All right, good afternoon, good afternoon, welcome.

I would like to like to call to order this meeting of the San Jose City Council for the afternoon of September 16th.

Tony, would you please call the role?

Sorry, Kamehameha Campos, present.

Tordillos here.

Cohen.

Cohen.

Ortiz.

Present.

Okay, he's here.

Candelas.

Here.

Casey.

Here.

Foley Mayhan.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Great.

Thank you.

Now, if you're able, please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge the allegiance to the United States.

One nation.

One of God.

Thank you.

Today's invocation will be provided by the Evergreen Studio of Music and the Arts.

And Council Member Condelas will tell us more.

Thank you, Mayor.

It is my pleasure to introduce today's invocation.

The Evergreen Studio of Music and the Arts, also known as Isoma.

Isoma is a vibrant music and arts school dedicated to providing high quality education to the visual and performing arts.

They serve students of all ages, ranging from youth, young adults, adults, offering lessons in instruments, voice, uh, dance, and visual arts.

We've been fortunate enough to actually have uh their performances during our the music in the square series in the summer at the village square, and each time uh they have left a lasting impression on on my neighbors and residents uh in in my district.

We're honored to have uh them with us this afternoon.

So please join me in welcoming Elvi Todoro, executive director of Isoma, along with her talented students as they lead us in today's invocation.

Thank you so much, and uh, we're so grateful to be invited here, and uh, I will be presenting to you our performers for our next musical production at Hammer Theater here in downtown Tennessee that is Disney's Aladdin Jr.

And to perform to us for this afternoon is our Princess Jasmine, which will be uh performed by Kyla Murphy, and of course, the title roll of Aladdin.

We have Troy Kalupin.

Thank you all.

I can show you the world, shining, shimmering splendid.

Tell me, Princess.

Now, when did you last let your heart decide?

I can open your eyes, take you wonder by wander over sideways and under on a magic carpet ride, a whole new world, a new fantastic point of view.

No one to tell us now or where to go, or say you're only dreaming.

A whole new world, a dazzling place.

I never knew.

But when I'm way up here, it's crystal clear, and now I'm in a whole new world with you.

Now I'm in a whole new world with you.

Unbelievable sides.

Soaring tumbling, freewheeling through an endless diamond sky, a whole new one.

Don't you dare world a hundred thousand things to see.

I like a shooting star.

I've come so far.

I can't go back to where I used to be.

Every turn a surprise.

Every moment, I'll chase a manywhere.

There's time to spare.

Let me share this whole new world with you.

A whole new world.

A whole new one, that's where we'll be a chase.

Oh, a one just place.

Thank you so much.

And you know, with that, that was actually their voices.

It wasn't a recording.

And two, if you want to see them live, they're actually going to be performing October 9th through the 11th, right here at the Hammer Theater in downtown.

So although the school's in my district, they actually book out the Hammer Theater, so I encourage everybody to attend and uh thank you so much once again, Isoma, for coming in and getting us ready for council.

Thanks, Councilmember, and thank you again.

That was beautiful.

All right, we're on to ceremonial items.

I'd like to invite Councilmember Casey, Councilmember Condelis, Ray Reardon, our director of the Office of Emergency Management, our city manager, Jennifer McGuire, and all of our CERT folks to come on down to the podium as we recognize and proclaim September as emergency preparedness month.

See you welcome, please behavior.

Thanks for being here.

Appreciate it.

All right.

People gather around, I'll get started here.

September is national preparedness month, the time to remind ourselves that being ready saves lives and strengthens our community.

In San Jose, we are proud of our community emergency response cert program, emergency response team cert program.

Last year alone, we graduated 339 new CERT members, bringing our total to over 1,600 trained residents.

The program is flexible with three ways to participate.

A traditional in-person course, a hybrid online slash in-person option, and a new self-paced online course followed by a hands-on learning day.

Our long-term goal is ambitious but critically important.

To have 10% of San Jose's population, about 100,000 residents trained in cert skills.

That means more neighbors ready to help in the moments that matter most.

And just to mention, last month I attended a resource fair hosted by the Basking Ridge Neighborhood Association, where CERT volunteers hosted a table sharing information on why residents should get certified.

And it was really amazing to see their commitment and passion for preparedness and how they try to empower everybody in our community.

So on behalf of the city, I want to thank all CERT volunteers and our Office of Emergency Management for their collective commitment and encouragement to everyone in our community to take this month as an opportunity to prepare, get trained, and make a difference for your family and your community when disaster strikes.

So I would like to now invite Councilmember Casey to say a few words before we present the commendation.

Councilmember.

Thank you, Mayor.

San Jose is a large city covering a hundred and eighty plus square miles and roughly a million people.

When does disaster strikes?

And it's when, not if most of us will need to rely on ourselves and our immediate community until help arrives.

This is why preparedness is so important.

In District 10, our goal is to make sure every household is prepared and connected to a neighborhood association with a community plan.

These plans will be strengthened and supported through CERT, which will serve as the backbone of our local response.

And I'd like to take a moment to thank three gentlemen, Herb Bowen.

There he is, Colin Tanner, and our area District 10 CERT leader, Greg Koopman.

We've set an ambitious goal as well to get a thousand D10 residents certified within the next 12 months.

The mayor did a great job of outlining CERT, but one additional point CERT is actually free for every San Jose resident.

So please take advantage of it.

Preparedness starts with us as individuals, as families, and as neighborhoods.

The more we invest in readiness today, the stronger and safer we'll be when disaster strikes.

A responsible step we can all take is to sign up for CERT training and do it today, please.

By doing so, we're not only protecting ourselves, we're building a more resilient community together.

So now it's my honor to introduce Ray Reardon, Director of the Office of Emergency Management.

Well, good afternoon.

Thank you, Mayor, Council members, for all those continued support for the emergency management programs.

In commemoration of 9-11 and many of the natural disasters that have been faced throughout the nation, Congress recognize the need for establishing September as emergency preparedness month.

The purpose and focus of this effort is to proclaim the need for the residents to prepare themselves, their families, and their neighborhoods.

There are not enough first responders to help everyone in need following a major earthquake, flood, or other conditions.

The community needs to step up.

From our own flood of 2017 to the threats we've seen from the recent wildfires down in Southern California, the residents did step up to help each other because they were prepared to help themselves and neighbors to respond and recover.

In preparing for that fateful day, remember you can take five steps to prepare yourselves.

The first is a sign up for alerts on alert scorg.

Or by text, and I'm going to ask everyone to take out your cell phone now.

Please, everybody bring out your cell phone.

It's not a test, but open up your text application.

Dial 888 777, and in the text dialogue put in your zip code.

So again, it's 888 777 to dial, and in the text box, put in your zip code.

You will now receive alerts related to your zip code.

You will get the notices that we send out to the public so you can be aware and then take action before the emergency strikes.

Second is make a plan for your family and yourself.

Be aware, as city employees, we must, we're required by state law to respond to an emergency.

So we always encourage employees to take that time to prepare your family so they know you have to respond to work.

For emergencies where you're told to stay home, create a stay box that's got food, emergency food supplies.

If you've got young children, diapers, other things you need to consider food and water, and don't forget about your pets.

For emergencies where you're asked to evacuate, you may be giving given as little as five minutes to 30 minutes.

So what is it you're going to take with you?

So you should have a bag ready to go with emergency food and water in it, information about who you're going to communicate with if you've got to leave.

That's very important to have.

And also put a label on your go bag to grab your medications on the way out.

And then prepare like the folks behind me.

Take the time to become part of the community response.

So we have two groups behind us behind me, the community emergency response team and our radio amateur civil emergency services or races group.

And remember that when an emergency occurs, more than one emergency can happen at a time.

And if you are asked to evacuate, what would you take with you?

Figure that out now.

How would you take these items with you?

Take pictures of your important documents and the possessions of your home.

Those pictures will be valuable for you afterwards in recovery.

Scan them to a thumb drive or put them up on the cloud.

Be sure to become community ready.

I'd like to thank these great members behind me, as mentioned the community emergency response team members, our radio amateur civil emergency responders who will help communicate from our CERC groups to our emergency operations center.

And let's not forget the American American Red Cross, who is a tremendous assistance for those in need.

Emergencies can be scary to think about, but taking one step today, as you did with that text, get you closer to being ready.

Together we can get through emergencies.

Together we are stronger and more resilient.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Red.

Thanks for all the work you coordinate.

Thank you all for the work you're doing.

Why don't we take a big group photo if we shift this way?

Thank you all for being here today.

George.

I'll block everybody out.

He's tall.

All right.

Thank you all very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, now I'd like to speak.

Thanks.

Yeah.

Thanks again.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you again.

To our emergency management partners.

We're on to our second ceremonial item.

I see we've been joined by our new Consul General Neftali Said Perez Gonzalez.

I want to invite Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmore Candelas who have brought forward a commendation for Mexican Independence Day.

So we'll be we'll be proclaiming Mexican Independence Day.

We had quite a celebration here last night at City Hall.

Well done to everybody involved.

Come on down, Councilmember.

Thank you, Mayor.

I see we are also joined by County Supervisor Sylvia Arenas, who's the highest ranking Latino elected official here in Santa Clara County.

Hello, everyone.

It is a true honor to stand here today, not only as your council member, but also as a proud member of Comite de Fiestas Patrias de San Jose.

Two hundred and fifteen years ago, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla ran their church bell in Dolores, calling his people to rise against oppression.

That movement, the grito de Dolores, sparked a moment that would forever change the course of history.

It was a call for freedom, dignity, and self-determination.

Values that still resonate deeply in our hearts today.

Mexican Independence Day is more than a historical anniversary.

It is the celebration of courage, resilience, and cultural pride.

It is a reminder of the sacrifices made for sovereignty and of the traditions we continue to pass from generation to generation.

And today, right here in San Jose, those traditions are alive and thriving.

Since its founding in 2022, the Committee de Fiestas Patrias de San Jose has worked tirelessly to transform this celebration into a signature cultural event that draws thousands of families each year through music, dance, and food, and the powerful moment of El Grito, the Comité preserves our heritage, promotes civic pride, and strengthens the bonds of community for everyone who calls San Jose home.

That is why today, together with the mayor and all of my colleagues, we are proud to present this proclamation of Mexican Independence Day to honor the historical legacy of September 16th, 1810, and uplift the incredible work of the Comite de Fiestas Patrias in keeping our culture alive and celebrating here in the city of San Jose.

And it's now more important than ever to make sure that we are shining a light of the many benefits brought by our Mexicano community.

And to the committee, thank you for your leadership, your dedication, and your vision.

Your efforts ensure that future generations in San Jose will not only remember this history, but will live with pride and joy.

Now I have the opportunity to introduce the president of El Comité, Mr.

Jesus Flores.

As Consul Member Ortiz mentioned, we have been doing this for almost four years, and we are very proud of continue continuing the tradition.

And these are our way to celebrate that we belong, that we contribute, and that we are part of this community.

These are not only parties, these are celebrations of our heritage, celebrations of our traditions, our culture, and our families and communities.

Once again, thank you, Council members, thank you, mayor, and thank you to the city of San Jose for letting us do this, which we love.

Thank you.

Before we present the uh proclamation, uh the consul general would like to share a few words.

Thank you so much and I would like to say thank you for this invitation for um this moment here today is September uh 16th, and this is the Mexican Independence Day, and it's very, very an honor to be here to share this day with you in this moment with all the council members with all the mayor, the council member, with all of you as well.

And I would like to say just that we appreciate a lot this proclamation because this is the valor that the city give to our community, and it is amazing because I see a city very open city, very inclusive city, and a very democratic city is very, very, very happy to be here and to see that because this is an example for a lot of cities as well.

And today, for example, for the Mexican community that I represent, it's very important to give that value because for us it's very important as well to give that value that they give us to contribute to the city.

Thank you so much.

Yesterday we celebrate with a grito with all the committee de Fiestas Patrias, and it's amazing that organization as well that we do it also with the city and with a lot of members.

It's very important to continue with this tradition, not just in Mexico, in every part with Mexico, they live because we give this tradition and culture to all the world.

Thank you so much, and thank you for the time.

Muchísimas gracias.

I'd like to invite my colleagues uh to join us for a picture, as well as Supervisor Young, who's also a member of the committee.

All right.

Thank you all.

We're going to continue on with our agenda and we're on to orders of the day.

Does anyone on the council have any changes to the printed agenda?

I'm not aware of any requests from council members.

I will be, we don't need a vote on this, but just so everybody knows.

I plan to, after item three point one, take item 3.4, which has a should be very brief, and then want to go to 3.5 so that our partners at the county can get back to their important work, and then we'll go to item three point three.

Uh before we move on to the closed session report, though, we do have an adjournment today.

We will adjourn today's meeting in memory of Dr.

Robert Gross, who passed away on July 4th of 2025.

A longtime resident of Alviso and Barriessa, Dr.

Gross served as the Valley Water as a Valley Water Board Director, where he championed infrastructure projects and worked to protect our natural resources.

We honor his memory and extend our condolences to his family and friends.

And now I'd like to invite Councilman O'Cohen to tell us more.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh today we adjourn in um honor of Dr.

Robert Bob Gross, who passed away on July 4th at the age of 92.

Bob proudly served our country as a medic in the Korean War, carrying the lessons of sacrifice and compassion into a life sign of lifetime of community service.

For 20 years from 1988 to 2008, he represented district three on the Valley Water Board, including time as chair.

During his tenure, he helped shape policies on flood control, groundwater management, and recycled water that continue to protect our homes and strengthen our environment today.

In recognition of his impact, Valley Water named the Dr.

Robert W.

Gross Groundwater Recharge Ponds, often called the Bob Gross Ponds, near Penitentia Creek in his honor.

These ponds continue to replenish our aquifers and sustain local ecosystems, especially during drought, and they are very helpful in fighting fires in the East Foothills, as they were this summer when the ranch fire broke out near Sierra Road.

Bob was also a proud Alviso historian and a familiar face at the Barriessa Citizens Advisory Council meetings.

He and his wife Lonnie embody the spirit of service, with Bob receiving Barry S a Citizen of the Year Award in two thousand, and Lonnie following in two thousand eight.

Their names have long been part of the fabric of our community.

Bob Gross will be remembered for his integrity, his leadership, and his pride in serving both his country and his community.

His legacy lives on in the people he inspired and the community he strengthened.

And most of all, he was a really nice guy.

Beyond his service and leadership, Bob was above all a mentor and friend.

His close friend, Richard Santos, also a citizen of the year and a valley water director, visited him just before his passing to share a message of love and respect for his friend and guide.

That moment reflected the deep bonds Bob built over a lifetime of service.

Dick is with us today, and we'll share a few words about his close friend Bob.

Many of the things that David said I'll be repeating.

Who passed away on July 4th, 2025?

Dr.

Bob, who was called affectionately, was elected to the Santa Clara Board of Directors on June 2nd, 1980, and served until 2020.

During that time, he earned his PhD in environmental studies.

He demonstrated an exceptional commitment to the people of Santa Clara County, guidance policy, action on water supply, flood protection, and environmental stewardship.

He was influential voice on numerous state and federal committees, including advisory roles with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, and the State Department of Water Resources.

He was known for his advocacy for protecting our water quality and this innovative approach to recycle water, including the design of a groundbreaking multi-purpose reservoir project featuring a water reclamation facility, technical training center, and a community education programs.

He worked tirelessly to ensure future generations would inherit clean and reliable water resources.

And thanks to the mayor of the committee, we continue doing that.

Dr.

Robert W.

Gross Groundwater Recharge Ponds.

I had the pleasure of making that happen, along with Councilmember Kamei voted for that, along with penitentiary creek trails, honor his contributions.

He also, as David said, was the Barry SS Citizen of the Year.

A veteran of the Korean War, he was awarded the commendation ribbon with medal pendant for a matorious service.

Colleagues recall his breath of knowledge, candor, sense of human humor, an unshakable ethic compass.

Dr.

Bob was born in Iowa at 18 years old to the Korean War.

Came home on the GI Bill with the Santa Rosa Junior College, then on to San Jose State.

Then in 1963, right before I was being shipped off to the DMZ, they had a chance to meet Bob for the first time.

Dr.

Bob Gross was a mentor and a friend for over 60 years in our Alviso historian.

And in his memory, I request for your help to protect restore and preserve Alviso history.

And with that, he will be missed.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Councilor Cohn and Director Santos for helping us remember Dr.

Gross and all of his contributions to our community.

Okay, we're on to the closed session report, Nora.

Thank you, Mayor.

We do not have a report out of closed session today.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next is the consent calendar.

There are any items members of the council would like to pull.

I'm aware of two.

I believe Michael, I'm sorry, Councilmember Mulcahy would like to pull item 2.8.

And then Councilmember Ortiz would like to pull item 211, and that would be for a separate vote.

The first, I think, just for a comment and question.

So I'll go to Councilman Mulcahy first.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so I know this is purely moving this program from environmental services to the energy department, and for my friends in the environmental services department will know some concerns around the program that's being moved.

Um, you know, as a property owner and someone who spent the last 25 years in this community and the last you know number of years receiving notices from you know what we've created as a cottage industry of uh vendors out there calling to make sure that I know that my report is due to the city of San Jose, and I know from you know walking and knocking on doors and meeting other business owners that people have paid thousands of dollars to third parties to satisfy these requirements.

And I guess the real question for me, and I'm hoping, you know, I won't call anybody down, but I think in the next opportunity, because I think you come to committee to report, um, is to talk about really what is ultimately the value we're trying to get at.

If we're really trying to um, you know, we we sort of label this as a performance measure, but in reality it focuses more on um compliance checklists than really encouraging um emissions reductions or uh you know investment into property.

And so I really want to make sure that you know, as we're moving this program over, we not just move it, but we really think about what its intentions are, because you know, again, we've created a cottage industry of vendors out there who are waiting for that moment when these reports are due to charge our small businesses and our property owners, you know, residential over 20,000 feet is included, and we know where those costs go.

They get you know buried back into rents and everything else.

So I want to make sure that we're doing the right thing by collecting the data we were looking for, but to what end and to what um and to what result.

So that's just an encouragement.

I'm certainly gonna you know support this move, but I just a message to the energy department that we'll be looking forward to more information on how you're gonna change the program moving forward so that's the most effective.

Thank you.

Thanks for those comments.

I agree.

Uh, is the administration able to tell us if there's a point at which a report would be coming back to committee on the items the council members referencing.

We can also take that offline.

Hi, Julie Benevente, deputy director for the energy department.

Um so we are coming back in October with our climate smart semi-annual update, but typically we don't go into and that one is uh I'm that's already going forward um past the deadline.

So um I'm thinking though that we can come back with an informational memo or some other uh form to be able to relay the information that you're asking for.

I'm not really trying to make work for anybody other than to you know really to kind of justify the program and making sure that we're managing the unintended consequences of what is likely a really important um set of expectations for our you know owner community and our tenant community out there.

So again, not trying to make work but wanting to understand you know, as it moves into energy, there's got to be some rethinking about what those expectations are for that program, and I think that would be of interest to me in terms of what that would look like moving forward.

Yeah, and we certainly can also um because our TNE memo is going forward, but we certainly can include that in the council memo that we'll bring either in the fall, um and we do do analysis on a regular basis to kind of look at those impacts.

So we have a lot of data that might be of interest um to share with council.

And if I may jump in um perhaps a one-on-one with council member Mulcahy to go a little bit more into depth on this particular program, um just so uh he can understand where it's been and where it's going, it would be helpful as well.

Yes, we will do that.

With respect city manager, I've had one-on-one with environmental services prior to this, which is exactly the reason I'm asking as it moves over to energy, that we take another look at this program to make sure that we are not burdening our ownership community with vendors who are you know out there preying on people that are not necessarily professional owners and getting them in a position where they're spending thousands of dollars on reports that I don't really know what we're doing with once they're received in the city of San Jose.

And if the intention is to be better around conservation and investing in our buildings to be more energy efficient, that is still a mystery to me.

Understand, and and we have consolidated this under Lori Mitchell's leadership, which uh which we just did as of July 1.

Uh so again, I think just understanding obviously the concerns you have are valid, and I think staff can take them and talk about where there might be taken this program and how we might refine the purpose of the program so uh nobody is uh worried about being preyed upon or some of the other things that you've been concerned about.

So I'll we'll talk to Lori about that because I'm not sure that she's in the audience today, and um we'll be back in touch.

But I think again, when we're realigning programs, there's a there's an opportunity to rethink them and to understand the benefit of them and maybe uh make process and efficiency improvements in them or and just generally rethink the work, and I think this is an opportunity here as well.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Julie.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Councilmember Mulcay.

Let me that was just commenting question on 2.8.

Let me turn now to Councilmember Ortiz, who I know wanted to pull item two point eleven.

I don't know if that was for comment or just to pro uh move a separate vote.

Yeah, I would like that to be a separate vote, please.

Great.

Do you want to make that motion now?

Uh to I would like to I guess bifurcate the vote and uh vote two eleven separate and then move the rest of the uh consent agenda separately.

Great.

Let's just take item two eleven.

So you're gonna we'll move a bifurcation, a bifurcated vote on two eleven.

Do we have a second?

Thank you.

Great.

Tony, do we have public comment on item 2.11?

Yes, Sean.

Okay.

211 is the in-kind contributions correct?

GIF limits.

New clock.

Yes, new clock.

Okay.

So this is the uh two eleven is the uh the contributions, correct?

Yes, it's increasing the gift limit.

From 50 to 200.

Thank you all for responding.

Um I'm not sure how I feel about this.

There is a part of me that feels okay.

First of all, it's across the board, that's one thing, but I see so much in my work every day of political beholdenness that I wonder.

Like, did somebody give extra money to so and so to so and so to so and so?

And that's what's reflected in what lack of response or lack of concern in the work that I do every day.

And I know you're doing that.

Where's she going thing?

I see the look.

Um, and so I know that this would be even, and so it would be uh 50, it would go from 50 to 200 for how much you could um like if you're all going to the same chili cook-off or whatever it might be.

Yes, you're the best nodder.

Yeah?

Okay, we'll just go at that.

So I get that.

But at the same time, um I don't know, I'll just cut it short.

I'm gonna go, yes.

I just didn't expect to get here so soon.

Um, but I still think that um all these donations should be just kept as short as possible and as low as possible.

Um I think that this next mayoral campaign uh cannot come soon enough, and have as few candidates as possible.

Back to council.

Okay, thank you.

Uh so we are going to vote now on just item 2.11, then we'll take up the rest of the consent calendar.

Is it the motion on the floor is to bifurcate?

So I don't have a motion for action.

Oh, I'm sorry.

We don't need to vote to buy it.

We don't need a motion to bifurcate.

So I need a motion on what you want to do with this.

All right, I think it was a motion to oppose.

Is that your motion?

I just want to oh, can't have a separate vote.

You can have a separate vote, but I need a motion.

So we still need a motion.

All right, I would motion it to take up two point eleven step separately.

Okay, okay.

Okay, we don't need to vote on that.

I'll move approval of item two point eleven.

All right.

I just need a motion on the we got it.

Councilman Cohen just moved approval of item second 2.11.

Did we have a second?

There was a second.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Is that better, Tony?

Yes.

It's like we've never done this before.

All right.

Motion passes six to four with Mayhan Ortiz Campos and Casey voting no.

Okay, thank you.

We're under the rest of the consent calendar.

Does anyone have a motion?

That was committee.

Okay.

So we have a motion, uh, so we motion to approve the rest of the consent calendar.

Do we have public comment?

Yes, Sean.

This is where I'm concerned about the raising of the limits.

Um because when we are out there, we can see by the lack of comments, by people who very clearly say that they are very concerned about sweeps and how they oppose sweeps, and then they are completely silent and complicit and say nothing, nothing.

Well, all of the chicanery is going on at Columbus Park.

When we are out there, we see people who say that they are concerned about sweeps and how they are uh they are opposed to them, and that yet they are the only single voice against these sweeps, and we appreciate them so much.

These two people should not be getting the same thing, they should not end up maybe perhaps against each other in a later race.

People who started all of the hate against RVs, and it's been this one downhill of dominoes.

Maybe those people should have people running against them, who are very, very strong.

It just doesn't seem that I could support something that says yes, everyone should be on this playing field that only goes against unhoused people all the time because you guys keep reeking in so much money, and then you're a beholden to whoever got you into that seat, and we see it over and over again.

We have these conversations with you publicly or privately.

Oh my god, I'm so concerned.

Oh my god, the homeless, yes.

And then when you're up here, you're like totally down for it, baby.

Sweep them all.

And you should all be ashamed of yourselves, every one of you who does that every single time.

So how could I support anything that supports your raising campaign spending limits?

We already took up that item.

Huh?

That was the previous item.

I thought that was this one.

No, we're on 2.7.

Oh, damn it, it's so close.

It was still a good ending.

Back to council.

Oh, okay.

All right, no other public comment.

Yes.

Okay, coming back to the council.

Let's vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, Tony.

Okay, we're on to land use consent.

This is item 10.1.

Do we have a motion?

Motion to vote for approval.

Thank you.

Tony, do we have public comment on item 10.1A?

Yes.

It looks like King Shu Fu.

Come on down.

Hi, uh, I'm first time to come here to hear the hurry.

Uh meeting.

Uh usually I'm playing the uh golf and also those two golf clubs near my home, and almost every month's I play watch there.

And to be full, I heard CD tried to shut down these two cars, and now I don't know what happened here.

And I play golf to add the city, and they provide uh regiment discarded by San Lose.

No, if sounds they tried to shut down these two calls.

We cannot play anywhere.

We have to go outside.

So that's I'm uh mighty well that's coming out.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Tony.

Did we have any other public comment?

Tony, did we have any other public comment?

Uh not for this item.

Okay, great.

Let's vote on item 10.1A.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, Tony.

All right, on to item 3.1 report of the city.

I need to go back to item 2.11.

I announced that it passed.

It did not pass.

It needed a minimum of eight votes.

It got six to four, so it did not pass.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that on the record.

Let's go to the report of the city manager.

Thank you, Mayor.

I do have a report today.

Um I am very pleased to introduce Emily Lamb, our new director of the city manager's Office of Administration Policy and Intergovernment Relations, otherwise known as API.

Emily started the position yesterday.

And here she is standing right here.

Emily will oversee the Office of API with a team of 19 full-time equivalent talented employees with an annual operating budget of approximately $6.5 million.

Emily's administrative and policy duties include city council and community agendas committee agenda services, tracking of city council referrals, management of the city manager's office budget and human resources, oversight of the design of complex interdepartmental and interjurisdictional policies and special initiatives, service delivery evaluations, strategic planning efforts, and support for the city councils and city managers' focus areas.

The intergovernmental relations duties include tracking, monitoring, and advocating for legislation at the federal, state, and local levels, and oversight of our state and federal lobbying contracts.

Emily began her career in 1999 as an analyst in the Lewin Group, a research and consulting firm in Washington, DC.

She joined the San Mateo County Health Department in 2003 as a management analyst three, where she developed the first countywide health inequities reduction plan and operationalized performance-based budgeting and management.

In 2005, she worked as an operations manager for EPCRD's, a health care startup.

In 2007, she served as the vice president of health care and federal issues for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, where she spearheaded a national push for immigration reform and led a multi-year campaign that brought a regional U.S.

patent and trademark office to San Jose in this building.

She joined the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in 2015 as the Director of Policy and Government Affairs, where she managed a team of F7 and oversaw state and federal lobbyists.

She served as a bridge builder between utilities, associations, environmental and environmental justice groups, legislators and regulators at the local, state, and federal levels on critical issues, including water rights, infrastructure funding, and low-income ratepayer assistance.

She has also helped found a state trade association, California Community Choice Association for a local government CCA electrical electricity providers.

In 2021, she was promoted to Deputy Assistant General Manager for External Affairs, helping lead over 70 staff across the divisions of policy and government affairs, community benefits, communications and strategy, planning and innovation.

Emily holds a Bachelor of Arts in Community Health from Brown University and a master's in public policy from Harvard University.

She brings 20 years of experience building coalitions, leading strategic initiatives that improve the health and well-being of communities.

She's done an amazing job.

Will you also stand in if you're in the audience?

Some of our API employees.

All of you guys stand up.

Don't be shy.

So please join me in congratulating Emily and welcome them to our city.

She's accompanied by her spouse, Dora Gutares, her mother Felicia Lamb, her uncle and aunt Franco and Lisa Mao, and her Aunt Mary Mao.

At this time, I would like to invite you to say a few words.

Emily, and again, congratulations and welcome to the city.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Mahan, Council members.

I'm honored to join the City of San Jose as the new director of the City Manager's Office of Administration Policy and Intergovernmental Relations.

I want to thank City Manager Jennifer McGuire for the opportunity to serve this vibrant and dynamic city.

Throughout my career across local government, nonprofits, the private sector, and regional coalitions, I've been driven by a deep belief in the power of public policy to improve people's lives.

Whether it's building bridges between stakeholders, advocating for equitable infrastructure investments, or shaping policy across all levels of government, I've always sought to align strategy with impact.

I'm especially excited to work alongside each of you and with our dedicated city staff and community partners to support San Jose's priorities, building more housing, improving public safety, and making city government more responsive to our residents and businesses.

Thank you for the warm welcome.

I look forward to listening, learning, and collaborating with all of you in the years ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you again, Emily.

Congratulations, Emily, and welcome to the team.

Looking forward to working with you once again.

We are on to, and thank you, Jennifer.

We're on to item 3.4.

This is our report on request for a proposal for general banking, lockbox, merchant card and investment custodial services.

I believe we have a very brief staff presentation.

Yes.

I see the team coming down now.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council members, city managers, staff, members of the public.

My name is Maria Oberg.

I am the director of finance.

And with me today, I have Karen Murabito, senior deputy city attorney, and Bonnie Hamilton, banking program manager.

And I promise we will be brief because I think we wrote a record long report for you.

So the city issued RFP a request for proposal for banking services a little over a year ago.

Three qualified vendors responded: Wells Fargo Bank, our current banking provider, JP Morgan Chase, and U.S.

Bank.

And the evaluation committee selected JP Morgan Chase based on the overall score.

JP Morgan was highly rated in these key areas.

One, they have extension, extensive experience serving government clients in California.

They have teams located here in the Bay Area.

They currently bank the city of Los Angeles, City of Sacramento, the County of Santa Clara, and many others.

They have state of the art security products that will help us protect our city funds.

Most importantly, they invest over $18 billion a year in various cybersecurity and other technological advances.

Their highly ranked banking portal will provide us a one-stop location for all banking services, and their merchant services platform will offer us advanced features and improve the reporting.

These are by no means an exhaustive list of service they provide, but it's everything from payroll to merchant card services to online payment portals for our city customers, and again, a very robust reporting service.

Some notable terms and conditions.

Karen Murabito was fantastic in leading the negotiations of this agreement, so she was able to lock in an initial term of six years, starting upon execution and continuing through June 30, 2032.

We also got two two-year options, which could extend the relationship through June 30, 2036.

That will provide stability for all of the departments and for our customers as we retain the same bank for a longer time.

Funding for each fiscal year will be subject to the appropriation of funds by the city, and the finance department is authorized to reallocate monies between the services that's needed.

The fees for banking services as well as merchant services are fixed for the initial six years of the agreement, which provides great budgetary stability for us as well.

And very quickly, our recommendation is to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute agreements with JP Morgan Chase Bank for general banking and merchant card processing services with the initial term beginning on the date the agreements are executed by the parties through June 30, 2032, with a total compensation amount not to exceed 13 million dollars, and the annual compensation amount will be subject to the appropriation of funds.

We also request that the city manager be able to negotiate and execute amendments to any of the agreements with JP Morgan Chase Bank, subject to appropriation by funds by the city council to add new banking services, revise existing banking services, and adjust compensation based on the volume of services provided, and finally to exercise up to two two-year options to extend the term of the agreements through June 30, 2036, subject to the appropriation of funds.

And with that, we are happy to answer any questions.

Great, thank you all for your work on this.

Tony, do we have public comment?

Not for this item.

Okay.

Coming back to the council.

Don't see any hands.

Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second.

We'll let Tony decide who got that.

All right.

Seeing no further hands, let's vote.

Motion passes 9-0 with Kamei absent.

Okay.

Thank you.

Moving on.

We are on item 3.5.

This is a verbal report from the County of Santa Clara on the fiscal impacts of HR 1 on county services.

We'll have a presentation from county executive James Williams.

We'll invite him and any staff to the box.

Okay, yes.

Tony, Councilman Kameh would like to request a vote yes on the last item.

So thank you.

Therefore, the um vote is unanimous 10-0.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Mahan, members of the city council.

My name is James Williams.

I'm the county executive.

Wanted to acknowledge that I have here with me uh Supervisor Sylvia Arenas and Supervisor Betty Young, as well as the county's chief operating officer Greta Hanson.

Want to extend my appreciation to the city manager and her team for making arrangements for us to be able to present to you and share with the public here as well the very significant effects that our community is facing as a direct result of the actions taken by President Trump and Congress for an unprecedented withdrawal of federal funding and support for two very critical areas that impact our entire community.

We have a presentation packet that's been distributed to you, and I'm gonna sort of I'm not gonna go through slide by slide this 21-page PowerPoint.

I'm gonna kind of walk through some of the slides and then leave some opportunity and time for questions.

But we wanted to make that full material available for the benefit of each of you as well as the public who is following along.

Start by talking a little bit about why why we're here, what we're talking about, and that's the impact of uh HR1.

HR1 is uh the so-called one big beautiful bill act, which was uh passed by Congress and signed by President Trump on July 4th of this year.

As that bill moved through the federal process, it's a reconciliation bill, which is a process used uh in Congress to move legislation through on just a simple majority vote through the United States Senate.

As that bill moved through Congress, it uh did a number of things, and I'm gonna focus on really a couple categories of impacts that directly affect services that your county government is able to provide to residents uh here in our county and the impacts on our community.

In particular, HR one uh enacted the largest cuts in our nation's history to two critical federal programs.

One, and I'm gonna talk first kind of national level before I drill down to impact here in Santa Clara County to residents here in San Jose.

One is to the federal Medicaid program.

This is a joint state-federal program that collectively is the single largest health care program for Americans.

Nearly one in five Americans and nearly one in two children across our country depend on Medicaid for access to health care.

HR1 nationally represents a nearly one trillion dollar cut to the federal Medicaid program.

That cut takes a variety of forms, but unfortunately for us, in some of the ways in which that bill changed as it moved from the House of Representatives to the Senate, and ultimately was enacted into law, some of those specific mechanisms and manners for that one trillion dollar cut to Medicaid, impact our health care system here in California disproportionately, and in particular Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, the county's main health care system, and for San Jose residents, the single most significant health care delivery system.

The other major cut that HR1 imposed is an unprecedented withdrawal of federal support for another joint state federal program, nationally called SNAP federally.

Here in California, we call it CalFresh, but it's federal food assistance.

It's about a 200 billion dollar cut nationally to the federal SNAP program.

Again, CalFresh here in California.

SNAP provides basic food assistance for about one in eight Americans and nearly one in four children in the United States.

There's no way around it other than that this is the single largest withdrawal of safety net services in our nation's history.

And the impacts in California across the state to Medicaal, which is California's implementation of the federal Medicaid program and to CalFresh, which is California's implementation of the federal SNAP program, will be significant.

What does it mean here in Santa Clara County and here for San Jose residents specifically?

Well, about one in four county residents rely on Medical for access to health care, and over 130,000 Santa Clara County residents rely on CalFresh for access to basic nutrition assistance.

It doesn't get much more basic than health care and food for people.

Specifically for City of San Jose residents, it's over 90,000 San Jose residents who depend on CalFresh, and over 300,000 San Jose residents who depend on Medical for access to health care.

We are disproportionately affected as a county government, and we'll talk about that a little bit, but I think it's important before we move into that part of the conversation to just keep at the forefront the direct impacts to those families who rely on those programs and services most specifically.

And as you'll hear in a couple minutes, because of how the overall health care delivery system is funded and operates, those impacts ripple across health care for all Santa Clara County and all San Jose residents.

The reason for that is pretty straightforward.

Medicaid or Medical in California's implementation is our single largest federal funding source for the county government.

While the city gets federal funding as well for the county itself, about a third of our entire budget is derived directly or indirectly from federal revenue sources.

So on a percentage basis, we're talking about quite a significant impact.

But specifically for Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, which is the county's health care delivery system, more than 50%, I want to say that again, more than 50% of its revenue comes from Medicaid, Medicaid.

About 16% comes from Medicare, about 13% from commercial insurance payers, and the smallest portion, 12% from local tax revenue.

In other words, about 88 cents on the dollar comes from non-local revenue sources.

And we've built a system over the years that has successfully and effectively leveraged bringing in particular those federal resources through maximization of revenue streams that were made available both historically and then expanded under the Affordable Care Act in order to deliver that access to health care for the benefit of the entire community.

To put it simply, the magnitude of impact that we're facing over a billion dollars a year and lost federal Medicaid revenue, the health system, is a level of cut that's destabilizing to the ability for the system itself as a whole to operate, and that calls upon a whole variety of very significant solutions, and I'll talk about that in a little bit as well.

What is that magnitude of impact?

There's a number of different categories and ways in which Medicaid funding in particular was cut.

This is our projected impact to the county's revenues as a result of HR 1.

You'll see some of those impacts begin in this current fiscal year that we're in today.

And that's because there were provisions in HR 1 that took effect immediately, including, for example, you may recall that on our ballot last November was Proposition 35, which was a measure that extended a mechanism California and many states use to help draw down federal match.

It's called the managed care or provider tax.

That measure passed.

California voters supported that measure.

That measure would have brought some significant increased support and increased federal revenue to support Medi-Cal across California, along with a modest amount of dedicated funding for public hospital systems.

Unfortunately, one of the things HR1 does is it immediately freezes any of those mechanisms.

Prop 35 is dead.

That creates a hole in this year's budget for the state as well as for the county.

Those impacts grow significantly over time, in particular beginning at the end of calendar year 2026, in other words, this upcoming fiscal year, with the imposition of a variety of new administrative requirements associated with maintaining Medi-Cal benefits, followed by a significant ratcheting up, which is why you see that number grow significantly, of cuts to some of the specific types of funding streams that public hospital systems in California in particular have relied on for a long time to make up for the disproportionate volume of care that's provided to Medi-Cal beneficiaries or those who are otherwise uninsured.

We're talking about big numbers here.

Big numbers that will require a whole variety of strategies, but you'll see, even though provisions do ratchet up over time, some of those impacts are large, significant, and affect us immediately.

So what is Santa Clara Valley Healthcare?

I know some of you know some of these stats, but I don't think it's as well known across the entire community just how significant a health care delivery system, Santa Clara Valley Healthcare is, especially here in the city of San Jose.

We operate two of the only three trauma centers in the county, the only two located here in the city of San Jose.

We're the largest provider of Medicail services.

I think that's more broadly understood, but it might surprise some of you to know that overall in this county, we're the largest provider of healthcare services to Medicare beneficiaries as well.

And indeed, that share has been growing over the years because Medicare reimbursement rates for hospitals haven't kept up with the cost of care more generally either.

And so there's been an increasing shift over the years away from private providers to the county system for Medicare services and access as well.

And Santa Clara Valley Healthcare operates a number of specialty services not otherwise available in our community, including one of only three major burn centers between Los Angeles and the Oregon border, and I'm very proud to say one of the top 10 in the nation and the best on the West Coast rehabilitation center.

These are services that we never know when any of us or our family members will need to rely on these services, and they're not provided by any of the other hospitals in our broader community.

Specifically for San Jose, Santa Clara Valley Healthcare is San Jose's health care delivery system.

Think about this.

Every 15 minutes, every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, every 15 minutes, someone is transported by ambulance.

A San Jose resident is transported by ambulance to a county hospital.

And an extraordinary 98% of trauma cases end up at a county hospital.

So for the most critical care and the most critical services, the backbone of health care delivery for San Jose residents depends fundamentally on this critical revenue source and on the delivery of health care provided by Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, its hospitals, and clinics.

In addition to that basic health care delivery, it's worth noting that Santa Clara Valley Healthcare also provides through the healthcare delivery system.

Again, I'm not talking about the other departments that are also affected by Medi-Cal revenues, but through its health care delivery system, direct services through our valley homelessness healthcare program, the only 24-7 lock psychiatric emergency facility in the county, which is located on the Valley Medical Center campus.

And as we all know from the pandemic times, it was precisely because of having such a robust health care delivery system that we were able to deliver so many vaccinations and conduct so many COVID tests to the benefit of 815,000 vaccine doses provided by Santa Clara Valley Healthcare to San Jose residents during the pandemic.

Why is it that the county's health care system is the size that it is?

There's a reason we got here, and I just want to note we have done so to date without any increase in local tax revenue whatsoever.

We've done so through leveraging federal resources, commercial reimbursement, and other resources into the system that the county organization saved two hospitals in our community from bankruptcy where there were no other bidders at all.

And more recently, regional medical centers, absolutely critical trauma services.

And we know the impact of the loss of those services because in calendar year 2024, when regional was not open for trauma services for a good portion of the year, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center actually had the highest trauma volume of any hospital in the entire state of California, which demonstrated the impacts both to the community in the eastern part of the city that had directly lost those services, but the fact that health care delivery is inherently and inextricably intertwined, and the shifting of patients from one place to another has impacts on services and availability of services across the county and across the community.

To give you a sense, our facilities are busy.

We thought that with the Operation Regional Medical Center who census has actually grown significantly, it's pretty much doubled since the acquisition, that there'd be a decline in patient census at O'Connor and Valley Medical Center.

That's not actually been the case.

These are stats from July, but the bottom line is this.

We have almost 200 folks coming in a day in the emergency room at O'Connor Hospital, for instance.

These facilities are busy, they're utilized, and the need for access in our community is very apparent, because of the nature of what we're talking about and how funding is interconnected, it's worth noting that the magnitude of impacts from HR1, the unprecedented withdrawal of this federal funding from our community, will have ripple effects on all of the kinds of services that the county is able to provide through its general fund and through other portions of the county operation that similarly depend on Medi-Cal revenue, and that includes, in particular, housing, behavioral health, and public safety-related services.

Just want to note that among the largest funding sources for the county's work in this space related to the very real and significant challenges in homelessness comes from Medi-Cal, including behavioral health services department funding and office of support of housing funding.

Similarly, the extraordinary work that the county's undertaken in recent years to significantly expand facilities, including several facilities directly operated by Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, facilities that are located even on the Valley Medical Center campus, are directly linked for their operation to Medi-Cal revenue as well.

And likewise, because the other place where we spend any discretionary money, county has a significant budget, certainly, but it's not as apparent to folks how that is carved out and how different components of it, because we are a subdivision of the state are really directed to very specific programs and services.

But a significant portion of discretionary programs are in the health care behavioral health and public safety space, including services that again are inextricably linked with health care delivery and with Medi-Cal funding.

So what are we doing?

Over a billion dollar a year revenue impact, critical, literally life-saving services.

What are we doing?

We're doing a lot of things at the same time, a lot of things.

We have to because we have an obligation to do everything we can to try to ensure that we're able to maintain access to critical services for our residents to the greatest extent possible.

We have a three-pronged approach that includes a multitude of strategies within each area.

We have moving forward significant initiatives to reorganize service delivery at Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, to seek out and pursue available revenue-related opportunities.

We have a countywide hiring freeze.

We've taken significant actions in recent years.

Some of you may be aware that I brought forward a recommendation that the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted in May to begin the work to restructure Medi-Cal managed care in our county, which was part of looking at strategies and approaches that help ensure maximization of every dollar in the most efficient way possible towards service delivery for the most critical services.

But the magnitude of what we're facing, the timeline that we're facing it, means that those strategies alone are not sufficient.

The state has a really important role to play as well.

You heard some of the stats I told you about Santa Clara Valley Healthcare's outsized importance to health care delivery for San Jose residents.

But you may not know public hospitals in California, even though they're only 6% of the state's hospitals, only 6%, actually operate more than 50% of the trauma and burn centers in California and train more than 50% of the doctors in the state.

In other words, public hospitals across California, though few in number, literally form the backbone for the entire health care delivery system in the state of California.

And so we believe, and we are pushing hard at a multitude of levels and in a multitude of ways, that there's an important role for the state to play to mitigate some of these impacts.

Now, to be clear, the state's in no position, and we don't pretend that they are in a position to be able to backfill the magnitude of federal funding loss.

But there are absolutely steps that the state can, should, and must take to help mitigate impacts on these critical public health care delivery systems that form the backbone of health care in California.

And a final piece of the prong, about 300 million dollars of that over billion dollar number.

So obviously far less than half, only about a third, is that the board did move forward by unanimous vote to place a measure on this special election ballot this November, a five-year five-eighths of a cent general sales tax measure, which would help give us very critical maneuvering room to continue to move forward on these other strategies and mitigate the most serious and significant impacts on our community.

Counties, it should be known, have very limited revenue raising authority.

It's very different than a charter city like San Jose.

We can only do types of revenue-related measures that are specifically and explicitly authorized by the legislature.

We do have this authority due to special legislation that was pre-existing.

There have never been cuts of this magnitude.

The specific manner of some of those cuts disproportionately affect California and in particular revenue streams for systems like ours that are systems that disproportionately serve individuals who are on Medi-Cal.

And the magnitude and speed of those impacts make it extraordinarily challenging as we do the work we have to do to pivot operations and revenues as a system.

We're implemented, might be complex, might be difficult to understand.

The bottom line is not.

The bottom line is not.

Because the system that depends for a majority of its revenue on Medi-Cal is the critical health care delivery system for San Jose residents and for our broader community.

I'm sure you all have plenty of questions.

You've gotten some other materials in your packets.

Thank you for the opportunity to kind of give you that big picture overview, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you, James.

Appreciate you taking the time to be here and update us on the likely impacts of HR1, helpful to get that context from our partners at the county.

Let me go to public comment next, and so we'll give you an opportunity to take a seat and rest your feet for a moment.

I assume there will be questions for you, but Tony, do we have public comment?

Yes, I already have other language.

Go ahead and speak normally, and the screen above you and people's devices will translate you automatically.

So I call your name first person to the microphone to start speaking.

You don't need to speak in the order that I've called you.

I'm gonna call five names for now, and then I'll add as we go.

Michael Elliott, Antonia or Antonia Zazueta, Joy Murietta, Amy, Kostashak, and Jennifer Graber.

Come on down.

Hi.

My name is Antonio Sasueta Charles.

I'm a pediatrician at Santa Clara County Valley Medical Center, and I'm here on my own time and expressing my own opinions.

While I've been working at the county for almost 25 years, I was born and raised in San Jose.

I attended Trace, Hoover, and Lincoln High School, and in fact, after completing medical school and residency, I chose to come back here to Santa Clara County to work in my own community because I love San Jose.

I wanted to provide high quality medical care to my patients, to the very hard-working families here in San Jose, and like all of you.

But I can't, I feel like you can't say you love San Jose if you don't support the county in which San Jose in which we live.

San Jose is dependent on the county for emergency services, for the care of our foster children and the youth and juvenile hall.

We need the county to continue to function under the horrible cuts of this current administration and enacting the effects of the HR1 bill.

I'm here to speak out for the patients that I take care of every day.

Let's be clear without this administration and without this horrible bill, there would be no measure.

We were just doing the best we can with the situation we've been given.

And I'm so worried to think about what will happen if measure A doesn't pass.

It isn't just our most vulnerable who will suffer, but it's all of us, even those of us with health insurance will see increased rate times at emergency services and loss of public.

Thank you.

That's your time.

I'd also like to call down Sylvia Arenus and Raymond Keynes.

Go ahead.

Hi, June.

My name is Amy Kostashak.

I have served as a pediatrician for 21 years at East Valley Clinic, a federally qualified health center that is part of the Santa Clara County Health System.

I'm here today on my own time because I care deeply for my patients and the community of East San Jose.

The vast majority of East Valley Clinic patients are insured by MediCal.

And each year we provide over 75,000 visits in our clinic.

For 8,000 children and over 19,000 adults, we are their medical home.

At East Valley, our mission is simple.

We strive to help our families live long, healthy, happy lives.

We provide checkups, vaccinations, screenings for developmental delays and chronic disease.

We guide families on nutrition and safety.

We deliver cancer screenings, diabetes care, dental services, and prenatal and women's health care.

We also connect our families with behavioral health care and assist with food and housing assistance as well as connect them with educational resources.

HR1 threatens all of this.

It deeply cuts, its deep cuts to Medicaid and food assistance will strip Santa Clara County over 1 billion dollars in the next year.

And by changing eligibility and reimbursement, it will force many families who have their have medical insurance to lose it and push even more demand on clinics like ours at the very moment that we are being defunded.

This will devastate the health of our community.

Measure A is our only hope to keep East Valley Clinic and other Santa Clara County clinics and hospitals open so that we can continue to provide the care our patients and this community depend on and deserve.

And I urge you to save our clinics and our hospitals by endorsing measure A.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jennifer Graber.

I'm a pediatrician for the past 30 some years in the county of Santa Clara, the last 19 years at the Valley Health Center at Tully, which serves the east side of San Jose.

And my colleagues have said it very eloquently, but what I want to impress upon you is that the children that we serve at Valley Health Center at Tully and all of our county clinics are the future of this valley.

If we do not care for them, we will not have a future.

And it is our job as pediatricians, as elected officials, as teachers, as parents, to do the best we can for these children.

And in this case, because the federal government has not taken on that responsibility that we have asked them to do by our tax dollars, we need to make up that difference.

And it's really critical that we take care of our children.

I urge you to consider Measure A as a part of the way that we can help make San Jose and the County of Santa Clara and California stronger as we move into the future.

Please consider that.

Thank you, next speaker.

I'd also like to call Mariana's Rosales.

Come on down.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joy Marietta, and I'm a resident of San Jose as well as the executive director of a youth nonprofit advocacy organization in Santa Clara County called Kids in Common.

We have over 30 years of experience advocating for the elimination of systemic inequities and improved equitable outcomes for all Santa Clara County youth and annually track data indicators relating to youth basic needs, health, and education to determine where collaborative action is most needed to drive the best results.

I'd like to, it is in that capacity that I'd like to urge you to please consider your support for Measure A, with 30% of all youth in our county who are already at risk for food security, a quarter of families living below the real cost measure, and over 5,000 students experiencing housing instability at a rapidly increasing rate.

HR1 will only exacerbate the needs of our community's youth and ultimately their health needs.

Supporting Measure A will protect health care across Santa Clara County as a temporary but essential response to a massive federal health care cuts that threaten to shut down emergency rooms, trauma centers, and local clinics that serve our most vulnerable youth and families.

I urge you to please support Measure A.

Thank you, next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council.

Thank you for allowing me a few moments to speak today.

I'm Michael Elliott.

I'm the executive director of Valley Health Foundation in a 28-year-old I just did the math San Jose resident.

And I want to ask you today to consider an alternative timeline in our hospital history.

Some of you may remember the closure of San Jose Medical Center in 2003 with a very busy emergency department and trauma center at the time.

The patients that had historically been served by that hospital were pushed to regional medical center, O'Connor Hospital, and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center.

And it's no accident that within a decade, two of those hospitals, now seeing more uninsured patients arriving at their doors, fell into distress.

And if not for the action by our county dedicated to serving the residents of San Jose, there is a real possibility that this city, a city of a million people, would have had three hospitals.

San Francisco, by comparison, has 14.

We are at another crossroads today with these federal cuts.

And I ask for, and we will be proud to have your support of our effort to keep our local hospitals open.

We all want the same thing.

We want to keep San Jose residents safe and healthy.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Sylvia and as a county supervisor, but for former uh council.

And I know for many of you, what is really important to you as a council members to ensure that your residents are safe, that they have great streets, that they have great parks, and that their quality of life is is one that thrives, right?

And I think for us at the county, we also share some of the same um priorities, except what we uh call them is social determinants of health.

So it's a conditions where people live, work, and play.

It's the same thing, right?

And then their access to resources.

When they have higher access to resources, the level of quality of life is raised.

And so this is what we intend to do by being a safety net uh to our community, is to increase those access uh to health.

Today we we established a public health crisis for our Latino um community because there is an increase in suicides, there is um a decrease in accessing um medical care to the point where Latinos are living two years less than everybody else.

And so when we think about quality of life, this really is life and death.

Now, some of you may think that this is really the responsibility of the county, but the quality of life is each and every one of your responsibilities, not just to pave the roads and keep those parks clean, but to keep the people living and thriving in a way that allows for them to continue to be in this community.

So, with that, I urge you to please support um our measure A and to encourage our residents to vote the same way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Gianela, come on down, Tony Loeb, and Carmen Martinez.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon.

My name is Raymond Goans.

I'm a member of Alpha Well Prize.

Uh I'm here as a representative of Silicon Valley Debug, and I ask also I am from East San Jose, which will be disproportionately impacted by these cuts if the city of San Jose doesn't follow the county's uh lead in supporting our community.

Um, I know that currently our mayor has um take a stance against homelessness and has chosen to incarcerate homelessness.

But if the city does not, I'm saying take these taxes and help fund these um the fund this, homelessness will go on a rise, and the school to prison pipeline will again once uh be filled and funded.

I ask that you guys help and lead, I'm saying being the largest city in California, large cities in California.

There's a lot of money here, there's a lot of wealth here, there's a lot of power here, and we have a city as chosen to incarcerate the poverty.

This is a chance for you to lead and take control of it and lead by example, take the county's lead, or take the county's um advice and lead, mayor.

I'm talking to you directly because you are a pro-homeless and incarcerating homeless.

You are, you endorse Prop 36 and Prop 36, endorse that.

This is your chance as a mayor to say we want to lead and uh fund this fund measure A and say yes on measure A and ask all the city residents to say yes, I'll measure A.

Specifically, ask those in those east side of San Jose that are losing uh schools right now to endorse measure A.

Healthcare is a primary responsibilities and a fundamental responsibility for those going through education system that lacks it.

You should take a uh take a stance and stand on the side of the county and don't fight the county when they're trying to help the city of San Jose support San Jose.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Hello, mayor and city council.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak with you.

I'm a volunteer.

Um, I have been engaged in actually canvassing my neighborhood, and I will continue to do that.

I am amazed how little knowledge there is of this health issue.

And almost no one that I've spoken with was aware of it, and do not know what the potential solution or at least partially could be.

So I what I urge the city to do, and I'm not sure exactly how you will do it, but to get the word out, whether it be mailers, other things, because uh so far I've only seen one mailer, which really doesn't go into any detail.

So that's my request because Measure A is not the ideal solution, but it's the only thing we got going right now.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, next speaker.

Hello, my name is Marina Salvarado Rosales, and I'm here with Latina Coalition and the Trispanas Community Organizing Group.

And I'm here to strongly support Measure A as well.

This measure will protect our local hospitals and vital community services that are most vulnerable that our most vulnerable communities rely on, including Latino and immigrant families, youth, elders, and people living with chronic health conditions.

It ensures our youth have access to safe to safe spaces and strong schools, keep families families healthy and neighborhoods stable.

And I urge the city council to support measure A and protect the health and well-being of our community.

Without Measure A, hospitals and clinics could face closures, longer ER wait times, and reduce access to care, which could affect everyone in our community, including those with private health insurance.

And this measure keeps me keeps helps maintain reliable and central services for all residents.

Measure A ensures that everyone in Santa Clara County has access to high-quality local health care, including emergency rooms, trauma centers, clinics, and mental health services.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

I'd also like to call Darcy Green and Lawrence Deng to come on down.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Garmin, and I am the director of organizing for Latinas Cottercancer.

I am here to implore you that you direct the city manager and staff to come up with a plan that will allow for cross collaboration with organizations and the county to ensure that the city council plays a crucial role in preparing to step up by supporting measure 8 or go above and beyond to also come up with other tangible solutions.

These financial impacts will affect our county and our cities, like the one we're currently in, San Jose.

San Jose is a home to many Latinos who are already disproportionately facing many obstacles and receiving medical care and etc.

However, this isn't just going to impact one race or ethnicity.

It will affect us all.

The county has already stepped up and done its fair share of putting measure 8 on the ballot.

Now it's your turn to strategize and see what you can do to ensure that your residents receive any medical services on a timely manner and that they're not waiting extra time to be treated or seen.

Use your power to give the residents what they need in order to be healthy.

It's simple.

Are you willing to put residents' lives at risk?

Are you willing to wait extensive times when you and your family have a medical emergency or need?

The solution is to support measure A.

It is crucial for the entire city to stand behind with its people and do its due diligence to work for our people.

Our people want medical care, they want access to health care services.

HR1 bill will make it impossible for us to achieve if we do not come together.

So step up and continue being the leaders that you are.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Carla, come on down, and Jeffrey Buchanan.

Hello, City Council.

My name is Janelle Ardonias with the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits, a co-convener of the Real Coalition, and I am also a district one resident, and I'm here today to urge the City Council to fully endorse Measure A.

This deficit will affect everyone, including our most vulnerable residents and San Jose residents specifically rely on Santa Clara Valley Healthcare Services, which operates three of five hospitals in this city.

Furthermore, around 71,000 San Jose residents were transported to an SCVH emergency room in the last two years.

Our nonprofit alliance works every day to provide safety net services, but our nonprofit providers will not be able to sustain the overwhelming demand this budget bill will create.

This is why the full council must take a stance to support this measure to prevent closures, preserve trauma and emergency services, protect our vulnerable residents, and demonstrate leadership and care for your constituents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hello, members of the city council.

I'm Darcy Green, executive director, Latinas Contra Cancer, lifelong resident of the city.

I'm here in strong support of Measure A and hoping that this city council will also support measure A.

I'm here because as I go home every night to my own family, I can't help but see the faces of the cancer patients we serve and the faces of their children and their caregivers and their partners who want them to survive, who want them to get the care that they need.

And a hundred percent of the patients that we serve are utilizing Medicail and are going to be just in a catastrophic way, and getting emotional thinking about it, impacted by these cuts.

They're counting on us.

They're counting on us to rise to this occasion.

They're counting on us to dig deep and meet the moment.

They're counting on us to be leaders.

We need this city council to join the fight to pass measure A for cancer patients, for people who have chronic conditions, for children who want their parents to survive a completely survivable disease or chronic condition.

This is our opportunity.

And as a resident of this city, and I can look at all of your districts and think of the members we have at our organization who live and reside and are battling cancer in every district across the county.

They need us to step up now and work together.

Nonprofits, county governments, city, to figure out a way through this terrible, terrible attack that is happening in our communities.

I sincerely hope I can count on you to support this measure and do everything you can to help make sure it passes in November.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Also, Elizabeth and Betty come on down.

Um Betty Duong.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Lawrence, and I'm speaking in favor of Measure A.

As right now, as you may know, things have been a little bit crazy based on the um based on the passage of HR1.

And because of what's been going on right now, is this what the board of supervisors won?

No.

But be based on the cuts that are being made.

We need to take drastic action.

We need to take desperate actions because right now every member here in our city is very important.

Whether if it's it's trauma, whatever it's mental health or anything, mental health care and other matters is health care.

And I want to, and I want to also express that right now, we need to make sure that every resident here is being cared for.

And if this is one thing that that all of you that some of you are could care less about, the thing is why then why are you in office in the first place?

So right now, I'm asking you, please support measure A.

Let's work together, let's put our differences aside, and let's work together to help make not only San Jose a better place, but a county where we can, where everyone can kind of thrive, where we we can come together and know that any challenge that gets in the way, we can overcome it together and know that nothing is going to stop us from from achieving what we can, even when times are difficult.

Because that's how we that's how we get through it together.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Good afternoon, council.

My name is Carla Carvalho, and I'm one of the trauma surgeons at Valley Medical Center.

This is my thirteenth year at VMC, and last year I was part of the team that took care of the highest number of trauma patients in the entire state of California.

In emergency services, we provide a very unique role.

We treat the whole spectrum of patients from all of San Jose and beyond, regardless of insurance, well-insured, uninsured, Medicaid, Medicare, anything that our first responders bring to our doors, we are ready.

Just last week, I took care of the young, the old, the strong, the weak, the drunk, the sober, the rich and the poor.

Injury can happen to anyone, and it does.

Our family, our neighbors, our teachers, our parents.

We need Measure A so that we can continue to provide 24-7, 365, high-level care to everyone in San Jose and beyond.

Thank you for your commitment and your service.

And thank you for please considering to serve to support Measure A.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Derek and Kylie, come on down.

Mayor Council, Jeffrey Buchanan, Managing Director of Working Partnerships USA.

You know, like many of the speakers here, I'd encourage you to consider supporting Measure A.

As many of you know, you know, the county of Santa Clara is the largest employer here in the city of San Jose.

And with these kinds of, you know, these kinds of deficits and likely cuts as a result of HR 1, it's gonna have impacts on businesses, it's gonna have impacts on housing providers.

Certainly, it's gonna have impacts on family budgets.

Um, you know, but on a more personal note, you know, I I worry about the fact that this amount of money, this is the operating budget of two or three of these hospitals, what will happen, what services may be lost.

I think to 2018 when I received a call that no one would like to hear.

Uh it's not a story I talk about much.

Um, my then wife calls me and says that she's having trouble breathing, she doesn't know what to do, the phone hangs up.

I call multiple times, don't hear anything, hop in my car, drive to East San Jose, uh, my apartment and see a crew of San Jose firefighters and paramedics, you know, with paddles trying to restart her heart.

Her heart is stopped.

She is gurneyed up to the street and sent in an ambulance to regional medical, where you know, by the grace of God and the fact that we had those emergency services there, you know, while she was clinically dead driving to the hospital, she was brought back and over time with the care at that hospital, was able to be transferred to Kaiser to a private hospital.

And while not all of us use our county's hospitals, there may be a time where our loved ones are gonna need that.

We don't know when that time is, but I can guarantee you if we do not provide the dollars that are needed under measure A, there are, it's not gonna be a question of if lives will be lost, it'll be a question of how many lives are lost.

And I I really beg you as a council, if we can stand in support of trying to save a professional sports team here in San Jose, can we please stand in support of trying to save our public hospitals and the lives of our loved ones?

Thank you so much.

Thank you, next speaker.

Hi, my name's Elizabeth.

Um, I want y'all to take a moment, everyone in this room, to just think of uh a loved one that you have lost.

Think of their name, their face, what their voice sounded like, what they meant to you.

Just take a moment to conjure up that image of that person.

Think about what they meant to you, and you know, I I myself um I lost my dad, he was my best friend.

Um, I lost him in 2016.

He died um due to a heart attack, and what I would do to be able to hear his voice one more time, to be able to speak with him, to be able to just enjoy another conversation.

There wouldn't be anything in the world stopping me from being able to do that if I could.

And so I I think it's important for us to think about supporting Measure A as a way to help help everyday people keep those people that they love the most in their lives.

And so I really urge you as a council uh council, as a city of San Jose to be able to support this measure, because it's going to help save people's lives.

And that's that's that's everything.

Thank you, next speaker.

Hi, my name is Betty Young, and I serve as one of your county supervisors.

I have the distinct privilege of serving alongside you, particularly now during this time of great uncertainty, crisis, and amid an unprecedented number of unprecedented events.

My district is half the city of San Jose, and both of our houses are on fire.

HR1's broad and sweeping impacts erodes the quality of life for us all and will dismantle what fragile gains we have made to mitigate homelessness, advance public safety, and create a better city.

You, the city are the first line of defense, and we, the county are the last, standing between life and death.

We collectively have our hands on every heartbeat in this city for everyone who needs an emergency room, for every loved one who will need care at some point in their lives.

Every ICU bed is filled, every emergency department is at capacity, and every resident in our city deserves a fighting chance to survive a trauma with our care.

I love this city.

I was born and raised here.

I grew up on east side and now live in downtown.

The city of San Jose gave my family a second chance at life when we had to survive war and flee.

Keep we I know we have the opportunity and the values and determination to maintain this promise to our residents.

We have a lot of work to do together on all fronts of public safety and homelessness.

I want to get back to that work.

Let's put this crisis to bed and move forward with our growing partnerships.

So to my friends on the board on the council, to my allies and my rider dies, to our growing partnerships and budding work together.

I look forward to seeing this crisis through alongside you.

Thank you for serving.

Thank you for loving the city, and thank you for being incredible partners to the county.

Oh, still got time.

Please support measure A.

I'm on my off time right now, I clocked out.

Please support measure A.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Mayor, City Council, audience.

Thank you, Mr.

Williams, for your very thorough report.

I won't repeat everything that was being said, but I'll be brief.

My name is Derek Graste.

I'm board trustee Mount Pleasant School District, also candidate for governor of California.

We need to support Measure A.

Many of our families go bankrupt due to health care.

We need to support our children, our working families, our city and county employees, as well as all residents of the county.

We need to make sure people get the health care that they need.

We need to save lives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before the last speaker speaks, I'd just like to say we've called all cards.

Um if you submitted a card and didn't hear your name, um, go ahead and come on down.

Go ahead.

Hi, Mayor and Council.

My name is Kylie Clark, and I'm the campaign manager for Measure A Save Our Local Hospitals.

I think you've heard a lot today from residents from clinicians about why they are supporting Measure A and why they are asking some even begging you to support it.

Clinicians are telling you what they're doing every day on the front lines to try to make sure that our community is safe and healthy.

Residents are telling you their fears if we don't have this funding to be able to keep our hospitals open, to keep ERs running, to make sure that an ambulance shows up when you call 911.

And I am here just to ask you to please endorse Measure A and to help you understand the importance of this.

I what I really really want to emphasize is that Measure A is about all of us.

All of us want to be healthy, right?

And for some people, Measure A is a matter of life and death.

For some of your residents, they will die if we do not have this funding and if the county has to close these essential services down.

But for everyone, we will feel the effects if we if measure A does not pass.

We will feel longer waiting times whatever insurance we have.

It will take longer for an ambulance to show up.

And that is the message that we should be hearing from our mayor and from our council that measure A is about all of us, that we all want to be healthy, we all want to be safe, and I encourage you to support this measure.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Hello, Mayor and Council.

My name is Alina Yin, and I'm a lifelong resident here in San Jose, as well as a district sixth resident.

And I'm here to encourage you to support Measure A.

This is uh a moment in our history where we have to knit our own safety nets, and this is incredibly important because there's going to be a lot of pain ahead, and this affects everybody, not just in San Jose.

I have family members here, nieces and nephews, and I care about their health quality, as well as um what is happening with people who are on Medi-Cal.

Once that is gone, that is now impacting their cost of living, and we might see a rise, we might possibly see a rise in homelessness again.

And these are well-meaning people who have jobs and they're trying to contribute, and so this is our duty to also contribute and make sure that we're taking care of everybody.

Thank you.

Back to council.

All right, thank you all very much.

Thank you, Tony.

We come back to council.

Nora, did you want to share anything or should we jump into our conversation?

Um thank you, Mayor.

You um I want to make sure the council understands that what is um agendized today is just hearing the report from um Mr.

Williams, and uh, and uh accepting the report is the recommendation, but nothing beyond that.

Um so I would ask that you uh stay within the confines of what was noticed, um, and and uh limit your discussion in that way in your questions in that way.

Thank you.

Okay, and then Nora, when we're done with questions for uh County Executive James Williams, uh we should take a motion to accept the verbal report.

Is that right?

That would conclude the item.

Okay, great, thank you.

Uh let me turn to Councilman Casey.

Thank you, Mayor.

I want to thank you, James, for your presentation and thank all the speakers for their comments.

Um I generally don't trust government math.

Um I came into our budget cycle with a healthy dose of skepticism, and if it wasn't for Jim Shannon and his ability to view things or at least analyze them on a granular level for me, in order for me to get comfortable with the process.

But when I look at the county, it's a black box to me.

I don't know what's going on over there.

And when I listen to your presentation, and the vagueness of the number, a billion dollars or more.

It's unclear to me what methodology you guys are using.

Um I don't know if you guys conducted a sensitivity analysis.

Is it the county's contention that under no circumstances will the impact be less than a billion dollars?

Thank you for the question.

You're right.

Government budgeting is complex and it's multifaceted.

That's particularly true for county governments in California because as subdivisions of the state, we have many layers of deep fiscal integration with the state of California.

When looking at HR1's impacts specifically, they are multifaceted.

And of course, there are estimates.

But let me give you an example of the approach that we've taken to estimate impacts, and by the way, they're in alignment with other communities.

For example, Los Angeles County, which has a health care system slightly larger than ours, is estimating a 1.8 billion dollar impact due to HR1 to its health care system.

One of the largest sources of impacts is due to imposition of certain requirements related to eligibility for Medi-Cal.

We know because there are a couple states that implemented pilots of those programs.

The general percentage of individuals who lost coverage who otherwise would have had coverage, and utilize those as well as Congressional Budget Office projections for that piece of the pie.

But the two areas of other significant Medicaid related impacts are ones that are actually known with a lot more certainty.

One is what are called directed payments.

These are variety of specific supplemental Medicaid revenue streams.

They come under specific different programs and different names, but they're designed specifically to help ensure that hospitals, many of them actually rural across the United States, but the hospitals that disproportionately serve individuals on Medicaid are able to make up for that gap between cost of care and base revenue payments.

What HR1 does is over time caps, it immediately caps and freezes those payment pools, and those have impacts to us this fiscal year.

But over time, cuts those payments down by 50%.

That's a specific and concrete impact that we know.

We get about $750 million a year in those directed payments today.

The other major category of impact is to a specific mechanism that most states use to draw down federal match.

As I said at the outset of my presentation, Medicaid is a joint federal state program.

That means that there's federal money, but it has to be matched with state or local money.

Different states do different things to help generate that match.

In California, it's a combination of things, including, by the way, county money.

But one of the mechanisms that California and many states utilize are so-called provider taxes.

HR1, and again, this is another change similar to the directed payment change that was made as the bill moved between the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and ended up in the bill that was ultimately enacted.

Those provider taxes, as I mentioned in context of Prop 35, frozen, capped, and then ratcheted down to specific percentage.

So those two categories of impact are very discrete, very concrete, and very knowable because those are specific real dollars that are coming in now, and the provisions in the bill and how they operate with respect to those categories are quite concrete.

So, of course, you're correct that there are degrees of uncertainty.

There are certainly projections that are much, much, much larger than the ones we have talked about.

But many of the categories of impacts are quite specific and quite concrete.

And when we're talking about impacts well exceeding a billion a year in revenue loss, the magnitude of that impact and their meaning to the operation of the system are unmistakable.

So just to follow up, then in terms of the sensitivity analysis that you conducted in the county, the range, the floor in all the analysis was a billion dollars.

Absolutely.

We had impacts, the category that's most sensitive, the category that has kind of the most uncertainty, has to do with how many folks might struggle to maintain coverage, that particular category.

That will turn on the state's ability to successfully implement automated employment verification for adults who are on Medi-Cal.

From states like New Hampshire that piloted those programs, we know that between 75 to 80 percent of individuals who are not able to have automatic eligibility verification lost coverage.

Congress appropriated nationally, nationally, in its wisdom, only 200 million for the implementation of those systems, with a timeline that got moved up when the bill moved from the House to the Senate of originally an implementation of 2029, got moved up to an implementation of calendar year 2026.

So to be frank, I think those estimates are generous, because I think California is going to struggle, like other large states, with actually effectuating automated eligibility verification on that timeline and with that funding appropriated by Congress.

But those estimates were based on those states like New Hampshire that had specifically piloted those implementations.

Thank you, and just one more question.

Constituents have discussed this with me, and I guess the concern is that this measure A is a general, goes to the general fund.

And what type of assurances do we have that those monies will be spent specifically for the items you mentioned here today?

I think you need to look no further than a couple things.

But in my view, it's really basic math.

Measure A doesn't backfill the full magnitude of loss that we're facing.

Not even close, not even 50%.

What it does do is put a meaningful dent in the magnitude of that impact.

The reality is the revenue loss, and I mentioned at the outset of the presentation CalFresh, but you'll notice I didn't spend a lot more time on CalFresh.

That's not because it's not an important program.

It is an important program.

But as you saw from the chart, the dollar amounts attributable to CalFresh are quite modest compared to the truly extraordinary dollar amounts attributable to Medicaid.

So if you look at that, it's really a question of, in my view, addition and subtraction.

The reality of what it means for the county organization, for its employees, and for the service delivery that's provided is unmistakable.

And so you're right, legally speaking, the measure is a general tax, but both morally speaking and mathematically speaking, the numbers are very clear.

Sorry, one last one.

What do you say to the criticism that measure A passes and you're still gonna have to close a hospital?

We don't know what the future will bring, and we certainly are dependent on decisions that others will make as well, in particular the state.

But we have an opportunity locally as a community to actually affirmatively be in a position to do something such that we can fight back and maintain those services.

So can we say as a guarantee what will happen?

I don't know if there's this talk of another reconciliation bill coming down the pike that could do something else.

Might be in another funding area or funding stream.

But what I do know is this, the magnitude of impact that we're facing and the timeline with which we're facing it, is not one where we can just pivot the healthcare system on a dime to respond.

I'm confident we can over time.

The reason I'm confident we can over time is in my tenure at the county, I've actually seen Santa Clara Valley Healthcare do some really extraordinary things and do those things rapidly.

But when you lose this magnitude of funding from your single largest revenue stream, again, as I said, Medicaid represents over 50% of the revenue for Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, followed by Medicare at only 16% by comparison to give you a sense of magnitude difference that we're talking about.

That we have very little ability to pivot without some breathing room.

What measure A does is it gives us that breathing room.

It's obviously a temporary measure, and there's going to need to be very significant actions taken within Santa Clara Valley Healthcare and across the county organization, regardless.

It's a question of magnitude, it's a question of impact, and it's a question of giving us maneuvering space to make those pivots to ensure access to critical services for the benefit of all of our residents.

We collectively serve.

Thank you, Mayor.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you for those answers.

We have many more hands up.

I want to just recognize, I want to thank Councilman Casey for framing all those as questions again.

Just a reminder to colleagues, we are not here to take a position for or against a measure, and we are we are here in our official capacity, unlike some of our colleagues from the board.

So we are on the public's time using public resources, and we are not here to campaign for or against a measure, but it's a great opportunity to ask questions of our county executive, arguably the most knowledgeable person in the room on the local impacts.

And so I thought that was just modeled that well.

Thank you, Councilmember.

We're going to continue on with other questions from colleagues, and we'll go to Councilmember Ortiz next.

Thank you, Mayor.

First of all, we just want to thank the county executive for your very important presentation.

I represent East San Jose, as you know, a community where many are working class and many are low income, and so I'm deeply worried about how these federal cuts will affect them, especially our communities of color and our immigrant populations.

I do want to, you know, and you mentioned it during your presentation, but I do want to thank the county for purchasing the regional medical center, which is uh in my district.

I know it's in county supervisor uh Betty Young's district as well.

Um my residents rely on those services, and I also know that you know, with these cuts from HR one, it's causing a very uh real situation for those neighborhoods.

I was actually born at that hospital.

Uh that hospital saved both of my brothers' lives.

Uh, when they were teenagers, they were assaulted uh with a machete.

Uh one of our brothers had his hand chopped off, and actually the doctors there uh in the trauma center remastered his hand, and so 15 years later, um it's fully operational.

And so I know that those doctors are some of the best uh in the country.

And then as recently as last year, my mother's life was saved multiple times at that trauma center when she was experiencing heart failure.

Uh and so that's why I was so involved in that, so passionate about that grassroots campaign to save that hospital.

And so I want to thank you guys for I guess footing the bill uh for that.

But now, you know, we're in this situation, but I want to thank you and make sure that I I recognize that.

Um, but you know, I uh the reason why I say that is because it's important to know, you know, my my family has always been Kaiser patients, uh, because my mom worked there for 35 years.

We had some of the best health insurance, but regional medical center was still the closest hospital with the services essential to save both my mother and my brother's lives, and so it's important to understand these these cuts won't just impact those who aren't on government subsidized health care, it impacts all of us because you know Kaiser and other other healthcare providers don't have those type of expertise that we see in the county uh hospitals.

And so I just want to make sure we are clear-eyed as we face these cuts and how they will impact our families, and I also want to say this is really not a county issue, it impacts all of us.

So we have to have a multi-government agency uh approach.

Um, so I just have some questions.

Um I know that you touched on this a little bit, but what would happen, you know, if the county isn't able to offset funds, regardless of how you would, what what are the type of cuts that we will see impact into our residents?

Thank you for the question.

Yeah, let me just say some one thing about regional.

Appreciate your comments about about regional medical center, which has been a really extraordinary uh success story, as regional has joined Santa Clara Valley Healthcare.

The patient census was 90 that on the day of acquisition, it's regularly above 180.

The services there are thriving.

And the operating budget at regional medical center is doing very well, it's exceeding expectations.

And one important thing for folks to know is we did step forward to save those services at regional, and we did so without any increase, any increase in general fund or local tax contribution going into the operation of Santa Clara Valley Healthcare.

And I don't think that's quite recognized by folks.

And it's because of really hard and diligent work over the last couple years that in fact has actually brought down on a percentage basis, general fund going into Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, which really speaks to why we're where we are right now, which is the impact of HR1, the federal cuts withdrawing the support of Medicaid funding.

What would we do?

Well, it's really hard.

And let me share why this is actually a countywide issue across all of the services that are funded by county discretionary revenue.

I mentioned earlier in my presentation that eighty-eight cents on the dollar in Santa Clara Valley Healthcare comes from revenue sources, whether it's Medicaid, Medicare, commercial insurance.

What that means when you're staring down cuts to balance a budget, and just like you all, we have to have a fully balanced budget, unlike the federal government, what it means is that when you cut funding in Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, you lose revenue too.

And we have the same challenge with some other social services programs.

So if you look at something like, for example, the county jail, I don't mean this in any way in a knock on the sheriff, that's basically a hundred cents on the dollar general fund.

And so if you need to save a dollar to close a budget gap, you get a dollar, but if you close service lines in the hospital system, even where there is general fund contribution to maintain those service lines because you have uninsured patients, or because you have patients on Medi-Cal where you're not getting full reimbursement up to your costs, you also lose the reimbursement revenue that you do happen to get on top of losing the reimbursement revenue from commercial insurance or Medicare.

And that means that when you're looking at service line closures in the health care space, it's a spiraling cycle down the drain.

That's exactly candidly what was happening at regional medical center.

Where service lines were being cut year over year, revenues were then declining, patient census was then declining, and with the operation of a facility like that, you have a certain amount of really critical overhead, right?

If you're going to have a trauma center or an emergency room, you have to, it comes with a certain set of things that must be available.

That puts us in a very difficult situation.

I heard one public commenter say, you know, the magnitude of impact is a couple hospitals.

To give you a sense of what we're talking about, the gross operating cost, not net, not net, gross operating cost for all three county hospitals that are not Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, is only 1.3 billion.

To give you a sense of magnitude that we're talking about, it is double, double the operating cost of the sheriff's office enforcement and custody bureaus combined, which is our largest general fund department.

So the magnitude is huge.

So we're going to be staring down really difficult things as a community, but it is precisely those kinds of facts that justified the emergency declaration by the Board of Supervisors to even be able to lawfully place the item on the ballot.

And it's precisely those kinds of facts that had a judge uphold that emergency declaration when it was challenged in court recently.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for those comments.

Wanted to ask, and I know that I think uh you guys have been partnering with Latinas contra Cancer for a lot of your town halls in regards to the HR 1 cuts, but uh has the county committed to making sure that um all of the communications uh especially, you know, places like East San Jose that were providing Spanish uh Spanish translation to families in regards to the cuts, so that families know the reality of them.

We have a wonderful language access team.

I know the city has incredible resources there as well, and we always try to ensure that in all of our most significant languages that we've made our both written and other materials available and accessible.

This is absolutely an issue that all of our residents need to know about and understand.

On the one hand, it is complicated, but on the other hand, candidly it's very simple.

The math involved is candidly addition and subtraction.

But we are trying to do what we can to make sure folks understand what's at stake.

There will be difficult decisions going forward, and difficult decisions at the state level too, in relation to the operation of Medi-Cal as well.

Great, thank you.

I assume that's the same for Vietnamese, right?

Absolutely.

That's my reference to multiple all of our major languages, Spanish, uh Vietnamese.

Last question.

I know that we just had a press conference earlier at the county building in regards to the disparities between the Latino community and our counterparts here at the county.

Do we expect if unfortunately we're not able to find a way to replenish some of these funds that will just continue to worsen?

There is a when you look at kind of the public health literature, we're very blessed as a community to be a place where we actually do relatively well overall.

Now that masks some very powerful disparities, and you were referencing some of the really substantial disparities seen in our Latino community, but as well as other parts and other communities across our county and across the city of San Jose.

One of those factors, one of those key factors is access to health care and access to health care, both behavioral health care and also right traditional health care that is timely, that is access to care that's not just through emergency rooms, but access to care that actually helps deal with chronic conditions and stabilizes those kinds of chronic conditions.

Those are some of the very things that are at stake with the changes from the federal government and access to insurance, especially to some of our most vulnerable families, and specifically Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, nearly half of the patients that we serve are Latino.

So there's some very significant impacts that affect health care for every resident, but undoubtedly those burdens will be felt disproportionately as well.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let me turn now to Council Member Kame.

I want to thank you for your presentation, and I want to thank all of the speakers who came out to share their perspectives today, taking time out of your busy day to be here.

You know, earlier in the day, we um presented September as National Preparedness Month in San Jose.

And the one thing that I know for sure is that the tsunami is coming.

And earlier you mentioned to us how some of the cuts happen immediately.

So, you know, that's why there's an earlier amount in terms of uh uh dollars being taken away, and you know, they continue on down the line uh year, you know, in the in the various years.

Um it was my understanding that a lot of the big hits are not gonna happen until after uh 2026 in terms of people feeling the magnitude of what is happening.

I think that uh these are early warning signals uh and um I um I know that the gentleman who has been out in the community talking to people and uh people really don't think that it's gonna affect them, right?

But but I do that I I do see that uh this is this is going to hit every single one of us.

If you think that you're not going to be affected, you're wrong.

I think that the magnitude of the problem is like a tsunami, and it's coming.

And some people don't believe that it's gonna touch them.

Oh, you know, I have private insurance.

Well, it's gonna come in the way of increased uh uh insurance payments, and and I think that at the end of the day, I really believe that we're all in this together, whether it's the east side, I represent the west side, it's gonna be for the south, it's gonna be for the north areas.

Uh it's really gonna be all over.

And and those who believe that perhaps it's not gonna touch them, um, it's coming.

It's coming.

So I want to thank you for trying to bring forth a solution.

It isn't the entirety, it's and who knows what else is coming, right?

Uh because it doesn't it doesn't seem to just come in one blow, it just keeps coming.

And and so I I really I really feel that we are in this all together, and you know, when you think about um when second counts, it really matters how fast you can get help.

I know when I live down in South County in Morgan Hill, uh, to think that my uh primary care is up in San Jose, and I thought, oh my gosh, you know, in an emergency, I gotta go to St.

Louis.

So, you know, it it it it really matters.

It really really matters.

So I wanna thank you for your presentation, uh, the work that you do, and uh this is a time of extreme challenge.

You know, I kept thinking, okay, well, is it a like a overtime or a what it what is it?

Uh, but you know, it's uh it's a time of of severe adversity as well as pain.

There's just gonna be a lot of pain, uh, and we're all gonna face it.

So I I look forward to um working with the county in in whatever ways may be, and you know, facing the uh extreme challenges together, because at the end of the day, it's our community.

I mean, let's face it, you know, half of the people in Santa Clara County live in San Jose.

So I I certainly know that that uh the tsunami is coming and you're preparing for what is to come, but I also know that the way things have been going lately, uh it's going to be uh another surprise every day.

So thank you.

I actually would like to uh move acceptance of the report.

Thank you so much.

Great.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Let me turn now to Councilmember Condos.

Uh thank you, James.

Um for your report and and also Supervisor Young, who's still in the dias, thank you for for being here and and Supervisor Renis uh for for your leadership.

Um I think you know uh I I appreciate the time and the effort taken to to highlight the potential impacts um on our vital services, especially in regards to the health care system and the essential services that our hospitals provide our community, and like some of my colleagues, I have a uh close connection to the health and hospital system or accounting.

I was born at VMC.

Um I got my appendix removed back in high school at VMC.

And so I I appreciate the safety net system that we have and what it means for our community.

And and so I I appreciate uh you being here and and you know these these funding reductions are are scary, um, and uh they're especially scary to the our most vulnerable who don't have that option of having private health care or having um you know uh other other insurance other than than what's available and and so I I appreciate I do have a question.

Um uh council member Kamei alluded to it, but maybe speak a little bit to the the jump, the the broad jump from year to year in anticipated revenues and and what that could be alluded to.

I have an idea, but if you can and briefly, because I have a couple questions, so uh absolutely, thank you, council member.

So um basically it falls in a couple categories.

If you go back and you look at that chart, I think it was maybe page six of the of the presentation.

The first chart the first number that 200 million number this year impacts are really attributable to the caps and freezes on directed payments and uh the loss of Prop 35.

The upcoming fiscal year, the one that begins this upcoming July, a significant ramp up because those cuts start trickling in.

But the big jump there is the imposition of work rule requirements associated with Medicail that begin uh under HR 1 in December no later than December of 2026.

In other words, during the upcoming fiscal year.

The next big jump is the following fiscal year.

And that following fiscal year, not only do you have a whole year's impact of those requirements, but you then have layering in the really significant ratcheting down of directed payment and uh provider tax cuts that I was talking about with councilmember Casey, that are very discrete, knowable, and concrete cuts.

So they do layer in, but they come fast.

They come quite fast, they're quite significant, and like I said, they actually have already begun.

Great.

No, that yeah, I know I appreciate that.

And um, I mean, this is this is a nationwide bill, and so what are other specifically in California?

What are we doing with our partners in you know San Francisco, Alameda, San Diego, LA, and maybe walk me through that?

Yeah, thank you for that question.

It's a great question that we've gotten from time to time.

What's going on elsewhere?

So, as I as I mentioned, there's only six percent of hospitals in the state that are public hospitals.

Um we we are working in partnership with the California Association of Public Hospitals and specifically our other county systems that significantly includes Los Angeles, but some of the Bay Area counties as well, even though they have much smaller systems.

Uh, and in part that's part of the legislative strategy that I was talking about, where we really need the state to be attentive to our publics.

Uh, that being said, other counties are really trying to figure out what to do.

Uh Los Angeles County, which has quite a large system as well, as I mentioned, uh, has said that they're looking at a 1.8 billion dollar impact.

They are talking about hospital closures very explicitly.

Um, but I think they're still trying to figure out what to do.

I think that's true for several of the other public systems.

To be clear, there's impacts already happening hospitals.

Hazel Hawkins, just to the south of us, the only hospital in San Benito County already was on life support.

Their deal to continue to operate fell through because of the passage of HR one.

That hospital is headed now to closure.

There's a hospital in Northern California that announced its closure directly because of the impacts of HR one.

And although the Senate created a fund to support rural hospitals, you know, that fund is not available, it's temporary, and it's not available to our system or other urban systems.

So the short version is the conversations happening, there's legislative strategy happening, but people are trying to figure out what to do.

We certainly have been more proactive here in staring down, actually trying to move forward on implementing options to address what's coming.

Fair enough.

No, thank you.

And then um a clarifying question on the presentation with regards to the county's response to HR1.

Um, you know, I've heard from residents, uh, you know, it's it's expensive to live here.

Um housing, groceries, child care, very costly.

There's a there was a bullet um to the the action, the the sales tax proposed.

Um can you can you clarify?

Are those are those things I mentioned exempt from that sales tax?

Yeah, so from sales tax in California, their uh services are exempt from sales tax.

That includes, of course, health care, education, child care, uh, as well as certain essentials like groceries, for instance, uh, are exempt from sales tax.

As I mentioned earlier, we have limited uh tools available uh to us as a county government.

Um, so it wasn't as if we were picking off of a big menu of potential types of taxation authority.

Uh but yes, those essentials uh are exempt from sales tax here in California.

Got it.

No, thank you.

Um look, I think it's it's uh no one likes to raise taxes.

I mean, we're all elected officials by the people and knocking on doors, you don't tell people, hey, I want to raise your taxes.

No one wants to raise taxes.

Um, but you know, it's it's my core belief that it is that that in action um it'll cost us so much more.

Hospitals, our hospital system potentially collapsing, uh, people dying.

I mean, that's the w uh we're I'm looking at uh at the the presentation, and and it's scary.

Um, and you know, I I I do I do I do want to caution, and you know, I do realize that the the measure is temporary, but you know, thinking beyond the five years, how are we how are we engaging um in the long-term health of our system that in five years, four years, we're not, you know, in this same predicament with the with the with a bigger number, whether it's uh advocacy legislation fixes at the federal level.

Walk me through the thinking on that.

It's uh it's all of the above.

You know, the I think the implications for HR1 in the long run, especially as that rural hospital fund expires.

It was a it was basically a tool that was used to get it through the United States Senate given concern from certain senators about impacts to their hospital delivery systems.

Um there will at the tail end of that period have to be, in my view, it's my opinion, but there'll have to be some further federal revisiting of some of what happens.

Now, what that looks like and whether that helps us or is a huge question mark.

Uh, but uh I don't think the nation is going to be in a position, I'm not speaking about Santa Clara County, but nationally in a position to uh stomach the impacts to rural hospitals all across the United States.

Those are out year things because they've bridged that gap with us with a short-term fund.

Um, and so that's a question mark.

But you're absolutely right about state level approaches and the work that we will have to do, for instance, to uh increase and expand uh commercial uh insurance reimbursement.

I think one outcome of HR one, by the way, this is not speaking about Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, but more broadly, if you think about the impacts to health care in the United States, is that there will likely be an increase in commercial health insurance rates.

Why?

Because those hospitals that can are going to shift those costs by increasing charges there.

Uh that's what you're going to see from a lot of a lot of more commercial hospitals across the country.

And that will show up in people's health insurance rates.

So these things are interconnected, they're multifaceted.

I didn't even talk about the impacts to things like Covered California and the Affordable Care Act Exchange.

That's going to also impact coverage.

That's also gonna have an impact on our revenue, that's also gonna have an impact on the number of people who have insurance here and access to health care, especially because there's families that move in and out between uh Medi-Cal coverage and Affordable Care Act covered California exchange coverage.

So there's a lot of pieces and facets, but um you don't have to be a wonk in the weeds of all of those to understand the big picture takeaway or the magnitude of what we're talking about.

No, thank you.

Thank you, James.

That's it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let me turn to Councilmember Campos.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to everyone from the county and and particularly um for our county executive um in that report.

I think it is an important conversation for us to be having, and I do have uh several questions to really help us understand the potential impacts in the city of San Jose.

Um I noted on page two of the presentation, you uh it says here, right?

A trillion in cuts to Medicaid, 168 billion um to the SNAP program, and we know that through reports from Second Harvest Food Bank that the need uh has been increasing and the food insecurity in our county has been increasing.

So my my first question is do we have a number for how many people in San Jose are um currently utilizing Medicaid or SNAP uh benefits and services?

Yes.

So there are over 300,000 San Jose residents who are on MediCal, and over 90,000 San Jose residents who are on Calfresh.

So that sounds like almost a third of our residents in San Jose are on Medi-Cal, and almost a tenth experiencing food insecurity and benefiting from SNAP.

So it's a really great perspective for us to take about the impact in our community.

The other question I had was related to page 7, where we're talking about the trauma cases that come to through our county health programs.

And so I think picking up from comments from Councilmember Kamei about how everyone will be impacted this, not only the people who are enrolled in Medicaid services, but also those of us with private health plans.

So how would these HR1 cuts impact residents who may be members of private health plans, particularly on things like wait times in the ER?

Thank you for the question, Councilmember.

Yeah, I referenced that statistic about how only 6% of hospitals in California are public, but they actually operate more than 50% of the trauma and burn centers in the state.

And there's a reason for that.

And one of the reasons for that is in order to operate those kinds of services, the kinds of services that we're talking about that are available at Valley Medical Center or Regional Medical Center as the two trauma centers in San Jose, or the rehabilitation services that we provide, or the Burn Center, one of only three comprehensive burn centers between Los Angeles and the Oregon border.

To provide those kinds of services requires a whole package of things, right?

You need access to certain specialist physicians, you need access to certain types of equipment, you need access to certain types of trained nursing and other resources that need to be there, even if volumes are variable.

And so in many cases, those are not services that the private sector has concluded are profitable writ large, which is why, just to be very blunt and concrete, HCA, the largest for-profit hospital corporation in the United States, closed trauma services at regional medical center.

So the availability of those backbone services, which all of us otherwise take for granted and rely upon, it's a public good.

It's dependent on the public systems to have available.

And we don't know when any of us, and you heard some of the stories and some of the things that were shared, when any of us may need access to those services.

For instance, if we end up in a severe car accident right here on 280 or 101, right?

And I think it speaks for itself when I shared that 98% of trauma cases in San Jose, amongst San Jose residents, 98% ended up at our hospitals.

And that makes sense if you think about it.

Since we run the only trauma centers in the city of San Jose.

So the impact is very much broader than just the residents who are on Medi-Cal.

That's I think more intuitive and obvious.

It absolutely is an impact on a system, the infrastructure and system that provides that service for all.

And let me say a specific thing, for example, about our rehabilitation center.

I'm very proud of our rehab center.

It is the best in the West Coast, and it's a place where if you have a severe spinal other type of injury, you're going to be sent, even if you're a Kaiser patient, right?

We have an arrangement with Kaiser.

This is where you're going to be sent for recovery for those kinds of severe injuries.

And even though it provides that care, and even though we get that reimbursement for those commercial patients, that best in the West Coast rehab center also serves a majority Medi-Cal patients.

So what we have here is an incredible public asset that is the legacy of decades of investment by this community, and I mean all of us collectively as county and city residents, a legacy of investment in these kinds of services and access to these kinds of services that is an infrastructure, it's a public good, just like we might think of, but in this case we're talking about literally life and death, but just like we might think of roads or parks or other basic infrastructure that is available and accessible to all, and in this case, a service that's available and accessible to all at a time when you may never expect, and in a time when you are a loved one may need it the most.

Yeah, like they say, you don't know what you don't know.

So thank you for surfacing how critical the opportunity for anyone and everyone to access county health resources is because you never know when you might need it.

So I I think it's really important as as we put that in the context of the opportunity before us in November, bringing it back to again the City of San Jose and the priorities that we just pass as a council, if we um if measure A does not pass, and we know that there will be impacts on behavioral health services, what can we anticipate those impacts to be or look like, and how might this affect some of the city's recent priorities and objectives related to homelessness?

Thank you for that question, council member.

So it's maybe not as well understood, certainly not publicly, that uh the largest deliverer of behavioral health services actually is the health system itself.

So the uh emergency psychiatric services, they're delivered on the VMC campus.

We are looking forward to the opening of a new behavioral health services center, an acute psychiatric hospital is on the Valley Medical Center campus and have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the creation of that facility.

It now needs to be staffed and it will carry a significant operating cost.

The reality in the context of the cuts that we're talking about, the impacts on staffing and services, is that the expansions that have been put in place over the last several years that are coming to fruition now, especially in the context of the increase in number of beds for critical behavioral health services, those are facilities that now need to be staffed and operated, and the operating dollars for those are deeply intertwined and come from Medi-Cal revenues.

Those are the kinds of things that are at significant risk, especially in our ability to staff up to operate those at a time when we're now facing this magnitude of revenue loss.

So we're very concerned about that.

Yeah, and and it is important as we think about what it's going to take to truly address our crises with so many residents experiencing homelessness in our community, we can't uh overlook the importance of behavioral health services and the potential cuts through HR1.

Um, in the same vein, if measure A doesn't pass, what potential impacts can we expect to see on county-operated or county-funded interim housing facilities?

Again, the way we fund these services, including the supportive housing space is really intertwined with Medi-Cal revenue.

So, and and operates as an ecosystem.

You know, whether it's living in Santa Clara Valley Healthcare specifically, which a lot of those more critical and acute services do, or more along the spectrum broader spectrum of services, including those provided by our contracted providers, which is true for a lot of the network of services provided by the behavioral health services department, which a quarter of their budget, by the way, is Medi-Cal, or the support of housing offices services and operation of its facilities.

Medi-Cal is is the core backbone across all those domains.

So those are all services that we're very concerned about.

But taking three or four steps back, the if you look at kind of the county budget and you zoom out, there's really two domains where we spend discretionary revenues.

Those domains are health care, meaning our health system, behavioral health, public health, and public safety, meaning the operation of the criminal justice system, including its many different facets.

Most of the rest of things are basically state prescribed, especially the other social services related funding.

And so those are the spaces that will feel the greatest pressure and impacts from what we're facing with HR one and the other federal funding impacts.

So thank you for that.

I'm I'm hearing that it is really critical to ensure that we find a way to make ourselves whole, even though there are potential cuts to programs like Medicaid that are essential to us being able to move forward on our city's priorities related to homelessness prevention.

And so I'll just ask one last question to end on this note, given that we are trying to think ahead and prepare for the future.

How might our city reconsider investments, particularly around social safety net services, programs like homeless prevention, to mitigate impacts from the city side?

Yeah, it's a great, great question, council member, you know, from uh where I sit, which is one right perspective, one lens.

What I would just share is, you know, I think when we as we deal with the litany of what's coming our way from the federal government, including these radical cuts to critical safety net services and revenue streams, it absolutely calls upon us to deepen and strengthen partnerships across all domains and to make sure that we're working as collaboratively as possible in identifying and supporting the most effective things that we can to continue to provide support to those in our community.

What does that mean more concretely?

I think it means deepening and continuing partnership on the most effective services that we can for our work in helping our homeless community.

I think it means partnering to figure out how to leverage state and other funding to ensure that we actually can move forward with work that has been already begun but hasn't come to full fruition, including with some of these critical behavioral health facilities.

I think it also means uh sharing uh state legislative advocacy, given the really critical role that the state plays in helping to design and steer what some of these pieces look like, especially with Medi-Cal.

And it means I think also recognition that as a community collectively, we are called upon to look inward to ourselves to address some of the withdrawal of federal support.

Yeah, I got a question.

Uh, for a news story about the changes in the federal government at FEMA and what that meant for disaster preparedness and response.

And that's an area where the city and county have a lot of partnerships.

I know I used to be the deputy county executive directly oversaw Office of Emergency Management years ago.

Um, and that's a place in the space where you can't respond to an earthquake, and we know it's a question of when, not if, or a similar natural disaster on your own.

And we've always relied upon since this nation's founding, the federal government, to play a really pivotal role in disaster response and recovery, to bring in and surge resources from elsewhere in the United States.

And the question I got was well, what do you do if FEMA goes away and there is no federal response?

And the reality as I see it is that there's two facets to that.

One is, on the one hand, there isn't a full substitute for the federal government.

That's why we're part of the United States of America.

And so if there is that big earthquake and there is that that big crisis, there isn't a full substitute for that.

But the second piece is there are absolutely things that we can and must do locally in partnership and collaboration that helps strengthen and prepare us to be better positioned for that.

That's the work we do in partnership on a daily basis when we try to prepare for that earthquake.

That's the kind of work we have to do together here in this space as we deal with the, as uh council member Kamei put it, the tsunami related to HR one.

Anyway, that's my perspective on it.

Thank you for sharing that information with us.

Thank you.

Let's go now to Councilman Cohn.

Yeah, thank you.

And thank you, James, for being here.

I you've and you're showing tremendous endurance by standing there.

I'm sure you've been told you're you can sit in the chair in the box if you'd I sat in the board chambers all morning, so I'm good.

But anyway, thank you.

Um, you know, we're all in this together, right?

All of our services, whether the city or the county, are the pieces in a puzzle that in the aggregate serve our community.

And I have been frustrated and bothered by this continual framing of an us versus them relationship between the city and the county.

Um I hope that this kind of conversation can be the start of a relationship where that isn't the case going forward.

We are all of us, and all of the members of your board and your staff and our staff are collectively responsible for the welfare of this of this um community, right?

We're responsible for the million residents of San Jose, you're responsible for the million in San Jose and the million who are not in San Jose in this county.

Um, and then the other and the other thing is that you know we have our lanes, we have distinct unique services, and we on this council are not experts in health care, and we don't need to be, and we don't have to be, and we shouldn't, given all the things we do have to work on, shouldn't have to take our time to become experts in how your system is funded, but we rely on your experts to tell us what these impacts are, just like we would rely on our experts in situations that we're facing also due to federal cuts in other areas.

But and I do want to thank uh Councilmember Compost for kind of asking the question about the impact on everybody in this county and not just on a subset of patients.

We can easily sit here and say, we're the cuts are to certain kinds of patients, but the impacts on your hospital won't be on certain kinds of patients.

I think I need to ask you again, I mean, because I'm summarizing what I've already heard as an answer.

But the entire hospital program is at risk if um you don't get funded adequately for the patients that you have to see, and and obviously it's still true that every patient that comes in the door has to be treated regardless of where their funding comes from or who's covering them or whether their coverage has been cut due to HR one, correct?

That's absolutely right.

And you know, I think a way maybe to put it is for those of you who run a business, right?

If your single largest revenue source, in fact, in this case, we're talking about a revenue source that's the majority of overall revenue for the operational system, takes a significant hit that's gonna have a systemic impact and require a set, not one, there's no one panacea, a set of solutions, and that's exactly the kind of crisis that we're facing because of HR one, and that's exactly why we're trying to move forward a whole set of strategies to make those pivots, one of which is measure A, but it's only one of a broader set.

Right.

Um, and on the magnitude of the cuts versus measure A, my understanding is that measure A doesn't even fill the entire anticipated budget gap that you would be facing, is that correct?

Not even close.

So if you looked at those charts, we're looking at well over a billion uh in annual revenue impacts, uh, measure A would bring in an estimated $330 million.

So uh you can do the math, it's pretty stark.

But it would be meaningful, right?

It would absolutely be meaningful, uh, but not even half.

For sure, it it reduces the bleeding, it doesn't eliminate the bleeding, unfortunately.

Um I heard a question about a guarantee that cuts wouldn't happen or that things would remain as they are if a measure passes, but clearly there have to be what we're referring to as adjustments, but I would still imagine are going to be cuts or reductions in service, even with supplemental funding that we have to provide locally to keep as many critical services open as possible.

That's absolutely true, so much so that the health system is already working on a variety of items that'll be brought forward to the Board of Supervisors mid-year of this fiscal year to uh begin some of those efforts, regardless of what happens with measure A, there will undoubtedly be uh impacts both to the health system and across the rest of the county organization.

It strikes me that saying that we have to guarantee that nothing that if the measure revenue comes in that it would prevent cuts, is basically like saying, well, that might result in two-thirds of a hospital, we're just as well off with half a hospital.

I mean, in other words, we're gonna the more services we can protect, in my mind it seems the better.

Um, the other question, I guess I want to sort of clarify, go back and clarify and question the the question of general fund.

You know, obviously we know the limitations in our taxation laws that allow us to do a general fund tax.

Um we obviously no one can guarantee how money will get used in the future.

On the other hand, remind us again the fraction of your budget that is your health care budget as a county.

Well, overall, as a in our county budget as a whole, the the entirety of the healthcare system uh represents over 40 percent.

Um, and um, you know, like I said, a lot of that is backed by revenue sources, and that makes the puzzle challenging.

Um, and you know, the um hope, really, is that we will be able to assemble across all of these different strategies enough pivots, enough things, pulling enough levers to be able to really avoid more serious impacts.

Uh, and that's why the timing uh is there too, the urgency on the timing.

Um, by having some breathing room up front, it helps us also move forward with some of the other things that we're trying to do to help mitigate those and to help bring in additional revenue into that system, including the strategies that we're moving forward, for instance, with respect to Medi-Cal managed care.

So there's a lot of different pieces, but it's reflection of our deep commitment through the leadership of the Board of Supervisors, but our deep commitment across county staff to move with urgency to really deal with what is happening to us at the federal level and not just sit back and just slash and setter all the services instead of responding proactively clearly and with a strategy.

Right.

And my understanding, I know I've talked to many members of your board, and and I know from my understanding of the county services that providing health care for residents is priority number one, and you know, if if a billion dollars is being cut from the budget, backfilling that revenue will go to the health care budget.

As I said, um we're fortunate as a community.

This community has really made an incredible investment over time, uh, and has a jewel of a public health care delivery system.

It came through in a powerful way during the pandemic for all of our residents, uh, but these are choices that have been built upon over decades here locally, uh, and choices that uh we have made collectively as a community to make an investment in a system that actually does have, for instance, that best on the West Coast rehab center.

So we're fortunate in that way, and it's one of the things, not the only thing, but it's one of the very important things in my view as a Santa Clara County resident that makes this such a great place to live.

I so I'll just say I find it distasteful that we're in this position, but I don't point the I point the finger squarely at the at Congress and the federal government for putting us in this position.

We pay our federal taxes to them with the expectation that they will continue to provide these key services that they provide, and you know the major cuts in HR 1 are a um you know, a bad faith uh change that puts us in a position that we are trying to take action that many places around the country won't do, and we'll see like you've talked about rural hospitals and other places, actually have to close.

Um kind of question.

An important point there, which is we're actually a donor county, right?

In the sense that this is a community that contributes a lot in federal taxes.

And we get 80% as a state, we get about 87% of our taxes back to the state.

So the idea that these billions of dollars for our counties across the state are being cut is just a further erosion of that that balance.

Um, and we're not in this alone, we're not the only system dealing with this, and not the only system trying to take action.

Um, our neighboring system just to the north, the Washington hospital system, where my wife is a physician, is has a uh tax on the ballot this November as well because they are facing the same situation and they are trying to stem the bleeding as well.

So this isn't unique to Santa Clara County.

This isn't due to some, you know, my my impression is this isn't due to some mismanagement in the county.

This is a external threat that we clearly are facing and that everyone around the country is facing.

Um so I'll just I'll just end with that.

But thank you for for helping us put some numbers to the to the information to the what we've been reading and to give us the um some of the detail and for answering all of our questions.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilman.

Let me go next to Councilmember Duan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, James, for the presentation, and thank you for all the speakers.

I think coming from a former fire captain who spent 27 years saving people lives, and I think it's important as is that when or if regional hospital is closed, if your family or yourself, you're having a heart attack or stroke or some type of trauma, you're gonna have to be transport from the east side all the way over to VMC.

That's take 10 to 15 minutes, sometime even more with traffic.

Like I said, someone will die.

Someone will die.

And it's it's sad in 2024, August 12th of 2024, regional announced that they're gonna shut down the trauma center, level two, and at the same time, I believe Santa Clara EMS did not recognize regional as a level three trauma.

So therefore, all the patient had to be transfer over to VMC or other trauma center.

And I spoke to local 230s and from even personal experience, made it very clear.

There were people actually die, and I don't think that from my perspective, as a former fire captain, I I don't want to see anyone dying, and I don't think is is worth it to risk one life.

But on the other hand, is that this measure, if this measure passes, you you get a fourth of what you you need in five years, it would be about five billion dollars in a hole, right?

And I understand that it'll be cuts and and being more efficient.

How are we going to get ourselves out of that hole?

Thank you for the question.

This is where we're taking this multi-pronged approach.

Obviously, we can't just cut our way through that without an extraordinarily detrimental impact on critical services that would absolutely affect lives and livelihood.

We have a multitude of things we're moving on, many of which are revenue related that are not measure A.

So I referenced a couple times, for example, strategy related to Medical Managed care.

What is that?

It's the way in which the insurance for Medi-Cal beneficiaries administered.

And in California, there's a number of complex models around that.

We're what's called a so-called two-plan county.

I won't go into all of the details of that, although I'm happy to brief any of you on it if you'd like.

Likewise, strategies related to commercial payers and providers.

Likewise, strategies related to taking advantage of a mechanism that counties can utilize as part of the existing base Medi-Calm to use so-called intergovernmental transfers to help draw down and meet some of the state match requirements to draw in federal money.

There was a silver lining amidst the horrible news of HR 1, and the silver lining was Congress did not make changes to the base program of Medicaid, and so opportunities there to pivot how we operate as a system to try to increase those revenues.

But those are not things or strategies that can be effectuated overnight, but they're examples of ways in which we will be working and are working already very hard to ensure that we are in a position to continue to provide the residents of this community with those critical and essential services.

Because as I referenced earlier in response to a different question, because this is a system that is 88 cents on the dollar revenue-based, an approach that's just a cuts-based approach, there of course will be efficiencies, there's going to be reductions, there's going to be service line consolidations.

But an approach that's solely based on that would yield such a health care gap in this community, it would be utterly devastating.

And we're not going to take that lying down, and that's why we are pushing every lever we possibly can.

So I don't want you to get the sense that the entirety of that gap is cuts.

There will be cuts.

We're being very clear about that.

But we have a number of other revenue related strategies as well, and it's not solely measure.

Thank you, James.

I guess in extraordinary time, we need to take extraordinary measure because at this point, failure is not an option.

And at this point, I'll yield my time.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let me go to Councilmember Mulcahy, and then I saw Councilman Casey also have a couple questions.

But let me go to Councilor Mulcahy next.

Great.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, James, Greta, and colleagues that are here from the county.

Appreciate it very much.

I won't be very long.

My colleagues have done a great job of peppering you with lots of questions that were certainly on my mind as well.

James, you talked a little bit about regional and both the acquisition and operation, are not a net drag on the general fund.

You like you know that I'm the council member for District 6, the Alma VMC, the new clinic on Bascom that is, you know, to open at some point, and then also O'Connor Hospital.

In that same commentary on regional, can you talk about O'Connor and how that compares to both the acquisition and the operation?

You've talked about it being a very busy program there, but can you talk about that piece of it?

Absolutely happy to, Councilmember.

And you know, I'll say for uh the primary zip codes in your council district are very dependent on county hospitals.

I think it's around 70% of ambulance transports uh come to county hospitals.

Um, O'Connor Hospital, although close geographically to Valley Medical Center, is a very busy hospital.

And Valley Medical Center, which is the busiest emergency department in our county, is also a very small emergency department physically, and could not handle the capacity of the nearly 200 individuals who come each and every day to the emergency department at O'Connor Hospital.

It's every day.

In other words, the hospital beds are being utilized.

And you know, we could talk about numbers all day long, and as you can probably tell, I like numbers, but what we're really talking about very viscerally are individuals, people, humans, in acute care hospital beds, because they needed acute care services.

And what we were facing as a community in 2019, and the reason the county fought for that acquisition, we were the only bidder, the only bidder.

So for those of you, I'll just take one second to just go over the history.

Sold to a hedge fund, those hospitals went under, second largest hospital bankruptcy in nation's history, the whole chain of hospitals in California.

And we were the only bidder for those two hospitals that were in Santa Clara County, precisely because somebody needed to step in and maintain that access, and that was also true.

I know less relevant to this council, but important for any of us who drive down 101 through South County, the only hospital between San Jose and Salinas down in our South County.

Those hospitals have been very successful under county ownership in the terms of utilization, and very successful from a financial standpoint, not in making profit.

That's by the way, not why the county runs its hospital system.

We're a governmental entity, if they were running with a big surplus and profit, that's what the private hospitals do.

But running them efficiently and effectively, and indeed over the last couple years with a declining share of local tax revenue going into the operation.

Like I said, only 12 cents on the dollar.

So it's really an extraordinary community asset, heavily utilized, that's being delivered by leveraging an incredible amount of external resources into our community.

External resources that means number one, most importantly, health care access, but also jobs and other resources and all the uh rest of the economy that surrounds having an acute care hospital as well.

Right, and that's really what I'm getting at, and we've talked about this before the ecosystems that support, you know, essentially the hospitals and the real estate around it.

So, you know, having no visibility on kind of where O'Connor stacks up as, you know, on one hand, you could say it's redundant to VMC, you've made it clear you don't see it as a redundant, but at the same time, all bets are off, whether measure A passes or not, just trying to get a sense in our district at what uh you know what the casualties might be.

That's a terrible word to use in this conversation.

I apologize, but you understand my point, right?

What's gotta get cut in order to to make this work?

And so I'm I'm hypersensitive to the closure uh potential.

I appreciate we're not just busy at um O'Connor, but it is high utilization as well as um essentially uh a break-even proposition, which bodes well for future consideration.

But I appreciate the the conversation and the comments about that.

Thank you, council member.

And I would say, in some ways, casualties sadly an appropriate word for the conversation.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Uh, let me ask a couple questions, then I'll go back to Councilmember Casey.

Again, appreciate you and colleagues taking the time to be here and give us an update on the impacts of HR1 and how the county's reacting.

Definitely an important conversation for our shared constituents.

One of the things that has come up in my conversations with committee members has been the relatively large size of the hospital system in our county.

And you've spoken to this, you've spoken to the county stepping in when hospitals were going to close, that you've referenced at least a couple of cases there not being another buyer.

The data would indicate that we seem to be a bit of an outlier, even on a per capita basis compared with even San Francisco or LA, which have very robust public systems.

Is there something unique about our county and is it sustainable?

I'll just pair two questions here because it seems to me that we are carrying the load of running more public hospital beds per capita than other counties across the state.

And even if the local subsidy is at an order of 10 to 15 percent, it's a it's a small fraction, at some point that overall pie gets big enough that it is a really significant impact locally.

So how help us kind of understand long-term sustainability of the system.

These are great questions, and they really speak to what we all see across a whole variety of things as folks who live in this county and in this community, like my family does.

We are actually surrounded.

If you look at the HCI, which is the State Department of Healthcare Access and Information, they have an office that looks at health care affordability and access in the state of California.

And they report on the top ten most expensive hospitals, and you won't be surprised to hear when I share that seven of those ten literally surround us as a county healthcare system, all around us, including several of our hospitals in the west side of Santa Clara County, seven out of the ten.

And it's a reflection of a very challenging broader macroeconomic health care space in this part of the Bay Area.

So you're right, the county has stepped in, and the county has stepped in in a space in a macroeconomic healthcare environment where otherwise we would be left with a health care desert.

I referenced what's happening in San Benito County, with Hazel Hawkins having been on life support and now looking like it's going to be closing because their last lifeline has walked away.

And so we have stepped in where there's otherwise that desert.

Regional was not headed in a good direction, not just in terms of the critical service line closures, but as I referenced that patient census there had fallen to a level where it would not be fiscally sustainable for any operator to maintain it.

What we have been able to do, and the reason we have been able to operate these other hospitals in a space and in a way where the private sector hasn't is because we have been able to bring from a systemic perspective, tap into certain resources, especially under the Affordable Care Act that have drawn in external revenues that have made that operation possible in a way that has been fiscally sustainable for the county organization.

That landscape has now shifted on us with HR1.

And the question and the challenge for us as a county organization, and it's one that we are tackling head on, is how do we now pivot and reorganize in order to continue to be in a position to maintain critical services in a long-term sustainable manner?

But make no mistake, but for the county having stepped in, we are in a broader macroeconomic health care space as a community that is not good, and I think it's evidenced very directly by that HCI data.

Yeah, so that data is interesting.

So you're saying seven of the ten private hospitals in our surrounding us are amongst the most expensive, ten most expensive in the state.

So what whether it's public or private, what is it the lack of housing and therefore the need to pay higher wages so that people can afford to live here?

What is the driver?

Because I'm I'm interested in the long-term fiscal sustainability.

I mean, the macro challenge nationally, of course, has been that as a percentage of GDP health care spending is just out of control.

It's twice Western Europe.

It's growing faster than the economy, it's growing faster than revenue.

Eventually we're all gonna hit a wall here.

We can try to keep optimizing locally in different places, but eventually the whole thing's gonna collapse.

So what is it that's making seven of the ten private hospitals around us the most expensive to operate?

Because I imagine that's also impacting your costs, must be the same underlying macro issue.

Oh, absolutely, it has impacts.

Yeah, the the drivers, let me start more broadly at the national picture, right?

Um, critical costs in health care continue to escalate, and we're subjected to those the same way other healthcare providers are.

You look at pharmaceuticals, by the way, tariffs on the couple countries that are the largest exporters of pharmaceuticals into the United States don't help with that either.

Uh, and that's currently the situation, at least at the moment, although you know that can change from day to day.

Um broadly speaking, you're absolutely right that as a nation, we have a big picture health care challenge.

And that speaks to a little bit of what we're seeing on Medicare.

Uh, a lot of those health care dollars end up being spent in the very, very end of life, and very expensive ways that are only marginal.

Uh, and again, I'm spot talking about nationally, right?

It's a national thing.

Now, we can have all of our opinions about policy solutions on that, but neither the city council nor the board of supervisors are really in a position to set national health care policy.

What we can control and what we can do is figure out how we ensure our residents have access to the most critical services, and that's what we've done as a county organization and tried to do that in a way that's as efficient and effective as possible and maximizing the drawdown of federal and state revenues to help support that effort.

Right.

Though that model's now in question, obviously.

I mean, just the the federal changes we're seeing and call into question the sustainability of that model.

So let's talk about change, it's gonna require changes in that model.

So uh when I I referenced kind of the uh the one piece of good news in HR1.

So there were proposals that were under consideration to convert Medicaid to a block grant, to put in place per capita caps or other changes, those didn't happen, and because those didn't happen, we have some really significant opportunities and gives me a lot of confidence in our ability in the long run, provided that we don't have to make devastating cuts in the short run in our ability to pivot to sustain critical services.

I hope you're right.

My read on the long run uh exorbitant increases in healthcare spending is that it is the future is not looking very bright.

So let's talk about bending the cost curve because that's ultimately what we need to do, both to make our local public hospitals sustainable, but also you know, perhaps as part of our contribution to the national crisis we face.

So, what are what are the investments, whether it's with these dollars or other dollars the county has access to that we can make to bend the cost curve?

What are your leading theories on how we bring down the cost per outcome, the cost per patient we're adequately serving in our public system?

Is it is it leaning into AI and the management of medical records?

Is it is it increasing telehealth?

Is it lower cost outpatient clinics if they are in fact lower cost?

Is it I mean what what are the things?

Is it more prevention?

I also am a member of Kaiser and they always talk to me about eating more blueberries, which I love.

So what like what are we gonna do that's gonna help us get control of a system that again just remind everybody every year is requiring us to spend incrementally more than underlying economic growth or public revenue growth, which means we're on a long-term unsustainable trajectory.

So, how do we bend these the cost curve?

So it's a little bit of all of the above, but it's actually one of the reasons I'm really excited about the place we're in or were in prior to HR1 with Santa Clara Valley Healthcare and with our overall health care delivery systems, because we are in a place to actually operate as a broader enterprise and healthcare delivery.

And it has an integrated model of care.

And we have, and really we're sitting on the cusp of some really important opportunities in having a comprehensive and integrated healthcare system with all of these hospitals and clinics, for instance, on one electronic medical record platform.

Before the acquisition of regional, for instance, uh HCA, which was the prior owner, had their own proprietary system, and a lot of patients, a lot of patients move back and forth between their system and the county system.

There's a tremendous amount of inefficiency in care related to that.

There's tremendous impacts on quality of care related to that, and there's impacts related to the economics of care related to that.

So, with a system that is more comprehensive in its access, with the Medi-Cal managed care reforms that we are urgently pushing forward, we have powerful opportunities to increase the efficiency of each health care dollar, to remove layers and barriers in the delivery, and as a county system, uniquely positioned in some ways that actually make our health care delivery more efficient because it is integrated with broader networks and systems, inclusive of prevention activities led, for instance, by public health.

So it's a multitude of exactly those kinds of things.

But the county actually has some opportunities in that space that it's been on a track of pursuing that are part of the uh the broader strategy that's behind how we efficiently ensure and deliver access to health care to residents here.

All right.

Well, another time I'll look forward to getting more detail on those specific strategies, but high-level, I appreciate that.

Um, part of the proposed solution, as you mentioned in your in your presentation, is uh raising local revenues and would be a general tax.

Uh so I think a concern, I know a concern I've heard from residents is the risk of it of those dollars being just sort of absorbed into general cost inflation that we've seen so much of in the healthcare system.

And I'm I'm curious: is the county developing a spending plan?

Are there some mechanisms for commitments around cost controls, or how do you assuage that concern if it if it's coming up?

Yeah, I think it's pretty straightforward math.

I really do.

We're facing over a billion dollar revenue loss.

Measure A, if passed, represents about 330 million.

So the question around will there be a need for cost controls?

Will there be a need for addressing efficiencies?

Will there be examination of service lines and service delivery?

Will there be pursuit of other revenue opportunities?

Will there be consolidations of services?

The answer to those questions is yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

And the reason is because 330 million does not equal over a thousand million.

So we are pursuing all of those things, and you know, would absolutely welcome a more in-depth conversation.

I'm very excited about, for instance, the opportunities with the restructuring of Medi-Cal Managed Care, for instance.

Um, but it's a multitude of things.

Uh, and like I said, it also includes state level strategies because uh this is a problem for the state too, especially when you think about what I shared about the role of public hospital systems in California.

Thanks.

And then just lastly, um, you know, California's number one concern these days has been cost of living.

Obviously, one of the proposed solutions here is to uh ask folks to sign up for an increase in cost on the front end, doesn't mean there isn't benefit as you've pointed out, but we know the mechanism of a sales tax does um can hit everybody and just it disproportionately hits working families.

We also know we see consistently and have seen now for four or five years of polling in San Jose that two of our residents' top three uh priorities consistently have been reducing unsheltered homelessness and improving public safety.

And when we dig into public safety, a lot of the concern is around untreated addiction and mental illness and the intersection with unsheltered homelessness.

And I'm I'm curious, a message that hey, we're losing two out of three dollars, so you know, support the support the one we think we can preserve is probably not a particularly compelling message.

Are there new ways of operating?

Again, I'm looking for you know innovation, efficiency, new ways of partnering.

Is there a more compelling story and and reality?

I don't care about the story, but are there new approaches we can take that will help to secure the trust of a community that is saying our biggest concern is cost of living, and our biggest issues that have been uh where we have not sufficiently moved the needle are related to health and human services, but very but but specific, very specific.

Yeah, the Santa Clara Valley Healthcare is the largest provider of critical behavioral health services.

These are expensive services, especially at the acute end of the spectrum.

They're expensive facilities to build, they're expensive services to operate and provide, and for these kinds of services, especially at the acute end of the spectrum, there's a dearth of folks who are willing to provide those services too, which impacts the ability to staff and operate them.

But we're the only provider in that space for those kinds of services.

Uh and those are services that are ones that given the folks that we're serving, the patients, the humans that we're serving, are uh also ones that are not revenue generating.

Um it is our role as the safety net provider to provide those services and access to those services and care for those individuals.

We have been driving significant investments in those areas.

Uh opening, like I mentioned, uh the new acute behavioral health facility on the Valley Medical Center campus as one example.

Very costly, but very powerful and important service that will make a meaningful impact in our community, which is why it's something that was championed uh by our board many years ago and is now in a place where it's coming to fruition.

And so you're exactly right, Mayor, that we have to seek opportunities for partnership.

Uh and we have to find those levers that we can to sustain continued investment in those particular areas so that we can move forward uh with those critical services.

Appreciate that.

I I suspect, and I you know, certainly we want to find those opportunities to do things uh differently, do things better, deliver better outcomes, and build greater trust.

I suspect our residents are going to want more specifics about how we're gonna deliver those better outcomes by operating differently even with fewer dollars.

Uh, let me, in the interest of time, see if we can wrap up with a second round of comments from a couple of colleagues.

Let me go to Councilmember Casey next.

James, I want to start off by thanking you on behalf of my colleagues for your patience and thoughtfulness and answering questions and the endurance you've demonstrated while doing so.

So thank you.

Um let's say we we'll concede HR one as an unforced error in terms of its fiscal impacts on the county.

Um my concern is what other ticking time bombs there may be in terms of underwriting the county as somebody that we're gonna invest in or be taxed by.

Um, what would you say to the contention?

For example, that there's the idea that within five years you guys are going to be in the red based on your non-public safety contracts with personnel.

I mean, what what I know you can't give us any assurances, but uh how do you respond to that contention?

Sure, council member, I appreciate the question.

Uh we take fiscal stewardship very seriously.

And let me share this.

Other than our base property tax under Prop 13, right?

The base share of property taxes, which by the way, you may not know that Santa Clara County actually has one of the smallest percentage shares of the base property tax of any county in California.

So for instance, Los Angeles County, it's about 25% of that pie of property tax that's distributed.

In our county, a larger share goes to school districts, and the county's share of that pie is smaller, it's about 17%.

But other than our base share of local property taxes, our only other local tax revenue that the county gets for operating costs, the only other local tax revenue is our one-eighth of one centing sales tax.

That's much less than neighboring counties like Alameda, Santa Cruz, San Mateo.

It's much less than other major counties in California.

We don't have any other meaningful revenue measures.

We do have a from the 1980s a TOT tax that's levied only in unincorporated county.

It raises a little over a million dollars.

But we don't have other local revenue measures.

We haven't had a county facility, general obligation bond since the 2008 seismic bond for Valley Medical Center.

So I fully recognize as a Santa Clara County resident that there are serious and significant concerns around local taxation, but the county government, especially relative to other large county governments in California, has not been the entity that has had a number of local levies or revenues.

That growth in the county's operations, which is largely attributable to the increase in the health system, has not come, has not come with any increase in local tax revenues.

We have managed all these years, including through the incredible growth in health care inflation in the wake of the pandemic.

And to the mayor's comments, in the wake of the pandemic, health care inflation in the United States jumped through the roof, and we felt that at the county end just as much as any other health care provider in the entire United States.

And we managed all of that with fully balanced budgets, structurally balanced budgets, without asking our community for any increase in local revenue.

And I share that because we have managed the budget responsibly, even with significant growth in our county organization, and so this is about HR1, because I can also say with confidence from the measures that we have taken in my tenure as county executive to actually reduce the share of general fund contribution going to the health system for the last several years.

But for HR1, which does, and I agree with the mayor here, it does upend our current federal financial model.

And what we now need to do is make pivots in that model to put us back on a sustainable pathway of being able to provide these critical essential life-saving services for our community.

But we need the space to do that.

We need the set of tools in the toolbox to do that, and it requires a full set of tools to deal with that crisis that's been thrust upon us.

And measure is one piece of that, it's one of those tools.

It's an important tool, but it is not the only one, and it can't be the only one.

So that's the full set of things, but that's the fiscal reality of the county organization, uh, and the confidence I have in how we've put the financial pieces together.

But specifically, not just the healthcare personnel, but all non-public safety personnel.

There's no issue, there's no looming concern in the next five years that you folks will be in a red based on those contracts.

Outside of let's put this because I don't want to view HR one in a vacuum and then totally negate the rest of your fiscal house and then not factor in the impact of that ultimately on what we decide with measure A.

None beyond none that are currently known, right?

I mean, none like your organization and ours, we can't predict what might happen to other revenue streams.

So do I don't know if Congress is going to make some significant action to other social services revenue streams, or if you know some devastation's gonna happen to CalPers, we're a we're a CalPers uh county for our pensions, right?

Um so I have to be candid about what we know and what we don't know, but based on what we know and uh what we can account for, uh we have been on a perfectly reasonable path.

It does not mean it's been an easy one.

We're facing slower roll growth.

Uh the city obviously also gets property tax revenue, but the county's much more dependent on property taxes, a percentage of our local revenue.

Uh and so we're very sensitive to roll growth.

We did have the lowest roll growth uh in over a decade this past year at 4.15%, um, and I anticipate and we project and expect slowing of roll growth.

But we will make and we have made the adjustments necessary in our operations, whether it's through uh service line changes, whether it's through um other adjustments or shifting of funds.

Uh we have made shifts to maintain our structurally balanced budget over the last two years.

We have maintained the shifts uh to ensure our triple A credit rating.

Um, those are things that are very important to us as an organization that fiscal stewardship is critical.

And I'll I'll just share one of the philosophic pieces behind that, because I think it's obviously it's important to each of you and to our community to make it's somewhat self-evident why you know we care more generally about fiscal stewardship.

But for the county organization as the safety net service provider, the way I think about it is this is this added layer to all of that baseline ensuring fiscal stability in our operations, the continuity, the ability to continue those operations, is pivotal because of how it then impacts and affects the most vulnerable families in our community because you can't go up and down in a CSA with the provision of those critical services.

So it's something we take extremely seriously, and you know, we don't know what we don't know, but based on what we do know, uh those are all pieces that have been to date fully manageable.

Um HR one, of course, changes that.

I don't know what this federal government might bring tomorrow, and that's the reality of the world we're in now, too.

Again, I want to thank you for your patience in answering all the questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

And let's have Councilmember Ortiz bring it over.

Thank you, James, uh, for your time and for your answers.

Um definitely didn't envy you coming into this gauntlet uh speaking to a whole bunch of council members, but I I appreciate um your willingness and uh I'm definitely interested in partnering to see if we could find solutions.

One more question.

I I asked this earlier, but I think I kind of distracted you with my comments around uh the regional medical center.

Wanted to ask if you could summarize in a very simple way, right?

Um, how the impacts of HR one will, how they will impact our residents, but in a way that people can understand who may not be watching right now, who who aren't reading you know the paperwork, who isn't reading the mailers that are that are being uh sent you know to their homes.

And for for example, right?

Uh for individuals who are just living their lives, you know, and all of a sudden boom, they get into a car accident.

Is there gonna be uh uh emergency workers that are gonna be able to show up in an ambulance?

Or, for example, our first responders.

They're out there in the field, they get hurt.

Is there gonna be an ER for them to go to, or are they gonna bleed out on the street?

Can you just give us in very layman terms?

What's what we can expect?

Absolutely, council member.

Let me put it this way.

If you're a San Jose resident, somewhere every 15 minutes, one of your neighbors is on an ambulance headed to a county hospital.

Because they needed to be transported by ambulance to a county hospital.

That's in addition to whoever is driving there or walking in by ambulance.

They're coming to a county hospital every 15 minutes.

You want to make sure that when they get there, whether it's your spouse, your child, yourself, your neighbor, your best friend.

You want to make sure that when they get there, the staff is there to treat them, that you have the nurses and the doctors, that you have the equipment and the resources to ensure that they have the best possible chance of survival.

That's especially true.

If God forbid you experience a serious trauma, a car accident, or a house fire, and we don't know when that'll happen to one of us.

Ninety-eight percent of trauma transports in this city come to a county hospital.

We are your only trauma centers in this tenth largest city.

The only trauma centers are run by your county government.

98% of those trauma cases come to a county hospital, and the only comprehensive burn center in this part of the bay.

We cannot take that for granted, and we also can't take lying down the federal government trying to pull out the largest funding source that is the backbone for that critical care.

We are fighting tooth and nail with all the tools that we have to make sure that we continue to provide those services.

That is our commitment.

And I think by now you know, and those of you who know me know that's emphatically the case that this county administration and the Board of Supervisors will emphatically fight tooth and nail with every tool we have to try to make sure we can continue to provide those services, but we need to come together as a community.

We have to come together as a community, unlike what we're seeing candidly in the broader political environment across the United States right now.

We actually have to come together as a community around those services, around that partnership, and around standing up against what we're seeing as not just misguided federal policy, not just misjudged federal policy or miscalculated federal policy, but literally life-threatening federal decisions that will jeopardize care across the country.

But the difference is at least here, unlike in some other places, we actually have the ability to exert and utilize some tools to push back, and that's what we're trying to do as a county government, and that's why we're very grateful for all of those who stand alongside us together in service to the nearly two million residents of this county and million residents of the city.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thank you to colleagues for all the thoughtful questions.

Thank you, James.

That was a marathon session.

We appreciate you hanging in there.

And if I could just say I want to thank you, mayor, I want to thank all of you, council members, for your very thoughtful questions, your deep engagement, your commitment to these issues, for your public service.

This is a hard time to be in public service.

So thank you for your public service and your c and our collective service uh to his residents.

I appreciate your time, and I want to thank the city manager and staff for the opportunity as well.

Great.

Thank you, James.

We appreciate you being here.

Thanks for your time and your service as well.

We'll we'll be in touch very soon.

I know.

Take care.

Have a great rest of the day.

Uh, we did have a motion to accept the verbal report.

Tony, let's vote on that.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

And all right, we are on to item 3.3.

This is our summer intergovernmental relations report.

We have a presentation.

We'll take a moment for folks to come down and settle into the box.

I'm not surprised.

I think that it works in the way.

Good afternoon, mayor, council members, members of the public.

My name is Sarah Sarate, Deputy Director in the City Manager's Office of Administration, Policy, and Intergovernmental Relations.

I'm joined today by the intergovernmental relations team, which I'll refer to as IGR, including Steve Stamos, Nicholas Ochoa, our new API Director Emily Lamb, and our lobbying partners, Steve Cruz and Nick Romo from Cruise Strategies and Leslie Pulner from Holland and Knight.

This is our agenda for today, and I'll also note that the bills we'll discuss are only a snapshot.

A more extensive list of city positions can be found in the federal and state legislative logs, which are attachments A and B to the memo.

As a refresher, our work is focused and guided by the city's legislative priorities, which were last approved by council in January 2025.

And these help keep us organized to drive results in these five areas for our community.

This report covers IGR activities from April 8th through August 28th.

Since April, we advocated for 6.5 million in federal earmark funding that was included in the draft fiscal year 2026 appropriation bills, and will be detailed next by Leslie.

The IGR team monitored nearly 400 bills throughout the summer, mostly at the state level, and we issued nearly 70 legislative and funding advocacy letters advancing the city's priorities.

We also conducted four legislative advocacy days in Sacramento to meet with the city's state delegation and other offices to communicate the city's interests in addition to other trips focused on specific legislation.

Um especially in defending the city's budget and funding priorities.

One very recent example was a last-minute gut and amend bill last week that sought to nullify most property transfer taxes statewide, which would have devastating impact on the city's Measure E funding.

Fortunately, through the quick action of our state lobbyists and with the mayor's partnership, we were able to initiate a series of meetings and activate our delegation to ensure that the city's funding would be protected.

With that, I'll hand it off to Leslie for federal highlights during a tumultuous period.

Thanks so much, Sarah, and good to be with you today.

And so while many of these impacts are going to be felt by the state and the counties that provide health and social services, obviously, the city continues to evaluate and monitor the impact of the legislation for city residents.

I'll just note quickly that the bill also did include an extension of opportunity zones as well as the long-awaited expansion of the low-income housing tax credit, as well as $625 million for planning and security for the 11 2026 FIFA World Cup host regions.

Currently, Congress is focused in at this moment on FY26 federal funding, and they continue to work on appropriations bills.

As you know, the federal funding year expires on September 30th, and so they are now starting their work on a short-term continuing resolution.

Today, House Republicans introduced a continuing resolution that would keep the government funded through November 20th for seven weeks.

Senate Republicans are likely to take that measure up.

We expect the House to pass it by Friday.

Senate Republicans are likely to take that measure up September 29th or 30th.

I think one challenge is bringing Senate Democrats along.

Senate Democrats have indicated that they will introduce an alternative bill that will not only provide short-term funding for the government but will also address the Affordable Care Act premium subsidies which expire at the end of this year, as well as language preventing future funding rescissions.

So the battle is likely to continue and it will go down to the wire.

And while this is extremely encouraging, much of that funding is going to depend on how Congress addresses the federal funding package at the end of the year.

The House and Senate are also continuing work on reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Bill, which expires in 2026.

The House has indicated that they will try to address that measure by the end of December.

The intergovernmental relations team submitted funding priorities on behalf of our transportation department to the congressional committees, and we've distributed our priorities to the city's federal delegation.

Additionally, the House continues work on the reauthorization of the workforce innovation and opportunity act, which funds the city's work to future program.

And lastly, we continue to advocate on the BART Silicon Valley Phase 2 full funding grant agreement on immigration issues as well as the enforcement of quiet zones, among other issues.

Thank you, Leslie.

Governor Newsom signed the state budget bills on June 27th, authorizing a $325 billion legislative spending plan enclosing a $12 billion deficit.

The budget did not include new funding for HAP this fiscal year, but did include a commitment to provide $500 million for HAP Round 7 fiscal year 2026-2027.

Additionally, the adopted budget included significant reforms to CECOA, including new statutory exemptions for infill housing development projects, and included $10 million to support security costs associated with the 2026 FIFA World Cup, with funding expected to be split evenly between the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

In coordination with the mayor's office and big city mayors coalition, IGR also strongly advocated for a housing trailer bill that would ensure that HAPROund 7 funds are made available expeditiously and retain flexibility.

The trailer bill was passed late last week and is currently with the governor for signature.

Additional funding advocacy included flexible funding for interim housing solutions in the proposed statewide affordable housing bond, which are now two-year bills, and funding for the BART Silicon Valley Phase 2 project, supporting BTA's application for $100 million in Senate Bill 1 funding, which it's successfully secured in June, and will help reduce the project's funding gap.

IGR partnered with the mayor's office, the city's transportation department, and VTA in advocating for the South Bay's funding priorities in Senate Bill 63, which, if signed by the governor and approved by the voters in November of 2026, would provide millions in regional transportation funding.

Additionally, this group advocated for dedicated CAP and invest funding for the bookend project projects to the Bay Area section of high speed rail.

Ultimately, the legislature opted to pass a clean reauthorization bill through 2045.

Lastly, in collaboration with the city's housing department and the mayor's office, IGR engaged on SB 16 and SB 606 to address unsheltered homelessness by advancing functional zero standards for HAP funding.

Both of these bills were held over the summer, and IGR will continue to hold discussions with the author's office in anticipation of them advancing next year.

The city sponsored two bills.

This legislative session, Assembly Bill 476, authored by Assemblymember Gonzalez, would expand the information that junk dealers and metal recycl must collect before purchasing copper and prohibits the possession of additional types of scrap metal previously owned by a public agency or utility without proof of legal ownership.

Senate Bill 753, authored by Senator Cortesi, would allow local governments to pick up abandoned shopping carts and immediately return them to retailers while recovering the actual costs of managing the program.

Thank you to council member Malkehy for testifying in Sacramento this summer on behalf of the legislation.

Both of these bills are currently with the governor for signature.

Beyond sponsored legislation, IGR engaged in wide-ranging advocacy efforts on a variety of issues as engagement windows became available.

These are detailed in the memorandum, but a few to highlight include engagement on SB 79 to protect the city's industrial areas, specifically in North San Jose, advocating for immigration-specific bills to protect our residents, support of AB 382, which would allow cities to reduce speed limits around schools, engagement on 569, which would enable cost recovery for encampment cleanups on Caltrans properties.

Support of the rollout for Prop 4 climate fund funding in partnership with Valley Water, advocating for the implementation of propositions 1 and 36 as well as care court, and providing comments during the California Department of Justice Bureau of Gambling Control rulemaking proceedings that could impact the city's card rooms.

This concludes our presentation.

Many thanks to the department staff who are the subject matter experts that guide our work and Ryan Coonerty and McKenzie Mossing and the Mayor's Office for strengthening our work.

We are asking council to accept the summer IGR report, reaffirm city positions in the federal and state legislative logs.

I also just want to take a moment to thank Steve Stamos and Nicholas Sachoa who have been holding down the fort while we recruit for an IGR director.

They've done a tremendous job with our legislative lobbyists over the summer.

And with that, we're available for any questions.

Thank you, Sarah.

Really appreciate the thorough report and the good work of you and your team and our consultants, Leslie and Steve.

We'll come back in a moment.

Why don't we first go to public comment?

I have no cards for this item.

Oh, came back faster than I expected.

All right.

Um, well, Sarah, I just again want to thank you for your tremendous work on behalf of the city and leading IGR and a lot of other responsibilities you have.

You've done a tremendous job, and I know you've been ably supported both by by your team as well as our our consultants, as I as I mentioned.

And so just want to, you know, really personally thank you for the the attention to detail and care and effort you've put in, including I know calls 24 7 tracking the craziness in Sacramento and Washington.

I was especially impressed with how you and I know Jim Shannon, I don't know if he's still in the room, but there he is, he's hanging out up there, jumped in as we got word that that uh bill that was that was being gutted and amended could suddenly eviscerate measure E and just the uh the the speed and professionalism and attention to detail and our collective efforts there really your efforts was was just awesome.

I do want to just thank a few folks and make a couple of comments and then I'll turn to colleagues.

First one of you highlighted a number of the the uh places where we've gotten some traction particularly in Sacramento and I wanted to just pick up on a few of those so one I I do want to thank Senator Dave Cortez for his partnership.

There's both the shopping cart issue which again I sort of made the joke I didn't run to focus on on shopping carts but when you have two thousand a year disappear and most of them end up in the creek it's become a real issue and his responsiveness there has been fantastic and not just there on regional transportation and so many other issues we've we found his office to be incredibly collaborative and responsive.

Also want to acknowledge the successful advocacy for AB 476 as you mentioned which tackles copper theft we were really honored to have um a G Bonta join us and had a joint uh meeting here in our public library system with law enforcement agents uh industry stakeholders and others from from all over the bay which was um I thought a really good start to that conversation hopeful that the governor will sign that bill also just acknowledge that your your collective effort with support from this council meant that even in a really difficult budget environment we were able to secure funding for 2026 events and BART expansion and we need to follow through on both of those not neither are a done deal yet but there has been progress made despite the very challenging environment um I do I do have to note though that unfortunately I think one area where we have struggled to get other levels of government state and federal government to lean in to the extent we need is our crisis of homelessness and in fact if anything I think we've we've actually seen backtracking uh which is concerning we saw HAP funding which is a critical source of flexible funding that we deploy to outreach interim housing getting people off the streets immediately and providing them with services was delayed and cut by 50% our efforts to ensure that counties and cities do their fair share was once again stymied and uh we're not gonna give up I I can report from my last advocacy trip up to Sacramento about a month ago that uh there's an increasing recognition that this situation is unacceptable and one way or another government's going to be held accountable for delivering better outcomes.

Let me just ask a few quick questions and I'll turn to colleagues Steve I'm gonna start with you if you don't mind.

Thank you for all the work you've done I know the last couple weeks were particularly intense and I'm glad we're able to get a couple of priorities to the governor's desk.

Can you give us a little bit of an overview of the status of the state's budget and specifically the prospects for HAP going forward.

I know Jim Shannon will be as he should conservative in our projections but I'd like to get your read on the ground in Sacramento for where you think the state is going in terms of its commitment to funding solutions to homelessness.

Yeah thank you mayor uh for the the comment and question so I think unfortunately with respect to the state budget there was a 12 billion dollar budget last year and the expectation is for 26-27 that they'd there will be a structural deficit of perhaps 30 billion dollars and so I that's the expectation going into next year I mean uh depending upon the revenue picture but I don't think there's going to be anything too dramatic that will put too big of a dent um in the whole of that deficit uh so that will make things challenging um in terms of making the request next year um of course this year um you know, that there was a a challenge in getting the one billion.

Um, there were provisions that were a part of the conversations that were in the bill, some of which didn't make it in the bill.

Um, a demonstration of metrics um for cities and counties and meeting milestones and delivering on outcomes.

So some of it could be dependent upon um that, you know, what what that looks like in terms of um, you know, showing the progress.

Um so I I think just in terms of the overall budget picture, it it does make it more challenging.

Um, but I know it obviously will be a priority um to come back next year.

Uh and Sarah did make reference to the fact that um there was provisions in the bill, uh one version of it that required um that could have allowed the state to actually claw back prior year funding.

We're able to avoid that for now.

But uh, I think to answer your question, I think we'll we will have our work cut out for us next year.

Yeah, and that's a good well, it's nuanced, it's an important detail for all of us, which is to just a reminder to council and administration, make sure we're getting those dollars deployed and having that impact out in the field and that we're measuring every dollar and that there's no no grounds for some other level of government to say, Oh, you're not effectively using the dollars, we'll just take them back.

So good good work on that.

So you're saying next year projected $30 billion shortfall, it can always change.

Do you think even in that scenario?

I don't recall the size of the rainy day fund if there's any left in it, but um, do you still think the five hundred million IOU that the legislature has uh indicated for for that year?

Do you do we see that being likely?

I'm sure we'll have to fight for it, but what are the prospects?

Yeah, I mean that it was you know scored for in the in future year budget.

Um I would say that uh this year the legislature made um uh put the work in to get the cap and trade or cap and now investment is what they call it, um, to fund a lot of you know transportation and climate programs, which is uh obviously a priority for the legislature.

So I think it sort of takes off the table some of the some of the commitments that would otherwise be um on the general fund.

So yes, I I uh I'm hopeful and optimistic that the 500 million dollar commitment uh we'll see it through again.

There'll be conversations around um uh provisions and conditions surrounding it, but I suspect them to follow through on that.

Well, we welcome accountability.

I think actually measuring the use of the dollars, the efficacy of the programs and the outcomes is a great thing for San Jose.

I would put our programs, our staff, our execution up against any other city in the state.

So we would love to see more accountability as long as there are actually dollars to go compete for.

So I look forward to working with you to make sure we protect those next year.

Um as was referenced, we had bills we worked on with Senators Blake Spear and Becker that stalled out, both had to do with increasing shared responsibility and making really clear what the state, counties, and cities are responsible for and increasing reporting and accountability.

Ironically, those bills stalled.

What do we need to do to build a majority of legislators who are willing to take the actions necessary to better address the system-wide failures because as we've talked about, you can't have a couple of big cities decide to be laser focused on outcomes without other cities, the county, the state having that same level of commitment and focus.

Yeah, well, I think that bill is a good example of the point that you made, mayor.

That was I think the city in partnership with Senator Blake Spear actually voluntarily coming forward and raising the bar in terms of what we have commit to deliver on in terms of addressing homelessness.

And so that um I do think that as I think you witnessed in your visit there, there's a growing number of legislators who I think understand the urgency of providing housing types of all um providing housing in all forms.

And you heard more about like interim housing and um emergency interim housing uh funding opportunities.

So I think the the base of legislators, um, particularly in the Bay Area and in Southern California has grown.

So I think we have a lot to work out next year.

Um there will be expectations that with new pro tem uh next year that there would maybe be changes in some of the leadership as well.

So I think that could also create some more opportunities.

So yeah, I think I am optimistic.

I know that we've said this before, but I think this is one of these measures where it it's gonna take uh second, third try.

I think this will be our third try at that measure.

And so again, I think uh I'm optimistic based upon the way the conversations left off last year.

Thanks.

Last question, sorry, and just to add to uh Steve's comments around the two bills that we'll be focusing on next uh session as well around TAP.

Um we'll be working uh with Emily and the IGR team to also broaden the coalitions that we have.

So it's not just uh big cities, big city mayors, but also smaller cities that have uh shared interest in that funding.

That's great.

Sounds like a smart strategy.

Last question for you, Steve, at the state level, which is uh I think AI has tremendous potential to increase efficiency and productivity in the public sector and drive the next big phase of economic growth and innovation in the state of California.

It can be a two for both public and private sector benefit, making keeping our state in a leadership position, not just nationally but globally, and yet we've seen dozens of bills in this last session, specifically on AI and then on components, uh foundational pieces like energy supply and ability to site and build data centers at scale, uh virtually all of which saw AI and specifically and kind of the infrastructure and energy needs more broadly as threats, as things that need to be constrained or killed or effectively.

Well, nobody said it, pushed out of state.

What are we gonna do as the capital of Silicon Valley most the city that has the most to gain?

I think both in public sector productivity and private sector economic opportunity and development for our residents.

What are we gonna do to build a broader coalition to change the tenor of the conversation in Sacramento on these issues?

Yeah, I may also let uh my colleague Nick Romo jump in here as well.

But yeah, you're right.

I mean, we've seen the number of bills.

I would say um about half of those bills that did represent a I would just if I can categorize this way a threat in some way um to the development um and evolution of the industry that they did fail, they became two year bills, including the bill that you referenced, um AB 222.

Um, and so I think there is a recognition like by the legislature, at least some that we need to sort of take it slow.

Um certainly need to put in place um standards and regulations, but I I think uh about half of the bills have not moved forward to allow for uh further conversation.

Um I know that uh it's become clear in like your visits to Sacramento and by the city, just there is an appreciation for um the growth and development of those companies.

I think we um we've seen recently other states um actually draw these companies um to their to their backyards, and I think I've heard it sort of related to the kin of the of the film industry and the state the efforts that they've made last year and again this year to make sure that there are incentives because it is a real threat.

Um, companies will locate elsewhere.

So I I think that has actually um uh I think legislators in the governor's office is well aware of that.

I'm gonna just turn to my colleague Nick in case he had more to add there.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll just add that it's becoming recognized that the growth of these companies are gonna be also key to our budget situation.

And uh as Steve mentioned, we're looking at a 25 to 30 billion dollar structural deficit going outward, um, as you saw some restraint, although there's dozens of measures introduced.

Um, they did show some restraint in the last week to slow down and to let these technologies flourish and kind of mature a bit.

Yeah.

Well, I think a homework assignment for all of us is to think about what we can be for, what we can advance as our agenda, what other cities and states around the country, if not the world are doing.

I just the nature of the beast in in Sacramento is uh they've got to discuss, debate, and vote on something.

So let's give them something that makes sense and actually is an enhancement both and again, I think we should think about both both sides of the coin public sector efficiency and productivity.

How do we bring the best of AI into government on a statewide level to do more with less for our residents?

And then also the economic development and competitiveness side of it.

So I you look like you want to.

Well, yeah, and I just I don't want to be remiss.

I mean, they there were efforts at least through the budget to provide some streamlining uh for these type of facilities, and so there they're I don't want to um not note that there have been efforts by the administration legislature, at least in the permitting side, a lot more to do, but there was a gesture made this year through the budget.

That's good.

Well, I hope we can elevate those next year and build a broader coalition.

Okay, and then Leslie, just one question for you because I've taken a lot of time here.

I want to get to colleagues, but thank you for making the trip all the way out from Washington and for being our eyes and ears and advocate out there.

Um as you know, 2026 is going to be a huge year for us in the South Bay, the region, really the whole state as we host global events.

So thank you for working with us and helping us to obtain funding for security.

We're gonna need a lot of cooperation from the federal government on visa security and other support to make sure that we can successfully host uh these events and showcase California and and have a good showing for our country.

I'm curious what you're hearing from the administration about where this is on their radar, their commitment level, what we can expect.

It's so much of what's happening in Washington right now is is um a little obscure to me.

So I'm just I'm curious on this issue.

Maybe this is one where we can get some commitments and really work together to put our best foot forward.

No, I thank you for the question.

Um I do think that this administration is uh very focused actually on FIFA and of course relatedly the 2028 Olympics, and so um there is actually, you know, there are point people at the White House who are very focused who are regularly meeting with the host committees um and you know have been very committed to you know making sure that the visas are there, uh making sure that the host committees have what they need from a security standpoint.

DOT has also been especially focused in this space in addition to homeland security, and so I do think you're seeing cross-agency collaboration, which is gonna be really important here as well.

But so this is very high on the radar, and of course, FIFA is right around the corner.

Absolutely, okay.

Well, thanks for that update.

I'm sure we'll be talking a lot more about that in the coming months.

All right, let's turn to uh Councilmember Ortiz next.

Thank you so much, staff.

I want to uh thank you for your excellent work on this representing uh our city and advocating on behalf of our residents and uh really uh thankful to you, Sarah, for your leadership.

Um I just have a uh I guess a few things that I want to point out um in regards to your strong advocacy regarding key pieces of legislation that I've definitely appreciated um your advocacy on.

I want to thank you for uh supporting AB 1025, which helps keep families together by allowing parents facing immigration enforcement to designate a caretaker for their children.

This is unfortunately something that nobody ever wants to think about.

Uh nobody wants to think about them not being able to pick up their child from school, but it is the reality that many of our families face here in the city of San Jose, and it's important that we are advocating for that.

So thank you for doing that.

Uh I also deeply appreciate your support for A B 49, which strengthens protections at our schools by requiring valid judicial warrants before immigration officers can enter.

Um, and for AB 421, which prevents law enforcement from sharing information with immigration authorities near uh sensitive community community locations like child care centers, religious sites, or hospitals.

I know that um here in the city of San Jose, our law enforcement does not share um information um with ICE or other immigration enforcement, but not everywhere is the city of San Jose, and so we need to make sure that we're advocating for those populations who may not have I guess leadership like our city has.

Um, and I want to recognize the city's sponsorship of AB 476, um, to crack down on copper theft.

Uh, I can't tell you.

I mean, everyone here knows all of our uh street lights are being impacted right now, especially in our parks.

I have several parks um where the lights don't turn on at nighttime, and so and I I don't know how long the back I know it's I know it's like in the in the dozens to maybe a hundreds in regards to people stealing uh copper theft and selling them.

And so I I appreciate that, especially on behalf of our working class neighborhoods where a lot of times this does happen.

Um, in addition, I want to um elevate your support for AB 382, which would lower school zone speed limits to 20 miles per hour.

That is amazing.

Um, maybe interesting to see how much it may cost DOT to change all those signs.

I'm sure we may have to worry about that uh later.

Um, but you know, in my in my um in my district, I'm sure like all of our districts, and I know that DOT has done a great job building in uh infrastructure around schools, but still people you know are on their phones, speeding and and not paying attention, and so I'm hoping this goes a long way in advocating for uh our most prized uh uh residents, which is our youth, our kids, of course.

Um finally I want to uh thank you for your continued advocacy for WIOA, um Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act, which funds our work to future program, um, serves over 2,000 people annually.

Um I think these programs are vital, especially if we're thinking about you know building a breaking the school to prison pipeline, uh getting giving youth the skills they need to actually work here in Silicon Valley, those things don't happen without in being intentional, um, and it definitely wouldn't happen if we uh stopped receiving WIOA funds.

So I really appreciate that.

Um, and as a work to future board member, um, just wanted to elevate that.

But thank you.

And I I in my opinion, I think these policies center uh family unity, community safety, um, and economic opportunity.

So I just want to let you know that these values are important to me, important to the city, and I thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

I appreciate you highlighting all those important legislative priorities.

And last time I checked, I think it's significantly lower, but we were at 800 street lights that had been knocked out, so which is kind of shocking.

Um so hopefully there's some help on the way.

Let me turn now to Councilmember Cohen.

Thank you, and thank you for all the work that you do.

Um, as somebody who follows a lot of what's going on in the legislature, I know how much time it takes to track all the bills, figure out what's important to us, and advocate for them.

I'm gonna ask just about two things.

Can you let me know?

I know there were some change some potential discussion about changes on SB 79 or not.

Can you tell me where it landed?

Um and in particular what how bad it still is for North San Jose and other parts of our city.

Uh yes, um, thank you, council, for the question.

So we did request amendments to the bill uh that we got, I think in the last week of session that allowed us to move to neutral, and it was around uh protection of industrial sites in the city.

So it's a specific language that we've actually been able to, like a template language that you put in similar legislation for uh ministerial and streamlining of uh commercial or industrial sites, and so that was the amendment that allowed us to go neutral.

I don't know if Sarah Martina, do you wanna add thank you, council members?

I am uh the last one standing from PBCE here today.

Uh so I will do my best, but no.

Uh we were able to negotiate an amendment that would allow us by ordinance to exclude uh the use of the bill in large employment areas, so we would be able to, by ordinance, um, protect both North San Jose and Edenvale.

So that was a compromise position that we used to get.

That's great work, and I really appreciate that.

Uh, you know, we we have tens of thousands couple ten thousand of housing units already or sites for housing units designated in that area, but to say that we would then all sites would be open for that, it would be a real problem.

So I appreciate the work you did.

Thank you on that.

Um the other question, kind of a comment and question.

I I the mayor mentioned and you mentioned in your presentation the the fire that happened over um not being able to have real estate transfer tax and potential proposal that brought up.

I know, and this is not quite about this year's legislative session, but there is a ballot measure being proposed by our friends at the taxpayer association.

They're calling it a taxpayer protection act, but in fact it would do something similar, and I've heard you know, some specifics from the League of Cities about what it would do to San Jose specifically.

Can you talk to that?

Yes, thank you, Councilmember.

I could maybe start, and Jim Shannon might want to add.

Um, if if this measure were passed, it would eliminate two of the city's taxes, measure E, as well as the conveyance tax.

So the annual revenue loss for measure E would be approximately 45 to 70 million, and for the conveyance tax, um it would be an annual revenue loss ranging approximately between 40 to 60 million.

Right.

So the number I had heard was 90 million, but it sounds like 90 million is the floor.

So it's just important for us to be aware that there's a potential ballot measure being circulated that could cost our city 90 million dollars a year in revenue.

We are one of the cities most affected by this.

There's others, obviously, that would be affected as well, but these measures are not often what they seem, and we should be going in with eyes wide open next year.

There could be a significant battle on our hands that could triple our city finances for a long time.

So I want to thank you in advance for any advocacy that you may end up doing around that issue and make sure that we're all aware.

And I will move acceptance of the report.

Thank you.

That one was also a huge risk to the city.

Bringing that amendment forward and just appreciate his sensitivity to our unique land use, unique land use situation in San Jose.

Let me turn down to Councilman Condelas.

Thank you, Mayor.

No, I I just wanted to say say thank you to Sarah and the team for your work and and for your advocacy uh day to day.

I I also wanted to uh do uh do a uh a shout out for the community funded projects and uh working on getting those earmarks um in the in the conversations and and hopefully we can stay abreast of that and you know in the coming weeks.

If I mean that's if we still if we don't if we don't have a shutdown, um but uh you know I I know the residents of my district are very very keen on on seeing that uh bridge funding, uh, which was just a little footnote, but but I appreciate it, and obviously the work around advocacy uh specifically towards copper wire thefts and uh the deterrence.

I know I've harped on it here and and seeing um uh seeing the the fruition and not just state state action is but uh but but funding is is important, and so um I keep up the good work and and I look forward to staying apprised of the federal uh earmarks conversation as it moves forward.

Thank you.

Thanks for that note.

Hope you get your bridge.

Be a good thing for all of us.

Um I think we've exhausted council's questions and comments.

We do have a motion on the floor again.

Sarah and team, thank you for all of your great work.

We appreciate it.

Leslie Steve, thank you for making the trip.

Thank you.

All right, Tony, let's vote.

All right, motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, Tony.

All right, we are moving on, item 4.1 reinstatement of the San Jose Police Department horse mounted unit.

We have a brief staff presentation.

Okay, good afternoon, almost uh good evening here.

Uh, mayor and council members.

Uh thank you for this opportunity to present today on the reinstatement of the San Jose Police Department's horse mounted unit.

I'm Brian Schab, Assistant Chief of Police, and with me today in this presentation is Chief Paul Joseph.

I'd like to first start off by acknowledging the proud history the horse mounted unit has within our department.

And today's proposal brings it back in a fiscally responsible way that addresses both our downtown public safety needs as well as our broader budget realities.

So let's begin with a look at the history.

While the horse mounted unit was formally established in 1986, San Jose police officers have patrolled the streets of San Jose on horseback going back to the early 1900s.

For decades, horses were both practical and symbolic, providing visibility, mobility, and approachability.

The horse mounted unit became a fixture at parades, festivals, and in our downtown core.

But in 2018, it was disbanded due to fiscal and staffing constraints of the time.

Today's proposal is not a return to the old model, but a leaner, smarter approach.

The reinstatement of HMU will increase uniform presence downtown, enforce nuisance level crimes, and build community trust.

And critically important, it will do this without creating any new full-time positions.

Instead, it creates the equivalent of six to eight additional walking beats per week funded through existing unspent walking beat funds.

Now let's look at how the funding works.

Startup costs total about $390,000.

That includes for horses, trailers, trucks, uniforms, and trainings.

But here I'd like to take just a second to pause and really acknowledge the amazing generosity of the San Jose Police Foundation.

The foundation has agreed to fundraise in support of HMU's reinstatement.

And while I don't want to speak for them, I can share that through tremendous community generosity, there has already been a commitment of 200,000 in matching funds.

This means for every dollar donated, a very generous donor will match it, up to 200,000.

So in practice, this means the foundation really only needs to raise 200 additional thousand dollars to fully fund the startup costs.

This is an incredible example and partnership of civic support and ensures that no general fund dollars are needed for startup.

For some perspective, in 2008 and 2009 fiscal year, when HMU was examined for cost savings, the bulk of the projected 1.4 million in savings would have come from the eliminating of the 10 full-time officer positions and their salaries and benefits.

Today's proposal avoids those permanent staffing costs entirely by using existing unspent walking beat funds, exactly how they were originally intended to increase downtown visibility and engagement.

So let's talk about how these funds align with council direction.

Last year, the downtown central division had $615,000 in walking beat funds left unspent.

Redirecting those funds into HMU delivers on the same purpose in which they were originally intended, enhancing visibility and engagement in the downtown core while doing so in a very highly visible and uniquely effective way.

So let's shift to the benefits beyond the budget.

Mounted unit officers have unique advantages.

Their elevated line of sight gives them stronger visibility and deterrence.

They can cover more ground than foot patrols, and horses naturally draw people in, creating organic, positive interaction between officers and the community.

HMU strengthens trust, provides visibility, and humanizes policing in a way that, quite frankly, patrol models just can't.

So here's how we plan to phase the program in.

The rollout will occur in three phases.

Phase one will be a limited launch with smaller number of horses and officers, allowing for at least one two officer deployment a week pretty quickly.

Phase two will consist of the build-out through foundation support and complete the project and the ultimate fundraising goal over the remainder of the year.

And lastly, phase three will begin regular operations with 24 volunteer officers on a collateral basis, creating three to four mounted shifts per week, each shift comprised of two officers.

Public Works has already evaluated the stables and confirmed they're in sound, ready, requiring no new capital investment.

And if I could let me close with the bigger picture.

Reinstating the horse mounted unit is about much more than just restoring a tradition.

In my 27 years in this department, having worked in nearly every corner of this organization, I can tell you that there is no more versatile tool in law enforcement.

Mounted officers uniquely combine two missions at the same time.

They are one of the most powerful assets for building community engagement, drawing residents, families, and visitors into positive interactions.

And at the very same time, they're highly effective at quality of life enforcement, addressing nuisance crimes, maintaining visibility, and deterring disorder.

Few, if any, other policing strategies can deliver that balance of approachability and forcement simultaneously.

The horse mounted unit embodies both the heart and the strength of community policing, and it does so in a fiscally responsible model.

This is not just about bringing back a symbol, it's about deploying the most effective, versatile, community-centered policing tool we have, and one that directly answers the needs of our downtown today.

And with that, we'd be happy to take questions.

And Mayor, I'd like to jump in on this one.

So I have a long history with the Horse Mounted Unit.

I was uh the budget director at the time, I believe, when we actually, or now it's even in the maybe the assistant budget director, when we had to make the cuts for this unit.

And so I was very skeptical about bringing this back out of cycle to the proposed budget process.

That's not what we normally do, but I do believe this is a responsible way to bring this service back.

So that's hence why I approved this memorandum.

And uh it will have very limited, if any, general fund impact going forward because I have the police department's commitment as we develop the next year's budget.

They've got to look for cost savings within their non-personal equipment budget to the extent possible to be able to uh fund the 120,000 approximate ongoing costs, which you know will also be further evaluated.

They are also taking a position within the department to um that's uh not necessarily needed right now because of automation that they have done.

If I'm uh correct me if I'm wrong, that will help fund uh some of the part-time needs for this position.

So I do think this is cost effective, and I've really vetted it with them.

So I just wanted to let you know I've I've thought about that from the different angles, and that's why you see this coming forward to you out of cycle, because it's not something that you would normally see from your city manager, especially the former budget director.

Um so I just wanted to give you that perspective as well.

So we should blame you for killing the unit, Jennifer.

I did unfortunately was the one who had to bring that forward, and we tried to save it uh over those years, but it was uh necessary given our decade of deficits during that time frame.

Understood.

All right.

Uh well, thanks for bringing this to us today.

Thank you, Chief, for the presentation.

Thank you to the San Jose Police Foundation for this uh very generous effort to try to bring back this unit.

Let me go to public comment first, Tony.

When I call your name, please come on down.

First person to the microphone, just go to the microphone.

Um, you'll all have two minutes to speak and you'll line up behind the speaker.

I have Carl Salas and Mary Ann Sallas, Scott Shaman or Seaman, um, Raymond Goines, Gumby, Elizabeth Agermont, and Adolfo Gomez to start.

I read the letter from the public, and I decided I better come, but also it's so nice to be able to see some old friends here.

It feels like old friends, even though I only knew you or know you for six months.

I have one new friend too, I think.

I think so.

The letter to the public suggests that horses for officers are an expensive toy.

That's what I read when I saw it.

That's how I felt.

But horses are not a toy, they are a tool.

They make our officers visible, mobile, and engaging, and not threatening.

And yeah, horses have officers way up high, so they might seem threatening, but the irony is that they pull people in.

Kids come closer, tourists take pictures, conversations start.

Mounted officers aren't just a deterrent, they're a bridge.

Maybe a great bridge for San Jose.

But most important in that letter to the public is the cost.

And I will tell you also, Councilmember Ortiz and Council Member Kamei, um, you know, I read the memo when it says postpone and study, and that sounds prudent, but we're investing millions to get ready for 2026.

And with the police foundation underwriting this program, who knows the city may be replacing existing patrol time with highly visible mounted officers.

So who knows, maybe even save a little bit of money.

And the program could be functioning before Super Bowl.

Postpone and study it.

We'll be reading a report probably next summer.

This is an opportunity to enhance safety, improve our city's image, and officer morale and recruitment could go up, all the while signaling to residents and the region that downtown San Jose is open, welcoming, and safe.

And that's with the same or even fewer officers than we have now.

So please don't just postpone this greatness.

It's a huge opportunity.

The timing is right, and I just beseech please, please consider and vote yes on this.

Thank you so much, and it's great to see you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

It's my first time here.

Hi everyone.

Thank you for your service.

You guys too.

I'm Mary Ann Sallas Horse Lover.

I lived downtown for over 40 years, and I well remember the mounted police unit.

I miss them terribly.

Optics are powerful and have an economic impact.

As a self-appointed ambassador to San Jose, I regularly talk to strangers, be they conventiers, furries, sports fans, jazz lovers, or other people so often share their surprise at how lovely our city is.

Where their preconception maybe is unsafe.

They find a clean and friendly city with wonderful weather.

Playing to our strength by adding horse mounted units will encourage the one-time visitor to return.

And at the same time benefit the overall operation of downtown.

These components not only contribute to our quality of life, but to our financial health as well.

So please say yes to horse mounted units for 2026.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Mayor Mahan, members of the council, city staff.

My name is Scott Seaman.

I'm a 48-year resident of the city of San Jose.

I served for 27 years on the San Jose Police Department and retired in 2002 at the rank of captain and went to Los Gatos for 12 years as police chief.

I had a 39-year career in law enforcement.

When I was at San Jose, I commanded the special operations division for a year, and that included the horse-mounted unit.

I also ran the street crimes unit downtown, and so I well understand and personally embrace and appreciate the importance of that unique presence that a horse brings to the community to downtown safety, to the appearance of cleanliness and accessibility by people who want to come down and enjoy our downtown.

But I'm really here in my role as a president of the San Jose Police Foundation.

And so I just want to tell you all personally.

When I took this uh request to our board for consideration, it was the most enthusiastic, it was a full unanimous decision to support this proposal to go out to the community and use our own personal capital to raise 400,000.

And it was buttressed by an incredible matching gift of 200,000.

We've had other gifts and pledges come in.

We now have a 180,000 dollar gap.

I give you every confidence that we can do this.

I am so excited to be here with you to explore restoring this program and being able to celebrate a new moment in the downtown, particularly with the major events that are coming here, and we look very much forward to being partners with you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, next speaker.

Wendy, come on down and Alina Yin.

Good evening, Raymond Gones.

I'm with Silicon Valley D-Bug.

And a bunch of other things.

However, down here as a black man, he's San Jose.

The San Jose Police Department describe his presentation as restoring a sense of your old tradition.

Well, this is AI, Mayor, you like using AI.

Mountain Patrols in the United States do have rules connected to the slave patrols of the anti-Baylum South.

Slave patrols, which began in South Carolina in 1704 and spread throughout southern colonies, were typically organized groups of armed white men, often traveling on horseback, whose primary function was to control, apprehend, and return runaway enslaved people.

Suppress slave revolts, break up unsection gatherings, and enforce strict slave codes throughout violence through violence and intimidation.

So when you speak about tradition, about horses, that's my tradition.

Now I know Donald Trump has taught us that I'm saying history has uh people are viewed through different perspectives and lenses, and those um come from different uh geographical places, see things differently.

But for black Americans in the United States, horse patrols is not a tradition that we look forward to.

Period.

That is not something I will look out with and stand by and saying that's a tradition that we want to go back to.

Because to me, that sounds like slavery.

That's what that sounds like, officer.

Now I am also formerly incarcerated, and we all need more patrols or more police in our communities.

We just heard the county of Santa Clara ask us to pass measure so that way we can have health care.

We'll focus on health care instead of harming us.

Focus on healing us instead of them saying patrolling us.

Tradition, whose tradition are we going back to?

Yours or mine.

Thank you, next speaker.

And yeah, I second everything that Raymond just said.

Um, yeah, it's a horrible, horrible history, and yeah, when I see those images, I don't have the same type of like interest uh in it.

And also don't think it's the most practical thing.

And on the one hand side, I could see you know, like the police like wanting something to connect with the community more and wanting to make trust uh and a stronger relationship with the community.

But there's several other ways you can do that.

I mean, for one, you could fund trust 24-7, have more trust teams.

So when I heard about the police being interested in doing that, I was like, okay, that's something that would help build trust.

Um other things is for the city council to vote uh to give the independent police auditor um the ability to do uh his job effectively and look into um police brutality that's happened within our city.

That's another thing that would help give uh me trust uh more so of the police.

So there's uh things that can be done to definitely build trust, especially after the murder of George Floyd, and when uh members of the community uh came together through the reimagining of uh public safety and rips proposals.

There's like a hundred proposals that you have, and there you haven't dropped uh a dent in the bucket of the work that you can do to repair and restore and actually uh create trust with us as residents of the community, specifically those who are black, lacking next, and indigenous uh that have been most criminalized and brutalized uh by the police department.

So this is a waste of money.

Um, yeah, we've already given you 1.485 billion dollars to the police budget.

You don't need a cent more.

Thank you, next speaker.

I'd also like to call down Joey and Sean.

All right.

Gumby, the San Jose Downtown Association.

I'm coming out in support of the mountain units as somebody who's been very vocal about the public safety, particularly in downtown San Jose.

I think the reinstatement of the Mounted Patrol is a great and innovative step towards this.

The increase of a visible police president was having a direct effect on both the realities and perceptions of safety in downtown San Jose.

On a personal note, I've been a downtown business owner long enough to remember when we had the mounted patrols.

Um, and somehow seeing them ride by and clip clopping down the street uh by me always gave me a little sense of pride in my city, a little sense of comfort.

Uh, and it was a very visible presence uh from an era and very recent era, whereas I felt that downtown was a safe, comfortable game.

It certainly made me feel good about my decision to open up in downtown San Jose.

And I'm unusual in the sense that I've a business owner who's moved from downtown San Jose to the east side of San Jose and expanded to other things too.

So I'm from there.

I also understand that this is a huge opportunity for our police force from a public image and a public relations standpoint.

And not just the majesty of being on a horse, but the opportunity to be among the public, talk to the people, maybe show off a little bit to the kids.

I would urge this council to literally not look a gift horse in the mouth.

How to get that out, and accept this generous foundation donation of horses, trucks, trailers, and training as it's been maintained in a fiscal responsible way as vetted.

Downtown San Jose is welcome, vibrant, safe, and ironically enough, the horses point to a brighter future.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Hi, my name is Wendy Bravo.

I'm the co-owner and operator of Foxdale Fermentation Project, a small business in downtown.

We've even been given a commendation from this council before, so I do think that it means that you know the city does appreciate our existence, and I am here in absolute opposition to this.

As a small business owner in downtown, this is a ridiculous proposal that offers no value to downtown businesses and is purely a PR stunt that does nothing to solve or reduce crime.

Break ins for small businesses happen during early hours before opening.

There's no crowds, the horses now will be on patrol.

We don't need horses to patrol our streets, our urban parks, or be at our protests.

We need people trained in care, de-escalation, and human dignity.

We need the city to allocate funds toward helping its people, not harming, disappearing, and scaring them.

This does not bring the vibrancy, which is the language that for some reason is being used.

Cutting to the nitty-gritty of this, horse-mounted police is not is not only a relic of the past, but it perpetuates harm and trauma in our communities.

Mounted units are not outdated, not just outdated, they're ineffective and traumatic, especially in black immigrant and indigenous communities.

The sight of a horse-mounted police officer can evoke feelings of fear, anxiety, and intimidation rather than safety and security.

Their presence is rooted in slave era practices.

That's their history.

In this current political climate in which mass deportations are sweeping and devastating our communities, and immigration enforcement agencies have been permitted to use racial profiling.

I'm deeply concerned that this program would further marginalize and oppress our immigrant population and minority communities.

I do hope that this is not the intention of our city's leaders.

We must prioritize policies and practices that promote trust, accountability, and social justice rather than perpetuating systemic risk racism and oppression.

We just spent like three hours hearing about how our hospitals need help, our schools need help, we are absolutely in help need of things.

Horses are not we need.

Cops don't need horses, uh, they just don't need them.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Hello, members of the council mayor.

Earlier this month, Mayor Mahan shared that San Jose is one of the safest big cities in America, which makes one question the true alignment of priorities that this moment is calling for.

If I were to also take a cue from Councilmember Casey to not trust in government math, there are also 17 letters opposing the questioning of that same math.

We had spent, as Wendy had said, three hours listening to the state of our health care system.

And this horse pat horse mounted unit was disbanded in 2018 for a valid reasons of cost and persistent problems of sufficient officers for the unit.

I do not see also any evaluations or measures of success in the current proposal.

How will you ensure that this money is well spent?

As Mayor Han also eloquently said earlier, I am interested in the long-term fiscal sustainability of my city, the use of our dollars, the efficacy of this program, and during such trying times.

As for a purely public relations standpoint, I think to me, the more common sense approach is to have our hardworking officers focus on the jobs they already have, solving the break-in crimes for small businesses that also happen during early morning hours where there are no crowds, and also that would be very invaluable to small businesses.

Now is not the time to be spending recklessly just because the Super Bowl is coming.

We need to be thinking long-term because long term there's a lot of things happening in the next fiscal year that there is a lot of unpredictability that is that we're facing as we've heard the last three hours.

And so, what about programs like downtown streets, which was just ended?

Who is gonna keep our streets clean?

That was also a pipeline for affordable housing and assisted living.

What about the wraparound services?

At the time of this meeting, there was one letter in support, one meme, and there were 17 letters opposing.

I really encourage the council to support the will of the people and not act from a place, get off the high horse and really support the fiscally responsible memo of councilmember Kameh Ortiz to direct the city manager to go back.

Thank you, next speaker.

I've also called every card, so if you did not hear your name and you submitted a card, come on down.

Hello.

If this is purely a PR use, then we should only see them as such and as such at public police events for kids and not as patrol and definitely not as crowd control.

I find the estimated budget of 390K feels a bit underestimated.

As someone who was a stable boy in farm country, I know firsthand how expensive they are and to maintain, especially here in the city.

Can we expect the officer to clean up after the horse when they defecate themselves on the streets and the amount of piss that they'll have to clean up?

It already smells pretty bad.

The amount of for farriers, tech, hay, grain, stables cost close to what low-income housing should cost.

Why not take these excess of funds already allocated and donate to Measure A or to local hospitals?

They help fill up instead of PR stunts.

Mounted police have only shown to go on many power trips and have seen on social media to use these animals in abused public and other creative ways, and above all have lost the trust in the people.

We have seen many examples across NYPD, LAPD, and many other trampling protesters harassing people, the public at night.

And time and time again, mounted police will only prove that their heritage as slave catchers is important to them as continued abuse to this day as they did in ye olden days.

Please say no for horse mounted units, or else they will likely see San Jose mounted units on social media next.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

The one time I'll agree with Carl.

It is true, horses are a tool, a tool we've seen used by multiple agencies to put down dissent.

This unit will surely be used for the same.

We've all seen the footage in LA and other cities where they brought out the mounted units to put down protesters who were fighting over trans rights, immigration, and everything that's going wrong in the country right now.

Those horses will be used against us.

And some of us, you already shot a few years ago during George Floyd.

So we're taking this a little personally.

If we're going to add something between budgets, add food programs for all the people who are and are expected to fall into homelessness before March Madness, add eviction protections for people who will lose their homes before World Cup.

These are where our priorities need to be.

We sat here listening to everything about measure A.

We know where we're at.

We know that we are at the cliff and we are falling down it.

There are so many priorities that we're going to need more and more of as the budgets get cut and we see the austerity measures.

If kids want to go pet a horse and see a horse, go to a petting zoo.

I need cops that are going to be in cars.

I don't need them chasing after me and coming after me because I'm a proaster.

And if you really want to make a difference, and you really want to like please your the people here, the carls of the world, then just keep doing what you're doing.

Get rid of all the homeless people from Columbus Park.

Great job.

But the protesters will remain, and we will not be taken out by horses.

And do not bow to these white folks who are saying we need the horses back for the kids.

The people who are part of San Jose, black, brown, indigenous, they need to feel safe.

They don't feel safe with horses here.

Back to council.

Alright, going back to the council.

Thank you to everybody who spoke today.

We're gonna go to Councilman Duran.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you to the police department for the incredible jobs you're doing with the amount of resource that you have.

And thank you to the San Jose Police Foundation and all the donors.

Not too often that you get this type of support, and you heard it straight from the city manager office.

Is it's a zero cost to our general fund.

One of our business owners and constituents stated best, don't look at the gift horse in the mouth.

These are donors, they have a right to put the money where they want to give.

Safety have always been the number one pillar of life.

Even the beginning of mankind, and I'll repeat this is that at the beginning of mankind, we were protecting ourselves against other clans or even the dinosaur, and now we're protecting ourselves against people who are using every possible way to harm other people, and we need more patrol, we need more tools.

I believe that any addition to our police department in order to keep our community safe is a plus.

Prior to 2008, we had 1,450 officers, and then after 2010, we went down to 750 officers, and I told the resident back then it'll take 20 to 25 years before we even recover back to 1,450 police officers, or residents have risen.

We should be at 2,000, and we barely at a thousand.

There's not one answer to everything, so the horse mount unit is one of the answers.

The horse mountain units is not only their visibility and their present, their ability to do crowd control without using the rubber bullets or the beanbags, which in turn save us from a lot of different lawsuits, and it pays for itself.

You know, I don't know.

A lot of you haven't been around horses, but I I rode horses both both English and Western, and I work in the barns and and so on.

Horses create just like animals create this calmness that you can't get anywhere else, horses have been used for therapy for many other people who have deficit, and I think we we shouldn't say no because of this, because of that.

We're just looking for better solution to support our community to make it safer.

We rate we are rated number one in the nation as the safest large metropolitan city by adding on the horse mounted unit, albeit a an extra plus, to make sure we secure that security.

And any of you don't think security is important.

Well, go out there and ask every single citizen, including our unsheltered resident down the creek.

And I think that it's important that we as a council member look at we how do we continue to keep our communities safe?

And again, that is the number one pillar of life.

Without safety, we won't have anything else.

So with that, I move to approve the reinstatement of the San Jose PD horse mount unit.

Second.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Appreciate your comments.

Let me go now to Councilmember Mulcahy.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Chief and Assistant Chief, for the presentation.

I think the one thing that I was surprised you didn't talk about in terms of why this is a good move.

This weekend, I was at an event and saw one of your special units, and sort of just asked the question if they had heard about the horse mounted unit, you know, being considered.

And you know, just really bright eyes and very excited sort of response to the question, and talked about all the things that you spoke about in terms of um uh you know crowd control and and other you know uh pieces, but what they really talked about was how good it will be for recruitment as another unit, another asset that police officers have the ability to experience to you know matriculate to from one department, you know, one unit to another to get that experience.

So can you talk about that relative to this as a recruitment tool?

Um we all were just at you know Friday's graduation.

We had 15 officers, we have to have bigger classes.

Does this have an opportunity to help us with recruitment?

Thank you, Councilmember Paul Joseph, Chief of Police.

So you're right.

There is a nationwide staffing crisis in law enforcement, and we've been experiencing this ourselves for quite some time, and our recruiting efforts are robust, and yet we're still we're still competing with other agencies for the same ever dwindling pool of applicants.

One of the things that San Jose has to offer San Jose Police as opposed to some of the other departments around here are the opportunities for specialized assignments, the opportunities to do things in this career that you simply couldn't do at a smaller department.

So I completely agree with you.

While the primary function of this is not as a recruiting tool, I can just tell you anecdotally that a number of young officers have come up to me and and very excitedly asked if we're going to really reinstate the unit and how soon, and how can they become a part of it?

So there is a lot of excitement in our department for this unit, and I agree with you.

I think when someone's considering whether or not to work for one of our neighboring agencies or the San Jose Police Department, this is one more reason why they might want to come here.

Thanks.

Can you talk about some of the other partnerships, benefits that have come from the relationship, the independent fundraising fundraisers that they're doing that have benefited uh the department over the years?

Yes, so the police foundation is an amazing organization that provides um tools to the police department that um you know limited city budgets, don't cover everything that we might need and everything that might make us a more effective agency and better able to serve our community.

So the police foundation has funded things like breaching tools for our patrol vehicles so that in an emergency we're able to access a lot through a locked door.

They've purchased canines for our department, both uh for uh drug detection as well as therapy dogs.

Um, there's a whole myriad of things they have funded, just extras that help us to serve our community better, help improve the wellness of our officers, help improve our ability to deliver police services.

This, what they're doing right now is above and beyond anything that that we've ever seen, and and frankly, this wouldn't be possible without the generosity of these donors.

So we're incredibly grateful for this opportunity.

So I I you know, want to thank all the speakers who came out uh to speak today, um, on this item.

I'm definitely gonna be supporting the motion on the floor, and I just want to recognize the police foundation, you know, for all of the things that you just talked about, but just you know, knowing that it's made up of uh of many retired, and as you heard from former uh Las Gatas chief and San Jose officer Scott Seaman, um, and uh headed by a retired San Jose police officer as well, and they're doing great work.

So just want to uh just give a shout out to the San Jose Police Foundation for that.

So with that, I'll turn it back over.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chief.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let me turn now to Councilmember Kamehameha.

Thank you so much for your presentation, and I also want to thank all of the speakers for coming out to um share your your thoughts on this issue.

Um I wanted to go back to your presentation on slide number four when you were talking about the funding requests on one-time investment, and uh uh it's clear in terms of the donation that the foundation is gonna give, which is extremely generous.

The 390,000.

It says first year care of three thousand uh thirty-one thousand dollars, but in the in the uh write-up it says that it annual costs would be a hundred and twenty thousand.

So I was just wondering is that like for one horse or is like what it like the distinction between the two.

Sure, great question, council member.

Thank you for that.

Um the distinction is between fiscal year 25-26 and then 2627.

And so the ask um from the city was for the foundation to cover all startup costs for fiscal year 25-26.

And since we're by the time we get going, we'll probably be about halfway through the year, and we won't have a full contingent of horses, that dollar amount is significantly smaller.

So that's why that's so in a full year fiscal year it'd be 120,000, and for this portion it would be the 31.

That's what got it, okay.

And then on personnel costs, I know it said zero, it's never zero, because I know it's money that has been allocated in the budget, but give us an idea of how much money that would be in terms of of how much it would take away from your uh existing uh police department overtime budget.

So it doesn't actually take away, excuse me.

It doesn't actually take away from our existing overtime budget.

We're using uh unfilled dollars from the walking beat, which is specifically uh tailored to that fund and can't be used for for anything else.

So when we say there's the personnel costs are zero, there's zero cost and new dollars coming out of the general fund, and all we're trying to do is fill the mandate that council gave when they allocated and directed the walking beats for the downtown area and only for the downtown area for right now.

What we're talking about is just a downtown area, and that dollar amount was that six hundred and fifteen thousand dollars that I mentioned that went unspent last year.

That would equate to about between three and four patrols per week, each patrol consisting of two officers.

So if this were to move forward, how much are we talking about?

Are we talking about six hundred thousand dollars on an annual basis?

Because the the uh I understand that it would remain in that bucket of not coming from the general fund because we've already allocated it, but it's still money that the public is paying for.

So I just want it's just not zero.

So I just want to know what is that number to be able to have those uh officers in the mounted patrol unit.

So there's a set amount of money that the council provides each year for walking beats in each of the four patrol divisions, and that's the money that would be spent.

So whether an officer is walking or riding a horse, it's not gonna cost any more money because how much?

How much?

How I think there's approximately so if we're talking about just downtown, it would be the 615 thousand dollars.

We're basing it on okay.

So you have you have six hundred and fifteen thousand dollars that would be used either for a mounted unit or for a walking beat.

Correct, for the down for the downtown central, okay.

There's the total amount for walking beats in downtown central division is about one point five million.

Okay, so you see where I'm getting at.

I just want to I just know that it's not zero.

So I think that it's it's right for the public to know how much money are we talking about.

Are we talking little money?

We're talking big money, we're talking not so much.

So anywhere between, you know, even if it's half, like 300 to $600,000 from your for the unit.

Is that kind of so there's six hundred and fifteen thousand dollars?

It could all be used by officers riding horses, or it could all be used by officers walking, but you have already allocated us that money, and so we're not asking for any additional money, it's money that's already been allocated.

Okay.

So there is because the police department is is so small relative to the population, much of what we do is done on an overtime basis.

There is such a glut of available overtime that we don't fill all of it, which is why the allocated walking beat money is unspent.

Okay, no, I I got it.

I just I just want to know that it's not this zero, because that money, I understand that it goes through the budget process, it gets allocated and all of that, but it's not zero, right?

So, so whether it's all the mounted patrol at 600 or 300 or whatever it is that you're gonna use it for, that's gonna be an ongoing uh thing, correct?

Sure.

I think the best way to categorize it is it's zero new dollars being spent.

And that's kind of what it's like.

Well that's that that makes it a little bit more clear.

It's just that it's not free, right?

So I I just wanted to make sure I I understood that carefully.

Um, you know, I I don't have uh I don't have anything against having a mounted patrol.

And in my memo with uh council member Ortiz, uh I think that uh having more tools in the toolbox are great, but I will say um I also have experience with horses uh in my past, and they're not cheap, they're really really expensive, and once you get them on, you know, uh it's very very difficult to just um make them go away.

And so I think that I understand the purpose and the use of the mounted unit and the appeal that it has.

I get it.

Uh, but I also think and I and I thank the San Jose uh police foundation for raising the funds to get it initially going and um and the purpose of it, but I also feel that next year we're projected to have a 25 million dollar projected deficit, and when you're looking at different dollars, right?

I mean, this year uh, you know, we had to cut senior senior um food, right?

And we were scrambling to find where are we gonna get some dollars here and there?

You know, it wasn't big big dollars, it wasn't like millions of millions of dollars, it was a few hundred thousand dollars.

But so I think that as we move forward in a projected deficit of twenty-five million, these competing interests, and that's why my suggestion was to defer it, to defer it to a time when we're very clear on how much we're spending, when we're gonna spend it, where we're gonna put it, and and move it forward.

I do get that you know, there's an appeal of this, and maybe you could use it for recruitment, maybe you could use as a different additional tool, but I see it as an expense that um we need to uh carefully consider, right?

So I'm gonna make a substitute motion to move uh my memo with uh with uh council member Ortice um uh on this item.

Sorry, thank you.

We have a substitute motion.

Uh we will continue with discussion, and then that'll be the first motion we vote on, maybe the last, depending on how it goes.

Um appreciate the drill down into the dollars just for everybody watching.

So my takeaway was existing allocated dollars, therefore not asking for a new allocation.

Actual expenditures generated by this unit would be within that foot patrol budget and would actually be based on number of shifts filled at the end of the day.

It's it's variable.

We don't actually know until we get through a year of data how many hours are actually this unit's actually out patrolling and therefore billing those dollars, if you will.

Is that fair to say?

That's correct.

Okay, all right, thanks for the clarification.

Okay, let me go now to Councilmember Ortiz.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh, want to thank San Jose Police Department, uh Chief Administration for your work and dedication to the city.

I also want to thank our community members who have provided public comment, both in support uh and in opposition to the new horse mounted unit.

I think public safety is one of our primary responsibilities as a city.

Uh, and I've made it definitely a guiding principle for the decisions I make in my district.

Um I think it's also important to understand that these uh topics are complex, and we must prioritize the importance of public safety for our downtown area while also prioritizing input from our most marginalized communities, especially our African American community.

I want to acknowledge that this is not my district and we're downtown, and that I believe that usually uh council members should within reason support the local council members' wishes.

So I'm definitely going to be um listening to when uh Councilmember Tordios uh talks, but I know that um this also affects Councilmember Mulcay's district, and I respect that as well.

And I hope when things come to my district, they respect my wishes uh as well, not to bring up old wounds I won't mention here.

Uh but that being said, um we need to measure that uh support uh against fiscal responsibility and ensure that we have the necessary funding to afford this unit in the long run.

And yes, I know that you guys responded to um council members' questions earlier.

I want to thank the San Jose Police Foundation.

Anytime any foundation wants to give us money, I think that is great.

We are um, you know, uh an organization that in many ways is in a deficit, and you know, especially as we look to the future years with this federal administration, we're not gonna be getting as much money as uh we've had in previous years.

And so I think that's very important, and I want to thank those board members for offering that.

Uh, but we have the initial funding for the unit, um, but we should also be concerned about how we keep this funding long term, not just this year.

Uh I am interested in seeing if we could have somewhat of a compromise.

I mean, I think that there is overwhelming support on this council for that uh mounted unit, which is fine.

Um, but I wanted to see if if the this compromise could be that we allow the unit to begin, the mounted unit to begin, while also requesting that the program be reviewed in the future for both fiscal viability and the effectiveness of the unit as a as a crime deterrent.

Um I wanted to ask the police chief if this would in any way would be a hindrance to starting the program.

No, it wouldn't be a hindrance to starting the program, and I I understand your reasons for wanting to make sure that uh uh something that we venture into maintains viability.

Um, I think that there's a my understanding is there's a commitment from the foundation for ongoing um money fundraising for this.

Um I expect that there would be ongoing interest from the council in the foot patrols in all four of the patrol divisions.

That's something that's been um requested of me and of this police department for quite some time.

Um, you know, it's really hard for officers in patrol cars zipping from call to service to call to service to really engage with our community.

So whether officers are on foot or on horseback, they're more likely to provide that personal service that I think everybody's looking for from us.

And so um, you know, we believe that that sort of review would show that this is a viable program into the future.

As well as the effectiveness as a crime deterrent.

Indeed, and and the horses were incredibly effective when we used them downtown before.

You know, we can't make more officers as quickly as we would like or hire more officers as quickly as we would like.

So we have to find ways to be as effective as we can possibly be with various tools.

And we know that horses are a tool that many cities around the country use for this very purpose.

And I think assistant chief shab wanted to add something here.

And if I could just add, council member, that the original memo does call for an evaluation and a follow-up to be looked at quarterly to look at the metrics and then to use community feedback and to make adjustments as needed.

And thank you, Assistant Chief Shab, because I I asked for that to be in this memo as part of my condition from our proving it.

So I totally agree with you, Councilmember.

We need to look at this.

So we look towards trade-off information trade-offs and we go through the budget process.

And again, thank goodness that we made a big chunk of progress towards reducing next year's deficit, but we still have a deficit that'll always be challenging.

And so I don't think it is we don't want to do a start-stop with the community on services and also just the time and effort it takes to start up services.

So that's one of the the uh ongoing thing I expect is the ongoing performance and of the efficiency and effectiveness of how we operate this as we go forward.

So I totally agree with that, and I appreciate those comments.

Okay.

Um I do have a follow-up question.

So and I think maybe someone may have mentioned, I think one of the public commenters mentioned it, but who is gonna clean up their waste?

Groundworks is a fantastic resource, but they're also impacted by work and addressing blood.

Yeah, the riders do the riders do with them to clean up.

Okay.

Well, then they already got that ahead of the horse riders in my parade then.

So that's good.

Uh okay.

Uh all right.

Uh all right.

Well, I look forward to the comments of my colleagues.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let me turn now to Councilmember Campos.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for the presentation and um thank you to uh everyone who came in and spoke on this item.

I do want to acknowledge my appreciation for the San Jose Police Foundation's generosity in providing one-time funding for startup and equipment costs that would help reinstate the horse mounted unit.

That said, as my colleagues have also said, I share in the concern about our city committing to ongoing funding for the upkeep and maintenance costs associated with the program, given that we're facing significant uncertainty in both our federal and state funding over the next few years with some very important uh citywide priorities and with the budget deficit that I know we all should be concerned with.

Um it's in this spirit that I I support the motion on the floor and reconsidering this item in the context and development of the budget for the next fiscal year when we can better understand what our financial health as a city is going to be, as well as the difficult trade-offs that we're going to have to make to maintain essential services for our residents.

So thank you for hearing my comments.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let me go now to council member Cohen.

Thank you.

Um I'm gonna start by just saying I've been ever since I've heard about this proposal.

I've been torn on this issue.

I'm I'm falling in the middle.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I have some strong concerns that I'm gonna just talk about.

I I love horses.

I grew up right next to a farm with horses.

Um we have horses in Berriessa, by the way.

They the my neighbors in my neighbor, right in my neighborhood, ride their horses to Starbucks on the weekend and back.

They have a lot of open space, and it's very well known in our community that horses are a big part of the East Foothills, at least parts of the East Foothills.

I know District 8 has them as well.

I imagine just some of District 5.

Um, and I certainly understand the appeal, and I understand the um, you know, how you know kids love it.

I I mean I've seen it, I know how it works in other cities.

I I understand the appeal.

I also understand that not everyone looks at the history of horses and policing in a nostalgic way, and we have to acknowledge that.

I you know, I feel like we're trying to brushing over some of those things that I think are important to understand that um this isn't this isn't nostalgic and great for everybody.

So I'm it and I want to thank the people who came out and expressed that.

I I love the police foundation and everything they do to support our city, to support the police department and their support for this and other projects, and you know, look forward to many ongoing engagements over the years.

I also want to sort of go back to the opportunity here.

We're a city of innovation, and I feel that there are other ways that the city may be able to distinguish itself, and do something more uniquely San Jose to promote our city with our police department in the downtown core and other places.

I'm not convinced that you know, yeah, we've seen it, we other cities do it, and we to be a great city, we have to do it too.

That's kind of how I often feel about some of these things.

I'm skeptical of what I've heard about costs.

I heard the word startup cost being used, but I get nervous when we talk about startup cost and a large ongoing cost.

But I'm not going to focus on cost.

I'm going to focus on something completely different.

So my brother lived in New York for 20 years.

He was part of a group of folks who are animal rights activists who work for a long time to try to get rid of horses used in urban environments in New York City.

There's an animal welfare aspect to this, and I heard the word tool many times that this is a tool.

These are animals, and it's important to acknowledge that.

These are animals, and it's important that we understand animal welfare going into this.

They were focused more so on carriage horses, which are very, very bad for the horses, but also feel badly about police horses and the effect of being in urban environments with animals like horses.

There are, and I was just looking up the um the report from the American Veterinary Medical Association about urban workhorses and the issues that have to be addressed that have to be considered.

Now, they don't say it's bad or good.

They just give information about what we have to make sure we do to take care of horses.

And I will say one thing that's a big thing in their reports and the studies is the effect of keeping horses in stables all the time.

Storing horses in stables is bad for their mental health, and they have to have space to be out and about and on their own and out to keep them healthy and and um and you know, a lot of people do keep them in stables, but it's not necessarily the best for them.

But in urban environments, and their their headline is they can face unique conditions that impact their safety, health, and well-being.

Precautions should be taken to address hazards such as pollution, climatic extremes, and physical stresses, including brown surface hardness and load factors.

And they talk about um mounted patrol horses and um and the benefits.

The higher visibility was talked about, increased mobility, strength multiplier effect, they have calming effect on people in 10 situations.

They say that in their report.

So I just want I want to say that this is this is there's a there's a lot in this report that's positive and negative.

But they also talk about the challenges.

Urban workhorses spend a lot of time on paved streets, which means hoof care is even more critical.

There's a more expensive hoof care than it is taking care of a horse in a field and in a rural environment.

They should be shed uh shod specifically for work on paved surfaces.

They should have periodic times on soft surfaces such as sand or pasture, helping to maintain hoof health, avoiding avoiding atrophy of the spongy.

Anyway, there's details about the medical issues on um on horses.

There's an air quality issue in stables and how they're stored for good respiratory health for horses due to dense traffic, horses um have trouble getting reached during an emergency by veterinary care who veterinary make um trips have to, and I know equine vets, my daughter who's in vet school has shattered equine vets.

They make house calls to take care of the horses.

Horses aren't brought into the vet's office, but you know, there's there's issues that they're saying about access about how what happens if a horse gets injured um in the in the line of duty.

And so there are some things we have to consider, and I'm I'm not convinced that we have enough information yet to say that we have the plans in place to take care of our horses adequately.

Um and so that you know that those are the two sides.

I just wanted to focus on that one because it hasn't been talked about before.

Um I'm I'm torn about the value, the net net value based on the things that I'm concerned about, but I certainly understand the um the uh you know the appeal and why we would, you know, many people like the idea.

But so I'll just leave it at that.

I don't know if you want to make any comments about it.

Sure, I'm I appreciate the comments, council member, and uh and I agree with you wholeheartedly that the horses are you know their welfare and their care is something that we need to take very seriously as a I grew up around horses my entire life.

Um I actually adopted one of the last horse mounted units from when the unit was disbanded and he lived with me and my family for the last 10 years of his life, and I've been around both civilian and police stables for a large portion of my life, and I can tell you that the horses in the San Jose Police Department's mounted unit going back from 1986 until we disbanded it, were some of the most well cared for horses probably on the planet.

They are very much social animals, and everything that you mentioned is absolutely accurate, and we take we take precautions to make sure we take care of all that.

The stable facility on Canoga is set up so that they're turned out twice a day.

And that's so if you're not sure what that means, it's that means they get pulled out of their stall, they get a couple hours in a huge paddock to run around with the other horses.

Um they get that done twice a day, they get worked out in terms of riding a couple times a day.

We're gonna have a stable manager that's gonna be there taking care of the horses.

Um the shoeing requirements, you're 100% right, it does take a little bit of a different shoeing requirement.

Although I will say it's different from horse to horse, but the numbers that we use to to evaluate how much that would be is based on you know 40 years worth of history with horses in this department and having those costs ongoing.

So I we're not going into this eyes wide shut.

We've got lots and lots of data from decades of maintaining a horse mounted unit on what it costs to take care of them, and both from the physical perspective and a psychological perspective.

And I can assure you they are the most well cared for horses around.

I would I would put our stable facility and our care procedures up against any civilian or private stable facility anywhere in the in this the city.

Okay, thank thank you for the clarification.

That's very helpful.

I appreciate it.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Appreciate uh comments and the response.

Let me turn now to Councilmember Tordillas.

Thank you, mayor, and thank you, staff and also the police foundation for being willing to step up, lead such a comprehensive fundraising effort uh to invest in our city, and also to all the lead members of the public who came out to uh provide comments today and uh letters online.

Wanted to raise something that was in one of the letters from the public uh that were submitted over the weekend, and it specifically looked at a study uh that purported to show that officers uh working horse mounted units had higher rates of injuries uh than officers on non-mounted units.

Uh so I was curious, given the city's existing history operating a horse-mounted unit.

If we have any data, not sure if this is a question for uh, you know, the chief or potentially for the city attorney as to whether we have uh any data on officer injuries, workers' compensation claims related to the horse mounted unit or any potential uh injuries to residents from the horse-mounted unit in its previous iteration.

So that that was not an issue previously in the in the um earlier times when we had a full fledged unit with far more officers in it.

You know, obviously police work is dangerous, it's physically taxing and and officers do get injured, but we didn't see a higher rate, at least here with our program.

Thank you.

And any injuries that we know of uh from the horse mounted unit to residents bystanders, not that we're familiar with.

Okay, thank you.

Um then one of the other major concerns that I had was around the use.

It's been mentioned a couple times today around the horse-mounted unit for crowd control purposes.

Obviously, you know, members of the public spoke to some of the pretty horrific videos that we've seen coming out of LA with the protests there.

Uh, saw a video earlier today when I was preparing for this meeting of a horse-mounted unit trampling a protester.

Uh, and kind of regardless of the circumstances that lead to those situations, I think that re-instating this unit will open San Jose up to similar concerns.

Uh, also saw a report uh from a horse-mounted unit that was uh working at the Texas State Fair where a horse was startled.

There was some sort of loud noise.

Uh bystander ended up getting injured and having to be hospitalized.

Uh so, you know, I think it is one thing if we look at the horse-mounted unit as augmenting our walking patrols for downtown, trying to address a lot of the safety concerns that we see raised by local business owners.

Uh, but I would personally have severe concerns about the horse-mounted unit being deployed for any sort of crowd control or protest purposes.

Uh, so curious if it is possible to have any guidelines around how these uh units get deployed.

So those are those are certainly concerns that that we have as well, and with I think you've seen an evolution in our crowd control uh responses.

In fact, uh at the No Kings protest earlier this year, which is one of the largest protests we've ever had in this city's history.

Uh I don't even know if those protesters were aware that there was a San Jose Police Department because we had a very hands-off approach, and um, and that's something that has evolved with a lot of council direction, a lot of self-reflection, a lot of study, and a lot of changing of our policies and our tactics.

So I agree with with your concerns.

The primary purpose of these horses is not crowd control.

We couldn't even use them for crowd control unless we had a certain number of horses available.

And and I think really in those circumstances, it's not what you're doing, but when you're doing it and in response to what.

And so that's something that we've given quite a bit of thought to, and that's not the primary purpose of these horses.

Thank you for that.

I think I'm coming at this kind of of mixed mind, similar to Councilmember Cohen and his comments.

You know, I came in with some questions with some severe concerns around the crowd control question in particular, but also just kind of wondering is this the right approach?

Uh I think some very admirable goals here, again, trying to uh address uh patrol coverage downtown, trying to increase perceptions of public safety to help support our business community by making sure that people feel safe coming out downtown and patronizing all of our businesses and also addressing some of the long-standing issues that we've seen with recruitment and uh you know staffing beat patrols.

I basically come down to this question of is this the right way to address those very real challenges?

And I appreciate the generosity of the foundation, uh, but I don't think that just because there's a pool of money on offer means that we should jump to a you know pre-prescribed solution here.