.

Certainly, you know, if we try this out for one year and we determine this wasn't this wasn't the right limit, we can revisit that going forward.

Um but this is really just based on what we've seen in terms of those awards and also um you know what we're seeing in terms of applicant behavior, you know, sort of requesting a maximum award amount when we're we're there's really not the opportunity to award at that level given the desire for the number of awards to go out for this million dollars.

Thank you for that explanation.

That's helpful.

Uh also just I wanted to kind of tee up a scenario too.

Maybe you can reply uh respond to that.

Um, the scenario being I'm a nonprofit, I have a particular initiative that I wanted to apply for the maximum thirty-five thousand.

Um I'm the same nonprofit, I have uh an adjacent initiative, but I would be technically the same prospective beneficiary for 25,000 or 15,000.

Uh could that nonprofit apply for both and receive both?

Uh I don't believe they could through the grant program, but they certainly could receive supplemental awards through a district.

Yes, yes, okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay, so um the second change that we're recommending is to allow grantees to request an advanced payment up to $10,000.

So currently the policy specifies that all grant payments are to be processed on a reimbursement basis.

Um, allowing an advance would support a program launch or expansion for those organizations that would not otherwise have the cash flow to be able to do so.

To mitigate the risk of advanced funds not being used for the intended purpose, advances would require written justification, a repayment plan, and then would be capped at that $10,000 with amounts processed with additional amounts processed as a reimbursement of expenditures.

And the third recommended change is to award all funding based on district direction.

So this recommendation supports streamlining the grant process by eliminating the subject extra expert panel review process that has made recommendations for award of 500,000 of the total $1 million grant program.

And instead, if approved, this change would allocate a total of $200,000 to each district to rank and award grants at their discretion, so that the entire million dollars would be allocated based on district discretion.

I will just note that with this change, we would continue to operate the program as an on an application basis with grant applications screened to ensure eligibility and then summarized for review by each district.

We intend to allow a month for districts to determine award amounts, and then the overall consolidated awards would be recommended to the board for approval.

So that concludes my recommendation.

Recommendation is to approve these policy revisions.

We do intend to implement them for the 26-27 grant cycle, which is planned to begin on January 5th of 2026.

Happy to take any additional questions.

Great, thank you.

And thanks to uh many of your staff that have uh worked on this.

Thanks to uh also the um I believe two members of the board that are on the committee.

Correct.

So with that, uh look to my colleagues.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Okay, very good.

Madam Clerk, do we have anyone sign up to speak on this matter?

We do not.

All right, then I'd entertain a motion.

I'll go ahead and move the recommended action.

Okay.

Uh chair will second, please vote.

That item passes unanimously with those members present.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number 59 is a public hearing to introduce county ordinances granting a franchise for California American Water Company and Golden State Water Company to install and operate water facilities in unincorporated Sacramento County.

Wait full reading and continue to November 4th, 2025 for adoption.

Thank you, good morning.

My name is Carrie Schmitz, and I'm with the Department of Water Resources.

Today's action is a public hearing to introduce two ordinances to grant franchises to California American Water Company and Golden State Water Company in unincorporated Sacramento County.

Calam and Golden State are the only two investor-owned utilities, water utilities in Sacramento County, and they rely on franchise agreements to operate and maintain their water systems in the unincorporated county.

Calam currently has four franchise agreements that will expire or have expired recently, and Golden State has two franchise agreements.

Both Calam and Golden State have requested that the county adopt ordinances that supersed the prior franchise agreements and grant new comprehensive 50-year franchises for their respective service areas in Sacramento County.

So the terms of the agreement include Calam and Gold State agree to pay the county two percent of the gross annual receipts.

Calam and Golden State agree to keep on file with the clerk of a board a bond for $10,000 with the corporate surety in the event that the terms of the franchise are not met.

And the agreement has a 50-year term.

So today's actions will be to hold a public hearing to introduce these ordinances, which, if adopted, will rescind the existing franchises previously granted and grant new comprehensive franchises to for their respective service areas in the county.

And weigh full reading of the ordinances and continue the item to November 4th for adoption.

Happy to answer any questions.

Very good, thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

I don't have a question with the franchise agreements themselves, but um is 50 years a typical term.

That seems like an awfully long time.

You know, I did look that up because I anticipated the question.

Um I think that our prior franchise agreements were 50-year agreements.

I looked online, and franchise agreements can be anywhere from 10 years to 50 years.

It just depends on the municipality.

Okay.

So they asked for 50 years, and that's what we went with.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Seeing none.

Madam Clerk, do we have anyone's time to speak on this matter?

We do not.

Okay.

I would look for a motion.

I would move the item.

Okay, it's been moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Move and second, please vote.

That item does pass unanimously with those members present.

Item number 60 is contract number 4592 Sacramento County Water Agency meter installation project.

Administrative appeal for 3713 Laguna Way.

You are acting as the Sacramento County Water Agency.

I do have a note that the staff is recommending an additional action and or amending their recommended actions and um would also ask that as a motion today.

Should you choose to also adopt the administrative findings.

When we get to the point of a motion, you know, I'm asking to prompt us accordingly.

Okay.

So we have our appellant this morning here, Jennifer Hakeman.

Good morning.

My name is Jennifer Hagman, and I live at 3713 Laguna Way in Sacramento.

I have filed this appeal because the Sacramento County Water Agency relocated its public main line in a way that has made it physically, financially, and legally infeasible for me to reconnect my existing water service.

I did not request or initiate this change, the agency did.

Before the relocation, I had a lawful permitted connection through a rear easement that served my home safely for decades.

When Sacramento County Water Agency abandoned that main, it left my property without a feasible path to reconnect, except by constructing a new 160-foot private service line across my land through mature trees, a permanent mini barn shed, pool decking, concrete, drainage, and sprinkler systems, and even a small family burial site.

This isn't a minor service connection.

It is a major underground construction that would require significant engineering, permitting, and long-term maintenance, and would cause permanent damage to the property and landscape.

My administrative appeal and exhibits A through V, detail how Sacramento County Water Agency's relocation was planned and will be executed without adequate study, without considering site-specific feasibility, and without providing any engineering or environmental assessments.

The agency has cited safety and spacing issues within their easement as justification for abandoning it.

Yet they are now proposing construction on private property with the same complex under concrete, near foundations, and alongside utilities, but without oversight or permitting.

Exhibit S in my administrative record documents how the easement still exists and remains legally unusable.

Sorry, usable.

It remains legally usable.

Sacramento County Water Agency argues that my claimed spacing conflicts are manageable.

Therefore, they should also be manageable within their easement.

The same mitigation Sacramento County Water Agency routinely applies elsewhere, can also be applied to their easement.

Exhibit C and D includes Arborist concerns that excavation under my trees would likely kill them.

Exhibit W, showing that a neighboring property under similar circumstances suffered real damage when Sacramento County water agencies contractors boring machine broke under their pool deck.

The contractor needed to use a backhoe and cut through concrete to remove it and provided only a patch repair, leaving the homeowner with mismatched pool decking.

That's exactly the kind of risk I'm trying to avoid to my trees, foundations, concrete proposed driveway expansion, and pool decking.

We've already given you, I think, more than the ample time here for your testimony.

Okay, I can wrap up.

I'm sorry?

I can wrap up.

Okay, very good.

Yeah, please.

I'll just stop talking.

Oh you have it not.

I don't have I submitted the information.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh any other public speakers.

I believe that we have Bill Burke from the County Council.

There's no later.

Good morning, directors.

Um, the department's gonna come up here and can get into some of the details about the uh the feasibility of the work and the terms and conditions that both sides have gone back and forth on.

Um we do want to give the appellant the opportunity to come back up here and rebut after we've had our chance to speak.

Uh, Department of Water Resources has asked me to come up though and address some of the legal issues in the appeal.

Uh so I'll do that first.

First thing I want to do is say what this proceeding is not.

This is not an enforcement hearing.

Uh there's no penalty being proposed.

There's no issue of non-payment, there's no water waste.

Uh the reason we're here before you, this is an appeal of the agency engineers' action.

This appeal is authorized under the water agency code.

Uh, any person who is dissatisfied with the agency engineers implementation of the code has a right to appeal to you.

So that's why we're here.

And in a bit, we'll talk about the specific actions or decisions that are being appealed.

So I do think it's going to be important for us to take a step back and kind of look at the history of the project so we know how we got here.

Uh, in 2004, the state legislature passed a law that required all urban water purveyors to install meters for all their customers.

And that law establishes a deadline of well, it was January 2025, so we've been busy trying to meet that deadline, but we're we're still working.

Um, some of you will remember, some of you weren't even here at that point, but in 2017, the broader uh Arden Service Area project was approved.

Uh we approved the neck deck in connection with that, and then in 2023, your board approved the plans and specs for the project, and then a couple months later, you approved about a fifty-seven million dollar construction contract to have McGuire and Hester go out and install the meters, install the new water mains, install part of the service laterals for all of our customers in the in the Arden area, which includes Arden Park.

And of course, our contract uh with McGuire and Hester includes a construction schedule, which we have to do our best to follow.

So, as part of this work, after you authorize the project, water resources set about getting permission from all the customers to enter upon their property to install service laterals and connections to residences.

The water agency code under ordinary circumstances allocates to the property owner the responsibility for installation and maintenance of the service lateral.

And I know you guys know this, but I'm just gonna go over it.

We're talking about uh the water main typically goes down the middle of the street in the right-of-way, and the service laterals branch off at a 90 degree angle from the main.

What we do, what we have done, and what we have done for the appellants house is the water mains in, and the portion of the service line that goes up to the right-of-way, so really over over the property line, but up to our right-of-way to the meter where the new meter is installed.

We've done that.

It is the rest of the service lateral that goes up to the house.

Uh that is what our code leaves to the property owner, usually, as part of this project, water resources.

The water agency told all its customers, we're gonna do that for you.

So, in order to do that, we don't have easements into everybody's properties.

We had to get permission, and we got that permission in the form of uh permits to enter.

It's not an easement, it's just a license to enter onto the property, and water resources staff went around.

2022 went out and obtained PTEs permits to enter from pretty much every customer in the area.

Um my understanding is we've had 2300 customers sign them and consent to the water agency doing this installation on the property.

And so that includes in 2022, water resources obtained a PTE from the prior owners at this address.

Um, the appellant acquired the property after the fact, and as is clear now, she has revoked that permission, which we previously had.

Our PTEs include a number of provisions.

Umong them are we guarantee or we promise to restore the property to as close as it was when we got there.

Um we include a one-year warranty on the work of the service line and the connection, and there is also an indemnification and hold harmless provision in favor of the property owner.

So very reasonable, like I said, 2300 people have signed it.

So I guess at this point, we would naturally get into the details of what um the proposal for the line and the routing of the line was from us, and then what the appellant, the issues the appellant had, and again, I'm gonna save that for the department for Matt Sato.

Um, but I do want to state what specifically is being appealed here.

Uh it's really two decisions, two actions by the agency engineer.

One, it's the decision to not accept um the appellants' terms.

She added, as you've seen in the staff report, as you'll hear, she added several new terms and conditions to our or the PTE that everybody else has signed.

So after a lot of consultation with staff and with the director of water resources, ultimately he decided we we can't accept uh those terms.

So that's one decision.

The other decision is to move forward with the switch, the changeover to the whole new system, uh the metered system.

And what that means is we're gonna have to disconnect uh her existing water connection, which is in her backyard, and the water will be available from the front.

So now let me talk about uh some of the legal assertions in the appeal itself.

The appellant has characterized this as a shutoff of her water or a termination of water service.

However, based on the water agency code and our policy, it is that's not what it is, it's not a shutoff, it's not a termination, it is a relocation of the water connection, and that goes back to that provision in the code that allocates the responsibility for the service lateral to the property owner.

So, like I said, there's no prohibition on the owner accessing water, it's right there.

The meters installed, the the service line to the right-of-way is installed, ready to be connected.

So the appellant probably doesn't see it that way.

She sees this as the water agency shutting off her water.

Um, so I want to look at what the law says just for the sake of argument.

What are the requirements if we actually were shutting off her water?

Um, so in the cases of uh termination of utility service, both the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have found that there is a limited property right in the uh continued and continued utility service, but it that right does not rise to the level of a fundamental right, it doesn't rise to the level of getting what we call strict scrutiny, that's kind of the heightened attention that the courts give a fundamental right.

This is more of a they call a traditional right, and it is only subject to rational basis review.

That just means was the agency reasonable in the actions that it took.

Uh, as long as the actions were not arbitrary, as long as the action was not capricious, uh, that action should be upheld.

So, in the appeal, the owner asks the question, she demands to know what law authorizes a water district or water agency to relocate the point of connection and basically leave the customer with the responsibility to do the rest of the work, install the rest of the line.

However, that's not the correct characterization because it omits what is an essential part of this project, which is installing the rest of the line, which we've done, which we've provided for everybody else.

Um, so really the correct question is was it reasonable for the water agency for the agency engineer to reject the additional conditions and terms demanded by the owner?

And is it reasonable for the agency to move forward with the switch to the metered system?

The case law talks about uh whether or not the agency action uh furthers a legitimate governmental interest.

Here, the legitimate governmental interest is um complying with the state law that requires us to install the meters.

The purpose of that state law is to uh encourage water conservation, so no more flat rate.

We're gonna have a metered rate, so that's going to discourage users uh from, you know, uh being able to use as much as they want at a particular rate.

That is our legitimate governmental interest.

So something else that the cases require at this level of scrutiny for the again.

If we look at it as a termination of water service for the sake of argument, they require adequate notice and a hearing.

So here we are.

We've notified the owner of her hearing right and writing, and she requested a hearing.

The notice since she was she moved in after we had gone around and obtained the PTEs in 2022.

There was a door hanger posted at her residence on March 25th of this year.

That was the first notice that we were going to be doing work at her house and on the new system in Arden Park.

The first notice that we were gonna be, we were gonna have to change over to the new system and disconnect the back connection at our house.

That was in a DWR letter of July 11th of this year.

And at that time, we told her that we're gonna have to do the do the changeover on August 11th, but that date has now been pushed back a few times, and now what the department has told her is that we will not be switching over to the new system any earlier than November 3rd.

So and like I said before, uh the owner has had a lot of consultation with DWR staff.

It's been elevated to the director of DWR, and she's got a hearing now in front of you, so a lot of due process.

Okay, and so I'll start to wrap up by just I want to mention some of the legal citations in her appeal.

Um, some of these don't apply to SAC County Water Agency.

We act under our own individual uh statute water agency act, but she does mention um the provision, a law out of the health and safety code, it's the water shutoff protection act.

That act only applies it protects owners when a water district shuts off their water for uh non-payment, it requires that the district not shut off until uh they've had a chance to be notified and given a chance to consult with the district.

Well, this is not a situation of non-payment, but even if it was, we haven't shut our water, we haven't disconnected the back connection yet, and she's gonna have this right to address you before that happens.

Uh there's another couple of citations that apply to irrigation districts.

We're not an irrigation district.

Uh, but the citation generally requires equitable rules for the distribution and use of water, which shall be printed in convenient form for distribution in the district.

Our equitable rules are set forth in the water agency code that's available online.

Um the main reason that this project, this whole effort has been more than equitable is because we have offered this service as free service to uh install the service laterals on our customers' property at our expense, even though our code doesn't require that.

The appellant sites to the city of SAC code.

Uh there's provision that says that when the city does a relocation of a water connection, it will be at the city's expense.

Um, that is exactly what we're doing here.

That's what we've offered to everybody.

We're trying to hook everybody up at our expense.

Um that offer has obviously been made to the owner.

Um, I do want to mention, and one thing I forgot to mention is that our policy, our ordinance requirement allocating the responsibility for uh installation and maintenance of the service lateral on private property.

That's not just us, that appears to be an industry standard.

Uh, we know the city of SAC requires that, uh Roseville, uh SAC Suburban.

Um, my research shows that pretty much all of the regulated um public utilities under the California PUC have the same rule.

Our responsibility is up to the right-of-way.

After that, it's the customer.

Okay.

Sorry, last thing I did find the specific provisions in the appeal.

She asks what kind of permit requirements are required to uh bore or trench or install this uh this two-inch line on her property.

Uh there is a general rule where um a water district that is uh doing work to install water facilities is not subject to the zoning code or building codes of local agencies, i.e.

cities or counties.

So the water agency isn't subject to the county's building code or zoning code.

And we've explained to the appellant that even if there was such an issue with permit not compliance, that um we would be responsible for that, but we don't really see that happening.

So I probably forgot one thing or another, but I'll stop there and hand it over to Matt to talk about details.

Before you leave the podium, uh, Supervisor Hume, did you have a question for Mr.

Burke?

I did, thank you, Chair.

Um I may be getting into the weeds a little bit on this, but I just want to because the property changed hands between when this project was initiated and the homeowners were notified to um to date.

Uh was there not an obligation of the seller and/or any of the agents or brokers involved in the transaction to disclose that this project was in process?

Well, um I will say that the PTE is not recorded, so it wasn't in the chain of title.

Okay.

Um possibly.

I mean, that's I think a claim that the current owner could look at.

Um I will say that it's a license, so it is freely revocable.

It's not like an easement.

So even though the PTE it's got a term in there that says this permission shall carry, shall bind successor owners.

Um, it's still just a license.

So she can revoke that.

She has revoked it.

Okay.

Um, but I I do think that's a it's a fair question.

So, but if I understand the last part of what you just said, theoretically, this should have been on the uh current owner's radar at the time of purchase of the property.

I don't want to say if there's liability, I am asking you to speculate a little bit.

And I don't know if they did or did not disclose okay this okay.

So, but it's not assuming they did not.

I don't want to say if there's liability there.

Um that's fair, but it it's a like I said, fair question.

I should be looking.

I would argue that I mean it's a public project, it applies to everybody.

So I don't think it's something that they would have to be disclosed because it's applies to every single property owner in that entire neighborhood.

So it's not like just one single property that you would even have to record.

So I I mean, this is obviously spec speculation, it would be something that the property owner would have to bring up against the seller and the seller's agent and the title.

So I don't think it's even no offense relevant to this discussion.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Matt.

Hi, good morning.

Matt Sato, director of water resources and acting as the agency engineer uh for this item.

You know, I'm just gonna start by saying that this is not where we want to be.

We we don't want to have to be under a position of shutting off someone's water, cutting off someone's water from the service.

Um, this project is massive.

I mean, overall, all phases of the project.

We have over 3,000 connections in the art and service area, of which our staff has successfully worked with 20 over 2,500 people in connecting their homes.

This contractor on these phases has already connected over 1,200 people.

So this is not something new to us.

These issues that are being brought up, these are not new.

And so, you know, I'm I'm not gonna rehash.

Um, certainly, you've had a chance to review all the materials we've submitted.

We've gone through the issues, um, and I'm not gonna go through all those one by one, but I'll say this: that the the I think the biggest discrepancy we have here is that these are not engineering issues.

These are not geotechnical issues.

This is fairly minor construction.

This is something that again, you're using best construction practices to install this connection, service connection.

I do want to I do want to address two things though.

Two of the exhibits the Ms.

Hagman mentioned.

One of them was with the other property owner and showing the concrete.

Just want to give full context that that uh property owner had actually poured concrete over their connection to their home.

So, of course, in our inspection, reached out to them and let them know that that concrete, we're gonna have to take that part out in order to connect your house.

And there's some back and forth correspondence.

We're gonna do the best we can to match that concrete, the color, the age of the concrete.

You know, some of the things you're not gonna be able to overcome.

In the end, honestly, I think that's actually a pretty good example of how we work with property owners that would address issues on their property.

The other thing I want to address is the estimate that was given along with this is the supplemental materials by another contractor.

Uh it this is gonna be very hard for me to address.

This is not even an apples to apples comparison.

Just to give you full context, that estimate is looking at essentially going from our meter, and it creates a it is talking about constructing a manifold that would then split that off into four different pipes.

So now instead of taking one service line up to the property and then taking it to the ADU to the pool to the home, you're taking you're going from the meter and you're taking four pipes through there.

And so, yes, when you look at the the level of of difficulty and detail that goes into that, probably is gonna be very expensive.

That's not that's not standard construction practice.

I think you would find from any contractor would say why would you do that?

Why would you build a manifold there and then take four pipes up that direction?

That's just not standard.

So this is not really an even an apples apples comparison.

I can't speak to that, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have about any of the other items.

Great.

Thank you, Matt.

Any questions for yes, Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, I just had a question on the uh exhibit, and I'm probably gonna have a hard time finding it quickly.

Maybe it's the site map.

Yeah, there it is.

Uh option one, option two, option three, show different pathways to get back to the existing um lateral.

Correct.

Uh is there a reason why two of the options go back to the main point of connection existing, and the one of the options kind of intercepts that line between the existing connection and the house?

Yeah, absolutely.

So um, and this is just pretty typical when we work with property owners and we hear their concerns, we come up with different alternatives to try to address those concerns.

One of the concerns that the property owner had was with reverse flow.

So existing now, the flow goes from the back of the property and comes all the way down and splits off, goes to the ADU, goes to the pool, then gets the house.

And so if we were to try to connect from the path of the shortest path, you would essentially connect to the house, but then you'd be going reverse flow from the pipe from the house back up to the pool and to the ADU.

So one of the alternatives looked in and say, okay, well, let's go all the way back to the back of the property and to often go connect in where it was connecting, so the flow of water would be the same.

We provided another alternative though that looked at going a shorter path, and in the end, as of I think last week or the week before, we even offered saying, you know what, we'll even replace the pipe that goes from the house up to the ADU so that you don't have any reverse flow, you know, going through an old pipe through that section.

We've offered to take the old pipe section that would have reverse flow in another alternative and have the contractor flush that out to the best of their ability.

But if you have an old galvanized pipe that has sediment, either way, one way or the other, whether you're sending water one direction or the other, if it has sediment in there, it can become dislodged either way.

Um but we again tried to do a best practice, best our ability to address that concern.

And then uh this is my last question.

This is probably more into the details than we need to be.

But is the is this a slab foundation, a raised foundation?

Do we know is the plumbing in the slab or is it run overhead?

I'm sorry.

The for the house itself, is it a slab foundation with the plumbing in the slab, or is the plumbing run overhead, or is it a raised foundation?

It's a it's on a slab foundation, but I mean, as far as so a few things, right?

So we're um when we're talking about going near the house, give you an idea of the level, and you're probably aware of this, but we're taking a two-inch pipe, and we're gonna have to use a three-inch borehead through there, right?

And we're down, probably two, three feet in that range.

So you're boring, and you could be within probably two, no, no closer than two, but outside of two feet from the house's foundation.

So again, on a slab foundation or even a raise, that's not gonna make any difference on that foundation.

Sure, I guess what I'm exploring is whether or not there was an opportunity to run the connection to the front of the house and have it go up overhead.

Understood.

Um, I'm just basically making sure, and it sounds like you have exhausted every opportunity to try and figure out we have the front of the house.

Actually, it has a smaller connection or front, so you can't just run it to the front of the house.

I know you're saying possibly going overhead with it.

Um, but that's that's not really probably the best option of being able to take that water or the head loss of going overhead.

Sure.

And then coming back down.

Sure.

Okay.

But again, I think the main point here of our I think our disagreement is just that these are not things that we engineer, right?

As far as boring a line or even open trenching a line with a one foot or 18-inch wide trench that's down two feet, that's not something I'm gonna provide a plan and profile for.

That's something that we use best construction practices to install.

We've done that successfully for for over 2,500 people in the art and service area.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Welcome.

Okay, I believe that concludes uh everything that uh county council's office and staff have to share.

The appellant does have the opportunity to please uh come back up to the podium.

And if you have any final thoughts you'd like to share, you're certainly welcome to provide them.

Um I first want to say that this is the first time I'm hearing that it's a three-inch bore.

I've been told it's a one to one and a half.

I've also never been offered their option three.

That just showed up.

I was offered a different path that I presented to you guys in a schematic.

Um my main house foundation is raised, and the contractor that I was working with did say that you could come in through the front of the house and then come out through the other side of the house, and then go down the right-hand side to my ADU.

They said that they will not do that, or even consider that.

Um, and I think the issue here that's making it very confusing for everyone is the map that they are presenting, both to me and to you is missing items.

There is a uh legally permitted um mini barn that is not on that map.

There are uh 40 to 90 year old trees that are not on that map.

There are Oleanders that they are requesting to bore under that are not on that map.

There is, they've never offered to me that they would replace the pipe to eliminate reverse water flow that I'm hearing for the first time right now.

Um one of their plans would require reverse water flow, and plumbers have told me that that would create sediment breakoff that would clog my fixtures within my home over years and years and years.

Um, the other thing that's not accurate on that map is there is an easement that they would need to get to or bore under my shed to get to, which puts my um reconnection into the easement, and then there are encroachment laws on easements where I would not be able to maintain that line because I would be in close proximity to the public utilities, and there is a utility pole and a tree at the back corner of my shed that they couldn't without getting to where they want to connect, they would have the only way to avoid the spacing for those things would be to go underneath my shed or mini barn, which is not on that map.

So I would effectively not be able to maintain that section of the line without destroying my shed in the future.

Also, the county arborist said to me and provided uh instructions about how to preserve trees if I needed to do open cutting excavation in the future to maintain the line, and that essentially if the line is directly under the trees, I would most likely kill those trees if I needed to access it for maintenance in the future.

So my biggest complaint in this entire thing has been like the feasibility for me to maintain it in the future, and what would that cost me if there was a leak in that line?

And um they're maintaining that it is feasible, and a contractor and a county arborist have said it's not.

I then have asked for proof of why it's feasible, which they say this doesn't warrant any of those inspections.

However, a contractor who looked at this did say it warranted that if I wanted to protect my property for future maintenance, and then there's obviously the other issue at that there is an easement.

So the line that they want to bore, their first option, along that fence line is an easement in my neighbor's property that is specifically designed for utility installations, and I don't understand why they wouldn't use that easement.

That's a foot away, um, and put it on my side, and that easement, there are no trees, but in my easement or in my property, there is.

That they all three of those options that they've presented to you guys, are would directly go through underground sewer, water, sprinkler systems, drainage systems on my own property, and then also within the encroachment space of the easement next door on both easements.

There's one down the side, and then there's one on the back that's within my property line.

Floor is yours.

Well, I just I am asking you guys to reject the options that they have presented.

I I think I've spelled it out in my documents of what I'm asking.

I also believe that they're mischaracterizing the code that they're citing, um, saying that they don't have to provide me water.

Um I think there's the gap in there for when they are the ones initiating the change.

But that's up to a legal counsel to determine.

I just know that if I have to do this on my own, the quote is anywhere between 37,000 and 94,000 with additional add-ons if I want to put my property back to its original condition before this happens, and um and allow myself to have the ability to maintain it for the life of that land and any other owner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um, I'm gonna uh look to county council just so there's clarity in terms of um what our options are up here in terms of motions.

So uh I assume um to uh we could um reject the appeal.

We could um I guess well, you tell me technically, could we could we uh accept the appellants arguments and and do vote in a different direction?

Um I think we heard from Mr.

Burke that there is a November 3rd um uh date that is somewhat significant uh in terms of when the expect uh expected improvements would commence.

Correct, that's my understanding that um and um Mr.

Satow can.

So time is my point being is the time is that the issue.

Yes, the recommendation obviously by staff is to deny Miss Hagenman's appeal, uh, but the board can certainly, if it's their will to grant the appeal, and then um staff would have to work out um how to deal with that.

Um, and if the board does um deny the appeal, then there are a set of findings that um the board will need to make um in denying that appeal.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Uh we'll start with supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh my first question uh before Matt, maybe if you could just real quick.

Apologize, I'm trying to pull up those findings so that I have them in front of me.

Um what is the status of the contractor?

If if this were to get uh resolved prior to November 3rd, is there still an opportunity to have the work done and have the new connection made?

More than likely.

It's at this point, it's a little bit weather dependent.

So it's a critical path for a paving operation.

And so the paving operation, we need is weather dependent, right?

We need usually 50 to 55 degrees and rising in order to pay.

Yep.

So if weather permitting, we perhaps have a little bit of time beyond that.

So if the decision's made and we're able to come to agreement on alignment, yes, we can get out there and reconnect without a loss of service.

Okay.

And so I I guess what I'm asking then is the good faith offer still exists from now until kind of the point of no return.

Correct.

Okay, correct.

And just so you know, in your board package with the correspondence uh to and from uh Miss Hagman, um the offer was made.

Um all those alternatives were disclosed, and the offer was made in there.

Very good.

I appreciate that.

Um where would I find those findings?

Do they need to be enumerated or can I just reference them?

They're attached.

They're attached to the board uh agenda.

They were late attached, I believe, yesterday, um, and you do not need to enumerate them, you can just reference them in your motion.

Very good.

Thank you.

Um, Ms.

Hagman, I I feel for you.

Uh our homes are potentially the largest investment we make.

Um, obviously, home ownership comes with it a lot of uh responsibilities and um and unknowns.

Um it invokes private property rights and uh castle doctrines and things, you know, depending on which state you live in.

I've built many homes in my career.

Uh I have uh owned my home for over a decade.

Um I can probably count on one hand, if that much, the amount of times people need to get in to do maintenance on a water supply line.

Uh sewer is a completely different issue, but that's not what we're talking about here today.

So I am going to make a motion to deny your appeal, but I'm going to strongly advise you to take us up on our offer to make that connection.

And you're gonna just have to take good faith that that work is going to be done and that you won't have to worry about it anymore.

But if you choose not to take that path, November 3rd, you're gonna be on the hook for a pretty big bill to get water back to your house.

So you have um I think uh objected as much as you possibly can.

So I'm hoping that you will take the county up on its offer to uh make this connection uh for you.

Okay, so with that chair, I I move to deny the boo.

I second that.

Okay, we have a motion and a second, any further discussion, seeing none, please vote.

And that does pass unanimously.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Next item, please.

Item number sixty-one is to approve an authorized submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 2026 one-year action plan for the community development block grant, CDBG, home investment partnerships, home and emergency solutions grant, ESG funded projects and programs amendment of prior years action plan.

With entitlement jurisdictions for home activities, author officerizing amendments to the SHRA home repair program guidelines and authorized replacing 1.9 million in affordable housing fund and home funds with 1.9 million and CDBG revolving loan funds for the previously approved South Sacramento Motel 6 LC Home Keep Plus Project.

Thank you.

Uh good morning.

My name is Stephanie Green.

I'm the federal programs manager at SHRA.

And today we're asking you to approve the 2026 annual action plan for HUD formula program grants administered by SHRA on behalf of the county.

Previously, this year we had two workshops where we discussed the amount of available funding eligibility for projects, and then we presented a draft list of projects.

So today we're asking you to approve that final list of projects and activities.

So as a high-level overview, um, in order to receive these grant uh entitlement grant funds from HUD, we're required to submit a consolidated plan every five years, which for this current one we approved last year, and then annually we have you we approve an annual action plan, which is what we're asking you to do today, and that action plan um identifies the specific activities that will be undertaken to meet the goals identified in that five-year consolidated plan.

The home investment partnerships program or home funds, those are used for multifamily rehab and construction for affordable housing, and then emergency solutions grant, ESG, which is used to assist persons at risk of or experiencing homelessness.

This is through rapid rehousing or emergency shelters.

So before I move on to what we're recommending for funding in 2026, I wanted to take a moment to provide an update on some accomplishments from 2025.

So these are a few infrastructure and public facilities projects that we completed or on track to complete this year.

This includes the Rio Linda LED Streetlights Project, the 44th Street bicycle pedestrian and lighting improvements, South Sacramento Affordable Housing Pedestrian Improvements, the South Oak Park Fruit Ridge Pocket ADA improvements, and the Mather Community Campus Roof Project.

And for accomplishments for public services, we fund a variety of programs.

This slide provides an estimate of the number of people and households that will be served in 2025.

The programs includes meals to seniors through the Meals on Wheels program, homeless and housing assistance through rapid rehousing, home repair programs, which include SHRA's home repair program as well as rebuilding together, and then operational funding for shelters.

Looking forward to 2026, I'll go over the estimated entitlements for the various funding sources, the proposed allocations by funding category, and then what we're proposing to fund this year with CDBG.

So this slide shows what we anticipate receiving from HUD for each funding source, and this is an estimate based on previous year's allocations.

These numbers include entitlement funding as well as reprogrammed funds from previous years capital reserves, program income, which is income we receive from past CDBG loans.

And so, for example, for CDBG, six million is our estimated entitlement, plus 125,000 reprogrammed from past capital reserve, and then 1.9 million of program income from loan repayments, which equals that 8 million 25 that you see on the screen.

So overall, we're anticipating receiving about 12.3 million in funding this year or in 2026.

This table shows the proposed allocations by category for CDBG.

This includes infrastructure and public facility improvements, housing development and home ownership.

This is allocated to multifamily rehab and the home repair programs.

And this line item also includes that 1.9 million in program income we mentioned in the last slide, which is proposed to be used for a home key project.

Next is public services.

This includes our Meals on Wheels program and our shelters.

Grant planning and admin, this is used for staffing and our fair housing programs, and the agreement cities, which are non-entitlement cities within the urban county that we receive and administer entitlement funds for.

So in addition to our infrastructure projects, the other two main categories we fund in our action plan are housing activities and public services.

And as mentioned for CDBG, we propose funding meals on wheels, the Mether Community Campus Shelter, the home repair programs, multifamily rehab, and fair housing.

For ESG, we're proposing to fund rapid rehousing and shelters.

And then home includes the rehab and new construction of multifamily housing.

And this year, as part of our action plan approval, we're also asking you to approve changes to our SHRA home repair program guidelines.

This program receives funding to provide emergency home repair assistance to very low-income homeowners.

To qualify for the program, the homeowner must be income qualified.

The property must be owner occupied and in need of repair that meets the criteria, and we receive applications currently in the summer and the winter.

You'll see the outcomes of these programs over the past two years on the slide.

The reasons why some of these applications do not result in grants is because either the applicant did not live in the eligible area, the city or unincorporated county, the repairs were not eligible, the applicant was over income, or there were insufficient funds remaining for that applicant because of prior work that was done under the program.

So, in order to improve program accessibility, we're requesting authorization to amend the program guidelines to increase the maximum grant amount to 10,000 per property, expand eligible accessibility improvements, extend or expand application windows to include year-round availability as funding permits, and these changes will enhance the program's responsiveness to community needs and ensure continued support.

So this concludes my presentation.

Great, thank you.

I do have one question.

How uh frequent or um with the history of uh applicants going through the trouble of putting together an application without a clear understanding of the especially the income, the area income restrictions, uh, and then they find out kind of late in the process, or you know, or not that uh that that was something that was missed.

Um I'm not sure exactly on the frequency.

I don't think it happens very often.

Uh, we have pretty clear guidelines when people submit their applications, and then we have people available to assist when people are um submitting applications as well.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Uh any questions for staff from my colleagues seeing none, okay.

Thank you.

Uh, ma'am clerk, do we have any members of the public sign or speak on this?

We do not share.

Okay.

Um, then at this point, I would uh entertain a motion.

We need, yeah, we need to approve and authorized.

I'll go ahead and move the recommended action.

Okay, Chair will second.

Please vote.

And that item passes unanimously with those members present.

Next item, please.

Item number 62 is the workshop on the semi-annual homeless outcomes report.

Good morning, Chair Cerna members of the board.

I'm Emily Halkin, the director of your department of homeless services and housing, and I'm here today with uh Tim Lutz, who will be sharing parts of the presentation.

As you know, I do a biannual report to you on the work that we're doing collectively to prevent and end homelessness throughout the county.

This report is a companion to the biannual report on the city-county's partnership agreement, which is attached to your board letter as attachment three.

The city of Sacramento will be hearing this item tonight.

I'm not gonna focus much on the city activities, but just wanted to lift up that we continue to work closely with the city of Sacramento, have achieved all of the outcomes of the city-county partnership agreement, and continue to work really closely with them on improving outcomes.

Um, today I'm gonna focus on three things.

First, um, the outcomes of our outreach efforts in the unincorporated county, including the parkway.

Um, Tim will then talk a little bit about our behavioral health services and how his team connects with our homeless outreach and sheltering activities.

And then, as I do typically in the fall, share our annual accounting of investments in homeless programs and services through the county budget.

So, as you know, the county holds primary responsibility for outreach and engagement with people who are living unsheltered in the entirety of the unincorporated county as well as our parkway system.

We do partner with the other cities in various ways, as you know, in some of the cities we hold a contract on their behalf, and some it's a more informal relationship, but we do partner with all of the cities as well.

The county's approach in the unincorporated area remains to have our outreach teams do really intensive work and do what we call case carrying, those folks who are living unsheltered in the county.

We recognize that it takes time and effort to build rapport with the people living outside, and we want to work really closely with them to identify the most appropriate services.

And so this slide details the three general ways that we provide outreach.

We do proactive outreach into encampments that are identified either by staff, by you or your offices, by colleagues in other departments throughout the county.

We do do response-driven outreach as requested from the sheriff, the rangers, or other county partners.

For example, if the Department of Transportation is doing some roadway work and needs some assistance, we will provide that.

And then, especially in the more suburban areas of the county, we do an office hour approach, which has proven to be very, very effective, creating known locations for folks in those areas to come and meet our outreach teams on a regular basis.

This has been pretty consistent for the past couple of years.

Additionally, staffing has remained pretty consistent.

As you know, we partner with community healthworks or COHIWO to provide most of the contracted outreach throughout the county.

This report, which covers the first six months of this calendar year, we had 22 contracted workers through COHIWO.

We also have four dedicated team members from the behavioral health heart team, and we also work very closely with the social workers from the Department of Human Assistance who often co-deploy with us as well.

So you can see here this shows generally how staff have been distributed over the first six months.

I do want to note that moving into this year's contract, which was effective July 1st.

We have changed this slightly to be a little bit more flexible so that if there's not as many requests for service on the parkway, for example, we can redeploy folks to other parts of the county.

This slide shows some of the basic general demographics of the people who are enrolled in our outreach program anytime between January and June.

This generally tracks with what we've seen and also generally aligns with what we're seeing in our general homeless population.

So nothing new here, but as you can see, we continue to have a split between females and males.

It tends to trend more towards males slightly.

Our population tends to be more on the adult side, that makes a lot more sense.

And as we've talked about in the past, you know, the aging of the population, we are seeing that both in our shelters and in our outreach efforts.

So in the first six months of this year, as you can see here, our outreach teams, the COHIWO outreach teams, had 771 unique individuals enrolled in outreach services.

We've talked about this in past times when I've been here.

This only includes those folks who are actively enrolled in services.

So if our teams go up to somebody and offer services and they don't engage, don't offer identifying information, those people would not be captured here.

However, we will continue to engage and to try to enroll them.

So it's a little bit of an iterative number as it as we work.

Importantly here, though, I want to lift up, you can see that for those six months with those 770 people, we provided over 31,000 services, and this averages to 40 services per person.

I do want to note this is something that we really um lift up and hold as an important component.

Um this uh demonstrates the case carrying approach and the depth of services that we attempt to provide.

This rate of services has been increasing over the past three reporting periods, and this really underscores I think both the vulnerability and complexity of needs that we're seeing, as well as our commitment to to sort of sticking with people to try to find a pathway out of unsheltered homelessness, and then most importantly, with this intensity of support, you can see that in those six months, just through the outreach efforts, 203 people successfully moved out of unsheltered homelessness.

That includes folks going into our shelter system, of course.

It would include folks going into treatment, but it also said it does include some folks who move directly into permanent housing.

Excuse me, Emily.

Vice Chair Rodriguez.

Emily, do you have the cost per person for those six months?

Those 771 people that had almost um a little over 31,000 services.

You mean just for the outreach contract?

I don't have it to my things, but I will get that to you.

So we do know the cost, obviously, of our contract for Kohiwo, and and so we could come up with a six month cost and divide that.

Certainly, we can get that to you.

With that, I'm gonna turn it over to Tim who's gonna talk about behavioral health connections.

Then I'll come back to talk about some of our county investments.

Great, thank you.

Thank you, Emily.

Good morning, um, chair, members of the board.

So um I'm really happy to say what what we're seeing in the data is a much greater what I'll characterize as a maturing of our services and behavioral health to the unsheltered population.

And I and I say maturing because we're seeing better referrals across our entire system, not just coming from certain single points that we were um needing to focus a lot of energy on.

And we're also seeing a better overall outcome for referrals linkages to services that early on when our heart teams were heavily engaged with a lot of um individuals in encampments on the streets, it was just really really hard to get a better level of engagement.

I I think based on some of those shifts, we're we're seeing more of that bearing out in the information.

So the these two columns are representing really um two different sources of referrals coming in.

So behavioral health referral and linkages are the referrals that are coming in through other parts of our behavioral health system.

Could be core centers, could be coming into our access line, could be coming from our community partners like cities, where that referral comes to behavioral health, and then our team engages with them, seeing um 1,569 referrals, and of those um just about 70 percent were successfully linked to services again, really, really um strong um transition from that referral to that linkage on our community-based teams, and then heart specifically 1,612 outreach and engagement attempts, and then 320 though that represents that's an unduplicated number, so that is 320 individuals that were referred to behavioral health services, and I'll say within that just because I I see the greater SAC and then all others.

I'll I'll give you guys better context to that so you understand kind of where those are um those are coming from.

So about 36% of those is um city, so we would attribute to city-county partnership.

Um there's five percent from that greater Sacramento, but importantly, that's that's kind of a residual number.

So 30 about 36% of them are coming from our shelters, so that shelters in the city or in county unincorporated.

And then about 24% of them coming from community-based referrals.

That goes back to my comment on come to a core center, a city.

Um, so it's not um of that 320, about 36% we would attribute to like partnership agreement directly.

The rest of them is going to be on both city and unincorporated individuals based on where they're coming from.

So I recognize that could be a little confusing, so I just wanted to provide some clarity in the future as I was going through this.

I thought, you know, we could probably present this a little a little more focused on that, and we'll work on that breakdown.

So, wanna highlight some of the housing projects that behavioral health has been working on.

Right now we have 18 housing developments, total of 461 units, and then we expect to bring online 85 additional units in those existing locations.

So it's converting them from another payer source to funded by behavioral health.

We also have five developments in process that are various stages of construction for another 115 units.

In total, after the completion of that through 2027, we expect to see 23 housing developments that behavioral health has beds in or units in for a total of 661 units within the county.

And then I also want to highlight our behavioral health bridge housing, that BHBH.

That is something that came online this year.

We had 172 clients that were served in BHBH.

22% of those so far have been discharged to housing, and we're seeing better outcomes as we learn through that program, get people ready for transitioning to other types of housing.

And then finally, just to note, full service partnerships are one of those areas that continues to come up, we know, and that is the whatever it takes approach will wrap services around those individuals, our most intensive level of service, outside of a you know acute residential setting.

And so right now we are contracted for 3,071 FSP program spots and serving 2,913, so about 95% of capacity, which is where we normally like to be.

Um, but we don't want to pay for capacity that we're not using at this point.

And um if you look at a breakdown during that reporting time of those FSPs, 73% were in housing, 14% were in shelters or bridge housing, and 9% um were homeless but on process toward um getting a placement, getting them housing or shelter ready.

And that concludes my comments.

I can hand it back to Emily.

Thank you.

Uh, before you leave, Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

And I apologize if this was contained in that data.

I didn't pick up on it directly.

Explain to me back on the slide that was the BHS referrals versus heart, and the BHR referrals did not include heart.

How do uh is that BHS making direct contact outside of heart or some other um?

Yeah, so they could come into our core center, um, like we have our wellness centers within core.

They could be then a referral in for um services, and we're identifying the fact that they are unhoused.

So we're we're doing better tracking.

Before we knew a lot of times people were coming into our system, we didn't necessarily have a clear track of this person's unsheltered.

Now we're doing much better tracking of that and seeing kind of those access points.

And when we're working with cities, they'll make referrals into um behavioral health based on um who they encounter in the field and asking for support.

Um also if they call into our access line um to um receive services, that's where we also um will identify the fact that if they're unhoused.

Not to say some of them might have been calling before.

Right now we're just being more deliberate about if if we're serving this population, what suite of services do we want to make sure that we're gonna offer and recognize um they're unhoused.

And so would it be safe to assume then that because of the how the the contact of the referral was initiated is why there seems to be so much more, a greater percentage of those in individuals get that referral or linkage as opposed to uh heart where it's more proactive of going out and trying to.

Yeah, I think that is fair.

Typically, those are people that are coming in looking for services, so we are gonna see a higher percentage of people who are motivated to engage um in treatment just by nature of how they're coming in.

Clearly, not all of them are, but um it does give us an idea of kind of a baseline and to work from there.

Great.

And then last question on the almost 70% that uh were connected to services.

Do we have a definition of what would be a positive outcome of that connection and uh do we have data that tracks how many of those folks um you know where services have had a positive impact?

You know, positive outcomes.

I mean, first and foremost for some individuals it's agreeing to treatment.

And so that certainly is a key positive outcome.

Um I think we could probably parse through data of does somebody in stay engaged six months a year.

Um other certainly outcomes that we'd want to see is if somebody's like unhoused, what are the barriers to housing and are we able to overcome that?

Um, some of which behavioral health can can help with um with support.

Some of it requires some of our other CBO partners to support, but that certainly would be a long-term good outcome.

Um, we haven't necessarily done a longitudinal review of it like that, um, but that's something we can look at and try and see what measures we can put in place to kind of reflect that.

I think as a you know, a review of efficacy, it's probably a worthy endeavor.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Vice Chair Rodriguez.

Tim, on the following page where it says um permanent supported housing dedicated to BHS, is not all permanent supportive housing dedicated to BHS.

That's a that's a great nuance of the words.

I was just saying do you want to?

Because it sounds like it that this particular PSH is dedicated to behavioral health, but uh I'm under the impression that all permanent supportive housing is dedicated to behavioral health.

However, some individuals in PSH can opt out of getting the services.

Yeah, I think uh the nuance here, so all permanent supportive housing by definition serves folks who are exiting homelessness and have one or more disabilities.

It does not have to be a behavioral health disability.

Um this is the number of units that I think are funded directly through the behavioral health system.

Um as a system, Shivan and I were just looking up.

We have about 4,500 units of permanent supportive housing.

A lot of these are nestled within a larger project.

So, for example, um a built project like the seventh and H1 right here.

I believe there's a handful of units that are dedicated MHSA units that were funded in partnership.

The balance are have a voucher as the permanent subsidy, might have a community-based organization like Lutheran Social Services providing intensive case management.

So I don't think it I think that it's sort of both and like the folks in the non-behavioral health units probably have behavioral health needs and and may receive some outpatient treatment, but they weren't funded by virtue of the behavioral health funding.

And you do not have you could have another disability and be in in permanent supportive housing, it does not have to be behavioral health.

I think the predominant disability probably is, but it does not have to be.

Well, um, what would be examples of other type of disabilities?

Um, well, it could be physical disabilities.

Um, there can be um there could be learning disabilities, but I mean I think it's physical disabilities and behavioral health are are probably the predominant ones.

We can do a little bit of pulling apart if that's of interest.

Um, you know, my I think even the units that aren't dedicated by behavioral health, probably like we see even in our non-behavioral health shelter beds, there's a likelihood that people still present with behavioral health needs, right?

Yeah, I just think people with physical disabilities can live.

Um, you know, I I'm gonna go back to PSA.

PSH is the most expensive part, and uh most of the so much of the funding that goes into this housing.

But people with physical disabilities can live in a non-PSH housing, so uh to me, it leaves me wondering why do why is physical disability a qualifying factor for a type of housing that truly is the probably one of the biggest bottlenecks right now in terms of moving people you know from street shelter into shelter into some kind of permanent supportive housing that they can stabilize their conditions, whereas somebody with a physical disability uh probably or may not be able to stabilize their physical disabilities.

And so uh my question is why are we why do we hold up PSH the most costly for somebody for where we can house them elsewhere or you know maybe uh helps help get them into a housing that isn't going to take up a space for somebody that's uh from homelessness all the way up to shelter to permanent supportive housing.

So it just saves me with that question.

I understand your question for sure, and we don't hold units based on different disability types, um, and I think there's a difference between eligibility and then like who's actually in the unit.

So what I'd like to do is work with SSF to provide maybe a deeper cut.

I'm I am imagining that even though physical disability alone could be a qualifying condition, more than likely because we also look at level vulnerability, is it it's it's probably more likely that we're seeing co-occurring disabilities where you might have a more moderate behavioral health issue as well as a physical disability, maybe a chronic disease.

Um but we can look at that because I I certainly understand uh what you're asking.

I think the other thing we can look at is there's PSH, which is built, like the the what you're referring to, a lot of these really um great but expensive new built projects.

We also have a lot of PSH which is in community through rental subsidies, and so you don't have that same capital outlay of funds.

And so I think maybe we can do a little bit uh of work to to sort of lay out sort of how people present in these different types of PSH models.

Um because I'm I'm assuming, but I I think it's fair to ask, and we we should look more deeply at who actually is staying in PSH.

Thank you.

Supervisor Kenny.

Thank you, Chair.

Um on the BHPH while you're on that slide, uh, couple things.

One is the 248 total beds that we currently have, those are uh a variety of kinds of beds, from tiny homes to apartments to I mean kind of a whatever it takes position, right?

You're talking about for the permanent supportive housing.

No, the BHBH beds.

I'm sorry, yes, yeah.

Typically, um, so those are a mix of yeah, safe safe stay beds, so tiny homes, um some sober living beds and facilities.

Yeah, that is a mix of different types of um of beds.

Great.

Uh and then just so that I'm clear on the and then it says down here total BHBH after completion 327 beds.

So BHBH, sorry, I thought I should know this.

The um the funding stream.

How long is it?

Is it uh is it a one?

Is that 27?

Yeah, so that's through 2027.

Um, and keep it in mind, part of the title bridge bridge housing is actually aimed toward um Prop 1 b BHSA comes online.

So already what we're looking at is um a transition then for those BHBH investments into um Prop one.

Okay, so it'll transition to I don't know that that's really what the bridge is meant, but it works.

So good analogy.

Uh so it'll transition.

What I'm saying, I'm getting at is uh it's the funding is not gonna dry up in 2027.

We're gonna have other funding to to backfill it, and we're not gonna lose these beds.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, um thank you.

Uh I do have uh a couple questions here.

The uh the 50 additional, I'm now looking at the behavioral behavioral health bridge housing uh portion of the slide where it says 50 additional safe stays uh between the balance of this year and next.

Uh the where the it says 50, so um that that is not including what?

That is including what that is including what that is assuming the 50 beds that would be coming on that we would be funded with BHBH and what have so it's a fraction of watts total built out.

Yeah, okay.

Um right, I'm glad I asked the question because I was a little confused there.

Uh and then in the other side of the slide under permanent supportive housing, the where it says future developments um over the next year and a half or so.

Um is that five new housing developments, the total unit count of which is 115 new units?

No, it's five developments, and within those five, there are 115 additional specific to behavioral health permanent supportive housing units.

Right.

I thought that's what I said.

Okay, sorry, I didn't know if you wanted to know like five total, I don't know how many total units are each of those facilities.

So, yes, that 115 is just um of those five units and behavioral health.

Very good, thank you.

Okay, Emily.

Okay.

So the behavioral health and outreach services that we've just spent a little bit of time on are only obviously two parts of much larger investments that the county has been making in homelessness annually.

And so this is the third uh time that we have brought this to you, where we take a look back at the previous fiscal year, so this is fiscal year 24 25 to account for the variety of programs and activities related to homelessness that flow through the county budget directly.

And so, as you can see here, um last fiscal year, we estimate that the county budgeted almost 277.5 million dollars towards activities um addressing homelessness in very a variety of ways.

Um important 39 million or about 14 percent was one time capital costs.

This is related to the construction primarily of the Watt Safe Stay, but a few others.

So those are um those will come and go as capital projects come and go.

Um, and also the majority of the service of these funds are contracted out into our community through our CBO contracts.

About 55 percent of that important in this slide, which shows the four very high level um types of funding, um, as you can see, about 18% of the funds in last year's budget um were ARPA funds, and others which include some of those in the state pie piece like HAP are not ongoing funding programs, and so as we are looking out to future budget years, especially as it relates to some of the significant investments you've made and in safe stays and other programs with a lot of these one-time fundings um coupled with some potential reductions in federal programs.

Um, we're gonna need to work with the board to address some of the ongoing costs to continue to provide the really rich and deep services that you've committed to in our homeless program.

So I'm looking forward to deeper conversations with you as we approach the budget time.

Um, and then finally, I just want to point out um that these four pieces, as you all know, um but for the public are very generalized, and within each of these pie pieces are a variety of actual funding programs, many of which are non-discretionary, so not things that we can sort of easily lift and shift.

Uh, before you leave the slide.

Yep.

Oh, wasn't fast enough there.

Sorry.

Um, I just want to take the opportunity with this slide uh up to also, and thank you for kind of the disclaimer you just offered, uh Emily.

I think when we had our briefing, I think I had mentioned that.

So I appreciate you reiterating it.

Um, but one of the things that uh the media and sometimes uh general public um likes to do is some very simple math, which is take, you know, a figure like almost 300 million dollars, and say, well, then how many safe state units or permanent supportive housing units or all of them uh all types, the whole continuum of units, and they say, Oh my gosh, they wave their hands in the air and say, Oh, it's costing us, you know, a quarter million dollars per person to you know take care of the homeless, quote unquote.

Um, but this this whole the entirety of the pie here, this is not just um sheltering.

This is, in fact, I would argue a lot of it isn't.

Um a lot of it is the service provision, it's the behavioral health service provision, it's the mental health service provision, it's drug and alcohol, it's um uh costs associated with administration of general services.

It's so it's a lot of uh different component parts, and it should not be misconstrued, and is certain, you know, at least in my opinion, should not be mistaken for some uh opportunity for you know a investigative reporter somewhere to somewhere to say, Oh my gosh, the county is spending this extraordinary amount of of money just on these little safe state units, correct?

Correct, and actually you are foreshadowing the next slide, which which shows that exactly.

So this uh shows the um investments or the allocations by the type of investment.

And so you can see on the far left, the biggest is sheltering at interim, but again, keep in mind this year's this budget year includes a significant capital investment for what, and so it's it's not the ongoing cost for for our shelters.

Right.

But if you took if you took everything to the right of the the tall blue and combine that, um sheltering actually would be less, correct?

It would, yes, if you mathematically, and and the next two largest investment types, the orange and the green, are exactly what you were pointing to.

These really represent the cost of a lot of the social safety net services, such as behavioral health, such as our assistance programs that run through DHA, that are critical both to homeless prevention, as I think we talked about, Chair Cerna, but they also are critical services to help folks as they exit homelessness, and so this is exactly the type of social safety net service that the county provides to all constituents.

This is the cut of the share of those funds that are going to folks as they are engaging with the homeless system of care.

And as you all know, most of those funds are not discretionary and couldn't be used, for example, to build a new shelter or something.

Supervisor Kenny.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, just while we're talking about funding and and as the chair pointed out, the public likes it real simple and they like it real fast and up to date.

So how um how dynamic are we on keeping these numbers up to date how so that so that we know when we're dealing with the public, just as an example, number 34 on the consent calendar day was another 1.9 million dollars.

Is that included in here?

It is not.

So we've currently we're doing this once a year as a look back to the previous fiscal year.

I do appreciate that that this is dynamic in changes, and so you know, as we improve our, and I say collectively, all the departments have become really, really good at getting us this information.

Um we we can look at that, but right now it is it is updated once a year.

And the other thing, and this is just an overall statement.

You've heard me say before when we collect the these numbers, I hope that um we're really there are so many things that we spend money on that are benefit our efforts to address homelessness.

Uh I mean it's across the board in so many departments, and I just hope that we're capturing as much as we possibly can and not just those things.

Because there's some ancillary um uh expenses that do if you looked at the budget line item, it wouldn't necessarily scream out to you homeless.

Yes, but it directly impacts and directly impacts our efforts for the homeless.

So I hope that I I'm trying not to say let's be creative because that's not what I mean, but but let's you know, keep an open mind as to what is actually going to homeless and not necessarily just the direct expense going to homeless.

No, I I appreciate that, and we've worked really closely with the departments that are outside social service agency.

I think a good example of that is some of our municipal services, so like DOT and water resources, and we work closely with their staff.

They're not providing homeless services, but when they're going out into a waterway to do cleanup, and so we've worked with them on how to you know estimate the the sort of most for the most of it, it's staff time, maybe some equipment and whatnot.

So we are, I think every year we're getting a little bit better, and the departments have been really great at being responsive to that.

And if there's a actually it's the next one that's the department one, um, we can dig in with you on any of the the levels if if you're interested in sort of understanding what projects have fed each of these.

And that's that's exactly what I was getting at.

Thank you.

Great.

So this is fine.

Oh, go ahead.

No, it's okay.

Vice Chair Rodriguez.

Um, no, you know, I was gonna just respond to you know, Stern.

I actually really do appreciate when people do question the amount of money going into homelessness because what we've seen at the state level are have been sort of a failure to um, and that was I identified through an audit.

And when you look at what um counties are doing, I mean, there are many counties in the state of California that cannot account for funding spent on homelessness.

So I I I do I appreciate when somebody comes to me and says, Well, I want to understand some of the funding that goes into homelessness, but I just want to make sure one thing so of the 277 million dollars, and if I take the pick count number, that's about 6,500.

And it equals about 42,000 per homeless.

Are there numbers that I miss are there figures that I'm not including that should be included in that, or is that a fair um figure?

I I would I would caution you against doing that high-level math.

And and part of the reason is is as I said, so some of these costs, like especially behavioral health and the programs that run through DHA, those are um social services that we provide regardless of housing status.

It just happens that you know, this number of folks receiving CalFresh are experiencing homelessness, so we we include that here.

And so we would I think we would as a county continue to provide that um as people go in and out of homelessness.

Um I think that maybe the more accurate would be if you're trying to get to that high level might be what flows through my department's budget, because we are the only department that's exclusively doing um services related to homelessness, but uh and my budget is about six this year is about sixty million dollars.

Um I think that as a little foreshadowed to next week's joint meeting, we are going to try to we are going to lift up to you to look at the collective amount that goes not just through our budget but the continuum of care um and the various cities.

I think the other challenge is that the point in time count is a point in time, right?

Um, and so even though our point in time count last year was around or two years ago was just over 6,000 folks on an annualized basis, that probably is about 20,000 people who experience homelessness on at least one night.

And so it is a very challenging I certainly understand the the interest in in having that sort of baseline number, but the the population shifts so much, as Supervisor Kennedy said our investments shift so much.

Um so what I would, you know, and I think we're committed to working with our partners on this, is more comparing the costs that were the outputs that we're caught that we are directly providing to homeless programs like shelters and rehousing against the cost of folks not receiving those services, and that's also very very difficult.

But there have been national studies, and in 2017, we did a little version here in Sacramento of the extensive cost to the community when people live outside.

That's law enforcement, health care, you know, all the things and virtually all the studies show that people living unsheltered is is much more expensive to the community than people receiving services.

That being said, I don't think we just can rest on that.

We need to make, and I think part of your point is how can we streamline some of the costs that we are putting into services?

Um but I would hesitate to just do that sort of top line division because there's so much behind here about what these services are.

So sorry for the long way.

Okay, thank you.

I just want to respond before since my name was incited.

Um I I did not suggest that uh folks should not ask about their taxpayer dollars and how their taxpayer dollars are being used for homeless services.

I want to be clear.

I think my point was just made that what I don't appreciate is the simple math that gets applied.

Um and then conclusions are made about that, and then you know, we get blamed for you know uh everything under the sun when uh it takes just a little more time to understand the complexities of a very dynamic challenge, which this is I would argue it's the most dynamic that we have in front of us as local government, and in terms of the point in time, um, it's a lousy, terrible metric, and I've said this for years, terrible metric for just coming to a conclusion about the pure volume of number of homeless in our community.

In fact, it's not designed to do that, it's designed to collect attributes and information about the circumstance and character of the homeless population.

It is a survey instrument, not designed by local government, it's a survey instrument designed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

And so that's why again I get your sensing frustration my voice, is because everyone out there, besides five members of the board, it seems at times, likes to put so much stock into that number when I just think it's uh really um waste of time.

Um, yes, it gives us one aspect of of understanding what you know is counted on any given night, but let's remember that given night could have uh stormy weather that given night uh compared to a given night two years ago could have half the volunteers.

So it's a terrible, terrible uh metric, but yet uh, you know, local media especially, just you know, likes to run with the story about what that number is and avoids uh what what the true value of it is, which is understanding the nature and circumstance of uh the homeless population and the reason the federal government wants that information, rightfully so, is so that uh our uh return of federal resources, federal dollars, is to the best of their ability, somewhat customized to the nature of um our our homeless conditions here.

So I just want to make that clear.

Supervisor Rodriguez.

So I I uh like first let me talk about the pit count.

I've always said, and we live in we live in the state of California where we have the best techies living throughout all of California, and the fact that we haven't been able to come up with something more substantial to identify those who are in house, still, you know, um it's very um uh you know perplexing.

Um secondly, if people want those numbers, why can't we get those numbers?

Yeah, I can I mean we are we are a very data-driven county, and if people are looking to to be able to obtain some of this data, what are the pain points in being able to identify those numbers so that we don't have to do these high-level guesstimations?

Uh and so uh that is one thing that I hope that in next week's um retreat um that we can identify some metrics that are that are uh uh more uh that the public will be able to understand at a higher level uh than what we are presenting here and providing because people will create the figures and their minds if we don't give them that data, and so um that's just my only point.

Yeah, I agree with with the both of you, and I think um maybe a little preview for next week is you know, I um the point in time count certainly comes with its challenges.

We are doing another one in January, so look forward to working with you.

But that being said, our continuum of care along with the county and the city have been working to try to get a more um up-to-date and regular reporting of just the raw count of folks and SSF has published a very, very high-level dashboard that sort of says the inflow and outflow.

Um keep in mind though, we only know the people who are engaged in service.

So it sort of continues to present this issue of the point in time kind of is intended to bridge that gap of people known to us versus people that we visually see.

It is all imperfect, but I definitely would appreciate as somebody who will be um with you on the 20th.

It's getting that kind of direction of of what is most important.

How can we present this in a way because even just this, this is just what's flowing through the county budget.

So this isn't including, for example, we've heard from SHRA, who's an amazing partner in delivering housing.

Their budget is not here.

There's other partners who I think bring to the table services that aren't necessarily accounted for.

I mean, you know, I just want to clarify I'm not talking about the pick count, I'm talking about the figures related to the cost of homelessness.

That's so I just want to make sure I clarify that.

Understood, thank you.

And we are making attempt, you will see.

I think the materials are already published, so it's not a secret.

We did um combine the county's data with the city, the COC, and so there is a much higher level number.

Um the county's budget is the most complex, and so we tried to sort of put the square pegs of the cities into our round holes of the county budget, and so it's it's our first attempt, and definitely look forward to your input on that next week or even leading up.

I think the materials are available now.

So just finally, uh, this final slide.

I think we've already talked about this as well.

I think some of you lifted this up.

This uh cuts those investments by the departments within the county.

Um, this should also align with expectations.

You know how our departments run and how big we are.

As you can see, the two largest social service departments, health services and human assistance, um, have the bulk of the investments.

Again, this is by virtue of the fact that they're administering all of these um safety net and benefit programs.

So, for example, the DHA budget is as a large amount of CalFresh dollars and cow works dollars going to homeless uh individuals.

Um, my department is the third largest, uh, that is the entirety of our budget.

We have the easiest job here, and then as you can see, department of general services is likely to always show up on this cut.

Um, but this year, because they provide such critical facility support in all of our programs, but this year they're quite high up again because most of the budget for the Watt project was encapsulated in this year's or last year's budget.

So that concludes my comments.

I'm happy to take any other questions or comments from any of you.

Great.

Thank you, Emily.

Thanks again for your tolerance of our.

I love it.

I'm looking for it's yeah, uh, and I too am uh very much looking forward to uh next week's um joint meeting.

So uh Mr.

Villanueva.

Yes, supervisor, thank you.

Emily didn't mention it, but we have released uh the agenda and both on the city and the county's um websites and for the next uh October 28th meeting uh to discuss this also as a region and also um our PIOs have worked with all the cities to start doing the release of information and media stories.

So thank you.

Thank you for that David.

And uh I know that our um interim uh clerk of the board and our registrars and in the audience, and I um wanna again thank you, Hank, for um all that you've been uh assisting with for uh feels like months now, and certainly to uh Shabon as well and Emily and David uh and to Nicole and others uh putting together what I've learned so far, and uh you know, we'll see how it goes uh next week, but uh I trust it's gonna go well uh putting together a joint meeting with uh you know our largest city and the six mayors of the suburban cities and the five members of the board of supervisors.

It's not an easy thing to do, and there's a lot of moving parts to it, but um I think the time is right, and I'm really um very um glad that I have uh the opportunity to work with this particular team to um to get us where we need to be to be as prepared uh to uh have a very robust I think uh discussion and uh informative one for the public and uh for those that we serve uh both those sheltered and unsheltered.

So I think to a person we're all looking forward to that.

Uh that was a report uh back only, correct?

Okay, very good.

Thank you, Emily.

Uh all right.

Next item.

We're going to item number sixty-four is county executive comments.

Thank you, Nicole.

Um, if we could ask Metro Cable to put up a picture, I believe they have.

You know, uh, one of the things that we've been focused on for quite some time is getting the media uh and getting our story out, and this incredible team has done a wonderful job on doing this.

And they were this is our public information office, ran by um our new newest director, Kim Nava, who's pictured there off to the right, um, for their uh they were recently recognized last Thursday for their outstanding work in public relations and communications by the public, the Relations Society of America for their influence reward.

As you can see, they're holding five awards, so they received five awards for their activities this year.

Um they've also won awards last year, and I think they're going up in the number of awards.

So they're continuing to be more successful with their communication out to not only to the public at large, but also to our internal staff and the in the communication they have.

These five awards that they're holding today represent uh five different areas, including the County of Sacramento's annual report and video that they post out, and we play it in the morning before the meeting.

The five over fifty awards video was the second one.

Uh, life looks good on you.

The portion was also another uh commercial that they did for parks and life jackets.

The public affairs campaign against SB 802 was another one that they received, uh, which is um number four.

Um, and then the fifth one was the stop stigma in Sacramento video series for uh behavioral health and mental health uh areas.

So many thanks to Kim and her team, and that they do such a wonderful job.

I just wanted to bring that to your all attention.

So thank you.

Thank you for doing that, David.

I think Kim and her team shown here does deserve a heck of a lot of credit.

And I think back to kind of where we were uh just a few scant years ago and how far we've come in terms of really um, I think uh honing the skill set with some very professional people doing uh great work and listening, listening very intently to uh not just this board but prior boards uh uh reiterating that we need to do a better job telling our story.

So I think now we're seeing the fruits of the labor uh that has been invested under Kim Kim's leadership, and I'm I am very proud, I think we all are that uh they deservedly have been recognized as they have.

Supervisor Rodriguez.

Were you done?

Um yes, I was, thank you.

All right.

Um I I want to take a moment to highlight uh National Youth Sports Day, which took place over this past weekend.

It was such a great reminder of all our young athletes that are out there bringing energy teamwork and heart to every game.

And a big thank you to the coaches and officials and parents who make youth sports possible.

I personally love youth sports because it's such an economic driver to any um any region.

I'd also like to recognize the historical powerhouse, which recently marked its 130th year of operation as one of the first hydroelectric plants to transmit electricity over long distances.

It remains a remarkable symbol of innovation and progress.

The Powerhouse continues to remind us how local ingenuity helps shape California's growth and inspires new generation to appreciate the value of vision and perseverance.

And that is it.

Thank you.

Okay, by the way, we are on to supervisor comments.

Any other comments from members of the board?

All right.

Then again, I want to thank staff.

Um, this is good yet another installation of what is uh I think a good trend for the year, getting uh our afternoons back to do all the other work that's expected of us.

So with that, if there's no further business before the board, we stand adjourn.

We have closed session.

Yes.