Elena. We can test Laurence sound. If you can hear me.
Yes I can. Let's do that. If Laurence, we can't hear.
Lauren is there. Is there muted?
Why am I hearing this here? Yeah. One second Lauren, we
need to unmute. Also need to be promoted
because she's coming in on my zoom over here.
I don't know what Elena just said. Because we need to make.
Speakers. It's me. Is it possible to I to
give flyers to. Is it possible to give these movies speaking?
This is the international audience. So.
Okay. All right. Okay. Lauren, let's hear you.
Do you guys hear that? No, we still can't hear her.
Okay, that's not gonna work. Okay.
Can I identify him right now? But we're going to do roll call.
District one supervisor John Gioia here. District two
supervisor Candice Anderson here. District four supervisor
Ken Carlson here. District five supervisor Chanel skills.
Preston here. District three chair. Supervisor Dianne
Burgess. And I'm here. And I think we
can do the Pledge of Allegiance. Is that work for
you, Tom? Or do we need to wait?
I think we should wait on everything. I think that, Madam
Chair, you can announce that there is a service disruption.
Um, so under the new disruption policy that the board adopted,
you have to announce that, and then we can go into closed
session to me while they're working on it. And then when
they fix it, we can come back out, and then you can take
public comment on the closed session.
So I think what I'm going to do is use your words where the
announcement of the service interruption is that.
Yes. Service disruption. Yes. And so we're going to go
to closed session and then we'll come back.
We're not we don't take public comment.
Well the public because of the service disruption, the public
can't participate. In the closed session. Public
comment. Yes. But they'll have that
opportunity when we come back because we are authorized to go
in the closed session right now. Okay.
So we can do public comment on the closed session after we get
back. Yes. Alrighty. Uh, we expect closed session to be
maybe 15 minutes, so we'll be back in. So we will be back.
And. And. Closed session. Is there
anything to report out. And then we're going to do closed.
Um, will do public comments on the closed session.
Uh, there is nothing to report. Okay. Jamie's not here. Um. Are
there any public comments for closed session? There's Jamie.
Sorry. Are there? We're looking to see if there's any public
comments for closed session. Thank you. Chair, if there are
any callers or zoom participants who would like to
speak on an item that's on the closed session agenda, please
press pound two. If you're on the phone or raise your hand in
the zoom app. There are no comments.
Thank you. Uh, if you have been watching so far this morning,
we have been running around dealing with some technical
difficulties and trying to move around. So we appreciate
everybody's patience. I am going to take us back to item
two, which is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join me.
Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to
the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I really, really like today's inspirational thought. If you
want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else. From Booker T
Washington. All right. We're going to go to item five, which
is to consider consent items. Uh, Miss Nino, is there
anything that you would like to pull?
Good morning, chair Bergus and board members, I'm requesting
to pull C 29. Um, and also C 82 and C 82 will not return.
Alrighty. Are there any others? Um. Quick comment. Just. I got
a text message from staff saying that the zoom is muted,
and I don't know if that's been correct. So implying that
people on zoom cannot hear us. I believe the zoom was muted.
It should not be any more. Uh, let's get communication.
Okay. In fact, I did just get a text just now. Say now we can.
Okay. Thank you so much. And I apologize for interrupting. I
just know we've had a few technical difficulties this
morning. We are all in this together. We
are a team, and so we appreciate everybody helping us
make it work. Right. All right, so any other items to pull. So,
uh, neither of these items need to be discussed later.
Correct? Correct. Thank you. Okay. Are there any
public comments for the consent items?
If there are any callers or zoom participants who would
like to speak on an item on the consent calendar, which is item
C1, through C 116, please press pound two if you're on the
phone, or raise your hand in the zoom app. We do have a
comment. The next speaker is Felicia.
Please accept the invitation and unmute.
Hello everyone. Can you hear me?
Yes we can. And it was um. I didn't hear
which items got pulled from the consent calendar. It was on
mute. So if you might, if you wouldn't mind repeating that.
We c 29 and C 82. Okay. And so C 29 is the one
that I wanted to speak on. I just wanted to introduce
myself. I'm the executive director of California
Statewide Communities Development Authority, and I've
met several of you at cSAC events. I just started last
year, so I'm looking forward to meeting more of you. But, um,
we did just want to be able to be part of the conversation.
Uh, regarding GPAs. GPAs are a very unique structure, um,
allowed by the Joint Powers Act that transfers a lot of risk
and liability to a GPA from the county. Uh, one of the reasons
why we exist is that we do very complicated financings that are
difficult for the state to do, or for counties to do. And we
also pool financings to allow participants. We have over 536
participants that are part of our GPA, including the county,
to be able to access the capital markets at a lower cost
and be able to average the credit over several different
entities, especially smaller entities. Uh, some of the
complicated financings that we've done for the county. We
did proposition one, a securitization, uh, very
difficult transaction that gave the county $44 million in
revenues. And, um, and other entities can't do that. It
would be very difficult for the county to hire staff and be
able to do that. So we've been providing those services
throughout the county, all 19 and incorporated cities or
members. Uh, and we just like to be part of that conversation
and really understand your concerns and make sure that
we're responsive and make sure that the county is receiving,
uh, the financing that they need. We are sponsored by the
state Association of Counties, and we have former county
officials who are on our board that many of you know. Um, and
so. There are no more comments.
Thank you. Are there any other public comments for the consent
items? No. Chair Bergus there or not?
Thank you. Uh, then I will accept a. Motion from
Supervisor Gioia. Second from doesn't say it. Supervisor
Scales Preston. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. All
right. We are going to move on to presentations. But first,
um, we are going to be I'm going to bring in our
adjournment and. Tom, did you want to start this off?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and thank the board for
adjourning in memory of Mary Ann Mason. Um, Mary Ann was an
outstanding attorney and wonderful mentor and friend to
everyone who worked with her during her 35 year career with
Contra Costa County. She began as a deputy county council, was
appointed Assistant County council in 2010, appointed as
Chief Assistant County Council in 2016, and the board
appointed her as county council in 2021. She served in that
role until her retirement in November of 2022. For many
years, Mary Ann was the primary legal counsel to the Contra
Costa County Courts and the grand jury chief counsel to the
Contra Costa County Office of Education and Board of
Education, and District Council to Del Diablo. She was the
office's experts on expert on laws pertaining to retirement
and employee benefits. Uh, conflict of interest laws. The
Public Records Act, the Better Government Ordinance, the Brown
Act, and the county's Election Campaign ordinance. And she
probably would have enjoyed today's Brown Act issues this
morning. Mary Ann really loved her job. One of the things she
loved most about it was being involved in local politics and
local government. She would always have the biggest smile
when she would come into our offices to talk about local
politics, like who had sent out the latest flyer and who was
running against who. She really enjoyed hearing the latest
political gossip. She thought local politics was fun, but she
also loved it because she understood, like all of us,
that local government is where you affect change and can
really improve people's lives. After she retired, she remained
active locally and served on the first Northern California
Credit Board of directors until her passing. After her
retirement, she was fortunate enough to travel and spend time
with her family. After retirement. So thank you for
adjourning and Marianne's memory, and I want to let the
board know that a funeral mass will be held for Mary Ann on
Friday, October 2nd at 10:30 a.m. at Saint Perpetua Church
in Lafayette. I. I'm going to let my
colleagues speak. Okay, John, you're the longest. You
probably. Yeah, I've. I had a chance to
work with Mary Ann since I joined the board. Um, a couple
decades ago. And, um, she was, you know, everything you said,
Tom. Um, but just on top of that, just a very gracious, um,
kind person. And, um, never was rattled by things. Right? And,
um, always respectful of anybody and everybody, whatever
their viewpoints. And saw her role as, you know, giving the
best legal advice to county departments, to the board. Um,
and, uh, leaving the decision up to the Department of the
board. But, you know, assessing the risks and, um, and doing
the best she could. And I use the word integrity. She had
amazing integrity. Um, and, um, would give advice in areas you
talked about, and I, I know with the board members,
whenever we had questions about the Brown Act, um, conflicts of
interest, things like that, she was always, um, thoughtful,
careful, and, um, an understanding person. Just a
kind, great human being. I just missed.
Well, I was truly saddened to hear of Mary Ann's passing. And
of, of course, when she retired, when she was serving
as our county council. And like, like John, I just had
such a wonderful working relationship with Mary Ann. And
when I first became a county supervisor, she really was the
one that helped me understand some of the ramifications of
having an officeholder account versus a campaign account. And
as changes would come in election law and everything
else, she really stayed on top of that. But she also offered
such wise counsel and like and any of us who are parents, I
don't think she had a favorite child, but she would come up to
me after some controversial votes on the Board of
Supervisors and whisper in my ear, I'm so glad you're my
county supervisor. And each time she said that, it kind of
warmed my heart and I really appreciated, as Tom said, the
way she even though as the county council, she couldn't
take sides on issues, she understood the issues we were
confronting, she knew what was going on in the Orinda
community, and I just always, um, have such a special place
in my heart for her. And the way in which she led us as
county council. Uh, yeah. It was interesting to
get onboarded as a county supervisor, because most people
when when they know we're going through that, they bring that
whole, um, example of the of the fire hose. And I think, uh,
Mary Ann brought that understanding, as Tom has
talked about understanding local politics, but also very
much understanding the law. Um, I think that's what makes
certain people great is because they, um, they can bring those
things together. They can be an expert in what they do, but
then they can also help people understand, and they can help
the people that are doing the job. Mary Ann was beautiful.
But not only was she beautiful on the outside, she was
amazingly beautiful on the inside. I think her husband is
here. Come on up here. And I forgot your first name.
Greg. Mason. Greg. Well, I'm going to let
you speak in just a minute, but come on up here. Come stand by
the podium so we can see you. I'm bossy today, Greg. Um, she
loved her family, too. And that was a very, very obvious in
working with her. I think the the fun thing was to see how
excited she got about what she was doing. And she was so
committed to the county, but there was always this big place
in her. What what we dealt with was how much she loved her
family, and I wanted to make sure that we recognized that
today because, um, I think she would want us to, but I want to
thank you for sharing her with us. She made Contra Costa a
better place because she served us. And, um, so I'm really
proud of the work that I've gotten to do with her. And
she's made me a better county supervisor. So I just want to
recognize you. I do. My colleagues that didn't get to
work with her, maybe they knew her, but I'm going to let you
guys say. And then you get to have the last word.
Yeah, I came after, uh, Mary Ann, did. I can say is we're
very privileged of her legacy and the work she did within
county council and those who supported continue to benefit
all of us in Contra Costa County, not only us in the
decisions we make. Her legacy lives on. And those that are,
uh, worked with her income. My condolences to you, Mr.
Mason, is, um. I'm a newer supervisor, so I didn't have
the opportunity to get to know, um, Mary. But it's always a
blessing to learn about someone and hear the stories that my
colleagues are sharing and staff, um, and it's learning
about someone just not on a piece of paper, but the
interactions and the relationships that she has
created throughout this county. So thank you and your family
for sharing her with us. And I can see that her extended
family, with the legal counsel of Contra Costa is in the room
as well. And I we we send our love to all of you because we
know how much you loved her as well. But, Greg, share. Share
what you want to say. Well, first of all, I'd like
to. Can you speak into the
microphone, please? Thank you. First of all, I'd
like to thank everybody. She really loved working here. Um,
sometimes it's kind of envious that maybe if she didn't have
as much integrity because I'm sure she was privileged to a
lot of really juicy gossip that never got back to me. If I if
I'd ask, someone says, well, nope. If it makes a paper, I
can talk about it. If it doesn't, I done, um, another
thing. I'd like to thank Tom for everything he did and has
done since then. Uh, what? You she may or may not have told
you is, uh, she trusted me in my evaluation of people. And we
had a, uh, uh, around the end of the year party, and Tom was
over there and she said, hey, I'm thinking about Tom
appointing him as my number two, which means my designated
successor. So check them out. What do you think? And Tom came
across very well, and I'm very happy that he's, uh, succeeding
her. Uh, you know, not just in Texas. You know, Marianne's
view is, hey, my job is to make sure everything runs smoothly.
You know, look for potential problems, head them off so that
everything goes smoothly. And Tom is my from what I've been
seeing, has done a great job. So, again, I thank you very,
very much. Uh, she really, really loved this job. She
wouldn't have stayed in it for 35 years if if she didn't. So
thank you very much. Thank you Greg. We really did
love her to. So at the end of this meeting, we'll be
adjourning in her memory and in her honor. Alrighty. We are
going to move on to presentations. And I went down
too far on my list. Presentation number one is
recognizing August 2026 as International Overdose
Awareness Month. Fatima mittal soul is in. Hopefully there she
is. And April Rivero, executive director of National Coalition
Against Prescription Drug Abuse. Um, I didn't give Fatima
as title. She's the AOD program chief and AOD, I always all of
the What's Oudh stand for alcohol and other drugs
services. Yes. Thank you. Got it.
Woo-Hoo! You!
Good morning, Madam Chair. Board of supervisors, my name
is Fatima Matawalle. I'm with the awards program chief with
Behavioral health. Um, this morning. Um, we are here to
recognize, to remind everybody the importance of, um,
International Overdose Awareness Month. Uh, reminder
that, um, our work continues the importance of treatment,
the importance of supporting recovery, the importance of
raising awareness about, um, you know, how to reduce stigma
in the community so that people access the services that they
need for behavioral health. With me today is April Rivera,
who will be addressing all of you. Um, um, in this important
matter. Thank you. Thank you. Fatima. So good
morning, supervisors, staff and community members. My name is
April Rivera. I live in San Ramon, and I'm the founder and
executive director of the National Coalition Against
Prescription Drug Abuse, formerly known as NCA PDA,
because that's a really long name. Um, on behalf of NCA, PD
and the meds and East County Meds Coalition's, I want to
thank you for recognizing international Overdose
Awareness Day. IOAD uh, what began 25 years ago in
Melbourne, Australia, has grown to be a to be global in scope.
So people gather around the world on and around August 31st
to remember those lost too soon to overdose, to support those
they left behind, and to break down the stigma that continues
to have a profound effect on those living with substance use
disorder in those impacted by overdose. Thankfully, there's
actually some good news to report this year. We're now
seeing a substantial, sustained drop in overdose deaths
nationwide, and key contributors are cited by the
CDC, the center for Disease Control, to include community
education, particularly around fentanyl treatment for
substance use and mental health disorders, and the wide
distribution of naloxone that can easily be used by everyday
community members to reverse an opioid related overdose. In APD
and the meds coalitions are contributing to this good news
story. In Contra Costa County, too. We work continuously in
our various communities to strengthen overdose prevention
by expanding access to naloxone, fentanyl test strips,
and prevention education through partnerships with
schools and other community organizations. We are
increasing fentanyl awareness and equipping communities with
lifesaving resources. We hope you will join us at the EOD
event that the CC coalition is co-hosting with the county's
middeck coalition on August 31st, from 11 to 3 to 130.
Sorry, at the Loma Vista Adult Center in Concord, information
about additional EOD events in Alameda County that Ncap is
either hosting or tabling that is available on our website.
Ncap dot org. In closing, I want to say that those we have
lost to overdose mattered and we will recognize and remember
them during our EOD events. Their families and friends left
behind also matter. We need to make sure that stigma does not
get in the way of us embracing and supporting them through
their loss and grief, as we will do during our EOD events
and beyond. So again, thank you very much for your proclamation.
Recognizing August 31st is International Overdose
Awareness Day. It's a very important day. That means a lot
to those of us in NCA, PD and the meds coalitions and to
every Contra Costa County community member who has been
touched by a devastating loss to overdose. As my own family
has. Thank you. And you know, I say this a lot.
So it's kind of repeating myself, but I really, truly,
truly believe this. When people go through hard things, you can
fall down and lay on the floor, or you can get up and you can
try to help make it better for other people. And I think
that's what a hero is. So you're heroic and what you're
doing by speaking up and trying to make a difference. So thank
you to my colleagues. Have any comments?
I just again, I always appreciate this because it hits
home to me as as I've shared before, my daughter in law's
beautiful sister lost her life due to an overdose when she was
just 21 years old. And, um, it wasn't intentional. It just
happened. And it's tragic. And I've also experienced a close
family member who got addicted to pain pills that were
prescribed for legitimate health reasons, but they
altered the trajectory of her life, of her son's lives. And
the more we can do to help prevent these tragedies that
don't just impact one person, but impact all of us, is so
critical. So thank you for this very, very important work.
I just want to thank the I think, the amazing coalition we
have in Contra Costa between the health department
residents, um, community based organizations, the investment
that we're all making and the work that everyone's doing
together and continuing to raise the visibility. And I
realize there are, um, some parts of the country where this
is even more serious of an issue than it is here. Um, but
it's it's it's so prevalent around the country. And others
have said everyone knows someone who's been impacted by
this tragedy. So thanks. Let's go take a picture with
you. Our next presentation is recognizing August 2026 as
Child Support Awareness Month. We have Matt Braga. Right,
Matt, if I said your name wrong, you need to correct me
because I have one of those names that sometimes gets us.
Looks like I did okay. He is the Department of Child Support
Services director. It's nice to see you.
Nice to see. You.
I say it right. Yes, you did perfect.
And I have. I have a ex college.
Uh, teammate whose last name is Burgess. So it's.
Oh, it's so scary to talk to me.
Then I apologize. I'm very good. Jerry Ferguson,
supervisor. Okay. Yes. I want to thank you for acknowledging
August's Child Support Awareness month. It's a month
to highlight the work that child support staff do on our
over 23,000 cases within Contra Costa County, which represents
about 36,000 dependents. So we are a large, fairly large
footprint in the community. As you know, our role is to assist
with establishing parentage and child support and medical
support obligations and to collect on those obligations.
Our theme as a department this year has reached those who need
our services and provide results, and that is a key for
for our staff, is making sure that we're doing the best that
we can to serve the families that we serve. To that end,
I'll be coming back actually, in the coming months to
announce a pilot program that will allow parents with child
support obligations to come to an agreement on how the
obligation will be met. Uh, so we're looking to kind of change
the world of child support enforcement. Uh, we're moving
away from traditional enforcement tools with child
support and allowing families to to satisfy their obligations
to each other in a way that is more, um, that fits more within
their life situation. So we're calling that alternative our
in-kind payment program. So allowing instead of just cash
handed over from one parent to the other, but to allow in-kind
services, whether it's transportation, whether it's
it's helping with school clothes to satisfy a child
support obligation with our partner San Joaquin in San
Francisco counties, we're offering this alternative as a
first of its kind in the nation support program. Uh, we had to
attend, obtain a federal waiver, which just was signed
last week by the state Department of Child Support
Services. And they're sponsoring the entire project.
So we want to expand our services to those parents who
are working together and want options, rather than, again,
focusing our on our traditional enforcement tools. So we're
kind of using Child Support Awareness Month as our kind of
launch point for that program. So again, there will be more to
come. We are finalizing the technical pieces of it. Uh, but
we should be reaching out to our families and offering this
as an option within the next 2 to 3 months. So but with that,
I thank you again for acknowledging child Support
Awareness Month and the program that we, my executive team here
hiding behind me and our camera, uh, that we certainly,
uh, you know, honor and respect the families that we support,
um, and our staff that work so hard to, um, to do the job that
we do to support the families in our community.
I'm going to ask your team to kind of come actually behind
you so that people can see you on the screen. And I'm going to
talk about the screen behind us to our audience. I know online
you can see what's going on in the audience. The screen is not
working, so you can see them from there and there. If you
need to see what's going on. Um, I'm a divorced mom. I had,
um, a really great experience with my ex-husband. He took
care of his responsibilities. And I know that I was very
lucky, um, because we worked together. Unfortunately, it's
not always that easy. It gets complicated. And ultimately,
when it is complicated and there are all those conflicts,
it is terrible for the kids. And that's really what the
whole purpose of this is, to make sure that the kids are
getting taken care of, both food and housing and clothes,
but also emotionally, educationally, you know, all of
those things. And so I want to thank you for bringing
awareness to to Contra Costa about this. I'm really excited
to see that you're being innovative to help maybe make
it a little less complicated for people and start working
together to help our babies. And then I just want to thank
all the folks that decided to pick a career where you work on
this kind of this kind of stuff, to work with people
that, you know, probably are either angry or scared or
unsure of what to do, and you are there for them. So thank
you for doing that to my colleagues. Have anything else
to say? Nope. Then we're going to come down and take a picture
with you. Um.
The final presentation is one that I got to bring, and I'm
kind of excited. Today we get to celebrate the legacy that
harvest time has built over the last 50 years. If you're here
with harvest time, come on down. There you are. One of the
beautiful things of living in East Contra Costa is that we
have these open spaces. We have farms. One of the really
wonderful benefits is that on the way home from work, I can
stop at a stand and pick up freshly picked stuff. It's
tomatoes. It's strawberries, it's
peaches, it's corn. There's a whole bunch of really yummy,
delicious stuff. And people come from all over the Bay area
because we are the Yupik capital of the world. Since
1976, harvest time has helped connect visitors from around
the world with local Yupik farms, roadside stands and
agricultural businesses across Brentwood and East Contra Costa
County. Their efforts have put East County on the map as the
Yupik capital of the world. In 2025. Roughly 600,000 visitors
came to East County to enjoy the fruits and vegetables of
their labor. In addition to Yup'ik harvest, time helps to
preserve our agricultural heritage, supports the farming
families who have shaped our community for generations and
create traditions that keep East County farming community
strong. My team and I have been more than happy to support
their efforts. We went cherry picking in May and they were
delicious. I wish cherry season would go a little longer
though, right? Just sayin. Um, and we proudly wore our 50th
anniversary Harvest Time t shirts while we were out there.
Uh, there's. If you drive out there, you'll see that there's
these big signs that Brentwood has helped put up that, um,
helps everybody recognize that, uh, the that they're the Yupik
capital. So as chair, I'm proud to recognize harvest time for
50 years of service, stewardship and community
leadership. And today we have some of the rock stars of the
Harvest Time family. We've got Brian Lucey. We, uh, who is the
owner of Serendipity Winery. We have Patrick Johnston, who is a
farmer and co-owner of Dooley Farms. We have Hayley Nunn,
farmer's daughter, which is the one I stopped by a lot because
it's on my way home. Uh, Jessica Enos, the board
president, and it says Sean McCauley. I don't see Sean, but
I will say all of these families have been in the area
for a long time, and they have helped shape a beautiful place
to live. And often you go to places and there's the same
stores everywhere. You harvest time. Help make this a unique
and wonderful place to live. So I'm going to hand it over to
you. What do you want to say about harvest time?
Uh, good morning, everyone, and thank you again for the
recognition. Um, just wanted to say or point out that harvest
Time is a board of volunteers, volunteer farmers that help
promote each other. Um, not only locally, but extended into
the larger community. And there was going to be much more of us
here today. However, harvest is still in full swing. Um, corn,
tomatoes, grapes, almonds. Um, just started our winter squash
this morning. Um, so appreciate the recognition. And, uh, we'll
continue to promote agriculture as such a vital, unique
resource to Contra Costa County. And the more people we
can get to come out to the East side, the better. So thank you
very much. Chair Burgess, I understand
there's also a video we have. Yeah, there.
Is. Yes. And the video will display
on the side screens, just the back screens. Thank you. Please
show the video. For 50 years, harvest time has
been the bridge between our soil and your family. We are
immensely proud to have helped Brentwood become the Yupik
capital of the world. But the heart of this land runs even
deeper. Many of our farming families have been stewards of
this earth for over a century, long before Brentwood was even
a city. They championed education, supported our youth
and shaped the community we're so proud to call home today.
Whether you're a lifelong resident or a visitor from
across the globe, your support keeps these legacies growing.
Thank you for choosing local and for being the reason our
heritage continues to thrive. Harvest time in Brentwood. 50
years of roots. A century of pride.
My staff also brought the harvest Time magazine. We're
going to put them out at. See, Jamie is really great. She's
got em all out there. If you wa more, there's a website
that you can look up all the different places to visit, and
I encourage people to come on out. Does anybody else want to
say anything? No. Okay. Can we come down and take a picture
with you? You'll let us? Okay. Come on down. And today's
agenda, D1 is the community forum for the transparent
review of unjust transfers and holds hold. Acts. Act, also
known as the Truth Act. Before we begin, I will have the clerk
of the board announce details regarding the additional
language access available specifically for this forum.
Those joining us remotely via zoom that wish to hear the
community forum in Spanish can do so by scanning the QR code
on the screen. Once you get to the wordly website. Choose
Spanish as your language. You can listen with headphones or
your device's speaker, and you can also read captions in
Spanish. For those present here in 1025, Escobar in Martinez, a
conference room on the first floor of this building is
currently streaming this community forum for the public
in Spanish via worldly access to this community forum is the
same as with all board meetings. It is available on
Contra Costa Television channels. AT&T U-verse 99
Comcast channel 27 and astound channels 32 and 1027.
Television viewers can enable SAP to hear Spanish
interpretation. Additionally, for those that wish to address
the board in Spanish during public comment may do so and
worldly written translation to English will be displayed.
Thank you, thank you Jamie. Moving along. Item D1 is to
convene a community forum regarding the provisions of
access of certain individuals to the Federal Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Agency in 2025. This is for 2025.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1. Parentheses D
as noticed in this item, public comments will be heard. After
all the presentations and will be limited to two minutes per
speaker as done in prior years. Today's community forum will
include three presentations. The first will be information
regarding Truth Act requirements and how the county
is meeting such obligations, which will be presented by a
need. And Mendoza from our County administrator's office,
her presentation will be followed by a ten minute
community presentation by Mio, Tena, Cora and Mino. If I said
that incorrectly, please correct me when you come up
from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and Jesus Ruiz
from the Contra Costa immigrant Immigrant Rights Alliance. The
final presentation will be the statutory report from our
sheriff, Coroner David Livingston, regarding the
extent and nature of communications. His office had
with federal government agency Ice in 2025. I need welcome.
Hi. Good morning. Thank you. Chair Bergus and members of the
board. Um, so to kick off the forum.
I'm going to ask you to speak a little bit closer to the
microphone and a little bit louder because people are
listening online and in the rooms. And so we got to make
sure everybody hears you. Okay.
Checking to see if we can have the presentation up. Oh, it is.
Oh just kidding. Okay. The presentation is viewable on
on zoom. And, uh, CCTV will pull it up as well, but
everyone on zoom is viewing the presentation right now.
Okay. All right. Can you hear me now? Okay, great. Okay.
Thank you. So, to kick off the forum, I'll be presenting a
brief introduction. Introduction. Um, so if we're
on slide two, the next slide, please. Um, of the history of
key California immigration related laws, including some
definitions. I'll explain how the county determined the need
to hold the Truth Act forum this year, and review the
recommended board actions. Um, as done in prior years, the
county reached out to legal community group advocates.
Hold on just a second. You're trying to get to the second
slide. That's it. It is. Okay. Good.
Okay. No. That's okay. Thank you. No. That's fine. Thank
you. Um, so we have the presentation as Chair Bergus
mentioned by Milton Okoro from Immigrant Legal Resource Center
and Jesus Ruth from who's the director of the Contra Costa
Immigrant Rights Alliance. Um, and then at the end, we'll have
the sheriff's report. Um, which is the statutory requirement
for holding this forum. Let's see. Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
Okay. So key immigration related laws include the
transparency responsibility using state tools, which is the
Trust Act of 2014. Um, which is government code 72, 82 and
7282.5. The Truth act of 2017 and the California Values Act.
Um, as amended by SB 54, the Trust Act describes the
circumstances under which a California law enforcement
agency can respond to transfer notification requests from
immigration authorities. It no longer addresses detentions in
response to hold requests, because the Values Act
prohibits such detentions, and it specifies circumstances
under which local California law enforcement agencies can
detain an individual um or restricts them. Sorry, um, from
an enforcement agency detaining an individual pastor. Scheduled
release. The Truth Acts protects the rights of
individuals in custody by ensuring local law enforcement
agencies inform them of their procedural and legal rights. If
the agency is contacted by Ice, it specifies public records
access available for such individuals and requires
holding the form, as we're doing today. The California
Values Act limits the circumstances under which local
enforcement agencies may use resources. It was intended to
build trust between immigrant communities and state and local
agencies, and it has additional reporting requirements for
immigration enforcement activities. So we just included
the language of the Truth Act for the public to make sure
that they had information regarding why we're holding
today's forum. What's important about the Truth Act is that it
has specific definitions to ensure that when a local law
enforcement agency is determining the need to hold a
forum, there's a clear understanding of what the
expectations are of the community forum. What
constitutes a local law enforcement agency, and what
the definition is of notification requests. Ice
access is also one of the main determinants for ensuring the
need to hold a truth act. So ice access is defined there. So
it could be an agency responding to an ice cold
notification or transfer request. Providing Ice in
advance information about an individual who will be released
at a certain date and time. And then provide ice on publicly
available information regarding release dates, home address,
work addresses, um, allowing Ice to interview an individual
and providing Ice information about dates of probation and
parole check ins. So these are all the definitions that could
fall under our understanding as we're holding the Truth Act
today because of number one, which is notifications. So
ultimately, the purpose of today's forum, it's a
transparency initiative in statute for local law
enforcement agencies to report on the extent and nature of
communications with federal Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agency. Um, there are the specific requirements.
The forum must be held during the following calendar year. It
must be open to the public and an accessible location. It
requires 30 day notice, and we've included those notices as
attachment A to the report to the board. Um, so starting
October 21st of 25, when the board set its 2026 calendar
meeting calendar, the Truth Act was identified for today's
date. Additionally, on 720, uh, we published, um, information
about the Truth Act on July 20th in the Contra Costa Times,
and the county has issued several media releases, um,
that have been circulating since July 23rd of this year.
Um, we have held the Truth Act since it was required by law.
And, um, what has changed? Um, excuse me. Mostly due to the
Values Act and the Trust Act, as amended by the Values Act.
We do not hold any contract with Ice nor House Ice agency
detainees within our adult or juvenile detention facility
systems. Okay.
So the county administrator's office to determine whether
there was a need for a forum, we sent department head
certifications on June 25th, which is included as attachment
C. Each department head was required to answer two
question, two questions, one whether their department meets
the definition of the truth acts. Local law enforcement
agency, and if so, did their department provide Ice access
as defined in the previous slide I shared with you? Of the
25 departments. Seven responded yes to the first question that
they do meet the definition of a local law enforcement agency,
and one responded yes to providing Ice access. To ensure
public access. We just detailed because it's also a requirement
of the act, what actions we've taken to ensure that this
meeting, similar to all other board meetings, is accessible
to the public. Um, and how we share the information ahead of
time and then a little different, but, uh, typical of
the truth act form, we're also having a live streaming in
Spanish in the conference room. So anyone who wishes to listen
to the meeting in Spanish, um, can be there attending in
Spanish. Okay, so I keep forgetting. So today's
recommended board actions is to receive this presentation,
receive a presentation from the Immigration Legal Resource
Center. Uh, received the report from the sheriff coroner, which
is a statutory requirement for holding the forum and
receiving. Consider public comment. There are no formal
actions for the board to take as the, um as a governing board
over the jurisdiction of the sheriff. Um, operations. You're
required to hold the forum, but there's no official action for
you to take today. But hold the forum and have public comment.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer that. Other
than that, that's the end of my presentation, and we can hand
it over to the community group. Thank you. I'm just going to
ask my colleagues, do you have any questions of a need? No.
All right. Then we will move on to the next presentation. And
that is with the, um. Oh, I just had it all written down.
Sorry about that. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and
there are two podiums. If you both want to be at a podium and
they adjust for height, if you're interested in that. Oh,
and there's the clicker. Welcome.
Hi. Uh, where am I looking for the
screen? I don't need to click it. I can just go off my iPad.
Okay. Yeah. And we apologize. Okay. Um, this big screen, uh,
dysfunction or malfunction this morning. And so we're winging
it. But just so that people know in the audience if it's
uncomfortable to be looking at it from the side, there is an
overflow room. In the other, and it's a little easier to
watch if if you need that. And, uh, we'll do whatever we can to
support you so that, you know, um, what's what's happening
with your. And Diane, what would have been
on this screen is still being shown on the two sided screens.
Yeah. And the slides are up on, uh, zoom right now. The first
slide is up. Perfect. Okay.
And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to put my thing
so you can kind of. see what. Awesome, awesome. Thank you so
much for that. Yep. That's perfect. Thank you so much. I
just got my eyes checked so I could see that.
Perfect. That's what we have. That's what we look at up here.
These little these little screens.
Yeah. Can you bring it to. them? Right. Perfect.
And of course, we have the printout that was sent. And if
it's a newer version, let us know.
Yeah. Okay. I can go ahead and get
started. Hi, everyone. My name is Jesus Ruiz, and I am the
director for Sierra Contra Costa. Immigrant rights. Um,
alliance. And I'm going to speak on who are we as Contra
Costa. So Contra Costa is an immigrant rights alliance is a
base. Um, it's a coalition of community, faith, advocacy and
immigrant led organizations that are formed in the spring
of 2017 to help make Contra Costa County, um, a county that
welcomes and honors and protects the rights of our
immigrant members and our community at Sierra, our
mission is to ensure the immigrant community feels safe
and has a healthy and and live a healthy and free lives. We
pursue that mission by advocating for policies,
campaigns, and resources that safeguard the rights of all
immigrant community members. Our goals is to improve access
to resources, services, build power for immigrant
communities, interrupt the criminal immigration system,
and promote dignity, freedom, safety, and health of our
immigrant communities. What is our values to build immigrant
rights, support and protect each other on honor and fight
for dignity of all center and be led by the directly impacted
community. Fight against state tools that seek to deport,
surveil and brutalize our communities and to recognize
the history of anti-Blackness. Some of our concerns of eyes of
local law enforcement. Collaboration with Ice are the
unnecessarily it unnecessarily expands local resources on
immigration enforcement, which is not a responsibility of the
Sheriff's department. It also fosters this trust between
immigrant communities and local law enforcement, makes it, um,
it makes immigrant communities view local law enforcement and
Ice as the same, which can lead to them being hesitant to
collaborate on any crimes they witness. It opens local law
enforcement up to liability, which means tax dollars are
used to pay our settlements, and it can result in a
permanent separation of community members from their
families and integration or trauma. Black, Brown and AAPI
folks are the most harmed by mass incarceration in
criminalization, suffers the most. Thank you.
Good morning everyone. Thank you for.
Allowing me to present today. My name is Mia. Sorry, but I go
by Mele Tanaka and I'm a senior staff attorney with the
Immigrant Legal Resource Center of over ten years of public
service experience and extensive experience in
immigration law before diving into some of the material, I do
want the county and the board to take quick notice that my
prepared slides do not reflect entirely our concerns. Although
historically, the True Fact forum has focused on
notification and transfers, I do want to remind the county
that the spirit of the law is about transparency. Our
position as we read the true fact is that it provides also
an opportunity to discuss situations where non-public
information about a person is provided through computer
databases, and that is the concern we have with one of the
contracts the sheriff has with flock Safety, which is a
license plate reader company. You can simply just at this
point, Google Flock Safety, which is a license plate
company, and you will see reports within California and
outside of California where license plate reader
information was discovered to have access to have been
accessed by other agencies. So we strongly urge the county and
the sheriff to take notice and reconsider the flock safety
contract. And also an ordinance that has a contractor provision
to close these loopholes, as this is a clear example of it.
With that said, I want to address the community concerns
about the serious ramifications. Any
collaboration with Ice has on the Contra Costa community.
Collaboration with Ice is a voluntary choice. I keep saying
that and as such, it unnecessarily expends local
resources on immigration enforcement when it comes to
it, the county just simply does not need to cooperate. And more
importantly, when local law enforcement collaborates with
Ice immigrants and even those with legal status, fear that an
interaction with law enforcement could lead to
detention and deportation. This fear discourages people from
reporting crime, seeking help, or serving as witnesses, which
makes the entire community less safe. Sadly, collaboration can
lead to the permanent separation of community members
from their families, causing deep and lasting trauma,
especially in the black and brown community. As my
colleague has just pointed out, immigration enforcement is not
race neutral. This isn't just a public issue, it is a human
one. In California, we luckily have or not. Luckily, because
that's the flaw. We have SB 54. Um, that limits our state and
local resources from being used to carry out immigration,
detentions. And deportations. Again, SB 54 is an important
flaw, but is not the sealing localities continue to have the
constitutional right to opt out of federal immigration
enforcement and to refuse to participate in this
administration's mass deportation agenda. Now, I want
to turn to changes in federal immigration enforcement that
makes it such a dire need right now for localities to hold the
line and refuse to participate in this inhumane immigration
enforcement regime. Ice really does not need the help from
Contra Costa because it has delegated their immigration
enforcement powers virtually to everyone in the federal
government, from the US marshals to the DEA.
Additionally, DHS overall has received $218.8 billion between
the One Big Beautiful Act bill known as H.R. one and the
Secure America Act. Out of that $218.8 billion Ice received
about $113.2 billion. Also, the administration has shown a
total disregard for the rule of law by creating policies that
infringe on constitutional due process rights. The immigration
policies of this administration has led to family separation.
And I will say, as an immigrant youth expert, I've seen I've
never seen a government take an attack on immigrant children
and youth. Right now, they don't even have representation.
We have two year olds standing in court because the federal
government cut the funding for that program. Make no mistake
that the cruelty of this administration has no bounds.
Aggressive immigration enforcement has led to the
killings of non-citizens and citizens. Let that sink in,
because does this county want to voluntarily really align
with a regime that is killing people? We have to do better in
Contra Costa, has to do better. Turning to the sheriff's
presentation and data, I want to acknowledge and thank the
sheriff for adding more information than last year
regarding the notifications. However, we have
recommendations first. As always, it would be great to
have more time to analyze all the data. As you can see, there
are 92 notifications and the community takes these
notifications very seriously and needs time to analyze fully
the notifications under SB 54. After all, there are lives at
stake here. We also recommend removing the column of past
removals, as it is not necessary at all to the SB for
SB 54 analysis, we question and lament greatly why this was
added, and we hope the Sheriff will remove this from his data
and hope this was not added for an ulterior motive. We also
recommend that the data reflect the state of the notification
request and when the notification was made by the
sheriff, this would be helpful so we don't have to make a
public records request. Moreover, we recommend
providing information about any assistance that is afforded to
Ice agents in the lobby of the jail. If there is any sign in
sheet use or video footage of them waiting in the lobby, it
would be useful information to determine if any assistance has
been afforded to Ice. Again, what we're striving here is
complete transparency. These are these acts are very simple.
We urge the sheriff to make these changes in terms of
notifications, I do want to highlight serious concerns over
some of these notifications. While we fundamentally believe,
regardless of their criminal history, everyone should not
receive double punishment. Um, I do want to touch on some and
take the county to take notice that the sheriff, in his own
presentation, states that notifications are only honored
for people for certain charges specifically convicted of a
serious or violent felony. That's simply not true. As it
reflected by the sheriff's data. For example, two people
were convicted of illegal reentry, which under California
Government Code 7284.6 B1 law enforcement may detain an
individual for unlawful reentry only if detected during an
unrelated enforcement activity, and the person was previously
removed to a conviction for an aggravated felony. Under
immigration law, there's no indication that there was an
aggravated felony here for both of them. Under immigration law
and in their history. Also, immigration law is one of the
most complex areas of law. I should know. And that analysis
cannot be easily made by someone without an immigration
law background. Another example is a person who was convicted
of a misdemeanor for false imprisonment, which is not a
wobbler, and had no other prior history that would count as an
exception. Similarly, another person was convicted of a
misdemeanor without any other prior conviction for simply
concealing a dagger. Another for tapping a utility line.
There's also convictions where proposition 47 reduced or
reclassified the felony to a misdemeanor. There were no
other exceptions in the person's history, and, um,
lastly, I do want to draw attention to a serious practice
that we learned through sheriff correspondence in terms of
notifying Ice of anticipated release dates. If a person is
in custody, they must be arraigned within 72 hours, or
they must be released. In other words, if the D.A. doesn't file
charges, then the person is is in custody has to be released
within that time period. The sheriff is notifying Ice about
these anticipated release dates, but that is not the same
as release dates of when someone is sentenced, which is
covered by SB 54. These anticipated release dates are
not publicly available. Certain charges qualify as exceptions,
but only after they have passed that preliminary stage. That is
not the case here. I strongly recommend the sheriff stop
immediately. This policy, as that is a clear violation of SB
54. I will also call for an audit of training materials the
Sheriff's office uses to make SB four determinations. With
that said, when there's complexity, there's room for
error. Make no mistake about it, and continue to collaborate
with Ice. Contra Costa is setting itself up for legal
liability as one single unlawful action can lead to the
county paying out huge settlement agreements, like
other counties have done in the past, contra Costa should join
the many counties who have already taken a stand to ensure
their limited resources are not used to bolster ISIS cruel
tactics and invest in resources that benefit the community. The
recommendations to the board are very simple as well. To
consider an ordinance adopted already by many to end all Ice
collaboration. Unless there's a judicial warrant or court order
and keep the dialogue open with community. As always, the
Immigrant Legal Resource Center is here disposable. I'm
disposable to this board and to the sheriff as well. Um, and
thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. Before we go, before we go to the next presentatio
do my colleagues have any questions or comments at this
point? No. We'll wait. Okay. Welcome. Sheriff Livingston.
Chair. Bergus. Vice chair. Carlson. Members of the board.
Thank you for having us today for the Truth Act Forum. We
have a relatively short presentation, as you know, and
hopefully the public knows we actually provide this data to
you quarterly as part of the sheriff's oversight report. So
this is not new data. This is just a summary of what occurred
in 2025. And so now we'll begin the presentation here. Can I be
heard. Yeah. So we'll review our general policy on
immigration. We'll talk about our field operations Bureau
relative to Ice access. And the same for custody operations.
First of all, it's important to note for the public that our
policy is very clear. No person shall be contacted, detained or
arrested solely on the basis of his or her immigration status.
Uh, the immigration status of a person and the lack of. Losing
the microphone here. There's not a fan on hold on
you, is there? Yeah.
There is. You know what? It's the fan.
The fans making. The fan is making a rumbling
noise. I'm sort of the IT ghost whisperer at the moment.
Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. Now we can hear
you. Great. You know, Karen Minkoff used to do that, and
we'd all say, what's going on with the AV system? And it was
the fan that created a wind tunnel. So thank you.
Awesome. Thank you. So moving on. Additionally, for
immigration detainers, uh, those will not be honored by
the Sheriff's Office request for notifications will be
honored pursuant to state law. And notifications of
anticipated release dates are honored only for inmates held
for certain charges. As you'll see in the presentation.
Updates effective as of July 1st, there were several that
the Sheriff's office made. Uh, we engaged with advocacy
organizations, and we stopped releasing dates of those
individuals on our website. Um, victims can still search names
of individuals in custody, and they can still access the
divine program. Of course, for notification if someone who has
assaulted them is being released. Um, Ice agents who
request to pick up a released inmate may only be in the
public lobby. Uh, they don't receive any assistance. I heard
a question during the other presentation. We don't assist
ice. We don't track ice. We don't have sign in sheets.
They're free to only go where the public can go. And also
custody services. Command staff has collaborated in the past,
specifically with the Asian Law Caucus, to go over our
policies, to engage with them, to hear concerns. And we have
made some changes. Not all the changes that they requested,
but we listened. So for field operations, our deputies cover,
of course, the entire county, as you well know, uh, 750mi , a
population of 1.2 million or so. We cover 521mi , in
unincorporated area. We serve a population of 175,000, which
would make us actually the largest street, uh, field
operations, police department in the county. We responded
over 169,000 calls for service. And we do not do immigration
enforcement, custody services. Uh, it's important to note also
only books adults. We don't handle any juvenile in our
facilities. And we booked about just under 16,000 inmates in
Martinez last year. Here's the information on the Ice forum as
to the demographics for those that were detained. Uh, as you
can see, the numbers and as far as gender, males, 120 females
were four. So here's the really the the heart of the
presentation, which is the total request received from Ice
were 724. Uh, we made 124 notifications of an inmate's
release, uh, notifications on the same person, however,
accounted for 32 of tse, which left us with total
notifications of 92 out of the 724 requested by Ice. So a
response of about 12.7%. As I've heard some questions about
the notification on the same individual, this slide is
intended to give a scenario where a person is arrested,
they're arraigned, they may complete a sentence. They may
be released out of custody during the pendency of their
latest charge. Whatever the case may be, if they're
rebooked into our facility, that automatically triggers and
this is nationwide, incidentally, a check of
immigration status through Ice by their fingerprints that go
to the federal Department of Justice. That's where Ice gets
their indication that someone that they want to talk to
arrest, detain, what have you is actually in our custody, in
this particular jail in California. So they sent a
notification requesting that they be notified if that person
is released. When that occurs, we have to check against SB 54,
make sure that we are compliant with state law, that there is a
qualifying offense that would allow notification of the
release to Ice. In some cases, the same person can be booked
several times during the reporting period. During the
entire year. That's why we have multiple notification
notifications on several individuals, and that's why the
numbers are adjusted the way they are. So this is just a
list. It's probably difficult to see for most, but it's
available online. Of course, of all the qualifying offenses
under the Government code. And there's page two. And then what
we did this time, the additional data, because I
think there was some concern in the past that when we had a
qualifying offense, people would say, well, that's not in
itself sufficient to do a notification to Ice under SB
54, when in fact there is oftentimes a long list of other
crimes committed by that individual, which does make
them subject to SB 54 and does make them subject to
notification to Ice. The immigrant rights group, just
talked about immigrants feeling safe. I agree with that. But
what you need to remember is that many of the victims that
are represented by these crimes are themselves immigrants. So
it's a catch 22 for our deputies when we make arrests
for a variety of offenses, everything from domestic
violence. We have one case in here of four times DUI, uh,
robberies, violent offenses, spousal abuse, etc. and they
are all provided here in this report. I'll scroll through
these pages. Obviously, too much data to go through in
detail, but this is the actual data that we use to determine
if a person is subject to notification to Ice. And that's
done by our jail, uh, staff with supervisory review. So let
me scroll through these. You can see the number of
conviction history is pretty astounding. Frankly. Almost
none here. So another component of the restrictions on local
law enforcement is access of Ice officials into our
facilities. Uh, that used to be a request for an interview.
Several years ago. There were no requests for interviews. Ice
is essentially stopped to that practice anyhow, but they would
not be allowed into our facility to conduct their own
investigation. Again reminding the community they would only
be allowed to access the public areas of our facilities. That
concludes our presentation. I'm happy to answer your questions.
Thank you. To my colleagues. Have
questions. Or. Yeah, just a question. I
know in some past, um, presentations, um, some of us
raised the issue about, um, whether or not the, um, the
notification was being provided for those who had committed a,
a serious felony. And we were making a distinction. And I
think, remember, we had some discussion over where that line
is. Um, so one of the things I wanted to understand, um, you
provided some new data that, um, was not presented before.
Um, the chose conviction history. So I wanted maybe to
understand this issue because I think I know we were talking
about it appeared there was no this was when I was looking at
a prior presentatn, maybe last year or the year before
there was, um, notification in the case of someone who maybe,
um, had, um, was in a category that may have been, um, um,
vandalism, for example, and said to me that didn't seem to
rise to the really to be a serious felony and therefore
notification should not have been provided there. So I want
to and at the time you mentioned something about,
well, this may have been a follow up crime to a previous
previous previous offense. I want to understand that issue.
Um, under conviction history. Uh, maybe let me see if we can
pick one to understand it. Um, um. Trying to see where there
was one, where there was, um, for example. Well, unlawful
taking or driving of a vehicle. The or some. So the the
conviction history list, um, previous arrest or convictions
or so what, what what is the says conviction or all of these
convictions or some of these arrests and these are priors
for this individual. Correct. They are convictions.
And so how do you then. So if, if the if the if the particular
crime may not be, let's say viewed as a serious felony and
you provided notification it was it based upon their
previous conviction history and then and that this then rose to
the level. Can you talk about that, how that decision is
arrived at? Because that was there was a lot of discussion
over that. And I think there was different points of view
that some of us had of whether you should be providing
notification on those. Um, and, and you said there was some
previous conviction history, but at the time you didn't
disclose what that was. So here you're sharing what it is. I
want to understand it. Can you maybe take a couple of examples
and explain that? Sure. Well, in in practice what
happens is the person is booked into our facility, as I
mentioned, those fingerprints go to DOJ that notifies ice.
Ice knows that that person is now in Contra Costa County
Jail. They send us a request for notification that triggers
our process to say, okay, is this individual, um, does does
the offense comport with SB 54 and authorize, uh, notification
to ice the individual offense that brought them into custody?
Maybe one thing, but our supervisors review all the
criminal history, as you see here. And when there are
qualifying prior offenses, particularly felonies, then we
notify on that individual. Maybe have a question also for
the, um, for other presenters on this and how they have
viewed this issue, can maybe you come up as well? Um, any of
the lawyers who presented. Can we just elaborate what
they're coming up? But SB 54 doesn't say. You just look at
the offense for which someone is under your custody. Is that
correct? As an SB 50. Getting an or getting an echo?
Doesn't SB. Someone's going to have.
Hold on. It's there's an echo. Is that go fixed. Go ahead and
try. Now I'm going to try now I'm
feeling better about but doesn't SB 54 say you look at
the entire criminal record of an individual. It doesn't say
just for the offense for which they're in jail, which
typically if they are in jail, um, post adjudication, it's not
going to be a serious crime anyway because they would have
gone to a state facility. But what does SB 54 require you to
do? You're correct. It allows local
agencies to look at the entire conviction history. It's not
just the offense that brings that person into physical
custody at that particular time.
Thank you. Yeah.
Did you want to provide any comments? Just trying to
understand this issue. When the, um, in remember this this
issue, you may have been here at some of the previous where
we've discussed where the particular types of crimes
should get notified and then this issue now of conviction
history. Can you talk about how others you have viewed this
issue. Um, so under Cal gov 7282.583,
it has a language of if a misdemeanor is a wobbler in the
last five years, or a felony in the last ten years, that's when
prior convictions have to be assessed under SB 54. That's
what the law says. So SB 54 has you look at those
at those and then make the determination about whether
there should be notification. Again, it has to be a wobbler
misdemeanor in the last five years. And or a felony in the
last ten years. That's what the law says. That's the
parameters. If it's not a wobbler, like for example, a
stray misdemeanor. And to define wobbler is a is, um,
criminal law that can be punishable either by a
misdemeanor or a felony, straight misdemeanors are not
wobbler. So that in itself, if if there was a prior conviction
that's a straight misdemeanor cannot be, um, assessed under
70 to 82.5 a three. Um, and so that wouldn't come into the
analysis at all. That's some of the things that I pointed out
were straight misdemeanors that we're talking about that are
concerning in this data report, which don't have prior
convictions that also would lead into the wobbler five year
or the felony ten year. Um, category. And I also, um, this
was in the last bit of my presentation, but I'm really
concerned about the, uh, sheriff's interpretation of
release dates. Some if someone is, um, arraigned and charged
under 72, 82.5, be it says clearly that the person has to
be arraigned and the only certain charges for serious
felonies can be considered at that point. Um, after a
magistrate provides probable cause under penal Code 877, I'm
sorry, 872 so I. You cannot notify Ice if someone has
already been, um, is in custody, has not been
arraigned, and the D.A. decided not to bring charges. That is
not a release date under SB 54. And so I really want to make
sure that we're not bypassing that serious. Um, that serious
violation that I've, I've identified.
Thank you. Chanel.
Thank you, thank you, Sheriff Livingston, for the
presentation. Um, and I appreciate the additional data
that's presented here as well today. Um, this is my second
true fact form, so I'm just trying to get an understanding.
So it sounds like there's two notification that goes out to
ice. So when someone comes in and they get convicted, um, and
they do fingerprinting, that automatically goes to Ice. And
then we send out another notification after they go
through all the process, they need to go through.
No, what happens is Ice will notify us that this person has
been booked into your facility. We want to interview this
person or meet this person or what have you. And so if the
qualifying offense or prior qualifying offenses comport
with the law, we will just send them the notification of
release. Excuse me, when we have that information. So it's
a it's us responding to their request. It's two way.
So we're not automatically reaching out to them. No.
They're triggered because when they're being processed.
That's correct. And as you can see from the numbers, it's only
12% of the total requests that they make that we actually
respond to. Okay.
Thank you. Um.
There was a. There was a discussion about
anticipated release dates versus do you want to comment
any more on that? Uh, not particularly.
Okay. No. I do want to.
Follow up just on when you're done on that.
Okay. All right. I have another
question to. I think you're going to get
asked a little bit more about that. Um, sure. You know, I do
want people to know that we do have a regular interaction with
you and the board meetings. Um, we call it Sheriff Oversight
and that you've created a dashboard that kind of talks
about who's getting arrested, where and all of that. And so
just for folks that maybe this is their first truth forum, you
know, you pointed out that the area that you provide for, um,
law enforcement, the unincorporated is, is bigger
than really any of the cities, both geographically and
population. You also contract for some cities, but the
majority of the arrests and all of that are not necessarily
coming from the sheriff's office.
That's that's correct. Right. And so your
responsibility is not necessarily all those people
that are coming into the jail, but once they're there, then
you have certain things and it sounds like what you're saying
is that when they are booked, they get into a system that
automatically automated notifies. Is that correct?
That is correct. And then they reach out to you
and then you respond to a portion of those requests.
Yeah, about 12%. We actually respond to 90%. We don't. But
Ice will send us a request for notification when that person
is to be released. And that's what we do.
Okay. Um. That was my question, but I know that my question
triggered. So I'm going to let Schnell go first, and then I'll
let John go. So in terms of the back to the
notifications, and because I was in San Mateo County for the
belonging in the Bay convening, and so there Sheriff was there
presenting as well. And they do not cooperate with Ice at all
like communicate at all. So what if we did not respond when
Ice reached out to us? They already had the information,
right? Because they just got processed that individual. So
if we didn't respond back to them at all, is that a
violation of SB 54? No, that wouldn't be a
violation. And so, um, I'm sure you talked
to other counties. Um, and how they are moving towards, you
know, not cooperating with Ice at all. And in your terms of
is, do you like, do the sheriffs have some type of
working group of how the Bay area counties are working
together so that we're all kind of following along the same
line of making sure that our immigrant community is safe?
Um, and we're not complying if it's if it's not a rule like a
law by the state of California, I guess. Why are we continuing
to provide additional information?
So there's in response to your question, there's 58 counties
in California, and anecdotally, I would have to say 75%, maybe
80% of sheriffs do exactly what I'm doing, which is to notify
when they have an individual that meets SB 54. There are a
few counties a couple up here in Northern California, a few
in southern that have said they're not going to do any
cooperation. And there are sheriffs San Diego among them,
who will do exactly as I'm doing, even though the board
has said, we don't want you to. She believes, as I do, that we
have an obligation to the community at large to provide
public safety services. And if we have someone who's enter the
country illegally, that's one thing. But if they're here,
they commit crime after crime after crime, and Ice wants to
interview them or detain them. We allow that. That's the only
notification we do. And that's what most sheriffs do.
My question is dealt with. The, um, notification of release. I
remember a few years ago, um, we we we expressed concern
about the, um, the list of release dates that were posted
on your website. And we, um, um, many of us thought that
that wasn't necessary and that. So you changed the policy, and
that's no longer posted on your website. Um, but so I'm trying
to understand, um, it where you do provide notification of
anticipate release dates are that honored only for inmates
held for certain charges. Specifically, inmates convicted
of a serious or violent felony. So is that then a subset of the
total notification? So if you look at the list of of crimes
in which you provide notification, is that the same
list that you provide notification of, of anticipated
release dates as well? Yes.
So every everyone on this list potentially you would provide
notifications of of anticipated release dates.
The 92 that you see are all about qualifying offenses.
That's why we would do the notification and and why we
would reject others that don't meet the qualifications.
Right. And then, um, the I was looking at the other, um, it
says Ice agents who request to pick up a released inmate may
only wait in the public lobby and will not receive any
assistance unless there is compelling risk to public
safety. So, ah, is I showing up to pick up released inmates?
Who are that they find out and other ways that are not these
92 that you have here or there? Is this referring to Ice agents
who are waiting to pick up the 92 that they were notified
about? It could be either we don't
track when Ice or any federal agency or state agency is in
our lobby, frankly, so we don't know if they come in or if they
meet them out in front of the facility. If they don't come at
all, which occurs, or if they come and they do an interview
with that individual, they may, I've been told they may release
that individual pending further action of the of the court. So
there's no tracking done. So I can't answer your question.
Or they, um, for example, victims can still search for
release dates by name. Correct.
Has I does Ice have access to that as well? Only victims.
They would if well under the vine system victims do. But
under our system. Do you know if no.
So victims can search the release dates under the law,
under this system. But Ice doesn't have access to that
system. I know they don't have access
to that. I have to, unless they talk to
a victim. And the victim does it. They do it through the
victim. True.
Okay, Ken. Thanks. Candice.
I'm my comments. I'll save for after we hear from the public.
All righty. No more questions then.
I will take it to public comments.
We do have comments in chambers. If there are any
callers or zoom participants who would like to speak on the
community forum, please press pound two. If you're on the
phone or raise your hand in the zoom app, and we will start
with our comments and chambers. The first five speakers are
Vilma, Sonia Diaz, Natalia and Anna. Please come to both
podiums. And all of those folks come on
up and you're going to take turns between the podiums. That
way we can move along and, Oh, welcome, welcome, welcome.
Hi. Thank you. Um. Good morning,
Board of supervisors and the sheriff's department. My name
is Velma, and I am here today as part of the East County
Rapid Response Coalition. Since the current administration has
implemented their harmful agenda on immigration
enforcement throughout the nation, we have seen an impact
it has caused in our community members, our community members
is afraid to go to the grocery stores, take their children to
school, receive needed health care, and even report crimes.
Due to these and other reasons, we are here to urge Sheriff
Livingston and his department to stop their partnership with
federal agencies and cancel all contracts. We urge the
department to restructure and model itself similarly to San
Mateo County, as one of our um council members has mentioned,
they're stopped in little to no interactions with these
agencies that they do not share their county funded facilities.
They don't even share their training facilities or parking
lots with these agencies. Please do what is right for all
your constituents, regardless of their immigration status,
that you have sworn to protect and serve. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm here today as part of the
East County Rapid Response Coalition. Since the current
administration has implemented their harmful agenda of
immigration enforcement throughout the nation, we have
seen the impact it has caused on many community members. As
many of us have seen, immigration enforcement has not
been going after the criminals, the murderers or the rapists
know they are detaining the innocent, the vulnerable, and
they are destroying families for absolutely no reason. We
are here today to urge Sheriff Livingston and his department
to stop their partnership with federal agencies and cancel all
contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department in
Contra Costa County. We urge the department to restructure
and model itself similarly to San Mateo County, where the
sheriff has cut and limited interactions with federal
agencies. They do not share their county funding training
facilities with agents, nor the uses of county buildings. We
urge for transparent quarterly reports that are available to
the public on any and all DHS Ice interactions for their
constituents to see. If you continue to work with Ice.
Sheriff Livingston, I want to ask you what makes you any
different, any better than these Ice agents? If you're not
helping to protect our community, the community that
you swore an oath to protect and serve, then you are
complicit in the abuse and violence that has and will
plague our community. Is this the legacy you want to leave
behind? Thank you. Thank you. I'm here today as
far as the East. County Rapid Response
Coalition. Since this administration's immigration
enforcement agenda has expanded nationwide, our community has
felt the impact directly. People are afraid to leave
their homes to get groceries, take their kids to school, seek
health care or report crimes. That's why we're urging Sheriff
David O. Livingston and this department to end their
partnership with federal immigration agencies and cancel
all contracts with DHS and Ice, and Contra Costa County. We're
also asking for transparent quarterly public reports on any
dis interactions, so your constituents can see exactly
what's happening in our county. Please do what's right for all
of your constituents and the people you swore to protect and
serve. Thank you.
My name is Anna. I'm a member of the League of Women Voters
of Diablo Valley. We are a nonpartisan organization and
never support a candidate or a party. However, we are not
non-political. We take positions in line with the
organization's mission of defending democracy and
empowering voters. I'm here in support of Aria's
recommendations. Ice is in our backyard. The closure of San
Francisco's 100 Montgomery Street Immigration Court has
transferred a backlog of 120,000 cases to the Concord
immigration Court, tripling the caseload. This really increases
ICE's presence at at the court and in the county. Um, nothing
that we're asking prevents the sheriff's department from
continuing to do their job and to protect the community. Uh,
what we want them to do, however, is to consider the
entire community. I never imagined a day that having two
sheriffs in full gear exit their vehicle y while parked
next to me would fill me with fear. But it did. Please do
what so many counties and cities in California have
already done. You can help ease the fear that so many feel by
passing an ordinance that can be enforced, not just a policy,
but an ordinance. Stop responding to Ice notifications
and all cooperation with Ice. What we know is that in
Northern California and surrounding counties,
cooperation with Ice has ceased. I would ask that we do
the same. Let's mirror what the community wants and needs.
Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to I'm
going to pause for just a second, and we're going to call
more people up. I apologize, but that way we can keep things
moving. Thank you. The next five speakers are
Catherine, Jane, Jan, Rich and Anna Hernandez. Please come to
both podiums. Hello, I am Natalia,
representing Reimagine Richmond to express our concerns of the
violations of the Truth Act. SB 54. We are calling for the
Contra Costa County to take additional actions to stop
practice the practice of harm in our communities,
specifically in our immigrant communities, and contribute to
the dangerous federal enforcements of surveillance.
Specifically, we are recommending that the county
stops responding to Ice notifications altogether. We
need to join the rest of the bay in passing a county
ordinance to end all Ice cooperation, and the county's
flock safety contract as a surveillance system is
negatively, negatively affecting our communities.
Terminate all efforts to receive federal ARP funding for
incarcerated migrants. Contra Costa has has long been a
beacon of hope for those seeking a better life, and we
must continue to uphold policies that foster care and
compassion for all people. We are not criminals. It is
important to remember that our strength lies in our diversity.
Immigrants play a crucial role in the social, economic and
cultural fabric of our city, and we must ensure that they
have the support and protection that they need to thrive. At a
time when immigrant communities across Contra Costa are being
targeted, we must ensure that every resident feels safe, not
public safety, but community safety. Therefore, Reimagine
Richmond continues to urge the sheriff's office to end all
collaborations with Ice, even if it's just 12%, including
responding to Ice requests to release time notifications.
Given the compliance nature of SB 54, continuing Ice
notifications Open Up opens up the county to liability. I'll
end it up by saying we need this now. Thank you.
Hey, welcome. Hi, I'm Catherine Whaley,
resident of Walnut Creek, member of ace and the Racial
Justice Coalition. So do you know what Scap funding is? I
sure didn't until a few months ago when reading a San
Francisco Standard article. Did you know that in 2024, Contra
Costa was one of the top ten recipients nationwide? I sure
didn't until I read that article. This federal program
reimburses states and counties for incarcerating undocumented
people, but in exchange, counties must share a list of
the name, birth date, country of origin, and date of
incarceration of every person in jail or in prison. That
year. Then a private company helps the federal government
identify undocumented people on the list. When folks expressed
concerns about collaboration with immigration enforcement, I
think sometimes people only envision people with mustaches,
villains trolling their mustaches while they're in
shape, making shady backroom deals. But in reality, the
collaboration and cooperation folks are concerned about can
be found in the seemingly mundane details within
contracts or reimbursement programs that may easily be
overlooked by decision makers like yourselves. But the
impacts of these decisions are not mundane. The impacts of
these decisions can cause profound harm. In the case of
Scap, we're essentially exchanging personal information
about people in our custody for money. That's personal
information that could lead to Ice detaining people after
their release from jail or prison. Not only that, but
according to when the authors of the law, Scap violates the
California Values Act, which prohibits California law
enforcement from sharing personal information about an
undocumented individual, including the person's name. To
be clear, this is not a new problem unique to only this
administration. Indeed, under the Obama administration, they
were adding more conditions when it came to the getting
Scap reimbursement. Please reject Scap funds moving
forward. We need to end this practice, which violates our
state law and our. Allergan. It's good to see you.
Good to see you. Uh. Diane Warren with impact. I live in
Walnut Creek. Uh, these are not normal times. We need to keep
reminding ourselves. Um, I, uh, supported the Sierra request
today. I, repeat that we need a non cooperative ordinance, and
I want to highlight the enormous increase of people in
our immigration court in Concord. Uh, they closed San
Francisco. They were behind 60,000 cases. Now we are. You
know, you're getting 100 people at a time. They say, come on
down on such and such state. And, you know, by the way, we
haven't contacted you in a year and a half. Um, and so we have
a lot of people driving around who maybe aren't familiar with
our area. And I'm curious as to, uh, things like
misdemeanors or, uh, what's this brown person doing in our
neighborhood? Sort of a thing. Or why would someone pull them
over? We don't know why, but these are not normal times. And
and that happens. Then we have this excessive amount of data
everywhere. Databases in public, from state to local to
county, all over the place. Federal. And somebody can get
pulled over and they look up something, and next thing you
know, that information is being picked up and shared with some
other agency. So it's a real problem. And, um, I would ask
us to find ways I heard something today. Uh, out of
Chicago, but, uh, prosecutors I know were with the sheriff
department, but that that was happening there. So you may
think you have all the right rules in place, and you're
following all of them, but it doesn't take but somebody who
knows how to get into that or just ask a question. Simple
question. Pull somebody over, ask him a question, and next
thing you know, two days later they're getting picked up. So
thank you. Hi. My name is Anna Hernandez
and I'm a Pittsburgh resident. I'm here to talk about the no
data center that's going on in Pittsburgh. Uh, I'm here along
with my neighbors today. Sorry, we are only taking
comments on the truth forum right now.
Oh, okay. I'm sorry. That's okay. Anna,
just stick around. We'll do public comment towards the end
of the day. But, um, not trying to turn your voice off, but we
are doing the truth forum, right? Okay.
Hi supervisors. My name is Rich Whipple. I'm with the Contra
Costa Immigrant Rights Alliance. I wanted to thank you
and the sheriff for holding this important forum and for
the detailed information that's been provided today to us in
community. I did want to just reiterate and emphasize key
community needs and our asks of the board and of the sheriff.
First, stop responding to Ice notifications altogether. I
think that's been made clear in the presentations and community
comment before mine. Second, join the rest of the bay in
passing an Ice non-cooperation ordinance. I know we've talked
a lot about this in other spaces. I think today's
conversation underscores the importance of that work. Third,
and the county's flock safety contract, we're seeing other
municipalities do this around the state, around the region,
and ask Contra Costa to do the same. And last, as was just
spoken by another community member, please terminate and
reject any efforts to receive federal Scap funds for
incarcerating migrants. Lastly, I wanted to share my
frustration and disappointment with the censorship by the
county administrator's office who removed slides and redacted
information from our community presentation, including our
recommendations related to FLoC, the censorship certainly
contradicts the intent of this forum, and it really makes
government less responsive and less accessible to community.
Thank you again for your time. Thank you.
Good morning, Jane from Richmond, California.
We get to see you. Don't start our time. It's good to see you.
We hear your voice often, but we don't see you in person as
much. Well, welcome. I was getting kind of tired of
coming to these truth. Forums.
I don't know how many years we have been holding them. Uh, the
Contra Costa Racial Justice Coalition has opposed a
cooperation with Ice. Um, I really do regret the fact that
we call these quarterly reports from the sheriff oversight.
That is not exactly what oversight means. Oversight
means another body that actually looks at what's going
on, enters the detention facilities to see conditions
and so forth. It is an improvement, and I appreciate
it, but let's not keep calling that oversight. It's really not
oversight. Um, as far as this issue today, um, I don't think
I need to repeat. These are not, as Jan said, normal times.
This truth act is happening at a time when we're dealing with
an unlawful federal agency, an unlawful federal agency. We are
following as best as we can. Some state laws, but we must
take a strong stand in the face of the growing
authoritarianism, the cruelty, the arrest of people off the
streets. This forum has a context, and you must, as
supervisors, act with bravery, as many have done in much less
friendly environments than the Bay area, and take the stand.
That is the the public is demanding. We need an
enforceable ordinance applying to all parts of our county
government. No cooperation with Ice at all. You're going to
deal with this issue, I imagine, on September 8th,
you'll be hearing from a lot more people that day. Do it.
Think about it and be ready to pass an ordinance on September
8th. Thank you. Thank you.
Jane. I kind of missed the call out.
So we have more people. Come on.
In the next five speakers are Joanna, followed by Mariana,
Chappie, Devin and Linda. Please come to both podiums.
Good morning. Um. Hello, everybody. My name is Joanna
Godinho, and I am the policy advocacy system change
coordinator for Healthy Contra Costa. Um, and also a part of
Sierra. Um, and as others have said, we're only at the floor,
not the ceiling of what our county can do. These actions
currently be taken by our board are not the limit of the power
to protect our immigrant families and communities. We
are living through unprecedented times which
require brave leadership and action. Sheriff Livingston has
the authority to stop collaborating with us. And yet
his continued collaboration makes it clear that he is
choosing to protect some residents. Not all of us. Our
Board of Supervisors have the duty to use our county
resources to protect our community members, not enable
or advance harmful enforcement agenda against our immigrant
community members. Um, that is why we are demanding that our
Board of Supervisors take immediate action to stop
responding to Ice notifications altogether, and to join the
rest of the Bay area in passing an ordinance in September. Um,
we should continue using our resources to improvise the
protections to our community members. You all have the power
to do more. Now is the time to use it. And cooperation with
Ice and protect our community. Thank you.
Good morning. Welcome. Good morning. Mariano. Ensuring
opportunity also here as a member of the East County Rapid
Response Coalition and of Sierra, I decided I don't want
to speak in a lot of the technical points. I think
that's been handled very well. I really appreciate the
immigrant, um, legal. The lawyer, sorry, who spoke and
support every single word that she said, as well as Rich's
points for Sierra. Um, what I want to talk about is kind of
the bigger picture. I've come to this forum every year, and
this year I'm actually near tears because it is horrifying
what's happening in our country. So I'm just speaking
from my heart. Okay, there are folks that I know and care
about or afraid to go out of their house. You know, we talk
about lawlessness in this county. Ice is lawless. We need
to get it. Any cooperation with Ice? It's immoral and wrong. We
must stop it. It is so clear to me. I hope it's becoming clear
to you. This is not the society that I signed up for that I was
born into, that I have a lot of privilege in. So we have got to
work together. We have got to do this. You guys and the
lawlessness and the evil and the immorality and the
wrongness we all feel in our bones. I know you do too. We
must. We must end it unequivocally right now. Thank
you. Hello. Welcome.
Hi. So I didn't really come with anything prepared. Um.
What I wanted to express is that I got, um. I'm deeply
concerned for. For all of my neighbors, especially like
these in this current environment. Um, like, we we
see that currently, this is supposed to be only certain
felonies. And I'm concerned that there's there's a certain
amount of flexibility with the law. Right. We know that in the
state of California, the cannabis that many people enjoy
is felonious in certain other cities, the bodily autonomy and
access to public spaces that certain people have is
felonious. In other places. And so historically, the law is not
equally enforced on all people, especially people of color. And
so we need to keep that in mind when we talk about how, oh,
we're we're just doing this with, you know, certain laws.
Um, it's also especially deeply concerning because the current
administration is actively changing the rules. They are
defining certain people as associated with domestic
terrorism, with the national Security Presidential
Memorandum seven. They're implying that certain people
are domestic terrorists. When logic and reason implies that
it's not. We also know that when we turn people over to Ice
custody, we know that we are depriving them of clean water,
adequate, nutritious food, stable shelter. Um, we are
potentially turning them over into permanent incarceration,
into torture prisons to do turn them over to Ice is to be
complicit in all of this. You should consider that.
I'm going to interrupt you because we do we have any more?
Okay. I'm. You are the last. Oh, wait. It looks like there's
one other person that just stepped. Okay, so we have two.
Okay. All right. Go ahead. Good afternoon.
Once again. You know me, Linda Olvera, resident of Martinez
and, um, daughter of immigrant parents from Mexico. I always
like to say that, um. And you also know me as a person that
works almost on a daily basis with immigrants. And you also
know me as a person, because I've been here before to tell
you that I see and experience their fear, um, of even going
out of their house to go get groceries. Um, their children,
letting them go to school, not knowing if they're going to see
them again. I experience that fear. I don't think you guys
do, because you've been dragging this on and on and on.
And I'm talking about the ordinance. But I do want to say
a few words about the sheriff. Um, the sheriff likes to point
us to out as a small percentage of the.
Of the Contra Costa. County community, insinuating
that he is trying to protect the majority of Contra.
Costa County. Well. I'm not sure he understands
that there is a large percentage of immigrants that
live in Contra Costa County, that he is also obligated to
protect. My main message today is to stop Ice notification and
cooperation. And one other thing I wanted to mention was
that I'm not sure how much of you supervisors are aware of
how much money the sheriff gets from the federal government,
and we all know who runs the federal government. Do you know
how much federal money he gets from the federal government? If
you don't, I would suggest you try to find out. Um, and that
could that really be where the sheriff priorities are to get
more money, to be a bigger sheriff's department? Thank you.
I one item I will say all our major departments receive
funding from the federal government. The largest is our
health department, which funds health services. So I just want
to say in context, all of our departments and big departments
get federal funding, whether it's health, social services,
criminal justice. So just just to put that in perspective, we
could not operate. So this department by far is the health
department. Significant billions. I do want
to I know that somebody just, um, brought another card up. So
please come up if you want to speak. Um, please come up now
because we do try to run our meetings smoothly and we will
be going on to online comments after this. Uh, these two
speakers. Good morning. Uh, Devin
Williams, Contra Costa resident. Um, felonies.
Immigrants, felonies again and again is what I heard. And that
was very xenophobic. You have to have you have to be a
soulless person to even have those words leave your mouth.
But I guess it's better to have your ideology out in the open
so that people know who you are. I feel like everything
that I say has to come off of my chest. Yes, you swore an
oath to protect residents in this county and undocumented
and immigrant families are contributing to our economy and.
I guess they aren't community. I mean, oath worthy to you? If
killing citizens isn't enough for someone to stop continuing
cooperation with Ice, where can residents find the data to
debate those comments about immigrants committing crimes
and felonies? Because last I heard, American citizens commit
horrible crimes more than our average undocumented residents.
Have you heard about school shootings, mass shootings in
this country? I don't think immigrants are doing those.
These are not normal times. Do you see the direction that this
country is going in authoritarianism? I'll never
understand. When people say they swore an oath. They love
America and they love the Constitution, but turn around
and completely do everything opposite of what it stands for.
I'll also contribute that same sentiment to the way that
people say they love Christ, and that stand against
everything he actually stood for. So please do some soul
searching and stop allowing this new Gestapo to go
unchecked and actually commit crimes. You obviously care
about injustice. Anywhere is injustice everywhere. Thank.
Welcome. Thank you. My name is Donna
Janki. I am a resident of Orinda. So I guess in district
one. Um, I have a question for, um, the, uh, everyone here,
particularly the sheriff. Um, and maybe I don't really
understand the process too much. This is only the second I
of of the truth act that I've been to, but, um, these
notifications of 12%, um, that ice is being alerted to, um,
then there's these release dates, um, where ice is
notified and that they have to be in these public places where
they could possibly intercept these people. Um, what happens
to, uh, to me? Doesn't that give contract, make Contra
Costa County complicit in, um, allowing Ice to cast a wider
net and scoop up more, um, innocent people without any due
process? Um, even as it's being defined as a minimal
cooperation, does that not only add to the atmosphere of fear
and distrust in our communities? Um, as a vigil or
at the Concord Immigration Court? Um, we see the trauma of
families and especially children every day, uh, walking
in and out of that building, not understanding what their
fate is going to be or what may be lurking around. Um, the, the
area there, um, in a public space. So with these things
happening and how how is how are we as a community able to
discern which law enforcement agency here is going to protect
public safety. or harm? So these are the kinds of some of
the weeds that I think we really need to seriously
consider. Um, during these times. Thank you.
Thank you. We can now go.
To our zoom comments. The next speaker is Vanessa.
Please unmute. Hello, my name is Vanessa Chen,
and I'm a Concord resident and also a community organizer with
Monument Impact. After hearing the presentations that were
shared today, and as Ice presence has ramped up in our
communities, I urged the sheriff and county to end its
contract with FLoC. And for you all to pass a county
non-cooperation ordinance with the provision for contractors,
our local governments have turned towards data
surveillance at our county and our city levels. For example,
in Concord. Within the last few weeks, my neighbors and I have
seen flock cameras appear through different parts of the
city, including the park and stop shopping center, down the
monument corridor and near Concord's Home Depot. This
increase of surveillance at our city and county levels does not
make our community feel safe. We know that Ice has previously
used Fox network and Data to specifically target immigrants.
It's your responsibility to listen to the concerns of your
constituents and to protect our county communities, including
our data and our privacy. And the sheriff contract with Fox
Safety. We've already seen Ice in Concord and in other parts
of the county since the Concord Federal Immigration court was
first opened, and we know that Ice presence will continue to
increase in our county since more than 120,000 backlogged
cases were transferred from San Francisco's Montgomery
Immigration Court to Concord, local groups and residents have
been advocating for a non cooperation ordinance with the
contractor provisioned for over a year. And we need action now.
So again, I ask that you end the flock safety contract to
pass a non-cooperation ordinance and to stop
responding to Ice notifications altogether. Thank you.
The next speaker is Deborah. Please unmute.
Good morning. My name is Deborah Boulanger. I'm a
resident of Concord, a member of the Concord Immigrant
Protection Network and one of the original founders of Sarah.
I have sat through all but one of the Past Truth forums, and
they are beginning to feel so pro forma in spite of the
wisdom of the immigrant rights attorneys like Mio today, who
have presented year after year. If the sheriff can ignore
nearly 90% of the requests from Ice, we ask that he completely
stop cooperating with Ice altogether, much like what's
being done in San Mateo. And just because the sheriff points
out counties that do cooperate with Ice doesn't mean he has
to. But his position has been clear from the get go. It's
completely unacceptable. Especially consider ISIS cruel
treatment of immigrants being detained without due process in
torturous detention facilities. And if the sheriff and members
of the board don't know anyone who has been detained, or who
have a loved one who's been been detained, it's time you
connect more deeply with what's happening in the immigrant
community. The 120,000 cases from the San Diego court being
transferred to Concord underscores the reality that
the presence of ice in Contra Costa is not only very much
here now, but their presence will only grow in the coming
year. Therefore, it's time to pass the non-cooperation
ordinance as it was originally written. It's also time for the
county to review its use of flock cameras and to end its
flock safety camera contract, just as other jurisdictions are
doing. And finally, I request that you terminate government
Cap funding. My understanding is that this board had to
approve that funding. If that is true, that does make the
board complicit in cooperating with Ice. Thank you.
The next speaker is Jenny. Please unmute.
Hello, I'm Jennifer. Morales, community organizing
manager for the Community engagement program at Monument
Impact, where we have offices in district three and four. And
we're also a member of the Concrete Immigrant Protections
Network, along with allies. Today, we're here calling for
the county, uh, Board of Supervisors to take additional
actions to stop practices. The harm our immigrant communities
and contribute to dangerous, uh, federal enforcement and
surveillance. Just this weekend, CIP and held a town
hall to include community members input to find what
folks want to see in an ordinance and specifically in
Concord and also our local cities here in Contra Costa
have done nothing, along with the Board of Supervisors, to
pass any type of protections. And some of the feedback we
heard was, why? Why does so much of our, like, tax money go
to fund, uh, PD and the sheriff's department all to
like if it came down to it, we knew they we know they would
protect ice instead of us. And so folks are still asking,
where is the Board of Supervisors or where are con or
sorry, our City Council is doing to protect our immigrant
community? Because so far, for the past two years, it's been
nothing. Last summer we saw a bunch of kidnappings happen at
the immigration court. At the summer I'm never going to
forget and that I have to carry. We've had members who've
had to self deport. We've had members who we actually have
asked us to go with them to their immigration court date,
because their fear of getting kidnapped. We've had a staging
happen right outside, outside of our offices as at Ellis
Lake. This is information we've all shared. And so again, for
the like eighth year in a row, we're asking you to stop
responding to Ice notifications altogether. Join the rest of
the pain. Passing an ordinance and the county's flock safety
contract and terminate all efforts to receive Scap funding
for incarcerating immigrants. Thank you.
The next speaker is Tony. Please unmute.
Hi. Good morning. My name is Tony, executive director with
United Latino Voices. Billions of dollars are already invested
into an agency going on a reign of terror across the country.
Contra Costa is not the exception or safe from this,
especially with the immigration court here in Concord. Our
county does not need to provide more resources or support, uh,
for us to do enforcement. And that means that the county
sheriff's department should not be entertaining notifications
and should stop responding to these immediately. It is very
clear that the Sheriff's Department does not know how to
interpret the law when it comes to notifications. Uh, listening
to the ilk attorney, uh, that it has become very obvious that
internally the sheriff's department just doesn't know
how to assess cases and, um, needs to do better. Uh, again,
we should not be helping Ice, and that means we do not need
to be investing our county resources into a company like
FLoC, a system that will always profit, will always put profits
over people. Uh, and has always and will continue to provide
data to agencies like Ice. And so, again, billions of dollars
already going into an agency. Our resources here at the local
level, we don't need to keep giving that to them. Uh, we
should be instead investing all of that money to our community
and the community needs here. Thank you.
The next speaker is Sonia. Please unmute.
Sonia, please unmute. Hello, this is Sonia. Can you
hear me? Yes we can.
Okay. Thank you. I was just on a phone call, um, at the court
about the court. Um, so I want to thank the supervisor. Say
good morning to everyone and the sheriff. Thank you for the
report. Uh, my name is Sonia Bustamante. With Safe Center,
and I echo with our colleagues at um, ilk presented and the
concerns they raised. You know, we're reporting to you from the
ground, from the communities that we are serving, from our
clients who have shared stories with us. And, you know, they're
also victims of crimes. And it's their voices we're
bringing you today. Um, and also the expertise, right, from
our immigration lawyers who know the law checked the
changing landscape of the current laws and how they're
being interpreted. And that's part of the context here for
today's forum. And we're also a part of Countrywide Networks.
We're experiencing in real time the way that Ice is
weaponizing, you know, contracts that otherwise would
have been with contractors that seemed benign, like FLoC. And
there's been violations of information privacy rights. You
know, we're concerned about this gap program. Also. Um, so
we would like to hear from the sheriff as to why we are
participating in that program. And our counterparts across the
country are giving us advice and warning us that their local
governments, including their local law enforcement, are
feeling like they're put back on their heels due to ice
exploiting and weaponizing programs and contracts that may
have not been exploited like they are now, but they're using
it to incite violence and fear. And so we're saying, let's
scrutinize all of these areas of potential vulnerability.
Let's be proactive and public trust is super essential right
now. Thank you. The next speaker is Pittsburgh
Citizen. Please unmute. Pittsburgh Citizen, please
unmute. We can go on to the next member.
The next speaker is Nieva. Please unmute.
Supervisors. My name is Nieva. I work in Concord, and I'm also
a volunteer with the Concord Immigrant Protection Network. I
would like to echo several of the statements made today, and
reinforce that the county of Contra Costa should stop
responding to Ice altogether and ensure private data is
never shared with federal agencies. As previously
mentioned, passing a strong non-cooperation ordinance that
closes contractor loopholes and is enforceable would help
accomplish these critical needs. I also call for the
county to break its contract with flock immediately. We've
seen nationwide that surveillance data collected by
flock can easily be abused, but in county funds toward these
surveillance systems takes away necessary funds for public
services and places vulnerable, vulnerable communities at risk.
Given that communities cannot ensure the security of data
collected by these surveillance cameras, public resources
should be used to foster safe and healthy communities for
families, and everyone can feel safe accessing public resources
and going to school or work. Safety doesn't come from hyper
surveillance. It starts with elected representatives who
will speak up for their community when it is needed
most. Right now, families in Contra Costa are living in
constant terror and concord. We've heard this directly from
families who are terrified that they will be torn apart. This
reality has profound impacts on the mental health of children.
Growing up in Contra Costa and their parents. How you choose
to act in this moment will be remembered. If you can continue
to enable the spread of terror and fear by a lawless
organization that is kidnapping community members, your
constituent constituents in this entire community will not
forget it. I urge you to take immediate action to protect
immigrant community members and families that call Contra Costa
home. Thank you. The next speaker is ovata.
Please unmute. Hi.
This is. Hoby Mendoza. I'm with
Brentwood City Council. We have already instructed our police
department to no longer participate with anything that
has to do with Ice. Our people come first. My request is that
the county police stop cooperating and notifying Ice.
I'm also asking for an SB 54 audit, where you go through
every single instance and release that to the public. Let
every single victim be able to take action as they please. We
do not. You should not be allowing any federal Ice agents
on any county property. I would also like an audit of of
Livingston's expenses. Um, with general ledger entries and the
purpose of those entries. You hold the purse strings. If he
is doing something, it is under your financial watch. Um, I
also urge every single voter in Contra Costa to look at who
endorsed Livingston. He came up here today and said that even
if the Board of Supervisors set tells him not to do something,
he's going to do what he wants. When it comes to ice. Diane
Berg has endorsed Livingston. He is on. She is on his
website. So elections matter. So while we're here talking
about what we can do now, the most important thing that
anyone out there can do is look at who you're voting for and
who is supporting them and who is not supporting them. So
lastly, I would like to also the county to put a ban on any
detention centers in the county. And while we're at it,
please bring forward an agenda item to ban any data centers
in, um, in the county as well. Thank you very much.
The next speaker is Luis. Then you.
Liz, please unmute. Are you.
Able to hear me? Yes we are, thank you.
Hi. My name.
Is Liz Richie. I am a resident.
And longtime. Resident of Contra.
Costa County. A naturalized.
Citizen, and I would like to say that immigration laws exist
for a reason. They are here.
To. Protect the safety.
Security and sovereignty. Of the. United States.
U.S. Immigration. And Customs Enforcement, or
Ice. Is the.
Agency charged with. Enforcing these.
Laws inside. Our country, supporting.
Ice enforcement is not about politics.
It's about upholding. The rule.
Of law and keeping American. communities safe. Every nation
has the right and. responsibility to decide who
may enter and remain. within its borders. When individuals
ignore. These.
Rules, ICE's enforcement and Removal Operation officers
identify, arrest, and detain and remove people who are
unlawfully present or who have final orders of removal.
Priority is given to those who pose threats to public safety.
Individuals with criminal convictions pending charges,
gang affiliations or national security concerns. Removing
people who have committed serious crimes such as assault,
sexual offenses, drug trafficking, or homicide
directly reduces risk to law abiding residents. Enforcement
also protects the integrity of our legal immigration system.
Millions of people around the world wait years, follow the
rules, and invest significant effort to come here lawfully,
allowing widespread unlawful presence undermines their
sacrifices and erodes public confidence in the system.
Strong interior enforcement deters future illegal entries,
reduces the burden on local communities and taxpayers, and
ensures that limited resources for housing, schools and health
care are not overwhelmed. Ice officers operate under the
authority of statutes passed by Congress. They work with
federal, state, and local partners, serve detainers on
individuals already in criminal custody, and carry out court
ordered removals supporting their mission.
The next speaker is Craig. Please unmute.
Uh, yes. Thank you. Greg. Already from Martinez. I think
a lot of us, uh, you know, have conflicted views on this issue
because I like most of the speakers, agree that Ice, as is
currently configured as a lawless, unethical, corrupt
organization that probably should be abolished, um, and so
cooperating with them does not serve the interests of our
community. However, you know, I think what the sheriff says is
a point well-taken that when you do have people who commit
crime after crime after crime, and are not here legally and
not obeying our laws, that does pose a public safety concern
and public safety threat. And it would be nice if we could,
uh, address those issues and protect both the immigrant
community and non immigrants and citizens and non-citizens
from people who are dangerous along those lines, um, we had a
tragic situation in my hometown a couple of weeks ago where
someone who happened to be undocumented, uh, stabbed one
of our residents to death and outside his home on the
sidewalk. And, of course, uh, right wing media has latched
onto that and made this an issue about immigration policy.
But in this case, it really as far as I can tell, it's not an
issue about public about immigration policy. The issue
here is about general policy in terms of our criminal justice
system, where someone is arrested on a burglary charge,
released, uh, pretrial, is given an ankle monitor, uh,
home detention violates that ankle monitor. Roll is brought
back to the jail, has the ankle monitor taken off and is sent
home from jail without an ankle monitor. Told to come back in
two days by the sheriff's office. And today, where he
does not have an ankle monitor on. He steps one of our
residents. And I've been trying for two weeks to get some
explanation to how something like that could happen. That's
not about ice. That's about common sense. Thank you.
The next speaker is Mary Fair. Please unmute.
Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
Hello. Um, today I'm here representing Monument Impact
East, Contra Costa rapid Response Coalition. And as an
undocumented immigrant myself, uh, I grew up in Contra Costa
County, uh, predominantly in Concord and now living in Bay
point. I grew up seeing my friends and neighbors be
impacted by the county's key role during the Bush and Obama
era deportations. It is so shameful to hear that we have
not come very far after 20 years. Um, and to hear that our
county sheriff is co-signing a potential breach of our
constitutional rights that apply to all of us, no matter
our immigration status, especially due process. Um, all
I have heard today is that our sheriff is unable to protect
residents across the county because of their. Because of
his own individual beliefs, rather than the health and
safety of our whole community. I do appreciate Supervisor
Scales Preston asking a great question, and the answer was
very clear. It is not illegal to not respond to Ice requests,
so it is clear that it is a self-interest based decision
from Sheriff Livingston. It is shameful that local organizers
are carrying the brunt of the work to protect the community,
with little to almost no support from the county to
prevent further harm and trauma. This is a mental health
issue. This is a foster care issue. This is a community
safety issue. We must take lead from places like Santa Clara
County and make sure to stop responding to Ice requests
altogether. Stop asking for immigration status and
paperwork and booking. We don't have to track that in the first
place. Uh, ban ice from using county buildings for any
operations. Um, they should not be using any of our county
buildings that are supposed to be safe and sanctuary. Um, you
we need to unite the bay and make sure we are passing a
strong county ordinance to end all Ice cooperation.
The next speaker is Daniel. Please unmute.
Uh, good morning, board and good morning, community. Uh,
this is Daniel Romer. I am a 30 year resident of the county and
an immigration attorney. I spoke last to the board, and I
explained how, um, the immigration system over the
past, you know, 35 years has been broken and become more
broken. And it is the goal of this administration to
completely deconstruct this system so that more and more
immigrants are illegal and that they can deport them and get
their deportation numbers. Um, so we kind of toggle back and
forth between this kind of, uh, you know, um, idea that we have
a rule of law and people should follow the rules. And then
what's going on in the streets, including in our monument
border, um, of this reign of terror. Um, and so the sheriff
and others, to be sure, when people call out that terror,
they say, oh, well, those are, um, that's a fringe element.
Those are those are the loonies on the left doing that. But I'd
like to share with you what, um, the conservative icon,
Jonathan last published last month in his Substack. He said
this in America, we have become inured to incidents in which
law enforcement kills civilians. The idea that local
law enforcement officials can use deadly force at the drop of
a hat is accepted by the general public, but what the
federal government has been doing to people assumed to be
immigrants is different from normal brutality. It is a
targeted campaign we are witnessing for the first time
since Jim Crow American death squads. So again, this is a
Republican Party member, a long time conservative icon.
Jonathan Last, who writes for the Wall Street Journal and the
National Review. Uh, so I don't think it's outlandish to call
what's going on, uh, what it is, which is terror on its
face. Um, I guess what I'd like to share with you is I recently
went on a bike ride with a group of people that I ride
with, and one of the men got up. He said he was a black.
He's a black man. And he said, you know, these are dangerous
times that we live in, and we all have to do what we can to
to stand up and speak up the truth and try to get things
better. And he said, you know, I'm a black man, so I know I
have a target on my back for that reason. But he says I have
some leverage. I'm a man I can use..
The next speaker is Joanna. Please unmute.
Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Um. Good morning.
Uh. Supervisors, my.
Name is Joanna. I'm here with presenting
healthy Contra Costa. And again, I just want to say that
I echo and support the comments made by some of my, some of the
previous speakers. I think now more than ever is a time where
we need to come together and truly support and protect our
immigrant community members. Um, let's not forget that a lot
of the acts of terror done in this country have actually been
done by people that were not holding foreign passports, that
were actually born in the oil. I fear for my safety as an
American citizen when I go to the movie theaters, when I go
to the mall, when I go into churches, stores, there's
literally no place that is safe in this country for people to
go and to visit without the fear of gun violence being
present. That usually happens at the hands of an American
citizen. So again, if you want to talk about crime, let's look
at the data that supports that. Um, undocumented folks are way,
way, way less likely to commit violent crimes. And American
born citizens. Again, if this is truly about safety, let's
make sure that we're supporting the programs. Um, the the
initiatives that support people's livelihoods so that
they don't have to turn to crime. Um, so they don't have
to go and, you know, abuse substances or do whatever it is
that they do to cope with the realities of living in this
country. Um, again, I think now more than ever, we really need
to assess what is going on in our country. Um, by cutting
ties with vendors like FLoC that will actively, um, provide
data, um, to Ice and to the federal government violating
sometimes contracts that they have with existing cities,
municipalities. So again, I urge you all to really support
a non-cooperation ordinance so that these loopholes cannot
continue to exist in our county policy so that we can actually
ensure that not just undocumented people are safe,
but everyone is safe from, um, you know, the terror that is
currently going on and this administration. Thank you.
Speaker. Is Pittsburgh Citizen. Please unmute.
Hello. I'd like to join in.
The call. asking you to pass. , uh, ice non-cooperation.
Ordinance. Along with.
The rest of the. Bay area.
It's long. Overdue.
Um. Also asking to end.
All flock. Contracts within.
The county. Uh, the sheriff has long shown
that he does not care what the community wants, what the
community needs, and your community. needs you to step up
and join the rest of the bay and end all Ice cooperation.
Thank you. There are no more public
comments. All right. Thank you. I'm going
to start down here with Supervisor Scales Preston, and
then I'll work my way down. Or did you want to go first?
Because I. Know I just had questions. I
wasn't going to make comments and just some follow up
questions. Okay. Go ahead sir. Um, to the sheriff. Are you
sharing any of your facilities or office space with Ice? This
was brought up by several people that some there's some
level of cooperation. No, none.
Okay. And you're not aware of any other county facilities
that Ice is utilizing? Okay. Just wanted to make. Okay. The
stop, um, reimbursement issue. What information is provided?
You started your remarks earlier today or you stated
your remarks earlier today that typically Ice is notified that
we have someone who is incarcerated in one of our
jails based upon the DOJ database. They're fingerprinted
when they are arrested and are presented at our jail. Is a lot
of additional information provided when we seek
reimbursement, which is a long standing program to reimburse
us for the expense of housing. People who have beenonvicted
of a crime in our facilities. There's not a lot of additional
information. We, like most agencies, do this pro forma.
It's actually administrative task to go through the course
of the reporting period to determine who is in custody
that is here illegally in the United States. And the federal
government reimburses us regardless of interaction with
Ice or anything else, that that number is typically around
800,000 a year, which actually goes into our revenue line for
our budget with the county administrator. We haven't seen
the number yet this year. We're not sure what that number will
be. It varies each year, but it's it's administrative. It's
reimbursing local jails essentially for holding those
that are undocumented or here illegally.
But it's not a contract with Ice. I just want to make that.
Very clear. Okay. Um, other question. While
it's not on our agenda, we don't have any flat camera, um,
contracts before us at this time. What is your
understanding? And again, I utilize, I utilize I have
utilized cameras in my district extensively. They have been an
amazing tool to prevent crimes because they aren't facial
recognition cameras. They show a license plate. They show a
vehicle color, make, etc. but it was my understanding several
years ago when we started installing more flock cameras,
there were very narrow restrictions on where this data
can be shared. Um, can you comment on that as well?
Because we're getting these allegations of you must cancel
Ice contracts because you're sharing that data with Ice and
they are out there utilizing it to track non-citizens.
So many years ago, we told FLoC, we do not want our data
shared and it has not been shared as far as we know.
That's what they have, uh, informed us. But we also have
recourse. We have vigilant. There are other vendors that
provide cameras. And you're right, they are an incredible
investigative tool. They do deter crimes, particularly in
cities that have them and notify the community that
they're out and recording license plates. Our policy is
very clear. We hold the data for one year maximum, and that
is always subject to adjustment as well. But the idea is that
it's an investigative tool. That's that's all it is for us.
And as I mentioned, there are several vendors, not just FLoC
that happens to be receiving the attention today.
Thank you so much. Those are your questions. Our
questions. One of my I, I've been listening and I just just
generally. I'm curious. We've been we've talked I've asked
this question in the past. We don't get the data on the
victims of these crimes. So we don't know if these are folks
from those vulnerable communities, but it has been
discussed that because of these times, people are afraid to
report certain crimes and that often they are the victims of
this crime. Do you have anything to say about that?
Our our experience doesn't show that. I know that's a common
talking point, but the reality is that when you see 92
notifications, it's essentially 92 victims that are also that
also need to be taken consideration of. And that's my
job as sheriff. And some of these offenses are robberies.
They are burglaries. They are child molesters. They are
rapes. In some cases, homicide. And again, we're talking 12% of
what I was asked to notify Ice. I only complied in 12% of the
cases. And that's because we follow state law very
carefully. And this is a tool. Whatever Ice decides to do, at
least we may impact that cycle of crime. When you look at some
of these individual cases, there's a laundry list of prior
crimes from those offenders. Yeah. I'm just curious about
the victims of a lot of these crimes that, you know, we don't
know if they're also members of the the folks that are being
targeted as well. Okay. I am going to give folks a chance to
now make their comments. If anybody wants to. Action. That
was right. I have a question.
Go ahead. Thank you.
Um, so when those individuals they're charged here in the
county, um, let's say if it was a rape or a burglary or
whatever other issue it was, they'll do their time here in
the county, right? Not necessarily know.
So what what would happen to them. Because they'll get
fingerprinted ice to know why they're being charged here.
Right. And then what happens after that.
So when their case is adjudicated locally in Superior
Court, if the judge imposes a penalty, particularly for a
rape or child molest, that person is transferred to,
excuse me, state prison. So we would only hold that person
during the pendency of their criminal trial. You know, as of
last count, we had nearly 200 inmates facing murder charges
in this county. Those can take years to resolve. Those
individuals are my responsibility as the sheriff
to keep in custody until the case is resolved. In 96% of the
cases, the individual either pleads guilty or is found
guilty. In that case, they are transferred within days to the
state prison system. But without notifying Ice, they
still will go to it through a regular process. As someone who
is a US citizen. Yes.
Okay, so I think, I don't know. For me it's just hard to
understand, like why are we keep contacting Ice? Like, I
just don't understand. I guess the notifications, because if
they're going to be charged just like a US citizen and
they're undocumented, then they're going to pay for the
crime that they convicted, that they're convicted of. Right.
Um, so it seems like it makes even more of a case now that we
shouldn't provide any communication with Ice or have
any type of notification, because Ice already has that
information once they're charged, they're going to go
through the legal process for whatever crime they are
convicted of, and they'll get transferred to state prison or
if they if Ice comes with a ward or a court order, they'll
come and do their part. So I still don't understand why
we're providing notifications to Ice that the system is
working the way it's supposed to work.
The ice notifications are for releases from our custody, so
if they are transferred to state prison, which a person
convicted of a major felony or serious violent felony would
be, then Ice would deal with the state prison system. So
that's the difference. If that person is being released
pending charges, additional follow up investigation, no
charges, what have you. If they have qualifying offenses, those
are the ones that we notify on. Thank you.
I think that's all the questions. Does anybody want to
make some statements. Go ahead..
Okay. Well and I'm going to start out with something I've
said. And I vehemently believe it. The vast majority of
immigrants within our Contra Costa County are, regardless of
their legal status, are good people. They are law abiding.
They are hardworking in many cases taxpaying. They are
seeking the same American dream that my ancestors came to the
United States for. And so I've got to say, we can't say that
anything we're talking about today is broadly talking about
all of our immigrant population today. We're talking about a
very narrow cooperation under SB 54 of those who are here
without documentation, who have committed very serious crimes.
And I've got to say, um, you know, when we look at what's
going on, it is frightening. And I've got to agree with you
100%. None of us, I think, could have anticipated there
would be a day where we would see ice randomly picking people
up off the street, or people showing up at an ice hearing,
or Ice agent showing up at a public hearing, a criminal is
being treated as criminals when in fact they have come to this
country. They have applied for asylum. They're on a pathway to
citizenship. They may have a green card, they may be here on
a visa, yet they are being pulled out when they show up
for their court appearances. I find it reprehensible. I'm not
supportive of it in my own family. As I was speaking to my
son in law, whose mother is originally from Indonesia, she
is a U.S. citizen, yet she carries her passport with her
out of I fear that because she doesn't
look like an American citizen, that she might get pulled over
by ice. And it is shocking to me that I see this happening.
But I do want to distinguish that we do have to today, focus
on what we're talking about, which is those who are in the
country who commit serious crimes, and there are victims
as a share of is continuing to point out, we are leaving
victims in the wake. And I don't think w should be
conflating these two issues with the immigrant immigration
issue. The crisis that we are facing overall, I am of the
belief that people who are here without documentation, who do
commit serious crimes, don't deserve or should have that
expectation that they should remain in the country even if
they've paid their debt to society by being by serving
time in prison. Today, it was very illustrative to see how
many of the people who were notified on the Who. We
received the request. We notified have an extensive
criminal record. And as I'm out meeting with people in the
community and I talk about this issue a lot because there is so
much fear about ISIS actions, about immigration, I will say
that the vast majority of people I speak to do not
believe that people who commit serious crimes should be
allowed to remain in the country. They don't like ISIS
actions, they don't like what is happening when people are
being pulled off the street or out of a legitimate court
hearing that they're at, but they do not believe that people
who commit serious crimes should remain in this country.
So I am very supportive of the way the measured response to
the sheriff has been taking with this, where it's not every
single request from Ice is being responded to, but those
12% cases that truly meet the SB 54 standard, and we have a
very progressive legislature. And if they felt that SB 54 did
not set some significant guidelines, they would not
hesitate to change SB 54 and limited even further if they
did not believe we had those guardrails in place to ensure
that innocent citizens or innocent non-citizens who are
here in the country were given a pathway to deportation. And
so I think it's very important that we really focus on what
does SB 54 allow. Are we complying with that? That's the
purpose of the forum, and I've not heard anything today
indicating that we are not only not that we are fully compliant
with it, but also we are taking a very measured response to it.
Nothing we are doing is could reasonably be deemed
cooperation with Ice. We do not provide the meeting rooms. The
sheriff's indicated we do not interview with individuals. We
are not participating in any Ice raids, and I think that's
got to be a message that is put out in the community. And with
regard to the flock cameras, to me, they are a very, very
valuable tool in law enforcement. None of us have an
expectation of privacy when we are on a public road, driving a
car to the extent of an expectation of privacy that our
make model of our car and our license plate will not be. That
information will not be gathered. I think that's
critical. And to me, it's something where I do not
believe. We want to see a reduction in flock cameras
because they do prevent many, many crimes by notifying police
when some when a vehicle affiliated with a felony, a
stolen vehicle enters into a community. So I am very
supportive of us continuing with those. And those are my
remarks. But I have been patient. No.
Um, first and foremost, I would agree with Supervisor Anderson,
and we're here about the Truth Act. Um, specifically and how
we're focused in on on our direct what I'll call direct,
um, cooperation or work with Ice in the sense of responding
to these requests for notification. But it does give
us the foundational discussion and even broader discussion as
we move to our September conversation on our policies in
non cooperation with Ice specifically. And I think one
of the recurring themes we've heard here today is especially
when it comes to flock cameras, but another sense that the
tactics that are used by DHS and Ice in mining our systems,
no matter what that is, um, to further their immigration
enforcement policies and actions. And I think that's a
theme that we're hearing that the community wants us to
protect that data, protect that information in order to to be,
you know, protecting our community and, and keep them
safe. So I think what we're hearing a lot of today, there
are definitely questions I have is we come out of here. Um, but
what we look at when we move into our conversations, which I
hope is again, September 8th to discuss, you know, our policies
make us stand on our values and communicate that clearly to the
community. And I said this in our last conversations, but I
also do not want to give a false sense of security or
safety when we're talking about a federal administration who we
do not have the power to preempt and or control. So it
has to be those things we can control those actions. We can
take. And again, I look forward to those discussions as we move
forward. You know, we've spent 18 months in the equity
committee having these conversations. And I think it's
incumbent upon us to follow through on that and bring that
to closure. So thanks. Thank you. Um, and I appreciate
all of the discussion today. I appreciate all the public
comment and from hearing from my colleagues. I think what
we're hearing today is quite simple. It's not quite
complicated at all. Community is just asking for you to stand
in community and support them. They want to feel. They want to
feel that the people they elected support them. They want
to feel that our public safety support them, our staff support
them is is not complicated at all. I think we make it
complicated and the way we don't make it complicated is is
simple. It's saying that we're not going to cooperate with Ice.
We are going to follow the law. And if someone's doing
something wrong, they should be convicted and processed. And I
understand that, um, I have someone who father was killed
by his brother. I understand that people should go to jail
for the crimes that they do, and they should be convicted of
those crimes, so I'm not against that at all. I think
what we see across the nation, and then we look locally here
in our community, those actions are taking place in our
community. And so how do we come together as here as our
Contra Costa family, to make sure that our immigrant
community feel protected. And that is not difficult. We
cannot stop Ice. That's correct. But we can stand in
unity to say that we're not going to work with them. And so
if they are in our community, we're not going to allow them
to be in our facilities. We're not going to allow them to be
in our health care facilities. They can't go to a Head Start
location. They can't go into any of our public safety areas.
They can't come to empty lots and stage. I mean, these are
just simple little things. I think community is asking. I
just don't feel like it's that complicated. And as we go into
our next conversation in a couple of weeks to talk about
an ordinance or a policy, that's another place where
community is just asking you to stand in community. They know
that you can't protect them at the gas station or the grocery
store. They just want to know that you all support them, and
making sure that ice is not cooperating together in any
kind of way, whatever that is. No information being shared,
that's all. Or they're asking for. So I hope that as we move
forward in the next couple of weeks, we can think about that
of how we're not going to cooperate at all. Thank you.
I have a question related to the work we're doing for the
September 8th meeting. Um, Tom, does the requirements that AG
Bonta has asked us to and work incorporating, you know, those
things do those things impact the the work that we're talking
about today on the sheriff's interactions?
Uh, to some extent they do. But to another extent they don't.
Um, and I'll be. really good. It is a good answer. So I'll be
able to explain that more on the eighth. But the attorney
general has already issued guidance that the sheriff, uh,
follows. And so I'll be able to explain kind of how the two
interact. Yeah, just I'm just trying to
help people kind of understand where that is. And, um, there's
been some questions related to, um, ordinances and policies
related. I know this is an agenda, but it's sort of
connected. So you're going to have to be generous with me. Um,
one of the conditions, one of the concerns is our, um,
agreements with our contractors to align with what we're doing.
Does that apply to, like, someone like flock?
So I'll be able to explain that as well on the eighth. But, um,
in general, I mean, if the board does, uh, you know, want
to establish, uh, restrictions on contractors, there'll be,
uh, they'll apply to contracts going forward. Um, and not
necessarily contracts that are already in existence.
So there is that opportunity to, to have that influence,
possibly. Yes. That that'll be kind of
one of the options that the board will.
Sorry. We'll be able to discuss.
Thanks, Tom. Go ahead John. Thanks. And I'll start by
always thanking the public that shows up to advocate during
these really trying, challenging times. And thanks
to the Sheriff's department for collecting more data. We've
asked always for more and appreciate getting more
information. Um, we've had a few of these truth Act forms,
and I think what we're seeing in the last couple of years,
more and more and we know this, we feel this, we here, this is
the the frustration, anger, um, and other really strong
feelings with what's happening in this country and the way ice
is acting. Um, ice is, um, murdering of American citizens.
ICE's, um, splitting of families. And I think that's
what we're seeing. That's what we're feeling is that ice is
doing things that we never expected or wanted, or that it
should be doing. And I think that's what we feel. That's
what we see through these, um, through these the testimony and
why it's reflected. Um, here and, and at other meetings,
including on September 8th. So just a couple of observations,
a few things I've always said, um, no matter who the sheriff
is, I think we should have always have sheriff oversight,
whether it's through an inspector general or a
citizen's oversight committee. I've taken that position
constantly. I voted that way. Just hasn't received majority
support. And I say that whoever the sheriff is, I think that's
the model that we should have. Second, um, I know on September
8th we will be having a discussion about our policies.
Um, I do support a stronger, um, ordinance. We'll have that
discussion. I won't get into that today. And I look forward
to having that, which is a separate I understand it's
related here somewhat, but it's a separate issue. Right. So
that's going to be, I think, a vibrant discussion. And I
appreciate that the board is has directed county council to
come back with some more options and information, and
we'll see where the board goes on that. I will say, because I
serve on the Joint Conference committee to oversee the
hospital and clinics, along with my colleague, Supervisor
Carlson, and two physicians, um, the the Joint Conference
Committee, which is tasked with setting policies for our
hospital and 11 clinics, has passed a policy on
non-cooperation with Ice. Now, some want us the policy to
include some elements that are in LA county's that go beyond
what's in Santa Clara or Alameda or even San Francisco.
And so we'll be taking that issue up again. But I want to
be clear, we did pass a policy that specifically addresses how
we limit Ice in our health facilities, because that's
that's a separate thing from this September 8th discussion.
I'm sure it may get wrapped up in it, but it's a policy
because we're a health. We're also a health agency. Um, so
just just to clarify that, um, I have I have always said that
I believe the line of which serious crimes and felonies
that we should be informing, notifying Ice about is a
different line than where the sheriff's drawing the line. I
do believe that. I know there's been some discussion about
that. Um, and, um, I thought, you know, Craig Lazaridis
comment is an interesting one because I think a lot of people
reflect where Craig's comment who the Martinez resident who
said, um, because I hear this also from residents in Richmond
and San Pablo. Um, we, we think what Ice is doing is wrong. We
need to limit our cooperation with Ice. We need to be we need
to also limit, um, the sheriff's cooperation with Ice.
But there are certain types of serious crimes and felonies
that we don't want to release, whoever they are. So I think we
have to acknowledge that there are people who feel that way,
people who are strongly critical of Ice, strongly
critical of what's happening, who feel, and including in
cities like Richmond who feel we need we need to figure this
out. Um, and so I've always said, I think the sheriff's
line is, is not where I think it should be. Um, are there
some serious crimes and felonies in which there should
be notification? I think there's a lot of people who
believe we need to figure out what that right line is. Now,
the other thing is, whatever this board says, um, and I
think others have pointed out what's happening in San Diego,
um, in San Diego County, of the Board of Supervisors providing
the direction to do something, and the sheriff not doing it
because under state constitutional law, the sheriff
has independent authority in other counties, like in Santa
Clara, the Board of Supervisors and the sheriff are on the same
page or in or in other counties, I think the same in
Alameda. In some counties they're not. So our ability as
a board, I think there's things we can do. What? But if if five
members of the board said, we don't want you to cooperate at
all, and the sheriff decided to do his own thing, that's what
the law would allow the sheriff to do, despite what we say. And
that's what's happening in San Diego County. What I, I think
we need to continue to strengthen our policies. I'm
looking forward to doing that on September 8th when this
comes before us even looking at what do we do more with
hospital and clinics? And I believe the line should be
drawn differently than where the sheriff's drawing the line.
But I don't quite go as far as saying no cooperation at all,
because I do think there are some who believe that that
very, very serious felonies, there should be some ability to
notify, just that I don't believe the line is in the
right place. So I think I've always been up front. That's
where I'm coming from, all these things. Um, now, if we
had additional sheriff oversight, um, we could do some
other things because the sheriff oversight would have
subpoena power. State law gives it subpoena power. We do get
quarterly reports, which I appreciate, from the sheriff's
office. He's provided more data. I just believe as a
matter of structure, we should have official oversight
established under state law, which we we haven't done yet as
a board. So, um, I'm looking forward to continuing to
advocate consistent with what I just said. And on September
8th, supporting the stronger ordinance. And we'll see where
we go. I, I, I think my colleagues
have said it very well. Um, I appreciate the public
participating. I think it is unprecedented times. And
there's a lot of different things that we need to do to
help people feel safer. Um, as we approach the September 8th
meeting, I'm also interested in knowing what all of our cities
and major agencies, policies or ordinances are that apply to
what we're considering, because I think that folks don't
realize that a lot of the work we do is only applicable to
unincorporated Contra Costa, or within our county buildings.
And I think if, uh, if people are truly committed to Contra
Costa as a whole, it's got to be everyone. So hopefully, uh,
during that staff report, we will see what these other
cities and agencies like Bart or CHP or East Bay Regional
Park, you know, all of these different agencies that also
participate. Uh, what their ordinances and policies are.
Because if we're going to do something, we all have to be in
it together. So at this point, there's no action on this
particular item. Correct. So thank you for everyone
participating. And we're going to move on to the next.
Please come back on September 8th. I'm sure you will.
I'm sure they will. Um, it is 1220. We have a very important
presentation, uh, from Doctor Colfax. Um, I think we'll take
that. And then we're going to go to lunch for a short amount
of time, and then we'll come back for the rest of the
meeting. So if you are here for something other than Doctor
Colfax presentation, I just want to let you know. So we're
going to do Doctor Colfax presentation now.
Is that okay? Yes.
Everybody's going to do a coffee bathroom break. We'll be
back in five minutes. Our next item to be discussed is
consider accepting a report on Contra Costa Health's current
fiscal outlook and long term planning for Contra Costa
Regional Medical Center and health centers, as recommended
by the Health Services Director, and to provide
guidance. We have doctor Grant Colfax, our Health Service
director. We have Andrew Morrell, our chief financial
officer. Is this the first time you're here in the board
meeting? I don't yeah, I thought so. This was new. Um,
our chief and David Culberson, our chief executive officer for
Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and health centers.
You've been here a number of times. So. So welcome. Uh, this
is a really important presentation. And, uh, I think
this is something that people are going to come back and
watch even when they're not here today. So this is really
important. So take it away. Well thank you, chair, and good
afternoon. Board and members of the public public, it's a
pleasure to be with you to present an update on the fiscal
outlook of Contra Costa Health, including with a focus on
Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. Um, first, the good
news, the short term fiscal picture for Contra Costa Health
has improved. This is due to the very hard work of people
across Contra Costa Health who remain firmly dedicated to
providing the highest quality health care for everyone in
Contra Costa, including an especially the most vulnerable.
However, due to severe reductions in funding from H.R.
one and recent state policies, the long term fiscal status of
Contra Costa Health remains dire, as it does for public
health systems across the region, state and country. The
fact is that the big picture is that we and no county, will be
able to make up the severity of the federal and state
reductions. Our health care system, and especially the
hospital, remains a grave risk. And I think it's important to
remember that behind these fiscal numbers, our lives at
risk, people at risk of losing their health insurance have not
been able to access care, of delaying care for themselves or
their loved ones. We know that without coverage, without
health care coverage, people get sicker. And some people
will die sooner. I trained in the days before Obamacare and
frequently saw people with late diagnoses, whether it be
cancer, infections or behavioral health diagnoses,
suffering in emergency rooms because they didn't have the
coverage or a place to go for their care. We don't want to go
back to those days. That is why we need your leadersp,
support and guidance as we face a challenge as we face
challenging and a fiscally bleak picture. Despite what the
potential future holds under H.R. one, I am hopeful and
optimistic that the future can be different. In a future where
the creativity, resilience, and commitment of the Contra Costa
Health Team and our community partners and you allow us to
continue to serve the community and meet the needs of the most
vulnerable. This will take hard work at the local level to
modernize and improve our systems of care. It will
require prioritizing and making hard decisions, and even more
importantly, because we cannot do it alone, it will require
reversing the impact of H.R. one or creating and
implementing new policies for sufficient health care funding
to provide care. Thank you for your support, and I'll turn it
over to Drew Merrill to go through the numbers.
Good afternoon. Supervisors.
Drew Morales, CFO. Happy to be here and presenting, uh,
starting with the slides we'll go through an overview of this
discussion today. We'll go to the second slide. Um, really
starting with the changing landscape. So what's changed?
How is HR one state budget impacted. How do we see it
impacting Contra Costa Health. Um what we're doing our
response. How are we adapting to the fiscal environment. And
then really drilling into where the impact is the greatest at
our county hospital and clinic system Caremark and how we're
adapting and planning to modernize the county's hospital
to meet future community needs. Some takeaways that want to hit
right off the bat. Um, we have made near-term progress. We
passed a budget, um, for 26, 27 with a $80 million deficit.
We've identified $70 million of initiatives that will help us
reduce that deficit to $10 million in the current fiscal
year, which is an important progress, but doesn't change
the underlying reality. Uh, HR one is the country's largest
cut to Medicaid in its history. In the program's history, um,
that leads to what we project and expect to be in a
cumulative, cumulative $730 million deficit through 30, 31.
Um, and that is most directly impacting the county's hospital
and clinic network. Uh, that's where we face the steepest
fiscal challenge that requires long term planning and to
preserve the care for our community.
Next slide. So as we approach this budget
planning, as we approach both closing the 2627 deficit and
most fundamentally, the 730 million for the cumulative
deficit, we want to keep certain principles in mind, uh,
prioritizing cares, which means prioritizing direct care in
essential community services, preserving access, protecting
access to care and services, especially for underserved and
historically marginalized communities. And finally, we
know we will need to manage more efficiently. We'll manage
more efficiently with a smaller workforce, but we have to do
that while minimizing layoffs. Next slide.
So specifics of the numbers. As I stated, 2627 budget. We see a
path to reducing that deficit from 80 to 10 through a variety
of revenue and revenue capture initiatives and cost
containment. Um, that doesn't change the long term fiscal
outlook, which is a cumulative $730 million deficit. Um, that
requires, um, really deep review and long term planning
to close. Next slide. So the specifics of what we're doing
in the medium term for cost containment and revenue and
productivity, we've identified initiatives that we believe
will yield $25 million of additional revenue immediately
through provider productivity and improved scheduling. Um,
that's not just at CCRC, that's at behavioral health in revenue
approaches that we're already seeing. We feel confident we
can hit these numbers. That includes restructuring of the
commercial plan, uh, run by our health. The health plan to both
rebalance the rates so that we're not incurring medical
expenses in excess of the of the member fees, as well as
improving access at Caremark. So we expect that another $15
million certain improvements for coding, billing and
credentialing to address denials, to address, to make
sure that we are pulling down revenue wherever we're entitled
to a reimbursement, expecting about $5 million and then
optimizing service lines and counting billing opportunities,
which primarily is detention billing, uh, enabled through
Kelly and Justice involved. That's those initiatives. We
expect about $50 million of additional revenue to be pulled
down. Um, and that's paired with certain cost containment
efforts. Um, most most importantly, with our health
plan, medical cost management. So really looking at
utilization and our provider contracts to find opportunities
for reducing and retaining services where they're being
provided out of our network, hiring, prioritization, um,
taking enterprise view before we do any new hiring to make
sure that's consistent with the with the organization's
priorities, it contract reductions, looking at our IT
contracts, finding opportunities to tighten our
belts, preserve services. But find it reduce reduce some of
our contract spending where we can. And then finally
restructuring community supports, identifying community
supports that don't have alternatives, making sure we're
focused on those we think that will yield about $1 million of
savings. So all told, that contributes $70 million in the
immediate term, leaving us with a 10 million expected $10
million deficit this year. Uh, the underlying $730 million for
maintenance. And just on the next slide, providing an
overview, as we've discussed previously, um, a lot of what
was in HR one was structured to take effect in a sort of
delayed fashion. That delay has come, and in the next 18 months
is really where the impact of HR one funding cuts,
restrictions on eligibility and other state budget changes take
effect. This slide gives you a timeline to just understand
what's happening over these 18 months. Um, certain highlights
January, this January coming work requirements and six month
renewals take effect. People will be moved out of Medi-Cal
eligibility, and that includes a state budget change that will
reduce what we expect about 47,000 residents to be moved
out of the managed health managed care, managed Medi-Cal
plan in July of 2027. Um, the reimbursement for that
population actually falls down to fee for service rates. So
that for any members still in Medi-Cal, they no longer are in
the plan. They no longer are reimbursed for at our primary
care costs, and we only receive about $0.10 on the dollar. In
October of 2027, our global payment program ends, which is
a program providing reimbursement for delivering
primary care and preventative services for the uninsured. And
that funding goes away. In October. And then ongoing in
January of 2028. Certain supplemental payments begin to
be reintroduced down to a Medicare rates. Um, that we
will give you the numbers on the next slide will have
dramatic impacts on our funding. Um, throughout it,
throughout all of these changes, we retain
responsibility at the county hospital for screening and
stabilizing everyone that comes in to receive care at the most
expensive, most intensive level of service. That responsibility
remains. But the specifics to the numbers, um, the global
payment program, which is the incentive program that
California agreed to with a waiver program in the with the
CMS, um, provides funding for primary and preventative care
for uninsured. We expect to lose a cumulative about $180
million. Other programs, including state directed
payment, federal support for emergency Care, Medi-Cal
enrollments. All told, we expect about 390 million
cumulative of reductions from those on the state side. The
and these are through 20. This is cumulative through 2030 31
on that number. Correct. And after 2031 we expect
everything to get better. No. We've limited the view to a
five year view. Um, but it certainly will continue.
That was me being sarcastic. I think it's just me trying to
remind people that we don't know what's coming after 2031,
but we're that's we don't could get any better or any worse.
But we know this is what we know at this point.
100% correct. These funding cuts have no indication that
they will be reversed. And so we would expect them to
continue.. And supervisors, if I could
just reiterate the point, we've come to you several times with
numbers that we're projecting. Right. So each time we've come
to you, that's been a moment in time. Right? And there have
been adjustments made in terms of the timing of some of these
things. There's been clarification from the feds in
the state about, you know, uh, when things are going to be
implemented, how they'll be implemented, and because of
that, um, these numbers change. And that's why we want to come
back to you with, with these updates. So just to be clear,
and we expect that will happen repeatedly as we go through
this process. And we'll keep coming back to you with the
best information we have based on the information we're
getting and based on math that Drew's team is doing so well.
So you can see the cumulative impacts state federal through
3031. But the bottom line to emphasize again, we will
continue to see people at the most expensive, most intensive
level of care at the hospital. That our obligation to do that
continues. The first impact from these cuts is the loss of
funding for our primary care network, and the ability to
provide primary and preventative services. Uh, next
next slide. Can I ask a question on this before you
move off the slide? So under on the state funding changes,
primary care reimbursement, 350 million people without verified
immigration status lose access to manage Medi-Cal. So here
we're talking we're not talking about people who will if they
drop in this category, who drop off, who can't re-enroll.
You're talking about this shift from, um, from basically
managed care to fee for service. Is that because I'm
trying to understand 100 million and the 350 because I
know this population is going to move to fee for service, and
that's going to cost us money. That's the $0.10 on the dollar.
Right? So what's this? Three the explain this. Trying to
understand the details of it of these two categories I think
it's a fluid I think candidly, the way that we've projected
here assumes that most of the members, most of the people
with unsatisfactory immigration status, first in January, are
moved out of the managed care plan, right. And then as we go
through each year, they because of premium requirements,
because of other disincentives to stay enrolled in Medicaid,
will lose access to even fee for service rates. So we've
modeled here that the bulk will lose access to Medi-Cal, um,
and through a variety of enrollment impacts. So that's
what I'm trying to understand, because we have a whole
separate discussion with the other that other department
that deals with eligibility and keeps people enrolled. And that
will be on, I guess, September 8th. Doctor Stuart's
presentation, because we don't want to yet accept that all
these folks are going to drop off because we're going to
hopefully be with the state's help and any funding we have,
investing more in the infrastructure to keep people
enrolled so that we don't lose the U.S population. I get it,
once they fall off, they can't re-enroll. So I guess it comes
down. This is why numbers I think are better as ranges.
These. It's an art is as much of a as a science here that how
many people. Our goal is to keep these individuals from
falling off. Um and so this 350 million, it assumes what
percent of you of UI's patients are are going to lose Medi-Cal.
What what's your assumption on this? Because that's key to
this number. So.
Um, assumptions are important here. Absolutely. I think the
the annual loss of UAS from this assumption, um, I would
need to get back and say, but I believe it's a 20% annually
losing 20%. Yes. But we don't want that to happen. That's the
whole point. And and right. The in fact, I think what we saw
some previous meetings is that the investment ineligibility
workers and family navigators and that infrastructure is less
expensive than paying for the cost here. In other words, if
we invest in keeping them on with more intense enrollment
and re enrollment efforts, that's going to cost us less
than paying this. The aftermath.
Supervisor, if I can just clarify one thing, because
we'll certainly work with the ESD and we're actively
collaborating with them to keep everybody enrolled in Medicaid
as much as possible. I think the thing that has changed
since we came to the board prior is that the state is
removing $47,500. I get it from managed care Medaid.
So that's 100 million. Yes. Well, but it also means that
even if those if that group stays on Medicaid, which is
important and helpful, that Medicaid reimbursement, this is
new from when we presented before that Medicaid
reimbursement is less is 90% less. Yeah. Yeah. So certainly
want to keep people on Medicaid. But my point is
that's the the difference in terms of those people dropping
off from a pure fiscal perspective, right, is only
that 10% reimbursement amount. is.
So is some of that reflected. So you.
Want 350 million as well as the 100 million. Then some of that,
some of that impact that you just explained is reflected in
the 350 million the impact of retaining the impact of the 90%
decrease in reimbursements, that is, in the managed
Medi-Cal line. So, so where we're saying people are
continuing, we have a visit. It used to be at the full rate,
the GPS rate, and now it's at the fee for service that's in
the managed Medicaid. That's in the that's the 100 million.
Correct. So then the 356, that's what I'm trying to
understand. What's the 350? It's the combined impact of our
assumptions on UAS accelerating out work requirements. Re
determinations, people losing access to coverage, as well as
certain impacts in the hospital as not no longer be. I get it,
but where are we spending the 350 then serving them in the
emergency rooms at added cost or. Yeah how are we? Where is
that 350 is or is is that also part of the 90% decrease?
You're saying the 100 million is the 90% decrease, right?
Correct. Got it. 350 represents our loss of reimbursement from
people fully dis enrolled. I'm still not clear what the 350
is. The 350 million provide all of the numbers. But okay,
basically the 350 is for people previously reimbursed who no
longer have Medi-Cal eligibility. People who still
retain Medi-Cal eligibility, the fee for service, the 90,
the 10% on the dollar. That's the 100 million. I guess the
question becomes for every, let's say, 10 million in an
investment in the eligibility infrastructure and add how much
avoided cost is there in this category? Do you see my point
that I think that's really important in a joint
presentation that you would both make? What's the avoided
cost of making that investment? See what I'm saying? 100%. We
would need to model that, but that would be moving from the
350 to the 100 to show, okay, they are retaining coverage. I
get if we're retaining it. Some of that 350 we will still incur
a loss in the managed Medi-Cal line. I get it, it'll shift
over to there. The question is, will it be as much C I see
Doctor Stewart back there. She's going to be presenting a
lot of this because the state is putting some money in the
budget to help us. And then we have local dollars we could
draw on. I mean, the only thing I would add is that dynamic of
shifting from 350 to the 100 is true for us, yes, but every
member that is satisfactory. Yes. Sis would not. That would.
That's right. You're like retention. We want to keep
those folks enrolled too, because we permanent residents,
citizens, all of that who are going to lose eligibility. We
talk a lot about U.S population, but every, you
know, folks who are citizens and permanent residents are
going to lose eligibility by not enrolling. And we want to
keep them on because they will be under the fixed, they will
be under managed care, not fee for service. So it especially
is worthwhile keeping them on. Got it. Okay, thanks for
divulging. Um, in letting me. Yeah. Those are the numbers.
Um, I want to also emphasize that these are lives that are
no longer being covered. So probably one slide. Previous,
um, we expect that these we, we have approximately 300,000
covered in managed Medi-Cal. That includes Kaiser. That's
all in the county. County residents. But you do realize
when you put single numbers, which I know are with the best
assumptions, you can make, that in a year or two from now, it
if our losses are different, whether it's more or less,
you'll get criticized for screwing up even though you
didn't. And we've seen this happen before.
Qualify it at the beginning of this presentation. Exactly.
Things change, right? They do. But the unfortunate
thing is that people seize on that and say, see, the health
department didn't know what they were talking about. Look
what their numbers weren't awful. And that's why ranges
are helpful. And we've talked about the fact
that, you know, with all of the uncertainty out there, people
really need to feel trusting. And so we're trying to provide
those numbers. But we're also trying to prepare for what we
need to do. The number of people that need care is not
going to change, or it could increase, particularly if other
areas of the state start to fail and they need to come our
direction. But the number of people are going to need to be
served. It's just how we're paid for it, or even if we're
paid for it is going to be the question.
Um, so. There is an importance on the one slide. Previous, um,
just want to hit this to make sure it's clear, in addition to
all of the dollars and cents that we're talking about, this
is 47,500 U.S lives being dis enrolled. I think we're
slightly out of sequence on the slides, but I'll just speak
extemporaneously. Advanced two.
Uh, if you could advance two slides, go back. Uh, perfect.
Thank you. Um, the and we, we expect up to 93,000 of, uh,
people losing coverage by 30, 30, 31. Um, and of course, as
people lose coverage, access to care, reimbursement for
services, care coordination, all are lost and preventable.
Illness and death are increasing in our county.
Financial exposures increasing. Is it the same number you've
talked about for a few months now? Up to 90.
That's right. That number hasn't changed. Number hasn't
changed. Again, our goal is to keep it
from. Being again this. Yeah. These
are estimates. And we'll keep coming back to you as we
update. But these are that that estimate has not changed..
All the pressure is going to be on Marla's department.
Five year outlook. Back to numbers. Um this shows
the year by year buildup of the 730 million. Um, and you'll see
there where that lands in our projected fund balance
position. Um, that it is unsustainable through after
2930, we will be in a negative deficit. And if we take no
action, some form of bailout would be required. Um, and so
it's really important now that we take our immediate planning,
2627, which has reduced the deficit to $10 million and
bring our attention to 27, 28. So we focus on closing,
continue to close the near-term deficit and prepare for the
long term structural changes that we know are needed. Um,
not going to spend a lot of time on these, but just so that
for the record, it's there are five year assumptions. What
went into the projection? Go immediately to the next slide.
That's an overview. Everything we've spoken about so far has
been Contra Costa Health wide. Um, as stated before, this is
first and foremost hitting our county hospital and clinics.
CCR, MC, um, the 2627 deficit for just CCRC is $20 million.
That's a five year cumulative deficit of $890 million. Um,
and 173 of state mandated capital costs are included.
What's your assumption about the Medi-Cal waiver? Uh, we
assume that revenue lines associated with the waiver,
such as GPP, are going away, and that we don't have
successor programs that reverts to the uncompensated care,
claiming. that it reflected all in here. Those assumptions of
because when is that then that waivers up this year or next
year? This year, I don't know. Correct. It ends um, in
December of 2026. But working with our state partners, we
expect that that will actually go through a temporary
extension to October 1st of 2027, at which point it will
end. And that's reflected in these amounts have built that
in. Yeah. No one expects the Trump administration is going
to, you know, give us anything favorable under the Medi-Cal
waiver. Correct. And what about for disproportionate share
hospital funding dish um, dish funding is assumed to revert.
So we will continue to be able to claim dish. Um, when GPP
goes away will revert to the old style of dish claiming, um,
that largely will be a no benefit. We will not receive
revenue from that because of offsets of other state
directives. All of that's in here just was just all built
into these assumptions. Um, the last point, one point to
emphasize here, just to call out this 890 exceeds the
enterprise wide 730, because we're able we're assuming one
of our key assumptions here is we will have flexibility to
redirect county subsidy to the parts of health that need it
the most, including CCRC. Really, where we're
experiencing the lion's share of our deficits. Um, which, you
know, Culberson is here to speak about how we're starting
to approach the long term planning.
Next slide please. Good afternoon.
Supervisors. Uh, yes.
I wanted to focus on Carmen Contra Costa Regional Medical
Center, which includes both the.
Hospital here in. Martinez as. Well as the clinics throughout
the county. Before I get started here, I just want to
make. Sure that.
You're truly Where you're all really aware
that. As.
We've heard earlier. It's going to be difficult.
with the operational and strategic presentation I have
here for us to make up the magnitude of the deficits.
We're currently facing. And that's over.
The next. Five year. Next slide please.
Just a little bit about our regional medical center. Of
course that includes the hospital as well as our
clinics. We see almost 38,000 or a little bit more than
38,000 patients a year on a primary care basis, which we
really do an awful lot of. In our clinic system, we see
roughly 2500 total patients a day in our clinic system. That
means roughly 1 in 5 of residents of our county
received their primary care at our clinics. We have 11
community health clinics throughout the nine locations
in the county, and I've got a map to indicate that for you.
But also I want to share with everyone that the psychiatric
emergency Services program, our department in Martinez is the
only 5150 receiving center throughout the county, so it's
serving all of the initial needs for folks that are either
danger to themselves, danger to others, or gravely disabled
that are identified as needing that emergent care. So we
really have a number of functions we perform at CCRC,
and we think it's really important to realize that any
reduction that we make at CCRC will limit the options for our
residents, again, because will probably be fewer in the
future. Next slide please. Just a little bit of background
here. This includes a map of our locations here. The
hospital in Martinez has 167 inpatient beds. That includes
the emergency department. Our psychiatric emergency services,
a labor and delivery obstetrics care. We deliver about 20% of
babies in the county, and also med surge and also. And in
addition, our psychiatric inpatient unit. So we are a
full service hospital really concentrated on primary care.
We're not tertiary or quaternary facility. We also
have in our ambulatory care network nine different
locations, ranging from Brentwood over to Richmond,
North Richmond, and there's 11 clinics. We concentrate on
primary care. We do have some specialty care. And of course,
our presence is really throughout the entire county
and the workforce is 2400 or more employees who are
dedicated to serving our county residents. Next slide please.
We laid out for you here. I know drew has talked a little
bit about some of the operational pieces we're
working on, but I wanted to really lay out for you on this
slide a strategic look at what we're doing. We've engaged
Alvarez and Marcella, nationally recognized
consulting firm in the health care field, to help us with
this project. So what you're seeing here is a working
document, but it really is a, I think, a solid look at
strategies we're considering here, both internally within
our health department as well as the from outside
organizations. And I want to concentrate really on all four.
But you can see we have the third column there in blue
highlighted in blue, a recommended path forward. We
think this is where we need to go strategically. It helps
continue to maintain critical access for medical, surgical as
well as psychiatric patients. But it does have some
additional costs associated. We wanted to also share with you.
We really took a look at four options, and I want to lay out
the other three for you just to realize this is part of the
strategic planning process we're doing. We took a look and
said, what happens if we're status quo from a service
perspective, from an operational perspective? And as
Drew and Doctor Colfax have laid out here, substantial
losses here, that would be faced at Caremark had we really
not do anything except just rely on current funding streams
and kind of a moderately slow approach to this. I don't think
anybody agrees that's the way to go. We then also looked at
what would happen if we really focused on behavioral health.
You know, we see roughly 40 behavioral health patients a
day in our inpatient unit. And up to 2025, and our psychiatric
emergency services. So if we would really take a single
specialty, focus on behavioral health, what would that do
here? What we certainly know that we could improve and
access through with some investment here on behavioral
health, but it really reduces the medical surgical access,
the obstetrics, the other medical surgical services the
hospital offers to the point really where Central County and
West County would have no other place for these services that
are currently offered. So we think that that was really not
too viable. And likewise, we think it's important for your
board to understand, in the event that we don't have a
turnaround process and we can't balance the gap that we're
faced here. What would closure look like now? Clearly, we are
not recommending this again. I hope I made it clear we're
recommending the multi-specialty approach, but
we do think it's important for you to understand that there is
an opportunity to focus extensively on ambulatory care,
and then stop reinvesting in the hospital. But again, the
that that does two things. One, it eliminates the psychiatric
access much of the way along the line. The behavioral health
single specialty approach. And it does completely eliminate
the access that I talked about here for specialty services.
Again, primarily in Central County and in West County. So
we don't think that's a real viable alternative. That leaves
the third column here. And that's our multi-specialty
approach where we really selectively choose the services
we offer, that we turn around and make sure that the supply
of what we're doing meets the patient demands. And with an
effort to restore some of the services we currently don't
offer or focus, it also allows us to focus on those that we
do, but we need to do in a more sustainable method. So next
slide please. I'm sorry. Can I ask a question. I mean,
all of this is very, very how do I say this reminds me of
what Doctors Hospital went through for about ten, 15 years
when we were all working to try to save doctors and and, you
know, the different service lines and what it would focus
on. Right. Except we're doing this in the context of now
we're predominantly a Medi-Cal health facility. Right. So this
is in the context of Medi-Cal. We're talking here.
Yes, predominantly. We're supervisor.
Yes. Right. And so our our
reimbursement rates for our clinics, because we're in FCPS
are high, give us a greater return on our dollar than our
expenditures at the hospital. So presumably just want to
clarify that. In other words, for every $10, let's say spent
in services at the clinic are $100, our reimbursement is
higher than for every $100 spent at the hospital. Is that
right or wrong? Yes. That's correct. The EFCC
model, which our clinics are the Federally Qualified Health
Center, basically is reimbursing us at costs. That's
not going to be true for the hospital, where we have a
number of services. I've always recalled being told
is, you know, we we make we're better at bringing in
reimbursements because of the way the reimbursement model
works for the services at the clinics, then at the hospital,
inpatient at the hospital, that outpatient reimbursements help
us more than inpatient reimbursements.
I would say that's true for a Medi-Cal member. Our GPS rate
reimburses us fully at cost. Um, it will vary depending on
the line of service, but in general, that's true at the
hospital, and it will certainly vary as more people are
enrolled out of Medi-Cal. So the devil's in the details.
Can you just give a little more flavor of what this means when
you say restore services the community currently seeks
elsewhere, restore critical services and give us an
example. What does that really mean? In in lay language?
Yes, supervisor, I think one of the biggest ones that I can
identify, both from a provider as well as community, would be
impatient. Dialysis. Right now, we don't offer inpatient
dialysis. A lot of our patients have long term chronic kidney
disease, and as such, dialysis would be required at least when
you're admitted to the hospital. We have to transfer
all of those patients out to other community hospitals. And
so that would be a basic service that we've gotten out
of. But we think it's really, really important to bring back
Libby. Another a number of other ones we're looking at.
And again, I've got a little bit more idea on how we're
going to do that here in the next couple of slides, but that
would be the real concrete one. Supervisor.
It seems over time you're going to be developing more detail on
this and come back. This is what I'd say. These are the
service lines. We see more emphasis and this will bring us
better reimbursement or more or more just generally more
revenue. Right? Yes. That's correct.
It's really our approach here. We want to bring back specific
actions for. I think we haven't done that
and enough or is vigilantly or disciplined enough not to be
critical of anything in the past. Do you think this
analysis hasn't been done? This is the first time I've seen
this level of detail to this type of issue. So do you think
it's something we just haven't looked at enough? The
collective we. Supervisor I think we are at a
point where this needs to be done. Right now, I really can't
comment about the past. I think the success of CCRC over the
last few years has been in the expansion and an optimization
of the Affordable Care Act, and now we're in a new era where
these these kind of discussions are necessary. I hope that
answers you. I think supervisors. just just
looking at the entire ecosystem of Contra Costa Health, given
the state and federal changes, we know that our health care
ecosystem is going to look different in 2031 than it does
now. So we're trying to figure out with community partners and
all of you, what are the essential things that we can
afford to sustain. And so that the the strategy that, um, CEO
Culberson is talking about to the of the hospital is, is is
part of that. And per the point that, um CFO Merl was making,
the hospital is driving a huge amount of cost to our system.
That's the, the, the graph that you showed where you see that
basically we're taking money even within Contra Costa Health
that we, you know, money from other parts of Contra Costa
Health to essentially subsidize the hospital. And as you can
see, the path forward with the state and federal changes is
not sustainable. So I want to be and I just to reinforce the
CEO person's point, even if the plan that his team is working
on with these expert consultants, even if that is
optimized, you know, in a way that is even if that is
optimized, we don't come close to closing that deficit and
we'll come back with those numbers. We don't have those to
share. Just trying to minimize it.
Yeah. Yes. One last question on this. So something that at
least is understandable is in real life, um, when we were at
JCC, when we would in the past look at a lot of the numbers of
where folks went, there were a lot. I'll just take my part of
the county in West County, many Medi-Cal moms had birth and
delivery at the county hospital. Some went to Alta
Bates or others. Is that like an example of where we'd say,
well, gee, we want to bring we want to continue to attract
more Medi-Cal birth and delivery into our county
hospital, as opposed to them going somewhere else. And then
we have to pay that other hospital. But we also want to
still maintain choice where residents can choose and not
limit be limited. But is that an example of something?
Because I saw a numbers about the number of birth and
deliveries, because there's not a hospital, and in West County
that's Medi-Cal, right? People go to Alta Bates or County
hospital. Supervisor Joya. Yes, that's
exactly the analysis we're performing. We're very lucky in
that we've got a very solid, very detailed business
intelligence unit that able to take a look at things. And
again, the external consultant we're using also, this is their
line of business to ask what are you delivering. What can
you deliver and what's going elsewhere.
And subsequent decisions were limiting. Let's say patient
choice. We may say you can only go to our facility for these
services, and you can't go out of our facility.
Yes. With the I'm not sure I understand your question.
I'm sorry. In other words, if right now someone in Medi-Cal
has a choice of where they go, um, we we we we would because
we have contracts with other hospitals to do services. It's
then limiting the contracts we may have with other hospitals.
That's going to be a decision through the health plan,
really, not as a CCRC proper, but we work very, very closely
with, again. The benefit hitting there. So
yes. We're very lucky to have the
integrated delivery system we do. So we work very closely
with them. On. I mean, the classic case
was when Supervisor Glover, who was who the CHP, not Medi-Cal,
but CHP, had his heart and kidney transplant at UC San
Francisco, because we have a contract and they're
specialists, that's where we go. But we see CHP may have
other contracts that it would maybe end to bring back folks
to get their care in our system. Right. That's so that
limits choice. But it may be better overall for us.
Absolutely. Yes. That's correct.
Thanks. If we could just go back to
that one slide there with the four options. I just want to
finish that slide and then we'll go on to the next one.
This one. Just a little bit.
There we go. Just again wanted to make sure our recommendation
here is that we really focus on this multi-specialty approach.
Concentrating on the services that we offer. Which ones can
we get into fairly quickly. Uh, and also really based on demand
and supply here. Uh, again, we think that's really important
to maintain access throughout the county for county
residents. Next slide please. We really have adopted a three
pronged approach. We want to make sure you're aware of your
advocacy. Focus on clinical activities as well as improving
the financial performance, many of which drew had mentioned
earlier here, the advocacy. We think it's really important we
are here. We our goal is to help minimize and reverse the
harmful effects of HR one, the the act that we're working on
here passed in July of 2025. We think there needs to be
sustainable state funding. And so we'll continue to work with
your board as well as our elected officials at the state
and federal level to improve that. We talked a little bit
about a focus on our clinical services growing strategically,
focusing primarily on our acute primary care psychiatry and
some of the smaller some of the smaller volume of other
services we don't offer here. The goal is to make sure that
we improve access to our community. And then, as drew
mentioned, that we continue to focus on our financial
performance here, on our revenue side and our revenue
cycle side, and also on our expense management. We wanted
to also highlight we think it's really important for greater
flexibility on our staffing as well as our supply costs to go
along and balance closer to volumes as they increase, or as
a decrease. Your a more flexible approach to our
expense management. We think that's pretty important. And as
I think all three of us had shared with you earlier here,
even with these major clinical financial improvements, the
changes in the state and federal funding are so dramatic
that it's going to be needed. We'll need additional federal
policy changes in funding to make sure we maintain the
sustainability of CCR. MC next slide. Again, what we're doing
here again, both internally as well as with our external
consultant doing some analyzing, we're learning and
we're going to make sure we take some information. What
we're trying to analyze really is really demand here. What are
our our patient referrals both within and with outside the
county. We have a number of services that Contra Costa
Regional offers, a number of that are handled here within
the county and other partners and other providers, and then
some that are leaving our community completely and going
over to the Peninsula, maybe the South Bay. So we're
evaluating what type of referrals are made, and that's
an important one because we're trying to determine demand. We
also work closely with the health plan and to determine
where are they sending plan. To patients. Again, it's something
that is really important as we work on that third part,
they're demanding or taking a look at our current and future
demand. And our clinic capacity. Some areas we have no
capacity. In some places we do an extension of hours at night,
may help on the weekends, may help access. But in some of our
other areas, we don't have quite as much as we might need.
So that's why we're working on currently. Really, what would
be the demand? So again, what we're trying to learn learn
then is really where demand exceeds the supply of our
available services. What what are where are we at where we do
have capacity. Where we have capacity. That is available
maybe not utilized. What can we do from an operational
perspective to fill those empty appointment slots? And then
what services should we really grow? Could we change? Or in
some instances reductions here? I think it's it's important to
realize this is not a pure growth strategy. This is really
taking a look as a balanced strategy, growth,
sustainability and reduction as necessary. So again, we're
going to come back from what the information that we gather
here to concentrate on what services we believe are
priorities. Here. We'll have some implementation timelines
including accountabilities. When can we expect these
programs to be up and running. The amount of capital that's
required here that you're well aware MC requires capital, not
just for our seismic project. That's about ready to kick off
here, but just about everything we do diagnostic imaging, um,
ventilators all require capital investment. And with that, both
of the all of the actions here, the implementation, the capital
really what are the expected clinical and financial impacts?
What are the improvements we're going to see to our patients
from a clinical and from a service perspective? And what
is the return that we can expect for the investment and
the effort that we're making here at Contra Costa Regional
Medical Center? I think we're on to the next slide, please.
There we go. So thank you. And just as our
last slide in terms of next steps, we will advance the plan
and execute on uh, short term the 2627 balancing plan and
continue to refine the long term delivery system strategy
focused on CCRC monitoring progress and returning to you
all with financial and implementation updates. Working
with the board in the county administrator's office to
evaluate options and make key policy decisions, and ensuring
that we have robust stakeholder engagement with employees,
unions, providers and community partners as implementation
continues. Thank you very much. I want to also appreciate the
entire Contra Costa Health team who worked very hard on this
presentation. Thank you. Thank you. I think sometimes
people, uh, think of this as government because this is the
county hospital. But the people that work in this do this work
are also professionals. Their nurses, they're doctors,
they're technicians, and they're administrators that
have to know how to do this work. So when we are looking at
this, we're looking at this very similar to what other
hospital systems are looking at as well. Um, if people are
interested in really kind of understanding this, it might be
good for them to look up what Medicaid is, what the
difference is between Medicaid and Medicare. What, uh, covered
California is versus, you know, these other things. Um, because
those are questions I'd ask. But I don't want to, you know,
it it would go on forever. But I do think that this is a
system that is part of a bigger system. And, um, I read an
article the other day that said that UC Berkeley Labor Center,
uh, estimates that the number of uninsured Californians will
go from 2.4 to 4.6 million as recently enacted. State and
federal cuts to Medicaid and the ACA marketplace begin to
roll. Um, this was an analysis done in May. They said this
anticipated rise in the uninsured population could have
broad implications for hospital systems, insurers and the
economy. It could impact 200,000 jobs in California. And
I say that because while we're looking at our system, we're
part of a bigger system in the county. And so when we look at
John Muir and we look at Kaiser and we look at Sutter and we
look at our other clinic system, we are all in this
together. And so some of the recommendations that you are
talking about, do those have negative or positive impacts on
the rest of the system? Well, I appreciate this and
thank you, supervisor. And you're right, we're all in this
together. Right. So I think overall the state and federal
changes while they most acutely affect our ability to deliver
care. And John Muir which also provides substantial care to to
Medicaid. So that's the program for low income Californians.
Um, it's going to affect all of our systems because as more
people lose coverage, people will go to emergency rooms,
whether it's Kaiser Sutter, John Muir or our own CCRC. And,
um, likely be sicker because they will not have had access
to, to primary care. Um, so that's a huge human cost. And
then there's also the fact that there will be very limited, if
at all, ability to, um, reimburse the systems for that
care. I would also add to your point, as people lose their
coverage, one of the things our estimates do not include here
is the cost of, um, providing a basic health care program. So
we're coming to the board in October with that. But there
are costs associated with that that are not included in these
estimates. And to your point, you're also, um, you know,
every county and especially every county with a public
hospital in California, um, is we're all in the same boat. And
our conversations were obviously talking a lot and
working to do the best we can. But this is all about, um,
surviving at this point for a time that, that for, for times
that that hopefully will be better in the future.
And they are these according to this article, uh, experts warn
that health plans will need to raise their premiums and that,
uh, we will be left with people that on average, will be sicker
and more expensive to serve. All right. Um, right. To do
this. No, I was going to say we'll make some comments and
then we're going to do public comment. And then just for
those that are joining us for the other options, we're going
to take a quick lunch after this. So if you are here and
you're hungry then you can go get lunch right now and we'll
be back. But I just wanted to kind of give that warning. So
go ahead. Diane said something I thought
that was really important and that's that, you know, we're in
a hospital system that, you know, we're in a different
market than just county government. Um, and, and, and
we face this all the time with HR hiring operations that we're
competing not just with other counties. We're competing with
other hospitals, nonprofit, private and government. Right.
And I was looking looking eight. There's only 8% of the
hospitals in California are local public hospitals, yet
they handle 36% of the Medi-Cal and uninsured population. So
the that responsibility is falling on us, which is even a
more expensive population to serve. And so one of the things
you didn't mention that I think is important, I know we worked
on this a couple of years ago at joint Conference was how the
structure of working within county government can be made
more flexible, so you are more nimble and competitive and
effective and efficient. Perfect example. It was taking
us double the amount of time to hire nurses than Kaiser Y.
Because of our various, you know, within county government
structure. I've said this before, it's one of my favorite
topics is that HR at the county level needs to be more
flexible. You have your own HR department, right? There's
there's 12 of the 58 counties, have a hospital there, you
know, and and you're you're competing with other systems
that don't have the same sort of rigid structures that county
government has. So when I hear an HR person say, well, this
is, you know, this is how it is in county government, I don't
care how it is in county government, I care how it is in
other hospitals. We're competing against because we
are. And this this was something that happened even
with public works and real estate. There was this very
stupid approach which they stopped, which was, gee, if I
get a request to fix the elevator and the county
administration building before I get the request to fix it at
the hospital, I'm going to go there because I got the request
first. Even though the licensing issues were at risk
for the hospital. So those kind of things I know have been
fixed, but those those rigid structures remain, and I think
I want to hear more about how the board can help in
flexibility. So you are a competitive hospital still with
their civil service rules, still with but more flexibility
so that you can be more efficient and effective. And I
know you didn't cover that here. And and I don't know, I
want to be able to hear from county HR and your department.
What's the progress we're making on hiring nurses faster
and more so we get the best talent? It's not just nurses,
right? It's other categories. Um, and where we we have to be
able to respond to the market and compete.
And supervisor, can I just say that, you know, we really
appreciate that point because I think one of the things that
the future signals to us is we need to have the ability to be
even more flexible and agile than, you know, is currently
possible. Um, so we'll be happy to bring you and your
colleagues, you know, examples of where the major push points
are. Please let us know. I mean, you
know, even the UC hospital system isn't run by the the
same rules that that run the hiring of professors at UC
Berkeley. Right. It's it's a hospital structure. So it's
it's you can still be public, do great work, but have more
flexibility. And I think what this
presentation demonstrated is that they have been looking at
ways to improve revenue and how to decrease costs. And I think
optimizing things is what their intention is, and they will be
bringing that back. Um, I do want to go to public comment on
this. If my colleagues are okay with that. All right.
We do have a comment in chambers. If there are any
callers or zoom participants. Who would like to.
Speak on Contra Costa Health fiscal outlook and long term
planning, please press pound two if you're on the phone or
raise your hand in the zoom app, and we will start with our
comment in chambers. And that is Mariana. Please come to the
podium. Good afternoon. It's been a
while since I spent a long day with you. Um, nice to see you
all. So I just have three quick points to make today. I'm
Mariana Morris. Ensuring opportunity also with the one
Contra Costa coalition. I want to start by saying thank you to
Doctor Colfax and his team. Um, I appreciate the transparency
and the care that this analysis is being done with. And I
appreciate and look forward to the repeated updating. And as
we all learn together, I also appreciate him and especially
Luana Martin, for convening and holding space for this new
community partnership. It's a really good move. There's a lot
of community based expertise that can join with county
expertise to figure things out in a very difficult
environment. So I just want to say thank you and looking
forward to that process. Continuing. Secondly, speaking
of expertise, there's a lot of expertise in the community that
can help, um, not solve the enormous deficit, but can work
around the edges to save the county money and provide
trusted access to help folks stay enrolled. We saw that with
carers. We're seeing it now with basic health care, with
these tiny, nascent programs. So the more investments you
make in community can help both the folks that we all care
about in that community and can help save the county some
funds. And I think every dollar counts right now. Lastly,
Doctor Colfax talked about the clinical impact and the
financial impact. And then you did Doctor Colfax. At the end
there talking about human impact. And I was sitting there
like, that is the piece that's missing for me. And I know I
get up like every six months and say this to y'all like,
yes, the county is a business and it must, you know, balance
this budget like we've all had that conversation. We know
that. And these are human beings in the community
terrified of losing their their medical care. I know many
people on Medi-Cal right now and some folks that are no
longer in medical and some that have left cover California that
cannot pay their rent if they want health insurance. Like
right. We all know this. So can we please add to our analysis?
We can now go to our zoom comments.
The next speaker is Ewa. Please unmute.
Hello. And um supervisors, my name is
Yui Nishiki. I'm a practicing nurse practitioner and head of
strategy and value at Lifelong Medical Care and FCPS in
Alameda and Contra Costa, providing care over 52,000
patients across the two counties. I'd like to also
thank Doctor Colfax and Team as they move thoughtfully through
difficult budget decisions. Um, and particularly as federal and
state policy changes are expected to increase pressures
on the health care and safety net system. We are already
seeing this impact. Since October, lifelong has
experienced a 21% reduction in Medi-Cal visits and operating
at a significant monthly deficit. And this is before
many undocumented U.S. residents, uh, transitioned
from managed Medicare to fee for service coverage. And this
change not only furthers rains as financially, but
going from managed Medi-Cal to fee for service for a patient
removes the specialty care system that the managed
Medicare system provides and care coordination programs like
the ECM, enhanced Medical Care management programs, and
leaving patients to navigate the complex health care system
alone. And looking ahead, we're looking at work requirements in
six month renewals that will create more additional
administrative barriers to coverage. And we're estimating
anywhere from 15 to 30% of our patients will be affected by
this. And especially concerned about the impact on patients
experiencing homelessness and patients with significant
behavioral health needs. And despite all this, we will keep
our doors open regardless of the ability to pay for patients
and provide comprehensive medical, dental, and behavioral
health services, and ensuring that we have robust.
Next speaker is Sean. Please unmute.
Good afternoon, board members and county staff. Um, Sean
Selvam with iPPt local 21 and also the Contra Costa County
Union Coalition, first Contra Costa Health leadership did not
adjust their assumptions around enrollment losses, despite the
fact that the state has done so. This makes the projected
problem look worse than it is. The state reduced their
assumptions because the 80 hour work requirement can now be met
with earning the equivalent of 80 hours at the federal minimum
wage, a threshold many California workers would meet
due to higher wages. It's unusual that Contra Costa
Health leadership seems to be going in the other direction
and actually increasing their assumed losses and out years.
Please be aware this may undermine the accuracy of their
loss projections. Other counties, like San Francisco,
are assuming that investments in enrollment staffing now
could help mitigate enrollment losses in the future. Even
further, our county should be preparing to implement the work
requirements now, and if we're able to get good systems in
place with adequate staffing, we should be able to lower
assumed revenue losses. We look forward to hearing Doctor
Stuart's progress report on this project on September 8th.
Second, these Contra Costa Health projections also assume
that County General Fund support remains flat. It won't
entirely. Sales tax was recently expanded to cover
digital software sales, but I don't see any estimates for how
much new revenue this could bring into the county, which
could help some with these deficits. Third, the deficit
for this year has been reduced to 10 million, down from 80
million remarkably quickly. And there is likely more they could
do. So far, they've only made 6 million in reductions to IT
contracts. We're guessing there are many more contracts that
could be reduced, reducing contracts countywide now can
save money later. Fourth, Contra Costa Health doesn't
mention whether or not they're looking at vacant positions and
either properly accounting for them or reassessing their need.
C's health should be required to do both before impacting any
filled positions. And finally, Contra Costa Health leadership
in the CEO have not met with workers to share their plans or
seek our input. The voices of county workers should be
included in these discussions moving forward. Thank you very
much. Next speaker is Craig. Please
unmute. Thank you. Very interesting
presentation. I just want, as a resident of Martinez, I want to
offer my gratitude to Contra Costa Health for the great work
you do. Um, I have a disabled family member who began
receiving services from Contra Costa Health earlier this year,
and we've been very pleased with the level of services
she's received compared to what she was receiving previously.
And anecdotally, I've heard that, especially when it comes
to mental health services, a lot of people have left their
private, um, private insurers to come to Contra Costa Health
if they're eligible, because your services are so much
stronger and more robust. And I know that puts also puts an
additional financial burden on you. But thank you so much.
Just a couple quick observations. I think, you
know, in terms of the federal cuts that are devastating our
system, I think it just shines a light on how important the
upcoming elections in 2026 and 2028 will be throughout the
country in determining, you know, the future of our
country, but of our our local institutions and our health
department. And that will come down to what voters do in
places like Iowa and Ohio and lots of other places. So I hope
all of our residents are, um, keeping a close eye and paying
attention and doing what they can, looking at this issue
holistically, I also wanted to make the comment that, as we
all know, uh, broader social conditions have a lot to do
with the health of our community. And in, um, in turn,
the impact of their health or their health problems on
government and the health depament. And I just want to
underscore again, the issue of, um, housing insecurity. Housing
insecurity leads to health problems, health issues that
burden, um, our health department. And so the more
that our local leaders in Contra Costa County can address
the issue of housing security, the more progress we'll be able
to make. Um, in stabilizing our health, Contra Costa Health
Services. Thank you. Next speaker is Tracy. Please
unmute. Hello.
Good afternoon. I'm Tracy mendez. Um, Allied
Health. A.
Community health center consortium.
Thank you so much to Doctor Colfax, Doctor Colfax.
And. Directors Muriel and Culberson
for. highlighting both the institutional and human costs
of these all these policies changes. Um, and I think you
all know this, but as Mariana and you both pointed out, the
impacts, you know, will be felt well beyond the county and well
beyond just low income residents of the county. But to
really to all residents, ultimately, and certainly all
health care providers, especially those that are part
of the safety net, um, and those like our community health
centers that have disproportionately served the
uninsured population. The US population, other vulnerable
groups. And as you mentioned, you know, some of these changes
that were not reflected in the slides include the loss of
covered California subsidies and changes in coverage that
are already hitting health centers with more uninsured
patients without any increase in revenue. Um, so, you know,
we in health centers have the same strategies as the county.
We're looking at revenue capture. We're looking at
reducing costs wherever we can without affecting care,
improving enrollment, navigation as as Supervisor
Gioia, you pointed out, and we continue we plan to continue
being, you know, an accessible, high quality, cost effective
partner in the primary care and other spaces. So we look
forward to working with all of you supervisors, the health
department, AiSd, the health plan, the hospitals and others
to do all the work that's needed ahead of us to advocate
and improve our systems so that we are there for the patients
that need us. Thank you. Next speaker is Jim. Please
unmute. Yeah. This is Jim Donnelly,
emeritus member, Advisory Council on Aging. Um, great.
Uh, informative presentation. Unfortunately, the, uh, the
results are really depressing. I'd like to say. Just think
what it could have been if we could have passed measure B,
but that's the way it is. And unfortunately, an awful lot of
the people that are going to be impacted, our seniors, because
they do represent a higher number, um, just keep trying to
find where we can to cut and be more effective. That's all I
can say. I'm glad I'm not having to make the decisions.
It's late. We've been here a long time today, so that's all
I have to say. Thank you. The next speaker is Daniel.
Please unmute. Uh, good afternoon. Uh, board
members, uh, Daniel Romer, uh, Walnut Creek, California.
Um. Uh, being from Walnut Creek, we
often hear. Walnut Creek, referred to as the jewel of the
East Bay for its robust shopping center. Um, I'd like.
to say that I think that the the real jewel is the, uh, the
hospital in Martinez. Um, it's an incredible resource. I know
this for many reasons, but, uh, dearest to my heart, my father
received care in cardiology. The ER, and the primary
departments there and the care that he received there was as
good or better than anything he received at Stanford and USF.
Um, so I would just like to say, uh, please work with the
with the hospital, help them not just to survive, um, but to
thrive. Also, I'd like to say, apropos of the earlier
presentations, the county serves and serves as the
backbone for a lot of the essential workers in this
county. Uh, I don't think we don't consider that charity
that's basically giving them their due for what they give
us. And so for that reason as well, I encourage you to work
as, uh, and do whatever we have to do to support the hospital.
Thank you. There are no more comments.
Thank you. Yeah. 1 in 5 people are getting services from us.
That means that 1 in 5 people need it, and they're not having
to go to other places. So we want to be able to deliver
that. If there's any other comments. Okay.
I was just going to say thank you. Very, very informative
report and I appreciate that. In the preceding months, as
I've met with your team monthly, you've been giving me
a little bit of a preview of this, this very lengthy
exercise, for lack of a better word, that we've been going
through to really analyze our finances, to make them more
transparent, understandable by the public, more importantly by
us, the Board of Supervisors, to really understand how we can
best deliver services to our community in the most
efficient, cost effective way is very, very helpful. And I
appreciate that we're on this path. We are weighing our
options because at the end of the day, we always say we have
to live within our means. And yes, to a certain extent, we
have over the years continue to support our health system
through our county general fund. But as we see that under
attack as well, declining because of other impacts, we
really do need to figure out how can we provide the very
best cost effective health care system to those most in need,
while at the same time being able to ensure that we can
provide that in the future and that we will have the funds to
do so. And so thank you. Very helpful to me.
And for those that are still interested, you know, do your
research, check out what all of these different things are and
why the county does what we do. And and it's value. I made a
motion to accept this report. I got a second from Supervisor
Carlson. John. And it passes unanimously. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Supervisor. Okay. We have thank you. All of
the folks in the back from health. You all are rock stars.
Um, we have two more items. Um, we have a quick lunch, and so
are you. How quick can you guys eat lunch?
I say, let's be back at two. It's 141. We have 19 minutes to
eat our lunch, and hopefully everyone's already left for
lunch. Who needs to grab lunch elsewhere?
Yep. 20 minutes. We'll be back at 2:00. Yes, boy. Jamie, you
are amazing. So good afternoon. We are back from a fairly quick
lunch. Uh, we are on item D3, which is a resolution. I'm
trying to read it. Uh, adopting resolution number 2026 319,
approving the successor memorandum of understanding
between the Contra Costa County, between Contra Costa
County and Teamsters Local 856, implementing a negotiated wage
agreements and other economic terms and conditions of
employment for the period of August 1st, 2026 through July
31st, 2028, and approving a side letter to conduct a
compensation study. And we have David Sanford here from Labor
Relations. Hello, David. Just for a second. I'm getting
a text that zoom is again muted.
Alrighty. We check that please.
I am going to see if zoom is working. It.
Thank you supervisor. We're unmuting it right now. Okay. We
are now unmuted. Thank you. So good afternoon everyone. We
are back. Uh we are going to do D3. I read it a moment ago, but
I'm not going to read it again. I'm going to let David talk
about what we're what we're doing in that way. We're saving
a little bit of time. Uh, thank you, chair Bergus and
Board of Supervisors. Um, yes. I am pleased to share that the
county and Teamsters Local 856 have reached a agreement on a
successor memorandum of understanding. This item asked
the board to adopt a resolution approving that successor
memorandum of understanding, as well as a side letter that
arose out of bargaining regarding a compensation study
to be performed during the term of the MOU. The county began
bargaining with the Teamsters on February 24th, 2026, and
reached agreement on a new contract on August 12th. The
Teamsters completed their ratification vote on August
20th. As detailed in the background section of the staff
report and the attached MOU, the agreement provides for 3%
salary increases in each year of the two year contract. These
increases will result in approximately $15.4 million in
additional personnel costs over the term of the agreement, and
operating departments will be expected to absorb the
additional personnel costs resulting from the agreement.
The parties also agreed to reallocate the salaries of
several mental health classifications, which are
critical to service delivery and our health system. This
includes the creation of a newly established licensed and
unlicensed mental health clinical specialist.
Classification. These allocations together represent
additional costs of $3.9 million based on allocation at
top step. The agreement also maintains the status quo on the
county's current health care subsidy structure for the
Kaiser Teamsters Trust. For the duration of the contract, the
county recommends that the board adopt the resolution
approving the successor Memorandum of Understanding and
the side letter. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any
questions or comments before we go to public comment?
I'll wait for public comment. Alrighty. Are there any public
comments for this item? If there are any callers or
zoom participants. Who.
Would like to speak on the MOU between Contra Costa County and
Teamsters Local 856, please press pound two if you're on
the phone or raise your hand in.
The zoom app. There are no comments ready.
Any comments or questions before we.
Just, um. Take.
A motion? Thank you for your efforts. You and your team and
successfully reaching an agreement. And thank you to our
eight, five, six Teamsters 856 um, leadership and members for
your work and partnership. Alrighty. I have a motion from
Supervisor Carlson and a second from Supervisor Anderson. Don.
And it passes unanimously. Thank you. Alrighty. We're
going to move on to item D4, which is to consider accepting
the monthly update on the activities and oversight of the
county's Head Start program. Approve the fiscal year 2425
single audit findings related to Head Start approved the
revised Head Start governance policies. Resolution Number
2023, slash 274, and resolution number 2023, slash 499 and
provide guidance as recommended by the Employment and Human
Services Director. Thank you. And good afternoon,
Chair Bergus and members. of the board. I am.
Martha Stewart, the. Director of the Employment and
Human Services Department, and I'm here today with Sarah
Reich, our director of Community Services Bureau. This
is your monthly early childhood education update for August
2026. And can we get the slides up? There we go. Um, great. So
we're on slide two. Now. Um, we'll brief you on six topics
today, including both our federal and state funded early
childhood education programs. Um, we will not be briefing you
on the Policy Council as they do not meet in July, and they
did not meet in July. Next slide. Moving on to our federal
environment updates. And next slide. We're now on slide four.
Um, we have one update for you today regarding our federal
environment. On August 6th, the US Department of Health and
Human Services issued a notice of Proposed rulemaking
concerning the Head Start program performance standards.
Their proposed changes include a significant reduction in
federal regulations. It is open for public comment until
October 6th. We are assessing the changes and the potential
impacts for our program, and we will bring this item to the
September Head Start Committee meeting. We will be
recommending that you make comments on this rule, the
final rule is expected next year until the final rule is
issued. We continue to operate our program according to
current federal standards. Next slide. And now we're on slide
six. There you go. Sorry for technical.
Difficulties here. Oh here. There we.
Go. Okay.
Moving on. To our child.
Care center. Service updates.
We are happy to share our slot plans for this year.
Which align with. Your governing body.
Goals and program objectives. This table highlights two of
the five fiscal year. 2627 governing Body program.
Goals and. Objectives related to our
program expansion.. And the.
First row we transitioned part day classrooms to full day
classrooms to meet the needs of commuting families at our
Balboa and George Miller three centers in Richmond. This was
our program objective for the year and will provide families
with full day coverage to support working. and going to
school. For the second row, we have two updates. The first is
that we opened 70 additional slots in existing locations
using state funding for fiscal year 2627. You will see this
reflected in the July enrollment data we present in
September. We do we do want to note that we expect an initial
dip in our enrollment percentage as we work to fill
these new slots. The second update here is that we are
nearing licensing approval to open two new infant toddler
classrooms, serving an additional 16 children. Each of
these will be at the Los Nogales Center and District
three, and the Livonia Allen Center and District five. These
slots are not yet reflected in the updated slot plans by
district. We'll show you on the next slide. This is an updated
summary of how our slots spread across districts following
these updates, we have increased slots in district one
and district five. The decrease in district three slots was due
to shifting infant toddler slots from a partner agency
located in the district to our directly operated centers based
in districts one and five. As mentioned, we are planning for
an additional 16 infant toddler slots for the district three
later this year. We continue to monitor our progress at
aligning the distribution of slots with the distribution of
the county 0 to 5 year old population. We can open only
one more classroom within our current directly operated
centers. Any additional expansion would need to come
through partner contracts or acquiring space. In June, we
had 98% enrollment for our federal slots and 99% of our
state slots. In June, the federal attendance rate was
73%, and the most common absence reason was child
illness. There is no penalty for low federal attendance. The
state attendance rate was 98%. There was no state penalty for
attendance. In June. Starting in July, our state
reimbursement was based on attendance. We served an
average of 1807 meals daily. In June. Throw throughout our
child care centers and subsidy programs. We served over 4000
children in June. Our new fiscal year began on July 1st.
Today, we are reporting budget summaries through June and
closing out fiscal year 2526. In June, we spent 3.3 million.
Our year to date, year to date expenditure is 26.7 million,
with a remaining balance of 880,000. In measure X funding,
our measure X funding covers a new contract that had startup
time. It is now fully operational and we expect to
expand our full measure X award within fiscal year 2627. In
fiscal year 2526, we fully expanded our federal headstart
Grant and the required non-federal share. We spent
$27,500 with Head Start funds utilizing credit cards. In
June, all purases were budgeted and made by authorized
staff. The Office of Head Start requires the board to approve
the annual single audit for fiscal year 2425. The audit had
no findings for the Head Start program. Your board finance
Committee reviewed and approved the single audit on July 13th.
Today, we are asking you to approve the single audit for
Head Start revenue and expenditures. Moving on to our
monitoring results in June, all five monitoring tools had over
96% compliance rates. We want to highlight the we want to
highlight the first two charts for daily playground and
classroom safety. These observations are completed at
the start of every day, for every classroom and every
playground at all. Directly operated and partner physical
centers to make sure that our facilities are safe for
children. They identify potential safety concerns so
corrections can be made, and so that we can avoid children
being at risk during the day. In June, we completed 4915
daily playground observations with a 99% compliance rate and
23,725 daily classrooms, offers daily classroom observations
with a compliance rate of 100%. This monitoring is an important
part of our commitment to child safety. There were two
indicators from our child Transition and safety
monitoring tool that had a noncompliance rate over 10%. We
have followed up with staff in those centers to ensure all
forms are being completed to fidelity. In June, we had one
incident reportable to Head Start and no citations from
child care licensing. A site staff member observed. And we
see on video foot camera footage, a staff member pulled
a child by the arm to guide them to sit back down on a mat
during nap time. These actions do not align with our policies
and standards of conduct, so that staff so that staff member
was immediately reassigned out of the classroom to an office
location while we conducted fact finding, the staff member
was separated from the county following the investigation,
the child was immediately assessed and did not show signs
of injury, but was upset about the interaction. We talked with
the parents about the incident and they appreciated our
response. The child has continued attending and the
family is happy at the center. Head start closed the incident
following our report. The incident was also reported to
Community Care Licensing, who did issue a type A citation
that you will see on next month's report. We have cleared
the citation. Moving on to official communications from
our federal and state funders. We did not receive any official
communications from the office of Head Start. In June.
Last year, California passed AB 495, known as the Family
Preparedness Act of 2025 for child care providers. This is
very similar to, but not the same as, SB 580. That applies
broadly to county agencies and facilities. You have discussed
SB 580 in previous presentations, and today what
I'm reporting to you about is 8495, which is for child care
centers only. Um, so California passed 84, 95. It's a reaction
to the heightened federal immigration enforcement. And
the goal is to protect our families information and to
provide backup caregiver options in the event that a
child's parent is unexpectedly detained or separated from
them. AB 495 requires that child care providers, including
the county and our partner agencies, requires us to
implement model policies aimed to protect the rights of
immigrants and allow them to safely access our facilities.
Programs were required to adopt policies by July 1st, and we
have done so. We analyzed our compliance with the new
guidance, and we conferred with County Council. We are already
highly compliant and we did need to make a few changes,
such as strengthening the language in our procedures
manual and our family handbook, and adding certain signage to
our centers. You delegate your Head Start executive director,
which is me. You delegate me the authority to approve
program policies. I have approved these policies. We've
trained our staff and we have implemented them.
The next two updates from the California Department of Social
Services are similar to updates we received from the California
from the California Department of Education in April. As a
reminder, we received state funding from both departments
for similar but different programs based on the children
served. They often issued similar guidance throughout the
year. The California Department of Social Services issued the
fiscal year 2627 Family Fee guidance staff updated our
guidance to align and notified families who pay fees. We have
19 families paying fees. Currently, the current family
fee range is from $33 to $105. The California Department of
Social Services issued the fiscal year 2627 income
guidelines. The income ceilings increase slightly based on
family size. Staff updated our guidance to align income.
Ceilings were updated at 85% of state median income, including
yearly ceilings at $115,637 for a family of four. This is an
increase of $7,400 last. The California Department of Social
Services issued guidance on how to submit an emergency.
Emergency closure request form for days when sites or
classrooms need to close for circumstances beyond their
control. No action is needed at this time as we are already in
compliance, we added a special section to this month's
discussed proposed to this month to discuss proposed board
governance updates. We bring proposed edits to two of three
County Headstart governance policies today for approval.
These policies were established in July 2023. We proposed
revising resolution number 2023 to 74 to address the cadence.
The Head Start Committee meets the current language dates. It
will meet every other month, but we recommend changing it to
six times per year. This will give more flexibility to work
with the board meeting calendar. Super supervisor
availability and programming needs. The second recommended
change is for resolution 2023 499. Regarding the internal
fiscal controls, the US Department of Health and Human
Services adopted the government wide two CFR part 200 Uniform
Guidance in October 2025. These proposed changes align with the
revised Federal Regulations. This is the conclusion of our
report. We're available for questions or guidance, after
which we ask you to formally accept the report. We also ask
you to approve the 2425 single audit findings related to the
Head Start program, for which we had no findings. And we ask
that you approve the proposed revised Head Start governance
policies. Thank you. Do any of my
colleagues have any comments or questions? Questions. Okay.
Go ahead. So just on on the fee. So this this is when we
have additional slots that aren't filled by those who are
Head Start eligible to pay nothing. Right. I thought we
had such a waiting list that we don't have open slots.
Um, correct. Head start is free of charge to a families and so
the family fees are for the state funded childcare
programs. Um, we do have an open slots at this time. And so
we are actively enrolling in certain circumstances. There
are other, um, eligibility criteria that elevates the
priority. Um, in enrollment. So yeah, right.
I personally so it could be that a family is next in line
to enroll in our center that has a little bit higher income.
So those slots only are available if a fully, um, Head
Start eligible family does not take advantage of all the
slots. Right. So in other words, there's still a
preference for those who are fully eligible.
These are state only slots that have no Head Start funding.
I see other the state slots. Yeah. And we have we have um 19
families in these slots. Got it. Okay. And so those are
dedicated for those for, for those who may be low income but
don't have, um, full head start eligibility. And therefore
don't get funded. So these are 19 slots that are state funded
and not federally funded. That's correct.
Okay. Thanks. Any more questions or comments?
Okay. I have a motion from Anderson and a second from
Carlson. Oh, I didn't do public comment. Woo! Woof. Do we have
any public comments on this item?
If there are any callers or zoom participants who would
like to speak on the Headstart Monthly update, the single
audit findings and the revised Head Start governance policies,
please press pound two if you're on the phone or raise
your hand in the zoom app. We have no comments.
And it passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay, so
should we do public comment? I'm, um, I'm making that little
joke because there are some people that have been in this
room all day long, and I want to appreciate your patience,
and I hope that it was an interesting meeting for you. So
we are going to move to public comment. Hey, Jamie, are there
any public comments that are not on today's agenda? But, um,
for the Board of Supervisors? Yes, chair Bergus, there are we
have comments in chambers. If there are any callers or zoom
participants, please press pound two. If you're on the
phone or raise your hand in the zoom app. And we will start
with our comments in chambers. The first comment is, Pamela,
please come to the podium. Thank you very much. Good
afternoon. Chair Bergus.
Members. It's.
Great to see you. It was a delight.
Actually, to be in chambers today to get to hear the work.
That you're helping. Make possible in our county.
I'm Pamela. Ralston, I'm the president of.
Los Madonnas College, and I'm here today in partnership with
the Antioch Chamber of Commerce. As we open the 2026
proposal for the East Contra Costa County nonprofit capacity
building Initiative.. Whew!
It's pretty exciting. And we're thrilled that our press release
went out today. The website is live. We welcome applications
through October 18th, and we plan to announce the grant
awards the week of November 2nd. We will award at least 12
sub grants ranging from 10,000 to $20,000. This is a private
public partnership intended to strengthen nonprofits and
community leadership in our region. The funding comes from
the $1 million investment from Contra Costa County Measure X
that was passed in 2020, and it's designed to serve the
communities of Antioch, Bay point, Brentwood, Byron,
discovery Bay Knights and Oakley and Pittsburgh. This
initiative this year will provide $240,000 in sub grants
to support organizational capacity, strengthen the
nonprofit sector, and develop the next generation of our
amazing nonprofit leaders, projects include those aimed at
improving organizational effectiveness, sustainability
and infrastructure, and those intended to increase
opportunities for paid internships that help build our
workforce pipeline. Since receiving the grant in October
of last year, we have an established we have established
an advisory board that includes dozens of community
stakeholders and experts from across our region. We have
hired grant coordinator Cole Martin, who works closely with
the Antioch Chamber of Commerce, on reviewing and
awarding the sub grants. Local also collaborates with our
workforce and economic Development Manager in Career
and technical education. Bill Bankhead is here with me today
and our senior Dean of diversity, equity, Inclusion
and Belonging, Doctor Rosa Armendariz, who sends her
regrets, as does the Cole Martin. Um, we'll all be here
together when we get a chance to produce a presentation on
our annual report that will be working with, uh, getting on
your your schedule for the rest of this year. And finally, we
have created eight week classes for academic credit that
stacked toward a nonprofit management certificate and
toward associate degrees. And we look forward to bringing in
our first cohort of students this coming spring. I look
forward to providing you a more formal presentation later this
fall. And thank you very much for your time.
Thank you so much. Um, this was a project that I originally
recommended, and Supervisor Glover supported, and so this
is really meaningful for East County. And I'm just thank you
for all the hard work. And thanks for waiting all day to
be able to talk. To us. I'm always happy to be
here. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.
The next speaker is Maeve. Please come to the podium.
Hello, Maeve. Welcome. Second time here.
Okay. Hello.
County Board. Of supervisors.
My name is Maeve. I'm here again as a resident of
Pittsburgh, speaking in opposition to the vile Perseus
Data Center project, which is proposed to be built within
400ft of residences near a church and Rancho O'Donnell's
Junior High School. This project would place 37 days of
backup generators near homes and a school. On the last bit
of open space we have in Pittsburgh, and I want to make
a point about the diesel generators because a data
center was recently broken ground in San Jose, the Alviso
Data Center by Microsoft, and they did not get they could not
get an air permit for the diesel they had. They had used
natural gas generators which emit less particulate matter,
soot and nitrogen oxides, which I think is relevant to the
health discussions that took place earlier. Um, our
neighbors Oakland, Brentwood, um, have enacted or are
considering moratoriums on the construction of hyperscale AI
data centers in their cities. Again, I am asking the county
Board of Supervisors for a countywide ban on all
hyperscale data center projects to protect Pittsburgh and all
cities in Contra Costa County from this predatory and
speculative industry. The issues with this project do not
remain only in Pittsburgh. If hyperscale data centers, which
consume as much electricity as an entire town, continue to be
proposed and built in California, the power grid will
need massive upgrades. This will cause everyone's puny
bills to increase. This is not a done deal. This kind of thing
happens with developments all of the time. Contracts can be
changed or be voided until it's built. It's not done. And
Pittsburgh residents continue to speak out. We need to see
the creativity and will from our leadership to find a path
forward. Without a data center in Pittsburgh, the public
cannot be dismissed and willfully ignored on this
matter any longer. Stop that to consider. Data center
construction in Contra Costa County. Promote transparency
and ban NDAs with developers. Thank you. Board.
The next speaker is Anna. Please come to the podium.
Hi. Good afternoon.
Board of Supervisors. This is my.
First, uh, speech. Um. So my name.
Is Anna. I'm a. Pittsburgh resident. I'm here
along with my neighbors to demand that you help us reverse
the course of this massive key, massive data center in
Pittsburgh by the Delta View Golf course on West Leland
Road. Um.
Pittsburgh Council unanimously approved phase one for this
hyperscale facility in 2024. Nobody knew about it. All my
neighbors that I talked to, they don't have no clue what's
going on. I happen to be scrolling on next door and I
seen it. It's at no data center in Pittsburgh. I said what? I
clicked because I hear it on the news that they're building
them all over. And I said, no way. And then I started to get
involved. I go to these council meetings, I sit there and I
listen. So now I have to get involved. I don't know what
else to do but to come here and just voice my word. We don't
want this data center over there. I don't know if you guys
know much about it, but it's going to make a lot of Z 24
over seven. Um, after sitting here all day and I see all
these Medi-Cal cuts that are happening, this there's going
to be health impact on this data center. And it seems to me
that people, when they get sick with this asthma and
cardiovascular problems, there's not going to be any
coverage to go anywhere to go get help. So this stuff is
really, really serious. And I'm coming here to ask you guys,
please to, you know, maybe you can show up to one of these,
uh, city right now, there's only three of us here, but
usually we just pack out this whole thing there. The third
three floors. Um, so please, please help us. And this. We
don't want this. I mean, why would they want to do this in
front of the school residents? Why? I just said it's money.
It's power and money. So at the end of the day.
We. Thank you. Anna.
The next speaker is Randy. Please come to the podium.
I voted. For two of you guys.
That's on the council right now. And I voted for three out
of Pittsburgh. Um, Chambers County Chambers, uh, Pittsford
Chambers. And, uh, I didn't like how it was kicked out of
the meeting on the 17th. And we got removed. The they closed
the chambers. They synced downstairs, and they locked the
front door. That was a public building and a public meeting
that we should not have been kicked out of. Thank you.
We can now go to our zoom comment.
Next speaker is Liz. Please unmute.
All right. Good afternoon.
I'm so grateful that I have an opportunity to kind of rebut
some of the statements that were made regarding the
sheriff's actions and Ice, um, work, because I think it's very
critical that there is a that actually we should not even be
a sanctuary county. And the fact that we have any
interactions that are negative, um, is because we are we are
not following fully the immigration laws of our
country. But I just wanted to mention that Sheriff David
Livingston's works under the limited California SB 54. He
has notified Ice of inmates being released as as required,
and in 2024, there was 577 requests of which he responded
to 131, and that meant 96 unique individuals. And in 2025
it went up to two, seven, 24 and about 118 notifications,
which in a county of 1.2 million. We're talking about
very small numbers of people. I just also want to mention that
the work that they're doing, uh, has been enhanced by
working with not only other state organizations, but also
federal organizations to try and help reduce the amount of
stress in the ice. Uh, detainment. And this is this
combination being effective? Well, yes. The sheriff's
limited notifications on ice targeted operations. Remove a
person with violent felony history from Antioch, Richmond,
Pittsburgh and or Concord. That individual is no longer a
re-offending here, so every removal strengthens our public
safety. Um, regarding impacts on legal citizens and broader
community. While ISIS community enforcement has nationally and
elsewhere in California produced documented cases of
U.S. citizens being questioned, briefly detained, or affected
during. A..
The next speaker is Felicia. Please unmute.
Hello once again, Felicia Williams, uh, from California
Statewide Community Development Authority. And I just wanted to
ask a question about item C 29 that was removed from the
consent calendar. Um, if that will come to a future agenda or
if there's any further discussion. That was my only
question. Thank you. The next speaker is zoom user.
Please unmute. To user, please go ahead with
your comment. Hi. Hello. Um, I wanted to join the call asking
for a countywide ban on data centers in Contra Costa County.
Hyperscale AI data centers are not inevitable, and we need to
mitigate the harm that will come to the health of our
working families, as well as the impact on jobs and our
vulnerable and underserved communities. Pittsburgh is a
diverse, uh, tight knit community, and it's been
disheartening to see how little conversation has been going on
within the city between council and our community members. I'm
asking especially to the Board of Supervisors who have ties to
Pittsburgh, to figure out a way to work between our communities
and to ban these data centers, add a moratorium on all future
projects. Thank you. There are no more comments.
Great. Thank you. Uh, let's see, we are to the end of this
meeting. I'm trying to get to my agenda. Here we go. Um, we
are there any board reports? I don't hear any. All right. We
will be adjourning in memory of Mary Ann Mason, our former
county council. We send our love to all of those that loved
her. And this meeting is adjourned.