Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Board of Supervisors special meeting of May 20th, 25th. Our meeting is now in session. Will the clerk please call the roll? Supervisor Marquez, President, Supervisor Tam, excuse, Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortenotobas, President, President Halbert. President. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. The Board of Supervisors welcomes everyone to its meetings. We allow remote observation and participation by members of the public as well as in person. Please be reminded that disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. The chair will order the removal of individuals who are woefully disruptive. The clerk will now provide brief instructions on how to verbally participate in public comment through online teleconferencing. Detail instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines. A link to the document is included in today's agenda. If you're joining the meeting using a computer, use the button at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand to request to speak. When call to speak, please unmute your microphone and state your name. If you're calling in, now start nine to raise your hand to speak. When you're call to speak, the host will enable you to speak. If you decide not to speak, notify the clerk your call is unmuted or you may simply hang up and down back into the meeting. When called, you will have two minutes to speak. Please limit your remarks to the time allocated. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next item is public comment on closed session items. Chance for members of the public to speak on any item listed on our closed session. Items will start with in person speakers and then remote speakers. Now would be the time to raise your hand. The clerk please call the first three in and some of their employees. I recently was, you guys already know, out of town. and this is my car on my property. My neighbor took this picture of James I can't believe I'm not a person who's lying from public works, showing my cars off my property. No signs, no nothing, no notification. According to Pina code section 22658, there's requirements. You have to have 92 hour notification as well as you have to contact the registered owner. How many minutes I have left? Okay. So the vehicle has been issued a notice, a parking violation and a 92 hours have laps since the issuance of the notice. Number one, they couldn't give me a notice because I was in another city far away. And there was no notices left on my door. There was no notices nowhere that I had access to. And then for a tow truck operated to remove a vehicle, the operation known to be available from the property owner, which is my property. I'm just really appalled that people in Alameda County who work for the county think that they can just go and do whatever they want to people's personal property. It's very inappropriate. This is one of the sheriffs who did it, who took, who was involved in the incident. And I'm just beside myself. I cannot believe that Alameda County employees think that they're above the law. They can take people's personal property and literally get away with it. I had a sheriff called me and told me that it wasn't the sheriff's that did it. But guess what? I went and took pictures. I went to the tow yard took pictures of blue cars are where to get them out and I noticed I gave notice to return my cars to my personal property. They were not returned. It was a my fault that they got took an off my property. It was out of me to county public works fault. The shares fault so they need to return them back. And that's what I was asking for. They returned my cars back to my property. And I asked for good reason. There's no good reason. They have no ground. So I'm asking you to have your employees. I mean, time is elapsed. Let me just say that we don't respond back on items like this that are closed session discussions perhaps or others. I want you to know that you've appeared before for us a couple of times we hear you and we will try to get to the bottom of things. Thank you. And that's all we can say. I know. Next speaker, please. Thank you. John, you're on the line. You have two minutes to speak. Yeah. Dr. Rural Priemont, talking about the CIO, Registrar voters. Mr. DiPlea does the next one job as a CIO, the chief information officer. Unfortunately, the two roles are conflicting with each other because CIO, you do want to have, certainly, it wants security and you don't want transparency because you want to keep everything secret and that's very understandable, but he's doing the same thing for his election for the Ridge Star voters. You do want security, but you need transparency. The public needs to see what's going on. He just recently did a report with the Election Commission. It was an excellent report. There's a lot of information in there and and the elections commission is you know quite pleased but why hasn't he communicated that to anybody until you know finally deal there's some kind of report that's coming out from the election commission and that's the problem. He's not transparent. It's coming from the top. The people will work at the RIV of our excellent, but they're following directions which is is not congruent or consistent or should be from a registrar voters. You need to be transparent and it just, you know, I don't have any problems with the security, but you've got to be transparent at the same time. Because if the public doesn't see what's going on, that is the issue with trust. There's nothing they can, if they can't see anything, they can't trust them. And that's the problem. And we've been trying to do this, and trying to communicate with them over the years even to the point of taking them to court. And all we want is transparency. And hiding behind the law, the lowest of low bars is not adequate. Thank you. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. Hi there. My name is Mimi Dean and I'm speaking as myself, although I was a former Eden Mack member. I am here to talk about an issue that I brought up to public works over three years ago. The sidewalks on Bachmann Road from a bohan in middle school up to via Ariba are very dangerous on the southern side of the street. There are a bunch of small businesses there who have taken over the space that's supposed to be the sidewalk and they've striped it with parking spaces. People park perpendicular as well as parallel. They park on the sidewalk. They park in these parking spaces that have been developed. And it's very dangerous for the children leaving bohan in middle school in the afternoon. It's dangerous for the adults at San Lorenzo adult school. The sidewalks are often blocked. So everybody has to walk in the road. And I have seen numerous children almost get hit by the cars speeding down the street and the distracted drivers. I have been, I have emailed public works in early 2022. I got calls from public works. They said they were going to do something. Nothing has been done three years later. It's like amazing to me that I have to keep emailing and calling people and stuff doesn't get done. I was at a My Eden voice meeting yesterday where they were talking about funding. So I know there's funding for the unincorporated communities to get this work done. What's the solution? The solution is to red stripe the area, so nobody can park there. I have already called the sheriff. I have called public works. I've called code enforcement. I've called the police department. I've called everybody. Please help us, director of public works. Or if we can't get the public works director to do this job, maybe we need to find somebody else to do his job. I am very dissatisfied with the work of our public works to get director Daniel Waldoz-Bett. Thank you. Mindy, you're on the line. Yes, hi, this is Mindy Petronok from Oakland, California, and I want to speak to the separation of Tim Dupuis, you know, that he should not hold the ROV position and the IT sector. This is proven to be, as you know we've spoken to this before, a very difficult situation where the staff at the ROV is great, but Jim's ability to lead the ROV is very unsuccessful and not trustworthy by the population. So it is time that we actually carry out as the election commission has even indicated some of the members that he should be separated. It should be completely different person that is in charge of our OV. A new person that we can communicate with as a population. A group of us, as you know, have brought to your attention detail documentation on the problem of observation, on the question of the CVRs, on the question of actually transparent election process and chain of custody. So I am asking the Board of Supervisors to make this decision to separate Tim out, get a new boardhead of the ROV, somebody that is really acceptable to those of us in Alameda County. If we're ever going to have honest elections, that are not questioned, it's gonna take that. And Tim DePuille has done too many dances. I did not like his report to the election commission that he carefully crafted, and it was full of holes, including from the grand jury. So it is time that we in Alameda County have good honest elections and one that is transparent to the population. So I hope you make the right decision. Thank you. Okay, I'm done. Okay. Jackie, you're on the line. Thank you. I'm also calling about the closed session item at the CIO ROV. It is important for you guys to understand that you set up an oversight commission and they are actually recommending and going to be sending you a recommendation to split these duties up for many, many valid, valid reasons. Conflictive interest, the ROV overseeing both the registrar and IT departments creates a conflict of interest automatically, preventing focused approach to election management, and not only that the person in charge of inputting the data should not oversee the output of the data. It's just common sense. The mismanagement of the voters' Choice Act, the failure and the education of how long and actually takes to process one vote by mail ballot up to two weeks. The labor violations that Mr. DePuy ignored, the CVR mismanagement, where he lied to the Board of Supervisors and the elections commissions for over two years, failure to implement a election code 3016.5 when San Diego, has the same systems we do did it very successfully. So, and it's been over here in a half. Not only that but non-compliance with election standards. He says that a judge said that he's going above and beyond. That's baloney. The judge said that he's coming in at the most minimal level of service to the public and hopes that he would actually improve. It's very important for you guys to understand that these violations, not only that he just lied to the Commission last week about several items, especially with regard to pulling up an old grand jury report, which they're about to come out with a new one. And finally, they spoke to members of the public. So hopefully they'll reveal a lot of these things that we've all been talking about. It needs to be separated. It's important for transparency in our elections. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Kelly. I'd like to talk about the performance review for the director of the public, Alameda County Public Works Agency, Mr. Waldezhan Bet. The things that have been going on around Kaster Valley and Fairview have been very disappointing. And people, a lot of people noticed when it took them two and a half years to repair Redwood Road, Redwood Road, which had collapsed. And it didn't get repaired for two and a half years. And when he did repair it, he did it very quietly. Nobody knew that things were getting repaired. They thought that they'd be repaired a year earlier, but the department was late. The repairs were late. Another thing that happened was the erasure of sulfur creek. Sulfur Creek got erased from the maps. It has no water course protection because officially according to some inadequate U.S. G.S. maps, old, outdated, the ones that the Alameda County Public Works Agency chooses to use, the outdated maps from 2015, or from 2018 or whenever these maps, these maps are, the creek doesn't exist, the water course isn't there. And then finally, there's the Somerset bike lane. The people of Castor Valley have very few bike lanes. And the reason for that is because the Public works agency listens to the people who don't really like to give up any space on the roads. They wanna keep a lot of parking on the streets and this devotion to excess parking and it makes Castra Valley a backwater, a city that is way behind the times when it comes to bicycle infrastructure. And all of that points back to one place, the director of public works. This situation has to be corrected, and it only can be corrected at the highest level. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. Please state your name. Yes. Is this general public comment? Closed session items only. Sir, thank you. Sorry about that then. That was the last caller. Okay thank you very much with that we will recess into closed session and return at the conclusion of that thank you. Thank you, everyone. We're going to re-conviend the open session. Will the clerk please call the roll to establish our forum? Supervisor Mark Kess. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Maile. Supervisor Fortisano Bask. Present. Present Halver. Present. We're going to go a little bit out of order and go to item two, sub bullet. One, an SB 43ation Plan Update. Is there a staff report? Yes. One, five. One, two, three, two, one. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the they're Health Director. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, an update. So we are very happy to be here. We've waiting for a year and I'm pleased to be here today to give you the update with me are also Dr. Aaron Chapman, our chief medical officer. officer, he is in another part of the state of California and also Vanessa Bakers, our deputy director of the administration also, Susan Wisconsin. So they will co-present with me. We did not want to pass up this date, although we were all in different places. So with, they are online and as soon as able, they can participate. So the purpose of today is to provide your board, both with an update to what you all approve for us to take the time needed to prepare Alameda County. And so we want to make sure you are aware of the local activities that we've been engaging. We also will be recommending two key policy changes here locally. One is well for institutions co 5270 is something that Alameda County has not done before. All other Bay Area counties have done it and we think it would be critically important for you to hear that. We will be submitting and we have two board letters in Q. Not for today. We wanted to get obviously the time for appropriate conversation and questions but we'll be coming in a future board. So we'd like to prepare you for that, as well as, well for Institution's Code 51-21. Both are critically important. One has to do with the availability and the of treatment for individuals in need of care. And the other aligns statutory processes in Alameda County with the rest of the state, quite frankly, we just in our evaluation investigation knew that there was some misalignment there and wanted to bring that to your attention. And then finally to receive any feedback direction that you have with us. And again, to remind SB 43 is required and we will be required to implement. No later than January 1st, this coming, 2026. And so these are the key areas that we will speak to briefly as we walk through and provide you with the update. So for context, SB 43 is significantly changes and expands in voluntary treatment criteria for LPS. So in other words, how individuals are 51-50 in this county and statewide. Currently, there are three criteria that most are familiar with danger to self, danger to others, and grave disability. It expands the grave disability criteria, and essentially that is a conservatorship. And it says a person is a result of a mental health disorder. Now it is at a severe substance use disorder or core curing medical mental health disorder and severe substance use as a result of impairment or by chronic alcoholism. That is a new law. It has never been done in the state of California and they're only again a handful initially when you provide the improvement approval of counties most did delay two years to catch up. The second part is grave disability regarding personal safety or necessary medical care. And what that might look like is an individual who is homeless for example, you cannot place them on a 51 50 without implementing this new law which now allows you if there is a medical condition, a graindgrenous wound, they can be placed for the based on their psychiatric condition, auto-hold that will help them get the psychiatric care that would help them attend to their medical needs. So in summary, that is what the legislation does and we'll walk through a little bit more. This is just grounding data, providing context to what we provided you almost a year and a half ago, in terms of what it looked like in our local sphere for 5150s. So you see there is a picture of the number of episodes, and we also showed you the characterological differences, or excuse me, the characteristics differences, i.e. demographically. There are some communities that are overly represented by 5150. So we wanted to do our due diligence to make sure that those disparities aren't replicated. So this is what we provided to you in 22, 23 data that was initially looked at. And then in terms of the next slide, this is a breakdown of, again, the internal planning and what we looked at by virtue of current at that time trends. So, now I'm going to hand it over to Deputy Director Vanessa Baker if she's on so that she can briefly walk you through the impacts that we shared with you as we move to the local planning efforts. Good afternoon. I am Vanessa Baker just testing that you can hear me while I am in Wisconsin. Yes, thank you Vanessa. Wonderful. Thank you President Halbert, Vice President Tam, and our Honorable Board of Supervisors. I'm so happy to be participating today. I am in Wisconsin for an epic site visit tomorrow and the timing is perfect. So I'm glad to be available for this presentation. So what have we been doing in terms of stakeholder engagement and preparing for SB 43? This slide is just to remind this group of the system impacts. Why we really wanted to support our opportunity to engage with the community prior to implementation. As Dr. Trouble shared before, the expansion under SB 43 impacts those who will be 5150 and then move through the process of involuntary hospitalization. So again, a full amendment to the well for an institutions code. A really critical piece is recognizing the expansion to serve those who have standalone substance use disorders, which is a significant shift. Another piece to really highlight is the fact that this law still does require the opportunity to explore less restrictive alternatives, namely outpatient, I'm sorry, assisted outpatient treatment and care court. We've obviously been working very hard to establish our care court program, so it is ideal that we will have many of those services up and running before SB43 is implemented. And then again, the broadened eligibility really requires our system to gear up and prepare to serve a likely increase in individuals coming into our system in the involuntary system. Next slide, please. So this is just a stair-step visual of some of the key legal holds under an involuntary psychiatric process in California. So you'll see to the far left of 5150, then step up 5250, step up 5350, and then a step up to further 5350. The second, the two on the far right are the conservatorship processes, and the two on the are the initial holds. And again, this is where individuals entering into the system through the current Lanerman Petroshoort Act and then the expanded SB 43 criteria really engage with those involuntary processes. Next slide, please. Now, just to share with you some of, a reminder of I'm sure what many of you are very much aware of the legislation was approved. SB 43 was established as law, along with that law is the requirement to provide more data to the state on involuntary holds and conservatorship data because it's incredibly important that we track that type of information and of course much much participation and advocacy with our behavioral health directors association and the establishment of work groups to discuss the impact, the planning, counties, how they're working together and how they're serving the community appropriately. And of course, in December of 2023, as Dr. Trouble mentioned, your board adopted the resolution allowing for deferment by January 1st. And appropriately, we were directed by your board to engage in planning implementation implementation, which we have done and we continue to do. That began with formal stakeholder engagement beginning in December of 2023. We've also engaged with other counties, peers, family members, county agencies and departments. We've conducted workshops, Q&A sessions, and of course a critical piece is gathering feedback. And then a plan to share the outcome with various groups, including your board on that feedback. And critical to this process is the engagement of an inclusion of our health equity division and our crisis systems because they are key partners who work with law enforcement or come in contact with individuals in that involuntary process and we want to make sure that everyone is in receipt of equitable care. And then finally and a wonderful a source of pride for our county is the receipt of significant B chip funds for the construction of new sites, which will allow us to better prepare for the expansion under SB 43 particularly around the standalone substance use treatment because those B chip infrastructure dollars will allow for the development of facilities to treat those individuals. And then of course, finally, as I stated before our care court program is up and running. Next slide, please. And what is our system planning and critical considerations? We really have been seeking stakeholder input to look at our landscape assessment, to receive input, to identify training needs, and really to manage this change. Not only that's B43, but of many of the initiatives that are coming online at the same time. So we really want to really gear up and create a foundation for success. Second analysis of our local operations and regulatory practices, Dr. Trilble discussed earlier that we will be talking about some of those items that we're hoping your board will consider adopting for us to really, again, become more prepared for SB43. And then finally, infrastructure capacity, which I just mentioned before around BCHIP, and then also our workflows, a workforce and how we are working together to be prepared to manage SB43 changes. Next slide, please. Now we will talk about the heart of this process, our engagement process. Next slide, please. This is a very busy slide, but it's really critical. This is to provide your board with a visual of not all inclusive. We do seek input if there are groups that we have not yet identified on this slide. But these are the entities, agencies, stakeholders that we have identified to date that we either plan to meet with, have met with, and want to make sure that we educate, we coordinate with, and that we have an understanding of SB 43 and how we will be implementing that across our county. Next slide please. This slide is even more important. Again, it's the same buckets or boxes that you saw before just color coded to show you where we are at this point in our engagement process. So in terms of the color coding, the blue, these are where our kickoff meetings, and you can see the dates, peers beneficiaries, families, those were two critical initial groups that we wanted to meet with and gather feedback. The green color is formal presentations, meaning that we've met with these groups, either in combined settings or individually, to provide education and to receive feedback and to discuss next steps for implementation. The light purple is initial outreach and formal discussions with stakeholders. So those are, we've had conversations, but we need to have more. We want to have a really formal process and receive additional information. And then finally, the dark purple, our formal presentations are pending. These are individuals that we plan to further develop. We want to, and we've been very sequential in terms of how we've rolled out the engagement because some entities are more impacted than others. And we want to have as much information as possible, for example, as we develop materials and information for our non-English speaking groups, we want to have a lot of information and understand how some of these impacts will be experienced in the community. Next slide, please. So to provide you with some information on stakeholder feedback and recommendations, just some that we've received to date. So capacity building, expansion of bridge clinics, medication assisted treatment, and programs and collaboration with CBO providers so that we can be prepared to address any pressures from an incoming, a possible incoming of new individuals to our involuntary process, workforce development and peer certification, making sure that we have a workforce that is really designed to provide that additional support for individuals who are on that involuntary path. Second, our crisis system readiness and training of first responders. I can't state enough how critical this is. We work very closely with our crisis system of care, and they do facilitate crisis intervention training for law enforcement, and we find that that is an ideal opportunity for us to also educate our many law enforcement jurisdictions on SB 43. What the law means, how that will potentially impact our system and looking at the different jurisdictions. We are exploring the development of wallet-sized cards with LPS criteria for first responders so that when they're out in the field, if they don't remember how the law has changed, they can quickly access that information. And of course, we would include contact information. And then ensuring local preparedness with policies and practices, including our patient's rights partners. And then finally, engagement with non-English speaking communities. We have had the benefit of providing a Spanish translation stakeholder process. and we've also translated our FAQs and materials and we want to move beyond Spanish and we need to gear up for that to develop those materials and make sure that we're working with our health equity division to provide those tools. Let's see. Think we are back. You're getting a preview of what's to come. All right, I think we were here. Okay, so next steps. Importantly, I know your board is familiar with our consulting group Indigo. They are great partners with us and we have been fortunate to work with them on many of our projects and we formally transitioned to their facilitation in spring of 2025. We are working alongside them as they have taken the reins of providing and facilitating the stakeholder engagement. It is very much a partnership that was initially led by myself and James Wagner, the operations deputy director, and then we've been working with Indigo so that they can take up that process. We will continue the co-facilitation with health equity and crisis services, and again, translation is a key element. And ensuring our crisis teams are ready for this launch and also our law enforcement. And then finally, preparing for implementation. Continued stakeholder engagement, increased education and training, and aligning understanding with our implementation plan. Next slide, please. So this is my final slide, and I will just end with some insights. So again, the goal and feedback is behavioral health will need to provide adequate training, capacity, and education. And then finally, once implemented, make sure to assess outcomes and evaluate the impact. That will be very critical when we look at those data elements. Procedural gaps need to be identified, including those related to patients' rights. And of course, again, we're talking about the involuntary process. So what is the impact to our hospitals, not just our psychiatric hospitals, but our emergency departments, and for those who are impacted, again, by the expanded criteria. And then finally, our internal system review, the analysis of the impact of this legislation, and how the stakeholder feedback really impacted and contributed to this process. We plan to circle back and have ongoing discussions. So we look forward to that continued process. And I know I moved fast, but I wanted to get you this information. And now I will pass the slide deck to my colleague, Dr. Aaron Chapman. Thank you. Good afternoon, and just confirming that I can be heard as well. Yes, Dr. Chapman. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, President Halpert and Board. Thank you very much for this opportunity. And once again, my apologies that I'm not there in person. I'm actually in the airport in Los Angeles coming back from the Americans like the Atric Association this afternoon. But I wanted to talk to you about two specific pieces of LPS or welfare and institutions of legislation that our department believes intersect with our planning and our preparedness for SB 43. The first one I'm gonna speak to about is 5270. If we can go to the next slide. What is welfare and institutions? Code 5270. I think most people have heard of the 5150, the 72-hour hold. Many of us have also heard about 5585, which is a similar type hold for miners. We also in the county and Alameda County have been working with the 5250, which is an additional 14-day hold for individuals who don't clear and those initial 72 hours. And what I'm going to present to you today is a piece of the welfare and institutions code, 5270, that we have not yet implemented in Alameda County. And I'm coming to you with a recommendation that in fact we do so as part of our preparation for SB 43 5270 is an additional 30 day involuntary hold That is subject to a certification review hearing Only for individuals who continue to meet criteria for grave disability Beyond the 14 days of the 5250 hold. What we do currently, our state and alameda county is that when an individual has not cleared within those 14 days, we move immediately toward the conservatorship process, which can be an individual is usually conserved for up to a year. So 5270 allows us do that. We've been able to do that. We've been able to do that. We've been able to do that. We've been able to do that. We've been able to do that. We've been able to do that. We've been able to do that. We've been able to do that. We've been able to do that. We've been able to do that. they all support the idea of including 5270 here in Alameda County Seeing it is in fact a less involuntary as the only strategy we have today, which is conservatorship I'll tell you that every other county in the Bay area has adopted 5270 We would be the last county to do so so. San Mateo County has done that just this very year. And we're going to come forward to you with a recommendation for this as well. Next slide please. Just a little bit of a case study about the impact of 5270 in San Francisco across the bay when they implemented 5270, what they saw and would be predicted was a significant drop in the number of conservativeerships, a 66% drop in conservative ship referrals between 2013, from 2013 to 2018, has a result of the implementation of 5270. What we saw or what they saw were individuals were given more time to recover from, perhaps substances that they were using that may have precipitated their acute state. And therefore, again, you know, allowing people to stabilize before we go down the path of conservatorship. And so some of the key takeaways for Alameda County is that moving forward with 5270 would be an effective alternative to conservatorship that actually has the support of our patient rights advocates, has the support of organized peer communities as actually a less involuntary step in involved in patient or involuntary care. Next slide, please. The maximum detention for an individual under 5270, as I mentioned, is 30 days. This does not eliminate the ability to move forward toward conservatorship. In some instances, it'll become clear that the individual has not cleared, has not stabilized even with these extra 30 days, and this does not eliminate the possibility of moving forward with conservatorship, if that remains essential. These 5270s can be terminated as well. There's no reason that it needs to be extended for the entire 30 days if the individual no longer meets great disability criteria, or if they come to accept a voluntary treatment, or if the 5270 is dismissed via a court process. Next slide, please. Again, we see this as integrated with our planning for SB 43. It's this extension of 30 days of inpatient care for grave disability, reducing unnecessary conservatorships, improving care pathways, reducing strain that we currently see in our system, aligning with our broader adoption strategy related to SB 43. Our systems work together in a coordinated collaborative fashion, as I said at the same time, safeguarding patient rights in a way that actually is seen as less involuntaryness. Next slide, please. This is a slide that you probably saw something very similar a few minutes ago when my colleague Vanessa Baker was presenting what we've included in this slide is exactly where the 5270 fits in the LPS legal process, sitting between the 5250, the 14 day extended hold and temporary conservatization. It's this additional 30 days of stabilization. Next slide, please. So we will be coming to you with a request that Alameda County and a recommendation that Alameda County also adopt 5270. We will be coming to also with a recommendation that Alameda County enact well-fair and institutions codes 5121. We're going to make some recommendations if we can move forward please. Next slide. The The current state, well, in the state of California, if you read the Well-Furnt Institution's codes, 5121, which has been on the books for quite some time, authorizes the county behavioral health directors to designate and define what training will be necessary for mental health professionals or other professionals to initiate involuntary holds under section 50-150. In Alameda County historically we have acted distinctly from this established California legislation and other than during the public health emergency in 2020 we have not delegated this authority to the Alameda County Behavioral Health Director. We did come to this board with a request in 2020 for an emergency delegation to the behavioral health director to make decisions around designation and training of professionals that was tied in with the public health emergency. Because We saw at that time, we really had a need to be nimble in terms of how we kept people out of emergency rooms, how we moved people through our acute care system rapidly. However, this emergency delegation authority ended with the end of the public health emergency in Alameda County. Next slide, please. Just to share with you a little bit about what we were able to accomplish during this previous delegation, during this time, we were able, you know, enabled, you know, our behavioral health director to designate professionals to provide faster coordinated crisis intervention. We designated professionals from hospitals, Santa Rita Jail, clinical staff, some of our community-based organizations designated community-based providers in the hospitals and the clinicians who were involved expressed improvement in care coordination. And I think one of the things that was really important is the more clinicians we had involved in the placement of 5150s, the less reliance our system had on law enforcement to do this as well. Historically, what we've had in our system is even in a mental health clinic, if the indication is that an individual requires an involuntary hold of 5150, that that has been, you know, they've had to call the police to come in and actually place that hold. We were able to make some changes during this emergency delegation that reduced our reliance on law enforcement. What we also saw was that when we evaluated the data coming from this period of time, we realized that the involuntary holds that were placed by clinicians were far more likely to be upheld at the hospital for John George to accept these people as being on ballot holds versus holds that were placed by law enforcement in the community. Looking over on the right side of the slide, just again to acknowledge some of what we accomplished during this time, we were able to designate all community hospital emergency departments in Alameda County. We were able to designate behavioral health clinicians at Santa Rita Jail. We engaged in a partnership with five interested community-based organizations to do a pilot regarding placing of holds by behavioral health professionals within these community-based organizations. That's where the data came from, where we saw the likelihood of these holds being upheld at the hospital. And we also launched our community assessment and transfer team, our CAT program, and we're able to designate the staff that were involved in that project as well. Next slide, please. So I think key insights from this delegation at that time, we were able to designate more clinicians, to place 5150s, to be involved in an enhanced crisis response and reduced the reliance in our system on law enforcement. We were able to successfully launch the community assessment and transport team. And then when we went back and we looked at the data, we saw that those holds placed by clinicians were upheld at the hospital, 75% versus holds that were brought in by law enforcement, which were only upheld at 25%, indicating a greater consistency with clinical criteria. With that, I'm gonna turn it back to Dr. Trouble for the final slides. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Chapman. And thank you Vanessa. I appreciate you both. For some reason, the presentation has shifted, so a way of moment as we finish. I will, I'm able to, I will advance. Thanks. So to conclude, the LPS Act designation. So again, the first recommendation that we talked about with Dr. Chapman's assistance is the 5270 that will again allow us an additional 30 days. And I want to, before I move to this, is to remind that means that instead of having two weeks, or persons be hospitalized to be cleared medically or to receive the additional care that they need before pursuing. You have an additional 30 days, which means 45 days a person can now legally be held in John George or any facility to have their symptoms cleared up, which is what our intention is and makes really appropriate sense. This designation, as you can see, there are some authority and there's some benefits to allowing our county to do exactly what you all had granted us permission to do to align with the law essentially. That the county behavioral health director is able to designate as I have been doing historically and again it is consistent with California law. Proposition one again BHBHSA will be transitioning and it will allow us to use dollars for substance use. So this authority and changes that we're proposing will also give us the flexibility to also designate substance use providers and programs. We did not have that before. So what would happen without this authority, each and every individual, each and every clinician, provider, organization would have to have a board letter and come to you for your approval in addition to the director's approval, which again is part of statute. So that's what we're saying. And so this allows us to use lots of funds and it ties directly to that. As you know SB 43 will require flexibility. We will have to, as I think Vanessa Baker mentioned, we have to that. As you know SB 43 will require flexibility. We will have to, as I think Vanessa Baker mentioned, we have to pursue the least restrictive options. That's part of the legislation. So again, it all aligns with the criteria enabling my position, our authority to see clinicians that are also trained to also be able to support us, our outpatient providers to help support. Cure court also, as we're seeing those numbers, we have been visited by the state and pleased to say that they're incredibly pleased at what's happening in Alameda County, and they did compare our numbers statewide and we have the highest number of petitions because we have spent so much time participating, implementing, and are doing a fantastic job. So we received that feedback from DHTS and we think this will dovetail nicely. As we continue to see individuals come through CareCourt, we can now designate other partners to help participate in the process. If a person is on CareCourt in the community or in a facility, they have the ability to initiate a hold. So we can all together in the behalf of the clients. And Beachhip, again, as mentioned, as my colleagues mentioned, very thrilled and I believe you all have been notified that we worked with our providers and we were just awarded $138 million in capital grants to build some of these facilities to do this work. So we're very pleased at that. I believe it was Chair Halbert that wanted to make sure that in the interim as you approved that we did not just wait and we did not and these are some of the activities that we wanted to show you in terms of how ready now our system is. So as you can see, Chair Court has been implemented which as I mentioned will be incredibly incredibly helpful. And again, we had the visit in April regarding that. We haven't initiated both a relationship with our state to help participate in training individuals and we do our own local training. We now have our law enforcement and part of the changes to this law is incorporated in the training and we're working with them to increase the number of enforcement officers who are aware of this. Please to say that we just happen to meet with a law enforcement individual, probably in District one, who said, do we know how important this law is? And I said, yes, we do. So we want to partner with our law enforcement because they will have unfortunately the brunt of this when they're calls about people being publicly intoxicated. They will need support and training and again having more designated people in the community to assist as opposed to taking them off their beat to assist will be greatly appreciated for the system in general. We are also looking at our substance use service line so we are integrating taking in house the ability to also attend to those with substance use needs through this process. There is just an overview of the grants. Again, we have indiligently working since you gave us authority and direction to implement this. And to date, these are the grants that we have received for capital expansion and the partners that have worked with us all equally knowing that we will have some significant work to do. The ones that are highlighted here, everything you see on this presentation that is highlighted with an underlying is in blue has a link so you can explore as needed but the ones that are highlighted specifically tied to some of the work in SB 43 so we wanted to put that forward to you. And what is opening soon is we believe a pure respite or forensic pure respite will be opening. We believe that can serve as a site for individuals who IE, if a 5150s release, they're discharged, they can go there. The community outreach teams, they'll be launching very soon, as well as in-home outreach teams. In other words, people who are, whose purpose is driving the community, relate to the community, homeless encampments, wherever they are in order to be supportive. And this is part of a RAP process that we hope to be again in October of 2025. And finally, we have, through the $130 million we were granted from the state, we'll be opening up a locked facility to more aptly accommodate what we presume will be this Bay Area Alameda County's impact in terms of SB 43 and generally. So to summarize, these are our hope in our recommendation. If you have feedback regarding SB 43, anything that we have have not included we'd like to hear from you so that we can certainly incorporate that into our continued planning. We do hope to have your eventual support for 5270 so we can add an additional 30 days of treatment in a locked setting before even having to work with our social services partners and others to conserve we can actually provide treatment to individuals first. And we also ask that you consider allowing us to do with the law permits by designating the, or aligning the authority of the behavioral director as every other county does in the city of California. Again, those will be presented through board letters in a few weeks, but we have provided the context for your consideration. Thank you all. I'll go to questions from my colleagues. I note to the advisor, Mark S and then to the advisor, my lady. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair Halberton. Thank you, Dr. Trouble in team. I'm going to try to be as concise as I can, but I actually have a lot to see on this topic. So let me just thank you for the tremendous work you've done. I supported the extension because I know that we weren't ready. So all the work obviously shows how important and how invaluable it is to engage with our partners. Sneak peak to let everybody know I am the chair of the public Protection Committee. In this Thursday, we're gonna have a joint public protection and health committee where we'll be getting an update on care court. So I've already gone through those slides and very impressed. So we'll get too much into that today since that's not on the agenda, but encourage people to watch that meeting on Thursday. Also want to emphasize in doing this work how important relationships and trust is, and the fact that you've taken the time to engage with so many community partners to make this the best possible rollout shows in this work. So I do want to clarify, well, let me get to my ask. My ask is very excited about the beach tip funding. And thank you for issuing that press release. But if you look at it, the majority of the programs are in Hayward, which is amazing. But I'm going to respectfully ask that our county be at the table with the City of Hayward. This is a lot for just one city to absorb and we're not done. There's more discussions. And unfortunately, I feel relationships have been fractured as of late because misinformation has been given to the mayor and council from City of Hayward staff. So I just wanted to clarify for the record, I saw in their budget document and I heard in their meeting last week that the county is only investing 1% of funding to address homeless and housing issues. That is not accurate. That is the city's own investment, not the county. So I want to make sure the public is aware of the accurate information. My office will be working with AC Health to issue a joint press release. And I would highly encourage the public to track accurate journalism, because there's information out there that is not that base. So I just highlight that because it's really important that we're getting accurate information to the public. So happy to help coordinate that, but the city of Hayward most definitely has to be at the table because they're taking on a heavy lift with a lot of this programming, which I know they support. But we have to think thoughtfully in terms of the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. So I support your recommendations and look forward to this ongoing discussion. Thank you. Thank you. And whenever we can, we will be submitting continued applications. The ones you saw, the ones that were funded, most definitely across the county. Thank you. All right. Supervisor Miley, then, Tam, what's not a pass and we might have to have three more items in the next five minutes to figure out. So, okay. Thanks for the presentation. Very thorough. I appreciate the way it was all put together. The system, it's a comprehensive look at everything. And I don't have any problems with what is being requested. is do want to know, has any other county implemented all of this? Yes. We're not aware of any county, for example, who does not enable the behavioral health director to align its work or the designations with the state. And as far as the 5270, all of the Bay Area counties have already implemented. The one missing from our slide, we had to do a little extra research. Marin was more recent, but now all of the Bay Area counties and many counties throughout the state, but definitely all of the Bay Area. And SB 43. SB 43, most counties with the exception of approximately eight or nine have staggered implementation. Initially, there was only two that opted in to not wait for the two years. And then some had a rolling start at the end of last year. Most we were all remaining approximately 40 or so come online January 1st together for SB 43. So have they seen results? Has the data shown results? That's what we're looking for results. They have seen an increase in some counties. Some counties have not seen an increase in individuals placed by the expanded definition of LPS hold. So it is inconsistent. For example, well, some of our Bay Area partners that are very close didn't see much of a change both for Care Court and SB 43. So we assume based on the results that we saw with care court, we'll be that county who also she's an increase because probably the amount of time we've spent educating people about the new law as well as care court. So I can't speak for their results except to say in several counties that have implemented, they are seeing a gradual increase because most did not implement yet. We presume that we'll see a greater increase, but the result would be the increase number of people placed in a hold. Yeah, and also the results would be a better quality of life. That is our hope, absolutely. Across the economy, yes. That's right. I mean, people are tired of folks just cycling. Yes. And causing problems and being distractions and bringing down the quality of life for the rest of us. So we want to see result as and hopefully there'll be data coming to the health committee so we can track what's happening. Furthermore, for instance, Oakland has macro. We will we be implementing something to just help Oakland so that Oakland is still longer need macro as an example. If all of this work is supported and we implement SB 43 macro itself couldn't participate because those professionals are not eligible there to provide They're not licensed individuals there Because the city will feel macros waste of time And I'm trying to get a sense where we can provide better services Just using macro and Oakland as an example because that's where I live and this right here both for the frustration So will this So will this be, can we substitute this for an Oakland, as opposed to? It will help Oakland, yes, because they will have the ability, their facilities, we can also expand, enabling them as well to participate in initiating, and with some training and some context that we provide in releasing hold. So yes, it should help them significantly. And how quickly move with the beach of funding, how quickly will we have the facilities? Some of the facilities are coming online. As we speak, as I mentioned, the first one will be the one with La Familia that will be coming online in Alameda. And that is inflated for this summer. So there's a rolling start. We have heard they're watching the impacted tariffs. They're watching to see whether it will slow down construction, but we presume over the next several years, there's a, is there a timeline for the funding? So they have to build them within five years, but we're watching that. So we have a rolling admission and finalization. Okay. And once again, just emphasize the issues of substance abuse and severe mental health and disorders. I mean, it's just not isolated isolated one part of the county. That's correct. So this will be systemic. This is a county-wide. Yes, that's right. You said Lafamilia in Alameda. It's a different one than the Lafamilia in Livermore. Correct. Correct. Another one in Awer. Correct. We have been very busy pursuing everything. What's the status of the one in Livermore? The one in Livermore, they are going through the construction phase still as well. And so we're hopeful with them so we can probably give a full report anytime your board is able across all the construction, but they are on track as we understand it. I say that because I know we have beach ship funds 160 million. We have not going to say we have all the facilities we need anywhere because we don't. We have none in the tri-bally. Zero. Zip. Nana. So we need more. And we have instances where they drive people out of the tri-valley to Cherry Hill and there's no beds. Even when there was a bed when they called and by the time they got there it was gone. So we desperately need that. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox, clean a tab, next to Resurtern, then the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the budget for the would reduce the revolving door that we're seeing. I do have just two questions, one is a clarification. On your slide 14 versus your slide 5, it showed the demographics of your clients and Asians and Spanish speakings are about the same. When you did a stakeholder engagement, it was focused on Spanish speaking groups and clientele. Did you also include some that were Asian speaking? Yes, we had translation, but we want to be much more intentional and formally complete some of those stakeholder groups. So many of those stakeholder groups that we had used, for example, in our strategic planning, they actually happened co-occurrently, concurrently at the same time. So what we have not done is translated what the new law means, 50 to 70, if it's been approved, and we wanted to make sure we're able to provide that. For us, we had at least 11 special languages that we be providing these materials to and trainings, so they are absolutely part of the process. For the ones that they participated, they were able to speak English. We do find that somewhere by lingual English speaking, more so in our Spanish community in some cases. Okay, and then the last question is about care court and SB 43 type holds because when I think about care court, I think that you have to meet a very seriously mental ill criteria like schizophrenia before you can get that mandatory care and treatment, but with DSB 43, you could have like full occurring mental health care and it's kind of substance use situations. And so how did the two like dovetail with each other in terms of getting clients or patients to care they need? I'm actually thinking of a gentleman that right now, out on Jackson and Eleventh, who repeatedly wields a machete in the middle of the street in the mornings. I think I may have heard about the gentleman. So how that intersects is, for example, for care, care for it, as you mentioned, it's psychotic disorders or psychosis in OS. So any type of of Scystic-F a front-of-form type of condition. There is a legislation they're proposing to expand the criterion, broaden it to other bipolar disorders or any of those spectrum. However, it would mean that that individual, for example, hypothetically speaking, or just say anyone who had a psychotic disorder, CareCourt enables you to refer to the courts, but the process still has to take place. This legislation, SB 43, allows you, for example, if that individual had a problem in terms of grave disability, medical issue, or there was a wound, or he or she, or they were intoxicated to the point of not being able to take them, care of themselves, i.e. if the wielding of a weapon was based on their intoxication, they can be placed on a hold under SB 43. So all of it is clinically appropriate, but there is some dovetail, because as it stands with care court, individuals who are difficult to engage, our outreach teams are outreaching, our teams are providers continue, but there's no legal basis by which to provide them the treatment in the meantime. Okay, so even V. Refuses out, he could also be placed on a hold to support him as he gets better. Yes, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Trouble and your team for this informative update. I have two questions in a comment. Good to hear that the equity team is involved in this along with the crisis team. I am curious to hear whether the overrepresentation of African Americans and LPS might be addressed over time with the implementation of this? Yes, and if I may, we believe probably of doing way to many projects at once, but we're trying to be stewards of this work. We see that work specifically, IE, around the African-American wellness hub and some of the activities. We have been targeting for the last several years more court-trily appropriate services, including training. Dr. Chapman is very humble, but he and his team, we've also developed specific training for psychiatrics, psychiatric providers and regular primary care physicians who don't have a psychiatric training, but we are providing services around how do you actually diagnose, treat, and more of quarterly appropriate services to the African-American community. So we've been putting our money where our mouth is when we're looking at these trends. And we're also helping people to find out that their alternative is. Many unfortunately we'll we'll go straight to 10 instead of 0 1 through 10 for example. And we're finding that historically individuals who are are African-American who are more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, for example, than bipolar. So there are those type of things that we're handling with training and trying to certify providers in a much more culturally affirming way. So yes, we're absolutely looking at that for sure. And we think it will make a difference to have more providers. We can certify more culturally consistent providers that reflect the population as well. Thank you for that. And then I'm also interested in hearing a little bit more of possible in terms of how through this process the department is holding patient rights? Yes, excellent question. So once we in our review and analysis, once the board enable it to do more work to prepare us, we immediately, we contract with patients rights and they are part of the Wilford Institution's code. Every county must have them. Many counties have them themselves. They're county employees. We actually have an outside provider. So we worked with them around what is the best scenario, what is not helpful and what we receive feedback from family members as well as clients is the cycling. Having their lives ripped apart constantly and not getting the treatment they needed. Most preferred to not be immediately conserved without actually having the opportunity to go through treatment. Unfortunately, and the reality is hearings for a person to be placed on conservatorship are also a snapshot. So it does not mean just because they come in front of a hearing officer that the hearing officer will also see what we see or the clinicians see. So it's mutually agreeable that allowing them more time was more appropriate. So our patients rights actually queried and they also have contracts and relationships with other counties. And so the data that they gave us as well as some of our stakeholders showed us that it's actually taking more rights away to move quickly to conservatorship as opposed to enabling them simply to have more treatment in a setting that's prepared to do that. Thank you. And then finally, just a comment, because macro and Oakland was mentioned, I think there's a range of views around macro. And I think this is a moment, especially with some of the resource constraints that we're facing to look at how our safety, public health, homeless and other systems can really work together to have the most impact. And thank you. Okay, thank you for the presentation. Just brief comments. Godspeed to getting this done. We've waited a long time. We've planned and planned and we're ready to go, which've been very conservative. We've not asked for new positions or done anything different. We've been very conservative. We've been very conservative. We've been very conservative. We've been very conservative. We've been very conservative. We've been very conservative. We've been very conservative. We've been very conservative. We've been very conservative. We've not asked for new positions or done anything different other side than what we've been allotted. So if we're not able to provide a county employee to do the work, your board has authorized us to contract with other entities. We also are of feed out a lot of opportunities and those CBO providers have been shifting and growing and constructing in their way. So they are staffed and ready to go as soon as the contracts are finalized. So for now, we think we are, our system looks good. I can't really comment on other organizations, but I can say our department is using the resources that we have. Did we train new people, get new people, shift new people from job to a different job? What we're doing things differently here. We're having now people being involuntarily held for now 45 days instead of 15 days roughly. So did we need to train up for any of that? We will need to train up, yes. We have not started that. We were waiting for your approval to do that with Ford Better. But yes, that will mean our training. So the resources in one of the slides you saw is we had already broken relation to with the Calamages say. So in other words, we have our state resources you utilize to help provide us training. And then we also supplement that with local training. So that has already been folded into our crisis system of care for some time around the training for 5150s and work. So there will have to be much more. So between now, if it appears that your board had, there is a consensus of support, we will then be shifting and immediately adding into the new training protocols that our systems are already doing now. Criticisms I've heard in the past is that we don't have enough beds, namely a John George seemingly one of the places that has space. We also know and it's been said that you don't get well in a jail cell. So that's not a good option. You said there are other beds coming on board how many new beds and where will we be able to house people, especially if it's longer number of days, we're certainly going to need a lot more beds. We're exactly are the coming. Well, there are two things to answer your question. We will be adding about 150 locked beds through St. Regis. That was a previous project. We applied for a grant supplemental funds that will enable us to build the image't as many when we started. So now with the designation what we're finding as Dr. Chapman I believe indicated more individuals were being brought to John George concretely that really didn't need to be there. And so their beds were taking up by individuals who they assessed to not necessarily need to be there. So to our HS partners they would often take the responsibility of turning away individuals when in fact they did not make criteria for LPS holds. So by now by allowing more clinicians to actually who render the treatment so that we don't lose that person, they can initiate a hold or they can release a hold and they can call us and have ready access to slots. We are finding that we are not fully utilizing all of our available slots with your board also approved us to increase to compensate for care court. So we think we have enough now. Will we need more beds? That's what our estimation was and air go. That's why we applied to the state. The ones that you see, the 130 million were just the ones that were funded so we'll continue to submit for more and but for now it looks as though based on the number of 51 50s have decreased probably because of the designation you allowed us to do in COVID we presume we will have sufficient but we will never say that because the need will grow and we can't compensate for that adequately. Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll move to the next presentation. Thank you again. We're going to do a quick budget update as you know, we had a budget work group meaningless Thursday. We had the Director of the State Department of Finance join us remotely as as well as the former Director of Finance and our lobbyists to talk about the May revise and we also released our current estimate of the funding yet for next year. So it's not important for the full board to hear that so I'm going to turn it over to Melanie to quickly go through that and then the auditors also going to join us and provide a quick overview. Thank you Susan. In the interest of time I'm going to skip ahead to state and federal updates. So in terms of the states may revise the governor proposed to solve a $12 billion budget shortfall. Notably, the mayor revision does not incorporate any potential effects of the federal cuts that are being contemplated in Congress on programs such as Medicaid, which could have significant impacts on the state and county budget. The May revise does include proposals to streamline CEQA, which may streamline development processes for transitional and permanent supportive housing projects and CSAC, also noted continued investment in public health infrastructure, which was an area left out of the January budget proposal. I think it's important to note and highlight that the mayor of vision does not include funding to support counties efforts to reduce homelessness or to implement Prop 36. I'll move quickly through this slide, which basically just is a summary of how the state proposes to close. It's $12 billion shortfall through a combination of reductions, revenue and borrowing as well as fund shifts. Oh, sorry. At the federal level, even though we know generally speaking, presidential budgets tend to be not a reflection of what ultimately moves through Congress. It does reflect 163 billion in cuts and some of the deepest cuts are aimed at housing programs meant to serve the poor, housing insecure and unhoused. That includes 33 billion in proposed cuts to housing and urban development, 44% reduction from current levels as well as a $33 billion reduction to health and human service programs, which is a 26% reduction. And then a quick overview of our current year approved budgets. The current year approved budget reflects a balanced $4.6 billion spending plan for county programs and services. General fund appropriations total $4 billion, which is an increase of $280 million over the prior year. The budget supports a workforce of nearly 10,500 full-time equivalent positions, which is an increase of 77 positions over the prior year. Like the state budget, the maintenance of effort budget for the developing year does not yet include any impacts of changes at the federal level. And this is a significant pending factor given the county's heavy reliance on state and federal aid. So as you can see in the current year approved budget state and federal aid is nearly two thirds of county financing in the general fund. Moving on to the 2526 maintenance of effort budget. As you know, your board has MOE budget guidelines that guide the submissions that represent your over-year baseline changes submitted by the department's key aspects of the policy or outline here on the slide. Sorry about that. in terms of the 2526 developing budget, if we look at a high level summary of program appropriations and revenue, appropriations in the 2526 maintenance of effort budget have increased $212 million or 6% while revenue is increasing $118 million or 4% resulting in a net cost of a little over a billion, which is roughly a $95 million increase over the current year approved budget. Looking at the net cost change by program compared to the current year, you can see again by program the change totaling to the 94.5. You saw on the previous slide. This slide shows a little bit more detail on the drivers of the program that cost change every year, salaries and benefit increases are always a significant driver of the increase, although some of these costs are offset by revenue adjustments that you're seeing down below on this slide. We also have significant internal service fund increases of note risk management charges which were not included in the numbers that were presented to your board during the early budget work session. Those increases just for premiums as well as a number of other their budget factors in the risk management budget total to 20 million. Moving on to the non-program side of the equation. slide shows changes on the non-programmed slide, totaling to the 896.3 million in net costs, which is a change of 11.2 over the prior year approved budget. You can see here the drivers are changes in contingency and reserves, which are primarily for pending labor negotiations and also an amount that's guided by your board's policy on the general reserve debt service, as well as changes to non-programmed financing, resulting in the net change of 11.2 million. And this is the analogous slide to the program detail that you just saw showing the key drivers on the non-program side. Again, here you can see both changes to debt service and contingency and reserve on the expenditure side as well as financing adjustments. The key driver here again is general liability and workers comp program resulting in the total non-program net cost change of 11.2 million. So if we put those two sides of the equation together, you can see that the addition of the 1 billion in net costs on the program side offset by the roughly 900 million in non-programm resulting in the funding gap of 105.7. The other way to get to that funding gap of course is to add the 94.5 net change from the program side to the 11.2 on the non-program side, which also gets us to the 105.7. Sorry about that. I usually have someone else advancing for politics. Okay. And looking back historically at our funding gaps since the education revenue augmentation fund was implemented, you can see our funding gap of 105.7. It is the largest gap we've had in quite some time for the funding gap for the current year was 68 million and since ERAF began the county has closed funding shortfalls totaling 2.6 billion. So in terms of the recommended budget balancing approach, we did recommend to the budget work group that the county minister's office worked directly with county departments to close the structural funding gap through a combination of strategies that will include review of all program and non-program revenues based on more current data identifying for their cost reductions, a review of vacant funded positions, and considering other countywide strategies to reduce net cost. Your board is familiar with this long list of pending factors that we have to consider that may impact the developing budget in future years. And looking ahead, we do need to keep in consideration the goal to maintain our triple triple credit ratings that we've held since 2018. We also have other significant long-term liabilities, including about 1.5 billion in unfunded capital and major maintenance needs, as well as the county's pension liability. A Sarah's most recent actual valuation as of December 2024 shows a 1.5 billion dollar unfunded actual crude liability with the county being the largest participating employer. So in terms of next steps we'll continue to review and analyze the impact of the governor's made revise as well as update our revenue projections and hope to implement cost containment and reduction strategies so that we can close the preliminary funding gap and develop a balanced proposed budget to present to your board in early June. We will continue to review positions and vacancy factors as well as consider solutions to help streamline operations. And as we always do, we'll continue to collaborate with labor and community partners to identify strategies to maintain a balanced budget and maintain critical services to our diverse communities. So we also have the other controllers with us today to present her annual update on the annual Comprehensive Financial Report. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to the next page. I'm going to go to present the fiscal year 2023-2024 annual comprehensive financial report on highlights. The annual comprehensive financial report or the ACFER is formally known as the comprehensive annual financial report. A CAFER provides a comprehensive overview of the government's financial activities and position. It serves as a detailed, auditable record of a government's financial performance designed in form stakeholders about how public funds are managed. There are three major sections to the affer, including the introductory financial and statistical sections. The introductory section provides general background information about the entity, and it often includes a letter of transmittal and organizational chart and a list of the principal officials. The financial section is the core of the ACFER. It prevents the entity's basic financial statements including the government wide and fund financial statements, as well as the notes to the statements and the independent auditors report. It also includes management's discussion and analysis or the MDNA, which provides an overview of the financial statements and compares them to the prior year. And the last section of the offer is the statistical section which offers a variety of statistical information, including financial trends, revenue and debt capacity, demographic information and other operating data. Each year the auditor controller agency prepares the aquifer. This end, it's audited by an independent certified public accounting firm. This year it was audited by Macias, Ginny, and O'Connell, or MGO. MGO issued an unmodified or clean opinion on the act as well as on the county single audit. The single audit ensures that federal awards and expenditures are in compliance with federal program requirements. The county has received the prestigious certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting from the government finance officers association sports act for for 41 consecutive years. I'm now going to focus on the fund balance section of the act firm. I've also done an overview of the fund balances in prior in prior years. The fund balance focuses on assets and liabilities in the short term, and it can be used to assess an organizational's ability to address financial challenges in the near term. So you can see across the top the funds, the general fund property development, disaster flood, capital debt, and non-major funds, and to the left are the classifications of those funds. The next slide has all of the definitions of the classifications that I'm going to cover now. So the total fund balance for the general fund, which I'm going to focus on, as reported for fiscal year 2023-2024 is 2.4 billion and is made up of the following classifications. The first classification is the non-spendable fund balance. These are amounts that cannot be spent because they're either a not-nospendable form or they are legally or contractually required to be maintained intact, for example, inventory. That totals $55 million. The next classification is restricted fund balance. These are amounts with constraints placed on their use either externally by grantors, contributors, laws, or regulations, or imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. And they would include typically your grant donations. And the restricted fund balances 607 million. The committed fund balance or amounts that are established for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal action through ordinance or resolution of the Board of Supervisors. These would typically include your designations, capital projects, your pension, the pension liability reduction account, etc. The committed fund balance is about $1 billion. The assigned fund balance are amounts that are constrained by the county's intent to be used for specific purposes, but they are neither restricted or committed. The majority of the funds in that classification are POs that I have ruled from the prior year. That assigned fund balance for fiscal year 2024 totaled about 316 million. And the last classification is the unassigned fund balance. And this represents fund balance that's not been assigned to other funds, and it hasn't been restricted committed or assigned to a specific purpose within the general fund. And it includes trust funds, as well as unrealized gains and losses on the investment pool assets. And again, this slide just provides you with the overview of those definitions. I now want to move on to the county's. Also, I want to go back. Let me go back for a second. I want to point out two. At the very bottom of the page, there are encumbrances balances by major funds. The encumbrances that roll from the prior year total about $297 million at the end of June 30, 2024. And I did want to just briefly summarize this page. The $2.4 billion fund balance as of June 30, 2024 included resources in the non-spendable form of 55 million, 607 million in funds that are restricted by an external source like a grant or the state. Those could include Prop 172, AB 109, realignment funds. There's also 1.1 billion committed by actions of your board for various items, including the unfunded pension liability of $333 million, FMR, settlement, litigation and audit claims, capital projects and other commitments, which include proceeds from CWP related to the sale and subsidy of the Coliseum property. And the items I just listed total approximately $ approximately 750 million out of that 1.1 billion in a committed category or classification. The assigned or rolled over of cumberances from the prior year again total about $316 million and then funds in the unassigned classification of $380 million include fiduciary funds set aside for a specific purpose or trust funds and then unrealized gains on investment pool assets. And now I want to turn to the Alameda County Minimum Fund Balance Policy. So the Board approved a policy that includes that the county will strive to maintain an annual amount of up to 5% of the total general fund budget within a designated contingency account and maintain the designated fund balance or the general reserve at a level of at least two months of expenditures of the general fund budget. The annual budget account for capital has also been increased from 1% of the discretionary revenue up to 5% of the general fund budget. The county's policy is to pay current operating expenditures with current operating revenues and budgetary procedures that fund current expenditures at the expense of future needs are avoided. I do want to point out that the county's minimum fund balance policy is consistent with best practices. The government of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office of the Advanced Office fund balance in their general fund of no less than two months of regular general operating operating revenues or expenditures. And it points out that the adequacy of the unrestricted fund balance in the general fund should take into account the unique circumstances of that government and establishing a policy governing the level of unrestricted fund balance in the general fund should take into account the unique circumstances of that government and establishing a policy governing the level of unrestricted fund balance the government should consider a variety of factors including the predictability or volatility of its expenditures or revenues. It's perceived exposures to significant one-time outlays including disasters immediate capital litigation, state or federal budget cuts, which Melanie just discussed briefly. The potential drain upon general fund resources from other funds, as well as the potential impact on the entities bond ratings and the corresponding increase cost of borrowed funds. And I did want to point out that the county's approved fiscal year fiscal year 2025 general fund budget is $3.9 billion and two months of general fund operating expenditures would total about 663 million. The general contingency reserve amount as of June 30, 2024 as reported in the Act for is $151 million which is far short of the county's goal of having two months of operating expenditures in a designated contingency reserve account. And that concludes my presentation, and I'm available for questions. Thank you both for that presentation. Do I have any comments or questions from my colleagues since Super Supervisor Halbert has stepped away, but he's listening as he drives back to Dublin. I have no questions. Supervisor, my Lee, Marquez, then for to not have asked. Okay, yes, thanks for the reports. So, first of all, with Melanie, with her budget update, the federal... This is why I give it a fair open. Do we know the... I think we have a range of different updates as specific as in health school. We have a range of different updates as well. We're still working on that analysis with departments. I think we have a range of different updates as specific as in health's case notice of federal grant terminations and so, but even in those cases where we know specifically which grants are going to be terminated, there's still some legwork to do to determine what the impacts are going to be. I think for a lot of the other programs where we either know via a media source or information coming from our statewide associations, it's really not known what the specific impact is going to be, not only at the state level, but not at the local level either. So there's still quite a bit of work to do to understand what the impacts are going to be, which is why our currently our maintenance of effort budget generally does not contemplate impacts, resulting from changes happening at the federal level. Okay, yes. We're going to talk about next steps. That was... the final report. So, we're going to have to have a balanced budget based on the information that we have and hopefully to be able to support the maintenance of effort budget starting with the new fiscal year. But acknowledging that there may be further changes at both the state and federal level and potentially we would have to go back in and make adjustments. Yes, similar to when the pandemic was here, we adopted a budget and we looked at any impacts associated with the pandemic afterwards. Yes. I think the goal is to adopt a balanced plan that we believe we can manage within the beginning of the year. Because the longer we wait, the deeper the cuts we're going to have to make if we have to make further adjustments. Because I'm very concerned about the federal government because whatever the federal government does it could impact the state and then all that would roll down the hill to the county and I'm just concerned about what the impact might be, eventually around some of the grants and sources that I can't realize about. And what we might have to do if there are any additional impacts, which I suspect there might be. So that gets me to our great auditor, recorder, controller, and less of a will. So one of them, so just to give you that figure again, we have in the reserve how much? 150, about 151 million in a general reserves shown, and that would be shown in the committed classification. And then best prep, two months of reserve would be how much? About 630 million. And I was trying to ascertain from your slide, slide three, I think it was. Decide three include escort counts, designated counts, undescanated counts. The air will fund doesn't include everything on slide three. On slide. Yes. Yes. For the county. Okay. Is I'm trying to see where they would occur? On slide three. So the Emerald Fund would be shown in the committed to capital projects under proper development fund. Second column yes. Okay. And where is that? I see it but what? It's 382. So that's the error fund? Okay, and we specifically use that for debt service. Correct. The interest earnings offer, the error fund are used to pay the debt on the general justice. Yeah. Yeah. And so, if we did, if we, for instance, because people keep asking about the MR Fund, so if we were to, I'd say MR Fund, the implications would be what? We wouldn't have those resources for net service. Correct. We would not, we would have to find another source of funding to pay the annual debt service. And additionally, it might hurt our people. Reddit rating? It could. And that is one of the considerations, they ask, for the best practices to ensure that with your reserves, you have enough in there that you can cover your ongoing expenses with current revenue. Right. So that's why I'm just putting all this out because people keep asking about the theme of the theme of the theme of the theme of the theme of the theme of the theme of touch it. Okay. And based on the, if we had to, let's suppose we have to cut another 200 million out of the county's budget because of the federal government, what would be some of the options? Well, I mean, as you know, you need to cut expenses, you increase your income. So I think, you know, our options are going to be somewhat limited. We are, We are, as has been mentioned, doing an extensive review of all of the positions funded and funded to try to do a better alignment there. I think there are some funded vacant positions that can be reduced. And we would, of course, look to do everything. We could short of having thoracic program reductions and position cuts, but I think it's going to be challenging. And you're right. I mean, depending on what the numbers are, it could be significant in terms of the federal. We're trying to develop with the departments attractors so we can at least, we showed you that over 60% of our funding is from the state and federal government and really trying to identify those programs that are most at risk and what the potential funding reductions could be. I know some of the counties are making some rock estimates. One of the counties is actually making the estimates and we're going to bring forward a budget that includes a reduction in anticipation. I think it's premature for us now based on the information we have, but I think we'll see a range of reactions to how to address the potential significant cuts. So we do everything we can do in non-articulate programs, but there might be something we'd have to consider. I've said anything we consider. We do that concert with talking with stakeholders, CBOs, labor, etc. So Melissa on your slide where are the on debt the escrow accounts and the designated accounts? I'm going to ask Craig where you prepared that offer. app for. I'm assuming they're. So you're asking about the trust funds. Trust funds. Oh, trust funds. As core accounts, most of them are in the restricted fund balance. There's also some in the committed and the unassigned as well, but most of it's unrestricted. And we're getting restricted. So trust funds would typically be restricted for a specific purpose, so they would, many of them show up in the various categories under the restricted. There are some that are in the unassigned. The unassigned has about $130 million in trust fund or fiduciary fund accounts. So they're sort of spread out depending on whether or not or what type of restrictions they have on their use. So did you say we have about $131 million of unrestricted? That's in the unassigned and that doesn't mean that it's unrestricted. It means it's just not it does not have a specific restriction that forces it to be classified within the restricted or community. With with any of that be available if we have to go to it in the case of an extreme circumstance like we lose 200 billion from the federal government. I'll let Susan answer as well, but But trust funds typically do have a restriction. There are some that we are collecting and holding. Those are fiduciary trust funds that we hold for, that we collect and hold, like measure C, measure W that we then allocate to other organizations or entities. And then there are trust funds that the departments have and we are reviewing all of the departmental trust funds and we're auditing them, looking at them and then there are many of those trust funds also have restrictions based on state or grant funding or other restrictions opposed on their use but some may be available for healthcare or public protection depending on on what they were allocated for. I would just reiterate that we are looking at the trust funds we'll be working with the departments. You know, there are likely some funds that they are one time, right? Right. In nature. Right. Right. So one time, okay. Okay. Because I just really think once again, having been elected official, and I think all my colleagues have served on some councils, as I have, it also been on the board. I've gone through a lot of different budgets over the course of my time as an elected official, but I do feel this is probably the most serious of all the ones I think I've had to face in years just because of the uncertainty at the federal level, even the pandemic. It was concerning mind you, the economy was concerning and things that nature, but with the unpredictability and watched, that's just really causing a lot of consternation. And I just wanted to kind of explore different things at the moment as some other thoughts, but I'm not gonna even go there at the moment. So thanks. It's a version of Marquez. Thank you, Chair Tam. So a lot of the questions, Supervisor Meyley asked, I have the same one, so thank you for flagging. But with respect to the reserve fund, do you recall the last time we had at least two months of operating expenses? I know. I think we ever had. Okay. We've been trying to build up the reserve, and that's where the board has followed its financial management policies to allocate a percentage of our estimated discretionary revenues each year to continue to build up that reserve. Okay, so kind of at going comments made earlier, not everyone was in the room, but for me personally, it's really important that we have trust in the community and that we keep our words. I'm just going to say a lot of things. I'm not expecting a response right now, but just to put on staff's radar in preparation for the budget adoption and future discussions past the budget. So what I would like to know in terms of not immediately, but hopefully in the near future, I am very interested in our real estate portfolio. How many buildings do we own? What are our lease agreements? Can we offload some of these properties? That's a question I have. I also want to hear back from our assessor in terms of all the pills and outstanding debt. So I'm curious about an update on that. And then with respect to measure W, which I know we're not going to discuss until July. But I think for those of us that are new, I really need to be briefed on it. Like what was told to the public, what, you know, like we need to have background in context. So looking forward to having that information so we can make informed decisions. And I also am very concerned about the uncertainty with the federal government. And there is a data point that said how much money we've lost because of the state's takeaway. I don't know what more we need to do on PAL, but we need to like figure out we minimize those takeaways and unfunded mandates that continue to minimize our ability to provide direct services to our community. What else do I want to know about? Oh, the 77 new positions. I honestly don't recall proving that many positions. So what departments can you speak to? What we added in the last year that was actually coming coming into this year's budget and you know We've adhered to your board's policy that mid-year we don't add positions unless there's specific funding identified for them so most of them were probably grant funded or funded within a, you know, as a result of a new program coming in. Okay. And then when will the vacancy analysis be completed? We're kind of looking at staffing levels. Well, we will have a status report to be certainly before the end of the fiscal year. Okay. Thank you. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to our audience. Thank you. Those are my comments. Thank you. Surprise or 14 of us. Thank you. Thank you to our auditor maybe starting with that presentation. I do have a couple questions. So with a 3.9 billion general fun annual budget, 5% reserves would be 195 million is that right? About 200 million. Exactly. Great. And then in terms of our contingency, there's a couple places where I believe I saw contingencies listed. So one is on Melody's presentation. This is page 19. Contingency and reserves is listed as 110.2 million. And I thought I understood that as helping us pay for coales and things like that. And then that's separate from the contingency in terms of a 5% or up to 5% reserve? Is that actually designated somewhere in our budget? So the 151 million is set aside in designation. That's the contingency reserves that I was talking about. And that, as Susan pointed out, is the board's policy to set aside a certain percentage each year of the discretionary revenue. But I believe that the contingency in reserves and I'm not Melanie answer this is is budgeted within each annual budget to help offset those coales and those unanticipated increases. But that's correct. What's represented as the one ten in my presentation is what's included in the budget as opposed to the designation which is outside of the budget. Right. Okay. Thank you. And so in terms of the 5% which I'll just call a rainy day fund for now. That's probably not a term that the county uses. Is that designated anywhere on our, in our budget, for example, in our chart of accounts is it's own fund or is it sort of embedded in a separate account? Right, yeah. It's included within the designations that are set aside by your board. So there is within the accounting system, there is set aside for designations. And that's where it'll typically show up in the Act for which you can see it as a line item within the Act for under the committed funds. So it's set aside a separate fund with other designations. Okay, thank you. So it's not in the operating budget. What will happen if something comes in from the reserves, it comes in as a source of funding if you will into the budget. But it's not shown in the budget. All we have is what we refer to as the contingency, which is largely a contingency for pending labor agreements. Right. And then whatever increase based on board policy, we put into the reserve each year. So that shows in the budget. You'll see that in the developing your budget. Okay. Thank you. In Oakland, we actually created a separate account in our chart of accounts that was separate from our general fund. So it was fund 10, 11 for our reserves. And that was helpful at least for the electeds to understand exactly where we were. Where we were in relation to that percent we were trying to reach. I do have a question about debt service. It looks like on the Act for, let's see, where is. So there is an amount of $79 million for debt service. And in the proposed budget, $54 million is set aside for making payments on debt service. So that would leave us with a little bit less, but I assume that we set aside funding for debt service every year. Correct. Okay. And then the difference may be that the actors based on, this is the 23 correct? June 30, 2024. of turn 24 and sorry so this is. And the developing budget is the current debt schedule looking for right now. And the key is to the extent our debt schedule changes. That would be that could be the difference. Okay. And then in terms of the juvenile justice center. Is it possible to describe what the debt service on that looks like in terms of the amount per year, what will pay that off? I don't recall when we pay it off. I believe the annual debt service is somewhere in the neighborhood of $8 million, but we have a debt schedule that's included in the budget and we can certainly provide that to you. get largest debt that we pay is, between $40 and $50 million to retire the debt that the county issued to build the acute tower at Highland Hospital. Okay, thank you. And thank you to our county administrator for inviting our auditor to present this. I know I had asked about it as well as for maintaining our amazing credit rating. I do have a couple questions about our proposed budget and the increases in terms of risk management, $20 million, is that roughly what we set aside each year or is that higher? It's a bit higher as our premiums have been increasing and our claims have been, as well, have been increasing. So that's the operating cost for risk management which is an internal service fund. So those charges ultimately get charged out to each of the departments based on utilization and past history. But with the insurance markets increasing as well as other pending litigation and settlements are cost are certainly rising both in terms of our day to day operations of risk management as well as ensuring that our reserves are adequate since we're self-insured. Okay. And I might have some specific questions, which maybe I can ask offline. One thing that did jump out was the Santa Rita Jail Food Service contract. I know there was an increase that came to the board. And in terms of the expansion for this particular expense, what's that attribute attributed to? Mainly, the increase in cost in terms of the contract was essentially directed to increase the quality of the food in the jail or also increase costs incurred by the contractor because of changes to the structure of the provision of services. So they had to increase staffing. But it's, as I understand it, the main cost driver's increase in the quality of the food within the contract itself. Part of it is a the governor's may revise with a $12 billion deficit. And so we're trying to represent a quick funding for that contractual obligation. Thank you. And then finally, I think we're all bracing to see what the impact of the federal budget will be. You know, we were hoping that the state budget would be balanced and we wouldn't see what we saw in terms of the governors may revise with a $12 billion deficit and very alarming cuts to health care including medical and insurance for the undocumented community as well as reductions to homelessness and housing. So I just want to state for the record that that's very alarming. And I do hope that we will work with our state legislators to push back, be creative and do what we can to minimize those reductions because those are going to have very real impacts in addition to whatever the federal government might bring. Thank you. Supervisor Miley? Yes. Two of the questions. Do we anticipate any disalances? We know that's one of your pending factors. Is that audit disalances? Yeah. Potentially. You know, we get so much of federal and state funding and as you know, the audits are always a look back. So yeah, they're, you know, are on occasion audits allowances. So we do set aside funds to pay for those as opposed to having to take them out of current operations when they come to. So it's just a pinning factor, but we're not, we're not thinking there's going to be a significant amount of assumptions. No, there's nothing we're aware of but as you know it as an example is the email reimbursement. Right. The way submitted to the state and have not been fully reimburseed. and COVID and ARPA cares. Okay. And then in the, with the next steps to, and with pending factors, do we anticipate any increases with a Sarah? So they're just looking at their current valuation. I don't think that the rates will factor in the rate adjustments. I think what we're looking at is the pension liability reduction fund at the board set up. And so that helped us actually reduce the increased costs. Because as you know, we paid down a portion of our unfunded liability. So that helped to stabilize the rates. But I think it's still something we need to be mindful of knowing the markets and what their earnings may be. Okay thanks. Thank you for those questions. I need to channel President Halpert because he's actually listening and asking questions right now. So I think you covered this issue, but you know as we close this 105.7 million dollar budget gap or budget deficit, he's asking what plans do we have to reach our goal of two months dedicated reserves, which you ask that question and you said we've never met that reserve. So I'm trying to understand. I'll go ahead. I will ask that question on his behalf. So, yeah, the, I mean clearly we've had emergencies in the past. We've had the Loma Prieta earthquake. We've had Tesla road, you know, red light roads. We've had floods. Exactly. And a lot of times we have to front these costs because, you know, FEMA takes a while to get to us. So if we don't have two months operating reserves and we're trying to close a budget deficit that's probably in the order of the amount of reserves that you have of $151 million and you need $630 million in two months for two months expenditure. How? that you have of $151 million and you need $630 million in two months for two months expenditure. How are we going to like juggle that? So our goal is to meet best practices at two months expenditures. I mean if we had the luxury of adding additional funding to meet that goal now that would be certainly laudable and certainly well received by the financial community. But what we've been successful at doing with the board's support in discipline is incrementally adding to it each year under the our existing financial management policies that provide for a percentage of discretionary revenue going towards the reserve each year. And so we're gradually building it up. So to the extent there's any interest in reducing it. Clearly we're not at our goal. And that's just going to delay us getting to a point that we believe is prudent. And as the auditor said is best practice. Okay, I appreciate that. And municipal finance experts have complemented the county on reducing its pension liability because that helps reduce the cost and helps with our credit rating obviously. So that's all the questions that we have. Are there any public comments on this item, on this federal and state county budget update? There are no speakers. Okay. We have no comments. Susan, we have one final question. Can you lay out prospectively our plans to get to that balance budget and the meetings that we will be having between now and end. Just to provide progress updates on our balancing. Actually, so if I was your fortune out of asking as I wish. Yes. Just for us as well as members of the public, if you're able to sketch out a potential timeline and any dates that might be at least tentatively on our calendar for budget presentations and other budget hearings. I think that would be helpful for members of the public as well. So thank you. And just, you know, at present, you know, we are at a point where we've identified our funding the app of 105 million. Our goal is to have a balanced budget to present to your board the week of June 9th and then to have public hearings in two weeks subsequent to that the week of June 23rd. So once we have more definitive dates we can put something out publicly. Thank you, Supervisor Miley. Yes, but my mistake in you will be making a budget presentation at the Uncorbited Services Committee next on Wednesday for the unincorporated area. Yes, correct. We'll be giving an update on current status. Yeah. Yeah. So the next item is the state and local homelessness planning and policy update. Can I flag are we going to get to all items so we can let stuff know if they don't need to stay. I don't know if we're going to have time to get to. Can I get a sense of the timeliness of the last item, the counter projects facilities updates on the historical facilities. Do you? I don't think this is a pretty much the'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.elessness Services. We have an update for you that's primarily focused on two items for our agenda for tonight. The first is an update on half six funding, which is the primary source of state funding going toward homelessness. Then also some other updates around state planning and policy initiatives, particularly focused around un sheltered homelessness and encampments and recent action from the governor's office. So first, perhaps six, was authorized in the state's fiscal year 2425 budget. The NOFA, which is the Notice of funding availability, came out in February, and the applications are due at the end of August. So for context, and again to name our acronyms, haps stands for Homelessness Housing Assistance and Prevention Program. The Round Six funding allocations are listed here. In rough proportions, it is about 51% of the allocation goes to the City of Olgan, which is the qualifying big city in the county, based on the size and population. And then the balance of that about 22 million is split between two entities, the continuum of care, which is a federally designated entity that receives our HUD funding, contiguous with the county and Alameda County. And we, as the county are the administrators of both the COC and the county portion together. Notable though it varies each time the proportion that comes to each of the entities based on how much is committed at the state level and that coming down to counties but we actually saw an overall reduction in our funding of a roughly 5 million due to improvements in our point in time count. So what that means is the funds are allocated to local jurisdictions based on the proportion of people in the point time count relative to other communities and we had improvements and so, unfortunately our funding was reduced slightly because of that. Just to briefly summarize, each of the different rounds has a different focus in some ways and in some ways shifting parameters and priorities from the state, but for round six, the priorities are around preventing and reducing unsheltered homelessness through prevention and then a focus on sustaining existing interim and permanent housing. And also it's a joint application. So starting in round five, we were required to submit a combined application in partnership with the city of Oakland where our budgets are mutually interrelated and we submit in a much more closely aligned way. And so that George Coordination planning is underway, including the update to our MOU and then as well as regular meetings to go through that complicated process to be ready before August. By way of recap here, just wanted to quickly summarize the funding that has come into the community to date starting in round one all the way through the projected amounts for round six. And you can see the breakdown there that has been roughly the equivalent about 51% on average going to the city and the balance going to the county and the COC together. So for this most recent round the total of protection amount will be roughly 45 million. Okay so now a round of updates and relevant information. So one of the updates specifically under our administrative requirements. This was a change that we brought to you last time in discussing the plan for submission for HEP 5. The state has moved from quarterly reports to monthly reports for all rounds of HEP PUNNING. So starting in round five we had to submit comprehensive reports every month, not just for rounds five going forward, but now for all rounds every month. So the impact is of course a significant increase. An unarest increase I might add in terms of the amount of staff time required to complete the quarter reporting as it was. And so currently we don't have any dedicated staff to be able to administer at that level. And so it's a significant increase in expectations that we assume will continue, should have rounds continue. There's also an expectation that applicants must provide updates to the regional plans, so each round of half requires a new coordinated regional plan. And during the grant agreement, that plan must show at least 50% increases in system performance measures. So in order to access a portion of the funds will be predicated upon the ability to show increases in various system performance measures, which is a significant expectation given many of the limitations communities are facing and stagnating funding. And so the impact is of course will be uniform both to Alameda County as in other jurisdictions and just the difficulty to really demonstrate given those limitations. There's also a significant focus on housing sustainability. So, HEPFUNs are not allowed to be used on new interim housing or non-housing services, such as outreach, community navigation, without demonstrating financial sustainability of all permanent affordable housing across the region. So what that means is in order to spend on new shelters or to do outreach or community services that are considered non-housing costs, we'd have to demonstrate that sustainability, which is effectively to make it impossible to do so because we cannot demonstrate across all of our various jurisdictions that sustainability. So it really eliminates our ability to invest in those areas, short of the ability to demonstrate that. Similarly, there's an expectation that all regions must document the sustainability of all interim housing units across the region, both in terms of capital and operating costs through a fiscal year 2829. This involves a large administrative request where we'll have to go to communities, both those that receive public funding from us and others that don't just sort of get an outlay of their financial sustainability between now and then. And it's very unlikely that many of our projects will be able to show financial sustainability through that time. So there will doubtless be gaps primarily because things like interim housing and shelter are those types of projects that depend on funds like happen order to fund themselves the next year. Shifting out to other updates, really the focus on encampments. A couple slides here. There's a heavy focus on unsheltered homelessness and in particular encampments throughout the application. Applicants are expected to either provide a current formal policy to address encampments that complies with the California Interagency Council on Homelessness of Skidance on addressing encampments or Describe their current efforts to address encampments and provide a timeline for the development and adoption of such a policy For the county We're still awaiting the formal feedback from the state in response to the the questions that we and other communities have raised as to in the example of the county, what is the relevant jurisdictional boundaries for which this would apply? We are confident that that for us applies to the unacquired county, so the specifics up to the county for which we have direct jurisdiction, but are still awaiting final word from them. And given this, what we are recommending in between these options is to go with option B. To leverage our ongoing cross agency work, to submit a timeline and process for creating such a policy in partnership with a community development agency, the Sheriff's Office, our other associated partners, and of course AC Health and our other constituents, as we develop that for the unincorporated community. A continuation more focused on encampments. There's also an expectation that applicants would identify and inventory all encampments in their region to provide detailed information to the state including for each encampment address location and the estimated population plans to address that encampment, key milestones to carry out those plans and the relevant responsible parties to do so. A host of concerns are raised for us in this to summarize one first and foremost privacy. State applications are public records. So to document and list publicly the address and location of all all encampments could expose people to things that we would be concerned by and relevant privacy. Secondly, fluidity. Encampments are not fixed things, they change, they move. And so to document a list, could quickly become irrelevant at the point of submission. Most prominently alongside privacy, I think is just the sheer administrative burden. There are thousands of encampments in urban areas, including Alameda County. So the ability to comprehensively document every single one, have a plan, a specific plan to address every single one, and milestones, carrying those out is unrealistic. And lastly resource gaps. Of course it's unrealistic that those plans would be possible. And the lack of clear prioritization criteria for impacted communities into how to document this calls for more explanation. So I know there's a host of questions from us and other communities that hopefully will be clarified in a follow-up FAQ from the state. Housing benchmarks. So as there have been in previous rounds, there's a heavy emphasis on the Homestest Regional Action Plan really focusing on alignment with other housing activities and expectations. Under the purview of state HCD, as an aside, these grants are now administered through the California Housing Community Development Department. They have previously been under the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, so they are now administered under the same agency that administers many of our grants to HCD and otherwise. So there's a strong expectation that the adopted housing element would be in compliance with local jurisdiction, updates on the implementation of those housing element activities. The status to pro-housing designation, the status of housing law violations, and then also inventory of surplus land and land and excess of foreseeable needs. So we're working with our partners to do so, particularly with CDA and GSA, to obtain the necessary information, to present a plan and timeline for somebody not inventory. But a heavy emphasis on those benchmarks to align, really, to make sure that local communities are in alignment with their housing goals and state housing law along with the homelessness focuses. So next steps. In relation to the joint submission of the application, we've already launched meetings with our partners at the City of Oakland by weekly. So they were really planning intensively and coordinating our investment plans in order to have a strong application. As I said, there's a pending FAQ from the state that hopefully addresses at least some of our concerns and the ambiguities and the application. And then specifically focusing on the unincorporated planning and the deliverables and expectations there. We're of course working closely with GSA and CDA on the surplus and excess land inventory deliverables. And we're coordinating and will continue to closely with HCD and all the relevant unincorporated county stakeholders to develop a timeline for the proposed encampment policy response, where we would help support all of those partners to develop a timeline and a plan for that and submit the details for that as part of our application in August. Okay. Zooming out a little bit more broadly to our second item and just covering the state policy and planning updates with a specific focus on unsheltered homelessness. As a review here, we brought this to you at the time, but wanted to set the context for more recent updates from the state. In July 2024, the governor released Executive Order N-124 that direct state agencies and departments to adopt encampment removal policies consistent with the state CalTrans policy to address encampments on a state land. In brief, that included a policy to have 48 hours notice unless there were exigent circumstances, store belongings for 60 days, and request outreach and resource connections through local service providers. Cities and counties were not subject to the order, but strongly encouraged to adopt policies consistent with the order, prioritizing the most dangerous encampments. The order does not provide dedicated resources for these resolutions, and there was a statement of pending guidance from the California interagency Council on Homelessness hereafter referred to as CalICH. And that guidance was provided shortly after in the form of a one-pager, released following the executive order that encourages local jurisdictions to employ trauma-informed care, person-centered approaches, and housing first principles. It recommends that jurisdictions be aware of interim housing availability. That is interim housing that is immediately available in conjunction with any a camp in resolution, have a storage policy to respect the dignity and property of those who are being cleared from the camp and to provide at least 48 hours notice unless there are exigent circumstances. That guidance does not require that actual shelter and services be provided, but encourages jurisdictions to make every effort to identify and offer them. When those are not available, it strongly encourages jurisdictions to ensure that there are reasonably accessible places where people can lawfully sleep and that those are provided to people. So that is all prelude for this month. The governor's follow-up that was releasing what was described as model ordinance. And this was really aligned with both the executive order and the guidance on encampments coming from Cal ICH. And it was really aligned with that intent to strongly encourage local governments to quote take urgent action to remove encampments from public spaces. It's intended to serve as a starting point, leveraging again the state cal trans policy as a model that could be tailored and customized to local contexts. In addition to it should be said this is a two-page summary document that does make it unlawful to build impermanent structures, camp on public lands, sleep in public places, but it does include three basic principles together with that change in making things unlaw questions. There are a few other questions. There, it says it's important that those ordinances retain what I would call local discretion. The policies should not unduly limit the local authority to clear candidates. Okay. Shifting to the relevant local context here. As you know, and as I've shared probably many times, we saw 11% reduction in our unshouldered homelessness in our last point in time count in January, 2024. We work very closely with our existing local partners, including the HCD, our cities, Cal, and all of the other associated unincorporated stakeholders to support our unhoused residents and to work to address in ways that are evidence-based and responsive, unsheltered homelessness, and particularly in campments where there are high risks and high needs. Our street health teams are working across the county intensively to provide services within campments. And there are some good examples of local state-funded encampment resolution funding projects showing promise and impacting unsheltered homelessness when housing and services are funded as a part of the program. Also, areas of research and evidence that we believe raised some concerns to the guidance as listed short of housing resources. There was a study that the RAN Corporation put out in 2024, studying Los Angeles over three year time, that found continuing evidence that local and camp and activities did local and camp and cleanup activities did not lead to reductions in un sheltered homelessness. In fact, they found the unintended consequences of multiple and cancer removal, excuse me, actually doubling the number of people that were living without any shelter outside, so without even tents, for example. It was also a study of the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2023 that found entampment closures, bands, move-along orders without dedicated housing resources would likely contribute to a 15-25% increase in deaths among those who are in the unsheltered population who inject drugs over a 10-year time. So importantly, we think the evidence is clear and straightforwardly so that without housing the encampment and baitments are just not, are not just costly but ultimately ineffective and can further exacerbate the problem doing very real harm. That is first obviously material loss and health compromise for people that might lose access to their resources and medications, further instability and services disruption and the ability for people to maintain connections to folks in those encampments, increased distrust and dissociation with services, so through those experiences a future unwillingness to continue to work and build connection, and then of course the risk of externalities to other communities, if certain communities are aggressively enforcing these things and others have different policies. So in light of all of this, what are our priorities and response to this? Well, first, we want to be very clear that we believe that all of our communities do need to balance the urgency with good policy, good evidence-based policy. So really want to encourage our jurisdictional partners not to interpret this ordinance, as I think the ordinance itself clearly says, as a green light to clear encampments without housing pathways. That is not the direction and nor the language within the ordinance. We also want to reiterate, as I hope to have done a little bit here, what works and what doesn't. Dedicated resources with intensive planning and coordination do resolve or can resolve un-childrened homelessness. Poorly planned abatements without targeted resources do not. The importance of scaling and sustainably funding evidence-based strategies, examples of projects that have dedicated in Campman Resolution Funding Awards are good examples of this. I listed two here of local and Campman Resolution funding awards, Berkeley's project that created a Motel Shelter and an RBBiBac program is showing great success. As is Oakland's Mandela House project that used in Campman Resolution funding with a host of other county and state sources to acquire a hotel in Oakland to support as a transitional interim housing site on its way to becoming permanent supportive housing to resolve three encampments in Oakland. And lastly, the real need to support transitions from interim to permanent housing. Limited transitions to permanent housing from our shelters create slow turnover and it really reduces the utilization efficiency. Longer stays in our interim housing, which is to say if we were to create a bunch of shelter to close a bunch of encampments, if there are not housing pathways, those sites become quickly impacted as high-cost programs and are not able to be utilized effectively going forward. So we must couple our interim housing investments with permanent housing investments. I shared this in when the executive order came out to really lift up our approach and our continued orientation. So I just wanted to share this here. And our approach really is to work, of course, closely with our cities and other partners to collaborate on encampment resolutions, but to really follow and endorse these best practices. To plan collaboratively and intensively with all of our partners and to do so with ample time, to provide health, housing, social services, resource referrals, hygiene, waste management while we're engaging the process of a resolution, to center peer-led interventions that are often preferred but preferred by unchildrened residents engaging in the process, you of course offered dignified and accommodating that is to say propets for folks with disabilities that has privacy for partners that are indoor options, to also allow enough time that on average can take between 90 to 180 days for people to really make those plans and for us to support them in the planning process to remove those barriers and to assure all of the interim housing pathways have permanent housing options. Okay. And lastly, I just wanted to refresh something that we had put forward as a proposal in the December initiative to kick off an expansion of interim housing resources with an initial 250 beds that would be geographically dispersed, specifically focused on creating pathways to partner with local jurisdictions for expanding and CamdenMEN resolutions. Really focusing on those, of course, being for immediate in-camp and resolution activities, setting aside 20% of those beds for folks with high medical needs, and 80% specifically for general and KAMMEN resolution. The sites will require the contractor to really focus on stabilization, housing navigation and comprehensive services, so what we would call a service rich interim housing environment, and then we would of course coordinate with the providers to transition exits that is permanent housing exits, and then really to treat those sites that would be initially least as opportunities through further capital solicitations could be converted to permanent interim housing or convert over to permanent housing. But of course, there would not be guarantees there. So that's it. Thank you. Did you have any follow-up comments or no more than the presentation. Thank you. Thank you. I saw you guys whispering just in case. Do I have any comments or questions from my colleagues? Supervisor Miley, supervisor Marquez, a supervisor for to not pass. Why do I always have to go first? Oh, OK. OK. I'm the senior. I'm the only guy on the board here. Okay, okay, okay. All right, well, I definitely appreciate this presentation. I have a number of questions and I'm just gonna go through it. I'll page by page based on my questions. So, we have, that's all state, right? That's right. Okay And And I commented the last time you gave a half report where Colleen was still here that I thought it was egregious I still think it's egregious that the state required monthly reporting. I mean that is me I don't want a curse and I won't curse, but that is really after. It really is. That they're requiring monthly reporting. It's like you're going overboard and not being, I mean, they're doing other things that are stupid. And they're doing this, which is stupid. It just doesn't I make a lot of sense. So what's the plan to give additional staffing? Bacon. stupid and they're doing this which is stupid. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. So what's the plan to give additional staffing? They can do these reports and being compliant. Yeah. So historically we have really prioritized the programmatic activities with HEPF funding, whereas we have essentially used roughly 4% of the funding in the past on average for between 4 and 7% to go toward administrative activities. So short of changing that, which we have not planned for, imminently, part of the plan for the funding that was presented the 4.5 million in December of advance toward ultimately funded by Measure W and H&H staff in expansion was to include administrative grant management and the staff members and the staff members and the staff members and the staff members and the staff members and the staff and the staff members and the staff members and the staff members and the staff members and the staff and the staff members and the staff and the staff members and the staff and the staff members and the staff and the staff members and the staff and the staff members and the staff and the staff members and Yes, OK. Man, I mean, that's crazy. But I do understand the necessity. Then the update to have around six housing sustainability of the question with that is when the state looks at this, are they coupling us with Oakland or can we do our piece in the Oakland reports on its piece or is it taken as one entity? Great question. So previously we had to submit separate but aligned applications. So they would be looked at separately but they had to make sense as a coordinated plan. As I mentioned starting in half five, so last round we've got one round of experience on this. We had to submit as a combined application. So I think the answer would be yes and no Oakland will report You know their housing sustainability for their portfolio their housing for designation status or pro housing designation status Excuse me and all the other items relevant to this and we will report ours But the essentially the scoring and approval of the application looks at them jointly together. So other things where there's overlap would be in the budget, for example. There are a lot of specific constraints about what can be spent on what? Based on what you spend in other areas, for example, I mentioned some here. Previously, those would apply to Oakland individually. So whatever they were wanting to allocate had to make sense within their own budget and ours within our own budget. Starting last round, their budget implications and the proportion they want to spend on interim housing, for example, have implications for how much we can because it's viewed as one holistic budget. So there's a lot of individual representation, but overlapping implications such that we have to make them align more closely, not just stand alongside each other. If that answers your question. It does, and I don't want to get into the weeds, but clearly, if the county's not doing it to part or its role, then Oakland suffers. And if Oakland's not doing its part, then the rest of the county, that we have respons for, will suffer. That's correct, yeah, they get names together. Are you administratively getting those, getting that in place with Oakland? Yes, we've started weeks ago now to sort of foreground the process. As we see it, all these application changes and the requirements in an effort to with this round be prepared more quickly and then we were last round. Now that we have some experience behind us. So we are having and planning intensely with them and coordinating to make sure not just that it's complete, but it's complete in a timeline where we can see based on what their intentions are for the spending for example, that that aligns in that we don't have to shift line items around at the last of last minute. Okay, and then you also mentioned in this slide Jonathan that the under sustainability, it just doesn't seem to be feasible. So if it's not feasible then we couldn't apply for funding here, right? So yet to clarify, it's an if then. So if you want to apply to create new interim housing or to fund, to have have funding fund things like outreach, which is non-housing costs, for example, then you have to document financial sustainability of all of your permanent housing throughout Alameda County. So essentially, what it's trying to do is dissuade you from funding anything new that's interim housing or things like outreach unless you have can show that every permanent housing project you have across the community is sustainably funded longterm. So short of trying to go through the effort of proving all of those things are sustainable which would be a cargantuan task, it effectively precludes our ability to fund new interim housing or services. So we're able to apply. It's just that we won't practically be choosing to spend it on either of those items that require that demonstration. Okay. So it will go towards sustaining existing projects, but not new shelter, for example, which would require that task that would be onerous and likely unable to be shown sufficient. Is this particular provision makes sense? No, okay. Thanks, Michelle. Answer my question. Okay. I mean, I can pull my air out. This is crazy. Okay, and then the focus on encampments. Now, I wanna make sure, if when the focus is on encampments,'re saying that the county is going to be focusing on the unincorporated area. For the purposes of the application, our understanding, again, still waiting for them to put this in pen, is that the relevant jurisdictional boundaries that we would be responsible for providing the policy. policy, so just the policy side of the expectation would be unincorporated county. That is our current understanding of waiting them putting that in writing. It's in the same way that Oakland, the jurisdiction that Oakland would have responsibility for the policy item would be the boundaries around Oakland. So when you mentioned the respective entities to be at the table, unit collected, Lena's office and my office. My office conducts an unincorporated provider's meeting every month on the third Wednesday of the month that we convene, all everyone. So when it comes down to the corporate area, we're very responsible as a governmental body. I've often told the staff, it's like, I've been in office, you know, we govern the on the corporate area. That's where there's anything that needs happening in the corporate area. If we can't make it happen there, we can't make it happen anywhere. So you need to make sure that our offices are at the table. You know, working with our offices, because I mean we've targeted homelessness. We meet monthly with everybody on homelessness. That's why we have the problem. I mean the sure I've told the sheriff identified where homeless encampments are. You might think it's an issue of privacy. I don't. I want to know my constituents want to know so services can be rendered in the Sheriff's Interaction, Stas Interaction with the homeless. It's much more humane that you might find in other places. So I need to make sure that our offices are at the table. Absolutely. I can confirm that we certainly participate in all of those important collaborative meetings for the unacquirporated. I shortly after this came out, I immediately spoke to your advisor Aaron, Armstrong about that participation and would definitely welcome that. Having mentioned here the operational partners that would be practically tasked with the operational implementation, but definitely would intend to include the relevant board offices in a robust way. Yeah, someone's going to have often said, because you just have to get three votes on the board of supervisors and you already got two when it comes to the Lena and myself. Yeah. It can snag you to work through a city council, a mayor and all that stuff. If we said it goes, I mean it won't be a vote. It goes. Right, Leon? I think Jonathan can present at the next unincorporated services committee meeting for the unincorporated services on the policy. Yeah. Then I think, you know, the governor's efforts did not have homeless people, criminalized. I think that's what we all desire. But citizens are just, I think that's why the governor's reacting, the way he's reacting. Citizens are just tired of the encampments. Popping up everywhere, being in public places, being on sidewalks, being in parks, being diss set in the other. The response, I think, is too much too late, quite frankly, because if we need more housing, we need to give more housing. And you're saying, the clearing canments, if we don't have housing, permanent supportive housing, uh, clearing the Cammins is just moving the problem around. Um, and, uh, I, I, I don't know what we're gonna do, but this is quite frankly, I really don't, um, I just think he's responding to the fact that it's so like with PROC 36. People got tired of the lawlessness. And so at some point, you know, the citizens of the street just reacts in a way that requires government to react. And I think that's what's happening with the governor. People are just tired of the encampments. And I think he is too, after almost a decade. Yeah, supervisor, to your point about just sort of balancing what, again, the urgency and the policy is, right? I think it's a good thing to have both the behavioral health presentation that you heard, and then this presentation, because as we go through the next few years, you're gonna see a lot of different things getting implemented that are sort of on this large respect room, right? So you've got care court for people who are eligible for that. You've got this P43 that's gonna increase some access and eligibility to services. You've got the beachhip awards, you know, sort of helping us expand that capacity, and then to the extent that we can increase both, you know, shelter and interim options that helps us with our overall pipeline. So it all kind of has to work together to get us going in the same direction, but it always feels very pressing and very urgent. Yeah, well thanks for saying that, because I was definitely thinking that some, that Dr. Trill talked about earlier. Hopefully he's going to provide more shelter, more services so that we can get folks housed, and also get people treated. So maybe the cycle of homelessness, But you themselves out of that because they get treatment and also because they get housing. And prevention as well, which is the most cost effective way to not have encampments is to prevent folks from falling into life within them to begin with, which is another big priority through that framework we developed over the past several years to really launch an evidence-based county-wide targeted homelessness prevention initiative that can really correlate to all these efforts to serve folks with complex needs and after having been homelessness to sort of prevent that inflow. So it is that that concurrent investment strategy that both acknowledges the complexity and also says this is pretty simple people need services that can meet them where they are And pathways to exit homelessness or stay out of it, which is certainly our goal Yeah, and I think You know, we've kind of talked about this collectively the need With measure W monies and I'm sure once once again, when we get to that in July, we're going to probably be supportive of a healthy portion. I don't want to say all of it because the board has made a decision on that. But I'm sure a healthy portion of the majority is going to go towards homeless services, but the homeless, the, the, you're saying producing more shelters isn't what we need to do. Is that what you're saying? It is it alone is what we not need to need not to do. We need to to certainly expand our interim housing inventory, but with concurrent expansion, doubly or tri so in the permanent housing pathways. Primarily because we're already seen in our shelters that are doing great work longer and longer stays because folks don't have anywhere to go. Good quality shelter is very robust and costly. It costs more than, you know, monthly costs or more than permanent housing, for example. So unless we're creating those pathways to support people and prevent folks coming in, so it's really that three-part investment that we would propose, prevention, interim and permanent housing in a way where the model can create movement. So yes, we need targeted interim housing, but in concurrent investment with those other strategies as well. And with Measure W, most of that money is for services for services is not to build capital, it's not to provide capital for housing and to provide services. Well it could it could provide either of those based on on the boards designation. You know what we had proposed in December was using a portion of the reserves to really kick off a quick version of the capital expansion both of interim and permanent housing to sort of seed that and then they used the most of the funds toward operation so it could it could purportedly be used for are be used for both of those purposes. And then I want to try to ask Michelle what are thinking on moving forward with a bond or supporting an effort towards? Thank you for the question, Supervisor. A new general obligation bond will require two thirds vote. And that's a hurdle that we don't think that we would meet right now based on polling that outside agencies have shared with us. We have not done our own polling, but I have seen that support for new affordable housing and new prominent supportive housing is in the 55 to 60% range. And 67% is what would be needed for a new general obligation bond. There is a drive by a group led by the Nonprofit Housing Association to do a citizen's initiative and a citizen's initiative would probably be placing a parcel tax and that would be something that they are working on outside of our office. They are reporting back to us that that would require a lesser voter threshold. And they would want the county and the Board of Supervisors to identify the use of those funds and provide expenditure reporting and essentially look to the housing plan that you have supported so far as a model for how we would divide the funds and what we would prioritize for the use of new funds. Okay so we could use some measure W money some potentially for some capital for services and then hopefully if There's a citizen's initiative on the ballot next year it passes maybe there won't be too much of a lag time and the resources becoming available if it passes but then we'd be able to have funding to prevent homelessness You just to go to, intervene, and preserve what we have, and then money to do additional housing. We need offering. Exactly. To line up. And to say the operating funding that could potentially be provided with something like Measure W or Otherwise would be the main driver for new development because it is always that ongoing operating funding commitments. That is necessary for projects to even break ground once they have the capital to ensure that they can fund those subsidies ongoing so that would be the critical component to stick it all together. And then on your last couple of slides, you mentioned how many counties approach so in your encouraging stick it all together. And then on your last couple of slides, you mentioned how many counties approach. So in your encouraging jurisdictions, not to clearing campments. So what do you say to jurisdictions like Fremont? I wouldn't say that we're encouraging jurisdictions to not clearing campments. We would be wanting to share the evidence of what's an effective way to do so. And what would be required from a fiscal responsibility, frankly, in terms of using public funds well. And even more so from a human impact level, which is to say, wrap round supports and places for people to go. And those places have to be places that can meet their needs. And so it's really just that resource category. So I think it's not certainly an exercise and sort of denying the need to do so, or flatly saying, hey, don't do that thing. It's to say this is what it takes to do that effectively. And we would encourage within our approach to participate in projects where we can really help end the homelessness in those contexts, not shuffle it around. Your plans, Ken? I mean, I'm using for example, I think they're responding to public pressure. That's right. And so we don't want them to respond that way. We have to give them a path forward. That's right. And that's kind of what I'm gonna frustrated with because I hear what you say, but I don't see how those are giving them a path forward. They're not by the myself. We'll be if we use measure W monies, but we've gotta give them a clear path forward. Their citizenry feels is relieving the problem. Both those who are not homeless as well as those who are homeless. Yeah, I completely agree. It's one thing to say these are the best practices. Go forth and do with nothing. approach and this is included as well in the detail of the RFI that we've released and the hopes of bringing on the 250 interim housing beds at some point in the future is to leverage dedicated funding for that purpose to make that available for those partnerships because it's really the offering of funding that could include the expectations to have a... Oh, is there emergency? Yeah. Amber learned. It would really be the ability to have funding to actually, for lack of a better term, enforce best practices and standards where we could say this funding is available if we use it according to these ways that we know works So yes, it would really require an offering of dedicated resources and here to for in Alameda County like many communities We haven't had a resource that could specifically be used for that purposes It's very tied up and other you know the HUD funding has these constraints So I think the funding is a big part of Setting expectations requires providing resources. So my last two comments, thank you Chair. And I've street out street health street outreach street health. I've been informed that if we can have homeless people come into locations like the trust clinic to receive services. That's a better approach than you know going to encampments. I was if we don't want to go to encampment but having almost people come to locations to receive health checkups to receive food to receive this any other is a stronger approach than just going out to encampments and delivering services. Yeah appreciate the sentiment I think definitely would say it's not an either or in our opinion I think usually the intensive engagement of going to encampments allows people to access services that otherwise cannot or would not make it to particular clinic sites. But in our experience, it really is a both and where the intensive engagement in the encampments helps develop the rapport and relationship of trust that helps people be interested or find value in coming to a clinic thereafter. So it's usually both. We definitely provide a lot of services that could only be provided in a clinic setting such as trust clinic for example. But short of the parallel engagement in the actual encampments, it's hard to generate the relationship where folks will inter clinic. So it really needs to be, you know, most of the research and experience and street medicine is a, you know, a national model that's been studied pretty rigorously in practice. So I think it really is a combination and one of the things we've stated is that we need more trust-like clinics throughout the county that are designed to serve folks experiencing homelessness where they are comfortable where it's meeting their needs and that can happen in conjunction with street medicine. Because I just think people said some of the providers that we need more assessment centers and more things similar to trust clinics, but that just in Oakland, but agreed to other parts of the county. So it's more convenient for almost people to come and receive those services to get enrolled in benefits and things of that nature. And I I know with folks have been approaching me too and just saying that any use of Azure W monies, it's got to be county wide and not just focus on one jurisdiction. Yeah, okay, absolutely. Thank you. I think you asked all our questions. So for us, Eric Marquez, thank you. Just want to have a better, thank you for the tremendous work. I just want to have a better understanding of what the touch points are with each city. Do you convene a monthly meeting? Just want to be clear on that cadence. Yeah, we have myriad touch points. There's two monthly meetings that happen that are facilitated Through the housing community development one that is specifically housing Related and one is more homelessness related. So that's one kind of countywide Twice a month convening we also have a technical working group that is a specific group that was created by the council of mayors and board of supervisors that intended to be the primary touchpoint for City, collaboration on policy and planning. We also have the continuum of care that has probably 10 meetings a month that have a lot of city and county representatives and then a lot of individual points in contact with the relevant department heads. So we are in constant contact and engagement and partnership. Many of the ways we are doing so is through jointly funding a lot of projects and then working on specific individual engagements whether they being camped. So yeah the answer is in myriad all the ways. Okay and so I strongly believe every city should be doing something. It doesn't have to be the same exact thing, but this is a crisis and everyone needs to have skin in the game, so to speak. So I appreciate you outlining the app funding the round, the criteria. So what I really want to see in Measure W is ensuring that we're expanding those dollars that don't meet the criteria for this funding. So that we're addressing the entire ecosystem. I hear you say the three P's, the three P's that I think are produced, protect and preserve. So obviously we know there's not enough housing. So we gotta get on our cities about that. Housing at lower income levels, the cities that aren't doing affordable housing, they need to be called out. So we need to work on that. Um, tenant protections, I know we're going to be discussing more, um, options for that incorporated this summer. So I'm looking forward to that conversation. And then I want to add two piece to that conversation. Policy. Nothing gets done with that policy. And everything has to be centered in the last P people. So, um, thank you for your leadership. Hopefully we could get ahead of some of the, I would say missteps that have already occurred in our region. Some looking forward to that ongoing conversation, but really appreciate all the work you've done so far. And it still may affordable housing months. So thank you to everyone doing that great work. But I have to leave. So thank you all. Thank you. Okay. Too far is not about. Thank you so much for this very timely update. And I really appreciate that we have a comprehensive approach and to see our health housing, homelessness, and behavioral health leaders sort of presenting this information together and working together, I think, is really important in terms of having a comprehensive approach to this homelessness crisis. One broad question is how can we improve how we are coordinating around our homeless response in our affordable housing response in a more regional nature? So with this directive that from the governor that we have policies in our jurisdiction, you know, our cities already have, our major cities have policies. policies, some of them are very different, The unincorporated will develop a policy. Is this an opportunity to have a more regional approach to homelessness and more alignment? I mean, just reading some of these best practices, not doing a closure unless their services and shelter offered, that doesn't happen. It's not happening right now. And then this other best practice in terms of, and this is from the governor's executive order, if, you know, making sure that there is reasonably accessible places to lawfully sleep, that that is provided when there are not shelter or services offered, that doesn't exist either because none of our cities, including Oakland where I spent six years trying to push for allowable places for people to go when there's closures, that doesn't exist. So, you know, is this possibly an opportunity to collaborate more regionally around some of these best practices, knowing that we as the county have a commitment to people, their health, their dignity, and to equity, and our cities given some of the pressures that they are hearing from constituents are much more focused on, you know, perhaps the sanitation and the enforcement aspect of things. So there's some tension there. Yeah. A host of great questions there. I think it is an opportunity provided that there's political will and interest in doing so. I'll come in to that alignment. I think practically speaking, operationally and working with the staff that we work with are cities. I have great confidence that we're aligned and committed to wanting to serve people and and use our and but using the public investment to do so effectively. I think there are a lot of practical questions of political will in terms of who would sign on to what and what kind of you know default restrictions would it put on a certain operation if you were going to say there needs to be either shelter or permanent housing or a safe face to a safe place for people to sleep or we will not do a closure. I mean that that that it in and of itself would really, you know, encumber a lot of responsibility to provide those things to do so. So. for people to sleep or we will not do a closure. I mean, that in and of itself would really, you know, encumber a lot of responsibility to provide those things to do so. So I'm certainly in favor of that and would desire to that. Again, I think dedicated funding to pilot these things to fund resolutions that create pathways is the best way to incentivize alignment in that behavior. And so I do think dedicated resources to do. So it was a great way to incentivize alignment around policy. But we're certainly interested in that conversation and want to work with our cities to be candid. I think our city partners have been crying out for a long time to say, we want to do this correctly. We just don't have resources to move people into the housing or we don't have the shelter What are we supposed to do? So while we don't and could not and so it's important to level set right we have at any given time about 6300 people experiencing on sheltered homelessness according to the point time count which we know is an undercount So we don't have nearly the resources to do this comprehensively, but it's not to say that we can't do it in a very focused, specific way and develop policies that align with that. So that is certainly my hope. And I also think there's an opportunity with funding. So for example, have funding for us and for many of our communities, this is back to why Supervisor Miley, as you mentioned, the pain of that monthly reporting is that funding source for us has invariably become a gap filler for a million current programs that we just need to keep in operation. So much of our funding sources at the county and at our city levels has been essentially trying to keep certain things alive when they've started and it leaves a relatively ineligant system, right? So like a lot of things are funding a lot of things because it's the accretion over time to cover those. That has really limited our ability to use funds flexibly and my hope going forward to maybe find some better alignment on what cities do in the service system ecology and what counties do. So I think there is opportunity for that. We're certainly a fan of it and I think perhaps the irony is is that everyone knows it's the same problem and has the same pain points of the administrative duplication and the owner's way the things work and it really is the scarcity that has developed it and I think there's political will could help us step out of that mindset. That's really helpful to hear. I think it's pretty frustrating. You know, we hear the county as well as our cities bear the brunt of a lot of not only decisions but reduction in resources from the federal as well as the state government and not just this particular year but since the state dissolved redevelopment that's been putting pressure on affordable housing development since the federal government stopped supporting or to the you know reduced funding for public housing and you know obviously this is not the best environment to be lobbying our state and federal officials but in good times I think we have to continue to make sure that we are really funding that real needs that people have. And ultimately, we know that the root causes of homelessness include the lack of affordable housing and tenant protections, a lack of good paying jobs, or not enough accessible, dependable healthcare, and then of course, systemic racism. So I know we know that, but I think it's also important as we're dealing with our constituents to remind them how complex these issues are. There's no magic wand. However, this does point to the need for measure W and I'm grateful that we, that has cleared the courts and will be making important decisions for how it will be spent. I believe the vast majority should be spent to address homelessness. I do want us to partner with our cities to really hear what their homeless and housing plans are and really try to be aligned with them around how we can all work together and again having a regional approach. Mayor Arbor Lee was sworn in today and I said that publicly I I really would like the city of Oakland as well as other cities to speak with one voice knowing that they are advocating for measure WFUNs. I think that will really help us make some decisions. And yeah, I think I'll leave it there. You know, this is a little frustrating to hear. I share my colleague, Supervisor Miley's comments around some of the frustration with the new requirements. And it just points to how important our decisions on Measure Dolby you are going to be. Thank you. All good comments, all good questions. They've all been asked and answered very well. Thank you. So let me move to public comment on this item. Are there any public comments? Yes. So this is also public comment on item one which is SB 43 implementation plan update as well as the state and local homelessness planning and policy update. In person we have Jane. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Jane Kramer. Obviously, one way to use your money more effectively is to shift your money spent on high-price services, those same services that cost you almost nothing. One way of doing that is expanding CBOs in the community. I worked as a volunteer in a CBO for runaways, drug addicts, and street people, or five, six years. And the drug addict counselors were trained by the local campus university. The rest of us were trained by the founder of that CBO who happened to be a grad student in psych and it worked. What works is a CBO that houses individuals who know that they're good at what they're doing and therefore what ens, therefore what ensues is camaraderic. Drug counselors and runaway counselors could exchange their positions and drug addict came in and have any problem counseling that person. Now, it doesn't give them housing, but it gives you extra money or housing. It gives you extra money because the judge is not going to send a runaway or even a street person to prison. He's going to allow us to do the counseling so the kid goes back home. Or the street person redales his life, look. And the police aren't gonna arrest the runaway or that client who's a street person. They might even knock on your door and give you information you need to pursue your goal. Thank you. Just a thought. Colle, you're on the line. You have two minutes to speak. please state the item you're speaking on. Hi my name is Sharon Cornel I'm speaking on a homelessness report good evening. I am the executive director of St Mary's Center and tomorrow I present a maintenance of effort budget to our board so I believe that many organizations are also monitoring events at the federal level and preparing for the changes that come. And it makes us very grateful for local money, like Measure W, to address the President pressing an urgent need. I want to echo the supervisor's comments in that regard. But after all of the difficult statistics and the hard choices, I just want to remind people that there was a moment where we had measured a one coming online and more than 4,000 new homes and we had emergency housing vouchers and enough resources in the system. And in one year, St. Mary's increased the number of seniors we placed in permanent housing by 50%. Because we had systems that worked based on professional staff, building, rapport, offering the right mix of services and support. And when we have prevention, transitional housing, and innovation in housing production. We can address the issue. I just want to remind the board that seniors are the fastest growing segment of the unhoused community. And then it's critically important that we pay attention to the specific housing and health needs of seniors. Thank you. Thank you for that comment. Collar, you're on the line. Please take the item you're speaking on. You have two minutes to speak. Good evening. My name is Vivian Wann and I'm the CEO of a boat. And I'm speaking on the homeless plan. And honestly, the agenda item is titled local and state policy. And I just want to implore upon you all that there is an urgency here, as I know that you all know, but the county has an opportunity to lead here. We serve more than 5,000 people who are experiencing homelessness or have recently experienced homelessness and now are in their homes. And this, the measure W funding is really critical. As you heard, the state imposes all of these restrictions. And we have the opportunity to do what we know is necessary, that we know, you know, as my colleague Sharon just said, when you have resources, you see the outcomes improve, you see the encampments reduce. I also want to speak on the encampment issue. We serve 17,000 people throughout the Greater Bay Area and we have the distinction of being headquartered in Fremont, which has been mentioned. When we're talking about clearing encampments, there is clearing encampments in a dignified way as Jonathan Russell mentioned. But what free-mont and other jurisdictions are doing is they are intimidating and threatening people with fines, citing people, finding people, and threatening to jail people. And this is not what we expect in our county. This is not what we expect in our community and we have to ask more of our city leaders despite their frustration that intimidations and threats are not the way to go. It is not how we treat our fellow humans. It's not how we would want to be treated. So as we look at these resources, I do hope it's an opportunity to coordinate and to really demand that we use evidence-based approaches when we are providing any type of services for people experiencing homelessness. Caller on the line. Please state your name in which item you're speaking on. I'm going to go to the next slide. Colle, you're on the line. Please state your name in which item you're speaking on. You have two minutes to speak. Good evening, supervisors. My name is Liz Verella and I'm the executive director of building futures and we are a domestic violence homeless and housing agency. And I just want to reflect we have so we have accomplished so much in the last 30 years and we have so much more to accomplish. And really, I have to reiterate the only way we're going to be able to accomplish this is with measure W money. And that this is, there is an urgency here to be able to leverage measure W to be able to even begin to accomplish what half is asking us to accomplish we're going to have to use measure W. But I also think I want to draw your attention to there are so many programs that were started in the 90s that are underfunded that are on the edge as we're bracing for federal for federal cuts, especially we as an agency are looking at, do we have to close one of our shelters, do we have to close our supportive housing for survivors of domestic violence that has been there for 25 years? And we are in the process of making those decisions now as we do our budget for next year. We need measure W or some kind of additional local funding to come in and save those programs, costs have increased so much across the board, it costs so much more than it did in the 90s in the early 2000s, and we have not kept up with that housing. And so I just really wanna say we have, we need to preserve what we've built in the last 30 years, but we also need to move forward. And the only way to do that is with measure W money and measure W now. Thank you. That was our last speaker. Thank you. Can we have a report out from county council on closed session items? Yes, thank you. There was no report of a lot and take any close session. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned. Everyone have a great evening. Thank you for your time. you