[6:22] Elena. We can test Laurence sound. If you can hear me.
[6:28] Yes I can. Let's do that. If Laurence, we can't hear.
[6:40] Lauren is there. Is there muted?
[6:43] Why am I hearing this here? Yeah. One second Lauren, we
[6:47] need to unmute. Also need to be promoted
[6:51] because she's coming in on my zoom over here.
[6:54] I don't know what Elena just said. Because we need to make.
[9:11] Speakers. It's me. Is it possible to I to
[9:20] give flyers to. Is it possible to give these movies speaking?
[9:25] This is the international audience. So.
[9:33] Okay. All right. Okay. Lauren, let's hear you.
[13:31] Do you guys hear that? No, we still can't hear her.
[13:34] Okay, that's not gonna work. Okay.
[16:55] Can I identify him right now? But we're going to do roll call.
[16:59] District one supervisor John Gioia here. District two
[17:04] supervisor Candice Anderson here. District four supervisor
[17:09] Ken Carlson here. District five supervisor Chanel skills.
[17:14] Preston here. District three chair. Supervisor Dianne
[17:18] Burgess. And I'm here. And I think we
[17:22] can do the Pledge of Allegiance. Is that work for
[17:25] you, Tom? Or do we need to wait?
[17:27] I think we should wait on everything. I think that, Madam
[17:31] Chair, you can announce that there is a service disruption.
[17:34] Um, so under the new disruption policy that the board adopted,
[17:38] you have to announce that, and then we can go into closed
[17:40] session to me while they're working on it. And then when
[17:44] they fix it, we can come back out, and then you can take
[17:47] public comment on the closed session.
[17:49] So I think what I'm going to do is use your words where the
[17:52] announcement of the service interruption is that.
[17:55] Yes. Service disruption. Yes. And so we're going to go
[17:58] to closed session and then we'll come back.
[18:02] We're not we don't take public comment.
[18:03] Well the public because of the service disruption, the public
[18:06] can't participate. In the closed session. Public
[18:09] comment. Yes. But they'll have that
[18:11] opportunity when we come back because we are authorized to go
[18:13] in the closed session right now. Okay.
[18:15] So we can do public comment on the closed session after we get
[18:18] back. Yes. Alrighty. Uh, we expect closed session to be
[18:23] maybe 15 minutes, so we'll be back in. So we will be back.
[23:21] And. And. Closed session. Is there
[30:57] anything to report out. And then we're going to do closed.
[30:59] Um, will do public comments on the closed session.
[31:04] Uh, there is nothing to report. Okay. Jamie's not here. Um. Are
[31:14] there any public comments for closed session? There's Jamie.
[31:21] Sorry. Are there? We're looking to see if there's any public
[31:26] comments for closed session. Thank you. Chair, if there are
[31:31] any callers or zoom participants who would like to
[31:34] speak on an item that's on the closed session agenda, please
[31:38] press pound two. If you're on the phone or raise your hand in
[31:41] the zoom app. There are no comments.
[31:49] Thank you. Uh, if you have been watching so far this morning,
[31:54] we have been running around dealing with some technical
[31:57] difficulties and trying to move around. So we appreciate
[32:02] everybody's patience. I am going to take us back to item
[32:07] two, which is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join me.
[32:15] Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to
[32:20] the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
[32:24] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[32:34] I really, really like today's inspirational thought. If you
[32:40] want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else. From Booker T
[32:45] Washington. All right. We're going to go to item five, which
[32:49] is to consider consent items. Uh, Miss Nino, is there
[32:54] anything that you would like to pull?
[32:56] Good morning, chair Bergus and board members, I'm requesting
[33:00] to pull C 29. Um, and also C 82 and C 82 will not return.
[33:10] Alrighty. Are there any others? Um. Quick comment. Just. I got
[33:16] a text message from staff saying that the zoom is muted,
[33:22] and I don't know if that's been correct. So implying that
[33:25] people on zoom cannot hear us. I believe the zoom was muted.
[33:31] It should not be any more. Uh, let's get communication.
[33:35] Okay. In fact, I did just get a text just now. Say now we can.
[33:39] Okay. Thank you so much. And I apologize for interrupting. I
[33:43] just know we've had a few technical difficulties this
[33:46] morning. We are all in this together. We
[33:48] are a team, and so we appreciate everybody helping us
[33:53] make it work. Right. All right, so any other items to pull. So,
[34:03] uh, neither of these items need to be discussed later.
[34:06] Correct? Correct. Thank you. Okay. Are there any
[34:10] public comments for the consent items?
[34:13] If there are any callers or zoom participants who would
[34:16] like to speak on an item on the consent calendar, which is item
[34:21] C1, through C 116, please press pound two if you're on the
[34:25] phone, or raise your hand in the zoom app. We do have a
[34:36] comment. The next speaker is Felicia.
[34:40] Please accept the invitation and unmute.
[35:02] Hello everyone. Can you hear me?
[35:04] Yes we can. And it was um. I didn't hear
[35:08] which items got pulled from the consent calendar. It was on
[35:11] mute. So if you might, if you wouldn't mind repeating that.
[35:14] We c 29 and C 82. Okay. And so C 29 is the one
[35:20] that I wanted to speak on. I just wanted to introduce
[35:23] myself. I'm the executive director of California
[35:26] Statewide Communities Development Authority, and I've
[35:29] met several of you at cSAC events. I just started last
[35:31] year, so I'm looking forward to meeting more of you. But, um,
[35:36] we did just want to be able to be part of the conversation.
[35:39] Uh, regarding GPAs. GPAs are a very unique structure, um,
[35:44] allowed by the Joint Powers Act that transfers a lot of risk
[35:47] and liability to a GPA from the county. Uh, one of the reasons
[35:52] why we exist is that we do very complicated financings that are
[35:57] difficult for the state to do, or for counties to do. And we
[36:00] also pool financings to allow participants. We have over 536
[36:06] participants that are part of our GPA, including the county,
[36:09] to be able to access the capital markets at a lower cost
[36:13] and be able to average the credit over several different
[36:17] entities, especially smaller entities. Uh, some of the
[36:20] complicated financings that we've done for the county. We
[36:23] did proposition one, a securitization, uh, very
[36:26] difficult transaction that gave the county $44 million in
[36:30] revenues. And, um, and other entities can't do that. It
[36:34] would be very difficult for the county to hire staff and be
[36:37] able to do that. So we've been providing those services
[36:40] throughout the county, all 19 and incorporated cities or
[36:43] members. Uh, and we just like to be part of that conversation
[36:47] and really understand your concerns and make sure that
[36:50] we're responsive and make sure that the county is receiving,
[36:53] uh, the financing that they need. We are sponsored by the
[36:57] state Association of Counties, and we have former county
[37:01] officials who are on our board that many of you know. Um, and
[37:04] so. There are no more comments.
[37:07] Thank you. Are there any other public comments for the consent
[37:11] items? No. Chair Bergus there or not?
[37:13] Thank you. Uh, then I will accept a. Motion from
[37:22] Supervisor Gioia. Second from doesn't say it. Supervisor
[37:28] Scales Preston. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. All
[37:42] right. We are going to move on to presentations. But first,
[37:48] um, we are going to be I'm going to bring in our
[37:52] adjournment and. Tom, did you want to start this off?
[38:01] Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and thank the board for
[38:04] adjourning in memory of Mary Ann Mason. Um, Mary Ann was an
[38:08] outstanding attorney and wonderful mentor and friend to
[38:12] everyone who worked with her during her 35 year career with
[38:15] Contra Costa County. She began as a deputy county council, was
[38:19] appointed Assistant County council in 2010, appointed as
[38:23] Chief Assistant County Council in 2016, and the board
[38:27] appointed her as county council in 2021. She served in that
[38:31] role until her retirement in November of 2022. For many
[38:35] years, Mary Ann was the primary legal counsel to the Contra
[38:38] Costa County Courts and the grand jury chief counsel to the
[38:42] Contra Costa County Office of Education and Board of
[38:45] Education, and District Council to Del Diablo. She was the
[38:50] office's experts on expert on laws pertaining to retirement
[38:54] and employee benefits. Uh, conflict of interest laws. The
[38:58] Public Records Act, the Better Government Ordinance, the Brown
[39:02] Act, and the county's Election Campaign ordinance. And she
[39:06] probably would have enjoyed today's Brown Act issues this
[39:09] morning. Mary Ann really loved her job. One of the things she
[39:13] loved most about it was being involved in local politics and
[39:16] local government. She would always have the biggest smile
[39:19] when she would come into our offices to talk about local
[39:22] politics, like who had sent out the latest flyer and who was
[39:25] running against who. She really enjoyed hearing the latest
[39:28] political gossip. She thought local politics was fun, but she
[39:33] also loved it because she understood, like all of us,
[39:35] that local government is where you affect change and can
[39:38] really improve people's lives. After she retired, she remained
[39:42] active locally and served on the first Northern California
[39:45] Credit Board of directors until her passing. After her
[39:49] retirement, she was fortunate enough to travel and spend time
[39:51] with her family. After retirement. So thank you for
[39:55] adjourning and Marianne's memory, and I want to let the
[39:57] board know that a funeral mass will be held for Mary Ann on
[40:00] Friday, October 2nd at 10:30 a.m. at Saint Perpetua Church
[40:05] in Lafayette. I. I'm going to let my
[40:13] colleagues speak. Okay, John, you're the longest. You
[40:17] probably. Yeah, I've. I had a chance to
[40:19] work with Mary Ann since I joined the board. Um, a couple
[40:24] decades ago. And, um, she was, you know, everything you said,
[40:29] Tom. Um, but just on top of that, just a very gracious, um,
[40:35] kind person. And, um, never was rattled by things. Right? And,
[40:42] um, always respectful of anybody and everybody, whatever
[40:48] their viewpoints. And saw her role as, you know, giving the
[40:53] best legal advice to county departments, to the board. Um,
[40:57] and, uh, leaving the decision up to the Department of the
[41:01] board. But, you know, assessing the risks and, um, and doing
[41:05] the best she could. And I use the word integrity. She had
[41:08] amazing integrity. Um, and, um, would give advice in areas you
[41:15] talked about, and I, I know with the board members,
[41:17] whenever we had questions about the Brown Act, um, conflicts of
[41:22] interest, things like that, she was always, um, thoughtful,
[41:26] careful, and, um, an understanding person. Just a
[41:30] kind, great human being. I just missed.
[41:37] Well, I was truly saddened to hear of Mary Ann's passing. And
[41:42] of, of course, when she retired, when she was serving
[41:46] as our county council. And like, like John, I just had
[41:50] such a wonderful working relationship with Mary Ann. And
[41:54] when I first became a county supervisor, she really was the
[41:57] one that helped me understand some of the ramifications of
[42:01] having an officeholder account versus a campaign account. And
[42:05] as changes would come in election law and everything
[42:07] else, she really stayed on top of that. But she also offered
[42:11] such wise counsel and like and any of us who are parents, I
[42:16] don't think she had a favorite child, but she would come up to
[42:20] me after some controversial votes on the Board of
[42:23] Supervisors and whisper in my ear, I'm so glad you're my
[42:28] county supervisor. And each time she said that, it kind of
[42:32] warmed my heart and I really appreciated, as Tom said, the
[42:36] way she even though as the county council, she couldn't
[42:40] take sides on issues, she understood the issues we were
[42:44] confronting, she knew what was going on in the Orinda
[42:48] community, and I just always, um, have such a special place
[42:52] in my heart for her. And the way in which she led us as
[42:56] county council. Uh, yeah. It was interesting to
[43:03] get onboarded as a county supervisor, because most people
[43:07] when when they know we're going through that, they bring that
[43:10] whole, um, example of the of the fire hose. And I think, uh,
[43:19] Mary Ann brought that understanding, as Tom has
[43:23] talked about understanding local politics, but also very
[43:28] much understanding the law. Um, I think that's what makes
[43:34] certain people great is because they, um, they can bring those
[43:39] things together. They can be an expert in what they do, but
[43:42] then they can also help people understand, and they can help
[43:46] the people that are doing the job. Mary Ann was beautiful.
[43:52] But not only was she beautiful on the outside, she was
[43:55] amazingly beautiful on the inside. I think her husband is
[43:58] here. Come on up here. And I forgot your first name.
[44:06] Greg. Mason. Greg. Well, I'm going to let
[44:10] you speak in just a minute, but come on up here. Come stand by
[44:12] the podium so we can see you. I'm bossy today, Greg. Um, she
[44:21] loved her family, too. And that was a very, very obvious in
[44:26] working with her. I think the the fun thing was to see how
[44:31] excited she got about what she was doing. And she was so
[44:36] committed to the county, but there was always this big place
[44:41] in her. What what we dealt with was how much she loved her
[44:47] family, and I wanted to make sure that we recognized that
[44:51] today because, um, I think she would want us to, but I want to
[44:56] thank you for sharing her with us. She made Contra Costa a
[45:00] better place because she served us. And, um, so I'm really
[45:06] proud of the work that I've gotten to do with her. And
[45:09] she's made me a better county supervisor. So I just want to
[45:13] recognize you. I do. My colleagues that didn't get to
[45:17] work with her, maybe they knew her, but I'm going to let you
[45:19] guys say. And then you get to have the last word.
[45:21] Yeah, I came after, uh, Mary Ann, did. I can say is we're
[45:30] very privileged of her legacy and the work she did within
[45:34] county council and those who supported continue to benefit
[45:39] all of us in Contra Costa County, not only us in the
[45:42] decisions we make. Her legacy lives on. And those that are,
[45:49] uh, worked with her income. My condolences to you, Mr.
[45:58] Mason, is, um. I'm a newer supervisor, so I didn't have
[46:02] the opportunity to get to know, um, Mary. But it's always a
[46:06] blessing to learn about someone and hear the stories that my
[46:10] colleagues are sharing and staff, um, and it's learning
[46:15] about someone just not on a piece of paper, but the
[46:18] interactions and the relationships that she has
[46:21] created throughout this county. So thank you and your family
[46:24] for sharing her with us. And I can see that her extended
[46:31] family, with the legal counsel of Contra Costa is in the room
[46:35] as well. And I we we send our love to all of you because we
[46:39] know how much you loved her as well. But, Greg, share. Share
[46:43] what you want to say. Well, first of all, I'd like
[46:46] to. Can you speak into the
[46:47] microphone, please? Thank you. First of all, I'd
[46:50] like to thank everybody. She really loved working here. Um,
[46:55] sometimes it's kind of envious that maybe if she didn't have
[46:58] as much integrity because I'm sure she was privileged to a
[47:02] lot of really juicy gossip that never got back to me. If I if
[47:06] I'd ask, someone says, well, nope. If it makes a paper, I
[47:09] can talk about it. If it doesn't, I done, um, another
[47:12] thing. I'd like to thank Tom for everything he did and has
[47:15] done since then. Uh, what? You she may or may not have told
[47:20] you is, uh, she trusted me in my evaluation of people. And we
[47:25] had a, uh, uh, around the end of the year party, and Tom was
[47:30] over there and she said, hey, I'm thinking about Tom
[47:33] appointing him as my number two, which means my designated
[47:36] successor. So check them out. What do you think? And Tom came
[47:39] across very well, and I'm very happy that he's, uh, succeeding
[47:43] her. Uh, you know, not just in Texas. You know, Marianne's
[47:47] view is, hey, my job is to make sure everything runs smoothly.
[47:50] You know, look for potential problems, head them off so that
[47:54] everything goes smoothly. And Tom is my from what I've been
[47:57] seeing, has done a great job. So, again, I thank you very,
[48:00] very much. Uh, she really, really loved this job. She
[48:05] wouldn't have stayed in it for 35 years if if she didn't. So
[48:08] thank you very much. Thank you Greg. We really did
[48:12] love her to. So at the end of this meeting, we'll be
[48:16] adjourning in her memory and in her honor. Alrighty. We are
[48:21] going to move on to presentations. And I went down
[48:28] too far on my list. Presentation number one is
[48:31] recognizing August 2026 as International Overdose
[48:35] Awareness Month. Fatima mittal soul is in. Hopefully there she
[48:41] is. And April Rivero, executive director of National Coalition
[48:46] Against Prescription Drug Abuse. Um, I didn't give Fatima
[48:50] as title. She's the AOD program chief and AOD, I always all of
[48:56] the What's Oudh stand for alcohol and other drugs
[48:59] services. Yes. Thank you. Got it.
[49:02] Woo-Hoo! You!
[49:04] Good morning, Madam Chair. Board of supervisors, my name
[49:07] is Fatima Matawalle. I'm with the awards program chief with
[49:11] Behavioral health. Um, this morning. Um, we are here to
[49:15] recognize, to remind everybody the importance of, um,
[49:19] International Overdose Awareness Month. Uh, reminder
[49:23] that, um, our work continues the importance of treatment,
[49:28] the importance of supporting recovery, the importance of
[49:31] raising awareness about, um, you know, how to reduce stigma
[49:36] in the community so that people access the services that they
[49:39] need for behavioral health. With me today is April Rivera,
[49:44] who will be addressing all of you. Um, um, in this important
[49:47] matter. Thank you. Thank you. Fatima. So good
[49:54] morning, supervisors, staff and community members. My name is
[49:58] April Rivera. I live in San Ramon, and I'm the founder and
[50:02] executive director of the National Coalition Against
[50:04] Prescription Drug Abuse, formerly known as NCA PDA,
[50:08] because that's a really long name. Um, on behalf of NCA, PD
[50:13] and the meds and East County Meds Coalition's, I want to
[50:17] thank you for recognizing international Overdose
[50:19] Awareness Day. IOAD uh, what began 25 years ago in
[50:25] Melbourne, Australia, has grown to be a to be global in scope.
[50:29] So people gather around the world on and around August 31st
[50:34] to remember those lost too soon to overdose, to support those
[50:38] they left behind, and to break down the stigma that continues
[50:41] to have a profound effect on those living with substance use
[50:44] disorder in those impacted by overdose. Thankfully, there's
[50:48] actually some good news to report this year. We're now
[50:51] seeing a substantial, sustained drop in overdose deaths
[50:54] nationwide, and key contributors are cited by the
[50:57] CDC, the center for Disease Control, to include community
[51:01] education, particularly around fentanyl treatment for
[51:05] substance use and mental health disorders, and the wide
[51:08] distribution of naloxone that can easily be used by everyday
[51:12] community members to reverse an opioid related overdose. In APD
[51:17] and the meds coalitions are contributing to this good news
[51:20] story. In Contra Costa County, too. We work continuously in
[51:24] our various communities to strengthen overdose prevention
[51:27] by expanding access to naloxone, fentanyl test strips,
[51:31] and prevention education through partnerships with
[51:35] schools and other community organizations. We are
[51:37] increasing fentanyl awareness and equipping communities with
[51:41] lifesaving resources. We hope you will join us at the EOD
[51:46] event that the CC coalition is co-hosting with the county's
[51:50] middeck coalition on August 31st, from 11 to 3 to 130.
[51:55] Sorry, at the Loma Vista Adult Center in Concord, information
[52:00] about additional EOD events in Alameda County that Ncap is
[52:04] either hosting or tabling that is available on our website.
[52:08] Ncap dot org. In closing, I want to say that those we have
[52:12] lost to overdose mattered and we will recognize and remember
[52:16] them during our EOD events. Their families and friends left
[52:21] behind also matter. We need to make sure that stigma does not
[52:25] get in the way of us embracing and supporting them through
[52:27] their loss and grief, as we will do during our EOD events
[52:31] and beyond. So again, thank you very much for your proclamation.
[52:35] Recognizing August 31st is International Overdose
[52:38] Awareness Day. It's a very important day. That means a lot
[52:41] to those of us in NCA, PD and the meds coalitions and to
[52:45] every Contra Costa County community member who has been
[52:49] touched by a devastating loss to overdose. As my own family
[52:52] has. Thank you. And you know, I say this a lot.
[53:02] So it's kind of repeating myself, but I really, truly,
[53:06] truly believe this. When people go through hard things, you can
[53:12] fall down and lay on the floor, or you can get up and you can
[53:16] try to help make it better for other people. And I think
[53:20] that's what a hero is. So you're heroic and what you're
[53:23] doing by speaking up and trying to make a difference. So thank
[53:27] you to my colleagues. Have any comments?
[53:32] I just again, I always appreciate this because it hits
[53:35] home to me as as I've shared before, my daughter in law's
[53:39] beautiful sister lost her life due to an overdose when she was
[53:43] just 21 years old. And, um, it wasn't intentional. It just
[53:48] happened. And it's tragic. And I've also experienced a close
[53:52] family member who got addicted to pain pills that were
[53:56] prescribed for legitimate health reasons, but they
[53:59] altered the trajectory of her life, of her son's lives. And
[54:04] the more we can do to help prevent these tragedies that
[54:09] don't just impact one person, but impact all of us, is so
[54:13] critical. So thank you for this very, very important work.
[54:19] I just want to thank the I think, the amazing coalition we
[54:22] have in Contra Costa between the health department
[54:24] residents, um, community based organizations, the investment
[54:28] that we're all making and the work that everyone's doing
[54:31] together and continuing to raise the visibility. And I
[54:35] realize there are, um, some parts of the country where this
[54:39] is even more serious of an issue than it is here. Um, but
[54:44] it's it's it's so prevalent around the country. And others
[54:47] have said everyone knows someone who's been impacted by
[54:52] this tragedy. So thanks. Let's go take a picture with
[54:58] you. Our next presentation is recognizing August 2026 as
[56:24] Child Support Awareness Month. We have Matt Braga. Right,
[56:28] Matt, if I said your name wrong, you need to correct me
[56:31] because I have one of those names that sometimes gets us.
[56:34] Looks like I did okay. He is the Department of Child Support
[56:37] Services director. It's nice to see you.
[56:40] Nice to see. You.
[56:42] I say it right. Yes, you did perfect.
[56:46] And I have. I have a ex college.
[56:49] Uh, teammate whose last name is Burgess. So it's.
[56:53] Oh, it's so scary to talk to me.
[56:55] Then I apologize. I'm very good. Jerry Ferguson,
[56:58] supervisor. Okay. Yes. I want to thank you for acknowledging
[57:01] August's Child Support Awareness month. It's a month
[57:04] to highlight the work that child support staff do on our
[57:07] over 23,000 cases within Contra Costa County, which represents
[57:11] about 36,000 dependents. So we are a large, fairly large
[57:16] footprint in the community. As you know, our role is to assist
[57:20] with establishing parentage and child support and medical
[57:23] support obligations and to collect on those obligations.
[57:26] Our theme as a department this year has reached those who need
[57:29] our services and provide results, and that is a key for
[57:33] for our staff, is making sure that we're doing the best that
[57:36] we can to serve the families that we serve. To that end,
[57:40] I'll be coming back actually, in the coming months to
[57:43] announce a pilot program that will allow parents with child
[57:47] support obligations to come to an agreement on how the
[57:49] obligation will be met. Uh, so we're looking to kind of change
[57:54] the world of child support enforcement. Uh, we're moving
[57:58] away from traditional enforcement tools with child
[58:00] support and allowing families to to satisfy their obligations
[58:04] to each other in a way that is more, um, that fits more within
[58:10] their life situation. So we're calling that alternative our
[58:14] in-kind payment program. So allowing instead of just cash
[58:19] handed over from one parent to the other, but to allow in-kind
[58:23] services, whether it's transportation, whether it's
[58:26] it's helping with school clothes to satisfy a child
[58:29] support obligation with our partner San Joaquin in San
[58:33] Francisco counties, we're offering this alternative as a
[58:36] first of its kind in the nation support program. Uh, we had to
[58:39] attend, obtain a federal waiver, which just was signed
[58:43] last week by the state Department of Child Support
[58:45] Services. And they're sponsoring the entire project.
[58:50] So we want to expand our services to those parents who
[58:53] are working together and want options, rather than, again,
[58:57] focusing our on our traditional enforcement tools. So we're
[59:00] kind of using Child Support Awareness Month as our kind of
[59:04] launch point for that program. So again, there will be more to
[59:08] come. We are finalizing the technical pieces of it. Uh, but
[59:12] we should be reaching out to our families and offering this
[59:15] as an option within the next 2 to 3 months. So but with that,
[59:19] I thank you again for acknowledging child Support
[59:22] Awareness Month and the program that we, my executive team here
[59:27] hiding behind me and our camera, uh, that we certainly,
[59:32] uh, you know, honor and respect the families that we support,
[59:36] um, and our staff that work so hard to, um, to do the job that
[59:41] we do to support the families in our community.
[59:43] I'm going to ask your team to kind of come actually behind
[59:46] you so that people can see you on the screen. And I'm going to
[59:49] talk about the screen behind us to our audience. I know online
[59:53] you can see what's going on in the audience. The screen is not
[59:57] working, so you can see them from there and there. If you
[59:59] need to see what's going on. Um, I'm a divorced mom. I had,
[1:00:07] um, a really great experience with my ex-husband. He took
[1:00:11] care of his responsibilities. And I know that I was very
[1:00:16] lucky, um, because we worked together. Unfortunately, it's
[1:00:22] not always that easy. It gets complicated. And ultimately,
[1:00:29] when it is complicated and there are all those conflicts,
[1:00:32] it is terrible for the kids. And that's really what the
[1:00:37] whole purpose of this is, to make sure that the kids are
[1:00:41] getting taken care of, both food and housing and clothes,
[1:00:45] but also emotionally, educationally, you know, all of
[1:00:49] those things. And so I want to thank you for bringing
[1:00:53] awareness to to Contra Costa about this. I'm really excited
[1:00:58] to see that you're being innovative to help maybe make
[1:01:02] it a little less complicated for people and start working
[1:01:05] together to help our babies. And then I just want to thank
[1:01:09] all the folks that decided to pick a career where you work on
[1:01:13] this kind of this kind of stuff, to work with people
[1:01:16] that, you know, probably are either angry or scared or
[1:01:22] unsure of what to do, and you are there for them. So thank
[1:01:25] you for doing that to my colleagues. Have anything else
[1:01:28] to say? Nope. Then we're going to come down and take a picture
[1:01:32] with you. Um.
[1:03:05] The final presentation is one that I got to bring, and I'm
[1:03:09] kind of excited. Today we get to celebrate the legacy that
[1:03:13] harvest time has built over the last 50 years. If you're here
[1:03:16] with harvest time, come on down. There you are. One of the
[1:03:30] beautiful things of living in East Contra Costa is that we
[1:03:34] have these open spaces. We have farms. One of the really
[1:03:38] wonderful benefits is that on the way home from work, I can
[1:03:42] stop at a stand and pick up freshly picked stuff. It's
[1:03:47] tomatoes. It's strawberries, it's
[1:03:51] peaches, it's corn. There's a whole bunch of really yummy,
[1:03:56] delicious stuff. And people come from all over the Bay area
[1:03:59] because we are the Yupik capital of the world. Since
[1:04:04] 1976, harvest time has helped connect visitors from around
[1:04:08] the world with local Yupik farms, roadside stands and
[1:04:12] agricultural businesses across Brentwood and East Contra Costa
[1:04:16] County. Their efforts have put East County on the map as the
[1:04:20] Yupik capital of the world. In 2025. Roughly 600,000 visitors
[1:04:27] came to East County to enjoy the fruits and vegetables of
[1:04:31] their labor. In addition to Yup'ik harvest, time helps to
[1:04:35] preserve our agricultural heritage, supports the farming
[1:04:39] families who have shaped our community for generations and
[1:04:42] create traditions that keep East County farming community
[1:04:47] strong. My team and I have been more than happy to support
[1:04:52] their efforts. We went cherry picking in May and they were
[1:04:56] delicious. I wish cherry season would go a little longer
[1:05:00] though, right? Just sayin. Um, and we proudly wore our 50th
[1:05:07] anniversary Harvest Time t shirts while we were out there.
[1:05:11] Uh, there's. If you drive out there, you'll see that there's
[1:05:13] these big signs that Brentwood has helped put up that, um,
[1:05:17] helps everybody recognize that, uh, the that they're the Yupik
[1:05:22] capital. So as chair, I'm proud to recognize harvest time for
[1:05:26] 50 years of service, stewardship and community
[1:05:29] leadership. And today we have some of the rock stars of the
[1:05:34] Harvest Time family. We've got Brian Lucey. We, uh, who is the
[1:05:40] owner of Serendipity Winery. We have Patrick Johnston, who is a
[1:05:44] farmer and co-owner of Dooley Farms. We have Hayley Nunn,
[1:05:49] farmer's daughter, which is the one I stopped by a lot because
[1:05:52] it's on my way home. Uh, Jessica Enos, the board
[1:05:56] president, and it says Sean McCauley. I don't see Sean, but
[1:06:00] I will say all of these families have been in the area
[1:06:04] for a long time, and they have helped shape a beautiful place
[1:06:08] to live. And often you go to places and there's the same
[1:06:12] stores everywhere. You harvest time. Help make this a unique
[1:06:18] and wonderful place to live. So I'm going to hand it over to
[1:06:21] you. What do you want to say about harvest time?
[1:06:25] Uh, good morning, everyone, and thank you again for the
[1:06:28] recognition. Um, just wanted to say or point out that harvest
[1:06:32] Time is a board of volunteers, volunteer farmers that help
[1:06:37] promote each other. Um, not only locally, but extended into
[1:06:42] the larger community. And there was going to be much more of us
[1:06:46] here today. However, harvest is still in full swing. Um, corn,
[1:06:51] tomatoes, grapes, almonds. Um, just started our winter squash
[1:06:57] this morning. Um, so appreciate the recognition. And, uh, we'll
[1:07:02] continue to promote agriculture as such a vital, unique
[1:07:07] resource to Contra Costa County. And the more people we
[1:07:09] can get to come out to the East side, the better. So thank you
[1:07:13] very much. Chair Burgess, I understand
[1:07:16] there's also a video we have. Yeah, there.
[1:07:20] Is. Yes. And the video will display
[1:07:24] on the side screens, just the back screens. Thank you. Please
[1:07:29] show the video. For 50 years, harvest time has
[1:07:36] been the bridge between our soil and your family. We are
[1:07:38] immensely proud to have helped Brentwood become the Yupik
[1:07:41] capital of the world. But the heart of this land runs even
[1:07:44] deeper. Many of our farming families have been stewards of
[1:07:47] this earth for over a century, long before Brentwood was even
[1:07:50] a city. They championed education, supported our youth
[1:07:53] and shaped the community we're so proud to call home today.
[1:07:56] Whether you're a lifelong resident or a visitor from
[1:07:59] across the globe, your support keeps these legacies growing.
[1:08:02] Thank you for choosing local and for being the reason our
[1:08:05] heritage continues to thrive. Harvest time in Brentwood. 50
[1:08:11] years of roots. A century of pride.
[1:08:23] My staff also brought the harvest Time magazine. We're
[1:08:27] going to put them out at. See, Jamie is really great. She's
[1:08:32] got em all out there. If you wa more, there's a website
[1:08:35] that you can look up all the different places to visit, and
[1:08:41] I encourage people to come on out. Does anybody else want to
[1:08:44] say anything? No. Okay. Can we come down and take a picture
[1:08:47] with you? You'll let us? Okay. Come on down. And today's
[1:10:47] agenda, D1 is the community forum for the transparent
[1:10:52] review of unjust transfers and holds hold. Acts. Act, also
[1:10:59] known as the Truth Act. Before we begin, I will have the clerk
[1:11:03] of the board announce details regarding the additional
[1:11:06] language access available specifically for this forum.
[1:11:12] Those joining us remotely via zoom that wish to hear the
[1:11:16] community forum in Spanish can do so by scanning the QR code
[1:11:21] on the screen. Once you get to the wordly website. Choose
[1:11:25] Spanish as your language. You can listen with headphones or
[1:11:28] your device's speaker, and you can also read captions in
[1:11:32] Spanish. For those present here in 1025, Escobar in Martinez, a
[1:11:38] conference room on the first floor of this building is
[1:11:40] currently streaming this community forum for the public
[1:11:44] in Spanish via worldly access to this community forum is the
[1:11:49] same as with all board meetings. It is available on
[1:11:52] Contra Costa Television channels. AT&T U-verse 99
[1:11:57] Comcast channel 27 and astound channels 32 and 1027.
[1:12:04] Television viewers can enable SAP to hear Spanish
[1:12:09] interpretation. Additionally, for those that wish to address
[1:12:13] the board in Spanish during public comment may do so and
[1:12:18] worldly written translation to English will be displayed.
[1:12:29] Thank you, thank you Jamie. Moving along. Item D1 is to
[1:12:32] convene a community forum regarding the provisions of
[1:12:35] access of certain individuals to the Federal Immigration and
[1:12:39] Customs Enforcement Agency in 2025. This is for 2025.
[1:12:46] Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1. Parentheses D
[1:12:53] as noticed in this item, public comments will be heard. After
[1:12:57] all the presentations and will be limited to two minutes per
[1:13:00] speaker as done in prior years. Today's community forum will
[1:13:06] include three presentations. The first will be information
[1:13:10] regarding Truth Act requirements and how the county
[1:13:13] is meeting such obligations, which will be presented by a
[1:13:17] need. And Mendoza from our County administrator's office,
[1:13:21] her presentation will be followed by a ten minute
[1:13:24] community presentation by Mio, Tena, Cora and Mino. If I said
[1:13:30] that incorrectly, please correct me when you come up
[1:13:33] from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and Jesus Ruiz
[1:13:37] from the Contra Costa immigrant Immigrant Rights Alliance. The
[1:13:41] final presentation will be the statutory report from our
[1:13:45] sheriff, Coroner David Livingston, regarding the
[1:13:48] extent and nature of communications. His office had
[1:13:52] with federal government agency Ice in 2025. I need welcome.
[1:14:01] Hi. Good morning. Thank you. Chair Bergus and members of the
[1:14:04] board. Um, so to kick off the forum.
[1:14:07] I'm going to ask you to speak a little bit closer to the
[1:14:09] microphone and a little bit louder because people are
[1:14:12] listening online and in the rooms. And so we got to make
[1:14:14] sure everybody hears you. Okay.
[1:14:17] Checking to see if we can have the presentation up. Oh, it is.
[1:14:21] Oh just kidding. Okay. The presentation is viewable on
[1:14:27] on zoom. And, uh, CCTV will pull it up as well, but
[1:14:32] everyone on zoom is viewing the presentation right now.
[1:14:36] Okay. All right. Can you hear me now? Okay, great. Okay.
[1:14:40] Thank you. So, to kick off the forum, I'll be presenting a
[1:14:44] brief introduction. Introduction. Um, so if we're
[1:14:47] on slide two, the next slide, please. Um, of the history of
[1:14:50] key California immigration related laws, including some
[1:14:53] definitions. I'll explain how the county determined the need
[1:14:56] to hold the Truth Act forum this year, and review the
[1:15:00] recommended board actions. Um, as done in prior years, the
[1:15:04] county reached out to legal community group advocates.
[1:15:06] Hold on just a second. You're trying to get to the second
[1:15:10] slide. That's it. It is. Okay. Good.
[1:15:13] Okay. No. That's okay. Thank you. No. That's fine. Thank
[1:15:17] you. Um, so we have the presentation as Chair Bergus
[1:15:21] mentioned by Milton Okoro from Immigrant Legal Resource Center
[1:15:24] and Jesus Ruth from who's the director of the Contra Costa
[1:15:27] Immigrant Rights Alliance. Um, and then at the end, we'll have
[1:15:31] the sheriff's report. Um, which is the statutory requirement
[1:15:35] for holding this forum. Let's see. Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
[1:15:44] Okay. So key immigration related laws include the
[1:15:48] transparency responsibility using state tools, which is the
[1:15:51] Trust Act of 2014. Um, which is government code 72, 82 and
[1:15:56] 7282.5. The Truth act of 2017 and the California Values Act.
[1:16:02] Um, as amended by SB 54, the Trust Act describes the
[1:16:08] circumstances under which a California law enforcement
[1:16:11] agency can respond to transfer notification requests from
[1:16:15] immigration authorities. It no longer addresses detentions in
[1:16:19] response to hold requests, because the Values Act
[1:16:24] prohibits such detentions, and it specifies circumstances
[1:16:28] under which local California law enforcement agencies can
[1:16:32] detain an individual um or restricts them. Sorry, um, from
[1:16:37] an enforcement agency detaining an individual pastor. Scheduled
[1:16:41] release. The Truth Acts protects the rights of
[1:16:44] individuals in custody by ensuring local law enforcement
[1:16:47] agencies inform them of their procedural and legal rights. If
[1:16:51] the agency is contacted by Ice, it specifies public records
[1:16:55] access available for such individuals and requires
[1:16:58] holding the form, as we're doing today. The California
[1:17:02] Values Act limits the circumstances under which local
[1:17:05] enforcement agencies may use resources. It was intended to
[1:17:10] build trust between immigrant communities and state and local
[1:17:12] agencies, and it has additional reporting requirements for
[1:17:17] immigration enforcement activities. So we just included
[1:17:28] the language of the Truth Act for the public to make sure
[1:17:30] that they had information regarding why we're holding
[1:17:33] today's forum. What's important about the Truth Act is that it
[1:17:38] has specific definitions to ensure that when a local law
[1:17:42] enforcement agency is determining the need to hold a
[1:17:46] forum, there's a clear understanding of what the
[1:17:48] expectations are of the community forum. What
[1:17:51] constitutes a local law enforcement agency, and what
[1:17:54] the definition is of notification requests. Ice
[1:18:00] access is also one of the main determinants for ensuring the
[1:18:04] need to hold a truth act. So ice access is defined there. So
[1:18:08] it could be an agency responding to an ice cold
[1:18:12] notification or transfer request. Providing Ice in
[1:18:15] advance information about an individual who will be released
[1:18:19] at a certain date and time. And then provide ice on publicly
[1:18:24] available information regarding release dates, home address,
[1:18:27] work addresses, um, allowing Ice to interview an individual
[1:18:31] and providing Ice information about dates of probation and
[1:18:34] parole check ins. So these are all the definitions that could
[1:18:37] fall under our understanding as we're holding the Truth Act
[1:18:41] today because of number one, which is notifications. So
[1:18:58] ultimately, the purpose of today's forum, it's a
[1:19:01] transparency initiative in statute for local law
[1:19:03] enforcement agencies to report on the extent and nature of
[1:19:07] communications with federal Immigration and Customs
[1:19:10] Enforcement agency. Um, there are the specific requirements.
[1:19:14] The forum must be held during the following calendar year. It
[1:19:17] must be open to the public and an accessible location. It
[1:19:21] requires 30 day notice, and we've included those notices as
[1:19:24] attachment A to the report to the board. Um, so starting
[1:19:29] October 21st of 25, when the board set its 2026 calendar
[1:19:33] meeting calendar, the Truth Act was identified for today's
[1:19:37] date. Additionally, on 720, uh, we published, um, information
[1:19:42] about the Truth Act on July 20th in the Contra Costa Times,
[1:19:46] and the county has issued several media releases, um,
[1:19:50] that have been circulating since July 23rd of this year.
[1:19:55] Um, we have held the Truth Act since it was required by law.
[1:19:58] And, um, what has changed? Um, excuse me. Mostly due to the
[1:20:06] Values Act and the Trust Act, as amended by the Values Act.
[1:20:11] We do not hold any contract with Ice nor House Ice agency
[1:20:14] detainees within our adult or juvenile detention facility
[1:20:18] systems. Okay.
[1:20:24] So the county administrator's office to determine whether
[1:20:27] there was a need for a forum, we sent department head
[1:20:30] certifications on June 25th, which is included as attachment
[1:20:34] C. Each department head was required to answer two
[1:20:37] question, two questions, one whether their department meets
[1:20:42] the definition of the truth acts. Local law enforcement
[1:20:44] agency, and if so, did their department provide Ice access
[1:20:49] as defined in the previous slide I shared with you? Of the
[1:20:53] 25 departments. Seven responded yes to the first question that
[1:20:57] they do meet the definition of a local law enforcement agency,
[1:21:00] and one responded yes to providing Ice access. To ensure
[1:21:07] public access. We just detailed because it's also a requirement
[1:21:11] of the act, what actions we've taken to ensure that this
[1:21:14] meeting, similar to all other board meetings, is accessible
[1:21:17] to the public. Um, and how we share the information ahead of
[1:21:21] time and then a little different, but, uh, typical of
[1:21:25] the truth act form, we're also having a live streaming in
[1:21:27] Spanish in the conference room. So anyone who wishes to listen
[1:21:31] to the meeting in Spanish, um, can be there attending in
[1:21:34] Spanish. Okay, so I keep forgetting. So today's
[1:21:45] recommended board actions is to receive this presentation,
[1:21:48] receive a presentation from the Immigration Legal Resource
[1:21:51] Center. Uh, received the report from the sheriff coroner, which
[1:21:55] is a statutory requirement for holding the forum and
[1:21:58] receiving. Consider public comment. There are no formal
[1:22:01] actions for the board to take as the, um as a governing board
[1:22:05] over the jurisdiction of the sheriff. Um, operations. You're
[1:22:10] required to hold the forum, but there's no official action for
[1:22:13] you to take today. But hold the forum and have public comment.
[1:22:19] If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer that. Other
[1:22:22] than that, that's the end of my presentation, and we can hand
[1:22:25] it over to the community group. Thank you. I'm just going to
[1:22:28] ask my colleagues, do you have any questions of a need? No.
[1:22:31] All right. Then we will move on to the next presentation. And
[1:22:35] that is with the, um. Oh, I just had it all written down.
[1:22:40] Sorry about that. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and
[1:22:50] there are two podiums. If you both want to be at a podium and
[1:22:54] they adjust for height, if you're interested in that. Oh,
[1:23:01] and there's the clicker. Welcome.
[1:23:07] Hi. Uh, where am I looking for the
[1:23:09] screen? I don't need to click it. I can just go off my iPad.
[1:23:16] Okay. Yeah. And we apologize. Okay. Um, this big screen, uh,
[1:23:24] dysfunction or malfunction this morning. And so we're winging
[1:23:29] it. But just so that people know in the audience if it's
[1:23:33] uncomfortable to be looking at it from the side, there is an
[1:23:36] overflow room. In the other, and it's a little easier to
[1:23:39] watch if if you need that. And, uh, we'll do whatever we can to
[1:23:45] support you so that, you know, um, what's what's happening
[1:23:49] with your. And Diane, what would have been
[1:23:51] on this screen is still being shown on the two sided screens.
[1:23:54] Yeah. And the slides are up on, uh, zoom right now. The first
[1:23:58] slide is up. Perfect. Okay.
[1:24:02] And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to put my thing
[1:24:05] so you can kind of. see what. Awesome, awesome. Thank you so
[1:24:10] much for that. Yep. That's perfect. Thank you so much. I
[1:24:13] just got my eyes checked so I could see that.
[1:24:15] Perfect. That's what we have. That's what we look at up here.
[1:24:18] These little these little screens.
[1:24:19] Yeah. Can you bring it to. them? Right. Perfect.
[1:24:23] And of course, we have the printout that was sent. And if
[1:24:27] it's a newer version, let us know.
[1:24:30] Yeah. Okay. I can go ahead and get
[1:24:34] started. Hi, everyone. My name is Jesus Ruiz, and I am the
[1:24:38] director for Sierra Contra Costa. Immigrant rights. Um,
[1:24:41] alliance. And I'm going to speak on who are we as Contra
[1:24:47] Costa. So Contra Costa is an immigrant rights alliance is a
[1:24:51] base. Um, it's a coalition of community, faith, advocacy and
[1:24:55] immigrant led organizations that are formed in the spring
[1:24:58] of 2017 to help make Contra Costa County, um, a county that
[1:25:02] welcomes and honors and protects the rights of our
[1:25:05] immigrant members and our community at Sierra, our
[1:25:10] mission is to ensure the immigrant community feels safe
[1:25:14] and has a healthy and and live a healthy and free lives. We
[1:25:18] pursue that mission by advocating for policies,
[1:25:21] campaigns, and resources that safeguard the rights of all
[1:25:25] immigrant community members. Our goals is to improve access
[1:25:29] to resources, services, build power for immigrant
[1:25:33] communities, interrupt the criminal immigration system,
[1:25:37] and promote dignity, freedom, safety, and health of our
[1:25:41] immigrant communities. What is our values to build immigrant
[1:25:45] rights, support and protect each other on honor and fight
[1:25:50] for dignity of all center and be led by the directly impacted
[1:25:54] community. Fight against state tools that seek to deport,
[1:26:00] surveil and brutalize our communities and to recognize
[1:26:04] the history of anti-Blackness. Some of our concerns of eyes of
[1:26:11] local law enforcement. Collaboration with Ice are the
[1:26:14] unnecessarily it unnecessarily expands local resources on
[1:26:17] immigration enforcement, which is not a responsibility of the
[1:26:21] Sheriff's department. It also fosters this trust between
[1:26:26] immigrant communities and local law enforcement, makes it, um,
[1:26:30] it makes immigrant communities view local law enforcement and
[1:26:35] Ice as the same, which can lead to them being hesitant to
[1:26:39] collaborate on any crimes they witness. It opens local law
[1:26:44] enforcement up to liability, which means tax dollars are
[1:26:47] used to pay our settlements, and it can result in a
[1:26:51] permanent separation of community members from their
[1:26:54] families and integration or trauma. Black, Brown and AAPI
[1:26:58] folks are the most harmed by mass incarceration in
[1:27:02] criminalization, suffers the most. Thank you.
[1:27:15] Good morning everyone. Thank you for.
[1:27:18] Allowing me to present today. My name is Mia. Sorry, but I go
[1:27:23] by Mele Tanaka and I'm a senior staff attorney with the
[1:27:27] Immigrant Legal Resource Center of over ten years of public
[1:27:30] service experience and extensive experience in
[1:27:34] immigration law before diving into some of the material, I do
[1:27:38] want the county and the board to take quick notice that my
[1:27:42] prepared slides do not reflect entirely our concerns. Although
[1:27:46] historically, the True Fact forum has focused on
[1:27:50] notification and transfers, I do want to remind the county
[1:27:53] that the spirit of the law is about transparency. Our
[1:27:59] position as we read the true fact is that it provides also
[1:28:02] an opportunity to discuss situations where non-public
[1:28:06] information about a person is provided through computer
[1:28:09] databases, and that is the concern we have with one of the
[1:28:13] contracts the sheriff has with flock Safety, which is a
[1:28:16] license plate reader company. You can simply just at this
[1:28:20] point, Google Flock Safety, which is a license plate
[1:28:24] company, and you will see reports within California and
[1:28:28] outside of California where license plate reader
[1:28:31] information was discovered to have access to have been
[1:28:34] accessed by other agencies. So we strongly urge the county and
[1:28:39] the sheriff to take notice and reconsider the flock safety
[1:28:43] contract. And also an ordinance that has a contractor provision
[1:28:47] to close these loopholes, as this is a clear example of it.
[1:28:52] With that said, I want to address the community concerns
[1:28:56] about the serious ramifications. Any
[1:28:58] collaboration with Ice has on the Contra Costa community.
[1:29:02] Collaboration with Ice is a voluntary choice. I keep saying
[1:29:06] that and as such, it unnecessarily expends local
[1:29:11] resources on immigration enforcement when it comes to
[1:29:15] it, the county just simply does not need to cooperate. And more
[1:29:21] importantly, when local law enforcement collaborates with
[1:29:25] Ice immigrants and even those with legal status, fear that an
[1:29:29] interaction with law enforcement could lead to
[1:29:31] detention and deportation. This fear discourages people from
[1:29:36] reporting crime, seeking help, or serving as witnesses, which
[1:29:40] makes the entire community less safe. Sadly, collaboration can
[1:29:45] lead to the permanent separation of community members
[1:29:48] from their families, causing deep and lasting trauma,
[1:29:52] especially in the black and brown community. As my
[1:29:54] colleague has just pointed out, immigration enforcement is not
[1:29:59] race neutral. This isn't just a public issue, it is a human
[1:30:04] one. In California, we luckily have or not. Luckily, because
[1:30:09] that's the flaw. We have SB 54. Um, that limits our state and
[1:30:15] local resources from being used to carry out immigration,
[1:30:18] detentions. And deportations. Again, SB 54 is an important
[1:30:24] flaw, but is not the sealing localities continue to have the
[1:30:28] constitutional right to opt out of federal immigration
[1:30:32] enforcement and to refuse to participate in this
[1:30:35] administration's mass deportation agenda. Now, I want
[1:30:38] to turn to changes in federal immigration enforcement that
[1:30:42] makes it such a dire need right now for localities to hold the
[1:30:48] line and refuse to participate in this inhumane immigration
[1:30:52] enforcement regime. Ice really does not need the help from
[1:30:56] Contra Costa because it has delegated their immigration
[1:30:59] enforcement powers virtually to everyone in the federal
[1:31:02] government, from the US marshals to the DEA.
[1:31:06] Additionally, DHS overall has received $218.8 billion between
[1:31:13] the One Big Beautiful Act bill known as H.R. one and the
[1:31:18] Secure America Act. Out of that $218.8 billion Ice received
[1:31:24] about $113.2 billion. Also, the administration has shown a
[1:31:29] total disregard for the rule of law by creating policies that
[1:31:33] infringe on constitutional due process rights. The immigration
[1:31:36] policies of this administration has led to family separation.
[1:31:39] And I will say, as an immigrant youth expert, I've seen I've
[1:31:45] never seen a government take an attack on immigrant children
[1:31:49] and youth. Right now, they don't even have representation.
[1:31:52] We have two year olds standing in court because the federal
[1:31:55] government cut the funding for that program. Make no mistake
[1:32:01] that the cruelty of this administration has no bounds.
[1:32:04] Aggressive immigration enforcement has led to the
[1:32:06] killings of non-citizens and citizens. Let that sink in,
[1:32:11] because does this county want to voluntarily really align
[1:32:15] with a regime that is killing people? We have to do better in
[1:32:19] Contra Costa, has to do better. Turning to the sheriff's
[1:32:23] presentation and data, I want to acknowledge and thank the
[1:32:25] sheriff for adding more information than last year
[1:32:28] regarding the notifications. However, we have
[1:32:31] recommendations first. As always, it would be great to
[1:32:35] have more time to analyze all the data. As you can see, there
[1:32:39] are 92 notifications and the community takes these
[1:32:43] notifications very seriously and needs time to analyze fully
[1:32:47] the notifications under SB 54. After all, there are lives at
[1:32:52] stake here. We also recommend removing the column of past
[1:32:57] removals, as it is not necessary at all to the SB for
[1:33:03] SB 54 analysis, we question and lament greatly why this was
[1:33:08] added, and we hope the Sheriff will remove this from his data
[1:33:11] and hope this was not added for an ulterior motive. We also
[1:33:16] recommend that the data reflect the state of the notification
[1:33:19] request and when the notification was made by the
[1:33:22] sheriff, this would be helpful so we don't have to make a
[1:33:24] public records request. Moreover, we recommend
[1:33:29] providing information about any assistance that is afforded to
[1:33:34] Ice agents in the lobby of the jail. If there is any sign in
[1:33:38] sheet use or video footage of them waiting in the lobby, it
[1:33:42] would be useful information to determine if any assistance has
[1:33:45] been afforded to Ice. Again, what we're striving here is
[1:33:49] complete transparency. These are these acts are very simple.
[1:33:55] We urge the sheriff to make these changes in terms of
[1:34:00] notifications, I do want to highlight serious concerns over
[1:34:04] some of these notifications. While we fundamentally believe,
[1:34:08] regardless of their criminal history, everyone should not
[1:34:12] receive double punishment. Um, I do want to touch on some and
[1:34:20] take the county to take notice that the sheriff, in his own
[1:34:24] presentation, states that notifications are only honored
[1:34:27] for people for certain charges specifically convicted of a
[1:34:31] serious or violent felony. That's simply not true. As it
[1:34:35] reflected by the sheriff's data. For example, two people
[1:34:38] were convicted of illegal reentry, which under California
[1:34:43] Government Code 7284.6 B1 law enforcement may detain an
[1:34:48] individual for unlawful reentry only if detected during an
[1:34:53] unrelated enforcement activity, and the person was previously
[1:34:58] removed to a conviction for an aggravated felony. Under
[1:35:03] immigration law, there's no indication that there was an
[1:35:07] aggravated felony here for both of them. Under immigration law
[1:35:10] and in their history. Also, immigration law is one of the
[1:35:14] most complex areas of law. I should know. And that analysis
[1:35:19] cannot be easily made by someone without an immigration
[1:35:22] law background. Another example is a person who was convicted
[1:35:25] of a misdemeanor for false imprisonment, which is not a
[1:35:29] wobbler, and had no other prior history that would count as an
[1:35:33] exception. Similarly, another person was convicted of a
[1:35:36] misdemeanor without any other prior conviction for simply
[1:35:40] concealing a dagger. Another for tapping a utility line.
[1:35:45] There's also convictions where proposition 47 reduced or
[1:35:50] reclassified the felony to a misdemeanor. There were no
[1:35:53] other exceptions in the person's history, and, um,
[1:35:58] lastly, I do want to draw attention to a serious practice
[1:36:02] that we learned through sheriff correspondence in terms of
[1:36:06] notifying Ice of anticipated release dates. If a person is
[1:36:12] in custody, they must be arraigned within 72 hours, or
[1:36:16] they must be released. In other words, if the D.A. doesn't file
[1:36:20] charges, then the person is is in custody has to be released
[1:36:24] within that time period. The sheriff is notifying Ice about
[1:36:28] these anticipated release dates, but that is not the same
[1:36:33] as release dates of when someone is sentenced, which is
[1:36:37] covered by SB 54. These anticipated release dates are
[1:36:42] not publicly available. Certain charges qualify as exceptions,
[1:36:47] but only after they have passed that preliminary stage. That is
[1:36:51] not the case here. I strongly recommend the sheriff stop
[1:36:54] immediately. This policy, as that is a clear violation of SB
[1:36:58] 54. I will also call for an audit of training materials the
[1:37:02] Sheriff's office uses to make SB four determinations. With
[1:37:06] that said, when there's complexity, there's room for
[1:37:09] error. Make no mistake about it, and continue to collaborate
[1:37:13] with Ice. Contra Costa is setting itself up for legal
[1:37:17] liability as one single unlawful action can lead to the
[1:37:21] county paying out huge settlement agreements, like
[1:37:24] other counties have done in the past, contra Costa should join
[1:37:29] the many counties who have already taken a stand to ensure
[1:37:32] their limited resources are not used to bolster ISIS cruel
[1:37:36] tactics and invest in resources that benefit the community. The
[1:37:40] recommendations to the board are very simple as well. To
[1:37:43] consider an ordinance adopted already by many to end all Ice
[1:37:48] collaboration. Unless there's a judicial warrant or court order
[1:37:52] and keep the dialogue open with community. As always, the
[1:37:56] Immigrant Legal Resource Center is here disposable. I'm
[1:38:00] disposable to this board and to the sheriff as well. Um, and
[1:38:05] thank you very much for your time.
[1:38:08] Thank you. Before we go, before we go to the next presentatio
[1:38:21] do my colleagues have any questions or comments at this
[1:38:24] point? No. We'll wait. Okay. Welcome. Sheriff Livingston.
[1:38:29] Chair. Bergus. Vice chair. Carlson. Members of the board.
[1:38:32] Thank you for having us today for the Truth Act Forum. We
[1:38:36] have a relatively short presentation, as you know, and
[1:38:40] hopefully the public knows we actually provide this data to
[1:38:43] you quarterly as part of the sheriff's oversight report. So
[1:38:47] this is not new data. This is just a summary of what occurred
[1:38:51] in 2025. And so now we'll begin the presentation here. Can I be
[1:39:01] heard. Yeah. So we'll review our general policy on
[1:39:04] immigration. We'll talk about our field operations Bureau
[1:39:08] relative to Ice access. And the same for custody operations.
[1:39:15] First of all, it's important to note for the public that our
[1:39:18] policy is very clear. No person shall be contacted, detained or
[1:39:22] arrested solely on the basis of his or her immigration status.
[1:39:27] Uh, the immigration status of a person and the lack of. Losing
[1:39:36] the microphone here. There's not a fan on hold on
[1:39:39] you, is there? Yeah.
[1:39:41] There is. You know what? It's the fan.
[1:39:43] The fans making. The fan is making a rumbling
[1:39:45] noise. I'm sort of the IT ghost whisperer at the moment.
[1:39:49] Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. Now we can hear
[1:39:51] you. Great. You know, Karen Minkoff used to do that, and
[1:39:54] we'd all say, what's going on with the AV system? And it was
[1:39:57] the fan that created a wind tunnel. So thank you.
[1:40:01] Awesome. Thank you. So moving on. Additionally, for
[1:40:07] immigration detainers, uh, those will not be honored by
[1:40:10] the Sheriff's Office request for notifications will be
[1:40:14] honored pursuant to state law. And notifications of
[1:40:19] anticipated release dates are honored only for inmates held
[1:40:23] for certain charges. As you'll see in the presentation.
[1:40:28] Updates effective as of July 1st, there were several that
[1:40:32] the Sheriff's office made. Uh, we engaged with advocacy
[1:40:36] organizations, and we stopped releasing dates of those
[1:40:40] individuals on our website. Um, victims can still search names
[1:40:47] of individuals in custody, and they can still access the
[1:40:49] divine program. Of course, for notification if someone who has
[1:40:53] assaulted them is being released. Um, Ice agents who
[1:40:57] request to pick up a released inmate may only be in the
[1:41:01] public lobby. Uh, they don't receive any assistance. I heard
[1:41:05] a question during the other presentation. We don't assist
[1:41:09] ice. We don't track ice. We don't have sign in sheets.
[1:41:13] They're free to only go where the public can go. And also
[1:41:18] custody services. Command staff has collaborated in the past,
[1:41:21] specifically with the Asian Law Caucus, to go over our
[1:41:24] policies, to engage with them, to hear concerns. And we have
[1:41:29] made some changes. Not all the changes that they requested,
[1:41:32] but we listened. So for field operations, our deputies cover,
[1:41:38] of course, the entire county, as you well know, uh, 750mi , a
[1:41:43] population of 1.2 million or so. We cover 521mi , in
[1:41:49] unincorporated area. We serve a population of 175,000, which
[1:41:54] would make us actually the largest street, uh, field
[1:41:58] operations, police department in the county. We responded
[1:42:02] over 169,000 calls for service. And we do not do immigration
[1:42:07] enforcement, custody services. Uh, it's important to note also
[1:42:13] only books adults. We don't handle any juvenile in our
[1:42:16] facilities. And we booked about just under 16,000 inmates in
[1:42:21] Martinez last year. Here's the information on the Ice forum as
[1:42:27] to the demographics for those that were detained. Uh, as you
[1:42:32] can see, the numbers and as far as gender, males, 120 females
[1:42:37] were four. So here's the really the the heart of the
[1:42:43] presentation, which is the total request received from Ice
[1:42:47] were 724. Uh, we made 124 notifications of an inmate's
[1:42:54] release, uh, notifications on the same person, however,
[1:42:58] accounted for 32 of tse, which left us with total
[1:43:02] notifications of 92 out of the 724 requested by Ice. So a
[1:43:10] response of about 12.7%. As I've heard some questions about
[1:43:20] the notification on the same individual, this slide is
[1:43:23] intended to give a scenario where a person is arrested,
[1:43:27] they're arraigned, they may complete a sentence. They may
[1:43:30] be released out of custody during the pendency of their
[1:43:32] latest charge. Whatever the case may be, if they're
[1:43:36] rebooked into our facility, that automatically triggers and
[1:43:40] this is nationwide, incidentally, a check of
[1:43:44] immigration status through Ice by their fingerprints that go
[1:43:48] to the federal Department of Justice. That's where Ice gets
[1:43:52] their indication that someone that they want to talk to
[1:43:55] arrest, detain, what have you is actually in our custody, in
[1:43:59] this particular jail in California. So they sent a
[1:44:03] notification requesting that they be notified if that person
[1:44:07] is released. When that occurs, we have to check against SB 54,
[1:44:12] make sure that we are compliant with state law, that there is a
[1:44:16] qualifying offense that would allow notification of the
[1:44:20] release to Ice. In some cases, the same person can be booked
[1:44:26] several times during the reporting period. During the
[1:44:29] entire year. That's why we have multiple notification
[1:44:32] notifications on several individuals, and that's why the
[1:44:36] numbers are adjusted the way they are. So this is just a
[1:44:42] list. It's probably difficult to see for most, but it's
[1:44:44] available online. Of course, of all the qualifying offenses
[1:44:48] under the Government code. And there's page two. And then what
[1:44:58] we did this time, the additional data, because I
[1:45:00] think there was some concern in the past that when we had a
[1:45:04] qualifying offense, people would say, well, that's not in
[1:45:07] itself sufficient to do a notification to Ice under SB
[1:45:11] 54, when in fact there is oftentimes a long list of other
[1:45:17] crimes committed by that individual, which does make
[1:45:20] them subject to SB 54 and does make them subject to
[1:45:25] notification to Ice. The immigrant rights group, just
[1:45:29] talked about immigrants feeling safe. I agree with that. But
[1:45:33] what you need to remember is that many of the victims that
[1:45:37] are represented by these crimes are themselves immigrants. So
[1:45:41] it's a catch 22 for our deputies when we make arrests
[1:45:44] for a variety of offenses, everything from domestic
[1:45:48] violence. We have one case in here of four times DUI, uh,
[1:45:52] robberies, violent offenses, spousal abuse, etc. and they
[1:45:57] are all provided here in this report. I'll scroll through
[1:46:01] these pages. Obviously, too much data to go through in
[1:46:05] detail, but this is the actual data that we use to determine
[1:46:10] if a person is subject to notification to Ice. And that's
[1:46:14] done by our jail, uh, staff with supervisory review. So let
[1:46:20] me scroll through these. You can see the number of
[1:46:26] conviction history is pretty astounding. Frankly. Almost
[1:46:36] none here. So another component of the restrictions on local
[1:46:44] law enforcement is access of Ice officials into our
[1:46:48] facilities. Uh, that used to be a request for an interview.
[1:46:52] Several years ago. There were no requests for interviews. Ice
[1:46:56] is essentially stopped to that practice anyhow, but they would
[1:47:00] not be allowed into our facility to conduct their own
[1:47:02] investigation. Again reminding the community they would only
[1:47:06] be allowed to access the public areas of our facilities. That
[1:47:12] concludes our presentation. I'm happy to answer your questions.
[1:47:17] Thank you. To my colleagues. Have
[1:47:21] questions. Or. Yeah, just a question. I
[1:47:23] know in some past, um, presentations, um, some of us
[1:47:28] raised the issue about, um, whether or not the, um, the
[1:47:34] notification was being provided for those who had committed a,
[1:47:39] a serious felony. And we were making a distinction. And I
[1:47:42] think, remember, we had some discussion over where that line
[1:47:45] is. Um, so one of the things I wanted to understand, um, you
[1:47:50] provided some new data that, um, was not presented before.
[1:47:56] Um, the chose conviction history. So I wanted maybe to
[1:48:00] understand this issue because I think I know we were talking
[1:48:03] about it appeared there was no this was when I was looking at
[1:48:07] a prior presentatn, maybe last year or the year before
[1:48:10] there was, um, notification in the case of someone who maybe,
[1:48:15] um, had, um, was in a category that may have been, um, um,
[1:48:22] vandalism, for example, and said to me that didn't seem to
[1:48:25] rise to the really to be a serious felony and therefore
[1:48:29] notification should not have been provided there. So I want
[1:48:32] to and at the time you mentioned something about,
[1:48:35] well, this may have been a follow up crime to a previous
[1:48:40] previous previous offense. I want to understand that issue.
[1:48:43] Um, under conviction history. Uh, maybe let me see if we can
[1:48:49] pick one to understand it. Um, um. Trying to see where there
[1:48:58] was one, where there was, um, for example. Well, unlawful
[1:49:02] taking or driving of a vehicle. The or some. So the the
[1:49:07] conviction history list, um, previous arrest or convictions
[1:49:15] or so what, what what is the says conviction or all of these
[1:49:19] convictions or some of these arrests and these are priors
[1:49:23] for this individual. Correct. They are convictions.
[1:49:28] And so how do you then. So if, if the if the if the particular
[1:49:36] crime may not be, let's say viewed as a serious felony and
[1:49:41] you provided notification it was it based upon their
[1:49:46] previous conviction history and then and that this then rose to
[1:49:50] the level. Can you talk about that, how that decision is
[1:49:53] arrived at? Because that was there was a lot of discussion
[1:49:56] over that. And I think there was different points of view
[1:49:58] that some of us had of whether you should be providing
[1:50:00] notification on those. Um, and, and you said there was some
[1:50:05] previous conviction history, but at the time you didn't
[1:50:07] disclose what that was. So here you're sharing what it is. I
[1:50:10] want to understand it. Can you maybe take a couple of examples
[1:50:14] and explain that? Sure. Well, in in practice what
[1:50:18] happens is the person is booked into our facility, as I
[1:50:21] mentioned, those fingerprints go to DOJ that notifies ice.
[1:50:26] Ice knows that that person is now in Contra Costa County
[1:50:29] Jail. They send us a request for notification that triggers
[1:50:33] our process to say, okay, is this individual, um, does does
[1:50:39] the offense comport with SB 54 and authorize, uh, notification
[1:50:45] to ice the individual offense that brought them into custody?
[1:50:50] Maybe one thing, but our supervisors review all the
[1:50:54] criminal history, as you see here. And when there are
[1:50:57] qualifying prior offenses, particularly felonies, then we
[1:51:01] notify on that individual. Maybe have a question also for
[1:51:06] the, um, for other presenters on this and how they have
[1:51:12] viewed this issue, can maybe you come up as well? Um, any of
[1:51:16] the lawyers who presented. Can we just elaborate what
[1:51:20] they're coming up? But SB 54 doesn't say. You just look at
[1:51:25] the offense for which someone is under your custody. Is that
[1:51:28] correct? As an SB 50. Getting an or getting an echo?
[1:51:34] Doesn't SB. Someone's going to have.
[1:51:38] Hold on. It's there's an echo. Is that go fixed. Go ahead and
[1:51:44] try. Now I'm going to try now I'm
[1:51:46] feeling better about but doesn't SB 54 say you look at
[1:51:50] the entire criminal record of an individual. It doesn't say
[1:51:53] just for the offense for which they're in jail, which
[1:51:56] typically if they are in jail, um, post adjudication, it's not
[1:52:01] going to be a serious crime anyway because they would have
[1:52:03] gone to a state facility. But what does SB 54 require you to
[1:52:07] do? You're correct. It allows local
[1:52:11] agencies to look at the entire conviction history. It's not
[1:52:14] just the offense that brings that person into physical
[1:52:17] custody at that particular time.
[1:52:19] Thank you. Yeah.
[1:52:22] Did you want to provide any comments? Just trying to
[1:52:25] understand this issue. When the, um, in remember this this
[1:52:29] issue, you may have been here at some of the previous where
[1:52:31] we've discussed where the particular types of crimes
[1:52:34] should get notified and then this issue now of conviction
[1:52:36] history. Can you talk about how others you have viewed this
[1:52:41] issue. Um, so under Cal gov 7282.583,
[1:52:59] it has a language of if a misdemeanor is a wobbler in the
[1:53:05] last five years, or a felony in the last ten years, that's when
[1:53:10] prior convictions have to be assessed under SB 54. That's
[1:53:16] what the law says. So SB 54 has you look at those
[1:53:22] at those and then make the determination about whether
[1:53:25] there should be notification. Again, it has to be a wobbler
[1:53:28] misdemeanor in the last five years. And or a felony in the
[1:53:33] last ten years. That's what the law says. That's the
[1:53:36] parameters. If it's not a wobbler, like for example, a
[1:53:39] stray misdemeanor. And to define wobbler is a is, um,
[1:53:45] criminal law that can be punishable either by a
[1:53:48] misdemeanor or a felony, straight misdemeanors are not
[1:53:53] wobbler. So that in itself, if if there was a prior conviction
[1:53:57] that's a straight misdemeanor cannot be, um, assessed under
[1:54:04] 70 to 82.5 a three. Um, and so that wouldn't come into the
[1:54:10] analysis at all. That's some of the things that I pointed out
[1:54:14] were straight misdemeanors that we're talking about that are
[1:54:17] concerning in this data report, which don't have prior
[1:54:21] convictions that also would lead into the wobbler five year
[1:54:25] or the felony ten year. Um, category. And I also, um, this
[1:54:32] was in the last bit of my presentation, but I'm really
[1:54:35] concerned about the, uh, sheriff's interpretation of
[1:54:39] release dates. Some if someone is, um, arraigned and charged
[1:54:44] under 72, 82.5, be it says clearly that the person has to
[1:54:50] be arraigned and the only certain charges for serious
[1:54:54] felonies can be considered at that point. Um, after a
[1:54:58] magistrate provides probable cause under penal Code 877, I'm
[1:55:04] sorry, 872 so I. You cannot notify Ice if someone has
[1:55:11] already been, um, is in custody, has not been
[1:55:14] arraigned, and the D.A. decided not to bring charges. That is
[1:55:19] not a release date under SB 54. And so I really want to make
[1:55:24] sure that we're not bypassing that serious. Um, that serious
[1:55:30] violation that I've, I've identified.
[1:55:34] Thank you. Chanel.
[1:55:38] Thank you, thank you, Sheriff Livingston, for the
[1:55:41] presentation. Um, and I appreciate the additional data
[1:55:46] that's presented here as well today. Um, this is my second
[1:55:50] true fact form, so I'm just trying to get an understanding.
[1:55:54] So it sounds like there's two notification that goes out to
[1:55:59] ice. So when someone comes in and they get convicted, um, and
[1:56:05] they do fingerprinting, that automatically goes to Ice. And
[1:56:10] then we send out another notification after they go
[1:56:13] through all the process, they need to go through.
[1:56:15] No, what happens is Ice will notify us that this person has
[1:56:19] been booked into your facility. We want to interview this
[1:56:23] person or meet this person or what have you. And so if the
[1:56:28] qualifying offense or prior qualifying offenses comport
[1:56:32] with the law, we will just send them the notification of
[1:56:36] release. Excuse me, when we have that information. So it's
[1:56:41] a it's us responding to their request. It's two way.
[1:56:47] So we're not automatically reaching out to them. No.
[1:56:50] They're triggered because when they're being processed.
[1:56:54] That's correct. And as you can see from the numbers, it's only
[1:56:58] 12% of the total requests that they make that we actually
[1:57:02] respond to. Okay.
[1:57:07] Thank you. Um.
[1:57:11] There was a. There was a discussion about
[1:57:14] anticipated release dates versus do you want to comment
[1:57:20] any more on that? Uh, not particularly.
[1:57:23] Okay. No. I do want to.
[1:57:27] Follow up just on when you're done on that.
[1:57:29] Okay. All right. I have another
[1:57:31] question to. I think you're going to get
[1:57:34] asked a little bit more about that. Um, sure. You know, I do
[1:57:38] want people to know that we do have a regular interaction with
[1:57:44] you and the board meetings. Um, we call it Sheriff Oversight
[1:57:49] and that you've created a dashboard that kind of talks
[1:57:54] about who's getting arrested, where and all of that. And so
[1:57:57] just for folks that maybe this is their first truth forum, you
[1:58:04] know, you pointed out that the area that you provide for, um,
[1:58:09] law enforcement, the unincorporated is, is bigger
[1:58:12] than really any of the cities, both geographically and
[1:58:15] population. You also contract for some cities, but the
[1:58:20] majority of the arrests and all of that are not necessarily
[1:58:25] coming from the sheriff's office.
[1:58:29] That's that's correct. Right. And so your
[1:58:32] responsibility is not necessarily all those people
[1:58:37] that are coming into the jail, but once they're there, then
[1:58:41] you have certain things and it sounds like what you're saying
[1:58:44] is that when they are booked, they get into a system that
[1:58:48] automatically automated notifies. Is that correct?
[1:58:53] That is correct. And then they reach out to you
[1:58:58] and then you respond to a portion of those requests.
[1:59:03] Yeah, about 12%. We actually respond to 90%. We don't. But
[1:59:08] Ice will send us a request for notification when that person
[1:59:12] is to be released. And that's what we do.
[1:59:15] Okay. Um. That was my question, but I know that my question
[1:59:22] triggered. So I'm going to let Schnell go first, and then I'll
[1:59:24] let John go. So in terms of the back to the
[1:59:30] notifications, and because I was in San Mateo County for the
[1:59:35] belonging in the Bay convening, and so there Sheriff was there
[1:59:39] presenting as well. And they do not cooperate with Ice at all
[1:59:44] like communicate at all. So what if we did not respond when
[1:59:50] Ice reached out to us? They already had the information,
[1:59:53] right? Because they just got processed that individual. So
[1:59:57] if we didn't respond back to them at all, is that a
[2:00:02] violation of SB 54? No, that wouldn't be a
[2:00:05] violation. And so, um, I'm sure you talked
[2:00:10] to other counties. Um, and how they are moving towards, you
[2:00:15] know, not cooperating with Ice at all. And in your terms of
[2:00:20] is, do you like, do the sheriffs have some type of
[2:00:24] working group of how the Bay area counties are working
[2:00:27] together so that we're all kind of following along the same
[2:00:32] line of making sure that our immigrant community is safe?
[2:00:36] Um, and we're not complying if it's if it's not a rule like a
[2:00:41] law by the state of California, I guess. Why are we continuing
[2:00:46] to provide additional information?
[2:00:48] So there's in response to your question, there's 58 counties
[2:00:52] in California, and anecdotally, I would have to say 75%, maybe
[2:00:58] 80% of sheriffs do exactly what I'm doing, which is to notify
[2:01:02] when they have an individual that meets SB 54. There are a
[2:01:07] few counties a couple up here in Northern California, a few
[2:01:10] in southern that have said they're not going to do any
[2:01:13] cooperation. And there are sheriffs San Diego among them,
[2:01:17] who will do exactly as I'm doing, even though the board
[2:01:20] has said, we don't want you to. She believes, as I do, that we
[2:01:25] have an obligation to the community at large to provide
[2:01:29] public safety services. And if we have someone who's enter the
[2:01:32] country illegally, that's one thing. But if they're here,
[2:01:35] they commit crime after crime after crime, and Ice wants to
[2:01:39] interview them or detain them. We allow that. That's the only
[2:01:43] notification we do. And that's what most sheriffs do.
[2:01:50] My question is dealt with. The, um, notification of release. I
[2:01:54] remember a few years ago, um, we we we expressed concern
[2:01:58] about the, um, the list of release dates that were posted
[2:02:03] on your website. And we, um, um, many of us thought that
[2:02:09] that wasn't necessary and that. So you changed the policy, and
[2:02:12] that's no longer posted on your website. Um, but so I'm trying
[2:02:17] to understand, um, it where you do provide notification of
[2:02:23] anticipate release dates are that honored only for inmates
[2:02:26] held for certain charges. Specifically, inmates convicted
[2:02:29] of a serious or violent felony. So is that then a subset of the
[2:02:34] total notification? So if you look at the list of of crimes
[2:02:39] in which you provide notification, is that the same
[2:02:43] list that you provide notification of, of anticipated
[2:02:47] release dates as well? Yes.
[2:02:50] So every everyone on this list potentially you would provide
[2:02:54] notifications of of anticipated release dates.
[2:02:57] The 92 that you see are all about qualifying offenses.
[2:03:01] That's why we would do the notification and and why we
[2:03:04] would reject others that don't meet the qualifications.
[2:03:06] Right. And then, um, the I was looking at the other, um, it
[2:03:13] says Ice agents who request to pick up a released inmate may
[2:03:16] only wait in the public lobby and will not receive any
[2:03:19] assistance unless there is compelling risk to public
[2:03:22] safety. So, ah, is I showing up to pick up released inmates?
[2:03:29] Who are that they find out and other ways that are not these
[2:03:33] 92 that you have here or there? Is this referring to Ice agents
[2:03:38] who are waiting to pick up the 92 that they were notified
[2:03:42] about? It could be either we don't
[2:03:45] track when Ice or any federal agency or state agency is in
[2:03:49] our lobby, frankly, so we don't know if they come in or if they
[2:03:52] meet them out in front of the facility. If they don't come at
[2:03:55] all, which occurs, or if they come and they do an interview
[2:03:59] with that individual, they may, I've been told they may release
[2:04:02] that individual pending further action of the of the court. So
[2:04:07] there's no tracking done. So I can't answer your question.
[2:04:10] Or they, um, for example, victims can still search for
[2:04:15] release dates by name. Correct.
[2:04:17] Has I does Ice have access to that as well? Only victims.
[2:04:21] They would if well under the vine system victims do. But
[2:04:24] under our system. Do you know if no.
[2:04:28] So victims can search the release dates under the law,
[2:04:33] under this system. But Ice doesn't have access to that
[2:04:37] system. I know they don't have access
[2:04:39] to that. I have to, unless they talk to
[2:04:41] a victim. And the victim does it. They do it through the
[2:04:44] victim. True.
[2:04:47] Okay, Ken. Thanks. Candice.
[2:04:52] I'm my comments. I'll save for after we hear from the public.
[2:04:55] All righty. No more questions then.
[2:04:57] I will take it to public comments.
[2:05:00] We do have comments in chambers. If there are any
[2:05:03] callers or zoom participants who would like to speak on the
[2:05:06] community forum, please press pound two. If you're on the
[2:05:09] phone or raise your hand in the zoom app, and we will start
[2:05:14] with our comments and chambers. The first five speakers are
[2:05:20] Vilma, Sonia Diaz, Natalia and Anna. Please come to both
[2:05:30] podiums. And all of those folks come on
[2:05:43] up and you're going to take turns between the podiums. That
[2:05:46] way we can move along and, Oh, welcome, welcome, welcome.
[2:05:52] Hi. Thank you. Um. Good morning,
[2:05:54] Board of supervisors and the sheriff's department. My name
[2:05:57] is Velma, and I am here today as part of the East County
[2:05:59] Rapid Response Coalition. Since the current administration has
[2:06:02] implemented their harmful agenda on immigration
[2:06:04] enforcement throughout the nation, we have seen an impact
[2:06:06] it has caused in our community members, our community members
[2:06:10] is afraid to go to the grocery stores, take their children to
[2:06:13] school, receive needed health care, and even report crimes.
[2:06:17] Due to these and other reasons, we are here to urge Sheriff
[2:06:20] Livingston and his department to stop their partnership with
[2:06:22] federal agencies and cancel all contracts. We urge the
[2:06:25] department to restructure and model itself similarly to San
[2:06:28] Mateo County, as one of our um council members has mentioned,
[2:06:32] they're stopped in little to no interactions with these
[2:06:36] agencies that they do not share their county funded facilities.
[2:06:40] They don't even share their training facilities or parking
[2:06:43] lots with these agencies. Please do what is right for all
[2:06:46] your constituents, regardless of their immigration status,
[2:06:49] that you have sworn to protect and serve. Thank you.
[2:06:52] Thank you. I'm here today as part of the
[2:06:57] East County Rapid Response Coalition. Since the current
[2:07:00] administration has implemented their harmful agenda of
[2:07:03] immigration enforcement throughout the nation, we have
[2:07:06] seen the impact it has caused on many community members. As
[2:07:10] many of us have seen, immigration enforcement has not
[2:07:13] been going after the criminals, the murderers or the rapists
[2:07:17] know they are detaining the innocent, the vulnerable, and
[2:07:20] they are destroying families for absolutely no reason. We
[2:07:24] are here today to urge Sheriff Livingston and his department
[2:07:27] to stop their partnership with federal agencies and cancel all
[2:07:31] contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and
[2:07:34] Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department in
[2:07:37] Contra Costa County. We urge the department to restructure
[2:07:40] and model itself similarly to San Mateo County, where the
[2:07:45] sheriff has cut and limited interactions with federal
[2:07:48] agencies. They do not share their county funding training
[2:07:51] facilities with agents, nor the uses of county buildings. We
[2:07:55] urge for transparent quarterly reports that are available to
[2:07:58] the public on any and all DHS Ice interactions for their
[2:08:02] constituents to see. If you continue to work with Ice.
[2:08:07] Sheriff Livingston, I want to ask you what makes you any
[2:08:11] different, any better than these Ice agents? If you're not
[2:08:15] helping to protect our community, the community that
[2:08:18] you swore an oath to protect and serve, then you are
[2:08:21] complicit in the abuse and violence that has and will
[2:08:25] plague our community. Is this the legacy you want to leave
[2:08:28] behind? Thank you. Thank you. I'm here today as
[2:08:38] far as the East. County Rapid Response
[2:08:40] Coalition. Since this administration's immigration
[2:08:42] enforcement agenda has expanded nationwide, our community has
[2:08:46] felt the impact directly. People are afraid to leave
[2:08:48] their homes to get groceries, take their kids to school, seek
[2:08:52] health care or report crimes. That's why we're urging Sheriff
[2:08:55] David O. Livingston and this department to end their
[2:08:58] partnership with federal immigration agencies and cancel
[2:09:00] all contracts with DHS and Ice, and Contra Costa County. We're
[2:09:08] also asking for transparent quarterly public reports on any
[2:09:11] dis interactions, so your constituents can see exactly
[2:09:15] what's happening in our county. Please do what's right for all
[2:09:18] of your constituents and the people you swore to protect and
[2:09:20] serve. Thank you.
[2:09:30] My name is Anna. I'm a member of the League of Women Voters
[2:09:34] of Diablo Valley. We are a nonpartisan organization and
[2:09:38] never support a candidate or a party. However, we are not
[2:09:41] non-political. We take positions in line with the
[2:09:44] organization's mission of defending democracy and
[2:09:47] empowering voters. I'm here in support of Aria's
[2:09:51] recommendations. Ice is in our backyard. The closure of San
[2:09:56] Francisco's 100 Montgomery Street Immigration Court has
[2:10:00] transferred a backlog of 120,000 cases to the Concord
[2:10:04] immigration Court, tripling the caseload. This really increases
[2:10:08] ICE's presence at at the court and in the county. Um, nothing
[2:10:15] that we're asking prevents the sheriff's department from
[2:10:18] continuing to do their job and to protect the community. Uh,
[2:10:23] what we want them to do, however, is to consider the
[2:10:26] entire community. I never imagined a day that having two
[2:10:31] sheriffs in full gear exit their vehicle y while parked
[2:10:36] next to me would fill me with fear. But it did. Please do
[2:10:41] what so many counties and cities in California have
[2:10:44] already done. You can help ease the fear that so many feel by
[2:10:49] passing an ordinance that can be enforced, not just a policy,
[2:10:54] but an ordinance. Stop responding to Ice notifications
[2:10:58] and all cooperation with Ice. What we know is that in
[2:11:03] Northern California and surrounding counties,
[2:11:05] cooperation with Ice has ceased. I would ask that we do
[2:11:09] the same. Let's mirror what the community wants and needs.
[2:11:14] Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to I'm
[2:11:18] going to pause for just a second, and we're going to call
[2:11:20] more people up. I apologize, but that way we can keep things
[2:11:23] moving. Thank you. The next five speakers are
[2:11:27] Catherine, Jane, Jan, Rich and Anna Hernandez. Please come to
[2:11:36] both podiums. Hello, I am Natalia,
[2:11:42] representing Reimagine Richmond to express our concerns of the
[2:11:46] violations of the Truth Act. SB 54. We are calling for the
[2:11:51] Contra Costa County to take additional actions to stop
[2:11:55] practice the practice of harm in our communities,
[2:11:59] specifically in our immigrant communities, and contribute to
[2:12:02] the dangerous federal enforcements of surveillance.
[2:12:05] Specifically, we are recommending that the county
[2:12:08] stops responding to Ice notifications altogether. We
[2:12:12] need to join the rest of the bay in passing a county
[2:12:15] ordinance to end all Ice cooperation, and the county's
[2:12:19] flock safety contract as a surveillance system is
[2:12:23] negatively, negatively affecting our communities.
[2:12:26] Terminate all efforts to receive federal ARP funding for
[2:12:32] incarcerated migrants. Contra Costa has has long been a
[2:12:37] beacon of hope for those seeking a better life, and we
[2:12:40] must continue to uphold policies that foster care and
[2:12:43] compassion for all people. We are not criminals. It is
[2:12:47] important to remember that our strength lies in our diversity.
[2:12:50] Immigrants play a crucial role in the social, economic and
[2:12:55] cultural fabric of our city, and we must ensure that they
[2:12:59] have the support and protection that they need to thrive. At a
[2:13:04] time when immigrant communities across Contra Costa are being
[2:13:07] targeted, we must ensure that every resident feels safe, not
[2:13:12] public safety, but community safety. Therefore, Reimagine
[2:13:16] Richmond continues to urge the sheriff's office to end all
[2:13:21] collaborations with Ice, even if it's just 12%, including
[2:13:25] responding to Ice requests to release time notifications.
[2:13:29] Given the compliance nature of SB 54, continuing Ice
[2:13:33] notifications Open Up opens up the county to liability. I'll
[2:13:39] end it up by saying we need this now. Thank you.
[2:13:47] Hey, welcome. Hi, I'm Catherine Whaley,
[2:13:50] resident of Walnut Creek, member of ace and the Racial
[2:13:52] Justice Coalition. So do you know what Scap funding is? I
[2:13:56] sure didn't until a few months ago when reading a San
[2:13:59] Francisco Standard article. Did you know that in 2024, Contra
[2:14:04] Costa was one of the top ten recipients nationwide? I sure
[2:14:08] didn't until I read that article. This federal program
[2:14:11] reimburses states and counties for incarcerating undocumented
[2:14:15] people, but in exchange, counties must share a list of
[2:14:18] the name, birth date, country of origin, and date of
[2:14:22] incarceration of every person in jail or in prison. That
[2:14:25] year. Then a private company helps the federal government
[2:14:29] identify undocumented people on the list. When folks expressed
[2:14:33] concerns about collaboration with immigration enforcement, I
[2:14:36] think sometimes people only envision people with mustaches,
[2:14:40] villains trolling their mustaches while they're in
[2:14:42] shape, making shady backroom deals. But in reality, the
[2:14:45] collaboration and cooperation folks are concerned about can
[2:14:48] be found in the seemingly mundane details within
[2:14:51] contracts or reimbursement programs that may easily be
[2:14:55] overlooked by decision makers like yourselves. But the
[2:14:58] impacts of these decisions are not mundane. The impacts of
[2:15:02] these decisions can cause profound harm. In the case of
[2:15:06] Scap, we're essentially exchanging personal information
[2:15:09] about people in our custody for money. That's personal
[2:15:13] information that could lead to Ice detaining people after
[2:15:15] their release from jail or prison. Not only that, but
[2:15:18] according to when the authors of the law, Scap violates the
[2:15:21] California Values Act, which prohibits California law
[2:15:24] enforcement from sharing personal information about an
[2:15:27] undocumented individual, including the person's name. To
[2:15:31] be clear, this is not a new problem unique to only this
[2:15:35] administration. Indeed, under the Obama administration, they
[2:15:39] were adding more conditions when it came to the getting
[2:15:41] Scap reimbursement. Please reject Scap funds moving
[2:15:44] forward. We need to end this practice, which violates our
[2:15:46] state law and our. Allergan. It's good to see you.
[2:15:54] Good to see you. Uh. Diane Warren with impact. I live in
[2:16:00] Walnut Creek. Uh, these are not normal times. We need to keep
[2:16:04] reminding ourselves. Um, I, uh, supported the Sierra request
[2:16:09] today. I, repeat that we need a non cooperative ordinance, and
[2:16:16] I want to highlight the enormous increase of people in
[2:16:19] our immigration court in Concord. Uh, they closed San
[2:16:24] Francisco. They were behind 60,000 cases. Now we are. You
[2:16:30] know, you're getting 100 people at a time. They say, come on
[2:16:32] down on such and such state. And, you know, by the way, we
[2:16:35] haven't contacted you in a year and a half. Um, and so we have
[2:16:39] a lot of people driving around who maybe aren't familiar with
[2:16:43] our area. And I'm curious as to, uh, things like
[2:16:47] misdemeanors or, uh, what's this brown person doing in our
[2:16:50] neighborhood? Sort of a thing. Or why would someone pull them
[2:16:53] over? We don't know why, but these are not normal times. And
[2:16:57] and that happens. Then we have this excessive amount of data
[2:17:02] everywhere. Databases in public, from state to local to
[2:17:07] county, all over the place. Federal. And somebody can get
[2:17:11] pulled over and they look up something, and next thing you
[2:17:13] know, that information is being picked up and shared with some
[2:17:16] other agency. So it's a real problem. And, um, I would ask
[2:17:22] us to find ways I heard something today. Uh, out of
[2:17:26] Chicago, but, uh, prosecutors I know were with the sheriff
[2:17:29] department, but that that was happening there. So you may
[2:17:32] think you have all the right rules in place, and you're
[2:17:35] following all of them, but it doesn't take but somebody who
[2:17:38] knows how to get into that or just ask a question. Simple
[2:17:41] question. Pull somebody over, ask him a question, and next
[2:17:44] thing you know, two days later they're getting picked up. So
[2:17:47] thank you. Hi. My name is Anna Hernandez
[2:17:57] and I'm a Pittsburgh resident. I'm here to talk about the no
[2:18:00] data center that's going on in Pittsburgh. Uh, I'm here along
[2:18:04] with my neighbors today. Sorry, we are only taking
[2:18:07] comments on the truth forum right now.
[2:18:09] Oh, okay. I'm sorry. That's okay. Anna,
[2:18:11] just stick around. We'll do public comment towards the end
[2:18:15] of the day. But, um, not trying to turn your voice off, but we
[2:18:20] are doing the truth forum, right? Okay.
[2:18:25] Hi supervisors. My name is Rich Whipple. I'm with the Contra
[2:18:28] Costa Immigrant Rights Alliance. I wanted to thank you
[2:18:31] and the sheriff for holding this important forum and for
[2:18:33] the detailed information that's been provided today to us in
[2:18:36] community. I did want to just reiterate and emphasize key
[2:18:40] community needs and our asks of the board and of the sheriff.
[2:18:44] First, stop responding to Ice notifications altogether. I
[2:18:47] think that's been made clear in the presentations and community
[2:18:50] comment before mine. Second, join the rest of the bay in
[2:18:54] passing an Ice non-cooperation ordinance. I know we've talked
[2:18:58] a lot about this in other spaces. I think today's
[2:19:00] conversation underscores the importance of that work. Third,
[2:19:04] and the county's flock safety contract, we're seeing other
[2:19:08] municipalities do this around the state, around the region,
[2:19:11] and ask Contra Costa to do the same. And last, as was just
[2:19:15] spoken by another community member, please terminate and
[2:19:18] reject any efforts to receive federal Scap funds for
[2:19:22] incarcerating migrants. Lastly, I wanted to share my
[2:19:26] frustration and disappointment with the censorship by the
[2:19:29] county administrator's office who removed slides and redacted
[2:19:32] information from our community presentation, including our
[2:19:36] recommendations related to FLoC, the censorship certainly
[2:19:39] contradicts the intent of this forum, and it really makes
[2:19:42] government less responsive and less accessible to community.
[2:19:45] Thank you again for your time. Thank you.
[2:19:53] Good morning, Jane from Richmond, California.
[2:19:56] We get to see you. Don't start our time. It's good to see you.
[2:20:00] We hear your voice often, but we don't see you in person as
[2:20:03] much. Well, welcome. I was getting kind of tired of
[2:20:07] coming to these truth. Forums.
[2:20:09] I don't know how many years we have been holding them. Uh, the
[2:20:14] Contra Costa Racial Justice Coalition has opposed a
[2:20:18] cooperation with Ice. Um, I really do regret the fact that
[2:20:22] we call these quarterly reports from the sheriff oversight.
[2:20:26] That is not exactly what oversight means. Oversight
[2:20:31] means another body that actually looks at what's going
[2:20:36] on, enters the detention facilities to see conditions
[2:20:41] and so forth. It is an improvement, and I appreciate
[2:20:44] it, but let's not keep calling that oversight. It's really not
[2:20:48] oversight. Um, as far as this issue today, um, I don't think
[2:20:55] I need to repeat. These are not, as Jan said, normal times.
[2:21:00] This truth act is happening at a time when we're dealing with
[2:21:04] an unlawful federal agency, an unlawful federal agency. We are
[2:21:12] following as best as we can. Some state laws, but we must
[2:21:19] take a strong stand in the face of the growing
[2:21:24] authoritarianism, the cruelty, the arrest of people off the
[2:21:29] streets. This forum has a context, and you must, as
[2:21:35] supervisors, act with bravery, as many have done in much less
[2:21:42] friendly environments than the Bay area, and take the stand.
[2:21:47] That is the the public is demanding. We need an
[2:21:52] enforceable ordinance applying to all parts of our county
[2:21:57] government. No cooperation with Ice at all. You're going to
[2:22:04] deal with this issue, I imagine, on September 8th,
[2:22:08] you'll be hearing from a lot more people that day. Do it.
[2:22:13] Think about it and be ready to pass an ordinance on September
[2:22:17] 8th. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:22:19] Jane. I kind of missed the call out.
[2:22:26] So we have more people. Come on.
[2:22:28] In the next five speakers are Joanna, followed by Mariana,
[2:22:34] Chappie, Devin and Linda. Please come to both podiums.
[2:22:51] Good morning. Um. Hello, everybody. My name is Joanna
[2:22:55] Godinho, and I am the policy advocacy system change
[2:22:58] coordinator for Healthy Contra Costa. Um, and also a part of
[2:23:01] Sierra. Um, and as others have said, we're only at the floor,
[2:23:05] not the ceiling of what our county can do. These actions
[2:23:08] currently be taken by our board are not the limit of the power
[2:23:12] to protect our immigrant families and communities. We
[2:23:15] are living through unprecedented times which
[2:23:17] require brave leadership and action. Sheriff Livingston has
[2:23:21] the authority to stop collaborating with us. And yet
[2:23:24] his continued collaboration makes it clear that he is
[2:23:27] choosing to protect some residents. Not all of us. Our
[2:23:30] Board of Supervisors have the duty to use our county
[2:23:33] resources to protect our community members, not enable
[2:23:37] or advance harmful enforcement agenda against our immigrant
[2:23:41] community members. Um, that is why we are demanding that our
[2:23:46] Board of Supervisors take immediate action to stop
[2:23:48] responding to Ice notifications altogether, and to join the
[2:23:52] rest of the Bay area in passing an ordinance in September. Um,
[2:23:56] we should continue using our resources to improvise the
[2:24:00] protections to our community members. You all have the power
[2:24:04] to do more. Now is the time to use it. And cooperation with
[2:24:08] Ice and protect our community. Thank you.
[2:24:14] Good morning. Welcome. Good morning. Mariano. Ensuring
[2:24:18] opportunity also here as a member of the East County Rapid
[2:24:21] Response Coalition and of Sierra, I decided I don't want
[2:24:26] to speak in a lot of the technical points. I think
[2:24:27] that's been handled very well. I really appreciate the
[2:24:30] immigrant, um, legal. The lawyer, sorry, who spoke and
[2:24:34] support every single word that she said, as well as Rich's
[2:24:37] points for Sierra. Um, what I want to talk about is kind of
[2:24:40] the bigger picture. I've come to this forum every year, and
[2:24:44] this year I'm actually near tears because it is horrifying
[2:24:48] what's happening in our country. So I'm just speaking
[2:24:50] from my heart. Okay, there are folks that I know and care
[2:24:54] about or afraid to go out of their house. You know, we talk
[2:24:57] about lawlessness in this county. Ice is lawless. We need
[2:25:02] to get it. Any cooperation with Ice? It's immoral and wrong. We
[2:25:08] must stop it. It is so clear to me. I hope it's becoming clear
[2:25:12] to you. This is not the society that I signed up for that I was
[2:25:16] born into, that I have a lot of privilege in. So we have got to
[2:25:19] work together. We have got to do this. You guys and the
[2:25:24] lawlessness and the evil and the immorality and the
[2:25:27] wrongness we all feel in our bones. I know you do too. We
[2:25:31] must. We must end it unequivocally right now. Thank
[2:25:37] you. Hello. Welcome.
[2:25:45] Hi. So I didn't really come with anything prepared. Um.
[2:25:50] What I wanted to express is that I got, um. I'm deeply
[2:25:57] concerned for. For all of my neighbors, especially like
[2:26:00] these in this current environment. Um, like, we we
[2:26:07] see that currently, this is supposed to be only certain
[2:26:10] felonies. And I'm concerned that there's there's a certain
[2:26:14] amount of flexibility with the law. Right. We know that in the
[2:26:17] state of California, the cannabis that many people enjoy
[2:26:21] is felonious in certain other cities, the bodily autonomy and
[2:26:27] access to public spaces that certain people have is
[2:26:30] felonious. In other places. And so historically, the law is not
[2:26:38] equally enforced on all people, especially people of color. And
[2:26:43] so we need to keep that in mind when we talk about how, oh,
[2:26:48] we're we're just doing this with, you know, certain laws.
[2:26:55] Um, it's also especially deeply concerning because the current
[2:26:59] administration is actively changing the rules. They are
[2:27:02] defining certain people as associated with domestic
[2:27:06] terrorism, with the national Security Presidential
[2:27:10] Memorandum seven. They're implying that certain people
[2:27:14] are domestic terrorists. When logic and reason implies that
[2:27:18] it's not. We also know that when we turn people over to Ice
[2:27:23] custody, we know that we are depriving them of clean water,
[2:27:27] adequate, nutritious food, stable shelter. Um, we are
[2:27:33] potentially turning them over into permanent incarceration,
[2:27:37] into torture prisons to do turn them over to Ice is to be
[2:27:43] complicit in all of this. You should consider that.
[2:27:49] I'm going to interrupt you because we do we have any more?
[2:27:52] Okay. I'm. You are the last. Oh, wait. It looks like there's
[2:27:55] one other person that just stepped. Okay, so we have two.
[2:27:59] Okay. All right. Go ahead. Good afternoon.
[2:28:03] Once again. You know me, Linda Olvera, resident of Martinez
[2:28:08] and, um, daughter of immigrant parents from Mexico. I always
[2:28:12] like to say that, um. And you also know me as a person that
[2:28:19] works almost on a daily basis with immigrants. And you also
[2:28:23] know me as a person, because I've been here before to tell
[2:28:26] you that I see and experience their fear, um, of even going
[2:28:33] out of their house to go get groceries. Um, their children,
[2:28:38] letting them go to school, not knowing if they're going to see
[2:28:41] them again. I experience that fear. I don't think you guys
[2:28:44] do, because you've been dragging this on and on and on.
[2:28:47] And I'm talking about the ordinance. But I do want to say
[2:28:50] a few words about the sheriff. Um, the sheriff likes to point
[2:28:55] us to out as a small percentage of the.
[2:28:59] Of the Contra Costa. County community, insinuating
[2:29:02] that he is trying to protect the majority of Contra.
[2:29:05] Costa County. Well. I'm not sure he understands
[2:29:11] that there is a large percentage of immigrants that
[2:29:14] live in Contra Costa County, that he is also obligated to
[2:29:17] protect. My main message today is to stop Ice notification and
[2:29:25] cooperation. And one other thing I wanted to mention was
[2:29:29] that I'm not sure how much of you supervisors are aware of
[2:29:33] how much money the sheriff gets from the federal government,
[2:29:37] and we all know who runs the federal government. Do you know
[2:29:45] how much federal money he gets from the federal government? If
[2:29:49] you don't, I would suggest you try to find out. Um, and that
[2:29:54] could that really be where the sheriff priorities are to get
[2:29:58] more money, to be a bigger sheriff's department? Thank you.
[2:30:03] I one item I will say all our major departments receive
[2:30:08] funding from the federal government. The largest is our
[2:30:11] health department, which funds health services. So I just want
[2:30:15] to say in context, all of our departments and big departments
[2:30:19] get federal funding, whether it's health, social services,
[2:30:22] criminal justice. So just just to put that in perspective, we
[2:30:25] could not operate. So this department by far is the health
[2:30:30] department. Significant billions. I do want
[2:30:32] to I know that somebody just, um, brought another card up. So
[2:30:37] please come up if you want to speak. Um, please come up now
[2:30:42] because we do try to run our meetings smoothly and we will
[2:30:46] be going on to online comments after this. Uh, these two
[2:30:50] speakers. Good morning. Uh, Devin
[2:30:57] Williams, Contra Costa resident. Um, felonies.
[2:31:01] Immigrants, felonies again and again is what I heard. And that
[2:31:05] was very xenophobic. You have to have you have to be a
[2:31:10] soulless person to even have those words leave your mouth.
[2:31:14] But I guess it's better to have your ideology out in the open
[2:31:17] so that people know who you are. I feel like everything
[2:31:21] that I say has to come off of my chest. Yes, you swore an
[2:31:25] oath to protect residents in this county and undocumented
[2:31:30] and immigrant families are contributing to our economy and.
[2:31:37] I guess they aren't community. I mean, oath worthy to you? If
[2:31:42] killing citizens isn't enough for someone to stop continuing
[2:31:45] cooperation with Ice, where can residents find the data to
[2:31:49] debate those comments about immigrants committing crimes
[2:31:52] and felonies? Because last I heard, American citizens commit
[2:31:57] horrible crimes more than our average undocumented residents.
[2:32:01] Have you heard about school shootings, mass shootings in
[2:32:04] this country? I don't think immigrants are doing those.
[2:32:09] These are not normal times. Do you see the direction that this
[2:32:14] country is going in authoritarianism? I'll never
[2:32:18] understand. When people say they swore an oath. They love
[2:32:21] America and they love the Constitution, but turn around
[2:32:25] and completely do everything opposite of what it stands for.
[2:32:29] I'll also contribute that same sentiment to the way that
[2:32:32] people say they love Christ, and that stand against
[2:32:36] everything he actually stood for. So please do some soul
[2:32:40] searching and stop allowing this new Gestapo to go
[2:32:46] unchecked and actually commit crimes. You obviously care
[2:32:50] about injustice. Anywhere is injustice everywhere. Thank.
[2:33:03] Welcome. Thank you. My name is Donna
[2:33:06] Janki. I am a resident of Orinda. So I guess in district
[2:33:11] one. Um, I have a question for, um, the, uh, everyone here,
[2:33:18] particularly the sheriff. Um, and maybe I don't really
[2:33:22] understand the process too much. This is only the second I
[2:33:25] of of the truth act that I've been to, but, um, these
[2:33:29] notifications of 12%, um, that ice is being alerted to, um,
[2:33:37] then there's these release dates, um, where ice is
[2:33:42] notified and that they have to be in these public places where
[2:33:46] they could possibly intercept these people. Um, what happens
[2:33:50] to, uh, to me? Doesn't that give contract, make Contra
[2:33:55] Costa County complicit in, um, allowing Ice to cast a wider
[2:34:02] net and scoop up more, um, innocent people without any due
[2:34:08] process? Um, even as it's being defined as a minimal
[2:34:14] cooperation, does that not only add to the atmosphere of fear
[2:34:18] and distrust in our communities? Um, as a vigil or
[2:34:23] at the Concord Immigration Court? Um, we see the trauma of
[2:34:27] families and especially children every day, uh, walking
[2:34:32] in and out of that building, not understanding what their
[2:34:35] fate is going to be or what may be lurking around. Um, the, the
[2:34:42] area there, um, in a public space. So with these things
[2:34:47] happening and how how is how are we as a community able to
[2:34:53] discern which law enforcement agency here is going to protect
[2:34:58] public safety. or harm? So these are the kinds of some of
[2:35:04] the weeds that I think we really need to seriously
[2:35:06] consider. Um, during these times. Thank you.
[2:35:11] Thank you. We can now go.
[2:35:13] To our zoom comments. The next speaker is Vanessa.
[2:35:17] Please unmute. Hello, my name is Vanessa Chen,
[2:35:23] and I'm a Concord resident and also a community organizer with
[2:35:26] Monument Impact. After hearing the presentations that were
[2:35:29] shared today, and as Ice presence has ramped up in our
[2:35:32] communities, I urged the sheriff and county to end its
[2:35:35] contract with FLoC. And for you all to pass a county
[2:35:37] non-cooperation ordinance with the provision for contractors,
[2:35:42] our local governments have turned towards data
[2:35:44] surveillance at our county and our city levels. For example,
[2:35:48] in Concord. Within the last few weeks, my neighbors and I have
[2:35:51] seen flock cameras appear through different parts of the
[2:35:53] city, including the park and stop shopping center, down the
[2:35:56] monument corridor and near Concord's Home Depot. This
[2:35:59] increase of surveillance at our city and county levels does not
[2:36:02] make our community feel safe. We know that Ice has previously
[2:36:06] used Fox network and Data to specifically target immigrants.
[2:36:10] It's your responsibility to listen to the concerns of your
[2:36:12] constituents and to protect our county communities, including
[2:36:16] our data and our privacy. And the sheriff contract with Fox
[2:36:19] Safety. We've already seen Ice in Concord and in other parts
[2:36:23] of the county since the Concord Federal Immigration court was
[2:36:25] first opened, and we know that Ice presence will continue to
[2:36:28] increase in our county since more than 120,000 backlogged
[2:36:32] cases were transferred from San Francisco's Montgomery
[2:36:35] Immigration Court to Concord, local groups and residents have
[2:36:39] been advocating for a non cooperation ordinance with the
[2:36:41] contractor provisioned for over a year. And we need action now.
[2:36:45] So again, I ask that you end the flock safety contract to
[2:36:48] pass a non-cooperation ordinance and to stop
[2:36:51] responding to Ice notifications altogether. Thank you.
[2:36:56] The next speaker is Deborah. Please unmute.
[2:37:03] Good morning. My name is Deborah Boulanger. I'm a
[2:37:06] resident of Concord, a member of the Concord Immigrant
[2:37:08] Protection Network and one of the original founders of Sarah.
[2:37:11] I have sat through all but one of the Past Truth forums, and
[2:37:14] they are beginning to feel so pro forma in spite of the
[2:37:17] wisdom of the immigrant rights attorneys like Mio today, who
[2:37:20] have presented year after year. If the sheriff can ignore
[2:37:24] nearly 90% of the requests from Ice, we ask that he completely
[2:37:28] stop cooperating with Ice altogether, much like what's
[2:37:31] being done in San Mateo. And just because the sheriff points
[2:37:34] out counties that do cooperate with Ice doesn't mean he has
[2:37:38] to. But his position has been clear from the get go. It's
[2:37:42] completely unacceptable. Especially consider ISIS cruel
[2:37:46] treatment of immigrants being detained without due process in
[2:37:50] torturous detention facilities. And if the sheriff and members
[2:37:54] of the board don't know anyone who has been detained, or who
[2:37:57] have a loved one who's been been detained, it's time you
[2:38:02] connect more deeply with what's happening in the immigrant
[2:38:04] community. The 120,000 cases from the San Diego court being
[2:38:09] transferred to Concord underscores the reality that
[2:38:11] the presence of ice in Contra Costa is not only very much
[2:38:14] here now, but their presence will only grow in the coming
[2:38:17] year. Therefore, it's time to pass the non-cooperation
[2:38:21] ordinance as it was originally written. It's also time for the
[2:38:25] county to review its use of flock cameras and to end its
[2:38:28] flock safety camera contract, just as other jurisdictions are
[2:38:32] doing. And finally, I request that you terminate government
[2:38:35] Cap funding. My understanding is that this board had to
[2:38:38] approve that funding. If that is true, that does make the
[2:38:42] board complicit in cooperating with Ice. Thank you.
[2:38:47] The next speaker is Jenny. Please unmute.
[2:38:52] Hello, I'm Jennifer. Morales, community organizing
[2:38:54] manager for the Community engagement program at Monument
[2:38:57] Impact, where we have offices in district three and four. And
[2:39:00] we're also a member of the Concrete Immigrant Protections
[2:39:02] Network, along with allies. Today, we're here calling for
[2:39:06] the county, uh, Board of Supervisors to take additional
[2:39:09] actions to stop practices. The harm our immigrant communities
[2:39:13] and contribute to dangerous, uh, federal enforcement and
[2:39:15] surveillance. Just this weekend, CIP and held a town
[2:39:19] hall to include community members input to find what
[2:39:24] folks want to see in an ordinance and specifically in
[2:39:27] Concord and also our local cities here in Contra Costa
[2:39:30] have done nothing, along with the Board of Supervisors, to
[2:39:34] pass any type of protections. And some of the feedback we
[2:39:37] heard was, why? Why does so much of our, like, tax money go
[2:39:41] to fund, uh, PD and the sheriff's department all to
[2:39:44] like if it came down to it, we knew they we know they would
[2:39:47] protect ice instead of us. And so folks are still asking,
[2:39:51] where is the Board of Supervisors or where are con or
[2:39:54] sorry, our City Council is doing to protect our immigrant
[2:39:57] community? Because so far, for the past two years, it's been
[2:40:00] nothing. Last summer we saw a bunch of kidnappings happen at
[2:40:03] the immigration court. At the summer I'm never going to
[2:40:06] forget and that I have to carry. We've had members who've
[2:40:09] had to self deport. We've had members who we actually have
[2:40:12] asked us to go with them to their immigration court date,
[2:40:14] because their fear of getting kidnapped. We've had a staging
[2:40:18] happen right outside, outside of our offices as at Ellis
[2:40:21] Lake. This is information we've all shared. And so again, for
[2:40:25] the like eighth year in a row, we're asking you to stop
[2:40:28] responding to Ice notifications altogether. Join the rest of
[2:40:31] the pain. Passing an ordinance and the county's flock safety
[2:40:35] contract and terminate all efforts to receive Scap funding
[2:40:38] for incarcerating immigrants. Thank you.
[2:40:42] The next speaker is Tony. Please unmute.
[2:40:47] Hi. Good morning. My name is Tony, executive director with
[2:40:51] United Latino Voices. Billions of dollars are already invested
[2:40:56] into an agency going on a reign of terror across the country.
[2:41:00] Contra Costa is not the exception or safe from this,
[2:41:03] especially with the immigration court here in Concord. Our
[2:41:07] county does not need to provide more resources or support, uh,
[2:41:11] for us to do enforcement. And that means that the county
[2:41:14] sheriff's department should not be entertaining notifications
[2:41:17] and should stop responding to these immediately. It is very
[2:41:22] clear that the Sheriff's Department does not know how to
[2:41:26] interpret the law when it comes to notifications. Uh, listening
[2:41:30] to the ilk attorney, uh, that it has become very obvious that
[2:41:35] internally the sheriff's department just doesn't know
[2:41:38] how to assess cases and, um, needs to do better. Uh, again,
[2:41:43] we should not be helping Ice, and that means we do not need
[2:41:47] to be investing our county resources into a company like
[2:41:53] FLoC, a system that will always profit, will always put profits
[2:41:58] over people. Uh, and has always and will continue to provide
[2:42:06] data to agencies like Ice. And so, again, billions of dollars
[2:42:12] already going into an agency. Our resources here at the local
[2:42:17] level, we don't need to keep giving that to them. Uh, we
[2:42:21] should be instead investing all of that money to our community
[2:42:25] and the community needs here. Thank you.
[2:42:32] The next speaker is Sonia. Please unmute.
[2:42:44] Sonia, please unmute. Hello, this is Sonia. Can you
[2:42:52] hear me? Yes we can.
[2:42:54] Okay. Thank you. I was just on a phone call, um, at the court
[2:42:59] about the court. Um, so I want to thank the supervisor. Say
[2:43:04] good morning to everyone and the sheriff. Thank you for the
[2:43:07] report. Uh, my name is Sonia Bustamante. With Safe Center,
[2:43:11] and I echo with our colleagues at um, ilk presented and the
[2:43:16] concerns they raised. You know, we're reporting to you from the
[2:43:20] ground, from the communities that we are serving, from our
[2:43:23] clients who have shared stories with us. And, you know, they're
[2:43:27] also victims of crimes. And it's their voices we're
[2:43:30] bringing you today. Um, and also the expertise, right, from
[2:43:35] our immigration lawyers who know the law checked the
[2:43:39] changing landscape of the current laws and how they're
[2:43:41] being interpreted. And that's part of the context here for
[2:43:46] today's forum. And we're also a part of Countrywide Networks.
[2:43:50] We're experiencing in real time the way that Ice is
[2:43:53] weaponizing, you know, contracts that otherwise would
[2:43:57] have been with contractors that seemed benign, like FLoC. And
[2:44:01] there's been violations of information privacy rights. You
[2:44:05] know, we're concerned about this gap program. Also. Um, so
[2:44:08] we would like to hear from the sheriff as to why we are
[2:44:11] participating in that program. And our counterparts across the
[2:44:15] country are giving us advice and warning us that their local
[2:44:18] governments, including their local law enforcement, are
[2:44:22] feeling like they're put back on their heels due to ice
[2:44:25] exploiting and weaponizing programs and contracts that may
[2:44:30] have not been exploited like they are now, but they're using
[2:44:34] it to incite violence and fear. And so we're saying, let's
[2:44:38] scrutinize all of these areas of potential vulnerability.
[2:44:41] Let's be proactive and public trust is super essential right
[2:44:47] now. Thank you. The next speaker is Pittsburgh
[2:44:52] Citizen. Please unmute. Pittsburgh Citizen, please
[2:45:04] unmute. We can go on to the next member.
[2:45:18] The next speaker is Nieva. Please unmute.
[2:45:24] Supervisors. My name is Nieva. I work in Concord, and I'm also
[2:45:28] a volunteer with the Concord Immigrant Protection Network. I
[2:45:31] would like to echo several of the statements made today, and
[2:45:34] reinforce that the county of Contra Costa should stop
[2:45:36] responding to Ice altogether and ensure private data is
[2:45:40] never shared with federal agencies. As previously
[2:45:43] mentioned, passing a strong non-cooperation ordinance that
[2:45:46] closes contractor loopholes and is enforceable would help
[2:45:49] accomplish these critical needs. I also call for the
[2:45:52] county to break its contract with flock immediately. We've
[2:45:55] seen nationwide that surveillance data collected by
[2:45:58] flock can easily be abused, but in county funds toward these
[2:46:02] surveillance systems takes away necessary funds for public
[2:46:05] services and places vulnerable, vulnerable communities at risk.
[2:46:09] Given that communities cannot ensure the security of data
[2:46:13] collected by these surveillance cameras, public resources
[2:46:17] should be used to foster safe and healthy communities for
[2:46:20] families, and everyone can feel safe accessing public resources
[2:46:23] and going to school or work. Safety doesn't come from hyper
[2:46:27] surveillance. It starts with elected representatives who
[2:46:29] will speak up for their community when it is needed
[2:46:31] most. Right now, families in Contra Costa are living in
[2:46:35] constant terror and concord. We've heard this directly from
[2:46:38] families who are terrified that they will be torn apart. This
[2:46:41] reality has profound impacts on the mental health of children.
[2:46:43] Growing up in Contra Costa and their parents. How you choose
[2:46:47] to act in this moment will be remembered. If you can continue
[2:46:50] to enable the spread of terror and fear by a lawless
[2:46:53] organization that is kidnapping community members, your
[2:46:56] constituent constituents in this entire community will not
[2:46:59] forget it. I urge you to take immediate action to protect
[2:47:02] immigrant community members and families that call Contra Costa
[2:47:05] home. Thank you. The next speaker is ovata.
[2:47:11] Please unmute. Hi.
[2:47:15] This is. Hoby Mendoza. I'm with
[2:47:16] Brentwood City Council. We have already instructed our police
[2:47:19] department to no longer participate with anything that
[2:47:22] has to do with Ice. Our people come first. My request is that
[2:47:25] the county police stop cooperating and notifying Ice.
[2:47:29] I'm also asking for an SB 54 audit, where you go through
[2:47:33] every single instance and release that to the public. Let
[2:47:36] every single victim be able to take action as they please. We
[2:47:40] do not. You should not be allowing any federal Ice agents
[2:47:44] on any county property. I would also like an audit of of
[2:47:48] Livingston's expenses. Um, with general ledger entries and the
[2:47:52] purpose of those entries. You hold the purse strings. If he
[2:47:55] is doing something, it is under your financial watch. Um, I
[2:47:59] also urge every single voter in Contra Costa to look at who
[2:48:03] endorsed Livingston. He came up here today and said that even
[2:48:08] if the Board of Supervisors set tells him not to do something,
[2:48:11] he's going to do what he wants. When it comes to ice. Diane
[2:48:14] Berg has endorsed Livingston. He is on. She is on his
[2:48:17] website. So elections matter. So while we're here talking
[2:48:20] about what we can do now, the most important thing that
[2:48:23] anyone out there can do is look at who you're voting for and
[2:48:27] who is supporting them and who is not supporting them. So
[2:48:30] lastly, I would like to also the county to put a ban on any
[2:48:33] detention centers in the county. And while we're at it,
[2:48:37] please bring forward an agenda item to ban any data centers
[2:48:41] in, um, in the county as well. Thank you very much.
[2:48:47] The next speaker is Luis. Then you.
[2:48:55] Liz, please unmute. Are you.
[2:48:59] Able to hear me? Yes we are, thank you.
[2:49:01] Hi. My name.
[2:49:02] Is Liz Richie. I am a resident.
[2:49:04] And longtime. Resident of Contra.
[2:49:06] Costa County. A naturalized.
[2:49:07] Citizen, and I would like to say that immigration laws exist
[2:49:11] for a reason. They are here.
[2:49:13] To. Protect the safety.
[2:49:14] Security and sovereignty. Of the. United States.
[2:49:18] U.S. Immigration. And Customs Enforcement, or
[2:49:20] Ice. Is the.
[2:49:22] Agency charged with. Enforcing these.
[2:49:24] Laws inside. Our country, supporting.
[2:49:26] Ice enforcement is not about politics.
[2:49:29] It's about upholding. The rule.
[2:49:31] Of law and keeping American. communities safe. Every nation
[2:49:35] has the right and. responsibility to decide who
[2:49:37] may enter and remain. within its borders. When individuals
[2:49:41] ignore. These.
[2:49:41] Rules, ICE's enforcement and Removal Operation officers
[2:49:45] identify, arrest, and detain and remove people who are
[2:49:49] unlawfully present or who have final orders of removal.
[2:49:53] Priority is given to those who pose threats to public safety.
[2:49:57] Individuals with criminal convictions pending charges,
[2:50:01] gang affiliations or national security concerns. Removing
[2:50:05] people who have committed serious crimes such as assault,
[2:50:08] sexual offenses, drug trafficking, or homicide
[2:50:12] directly reduces risk to law abiding residents. Enforcement
[2:50:16] also protects the integrity of our legal immigration system.
[2:50:20] Millions of people around the world wait years, follow the
[2:50:23] rules, and invest significant effort to come here lawfully,
[2:50:27] allowing widespread unlawful presence undermines their
[2:50:30] sacrifices and erodes public confidence in the system.
[2:50:34] Strong interior enforcement deters future illegal entries,
[2:50:38] reduces the burden on local communities and taxpayers, and
[2:50:42] ensures that limited resources for housing, schools and health
[2:50:45] care are not overwhelmed. Ice officers operate under the
[2:50:49] authority of statutes passed by Congress. They work with
[2:50:53] federal, state, and local partners, serve detainers on
[2:50:56] individuals already in criminal custody, and carry out court
[2:50:59] ordered removals supporting their mission.
[2:51:05] The next speaker is Craig. Please unmute.
[2:51:12] Uh, yes. Thank you. Greg. Already from Martinez. I think
[2:51:16] a lot of us, uh, you know, have conflicted views on this issue
[2:51:19] because I like most of the speakers, agree that Ice, as is
[2:51:24] currently configured as a lawless, unethical, corrupt
[2:51:27] organization that probably should be abolished, um, and so
[2:51:33] cooperating with them does not serve the interests of our
[2:51:36] community. However, you know, I think what the sheriff says is
[2:51:40] a point well-taken that when you do have people who commit
[2:51:43] crime after crime after crime, and are not here legally and
[2:51:48] not obeying our laws, that does pose a public safety concern
[2:51:52] and public safety threat. And it would be nice if we could,
[2:51:56] uh, address those issues and protect both the immigrant
[2:52:00] community and non immigrants and citizens and non-citizens
[2:52:04] from people who are dangerous along those lines, um, we had a
[2:52:08] tragic situation in my hometown a couple of weeks ago where
[2:52:11] someone who happened to be undocumented, uh, stabbed one
[2:52:15] of our residents to death and outside his home on the
[2:52:18] sidewalk. And, of course, uh, right wing media has latched
[2:52:22] onto that and made this an issue about immigration policy.
[2:52:25] But in this case, it really as far as I can tell, it's not an
[2:52:29] issue about public about immigration policy. The issue
[2:52:32] here is about general policy in terms of our criminal justice
[2:52:38] system, where someone is arrested on a burglary charge,
[2:52:42] released, uh, pretrial, is given an ankle monitor, uh,
[2:52:48] home detention violates that ankle monitor. Roll is brought
[2:52:52] back to the jail, has the ankle monitor taken off and is sent
[2:52:56] home from jail without an ankle monitor. Told to come back in
[2:52:58] two days by the sheriff's office. And today, where he
[2:53:02] does not have an ankle monitor on. He steps one of our
[2:53:04] residents. And I've been trying for two weeks to get some
[2:53:07] explanation to how something like that could happen. That's
[2:53:10] not about ice. That's about common sense. Thank you.
[2:53:15] The next speaker is Mary Fair. Please unmute.
[2:53:20] Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
[2:53:24] Hello. Um, today I'm here representing Monument Impact
[2:53:29] East, Contra Costa rapid Response Coalition. And as an
[2:53:33] undocumented immigrant myself, uh, I grew up in Contra Costa
[2:53:38] County, uh, predominantly in Concord and now living in Bay
[2:53:42] point. I grew up seeing my friends and neighbors be
[2:53:45] impacted by the county's key role during the Bush and Obama
[2:53:49] era deportations. It is so shameful to hear that we have
[2:53:53] not come very far after 20 years. Um, and to hear that our
[2:53:58] county sheriff is co-signing a potential breach of our
[2:54:01] constitutional rights that apply to all of us, no matter
[2:54:05] our immigration status, especially due process. Um, all
[2:54:10] I have heard today is that our sheriff is unable to protect
[2:54:13] residents across the county because of their. Because of
[2:54:16] his own individual beliefs, rather than the health and
[2:54:19] safety of our whole community. I do appreciate Supervisor
[2:54:23] Scales Preston asking a great question, and the answer was
[2:54:26] very clear. It is not illegal to not respond to Ice requests,
[2:54:31] so it is clear that it is a self-interest based decision
[2:54:34] from Sheriff Livingston. It is shameful that local organizers
[2:54:38] are carrying the brunt of the work to protect the community,
[2:54:41] with little to almost no support from the county to
[2:54:44] prevent further harm and trauma. This is a mental health
[2:54:48] issue. This is a foster care issue. This is a community
[2:54:51] safety issue. We must take lead from places like Santa Clara
[2:54:56] County and make sure to stop responding to Ice requests
[2:54:59] altogether. Stop asking for immigration status and
[2:55:02] paperwork and booking. We don't have to track that in the first
[2:55:05] place. Uh, ban ice from using county buildings for any
[2:55:08] operations. Um, they should not be using any of our county
[2:55:12] buildings that are supposed to be safe and sanctuary. Um, you
[2:55:16] we need to unite the bay and make sure we are passing a
[2:55:19] strong county ordinance to end all Ice cooperation.
[2:55:24] The next speaker is Daniel. Please unmute.
[2:55:30] Uh, good morning, board and good morning, community. Uh,
[2:55:32] this is Daniel Romer. I am a 30 year resident of the county and
[2:55:36] an immigration attorney. I spoke last to the board, and I
[2:55:40] explained how, um, the immigration system over the
[2:55:43] past, you know, 35 years has been broken and become more
[2:55:47] broken. And it is the goal of this administration to
[2:55:50] completely deconstruct this system so that more and more
[2:55:54] immigrants are illegal and that they can deport them and get
[2:55:57] their deportation numbers. Um, so we kind of toggle back and
[2:56:01] forth between this kind of, uh, you know, um, idea that we have
[2:56:05] a rule of law and people should follow the rules. And then
[2:56:08] what's going on in the streets, including in our monument
[2:56:11] border, um, of this reign of terror. Um, and so the sheriff
[2:56:15] and others, to be sure, when people call out that terror,
[2:56:19] they say, oh, well, those are, um, that's a fringe element.
[2:56:22] Those are those are the loonies on the left doing that. But I'd
[2:56:25] like to share with you what, um, the conservative icon,
[2:56:28] Jonathan last published last month in his Substack. He said
[2:56:32] this in America, we have become inured to incidents in which
[2:56:36] law enforcement kills civilians. The idea that local
[2:56:39] law enforcement officials can use deadly force at the drop of
[2:56:43] a hat is accepted by the general public, but what the
[2:56:46] federal government has been doing to people assumed to be
[2:56:48] immigrants is different from normal brutality. It is a
[2:56:52] targeted campaign we are witnessing for the first time
[2:56:55] since Jim Crow American death squads. So again, this is a
[2:57:00] Republican Party member, a long time conservative icon.
[2:57:03] Jonathan Last, who writes for the Wall Street Journal and the
[2:57:06] National Review. Uh, so I don't think it's outlandish to call
[2:57:10] what's going on, uh, what it is, which is terror on its
[2:57:14] face. Um, I guess what I'd like to share with you is I recently
[2:57:18] went on a bike ride with a group of people that I ride
[2:57:20] with, and one of the men got up. He said he was a black.
[2:57:24] He's a black man. And he said, you know, these are dangerous
[2:57:26] times that we live in, and we all have to do what we can to
[2:57:30] to stand up and speak up the truth and try to get things
[2:57:33] better. And he said, you know, I'm a black man, so I know I
[2:57:35] have a target on my back for that reason. But he says I have
[2:57:38] some leverage. I'm a man I can use..
[2:57:42] The next speaker is Joanna. Please unmute.
[2:57:50] Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Um. Good morning.
[2:57:55] Uh. Supervisors, my.
[2:57:56] Name is Joanna. I'm here with presenting
[2:57:59] healthy Contra Costa. And again, I just want to say that
[2:58:03] I echo and support the comments made by some of my, some of the
[2:58:06] previous speakers. I think now more than ever is a time where
[2:58:09] we need to come together and truly support and protect our
[2:58:13] immigrant community members. Um, let's not forget that a lot
[2:58:17] of the acts of terror done in this country have actually been
[2:58:19] done by people that were not holding foreign passports, that
[2:58:22] were actually born in the oil. I fear for my safety as an
[2:58:26] American citizen when I go to the movie theaters, when I go
[2:58:28] to the mall, when I go into churches, stores, there's
[2:58:31] literally no place that is safe in this country for people to
[2:58:35] go and to visit without the fear of gun violence being
[2:58:38] present. That usually happens at the hands of an American
[2:58:41] citizen. So again, if you want to talk about crime, let's look
[2:58:44] at the data that supports that. Um, undocumented folks are way,
[2:58:48] way, way less likely to commit violent crimes. And American
[2:58:52] born citizens. Again, if this is truly about safety, let's
[2:58:55] make sure that we're supporting the programs. Um, the the
[2:58:59] initiatives that support people's livelihoods so that
[2:59:01] they don't have to turn to crime. Um, so they don't have
[2:59:04] to go and, you know, abuse substances or do whatever it is
[2:59:08] that they do to cope with the realities of living in this
[2:59:10] country. Um, again, I think now more than ever, we really need
[2:59:14] to assess what is going on in our country. Um, by cutting
[2:59:18] ties with vendors like FLoC that will actively, um, provide
[2:59:23] data, um, to Ice and to the federal government violating
[2:59:27] sometimes contracts that they have with existing cities,
[2:59:30] municipalities. So again, I urge you all to really support
[2:59:34] a non-cooperation ordinance so that these loopholes cannot
[2:59:38] continue to exist in our county policy so that we can actually
[2:59:42] ensure that not just undocumented people are safe,
[2:59:44] but everyone is safe from, um, you know, the terror that is
[2:59:48] currently going on and this administration. Thank you.
[2:59:53] Speaker. Is Pittsburgh Citizen. Please unmute.
[2:59:58] Hello. I'd like to join in.
[3:00:00] The call. asking you to pass. , uh, ice non-cooperation.
[3:00:04] Ordinance. Along with.
[3:00:06] The rest of the. Bay area.
[3:00:07] It's long. Overdue.
[3:00:09] Um. Also asking to end.
[3:00:11] All flock. Contracts within.
[3:00:13] The county. Uh, the sheriff has long shown
[3:00:16] that he does not care what the community wants, what the
[3:00:20] community needs, and your community. needs you to step up
[3:00:24] and join the rest of the bay and end all Ice cooperation.
[3:00:28] Thank you. There are no more public
[3:00:31] comments. All right. Thank you. I'm going
[3:00:37] to start down here with Supervisor Scales Preston, and
[3:00:40] then I'll work my way down. Or did you want to go first?
[3:00:42] Because I. Know I just had questions. I
[3:00:44] wasn't going to make comments and just some follow up
[3:00:46] questions. Okay. Go ahead sir. Um, to the sheriff. Are you
[3:00:50] sharing any of your facilities or office space with Ice? This
[3:00:54] was brought up by several people that some there's some
[3:00:56] level of cooperation. No, none.
[3:00:59] Okay. And you're not aware of any other county facilities
[3:01:04] that Ice is utilizing? Okay. Just wanted to make. Okay. The
[3:01:08] stop, um, reimbursement issue. What information is provided?
[3:01:13] You started your remarks earlier today or you stated
[3:01:15] your remarks earlier today that typically Ice is notified that
[3:01:20] we have someone who is incarcerated in one of our
[3:01:22] jails based upon the DOJ database. They're fingerprinted
[3:01:26] when they are arrested and are presented at our jail. Is a lot
[3:01:30] of additional information provided when we seek
[3:01:33] reimbursement, which is a long standing program to reimburse
[3:01:36] us for the expense of housing. People who have beenonvicted
[3:01:39] of a crime in our facilities. There's not a lot of additional
[3:01:43] information. We, like most agencies, do this pro forma.
[3:01:47] It's actually administrative task to go through the course
[3:01:50] of the reporting period to determine who is in custody
[3:01:53] that is here illegally in the United States. And the federal
[3:01:57] government reimburses us regardless of interaction with
[3:02:01] Ice or anything else, that that number is typically around
[3:02:05] 800,000 a year, which actually goes into our revenue line for
[3:02:09] our budget with the county administrator. We haven't seen
[3:02:13] the number yet this year. We're not sure what that number will
[3:02:15] be. It varies each year, but it's it's administrative. It's
[3:02:19] reimbursing local jails essentially for holding those
[3:02:23] that are undocumented or here illegally.
[3:02:26] But it's not a contract with Ice. I just want to make that.
[3:02:29] Very clear. Okay. Um, other question. While
[3:02:32] it's not on our agenda, we don't have any flat camera, um,
[3:02:36] contracts before us at this time. What is your
[3:02:40] understanding? And again, I utilize, I utilize I have
[3:02:44] utilized cameras in my district extensively. They have been an
[3:02:47] amazing tool to prevent crimes because they aren't facial
[3:02:52] recognition cameras. They show a license plate. They show a
[3:02:55] vehicle color, make, etc. but it was my understanding several
[3:02:59] years ago when we started installing more flock cameras,
[3:03:03] there were very narrow restrictions on where this data
[3:03:05] can be shared. Um, can you comment on that as well?
[3:03:09] Because we're getting these allegations of you must cancel
[3:03:12] Ice contracts because you're sharing that data with Ice and
[3:03:15] they are out there utilizing it to track non-citizens.
[3:03:19] So many years ago, we told FLoC, we do not want our data
[3:03:24] shared and it has not been shared as far as we know.
[3:03:27] That's what they have, uh, informed us. But we also have
[3:03:31] recourse. We have vigilant. There are other vendors that
[3:03:34] provide cameras. And you're right, they are an incredible
[3:03:38] investigative tool. They do deter crimes, particularly in
[3:03:42] cities that have them and notify the community that
[3:03:46] they're out and recording license plates. Our policy is
[3:03:49] very clear. We hold the data for one year maximum, and that
[3:03:54] is always subject to adjustment as well. But the idea is that
[3:03:58] it's an investigative tool. That's that's all it is for us.
[3:04:01] And as I mentioned, there are several vendors, not just FLoC
[3:04:04] that happens to be receiving the attention today.
[3:04:07] Thank you so much. Those are your questions. Our
[3:04:12] questions. One of my I, I've been listening and I just just
[3:04:20] generally. I'm curious. We've been we've talked I've asked
[3:04:26] this question in the past. We don't get the data on the
[3:04:31] victims of these crimes. So we don't know if these are folks
[3:04:36] from those vulnerable communities, but it has been
[3:04:39] discussed that because of these times, people are afraid to
[3:04:44] report certain crimes and that often they are the victims of
[3:04:49] this crime. Do you have anything to say about that?
[3:04:52] Our our experience doesn't show that. I know that's a common
[3:04:55] talking point, but the reality is that when you see 92
[3:04:59] notifications, it's essentially 92 victims that are also that
[3:05:03] also need to be taken consideration of. And that's my
[3:05:07] job as sheriff. And some of these offenses are robberies.
[3:05:11] They are burglaries. They are child molesters. They are
[3:05:14] rapes. In some cases, homicide. And again, we're talking 12% of
[3:05:19] what I was asked to notify Ice. I only complied in 12% of the
[3:05:24] cases. And that's because we follow state law very
[3:05:27] carefully. And this is a tool. Whatever Ice decides to do, at
[3:05:33] least we may impact that cycle of crime. When you look at some
[3:05:37] of these individual cases, there's a laundry list of prior
[3:05:41] crimes from those offenders. Yeah. I'm just curious about
[3:05:46] the victims of a lot of these crimes that, you know, we don't
[3:05:49] know if they're also members of the the folks that are being
[3:05:54] targeted as well. Okay. I am going to give folks a chance to
[3:05:59] now make their comments. If anybody wants to. Action. That
[3:06:03] was right. I have a question.
[3:06:04] Go ahead. Thank you.
[3:06:06] Um, so when those individuals they're charged here in the
[3:06:11] county, um, let's say if it was a rape or a burglary or
[3:06:16] whatever other issue it was, they'll do their time here in
[3:06:21] the county, right? Not necessarily know.
[3:06:24] So what what would happen to them. Because they'll get
[3:06:28] fingerprinted ice to know why they're being charged here.
[3:06:31] Right. And then what happens after that.
[3:06:34] So when their case is adjudicated locally in Superior
[3:06:38] Court, if the judge imposes a penalty, particularly for a
[3:06:42] rape or child molest, that person is transferred to,
[3:06:47] excuse me, state prison. So we would only hold that person
[3:06:50] during the pendency of their criminal trial. You know, as of
[3:06:54] last count, we had nearly 200 inmates facing murder charges
[3:06:58] in this county. Those can take years to resolve. Those
[3:07:01] individuals are my responsibility as the sheriff
[3:07:04] to keep in custody until the case is resolved. In 96% of the
[3:07:10] cases, the individual either pleads guilty or is found
[3:07:13] guilty. In that case, they are transferred within days to the
[3:07:17] state prison system. But without notifying Ice, they
[3:07:22] still will go to it through a regular process. As someone who
[3:07:27] is a US citizen. Yes.
[3:07:33] Okay, so I think, I don't know. For me it's just hard to
[3:07:38] understand, like why are we keep contacting Ice? Like, I
[3:07:42] just don't understand. I guess the notifications, because if
[3:07:48] they're going to be charged just like a US citizen and
[3:07:51] they're undocumented, then they're going to pay for the
[3:07:53] crime that they convicted, that they're convicted of. Right.
[3:07:58] Um, so it seems like it makes even more of a case now that we
[3:08:02] shouldn't provide any communication with Ice or have
[3:08:06] any type of notification, because Ice already has that
[3:08:09] information once they're charged, they're going to go
[3:08:12] through the legal process for whatever crime they are
[3:08:15] convicted of, and they'll get transferred to state prison or
[3:08:21] if they if Ice comes with a ward or a court order, they'll
[3:08:24] come and do their part. So I still don't understand why
[3:08:28] we're providing notifications to Ice that the system is
[3:08:31] working the way it's supposed to work.
[3:08:33] The ice notifications are for releases from our custody, so
[3:08:38] if they are transferred to state prison, which a person
[3:08:42] convicted of a major felony or serious violent felony would
[3:08:45] be, then Ice would deal with the state prison system. So
[3:08:49] that's the difference. If that person is being released
[3:08:53] pending charges, additional follow up investigation, no
[3:08:56] charges, what have you. If they have qualifying offenses, those
[3:09:01] are the ones that we notify on. Thank you.
[3:09:08] I think that's all the questions. Does anybody want to
[3:09:11] make some statements. Go ahead..
[3:09:15] Okay. Well and I'm going to start out with something I've
[3:09:18] said. And I vehemently believe it. The vast majority of
[3:09:24] immigrants within our Contra Costa County are, regardless of
[3:09:29] their legal status, are good people. They are law abiding.
[3:09:33] They are hardworking in many cases taxpaying. They are
[3:09:37] seeking the same American dream that my ancestors came to the
[3:09:41] United States for. And so I've got to say, we can't say that
[3:09:45] anything we're talking about today is broadly talking about
[3:09:49] all of our immigrant population today. We're talking about a
[3:09:53] very narrow cooperation under SB 54 of those who are here
[3:10:00] without documentation, who have committed very serious crimes.
[3:10:05] And I've got to say, um, you know, when we look at what's
[3:10:08] going on, it is frightening. And I've got to agree with you
[3:10:12] 100%. None of us, I think, could have anticipated there
[3:10:16] would be a day where we would see ice randomly picking people
[3:10:20] up off the street, or people showing up at an ice hearing,
[3:10:24] or Ice agent showing up at a public hearing, a criminal is
[3:10:29] being treated as criminals when in fact they have come to this
[3:10:32] country. They have applied for asylum. They're on a pathway to
[3:10:36] citizenship. They may have a green card, they may be here on
[3:10:39] a visa, yet they are being pulled out when they show up
[3:10:42] for their court appearances. I find it reprehensible. I'm not
[3:10:45] supportive of it in my own family. As I was speaking to my
[3:10:49] son in law, whose mother is originally from Indonesia, she
[3:10:54] is a U.S. citizen, yet she carries her passport with her
[3:10:58] out of I fear that because she doesn't
[3:11:02] look like an American citizen, that she might get pulled over
[3:11:05] by ice. And it is shocking to me that I see this happening.
[3:11:10] But I do want to distinguish that we do have to today, focus
[3:11:14] on what we're talking about, which is those who are in the
[3:11:18] country who commit serious crimes, and there are victims
[3:11:22] as a share of is continuing to point out, we are leaving
[3:11:26] victims in the wake. And I don't think w should be
[3:11:28] conflating these two issues with the immigrant immigration
[3:11:32] issue. The crisis that we are facing overall, I am of the
[3:11:38] belief that people who are here without documentation, who do
[3:11:41] commit serious crimes, don't deserve or should have that
[3:11:45] expectation that they should remain in the country even if
[3:11:49] they've paid their debt to society by being by serving
[3:11:53] time in prison. Today, it was very illustrative to see how
[3:11:57] many of the people who were notified on the Who. We
[3:12:02] received the request. We notified have an extensive
[3:12:06] criminal record. And as I'm out meeting with people in the
[3:12:09] community and I talk about this issue a lot because there is so
[3:12:14] much fear about ISIS actions, about immigration, I will say
[3:12:19] that the vast majority of people I speak to do not
[3:12:24] believe that people who commit serious crimes should be
[3:12:27] allowed to remain in the country. They don't like ISIS
[3:12:30] actions, they don't like what is happening when people are
[3:12:32] being pulled off the street or out of a legitimate court
[3:12:35] hearing that they're at, but they do not believe that people
[3:12:39] who commit serious crimes should remain in this country.
[3:12:41] So I am very supportive of the way the measured response to
[3:12:45] the sheriff has been taking with this, where it's not every
[3:12:48] single request from Ice is being responded to, but those
[3:12:51] 12% cases that truly meet the SB 54 standard, and we have a
[3:12:57] very progressive legislature. And if they felt that SB 54 did
[3:13:01] not set some significant guidelines, they would not
[3:13:05] hesitate to change SB 54 and limited even further if they
[3:13:10] did not believe we had those guardrails in place to ensure
[3:13:13] that innocent citizens or innocent non-citizens who are
[3:13:17] here in the country were given a pathway to deportation. And
[3:13:22] so I think it's very important that we really focus on what
[3:13:25] does SB 54 allow. Are we complying with that? That's the
[3:13:29] purpose of the forum, and I've not heard anything today
[3:13:32] indicating that we are not only not that we are fully compliant
[3:13:37] with it, but also we are taking a very measured response to it.
[3:13:40] Nothing we are doing is could reasonably be deemed
[3:13:44] cooperation with Ice. We do not provide the meeting rooms. The
[3:13:48] sheriff's indicated we do not interview with individuals. We
[3:13:51] are not participating in any Ice raids, and I think that's
[3:13:55] got to be a message that is put out in the community. And with
[3:13:59] regard to the flock cameras, to me, they are a very, very
[3:14:03] valuable tool in law enforcement. None of us have an
[3:14:07] expectation of privacy when we are on a public road, driving a
[3:14:12] car to the extent of an expectation of privacy that our
[3:14:17] make model of our car and our license plate will not be. That
[3:14:21] information will not be gathered. I think that's
[3:14:23] critical. And to me, it's something where I do not
[3:14:26] believe. We want to see a reduction in flock cameras
[3:14:30] because they do prevent many, many crimes by notifying police
[3:14:35] when some when a vehicle affiliated with a felony, a
[3:14:38] stolen vehicle enters into a community. So I am very
[3:14:42] supportive of us continuing with those. And those are my
[3:14:46] remarks. But I have been patient. No.
[3:14:52] Um, first and foremost, I would agree with Supervisor Anderson,
[3:14:56] and we're here about the Truth Act. Um, specifically and how
[3:15:01] we're focused in on on our direct what I'll call direct,
[3:15:06] um, cooperation or work with Ice in the sense of responding
[3:15:10] to these requests for notification. But it does give
[3:15:13] us the foundational discussion and even broader discussion as
[3:15:16] we move to our September conversation on our policies in
[3:15:21] non cooperation with Ice specifically. And I think one
[3:15:25] of the recurring themes we've heard here today is especially
[3:15:29] when it comes to flock cameras, but another sense that the
[3:15:33] tactics that are used by DHS and Ice in mining our systems,
[3:15:38] no matter what that is, um, to further their immigration
[3:15:42] enforcement policies and actions. And I think that's a
[3:15:46] theme that we're hearing that the community wants us to
[3:15:49] protect that data, protect that information in order to to be,
[3:15:55] you know, protecting our community and, and keep them
[3:15:58] safe. So I think what we're hearing a lot of today, there
[3:16:01] are definitely questions I have is we come out of here. Um, but
[3:16:05] what we look at when we move into our conversations, which I
[3:16:08] hope is again, September 8th to discuss, you know, our policies
[3:16:13] make us stand on our values and communicate that clearly to the
[3:16:17] community. And I said this in our last conversations, but I
[3:16:20] also do not want to give a false sense of security or
[3:16:26] safety when we're talking about a federal administration who we
[3:16:31] do not have the power to preempt and or control. So it
[3:16:36] has to be those things we can control those actions. We can
[3:16:40] take. And again, I look forward to those discussions as we move
[3:16:44] forward. You know, we've spent 18 months in the equity
[3:16:47] committee having these conversations. And I think it's
[3:16:50] incumbent upon us to follow through on that and bring that
[3:16:54] to closure. So thanks. Thank you. Um, and I appreciate
[3:17:06] all of the discussion today. I appreciate all the public
[3:17:08] comment and from hearing from my colleagues. I think what
[3:17:12] we're hearing today is quite simple. It's not quite
[3:17:16] complicated at all. Community is just asking for you to stand
[3:17:19] in community and support them. They want to feel. They want to
[3:17:30] feel that the people they elected support them. They want
[3:17:33] to feel that our public safety support them, our staff support
[3:17:39] them is is not complicated at all. I think we make it
[3:17:43] complicated and the way we don't make it complicated is is
[3:17:49] simple. It's saying that we're not going to cooperate with Ice.
[3:17:54] We are going to follow the law. And if someone's doing
[3:17:56] something wrong, they should be convicted and processed. And I
[3:18:00] understand that, um, I have someone who father was killed
[3:18:06] by his brother. I understand that people should go to jail
[3:18:10] for the crimes that they do, and they should be convicted of
[3:18:13] those crimes, so I'm not against that at all. I think
[3:18:17] what we see across the nation, and then we look locally here
[3:18:21] in our community, those actions are taking place in our
[3:18:24] community. And so how do we come together as here as our
[3:18:30] Contra Costa family, to make sure that our immigrant
[3:18:34] community feel protected. And that is not difficult. We
[3:18:40] cannot stop Ice. That's correct. But we can stand in
[3:18:44] unity to say that we're not going to work with them. And so
[3:18:47] if they are in our community, we're not going to allow them
[3:18:49] to be in our facilities. We're not going to allow them to be
[3:18:51] in our health care facilities. They can't go to a Head Start
[3:18:55] location. They can't go into any of our public safety areas.
[3:19:00] They can't come to empty lots and stage. I mean, these are
[3:19:04] just simple little things. I think community is asking. I
[3:19:08] just don't feel like it's that complicated. And as we go into
[3:19:10] our next conversation in a couple of weeks to talk about
[3:19:14] an ordinance or a policy, that's another place where
[3:19:18] community is just asking you to stand in community. They know
[3:19:21] that you can't protect them at the gas station or the grocery
[3:19:23] store. They just want to know that you all support them, and
[3:19:28] making sure that ice is not cooperating together in any
[3:19:35] kind of way, whatever that is. No information being shared,
[3:19:39] that's all. Or they're asking for. So I hope that as we move
[3:19:44] forward in the next couple of weeks, we can think about that
[3:19:46] of how we're not going to cooperate at all. Thank you.
[3:20:01] I have a question related to the work we're doing for the
[3:20:06] September 8th meeting. Um, Tom, does the requirements that AG
[3:20:13] Bonta has asked us to and work incorporating, you know, those
[3:20:17] things do those things impact the the work that we're talking
[3:20:22] about today on the sheriff's interactions?
[3:20:29] Uh, to some extent they do. But to another extent they don't.
[3:20:33] Um, and I'll be. really good. It is a good answer. So I'll be
[3:20:37] able to explain that more on the eighth. But the attorney
[3:20:40] general has already issued guidance that the sheriff, uh,
[3:20:44] follows. And so I'll be able to explain kind of how the two
[3:20:48] interact. Yeah, just I'm just trying to
[3:20:49] help people kind of understand where that is. And, um, there's
[3:20:57] been some questions related to, um, ordinances and policies
[3:21:02] related. I know this is an agenda, but it's sort of
[3:21:05] connected. So you're going to have to be generous with me. Um,
[3:21:10] one of the conditions, one of the concerns is our, um,
[3:21:15] agreements with our contractors to align with what we're doing.
[3:21:20] Does that apply to, like, someone like flock?
[3:21:27] So I'll be able to explain that as well on the eighth. But, um,
[3:21:31] in general, I mean, if the board does, uh, you know, want
[3:21:35] to establish, uh, restrictions on contractors, there'll be,
[3:21:38] uh, they'll apply to contracts going forward. Um, and not
[3:21:42] necessarily contracts that are already in existence.
[3:21:44] So there is that opportunity to, to have that influence,
[3:21:48] possibly. Yes. That that'll be kind of
[3:21:52] one of the options that the board will.
[3:21:54] Sorry. We'll be able to discuss.
[3:21:56] Thanks, Tom. Go ahead John. Thanks. And I'll start by
[3:22:00] always thanking the public that shows up to advocate during
[3:22:04] these really trying, challenging times. And thanks
[3:22:06] to the Sheriff's department for collecting more data. We've
[3:22:09] asked always for more and appreciate getting more
[3:22:12] information. Um, we've had a few of these truth Act forms,
[3:22:17] and I think what we're seeing in the last couple of years,
[3:22:21] more and more and we know this, we feel this, we here, this is
[3:22:25] the the frustration, anger, um, and other really strong
[3:22:32] feelings with what's happening in this country and the way ice
[3:22:35] is acting. Um, ice is, um, murdering of American citizens.
[3:22:41] ICE's, um, splitting of families. And I think that's
[3:22:45] what we're seeing. That's what we're feeling is that ice is
[3:22:50] doing things that we never expected or wanted, or that it
[3:22:55] should be doing. And I think that's what we feel. That's
[3:22:57] what we see through these, um, through these the testimony and
[3:23:01] why it's reflected. Um, here and, and at other meetings,
[3:23:06] including on September 8th. So just a couple of observations,
[3:23:10] a few things I've always said, um, no matter who the sheriff
[3:23:14] is, I think we should have always have sheriff oversight,
[3:23:19] whether it's through an inspector general or a
[3:23:21] citizen's oversight committee. I've taken that position
[3:23:24] constantly. I voted that way. Just hasn't received majority
[3:23:27] support. And I say that whoever the sheriff is, I think that's
[3:23:30] the model that we should have. Second, um, I know on September
[3:23:38] 8th we will be having a discussion about our policies.
[3:23:43] Um, I do support a stronger, um, ordinance. We'll have that
[3:23:48] discussion. I won't get into that today. And I look forward
[3:23:51] to having that, which is a separate I understand it's
[3:23:56] related here somewhat, but it's a separate issue. Right. So
[3:23:59] that's going to be, I think, a vibrant discussion. And I
[3:24:01] appreciate that the board is has directed county council to
[3:24:06] come back with some more options and information, and
[3:24:09] we'll see where the board goes on that. I will say, because I
[3:24:13] serve on the Joint Conference committee to oversee the
[3:24:16] hospital and clinics, along with my colleague, Supervisor
[3:24:20] Carlson, and two physicians, um, the the Joint Conference
[3:24:25] Committee, which is tasked with setting policies for our
[3:24:28] hospital and 11 clinics, has passed a policy on
[3:24:33] non-cooperation with Ice. Now, some want us the policy to
[3:24:37] include some elements that are in LA county's that go beyond
[3:24:40] what's in Santa Clara or Alameda or even San Francisco.
[3:24:43] And so we'll be taking that issue up again. But I want to
[3:24:46] be clear, we did pass a policy that specifically addresses how
[3:24:52] we limit Ice in our health facilities, because that's
[3:24:55] that's a separate thing from this September 8th discussion.
[3:24:59] I'm sure it may get wrapped up in it, but it's a policy
[3:25:02] because we're a health. We're also a health agency. Um, so
[3:25:08] just just to clarify that, um, I have I have always said that
[3:25:13] I believe the line of which serious crimes and felonies
[3:25:18] that we should be informing, notifying Ice about is a
[3:25:23] different line than where the sheriff's drawing the line. I
[3:25:26] do believe that. I know there's been some discussion about
[3:25:28] that. Um, and, um, I thought, you know, Craig Lazaridis
[3:25:33] comment is an interesting one because I think a lot of people
[3:25:36] reflect where Craig's comment who the Martinez resident who
[3:25:40] said, um, because I hear this also from residents in Richmond
[3:25:44] and San Pablo. Um, we, we think what Ice is doing is wrong. We
[3:25:50] need to limit our cooperation with Ice. We need to be we need
[3:25:54] to also limit, um, the sheriff's cooperation with Ice.
[3:25:58] But there are certain types of serious crimes and felonies
[3:26:03] that we don't want to release, whoever they are. So I think we
[3:26:07] have to acknowledge that there are people who feel that way,
[3:26:09] people who are strongly critical of Ice, strongly
[3:26:12] critical of what's happening, who feel, and including in
[3:26:15] cities like Richmond who feel we need we need to figure this
[3:26:18] out. Um, and so I've always said, I think the sheriff's
[3:26:23] line is, is not where I think it should be. Um, are there
[3:26:26] some serious crimes and felonies in which there should
[3:26:30] be notification? I think there's a lot of people who
[3:26:33] believe we need to figure out what that right line is. Now,
[3:26:37] the other thing is, whatever this board says, um, and I
[3:26:41] think others have pointed out what's happening in San Diego,
[3:26:45] um, in San Diego County, of the Board of Supervisors providing
[3:26:49] the direction to do something, and the sheriff not doing it
[3:26:52] because under state constitutional law, the sheriff
[3:26:55] has independent authority in other counties, like in Santa
[3:26:59] Clara, the Board of Supervisors and the sheriff are on the same
[3:27:01] page or in or in other counties, I think the same in
[3:27:05] Alameda. In some counties they're not. So our ability as
[3:27:10] a board, I think there's things we can do. What? But if if five
[3:27:15] members of the board said, we don't want you to cooperate at
[3:27:18] all, and the sheriff decided to do his own thing, that's what
[3:27:23] the law would allow the sheriff to do, despite what we say. And
[3:27:26] that's what's happening in San Diego County. What I, I think
[3:27:29] we need to continue to strengthen our policies. I'm
[3:27:31] looking forward to doing that on September 8th when this
[3:27:34] comes before us even looking at what do we do more with
[3:27:37] hospital and clinics? And I believe the line should be
[3:27:41] drawn differently than where the sheriff's drawing the line.
[3:27:44] But I don't quite go as far as saying no cooperation at all,
[3:27:47] because I do think there are some who believe that that
[3:27:50] very, very serious felonies, there should be some ability to
[3:27:54] notify, just that I don't believe the line is in the
[3:27:57] right place. So I think I've always been up front. That's
[3:28:00] where I'm coming from, all these things. Um, now, if we
[3:28:03] had additional sheriff oversight, um, we could do some
[3:28:07] other things because the sheriff oversight would have
[3:28:10] subpoena power. State law gives it subpoena power. We do get
[3:28:13] quarterly reports, which I appreciate, from the sheriff's
[3:28:16] office. He's provided more data. I just believe as a
[3:28:19] matter of structure, we should have official oversight
[3:28:22] established under state law, which we we haven't done yet as
[3:28:25] a board. So, um, I'm looking forward to continuing to
[3:28:31] advocate consistent with what I just said. And on September
[3:28:34] 8th, supporting the stronger ordinance. And we'll see where
[3:28:38] we go. I, I, I think my colleagues
[3:28:48] have said it very well. Um, I appreciate the public
[3:28:55] participating. I think it is unprecedented times. And
[3:29:02] there's a lot of different things that we need to do to
[3:29:05] help people feel safer. Um, as we approach the September 8th
[3:29:11] meeting, I'm also interested in knowing what all of our cities
[3:29:15] and major agencies, policies or ordinances are that apply to
[3:29:21] what we're considering, because I think that folks don't
[3:29:25] realize that a lot of the work we do is only applicable to
[3:29:31] unincorporated Contra Costa, or within our county buildings.
[3:29:35] And I think if, uh, if people are truly committed to Contra
[3:29:39] Costa as a whole, it's got to be everyone. So hopefully, uh,
[3:29:45] during that staff report, we will see what these other
[3:29:48] cities and agencies like Bart or CHP or East Bay Regional
[3:29:54] Park, you know, all of these different agencies that also
[3:29:56] participate. Uh, what their ordinances and policies are.
[3:30:00] Because if we're going to do something, we all have to be in
[3:30:03] it together. So at this point, there's no action on this
[3:30:07] particular item. Correct. So thank you for everyone
[3:30:12] participating. And we're going to move on to the next.
[3:30:15] Please come back on September 8th. I'm sure you will.
[3:30:19] I'm sure they will. Um, it is 1220. We have a very important
[3:30:27] presentation, uh, from Doctor Colfax. Um, I think we'll take
[3:30:33] that. And then we're going to go to lunch for a short amount
[3:30:37] of time, and then we'll come back for the rest of the
[3:30:40] meeting. So if you are here for something other than Doctor
[3:30:44] Colfax presentation, I just want to let you know. So we're
[3:30:49] going to do Doctor Colfax presentation now.
[3:30:54] Is that okay? Yes.
[3:30:59] Everybody's going to do a coffee bathroom break. We'll be
[3:31:03] back in five minutes. Our next item to be discussed is
[3:37:30] consider accepting a report on Contra Costa Health's current
[3:37:33] fiscal outlook and long term planning for Contra Costa
[3:37:38] Regional Medical Center and health centers, as recommended
[3:37:42] by the Health Services Director, and to provide
[3:37:44] guidance. We have doctor Grant Colfax, our Health Service
[3:37:47] director. We have Andrew Morrell, our chief financial
[3:37:51] officer. Is this the first time you're here in the board
[3:37:54] meeting? I don't yeah, I thought so. This was new. Um,
[3:37:59] our chief and David Culberson, our chief executive officer for
[3:38:04] Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and health centers.
[3:38:07] You've been here a number of times. So. So welcome. Uh, this
[3:38:12] is a really important presentation. And, uh, I think
[3:38:18] this is something that people are going to come back and
[3:38:22] watch even when they're not here today. So this is really
[3:38:25] important. So take it away. Well thank you, chair, and good
[3:38:32] afternoon. Board and members of the public public, it's a
[3:38:36] pleasure to be with you to present an update on the fiscal
[3:38:39] outlook of Contra Costa Health, including with a focus on
[3:38:42] Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. Um, first, the good
[3:38:47] news, the short term fiscal picture for Contra Costa Health
[3:38:51] has improved. This is due to the very hard work of people
[3:38:55] across Contra Costa Health who remain firmly dedicated to
[3:38:58] providing the highest quality health care for everyone in
[3:39:01] Contra Costa, including an especially the most vulnerable.
[3:39:06] However, due to severe reductions in funding from H.R.
[3:39:10] one and recent state policies, the long term fiscal status of
[3:39:14] Contra Costa Health remains dire, as it does for public
[3:39:17] health systems across the region, state and country. The
[3:39:23] fact is that the big picture is that we and no county, will be
[3:39:27] able to make up the severity of the federal and state
[3:39:30] reductions. Our health care system, and especially the
[3:39:33] hospital, remains a grave risk. And I think it's important to
[3:39:38] remember that behind these fiscal numbers, our lives at
[3:39:42] risk, people at risk of losing their health insurance have not
[3:39:46] been able to access care, of delaying care for themselves or
[3:39:49] their loved ones. We know that without coverage, without
[3:39:53] health care coverage, people get sicker. And some people
[3:39:57] will die sooner. I trained in the days before Obamacare and
[3:40:03] frequently saw people with late diagnoses, whether it be
[3:40:06] cancer, infections or behavioral health diagnoses,
[3:40:10] suffering in emergency rooms because they didn't have the
[3:40:13] coverage or a place to go for their care. We don't want to go
[3:40:17] back to those days. That is why we need your leadersp,
[3:40:21] support and guidance as we face a challenge as we face
[3:40:24] challenging and a fiscally bleak picture. Despite what the
[3:40:28] potential future holds under H.R. one, I am hopeful and
[3:40:32] optimistic that the future can be different. In a future where
[3:40:37] the creativity, resilience, and commitment of the Contra Costa
[3:40:40] Health Team and our community partners and you allow us to
[3:40:45] continue to serve the community and meet the needs of the most
[3:40:47] vulnerable. This will take hard work at the local level to
[3:40:51] modernize and improve our systems of care. It will
[3:40:54] require prioritizing and making hard decisions, and even more
[3:41:01] importantly, because we cannot do it alone, it will require
[3:41:04] reversing the impact of H.R. one or creating and
[3:41:06] implementing new policies for sufficient health care funding
[3:41:10] to provide care. Thank you for your support, and I'll turn it
[3:41:13] over to Drew Merrill to go through the numbers.
[3:41:19] Good afternoon. Supervisors.
[3:41:21] Drew Morales, CFO. Happy to be here and presenting, uh,
[3:41:25] starting with the slides we'll go through an overview of this
[3:41:29] discussion today. We'll go to the second slide. Um, really
[3:41:33] starting with the changing landscape. So what's changed?
[3:41:37] How is HR one state budget impacted. How do we see it
[3:41:40] impacting Contra Costa Health. Um what we're doing our
[3:41:43] response. How are we adapting to the fiscal environment. And
[3:41:47] then really drilling into where the impact is the greatest at
[3:41:52] our county hospital and clinic system Caremark and how we're
[3:41:56] adapting and planning to modernize the county's hospital
[3:41:59] to meet future community needs. Some takeaways that want to hit
[3:42:05] right off the bat. Um, we have made near-term progress. We
[3:42:09] passed a budget, um, for 26, 27 with a $80 million deficit.
[3:42:15] We've identified $70 million of initiatives that will help us
[3:42:20] reduce that deficit to $10 million in the current fiscal
[3:42:23] year, which is an important progress, but doesn't change
[3:42:27] the underlying reality. Uh, HR one is the country's largest
[3:42:31] cut to Medicaid in its history. In the program's history, um,
[3:42:35] that leads to what we project and expect to be in a
[3:42:38] cumulative, cumulative $730 million deficit through 30, 31.
[3:42:44] Um, and that is most directly impacting the county's hospital
[3:42:48] and clinic network. Uh, that's where we face the steepest
[3:42:52] fiscal challenge that requires long term planning and to
[3:42:55] preserve the care for our community.
[3:42:59] Next slide. So as we approach this budget
[3:43:04] planning, as we approach both closing the 2627 deficit and
[3:43:09] most fundamentally, the 730 million for the cumulative
[3:43:13] deficit, we want to keep certain principles in mind, uh,
[3:43:16] prioritizing cares, which means prioritizing direct care in
[3:43:20] essential community services, preserving access, protecting
[3:43:25] access to care and services, especially for underserved and
[3:43:29] historically marginalized communities. And finally, we
[3:43:32] know we will need to manage more efficiently. We'll manage
[3:43:36] more efficiently with a smaller workforce, but we have to do
[3:43:39] that while minimizing layoffs. Next slide.
[3:43:44] So specifics of the numbers. As I stated, 2627 budget. We see a
[3:43:49] path to reducing that deficit from 80 to 10 through a variety
[3:43:53] of revenue and revenue capture initiatives and cost
[3:43:56] containment. Um, that doesn't change the long term fiscal
[3:44:01] outlook, which is a cumulative $730 million deficit. Um, that
[3:44:07] requires, um, really deep review and long term planning
[3:44:12] to close. Next slide. So the specifics of what we're doing
[3:44:18] in the medium term for cost containment and revenue and
[3:44:20] productivity, we've identified initiatives that we believe
[3:44:23] will yield $25 million of additional revenue immediately
[3:44:27] through provider productivity and improved scheduling. Um,
[3:44:30] that's not just at CCRC, that's at behavioral health in revenue
[3:44:36] approaches that we're already seeing. We feel confident we
[3:44:39] can hit these numbers. That includes restructuring of the
[3:44:44] commercial plan, uh, run by our health. The health plan to both
[3:44:50] rebalance the rates so that we're not incurring medical
[3:44:54] expenses in excess of the of the member fees, as well as
[3:45:00] improving access at Caremark. So we expect that another $15
[3:45:05] million certain improvements for coding, billing and
[3:45:09] credentialing to address denials, to address, to make
[3:45:12] sure that we are pulling down revenue wherever we're entitled
[3:45:15] to a reimbursement, expecting about $5 million and then
[3:45:19] optimizing service lines and counting billing opportunities,
[3:45:23] which primarily is detention billing, uh, enabled through
[3:45:27] Kelly and Justice involved. That's those initiatives. We
[3:45:32] expect about $50 million of additional revenue to be pulled
[3:45:35] down. Um, and that's paired with certain cost containment
[3:45:38] efforts. Um, most most importantly, with our health
[3:45:42] plan, medical cost management. So really looking at
[3:45:45] utilization and our provider contracts to find opportunities
[3:45:49] for reducing and retaining services where they're being
[3:45:54] provided out of our network, hiring, prioritization, um,
[3:45:58] taking enterprise view before we do any new hiring to make
[3:46:02] sure that's consistent with the with the organization's
[3:46:04] priorities, it contract reductions, looking at our IT
[3:46:09] contracts, finding opportunities to tighten our
[3:46:12] belts, preserve services. But find it reduce reduce some of
[3:46:17] our contract spending where we can. And then finally
[3:46:20] restructuring community supports, identifying community
[3:46:23] supports that don't have alternatives, making sure we're
[3:46:28] focused on those we think that will yield about $1 million of
[3:46:30] savings. So all told, that contributes $70 million in the
[3:46:35] immediate term, leaving us with a 10 million expected $10
[3:46:38] million deficit this year. Uh, the underlying $730 million for
[3:46:43] maintenance. And just on the next slide, providing an
[3:46:48] overview, as we've discussed previously, um, a lot of what
[3:46:54] was in HR one was structured to take effect in a sort of
[3:46:58] delayed fashion. That delay has come, and in the next 18 months
[3:47:04] is really where the impact of HR one funding cuts,
[3:47:08] restrictions on eligibility and other state budget changes take
[3:47:12] effect. This slide gives you a timeline to just understand
[3:47:17] what's happening over these 18 months. Um, certain highlights
[3:47:21] January, this January coming work requirements and six month
[3:47:25] renewals take effect. People will be moved out of Medi-Cal
[3:47:28] eligibility, and that includes a state budget change that will
[3:47:33] reduce what we expect about 47,000 residents to be moved
[3:47:37] out of the managed health managed care, managed Medi-Cal
[3:47:41] plan in July of 2027. Um, the reimbursement for that
[3:47:47] population actually falls down to fee for service rates. So
[3:47:52] that for any members still in Medi-Cal, they no longer are in
[3:47:57] the plan. They no longer are reimbursed for at our primary
[3:48:00] care costs, and we only receive about $0.10 on the dollar. In
[3:48:05] October of 2027, our global payment program ends, which is
[3:48:09] a program providing reimbursement for delivering
[3:48:14] primary care and preventative services for the uninsured. And
[3:48:18] that funding goes away. In October. And then ongoing in
[3:48:23] January of 2028. Certain supplemental payments begin to
[3:48:27] be reintroduced down to a Medicare rates. Um, that we
[3:48:33] will give you the numbers on the next slide will have
[3:48:35] dramatic impacts on our funding. Um, throughout it,
[3:48:39] throughout all of these changes, we retain
[3:48:41] responsibility at the county hospital for screening and
[3:48:44] stabilizing everyone that comes in to receive care at the most
[3:48:47] expensive, most intensive level of service. That responsibility
[3:48:52] remains. But the specifics to the numbers, um, the global
[3:48:59] payment program, which is the incentive program that
[3:49:03] California agreed to with a waiver program in the with the
[3:49:06] CMS, um, provides funding for primary and preventative care
[3:49:11] for uninsured. We expect to lose a cumulative about $180
[3:49:15] million. Other programs, including state directed
[3:49:18] payment, federal support for emergency Care, Medi-Cal
[3:49:22] enrollments. All told, we expect about 390 million
[3:49:26] cumulative of reductions from those on the state side. The
[3:49:32] and these are through 20. This is cumulative through 2030 31
[3:49:36] on that number. Correct. And after 2031 we expect
[3:49:42] everything to get better. No. We've limited the view to a
[3:49:45] five year view. Um, but it certainly will continue.
[3:49:49] That was me being sarcastic. I think it's just me trying to
[3:49:53] remind people that we don't know what's coming after 2031,
[3:49:58] but we're that's we don't could get any better or any worse.
[3:50:04] But we know this is what we know at this point.
[3:50:07] 100% correct. These funding cuts have no indication that
[3:50:12] they will be reversed. And so we would expect them to
[3:50:15] continue.. And supervisors, if I could
[3:50:19] just reiterate the point, we've come to you several times with
[3:50:22] numbers that we're projecting. Right. So each time we've come
[3:50:26] to you, that's been a moment in time. Right? And there have
[3:50:30] been adjustments made in terms of the timing of some of these
[3:50:33] things. There's been clarification from the feds in
[3:50:36] the state about, you know, uh, when things are going to be
[3:50:40] implemented, how they'll be implemented, and because of
[3:50:44] that, um, these numbers change. And that's why we want to come
[3:50:49] back to you with, with these updates. So just to be clear,
[3:50:52] and we expect that will happen repeatedly as we go through
[3:50:55] this process. And we'll keep coming back to you with the
[3:50:58] best information we have based on the information we're
[3:51:01] getting and based on math that Drew's team is doing so well.
[3:51:10] So you can see the cumulative impacts state federal through
[3:51:14] 3031. But the bottom line to emphasize again, we will
[3:51:18] continue to see people at the most expensive, most intensive
[3:51:22] level of care at the hospital. That our obligation to do that
[3:51:25] continues. The first impact from these cuts is the loss of
[3:51:31] funding for our primary care network, and the ability to
[3:51:34] provide primary and preventative services. Uh, next
[3:51:39] next slide. Can I ask a question on this before you
[3:51:41] move off the slide? So under on the state funding changes,
[3:51:45] primary care reimbursement, 350 million people without verified
[3:51:48] immigration status lose access to manage Medi-Cal. So here
[3:51:53] we're talking we're not talking about people who will if they
[3:51:57] drop in this category, who drop off, who can't re-enroll.
[3:52:00] You're talking about this shift from, um, from basically
[3:52:05] managed care to fee for service. Is that because I'm
[3:52:08] trying to understand 100 million and the 350 because I
[3:52:11] know this population is going to move to fee for service, and
[3:52:16] that's going to cost us money. That's the $0.10 on the dollar.
[3:52:19] Right? So what's this? Three the explain this. Trying to
[3:52:22] understand the details of it of these two categories I think
[3:52:27] it's a fluid I think candidly, the way that we've projected
[3:52:33] here assumes that most of the members, most of the people
[3:52:38] with unsatisfactory immigration status, first in January, are
[3:52:43] moved out of the managed care plan, right. And then as we go
[3:52:47] through each year, they because of premium requirements,
[3:52:52] because of other disincentives to stay enrolled in Medicaid,
[3:52:56] will lose access to even fee for service rates. So we've
[3:53:00] modeled here that the bulk will lose access to Medi-Cal, um,
[3:53:04] and through a variety of enrollment impacts. So that's
[3:53:07] what I'm trying to understand, because we have a whole
[3:53:09] separate discussion with the other that other department
[3:53:13] that deals with eligibility and keeps people enrolled. And that
[3:53:16] will be on, I guess, September 8th. Doctor Stuart's
[3:53:19] presentation, because we don't want to yet accept that all
[3:53:24] these folks are going to drop off because we're going to
[3:53:26] hopefully be with the state's help and any funding we have,
[3:53:30] investing more in the infrastructure to keep people
[3:53:35] enrolled so that we don't lose the U.S population. I get it,
[3:53:39] once they fall off, they can't re-enroll. So I guess it comes
[3:53:43] down. This is why numbers I think are better as ranges.
[3:53:48] These. It's an art is as much of a as a science here that how
[3:53:54] many people. Our goal is to keep these individuals from
[3:53:57] falling off. Um and so this 350 million, it assumes what
[3:54:05] percent of you of UI's patients are are going to lose Medi-Cal.
[3:54:12] What what's your assumption on this? Because that's key to
[3:54:15] this number. So.
[3:54:19] Um, assumptions are important here. Absolutely. I think the
[3:54:24] the annual loss of UAS from this assumption, um, I would
[3:54:32] need to get back and say, but I believe it's a 20% annually
[3:54:36] losing 20%. Yes. But we don't want that to happen. That's the
[3:54:41] whole point. And and right. The in fact, I think what we saw
[3:54:44] some previous meetings is that the investment ineligibility
[3:54:49] workers and family navigators and that infrastructure is less
[3:54:55] expensive than paying for the cost here. In other words, if
[3:55:00] we invest in keeping them on with more intense enrollment
[3:55:03] and re enrollment efforts, that's going to cost us less
[3:55:07] than paying this. The aftermath.
[3:55:10] Supervisor, if I can just clarify one thing, because
[3:55:12] we'll certainly work with the ESD and we're actively
[3:55:15] collaborating with them to keep everybody enrolled in Medicaid
[3:55:18] as much as possible. I think the thing that has changed
[3:55:22] since we came to the board prior is that the state is
[3:55:26] removing $47,500. I get it from managed care Medaid.
[3:55:31] So that's 100 million. Yes. Well, but it also means that
[3:55:36] even if those if that group stays on Medicaid, which is
[3:55:39] important and helpful, that Medicaid reimbursement, this is
[3:55:43] new from when we presented before that Medicaid
[3:55:46] reimbursement is less is 90% less. Yeah. Yeah. So certainly
[3:55:52] want to keep people on Medicaid. But my point is
[3:55:56] that's the the difference in terms of those people dropping
[3:55:59] off from a pure fiscal perspective, right, is only
[3:56:02] that 10% reimbursement amount. is.
[3:56:04] So is some of that reflected. So you.
[3:56:07] Want 350 million as well as the 100 million. Then some of that,
[3:56:11] some of that impact that you just explained is reflected in
[3:56:14] the 350 million the impact of retaining the impact of the 90%
[3:56:20] decrease in reimbursements, that is, in the managed
[3:56:24] Medi-Cal line. So, so where we're saying people are
[3:56:28] continuing, we have a visit. It used to be at the full rate,
[3:56:32] the GPS rate, and now it's at the fee for service that's in
[3:56:35] the managed Medicaid. That's in the that's the 100 million.
[3:56:38] Correct. So then the 356, that's what I'm trying to
[3:56:41] understand. What's the 350? It's the combined impact of our
[3:56:45] assumptions on UAS accelerating out work requirements. Re
[3:56:50] determinations, people losing access to coverage, as well as
[3:56:56] certain impacts in the hospital as not no longer be. I get it,
[3:56:59] but where are we spending the 350 then serving them in the
[3:57:02] emergency rooms at added cost or. Yeah how are we? Where is
[3:57:07] that 350 is or is is that also part of the 90% decrease?
[3:57:13] You're saying the 100 million is the 90% decrease, right?
[3:57:16] Correct. Got it. 350 represents our loss of reimbursement from
[3:57:22] people fully dis enrolled. I'm still not clear what the 350
[3:57:25] is. The 350 million provide all of the numbers. But okay,
[3:57:29] basically the 350 is for people previously reimbursed who no
[3:57:33] longer have Medi-Cal eligibility. People who still
[3:57:36] retain Medi-Cal eligibility, the fee for service, the 90,
[3:57:40] the 10% on the dollar. That's the 100 million. I guess the
[3:57:44] question becomes for every, let's say, 10 million in an
[3:57:49] investment in the eligibility infrastructure and add how much
[3:57:55] avoided cost is there in this category? Do you see my point
[3:57:59] that I think that's really important in a joint
[3:58:02] presentation that you would both make? What's the avoided
[3:58:06] cost of making that investment? See what I'm saying? 100%. We
[3:58:11] would need to model that, but that would be moving from the
[3:58:14] 350 to the 100 to show, okay, they are retaining coverage. I
[3:58:19] get if we're retaining it. Some of that 350 we will still incur
[3:58:24] a loss in the managed Medi-Cal line. I get it, it'll shift
[3:58:27] over to there. The question is, will it be as much C I see
[3:58:33] Doctor Stewart back there. She's going to be presenting a
[3:58:37] lot of this because the state is putting some money in the
[3:58:39] budget to help us. And then we have local dollars we could
[3:58:43] draw on. I mean, the only thing I would add is that dynamic of
[3:58:48] shifting from 350 to the 100 is true for us, yes, but every
[3:58:54] member that is satisfactory. Yes. Sis would not. That would.
[3:58:58] That's right. You're like retention. We want to keep
[3:59:01] those folks enrolled too, because we permanent residents,
[3:59:05] citizens, all of that who are going to lose eligibility. We
[3:59:08] talk a lot about U.S population, but every, you
[3:59:12] know, folks who are citizens and permanent residents are
[3:59:14] going to lose eligibility by not enrolling. And we want to
[3:59:17] keep them on because they will be under the fixed, they will
[3:59:21] be under managed care, not fee for service. So it especially
[3:59:25] is worthwhile keeping them on. Got it. Okay, thanks for
[3:59:31] divulging. Um, in letting me. Yeah. Those are the numbers.
[3:59:37] Um, I want to also emphasize that these are lives that are
[3:59:43] no longer being covered. So probably one slide. Previous,
[3:59:47] um, we expect that these we, we have approximately 300,000
[3:59:53] covered in managed Medi-Cal. That includes Kaiser. That's
[3:59:57] all in the county. County residents. But you do realize
[4:00:01] when you put single numbers, which I know are with the best
[4:00:05] assumptions, you can make, that in a year or two from now, it
[4:00:09] if our losses are different, whether it's more or less,
[4:00:13] you'll get criticized for screwing up even though you
[4:00:16] didn't. And we've seen this happen before.
[4:00:19] Qualify it at the beginning of this presentation. Exactly.
[4:00:22] Things change, right? They do. But the unfortunate
[4:00:25] thing is that people seize on that and say, see, the health
[4:00:28] department didn't know what they were talking about. Look
[4:00:31] what their numbers weren't awful. And that's why ranges
[4:00:33] are helpful. And we've talked about the fact
[4:00:35] that, you know, with all of the uncertainty out there, people
[4:00:38] really need to feel trusting. And so we're trying to provide
[4:00:42] those numbers. But we're also trying to prepare for what we
[4:00:47] need to do. The number of people that need care is not
[4:00:50] going to change, or it could increase, particularly if other
[4:00:55] areas of the state start to fail and they need to come our
[4:00:58] direction. But the number of people are going to need to be
[4:01:02] served. It's just how we're paid for it, or even if we're
[4:01:06] paid for it is going to be the question.
[4:01:11] Um, so. There is an importance on the one slide. Previous, um,
[4:01:18] just want to hit this to make sure it's clear, in addition to
[4:01:21] all of the dollars and cents that we're talking about, this
[4:01:25] is 47,500 U.S lives being dis enrolled. I think we're
[4:01:33] slightly out of sequence on the slides, but I'll just speak
[4:01:35] extemporaneously. Advanced two.
[4:01:38] Uh, if you could advance two slides, go back. Uh, perfect.
[4:01:43] Thank you. Um, the and we, we expect up to 93,000 of, uh,
[4:01:51] people losing coverage by 30, 30, 31. Um, and of course, as
[4:01:56] people lose coverage, access to care, reimbursement for
[4:01:59] services, care coordination, all are lost and preventable.
[4:02:04] Illness and death are increasing in our county.
[4:02:07] Financial exposures increasing. Is it the same number you've
[4:02:09] talked about for a few months now? Up to 90.
[4:02:12] That's right. That number hasn't changed. Number hasn't
[4:02:13] changed. Again, our goal is to keep it
[4:02:15] from. Being again this. Yeah. These
[4:02:18] are estimates. And we'll keep coming back to you as we
[4:02:21] update. But these are that that estimate has not changed..
[4:02:25] All the pressure is going to be on Marla's department.
[4:02:31] Five year outlook. Back to numbers. Um this shows
[4:02:34] the year by year buildup of the 730 million. Um, and you'll see
[4:02:41] there where that lands in our projected fund balance
[4:02:45] position. Um, that it is unsustainable through after
[4:02:50] 2930, we will be in a negative deficit. And if we take no
[4:02:55] action, some form of bailout would be required. Um, and so
[4:02:59] it's really important now that we take our immediate planning,
[4:03:04] 2627, which has reduced the deficit to $10 million and
[4:03:08] bring our attention to 27, 28. So we focus on closing,
[4:03:13] continue to close the near-term deficit and prepare for the
[4:03:15] long term structural changes that we know are needed. Um,
[4:03:22] not going to spend a lot of time on these, but just so that
[4:03:25] for the record, it's there are five year assumptions. What
[4:03:29] went into the projection? Go immediately to the next slide.
[4:03:34] That's an overview. Everything we've spoken about so far has
[4:03:38] been Contra Costa Health wide. Um, as stated before, this is
[4:03:44] first and foremost hitting our county hospital and clinics.
[4:03:47] CCR, MC, um, the 2627 deficit for just CCRC is $20 million.
[4:03:55] That's a five year cumulative deficit of $890 million. Um,
[4:04:01] and 173 of state mandated capital costs are included.
[4:04:07] What's your assumption about the Medi-Cal waiver? Uh, we
[4:04:13] assume that revenue lines associated with the waiver,
[4:04:17] such as GPP, are going away, and that we don't have
[4:04:23] successor programs that reverts to the uncompensated care,
[4:04:26] claiming. that it reflected all in here. Those assumptions of
[4:04:30] because when is that then that waivers up this year or next
[4:04:34] year? This year, I don't know. Correct. It ends um, in
[4:04:38] December of 2026. But working with our state partners, we
[4:04:42] expect that that will actually go through a temporary
[4:04:45] extension to October 1st of 2027, at which point it will
[4:04:51] end. And that's reflected in these amounts have built that
[4:04:54] in. Yeah. No one expects the Trump administration is going
[4:04:56] to, you know, give us anything favorable under the Medi-Cal
[4:05:00] waiver. Correct. And what about for disproportionate share
[4:05:04] hospital funding dish um, dish funding is assumed to revert.
[4:05:10] So we will continue to be able to claim dish. Um, when GPP
[4:05:15] goes away will revert to the old style of dish claiming, um,
[4:05:20] that largely will be a no benefit. We will not receive
[4:05:24] revenue from that because of offsets of other state
[4:05:28] directives. All of that's in here just was just all built
[4:05:31] into these assumptions. Um, the last point, one point to
[4:05:35] emphasize here, just to call out this 890 exceeds the
[4:05:41] enterprise wide 730, because we're able we're assuming one
[4:05:46] of our key assumptions here is we will have flexibility to
[4:05:49] redirect county subsidy to the parts of health that need it
[4:05:54] the most, including CCRC. Really, where we're
[4:05:58] experiencing the lion's share of our deficits. Um, which, you
[4:06:04] know, Culberson is here to speak about how we're starting
[4:06:07] to approach the long term planning.
[4:06:13] Next slide please. Good afternoon.
[4:06:15] Supervisors. Uh, yes.
[4:06:17] I wanted to focus on Carmen Contra Costa Regional Medical
[4:06:20] Center, which includes both the.
[4:06:22] Hospital here in. Martinez as. Well as the clinics throughout
[4:06:25] the county. Before I get started here, I just want to
[4:06:27] make. Sure that.
[4:06:28] You're truly Where you're all really aware
[4:06:31] that. As.
[4:06:32] We've heard earlier. It's going to be difficult.
[4:06:34] with the operational and strategic presentation I have
[4:06:38] here for us to make up the magnitude of the deficits.
[4:06:42] We're currently facing. And that's over.
[4:06:44] The next. Five year. Next slide please.
[4:06:49] Just a little bit about our regional medical center. Of
[4:06:52] course that includes the hospital as well as our
[4:06:55] clinics. We see almost 38,000 or a little bit more than
[4:07:00] 38,000 patients a year on a primary care basis, which we
[4:07:05] really do an awful lot of. In our clinic system, we see
[4:07:08] roughly 2500 total patients a day in our clinic system. That
[4:07:12] means roughly 1 in 5 of residents of our county
[4:07:15] received their primary care at our clinics. We have 11
[4:07:19] community health clinics throughout the nine locations
[4:07:22] in the county, and I've got a map to indicate that for you.
[4:07:25] But also I want to share with everyone that the psychiatric
[4:07:28] emergency Services program, our department in Martinez is the
[4:07:32] only 5150 receiving center throughout the county, so it's
[4:07:37] serving all of the initial needs for folks that are either
[4:07:41] danger to themselves, danger to others, or gravely disabled
[4:07:44] that are identified as needing that emergent care. So we
[4:07:48] really have a number of functions we perform at CCRC,
[4:07:52] and we think it's really important to realize that any
[4:07:55] reduction that we make at CCRC will limit the options for our
[4:08:00] residents, again, because will probably be fewer in the
[4:08:03] future. Next slide please. Just a little bit of background
[4:08:09] here. This includes a map of our locations here. The
[4:08:12] hospital in Martinez has 167 inpatient beds. That includes
[4:08:17] the emergency department. Our psychiatric emergency services,
[4:08:21] a labor and delivery obstetrics care. We deliver about 20% of
[4:08:25] babies in the county, and also med surge and also. And in
[4:08:30] addition, our psychiatric inpatient unit. So we are a
[4:08:33] full service hospital really concentrated on primary care.
[4:08:36] We're not tertiary or quaternary facility. We also
[4:08:40] have in our ambulatory care network nine different
[4:08:43] locations, ranging from Brentwood over to Richmond,
[4:08:46] North Richmond, and there's 11 clinics. We concentrate on
[4:08:50] primary care. We do have some specialty care. And of course,
[4:08:54] our presence is really throughout the entire county
[4:08:56] and the workforce is 2400 or more employees who are
[4:09:00] dedicated to serving our county residents. Next slide please.
[4:09:07] We laid out for you here. I know drew has talked a little
[4:09:10] bit about some of the operational pieces we're
[4:09:13] working on, but I wanted to really lay out for you on this
[4:09:16] slide a strategic look at what we're doing. We've engaged
[4:09:20] Alvarez and Marcella, nationally recognized
[4:09:23] consulting firm in the health care field, to help us with
[4:09:27] this project. So what you're seeing here is a working
[4:09:30] document, but it really is a, I think, a solid look at
[4:09:33] strategies we're considering here, both internally within
[4:09:38] our health department as well as the from outside
[4:09:41] organizations. And I want to concentrate really on all four.
[4:09:45] But you can see we have the third column there in blue
[4:09:48] highlighted in blue, a recommended path forward. We
[4:09:52] think this is where we need to go strategically. It helps
[4:09:56] continue to maintain critical access for medical, surgical as
[4:10:00] well as psychiatric patients. But it does have some
[4:10:04] additional costs associated. We wanted to also share with you.
[4:10:07] We really took a look at four options, and I want to lay out
[4:10:11] the other three for you just to realize this is part of the
[4:10:14] strategic planning process we're doing. We took a look and
[4:10:17] said, what happens if we're status quo from a service
[4:10:20] perspective, from an operational perspective? And as
[4:10:23] Drew and Doctor Colfax have laid out here, substantial
[4:10:26] losses here, that would be faced at Caremark had we really
[4:10:31] not do anything except just rely on current funding streams
[4:10:36] and kind of a moderately slow approach to this. I don't think
[4:10:40] anybody agrees that's the way to go. We then also looked at
[4:10:43] what would happen if we really focused on behavioral health.
[4:10:47] You know, we see roughly 40 behavioral health patients a
[4:10:50] day in our inpatient unit. And up to 2025, and our psychiatric
[4:10:56] emergency services. So if we would really take a single
[4:10:59] specialty, focus on behavioral health, what would that do
[4:11:03] here? What we certainly know that we could improve and
[4:11:06] access through with some investment here on behavioral
[4:11:11] health, but it really reduces the medical surgical access,
[4:11:15] the obstetrics, the other medical surgical services the
[4:11:21] hospital offers to the point really where Central County and
[4:11:24] West County would have no other place for these services that
[4:11:28] are currently offered. So we think that that was really not
[4:11:31] too viable. And likewise, we think it's important for your
[4:11:35] board to understand, in the event that we don't have a
[4:11:38] turnaround process and we can't balance the gap that we're
[4:11:43] faced here. What would closure look like now? Clearly, we are
[4:11:46] not recommending this again. I hope I made it clear we're
[4:11:50] recommending the multi-specialty approach, but
[4:11:52] we do think it's important for you to understand that there is
[4:11:56] an opportunity to focus extensively on ambulatory care,
[4:12:03] and then stop reinvesting in the hospital. But again, the
[4:12:09] that that does two things. One, it eliminates the psychiatric
[4:12:13] access much of the way along the line. The behavioral health
[4:12:16] single specialty approach. And it does completely eliminate
[4:12:19] the access that I talked about here for specialty services.
[4:12:24] Again, primarily in Central County and in West County. So
[4:12:27] we don't think that's a real viable alternative. That leaves
[4:12:32] the third column here. And that's our multi-specialty
[4:12:35] approach where we really selectively choose the services
[4:12:38] we offer, that we turn around and make sure that the supply
[4:12:44] of what we're doing meets the patient demands. And with an
[4:12:47] effort to restore some of the services we currently don't
[4:12:50] offer or focus, it also allows us to focus on those that we
[4:12:54] do, but we need to do in a more sustainable method. So next
[4:12:59] slide please. I'm sorry. Can I ask a question. I mean,
[4:13:03] all of this is very, very how do I say this reminds me of
[4:13:08] what Doctors Hospital went through for about ten, 15 years
[4:13:11] when we were all working to try to save doctors and and, you
[4:13:15] know, the different service lines and what it would focus
[4:13:17] on. Right. Except we're doing this in the context of now
[4:13:20] we're predominantly a Medi-Cal health facility. Right. So this
[4:13:25] is in the context of Medi-Cal. We're talking here.
[4:13:27] Yes, predominantly. We're supervisor.
[4:13:28] Yes. Right. And so our our
[4:13:31] reimbursement rates for our clinics, because we're in FCPS
[4:13:35] are high, give us a greater return on our dollar than our
[4:13:40] expenditures at the hospital. So presumably just want to
[4:13:44] clarify that. In other words, for every $10, let's say spent
[4:13:48] in services at the clinic are $100, our reimbursement is
[4:13:52] higher than for every $100 spent at the hospital. Is that
[4:13:57] right or wrong? Yes. That's correct. The EFCC
[4:14:00] model, which our clinics are the Federally Qualified Health
[4:14:03] Center, basically is reimbursing us at costs. That's
[4:14:07] not going to be true for the hospital, where we have a
[4:14:10] number of services. I've always recalled being told
[4:14:12] is, you know, we we make we're better at bringing in
[4:14:16] reimbursements because of the way the reimbursement model
[4:14:18] works for the services at the clinics, then at the hospital,
[4:14:22] inpatient at the hospital, that outpatient reimbursements help
[4:14:27] us more than inpatient reimbursements.
[4:14:31] I would say that's true for a Medi-Cal member. Our GPS rate
[4:14:36] reimburses us fully at cost. Um, it will vary depending on
[4:14:42] the line of service, but in general, that's true at the
[4:14:44] hospital, and it will certainly vary as more people are
[4:14:47] enrolled out of Medi-Cal. So the devil's in the details.
[4:14:50] Can you just give a little more flavor of what this means when
[4:14:53] you say restore services the community currently seeks
[4:14:55] elsewhere, restore critical services and give us an
[4:14:59] example. What does that really mean? In in lay language?
[4:15:02] Yes, supervisor, I think one of the biggest ones that I can
[4:15:05] identify, both from a provider as well as community, would be
[4:15:08] impatient. Dialysis. Right now, we don't offer inpatient
[4:15:12] dialysis. A lot of our patients have long term chronic kidney
[4:15:17] disease, and as such, dialysis would be required at least when
[4:15:21] you're admitted to the hospital. We have to transfer
[4:15:24] all of those patients out to other community hospitals. And
[4:15:27] so that would be a basic service that we've gotten out
[4:15:30] of. But we think it's really, really important to bring back
[4:15:33] Libby. Another a number of other ones we're looking at.
[4:15:36] And again, I've got a little bit more idea on how we're
[4:15:39] going to do that here in the next couple of slides, but that
[4:15:42] would be the real concrete one. Supervisor.
[4:15:44] It seems over time you're going to be developing more detail on
[4:15:47] this and come back. This is what I'd say. These are the
[4:15:49] service lines. We see more emphasis and this will bring us
[4:15:53] better reimbursement or more or more just generally more
[4:15:56] revenue. Right? Yes. That's correct.
[4:15:59] It's really our approach here. We want to bring back specific
[4:16:02] actions for. I think we haven't done that
[4:16:04] and enough or is vigilantly or disciplined enough not to be
[4:16:09] critical of anything in the past. Do you think this
[4:16:12] analysis hasn't been done? This is the first time I've seen
[4:16:16] this level of detail to this type of issue. So do you think
[4:16:20] it's something we just haven't looked at enough? The
[4:16:24] collective we. Supervisor I think we are at a
[4:16:27] point where this needs to be done. Right now, I really can't
[4:16:29] comment about the past. I think the success of CCRC over the
[4:16:33] last few years has been in the expansion and an optimization
[4:16:38] of the Affordable Care Act, and now we're in a new era where
[4:16:41] these these kind of discussions are necessary. I hope that
[4:16:44] answers you. I think supervisors. just just
[4:16:49] looking at the entire ecosystem of Contra Costa Health, given
[4:16:56] the state and federal changes, we know that our health care
[4:17:02] ecosystem is going to look different in 2031 than it does
[4:17:06] now. So we're trying to figure out with community partners and
[4:17:10] all of you, what are the essential things that we can
[4:17:14] afford to sustain. And so that the the strategy that, um, CEO
[4:17:20] Culberson is talking about to the of the hospital is, is is
[4:17:23] part of that. And per the point that, um CFO Merl was making,
[4:17:32] the hospital is driving a huge amount of cost to our system.
[4:17:37] That's the, the, the graph that you showed where you see that
[4:17:40] basically we're taking money even within Contra Costa Health
[4:17:45] that we, you know, money from other parts of Contra Costa
[4:17:48] Health to essentially subsidize the hospital. And as you can
[4:17:52] see, the path forward with the state and federal changes is
[4:17:55] not sustainable. So I want to be and I just to reinforce the
[4:17:58] CEO person's point, even if the plan that his team is working
[4:18:04] on with these expert consultants, even if that is
[4:18:07] optimized, you know, in a way that is even if that is
[4:18:12] optimized, we don't come close to closing that deficit and
[4:18:16] we'll come back with those numbers. We don't have those to
[4:18:18] share. Just trying to minimize it.
[4:18:20] Yeah. Yes. One last question on this. So something that at
[4:18:24] least is understandable is in real life, um, when we were at
[4:18:29] JCC, when we would in the past look at a lot of the numbers of
[4:18:32] where folks went, there were a lot. I'll just take my part of
[4:18:36] the county in West County, many Medi-Cal moms had birth and
[4:18:40] delivery at the county hospital. Some went to Alta
[4:18:44] Bates or others. Is that like an example of where we'd say,
[4:18:47] well, gee, we want to bring we want to continue to attract
[4:18:50] more Medi-Cal birth and delivery into our county
[4:18:53] hospital, as opposed to them going somewhere else. And then
[4:18:57] we have to pay that other hospital. But we also want to
[4:19:00] still maintain choice where residents can choose and not
[4:19:03] limit be limited. But is that an example of something?
[4:19:07] Because I saw a numbers about the number of birth and
[4:19:11] deliveries, because there's not a hospital, and in West County
[4:19:14] that's Medi-Cal, right? People go to Alta Bates or County
[4:19:18] hospital. Supervisor Joya. Yes, that's
[4:19:21] exactly the analysis we're performing. We're very lucky in
[4:19:24] that we've got a very solid, very detailed business
[4:19:28] intelligence unit that able to take a look at things. And
[4:19:30] again, the external consultant we're using also, this is their
[4:19:34] line of business to ask what are you delivering. What can
[4:19:37] you deliver and what's going elsewhere.
[4:19:40] And subsequent decisions were limiting. Let's say patient
[4:19:45] choice. We may say you can only go to our facility for these
[4:19:48] services, and you can't go out of our facility.
[4:19:53] Yes. With the I'm not sure I understand your question.
[4:19:55] I'm sorry. In other words, if right now someone in Medi-Cal
[4:19:58] has a choice of where they go, um, we we we we would because
[4:20:03] we have contracts with other hospitals to do services. It's
[4:20:06] then limiting the contracts we may have with other hospitals.
[4:20:10] That's going to be a decision through the health plan,
[4:20:13] really, not as a CCRC proper, but we work very, very closely
[4:20:18] with, again. The benefit hitting there. So
[4:20:20] yes. We're very lucky to have the
[4:20:22] integrated delivery system we do. So we work very closely
[4:20:25] with them. On. I mean, the classic case
[4:20:26] was when Supervisor Glover, who was who the CHP, not Medi-Cal,
[4:20:30] but CHP, had his heart and kidney transplant at UC San
[4:20:35] Francisco, because we have a contract and they're
[4:20:37] specialists, that's where we go. But we see CHP may have
[4:20:40] other contracts that it would maybe end to bring back folks
[4:20:45] to get their care in our system. Right. That's so that
[4:20:49] limits choice. But it may be better overall for us.
[4:20:53] Absolutely. Yes. That's correct.
[4:20:55] Thanks. If we could just go back to
[4:20:59] that one slide there with the four options. I just want to
[4:21:01] finish that slide and then we'll go on to the next one.
[4:21:05] This one. Just a little bit.
[4:21:07] There we go. Just again wanted to make sure our recommendation
[4:21:10] here is that we really focus on this multi-specialty approach.
[4:21:13] Concentrating on the services that we offer. Which ones can
[4:21:16] we get into fairly quickly. Uh, and also really based on demand
[4:21:21] and supply here. Uh, again, we think that's really important
[4:21:24] to maintain access throughout the county for county
[4:21:27] residents. Next slide please. We really have adopted a three
[4:21:35] pronged approach. We want to make sure you're aware of your
[4:21:38] advocacy. Focus on clinical activities as well as improving
[4:21:43] the financial performance, many of which drew had mentioned
[4:21:46] earlier here, the advocacy. We think it's really important we
[4:21:50] are here. We our goal is to help minimize and reverse the
[4:21:54] harmful effects of HR one, the the act that we're working on
[4:21:58] here passed in July of 2025. We think there needs to be
[4:22:03] sustainable state funding. And so we'll continue to work with
[4:22:06] your board as well as our elected officials at the state
[4:22:09] and federal level to improve that. We talked a little bit
[4:22:13] about a focus on our clinical services growing strategically,
[4:22:17] focusing primarily on our acute primary care psychiatry and
[4:22:21] some of the smaller some of the smaller volume of other
[4:22:24] services we don't offer here. The goal is to make sure that
[4:22:27] we improve access to our community. And then, as drew
[4:22:31] mentioned, that we continue to focus on our financial
[4:22:33] performance here, on our revenue side and our revenue
[4:22:37] cycle side, and also on our expense management. We wanted
[4:22:40] to also highlight we think it's really important for greater
[4:22:43] flexibility on our staffing as well as our supply costs to go
[4:22:48] along and balance closer to volumes as they increase, or as
[4:22:53] a decrease. Your a more flexible approach to our
[4:22:56] expense management. We think that's pretty important. And as
[4:23:00] I think all three of us had shared with you earlier here,
[4:23:04] even with these major clinical financial improvements, the
[4:23:07] changes in the state and federal funding are so dramatic
[4:23:11] that it's going to be needed. We'll need additional federal
[4:23:15] policy changes in funding to make sure we maintain the
[4:23:19] sustainability of CCR. MC next slide. Again, what we're doing
[4:23:27] here again, both internally as well as with our external
[4:23:30] consultant doing some analyzing, we're learning and
[4:23:33] we're going to make sure we take some information. What
[4:23:36] we're trying to analyze really is really demand here. What are
[4:23:40] our our patient referrals both within and with outside the
[4:23:43] county. We have a number of services that Contra Costa
[4:23:47] Regional offers, a number of that are handled here within
[4:23:50] the county and other partners and other providers, and then
[4:23:55] some that are leaving our community completely and going
[4:23:57] over to the Peninsula, maybe the South Bay. So we're
[4:24:00] evaluating what type of referrals are made, and that's
[4:24:04] an important one because we're trying to determine demand. We
[4:24:08] also work closely with the health plan and to determine
[4:24:11] where are they sending plan. To patients. Again, it's something
[4:24:15] that is really important as we work on that third part,
[4:24:18] they're demanding or taking a look at our current and future
[4:24:21] demand. And our clinic capacity. Some areas we have no
[4:24:25] capacity. In some places we do an extension of hours at night,
[4:24:30] may help on the weekends, may help access. But in some of our
[4:24:34] other areas, we don't have quite as much as we might need.
[4:24:37] So that's why we're working on currently. Really, what would
[4:24:40] be the demand? So again, what we're trying to learn learn
[4:24:44] then is really where demand exceeds the supply of our
[4:24:48] available services. What what are where are we at where we do
[4:24:51] have capacity. Where we have capacity. That is available
[4:24:56] maybe not utilized. What can we do from an operational
[4:24:59] perspective to fill those empty appointment slots? And then
[4:25:03] what services should we really grow? Could we change? Or in
[4:25:08] some instances reductions here? I think it's it's important to
[4:25:11] realize this is not a pure growth strategy. This is really
[4:25:15] taking a look as a balanced strategy, growth,
[4:25:18] sustainability and reduction as necessary. So again, we're
[4:25:22] going to come back from what the information that we gather
[4:25:24] here to concentrate on what services we believe are
[4:25:28] priorities. Here. We'll have some implementation timelines
[4:25:31] including accountabilities. When can we expect these
[4:25:34] programs to be up and running. The amount of capital that's
[4:25:38] required here that you're well aware MC requires capital, not
[4:25:43] just for our seismic project. That's about ready to kick off
[4:25:46] here, but just about everything we do diagnostic imaging, um,
[4:25:50] ventilators all require capital investment. And with that, both
[4:25:54] of the all of the actions here, the implementation, the capital
[4:25:58] really what are the expected clinical and financial impacts?
[4:26:02] What are the improvements we're going to see to our patients
[4:26:05] from a clinical and from a service perspective? And what
[4:26:08] is the return that we can expect for the investment and
[4:26:11] the effort that we're making here at Contra Costa Regional
[4:26:14] Medical Center? I think we're on to the next slide, please.
[4:26:20] There we go. So thank you. And just as our
[4:26:24] last slide in terms of next steps, we will advance the plan
[4:26:28] and execute on uh, short term the 2627 balancing plan and
[4:26:33] continue to refine the long term delivery system strategy
[4:26:36] focused on CCRC monitoring progress and returning to you
[4:26:41] all with financial and implementation updates. Working
[4:26:44] with the board in the county administrator's office to
[4:26:47] evaluate options and make key policy decisions, and ensuring
[4:26:50] that we have robust stakeholder engagement with employees,
[4:26:55] unions, providers and community partners as implementation
[4:26:58] continues. Thank you very much. I want to also appreciate the
[4:27:02] entire Contra Costa Health team who worked very hard on this
[4:27:05] presentation. Thank you. Thank you. I think sometimes
[4:27:10] people, uh, think of this as government because this is the
[4:27:15] county hospital. But the people that work in this do this work
[4:27:22] are also professionals. Their nurses, they're doctors,
[4:27:25] they're technicians, and they're administrators that
[4:27:29] have to know how to do this work. So when we are looking at
[4:27:34] this, we're looking at this very similar to what other
[4:27:37] hospital systems are looking at as well. Um, if people are
[4:27:42] interested in really kind of understanding this, it might be
[4:27:45] good for them to look up what Medicaid is, what the
[4:27:49] difference is between Medicaid and Medicare. What, uh, covered
[4:27:54] California is versus, you know, these other things. Um, because
[4:27:59] those are questions I'd ask. But I don't want to, you know,
[4:28:02] it it would go on forever. But I do think that this is a
[4:28:07] system that is part of a bigger system. And, um, I read an
[4:28:12] article the other day that said that UC Berkeley Labor Center,
[4:28:19] uh, estimates that the number of uninsured Californians will
[4:28:23] go from 2.4 to 4.6 million as recently enacted. State and
[4:28:30] federal cuts to Medicaid and the ACA marketplace begin to
[4:28:34] roll. Um, this was an analysis done in May. They said this
[4:28:40] anticipated rise in the uninsured population could have
[4:28:44] broad implications for hospital systems, insurers and the
[4:28:48] economy. It could impact 200,000 jobs in California. And
[4:28:54] I say that because while we're looking at our system, we're
[4:28:59] part of a bigger system in the county. And so when we look at
[4:29:03] John Muir and we look at Kaiser and we look at Sutter and we
[4:29:06] look at our other clinic system, we are all in this
[4:29:09] together. And so some of the recommendations that you are
[4:29:15] talking about, do those have negative or positive impacts on
[4:29:19] the rest of the system? Well, I appreciate this and
[4:29:26] thank you, supervisor. And you're right, we're all in this
[4:29:28] together. Right. So I think overall the state and federal
[4:29:33] changes while they most acutely affect our ability to deliver
[4:29:38] care. And John Muir which also provides substantial care to to
[4:29:43] Medicaid. So that's the program for low income Californians.
[4:29:48] Um, it's going to affect all of our systems because as more
[4:29:51] people lose coverage, people will go to emergency rooms,
[4:29:54] whether it's Kaiser Sutter, John Muir or our own CCRC. And,
[4:29:58] um, likely be sicker because they will not have had access
[4:30:02] to, to primary care. Um, so that's a huge human cost. And
[4:30:06] then there's also the fact that there will be very limited, if
[4:30:10] at all, ability to, um, reimburse the systems for that
[4:30:14] care. I would also add to your point, as people lose their
[4:30:17] coverage, one of the things our estimates do not include here
[4:30:22] is the cost of, um, providing a basic health care program. So
[4:30:27] we're coming to the board in October with that. But there
[4:30:30] are costs associated with that that are not included in these
[4:30:33] estimates. And to your point, you're also, um, you know,
[4:30:36] every county and especially every county with a public
[4:30:40] hospital in California, um, is we're all in the same boat. And
[4:30:45] our conversations were obviously talking a lot and
[4:30:49] working to do the best we can. But this is all about, um,
[4:30:53] surviving at this point for a time that, that for, for times
[4:30:57] that that hopefully will be better in the future.
[4:31:01] And they are these according to this article, uh, experts warn
[4:31:07] that health plans will need to raise their premiums and that,
[4:31:11] uh, we will be left with people that on average, will be sicker
[4:31:15] and more expensive to serve. All right. Um, right. To do
[4:31:23] this. No, I was going to say we'll make some comments and
[4:31:26] then we're going to do public comment. And then just for
[4:31:30] those that are joining us for the other options, we're going
[4:31:33] to take a quick lunch after this. So if you are here and
[4:31:37] you're hungry then you can go get lunch right now and we'll
[4:31:41] be back. But I just wanted to kind of give that warning. So
[4:31:45] go ahead. Diane said something I thought
[4:31:47] that was really important and that's that, you know, we're in
[4:31:52] a hospital system that, you know, we're in a different
[4:31:56] market than just county government. Um, and, and, and
[4:32:00] we face this all the time with HR hiring operations that we're
[4:32:05] competing not just with other counties. We're competing with
[4:32:09] other hospitals, nonprofit, private and government. Right.
[4:32:13] And I was looking looking eight. There's only 8% of the
[4:32:16] hospitals in California are local public hospitals, yet
[4:32:20] they handle 36% of the Medi-Cal and uninsured population. So
[4:32:25] the that responsibility is falling on us, which is even a
[4:32:30] more expensive population to serve. And so one of the things
[4:32:34] you didn't mention that I think is important, I know we worked
[4:32:36] on this a couple of years ago at joint Conference was how the
[4:32:41] structure of working within county government can be made
[4:32:45] more flexible, so you are more nimble and competitive and
[4:32:49] effective and efficient. Perfect example. It was taking
[4:32:53] us double the amount of time to hire nurses than Kaiser Y.
[4:32:59] Because of our various, you know, within county government
[4:33:02] structure. I've said this before, it's one of my favorite
[4:33:06] topics is that HR at the county level needs to be more
[4:33:11] flexible. You have your own HR department, right? There's
[4:33:15] there's 12 of the 58 counties, have a hospital there, you
[4:33:20] know, and and you're you're competing with other systems
[4:33:23] that don't have the same sort of rigid structures that county
[4:33:27] government has. So when I hear an HR person say, well, this
[4:33:30] is, you know, this is how it is in county government, I don't
[4:33:32] care how it is in county government, I care how it is in
[4:33:35] other hospitals. We're competing against because we
[4:33:37] are. And this this was something that happened even
[4:33:40] with public works and real estate. There was this very
[4:33:42] stupid approach which they stopped, which was, gee, if I
[4:33:46] get a request to fix the elevator and the county
[4:33:48] administration building before I get the request to fix it at
[4:33:52] the hospital, I'm going to go there because I got the request
[4:33:54] first. Even though the licensing issues were at risk
[4:33:57] for the hospital. So those kind of things I know have been
[4:34:01] fixed, but those those rigid structures remain, and I think
[4:34:08] I want to hear more about how the board can help in
[4:34:12] flexibility. So you are a competitive hospital still with
[4:34:15] their civil service rules, still with but more flexibility
[4:34:20] so that you can be more efficient and effective. And I
[4:34:24] know you didn't cover that here. And and I don't know, I
[4:34:27] want to be able to hear from county HR and your department.
[4:34:31] What's the progress we're making on hiring nurses faster
[4:34:35] and more so we get the best talent? It's not just nurses,
[4:34:37] right? It's other categories. Um, and where we we have to be
[4:34:44] able to respond to the market and compete.
[4:34:47] And supervisor, can I just say that, you know, we really
[4:34:50] appreciate that point because I think one of the things that
[4:34:54] the future signals to us is we need to have the ability to be
[4:34:58] even more flexible and agile than, you know, is currently
[4:35:02] possible. Um, so we'll be happy to bring you and your
[4:35:06] colleagues, you know, examples of where the major push points
[4:35:10] are. Please let us know. I mean, you
[4:35:12] know, even the UC hospital system isn't run by the the
[4:35:16] same rules that that run the hiring of professors at UC
[4:35:20] Berkeley. Right. It's it's a hospital structure. So it's
[4:35:24] it's you can still be public, do great work, but have more
[4:35:27] flexibility. And I think what this
[4:35:30] presentation demonstrated is that they have been looking at
[4:35:34] ways to improve revenue and how to decrease costs. And I think
[4:35:38] optimizing things is what their intention is, and they will be
[4:35:41] bringing that back. Um, I do want to go to public comment on
[4:35:45] this. If my colleagues are okay with that. All right.
[4:35:49] We do have a comment in chambers. If there are any
[4:35:51] callers or zoom participants. Who would like to.
[4:35:54] Speak on Contra Costa Health fiscal outlook and long term
[4:35:58] planning, please press pound two if you're on the phone or
[4:36:02] raise your hand in the zoom app, and we will start with our
[4:36:06] comment in chambers. And that is Mariana. Please come to the
[4:36:09] podium. Good afternoon. It's been a
[4:36:22] while since I spent a long day with you. Um, nice to see you
[4:36:25] all. So I just have three quick points to make today. I'm
[4:36:27] Mariana Morris. Ensuring opportunity also with the one
[4:36:31] Contra Costa coalition. I want to start by saying thank you to
[4:36:34] Doctor Colfax and his team. Um, I appreciate the transparency
[4:36:38] and the care that this analysis is being done with. And I
[4:36:41] appreciate and look forward to the repeated updating. And as
[4:36:44] we all learn together, I also appreciate him and especially
[4:36:48] Luana Martin, for convening and holding space for this new
[4:36:51] community partnership. It's a really good move. There's a lot
[4:36:54] of community based expertise that can join with county
[4:36:57] expertise to figure things out in a very difficult
[4:37:00] environment. So I just want to say thank you and looking
[4:37:02] forward to that process. Continuing. Secondly, speaking
[4:37:06] of expertise, there's a lot of expertise in the community that
[4:37:10] can help, um, not solve the enormous deficit, but can work
[4:37:16] around the edges to save the county money and provide
[4:37:18] trusted access to help folks stay enrolled. We saw that with
[4:37:23] carers. We're seeing it now with basic health care, with
[4:37:25] these tiny, nascent programs. So the more investments you
[4:37:29] make in community can help both the folks that we all care
[4:37:32] about in that community and can help save the county some
[4:37:34] funds. And I think every dollar counts right now. Lastly,
[4:37:38] Doctor Colfax talked about the clinical impact and the
[4:37:41] financial impact. And then you did Doctor Colfax. At the end
[4:37:45] there talking about human impact. And I was sitting there
[4:37:47] like, that is the piece that's missing for me. And I know I
[4:37:50] get up like every six months and say this to y'all like,
[4:37:53] yes, the county is a business and it must, you know, balance
[4:37:57] this budget like we've all had that conversation. We know
[4:37:59] that. And these are human beings in the community
[4:38:02] terrified of losing their their medical care. I know many
[4:38:06] people on Medi-Cal right now and some folks that are no
[4:38:08] longer in medical and some that have left cover California that
[4:38:12] cannot pay their rent if they want health insurance. Like
[4:38:14] right. We all know this. So can we please add to our analysis?
[4:38:23] We can now go to our zoom comments.
[4:38:27] The next speaker is Ewa. Please unmute.
[4:38:33] Hello. And um supervisors, my name is
[4:38:37] Yui Nishiki. I'm a practicing nurse practitioner and head of
[4:38:40] strategy and value at Lifelong Medical Care and FCPS in
[4:38:43] Alameda and Contra Costa, providing care over 52,000
[4:38:48] patients across the two counties. I'd like to also
[4:38:51] thank Doctor Colfax and Team as they move thoughtfully through
[4:38:54] difficult budget decisions. Um, and particularly as federal and
[4:38:59] state policy changes are expected to increase pressures
[4:39:02] on the health care and safety net system. We are already
[4:39:06] seeing this impact. Since October, lifelong has
[4:39:09] experienced a 21% reduction in Medi-Cal visits and operating
[4:39:15] at a significant monthly deficit. And this is before
[4:39:20] many undocumented U.S. residents, uh, transitioned
[4:39:24] from managed Medicare to fee for service coverage. And this
[4:39:28] change not only furthers rains as financially, but
[4:39:32] going from managed Medi-Cal to fee for service for a patient
[4:39:36] removes the specialty care system that the managed
[4:39:40] Medicare system provides and care coordination programs like
[4:39:45] the ECM, enhanced Medical Care management programs, and
[4:39:52] leaving patients to navigate the complex health care system
[4:39:56] alone. And looking ahead, we're looking at work requirements in
[4:40:00] six month renewals that will create more additional
[4:40:05] administrative barriers to coverage. And we're estimating
[4:40:08] anywhere from 15 to 30% of our patients will be affected by
[4:40:12] this. And especially concerned about the impact on patients
[4:40:16] experiencing homelessness and patients with significant
[4:40:19] behavioral health needs. And despite all this, we will keep
[4:40:25] our doors open regardless of the ability to pay for patients
[4:40:30] and provide comprehensive medical, dental, and behavioral
[4:40:33] health services, and ensuring that we have robust.
[4:40:38] Next speaker is Sean. Please unmute.
[4:40:46] Good afternoon, board members and county staff. Um, Sean
[4:40:51] Selvam with iPPt local 21 and also the Contra Costa County
[4:40:55] Union Coalition, first Contra Costa Health leadership did not
[4:40:58] adjust their assumptions around enrollment losses, despite the
[4:41:01] fact that the state has done so. This makes the projected
[4:41:04] problem look worse than it is. The state reduced their
[4:41:07] assumptions because the 80 hour work requirement can now be met
[4:41:10] with earning the equivalent of 80 hours at the federal minimum
[4:41:13] wage, a threshold many California workers would meet
[4:41:16] due to higher wages. It's unusual that Contra Costa
[4:41:19] Health leadership seems to be going in the other direction
[4:41:21] and actually increasing their assumed losses and out years.
[4:41:24] Please be aware this may undermine the accuracy of their
[4:41:27] loss projections. Other counties, like San Francisco,
[4:41:30] are assuming that investments in enrollment staffing now
[4:41:32] could help mitigate enrollment losses in the future. Even
[4:41:35] further, our county should be preparing to implement the work
[4:41:38] requirements now, and if we're able to get good systems in
[4:41:40] place with adequate staffing, we should be able to lower
[4:41:43] assumed revenue losses. We look forward to hearing Doctor
[4:41:46] Stuart's progress report on this project on September 8th.
[4:41:49] Second, these Contra Costa Health projections also assume
[4:41:52] that County General Fund support remains flat. It won't
[4:41:56] entirely. Sales tax was recently expanded to cover
[4:41:59] digital software sales, but I don't see any estimates for how
[4:42:02] much new revenue this could bring into the county, which
[4:42:04] could help some with these deficits. Third, the deficit
[4:42:08] for this year has been reduced to 10 million, down from 80
[4:42:10] million remarkably quickly. And there is likely more they could
[4:42:13] do. So far, they've only made 6 million in reductions to IT
[4:42:17] contracts. We're guessing there are many more contracts that
[4:42:19] could be reduced, reducing contracts countywide now can
[4:42:22] save money later. Fourth, Contra Costa Health doesn't
[4:42:25] mention whether or not they're looking at vacant positions and
[4:42:28] either properly accounting for them or reassessing their need.
[4:42:31] C's health should be required to do both before impacting any
[4:42:35] filled positions. And finally, Contra Costa Health leadership
[4:42:38] in the CEO have not met with workers to share their plans or
[4:42:41] seek our input. The voices of county workers should be
[4:42:44] included in these discussions moving forward. Thank you very
[4:42:47] much. Next speaker is Craig. Please
[4:42:51] unmute. Thank you. Very interesting
[4:42:56] presentation. I just want, as a resident of Martinez, I want to
[4:42:59] offer my gratitude to Contra Costa Health for the great work
[4:43:03] you do. Um, I have a disabled family member who began
[4:43:07] receiving services from Contra Costa Health earlier this year,
[4:43:11] and we've been very pleased with the level of services
[4:43:15] she's received compared to what she was receiving previously.
[4:43:17] And anecdotally, I've heard that, especially when it comes
[4:43:20] to mental health services, a lot of people have left their
[4:43:23] private, um, private insurers to come to Contra Costa Health
[4:43:27] if they're eligible, because your services are so much
[4:43:30] stronger and more robust. And I know that puts also puts an
[4:43:34] additional financial burden on you. But thank you so much.
[4:43:38] Just a couple quick observations. I think, you
[4:43:42] know, in terms of the federal cuts that are devastating our
[4:43:45] system, I think it just shines a light on how important the
[4:43:48] upcoming elections in 2026 and 2028 will be throughout the
[4:43:52] country in determining, you know, the future of our
[4:43:55] country, but of our our local institutions and our health
[4:43:59] department. And that will come down to what voters do in
[4:44:02] places like Iowa and Ohio and lots of other places. So I hope
[4:44:06] all of our residents are, um, keeping a close eye and paying
[4:44:10] attention and doing what they can, looking at this issue
[4:44:13] holistically, I also wanted to make the comment that, as we
[4:44:17] all know, uh, broader social conditions have a lot to do
[4:44:20] with the health of our community. And in, um, in turn,
[4:44:25] the impact of their health or their health problems on
[4:44:28] government and the health depament. And I just want to
[4:44:31] underscore again, the issue of, um, housing insecurity. Housing
[4:44:35] insecurity leads to health problems, health issues that
[4:44:39] burden, um, our health department. And so the more
[4:44:42] that our local leaders in Contra Costa County can address
[4:44:45] the issue of housing security, the more progress we'll be able
[4:44:49] to make. Um, in stabilizing our health, Contra Costa Health
[4:44:53] Services. Thank you. Next speaker is Tracy. Please
[4:44:59] unmute. Hello.
[4:45:02] Good afternoon. I'm Tracy mendez. Um, Allied
[4:45:05] Health. A.
[4:45:05] Community health center consortium.
[4:45:07] Thank you so much to Doctor Colfax, Doctor Colfax.
[4:45:10] And. Directors Muriel and Culberson
[4:45:12] for. highlighting both the institutional and human costs
[4:45:15] of these all these policies changes. Um, and I think you
[4:45:19] all know this, but as Mariana and you both pointed out, the
[4:45:22] impacts, you know, will be felt well beyond the county and well
[4:45:25] beyond just low income residents of the county. But to
[4:45:29] really to all residents, ultimately, and certainly all
[4:45:32] health care providers, especially those that are part
[4:45:34] of the safety net, um, and those like our community health
[4:45:37] centers that have disproportionately served the
[4:45:40] uninsured population. The US population, other vulnerable
[4:45:45] groups. And as you mentioned, you know, some of these changes
[4:45:48] that were not reflected in the slides include the loss of
[4:45:51] covered California subsidies and changes in coverage that
[4:45:54] are already hitting health centers with more uninsured
[4:45:59] patients without any increase in revenue. Um, so, you know,
[4:46:03] we in health centers have the same strategies as the county.
[4:46:06] We're looking at revenue capture. We're looking at
[4:46:08] reducing costs wherever we can without affecting care,
[4:46:11] improving enrollment, navigation as as Supervisor
[4:46:15] Gioia, you pointed out, and we continue we plan to continue
[4:46:18] being, you know, an accessible, high quality, cost effective
[4:46:21] partner in the primary care and other spaces. So we look
[4:46:25] forward to working with all of you supervisors, the health
[4:46:28] department, AiSd, the health plan, the hospitals and others
[4:46:32] to do all the work that's needed ahead of us to advocate
[4:46:35] and improve our systems so that we are there for the patients
[4:46:39] that need us. Thank you. Next speaker is Jim. Please
[4:46:43] unmute. Yeah. This is Jim Donnelly,
[4:46:52] emeritus member, Advisory Council on Aging. Um, great.
[4:46:58] Uh, informative presentation. Unfortunately, the, uh, the
[4:47:01] results are really depressing. I'd like to say. Just think
[4:47:05] what it could have been if we could have passed measure B,
[4:47:07] but that's the way it is. And unfortunately, an awful lot of
[4:47:11] the people that are going to be impacted, our seniors, because
[4:47:14] they do represent a higher number, um, just keep trying to
[4:47:19] find where we can to cut and be more effective. That's all I
[4:47:23] can say. I'm glad I'm not having to make the decisions.
[4:47:27] It's late. We've been here a long time today, so that's all
[4:47:30] I have to say. Thank you. The next speaker is Daniel.
[4:47:35] Please unmute. Uh, good afternoon. Uh, board
[4:47:39] members, uh, Daniel Romer, uh, Walnut Creek, California.
[4:47:43] Um. Uh, being from Walnut Creek, we
[4:47:46] often hear. Walnut Creek, referred to as the jewel of the
[4:47:48] East Bay for its robust shopping center. Um, I'd like.
[4:47:51] to say that I think that the the real jewel is the, uh, the
[4:47:55] hospital in Martinez. Um, it's an incredible resource. I know
[4:47:59] this for many reasons, but, uh, dearest to my heart, my father
[4:48:03] received care in cardiology. The ER, and the primary
[4:48:06] departments there and the care that he received there was as
[4:48:10] good or better than anything he received at Stanford and USF.
[4:48:13] Um, so I would just like to say, uh, please work with the
[4:48:17] with the hospital, help them not just to survive, um, but to
[4:48:20] thrive. Also, I'd like to say, apropos of the earlier
[4:48:24] presentations, the county serves and serves as the
[4:48:28] backbone for a lot of the essential workers in this
[4:48:31] county. Uh, I don't think we don't consider that charity
[4:48:34] that's basically giving them their due for what they give
[4:48:37] us. And so for that reason as well, I encourage you to work
[4:48:40] as, uh, and do whatever we have to do to support the hospital.
[4:48:44] Thank you. There are no more comments.
[4:48:47] Thank you. Yeah. 1 in 5 people are getting services from us.
[4:48:52] That means that 1 in 5 people need it, and they're not having
[4:48:57] to go to other places. So we want to be able to deliver
[4:49:00] that. If there's any other comments. Okay.
[4:49:06] I was just going to say thank you. Very, very informative
[4:49:09] report and I appreciate that. In the preceding months, as
[4:49:12] I've met with your team monthly, you've been giving me
[4:49:14] a little bit of a preview of this, this very lengthy
[4:49:18] exercise, for lack of a better word, that we've been going
[4:49:21] through to really analyze our finances, to make them more
[4:49:25] transparent, understandable by the public, more importantly by
[4:49:29] us, the Board of Supervisors, to really understand how we can
[4:49:33] best deliver services to our community in the most
[4:49:37] efficient, cost effective way is very, very helpful. And I
[4:49:41] appreciate that we're on this path. We are weighing our
[4:49:44] options because at the end of the day, we always say we have
[4:49:47] to live within our means. And yes, to a certain extent, we
[4:49:51] have over the years continue to support our health system
[4:49:54] through our county general fund. But as we see that under
[4:49:58] attack as well, declining because of other impacts, we
[4:50:01] really do need to figure out how can we provide the very
[4:50:04] best cost effective health care system to those most in need,
[4:50:09] while at the same time being able to ensure that we can
[4:50:12] provide that in the future and that we will have the funds to
[4:50:15] do so. And so thank you. Very helpful to me.
[4:50:18] And for those that are still interested, you know, do your
[4:50:22] research, check out what all of these different things are and
[4:50:25] why the county does what we do. And and it's value. I made a
[4:50:31] motion to accept this report. I got a second from Supervisor
[4:50:37] Carlson. John. And it passes unanimously. Thank you so much.
[4:50:51] Thank you. Supervisor. Okay. We have thank you. All of
[4:50:55] the folks in the back from health. You all are rock stars.
[4:50:59] Um, we have two more items. Um, we have a quick lunch, and so
[4:51:08] are you. How quick can you guys eat lunch?
[4:51:10] I say, let's be back at two. It's 141. We have 19 minutes to
[4:51:15] eat our lunch, and hopefully everyone's already left for
[4:51:18] lunch. Who needs to grab lunch elsewhere?
[4:51:20] Yep. 20 minutes. We'll be back at 2:00. Yes, boy. Jamie, you
[5:11:50] are amazing. So good afternoon. We are back from a fairly quick
[5:11:56] lunch. Uh, we are on item D3, which is a resolution. I'm
[5:12:06] trying to read it. Uh, adopting resolution number 2026 319,
[5:12:12] approving the successor memorandum of understanding
[5:12:15] between the Contra Costa County, between Contra Costa
[5:12:19] County and Teamsters Local 856, implementing a negotiated wage
[5:12:24] agreements and other economic terms and conditions of
[5:12:27] employment for the period of August 1st, 2026 through July
[5:12:33] 31st, 2028, and approving a side letter to conduct a
[5:12:39] compensation study. And we have David Sanford here from Labor
[5:12:43] Relations. Hello, David. Just for a second. I'm getting
[5:12:46] a text that zoom is again muted.
[5:12:49] Alrighty. We check that please.
[5:12:52] I am going to see if zoom is working. It.
[5:13:01] Thank you supervisor. We're unmuting it right now. Okay. We
[5:13:37] are now unmuted. Thank you. So good afternoon everyone. We
[5:13:42] are back. Uh we are going to do D3. I read it a moment ago, but
[5:13:47] I'm not going to read it again. I'm going to let David talk
[5:13:51] about what we're what we're doing in that way. We're saving
[5:13:54] a little bit of time. Uh, thank you, chair Bergus and
[5:13:56] Board of Supervisors. Um, yes. I am pleased to share that the
[5:14:00] county and Teamsters Local 856 have reached a agreement on a
[5:14:04] successor memorandum of understanding. This item asked
[5:14:08] the board to adopt a resolution approving that successor
[5:14:11] memorandum of understanding, as well as a side letter that
[5:14:14] arose out of bargaining regarding a compensation study
[5:14:17] to be performed during the term of the MOU. The county began
[5:14:21] bargaining with the Teamsters on February 24th, 2026, and
[5:14:25] reached agreement on a new contract on August 12th. The
[5:14:28] Teamsters completed their ratification vote on August
[5:14:31] 20th. As detailed in the background section of the staff
[5:14:35] report and the attached MOU, the agreement provides for 3%
[5:14:39] salary increases in each year of the two year contract. These
[5:14:43] increases will result in approximately $15.4 million in
[5:14:46] additional personnel costs over the term of the agreement, and
[5:14:49] operating departments will be expected to absorb the
[5:14:52] additional personnel costs resulting from the agreement.
[5:14:56] The parties also agreed to reallocate the salaries of
[5:14:59] several mental health classifications, which are
[5:15:02] critical to service delivery and our health system. This
[5:15:06] includes the creation of a newly established licensed and
[5:15:11] unlicensed mental health clinical specialist.
[5:15:14] Classification. These allocations together represent
[5:15:17] additional costs of $3.9 million based on allocation at
[5:15:21] top step. The agreement also maintains the status quo on the
[5:15:27] county's current health care subsidy structure for the
[5:15:29] Kaiser Teamsters Trust. For the duration of the contract, the
[5:15:34] county recommends that the board adopt the resolution
[5:15:36] approving the successor Memorandum of Understanding and
[5:15:39] the side letter. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any
[5:15:41] questions or comments before we go to public comment?
[5:15:44] I'll wait for public comment. Alrighty. Are there any public
[5:15:47] comments for this item? If there are any callers or
[5:15:50] zoom participants. Who.
[5:15:51] Would like to speak on the MOU between Contra Costa County and
[5:15:55] Teamsters Local 856, please press pound two if you're on
[5:15:59] the phone or raise your hand in.
[5:16:01] The zoom app. There are no comments ready.
[5:16:08] Any comments or questions before we.
[5:16:11] Just, um. Take.
[5:16:13] A motion? Thank you for your efforts. You and your team and
[5:16:17] successfully reaching an agreement. And thank you to our
[5:16:23] eight, five, six Teamsters 856 um, leadership and members for
[5:16:27] your work and partnership. Alrighty. I have a motion from
[5:16:33] Supervisor Carlson and a second from Supervisor Anderson. Don.
[5:16:46] And it passes unanimously. Thank you. Alrighty. We're
[5:16:50] going to move on to item D4, which is to consider accepting
[5:16:56] the monthly update on the activities and oversight of the
[5:16:59] county's Head Start program. Approve the fiscal year 2425
[5:17:03] single audit findings related to Head Start approved the
[5:17:07] revised Head Start governance policies. Resolution Number
[5:17:10] 2023, slash 274, and resolution number 2023, slash 499 and
[5:17:18] provide guidance as recommended by the Employment and Human
[5:17:22] Services Director. Thank you. And good afternoon,
[5:17:28] Chair Bergus and members. of the board. I am.
[5:17:30] Martha Stewart, the. Director of the Employment and
[5:17:32] Human Services Department, and I'm here today with Sarah
[5:17:35] Reich, our director of Community Services Bureau. This
[5:17:38] is your monthly early childhood education update for August
[5:17:41] 2026. And can we get the slides up? There we go. Um, great. So
[5:17:50] we're on slide two. Now. Um, we'll brief you on six topics
[5:17:53] today, including both our federal and state funded early
[5:17:56] childhood education programs. Um, we will not be briefing you
[5:17:59] on the Policy Council as they do not meet in July, and they
[5:18:02] did not meet in July. Next slide. Moving on to our federal
[5:18:08] environment updates. And next slide. We're now on slide four.
[5:18:13] Um, we have one update for you today regarding our federal
[5:18:16] environment. On August 6th, the US Department of Health and
[5:18:20] Human Services issued a notice of Proposed rulemaking
[5:18:24] concerning the Head Start program performance standards.
[5:18:27] Their proposed changes include a significant reduction in
[5:18:31] federal regulations. It is open for public comment until
[5:18:36] October 6th. We are assessing the changes and the potential
[5:18:40] impacts for our program, and we will bring this item to the
[5:18:44] September Head Start Committee meeting. We will be
[5:18:47] recommending that you make comments on this rule, the
[5:18:51] final rule is expected next year until the final rule is
[5:18:55] issued. We continue to operate our program according to
[5:18:58] current federal standards. Next slide. And now we're on slide
[5:19:02] six. There you go. Sorry for technical.
[5:19:07] Difficulties here. Oh here. There we.
[5:19:09] Go. Okay.
[5:19:14] Moving on. To our child.
[5:19:15] Care center. Service updates.
[5:19:18] We are happy to share our slot plans for this year.
[5:19:21] Which align with. Your governing body.
[5:19:23] Goals and program objectives. This table highlights two of
[5:19:27] the five fiscal year. 2627 governing Body program.
[5:19:33] Goals and. Objectives related to our
[5:19:35] program expansion.. And the.
[5:19:37] First row we transitioned part day classrooms to full day
[5:19:41] classrooms to meet the needs of commuting families at our
[5:19:44] Balboa and George Miller three centers in Richmond. This was
[5:19:48] our program objective for the year and will provide families
[5:19:52] with full day coverage to support working. and going to
[5:19:55] school. For the second row, we have two updates. The first is
[5:20:00] that we opened 70 additional slots in existing locations
[5:20:04] using state funding for fiscal year 2627. You will see this
[5:20:09] reflected in the July enrollment data we present in
[5:20:12] September. We do we do want to note that we expect an initial
[5:20:17] dip in our enrollment percentage as we work to fill
[5:20:20] these new slots. The second update here is that we are
[5:20:25] nearing licensing approval to open two new infant toddler
[5:20:29] classrooms, serving an additional 16 children. Each of
[5:20:33] these will be at the Los Nogales Center and District
[5:20:36] three, and the Livonia Allen Center and District five. These
[5:20:41] slots are not yet reflected in the updated slot plans by
[5:20:44] district. We'll show you on the next slide. This is an updated
[5:20:50] summary of how our slots spread across districts following
[5:20:53] these updates, we have increased slots in district one
[5:20:58] and district five. The decrease in district three slots was due
[5:21:02] to shifting infant toddler slots from a partner agency
[5:21:05] located in the district to our directly operated centers based
[5:21:10] in districts one and five. As mentioned, we are planning for
[5:21:14] an additional 16 infant toddler slots for the district three
[5:21:17] later this year. We continue to monitor our progress at
[5:21:21] aligning the distribution of slots with the distribution of
[5:21:25] the county 0 to 5 year old population. We can open only
[5:21:30] one more classroom within our current directly operated
[5:21:33] centers. Any additional expansion would need to come
[5:21:36] through partner contracts or acquiring space. In June, we
[5:21:42] had 98% enrollment for our federal slots and 99% of our
[5:21:47] state slots. In June, the federal attendance rate was
[5:21:53] 73%, and the most common absence reason was child
[5:21:57] illness. There is no penalty for low federal attendance. The
[5:22:01] state attendance rate was 98%. There was no state penalty for
[5:22:06] attendance. In June. Starting in July, our state
[5:22:10] reimbursement was based on attendance. We served an
[5:22:16] average of 1807 meals daily. In June. Throw throughout our
[5:22:22] child care centers and subsidy programs. We served over 4000
[5:22:27] children in June. Our new fiscal year began on July 1st.
[5:22:32] Today, we are reporting budget summaries through June and
[5:22:36] closing out fiscal year 2526. In June, we spent 3.3 million.
[5:22:44] Our year to date, year to date expenditure is 26.7 million,
[5:22:49] with a remaining balance of 880,000. In measure X funding,
[5:22:55] our measure X funding covers a new contract that had startup
[5:23:00] time. It is now fully operational and we expect to
[5:23:04] expand our full measure X award within fiscal year 2627. In
[5:23:10] fiscal year 2526, we fully expanded our federal headstart
[5:23:14] Grant and the required non-federal share. We spent
[5:23:20] $27,500 with Head Start funds utilizing credit cards. In
[5:23:25] June, all purases were budgeted and made by authorized
[5:23:28] staff. The Office of Head Start requires the board to approve
[5:23:34] the annual single audit for fiscal year 2425. The audit had
[5:23:39] no findings for the Head Start program. Your board finance
[5:23:43] Committee reviewed and approved the single audit on July 13th.
[5:23:47] Today, we are asking you to approve the single audit for
[5:23:51] Head Start revenue and expenditures. Moving on to our
[5:23:55] monitoring results in June, all five monitoring tools had over
[5:24:02] 96% compliance rates. We want to highlight the we want to
[5:24:07] highlight the first two charts for daily playground and
[5:24:10] classroom safety. These observations are completed at
[5:24:14] the start of every day, for every classroom and every
[5:24:17] playground at all. Directly operated and partner physical
[5:24:21] centers to make sure that our facilities are safe for
[5:24:24] children. They identify potential safety concerns so
[5:24:29] corrections can be made, and so that we can avoid children
[5:24:32] being at risk during the day. In June, we completed 4915
[5:24:39] daily playground observations with a 99% compliance rate and
[5:24:44] 23,725 daily classrooms, offers daily classroom observations
[5:24:50] with a compliance rate of 100%. This monitoring is an important
[5:24:55] part of our commitment to child safety. There were two
[5:25:01] indicators from our child Transition and safety
[5:25:04] monitoring tool that had a noncompliance rate over 10%. We
[5:25:08] have followed up with staff in those centers to ensure all
[5:25:12] forms are being completed to fidelity. In June, we had one
[5:25:17] incident reportable to Head Start and no citations from
[5:25:21] child care licensing. A site staff member observed. And we
[5:25:26] see on video foot camera footage, a staff member pulled
[5:25:29] a child by the arm to guide them to sit back down on a mat
[5:25:33] during nap time. These actions do not align with our policies
[5:25:38] and standards of conduct, so that staff so that staff member
[5:25:43] was immediately reassigned out of the classroom to an office
[5:25:47] location while we conducted fact finding, the staff member
[5:25:52] was separated from the county following the investigation,
[5:25:57] the child was immediately assessed and did not show signs
[5:26:00] of injury, but was upset about the interaction. We talked with
[5:26:04] the parents about the incident and they appreciated our
[5:26:07] response. The child has continued attending and the
[5:26:10] family is happy at the center. Head start closed the incident
[5:26:14] following our report. The incident was also reported to
[5:26:18] Community Care Licensing, who did issue a type A citation
[5:26:22] that you will see on next month's report. We have cleared
[5:26:26] the citation. Moving on to official communications from
[5:26:31] our federal and state funders. We did not receive any official
[5:26:34] communications from the office of Head Start. In June.
[5:26:43] Last year, California passed AB 495, known as the Family
[5:26:47] Preparedness Act of 2025 for child care providers. This is
[5:26:54] very similar to, but not the same as, SB 580. That applies
[5:26:59] broadly to county agencies and facilities. You have discussed
[5:27:03] SB 580 in previous presentations, and today what
[5:27:08] I'm reporting to you about is 8495, which is for child care
[5:27:12] centers only. Um, so California passed 84, 95. It's a reaction
[5:27:18] to the heightened federal immigration enforcement. And
[5:27:20] the goal is to protect our families information and to
[5:27:23] provide backup caregiver options in the event that a
[5:27:27] child's parent is unexpectedly detained or separated from
[5:27:30] them. AB 495 requires that child care providers, including
[5:27:35] the county and our partner agencies, requires us to
[5:27:39] implement model policies aimed to protect the rights of
[5:27:41] immigrants and allow them to safely access our facilities.
[5:27:46] Programs were required to adopt policies by July 1st, and we
[5:27:49] have done so. We analyzed our compliance with the new
[5:27:52] guidance, and we conferred with County Council. We are already
[5:27:56] highly compliant and we did need to make a few changes,
[5:27:59] such as strengthening the language in our procedures
[5:28:01] manual and our family handbook, and adding certain signage to
[5:28:05] our centers. You delegate your Head Start executive director,
[5:28:09] which is me. You delegate me the authority to approve
[5:28:12] program policies. I have approved these policies. We've
[5:28:16] trained our staff and we have implemented them.
[5:28:26] The next two updates from the California Department of Social
[5:28:29] Services are similar to updates we received from the California
[5:28:33] from the California Department of Education in April. As a
[5:28:37] reminder, we received state funding from both departments
[5:28:40] for similar but different programs based on the children
[5:28:44] served. They often issued similar guidance throughout the
[5:28:48] year. The California Department of Social Services issued the
[5:28:51] fiscal year 2627 Family Fee guidance staff updated our
[5:28:56] guidance to align and notified families who pay fees. We have
[5:29:01] 19 families paying fees. Currently, the current family
[5:29:05] fee range is from $33 to $105. The California Department of
[5:29:13] Social Services issued the fiscal year 2627 income
[5:29:18] guidelines. The income ceilings increase slightly based on
[5:29:22] family size. Staff updated our guidance to align income.
[5:29:26] Ceilings were updated at 85% of state median income, including
[5:29:31] yearly ceilings at $115,637 for a family of four. This is an
[5:29:38] increase of $7,400 last. The California Department of Social
[5:29:44] Services issued guidance on how to submit an emergency.
[5:29:48] Emergency closure request form for days when sites or
[5:29:52] classrooms need to close for circumstances beyond their
[5:29:55] control. No action is needed at this time as we are already in
[5:29:59] compliance, we added a special section to this month's
[5:30:04] discussed proposed to this month to discuss proposed board
[5:30:09] governance updates. We bring proposed edits to two of three
[5:30:16] County Headstart governance policies today for approval.
[5:30:21] These policies were established in July 2023. We proposed
[5:30:27] revising resolution number 2023 to 74 to address the cadence.
[5:30:34] The Head Start Committee meets the current language dates. It
[5:30:37] will meet every other month, but we recommend changing it to
[5:30:43] six times per year. This will give more flexibility to work
[5:30:47] with the board meeting calendar. Super supervisor
[5:30:52] availability and programming needs. The second recommended
[5:30:56] change is for resolution 2023 499. Regarding the internal
[5:31:02] fiscal controls, the US Department of Health and Human
[5:31:06] Services adopted the government wide two CFR part 200 Uniform
[5:31:12] Guidance in October 2025. These proposed changes align with the
[5:31:17] revised Federal Regulations. This is the conclusion of our
[5:31:25] report. We're available for questions or guidance, after
[5:31:28] which we ask you to formally accept the report. We also ask
[5:31:31] you to approve the 2425 single audit findings related to the
[5:31:35] Head Start program, for which we had no findings. And we ask
[5:31:39] that you approve the proposed revised Head Start governance
[5:31:43] policies. Thank you. Do any of my
[5:31:46] colleagues have any comments or questions? Questions. Okay.
[5:31:50] Go ahead. So just on on the fee. So this this is when we
[5:31:56] have additional slots that aren't filled by those who are
[5:32:02] Head Start eligible to pay nothing. Right. I thought we
[5:32:05] had such a waiting list that we don't have open slots.
[5:32:13] Um, correct. Head start is free of charge to a families and so
[5:32:17] the family fees are for the state funded childcare
[5:32:20] programs. Um, we do have an open slots at this time. And so
[5:32:25] we are actively enrolling in certain circumstances. There
[5:32:29] are other, um, eligibility criteria that elevates the
[5:32:35] priority. Um, in enrollment. So yeah, right.
[5:32:39] I personally so it could be that a family is next in line
[5:32:43] to enroll in our center that has a little bit higher income.
[5:32:47] So those slots only are available if a fully, um, Head
[5:32:53] Start eligible family does not take advantage of all the
[5:32:56] slots. Right. So in other words, there's still a
[5:32:59] preference for those who are fully eligible.
[5:33:09] These are state only slots that have no Head Start funding.
[5:33:12] I see other the state slots. Yeah. And we have we have um 19
[5:33:18] families in these slots. Got it. Okay. And so those are
[5:33:22] dedicated for those for, for those who may be low income but
[5:33:28] don't have, um, full head start eligibility. And therefore
[5:33:32] don't get funded. So these are 19 slots that are state funded
[5:33:36] and not federally funded. That's correct.
[5:33:39] Okay. Thanks. Any more questions or comments?
[5:33:46] Okay. I have a motion from Anderson and a second from
[5:33:49] Carlson. Oh, I didn't do public comment. Woo! Woof. Do we have
[5:33:55] any public comments on this item?
[5:33:57] If there are any callers or zoom participants who would
[5:34:00] like to speak on the Headstart Monthly update, the single
[5:34:03] audit findings and the revised Head Start governance policies,
[5:34:08] please press pound two if you're on the phone or raise
[5:34:11] your hand in the zoom app. We have no comments.
[5:34:30] And it passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay, so
[5:34:35] should we do public comment? I'm, um, I'm making that little
[5:34:43] joke because there are some people that have been in this
[5:34:46] room all day long, and I want to appreciate your patience,
[5:34:52] and I hope that it was an interesting meeting for you. So
[5:34:55] we are going to move to public comment. Hey, Jamie, are there
[5:34:58] any public comments that are not on today's agenda? But, um,
[5:35:02] for the Board of Supervisors? Yes, chair Bergus, there are we
[5:35:06] have comments in chambers. If there are any callers or zoom
[5:35:09] participants, please press pound two. If you're on the
[5:35:12] phone or raise your hand in the zoom app. And we will start
[5:35:17] with our comments in chambers. The first comment is, Pamela,
[5:35:21] please come to the podium. Thank you very much. Good
[5:35:27] afternoon. Chair Bergus.
[5:35:29] Members. It's.
[5:35:29] Great to see you. It was a delight.
[5:35:31] Actually, to be in chambers today to get to hear the work.
[5:35:33] That you're helping. Make possible in our county.
[5:35:36] I'm Pamela. Ralston, I'm the president of.
[5:35:38] Los Madonnas College, and I'm here today in partnership with
[5:35:42] the Antioch Chamber of Commerce. As we open the 2026
[5:35:47] proposal for the East Contra Costa County nonprofit capacity
[5:35:51] building Initiative.. Whew!
[5:35:53] It's pretty exciting. And we're thrilled that our press release
[5:35:59] went out today. The website is live. We welcome applications
[5:36:02] through October 18th, and we plan to announce the grant
[5:36:05] awards the week of November 2nd. We will award at least 12
[5:36:10] sub grants ranging from 10,000 to $20,000. This is a private
[5:36:15] public partnership intended to strengthen nonprofits and
[5:36:18] community leadership in our region. The funding comes from
[5:36:21] the $1 million investment from Contra Costa County Measure X
[5:36:25] that was passed in 2020, and it's designed to serve the
[5:36:29] communities of Antioch, Bay point, Brentwood, Byron,
[5:36:32] discovery Bay Knights and Oakley and Pittsburgh. This
[5:36:36] initiative this year will provide $240,000 in sub grants
[5:36:41] to support organizational capacity, strengthen the
[5:36:44] nonprofit sector, and develop the next generation of our
[5:36:48] amazing nonprofit leaders, projects include those aimed at
[5:36:52] improving organizational effectiveness, sustainability
[5:36:56] and infrastructure, and those intended to increase
[5:36:58] opportunities for paid internships that help build our
[5:37:02] workforce pipeline. Since receiving the grant in October
[5:37:06] of last year, we have an established we have established
[5:37:09] an advisory board that includes dozens of community
[5:37:13] stakeholders and experts from across our region. We have
[5:37:17] hired grant coordinator Cole Martin, who works closely with
[5:37:20] the Antioch Chamber of Commerce, on reviewing and
[5:37:23] awarding the sub grants. Local also collaborates with our
[5:37:26] workforce and economic Development Manager in Career
[5:37:29] and technical education. Bill Bankhead is here with me today
[5:37:32] and our senior Dean of diversity, equity, Inclusion
[5:37:34] and Belonging, Doctor Rosa Armendariz, who sends her
[5:37:37] regrets, as does the Cole Martin. Um, we'll all be here
[5:37:41] together when we get a chance to produce a presentation on
[5:37:45] our annual report that will be working with, uh, getting on
[5:37:49] your your schedule for the rest of this year. And finally, we
[5:37:53] have created eight week classes for academic credit that
[5:37:56] stacked toward a nonprofit management certificate and
[5:37:59] toward associate degrees. And we look forward to bringing in
[5:38:02] our first cohort of students this coming spring. I look
[5:38:06] forward to providing you a more formal presentation later this
[5:38:09] fall. And thank you very much for your time.
[5:38:12] Thank you so much. Um, this was a project that I originally
[5:38:18] recommended, and Supervisor Glover supported, and so this
[5:38:24] is really meaningful for East County. And I'm just thank you
[5:38:29] for all the hard work. And thanks for waiting all day to
[5:38:31] be able to talk. To us. I'm always happy to be
[5:38:33] here. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.
[5:38:35] The next speaker is Maeve. Please come to the podium.
[5:38:41] Hello, Maeve. Welcome. Second time here.
[5:38:47] Okay. Hello.
[5:38:49] County Board. Of supervisors.
[5:38:50] My name is Maeve. I'm here again as a resident of
[5:38:53] Pittsburgh, speaking in opposition to the vile Perseus
[5:38:55] Data Center project, which is proposed to be built within
[5:38:58] 400ft of residences near a church and Rancho O'Donnell's
[5:39:02] Junior High School. This project would place 37 days of
[5:39:06] backup generators near homes and a school. On the last bit
[5:39:09] of open space we have in Pittsburgh, and I want to make
[5:39:13] a point about the diesel generators because a data
[5:39:17] center was recently broken ground in San Jose, the Alviso
[5:39:21] Data Center by Microsoft, and they did not get they could not
[5:39:25] get an air permit for the diesel they had. They had used
[5:39:28] natural gas generators which emit less particulate matter,
[5:39:32] soot and nitrogen oxides, which I think is relevant to the
[5:39:35] health discussions that took place earlier. Um, our
[5:39:39] neighbors Oakland, Brentwood, um, have enacted or are
[5:39:43] considering moratoriums on the construction of hyperscale AI
[5:39:46] data centers in their cities. Again, I am asking the county
[5:39:49] Board of Supervisors for a countywide ban on all
[5:39:52] hyperscale data center projects to protect Pittsburgh and all
[5:39:55] cities in Contra Costa County from this predatory and
[5:39:58] speculative industry. The issues with this project do not
[5:40:01] remain only in Pittsburgh. If hyperscale data centers, which
[5:40:04] consume as much electricity as an entire town, continue to be
[5:40:08] proposed and built in California, the power grid will
[5:40:10] need massive upgrades. This will cause everyone's puny
[5:40:14] bills to increase. This is not a done deal. This kind of thing
[5:40:17] happens with developments all of the time. Contracts can be
[5:40:20] changed or be voided until it's built. It's not done. And
[5:40:23] Pittsburgh residents continue to speak out. We need to see
[5:40:26] the creativity and will from our leadership to find a path
[5:40:29] forward. Without a data center in Pittsburgh, the public
[5:40:32] cannot be dismissed and willfully ignored on this
[5:40:35] matter any longer. Stop that to consider. Data center
[5:40:39] construction in Contra Costa County. Promote transparency
[5:40:42] and ban NDAs with developers. Thank you. Board.
[5:40:46] The next speaker is Anna. Please come to the podium.
[5:40:58] Hi. Good afternoon.
[5:41:02] Board of Supervisors. This is my.
[5:41:04] First, uh, speech. Um. So my name.
[5:41:08] Is Anna. I'm a. Pittsburgh resident. I'm here
[5:41:11] along with my neighbors to demand that you help us reverse
[5:41:14] the course of this massive key, massive data center in
[5:41:19] Pittsburgh by the Delta View Golf course on West Leland
[5:41:23] Road. Um.
[5:41:26] Pittsburgh Council unanimously approved phase one for this
[5:41:30] hyperscale facility in 2024. Nobody knew about it. All my
[5:41:34] neighbors that I talked to, they don't have no clue what's
[5:41:36] going on. I happen to be scrolling on next door and I
[5:41:41] seen it. It's at no data center in Pittsburgh. I said what? I
[5:41:44] clicked because I hear it on the news that they're building
[5:41:47] them all over. And I said, no way. And then I started to get
[5:41:50] involved. I go to these council meetings, I sit there and I
[5:41:54] listen. So now I have to get involved. I don't know what
[5:41:57] else to do but to come here and just voice my word. We don't
[5:42:01] want this data center over there. I don't know if you guys
[5:42:05] know much about it, but it's going to make a lot of Z 24
[5:42:08] over seven. Um, after sitting here all day and I see all
[5:42:13] these Medi-Cal cuts that are happening, this there's going
[5:42:16] to be health impact on this data center. And it seems to me
[5:42:19] that people, when they get sick with this asthma and
[5:42:22] cardiovascular problems, there's not going to be any
[5:42:26] coverage to go anywhere to go get help. So this stuff is
[5:42:29] really, really serious. And I'm coming here to ask you guys,
[5:42:33] please to, you know, maybe you can show up to one of these,
[5:42:37] uh, city right now, there's only three of us here, but
[5:42:40] usually we just pack out this whole thing there. The third
[5:42:44] three floors. Um, so please, please help us. And this. We
[5:42:48] don't want this. I mean, why would they want to do this in
[5:42:51] front of the school residents? Why? I just said it's money.
[5:42:54] It's power and money. So at the end of the day.
[5:42:58] We. Thank you. Anna.
[5:43:02] The next speaker is Randy. Please come to the podium.
[5:43:14] I voted. For two of you guys.
[5:43:15] That's on the council right now. And I voted for three out
[5:43:19] of Pittsburgh. Um, Chambers County Chambers, uh, Pittsford
[5:43:26] Chambers. And, uh, I didn't like how it was kicked out of
[5:43:30] the meeting on the 17th. And we got removed. The they closed
[5:43:36] the chambers. They synced downstairs, and they locked the
[5:43:40] front door. That was a public building and a public meeting
[5:43:43] that we should not have been kicked out of. Thank you.
[5:43:48] We can now go to our zoom comment.
[5:43:53] Next speaker is Liz. Please unmute.
[5:44:00] All right. Good afternoon.
[5:44:02] I'm so grateful that I have an opportunity to kind of rebut
[5:44:05] some of the statements that were made regarding the
[5:44:08] sheriff's actions and Ice, um, work, because I think it's very
[5:44:13] critical that there is a that actually we should not even be
[5:44:17] a sanctuary county. And the fact that we have any
[5:44:21] interactions that are negative, um, is because we are we are
[5:44:25] not following fully the immigration laws of our
[5:44:28] country. But I just wanted to mention that Sheriff David
[5:44:32] Livingston's works under the limited California SB 54. He
[5:44:39] has notified Ice of inmates being released as as required,
[5:44:44] and in 2024, there was 577 requests of which he responded
[5:44:50] to 131, and that meant 96 unique individuals. And in 2025
[5:44:56] it went up to two, seven, 24 and about 118 notifications,
[5:45:01] which in a county of 1.2 million. We're talking about
[5:45:05] very small numbers of people. I just also want to mention that
[5:45:10] the work that they're doing, uh, has been enhanced by
[5:45:15] working with not only other state organizations, but also
[5:45:19] federal organizations to try and help reduce the amount of
[5:45:23] stress in the ice. Uh, detainment. And this is this
[5:45:27] combination being effective? Well, yes. The sheriff's
[5:45:31] limited notifications on ice targeted operations. Remove a
[5:45:35] person with violent felony history from Antioch, Richmond,
[5:45:39] Pittsburgh and or Concord. That individual is no longer a
[5:45:43] re-offending here, so every removal strengthens our public
[5:45:47] safety. Um, regarding impacts on legal citizens and broader
[5:45:51] community. While ISIS community enforcement has nationally and
[5:45:55] elsewhere in California produced documented cases of
[5:45:58] U.S. citizens being questioned, briefly detained, or affected
[5:46:02] during. A..
[5:46:04] The next speaker is Felicia. Please unmute.
[5:46:10] Hello once again, Felicia Williams, uh, from California
[5:46:14] Statewide Community Development Authority. And I just wanted to
[5:46:17] ask a question about item C 29 that was removed from the
[5:46:20] consent calendar. Um, if that will come to a future agenda or
[5:46:24] if there's any further discussion. That was my only
[5:46:27] question. Thank you. The next speaker is zoom user.
[5:46:33] Please unmute. To user, please go ahead with
[5:46:44] your comment. Hi. Hello. Um, I wanted to join the call asking
[5:46:50] for a countywide ban on data centers in Contra Costa County.
[5:46:54] Hyperscale AI data centers are not inevitable, and we need to
[5:46:57] mitigate the harm that will come to the health of our
[5:47:00] working families, as well as the impact on jobs and our
[5:47:03] vulnerable and underserved communities. Pittsburgh is a
[5:47:07] diverse, uh, tight knit community, and it's been
[5:47:11] disheartening to see how little conversation has been going on
[5:47:15] within the city between council and our community members. I'm
[5:47:19] asking especially to the Board of Supervisors who have ties to
[5:47:23] Pittsburgh, to figure out a way to work between our communities
[5:47:28] and to ban these data centers, add a moratorium on all future
[5:47:33] projects. Thank you. There are no more comments.
[5:47:38] Great. Thank you. Uh, let's see, we are to the end of this
[5:47:45] meeting. I'm trying to get to my agenda. Here we go. Um, we
[5:47:53] are there any board reports? I don't hear any. All right. We
[5:48:02] will be adjourning in memory of Mary Ann Mason, our former
[5:48:07] county council. We send our love to all of those that loved
[5:48:13] her. And this meeting is adjourned.