I'm going to go to the committee. Recording in progress. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call the meeting of Tuesday, April 1st of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to order. And I'd ask the clerk to please call the roll to establish our quorum. Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Miley excused. Supervisor Fortunata-Boss. Present. Present Halbert. Present. We have a quorum. Thank you. Will you all please rise if you can and join me in the pledge allow in-person and remote observation and participation by members of the public We recognize the importance and invaluable role that public participation plays in government Be reminded however that disruptive conduct that renders the meeting Unfeasible will not be tolerated this includes disruptive comment that may occur through public comment For those attending in, if you would like to speak on an item, please fill out a speaker card and hand it to the clerk. And the clerk will now provide brief instructions on how to participate verbally through remote online teleconferencing. Detailed instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines. A link to the document is included in today's agenda. If you are joining the meeting using a computer, use the button at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand to request a speak. When call to speak, please unmute your microphone and state your name. If you are calling in, dial star nine to raise your hand to speak. When you are called to speak, the host will enable you to speak. If you decide not to speak, notify the clerk when your call is unmuted, or you may simply hang up and dial back into the meeting. As a reminder, you may always just observe the meeting without participating by clicking on the view now link on the county's web page at acgov.org. When called to, when called, you will have two minutes to speak, please limit your remarks to the time allocated. Public comment will generally alternate between in person and online speakers as determined by the president of the board and subject to overall time limits. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next item is Board of Supervisors remarks. Would any supervisor like to make remarks or announcements? Supervisor Fortinato Bass. Thank you President Halbert. I wanted to share that on Thursday at 3 p.m. the Alameda County together for all ad hoc committee is having its monthly meeting and we have a number of guests that will provide some important updates. The main item is about federal impacts on education and the resilience of California's education system and its commitment to inclusive, equitable education for all students regardless of background. So I do invite everyone to come and join us Thursday at three o'clock. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Seeing no others, I'd like to then move to our next item, which is public comment on closed session items. If anybody would like to speak either in-person or online, now would be the time to make public comment on closed session items. We always start with in-person, the first three speakers in-person person then then we'll go to online. Donald Smith and Stephanie Wedge. Hello. My name is Donald Smith. I'm here to speak on item C. I'm speaking on closed session item C. We were brought here to work on horses at the Alameda County Fairgrounds. And we're promised we would be here for a year. However, at a closed session meeting held on January 20th the Fair Board voted to end horse racing and eliminate employment for over 500 people. This was done out of fear that the State Water Board would find the fair millions. Where are those fines? They don't exist. The Board of Supervisors should ask tough questions like, how can you eliminate horse racing when it is in their contract to provide it? Please see per each six paragraph M. If the current fairgrounds management cannot offer horse racing as the contract states, find a management company that can. to supervisors we look to you for answers because we cannot seem to get any when we talk to the Fairgrounds management thank you very much Stephanie Wedge I on closed session C, item C. According to the sanitation officials, the Alameda County Fairgrounds have been operating out of regulatory compliance for years. They have failed to correct this and now hundreds of families, most of which are impoverished. People of color are unemployed and soon to be evicted. Ultimately, it is a responsibility of the county to ensure proper management of the fairgrounds. Nothing short of a full financial audit of the fairgrounds operations will get to the bottom of this. Please look into the financials of the fairgrounds, audit them, and make sure they begin conducting all financial transactions in the public arena and not in private closed session meetings. Thank you. Marie, please unmute. My name is Marisa Latrullo. I think it's the C in private session. We lost our jobs and some of the children who already got out of school to continue working with their parents in the horses and those who continue here will have to change from school to again since it's over the year and here we don't have money and there's no work and we don't know what to do Thank God for the help that has given us the legal center and the meeting of the Meda that has treated us the legal center and the government's commitment that has tried to help us and help us a little we have to understand that we still have to take more help because they had to be close and that they are doing these decisions that we want to answer that we are taking care of we. We want to be responsible. We came here to work, what we've always worked on. And now, we're getting into the street. We have to keep paying the rent, but we don't have to work. We left the horses and left nothing. My family has stopped working for us. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. It's very difficult. It's very difficult to find a new job. And since they have so many years doing the same thing, and so one day to the other they didn't know each other and they thought, please help us. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I note that we don't have a translator on. I'm wondering if anybody in the audience would mind paraphrasing or we could have our own very own supervisor, Marquez do her best. Thank you. I will do my best but also want to defer to county council just in order to make sure we're accurately capturing the entire public comment. Is there a way that someone on staff can listen to this later and translate it and provide it to at least us via email? Because I just want to make sure we're accurately. Okay. Hit is that possible? Marie, do you still have the line? Yes. Is it possible to repeat your words in English? Yes. If you can please. You can. We lost our jobs. we need more help and it's hard for everyone to find more work and try to continue to live there in the fairgrounds. And it is any more help. Thank you, Mady. I'm going to do my best because I know you spoke in detail and Spanish. I'm presuming that's your native language and you probably feel more comfortable speaking in Spanish. So I'm going to do my best to summarize what I heard you say in Spanish. And you mentioned that many kids have already been taken out of school. The change of schools very disruptive that there's many people that have been left with no jobs. Don't know what to do that you appreciate the support and assistance from Center Legal as well as Alameda County, but that you're in need of additional help and that you've had to interrupt your own studies because of this interruption in employment and that you were very sad that the horses have are leaving the stables and that there's a lot of family suffering and struggling and it's very difficult in this moment to find work and you're asking for Ellemite County Board of Supervisors to help you. See? Thank you. Next speaker please. Thank you, Mr. President. Coll. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. to supporting horse racing. I've been coming. at the fairground who have committed their lives and their families well-being and everything to supporting horse racing. I've been coming to the races in Pleasanton since 1980 and I'm concerned about what's going on at the fairgrounds. According to the contract between the Fair Association and the county of Alameda, the fairgrounds is supposed to work closely with the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, the city of Pleasanton and the local Chamber of Commerce on areas of economic enhancement. But they've done none of this, and instead they've turned to this state water board, the local water agency, and the county of Alameda. This is county property and now they've ended horse racing despite the fair board voting to secure racing dates. Who's running the fairgrounds? We need answers so Board of Supervisors please help us get the answers we need. Thank you. Caller, you're on the line. Please unmute. We have no more speakers. Very good. If there are no other speakers, then we now will adjourn we will recess the closed session we'll come back approximately 11 o'clock for our set for our regular scheduled calendar events. You're set matters at one o'clock. Yeah, so that matters at one o'clock. With that, we are recessed in a closed session. Thank you. Recording in progress. Good afternoon everyone. We're going to resume our meeting of April 1st. We're reporting out from closed session. Does county council have anything to report out? Yeah, I do. In Colesse, the board left the process on 24th. I speak into it. In the board's meeting on June 4th, 2024, the board voted in the matter of Alameda County Tax Peers Association and incorporated it all be County of Alameda at all. Superior Court of California County of Alameda Case Number RG20085082 to authorize settlement and this report confirms that this matter is now settled. This matter is now settled, but to confirm so that the public is clear, this only concerns what we refer to as the trailing claims, the 11th cause of action and the 12th cause of action in that litigation. other claims in that case are essentially resolved. They are now subject to petition for redistrictor area in the Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court, but we have prevailed on those claims to date. And the final settlement amount is $71,740.55 to the county is to pay to the plaintiffs in that matter. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments from fellow board members? I recognize Supervisor Tam. Thank you, President Halbert. I appreciate the opportunity to make some board comments about the news media reports on the ceasing of stabling and horse racing activities at the fairgrounds and some of the significant challenges that the families that are associated with these activities are facing and I was going to ask our community development agency director to highlight some of the activities that the county is going forward in terms of helping these families, whether it's rent payments, getting enough food assistance, getting them legal services and placement. I think thank you, Professor Tam, San Diego Vericune Development Agency Director. As our memo had stated to the board that with these challenges that these newly unemployed folks at the fair boards maybe facing includes the inability to pay rent. And so we're looking at using our county housing programs to provide some temporary backup to their rent for these coming months, particularly focused at families with children that are trying to stay there until the end of the school year. Because that was one of the concerns that were raised. So we have that as well as we have had interaction with the City of Pleasantons nonprofit that helps with housing services and programs and they will also be hosting an event tomorrow that will help the families as well as the other households that are at the fair grounds. And they'll be looking at providing some employment training or employment opportunities as well as homeless shelter options and legal assistance. So there's a lot of support services that will be offering to those residents that are having challenges right now. Thank you very much. Appreciate your agency helping to take the lead and moving this forward because there are 15 families with school aged children that are going to be significantly affected. Correct, thank you. Supervisor Mark Casper would like to make some comments as well. Thank you, President Howard. I just wanted to acknowledge your role as board president as well as supervisor Miley. Basically coordinating with many Department heads to ensure that we're reducing barriers and specifically going on sight to meet with these families and to engage and connect them to Services at the county office. I just wanted to thank all of you for that collaboration and I know we'll be getting updates within the next couple weeks to see how things run folding but just thank you all for the coordination. It's really impressive. Thank you. Thank you. And I just want to confirm it's not just families with children in school, we're able to help all families that qualify for services. Is that correct? And we are providing support as it relates to rent. We'll have to have that assessment tomorrow further as to what services could be provided to those that are households without children, school age children. Okay, and I want to thank my staff who really, I think speak for Supervisor Miley and myself. We're both very interested in this. We're all very interested. All of us but nothing happens without our staff and so I know that our staff and Supervisor Miley staff has been on top of this working closely with our agencies not just CDA but also our social services agency and our agent at the fairgrounds. Thank you. With that said, we'll move on with the- President, Howard, if we can take real call to establish Corum. Why don't we do that? Thank you. It's important that we establish our Corum. Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Miley. Here. Supervisor Fortinata Bass. Present. Present Helper. Present. You have a quorum. Okay, great. With that, we're going to move to our agenda item, which is our one o'clock set matters. I note that we are running a little bit late. We also have a full agenda to discuss and approve and indeed some information items that are time permitting, which we will endeavor to get to. Our first one o'clock set matter is a proclamation and accommodations. We have three of them. The first one is to proclaim April 20, 25 as child abuse prevention month. And I note that is Calette, Katala, Katala, Katuala, Khalette, are you here? Did I say that right? That's why. And I would just like to say that as we recognize the month, this is child abuse prevention month, that we reaffirm our commitment to protecting children in alameda county. Strong families and supportive communities help prevent abuse and neglect, ensuring every child has a safe, stable, and nurturing environment. Prevention is a community effort requiring partnerships between families, advocates, educators, health care providers, businesses, faith leaders, and indeed our own government agencies. Alameda County is shifting from child welfare interventions to community-based support, connecting families with the resources they need. April serves as a reminder that this work must continue year round. We urge the community to join us in dedicating time and resources to support children and families every month, not just this one. So today we honor children and family services department of the social services agency for their dedication to this mission. And so thank you so much. I'll let you say a few words and then what we do is bring this down to you and we'll take a little photo. Thank you. Please. On behalf of the Department of Children and Family Services and the Alameda Counties, Child Abuse Prevention Council, I'm honored to accept this proclamation recognizing April as Child Abuse Prevention Month. This proclamation is more than just words on a paper. It is a commitment, a call to action. And a reminder that poverty is not a reason for child welfare investigations, but to connect those families to concrete economic supports within their community. I want to thank the board of supervisors for their leadership and dedication to this cause. I also want to recognize the efforts of educators, advocates, child welfare professionals, and community supporters who work every day to continue to enhance the lives of children. I also want to thank their caregivers and the community as a whole. Let this proclamation be a symbol of our shared commitment to use this month to renew those efforts, not just in words, but in actions, and to ensure that all children in Alameda County experience positive childhood experiences have loving caregivers, maintain strong community connections, and continue to work together towards the needs, the center, families, and children. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll come down and take a photo and give you this proclamation. you you And our next item 45 is proclaiming April 25th as Arts, Culture and Creativity Month. Today we proudly recognize that arts, culture, and creativity month is a statewide celebration established by the California Legislature in 2019. And now it is in its seventh year. This event highlights the role of the arts in health, hope, and healing. Alameda County believes that arts, culture, and creativity are essential to a thriving community. The arts inspire, discovery and joy. It culture, fosters connection, and belonging and creativity sparks innovation and positive change. Today, we honor the Alameda County Arts Commission in their leadership and dedication to advancing the arts. It is my privilege to present this proclamation and recognition of their ongoing commitment to enriching lives through art, culture, and creativity. Rachel O'Sajima will receive this proclamation and I think she has a few friends with her. I do. Thank you so very much. My name is Rachel Osijima. I'm the Director of the Elameda County Arts Commission. Thank you President Halbert and members of the board for this proclamation. I'm here today with your person, Wenda Shimizu, who will say a few words in a minute, and with appointed arts commissioners and supporters. And for arts commissioners who are on Zoom, if you raise your hand, your photo may be shown in our group photo. So for the arts commissioners that are here today for District 1, we have Sasan Walzki, District 3, Andrea Guskin, District 4, Kathy O'Day, Windishamizu, our Chairperson, and we have Ex officio agency directors, Kimberly Gassoy and Sandy Rivera. I also want to thank Melissa Wilk, our auditor controller clerk recorder for her ongoing support. And then on Zoom I see Arts Commissioner representing District 3, Theresa Rudy, Usha Shukla representing District 4. Thank you for joining us on Zoom. Okay. So, Board members, thank you for your leadership. We're so happy to be here for this annual proclamation. I want to share a few quick highlights about this year's arts culture and creativity month. Community members are invited to learn more on our website arts.acdev.org. Happy to announce that the arts commission is partnering with the California for the arts organization and many other local organizations to present a major celebration of arts culture in, and creativity month at the Oakland Museum on Friday, April 18th at 4 p.m. and all of you and community members are invited to attend this free fun celebration. And as many of you know, the arts commission partners with city-level arts agencies throughout the county, many cities are following your lead and making proclamations this month also. Community members can participate in many, many cultural events throughout the month, throughout April. And with our goal of reaching community members of all ages throughout the county, the Arts Commission has created a new watercolor activity sheet and we are sharing 30,000 sheets and paintbrushes and you have the copy of the new sheet this year with a new design. Supervisor Marcus, would you hold it at for everybody? So you can turn the page to the, there's a new design there and as many of you know, the paint is embedded on the sheet and so so all you need is a paintbrush and a little bit of water and you can dip it into the paint and you can paint the sheet. Thank you for holding that up. So keep partners in sharing these sheets include all of your offices I delivered boxes this morning and of course the Clerk Recorder's Agency and Auditor Controller, Clerk Recorder recorder agency Alameda County Library and all county agencies and additionally major partners include the Alameda County Food Bank first five Alameda County the Oakland vet center and many others and some highlights about the distribution Alameda County Library is distributing 6,000 sheets and brushes at all of their locations, and the Food Bank is distributing 4,000 sheets along with food deliveries to community sites. And we're sharing over 300 sets with our Alameda County Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations and Partners. We also have a coloring page version that's a free downloadable item on our website. So lastly, I'd like to highlight that the current show in On View in the fifth floor reception area here at the County Administration Building is a youth art exhibition featuring artwork created by 26 youth from the Dublin area. This exhibition was organized by the Dublin Arts Collective and co-founders Sassan Walski and Vanessa Thomas who are both here today and they are also presenting an exhibition at their Dublin location with a reception on Monday, April 28th at 6 o'clock. So everybody's invited. So in combination with both of those exhibitions over 60 years will be featured. So with that, I'd like to introduce Wendy Shimizu to say a few words. Thank you, Rachel. Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors, President Hubbard. My name is Wendy Shimisu, Chair of the Alameda County Arts Commission, and appointed to District 4 Supervisor, Nate Miley. I live in Casvali and work in Hayward as the Director of the Hayward Arts Council. On behalf of our commissioners, we thank you for proclaiming April as Arts Culture and Creativity Month, and we thank you very much for your support. Oh, well, we have a proclamation. Just let me know when you're ready for a photo. I think we're ready for a photo. Okay, let's go take a photo. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. I'm going to start with that. So, I just want to say that I'm not really sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if 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 start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm sorry. to that. I'm going to go ahead and ask for the next one. I'm going to go ahead and ask for the next one. I'm going to go ahead and ask for the next one. I'm going to go ahead and ask for the next one. I'm going to go ahead and ask for the next one. I'm going to go ahead and ask for the next one. I'm going to go ahead and ask for the the next slide. Thank you. Could we have public comment on the last two items if there are any? There are no speakers. Okay. With that. Supervisor Marquez. Thank you. Chair Halbert. I'll just make a quick comment. I just wanted to acknowledge the commission chair. When does. She's amazing. She does so much in the Hayward area and just thank you for bringing arts to the community and making it accessible. You've done a lot to engage young people as well. So just want to thank all the commissioners for their service and leadership. Thank you for enriching our lives. We actually have one speaker online. Natalia? Hi, can you hear me okay? Yes, go ahead. Okay great. My name is Natalia Neda. I live in Oakland and I'm a fellow with the California's for the Arts. It's I'm part of a program that is here to engage artists and cultural workers to do advocacy for the arts in our local level and I want to thank you all for recognizing the arts and culture as such an important part of what makes the Bay Area so special and white Alameda County is where I've lived in for their last 10 years and I also want to make just like a little shout out to Rachel O'Sajima, the Director of the Arts Commission for Alameda County for just doing such a wonderful job as a fellow with the GAT program. I've been really relying on really generous people to connect me with the right folks so that I can do my work in bringing in more arts funding for Alameda County and Oakland and Rachel has been so supportive. So I also want to mention that. Thank you also much. There are no speakers. Very good. Thank you. With that we'll move on to item 46. And this is National County government month also April 20 25. And today we recognize April 2025 as National County government month and it's significant in raising awareness about the essential services that counties provide. Counties serve more than 330 million Americans. We ensure health, safety and community vitality through essential services like public health, justice, infrastructure, and economic development, and including supporting the arts. We are dedicated to providing efficient and cost-effective services including efforts to help alleviate homelessness, to provide mental health support and workforce development, Alameda County's pro-active solutions in policy and direct service programs ensure equity and opportunity for vulnerable populations. During this national county government month we call on residents, schools, employees to engage with county government programs and initiatives to better understand and support local governance. The National Association of Counties of which we are a member has great tools and resources available at their website at NAACO.org in the Counties 101 section. I have to also point out that it's not just us five up here that do this. Indeed, we are reliant on our amazing county staff, our chief administrative officer, Susan Mernichy, all of our department heads, and all of the roughly 10,000 people that we employ with dozens and dozens and dozens of non- nonprofit organizations as well, we could not do this by ourselves. So we'll just have a round of applause for National Association County Government Month. Any other comments in that regard with seeing that public comment on this? Imagine that. No public comment. All right. With that, we're going to move to the general agenda that we have. I think our first item is probably maybe we might do our consent calendar. Items 46.1 to 51.2. I'll move the consent calendar 46.1 through 51.2. I'll second. Very good. It's been moved and seconded. Roll call vote please. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Aye. Supervisor Fourton Auduboss. Aye. Professor Humper? Hi. I'm not sure if you're sure. I'm not sure if you're sure. I'm not sure if you're sure. I'm not sure if you're sure. I'm not sure if you're sure. I'm not sure if you're sure. I'm not sure if you're sure. I'm not sure if you're sure. I'm not sure if you're sure. I'm not sure if you're public comment on items that are on the agenda that are not closed session and that are not set matters. So with that, if anybody is in the audience or online wanting to take public comment on the regular calendar, raise your hand now we'll have two minutes for public comment. And I see none in the room will go to, or if we have in the room, then fill out a speaker's that please. And we'll start within the room first, as we always do. And then we will rotate to online speakers. speaker, Sandrae Swanson, followed by Simiel Raimi in person. Thank you. Honorable members of the Board of Supervisors, Sandra Swanson, former member of the State Assembly and member of the Measure C Staring Committee. So I wanted to talk with you if I could about a agenda item 12.1 and encourage you to execute Suhoazar Carson's motion that you passed last November on the pediatric account and the trauma center funds. It's been almost five years that we've had to fight litigation for against the public ordinance that was passed by the voters. They the voters of Alameda County have waited waited a long time for a world class promise center in Alameda County. And we're asking that they wait no longer. We had five, 57,000 signatures on petitions that were circulated that qualified the initiative. The initiative has been tested in court and we think the initiative should be supported and respected and the will of the voters should be respected and that's why why to the letter of the law, the initiative needs to be followed. And so the reason why there's a problem with 12.1 is that it goes beyond those things that are outlined in the initiative. And so we're asking you to stick with us in Carson's motion. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you for your comments. Any questions from the members of the board? We're allowed to ask questions if we want. We are taking public comment, but indeed, we're allowed to ask questions if we want. Probably. Partly? It's on the agenda. Okay. Why don't we ask questions of staff at that time? We're going to have a staff presentation. Next in person, public speaker. Simul. Simul. We have no out of me. I was speaking on a gen 9.3 and 6 around good food, around the future of the world, the of the world. We are the children of the world. Oh, cheer, we got new cheer coming in the world. They don't know what's going on and need to know. The society isn't wrong for not teaching them, bringing them up right. Government like they government us. They're not being government right. They don't your old school come from, let their food come back down or the store. We need to teach them food come grow. us. They're not being governed by it. They don't know what it's full control. If they're full control from Magdalen, all the story. We need to teach them full control ground. Because when we didn't go on what they're going to do for them, no. So we got a national agenda. All school, let me just go to turn and bother them in full program. You know what, a full control from Harry Broard. So he can start now by time they get grounded and you know what you're going to go. We have a food short of our ignorance of man. When you describe your own system of food, especially when you describe the back bomb, you're destroying your food chain of the world. And now we got a world full short. Y'all, we need to, This is serious, man. We don't know how long we're gonna have some food. We eat every day. You can go full every day. We can't start how long we're gonna have some food. We eat every day. You can't go full every day. We can catch a solid thing about it. It's not right to do it in the dark. It's wrong. And they got paid for everything. You know, we need to eat it wrong. And so, like I said, we got schools in New York. I got schools in Arkansas. I got schools in San Francisco right now I'm just going to walk through on this campus. I need to get open out of me trying to get involved. I'm trying to do this when I'm coming here for the last three years. It won't just won't. I got school in San Francisco right now, I'm going to go on food on this campus. I need to get open out of me telling him, well, I'm trying to do this while I'm coming here for the last three years. It wasn't just on home, it's a million, it's on the whole program. The education welfare, if we all need, I sure need to know this. They need to be educated properly. You should take people on the world and take it right here. So you can be up America. So we have a health of America. When you have food bill, America bill is so high so high in the Pinnigang. So, oh. You take people in the North and take it right here. So you can be up America. So we have a healthy America. Bring out food, be a medical bill. So high as high in the Pentagon. So all I ask you want to get ready to come in for some support? Did he school growing food? Let me know. Help me. John, please unmute. Yeah, John Corolle,ont, regarding President Helper's nomination to the Election Commission of David Wagner. I fully applaud that. I looked him up and he's certainly well qualified. His credentials are impressive. And it looks like it's a very good choice, but I would like to have him go down and take it on board right away because the open election is happening right now. It's very important. And I know that there have been some improvements to the so far, you know, in some of the process of the ROLV. In past there are some ridiculous things that I'd like for him to to see for himself things for like, you know, we can't use our cell phones When we're observing we can't text you can't you know, it's very difficult to talk or communicate with each other Certainly it like in contra contra-cassist account, you can take pictures, you can't take pictures here. And in San Francisco, the Casphold records are updated, you know, for the totals of the election are updated periodically, very often, actually every day or every other day after election. And the Cas what records are also supplied after that. I'd like to end this scene if that's going to happen and why it's not going on. And also very importantly, why weren't we allowed or even the RLD to check for wet signatures on the mail-in ballots. Most of those ballots coming in, Omelves, need to be signed by a person yet nobody's checking to see if they are signed by a computer or a printer. And that's we've been pushing for that for quite a while. So I'd like for him to take a look at that in this selection. Thank you very much. Allison, please unmute. Hello, Allison Monroe here talking about the item later on this afternoon about measure W. Some big number 52 or something like that. I'm hoping that the funds for measure W, which will be very welcome and which I hope we get soon, I hope that some of them are applied to what's called board and cares, licensed housing for this seriously mentally ill. A lot of the homeless, some large fraction of them are seriously mentally ill. Ordinary apartments and shelters are difficult for them to use. If you want to house them in a long term, permanent license supportive housing is the best. We call those board and cares. I'm hoping that some amount of this money, several tens of millions of dollars can be set aside for board and care. So we need twice as many board and cares as we have. Thank you very much. Richard, please unmute. Thank you. My name is Richard Speegleman. I live in Oakland. I'm active in faith in action East Bay and the Interfaith Coalition for Justice in our Jails. Beginning in 2003, I served as the principal investigator for the first four Alameda County homeless counts and surveys. Measure W has the potential to address important goals of Alameda County's care first policy by providing significant funding for permanent housing, rail subsidies, and services for unhoused county residents, including board and cares, as Alex and just mentioned. Let's use these funds to house people experiencing chronic homelessness, prevent homelessness for at-risk residents, and provide holistic housing supports for the most marginalized by prioritizing support for the care first JL's last target populations that as people who have been incarcerated and folks with serious behavioral health needs who are at risk of homelessness, criminalization and incarceration. Since 2003, when Alameda County began homeless counts, it's been clear that residents at highest risk of homelessness are people who are extremely low income, justice involved, and living with serious physical and behavioral health constraints. Who's at the intersection of these categories are at extreme risk of homelessness? Measure W funds should be utilized to expand deep rental subsidies for units with and without support of housing, whether justice involved reentry and seriously mental ill populations to facilitate rapid rehousing prevent homelessness and promote long term housing stability. Thank you so much. Karimaki Alajrian Hillman Beverly Griffith I'm going to be speaking on Measure W, which I know we haven't heard yet. But I'm going to be speaking on Measure W. I'm going to a little bit more in depth about why the priorities for Measure W that I mentioned are so important. So I think I spent a couple years being a case manager for unhoused folks in the Bay Area and a lot of the times that I was so excited to get a client into shelter. It just ended up becoming such a losing battle after a while and I saw over and over again how much we needed permanent housing and specifically permanent supportive housing for our folks that are most marginalized by the systems that we have. So like Allison and Richard said, I think licensed sporting carers are excellent. I think other types of permanent supportive housing that have high need, that have supports for people with really high needs. as well as just really, really affordable permanent housing for those who are chronically extremely low income for various reasons, whether disability or other marginalizations. That is the answer. I know that it's easier sometimes to get a temporary solution built like a shelter. And I think that of course we do need to shelter those that are looking for housing outside of the streets. But I think we need to be really clear that investing in permanent housing for our residents is the only thing that is going to actually solve the homelessness crisis that is so, so dire in Alameda County. And people are always looking for a legitimate place to live for the long haul. No one really wants to be in a house or a shelter for just a few days. So I'd really, really encourage you to use the vast majority of those funds towards permanent housing specifically for those with serious mental illness and those who have been involved in the justice system. Thank you. Good afternoon supervisors. I'm a Lagerian Hillman from EUNHW. Here on behalf of the 4,000 workers at Children's Hospital Oakland, who are systematically being pushed out of their hospital by UCSF, part of the measure C funds that were raised or actually raised because our members actually knocked on doors in Canvas in order to make this measure pass. They were actually explained that measure would keep them employed and keep the hospital staffed for up to 20 years. So most of our members, the average time that they have been working at that hospital is about 25 years. They were actually told the measure would allow them to have safe staffing, training and equipment at the hospital with that measure. We are now finding now that UCSF is getting the majority of that 20% of the hospital funds, which is devastating to our members. At this point, UCSF is trying to systematically invalidate the contracts of the workers at UCSF. And with that, we do see that the measure see money may be reasoned for them to do so. That money should be kept in Alameda County. Alameda County residents are paying for this money. UCSF is systematically trying to move the employees from Children's Hospital Oakland to make them UCSF employeesees which means that money will go to San Francisco and those employees will be forced to go back and forth between San Francisco and Oakland we all do know we serve a different demographic here in the city of Oakland and Cho is definitely a hospital to help those in need We want to make sure that people within our county give care to those in our county. They best understand the needs of the children of Oakland and in order to make sure that the hospital's properly staffed. Again, we do ask to dedicate that money to staffing, to to equipment, and to training of our members that have been in that hospital providing services to our children for the last decades. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Beverly Griffin. I am an organizer at Children's Hospital and on staff with NUHW. I've been at Children's Hospital for the last 10 years. We have been continuously fighting for staffing issues. We've filed grievances, we go to committees to work with the hospital, but now we are currently being told that those jobs are on a frozen. There is over 175 jobs that are frozen. When people retire, our people leave the area, they are not being replaced. And they are constantly getting ridden up and harassed by UCSF for not a good productivity. They're told that they need to bring up the productivity, but they're not able to do so without the staff being behind them. So we're constantly just ringing the alarm to be able to come to you and talk to you about this measure C. I'm also a resident in Oakland. I am pan for this measure as well. I am concerned that my money is going over to San Francisco. And I would like to see that we've are saying that we would like to have staffing available at children's. That was one of the things that we walk for on the doors and talk to peoples to be able to say, let this measure pass for the children's here in Oakland. Please look at this measure, look at what's going on and make sure that this money stays in Oakland and that we are properly staff here in Oakland and to be able to take care of our children's. Thank you. Nathaniel, please unmute. Thank you very much. Honorable Board of Supervisors. My name is Nate Hansen. I am the manager of real estate development and government affairs and related California. Related California is one of the most prolific developers of affordable housing in the state. I'm speaking in support today of the measure W, specifically as it relates to the potential for measure W to have a profound impact on the supply of affordable housing, particularly permanent, supportive affordable housing here in Oakland and in Alameda County. We are facing a severe housing crisis that is constrained by the fact that financing sources for affordable housing capital and then also operating subsidy for services at affordable housing is very hard to come by. And we believe that the utilization of these funds to accelerate and to promote affordable housing here in Alameda County is an incredible opportunity particularly for those at risk of homelessness or for those experiencing homelessness. So I'd like to encourage the board to consider uses for the measure W funds that relate to capital for affordable housing and also services for permanent supportive housing to address the homeless's crisis. Thank you very much for your time. Warren, is on mute. Hello members of the board. This is Warren Kushman here, community resources for Independent Living and Hayward. I want to speak today as someone who serves on the behavioral health advisory board for Alameda County. It is gratifying to hear people who are engaged in the mental health realm, come forward and speak about measure W. The linkage between housing and mental health is very clear and I really want to see measure W funds when they are released and when they are deliberated on by the board, focus on the linkage between mental health and affordable housing. There are so many needs around affordable housing. So many ways these funds could go. But I do want to emphasize the need for mental health and affordable housing and those linkages. I also want to say we really need to keep in mind the purpose of measure W. The original purpose of measure W. It was not to line the pockets of the housing providers. I know the housing providers want to come forward and get some funds based on the moratorium. That is totally inappropriate. It is not the way that the measure W activists and folks who supported measure W, including Epo and others, intended MeasureW to be spent. So please, let's remember the original intended MeasureW and let's spend those funds based on need and urgency and the cause of truly affordable housing for all, especially people with disabilities. Thank you. Natalia, go ahead. Good afternoon board. My name is Natalia Bomani and I'm an organizer of Restor-Oklin, proudly building with my fellow residents of District 3. As a working class, low-income resident living paycheck to paycheck who has worked directly with folks experiencing homelessness. I'm urging you to swiftly allocate measure W funds into evidence-based housing interventions that will prevent homelessness by safeguarding long-term housing stability of Alameda County's most marginalized residents as others have powerfully stated already. And tandem with the Care First Jail's last policy and the 2026 Home Together Plan, you You 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Lee and County must enact a policy to ensure that Measure W prioritizes housing services to people with serious behavioral health needs and those who are just as involved, regardless of whether they are diagnosed with a co-occurring disorder. Investing in Measure W as such will not only keep all residents safe and healthy, but save the County million spent on encampment sweeps, ER visits and legal fees that trap the most vulnerable and cycles of incarceration and illness. Now is the time for you to lead our county into a transformative future where everyone's basic needs are met. Thank you. Jackie Patrick, Karen Chin, Ms. Gaylord. Good afternoon supervisors and staff. Thank you for hearing us today. My name is Jackie Patrick. I work at Children's Hospital in Oakland. I've been working here for 32 years. And I work there because I love the children. Most of the people they work there love the children and we need to have more staff at the hospital and training. A lot of times the job that I was hired to do I'm doing a different job and when I'm not doing my jobs it's not being done. So the staffing at the hospital is really bad and I believe that UCSF, when they did a affiliation with children's hospital, they used us like a test. You know, if you don't have the staff and you get the work done, then the work can be done and you don't need the staff. But that's not really fair for the children's or the families, so we can't do our jobs efficiently. And the measure, see money, would help if they would get more staffing and training for the employees because they like working there to love the community. I'm a 60 year resident of Alameda County over 60 years and I pay property taxes here, on-house sales tax, and we would like to see this money to help the children not to just go for the building, but we do need a new building in the hospital as old, but also we need to have the staff that is qualified and help up with the technology. Thank you. Hi, my name is Karen Chan. I'm resident here in Oakland, and I also work here in Alameda County. I'm here to speak on item 52, I believe, for measure W in support with the Care First Community Coalition. I just want to second everything that Nat said. Alameda County desperately needs the funds from measures W to house people experiencing chronic homelessness, to prevent homelessness and to provide holistic housing support for all of our marginalized and vulnerable populations. To effectively address the housing crisis is also to address a very serious issues of public safety and mental health concerns in Alameda County. I want to urge the Board of Supervisors to utilize the measure W of funds to create the much needed infrastructure to provide permanent housing as well as addressed the gaps in our current infrastructure for housing and our healthcare systems. I'm aware that public safety and housing are high priority in Alameda County, especially here in Oakland. It's often on the news. We hear about it every single day. And I think that a commitment to action today right now and plan to prepare for future generations would help, you know, significantly address those concerns. I want to also share that my work with the Justice Reinvestment Coalition has led me to become aware at a recent community advisory, sorry, community advisory board meeting where we were approving multiple contracts and allocating millions of dollars from the AB 109 funds into temporary housing. It was confirmed from our service providers that none of them, they have not been able to provide permanent housing for any of their clients, only temporary housing. So this is a population that is already significantly impacted by the carceral system, the records, they're impacted and rental, they're impacted in terms of their credit score, right, as well as facing trauma and mental health issues. So I just want to bring this to light that we are already struggling to find permanent housing and there's a deep need to provide the sustainable service to help set up our communities for success. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Ali Gailor. I'm the Deputy Director for Housing for the Oakland's Housing and Community Development Department. I'm here today to speak in for the Oakland's housing and community development department. I'm here today to speak in support of Measure W. We thank the county for your leadership in this funding for addressing homelessness. And we are looking forward to ongoing collaboration with the county in defining the process and the opportunities for funding. Oakland is in a unique position. We have about 60% of the county's homeless mess within our city, but we also have a pipeline of permanent housing that is ready to go. We received 25 applications and our most recent notice of funding availability for properties that would be ready to go but for the funding that they need. And about a third of those 2000 units would be directly serving homeless folks. Measure W offers a huge opportunity to be combined and leverage the city's measure you funding to make both of those parts of funding go further to address this crisis. We also are very supportive of the inclusion of funding for homelessness prevention. Oakland has a prevention pilot that has demonstrated how cost effective a targeted program that includes financial assistance and wraparound services can be in preventing the inflow of people falling into homelessness. Really, all of this needs to be enacted together to stop the inflow of new falling into homelessness. Really all of this needs to be enacted together to stop the inflow of new folks going into homelessness and to permanently affordably house folks for the long term. We look forward to further discussing a holistic and efficient use of the measure W funds with the county along with the city of Oakland. Thank you. Courtney, please unmute. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Courtney Palin. I'm the policy manager at resources for community development. I'm calling in to urge the board to move ahead with a funding plan for Measure W that aligns with the original intent of the measure to provide housing and services to people experiencing homelessness. As a nonprofit organization providing permanent supportive housing, RCD knows that this work is so important and also currently very under-resourced. Measure W is an important opportunity to fund real solutions and make serious progress together towards ending un-sheltered homelessness as laid out in the at home together, 2026 plan. I wanted to share a bit today from our experience as a nonprofit housing provider, and where we see the opportunity for us to work together with Measure W Funds to make the greatest improvements to our county's permanent support of housing ecosystem. Measure W Funds must be prioritized for operating and services funding for housing solutions, both investing in the existing permanent supportive housing portfolio, and creating new, well-resourced permanent supportive housing. Many legacy supportive housing developments were constructed in previous decades, and were not originally resourced to serve the current population of people who have experienced chronic homelessness, and who often have curacurring mental, physical, and behavioral health issues. By uplifting and reinvesting in these existing properties, we can strengthen our current response system and ensure its longevity. At the same time, as other speakers have mentioned, we need new operating subsidies for building additional permanence, part of housing, to expand the portfolio of of service enriched housing options. These goals are not mutually exclusive and rather than define the need before requests come in, we ask that you provide flexibility so that each project can make its argument on its merits. This is especially critical given big uncertainties at the federal level that MeasureW must respond to the current moment. Thanks for your time and we look forward to continuing to work together to make Measure W have a great impact in our community. Darby, please unmute. Thank you for having me. My name is Darby Schountain. I'm a licensed clinical social worker from Children's Hospital, and I'll be speaking regarding measure C funding. I've worked at Children's Hospital for 28 years and currently a mental health clinician providing individual therapy to children and teens. Currently we're very understaffed. There have been positions that have been unfilled for mental health clinicians for years. And we're currently under a hiring freeze. I have an extremely long waiting list as do other clinicians. We're in the midst of a mental health crisis. We serve the most vulnerable population in Oakland and Alameda County, those patients who qualify for Alameda County medical. We have these long waits and children who are not being served. I'm very concerned about UCSF, not hiring enough staff and about the potential that they move services across the Bay, which is really harmful to our community in Oakland who do not have the resources to travel across the Bay and who are currently in tremendous need. So I urge you to consider how measure-sea funds are utilized by children's hospital. I appreciate this time and want to remember that we serve the very most vulnerable population and we owe them to ensure that money is spent in the best way possible. Thank you for the time. Megan, please unmute. Good afternoon, superriders. My name is Megan Neillan with East Bay Housing organizations for EPO speaking in support for Measure W. We are really glad to see the board moving ahead with a funding plan that's aligned with the original intent and also public expectations of Measure W fund and to provide affordable and supportive housing and services to people experiencing homelessness. At Apple, as a membership driven nonprofit organization with over 400 plus individual and organizational members, our membership is very wide. We have service providers, community leaders, advocates, and also nonprofit developers providing permanent support of housing. And so we understand that this work is so critical and very under-resource as you know in our hearing. And we believe that this measure W funding is really important, but also must respond to this current moment of immense uncertainty at the federal level, especially with all the potential cuts and elimination of critical programs like Section 8, which many county residents depend on. So we strongly see Measure W as a unique opportunity to fund proven solutions and really support the county and making serious progress towards ending unsheltered homelessness in the county as laid out in the counties home together 2026 planned which used racial equity as a guiding principle. We do believe that Measure W funds must be prioritized for operating and services funding for housing solutions both in investing in existing PSH, and then also creating new well-resourced PSH. And we also recognize, again, the need for operating such these just to expand the breadth of service housing options. So thank you so much for your time, and we look forward to working together ensuring measure W's impact in our team. Thank you. Liz, please unmute. Good afternoon honorable supervisors. My name is Liz Prope's director real estate development. First, I wanted to thank the board of supervisors and a particular president, Albert Albert and Supervisor Tam for their concern and responsiveness to the impacts of rental non-repayments and arirages. This is critical to the health of nonprofit affordable housing developers and of the current residents who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. And secondly, as we prepare for the next generation of housing opportunities, I am here in support of Measure W. We are excited about these as capital and operating funds. And we hope to adopt an input process that includes the inputs of developers who are a key part of the ecosystem for developing diversified housing solutions. This includes a combination of permanent housing and operating subsidy. And we hope the action plan includes developers and operators who have a long track record of permanent solutions. Thank you. We have no more speakers. Very good. With that, I'll entertain motion on our mass motion or see if there's any other comments. I don't think we voted or can said we did okay we haven't done the motion yet. We haven't made the mass motion yet. Are there any comments before we make the mass motion? If not, I'll recognize Sue Reservantam. Sue Reservant, my lady? I'd like to pull item 12.1 out of the mass motion. Okay. Okay. Very good. With that, we'll make the mass motion then to the bill. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. Jumping to 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. Jumping to 36, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, jumping to 36, 37, 38, jumping to 40, 41, 42, and 43. And item 35 has been pulled. 35 has been pulled at the request of the department. I'll second the mass motion. Very good. Are there any items that would like to be pulled for questions besides item 12.1? With that said, we'll have a brief staff report on 12.1 or questions or comments from my colleagues. Do you want to vote on the mass motion first? Okay, so 12.1s pulled out, so let's get out of the, let's proceed with motion made by supervisor Tam, second by Sue Resimarquez. I'll call for pulled out so let's get out of the let's proceed with motion made by supervisor Tam Second by supervisor Marquez I'll call for roll call vote please supervisor Marquez I supervisor Tam I Visor Miley yes, the advisor for to not about I present however I Very good with that will move to item 12.1 for consideration. I'll recognize supervisor Miley. Thank you, President Howard. Excuse me for trying to run the meeting because I know you're quite capable of running our meeting. So item 12.1, I pulled it out of the mass motion because I wanted to have a report provided on this particular item. Aaron Armstrong, from my office, whose director of policy, strategic initiatives will make the report. I just want to state that we've done a lot of work on this and we're bringing this back to the board to provide a further clarification and refinement on what took place at the end of last year because we're very interested in having the board adopt an expenditure plan that provides oversight for the paediatric portion of measure C. And in particular, allocating 75% of the pediatric to UCSF, Vinny Off Children's Hospital, Ann O'Clan, 20% of pediatric sub-account to Alameda Health to explore and implement innovative programs that enable pediatric and young adult parties and their families to receive better pediatric serve a pediatric care and then allocate 5% of the funding from the sub-account or from the account to go towards setting up direct grants that address the critical staffing shortages, enhance, comprehensive medical training, and acquire essential diagnostic equipment. Furthermore, we'd like to see an annual report come back to the health committee on the use of the pediatric funds. And then we want to also direct that the auditor in the County Administrators Office release a a direct grant funding in developer process for disbursement of ongoing revenues. And so I've kind of provided a highlight, but Aaron's gonna actually get into the nuts and bolts. And once again, we've inquired with county council about this recommendation or these recommendations and county council can speak to the the quality of what we are suggesting for the board to consider today. So Aaron. Thank you supervisor Miley. Good afternoon board of supervisors Aaron Armstrong. I'm the director of policy and strategic initiatives for Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley. The motion before you today for the item before you today 12.1 asks you to adopt an updated expenditure plan and oversight policy for the pediatric health care account associated with measures C. Measure C was passed in March of 2020 with 64% of the vote after being placed on the ballot through a Citizens Initiative. I'd like to read a brief section of the ordinance which was passed along with the ballot initiative. This is section 2.08.302, which outlines the pediatric health care account. Section A reads, in each year during the term of the article, the Board of Supervisors shall, in consultation with the local pediatric hospital and specialty provider representatives, expend monies from the pediatric health care account based on demonstrated need for any of the following purposes. It then goes on to outline three specific purposes, which these funding can be expended for. Section one outlines the purpose of maintaining upgraded and expanding as an expanding as needed, a level one pediatric trauma center in Alameda County. And programs and trainings for recruiting the highly skilled personnel necessary for its effective operation. Section 2 outlines that the funds may be used to assure the financial viability of the local children's health care safety net. and its accessibility, including maintenance and expansion of specialized staffing and facilities. Section three outlines that the funds may be used to explore and implement innovative programs that enable pediatric and young adult patients and their families to better access pediatric health care services and that enhance the effectiveness of such services. The letter that's before you today seeks to align the board's direction with the language that is present here in the ordinance. So recommendation one which allocates and I should just back up and say that ultimately the the main thrust of the changes in the recommendation remain unchanged from what supervisor Carson had submitted in November. So 80% of the funds still go to Benioff Children's Hospital through direct grants. 20% goes to Alameda County Health. That remains unchanged. The main difference here is that we've added additional language that is bringing the board letter in line with the language of the ordinance. And we've also added specific language to address the annual consultation that is required by the ordinance. So recommendation D, for example, direct grant recipient shall report expenditures, outcomes, and ongoing plans to the health committee annually. We believe that that is in line with Section A, which requires annual consultation on the expenditure of these funds. Section D of the ordinance also calls for annual citizen oversight, so a look back committee to review the expenditure of the funds and make sure that they are in line with the ordinance. These recommendations outline and designate that the Measure A oversight committee shall serve as the citizens oversight committee for measure C. So we're more specifying that to make sure that. The language of the board letter is in line with the will of the voters and what they pass through the ordinance and through measure C in March of 2020. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Do we have any questions I recognize Supervisor Marquez? Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. It was extremely comprehensive. I appreciate that. Just one clarifying question with respect to the annual report to health committee. Do we have a date certain or at least a targeted month? When would we see the first annual report? At this point, I don't have a date certain, but that is something that we'll be looking at. I know we're, we've talked about later this summer as a potential opportunity for it to come. And can I ask is the chair of health committee tracking that and it's the chair's responsibility to get that annual report agenda is that's correct. Thank you. Any other questions or comments I recognize supervisor Fort Nato Bass? Thank you chair Howard. Just stepping back I do want to recognize all of the incredible work that went into the creation and the passage of measure C specifically so that we could improve health and the well-being of children, provide emergency services, and also by extension, ensure that providers of those services are able to fully meet the needs. And so many of us participated, as you heard from public comment, in making sure that measure C would be passed, and it's five years, if not eight years, in the making that we are here today. So I do think it's very important to ensure that the implementation of measure C is aligned with the ordinance, and so thank you to both Supervisor Miley and Aaron Armstrong for your great work on this. I'm fully supportive of the board letter. I think it's important for that 75% in the letter that it does provide the flexibility is called for in the ordinance. I think that's especially important given what's happening on the federal level. And then for the 5% that's called out, I think that is also incredibly important to ensuring that our children who are in need have the necessary services that we are able to provide staffing, reduce the wait time in particular for children in need of services and care. So all of this I think is very important in terms of making sure that our taxpayer funds are used in accordance with the ordinance are used well and more than anything that we continue to support children's hospital, which is an asset not only to Oakland where it's located but to the entire region sometimes even the state. So we want to make sure that our services are meeting the need and by extension that we have a robust system that includes Our caregivers is the hospital as well. So thank you president. I'm sorry. Thank you Supervisor Miley and your staff again for making sure that this is well implemented Very good seeing no other comments. I'll seek a motion, but more comments? Yeah, I just wanted to once again zero in. So 80% still goes to a many off children's hospital in Oakland. But of that 80% 5% is directly targeted towards addressing critical staffing shortages, enhanced comprehensive medical training and to acquire essential diagnostic equipment. Correct? That's correct, supervisor. Okay. All right. Is that a motion? Yes, I'd like to move the recommendation outlined in the board letter. I'd like to second it. Motion is made by supervisor Miley and seconded by supervisor Fort Nothabas. Roll call vote please. Supervisor Marquez. Hi. Supervisor Tam. Hi. Supervisor Miley. Yes. Supervisor Fortuna of the Bass. Hi. President Halbert. Hi. Motion passes. Without move to our ordinances. Item 20. First ordinance is item 20. It's. Second reading of ordinance amendments. the first ordinance is an ordinance amending the June 25th, 2023 through July 3rd, 2077, Memorandum of understanding between the Alameda County Management Employees Association, General Government Unit, and the County of Alameda. The title of the second ordinance is an ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2024, 2025, County of Alameda Salary Ordinance. Item 20A, I will move to wait the full second reading and adopt the ordinance, amending the respective MOU between Acme and the county, and then item 20B, I will move to wave the full second reading and adopt the salary ordinance amendment. second motion made by supervisor Tam second by supervisor Mark as roll call vote please. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Yes. Supervisor Fortin on the bus. Aye. President Harvard. Aye. Item 21 is the first reading of the salary ordinance amendment updating related to compensation for employees who are required to perform bilingual services. An ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2024, 2025 County of Alameda Salary Ordinance. I will move to wait the full first reading and introduce the salary ordinance under 21 I'll second Motion is made by supervisor Tam second by supervisor As roll call vote please supervisor Marquez I Supervisor Tam I Visor Miley I Supervisor Fortuna de Baas Humpert. Aye. Motion passes. And the last ordinance is item 39 from the Public Works Agency, first rating of an ordinance amending traffic code in the unincorporated area. An ordinance amending chapter one relating to traffic regulations, county highways of Title VI relating to vehicles and traffic of the Alameda County Public Works, ACPW, traffic code. Under Item 39, I'll move to wave the full first reading and introduce the ordinance amending the respective chapter on traffic regulations. I'll second. Motion is made by supervisor Tam, seconded by supervisor Marquez. We'll call vote, please supervisor Marquez. Hi supervisor Tam. Hi supervisor Miley. Hi supervisor fortune out of boss. Hi, President Halbert. Hi motion passes Thank you our next item is item 52, an informational item. County Administrator providing a federal state budget update. I note this item was continued from March 25th. Right. So, yeah. Thank you, President Howard. This was continued from your work session. Mellie, Autundita, from my office is going to present an update on federal state county budget as well as our five year forecast and an update on our mid-year projections. you you you Thank you. So I'm going to provide a brief overview of the current near final adopted budget as well as the five year forecast update which was last presented to your board in the fall. So just some quick facts about the county as your board does. we are the seventh most populous county in the state of California Our population is roughly 1.6 million and it includes 14 incorporated cities as well as our unincorporated communities We have a geographic area of roughly 821 square miles that includes water And our median household income in 2023 is 126,000 The unemployment rate is 4.6% as of January 2025. In terms of the county's budget authority and legal requirements, the county is a political subdivision of the state and serves a dual role. The county administers state, federal, and local programs that are required by law called our mandated services and the county also provides city type or municipal services to the unincorporated areas. The county derives its powers from the state constitution as well as the state legislature. And the county of Alameda is a charter county, so it has a limited degree of authority that may provide for powers and duties of county officials through the charter, though it doesn't provide any additional authority over local regulations, revenue raising ability, budget decisions, or intergovernmental relations. The county budget acts specifies the content of the budget adoption procedures and dates by which actions must be taken. Moving on to the economic context. As you've likely seen, we continue to experience state and regional layoffs. We're seeing ongoing cutbacks that are concentrated in the technology sector throughout the Bay Area, just some notable layoffs so far. And the current calendar year include Kaiser in the health sector, BioRAD, which is in Contra Costa County in life science and biotech, in the automotive industry cruise, which is based in San Francisco, and in retail, Macy's, Bloomingdale's, and Coles. So in California alone, nearly 100 companies have given layoff notices in 2025, and we're continuing to see these headlines both impacting us locally at the state level and as we'll talk about later at the federal level. So in general, what we're seeing in the news are record levels of uncertainty that are impacting both small business sentiment as well as consumer sentiment. Recent headlines regarding these record levels of uncertainty are, you know, I think also additionally impacted by the tariffs that are being administered by the federal administration. As you may know, the president is also anticipated to unveil a new set of tariffs tomorrow. And there are concerns regarding the impact on consumer pricing, as well as the increasing likelihood of a recession as a result. In addition, we're seeing our neighboring local jurisdictions having challenges with respect to their budgets. Both Hayward and Oakland Unified School districts are at risk of fiscal insolvency in the current year. The City of Oakland's budget shortfalls estimated at 265 million over the next two years. The Pleasanton City Council has directed staff to withdraw $2 million over the next two years from its pension trust to address its budget deficit. And the Freemont City Council passed a budget with a 10% reduction to general fund expenditures. In addition, our local transit agencies are also facing massive cuts. So as we typically do, I'm showing you some updated real-state market trends. These are from the state association of realtors for the month of February. So according to the state association of Rilters, median price in the county is at 1.3 million. This happens to be where it was a year ago, but it is a 13% increase from the month prior. Home sales are up about 3% compared to last year, but up significantly by over 40% compared to the previous month. So we're actually seeing this trend of home sales rebounding statewide for the month of February amid declining mortgage rates. The rate of unsolved inventory is up 10% year over year, but down compared to a month prior and the median time on the market in the county is now 11 days as compared to the state median of 26 days. Moving on to additional state federal updates. At the state level, the Department of Finance has reported personal income tax receipts above forecast for them at the February, while corporate tax and sales and use tax receipts are below forecast. The legislative analyst office or LAO presented an overview of the governor's 2526 budget to the Assembly Committee on Budget and reported that the state would face a deficit today if not for the legislative action that was taken last June to identify nearly 30 billion in budget solutions and that has generated about 23 billion in savings. Revenue collections have improved since last June, however, spending is higher compared to both the administration and LAO forecasts. Additionally, I think it's important to highlight that the state is currently borrowing about three and a half billion from the general fund to cover unexpected cost increases in MediCal. At the federal level, as you know, Congress has approved a six month continuing resolution to fund the government through the end of September. The latest consumer price index inflation report showed inflation easing in February, and so interest rate cuts before June are unlikely. We're seeing layoffs across multiple federal agencies. Our departments are starting to receive notices of federal grant terminations. As I I mentioned earlier, there's a new set of tariffs expected that are, you know, there's wide concern that the tariffs could tip us into a recession. I'm just going to do a brief overview of how counties are financed. Oh, sorry, I'll pass it to the county administrator to review. Just quickly as Melanie had mentioned counties have, well, cities have much broader revenue generating authority than do counties. And obviously there's more significant state legislative control over counties. we provide largely mandated services that are mandated by the federal and state government. The state often has transferred their responsibilities to the local level. There's no requirement that they transfer funding to measure it with those responsibilities. The county also serves a dual role as you know administering mandated state and federal services, primarily safety net services on the local level and we also provide municipal services to the unincorporated area. A couple things just that we continue to highlight in terms of the county's fiscal dilemma at a you know during an economic downturn for us we get hit twice because our service needs increase at the same time. So when our revenues are down, our service needs increase. And historically our revenue raising authority has been limited by Prop 13, which is you know restricted the amount of growth on property taxes. Prop 218, which required voter approval for any tax increases. And the educational revenue augmentation fund or ERAF state shift, which we'll talk about a little bit later. What we have seen is a progressive loss of control over local spending. As I indicated, 80 to 90% of our services are mandated by the state and federal government. Those mandates have continued to increase reimbursement has been suspended or delayed. The growth has not kept pace with our expenditures and those programs that have been, you know, re-aligned, have been transferred often without adequate funding to the local level. With regard to the ERAF shift, which is the shift of local property taxes to the state, that occurred in 92.93. When the state was not able to meet its obligation to fund schools under prop 98 and they started taking local property taxes from cities, counties, and other jurisdictions. As you can see, we've been tracking it since 92.93 over the term $10.8 billion, $10.8 billion of locally collected property taxes paid by Alameda County residents and taxpayers have been shifted to the state as a statutory requirement. We collect the taxes, but the auditors required to transfer an amount to the state by formula. you can see in 2425, the estimated transfer of local property taxes to the state under ERAF is almost $700 million. And it actually you'll see later is more than the amount that we retain here in Alameda County. At the same time or over that same time period, the county has not surprisingly had significant funding gaps. The slide here just shows from 2009, 2010, fiscal year when we had a funding gap of almost $178 million, you can see the cyclical nature of some of this in 2021. First year of the pandemic, we had $128 million shortfall that we actually addressed in two tranches because of the uncertainty and coming into this year we had a $68 million funding gap. Importantly in terms of property tax collections and your board's discretion, while we have a $4.5 billion budget, the amount of revenue we receive that's actually your board has discretion over is about 28% of the general fund. So only 28% of your budget is what we would call really discretionary for your board to determine the allocation. And a large portion of that you allocate for mandated cost sharing in order to leverage state and federal funding primarily in health and social services. And so the dollar bill shows that the county of Alameda only retains or receives 15 cents of a very property tax dollar that's collected. So you can see the schools get a significant portion, cities get a portion. We still are showing redevelopment agencies, but as you know you know is that winds down those funds will be redistributed to the other taxing entities But the county share has remained about 15 cents for a long time So wanted just to reinforce that in terms of county finances and the flexibility and options that we have. So moving on to an overview of the current year fiscal budget. As you can see, the county budget is roughly 4.6 billion all funds and supports a workforce of nearly 10,500 full-time equivalents. And the general fund, the county's budget is nearly 4 billion which is 280 million dollar increase from the prior the school year and supports roughly 8500 full-time equivalents Moving on to this pie chart this shows our appropriations or spending authority by a major object or category as you can see, sellers and employee benefits are the largest expense at over 1.6 billion or nearly 40% of the general fund. Services and supplies are essentially both the yellow and the green portions that you see there on the pie chart. It includes the CBO contracts, which are represented in the green. We detail that by program in a future slide. And this portion of the pie chart also includes our internal service costs or operating other operating expenses. Other charges is essentially client benefits and other financing uses includes debt service, contingency, and intergovernmental transfers. Taking a look at spending authority by program, the counties, largest program areas of health, public protection, and public assistance are all budgeted at over one billion. General government programs are roughly 8% of the general fund. So together, all four of those program areas make up over 90% of budgeted appropriations. The remaining amount support capital projects and other non-program expenses. As we've discussed in the past, the county is largely dependent on state and federal aid. As you can see, it's roughly 64% of our total financing. And I will detail it further in the next couple of slides. So if we break up the portion that you just saw in the previous slide into state aid, federal aid and medical charges for services, you can see those component pieces there, and the rest of our financing represented in the green. And this is the full look of our available financing by source. As you can see, the sales and use tax of 27 million that's represented in this pie chart is only unincorporated sales tax and included in the 170 million of other taxes include sources like property tax residual measure A, document new transfer tax, as well as unincorporated area taxes, which include the business license tax utility users as well as hotel emoji. And then taking a look at our revenue by type, as you heard, the county administrator mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the county's revenue is what we refer to as program revenue, which funds are mandated programs, and our discretionary revenue only makes up about 28% of the general fund. Taking a look at our use of discretionary revenue by source, you can see that our discretionary revenue is largely property tax-based. So both the portion that you see there in the blue as well as the purple property tax as well as vehicle license fee, ERAF, are property tax-based. So both of those sources together mean that roughly 90% of our discretionary revenue is property tax-based. And here's a look at our use of discretionary revenue by program. The county is not hospital county, so like other non-hospital counties counties we use a large proportion of our discretionary revenue for public safety because as a program area it is not as highly leveraged as public assistance or health. So every quarter of the county administrators office sends out a request to agencies and departments to submit quarterly projections as part of our budget monitoring efforts. This process supports accountability related to spending as well as regular and comprehensive monitoring of the budget to allow for evaluation of service level provision progress towards goals and expectations and an examination of trends and other deviations that could impact our future operations. In fiscal year 2025, the second quarter projections suggest that we'll end the year with savings due to a combination of projected under spending driven by high vacancy rates offset by an underrealization of program revenues. We will continue to monitor our budget in the third quarter and we'll recommend mid-year adjustments to your border actions to maintain a balanced budget if necessary. Moving on to the updated five-year forecast. As you may recall, the model assumes continued modest economic growth, no new unfunded programs and no other major changes to existing labor agreements, although major drivers include labor costs, operating costs, outpacing revenue as we typically see as well as inflation due to the in-home support services program. Risks include the prospect of a recession as well as the impact of interest rates on the national and global economies. So, here's a look at the combination of one time and ongoing budget balancing strategies we've used to close the funding gap. As you can see the reliance on one time strategies every year reflected in the blue sections of the stock bar show the structural deficit we face developing the county budget every year with operational cost always outpacing revenue growth. For the current fiscal year you'll recall we close a $68 million funding gap using roughly 22.1 million and one-time strategies and 45.9 million of ongoing strategies. If we were to take what the departments have submitted thus far for their maintenance of effort budget requests, we would see without working it down, according to our maintenance of Eppert Policy, we would see a funding gap of $235 million in the developing year. As we've seen in previous forecasts, if we assume a base case scenario, the projected funding gaps that you see in the purple and the out years do assume that we work that gap down and it builds in certain assumptions in terms of our cost inflators over the five-year horizon. The model assumes that no corrective measures are taken to address the funding gaps, but this current forecast in the out years is slightly more optimistic than the previous version presented, given the revenue actuals. Moving on to our long-term obligations. As you know, it's very important to the county to maintain the triple triple, the highest possible triple A ratings from the big three rating agencies, S&P, Fitch, as well as Moody's. This is a distinction we've held since 2018. This was reaffirmed by the rating agencies in May of 2024. Included in our significant long-term liabilities are roughly 1.3 billion in unfunded capital and major maintenance needs identified in the capital improvement plan adopted by your board. As well as the county's pension liability with Asara. Asara's most recent actuarial valuation showed a $1.4 billion unfunded actuarial accrued liability. And as you know, the county has prepaid a portion of the unfunded liability and allocates savings to the pension liability reduction fund. We have a long list of pending factors to consider that may impact the developing budget in future years. I've highlighted a number of these over our previous meetings. As you know, the county's labor negotiations and workforce challenges can also significantly impact our long-term outlook as well as rising insurance and health benefit costs. We know that our pending litigation and settlements are also impacting our insurance costs in addition to the overall hardening of the market. We have the prospect of potential federal and state audit disallowances where closely tracking many of the potential impacts at the federal level, including the impact on our federal grants, as well as anticipated significant changes that could impact the safety net. And finally, the implementation of state programs and policy changes are things that we're going to need to continue to monitor and take into account as we continue to develop the budget. Very good. Any questions or comments from my colleagues? I see supervisor Marquez and the supervisor. Thank you for the presentation. Can you remind us next steps when we'll be revisiting the budget process? I think there's a work session scheduled sometime in April. I know there's the work group, but then also there's an update to the full work session. So as was mentioned, we have departmental submissions that are exceed our MLE guidelines know was noted. So our staff is now working with departments to reconcile that and develop recommendations on the maintenance of effort budget. The maintenance of effort budgets will be presented to your board by each department on April 15th. So that's a work session schedule called the early budget work session. Subsequent to that, we will be looking at the countywide revenues like property taxes and other countywide revenues to help offset our expenses and identify what our funding gap is going into next year. We have a budget work group meeting scheduled tomorrow. tomorrow we'll schedule another one at the time that we have identified the funding gap and will spend most of May, you know, working on reducing that gap, coming up with strategies to develop a balanced recommended budget that I'll be presenting to your board in early June and then your schedule to consider that proposal as well as have your budget hearings and adopt a final budget by June 30th. I mean we know that this year more than ever there are significant pending factors, not the least of which are federal and state funding issues. So I expect we would likely have to come back once we know better what those reductions or adjustments are going to be, but would hope that your board would go forward as you have in the past and adopt a balanced budget by June 30th so we have a balanced plan to start the fiscal year. Thank you and would it be possible for the department heads and their presentation on April 15th to indicate whether or not they've received any funding notice of termination from the federal government just want to know what the exposure and risk factors are if possible that could be included in the presentations and then the pending factors I'm clear with all of them except there's one I'm not quite sure if you could please elaborate assessment of pills is that just outstanding money that's owed to us? Is there... To the extent we have appeals on assessments that's a potential for revenue loss. Okay. Do we know currently how many... what the value is of a pill? That's outstanding. We don't... we're in a filing period now and there's a period that goes through the adjudication through your assessment appeals board but I think it's just you, there are some large assessment appeals that are pending. And so to the extent those get resolved, depending on the outcome, they could have a significant impact on our property tax revenue. Okay. And then where are we at with our legislative platform in terms of this consistent pattern from our state legislators to continue to push down policy that's unfunded. I just think we need to work with CSAC, NACO. It's just we can't continue to be at their mercy. This is really unfortunate, but they're taking dollars in the high, extremely high expectations for us to deliver. So that's been a strong policy position and advocacy position on the part of the Board of Supervisors for many years. So we're active with our state association, with many of the department has their active in their own professional organizations with CSAC, with NACO, with our own lobbyists. So I mean, clearly that's, you know, very high on our list and something that we're keenly aware of. And we will, to the extent we have information, try to track the potential federal programs that are at risk. Thank you. So, Roger Tim. you for'm sorry. So, Mr. President, I'm sorry. So, Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr Freeman are also facing budget challenges. And in Oakland in particular, there are shortfalls estimated at 265 million over the next two years. And in our five year forecast, 33, page 33, our budget gap that's projected is 235.2 million. Can you tell me the difference between a budget deficit and a budget gap? Thank you supervisor. So I should clarify that the on that slide that you're referencing that 235 million is in reference to what our funding gap would be based upon what the departments have submitted for their maintenance of effort requests. Every year the County Administrator's Office within its analyst team works that number down and analyzes what the departments have submitted against your board's adopted maintenance of effort policy. So the funding gap that we had in developing the current year budget was 68 million. So our plan is to work that number down prior to what we will ultimately present to your board as part of the maintenance of effort presentations given by the agencies and departments on April 15th. Okay, I appreciate the fact that we are going through that process each year but to elaborate on supervisor Marques's point. As much as we have lobbied through CISAC and NACO about resisting unfunded mandates, especially from the state, but clearly we had to scramble with care court. We had to, even though it was something we anticipated that we were not going to get funding, but was mandated by the state similarly with AB 109 funding and the insufficiency when it comes to providing for the incarcerated. How do we like, juggle that at the very last minute in order to provide pretty high levels of funding, especially with care. How do we like, juggle that at the very last minute in order to provide pretty high levels of funding, especially with care court? I remember it coming before the health committee and we had awarded almost a $10 million contract the backs to help with care court. Supervisor, I think to the extent we can, we have to balance both what we have the ability to respond to based on what is already included in our approved budget. So whatever flexibility our agencies and departments have to respond to those unfunded mandates within the budget is one aspect. We certainly don't want to jeopardize our legislative strategy and our advocacy strategy because if you know if we feel strongly that these mandates should be funded by either the state and federal level then doesn't put us in a good strategic position to outright fund it with local dollars. So it's a challenge that we have to balance every year. I would just also add that while many and most of our services are mandated, it doesn't always mean that the level of service is mandated. So we do have some discretion there in terms of balancing and considering your board's priorities as well. OK, appreciate that. And the last question, and this is something I'm always impressed with the fact that the county maintains a triple, triple, the highest credit rating because that helps us leverage our ability to make a lot of the capital improvements have been deferred. And I know we've talked about it in the past despite the fact that we have these budget gaps and we have even with the maintenance of effort some deficits. We are able to make payments during good years toward our pension fund reliability and bringing down some of our obligations. Do you think that given all the uncertainty that we're seeing with the federal government and the state governments and that looks like it's about 60% of our budget that might in any way affect our credit rating? Our goal would be that it not. And largely that's been attributable to the strong financial management policies that your board has adopted and adhered to. And so I think that that would be the path that we should continue on, obviously, until we really know what the impact is. It's difficult to tell, but you're right. That would be far reaching in terms of limiting our ability to raise revenue on the other hand. And so that's the, you know, the balancing act. You know, if you don't have the credit ratings to go out and issue, if you need to issue debt, you know, you're going to have to pay a lot more if you don't have strong credit ratings. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I mean, my biggest fear right now is the Medicaid funding going to MediCal because that is a mandated program that the county has. And if we somehow get shorted on that, I just, because it also covers housing with the CalA program because there's a tie between housing and determinantsants of health that's tied to medical. So I want to just try to put some buffers around that uncertainty in our budgeting process. Any other questions from my colleagues? I recognize to you guys for Senator Bass. Thank you. I haven't had a chance to look online yet. I was wondering what the agenda will be for tomorrow's budget work group meeting. And thank you, by the way, for this very informative presentation to both our County Administrator and to Melanie. We have a representative from the state legislative analyst office coming tomorrow to provide a perspective from Sacramento and update on the state budget from the alleged analyst position. We'll also be providing an overview similar to what we just presented to your board. This is really an informational meeting. We would hope at our next meeting that we could also have the state director of finance or his deputy come to give us even a further update in terms of what's happening at the state. So we've tried to incorporate that into the budget work group as well to educate our stakeholders as well as our staff as we prepare for a difficult budget. Thank you. And will there be a future presentation of our annual Consolidated Financial Report just to do a deeper dive into our liabilities for example or the fund balances, the reserves, et cetera? So that's a presentation that we would coordinate with the auditor controller, and could certainly bring that back to the board. Okay. I personally would find that helpful. I don't know if my colleagues would, certainly being a new member and just wanting to more fully understand our budget, that would be helpful in addition to receiving a copy when it's available. Thank you. Okay. Supervisor, um, yeah, I just want to say that if we call President Halbert, we did look at that. Was it last year or year before last? So um, I always think it's informative that we take a look at that even if we don't make any modifications But I think it's good for us to take a look at the other thing is with the budget work group. That's present Albert and surprise at him, right? Are those meetings a virtual are they in person? It's a hybrid meeting so it can access. And then I can't remember if we filled our appointment to the budget. I believe there may be one that's outstanding. Yes, that's correct the tri-valacy. Okay, okay. it. Okay. Is that a district? It's designated as a tri-valacy. Tri-valacy, okay? We can begin to that. It's a board, but it's your board's appointment. Okay. So, it's clarified that balancing our budget may very well come down to the level of effort given to our mandated services. We note they are mandated, but there's discretion in the level of service that we provide. Is that correct? For some of the services, there is discretion around the level of service. not all of them. Some of them there are you know more stringent mandates, but there is flexibility around level of service. And I think you know when we've gone through some really tough years, those are some of the things that we've needed to look at in terms of criteria on budget balancing and funding. You know what's mandated, what's cost effective, what's critical, there are different strategies that we've employed to really, you know, look at the budget. Our goal is always to provide the highest level of services possible within our available resources. And as you know, we've, you know, our other stakeholders have also, you know, been partners. We've partnered with Labor, we've partnered with our community-based providers as we look at strategies once we identify the funding gap. So we have a gap identified that hasn't been worked down yet, but we're going to do that with our departments. So that's really one side of the equation, the departments, right? That's the spending, the program revenue, and that's what you'll hear on April 15th. The other side of the equation is the other county-wide revenues, like property taxes, sales taxes, unincorporated revenues. All of those, what we would call county-wide revenues, that we will also be analyzing and making a determination what financing do we have, program and and countywide to offset the proposed expenses and then identify our funding. Yeah, so I would be interested to seeing more about which of our mandated services are more strictly regulated in terms of must fund at a high level versus others. I don't know if there's Defined terms for that or not, but I would just like to know, just terminology wise, this mandated service is absolutely required. We have to do X, Y, and Z spending as a percentage of our budget or a percent of what we've done in the past or however we determine that versus another mandated service that is not as strictly enforced. It Would be helpful. So I believe as part of the overview that departments present, they identify their mandates. So we can also ask for some additional information there. The other thing, when we talk about mandates and level of service, there are many times mandated sharing ratios where the state might fund 80% of a certain program, the county's required to fund 20%. Many of those, you know, programs over the years, your board has determined have been a priority and you have essentially overmatched, if you will, by allocating additional general fund support. So those are also things that, you know, we would look at when we are in a position to be closing a funding gap. Where can we be making reductions? What are some of the options? Super helpful for us to know what we get shared funding from. That's great. And where we get more shared funding we want to spend accordingly, where we don't get any share, maybe we. Okay. I think now more than ever, this year more than ever, we need to have a forethought of contingency. What happens if we enter a recession? What happens if we receive fewer dollars from the federal government or set another way they cut more than we expect. And I think that that priority, some level of what we would want to cover cut first if we had to, we should just have that discussion because I think it's the board's job to weigh in on what that level of direction would be. Then with regard to mandated funding, there are things that we spend our money on that are not mandated. They're discretionary. They're optional. And we should always be where, in a year like this, to balance and I don't want to say pit one against the other, but it essentially evaluate one against the other because every dollar we spend on something that's not mandated, Every dollar we spent on something that's not required is perhaps... we're going to have less spending, reduced spending on a mandated service. I'd like to see a listing of those things that we do have budgeted that are not mandated services, mandated budget items. Because indeed, and we may decide to spend the budget, we may not have a budget that is not needed. that are not mandated services, mandated budget items. Because indeed, and we may decide to spend on the many way, we may decide to fund less of a mandated service, provide fewer services of that mandated service because of that discretionary optional funding, but maybe not. And so I would like to see that as a part of our, at some point, whether it's the 15th or the June or whatever, to be very clear about the things that we are spending money on that aren't mandated and to see the trade-offs against what we would like to do from a mandated standpoint. And then lastly, two other things. One, I've always said, and I hope that we can continue to see the things that we've decided to cut. We've decided we can't do. Maybe it's the gap is now 254 when we see it next time it's much less what did we take away? What did we reduce? What did we how did we get there? Because I just believe that every year there's something that we don't need to keep doing that we've identified And I think it's just shows good stewardship when we show that there are things not that it's was ever bad spending but this year we just either can't afford it or it's run its course or it's not as effective or there are other higher needs. I just think it shows good stewardship and then I was really grateful that last year we were able to do regional budget presentations. We did one in South County, one in East County. I'll just ask again that we can do something like that would be helpful. And I'm open to coordinating. We did them together in South County. I think Supervisor Marquez, Supervisor Milo, we can do them together in East County. Maybe we have one in North County, one in Central County, whatever, but I'll be requesting that. Thank you. Yeah. Vice President, Miley and I had the budget work of the County Administrator's Office present at the Unincorporated Services Committee because we wanted to help them and ourselves understand the budget as compared, for example, to our neighboring city in Hayward. And there is a specific call out in our budget for that. But it was not necessarily, which you say was an interactive in your mind? Okay. Any other questions or comments, a supervisor, Miley, then support not a vast. Yeah, I was going to say something similar, what's super as a table saying. We want to make sure we identify the unincorporated area budget. There's more emphasis on that. And I know the constituency in the unincorporated area is very interested in ensuring that that happens. Once again, I supervise you. Tamm pointed out the municipal services and budgets that we are funding the reallocating to an incorporated area. How does that contrast with neighboring jurisdictions? So it's one of, I mean, the county administrator's office is doing a better job with that, but I know that's going to be a continued concern from folks in the unincorporated area, recognizing the unincorporated area is the fourth largest city if it were a city, only Oakland, Fremont, and Hayward would be a larger. Then I just want to say two other things. in the corporate area. If there's any budget hearings or whatever, we can handle those through the committee. But what I was going to say is, I just want to emphasize something, ballad only pointed out that I've been very school on. The better we do at balancing our budget when we have unfunded mandates What happens is the state then looks at us it says out of me the county can handle its affairs and these other counties that are in crisis Let's allocate funding to them because they're in crisis and they need help. That's how it means you can't. It doesn't. So we always have to be very cognizant of how we approach this, you know, this dance. Because like you said, I've seen the dance for 20 plus years. And if we do an excellent job, then the state comes up with more money. They say, well, how many can they? Doesn't need the money. give to some other counties that haven't done as an effective job. So we just have to be mindful of that. And then the other thing is, when I got on the board, the deficit was only about $5 million. I keep telling the county administrator, I'm living for the day when the bunch of deficit or a gap is that low. You know when it's down below 50 million, it really doesn't even get my attention because I know they can manage that. When it starts getting up over 100 million, that's generally when you know it becomes more serious and the things you point out are surprised how but in terms of water some of our contingencies, how we go about it. I mean, we've got strategies that we have employed, and some we have an employee. In whatever strategy we do employ, we don't make sure our bargaining units, as well as the our CBOs are a part of that conversation, because we rely on our CBOs to deliver deliver services and we cut back there, that means less services. And obviously our parking units, depending on how we go about it, they're going to have some input on that. So that's just one other piece. And then what's interesting too is, as you, the page was it? The page that showed our budget balancing gaps over the years, what page? 32. Can Malely bring that slide up again? That's the one that shows the strategies that we've, the one time in ongoing over the years or the budget deficits. It's... I don't know if that's the best one. Let me see. Are you looking for the one that showed one time versus ongoing? So, you guys are mildly are the one that showed the gaps. I think it shows the gaps. that's on page 17. No, 17, the next one. There we go. So if you notice, in 2009, 10, you know, the cat was, you know, pretty significant. Then it started to go down. But then in 2020, in 2021, that fiscal year, you know, we had a size full gap. But we were able to cover some of that too. And during the pandemic, we also had resources that we received from the CARES Act and ARPA. But the point what I want to point out is 20, 25, 20, 26, which is going to be the next bar that's going to come up when we do this year. I think what's different than the pandemic years and what's different I think going back to 2009 and 10 is the fact that you know with the Trump administration you know they're doing all sorts of stuff that no one ever contemplated. I mean all sorts of crazy stuff. I mean we just can't figure figure out what's going to happen. And that what we can rely upon. And then in addition, the fact that Oakland has such a big deficit and it's no longer going to be funding some core programs. I mean, I wouldn't, there are programs that are needy, but they're not core to the city's functioning as a government. You know, like police and fire. I think some of that's gonna be reflected in terms of maybe what we might have to entertain just because of the level of marginalized populations in the city of Oakland. So I just think those are some factors in mainly pointed out in when she went through this. But I just think this new budget that we're going to be looking at for the next fiscal year has got some complications that I just don't think we've ever experienced in the past. Yeah. It's a surprise or a force not a bath and then more gas. Thank you. I definitely appreciate again the presentation as well as the comments from my colleagues and concur with the idea of having a contingency, a set of contingencies or even scenarios, even though we may not know for a few more months what the scenarios will look like just doing that forward planning, I think is important. I wanted to just state on the record, I'd be interested in doing a budget presentation in North County. So as we develop those plans, I definitely am interested in doing that with my constituents. And, you know, recognizing that like with any organization, salaries and personnel is going to be the bulk of our expenses. I am interested in hearing more about our historic vacancies and how departments are looking at any historic vacancies. For example, if a set of positions hasn't been filled in say two, three, four years, you know, what's the process that the county goes through in terms of thinking about whether to keep that staff position on the books if it hasn't been filled for a long time. So that would be helpful in terms of my orientation. Thank you. And much of that work is underway. Supervisor and will be incorporated, especially around vacant positions. Thank you. I don't know if I thanked Melanie for her amazing work on this if I didn't thank you. Also have questions with respect to our vacancy rate. Just want to know, I know I asked last year in the year before, current vacancy rate for every department, but also to know what that value is. If we could cost that out and to piggyback on to provide over to not have access comments with respect to how long of those positions been being given if it's three or plus more years. Do we need to revisit whether that is still needed? And I say that carefully because I know our staff is overworked. So we have to be very, very clear about that as well. But just want to have as much information as possible. And then also wanted to ask the county administrator. I know a supervisor, former supervisor Carson was so vital in the budget process. And he would often bring up the fact that the county has a framework to protect services. Can you kind of explain that in remind us of past practice to ensure that we are protecting safety net services? I think that, you know, through your board's strategic vision, I mean, I think that's been sort of the guiding principles that, you know, we've used, as you know, and it's been embedded both in the budget as well as your day-to-day and all of your, you know, board activities. So I see that as really, guideposts. And again, as we look at mandates versus discretionary services, the safety net services are largely mandated. So I mean, I do think that we are committed to continuing along that path to the extent that we can. And I just want to mention on vacant positions. That work is underway. I mean, it's complicated for a number of reasons. And so departments are just now relooking at the most current information on all of their positions, undead and unfunded positions, filled in vacant to update that information. And as you know, it's dynamic. And what I have always resisted is to do across the board reductions like many jurisdictions are doing, for example, saying any position that's been vacant or it's been funded in bacon for three to three years or over so many years as automatically eliminated. I think we've really tried to avoid across the board strategies to see if we can come up with things that are more tailored to the needs of our individual departments and to meet your board's priorities. And then along those lines, can we also identify maybe the top three departments that have over time high overtime usage? Thank you. Supervisor Tam and then Miley. Thank you, President Halpert. I wanted to bring up a couple of points. And I concur with the County Administrator that there's a high level complexity when we look at vacancies because, for example, in the sheriff's office, they've been severely understaffed but we have a court decision under the Babu settlement so we have not been able to meet it but they had the vacancies so eliminating those positions because the vacancies are there it's not necessarily going to be appropriate similarly in social service or below or at 32% vac in child welfare, but when you look at how we're meeting the state standard, we're below the state standard and the federal standard in terms of response time. And so I want to caution about like doing the minimum to meet the mandates because we're not even meeting some of those levels of service. Similarly with care court, we were struggling because the judge Sandra Bean wanted an extra attorney to respond because the courts were getting cut and we could not provide it. We could provide the basically the bare minimum when it came to meeting some of those mandates. So the discretion is based on how well we do with our response time and our level of service in looking at the vacancies. But one of the things that Supervisor Carson did and I don't know whether this is something that staff was doing because I know it's very difficult to go to each of the regions within the Supervisorial Districts. So what he did was he brought in the different affinity groups and it could be throughout the county and he brought in community-based organizations and he had meetings with each one. And I've been to a couple of them and I remember the county administrator being there and I'm trying to understand is that more efficient for staff and getting the information out? So we would generally convene a meeting with labor leadership at least one meeting as well as with our community-based organizations. But again, since we have such a huge group of providers, it was generally a representative group of providers that the departments identified. So I think those were important. We were able to tailor some of the discussion around issues that might have been more relevant to the community-based providers or to labor. So I mean, I don't think that necessarily. I believe that your board was looking for, I know the unincorporated area committee which were planning and prepared to do. And then there were a couple of others where I think supervisors wanted some of their constituents to be able to come in more of a town hall for them just to get an update on the budget. Okay I appreciate what the timing is in terms of you know when those presentations you know occur. That's true. See what I was thinking is a lot of the community-based organizations provided services throughout the county not in just specific- I think it is another tool, certainly in terms of disseminating the information. And we would pull together the CBOs, I mean, a meeting with the CBOs as well as a separate meeting with labor leadership. You know, I intend to do that in the next couple of months during the budget development process. But I think some of the meetings that we had with the supervisors out in your districts were after adoption of the budget. So I think it depends on what end up where you wanna be in terms of the. I'd like to make sure we run that through the budget. Workshop group perhaps, and or I to understand Historically last year the year before the year before that which were the CBOs that were invited and actually attended that meeting and I would like to augment that with Just to see if there are other CBOs that we would like to have Attending those We could certainly do that. I mean we're obviously on a compressed schedule and have have, you know, staffing challenges like everybody as well. So I do think we need to set our, you know, priorities right now. We're focused on fine tuning the maintenance of effort that can be presented to your board in April. And then we'll be focused on identifying the funding gap and coming up with balancing strategies. So we can present a balanced budget to you in June for adoption by the end of June. A great, I just wanted to be as transparent to everyone so that we all know who's coming in and being invited to attend that kind of a meeting where we have one of us and also staff and that we are transparent. That's all. Supervisor Myle. Yeah, what a thanks supervisor. Tam for comments. I have it done. You know those comments. The other thing is the supervisor market. County administrator mentioned, you know, we've got value-based budgeting. That's something supervisor Murray King put it in place. in place. Because that wasn't on the board at the time. But I know back in the 90s, when there was really major deficits, I was over at City Hall. And I know Superfaisier Carson would talk about it. How the chambers here were packed with people saying, don't cut me, cut them, and et etc. And that's what they came up with that whole notion of a based budgeting and then we've got vision 2036 to it helps. So there's some kind of guidepost. Any other questions, comments? Seeing none, let's move on to and thank you again. We've had public comment on the whole agenda. Is there anybody with their handries? No, all right. Well, the next item is item 53, an information item. Alameda County Health's data report on measure W. And I think we were just going to start with a few introductory slides just to introduce measure W and set the framework. And then AC Health is going to provide an update on actions subsequent to your board's earlier direction with regard to measure W. So just a few background slides on Measure W as you can see here. The Measure W Policy Committee developed a framework during 2019 and 2020. Your board placed the measure on the ballot as a 10 year, a half percent general revenue measure and it passed with 50.09% of the vote in November of 2020. The Taxpayers Association and other individuals subsequently filed suit. Tax collection began in July of 2021 with the revenue placed in escrow pending the litigation. In terms of court updates, the motion for re-hearing was denied by the Court of Appeals. And as you've heard, Council say the writ of search for a filing deadline was earlier this or sorry earlier in March revenue collection started in fiscal year 2122 and we have 565 million accrued in revenue through fiscal year 2324 and anticipate up to 200 million in annual revenue. Good afternoon supervisors. I have the next set of slides and I also have Jonathan. but you don't have the slides. Oh. Are you in the technical difficulties, Burma? you you I think it's a good idea that we might take a five minute recess. It's four o'clock. We'll come back at four o'clock. Sporting in progress the service to the service to the service to the on phase one of Measure W. I just want to note I also have Jonathan Russell, our Director of Housing and Homelessness Services, available via phone, but he has bad reception and he's technically out today, so, but he's available for questions. So he'll raise his hand at some point. Great. So just a little bit of context around our phase one planning, I think as you're all aware, our annual homelessness inflow continues to outpace exits. We have a home together plan 2026 which we're currently underway with a refresh and so we've got we have a nearly year-long process planned to update that plan for the next five years. Your board also declared a homelessness in 2023. And as you've seen sort of through various presentations before, much of the homelessness funding that we have for the county is largely one time and tends to be state or federal. And as we're thinking about what we're going to be doing with the measure W, we're trying to balance capital and operations needs because they kind of go hand in hand. And the phase one planning is specifically responsive to interim housing and encampment resolution support, which has really increased in after the Supreme Court ruling and some of the ongoing encampment needs that we have in the county. And then you just heard a lot about federal and state funding uncertainty. So just a snapshot of where we are. This is from the last point in time count, which was in 2024. So we have about 9,450 people experiencing homelessness throughout the county on that one given night. But we do see more than 24,000 people in the system throughout the year. Last year or in, it was the first time that we saw a decline in homelessness, which was about 3% overall. And that was largely due to big infusions of investments that were made during the pandemic. And as we move forward, additional housing and prevention remain critical needs for the system. So in December your board passed $394.5 million for Alameda County Health and homelessness services to continue to support timely and meaningful response consistent with the Home Together Plan and to support expansion of interim and permanent housing and do quick responses to unsheltered homelessness as well as to develop more detailed proposals and to find phase one advanced staffing. And this is to build infrastructure for us to be implementing some of the approvals. I'll go into a little bit more detail about each of these. So for staffing and infrastructure, there was $4.5 million and that would be for us to hire folks into the housing and homelessness services within AC Health. And this is to build critical infrastructure that would help us do the, implement the buckets that you see next. So under Shelter and Encampment Resolution, we've allocated about 40 million to this. And one of the key things here would be to launch 250 new interim beds and target them largely for Encampment Resolution because that's a big gap in our system right now. And we would also dedicate some of these beds for people who are medically frail. So meaning that oftentimes we have people who are released from hospitals and they're too sick to go back out into the street, but they're not necessarily sick enough to be in hospital. We're also wanting to launch a prevention hub and flexible housing subsidy pool. And I'll talk about that a little bit later in terms of what that looks like, but those would be critical infrastructure that is intended to reduce inflow into homelessness and to provide new mechanisms for us to streamline some of how we do this spending. And then lastly. Excuse me just for a minute, Anika, do we have this presentation? I can send it to you. Yeah, you know, we should have had it. May I follow up? May I follow up? May I follow up? May I follow up? May I follow up? May I follow up? May I follow up? May I follow up? sure you're happy. Okay. My apologies for that. And lastly, shelter and housing acquisition fund. This would also be another innovation that we would do, which would be dedicated to our purchasing, leasing, and renovating existing stock or new stock of interim and permanent housing sites. And we would also have some plans for a health care clinic space because a little bit similar to the trust clinic in downtown Oakland, there's needs for other spaces like that around the county. To go a little bit more into the staffing infrastructure, depending on what our structure looks like. This could be up to 22 FTEs. And again, this would be to start up the interim housing coordination team. Right now, we don't have people focused specifically on interim housing. We would also need to launch a flexible housing subsidy pool team, as as a prevention team and then administrative infrastructure to be able to you know administer an increased number of contracts. Our goal is to bring these positions back to the board in the summer or early fall and be able to hire them up in time for the next calendar year for sure. And how long would we expect to keep those employees forever? I think that would depend a little bit on sort of how measure W is rolling out. And so, you know, often we would need to do that in coordination with CAO and our HR teams. Okay. So to focus a little bit on the infrastructure of the interim housing beds. So this would be you know distributed throughout the county. They would focus on moving people from encampments to interim housing. And so you know, for example, we're being asked to support cities with resolution of large encampments, but we don't necessarily have places for people to go. And so this would just be another stop point there. As I mentioned earlier, we'd want to set aside certain beds, about 20% of the beds for people with high medical needs, and 80% of them would go toward encampment resolution. We would of course want to continue the focus on continued stabilization and housing navigation again with the intent that everyone does move into permanent housing at some point and we would continue to partner with our providers to coordinate exits to more permanent housing. And again, this would be one of those things where we could launch this because these would be sites that already exist, so we could theoretically provide something like three years of operational support, three years of rental supports to support those programs and being able to bring these beds online And then over the long term, you know with additional resources we would want to convert them to permanent housing Just a little bit about the countywide prevention plan so just earlier this week our team released a prevention prevention plan to a wide variety of stakeholders who had supported us in working on this and developing it. And essentially this is, you know, to be responsive to our current system has very small amount of prevention that we're able to do through problem solving. And so the idea is that with this first phase of the funding, we would be seeding a prevention fund with a million dollars. And then ongoing, you know, if we needed to really reduce that inflow by more than a thousand people, it would require 44 million dollars annually. A little bit about the Housing Acquisition Fund. This would be the $350 million to purchase, lease, and renovate various housing types and potentially develop new clinic services. Again, this would not only support quick transitions from encampments, but we would then, you know, one model of this we have is that we would ramp up to 750 interim housing slots and then ramp back down to about 500, which is what we think the system needs. And so again, converting as many of them to permanent as possible and coordinating with our local CBOs. But this is a pretty big undertaking and we're working with our partners at HCD within the CDA agency to, you know, this would be a big RFP that we would issue to actually make this happen. This isn't expected until later on in the year. Just a little bit about a flexible housing subsidy pool. So this is an innovation for us in the sense that this is a model that has now been endorsed by the State Department of Healthcare Services for MediCal recipients as well. And it's a model that's been deployed in LA County for many years at this point. And basically what it does is that there's a central administrating and coordinating body for coordinating various funding streams for rental subsidies and for working with landlords. And what it can do is that, you know, it would for the beneficiary who's going through the housing, they're not expected to go to 18 different places. On the back end, the administrator would say that, you know, you're eligible for vouchers for a certain number of time, or you're eligible for Medi-Cal transitional rent for six months, and then we're gonna move you into, you know, prop one housing or measure W housing, or we have philanthropic funds to be able to support it on the back end. And theoretically this should centralize how we're moving people through rental units as well as support with paying of rent and you know flexible funding for things like housing deposits landlord incentives, and really helping people maintain their housing and retain their housing. So our thought here is to launch this with about $9 million in funding for this coming year, and then we would ramp it up over time with operations, and it could, I should also mention our Alameda Alliance for Health, for example, or Kaiser would also be partners that we would want to engage to support this, and as well as probation as another one that we could talk about. But essentially, this is just a mechanism to be more coordinated with how we're moving people through housing pipelines. And there isn't necessarily a limit into how much could go into that flex pool. So that's where we are with our implementation of the first tranche, and so happy to take any questions and Jonathan's also President rather Why is elder? Miley, yeah, can you put the slides back up? Because I don't recall which slide it is, but it's somewhere in here wanted to you had an earlier slide that showed kind of what the board voted on in December. I'm not sharing my voters. This slide? No. These were the recommendations from the December 17th. We'll go to the next slide. It might be the next slide. Yeah, that one. Okay. So in this particular side, phase one. So, because this is, I think this is easier for me to follow. So are you saying we've approved all of this phase one direction? So the phase one 394.5 million dollars is how we would break it out into these buckets and these were the three buckets that went to the health committee and we're also in the board letter. Got him. I didn't not enough actually heard you because what I'm trying to understand is are we committed to this or does the board? If we're not. I'm trying to understand in terms of the Alamina County Health. Are you working are you working on this as your direction, or if we wanted to alter that, do we need to make revisions, or are you just working on the first aspect of Phase One, which is the staffing in the infrastructure? We have taken this to mean a board direction that we're following through. But I will note that the staffing piece of it is a critical first step for us to bring online so that we can do the other parts. So, President Miley, my, in my discussions with the administrator is just that we've provided direction when expenditure is required and needed at that time, they will come back to us for approval. It doesn't mean that we can't change, but that would be a hiccup clearly. And certainly once you hire people, that is, they're hired, right? Okay, right now, what's in the account how much? I would defer to the county administrator on that. Because it's 390. No, the three, I think it's 555 million. I think. It should be close to the same amount that was cited. Or that we cited earlier, I think it's 550 million. 550 million? Okay. Let's say. Close to that amount through 2324. Okay. And then what's the status of the litigation? So on March 12th, the petitioners at the Alameda County Tax Spheres Association filed a petition for red with the California Supreme Court, appealing the lower courts decisions today the county filed its answer to that petition. The Supreme Court has 90 days to make a decision and they can extend that 90 days on their own initiative if they choose to. Okay, now, Annika, can you go to the slide that shows the timeframe for the hiring? Okay, here we go, right there. So your target date for board action is May June, next month, into the month after that. So at the moment, the farther sure long is letter development, positions created, is that where you are a POS letter development positions creation? Yeah, I would say we're in the top two portions here. We're still trying to figure out what the structure would look like. So you know, some of what we have planned in this phase one is an expansion of certain housing portfolios that we don't necessarily carry right now. So it would necessitate additional staff and we're working with HRS to figure out what structures are feasible that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we make sure that we can make sure that we can make sure that we I think that when the board gave direction at the end of last year, I thought that was a bit rushed. And if you're just at the point of doing the first two, I don't see any problem with that. But I really think what we should be looking at is the measure W funding is a general fund monies. And I do think a healthy portion of it, and I'm not saying anything, you ever heard me say, a healthy portion of it should be allocated towards homelessness and housing. But I'm not quite certain if this allocation of 300 almost 400 million dollars Is the right amount if it should be less or maybe it should be more? I don't know and of that 490 that's all out of the existing escrow doesn't account for the funding and as it may collect The amount that was cited was collection actual collections through last fiscal year So what I what I think it would be better because I just really felt it was rushed But I like because I don't want to hold up in terms of the first two aspects of this, but I think it'd be better for the board. And once again, I don't think I've mentioned this to anyone on the board. I don't think, but I know I've talked to you about it and my staff. I think in the county administrators, well, I think it'll be better for the board to come up with principles, guidelines and criteria for measure W, first of all, secondly, to be a process for considering and evaluating proposals from county departments and agencies are relative to Measure W and then a timeline because once you measure W is general fun. Then a timeline that considers the litigation status and a priority setting process for measure W. Then we don't begin to really take this up and deal with any allocations until after we've finished adopting the budget for 25, 26. Wait a minute, 24, 24, 25, 26. Because we don't know the impacts just yet of what we need to go through to adopt the budget for the next fiscal year. Because I do know, once again, I do think a healthy portion of this needs to be allocated to homeless in housing. But I do know environment health is issue as needs, violence prevention, their needs through public health, their needs for rental assistance. I don't know if this contemplates any rental assistance. I don't know if this contemplates any shadow subsidies. I think Supervisor Tam mentioned earlier when we're having the budget overview on the needs of APS, adult protective services. I know there's needs in the unincorporated area. There's immigration on needs that the public defender is pointed out. We've, and we've funded some food insecurity. Those are just some of the things. So I just think it was premature of us to move ahead with approving this direction before we had a chance to look at everything comprehensively. So I would really hope that as a result of today's presentation, the board doesn't hold you up from doing work with HR, work with a letter, development and positions. But otherwise, we hold up until we had the County Administrators Office works with County Departments to come up with principles, guidelines, criteria, a process for evaluating a timeline for consideration. And we take all this up after we've adopted the budget for fiscal year 2526, starting in July. And that we have a clear picture of what we're up against. And then as a result, that maybe we'll say of the 500 in some million that's in escrow, we want to have a three-fifth of that 60-princed debt go to homeless in housing. Then we want to have another 10% go here and then another 10% go there. Let's say then with the ongoing funding stream we want to have it allocated X, Y, and Z to meet certain contingencies or whatever. The other factor I think that's important and I know I'm saying a lot is this measure ends in 2030. We're now in 2025. We've got five years to show results and if we're going to go back out for reauthorization, you know, we don't wait until 2030 to go out for reauthorization, we'd probably start that process in 2028. So we probably only three years to really show results on a general tax measure. So I just think all these complications need to be factored in before we lock ourselves into on the direction that was approved in December. So I said a lot, but I'll let it stay at that for the moment. Very good. We'll let that settle in as we listen to supervisor for some other best. Okay thank you supervisor Miley. I do appreciate you reminding us about this being a general tax and of course it is incumbent upon us to make sure that we deliver to the voters because there is just a matter of years like you said to show the results. That said, I know that the, you know, one of the aims of this is to address homelessness and affordable housing and homelessness in particular. And I strongly believe that a majority of the funding, if not a vast majority of the funding, should go to showing results in terms of homelessness and showing some urgency as well, sort of following up on your emergency declaration on homelessness back in 2023. So I'm supportive of the direction of taking just a portion of what has been collected and starting to move forward with some plans because I do think it's important for us to act with urgency around addressing this crisis, around homelessness as soon as measure W. clears the courts. I do want to thank the H&H staff. I think Jonathan, as well as Anika and the rest of the team have done tremendous work every single day across the county with our cities to work to address the homelessness crisis. And it's a huge opportunity that we'll be able to expand our capacity. And recognizing that the state funds are largely one time, which we've been relying on, and even our cities have been relying on on homelessness. You know, I do wanna give some feedback to this plan because I think there's a lot of positive things here. Firstly, in terms of principles, I think the home together plan is a great starting point in terms of principles. You know, one of those principles is directing resources where there is the greatest need. And through the point in time count, I think we know where those cities are that have the greatest need. Another one of the principles is to ensure that there is no barriers, including racial or other disparity barriers in terms of accessing housing. So I think those are some things that could help guide us. In addition to that, I think it's important to collaborate with our cities. Having come recently from Oakland, I know that cities are really on the front lines and we're seeing that in other places like Berkeley and Freemont, those are among the cities that are most impacted by homelessness. Cities are really on the front lines in terms of addressing this crisis with the county and so that collaboration with cities is important. And then finally, being able to leverage local resources, we do have Ali Gaylord from the city of Oakland, who spoke during public comment recently, and at least Oakland and perhaps some of our other cities are in a position to leverage resources with the county and specifically around the acquisition fund. One of my observations is that we can put people into interim housing, which we definitely should do, but we have a real challenge in that there are no places to permanently exit people who are homeless. And so unless people can move from interim shelter into permanent supportive housing, we're not solving this problem. And so I do definitely support that portion because it creates the long-term housing that I think people need. I would go further in state that there should be some clear direction around an RFP for innovation around that bucket of funding, as well as some city-directed funding. Not funding that goes directly to cities per se, but funding that goes to the city's pipeline of permanent supportive housing for people who are currently homeless so that we don't miss any opportunities. And I know for a fact in my district in Oakland and Berkeley, there are projects that have a small funding gap that the county could help leverage that would get shovels in the ground that would help to either create or acquire permanent supportive housing so that we would have housing to exit people to. And I will also just echo some support for some of the comments I heard earlier from people who spoke during public comment in terms of expanding who we focus our resources on to also include people who are seriously mentally ill as well as people who are just as involved. We have to make sure there are less barriers to people who are in the greatest need and so I support having that be part of how we look at this. Thank you. Yeah we'll go to supervisor supervisor Tam and then supervisor Mark Has. But I first want to just chime in and say that I agree supervisor Miley that defining those principles are important. Viewing this in light of all of the other general fund needs that we have because it is general fund. And then a light of our discussion that we had earlier today, folding this in with the budget discussion is super important. So after the budget discussion, yeah, could be, that's what I mean. See where our budget lies and where, who knows what happens between now and then even with things happening every day. But, so I identify with those comments. Supervisor Tam and then Mark Cass. I concur with your comments, President Halbert, because there are a number of funding sources for like the incarcerated with AB 109, me, Lyman funding, and one of the things that I know the Building Trades Council have talked to me about, and I'm perhaps from the other supervisors, is they want to have the county consider renewing measure A1 next year. And because they're thinking that the Baffa bond that was $20 billion or $200 billion was it? 20 billion, excuse me. It was not something that could be lifted up very easily and having said that, I think, I think supervisor Miley said sometimes we get punished for doing or being a well-managed county. And I think it'd be a hard sell to tell our electorate that here you just passed measure W and then now you want more money for measure A1, it's kind of doing the same thing. And so I want to just make sure that we have a concerted plan. When we discussed this in December, one of the thoughts I had was starting with the $4.5 million one time funding, getting the staffing up and running so that we can have a good rollout. and I appreciate that we want to spend most of the funding on some of the top priority items in terms of eradicating homelessness in the county, county wide. So I want to be cognizant of the fact that we probably shouldn't be spending money that hasn't been completely finalized in the litigation or allocating that funding. So that's why when you look at the 4.5, that's not completely coming out of measure W. And so along those lines, I would be ordering some of the items that supervisor Miley had pointed out and by establishing the timeline that considers the litigation. And then, because you don't really wanna allocate funding unless you know the timeline from the litigation, then go through the principles and guidelines and criteria, then looking at a process for considering and evaluating the proposals from the different departments at the county, because we have heard even in the prior meetings that the prevention dollars are going to be going away. And we need to have some allocations for that. And then finally to President Halpert's point about having a handle on what this means for our budget overall. And so having this considered after we balance our budget is going to be critical. Very good. Supervisor Marquast. And then I'll have some comments. Thank you, Chair. I just want to thank everyone for the work around this. I'm in support of proceeding with caution. The soonest that we can launch funding specific to what's already been discussed, align with our home together plan. We've been getting updates. We've issued an emergency last year. And we know what's happening in our community. We see it just driving around. So I think it's really important that we expedite this. I hear the comments in terms of proceeding with caution, but my concern is with everything on our play, I just don't want us to further delay implementation. I think we know where the need is. I was really impressed with staff last year and acting a one time grant to prevent shelters throughout the county from closing. That was successful, right? We prevented those shelters from closing. So I want to see that same level of urgency. We're not going to spend every dollar. This is just a phased approach which I fully support. And I want to see us fast track this as much as possible. Obviously once we know resolution with the litigation, but I don't think we have much time to wait on this. So I have two questions about the proposal. One is what would be your number one? Priority number two number three. What would be the prioritization of what you've identified? But I want to mention that in light of my second question. What of these have we never done before that we're now able to do? And how much of this are things that we've already tried, already done some of and are we just augmenting that or are we trying something new? Help me understand that. Yeah, thank you for that questions, you've resurred. So I might ask if we could bring Jonathan into the meeting because I'd like him to weigh in on some of the priorities. But you know, for us all three of these things would be priorities, but I would say that one and two in particular because we are trying to balance, you know, needing to be responsive and meeting the urgency of what we're all seeing on the streets as well as what our community is experiencing. And so those two things, and I would also say that we've been launching the interim beds is something that can come on pretty quickly, whereas the last thing with the Housing Acquisition Fund that is a development of a full RFP process with our CDA partners. So the other two are a little bit more shovel ready so to speak. And I believe your other question was with regard to what's new. I think that the prevention hub is new right now we have almost zero money going strictly to prevention. There is a really robust prevention framework that we've developed over the last year and a half that we could put into place. And that just reduces people coming in. The flexible housing subsidy pool is an innovation. And it would require us to do things a little bit differently and think about it differently and pool different resources to really make a difference in the lives of people who are there. The interim beds is a gap that we have and once we can bring on the Housing Acquisition Fund, you know, that would allow us to really just develop a lot more permanent housing to supervise a racist point to move people into that housing. But if if it's okay, I'd love Jonathan to weigh in. Yeah, I asked the question of priority, knowing that indeed on some level, we should be the ones providing that direction of priority. I'll just share, I like a lot of what I see in here about preventing people with shallow subsidies, we should be more clear about that. Rough back of the envelope tells me that $9 million for that only goes so far, depending on how big the subsidy is, 300 a month, 400 a month, 500 a month, whatever that is, only goes so far and that's on a per year basis. But I would say that those that are most acutely afflicted, mental, severe mental illness, other ailments that are languishing and dying in the streets, that have been in encampments, in and out of encampments, in and out of shelter, in and out of interim housing, in and out of into permanent supportive back out on the street cycle of homelessness, certainly a priority. So anyway, we should be the ones, I think partially giving that direction on what our priorities are, but I ask that because I know you're doing a lot of work on it. So Jonathan and then yeah, what's new would be great. Thanks. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I'll be back. I, staffing for new broader interventions and interim housing, and just the broader infrastructure positions. So the shelter beds, of course, shelter is not new to our community, but certainly the model that we are proposing here is new and has long been a priority, particularly to supervisor Fort Motto Bass's point quote with our city partners, we have not have flexible resources that have been dedicated at using evidence based models to support humane, dignified, effective human centered encampment resolution. And so these shelter beds and this funding being dedicated to provide holistic models to target folks in specific unsheltered settings to transition them to interim and on-demand housing is certainly new for Elimita County and desperately needed considering 70% of the folks experiencing homelessness in our community do so in unsheltered settings. If I could just tell me what exactly does that mean? Does that mean're going to open another what is the uh St Mary's work? So is that another bed in a congregate room and auditorium with a cot? What does that mean? It would be a variety of different inter-owned housing which probably would include different types of shelter settings But our target would be to increase with this first batch of funding. The goal would be to add 500 more units through the shelter housing acquisition fund longer term. But with these first 250, those would be largely non-congregate settings. So potentially least motels or other settings where folks were given wraparound services. The targeted folks served would be those in specific and sheltered settings, starting first with those with the highest need. To really provide a model of wraparound support about interim site that addresses all of their needs on pathways to permanent housing to provide those resources. So it would be really not necessarily a low service model shelter, but service enriched high service model shelter focused on providing settings for folks that have significant barriers, including the need to be able to shelter with a partner, being able to be a little barrier and include pets, places to store possessions, all of these things that we know make interim housing successful. We have how many hotels do we currently have? And how many times have we done hotels during COVID? We did it for a year over a year over a year. We've done all that. Haven't we rented hotels, put, put people in hotel rooms. When we clear an encampment, we put them in hotel for a week, two weeks, a month. We do not. We do not, for the most part, have any models and encampment resolution that prioritize that. Certain cities have done that in targeted ways. Berkeley is one of them. And yes, we've certainly expanded our shelter, though. We have far less than we need in the community. Some of those expanded shelters, particularly during COVID and some of those now long-term, are based out of former hotels and motels. So this would be an expansion of a similar model, but it would be doing so in a way that would be a first and so far as it is target directly at specific encantments to support them having a place to go, to then close those encantments for good by providing permanent pathways for those two things. That's what will be new, specifically about the interim housing targeted in the encantment resolution. Okay, thank you. Additionally, as Anika said, the prevention hub would be new. We know that there are more than 4,300 people that fall into homelessness and touch our system in the year. So we need significant scaling at that. And so that's something that has the staff, a legal or local mention that has been piloting itself our local communities, but we desperately need countywide. And then as a NIC, also the flexible housing floor. Supervisor Marley has a question. Yes, please. No, I don't have a question. I just wanna go back to what's surprising, Vast was saying, I have no problem with money being allocated towards homelessness. The question is, I'm my concern it is, I'm looking at the big picture here. It's journal fund money. It's not money for special tax that was allocated for homelessness. So once again homelessness might take up the prioritization of the use of measure W's money, but you know like Supervisor Tampoint, we know because of Prop 1, we were taking money away from mental health prevention and putting into Prop 1. Now, as a result of taking money away from mental health prevention, that's going to produce a serious issue that might lead to moral homelessness or other criminal activity, other behaviors. I know for a fact, there are people from the city of Oakland who have said to me, the county should take over Macro. We've got care courts. We've got all sorts of stuff. I would like to see us direct the county administrator to come up with, you know, work with the county departments and agencies come up with principals and guidelines and criteria for the use of measuring monies. Come up with proposed process, timeline and opportunities for this money. And I would suspect a healthy portion of it's going to go towards housing and homelessness. But maybe a percentage of a goal will to prevent an health prevention. Maybe a percentage would go towards a violence prevention. Maybe a percentage would go towards APS. Maybe percentage would go towards, let's see, what immigration services. Maybe some of that would be one time, maybe beyond going. But we don't know the big picture, and that's what's concerning me. And I suspect that whatever we come up with, it shouldn't hold up the healthcare agency for moving ahead with the staffing infrastructure, that aspect, because that's not that, um, Anika based on our timeline, we're not going to even get to deciding whether to allocate and approve any funding until May or June. So really, what we'd be waiting, if it moves that fast, we'd be ultimately waiting until after we've approved the budget for this current fiscal year or the next fiscal year, so we can have a real good sense of what the county's needs are and how we're going to be potentially impacted by the federal government, by local jurisdictions, et cetera. So that's my only issue. The prioritization might say housing and homelessness is prioritized. is number one it should get 60% of the one-time money and 40% of the ongoing. But I don't know that based on a complete picture of all the counties needs. So that's kind of what I'm advocating for. And I keep saying, I don't think it's a part of the budget process, because I it'll Convlude to I think if we can get to the budget process like County Administrator what I earlier We only have this month May and June then we got to adopt the budget and There'll be a lot of our plate During that time if we take this up in earnest after The first part of July I think we'll'll be able to dedicate time to it. It doesn't mean they can't be working on it before then. The other thing is don't forget, surprise more because we even got to share a photoside. We got that piece that's floating out there, the potential, we'll need to be funded. I'm not saying that'll be a priority, but maybe it might fall into the priorityization that we want to put some money there as well. I don't know, but I think we need to look at it in terms of a process. As opposed to just saying, let's go ahead with this nearly 400 million and let them move ahead with this. That just seems to be a point right now that we should just weigh in on. I feel like there's a split in the board. Maybe we're sort of saying some of the same thing, but we're also saying some different thing. And so is there support for Supervisor Miley's direction because that's what I'm hearing. At least I'm supportive of that. I know we're not all supportive of that. We should clarify it, but let's get to the direction if we could. That's our main job. And so why don't you two arm wrestle over that and ask clarify a question? I just wanted to clarify clarify, we're not discounting the urgency. We're just looking at the practical guideline, the timeline. And frankly, I support my colleagues. I don't think there's a disagreement about the need to allocate funding for housing, but I'm a composite budget type per person. So if we're helping the severely mental ill providing supportive housing, doing wrap around, like supervisor Miley said, proposition one, move funding from prevention for housing, CalA, move funding into housing, measure A1s moving into housing. It's like we need to assess where that need is and where that last leg of delivery will happen. Agreed. So clarifying question in arm wrestle. I will first I do want to really appreciate our professional staff because I think they have been wrestling with prop one and Cal aim and how these sources of funding have been changing. And I think this is a really strong plan and framework. I think my biggest feedback is wanting to see for the acquisition fund. The vast majority go to projects and cities that are close to shovel ready, where our money could be leveraged and provide housing as soon as possible and have that balanced with an RFP. So my question is, like I was, I know the staff has briefed all of the board and our staff. My question is whether, because I don't think I heard this clear enough, whether the board has feedback in terms of this plan and the direction. I understand the feedback on the timing, but I don't think I heard enough in terms of whether there's substantial feedback on changing the direction of the framework of this plan. Like, is it largely the timing and the dollar amounts or are there issues with the framework? I'm not sure I understand it deeply enough because again there are things in here that I heard descriptions of but it just wasn't like I said are you talking about a bed and a auditorium or are you talking about leasing a hotel and then if that the case, there's only so many hotels out there. Tell me which ones we're going to go lease and how it's going to be different than what we've already done. I haven't heard anything wildly new. Wildly new. It feels like things that we've already done and shallow subsidies, I guess we've done, and I guess I'm hearing that we haven't done nearly enough of it, but buying how many of these are building new apartment buildings, because we've done 20 years of that, and we can only get them off the ground at so many a year and they're at a million dollars a door and I'm not really keen on that and so what I don't understand in this with all the words that we have how much if this is building new apartment buildings what how many millions of dollars of this plan is building new apartment buildings? My understanding is supervisor that this would be not to build new things But to leverage things that are already built but to dedicate them for homelessness, which is a gap in the system Things that are already built so repurposing a hotel or supporting you know as projects that are underway built. So repurposing a hotel. Or supporting, you know, as projects that are underway, our thing would be that as long as there's dedicated homelessness housing as a part of that project, we would want to be supporting. What's our budget for cost to serve each individual homeless person? What are we budgeting to do that? When we made up the plan, did we, what does it come out to be on a cost to serve basis? I don't have that off the top of my head, Jonathan. Do you know? Yeah, I mean we have a, we have an extremely detailed back end of projected costs. One thing just, just briefly to sort of frame priorities and direction, all of this is ushering from both the policy committee direction, the WWW that fed into the Home Together plans direction, which is the board adopted plan. So that is certainly this is hand in glove with those priorities in terms of scaling interventions that we need to your specific question,visor Halbert, it depends on the intervention profile. So there's a different cost structure for the cost of permanent support housing in terms of monthly rent and on the development side. Our intention here, which with what is new as a local acquisition fund, that is intended to really be flexible and the way that it can come alongside and partner with certain projects to get them across the line and bring those units on quickly or go to fast cost effective ways to convert existing units. That allows us to produce permanent housing at well below the exorbitant rates, you know, that that that often float around with folks say a million dollars a unit. Many of our projects work much more effectively, but this is this is the intention to scale all of those, including things like safe parking, which we have very, very short less than we mean as a community, 54% of those rates in our homelessness in our communities right now are doing so in a vehicle. And so it's important for us to expand opportunities and sites to quickly serve those folks as well. So it really depends and ranges widely on the per person per intervention basis. But we'd be happy to to prevent that in more detail based on current cost estimates. Is any of this going to take care of streamlining or making sure that the various organizations that work in our communities are talking to one another, coordinating with one another, making sure that each service provider knows what the other is doing and is able to seamlessly hand off a homeless person that has one need to a service provider that can fill another need. We've talked about this for a while now and I'm wondering any of the staffing that you're planning to hire, is that going to take care of any of this, that dynamic? Yeah, great question. You know, this is intended to be a favorite approach as someone said earlier. And so certainly even in this phase one grouping of staff, some of them would be program specific, focusing on standing up, some of these interventions developing evidence based on performance management and ensuring the coordination between potentially new and also existing providers that might participate in those. Some some of these do go beyond that in terms of their broader county for ordination, infrastructure, compliance and evaluation positions that are really focused on our bolstering, our administrative ability. It's a really closely coordinated, oversee our system of care. As you all know, we now have 200 plus contracts that we administer each year. Watching that with a very small team that does impact our ability to ensure what our state partners and certainly locally will also care about our accountability in terms of performance and coordination. So yes, certainly there is some of that here, but it also bears repeating that the intention of this model and this phase approach and really as you can see through these, this is not intended to be necessarily ongoing funding. This is really intended to say here's a strategic way we can kickstart the expansion of some of the infrastructure and new models and desperately needed interim permanent units we need that would really require, as it says here on the top of the slide, to really implement things at scale. we would have to. industrial and industrial and industrial and industrial and industrial and industrial and industrial implement things at scale, we would have to have broader decision making around the ongoing investments to sustain these resources. So it's really, the vision is really to kick off a season of expanded homelessness response with these interventions as a near term effort to start that process. It certainly does not include the full of what our system needs and the full of the investments including those around coordination that we mentioned. Supervisor Halberg that would that would certainly be needed year over year on our system of care. Thank you. Supervisor Marquez. Thank you. I just want to flag. I'm really concerned. It seems based off some comments that further vetting how we're going to appropriate these funding, these funds that we're looking at basically all the issues that county is facing right now. And that's not the intent of this funding stream. I think we've been very clear that the emphasis is to address meeting the needs of our unsheltered community members. We have our home together plan, which has been adopted. And so I really think we have the framework. We know the best practices time and time again, staff has shared with us the evidence-based practices. We know that are effective. With the interim housing, moving folks to permanent housing, wraparound services, we know the need for shallow subsidies. The work around prevention is key. And so I'm just worried if we spend more time trying to resolve all of our current fiscal needs, we're not going to move forward and we're going to waste more precious time when we know this is probably the number one issue along with public safety, of course, in every city in this county. So we have a clarifying question and then to Roger Tam. Thank you all and thank you supervisor Mark has I appreciate your comments regarding the urgency because homelessness is so painfully visible and for those of us who know people who have recently become homelessness, et cetera. It's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it plan, it sounds like there's agreement on the 4.5 million for staffing and infrastructure and moving that forward. In terms of the shelter and encampment resolution, what I heard from staff is that that's also something that could get off the ground as soon as these funds are available. How much was that? 40 million. So this is the second of the three options that's on the screen. So I would like to sort of do a straw poll and see how many of us are supportive of also supporting the 40 million encampment resolution so that we have more of these interim shelter spaces and a way to resolve some of our biggest encampments and get people into shelter. Maybe do that and then I'll make one other comment. So just sort of clear in terms of phase one, your advancing, the four, your recommending moving forward with the 4.5 and the 40 million allocation at this phase. So I think that I'm hopeful that we could at least support those two things. I personally really think it's important to, I support the staff's recommendation that this phase one also supports the $350 million for shelter and housing acquisition that will take some time to develop in terms of what projects could be supported, what, you know, putting together the RFP. I really feel like knowing my district, there are projects that we can lose an opportunity to secure in terms of more beds, more homes for people. If we don't start moving this third option, so my recommendation would be that if this board doesn't feel comfortable supporting the full 350 million that we support some portion of it. Okay, that would be 150, 125 split it. 200,000, 200 million. Okay. But we gotta get support from everyone else. Yes, so let's hear some feedback. So, let a comment. I just think we may need to, I mean, if looking at the original action that your board took, the original board letter has, I guess, different phases. It outlines a summary of the request and it lists as phase one, 4.5 million, and as phase two, 350 million, as phase 2, 30 million, interim housing, and as phase 2, 10 million, flux pool. As opposed to it all being part of phase 1, so I'm not sure what that discrepancy is. So there's a discrepancy there. Supervisor Tam, did you have anything to add into this? I just wanted some clarification over the funding source. The $4.5 million was one time funding that was not tied to Measure W. Yes. So the 4.5 is what we identified within our own budget as something that could ultimately be paid back from Measure W. Should that become free or available? And just to clarify on the original phase one and phase two in the initial board letter, we did call the staffing piece as phase one again because that was something that we felt we needed to immediately put into place to start preparing for the measure, should it become available? And so in that letter, the 350 and the 30 and the 10 are all indicated as phase two for when they would become available. But what we were taking away from that board direction was that we could be planning for the release of the measure to be able to implement those things in phase two once it's released. And then once we put this presentation together, which I did make it a little bit easier to follow and I see that we caused some more confusion. So apologies for that. Yeah, maybe it's definitional. You can plan all you want. Just don't expect it to happen if we change our mind or if we see that other things happen. And I hate to put you in that position. But that's your job, I guess. I think that's a little bit of what we're saying. Where none of us are disagreeing that these are, at some point, good things. Supervisor Meiser is saying put it in a context and context and perspective Supervisor Tam The only addition I want to point out is that when we were talking about this in December We did give some feedback on this plan and staff is incorporating a lot of that feedback I'm one of the major feedbacks was we may have the money and we may be like we did with Oakland we gave them $21 million because we applied for grant funding for housing from them. But once the housing gets built there's operations and maintenance, there's supportive services that has to be ongoing that's not part of this plan at the moment. And we need to think about how to sustain this program and also build in some funding sources so that it doesn't end up down a physical cliff after five years. So representing parts of Oakland and Berkeley, I'm working with both of those cities to understand what's in their housing pipeline. And so maybe as this comes back to the board and we should include other cities, of course, Fremont Hayworth, there's a number of other cities that are impacted by homelessness. I think it would be good to understand what the opportunities are for the county to help leverage some of those projects. Some of those projects do already have financial plans not only for construction but also for operations. And so I don't think it's a given that this housing acquisition fund would just be for construction or acquisition or operation. I think that there are projects that are close to having all their financing secure and shovel ready that have some of the operations. And so I think there's probably a deeper dive as the staff is able to work with us to look at what the opportunities are. I appreciate that clarification. What I was thinking of is the hotels that the county purchased on EEDS that is like what 200 some odd units but we don't have ongoing maintenance costs and wrap around service costs but we have the funding because of leveraging with the state to purchase those hotels. Can I hear you're hitting on a really close excuse me. So to go back to the surprise of 14th of the bus's recommendation. So I'm curious if we do have enough support to move forward with two components of phase one. That's the 4.5 million, Stephanie and infrastructure, 40 million towards shelter and and then engage with the cities that are most impacted based off the point in time count. We know we're unsheltered community members are living top four cities and engage them in conversation in terms of what are the needs in those cities and possibly come back with recommendations in July for that third component. That way it's dates are in. We have time to do some research. I think that's consistent with what Suvrez-Mal said with the exception of it would be proceeded with the CAO's office providing some sort of support. For this last third component though, after our budget process, I think we may have consensus on the first two pieces here. Yeah, for now. And to be clear, the 4.5 is has nothing to do with measure W. That's one time funding. Yep. Okay. Yes, I could support the 4.5 in the 40 million for shelter in encampment resolution. You know, giving direction to move ahead with that. Simultaneously, I would like to see if the board would also give direction for the county administrator to work with the county department heads, to back with the principles guidelines timeline opportunities relative to the balance of the ongoing and the one time and come back after the adoption of the 25 26 budget. Okay, that's clear. But are you in agreement with the Shelter and Housing Acquisition Fund for us to engage with our cities to hear? No, you don't. I might become familiar with that in the context of everything else. Yeah, expanding, expanding. Yes, okay. Until we get to that. Yeah, we're making a decision, but but I guess the direction is to engage our city partners to hear what the needs are so we can have the most robust conversation as possible. No, but specific to this. We'll see us engage with the 40 million, frankly. I don't know what it costs to clear the way. I don't know what it costs to clear an encampment, but we got $40 million, maybe worth to do that. Let's list out the first, however many we can do. Hey, I make a suggestion. So I think because the 40 or the 350 wouldn't actually be available until the measure is released, we're happy to take that back and do some more planning and bring something back that's a little bit more substantive or it can be during the time that Supervisor Miley is suggesting after the budget process. Yeah, because I just think that's prudent on our part because once again, I was telling Supervisor Bass the 350 million, I don't even know where that figure came from. I mean, what's that based on? So I just think we need to look at it in the context of the need for housing and homelessness as well as the greater need that we're being confronted with. I mean, because I know, like I said, there are other county agencies departments that have needs, and maybe they won't fit into the prioritization, but maybe they will, like mental health prevention. I think that's gonna be an important one. If I may, I don't wanna disrupt. I don't wanna disrupt. Thank you. I don't wanna disrupt where you're going. It seems like you may be reaching some consensus, but just from an operational point of view, I just wanna clarify a couple of things. So the board took an action, and only supervisors Mark Kess and Artam can ask the board to reconsider that action. So the 4.5, that part, I think the board took that action. So I think that's a done deal unless one of them want to reconsider that. The other piece is there's language in the board letter that, and this is where we get into phase one and phase two confusion, but there are the other parts of it. There's specific language in the board letter that speaks to that ACL request your board's guidance and approval for this phase proposal, including identifying advanced funding in phase one to build the critical infrastructure to immediate needs and plan for phase two and alignment with future board direction and the home together plan. So I do think it is open for the board to provide additional direction for how to plan for the phase two funding based on what was understood at the time that this poor letter was approved. You abstained? Yeah. And supervisor Halbert was asked. And just just to be clear this is an informational item so we're just basically giving feedback. This is supposed to be someone else. This is an update from AC health in terms of progress to date. So it is not an action item. Yeah, we're not taking action. And then I just- I'm not saying that you can't. The board letter specifically said, there is a, it contemplates that your board will provide additional direction. So that is an open topic. So I do take, I don't think it's an open topic as to the 4.5, but it's an open topic, I think to the some of the other traumas there is. So that supervisors, my least commentary is appropriate in terms of if that's your board's viewpoint, in terms of the type of additional direction that could be given for the phase two funds. And so that, and as the county minister has said, it's not on today for an action item, but you could give direction for staff to bring something back. And I think that's sort of where you were landing before I interrupted. Also just want to flag since we're not actually voting on an action. This has been a very thorough conversation. We'll see what happens next steps. But I think it's important to just note there's been a lot of community interest with respect to the the Enment ordinance that the City of Fremont has just instituted. So acknowledging that myself and President Halbert share that city. So I think it would be prudent that we schedule a meeting with the City of Fremont and interested parties because there's been many requests coming our way. Don't wanna to add further complexity, but I think it's important that we schedule a meeting to work through some of those concerns. We absolutely need to and I don't want to violate brown acts so it may have to be staff and, you know, we'll give guidance, but just want to flag that on the record as well. Are we good? No I think Enika said she'll come back with something in July and we had Donna clarified that we've already pulled the trigger on 4.5 and we've already said we're not an action item we're not going to be taking a vote on anything else. And we've heard feedback that, you know, I think they've heard feedback from all of us. So, I don't know, unless we want to really clarify, more than that, we have a framework. We've given feedback. We've clarified 4.5 is already done, we've clarified she wants to come back in July, we provide a direction that this should be, I think we've had three people at least, maybe more, say that we're supportive of the CAO providing some sort of principled framework in view of the overall budget. You've said time and time and time again that a lion share is likely to go to homelessness anyway, because that's our higher priority of ours. I think we made it very clear this was passed as a general fund, not a homelessness measure. We don't want to conflate that because that was part of what I think we had a lawsuit about. So it is a general fund just to make it clear, we said that time and time and time again. So I think we're kind of saying a lot of the same things. We should agree on what we can agree on. So I think you might be correct, President Albert. I'm going to make sure the staff's clear and we can all hear it. Are we good? Or tell us what you have heard. So there's the 4.5 million which was approved by your board earlier. The health director has indicated that there's other existing funds to be used for that $4.5 million. The other, the $40 million and the $3.50 that as part of your original action were phase two to be considered and aligned with future board direction. The AC health interim director said that she would come back in July and also then direction to the county administrator to work with county departments to come back with proposed guidelines and criteria as well as a timeline and process to look at more expansive uses for measure W General Tax. After adoption of the balance budget for 2526. Sounds good to me, President. Supervisor. Yeah, I think I'm clear with this, but but we're not saying what you come back with excludes the 390 million, are we? What you come back with is inclusive of whatever health care comes up with. A broad framework. Okay. A broad framework. Okay. And just again, based on the action that the board's already taken, it would be a broad framework within the things that were adopted in this board letter. But what I understood was that framework is on how you allocate the money within the things that you adopted in this board letter. I'm going to put it in the things that you adopted in this board letter. Yeah. clarifying question. Yes, clarifying question. So the budget will be approved ideally by June 30th. If that's our goal of course. And hopefully we'll also hear from the state Supreme Court regarding the measure, delby litigation around that time or fingers crossed, July 1st, correct? We keep, we remain optimistic that the Supreme Court will dispose of this timely, but we can offer no guarantees that they won't, we remain optimistic that they won't take it up and actually hear it And that they'll make that decision timely, but there are no guarantees. Okay. I mean, I think my main concern is that because I believe this is a strong plan Not losing time between now and July 1st in terms of the planning and the planning to implement the disbursement and the utilization of these funds. And so I guess through our chair to our staff, are we still going to be sort of nimble enough to hear a fuller presentation in July? And hopefully the court will allow us to use these funds, you know, and still be able to use them expeditiously. I am just concerned about losing time because it's a homeless crisis. I appreciate your urgency. We've struggled with that. As Supervisor Miley has mentioned, we should be acting as if our hair is on fire. That was over a year ago. And so indeed, we should be. And I don't see any sense of urgency or any inability to go, plan. It's just subject to future validation and direction. If I may. I think though, so because just even the staffing and infrastructure that we would put into place is sort of dependent on what we want to do for the future, right? And so for example, on that 40 million, we have an RFI that we've developed that would sort of go out and we would elicit interest on, you know, potential projects, et cetera, which of course wouldn't go into place until after the measure has been released. But if the whole thing is sort of due for a different update and you would like to see a more holistic plan, then we would likely stop work on that RFI and rethink what we need to bring back to the board. Thanks for that clarification. I mean, that was one of the reasons I asked whether there was some level of agreement, at least three, for the 40 million shelter in the Kimment Resolution, because it means continuing to work on that versus putting it on pause. So I thought I heard three myself, supervisor Miley and supervisor Mark Hezz. But we already voted on it, right? We already took action on that. The $40 million. That was then the November. Well, it's rearranging it. No, it was face to the second part. Okay, so if we want to take that feedback, then we have to bring back a board letter, right? To update that past action. Yes, if you want to reconsider steps that you took in the December 17th board meeting, then you would need to come back with a board letter to reconsider it and that would be... Restructuring the phases basically. Yeah, that would be a reconsideration that's requested by either supervisor Marquez or supervisor Tam. Okay, can I ask, can we work on it jointly with one, can we work on it with one other supervisor? We're not at how committee, we're not. It all depends on what it's the subject there is and whether it falls within Brown now is steady. Well it depends whether it falls within the jurisdiction of a standing committee and whether the people you're working on it with are not specific to housing the person I have in mind. Whether it falls that's just my my answer. Whether it falls within a standing committee. So if the person you're working on it with, it becomes a matter within the jurisdiction of that standing committee, then you could not. Okay. And so I think what you said is it can't be with Tam or Miley because they're on the health committee. So it can be with supervisor. And she just wasn't here because she wasn't here. If one of the supervisors, either Tam or Marquez intends to bring a request for reconsideration. I'll be happy to discuss with you how you can partner. That's needed to do that. And that's because we voted it voted in favor of this back in November. It would have to come from one of us, correct? On the board letter I'm looking at back in December. It looks like it came to a December 17th meeting board meeting. Okay, sorry, I'm confusing my issues. This was December, not the November. Thank you for clarifying that. Last question, I'm going to ask if we have public comment on this only because when we took up public comment earlier, we hadn't determined whether or not we were going to take up this informational item. So I don't know if there's anyone. Is there anybody online that would like to speak on this item? Raise your hand. We have one person, maybe two. I'll recognize the two speakers we have. David, go ahead and unmute. Good afternoon, supervisor of board president Halvard and supervisor. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Good afternoon Supervisor of Board President Howard and Supervisors. Thank you for allowing public comment. The only thing I would say from Fremont having lived through the camping man ordinance and the crisis that we have with our homelessness situation in Fremont is to reaffirm the sense of urgency, the sooner that you can meet with city staff and interested stakeholders in Fremont and the other incorporated jurisdictions throughout the county, the better, so that you're better prepared in July to come up with the infrastructure plan that you need for the, you know, for the hiring's time is over the essence. So the sooner that we meet, the sooner that the expectations are set, I said that there were only 250 interim beds that were planned to the $40 million budget. We probably in freemot alone have a deficit of over 600 beds. However, a number of our spaces could be addressed with RV parking and saving campments so they they may not all be on our public streets. But the sooner that we can inject money and getting sheltered capacity in free month and better. So all I want to emphasize is thank you for your hard work, but time is of the essence. This is a five alarm fire and we need to have, you know, I don't have much air, but all you would that do are here should be on fire. So thank you very much. John, please unmute. Good afternoon supervisors. This is John Lindsay Poland. I really appreciate the very in-depth discussion of this. Just two thoughts. One is that the county council made reference to the decisions that were in the direction that was given in December as a decision of the board. And I would point out that the Home Together Plan was also a decision adopted by the board. The Home Together Plan has lays out a number of specific needs and commitments by the county to address these needs. That was before Measure W Funds came into play, but it is no less a decision of the county, the home together plan. And so I would urge you to recognize the home together plan and it's the provisions it lays out which are made concrete in the proposal from staff before you as as important as valid as much a decision as the December board letter. The other thing I would say is just that because something has been done before, does not mean it's been done sufficiently. Deep subsidies have not been up to scale. So I think for me, the more important question is, for those things that have been done, have they been effective at the scale that they have been done? If they have been effective and they are more are needed, then more investment is needed. It's not, we're not saying, oh, you've already done that and it didn't work. It's whether it was effective at the scale it was at. And I think that's a really important criteria for going forward. Thanks so much. John Moses, please unmute. Hi, this is Gene Moses from the Interfaith Coalition for Justice in our jail and I did send in a letter but I wanted to reiterate how important it is in so many dimensions for the money from measure W to be invested in affordable housing, our people safely housed is a top priority with the top issue for the voters in Oakland. And I'd love to see you guys really focus on that and do the best job possible with the resources at hand. Thank you very much. Allie Gaylord. I have to ask did you Thank you very much. Allie Gaylord. I have to ask did you speak on this item before? So is it allowed we could, are we allowed to see a speaker twice? I guess so. Questions. Ordinarily, I would say she could not speak again, but the reason I am deviating from that is because the presentation was not available, made available at the time she spoke. And so as you know, I've said in the past that when there's, when you go to the item and there's no information, what is it that the public is to speak on? So. Congratulations. And that's one over our county council, something that very few people have. And that's why you're taking public comment now, even though you did allow public comment on it earlier because the presentation was not a failure. Welcome. Thank you. Allie Gaylord, Deputy Director of Housing for Oakland HCD. and I'm honored to be able to speak in public comment again. And thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Allie Gaylor, Deputy Director of Housing for Oakland, HCD. And I'm honored to be able to speak in public comment again. And thank you for having this public discussion. It's very important. Obviously you're taking a lot of thought for what this money is going to be used for. And I just wanted to highlight the need for bringing in the cities and really ensuring that the most the needs are needs are addressed and that the city and the counties are really in line and in lockstep in addressing those needs. Also, I can't underscore enough the ability to leverage the measure W dollars with Oakland's measure U dollars to get new permanent supportive housing is going to go a long way into addressing this. We can do a lot of interim, but if those folks don't have anywhere to go permanently, that is permanently affordable and is in a building that will last 50 years plus, there is not going to be a solution to our homelessness crisis. So I just do want to underscore, you know, we think urgent as well, and that's why we keep track of our pipeline. We have long lists of developments that are ready to go but for funding. So we're looking forward to working with the county and I hope that in July, the process will be kind of finalized and that we can move forward with funding some affordable housing. Thank you Would you be willing to present that to one of our standing committees? Of course, I think that's a good next step and I just have to say I'm sensing an ever increased collaboration between the city and county which has a shared responsibility but very different pieces of the puzzle and needs to be put together collaboratively. Okay. Absolutely. Thank you. There are no more speakers. All right. With that said, we have public input on items that are With that said, we have public input on items that are not on either close session or the mass motion or the set matters or these informational items which have a presentation attached to them. There is none for items that are not on the agenda. With that said, there's no other business before us. We are adjourned. Recording stopped.