It looks so good.

Okay, I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

for Tuesday, December 9th, 2025.

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

Happily.

Supervisor Kennedy.

Here.

Supervisor Desmond.

Here.

Vice Chair Rodriguez.

Here.

Supervisor Hume.

In attendance.

Chair Serna.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Very good, thank you.

And Mr. Sturmer, if you could 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 DirecTV U-Verse cable systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro14live.saccounty.gov.

Today's meeting replays Friday, December 12th at 6 o'clock p.m. on Metro Cable Channel 14.

Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at youtube.com forward 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 Board of Supervisor 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 proceedings of public meetings.

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

The chairperson will open public comments for each agenda off-agenda item

and direct the clerk to call the name of each speaker.

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

If a speaker is unavailable to make a comment prior to the closing of public comments,

the speaker waives 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 timed matters in the afternoon. As a

reminder, Rule of Procedure 10b allows the chair to establish uniform time limits for people

addressing the board in relation to a particular matter. Such limits may be announced at the

beginning of each matter on the agenda and can include a setting of specific amount of time

devoted to public comment for a particular item, announcing cutoff times for receipt of a request

to speak form, reducing the amount of time per speaker, or other reasonable and content-neutral

measures. You may send written comments by email to boardclerk at saccounty.gov. Your comment will

be routed to the board and filed in the record. If you need an accommodation pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act or medical or other reasons, please see clerk staff for

assistance or contact the clerk's office at 916-874-5451 or by email at board clerk at

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

Very good. Thank you. I see our county clerk has joined us this morning. Ms. Evans, would you

like to lead us in the pledge this morning? Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Alright, again, good morning to everyone who has joined us here in chambers and those of you who may be watching us live on Metro Cable 14.

I WANT TO START BY WELCOMING TOD STURMER.

THIS IS HIS FIRST BOARD MEETING AS OUR NEWLY APPOINTED

CLEAR OF THE BOARD.

AND WE WANT TO WALK TO YOU.

THANK YOU.

AS CHAIR YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO BE VERY NICE TO THE CLEAR OF

THE BOARD.

AND AGAIN I WANT TO JUST EXPRESS TO EVERYONE WHO MAY

I THINK YOU MAY WISH TO

ADDRESS THE BOARD THIS MORNING

ON ANY ITEM ON OUR POSTED

AGENDA.

YOU CERTAINLY ARE WELCOME TO

DO THAT.

WE AGAIN JUST ASK THAT YOU

PLEASE COMPLETE A SPEAKER FORM

AND GET THAT TO OUR CLERK OF

THE BOARD OR HIS STAFF AT THE

REAR CHAMBERS.

YOU'RE ALSO WELCOME TO ADDRESS

THE BOARD ON ANY ITEM THAT'S

NOT ON OUR POSTED AGENDA.

THAT IS LISTED AS OFF AGENDA

TOPICS.

WE ARE FORBIDDEN BY STATE LAW TO

GO INTO ANY GREAT DETAIL OR

DEPTH OF DISCUSSION AS IT

RELATES TO ANY VARIETY OF

TOPICS THAT YOU MAY BRING TO

OUR ATTENTION THAT ARE NOT ON

OUR AGENDA PER THE BROWN ACT.

BUT YOU CERTAINLY DO HAVE THAT

ABILITY TO PETITION YOUR BOARD

OF SUPERVISORS.

WE DO ASK THAT YOU PLEASE KEEP

YOUR TESTIMONY TO TWO MINUTES.

THAT WAY EVERYONE WHO WISHES TO

ADDRESS THE BOARD HAS THAT

opportunity to do so. So with that we have a busy agenda in front of us today

so Mr. Clerk our first item. Item one on the agenda is public comments relating to

matters not on the posted agenda and our first speaker today is Deanna Rutkowski.

Good morning, Board and Chair.

My name is Deanna Rakowski, and I spoke on October 21, 2025,

regarding line item number nine,

regarding public funds being spent on outside investigations,

specifically regarding citizens' complaints.

I was seeking additional information.

At that time, I was told that the county executive

and his staff would give me additional information.

last week I followed up with the board and the county executive and his team

that I had not received a response.

I did, in fact, receive a response from Mr. Friddle.

Thank you very much.

There was a disconnect in getting the information to me

because he stated that there was a lack of contact information for myself,

which I had filled out a speaker form on that day,

and it included my contact information, so I was quite disappointed that I had to follow back up.

Nonetheless, I'm here today with some additional follow-up questions and comments.

It's been five months and 19 days that an employee has been placed on administrative leave

for an investigation into a citizen's complaint.

I'm trying to determine what are the different methods by which the county may receive a citizen's complaint,

What are the procedures when a complaint is received, especially when handed directly to an ASO2,

and alleges that an employee perjured themselves in court as well as failed to report or protect vulnerable populations against sexual assault or harassment?

Would that information go directly to a supervisor or a deputy director?

Does the county maintain a broad database of complaints received, or does each department operate within their own silo to handle such a database?

If there is a broad database, when was it enacted?

What policies within the county are broad and applied across the board versus what policies are made and used only within their own department?

What are the county's policies regarding friendships between coworkers, superiors, other county employees, other government agencies, contractors within the county, and members of the public?

Can you please conclude your remarks?

Your two minutes has expired.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I submit the comments?

Yes, to our clerk, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ronald F. Owens, Jr.

Good morning.

I know you guys know who I am and why I'm here, but for those in the chambers who don't know,

my name is Ronald F. Owens, Jr.

I was the Public Information Officer at the California Department of Public Health on April 14, 2022,

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary.

Harvey Becerra said this regarding the COVID-19 vaccines.

He said, quote, we know these vaccines are killing people of color, blacks, Latinos, indigenous people

at about two times the rate of white Americans.

Since then, I've informed all 58 county boards and supervisors in writing last July of 2024 and last December 2024 in writing what Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Harvey Bissara said in the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Since then, I have gone to 51 boards and supervisors across the state.

The reason why I'm doing so is because CDPH has a relationship with the county health officer,

with the county public information officer.

I'm doing what CDPH should have done back in 2022 and still could now do today.

I'm going to share with you what I've learned thus far in my travels.

756 people have died from the COVID-19 vaccines here in California.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said that there are deputies in their 20s having strokes and heart attacks.

Sasset County Supervisor Kevin Cry said that he's talked to people who have been injured by the COVID-19 vaccine.

Amador County Supervisor Brian Onito said that women are having minisual disruptions because of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Lansing County Board of Supervisor Mike Scanlon told me that some people have died after taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

Kings County employees shared with tears in her eyes that her mother died shortly after taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

A Fresno County nurse is suing her hospital because there has been a 400% increase of fetal demise.

Babies are dying because of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Anytime that there's a homicide, anytime that there's a suicide, we have the question where they have been affected because of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Thank you.

You have a responsibility to inform your citizens, and you're not doing so.

And our next speaker is Barb Ram.

Hi.

Can you do the overhead thing?

I'm not sure.

Hi.

So on 11-12 of 2025, the SACB ran an opinion piece by Decarcerate Sacramento.

And when I went to the Sheriff's Review Commission Board on 11-25,

the chair, Paul Curtis, said that it was not based on facts.

It was not written by a reporter, but it was written by a Ph.D. State of California employee.

It misconstrued things.

The report is very, very untrue, left out a lot of points.

So Paul Curtis said, points in the article are just not true.

DUIs are not given meds.

DUIs have to stay in jail a certain amount of time, so that's when they were released.

The court tells the sheriff when to release people.

People being released after hours doesn't happen now, and all releases are given clothing closet.

Laura Foster and Paul Curtis said they have no idea how long it takes to process anyone from the jail.

All releases from a longer stay are given 30 days of meds, which is not what we're seeing,

or they're given a prescription they can take to get filled at a pharmacy.

That has never happened.

Issues and challenges from the 2023 report to the sheriff have all been resolved,

and releases at odd hours are not happening.

So this is what we're seeing.

Resource guides are not being given.

Bus passes, no.

So access to phone calls from a holding cell sometimes.

Screen for the Exodus Project sometimes.

No beds provided by the Exodus Project.

No 24-hour access to the Exodus Project.

Access to a clothing closet?

No, never.

30 days of meds sometimes.

Access to phone charging?

No.

We have phones.

Decarcerate and I also document everything in an air table,

and there's CCTV in front of the jail,

so anybody could look and see if we were there and how many people were there.

We provide overnight beds.

Two people have actually stayed in my house because they didn't have any place to go.

So my question is, how long does it take to process someone out of jail?

How long does a person have to be in jail before they get meds?

What is the copy of the jail's printed resource guide?

I really am offended when people are telling us that we're lying in our opinion piece.

And we have no additional speakers for off agenda.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

Again, thanks to everyone who took time another morning to address the board on off agenda items.

We'll now move on to our next agenda item.

All right.

Next we would be moving on to consent, items 5 through 49.

And I do have clerk notes for items 7, 18, and 44.

Go ahead and read those.

All right.

Item 7, introduce an ordinance amending section 2.115.300, 2.115.310, and 2.115.320 relating to contribution limits for on election years

and an aggregate limit pursuant to the review of biennial contribution limit adjustments,

waive full reading, and continue to December 16, 2025 for adoption.

item 18 introduce an ordinance to establish the fee schedule for voter registration and elections

for calendar year 2026 and 2027 waive full reading and continue to december 16th 2025

for adoption and item 44 this is a request to drop item 44 which is authorization to execute

memorandum of understanding with sutter county for crime lab services from december 9th 2025

through June 30, 2026.

Great. Do we need a motion to drop?

Yes.

Okay. Why don't we go ahead and clear the

consent calendar with that action first.

So is there a motion to drop?

I will vote to drop item 44.

Second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded.

Do we have anyone sign up to speak on item 44?

No.

Okay. Please vote.

This item passes with a unanimous vote 5-0 of all members present.

Very good. Thank you very much.

Okay, now the clerk has read his notes.

Any member of the board wish to pull an item or address an item on the consent calendar?

I see that Supervisor Hume is in the queue.

Thank you, Chair. I have a comment on item 22.

Thank you.

Item 22.

Approve the County of Sacramento Development Impact Fee Annual and Five-Year Findings Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025.

So I recently attended a meeting that was put on by the North State Building Industry Association that revealed the results of a report by Economic Planning Systems delivered to various jurisdictions and decision makers.

And the findings is that the fees for Sacramento County,

the good news is we're not the highest and we're not the lowest.

But the fees on single-family home development is $109,000 per unit.

So when we talk about affordability of housing,

to think that somebody is out of pocket over $100,000,

and that doesn't include the cost of the land,

that doesn't include anything to actually build the house,

that doesn't include putting food on the person's table that built the house,

that's just untenable.

AND THE UNFORTUNATE CONUNDRUM IS IS THAT OBVIOUSLY THAT MONEY IS

COLLECTED IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THINGS THAT WE NEED AS A SOCIETY

THAT THOSE HOMEOWNERS WILL NEED BUT MY ASK WOULD BE THIS THAT AS WE

LOOK AT KIND OF CULTURE CHANGE AND REDOING OUR DEVELOPMENT

PROCESSES THAT WE SCRUB OUR OWN BOOKS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT

PURSUING TAJMAHAL OPTIONS WHEN SOLID BUILDING OPTIONS WOULD WORK.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE BOARD WISH TO PULL ANY ITEM OFF

I'll go ahead and move consent. Okay. We have a motion. We have a motion a second. Mr. Clerk

Do we have anyone sign up to speak on consent matters? We do we have people signed up for consent calendar item 13 and 43

Okay, well, we'll take them in order. So item 13, please item 13 contract number

4681 Warren East Thornton Youth Center remodel facility to accommodate behavioral health children's crisis stabilization unit psychiatric and

and first speaker is Richie Cruz.

Well, happy holidays, everybody.

Thank you for letting me speak.

My name is Richie Cruz.

I'm a field representative for Carpenter's Local 46.

On September 9th, we submitted a bid advisory to DGS

questioning whether Bobo Construction should be viewed as a responsible bidder

for the Warren E. Thornton project.

On November 18th, I presented a public comment in regard to the same matter.

We never received a response with our first reach out with the bid advisory

nor after my public comment.

Upon reviewing today's agenda, we learned that Bobo Construction

was allowed the opportunity to submit an official response to our letter.

However, they fell short of invalidating the evidence provided by Local 46.

The response cherry-picks the contents of the bid advisory letter

and even still only provides speculations and claims lacking foundation or proof.

In the letter, Bobo acknowledged the significant delays on recent projects as extended timelines

and referred to them as not a result of Bobo's performance.

However, they failed to provide any significant evidence demonstrating this claim.

And with this response, Bobo acknowledged there were significant delays on projects in which they were general contractors for.

There is no rebuttal to evidence provided that Bobo incurred a stop payment notice and bonds claims filed by multiple of their subcontractors for unpaid services.

The claim that Bobo's litigation history is typical for any general contractor is irrelevant, erroneous, and quite concerning when taxpayer money is involved.

The fact-based legal vetting bid advisory letter submitted by Carpenters Local 46 is a clear representation of our WAPS dog organization.

We acknowledge that public agencies may lack the necessary resources to comprehensively evaluate contractors.

Therefore, it's incumbent upon us to provide this information for your board to make a responsible decision.

Carpenters Local 46 respectfully requests that this reward be removed from your agenda pending further investigation,

which will also open the door to extended level communications between our organizations.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and that concludes my public comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker on this item is Matthew Beeston.

Good morning, Chair and Supervisors.

My name is Matthew Beeston. I am a representative as well of Carpenters Local 46.

Adding to my colleague's rebuke of Bobo's response to our bid advisory letter,

there are a couple items I would also like to address.

Bobo Construction insists that it has never been deemed a non-responsible bidder.

I want to be very clear. The letter submitted by Carpenters Local 46 never accused Bobo Construction

of having been deemed a non-responsible bidder.

Our letter regarding the Warren E. Thornton Youth Center project urged the County of Sacramento

to review our findings, conduct its own research

into Bobo Construction's background,

and determine whether it should be considered

a responsible contractor.

With all of that said, what was not mentioned

by Bobo Construction was that they were removed

from the list of pre-qualified bidders

at Los Banos Unified School District.

Specifically, after discovering the information

Bobo provided in its pre-qualification application

significantly differed from the fact-based,

legally vetted information that we provided,

Los Banos staff removed Bobo from its list of pre-qualified bidders.

Also not acknowledged by Bobo Construction was how in August 2025,

they submitted a pre-qualification application to the city of Walnut Creek for an upcoming project.

In response to questions of whether they have been responsible for paying back wages and penalties

related to prevailing wages, Bobo answered no.

In response to questions of whether Bobo has been denied pre-qualification of public works contracts,

Bobo answered no.

In this letter, Bobo Construction does not dispute they were responsible for paying the back wages and or penalties related to prevailing wages, but merely acknowledges it paid penalties up front.

As we point out in our letter, the DIR has made it clear that prime contractors cannot plead in ignorance when the subcontractors fail to follow California's labor law.

These requirements are designed to ensure the public money is being spent properly.

All of this demonstrates a pattern of failure by Bobo to provide accurate information to awarding bodies during the prequalification process.

Why would Bobo point out what happened at Los Banos or what they submitted to Walnut Creek?

It wouldn't be in their best interest.

And that's what we're asking the Board of Trustees and staff.

Double check the information submitted by Bobo.

Please wrap up your comments.

Your two minutes is expired.

I repeat my request by my brother.

We respectfully request that this item be removed from the agenda and pending further investigation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And next speaker for item 13, Matthew Kelly.

Good morning, Chair and Board members.

My name is Matt Kelly.

I'm with Carpenter's Local 46,

just adding on to what the last two gentlemen had to say.

As the first speaker, Richie, said,

through multiple attempts,

both through letters and speakers in these very chambers,

we've made our point clear.

And if unrecognized by you,

we'd ask that you please define to us what makes a bidder responsible.

If the County of Sacramento is unwilling to reassess Bobo's status,

there are some conclusions that Local 46 must draw.

As an awarding body, it is the County of Sacramento's policy

to be permissive of the following characteristics of potential public works bidders.

Contractors with a history of being found jointly and severally liable

for civil wage and penalty assessments issued by the DIR's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement,

contractors with a history of delays and cost overruns on public works projects

contractors with a history of being the defendant in litigation particularly concerning works

services or breach of contract contractors under federal investigation with all these things

considered we ask that you refrain from awarding this project today take a closer look at the

information we provided you and truly consider the type of message that the county of sacramento

would like to send about what they consider responsible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our next speaker on item 13, Austin Bobo.

Good morning, Chair and Board.

Thanks for having me.

I'm Austin Bobo, Vice President of Bobo Construction, Inc.

and I just came to defend our name a little bit

in this contract.

As you've seen the letters sent about us, there are many false accusations in there as well as the Los Banos prequalification and the other prequalification that was noted.

Those are both false statements.

We are, as stated, I've never been deemed a non-responsive or a non-responsible bidder in the bid prequalification process.

We've been in business since 1952.

We're 73 years strong, and we do tens of millions of public projects every year.

Unfortunately, with the public construction process, it's not without incident.

And so there are issues, and any major union or non-union contractor has to deal with those issues.

Our motto for our company is whatever is fair and right, that's what we do.

And so if there's ever a dispute or an issue, we attempt to solve that with the most moral upkeep that we can.

so the comments that were made against us with the Los Banos prequalification

what had happened there was we had reached out to the district to see if we

were pre-qualified they informed us that yes we were good to go we don't need to

resubmit and then it was an issue on the district's end where they told us we

were pre-qualified and then we didn't resubmit then they found out that the

timing was off and that we had to renew our pre-qualification it wasn't anything

do with our qualifications it was just a timing issue so that we missed the

deadline for that pre-qualification that's the reason we missed that one

the other one that was brought up was that we had said no to certain questions

on pre-qualification about back wages we had initially marked no and I had

revised that and resubmitted claiming that I wasn't clear on the wording of

their pre-qualification I didn't know if it was in regards to subcontractors of

the general contractor but I did revise that prior to any of their comments to

say that yes, we have had those issues in the past and they were resolved swiftly and carefully. So

I don't see a need to remove this from the consent agenda and to move forward as

we are a responsible contractor in this realm. Thank you.

And next we have speakers for item 43. Item 43 is

authority to execute a multi-year expenditure agreement with brilliant corners in an amount

not to exceed $4 million?

Didn't think I would be speaking on this so soon.

So this isn't really something that I talk about much,

but I thought $4 million, let me look up Brilliant Corners.

So Brilliant Corners, I guess there was a bid process.

Nine companies submitted bids and Brilliant Corners won.

So Brilliant Corners has over 20 highly paid executives.

They have no one in Sacramento.

They have no open positions in Sacramento.

They have no ties to Sacramento.

They don't know the community.

They don't know the community providers.

Within one year, they're supposed to help 250 homeless people

or soon-to-be homeless people keep their apartments,

FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING I WAS LIKE SO WHERE ARE THESE 250 AFFORDABLE HOMES OR AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS LIKE HOW IS BRILLIANT CORNERS GOING TO COME UP WITH 250 OF THEM.

WELL THERE ARE SOME UNITS IN MARINA VISTAL ALDER CREEK COMMUNITY THAT COULD BE UPGRADED AND REFURBISHED.

I think we could refurbish some of them and you would have some affordable housing.

But to your point, Pat Hume, why not keep $4 million in the city county of Sacramento?

Why are we paying outside organizations $4 million who have no relationships here?

They don't have our software systems.

They are not familiar with our HSMIS or whatever that is.

like it's never going to work.

Brilliant Corners is never going to work.

The Exodus Project, which was started in July for the jails,

is beginning to get some traction six months later,

and they were in the community when they were awarded the contract.

This, please, please take a breath and do not give them the $4 million.

Thank you.

Mr. Clerk does that conclude our speakers on consent matters?

That does conclude our speakers for consent.

And I believe we have a standing motion in second.

Do we not?

Yes.

Okay very good.

Please vote.

Consent calendar passes unanimously 5-0 with all members present.

Very good.

Thank you.

Next item please.

At this point we can either move on to our 10 o'clock hearing

number 50 or we can go to board owned ranks item 59 for the continuum of care.

We will go on to our 10 o'clock item please. All right item 50. County service area number one

zone number one public hearing on the benefit category changes and levy of increased service

charge for the Orange Meadow estate subdivision APN 213-0211-033.

Good morning board members. I'm Dawn Pimentel with county engineering. The Orange Meadow

estate subdivision is situated on the west side of Santa Juanita Avenue approximately

750 feet north of Central Avenue. The development includes six single family lot subdivision

and associated site improvements. The project was approved through a tentative subdivision

map, special development permit, and design review on January 22, 2024. To satisfy a condition

of approval required prior to filing a final map, the project proponents submitted an

application to initiate the benefit category change process.

Following that submission, a notice and proposition 218 ballot were sent to the property owner

on October 24, 2025.

Currently, the project parcel is classified under the safety light only category with

an annual assessment of $2.56.

Upon changing to the enhanced street and safety light residential category, the annual service

charge will increase to approximately $393.72 for the six residential

properties. If the board has no questions staff recommends opening the

public hearing receiving written and oral testimony along with any objections

protests and then closing the public hearing and directing the clerk to

tabulate the return protest ballot. Very good thank you. Any questions of staff?

Seeing none I will open the public hearing Mr. Clerk do we have anyone

sign up to speak on this matter. We have no one signed up to speak for this item. Thank you.

Close the public hearing and ask the clerk to tabulate please.

We've received one protest ballot from legal owner Aspen Holdings LLC parcel number 213-0211-033

side address Santa Juanita Avenue, Orangevale, California 95662.

And this ballot is marked yes and signed.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Since there is no majority protest, we request the board adopt the attached resolution to

confirm the levy increased service charges for Orange Meadow Estate subdivision.

And then I would like to read the record fill-ins for the resolution.

Please.

in section two at the close of the hearing the board received zero written protests

and in section three at the close of the tabulation the board has received one protest

ballot totaling 100 of the total service charges to be levied of which 100 was in favor of the

benefit of the change of benefit category and zero percent were in opposition to the change

of benefit category great thank you very much all right um we have opened the public hearing we have

closed it, no public speakers. I will go ahead and move the recommended actions for approval. Very good. We have a motion, is there a second? Second. It's been moved in a second. Please vote. This item passes unanimously 5-0. All members present. Very good. Next item please. Thank you. All right. Our next item is 51. It is PLNP2023-00.

0251 Gerber South subdivision a community plan amendment rezone large lot tentative subdivision map small

alternative subdivision map abandonment of easements special development permit and a design review for properties located at

9132 9168 and and 9188 Gerber Road and 7 767 and 7769 Florencia Lane in the vineyard community

applicant CDB Gerber LLC APN 121-0010-007-011.

Very good. Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, supervisors.

Chair Cerna, I believe we have a PowerPoint presentation.

Thank you.

All right.

Good morning.

I'M EMMA CARICO, ASSOCIATE PLANNER AND PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE GERBER SOUTH SUBDIVISION

PROJECT. THE PROJECT SITE CONSISTS OF FIVE PARCELS RANGING IN SIZE FROM ONE ACRE TO 38

ACRES TOTALING 77.6 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF GERBER ROAD AND EAST OF THE PRIVATE FLORENCIA

LANE IN THE VINEYARD COMMUNITY. FOUR OF THE EXISTING PARCELS ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE

family residences and one parcel is undeveloped. The project site is

currently zoned agricultural residential 10 it is located within the floor and

vineyard community plan area which designates it for residential 3 to 5

land use. Surrounding existing uses include agricultural residential, single

family residential and open space. The applicant requests a community plan

amendment, rezone, large lot tentative subdivision map, small lot tentative

subdivision map, special development permit, and design review, and I'll cover each of these aspects in more detail in the following slides.

In December of 2010, an EIR for the Florham Vineyard Community Plan was certified in compliance with CEQA for the current request and addendum to the previous EIR was prepared.

The addendum concluded that no substantial changes are proposed which would require major revisions to the previous EIR.

No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which this project is undertaken.

There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of due diligence at the time the EIR was certified.

And only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted EIR adequate.

Here you see the proposed community plan amendment to the Florham Vineyard Community Plan.

As mentioned, the plan currently designates all 77.6 acres of the site as residential 3-5.

The applicant requests an amendment to 55.4 acres of residential 5-7, 16.4 acres of residential 7-12, and 5.8 acres of open space.

The applicant is also proposing to amend the Green Streets Framework Plan to relocate and shorten the Parkway 2 section from the existing location or designation of Florencia Lane over to the what would be A Drive as of right now on the subdivision map.

Here you see the proposed rezone.

The applicant is proposing to rezone to 55.4 acres of residential 7, 16.4 acres of residential 10, and 5.8 acres of recreation.

The new zoning designations and community plan land use designations would allow the subdivision to be developed as proposed

while keeping the general plan, community plan, and zoning ordinance vertically consistent with one another.

Here you see the proposed small lot tentative subdivision map which would create 370 single family residential lots, one 10.2 acre elementary school site, one 5.4 acre park site, two greenway lots, three drainage lots, two low impact development lots, and four landscape lots.

The single family residential lots generally fall into two categories.

The north central portion of the subdivision shown in darker yellow.

Oops.

There we go.

So this sort of central portion here would consist of 161 RD-10 zoned lots.

They would be approximately 10% smaller than the standard RD-10 lots that's requested through the special development permit.

Would feature reduced setbacks and vehicular access would be taken from the rear via private alleyways.

The rest of the subdivision in terms of residential, so these surrounding lighter yellow residential lots, would consist of 209 standard RD7 lots.

The low impact development and drainage lots are generally cited to connect with each other.

That's sort of the surrounding area.

Lots in blue.

and to provide an existing buffer to larger agricultural residential lots to the east.

Primary pedestrian pathways are provided along Gerber Road, A Drive, and B Drive

via 25-foot landscape corridors containing 6 to 10-foot wide sidewalks.

However, all streets would include sidewalks in their ultimate condition.

Primary vehicular access would be provided via A Drive

and a signalized intersection with pedestrian crossings would be constructed on Gerber Road at the intersection of A Drive and Posalis Drive to the north.

And we don't quite have a view of Posalis Drive here, but it is just across where A Drive would be,

and that's where the signalized four-way intersection would be constructed.

Here you can see the conceptual building envelopes for the residential parcels.

As I mentioned, the applicant is requesting a special development permit to allow the reduced lot size as well as reduced setbacks.

These conceptual building envelopes were provided to demonstrate that the lots are sufficient to support a single-family housing product with the proposed deviations.

The exhibit also provides a better view of the alleyway concept for the RD-10 lots on the right there.

So you can see that private alley in the back.

Those RD-10 lots would not have driveways in their front yards.

Again, they would take vehicular access from those private alleyways.

the project was considered by the design review advisory committee on august 8th 2024 who

recommended the board find the project in substantial compliance with the countywide

design guidelines as well as the vineyard community plan advisory council on october 10th 2024

who did not make a formal vote due to lack of a quorum but did generally express support for the

project and the planning commission met on november 3rd 2025 to consider the project and

recommended unanimously that the board approve the requested entitlements as proposed.

As proposed, the project is consistent with the general plan as well as the floor and vineyard

community plan as amended and the zoning ordinance as amended with the deviations requested

and it complies with all the required findings for the requested entitlements.

So with that, at this time, staff is recommending that the board take the following actions.

Determine that some changes or additions to the previously adopted EIR were necessary,

but none of the conditions described in the CEQA guidelines section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

Determine that the CEQA

Fabulous.

Determine that the CEQA addendum is adequate and complete.

Adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Approve a resolution amending the floor and vineyard community plan.

Adopt an ordinance authorizing a rezone.

Approve the large lot tentative subdivision map.

Approve the small lot tentative subdivision map.

and approve the special development permit,

all subject to findings and conditions,

as well as find the project in substantial compliance

with the design guidelines.

That concludes my presentation.

We have received one verbal public comment this morning,

which I believe you all are already aware of.

We also have the applicant in attendance,

Bardis Land Development Company,

who are happy to answer any questions as well as I am.

All right, very good.

Thank you for the staff report.

Any questions?

Okay, I'm seeing no question.

Oh, sorry.

Supervisor, you can.

Thank you chair. Just a couple of questions. First with respect to the setbacks.

Sorry let me get the microphone over here. With respect to the setbacks, how did we determine, was that due to an applicant request or is that what's, I mean obviously if we're providing for a variation, how did we determine the setbacks, the distances that we settled on?

Yeah, so the original requested come from the applicant as part of that special development permit.

They are the ones who propose the ultimate setback that they are requesting the deviation for.

Staff does review that in compliance with things like public utility easements,

other limitations that are required for the lot to make sure that we can still meet,

for example, driveway lengths that are required for the Americans with Disabilities Act,

public utilities, things like that, and then as well as all of our departments and agencies do also review to make sure it meets their standards.

And so the final setback that was settled upon is that after doing that review, this is maybe the best.

Let me just ask the question I want to ask rather than trying to figure out how to wordsmith it.

If we were to move it to have even more of a reduced setback so that there's more usable lot acreage for the development,

does that start to run afoul of some of those things that you just mentioned relative to ADA

driveway lengths and those types of things? I know a PUE is 12 and a half feet.

Yeah. So as proposed with those reduced setbacks, we do not anticipate any. We've reviewed it to

make sure there will not be conflicts with things like ADA for driveways, public utilities, etc.

So if not on this project, would there be room to have an even more reduced setback to say where

you had the porch right at the 12 and a half foot mark, for example. That obviously we would need to

see a proposal to be able to review for sure. Um, we do have some community plans that have even

further reduced setbacks than these. And we, we work it out on a project by project basis. Um,

there may be room to work with some of our partner agencies like SMUD. Uh, they, they offer reduced

setbacks every now and then or reduced utility easements to accommodate reduced setbacks.

Um, that's a little bit above my head as an associate. That's more of a, let me shift over

a different head and suggest that maybe we get ahead of the curve on this and we start to

anticipate these types of questions and come up with those answer ahead of time because uh i want

to i'll get to this when the applicant comes up but i really commend them for doing an alley loaded

project that's something we've been you know trying to push for uh it obviously adds a lot

of burden onto the project so to the extent that that makes a more usable lot for the end user

as well as creates a little of a different aesthetic of you know if you think of like

a brownstone where the porch is right there on the side, right?

Like there are constraints in suburbia that you can't do those types of developments,

but I would rather we know those answers so that it's not case by case and we can actually

maybe make the process a little less complicated when somebody comes forward with a request.

Absolutely.

So Dave DeFonti, Deputy County Executive, we are working on a zoning code update right

now to accommodate infill projects and other things.

So we'll take that into account when working on that slew of proposed amendments.

And I do agree with Emma that both we can hopefully maybe address this a little bit better through that zoning code amendment.

But a lot of it does come down to sort of case by case.

You know, we are seeing more issues with, you know, just dealing with the spaghetti in the ground,

making sure that all the pipes are aligning, et cetera.

But we also do love seeing this type of product.

As to your point, the alley loaded is something we haven't seen a lot of.

but it looks like a fantastic product.

So we're very happy to see it with this project

and hope to see more.

Great. Thank you.

And then my second question is the NAPOTS parcel

looks like parcel 012, Guthmiller Revocable Trust.

Obviously that creates this weird little remainder parcel

that has not a lot of usability

at the time that that person finally realizes

they should have gotten out when the getting was good.

did we look at how to align streets differently or or or have some way to incorporate a future

development there that would blend in more seamlessly we did actually there were several

iterations of the small lot map and some of them originally had stub roads ending at the

guth miller property and some of them had frontages along the the long face side of the guth miller

property this was ultimately the configuration that came to mean the most lots for the subdivision

the most cooperation from the Guthmiller property owners and just generally the best configuration

for everyone involved. The applicant could definitely speak better to their incremental

negotiations and conversations with the Guthmiller property owners. But yes, we did have several

iterations of this map that involved different configurations around that property.

I will certainly defer to them and ask them when they come to the podium, but it would seem like

if we simply took and transposed the, and then build a half court and have those lots backing

up to the park parcel, that increases the value of the lots backing up to the park parcel.

It creates, you know, the same number of lots essentially. So I think there is a way to get

there just as we look at future iterations of planning that we don't create these weird little

things that don't become anything ever. Absolutely. I will say we do generally try

to avoid back-on-lots to park and school parcels to the extent possible, just because that is a

policy of, in this case, the Florham Vineyard Community Plan. And so there were configurations

of the plan that had more back-on-lots and then fewer. And like I said, it was a long process,

but yeah, it's certainly something to look at. Can you speak to that, what the thinking is,

or the reasoning is behind that? Yeah. So the idea generally being both from a, I don't know

if you're familiar with the concepts of SEPTED, which is community planning through environmental

design. So between that and then also just wanting public accessibility to parks and schools,

lots and sites, we generally try to keep back on lots, not backing up to those sites,

so that you have more visibility on them, less instances of, you know, just closed lots that

are very shut off from public view and have a lot of public accessibility and walkability to them.

Okay. Well, given that we're making some exceptions in this case, I may ask for an

exception to be made. Certainly and as you can see along that southern end of the school site we did end up with some back on lots anyways it does happen. Sure. Thank you. Thank you chair. All right very good. Any other questions? All right. Thank you Emma for the staff report. I think at this point we'll hear from the applicant team.

Good morning.

Good morning, Supervisors.

Catherine Bardis-Mary here with Bardis Land Company on behalf of the applicant.

Thank you, Emma, for a great presentation.

She thoughtfully outlined everything associated with this project.

We have been processing it for the last two years

and have been working closely with staff and DWR

to come up with the plan that we have before you today

that was unanimously approved by Planning Commission

and probably would have been approved by CPAC

if they had the opportunity in a quorum.

We are consistent with the general plan and community plan,

and there are a plethora of conditions

and mitigation measures that we are also in agreement with today.

regarding the Guth Miller not participant property.

We've been working closely with that property owner

for a couple years now, and she's in her 90s.

She's lived there most of her life,

and she is hell-bent on staying.

And so we've been working with her

to see how we can provide utility connectivity

and future connectivity for her parcel

and just to make sure that she can live out

the rest of her life as useful

and with as much enjoyment and less impact as possible.

We have been friendly with her thus far,

and we anticipate continuing to do so for the rest of this project.

As it relates to the special development permit

and the request for setback deviation,

we are requesting to bring forth the Alley product to this community.

we're suggesting 161 alley homes for this site,

which I think will really help bridge the gap

for that missing middle household

that we've so been desiring,

both in Sacramento generally,

but specifically this area.

The revised setbacks will be in line

with what you see in the North Vineyard Station

community plan.

The Florin Vineyard Community Plan

didn't outline special development conditions.

It reverts to the county standards.

So here we're just requesting a special development permit

to have a little bit more guidance for the future home builders.

And with that, you know, it's a very straightforward project.

We've worked very closely with staff.

I'm really confident that what we have today

is a well-thought-out design that will fit in nicely

within the area. We did receive a public comment related to construction noise and dust, and I just

want to point out that there are a number of construction ordinances and county ordinances

that require our contractors and us to comply with dust control and noise ordinances as well.

and happy to answer any questions that you might have related to the project

and of course would love the opportunity to respond to any public comment

should it be necessary.

Thank you, Ms. Bardis.

Any questions for the applicant?

All right.

Yes.

Quick question along the lines of questioning that I had for staff.

If there were an opportunity for an even greater reduced setback,

would that be something that makes this product type even more deliverable?

Probably not.

We have kind of pushed it to the max for this product type.

Our front porches are basically to the property line should we decide to build to the maximum.

So without further coordination with SMUD and some of the utility restrictions right now, we probably wouldn't be able to push it any further.

Okay.

And then not necessarily for this project, but just picking your brain for future product iterations.

would going to something like a zero lot line on the garages,

is that a tenable solution to maximize lot space for the end user?

Yeah, definitely.

The more creative setback solutions that we can explore on the front end,

the more diverse and creative product type that we can deliver on the back end, certainly.

It just definitely is, we need to vet all of the utility clearances on the front end

to make sure we have our partners on board in terms of SMUD and PG&E.

Okay.

And then, so again, I think that's something we could kind of get ahead of,

of exploring, you know, the pros and cons of these different considerations.

And then my last question, I appreciate your sensitivity to Mrs. Guffmiller,

and I hope that she lives out her life in the home she's used to in relative peace.

I know that it would be a little extra work for Mr. Walters,

but if you were to pull the court down farthest to the south

and just run the remainder of those lots off the south

and butt the park property up to her property,

is that something you'd be amenable to do?

We've looked at a number of different solutions for her property

and for the overall community layout,

and we're pretty confident with what we have today

because should she change her mind or want to move to a different area,

we have sort of an alternative plan that might work nicely for her site.

But what if she doesn't and what if you get to construction

and then that site is what's left as a remainder parcel?

We could probably convert it to four parcels

and still have utility clearances both off of the east and the west.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you.

All right. Thank you.

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

We do.

For item 51, we have Barb Ram.

Again, didn't think I would be here, but I love the project.

Go for it.

I'm all about jobs, jobs, jobs, housing.

The one thing that she just mentioned was a missing middle housing.

so it would be so great if people would just lead with the good news like how many affordable

housing units are there are we as the county are we approving developments that don't include

affordable housing and if we are why are we doing that when we need more affordable housing

so that's what i would ask this about this project what does affordable housing look like

to this project?

What is a middle, missing middle

sort of housing

for this project?

That's all.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

All right, that concludes our public speakers?

Yep.

All right, very good.

Does the applicant wish to come back to the podium?

Okay, very good.

All right.

Very good.

Then I'd bring it back to the board.

Any further comments or questions?

I'd like to move staff recommendation.

Second. Okay, it's been moved and second. Please vote.

This item passes unanimously 5-0 with all members present.

Thank you. Next item, please.

Might recommend we move to our presentations now.

Okay. Item number two on the agenda, presentation of resolution recognizing the Sacramento County Law Enforcement Chaplaincy Program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

and toured around with Reverend Bell.

And I would be lying if I said that when we first approached the first yard

and the gentleman playing basketball started to swarm us a little bit,

I didn't kind of step behind you.

I've learned in my years that you don't have to be the fastest,

you just have to be faster than the next guy.

But they weren't swarming out of any malintent.

They were swarming to speak to this gentleman

because they held him in such reverence

and they saw him on the yard and they wanted a moment to talk to him and glean a little something

from him. And one of the men had, I think earlier that day, been baptized and was just about to be

released and was talking about how he can change his life and how he can pour into his community

and how this experience has now changed him. And I thought, my goodness, if we really are taking

corrections and rehabilitation seriously, rehabilitation does not get stronger than that

to where now this individual serves something larger than himself,

feels a connection and a commitment and a purpose,

and it's due to the work of these folks who are all volunteers

who come just to help provide a little bit of comfort,

a little bit of guidance, and a little bit of spirituality

and consideration for something larger than ourselves.

And the gentleman behind me here, you can stay seated, Gary.

Okay.

he has been doing this for 30 years.

40.

40.

I should read these resolutions before I present them.

Anyway, it's important work.

I just wanted to recognize the work that you do,

the time that you give,

and the way that you pour in to folks.

You know, the scriptures tell us

that how we treat the least among us

is a reflection of ourselves.

And I think that you could not be a better shining example.

So I just, after that experience, I wanted to make sure that it touched my heart, and then I let you know that I honored the work that you do.

So I thank you very much.

Thank you.

Please.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You're never at a loss for words.

Thank you so much, Supervisor Hume, Chair, and other supervisors.

I could do nothing without the support of the other chaplains.

They are the foundation of what we do.

They have the heart of God as they serve and believe that there's hope for all.

So it is my pleasure to serve with them.

And it's definitely a super pleasure to serve with Gary Cox, who is a friend, a mentor, a colleague.

And I pray that we will continue to expand.

And I ask you to pray with us that we might be able to affect the lives in which we serve in a meaningful, long-lasting way.

So thank you so much, Supervisor Hume.

It was just wonderful having you there.

And I celebrate Gary Cox and the rest of our chaplains, but today specifically, Gary Cox.

Thank you.

One of the things of doing chaplaincy is the ability to change lives.

And the county jail does a very good job of doing training and things like that.

But there's another element to it, and that's the spiritual side.

And I believe and I've seen over my 40 years that there is a difference when you apply the spiritual attributes to that training, to those other things the county jail provides.

And so we as a chaplaincy are honored to do that, and we appreciate your support in continuing to allow us to reach lives to make a difference.

Thank you.

I have one for you specifically and one for you.

It's the same, but this is generally for the program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If you'll all turn around, we'll get a picture.

After one.

You guys want to come down?

You want to step there?

No.

If you'd like us down.

Come on down.

All right.

All right.

Do you want to be in the pit or right here?

Maybe right here?

Yeah.

Okay.

Wait.

I have to adjust the color contrast for Mr. Kennedy's sweater.

Yeah. Or his head.

His head's out great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Quick question.

Thank you.

You want to say something?

No, no, no. I used to work.

Is that right?

Supervisor Rodriguez.

So before you guys leave, can I just make a comment?

So I want to say that I am so grateful for the work that you all do.

I recently had a conversation with some pastors in our area about some of the issues of the heart

and people who end up in addiction and crises

and oftentimes issues that compel them to end up in the life that they did not want.

I'm a believer that people can be rehabilitated,

and it's just really touching those issues

where they get to an opportunity to know that there's a higher being

that can help them through some of their issues.

So I just want to say I'm very grateful for the work that you all do.

I know it's not easy, but I bet it's incredibly rewarding when you can get somebody to the point of acknowledging that life is truly fantastic when you look at the value of life.

So thank you.

Very good.

Thanks again.

All right, next item, please.

Next item on our agenda is number three, presentation of resolution honoring Dr. Harry Wang, M.D.

for his over 30 years of county service with the Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health Advisory Board.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I, too, am a believer.

Honored to follow that.

Good morning, Chair Cerner and members of the board.

Honored to be here this morning.

My name is Lisa Hooks.

I'm the Maternal Child Adolescent Health Director for Sacramento County.

I'm here just to recognize Dr. Harry Wang for 33 years of amazing service on the Maternal Child Adolescent Health Advisory Board.

Here with me, I have Effie Ruggles, and she is the chair of the board for the presentation.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

I hope you didn't think I was Dr. Wang.

Unfortunately, Dr. Wang couldn't be with us today, but we do want to acknowledge him, honor him,

and thank him for his service to our board.

He has been a mentor to me, encouraged me to assume the chairmanship,

and I've worked with him several years and am just so grateful to him.

So with that, I will read the resolution and just say, extend our thanks to Dr. Wang.

Whereas Dr. Harry Wang has faithfully served the Sacramento County Maternal Child and Adolescent Health,

MCAH Advisory Board, contributing over 33 years of dedicated leadership and most recently serving as MCAH Advisory Board co-chair from 1992 to 2025.

And whereas Dr. Harry Wang devoted more than 50 years of service as a child and adolescent psychiatrist, deeply committed to social activism and uplifting the community and its future.

our children and youth, providing compassionate care to families across Sacramento County,

and whereas Dr. Harry Wang's thoughtful leadership, advocacy, and passion has left a lasting impact

on public health policy, services, and community well-being in Sacramento County,

and whereas Dr. Harry Wang's longstanding service exemplifies the highest values of dedication

to public health, psychiatry, and behavioral health, community engagement, and the advancement of health equity.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that our Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento, the State of California,

honors and commends Dr. Harry Wang for his outstanding service

and expresses its deepest gratitude for his contributions to the health and well-being of children, youth, families in Sacramento County.

And so therefore we thank you, board, distinguished board, for acknowledging with us Dr. Wang,

and we want to thank him for his service to our community, to our children, our youth, our mothers, our families.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you both.

And hopefully he has a chance to watch our proceedings.

So from the board, on behalf of the board,

we want to extend our thanks to Dr. Wang

for 30 years of service on the advisory board.

And that's got to be some kind of county record.

We oftentimes hear from employees

that have been with us for multiple decades.

Not as frequently do we hear about individuals

who have spent the amount of time and invested of themselves

with a focus on a specific issue on a specific advisory board

for three decades.

So fairly remarkable that he's been doing what he's been doing

to help us pay very close attention

to some of our most vulnerable constituents

for as long as he has.

So again, thank you, Dr. Wang, and congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

We'll get a photo here.

All right.

Mr. Clerk, next item, please.

All right, next we have item number four,

presentation recognizing the time capsule sealing in

commemoration of Sacramento County's 175th anniversary

to be opened at the 200th anniversary.

Before we hear from Kim,

I just want to make sure we didn't have any public speakers

on the last item, correct?

That is correct.

All right, very good.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors.

I'm Kim Nava, Public Information Director for the County of Sacramento.

And we are here today to mark a special moment in Sacramento County's history.

As you know, this year we are celebrating our 175th anniversary.

Say it, Kim.

Our demi-semi-subcentennial.

There you go.

It just rolls off the tongue.

and earlier this year we opened the time capsule sealed in the year 2000. That capsule offered a

unique window into life at the turn of the millennium reminding us how much life has changed

since then and how much we've accomplished and so this year at the end of this year we will be

sealing a new time capsule one that will be open 25 years from this year in 2050 during Sacramento

County's 200th anniversary. So this capsule today represents not only where we are today,

but also the legacy we hope that future generations will build upon. So with that,

I've selected some of the items that reflect the spirit of the Sacramento County in 2025.

Unfortunately, we couldn't bring them all today because there are more than 30.

So I'll go through some of those items now.

So first we have an iPhone 13, which symbolizes the powerful role of technology in daily life.

And yes, the lithium battery will be taken out of this.

There will be no fires in the time capsule.

So we're good there.

Nothing but ashes.

2025.

We have a photograph of the 2025 Board of Supervisors capturing the leaders entrusted with guiding the county at this moment in time.

I'll just say that's my before photo.

WE ALSO, AND I'M TRYING TO SEE IF I CAN PUT THIS SO YOU CAN SEE.

WE HAVE A GAVEL ENGRAVED WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE 2025 BOARD CHAIR,

PHIL SERNA, REPRESENTING CIVIC LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC SERVICE.

AND I THINK WE CAN SEE IT IS ENGRAVED WITH HIS SIGNATURE.

We have an assembly resolution honoring Sacramento County's 175th anniversary,

marking statewide recognition of this significant milestone.

We will include the county's 2025 annual report, which highlights many services, programs,

and initiatives that support and uplift our residents.

raise your hand if you remember these we have a covid19 home test kit and an n95 mask

which are of course reminders of the pandemic but most importantly

something that strengthened our resilience as well

we have a summary of water production in the region and the amount of water used daily for

residential customers and which given the new state regulations on water conservation

we believe 25 years from now people might be amazed at how much water people used

and finally we have our 175th anniversary commemorative challenge coins from the office

of emergency services and the county executive's office symbolizing unity service and county pride

so each item tells a story about who we are in 2025 together they will serve as a snapshot for

the leaders and residents who opened this capsule in 2050. I hope you all will be there.

The time capsule will be sealed. The time capsule will be sealed in a glass case on the third floor

break room of this building at 708th Street with an engraved plaque listing all the items in the

capsule. And thank you to everyone who contributed to this project and the ongoing work of serving

our community. Thank you, Kim. And thanks for all your work and your staff's work on this.

It may seem, I don't want to say trivial, but it may seem like this is not as important as some

of the other things that are on our agenda this morning. But I'm a big believer in really

understanding the history of your local community. And, you know, we're a big part of that. We're

THE LARGEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM HERE TO THE OREGON BORDER.

I THINK THE ITEMS, THE ARTIFACTS THAT YOU SELECTED HELP TELL THE STORY OF WHO WE WERE

IN 2025.

AND AGAIN, I HOPE AT 82 YEARS OLD I'M AROUND TO SEE THE THEN OLD TIME CAPSULE REVEAL

ITS CONTENT.

SO AGAIN, THANKS FOR ALL YOUR WORK.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SUPERVISOR DESMOND.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Kim.

I echo everything the Chair said about your work.

Really appreciate it.

I don't know if it's too late for a last-minute addition.

I think we should include a piece of crumbling asphalt

because that will be a thing of the past in 25 years.

Isn't that right, Director Vacari?

And then one, actually, one thing I am serious about.

Can we include this sweater in the time capsule?

I was going to mention Supervisor Kennedy's sweater when I saw it today.

It's got to go in.

He and I will have a conversation about that later.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

No speakers signed up for this item.

All right.

Very good.

Thank you.

Next item, please.

Our next item on the agenda is 52.

Adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 15.10 of the Sacramento County Code relating to stormwater utility fees.

Waived full reading and continued from November 18, 2025.

and the board will be acting in capacity of the Board of Supervisors and Sacramento County Water Agency.

All right, and now for something just as fun as a time capsule.

Unfortunately, I'll have a show. Just a presentation.

There's a PowerPoint.

We'll have that up in just a second.

There it is. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Cerna, members of the board.

Amitosh Sandy, drainage division chief with the Department of Water Resources.

The item before you today is an introduction of the new stormwater utility fee, also known as SWOO 2.

So just to provide you with some background, in 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved the stormwater utility fee

to fund storm drainage engineering, operations, maintenance, and stormwater quality management in the unincorporated areas of the county.

Over time, with new methods and requirements, including low impact design, the existing stormwater utility unfortunately does not have the adequate funding to cover the cost of those facilities.

So basically the DWR developed a new stormwater utility via SWOO2 to cover the cost of maintaining the stormwater infrastructure and LID improvements in the new development areas.

basically if a developer elects to have stormwater facilities and LID that's

within the public right-of-way to be maintained by the county they'll annex

into the stormwater utility 2 area currently if a developer decides to do

that they have to create a CFD or an HOA to manage the long-term maintenance of

those facilities with the SWOOT 2 it would allow the county to take over

that responsibility to maintain the systems ensuring drainage facility

FACILITIES ARE ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED FOR THE COMMUNITY.

SO HARRISON ASSOCIATES PREPARED A SWOOTU RATE ANALYSIS REPORT THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR BOARD PACKET.

THE REPORT IDENTIFIES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT LID IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE THAT NEED TO BE FUNDED WITHIN THESE AREAS

AND IT PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE RATE STRUCTURE.

THE REPORT ALSO PROVIDES THE SWOOTU FEE AMOUNTS WHICH ARE PROPORTIONATE TO THE ESTIMATED STORMWATER RUNOFF FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

SO BASICALLY THE MORE IMPERVIOUS AREA PARCEL OR PROPERTY HAS, THE MORE RUNOFF IT GENERATES AND THERE'S MORE DEMAND ON THE SYSTEM.

THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL FEES PROPOSED TO INCREASE EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR BASED ON THE CPI FOR THE PROCEEDING YEAR.

SO THE SWOOT 2 WILL HAVE TWO TIERS. THE TIER 1 WILL INCLUDE NEW DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OBWAY OR ON PROPERTY MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY THAT CONTRIBUTED STORMWATER RUNOFF TO DOWNSTREAM FACILITIES.

and tier two basically includes the tier one facilities

and the LID improvements within the public right of way.

We've had ongoing discussions with the development community

and the North State BIA,

and we've received very positive feedback on this.

The SWOO two will initially include 13 projects

which are before you today,

but in the future as new developments come on board,

they'll be annexed into that SWOO two.

So here's a list of the projects, the 13 projects

that are included in today's board packet item

and with a map showing the various developments

within the county.

So here's the sample SWOOTU fees.

Just for an example, RD5 single family residential property

would pay $15.76 per month for a tier one facility

and $26.08 for a tier two facility.

TO MEET THE PROP 218 REQUIREMENTS,

THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS,

WE SENT A DETAIL NOTICE OUT TO EFFECTIVE PROPERTY OWNERS

ON OCTOBER 17TH.

WE ALSO PUBLISHED A NOTICE ON NOVEMBER 3RD

AND NOVEMBER 10TH.

AND WE ALSO POSTED A PUBLIC NOTICE

IN THE PROPOSED ZONE.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE SWOOT 2

AND THE RATE ANALYSIS REPORT

ARE AVAILABLE ON THE DWR WEBSITE.

So with that, staff's request before you today is to open a public hearing,

consider all written and oral testimony from interested persons,

and consider all objections of protest to the proposed new fee.

Close the public hearing, direct the clerk to tabulate the return protests,

and if there's no majority protest, adopt resolutions,

and also authorize the mailing of a property owner ballot

and set January 27, 2026 as the date of the ballot tabulation.

And with that, I'm available for any questions you have.

Very good. Thank you very much. Any questions for staff?

All right. Seeing none, I will go ahead and open the public hearing.

Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signing up to speak on this matter?

We do. First up, we have Chris Norum.

THE LAST FEW YEARS OVER WHO IS

GOING TO MAINTAIN WATER DISCHARGE

BASINS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING CHAIR CERNA AND BOARD.

YOU HEARD A TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

OF WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS.

I WILL GIVE YOU THE BACKGROUNDS

AND TERMS OF WHAT THIS WAS.

WE HAD SOME MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS

had you know had discussions from the county that they wanted earlier for us

to establish a series of HOAs every time you were gonna do a drainage runoff

project you'd have to have established an HOA and we had real problems with

that because you can imagine that most average homeowners don't put it as much

thought into like you know maintaining stormwater drainage runoff and their

HOA as much as you guys probably do so so this is a after we had some

leadership changes at the county and you guys directed the to come back with some

I think we have ideas of how we

can work more collaboratively.

We have this new proposal that

in a nutshell says everyone will

pay $35 give or take and the

county will maintain these areas.

This is a real easy win for us.

We are grateful for the county's

work on that. It's the right

kind of solution because the

public agencies should be in

charge of monitoring water

discharge from these projects

into the delta. I appreciate the

help in trying to take a different approach on some of these very technical

matters that are actually really critical to people's livelihoods and

ongoing quality of life in the area. Thank you. Thanks Chris. Is that our final

speaker? We have no additional speakers on this item. Very good. Thank you. I'll

close the public hearing and ask the clerk to tabulate. We have received zero

ballots. Okay. Do we need to have staff come back to the podium for anything?

No?

Okay.

I think we're looking for you to approve the item.

I'm sorry?

I think we're looking for you to approve the item.

The staff does not need to come back up.

Thank you.

Entertain a motion then.

I'll move to approve the item.

Okay.

It's been moved in a second.

Please vote.

This item passes unanimously 5-0 with all members present.

Okay.

Very good.

Next item, please.

All right. Next item is number 53. You'll be acting in the capacity of the Board of Supervisors.

Item 53, report back on request to evaluate placing a temporary special tax measure on the November 2026 ballot to provide funding for road maintenance in the unincorporated county.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Cerner, members of the board.

I'm Amanda Thomas, the county's chief fiscal officer, and I'm here this morning in response to Supervisor Rodriguez's request to bring forward an item

to place a temporary special sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot

to provide funding for road maintenance in the unincorporated county.

As the board is aware, through previous budget discussions,

there's a great need for additional funding to improve the condition of roads maintained by the county

with a $1.4 billion backlog due to road maintenance needs

that exceed existing available funding sources.

And staff agrees that it's important to evaluate how this need,

along with other county needs, could be met with additional funding through a voter-approved tax measure.

To that end, as directed by the board during budget hearings,

we're currently evaluating all options for potential tax measures

and plan to return to the board early next year, currently scheduled for the January 27th meeting,

to present information on the options available.

That evaluation will look at different types of measures available,

including parcel taxes, sales taxes, and other tax types such as utility user taxes,

as well as general obligation bonds, and will share information including the estimated revenue

that would be generated by each measure type as well as two-thirds or majority voter approval

would be required. Staff intends to then seek direction from the board on pursuing the option

and the ballot timing with the highest likelihood of providing the needed additional funding.

understanding that doing the groundwork of public opinion research and voter education will likely be key to any successful outcome.

As proposed by Supervisor Rodriguez, the temporary sales tax for roads would be a special tax measure,

and because of that would require two-thirds approval of voters residing within the unincorporated county.

A sales tax measure for general county purposes would only require majority voter approval,

and not surprisingly tax measures requiring majority approval typically have a higher success rate than tax measures requiring two-thirds approval.

As an indication of the challenge a measure like this might face,

included with the agenda material for this item are the results of recent polling conducted on behalf of the Sacramento Transportation Authority

that shows likely support for a transportation sales tax measure among voters in the unincorporated county at 56%,

which falls short of the 67% that would be required for passage of a special tax measure.

Should the board direct staff to move forward with the measure proposed by Supervisor Rodriguez

and ordinance proposing the special sales tax would need to be approved by four-fifths of the board,

no later than July 13, 2026, to place the measure on the November ballot.

Additionally, to ensure the greatest likelihood of success,

STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND ENGAGING FIRMS TO CONDUCT PUBLIC OPINION,

RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION EFFORTS.

AT THIS TIME, STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING ANY BOARD ACTION

AND INSTEAD RECOMMEND DETERMINING AN APPROACH FOR

POTENTIAL FUTURE BALLOT MEASURES, INCLUDING MEASURE

TYPE AND ANTICIPATED BALLOT TIMING BASED ON A

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF OPTIONS PLANNED TO BE

PRESENTED TO THE BOARD IN EARLY 2026.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE.

Thank you, Amanda, and thank you for bringing back this information.

So I'm sure for many of us, when we have our community meetings

or we talk to people or residents,

the roads are second of the biggest concern for communities.

And so when I looked at the opportunity to be able to help get some extra funding

to be able to fix our roads because our PCI currently is at 41,

which is really bad.

And without investing more into it,

it's going to continue to get worse.

So the survey that STA and RT did,

I think was very telling in the sense of some of the issues

that are present.

However, what was more, in my opinion,

what was more telling was when we looked at it by jurisdictions

and potholes and deteriorating local street roads

had a 75% as being one of the top issues.

And when you look at figure four,

I don't know if you have this report,

but it shows that people who drive in their cars,

96%, actually, it's not all of it,

all across Sacramento County,

we are car dependent with a total, like 96% of people who end up driving cars and so they're

using the roads. And so when I asked you about a potential, like, you know, special tax,

quarter cent would bring in, if I remember correctly, 30 million?

Yeah, that's roughly the estimate.

Yeah. So as we continue to look at potential opportunities for fixing our roads, is there an opportunity for us to do some polling on the unincorporated that is specific is would you support a sales tax?

and again you know I think that I don't know how they do the polling but sometimes when you ask

someone a sales tax a forever tax people are like adamantly no I don't I don't want that

but if you're specific it would be a temporary quarter cents would give this half cent would

would give a 60 million is that is that a possibility so that it's more focused instead

of the START, which was very broad.

Yeah, and I certainly expect this to be part of the conversation when we come back next

year to talk sort of more broadly about tax measures.

But I think absolutely when you look at measures that have been successful, they generally

have done some significant research and polling to sort of determine what voter attitudes

are, what types of things would likely have voter support.

because I think that this, I mean, just from what we are told, and I talk to a lot of people,

and especially in the unincorporated, about the only solution at this point to be able to get a

little bit extra revenue for roads would be to do a sort of a temporary 10-year quarter cent tax,

which would give us a little bit extra funding to be able to invest back into the roads, because

if we don't, the reality is

as we move into

a structural deficit, we're not

going to have enough

between the STA, the gas tax

and what the county already invests

in it. But I

think when you look at the unincorporated people

potholes and

potholes

are one of the biggest issues when it comes

to it.

I'd love to hear the

thoughts of my colleagues on

this issue, especially Rich who has 43% of the unincorporated parts of the county.

Great. Thank you. Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and definitely appreciate Vice Chair Rodriguez bringing this up for discussion.

It seems like we certainly have this discussion many times throughout the year, including my little quip

during the discussion relating to our time capsule, and it comes up during budget year every year,

and as 90% of my district is unincorporated,

this is by far the biggest issue I hear about.

And you've heard me talk about that from the dais over my five years on this board.

I think we have, you know, I am not supportive of pursuing a tax measure right now.

I think, and I'm loathe to support an additional tax on constituents in Sacramento County

until we are 100% certain that we have leveraged every other dollar out there for transportation.

And I think we have made some progress on the SACOG front, certainly.

I'm not convinced it's a matter of not having enough dollars.

I think there is still an issue with those dollars being dedicated towards things that are not prioritizing fixing our roadways.

And with respect to SACOG, we've made some certainly some progress with getting some state funding dedicated towards roadway maintenance.

I think working together with the Sacramento County delegation, I mean with all the cities in the county,

getting SACOG to pay more attention to road maintenance prioritization.

I'm looking up at Ron Vakari up there because I talked to him ad nauseum about these issues.

I think over time over the last several years this board has also dedicated a lot of general fund dollars

and for the first time in a long time we've actually been able to eat into our maintenance backlog a tiny bit

but we also know that those general fund dollars we're not going to have them available with what we see on the horizon here

and I'm not laboring under the delusion otherwise.

But I am part of STA as all of us are and I'm part of the specific effort to discuss

a transportation sales tax measure possibly in 2028. I do think having that discussion with

other jurisdictions would make an effort stronger if we can get them on board and other, in my

opinion it would have to be, it would have to prioritize maintenance but would also involve,

would involve transit and would also involve some other elements I think that would make it more

attractive to other jurisdictions and to the voters. So I'll stop there, but I'm not supportive

of it right now. I do look forward to the additional conversation in January. You said in

January? Is that when we're going to have that conversation? Okay. And I don't know if that

conversation, maybe it's beyond the scope of it, to include a look at, okay, are there other things

we can look at leveraging. Maybe not taxation, but there's other funding sources that maybe the

county can try to leverage, whether that's through funding sources that flow through SACOG

or otherwise, and what legislative advocacy we may want to join in on. I know the legislature

is really going to be continuing its discussion about reforming the gas tax and imposing a road

user tax and maybe a hybrid. I don't know where those ultimately will end up, but I think we have

to really be at the table and highlight the challenges we have with trying to maintain

our existing infrastructure with the current SB1 funding, and it's not nearly adequate

enough.

So thank you, Supervisor Rodriguez.

I think this is an incredibly important discussion for us to continue having.

Thank you, Supervisor Desmond.

Vice Chair Rodriguez.

So, you know, I just want to respond.

Voters don't want a measure that includes transit.

If you look at the top issues by voters, public transportation, you know, and the unincorporated is 20%.

And in 2018 and in 2022, STA did a measure that had several pieces of the pie included into that measure.

And the measure has failed both times.

A general tax is one that I hear predominantly from most people is,

I would say that people would not support a general tax because they don't trust where the funding goes.

A specific tax and a temporary tax and a very small percent would allow us to be able to fix the problem.

And I would agree it's one of the two of the top issues that we hear about is homelessness and potholes.

It would be something that would actually address the problem, the actual problem.

But I think that the voters have been very clear in the past six years that they are not going to support a measure that has many different people.

Predominantly, the city of Sacramento are the big supporters of transit.

Once you go outside, Elk Grove and Rancho each have a 1% tax.

I doubt they're going to be very supportive of it.

Folsom, you know, is just, you know, did not support very well.

It was in the 39% approval for the 2018 and the 2022 STA survey.

And then recently, last year, Measure G failed horribly because people just don't want to be taxed.

Citrus Heights is in another position that they have not been very general tax sort of supporting.

So I think this is probably one of the only ways that we're going to be able to get some of the attention onto the unincorporated roads.

And so, I mean, but I would love to see a survey that would, from the unincorporated parts of the county to see whether they would specifically ask them the point blank question is whether they would support a measure that is temporary, very small, quarter cent.

and see what information comes back.

Because I don't see, I think where we're headed down in 2026,

a structural deficit means we're just going to have less money

for some of these maintenance backlogs.

It is, you know, I don't know what's going on with Measure A

and the gas tax, but I don't see us,

being able to find other types of funding

that is going to allow us to invest into roads.

So that's just my comment.

Good, thank you.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, support the discussion in January

of how we can coordinate regional efforts better

and leverage some of the other partners.

And, you know, I appreciate the quest for data.

I am loathe to go out and ask the voters if they would support a tax right now because the underlying assumption then is you want to get more of my money.

And I don't think we are in a time right now where people are receptive to that.

That's what the polling that I saw said is that, yes, this is their highest issue priority, but they still don't want to pay extra money for it.

And so my general philosophy is government does not have a revenue issue.

Governments have a prioritization issue.

and the money is available if we made the decisions to spend it differently and that's

not just at the local county level that is at some of these other agencies but more importantly

we are swimming upstream for an ideology I believe at the state level that is trying to

dissuade certain patterns of development dissuade certain capacity projects to ease traffic congestion

dissuade investment in roads because they know the more inconvenient they make life for people

people might do the things that they want them to do instead and so having been involved in this

discussion going all the way back to the measure a renewal i think that was in 2007

the voters overwhelmingly passed that renewal i think it was like mid-70s if i remember correctly

76 percent or so and the reason being is because there was a list of projects and it said this is

what your money will pay for, and everyone, just about to a person, could see themselves reflected

in that list somewhere. Something that was important to them was being paid for by that

measure. Then the next time we tried to do it, I believe in 2016, where we were going to do

measure B or the daughter of measure A or whatever it was called at the time, and we tweaked with the

proportions a little bit, and we got to 65 point something percent, needing 66 percent to pass.

So we almost got there. And every iteration since then, we've tweaked and tweaked and tweaked,

because somebody who had a certain interest didn't feel they got enough towards what was

important to them. And it strayed farther and farther away from what the voters,

the constituents, the people footing the bill, say is what's important to them. And so I've beat

this drum every time we've had this discussion, until or unless we start listening to the people

when they tell us what we ask them to tell us, we will continue the cycle of failure. And so I

can appreciate the need, I can appreciate the constraints in a more austere budget years,

I just don't think it's the right time to be asking for an increase in tax, but I would support doing some polling generally on, you know, what priorities are and then that we hold our feet to the fire and actually listen to those priorities and adjust our budget accordingly.

Thank you.

Supervisor Kennedy.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Supervisor Hume.

I agreed with those comments.

I just wanted to make a comment toward, first of all, the failure of the last two tax measures was not because of transit, and no one's going to convince me that it was.

It was for a variety of reasons.

One was the campaign started literally a few months before the election.

Bad campaigns.

With transit on the ballot, easily passed the one that Supervisor Hume referred to.

And even those that failed, let me point out, with transit on there, easily got the majority of Sacramento County.

So to say that Sacramento County voters don't support transit, I'm just not going to buy.

Now, could we do better and identify projects better?

Supervisor Hume and I, who sit along with Chair Cerna on RT, are in agreement that we need to look at our focus as far as who we're serving and where we're serving.

Better. And I completely agree with that.

But in Sacramento County, you know, Sacramento Regional Transit gets about a fifth of a cent of the local transportation tax,

which is far below any other transportation, like transportation or transit district in the state of California.

it's it's a you know self-fulfilling prophecy if we continue to starve transit that you know

it's going to become less important to people because the system will not be as relevant so

you know I I will say that when we do the polling when we see the numbers I still want to look at

a portion of it going to transit even more than currently does otherwise those of us who say you

I USE TRANSIT AS I DO.

THOSE OF US THAT SAY THAT

TRANSIT NEEDS TO BE BETTER,

THAT'S FINE.

BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

IF WE JUST GO WITH A ROADS

ONLY APPROACH.

THANK YOU.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

SO ONE OF THE JOYS OF BEING

UP HERE IS I GET TO FOLLOW THE

VERY ARTICULATE STATEMENTS BY

by my colleagues and I think to a person I can appreciate the various perspectives.

I agree that this is not the right time for a tax measure.

We've all, most of us, maybe all of us, certainly those of us that serve on the RT board

have seen some very recent and very specific polling that tells us the story

that voters are not predisposed to support a tax measure currently.

It doesn't mean that we absolutely are not in need of it.

All you need to do is drive down parts of Watt Avenue,

which is a shared major arterial between multiple supervisorial districts.

And once your teeth get done falling out of your head,

you'll understand clearly that our roads are in miserable condition.

And that's certainly not a reflection on our DOT at all.

It's, as I think Supervisor Hume put it succinctly and profoundly, a matter of priorities.

I do think if we, for whatever reason, continue to kick the can and not pursue a tax measure at some point,

and the relatively near future,

we can probably see from future boards of supervisors

more and more interest in what happened

as a preview of coming attractions this last budget cycle

and our budget deliberations.

I know that staff is not particularly fond of the board

making audible calls here during budget,

but we do it pretty routinely.

And one of them this past year was something that Supervisor Desmond and I

and one other member of the board felt was necessary,

and that was to look at an additional $10 million for roadway improvements

because the problem is that bad.

And let's not forget, too, when we like to compartmentalize

or the voters like to compartmentalize on occasion transit versus surface transportation,

they're not mutually exclusive by any means.

When we have bad roadways, that means much more wear and tear on our rolling stock at RT.

So our buses, their suspensions, their tires,

those systems are being impacted at a cost to our sister agency.

So we need to remember that there is an inherent interest by our transit system to have quality roadways that are maintained.

So, again, I agree with Supervisor Desmond.

I want to thank Vice Chair Rodriguez for raising the matter.

I think it's a good discussion to be had.

but I think we have to be surgical with the next time that we collectively,

everyone in the county that has an interest in making sure that we have the funds necessary to

get that PCI back up and to make sure that we have a robust as possible transit system.

Let's pick that moment very carefully with as much information as we can acquire ahead of time.

Now is not that moment, I'm convinced.

But it doesn't diminish in any way the import of having that objective in the back of our minds

as we continue to face very difficult budgetary conditions in the near future.

So, Supervisor Rodriguez.

I just want to say I do appreciate the conversation.

If we do a survey, are you going to survey several different components of the needs that other potential taxes would cover?

So I think that that's something that may be good to consider in January.

we come and sort of look at what the options are

and get some direction from the board

about what, you know, surveying we might want to do

around what issues and measure types.

That would be great because when you look at,

you know, it's January and then we, at that point,

there's only, at that point, what is it,

10 months to get before we get to the voters.

And so I think having as much information we can in advance

will allow us to have a more successful outcome

of the things that we would support.

All right, thank you.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone sign up

to speak on this matter?

We have no speakers for this item.

All right.

I stand corrected.

Okay.

Come on down.

Thank you, Amanda.

Good morning, everybody.

It's been a moment.

I just want to first off by saying...

Can we have a name, please?

Oh, Kevin Bolt, sorry.

I just want to start by saying that the amount of verbiage I've heard on listening to feedback

has been a combination of entertaining and insulting this morning

after there was zero ability to listen to a room full of people about 3,000 trees.

But on topic, there's a couple things I want to address.

One was the comments made by Mr. Hume.

um people aren't trying to destroy roads so that people vote a certain way people are destroying

trying to destroy roads because it makes more money for other people um cars in this country

are private so when you fix roads you don't actually address public transit you address

private transit the number of buses are very limited and while the focus may seem severe

we live in a county where there's not a train from here to the airport. And if you look at any

major airport in anywhere, there's mass transit on a rail from the city to the airport. So the

priority is clearly not transit. It's clearly not getting people places conveniently. It's on

maximizing profit via cars. That's the main problem. The second problem you have is your

tactic to fix the roads involves hiring a for-profit company that is going to bid,

maximize the amount of money they can make, and then eventually do the work. Japan famously had

a sinkhole years ago that they fixed in three days. Our bidding process would last three months.

That's your problem. You're not fixing things for the community. You're fixing them for profit.

That's why it's always going to be too expensive.

And the main issue, as I stand here, no spring chicken, I'm 38 years old,

but I see a lot of people older than me who grew up when the corporate nominal tax rate was 90% in this country,

when there were robust unions and good jobs.

None of you have a desire to go back to that because you all benefit from the money that is kept by the wealthy.

Until we do, we aren't going to have tax money.

So good luck with that.

Thank you.

And don't cut down the fucking tree.

No other speakers on this item.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right.

That is just a report back.

No action needs to be taken.

We will go on to our next item.

Next on our agenda, we have item number 54,

Homeless and Housing System Partnership Model Update.

Supervisor Cerna, before we get started,

THIS IS A REPORT BACK FROM OUR

OCTOBER 28th MEETING IN WHICH WE

HAD THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS AND

REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL THE

CITIES HERE IN SACRAMENTO

COUNTY.

BEFORE WE GET STARTED I WAS

GOING TO ASK OUR DEPUTY COUNTY

EXECUTIVE SHIFFON KATHARY TO DO

A QUICK INTRODUCTION OF OUR

SPEAKERS TODAY.

BEFORE WE MOVE TO SHIFFON'S

COMMENTS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS

THAT THERE IS SOME ACTION WITH

THIS THOUGH TO APPOINT OR NO?

Yes, I believe so.

I can talk about that.

So Siobhan Katari, Deputy County Executive, Health and Human Services.

So today we're providing an update on the efforts to develop a new model of collaboration

surrounding the issues of homelessness between the various jurisdictions in the county,

the cities in the county, as well as the continuum of care.

The county and the city of Sacramento, in planning for the joint meeting that occurred

on October 28th, brought on Mosaic consulting and advocacy to assess what the elected officials

in our region seek in terms of a collaborative model.

So first we're going to hear from Matt Kate and Darby Kernan, who were our consultants

working on this project, and they're going to share their findings and recommendations

based on their work.

And then next we'll hear from Emily Halkin, Director of Homeless Serviceness and Housing,

who will present the county's recommendations

and be seeking your direction about next steps.

Very good.

Thank you for that.

And while Matt and Darby are coming down to the podium,

let me just also mention that I have agreed to give representatives

from Sacramento Steps Forward slash our continuum of care

a 15-minute block of time to use as they see fit

in terms of what speakers they want to have address the board.

And we'll hear from them before we hear from other members of the general public

who wish to address the board.

And then let me just finally conclude before we hear from our consultants

that there's a lot of feedback, both, I think, substantiated and otherwise.

and unfortunately, feedback from the October 28th meeting,

the joint meeting that we had,

and some claims by some outlets that it was not substantive,

it wasn't anything but a box to be checked.

I couldn't disagree more.

In fact, it's part of a broader, almost year-long effort

to think very carefully about how to be more effective

as a system, as a continuum of care.

That includes the county's role.

And so I just want to kind of set the table here

and remind folks that this,

what we're going to hear today is part of that,

as was the October 28th meeting,

where we heard from a large contingent of the public and stakeholders.

And this is not a box to be checked.

This is legitimate, sincere efforts on behalf of everyone involved

to do what I think we all want,

which is to help as best we can those that are suffering the circumstance of homelessness.

So with that, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.

My name is Matt Cate.

I'm here today with Darby Kernan.

We are with Mosaic Solutions and Advocacy.

We were retained by the county and the city of Sacramento

to help prepare for and facilitate

the Sacramento Countywide Homelessness Summit,

which all of you attended on October 28th,

and then also to report out on our findings and recommendations.

So we're here today to do that.

All of you have been given a copy of our report, which contains those findings and those recommendations, so we won't go into too much detail about that.

But we did want to share some of the overarching findings and have a brief discussion on our recommendations and give all of you a chance to ask any questions that you might have.

as you're aware we were retained in august and began to collect information through a series

of interviews we met with the board also the mayor and all members of the sacramento city council

we met with representatives from elk grove citrus heights folsom rancho cordova and galt along with

sheriff's department sac metro with representatives from sacramento steps forward we talked with staff

at the Continuum of Care.

We had a number of meetings before the summit,

as well as conducted a survey through Qualtrics

about the views of various stakeholders

throughout the system.

Following the summit,

we conducted about 18 post-summit conversations

and interviews to see if we could collect

lessons learned from elected officials

and other stakeholders regarding the summit.

Our findings were interesting to at least Darby and I

because there was so much consistency,

not only on this board,

now not everyone agrees on everything, of course,

but also members of this board

along with members of the city council in Sacramento

and members of other mayors and elected officials

in the surrounding cities as well.

I'm going to talk about just a few of the primary findings and really what we viewed as collective concerns that were raised during those interviews and during the summit.

The first was that the structure and governing system that we currently have is unduly complex with 30 elected members of the COC, for example, and that has led to difficulty in getting information to move vertically from the COC and Sacramento Steps Forward up to this body and to the city council here in Sacramento,

which then leads to a lack of transparency and accountability.

Those were concerns that we heard over and over again

along with a sense of urgency recognizing that there may be reductions in funding federally

and so the need to be as efficient and effective as possible is just heightened during these times.

um the the number one though um concern and the number one issue on the minds of the electeds

was that uh there the electeds in this uh that we interviewed felt like there needed to be

more directly involved with the system that they are responsible for that you are responsible for

And the views almost uniformly was by including more elected officials directly in the governing of your homelessness response system would add the transparency and communication links that are needed, would increase accountability,

and ultimately would increase in the ability to move information

both vertically and horizontally from the county to the city

and the county to the suburban cities.

And so based upon those findings, we made a series of four recommendations,

which Darby will share with you now.

Thank you.

I think, you know, our first recommendation in the report

is really the most straightforward and quickest response that we saw

that would break down the silos and increase accountability.

And that would be to reconstitute the COC.

For us, we believe that adding representatives from the Board of Supervisors,

the City of Sacramento, and an elected official from each of the suburban cities

as the lead voting members is the first change.

And then we do believe, and I think this has been missed in our report,

that decision makers in lead organizations,

leaders in our community should be also on the COC.

So decision makers from our hospital systems,

our business community, schools, CBOs,

people with lived experience,

all of the representation should be there,

but the leading votes should be the elected members

who are looking at 90% of the homelessness situation now

and taking this almost 10% or approximate 10% to have a global view?

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your view,

the electeds can't do that on their own.

You have to have the cooperation of the COC to make that change.

Even if including the numbers of members of each of these bodies,

the numbers of and which stakeholders are involved which current members with live experience would

stay on etc all that requires a collaboration between the county and the city and the coc

and unless you do get that collaboration we feel like the issues are both of sufficient import

and of sufficient urgency that you should act regardless.

If you're unable to make fundamental changes to the COC,

then that leads us to recommendation number two.

And before I jump into recommendation two,

I do just want to say that we believe that if the COC is reconstituted

with the elected officials, as our budget situation gets tighter,

as HUD changes its recommendations on how and what the focus of the COC is,

we think it gives the COC an ability to outlive whatever changes could happen within this federal

administration over the next few years. So our recommendation number two though is if the COC

is unwilling to work and take this recommendation to reconstitute itself then you create a new board

or commission that is elected officials and from the board of supervisors the city of Sacramento

and each city in the suburban cities.

And then we recommend that the funding,

which we learned both the county and the city of Sacramento,

provide through SHRA funding to SSF to do very specific things.

But we recommend taking those dollars to fund a new commission or board,

SHHB, as you guys have already discussed, to run that board or commission.

Correct.

And we would also note, just on a professional level, we have been very impressed with your CEO and senior staff in this area.

And with their colleagues on the Sacramento City Council, the staff there, also very impressive.

WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

I believe federal law or HUD regulations basically state that the authority to consider changing that composition,

that authority rests with the COC itself.

And so therefore, that's kind of this other recommendation,

assuming the disposition of the COC is not in agreement with the primary recommendation.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

the COC would need to vote to move towards the recommended action.

Should they choose not to do that, then the alternative would meet the needs.

Okay. Yes, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm so glad you asked that question because it's a unique situation we face with an entity like the COC

where, what, $40 million flows through this organization.

and when I discuss this with constituents and others about our homelessness structure and our response,

they're like, well, you're the ones we hold accountable.

You're the ones we elect to determine where the money goes.

Who is this non-elected entity?

And I know we decided years ago to set it up this way.

Can you flesh that out a little bit, Siobhan?

Because it doesn't make sense to a lot of people that the elected officials who were selected by the voters

really can't determine who should make decisions about that, you know, very substantial chunk of dollars coming from the federal government.

Yeah, thank you. Very good question.

I'm going to ask Emily from Homeless Services and Housing to address that question. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Emily Halken, Director of the Department of Homeless Services and Housing, and apologies to you, too.

So you are correct.

I mean, I think the first thing I would note is that the COC construct was developed in 1994, which doesn't seem that long ago.

But in the sort of course of what's happened in homeless policy and certainly funding here in California has changed a lot.

So I do think at the time that it was created, it made a lot of sense that there would be this sort of grassroots-y organization driving this.

Because, frankly, that's who had been delivering services at the time.

I think your other question about the history of Sacramento County in particular, as you may recall, up until 2011, Sacramento County did administer the COC.

We played the role as a lead agency and HMIS lead.

At the time of the recession, there was decisions made, mostly financial, because of the impact to the administrative needs and ability at the county to move that out to a nonprofit.

It was driven at the time both by the Board of Supervisors, that time Mayor Johnson, and there was some good logic behind it.

Not only was it administratively burdensome to the county of Sacramento, but the idea was that moving it outside of government created a little bit more flexibility, a little bit more ability to be creative, fundraise independently.

And so the nonprofit construct, I think, did make a lot of sense at that time.

I think what you're pointing out, Supervisor Desmond, is that there's a lot of space between 1994, 2011, and now 2025.

And so we are still sort of working within some of those historical constructs that haven't really shifted along with some of the efforts that you and your counterparts in the cities have made.

Thank you, Emily.

I don't want to diminish the decisions that were made and why they were made in 1994 and 2011,

but it certainly just would seem intuitive to me that if the elected bodies made that determination in 2011

to delegate to this organization, we would have the autonomy to change that.

So technically in 2011, the COC board did choose to do that.

And if you go back and read the city council report and the board of supervisors report,

basically the supervisors and the council affirmed that.

It's just that the lead agency was at the county,

so just by virtue of the staff being county staff,

I think there was a lot more connectivity at that time.

But technically that decision, as it would be today,

was made by the COC board in 2011.

Thank you.

As always, you have the checkbook.

But otherwise, you need collaboration.

One of the areas that we want to talk about in terms of collaboration is with the suburban cities.

We were very impressed with our conversations with the cities outside of Sacramento proper.

And they all expressed a desire to work more closely with you.

As colleagues, I think they enjoyed being part of the summit.

They wanted a closer relationship with the Board of Supervisors itself, which leads to recommendation number four.

Yes.

So as we hit, recommendation three is to update the agreement between the county and the city, kind of laying out roles, responsibilities, and goals.

The same is for our recommendation number four, is for the county of Sacramento to do an MOU or another agreement with each individual city in the county of Sacramento.

So the same roles, responsibilities, and goals are outlined in detail so that when budget crisis happen, when priorities change, or when boards leave and staff change over, there is agreement that everybody is very publicly aware of and understands.

And I guess before we open it up to questions, I would just emphasize that in this process, we assume the goodwill of everybody involved.

And that includes all the human beings that work at the COC and SSF, all the staff involved.

Our report really is based upon the structure and the difficulties that that structure has led to in our views.

And also really just echoing the resounding concerns that we heard from you and your colleagues at the City of Sacramento and the surrounding cities as well.

Yeah, and we're available for any questions you might have.

Very good. Thank you both. Supervisor Kennedy. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your work.

I just want to, on number four, I'm just going to tweak what I heard a little bit.

And that's that, yes, we all think that there could be more collaboration. I think that's almost always the case.

But I did hear at that meeting from every single leader of the suburban cities,

and since in meetings and panels I've sat on with leadership from the suburban cities,

that they enjoy a very good relationship with the county of Sacramento.

And I just don't want to leave it that they feel like they're left out,

because I didn't hear that at all.

Neither did we.

We heard that we work really well with the county, but they did agree.

I mean, nobody agreed to say, well, sign up and do this.

I think it's a conversation and what the details of an MOU and an agreement would be.

but they do have a good relationship with the county.

I think it is just for as priorities can change,

having things in writing helps everybody.

And each of those cities had their own views, as you can imagine.

Some wanted a closer relationship, and some were like,

oh, maybe an MOU that lightly touches on our communication,

a few other things.

And so as staff go to work on just exploring that,

the uniformity was around good relationship now,

would love it to be better.

If an MOU helps that, then we're open to have that discussion.

That's well said.

Very good.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Matt or Darby at this point?

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'm just going to continue a little bit and add a little bit more to what Matt and Darby have already shared.

And so based on the input that we've received throughout this process, as Chair Serna noted, we've been working on this in iterations for over a year, but really concertedly since August when we came to this board with the initial recommendation, as well as the input received in October and through Matt and Darby's report.

staff has modified our partnership model and today has both a recommended model as

Matt and Darby referred to as well as an alternative model depending on

the input from our other partners. Before I describe in detail these two models I just

want to go through this visual as an attempt to differentiate both what you currently have at play

the recommended model and an alternative model and as you'll see in here I also have put on the JPA

which remains in discussion mostly by some members of the Sacramento City Council,

but do want to underscore this is not a recommendation of staff at this time.

So unlike the previous visual that we went through in detail,

I think it was August the 19th, if I recall,

this one focuses mostly on roles and responsibilities

and the scope of the work being done,

not on the count of members in each of the boards,

the subcommittee structure, or the administrative support.

But I do want to note that whichever model we go with,

There would need to be some sort of formalization, either an MOU or a charter or similar, that details the governance structure of whatever board or boards we end up with.

There also will need to be administrative support, no matter what model we go with.

And so while what's shown here is the roles of the members on the different governing bodies, every model also has a robust network of subcommittees.

that's not shown here that do invite engagement from advocates, from those with lived experience,

and others that are working to prevent an end homelessness, really in a way to provide

their expertise to those who are making programmatic and policy decisions.

I want to call it out because last time we had a very robust conversation around subcommittees.

It's not shown here on the visual, but it is implied that we would make many, many spaces

for those types of inputs.

So what I've tried to do here is generally delineate the three areas of work that have been at discussion over the past months now.

In yellow is the work of the continuum of care, which generally is outlined in federal statute and includes, of course, oversight of the COC funds, which are at risk as we speak.

the Homeless Management Information System.

They manage and oversee our biennial point-in-time count,

the Coordinated Access System,

as well as they are the convener for the broader COC membership.

Of course, the COC, especially as it relates to their state HAP funds,

also provides some really important input

into the Regionally Coordinated Homelessness Action Plan, or the RCHEP.

In the green column is the work that I think has really been most under discussion

over the past few months,

and it currently doesn't really have a singular lead.

However, this is the area where we've heard

pretty consistently from the community,

from yourselves, from the COC,

and other electeds throughout our community

that we want to focus on,

and that there wants to be a singular space

with a transparent and accountable membership

to go to for this type of work.

This is the work to set a community-wide vision

and strategic direction to align policy priorities

amongst different funders, and to convene decision makers to really grapple with the intersection

of homelessness with other policy areas, many of which aren't really within the purview of the COC.

Things like affordable housing development, law enforcement engagement, behavioral health, etc.

And so finally, in the blue column is the administration of jurisdictional programs

and funds. Those are things that come through my department, some of my sister departments here.

Of course, this includes things like land use decisions, but also budgeting and funding that comes directly to the different jurisdictions.

And we heard very strongly from most of our city partners that this is very important that they retain in their purview.

So moving down the rows, then, this visual tries to show how the various models intersect with these sort of three distinct areas of responsibilities.

At the top is the current model.

the COC as you know oversees all of the COC functions but outside of some annual work on

the RCHAP as part of our HAP applications it's really pretty independent of the work that you're

doing here at the board and that your counterparts of the cities are doing. While there are staff

from many of the jurisdictions including myself who are members of the COC board there are no

elected officials and therefore there's no formal reporting structure back to our elected bodies

just as there's no formal reporting back to other decision makers in the other sectors represented on the COC board.

Similarly, there's no consistent place where elected officials grapple together to convene on this community-wide vision and strategy.

You certainly had ad hoc meetings. You had your meeting on October 28th.

There's been various iterations of two-by-fours, mostly with the city of Sacramento.

But for the most part, the board of supervisors and the city councils throughout the county are independently setting their strategic priorities around homelessness.

And they're, of course, then aligning those with the programs and funds that they independently oversee.

So moving down, originally staff brought to you in August a recommendation that created a new collaborative space.

we called it the Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board,

that would serve as that convener of the strategic vision

and that would take on the oversight of the COC functions.

However, following meetings with partners, including the COC board,

we heard that there's a preference to lean into a lot of the experience

and expertise that already lives within the COC structure.

And as well, given the sort of current state of funding

and challenges with the unknown direction

that's coming from the federal government,

that setting up a whole new body

might be more administratively burdensome right now.

So therefore, our current recommendation

shown on the line called recommended option

suggests using that existing COC board,

but reconstituting its membership,

as Darby and Matt detailed,

so that the COC board can serve both as its current functions,

but also in that convening function.

Unlike the model brought in August, this model does presume, while it does presume a majority of the seats for elected officials,

it very purposely includes decision makers from a variety of sectors throughout the community.

We've purposely not put numbers behind here, but the elected members could be as low as 51% of the total seats.

And so this would be a place of conversation amongst you as well as the COC and the city councils.

We would, as Darby and Matt said, however, recommend that the balance of the seats be designated for industries important to this collaborative work.

Things like healthcare partners, education, community-based organization, law enforcement, etc.

And that the COC purposely seek members with decision-making authority within their sectors.

In this way, we feel like the feedback to the work being done in those sectors,

not just here at the board and the city councils,

but within the industries that are important to the work we do,

would be more formalized.

And that would, of course, include a more formal advisement role

from that new board to the board of supervisors and the city council.

However, as Darby and Matt also indicated,

we recognize that the current COC board would need to voluntarily elect

to reconstitute itself for this model to work.

And I know you're going to be hearing from them in a bit,

but should they not agree to this model or something similar,

staff would propose an alternative model, the third row down here,

where the county and the cities in the county move forward

and establish a public convening body consisting entirely of elected officials

so that we could do that strategic work that the community has been asking for

and that all of you, frankly, have been asking for,

for all the work outside of the COC.

In this model, the COC would continue to function

and oversee all of the COC activities,

it's likely they'd still have representation

from the cities and the county as they do today

and potentially even elected officials.

But it wouldn't be a formal relationship.

It would be more of an informal relationship as we have today.

Finally, this visual shows the JPA option,

which, of course, is not recommended by staff here

and, of course, would require melding all of these components

and I think would require a much more substantial dedication of staff

and some significant time to unwind existing authorities and reestablish them.

So just a really high-level summary before I turn it over for questions and for the COC.

Staff is recommending, as Darby and Matt described, an option that would use a continuum of care structure.

We would dedicate seats for elected officials, but also elevate community participation

to decision-making partners within the community.

We believe this would better align the COC work that's happening today with the work that's happening here at this board and with the city councils.

And it would allow us to maintain the existing lead agency, which is SSF.

But that oversight of SSF would live within the COC board, which would include those elected members from various jurisdictions.

Of course, as we've said many times, the COC would have to agree to voluntarily take this on.

and if they do we would recommend that we establish a goal we've been doing this for quite a few

months that we establish a goal of having that new board seated in the spring of this of next year

should the coc or frankly if the other cities don't want to do this and it's only the co it's

only the county an alternative option would be that we could develop the sacramento homeless and

housing board as we discussed in august seated with an elected officials to really do that

strategic visioning outside of the COC.

The COC would continue to operate.

As Darby and Matt said, there may be some administrative challenges

with standing up and operating two boards,

but we could discuss what that might look like.

Again, we only recommend this if the COC does not wish to participate.

We do believe that pulling these two, the work of the COC board closer

to the work that you are doing is the best not only for our region,

It's best to address the challenges we're having at the federal level.

And I think it responds to what we've heard consistently at your October meeting.

With that, I will close and see if there's any questions or if you want to hear from the COC.

Very good.

Thank you, Emily.

I have a number of my colleagues here in the queue before we get to Supervisor Kennedy.

Let me just say that this is, first of all, it's the culmination of a lot of work.

So I want to recognize that first and foremost by a lot of people, not just our own staff,

but many of our partners as well.

So I want to offer my thanks for getting us to this point.

Secondly, during my briefings as chair, because this is somewhat of an unusual staff recommendation,

I HAVE ASKED THAT I BE,

SOME THOUGHT BE GIVEN TO SOME EXPRESSED

AND VERY CLARIFYING LANGUAGE

IN TERMS OF A MOTION,

SHOULD THE WILL OF THE BOARD

BE TO GO WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

SO I'M GOING TO RESPECTFULLY ASK MY COLLEAGUES

TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

AGAIN, SHOULD WE DECIDE THAT WE WANT TO GO

WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

If after hearing from others, we want to go in a different direction,

that's obviously reflects our interest.

And we'll figure out who makes a motion at that point.

But again, because we have this kind of contingent position

by way of the fact of the response to my question about the COC being

an artifact of federal statute

that I think the motion needs to be

set into the record very explicitly.

So just keep that in mind, please.

Supervisor Kennedy.

Thank you, Chair.

Emily, you might want to go back to the table

because that's probably where most of your questions

are going to come from.

All right.

A couple things that were said.

First of all, if we went with the alternative option, I'm still confused as far as what the actual role of this Homeless and Housing Board would be.

In practicality, what do they do?

Yeah, that's a great question.

So, you know, it would be the iteration of what I think today is the Homeless Policy Council, but overseen with more, with a little more, be a little more purposeful.

So it would be a place for you guys to convene.

One of the things we heard at the October 28th meeting is there is an interest to share amongst jurisdictions the work that you're doing outside of the COC.

So this is things like coordination perhaps on street management.

This might be coordination on a new housing development project.

It does not take over authorities, you are correct, from like any of the city councils or the board of supervisors.

So it would be more of setting policy and strategic direction that each of the cities in the county would implement on their own.

I don't think you're saying this, but I would say I do think that it is less impactful when the COC is outside of it, which is why it's not our recommended option.

Okay. And I'll have more comments to make later, but just a couple more clarifying questions before we hear from the rest of the board.

Now, so the COC board under that, I just punched it, under that recommendation, COC board continues to have authority over the $40 million of funding that they get.

As well as the HAP funding, which their HAP allocation is approximately the same as the county's.

But at the same time, you said a couple of times, and maybe I misinterpreted it, you talked about oversight.

You used the words oversight of the COC.

How do we have oversight over the COC?

How would this organization have any oversight over the COC?

In the recommended option.

Talking about the alternative option.

If I said that, that means that you would not have any.

Okay.

All right.

I misunderstood probably.

Okay.

I'll have many comments to make later.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Rodriguez.

Thank you, Emily.

Thank you for the presentation.

I have a question and a bunch of comments.

You mentioned the changes would be burdensome to who?

You mentioned that a change right now would be burdensome.

I think that was in relation to the JPA option.

And I think, if I recall, but correct me if this is not what you're talking about,

is it creating a whole new administrative structure?

Okay.

With new staffing and new administrative funding would be quite hefty to lift right now.

Thank you.

Okay, I do want to share some comments.

Some comments before we move on to the next presentation.

So back in March, I described the processes and the issues within homelessness as broken, siloed, and fragmented.

and then spent the last seven, eight months really delving down into an understanding

and peeling the onion and who's responsible.

And it is more confirmed now that it is broken, siloed, and fragmented.

But not for the lack of effort,

but because I come from a world where we can't confuse effort with results.

And so I'm a big fan of the COC when it went into the hands of a nonprofit back in 2010.

And I'm a big fan of the county taking the COC back.

And I'll share some whys.

I believe that we have some really dedicated nonprofits, public agencies, outreach teams, and community advocates.

and that

COC is the essential part

of a pathway to a system that finally

matches the urgency of the crisis

and the compassion of our

communities. Reforming

the current structure is

as critical as the current

system is because the current system is not

delivering the results our communities need

or deserve.

I believe that the county should be the lead

agency of the COC.

We will move

faster, we will use data better, we will support providers more effectively, we will ensure public

dollars drive measurable change, and I think that it will create real accountability to the people

of Sacramento County. At this current right now, there is no single entity that is the authority

to align everyone around the shared goals, and that's why I say we are still broken, fragmented,

and siloed. The number one issue in Sacramento County with every single city and the unincorporated

was homelessness. And so I want to be really transparent in my objective is that the COC

does belong back under the responsibility of the county. There are people that are dying in the

streets, one every other day on average. And so when I look at if the county were to be responsible

for that COC, how does it look like?

I'm a big support of the Sacramento Housing and Homeless Board.

I think when that structure was presented to us,

it gave us the clarity that it would bring all jurisdictions

into one entity that would at least drive it.

Sort of like what Senate Bill 802 would do,

is that it brings people to drive it.

I'm not a fan of the JPA,

but I am because I believe that we have the leadership

in Sacramento County to be able to drive some of these changes.

And I don't feel that government should be telling us how to do it.

I think that's where I say that we have it.

I think that if Sacramento County were to be the lead agency for the COC,

I think that there would be clear consolidated accountability.

There would be an identifiable leader who can drive measurable outcomes.

We would have a stronger integration across behavioral health, public safety, and housing,

a seamless system for individuals who cycle between homelessness, emergency room, jails, and the crisis care.

One of the things that drives me nuts is sometimes how slow things go.

And it really is frustrating to me that we have a crisis on our hands with homelessness

that in the last 15 years has only gotten worse.

And so I think that the county could do a better use of data and performance measures.

I think that we would have a stronger fiscal control and oversight and be able to see results.

I'm a believer that the county can be the driver of regional coordination with the incorporated cities.

And I believe that ultimately what we will end up with is it'll enhance public trust and transparency.

I've heard comments about the COC would dig their heels in to not make those changes.

But I don't think that if it is the will of this board that the county oversee the COC, I don't think we should allow those type of threats to hold us back from being able to move forward and set that plan out.

We are the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

We are ultimately responsible for the outcomes that come out of homelessness.

Yet, we don't have the ability to do that because the one thing that the federal government puts down that has all the funding and many of the responsibilities is not in our hands.

To me, it is very insulting that it took the recent NOFO to come out to say, now you have to have elected officials.

that to me really was indicative that now there's a rush to get people on this board

but where was the rush the past 15 years when we had the crisis that continued to get worse and get

worse and and there was a lack of accountability a lack of saying where's the outcomes that

we're seeing people that are falling into street homelessness yet we're not taking action on some

of those issues. If it means that we have to have a tug of war for that COC to come back to the

county, I think we should just be transparent and honest instead of placating to the games of

making changes with how we're going to do this. I am a strong believer that that COC should come

back to the hands of the county and allow us to be able to coordinate all the efforts that come

with your recommendation back in August

of the Sacramento Housing and Homeless Board.

I think we should be ultimately responsible

for the outcomes of all of that.

I think, you know, in the recommendations you had up here

with the current system and the recommended

it still shows that the COC is in the hands of another entity.

And then we have the alternate option,

which I'm not a fan of.

so those are my comments on on that presentation i just want to share a little bit about the

what the um mosaics uh recommendations are um yes i agree on recommendation one

i think that we need to reform the coc and i'm a i'm a big fan of that um

recommendations three and four been there done that we've done a mou the mou um was it three

years ago yes okay the mou was it the county met its obligation and didn't and and i you know i'll

be critical of this is that it wasn't as though we continue to add things to continue to make things

better on the mou the county met its obligation and then that's where it was and then the city

Sacramento continue to fulfill theirs. The city of the the the MOU between the cities and the

counties to me that is just so convoluted and it's doing the same old thing again. It if we were to

have a Sacramento Housing and Homeless Board it's it's really more simplified. Here's the agreement

homelessness is the number one issue in the entire county. Cities have their own responsibilities

that they are obligated to meet.

The county provides these type of services.

Whatever facts we lay down,

we can, and an agreement that we are going to work together

to ensure that outcomes are positive

for people who are experiencing homelessness.

That to me is so simple.

It's an agreement.

We agree.

We agree that we're going to work together

to be able to move this issue forward.

And those are all my comments.

If I could just clarify one thing,

because this model doesn't show that lead agency role

which you've lifted up.

Just like in the model in August,

the recommended option that currently shows the COC board,

that entity would, as they do today,

would have the authority to choose a new lead agency,

whether that be another nonprofit,

continue with SSF or the county or something else.

So similar to the SHHB discussion we had in August,

if the recommended option moves forward

and a majority of the seats on that board were electeds,

you would have the ability, you with other electeds,

to change the lead agency.

In the alternative option, that would not be the case.

So, and I know you and I have had this conversation.

So it really is, we're going to play a game.

and we're going to get individuals on the COC

and then we're going to say,

okay, we want to take the COC and put it into the county.

Why don't we just be direct, honest, and transparent

and say the COC should come back to the county.

If the COC board members,

which I got to tell you,

there are failures after failure after failure

and the most recent one,

Mosaic was able to identify that seven years

they didn't get financials.

How do you sit back for seven years

and not ask for financials,

which means that there are other things that weren't obligations that weren't met.

And so, you know, I don't want to play the tug-of-war game.

I just want to say, here, listen, we're interested in taking the COC back to the county

because we can coordinate all the other efforts.

And, you know, so anyways, I think I have a lot.

I mean, I'm really holding back from saying a lot of things I don't want to say.

But at the end of the day, I think the COC really failed in many ways.

And the board members who are on it are ultimately responsible.

You can't sit back and say we didn't get reports.

Well, you didn't ask for them.

And so I'm going to stop there.

Thank you.

Mr. Advisor Hume.

Well, I can't not respond to the impassioned soliloquy from my colleague.

And what I took away from that, I'm going to save the majority of my comments after I hear a presentation and we kind of jump into this more.

But what I took away from Supervisor Rodriguez's position is that we're at a time of action.

And I agree with that wholeheartedly.

We cannot wring our hands.

We cannot kick the tires.

We cannot talk about things.

We cannot assume that what we've been doing is working and that we're just going to continue on with business as usual.

That is not an option that's listed here.

and it's dangerous to try and build a plane or even modify a plane while you're flying it

but you can absolutely refer to your navigational charts your weather patterns your communications

with other you know airfields and what right like we can change course while we are in the air

and that's what we need to do and so from my position that's where I'm at is I want to take

break down the silos, break down the lack of accountability, transparency, demystify the

response so that everybody who is involved in the provision of policies, programs, services,

treatment, enforcement, the whole scope has real-time data, iterative dialogue.

Let me start by saying kudos to staff to have such a more soothing slide projecting the alternative models.

Gone are the days of spaghetti on a wall.

I mean, this actually is, you can sit and look at it.

Thank you.

Well deserved.

Well deserved.

And so, look, I think there is a big piece of the puzzle that's missing from this slide, however,

and that is the third stool, which is SHRA.

And I say that because even though you may think that SHRA is just an agreement between the city and the county of Sacramento, the fact is the public housing, the permanent supportive housing, these ease the strain on other communities because of the shelter they provide.

The voucher programs that SHRA administers are deployed into every jurisdiction in the county of Sacramento, so it affects them.

And so that would be the piece that's not addressed here and that's not addressed if we simply reconstitute the COC board.

And so I guess what I'm saying is that my commitment to the folks that are about to present, my commitment to the folks that are on this board,

my commitment to the folks that aren't in this room right now, but that were there the other day,

is that we need to have, I think the chair said it best, surgical.

We need to be deliberate in our decisions, but we need to have a steady march toward doing something differently

because by all measures, whether you have reports or don't have reports, by all measures,

homelessness has exploded in the last couple decades, and it's time for a change in course.

And so that's what I'm asking for, that's what I'm committed to, and that's what I hope

we get agreement on at the end of today's discussion.

Thank you.

And one thing I could say about the SHRI, because I think you're right, that has come

up multiple times, is that two things is, as you all know, there's simultaneously some

work being done to look at the governance and oversight of SHRA.

And so there could be a point where those two efforts coincide.

I think it does make sense.

Not shown on here, because it's not spaghetti noodles anymore, but we still would imagine

a very concerted and collaborative lead, what we call the leadership group.

And we would want to include and elevate SHRA to that.

As I think you know, we've been meeting very collaboratively with the city, others from

the county, the lead agency, SSF.

SHRA has not been as present in those meetings, but regardless of which model we end up with,

we do think that at least starting with that leadership group to include SHRA as you guys

go through this simultaneous sort of exploration of them would make good sense, because you are

right. They are not outside of this work. Well, and I would think the easiest solution,

if you wanted to stick with this graphic, is there simply needs to be a third blue box

in that right column that is SHRA.

And so that whatever this oversight body is,

it's also advisory towards the program administration of SHRA.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Hume.

He's always our go-to for masterful metaphor extensions.

So thank you very much.

All right.

If there's no further questions for our staff at this time,

what I'd like to do now is invite the Sacramento Steps Forward

slash COC contingent to the podium and grant them their 15 minutes, so to speak.

Thank you and good afternoon. I started with the morning and now mid-afternoon.

Thank you, Board Chair Cerner and members of the Board of Supervisors.

My name is Cassandra Jennings. I am the incoming president of chair of the Sacramento Steps Forward Board

and a longtime resident, advocate, and public servant in housing and in homelessness that you talk about.

When you talk about really in 1994 and 2011, I was here in 1989 when we've been talking about it,

and I am grateful to be here in 2025 to talk about the same issue that has grown,

that has made great triumphs, that has had tremendous challenges,

and that continues to be important in all of our communities.

I do want to say, because I need to stick to the timeline,

is that this is not about a tug of war.

This is not about you against us or whomever the community is.

This is, and anything that we do has been about collaboration,

about all of us addressing this tough issue on the street.

Today, we just want to then offer up an alternative, looking at your alternative option to offer up some updated version of that,

that I think will address the things that came out of this report that have been discussed all along.

One is a single entity or the single table where leaders can really come together, look at the full picture,

give direction, talk about strategy that all of us who are involved in this very complex issue can address.

It also talks about better communication and accountability and the integration of the COC,

which is a very important part of what this whole thing is about, but not the only part.

And then thirdly, about better communication.

I think our alternative, which tweaks the alternative option that is included in your staff report, will address those issues.

It will also address the accountability that goes and the importance of having the elected officials and key leaders within our community to be not only involved and in-depth in this issue, but then be able to give direction and hold people accountable.

With that, I'm going to bring on other parts of our team.

We talked about the COC.

We do have the chair of the COC, Joe Smith, here,

and he will let you know what they're doing

and what they're doing to address even the streamlining of the COC

that we're suggesting would still be in place.

Thanks, Cassandra.

Could we see the slide again?

I agree with everybody. That is a much, much better slide.

Morning, everybody. My name is Joe Smith. I'm the chair of the Sacramento Continuum of Care Board,

and we represent the on-the-ground voices of expertise in this system.

All of us volunteer our time outside our day jobs because we deeply care about building a response system

that works for the people we serve.

And for me, this work is very personal.

I experienced homelessness in my own life

and spent years trying to navigate the very systems

I now help guide.

And that journey taught me what real stability really means

and what it feels like when systems fail to communicate

and coordinate.

It's why I stay committed.

It's why I take this responsibility very, very seriously.

Across the COC, we're increasing our HBS data to understand what's happening in real time.

We're strengthening programs.

We're improving outcomes.

It's allowed us to identify gaps faster and support providers more effectively.

And in anticipation of a more integrated regional structure, we've been doing our part to streamline and strengthen our board.

This year, actually tomorrow, we'll be adding two city council members to the board.

We're asking for two members of the Board of Supervisors.

We'll be joined also by a business representative from a PBID and another law enforcement partner.

These seats matter because they bring the diverse perspectives and operational insight to the table.

These voices are essential.

We're also actively evaluating our updates to our charter and our committee structure to be more transparent.

Our goal is simple, to give the elected leaders the information they need when they need it in a clear and actionable format.

That's what I wrote, but now I'm going to go off script a little bit.

The COC will be talking about option C tomorrow.

So option C, we have the recommended option.

Think about that as A.

The alternative option, B.

We're coming back with option C.

And option C lives in between those two options.

By having two distinct boards, a regional board, you all call it the SHHB.

We have another name for it, but essentially having COC members in that board with the electeds and having the electeds on the COC board with us and creating a strong, very strong MOU on how we're going to work together, on how we're going to move forward.

Our option has been, it's been a journey to work on.

We've sat through many multiple listening sessions, meetings.

I've talked to some of you.

I've talked to the city council.

I've talked to, I've just talked to everyone about this.

And I really think we have a strong alternative.

And really, it keeps the community voice where it belongs.

The COC was not built for all electeds.

The COC money is very specific in how it's used.

There are a lot of regulations and restrictions.

To have it be overseen by the community it serves keeps its importance, keeps its center.

So I'm going to introduce Trent Williams or Trent.

Trent works great.

Thank you.

Before Trent takes the microphone, let's stop the clock.

Joe, I really do want to say that I am thankful for the work that your team has done.

But I do have a question that I really want you to elaborate on.

You mentioned the expertise on the COC board.

Can you elaborate on what expertise you're talking about?

Sure.

The COC board as it's constituted today has members of your staff on it, members of city staff, members of SHRA, nonprofit organizations, and people with lived experience.

Okay.

And you mentioned partners that will be added to the new COC board.

And I ask this because I'm genuinely interested to know, but why do these seats matter now?

They've always mattered.

and they've always been available.

Something that maybe doesn't get talked about is

if at any time the people sitting there at the dais said,

I want to be more involved in the COC work,

all they had to do was apply to be a board member.

This has never been something they've kept people out.

In fact, most of us that you'll talk to

want to have elected officials be a part of the board.

We always have.

And I challenge you because I really need to know this,

But so you always said that if somebody wanted to join, they can.

You're the board chair.

Why didn't you identify some of the pockets and some of the opportunities for other different entities to join the COC board?

And that is including the voice of elected officials.

Sure.

I've been the board chair now for six months.

About six months.

And so that's what I'm doing.

That's what I'm talking about.

Okay, so how long have you been on the board, sir?

I've been here six years.

Six years.

Well, I'm in year four.

Okay.

And so, Joe, why did it take, you've been on the board for four years now,

why did it take for you to be chair to recognize that there's an opportunity for us to bring in other partners,

you know, public safety, other hospital systems, I guess, and electeds?

I don't know if I have a good answer for that.

You know, I can't speak for the direction that the previous chairs have decided to take.

So are you saying that...

But you'll have an opportunity to hear from one in a minute.

Good.

So then are you saying that the COC is the direction of the chair, not the body as a whole?

It's the body as a whole, yes.

But you just said that the chairs give the direction.

That's what you just said.

I asked you why now?

Do you want me to take this?

I think you should.

Erin Johanson, I am formerly retired from CEO of Hope Cooperative,

and I was the COC chair for a couple of years,

and on the COC board since about 2013,

so almost the whole time we're talking about it.

And in the beginning, there were elected officials on the board.

The elected officials had chosen to delegate their authority to their staff,

which is how we ended up with seats that had representatives from the County of Sacramento staff,

as well as the City of Sacramento staff.

We also do have representation from law enforcement, have always had representation from law enforcement,

have always had representation from the hospital systems and the managed care plans,

has been kind of relatively new since the advent of CalAIM.

So those seats were always available.

One of the challenges that we have had as the COC is how to engage our elected officials.

And we developed the Homeless Policy Council four or five years ago to provide that opportunity

to have the electeds come quarterly to provide that communication.

None of us feel or have ever felt that it was adequate.

it. We agree with you that we need better communication and better connectivity and

better alignment. And we've tried various strategies to make that happen. But it was

never about not willing to have elected officials or not offering to have elected officials or not

inviting to have elected officials. It was about decisions made by the various elected officials

themselves about how they wanted to engage with us. So, okay. So let me ask you, I need to ask

your question. So when the electeds chose to send an alternate or go and then at some point they

just kind of dissolved and then it became no elected officials, why did the organization not

raise the concern that we are wanting to move the ship forward but we don't have the people

that can help make those decisions, that can help make way for things to move forward?

So at some point, do we not sound the alarms that we, in order to be more effective, we need to have the voice of those that the public have voted in to make those decisions?

So that was the idea of the Homeless Policy Council, that we provided a vehicle for the elected officials to come to join with us with those communications.

About the same time is when HAP funding happened at the state level.

And HAP funding comes out, you have an allocation, the COC has an allocation, and the city has an allocation.

Then groups of staff gathered together to figure out how to spend those dollars in each individual so that they work together in some fashion.

But that was your staff that participated in those conversations.

So I can't answer for you why the elected officials chose to delegate that authority.

And I'm telling you that you're asking the question, why didn't we raise the alarm?

And I think we did by forming the Homeless Policy Council and giving the opportunity for the elected officials to participate in that conversation with us.

Okay.

So I was elected in 2020.

And one of the first things I asked for was I'd like to be on the Homeless Policy Council.

So I was on it.

But it was very presentation focused.

So you went to meetings and you basically were given presentations.

I don't recall there being the engagement of we want to hear we want some feedback you're brought

I mean I I don't remember that being I think it was very heavy presentation oriented and then at

some point towards the end it was just like there I found it ineffective in terms of I would get

information but in terms of engaging that's not what my experience was but I just want to say I

I want to thank you for answering some of these questions.

Supervisor Kennedy.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to follow up on that line of questioning in that, sure, you know, by invitation, by ad hoc, you know, electeds could be a member.

But there's no formalization.

There's no formality.

There's no position reserved for electeds.

So there is a significant difference.

And Mr. Chair, if you'll indulge me, I'm going to go through again the history of the policy council because I think it's important we understand that as it's being thrown around.

Please.

And because, you know, I have publicly here in these chambers taken full credit for its failure because it really was, you know, something that we thought would accomplish some of this and it didn't.

and sorry, Supervisor Rodriguez is not wrong in saying that where we thought this would provide an opportunity for electeds to have more policy direction,

which it was formulated, I'll remind you, when the chair of Steps Forward and the chair of the COC came to myself and Mayor Steinberg at the time and said,

we need some policy direction. We're not getting the direction we need from electeds. That was the

genesis of the policy council. What it turned into was a lecture series four times a year

for disengaged elected officials to get PowerPoint presentations spoon-fed to them.

But no real engagement beyond that as far as there was no mechanism for those electeds to have any

kind of authority, any kind of role in decision making. That's all it did. Information sharing

is important and it's nice, but it's not action. And there was no opportunity for action out of

the Policy Council. So that's where it fell down. Thank you. Thank you for that. If I could respond

just real quick. Sure. I really think that's where option C brings the best of both worlds.

It brings the elected seats to the COC board, but it also brings the provider and lived experience voice to what we're calling, we call it something different, but in our version, the SHHB would have members from the COC, including the chair, people with lived experience, and some partner agencies.

We pushed the work.

You all set the policies.

Together, that's kind of a match for getting things done.

So option C, I would say, gives you the best of both worlds.

And we are taking that up at the meeting tomorrow.

And I'm asking for the board, the COC board, to formalize that recommendation from us tomorrow.

All right.

Supervisor Rodriguez.

Joe, I do have a question for you.

So back in April, Council Member Guerra and Supervisor Serna, it was the first conversation about the meeting that took place in October.

Since then, we have had many conversations, and in August, we had a presentation on the several different options that we could potentially have.

And then today, we're given some other possibilities of what happens to the COC.

December 9th, why are you just presenting us now with an option C?

And to me, it is very frustrating that now you're wanting us to look at another option.

So where has Sacramento Steps Forward or the COC been the past six months?

when we were looking at different options to be able to execute a plan,

to be able to, at the end of the day,

help people like yourself who are experiencing homelessness,

because I have this urgency.

It is a burning urgency when I see people who are dying in the streets.

And so I ask you, where were you guys the past six months?

Sure.

Annette, thank you for that question.

And I share your urgency.

We didn't, we weren't, and we, when I say we, I want to be clear because I think in conversation,

COC and SSF get unilaterally drawn together.

We as the COC did not know about any conversation.

We knew there were conversations.

We weren't invited to any of them.

we didn't find out about option A and B until the day before it came to you in August.

So we've been working in September and October gathering input from our board,

gathering input from others,

and in three months' time we've come back with our recommendation.

The timing is not great.

You're here talking about this today, and we're going to be talking about it tomorrow.

And that to me is really frustrating because as the COC board chair, representing the spirit of the COC board, we've wanted to be in this conversation all along.

None of us are against change.

Absolutely not.

But we need a little bit of time to work on our options.

And from August to today or tomorrow is the reasonable amount of time it took to come up with that.

So I'm just going to give you some feedback.

I did meet with Lisa Bates.

I want to say it was late summertime, maybe.

I can't remember, July, August.

It was right around the time when the draft.

In August, we may have talked about it, but the draft of the different options.

Emily, are we talking June, July?

The draft.

So Lisa had seen the draft of what the different options were.

And so I just want to share this, and I apologize if it comes across very critical,

but the pace to me is one of the issues, is that we go so slow.

If Lisa had seen the different options in sometime June, July,

and now you're coming before us with option C,

it just validates my frustration that things go so slow.

We lack a sense of urgency.

We lack a sense of execution.

And all while people continue to die in the streets.

And so if this is Sacramento County's number one issue

with all jurisdictions and all cities,

we can't wait five, four, five, six months

to get a plan C. That plan or some form of iteration of that plan should have come to us

right August. You have 30 days. Sit down, lay out a plan, get it to the county and say,

here's an option that we would like to recommend. But again, it's very frustrating that on December

9th, you're telling us who are the ultimate policymakers when it comes to handling this

issue of homelessness and giving direction that you have a plan C. And so are you expecting us

to wait another 30, 60, 90 days to be able to review it? And in the meantime, are we supposed

to wait for your plan to come to us? I'm not sure, but that's, so my frustration is not,

my frustration is just because the entire, it's very frustrating to me. And so people get upset

when I say it's broken, fragmented, and siloed,

and that is exactly what is happening in Sacramento County

when it comes to homelessness.

Thank you, Joe.

I do appreciate the conversation.

All right.

Thank you.

Could I also just respond a little bit?

I agree.

It's frustrating.

We need urgency.

I think what we want to spend the last bit of our time talking about

is really just a tweak to one of the options that is being recommended here.

And so we are trying to help advance the conversation.

Remember, we were the ones that actually funded the studies to start a process to look at shared governance models in partnership with the county.

We were working collaboratively with the city, the county, around structures.

At some point, it veered in a different direction for option A and B, and it accelerated.

AND SO YES, THE COC WAS A LITTLE BIT BEHIND IN THEIR ABILITY TO DELIBERATE.

BUT HERE WE ARE TODAY TRYING TO HELP ADVANCE THE CONVERSATION AND THE MODELS,

AND WE'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT WHAT WE THINK WOULD BE A WAY TO GET TO YOUR RECOMMENDATED OPTION

WITH SOME TWEAKS IN THE ALTERNATIVE OPTION.

SO I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT.

HI, MY NAME IS TRENT.

I'M JUST TRENT.

Simmons.

All right.

So my goal is just to talk about the recommendation.

And like Lisa said, it really is just a tweak of the alternative option that's presented on the screen.

So again, you've been presented with a number of options,

all geared towards achieving those goals of shared accountability,

clear accountability, structure.

The model that SSF is recommending builds directly on the county's alternative option

with key refinements that preserve local control,

while maintaining federal compliance.

Like the county's alternative option,

we support creating a new leadership body,

the Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board,

as it's been called here,

while retaining the existing Continuum of Care Board.

We do believe this division of labor

reflects guidance from our HUD technical assistance provider,

and it also protects your decisions

from shifts in federal priorities.

Under our recommendation,

the new leadership board would focus

on three essential responsibilities.

Supervisor Rodriguez, I think you'd asked earlier,

what would the duties be of this leadership council, the Sacramental Housing and Homelessness Board?

And what we are recommending is that they'd be threefold.

First, creating one countywide plan to end homelessness.

Second, setting systemwide performance targets.

And third, aligning city, county, and suburban jurisdictions on policy and strategy.

The COC Board, by contrast, would continue carrying out federally mandated duties

AND WOULD SUPPORT THE LEADERSHIP BOARD IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY.

THESE MANDATES ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE COC WORK ULTIMATELY PROVIDES A CENTRAL PLACE

TO STORE DATA, A SINGLE ASSESSMENT TO PRIORITIZE THOSE WHO NEED, AND A SHARED SET OF LOCAL

STANDARDS.

BUT THE COC IS A FEDERAL PROGRAM AND REPRESENTS ONLY A PORTION, NOW A MINORITY, OF THE OVERALL

FUNDING DEDICATED TO HOMELESSNESS IN SACRAMENTO.

FOR THAT REASON WE BELIEVE THE COC SHOULD BE A SEAT AT THE TABLE, NOT THE TABLE ITSELF.

AND INCLUDING THE COC BOARD CHAIR ON THE LEADERSHIP BOARD OF THE SACRAMENTAL HOUSING AND HOMELESSES BOARD WOULD HELP ACHIEVE THAT BALANCE.

NOW I WANT TO TALK JUST A COUPLE SECONDS ABOUT THE RATIONALE FOR OUR RECOMMENDATION.

FIRST OUR HUD TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER EXPLICITLY ADVISED AGAINST RESTRUCTURING THE ENTIRETY OF THE COC BOARD AT THIS POINT.

WE HAVE A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM OUR HUD TA PROVIDER WHICH IS AGNOSTIC TO WHO THE COLLABORATIVE APPLICANT IS.

THEY WOULD PROVIDE SUPPORT AND

PROVIDE NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDLESS OF WHO THE COLLABORATIVE

APPLICANT WAS OR THE STRUCTURE OF

THE COC BOARD IN SACRAMENTO.

I THINK WE HAVE ACTUALLY SHARED

THAT STATEMENT WITH YOU AS OF

THIS MORNING.

SECOND, WE WANT TO PROVIDE, WE

WANT TO PROTECT YOUR LOCAL

DECISION MAKING FROM FEDERAL

SHIFTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT HAPPENS IF NEW

FEDERAL FUNDING COMES WITH NEW

STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

COC BOARD?

WHAT IF STATE INCENTIVES FOR

funding disagree with federal ones. These are not hypotheticals. These are challenges we are

navigating this year and separating the CLC board from the leadership board is a practical way to

safeguard flexibility while ensuring alignment. In summary, our recommendation preserves what must

remain federally compliant, elevates elected leadership where accountability belongs, and

unifies the county around a single plan that this leadership council would provide on a shared

performance framework. We believe that this is the clearest path to a stronger, more coordinated,

and more accountable system. Thank you. Thank you.

Lisa Bates, I didn't mention my name earlier. Just to end our comments today,

I want to just mention a little bit about what Sacramento Steps Forward does

because I think a lot of times there's a confusion about who we are.

We really connect the data, the dollars, and the daily work of more than 120 organizations

and 1,200 CBO staff that are on the ground every day in our community.

And we try to coordinate all of these moving parts so that we can function as one system.

We do support the NOFO and the 35 projects that are contained within it.

We have seen increases in funding in that NOFO year over year,

and last year we received $7 million more than the year previously.

We are helping people not enter into homelessness through a system-wide prevention program from our HAP dollars

that were directly in relation to the actions that are identified in the RCHAP.

We are training staff on how to problem solve for solutions that are far less expensive than housing.

And we've pulled down, as a nonprofit, millions of dollars of funding for this community to help families be able to be housed next year.

And that's private funding.

In regards to the conversation that we're having today and that has already been articulated,

we do need a structure that gives you the authority

and the accountability to make decisions quickly

in a centralized place.

We want that.

We are thinking that the option that we have presented here

gets you there while still protecting the ability of the COC

to do the on-the-ground work

and to also meet the requirements of HUD

to be representative of the community.

I think there is an issue if you call yourselves the COC board, you may be limiting yourselves, and I don't think you want to do that.

And so how do we strengthen, that's the issue we're talking about here, the communication, how do we strengthen the ability to quickly see what's happening at the board at the homeless and housing board level if you choose that option?

And that can be done through a formal arrangement.

You can task us as the lead entity to have to make sure that that administration and that coordination is happening.

That puts us directly accountable to you, which is what I'm hearing is some of the concern and issues.

And so the reality really is that you and you in the city have 90% of the resources that are going to address homelessness,

public resources that are going to address homelessness in our community.

So it makes sense for you to build a model that you have the authority and the accountability to better align and integrate these investments.

And then we, staff, SSF, the COC, can be the team to support your actions and the directions that you set.

So I appreciate the time.

Great. Thank you, Lisa.

and thank you to members of the CFC and the leadership thereof for your testimony this morning.

Before we get to Supervisor Kennedy, I've sat quietly for a good amount of time here while others have spoken.

So I'm going to go ahead and maybe ask some questions and then do something a bit unconventional.

Again, harking back to what I said earlier about a motion.

So I guess what I would like to have answered, and it can come from either Lisa or COC leadership or staff,

is that under the Sacramento Steps Forward recommended alternative option,

my understanding is that the COC is where, that is the body that is actually, again,

per federal statute making the decisions about, I mean, fairly substantial decisions,

not inconsequential about millions in funding. Is that correct? Right?

No, no, I need the other, I need the other graphic up.

I apologize. I've never used this. Okay. Yes, you are correct. So the COC board has authority over

creating the application process and choosing projects for about $40 million COC funds.

They also have authority over the COC HAP allocation, which tends to be about the same amount as the county's allocation.

So under their recommended alternative option, even if the COC functions as an advisory body to the Sacramento Housing Homeless Board,

if the COC felt strongly enough that the Sacramento Housing and Homeless Board was not in agreement with their advice,

they would still be able to act independently to make those key decisions?

Well, I want Lisa or Joe or somebody to speak to the nature of the MOU they described.

We're just learning about this as well.

but I believe so, and that is why the alternative option that staff put forward is an alternative.

Our recommendation remains a joint board.

I'll get to that in a minute, but Lisa, do you want to respond?

You want me to respond to if there's a conflict?

Let me give you a scenario.

Under the Sacramento Steps Forward recommended alternative option here, the way I understand it.

So, COC is now an advisory body to SHHB.

Don't know what the details of it would be in this scenario, but the COC advises the Sacramento Housing and Homeless Board to go in a particular direction.

The Sacramento Housing and Homeless Board feels very differently, disagrees very strongly with that advice.

under this alternative, could the COC conceivably act in a very different way than what the Sacramento Housing and Homeless Board would do otherwise

if they had the sole authority per federal statute to function as a COC?

I think that you can mitigate a lot of that through the strengthening of the MOU.

But at the end of the day, the COC board does have the ultimate decision on the local priorities for how you want to spend or how you want to have a local competition around the 40 million.

Remember, we have to have a competition.

And there are priorities in very limited way that the localities can set.

Now, if you saw with this last NOFO, HUD set the priorities.

And so we're all scrambling to meet their priorities.

So there's a little bit of discretion that we have in terms of how we want to structure the priorities for the NOFO.

But the competition happens independently and a rank and score happens.

Thank you for that.

If I can, I just, I ask the question because I think, you know, well, I know that we, the board and others,

others have been saying fairly routinely as of late and even later that there feels like and

I think in actuality there is a disconnect as it relates to accountability in terms of,

you know, as you mentioned before you left the podium earlier, Lisa, you know, we're making

making big decisions about big taxpayer dollars as it relates to how we set priorities and

direct resources for homeless services and housing.

And so what I'm trying to distill down here by asking the question and hearing your response

is how has that accountability, how would that accountability functionally change?

And maybe the scenario I've outlined would not come up frequently.

it would come up very infrequently.

But ultimately, I guess because of the fact that the COC board is charged by federal statute,

that it kind of feels like a bit of a paper recommendation here,

as opposed to the primary recommended option from staff,

which is to let the majority of elected officials sit within that federal construct of the COC board,

if that makes any sense.

And then to my second point, and I think one that I think is equally important for me,

is that I believe that staff has recommended what they have

because I think, again, you're hearing to a person

an interest in limiting more than expanding bureaucracies

and oversight and governance to the point that has been made

by many of my colleagues already this morning

about being more nimble and being more capable