[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[6:53] Now call to order the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors meeting for Tuesday, August 11th.
[6:58] Will the clerk please call the roll?
[7:03] Here.
[7:03] Welcome back.
[7:04] Vice Chair Hume will be absent today.
[7:07] Supervisor Serna.
[7:08] Here.
[7:09] And Chair Rodriguez.
[7:10] Here.
[7:11] We have a quorum.
[7:12] All right.
[7:12] Thank you.
[7:12] Will you please read the Metro statement?
[7:15] This meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is live and recorded with
[7:18] closed captioning.
[7:20] In this cable cast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on
[7:23] the Comcast and Direct TV U-Verse cable systems. It is also live streamed at Metro14Lime.saccounty.gov.
[7:31] Today's meeting replays Friday, August 14th at 6 o'clock p.m. on MetroCable Channel 14.
[7:37] Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at youtube.com forward
[7:41] slash MetroCable 14. The Board of Supervisors fosters public engagement during the meeting
[7:46] and encourages public participation, civility, and the use of courteous language.
[7:53] The
[7:53] gestures or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed
[7:57] towards any meeting participant. Seating is limited and available on a first come, first
[8:02] serve basis. Each speaker will be given two minutes to make a public comment and are limited
[8:06] to making one comment per agenda off agenda item. Please be mindful of the public comment
[8:11] procedures to avoid being interrupted while making your comment. Comments made by the
[8:16] public during Board of Supervisors meetings may include information that could be inaccurate
[8:20] or misleading, particularly concerning topics related to public health, voter
[8:24] registrations, and elections. The County of Sacramento does not endorse or
[8:28] validate the accuracy of public statements made during these open public
[8:31] forums. The recordings are shared to provide transparency and access to the
[8:35] public proceedings of public meetings. To make a comment, please fill out a
[8:40] speaker request form and hand it to clerk staff or raise your virtual
[8:43] hand when we are on the item you want to make a comment on. The chair
[8:47] Another person will open public comments for each agenda off agenda item and direct the
[8:51] clerk to call the name of each speaker.
[8:53] When the clerk calls your name, please come to the podium or unmute yourself and make your
[8:58] comment.
[8:59] If the speaker is unavailable to make a comment prior to the closing of public comments, the
[9:04] speaker waves their request to speak and the clerk will file the speaker request
[9:07] form in the record.
[9:09] The clerk will manage the timer and allow each speaker two minutes to make a comment.
[9:13] Off agenda public comments will take place for a maximum of 30 minutes.
[9:18] The remainder of the agenda comments will take place at the conclusion of the time matters in the afternoon.
[9:23] As a reminder, rule of procedure 10B allows the chair to establish uniform time limits for people addressing the board in relation to a particular matter.
[9:31] Such limits may be announced at the beginning of each item posted on the agenda and can include setting a specific amount of time devoted to public comment for a particular item,
[9:40] announcing cutoff times for receipt of request to speak forms, reducing the
[9:45] amount of time per speaker, or other reasonable and content neutral measures.
[9:50] You may send written comments by email to birdclerkatsaccounty.gov. Your
[9:54] comment will be routed to the board and filed in the record. If you need an
[9:59] accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or for
[10:02] medical or other reasons please see clerk staff for assistance or contact
[10:06] the clerk's office at 916-874-5451 or by email at boardclercatsaccounty.gov. Thank
[10:15] you in advance for your courtesy and understanding of the meeting procedures.
[10:18] Thank you, Todd. Welcome back, Supervisor Desmond in person. Please lead us in the
[10:22] Pledge of Allegiance.
[10:42] Got some patriotic dogs in there.
[10:46] And
[10:50] are there any announcements? Certainly. We do have a few. First, Supervisor Hume
[10:55] is expected to be absent today as he has business in for the state of California and as a correction
[11:03] to our agenda item number 25 is a receive and file only there is no action required for
[11:10] item 25 which is the Sacramento County Bicycle Advisory Committee 2025 annual report the
[11:16] board letter recommendation should read here a brief presentation then receive and
[11:20] file the Sacramento County Bicycle Advisory Committee B.A.C. 2025 annual report. Those
[11:26] are all the announcements that I have. Okay. I actually do have a request with Supervisor
[11:31] Hume being out. About a month ago, item number 30, the county impact fee was pushed back
[11:40] because Supervisor Desmond was out and Kennedy had asked if we can move it. With Supervisor
[11:46] are Hume out today? Can we move this to the August 28th meeting? There's only one item
[11:53] on the 28th. That's one request. And also item number 34 is the Civil Service Commission
[12:02] item. Hume had asked that we move this to the next meeting. And it was, he was told
[12:08] that there was a request to get this done today, but with him absent, would you guys
[12:16] be willing to move this to the 28th with only one item on the afternoon?
[12:25] Madam Chair, I have no problem, 34 on item 30, I think specifically there is a time crunch
[12:32] on this one.
[12:33] If this board were to move forward with that, I don't know, I looked to Dave.
[12:36] Sure,
[12:40] Dave DeFonte, Deputy County Executive, we do have a request in from a developer that
[12:45] if this board should make the change requested to extend that offset program to parks districts
[12:52] that are dependent, so you're the board of that park district, that we would then be
[12:56] able to help them pay for parks fees that are due somewhat immediately.
[13:01] So there is some time sensitivity to it.
[13:04] I am not clear as to what a two-week impact would or wouldn't do, though.
[13:07] So, and excuse me, Chair, I do have on my notes here that Supervisor Hume will still
[13:14] be out on the 28th as well for State of California business.
[13:19] Okay.
[13:20] So then September 15th, so it looks like 30 then will be due today, but then with 34,
[13:30] the Civil Service Commission, that one, there really isn't any pressing time.
[13:35] Is that one that we can move to the 15th of September?
[13:39] Madam Chair?
[13:40] Yes.
[13:40] Is that good?
[13:42] I think the two relevant questions for me are time sensitivity of the issue as Supervisor
[13:49] Desmond has already brought up, but also I'd like to know how impacted the, if we punt
[13:56] it, how impacted that agenda might be with that particular issue.
[14:03] based on what we foresee terms of let me look at that agenda items pulling
[14:19] up my
[14:19] long range well
[14:31] I I believe there's an allowance for that on September 15th but
[14:35] again I don't see that we'll have a full board on that day I'll be out and there
[14:42] was a request from the board to bring this item forward that's why it's on
[14:46] the agenda I know Supervisor Rodriguez had asked to move this also and
[14:49] And that's what we had talked about.
[14:52] Is it, since there's no brush on 34, the civil service, can that one be moved to the
[15:01] Second meeting in September.
[15:07] It's up to the board. Would you guys be willing to move
[15:10] that so that we are all here for that one item?
[15:17] Supervisor Kennedy. Thank you. I'm
[15:19] actually going to be, if there's a motion, I will be opposed to both. On item 30, the
[15:26] all respect to Mr. Defante, that didn't give me the greatest level of
[15:30] confidence that there's not an issue so I do think that there's a time potential
[15:35] timelines there and 34 it may seem like it's not timely but this has been
[15:39] something that's literally been in the works for months and even years years
[15:42] years and you know I don't know where continually kicking the can down the
[15:48] road is doing good so I'll be opposed to continuing either item I felt
[15:52] similarly to Supervisor Kennedy about both items okay okay so then well then
[15:59] And I guess I won't pick that request.
[16:01] And we'll move forward with those two items.
[16:03] All right, first item, please.
[16:05] All right, first item on our agenda is number one,
[16:08] bark of supervisors, adoptable pet update.
[16:20] Double the trouble today.
[16:23] Good morning.
[16:25] Next one.
[16:27] Good morning, Annette Bezworth
[16:28] with Sacramento County Animal Care Services.
[16:31] I have Michael and Michael here today
[16:33] to show off sisters.
[16:36] One is named Veranda.
[16:37] that this is veranda over here. This one is Sumatra named after coffee flavors. So they
[16:43] are puppies. Highly energetic puppies. And they want to play. What's special and unique
[16:51] about them is we've had them in our care for a couple months now and you ask why are puppies
[16:55] in your care for a couple months because puppies are highly adoptable. But they came to
[16:59] us from the streets and they were extremely thin.
[17:04] So we've kept them in our care
[17:06] to make sure they're medically cleared. We have given them lots of love and care,
[17:10] so they are ready to go to be adopted. They are both already spayed, completely vaccinated,
[17:15] and microchipped. And you can take advantage of this month is called Doggust at the Shelter,
[17:21] which represents to us, we celebrate all shelter pets, universal birthday,
[17:26] and all fees are waived for adoption. So these dogs are ready to go to be adopted.
[17:32] They could go home today right now, right the second if you would like.
[17:38] As you know with puppies, they're full of energy but they are very well mannered, as
[17:44] you can tell, and they're ready to go home.
[17:47] I want to share some exciting news.
[17:49] Last week, two weeks ago when we were here, we adopted out Roxy.
[17:53] And I think that the story with Roxy is so incredible is because she came to the
[17:58] board bark of supervisors and was adopted the very same day. And she was in our care
[18:02] for months receiving medical treatment and just went overlooked. And so cheers to Roxy
[18:09] who found her home after being here just one day. So kudos. It's always a highlight
[18:14] to get an email when a dog has been in the shelter. And then I get the email. Oh,
[18:19] she got here. She got adopted. That's sweet. I think it's pretty remarkable. It's having
[18:24] a positive outcome that I didn't even anticipate. But there's people that I don't even
[18:28] know within Sacramento County are like hey we love Barks the supervisors it's the best part of the
[18:32] meeting you just watch it for the fact of the dog I'm just saying what I've been shared so it's
[18:38] very encouraging to hear that and we do like that the community definitely embraces adopting our
[18:43] dogs from the shelter thank you thank you very very much can you just elaborate so adopting
[18:47] from Bradshaw Animal Shelter there are certain benefits can you tell us about those
[18:51] benefits about the benefits from a shelter dog is you are getting a dog that is completely
[18:55] spade, neuter, vaccinated, microchipped, and right now at no cost because of being at Doggast.
[19:03] But also, dogs need homes and you are saving a life when you adopt from a shelter.
[19:09] I think that's the best place to always adopt from, and we are doing great with our adoptions
[19:15] in the community.
[19:16] It's awesome.
[19:17] I do know Supervisor Serna was, had, was endeared with the, I can't remember the
[19:23] cute little puppy that we brought but here's to well why do I feel this odd
[19:28] pressure that I'm as I near my career in here at the county I'm going to be
[19:33] leaving with a four-legged friend at some point these are these are the
[19:38] chocolate labs chocolate mix okay and their sisters they can make you
[19:45] definitely keep up with you and you're walking and running I assure you he I
[19:48] just heard him say he walked 10 miles to work today so true story could have
[19:52] bring his dog to work.
[19:53] Right.
[19:54] Day.
[19:55] All right.
[19:55] Well, thank you, Annette.
[19:56] Thank you so much.
[19:57] Thank you.
[19:59] All right.
[20:00] Next item, please.
[20:02] The next item on our agenda is number two,
[20:04] presentation of resolution, recognizing animal control
[20:06] officer, Zoe McKernan for her outstanding service,
[20:11] investigative excellence, and dedication
[20:13] to animal welfare and public safety.
[20:25] Good morning, Zoe.
[20:26] So I first saw the segment on Fox 40 of an animal shelter officer over the
[20:33] county had done a remarkable story and I'll allow you to share the story because
[20:37] you will tell it better but I was really impressed and I thought wow what a
[20:41] heroine and we need to recognize her for what she did and so I wanted to share
[20:46] a little bit about this resolution that we are giving for you because there's
[20:50] so much good information. Animal Control Officer Zoe McCurinen has
[20:54] has demonstrated exceptional dedication, professionalism and commitment to public service through
[20:58] her work protecting animals and serving the residents of Sacramento County. Following a
[21:03] deeply disturbing act of animal cruelty captured on a resident security camera, animal control
[21:08] officer McCurran approached the investigation with determination, patience, and an unwavering
[21:13] commitment to identifying the individual responsible.
[21:16] Animal control officer McCurran carefully reviewed evidence, developed investigative
[21:21] of Leeds and dedicated countless hours to canvassing the surrounding neighborhood, speaking
[21:26] with residents and reviewing camera footage to piece together the suspect's movements.
[21:31] When new evidence emerged, animal control officer McCarron and acted swiftly, relying upon
[21:36] her investigative instincts, persistence, and attention to detail to help identify the
[21:42] suspect and advance the investigation.
[21:44] Through close collaboration with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, Animal Control
[21:49] McCarranin's investigative work contributed to the execution of a search warrant and the
[21:54] successful arrest of the individual believed to be responsible. Animal Control Officer McCarranin's
[21:59] work reflects the critical role animal control officers serve as investigators, educators,
[22:06] first responders, and advocates for animals who cannot speak for themselves while supporting
[22:11] the safety and well-being of the broader community. Her professionalism, compassion,
[22:15] and determination brought hope to a community seeking answers and demonstrated Sacramento
[22:19] County's commitment to taking animal cruelty seriously and holding offenders accountable.
[22:25] Therefore on behalf of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, we congratulate you
[22:29] and just want to let you know that we, you are a hero in my eyes. Here's my card with
[22:35] my cell phone. Don't go out alone. I will go out with you. That should that ever
[22:39] come again. So if you want to say a few words, just share a little bit about the story
[22:44] that happened? Well, I just wanted to thank everyone for inviting me here to recognize this. It's
[22:49] really an honor that I was brought here to talk about something that doesn't often get talked
[22:54] about, and obviously it's a horrible thing that happened, but the fact that it brought us all here
[23:01] today to be able to educate people on how great of an outcome it is, I'm thankful that I get
[23:07] to be here and show that we do try to make a difference when it comes to animal cases,
[23:13] no matter how big or small they are and so I'm just really thankful that even
[23:17] though it was a really hard and horrible case to have to watch and try to resolve
[23:23] I'm very glad that I was able to be that person to help solve it and help the
[23:29] cats in that neighborhood and I'm excited to continue to do investigations
[23:33] like that and help Sacramento County. You are an amazing person and a great
[23:44] Thank
[24:01] you.
[24:02] Thank you.
[24:03] Thank you.
[24:04] Thank you.
[24:08] Zoe, Madam Chair, Zoe, real quick.
[24:12] Thank you.
[24:13] I just, couple of words.
[24:15] Zoe, I also want to just thank you directly for what you did here in this incident and
[24:21] for the career that you've chosen.
[24:23] It is incredibly important and I was in the CHP for 25 years to work very, very
[24:28] closely with a lot of animal control officers in different parts of the state. And it's
[24:32] a very challenging, challenging role, and you don't get the appreciation that you deserve.
[24:38] So I'm glad. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing you here today and for all your efforts.
[24:43] You definitely make Sacramento a better place for all two-legged residents and four-legged
[24:48] residents. So thank you.
[24:51] Thank you, Zoe. All right. Next item, please.
[24:56] the next item on our agenda is number three public comments relating to matters
[25:00] not on the posted agenda and anyone watching virtually now is the time to
[25:07] raise your virtual hand if you'd like to make comments related to item 3 matters
[25:13] not on the posted agenda we'll start off with in-person speakers first we have
[25:17] sandy please approach the lectern and you will have two minutes to address the
[25:22] supervisors.
[25:32] Feel free to adjust those. Good morning Sandy.
[25:40] Good morning Board.
[25:44] Good morning my name is Sandy and we are coming to you this morning in peace and
[25:50] in our status as we the people to give you notice and instructions so that you
[25:55] and your agents may provide due care. We are here today to remind you once
[26:01] again that you are trustees and servants of the people and that you are
[26:07] obligated by contract and trust indenture to uphold and defend both our federal and state
[26:14] constitutions. Today we are handing you seven envelopes containing follow-up notices for all
[26:22] five supervisors, the county sheriff and a copy for the board clerk. On Tuesday, July the 14th,
[26:30] 2026, we served you with a notice and demand to immediately cease and desist all violations
[26:39] of private property rights of the people, asking, where in the constitutions did the people grant
[26:46] our servants the authority to deprive us of our constitutional rights to property?
[26:52] Where in the constitutions does it say that the people cannot use their own property
[26:58] as they see fit. Where does it say in the constitutions that you can use the
[27:04] people's money for programs that violate their private property rights? In
[27:11] addition we instructed if you believe as government servants any of the claims
[27:17] in the notice are untrue that you were to post that grant of authority
[27:22] conspicuously on the Sacramento County website homepage within 15 days. My
[27:29] colleague will continue.
[27:33] Good morning. Good morning board. I'm Debbie, one of we
[27:37] the people. Please take notice that the county website was checked on July the
[27:44] 30th and there was no such posting. Therefore you are in default of our
[27:50] lawful notice. And if you take any future action against the people, violating the people's
[27:57] private property rights to enjoy all forms, then any future actions will be construed
[28:03] as being done with malice, intent, full knowledge, and understanding against your trust and denture.
[28:11] Your contract with the people, that would be the Constitution.
[28:22] And next we have Sabrina.
[28:24] Good morning, Sabrina. Good morning.
[28:28] I come to the peace and love of Almighty God as one of the people, Suri Jiris, who hold all political power.
[28:34] I stand before you today exercising a sacred fundamental right protected by both the U.S. Constitution, California Constitution,
[28:41] the right to petition the government for redress agreeances.
[28:44] The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble
[28:48] and to petition government for the redress of grievance. Article 1, Section 3 of the
[28:52] California Constitution likewise declares, the people have the right to instruct their
[28:56] representatives, petition the government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely
[29:00] to consult for the common good. Presented today is the notice of default failure to
[29:04] respond to the notice to cease and desist violating the people's property rights.
[29:10] All political power is inherent in the people. As Article 2, Section 1 of the
[29:14] California Constitution states, government is instituted for their
[29:18] protection, security, and benefit. Those rights come from God, not government.
[29:23] They are in inalienable rights and cannot be abrogated. The California
[29:27] Constitution Article 1, Section 1 makes clear that all the people are by
[29:31] nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are
[29:35] acquiring and possessing and protecting property. Maximum law states,
[29:39] individual liberties are antecedent to all government. The main object of
[29:42] The government is a preservation and protection of personal rights, private property, and public
[29:46] liberties.
[29:47] Every man's house is his castle, even though the winds of heaven may blow through it.
[29:51] Government officials cannot enter it.
[29:53] No free man shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, but by lawful judgment of
[29:58] of his peers.
[30:00] By the law of the land.
[30:02] And as a user patient is exercised a power which another has a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to.
[30:12] The constitutions are the supreme law of the land. No statute, code, ordinance, or administrative action can diminish or supersede inalible rights to property.
[30:20] Government possesses only those powers specifically delegated by the people. Any action beyond these delegations is a user patient.
[30:26] Therefore, I demand that all government, public, servants and trustees immediately cease and
[30:30] desist from any interference of the people's private property rights without due process
[30:34] of law and just consummation as required by the 5th and 14th amendments in the U.S. Constitution
[30:39] Article I, Section 7 and 19 in the California Constitution.
[30:44] We the people do not consent to unlawful encroachments.
[30:46] Our rights existed before government and cannot be taken away by it.
[30:50] A frequent recurrence to these fundamental principles is necessary to preserve liberty.
[30:53] I call upon you to provide immediate redress of these grievances into honor of Supreme
[30:57] Law of the Land.
[30:58] Thank you.
[30:59] All right.
[30:59] Thank you.
[31:03] And our next speaker is Keith Walter.
[31:09] Good morning, Keith.
[31:11] Good morning.
[31:12] Thank you for allowing me to present this morning.
[31:15] My name's Keith Walter.
[31:16] I'm a Faroq's resident and president of the Faroq's Village Enhancement Committee.
[31:21] If you haven't been to Faroq's Village, it's a unique Sacramento County treasure.
[31:25] It's a historic walkable commercial district.
[31:29] It's adjacent to the American River Parkway.
[31:32] It's known for its wild chickens, community events,
[31:35] and strong sense of place.
[31:37] At the heart of our village is a community park,
[31:40] amphitheater, and clubhouse.
[31:42] And something extraordinary is happening there.
[31:45] Faroq's residents have self-taxed ourselves
[31:47] over $20 million to improve that facility.
[31:51] Think about what that means.
[31:52] Our community is putting our own money into creating a better place, a gathering place for Farrokh's village.
[32:00] But the surrounding land use matters, making a $20 million investment in the heart of the village while simultaneously locating an industrial maintenance yard next to the park is just crazy.
[32:13] 50 years ago, Sacramento County recognized this very issue.
[32:19] It established a special planning area for Farrokhs, and that SPA is our exhibit one,
[32:25] which we've given to the clerk, to preserve the village's historic character and foster
[32:31] vibrant commercial activity there.
[32:35] Yet shortly after the SPA was adopted, an administrative decision allowed the Farrokhs
[32:42] water district to establish an industrial maintenance yard in the middle of our commercial
[32:47] district.
[32:49] For approximately 40 years, our community has lived with that.
[32:53] It has heavy equipment, material storage, gravel piles, and a fuel facility.
[33:00] These are fundamentally inconsistent with the SBA.
[33:04] And we're asking today that you, the supervisors, address this inconsistency and re-look
[33:11] at this important issue. Thank you. Thank you, Keith. It is actually one of I think the
[33:16] nicest parts of Sacramento County. I put two bids on homes in Old Faroaks 20 years ago
[33:21] and got out bid, but it is a very charming area. Thank you. Our next speaker is Susanna
[33:27] Martin. Good morning, Susanna. Good morning. My name is Susanna Martin, and I'm also
[33:34] part of FOVAC, the secretary. I've been a Faroaks residence with my family since
[33:39] I am here regarding the Faroaks Water District Corporation Yard Project approved by the Planning
[33:44] Commission on March 14th, 2022 as a special development permit in the commercial district
[33:50] of the Faroaks Village Special Planning Area, please see exhibit two.
[33:54] We believe county staff made an honest and unintentional mistake that was passed down
[33:59] and skipped over for decades.
[34:02] We are asking the board to thoroughly review and correct these grievous errors
[34:06] just as it would correct any zoning error regardless of the stature of the
[34:11] applicant. Here is the mistake. The project was approved as a public utility
[34:16] facility in a commercial zone. Please see exhibit three. But it's actual usage,
[34:22] truck storage, vehicle repair, fuel storage, and actual hazardous material
[34:27] storage. These are the uses of a maintenance and a service yard.
[34:34] The
[34:34] two totally different use categories. Susanna, really quick. I'll give you extra time. Yeah.
[34:41] Do you have those exhibits? Yes. Oh. They've been passed out. Oh, they've been. Oh. Got
[34:46] it. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
[34:51] If a residential parcel in your neighborhood were mistakenly
[34:55] approved for something like a mini-mart and a neighbor discovered that staff had applied
[34:59] the wrong use classification, everyone would expect the county to correct it regardless
[35:05] regardless of how much time had passed.
[35:07] This is what is exactly happening here.
[35:09] Equal protection under the law means this project
[35:12] deserves treatment and requires the same scrutiny.
[35:15] This use, this yard does not belong
[35:17] in our beautiful historic village.
[35:20] There's a very obvious reason the cities of Folsom
[35:23] and El Dorado have decided to move very similar yards
[35:26] out of their historic downtowns.
[35:28] These uses do not belong in a lively and fun
[35:31] and beautiful commercial district.
[35:32] and more importantly they heavily suppress economic growth. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is
[35:41] Christopher Grenz. Good morning Christopher. Good morning. Thank you for having us. My name is
[35:49] Chris Grenz. I'm a longtime resident of Faroq's. I'm a general contractor. I build homes in the
[36:04] I'm going to in 1940. So I've been around the process for talking about zoning. The county
[36:11] zone zoning codes draw clear lines between utility facility and service yard and has
[36:17] since 1979. And I bring up that date because 79 is when they first water bought that property.
[36:28] The zoning code, table four, lists the permits used in industrial zones, exhibit four. Under
[36:40] industrial yard use it lists public utility service yard and storage maintenance and repair
[36:46] yard. And then under miscellaneous it separately lists public utility and public service
[36:55] facility under miscellaneous permitted, and that's Exhibit 5.
[37:01] These are not the same thing.
[37:03] Even in 1979, the code drafters of the 79 county code knew the distinct difference. One, a
[37:13] facility that transmits and stores a utility service. And two, a yard that stores, maintains
[37:21] trains and repairs the trucks and equipment used to service it.
[37:27] Farrokh's water district is the latter. It's an industrial yard and that is not permitted
[37:34] in a commercial zone and never was. The Farrokh's Water District Corporate Yard is
[37:41] not excluded from zoning. We've provided a letter, Exhib 6, from council, county
[37:50] County Council, May's, Powell and May's, need to wrap it up, Mr.
[37:55] Speaker.
[37:56] Oh, sorry.
[37:58] Thank you.
[37:58] It's okay.
[37:59] Thank you.
[38:01] Our next speaker is Leon Caracos.
[38:04] Very close.
[38:06] Good morning, Leon.
[38:07] Story of my life.
[38:09] Before I start, just want to make sure what you guys know what these things are, these
[38:12] are your take-home study guides, because it's very complicated.
[38:15] We wanted to make sure you could follow everything.
[38:18] Anyway, my name is Leon Caracos.
[38:19] I have lived in Faroaks since 1995. What we are asking of the board today is very straightforward.
[38:27] Apply the county's own land use policy and applicable California case law to this proposed
[38:35] corporate yard. In 1976,
[38:40] County Sacramento board of supervisors created the Faroaks
[38:43] special planning area, the SPA. They had pre-approved uses because they were existing
[38:49] or they were just pre-approved, one of those pre-approved uses is a utility
[38:54] facility, a corporate maintenance yard, as you have seen, is not a utility
[39:00] facility and never was. Their proposal makes things worse. Hazardous waste
[39:05] storage right next to neighbors homes, a gas station, a truck wash, reduced
[39:11] setbacks, gravel pits, with limited setback next to residential houses that
[39:18] doesn't belong there. In 1979, the water district purchased the land. It was a lumber yard, like
[39:25] a lumberjack, a commercial use. They moved their administration building there. Fine,
[39:31] a commercial use. However, over time, with no permits to do so, Ferris Water District
[39:38] illegally surrounded their admin building with trucks, gravel pits, industrial storage.
[39:46] which never was allowed, never was allowed, still isn't allowed, nothing was said over
[39:52] time which gets us to where we are today, which I'm going to have to jam through.
[39:59] Exhibit, county policy, CM 13, which you should have, specifically states that in order
[40:08] to be a utility facility, you have to store, create, or maintain the utility.
[40:15] It specifically states below that a corporate yard is not excluded from county zoning.
[40:21] We need to wrap it up, Leon.
[40:23] Pardon me?
[40:23] We need to wrap it up.
[40:24] Okay, sorry.
[40:26] Thank you.
[40:27] Thank you, Leon.
[40:28] Take these home.
[40:30] Please.
[40:32] Our next speaker is Brian Fisher.
[40:35] Good morning, Brian.
[40:37] Good morning, Chairwoman.
[40:39] It's nice to see you with life in the limb, Mr. Desmond.
[40:42] Good morning, everyone.
[40:43] everyone. My name is Brian Fisher and I am a Faroaks resident as well as a business and
[40:48] property owner in Faroaks Village. Has everybody here walked Faroaks Village? It doesn't take
[40:54] very long. It's about 10, 15 minutes. It's a beautiful historical village that's under
[41:00] a renaissance. And so we invite you to help us fulfill that renaissance. It's fairly
[41:05] really simple. Farrokhs, I invite you to consider one thing, which one of these things doesn't
[41:15] belong. It's a simple Sesame Street game. We play it when we're children. We play it
[41:21] as parents. And so when the Farrokhs Water District was allowed to apply and approved
[41:27] for a special development permit, there was a mistake that's been made. And we have
[41:32] an opportunity, you have an opportunity to correct it. The instruction page for the special
[41:37] development permit application alone should disqualify this project. How does this project
[41:43] carry out the intent of the general plan and any applicable community plan? How is
[41:50] the proposed development compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding
[41:55] area? Again, which one of these things doesn't belong? If you walk Faroaks Village
[42:01] in the 10 to 15 minutes, you will easily pick out which block doesn't belong. And it's
[42:07] very simple. It is the Faroaks Water District's yard. It's the first thing that I noticed when
[42:14] I ever walked my village. What is this thing and why is it here? The county's application
[42:19] states that a special development permit may not be granted for use that is not
[42:23] otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning governing the parcel. A permit may adjust
[42:29] development standards, but it cannot silently convert a commercial district use into an industrial
[42:35] one.
[42:36] Please note, Section 1A also requires the project to carry out the intent of the general plan
[42:41] in the SPA.
[42:42] This project does not.
[42:44] Section 1C.
[42:45] I'm trying to wrap it up.
[42:46] Yes, thank you.
[42:47] Section 1C requires compatibility with existing land uses.
[42:51] This project is not only incompatible, but also antithetical.
[42:55] Thank you.
[42:56] Our next speaker is Abigail Harland. Good morning, Abigail. Good morning. My name is
[43:04] Abigail Hoyland. It's kind of close. I'm a Fair Oaks resident and small business owner.
[43:10] I want to explain why I think this Board should act and what we're asking you to do.
[43:16] County Zoning Code section 615A, Exhibit 14 says that an entitlement permit, approval
[43:24] approval or non-discretionary design review determination, if not for the purpose for
[43:29] which it was granted, shall lapse and become void three years following the date on which
[43:35] the permit became effective, unless one of the exceptions listed in the code applies.
[43:42] We found no extension on record. In Exhibit 15, Planning Director Ton Smith confirmed
[43:50] that section 615 applies to special development permits.
[43:57] The Planning Commission approved this permit on March 14, 2022.
[44:03] It became effective around March 25,
[44:06] making its three-year date approximately March 25, 2025,
[44:13] more than a year ago.
[44:14] So we're asking this board to determine whether this permit lapsed.
[44:21] If a valid permit application or other qualifying action preserved it, please identify it and
[44:30] when it occurred.
[44:32] If not, Fair Oaks Water District should begin again with public notice, CPAC review,
[44:44] planning
[44:44] the correct zoning analysis. As a small business owner, I understand that permits and deadlines
[44:52] matter.
[44:55] When residents asked county planning about an appeal, we were
[45:01] The county should apply that same standard to this permit's 36 month deadline.
[45:07] Please wrap it up, Gail.
[45:08] Abigail.
[45:09] Thank you.
[45:10] Thank you.
[45:12] Our next speaker is Chet C.
[45:16] Good morning, Chet.
[45:17] Good morning.
[45:18] My name is Chet Corcos.
[45:20] I grew up in Fair Oaks, and now I live in Fair Oaks Village neighborhood with my wife and kids.
[45:24] In 1979 the board adopted the village SPA to keep it quote a viable commercial
[45:31] center that same year the county's code listed on the same table a utility
[45:36] service yard as an industrial use and utility facility as a miscellaneous use
[45:41] in 2009 the district moved its offices across the street and left an
[45:46] industrial yard behind a change of use which the county's ordinance
[45:49] required to be reviewed it wasn't and no variance or special permit could
[45:53] have allowed it. In 2022, the Planning Commission approved rebuilding the yard, assuming the
[46:00] yard as a facility. County Council confirmed in writing the project is not exempt from
[46:04] zoning, and when press, county staff admitted the term, quote, does not include a definition.
[46:11] The county's own policy, CM 13 and California government code 53091 in the Lafayette court
[46:17] decision all draw the same line. A corporation yard is not core water infrastructure and
[46:22] is subject to ordinary zoning. Four years later, nothing has been built and unused permits
[46:27] lapsed at three years. CPAC members say they were misinformed when they recommended the
[46:32] project. 379 residents and ratepayers have signed the petition to move the yard. Exhibit
[46:38] one in your binder asks you for five things. One, direct staff to determine in writing
[46:43] whether the permit has lapsed. Two, direct the planning commission to hold a revocation
[46:48] hearing for the permit. Three, adopt a resolution of intention to amend the SPA recognizing the
[46:54] difference between facility and service yard. Four, direct the planning commission to formally
[46:59] interpret those terms. And five, direct staff to study the relocation of the water district.
[47:05] The residents of Faroq's Village appreciate your support. Thank you. Thank you.
[47:10] Our next speaker is Tezra Sledge.
[47:19] Good morning, Tezra. Good morning. I'm not going to take
[47:21] of a lot of your time. So in a climate of financial uncertainty and with this year's budget being
[47:30] really bad and next year's budget expected to be worse and people worried about their
[47:36] positions within Sacramento County as an employee, the comment that I heard made by you, Supervisor
[47:45] Rodriguez was pretty disheartening and very sad that something like that would really
[47:51] come out of your mouth about AI, taking over people's jobs so that Sacramento County could
[47:57] save a buck by not paying into people's retirement and or paying for the employees' benefits.
[48:05] Being voted in by your constituents, some of whom I'm sure are Sacramento County employees,
[48:12] I can guarantee you that that comment is not going to sit well with them.
[48:16] I heard about it because one of my co-workers wrote a flyer about it and posted it on
[48:21] our website. And when I watched it, I was disgusted. That's all I have to say. I hope
[48:26] you guys have a better day. Thank you. Supervisor Desmond. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[48:34] I just wanted to, we can't go back and forth because this is off agenda public comment,
[48:37] but I just want to thank the members of the Faroaks community for being here. It's
[48:42] proudly in my district, District 3. It is an amazing, wonderful place. I understand
[48:47] and your frustration, we have had some meetings about this.
[48:51] What I'm gonna ask is look to Dave Defonte,
[48:54] our deputy county exec.
[48:55] Just can we take a look at the documents
[48:57] that have been submitted by them today, Todd,
[49:00] and you and I can have a follow-up meeting about this,
[49:02] just to make sure there isn't something
[49:04] we have missed, certainly, on the county end,
[49:06] and then I will certainly follow up with you.
[49:09] Of course.
[49:10] All right, thank you.
[49:11] All right, next item, please.
[49:13] And I will ask anyone online who wants to make comments
[49:16] for off agenda matters please raise your virtual hand now
[49:22] and we have no
[49:24] virtual speakers next item on our agenda is consent matters that are matters four
[49:31] through 24 all right I I want to make a comment on number nine on number nine
[49:39] uh-huh do you want to Supervisor Cerna yeah thank you can you Todd please
[49:45] read nine into the. Certainly. Item number nine is approved calendar year 2027 group
[49:52] insurance renewals. Okay very good thank you. So what I would like to propose is
[49:59] that we postpone consideration of this item until the afternoon. I've had
[50:06] several conversations telephonically with representatives from the
[50:13] the Sutter healthcare system as well as members of our executive team just within the last
[50:20] couple hours. And it's came to my attention late yesterday, but there is some concern
[50:30] that's been expressed by Sutter about some of the nuance. I'll just call it some of
[50:36] the nuanced part of what we're being asked to consider. And what I think is the fair
[50:42] thing to do since there is I think a valid concern. And it may be something attributable
[50:50] to perhaps not understanding the full extent of the nuance is to provide some extra time
[50:56] between now and the two o'clock hour for the relevant parts of our executive team to
[51:03] meet with the counterparts with Sutter to maybe come to a better understanding of what
[51:11] those details are so I would I would ask that we do that and I suspect we do need
[51:19] to take a separate vote then to postpone or to a second the question until two
[51:26] o'clock so that would be my motion all right please vote I guess we don't need
[51:35] anyone we don't have to ask the public to speak to the motion to move it okay
[51:39] So would that be the first item at the 2 o'clock? Yeah, we can take that as the first time.
[51:48] That motion passes 4 to 0 with supervisor Hume absent.
[51:53] So we will hear item number 9 at the 2 o'clock hour or yeah 2 o'clock hour.
[52:00] Okay, so we have the remainder of that consent.
[52:03] Any in a poll or motion?
[52:08] Or actually, are there any public comments?
[52:10] any members of the public that would like to speak on consent calendar items 4
[52:18] through 24 please raise your virtual hand and in person we have Naomi
[52:28] G speaking
[52:29] on item number five Naomi please approach the lectern and address the
[52:39] supervisors. Good morning Naomi. Good morning Board of Supervisor. My condolence
[52:44] to David Allen Jones and family for his recent pass away for District 1. My name
[52:52] is Naomi and I'm here to express my interest and consideration to be
[52:56] appointed for Sacramento Suburban Water District Division 1 vacancy. I'm here
[53:01] regarding item number 5 for the vacancy. I believe that water is
[53:05] something that people don't think about until it's a problem. But this is a
[53:10] most essential service for our community and I would love to be a part of it.
[53:14] Thank you. All right. Supervisor Desmond. Thank you Madam Chair and Naomi. Thank
[53:19] you for being here to speak. I will move approval of the remainder of the
[53:22] consent items including item five. Thank you. We have a second? Second. All right
[53:29] we have a motion and a second please vote. Thank you Naomi.
[53:34] And consent
[53:35] calendar items 4 through 8 and 10 through 24 pass 4 to 0 with Supervisor Hume absent.
[53:44] All right next item please. All right the next item on our agenda is number 25 and that is
[53:54] Sacramento County Bicycle Advisory Committee 2025 annual report.
[54:14] Who's presenting this item?
[54:15] Our presenter is David Comer-Cherro.
[54:19] He
[54:23] left.
[54:24] Chair, Dave Defonte, they were just here a moment ago.
[54:27] I'm happy to go check the lobby to see if they're still here.
[54:31] Okay.
[54:41] No.
[54:42] There was a little misunderstanding.
[54:44] We are changing this item to receive and file,
[54:47] and so our speaker had thought that he wasn't actually going to give the presentation,
[54:52] which I just learned as he, like, walked out.
[54:55] Oh, okay.
[54:55] So we have another member of SAC back here who's willing to pinch it,
[54:58] and he would like to give the presentation.
[55:01] Okay, that's fine with me.
[55:05] Yes.
[55:06] Hi, Evan Dudley, I'm a member of the Sacramento
[55:11] Bicycle Advisory Committee for two years now,
[55:15] hearing about all the different projects that are going on,
[55:17] especially in terms of active transportation.
[55:23] Some of the things that we've been talking about
[55:25] have been about adding places
[55:27] so people feel more safe and comfortable
[55:29] inside of going across Sacramento County,
[55:33] especially as it relates to the American River Parkway.
[55:36] But also, what's been happening is that there's been a lot
[55:39] of added space for, especially around the schools,
[55:44] looking at places like Bell Street and Whitney,
[55:47] covering a lot of the different places
[55:49] where kids are riding their bikes,
[55:52] and making safe spaces that do not conflict with traffic,
[55:55] making it easier for people to move around the city without necessarily picking up their
[56:01] car.
[56:07] And the other thing, too, is also part of the advisory committee has been really great,
[56:11] has been to be able to bring other techniques in terms of making a safe space recycling.
[56:19] Sorry, I was told I was going to do this about three seconds ago.
[56:23] That's okay. You know what? You're doing great. You're doing great.
[56:28] One of the things, too, is we have a lot of hotspots inside of the city where places,
[56:34] the Six Lane Highways, I don't know if you saw, there was a New York Times article just
[56:36] went through, where Washington Post talked about how the Six Lane streets are some of
[56:41] the most dangerous streets in America generally in terms of architecture, and that's what
[56:44] Sacramento County has quite a bit of.
[56:47] And then here you have the heat map that kind of shows those places, and that's
[56:51] where a lot of the investment of the SAC DOT is going, and a lot of our attention
[56:56] has spent looking at places where people are having these conflicts with cars.
[57:03] Supervisor Serna. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me know if I'm
[57:08] beating you to the punch here, but are you going to, and I know you're pitch-hitting,
[57:11] so you're doing a great job so far, but are you going to hopefully speak at some
[57:16] point or will someone talk to us about electric bikes? And I think what's on the minds
[57:23] of most of us in elective office locally is the rise in incidents, accidents, and fatalities
[57:31] associated with especially young people on electric bikes that can, you know, go up to
[57:37] 45 miles an hour. That's what I'm really interested in understanding.
[57:42] Yeah. And, you know, Supervisor Desmond did a great safety talk over in Carmichael
[57:47] a couple months ago about that, talking to CHP, bringing in Liz Bellas, talking about
[57:51] This is before he broke several bones in his own accident, right?
[57:56] Well, and one of the things to hear is that what we're doing is creating a safe place to ride bikes.
[58:02] Right.
[58:03] When there is not, and one of the places where we see the most conflict is where you can't cross the street for a mile and a half
[58:09] because there is no crossing.
[58:11] Where you see reckless behavior is where you cannot be in a safe place.
[58:16] Yes, there is a rise in e-bikes.
[58:18] it's going to continue. But it's also one of the ways where we can keep people off our
[58:22] roads and off our highways by reducing traffic by allowing people to use bicycles, which are
[58:28] out there. There's a number of laws and there's also things going through the state senate
[58:33] right now. SB 1167 is a good example. That's not really the purview of the bicycle advisory
[58:40] committee. We're looking at projects that are in the works and then adding ways for
[58:44] that to be better for all cyclists and and pedestrians for that matter we're
[58:49] looking at ways where because if there's no safe place to ride then there will be
[58:55] unsafe behavior that's a guarantee and that doesn't require a motor of any type
[58:59] to happen yeah I'm not gonna get to a rich back and forth here but I don't
[59:08] even have to watch the news to see it I as was mentioned earlier today I do a
[59:12] tremendous amount of walking daily, weekly, monthly.
[59:16] And so that exposure to the outdoors
[59:19] might seem my own community, seem my own neighborhood,
[59:21] and seeing young people almost regardless of the danger factor,
[59:29] the laws, respect for other cyclists, pedestrians,
[59:37] and drivers.
[59:39] And believe me, I'm not trying to paint
[59:42] such a broad brush that there aren't good actors, but man, I am seeing so much bad behavior in terms of inviting, you know, tragedy by the kids that are...
[1:00:00] On these 35-mile-an-hour electric bikes doing wheelies down the street in the middle of a six-lane road.
[1:00:05] Yeah, well, I mean, I live by, you know, between what, you know, is between me and my son's school.
[1:00:13] He's 12. He doesn't have any bike, actually. But the fact that there are parked cars in the bike lane,
[1:00:19] which I need to report on a regular basis to get moved, means he has to go into traffic or onto the sidewalk to get to his school.
[1:00:26] Yeah, he's inexperienced. He's 12. He's gonna make maybe not the best decision
[1:00:31] But the thing is if the bikeway was open and
[1:00:34] Functional he wouldn't be forced onto the sidewalk or into the middle of the street to then cross walk
[1:00:39] I don't also do it. I don't have a car, but San Juan just
[1:00:41] Did it change their policy on all e-bikes being banned for K through 12 or K through
[1:00:47] under 15 and allowed to ride so as
[1:00:49] suffrage does man said there's going to be enforcement that needs to catch up with the behavior
[1:00:53] but if there isn't safe
[1:00:56] places to ride. There's no chance that people can stay out of your way when you're either
[1:01:01] walking or in a car because the bike lane is either non-existent, doesn't connect between
[1:01:06] places or it's something that's, it's not fulfilling the needs of the transportation
[1:01:12] for people. And that's what we're focused on is trying to make sure that the projects
[1:01:15] incorporate the different tech basic ideas, which sometimes is just saying it's a hard
[1:01:22] curve instead of a rolled curve and that keeps cars from parking up on the sidewalk.
[1:01:26] We're on the same page and we're I think we want the same thing. I know Mr. DeFonte,
[1:01:31] Madam Chair is in the queue so I'm not sure if Dave you wanted to.
[1:01:34] Yeah I'll take care of that. Mr. DeFonte.
[1:01:38] Sure Dave DeFonte, Deputy County Executive. We're hearing a lot of the same feedback.
[1:01:42] The distinction I wanted to make is there's a few levels of e-bike and then there was
[1:01:47] what we've been calling e-motor cycles. I'm not sure if that's the right term or
[1:01:51] not, but I see them in my neighborhood. They're going 50, 60 miles an hour. So I think there
[1:01:56] is a difference there both in terms of law and otherwise. So, you know, we do see a lot
[1:02:02] of responsible use of e-bikes that go far less than that, and it is a helpful mode of
[1:02:07] transportation for many. The e-motorcycles that really are motorcycles going extremely
[1:02:12] fast are sort of a different thing that we're handling separately. You know, primarily
[1:02:17] on the American River Parkway we're seeing a lot of that a lot of conflict
[1:02:20] between users relative to those types of e-bikes versus e-motor cycles and the
[1:02:26] same on our roadways we're hearing a lot from our residents on that as well.
[1:02:29] Yeah I've actually in particular City of Folsom, City of Alt Grove and the
[1:02:35] City of Citrus Heights have taken and the Sheriff's in certain areas have
[1:02:38] taken aggressive approaches to cite these youngsters and tow their their
[1:02:46] their bikes, so there's enforcement taking place now.
[1:02:49] Yeah, but you know what was an interesting miss when we, I went to hear from Bellison
[1:02:54] and Supervisor Desmond was that the American River Parkway doesn't have the budget to get
[1:03:01] a speed radar gun, you know, so they're moving straight to confiscation instead
[1:03:06] of maybe giving out tickets, giving out warnings.
[1:03:10] There's a step between I think it's being missed, confiscating vehicles is not
[1:03:14] always like the most productive thing. And it is hard to tell. You don't look at these
[1:03:18] and go, oh, that's an e-moto versus that's an e-bike sometimes. The no-pedal thing is
[1:03:21] an easy symptom. But class three bike can go pretty fast.
[1:03:25] Yeah. I think the issue is you've got underage unlicensed driving e-motor cycles that they
[1:03:33] need to license for. Yeah. But the message shouldn't turn from screens are unhealthy
[1:03:39] to now bikes are unhealthy. We want kids to be able to get out. They need to
[1:03:43] somewhere, the American River Parkway is one of the best places they can ride. And if you
[1:03:47] look at the high intersections from the heat map before, you know, it surrounds all the
[1:03:52] intersections that are around the American River Parkway. We have this jewel of a park.
[1:03:57] It's the safest place for kids to ride. It's not the best place for them to be building
[1:04:01] jumps in the back area. But the idea is I think we actually just need more resources
[1:04:07] to help connect safely the American River Parkway and our schools and for these kids
[1:04:13] It's to have a space to learn how to ride.
[1:04:15] It's going to take time.
[1:04:16] You don't learn overnight.
[1:04:18] There's no fun video games about it anymore.
[1:04:20] Paperboy's long gone.
[1:04:21] Madam Chair.
[1:04:24] So you brought the heat map back up
[1:04:25] with the numbers at the bottom.
[1:04:27] Does this make any distinction between e-bikes
[1:04:31] or regular bikes?
[1:04:33] That data is not really captured very well.
[1:04:35] There's a couple of things that aren't captured well.
[1:04:37] We had to go through the coroner's report,
[1:04:39] and you'll see that under race,
[1:04:40] there's a lot of nationalities called out.
[1:04:42] So this is something where the County could really use a better data map and then we could really help with a number of things
[1:04:49] Let me stop you there Dave. I
[1:04:51] Would like us to if we're not already asking the question and capturing the data on
[1:04:58] death injury
[1:04:59] location of incident
[1:05:01] basically this heat map
[1:05:04] What I want to see or I'll see it as a
[1:05:06] as a civilian next year as just a citizen of Sacramento County, but nonetheless it's
[1:05:13] still something I'd like to see and I suspect others as well, is I'd like to understand
[1:05:18] these metrics as it relates to e-bikes because I got to believe that the speed that comes
[1:05:27] with an e-bike that does have the pedals, so not an e-motorcycle, it's marketed,
[1:05:35] It's sold, it's branded as an e-bicycle.
[1:05:40] I think it's important for this county to understand trends, especially in this case
[1:05:47] for unfortunate trends, but specific to that mode of transportation.
[1:05:56] I would also add that if we could, if we're going to add metrics, we should be looking
[1:05:59] at the hood heights of trucks as well.
[1:06:01] Well, if you see the reduction in pedestrian deaths went down dramatically up until 2009,
[1:06:07] at which point it is now rebounded back to the same levels as 1980, because, and primarily
[1:06:13] in this great New York Times article about this, they did a deep dive.
[1:06:16] If you're going to add metrics, we should be looking at what types of cars and vehicles
[1:06:20] are involved in these accidents, because it's the cars that are killing people on
[1:06:25] streets.
[1:06:26] Unfortunately, this board in this county doesn't have much authority over hood heights
[1:06:31] or dimensions of vehicles. We do, however, have some authority in terms of the law's
[1:06:37] ordinances relative to bicycle safety. So it's not that hood height isn't important.
[1:06:45] I agree with you, and I've read the same time's piece. But to me, the glaring issue
[1:06:54] you in front of us, at least immediately, is the prevalence and popularity of e-bikes,
[1:07:01] the speed that comes with it, the behavior that comes with e-bikes.
[1:07:06] And I will tell you, and I say this anecdotally, that when you have a bike that can go 40
[1:07:11] miles an hour and you put a 14-year-old person on there that is interested in going
[1:07:19] out with his buddies to see how far they can do wheelies in a six-lane street, it's a recipe
[1:07:25] for disaster.
[1:07:26] So I think this county has an obligation to at least understand the problem better than
[1:07:30] some county supervisor that just is making a judgment based on what he saw in his walk
[1:07:35] to work this morning.
[1:07:37] So that's what I'm asking for.
[1:07:40] I think we could have made the same argument decades ago with skateboarding and then
[1:07:43] we started building skate parks and there was a place for kids to go do those things
[1:07:47] that they wanted to do.
[1:07:48] You know, going 40 miles an hour isn't necessarily easy, but look at Fair Oaks through the Phoenix
[1:07:52] Bike Park.
[1:07:53] That's a place where kids can go to do those things and take those devices.
[1:07:58] I think it's more of a way of saying, you know, we have places, and if we create a
[1:08:02] place where people can and know how to use and can learn how to use these things safely,
[1:08:08] then we'll see better ridership.
[1:08:10] And the thing is, we need to protect our highways.
[1:08:12] I mean, they're going to be cluttered with people driving.
[1:08:14] the, you know, Seacog says we're going to double the population of the Metro by 2040.
[1:08:20] There's, we're not going to expand the highway to three more lanes. You know, we're going to need
[1:08:24] to be able to get more people on e-bikes. And I think if you look at the, especially the
[1:08:29] population and where I am, you know, there's a lot of families who cannot afford a used car
[1:08:33] at the average of $25,000 a year. I have nothing against e-bikes. I have everything
[1:08:37] against bad behavior on e-bikes. And e-bikes give you an opportunity that a regular bicycle
[1:08:43] does not, and if you disagree with it, we'll just argue all day long. Yes, I agree. Our
[1:08:51] parkway needs to be a safe place for both people that are on regular bikes, and if
[1:08:59] we want to then consider as a matter of policy, maybe a place, maybe not necessarily on the
[1:09:04] parkway, or where e-bikes can roam freely, and somehow the policies are different, fine.
[1:09:12] But again, it's the technology combined with the behavior trends, which is what I'm focused
[1:09:19] on here.
[1:09:19] So a year ago, the CHP at my community meetings in late 2025, they came out and gave a really
[1:09:26] good presentation with, it was a summary of all the different bikes, the type of bikes,
[1:09:32] what was allowed, who was allowed, who needed a license.
[1:09:35] Maybe a presentation on that from CHP would be beneficial to us to see the efforts that
[1:09:42] they're already making.
[1:09:44] That's to David.
[1:09:46] David Villanueva.
[1:09:47] Yeah, Cal Bike also did a really good diagram on that as part of their support for SB 1167.
[1:09:53] So you're going to see more of that information out there, but we have local experts in
[1:09:57] that field that can really speak to that.
[1:09:59] And then we need to educate the public, I mean the schools and the parks are some
[1:10:02] on the best places to try and curb the bad behavior,
[1:10:05] but I think, you know.
[1:10:06] Yeah, so a year ago,
[1:10:09] CHP was working with the high schools.
[1:10:11] And I was, at that time,
[1:10:12] I was more concerned about district four high schools,
[1:10:15] but there was communication with the unincorporated
[1:10:20] high schools and educating and trying to do,
[1:10:23] you know, some parent, more parent education
[1:10:26] so that parents know,
[1:10:27] are aware which bikes are needed
[1:10:29] because you don't have to have a license
[1:10:31] to purchase these bikes but parents are buying them and it was right before Christmas time
[1:10:36] because Christmas time was coming and that's a time that parents are buying their kids gifts
[1:10:42] and these bikes require a license and so that's one of the issues.
[1:10:47] That's an FYI if we wanted to get a presentation from CHP.
[1:10:51] Okay, Evan.
[1:10:52] Thank you.
[1:10:53] Is that it?
[1:10:55] Well, I spent a lot of time on e-bikes which is what we weren't actually covering
[1:10:59] But what we're really advocating for and looking for and advising the county on is better safer places for people to bike
[1:11:06] Period and hopefully less reckless behavior. I need bikes. Yeah, I think you know overall
[1:11:11] I I would ride my bike more in public
[1:11:14] but there are areas where I just don't feel safe and I would I would love to be able to even do bike
[1:11:20] Bike RT walk work do that, but it's it just isn't it doesn't feel even in areas that are
[1:11:28] that set aside that have the cones they don't it doesn't feel very safe because
[1:11:32] traffic is just going so fast yeah barriers are the only way to keep a
[1:11:37] car from crossing lights and paint on the doesn't stop a car in any shape or
[1:11:42] form especially under bad conditions and people more comfortable they feel the
[1:11:46] more people who won't be driving that comfort level is really the most
[1:11:51] important piece to getting people to feel safe out there and using it more
[1:11:55] and keeping us with less traffic in the county.
[1:11:58] Well, thank you for stepping in
[1:11:59] for the presentation, I appreciate it.
[1:12:01] Are there any requests to speak on this item?
[1:12:03] We do have requests to speak on this item.
[1:12:05] And any member of the public watching through Zoom
[1:12:07] that would like to speak on item 25,
[1:12:10] the Sacramento County Bicycle Advisory Committee 2025
[1:12:13] annual report, please raise your virtual hand.
[1:12:16] And our first speaker in chambers is Deborah Banks.
[1:12:23] Good morning, Deborah.
[1:12:24] Good morning, everybody.
[1:12:25] body. Supervisor Serna, I have to jump right back into the eBike conversation. I know I
[1:12:31] only have two minutes. CalBike did a fantastic report just recently that talked about collecting
[1:12:37] the data that you were just asking about. It isn't collected right now at the county
[1:12:42] level, but it is starting to get collected in emergency rooms. So I know a horrible
[1:12:48] place to collect the data, but if that's what you've got. So there are some interesting
[1:12:54] statistics that are coming out, 43% of the injuries in emergency rooms for ages 17 and
[1:13:01] less are on conventional bikes. They're not on e-bikes. But e-bikes are having a larger
[1:13:08] percentage of injuries for the 18 to 34-year-old age group. And we thought that they would
[1:13:16] be really large along our seniors, because there are a lot of seniors and elders that
[1:13:20] are picking up e-bike use because they get back into transportation, they're feeling better
[1:13:24] about themselves, and that number is actually quite a bit smaller, only 9%.
[1:13:29] So that's actually a great myth that I'd like to bust.
[1:13:33] The thing about e-bikes is they're coming.
[1:13:37] I believe 100% that enforcement is useful because it's a fast, immediate, pay attention
[1:13:45] here, you're doing something wrong.
[1:13:47] Education is what we really need.
[1:13:49] Of course, that's a much longer, slower, you know, cultural change kind of policy and intervention.
[1:13:56] And the other thing that's really important is policy.
[1:13:59] You guys can't help on this policy, but there are people working at the state legislature
[1:14:04] to work on manufacturers, which actually don't put the right information about the
[1:14:10] different bikes, so that when you get an e-moto, it says it's an e-bike, which
[1:14:14] is part of the problem it's causing.
[1:14:16] What I wanted to talk about was the SACPAC program, and I want to encourage you guys,
[1:14:21] when you've looked at the crash data, that big heat map that was up, to consider a quick
[1:14:27] build program for SAC County, quick build programs which you don't have right now but
[1:14:32] would be really beneficial because they could quickly change the environment, that built
[1:14:39] structure of the street.
[1:14:42] Oh, thanks for asking some minutes.
[1:14:44] They'll give you extra seconds.
[1:14:46] No, you need to wrap it up.
[1:14:47] Yes, they'll allow you to make some changes to the road immediately and reduce the kinds
[1:14:52] of conflicts and collisions that are happening on the roads immediately.
[1:14:57] Thank you, Deborah.
[1:14:58] They are less expected.
[1:15:04] I appreciate the reference to the data, but there's a lot of caveat to that. Perhaps there's
[1:15:13] more incidents that end up in the emergency room by a certain age group, more so on regular
[1:15:21] bikes, but then you've got to look at what's the share of regular bicycles to e-bikes and
[1:15:27] And then tell me about that.
[1:15:29] And B, also I think an important data point is fatalities and the type of injuries that
[1:15:37] are occurring on e-bikes versus regular bikes, because again, speed is a factor in the type
[1:15:43] of injuries.
[1:15:44] Is it long lasting traumatic brain injury versus broken arms?
[1:15:50] So to me, yeah, you've got to drill down a little bit more than that.
[1:15:53] Yeah, absolutely. 100 percent. I totally agree. We're just starting to collect this information.
[1:15:58] So as we get a larger pool of information, we'll have better data to be able to provide
[1:16:02] you better information.
[1:16:04] Great. Thank you.
[1:16:04] Thank you.
[1:16:05] Our next speaker in chambers is Sandy.
[1:16:15] Hello.
[1:16:16] Hi again. Yeah, I just was listening and, you know, having come here to speak on property
[1:16:22] rights earlier. I did take note of the speaker's mention of the property confiscation because
[1:16:33] the officers, I guess, don't have a speed gun or whatever. I think I heard him say that.
[1:16:42] But that's pretty concerning to me that personal property would just be confiscated like that
[1:16:47] without documenting the speed of a user.
[1:16:52] Other comments I have are, and I think the previous speaker
[1:16:55] spoke about the responsibility that
[1:16:59] should be held on to the manufacturers,
[1:17:02] bringing on a new product like this into the environment.
[1:17:07] I think that when we're building structures
[1:17:10] and buildings and things like that,
[1:17:12] they have what is it, environmental impact studies
[1:17:16] that are done. I don't know if this is something that would have benefited to have been done
[1:17:22] prior to releasing these entertainment bicycles. And then also I was really appalled to see
[1:17:32] how many deaths over that four-year period. I think if I saw that right, it's 40 deaths
[1:17:39] a year over four years that's that's so many I just I couldn't believe it so it
[1:17:46] is concerning not to mention the injuries you know but deaths so I'm glad
[1:17:53] that you guys have this on the agenda and that you're looking into it so thank
[1:17:56] you thank you Sandy any member of the public viewing online that would like
[1:18:02] to speak on item 25 bicycle advisory committee 2025 annual report please
[1:18:07] raise your virtual hand. And we have no speakers online for this.
[1:18:12] All right. Well, this is a receiving file. Next item, please.
[1:18:15] The next item on our agenda is 26, Court Involved Pathways to Behavioral Health Treatment
[1:18:20] presentation.
[1:18:28] All right. Good morning. Brian Quist, Behavioral
[1:18:31] Health Director. Nice to see you all this morning.
[1:18:34] Good to see you. So this morning I'm talking about
[1:18:35] Court Involved Pathways to Behavioral Health. Before I jump into that, I would like
[1:18:40] to remind our general public that may be watching, that we actually across the county have made
[1:18:47] some huge changes to how we're delivering behavioral health and making it accessible to people
[1:18:52] throughout the county. We now have 58 access points throughout Sacramento County where
[1:18:57] people can walk in and receive services. That includes our core adult clinics. There
[1:19:04] are 11 of them across the county. Each one of them has a community wellness center
[1:19:08] which is available for walk-in.
[1:19:10] Our youth programs, our contracts have been called FIT,
[1:19:15] and those, we have 16 sites throughout the county.
[1:19:18] For substance use disorders, we have our outpatient clinics,
[1:19:21] as well as our medication-assisted treatment clinics
[1:19:24] that are all available for walk-in.
[1:19:27] And then the other one I really like to remind everybody about
[1:19:29] and talk about every chance I get is that we have our
[1:19:32] Mental Health Urgent Care Clinic on Stockton Boulevard,
[1:19:36] which is available for people to walk in when they have mental health challenges.
[1:19:40] So I just wanted to do a quick reminder about these access points throughout the county before I jump into
[1:19:47] more formal presentation on the court-involved pathways.
[1:19:52] And so here are the topics that I'll be talking about today.
[1:19:55] Dr. Quist, one moment. Shuman, did you want to say something? No, okay. All right, please continue.
[1:20:00] We're good. All right, so we'll start off with CareCourt, Care Act.
[1:20:04] right. This is a new civil court process, so not criminal court. This is a civil court
[1:20:11] process which allows adults with serious mental health conditions to get connected and have
[1:20:19] their care coordinated in collaboration with the courts. The intention is to have earlier
[1:20:28] intervention to promote stabilization as well as reduce the frequency with which people
[1:20:35] experience crises, hospitalization or incarceration.
[1:20:39] Who can file petitions for care court?
[1:20:43] It's basically family members, service providers, first responders.
[1:20:48] Those are the main groups.
[1:20:49] We have a few more broken out group listed there, but those are the basic categories.
[1:20:56] The main goals are to provide timely access to services and provide a less restrictive
[1:21:03] environment for treatment, alternative from jail, conservatorship, or repeated involuntary
[1:21:10] hospitalization, and ideas to promote long-term stability.
[1:21:15] So one of the parts that I was asked to include as a part of this is the legal references
[1:21:23] This is where the rules about these different court-involved pathways are defined within
[1:21:32] California regulations, so you'll see references to those as we go through here.
[1:21:38] This one was Senate Bill 1338 that was initiated Care Court.
[1:21:43] We implemented in December 2024, along with the majority of the counties.
[1:21:52] There were some counties that had an early implementation in 2023 that were the early
[1:21:58] pilot counties, and then we were part of the larger rest of the counties that implemented
[1:22:02] in December 2024.
[1:22:05] So in terms of eligibility criteria, Carecourt focuses on those with schizophrenia or other
[1:22:12] schizoaffective disorders.
[1:22:14] That's how it was originally defined.
[1:22:15] then in for beginning January 1st, 2026,
[1:22:20] eligibility was expanded to include bipolar one
[1:22:23] with psychotic features.
[1:22:25] That was in SB 27.
[1:22:28] Here's some other legal references
[1:22:30] so you can find where the different requirements
[1:22:33] and legal structures defined.
[1:22:41] In terms of how this is played out,
[1:22:45] we have had, we're above average in terms of how many petitions we've had. We've had
[1:22:51] 216 petitions filed with the court. And then 65 of those have been accepted by care court
[1:23:01] with one graduation. And these dashboards are now available on the Behavioral Health Services
[1:23:07] website. So you can find those and keep track as time goes and as more people get
[1:23:14] involved with Carecourt, you can watch the data.
[1:23:18] I'm sure.
[1:23:19] Yes.
[1:23:20] Sorry.
[1:23:20] Supervisor Desmond?
[1:23:23] Oh, go ahead.
[1:23:25] Oh, it said dirty.
[1:23:26] No, he did it the right way.
[1:23:28] I did it the wrong way.
[1:23:28] OK.
[1:23:30] While you're getting complacent in your last few months here.
[1:23:32] I know.
[1:23:33] Thank you, Dr. Quist.
[1:23:36] I may have a couple other questions related
[1:23:38] to some of the other programs.
[1:23:40] But I'm really glad we're having this discussion.
[1:23:42] I mean, I think a lot of folks in the community,
[1:23:44] A lot of our elected official peers and other stakeholders have been clamoring for a report
[1:23:50] about this and kind of where we stand.
[1:23:52] So specifically the care court, I mean, I know it's certainly interesting how the characterization
[1:23:58] of this is much different than really what the implementation has looked like statewide.
[1:24:04] I mean, I think a lot of people were under the impression that this was going to be
[1:24:08] You know, really, the panacea to solve homelessness and to address so many issues.
[1:24:14] And we knew that was not going to be the case.
[1:24:16] I think we all knew that it was going to be relatively limited.
[1:24:19] Can you go back to that last slide?
[1:24:21] You still have it up.
[1:24:22] Sorry, the one with the stats.
[1:24:24] I'm looking at myself on my screen here.
[1:24:25] Let me take that off.
[1:24:27] You said that we are actually, we're doing better than the statewide average in terms
[1:24:32] of number of petitions.
[1:24:33] Right.
[1:24:33] File, Brian?
[1:24:34] Okay.
[1:24:34] I appreciate that.
[1:24:35] And how are we, how are we doing in the results though with the percentage of the petitions
[1:24:42] file that someone actually gets in the ministry?
[1:24:44] Can you break that down a little bit?
[1:24:45] Because I honestly don't know how we're preparing for that.
[1:24:48] I'd say we're above average there as well.
[1:24:51] I think in terms of other large counties, we're up there.
[1:24:54] We're probably second or third in terms of large counties.
[1:24:57] And then there are some more rural counties that for whatever reason have a higher
[1:25:04] a per capita number of petitions.
[1:25:06] Okay, so we're certainly not unique
[1:25:07] in realizing that really the reach of care court
[1:25:11] is not as expansive as people thought.
[1:25:14] Correct.
[1:25:14] Okay, how about the cost that it has,
[1:25:18] what does the cost spend to Sacramento County
[1:25:20] in implementing care and work?
[1:25:21] That's a good question.
[1:25:23] I don't think I came prepared with that.
[1:25:24] Oh, that's right, that's right.
[1:25:25] One of the funding-wise.
[1:25:28] Because you'll probably get that
[1:25:28] from the other jurisdictions.
[1:25:29] I'm sure you'll have questions.
[1:25:30] The state, thank you.
[1:25:32] Remember that.
[1:25:32] I'll be ready next time.
[1:25:34] The state did create a funding structure
[1:25:36] where we basically do, it's sort of a fee for service,
[1:25:39] sort of a funding mechanism,
[1:25:41] where based on different activities,
[1:25:43] we build those activities to the state
[1:25:45] and then we get reimbursed with them.
[1:25:47] I will say that it turns out the reimbursement rates,
[1:25:50] the amount of money they're paying us
[1:25:51] is not paying for the program,
[1:25:54] but it's in the big picture of things,
[1:25:57] not a huge, huge program,
[1:25:58] so it's probably still something
[1:26:01] I think we can maintain financially.
[1:26:04] Supervisor Sarno.
[1:26:06] Thank you, Chair.
[1:26:07] A little bit of a follow-up to Roger Desmond's line
[1:26:10] of question here.
[1:26:12] The one number that really jumps off the page here for me,
[1:26:20] and my question is this, how much stock
[1:26:22] should I put into this number is the one
[1:26:24] graduated, the 1.64%.
[1:26:27] So,
[1:26:31] getting a weird echo over here somewhere.
[1:26:35] How much stock should we put into that number as a sign that things aren't working as well
[1:26:41] as we had hoped?
[1:26:45] It's mostly considered to be a two-year program.
[1:26:50] And so we went live December 2020, no I already forgot what my site said, 2024.
[1:26:57] 2024. So we still have a little bit longer until our two years are up for a majority of
[1:27:04] them to sort of be getting to the end of their two-year time period.
[1:27:07] Okay. So you're telling me that this is a wait-and-see because of the kind of the temporal constraints
[1:27:16] of the administration of the program? Does that mean that we should be delighted to
[1:27:24] see a 3% graduation later?
[1:27:27] I mean, it seems awfully low,
[1:27:29] almost the regards to how you cut it.
[1:27:32] He graduated really early
[1:27:33] and the progression of things
[1:27:35] is the way I characterize it.
[1:27:37] I wouldn't expect to see too many more graduations that early.
[1:27:41] All right.
[1:27:43] Thank you.
[1:27:44] And speaking of which,
[1:27:46] if there are no other questions,
[1:27:48] we have a video that we'd like to show you
[1:27:50] of the one graduate.
[1:27:53] it.
[1:27:56] One more time.
[1:27:59] Air court as a program specifically has really opened up the
[1:28:05] possibility for the mental health treatment of people with severe mental
[1:28:09] illness in our community. Historically we've always believed in you know
[1:28:15] openness and willingness to engage, volunteer engagement for outpatient
[1:28:18] services, but you know throughout our careers in mental health and you know
[1:28:23] hearing feedback from community members, oftentimes the people with the highest need that are
[1:28:28] the most vulnerable tend to be the least likely to seek out help. So CareCourt allowed the
[1:28:33] county to be responsible for providing mental health services to all people, not just people
[1:28:38] who could self-advocate.
[1:28:39] Well, it's been successful now. I had to stick with my mom, stick with taking medicines
[1:28:44] and everything, you know, and I'll be on the street, you know,
[1:28:48] but being on the street is no way to live.
[1:28:50] So, you know, I did what I had to do,
[1:28:54] short it up, you know, so now I have a place to live.
[1:28:58] Well, I'm delighted for them, of course, as we all are.
[1:29:01] And I can recall that I think the mom in particular
[1:29:05] was a bit skeptical whether or not
[1:29:07] this was going to be able to make any real difference.
[1:29:11] And I think that she was won over
[1:29:13] or by the commitment of the team and by the provider.
[1:29:17] I think it's a pathway to connect persons
[1:29:20] who are suffering from schizophrenia
[1:29:23] and now bipolar one to treatment services in the community.
[1:29:28] With particular focus on those who are likely otherwise
[1:29:33] to end up hospitalized or maybe even incarcerated.
[1:29:37] And the treatment is full services
[1:29:41] including housing if necessary kept leaving me but every time he'd leave me
[1:29:47] she'd go look for him and she'd find him and bring him back to me so that was a
[1:29:52] period of where you know she'd bring him back in for a while so she was really
[1:29:58] Thank you.
[1:30:00] Which I was so happy because she kept after him to come back. And every month he had to
[1:30:06] go to the court to make sure that he checked in. And he started getting his medications and
[1:30:13] then they started giving him the different services. Took a while to get started, but
[1:30:19] eventually, you know, now it's been a year and pretty successful.
[1:30:23] Yeah. Happily, he has accepted those services and has really, really benefited across his
[1:30:29] journey so far in care court. He is doing much better according to pretty much
[1:30:35] everyone's report, his own mother, the psychiatrists and social workers. Everyone
[1:30:39] has seen the difference in how he's living a better life and his symptoms
[1:30:43] are under control and he doesn't have his illness getting in the way anymore of
[1:30:47] being able to to be successful in his life. We've not yet had the opportunity
[1:30:51] to have any graduations, but in 2026 we are poised to have our first couple
[1:30:56] of successful graduates from the program which will be fantastic to see.
[1:31:00] We want to treat them as a human and not just their disorder and to bring that mentality
[1:31:05] to our community, to bring that mentality to our treatment providers and to other people
[1:31:10] has been a real blessing and I would say that that's probably one of the more rewarding
[1:31:14] parts of this job that I've seen is being able to educate folks not just on illness
[1:31:19] and disease but to say this is a human that's just having a hard time and this
[1:31:23] is the ways that we're going to try to help them. And he helped me not be enough, but we're
[1:31:27] certainly going to try and we're going to keep on trying.
[1:31:29] I think it was a good experience that he had to go to someone and talk to them, you know,
[1:31:41] make sure that he's doing what he's supposed to be doing. And it's a year, it's only
[1:31:46] a year, so I think it can work. It can work.
[1:31:52] All
[1:31:57] right, so that was Lorenzo, our first graduate, got to participate in his graduation ceremony.
[1:32:03] It was really an exciting moment, and I think the biggest thing was is that I had the opportunity
[1:32:09] to remind him that as a part of this process, he now has the support network that in spite
[1:32:13] of the fact that he has graduated, he now has folks that when he does experience his
[1:32:17] future challenges, which will happen, is that he now has the support network to
[1:32:22] go to and continue to help support him long after care court is completed.
[1:32:28] Come on Dr. Quase, Supervisor Desmond. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Ryan
[1:32:32] for the video. I think that that's great. That success story is great. I'm
[1:32:35] asking you know it and I'm glad you talked about it's the support. Care
[1:32:38] Court is not a forced treatment thing, you know, and that's funny how many
[1:32:42] people expected it to be that. It is a support. It's kind of an
[1:32:46] intentionality. What are, is there anything going on, any discussions at
[1:32:50] the legislature right now about expanding the scope of care court or even discussions
[1:32:57] among other behavioral health directors throughout the state about how we can make it more effective
[1:33:03] and help us reach more people. Because I mean, I think the bottom line, how many of
[1:33:07] us every day hear from people in the community, hey, I saw someone living out on the streets.
[1:33:12] They're clearly suffering from some kind of behavioral health issue. Why can't you
[1:33:17] use these new tools, one of these new interventions like care court. Are there
[1:33:22] discussions about that, about any changes coming up? There have been a few
[1:33:26] different legislative ideas that have percolated. As of right now, none of them
[1:33:32] have made it through the process. I'm not aware of any that have that are
[1:33:36] currently like on the brink of getting approved or anything.
[1:33:41] Yeah and I just wanted to add I think most importantly and Dr. Quist is
[1:33:46] going to talk about a number of tools today throughout the presentation. Most importantly,
[1:33:50] what we want to do is really help the community, help first responders to better understand
[1:33:56] all of the multiple pathways and to navigate those pathways because we think the tools
[1:34:01] are there in our toolbox. We just think it's going to take a little bit more coordination
[1:34:06] to ensure people understand how to best utilize them. So that's really one of our big intents
[1:34:11] of today.
[1:34:14] All right. Next one I'm going to talk about is assisted outpatient treatment.
[1:34:17] This one's a little bit older.
[1:34:19] It's been around a little bit longer,
[1:34:21] also known sometimes as Laura's Law.
[1:34:25] This was designed for people with serious adults,
[1:34:28] with serious mental illness,
[1:34:30] and it has a broad, it's not as focused
[1:34:33] in terms of the diagnostic requirements.
[1:34:37] The eligibility criteria focus on repeated hospitalizations,
[1:34:42] justice involvement,
[1:34:43] or other significant risks to serious deterioration such as danger to themselves or others.
[1:34:55] On this one, instead of filing a petition with the court, as in care court, the petition,
[1:35:02] if you will, is filed with Behavioral Health Services, and then we evaluate it and then
[1:35:06] determine whether or not meets the eligibility criteria to pass on to the courts.
[1:35:11] This one's intended to prevent psychiatric crises and reduce re-admissions and recidivism from hospitals and our justice systems,
[1:35:21] promotes stabilization recovery outcomes and engagement with community-based services,
[1:35:26] and works towards long-term independence in the least restrictive setting.
[1:35:31] We, with your support, went live with this effective July 1st, 2021.
[1:35:41] Here are the legal references for assisted outpatient treatment for your notes.
[1:35:46] And then here are some data.
[1:35:48] As you can see from this, this is much less utilized in comparison with Carecourt.
[1:35:54] basically the probably bottom line is the asterisk down at the very bottom that 14
[1:36:01] out of 15 initial petitions were granted by the court and then three of we had
[1:36:08] three petitions that were renewed successfully with the court as well one
[1:36:14] moment dr. Quiz supervisor sorry now no I just wanted to mention to the point
[1:36:19] that Surveys doesn't made about CareCorp is that even with AOT, my understanding is that
[1:36:29] that alternative does not necessarily mean that there's going to be, for instance, forced
[1:36:36] medication.
[1:36:38] Correct.
[1:36:38] And so that's also a collaborative effort that involves the person that AOT is attempting
[1:36:48] to assist. Because I think that's another myth out there is that you're going to find
[1:36:53] these folks taking advantage of AOT and that the judge is going to force someone to take
[1:37:03] or be injected even with medication. That's not necessarily the case.
[1:37:09] Very true. Thank you for that comment. And then the last data point I was going to
[1:37:15] acknowledges we've had four graduations out of AOT out of those 15 individuals.
[1:37:24] All right, mental health diversion. This is a law that presents an opportunity for
[1:37:31] individuals to participate in treatment in lieu of traditional criminal
[1:37:36] prosecution. This is a pretrial diversion pausing the criminal case while
[1:37:40] the individual engages in treatment and then upon successful completion the
[1:37:45] cases dismissed and the record can be sealed. This applies to both misdemeanors and felonies.
[1:37:52] Focuses on providing evidence-based treatment in the community and providing accountability
[1:37:57] so that they still have to report back to the court on a periodic regular basis in order
[1:38:03] to report back on how their progress is going and the courts will hear from their treatment
[1:38:09] providers as well as the individual to hear how things are going. And it's supposed
[1:38:14] And it's a very supportive environment.
[1:38:17] The idea is to reduce future justice involvement as well.
[1:38:21] Here's the legal references down there at the bottom.
[1:38:24] We did implement.
[1:38:25] This is an amazing partnership between the courts,
[1:38:29] behavioral health, public defender's office,
[1:38:31] district attorney's office.
[1:38:34] More legal references.
[1:38:37] Since 2023, we've had almost 4,300 individuals
[1:38:43] referrals referred for assessments as a part of mental health diversion. As a part of those
[1:38:50] referrals we then that resulted in almost 4,000 assessments. And then what behavioral
[1:38:56] health does is we just basically do the assessment and report back to the court whether or not
[1:39:01] individuals are eligible to receive our services. And then it's really a discussion and
[1:39:07] you know, debater through the legal process
[1:39:10] between the public defender and the district attorney
[1:39:13] regarding what the outcome of the case is.
[1:39:16] And then ultimately if the court decides
[1:39:19] to grant the mental health diversion,
[1:39:21] then we continue to help support them
[1:39:23] through behavioral health services.
[1:39:24] And so we've had 2,454 individuals
[1:39:27] who were linked through mental health diversion
[1:39:29] to our service providers.
[1:39:33] Do we know the recidivism rate of those 2,400?
[1:39:38] We don't.
[1:39:39] I don't have data on that.
[1:39:41] That information will let you know whether the program is effective in somebody getting
[1:39:46] – I mean, the purpose of them is to go to get help for whatever crime they have committed.
[1:39:53] But in order for me to know, is the mental health version profitable, then, is to know
[1:40:01] are they recommitting a crime again?
[1:40:06] So that's fine.
[1:40:07] I can always get that later.
[1:40:08] I have to check with the courts and see if maybe they have that data.
[1:40:11] That's fine.
[1:40:12] That later is fine.
[1:40:13] Shabon?
[1:40:14] I was just going to say, we'll look into that data and get back to you.
[1:40:18] it would be data that's kept by the courts or by our other systems, not necessarily by
[1:40:23] behavioral health.
[1:40:24] Thank you.
[1:40:25] I'd appreciate that.
[1:40:27] All right.
[1:40:29] And then SB 43 made changes to LPS, which is Lennerman Petrus Short Act, which basically
[1:40:38] defines our 5150 and other related regulations in terms of involuntary holds.
[1:40:46] prior to SB 43, there was already a part of the law that an individual could be held involuntarily
[1:40:53] against their will for grave disability if they are unable to care for their own food,
[1:40:58] shelter, clothing as a result of a mental health diagnosis or disorder. What SB 43
[1:41:05] introduced was now individuals can be involuntarily put into treatment if they're unable to
[1:41:12] care for their own food, shelter, clothing
[1:41:14] due to a severe substance use disorder.
[1:41:18] So that was a new piece.
[1:41:20] The other new piece was that if they're
[1:41:22] unable to care for their own basic needs, which is defined
[1:41:26] to include ability to obtain necessary medical care
[1:41:29] personal safety out in the community.
[1:41:33] So that's how the SB 43 changed the law.
[1:41:37] A quick question on that one.
[1:41:39] So it sounds all great.
[1:41:42] Do we have the facilities to be able to meet the needs of individuals who fall into this
[1:41:48] category?
[1:41:48] I think that comes out of the data here in Sacramento County.
[1:41:53] There were 176 SB 43 holds over a three-quarter time period.
[1:41:59] Out of those, we're not seeing any of them go on to a treatment facility.
[1:42:04] So basically what we're interpreting based on the data is that individuals are on
[1:42:10] a substance.
[1:42:11] since they go into an emergency department,
[1:42:13] maybe their body metabolizes that substance.
[1:42:16] Once that substance has been metabolized,
[1:42:19] they're no longer presenting as unable to care
[1:42:21] for their own food shelter clothing.
[1:42:24] And so then there's no longer a basis under which
[1:42:27] they can continue to be held against their will.
[1:42:30] We do try to link people with services
[1:42:32] at every opportunity.
[1:42:33] We have a crisis navigation program
[1:42:35] that is available to all of every emergency department
[1:42:38] in the county in order to help link people
[1:42:40] with services as well so and so does so the my question still stands are there
[1:42:45] services and facilities that can take care of individuals that may not be able
[1:42:53] to care for themselves or do we is a demand greater than the supply no the
[1:42:59] demand is not greater than the supply we have we have enough acute beds we
[1:43:04] did around study that determined that we we do not have a shortage of our
[1:43:09] So we have 500 and I have a slide on this and it might be next.
[1:43:13] Supervisor Desmond has a question.
[1:43:15] Supervisor Desmond.
[1:43:17] Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for asking the questions.
[1:43:20] That's a great question to tee up about, does the capacity meet the demand?
[1:43:25] And yes, I was thinking about the rayon study.
[1:43:27] And we added a great deal of capacity to be able to meet that demand.
[1:43:31] The challenge is as you highlighted and I think for the public to understand
[1:43:35] and certainly other elected officials
[1:43:37] to the county to understand
[1:43:39] that we are inherently limited in the tools
[1:43:42] to get people to take them.
[1:43:43] We can offer, plead, beg, cajole with folks
[1:43:47] to go into these treatment facilities that we have.
[1:43:50] But again, SB 43, it's episodic, I guess.
[1:43:53] I mean, that someone will either,
[1:43:55] maybe they come off of what's keeping them
[1:43:58] from being able to take care of themselves
[1:44:00] or they have a moment of lucidity.
[1:44:02] They're not able to be held beyond
[1:44:04] on the 72 hours for instance.
[1:44:06] And that's not just a challenge
[1:44:08] that Sacramento County is having, right?
[1:44:09] Everybody is having this challenge,
[1:44:11] but that is what we hear from constituents
[1:44:14] more than anything else.
[1:44:15] How are you telling me that you can't intervene
[1:44:17] and force this person on the street
[1:44:19] who's clearly going through a crisis?
[1:44:22] How can you kind of intervene
[1:44:23] and put them involuntarily into a system?
[1:44:26] Well, this is why what we're describing here today.
[1:44:29] So yeah, so thank you and thank you for teeing that out
[1:44:32] because it's not, when it comes to the behavioral health for these folks, it's our biggest challenge
[1:44:37] is not necessarily the capacity. It's our, you know, restrictions on kind of forcing people
[1:44:44] or leveraging them into treatment.
[1:44:46] Ms. Katari?
[1:44:47] Yeah.
[1:44:48] Thank you again.
[1:44:49] Shevon Katari, deputy county executive.
[1:44:51] So one of the challenges that we face is that when a provider who is doing the
[1:44:56] assessment, sees somebody.
[1:45:00] They generally only see what's right in front of them in terms of symptomology and what that
[1:45:04] person's experiencing. And one of the things that Dr. Quist will probably get to later is,
[1:45:09] you know, with the incoming she, social health information exchange, what we're really hoping
[1:45:13] to do with that fuller breadth of data is to be able to look at that person's history
[1:45:19] more extensively, be able to look at how many times that person has come to the attention
[1:45:23] of law enforcement or emergency rooms and really be able to build a better case, if you will,
[1:45:30] for the need for treatment, because right now we don't have the full information or the full
[1:45:34] picture. So we are working with our partners in the hospitals. We're working with our partners in
[1:45:40] EMS to really figure out how to build that better picture so that we can better serve folks.
[1:45:46] So more to come on that. How soon before she is available? She is going to be launched for
[1:45:51] the justice-involved population in October of this year, and then over the next year
[1:45:56] and two will build additional capacities out.
[1:45:59] Has one quick follow-up question.
[1:46:02] And the other thing, a lot of folks who are, correct me if I'm wrong, if they are brought
[1:46:07] in on an involuntary hold under new SB 43 criteria, and they may come down off of
[1:46:15] whatever has been causing their challenges, they still may end up getting enrolled
[1:46:20] in care corridor AOT correct so I want to make it clear it's not just no it's
[1:46:24] just that and they're not getting involved in any of these other programs
[1:46:26] there's there's a lot of cross referral in a different program correct doctor
[1:46:30] quiz that's true absolutely true the other thing is some what we found is
[1:46:35] the majority of the people who who we are identifying with a severe substance
[1:46:38] use disorder also have a co-occurring mental health condition and so a lot
[1:46:42] there are circumstances where they are going they are being
[1:46:46] psychiatrically hospitalized to a large extent. So yeah, and so we just wanted to highlight,
[1:46:53] we do have quite the portfolio of beds here in Sacramento County, 566 beds total. Out
[1:46:59] of that 566 and 98 of them are psychiatric health facilities, which are smaller facilities,
[1:47:06] 16 beds each. And then, well, with the exception of our county operated one, which
[1:47:11] has 50 beds. But they're still smaller with different regulations than the larger acute
[1:47:17] psychiatric hospitals, which we have 468 beds of.
[1:47:20] Dr. Chris, I have a question. Go back to the slide. So if we have capacity for individuals
[1:47:27] who have needs, what do they do with the staffing and all the resources because the
[1:47:34] beds are not fully utilized?
[1:47:37] The beds are full.
[1:47:38] Oh, they are full.
[1:47:39] They are fully utilized.
[1:47:39] Yeah.
[1:47:39] Yeah.
[1:47:40] Yeah.
[1:47:40] Okay.
[1:47:42] Okay.
[1:47:43] So, I was earlier when I asked, do we have enough supply for the demand?
[1:47:47] Yes.
[1:47:47] And you said, yes, we do.
[1:47:49] Yes.
[1:47:49] So, do we have an excess of demand?
[1:47:52] It's throughput.
[1:47:52] It's throughput.
[1:47:53] Sorry to interrupt.
[1:47:54] No, no, no.
[1:47:55] That's okay.
[1:47:56] That's alphabet habit of that.
[1:47:58] So, I'm good.
[1:48:01] So I want to understand this.
[1:48:03] We have enough beds for the needs.
[1:48:06] Do we have a need for more beds if we had, or sounds like we're right in the middle?
[1:48:15] The RAND study concluded that we are good on the number of beds that we have.
[1:48:20] So at the time what we did identify was we had a shortage of subacute beds
[1:48:25] and that's still something we continue to work on.
[1:48:28] Basically that's a facility for after the hospitalization
[1:48:31] when an individual needs to step down, but they're not ready for independent living.
[1:48:34] We didn't have enough of those subacute beds available, and so we've been working on investing
[1:48:40] a great deal in increasing the number of subacute beds we have.
[1:48:45] So the whole goal for a healthy acute system is throughput.
[1:48:50] So you want enough people being discharged, moving on to their next phase of treatment
[1:48:57] in order to accommodate the incoming admissions.
[1:49:00] And then when those that are exiting, are we finding the next level available?
[1:49:07] So there's the capacity through.
[1:49:09] And I imagine the challenges that are being faced is then housing.
[1:49:14] Housing is definitely a challenge.
[1:49:16] So what happens in these situations, they go through the process, they do the step
[1:49:22] down, they're now in a position where they are stabilized, then what?
[1:49:28] each person has each person gets their own discharge plan so based on each
[1:49:34] individual's unique circumstances the hospital and the treatment team are
[1:49:38] working to identify what's what's needed in order for this individual once
[1:49:43] they discharge sometimes that's working well a lot of times that's working
[1:49:46] very closely with an outpatient behavioral health provider especially for
[1:49:50] those who may already be linked to our services and may already know the
[1:49:54] individual already understand you know what their circumstances are and what
[1:49:57] sort of living environment they need. But yes, we do have a very significant shortage of affordable
[1:50:03] housing which does make it, there's a little bit of a slowdown on that discharge process while we
[1:50:10] help identify a good residential place for them to get discharged to.
[1:50:17] And can you help me understand what happens when you don't, what happens when you have a delay
[1:50:22] in finding available housing.
[1:50:24] Are they back in the streets?
[1:50:26] Do you wait until they get into some form of housing
[1:50:31] or rental or temporary?
[1:50:33] What happens to them at that point?
[1:50:35] It really becomes a unique circumstance
[1:50:38] to each individual, depending on what circumstances.
[1:50:41] Do they have family that are able to help support them?
[1:50:45] Are they linked with one of our outpatient providers
[1:50:48] that can help them try to find board and care placement?
[1:50:51] It's really a really unique circumstance based on each individual.
[1:50:55] Do we have statistics on how many of these individuals end up back on the streets?
[1:51:03] Oh, I don't think we do.
[1:51:05] If Ms. Katari, if I can get that information, that would be interesting.
[1:51:12] Yeah, we'll look into that.
[1:51:13] It might be one of those data points that we'll need to wait until we have the she.
[1:51:19] The she will really bring in HMIS data.
[1:51:22] data, it will bring in data from the behavioral health systems, and sometimes that tracking
[1:51:27] of that individual across time, but we will look into that for sure.
[1:51:30] One of the things I also just wanted to mention is you've probably heard us talk about recuperative
[1:51:35] care, and recuperative care is that step down that happens when someone leaves the
[1:51:40] hospital, whether it's psychiatric or medical hospitalization or leaves an institution.
[1:51:46] That recuperative care allows us to put someone in a bed for an extended period of time while we're looking for more permanent housing for them.
[1:51:55] And there is capacity being built around recuperative care right now.
[1:51:59] So that is one sort of interim point that we're promoting.
[1:52:03] Is that similar to like the Turning Point program?
[1:52:06] Would that be one?
[1:52:07] No, I don't think.
[1:52:08] Okay, that's right.
[1:52:09] NHHA National Housing and then WellSpace also runs a recuperative care.
[1:52:13] So we have a couple of recuperative care providers.
[1:52:15] Oh yeah, very good, that's very good, all right, thank you.
[1:52:21] These are some statistics to show you how often 5150s happen in Sacramento County.
[1:52:27] This is over the course of a year, 2025.
[1:52:30] We had nearly 11,051 50s that were written and then out of those 5,600 of them turned
[1:52:40] into a longer stay beyond the 5150.
[1:52:44] And then this is some quick data on a number of temporary conservatorships that were filed
[1:52:51] in 2025, as well as when I had to submit this PowerPoint presentation, looked at data from
[1:53:00] our public guardians office, which tracks our conservatorships.
[1:53:04] And we had 262 people on conservatorship in June, 2026, with 18 Murphy conservatorships
[1:53:11] in June, 2026, so that gives you a little bit of data on that picture.
[1:53:19] And then finally, I wanted to end on most of the people that are being served on all
[1:53:27] these different pathways, care court, assisted outpatient treatment, mental health diversion,
[1:53:32] a lot of the folks that are being served through our existing full service partnership
[1:53:38] So these are some data on outcomes from our full service partnership programs.
[1:53:44] We have demonstrated that they're able to reduce the number of homeless clients by 66%,
[1:53:54] number of homeless days by 80%, number of clients with an ER visit, 86%, and so forth.
[1:54:00] So we're hitting on homelessness, number of ER visits.
[1:54:03] We're hitting on reductions in psychiatric hospitalization,
[1:54:07] and reductions in arrests and reductions in incarceration.
[1:54:11] And then I'm gonna change up the order on this
[1:54:15] just a little bit.
[1:54:16] These are some coming soon sort of topics.
[1:54:21] First of all, we've been working very diligently
[1:54:24] in collaborating with the district attorney's
[1:54:28] chronic offender program in order to develop
[1:54:31] a new program that will be focused on peer onsite
[1:54:37] peer supported sober living environments. And so we just executed that contract and we hope
[1:54:45] to have that going up literally almost any day now as soon as monarchs ready to start
[1:54:49] accepting those admissions and we have some referrals from the district attorney's office.
[1:54:54] And then coming soon, you've already heard Siobhan talk about the Cal AIM jail linkages
[1:55:03] program as well as we have our existing Prop 47 program working with the justice involved.
[1:55:09] And this is just to highlight that these are also working very closely with justice-involved
[1:55:15] individuals.
[1:55:16] Just a really quick comment.
[1:55:17] Siobhan, I just want to give you a shout out.
[1:55:18] I was going to, I have it safe for the end, but I want to, I'll say it now, with the
[1:55:22] DA core program and the conversations we had about, I guess I want to say about
[1:55:26] a year ago or maybe earlier, earlier this year, late last year, and getting that program
[1:55:31] going and just the emphasis on the positive impact that it has it came up
[1:55:39] in one of the Orangeville I think it was Orangeville Crime Watch and so thank
[1:55:43] you for working hard to get that program up and going. Supervisor Desmond. Thank
[1:55:48] you. I want to echo that as well. I want to bring that up and I and I
[1:55:52] appreciate that. I know it's I think it was took a little while for us to get
[1:55:56] that ironed out but I think it's we've had a really good result and
[1:55:59] And ultimately, I hope it results in people
[1:56:01] getting the help they need,
[1:56:03] so we can show that that program is successful.
[1:56:06] But in terms of the core program,
[1:56:09] and like Prop 36, for instance,
[1:56:11] those are essentially mental health diversion programs,
[1:56:15] correct?
[1:56:15] Yeah, I mean, they fall into kind of that bucket,
[1:56:18] but they're not.
[1:56:19] So when we talk about capacity,
[1:56:20] I wanna get back to this conversation.
[1:56:22] You know, the capacity was about inpatient,
[1:56:25] behavioral health, acute, subacute.
[1:56:27] Well, we're talking about, like, for CORE and Prop 36, that's housing with behavioral
[1:56:33] health supports.
[1:56:34] Those are two different things.
[1:56:35] Those are two different things.
[1:56:36] So we are definitely not even close to the capacity we need on permanent support of
[1:56:41] housing and certainly shelter with the behavioral health support.
[1:56:44] I want to make sure that's abundantly clear to the public.
[1:56:46] But in terms of the acute subacute beds, that was the focus of the RAND study.
[1:56:52] Now, in terms of the Prop 36, just so I'm clear.
[1:56:56] can you remind me where we are with support from the legislature for Prop 36? There's not
[1:57:02] much and has it even started going out the door from the state yet?
[1:57:06] We have not received our first payment yet.
[1:57:07] We have not received any payment yet, but that's still a huge issue for us in Sacramento
[1:57:12] County and all the counties to be able to maximize the benefits of that change in
[1:57:17] state law.
[1:57:18] Yeah.
[1:57:19] Thank you.
[1:57:21] And then coming soon we are beginning to develop some training and resource videos
[1:57:25] one of the next steps after this is we're looking forward to scheduling and
[1:57:30] offering to schedule some presentations to our city partners throughout
[1:57:34] Sacramento County and as a part of that we we've been developing some training
[1:57:39] and resource videos and in a minute I'm going to show you a sample of one of
[1:57:43] those videos. One of the other things I wanted to highlight too is you know
[1:57:48] there's there is a lot of focus on on this court involvement in order to
[1:57:54] to help encourage people to get into services.
[1:57:57] At the same time, we're also working on developing
[1:58:00] some other resources for our community members.
[1:58:03] So we have, working with NAMI,
[1:58:06] and you'll probably be aware that a lot of the advocates,
[1:58:10] the family advocates that are advocating
[1:58:13] for these court-involved type programming
[1:58:15] are very involved with NAMI.
[1:58:17] And so what we recently,
[1:58:21] at the recommendation of one of my colleagues
[1:58:23] in another county. We are contracting for a training that's specifically focused on individuals
[1:58:31] with... I said it 12 times before this, so I'd say it right. Anaxignogia, which is a lack of
[1:58:39] awareness about one's own mental health challenges. That's a major concern. And there's an evidence
[1:58:47] based practice that is now available that we are contracting to bring in and we've
[1:58:52] extended invitations to our NAMI partners to participate in the trainings called LEAP,
[1:58:59] which is an acronym for LISTEN, Empathize, Agree Partner that was created by Dr. Amador.
[1:59:05] And so, we're excited to give that a try. This will be the first time we're trying
[1:59:09] out this evidence-based practice, and happy to continue to expand that if everybody
[1:59:14] finds it as helpful. So, the last part I wanted to do is just be able to demonstrate
[1:59:21] straight for you, give you a sample of one of the videos that we've developed for Care
[1:59:28] Court in particular.
[1:59:29] This features one of our most amazing partners and advocates, Judge Larry Brown.
[1:59:37] He is now the, he's a long time involved with mental health diversion and other collaborative
[1:59:42] courts and is now the presiding judge of Sacramento County Superior Court.
[1:59:46] And he agreed to help us develop some resources.
[1:59:49] This is an example of one of the videos that we've created specifically for Carecourt.
[2:00:03] Air court is an outpatient treatment program that is not a conservatorship. Initially, the law was limited
[2:00:11] to those suffering from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. But as of January of 2026,
[2:00:19] it also now includes those suffering from bipolar one with psychotic features. The
[2:00:25] The goal is to target persons in the community who are suffering from mental illness who
[2:00:33] need help.
[2:00:36] The petition seeking help may be filed not just by law enforcement or a first responder
[2:00:44] or by a treatment professional but also by a family member.
[2:00:48] And that petition goes directly to the court, directly to the judge.
[2:00:54] that is a unique feature of the Care Court. On receiving the petition the judge
[2:01:01] reviews the petition if it appears to meet the initial criteria the court
[2:01:06] then orders or in our county requests behavioral health to go out and
[2:01:12] investigate. This may include simply looking for the individual trying to
[2:01:17] find them and then building some rapport some relationship with the
[2:01:23] individual to see whether or not they might agree to start to accept mental
[2:01:28] health services. A report comes back to the judge and if criteria is satisfied
[2:01:35] the court then will order that the person qualifies for care court and then
[2:01:42] the goal is to have them reach a care agreement where they buy into this is
[2:01:49] the type of treatment you're going to receive this is the mental health
[2:01:52] agency that will provide you medication that will link you up to housing, critically, housing.
[2:02:00] Once they're in the care court, it's at least a year of successful participation. It could be
[2:02:06] extended two years and then upon graduation, the petition gets dismissed. In the court,
[2:02:14] the goal is for the entire team, whether lawyers or treatment professionals or the judge,
[2:02:19] is to have the person fully get invested in their well-being, to take their
[2:02:26] medication, to stay treatment compliant, to work on drug addiction or alcoholism,
[2:02:32] so as to reduce the chances of going back into a hospital setting or back into
[2:02:38] the county jail. And importantly, there is no authority for the judge in the
[2:02:44] court to compel medication, nor is there authority to order a person to be hospitalized.
[2:02:53] If it gets to the point where it appears that might be necessary, then we're talking
[2:02:59] about SB 43, the LPS can hold route.
[2:03:06] So that's just a sample.
[2:03:08] The idea is to create resources with easy to understand education around what these
[2:03:14] different options are.
[2:03:15] So far we have four videos, we have Care Court Assisted Outpatient Treatment, SB 43 and Mental
[2:03:21] Health Diversion.
[2:03:22] Those four videos are on the Behavioral Health Services website, down at the bottom of the
[2:03:27] webpage under our updates.
[2:03:29] And we'll continue to add to those additional resources as they're developed.
[2:03:34] That's the end of my presentation.
[2:03:35] Thank you.
[2:03:36] Ms. Gautari.
[2:03:37] Yes, thank you.
[2:03:38] I just wanted to add one thing about the videos.
[2:03:40] We're really excited about this.
[2:03:42] Part of them will be externally facing videos, so they will be for the community to better
[2:03:47] understand the programs and to better understand how to access that behavioral health crisis
[2:03:51] continuum of care.
[2:03:52] The other videos that we're working on is our internal facing videos, and that's really
[2:03:57] for first responders, law enforcement, fire, so that they have a really easy tool, simple
[2:04:03] to understand about what happens when they encounter folks in the field that might
[2:04:07] need some support and help.
[2:04:08] So we're working with our law enforcement partners, and we'll work with the cities to deploy these training materials as they're developed
[2:04:16] Thank you. Mr. Villanueva. Thank you, Supervisor
[2:04:20] Right. Mr. Quist mentioned that we are going to be sharing these training and videos with different elected bodies
[2:04:25] And we've had a couple of requests specifically from you chair about sharing those
[2:04:31] Timelines and how we're going to be going about that so we'll be sure to share that schedule with you as we move that forward
[2:04:38] All right, well, thank you.
[2:04:40] Are there any requests to speak on this item?
[2:04:41] We have no in-person request to speak.
[2:04:44] And anyone online that would like to comment on Item 26, the Court Involved Pathways to
[2:04:48] Behavioral Health Treatment Presentation, please raise your virtual hand now for Item
[2:04:54] 26.
[2:04:56] And we have no online request to speak.
[2:04:59] All right, next item, please.
[2:05:00] The next item on our agenda is Number 27.
[2:05:04] that is the Child Protective Systems Oversight Committee 2025 annual report.
[2:05:21] Good morning.
[2:05:23] You have the wrong one, I'm sorry.
[2:05:25] That's the response.
[2:05:26] Oh, this is the response.
[2:05:29] All right, we will get the other presentation up.
[2:05:33] We have two regarding Child Protective Systems.
[2:05:35] One is the response and one is the Oversight Committee report.
[2:05:39] We're looking for that right now on
[2:05:52] 27.
[2:06:06] There we go.
[2:06:06] Good
[2:06:11] morning.
[2:06:11] Good morning. Thank you.
[2:06:13] I'm Dr. Maynard Johnston.
[2:06:15] I'm a retired pediatrician.
[2:06:17] I've been on the oversight committee
[2:06:19] almost since inception
[2:06:21] almost 30 years ago.
[2:06:24] And I've been chair of the committee
[2:06:26] for the last several years.
[2:06:29] Thank you
[2:06:29] for this opportunity
[2:06:30] to share the CPS Oversight
[2:06:34] Committee report.
[2:06:35] And the CPS I want to emphasize
[2:06:37] stands for Child Protective Systems, not just Child Protective Services. To
[2:06:44] present our work, our key findings and recommendations from the year 2025. We
[2:06:51] hope you'll find this information helpful as you deliberate the county's
[2:06:55] policies and investments related to the safety and well-being of our
[2:07:01] children and families. We have a collective responsibility to protect
[2:07:05] them. The last time we presented to you was in August of 2025. So, I'm going to...
[2:07:14] Good morning. Chris Orr with the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office. I currently
[2:07:19] oversee our Sex and Family Violence Bureau, which includes our child assault unit as well as
[2:07:25] domestic violence unit. I've been a member of the CPS oversight committee actually for
[2:07:30] about 12 years. So, long institutional history also, and I'll just sit as part of the Children's
[2:07:36] coalition.
[2:07:39] So the oversight committee originated in 1996 from the need for
[2:07:43] child protective systems oversight stemming from one severe case of child
[2:07:48] abuse and neglect that was investigated by the critical care investigation
[2:07:54] committee or the CCIC. The final report issued by the CCIC recommended that an
[2:08:02] An ongoing committee provide oversight of all child protective systems, not just the Child
[2:08:09] Protective Services Division.
[2:08:12] As a result, and by resolution, the Board of Supervisors established a Child Protective
[2:08:17] Systems Oversight Committee, and in 2011 placed it under the umbrella of the Sacramento
[2:08:24] County Children's Coalition.
[2:08:25] The
[2:08:37] focus of the report was the committee's activities from January 1, 2025 until December
[2:08:46] 31, 2025.
[2:08:49] The oversight committee of assessed progress and overall mission and goals, analyzed findings
[2:08:56] and made recommendations based on continued representation of the electronic suspected
[2:09:02] child abuse report system or e-scars, critical incident subcommittee, completed case reviews
[2:09:09] and analysis, and completed the hospital and medical provider engagement project.
[2:09:22] One way to assess how well the child protection systems are working is to look at data related
[2:09:27] to child welfare reports and investigations.
[2:09:29] In this report, this table shows the rate of unduplicated children per 1,000 for the
[2:09:36] the subject of at least one CPS report, whether it was open for investigation or not.
[2:09:42] The data reflects the community's understanding of child safety as reports are made primarily
[2:09:46] by mandated reporters, but also could come from family members, neighbors, or other
[2:09:51] people in the community.
[2:09:52] The decreased numbers starting in 2020 are likely related to COVID-19 pandemic that resulted
[2:09:58] in many in-person activities being moved to virtual platforms.
[2:10:01] The examples of this includes schools changing from in person to online class as well as
[2:10:06] medical and mental health providers using telehealth services to see patients.
[2:10:11] There's been an upward trend in reports from 2021 to 2025 as children returned in person
[2:10:18] health and instruction.
[2:10:21] Sacramento County's rates of children with allegations still exceeds the state's
[2:10:26] rates each year.
[2:10:27] year. The oversight committee intends in future years to look at substantiation rates, and
[2:10:34] although the number of Sacramento County reports has decreased, the Sacramento child population
[2:10:39] has actually also decreased, resulting in the rates of reports continue to increase.
[2:10:45] The substantiation rates are decreasing, and we're going to try to report back with more
[2:10:50] detail through that on future years so that you can have some more understanding
[2:10:54] of how many children are actually suffering from abuse.
[2:10:58] One moment. Supervisor Serna.
[2:11:00] Thank you Chair. Before you leave the slide, I wanted to hear maybe just briefly about not
[2:11:09] just the fact that for the last seven years and probably beyond that, we've been above
[2:11:18] of the state rate.
[2:11:22] But a little bit more distressing I would say
[2:11:24] is the fact since 2022 we're going in opposite directions.
[2:11:30] So is there any, do you have a subsequent slide
[2:11:32] or do you have a subsequent comment
[2:11:34] about that trend present itself starting four years ago?
[2:11:40] Yeah, I would say that in my view
[2:11:44] the fact that people are making phone calls in
[2:11:46] is maybe not a bad thing.
[2:11:47] that means our community is taking the village to if they're concerned about
[2:11:52] children and their safety we are having people report and that's why when we're
[2:11:57] talking unfortunately with your the chiefs of staff from your each of your
[2:12:02] districts we realize that we really need to focus a little bit more on
[2:12:06] substantiation just because someone's making a phone call that means
[2:12:09] someone's concerned what are the actual levels of where there actually is
[2:12:14] abuse. And we have some of that data in there. The
[2:12:17] substantiation rates are going down. There are more full
[2:12:19] report for you. And so while our rates of report are going
[2:12:24] up, the substantiation is going down. It's kind of a mixed
[2:12:27] bag. What balance do we want to have as a community for
[2:12:30] when people feel children are in danger? Should they feel
[2:12:33] comfortable calling? And then can CPS and law enforcement
[2:12:37] use appropriate tools to decide which ones warrant some sort
[2:12:42] of action, which ones can be handled in different sorts of ways.
[2:12:52] Sacramento's partnership between law enforcement, CPS, and District Attorney's Office has continued
[2:12:57] to grow.
[2:12:59] Only four years ago, the main communication system used between agencies about suspected
[2:13:05] child abuse was through interoffice mail of suspected child abuse reports.
[2:13:11] CPS would send the forms to law enforcement, and law enforcement would attempt to sort
[2:13:15] through thousands with little ability to meaningfully track cases and determine patterns or provide
[2:13:21] data.
[2:13:23] Now after three years of the state grant implement the E-SCAR system, we have a system that has
[2:13:28] improved responsiveness to child abuse.
[2:13:31] We are just, again, very proud of this.
[2:13:34] We're one of only five communities, counties that actually has this sort of program
[2:13:40] time, besides LA, and it has really transformed what we're doing.
[2:13:46] That grant ended in March of 2025.
[2:13:52] The grant in the e-scar system allows us to actually have data, and the data that e-scars
[2:13:57] is providing is daunting.
[2:14:00] As you can see here, there are nearly 12,000 reports of suspected child abuse that are
[2:14:06] cross-reported to law enforcement.
[2:14:07] So, CPS received a lot more than that, but these are ones that are required to be cross-reported.
[2:14:13] These numbers highlight the difficulties that our child protective systems have in ensuring
[2:14:18] justice and protection for children.
[2:14:22] The sheriff alone receives nearly 6,000 cases that they have determined involve child abuse
[2:14:31] crime suspected.
[2:14:34] And nearly 1,700 of those are ones in which, pardon me, 6,000 overall and 1,700 are a child
[2:14:42] of these crimes suspected.
[2:14:44] The sheriff has only eight detectives to work on the nearly 450 cases that they actually
[2:14:53] assign to a detective of that nearly 1,700.
[2:14:57] The number of detected
[2:15:00] Detectives is less than what it was 15 years ago when they had 12 detectives. We have more
[2:15:07] data, we have more information, we have more cases coming in, but the resources and ability
[2:15:14] to investigate them are going down. The DA's office also feels these effects with only
[2:15:20] eight DA's assigned to our child assault unit. Case loads less than a decade ago were around
[2:15:25] 20 cases per DA and are now nearly 40 per DA in just the child assault unit. So we have
[2:15:34] approximately eight DAs that have 320 cases. Our office receives only about 450 cases for
[2:15:43] filing of that nearly 12,000 or 2,697 were child abuse is suspected. And the cases are
[2:15:53] much more complicated than they were a decade ago. Detectives and DAs now have to go through
[2:16:01] phones, computers, cameras, and many cases involving child abuse involve expert witnesses.
[2:16:07] A case that 15 years ago could have been investigated by interviewing four or five witnesses now
[2:16:14] may have those same witnesses plus terabytes of data or more than 30,000 pages of phone
[2:16:21] dumps alone and media to go through. Cases that can take months, two years to investigate
[2:16:28] and much longer to get through the prosecution. The District Attorney's Office received
[2:16:33] about 450-500 child abuse cases per year. While the majority, these are felonies, there
[2:16:39] are other ones that are assigned to our misdemeanor unit. They're the misdemeanor child abuse
[2:16:46] cases. And as the board is aware, budget decisions involving misdemeanor cases may continue impact
[2:16:52] how the county as a whole views its role in that protective system.
[2:16:58] This data should, when we look at the data, I will say there's some things when you look
[2:17:03] at this data that probably cause you some questions, which is when you look at, there
[2:17:08] was 3,871 cases where the sheriff reported no investigation was conducted, and you compare
[2:17:15] that to other jurisdictions for the sheriffs is about half in the city police it's about
[2:17:22] a third Elk Grove similar to half we have since this data was compiled it caused questions
[2:17:30] to me so the child abuse supervisor and myself met with each of the jurisdictions and we're
[2:17:36] going to have this data a little more standardized when that category of no investigation conducted
[2:17:42] it is checked. It actually doesn't mean no one looked at it. There are some cases that are
[2:17:47] referred to law enforcement that may need CPS involvement but doesn't actually need a law
[2:17:53] enforcement involvement and so they're administratively cleared by sergeant or somebody
[2:17:58] with a strong understanding of which cases warrant a criminal investigation. So next year
[2:18:05] that column will hopefully look a little bit different and we'll have asterix explaining
[2:18:09] some of the differences and why you might have variations. By next year we hope that
[2:18:15] each of the agencies will be using a standardized definition of whether an investigation was
[2:18:19] or was not conducted. One moment. Supervisor Serna.
[2:18:22] Thank you. I appreciate you pointing that out. So will that mean that there will be
[2:18:27] a common instrument that each law enforcement agency will use to determine when a criminal
[2:18:37] investigation needs to commence and and then kind of procedurally how it's done?
[2:18:43] Yes or no? I guess the common instrument is just the definition of we think
[2:18:48] they're doing pretty well on the child to be suspected. They pull up a report and
[2:18:53] this report we're we have access to is the DA's office so we can check their
[2:18:57] work and their evaluation of whether a crime is suspected and whether
[2:19:03] or someone should go out and make contact with that child
[2:19:06] and do an investigation, seems to be fairly accurate.
[2:19:11] It's the no investigation conduct.
[2:19:13] Does that mean nobody looked at it?
[2:19:14] And what we're doing and what we have done by meeting with them
[2:19:17] is we're establishing a standard definition
[2:19:21] that each person will apply when they're
[2:19:24] saying no investigation conducted.
[2:19:26] It seems deceptive that we're not looking at these cases.
[2:19:28] Nothing's happening.
[2:19:29] When in reality, each of the agencies
[2:19:32] has informed us that they do look at the case and here's what they do with it and Elk Grove
[2:19:38] had a little bit different policy than the sheriff did and so we asked all the sergeants
[2:19:42] can we sit down and formulate what each of these terms mean. These terms were brought
[2:19:51] to us from Los Angeles County's East Gar system because we inherited this template
[2:19:56] really from Los Angeles County and so one of the growing pains of a new system is
[2:20:02] figuring out are we all using the same measure when we're determining whether
[2:20:06] something should or shouldn't be investigated and that's one of our
[2:20:10] goals is to get standardized. I appreciate the response and I'm sure
[2:20:16] you probably thought of this as well but I think another helpful data point if
[2:20:22] for not making efforts to acquire that information but would be helpful for decision-makers and
[2:20:30] understanding the efficacy of early interventions when it comes to suspected child abuse would
[2:20:38] be to understand if and when there is child abuse suspected and if and when no investigation
[2:20:48] investigation is conducted, I would want to know later, was there another incident or
[2:20:57] instance where child abuse was suspected for that same child and an investigation was determined
[2:21:05] to be the next logical step. In other words, having some understanding about, you know,
[2:21:18] places where we could have taken another step. When I say we, I mean the collective we, law
[2:21:25] enforcement of the county, CPS, should have done something different or could have done
[2:21:33] something different so that that second third fourth incident never the great
[2:21:38] part about this tool and I know that almost all of you are here when first
[2:21:42] promoted why should we get this tool but I know that chair Rodriguez was not
[2:21:47] here but before this literally there are stacks of paper thousands of pages
[2:21:51] without any way to sort through it this program has one given us accountability
[2:21:57] we can now see whether cases are being investigated or not and hold each
[2:22:02] of our law enforcement agencies responsibly say, how come this scar, I can see whether
[2:22:07] they've opened the scar, whether they've looked at it, and how timely they open it. And we
[2:22:11] can talk to them about what's going on with it. But more important than even that is that
[2:22:17] we now can see history. And so when a detective says, this is kind of low level, I'm not
[2:22:23] sure this is something we should necessarily send something out, in the past they couldn't
[2:22:28] see all the past scores, scars.
[2:22:30] And now, at literally the click of a finger,
[2:22:32] they can pull up the past individuals that have reported.
[2:22:36] Or maybe there's a teacher and a medical provider
[2:22:40] and a neighbor all saying something's going on.
[2:22:42] It now shows up in a cross-referensible program
[2:22:46] so that the detective or law enforcement can say,
[2:22:50] we probably need to prioritize this one a little bit more
[2:22:54] and make sure that there's contact being made.
[2:22:56] And so it's given us that ability to do it by child,
[2:23:01] it's been able to do it by siblings,
[2:23:03] and it's able to do it by perpetrator,
[2:23:06] or potential perpetrator, so that we can then say,
[2:23:10] oh, this person has this reoccurring history.
[2:23:13] The community is speaking out.
[2:23:14] There's telling CPS and law enforcement
[2:23:17] that there's concerns we need to pay attention to.
[2:23:20] And I think it's improving outcomes.
[2:23:23] When this program first came on, though,
[2:23:25] there was only one sergeant when I was kind of pitched this to them saying,
[2:23:29] when you say it improves outcomes, doesn't that mean there's going to be a whole lot more work?
[2:23:33] And the reality is it's a whole lot more work and a whole lot more cases that we are having to
[2:23:40] find to investigate and and hold people responsible in the justice system.
[2:23:46] And so it's what we should be doing as a society, but it also comes with a cost.
[2:23:55] There's
[2:23:55] And forgive me here, but when we're seeing the term child abuse used in this annual report,
[2:24:04] remind us, is that both violence against the child suspected and sexual?
[2:24:13] Violence and sexual abuse and endangerment.
[2:24:17] It would not include things that CPS might investigate, and I'll let CPS maybe talk
[2:24:22] about it a little bit more, like emotional abuse.
[2:24:24] abuse. Neglect, it could include neglect depending on the level of neglect. So, you know, leaving
[2:24:30] a toddler at home, you know, when there's guns in the home or something, that could
[2:24:35] maybe qualify. But emotional abuse is the one that I think is something that CPS does
[2:24:43] not send over to law enforcement. And when you're seeing numbers like 3,871, part of
[2:24:49] that is some of those don't get filtered out and it's not anyone's fault. It's
[2:24:53] better to probably be over-inclusive and a detective or a sergeant looks at and goes,
[2:24:57] OK, this doesn't really fit for something we'll actually be able to charge a crime.
[2:25:01] It may be bad for the child, and CPS will hopefully administratively be able to do
[2:25:07] something in their world, but it may not be something that can rise to a level of
[2:25:11] a crime.
[2:25:12] And so when sergeants are clearing cases and saying no investigation conduct is because
[2:25:16] on its face they can tell this is one of the things that would not qualify
[2:25:21] by as a crime?
[2:25:23] I would hope that in terms of this kind of spirit of getting all the law enforcement
[2:25:30] agencies on the, literally on the same page in terms of, you know, the questions that
[2:25:36] are asked, the protocols that are deployed to conclude investigative pursuits, that there
[2:25:46] There is some education too about somewhat recent legislative changes to statute of limitations
[2:25:58] because to your earlier point about the overall global cost to doing it right, there should
[2:26:07] be an understanding about the duration of statute of limitations now for certain types
[2:26:15] of abuse where the county is going to be held accountable. It could be held accountable
[2:26:22] decades from now. And so when we're talking about costs, it's not just the immediate cost.
[2:26:28] It is a long-term cost.
[2:26:30] When this program first came out, I used to describe that the sergeants are literally
[2:26:33] sitting on a powder keg. Because which case should they sign? How do they sort through
[2:26:36] them when they were just receiving piles of paper? Because how do you know what
[2:26:40] to assign? Which one should be a priority? And every one of those could be something
[2:26:44] really bad and how do we say a child's case was not investigated and there were
[2:26:50] some that I brought to you all in my first presenter this that were not
[2:26:54] investigated that you know that that had outcomes that were not great or missed
[2:26:59] and so this is is providing that tool for law enforcement and allowing them
[2:27:07] to do a better job it's it's but it's a lot more work for them but it is a
[2:27:13] really good system. Our grant really did move us along with this. Our e-scars
[2:27:24] findings are consistent with the data. Sacramento must prioritize child abuse
[2:27:29] and holding those responsible that commit child abuse. More
[2:27:35] investigators are needed to investigate and protect children. Only
[2:27:42] five or so cases are actually submitted of the 2,700 that involve suspected child abuse.
[2:27:50] In 2026, the oversight committee will continue to review the numbers and push law enforcement to do
[2:27:56] more.
[2:27:59] And you can see that the scars need to be investigated in a timely fashion. And
[2:28:07] one of the things that this program does allow us to do is to call in law enforcement and
[2:28:11] say, hey, what's going on with these individual scars.
[2:28:15] There's literally a dashboard that the supervisor of the
[2:28:17] unit and myself can review.
[2:28:20] And really, it's also spurred conversation.
[2:28:22] The best way to actually get change we've found is to have
[2:28:26] that conversation and say, what are you doing and how can
[2:28:28] you do it better.
[2:28:32] Sacramento is a leader in the state having this program.
[2:28:35] And the recommendations from the CPS Oversight Committee is
[2:28:40] Now that the grant has ended in March of 2025, and the board did not allocate funding for
[2:28:47] e-scars, that there should be funding for e-scars.
[2:28:51] The DA's office has continued to fund this program, rather than go back in time.
[2:28:56] The program is a very affordable program.
[2:29:00] When I first presented it to this board, and I told you we're going to have a $600,000
[2:29:03] grant for three years, and for around $200,000, we could maybe get this thing rolling.
[2:29:09] many of you said that that was such a bargain it's now less than a hundred
[2:29:13] thousand and sometimes way less than a hundred thousand if we don't use some of
[2:29:17] the add-ons to fund and keep this program. The DA's office has continued to fund it
[2:29:23] even though there has not been a funding for it.
[2:29:29] E-scars continues to
[2:29:32] increase the ability of law enforcement to determine cases that need
[2:29:34] investigation and therefore their increasing numbers need for child
[2:29:39] abuse investigators. And we're making this recommendation to this board, but also to
[2:29:45] all of the other municipalities that they should increase their levels of detectives
[2:29:51] so that caseloads do not exceed 12 to 14 cases per investigating officer. And what
[2:29:57] What the sergeants do, honestly, is they hold back.
[2:30:00] They know they can't give much more than 12 to 14 at a time and so cases just take longer
[2:30:05] to be investigated because they're held in a queue rather than overwhelm that detective.
[2:30:13] The final recommendation and finding that we have has actually changed since we've originally
[2:30:19] written it.
[2:30:22] The Sacramento Police Department was first to kind of take the challenge
[2:30:26] which was rather than investigating these at their leisure or in whatever time they could do it.
[2:30:33] They moved the e-scars receiving station to their dispatch and they began dispatching officers in
[2:30:41] real time the moment that the scar landed at the police department. And it was a test project.
[2:30:46] How is this going to work? Is this going to be good or bad? And what they found was that
[2:30:52] they could clear cases quicker. They could have contact. They could document things.
[2:30:55] Sometimes they're finding it wasn't child abuse, it's actually domestic violence that
[2:31:01] was going on.
[2:31:03] And they found that while they may receive, you know, somewhere around five to six cases
[2:31:10] a day, or 150 or 200 a month, they can clear them with officers at the lower level and
[2:31:18] then escalate the ones that need to be escalated to detectives for a better use
[2:31:22] of resources and really importantly making sure that when a person in the community reaches
[2:31:27] out and says this child may be being abused, that someone is making eyes and having contact
[2:31:34] with that child in determining whether it's found it or unfounded.
[2:31:37] The Sheriff's Department in this last year decided to take that challenge also.
[2:31:41] And they have now done something similar, putting it with a sergeant who is connected
[2:31:49] into the comm center, reviewing in real time, training their officers on what to do, and
[2:31:54] sending out officers in real time. This was the model that LA was doing. I wasn't sure
[2:32:00] how quickly it was going to be able to be adopted here, but it's now kind of become
[2:32:04] the standard. And in preparing this report, when we had the other agencies come back,
[2:32:09] I said, what can you guys do? And each of the other agencies, Elk Grove, Citrus
[2:32:14] sites called M. Folsom have all committed to determining if and how they can implement
[2:32:19] a similar standard. It was a little bit easier in the smaller agencies anyway. They were
[2:32:23] kind of doing it just because they're so small and you'll see their numbers are a
[2:32:26] lot smaller of the number of scars that they receive. But they're now going to implement
[2:32:31] it or find ways to implement it a real-time response, which I think is what the legislature
[2:32:36] originally intended and what we should be doing as a community.
[2:32:40] Do you have any other questions before I hand off the, the question.
[2:32:45] No questions.
[2:32:46] All right.
[2:32:49] Well, the C SCARS thing is one of the things I'm most proud of that our committee has done
[2:32:55] over the years and almost all the work is due to one person.
[2:33:01] That's Chris and also the sergeant at the Sheriff's Department, John Soudal.
[2:33:10] So those two gentlemen are responsible for implementing this in Sacramento County and
[2:33:18] making this county something that the rest of the state has to look up to.
[2:33:23] So I'm really proud of what our committee has done along this line.
[2:33:32] Oops, I'll go back.
[2:33:34] A little bit about the critical incident subcommittee history.
[2:33:42] It's made up of community members and personal and that have personal and professional experience
[2:33:53] and child services and protection.
[2:33:56] We met regularly in the year 2025, the subcommittee partners with CPS by participating in its
[2:34:03] Quality Improvement Committee or QIC to review critical incidents of CPS-involved children.
[2:34:13] The only cases reviewed are cases of critical incidents which include deaths or near deaths,
[2:34:20] not general case review.
[2:34:23] The goal of these reviews is to determine current systemic issues within CPS and the
[2:34:33] that result in work that is not thoughtful and thorough.
[2:34:44] This year's report summarizes 12 full case reviews,
[2:34:49] two fatalities, and 10 near fatalities.
[2:34:53] Case reviews found that domestic violence
[2:34:56] and a history of mental health challenges continue to be present in
[2:35:01] families involved in fatal or near fatal
[2:35:05] incidents is 67% of the cases. Additionally risk factors of a history of a parent or a
[2:35:15] caregiver being involved with child welfare, having a criminal history and substance use
[2:35:23] were also present. They play a large part in accidental and negative outcomes for
[2:35:31] children in our community. For this reason, the CI subcommittee encourages the Board of
[2:35:36] Supervisors to pay continued attention to ensuring that resources are available to families
[2:35:42] in our community for domestic violence, mental health, and other supportive services to
[2:35:49] break this generational cycle of abuse and or neglect.
[2:35:55] this is not a new finding this has been year after year where these are the
[2:36:00] high-risk factors and whether a family or is possibly going to abuse their
[2:36:06] child so these are just reiterating what has been known but has to be but we
[2:36:12] continue to find this to be the case now are we what we identified but the
[2:36:25] The subcommittee identified is that social worker and supervisor critical thinking errors
[2:36:31] as well as non-child welfare challenges which resulted in misopportunities.
[2:36:37] Some examples include gathering all appropriate information and ongoing need to improve contact
[2:36:47] with relative collaterals and improvement in father engagement.
[2:36:51] A recommendation includes CPS should continue to develop and implement strategies to strengthen
[2:37:02] the supervision process and continue addressing critical thinking errors across the agency.
[2:37:09] CPS should strengthen all protocols and their implementation that requires relevant case
[2:37:16] collaterals be consulted and that all information related to the child, family and environment
[2:37:23] are gathered and considered before a case is closed.
[2:37:35] Key findings of our committee, subcommittee, are the documentation reviewed indicates that
[2:37:46] more resources and referrals should be given to parents and caregivers before and
[2:37:52] during CPS investigations.
[2:37:55] Once these resources are provided, social workers should be required to document and
[2:38:02] follow up on these resources and referrals to ensure engagement.
[2:38:06] This indicates that improved communication is needed between and within systems, agencies
[2:38:14] and organizations.
[2:38:15] And our recommendation are that CPS and community-based organizations should work together to develop
[2:38:24] a feedback loop to ensure CPS is notified when parents decline services following investigation
[2:38:31] or case closures.
[2:38:38] Other key findings are that a deficit noted throughout our critical incident reviews
[2:38:49] was the need for more and better safety education and assessments including
[2:38:55] the creation of detailed safety plans ordering assessments giving education
[2:39:02] materials and making referrals for all involved parties including resource
[2:39:07] parents. All safety education and assessments need to be documented as
[2:39:13] well and our recommendation is that Sacramento County should develop
[2:39:17] education and tools for parents and caregivers regarding topics identified in
[2:39:24] critical incident review. Topics should include but not limited to car seat law
[2:39:30] and safety, hot cars, heat stroke, water safety, gun safety, poison control,
[2:39:39] substance use and teen dating violence. Another finding was that improved
[2:39:49] reporting by mandate reporters is needed, including reporting in a timely manner
[2:39:57] and having the person who observed suspected the abuse neglect to be the
[2:40:03] a person who reports it as opposed to a supervisor
[2:40:07] or a non-witness designee.
[2:40:10] And so our recommendation is that a mandated reporter
[2:40:14] training should be expanded throughout Sacramento County
[2:40:19] with a focus on medical hospital staff, preschool,
[2:40:25] to 12th grade education and daycare facilities
[2:40:29] to ensure a timely and appropriate referrals are made.
[2:40:36] Then this was our project that started in 2024.
[2:40:42] The oversight committee is charged
[2:40:44] with community oversight of our county's
[2:40:47] child protective systems.
[2:40:49] The oversight committee also takes on special research
[2:40:52] projects to identify systemic gaps
[2:40:55] and facilitate discussions among the stakeholders
[2:41:00] with the goal of improving the processes
[2:41:02] that impact child safety.
[2:41:04] Beginning in 2024, the Oversight Committee engaged in a multi-year investigation of how
[2:41:11] our local medical community supports and interacts with the child protective system in Sacramento.
[2:41:18] The project was an effort to determine if there were communication and collaborative
[2:41:23] gaps between the medical community, CPS, and law enforcement.
[2:41:28] Initially, the focus was on our main hospital systems with thanks to Sutter, Kaiser, Shriners,
[2:41:36] and UC Davis for making presentations and providing data and input to the committee.
[2:41:42] However, the project expanded to include other members of the healthcare system, including
[2:41:47] local clinics, who also made presentations and provided data and input to the committee.
[2:41:56] Noticeably absent in our hospital systems, it was mercy digital dignity in their health
[2:42:06] systems.
[2:42:06] We were unable to get them to participate in our interviews.
[2:42:20] After receiving seven presentations, the Oversight Committee developed preliminary recommendations.
[2:42:26] all previously identified hospitals and clinics
[2:42:29] were invited back to review and discuss
[2:42:32] the preliminary recommendations.
[2:42:35] The findings and recommendations are as follows.
[2:42:38] Three hospital systems use EPIC.
[2:42:41] That's an electronic medical record
[2:42:44] and can exchange information,
[2:42:47] and at least one clinic also has a compatible system.
[2:42:53] In the short term, our recommendation is
[2:42:55] to have a liaison available to communicate
[2:42:58] between medical providers in the long-term
[2:43:02] improve interoperability.
[2:43:06] Another finding was that child protective systems
[2:43:09] request information that align with the protections offered
[2:43:15] by HIPAA.
[2:43:17] Medical groups and health systems
[2:43:18] should evaluate their policies and ensure
[2:43:22] that they complied with HIPAA and privacy laws while allowing the maximum amount of
[2:43:28] information under the law to be shared with law enforcement and child protective services.
[2:43:41] Another finding was that when both law enforcement and child protective services are investigating,
[2:43:47] there is a need to identify a coordinated response practice for law enforcement and
[2:43:53] child protective services.
[2:43:55] Our recommendations include law enforcement and child protective services should respond
[2:44:03] at the same time whenever possible and communicate each of their own determinations.
[2:44:11] Members of the suspected child abuse neglect or scan team should recommit to scan team
[2:44:21] participation and review team practices for efficiency.
[2:44:34] Participating hospitals and clinics have already voiced support for these recommendations.
[2:44:40] And the key findings again here are the hospital's social workers and nurses are making suspected
[2:44:48] child abuse reports, scars on behalf of others who observe and suspect child abuse
[2:44:54] and neglect.
[2:44:55] And our recommendation is all.
[2:45:00] All medical providers that are mandated child abuse reporters should follow reporting practices
[2:45:07] consistent with the law. Another key finding was once, one identified practice that has been
[2:45:15] working is to identify a liaison within the hospital or clinic to coordinate communication
[2:45:21] with law enforcement, child protective systems, and services after the initial report has
[2:45:27] been made, and our recommendation is that the same liaison identified within the hospital
[2:45:32] clinic to coordinate communication with law enforcement and child protective services should
[2:45:39] also serve as a medical to medical liaison.
[2:45:44] Some have begun implementing these recommendations.
[2:45:48] For example, well-spaced health will be identifying a liaison within their clinics to coordinate
[2:45:55] communication with law enforcement and child protective systems. So, Chris.
[2:46:04] And before I talk about the oversight committee work plan, I will say that the hospital engagement
[2:46:09] project was actually Dr. Johnson's idea, came up with this idea back around 2018,
[2:46:14] wanted to make sure there's better communication between hospitals and our medical providers with
[2:46:21] law enforcement and CPS. And so, modeling it similar to what we did with e-scars,
[2:46:26] we brought in everyone in Eastcars had them tell us about the problem and in
[2:46:30] this situation we did the same thing with the hospitals bringing every
[2:46:34] hospital that would participate and asking them how do they feel they fit
[2:46:38] into their child protective systems and what is their role and that really
[2:46:43] required them to sit and think about what is their role and what can they do
[2:46:47] and are they doing the most they can do. Some of them are here today I
[2:46:51] I'd actually like to point out that we actually have Dr. Evans and the medical director for
[2:46:57] the Bayer Center, Stacey Hellacher is here from Sutter, Dr. Evans at the time this project
[2:47:03] was actually with Kaiser and Kaiser was one of the ones that had the liaison that seems
[2:47:08] to be one of the best practices and we invited many of them to come here today.
[2:47:12] I think many of you are probably watching online but it is really good to just have
[2:47:17] a conversation with them and have them be thinking about their role in this community. Besides
[2:47:22] just the bottom line or keeping the maximum on patient laws, what is it they can do to
[2:47:29] be part of our protective systems? And so with the exception of the one hospital that
[2:47:34] did not show up despite repeated requests.
[2:47:37] Yeah, I was going to stop you there and ask, what is the, what do we know about
[2:47:42] about Dignity's disinterest, apparent disinterest?
[2:47:48] Well, I tried a couple of years ago,
[2:47:51] and one it's hard to find anybody there that you can talk to.
[2:47:55] That was one problem, but then we kept getting past,
[2:47:59] constantly past, one person and then another,
[2:48:02] and nobody could seem to make any kind of decision,
[2:48:06] and then we had, we're afraid to say anything
[2:48:10] or do anything because they just couldn't, they didn't feel they had the power to do
[2:48:14] that.
[2:48:15] Can I make a suggestion that David, you and I get on a phone call or set up a Zoom or
[2:48:22] do something to maybe meet with your equivalent leadership at Dignity to stress that, A,
[2:48:32] we've got our other health systems that are participating and, B, they're an integral
[2:48:39] part of our four system, you know, atmosphere here in Sacramento County in
[2:48:46] terms of health care. So I don't know, you know, I don't want to blame them for
[2:48:52] anything because I don't even have enough, none of us have enough
[2:48:55] information based on what you told us today about their reluctance or
[2:48:59] disinterest. So I just think we should probably take it to a different level.
[2:49:04] We debated what to do with it honestly as a group because every other
[2:49:07] provider. Shriners came and used to Davis came. They came back multiple times and we
[2:49:12] wanted to highlight it to you because whether intentional or unintentional, we asked the
[2:49:18] question of where do you feel you fit in child protective systems and they couldn't have
[2:49:22] enough time to send someone there despite our coordinator.
[2:49:26] Well, you mentioned earlier, you hope someone's watching. I hope Dignity's watching
[2:49:30] because, you know, I don't, again, I don't, I don't want to just make a knee-jerk kind
[2:49:38] of punitive statement against dignity, but it is what it is.
[2:49:43] That's glaringly obvious that they're missing.
[2:49:46] Lots of attempts were made.
[2:49:48] We sent numerous emails, countless emails, and we sent, we made countless phone calls
[2:49:54] over the last two years.
[2:49:56] I mean, it's not just like a one-time thing.
[2:49:58] Yeah.
[2:49:58] And they also never, well I can't speak for the current SCAN committee, but all the time
[2:50:05] I was on the SCAN committee, Mercy never was present.
[2:50:08] So the thing about the other health systems, there's an identifiable person that you can
[2:50:14] go to that everybody in the community knows I can go to this person.
[2:50:19] There's none such person that we know of at Mercy.
[2:50:23] Well, I certainly will commit my time and energy, I would suggest that maybe work with
[2:50:32] the county CEO's office to see what the best route of communication to kind of stress the
[2:50:37] import of this is to dignity leadership and see if that can move the needle.
[2:50:44] Thank you.
[2:50:45] Supervisor, we'll meet with the committee members also to find out a little bit more
[2:50:49] on the details of what their communication was and then work with your office to
[2:50:52] set something up. Before I leave the microphone here, I don't know if you're going to have
[2:50:59] it on a subsequent slide or not, but I'm seeing a lot of overlap in terms of some of the recommendations
[2:51:05] and where there's room for improvement, but I haven't heard Black Child Legacy yet. And
[2:51:12] as you're probably well aware, one of the four leading causes of death that that whole
[2:51:18] effort and as well as the RAACD effort is focused on is can homicides. So tell me if I'm missing
[2:51:30] something.
[2:51:31] I can probably talk a little bit about that. I think one of the things that I think has
[2:51:35] made strides with this committee is that we are a committee that meets once a month
[2:51:42] month and we have subcommittees that meet other times during the month and having presented
[2:51:48] to you all multiple, multiple times, in many years I felt like we were just not having
[2:51:54] a concrete message.
[2:51:55] And I think one of the things that we have focused on for two or three years, we focused
[2:52:00] on getting the e-scars program off the ground, investigating, providing data to you
[2:52:04] that could actually provide that to you.
[2:52:09] And then the hospital engagement.
[2:52:11] We wanted to have a hospital start thinking about what their role was and we dedicated almost every
[2:52:18] Meeting or every other meeting at least for two years
[2:52:20] to doing you know two or three hours of
[2:52:24] Communicating with hospitals and then trying to figure out what the problem was invite them back write up questions
[2:52:30] Communicate with them and so this report may seem in the last couple reports
[2:52:35] Hopefully seem a little more focused on a subject matter
[2:52:39] And that's because I think our goal is to want to have more data, more depth.
[2:52:47] The child abuse and neglect homicides are certainly an issue, and we've done that in
[2:52:51] other reports.
[2:52:53] What I would say, I know that when Chair Rodriguez was there yesterday, one of the
[2:52:58] things at our children's coalition, I asked, what is it the board would like information-wise?
[2:53:04] We can do deeper dives into subjects that maybe it's harder for you guys to do.
[2:53:10] And so if there are subject matters that you think are relevant and important for us to
[2:53:15] do a deeper dive on, this committee I think has now shown some success in a few years
[2:53:20] running now with doing those sort of deeper dives.
[2:53:23] But it also does result in somewhat more narrow reports.
[2:53:27] We are still doing critical instances.
[2:53:30] We're still talking with CPS.
[2:53:31] We're still involved with the welcome homes, all those sort of things.
[2:53:35] But to have a deep dive, it really does take energy and a lot of more time.
[2:53:41] No doubt.
[2:53:42] All I'm trying to stress here is that there's a lot of great work that's being done with
[2:53:50] the results now that we can point to and interventions we can point to through the
[2:53:55] effort of the BCLC initiative.
[2:53:58] And I think it's probably worth at least having some of the same interest in the same room
[2:54:08] to find out what both efforts are doing and maybe where duplicate of work can be avoided
[2:54:16] and perhaps reinforce what we know to be working in kind of both camps in terms of what your
[2:54:25] charges, which is different than the Black Child Legacy Campaign, but it is similar in
[2:54:31] the fact that there is a concerted now years-long effort to reduce can homicides, in addition
[2:54:38] to other types of disproportionate death in the African-American childhood population.
[2:54:47] But I think it's now to a point and to your point about, you know, you've been
[2:54:53] spending the last few years of e-scars and trying to get the data and apply the model
[2:54:58] and do what the grant said to do, but I think having maybe the prospect of a cooperative relationship
[2:55:09] with the Black Child Legacy Campaign, this seems like it's the time to do that if it's
[2:55:13] not being done.
[2:55:14] Yeah, and I think that echoes something that Chair Rodriguez said yesterday, which
[2:55:18] like I think she suggested one thing she would really like is which programs are
[2:55:22] working which ones aren't and can you help us provide data that and and that's
[2:55:27] a big quest and I think as a group we're gonna have to figure out how how you
[2:55:32] go about collecting that and and providing real data about success and
[2:55:37] not success you guys can make good decisions with the limited funds you
[2:55:40] have. Well just to comment we're well aware of the black child legacy we're
[2:55:46] We're well aware of Birth and Beyond, we're well aware of other programs, and one of our
[2:55:52] findings has been the underutilization of these programs in these cases that we have reviewed.
[2:56:01] And so that's one of our findings is that they need to use the resources that are currently
[2:56:07] available, make them available to the families and to the children, and be aware of them.
[2:56:14] So that, we're aware of it, they need to be taken advantage of a lot more than they are currently so that's a push that we've always had and we're going to continue to do but we certainly would look into that more and what, okay.
[2:56:33] Okay.
[2:56:33] Thank you.
[2:56:34] Our, not 2025 is the type of the top, our 2026 work plan will be to continue to partner
[2:56:40] with CPS Review case reports prepared by CPS regarding critical incidences and involving
[2:56:47] incidents of CPS-involved children, receive regular updates from the CI subcommittee
[2:56:52] twice each year with a summary of case reviews, continue to collaborate with Child Safety
[2:56:58] First Sacramento Prevention Cabinet to implement their 10-year strategic plan to eliminate
[2:57:02] child abuse and neglect deaths and critical injuries by 2030 and receive updates and presentations
[2:57:09] from the Child Safety Forward Sacramento Prevention Cabinet and Family First Sacramento
[2:57:13] as they pertain to design implementation of community pathways and the use of outcomes
[2:57:18] using result-based accountability.
[2:57:21] We're going to continue discussions with local hospitals and medical groups on how
[2:57:26] to collaborate with law enforcement, CPS, and community partners and find out ways
[2:57:31] they can be strengthened. We're going to provide the board of supervisors updates and recommendations
[2:57:37] made in the oversight committee's 2024 annual report. And we're going to host a forum. We found
[2:57:48] that we actually have some hospitals do show up. So we are now going to host a forum for all
[2:57:54] medical providers, hospital systems, legal departments to have the hospitals come and meet
[2:58:00] and tell how their legal representatives tell us why is they can't provide certain information
[2:58:06] to CPS.
[2:58:07] What are the legal restrictions?
[2:58:09] Why is one hospital able to do it and the other isn't?
[2:58:12] And then try to come up with a best practice that each hospital could say, okay, we're
[2:58:17] going to have a clear understanding of our policies and disclose to the maximum that
[2:58:23] we can under the law to help protect children in our community.
[2:58:26] It's also an opportunity that if it's legislation that prevents it from happening where you change where you
[2:58:33] Get an assembly member to lead the cause. This is a great cause to make the changes on the legislation part
[2:58:40] So that hospitals are clear and they don't feel that HIPAA is keeping them from being able to share information with
[2:58:49] CPS or law enforcement. I think personally the law is fairly clear
[2:58:56] And it's just people are afraid to do it.
[2:59:00] They're afraid to draw blood or to get x-rays
[2:59:02] without the parent's consent when they don't
[2:59:04] need the parent's consent.
[2:59:05] That's just one example.
[2:59:08] School is to get buy-in by the families and not
[2:59:12] do things behind their back and stuff, strengthen that bond
[2:59:15] between physician and family, physician and patient.
[2:59:19] But the laws are pretty clear on what physicians
[2:59:22] and medical people can do.
[2:59:25] Also the communication, the law is clear that hospitals are allowed to communicate information with law enforcement, with child protective services.
[2:59:38] But it's often, they're afraid to do that because HIPAA is over their head and they just, they don't understand it.
[2:59:45] And that's where our goal is to help them understand what currently is available and what they can do.
[2:59:52] And then have them deploy that out to the line level folks so that everyone in the line
[2:59:56] level can know where those lines actually are.
[3:00:00] We're going to continue, we're going to investigate Sonoma County's high priority child team to
[3:00:04] identify best practices and report back those findings to the Sacramento County Suspected
[3:00:10] Child Abuse and Neglect Scan team. They have a specialized team that is deployed in major
[3:00:16] incidences that involves law enforcement and CPS and doctors in these kind of high-level
[3:00:24] cases and we don't know whether that's something that Sacramento should have or not. We're
[3:00:29] We're going to continue to meet and discuss progress made on the recommendations regarding
[3:00:33] e-scars and continue to improve that data collection, receive quarterly updates from
[3:00:39] CPS Quality Management and Administrative Services, QMAS, and receive regular presentations
[3:00:45] and this one actually has been changed because the Ombudsman is now gone.
[3:00:50] Due to the elimination of the Sacramento County DCFAS Omb's Bud Person Role, the last
[3:00:55] has been changed to the following. Receive regular presentations twice a year on child
[3:01:01] protective services, conflict resolution, including current updates, successes, challenges, and
[3:01:07] examples of case resolution.
[3:01:10] So before closing, we'd like to thank and acknowledge the people that contribute to
[3:01:17] the hospital medical provider engagement project. They include Dr. Michelle Evans, formerly
[3:01:22] of Kaiser Permanente, Dr. Angela Vickers formerly of Sutter Medical Center, Dr. Julia Magaña
[3:01:30] of the University of California Davis Medical Center, Dr. Kathleen Romanowski of Shriners
[3:01:36] Hospital, Dr. Jonathan Proteus and Christy Gonzalez of WellSpace, Dr. Tracy Hall, the
[3:01:43] Sacramento Native American Health Center, and Michelle Besse of Sacramento County Health
[3:01:51] Center and Circle Clinic.
[3:02:00] We would also like to thank and acknowledge additional presenters.
[3:02:04] We had Sarah Leatherby of the Special Assault Forensic Evaluation Center, SAFE Center, come,
[3:02:12] and we had Dr. Danny Morris of the Department of Child Family and Adult Services at DCFAS
[3:02:18] quality management and administrative services has come to us. Finally, we'd like to thank
[3:02:24] you and acknowledge the people that contributed to the development of our report. The oversight
[3:02:30] committee members who selflessly volunteered their time and expertise to gather information
[3:02:34] or write this report. Sacramento County Department of Child Family and Adult Services, DCFAS,
[3:02:40] especially DCFAS Director Shelby Boston,
[3:02:46] Sacramento County Child Protective Systems,
[3:02:52] especially Deputy Director of Child Protective Services,
[3:02:57] Michelle Lloyd, DCFAS Staff Person,
[3:03:01] Kerry Emery-Cottner, for her administrative
[3:03:04] and overall support of the Oversight Committee,
[3:03:07] County Council, including Deputy County Council Cori Bright for the help and support that
[3:03:15] she and others provide in our committee and the Child Abuse Prevention Council Sacramento,
[3:03:22] especially Chief Program Officer Camille Bailey and Director of Collaboration Impact Jasmine
[3:03:29] who is out there, support and help.
[3:03:34] We wouldn't have been able to get this report done in such a timely manner.
[3:03:40] Thank you again for the opportunity to share our work,
[3:03:44] our insights and our recommendations.
[3:03:47] We appreciate the county's continued investment in services and programs
[3:03:52] that specifically address child and family well-being.
[3:03:57] prevention and early intervention, which significantly and positively impacts child safety and the
[3:04:04] board's general interest in our community's children and their families.
[3:04:10] For those that are interested, this was a small section of our overall report.
[3:04:15] The report's 84 pages long, and it's got a lot of more information than we were able
[3:04:21] to present here today.
[3:04:22] And I would encourage everyone that has the opportunity to take advantage of reading that
[3:04:27] report.
[3:04:29] So that concludes our long presentation.
[3:04:32] Thank you so much.
[3:04:33] Thank you, Mr. Orr.
[3:04:34] Thank you, Dr. Johnson.
[3:04:36] There are no questions or no supervisors in the queue.
[3:04:39] Are there any requests to speak on this item?
[3:04:44] Thank you.
[3:04:45] Thank you.
[3:04:45] We have no request to speak in chamber.
[3:04:49] Anyone online who would like to address the supervisors on item 27, child protective
[3:04:54] The child protective systems oversight committee 2025 annual report now is the time to raise your virtual hand for item 27.
[3:05:05] We have no online speakers for this item.
[3:05:08] Okay. Well, thank you for the presentation. That was a lot of really good information.
[3:05:13] Next item, please.
[3:05:15] The next item on our agenda is number 28 the response to the child protective systems oversight committees 2025 annual report.
[3:05:23] good afternoon good afternoon chair and members of the board I'm Melissa Lloyd I
[3:05:33] am the deputy director overseeing the Child Protective Services Division of
[3:05:37] the Department of Child Family and Adult Services okay I
[3:05:45] wanted to thank you
[3:05:46] for the opportunity to present our response to the Child Protective
[3:05:50] Systems Oversight Committee's 2025 annual report and today I will
[3:05:55] highlight the actions CPS has taken and the work that remains ongoing to
[3:06:00] strengthen supervision, critical thinking, investigation quality, collaboration,
[3:06:04] safety education, and coordinated responses for children and families.
[3:06:11] I
[3:06:11] would like to acknowledge the oversight committee for its continued
[3:06:16] commitment to strengthening child safety and system improvement. I always want to
[3:06:21] thank our CPS employees for their dedication of their daily work and also want to give
[3:06:27] a nod to the multi-system collaboration of several partners in our community to support
[3:06:33] the positive outcomes. In
[3:06:44] regard to the concern around supervision
[3:06:48] oversight of our social workers, much of what I will talk about today has been information
[3:06:55] that I have shared previously, we continue to practice safety-organized practice and
[3:07:04] coaching, structured decision-making, which I have given definitions of in the past.
[3:07:10] We are increasing the support for field observations, consultation, and coaching opportunities.
[3:07:17] And we continue to hold case discussions in this last year.
[3:07:21] we also increased fidelity case reviews in our department, which has really been beneficial
[3:07:27] to supporting the ongoing work.
[3:07:32] We continue to use data monitoring with our systems that are available.
[3:07:37] And as was shared by the Oversight Committee, there were 12 critical incident case reviews
[3:07:43] that were completed in 2025.
[3:07:45] I think it's important to highlight that through May of 2026, we have also completed
[3:07:52] 60 fidelity reviews, and to give a little bit of information about what those are, our
[3:07:59] team took information from the past six to eight years of information on previous case
[3:08:07] reviews.
[3:08:08] We created a tool that allows us now to do fidelity case reviews along the way and
[3:08:15] not just when there's a critical incident.
[3:08:17] So, we pull cases to do those reviews to essentially hold a continuous quality improvement
[3:08:25] lens on the work that we're doing.
[3:08:27] We also continue to have leadership reviews of high-risk cases.
[3:08:34] In regard to lessons learned through the case discussions, in the board letter, I outlined
[3:08:41] detail about the case discussions.
[3:08:43] This is a practice that continues to be a real promising practice within the CPS division
[3:08:50] where we bring teams of social workers, supervisors, and managers together to hold case discussions
[3:08:57] on those critical incidences.
[3:08:59] And through that, the focus is on learning, it's not on blaming, and this is an opportunity
[3:09:05] for our staff to understand the outcomes of decision making and also give their input.
[3:09:12] So, there are a lot of lessons learned from the overall case review practice.
[3:09:23] As far as aligning policy practice and training, we continue to invest in trainings overall
[3:09:30] that support critical thinking.
[3:09:34] They support consistent decision making.
[3:09:37] We do a variety of trainings around substance and child safety.
[3:09:42] We also address implicit bias.
[3:09:45] It is not a one-time training that we conduct on implicit bias and cultural awareness training,
[3:09:51] but that is an ongoing commitment that we hold to our training.
[3:09:56] And we just recently started engaging in reflective practice and supervision.
[3:10:02] And I'm really excited about that work coming up because it also addresses the trauma
[3:10:07] that our staff endure while doing the work.
[3:10:10] And so it's a very important part of ensuring workforce support while they are working with
[3:10:18] some of the most vulnerable kids and families in our county.
[3:10:25] We are improving case closure practices.
[3:10:29] We have updated many of our policies and procedures.
[3:10:33] We've also had an increase in holding what are called prevention, child and family team meetings.
[3:10:44] And that really helps during the investigation before a child may be removed from their home
[3:10:51] or when we are determining what type of next steps to take around helping the family find stability.
[3:11:00] We're doing a lot of upfront child and family team meetings, and that's where a variety
[3:11:05] of community partners, as well as the family and whomever the family chooses to have come
[3:11:11] to those meetings.
[3:11:12] It's where everyone comes together to kind of hold group decision-making.
[3:11:17] But the participants are also educated on the parameters of what CPS works within,
[3:11:23] and we are very, it's a transparent conversation
[3:11:28] around child safety and what needs to be done,
[3:11:31] what the family's capable of doing
[3:11:33] and where the department needs to step in further.
[3:11:39] As far as medical and mental health integration,
[3:11:44] we participate with our providers in the community,
[3:11:51] both the medical providers as well
[3:11:53] as our mental health providers.
[3:11:55] There's a lot of work that is conducted
[3:11:57] between our department and Department of Health Services but also with a lot of
[3:12:03] grassroots communities as well. Social workers are trained and coached on
[3:12:08] meaningful collateral contacts and this is something that we have very much
[3:12:12] given attention to so that a collateral contact has substance to it and there
[3:12:19] are some next steps made from those contacts with the providers or with
[3:12:25] individuals who are defined as a collateral. Many of those collateral contacts can be partners
[3:12:34] within the community, such as Birth and Beyond, such as individuals from the community incubator
[3:12:39] leads, such as our cultural brokers that we bring on to help families as they're navigating through
[3:12:45] their time with CPS.
[3:12:52] And then specific to how we provide information to the community that we serve, there are
[3:13:02] warm handoffs that occur.
[3:13:04] There's warm handoffs that occur at the hotline level.
[3:13:08] I know with the first slide that the oversight committee presented on in regard to the calls
[3:13:13] coming into the hotline and how those have gone up.
[3:13:16] It's also our understanding that we're having more families.
[3:13:22] You saw that trend line go up.
[3:13:24] We're having more families that are receiving calls.
[3:13:27] But it does not mean that those calls to the hotline
[3:13:31] are turning into investigations.
[3:13:34] We're averaging, in 2025, we average 58%
[3:13:38] of the calls to the hotline.
[3:13:40] We're evaluated out.
[3:13:43] And what is beneficial about what
[3:13:45] What happens at our hotline is that there's a warm hand line to an information and referral
[3:13:51] line that many of those families go through.
[3:13:54] Additionally, when we investigate families where there is no legal reason to take any
[3:14:00] additional action, we also provide families with information to various community providers.
[3:14:09] And help with that warm handoff.
[3:14:13] The challenge can be, and sometimes what might get misunderstood, is that if there's no legal
[3:14:21] reason for us to continue to remain involved, we provide the families with information on
[3:14:28] services and supports in the community, but they do have the option as to whether or
[3:14:33] not they want to engage with those agencies.
[3:14:40] And then in regard to supporting family safety education, while we are working with families,
[3:14:48] we are providing them safety education and resources during that investigation.
[3:14:53] And additionally, while we have open cases with families, there's ongoing education
[3:14:58] Thank you very much for joining us.
[3:14:58] We'll see you in a minute.
[3:15:00] It's definitely not a one-and-done. And on the slide are listed some of the topics that
[3:15:08] those can include, including safe sleep, poison prevention, firearm safety, substance use awareness.
[3:15:18] Timely and appropriate mandated reporting is essential to early identification of child
[3:15:25] abuse and neglect. Mandated reporter training supports that, and the training is available
[3:15:31] in schools for medical providers, child care providers, and community organizations.
[3:15:39] CPS also collaborates with law enforcement through the electronic suspected child abuse
[3:15:47] report or eSCAR process, which you heard a lot about.
[3:15:53] And we are happy that the collaboration with our eSCAR's partners is helping to really
[3:15:59] support coordination and communication for the families we serve in our county.
[3:16:05] That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
[3:16:10] Thank you for the informative information, Melissa.
[3:16:14] There's no one in the queue.
[3:16:16] Are there any requests to speak on this item?
[3:16:18] We have no in-person request to speak on this item.
[3:16:21] Any person participating via Zoom, now is the time to raise your virtual hand to comment
[3:16:26] on item 28 response to the child protective services systems oversight committees 2025 annual report
[3:16:35] and we have no request to speak online. That means you're going to get an excellent presentation.
[3:16:41] Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next item please. Our final 10 o'clock a.m.
[3:16:47] item is number 29 amendment to employment contract for Sacramento County executive officer.
[3:16:53] Good afternoon, Joe Angelo, Director of Personnel Services.
[3:16:56] We ask for approval of an amendment to the employment contract to the Sacramento County
[3:17:01] Executive.
[3:17:05] Supervisor Sourna.
[3:17:06] Thank you, Chair.
[3:17:07] Thurna, public speakers on this matter.
[3:17:09] I'll move the item.
[3:17:12] I do need to double check online.
[3:17:14] If there's any member of the public online that would like to comment on the employment
[3:17:18] contract for Sacramento County Executive, that is number 29 on our agenda, please
[3:17:22] raise your virtual hand.
[3:17:23] And we have no request to speak on this item.
[3:17:27] Right.
[3:17:27] By motion to second.
[3:17:28] Please vote.
[3:17:34] Very good.
[3:17:35] That as it passes for zero with Supervisor Hume absent.
[3:17:38] All right.
[3:17:39] We will now adjourn the morning session and go to closed session.
[3:17:43] Thank you very much for watching.
[4:36:18] We will now resume the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors meeting for Tuesday, August 11th.
[4:36:23] Will the clerk please call the roll to reestablish a quorum?
[4:36:26] Certainly. Supervisor Kennedy.
[4:36:29] Supervisor Desmond.
[4:36:31] Vice Chair Hume absent.
[4:36:34] Supervisor Serna.
[4:36:35] Here.
[4:36:36] And Chair Rodriguez.
[4:36:37] Here.
[4:36:37] We have a quorum.
[4:36:38] Okay.
[4:36:39] We are going to start the afternoon with item number nine from the consent calendar.
[4:36:43] Is that correct?
[4:36:44] Correct.
[4:36:44] item number nine approved calendar year 2027 group insurance renewals. Okay. Supervisor we use
[4:36:50] the morning to spend some time talking with folks and James Robbins from Department of
[4:36:55] Personal Services is here to provide a brief update and some changes to the language in the
[4:36:59] board letter. Okay. Hi James. Hi. Good afternoon Supervisor James Robbins Department of Personal
[4:37:05] Services. I just wanted to thank you for the extra time this morning to meet with our
[4:37:09] carriers we were able to meet with both Sutter and Western Health Advantage and
[4:37:14] had a very good discussion with them. We're able to hear their concerns and
[4:37:19] subsequently we're able to follow back up with Kaiser as well and in that
[4:37:24] discussion with Kaiser they have agreed to withdraw the
[4:37:29] requirement for the act of open enrollment for this year and so with
[4:37:33] that we were able to return to meet with both Sutter and Western Health
[4:37:38] advantage and they were pleased with the outcome that we had come up with. So at this time DPS
[4:37:44] would request that the board approve the item as presented with the modification that the
[4:37:50] recommend action number three related to approving the active open enrollment be withdrawn
[4:37:56] and approve the rates and the rest of the package as is. Okay and just real quick James.
[4:38:01] So if somebody don't we have open enrollment every year? We do. At the end of the year.
[4:38:07] generally in the fall in the fall okay in the fall and so that will continue as
[4:38:11] normal when the time comes and employees can make changes at that time
[4:38:17] the only question I have is at the time if somebody does not enroll in a health
[4:38:23] plan will it default to one of those plans or what happens then if if an
[4:38:30] individual is current if an active employee is currently enrolled in a
[4:38:34] health plan and they failed to take action during this open enrollment because Kaiser
[4:38:38] has agreed to withdraw the requirement for the active open enrollment, they will default
[4:38:42] to the plan they're currently in.
[4:38:43] Okay, perfect.
[4:38:44] Because that was my concern was to ensure that employees understand that they had to
[4:38:49] make a selection or they had to do something, and now as long as it defaults to what
[4:38:53] they had before, that's all that I was really concerned about.
[4:38:58] Supervisor Sarna.
[4:38:59] Thank you.
[4:39:01] Yes.
[4:39:01] Yes, I want to first thank all the parties for taking the time to, I think, have a better
[4:39:10] understanding of what was a remaining concern for some.
[4:39:17] And I appreciate the fact that on my request, that time was taken to not just meet with
[4:39:25] with Sotter, who had reached out to me and perhaps others on this board, rather late,
[4:39:32] but nonetheless giving us something to consider, and then my understanding too is, well, Western
[4:39:40] Health Advantage also was able to, I guess, have some representation in the meeting.
[4:39:45] But I think this is a better outcome for everyone, and I also, I don't know if there's
[4:39:51] There's anyone from Kaiser here, but I do appreciate the fact that they understand those sensitivities
[4:39:57] and have agreed to drop their pursuit of the active open enrollment clause that is here
[4:40:05] scratched out as number three.
[4:40:07] So with that, Madam Clerk, I don't know if there's Mr. Clerk.
[4:40:12] I don't know if we have anyone's time to speak, but Madam Chair, I would move the
[4:40:17] item if there are no public speakers.
[4:40:19] Okay.
[4:40:20] We do have some requests to speak.
[4:40:21] We do have some questions.
[4:40:21] Okay.
[4:40:22] Let's go to public comments.
[4:40:23] All right.
[4:40:24] Thank you, James.
[4:40:25] Thank you.
[4:40:27] So we do have some in-person comments to get through and anyone online who would like to
[4:40:33] discuss item nine, the approved calendar year 2027 group insurance renewals.
[4:40:38] Now is the time to raise your virtual hand.
[4:40:41] First up in person is Donna.
[4:40:46] Please approach the lectern and you'll have two minutes to address the supervisors.
[4:40:55] Good afternoon, Donna.
[4:40:56] Good afternoon. Thank you for your time today. We really appreciate this opportunity to revisit
[4:41:01] this issue this morning. And basically what we wanted to say is that, you know, the conditions
[4:41:10] that were set forth by Kaiser was really putting an unfair advantage between all the medical
[4:41:16] carriers and that's something that we'd like to kind of address going forward. But
[4:41:22] But what we need to acknowledge is that with such a significant swing from their proposed
[4:41:28] renewal to the current state of renewal, it's a significant swing.
[4:41:34] It benefits the members, but it will have lasting impact to contracts going forward.
[4:41:40] So by removing this active open enrollment requirement and defaulting, that definitely
[4:41:48] helps position us.
[4:41:50] But what I just wanted to also say is that, you know, we've been a western health advantage,
[4:41:56] has been a city partner since implementation of contract.
[4:42:02] Our renal increases have been a single-digit steady over time.
[4:42:06] We don't have big swings.
[4:42:08] So it's really unfortunate to learn of this, this, you know, some of this information
[4:42:13] came to light this morning.
[4:42:14] So, we understand the nature to stay competitive, but what we would hope for next year is to
[4:42:23] improve the renewal processes to be a little bit more transparent, and that's all I have
[4:42:30] for today.
[4:42:31] Thank you, Donna.
[4:42:32] Thank you.
[4:42:32] You know, I agree.
[4:42:33] I think one of the during open enrollment, some of the challenges are when somebody
[4:42:38] is moved from one plan to another, that is a life-altering event when people are
[4:42:43] so tied to their physician or their doctors or their health plan or the structure of the
[4:42:49] plan and so I'm glad that this discussion came about and that and you're right I think
[4:42:54] going forward that's maybe a learned lesson for the county that we want to be proactive
[4:42:58] and communicate this to all and get and get the information out to ensure that we're
[4:43:04] not having some unintended consequence that is happening from decisions that are made
[4:43:07] so thank you for your comment.
[4:43:09] Thank you.
[4:43:10] Have a good afternoon.
[4:43:10] Thank you.
[4:43:11] our next speaker is Pete please approach the lectern you have two minutes to
[4:43:15] address the supervisors good afternoon Pete good afternoon thank you for having
[4:43:20] me Sutter health plan Sutter health is proud to be part of the Sacramento
[4:43:25] region and partner with Sacramento County and we wanted to thank you on behalf of
[4:43:30] Sutter health plan who's been partnering with the county since 2014 we
[4:43:34] appreciate Sylvester for listening and working with us earlier today you
[4:43:38] You heard our concerns on the recommended action, the consequences adversely impacting the employee
[4:43:43] population and address them adequately.
[4:43:46] We look forward to continuing to work with the County of Sacramento and to a transparent
[4:43:51] process in the future to the benefit of all the County of Sacramento employees.
[4:43:55] Thank you.
[4:43:56] Thank you, Pete.
[4:43:59] Any speaker online that would like to address the supervisors on item number nine, approved
[4:44:05] calendar year 2027 group insurance renewals.
[4:44:08] Now is the time to raise your virtual hand.
[4:44:09] And we have no online speakers.
[4:44:14] Is this one here?
[4:44:16] Denise and Ted?
[4:44:17] Are they speaking on number nine?
[4:44:19] Oh, we had more people pop up.
[4:44:22] Denise, from the chamber.
[4:44:23] We came up.
[4:44:25] Hi, Denise.
[4:44:26] Hi.
[4:44:26] Good afternoon.
[4:44:27] Denise Rodriguez with Kaiser Permanente.
[4:44:29] Kaiser has been proud to care for Sacramento County employees and their families for more
[4:44:34] than 60 years.
[4:44:35] We are deeply invested in this region.
[4:44:37] And the Sacramento being one of your largest employees with 19,400 physicians and employees.
[4:44:44] As part of our ongoing commitment to the community, we continue to invest in strengthening our
[4:44:48] healthcare network, improving patient experience by increasing capacity, improving access, reducing
[4:44:54] travel times, adding services, et cetera.
[4:44:57] A major capital investment.
[4:45:07] We have been engaged in discussions with the county of Sacramento leadership for many months regarding affordability for their employees, and the fact that a significant contributing factor to our increasing rates has been the shift of some of the lower risk membership from Kaiser Permanente to other plans and the impact that this has had on the rates.
[4:45:29] As costs increased, more than half of our former members could no longer manage to be able
[4:45:36] to afford to remain on our enrolled in Kaiser Permanente.
[4:45:39] To address this challenge, Kaiser Permanente has decided to make an investment in 2027
[4:45:44] to improve affordability for the Sacramento County employees and their families.
[4:45:48] This effort is intended to reduce costs by hundreds of dollars on each paycheck,
[4:45:53] generating savings for the county through lower employee contributions and providing
[4:45:57] an opportunity for former members to return to their physicians and care teams they know
[4:46:02] and trust.
[4:46:03] This offer came with the stipulation that there would be an active open enrollment
[4:46:07] so that an employee would have the opportunity to evaluate their health plan choices and
[4:46:11] make the decision that is right for them.
[4:46:13] We know that life can be busy and it's easy to miss open enrollment communications.
[4:46:18] So we have removed that stipulation.
[4:46:21] Above all, we want to be a good partner, affordability to the employees, a long
[4:46:25] term viable option and we value your, we felt we value the partnership that we
[4:46:32] have with the county of Sacramento. Thank you Denise. And next in chamber we
[4:46:37] have Ted Samara.
[4:46:42] Hi Ted. Good afternoon. Healthcare so I wasn't prepared to speak
[4:46:48] on this but I seen you had all the big providers here and I like to see them
[4:46:51] claw at each other here to bring down those premiums that at the end of
[4:46:55] the day benefit our members. So one I appreciate Kaiser coming down I think
[4:46:58] it was like 17 and a quarter or so percent down,
[4:47:02] which is nice for those that still have Kaiser.
[4:47:04] But I think what the point that's being,
[4:47:06] I think that needs to be addressed here
[4:47:07] is that the affordability of healthcare
[4:47:09] as it continues to increase.
[4:47:11] And having your provider,
[4:47:13] I believe you guys still utilize Keenan and Associates,
[4:47:15] if I'm correct,
[4:47:16] to go when they're aggressively negotiate these premiums down
[4:47:20] because if Kaiser can do this,
[4:47:22] because my understanding on the cost of healthcare
[4:47:25] and how it increases its utilization of prescription drugs
[4:47:27] is a combination of factors in which rises those increases up.
[4:47:32] But here in this case, going down 17.5 percent, listen, Kaiser is not the only one to have
[4:47:37] done this.
[4:47:37] When Sutter first came aboard, they did it as well.
[4:47:40] To be competitive, they all do that because at the end of the day, they want those customers,
[4:47:45] those patients, those whatever they call them, to join their HMOs.
[4:47:51] And we have to address it with open eyes and how are we going to get the best plans.
[4:47:56] And remember, this was one of our sticklers during negotiations, is having a seat at the
[4:48:00] table when the county develops the plants on the utilization so that we can smooth the
[4:48:06] increase of those premiums, because it doesn't take overnight in order for those premiums
[4:48:11] to go down.
[4:48:11] There's a whole smoothing process that has to take place.
[4:48:14] And I'll just take a case in the example in Merced County where we represent county
[4:48:17] employees there.
[4:48:18] They went and unblended their rates because they had enough monies in their open
[4:48:23] of liability to start covering the cost of retiree health off of the monies that they
[4:48:27] saved on the accounts because when you put money into your OPEB trust, that money has
[4:48:32] to stay there for retiree health, which then increased dramatically down those rates in
[4:48:37] Merced County, and they turn around and utilize those monies to offset the cost of the
[4:48:41] premiums that the HMOS provide. So I hope that the Board continues to aggressively
[4:48:47] pursue the rates of increase for your employees, working with these HMOS, having keen
[4:48:52] and associates being aggressive, more aggressive, and trying to get those rates down and more
[4:48:56] competitive plans.
[4:48:57] So thank you.
[4:48:58] Thank you.
[4:48:59] And you know there is a vacant position with the California Insurance Commission.
[4:49:04] It would be great at it.
[4:49:05] All right.
[4:49:06] Any other speakers?
[4:49:07] We have no speakers online and no speakers in chambers.
[4:49:10] All right.
[4:49:10] We have a motion and a second.
[4:49:11] Please vote.
[4:49:18] That motion passes 4-0 with Supervisor Hume absent.
[4:49:22] All right.
[4:49:22] Next item, please.
[4:49:24] Next item on our agenda is number 30.
[4:49:26] that is the adopt a resolution expanding Sacramento County's three-year pilot
[4:49:30] development impact fee offset program to include specified park district fees
[4:49:35] and authorizing the deputy clerk or deputy county executive for community
[4:49:38] services to take necessary actions to implement. Hi Claudia. Good afternoon
[4:49:44] Chair Rodriguez, members of the board. My name is Claudia Wade, county engineer
[4:49:48] for Sacramento County. On July 14th, this item was brought to your board and
[4:49:54] and to expand the program to include three
[4:49:58] of the dependent parks districts.
[4:50:01] This item was continued today.
[4:50:03] The board also requested the information
[4:50:05] be provided related to how many affordable housing units
[4:50:08] were constructed with the benefit of this program
[4:50:10] that has been included as an attachment to the board letter.
[4:50:15] In just a little bit of background,
[4:50:17] on December 10th, 2024,
[4:50:19] the board adopted an ordinance
[4:50:20] and resolution implementing the Sacramento County
[4:50:23] 23-year pilot fee offset program. The Board allocated $5 million from the Affordable Housing
[4:50:30] Incentive General Fund to offset certain specified development impact fees for low-income housing
[4:50:35] up to 80% AMI. They also authorized up to $5 million of the Affordable Housing Ordinance
[4:50:41] and Housing Trust Fund to be coordinated with SHA due to concerns brought up in December
[4:50:47] December 2024 relating to the use of these funds.
[4:50:51] This program offsets county controlled impact fees and we are requesting that the three dependent
[4:50:58] parks districts which are Carmichael Recreation Park District, Mission Oaks Rec and Park
[4:51:02] District and Sunrise Recreation Park District be an allowable fee to be funded.
[4:51:10] That actually concludes my presentation.
[4:51:12] If there's any questions related to this item, I'm here to answer any questions.
[4:51:18] Yeah, I have a couple of questions.
[4:51:22] So which project, which park district project is waiting for some application to be able to use the trust fund or the general fund?
[4:51:32] Dave Defante, Deputy County Executive. There's a project at 1530 Howe that would, if this
[4:51:39] were to be approved, we would propose offsetting the fees for, I believe it's Mission Oaks
[4:51:44] Parks District. Okay. So, from the meeting we had a month
[4:51:53] ago, there was $5 million put into the, from the Housing Trust Fund, and then $5 million
[4:52:00] dollar to the general fund. And there was a discussion. And so for the sake of the members
[4:52:07] of the public, can you explain, Claudia, why the trust fund would not be a priority to
[4:52:13] use instead of the general fund dollars?
[4:52:17] I believe you have Todd Smith. It has best information. But in a nutshell, they use it
[4:52:23] to levy grant funds to get match grant funding, which brings in much more money.
[4:52:31] But I may, again, Deputy County Executive Dave DeFonte, we do have members from SHA here
[4:52:36] that can speak to that directly because this was quite a conversation a couple years back
[4:52:40] with SHA and they're probably best positioned to speak to those issues.
[4:52:44] And yeah, I would love to hear information from them on this.
[4:52:48] And
[4:52:53] Chris, not that I don't support these projects.
[4:52:55] I think they are valuable.
[4:52:57] I'm a big proponent.
[4:52:58] I wish my district had more affordable housing development.
[4:53:01] And I know that funding is an issue.
[4:53:04] My issue really was taking $5 million from the general fund.
[4:53:08] We just had many cuts or an impact.
[4:53:12] We had an impact to public safety.
[4:53:14] And so the way I look at it is taking $5 million from the general fund to be able
[4:53:19] to be able to use for these projects wasn't something that I was very supportive of when
[4:53:25] we talked about this a month ago. And so for me, I would much rather see the 2.9 million
[4:53:30] that is in that bucket be put back in the general fund because in the past 18 months
[4:53:36] we've only used 2.1 million for affordable housing. So it really was if developers want
[4:53:44] use funding to be able to offset the county cost, why not use the housing trust fund?
[4:53:50] So I would say I would respond in a few ways. And thank you for that introduction. I appreciate
[4:53:54] that. Chris Warren, SHRA. So obviously being slightly new to this position, I went back
[4:54:00] and reviewed all the information that has led us to this point. And back in 2024,
[4:54:06] there was an independent analysis done of the funds that come in to SHRA to administer
[4:54:13] for you as your fiscal agent. So let me just start off by saying, you know, we're happy
[4:54:18] to sponsor these programs and make sure that they are in compliance and are able to bring
[4:54:24] about more affordable housing. So at the end of the day, we can advise you on what we
[4:54:29] think is most beneficial, but we are your fiscal agents, so we'll defer to you to
[4:54:35] tell us what you'd like to do with those funds.
[4:54:37] funds that currently the housing trust funds are used to are currently used to directs and
[4:54:44] support deeply affordable housing units. So a loss of whether it be 2.9 or 5 million
[4:54:49] is a direct reduction on the amount of money that we actually offer on a biannual basis
[4:54:54] to help fill those housing gap to do that multifamily housing gap funding. The funding
[4:55:01] Loading also is leveraged. So for every dollar that we are able to loan and leverage, it brings
[4:55:08] an additional $3.99 in leverage to those projects. It also allows for those projects
[4:55:16] to be competitive with both SIDLAC and the LIETEC applications. So it's almost a triple
[4:55:21] effect that one dollar has with the affordable housing projects that get loaned. And to
[4:55:28] To give you a more recent example, we just advertised $9.4 million for in June for our
[4:55:38] biannual gap funding applications.
[4:55:42] If we had offset that or we had reduced and reallocated those funds that you're speaking
[4:55:47] of today, you would have seen a direct reduction in that number to a $4.4 million.
[4:55:52] And as you might recall from some of our meetings, we had nine applications come in
[4:55:57] for the county this year in June alone, all vying for 9.4 million with a $30 million need.
[4:56:04] So you would have seen a reduction if this allocation was moved into offsetting impact fees
[4:56:12] and you would have seen a reduction to 4.4 million advertised for those applications
[4:56:17] and therefore a direct reduction in affordable housing units being built.
[4:56:21] So, this program, because I went back and watched, well, I watched it a month ago.
[4:56:27] I went back and watched the 2024 meetings, 2025, and in the past 18 months that this project
[4:56:34] has been going, we've only used 2.1 million of the 5 million that's from the general
[4:56:42] fund, and it's only gone to three projects.
[4:56:46] So I just want to understand that part, and maybe that's a county question, not
[4:56:51] a not a Chris Warren question well what I can say is just on a kind of a larger
[4:56:57] scale we have since 1991 loaned out $33 million and actually recouped 20
[4:57:06] million of that and earned 8 million in interest and so we've actually not
[4:57:11] only paid ourselves back but we loaned out those funds twice over now from
[4:57:16] the length of that program specifically to the obligation of those
[4:57:20] particular dollars you just asked me about. Can you show I'm going to ask if you could
[4:57:24] help me on that, please?
[4:57:25] And then, Mr. DeFonte, can you help me understand? Is a $91 million from the past since 1991?
[4:57:33] Is that what you said?
[4:57:34] Yes.
[4:57:34] Since 1991. Is there a correlation to the use of this fund, the $5 million?
[4:57:42] Yes. So what we're discussing here, the trust fund or ordinance dollars, we have
[4:57:46] two, let's just call them codes on the books, where for residential development, we charge
[4:57:52] a fee on that residential development by unit or square foot. I forgot exactly how this
[4:57:57] one set up. It's an affordable housing fee. So every new home built pays an affordable
[4:58:02] housing fee. We collect that fee. We give it to SHA to manage on our behalf. So that's
[4:58:07] what Chris is mentioning here. Similarly, we do the same with non-residential development
[4:58:12] as well, commercial, etc. So the way it's administered, again, we charge that on development
[4:58:18] coming through our doors in the unincorporated area, we collect those monies, we transmit
[4:58:22] them to SHA and they do all the good work that Chris had just mentioned.
[4:58:26] So as to the general fund portion, you're correct, we spent about $2 million, a little
[4:58:31] over $2 million during this first year and a half or so. We funded four projects,
[4:58:36] projects, about 435 units total, we've been able to offset the fees for using that general
[4:58:42] fund contribution.
[4:58:43] And if I understand right, it's only been three projects.
[4:58:46] I'm looking at Attachment 1, it looks like San Juan, Teresina, Beach Hill and 1530 Howe.
[4:58:53] On 1530 Howe, we were able to offset some of their fees.
[4:58:56] We were not able to offset the Mission Oaks fee because of this nuance in how the
[4:59:02] program is written today.
[4:59:03] And I will say that this was a discussion back when about what is defined as a county controlled fee
[4:59:09] We have the same discussion about sacks sewer who was separating from us at the time
[4:59:14] And we really sort of wobbled on the parks district issue because the dependent park districts you are their board
[4:59:20] So there there is sort of an easy argument to make that that is also a county controlled fee
[4:59:25] But at the time we left them out
[4:59:27] what we're suggesting today is if you want to continue the program to bring
[4:59:31] them in and consider them a county controlled fee that could be offset
[4:59:34] with these monies. Okay so help me understand so it's been right now in the
[4:59:40] affordable housing development and now this item is now expanding it to
[4:59:44] include park districts. Is that am I am I understanding that correctly? No the
[4:59:49] money wouldn't go to the park district so right now the the program is set
[4:59:54] set up to offset fees that would be charged to affordable housing development, but only
[4:59:58] fees that
[5:00:00] So, think like the SCTDF program, which is our traffic fee. So, DOT manages that program.
[5:00:06] You adopt the fee when it comes to you. So, we would be able to, and we do currently, we
[5:00:10] can offset that fee, pay that fee essentially on behalf of an affordable housing development
[5:00:15] in the unincorporated county. This would allow us to pay parks fees due from the affordable
[5:00:21] housing development to the park district. So, right now, for example, I believe 1530
[5:00:26] how their parks fee due to Mission Oaks is somewhere in the $700-ish, $600,000, $800,000.
[5:00:34] The park district actually did a good job of knocking that fee down quite a bit, but
[5:00:39] they aren't able to waive the rest of the fee.
[5:00:42] So that's what's being proposed here, changing the program.
[5:00:46] We know that we would be suggesting to offset 1530 house park fees to Mission
[5:00:51] Oaks, but I would actually look to Claudia if there's other affordable housing developments
[5:00:55] and the works that are also seeking to take advantage of this program.
[5:01:02] We do have various other projects that have spoken to both planning and to our staff to
[5:01:07] get estimates and they're looking to build affordable housing projects.
[5:01:12] Claudia, can you clarify something?
[5:01:16] And I remember there's a qualifying factor to be able to qualify to use the housing
[5:01:25] impact fees? Is that the housing trust fund for the county impact fees? There is a qualifying
[5:01:30] factor. What is that qualifying factor? Because I know there have been, I know a ton of affordable
[5:01:34] housing developers, so what makes this fund available to only certain projects?
[5:01:40] They have to meet state code requirements to qualify as an affordable housing project and
[5:01:45] be up to 80% AMI. Okay, so that's the qualifying and they have to be certified by an agency
[5:01:52] such as S-H-R-A.
[5:01:54] Right, right, okay.
[5:01:55] So only projects that have under 80% AMI.
[5:01:59] And they also have, we've also capped it to a $10,000 per unit cap, so as to maintain
[5:02:05] some of that fund so that we could fund more projects.
[5:02:08] Right.
[5:02:08] And this is where I am stuck.
[5:02:13] Housing, affordable housing developers will eventually get the funding somewhere somehow,
[5:02:17] correct?
[5:02:19] I mean, it's fair to say.
[5:02:21] Maybe this isn't our Chris question. Is it is it fair to say at some point or another housing developers
[5:02:27] Affordable housing developers will eventually end up getting the funding somewhere somehow. I don't think that's I
[5:02:33] Think we'd like to think that but I don't think that's correct
[5:02:36] And I think it's it's it takes a lot to build affordable housing. It's very complicated, which you know
[5:02:42] There are several there are developers will come back several
[5:02:48] several rounds, several years, or even have to put phases on hold, we even at SHRA have
[5:02:53] had to put phases on hold with our own repositioning because the funding is just not there. So sometimes
[5:02:58] things just don't get built. That's just the reality.
[5:03:01] All right. No, I do understand the challenges that come with building affordable housing
[5:03:07] and what's one of the challenges we have. I just don't, personally, I just don't
[5:03:10] think taking the $5 million out of the general fund a year and a half ago was a wise
[5:03:16] thing to do considering that we had a structural deficit coming down the pike and eventually
[5:03:21] affordable housing developers will at some point end up, you know, I mean, just from
[5:03:26] the funding that I saw to those, I think there are three projects in one of the staff reports.
[5:03:32] You know, it wasn't one of them, I think the highest one was a 1.4 million, but that
[5:03:37] was a major, that was a huge project. So, okay, thank you. Supervisor Desmond.
[5:03:44] Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the discussion about this, and I'm prepared to
[5:03:50] move approval of the item. I appreciate your discussion, Mr. DeFonte, about why there is
[5:03:55] certainly a nexus to these dependent park districts. I agree with that. I also agree
[5:04:01] with the challenges over the general fund, but this Board made a policy decision a
[5:04:05] few years ago that this is such a critical priority for the Board to get more affordable
[5:04:11] affordable housing that we wanted to rope off some dollars where we could help close
[5:04:15] some gaps to get these built. This is a great project which also incorporates some PSH units
[5:04:22] as well, which I think makes it unique. This is not just another run-of-the-mill affordable
[5:04:26] housing project. So with that, I move approval.
[5:04:32] Supervisor Kennedy. I'll second that and just say that
[5:04:35] You know, this is exactly where we should be putting our money, as far as, you know,
[5:04:40] we know that everybody will say that we want to have more infill housing, we need more
[5:04:45] affordable housing, and we all, I think, recognize that, where the rubber hits the
[5:04:50] road is when we as a local government agency can provide a small amount, relatively speaking,
[5:04:58] of funding that will house hundreds of people over the long run who otherwise would
[5:05:03] be on our streets likely and be homeless and not provide for their families. I can tell
[5:05:11] you that $3 million doesn't sound like a whole lot of money in the big scheme of things,
[5:05:15] but if it wasn't for the $3 million in infrastructure dollars that went toward San Juan Motel site
[5:05:25] from SACOG's Green Means Go program just as an example, that project never would
[5:05:31] have gotten built. And so it's just it's a fallacy to think that these developers, you
[5:05:38] know, the money's all out there, it's just for them to get. If that were the case, we
[5:05:42] would have more affordable housing, we wouldn't have people coming us and needing this kind
[5:05:46] of relief. It's a simplistic approach. It is extremely appropriate for us as we
[5:05:53] look at homelessness and housing needs in Sacramento County to be investing our
[5:05:58] own dollars in this. Thank you.
[5:06:01] I'm just going to respond to that. I don't think anyone of five of us up here believe
[5:06:06] that accessing funding is easy to get. I think affordable housing is very complex. I think
[5:06:13] we all, five of us, probably would agree that we need more affordable housing and
[5:06:18] all of us would want more projects in our districts to be able to help the individuals
[5:06:23] who are struggling.
[5:06:26] But I also want to state that without having really knowledge of,
[5:06:30] again, I'm going to go back to having knowledge of the discretionary
[5:06:33] and semi-discretionary funding,
[5:06:37] we really don't know where some of that funding goes to.
[5:06:39] And this is coming from the general fund.
[5:06:41] So we just dealt with a lot of cuts.
[5:06:43] We're going to continue to deal with cuts.
[5:06:45] But until we really have an understanding where the priorities are
[5:06:48] with general fund discretionary and semi-discretionary,
[5:06:51] we're probably going to continue to have these conversations.
[5:06:53] because I personally don't know where things are prioritized when it comes down to not just
[5:06:57] departments but program levels. So we have a motion and a second and are there any requests
[5:07:02] to speak on this item? We do. We have one speaker in person and anyone online that would like to
[5:07:09] address the supervisors on item 30 regarding the three-year pilot development impact fee offset
[5:07:13] program. Please raise your virtual hand now. Good afternoon Linda. And our first speaker is
[5:07:18] Linda Wheaton. Thank you. I'm Linda Wheaton from SACAC's Homelessness and Housing Committee.
[5:07:25] I'm speaking on item 30. I'm also a member of the Sacramento Housing Alliance who also submitted
[5:07:31] a letter. They weren't able to be here to testify. But in both cases, we are urging your support
[5:07:37] of this item because including park fees, park fees are significant impact fees. I believe
[5:07:45] they average in the districts you're talking about from $6,000 to $7,000 a unit. And so
[5:07:52] for multifamily housing development, those certainly add up. So we urge your support
[5:07:59] of inclusion of the park districts in the existing program and maintenance of the program
[5:08:05] for the three-year period. The fact that you've only had a certain number of applications
[5:08:10] in just a little over a year, I'm sure there are many more
[5:08:15] that in the remaining 18 months and beyond
[5:08:18] that would have demand for those funds.
[5:08:20] So in general, this kind of offset program
[5:08:24] is more important than ever as recognized
[5:08:27] by the state's recent adoption in the housing budget bill
[5:08:32] of an AB 179 where they are requiring the state agencies
[5:08:39] that administer affordable housing programs to limit the competitiveness of applicants
[5:08:45] that charge impact fees that aren't waived.
[5:08:50] And so this was important enough for the governor to specifically tout it in a press conference.
[5:08:57] And I think it's likely other local governments will do that, that would compete for these
[5:09:02] programs.
[5:09:03] So, in short, we urge your adoption of the recommended program option.
[5:09:11] Thank you.
[5:09:11] Thank you, Linda.
[5:09:13] I just have one more comment before we go to a vote.
[5:09:16] We had this item came up about a month ago, and at the time, Hugh and I had both agreed
[5:09:24] that we were not going to support this project.
[5:09:26] We held off on it.
[5:09:27] It wouldn't have passed a month ago.
[5:09:29] So we held off on it out of respect for Supervisor's assessment who could not be at that meeting.
[5:09:38] And so just hearing this, having waited another two weeks or four weeks or six weeks to hear
[5:09:46] this project with all five of us, I don't believe that the million dollars that Mission
[5:09:52] Oaks needed would have held the project back significantly.
[5:09:56] I just want to state that we waited for Supervisor Desmond to come back and this project couldn't
[5:10:03] be waited to be heard until Supervisor Hume came back.
[5:10:06] All right.
[5:10:07] Motion and a second, please vote.
[5:10:13] All right.
[5:10:13] That item passes.
[5:10:14] Oh, sorry.
[5:10:15] No.
[5:10:16] Go back.
[5:10:17] Sorry.
[5:10:18] Do that one more time.
[5:10:20] Yeah.
[5:10:22] Thank you.
[5:10:23] This item passes three to one with Supervisor Rodriguez voting no Supervisor Hume absent.
[5:10:29] and we'll know if there were no more speakers online.
[5:10:31] All right, thank you.
[5:10:32] Next item, please.
[5:10:35] Our next item is item 31,
[5:10:39] which is the fuel up market item,
[5:10:42] a letter of public convenience or necessity
[5:10:44] for a property located at 5809 Manzanita Avenue.
[5:10:52] And I do have some packets.
[5:10:54] All
[5:11:13] right, good afternoon, Chair Rodriguez
[5:11:14] and fellow board members.
[5:11:16] My name is Irving Huerta,
[5:11:17] Associate Planner and Project Manager
[5:11:19] for the Fuel Up Market PCN.
[5:11:25] The project site is located over at 5809 Manzanita Avenue located 500 feet south of the intersection
[5:11:33] of Auburn Boulevard and Manzanita Avenue and the Foothill Farms Community.
[5:11:39] The project site is developed with an existing commercial retail building with several suites
[5:11:44] and parking.
[5:11:49] The project site is mainly surrounded by existing commercial retail uses over to the
[5:11:54] north, south and west.
[5:11:56] We also do have an existing multi-family apartment complex located east of the project site.
[5:12:08] This is an overview of the project site plan.
[5:12:12] I do want to note that the project site does consist of an existing convenience store and
[5:12:17] gas station.
[5:12:18] That is again the one that is requesting the Type 21 license.
[5:12:22] There was a previous operator, a Circle K.
[5:12:26] and then as illustrated on number one on the plan this is where the gas canopy
[5:12:33] and pumps are located and then on number five is where the convenience store is
[5:12:38] located.
[5:12:43] This right here is an overview of the proposed floor plan. As illustrated
[5:12:48] on the floor plan the beer will be stored in the coolers between doors
[5:12:53] one and six wine will be located between the coffee bar and the beer
[5:12:59] coolers and then spirits will be located on a shelf behind the pay counter near the entrance.
[5:13:07] Additionally, there was a security plan package that was distributed to all of you
[5:13:12] that also kind of shows the different security measures inside as well as I believe outside
[5:13:17] of the store.
[5:13:24] The following map as shown above is for a one-mile radius map.
[5:13:28] map. This illustrates all of the Type 20, so that's beer and wine, and Type 21, beer,
[5:13:35] wine, and spirits licenses within a one-mile radius of the site. This also includes sensitive
[5:13:42] uses such as schools, daycares, and vacant parcels.
[5:13:48] Just to go over the map, so a total
[5:13:51] of 16 establishments, cell off-sale alcohol within this radius, seven of which hold
[5:13:58] a type 20 license and nine have that type 21 license. Of those 16 establishments with
[5:14:05] the license, two serve as a full service grocery store, seven function as liquor stores and
[5:14:12] the other seven function as gasoline stations with convenience stores. I would like to also
[5:14:18] note that the shaded hatch area just located northeast of the project site is the city
[5:14:25] of Citrus Heights. And within the City of Citrus Heights, as shown over here, there's
[5:14:31] seven of the 16 establishments that are licensed to sell alcohol. Just another point as well,
[5:14:40] the City of Citrus Heights has jurisdiction over those seven licensed establishments,
[5:14:45] not the county.
[5:14:48] And then additionally, within the one mile radius of the site, there
[5:14:52] There are five schools and three day care centers identified.
[5:14:56] And then the nearest vac-
[5:15:00] The second parcel is located directly behind just west of the project site and it is a zone
[5:15:06] general commercial.
[5:15:12] So the request that's being considered this afternoon is for a letter of
[5:15:16] public convenience and or necessity for a type 21 liquor license that's a beer, wine and spirits
[5:15:24] by the State Department of alcoholic beverage control at an existing gasoline station and
[5:15:29] and convenience store within the general commercial zoning district.
[5:15:38] It's moving on to project analysis.
[5:15:41] The Foothill Farms CPAC met on May 6th, 2026, and they recommended approval of the PCN.
[5:15:49] That vote was 3 yes and 1 no.
[5:15:53] The CPAC voted in favor was based off of the security upgrades to the project site,
[5:15:59] the applicants extensive business experience, as well as operating several other licensed
[5:16:04] establishments within the county as well as being an active member of the
[5:16:08] analogue business community.
[5:16:12] Additionally the project site is not located
[5:16:14] within an environmental justice community and it also received no objection
[5:16:19] from the business licensing.
[5:16:23] However the census track will continue to be
[5:16:25] over concentrated if the license is granted. I do want to note that in the
[5:16:31] census track it does allow for one off-sale license. There's currently
[5:16:35] only one active license and one surrendered license within the census track. The surrender
[5:16:41] license does stay in the census track until it is transferred or sold or canceled. Currently
[5:16:48] that surrendered license holder is Circle K.
[5:16:53] The project site is also located within
[5:16:55] a high crime reporting district and it did receive a conditional objection from the
[5:17:00] sheriff. In attachment five, the sheriff has provided with their objection letter, a log
[5:17:07] of calls for service for the year 2025.
[5:17:13] There's also several sensitive uses and vacant land
[5:17:16] uses or vacant land, I should say, within a one mile radius. And then lastly, existing
[5:17:22] alcohol licensing within the one mile radius indicates customers have ample options for
[5:17:28] alcohol purchases.
[5:17:34] Planning and environmental review staff
[5:17:35] recommends denial of this PCN request. The applicants have not demonstrated that
[5:17:41] the proposed sale of alcohol can be accomplished in a manner that
[5:17:44] sufficiently addresses or eliminates objections received
[5:17:49] and negative impacts identified in the review conducted.
[5:17:53] The applicant has not demonstrated that the public convenience or necessity
[5:17:57] of this liquor license outweighs the objections and negative impacts identified.
[5:18:06] This concludes
[5:18:07] the end of my presentation. I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. And
[5:18:12] additionally, we do have our applicant team present as well. Thank you.
[5:18:15] I have a question, but I'll wait for Supervisor Desmond.
[5:18:17] Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Irving. You're getting better at these. That's
[5:18:21] good.
[5:18:22] Thank you.
[5:18:22] So a couple questions for you. So this is in the 95608 zip code. Explain to me
[5:18:27] why this went to the Foothill Farms CPAC and not Carmichael?
[5:18:31] Yes, so as you know the Foothill Farms CPAC
[5:18:35] got sketched out where it was created last year.
[5:18:39] It does happen to be on the fringe of the Foothill Farms community
[5:18:44] because it's located on the west side of the Manzanita.
[5:18:47] It falls under Foothill Farms. Staff did
[5:18:51] notify the Carmichael CPAC of the PCN request and invited them to
[5:18:57] participate in the Foothill Farms CPAC meeting. We did have one of their CPAC
[5:19:02] members attend and provide some comments as well. Okay that's helpful and then
[5:19:08] the other thing I want to understand when did that Circle K close down? I believe
[5:19:12] it was around probably earlier this year late last year. I believe maybe the
[5:19:17] applicant might know when they took over. He is currently the new property
[5:19:22] owner so he owns all of that commercial building as well as convenience
[5:19:26] need storing gas station.
[5:19:28] Not sure if he might have more specifics to that.
[5:19:30] I'm hoping to hear from him in a moment here, actually.
[5:19:34] So just so I understand the mechanics of the Type 21,
[5:19:38] the Circle K was a Type 21, correct?
[5:19:40] Yes.
[5:19:41] OK, and that license is kind of in limbo.
[5:19:44] I guess it's surrendered, but it's still in limbo.
[5:19:46] It could still be reactivated.
[5:19:47] Is that accurate?
[5:19:49] I see.
[5:19:49] Yes.
[5:19:50] I see.
[5:19:52] Oh,
[5:19:57] Kimber.
[5:19:58] Oh, yeah.
[5:19:59] Hello.
[5:20:02] Kimberly Gutierrez, principal planner.
[5:20:03] Yes.
[5:20:05] Basically, the previous owner, whoever holds that licenses, once they surrender it, they
[5:20:09] can kind of decide what they want to do with it.
[5:20:11] So they can either sell it to someone else.
[5:20:13] They can cancel it completely.
[5:20:16] But I think these usually go for, you know, they try to get the most out of it, yeah.
[5:20:21] But if someone, if they sold it to someone, it would have to be used in the same census
[5:20:24] tract as them?
[5:20:25] No.
[5:20:25] No, it would not be used anywhere.
[5:20:27] It can go to any census. But they'd have to come back for a PCN
[5:20:30] Depending on whether or not that census value is right. I mean if you apply. Okay. All right
[5:20:34] But with this with it being so this was how long was this a circle K and be in use as a type 21 establishment?
[5:20:41] I believe based off of my when I was working on the board letter. I think as
[5:20:48] Late as the 1980s. I believe there's a long time permit. I think dating to 1988
[5:20:54] Okay. That's all the questions I have now. I may have some questions for the applicants.
[5:20:59] Thank you.
[5:20:59] I have some questions. The Sheriff's Condition Letter, that is the generic letter that goes
[5:21:06] out where there's like a time frame and then there's a couple of parameters that have to
[5:21:11] be met with that particular license, correct?
[5:21:14] Yes. The conditions that were provided are, so recall we can't condition a PCN.
[5:21:20] The only agency that can do that is ABC, but the sheriff provides those conditions as recommendations
[5:21:29] to the ABC in order for them to potentially include when they're working on the licensing
[5:21:35] aspect.
[5:21:36] So in my gender review, the question came up is there were two licensed 21s in the
[5:21:45] in the census track. And we don't know the status of that particular license. Does the
[5:21:51] applicant, or maybe that's a question for the applicant to come up and ask is, does
[5:21:55] he know what the status is or if the circle K is willing to sell it to him or why he
[5:22:01] would?
[5:22:02] Yeah. I think that he might, yeah, the applicant might know a bit more, but just one thing
[5:22:07] to note about surrender licenses is that the license holder is the only one that
[5:22:12] can make that decision.
[5:22:13] Sure, I understand that, but in the purchase of the business, that license could have been
[5:22:21] one of the conditions on, I'll buy the business as long as the, you know, that ABC license
[5:22:29] comes with it.
[5:22:29] Yeah, so I do want to know, even if they were to, and correct me if I'm wrong, are
[5:22:35] you stating more if like if they could inherit it?
[5:22:38] Or purchase it from the Circle K Corporation.
[5:22:42] Got it.
[5:22:42] Purchasing or doing the transfer or sell would be the official process with ABC for my understanding
[5:22:49] But in here you can't do that. They have to go through. Yeah, I understand the process very clearly
[5:22:54] Okay, maybe that the
[5:22:57] If you're are you done with your presentation? Yeah, I'm sure I'd like to ask the applicant that question
[5:23:10] Hi, DeVender. Good afternoon
[5:23:12] So, one of the questions I had when I was getting briefed on this item was, you purchased
[5:23:19] the former Circle K location.
[5:23:24] Had you negotiated the license 21 from the former owner?
[5:23:30] Yes.
[5:23:30] So, the issue was, we didn't purchase the location from Circle K.
[5:23:34] Circle K is our tenant.
[5:23:36] We purchased the property about seven years ago.
[5:23:40] There was issues at the site, which we recommended them to take action, and they did not.
[5:23:46] So their lease was up for renewal.
[5:23:49] We gave them, instead of a long-term lease, we gave them a temporary extension on their
[5:23:53] lease to correct the issues that were happening on site.
[5:23:56] And they did not.
[5:23:57] So we did not renew their lease.
[5:23:59] So they were not very happy with me.
[5:24:02] So they decided, no, we are not going to sell you the license.
[5:24:05] We'll take it with us.
[5:24:06] you go to get another PCN and that's why we're here today.
[5:24:10] So do you know if that license has been,
[5:24:13] if it's, or I don't know if we would know
[5:24:16] or you would know, but has that license been utilized
[5:24:18] for any other location in the county?
[5:24:20] So I do understand that they have new sites in the works
[5:24:24] where they might use that license.
[5:24:26] And also the license that we're using here
[5:24:28] is not from outside the community.
[5:24:30] It's from on Manzanita Avenue.
[5:24:33] It comes from a ride aid that went out of business.
[5:24:35] So it's from within, I'd say within a mile and a half on Manzanita Avenue.
[5:24:44] Okay. Supervisor Desmond.
[5:24:47] Thank you, DeVinder, for bringing that up. Actually, I forgot about that because I think that is an important point in this whole discussion.
[5:24:53] We're not talking about a whole new Type 21 here.
[5:24:57] And can you tell us a little bit about how many businesses that include liquor stores
[5:25:03] or type 20 or type 21 do you own?
[5:25:06] So I'll skip my presentation, I'll answer your question.
[5:25:10] So we started in 1992 in Woodland, California.
[5:25:14] At the moment we have 17 locations and one of the locations happens to be in Mr. Rosario
[5:25:21] Rodriguez's district for the past 18 years and we were right next to the library.
[5:25:27] We have a very good relationship with them, and so over 18 years and 15 locations.
[5:25:36] And a question that came up, you and I had a chance at a brief discussion, a question
[5:25:41] that's come up from members of the community are, you know, they're impressed with the
[5:25:45] improvements you've made on the property, but in terms of the conditions, which I
[5:25:49] know we can't officially enforce, but are the times of sale and the amount of singles
[5:25:56] that are being sold. Are there any, you know, even though we can't enforce them, are there
[5:26:00] anything, things, conditions that you would commit to if we might be willing to consider
[5:26:05] approving this PCN?
[5:26:06] I would commit to midnight, cutting off sales at midnight. We don't need the sales
[5:26:10] between 12 and 2 anyways. That's when the problems happen.
[5:26:14] Okay. What about, what about with the smaller portions or singles?
[5:26:17] I would hope not to get that restriction because it's an elderly community as well.
[5:26:23] Some can afford something, some can afford others more.
[5:26:27] I'm hoping to, I would commit to the midnight.
[5:26:32] Midnight till 6 in the morning or whatever it is?
[5:26:34] So it would be 6 a.m. to midnight.
[5:26:36] So no sales between midnight and 6 a.m.
[5:26:40] Legally, according to ABC, we can sell until 2 a.m.
[5:26:44] And that's consistent with the limitation on your other store in District 4.
[5:26:50] I believe we're at midnight as well over there.
[5:26:53] Thank you.
[5:26:57] Do you want to go through your presentation or is there anything else you want to add?
[5:27:01] Now I'm going to be repeating some of the questions you asked.
[5:27:04] So the reason that we are here today is we invested in this property about seven years ago, hoping to improve it.
[5:27:12] And as soon as we purchased, we saw a lot of problems were happening.
[5:27:14] It wasn't a safe place for people to shop and we attempted to make changes, but with
[5:27:21] Circle K not cooperating, we were not able to.
[5:27:24] So we did not renew their lease and we made the decision of operating it ourselves.
[5:27:29] And that's why we're here for the PCA.
[5:27:31] And if they would have sold the license to us, we wouldn't need to be here.
[5:27:34] And if we wouldn't, if we would have renewed their lease, we would be still stuck in
[5:27:39] the same place.
[5:27:41] The difference is between 2025 and 2026 there we have
[5:27:48] barely any response calls from the Sheriff's Department
[5:27:52] whereas there was hundreds in 2025.
[5:27:56] There's a question how long Circle K operated.
[5:27:59] They closed doors in the middle of January this year
[5:28:03] and we opened up February 1st.
[5:28:04] first.
[5:28:07] So tell me something, without the license 21, is your business sustainable? No, no it's
[5:28:19] not. With today's competitive, the simple fact is it's convenience. A person wants to get
[5:28:27] their gas, go inside, get their grocery or whatever they need, and get their beer, get
[5:28:32] their liquor and they want to go home. They don't want to go get gas one place
[5:28:36] then drive to another place to get something else and this is a freeway
[5:28:42] location it would be different. It's a neighborhood. Everybody in that
[5:28:46] neighborhood shops at our location and we want them to be able to get
[5:28:50] everything they need at one time rather than going multiple places. So just as
[5:28:56] a feedback I am not going to support staff's recommendation because I believe
[5:29:00] that you have been a very responsible business owner. I'm a very
[5:29:05] supportive of owner operated businesses because they are the best operated, you know, the best
[5:29:11] run businesses. And, you know, I encourage entrepreneurism and I encourage businesses
[5:29:17] and I understand it's really tough times right now. I don't believe Circle K will take that
[5:29:23] license and put it back in your senses. They'll probably take it elsewhere. But
[5:29:27] without knowing that, you know, it's really up in the air. But I believe we've had
[5:29:32] 21 licenses in the census keeping it that way I don't think it's going to be
[5:29:38] detrimental to the community. Supervisor Desmond. Thank you Madam Chair and
[5:29:46] appreciate your comments. I was waiting to tell you done I don't have any more
[5:29:52] questions for you. Thank you comments so a few things on this PCN you know we
[5:29:57] We have these discussions all the time.
[5:30:00] If you've seen one PCN request, you've seen one PCN request. They're all a little different
[5:30:05] or have a lot of nuances. Certainly appreciate staff's work on this, Irving, your presentation
[5:30:11] and Kimber and Todd and everything. We've had a lot of discussions about this one.
[5:30:16] What's unique about it to me is the fact that there is a license that's been surrendered
[5:30:20] that would have to go through a process if they wanted to put it back in this area,
[5:30:24] and that they're moving, this is not a net new license
[5:30:27] because of the right aid implications.
[5:30:30] The other thing that I think, you know,
[5:30:31] when we look at the map, it always strikes me,
[5:30:35] and because this came up in the context
[5:30:36] of another PCN discussion we had,
[5:30:38] maybe a couple years ago or so,
[5:30:39] where a lot of those establishments
[5:30:44] are outside unincorporated Sacramento County.
[5:30:46] You know, they're in a city
[5:30:47] where that city is generating tax revenue from those
[5:30:49] and so I feel like we are handicapping
[5:30:52] our own businesses from being able to take advantage of that in the unincorporated area.
[5:30:56] It's not a dispositive factor, but it is a factor for me when I look at this.
[5:31:00] The other factor is I know, I've talked to Mr. Singh, my staff has met with him, looked
[5:31:04] at his businesses.
[5:31:06] He's not an unknown new business operator in this community, and I think your responsible
[5:31:12] business owner, you're a known commodity, and I appreciate that and the investments
[5:31:15] you've already made in the property.
[5:31:17] But the other, I think the most important factor to me is, I think in our CPAC structure
[5:31:23] that we have here, this is the PCN process is a pretty intimate one.
[5:31:28] And I think there are times we need to be appropriately differential to the CPAC, and
[5:31:32] I know the members of the CPAC who approved this PCN, and I know their level of passion
[5:31:37] and involvement and engagement for the community, so I also want to support what they came
[5:31:42] up with.
[5:31:42] So with that, I'm prepared to make a motion to support the issuance of the PCN,
[5:31:47] But what I'd like incorporated into it you know Todd or bring the whomever
[5:31:51] I know it's not enforceable, but I would still like it recorded that it will be between the
[5:31:55] Midnight and sit no sales between midnight and 6 a.m. Wait, can I get clarification on your motion or you?
[5:32:04] So a staff recommended denial
[5:32:06] Correct correct. I'm recommending approval of the PCN. So not not taking staff's recommendation. Okay. All right
[5:32:13] Thank you a supervisor. You have a motion to second supervisor sir. No, thank you
[5:32:19] So I'm not going to support the motion.
[5:32:24] I'm going to support staff's recommendation,
[5:32:25] but I want to explain a little bit
[5:32:28] about why I hold that position.
[5:32:30] And it really has to do with two issues.
[5:32:36] One is, I think staff really did a...
[5:32:41] Well, did what we've told them to do
[5:32:44] based on our own policy in terms of PCN review.
[5:32:46] you. I really don't have any dispute with their analysis. The second is I just have a
[5:32:52] philosophical disagreement, especially when it comes to Type 21, when it comes to the
[5:32:58] sale, especially of spirits, at a gas station. It's difficult for me to reconcile philosophically
[5:33:06] again automobile uses that are blessed with the ability and interest to, at the same
[5:33:14] time sell hard alcohol, not just alcohol. And as I explained to staff during my briefing,
[5:33:22] that's really kind of a bit of a lingering influence from my late father who was not
[5:33:28] a drinker and he was very consistent in his position. Maybe Patrick remembers this in
[5:33:36] terms of him having a real problem with perhaps the most intense automobile use there
[5:33:43] is, which is refueling, literally occurring and having the authority to function that
[5:33:53] way at the same time providing alcohol to those drivers. It doesn't mean that every
[5:33:58] driver that's refueling is going to drink on-site or, you know, somehow act in some
[5:34:07] nefarious way on that property, but it just seems to conflict in a way I just cannot
[5:34:13] I'm not reconciled for myself, so it's really no disrespect to the business owner,
[5:34:18] certainly no disrespect to the supervisor in his district.
[5:34:21] This is being proposed, but it's for those reasons I'll be supporting staff's recommendation.
[5:34:30] All right, we have a motion and a second.
[5:34:34] Public comments.
[5:34:35] Yes.
[5:34:35] And we do have a speaker in chambers and anyone online that would like to address the
[5:34:41] supervisors on item 31 regarding the fuel up market letter of public convenience or
[5:34:46] necessity please raise your virtual hand first speaker Chris Evans please
[5:34:52] approach the lectern and you have two minutes to address the supervisors
[5:34:57] hi Chris hello good afternoon I'm here on behalf of the Antelope business
[5:35:02] community district and the vendors a good member of our existing community
[5:35:06] he runs the similar fuel up operation within the ABC district he's
[5:35:11] one of four properties that run that in our district.
[5:35:14] And I will say I checked as of this morning in six years
[5:35:17] we've had two calls for service to his property
[5:35:20] since we formed the P bid.
[5:35:22] Now I get two calls for service from some of the other
[5:35:24] properties, similar properties of his a month.
[5:35:27] So we have a well run property.
[5:35:29] We have a property owner who's involved in the district
[5:35:31] who's showing up at the board meetings,
[5:35:33] who's there working with the community,
[5:35:35] who's working within the district itself.
[5:35:37] And I think this is the type of business.
[5:35:39] And I agree with you, Supervisor Cernan, on the alcohol, I absolutely agree with you
[5:35:43] on the alcohol.
[5:35:43] You know what our program is?
[5:35:45] It's Sacramento Navigators and what we try to do.
[5:35:48] But I do think the one thing we do want is responsible business operators when they do
[5:35:52] have the license.
[5:35:54] And obviously, the Circle K wasn't a responsible business operator.
[5:35:57] They had a tremendous amount of problems.
[5:35:59] And the property owner stepped in and said, this isn't good for the community.
[5:36:02] And he did what he did in Antelope.
[5:36:04] He put a good business in there that's going to run a quality business for
[5:36:08] years to come. And I think we need more of that. Give or take the alcohol. Forget that.
[5:36:12] The business itself. We need good quality businesses there. And I do think there is
[5:36:16] a convenience to somebody stopping on their way home, going inside, getting some milk
[5:36:20] and some other things. And yeah, they may want to buy a bottle of tequila, but they're
[5:36:24] going to take it home and enjoy it. So I would just encourage you. I understand
[5:36:27] the concerns. I appreciate you guys. And in closing, I'm just going to say, Rich,
[5:36:31] we are so happy that you're back. And God's blessings on you. We're glad you're
[5:36:34] getting healthy again. Thank you very much.
[5:36:40] Any online speakers now is the time
[5:36:42] to raise your hand for item 31 fuel up market letter of public convenience or
[5:36:45] necessity. We have no online speakers. All right we have a motion in the second.
[5:36:55] This item passes three to one with the no coming from Supervisor Serna.
[5:37:02] All
[5:37:02] right very good congratulations and thank you for doing business in
[5:37:06] Sacramento County. We always appreciate good business owners. Thank you. Next
[5:37:11] item please. The next item on our agenda is number 32 the 2023 zoning code update
[5:37:18] a zoning ordinance amendment to extensively update chapters 1 through 7
[5:37:22] and title 4 of the Sacramento County zoning code. Hi Matthew. Hello. Okay can I
[5:37:29] get this lower please.
[5:37:35] Okay so good afternoon Chair Rodriguez members of
[5:37:42] the board my name is Matthew Jamama associate planner with planning and
[5:37:45] environmental review. I am the lead planner of this project. Here with me today is my supervisor,
[5:37:51] zoning administrator Wendy Hartman. I'm excited to have the honor of presenting this landmark
[5:37:56] zoning code update today.
[5:38:00] So it's clearly not 2023 anymore, but I promise that we haven't
[5:38:05] been dilly-dallying. This update encompasses 134 amendments which result in the most
[5:38:11] significant update to the zoning code since it was introduced in its current addition
[5:38:16] back in 2015. The updates before you hear today are a result of about a decade of
[5:38:23] feedback from numerous stakeholders including residents, developers, business
[5:38:27] owners, county staff and other persons involved in the planning process. What
[5:38:32] we're really targeting here are those common pain points where we've heard
[5:38:36] that doesn't make sense, that should really be fixed and that's outdated.
[5:38:41] We're also acting on your board's previous direction in the 2023
[5:38:45] development review process resolution to generally amend the zoning code to reduce hearing body levels
[5:38:51] and permit more approvals at the staff level.
[5:38:57] 134 updates is a lot, so we've created a matrix to
[5:39:00] provide a broad overview of all the changes in this update. The issue matrix is provided as
[5:39:05] attachment three in your packet. This matrix contains columns left to right, an identification
[5:39:11] number for each amendment which ranges from A1 through A134, the topic name, the
[5:39:17] type of fix involved, subjective degree of change rating which I'll go over in the
[5:39:22] next slide, a brief description of the issue and its proposed fix, and the
[5:39:26] affected communities and zones.
[5:39:32] Each amendment is categorized into a ranking
[5:39:34] or scale of one to five of a subjective degree of change which is based
[5:39:39] on several metrics including how often the affected section is used, the
[5:39:43] changes impact on the text, its impact on communities, and the difference from existing
[5:39:48] staff practices.
[5:39:51] Generally items rank one and two are minor clarifications, and those rank three to five
[5:39:56] are more policy changes.
[5:39:59] This update is constructed in a way where most changes are those at the lower end
[5:40:03] of the scale, resulting in more clarifications and more intense policy changes.
[5:40:10] The scale also comes into play with your report today, whereas most amendments
[5:40:13] ranked three and above are listed and described in further detail as a part of
[5:40:17] attachment four in your packet.
[5:40:22] So while I'd love to go into specific detail on
[5:40:25] these multitudes of updates and will you to sleep as I've done at some CPACs, I
[5:40:29] want to zoom out to focus on those who will be affected by these updates, which
[5:40:33] are the various stakeholders and customers of the county that work
[5:40:36] with the zoning code as listed on the screen.
[5:40:43] For our residents there are
[5:40:44] several quality of life changes that generally make it easier for
[5:40:48] individual homeowners to use and customize their property.
[5:40:51] The changes listed on the screen will likely be the most popular ones to impact our residential
[5:40:56] communities.
[5:40:57] Just to call out, too, the first bullet point under development standards, we're proposing
[5:41:02] an increased height allowance for residential accessory structures to go up to 24 feet
[5:41:07] in height with at least 10 feet side and rear yard setbacks, which matches popular
[5:41:12] demand for structures that houses RVs and boats on larger properties.
[5:41:18] Additionally, the first bullet point under youth standards, home occupations, which is
[5:41:23] a section that hasn't been comprehensively updated in decades.
[5:41:27] We're proposing to modify this to account for modern work from home and side hustle
[5:41:31] opportunities, including remote consulting, private vehicle share, and limited animal
[5:41:37] care services.
[5:41:38] For
[5:41:41] residential developers, there are not many changes in this specific update.
[5:41:46] There will be more substantive changes coming soon with the forthcoming housing
[5:41:50] and infill zoning code amendment package led by our infill coordinator Jesse Shen.
[5:41:55] However, in this update, the most substantive changes for residential developers
[5:41:59] would be a slight increase in the minimum driveway length to 22 feet from 19 or 20 feet
[5:42:04] to prevent cars from blocking driveways and residential subdivisions
[5:42:09] and also relax standards for talk under parking which enables more creative
[5:42:13] ways to develop housing projects especially on infill sites, small sites
[5:42:18] and sites with unusual lot shapes. On your screen is a recent approval of an
[5:42:23] infill apartment complex which uses talk under parking.
[5:42:30] For institutional uses
[5:42:31] there are some significant changes which support small businesses that
[5:42:35] provide educational and cultural amenities to our communities. Notably
[5:42:40] we are introducing a new training, tutoring, or testing center use classification which
[5:42:45] permits a wide variety of small educational uses with less than 25 students on site at
[5:42:51] any one time by right in our commercial zones.
[5:42:54] One moment, Matthew.
[5:42:55] Yes.
[5:42:55] Supervisor Serna.
[5:42:56] Thank you.
[5:42:57] Thanks, Matthew, for being here and presenting.
[5:43:01] Can you go back to the other slide?
[5:43:05] The driveway length issue.
[5:43:10] One of the concerns that I've had, that I've seen for myself in some cases, not necessarily
[5:43:20] Sacramento County, some other jurisdictions as well, is where you'd have a driveway that
[5:43:26] that is short enough where you have an occupant that has a long enough vehicle, that even
[5:43:34] if, let's say, the front or the rear bumper is almost at the garage door, it's still blocking
[5:43:42] a portion of the sidewalk. So you've got compromised sidewalk clearance, and therefore
[5:43:48] presumably an ADA issue, or at least maybe informally an access issue for someone
[5:43:54] when that is in a wheelchair.
[5:43:57] So did any of the reconsideration of driveway length,
[5:44:04] was any of that accounted for relative
[5:44:07] to kind of the concern I've just expressed
[5:44:10] in terms of blocking pedestrian access?
[5:44:14] Yes, so that's actually the primary reason
[5:44:16] why it's added, so the Department of Transportation,
[5:44:19] we work with them and they actually adopted
[5:44:22] the public right-of-way accessibility guidelines at a county level, I believe, for public projects.
[5:44:28] So we're trying to align that with our zoning code. So we worked with them and we took a look at
[5:44:33] they provide us with example pictures and scenarios of different properties where the
[5:44:40] length of the vehicle became an issue and obstructed the sidewalk. So we
[5:44:43] constructed and used 22 feet to try to reduce those potential conflicts.
[5:44:48] Did that include kind of, you know, taking a look at, you know, the average size of vehicles
[5:44:55] and kind of guesstimating at least, what kind of clear.
[5:45:00] Yes, so we have actually a diagram inside of the, inside of our packet where we took a
[5:45:07] look at I think it's a Ford 350. I'm going to say it must be a long bed, you know, three-quarter
[5:45:13] ton pickup. Yeah, let me see if I can get the measurement. I have the reference. It is
[5:45:22] on page 2-106 of which attachment was that, though?
[5:45:30] That's okay. I don't want to take too much time.
[5:45:32] I just wanted to understand and hopefully have affirmed that
[5:45:38] part of the consideration on driveway length was because of pedestrian access
[5:45:43] when it comes to kind of a perpendicular sidewalk or walkway.
[5:45:47] Yes, so I found actually the exhibit, it's on page four, attachment four, page 104.
[5:45:54] Basically looking at a standard Toyota Corolla is 15.19 feet, Ford F350 is at 20.83 feet.
[5:46:03] So as we get more popular SUVs, larger vehicles, that's what we're accounting for.
[5:46:08] And just as an aside too, I've actually brought this to the attention of our county
[5:46:13] I don't know, a while back, but just to my own neighborhood, you know, there are some
[5:46:20] take-home county vehicles, some of which are utility trucks on a F-250, 350 platform where
[5:46:30] it's getting awfully close to the bumper, you know, beginning to take up, you know,
[5:46:36] three to six inches of that sidewalk, but that's three to six inches.
[5:46:40] is that's very important for someone that is in a wheelchair.
[5:46:44] So I'm really pleased to hear that you've done,
[5:46:47] I think, a lot of due diligence in coming up
[5:46:50] with that driveway length.
[5:46:53] So thank you.
[5:46:54] Thank you.
[5:46:55] And there are questions.
[5:46:56] No other questions.
[5:46:57] OK.
[5:46:59] So I was on tutoring, training, or testing centers.
[5:47:02] So what we're proposing is a new classification,
[5:47:05] which allows for a wide variety of educational uses
[5:47:08] with at most 25 students on site at any one time by right in our commercial zones.
[5:47:15] So these types of uses would no longer need a use permit, and this enables small music
[5:47:19] production schools, beauty schools, culinary schools, CPR training academies, just for examples,
[5:47:26] to have lower barriers of entry inside of our existing commercial areas in the county.
[5:47:31] Additionally, updates are proposed to the Art Gallery and Art Studio use
[5:47:35] classifications to account for modern maker space and their associated tools, so that
[5:47:40] type of use.
[5:47:42] On the utilities side of institutional uses, we are proposing the codification of standards
[5:47:47] for utility scale, battery energy storage system, or BEST facilities, which complies
[5:47:53] with our Adopted Climate Action Plan goals, and also supports the SMUD 2030 Green Plan.
[5:48:03] So a large portion of these updates affect our commercial businesses.
[5:48:07] I split them into three slides, so I'll just discuss them each.
[5:48:11] Really at the high level, we are reforming and simplifying our use classifications to
[5:48:16] prevent confusion during the business license review process and during initial outreach
[5:48:21] when entrepreneurs are looking for reasonable assurance that they can not only start their
[5:48:26] business at a location, but can expand as their customer base grows.
[5:48:31] The most significant to that intent on this slide is our revised bucket use classifications.
[5:48:37] Bucket use classifications are our generic classifications that encompass a wide variety
[5:48:42] of businesses of a similar intensity in character.
[5:48:46] So for example, we have a general office uses use classification, and that includes
[5:48:50] bookkeepers, accountants, software engineering firms, doctor's offices, everything of
[5:48:54] that sort.
[5:48:55] support. These buckets help simplify our code in our major part of our day-to-day work.
[5:49:01] By revising them for consistency, clarity, and to provide a clearer separation between
[5:49:06] the buckets, we are encouraging more consistent implementation of our zoning code. Additionally,
[5:49:13] on this slide, I'd like to note that we are improving the standards for the accessory
[5:49:16] keeping of company vehicles, which is a common pain point with our code enforcement
[5:49:21] staff given how vague that section currently is.
[5:49:27] For our vehicle-based businesses such as auto repair
[5:49:30] shops, truck repair, truck storage, and boat storage, third-use classifications and use standards
[5:49:35] are being revised for more clarity, consistency, and to match actual operations. For drive-throughs
[5:49:42] as requested by our Department of Transportation, given safety concerns, minimum drive-through
[5:49:47] reservoir space is proposed to be increased and adjusted based on the type of business
[5:49:52] this activity occurring. The ability to request shorter queue lengths is also on
[5:49:58] the table subject to providing adequate justification to the satisfaction of the
[5:50:02] Department of Transportation. I'd also like to highlight on this slide that we
[5:50:06] are proposing a reduction in the hearing body level for tattoo shops which
[5:50:10] is being aligned to refer to as body art facilities which aligns with the
[5:50:14] State Body Art Act. Additionally we are proposing to permit arcades by
[5:50:19] right ending over four decades of unusually strict regulations in our jurisdiction.
[5:50:27] Finally, a major component for commercial items in this update is the rewrite of the
[5:50:32] temporary uses section.
[5:50:34] This section is getting significant overhaul with more intuitive navigation, revised
[5:50:38] standards and improved allowances.
[5:50:41] Notably standards for temporary concessions on private property are being updated to
[5:50:45] better address food vendors on private property.
[5:50:49] an additional allowance we are proposing is that for large shopping
[5:50:52] centers which are at least 15 acres in size such at such centers are permitted
[5:50:57] to hold events such as carnivals or pop-up markets for up to 30 days per year
[5:51:02] this is an increase from the current 10 days per year this allowance is
[5:51:07] intended to provide more vibrancy to large commercial shopping centers which
[5:51:11] may have underutilized parking lots like floor and town center which is
[5:51:15] shown on the screen.
[5:51:20] For our industrial businesses, we
[5:51:22] have several miscellaneous improvements
[5:51:24] that are hard to easily categorize,
[5:51:26] however, I'd like to highlight two changes.
[5:51:29] First, the introduction of the hazardous material storage
[5:51:33] and distribution use classification.
[5:51:36] Currently, for businesses that store
[5:51:38] significant amounts of hazardous materials,
[5:51:40] they can either be classified as warehousing, which
[5:51:43] has really relaxed regulations
[5:51:45] locally, relatively, and hazardous waste transfer facility which has very strict
[5:51:51] regulatory and permitting requirements. The hazardous material storage and
[5:51:55] distribution use classification, which was written with review with our
[5:51:59] Environmental Management Department, is intended to bridge the gap between those
[5:52:03] two classifications. This intermediate classification provides for a
[5:52:08] regulatory path that encourages appropriate buffering for such
[5:52:11] potentially dangerous uses like propane storage and fertilizer storage from
[5:52:16] sensitive receptors like residential areas and schools. Additionally on a
[5:52:21] lighter note and a quality of life improvement for those who work in
[5:52:24] industrial zones we are proposing to reduce the use permit level for
[5:52:27] restaurants in industrial zones. This will hopefully provide more convenient
[5:52:31] places for workers in those zones to have a treat during a break or have a
[5:52:35] meal during lunch.
[5:52:41] For agricultural and Delta communities again there's a
[5:52:44] Samarkas Board of Changes, but the most significant one here, in my opinion, would be the second
[5:52:49] bullet point.
[5:52:51] Currently our zoning code does not have provisions that allow for commercial scale agricultural
[5:52:55] operations to have commercial vehicles on site.
[5:52:59] For example, there's a lot of pair farms out there you'd probably expect them to
[5:53:03] have large trucks for hauling pairs.
[5:53:05] As written, our code would currently mandate a use permit for accessory storage of commercial
[5:53:11] vehicles.
[5:53:11] With input from our Delta Citizens Municipal Advisory Council and the Southeast Area CPAC,
[5:53:18] we are proposing to permit storage of multiple commercial vehicles on farms that are at
[5:53:23] least 20 acres in size.
[5:53:25] Additionally, if a parcel was in a Williamson Act contract, it would be eligible for this
[5:53:30] new allowance.
[5:53:33] For planning environmental review staff ourselves and other county departments, there's a lot
[5:53:38] of amendments in here which improve the big picture structure and framework of our
[5:53:42] zoning code.
[5:53:43] these changes in turn make it easier for us as county staff to do our job so we
[5:53:48] can better help customers and prevent time from being wasted on looking for
[5:53:52] the person who remembers a thing, searching for emails and memos written
[5:53:56] long ago and trying to remember what we did last time. In ensuring that this
[5:54:00] works for all planning staff implementation wise I also be remiss
[5:54:04] not to mention the dozens of hours of work done by dozens of planning
[5:54:08] staff past and present in preparing this package you are listed in the
[5:54:11] planning commission staff report, including my predecessor in managing this package, Lauren
[5:54:16] Haas.
[5:54:18] Some amendments to help county staff I would like to highlight include the dramatic reduction
[5:54:22] in Title IV, which is our interim zones chapter, which the board directed us to eliminate
[5:54:26] in the late 70s.
[5:54:29] It's not completely gone, but we're about halfway there now.
[5:54:33] The third sub bullet, which notes the detailed codification of common procedures which
[5:54:39] and gets everyone on the same page from minor amendments and administrative determinations.
[5:54:45] I'd also like to note improved consistency and terminology with other departments.
[5:54:50] So with this update, as I mentioned, we worked with Department of Transportation,
[5:54:53] Environmental Management, various other divisions and teams,
[5:54:57] and we were really cognizant in trying to make sure that while we can't always bridge the gap
[5:55:02] between what planning calls something and what another department may call something,
[5:55:06] we were cognizant in trying to reduce confusion in that terminology. Finally,
[5:55:12] I'd like to note the express processing of state mandates which bypasses CPAC
[5:55:16] presentations for text amendments to the code to comply with federal law
[5:55:21] changes, state law changes, and other specified legal events. This change is
[5:55:26] intended to allow the county to expediently comply with frequently
[5:55:29] changing state law and new mandates. CPACs will still be notified of the
[5:55:34] planning commission hearing which allows for them to review potential changes and provide
[5:55:38] comment prior to and not such planning commission hearing.
[5:55:45] Finally before we conclude I'd like to point out a part of the ordinance here before you
[5:55:49] today which directs staff to quote, make all necessary administrative changes to any section
[5:55:55] of the development code to comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
[5:56:00] As the board is likely well aware, government agencies are under a deadline to make documents
[5:56:05] posted online accessible pursuant to ADA. That deadline was initially this April, but
[5:56:11] it was moved to next April. If you've read our zoning code recently, you'll see it's
[5:56:15] on our new land use regulation library instead of being served as a PDF document. The land
[5:56:20] use regulation library, which I am also project manager of, provides our regulations
[5:56:24] in a much more accessible format with some cool extra features. The proposed language
[5:56:29] and the ordinance empower staff to officially make formatting and other administrative
[5:56:33] changes to documents that make the library's new format the official format for our ordinances.
[5:56:41] On outreach for this update we completed 17 workshops throughout March and April including
[5:56:47] 15 workshops at local CPACs and two countywide workshops held here in the board chambers.
[5:56:54] We also sent out notice of this update through our broad development code distribution list
[5:56:58] which has over 10,000 subscribers. After initial planning commission workshop in April to explain
[5:57:05] the proposed amendments in further detail, on June 8, 2026, the Planning Commission voted
[5:57:10] to recommend the Board of Supervisors approve the requested entitlements.
[5:57:15] With all that said, planning and environmental review staff and the Planning Commission recommend
[5:57:20] that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions.
[5:57:24] Determine that the notice of exemption is adequate and complete.
[5:57:27] Adopt the ordinance amending chapters one through seven and Title IV of the Sacramento
[5:57:32] zoning code, adopt the resolution amending the planning and environmental review fee schedule
[5:57:37] to establish the major temporary use permit or MTZ application fee at $725 and remove an
[5:57:44] obsolete application fee, direct staff to make administrative amendments to the development
[5:57:49] code to improve compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
[5:57:53] and direct staff to make administrative amendments to county processes and applications,
[5:57:57] including but not limited to the zoning code user guide.
[5:58:00] And with that, that's the end of my presentation.
[5:58:03] I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[5:58:06] Supervisor Desmond.
[5:58:07] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[5:58:08] Thank you, Matthew.
[5:58:08] I'm going to step in the back in a moment
[5:58:10] to stretch out my arm,
[5:58:11] but I want to try to get a few laughs first
[5:58:13] because that's a good tonic for the pain that I'm in.
[5:58:16] But I will say I'll pass along to Sandy Smolley
[5:58:20] that her motion from 1977, we're finally at that.
[5:58:23] So I'll call her and let her know.
[5:58:25] But I appreciate this effort.
[5:58:27] I know it's been a monumental effort even to get us where we are here today.
[5:58:32] So I appreciate it.
[5:58:33] There's, I know there's going to be a lot of discussion about this, but I just want
[5:58:37] to make these remarks at least initially.
[5:58:40] And I appreciate the amount of outreach that you've done and the amount of kind of individual
[5:58:46] outreach that you're willing to do.
[5:58:48] Todd and I recently talked about meeting with some folks in Arden Arcade because you
[5:58:53] used the word smorgasbord.
[5:58:54] and I think that's how the county planning has, like it or not, that's how it's been for a long time.
[5:59:01] There's been a lot of inconsistency, a lot of fragmentation, so I appreciate what you're doing here.
[5:59:07] And there are some things I may not agree 100%, but I think it's a dramatic improvement of where we are
[5:59:12] and I think the level of consistency that it injects will help us be a better place to do business
[5:59:18] everywhere in unincorporated Sacramento County, which is what we have really been striving for.
[5:59:23] So I just want to say that initially with some initial comments. Thank you.
[5:59:27] Supervisor Kennedy. Thank you. Not a lot of questions. Same as
[5:59:32] Supervisor Desmond as far as, you know, thank you so much for listening to the public, listening
[5:59:37] to applicants, listening to us, and recognizing how important it is to take a look at with
[5:59:42] a fine tooth comb and look for obsolescence where it's just stopping good projects like
[5:59:48] I've had good projects, particularly down in Stockton Boulevard that, you know,
[5:59:51] eventually met their demise because of plans that just didn't make any sense anymore.
[5:59:56] Remember, having many of those conversations with the 8th...
[6:00:00] And it, you know, this is going to go a long way toward giving us tools that we no longer
[6:00:07] had to build quality development that is relevant to today, that the tools have been taken away
[6:00:14] for redevelopment in so many other areas, it became so difficult to incentivize and make
[6:00:21] and help developers come up with projects that are good for the community. This does
[6:00:25] that. So I thank you, you know, great work. I enjoyed the presentation. You dilly-dallyed
[6:00:32] a little bit. But the fact that I now know what an adult hog is is incredibly important
[6:00:38] to my constituents. So thank you very much.
[6:00:44] All right. Well, that is it. Are there any requests to speak on this item?
[6:00:49] Yes. We do have one in-person speaker. Thank you, Matthew.
[6:00:52] Thank you, supervisors. Any person on Zoom who would like to speak on this item, which
[6:00:57] is 32, the 2023 zoning code update. Now is the time to raise your virtual hand. Our
[6:01:02] first in-person speaker is Bob Benz. Please approach the lectern.
[6:01:09] Thank you for this opportunity. I'm a local boat dealer. I own superior boat repair
[6:01:14] and sales. And so I'm obviously a strong supporter of this amendment that would allow
[6:01:21] licensed boat dealers to operate in a permitted use of M1 and M2 industrial zoning districts
[6:01:28] without requiring a conditional use permit. I have firsthand experience on that. I just
[6:01:36] recently purchased a property adjacent to mine and was starting that process. Both dealers
[6:01:43] are low impact businesses. They generate, you know, minimal traffic compared to many other
[6:01:49] commercial and industrial uses.
[6:01:54] We operate primarily during normal business hours and we're a natural fit for an industrial
[6:02:01] area where large buildings are available, outdoor storage and service facilities are
[6:02:05] available and transportation access already exists.
[6:02:10] So allowing boat dealerships as a permitted use would encourage business investment in
[6:02:16] economic growth, create and retain quality local jobs, help increase tax revenue through
[6:02:24] business expansion and property improvements. I have Dave Morton here who's with Massey
[6:02:30] and Company who's been remodeling the property that I just purchased. It was a property
[6:02:36] that was a true eye store along Highway 50 and Sunrise. We've turned it into a beautiful
[6:02:41] facility. And so it was unsafe and now it's a safe property to operate out of. So I'm
[6:02:51] the perfect example of, you know, investing in Sacramento County. I've been operating
[6:02:57] boat dealerships for almost 40 years in the county and one of the major hangups is
[6:03:04] the CUP process so I hope that this passes and it'll allow boat dealers like
[6:03:12] myself to operate in M1 and M2 zones without having to go through that
[6:03:16] process. Thank you. Thank you Bob. Our next speaker is via zoom and that is
[6:03:23] Murray Bartowski. Murray please unmute yourself and you have two minutes to
[6:03:27] address the supervisors.
[6:03:32] Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board.
[6:03:34] My name is Marie Barkowski and I'm a Sacramento County resident and property owner.
[6:03:39] I'm asking for one very narrow action today. Please sever A118, the FEN standards amendment
[6:03:46] from the larger zoning update and return it for further public review.
[6:03:51] I'm not asking you to stop the other 133 amendments. My concern is the public process
[6:03:57] surrounding A118. I have provided the board with supporting documentation
[6:04:02] and time stamps from the county's own recorded CPAC meetings.
[6:04:07] At the Carmichael CPAC meeting,
[6:04:09] staff told the community that A118
[6:04:11] made only two changes,
[6:04:13] lowering the decision-making body and lowering the cost.
[6:04:17] But there is another very important change.
[6:04:20] A118 eliminates the existing preponderance criteria
[6:04:24] needed to determine whether these taller fences
[6:04:27] are consistent with what predominate
[6:04:30] in the surrounding neighborhood.
[6:04:31] This was not a minor administrative detail.
[6:04:34] For neighborhoods like mine, that finding is an important protection of established open space neighborhood character, the enjoyment of neighboring properties and potentially property values.
[6:04:45] I also asked the board to look carefully at the two reasons presented for this amendment.
[6:04:51] First, the planning director is already the decision maker under the existing minor use permit process.
[6:04:57] list. Second, residents already have access to an approximately $1,400 minor use permit
[6:05:04] process for these fence deviations. They are not necessarily required to pursue a roughly
[6:05:11] 9,500 variance simply to make this kind of request. Now that these discrepancies have
[6:05:17] been specifically brought to the Board's attention before our final action, I respectfully
[6:05:22] ask a cautious and transparent approach to be done. Please sever A118 from today's package,
[6:05:30] allowing the remaining amendments to proceed and send A118 back for accurate public disclosure
[6:05:35] and review. That protects the public process, affected neighborhoods, and the integrity of
[6:05:41] this board's decision. Please wrap it up, Marie.
[6:05:47] And we have no additional speakers online.
[6:05:50] Did she get cut off?
[6:05:55] Okay, so we have, all
[6:06:00] right, we'll entertain a motion.
[6:06:04] Move staff recommendation.
[6:06:07] Okay, we have a motion on the second.
[6:06:10] Please vote.
[6:06:14] That motion passes 4-0 with Supervisor Hume absent.
[6:06:18] Thank you, Matthew, for the presentation.
[6:06:20] Great job.
[6:06:24] All right, next item, please.
[6:06:25] The next item on our agenda is number 33.
[6:06:28] This is the overview of Sacramento County Code Enforcement Operations Acceptance.
[6:06:32] continued from July 14th where it was item 68.
[6:06:35] And
[6:06:54] I do not have my mic on.
[6:06:56] Thank you.
[6:06:57] This was like Zoom revisited.
[6:07:01] I'm here to introduce item 33 on the agenda.
[6:07:05] Sacramento County appointed Mike Sanchez as the Chief of Code Enforcement last year.
[6:07:11] During his transition, Mike and his team have had the opportunity to review and analyze code programs
[6:07:16] and to adjust these programs to meet the county and community needs. Today, Mike will give an
[6:07:21] overview of the current code enforcement activities and seek your input on two topics regarding
[6:07:26] vacant properties and un-maintained or dilapidated buildings. With that, I'd like to introduce Mike
[6:07:31] and hit for his presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair,
[6:07:38] members of the board. Hi, Mike. Mike Sanchez with Sat County Code Enforcement.
[6:07:41] I'd like to apologize in advance.
[6:07:43] I don't have as many cool words as Matthew, so I'll work on that for next time.
[6:07:48] But I can assure you we're not dilly-dallying either.
[6:07:51] You have to incorporate the two words adult hog into your presentation.
[6:07:58] I'll work on that one.
[6:08:02] So I meet with you today as my Director Troy Givens mentioned for a couple of reasons.
[6:08:06] First, to provide an overview of Sacramento County Cove Enforcement,
[6:08:09] enforcement, how we're structured, our programs, what we enforce, and just a general breakdown
[6:08:13] of the division. And then second, we will get into topics regarding vacant, blighted
[6:08:17] buildings. I'll do my best to work, move along as quickly as possible, but there's a lot
[6:08:23] of detailed information, so please interrupt me if you have questions or comments.
[6:08:27] We're good at that.
[6:08:32] So the first slide, I put some numbers that I think really stand out. On the left,
[6:08:36] Sacramento County as a whole is the eighth largest county in California by population.
[6:08:40] It is also the 43rd largest county by area.
[6:08:44] I think this shows how densely populated the county is.
[6:08:47] Underneath those numbers, the population and square miles of unincorporated Sacramento County.
[6:08:52] On the right, I have some statistics of unincorporated Sacramento County from a code enforcement perspective.
[6:08:58] There are almost 186,000 parcels in unincorporated Sacramento County, and we have about 90,000 registered rental units.
[6:09:06] I'll break these numbers down a little bit further throughout my presentation.
[6:09:08] So
[6:09:13] this is a little bit about what we do, mainly on property enforcement of the Sacramento
[6:09:18] County zoning code and select sections of the nuisance code.
[6:09:21] We have a rental housing and housing enforcement of select sections of the health and safety
[6:09:25] code, and then some additional programs and functions in partnership with other agencies
[6:09:29] within Sacramento County.
[6:09:35] This is a breakdown of our staffing.
[6:09:37] Code enforcement has 43 total officers, which includes management, as well as 15 administrative
[6:09:42] staff and I've broken down each of the teams that we have separated into
[6:09:46] zoning, housing, and a special investigations team.
[6:09:54] Slide five dives
[6:09:55] into our zoning team. The zoning team counts for about half of our division.
[6:09:59] Everything listed here is a separate program that officers are required to
[6:10:02] know and enforce. As you may be able to see some programs have little letters
[6:10:06] and asterisks next to them, AH stands for after-hours programs which at
[6:10:16] of MA, which is a multi-agency program in which we are required to work with
[6:10:19] different agencies within Sacramento County. And then the asterisks are next
[6:10:24] to programs that we have added to the division without any additional funding
[6:10:28] or staffing. So there's a lot of stuff going on with our zoning team.
[6:10:35] Now I
[6:10:35] break down the housing team. The housing team program always, I'm sorry,
[6:10:39] also consists of slightly less than half of our division. All of the listed
[6:10:44] programs, the housing team is responsible for knowing and enforcing
[6:10:46] as well. And again, I break it down with after hours programs, multi-agency programs
[6:10:51] and additional programs. I'd like to take a second to focus on the SB 721 balcony reports
[6:10:57] as that is a state mandated law. And we are required, every multi-family agency is required
[6:11:04] to have a third party contractor inspect the balconies of their property and submit
[6:11:08] a report. We gather all of those reports and then work with the building inspections
[6:11:12] inspections unit to provide permits and make sure that any repairs or stuff needs to be
[6:11:19] completed. AB 130 is also a new state mandated law in which there are required inspections
[6:11:26] yearly of all of the homeless shelters. We're currently working with other jurisdictions
[6:11:30] and agencies within Sacramento County to ensure that those shelters are inspected
[6:11:35] routinely as well as any complaints that come in the jurisdiction is required to
[6:11:39] respond.
[6:11:44] Supervisor Kennedy.
[6:11:45] Thank you.
[6:11:46] Going back to the last slide, those last two bullets where you have the legislation,
[6:11:51] the balcony and the homeless shelters.
[6:11:53] I take it that, you know, we focus on the unincorporate areas,
[6:11:57] but those laws are also applicable in the incorporated areas where other agencies
[6:12:02] in the incorporated areas take the lead, correct?
[6:12:05] To some extent, yes.
[6:12:06] So if the population is less than 90,000,
[6:12:10] the local jurisdiction is not required to conduct the yearly inspections so for
[6:12:16] example there are certain jurisdictions that we're working with to potentially go
[6:12:19] outside of our jurisdiction of unincorporated and conduct those
[6:12:22] inspections in those jurisdictions. That makes sense I'm glad I asked the
[6:12:26] question I had no idea I mean a balcony in a smaller jurisdictions no less
[6:12:31] dangerous one than a larger one so okay thank you.
[6:12:38] Just gonna just make a
[6:12:39] comment several years ago. I want to say maybe like 10, 12 years ago. I never forgot this.
[6:12:47] In Berkeley, there was a bunch of people on a balcony that balcony fell and it killed
[6:12:55] some people. But at that time, I just remember thinking, how did it get so far that they
[6:13:01] didn't know that the wood was decaying or I don't know what the terminology is
[6:13:06] by that. And people ended up dying. So I just remember the seriousness of making sure that
[6:13:12] balconies get inspected.
[6:13:13] Yeah. And I think that's somewhat what triggered these laws that go into effect.
[6:13:19] So slide seven, this is our special investigations team. They are responsible for illegal dumping
[6:13:24] investigations, commercial waste enforcement, edible food recovery, and illegal haulers.
[6:13:29] And this team is partially funded by the Department of Waste Management. We have
[6:13:32] a good partnership with them.
[6:13:36] And now I'll go a little more in depth into our
[6:13:37] zoning enforcement.
[6:13:42] So again some statistics about the zoning team. So each zoning officer
[6:13:47] is required to cover about 51 square miles, about 40,000 constituents, and about 12,400
[6:13:53] parcels. So you can kind of see the magnitude of how much we need to enforce and how many
[6:13:58] people we work with almost on a daily basis. One thing to note is that constituents
[6:14:04] of constituents per zoning officer, 40,183.
[6:14:07] That's a pretty high number.
[6:14:10] We've issued a poll amongst 20 other jurisdictions
[6:14:14] within California, local as well.
[6:14:16] Out of the 20, we are third to last.
[6:14:19] So we have the third highest number
[6:14:20] of constituents per zoning officer.
[6:14:23] The top two are from much smaller jurisdictions.
[6:14:26] Number one is Sutter County.
[6:14:28] They have about 97,000 and they have two officers.
[6:14:31] officers, and then Amador is about 42,000 population, and they have one officer.
[6:14:36] So there's a lot of, you know, communication that we rely on with the public.
[6:14:44] Also a local, I'm sorry, not a local, but a study was completed amongst code enforcement.
[6:14:49] In order for there to be efficient code enforcement enforcement, they came up with
[6:14:55] the number of about 10,000 cons...
[6:15:00] All of these situations per officer in order for us to have an impact on the areas around
[6:15:04] us. So I thought that information was interesting and wanted to share it.
[6:15:15] Here we break down again
[6:15:16] zoning enforcement and the investigations, all of the different codes and violations
[6:15:21] that we enforce. One thing to note as well, excuse me, is the
[6:15:28] weed abatement. So every year between May and August is fire season. And we work
[6:15:33] with sac metro fire to enforce overgrown, dry, dead vegetation.
[6:15:37] So once fire season is declared, any property that has the overgrown dead vegetation is
[6:15:43] referred to us, Code Enforcement, and we go out there, conduct inspections, reach out
[6:15:47] to property owners, and at times conduct abatements of those weeds to ensure that fires
[6:15:53] do not start and spread across Sacramento County.
[6:15:56] Again, that is something that we've taken on to help our partners and it is a very
[6:16:00] busy time for us between May and oh thank you. Does the county use the cute little goats?
[6:16:10] Yes, so we do work with companies that use those. I heard recently that there was some
[6:16:16] law going into effect that may make that more difficult, but I haven't gotten as far
[6:16:21] as to see how that will affect us in the future. But yes, we have worked with plenty
[6:16:24] of companies that use the goats.
[6:16:32] Part of our zoning team consists of nuisance
[6:16:35] abatements. So Sacramento County Code allows code enforcement the ability to abate certain
[6:16:40] nuisance violations through Article 9 summary abatement, Sacramento County Code 1618. Items
[6:16:48] that we abate generally consist of junk and rubbish, vehicles and cargo containers as
[6:16:53] well as overgrown dried vegetation. Also, if there is a vacant parcel that is constantly
[6:16:59] being dumped on, people are breaking into it. At times we will fence the property as
[6:17:05] a measure to try to help ease some of those violations.
[6:17:17] Slide 12 is the nuisance abatement process. So something to note is that this process
[6:17:21] does take time due to due process. So first, we must conduct multiple inspections of
[6:17:26] the property and ensure that violations remain. If a violation goes away and comes
[6:17:30] back, that process essentially starts all over again. Once the property is inspected,
[6:17:35] we posted with a notice and order for a nuisance hearing.
[6:17:39] That nuisance hearing is usually about a couple months out
[6:17:41] due to the timeframe and due process
[6:17:43] of notifying the property owner.
[6:17:45] After that nuisance hearing occurs,
[6:17:47] there's another wait for the nuisance hearing officer
[6:17:49] to make their decision.
[6:17:51] Once the decision is made,
[6:17:53] assuming they find in our favor,
[6:17:55] we then contract contractors to conduct the work
[6:17:59] on the abatement,
[6:18:01] and then we conduct the abatement at the very end.
[6:18:03] Again, this takes a lot of time, a lot of scheduling with the contractors.
[6:18:08] Something we've been struggling with a bit is getting contractors out there in a timely
[6:18:11] manner.
[6:18:12] Again, during weed abatement season, there's a handful of contractors that conduct all
[6:18:16] of the weed abatement, and it takes a long time for them to schedule with us.
[6:18:20] Do you then charge the property owner for all the work that you do?
[6:18:23] Yes.
[6:18:24] It is all cost recovery.
[6:18:25] It goes to the property.
[6:18:29] Supervisor Kennedy.
[6:18:31] Since you brought up the whole thing of contrary, do we have a maintain a list
[6:18:36] of qualified content that we pre-qualified so that we could cut down that process?
[6:18:40] Yes. So we have people that qualify. If there are certain jobs that need to be done and
[6:18:47] the contractors for some reason can't complete those jobs, we can go outside of those contracts
[6:18:52] to search for additional contractors. But we have a list that is on contract with
[6:18:55] us that we work with them through.
[6:18:58] Just plain devil's advocate, it takes a long time to get them out there because
[6:19:03] there's a limited number, should we expand the list?
[6:19:06] So we try.
[6:19:07] It's all about who can afford the insurance for part of the contract.
[6:19:12] And then, again, just the timeframe.
[6:19:14] We do look into that quite a bit and work on that.
[6:19:18] Thank you.
[6:19:19] And if I may, Mike, can you go back to that slide?
[6:19:23] I know there may be a delay on the back end based on the issue we just discussed,
[6:19:28] but that front end takes a lot of time as well.
[6:19:30] And I've talked to constituents probably from every one of your districts about frustrations
[6:19:35] they see with the property next to them and why is it taking so long to get rid of this
[6:19:40] junk and rubbish, right?
[6:19:41] And it's not because we're failing to act or dilly-dallying as Mike had mentioned before.
[6:19:47] It's because of that due process and the required legal steps we're obligated to
[6:19:51] take to get to that final conclusion.
[6:19:53] So I don't know, Mike, if you could provide any sort of frame of reference as to how
[6:19:57] how long it may take between the front of that process and when we get to our discussions
[6:20:02] with the contractor, let alone abatement?
[6:20:04] Yeah.
[6:20:04] I mean, to be honest, if everything goes in a perfect world, I would say about six months,
[6:20:09] that is conducting an inspection every month, that is waiting for the hearing to occur,
[6:20:13] the posting of the hearing, you know, the decision, finding contractors, scheduling
[6:20:17] with the contractors, and that also doesn't take into account, you know, I've noticed,
[6:20:21] written up there a warrant.
[6:20:23] So if certain properties don't allow us onto their property, we have to go through
[6:20:26] illegal avenue of obtaining a warrant, attempting an inspection with a warrant.
[6:20:32] If that doesn't go through, we've got to go back to the courts to get a forcible warrant.
[6:20:36] So there's a lot of hurdles in our path of going down this abatement process.
[6:20:41] That is just crazy.
[6:20:43] Six months.
[6:20:43] Supervisor Kennedy.
[6:20:45] Thank you.
[6:20:46] Yeah, I mean, I completely understand.
[6:20:48] I mean, everybody needs their due process, and we don't need to get sued because
[6:20:52] because we overlooked a step and I get all that and please don't take this as me trying
[6:20:57] to tell you from up here how to do your work, you know better than I.
[6:21:02] But I've got to ask a question, have we gone out and looked at other jurisdictions to get
[6:21:09] best practices as are there other jurisdictions maybe doing it differently, which leads to
[6:21:14] a better outcome?
[6:21:15] I mean, six months, I get it, six months go pretty quick when you're doing the due
[6:21:19] process stuff.
[6:21:20] But if you're living next door, it doesn't seem like it's the, you know, quit.
[6:21:25] So are we looking at, you know, maximizing our efforts by looking at what others are doing
[6:21:29] and maybe absolutely.
[6:21:31] So I've started a lot of those conversations since I've come on as chief talking to the
[6:21:34] city, Rancho, El Grove, just to see how everyone else does things and how quickly
[6:21:39] that process works.
[6:21:40] Another difficulty is just the overall authority between jurisdictions.
[6:21:45] Every jurisdiction with code enforcement is different.
[6:21:47] I have not been able to find two that have been exactly the same, so yeah, that's County world. Yeah, so it's it's a little difficult
[6:21:53] But we do check everything that we can do and talk with other jurisdictions to figure out how to make our process is better
[6:21:58] Thank you.
[6:22:03] We've also said something. I just popped into my mind. We've been working on settlement and abatement agreements
[6:22:07] So this is something that we're trying to utilize a little bit more
[6:22:10] To work with the property owner and hopefully avoid the nuisance hearing
[6:22:14] It's basically a contract between us and the property owner
[6:22:17] we give them a time frame of hey you're going to work towards compliance if you don't make it
[6:22:21] then we can conduct that abatement in somewhat of a quicker avenue so we've been trying that a
[6:22:26] little bit more and of course that takes property owner compliance as well.
[6:22:35] So now I'll go into
[6:22:36] housing so again a quick little fact we have about 18,000 rental units per housing officer
[6:22:44] for inspections that number is pretty high inspections and audits are conducted routinely
[6:22:50] and timely multi-family rental housing inspection program cases remain open monthly and yearly
[6:22:55] inspections depending on the violations that are present. Housing complaints must be responded
[6:23:00] to within 15 days as mandated by state law. So that puts a lot of pressure on us to get
[6:23:04] out there very quickly and respond to a lot of these violations. And then surfacing sewage
[6:23:08] complaints that is an on-call 24-7 program. So if they're surfacing sewage from a
[6:23:14] residential or multi-family property, we are required to go out there and solve it,
[6:23:18] work with the property owner, find the sewer district to clean it up and make sure that it's stopped.
[6:23:23] On the priority level, where is a call, when a call comes in related to housing enforcement,
[6:23:32] say the water is not working or the heat or something, but does that go to the very top
[6:23:38] as a priority? So it does. I think my next slide actually will jump into a couple slides
[6:23:43] Thanks for now.
[6:23:44] Adjusting to priorities.
[6:23:45] Okay, perfect.
[6:23:45] Supervisor Dozen.
[6:23:46] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[6:23:48] And I'll have a few additional questions at the end, Mike, but since you're on this,
[6:23:51] you talked about this a little bit for your zoning enforcement and the number of officers
[6:23:55] you have per constituents, and we are actually, we lag behind everybody.
[6:24:00] Was that statewide that they're the, were the third worst or just in the region?
[6:24:04] It was statewide, yeah.
[6:24:04] You talked about, oh, really, okay.
[6:24:06] Jurisdiction is statewide.
[6:24:06] It wasn't every single jurisdiction, just 20 of them, but it was all up and
[6:24:09] down the state.
[6:24:10] And how about on this housing enforcement?
[6:24:11] and how do we stack up in terms of the number
[6:24:14] of officers per rental units?
[6:24:17] So that is a little more of a difficult number to get.
[6:24:20] Not every jurisdiction is required to have a housing program.
[6:24:23] They are just required to respond to housing complaints.
[6:24:25] So Sacramento County is one of the biggest housing programs
[6:24:28] in the state, so it's hard to kind of get
[6:24:30] numbers of that status.
[6:24:32] But if I can find something,
[6:24:34] I'll absolutely leave it back to you.
[6:24:39] So here's a little history about our housing program
[6:24:42] in 1993, the Sacramento Housing Code was enacted
[6:24:44] As mandated per state law and then in 2008 Sacramento County adopted the rental housing ordinance
[6:24:57] So this slide shows a list of the programs within each team
[6:25:00] Our housing team is kind of split up into two our rental housing program which conducts the annual
[6:25:05] repetitive
[6:25:06] inspections of multifamily and rental units and then the substandard housing which responds to the priorities and any complaints that come in for a
[6:25:13] rental property
[6:25:19] All rental properties are required to register and pay a registration fee
[6:25:23] routine inspections are conducted on a five-year basis. Obviously violations and
[6:25:27] audits have a much shorter timeline. Properties can self-certify and conduct
[6:25:31] their own inspections and then problem properties take priority and are
[6:25:35] inspected on a yearly basis. And again, complaints are required to be
[6:25:39] inspected within 15 days from issuance. And Mike, just real quick,
[6:25:43] Reynolds just multi-family or apart. I'm sorry? For properties that are
[6:25:49] inspected, all rental properties, no that page, the one you were just at, are required
[6:25:54] to register.
[6:25:55] This is not like somebody who's running out their home.
[6:25:57] These are...
[6:25:58] No, yeah.
[6:25:59] Every rental.
[6:26:00] Every rental property.
[6:26:01] If you rent out a home or, you know, multi-family, you're required to register.
[6:26:04] Do people actually register rentals, or is...
[6:26:09] Yeah.
[6:26:10] So we get a pretty decent number, however, there are properties out there that we're
[6:26:13] not aware of.
[6:26:14] I believe the 90,000 units.
[6:26:16] we estimate there's upwards of 120,000 that are total so about 30,000 are
[6:26:22] unregistered and we do our best to find them and make sure that they're aware of
[6:26:25] this law and ordinance and register with us. What is the registration fee? So we're
[6:26:31] going through a fee study it was previously $16 however we are assuming
[6:26:35] that number is going to go up. Thank you.
[6:26:43] And here we are with the housing
[6:26:45] priorities. So priorities for housing are generally inspected within 24
[6:26:49] hours. They take precedence over everything else, lack of electricity, lack of running water and or
[6:26:54] hot water, lack of heat, surfacing sewage, and structural damage. Those take priority on all of
[6:27:00] the housing stuff. Another consideration is vacant open and accessible homes. This is a property
[6:27:06] that has been vacated and people may be breaking into it. Somebody may drive by and see there's
[6:27:10] an open window or an open door and nobody's living there. We reach out to the property
[6:27:15] owner and give them 72 hours to secure it themselves before we take action and secure
[6:27:19] from code enforcement.
[6:27:25] Now I'll talk briefly about our special investigations team.
[6:27:29] So the
[6:27:30] special investigations team again is funded by Department of Waste Management and Recycling.
[6:27:34] We review about 7,000 illegal dumping complaints per year and we are required to inspect
[6:27:39] every business and multifamily complex to ensure compliance with state mandated refuse
[6:27:44] receptacle laws.
[6:27:50] I'll jump briefly into cost recovery. So the Sacramento County
[6:27:55] zoning code and county code grant code enforcement the authority to recover costs of enforcement
[6:27:59] through a lean confirmation hearing process. Code enforcement and revenue recovery attempt
[6:28:04] to collect outstanding fees from closed cases prior to going to hearing. The county has
[6:28:10] three years from case closure or the date of the last payment before the case can
[6:28:14] go to a hearing. Cases are reviewed multiple times to ensure the fees are accurate. Title
[6:28:19] reports are run to obtain contact information for all parties of interest and the notice
[6:28:24] of public hearing is posted at the property and mailed to all parties of interest as well.
[6:28:35] The hearing process cases with unpaid fees proceed to the hearing.
[6:28:39] Hearings can be contested by the property owner.
[6:28:42] Code enforcement provides evidence at the hearing for the officer to review and then
[6:28:46] the hearing officer makes a final determination once that determination is made.
[6:28:50] If we are found in favor, the property owner has 30 days to pay the fees owed otherwise
[6:28:54] an abatement lien is filed on the property.
[6:28:56] The remaining debt is then rolled over to property taxes for collection.
[6:29:01] Supervisor Desmond.
[6:29:02] So just to confirm, I mean, and you and I have had a lot of discussions about this as I have with County Council.
[6:29:09] So we have a lien on their property.
[6:29:11] If they go to sell their property, I mean, we stand in line after the secured creditor, but that is enforceable.
[6:29:17] They have to pay off that lien when the property sells.
[6:29:20] as we've talked about other mechanisms that maybe other can we can we put
[6:29:25] potentially strengthen anything to more proactively go after people who owe the
[6:29:29] county money because of code enforcement violations and I think we we came to
[6:29:33] conclusion that really we don't have any other options to pursue other than
[6:29:37] this lean process is that correct yes yeah and council may be able to add a
[6:29:42] little bit of color to that I don't know Susie or somebody else I know we've
[6:29:45] been we've had a number of conversations we have tried to explore that
[6:29:49] very thing to try to give ourselves more tools and we kept running into dead ends.
[6:29:53] It's something we would love to do, we just can't find a way to do.
[6:29:56] Thank you.
[6:30:02] So now some of the limitations.
[6:30:06] So while code enforcement can enforce a lot of the ordinances,
[6:30:08] there are certain things that are outside of our authority. So one is essentially public
[6:30:13] property enforcement. Most of what we enforce is on private property, with the exceptions
[6:30:17] of illegal dumping in which we have an MOU with waste management. And then we do have
[6:30:21] a vehicle abatement program, which we enforce abandoned or dismantled vehicles on the
[6:30:27] road. That is different, as you can see from my next point, with parking enforcement.
[6:30:31] We do not enforce parking, that is the Sacramento Sheriff's Office.
[6:30:35] Business license enforcement, business license enforcement, while we do use our violations
[6:30:41] to help the business licensing department make determinations, we have no authority
[6:30:45] over business licensing, environmental enforcement as well, building inspections, you know, conditions
[6:30:51] other than substandard housing, anything to do with the building we don't have enforcement
[6:30:55] over, and then a lot of complaints we get are private and civil.
[6:30:58] The
[6:31:05] future of code enforcement, some things that I feel I've brought to the division.
[6:31:09] So we're taking an increased focus on major violations and projects.
[6:31:14] I really want to make sure that the most difficult cases we have are being reviewed frequently.
[6:31:19] They're being worked on by different officers outside of the box ideas, which will increase
[6:31:25] customer service.
[6:31:27] You know, I'm really big on communication and how we talk to the public, the information
[6:31:31] we provide to the public, outreach, education, again outside the box ideas of how the public
[6:31:37] can work with us and learn more about what we do. And then a quicker response and follow-up.
[6:31:42] I'm trying to take more initiative on getting out to properties more frequently,
[6:31:46] decreasing the time in between inspections to ensure that the property owners are aware of
[6:31:51] what they need to do and that we're reaching towards compliance.
[6:31:57] And again, some of the
[6:31:58] goals, visible results. You know, I want to drive down the street and see that we've
[6:32:01] made a change in the community,
[6:32:03] as I'm sure everyone here does as well.
[6:32:05] Outside the box, ideas working with other agencies
[6:32:08] to try to solve problems that may come our way,
[6:32:11] and then more community engagement,
[6:32:13] working with the public, working with the board,
[6:32:15] other agencies to try to figure out
[6:32:16] how we can help Sacramento County.
[6:32:23] And so now, I'll open the discussion
[6:32:25] for vacant buildings.
[6:32:28] Supervisor Desmond in a public session
[6:32:30] had brought this item to the board
[6:32:31] and asked for some research to be conducted.
[6:32:33] So my team has been looking into solutions
[6:32:35] and believe we have some ideas on how to solve some of these problems.
[6:32:42] So starting at around the fourth quarter, we're hoping to embed a BPI inspector with code enforcement to enforce the maintenance of buildings.
[6:32:51] Sacramento County Code 1604 and 1637, the property maintenance code, we feel can be used as a tool to enforce some of the substandard vacant buildings that you're seeing in your districts.
[6:33:01] The inspector will investigate complaints and conduct proactive inspections on un-maintained
[6:33:07] buildings in unincorporated Sacramento County in tandem with Sac County code enforcement.
[6:33:11] Really quick, Mike. How do you become aware of a vacant building?
[6:33:18] Normally complaints or driving around proactively.
[6:33:20] Obviously the officers are out in the field all day, so they take note of something that's becoming dilapidated,
[6:33:26] but essentially the public. The public reaches out to us with issues, something they see.
[6:33:30] Now, we have reached out to other agencies within SAC County to try to answer some of
[6:33:34] that question as well.
[6:33:36] Business licensees, when they expire, looking at leases of buildings, working with other
[6:33:42] agencies within Sacramento County, economic development, I've started building a relationship
[6:33:46] with them to try to figure out where some of these buildings may be at, and then
[6:33:50] just enforcing based off that.
[6:33:52] Thank you.
[6:33:52] We'll also get referrals from POP, and we will get referrals from PBIDs as well.
[6:33:57] Oh yeah.
[6:33:57] And if I may, sometimes from the five on the dice here, so yeah, that is something we're
[6:34:05] very well aware of.
[6:34:06] I know we've had conversations with many of you, including some recent ones of Supervisor
[6:34:10] Kennedy about, you know, some vacant buildings that have been longstanding in your districts.
[6:34:14] So I think both of the sort of policy questions we're going to be asking for your direction
[6:34:19] on today have come from discussions with you, including the vacant property registry
[6:34:23] with Supervisor Desmond bringing that up and then this vacant building issue that
[6:34:27] I know Supervisor Kennedy and others have brought up numerous times over the years.
[6:34:32] Any discussion on potential vacant building tax?
[6:34:39] I think we're going to, we'll touch on that when we get to the next topic, the vacant
[6:34:42] property registry or when we get into it.
[6:34:45] That was something we talked about early on.
[6:34:47] That's not something we're necessarily presenting to you today, but that's the kind of feedback
[6:34:51] we're looking for.
[6:34:53] I would at some point like to have that discussion because there are many vacant
[6:34:59] buildings. I think we all have them in our districts and they do create a nuisance. They attract
[6:35:05] you know homelessness. There's the community members have complaints and so if we make it
[6:35:12] a little more difficult or costly for building owners to just keep them vacant then what's
[6:35:19] the incentive to get some kind of movement. But if we imposed some type of fee or a vacant
[6:35:26] building fee, I think that could hopefully generate some movement on these buildings.
[6:35:31] But that's not now, not today, that's for the future.
[6:35:34] Supervisor Desmond.
[6:35:36] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[6:35:37] And since we're, you know, I'll bring up a few things right now.
[6:35:40] I started this conversation with you and your predecessor about this issue.
[6:35:46] I guess Supervisor Kennedy's brought it up for years, but I only brought it up a year
[6:35:49] and a half ago.
[6:35:49] It was whatever.
[6:35:51] But, you know, one of the things we've talked about, and I've, and I'm going
[6:35:54] I've talked about to the Sacramento Association of Realtors and the California Apartment Association
[6:35:59] is I've tried to tell them, hey, I'm not interested in a tax just on vacant buildings.
[6:36:04] I'm interested in a registration system or mechanism.
[6:36:09] That's what we've talked about based on vacancy and or number of code enforcement
[6:36:15] complaints coming from that property.
[6:36:17] And so then we're creating a nexus between maybe a registration fee we want to charge
[6:36:22] charge, and the amount of additional effort it's taking the county to deal with that
[6:36:27] property.
[6:36:27] And that may include a fee.
[6:36:29] It may include a designated local person that has to be available, you know, during
[6:36:33] certain hours to respond to things and work with code enforcement, because I think that's
[6:36:37] where we're seeing most of the problems is maybe an out-of-town landlord who is
[6:36:41] just not only is it a vacant building, but they're a completely absentee landlord.
[6:36:46] But I think we want a discussion I know we've had for a long time, Mike, is
[6:36:49] is what would the trigger for that be, and we know that this would not be a cost-neutral
[6:36:56] endeavor. So how do we also structure it in such a way where it's maybe we just at least
[6:37:03] start out targeting the most frequent offenders, you know, and see how it goes. But I'm very
[6:37:09] interested to see what you come up with. I know there was some preliminary language
[6:37:12] that we were throwing around.
[6:37:13] There is. Mike, in the next couple of slides in its presentation, is going to
[6:37:17] discuss the vacant property registry concept and hopefully get your feedback. We would
[6:37:24] anticipate coming back to the board at a later date than with a full-fledged program for
[6:37:29] your consideration after this feedback. And it's really designed to work in tandem with
[6:37:34] the building permit inspector or building inspector that we're going to be embedding
[6:37:40] in code enforcement as well. So with the vacant property registry where we have and
[6:37:45] And we can work with property owners early on to hopefully prevent the dilapidation of
[6:37:50] structures and head off issues before with that communication and regular interaction
[6:37:56] with property owners.
[6:37:57] But then we will have the expertise embedded in code enforcement to enforce certain codes
[6:38:02] as well and working in tandem with code enforcement officers.
[6:38:06] And I think that is a great thing because we have, we've struggled with that a little
[6:38:09] bit certainly in relation to some properties in our arcade.
[6:38:12] And so I think having that that person embedded with code is going to be a really positive thing
[6:38:16] I think the next couple of sides Mike. Yeah, we'll hit on some things that will resonate. Yeah
[6:38:21] No, my next bullet point kind of goes into that you know contacting information. Sorry one moment Supervisor Hume
[6:38:27] Thank you chair. Thank you Mike. First of all this slide was not included in the PowerPoint in our packet
[6:38:33] I assume this is kind of late-breaking news. Yes, I made it last week was I'm sorry
[6:38:39] And that's why we have the awkward yellow highlights.
[6:38:41] That's why it's highlighted.
[6:38:42] Yes, yes, correct.
[6:38:43] Yeah, OK, good.
[6:38:45] It's a new slide that's on your back end.
[6:38:46] I picked up on the back end.
[6:38:47] Yeah.
[6:38:48] Hard to miss.
[6:38:48] I wasn't here this morning.
[6:38:50] Yeah, thank you.
[6:38:50] By the way, can you tell me what code section
[6:38:52] deals with adult hogs?
[6:38:55] Cannot.
[6:38:56] OK.
[6:38:56] If you had said there is no code section
[6:38:58] that deals with adult hogs, you
[6:38:59] would have met Supervisor Cernus
[6:39:01] Gauntlet that he threw down by working that
[6:39:03] under your presentation.
[6:39:04] But I just want to kind of pick up
[6:39:06] on what Supervisor Desmond was saying with response to a penalty or some sort of fee
[6:39:14] that's imposed for calls for service, nuisance properties, that sort of thing, I would never
[6:39:20] support a vacant property or vacant building tax because there are too many external forces
[6:39:25] relative to the market, relative to the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood, relative
[6:39:29] to all sorts of things that are beyond that property owner's control that you're
[6:39:33] just going to penalize them year over year because they can't lease up their
[6:39:36] property that's the big hand of government that I can't be on board with.
[6:39:42] So going into the last bullet point was the contact information being
[6:39:45] documented and this is where a vacant property registration would come into
[6:39:50] play. We've been conducting research over the past six to seven months
[6:39:54] looking into other jurisdictions that have implemented something similar, trying
[6:39:57] to see what would work for Sacramento County, what those fees would look like
[6:40:01] and how to go about enforcing it. I think it goes hand-in-hand with the
[6:40:05] vacant building enforcement, then maintaining their building and then registering as well.
[6:40:10] I've also reached out to DTECH to see about when we start this process, if that's the
[6:40:15] direction we take, documenting that information in the county GIS system so that not only
[6:40:20] code enforcement has it, but any county agency can retrieve that contact information
[6:40:24] quickly and be able to reach out to property owners and find solutions to take care of
[6:40:29] problems.
[6:40:36] So next is dangerous buildings.
[6:40:37] buildings. This kind of comes after the vacant, un-maintained building. So Sacramento County
[6:40:42] Code addresses dangerous buildings. A dangerous building means any building structure or premises
[6:40:47] deemed to be dangerous under the provisions. Now there are essentially two categories of
[6:40:51] dangerous buildings. Substandard, un-maintained buildings, and then a building that poses
[6:40:56] an imminent danger that needs to be abated or something needs to happen quickly because
[6:41:01] it's a risk to public health and safety. Code enforcement currently works with the
[6:41:06] building permits and inspection division
[6:41:07] to conduct an evaluation of the building structural stability.
[6:41:11] We then work with property owners in attempt
[6:41:13] to bring the property into compliance
[6:41:15] or conduct a demolition before the county steps in
[6:41:18] to do so themselves.
[6:41:19] And again, summary abatement is an option
[6:41:21] for only imminently hazardous conditions.
[6:41:25] One moment, Mike, Supervisor Kennedy.
[6:41:28] Just so I'm clear on who's doing what.
[6:41:32] Who declares a building a dangerous building?
[6:41:34] Is it you guys or is it building?
[6:41:37] So, technically both.
[6:41:39] If it's imminently dangerous, a safety hazard,
[6:41:42] that would be the building department.
[6:41:43] They have the structural engineers
[6:41:45] that can go in, determine what's safe and what's not.
[6:41:48] Code enforcement doesn't have that ability or training.
[6:41:51] So we work with them hand in hand
[6:41:52] to figure out how to go down that path.
[6:41:54] Okay, and I understand that
[6:41:56] and have been through that down that path myself.
[6:41:59] And our building department is light years,
[6:42:03] ahead of where they were 10 years ago as far as customer service goes.
[6:42:07] So if you're listening, it's certainly not meant as a hit to the building department.
[6:42:12] But I have seen times in which the building department code enforcement, we're not necessarily
[6:42:17] on the same page on that, and it has slowed the process down.
[6:42:21] So absolutely.
[6:42:23] And that's something I've worked on quite a bit since I've come over here, you know,
[6:42:25] building the relationships with other agencies, working on these processes to figure out
[6:42:29] where that disconnect is, why that disconnect is happening
[6:42:32] and how to get past it.
[6:42:33] One of the things, again, going back to communication,
[6:42:35] reaching out to these property owners
[6:42:37] and trying to bring them into compliance first.
[6:42:39] And hopefully they will take some action on their property
[6:42:41] before the county has to step in.
[6:42:43] But I completely agree, we're working on building that
[6:42:45] and I think we're heading in the right direction.
[6:42:47] Thank you.
[6:42:47] I just want to give a little feedback on Sunrise Mall.
[6:42:50] Sunrise Mall sat vacant for, gosh, four or five, six years.
[6:42:53] And there was always conversations about something
[6:42:55] that was happening and the potential of the property.
[6:42:58] and they had several landowners on it, so they started addressing some of the nuances
[6:43:06] that were happening with the mall, and then sure enough there was movement, and now there's
[6:43:11] a plan going forward with the potential recreational facility, but it took, unfortunately, some
[6:43:18] of these costs, and I think it got really high, like I think it was almost a million,
[6:43:23] but at least what it did is that it resulted in positive economic development for the city of
[6:43:29] Citrus Heights. Yeah, absolutely. And again collaboration is something I'm really big on
[6:43:32] you as I've stated with the building department. I've been working with economic development to
[6:43:36] try to solve some of these issues, getting in contact with property owners and reaching out
[6:43:40] to these property owners and seeing where they're struggling or where they're stuck at,
[6:43:44] reaching out to some of the buildings Kennedy has brought forth and talking to the property
[6:43:47] owners to see why is this building where it is at right now and just listening to them
[6:43:51] real a little bit and then figuring out where they can go from here. So bringing
[6:43:54] everybody together on the same page and then finding a solution to move forward.
[6:43:58] Yeah, that's great. And very quickly on both the mall issue and back to
[6:44:03] Supervisor Kennedy's comments, we have had issues in our own malls in the
[6:44:06] unincorporated area where we've had both code and building trying to sort of
[6:44:10] fared out sort of where the issue lands. And I do think that's why I give
[6:44:14] a lot of kudos to Troy. Embedding that building inspector in code
[6:44:19] enforcement. That's a change we're making right now. Historically, I don't know if we've
[6:44:24] ever done that prior. I think that's going to help both divisions tremendously, where
[6:44:28] we have that person in code enforcement that can address those issues imminently, and
[6:44:33] also probably educate code staff too on some building issues, and vice versa. Code can
[6:44:38] educate building a little bit more as well, so I think that's going to be a really
[6:44:42] monumental change that should clarify that line, but also create a team approach,
[6:44:47] because those lines do exist where one is authorized to enforce something and the other isn't.
[6:44:53] So if they're both there, both attacking the issue, we know one or both of them can actively
[6:45:01] And I will add that my team is very excited to go down this path and figure out some of these solutions to these problems.
[6:45:08] Well, on that note, can I just say the feedback, the feedback that we get, that I get from community organizations, they love you guys.
[6:45:19] I appreciate it.
[6:45:19] They always say something positive, and sometimes you have our community meetings and they ask, is code coming.
[6:45:24] So maybe you need to come to my community meetings.
[6:45:27] We got it all planned, yes. I'm working on that as well. Like I said, the education and outreach, working with the public.
[6:45:32] I want an officer at every PBID meeting, community meeting, everywhere we can be to work on that.
[6:45:36] So yes, thank you.
[6:45:40] And lastly just the process for the dangerous buildings. So first obviously
[6:45:43] we initiate contact getting in touch with the property owner or property manager to make sure
[6:45:47] we have a valid point of contact and address our concerns. We conduct an inspection of the
[6:45:51] property to confirm violations and get eyes on the building to see what's going on.
[6:45:56] An inspection is then conducted by the building department depending on the state
[6:45:59] of the building the case may be referred and structural assessment may happen to determine
[6:46:04] the safety of the building. And then lastly, collaboration. Code enforcement will work with
[6:46:08] the property owner and other agencies to ensure the property is maintained or rehabilitated.
[6:46:17] And that is the end of my presentation. Any questions?
[6:46:20] Supervisor Desmond. Thank you. First, I'll start out, Mike.
[6:46:24] Thank you for this presentation. I think this is so important for us to hear more
[6:46:29] about code enforcement, and we should probably be doing this annually, because there is such
[6:46:34] a large unincorporated population.
[6:46:36] And code enforcement's role is so integrally linked to everything else we're doing to attract
[6:46:43] more investment, more housing, more commercial investment, improve the quality of life
[6:46:47] in the county.
[6:46:48] And I will say, in terms of community meetings, I did host a series of community meetings
[6:46:53] last year, and it was the headliners were, I think you or Barry maybe, and Todd
[6:46:58] Smith. They were not my best attended community meetings. I will say, you know, so, you know,
[6:47:03] maybe it's a little too wonky for some people, but it's that is not a reflection of how important
[6:47:07] it is and the work you're doing. And I know that, unfortunately, you have to deal with
[6:47:14] District 3 probably too much. I wish I didn't know you as well as I knew you, but that's
[6:47:18] just a reflection of the district I represent. But I just thank you for everything you've
[6:47:21] done and for this presentation. Really look forward to, you know, the discussion
[6:47:26] about a vacant property registration program here but a couple questions I
[6:47:31] have for you is the okay so the housing inspection that is cost-neutral to us
[6:47:36] correct because that is covered by cost recovery but that that's cost-neutral
[6:47:42] we're not we're not funding that through general fund dollars is that is
[6:47:46] that right so yes we are general funded I mean we get all of our money from
[6:47:49] general fund about half of it comes back in revenue so we're about 50 50 okay
[6:47:55] But specifically as a really good to answer your questions supervisor
[6:47:57] I believe that they charge a fee for that you recover the full cost of that service and I was I want to distinguish that from your other
[6:48:04] Operations which are not cost-neutral to us. We are you are funded through the general fund. What is your what's your budget?
[6:48:11] About 12 million dollars and how much of that is general fund dollars?
[6:48:15] It's about 50 50 percent general fund dollars. Okay, so no other there's no grant funding
[6:48:20] There's no other okay
[6:48:21] And we've looked into grants and stuff like that to try to increase our funding.
[6:48:24] And if we do a vacant property registration, I mean, maybe we could get a little bit of
[6:48:27] cost recovery.
[6:48:29] I mean, that would be the idea, right?
[6:48:30] I mean, that would be the intent.
[6:48:32] Okay.
[6:48:33] And then I do know that you work very, very closely, at least in my district, sure, for
[6:48:39] else, with the Sheriff's Department and the DA's office, the Pbids, and I so much
[6:48:44] appreciate that.
[6:48:45] One thing that's definitely troubling me, but I know all these have a cost associated
[6:48:49] with it. It's how I think we lag behind other jurisdictions in the resources that we dedicate
[6:48:55] to code enforcement for unincorporated Sacramento County. And I think that's a challenge. I
[6:48:59] mean, that increases, I think, the challenges we face in our municipal services and attracting
[6:49:05] more investment and development. I would agree with your assessment. And as we add
[6:49:09] new programs related to various inspections, whether they be required by the state or
[6:49:14] or if it's priority for the board,
[6:49:16] we do need to look at cost recovery
[6:49:18] because some of the newer programs
[6:49:21] are not fully cost recovery.
[6:49:24] Like the AB 130 where we're going to be inspecting annually
[6:49:29] the cabins for unhoused folks
[6:49:35] to make sure that those are safe, inhabitable.
[6:49:40] We've put in for funding through the state
[6:49:43] in order to support that because it is it's mandated but it is unfunded oh and
[6:49:47] that before yeah that will be that will be an ongoing issue but if we do see
[6:49:53] funds from that it is likely 18 to 24 months down the road if we're successful
[6:49:58] in that process thanks Troy thank you Mike yeah thank you Mike oh wait
[6:50:04] Supervisor Kennedy thank you you know great work you're right I've been
[6:50:11] kind of a pain on certain issues but I'm going to continue to be because it's
[6:50:16] very frustrating when you're trying to bring up an area and you have buildings
[6:50:20] that look like they're bombed out buildings and nobody wants to develop
[6:50:24] across the street next door and that's exactly what you know the areas I'm
[6:50:28] talking about so I appreciate the emphasis continued on that the rental
[6:50:33] health housing inspection program hugely successful and important we talk a lot
[6:50:40] up here about public safety. That's public safety. You know, I keep beating the depth
[6:50:45] that public safety isn't just about sheriff and fire and police and even the DA. And it's
[6:50:55] actually, this is a program that you all went in there into a 310-unit apartment complex
[6:51:03] on Franklin Boulevard. And you weren't doing it because it was a nuisance to the neighborhood.
[6:51:08] you were doing it because you were there to save lives.
[6:51:10] There was missing CO, carbon monoxide meters,
[6:51:14] there was faulty stairwell, staircases,
[6:51:18] and banisters with children living in them.
[6:51:22] There was heating units dropping through floors.
[6:51:25] I mean, you name it.
[6:51:26] These are health and safety, life safety issues.
[6:51:29] And so that's why that program is so important.
[6:51:32] So thank you for the work you're doing on that.
[6:51:33] If we could build on it in the future,
[6:51:36] I think it would be fantastic.
[6:51:37] And finally, one that I'm going to, it's very obscure, but I started working on years
[6:51:43] ago when a mobile home park actually literally exploded in District 2.
[6:51:50] It was one that I had brought to our attention beforehand, said somebody's going to die,
[6:51:56] somebody died, turns out through educating myself and working with all of people,
[6:52:06] your
[6:52:06] highly regulated by HCD and not the county of Sacramento,
[6:52:09] which is very unfortunate because they'll tell you
[6:52:13] that we'll inspect every 10 years
[6:52:17] and there's some very dangerous situations.
[6:52:19] My only point for bringing it up is there's little we can do
[6:52:22] because we've tried at the state level.
[6:52:25] However, we did leave that, this is years ago,
[6:52:28] prior to you being in your position
[6:52:29] and I just want to make sure there's,
[6:52:31] people have changed over there,
[6:52:32] people have changed over here that we continue
[6:52:34] because we did get better, at least communication and allowing us to get on to take a look at
[6:52:41] the shared areas, common areas and so forth, which we do have some jurisdiction over.
[6:52:48] But it was just as much lacking communication with the state and HCD.
[6:52:53] I hope that we will continue to do that because that's one that's just laying their
[6:52:57] dormant and it's going to cost lives in the future.
[6:53:00] Yeah, absolutely.
[6:53:01] I think even my team would attest that they get a little frustrated with me at
[6:53:04] times because I try to push that additional communication, maybe in areas we don't have
[6:53:08] authority.
[6:53:09] And a lot comes to code enforcement, as I consider as kind of the quarterback of a lot of the
[6:53:14] health and safety in Sacramento County.
[6:53:16] And while we can't enforce everything, I do take initiative to try to figure out who
[6:53:20] does or what we can do to help.
[6:53:22] And so I appreciate those comments, and I can assure you that we are doing what
[6:53:25] we can to fix and solve some of those problems.
[6:53:30] Mr. Defanti?
[6:53:32] Just quickly on next steps, first really appreciate Mike's leadership.
[6:53:36] He's brought a great perspective to the role and is doing a wonderful job.
[6:53:39] I think if it's the Board's pleasure we would do two things.
[6:53:42] One, we would come back to this calendar year with the makings of a vacant property registry
[6:53:47] so we would bring back a proposed program to you that we could adopt if it's your
[6:53:51] will and then carry forward from that point.
[6:53:54] And then second on the dangerous building front, I think again that marrying of the
[6:53:58] building inspector into code is going to help us tremendously enforce the codes
[6:54:03] that are already on the books and again sort of dispense with who's on what side
[6:54:08] of the line we have both of them there we can tack it from both perspectives and
[6:54:13] I think it I don't want to put words in your mouth but maybe be a little bit
[6:54:15] more aggressive than we have been in the past to address some of those
[6:54:18] really problematic properties. Yep, it's about on. All right well this is a
[6:54:24] receive and file. Thank you very much. Are there any requests to speak?
[6:54:27] Thank you. Yes, we do have people in chambers who would like to speak in anyone online who
[6:54:33] would like to address the supervisors. On item 33, the overview of Sacramento County Code
[6:54:38] Enforcement Operations Acceptance, please raise your virtual hand now. Our first speaker
[6:54:44] in chamber today is Holly Tolbert.
[6:54:56] Hi, Holly. Hi. Good afternoon, supervisors. First
[6:54:59] First off, I wanted to say that I disagree with Supervisor Hume's position on a tax for
[6:55:06] vacant properties.
[6:55:08] A lot of these business owners will have vacant properties for a decade and they'll just slap
[6:55:12] a release sign on something and they'll absorb any code enforcement action that happens
[6:55:16] as a cost of doing business.
[6:55:18] And that's a lot of chaos in our neighborhoods.
[6:55:21] So one of the biggest problems that we're facing in our unincorporated areas of Sacramento
[6:55:25] Toronto County is that we aren't lacking the laws, we just aren't enforcing them.
[6:55:31] Art and Arcade has two major commercial properties that serve as very important hubs in our community
[6:55:37] and they've been allowed to get away with blatant code enforcement violations in years
[6:55:41] of, you know, bad neglect.
[6:55:44] Residents see the conditions, we report the problems, yet instead of demanding accountability
[6:55:49] it repeatedly fails as if the county sides with the property owners who contribute
[6:55:53] little to our community and don't even live here. Meanwhile, it's the residents and the businesses
[6:55:59] and the property owners that bear the burden of this. Why shouldn't out-of-town investor
[6:56:07] their interests carry more weight than the people who actually live in our community
[6:56:11] who shop here and raise families? Code enforcement is not anti-business. It's pro
[6:56:16] community, pro public safety and pro economic development. If Sacramento County is serious
[6:56:21] about revitalizing Arden Arcade and other parts of Sacramento, then enforce the
[6:56:26] codes that are already on the books. Hold commercial property owners accountable
[6:56:29] regardless of who they are. Our community deserves more than excuses. We deserve
[6:56:34] enforcement, accountability and action. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker in
[6:56:40] chambers is Orlando B.
[6:56:46] Hi Orlando. Hi. First of all Mr. Desmond it's good to
[6:56:50] glad to see you here.
[6:56:54] My name is Orlando Baturaro. I'm a Sacramento County homeowner
[6:56:58] and business owner for over 20 years. I'm here today to offer my opinions regarding
[6:57:02] a matter of public concern and safety that has remained unresolved for nearly two years
[6:57:07] despite repeated notice to the landlord and county officials. In January 2025, I stopped
[6:57:13] a construction project in a commercial suite at Country Club Plaza after testing confirmed
[6:57:18] toxic mold. I immediately notified the landlord and the county. Because California enacted the
[6:57:25] Toxic Mold Protection Act to address the health risks associated with mold exposure,
[6:57:29] I believe that this finding, combined with significant water intrusion, warranted immediate
[6:57:35] investigation and corrective action. Instead, the underlying conditions persist.
[6:57:41] The mall continues to experience leaks and ongoing water intrusion. There is also
[6:57:45] a persistent mold odor throughout the mall. Mold was found in a neighboring suite after
[6:57:51] two separate tests, yet there has never appeared to be a comprehensive building-wide assessment
[6:57:56] to determine the extent of contamination or whether other areas have been affected. My
[6:58:01] concern is not limited to mold exposure alone. When water intrusion continues for extended
[6:58:06] periods of time, reasonable questions arise about what may be happening behind walls
[6:58:10] above ceilings and within the building structure itself.
[6:58:14] Prolonged moisture can contribute to deterioration of building materials including wood rot,
[6:58:19] corrosion of metal components and other conditions that may affect building safety.
[6:58:22] Your story, Ms. Rodriguez, about the balcony is a perfect example of that.
[6:58:26] In July 2025, I came before this county and specifically requested enforcement action
[6:58:32] and enforcement of the Toxic Mole Protection Act.
[6:58:34] I did not receive a response.
[6:58:36] I did receive a phone call stating no action would be taken.
[6:58:39] Then in May of 2026, more than a year after originally discovery, I commissioned another
[6:58:44] mold test.
[6:58:44] The suite failed again.
[6:58:46] This is the story.
[6:58:47] The mold continues to persist.
[6:58:50] During that period, the landlord could have been required to investigate the full extent
[6:58:54] of the water intrusion, identify affected areas, and evaluate neighboring suites.
[6:59:00] But the enforcement hasn't taken place.
[6:59:03] I'm simply asking code enforcement to take the necessary actions, do what it was created
[6:59:07] to do.
[6:59:07] Thank you.
[6:59:08] Thank you.
[6:59:10] And we do have an additional speaker in the chamber, Martin Bryant.
[6:59:13] Madam Chair, can I?
[6:59:15] Yes.
[6:59:15] Real quick.
[6:59:16] Orlando, thank you for being here.
[6:59:18] I know we've had a lot of discussions with you, and I've had discussions with County
[6:59:22] Council.
[6:59:23] I know CODAS as well.
[6:59:25] But please, you know, if there's been any change or anything we should know about
[6:59:28] anything new, I would encourage you to reach out to my office or our Code Enforcement
[6:59:33] Chief here.
[6:59:34] Thank you.
[6:59:35] And our next speaker is Martin Bryant.
[6:59:39] You'll have two minutes to address the supervisors.
[6:59:41] Hi, Martin.
[6:59:41] Hi.
[6:59:42] Good afternoon.
[6:59:43] I actually added my name to the list last minute.
[6:59:46] Just I wasn't planning to speak on this matter.
[6:59:49] So I work with BPI.
[6:59:52] I'm probably the only one here from BPI.
[6:59:54] And I'm also the Union President of...
[7:00:00] It represents code enforcement officers as well as building inspectors. So I took an interest
[7:00:05] in what we're trying to do there. I'm all for it. It sounds like a fantastic idea. I guess
[7:00:13] I have a few questions about it as far as are we beginning with one building inspector
[7:00:20] that will be embedded with code enforcement or is this going to be kind of a new classification
[7:00:24] certification that works within code enforcement. I believe that there's just some logistical
[7:00:30] things that need to be ironed out as far as I think there's maybe some certifications
[7:00:36] or specialty that needs to be had by that building inspector to do adequate building
[7:00:44] inspection because it's a different animal than a typical building inspection. I assume
[7:00:50] I assume that building inspector will be doing residential and commercial properties, whereas
[7:00:55] with BPI, you're either a residential inspector or you're a specific commercial inspector.
[7:01:01] So I don't know if this is the right forum for these type of questions, but I'd be interested
[7:01:09] in working with BPI, with Code Enforcement, with the county to get these things ironed
[7:01:15] out because I think it would be of great benefit.
[7:01:19] Right now we can probably connect you with Mr. DeFonte, or yeah, Mr. DeFonte.
[7:01:24] Yeah.
[7:01:25] And yeah, I spoke with Micah a number of times and I think we have a good working relationship.
[7:01:29] So I think.
[7:01:30] Thank you.
[7:01:31] All right.
[7:01:32] Thank you.
[7:01:33] Thank you.
[7:01:33] Supervisor Surna.
[7:01:34] Thank you.
[7:01:35] To the last speaker's point, was this always assumed to precipitate a meet and
[7:01:42] confer?
[7:01:45] We would anticipate that, yes.
[7:01:46] Okay.
[7:01:47] I think it's important for that to be noted in the context of this discussion.
[7:01:52] Thanks.
[7:01:54] All right.
[7:01:54] Just really quick, anybody online who would like to address the supervisors?
[7:01:58] On 33, the county code enforcement operations acceptance.
[7:02:01] Now's the time to raise your hand.
[7:02:03] We have no speakers on Zoom.
[7:02:05] All right.
[7:02:06] So this is a receiving file.
[7:02:07] Thank you for the presentation, Mike, and all the speakers.
[7:02:12] Next item, please.
[7:02:13] The next item on our agenda is 34.
[7:02:15] This is the introduction of an ordinance amending Chapter 2.75 of the Sacramento County Code
[7:02:20] related to the Civil Service Commission.
[7:02:22] We will be waiving the full reading and continuing to August 25th, 2026 for adoption.
[7:02:28] And we will be adopting a resolution authorizing imposition of the county's last, best and
[7:02:32] final offer to the engineering technicians and technical inspectors, the Sacramento
[7:02:36] County Professional Accountants Association, the Sacramento County Management Association,
[7:02:40] and the Sacramento County Probation Association.
[7:02:44] Hi, Joe.
[7:02:46] Good afternoon, supervisors.
[7:02:47] Joe Angelo, director of personnel services.
[7:02:51] For those who
[7:02:54] have a PowerPoint 1, we do put up as well.
[7:02:58] Did you put the PowerPoint in the board packet?
[7:03:00] No, this is external. We'll provide copies to the board.
[7:03:05] Good afternoon, supervisors.
[7:03:07] I am Joe Angelo, director of personnel services.
[7:03:10] And for those listening, personal services is often referred to as human resources.
[7:03:14] Today, I'm joined by James Robbins, the Chief of the Employment Division, Haya Johnson,
[7:03:20] the DPS hiring manager, and Karen Farrell, our representing our Chief Labor Negotiator's
[7:03:27] Office.
[7:03:28] Today's presentation focuses on increasing efficiency, reducing costs, and improving
[7:03:34] service levels for our client departments, partner agencies, and employees as it relates
[7:03:40] to the CSE support staff services currently being provided to the Civil Service Commission.
[7:03:47] Firstly, we want to give some broad context.
[7:03:50] The graphic that we're presenting here represents the key, key components of the process itself,
[7:03:56] the largest being the Civil Service Commission.
[7:03:59] And that piece is grayed out for a reason.
[7:04:02] Their independent decision-making authority remains unchanged as a result of this action.
[7:04:08] As a result, the balance of today's presentation will contemplate the relationship between the DPS staff and the CSE support staff.
[7:04:19] So what's the impetus for this recommendation?
[7:04:23] DPS staff continue to receive complaints regarding the amount of time it takes for items to be reviewed, agendized, and approved.
[7:04:33] And we'll soon see that process can take months or even years.
[7:04:38] Outdated CSE rules create barriers and we'll touch on that a bit more in the presentation.
[7:04:46] And finally, in a review of peer agencies, data suggests that increased efficiencies
[7:04:53] can be realized through a consolidated approach where HR staff perform the duties of the
[7:05:01] CSE supports that function. So what are the key areas that present the greatest
[7:05:06] opportunity for improvement? What minimum there are five? First up, the civil
[7:05:13] service meeting schedule. How many meetings are actually scheduled in any
[7:05:18] given year? Number two, once those meetings are scheduled, how many items
[7:05:23] are heard on any typical agenda? Number three, and arguably the most
[7:05:29] important for departments, how quickly can a job description be updated or revised?
[7:05:36] Number four, employment exams and other appeals.
[7:05:40] How long does an applicant or employee have to wait for their appeal to be heard?
[7:05:46] And lastly, program development.
[7:05:48] When staff are directed to create a new program, how long does it take to implement?
[7:05:53] We'll start with the meeting schedule. Before you is a graphic that lists the meetings for
[7:06:01] calendar years 23, 24, and 25. The 23 data is at the top third, the 24 data is the middle
[7:06:10] third, and the bottom third is 25. You'll see highlighted items in yellow. Those highlights
[7:06:17] represent the meetings that were canceled. Most peer agencies meet anywhere from 12
[7:06:24] to 25 times a year. For Sacramento County, for calendar years 23 to 25, there were 29
[7:06:33] meetings scheduled, less than 10 per year, and in 23 and 24, over 40 percent of
[7:06:40] the meetings were canceled. And until very recently, the meeting schedule used
[7:06:46] to indicate either or, or and or scheduling. For example, the meeting will be on 6.13 and
[7:06:55] or 6.28. And you can imagine the scheduling challenges that created. And while this slide
[7:07:03] shows the last three years, previously, the meeting schedule had upwards of 23 or 24 items
[7:07:12] regularly scheduled and annually less than half a dozen cancellations. This
[7:07:19] resulted in upwards of 19 meetings a year, far more consistent with peer agency
[7:07:25] meeting frequency.
[7:07:28] And although cancellations due to a lack of quorum
[7:07:32] or other unforeseen circumstances are unavoidable, the substantial reduction
[7:07:38] In scheduled meetings, significantly magnifies the impact, those cancellations, and further
[7:07:47] limits the ability to have the agenda items heard timely.
[7:07:51] One moment, Joe.
[7:07:52] Yes.
[7:07:52] Supervisor Desmond.
[7:07:53] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[7:07:54] Joe, you keep using the term peer agencies.
[7:07:56] Yes.
[7:07:56] Can you define that for me?
[7:07:57] Yes.
[7:07:58] What are those agencies' size and...
[7:08:00] Yes.
[7:08:00] So, peer agencies.
[7:08:01] Agencies that have a civil service commission process.
[7:08:03] Counties, cities...
[7:08:04] Counties.
[7:08:05] These are all counties.
[7:08:06] All counties.
[7:08:06] And we're using a specific peer agency in this example, and that's also a county.
[7:08:12] Okay, but these are counties similar sized, counties to Sacramento.
[7:08:15] Yeah, this agency's probably got minus 10,000 employees, we've got about 12, so plus or minus.
[7:08:20] Okay, thank you.
[7:08:22] With fewer than 10 meetings held a year, and those agendas limited to generally five meetings or less on an agenda,
[7:08:30] the county's ability to schedule job specification revisions,
[7:08:34] CEC rule updates and other matters under the jurisdiction of the CSE
[7:08:39] is significantly and adversely impacted.
[7:08:43] And as a result of the reduced meeting capacity,
[7:08:47] county departments are faced with unacceptable delays
[7:08:51] and it hinders their ability to respond promptly
[7:08:54] to the changing workforce and service delivery needs.
[7:08:58] these delays have tangible operational consequences countywide.
[7:09:04] Jeff, really quick.
[7:09:05] Yes.
[7:09:06] Does the commission have, does it meet once a month?
[7:09:09] It's scheduled once a month.
[7:09:12] Once a month.
[7:09:13] So is it fair to say that in 16, 17 there are extra meetings because there were special
[7:09:19] meetings added?
[7:09:21] I think there were more meetings scheduled back then than there are now.
[7:09:25] right but but what is the commission I'm sorry what is the commission charters say
[7:09:30] one meeting a month I don't think it calls out the specific number of meetings
[7:09:34] but most meet upwards of two a month that's usually most being who Alameda for
[7:09:40] example does out is Alameda comparable to Sacramento it's about nine or ten
[7:09:45] thousand employees we benchmark them for market data job specs these
[7:09:55] These delays have tangible operational delays, outdated job specifications, and delayed rule
[7:10:00] divisions impede recruitment efforts and reduce the county's ability to attract and retain
[7:10:05] qualified employees.
[7:10:07] Ultimately, fewer meeting opportunities not only affect the efficiency of the CSE process,
[7:10:13] but more importantly, the county's ability to effectively manage its workforce and provide
[7:10:19] responsive public services to the communities that we serve.
[7:10:23] Next, we go to volume.
[7:10:26] Once we have the meeting scheduled, how many items actually appear on a typical agenda?
[7:10:32] Before you is a typical agenda from October of 2025 for the Sacramento County Civil Service
[7:10:38] Commission.
[7:10:40] As indicated in this sample, outside of routine matters, approval of the minutes, standard
[7:10:45] reports, receive and file, a total of three items were agendized.
[7:10:49] of note, this specific agenda contains the highest number of job description updates in
[7:10:58] calendar year 2025, a total of six. That number will be important later in the presentation.
[7:11:03] Joe, can you tell me at the time of this meeting how many classes or how many classes
[7:11:10] were outstanding or were in review, in process. How many classification studies were outstanding
[7:11:19] in October of 2025? Because we have to, you've got to look at the total they're outstanding
[7:11:26] to be able to say, oh, there's three here. Okay. I see we were going supervisor. I think it's
[7:11:31] important to note that departments have learned over time that it's going to take months,
[7:11:38] Once, if not years, to get their job updates, their job descriptions updated.
[7:11:43] So what's happened is departments are left in the unenviable position of having to decide
[7:11:49] between posting a job that's outdated and hoping that they get somebody or rolling
[7:11:55] the dice and hoping that the job spec can be updated.
[7:11:59] So to answer your question, I think we're challenged because I think the market has
[7:12:04] adjusted to the reality that it takes a long time to get these adjusted.
[7:12:09] So I think the volume has declined.
[7:12:12] So you're telling me that Sacramento County leaders do not submit case studies because
[7:12:20] they think it's going to take a long time?
[7:12:22] Yes.
[7:12:23] And so they continue to use the...
[7:12:25] Outdated specs.
[7:12:27] So do you have a problem with that?
[7:12:29] Yes, I do.
[7:12:30] Okay.
[7:12:31] That's why I'm here.
[7:12:32] Yeah.
[7:12:35] Is that been, okay, so, okay, so, I, that, so they're not submitting information because
[7:12:44] they think that it's going to take too long to do a case study, so that's not an issue
[7:12:50] of the Civil Service Commission.
[7:12:52] That is a, that is an issue with the county leadership to say that we're not going to
[7:12:58] submit for reclassification of studies because it's going to take too long.
[7:13:02] Yeah, it's true. DPS staff, we aren't processing fast enough. And the civil service process
[7:13:10] is not working anywhere near optimal. So it's a challenge on both sides.
[7:13:16] Can you go back to the previous page? Sure.
[7:13:20] Where did these dates come from? You took them off of minutes?
[7:13:25] This is, which one is this? You have the 2627 and then you have the
[7:13:31] Oh, yeah, this is current versus prior.
[7:13:35] This is where we were saying that.
[7:13:36] And you took them off of minutes, minutes of minutes,
[7:13:40] or wherever.
[7:13:41] Yeah.
[7:13:47] Good afternoon.
[7:13:48] Karen Farrell.
[7:13:49] The 2016, 2017 meetings were taken from a memo
[7:13:53] from the executive's office that published those meetings
[7:13:56] at that time.
[7:14:03] So on the first column, 26, 27,
[7:14:07] 27? That just started last month. That's the fiscal year. Right, 26, 27. Didn't it just
[7:14:14] start last month? Yeah. So these are the meetings that are scheduled between now and next June.
[7:14:23] Yes, this is the published schedule.
[7:14:27] These are to be held. Okay, all right.
[7:14:33] Thank you.
[7:14:35] Next, we'll talk about volume. You'll see that there are three items, six job descriptions.
[7:14:42] Now we're going to look at a peer agency, and this peer agency happens to be Alameda.
[7:14:47] We see that there are a significantly higher number of agendized items. And of note,
[7:14:53] by the red arrow there you'll note that this agenda is prepared by
[7:15:00] H.R. staff in Alameda County. It's the same model that we're recommending for Sacramento
[7:15:05] County. There were 25 civil service rules updated in that one meeting alone. Sacramento County
[7:15:14] rules have not been substantively updated in over a decade. Over the last two decades,
[7:15:20] edits to rules have been considered for formatting and grammar corrections only. In fact, we
[7:15:29] We still have a rule that requires lengthy time frames to post positions and requires
[7:15:34] us to physically post new job opportunities in the lobby of the admin building.
[7:15:40] Joe, I have a problem with the information you're presenting because you're telling me
[7:15:46] that Sacramento County leaders don't put jobs through the Civil Service Commission
[7:15:51] because they think it's going to take too long, but you're comparing it to a county
[7:15:55] that probably has leaders that are saying, let's move it on.
[7:15:58] let's make changes, let's make adjustments, and therefore the reason why Sac County has
[7:16:03] very few is because we don't have department, I don't know what they are, department heads
[7:16:09] or department managers that are not putting job specifications through for edits.
[7:16:16] Right.
[7:16:17] Well, thank you for that, Supervisor.
[7:16:18] Hi.
[7:16:19] Am I off?
[7:16:20] No, no, you're not off.
[7:16:21] Departments everywhere will probably complain that the process takes too long, not just
[7:16:25] here? And could HR staff need a little more help? Absolutely. Is the civil service process
[7:16:32] needed more help? Absolutely. But I don't think any agency is going to say, oh, the process
[7:16:37] works great. We can get a job updated in a month. That doesn't happen.
[7:16:41] Joe, does there have to be a vacancy in order to get job specification classes through?
[7:16:47] No. No.
[7:16:48] So why would I, if I'm a manager of a department and I've got some positions that I want
[7:16:55] changed and I don't have any vacancies I'm going to move these through what's the
[7:17:00] hurry it's I don't have any vacant positions to fill right so it sounds to
[7:17:05] me like it's a county problem clearly again DPS we welcome the opportunity for
[7:17:11] improvement to but I want to be clear departments have learned if I got a way
[7:17:16] to year which are examples will demonstrate it ain't worth it but because
[7:17:21] Because by the time you update it, I probably have more revisions anyway.
[7:17:26] So why would it matter if there are no vacancies to fill?
[7:17:29] Well, they want to keep up with the market conditions.
[7:17:31] When they post it, they want to be relevant.
[7:17:33] And if the market has changed, they don't want to be late getting there when they post
[7:17:37] the job.
[7:17:38] If there's new technology that's expected or a new way of doing things, they want
[7:17:43] to bake that into the announcement.
[7:17:45] Supervisor Hume.
[7:17:46] Thank you, Chair.
[7:17:47] I appreciate your questions.
[7:17:48] I just I hope to show up to be able to participate in this discussion today.
[7:17:54] I'm going to have to leave shortly in order to get to West Sacramento to participate in a state agency closed session regarding litigation.
[7:18:01] They won't have quorum without me.
[7:18:04] So maybe if I can just kind of jump to the chase a little bit.
[7:18:07] I just have a couple of questions about what's being proposed here.
[7:18:10] Sure.
[7:18:10] The first is, is that it seems to me that potentially the, and I don't know if Meeton
[7:18:16] confer is the right vernacular for the process, but that the imposition, if you will, of
[7:18:22] a last, best and final offer seem to be taken without a lot of negotiation, so that's
[7:18:30] issue point number one.
[7:18:31] And second point is that in this suggested reorganization, first and foremost, I applaud
[7:18:40] the search for efficiencies in trying to make the wheels of government turn more quickly.
[7:18:45] But I'm just curious as to how this is not embedding the rooster in the henhouse relative
[7:18:53] to putting what should be a checks and balance under the very department that it is seeking
[7:18:59] to check and balance.
[7:18:59] Thank you, Supervisor.
[7:19:00] I'm going to have Karen speak to the first side and I'll take the second.
[7:19:03] Thank you.
[7:19:05] Good afternoon.
[7:19:09] So thank you, Supervisor Hume.
[7:19:12] I want to clarify that this was not something that was done hasty.
[7:19:17] We did meet with those groups that have been, we declared impasse with one time in person.
[7:19:24] multiple emails were exchanged with their representative, multiple opportunities were
[7:19:33] given to reconvene or meet again. Specific dates were provided with times that the county
[7:19:38] was available to meet. Those opportunities were not taken, they did not respond to those
[7:19:45] requests to meet. They did not ask to meet again after a month approximately and only
[7:19:52] Many after I had sent an email saying absent of response, we will move forward.
[7:19:58] Did they present a proposal?
[7:20:00] The proposal was to reverse the county's position completely.
[7:20:06] And that proposal was included things that were outside of the scope of negotiation.
[7:20:13] So that was the point in which we declared impasse.
[7:20:16] The parties were extremely far apart.
[7:20:18] And the declaration of impasse is really just essentially a point in time where we say the
[7:20:26] parties are entrenched in their positions and further negotiations are not going to be fruitful.
[7:20:38] And to your question about the rooster in the henhouse, very good question.
[7:20:43] But I would say that in a survey of our peer agencies, most have the model that we're
[7:20:47] recommending.
[7:20:48] So it's out there already.
[7:20:50] And number two, the structure that we're recommending as far as the reporting structure is this staff
[7:20:57] would report to what we would say is arguably the most unbiased, the person charged with
[7:21:04] ensuring fairness in the workplace.
[7:21:06] So if anyone is going to supervise this role, we believe that person provides the greatest
[7:21:12] opportunity for unbiased direction.
[7:21:14] And again, they would be an administrative supervisor.
[7:21:17] They're not, they don't have a subject matter expertise per se in the technical components
[7:21:23] of the CSE process.
[7:21:25] This position would have a dotted line for the technical piece, but from an administrative
[7:21:30] piece if that employee feels that something's wrong or I feel undue influence or whatever,
[7:21:35] they can always go to the supervisor.
[7:21:37] And then lastly, remember that gray piece that we talked about at the beginning,
[7:21:41] the actual commission itself, their role remains unchanged.
[7:21:45] changed. They're the ultimate decision makers to decide up or down. If they think I put
[7:21:50] my hand on the scale for something that comes to their attention, they voted down.
[7:21:56] And so, okay, let me tease out that last part because I believe we've all received communications
[7:22:01] from at least two of the commissioners talking about this proposed change and their objection
[7:22:07] to it. And so I guess I'm looking at, I'd ask two questions. One, the peer agencies
[7:22:13] that you reference where it is embedded within DPS or human resources. Do they have a charter that
[7:22:19] calls for the establishment and existence of a civil service commission? Yes, they have a
[7:22:25] civil service commission. That is correct. But is it a function of that charter? Did they have
[7:22:31] a similar pathway to their working relationship that Sacramento County has? That supervisor
[7:22:38] are out of half the research more okay and then with respect to the concerns
[7:22:42] raised by the commissioners given that these are the folks kind of you know
[7:22:46] boots on the ground frontline of this this sure situation do you have a
[7:22:51] response as to some of the issues that they raised or or you know because
[7:22:56] they're not in favor sure obviously that I would assume there's a reason
[7:23:01] that they're sure so for the record I've personally gone to the Civil
[7:23:06] Service Commission. I've offered to the former chair, I've offered to the current chair,
[7:23:13] and I've offered to the commission, to the CSC staff the opportunity to meet on this item.
[7:23:19] We were close to meeting with the prior chair, but we were unable to secure a date on their
[7:23:26] schedule. So we've extended the opportunity multiple times with CSC staff and with
[7:23:33] the commissioners, but to date that request has not been accepted.
[7:23:38] And so scheduling conflicts aside, have you had an opportunity to review the emails that
[7:23:45] they've sent in, their letters of concern?
[7:23:48] I think that their concern is they wish not to have the staff report to DPS.
[7:23:57] but again I'm not we have shared with the CSE staff the challenges and the
[7:24:03] concerns and this is where we are this okay it hasn't been addressed so
[7:24:08] irrespective of right issues they raise you still stand steadfast I really
[7:24:13] believe that I'm sorry to step on your supervisor I really believe this is the
[7:24:18] path forward for us the county's facing significant budget challenges
[7:24:23] departments are stressed, they're strapped. The one thing that I think would be a huge
[7:24:27] relief to them is as a hope that maybe they can get a job spec revised in a couple of months
[7:24:32] or a few months rather than one plus years. And typically, I'm not going to say it's
[7:24:40] magic. We're not going to, if this happens, you're going to get a job updated in a month.
[7:24:43] No, it's going to take months still. But it's months, not years.
[7:24:47] Okay.
[7:24:49] Joe, are you saying that the charter...
[7:24:52] I don't know if I have a question.
[7:24:53] The charter from Alameda County and Sacramento County is the same?
[7:24:58] No, that's what I'm not saying.
[7:25:00] Because it's not.
[7:25:01] I am not saying.
[7:25:02] I have not studied their charter.
[7:25:04] So you're comparing us to other cities,
[7:25:08] someone like Alameda, but you don't know if the charter is similar.
[7:25:13] I don't know if the charter is similar,
[7:25:14] but I know the process is what we are requesting.
[7:25:17] But doesn't the Charter drive actions after that?
[7:25:22] The Charter is what drives decision-making
[7:25:24] and accountability and et cetera.
[7:25:27] So when you say that you compare it to other counties,
[7:25:31] I didn't see the similarity in the Charter
[7:25:33] between Alameda and Sac County.
[7:25:36] And so that's why I'm asking you.
[7:25:37] Thank you.
[7:25:38] So when you say that you compare it to me,
[7:25:40] it's similar, but they're not.
[7:25:43] Thank you.
[7:25:44] Supervisor James Robbins with Personnel Services.
[7:25:47] I can't speak to the Alameda County Charter,
[7:25:49] but what I can speak to is the Sacramento County Charter
[7:25:53] and the ordinance, which is what's being asked to be revised
[7:25:56] or amended today.
[7:25:58] So the proposal in front of you is to revise the ordinance,
[7:26:02] not the Charter.
[7:26:03] There is no request.
[7:26:05] There is no desire to change the Charter.
[7:26:07] The Charter is what establishes the Civil Service Commission
[7:26:10] and the independence of that commission.
[7:26:12] And that is not something that's being requested to be changed.
[7:26:16] It's simply the ordinance which this board, a former board, I should say, of these supervisors,
[7:26:22] had approved establishing certain parameters around the Civil Service Commission.
[7:26:27] So that ordinance is what's being asked to be revised.
[7:26:32] And that is within the authority of this board.
[7:26:35] And so I would point out that the charter itself was established, adopted, and implemented in 1972.
[7:26:43] However, the ordinance was not adopted and established until 1977.
[7:26:47] So there was a five-year period in this county in which the Civil Service Commission existed by way of charter,
[7:26:53] but without any ordinance to frame, create this framework.
[7:26:57] So arguably modifying this to create these efficiencies would not violate the charter.
[7:27:03] it was in existence without any form of ordinance for five years.
[7:27:08] Chair.
[7:27:09] Thank you.
[7:27:11] Joe, I have to address the – I'll get to you in a minute, Sylvester.
[7:27:16] I have communication – I had communication with three of the commissioners, and there
[7:27:22] was a request to have you come and speak to them at the July 10th meeting, and you
[7:27:28] declined it.
[7:27:29] But it wasn't the first time you had declined a meeting with them.
[7:27:32] And so, can you tell us a little bit about their invitation to have you come and speak
[7:27:37] to them and you declining?
[7:27:39] And also, you did show up to one meeting, but when they invited you to come and speak,
[7:27:44] you said, I'm not here to speak.
[7:27:47] Correct.
[7:27:48] So, this is during the time that we were debating a very difficult rule that I believe
[7:27:55] was not appropriately handled and I was concerned about exposure for the county
[7:28:02] and I did not want to engage in the conversation that might expose the county
[7:28:07] further. So but why would you just tell them that you're not going to speak to
[7:28:13] that particular rule but answer some of the other questions that they had?
[7:28:17] Because because their goal was to continue to ask about the process and I
[7:28:22] was very concerned that there was exposure for the county.
[7:28:27] Do you have email trails or proof that you had asked them to be and they said no?
[7:28:36] Well, we have email trails of me extending the invitation.
[7:28:41] We have email trails of inviting the former chair.
[7:28:44] And again, we were unable to find a time on their calendar.
[7:28:49] Okay.
[7:28:49] Because I was shared different emails where they invited you and you had basically declined
[7:28:56] them.
[7:28:57] Yes.
[7:28:57] Sylvester?
[7:28:59] Yes.
[7:29:00] Supervisor, James sort of spoke to some of the points I wanted to share with you.
[7:29:05] But what's important here is the recommendations being made by DPS does not violate the
[7:29:13] current charter.
[7:29:14] It complies with the charter.
[7:29:15] And this is just in line with some of the recommendations you've made over the last 18 months.
[7:29:22] You've talked about efficiency, seeking high-level performance from employees, challenging people
[7:29:28] to rise to the next level, seek sigma, and the rest of all those very special programs
[7:29:33] to help enhance the overall performance of county employees.
[7:29:37] That's what they're recommending.
[7:29:39] And the Civil Service Commission, though, it still exists within some counties.
[7:29:43] By the way, a few counties out there that successfully did away with the Civil Service Commission.
[7:29:49] You have a lot of unions who represent employees and the interests of employees more than the
[7:29:54] Civil Service Commission does.
[7:29:56] And when you make changes to classification,
[7:30:00] Unions and specs.
[7:30:03] You have to consult with the unions. They would take a deeper dive reviewing
[7:30:07] those documents than the Civil Service Commission does because they spend a lot more time on it.
[7:30:12] We tend to engage the unions a whole lot more. The county's got 30 bargaining units, 26 unions.
[7:30:20] It's one of the highest number of unions with any counties, similar counties in the state
[7:30:26] of California. So there is fair representations of employees. So quite frankly, the value
[7:30:32] of the Civil Service Commission, why it's to understand still relevant, it's not profoundly
[7:30:38] useful to the operations of the county. And there's a reason I'm stating that. Let me
[7:30:44] land the plane. And the reason I say that is every special district you've seen within
[7:30:50] the State of California does not have the Civil Service Commission because people want
[7:30:55] changes. They need expediency. They need to be able to change the aspects within a week
[7:31:00] or two. Right now, on average, it takes at least a year. The improvement you've seen
[7:31:06] is because of the pressure that has been coming out of Joe's team and the pressure that has
[7:31:12] been coming out of James' team. And you've seen this increased level of performance
[7:31:16] from the Civil Service Commission. We're not taking away the authority of the Commission.
[7:31:21] We're not looking to even influence the authority of the Commission in terms of the ability to
[7:31:27] do what they do.
[7:31:28] We're asking to have a process in place that meets the expectations of the unions we've
[7:31:33] worked very closely with and we've been able to build that relationship.
[7:31:37] These are the things we ask.
[7:31:39] Now very quickly, in looking at similar agencies or counties, the charters do not have to
[7:31:45] be the same, but what matters is the process of getting things done and getting them
[7:31:50] don't swiftly and within a reasonable time frame, that's what the team is asking to see
[7:31:54] happen.
[7:31:55] Yeah.
[7:31:56] Thank you, Del.
[7:31:57] I just want to say in one of my notes here, I'm not opposed to the recommended process.
[7:32:02] What I am appalled at is the process of what got us to this, to where we are right now
[7:32:09] and the steps that have taken.
[7:32:11] And also, I did take all the outstanding case studies, and I took the dates of when the
[7:32:21] department requested it, when DPS sent it to the Civil Service Commission, when the Civil
[7:32:27] Service Commission sent it back to DPS, the dates here are very alarming.
[7:32:32] The county has delayed the process.
[7:32:36] And these are dates that I took off of the website from the Civil Service Commission
[7:32:40] to create a graph because I wanted to understand the problem better because I hear the problem
[7:32:45] was with the Civil Service Commission, I had conversations with two commissioners at the
[7:32:51] time and then the third, and it was that's that the delays are happening with DPS.
[7:32:58] And I need to clarify that.
[7:33:01] So, I mean, we can get to that point and I'd like to share and have you explain
[7:33:04] this.
[7:33:05] Supervisor Hume has to leave and so he has just another comment.
[7:33:08] Thank you, and I apologize again. This is a it's a state agency. It's closed session litigation that is important to the county that
[7:33:15] I make of quorum to there or otherwise I'd stay and participate in this discussion
[7:33:19] so I I think there's enough swirling here that
[7:33:23] It causes me concern, but I appreciate and I laud the
[7:33:28] the effort to find efficiencies and try and make the county run more
[7:33:34] effectively. What would it take if this goes through? What would it take to
[7:33:39] roll it back and pull it back out of DPS then if we were so choose? If we were to
[7:33:44] try it out and say... The same ordinance that got us here. Okay, good enough. Thank you.
[7:33:50] And just for the record, Madam Chair, that is not a system-generated document.
[7:33:54] That is not a county-generated report. So just FYI. Well, it still dates. Yeah,
[7:34:00] But it's not a system-generated report.
[7:34:03] We have not validated or substantiated that document.
[7:34:07] Well, Joe, with all due respect, I sent you an email on July 29th, asked you a ton of
[7:34:14] questions about this process.
[7:34:18] I wasn't given the – I wasn't given the respect to have a response to my questions.
[7:34:23] You were on vacation.
[7:34:24] When you got back, you have a team of people that could have answered these questions.
[7:34:27] questions. So I wouldn't be sitting up here asking these questions had I been given the
[7:34:33] respect to get a response or to even say this item didn't have to be heard today. There
[7:34:41] is nothing, there is no outstanding case study that is dependent on decisions being
[7:34:47] made and changes to this item. So there's a rush to get it done and that rush creates
[7:34:56] It's even more of a concern about the integrity of you, Joe, you, and Sylvester, and David
[7:35:03] Villanueva have oversight of 13,000 employees for the county.
[7:35:09] And if my, what I have been, what I've experienced, and what I have, and the conversations
[7:35:15] I had with our commissioners and how they've been treated is appalling.
[7:35:21] It's appalling.
[7:35:23] It's disrespectful.
[7:35:23] And I, to me, it just raises concerns about the integrity.
[7:35:30] And we can go on, but I'm going to tell you,
[7:35:32] I pulled a mission in the values of the county,
[7:35:35] because I was curious, like what?
[7:35:37] The words that we use, we use principle, we use integrity,
[7:35:40] we use honesty, we use maintaining trust,
[7:35:44] we use words as respect and listen and give voice to others.
[7:35:48] We talk about being innovative, diversity, inclusion, excellence,
[7:35:51] which means that we are investing in employees being transparent, delivering quality responsive
[7:35:58] services. But what I have experienced in this particular item is it is mind-blowing at the
[7:36:06] treatment of our commissioners. And those are just and those are our commission. These
[7:36:10] are people that are volunteering for the county. They're not employees. They are volunteers.
[7:36:15] years. So it raises just a lot of question about the urgency to get this item done, not
[7:36:24] responding to my questions that were very valid questions. All I want is answers. There's
[7:36:30] a reason why I have a lot of respect for Mr. D'Fonte, Dr. Liu, and Shelby Boston, is because
[7:36:36] they have innovative thinking. They are really big on process improvement, reducing waste.
[7:36:41] I support that but when we do it in this manner it is it is so concerning in
[7:36:49] terms of process in terms of how we're going about and it doesn't matter
[7:36:54] whether this is system-generated or not these are dates these are actual dates
[7:36:59] of when it went from the department to DPS to the Civil Service Commission to
[7:37:05] DPS and the county is the delay.
[7:37:09] I thank you for that feedback, Supervisor, and my apologies.
[7:37:14] Supervisor Kennedy.
[7:37:15] Thank you.
[7:37:16] Since we're sharing personal experiences, let me say that mine is completely different
[7:37:20] in that I have been having conversations with you, Joe, with Sylvester, with David,
[7:37:28] and with my Commissioner to the Civil Service Commission who has never complained about
[7:37:34] about any of the things that you've heard here tonight.
[7:37:37] The fact of the matter is that we talk a lot about,
[7:37:40] particularly under Mr. DeFonte's role,
[7:37:42] we've been talking the last couple of years
[7:37:44] quite a bit about making things more efficient,
[7:37:47] making things run smoother,
[7:37:48] getting rid of roadblocks that don't necessarily need to be there.
[7:37:51] I think this is exactly doing what this board has directed staff to do
[7:37:55] for years since I've been here.
[7:37:58] There were some hiccups.
[7:38:01] I see Mr. Sumera in the back of the room.
[7:38:02] this was not rolled out as well as it could have been to labor at the beginning,
[7:38:07] but we pulled back and recognized that was a mistake.
[7:38:13] And so I will say that it hasn't been perfect by any means.
[7:38:18] But to say that we're not informed is just beyond my comprehension.
[7:38:26] And again, from the feedback I get from the commissioner that I have appointed,
[7:38:31] I will say, and I apologize if I'm jumping ahead now, but since the questions of the
[7:38:36] board have kind of gotten off the rails as far as following the presentation, I will
[7:38:41] say that there was a clear need for change here.
[7:38:45] We're not, we're not dickering with just for the sake of dickering.
[7:38:51] It takes years even sometimes to get something through this body, and let me give a couple
[7:38:56] of examples.
[7:38:57] One, of course, you all know or are probably aware of the fact that I proposed when Pride
[7:39:04] Industry contract did not work out as we had hoped it would.
[7:39:08] I proposed a county policy which would enable and lower barriers for people with developmental
[7:39:17] disabilities and actually give a hand up for county employment.
[7:39:24] This is something that was modeled Mr. Villanueva early on in your tenure.
[7:39:30] You grabbed this and you ran with it and I appreciate that sincerely.
[7:39:34] Clearly it meant something to you but also your experience with the state told you that we don't need to reinvent the wheel.
[7:39:42] We have something that has been proven whether in the courts or in practice throughout the state of California for decades that has worked.
[7:39:49] why this took so long to get to this commission is beyond me and angers me
[7:39:54] frankly because every month that goes by every year that went by that's more
[7:39:59] people who should be employed with developmental disabilities who this
[7:40:04] county turned its back on because of a bureaucratic body which wouldn't hear
[7:40:08] it the DEI position whether or not you politically believe in DEI I
[7:40:13] personally do the DEI position was blocked by at least one member of
[7:40:19] this commission when it was clearly the intention to go forward by this board in that position.
[7:40:27] I see the tail wagging the dog here. Civil Service Commission is incredibly important
[7:40:33] for all of the reasons that it was originally established in the 70s and I still adhere
[7:40:37] to that. But how it's running, whether it's purpose is valid or not, how it is
[7:40:42] operating currently with very little, very little accountability to the public is something
[7:40:48] that we need to address, and I think this is doing it, and I thank you for taking it seriously.
[7:40:53] Thank you, Supervisor.
[7:40:55] Supervisor Serna.
[7:40:56] Thank you. I really appreciate my colleague, Supervisor Kennedy's comments and citing the
[7:41:03] examples he has. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I, to put a finer point on things,
[7:41:12] I think to say that this process is rushed is quite frankly laughable.
[7:41:16] I've been here a while, and this is not something that has been discussed in terms of seeking
[7:41:24] efficiencies under David Bill in a way of his leadership.
[7:41:29] This has been something that's been discussed under his predecessors under the supervision
[7:41:36] of Joe's predecessors under the oversight that precedes Sylvester's time here.
[7:41:44] So to say that this is rushed somehow, when it's been years in the making to get here finally
[7:41:51] to actually have a serious open public conversation about how to do things better more efficiently,
[7:41:59] I think is long past due. And I'll just show my cards completely right now.
[7:42:05] I'm completely in support of the staff recommendation.
[7:42:08] I know we're going to hear from some folks later, and you have to conclude your presentation.
[7:42:13] but I see this as something that has been needed for years now.
[7:42:18] Thank you, Supervisor.
[7:42:22] Okay.
[7:42:23] Okay, so thus, we were talking about the peer agency.
[7:42:31] On that particular agenda item,
[7:42:34] there were a total of 63 items that were agendized
[7:42:38] in one commission meeting.
[7:42:41] Now to be fair, as you pointed out, Supervisor Chair,
[7:42:44] not all commissions are created equally, right? Most of the things on their agenda are not things
[7:42:51] that the Sacramento County Civil Service Commission hears. However,
[7:42:59] we will, it does speak to the
[7:43:01] capacity of their commission to do more. And that's, it's kind of dovetails into what Sylvester
[7:43:07] just said. It's about the process being more efficient and getting more items on the agenda.
[7:43:12] As stated previously, the highest number of job descriptions, SAC County, had revised
[7:43:19] in 25, the highest number, totaled six, in comparison to the peer agency, which averages
[7:43:26] about six job updates each meeting.
[7:43:30] And in January of 2014, January 25, their greatest number of job updates were 14.
[7:43:36] In one month, this peer agency revised more than half the total number of job descriptions
[7:43:44] Sacramento County revised in the year 2026.
[7:43:51] Despite peer agency hearing and voting on items not normally heard by the Civil Service
[7:43:56] Commission of Sac County, they still outmatch us in job description and CSE rules update
[7:44:03] hands down.
[7:44:05] Next, we'll talk about specific examples of job description updates.
[7:44:10] Job description updates and revisions require DPS to work with impacted departments to draft
[7:44:16] an updated job description, meet and confer with employee-represented organizations, and
[7:44:22] then finally present to the CSE for approval.
[7:44:25] Arguably, the county has a number of job descriptions that are out of date, with
[7:44:30] the history of significant delays to revised job descriptions and we provide two examples
[7:44:36] here. First, being Department of CFAS. Eight months from when DPS initially submitted the
[7:44:43] item to CSC support staff before the item was agendized. Department of Airports. Twelve
[7:44:50] months from when DPS initially submitted the item to CSC support staff before it
[7:44:57] was agendized.
[7:45:00] These delays are after staff have met with the respective bargaining units.
[7:45:05] And because of the significant scheduling challenges created by the CSE support staff that we just
[7:45:10] discussed, departments are left in the unenviable position of having to decide between using
[7:45:16] existing but outdated job descriptions or attempting to get the job description updated.
[7:45:23] As such, departments have generally decided to focus on trying to update their most
[7:45:28] critical job descriptions, but the delays are significant nonetheless.
[7:45:34] We now turn to employment exams and other appeals.
[7:45:39] Exam appeals are heard by the CSC.
[7:45:41] Appeals are submitted directly to the CSC support staff to determine jurisdiction and
[7:45:47] merit before being scheduled before the Commission.
[7:45:51] But the delays are a challenge there as well.
[7:45:53] For example, an exam appeal was submitted to the CSC support staff in December of 23.
[7:46:01] Staff submitted their recommendation to the CSC support staff in April of 24 to deny the
[7:46:08] appeal for two reasons.
[7:46:09] One, the appeal was not timely.
[7:46:11] It was submitted late.
[7:46:13] And number two, had the item been submitted on time, the rule that was being referenced
[7:46:18] was not relevant to that particular exam.
[7:46:24] So with these issues, were they communicated to the executive director of the CSE?
[7:46:32] Yes.
[7:46:33] How are they communicated?
[7:46:36] E-mails, phone calls.
[7:46:39] This was in flight.
[7:46:42] Well, this was not, yeah.
[7:46:44] James Robbins, what I will share, and I don't know specifically on these delays, but what
[7:46:51] typically occurs when an appeal is received by the commission is then they reach out to
[7:46:56] each party, the appellant, and then DPS and ask for responses.
[7:46:59] So we're following their timeline in most cases.
[7:47:02] So in this particular case, we're following the civil service support staff's timeline
[7:47:07] in responding to their request.
[7:47:09] There may be cases where delayed and requested on the part of the appellant or on
[7:47:12] the part of DPS.
[7:47:13] Sure, things like that, but I get that, but my question is, you communicated this with
[7:47:20] the Executive Director of the Civil Service Commission, that there was a dissatisfaction
[7:47:26] of the timeline?
[7:47:29] I don't know that we communicated specifically on this item.
[7:47:33] I will share that there are a number of communications, particularly in the space
[7:47:37] of class studies and trying to get them scheduled, where communications between
[7:47:41] between the Civil Service Commission staff and DPS staff
[7:47:44] where DPS staff was asked to pick which items
[7:47:47] they wanted to delay or postpone
[7:47:49] because there wasn't capacity to hear them
[7:47:51] at a particular date.
[7:47:52] And oftentimes because of the infrequency of meetings,
[7:47:56] it would take some time to get those scheduled.
[7:47:58] So I can't speak specifically to this particular item
[7:48:03] or whether that was communicated or not, I don't know.
[7:48:05] James, did you at any point have a meeting
[7:48:07] with the chair of the Civil Service Commission
[7:48:09] to communicate your concerns about these delays or any concerns you had?
[7:48:15] No, I have not communicated or met with the chair of the commission. I do know that I was engaged with
[7:48:21] Joe as he was trying to schedule that meeting when these issues have come up more recently.
[7:48:27] And I know we did make several attempts and I was included in some of those emails
[7:48:31] where attempts to schedule with former chair Boise were made and there were several attempts
[7:48:37] and then I think he resigned his position of chair right around that time.
[7:48:42] Commissioner Booth then was elected to replace him and we did have a meeting scheduled with
[7:48:48] him and then around that time he resigned from the commission.
[7:48:52] So that's all recent.
[7:48:55] We're talking about some of these issues here that go back to 23, 24, 25.
[7:49:01] At any point did we have a conversation with the chair who currently the executive
[7:49:06] Director serves at the pleasure of the Civil Service Commission. If there are problems there,
[7:49:11] wouldn't you go to the group that employs her or him?
[7:49:18] Well, I did not meet with a chair, but I've had multiple meetings in my time here. It
[7:49:23] expressed many of these concerns about the delays with the executive officer herself.
[7:49:29] And... To no avail.
[7:49:31] So, no improvements. Yep.
[7:49:35] You have documentation of that?
[7:49:37] I can go back and look. I know we have a number of emails. I think that these were meetings,
[7:49:42] so I don't have documentation of what occurred during those discussions specifically.
[7:49:46] Thank you, James.
[7:49:49] DPS staff repeated its recommendation to the CSC support staff to deny the appeal for
[7:49:54] seven months. Then after two years in delays, the CSC support staff agendized the item
[7:50:02] in November of 25. During the actual hearing with both parties present and
[7:50:08] prepared to participate, CSC support staff then advised the Commission they
[7:50:14] had no jurisdiction over the matter.
[7:50:19] And CSC support staff recommended that the
[7:50:22] Commission not hear the matter. Lastly we'll go to program development. The
[7:50:28] board directed staff to develop a disability rule. This is to your point
[7:50:33] Supervisor Kennedy to reduce barriers to employment for individuals living with disabilities.
[7:50:39] A formal request was submitted to CSC support staff in October of 24 with proposed language
[7:50:45] based on board direction, DPS staff review of the civil service rules, and feasibility
[7:50:52] of implementation.
[7:50:54] Numerous staff requests for status updates were submitted to the CSC support staff and
[7:51:00] And multiple suggested edits were given to DPS staff by CSC staff, the majority of which
[7:51:08] were simply not feasible, much less practical.
[7:51:12] Because of the continued back and forth of this item, CSC staff decided to agendize the
[7:51:18] recommended rule irrespective of DPS staff concerns regarding feasibility of implementation
[7:51:24] and the fact that DPS asserted that CSC staff proposed rule encroached, their proposed rule encroached on personnel administration,
[7:51:36] which is outside the authority granted to the CSC staff by the Charter.
[7:51:41] CSC staff did not invite DPS staff to present their concerns and feedback,
[7:51:46] but instead advised them to present their concerns during public comment.
[7:51:51] CSE support staff then recommended that both versions, the DPS version and the CSE support
[7:51:58] staff version, be presented to the Commission for their decision-making, a situation I've
[7:52:06] never observed before in any other agency.
[7:52:09] After much back and forth, the item was finally voted on by the Commission in February
[7:52:14] of 26 with an effective date of March of 26 over one year and four months after the Board
[7:52:21] gave direction. The difference between the original proposed rule and the final approved
[7:52:27] rule was minimal at best. Finally, to be fair, our prior illustrations are comparisons
[7:52:35] of snapshots in time. However, the table before you represents all of calendar year
[7:52:43] 2025, a four key metrics that compares Sacramento County and a peer agency. The upper section
[7:52:53] is Sacramento County. The lower section is the peer agency. Along the left, you'll see
[7:52:59] the months, and across the top, you'll see four metrics, and we'll walk through
[7:53:04] each one. How many CSC meetings were held in Sacramento? Ten. For the peer agency,
[7:53:11] 25, 150% better.
[7:53:15] How many job descriptions were updated?
[7:53:17] Joe, I, well, I've, we just talked about other agencies submit their request for changes
[7:53:26] of class studies, they, they, they submit them.
[7:53:30] Sacramento County leaders, and I'll look at our county, our deputy county execs and
[7:53:38] their teams don't submit them because it's going to take too long, even though they may
[7:53:43] not have a vacancy, that's the best time to get job specifications updated. But we're
[7:53:50] not. The county is not doing its job in order for it to be impacted in order to impact
[7:53:56] the Civil Service Commission. Am I the only one that's seeing that or are you not
[7:54:02] seeing that? Do you not see that we have a deficiency at the county level that
[7:54:07] Having a negative that is having a negative impact. I know but you're sitting we're sitting here comparing them
[7:54:13] But we've already talked about you said earlier county staff are not doing their job
[7:54:18] Everyone has opportunities for improvement madam chair
[7:54:22] 100% I agree with that but I guess my point is you're trying to make a point
[7:54:28] But you've already said it County County leadership
[7:54:32] Isn't doing their job in making improvements. Okay, that's I'm
[7:54:37] to spend my wording on it.
[7:54:39] County execs are not submitting for improvement
[7:54:44] of job specifications because they think
[7:54:47] it's gonna take too long.
[7:54:48] Even though they don't have a vacancy,
[7:54:50] that's the best time to make improvements.
[7:54:52] But they're not doing it.
[7:54:54] And then what happens is they'll get a vacancy
[7:54:56] and oh, I need to get this job filled.
[7:54:58] But you're comparing it probably.
[7:55:00] I can tell you to a high performing county
[7:55:02] who's doing its job.
[7:55:03] So,
[7:55:06] if I may, and I appreciate the comments, I think that, you know, to add to the discussion,
[7:55:14] I think that there probably has been a chilling effect on submitting things quickly because
[7:55:20] of the delays.
[7:55:21] However, that's not the whole story.
[7:55:23] As I mentioned before, there are a number of cases where we've communicated and we've
[7:55:27] been asked by the civil service support staff to choose which items need to be
[7:55:32] delayed because there isn't capacity.
[7:55:33] And these things have added to delays as frustrations for staff,
[7:55:37] trying to work through these things as frustrations for the departments we're supporting.
[7:55:42] It's a multi-faceted issue.
[7:55:44] That is just probably a symptom or a result of, in part,
[7:55:48] all of these other things that have been a culmination of things.
[7:55:51] So we are continuing to work through these things.
[7:55:54] We have, you know, usually a minimum of 30 to 40 studies in flight at any time.
[7:55:59] Plus we have a queue.
[7:56:00] We're always working those as well.
[7:56:01] We are building efficiencies within DPS and have made efficiencies in the past, you know, a few years that I've been here
[7:56:08] We've built capacity and staff
[7:56:09] We're looking at technology improvements and working in that space to improve capacity and improve efficiency and
[7:56:17] productivity in this space
[7:56:18] But this we're focusing also a lot in the space of these class studies, right?
[7:56:25] That's one area. But we also have the exam rules and the civil service rules that govern exams that govern the way in which we're allowed to publish job postings.
[7:56:36] So we have a combination of things happening here. We have our job specs and descriptions that are becoming quickly out of date, which leaves us in a difficult position to compete with our other market competitors in this area.
[7:56:48] We have a lot of public sector competitors, right?
[7:56:51] We have the state, we have other regional counties,
[7:56:53] we have cities, and the state's made a lot of adjustments
[7:56:56] within their rules since COVID in particular
[7:56:59] to be much more expedient in the hiring process
[7:57:02] where we are still a bit hindered
[7:57:04] because our rules have not subsequently been updated
[7:57:06] from what we can tell for more than 20 years.
[7:57:09] So as Joe pointed out one example earlier,
[7:57:11] that in order for a job to be published in this county,
[7:57:14] it has to be posted on the bulletin board
[7:57:16] in the Employment Office designated for such purpose.
[7:57:20] Very few agencies post in their lobbies open positions now.
[7:57:26] I don't know anyone who's coming in and said,
[7:57:29] where is the office I go to look for an open job?
[7:57:33] It's all electronic.
[7:57:34] It's all online now.
[7:57:35] But the rules are not keeping pace with the industry
[7:57:38] and with our market.
[7:57:40] And these are things that are also very far behind.
[7:57:44] And this affects, the classifications are part of it.
[7:57:48] In totality this affects Sacramento County as an employer being competitive in the market
[7:57:54] in our ability to recruit the most competitive and innovative employees,
[7:57:59] the ones that are going to bring that innovation, bring the ideas,
[7:58:03] bring that change to this county, the change that we're seeking.
[7:58:07] And that's what we're trying to address here.
[7:58:09] James, there's one thing that talks, money talks.
[7:58:11] in the county is a way the county in comparison to the state and other cities
[7:58:16] the county is the most highest paid public agency so I get what you're
[7:58:24] saying but people do comparison of job pay and the county is at the at the
[7:58:29] very top so I don't disagree with that but I know there are there are I've
[7:58:34] had many cases where departments have come to me where they've been in the
[7:58:38] process of hiring and we have to go through our steps. The state has expedited or reduced
[7:58:44] those steps and they've lost candidates to the state even though they pay less. And
[7:58:48] it's a matter of timing. They reach out after that next interview and they've accepted
[7:58:52] another job. And I appreciate that we do pay more. I don't disagree at all. I think we
[7:58:57] are very competitive in that market. But at the same time, that's not the only thing
[7:59:01] that drives folks in making these decisions. And timing sometimes goes a long way.
[7:59:06] So I guess my point back to this, it's skewed, but you can proceed with your presentation.
[7:59:11] Thank you, Madam Chair. So overall, total actions, 31 for Sac County and 25, 118 for
[7:59:19] a pure agency, 281% better. In closing, the recommended staffing changes to the CSC support
[7:59:26] staffing structure are not novel, but they are desperately needed. We ask your approval
[7:59:31] of this item and we're happy to answer questions that you may have.
[7:59:36] Yeah, Joe, I do. I have some questions, but I do actually want to start it. Again, I'm
[7:59:44] not opposed to making improvements. I'm not opposed to it. There are a lot of concerns
[7:59:48] about this item, specifically when it comes to keeping it independent and not having
[7:59:55] not have it, not for
[8:00:00] This position moves into the county and so now the charter says, the charter is very clear
[8:00:06] about what this individual can work on. You cannot have the influence of several different
[8:00:11] departments like your staff report says. And so it is, if that person doesn't do their
[8:00:19] job in terms of how you want it, they could just easily be terminated because they may
[8:00:26] not be doing things. So technically as a county employee, they're looking to you for the security
[8:00:32] of their job. So it's it'll be buy it becomes biased. So thank you for that, Madam Chair.
[8:00:38] Again, this this process is not novel. Many of our pure agencies use it. I've used it
[8:00:46] many agencies as well. The person would report to arguably someone who's probably the most
[8:00:52] unbiased in the county whose job it is to ensure fairness in the workplace for the entire county.
[8:00:59] So that's one. Number two, this person can still avail themselves to our formal action if they feel
[8:01:06] that they've been wrong. They can contact employee relations and take appropriate action. And lastly,
[8:01:12] again, the independence of the civil service commission remains unchanged. If there's any
[8:01:18] If they want to send an anonymous note to the commission saying that they feel X Y and
[8:01:22] Z, they can do that.
[8:01:24] And the commission can decide to vote up or down any items that come to them.
[8:01:29] So I believe there's safeguards there to protect that.
[8:01:33] I have no interest in it.
[8:01:36] And I'll leave it there.
[8:01:37] There's a document that I just placed there.
[8:01:40] If we look at document number one,
[8:01:45] this is the, can you move it over to the right
[8:01:47] so we could see the left side.
[8:01:50] Yeah, so I took the meetings from 23, 24, 24, 25, and 25, 26.
[8:01:57] And because I was curious about your 40% of cancelation
[8:02:06] or no shows.
[8:02:07] And so that's not what I found.
[8:02:10] From 23 to 24, there were 12 meetings scheduled.
[8:02:13] Nine were held.
[8:02:14] One had no quorum, and two were counseled for there was a meeting location issue on June
[8:02:21] of 23rd, June of 2023, and then in January of 24, there was a lack of actions.
[8:02:30] Like DPS had no class studies ready for the meeting to take place.
[8:02:35] From 24, 25, same thing, 12 meetings.
[8:02:38] Eight were held.
[8:02:40] Two had no quorum.
[8:02:41] and two were cancelled because there were no case studies available for the commission
[8:02:46] to review. And then in 2526, you can see there it was 8% of cancellation. So can you talk
[8:02:55] to me about this? What, you're 40% versus this, what, versus 8%, there's a big difference.
[8:03:03] I'm unfamiliar.
[8:03:03] And by the way, can I just say, you are the director, you're on a director level.
[8:03:09] that presentation should have been in our staff report. It's not it's
[8:03:14] unacceptable for you to present it here for us to be able to look at it and then
[8:03:19] have to at that point review make decisions. So please don't do that again.
[8:03:25] Thank you Madam Chair and the only reason it wasn't is because we had so
[8:03:27] many communications on it. I wanted to provide updated examples and try to
[8:03:32] answer some of the concerns that were coming in but duly noted. Yeah thank
[8:03:36] Thank you for the feedback.
[8:03:36] So unacceptable.
[8:03:37] Now, you're at a different level than other people.
[8:03:41] So talk to me about this.
[8:03:43] What can you tell me?
[8:03:44] This is the first time I'm seeing this.
[8:03:46] I'm happy.
[8:03:46] This is information from minutes, by the way.
[8:03:49] Okay.
[8:03:49] I'm happy to ask staff to review this in comparison to ours and report back to you.
[8:03:54] Okay.
[8:03:55] I also think it's not acceptable to have a comparison.
[8:04:00] You were looking at 2016, 2017.
[8:04:02] We don't, that data, that information, I mean, we're talking 10 years ago.
[8:04:09] I don't think it's fair to have presented that as they had double the meetings and look
[8:04:15] at now where we have less, the changes are different.
[8:04:19] I imagine as time goes on, you get better at your job, spec, classification, review.
[8:04:26] So, okay.
[8:04:27] And the only reason it was, Madam Chair, is because we were just trying to say back
[8:04:32] then we proved that we could do it and that model is more reflective of where peer agencies
[8:04:38] are today.
[8:04:38] That's the only reason we do it.
[8:04:39] But I'm going to go back to the comment I've made five times.
[8:04:43] They probably have county staff that are submitting classification study edits or not.
[8:04:50] And our executives are making excuses about not submitting for classification changes.
[8:04:56] so that explains it. That explains why our civil service commission doesn't have enough work is
[8:05:02] because people at the top are saying, oh, I'm just going to use the same one. Can you take a look at
[8:05:09] the second page that I have there?
[8:05:14] So this document here are all the current open. Can you bring it
[8:05:18] down a little bit?
[8:05:21] Yeah. All right. So these are all the current case studies that are open
[8:05:25] with the Civil Service Commission pending approval of somehow let's just take
[8:05:31] the top one the Utility Billing Services series there are four classes in there
[8:05:36] it went from the department county department to TPS the conductive study
[8:05:42] in October of 2018 TPS submitted the class study to the Civil Service
[8:05:49] Commission on October 29, 2025. Talk to me about that.
[8:05:58] Then it went to the Civil Service
[8:06:00] Commission, sent comments back to DPS on September 26, 2025. And then at that point
[8:06:08] it moved on. It was supposed to be on the July 10th agenda. It didn't get, there was
[8:06:15] an issue on the 10th that had to do with budget. I don't know why there was a concern
[8:06:19] about budgets, but they moved it to the next meeting, and then it's now on the 28th of October.
[8:06:25] Talk to me about the time of length.
[8:06:29] You have county staff that are complaining that items are not getting through the Civil
[8:06:34] Service Commission timely.
[8:06:36] They're delays.
[8:06:37] They have all these gripes.
[8:06:39] But from the time that the department has submitted their request for the case study
[8:06:44] and from the time that DPS sends it to the Civil Service Commission, we're talking
[8:06:48] making 6.89 years, 7.6, 2 years, 2 years, 10 years, deputy public guardian conservators
[8:06:55] series, 10 years to talk to me about that. How does this happen? And do you see where
[8:07:04] my frustration and concerns are, Joe? That I hear that there are all these concerns
[8:07:10] and all these things going wrong. And back in January, I had a ton of questions that
[8:07:16] that were left sort of unanswered and then the meeting got pulled from the February item
[8:07:23] and so then I was expecting some time, I guess, that maybe things got fixed behind the scene.
[8:07:29] And then I hear again, you and I have a meeting in late July.
[8:07:36] What you shared is very different from the numbers and the dates that are shown
[8:07:43] on this document.
[8:07:44] And so this explains why I don't have a problem moving forward and making improvements.
[8:07:53] What I have a problem with moving forward is that we're making a decision.
[8:07:55] And I can tell you, there's probably already a vote that, you know, the information that
[8:07:59] you and David and Sylvester give us, it could come to us biased and it could create an
[8:08:07] emotional reaction to, yeah, let's make a change, let's do all that.
[8:08:10] And I had a question and what I am pulling out that is public information is so different
[8:08:18] from what you are presenting today.
[8:08:21] And so do you understand my concern, Joe?
[8:08:24] Do you understand?
[8:08:26] Do you understand?
[8:08:27] And then I don't get answers to my questions.
[8:08:31] I hear how the commissioners have been treated.
[8:08:34] I hear that they have communicated their concerns to want to meet with you.
[8:08:38] I now I'm hearing all this and it's not just my commissioner. It's myself and two other district commissioners that that are
[8:08:48] Appalled at at just how this whole thing is coming. But here's what I want to know. Here's tell me
[8:08:56] I'm gonna go back to I support improvements
[8:08:58] But why would you not go to the commission to let them know? Hey, this is what we're interested in doing
[8:09:04] You didn't have to agree with them
[8:09:06] They don't have to agree with your process, but if you can justify reasons why, why would
[8:09:13] you not go to the commission and have a presentation, give them this information, and tell them
[8:09:18] we're looking at making improvements that are going to end up having some cost savings,
[8:09:23] which by the way, the information that I have, there's not much of a cost savings,
[8:09:28] but that's besides the point.
[8:09:29] So why not go to the commission, Joe?
[8:09:32] Thank you for that, Supervisor.
[8:09:33] And again, we did go to the commission.
[8:09:37] I personally extended an invitation to both chairs to meet with them.
[8:09:42] Joe, are you telling me that you contacted the Executive Director of the Civil Service Commission
[8:09:48] and said put me on your agenda.
[8:09:50] I would like to have a presentation on some improvements that we want to make with the Civil Service Commission
[8:09:56] where then you can have a discussion with them about the charter, about the rules,
[8:10:00] about the authority that this board has to make changes?
[8:10:06] You did that?
[8:10:06] I went to the commission itself personally
[8:10:09] and invited them to have the meeting.
[8:10:12] That's not how you get on the agenda.
[8:10:16] You're a very well experienced individual.
[8:10:19] If you wanna go have a conversation with the commission,
[8:10:22] you get on their agenda.
[8:10:24] You have a conversation with the executive director
[8:10:26] and say, hey, we want to make some changes, can you get me on your July, June, May agenda?
[8:10:35] This has been in the works for a long time.
[8:10:37] Why not give them their respect?
[8:10:39] These are people who have volunteered, who, by the way, all five are very passionate about
[8:10:46] the work that they do for the county of Sacramento.
[8:10:50] And we just gave them a big middle finger and said, we're going to move forward
[8:10:54] with whatever it is that we're going to do, I don't care to hear what you have to say,
[8:10:59] we're just going to move forward.
[8:11:01] And then we get emails from two that are, whoa, what's going on?
[8:11:07] And they have all these questions.
[8:11:09] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[8:11:12] Specifically, we have had challenges getting items on the agenda, specifically on the
[8:11:17] disability rule.
[8:11:19] We weren't even allowed to use it.
[8:11:20] Joe, you're not hearing me.
[8:11:21] I'm asking you, why couldn't you go to the commission and present them with this PowerPoint
[8:11:30] and let them know what you wanted to do and the plans that you had?
[8:11:36] Why couldn't you have done that?
[8:11:39] That was what we offered.
[8:11:43] So they're liars.
[8:11:45] Three out of our five civil service commissioners are lying.
[8:11:49] I'm saying that I have documentation that I've reached out to both chairs and offered to meet on numerous occasions
[8:12:07] speechless here because I
[8:12:10] and
[8:12:11] Ed
[8:12:22] Supervisor Sourna, just a point of order. Is it possible? Are you done with your yeah? We're done our presentation
[8:12:28] Okay, because I'm really eager to
[8:12:32] Get on with this there might be others that are eager as well
[8:12:36] appreciate the chairs line of questioning she deserves to have
[8:12:39] her questions presented and answered if possible, but it feels like we're at a place that, for
[8:12:50] no other reason, for everyone's time, that we move on and hear from others.
[8:12:59] Yeah, actually I have some questions, and I'm not going to be rushed, Supervisor Surna.
[8:13:03] These are really important questions, and really what it comes down to is accountability
[8:13:09] and transparency and I, yeah, I want to get answers because that's what I want to say it's
[8:13:19] it's filling like gotcha big time to me. Well, and I'm seeing a lot of nodding heads too over here.
[8:13:26] So are you uncomfortable with the accountability that is being presented to the family?
[8:13:31] I'm not comfortable with you playing gotcha with staff.
[8:13:35] So do you see the, so then you see through the problem as well?
[8:13:40] I just want to hear from others and get on with the business of the day.
[8:13:45] I guess I would feel that way too if I was retiring in four months.
[8:13:50] Really? That's pathetic.
[8:13:52] I'm sorry. You're pathetic.
[8:13:53] I'm sorry. You know what? That's fine.
[8:13:54] You're pathetic. Not in 16 years has everyone stooped that low on this desk.
[8:13:59] You are pathetic.
[8:14:00] I have questions. You don't want to hear them.
[8:14:03] You don't want to hear my questions.
[8:14:04] You want to play gotcha the rest of the evening?
[8:14:06] Do it.
[8:14:07] I don't.
[8:14:07] You're making yourself look like a fool.
[8:14:09] I don't want to play gotcha, but evidently, we already know where the decision is going
[8:14:13] with this, and so my questions at this point are irrelevant, and so I'm fine.
[8:14:20] I really don't.
[8:14:21] I probably know the answers to the questions anyway.
[8:14:24] So Joe, is there anything else you want to add to this?
[8:14:27] Supervisor, if you'd like to meet with me at any point, again, my apologies
[8:14:31] If you feel that you've been shorts, you know got the shirt in the straw, but I'm happy to meet with you after
[8:14:37] My apologies. Yeah, thank you appreciate it
[8:14:41] Is your is that it for that's it for a presentation. Yeah, all right
[8:14:47] Any public comments
[8:14:49] Yes, we do have public comment people in the chamber and anyone online who would like to speak
[8:14:55] Please raise your hand now. We will start with the people in chamber
[8:15:00] First up, Martin Bryant.
[8:15:09] Thank you, I appreciate that.
[8:15:11] Okay, so this is why I'm really here.
[8:15:15] I did write up something.
[8:15:18] A lot of it is what we've already discussed.
[8:15:21] I represent ETTI.
[8:15:23] I'm one of the president of one of the named unions on the topic today.
[8:15:31] My main concern is with the stripping of the independence.
[8:15:35] like to solve an issue that is an issue like delays are real issue gosh I have a
[8:15:45] lot more to say than I can say in two minutes the things that were presented
[8:15:50] today were not what was presented to us when we met with the county previously
[8:15:54] their concerns then were the employees the oversight of the employees
[8:15:59] themselves and you know the amount of time that they spent in office and
[8:16:04] their availability, and then today it's, you know, delays on getting class studies done,
[8:16:14] which again, major issue. My experience with these delays is those delays come from DPS
[8:16:26] with all due respect to Joe and you know Joe I respect respect you and you know I
[8:16:33] think we get along well in the interactions we've had but these
[8:16:38] delays are not in my experience CSE delays they are DPS delays I've had
[8:16:45] conversations with management about getting certain classes implemented at
[8:16:49] the county that do not exist and what we've been met with is DPS telling us
[8:16:56] yes, that's going to take too long. We're not going to even do it. It's going to take
[8:16:59] too long. So it's not even management that's refusing to try to push these classes. It's
[8:17:07] DPS. There's delays with DPS and not just class studies and disciplinary action and
[8:17:15] everything else. Again, I'm the president of the union. I deal with that pretty regularly.
[8:17:20] things that should take weeks, take months, up to a year plus, to do anything.
[8:17:25] So the idea that we're going to fix a delay issue by DPS, taking it over and stripping
[8:17:32] the independence from these administrative and support staff for CSE is...
[8:17:37] Oh, sorry.
[8:17:38] Thank you.
[8:17:39] Thank you.
[8:17:42] Our next in-chamber speaker is Ted Samara.
[8:17:49] Good evening.
[8:17:53] Supervisor Tetsmer, executive director of United Public Employees, and we represent about a third of your county employees.
[8:17:57] And so I'm kind of a little pleased here. You've experienced some of the pain we experienced when we deal with DPS,
[8:18:03] and getting information in the 11th hour just before the present.
[8:18:07] I've been with the United Public Employees now for, this is my 27th year.
[8:18:11] I agree. Change needs to happen. The delay, there are delays.
[8:18:15] studies, but the blame, put solely the blame at 80 percent on the Silver Service Commission
[8:18:22] is unfair. The majority of these classification studies are Supervisor Rodriguez that you presented
[8:18:27] here that are 2018. Those are our bargaineants. And I've come to you all to talk about the
[8:18:34] concerns we have DPS. I believe change needs to occur, Supervisor Serna. You're right.
[8:18:39] But you can't fix a remodel house with rested nails. It shouldn't be DPS that should
[8:18:45] be the ones that would have to oversight over that. Your issues is meeting and having civil
[8:18:50] service commission meet more frequently. Well, talk to your commissioners, you appoints before
[8:18:56] you appoint them to push the executive director to meet more often. You appoint them. Nobody
[8:19:02] else in this room does. There's where some of that change could happen. Maybe try that
[8:19:06] first. And I want to know who this guy that's the most trustworthy guy that people
[8:19:11] will have concerns that person is it going to be David that's going to oversee it? At
[8:19:16] this point I can say, okay, let's give it a try there. David's a pretty honorable man.
[8:19:20] But the dealings we've had with DPS haven't been the best. It's always the pushback.
[8:19:26] I get it. You need to have more meetings. We would like to see more meetings, too.
[8:19:28] But when we appeal stuff to Alice over for releases from probation, we get hearing dates.
[8:19:35] The problem is when the whole we don't need it and the unions, that's a bunch
[8:19:40] of malarkey you're hearing over there. They want to strip that power so DPS can have
[8:19:45] sole power so they can come back and say, no, we don't need to do this, we don't need
[8:19:48] to do that. You ask those directors why they don't want to put forward classification studies
[8:19:54] because they take too long but not because of civil service because of DPS.
[8:20:00] Thank you, Ted.
[8:20:01] Fix it right.
[8:20:04] Our next in-chamber speaker is Kelsey Johnson.
[8:20:07] Good
[8:20:12] evening, Chair and Supervisors. My name is Kelsey Johnson. I'm the President of
[8:20:17] Schema, the Sacramento County Management Association. We represent over 850 employees
[8:20:23] and over 165 job classifications. We have some experience with classification studies.
[8:20:30] Our experience has not, has been not that Civil Service Commission has been a holdup.
[8:20:36] In fact, by the time we have heard something is ready to be presented to Civil Service
[8:20:40] Commission, that's the time when we know we are crossing the finish line. We understand,
[8:20:46] we appreciate efficiencies, they are important as managers, that is what our membership strives
[8:20:52] to do. And our members are located at almost every single department in this county, if
[8:20:57] not everyone. And what we have heard from top managers when discussing whether or
[8:21:02] not they want to have updated class studies, is that the challenge that it would take
[8:21:07] take to even begin sometimes with it going to DPS. It's not the civil service component.
[8:21:13] And we are concerned about that and appreciate the board looking at these issues. But given
[8:21:19] some of the answers and responses that are not supported by facts and evidence and they
[8:21:25] are not, demands that there be some further investigation regarding the information that
[8:21:32] is being presented to this board. I would also be curious about how many classification
[8:21:37] studies are currently under review. Schema's had instances where we have gone through three
[8:21:43] contract sessions and I know I've been on all of the contract negotiations. I believe
[8:21:48] there have been five with Schema. I've been on the board since 2009, where we've even
[8:21:53] had to write contract language in to get updates regarding where those classifications
[8:21:59] are. Regarding the pay, we have oftentimes tried to negotiate the pay. The county repeatedly
[8:22:05] tells us where the highest paying we have zero recruitment or retention issues. It is
[8:22:10] only after a position is not able to be filled after a significant period of time that they
[8:22:15] may return and then at that point suggest increasing the pay. So again, we do not
[8:22:21] agree with the information that has been, much of the information that has been submitted
[8:22:25] and would appreciate the time to present facts as we see them to anyone who has questions.
[8:22:29] Thank you. The next in-chamber speaker is Alice Doudin-Kelvio.
[8:22:46] Thank you, Alice.
[8:23:02] I've written my comments to make sure I'm timely.
[8:23:06] Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Board. My name is Alice Doudin-Kelvio,
[8:23:11] and I am the Executive Officer for the County Civil Service Commission.
[8:23:15] I'd like to preface my remarks today by stating that I recently
[8:23:18] tenured my resignation to the commission. My last day is September 14th. I have grown
[8:23:25] tired of the unprofessionalism, dishonesty, unsubstantiated claims, lack of transparency
[8:23:33] and unchecked, disrespectful behavior from DPS leadership. But that is for another
[8:23:39] time.
[8:23:42] DPS's proposal circumvents the intent of the Sacramento County voters when they
[8:23:47] enacted your charter establishing the commission as an independent agency separate from DPS
[8:23:52] with their own staff. In a nutshell, the commission adopts civil service policy via the rules,
[8:23:59] and the department implements said policies if they pertain to merit-based employment.
[8:24:04] There is a clear and distinct separation of powers. The charter explicitly states the
[8:24:09] commission staff shall have no authority to administer personal services and programs.
[8:24:14] Instead, that rests with DPS.
[8:24:18] This has demonstrated through the fact that there are more than 17 different actions that
[8:24:24] are taken by the DPS director that can be appealed to the Commission.
[8:24:28] In addition, the Commission and its executive officer are authorized to investigate DPS
[8:24:33] actions that are deemed necessary for the proper administration of its responsibilities.
[8:24:37] granting DPS authority to staff the commission effectively places the fox in
[8:24:43] the henhouse how can anyone expect to be treated fairly when the department that
[8:24:49] is alleged of wrongdoing is now staffing the commission DPS states that the
[8:24:55] staff assigned would be exempt but there is no doubt that there would be
[8:24:59] undue influence given that given the control that DPS has attempted to
[8:25:03] exert to date. And I speak personally to that.
[8:25:07] Rep it up.
[8:25:08] DPS argues that the commission having its own staff bogs down the process and causes the
[8:25:14] necessary delays. However, when pressed, they are unable to provide any evidence of this.
[8:25:20] This is not a proposal to make operations more efficient and effective. It's a power
[8:25:24] grab. DPS wants to control what, when, how items go to the commission without any
[8:25:28] constructive input or oversight. The same oversight that was provided.
[8:25:32] Thank you under the charter. Thank you very much. I appreciate your opportunity and urge you to vote actually don't go too far
[8:25:39] I have some questions for you. So I'll do it after do me to go sit down and then come back. Yeah
[8:25:46] Our last speaker is online Sally lie
[8:25:52] Sally you can unmute yourself. Can you hear me? Yes, we can
[8:25:56] Good afternoon, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Sally Lee and a serve as the acting chair of the Sacramento
[8:26:03] County Civil Service Commission. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to
[8:26:10] place our administrative staff under the Department of Personnel Services. The
[8:26:15] very department we are responsible for overseeing. This will significantly
[8:26:20] compromise the Commission's independence. Even if commissioners remain
[8:26:25] independent, placing our staff inside DPS creates an inherent conflict of
[8:26:31] interest because the department we oversee would also be preparing the
[8:26:36] materials for our oversight.
[8:26:38] Over my two and a half years on the commission, I have been able to question
[8:26:43] DPS freely, disagree when necessary, and advocate for more equitable
[8:26:48] employment practices. That independence allows us to provide an unbiased
[8:26:54] review without any undue influence from DPS.
[8:26:57] us. Moving our staff into DPS eliminates the separation that protects the integrity of
[8:27:04] our oversight and ensures the public's trust and the impartial civil service system. This
[8:27:09] is precisely why large employers like the state of California and City of Sacramento
[8:27:14] maintain independent civil service commissions in the light. Thank you so much for your
[8:27:19] time and consideration. Thank you Sally. And we have no additional speakers. You
[8:27:25] You know, Alice as the executive director,
[8:27:28] I just have some questions that I need to get answered.
[8:27:32] How long have you been on the Civil Service Commission?
[8:27:36] I was appointed by the Commission in January of 2013.
[8:27:40] And has the Commission ever expressed disappointment
[8:27:43] of the work that you have performed
[8:27:45] with the Civil Service Commission?
[8:27:46] No.
[8:27:47] When did you first learn that DPS was proposing
[8:27:50] to eliminate or to make changes to the department?
[8:27:54] The first time I learned two business days before the meeting in February, I received
[8:28:00] a phone call from County Executive's Office Wednesday afternoon telling me to wait until
[8:28:06] the agenda item was dropped so I could see what the proposal was.
[8:28:10] This time I found out because I looked at the agenda.
[8:28:14] So I essentially learned again Wednesday before when the agenda dropped.
[8:28:19] That's how I learned.
[8:28:20] And even though, I must say, I specifically under several circumstances asked county exec
[8:28:29] to let me know when this was going to come before me again.
[8:28:32] And I was assured multiple times that the DPS director would tell me, and that did
[8:28:36] not happen.
[8:28:39] You've been on this commission for a long time.
[8:28:43] Why do you think that this proposal is coming before us?
[8:28:47] Like, what are your thoughts?
[8:28:49] thoughts, because you heard a lot of things that are so different from what I've investigated
[8:28:56] and analyzed, and so what are your thoughts? Why do you think these changes are coming about?
[8:29:03] I mean, I have my assumption, but what are your thoughts?
[8:29:06] I'm going to be frank with you, because I'm on my way out. I'm on my way out. I think
[8:29:11] that DPS was having to be accountable for the actions and the delays in the class
[8:29:15] studies and they looked at the commission as a scapegoat.
[8:29:20] That's what the data shows, by the way.
[8:29:23] Has the commission delayed some class studies? I'm sure we are not that we have. And when Mr.
[8:29:31] Robin says that there have been times where I asked him to tell me which class study over
[8:29:35] another to put on the agenda, that is true. Because I am one person that staffs the
[8:29:40] commission. I can only put so many items on an agenda at a time that require a staff report
[8:29:45] And to put together a packet there. I can't have somebody ask me to put something on the agenda the Monday before the meeting on Friday
[8:29:52] If there are I would give them the opportunity to tell me what's your priority? What's the priority? Let's move all I'm willing
[8:30:00] But I have 24 hours in a day to get things ready. That's all the time there is in a day.
[8:30:05] And so that does exist. But I honestly believe that we have become the scapegoat. I have invoked
[8:30:13] changes to the classification process. Since this particular issue came up before February,
[8:30:20] I immediately went back to my desk and came up with three different ways to improve the
[8:30:25] classification study process. I met with the DPS director, I conveyed those to
[8:30:30] county executive and they are in place today. One of them includes completely
[8:30:36] condensing my analysis to a one-and-a-half page memo. I have told
[8:30:40] Department of Personnel Services, bring me the study and I'll put them on the
[8:30:45] agenda. I cannot schedule what I do not have. Right now you have 37 class
[8:30:54] studies that are in the pipeline for DPS. 37. Your DPS director tells me that I
[8:31:01] should be scheduling between 20 and 100 class studies on every single agenda.
[8:31:06] How do I get that out of when there's only 37 in the pipeline and some of
[8:31:11] those have already been approved by the Commission. When I ask about delays,
[8:31:18] show the delays, the DPS director blamed me. He blamed me that DPS staff could not work
[8:31:29] on the class studies because they were afraid that I would ask questions or have concerns.
[8:31:37] So I think really I am a one-person show and it's easy to blame me.
[8:31:42] Alice, what are your thoughts on the suggestions that they are making about the process
[8:31:48] improvements. I mean you've been doing this a long time. You know the work inside out then what do
[8:31:55] you foresee on we make these changes? We talked about process improvements and we're all big fans of
[8:32:02] efficiency. Absolutely. What do you think is going to happen? I don't know what's going to happen
[8:32:08] but I think that it's not going to be good for the county. I really don't. I believe in
[8:32:13] efficiency and effectiveness. When I came on board 13 years ago, I looked at how ineffective
[8:32:19] class studies were run. Yes, the commission met a lot, and they had a lot of class studies
[8:32:24] on the agenda. But what happened was those class studies, it took two, three, four meetings
[8:32:31] to get them approved. I instilled efficiencies so that they would go to the commission
[8:32:36] and get out the door. I'm all about operational efficiencies. I have been in the public
[8:32:42] sector for 40 years. I believe that. If you move the staff under DPS, DPS will control what
[8:32:51] that individual does. I don't care what is said today, I have observed the pressure that
[8:32:57] is being played. I'm a tough cookie and I know how I feel. I don't know how the
[8:33:03] person would be, especially in an exempt position. When they are exempt and they are supposed
[8:33:10] to staff the commission. What happens when the commission gives them a directive that's different than personnel director?
[8:33:18] They better go with what the personnel director says or they're going to lose their job because they're exempt.
[8:33:23] Thank you, Alice.
[8:33:25] Do you have any other questions?
[8:33:27] No, I think you've answered some of the ones related to I think the information that was getting sent and it was very contrary to what I had looked
[8:33:38] and I pulled it from your website and it just wasn't adding up, but just the whole process
[8:33:44] itself has been. Yeah, the concerns that I have is really the process that it took to
[8:33:49] get to this point. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
[8:33:59] So no more requests
[8:34:00] to speak? No more requests to speak. Online. Okay. The floor is yours, gentlemen. Moved
[8:34:07] staff recommended. Second.
[8:34:12] Supervisor, wait, we have a comment. Supervisor Dozen? I do.
[8:34:14] A comment really quiescent would ask for a friendly amendment to the motion. Supervisor
[8:34:20] Hume made a point before we left about, look, let's see if it's better after we implement
[8:34:26] this. And if it's not, then the board can go a different direction. So what my friendly
[8:34:32] amendment would be, can we either a year or two, I don't know, a year from implementation
[8:34:36] come back to the board, two years from implementation,
[8:34:39] come back to the board, yeah.
[8:34:41] I would accept two years,
[8:34:42] anything less than that's difficult for you.
[8:34:43] Okay, no, that's fine.
[8:34:44] Two years, come back to this board,
[8:34:46] and if this new model is not working, then we change it.
[8:34:49] That would be my request for a friendly amendment,
[8:34:50] if that's okay with the makers of the motion.
[8:34:52] But I would also say one other thing,
[8:34:55] it's very disheartening to see what's happened
[8:34:58] on this board today,
[8:34:59] and then kind of the lack of, I think,
[8:35:01] of civility that intruded upon this discussion.
[8:35:03] That's something I have not seen
[8:35:04] in my experience on this board. But I would also say, DPS, you can no longer point the
[8:35:11] finger at anybody with this change. This begins and ends with you and we will be holding you
[8:35:17] accountable for improving the system now. So I just want to make that very, very clear.
[8:35:22] So thank you.
[8:35:23] Okay, we have a motion in the second. Please vote.
[8:35:29] Oh, sorry. Sorry, I did the same
[8:35:31] thing again. Go back. Sorry. There you go.
[8:35:43] All right, that motion passes three to one with Super chair Rodriguez voting next item please yeah,
[8:35:55] you want to read the next time
[8:35:56] Yeah, the next item on our agenda is number 35 county executive comments. I have no comments today. Thank you. Okay
[8:36:03] Yeah, I got a few comments
[8:36:06] More of a request to
[8:36:11] Actually, I could do those later.
[8:36:12] The only request I have right now for the next meeting is for the Sheriff's Department
[8:36:16] to send us a letter about a position that they have been wanting to get, it's a position
[8:36:25] that they've been wanting that would be a trade-in for another, if we have a discussion
[8:36:29] with that, it's the letter that we received.
[8:36:31] There's a-
[8:36:32] I don't recall it being a trade for another position.
[8:36:34] Is that the leadership position over Correctional Health?
[8:36:36] I think so, yeah.
[8:36:37] Okay.
[8:36:37] Yeah, we're still trying to decipher some of that information, but we'll see what we
[8:36:42] can do as far as getting information from.
[8:36:43] Yeah, I'd like that discussion.
[8:36:44] And also at some point have a conversation about the adult correctional health and where
[8:36:48] it currently sits.
[8:36:50] Where it currently sits?
[8:36:51] What do you mean by that?
[8:36:52] Right now it's with our health department.
[8:36:54] Yes.
[8:36:54] And I'd like to have a conversation about possible opportunities for the sheriff
[8:37:01] what had an interest in potentially taking that item back.
[8:37:05] Oh yes, absolutely.
[8:37:06] We'd like to have that conversation.
[8:37:06] Great. Thank you. All right. That's it. All right. Well, we now adjourn at 6.02 p.m.