>> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER
THE MEETING OF THE SACRAMENTO 
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
>> GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS.
FROST?
KENNEDY?
NOTTOLI?
PETERS?
SERNA.
YOU HAVE QUORUM.
THIS MEETING OF THE 
IS CABLECAST LIVE ON METRO CABLE
14, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
CHANNEL ON THE COMCAST, 
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS AND 
AT&T U-VERSE CABLE SYSTEMS. 
THE MEETING IS CLOSED CAPTIONED 
AND WEBCAST AT 
WWW.SACMETROCABLE.TV. 
TODAY'S MEETING WILL BE REPEATED
FRIDAY JUNE 19TH AT 6:00 P.M.
ON CHANNEL 14.  
MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING 
PLEASE TAKE TA MOMENT TO SILENCE
YOUR ELECTRONIC DEVICES AT THIS 
TIME.
>> THANK YOU, PETER, LEAD US IN 
THE PLEDGE, PLEASE.
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] 
>> THANK YOU.
I HAVE AN ANOTHER NOTICE TO 
READ, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 
STATE AND C.D.C. AND PREVENTION,
THIS MEETING IS LIVE STREAMED 
AND CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.
TEMPORARY PROCEDURES ARE SUBJECT
TO CHANGE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE 
ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT THE 
COMMENTS ELECTRONICALLY AND THE 
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE 
DISTRIBUTED TO THE MEMBERS OF 
THE BOARD AND READ INTO THE 
RECORD AND FILED IN THE MEETING 
RECORD.
THE PUBLIC COMMENTS CAN BE 
RELATED TO AN AGENDA ITEM OR FOR
A MATTER NOT ON THE AGENDA.
THE FOLLOWING ARE WAYS THAT THE 
PUBLIC CAN MAKE COMMENTS.
YOU CAN EMAIL OUR CLERK OF THE 
BOARD.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE MEETING DATE 
AND AGENDA ITEM NUMBER AND FIRST
AND LAST NAME ARE OPTIONAL.
YOU CAN GO ONLINE, CLICK ON MAKE
A COMMENT ELECTRONICALLY.
WITH THAT, I'M TAKE A CHAIR'S 
PER INTERROGATORY TIF AND TAKE A
MOMENT.
I KNOW THAT IN PAST MEETINGS 
DURING OUR SHUTDOWN MYSELF AND 
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HAVE 
EXPRESSED CONCERN, THE SAME 
CONCERN EXPRESSED TO US ABOUT 
THE INABILITY TO PROVIDE VERBAL 
COMMENTS AS IS EXPECTED IN A 
NORMAL, WHEN NOT IN A PANDEMIC, 
AND THEY USUALLY HAVE TWO OR 
THREE MINUTES TO COMMENT ON THE 
ITEMS.
I DON'T LIKE MAKING ULT TA MATE 
UMS AND THIS IS NOT DIRECTED TO 
A MEMBER OF THE CLERK OF THE 
BOARD R THE EXECUTIVE TEAM BUT 
YESTERDAY AFTERNOON I SENT IN 
WRITING JUST THAT.
I WILL NOT BE PARTICIPATING IN 
ANY FURTHER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MEETINGS AFTER SUMMER BREAK IF 
ONE OF TWO THINGS DOESN'T 
HAPPEN.
THE FIRST, WELL, WHETHER WE CAN 
HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT HERE IN 
PERSON WITH ADJUSTED SOCIAL 
DISTANCING LIMITATIONS HERE IN 
THE CHAMBERS, OR IF WE DON'T 
HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE 
TELEPHONE CAPACITY TO 
ACCOMMODATE THE MEMBERS OF THE 
PUBLIC THAT WANT TO ADDRESS THE 
BOARD ORALLY AND IN REAL TIME.
THIS IS NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE.
WE HAVE BEEN FRUSTRATED WITH THE
CIRCUMSTANCE.
AS I KNOW AND MANY HAVE 
MENTIONED OF IN THE CHAMBERS AND
AGAIN IN RECENT WEEKS THIS IS OF
CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO WHAT WE 
DO AND HOW WE DO THE BUSINESS IN
THE PUBLIC AND BENEFIT OF THE 
PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN REAL TIME.
WITH THAT SAID, IT IS MY 
UNDERSTANDING HAVING HAD 
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNTY CEO 
THAT I BELIEVE HE FEELS 
SIMILARLY IN TERMS OF THE IMPORT
OF THIS ISSUE.
AND WE ARE EXPECTING THAT HE AND
HIS CAPABLE STAFF AND THE CLERK 
OF THE BOARD WILL TAKE THE TIME 
OVER THE SUMMER RECESS TO MAKE 
THE ADJUSTMENTS AS NECESSARY, 
WHETHER THERE IS FINDING A WAY 
TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEOPLE IN 
PUBLIC AT THE PODIUM IN THE 
CHAMBERS OR AGAIN TO PARTICIPATE
BY OTHER MEANS, BY TELEPHONE OR 
WITH NEW AUDIO-VISUAL PLATFORMS.
MR. GILL, DO YOU WANT TO ADD 
ANYTHING?
>> I DON'T.
THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE 
BOARD HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT?
ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, THE FIRST ITEM.
FOR CONSENT MATTERS.
TO DROP THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN 
THE SHERIFF AND THE CITY TO 
REIMBURSE FOR A THIRD OF THE 
COST TO REPAY THE OPERATION 
COURSE AT 3905 ALERT ROAD.
>> YOU NEED A MOTION TO DROP 
THAT?
>> YES.
>> SO MOVED.
>> THAT IS MOVED AND SECONDED.
FURTHER COMMENTS.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> ANONYMOUS VOTE.
WE HAVE TWO NOTES.
61 INTRODUCING IN ORDINANCE, SO 
ADOPTING MITIGATION STRATEGY FOR
THE FLORIN PLAN AREA AND CERTAIN
SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 16.85 TITLE 
16 OF THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY CODE
AND PROVISIONS OF THE FLORIN 
IMPACT FEE.
YOU ARE GOING TO WAIVE THE 
READING AND CONTINUE IT TO 
JULY 14TH.
AND THEN ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE 
ITEM 66, TITLE 16 OF THE COUNTY 
CODE RELATING TO THE IMPACT FEES
TO FINANCE THE COST OF PUBLIC 
FACILITIES WITHIN THE METRO 
SPECIAL PLANNING AREA.
THAT CONCLUDES THE NOTES FOR THE
CONSENT MATTERS.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU.
I FAILED TO MENTION THAT 
BEGINNING OF THE HEARING IS THAT
IS OUR LAST HEARING OF THE 
FISCAL YEAR AND THIS REPRESENTS 
A BIT OF A DEPARTURE FROM THE 
TRADITION IN TERMS OF THE 
DURATION AND FORMAT OF OUR 
BUDGET HEARINGS.
AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER
OF ASSOCIATED ITEMS ON CONSENT.
SO I AM AWARE THAT THERE ARE 
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THAT HAVE A
NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN CONSENT 
THEY WOULD WISH TO PULL FOR 
SEPARATE VOTE AND CONSIDERATION 
OR PROVIDE COMMENT.
I THINK WE'LL GO FROM MY LEFT TO
RIGHT.
DISTRICT FIVE.
MR. NOTTOLI.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
ONE ISSUE, CONSENT CALENDAR, WE 
HAVE GOTTEN A NUMBER OF 
COMMENTS, A LOT OF THEM ARE 
TAGGED TO A NUMBER OF ITEMS 
BUILT INTO THE CONSENT CALENDAR 
AND THE FOLKS ASKED TO HAVE THEM
READ INTO THE RECORD.
BEFORE TAKING UP THE CONSENT 
CALENDAR, DO YOU HAVE A PROCESS 
FOR DOING THAT?
I AM REQUESTING A NUMBER OF THE 
ITEMS HELD OVER TO MATCH UP ITEM
NO. 77 THE BUDGET.
I DON'T KNOW THE INTENT THERE.
>> WHAT I WAS RECOMMENDING TO 
THE CHAIR IS THAT BEFORE YOU 
TAKE THE VOTE ON THE CONSENT 
MATTERS I HAVE COMMENTS TO READ 
FOR ITEMS 46-56.
>> OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
MR. CHAIR, JUST AND CERTAINLY 
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS RELATIVE
TO CONDUCT OF THE MEETINGS AND 
THE NEED TO AND I KNOW THE 
COUNTY EXEC IS AWARE TO FIND THE
FOLKS A WAY TO COME REAL TIME TO
THE BOARD.
I UNDERSTAND THE APPROACH THAT 
WE ARE TAKING WITH THE PLACE 
HOLDER BUDGET.
AS I REFLECTED ON THIS AND HAD A
CHANCE TO DIVE INTO A NUMBER OF 
THE ITEMS THERE IS A LOT OF 
SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION WITH THE
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR 
AND RELATING TO THE PLACE HOLDER
DISCUSSION.
I SUGGEST RATHER THAN DISJOINTED
THAT SOME OF THE ITEMS BE PULLED
AND COUPLED TO DISCUSS THEM IN 
THE CONTEXT OF THE BUDGET AND 
WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN OVER THE 
SUMMER AND THE IMPACTS OF A 
NUMBER OF DECISIONS THAT WE ARE 
ASKED TO WEIGH IN ON TODAY.
A COUPLE OF ITEMS, 4, 5.
ALSO, ITEM 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 
29, 46, WHICH WE HAD COMMENTS 
ON.
59.
THERE ARE OTHER BUDGET ITEMS.
THEY HAVE BUNDLES OF CONTRACTS, 
COMMUNITY SERVICES, TENS OF 
MILLION DOLLARS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERNS 
ME, CERTAINLY THE WORK THAT HAS 
BEEN DONE TO BRING THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS TO US.
WE HAVE A KAV YET IN THE 
CONTRACTS COMING BEFORE US THIS 
MORNING.
IT ALLOWS FOR IMMEDIATE 
TERMINATION OR AMENDMENT.
GET THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE STAY 
AT HOME ORDERS AND PANDEMIC, 
AGAIN, I CERTAINLY WITH ALL DO 
RESPECT I UNDERSTAND THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE US TODAY,
BUT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR 
THIS BOARD AN BEHALF OF THE 
MILLION HALF PEOPLE THAT WE 
REPRESENT TO DELIBERATE AND 
DISCUSSION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
PROPOSED BUDGET, APPROVED 
BUDGET, THE PLACE HOLDER BUDGET,
AND HAVE A CONVERSATION OVER 
WHAT WE ARE DOING OVER THE 
SUMMERTIME IN ANTICIPATION OF 
THINGS THAT WE DON'T KNOW FOR 
CERTAIN AND ALSO SOME OF THE 
THINGS EMBEDDED WHAT WE ARE 
BEING ASKED HERE TO DO TODAY.
WITHOUT SPEAKING TO THE ITEMS 
SEPARATELY, WE CAN BUNDLE THEM 
AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME I 
WILL COMMENT ON SOME OF THE -AP,
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AND 
ALSO OUR CONTRACT FOR IN-PATIENT
MENTAL HEALTH BEDS GOING FROM 16
MILLION NOW WHAT IS PROPOSED TO 
BE $39 MILLION AND AGAIN, JUST A
HOST OF SERVICES TO RELATE TO 
THE QUALITY OF LIFE FROM THE 
STANDPOINT OF THE PUBLIC 
PROTECTION, PUBLIC SAFETY, 
SOCIAL SERVICES, HUMAN SERVICES,
RIGHT DOWN TO LINE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO COUPLE THOSE 
ITEMS.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU.
I AM LOOKING AT THE CLERK, I 
ASSUME WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT 
AND CAREFUL NOTE TO THE NUMBERS 
TO CONSOLIDATE?
>> YES.
>> BEFORE CAN'TING, SUPERVISOR 
PETERS, ANY NEED TO STATE INTO 
THE RECORD ON RECUSALS.
>> I AM GOING TO, I HAVE A SLIDE
PREPARED FOR ITEM 4, WHICH I 
THINK DON MENTIONED.
AND A SLIDE FOR I DIDN'T WRITE 
IT DOWN.
>> 77.
>> YES, LATER.
IT IS A TIMED ITEM.
I ALSO WANT TO HAVE COUNTY 
COUNSEL ON ITEM 37, HOMELESS 
PROJECT AND SHE HAS REVIEWED IT 
AND DETERMINED THAT I CAN VOTE 
ON IT.
>> OKAY.
SO WHAT I THINK WE'LL DO IS 
MAYBE AT THE TIME, WE ARE 
TREATING THIS AS A PACKAGE OF 
BUDGET CONSIDERATION, 
DELIBERATION, WHEN WE HEAR ITEM 
77 WITH THE OTHER ITEMS THAT 
MR. NOTTOLI MENTIONED THERE WILL
BE AGAIN ANOTHER SPECIAL NOTE 
ABOUT WHAT SUPERVISOR PETERS 
MENTIONED IN TERMS OF HER SLIDES
AND I KNOW SHE'S DONE THIS IN 
THE PAST YEARS AND CAREFUL AND 
DELIBERATE ABOUT THE ITEMS SHE'S
REACCUSING ON.
I WANTED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT 
REQUEST.
>> MAY I SAY SOMETHING, PLEASE.
SO THE BALANCE ON YOUR ITEMS 
1-67, WE ARE GOING TO HOLD YOU 
ARE SAYING 4, 5, 19, 20, 21, 22,
24, 29, 46, 59?
>> YES.
SUPERVISOR FROST?
>>  I MADE MY COMMENTS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
I HAVE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, 
ITEMS 56, 57, 82.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THOSE 
NOW, MADAM CLERK.
>> OKAY.
WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR 56 
AS WELL.
>> IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE 
SHERIFFS OFFICE TO HELP ANSWER 
THIS.
I APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T REALIZE 
THIS UNTIL AFTER THE BRIEFING, I
TAKE NOTE OF THE VERY SMALL 
AMOUNT THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH 
THIS ACTION ITEM.
IT IS $1,430.
IT IS AFFECTING 13 STUDENTS.
SO I WANTED CLARIFICATION.
THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY IMPORTANT
PART OF THE POST TRAINING.
THIS IS REFLECTIVE OF THE FACT 
THAT WE DON'T HAVE A NUMBER OF 
THE PERSONNEL TAKING ADVANTAGE 
OF THIS WHEN YOU HAVE 13 OUT OF 
HUNDREDS THAT ARE LOOKING AT 
OPTION SIMULATION TRAINING?
CAN I GET THE ANSWER THIS 
AFTERNOON ?
>> I WILL GET YOU THE ANSWER.
I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER.
>> OKAY.
YOU UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE
QUESTION?
>> I THINK SO.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
SO WHY DON'T WE LOOK TO HAVE THE
ANSWER ON THAT LATER THIS 
AFTERNOON.
>> INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
PAVEMENT FINAL CONTRACT 
ACCEPTANCE.
>> GREAT.
I SEE THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR IS IN
THE AUDIENCE.
THANK YOU SO ALL GETTING THIS 
PROJECT COMPLETE.
REPRESENTING THAT AREA AND 
LIVING NEAR THE AIRPORT MYSELF I
KNOW THAT THE INTERRUPTION TO 
THE SERVICE THAT MADE USE OF THE
RUNWAY HAD IMPACTS IN TERMS OF 
THE FLIGHT PATTERNS AND 
ESPECIALLY SOUTH FLOW DEPARTURE 
ALTITUDES IN THE WEST LAKE 
NEIGHBORHOOD AND WEST SHORE AND 
WEST SIDE OF I-5 AND OF COURSE, 
WE DO CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM 
CONSTITUENTS THAT PART OF THE 
CITY AND COUNTY ABOUT THEIR 
CONCERNS BUT WITH ONLY ONE WAY 
OPERATIONAL THAT DID HAVE IMPACT
ON THOSE ASSOCIATED OVERFLIGHT 
IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
GLAD TO SEE THAT BACK IN THE 
RUNNING ORDER.
APPRECIATE EVERYONE INVOLVED 
WITH THAT.
62.
>> 62 THE AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR
GRANT FUNDING FROM THE 
SACRAMENTO AIR QUALITY 
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, LOWER 
EMISSION INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND 
ACCEPT THE FUNDING AND EXECUTE 
AND SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS AND 
ACCEPT THE FUNDING RELATED 
OPPORTUNITIES.
>> THANK YOU.
AGAIN, ANOTHER EXPREREQUISITE OF
GRATITUDE TO THOSE ON THE COUNTY
SIDE OF THIS MATTER TO PURSUE 
AND ACCEPT THE FUNDING TO SEE 
THAT OUR FLEET CONTINUES TO 
EXPAND TO THE ZERO EMISSION 
SPACE AND TO OUR VERY CAPABLE 
STAFF AT THE SACRAMENTO AIR 
QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND 
WORKING TO SEE THIS IS BEFORE US
TODAY.
AGAIN, IT IS A STEP, BUT AN 
IMPORTANT TO SEE THAT OUR FLEET,
ESPECIALLY OUR MEDIUM AND HEAVY 
DUTY FLEETS ARE PROGRESSING TO 
THE ZERO EMISSION SPACE THAT WE 
ALL CAN AGREE AND WE WANT TO SEE
FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE FLEET 
HERE IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY.
SO ANOTHER BIG THANK YOU TO THE 
STAFF.
OKAY.
WITH THAT, I THINK WHAT WE HAVE 
IS THE BALANCE OF CONSENT.
>> YOU HAVE THE BALANCE OF 
CONSENT.
BUT WE SHOULD READ THE PUBLIC 
COMMENTS BEFORE TAKING THE VOTE.
THE CLERK AND STAFF AND I ARE 
DIVIDING UP THE COMMENTS AND 
WE'LL READ THEM INTO THE RECORD.
46.
THIS IS FROM EDDIE, DEAR 
SUPERVISOR, I WOULD LIKE THIS 
COMMENT TO BE READ AT THE 
MEETING AS A COMMENT TO AGENDA 
NO. 46.
I'M EDDIE, A 24-YEAR-OLD 
RESIDENT AND EXPRESSING THE DEEP
CONCERN WITH THE PROPOSED 
FUNDING TO THE SACRAMENTO 
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT IN THE 
COUNTY'S FISCAL YEAR 21 BUDGET, 
I IMPLORE THAT THE BOARD REJECT 
3.1 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL 
FUNDING REQUESTED BY THE SHERIFF
ITEM IN 36-56.
THOSE ARE AGENDA ITEMS AND FOCUS
ON THE COMMUNITY AND THE SOCIAL 
SERVICES AND FOCUS ON THE 
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR UNHOUSED 
PEOPLE, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, 
HAND WASH STATIONS AND 
REINVERSMENT IN THE BLACK 
COMMUNITIES.
FOR TWO LONG SACRAMENTO COUNTY 
MISAAPPROPRIATED THE TAX DOLLARS
AND IGNORING THE MARGINALIZED 
COMMUNITIES.
THE CONSTITUENTS HAVE HAD 
ENOUGH.
IT IS PAST TIME FOR A CHANGE.
THIS IS FROM KATIE.
I WOULD LIKE THIS COMMENT TO BE 
READ ALOUD IN THE 6-16 BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS MEETING AS A COMMENT
TO THE ITEM NO. 46.
I'M 24 YEARS OLD.
MY HUSBAND AND I MOVED TO 
SACRAMENTO A FEW YEARS AGO AND 
QUICKLY FELL IN LOVE WITH THE 
CITY.
WE LOVE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING FOR 
THE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND
TAKING ACTION TO PREVENT BLACK 
PEOPLE FROM BEING KILLED BY THE 
POLICE.
THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT DOES NOT 
WORK TO PROTECT ALL PEOPLE IN 
THE COMMUNITY.
WE NEED TO REALLOCATE THE FUNDS.
I AM WRITING TODAY TO EXPRESS 
CONCERN FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 21 
BUDGET, THE BUDGET FOR THE 
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT.
AS A YOUNG PERSON THAT ATTENDED 
PROTESTS I HAVE SEEN THE TERROR 
TACTICS USED BY THE SHERIF AND 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SEEING 
PEOPLE RUNNING FOR FEAR OF THEIR
LIVES FROM THE OFFICERS.
WE NEED TO RETHINK THE WAY THAT 
WE PROTECT THE COMMUNITIES THESE
METHODS ARE NOT WORKING TO 
PROTECT US.
WE DO NOT FEEL SAFE.
THE CITY INVESTS TOO MUCH MONEY 
IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE 
OF THIS WE HAVE LOST TOO MANY 
BLACK LIVES IN THE HANDS OF THE 
LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THE BUDGET NEEDS TO INVEST IN 
THE COMMUNITIES, NOT SHERIFFS 
AND IT NEEDS TO ININVEST IN 
PROGRAMMING AND NOT PRISONS AND 
JAILS.
THIS IS FROM G.
I AM AGAINST FUNDING FOR 
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT FOR A NEW 
CONTRACT WITH OUTSIDE AGENCY 
WHILE INMATES SHOULD RECEIVE 
COUNSELLING AND TRAINING TO 
REDUCE RECIDIVISM AND THE FUNDS 
SHOULD BE GOING TO THE COUNTY 
SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS.
29 PAGE DOCUMENT LESS THAN A 
PAGE INDICATE THAT THE SERVICES 
PROVIDE, THE CURRICULUM IS NOT 
PRESENTED.
DO NOT INCREASE THE SHERIFF 
BUDGET, PUT THE FUNDS TO THE 
PROGRAMS, ORGANIZATIONS EXISTING
TO OPTIMIZE THE DOLLARS TO 
REDUCE CRIMES AND ANALYSTS HAVE 
REPORTS ON THE BIGGEST BANG FOR 
THE FUND, FUND EDUCATION, FUND 
CHILD CARE, FUND SOCIAL AND 
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND CREATE 
THE JOBS.
VOTE NO ON ITEM 46.
THIS IS FROM KALEA.
AS A COMMENT TO AGENDA 46.
I AM A RESIDENT OF SACRAMENTO 
COUNTY AND 37 YEARS OLD AND HAVE
LIVED HERE FOR NEARLY 14 YEARS.
I LOVE THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY, 
ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE 
THE CITY BEAUTIFUL AND DIVERSE 
AND I'M COMMITTED TO WORKING FOR
THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY AND 
TREATED EQUALITY AND PREVENTING 
BLACK PEOPLE FROM BEING KILLED 
BY THE POLICE.
WE NEED TO REALLOCATE THE FUNDS 
FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO THE 
PROGRAMS AND SOCIAL SERVICES.
I AM WRITING TODAY TO EXPRESS MY
CONCERN FOR THE FISCAL 21 
BUDGET, THE BUDGET FOR THE 
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND THE TERROR
TACTICS SHOWN BY THE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND FRIENDS
TEAR GASZED AND RUNNING IN FEAR 
OF THEIR LIVES FROM THE GROUPS 
OF OFFICERS SHOOTING THE RUBBER 
BULLETS AT THEM.
WE HAVE TO RETHINK PROTECTING 
THE COMMUNITIES THESE METHODS 
ARE NOT WORKING.
THE CITY INVESTS TOO MUCH MONEY 
IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WE HAVE 
LOST BLACK LIVES TO THE SHERIFF 
VIOLENCE.
I'M REQUESTING YOU TO CREATE A 
BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH DEFUNDS 
THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND 
INVEST IN THE NEEDS OF THE 
COMMUNITY AND INVEST IN THE 
COMMUNITIES AND NOT SHERIFF.
AND PROGRAMMING AND NOT PRISONS 
AND JAILS.
THIS IS FROM LIZ.
PLEASE READ IN CHAMBERS ON 6-16.
FIRST, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THE 
FUNDS ARE COMING FROM 'LINEMENT 
FUNDS, ARE THERE MORE FUNDS FOR 
ENRETRI SERVICES AND HOW THE 
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS DECIDED ON 
AND HOW CAN THE COMMUNITY BE 
INVOLVED IN MAKING THESE 
DECISIONS.
IT SEEMS AS IF THE FUND FOR MAN 
ALIVE SACRAMENTO IS SOLELY FOR 
22 CLASSROOM HOURS PER WEEK 
INSIDE OF THE MAIN JAIL AND R 
TRIPLE C, WHY IS THIS ENTRY 
SERVICES AND PEOPLE ARE RELEASED
TO THE STREETS WITHOUT A PHONE, 
NO MONEY AND NO MEDICATIONS.
THERE ARE JAIL SUPPORT FOR 
MONTHS AND SHOWN THAT ENENTRY 
SERVICES COULD LOOK LIKE AS 
RIDES ARE CALLED TO GET FOLKS 
HOME SAFE AND BLANKETS ARE 
PROVIDED FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NO 
CHOICE BUT TO SLEEP OUTSIDE.
IT IS SHAMEFUL THAT THE COUNTY 
IS NOT FUNDING THE HUMAN 
SER
SERVICES.
PLEASE DON'T ALLOCATE THIS 
$76,876 TO MAN ALIVE, ALLOCATE 
THE FUNDS TO THE TRUE ENTRY 
SERVICES LED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE 
IMPACTED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM.
ALLEN PIERCE.
AND THIS IS FOR ITEM 47.
FOR THE AGENDA ITEM 47.
I AM A CONCERNED RESIDENT OF 
DISTRICT FOUR.
I'M CONCERNED FOR THE LACK OF 
INVESTMENT IN THE COMMUNITIES 
AND OVER INVESTMENT IN THE 
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT.
THE DRUG POLICY SHOULD ADWRESZ 
THE HARMER OF SELLERS TO OHS AND
YUSZERS THAT STRUGGLE AND THE 
SUGGESTED FUNDS GOING TO THE 
COMMUNITY SPECIALISTS THAT CAN 
ENACT LONG TERM SUPPORT.
THE CRITICISMS CAN BE 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEED TO 
DEFUND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND 
SHIFT THE FUNDS TO MENTAL 
HEALTHCARE AND PERMANENT 
HOUSING, COMMUNITY LED SAFETY 
PROGRAMS AND REENTRY SERVICES.
GIVEN THE RECENT ALLOCATION 
$180 MILLION FROM THE CARES ACT,
MORE FUNDING NEEDS TO BE 
INVESTED AND INCLUDING THE BLACK
COMMUNITIES RATHER THAN 
DEPARTMENTS THAT EXIST TO 
INCARCERATE AND PROFIT IT.
THAT MEANS CANCELLING TO 
BUILDING A NEW DOWNTOWN JAIL 
TOWER.
WE NEED MORE COMMUNITY 
INVESTMENT AND FOLLOW THE STEPS 
LIKE CITIES OF MINNEAPOLIS AND 
SAN FRANCISCO.
THIS IS RACHEL HARRINGTON.
IT IS AN ADDRESS IN CARMICHAEL 
AREA.
READ THE COMMENTS.
NOW TO THE TIME TO TAKE THE 
ACTIONS TO STOP THE KILLING AND 
IMPRISONMENT OF THE BLACK AND 
BROWN PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY 
AND THERE NEEDS TO A PLAN TO END
THE POLICE VIOLENCE AND YOU NEED
INVEST IN PREVENTION, AND 
TREATMENT PROGRAMS THAT ARE 
SEPARATE FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT 
AND LED BY THE COMMUNITY 
MEMBERS.
WE WANT YOU TO REDUCE THE 
SPENDING BY 30% ON THE POLICE 
DEPARTMENT, AND DEVELOP FUNDING 
REDUCTION STRATEGIES FOR THE 
FOLLOWING FOUR YEARS, THEN 
REINVESTMENT COST SAVINGS FROM 
THE REDUCTIONS TO THE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT BUDGET TOWARD 
PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY 
DEVELOPMENT.
NOW TO THE SOMETIME TO RESPOND 
TO THE PROTESTS.
WE DEMAND BELLED STEPS FOR A 
CHANGE THAT SUPPORTS THE BLACK 
AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY 
MEMBERS.
THIS IS FROM CHELSEA LANE.
I BELIEVE THIS MONEY COULD BE 
BETTER PUT TO USE PUT IN THE 
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS.
I DON'T AGREE THAT THESE 
BUSINESSES SHOULD BE GIVEN 
TAXPAYER MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR 
FREE LABOR.
I REQUEST THAT THE COMMENT BE 
READ ALOUD AND THIS FOR ITEM 47.
THIS IS FROM G -- I AM OPPOSED 
TO FUNDING MORE SHERIFF 
CONTRACTS.
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT SHOULD FOCUS 
ON THE ISSUES BEFORE CONTRACTING
NEW WORK TO OUTSIDE PARTIES.
WHILE DRUGS AND VIOLENCE ARE A 
PROBLEM, SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 
SHOULD CONTINUE THE PERSECUTION 
OF THOSE IN THE UNDER GROUND 
MARKET AND WHILE THE RELATED 
PRODUCTS ARE DECRIMINALIZED.
REALLOCATING THE FUNDING TO THE 
ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER NARCOTICS.
THE SHERIFF SHOULD ALLOCATE TO 
FUNDING THE MENTALLY STRESSED 
OFFICERS.
WHILE LAW ENFORCEMENT SPENDING 
IS BALLOONING, SPENDING ON 
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH 
PROGRAMS HAVE DESHRINED.
IT IS NOT A LACK OF MONEY.
IT IS A PRIORITIES ISSUE.
VOTE NO ON 47.
THIS IS BY LIZ ITEM 47.
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOCATE $718,491 
TO THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT TO 
STRENGTHEN DRUG CONTROL EFFORTS 
AND BY FORGING PARTNERSHIPS WITH
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
IN CASE THIS IS NOT OBVIOUS TO 
YOU, IT IS PART OF THE WAR ON 
DRUGS AND VOTING NO IS NOT JUST 
ONE STEP YOU CAN TAKE TO COMBAT 
RACIST POLICIES THAT TARGET 
BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES.
WE KNOW THAT POLICING DOES NOT 
PREVENT ADDICTION AND DOES NOT 
PREVENT THE HARM BEING DONE IN 
THE COMMUNITIES.
FUND THE ADDICTION AND VIOLENCE 
PREVENTION EFFORTS ALREADY 
TAKING PLACE IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
THIS IS ITEM 48.
THIS IS FROM CHELSEA LAIN.
POLICE TRAINING IS PROVEN TO BE 
INEFFECTIVE.
THE TRAINING NEEDS TO BE 
REFORMED TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT 
SOCIAL ISSUES.
I REQUEST THAT THE COMMENTS BE 
READ ALOUD IN THE 6-16 MEETING.
THIS IS ALSO FROM G -- 
ITEM 48.
I'M OPPOSED TO FUNDING FOR THE 
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT TO TRAIN NEW 
OFFERS.
WE DON'T NEED MORE OFFERS.
FURTHER MORE, THE CONTRACTS 
STIPULATES 3.87 PEREZ DENT 
STUDENT SHOULD STUDENT TOTAL 
ATTENDANCE EXCEED A HUNDRED 
THOUSAND HOURS THE CONTRACTOR IS
REIMBURSED.
THE FACT THAT THE RATE INCREASES
WITH MORE STUDENTS SUGGESTS A 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE 
CONTRACTOR WHERE THEY ARE INSENT
SIZED TO INKRES THE ATTENDANCE 
AND THE PASSING RATE ARE NOT 
ADDRESSED.
THE SHERIFF BUDGET THE TOO LARGE
AS IS ESPECIALLY OPPOSE THIS 
ITEM IN THAT IT IS A FREEBIE TO 
TEACH THE NEW OFFICERS EVEN IF 
THEY DON'T SUCCEED IN THE 
TRAINING.
NO MORE FUNDING FOR THE SHERIFF.
VOTE NO ON 48.
THIS IS FROM LIZ.
PLEASE READ ALOUD.
WHY FUNDING THE TRAINING THROUGH
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WHEN 
THE PEOPLE ARE DYING ON THE 
STREET.
WE NEED TO BE INVESTING AND 
PRIORITIZING THE BASIC NEEDS OF 
THE COMMUNITY.
ITEM 49.
THIS IS FROM MEGAN.
I AM A VOTER IN DISTRICT FIVE.
I AM WRITING TO YOU MY PUBLIC 
COMMENT IN REGARDS TO AGENDA 
ITEMS FOR THE 6-16 MEETING.
I AM IN OPPOSITION TO THE 
840,000 REVENUE ITEM IN NO. 49.
THIS GOES TO THE SACRAMENTO -SH 
TRANSPORTING AND WATCHING 
INMATES PERFORM FREE LABOR FOR 
THE TRANSIT DISTRICT IS A LOT OF
FUNDING FOR THE SUPERVISION.
WITH FUNDS REDISTRIBUTED TO 
PROGRAMS BENEFITTING THE INMATES
SUCH AS HOUSING AND JOB 
TRAINING.
THE REVENUE AGREEMENT IN NO. 53 
IN AN ADEQUATE.
IT IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH.
THIS LITTLE AMOUNT OF THE 
FUNDING SHOWS THAT SHERIFF 
OFFICE PRIORITIES ARE NOT TO 
FOCUS ON THE REHABILITATION OF 
THE OFFENDERS RATHER THAN THE 
EXEMPLOYEEATION OF THE LABOR.
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO REMEDY THE
INEQUITIES.
IT IS SHOWING WHAT MYSELF AND 
MILLIONS OF OTHERS ARE 
PROTESTING WHEN WE CALL FOR THE 
DEFUNDING OF THE POLICE, AND 
INVESTING IN THE COMMUNITIES.
ITEM 49.
THIS IS FROM SPENCER.
HELLO, I AM WRITEING WITH 
RESPECT TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING 
RELATED TO ITEMS 46-59.
I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO PULL THIS 
ONE BACK AND PUT IT WITH THE 
GROUP FOR THE 46-59.
OKAY.
THIS ONE IS FOR 49.
I OPPOSE ALL NEW FUND FOR THE 
SHERIFF.
ESPECIALLY FOR THE CONTRACT 
FUNDING SUPERVISING DEPUTIES 
WHILE THE LABOR OF INMATES IS 
PROVIDED AT NO COST.
THE $840,000 SHOULD BE ALLOCATED
FOR THE JOBS WITHIN THE 
COMMUNITY WHERE THE WORKERS ARE 
PAID THE MINIMUM WAGE.
THEY SHOULDN'T BE PAYING THE 
OFFICERS WHEN ALREADY PAID 
THROUGH THE UNION CONTRACT.
THE IDEA THAT THE DEPUTIES ARE 
PAID PER 8 HOUR SHIFTS 
SUPERVISING INMATES AND INMATES 
ARE UNPAID IS DISGUSTING.
VOTE NO TO PAY DEPUTIES TO 
SUPERVISE SLAVE LABOR.
ITEM 49.
THIS IS FROM LIZ.
PLEASE READ IN THE CHAMBERS.
HAVE YOU HAD READ THE 13TH 
AMENDMENT AND THOUGHT LONG AND 
HARD HOW IT IS CONNECTED TO THE 
SHERIFF WORK PROJECT.
THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
THE $840,000 AND POTENTIAL 
REVENUE FOR THE DEPUTIES KNOWN 
AS CONVICT LEASING, DO THE 
WORKERS HAVE RIGHTS, ARE THEY 
TREATED WITH CARE AND RESPECT, 
OUR LOVED ONES TELL US THEY ARE 
TREATED LIKE ANIMALS IN THE CARE
OF THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND 
THE DA PUT THE KAV YETS ON THE 
COVID-19 RELEASES AND TUN 
THEMSELVES BACK IN OR VOL UP 
TIER FOR THE PROJECT PROGRAM, IT
IS CLEAR THERE IS A PROFIT 
MOTIVE BEHIND THIS.
RECOGNIZING THAT THE MAIN JAIL 
PRECIPITATION WAITS THE WORST 
RIGHTS IN THE STATE, THEY ARE 
LEFT WITH IMPOSSIBLE CHOICE THAT
DRIVES UP THE PARTICIPATION IN 
THE SLAVE LABOR PROGRAM RUN BY 
THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
50.
LIZ.
TOE REMROV THIS DUTY FROM THE 
SHERIFF.
THIS IS FOR 51.
THIS IS FROM CLARE.
PLEASE READ THIS AT THE BOS 
MEETING FOR 51.
HELLO, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, I 
AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT ONE.
I DIRECT THIS TO PHIL SERNA.
IN THE BLOG POST REGARDING THE 
BOARD DECLARING A STATE I OF 
EMERGENCY YOU REMARKED THAT THE 
ACTION IS TAKEN TO PROTECT THE 
GENERAL FUND A BUDGET THAT IS 
STRESSED BY THE PANDEMIC AND 
EXPECTED TO FUND THE PROGRAMS 
LIKE D BLACK CHILD LEGACY 
CAMPAIGN.
IT IS FOOLISH TO CONTINUE THE 
POUR THE MONEYS INTO THE HANDS 
OF THE SHERIFF OFFICE.
WHEN THERE ARE OTHER THINGS, 
HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES THAT
NEED FUND.
THIS IS NOT AN EFKTIVE USE OF 
THE FUND WHEN THE PROGRAM STATES
THAT FUNDS THAT ARE USED TO 
BUILD AND ENHANCE THE CAPACITY 
TO PREVENT AND PROTECT AND 
RESPOND TO AND RECOVER FROM THE 
ACTS OF TERRORISM.
I CAN SAY THIS WOULD BE A MISUSE
OF THE FUNDS THE ONLY PERSONAL 
EXPERIENCE OF TROICHL WAS IN THE
STREETS AT THE HANDS OF THE 
SHERIFFS.
THERE IS A MORAL OBLIGATION TO 
STOP THE FUNDING AN INSTITUTION 
THAT I WITNESSED SHOOTING THE 
RUBBER BULLETS.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT WE ARE IN A 
STATE OF EMERGENCY, ACT 
ACCORDINGLY.
THE FUND REQUESTS THAT MAKE THE 
COMMUNITY SAFER AND STRONGER NOT
JUST SCOTT JONES POCKETS BIGGER.
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
THIS FOR 51.
FROM SHA.
I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COMMENTS TO
BE READ ALOUD REGARDING 51.
AS A SACRAMENTO RESIDENT, I 
OPPOSE ALL THE FUNDING INCREASES
TO THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT.
THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT IS 
ASKING FOR 3.1 MILLION INCREASE 
IN ADDITION TO THE 372 MILLION 
IT IS RECEIVING ANNUALLY.
THE FUND SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO 
SUPPORT THE BLACK COMMUNITIES 
AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, MENTAL 
HEALTHCARE AND COMMUNITY LED 
PROGRAMS.
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WERE SHOT BY 
THE TEAR GAS AND JONES 
CONTINUING TO COOPERATION WITH 
ICE SHOULD MAKE US SEE THAT THE 
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOT KEEPING 
US SAFE.
ITEM 51 FROM CHELSEA.
THIS MOVE SHOULD BE MOVED TO A 
COMMUNITY PROGRAM.
I REQUEST THIS BE READ IN THE 
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK PORTION OF 
THE MEETING.
FROM G. I OPPOSED ACCEPTING THE 
GRANT FROM DHS.
NO DETAILS ON WHAT THE GRANT IS 
FOR.
I'M OPPOSED TO THE FUND 
AUTHORIZED BY BOS FROM THE 
TAXPAYERS I AM OPPOSED TO THE 
FUNDING AUTHORIZED BY THE 
FEDERAL AGENCIES TO SPEND THE 
MONEYS ON MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
I SEE NO STIPULATION ON THE 
ITEMS OR THE PROGRAMS ALLOWED 
COMBI THIS GRANT FUNDING WOULD 
FEEL I AM AND THERE AM ILL 
INFORMED TO MAKE THE RIGHT 
DECISION AND VOTE NO.
OUR COMMUNITIES ARE OVER 
POLICED.
THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE WEAPONS FOR
THE WAR ZONES AND UNLESS THE 
FUNDING IS STIPULATING 
REHABILITATION AND RECIDIVISM 
PROGRAMS I'M OPPOSED.
THIS IS PROGRAMMING FOR LETHAL 
SITUATIONS AND WEAPONS THAT ARE 
UNNECESSARY.
THE SHERIFFS DOESN'T NEED MORE 
FUNDS TO TERRORIZE THE RESIDENTS
IN THE NAME OF HOMELAND.
VOTE NO ON 51.
THIS IS FROM LIZ.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE URBAN 
AREAS AND THREAT IS NOT FURTHER 
CRIMINALIZING THE BLACK AND 
BROWN COMMUNITIES.
THIS GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT 
OF HOMELAND NEEDS MORE TRARNS 
PARN SI.
WHICH PROGRAMS AND WHICH 
COMMUNITIES ARE THEY TARGETING.
REJECT THE FUNDING FOR THE 
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT WITH A LONG 
HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.
THIS IS ON 52.
I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS A GOOD 
USE OF THE TAXPAYER MONEY.
THE CRIME REPORTS REFLECT ONLY 
SMALL NUMBERS FOR THE PETTY 
CRIMES AND RESIDENTS CONFIRM 
THAT THE SERVICES ARE NOT NEEDED
IN THE AREA.
I REQUEST THAT THE MONEY BE 
REALLOCATED TO OTHER COMMUNITY 
PROGRAMS.
THIS IS ON 52.
FROM LIZ.
WE DEMAND THAT YOU CANCEL THIS 
CONTRACT AND READ THIS.
CITY OF ISLETON.
NO. 53.
IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR THESE 
PEOPLE TO HAVE SOME WHERE TO 
CALL HOME AFTER THE SENTENCING 
IS COMPLETED.
THESE PEOPLE ARE TURNED OVER TO 
THE STREETS.
WITH NO RESOURCES, THEIR OPTIONS
ARE LIMITED AND MORE LIKELY TO 
BECOME REPEATED OFFENDERS.
WE MUST DEFUND THE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT, AND DEMILITARIZE 
THE COMMUNITIES AND REMOVE THE 
POLICE FROM THE SCHOOLS, REPEAL 
THE LAWS THAT CRIMINALIZE THE 
SURVIVAL, PROVIDE SAFE HOUSING 
FOR EVERYONE.
I WOULD LIKE MY STATEMENT TO BE 
READ AT THE MEETING.
NO. 53.
DEAR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 
I'M A VOTER IN DISTRICT FIVE.
AYE WRITING TO YOU MY PUBLIC 
COMMENT IN REGARDS TO ITEMS AND 
READ IN THE MEETING.
I'M IN OPPOSITION TO THE 840,000
REVENUE AGREEMENT IN ITEM 49.
THIS MONEY GOES TO THE 
SACRAMENTO SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT 
FOR TRANSPORTING AND WATCHING 
INMATES PERFORM FREE LABOR.
THIS MUST BE RE-EVALUATED.
WITH THE FUNDS REDISTRIBUTED TO 
PROGRAMS BENEFITTING THE 
INMATES, SUCH AS HOUSING AND JOB
TRAINING FOR NEWLY RELEASED 
OFFENDERS.
THE REVENUE AGREEMENT IN 53 IS 
INADEQUATE.
$40,000 FOR A REENTRY SERVICE IS
NOT ENOUGH.
THIS SMALL FUNDING FOR HOUSING 
SERVICES SHOW SZ THAT THE 
SHERIFF'S PRIORITIES ARE NOT 
FOCUSSED ON THE REHABILITATION 
OF THE O FEPDERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE 
FUNDING PRIORITIES BETWEEN THE 
LAW AND ORDER AND THE REST OF 
THE AGENDA ITEMS IS SHOWING WHAT
MYSELF AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS 
ARE PROTESTING WHEN CALLING FOR 
THE DEFUNDING OF THE POLICE AND 
INVESTING IN THE COMMUNITIES.
ITEM 53.
PLEASE READ.
THIS TYPE OF SPENDING REFERRED 
TO AS HOUSING SERVICE FOR 
FORMERLY INCARCERATED 
INDIVIDUALS NOT OFFENDERS SHOULD
BE THE FOCUS ON THE PUBLIC 
SAFETY SPENDING YET IT IS ONLY 
$40,000.
SUPERVISORS YOU CAN AND MUST DO 
BETTER FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
ITEM 53.
AGAIN, I OPPOSE ADDITION FUNDING
FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 
EVEN IF IT IS FOR THE HOUSING 
FOR INCARCERATED PEOPLE.
THE $40,000 THAT IS REQUESTED TO
OTHER SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENTS
WITHIN THE COUNTY THAT ARE 
ALREADY CONNECTD WITH THE 
COMMUNITIES.
PER HAPPENS TO FUND A NEW SOCIAL
WORKER WORKING WITH THE INMATES 
RELEASED.
VOTE NO ON 53.
PLEASE READ.
WHILE THE COMMUNITY NEEDS 
HOUSING WHEN RELEASED FROM JAIL,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PEOPLE.
THE COUNTY EXECS TIF CLAIMS THIS
IS BEING FUNDED BUT AB 109 AND 
WE ASKED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE 
DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUNDS AND 
SERVICES THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF 
THE COMMUNITIES.
53 DOESN'T SEEM TO STATE HOW 
MANY PEOPLE ARE HOUSED FOR THE 
COST OF $40,000.
EXPLAIN HOW, HOW MANY PEOPLE 
WILL BE HOUSED AND SELECTED TO 
PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM AND 
HOW MANY WERE CONSIDERED BEFORE 
CHOOSING.
54.
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SHOULD 
FUND THE CONTRACT WITHIN THE 
EXISTING BUDGET.
SHOULDN'T PAY FOR THE LACK OF 
PRIO
PRIORITIES.
UP UNTIL THIS CONTRACT, 
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT DIDN'T WORK WITH 
LOCAL AGENCY PROVIDING MEDICAL 
EXAMINATIONS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT 
VICTIMS.
THEY ARE SENDING THEM TO SAN 
FRANCISCO COUNTY.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO READ THIS 
ITEM REQUESTING A LOCAL 
CONTRACT.
WHY ARE THE FUNDING ALREADY 
ALLOCATED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
THE VICTIMS WOULD BE FURTHER 
TRAUMAIZED FOR TRAVELLING FOR A 
MED
MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
THE BOARD SHOULD DEMAND THAT THE
CONTRACT BE APPROVED BY REQUIRE 
THAT THE SHERIFF WILL FIND THE 
250,000 COST WITHIN THE EXISTING
BUDGET.
THE BOS SHOULD DEMAND REPORT 
THAT THE VICTIMS ARE SENT OUT OF
THE COUNTY TO COLLECT THE 
EVIDENCE AND THE SHERIFF MUST 
PERSONALLY ESCORT THEM AT NO 
ADDITIONAL COST.
DON'T AUTHORIZE THIS CONTRACT 
WITH ADDITIONAL FUND.
54.
PLEASE DIVERT THE FUNDING.
55.
FROM SARA.
THIS IS A GEM COMMENT ABOUT THE 
BUDGET, I FEEL THAT ITEM 55 IS A
WASTE OF MONEY GIVEN THE CURRENT
ECONOMIC CLIMATE AND DOESN'T 
SERVE THE GREATER PUBLIC BUT A 
SMALL FRACTION OF THE COUNTY 
POPULATION.
THIS IS NOT PROTECTING LIVES OR 
STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
I REQUEST THAT THE COMMENT BE 
READ ALOUD.
AND 55 FROM CHELSEA.
THERE ARE MANY PRESSING ISSUES 
FOR SACRAMENTO THAN UNPAVED 
ROAD.
THE FUNDS SHOULD GO TO OTHER 
PROJECTS.
>> NOW WE'LL HAVE JESSICA DEPUTY
CLERK READING THE COMMENTS.
>> ITEM 55.
I OPPOSE FUNDS TO REIMBURSE THE 
CITY OF SACRAMENTO FOR REPAVING.
THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT SHOULD 
DRIVE LESS OR DRIVE SMALLER 
CARS.
IN ORDER FOR SHERIFF TO CONNECT 
TO THE COMMUNITY BETTER THEY 
SHOULD WALK IN THE COMMUNITIES 
OR RIDE BICYCLES.
MANY ELECTRIC BIKES COULD BE 
PURCHASED.
WE DO NOT NEED THE SHERIFFS 
DRIVING SOVIET UNION -- S.U.V.S.
THIS IS A CALL FOR THE 
ALTERNATIVE VEHICLES.
REQUIRE INTERNAL AUDIT ON MILES 
TRAVELLED PER OFFICER AS A 
FUNCTION OF THE CALLS AND WHY 
S.U.V.S ARE REQUIRED.
HOW MANY COULD DO THEIR JOBS 
WITHOUT A CAR AT ALL.
DO NOT THORS PAVING FUNDING 
WITHOUT A FULL EVALUATION OF 
DRIVING THE POLICIES ABOUT 
PAVEMENT DEGRADING.
ITEM 55.
PLEASE READ ALOUD.
$91,620 TO FIX POTHOLES ON THE 
ROAD THAT ONLY THE SHERIFFS USE 
THIS IS SHAMEFUL USE OF THE 
FUNDS WHILE THE COMMUNITY 
MEMBERS ARE UNHOUSED AND 
SUFFERING.
PLEASE SPEND THIS ON PERMANENT 
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE 
LIVING OUTSIDE.
ITEM 56.
I WOULD LIKE THE COMMENTS READ.
IT IS MADDENING TO SEE THERE IS 
A REQUEST TO CONTRACT WITH POST 
FOR A SIMULATOR, HOW HAS THE 
COMMUNITY BENEFITTED FROM THE 
USE OF FORCE THUS FAR.
THE USE OF FORCE LED TO 
REVERSIBLE DAMAGE AND DEATHS TO 
COUNTLESS INDIVIDUALS OF COLOR, 
INCLUDING ELLIS, AND MORE JUST 
TO NAME A FEW.
NOT ONLY SHOULD THE REQUEST BE 
DENIED BUT THE TRAINING SHOULD 
BE REMOVED FROM THE POLICE 
OFFICERS RECEIVE WHEN JOINING 
THE DEPARTMENT.
THE FUNDS SHOULD INSTEAD BE 
ALLOCATED TO THE BLACK YOUTH 
LEADERSHIP PROJECT RATHER THAN 
STUDYING HOW TO USE FORCE ON 
BLACK PEOPLE.
ITEM 56.
PLEASE READ DURING THE MEETING.
HELLO, I AM A SACRAMENTO 
RESIDENT AND LOCAL PUBLIC 
SCHOOLTEACHER.
I WANT TO LEAVE A GENERAL 
COMETMENT ON THE AGENDA.
I AM WRITING TO IMPLORE YOU NOT 
TO INVEST MORE MONEY INTO THE 
SACRAMENTO PD INSTEAD INVEST 
BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY.
I ASK YOU TO USE THIS 
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE FIRST 
STEPS TOWARD CREATING A MORE 
EQUITABLE SOCIETY IN THE 
PROGRAMS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT CALLS TO 
DEFUND THE POLICE ARE SEEMING 
RADICAL TO MANY BECAUSE WE ARE 
RELYING ON THE POLICE TO SOLVE 
SOCIAL PROBLEMS.
MANY OF WHICH THEY ARE NOT 
PROPERLY TRAINED TO HANDLE AND 
MOST OF WHICH CAN BE HANDELLED 
BY THE SOCIAL WORKERS.
WE NEED TO TAKE THE FIRST STEPS 
TO ABOLISHING THE POLICE AND 
BUILDING A BETTER WAY OF 
TACKLING ROOT CAUSES OF CRIME 
AND REDUCING THE NEED FOR POLICE
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I ASK YOU TO INVEST THE TIME TO 
STUDY THE EFFORTS OF OTHER 
CITIES THAT HAVE SEEN SUCCESS 
WITH DEFUNDING EFFORTS, 
INCLUDING EUGENE, OREGON.
THEY HAVE RESULTEDED IN ZERO 
DEATHS.
WE CAN LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES 
AND SUCCESSES OF THE DEFUND 
EFFORTS IN NEW JERSEY THAT HAVE 
RESULTED IN A 4 #% DROP IN CRIME
OVER THE LAST 7 YEARS.
I ASK YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 
THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM IS NOT 
WORKING, IT IS A PILLAR OF 
SYSTEMIC RACISM.
WE HAVE HAVE COMMUNITIES AND 
LEADERS WHO ARE WILLING TO DO TO
WORK TO CREATE A BETTER 
SOLUTION.
ARE YOU THE COUNTY BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS ONE OF THEM.
GIVE US THE TOOLS TO ACHIEVE 
TRUE JUSTICE RATHER THAN A 
BROKEN POLICE SYSTEM.
ITEM 56.
HELLO, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
I AM A SACRAMENTO RESIDENT AND 
LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOLTEACHER.
THIS IS A REPEAT.
THE FACT THAT THE PROGRAM IS 
USED IN SACRAMENTO FOR 20 YEARS 
AND JUST A FEW YEARS AGO AN 
INNOCENT BLACK MAN WAS MURDERED 
BY THE POLICE DEMONSTRATES THE 
INEFFECTIVENESS OF THIS PROGRAM.
THIS MONEY WOULD BE BETTER SPENT
ON OTHER PROGRAMS OUTSIDE OF THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I ASK THAT THE COMMENT BE READ 
ON THE 6-16 MEETING.
TRAININGS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TIME 
AND TIME AGAIN TO BE INFEFKTIVE 
IN CHANGING BEHAVIOR OF THE 
POLICE OFFICERS.
IT IS TOO MUCH TO USE ON THE SO 
CALLED TRAINING.
YOU CAN'T TRAIN RACISM OUT OF A 
SYSTEM THAT IS BUILT ON 
CRIMINALIZATION OF BLACK MEMBERS
OF THE COMMUNIY.
I AM WRITING FOR THE ITEMS 
46-56.
PLEASE READ THE STATEMENT.
I AM SPENCER.
I'M A MEDICAL STUNT.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH THE 
CLEAR, HEAVY POLICING IS NOT 
MAKING THE COMMUNITIES SAFER OR 
PROLONG LIFE.
TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE TRAUMATIZED 
AND MAIMED AND KILLED BY THE 
SHERIFF AND THE JAILS HAS 
PROVOKED A FURRY IN THE SW
CONSTITUENTS.
IT STARTS WITH YOU.
THE BOARD ABANDONING YOUR FEAR 
AND THEN DEFUNDING THE SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT AND PREVENTING ANY 
CARES FUNDING FROM GOING TO THE 
SHERIFF DA OR PROBATION 
CANCELLING THE CONTRACT FOR THE 
DOWNTOWN JAIL.
46-56.
I'M EMAILING A COMMENT FOR THE 
6-15 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
MEETING AND I WOULD LIKE THIS 
PUBLIC COMMENT READ IN THE 
MEETING.
SACRAMENTO SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT 
RECEIVES OVER ONE THIRD OF THE 
COUNTY BUDGET.
I AM DEMANDING THAT THE SHERIFF 
BUDGET IS CUT AS WELL AS INVOLVE
THE COMMUNITY IN THE PROCESS TO 
REDIRECT THE FUNDS AND PROPOSED 
NEWDALE TOWN TOWN COSTING THE 
TAXPAYERS UPWARDS OF $7 MILLION.
I DEMAND THAT WE INVEST IN THE 
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS.
I SUPPORT THE DEMANDS -- DEFUND 
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, 
DEMILITARIZE THE COMMUNITIES AND
REMOVE THE POLICE FROM THE 
SCHOOLS AND FREE THE PEOPLE IN 
JAILS AND REPEAL THE LAWS.
INVEST IN THE COMMUNITY.
PROVIDE SAFE HOUSING.
INVEST IN CARE NOT COPS AND 
CAGES.
I DEMAND THAT WE REINVEST IN THE
COMMUNITIES.
ITEM 46-56.
I REQUEST FOR MY COMMENTS TO BE 
READ DURING THE MEETING ON 6-16.
I AM WRITING AS A RESIDENT AND 
FUTURE PHYSICIAN TO THE 
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY TO EXPRESS 
COMPLETE SUPPORT FOR DEFUNDING 
AND DISMANTLING THE SHERIFFS 
CONTINUE AND CONTINUED REDUCTION
OF THE JAILS POPULATION AND 
ABOLISHING OF THE SYSTEMS 
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN 
RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNTLESS ACTS 
OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE BLACK 
AND BROWN COMMUNITIES.
THE CONTINUED USE OF THE COUNTY 
FUNDING TO HARM AND MURDER THE 
COMMUNITY MEMBERS IS REPULSIVE.
RESEARCH HAS OVERWHELMING PROVED
THE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT REFORM 
CAN'T ADDRESS THE RACISM OF A 
SYSTEM BUILT FROM CENTURIES OF 
OPPRESSION OF BLACK AND BROWN 
BODIES.
THE ONLY WAY FORWAD AN ABOLITION
AND OFFERING THE RESOURCES TO 
FUND VITAL SOCIAL PROGRAMS 
INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTHCARE, 
EDUCATION, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC 
FREEDOM.
THE ALLOCATION OF THE SHERIFF'S 
BUDGET $372 MILLION COULD FUND 
MANY OF THE COMMUNITY BASED 
SERVICES NEEDED TO ADDRESS THE 
IBS CURRENTLY BEING MISHANDLED 
AND WITH LETHAL CONSEQUENCES BY 
THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW SPECIFIC 
ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING 
DEMANDS OF WHICH MAKE UP A SMALL
AND VITAL PIECE OF THE TRUE 
ABOLISHMENT.
CONTINUE REDUCTIONS OF THE JAIL 
POPULATION.
COMMITMENT THAT NONE OF 
SACRAMENTO COUNTY CARES ACT 
FUNDING IN $181 MILLION IS USED 
TO FUND THE SHERIFF OR DA OR 
PROHIBITION.
THE FUNDING FOR SUPPORTIVE 
HOUSING, MENTAL HEALTHCARE AND 
COMMUNITY LED SAFETY PROGRAMS.
I STAND WITH BLACK JUSTICE 
SACRAMENTO DECARS RATE 
SACRAMENTO AND OTHER LOCAL 
COALITIONS AND ADVOCATING FOR 
THE POLICY CHANGES KNOWN AS 
ABOLITION AND THE ONLY WAY TO 
DEMINNISH THE POLICE VIOLENCE 
REDUCING THE CONTACT BETWEEN THE
PUBLIC AND POLICE AND SHIFT 
RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT ENTIRELY.
THESE INCLUDE DEMANDS TO NUMBER 
ONE DEFUND THE POLICE, 
DEMILITARIZE THE COMMUNITIES AND
REMOVE THE POLICE FROM THE 
SCHOOLS FREE PEOPLE FROM JAILS 
AND PRISONS AND REPEAL THE LAWS 
AND INVEST IN THE COMMUNITY 
SELF-GOV NANS AND PROVIDE 
HOUSING FOR EVERYONE.
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE ACTION ON 
REFORM BEING DEMANDED BY THE 
COMMUNITY.
ITEM 46-56.
CAROLYN.
I LIVE IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY AND 
I DO NOT SUPPORT 40% OF THE 
BUDGET GOING TO THE SHERIFF OR 
BUILDING A JAIL TOWER.
THE 180 MILLION THROUGH THE 
CARES ACT IS GIVE TON THE 
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHOULD BE 
ALLOCATED TO SUPPORT THE BLACK 
COMMUNITIES AND HOUSING, MENTAL 
HEALTHCARE AND PUBLIC SAFETY 
PROGRAMS.
REDISTRICT THE FUNDS FROM THE 
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND USE THEM 
TO HOUSE THE NEIGHBORS AND 
PROVIDE SERVICES OUTSIDE OF THE 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
WE NEED TO RE-EVALUATE WHAT IS 
IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE AND THE 
COMMUNITY AND PARTICULARLY THE 
BLACK COMMUNITY WHO HAVE BEEN 
AND ARE SUFFERING AND MOST 
IMPACTED.
THE ONLY WAY TO MOVE FORWARD AND
PROGRESS TO A SAFE ONE IS TO 
START BY DIVERSIFYING FUNDS TO 
PROGRAMS THAT ACTUALLY HELP THE 
PEOPLE OF OUR COMMUNITY.
ALLOCATING MORE FUNDS TO THE 
SACRAMENTO POLICE AND SHERIFF DO
NOT HELP THIS PROGRESSION.
IT IS KEEP SEEING STATUS QUO IF 
NOT GOING BACK WARDS.
DO WE WANT TO COMMUNITY TO MOVE 
BACK WARDS?
CONSIDER HOW FUTURE FUNDED ARE 
ALLOCATED IN THE COMMUNITY.
THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE, OUR 
CHILDREN, THE TYPE OF THE WORLD 
DO YOU WANT THEM TO LIVE IN.
HOPEFULLY IT IS ONE THAT CREATES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR AND 
SUPPORT BLACK COMMUNITIES AND 
NOT ONE THAT CREATES MORE POLICE
FORCE POWER AS A FOX VEILS OF 
SAFETY.
I WOULD LIKE MY PUBLIC COMMENT 
READ IN THE MEETING.
I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT TWO 
IN SACRAMENTO.
OVER TIME, I HAVE SEEN HOW LAW 
ENFORCEMENT IS INEFFECTIVE IN 
THE LIVES OF BLACK AND BROWN 
RESIDENTS.
I HEAR THE WAYS IN WHICH YOU 
MAKE LIVES HERE SO MUCH HARDER.
YOUR ROLE IN MY COMMUNITY 
COMPOUNDS INEQUALITY, RUINS 
PEOPLE'S FUTURES AND HAS BLACK 
PEOPLE LIVING IN CONSTANT FEAR.
THERE IS NO REFORMING A SYSTEM 
THAT IS CULTURALLY AND 
HISTORICALLY BUILT ON RACISM.
MOST POLICE DON'T FEEL INTERNAL 
DESIRE TO FIX IT.
SO THE PEOPLE MUST PROTECT 
OURSELVES AND OUR NEIGHBORS FROM
YOU.
WE WON'T CALL 911, WE ARE WON'T 
ASK THOSE MONSTERS TO TURN ON 
THE LIGHTS.
I DEMAND THAT THE FUND BE 
REDIRECTED AWAY FROM THE 
NEIGHBOR'S NECK AND DIRECTED TO 
THE COMMUNITY SAFETY PROGRAMS, 
MENTAL HEALTHCARE AND HOUSING.
I REQUEST MY ENTIRE COMMENT BE 
READ AT THE MEETING.
I AM CRYSTAL.
25 YEARS OLD AND I LOVE 
SACRAMENTO.
I'M WRITING TO YOU TO PROTECT 
AND PRESERVE THE PEOPLE LIVING 
IN THE COMMUNITY.
THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD IS 
HELD WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE BUDGET OF THE SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT, CITY POLICE AND 
JAILS WITHIN THE COUNTY.
WHAT APPALLS ME IS ONE THIRD OF 
THE CITY'S BUDGET IS ALLOCATED 
TO THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT IN 
SACRAMENTO AND $372 MILLION A 
YEAR AND CLIMBING EVERY YEAR.
THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD 
REAPPROVED A $7 MILLION CONTRACT
FOR A NEW JAIL TOWER.
WE DEMAND WITHDRAWING THE 
CONTRACT ON THE TOWER AND FIRST 
STEP IN AID TO CARRY OUT THE 
COUNTY BOARD SEE THE LIST OF THE
DEMANDS.
DEFUND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, 
DEMILITARIZE THE COMMUNITY AND 
BAND THE USE OF THE TEAR GAS AND
RUBBER BULLETS.
REMOVE ALL POLICE AND LAW 
ENFORCEMENT FROM SCHOOL GROUNDS.
HELICOPTER TO RELEASE PEOPLE 
FROM JAIL.
ERADICATE THE LOITERING AND 
DANGEROUS POLICES OF THE 
HOMELESS.
INVEST IN SELF-SUSTAINABLE 
COMMUNITY GOVERNING.
INVEST IN HOUSING AND SAFE 
HOUSING FOR SALMONELLA.
INVEST IN VARIOUS FORMS OF CARE 
ELIMINATING THE COPS AND THE 
CAGES.
THE POLICE FORCE EXISTS AS 
PROTECTED MURDERS.
THE POLICE HAVE ZERO MERCY AND 
HIDE UNDER THE FALSE PRESENCES 
THAT THEY SERVE AND PROTECT.
THE ONLY THING BEING PROTECTED 
IS WHAT THEY DON'T SHOW AS THEY 
WON'T STOP KILLING US.
IMAGINE WHAT THEY DO BEHIND 
CLOSED DOORS.
I DEMAND THAT YOU DEFUND THE 
SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND INVESTING 
AND PROTECTING BLACK LIVES.
ITEM 46-56.
IRENE.
I WANT TO COMMENT ON THE 
UNETHICAL FUNDING OF THE SHERIFF
AND THE CONCERN TO CUT THE 
FUNDING TO THE PROGRAMS THAT 
KEEP THE COMMUNITIES SAFE.
I AM ASKING THE BOARD TO CUT THE
SHERIFF'S FUNDING SIGNIFICANTLY 
AND STOP INVESTING IN THE JAILS.
HELLO, THIS IS ITEM 46-56.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT A COMMENT
FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN 
RESPONSE TO ITEMS 46-56.
A 3.1 MILLION INCREASE IN 
FUNDING FOR THE SHERIFFS 
DEPARTMENT AND 7 MILLION FOR THE
JAIL IS NOT WHAT SACRAMENTO 
COUNTY NEEDS.
DIRECT THE FUNDING TO THE 
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS FOR 
PREVENTION AND THAT YOU FOLLOW 
THE LEAD OF MINNEAPOLIS AND 
OTHER CITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY 
WHO ARE TAKING ACTIVE STEPS TO 
DEFUND THE POLICE, REIMAGINE A 
PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT RECEIVES
OVER A THIRD OF THE BUDGET 
ANNUALLY.
IT COULD BE SPEND ON HOMELESS 
AND TREATMENT AND OTHER 
COMMUNITY SERVICES.
THANK YOU.
>> ITEM 46-56.
I AM EMAILING TO COMMENT ON 
46-56 FOR THE MEETING ON 6-16.
I AM SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING FOR
THIS COMMENT TO BE READ AT THE 
MEETING.
I'M A STUDENT AT UC DAVIS AND 
WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY 
MEMBERS TO IMPROVE PHYSICAL AND 
MENTAL HEALTH.
AS SOMEONE WHO IS WORKING IN THE
COMMUNITY I'M AGAINST THE 
INCREASES IN THE BUDGET FOR THE 
LAW ENFORCEMENT.
LAW ENFORCEMENT BUDGET SHOULD BE
DECREASED AND FUND REDISTRIBUTED
TO SUPPORT BLACK AND BROWN 
COMMUNITIES.
INITIATIVES SUCH AS AFFORDABLE 
HOUSING AND MENTAL HEALTHCARE 
PROGRAMS NOT ONLY REDUCE THE 
NEED FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
IMPROVE THE LIVES OF SACRAMENTO 
RESIDENTS.
YOU CAN ALSO USE THE 
$181 MILLION YOU RECEIVE FROM 
THE CARES ACT FOR THE SERVICES.
THESE SERVICES ARE VITAL FOR A 
THRIVING COMMUNITY AND ARE 
ESPECIALLY NECESSARY AMID A 
GLOBAL PANDEMIC IS 
DISPROPORTIONATELY HARMING THE 
BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES.
PEOPLE RECENTLY RELEASED NEED TO
HAVE A NET OF ACCESSIBLE 
RESOURCES AND SUPPORT WHEN THEY 
GET OUT.
FURTHER FUNDING OF THE SHERIFF 
DOES NOTHING TO IMPROVE THE 
LIVES OF THE RESIDENTS.
WE WANT TO TAX DOLLARS THAT GO 
INTO THE PROGRAMS OF THE 
COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU. 
THIS IS FROM MARIA.
ITEMS 46-56.
THESE AGENDA ITEMS ADD UP TO 
3.1 MILLION MERCHANDISE  -- 
DOLLARS GOING TO THE SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT.
THEY ARE ENFORCING THE LAWS THAT
ARE RACIST.
WE NEED TO INVEST THE MONEY INTO
THE PROGRAMS THAT PREVENT THE 
NEED FOR THE POLICE, SOLUTIONS 
FOR HOMELESSNESS, REHABBING 
SERVICES, MENTAL HEALTHCARE AND 
OTHER UNARMED EXPERTS WHO ARE 
TRAINED IN DEESCALATION 
TECHNIQUES.
THANK YOU.
VICTORIA.
I AM REFERRING TO LINE ITEMS 
46-56.
IT IS DEGRADING AND 
IRRESPONSIBLE TO INCREASE THE 
POLICE BUDGETS AT THIS TIME OR 
ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE.
THERE MUST BE NO INCREASES OF 
THE CITY BUDGET TOWARDS POLICING
EFFORTS AND THESE MUST CERTAINLY
BE $0.00 AWARDED TO THE POLICE.
THESE LINE ITEMS ARE OVER 
$3.1 MILLION.
WE DEMAND THE BUDGETS TO BE 
SPENT ON BUILDING UP THE 
COMMUNITIES NOT BUILDING THE 
PRISONS AND FUNDING MORE STATE 
SPONSORED VIOLENCE EXECUTED BY 
THE POLICE FORCES.
IT HAS BECOME EVIDENT WEEKS AGO 
ON AND POLICE CONTINUE TO HARM 
AND PERSECUTE WITH RECKLESS 
ABANDON AT THAT TIME WHEN THEY 
NEED TO BE ON THEIR BEST 
BEHAVIOR.
WE CAN'T POLICE OUR WAY OUT OF 
THE SITUATION.
DEFUND THE POLICE, FUND YOUTH 
PROGRAMS, HOUSING AND YOUTH 
EDUCATION.
THANK YOU.
HEATHER.
MEETING DATE 6-16.
ITEMS 46-56.
THE MONEY SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO
HOUSING, MENTAL HEALTHCARE AND 
SUPPORT AND COMMUNITY LED PUBLIC
SAFETY PROGRAMS.
NONE OF THE CARES ACT FUNDING 
SHOULD GO TO THE SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT.
STEVE WERTS.
ITEMS 46-56.
TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO
READ MY COMMENTS TODAY AND 
LISTENING.
I AM A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF 
SACRAMENTO COUNTY.
I AM EMAILING YOU TODAY TO SPEAK
AS AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO THE 
PROPOSED 2020-2021 BUDGET.
TO SEVERAL ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION
ITEMS RELATED TO THE SHERIFFS 
DEPARTMENT ALLOCATIONS 46-56.
I'M LICENSED DEVELOPMENT 
PSYCHOLOGIST.
LOCALLY I SERVED OVER A DECADE 
ON THE COUNTY ALCOHOL AND DRUG 
ADVISORY BOARD AND ON THE 
ADVISORY BOARD AND EVALUATION 
COMMITTEE TO THE SACRAMENTO 
FIRST FIVE COMMISSION.
I'M AT SACRAMENTO FIRST FIVE 
COMMISSIONER.
I HAVE ADVOCATED FOR DECADES FOR
A REALLOCATION OF THE POLICE AND
SHERIFF RESOURCES TO COMMUNITY 
INVESTMENTS AND PREVENTION, 
INCLUDING YOUTH SERVICES, 
ECONOMIC SUPPORTS FOR FAMILIES.
THE BLACK CHILD LEGACY IS A VERY
SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN 
BE DONE THROUGH THE 
COLLABORATIONS.
BLACK INFANT MORTALITY IS 
REDUCED THROUGH THE EFFORTS.
NOW IS A TIME TO MAKE CHANGE.
I ATTENDED SEVERAL OF THE 
PEACEFUL PROTESTS AND I JOIN 
WITH OTHER RESIDENTS TO REQUEST 
THAT THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS BEGIN IMMEDIATELY
TO REALLOCATE SACRAMENTO COUNTY 
FUNDS SUPPORTED BY MY TAX 
DOLLARS TO A HOLISTIC PREVENTIVE
TRAUMA INFORMED APPROACH TO 
PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH BY 
INCREASING THE COMMUNITY 
BUILDING EFFORTS EMPLOYMENT 
SERVICES AND HEALTH AND MENTAL 
HEALTH PROGRAMS AND CHILD AND 
AID FOR THE VULNERABLE IN THE 
COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO DO THAT, 
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL 
HAVE TO BEGIN TO HOLD THE 
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTABLE.
THIS NEEDS TO INCLUDE THE 
CREATION OF INDEPENDENT OVER 
SIGHT COMMISSION WITH THE 
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND 
POSSESSES POWER.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU MUST BEGIN
TO DEFUND THE SACRAMENTO 
DEPARTMENT.
IF I READ AND INTERPRET, 
RECOMMENDATION BUDGET 
APPROPRIATE YAGSS THE SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTS FOR 50% OF 
THE NET COUNTY BUDGET.
AS I ARGUED FOR YEARS, THIS MUST
CHANGE.
MANY OF YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU 
BELIEVE BLACK LIVES MATTER BUT 
THE WORDS MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT 
ACTION.
I'M TIRED ABOUT THE CASE AFTER 
CASE OF THE SHERIFF USING 
EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST BLACK 
PEOPLE AND RECEIVING NO 
CONSEQUENCE.
I'M TIRED OF SHERIFF JONES 
CAMPAIGNING AGAINST THE 
OVERSIGHT AND PROTECTING TO FAIL
AND FIRE THE DEPUTIES WHO USE 
EXCEASIVE FORCE AND TIRED OF 
HAVING A LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY 
THAT SEEMS UNINTERESTED IN 
SERVING ALL OF THE COMMUNITY AND
TREATS BLACK LIVES AS 
EXPENDABLE.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
WE NEED A MODERN DAY PUBLIC AND 
HEALTH SAFETY APPROACH.
SACRAMENTO LIKE EVERY OTHER IN 
THE U.S. NEEDS A NEW STRATEGY OF
HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAMS TO 
PAR RA PHASE, IT HAS BECOME 
CLEAR THAT WE ARE ASKING LAW 
ENFORCEMENT TO BE MANY THINGS 
AND IT IS NOT WORKING OUT.
SHERIFFS ARE RELIED ON TO BE THE
FIRST SPOPD RESPONDER, MENTAL 
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ANIMAL 
CONTROL AND JUDGE, JURY AND 
EXCUSEER IN IN THE BLINK OF AN 
EYE.
LOS ANGELES'S MAYOR HAS ALREADY 
ANNOUNCED A 150 MILLION 
DEFENDING THE LAPD FOR DIVERT TO
SPENDING IN THE 250 MILLION 
PACKAGE, BETTER SERVE 
MARGINIZED.
MINNEAPOLIS COUNCILMEMBERS VOWED
TO DISMANTLE THE MINNEAPOLIS PD 
PROGRAM AND DRAMATICALLY 
RETHINKING HOW WE APPROACH 
PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE EMERGENCY 
RESPONSES.
TO BEGIN, ANY PROJECTED BUDGET 
INCREASES OR FUNDS EARMARKED FOR
THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFFS 
DEPARTMENT WOULD BE REDIRECTED 
AND INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY ■
LED HEALTH AND SAFETY 
PROGRAMMING RIGHT NOW AND GOING 
FORWARD.
THIS SHOULD COME IN THE FORM OF 
THE SERVICES AND NEEDS THAT ARE 
GOING UNMET AND COULD BE 
ADDRESSED BY COMMUNITY 
ORGANIZATIONS AND THOSE WHO ARE 
CLOSEST TO THOSE IN NEED OF 
ASSISTANCE.
WE HAVE MANY EXAMPLES HERE IN 
SACRAMENTO AND INCLUDING BLACK 
CHILD LEGACY, HOME VISITATION, 
FAMILY RESOURCE SERVICES, 
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND SERVICES
AND COMMUNITY AND HOSPITAL BASED
VIOLENCE SERVICES.
I JOIN WITH OTHERS DEMANDING 
THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
MAKE A CLEARLY STATED COMMITMENT
TO ABOLISH THE INSTITUTION OF 
THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFFS 
DEPARTMENT AT THE END GOAL AND 
RIGHT NOW MAKE AND PASS THE 
RESOLUTIONS JULY 1ST.
DECREASE THE FUNDING AND PROPOSE
AND VOTE FOR A CUT FROM THE 
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT BUDGET AS 
THE COUNTY RESPONDS TO THE 
COVID-19 SHORT FALLS.
TO PROVIDE AND EXPAND CURRENT 
INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITY LED 
HEALTH AND SAFETY STRATEGIES 
INSTEAD OF INVESTING IN THE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT.
DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO 
COMPEL THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO SEIZE -- 
AND OVERSIGHT COMMISSION THAT 
CONTAINS MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMUNITY AND THAT POSSESSES 
SUBPOENA POWER.
TO USE THE FEDERAL COVID-19 
FUNDS TO BEGIN TO ADDRESS THE 
ROOT CAUSE SYSTEMIC RACISM AND 
DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION 
HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, CRIMINAL 
JUSTICE OF THE UNEQUAL 
DISTRIBUTION OF POWER AND 
RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THIS 
IMPACTING THE COMMUNITIES OF 
COLOR AND OTHER VULNERABLE 
POPULATIONS IN SACRAMENTO.
NOW IS THE TIME TO TAKE BOLD 
ACTION.
THANK YOU.
TAYLOR.
MEETING FOR 6-16.
PLEAD READ THE COMMENTS TO THE 
PUBLIC.
HELLO, I'M TAYLOR.
I HAVE BEEN A CITIZEN FOR MOST 
OF MY YOUNG ADULT LIFE.
I FIND IT UNETHICAL THE TAX 
DOLLARS ARE SPENT ON 
MILITARIZING THE POLICE FORCE.
IF WE REDEFINE CRIME THERE IS NO
NEED FOR SUCH A HIGH BUDGET IN 
GENERAL.
I ASK FOR DEFUNDING THE POLICE 
AND NO NEW BUDGET RAISE IN FACT 
DECREASE IT BY REDISTRIBUTING 
THE MONEY AND FOCUSSING ON THE 
HOMELESS COMMUNITY AND BLACK AND
BROWN COMMUNITIES AS WELL USE IT
FOR GOOD, NOT FOR CONTROL OVER 
THE COMMUNITY.
IT IS PROVEN NOT TO KEEP ANYONE 
SAFE EXCEPT FOR WHITE PEOPLE OR 
PEOPLE WITH MONEY.
WE HAVE TO REWRITE THE LAWS.
THANK YOU FOR READIN MY 
COMMENT. 
TIM.
46-56.
I REQUEST THAT THE COMMENT BE 
READ IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT 
PERIOD OF THE JUNE 16TH MEETING 
RELATING TO 46-56 SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT REQUESTING.
THE BOARD IS NO NO POSITION TO 
APPROVE THE REQUEST AT THIS TIME
OF THE SYSTEMIC RACISM.
LIVES ARE AT STAKE AND THIS IS 
NOT THE TIME AS BUSINESS AS 
USUAL.
I DEMAND A FREEZE ON THE FUND.
UNTIL A LARGE SCALE PUBLIC 
INQUIRY IS LAUNCHED AND 
PERFORMED INTO THE INCREDIBLE 
MISUSE OF THE TAX DOLLARS.
WE ARE WATCHING TO SEE IF YOU 
TUCK ON GOING BUSINESS INTO A 
MEETING OR IF YOU RECOGNIZE THE 
MOMENT AND STOP FUNDING THE 
STRUCTURAL RACISM.
NO BUDGET APPROVALS FOR 
POLICING, FULL INQUIRY INTO THE 
POLICE BUDGET FOR THE HUMAN 
NEEDS.
KRISTIN.
DEAR COUNTY BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS, I WOULD LIKE THIS 
COMMENT READ AT THE MEETING.
I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ON THOSE 
CALLING ON THE BOARD TO REDUCE 
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT BUDGET 
AND REDIRECT THE FUNDS TO 
PROGRAMS TO HELP OUR 
COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING 
SPECIFICALLY THE BLACK 
COMMUNITY.
I STRONGLY URGE THE BOARD TO 
REDUCE THE SHERIFFS BUDGET AND 
REDUCING A QUARTER ANNUALLY AND 
REDISTRIBUTING THE FUNDS TO 
OTHER SERVICES THAT HELP THE 
COMMUNITY NAMELY MENTAL HEALTH 
PROGRAMS, HOMELESS SERVICES AND 
EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
THE COMMUNITY HAS GIVEN WAY TOO 
MUCH OF THE FUNDS TO THE PROGRAM
THAT TEARS APART THE COMMUNITY.
IT IS TIME TO REDIRECT THE FUNDS
TO REBUILD THE COMMUNITY.
KYLE.
46-56.
HELLO.
I AM A MEDICAL STUDENT IN THE 
SACRAMENTO AREA.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATE 
OF OUR CITY STATE AND NATION.
I FEEL STRONGLY FOR THE BLACK 
AND POC BROTHERS AND SISTERS 
GRIEVING AT THE INJUSTICES.
WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THE 
SUFFERING AND OPPRESSION AT THE 
HANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND 
THOSE IN POWER THAT ALLOW FOR 
THE MISTREATMENT AND HARM 
COMMITTED AGAINST FELLOW HUMANS.
I AM IMPLORE YOU TO THINK ABOUT 
HOW AND INVESTMENT INTO THE 
SHERIFFS OFFICE AND THE SPENDING
IS MOVING IN A DIRECTION THAT 
CAUSED SO MUCH GRIEF AND DEATH.
I BEG YOU TO USE THE FUNDS USED 
IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND 
INVEST IN THE COMMUNITY YOUTH 
AND HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES 
PROGRAMS THAT CAN MOST 
EFFECTIVELY HEAL THE WOUNDS THAT
ARE FESTERING.
AN INVESTMENT IN THE COMMUNITIES
INSTETTED OF MORE POLICING OF 
BODIES AND INVEST IN THE 
INSTITUTIONS LIKE THE SHERIFFS 
OFFICE IS A REAL MEDICINE THAT 
WE SO DESPERATELY NEED.
INVEST IN THE COMMUNITIES.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO REPAVE 
SUCCESS FOR THE SHERIFF 
OPERATION COURSE, USE THE FUNDS 
ON A COMMUNITY ROAD.
PLEASE FEEL TO READ THE PUBLIC 
COMMENT IN THE MEETING.
THANK YOU.
MARGARET.
46-56.
HELLO.
I AM WRITING TO YOU TODAY TO 
EXPRESS CONCERN FOR THE ITEMS ON
THE AGENDA FOR THE BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS MEETING TOMORROW 
ITEMS 46-56.
PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS IN THE 
MEETING TOMORROW.
I AM MARGARET BISHOP AND I WAS 
RAISED IN SACRAMENTO IN FAIR 
OAKS AND LIVED HERE MY WHOLE 
LIFE AND CARE DEEPLY FOR 
SACRAMENTO AND SAFETY OF ALL OF 
THE RESIDENTS.
I WAS PRIVILEGED TO GROW UP IN A
COMMUNITY THAT WASN'T HEAVY 
POLICED BECAUSE FAIR OAKS IS A 
MAJORITY WHITE AREA.
I KNOW NOT ALL NEIGHBORS ARE AS 
PRIVILEGED.
SACRAMENTO.G OF CLARK SHOOK -
WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW WITH 
POLICE VIOLENCE IS IN RESPONSE 
TO PROTESTOR WHO ARE RALLYING 
AGAINST THE POLICE VIOLENCE AND 
THE SHOOTINGS ARE UNACCEPTABLE.
THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP 
THE COMMUNITY SAFE.
INSTEAD THEY ARE TERRORIZING 
SACRAMENTO.
THE SHERIFF IS ASKING FOR 
3.1 MILLION, THIS IS 
UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO 
BE ALLOCATED TO THE OVERFUNDING 
POLICE.
WE HAVE LOST TOO BLACK LIVES TO 
THE SHERIFF'S VIOLENCE.
I ASK TO INVEST IN THE NEEDS OF 
THE COMMUNITIES:  SACRAMENTO 
NEEDS TO INVEST IN THE WELL 
BEING OF THE COMMUNITIES NOT THE
SHERIFFS.
WE NEED TO START CUT FUNDING TO 
OUR BLOATED AND OVER MILITARIZED
POLICE FORCE AND START FUNDING 
INITIATIVES HELP THE SACRAMENTO 
COUNTY TO BE SAFE.
DANIEL.
ITEMS 46-56.
PLEASE READ THE COMMENT IN THE 
MEETING.
I AM A RESIDENT OF MIDTOWN 
SACRAMENTO.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MUCH OF
THE BIJ GOING TO THE SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT AND SEEING THE FUNDS 
GOING TO THE PROGRAMS THAT 
ACTUALLY PROVIDE FOR THE WELL 
BEING OF THE COMMUNITY 
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, EDUCATION, 
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
ITEM 46, IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH 
THE EFFECTS OF DRUG ADDICTION, I
WANT TO COUNTY TO INVEST IN 
PROVIDING TREATMENT SERVICES AND
WORKING TO ADDRESS THE ROOT 
CAUSE OF ADRIKS RATHER THAN ON 
THE MEASURES THAT INCREASE THE 
POLICE PRESENCE AND FURTHER 
TERRORIZE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE 
ALREADY STRUGGLING.
48, I DON'T WANT THE TAX MONEY 
FUNDING THE INDOCK RINIZATION OF
A NEW GENERATION OF COPS.
49, ARE THE INMATES ON A WORK 
PROJECT CREW COMPENSATED FOR THE
LABEL ACCORDING TO MINIMUM WAGE.
,ARE YOU OKAY WITH ENABLING
SLAVE LABOR.
WHY FUNNELING MONEY INTO
SYSTEMS THAT ARE BUILT AND
PERFECT PERPETUATE RACISM AND
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY.
PRIORITIZE USING THESE
RESOURCE TO SAY BUILD
ACCOUNTING WHERE EVERYBODY IS
DWIFN THE CARE, CONSIDERATION
AND RESPECT THAT ALL HUMANS
DESERVE.
THANK YOU.
ITEMS 46-56.
ADAM SON.
IMED LAO I CAN MY COMMENT READ
ALLOWED DURING THE PUBLIC
DISCUSSION.
HI, MY NAME IS J ADAM SON.
I'M 24 YEARS OLD.
I'M A SENIOR AT SAC STATE.
THE SAC COUNTY BOARD IS THE
ONE THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPROVING OF THE SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT'S DEPARTMENT CHP
BUDGET, CITY POLICE BUDGET AND
BUDGET FOR THE JAILS WITHIN
THE COUNTY.
CURRENTLY THE SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT RECEIVED
$372 MILLION A YEAR ROUGHLY
1/3 OF THE CITY BUDGE.
SHERIFFS BUDGET HAS INCREASED
EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
OF SAC COUNSEL TILL BOARD
APPROVED $7 MILLION CONTRACT
TO CONSTRUCT A NEW JAIL TOWER
DOWNTOWN.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT SAC COUNTY
HAS BEEN GIVEN 18 $1 MILLION
THROUGH THE CARES ACT WHICH
NEEDS TO BE SPENT BY
DECEMBER 2020 AND WE ALSO KNOW
THAT THE SAC COUNTY JAIL
POPULATION HAS LRS BEEN
DECREASED BY 30% DUE TO
COVID-19.
THIS $181 MILLION HAS NOT BEEN
ALLOCATED TO ANYTHING YET.
I AM HERE TO REMIND THE BOARD
THAT NONE OF THIS MONEY NOT A
SINGLE CENT SHOULD GO TO THE
SER I WAS DEPARTMENT.
THIS SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY
ALLOCATED AND INVESTED IN
BLACK COMMUNITIES AND OTHER
UNDERFUNDED COMMUNITIES FOR
HOUSING SUPPORT, MENTAL HEALTH
CARE AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT
TEAMS NOT THE POLICE.
NOT FOR THE POLICE IN THESE
BLACK COMMUNITIES AND NOT FOR
THE PLIES IN MID TOWN.
NOWHERE.
WE ARE HOO TO DEMAND AN
IMMEDIATE CANCELLATION OF JAIL
TOWER PROJ EACT AND $7 MILLION
PROJ CONTRACT SHOULD BE
CANCELED AND REINVESTED INTO
THE COMMUNITY.
I DEMAND THE FULL LIST PUT
FORTH BY 8-2 -- AID TO AIND
BOLISH BE CARRIED OUT BY SAC
COUNTY COUNTY BOARD.
DEFUND LAW ENFORCEMENT
DEMILITARIZE OUR COMMUNITIES
INCLUDING TEAR GAS AN RUBBER
BULLETS.
TEAR GAS ITSELF BANNED
CHEMICAL WEAPON OF WAR.
OF 3, REMOVE POLICE FROM
SCHOOLS.
4, CONTINUE TO FREE PEOPLE
FROM JAILS, 5 GED RID OF
LOITERING AND CAMPING LAWS
WITHIN THE CITY FOR THE
HOMELESS.
6, INVEST IN COMMUNITY
SELF-GOVERNANCE.
INVEST IN THE HOUSING AND RENT
SUBSIDIES FOR EVERYONE INSIDE
OF GETTING THE MONEY TO THE
POLICE.
8, INVEST IN CARE, NOT COPS OF
CAGES.
THE FUNDING OF THE POLICE IS
MORE THAN JUST A HOT BUTTON
ISSUE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING
IN THE MEDIA RIGHT NOW.
IT'S ANNUAL, TANGIBLE AND
OBSERVAL MURDER.
IT'S A VIOLATION OF BLACK AND
BROWN BODIES ON QUEER AND
TRANS BODIES AND DISABLED
BODIES.
THE POLICE DO NOT PROTECT US.
BECAUSE OF A 2005 SUPREME
COURT RULING THEY ACTUALLY
HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO
DO SO.
WE ARE THE ONES THAT PAY YOU
AND WE DEMAND THAT YOU USE THE
MONEY GAVE US TO INVEST IN OUR
COMMUNITIES, NOT ON OUR SLOW
DEATH.
WE DEMAND THAT YOU DEFUND THE
SACRAMENTO SHERIFFS OFFICE.
JESSE.
ITEMS 46-56.
HI, PLEASE SEE BELOW FOR A
COMMENT FOR TUESDAY'S MEETING
6-16.
I WOULD LAO I CAN MOO COMMENT
READ OUTLOUD DURING THE
MEETING.
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON
ITEMS 46 THROUGH 56, WHICH ARE
ITEMS RELATED TO THE CHER I
WAS DEPARTMENT.
I BELIEVE IT IS UNETHICAL TO
INCREASE FUNDING TO THE SHEFER
I WAS DEPARTMENT WHEN WE
SHOULD BE DECREASING FUNDING
THERE AND INCREASING FUNDING
TO PROGRAMS THAT ACTUALLY KEEP
OUR COMMUNITIES SAFE, PROGRAMS
THAT PROVIDE CARE AND
DESPERATELY NEEDED SERVICES,
WHICH WOULD BE ADMINISTERED BY
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, NOT
THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE BUILDING
OF ANOTHER JAIL TOWER AND THE
PROJECT MUST BE CANCELED
IMMEDIATELY.
AS SACRAMENTO COUNTY
COMMUNITIES -- COMMUNITY OUR
PRIORITIES SHOULD BE DECARS
RAITION NOT INCREASING OUR
CAPACITY TO LOCK PEOPLE IN
CAGES.
IN THE HISTORICAL MOMENT
MOMENT WHERE THE WHOLE COUNTY
IS DEMANDING JUSTICE FOR BLACK
LIVES AND DEFUNDING THE
POLICE, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY
TONE DEAF FOR SACRAMENTO
COUNTY TO POWCIAL MONEY INTO
THE CRIMINAL NAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM WITH WE COULD BE
FUNDING COMMUNITY SERVICES.
THANK YOU JESSE.
SACRAMENTO RESIDENT.
COURTNEY POOL, ITEMS 46-56.
GOOD EVENING, I WOULD LIKE
THIS EMAIL TO BE READ OUTLOUD
DURING TOMORROW'S BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS MEETING AND I'M
GIVING PERMISSION TO DO SO.
AGENDA ITEMS 4 SICK-36 THAT
WILL ADD TOTAL OF $3.1 MILLION
TOWARDS THE SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS UN UNETHICAL
INVESTMENT AS MANY PROGRAMS
AND RESOURCES THAT PROTECT
PUBLIC SAFETY ARE BEING CUT.
POLICE RECONSIDER THIS BUDGET
DECISION.
WITH ALL THE CARES ACT FUNDING
COMING THROUGH, IMPLORE YOU TO
PENNED THIS ON INVESTING IN
BLACK COMMUNITIES.
AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING PROGRAMS, MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES AND
COMMUNITY-LED PUBLIC SAFETY
PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN PROIVE
TO IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY.
IN ADDITION, PLEASE CANCEL THE
$7 MILLION PROJECT FOR A NEW
JAIL.
ED $7 MILLION COULD GO A LONG
WAY IF FUNDED BUILD TRUST AND
COLLABORATION WITH
COMMUNITIES.
THANK YOU, COURTNEY POOL.
HEATHER.
ITEMS 46-56.
TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS, I AM HEATHER.
OF DISTRICT 4.
I AM SUBMITTING PUBLIC
COMMENTS TO THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS WHICH I REQUESTED
TO BE READ OUTLOUD DURING THE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
I AM SPEAKING P ON ITEMS 46-56
THAT RELATE TO A TOTAL A
INCREASE OF $3.1 MILLION IN
FUNDING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO CONDEMN ANY
AND ALL FUNDING INCREASES FOR
ARMED LAW ENFORCEMENT AT THIS
I BELIEVE INSTEAD OF THESE
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS, THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS SHOULD BE
FOLLOWING THE EXAMPLES OF
OTHER CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTY
WHO ARE ADDRESSING CRIME AS
WELL AS TENSIONS BETWEEN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND THE PUBLIC IN
A MORE MEANINGFUL AND
PRACTICAL WAY.
FOR THE EXAMPLE -- FOR EXAMPLE
THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO IS
IT SHIFTING THE BURDEN OFF
EMERGENCY RESPONDERS FOR
NON-CRIMINAL PROGRAMS AND
DISPUTES AND ON TO UNARMED
PROFESSIONALS.
WE NEED TO FOLLOW THIS MODEL
AND RESERVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FOR EMERGENCIES ONLY.
WE NEED TO INVEST IN PROGRAMS
THAT USE UNARMED PROFESSIONALS
TO HANDLE ALL NONVIOLENT
ISSUES.
MY EXPARTNER IS AN
AFRICAN-AMERICAN MALE WITH
MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS.
THE TWO OF US DEALT WITH
SEVERAL DOMESTIC ISSUES.
I DO NOT FEEL SAFE CALLING FOR
HELP FROM COUNTY SERVICES
WITHOUT FEAR THEY WOULD
ESCALATE OUR CONFLICTS BASED
UPON HIS DEMOGRAPHIC, THE
NATURE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRAINING AS WELL AS THE TOOLS
THEY BRING TO RESOLVE THESE
ISSUES.
FURTHER MORE, WITHOUT SOCIAL
SERVICES SUCH AS ACCESSING --
ACCESS TO HOUSING, HEALTH CARE
AND MORE, THE BURDEN FELL ON
ME TO BE HIS COUNSELOR, HIS
HOUSING AND HIS LIFELINE IN
GENERAL.
MAKING IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT
FOR ME TO EXIT THE ABUSIVE
RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT
SUBJECTING HIM TO SITUATIONS
THAT WOULD AMPLIFY HIS MELT
ANT HEALTH ISSUES FEEL THIS
SYSTEM IS NOT TENABLE AND
INCREASING LAW ENFORCEMENT
FUNDING ENDS UP INCREASING
CRIME FOR THE VERY REASON DATA
SUGGESTS INCREASING LAW
ENFORCEMENT FUNDING LEADS TO
NECESSARY CONTRACTION OF OUR
-- OF OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES.
THERE HAVE BEEN A DOZEN TIMES
WHEN I WANT TODAY REACH OUT TO
SOME SORT OF SOCIAL SERVICE
HELP -- SOCIAL SERVICE FOR
HELP, IRVE,, WITH WE AND EVERY
SOCIAL SERVICE AVAILABLE BUT
IN THE MOMENTS OF CRISIS, THEY
ALSO TELL ME TO CALL 911.
I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO INVOLVE
AN ARMED PERSON IN A MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS AND POTENTIALLY
JEOPARDIZE SOMEBODY'S LIFE IN
ORDER TO HELP THEM.
I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO USE
VALUABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT
RESOURCES, ■INCLUDING TIME THAT
DISPATCHERS COULD BE
RESPONDING TO VIOLENT THREATS
IN ORDER TO PERFORM A WELLNESS
CHECK.
THAT IS NOTHING SHORT OF A
BROKEN SYSTEM AND IT IS
FUNDING INCREASES THAT MAKE IT
SO.
WE DESPERATELY NEED MORE
MENTAL HEALTH WORKERS AND
FACILITIES.
WE DO NOT NEED MORE ARMS OR
MORE VEHICLES THAT CAN EVEN
NAVIGATE CITY STREETS, THUS
LEAVING OUR OWN LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO BLEED
OUT WAITING FOR HELP WHILE A
BEAR CAT SITS A BLOCK AWAY
UNABLE TO HELP THEM.
WE NEED TO DEESCALATE TENSIONS
BETWEEN EMERGENCY RESPONDERS
AND THE PUBLIC THEY SERVE AND
THUS WE NEED TO LIMIT THEIR
PROFESSION TO EMERGENCIES ONLY
WHILE INCREASING FUNDING FOR
OTHER SERVICE.
THANK YOU, HEATHER.
PATRICIA.
ITEMS 46-56.
DEAR SACRAMENTO BOARD CLERK, I
WOULD LIKE MY PUBLIC COMMENT
TO BE READ OUTLOUD DURING THE
MEETING ON JUNE 16, 2020.
I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS CANCEL THE $
7 MILLION DESIGN BILL
CONTRACT TO START NEW JAIL
EXPANSION DOWNTOWN.
I DEMAND ONE NOM THE CARES ACT
FUNDING GO TO THE SHERIFF, DA
OR PROBATION.
DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS DEFUND THE
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT AND OUR
JAILS WHICH ARE -- WHICH
CURRENTLY CONSUME 1/3 OF OUR
GENERAL FUND BUDGET.
SINCERELY, PATRICIA.
>> TERREL JOHNSON DEPUTY CLERK
WILL READ THE NEXT SET OF
COMMENTS.
>> ITEM 46-56, THIS IS FROM
SHEA ROBINSON.
DEAR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, I
WOULD LIKE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC COMMENT READ OUT LOUD.
I URGELY REQUEST THAT FOR
AGENDA ITEMS 46-56 YOU
ALLOCATE THE FUND TO SUPPORT
BLACK COMMUNITIES, AFFORDABLE
AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, MENTAL
HEALTH CARE AND COMMUNITY-LED
PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAMS.
I ASK THAT YOU DO NOT EXPAND
THE BUDGETS OF THE POLICE AT
THE EXPENSE OF EVERYTHING
ELSE.
REINVEST IN THESE COMMUNITIES.
THANK YOU SHEA ROBINSON.
THIS IS FROM NICOLE.
ITEM 46-56.
PLEASE READ OUT LOUD AT 6-16
MEETING TO THE SACRAMENTO
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
I'M WRITING IN REGARDS TO
SPECIFICALLY AS THEY PERTAIN
TO FUNDS ALLOCATED TO THE
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT.
IMPLORE THE BOARD TO REJECT
THE ITEMS 46-56 SPARING ITEM
53, WHICH APPROVED, WHICH IF
APPROVED, WILL PROVIDE FUNDING
TO A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
AND PAR LANE THE ACTIONABLE
FUNDS TEURDZ COMMUNITY-BASED
FUNDINGS SUCH AS EDUCATION,
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES,
HOMELESS OUTREACH AND OTHER
SERVICES COMMITTED TO WORKING
TOWARDS THE HEALTH AND
WELL-BEING OF ALL SACRAMENTO
COUNTY CITIZENS.
I THINK IT'S TIME TO RETHINK
HOW AND WHERE WE SPEND OUR
MONEY, AND IT STARTS TODAY,
NOT YEARS DOWN THE LINE.
AS A LIFE-LONG RESIDENT OF THE
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, I HAVE
NEVER FELT A STRONGER CALLING
THAN THE PRESENT RACIAL
INEQUITY TO WRITE AND SHARE MY
CONCERNS.
WHAT AN EXCITING OPPORTUNITY
AS CAPITAL CITY WE SET A TONE
AND HAVE A CHANCE TO LEAD THE
NATION INTO MORE EQUITABLE AND
JUST FUTURE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I
ONCE AGAIN STRONGLY URGING THE
REJECTION DISAPPROVAL OF
AGENDA ITEMS 46-52, 54 THROUGH
56.
NICOLE.
THIS IS FROM ITEM 46-56 FROM
RACH PITS.
READ THIS ALLOWED.
I WANT TO LEAD MY VOICE TO THE
GROWING MOVEMENT TO DEFUND
POLICING.
ALTHOUGH THIS MAY NOT HAPPEN
JOAFERG R OVERNIGHT, THE
PROCESS NEEDS TO BEGIN NOW AND
IT STARTS TODAY BY
REDISTRIBUTING THE OUTRAGEOUS
SHERIFFS BUDGET INTO PROGRAM
THAT IS ACTUALLY SERVE OUR
COMMUNITY.
WE CAN'T CONTINUE BUSINESS AS
USUAL.
TOO MANY ARE HURTING.
TOO MANY ARE DYING.
TOO MANY LIVE IN CONSTANT
TERROR.
OF IMAGINE WHAT WE COULD BUILD
IF THE COUNTY GAVE THE AMOUNT
OF MONEY THE SHERIFF IS ASKING
FOR INTO
COMMUNITY-ORIENTEDMENT ALT
HEALTH SERVICES OR YOUTH
PROGRAMS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME RACH
PITS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT 1.
ITEM 45-56, THIS IS FROM
RACHEL.
HELLO, I WOULD LIKE MY COMMENT
READ ALLOWED DURING THE
MEETING.
MY NAME IS RACHEL.
I AM COMMENTING TO DEMAND
SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD DOES
NOT INCREASE THE SAC SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT BUDGET AND INSTEAD
BEGINS THE PROCESS OF
DEFUNDING AND REINVESTING INTO
PROGRAMS THAT BETTER BENEFIT
OUR COMMUNITY.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY STILL HAS
181 MILLION FROM THE CARES ACT
THAT NEEDS TO BE SPENT BY
DECEMBER 2020.
NONE OF THIS MONEY SHOULD GO
TO THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT.
THE SACRAMENTO SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT BUDGE INCREASES
EVERY YEAR AND ALREADY
RECEIVED OVER $372 MILLION A
YEAR.
WHICH IS A THIRD OF THE
COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND BUDGET.
INSTEAD, THIS MONEY FROM THE
CARES ACT SHOULD BE ALLOCATED
AND INVESTED TO SUPPORT BLACK
COMMUNITIES.
AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING, MENTAL HEALTH CARE
AND COMMUNE-LED PUBLIC SAFETY
PROGRAMS.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY HAS ALSO
RECENTLY APPROVED A $7 MILLION
CONTRACT TO BEGIN DESIGNING A
NEW JAIL TOWER DOWNTOWN.
SAC COUNTY JAIL'S POPULATION
HAS ALREADY BEEN DECREASED BY
30% DUE TO RECENT
COVID-RELATED RELEASES.
WE DEMAND THAT THE BOARD
CANCEL THIS $7 MILLION PROJECT
AND REINVEST THIS MONEY INTO
COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS
BECAUSE ALL LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
CALIFORNIA HIGH APATROL, CITY
POLICE AND SAC COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPUTIES INCARCERATE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS INTO SACRAMENTO COUNTY
JAILS, IT IS PERTINENT THAT
DEFUNDING POLICE BEGINS
HAPPENING ON THE COUNTY LEVEL.
THE FOCUS NEEDS TO BE ON
INVESTING INTO HOUSING, MENTAL
HEALTH CARE, DEVERSION AN
REENTRY EFFORTS.
IT IS UNETHICAL TO CONTINUE
FUNDING THE SACRAMENTO
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT IN SUCH
EXCESSIVE WAY CUTTING FUNDING
TO OR NEGLECTING TO PROVIDE
PROPER FUND TO GO PROGRAMS
THAT KEEP OUR COMMUNITY SAFE.
SUCH A HIGH BUDGET FOR THE
SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT IS PART
OF WHAT ALLOWS HUMAN RIGHTS
ABUSES TO OCCUR DAILY IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAILS AND
ALLOWS VIOLENCE AND INJUSTICE
TO HAPPEN IN OUR STREETS AT
THE HANDS OF SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT AND SACRAMENTO
POLICE.
POLICE DO OUR COMMUNITY RIGHT
AND DEFUND SACRAMENTO COUNTY
LAW ENFORCEMENT.
ITEM 45 THROUGH 46, JACK.
HELLO MY NAME IS JACK.
AND I AM A RESIDENT OF
SACRAMENTO.
I AM EMAILING TO LEAVE A
GENERAL COMMENT FOR THE
MEETING OCCURRING TOMORROW,
6-16 ON HOW CARES ACT FUNDS
ARE BEING ALLOCATED.
I KINDLY ASK YOU TO READ THIS
MESSAGE AT THE MEETING.
I AM IMPLORE YOU TO REFRAIN
FROM POURING THE $3.1 MILLION
FOR THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT DA
AND PROBATION INTO THOSE
PROGRAMS MENTIONED IN ITEMS
46-56.
I MUST EMPHASIZE HOW
IMPERATIVE IT IS THAT WE
INSTEAD USE THE UNALLOCATED
$181 MILLION SET ASIDE FOR
SACRAMENTO COUNTY COVID-19
RELIEF TO INVEST IN ONE, BLACK
COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO
HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY
IMPACTED BY COVID.
2, AFFORDABLE AND SECURE
HOUSING, 3, MENTAL HEALTH CARE
AND 4, ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC
SAFETY PROGRAMS IN WHICH LAW
ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT GET
INVOLVED WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE
TO.
THESE DEMANDS MUST BE
CONTEXTUALIZED WITHIN THE
PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR
NATION.
FIRST, WE KNOW THAT
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR,
ESPECIALLY BLACK COMMUNITIES
ACROSS THE U.S. ARE IMPACTED
BY COVID TO A HIGHER DEGREE
THAN WHITE COMMUNITIES.
ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY
THE PANDEMIC HAS IMPACTED
BLACK AND LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES SO STRONGLY IS THE
LEVEL OF PARTICULAR EXPOSURE
POLLUTION.
BEGINNING IN THE 1940s
REDLINING WAS USED TO
SEGREGATE BLACK, BROWN AND
LATINO INTO NEIGHBORHOODS
DECLINING, HAZARDOUS AND
UNDESIRABLE.
OVER THE YEARS, FACTORIES
REFINERIES, HIGHWAYS AND LAND
FILLS WERE INTENTIONALLY ZONED
INTO THOSE SAME COMMUNITIES.
BIPOC HAS DEVELOPED AN
INCREASED VULNERABLE TO COVID,
CANCER AND HEAT-RELATED DEATH
DUE TO THE RACIST TREND OF RED
LINING AS SACRAMENTO COUNTY
MUST KNOW HAVING ACT OND
ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE IN THE
PA OUR CITY HAS PARTICIPATED
IN REDLINING.
PLEASE ACT TO REWRITE THE THE
HISTORY AND REINVEST INTO THE
COMMUNITIES THAT NEED THE
RELIEF THE MOST.
THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
CONSPIRED WITH SACRAMENTO PD
TO MURDER STEPHAN CLERK.  THIS
IS ONE MURDER AMONG MANY IN A
RACIST TREND ACROSS U.S. LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN WHICH THE
POLICE ILLUMINATE THEIR
COMMENT TO WITH WHITE
SUPREMECY BY KILLING BLACK
CITIZENS THE DA HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CHARGE THE
OFFICERS INVOLVED, THEY TOOK
NO ACTION TO DO SO.
THUS DISPLAYING THEIR BELIEF
THAT BLACK LIVES ARE
EXPENDABLE.
BOTTOM LINE IS THE DA, THE
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT AND
PROBATION DO NOT DESERVE THESE
FUNDS IN ANY RESPECT.
PLEASE TAKE THIS CONSIDERATION
AND ALLOCATE THESE FUNDS INTO
PROGRAMS THAT WILL SUPPORT AND
UPLIFT OUR MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES.
IT IS TIME THAT WE BEGIN TO
DEINVEST AND DISMANTLE
OPPRESSIVE SYSTEMS SUCH AS THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT.
P BLACK LIVES MATTER
SINCERELY, JACK.
ITEM 46-56, NICK.
PLEASE READ MY COMMENT
OUTLOUD.
MEETING DATE 6-16 AGENDA ITEMS
46-56.
BOARD MEMBERS, I URGING THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CANCEL
THE $7 MILLION DESIGN BUILD
CONTRACT TO BEGIN DESIGNING A
NEW JAIL TOWER BEHIND THE MAIN
JAIL IN DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO.
AND INVEST THE $7 MILLION IN
COMMUNITY-BASED RESOURCES.
A NEW JAIL TOWER WILL NOT MAKE
SACRAMENTO SAFER.
IT WILL ONLY CONTINUE THE
CYCLE OF SYSTEMATIC RACISM AND
INCARCERATION THROUGH OVERLY
POLICE COMMUNITIES.
LOCKING OUR PEOPLE UP IS NOT
THE WAY TO BUILD COMMUNITY.
SAC COUNTY JAIL POPULATION WAS
REDUCED BY OVER 30% DUE TO
COVID-19-RELATED RELEASES AND
THE COUNTY SHOULD BE FOCUSED
ON CONTINUING DOWN THIS PATH
BY INVESTING IN HOUSING,
MENTAL HEALTH CARE, DEVISIONER
AND REENTRY EFFORTS LADY BY
IMPACTED PEOPLE, NOT GIVING
MORE MONEY TO THE SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT OR PROBATION
DEPARTMENT.
I URGING THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE
SHERIFFS REQUEST FOR
AUTHORIZING THE SHERIFFS OR
HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE
PERSONAL SERVICE AGREEMNTS
FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH
INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING
AREA.
AGAIN, THIS FUNDING SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TOWARDS MENTAL HEALTH
AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMS,
NOT FURTHERING
INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM IN
THE FORM OF MASS INCARCERATION
SACRAMENTO SHOULD FOLLOW THE
LEAD OF OTHER CITIES AROUND
THE COUNTRY WHO ARE TRYING TO
-- WHO ARE TAKING STEPS TO
DEFUND POLICE AND RETHINK
PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
ALREADY RECEIVES OVER
$150 MILLION OF THE COUNTY
GENERAL FUND ANNUALLY, MONTHLY
NI THAT BE COULD BETTER SPENT
ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
RESPONSES TO THE HOMELESSNESS
CRIESES, MENTAL HEALTH AND
ADDICT FIF TREATMENT AND OTHER
COMMUNITY SERVICES.
NICK.
45-56, FROM PAUL.
PLEASE READ MY COMMENT OUT
LOUD.
MEETING DATE 6-16.
BOARD MEMBERS, I URGING THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CANCEL
THE $7 MILLION DESIGN BUILD
CONTRACT TO BEGIN DESIGNING A
NEW JAIL TOWER BEHIND THE MAIN
JAIL IN DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO
AND INVEST THE $7 MILLION IN
COMMUNITY-BASED RESOURCES.
THIS LOOKS LIKE THIS IS A
REPEAT FROM THE PREVIOUS
COMMENT.
EYE TEM 45-56, CAMERON
CLARKLY.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
PLEASE READ THIS COMMENT OUT
LOUD DURING THE MEETING
TOMORROW MORNING.
THE SACRAMENTO SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT UNJUSTLY RECEIVED
OVER 1/3 OF THE GENERAL FUND
BUDGET OVER YEAR WHILE
CONSTANTLY CUTTING
COMMUNITY-BASED SAFETY
PROGRAMS AND NOWL THEY'RE
REQUESTING OVER 3.1 MILLION
BASED ON ITEMS 46-56.
THIS IS UNNECESSARY, UNETHICAL
AND A WASTE OF RESOURCES THAT
CAN INSTEAD BE USED FOR
COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS.
THESE FUNDS SHOULD BE USED TO
SUPPORT BLACK COMMUNITIES,
AFFORDABLE AND PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, MENTAL
HEALTH CARE AND COMMUNITY-LED
PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAMS.
PLEASE MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE
AND ALLOCATE THESE FUNDS
TOWARDS MAKING LASTING AND
UPLIFTING PROJECTS UC-DAVIS
MEDICAL STUDENT.
ITEM 45-56.
SAUMA.
I I WOULD LIKE THIS COMMENT TO
BE READ INTO THE RECORD.
DEAR CHAIRMAN SERNA AN MEMBERS
OF THE SACRAMENTO BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS MY NAME IS ASUMA
AND I AM THE POLICY AND
ADVOCACY MANAGER FOR THE
SACRAMENTO VALLEY CHAPTER OF
THE COUNCIL ON AMERICA ISLAMIC
RELATIONS, THE NATION'S
LARGEST MUSLIM CIVIL RIGHTS
ORGANIZATION WITH OVER 30
OFFICES NATION WIDE.
WITH THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
HIGHLIGHTING THE INCREASINGLY
DEMANDING NEED FOR STRATEGIC
ALLOCATION OF COUNTY FUNDS, IT
IS CONCERNING TO SEE THE
DISPROPORTIONALLITY WITH WHICH
TAXPAYER MONEYS ARE HANDLED
AND DISTRIBUTED WITH OVER 1
SLASH SH 3 OF THE ANNUAL
COUNTY BUDGET FUNNELED TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND A FRACTION OF
THAT INTO REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMS.
IN ADDITION, RECENT EVENTS
AROUND THE NATION HAVE
HIGHLIGHT ADD GREATER NEED TO
REVISIT THE POLL 6 AND FUNDING
RELATED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
PRACTICES.
WITH THE EXPIRATION OF MANY
CONTRACTS THAT THE SACRAMENTO
COUNTY SHERS I WAS OFFICE ARE
ENGAGED IN, WE WOULD LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
MORE -- FOR A MORE THOROUGH
REVIEW AND NEED-BASIS
ASSESSMENT IN REGARDS TO MANY
OF THESE PROGRAMS AS MANY ARE
UP -- AS MANY OF UP TO 5-YEAR
PROVISIONAL TERMS.
ITEM 51 ON THE AGENDA OUTLINES
671198 IN FUNDING FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY ADMINISTERING THROUGH
THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO.
FOR A NUMBER OF TRAINING
SERVICES INCLUDING TERRORRIVE,
LIAISON TRAINING COURSES THSM
FOLLOWS A LONG HISTORY OF
PROGRAMS MOST RECENTLY THE
PREVENTED VENTING VIOLENT
EXTREMIST AND CREATING SAFER
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS
ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES WHICH HAVE BEEN
PROVEN TO DISPROPORTIONATELY
TARGET AND SURVEY COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR AND OF IMMIGRANT
BACKGROUNDS.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY HAS A HIGHER
NUMBER OF REFUGEE FAMILIES
WITH OVER THIS 30,000 SETTLED
IN THE IN THE REGION.
MAJORITY SETTLED IN THE PAST
10 TO 15 YEARS.
THEE COMMUNITIES ARE PUT AT
RISK THROUGH PROGRAMS LIKE THE
UASI WHICH TRAINS AND EMPLOYS
LOCAL ENFORCEMENT TO SURVEY
AND SHARE INFORMATION ON THE
COMMUNITIES THEY SWEAR TO
PROTECT AND SERVE.
-- TO SERVE AND PROTECT.
THAT FUNDING IN ADDITION TO'
$840,000 ALLOCATE TODAY EYE
FEM 49, THE 290 -- 25 PO
THOUSAND DOLLARS ALLOCATED TO
EYE FEM 48.
THE 718 WITH YOUR 91 ALLOCATE
TODAY EYE FEM 47 AND OTHERS IS
SIGNIFICANTLY OVERWHELMING
WHEN COMPARED TO THE MERE
40,000 ALLOCATED TO EYE FEM 53
FOR COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS
TO HOUSING AND REENTRY
SERVICES FOR PEOPLE BEING
RELEASED FROM SACRAMENTO
COUNTY JAILS.
THE RECIDIVISM RATE IN
SACRAMENTO IS UPWARDS 59% AT
TIMES, A RATE EXACERBATED BY
THE LACK OF FUNDING FOR
PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE
RESOURCES FOR RE-ENTRY.
OUR FUNDING IS BEING AN
ALLOCATED IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION AND I ASK YOU TO PUT
IT ON HOLD UNTIL THERE IS A
THOROUGH AND NEEDS-BASED
RE-EVALUATION OF OUR COUNTY'S
PRIORITIES.
THANK YOU.
ITEM 45-56, CHRISTINA RAY
NARD.
DEAR BOARD MEMBERS, I URGING
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
CANCEL THE $7 MILLION DESIGN
AND BUILD CONTRACT TO BEGIN
DESIGNING A NEW JAIL TOWER
BEHIND THE MAIN JAIL IN
DOWNTOWN.
SACRAMENTO INVEST AND IN
COMMUNITY-BASED RESOURCES.
THIS IS A REPEAT.
EYE FEM 45-56.
THIS IS ILENE.
DEAR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MY
NAME IS ILENE.
I LIVE IN AND WORK IN
SACRAMENTO.
I AM A -- WOMAN WITH EDUCATION
PRIVILEGE SPEAKING IN
SOLIDARITY WITH EVERYONE WHO
KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS TO LOVE
THEIR NEIGHBORS ESPECIALLY
WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE POOR,
BLACK, INDIGENOUS, TRANS OR
NONBINARY.
I REQUEST THIS BE READ IN
ENTIRETY.
ASTONISHING TO READ YOUR
MEETING AGENDA.
IT'S LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE
A DIFFERENT PLANET FOR THE
PAST FEW DAYS, WEEKS, YEARS.
SO LET ME UPDATE YOU.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A WAVE OF
PROTESTS AGAINST POLICE
VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES,
ALL OVER, INCLUDING YES, HERE
IN SACRAMENTO.
IT HAS BEEN MET WITH A WAVE OF
VIOLENT REPRESSION.
SACRAMENTO EVEN WENT SO FAR AS
TO CALL IN THE MILITARY
AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS.
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN
SACRAMENTO HAVE FIRED RUBBER
BULLETS AND TEAR GAS CANISTERS
AT PEOPLE IN AN EFFORT TO
DISCOURAGE THEM FROM HE IS
PRESSING THEIR OPPOSITION TO
VIOLENCE.
AT LEAST 5 INDIVIDUALS HAVE
BEEN INJURED BY RUBBER BULLETS
INCLUDING SOME WHO HAVE
UNDERGONE MAJOR SURGERY.
FAMILIES ARE MOURNING, INJURED
ARE RECOVERING.
THE REST OF US ARE STILL
ANGRY.
WE HAVE BEEN BUILDING --
MOMENTUM AND WE AREN'T GOING
ANYWHERE.
WE ARE HURTING BUT WE ARE SO
GLAD TO BE PART OF A TIDE OF
DEMAND TO DEFUND, YES TO
ABOLISH POLICE.
AND YOU DECIDE THIS WITH THE
TIME TO PASS FUNDING FOR THE
SHERIFFS OFFICE?
AS YOU MAY RECALL, IT WAS THE
SHERIFF'S HELP COLNOR WHO
HUNTED STEPH ON CLARK IN HIS
GRANDMA'S BACKYARD.
I REMIND YOU IN CASE YOU'RE
THINKING ABOUT SHIVERS ARE ONE
THING AND CITY POLICE AN
NATIONAL GUARD ARE ANOTHER.
WHEN WE SAY WE WANT TO ABOLISH
THE POLICE, WE MEAN EVERYONE
WHO WEARS A UNIFORM AND CARIES
A GUN AND WE MEAN NOW.
WE DON'T MEAN FUND
SURVEILLANCE -- SERVICES TO
TREAT US AS THE ENEMY EYE
AGAIN DA EYE FEM 51.
WE DON'T MEAN POLICE TRAINING
TO TEACH SUPPOSED PUBLIC
SERVANTS TO SEE THE PUBLIC AS
A THREAT, AGENDA EYE FEM 48.
WE DON'T MEAN PAYING OVERSEERS
RATHER THAN PAYING ACTUAL
WORKERS AGENDA EYE FEM 49.
WE DON'T MEAN THE SHERIFF
SHOULD FUND TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING.
AGENDA EYE FEM 53.
SERVICES THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORT
OUR COMMUNITIES WHICH CAN
CERTAINLY INCREASE INCLUDE
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING SHOULD BE
FUNDED DIRECTLY BY THE COUNTY,
NOT FUNNELED THROUGH THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
YOU KNOW, SOCIETIES CAN EXIST
WITHOUT POLICE.
LOOK IT UP.
AND THINK ABOUT HOW PUBLIC
PRESSURE ON YOU IS ONLY
ESCALATING AND HOW MUCH POLICE
VIOLENCE YOU WANT TO BE -- YOU
WANT TO BE PART OF YOUR
LEGACY.
DEFUNDING THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT WILL SAVE MILLIONS.
WINNING YOUR CAREER -- WHEN IN
YOUR CAREER HAVE YOU EVER THIS
MUCH PUBLIC FUNDING TO CREATE
NEW SERVICES?
WHAT ABOUT ABOUT THAT PET
PROJECT YOU ALWAYS THOUGHT
WOULD BE NICE?
THIS WOULD BE AN INCREDIBLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO BE A
PART OF SOMETHING NEW.
IT'S TIME.
YOU CAN DO THIS.
ILENE.
ITEM 45-46.
I DON'T HAVE A NAME ON THIS.
MEETING DATE, 6-16.
I WOULD LIKE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC COMMENT READ AT THE
6-16 MEETING.
AS A CONCERNED SACRAMENTO
COMMUNITY MEMBER, I DEMAND
DEFUNDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
IN ORDER TO FUND PROGRAMS THAT
ACTUALLY KEEP OUR COMMUNITY
SAFE AND INVEST IN THE FUTURE.
OF WE DEMAND THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS CANCEL THE
$7 MILLION DESIRE BUILD
CONTRACT TO START A NEW JAIL
EXPANSION PROJECT DOWNTOWN.
WE DEMAND NONE OF THE
$181 MILLION CARES ACT FUNDING
GO THE TO SHERIFF, DA OR
PROBATION.
WE DEMAND THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS DEFUND THE
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT AND THEIR
JAILS, WHICH CURRENTLY CONSUME
OVER 1/3 OF OUR GENERAL FUND
BUDGET.
AGENDA ITEMS TEMS 46-56.
SARAH.
DEAR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, I
DEMAND THAT THE $181 MILLION
FROM THE CARES ACT NOT BE
ALLOCATED TO THE SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT, THE DA OR
PROWEIGHINGS.
THESE FUNDS SHOULD INSTEAD BE
ADD ALLOCATED TO SUPPORT BLACK
COMMUNITIES, AFFORDABLE AND
PERMANENT SUPPORT OF HOUSING,
MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND
COMMUNITY-LED PUBLIC SAFETY
PROGRAMS.
SACRAMENTO SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
CURRENTLY RECEIVES OVER
$372 MILLION EVERY YEAR, WHICH
IS OVER 1/3 OF THE ENTIRE
BUDGET AND THEIR BUDGE
INCREASES EVERY YEAR.
THIS IS NOT MAKE A SAFER.
IN FACT, IT TERRORIZES AND
INJURES OUR COMMUNITIES
PRINCIPALLY OVER BLACK AND
BROWN COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
MONEY SHOULD INSTEAD BE
ALLOCATED TO PROGRAMS TO
SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY SUCH AS
MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS,
HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND YOUTH
PROGRAMS.
I'M APPALLED AT THE LACK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT HERE IN
SACRAMENTO.
ONE CASE IN POINT IS THAT DAYS
AFTER THE MURDER OF STEPHAN
CLARK IN HIS GRANDMA'S
BACKYARD POLICE UNIONS GAVE
$13,000 TO DA AN MARIE
SCHUBERT DAYS AFTER HIS DEATH.
THIS AMOUNTED TO COLLUSION AND
IT'S NO SURPRISE THAT SHE DID
NOT FILE CHARGES AGAINST THE
OFFICERS.
THIS LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY
MAKES OUR COMMUNITY LESS SAFE
AND ONLY SERVES TO LINE THE
POCKETS OF THE DA.
I AM APPALLED AT THE
MILITARIZATION OF THE LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT RIGHT HERE IN
SACRAMENTO AND THEIR ABUSES OF
OUR COMMUNITIES.
PEACEFUL PROTESTORS SHOULD BE
SHOUT WITH RUBBER BULLETS TO
GREAT INJURY AND EVEN LOSS OF
EYESIGHT.
I WITNESS THD FIRSTHAND IN
SACRAMENTO.
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SHOT
MY FRIEND IN THE BACK OF HER
HEAD AT CLOSE RANGE AND SHE
WAS BLEEDING PROFUSELY AND HAD
TO HAVE OTHER WOUND STAPLED AT
THE ER IN SEVERAL PLACES TO
STOP THE BLEEDING.
I CARED FOR HER THAT NIGHT.
IT HAPPENED AND SHE WAS
SEVERELY TRAUMATIZED.
SHE HAD OTHER GIANT BRUISES AS
WELL DID OTHER FRIENDS.
THE POLICE ALSO TEAR GASSED
THEM.
THESE ACTIONS AGAINST PEACEFUL
PROTESTORS ARE ABHORRENT AND
DON'T BELONG IN CIVILIZED
SOCIETY WITH FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS.
THESE ACTIONS BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SIGNIFY A
POLICE STATE, FASCIST
GOVERNMENT -- DICK INVENTORY
AT A TIME FORRISM.
IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN IN
ANOTHER COUNTRY OUR LEADERS
WOULD SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT.
IN SACRAMENTO THE LEADERS KEEP
GIVING MONTH ILL TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHICH IS WIELDING
THIS HORRIFIC VIOLENCE.
I DEMAND YOU NOT ALLOCATE
CARES ACT MONEY TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT SHERIFF.
I ALSO INSIST YOU DEFUND LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN SACRAMENTO
OVERALL INCLUDING THE POLICE
AND SHERIFF AND CHP.
U ALSO NEED TO PREVENT
COLLUSION BETWEEN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND THE DA'S
OFFICE.
THANK YOU, -- ITEM 56.
PLEASE READ THIS OUT YOU
WILLED.
I WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY
COMMENT THAT THE SEDSA POLICE
UNION WHO HAS CONTRIBUTED
LARGE QUANTITIES OF TAXPAYER
MONEY TO THE CAMPAIGN FUNDS OF
BOARD MEMBERS HERE PUBLICLY
OPPOSE ANY LEGISLATION
PROVIDING ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES
TO THEIR USE OF FORCE,
MOREOVER, INTERNAL MA CHIS MOW
CULTURE AND LACK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE UNIT
YOON AND DEPARTMENT WILL
NULLIFY ANY INTENDED EFFECTS
EVER TRAINING.
REAL CHANGE WILL BE BROUGHT
ABOUT BY REDUCTION IN POLICE
FUNDING AND EMPOWERMENT OF
PROSECUTOR TO DEAL WITH POLICE
CRIMES.
ITEM 46-56 ANDREA.
DEAR, SUICIDE.
I AM A RESIDENT OF SACRAMENTO
COUNTY.
I HAVE BEEN LIVING IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY FOR NEARLY
FOUR YEARS NOW, AND THIS IS
THE FIRST TIME THAT I AM
EXERCISING MY RIGHT TO PROVIDE
PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE BOARD.
PLEASE READ THIS STATEMENT
DURING THE HEARING.
I AM WRITING TO YOU TODAY TO
EXPRESS MY CONCERN FOR THE
COUNTY'S FISCAL YEAR '21
BUDGET.
SPECIFICALLY THE BUDGET FOR
THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY'S
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT.
THE COUNSEL SI PROPOSING
$3 MILLION FOR THE COUNTY
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT TO USE AT
THEIR DISCRETION.
THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, THE
DEPARTMENT HAS BECOME A SYMBOL
OF A SYSTEM GONE WRONG DUE TO
THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF
OVERSIGHT.
A VIDEO FROM 2017 HAS
RESURFACED THAT SHOWS OFFICERS
FIRING AT AN AWN ARMED BLACK
MAN AND JUST SEVERAL DAYS AGO
THE SACRAMENTO PUBLISH AND
ARTICLE RELATED TO CASE IN
WHICH INMATES WERE BEATEN TO
DEATH IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
JAIL.
NOT TO MENTION THAT SACRAMENTO
COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
CONTINUES TO TRANSFER
INDIVIDUALS INTO CUSTODY OF
THE U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DESPITE
REPEATED ATTEMPTS IN THE
COMMUNITY TO STOP THESE
TRANSFERS FROM TAKING PLACE.
THE COUNTY MUST DO BETTER THAN
CITY COUNCIL OFFICIALS FOR THE
SAKE OF BUILDING A MORE
EQUITABLE SACRAMENTO.
THE CITY VOTED TO APPROVE
SACRAMENTO PD'S BUDGE JUST
LAST WEEK DESPITE OUTCRY FROM
THE COMMUNITY ASKING FOR
CHANGE.
THIS IS YOUR MOMENT TO DO
BETTER FOR SACK SACKAN SOCIAL
SECURITY.
INVESTED IN OUR COMMUNITIES,
NOT SHERIFFS.
THANK YOU.
HELLO, GREETING TS PEACE AND
HI.
FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO
SAY THANK YOU TO THE COMMUNITY
OF SACRAMENTO CITY WHO CAME
OUT TO PROTEST THE HORRIFIC
MURDERS OF BLACK AMERICANS AND
UNJUST DIVERSIVE POLICE FORCE
THAT BE PULLING OUT OUR NATION
ALL TOO REGULARLY.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR TAKING THE
TIME TO LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS
OF OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY.
SACRAMENTO, THE CAPITOL OF
CALIFORNIA THIS IS THE WILD
WEST.
WE ARE THE FORWARD-THINKERS
AND YET WE STILL FACE DARK
TIMES.
ONLY A WEEK AGO, SACRAMENTO
WAS SPLIT IN TWO AT LEAST IT
SEEMED THAT WAY.
SPLIT BETWEEN COMMUNITY
MEMBERS, LEADERS AND THAT OF
POLICE WHO ARE SHOOTING AT OUR
PEOPLE.
AFTER A LONG WEEK OF
PROTESTING, SCREAMING, CRYING,
HURTING, RUNNING, HELICOPTERS,
NATIONAL GUARD AND LACK OF
CITY OFFICIALS, THERE WAS
BEAUTIFUL SATURDAY.
TO ME, THIS DAY WAS
EVERYTHING.
COUNTYWIDE PEOPLE CAME OUT TO
CALL OUT THE CORRUPT NATURE OF
THIS COUNTRY AND THE POLICE
FORCE THAT IS FAR TOO OFTEN
VERY DANGEROUS.
THIS SATURDAY SEEMED TO HEAL,
MAYBE TOO MUCH BECAUSE AFTER
THAT DAY, THE CITY SEEMED TO
QUIET.
THE MAYOR LET THE NATIONAL
GUARD GO.
BIZARRE CHOICE TO CALL THEM
ORIGINALLY.
HE ALSO CALLED OUT THE LEAD
OFFER OF OUR COUNTRY TO WHAT
MADE ME THINK, HEY, WE ARE ALL
IN THIS TOGETHER.
WE DO STAND TOGETHER.
I AM WRITING IN HOPE THAT IS
WE TAKE THIS CHANCE TO MAKE
SURE AS CALIFORNIANS, AS
PEOPLE OF THE CAPITAL TO MAKE
SURE -- TO MAKE SOME BOLD
CHOICES TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO
ENSURE BLACK AMERICANS ARE NOT
BEING MURDERED ANYMORE.
TO DO THIS, WE WILL HAVE TO BE
VOCAL AND STAND STRONG.
I WILL END WITH THIS.
I ONLY SPEAK UP AS TO
ENCOURAGE, ENLIGHTEN, ALLOW TO
DREAM, IMAGINE WE TAKE A
STANCE WITH THE PEOPLE,
REWRITE OUR CITY, OUR POLICE.
PEOPLE PUT MONEY INTO THE
CORRECT PLACES.
I KNOW YOU'RE SCARED.
WE ALL ARE.
DO WHAT'S RIGHT.
FUND OUR SCHOOLS, OUR
COMMUNITIES.
DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
BE THE LEADERS OUR COUNTRY
NEEDS.
TRY HARDER THAN EVER.
PLEASE CONSIDER A BUDGET THAT
WILL AID OUR WORLD.
DEFUND THE POLICE, CHANGE OUR
WORLD, TRY HARDER, BE LOUD.
PLEASE READ MY COMMENT OUT
LOUD AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME.
SINCERELY DERB I DIDN'T CAREER
MATTEN.
THIS IS FOR ITEM 46-56.
FROM FROMMAL -- ALEJANDRO
RAMIREZ.
IMED LIKE TO SUBMIT MY PUBLIC
COMMENT FOR THE MEETING ON
JUNE 16th , 2020 AT 9:30 A.M.
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT
MY PUBLIC COMMENT BE READ
ALLOWED DURING THE
IMMEDIATING.
I'M SUBMITTING A GEM PUBLIC
COMMENT BUT WILL BE REFERRING
TO AGENDA ITEMS 445 THROUGH
56.
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT
ON THE RECENT CONTRACT MADE TO
SPEND $7 MILLION ON PLANNING
FOR A NEW BUILDING BEHIND THE
MAIN JAIL DOWNTOWN.
KNOWING THAT THIS IS ONLY THE
BEGINNING OF AN EXPENSIVE --
WAIT EXPANSIVE AND EXPENSIVE
PROJECT, I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO
THE DEMANDS TO CANCEL THIS
CONTRACT AND ANY PLANS FOR
THIS NEW BUILDING.
I SUPPORT THE DEMANDS FOR THE
$7 MILLION TO INSTEAD BE
REINVESTED INTO COMMUNITY
SUPPORT PROGRAMS.
THE JAIL POPULATION HAS
DROPPED 30% IN SACRAMENTO
COUNTY AS A RESULT OF RELEASES
DUE TO THE CURRENT PARENTED.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS TREND
CONTINUE.
INSTEAD OF INVESTING IN NEW
JAILS REDIRECT THAT TOWARDS
HOUSING, MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH
PROGRAMS AND REENTRY SERVICES
THAT ARE LED BY OUR COMMUNITY
AND BY IMPACTED PEOPLE, NOT BY
THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT OR
PROBATION DEPARTMENT.
FINALLY, I ASK THE THAT
$181 MILLION THAT WAS RECEIVED
BY THE COUNTY VIA CARES ACT
NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE DA,
SHERIFF OR PROBATION.
THEY SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE
BLACK COMMUNITY AND BE USED TO
FUND THE SOCIAL SERVICES
MENTIONED ABOVE.
PLEASE LISTEN TO THE VOICES OF
THE COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS WHO
ARE REACHING OUT AND SHARING
THESE DEMANDS.
PLEASE START DOWN THE PATH
THAT CREATES SACRAMENTO
WITHOUT POLICE AND
INCARCERATION AND THE
SACRAMENTO THAT CAN ACHIEVE
TRUE SAFETY AND JUSTICE.
CATHERINE REIGN.
HELLO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
MY NAME IS CATHERINE RAIN AND
I AM A RESIDENT OF THE
SACRAMENTO COUNTY.
I AM LEAVING THIS PUBLIC
COMMENT AHEAD OF YOUR MEETING
TODAY ON 16-16 IN REGARDS TO
THE SHERIFFS ITEMS, AGENDA
ITEMS 46-56.
I WOULD LIKE THIS PUBLIC
COMMENT READ ALLOWED DURING
THE MEETING.
I SUPPORT MY COMMUNITY'S
EFFORTS TO ENACT FISCAL
CHANGES TO OUR COUNTY'S LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SPECIFICALLY THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT WHICH ALREADY
RECEIVES 1 SLAB SH 3 OF OUR
COUNSEL TIN'S GENERAL FUND
MONEY ANNUALLY.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS TOTAL $
3.5 MILLION IS EXCESSIVE AND
DOES NOT SUPPORT THE NEED OF
OUR COMMUNE.
COVID-19 HAS REDUCED OUR
COUNTY JAIL POPULATION BY 30%
AND THE BOARD MUST CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT DECARS RAITION BY
INVESTING THIS MONEY INSTEAD
IN EFFORTS WHICH ARE
STATISTICALLY SHOWN TO REDUCE
RATES OF INCARCERATION AND
ENHANCE THE WELL-BEING AND
LIVELIHOOD OF THOSE IN HOUR
COMMUNITY WHO ARE MOST IN
NEED.
THESE EFFORTS ARE AFFORDABLE
AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSES, MENTAL HEALTH CARE,
COMMUNITY-LED PUBLIC SAFETY
PROGRAMS AND PROGRAMS LED BY
IMPACTED INDIVIDUALS ON
DIVERSION AND RE-ENTRY EFFORTS
INTO SOCIETY OF PREVIOUSLY
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS AND
THOSE AT RISK.
FORCE THESE SAME REASONS, I
URGING THE BOARD TO ALLOCATE
THE ENTIRETY OF THE
181 MILLION IN CARES ACT
FUNDING TO EFFORTS MENTIONED
ABOVE WITH PARTICULAR
ATTENTION MADE TO ENSURING
THESE FUNDS UPLIFT AND ARE LED
BY MEMBERS OF THE BLACK
COMMUNITY.
NONE OF THIS FUNDING MUST GO
FUNDING THE DA PROBATION OR
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT.
UNTIL PROGRAMS THAT ARE
STATISTICALLY PROVEN TO
ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY AND GROW
THE EQUITABLE PROSPERITY OF
THE BLACK COMMUNITY ARE FULLY
FUNDED OUR COUNTIES LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES MUST NOT
BE ALLOCATED ANY ADDITIONAL
FUNDING AND MUST HAVE ALL
CURRENT BUDGETARY ITEMS
THOROUGHLY EVALUATED WITH
GUIDANCE BY COMMUNITY
ACTIVISTS.
I LASTLY URGE THE BOARD TO CAN
SELL THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF
A NEW JAIL TOWER DOWNTOWN AND
REINVEST THAT $7 MILLION IN
THE NEEDS I HAVE OUTLINED
PREVIOUSLY.
THANK YOU FOR READING ALOUD MY
PUBLIC COMMENT.
I WILL BE AWAITING NEWS THAT
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS
TAKEN THE COMMUNITY'S DEMANDS
TO HEART AND NOT ALLOCATED ANY
ADDITIONAL FUNDING ON THEIR
AGENDA TO COUNTY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
KIND REGARDS.
AGENDA ITEMS 46-56 FROM
KAITLYN HAYES.
HELLO, I'M WRITING TO VOICE MY
CONCERNS ABOUT THE FUNDS THAT
THE LOCAL POLICE ARE ASKING
FOR.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN USE THESE
FUNDS TO BETTER BENEFIT THE
COMMUNITY AND LOWER THE SAC PD
BUDGET SIGNIFICANTLY.
THESE FUNDS WOULD BE BETTER
ALLOCATED TO SCHOOLS, SOCIAL
CARE AND PROVIDING LOW INCOME
HOUSING.
PLEASE READ THIS COMMENT
ALLOWED DURING THE MEETING.
THANK YOU, KAITLYN HAYES.
>> AGENT DA ITEMS 46-56, THIS
IS FROM ERIC.
DEAR BOARD MEMBERS.
I URGING THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO CANCEL THE $
7 MILLION DESIGN BUILD
CONTRACT TO BEGIN DESIGNING A
NEW JAIL TOWER BEHIND THE MAIN
JAIL DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO AND
INVEST THE $7 MILLION IN
COMMUNITY-BASED RESOURCES.
A NEW JAIL TOWER WILL NOT MAKE
SACRAMENTO SAFER.
IT WILL ONLY CONTINUE THE
CYCLE OF SYSTEMATIC RATESSISM
AND INCARCERATION THROUGH
OVERLY POLICED COMMUNITIES.
BLOCKING -- LOCKING PEOPLE UP
IS NOT THE WAY TO BUILD
COMMUNITY.
SAC COUNTY JAIL POPULATION WAS
REDUCE I HAD BY OVER 30% DUE
TO COVID-19-RELATED RELEASES
AND THE COUNSEL COUNTY SHOULD
BE FOCUSED ON CONTINUING DOWN
THIS PATH BY INVESTING IN
HOUSING, MENTAL HEALTH CARE
AND DIVERSION AND REENTRY
EFFORTS LED BY IMPACTED
PEOPLE.
I URGE THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE
SHERIFFS REQUEST FOR
AUTHORIZING THE SHERIFF OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE PERSONAL
SERVICE AGREEMENTS FOR THE
CENTRAL VALLEY HIGH INTENSITY
DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA.
AGAIN, THIS FUNDING SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO TOWARD MENTALITY
HEMENT AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
PROGRAMS, NOT FURTHERING INTO
CIVILIZED RACISM IN THE FORM
OF MASS INCARCERATION.
SACRAMENTO SHOULD FOLLOW THE
LEAD OF OTHER CITIES AROUND
THE COUNTRY WHO ARE TAKING
STEPS TO DEFUND POLICE AND
RE-THINK PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
ALREADY RECEIVES OVER
$150 MILLION OF THE COUNTY
GENERAL FUND ANNUALLY, MONEY
THAT COULD BE BETTER SPENT ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
RESPONSES TO THE HOMELESSNESS
CRISIS, MENTALITY HEALTH AND
ADDICTION TREATMENT AND OTHER
COMMUNITY SERVICES.
ADDITIONALLY, SACRAMENTO WAS
GIVEN 181 MILLION THROUGH THE
CARES ACT FOR ECONOMIC RELIEF
DUE TO COVID-19.
NONE OF THIS FUNDING SHOULD BE
ALLOCATED TO THE SACRAMENTO
POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OR TOWARD
PROBATION PROGRAMS.
PLEASE ALLOCATE THE THE MONEY
RECEIVED FROM THE CARES ACT TO
SUPPORT OUR BLACK COMMUNITIES,
INCLUDING AFFORDABLE AND
PERMANENT HOUSING, MENTAL
HEALTH CARE AND COMMUNITY-LED
PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAMS THAT
KEEP OUR COMMUNITY SAFE.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST NIE
COMMENT BE READ ALLOWED DURING
THE MEETING.
THANK YOU, ERIC.
>> I HAVE A FEW MORE COMMENTS
FOR ITEMS 46-56.
M THIEF TEA REQUESTED THEIR
COMMENTS BE READ INTO THE
RECORD.
HELLO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MY
NAME IS OS CAR RIOS, RESIDENT
OF THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY I AM
LEAVING THIS AHEAD OF YOUR
MEETING TODAY IN REGARDS TO
THE SHERIFFS ITEMS AGENDA, I
WOULD LIKE THIS COMMENT TO BE
READ ALLOWED DURING THE
MEETING I SUPPORT NIE
COMMUNITY EATS EFFORTS TO
ENACT FISCAL CHANGES TO YOUR
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, WHICH
ALREADY RECEIVES 1 SLASH, 3 OF
0 COUNTY'S GENLT FUNNEL AND
LEULLY IT.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR ITEMS
TOTAL 3.1 MILLION IS EXCESSIVE
AND DOES TO THE SUPPORT THE
NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
COVID-19 HAS REDUCED OWRD
COUNTY JAIL POPULATION BY 30%
AND BOARD MUST CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT DECARS RAITION BY
INVESTING THIS MONEY INSTEAD
IN EFFORTS WHICH ARE
STATISTICALLY SHOWN TO REDUCE
RATES OF INCARCERATION AND
ENHANCE THE WELL-BEING AND
LIVELIHOOD OF KNOWS IN YOUR
COMMUNITY MOST IN NEED.
AFFORD AB PERMANENTMENT ALT
HEALTH CARE, COMMUNITY-LED PUB
WILL -- IMPACTED INDIVIDUALS
ON DIVERSION AND REENTRY
EFFORTS TO ENTER SOCIETY
PREVIOUSLY INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS AND THOSE AT RISK.
FOR THESE SAME REASONS URNL
THE BOARD TO ALLOCATE ENTIRETY
IN CARES ACT FUND TO GO
EFFORTS MENTIONED ABOVE WITH
PARTICULAR ATTENTION MADE TO
ENSURING THEE UPLIFTND A ARE
LED BY MEMBERS OF THE BLACK
COMMUNITY.
NONE OF THIS FUNDING MUST GO
GB TO THE FEUNLD DISTRICT
ATTORNEY PROBATION OR SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT.
UNTIL PROGRAMS THAT ARE STA
TIS CLICKSLY PROVEN TO ENHANCE
PUBLIC SAFETY AND GROW THE
EQUITABLE PROSPERITY OF THE
BLACK COMMUNITY ARE FULLY
FUNDED OUR COUNTY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MUST NOT BE
ALLOCATED ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
CURRENT BUDGET TRILLION ITEMS
THOROUGHLY EVALUATE WOULD.
CANCEL THIS PROPOPE BUILDING
NEW JAIL TOWER DOWNTOWN AND
REINVEST THAT IN NEED I HAVE
OUTLINED PREVIOUSLY.
THANK YOU FOR READ L OUT LOUD
MY PUBLIC COMMENT.
I WILL AWAIT NEWS.
COMMUNITIES DEMANDS TO HEART
NOT ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL
FUNNELED ON THE THAIFERL AGNLD
AT THAT TOWN CAN I LAW
ENFORCEMENT SAITH IS.
-- KIND REGARDS.
>> THIS IS FROM COURTNEY.
HELLO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD I
WISH FOR THESE COMMENTS TO BE
READ DEUR THE MEET IF TIME
ALLOWS.
THE THANK YOU.
THIS IS FOR THE AGENDA ITEMS
JUNE 16, ITEMS 42 -- 5642 AND
45, DEAR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
I HAVE A QUESTION IN REFERENCE
TO THE REQUEST FROM THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO PURSUE
GRANT FUND FOGGER PROGRAMS TO
CRACK DOWN ON INSURANCE FRAUD
ITEM 4 2.  I SEE LANGUAGE
SAYING IF GRANT FUNDING IS NOT
AVAILABLE AND THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY WISHES TO CONTINUE
THEEG PROGRAMS THEN GENERAL
FUND MONEY CAN BE USED TO PAY
FOR THESE EVEN AT THE EXPENSE
OF CUTTING OTHER PROGRAMS.
REQUEST TO PAY FOR PROGRAMS
LIKE CONSTRUCTION JOB TRAIN
FROARG BAGS CLIENTS AND
PROVIDING TRAUMA-INFORMED
MENTAL CARE FOR YOUTH ITEM 45
THERE IS A NOTE THESE PROGRAMS
ARE CONTINGENT UPON THE
AVAILABILITY OF COUNTY
RESOURCE AND THE MAY BE
TERMINATED OR REVISED.
IT SEEMS TO ME THE COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO IT PRIORITIZING
MATTERS INSURANCE JOBS OVER
VITAL A JOB TRAINING AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
YR WE SO QUICK TO CAN YOU TELL
THESE PERHAPS.
REVENUES L TO MAKE SACRIFICE
CRACK UB COULD WORKERS SH
COMPENSATES INSURANCE CLAIMS.
TEAMS SO ME OUR PRIORITIES ARE
OUT OF LINE.
FOR 6 AND 47 IN 4 P SELF-WE
EXPECT TO SPEND 718,491 ON
DRUG TRAFFICKING INVESTIGATION
AND ENFORCEMENT WHICH WILL
LATER BE REIMBUSED ABOUT
GRANTS IN ITEM 46 EE PROPOSE
SPENDING ONLY 76,876 ON
REENTRY TRAINING FOR PEOPLE
BEING RELEASED FROM
INCARCERATION.
WHY IS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO
LEVERAGE AND SPEND SO MANY
FEDERAL DOLLARS ON TRACKING
DRUGS BUT ALLOCATE ZOO LITTLE
TO REENTRY FOR OUR NEIGHBORS
PREPARING TO RETURN TO THE YOU
WANT COMOO.
IF WE PLAN TO SPEND 9 TIMES AS
MUCH ON DRUG ENFORCEMENT AS ON
REENTRY TRAINING IT SEEMS LIKE
OUR PRIORITIES ARE OUT OF
BALANCE.
56, WHY ARE WE PAY FOG FORCE
TRAINING BUT NOT EE ESCALATION
TRAINING OUR OFFICERS CLEARLY
WILLING TO USE FORCE OFTEN
MORE THAN NECESSARY.
DID HE SURE LIE YOU CAN IF
FIND REVENUE TUR BUDGET FOR.
THANK YOU FOR CLUEING PUBLIC
RECORD.
OF LEASE RESPOND TO LET ME
KNOW THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED
THEM.
FOREGIVE ME IF I MISPRONOUNCE
YOUR NAME.
READ THIS OUT JOWD SACRAMENTO
COUNTY CONTINUE TO SAY LACK
INL MOO IT REST WORLD IN HOW
TO OPERATES THE SHERIFFS
CAUSE, MORE HARM THANL DOES
GOOD IN THE COMEUMENT.
BLOOD ON THEIR HAND A LITTLE
TO NO CONSEQUENCE FOR IT.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS A
GROUP OF PRIVILEGE ENTITLED
OBVIOUSLY -- EXCUSE ME OBJECT
LIVE EXWHRAS WHITE PEOPLE OUT
OF TOUCH WITH THE REALITY OF
THE WORLD YOU.
UL FAILING ALLOW ALL BRUTALIZE
AGO SUBJECT YOA GATES BLACK
PEOPLE TOEN IT AND DOING
NOTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE YOUR
HE A AFRAID OF DAMAGING YOUR
CHANCES OF BEING RE-ELECTED.
FIGURE IT OUT.
NOW DEFUND SWINE.
LAURA.
ITEMS 46-56.
HELLO, REGARDING ITEMS 46-56
DEMAND THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS CANCEL THE
7 MILLION DESIGN BUILD
CONTRACT TO JAIL EXPANSION
PROJECT DOWNTOWN.
YOU KNOW IT WILL GIVE MORE
LEGITIMACY TO THE COMPLETING
CONSTRUCTION.
I DO NOT SUPPORT T WE DEMAND
NONE OF THE $180 MILLION
KAIRGS ACTOR GUILTY TO SHERIFF
D A PROBATION.
PRIORITIZE PEOPLE BY DIRECTING
FUNDS TOWARD HOUSING JOBS AND
EDUCATION INSTEAD.
WE DEMAND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DEFUND THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
AND THEIR JAILS WHICH
CURRENTLY CONSUME OVER 1
SLASH, 3 OF OUR GENERAL FUND
BUDGET YOU HAVE OUR PERMISSION
TO READ MY COMMENTOUT LEWD
THROUGH LAURA.
AND THAT WOULD BRING YOU TO
DATE ON ALL OF THE PUBLIC
COMMENTS TO THIS TIME.
>> FOR 46 TO --
>> FOR YOUR CONSENT MATTERS.
>> AND I DO WANT TO JUST MAKE
A NOTE THAT THERE WERE PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR ITEMS 4,
38, 42, 45 AND 46 TO 56.
WE READ EAFER COMMENT THAT
REQUESTED TO BE READ INTO THE
RECORD.
>> DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND HOW
MANY YOU READ WITH YOUR
STAFF'S ASSISTANCE.
>> I DON'T OFFHAND.
I THINK ABOUT 120.
WE WERE AT 102 WHEN WE START
AND THOSE OTHERS THAT CAME IN.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
AND THANKS TO THE STAFF FOR
BEING VERY PRAGMATIC AND
DELIBERATIVE HOW BEST TO
HANDLE THE CASCADE OF COMMENTS
THAT WE OBVIOUSLY RECEIVED.
AGAIN, POINTS OUT THE NEED FOR
A BETTER WAY, I THINK AND MORE
APPROPRIATE WAY TO HANDLE
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC IN
THE FUTURE.
WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE A
COMMENT.
>> IF I COULD.
IN LIGHT OF THE COMMENTS AND
MANY OF THOSE WERE PRINTED OUT
IN ADVANCE SO WE HAD A CHANCE
TO SEE HOW MANY OF THEM AND
AGAIN I WANT TO ECHO OUR
THANKS TO YOUR RESPECTIVE
CLERK STAFF FOR READING THOSE
INTO THE RECORD.
I GUESS I WAS GOING TO OFFER A
COMMENT THAT IT MIGHT BE
PRUDENT CERTAINLY IN LIGHT OF
THE RANGE OF DISCUSSION THAT
WILL BE TIED TO THE BUDGET AND
THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED ON
THE ITEMS THAT WERE READ INTO
THE RECORD PLUS OTHERS WE
RECEIVED THAT WERE NOTED BY
THE CLERK AND CERTAINLY THE
OPPORTUNITY WE HAD TO DISCUSS
ITEMS PULLED OFF CONSENT
CALENDAR.
SUGGEST WE HOLD THE CONSENT
CALENDAR UNTIL LATER IN THE
DAY SO WE CAN REVISIT THOSE
ITEMS.
OTHERWISE WE TAKE THE ACTIONS
IF WEP TO REVISIT ITEM AS IT
RELATES TO THE BUDGET WE'RE
BIT HAMPERED.
AT THAT IT'S A BIT CLUM
SIVMENT ISTLED OFFER THATS A
SUGGESTION.
>>SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING WE HOLD
THE ENTIRETY OF CONSENT VERSUS
THE ONES THAT WE READ OFF
EARLIER.
>> RIGHT I CALLED OUT THE ONES
I WANTED TO SPEAK TO DIRECTLY.
WE HEARD OTHER COMMENTARY HERE
N LIGHT OF 0 YOU THAT MIGHT
INTERTWINE WITH CONVERSATION
WE HAVE THAT'S THE REASON I
OFFER THAT.
I DON'T TAKE EXCEPTIONS TO
MANY OF THOSE ITEMS EVEN THE
ONES I CALLED OUT.
I WANTED TO OFFER THAT AS A
SUGGESTION.
>> SUPERVISE PEELT OTHER SON.
>> THERE ARE CONTRACTS ON
THERE ARE FOR MENTAL HEALTH
AND OTHER ITEMS THAT THE
COUNTY ENGAGES IN AND KNEE TO
GET SIGNED TO PEOPLE CAN GET
HELP AND OTHER ITEMS THAT
DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH
THE LAW AND JUSTICE PORTION.
I WOULD DISAGREE.
>> OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT
PROCEDURE?
SINCE WE'VE WEIGHEDDED INTO
THAT.
SEEING NONE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY
PRACTICAL PROBLEM WITH HOLDING
OFF AND CONSIDERING THE
ENTIRETY OF CONSENT.
I UNDERSAND SUPERVISOR PETER'S
POINT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE CONTRACTS THAT MAY NOT BE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE THEME OF
THE COMMENTS THAT WE JUST
HEARD OR OUR STAFF RECITE.
I THINK WE CAN GO AHEAD AND --
UNLESS SOMEONE TELLS ME
DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF
PROCESS AND PROTOCOL FOR THE
MEETING -- I WOULD AGREE WITH
SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI WE HOLD OUR
CONSENT AND ACT
COMPREHENDSIVELY AT ONCE SO
THAT WE CAN HAVE AN HONEST
DISCUSSION BEFORE ANY OF THE
SUBJECT SANS OF CONSENT
MATTERS AND TIME MATTERS ARE
APPROVED RELATIVE TO THE
BUDGE.
SUPERVISOR FROST?
>> DOVE STAFF MEMBERS IN THE
AUDIENCE WAITING FOR CONSENT
WHO ARE GOING TO SIT HERE ALL
DAY WAITING FOR CONSENT?
-- -- DO WE HAVE STAFF MEMBERS
OR MEMBERS HERE FOR OTHER
ITEMS.
>> WE DO.
IT'S UP TO THE BOARD'S WISH.
WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.
>> THAT WOULD BE A
CONSIDERATION IF WE HAVE STAFF
MEMBERS SITTING HERE ALL DAY
WAITING FOR SOMETHING THAT
COULD HAVE BEEN A VOTE.
THAT'S ALL MY POINT.
>> SUPERVISOR PETERSON.
>> THEN THET'S GO THROUGH THEM
ONE AT A TIME WITH A
DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE SERVICE
CHARGES.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THE
DISCUSSION OR WE HAVE THINGS
FOR OTHER CITIES LIKE CITRUS
HEIGHTS AND RANCHO CORDOVE
VARKS AIRPORT PARKING LOT
IMPROVEMENTS.
TRANSPORTATION-RELATED ITEMS.
PAIB WE CAN GO THROUGH THEM A
SECTION AT A TIME -- I THINK
WE NEED TO VOTE ON AS MANY OF
THESE AS WE CAN.
>> AND WE WILL.
OBVIOUSLY --
>> WELL, TODAY.
>> I UNDERSTOOD.
IN TERMS.
COMMENT, IT'S WELL TAKEN ABOUT
I SUPERVISOR FROST IN TERMS OF
STAFF TIME.
ANY TIME WE HAVE A BOARD
HEARING THAT THE STAFF OR HERE
FOR THE DURATION BECAUSE NO
ONE CAN PREDICT HOW LONG ANY
ITEM ON OUR OUR AGENDA MIGHT
RUN DEPENDING ON PUBLIC
COMMENT AND OTHER FACTORS.
WHILE I APPRECIATE THASHES I'M
GOING TO ASSUME ALL OF OUR
STAFF ARE HERE COMMITTED TO BE
HERE TO EITHER ENHANCE THE
DISCUSSION, ANSWER QUESTIONS,
RESPOND TO COMMENTS WITH
REGARDS TO THE DURATION OF THE
MEETING.
SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI YOU HAD
CHIMED IN.
>> I TOOK IT BACK A MOMENT
AGO.
I'M FINE GOING -- WE HAVE THE
CONSENT CALENDAR WF US AND
WE'VE GONE WELL PAST 10:45.
WE CAN CALL ITEM 7 SFN
ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT WAS
INTENDED TO BE PRESENTED AT
THE END OF SOME.
OTHER HEARING ITEMS INCLUDING
SOME PLANNING ITEMS IN
BETWEEN.
I'M FINE GOING THROUGH ONE BY
ONE.
AS I SAID EARLIER I CALLED OUT
ITEMS TO HAVE DISCUSSION
AROUND THEM.
THEY'RE CERTAINLY PERTINENT TO
THE BUDGET AND WHERE WE STAND
TODAY.
OBVIOUSLY LOOKING FORWARD OVER
THE NEXT 10-12 WEEKS IN
ADVANCE OF SOME BUDGET
CONSIDERATIONS LATER IN THE
SUMMER.
AGAIN, I WOULD CERTAINLY
ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE ITEMS
HERE THAT AREN'T RELATED TO
BUDGET, PER SAY, AND COULD BE
DISPENSED WITH.
I DIDN'T WANT TO GET TOO, I
GUESS, PRECISE WHEN IT CAME TO
TRYING TO CALL OUT ITEMS ON
THE AGENDA.
CALLED FORWARD ONE.
WE HAD COMMENTS.
I THINK A GOOD DEAL OF
COMMENTARY WE HEARD RELATE TO
SAY BROADER BUDGET BUT ALSO
SPECIFIC ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
AND, AGAIN, I DON'T INTEND TO
CONTEST MANY OF THOSE ITEMS.
I DO SOME COMMENTS.
THERE ARE SOME ITEMS I WANT TO
WEIGH ON AND I KNOW OTHERS
WOULD AS WELL.
IF WE WANT TO START WITH THE
CONSENT CALENDAR AND -- MAYBE
HAVE RELATES TO ITEM 77 THERE
IS PERTINENCE TO THAT AS WELL.
>> I'M GOING TO SUGGEST WE DO
THAT.
LET ME TAKE A STRAW POLL FROM
THE BOARD MEMBERS, THOUGH IN
TERMS OF OUR DAY.
AND SEE IF THERE'S NO PUN
INTENDED ANY APPETITE FOR A
LUNCH BREAK OR DO YOU WANT TO
JUST CONTINUE TO PLOW THROUGH
THE WHOLE THING STRAIGHT
THROUGH?
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A
CLOSED SESSION TODAY SO THIS
IS IT.
>> I LIKE TO EAT.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> LUNCH.
>> ME, TOO.
>> THAT'S 2.
>> I'M FINE WITH KEEPING GOING
FOR A WHILE.
WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LUNCH
BREAK.
>> AN HOUR IS FINE.
>>
>> A HALF HOUR IS FINE.
>> SHOULD WE THEN BREAK -- I
WILL SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE, 45
MINUTES AND THEN SAY COME BACK
AT QUARTER TO 1:00?
SEEING HEADS NOD, WE ARE IN
RECESS UNTIL 12:45.
(RECESS)  
>> CALL BACK TO ORDER THE BOARD 
OF SUPERVISORS MEETING.
COULD YOU ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
>> SUPERVISORS FROST.
>> HERE.
>> NOTTOLI.
>> HERE.
>> PETERS.
>> HERE.
>> SERNA.
>> HERE.
>> YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
SUPERVISOR PATRICK KENNEDY 
SHOULD BE JOINING US SHORTLY.
AGAIN I WANT TO THANK THOSE 
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT TOOK 
TIME TO WRITE OUR CLERK OF THE 
BOARD OR INDIVIDUAL OFFICES 
SEEKING TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED IN 
THE FORMAL RECORD FOR CONSENT 
ITEMS WHICH IS WHAT WE HEARD FOR
THE LAST HOUR AND A HALF PRIOR 
TO OUR RESUCCESS.
I BELIEVE PROCEDURALLY BECAUSE 
OF THE NATURE OF THE BALANCE OF 
CONSENT THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER
INDIVIDUALLY RELATIVE TO ITEM 77
I AM GOING TO ASK THE CLERK NOW 
SHOULD I GO AHEAD AND READ THE 
STATEMENT?
>> YES.
>> AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO
CALL A MOTION FOR CONSENT ITEMS 
1 THROUGH 67 WITH THE EXCEPTION 
OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS.
4, 5, 19, 20, 22, 24, 29, 46, 56
AND 59.
MOVED.
SECOND.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS WITH THOSE PRESENT.
>> COORDINATOR WITH THE CLERK OF
THE BOARD I BELIEVE WE ARE GOING
TO GO AHEAD AND GET OUR PUBLIC 
COMMENTS I BELIEVE SHE HAS THREE
I HAVE ONE.
THAT SHOULDN'T TAKE TOO LONG.
THOENFULLY BY THAT TIME 
SUPERVISOR KENNEDY IS BACK WITH 
US AND WE CAN QUICKLY GO THROUGH
NOMINATIONS WHICH ALSO SHOULD 
NOT TAKE LONG THAT WAY WE CAN 
FOCUS ON THE BALANCE.
>> THEN ARE WE GOING BACK TO 
CONSENT?
>> YES.
>> THE ITEMS WE HAVE CALLED OUT 
TO WITHDRAW WE ARE GOING TO 
ADDRESS THOSE INDIVIDUALLY 4, 5,
6 WHATEVER THAT WAS?
>> WE ARE TREATING THOSE WITH 
77, CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> ARE WE READY?
THIS IS YOUR OFF AGENDA COMMENT 
1.
FROM MARSHA HE SHALL.
PLEASE READ ALLOWED THIS PUBLIC 
COMMENT AT THE NEXT LIVE BOS 
MEETING.
JUNE 40TH 2020 ANNOUNCEMENT FIVE
VACATED BOARD SEATS ON THE LMA13
MEMBER BOARD.
THESE VACATED SEATS MAY BE 
APPOINTED BY SACRAMENTO COUNTY 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING 
TO THE BYLAWS 2004 UNAMENDED.
SPE323 ENACTED JANUARY 1, 2020, 
SECTION 5505 CODE SECTION 5505 
CHANGED CANDIDACY FOR ALL BOARD 
DIRECTORS OF COMMON INTEREST 
DEVELOPMENTS TO MEET SPECIFIC 
REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING 
MEMBERSHIP IN THE CID.
SACRAMENTO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
JUNE 4TH DARYL WOULDN'T'S PHONE 
NUMBER ON THE LMA.
HOWEVER SIX ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN 
MADE DAYS IN A ROW TO A VOICE 
MAIL FULL MESSAGE.
CERTIFIED MAIL SENT TO LMA AND 
MARCH APRIL 2020 HAVE BEEN 
RETURNED STAMP NOT PICKED UP.
DOES SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS THE APPLICATION 
FORMS DOES DARYL WOO HAVE THEM?
I APOLOGIZE FOR BUTCHERING THAT.
OKAY.
I WILL GO AHEAD AND READ -- I 
JUST HAVE TWO MORE AND I WILL 
READ THOSE OUT OF ORDER.
WE HAVE A COMMENT FROM MANNED DE
I BELIEVE IT IS MANNED DE GOT.
MY NAME IS MANNED DE I AM 
SENDING THIS LETTER BECAUSE MY 
HUSBAND PASSED AWAY ON MAY 10TH,
2020.
HE WAS TAKEN KOUT PERMISSION FOR
AN AUTOPSY AND I AM EXPECTED TO 
PAY $400 FOR A TRANSPORT FEE.
I AM WRITEING THIS LETTER 
BECAUSE I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND 
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHICH I
WAS TOLD TO ATTEND IN ORDER TO 
ARGUE MY CASE.
DUE TO COVID-19 THIS MAKES IT 
LESS PERSONAL AND YOU DO NOT GET
TO SEE THE PAIN IN MY FACE AND 
TEARS AS I WRITE THIS LETTER.
ON MAY 10TH 2020 MY HUSBAND 
PASSED AWAY.
HE WAS AN ORGAN DONOR.
LIFT THE HOSPITAL BEING TOLD HE 
WAS NOT BE A CORONER'S CASE AND 
UCD WOULD BE CALLING THE 
MORTGAGE RARE RESOON SO THEY 
COULD PICK HIM UP.
THE NEXT PHONE CALL IS FROM SACK
COUNTY CORE RON ANOTHER'S OFFICE
AND THEY HAVE MY HUSBAND AND 
WILL BE PERFORMING AN AUTOPSY.
NEVER ONCE WAS I ASKED IF I 
WANTED ONE OR INFORMED OF ANY 
CHARGES NOR WAS THE PROCESS 
EXPLAINED TO ME.
WHEN THEY TOLD ME THEY HAVE HIM 
I STARTED CRYING AND I TOLD THEM
I DID NOT WANT THIS DONE.
WHEN I ASKED WHY ARE THEY 
PERFORMING AN AUTOPSY I WAS TOLD
BECAUSE THE DOCTOR GAVE A 
MECHANISM NOT A REASON.
BY PERFORMING AN AUTOPSY DOES 
NOT BRING MY HUSBAND BACK.
I AS THE NEXT OF KIN WAS FINE 
WITH THE MECHANISM GIVEN BY THE 
MEDICAL DOCTOR.
IT WAS SAC COUNTY WHO WANTED 
FURTHER ANSWERS.
BY PERFORMING THIS AUTOPSY IT 
DELAYED MY FAMILY AND CHILDREN 
WHO ARE 5 TO 7 FOR THE RIGHT FOR
SERVICE ADDITIONAL 10 DAYS.
10 DAYS MY CHILDREN ARE LEFT 
WHERE IS THEIR FATHER WHO IS 
THEIR SUPER PIRRO.
NO CLOSURE FOR 10 DAYS.
I KNOW HE'S A BODY AT THE CORE 
RON ANOTHER'S OFFICE TO YOU BUT 
HE IS MY WORLD.
ONE DAY ALL OF YOU WILL BE IN MY
POSITION AND IT IS NOT FUN AND 
NOT FAIR.
WHEN SOMEONE BECOMES A CORONER'S
CASE IT IS PAID FOR BY THE 
COUNTY SO WHY WOULDN'T THE $400 
TRANSPORT FEE ALSO BE PAID BY 
THE COUNTY.
I DID NOT REQUEST THE AUTOPSY 
NOR DID I WANT THE AUTOPSY.
I FEEL AS THOUGH SAC COUNTY IS 
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF GRIEVING 
FAMILIES.
I HAVE MEDICAL BILLS CREMATION 
FEES AND ADDITIONAL $400 FEES 
FOR SOMETHING I DID NOT WANT 
DONE AND DID NOT GIVE CONSENT.
I AM ASKING THIS $400 TRANSPORT 
FEE BE WAIVED PLEASE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME MANNED 
DE GOT.
>> BEFORE YOU CONTINUE DID YOU 
WANT TO MAKE -- 
>> QUICKLY THE CLERK BROUGHT 
THIS ITEM TO OUR ATTENTION.
WE ARE TALKING TO THE CORE RON 
ANOTHER TO SEE IF WE CAN RESOLVE
THIS.
>> I CONTACTED THE CONSTITUENT 
AND CIRCLE BACK WITH THEM AS 
WELL.
>> WILL DO.
I HAVE ONE OTHER COMMENT THAT 
CAME IN THIS MORNING FROM KEITH 
JAY, PLEASE ASK THEM TO CHANGE 
THE POLICY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE 
SO AS NOT TO CONTINUE THE 
EXTREME DELAY OF THE MEETINGS 
SIMPLY MAKE THE COMMENTS A PART 
OF THE RECORD SO PUBLIC BUSINESS
IS NOT DELAYED ESPECIALLY BAD 
FORM TO HAVE TIMED HEARINGS 
DELAYED BY THIS.
THANK YOU.
THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMENTS I 
HAVE.
>> OKAY.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I AM 
ALSO IN RECEIPT OF A PUBLIC 
COMMENT.
THE COMMENTER REQUESTED THAT HIS
COMMENTS BE READ INTO THE 
RECORD.
BECAUSE I -- THIS IS BY WAY OF A
MEETING THAT I HAD WITH MR. TED 
SAMARA HEAD OF UNITED PUBLIC 
EMPLOYEES THIS AFTERNOON.
I FEEL OBLIGATED I SHOULD DO THE
READING.
I WILL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT NOW.
HELLO DISTINGUISHED BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS THANK YOU FOR 
ALLOWING ME TO ADDRESS THE 
BOARD.
I AM REQUESTING THIS BE READ 
INTO THE RECORD.
WITH GREAT FRUSTRATION AND 
CONCERN THE COUNTY IS 
ELIMINATING THE PAID 
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE AND 
RETURNING BACK TO WORK EMPLOYEES
WHO HAVE BEEN OUT OF WORK DUE TO
UNDERLYING MEDICAL CONDITIONS 
WHICH MAY BE WORSENED IF THEY 
WERE TO CATCH THE CORONA VIRUS.
AT A TIME WHEN EMPLOYEES WHO 
HAVE BEEN AT WORK ALL ALONG FEEL
SOME WHAT SAFE YOU ARE NOW 
BRINGING BACK HUNDREDS OF 
EMPLOYEES WITH LITTLE TO NO 
SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE.
ON MAY 27TH, 2020 THE COUNTY 
EXECUTIVE INRHETT ISSUE ADD 
RETURN TO WORK GUIDELINE IN 
RESPONSE TO THE NOVEL CORONA 
VIRUS PANDEMIC COVID-19 HEALTH 
EMERGENCY GUIDELINES.
THE COUNTY EXEC STATED THEY MUST
HAVE A RISK ASSESSMENT AND 
IMPLEMENT A SITE SPECIFIC 
PROTECTION PLAN PRIOR TO THE 
RETURN TO WORK.
AS OF JUNE 15TH, 2020,UPE HAS 
NOT RECEIVED RTW PLANS FROM OVER
45 DEPARTMENTS THAT HOUSE OVER 
2500 OF OUR MEMBERS.
I WAS TOLD FROM LABOR RELATIONS 
LAST WEEK THAT THE COUNTY HAS 
NOT RECEIVED MANY IF ANY OF THE 
RTW PLANS.
UPE HAS RAISED OUR CONCERNS 
NUMEROUS TIMES REQUESTING THE 
RTW PLANS IN OUR RIGHT TO MEET 
AND CONFER WITH THE DEPARTMENTS.
HOWEVER WE HAVE NOT HAD THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER 
EXCEPT DCFS.
WITH MORE THAN 6 DAYS TO RETURN 
TO WORK THE LACK OF PREPAREDNESS
DISPLAYED BY THE COUNTY IS 
CONCERNING TO SAY THE LEAST.
I PRAY THAT THE BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS WILL DO EVERYTHING 
WITHIN THEIR POWER TO STOP THE 
SPREAD OF THIS CORONA VIRUS.
I ASK THAT THEY RECONSIDER 
EXTENDING THE LEAVE THEY PLACE 
IT ON AT THE ONSLAUGHT OF THIS 
PANDEMIC.
THE RUSH TO APPROACH WITHOUT 
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WILL ONLY 
INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE 
SPREAD OF THIS CORONA VIRUS TO 
COUNTY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE AT WORK
COMING BACK TO WORK THE 
COMMUNITY AND THOSE SEEKING 
COUNTY SERVICES.
>> THIS IS AN ITEM NOT ON THE 
AGENDA SO WE CANNOT ACT TON 
THIS.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY IT IS JUST 
HAPPEN STANCE.
I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH 
OUR COUNTY CEO AT THE TAIL END 
OF OUR BRIEFING WHERE I ASKED 
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS -- 
WHETHER OR NOT ALL OF THE BOXES 
WERE BEING CHECKED IN TERMS OF 
MAKING SURE WE GO THROUGH MEET 
AND CONFER PROCESSES RELATIVE TO
RETURN TO WORK.
THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED WAS THAT
THAT HAS OCCURRED.
I DO JUST WANT TO END BY SAYING 
I AM CONCERNED WHEN I HEAR TWO 
DIFFERENT THINGS FROM TWO 
DIFFERENT PARTIES ON SOMETHING 
AS EMERGENT AND IMPORTANT AS OUR
EMPLOYEE'S SAFETY.
SO I WOULD JUST APPRECIATE IT, 
MR. GILL, IF YOU COULD CIRCLE 
BACK WITH MR. SUMERA AND AT 
LEAST FURTHER VET WHAT HIS 
CONCERNS ARE TO FIND OUT WHAT HE
BELIEVES TO BE SOME OF THE GAPS 
IN OUR PREPAREDNESS FOR RETURN 
TO WORK IN LIGHT OF THE 
PANDEMIC.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
>> MR. CHAIR, SORRY TO 
INTERRUPT.
COULD I ASK YOU TO PUT THE ITEM 
NUMBERS BACK ON THE BOARD.
IT WAS SO FAST.
I SAW ITEM 4 WAS ON THAT BUT I 
HAD ASKED ABOUT 37 ALSO.
NEED TIME ENOUGH TO FOCUS.
37 SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THAT.
THAT WAS THE ONE I ASKED ABOUT 
THIS MORNING.
>> CAN WE LET THE RECORD SHOW 
THE EXCEPTION WILL INCLUDE 37 AS
WELL?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT 
UP.
>> MR. KENNEDY, YOU WERE ON YOUR
WAY HERE WHEN I SUGGESTED THAT 
WE TRY AND GET ALL OF OUR FUNK 
TORY ITEMS OUT OF THE WAY.
WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND 
TAKE NOMINATIONS AT THIS POINT.
SHOULD NOT TAKE MORE THAN A 
COUPLE OF MINUTES.
>> THAT'S ITEM 78.
YOU ARE CONSIDERING FOR YOUR 
NOMINATIONS TODAY THE CARMICHAEL
PLANNING, CEMETERY ADVISORY, 
CORDOVA, FOOTHILLS PLANNING 
ADVISORY.
ORANGEVILLE COMMUNITY ADVISORY 
COUNTY SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY 
HEALTH BOARD AND VINEYARD AREA 
COMMUNITY PLANNING ADVISORY 
COUNCIL.
FIRST IS ANTELOPE COMMUNITY 
PLANNING ADVISORY COUNCIL.
SUPERVISOR FROST?
>> PLEASE CONTINUE TO JULY 28TH.
>> THEN WE HAVE THE CEMETERY 
ADVISORY COMMISSION.
SUPERVISOR FROST?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO APPOINT BRIAN
FANSLER.
>> SUPERVSOR NOTTOLI?
>> CONTINUE THAT TO AUGUST 11TH.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS 
AT THIS POINT.
THANK.
>> CORDOVA COMMUNITY PLANNING 
ADVISORY COUNCIL.
>> NOMINATE ONE OF THE SEATS 
GLORIA MADES AND CONTINUE 
REMAINDER TO JULY 28TH.
PLEASE.
>> DELTA CITIZENS MUNICIPAL 
ADVISORY COUNCIL.
>> CONTINUE TO JULY 28TH, 
PLEASE.
>> GALT-ARO CEMETERY DISTRICT.
>> CONTINUE TO JULY 28TH.
>> SACRAMENTO COUNTY YOUTH 
COMMISSION.
>> CONTINUE TO JULY 14TH, 
PLEASE.
>> WE HAVE SOUTH SACRAMENTO AREA
COMMITTEE PLANNING COUNCIL.
SUPERVISOR KENNEDY?
>> CONTINUE TO JULY 14TH.
>> THAT CONCLUDES YOUR 
NOMINATIONS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
NOW I BELIEVE WE HAVE IN FRONT 
OF US A FAIRLY CLEAR PATH FOR 
THE BALANCE OF THE AFTERNOON.
I KNOW THAT WE DID RECEIVE 
ANOTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT IT 
IS ON ITEM 77 SO WE WILL ADD 
THAT TO WHENEVER COMMENTS.
>> THAT WAS AP COMMENT ASKED TO 
BE READ INTO THE RECORD.
STAFF WILL READ THAT.
>> WITH THAT WE ARE NOW GOING TO
GO ONE BY ONE FOR THE BALANCE OF
CONSENT, CORRECT?
>> IT WOULD BEITE TEAM 4.
>> IF WE ARE GOING TO CALL ITEM 
77 ON THE BUDGET TO LINK THOSE 
BACK TO THE BUDGET, I WAS 
EXPECTING THAT WE MIGHT TAKE THE
OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE -- WERE SET
HEARING TIMES AND CALL THOSE 
WITH THE BUDGET ITEM.
WE ARE GOING TO VOTE THEM 
INDIVIDUALLY I TRUST OR MAYBE AS
A PACKAGE.
FOR CONVENIENCE SAKE TO MATCH 
THEM UP OTHERWISE IT GETS OUT OF
SINK.
>> WE ARE ALREADY OUT OF SYNC.
LET'S TRY TO FIGURE THIS OUT.
WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING?
>> THE CONSENT ITEMS BE MATCHED 
UP WITH ITEM 77 BE CALLED AT THE
SAME TIME IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE
BUDGET.
>> WHAT WOULD BE THE FIRST ITEM 
RIGHT NOW?
>> THE FIRST TIMED MATTER WOULD 
BE ITEM 68.
LET ME MAKE SURE.
THIS IS A PRETTY LARGE AGENDA.
ITEM 68 AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO 
AN AGREEMENT WITH NEXT MOVE 
HOMELESS SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT 
OF 1,838,585 DOLLARS FOR THE 
OPERATION OF THE LAVERNE ADOLFO 
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM FOR
FORMER FOSTER YOUTH EFFECTIVE 
JULY 21, 2020, WITH RENEWALS 
THROUGH JUNE 30TH, 2023.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
IT IS GOOD TO SEE ALL OF YOU.
I AM HERE BEFORE YOU AS A RESULT
OF AN RFP ISSUED ON 
FEBRUARY 10TH TO PROVIDE ON-SITE
AND SCATTERED SITE TRANSITIONAL 
HOUSING MENTAL HEALTH AND 
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT, 
EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND 
EDUCATION AND PARENTING SUPPORT 
TO TRANSITIONAL AGED YOUTH SO 
THEY CAN SUCCESSFULLY TRANSITION
TO ADULT HOOD.
THREE PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED ON
MARCH 10TH.
THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ASKED 
FOR THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC ITEMS
TO BE THOROUGHLY DESCRIBED AND 
ASK FOR ATTACHMENT SUPPORTING 
THESE ITEMS SUCH AS CURRICULUM, 
LETTERS OF SUPPORT, ET CETERA.
IT DETAILS HOW THE PROPOSER 
WOULD ADDRESS THE TRANSITIONAL 
AGE FORMER FOSTER YOUTH TO 
MITIGATE AND ADDRESS CHILDHOOD 
TRAUMAS AND MITIGATE BARRIERS TO
EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND 
HOUSING.
EXPLAIN SPECIAL RESOURCES, 
PROCEDURES OR APPROACHES THAT 
MAKE THEIR PROGRAM MORE 
ADVANTAGEOUS.
DESCRIBE COLLABORATIVE 
PARTNERSHIPS WHO WILL SUPPORT 
THE PROGRAM, DESCRIBE THE 
SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL, 
QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE AND 
OUTREACH TO THIS SPECIALIZED 
POPULATION.
AND FINALLY, TO PROVIDE A SOUND 
BUDGET THAT CORRESPONDS WITH THE
PROPOSED PROGRAM.
THE PROPOSALS WERE REVIEWED 
BASED ON THE ABILITY OF THE 
SUBMITTING ORGANIZATIONS TO 
ARTICULATE THE AFOREMENTIONED 
ITEMS AND TO PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE 
REHOUSING SERVICES AND 
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES THAT ENHANCE
THE YOUTH'S ABILITY TO 
TRANSITION INTO AND MAINTAIN 
PERMANENT HOUSING AND PROVIDE A 
MATHEMATICALLY SOUND BUDGET.
IN THE RESPONSE TO THE RFP THEY 
HAD THE ABILITY TO OPERATE THE 
ADOLFO PROGRAM IN THE MANNER 
REQUESTED.
ON MARCH 25TH DHA ANNOUNCED THE 
RECOMMENDED AWARDEE OF THE 
ADOLPHO PROGRAM TO NEXT MOVE.
DHA RECEIVE ADD WRITTEN LETTER 
OF PROTEST FROM VOLUNTEERS OF 
AMERICA.
WE REVIEWED THE PROTEST LETTER 
AND DETERMINED THE INFORMATION 
VOA CITED IN THE LETTER OF 
PROTEST DID NOT MEET ANY OF THE 
GROUNDS SITED IN THE RFP.
THEY NOTIFIED THEM OF THAT 
DECISION APRIL 3RDRD.
I AM REQUESTING YOU APPROVE THE 
REWARD TO NEXT MOVE AND I AM 
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR 
QUESTIONS.
>> I KNOW I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO
SPEAK WITH EDWARD AND FLAGSTAFF 
IN ADVANCE TO THIS MEETING NOT 
IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.
WE DID GET A LETTER I BELIEVE 
YOU WERE IN RECEIPT OF IT FROM 
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA.
IT SPEAKS SPECIFICALLY TO THE 
SCORING CATEGORIES FOR THE RFP.
IF YOU TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY 
BECAUSE THEY HONE IN ON 
PARTICULARLY AS RELATES TO THE 
EXPERIENCE.
WHEN YOU HAVE AN OPERATOR WHO 
OPERATES THE PROGRAM YOU ARE 
FAMILIAR WITH IT AS AM I AND 
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FOR 16 
YEARS.
I THINK WE ARE VERY MUCH IN THE 
MIX WHEN THE PROGRAM CAME OUT OF
THE GROUND EVEN BEFORE IT GOT TO
MATHER.
I AM CURIOUS ON THIS WHOLE THING
EXPERIENCE IT WAS APPROVED 
EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON 
ARTICULATING THE EXPERIENCE 
CONTRACTORS WITH EXPERIENCE, 
ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE, SO 
WHY -- AGAIN MAYBE YOU CAN 
CORRECT IT IF IT IS NOT CORRECT 
WHY WAS IT GIVE EP SUCH A LOW 
SCORE UNLESS IT WAS NOT 
PERFORMING THERE WAS NO 
REFERENCE TO ANY NONPERFORMANCE 
OR LACK OF RESULTS AS RELATES TO
THE YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS THAT 
HAVE BEEN AND WERE ENROLLED IN 
THE PROGRAM.
IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT AND I 
WILL ASK OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> THROUGH THE PROGRAM THE 
ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE WAS 
REDUCED TO 10 IN ORDER TO HAVE 
THE PROGRAM SERVICES TO 30 AND 
SERVICES TO 25.
I'VE SOME DATA ABOUT USING THOSE
SAME TYPES OF NUMBERS IN OTHER 
RFP'S NOT JUST THIS ONE.
WE ARE LOOKING AT FOCUSING ON 
THE PROGRAM ELEMENTS IN LIEU OF 
EXPERIENCE.
IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE WE
INCLUDED A NUMBER OF 30 IN 
PROGRAM EXPERIENCE.
WE ARE LOOKING FORE INNOVATIVE 
AND UPDATED PROGRAMS.
THIS WAS DONE IN RESPONSE TO 
CHANGES IN THE FOSTER CARE 
SYSTEM FROM 2015 TO 2016.
I CAN HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THOSE 
CHANGES FOR YOU.
EXTENDED FOSTER CARE WENT INTO 
EFFECT WHERE FOSTER YOUTH AND 
PROBATION YOUTH WAS EXTENDED TO 
FOSTER CARE.
THESE YOUTH AREN'T REQUIRED TO 
GET THEY GET A MONTHLY STIPEND.
THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DOING 
CASE MANAGEMENT TO CHILD WELFARE
OR PROBATION.
THIS NEEDS MORE CASE MANAGEMENT 
AND MORE EXPERIENCE WITH THE 
MORE DIFFICULT POPULATION.
EXTENDED FOSTER CARE CHANGED HOW
WE RECEIVED REFERRALS.
WE ARE NOT GETTING AS MANY 
REFERRALS FROM CPS OR PROBATION.
WE HAVE DO A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT 
THE NEXT PROPOSAL HIGHLIGHTED 
MORE OUTREACH THAN THE VOA 
PROPOSAL DID.
THE VACANCY FACTOR RANGED FROM 
10 PERCENT TO 17 PERCENT SINCE 
OCTOBER OF 2018, BECAUSE MANY OF
THE YOUTH ARE NOT MEETING THEIR 
NEEDS.
THE CHANGING IN THAT SCORING WAS
DELIBERATE AROUND REALLY 
FOCUSING IN ON PROGRAM AND 
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.
IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO EXCLUDE 
ANY PARTICULAR PROVIDER.
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE BUDGET.
THERE WAS ALSO A QUESTION ABOUT 
THE SCORING FOR THE BUDGET, HOW 
IT WAS DIFFERENT FOR THE FAMILY 
SHELTER VERSES THE ADOLFO 
PROGRAM.
THAT'S TRUE.
THE SHELTER BUDGET WAS 7,020.
THE OTHER IS 8 MILLION.
WHEN THERE'S SIGNIFICANTLY MORE 
MONEY WE TEND TO HAVE MORE 
POINTS FOR THE BUDGET.
WE HAVE GOT SO FOR 1, 2, 3, 4, 
5 -- 10RFP'S WE HAVE DONE IN THE
RECENT PROBABLY A YEAR TO 18 
MONTHS, THE SCORES ARE PRETTY 
SIGNIFICANT.
OIRGZATIONAL OUTREACH AND 
CAPACITY 20015, 10, 10.
15, 15, 20.
THIS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH 
OTHER RFP'S WE HAVE DONE.
>> I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION 
AS RELATES TO OTHER RFP'S 
WITHOUT GETTING INTO DETAIL WHAT
THEY WERE IN GENERAL SEVERANCES 
TO SOME OF THE SERVICES BEING 
CALLED OUT WITH THE OTHER RFP'S.
I WANT TO ASK IT WASN'T ME
MEDING -- MEETING THE NEEDS OF 
THE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS.
OBVIOUSLY YOU WERE DEALING HERE 
WITH FOSTER YOUTH WHO HAVE BEEN 
IN APRIL LOT OF CASES IN THE 
SYSTEM FOR MANY YEARS, SUBJECTED
TO NEGLECT, TO ABUSE, TRAN
TRANSIENCESY, YOU NAME IT.
I GUESS I SAW NO REFERENCE.
WE DIDN'T GET COPIES OF THE 
PROPOSAL.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY AS 
BOARD MEMBERS TO NOT NECESSARILY
SECOND-GUESS A PANEL BUT DO AN 
EVALUATION OF THAT.
SPEAK WITH FAMILIARITY WITH THE 
CURRENT PROGRAM PROVIDER.
I THINK HOW THEY HAVE INTEGRATED
THEMSELVES INTO THE COMMUNITY.
THE FOCUS ON TRYING TO PREPARE 
YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VARIETY 
OF CHALLENGES, I SAY YOUNG 
ADULTS AGES HAVE CHANGED 
OBVIOUSLY.
TO PREPARE THEM FOR BEING ABLE 
TO LIVE ON THEIR OWN, OBVIOUSLY 
PAY RENT TO HAVE A SKILLS SET BE
ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE JOB COPE 
WITH MENTAL ISSUES, ADDICTION, 
ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY BE A 
PART OF THEIR OVERALL LIFE 
EXPERIENCE.
IT IS SO CRITICAL WHEN YOU 
DEVELOP THOSE RELATIONSHIPS WITH
THOSE FOLKS, 10 PERCENT VACANCY.
YOU SHOULD ARGUE YOU SHOULD HAVE
100 PERCENT ENROLLMENT RATE AT 
ALL TIMES.
THAT DOESN'T STRIKE ME YOU HAVE 
58 ENROLLED.
10 PERCENT MEANS YOU WOULD BE 
DOWN 5 OR 6.
I WOULD IMAGINE WITH TURNOVER.
I AM STRUGGLING HERE WITH THE 
RECOMMENDATION.
NO REFLECTION ON NEXT MOVE.
THAT IS NOT A REFLECTION ON THE 
PANEL.
YOU HAVE A PROVIDER.
AGAIN I SAW NO REFERENCE IN THE 
STAFF REPORT.
THERE WERE THINGS HERE.
I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO REVEAL 
THINGS THAT MAY BE IN 
RELATIONSHIP TO THE CONTRACTOR 
AND COUNTY STAFF.
IF IN FACT THEY WERE MEETING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOLKS THERE 
AND HELPING FOLKS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DID ANY EXIT
INTERVIEWS.
DEMONSTRATED ON PAPER THEY HAVE 
THE ABILITY TO DO THIS.
CONCERNS ME WE MAKE A CHANGE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WAS BUT WE 
ARE BEING ASKED HERE NOW 14 DAYS
BEFORE THE END OF THE CONTRACT.
I GET IT.
BRUCE SAID THIS YOU TOLD ME THE 
SAME YOU KNEW THE PANEL'S 
RECOMMENDATION IN MARCH.
THE ACTION IS NOT FINAL UNTIL 
THE BOARD ACTS ON IT.
WE WILL HAVE HOWEVER MANY YOUNG 
FOLKS, ADULTS ENROLLED ON THE 
PROGRAM.
THEY ARE BASICALLY PROBABLY 
ALREADY AWARE OF IT.
WHATEVER RELATIONSHIP THEY BUILT
WITH THEIR COUNSELORS WITH THEIR
MENTORS, WITH THE FOLKS IN THE 
PROGRAM, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE
TRANSITION PLAN IS.
IF VOA TURNS THE LIGHTS OUT NEXT
SUPPOSED TO BE THERE JULY 1ST 
GREAT DEAL OF DISRUPTION FOR 
FOLKS AND HAVE DIFFICULTY IN 
MANY CASES TRUSTING ADULTS OR 
THE SYSTEM BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN 
PLACE IN LIFE.
NO REFLECTION ON NEXT MOVE.
I HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME OF THE 
SHORT TRANSITION PERIOD.
YOU HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO ME.
I CAN'T RECALL.
THEY HAVEN'T PERFORMED OR 
NEGLECT IN PERFORMING UP TO THE 
REQUIREMENTS WHERE WE HAVE THAT 
QUICK TURNOVER LIKE THAT WITHOUT
ANY TRANSITION.
I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE VERY 
DISRUPTIVE TO THE FOLKS THAT ARE
ENROLLED IN THAT PROGRAM.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY 
THOUGHTS.
I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO RESPOND TO
EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID.
BUT THAT WHOLE ISSUE RELATED TO 
THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME RELATIVE
TO THE PARTICIPANTS.
>> VOA WAS AWARE IN LATE MARCH 
THERE WOULD BE A TRANSITION.
MY STAFF WOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT
IN THEIR STAFF TO BEGIN THAT 
TRANSITION PROCESS.
THEY HAVE DECLINED TO 
PARTICIPATE IN THE TRANSITION 
PROCESS UNTIL AFTER THIS 
MEETING.
WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR 
TRANSITION.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF I HAVE 
SOME OF THE PROGRAM DESIGN NEXT 
MOVE AND VOA.
THIS WAS A COMPETITIVE PROCESS.
A DECISION WAS MADE ON THE 
PROPOSALS WE RECEIVED NOT IN THE
LONGEVITY.
IF WE WERE GOING TO GO WITH 
SOMEBODY THERE WE WOULDN'T DO AN
RFP.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GO OVER THE 
PROGRAM DESIGN ELEMENTS TO 
DEMONSTRATE THE DIFFERENCES 
BETWEEN THE TWO IF YOU SO WISH.
>> IF DO YOU THAT BRIEFLY I 
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT.
>> I KNOW MR. KENNEDY IS ALSO IN
THE CUE FOR QUESTIONS AND 
COMMENTS.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO THIS 
FIRST?
>> YEAH.
>> IN VOA'S PROPOSAL THEY DID 
NOT EXPLAIN THE PROGRAM DESIGN.
THEY WERE VAGUE IN THEIR 
DESCRIPTION STATING THINGS LIKE 
WE USE TRAUMA INFORMED PRACTICES
BUT DIDN'T IDENTIFY WHAT THE 
PRACTICES WERE AND HOW THEY 
IMPROVED THIS FOR YOUTH.
THEY SAID THEY WERE NOT CLEAR 
WHAT THE ACTUAL PROGRAM WAS.
THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE CURRICULUM 
FOR THE CLASSES OR WORKSHOPS FOR
THE YOUTH OR TRAINING FOR STAFF.
THEY DIDN'T IDENTIFY AN OUTREACH
PLAN OR YOUTH STRUGGLING WITH 
ADDICTION.
THEY DIDN'T IDENTIFY MEASURABLE 
OUTCOMES OR GOALS FOR THE 
PROGRAM.
NEXT MOVE COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM 
THAT INCLUDED CHILDHOOD TRAUMA 
AND OTHER MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.
THEY HAD SIGNIFICANT HOUSING 
EXPERIENCE TO THE UNHOUSED 
YOUTH.
THEY HAVE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT PETS
AND FOCUSES ON HARM REDUCTION 
PRACTICES FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG 
TREATMENT.
EXPERIENCED SERVING THE HOMELESS
POPULATION AND WORKING WITH CPS 
TO HOUSE FAMILY IN CRISIS.
THEY HAVE CLEAR MEASURE GOALS.
THEY HAVE LAND USE SERVICES, 
WAKING THE VILLAGE, STARTS 
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.
AND SACRAMENTO LGBTQ COMMUNITY 
CENTER.
THE TEAM FELT NEXT MOVE WAS 
CLIENT CENTERED AND WILL OFFER A
WIDE VARIETY OF SERVICES 
SPECIFIC TO EACH YOUTH NEEDS.
THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT 
DIFFERENCE IN THE BUDGET AROUND 
PROGRAMMING SERVICES.
THE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES BUDGET 
FOR VOA THIS INCLUDES WORKSHOPS,
EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT INCENTIVES
TOTALLED 74,300 DOLLARS.
THE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES WAS 
279,768 DOLLARS.
IT FELT LIKE THE PROPOSAL WAS 
FOCUSED ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO
THE YOUTH.
>> COULD I JUST FOLLOW ON.
I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION.
WE HAVE MONITORED THE PROJECTS.
BEING REPETITIVE HERE IF THEY 
WERE UNDER PERFORMING IN 
PARTNERSHIPS UNDER THE CURRENT 
CONTRACT I WOULD HAVE FELT THEY 
WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED OUT.
YOU PUT IT DOWN ON PAPER PUT 
YUR BEST FOOT FORWARD.
DO I TAKE FROM THIS SOME OF THE 
THINGS THAT WERE SAID THEY DON'T
HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUTH 
SERVICES AND LUTHERAN SOCIAL 
SERVICES?
I WOULD BE WILLING TO BET VOA 
HAS RELATIONSHIPS AND PROBABLY 
MAINTAINS THEM RIGHT NOW.
>> WE ASKED SPECIFICALLY TO 
IDENTIFY THAT IN THE PROPOSAL.
THEY DID NOT.
>> WE HAVE HAD SOME FEEDBACK 
SOME YOUTH DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THE 
PROGRAM WAS FOR THEM.
THEY WERE NOT UNDER PERFORMING 
BUT NEXT MOVE WAS PROPOSAL TO 
VOA'S.
>> SUPERVISOR TEN DE?
>> I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT 
YOU LOOKED AT CHANGING THE 
PERCENTAGE THAT WAS BASED UPON 
EXPERIENCE.
IN MY EXPERIENCE THAT CHANGES 
THE GOOD OLD BOY NETWORK.
THAT BRINGS NEW IDEAS, NEW FRESH
LOOKING AT THESE PROGRAMS.
I AM NOT DISCOUNTING THESE 
EXPERIENCES.
I THINK THIS GIVES US AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT NEW 
IDEAS.
I TOOK A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE 
PROPOSALS AND FOUND IN MY 
OPINION THE NEXT MOVE PROPOSAL 
WAS MUCH MORE SPECIFIC AND MUCH 
MORE AND HIT THE POINTS THAT THE
PROGRAMMATIC POINTS WE WANT TO 
MAKE.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE STAFF 
RECOMMENDATION.
>> ANOTHER COMMENTS FROM BOARD 
MEMBERS?
SUPERVISOR PETERS.
>> I AGREE WITH PATRICK.
FROM MY DAYS IN THE PRIVATE 
SECTOR, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
WHEN YOU ANSWER AN RFP IS ANSWER
THE QUESTIONS.
WHEN WE DID THAT WE WOULD HAVE 
SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF THE COMPANY 
GO THROUGH THE RFP AND REVIEW 
OUR PROPOSAL TO MAKE SURE WANED 
ALL OF THE QUESTIONS.
IT IS A SHAME THAT THAT DIDN'T 
HAPPEN FOR VOA.
THEY DIDN'T.
>> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON 
THIS?
>> NO.
THERE WAS ONLY ONE COMMENT AND 
THEY DID NOT ASK FOR IT TO BE 
READ INTO THE RECORD AND 
MR. NOTTOLI MADE REFERENCE TO IT
WHEN HE FIRST CAME ON THE 
RECORD.
>> I THINK THE BOARD MEMBERS 
WERE IN RECEIPT OF A RESPONSE TO
A QUESTION I INSPIRED WHEN I HAD
MY BRIEFING WITH ANN WHICH HAD 
TO DO WITH UNDERSTANDING A 
LITTLE BIT BETTER THE 
COMPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS 
REPRESENTING DIFFERENT AGENCIES 
AND DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO 
DID THE EVALUATION.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
AS I MENTIONED TO ONE OF MY 
COLLEAGUES ABOUT THIS, A 
SITUATION LIKE THIS IS SO UNFAIR
TO EVERYONE INVOLVED.
I SAY THAT ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVE 
TWO ORGANIZATIONS THAT I THINK 
THIS BOARD AND PAST BOARDS THINK
HIGHLY OF IN TERMS OF ABILITY TO
PROVIDE ESSENTIAL SERVICES.
WE ARE THRUST INTO AN ODD 
POSITION WHERE WE ARE BEING 
ASKED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN -- TWO 
GREAT ORGANIZATIONS.
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT HISTORIES 
AND EXPERIENCE WITH THE COUNTY.
IT CAN BE QUICKLY AND SIMPLY 
INTERPRETED THAT SOMEHOW NOT 
ACCEPTING AN APPEAL OR GOING 
WITH WHAT IS RECOMMENDED SOMEHOW
CONDEMNS THE OTHER.
AS RELATES TO THE VOTE WE ARE 
ABOUT TO TAKE THAT IS NOT MY 
TINGS.
I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR BOTH
ORGANIZATIONS WHAT THEY DO AND 
HOW THEY DO IT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I ASKED ANN 
ABOUT WE HAD A GOOD 
CONVERSATION.
SHE AND I MY CHIEF OF STAFF LISA
NAVA ABOUT SOME OF THE HISTORY 
AND SOME OF THE EXPERIENCE WITH 
VOA.
I THINK ANN WAS BEING HONEST AND
CANDID EXPLAINING THERE HAD BEEN
SOME SHORTCOMINGS IN THE HISTORY
IN TERMS OF, PLEASE CORRECT ME 
IF I'M WRONG HERE, ANN, BUT 
GENERALLY SPEAKING HOW THEY 
ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THEIR 
ACTIVITIES AND EXPENDITURES NOT 
NECESSARILY BEEN EASY TO 
DECIPHER AT TIMES.
I WONDERED OUT LOUD ON THE 
BRIEFING ON THE PHONE WHETHER OR
NOT THERE WAS 'N INTEREST BY THE
BOARD THAT THERE COULD BE 
HYPOTHETICALLY PUT IN PLACE ANY 
KIND OF MEASURES IF IT WERE THE 
WILL OF THE BOARD TO HONOR VOA'S
APPEAL HERE WHERE THEY COULD 
IMPLEMENT NEW MEASURES THAT 
COULD FORCE THE ISSUE FOR THEM 
IN TERMS OF THEY COULD ACCOUNT 
FOR EXPENDITURES MUCH MORE 
PRECISELY.
I THINK THE ANSWER WAS THERE IS 
PROBABLY SOME OPPORTUNITY TO DO 
THAT.
I AM A BIT TORN HERE.
I HAVE GREAT RELATIONSHIPS WITH 
BOTH ORGANIZATIONS.
IT IS NOT A COMFORTABLE SPACE TO
BE IN RIGHT NOW.
OH>> SUPERVISOR FROST?
>> I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING EARLIER
BECAUSE I DID AGREE WITH 
SUPERVISOR KENNEDY IN HIS 
COMMENTS.
SOMETHING THAT COMES TO MY MIND 
IS THE PROCESS AND THE 
IMPORTANCE OF THE COMPETITIVE 
PROCESS.
THE RFP BOTH ORGANIZATIONS HAD 
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THEIR 
BEST, PUT THEIR BEST FOOT 
FORWARD AND SUBMIT AN 
APPLICATION AND IF I AM NOT 
MISTAKEN, AND YOU DESCRIBED A 
COUPLE MINUTES AGO THE APPEAL 
THAT CAME FROM VOA DID NOT 
ADDRESS ANY, THERE WERE NO 
ERRORS THAT YOU COULD SEE IN THE
RFP PROCESS.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME WHEN
YOU HAVE -- YOU AND YOUR STAFF 
HAVE GIVEN ME THE IMPRESSION 
THAT I NEEDED TO QUESTION YOUR 
ABILITY TO REVIEW THE RFP'S.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE 
REWARD PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WON 
THE CONTRACT.
I KNOW IT GOES HARD.
I LOVE VOA.
I MEAN, I KNOW A LOT OF THOSE 
PEOPLE.
THEY DO A GREAT JOB.
THIS IS BUSINESS AND COMING FROM
THE PRIVATE BEING A BUSINESS 
OWNER FOR OVER 35 YEARS, I GET 
SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO MAKE THESE
HARD DECISIONS WITHOUT SO MUCH 
EMOTION, BUT AS JUST SELECTING 
THE ONE WHO EARNED IT.
I AM PREPARED TO SUPPORT YOUR 
RECOMMENDATION.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR 
TO TAKE BACK SOMETHING FROM AN 
ORGANIZATION THAT WON THE RFP 
JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE 
WANTED IT.
>> WE STRUCTURE A PROCESS THAT 
IS DESIGNED TO BE FAIR AND 
OBJECTIVE AS IT CAN BE.
YOU CAN'T TELL ME THIS IS NOT 
WITH SUBJECTIVITY.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT PROPOSALS 
WHETHER IT IS ME OR A PANEL OR 
ANYBODY ELSE YOU ARE GOING TO DO
SUBJECTIVELY.
IT IS NOT ONE EXERCISE WHERE YOU
GET A 5 OR A ZERO.
THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
I THINK IN FAIRNESS I APPRECIATE
MR. KENNEDY XHAENTS.
IT IS NOT ABOUT A GOOD OLD BOY'S
NETWORK.
IN THIS OR ANY OTHER ASPECT OF 
IT.
I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THE 
PROGRAM.
WE CHANGED THINGS OUT AT MATHER.
I WAS THERE WITH THE COMMUNITY 
AS WE PUT THOSE THINGS INTO 
PLACE 20 PLUS YEARS AGO THAT 
COUNTS FOR SOMETHING.
IT RELATES TO RELATIONSHIPS WITH
THE COMMUNITY.
IT LOOKS BETTER ON PAPER.
I STILL HAVEN'T HEARD THEY HAVE 
BEEN DEFICIENT IN THE WAY THEY 
PROVIDE SERVICES AND HELP PEOPLE
TRANSITION INTO ADULT HOOD TO 
SURVIVE IN THE COMMUNITY AND 
SURVIVE IN LIFE.
WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IN THE 
FUTURE THAT'S GREAT.
MAYBE THAT'S BETTER.
BUT I THINK THERE'S A TRACK 
RECORD HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE 
TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
I AM DOING THAT AND I DON'T 
INTEND TO SUPPORT THE STAFF 
RECOMMENDATION.
>> SUPERVISOR FROST?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND 
MOVE APPROVAL.
>> MOTION BY SUPERVISOR FROST 
AND KENNEDY.
IF THERE IS NO MORE FURTHER 
DISCUSSION.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> THIS IS REGARDING SUPERVISOR 
PETER'S QUESTION TO ME REGARDING
THE INTEREST AT MATHER FIELD.
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO
>> WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 1400 
FEET AWAY FROM THE MATHER 
COMMUNITY CAMPUS.
AS YOU MAY RECALL, CAT CAT CODE 
OF INTEREST RELATED TO CONFLICT 
OF DECISION STATE THE EFFECTIVE 
DECISION INVOLVING REAL PROPERTY
OVER A THOUSAND MEET FOOET SHALL
BE PRESUMED TO BE NOT MATERIAL 
UNLESS THERE IS CLEAR AND 
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS 
OTHERWISES, WHICH MEANS SOUPER 
VISOR PETERS CAN VOTE ON THIS 
ITEM AND RELATED TO NUMBER 37 AS
WELL AND THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL 
CONTRACT AND MY BEEN IS THAT IT 
DOESN'T HAVE A MATERIAL AFFECT 
ON SUPERVISE KROER PETERS 
INTERESTS SO SHE'S THEREFORE 
PERMITTED TO VOTE. 
>> THANK YOU.
AND I APPRECIATE CLARIFICATIONS.
>> AND EX-PLANATION.
>> AND I CAN SEND YOU THE 
E-MAIL, TOO.
IT'S LONGER. 
>> WITH THAT NOTED PLEASE VOTE. 
>> MOTION CARRIES AND SUPERVISOR
NOTTOLI VOTING NO. 
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>> ITEM 69 MITIGATE IMPACTS FROM
COVID-19 TO CONSTRUCTION AND 
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES BY 
ADOPTING AN INTERIM URGENCY 
ORDINANCE EXTENDING ORDINANCE 
NUMBER 1589 ADOPTED ON MAY 5, 
2020, AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY 
TEMPORARY USE OF PROPERTY, 
EXTENDING THE DATE OF CERTAIN 
ENTITLEMENT OR OTHER APPROVALS 
TO DECEMBER 31, 2021.
>> THIS IS A COMBINED ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ITEM 
YOU'VE ADOPTED THIS ORDINANCE 
AND YOU'VE EXTENDED THIS 
ORDINANCE AND I WILL BE 
AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS YOU MAY 
HAVE. 
>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
>> MOVED BY SUPERVISOR PETERS. 
>> NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. 
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
AND WITH THAT, PLEASE VOTE. 
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NOW, WE'RE ON ITEM 70, PUBLIC
HEARING ON BENEFIT OF CATEGORY 
CHANGE AND LEVY OF INCREASED 
SERVICE CHARGES FOR THE MALIBU 
ESTATES SUBDIVISION. 
>> WITHIN COUNTY ONE. 
>> HELLO, I'M AIMING TO BE BRIEF
ON THIS ITEM.
IN RESPONSE TO A CONDITION OF 
APPROVAL FOR MALIBU ESTATES 
SUBDIVISION AND NOTICE AND 
BALLOT MAILED MAY 1.
THERE ARE THREE PARCELS FOR THE 
SUBDIVISION AND THEY'RE ALL 
CURRENTLY IN THE SAFETY 
CATEGORY.
PROPOSED CHANGE WILL BE TO 
ENHANCED STREET AND SAFETY LIGHT
CATEGORY WITH AN ANNUAL SERVICE 
CHARGE OF $49.64 FOR 20 PROPOSED
LOTS.
SO WE RECOMMEND YOU OPEN PUBLIC 
HEARING AND CONSIDER TESTIMONY, 
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECT 
CLERK TO TABULATE THE RETURN 
PROTEST BALLOT. 
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
AND I'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING 
SEEING NO ONE APPROACH THE 
PODIUM, I ASK THE CLERK TO 
PLEASE OPEN THE ENVELOPE. 
>> WE HAVE ONE BALLOT.
THIS IS ON, A PROTEST BALLOT ON 
COUNTY SERVICE NUMBER ONE 
BENEFIT CATEGORY CHANGE.
LGAL OWNER IS JEREMY JAGGER.
AND THIS ADDRESSES PALM AVENUE 
AND ARE IN FAVOR. 
>> AND THEN, WE ASK FOR THE 
BOARD TO ADOPT TACHED RESOLUTION
AND I CAN READ INTO THE RECORD 
OF FILL INS FOR THE RESOLUTION.
AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING THE 
BOARD RECEIVED 0 WRITTEN 
PROTESTS AND SECTION THREE OF 
THE CLOSE OF THES TABULATION THE
BOARD RECEIVED ONE PROTEST 
BALLOT TOTALLING 100% OF THE 
SFTS CHARGES TO BE LEVIED OF 
WHICH 100% WAS IN FAVOR OF THE 
BENEFIT CATEGORY CHANGE AND 
SKERY PERCENT IN OPPOSITION. 
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
SUPERVISOR PETERS. 
>> I HAVE HAD NO OBJECTIONS FROM
THE COMMUNITY TO THIS.
I MOVE THE ITEM. 
>> OKAY.
CHAIR WILL SECOND.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> YUN MAN NEWS VOTE. 
>> SECOND ITEM, BENEFIT ZONE 
THREE, ESTABLISHING A SERVICE 
CHARGE WITHIN THE SOUTH 
DIVISION, SOUTH SUBDIVISION AND 
THAT IS ALL FOR THIS TITLE.
SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AGAIN TO 
PRESENT THIS ITEM IN RESPONSE TO
THIS APPROVAL A REQUEST 
SUBMITTED TO INITIATE 
ESTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE 
CHARGE WHICH PROVIDES TRIP 
REDUCTION SERVICES.
NOTICES MAILED ON MAY ONE AND 
THIS ITEM PROPOSES A LEVY OF AN 
ANNUAL SERVICE CHARGE OF $112.68
PER SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
WE RECOMMEND WHAT YOU OPEN THE 
PUBLIC HEARING.
CONSIDER TESTIMONIES OBJECTIONS 
AND PROTESTS, CLOSE PUBLIC 
HEARING AND DIRECT CLERK TO 
TABULATE RETURN PROTEST BALLOTS.
>> I'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND 
SEE NOING WRITTEN COMMENTS OR 
ANYONE APPROACH THE PODIUM. 
>> SO THIS ITEM HAS THREE 
BALLOTS.
THIS FOR COUNTY SERVICE AREA 
BENEFIT ZONE NUMBER THREE TO BE 
LEVIED ON THE SOUTH SUBDIVISION.
AND THIS IS LEGAL OWNER IS IN 
FAVOR.
>> OKAY.
I'M GOING TO OPEN THE NEXT ONE.
PEAR WITH ME.
I'M GOING TO CITE THIS AS TWO 
SEPARATE BALLOTS THIS BENEFIT 
ZONE NUMBER THREE AND ANNUAL 
SERVICE CHARGE LEVIED ON THE 
SOUTH SUBDIVISION.
PARCEL 11500 # 1016 AND THE 
LEGAL OWNER IS HERENDO JOEL AND 
MANDEEP CAR, VOTING IN FAVOR.
AND THIRD BALLOT AND SITE 
ADDRESS IS 870 CASTLEMAN ROAD 
VOTING IN FAVOR.
AND I DENT THINK I READ THE 
PREVIOUS 1, 8691 CASTLEMAN ROAD 
IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND THERE IS NO MAJORITY 
PROTEST WE ASK THE BOARD TO 
ADAPT, EXCUSE ME ADOPT ATTACHED 
RESOLUTION AND READ INTO RECORD 
FILL INS.
SECTION TWO, BOARD RECEIVED 0 
PROTESTS AND IS DUALLY 
CONSIDERED AND BOARD RECEIVED 
THREE PROTEST BALLOTS AND 0 
PERCENT WAS IN OPPOSITION. 
>> WITH THAT, CHAIR, WE'LL MOVE 
ITEM AND SEEK A SECOND.
>> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED NO FURTHER
CONVERSATION.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SEE NEW JULY. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> NOW ITEM 72 WE DO HAVE ONE 
PUBLIC COMMENT FROM STAFF AND I 
BELIEVE HE'LL SPEAK TO THAT.
SO NO COMMENTS FROM OUTSIDE.
BUT IT WAS JUST A COMMUNICATION 
THAT WE ADDED TO THE RECORD.
AND ITEM 72 APPROVAL OF ISSUANCE
OF SERIES 2020 AIRPORT SYSTEM 
SENIOR REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS 
AND THE DEFEESANCE OF AIRPORT 
DEBT FOR SERVICE COURAGE RELIEF 
AND APPROVE REQUEST IN THE 
AMOUNT OF $49,900,000.
>> GOOD MORNING MEMBERS OF THE 
BOARD, COLLIN BEDIS. 
>> IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG DAY. 
>> GOOD MORNING. 
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> SORRY.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M SORRY.
ITEM BEFORE YOU NOW IS A REQUEST
TO THE BOARD AUTHORIZING THE 
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE SERIES 
00 BONDS TO REFUND REMAINING 
SERIES 2010 AIRPORT SYSTEM 
REVENUE BONDS TO APPROVE USE OF 
CURRENT FUNDS TO A PORTION OF 
THE SERIES 2018 BONDS AND 
REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT FROM CARES
ACT FUNDING FOR THIS PURPOSE VIA
4 MILLION INCLUDED.
IN 2007, THE COUNTY BEGAN THE 
TERMINAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 
AT SMF INTERNATIONAL FIELDS.
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, I'M 
SORRY.
AND CURRENT INTEREST RATE 
PROVISIONS PROVIDE AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO LOCK IN DEBT 
SERVICE SAVINGS BUT REFUNDING A 
MAJORITY OF THE SERIES 2010 
BONDS.
ESTIMATED AVERAGE CASH FLOW 
SAVINGS FROM THIS REFUNDING IS 
1.4 MILLION AS OF MAY 22, 2020.
A HEARING REQUIRED FOR THE 
ISSUANCE AND DUE TO COVID-19 
THIS HEARING WAS HELD VIA 
TELECONFERENCE AND NO MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC CALLED IN AND NO 
WRITTEN COMMENTS PROVIDED.
AND DEPARTMENTS AIRPORTS 
ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE GRANTS 
THROUGH A PROGRAM TO-TO-ASSIST 
AIRPORTS DUE TO DROP IN DEMAND.
WE'VE WORKED WITH THE FINANCIAL 
ADVISORS TO IDENTIFY THE USE OF 
MONEY THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE 
GREATEST IMPACT TO THE AIRPORT 
OPERATIONS AND RATES AND CHARGES
WHICH WILL RESULT IN DIFFUSING 
$33.1 MILLION IN AMOUNT OF THE 
BONDS THAT WILL RESULT IN 
REDUCING THE DEBT SERVICE 
REQUIREMENT BY APPROXIMATELY 
$17.8 MILLION OVER TWO YEARS.
TIMING IS URGENCY AND MUST BE 
COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE END OF 
THE YEAR AND ASKING NO MORE THAN
30 MILLION WITH EXPECTED 
MATURITY, JULY, 2040 AND 
APPROVAL OF THE DEFEES YENS OF 
BONDS USING CURRENT RESOURCES TO
BE REIMBURSED THROUGH CARES ACT 
PROGRAM.
THE COMMITTEE MET ON MAY 15TH 
AND APPROVED THIS ITEM AND 
ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ON MAY 
26, 2020.
AND NO MUST MONEY WILL BE ISSUED
AND ABOUT AUTHORIZED WILL BE 
PRICED AT A TIME THE AIRPORT 
DIRECTOR AND ADVISOR AS DWREE 
TIMING WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO 
THE COUNTY.
AND THE BOARD WILL BE PROVIDED 
WITH AN UPDATED VERSION OF THAT 
VIA E-MAIL.
AND WE'RE HERE FOR QUESTIONS MAU
MAY HAVE. 
>> THERE WAS A TELEPHONE CALL 
CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?
>> THERE WERE NO CALLS. 
>> WHO CONDUCTED THE HEARING?
>> I DID.
UNDER IRS GUIDE LINES A MEMBER 
OF THE BOARD DOESN'T NEED TO BE 
PRESENT BUT THEY DO NEED TO 
RECEIVE THE COMMENTS AND WE PLOW
VIEDED THAT IN A CERTIFICATION.
>> SO IRS REGS ALLOW US TO HAVE 
THIS MOMENT AND WE ADVERTISED 
THAT WE DID EVERYTHING?
>> THIS IS UNDER EMERGENCY 
ORDERS AND UNDER PANDEMIC YOU 
CAN DO WITHOUT HAVING A HEARING 
BODY?
>> THAT RULE WAS IN PLACE AND 
WITH PUBLIC INPUT IN IT, IRS 
DOES ALLOW US TO DO THAT AND 
THAT IS WHAT WE DID EVERYTHING 
WE NEEDED TO DO.
REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOU DO IT 
AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND 
REPORT OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH 
IT. 
>> VERSES THIS BOARD?
>> RIGHT.
CORRECT.
>> THAT IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO
IT IN THE FUTURE?
>> NO.
NO.
THIS IS EXTRAORDINARY 
CIRCUMSTANCE FOR US. 
>> OKAY. 
>> THAT RULE HAS BEEN IN PLACE 
WE SELDOM TAKE ADVANTAGE OF 
THAT. 
>> BUT THIS EXHAUSTS AN 
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD TO 
CHIME IN?
>> CORRECT THIS, IS YOUR CHANCE 
NOW. 
>> IT'S JUST BEEN BY FUSHG YATED
AS I UNDERSTAND IT?  
>> YES. 
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR 
COMMENTS?
MADAM CLERK, MY LAST MINUTE 
PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> NO. 
>> OKAY.
>> WITH THAT, ENTERTAIN A 
MOTION.
>> SECOND. 
>> MOVED AND PROVED BY 
SUPERVISOR FROST AND SECONDED BY
SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.
>> PLEASE VOTE. 
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
FOR ITEM 73 THIS IS THE 
SEVEN-LEVEN ORANGEVALE A USE 
PERMIT AND SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT 
PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR AN 
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION AND 
CONVENIENCE STORE IN AT 9396 
GREENBACK LANE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, DO I HAVE A 
POWER POINT.
A NEW SEVEN LEVEN AN THE SITE IS
AT 9396 GREENBACK.
IT'S A 1.1 ACRE SITE ZONED 
GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND IT IS IN 
THE GREENBACK LANE SPECIAL 
PLANNING AREA AND ORANGEVALE 
VISIONS AREAS AS DOWNTOWN.
THE REQUEST IS A USE PERMIT FOR 
A AUTOMOBILE SERVICE USE STATION
WITH A 5,000 FUEL CAN NAPPY, 
3,000 SQUARE FOOT 24 HOUR 
CONVENIENCE STORE AND TALLER 
FUEL STATION ROOF STRUCTURE 
WHICH IS FAIRLY NORMAL FOR NEW 
STATIONS THESE DAYS.
THERE IS A SPECIAL VELTMENT 
PERMIT AROUND SIGNAGE, ALSO VERY
TYPICAL FOR NEW SERVIC STATIONS
AND DEVIATION TO STREET SCAPE 
CROSS SECTION AND A DESIGN 
REVIEW.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND SHOWS 
LAYOUT.
IT'S EASIER TO SEE ON THE NEXT 
SLIDE WHICH IS A COLORED 
LANDSCAPED PLAN.
THERE IS A POTENTIAL FUTURE ROAD
RIGHT OF WAY WIDENING AND THERE 
IS A PATIO WITH THE. 
>> YOU SAY THIS MEETS THAT 
SEASON, OR EXPECTED CONDITION 
THERE AND CHANGE I GUESS THAT 
MEANS SET BACK WOULD BE 
MAINTAINED AT THE FULL WIDTH OF 
WIDENING CORRECT?
SO THERE IS NO COVERING BACK TO 
RECEIVE A SPECIAL CONDITION OF 
ANY SORT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
SAY THAT.
YES.
WE HAVE SPENT TIME WORKING WITH 
APPLY CAN'T ON THE DESIGN SO 
THIS PORTRAYS THE STRUCTURE WITH
SOME LIGHTING STANDARDS GOING 
WITH THE RANCHO STYLE.
SO KEY POINTS ARE PROJECT SITE 
MEETS LOCATION REQUIREMENTS AND 
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE LAND 
USE IS IS COMPATIBLE AND WE 
FOUND IT CONSISTENT WITH A 
GENERAL PLAN AND THERE IS A 
STUDY IDENTIFYING LESS THAN 
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND WE DID 
WANT TO NOTE THERE IS COMMUNITY 
OPPOSITION AND CONCERNS 
EXPRESSED AT THE C PACK MEETING 
AND PACKET IN FRONT OF YOU 
INCLUDES CORRESPONDS WITH 
CONCERNS AND THERE ARE NO 
COMMENTS IN WRITING AND ADVISORY
COUNCIL DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL 
DESPITE CONCERNS EXPRESSED AT 
THE MEETING AND PLANNING 
COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL 
TO THE BOARD.
THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDED 
ACTIONS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
THERE IS ALSO AN ACCOMPANYING 
REQUEST. 
>> THAT CONCLUDES YOUR REPORT?
>> YES. 
>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR FROST. 
>> I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK LEANNE.
THIS PROJECT, I KNOW HAS BEEN A 
LENGTHY, I GUESS THEY'RE ALL 
LENGTHY RIGHT?
BUT I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THIS 
IS PROBABLY THE MOST BEAUTIFUL 
SEVEN:LEVEN YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN 
SACRAMENTO COUNTY.
PART OF THE PROBLEM THE 
COMMUNITY HAD IS THAT THEY 
DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THEY NEEDED 
ANOTHER TIRE STORE OR GAS 
STATION AND WE DID GET A LOT OF 
OPPOSITION.
WE HAVE A LOT OF IMCITY 
COMMERCIAL STATION AND NOT 
ENOUGH INVESTORS WILLING TO COME
IN AND SPEND AND JUST INFUSE 
MONEY AND CAPITAL INTO THAT 
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR SO I'M 
EXCITED TO SUPPORT IT AND MOVE 
APPROVAL.
I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS BUT JUST 
WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR HELPING 
MAKE THIS POSSIBLE. 
>> I WILL SAY IT DID GIVE THE 
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE THE 
IMPETUS TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH 
THE APPLICANT TO DEMAND A VERY 
HIGH QUALITY DESIGN. 
>> THEY WANTED A RESTAURANT AND 
FROM THE OUTSIDE IT LOOKS LIKE A
BEAUTIFUL RESTAURANT.
IT'S A SEVEN-LEVEN, THOUGH.
THANK YOU. 
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENT?
THERE IS A MOTION AND SECOND.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
CORRECT?
>> NO. 
>> WITH THAT PLEASE VOTE. 
>> UNANIMOUS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> FOR 74 THIS IS ORANGEVALE PCN
TO DETERMINE THERE PUBLIC 
NECESSITY COULD WOULD BE SERVED 
TO 7-11 IN ORANGEVALE COMMUNITY.
>> VERY A SHORTER POWER POINT ON
THIS ONE.
SO THIS IS REQUEST FOR A BEER 
AND WINE LICENSE FOR THE PRIOR 
711 AND THIS IS THE ONE MILE 
RADIUS MAP SHOWING LOCATIONS OF 
STORES THAT HAVE BOTH BEER AND 
WINE AND LIQUOR LICENSES.
AND AGAIN, REQUESTING OFF SALE 
BEER AND WINE.
THE NEED IS STORYING TRIGERRED 
BECAUSE SITE IS IN AN O
OVERCONCENTRATED AREA.
CENSUS TRACK PERMITS THREE AND 
THERE ARE CURRENTLY NINE.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL 
ON A THERE ARE PRIOR COMMENTS AS
WELL AS SPEAKERS AT THE MEETING 
AND THIS DOES HAVE CONDITIONS 
YOU SEE RESTRICTING HOURS OF 
SALE AND NORMAL CONDITIONS.
THE WHOLE GAMUT OF THE 
CONDITIONS. 
>> OKAY.
>> THAT CONCLUDES MY 
PRESENTATION. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> SO. 
>> THERE IS A LETTER OF 
OPPOSITION.
THE POINT IS THERE ARE NINE 
BUSINESSES SELLING ALCOHOL IN 
THE SAME AREA AND AGAIN, I WANT 
TO SAY THAT BIGGER PROBLEM IS 
THAT THIS IS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY 
TO HAVE SOMEONE WILLING TO 
INVEST AND INFUSE FUNDS INTO A 
COMMERCIAL CORE DOOR AND THEY 
HAVE A TIME LINE FROM 7 TO 10 
THEY CAN SERVE ALCOHOL SO, THAT 
COULD BRING UP OTHER AREAS SO 
I'M PREPARED TO I'M PREPARED TO 
SUPPORT. 
>> IT THERE IS A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
AND NO UNLICK COMMENT?
CORRECT?
>> NO, OTHER THAN THE ONE 
SUPERVISOR FROST MENTIONED.  
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> ITEM 75 IS THE ON 336 ACRES 
ON 13 # 55 TWIN CITIES ROAD AND.
>> THERE IS A RYE QUEST TO 
EXTEND THE TO ALLOW INTO TOP 
SOIL AT SILVER RANCH THIS, IS A 
VERY LARGE REPORT OVER 3,000 
ACRES IN SOUTHEAST PORTION OF 
THE COUNTY AND SO WE CAN COME 
BACK AND EXAMINE CONDITIONS SO 
THIS WOULD ALLOWING THEM TO GO 
TO YEAR 2035 BEFORE HAVING TO 
COME PACK TO THE BOARD TO EXTEND
IT AGAIN.
AND THERE IS A A RENEWAL IN 2005
SO THIS IS TAKING QUITE A LONG 
TIME TO GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS
AND FEBRUARY, 201 WE DETERMINED 
THIS IS A USE PERMIT TO THE 
BOARD AND SO THERE IS A SLADE ON
TECHNICAL INFORMATION ABOUT BIO 
SOLIDS I'LL LET YOU REVIEW THAT 
AND AND THERE ARE MECHL NICKS 
FOR ENSURING OUR ISSUES ARE 
ADDRESSED IN CENTRAL VALLEY 
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL 
BOARD.
THERE HAS BEEN BEAUTIFUL CO
CONCERNS THERE IS RESPONSE TO 
CONCERNS AND STAFF SPENT A FAIR 
AMOUNT OF TIME REVISING 
CONDITIONS AND UPDATING 
CONDITIONS AND SO THERE ARE PULL
SLIDES AND WE'VE CONDUCTED 
INSPECTIONS AND REDUCING THE 
AMOUNT OF MATERIAL THAT CAN BE 
APPLIED AND -- 
>> CAN I INTERRUPT?
CAN YOU GO BACK OWE PREVIOUS 
SLIDE?
>> SO UNDER WATER QUALITY THAT 
READS LIKE A STATEMENT OF FACT.
IS THAT BEEN?
OR FACT?
>> IS THAT. 
>> THAT WITH A A CONCERN.
AND ONE WE'VE WANTED TO ADDRESS,
NO LAND SPREADING OF BIO SOLIDS 
IF THERE IS HIGH WIND. 
>> WHAT IF YOU'RE EXPECTING 24 
HOURS OF RAIN?
>> I'M NOT SURE BETWEEN USE 
PERMIT OR THE OTHER STATE WATER 
QUALITY PERMITS I'D EXPECT THAT 
THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AS WELL.
AND. 
>>> GROUND WATER MONITORING AND 
CONDITIONS ON SEWEDORS. 
>> WE TO TAKE THIS TO 
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
IN LATE 2019.
THEY HAD COMMENTS ABOUT 
CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN 
INCORPORATED INTO THE PATHAGE 
AND DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
AND THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED WHICH 
IS WHY IT TOOK SO LONG GOING 
THROUGH VARIOUS CONDITIONS AND 
IN 201 RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO A
3-1 VOTE AND THAT IS NO 
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT 
WERE MADE THERE.
I DID WANT TO CORRECT CONDITION 
NUMBER 27 WITH A SPELLING OF ONE
OF THE CREEKS IS HASSLEVILLE 
CREEK.
>> YOU TOOK TIME TO GO THROUGH 
THE PROCESS.
WHY IS THAT?
>> THEY WERE OPERATING AND SO 
WE'RE IN THE SHUTTING THEM DOWN 
WHILE WE WENT THROUGH THE USE 
PERMIT AND THEY DO HAVE A LONG 
TRACK RECORD AND CONCERNS WERE 
STATED AND WE SPENT TIME WE 
WEREN'T PREVENTING THEM FROM 
OPERATING.
>> YOU DID A GOOD JOB IN 
SUMMARIZING AND APPRECIATE STAFF
WORK ON THIS.
AND THERE IS IN SO HOW ARE 
THOSE, HOW IS THAT INFORMATION 
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND IS 
IT REPORTED TO PLANNING 
DEPARTMENT?
AGAIN, THERE IS A REGULATORY 
REGIME THERE BUT SOMEONE WANTED 
TO ACCESS THAT INFORMATION AND 
DO IT EASILY IF THEY INTEND TO 
CONTINUE THIS OR BEFORE THAT IF 
THEY MAKE APPLICATION UNDER 
CIRCUMSTANCES OF TIME AND THERE 
IS A TRUST AND HOW DID LOCAL 
AGENCIES COULD THERE BE ANOTHER 
REPOSITORY FOR THAT INFORMATION?
YOU MAY WANT TO INQUIRE ABOUT 
IT. 
>> I AM AT DISADVANTAGE NOT 
HAVING THE PROJECT MANAGER HERE 
AND I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER 
THAT, STANDING HERE RIGHT NOW.
>> YES. 
>> OKAY.
>> AND WE CAN FIND INFORMATION. 
>> YES.
>> SO IF THERE IS SOME 
INFORMATION THAT AVAILABLE TO 
THE PUBLIC SHOULD THEY INQUIRE 
ABOUT IT. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> SECONDLY AND I APPRECIATE 
SOME OF THE REVISIONS TO 
PREVIOUS AND TO RECEPTORS AS IT 
RELATES TO ODOR, REQUIRES A 
RESPONSE TO 24 HOURS AND WHAT 
THERE IS THERE IS SOME AND THAT 
IS APPLIED AND TAKEN CARE OF.
IS THERE ANY QUICKER RESPONSE 
THAT COULD, AGAIN, IF SO, THE 
RESPONENT TO FIND ODOR AN ISSUE.
IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T HAVE 
ODOR, JUST TRYING TO SEPARATE 
SOME, FROM MY DISTANCE THERE IS 
SOME SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE 
THAT MIGHT BE A RECEPTOR SO IS 
THERE WHAT DIFFERENTS HERE?
>> RIGHT.
>> CONDITION 16 IS ACTRESSING 
ODORS AND IT DOES REQUIRE TO 
CODE ENFORCEMENT POSSIBLY HAVING
INCREASED SET BACKS AND OTHER 
ITEMS SO THAT THE CONDITION THAT
ADDRESSES ODOR SO I BELIEVE IT'S
BEEN BEEFED UP IN THIS VERSION. 
>> IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT HAPPENS.
THEN, YOU KNOW JUST SAYS THAT IS
THE RULE, THE CONTROL AND IF WE 
HAVE COMPLAINTS WE'VE GOT TO 
RESPOND WITHIN 24 HOURS AND TEN 
DAYS TO INVESTIGATE.
AND MOST TIMES, IF NOT ALL 
TIMES, THE PROBLEM IS GONE AND 
SAYS PROPERTY MEASURES MUST BE 
TAKEN TO CODE ENFORCEMENT THERE.
SO WHAT?
THAT MAY OCCUR FROM TIME TO TIME
SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
>> WE'D ASK FOR OPERATIONAL 
CHANGES AND COULD LOOK AT THEM 
IN THE CONTEXT OF EMDs 
PERMITTING IN CONTEXT OF THIS 
USE PERMIT AND CONTEXT OF 
BUSINESS LICENSE AND IF WE'LL BE
WORKING TO AVOID THAT.
>> YES.
JUST PROVIDING SOME, I GUESS 
REASONABLE ASSURANCE TO FOLKS 
WHO MAY BE SENSITIVE TO AND SO 
THE ONE THAT IS APPLYING FOR 
THAT PERMIT TO APPLY AND LAND 
OWNER CAN USE TO SOIL AROUND AND
SUCH.
THE CONDITION SEEMS A LITTLE BIT
NEBULOUS I GUESS.
>> YOU KNOW I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK
AND REPORT BACK TO YOU ON THAT. 
>> OKAY.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> NO NOT FOR ITEM, SORRY.
>> 75.
NO.
WE DO NOT.
>> OKAY.
RIGHT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS BY THE 
BOARD?
IF NOT, ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
>> PREPARED TO MOVE ITEM WITH 
APPROPRIATE ASPECTS.
I ASK IF TWO THINGS ARE PART OF 
THE MOTION TO MAYBE HAVE CLEAR 
UNDERSTANDING OF THE 
DEPARTMENTAL ROLES AS IT RELATES
TO THAT QUESTION I RAISED, ITEM 
16 FOR RESPONSIVENESS AND TO THE
OTHER QUESTION ABOUT MONITORING 
INFORMATION BEING AVAILABLE AT 
SOME, YOU KNOW, EASILY 
ACCESSIBLE LOCATION.
WHAT THAT IS THROUGH WEBSITE 
LOCATIONS. 
>> SECOND.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THERE IS NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, PLEASE, VOTE.
>> ITEM 76 IS ZONING CODE 
REQUEST TO AMENDMENT ZONING CODE
WITH TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS 
RELATED TO CHAPTERS 1, 2.
3, 5, AND 7. 
>> RIGHT.
I HAVE A SHORT POWER POINT ON 
THIS ONE.
SO THIS IS A GROUP OF FIXES THAT
WERE MANY STAFF GENERATED BASED 
ON EXPERIENCE WITH 2015 CODE 
THAT WERE CHALLENGES TO US AS 
WELL AS OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE 
COME UP WITH I GOAL OF 
ADDRESSING A NUMBER OF CONCERNS 
IN DEVELOPMENT CODE SINCE 
ADOPTED IN 2015.
WE'VE CATEGORIZE THAT HAD IN 
FIVE TOPIC AREAS AND ONE IS 
WE'RE NOW CALLING THINGS 
CANNABIS.
HAVING A CONSISTENT TERMINOLOGY.
NEXT CATEGORY IS DEALING WITH A 
NUMBER OF USE CATEGORIES.
AND TO DO WITH DISCONTINUED USES
AND THEN BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE 
THERE ARE EIGHT ITEMS HAVING TO 
DO WITH PRIMARY USES WHERE WE'RE
FIXING VARIOUS USE REGULATIONS 
AND DEFINITIONS DESCRIBED IN 
YOUR BOARD REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE?
AND HAVE ACCESSORY USE TOPICS 
WE'RE REVISING AS WELL AS 
TEMPORARY USE TOPICS. 
>> WE TALKED ABOUT CULTURAL 
ACTIVITIES. 
>> YES. 
>> AND HAVE BEEN ABLE TO 
DETERMINE HOW THAT MIGHT MAKE A 
REFERENCE BUT IN ATHE EVENT 
THERE IS SOMETHING SUPPOSED TO 
BE ADDRESSED.  
>> THERE IS A REFERENCE TO USE 
OF RV VEHICLES, IF NEEDED FOR 
FARM WORKER HOUSING IN THE CODE 
SO WE FELT THIS IS REDUDANT AND 
WE HAVE CHANGE WAS REGARD TO 
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A FAIR 
AMOUNT OF FORMATTING AND TOPICS,
SIX ITEMS, REVISIONS TO VARIOUS 
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS 
EXPLAINED IN THE BOARD PACKAGE 
AND RECORD.
A COUPLE ITEMS RELATED TO STATE 
REGULATIONS.
THESE THEE TOPICS NEEDED TO 
BRING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH 
RECENT STATE CHANGES AND AN ITEM
REQUESTED BY A BOARD MEMBER IN 
OPEN SESSION WHICH IS ALLOWING 
HEM TO HAVE EVENTS. 
>> I JUST WANT TO ESPECIALLY 
THANK YOU FOR HELPING WITH THAT 
AND THAT MATE IT POSSIBLE FOR 
FOLKS TO DO SOME ACTIVITIES THAT
THEY COULDN'T PENCIL OUT BEFORE 
AND SO YOU MADE THEIR DREAMS 
COME THROUGH AND WE APPRECIATE 
IT. 
>> WE DID PROVIDE INFORMATION IN
MARCH AND APRIL.
AND THAT INFORMATION WE PROVIDED
OTHER MATERIALS.
AND IT PROVIDED INFORMATION ON 
OUR WEBSITE.
WE DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED AFTER 
PROVIDING THAT CLARIFYING 
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS IN 
THIS PACKAGE.
AND PLANNING COMMISSION 
RECOMMEND ADD PROVAL.
SO THESE ARE THE STAFF 
RECOMMENDATIONS. 
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU. 
>> HOW ARE THEY MEETING AFTER 
MARCH?
>> YES.
WE'VE BEEN HOLDING PLANNING 
MEETINGS A LOT OF HARD WORK ON 
THE PART OF THE CLERK OF THE 
BOARD STAFF TO THEY'RE BEING 
CONFIRMED BY BY PHONE. 
>> YES.
WELL THAT IS --.  
>> I REMEMBER THAT. 
>> WE'RE USING BLUE JEANS APRIL.
IT STREAMS MEETINGS TO PUBLIC 
CAN PARTICIPATE THAT WAY. 
>> VERY GOOD.
>> AND HAVE SEEN ACTIVE 
PARTICIPATION. 
>> HAD YAM CLERK?
COMMENTS?
>> NO.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED BY SUPERVISOR
NOTTOLIS THERE A SECOND?
SECOND.
PLEASE VOTE. 
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE. 
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, LEANNE.
NOW, FOR MAIN EVENT.
MAYBE AS A REMINDER YOU CAN JUST
KIND OF EXPLAIN HOW WE'RE 
TREATING THIS?
>> YES.
>> SO, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE 
PULLED TO BE COUPLED WITH ITEM 
77.
ITEMS 4, 5, 19, 20, 22, 24.
29, 37, 56, 59.
>> OKAY.
SO IS CLEAR TO THE BOARD WE'D DO
WHAT?
GO ONE BY ONE?
STARTING FROM NUMBER FOUR?
THROUGH EACH OF THESE?
>> OKAY.
SO WHY DON'T WE DO THAT UNLESS 
CEO WANTS IT GENERALLY?
>> THIS IS A PLACE HOLDER AND 
WE'RE WORKING WITH THE VARIOUS 
DEPARTMENTS AND OUR PLAN IS TO 
COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER AND HAVE 
A FULL HEARING.
PACKAGES COME AT YOU.
AND BUDGET AND THREE, POUR DAYS 
WORTH OF PUBLIC HEARING WE'RE 
PLANNING ON HAVING AT THAT 
POINT.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TO, CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENTS 
WHAT NEEDS TO BE FUNDED AND COME
BACK IN SEPTEMBER.
>> THANK YOU.
FOR THAT.
I'LL JUST ADD THAT FOR
I'LL JUST ADD THAT FOR
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
FOR THOSE CAREFULLY WATCHING THE
PROCEEDINGS, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY
VERY NOTICEABLY DIFFERENT THAN
OUR TYPICAL JUNE BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS.
DELIBERATIONS.
ROLLOVER BUDGET MEANS IT IS
STATUS QUO OF THE 2019 BUDGET
MOVING FORWARD.
AND THE REASON WE ARE DOING
THAT, SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO MOST
WHICH IS, WE JUST HAVE SUCH
UNCERTAINTY IN TERMS OF OUR,
ESPECIALLY OUR REVENUE PICTURE
BUT ALSO OUR EXPENDITURE
CONDITION RELATED TO COVID-19.
HE AND HIS EXECUTIVE TEAM WERE
VERY WISE EARLY ON IN THE SPRING
TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND THEREFORE, THAT IS WHY WE
ARE TREATING THIS LITTLE
DIFFERENTLY THIS YEAR.
SUPERVISOR KENNEDY.
>> ACTUALLY, JUST SUMMED UP
EVERYTHING THAT I WAS GOING TO
ASK.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
OKAY.
SO WE WILL START THEN WITH ITEM
4 AND AGAIN, THIS, WE ARE TRYING
TO TREAT THE ITEMS THAT CLERK
READ ON CONCEPT.
WE ACKNOWLEDGED OR ACKNOWLEDGED
SOME CONNECTION WITH THE BROADER
ISSUE OF DELIBERATING AN
APPROVING THE ROLLOVER BUDGET.
ITEM 4 IS THE FISCAL YEAR
2019-20 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ROLL OVER FOR FISCAL 20-21 AND
PROJECTS.
>> ANY CONTEXTUAL TEE UP BY THE
STAFF?
OR --
>> SAME AS PREVIOUS ONE AS I
MENTION AWED VERY GOOD.
SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.
>> THANK YOU, Mr. CHAIR.
FIRST I WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THE
MATERIAL THAT WAS IN THE ACTUAL
ITEM THAT CAME WITH OUR AGENDA
PACKET.
THEN THE CIP BINDER THAT WAS
EARLIER IN THE SPRING THAT WENT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MOST OF THE QUESTIONS WILL COME
AS IT RELATES TO THAT.
BUT IN THE ATTACHMENT THAT WAS
BROUGHT FORWARD, THE ADDITIONS
TO THE CIP, I DID WANT TO KNOW,
I HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH
TRANSPORTATION, THAT THERE WAS
AN ADDITIONAL, ADDITION OF TWO
BRIDGES IN DISTRICT 5 AND FOR
POTENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION AND TO
INCLUDE IN THE 2021 BUDGET.
I WANT TO EXPRESS SOME CONCERN
ABOUT THE KIEFER BOULEVARD
BRIDGE OVER DEER CREEK.
THIS WAS THE FIRST I HAD SEEN OF
THIS AS OF YESTERDAY.
I SPOKE WITH Mr. GIL ABOUT IT.
SPOKE TO Mr. PACKARDY LAST
NIGHT.
WHEN WE HAVE PAYMENT
DETERIORATION TO THE LEVEL WE
DO, THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTY,
CERTAINLY IN DISTRICT 5 AND
ROADS LEADING UP TO THE BRIDGE,
ALTHOUGH, THE KIEFER BIEWM VARD
IN THAT AREA IS ONE OF THE
BETTER PAVED SERVICES.
YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO PUT
FORWARD, BECAUSE WE CAN QUALIFY,
MAYBE IN TOLD FOR $4 MILLION FOR
THIS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT THAT
HASN'T BEEN DEEMED STRUCTURALLY
DEFICIENT.
I'M CONCERNED, BECAUSE, ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT HE WILL MAKE US
DO, BUILD US TO THE 200 YEAR
ELEVATION WHICH MEANS A BRIDGE
THAT IS INFREQUENTLY, BUT TIME
TO TIME, WITH HIGH WATER IN DEER
CREEK, DOESN'T PASS THE WATER
UNDERNEATH IT.
IT CAN BE 4-5 FEET.
SOMETIMES IT MAKES THE NEWS.
SOMETIME DRIVES A CAR IN THE
WATER AND HAS TO BE RESCUED.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME, THAT THE
MESSAGE WE SEND, EVEN THOUGH
THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE CHASIN
AFTER SB1 MONIES IN SOME SILO,
THAT FOR $4 MILLION, THAT WOULD
PUT A BRIDGE, PROBABLY PUT IT
6-8 FEET IN THE AIR.
NOT TRYING TO BE EXAGETIVE AT
ALL.
WE HAVE QUIET OAK TREE CANOPY
AND CERTAINLY THE TRAFFIC ON
KIEFER BOULEVARD, MAKING THAT A
SNEAK STREET THROUGH THE RURAL
AREAS TO GET TO AND FROM, YOU
KNOW, TOWN.
I JUST, I AM REALLY CONCERNED,
YOU KNOW.
I'M PREPARED TO ALLOW TO STAY
IN.
IF THEY WANT TO EXPLORE IT.
YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN PUT NEW BOX
COVER IN THERE, FOR
$50,000-$100,000, MAYBE ON OUR
DIME, RATHER SPEND $4 MILLION
FOR A BRIDGE THAT WON'T BE BUILT
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS BUT COULD
BE VERY EXCESSIVE IN THAT
LOCATION I JUST WANTED TO NOTE
THAT, I KNOW THAT WE TALKED
ABOUT IT.
I TALKED TO RON.
I'M WILLING TO LEAVE IT IN TO
EXPLORE IT.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF
MONEY, SO DEEP INTO IT, SPENT
HALF A MILLION BUCKS, BUT NOW,
CAN'T CLAIM FROM THE STATE IF WE
DON'T BUILD THIS THING.
WE WANTED TO DULY NOTED, WE
NOTED THAT YESTERDAY IN OUR
CONVERSATION.
SO THEN I WANTED TO GO TO THE
DOCUMENT, IF I COULD FOR
BRIEFLY, FOR A MOMENT OR TWO.
AND ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
IN THE COUNTY BUILDINGS AND
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION, WHERE
WOULD I FIND MATTER COMMUNITY
CAMPUS?
BUILDINGS?
I HAVE SEARCHED BUT MAYBE I HAVE
OVERLOOKED IT.
>> MAY I ASK WERE YOU LOOKING IN
THE, JUST IN THE BOARD AGENDA
ITEM OR WERE YOU --
>> RIGHT.
>> SO THE BOARD AGENDA ITEM
DOESN'T CONTAIN THE FULL LIST OF
PROJECTS.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THIS, WE
ARE REALLY ROLLING OVER THE
PROJECTS IN THE BUDGET AMOUNT
FROM THE FISCAL 1920CIP.
>> I THINK THAT HE IS ASKING
DIFFERENT.
I BELIEVE IF IT IS NOT UNDER
GENERAL SERVICES, IF IT IS NOT
THERE, WE WILL PUT IT IN THERE.
THAT IS WHERE IT WILL BELONG.
>> THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT.
AGAIN, I DIDN'T WANT TO SAY IT
IS NOT IN THERE.
I COULDN'T FIND IT.
NOT IN THERE.
THE QUESTION, GENERAL SERVICES.
>> I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF
ME.
IF IT IS NOT THERE WHEN WE COME
BACK IN SEPTEMBER, WE'LL HAVE IT
THEN.
>> IT IS IMPORTANT.
OTHERWISE, AN ORPHAN ITEM,
NOBODY KIND OF OWNS IT, SO TO
SPEAK.
I KNOW, HAVING TO TALK WITH ANNE
AND OTHERS THAT THERE IS, YOU
KNOW, ASSESSMENT OF THE
FACILITY'S UPDATE GOING ON AS WE
DO WITH A LOT OF THE FACILITIES.
IF IT EVER GETS ON A LIST, AT
LEAST UP FOR SOME CONSIDERATION
OF SOME FUTURE DATE.
I WANTED TO BE SURE, AGAIN, CALL
IF IN THERE, CERTAINLY KNOW WHAT
PAGE.
TO YOUR POINT --
>> WE'LL MAKE SURE.
>> OKAY.
SO THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE, IS
ABOUT, IT GOES TO SOME OF THE
COMMENTARY THAT WE HEARD TODAY
FROM FOLKS.
BUT IN 2021, WE HAD FOR THE MAIN
JAIL ANNEX HERE, PAGE 142, $8
MILLION FROM THE PRIOR YEAR.
THIS BUDGET, $3.2 MILLION.
WE HAVEN'T EXPENDED DOLLARS ON
THE CONTRACT THAT WE AWARDED IN
APRIL WHICH WAS GOING TO BE
CARRIED THROUGH NEXT YEAR WITH
THE PLANNING DESIGN AND SO
FORTH.
WHY ARE WE PUTTING ANOTHER $3.2
MILLION INTO SOMETHING THAT WE
HAVE YET TO DETERMINE ON WHAT WE
ARE GOING TO DO.
WHAT IT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE
AND SO FORTH.
$3.2 MILLION FOR THIS YEAR.
WHICH WOULD BE APPROVED IF WE
APPROVE THIS DOCUMENT.
$3.2 MILLION ANTICIPATED FOR
21-22.
AND $1.6 MILLION FOR THE ENSUING
YEAR.
AGAIN, SOME OF THAT STUFF SHOULD
CHANGE.
I'M CURIOUS TO WHY, YOU KNOW,
WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT SOME OF
THE BUDGET ISSUES WE ARE, WE
HAVEN'T SPENT THE MONEY THAT WE
ALLOCATED A YEAR AGO.
WE JUST STARTED ON THAT.
THAT IS MY QUESTION.
>> SO MAY I, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I WANT TO CLARIFY ON THIS.
>> EXCUSE ME.
EXCUSE ME.
BRING THE MICROPHONES DOWN.
TO HEAR YOU.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT TO
CLARIFY IS THAT WHILE YOU TOOK A
LOOK AT THE PLAN, THE BOOK AND
PASS ALONG TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, WE ARE PLANNING TO
COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER WITH A
FULL REVISED BOOK AS WELL.
THAT, THAT WILL TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION, SOME OF THE
BUDGET IMPACTS, COME ABOUT,
BECAUSE OF THE REDUCED REVENUES.
SO WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING IS
TAKING LAST YEAR'S ROLLING OVER
THE BUDGET AMOUNT AND WHAT WE
HAVE IDENTIFIED AS SPECIFICALLY
THOSE PROJECTS THAT HAVE A NEED
TO MOVE FORWARD PRIOR TO THE
SEPTEMBER APPROVAL OF THE CIP.
>> DOES THAT HELP SUPERVISOR
NOTTOLI?
>> IS THAT WHAT IS INCLUDED IN,
WELL, THAT EXACTLY WHAT THAT
SAID HERE EITHER.
IT SAYS NEW PARTY STARTED BEFORE
OCTOBER.
THAT WAS THE ATTACHED LIST HERE.
>> SO THE ATTACHED LIST IS NEW
CIP PROJECTS NOT IN THE 1920CIP
PLAN.
THESE ARE NEW PROJECTS THAT
WOULD NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE
BOARD IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THEM PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF
THE FULL REVISED CIP PLAN IN
SEPTEMBER.
>> SO WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY,
IN A PLACE HOLDER BUDGET, ARE WE
PUTTING PLACE HOLDER IN FOR $3.2
MILLION FOR MAIN JAIL ANNEX OR
NOT?
>> SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT ARE INCLUDED
IN THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
PORTION OF THE BOARD REPORT,
THESE ARE THE DOLLAR FIGURES
THAT MIRROR THE BUDGET THAT WAS
APPROVED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1920.
AND YOU ARE AUTHORIZING THAT
APPROPRIATION LEVEL BUT THE ONLY
NEW PROJECTS, BUT THE NEW
PROJECTS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE
BEING CARRIED, ARE BEING BROUGHT
FORWARD ALONG WITH THE APPROVAL
OF THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION.
>> OKAY.
MAYBE I'M BEING DENSE ON THIS,
SO IF I'M LOOKING, I'LL TAKE
PAGE 142, ANY OF THESE PAGES,
HAVE YOU A COLUMN THAT SAYS
FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 AND YOU
HAVE, YOU KNOW, A BUILDING FOR
ADA UPGRADES.
OR JOHN PRICE ATTORNEY BUILDING.
THOSE AMOUNTS ARE NOT, WE ARE
NOT FIXING THOSE AMOUNTS FOR
PURPOSES OF BUDGETING?
THOSE COLUMNS ARE ALL ZEROED
OUT?
ARE WE PUTTING PLACE HOLDER
NUMBERS IN THERE THAT WILL THEN
BE VISITED IN SOME PERMANENCY IN
SEPTEMBER?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHICH DOCUMENT
YOU ARE LOOKING AT.
ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE 1920CIP?
>> 82 IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> NO DO NOT LOOK AT 2021.
>> THANKS.
TELLING ME.
>> I KNOW.
THAT IS WHAT IS CONFUSING.
>> BEFORE YOU SAY THIS, THERE IS
NO 2021CIP.
THERE IS NO BOOK WE HAVE
PRODUCED.
ALL WE PRODUCED IS A SET --
>> YOU HAVE A PRINTOFF RIGHT
HERE.
>> THAT IS WHAT WE BROUGHT TO
YOU BEFORE.
THAT WE ASK BER -- PERMISSION TO
TAKE THAT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
WE'VE DONE THAT.
UNDER THE NORMAL PROCESS, WE
BROUGHT THAT TO THE NORMAL
PROCESS, AND SAID, BOARD, HERE
IS, WITH THE PLANNING INPUT, CAN
WE GO FORTH WITH IT?
WE HAVE NOT FINISHED THAT
PROCESS.
THAT IS STILL GOING THROUGH.
WHAT WE ARE ASKING TODAY, WAS
OUR GOAL OVER BUDGET?
THAT IS WHAT HE IS GOING TO
ADDRESS TO, WHAT FUNDING WE ARE
ASKING FOR.
>> WE ARE TRADING THE CIP,
ESSENTIALLY LIKE A BUDGET.
ROLLOVER BUDGET.
ROLLING OVER THE 1920CIP WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE FEW ITEMS
THAT WERE NOT IN THE 1920CIP AND
NEED TO START PRIOR TO
SEPTEMBER.
AND THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGE FROM
1920.
WE REALIZE IT IS JUST, IT IS
JUST A, IT IS JUST A PLACE
HOLDER CIP.
IT IS NOT THE NEW CIP THAT WILL
ACTUALLY BE IN PLACE FOR THE
BULK OF 2021, THAT WILL BE
COMING TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER.
ALONG WITH THE REVISED
RECOMMENDED BUDGET THAT WILL
INCLUDE THE, SORT OF THE REAL
BUDGET FOR 2021.
THAT CLEAR?
>> I THINK.
OKAY.
SO JUST, WHERE WE ARE, 1920,
THIS POINT IN TIME.
>> YES, PLACE HOLDER.
YES.
>> THE PROJECTS ADDED, ARE THE
AMERICAN RIVER PARKWAY, PICNIC
SHELTERS AND THE RIVER RANCH,
ONLY TWO ADDED?
WHAT IS ADDED?
WHAT ARE WE ASKED TO APPROVE
TODAY?
I'M SORRY.
>> SO THE LIST OF PROJECTS,
THERE ARE PROJECTS --
>> YOU HAVE TO GO ON THE
MICROPHONE.
>> SORRY.
EXCUSE ME.
>> YOU ARE TOO CLOSE.
>> THERE ARE PROJECTS FOR THE
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT.
>> YES.
>> THERE ARE PROJECTS FOREMATTER
AIRPORT, EACH OF THOSE IN THE
EXHIBIT AS THE ATTACHMENT TO THE
BOARD ITEM.
THERE ARE COUNTY BUILDINGS.
THERE IS ONE FOR COUNTY
BUILDINGS AND THEN THE PROJECTS
FOR TRANSPORTATION AS WELL.
>> SO WE ARE DOING BT COLLINS TO
YOUTH DETENTION CENTER, SPENDING
$2 MILLION, $3.6 MILLION TO
REPLACE A PERSONAL ALARM DEVICE
SYSTEM.
IS THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING?
DOING TODAY?
>> IS THAT WHAT WE HAD IN 19-20?
>> ARE WE APPROVING TODAY?
>> THIS IS A NEW PROJECT THAT IS
COMING FORWARD.
PLAN IS TO START THE PROJECT IN
SEPTEMBER.
INCLUDING IN THE --
>> TREATING THE 19-20CIP AS
15-MONTH BUDGET?
>> CORRECT.
>> THOSE WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO
ADD STUFF, A COUPLE OF PROJECTS
COLLIN WENT THROUGH.
>> DIFFERENT WAY TO GET A BETTER
GRASP ON IT SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI,
ASK, HOW DO YOU ENVISION THE
FORMAT THAT YOU BRING THIS BACK
FOR US IN FINAL IN SEPTEMBER?
>> WHAT WE WILL DO, WE WILL GO
THROUGH WITH OUR BUDGET PROCESS
IF THE CIP PROJECT STAY OR NOT.
WHAT WILL WE FUND?
NOT GOING TO FUND?
REALIZING WE TOOK SOMETHING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, A
COUPLE OF THE PROJECTS THAT
COLLIN AND BRITT TALKED ABOUT,
WE FULLY ANTICIPATE TO PUT THOSE
BACK IN THERE AND SAY, WE WOULD
LIKE TO CONTINUE THE FUNDING FOR
IT.
THE COMMENT THAT SUPERVISOR
NOTTOLI MADE ON THE KIEFER
BOULEVARD BRIDGE IS SOMETHING
THAT WE WILL LOOK AT.
DOES IT COME IN OR OUT?
WE HAVE A NEW BOOK THAT WILL
SHOW YOU ALL OF THE PROJECTS FOR
HE, FOR WE WANT FOR 20-21.
>> AASSUME, PLENTY OF
OPPORTUNITY ONCE THE BOARD
RETURNS FROM SUMMER RECESS AND
THE TIME THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE,
YOU KNOW, A WEEK AWAY FROM OUR
FINAL BUDGET HEARINGS IN
SEPTEMBER THAT THERE ARE PLENTY
OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ONE ON ONE
BRIEFINGS, MEETINGS,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR BOARD MEMBERS
AND OUR CHIEFS TO EXPRESS TO
YOU, UNDERSCORE, WHAT CAPITAL
PROJECTS IN RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS
OR COUNTY WIDE, AGAIN, WE HAVE
SOME SENSE OF PRIORITY FOR, SO
IT FINDS IT WAY, AT LEAST INTO
THE DISCUSSION ABOUT FINALIZING
THE CIP.
>> CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
>> OKAY.
THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THAT.
THAT IS IMPORTANT POINT.
THANK YOU.
WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE
PARTICULAR NEEDS SUPERVISOR
NOTTOLI, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
THE JUNE HARVEY ROOF.
KEEP LOOKING AT THAT.
WE HAD THE STRUCTURE IN
DISCOVERY, WE FOUND A WAY TO GET
THAT IN THERE.
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE, THAT
IS IN THERE, LET US KNOW AS WE
ARE PREPARING.
>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A
METHAMPHETAMINE CLINIC.
>> YES.
>> IF IT IS --
>> YES, IT IS OKAY.
UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHAT WE ARE
TAKING ACTION HERE TODAY.
I GUESS THE POINT, I WANT TO
POINT OUT, I KNOW YOU RESPONDED
AFTER WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE CIP IT WENT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT RELATES TO, PARKS BUDGET,
UNFUNDED, THERE ARE $79 MILLION
IN UNFUNDED PROJECTS.
THERE IS ZERO, STILL ZERO, YOU
HAVEN'T BROUGHT, YET TO BE
DOCUMENTED.
IN THAT DRAFT, IT MAY NOT BE
WHAT IS GOING TO BE IN SEPTEMBER
BUT WE HAVE ZERO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT SIZE GRANTS AND
MONEY DEDICATED FROM MEASURE A,
BIKE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS.
$12 MILLION IN UNFUNDED LIBRARY
LIBRARYS.
MY CONCERN, CONTRAST ABOUT $54.2
MILLION IN EITHER OUR TRIP C OR
MAIN JAIL PROJECTS, SOME OF
THOSE THAT WERE BUDGET FORD THE
PAST YEAR, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND
HOW THEY GET TO BE A PRIORITY.
THE BIGGEST CONTRAST FOR ME, AS
A BOARD MEMBER, AND FOR, YOU
KNOW, OUR FULL CONSIDERATION IS
THAT THE CIP, HAS NOTHING, THIS
IS BEFORE WE HAD THE PANDEMIC
AND BEFORE WE HAD THE FISCAL
CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE NOW.
HOW IN A COUNTY THIS SIZE, WE
PUT ZERO INTO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT.
I'M NOT DISCOUNTING MAINTENANCE
OR GETTING SOME MONEY FORCE A
PARTICULAR PROJECT.
WE HAVE ZERO FOR THE NEXT FIVE
YEARS.
WE HAD THAT IN, BEFORE THE
PANDEMIC.
>> JUST TO KIND OF EXASPERATE
THE POINT, IT HAS BEEN ZERO
SINCE 2004.
>> YES.
>> THIS IS NOT AN OCCURRENCE
THAT JUST HAPPENED NOW.
WE COULD NOT.
I COULD NOT AGREE MORE WITH YOU.
THIS COUNTY HAS NOT PUT MONEY IN
IT.
BECAUSE OUR FINANCIAL
WHEREWITHAL HAS NEVER BEEN
THERE.
BEFORE THE PANDEMIC HIT, WE ARE
LOOKING AT IT CLOSELY.
WE ARE WORKING AT A LIBRARY
MASTER PLAN AND THE PANDEMIC
TOOK US OFF COURSE ON THAT.
WHAT DO WE NEED TO INVEST BACK
IN THE COMMUNITY AND A LOT OF
THAT MONEY IS NOT THERE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO REEMPHASIZE
THAT AS WE GO BACK IN OUR
HISTORY, WE LOOK AT IT.
WE HAVE NOT MADE INVESTMENTS
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE MADE, SHOULD
HAVE, COULD HAVE, ALWAYS LOOK AT
IT THAT WAY.
HINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS 2020.
WE HAVE NOT PUT MONEY IN THE
LIBRARY.
WE HAVE NOT PUT MONEY IN PARKS.
WE ACTUALLY WENT THE OTHER WAY
ON PARKS.
WE EXCLUDED THEM FROM ANY WAY
FOR THEM TO GET ANY PARKS BUILT
AND WE STRIPPED THAT OUT OF
THAT.
BECAUSE AT THAT TIME, I'M NOT
TRYING TO SECOND GUESS WHAT THAT
DIRECTOR'S DECISION WAS.
HE CRIPPLED US.
IT IS GOING TO TAKE US SOME
TIME, SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.
I AGREE WITH YOU.
WE HAD A GLIMMER OF HOPE BEFORE
THE PANDEMIC HIT THAT THERE
MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN
DO ON IT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE ARE
NOT GOING TO DO IT.
WE ARE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THAT.
THAT IS WHY WE CREATED THE LIST.
>> RIGHT.
>> THAT IS WHY WE WENT THROUGH
PARKS AND SAID, WE HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING WITH IT.
THE ONE OFF SITUATION WE HAD,
SUPERVISOR SERNA'S DISTRICT, WE
WERE FORTUNATE WE GOT A GRANT TO
DO IT.
OTHERWISE, WE WOULD BE COMPETING
WHAT WE NEED.
>> WE HAD TO FIGHT TOOTH AND
NAIL TO GET THAT.
>> RIGHT.
TOTALLY.
COLLIN, MYSELF, THE WHOLE
EXECUTIVE, WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE
TO, THIS IS A LONG TERM THING
FOR US.
THIS IS GOING TO TAKE US 5-10
YEARS TO JUST GET THIS BACK SO
YOU HAVE THAT ISSUE GOING ON.
THEN THE CIP, THE OTHER ONE THAT
WE ARE VERY DILIGENTLY AWARE OF,
THE AGE OF OUR FAWR --
FACILITIES.
MOST OF THE FACILITIES BUILT IN
THE '70s.
OTHER DAY, WE WERE HAVING A
TELEPHONE MEET, A COUPLE OF
FOLKS THAT WERE NOT BORN IN THE
70s.
THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA HOW OLD
WE FELT AT THAT POINT.
SO THERE IS THAT ISSUE THAT IS
LOOMING ON US.
WE HAVE PARKS, WE HAVE LIBRARY,
AND WE HAVE COUNTY FACILITIES
AND US COLLECTIVELY, WE HAVE TO
KEEP THIS IN FRONT OF US.
AND START CHIPPING AWAY AT SOME
OF THESE THINGS TO BRING THESE
FACILITIES ON-LINE BE IT THE
METH CLINIC, OTHER ISSUES
WORKING ON.
I THINK WHAT HAPPENS NOW,
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK
WHAT HAPPENS IS, EVERY TIME WE
HAVE A CHALLENGE IN OUR NATIONAL
LOCAL STATE ECONOMIES, THIS IS
ONE OF THE FIRST TO KIND OF GET
PUSHED ASIDE.
THAT IS CUMULATIVE WHEN YOU HAVE
A GREAT RECESSION.
AND YOU ARE ON THE CUSP OF, YOU
KNOW, THE NEXT YEAR WE ARE GOING
TO START INVESTING IN THE CIP TO
FINALLY COME BACK FROM THE GREAT
RECESSION.
THEN YOU HAVE THIS ONCE EVERY
100 YEAR PANDEMIC AND THEN, WHAT
I AM HOPEFUL, THAT WE DON'T LOSE
SIGHT OF THE FACT, WE DON'T WANT
TO GET SO BEHIND IN THE 8-BALL
HERE, WE CAN NEVER EVEN DREAM
OF, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE AUDACITY
TO THINK THAT WE COULD EVER
ENHANCE THE CIP INVESTMENTS THAT
NEED TO BE MADE TO YOUR POINT
ABOUT THE AGE OF OUR FACILITIES.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THAT
UNFUNDED, SOME OF IT IS JUST TO
KEEP THAT IN FRONT OF US.
WE NEED TO HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF
US.
>> IF I COULD, YOU RESPOND TO,
AFTER WE HAD DISCUSSION IN
MARCH, WHENEVER IT WAS.
LATE FEBRUARY OR MARCH.
ON THE CIP THAT WE COULDN'T
INCLUDE PARKS, BECAUSE A MILLION
DOLLAR BUY-IN?
THAT IS WHY.
THEY HAVEN'T CONTRIBUTED TO THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING.
>> THERE WAS 2% THAT GOT TAKEN
OUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
AVAILABLE TO GO BACK INTO
FACILITIES?
SO PART OF THE DISCUSSION BEFORE
WE GOT HIT WITH THE PANDEMIC, WE
ARE LOOKING AT THE BUDGET, WHAT
WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE IF WE GOT
THEM BACK AT SOME LEVEL
CONTRIBUTION COMING IN?
IT SAID, CALL ON THE GENERAL
FUND.
BUT WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT, DO WE GO ALL IN ONE YEAR?
DO WE STAGGER IT IN?
DO WE GET THAT IN?
STILL LOOKING AT THAT.
A LOT OF THE OPTIONS ARE VERY
NARROW FOR US RIGHT NOW.
>> OKAY.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
IT IS THE CONVERSATION THAT
SERNA, LOOKING FORWARD TO AT
LEAST HAVING.
AT LEAST IT KEEPS THE ATTENTION,
TO ME, VERY IMPORTANT THING.
>> I WOULD, IF IT WORKS THE WAY
THAT I'M HOPING IT IS WORKING
AND COLLECTIVELY THINKING ABOUT
IT, WE DO WANT TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION WITH THE BOARD
ABOUT, WE DO THINK THAT IT IS A
SHORT TERM MEDIUM AND LONG TERM.
WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR GOAL SET UP,
REALIZING TO YOUR POINT, THAT WE
MIGHT NOT BE GETTING TO EVERY
ONE OF THOSE.
WE HAVE TO HAVE AN IDEA WHAT IS
IT WE ARE SHOOTING FOR ON THIS?
KEEP THAT IN FRONT OF US.
I WANT TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION.
THAT IS GOING TO BE A LONG
PROCESS FOR US.
>> LIKE A 2, 5 AND 10 YEAR.
>> YEP.
>> OKAY.
SUPERVISOR KENNEDY.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AS SUPERVISOR SERNA, JUST MADE
IT UNDER THAT 1970s LINE.
[ LAUGHTER ]
I DO WANT TO MAKE A SUGGESTION
THAT BEFORE SEPTEMBER, WHEN WE
COME BACK AND WE HAVE THE BUDGET
TALKS, THAT FOR FULL
TRANSPARENCY, FOR THE PUBLIC AS
WELL AS THE FIVE OF US, THAT WE
HAVE MAYBE THREE COLUMNS.
AND SHOW WHAT WE HAVE SPENT
BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC.
I'M SURE THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP
TRACK OF THOSE NUMBERS FOR THE
CARES ACT ANYWAY.
SO WHAT WE HAVE SPENT BECAUSE OF
THE PANDEMIC, WHAT IT HAS COST
US, AND WHAT WE RECOUP FOR THE
CARES ACT, REAL CLEAR, THOSE
NUMBERS WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS?
>> EXPLANATION, MR. CHAIR, I
WOULD MOVE THE ITEM WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WILL BE
COMING BACK WITH A,
SIGNIFICANTLY, SUPERVISED
DOCUMENT.
>> ROBUST DISCUSSION.
>> ROBUST DISCUSSION.
AND HOPEFULLY A ROOF ON HARVEY
SCHOOL.
>> THAT IS EDITORIAL COMMENT.
>> I MOVE THE ITEM.
>> YES.
I'M SORRY.
BECAUSE, MY CONFLICT ON THIS, I
HAVE TO MOVE THE ITEM.
>> I'M SORRY.
>> DEFERRED.
>> SLIDE.
>> REVERSED ENGINEERING.
>> IT IS.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT I'M
ACCUSED FROM VOTING ON THE
PROJECTS ON THE SCREEN.
DUE TO POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST.
I WOULD MOVE THAT ITEM, EXCEPT
THESE.
>> SECOND.
>> MOTION BY SUPERVISOR PETERS
AND SECOND BY SUPERVISOR
NOTTOLI.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
AND THEN WE'LL BALLOTS.
>> CHAIR WILL SECOND.
MOVED BY NOTTOLI.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> ONE SECOND.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
PLEASE VOTE.
MISS PETERS, WILL YOU PLEASE
VOTE.
>> OH, I THOUGHT I DID.
>> OKAY.
THE MOTION CARRIES WITH
SUPERVISOR PETERS RECUSING.
>> VERY GOOD.
OKAY.
ITEM 5.
>> OKAY.
ITEM 5 IS THE APPROVAL OF
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTS FOR VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
>> Mr. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD, BRET FERGUSON, COUNTY
CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER.
AS YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR, WE ASK
THE BOARD TO APPROVE YEAR END
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE SURE
THAT DEPARTMENTS DON'T EXCEED
THEIR APPROPRIATION AND ADDRESS
OTHER CURRENT AND CURRENT YEAR
FISCAL ISSUES.
THIS YEAR WE ARE RECOMMENDING
ADJUSTMENTS TO TEN BUDGET UNITS
INCLUDING CANCELING $15.2
MILLION IN SEMI DISCRETIONARY
RESTRICTED FUND RESERVES TO
MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF POTENTIAL
REALIGNMENT AND PROPOSITION 172
REVENUE REDUCTIONS.
INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS AND
THE CLERK RECORDER FEES
RESTRICTED FUND OFFSET BY
EQUIVALENT CANCELLATION TO
REQUEST BUDGETING ERROR,
BASICALLY GOT BUDGETED AS
REVENUE WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
TO THE CLERK RECORDED DEPARTMENT
WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
BUDGETED AS REVENUE TO THE
RESTRICTED FUND.
AND REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CLERK
RECORDER DEPARTMENT.
AND THEN TRANSFERRING
APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN OBJECTS
IN VARIOUS BUDGET UNITS.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THE REASON I WANTED TO AT LEAST
CALL ATTENTION TO THIS IS THAT
UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU ARE
PROPOSING HERE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN
TO FREE UP AT LEAST THE DOLLARS
THAT HAVE BEEN IN SEMI
DISCRETIONARY RESERVES TO ALLOW
SOME FLEXIBILITY AS YOU CONTINUE
TO BUDGET AND COME BACK TO US IN
SEPTEMBER.
BUT I GUESS WHAT I WANTED TO
EXPRESS AND RELATE TO SOME OF
THE ITEMS THAT I CALLED OUT
LATER ON IS, AS PARTICULARLY AS
RELATES TO REALIGNMENT, AGAIN,
THOSE WERE STATE COMMITMENTS.
AND AGAIN, THE STATE HAS BEEN
GOING THROUGH THE BUDGETARY
PROJECT.
WE WEIGHED IN.
NAV AND OTHERS HAVE HAD THEIR
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATES WEIGHING
IN ON THAT.
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IF
REALIGNMENT IS REALIGNED AND WE
GET LESS, EITHER WHAT WE
ANTICIPATE AS BEING LESS OR MORE
THAN THAT, THAT IT HAS BEEN AN
APPROACH WHERE WE WOULD BACK
FILL BEHIND THAT.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS, PARTICULARLY
IN THE 1991 REALIGNMENT, WHICH
IS LARGELY SOCIAL SERVICES, BUT
IT COULD BE IN THE AREA OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT AS WELL WITH THE
2011.
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE SEE,
HAVE SEEN IN YEARS PAST, I WON'T
PREJUDGE WHAT YOU WILL BRING TO
US.
IS THAT PROGRAMS GET CUT
SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE THEY WERE
TIED TO REALIGNMENT.
SO IF YOU COULD HELP ME
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE THINKING
WILL BE THERE, YOU KNOW.
AGAIN, YOU HAVE HAD SOME
DIRECTION BY THE BOARD, RELATIVE
TO, YOU KNOW, HOW THINGS LINE
UP.
RELATIVE TO SHORTFALLS AND SO
FORTH AND SOME PREVIOUS BOARD
DECISIONS.
I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO --
>> SO, SO, ACTUALLY, IN RECENT
YEARS, WE HAVE NOT TAKEN THE
FIRM POSITION THAT WE DO NOT
BACK FILL REDUCTIONS IN
REALIGNMENT REVENUE.
MOSTLY BECAUSE OVER THE YEARS WE
HAVE SORT OF INTERMIXED
REALIGNMENT AND PROP 172 WITH
NET COUNTY COST IN SUCH A WAY,
THAT IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO DO
THAT.
BECAUSE OF THE CRITICAL NATURE
OF THE PROGRAMS WE OBVIOUSLY
LOOK AT THAT CAREFULLY.
WE DON'T HAVE A FLAT, IN THE WAY
THAT WE DO, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH
CATEGORICAL REVENUE, GRANT
REVENUE OR THE VARIOUS
CATEGORICAL FUNDING REVENUES WE
GET FROM THE STATE OR FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR VARIOUS OR STATE
PROGRAMS.
NATURE OF THE SEMI REVENUE,
FLEXIBILITY AND HOW YOU USE THAT
BETWEEN PROGRAMS AND WE DON'T,
WE DON'T, WE HAVE NOT ADHERED TO
A STRICT REDUCTION SCENARIO.
BUT OBVIOUSLY, REDUCTIONS IN
REALIGNMENT REVENUE ONCE BOTH 91
AND 2011 AND 172 REVENUE WHICH
IS MOSTLY SALES TAX AS YOU KNOW,
WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT ON THE BUDGET.
THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
WE ARE GRAPPLING WITH AS WE PUT
TOGETHER A BUDGET FOR SEPTEMBER.
>> SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING TO THE
STATE IS FOR THEM TO USE GENERAL
FUND ON THE REALIGNED PROGRAMS.
BECAUSE TO BRET'S POINT, A LOT
OF THE PROGRAMS ARE SO CRITICAL
OUT IN OUR COMMUNITY, THAT IF
YOU GO SOLELY BY REALIGNMENT,
YOU WILL BE MAKING BIG
REDUCTIONS.
>> YEAH.
>> THAT IS THE POINT THAT WE
HAVE BEEN MAKING THE STATE,
STATE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE
ASSEMBLY IS CONSTITUTIONALLY MET
WITH CONSTITUTION, STILL IN
CONSTITUTION WITH THE GOVERNOR.
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THE
TRIGGERS ARE, FEDERAL MONEY
COMES IN.
THAT IS OUR MINDSET THAT WE ARE
GOING INTO THIS.
THAT IF IT IS ABSOLUTELY
REALIGNED AND WE HAVE NO OTHER
WAY TO DO IT, WE WILL LOOK AT
THAT DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR
REDUCTION.
WHAT WE DID IN 2009-10 WE
LEARNED A LOT OUT OF THAT, THAT
WE WERE TAKING A LOT OF THINGS
OUT UNDER THAT PHILOSOPHY AND WE
SOFTEN THAT A LITTLE BIT.
IF THERE IS A WAY TO LEVERAGE,
DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, LET'S
KEEP THE PROGRAMS, LET'S KEEP
LEVERAGING IT AND THE STATE HAS
BEEN ACCEPTING OF THAT WITH US.
THEY HAVE BEEN EQUAL PARTNERS
WITH IT ON US TOO.
>> WELL, I JUST, WOULD EXECHO
WHAT YOU BOTH TOUCHED ON.
THAT IS, THAT THOSE REALIGNMENT
MONIES AS 2124, REALIGNMENT,
SOCIAL SERVICES, THAT GO ACROSS
A VAST RANGE OF SERVICES TO, YOU
KNOW, PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY,
HERE IN NEED, YOU KNOW, GOOD
PORTION OF THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME
OF THAT IS DEDICATED DOLLARS
FLOWING THROUGH MENTAL HEALTH
AND/OR PUBLIC HEALTH STREAMS.
BUT, GOOD DEAL IS REALIGNMENT
AND HELPS TOEWS FILL IN.
THOSE ARE COMMUNITY CONTRACTS,
WHEREAS OUR PARTNERS IN THE
COMMUNITY, HELP US PROVIDE THE
SERVICES.
AGAIN GOING BACK TO 9, 10, 8, 9,
10, WHEN WE HAD TO CUT THOSE
CONTRACTS FIRST, UNDER 71J.
AND, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE EVER
GOT TO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, COUNTY WORKFORCE AND SO
FORTH, I MEAN, WE ARE NOT THERE
AT THIS JUNCTURE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE.
BUT I GUESS I WOULD, I WAS
CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT
THIS WAS SAYING HERE.
THIS WAS HAD A LITTLE MORE
DETAIL THAN ITEM 77.
THIS WAS THE APPROPRIATIONS
ADJUSTMENT WHICH, YOU KNOW, IS
WELL APPROPRIATE.
ONE THING THAT DOESN'T BODE WELL
EITHER IS THE, THE ENDING FUND
BALANCE, THE PROJECTS,
BASICALLY, CUT BY TWO-THIRDS
FROM WHAT WE BUDGETED A YEAR
AGO.
>> IF I COULD INTERJECT, THIS IS
AS OF RIGHT NOW, THAT IS THE
NATURE OF THE UNCERTAINTY.
WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE ARE
RECOMMENDING TODAY, BECAUSE WE
NEED TO CLOSE OUR BOOKS.
BUT THERE MIGHT BE, WITH THE
STATE ACTION, OTHER ACTIONS, WE
DO BELIEVE AT LEAST I DO BELIEVE
OUR FINANCIAL PICTURE COULD
CHANGE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE WILL BE
EXACTLY AT THIS SPOT, WHEN WE
COME BACK TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER.
>> I HOPE NOT.
>> I HOPE NOT TOO.
>> DOES THIS APPROPRIATION, DOES
THIS REQUIRE FOUR FIFTH VOTE OR
THREE FOURTHS VOTE.
>> THESE ARE ADJUSTMENTS THAT
ARE BEING DONE FOR THE 19-20
BUDGET.
THE ACTUAL APPROVAL OF THE
BUDGET, THAT WILL BE THE OTHER
ITEM, WILL BE A MAJORITY VOTE.
>> YES, 77 IS MAJORITY.
THIS IS JUST BRINGING WHAT WE
HAVE FOR THE CURRENT BUDGET.
FOUR FIFTHS.
>> IMPORTANT POINT, THEY KNOW
IT, TWO WINDOWS THROUGH THE
BOARD, SIMPLE MAJORITY, WHATEVER
THAT LOOKS LIKE, ONLY TWO TIMES
DURING THE YEAR THAT IS WHEN IT
CAN BE DONE, WHEN DOING THE
PROPOSE AND RECOMMENDED BUDGET,
ADOPTED BUDGET.
OTHER THAN THAT, ALL OF THE
ACTIONS, INCLUDING THIS ONE,
REQUIRED BY LOCKED IN BUDGETARY
PROCESS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYMORE
QUESTIONS.
I'M PREPARED TO MOVE THE ITEM.
>> SECOND.
>> MOVED BY NOTTOLI.
SECOND BY PETERS.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> OKAY.
ITEM 19.
>> ITEM 19 IS THE FISCAL YEAR
2020-21 RENEWAL OF VARIOUS
COUNTY INSURANCE POLICIES NOT TO
EXCEED $6,802,873.
>> NOTTOLI, YOU PULLED THE ITEM.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS GOING
TO COME TO THE PODIUM.
>> MY QUESTION HERE, OBVIOUSLY
WE SEEN OUR INSURANCE LIABILITY
RATES GO UP SIGNIFICANTLY FROM
$5.1 TO $6.8 MILLION REGARDING
THIS ITEM.
THE QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK
THOUGH, IS THAT ON THE ITEM 77,
A CATEGORY, I HAVE TO FIND MY
NOTES HERE, FOR INSURANCE, IT
SHOWS A $25 MILLION AND AS THE
$6.8 INCLUDED IN THAT?
SO ON PAGE 6 OF 9 IN YOUR 200-21
RECOMMENDED BUDGET
APPROPRIATIONS, CATEGORY FOR
LIABILITY/PROPERTY INSURANCE.
SHOWS TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR
$25 MILLION ASKED TODAY WITH
THIS ITEM TO APPROVE A 25%
INCREASE BECAUSE OF THE, YOU
KNOW, THE INSURANCE MARKET AND
VARIETY OF OTHER FACTORS SO, ARE
THOSE SEPARATE AMOUNTS?
EMBODIED IN THAT?
>> THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO.
AGAIN THE 20-21 BUDGET THAT IS
RECOMMENDED TO YOU IS A PLACE
HOLDER ROLLOVER OF THE FISCAL
YEAR 19-20 BUDGET.
IT INCLUDES THE SAME
APPROPRIATIONS THAT WERE
INCLUDED IN THE 19-20 BUDGET.
AND ARE, OUR VIEW ON THAT IS,
WHAT WE ARE REALLY DOING IS
DOING A PLACE HOLDER FOR THREE
MONTHS.
IT IS AN ANNUAL AMOUNT.
BUT THE TRUTH IS, REALLY WE NEED
TO GET THROUGH THREE MONTHS.
WE CERTAINLY HAVE SUFFICIENT
APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY TO GET
THROUGH THE THREE MONTHS.
WHEN WE COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER,
REVISED ANNUAL AMOUNT THAT WILL
REFLECT ALL, ANY OTHER
ADJUSTMENTS THAT OCCURRED.
RELATED, SPECIFICALLY TO 20-21.
>> OKAY.
MY QUESTION IS THOUGH, THE ITEM
WE ARE APPROVING TODAY, RENEW
THE INSURANCE POLICIES FOR 20-21
INCLUDES AN INCREASE FOR THE
COVERAGES AS OUTLINED FOR 5.1 TO
6.8 MILLION.
>> YES.
>> WOULD THAT $6.8 MILLION BE
EMBODIED IN NUMBER -- 5.1 AND
THE 25 MILLION LAST YEAR?
OR EXCESS?
>> LET ME, IF I CAN HELP, THE
WAY TO VIEW THIS, ALL WE ARE
LOOKING FOR, THREE MONTH
APPROPRIATION TO GET US GOING.
TO GET US TO SEPTEMBER TO HAVE A
NEW BUDGET.
WHATEVER INCREASES AND CHANGES,
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO
BRING TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THE INCREASE
RIGHT NOW IN THE INSURANCE LINE
THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT
APPROPRIATION TO KEEP THE BILLS
GOING.
SO WE COME TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER,
WE WILL HAVE THAT $6 MILLION
EMBEDDED AND ALL OF OUR
INSURANCE LINE ITEMS.
>> THIS IS ONLY A PORTION OF THE
INSURANCE COVERAGE THAT WE BRING
FORWARD THEN.
NO?
>> THAT IS YOUR WHOLE YEAR
INSURANCE THERE.
SO BUDGET, IN A NORMAL
CIRCUMSTANCE, THE BUDGET WOULD
HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU, WOULD
HAVE ALREADY PUT THAT IN THERE.
THE BUDGET WE ARE WORKING ON,
THOSE INCREASES ARE IN THE
BUDGET WE ARE WORKING ON.
WHEN WE COME TO YOU IN THREE
MONTHS TIME, THE FULL AMOUNT
WILL BE THERE.
WHAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DO
UNDER 77 IS JUST GIVE US ENOUGH
APPROPRIATION FOR THREE MONTHS
AS BILLS ARE COMING DUE, THAT WE
CAN KEEP PAYING THEM.
>> OKAY.
I GET THAT.
LET ME ASK THE QUESTION ONE MORE
TIME THOUGH, SO, IS OUR ANNUAL
INSURANCE COST IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OF $25 MILLION
VERSUS JUST WHAT WE ARE DOING
WITH THIS ITEM?
OR HOW DOES THAT NUMBER GET
PLUGGED IN?
FOR OTHER COVERAGES FOR
BUILDINGS?
WHATEVER.
I'M TRYING TO GET UNDERSTANDING.
>> IN 19-20, THAT WAS THE BUDGET
FOR THE INSURANCE.
AND THE BUDGET FOR 20-21 WILL BE
A DIFFERENT NUMBER.
MAY OR MAY NOT BE A FULL $6
MILLION.
IT WILL BE A DIFFERENT NUMBER.
BUT THE ROLL OVER APPROPRIATION
AS Mr. GIL SAID, IS AN ANNUAL
AMOUNT AND THAT IS CERTAINLY
SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE THREE
MONTHS UNTIL WE COME BACK TO YOU
IN SEPTEMBER.
>> NO, I GET THAT.
BUT OUR ANNUAL INSURANCE BILL
$30 MILLION?
OR 25 MILLION FOR EVERYTHING?
THAT IS MY QUESTION.
THIS IS NOT JUST OUR, THIS IS
NOT ALL OF OUR INSURANCE IN ITEM
19.
>> THAT IS.
>> THIS IS A, ONE QUARTER.
>> NO.
THAT IS, ON NUMBER 19, IT IS
FISCAL YEAR 20-21 RENEWAL OF
VARIOUS COUNTY INSURANCE
POLICIES.
>> RIGHT.
>> AND THAT IS WHAT THAT ITEM IS
FOR, THAT IS WHAT THE RENEWAL
IS.
>> RIGHT.
>> NOW THAT, THAT IS NOT ALL OF
OUR LIABILITY.
>> THERE YOU GO.
THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING.
MY QUESTION.
>> SELF-INSURED IN SOME CASES.
>> THIS IS WHAT IS GOING OUT IN
THE MARKET AND BUYING.
NOT OUR SELF-INSURANCE.
>> NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 77.
THAT IS A DIFFERENT THING.
>> RIGHT.
>> BUT OUR ANNUAL INSURANCE
COST, SELF-INSURING, OTHERWISE,
TAKE US MORE THAN THAT.
>> MORE THAN THAT.
>> THAT PART OF THE QUESTION.
>> YES.
YOU'LL SEE THE TOTALITY IN
SEPTEMBER WHEN WE COME BACK.
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
MOVE THE ITEM.
>> MOVED BY SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI
AND SECOND BY PETERS.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> THANK YOU.
ITEM 20 PLEASE.
>> ITEM 20, APPROVE THE
CHILDREN'S COALITION'S
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A
CHILDREN'S TRUST FUND CONTRACT
AND AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH CHILD ABUSE
PREVENTION COUNCIL OF SACRAMENTO
INCOMPTDED TO PRODUCE A
SACRAMENTO COUNTY CHILDREN'S
REPORT CARD.
>> JUST BRIEFLY, SUPERVISOR,
THIS ITEM BRINGS BACK THE
CHILDREN'S REPORT CARD THAT WE
HAD FOR A FEW YEARS AS THE BOARD
REPORT MENTIONS.
IT IS FUNDED THROUGH THE
CHILDREN'S TRUST ACCOUNT.
IT IS A CONTRACT WITH CHILD
ACTION TO BRING BACK THAT
CHILDREN'S REPORT CARD.
YOU WILL SEE IN HERE, THE
LANGUAGE THAT WE SEE IN SEVERAL
OF THE ITEMS TODAY.
THE CONTINUANCY LANGUAGE THAT
TIES BACK TO THE FACT THAT WE
ARE ROLLING OVER THE BUDGET AND
UNCERTAINTY OF THE WHOLE
SITUATION UNTIL SEPTEMBER.
>> AND, THAT WAS THE REASON FOR
THE CALLOUT ON THIS.
IF WE ARE GOING TO --
>> PARDON?
>> THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THIS
CALLOUT ON THIS ITEM.
WAS THAT, WE PUT THAT
CONTINGENCY IN THERE, WE HAVE
ASSURED FUNDING SOURCE WHICH
HAD, BY THE STAFF REPORT, THERE
WAS $722,000 IN THAT ACCOUNT.
SOME EXPENDED IN OTHER ACTIONS
THE BOARD IS ASKED TO TAKE HERE.
BUT, WHY WOULD WE SET THEM ON A
COURSE TO BEGIN THE WORK AND
THEN, PUT THE CONTINGENCY AND
SOMEHOW PULL BACK.
THE MONEY IS THERE.
THAT IS MY POINT.
WHY WOULD WE, IF WE ARE GOING TO
DO THAT, JUST DO IT.
>> LET ME ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF
SORT OF STANDARD LANGUAGE, THAT
IS HOW YOU ARE SEEING IT, IN ALL
OF THE CONTRACTS THAT ARE
APPROVED FOR NEXT YEAR THAT ARE
APPROVED NOW.
IN ADVANCE OF THE SEPTEMBER
BUDGET.
WE DEBATED HOW TO DEAL WITH
THAT.
IT IS A ROLL OVER BUDGET.
ONE CONSIDERATION, ROLL OVER THE
CURRENT YEAR CONTRACTS FOR THREE
MONTHS.
BUT AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH ALL
OF THE DEPARTMENTS, PARTICULARLY
THE MAJOR DEPARTMENTS THAT HAD
HUNDREDS OF CONTRACTS, THEY SAID
THAT WOULD BE A HUGE WORKLOAD
FOR THEM.
IT WOULD BE EASIER TO DO THE NEW
CONTRACTS THAT THEY WERE ALREADY
IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SUCH AS
THIS ONE AND OTHERS.
BUT WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT
ALL, ALL POTENTIAL CONTRACTORS
WERE CLEARLY PUT ON NOTICE.
THE CANCELLATION LANGUAGE, THE
TERMINATION LANGUAGE THAT YOU
SEE IN MOST OF THE AGREEMENTS IS
NOT THAT DIFFERENT, IN MANY
CASES, EXACTLY THE SAME, AS MANY
CASES IN ALL OF THE CONTRACTS.
WHAT IS DIFFERENT HERE IS THAT
WE CALL OUT IN THE WHEREAS, GIVE
THEM NOTICE THAT, OF THE FISCAL
SITUATION THAT WE ARE FACING AND
THE DEPARTMENTS ARE REACHING OUT
TO THOSE THAT WE HAVE TO SAY
THAT.
WE JUST DID THAT ACROSS THE
BOARD FOR ALL CONTRACTS.
IT MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR
SOME CONTRACTS THATTEN OTHER,
CLEARLY.
BUT RATHER THAN TRY TO, YOU
KNOW, HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF
CONTRACTS, WE JUST DID IT FOR
ALL CONTRACTS TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE WERE COVERED.
WHAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IS
LEAVE ANY CONTRACTORS WITHOUT AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE FISCAL
SITUATION.
SO THAT WAS REALLY MORE OF THE
MESSAGE.
THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO
DO.
>> SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI, SOME OF
THIS IS STEMMING FROM
OBSERVATIONS FROM 9 AND 10.
WITH THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE WAS
NOT THERE, CONTRACTORS THOUGHT
THEY HAD A GUARANTEED CONTRACT.
WHEN WE GOT IN, IN THESE
CHAMBERS TO CUT, WE WERE FACED
WITH THE CONVERSATION ABOUT, I
THOUGHT IT WAS ASSURED CONTRACT
FOR THREE YEAR, NO ONE TOLD ME.
THIS IS OUT OF ABUNDANCE OF
CAUTION SAY, THERE IS A FISCAL
PROBLEM, DOESN'T MEAN WE WILL
YANK THE CONTRACT BUT WE WANT TO
BE PARTNERS WITH THEM.
AND BE TRANSPARENT WITH THEM.
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO US.
>> AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW,
ADDRESS IT TOO, THE
APPLICABILITY MAY BE DIFFERENT
DEPENDING ON THAT.
THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
WE HAVE ACTUAL WORK PRODUCT.
AGAIN, I SUPPORT IT.
I THINK THAT IT HAS BEEN TEN
YEARS SINCE WE HAVE DONE, YOU
KNOW, THE DATA, YOU KNOW
ASSIMILATION.
AND SEE WHERE WE ARE, RELATIVE
TO CHILDREN SERVICES.
IF WE HAD PRETTY MUCH ASSURED
FUNDING SOURCE, COMES FROM
MARRIAGE LICENSES AND COURT
FINES AND FEES.
THAT MAY BE DOWN A BIT.
WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT I
SAW HERE, SUFFICIENT MONEY TO DO
THIS.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO START THAT
TASK, TAKE IT TO THE END.
THAT IS MY POINT.
ANY QUESTION, I MOVE THE ITEM.
>> THEN MOVE BY SUPERVISOR
NOTTOLI.
CHAIR WILL SECOND.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> THANK YOU.
ITEM 21 PLEASE.
>> OKAY.
>> ITEM 21 THE AUTHORITY TO
ENTER, EXCUSE ME, AUTHORITY TO
EXECUTE FISCAL YEAR 20-21.
ENROLLED PROVIDER CONTRACTS OF
12,359,374.
IN THE AMOUNT OF 8,810,797
CONTINUING REVENUE CONTRACTS IN
THE AMOUNT OF 816,896 AND
AUTHORITY TO REAPPLY FOR
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GRANTS.
>> IF I MAY, SUPERVISOR, WHAT
THIS DOES IS, EXACTLY WHAT HE
DESCRIBED FOR CONTRACTS IN THE
AREA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY
AND ADULTS.
WE WANT TO KEEP SERVICES GOING.
WE DON'T WANT TO CUT ANY
SERVICES BETWEEN NOW AND
SEPTEMBER.
>> I CONCUR WITH THAT.
I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT, FROM
THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD THIS
MORNING, ABOUT THE OTHER ITEMS
OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE THINGS WE
DO.
YOU DIG DOWN, WE SEE WHAT WE ARE
DOING WITH EXPLOITED CHILDREN,
SENIORS, WITH FAMILIES AT RISK
AND PREGNANT MOTHERS.
ON AND ON, LIKEWISE.
24.
I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE AS WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT BUDGET
FRAMEWORK, THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU
JUST, A BUNCH OF CONTRACT, WITH
THE DETAIL THOUGH, IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT.
CRITICAL SERVICES.
AS WE LOOK AT HOW WE ARE GOING
TO HOLD THE LINE AND PRESERVE
THINGS, I THINK THAT IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO CALL IT OUT.
IT WAS, AGAIN, I SUPPORT IT
WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
I THINK THAT IT WILL BE
OBVIOUSLY A A VERY INTEGRAL PART
OF THE CONVERSATION COME
SEPTEMBER.
AGAIN THESE ARE CRITICAL
SERVICES.
AND SOME OF THESE TOOK BIG HITS
IN THE RECESSION IN 2009-10.
WE BUILT BACK.
MAINTAINED SOME OF THEM.
RENEW WITH THE INITIATIVES.
I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO
CALL IT OUT.
>> I ASSUME TOO.
PART OF THE ASK US, MAINTENANCE
OF EFFORT REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.
WHICH ARE CRITICAL.
>> I MOVE THE ITEM.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED BY
SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.
SECOND BY PETERS.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
ITEM 22.
>> AUTHORITY TO EXECUTED AN
EXPENDITURE AGREEMENT WITH
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SACRAMENTO TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDING
TO THE FIRST STAR SACRAMENTO
STATE ACADEMY.
>> JUST, DITTO TO COMMENTS AND
SUPPORT OF.
I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS.
I DID HAVE ONE SPECIFIC QUESTION
AND MAYBE IT CAN BE FOR
DISCUSSION IN THE MONTHS TO
COME.
I THOUGHT, I KNOW THAT WE
REDUCED OUR CASELOAD SOMEWHAT,
WE ARE STILL FIFTH HIGHEST IN
THE STATE WITH 2500 YOUTH
ENROLLED IN THE FOSTER CARE
CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM.
I KNOW THAT WE GOT A IN MANY OF
INITIATIVES TO SUPPORTING
FAMILIES.
WE TALKED ABOUT, IN CERTAINLY A
COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS TODAY, AT
LEAST GENERALLY.
BUT I THINK THAT SOMETHING LIKE
THIS, WHERE 14% OF YOUR FOLKS
WHO COME THROUGH THAT SYSTEM,
GRADUATE FROM COLLEGE AND THE
FOCUS WAS WORKING WITH THE
UNIVERSITY TO DO THAT.
THESE ARE TYPES OF CRITICAL
SERVICES THAT WE ARE MAKING
INVESTMENT IN THE COMMUNITY AND
IN, FOLKS WHO HAVE SOME
CHALLENGES.
AND I, I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS
ONE ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS,
BECAUSE THIS IS TIED TO THE
REALIGNMENT 1991 REALIGNMENT TO
MY QUESTIONS EARLIER.
YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT
MAINTENANCE, IN HOLDING THE LINE
ON SOME OF THESE, WHERE, YOU
KNOW, TO START AND STOP SOME OF
THE THINGS WOULD BE TRAGIC.
I MOVE THE ITEM.
>> THANK YOU.
OKAY.
IS THAT MOVED?
>> MOVE THE ITEM.
>> CHAIR WILL SECOND.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> 24.
>> 24 IS THE AUTHORITY TO
EXECUTE FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
CONTINUING ONE-YEAR EXPENDITURE
CONTRACTS AND ENROLLED PROVIDER
CONTRACTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$143,729,557.
CONTINUING MULTIPLE-YEAR
EXPENDITURE CONTRACTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $7,921,201.
CONTINUING REVENUE CONTRACTS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $15,949,098 AND
AUTHORITY TO REAPPLY FOR
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GRANTS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SAY THE NUMBER AGAIN PLEASE.
NOT ALL OF THE --
[LAUGHTER] THE ITEM NUMBER.
>> ITEM 24.
>> OKAY.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> THE SMALL NUMBER AMONGST ALL
OF THE NUMBERS.
>> SUPERVISORS, IF I MAY, THE
HEALTH SERVICES CONTRACTS.
SAME THING THAT WE JUST DID FOR
THEM, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT BRITT
SAID.
>> IF I COULD, Mr. CHAIR, THE
ONE THING THAT I WANTED TO CALL
ATTENTION TO HERE, BECAUSE I
THINK THAT IT IS A CONTRAST,
EVEN IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE ARE
ASKED TO DO HERE, THAT IS
PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES
DIVISION, WHEREOF A $25 MILLION
PORTIONMENT, OTHER SECTIONS,
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, A LOT OF
IMPORTANT SERVICE, ONES THAT WE
HAVE ACTUALLY EXPANDED AND
INTRODUCED IN RECENT YEARS AND
CERTAINLY THIS BOARD HAS BEEN
SUPPORTIVE, WHEN I LOOK AT
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES,
REUPING OF THE CONTRACT FOR JAIL
PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES IS NEARLY
$19 MILLION.
AND I GUESS, I WANTED TO TAKE
THIS OPPORTUNITY.
I WILL, ON ITEM THAT WE WILL
HEAR IN A MOMENT AS WELL.
YOU KNOW, THE, WE DEAL WITH THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND WE
SET A LITIGATION WITH THEM A
COUPLE YEARS AGO.
WE ARE STILL SPENDING MILLIONS
OF EACH OTHER IN THAT
SETTLEMENT.
WE HAVE A PARTNERSHIP BOTH
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS BUT
ALSO WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
I WOULD HOPE THAT SOME
CONVERSATIONS COULD BE ENTERED
INTO, ONCE AGAIN, TO SEE HOW WE
CAN PARTNER.
BECAUSE THE FISCAL DURESS THAT
WE ARE UNDER AS A BOARD AND AS A
COMMUNITY IS NOT LOST ON ANYBODY
IN THESE CHAMBERS TODAY OR
ANYBODY WATCHING, BUT, YOU KNOW,
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, ONE
PROVIDE SERVICE, WE HAVE TO PAY
FOR THE SERVICES THAT ARE
RENDERED.
BUT WHEN I SEE THIS NUMBER, SO
OUT OF $25 MILLION FOR THOSE
HEALTHCARE SERVICES INCLUDING
CLINIC SERVICES, WOMEN, INFANT
AND CHILDREN, FOUR FIFTHS OF
THAT BUDGET UNIT, OF THAT
DIVISION IS GOING TO
CORRECTIONAL SFERS FOR THE SINGE
CONTRACT.
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD
HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION WITH
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS
AND THEIR PHYSICIANS OVER THERE
AND WHO REPRESENTS THEM AND HOW
WE CAN HAVE A PARTNERSHIP.
WHAT I SEE IS A COMMUNITY THAT
IS POTENTIALLY A DISTRESS HERE.
YET WE ARE GOING TO FUND $19
MILLION ONE YEAR FOR SERVICES TO
FOLKS WHO ARE IN CARE AND
CUSTODY IN THE CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTIONS.
YET THE COMMUNITY SIDE, GOING A
LITTLE MORE THAN $5 MILLION
AVAILABLE.
$6 MILLION.
EXCUSE ME.
SO THAT TO ME IS A REAL
CONTRAST.
I WANTED TO CALL IT OUT.
AGAIN, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT WE
HAVE TO DO HERE AND WHAT WE ARE
GOING TO DO HERE.
A LOT OF GOOD SERVICES.
THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
TO ME, CONTRAST THAT HAS BEEN IN
PLACE FOR A LONG TIME.
AND YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT, YOU
HAVE BUDGET WITH US, THAT HAS TO
BE BROUGHT UP AGAIN.
I WON'T SHY AWAY FROM IT.
I THINK, AS A PARTNER, WE NEED
TO COULD OUR FAIR SHARE.
THE COMMUNITY, IN THE MEANTIME,
YOU KNOW, WILL BE I THINK LESS
ABLE TO ACCESS SERVICES IN, YOU
KNOW, IT JUST DRAWS.
TAKES A LOT OF THE LIFE BLOOD
OUT OF THAT PARTICULAR BUDGET
UNIT.
SO ANYWAY, THAT IS WHAT I HAD TO
SAY ON THAT.
I MOVE THE ITEM.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THERE IS A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR
NOTTOLI.
SUPERVISOR FROST.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THAT
WAS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE
CONSENT DECREE?
>> SO YES AND NO.
SO WE ARE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE A
CERTAIN LEVEL OF MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES AND TO INCREASE THAT
LEVEL OF SERVICE.
THAT, THAT AMOUNT IS, WHAT WE
ARE DOING THERE IS CONSISTENT
WITH THAT.
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CONSENT DEGREE.
WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY A
PARTICULAR AMOUNT OR CONTRACT
WITH UC DAVIS TO DO THAT.
THOSE ARE ALL ISSUES THAT ARE
NOT REQUIREMENT OF THE DECREE.
THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WE ARE
CONTRACTING FOR IS THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE CONSENT
DECREE.
IN FACT, IT WILL BE INCREASING
AGAIN OVER THE YEARS AS WE
CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THOSE
IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'RE
OBLIGATED TO MAKE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.
>> YES, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE
FLOOR.
I WANTED TO ASK, BRITT, WHILE
YOU ARE THERE, IT GOES TO, MAYBE
TALK ABOUT IT ON 77, BUT GOES TO
COMMENTS AGAIN WE HEARD THIS
MORNING BUT ALL WEIGHED IN ON
THIS.
AT LEAST DURING THE PANDEMIC AND
AGAIN, YOU KNOW, NOT WITHOUT
OBVIOUSLY SOME, YOU KNOW,
HICCUPS, ALONG THE WAY AND
PROBABLY SOME IMPACTS,
COMMUNITY, BUT WE HAVE SEEN A
REDUCTION IN THE JAIL
POPULATION.
YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE PAINT IT
AS BEING TEMPORARY.
OTHERS WOULD SAY, WE DON'T KNOW.
OTHERS SAY, THAT IS A GOOD
TREND.
WE HEARD SOME OF THE COMMENTS
THIS MORNING.
IN FACT, WE ARE GOING TO SEE
SOME REDUCED LEVELS OF
INCARCERATION, THEN, I WOULD
HOPE THAT THE CONTRACTS THAT
HAVE BEEN PLACE, WHAT YOU SAID A
MOMENT AGO, WE WOULD HAVE SOME
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, THE, NOT JUST THE SERVICE
DELIVERY, IN THOSE CONTRACTS,
BUT ACTUALLY MAKING ADJUSTMENTS.
FOR THE THINGS THAT ARE ASKED
TODAY, AND THE COMMENTS WE HEARD
FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS, WE COULD
ACTUALLY REDIRECT BECAUSE THE
REALIGNMENT MONEY AND THE
GENERAL FUND MONEY THAT GOES
INTO CORRECTIONAL HEALTH
SERVICES, COULD BE USED IN THE
COMMUNITY FOR EITHER DIVERSION,
ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT, AND
FOR HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH, ALL
OF THOSE THINGS.
IF IT WAS AVAILABLE.
AND DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO A MUCH,
HOPEFULLY A SMALLER POPULATION
THAT WILL BE MORE STATIC IN THE
FUTURE AS IT RELATES TO THE
NUMBERS.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW,
WHAT YOU MAY BRING US IN
SEPTEMBER.
IT MAY BE TOO EARLY TO TELL.
THAT TO ME, IS ONE OF THE, THE
PROMISES THAT IS HELD WITHIN
WHAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING RIGHT
NOW.
IS THAT WE CAN, MAYBE SEE SOME
ABILITY TO SHIFT AND FURTHER
INVEST IN, IN, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE
OF THE WALLS OF THE JAILS.
>> YEAH, THAT IS A GOOD POINT.
THAT OCCURRED TO US AS WELL.
WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, SOME
EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
HOW THINGS MIGHT BE DONE
DIFFERENTLY IF THE POPULATION
LEVEL WHICH IS ABOUT 1,000 BELOW
WHAT IT WAS WHEN THE CORONAVIRUS
HIT.
IF THEY CONTINUE.
DOING ANALYSIS BOTH THE SHERIFF
AND CORRECTIONAL HEALTH WHAT
THAT MIGHT MEAN.
THE BIG QUESTION IS, OF COURSE,
WILL IT CONTINUE.
AND ALSO, I WILL TELL YOU,
ADDITIONAL COST THAT WILL COME
ABOUT AS RESULT OF THE
CORONAVIRUS.
THE SHERIFF HAD TO SET UP
ISOLATION UNITS.
A WHOLE VARIETY OF THINGS, ALSO
ON THE OTHER SIDE, DESPITE THE
REDUCED POPULATION, IT IS NOT AS
SIMPLE AS, I HAVE LEARNED, IT IS
NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MIGHT
THINK.
WE ARE HAVING THOSE DISCUSSIONS
AND LOOKING AT THE ISSUE OF, YOU
KNOW, WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD THE
CORRECTIONAL WILL HAVE LOOK LIKE
IF THE POPULATION WERE ON A LONG
TERM BASIS REDUCE BELOW, YOU
KNOW, WHAT IT WAS WHEN WE WERE
ORIGINALLY GETTING INTO THIS
ISSUE WITH THE CONSENT DEGREE.
>> IF I COULD SUM THAT UP, ALL
ON THE TABLE FOR US TO LOOK AT.
>> OKAY.
GOOD.
>> SUPERVISOR FROST.
>> WILL PROBATION BE COMING BACK
WITH A REPORT BACK ON THE PILOT?
>> THANK YOU.
>> BEFORE SEPTEMBER?
>> DOUBLE CHECK THE TIME FRAME.
SUPERVISOR.
>> I CAN TELL YOU THE PROJECT IS
GOING WELL.
CHECK WITH LEE WHAT TIMING IS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE HAD A MOTION.
BY SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.
SECOND?
>> I SECOND IT.
>> SECOND BY SUPERVISOR FROST.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> ITEM 29.
>> 29.
AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE PULLED
CONTRACTS.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $38,485,716
WITH BHC HERITAGE OAKS HOSPITAL.
BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL AND
SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS DOING
BUSINESS AS SUTTER CENTER FOR
PSYCHIATRYTO PROVIDE INPATIENT
PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES TO ADULTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21.
>> THE DOCTORS ARE HERE TO
ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ON THIS
ONE.
>> OKAY.
I THINK THAT AS THEY ARE COMING
UP IN THE CONVERSATION WITH
SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI, THIS HAS
BEEN AN ITEM THAT EVER SINCE I
HAVE BEEN HERE, SINCE 2007, HAS
ALWAYS GARNERED SOME ATTENTION.
THE RATES HAVE GONE UP AND THE
BUDGET UNIT HAS SEEN THE COST GO
UP A LOT.
SO SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI ASKED A
QUESTION WHERE WE HAVE BEEN,
WHAT KIND OF UTILIZATION WE ARE
HAVING.
IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US
TO CURTAIL ANY OF THE EXPENSES.
WE HAVE THEM, BE ABLE TO ANSWER
THAT.
WE SENT YOU A VERY LENGTHY AND
DIDN'T EXPECT YOU TO BE ABLE TO
LOOK THROUGH WHAT WE SENT TO YOU
THIS MORNING.
BUT IT DOES GIVE YOU HOW WE
UTILIZING THIS.
THE KIND OF BEDS, WHAT KIND OF
TREATMENT WE ARE GETTING.
FAIRLY SOPHISTICATED SERVICE.
WITH THAT, IF THEY COULD ANSWER
A COUPLE OF THE QUESTIONS.
SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI, IF YOU WANT
TO ADD ANYTHING TO IT.
>> THANK YOU Mr. GIL.
CHAIR.
I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION YOU
SENT FORWARD THIS MORNING.
AND I KNOW THAT THE DOCTOR HAS
BEEN HERE BEFORE.
CERTAINLY, THE OTHER AS WELL.
WHEN I LOOK AT NUMBER OF BED
DAYS, HERE, 38,000 AND WE, THE
INITIATIVE WE PUT IN PLACE IN
THIS BOARD IS SUPPORTED, YOU
KNOW, BETTER ACCESS, VIA CLINIC
SERVICES, CERTAINLY WITH TEAMS
IN THE COMMUNITY AND SO FORTH.
AND YET, WE CONTINUE TO SPEND,
YOU KNOW, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS A DAY.
IN FACT, IT IS APPROACHING.
IF I DO MY MATH CORRECTLY HERE,
IT IS ALMOST $100,000 A DAY.
FOR THE BED STAYS.
MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN
THAT.
AND YET, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT
IN THESE CHAMBERS MANY TIMES
ABOUT DOING, SOME, YOU KNOW,
SMALLER FACILITIES.
THAT WOULD HAVE LICENSURE.
WE HAVE DONE CLINIC SERVICES.
I SAID, WE HAVE DONE MOBILE
TEAMS.
WE HAVE DONE MORE IN THE REALM
OF CHILDREN AND ADULT MENTAL
HEALTH.
YET WE ARE SEEG -- SEEING THESE
NUMBERS, I KNOW THE ACA,
PROVIDED SOME ABILITY FOR FOLKS
TO ACCESS THAT MAYBE COULDN'T
GET ACCESS TO THESE SERVICES.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I SEE THIS
NUMBER, JUST CONTINUES TO GLOW
AND GROW AND GROW.
NOW, YOU KNOW, PUSHING 40
MILLION, BUDGETED $41 MILLION.
ALMOST $42 MILLION LAST YEAR.
NO ONE IN SIGHT.
THE HEALTH PROVIDERS ARE
CHARGING US $1,000 A DAY FOR
EVERY BED.
AND MAYBE THAT IS WHAT IT COST.
WE HAVE, I KNOW COLLEAGUES HAVE
TRIED TO NEGOTIATE THAT IN THE
PAST.
BUT THIS IS ALL GENERAL FUND,
ALL REALIGNMENT.
THAT IS WHAT THIS IS.
SO OTHER CAPACITY TO DO OTHER
THINGS IN OUR BUDGET FOR THE
COMMUNITY, WHATEVER MIGHT BE,
YOU KNOW, WE ARE TAKING $40
MILLION RIGHT OFF THE TOP.
THAT CONCERNS ME.
AND, IT DOESN'T GO DOWN.
IT GOES UP.
$16 MILLION IN, IN 14-15.
HERE WE ARE, $40 MILLION, LESS
THAN FOR THIS YEAR'S PROJECTED.
SO AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF
ANYBODY HAS THE ANSWERS.
A LOT OF GOOD WORK OUT THERE IN
THE MENTAL HEALTH ARENA.
THE DOCTORS SAID, I APPRECIATE
YOU BEING HERE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, MY INCLINATION IS
NOT TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM NOT
BECAUSE WE KNOW WE DON'T HAVE TO
DO IT BUT WE JUST POURING MONEY
DOWN HERE FOR THESE CRITICAL
SERVICES BUT I DON'T SEE ANY
DAYLIGHT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.
THIS IS A STATEWIDE PROBLEM WITH
OUR INPATIENT COSTS.
IT IS PARTICULARLY TRUE HERE IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY WHICH I GOT TO
LEARN REALLY QUICK, WE HAVE
THREE FREE STANDING HOSPITALS
THAT CAN'T BILL MEDI-KAL.
WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO THEM HOW
TO ADDRESS THIS.
HERE IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY WE
HAVE A LOT ON THE FRONT DOOR,
HOW TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THE
HOSPITAL.
NOW WE ARE WORKING ON, RAMPING
UP THE BACK DOOR WHERE TO HAVE
PEOPLE PLACED.
OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, YOU
APPROVED AUGMENTED BOARD AND
CARE.
YOU APPROVED ADULTERESS DENTIAL
TREATMENT AND WE ARE HOPING THAT
-- THOSE STRATEGIES WILL BE
OTHER WAYS TO DRIVE THE COST
DOWN.
LIKE YOU MENTIONED, FACT IS THAT
WE ARE OBLIGATED TO PAY THESE
BILLS.
ALL WE CAN DO IS WORK IT.
THE WAY WE WORK IT, WE ROLL UP
THE SLEEVES AND WORK ON THE
FRONT DOOR AND BACK DOOR.
AS SOON AS WE FINISH ONE PRO
PROJECT, WE TURNAROUND AND DO
THE OTHER.
KEEP WORKING ON THE TWO DOORS.
>> JUST A QUESTION, RYAN, FOR
YOU OR DR. B, SO, THERE IS NO
MEDI-CAL REIMBURSEMENT.
BECAUSE FREE STANDING HOSPITALS.
WE DISCUSSED, GOT THE GO AHEAD
TO DO LICENSED FACILITIES IN THE
15 BED, WHATEVER THEY WERE
CALLED.
PUFFS, WHATEVER.
>> YEP.
>> AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID
THOSE OR NOT.
THE IDEA WAS THAT WE WERE GOING
TO CUT IN SOME OF THE COSTS BY
BEING ABLE TO MANAGE SOME OF
THAT POPULATION THAT WAS IN NEED
OF THE SERVICES.
>> SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.
BEFORE THE DOCTOR ANSWERS THAT,
LET ME SET THE STAGE A LITTLE
BIT.
THERE ARE THREE PUFFS WE TALKED
ABOUT.
WE WORKED WITH THE HEALTH
SYSTEMS ON IT.
AND WHAT WE FOUND AT THAT POINT
WAS THAT THE DEMAND WAS FAR
EXCEEDING WHAT WE HAD.
SO I THINK THAT LESSON LEARNED
WAS THAT THE WAY THAT WE ENDED
UP PRESENTING THAT TO YOU, DID
LEAVE YOU, I BELIEVE, WITH A
FALSE IMPRESSION THAT WOULD
REDUCE THIS COST.
AT ONE POINT, THE DEPARTMENT DID
THINK THAT WE COULD NEGOTIATE IT
DOWN.
AS DR. QUEST SAID, THIS IS A
STATEWIDE THING, THAT THIS IS
WHAT THE COST IS.
SO I THINK THAT WE INADVERTENTLY
LEFT YOU WITH AN IMPRESSION THAT
THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
NEGOTIATE THE RATES DOWN.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD
HAVE LEFT WU THAT IMPRESSION.
DURING THE THREE ONES WE HAVE
BEEN WORKING ON, IT HAS HELPED.
I THINK IT HAS TAKEN SOME OF THE
COST DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT IN
2015 WE WERE THINKING.
SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE THAT
HISTORICAL CONTEXT BEFORE RYAN
TALKS ABOUT WHERE HE IS GOING
WITH THIS.
>> OKAY.
ONE OF THE POSSIBILITIES WOULD
BE IF WE PARTNER WITH SOME OF
THE FISCAL HOSPITALS, TO HAVE
PSYCHIATRIC BEDS WITHIN THEIR
FACILITIES.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE
MEDICAL HOSPITALS SEE AS A
PROBLEM WHEN IT COMES TO
PROFITABLE.
BUT THERE ARE SOME STRATEGIES
THAT WE COULD WORK ON AROUND
THAT.
SO THAT IS ONE OF THE
CONVERSATIONS WE ARE HAVING.
THE GOAL IS TO GET MORE BEDS TO
BILL MEDI-CAL.
THAT IS IMPORTANT.
>> THOSE INITIATIVE, ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE CAN, WORKSHOP IS
PART OF THE BUDGET LEAD UP IN
SEPTEMBER TO HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT
IS IN THE WORKS AND WHAT IS SOME
OF THE POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES
ARE TO, YOU KNOW, STILL PROVIDE
SERVICES TO DO IN A WAY THAT
MAYBE HAS COST CONTAINMENT.
AGAIN, WHEN I LOOK, GENERAL
REALIGNMENT DOLLAR, SO KEY AND
CRITICAL TO CONTRACTS APPROVED
IN ITEM 24.
TO, YOU KNOW, ITEM 21 TO A LOT
OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT, YOU
KNOW, WERE EMBEDDED IN WHAT WE
HAVE HERE BEFORE US TODAY.
THAT WILL BE ONGOING AND, THOSE
DOLLARS ARE REALLY PRECIOUS.
PRECIOUS TO PROVIDE SERVICES
THAT ARE LIFESAVING AND, YOU
KNOW, CRITICAL FOR FOLKS WHO
HAVE, YOU KNOW, CRISIS THAT ARE
ADMITTED INTO THE HOSPITAL.
IT IS JUST, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
NUMBER IS SO BIG.
>> SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI, I WANT TO
BE CANDID ABOUT IT.
>> YEAH.
>> I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE YOU
WITH TH IMPRESSION WHICH WE
LEFT IN THE PAST THAT THERE IS A
COST REDUCTION OUT THERE.
I HEARD STUFF, THEY ARE TALKING
ABOUT DOING THAT.
IT HAS BEEN THE COST, WHAT IT
IS.
AND IT COMES IN, WE HAVE TO PAY
IT.
DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE ARE NOT
GOING TO PURSUE IT.
BUT DON'T WANT YOU LEFT WITH THE
IMPRESSION THAT WITHIN SIX
MONTHS, NINE MONTH, THAT WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING
DRAMATICALLY DECREASE THE COST
THAT YOU ARE SEEING ON THIS.
BECAUSE THE DEMAND IS
OUTSTRIPPING WHAT WE HAVE OUT
THERE.
>> AND WE VIRTUALLY HAVE NO
NEGOTIATING POWER.
THREE EXISTING PLACES THAT
LITERALLY SAY TO US, LITERALLY,
OKAY.
FINE.
YOU WANT TO DO IT, WE'LL GET
MORE FROM ELSEWHERE.
THEY HAVE PRIVATE PAYERS.
ONE THING THAT IS SLIGHTLY GOOD
NEWS.
HE WAS TELLING ME, NOT THE BLAME
ON HIM, OUR PROJECTORY IS
LEVELING OFF, RATHER THAN GOING
UP.
THAT IS A GOOD THING, OBVIOUSLY.
SO, WHAT WE, WHAT RYAN WAS
TALKING ABOUT, AS WE TALKED
ABOUT IN THE PAST, THE FRONT END
IS WHERE THE CRISIS SUPPORT IN
ALL OF THOSE SORT OF THINGS COME
IN.
THE BACK END, WE HAVE NOT BEEN
ABLE TO UNLOAD THIS, I THINK
THAT I USED CON CONSTIPATED THIG
LAST YEAR.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> YOU DID.
>> INVESTED.
>> THAT IS RIGHT.
I THINK THAT YOU CORRECTED ME
AND SAID CONGESTED.
WE HAVE THIS, THIS PILE OF
PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM THAT WE
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET OUT TO
A SAFE PLACE.
THAT IS WHERE THE BOARD AND
CARES COMES IN.
THAT IS WHERE THE MHSA MONEY
COMES IN.
THAT HAS JUST STARTED IN THE
LAST FEW MONTHS.
>> SO THAT DOES HOLD SOME
PROMISE.
I KNOW THAT THOSE THINGS ARE ALL
DESIGNED TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE
BETTER OUTCOMES FOR FOLKS AND
CERTAINLY PROVIDE PROPER
TREATMENT AND HOPEFULLY KEEP
THEM OUT OF THE INPATIENT AND
SOME OF THE STAYS THAT CAN BE --
>> GET THEM OUT QUICKER.
>> RIGHT.
THE LONGER STAYS.
>> SO JUST, ONE OTHER QUESTION
IF I COULD.
SO, WE HAVE DENIED DUE TO NO, I
DON'T KNOW IF IT IS CAPITAL OR
ADMINISTRATIVE STATUS, DO DENY
SOME, ARE THEY CLIENTS?
OR CONSUMERS DENIED?
OR IS IT THAT WE DENY THE
CLAIMS?
DON'T PAY THEM?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN THAT
COLUMN?
CONSUMER RECEIVED THE SERVICE.
THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE
DOCUMENTATION.
PN PROGRESS NOTE AND MEDICAL
NECESSITY BASICALLY HOW YOU GET
TO A DIAGNOSIS.
THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT MEDICAL
DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT PAYING
THAT CLAIM.
>> SO IF I READ THIS NUMBER
RIGHT FOR 19-20 IN THE CASE OF
VISTA, THERE WAS 2600 FOLKS THEY
WERE GOING TO BILL US FOR THAT
WE DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR.
IS THAT RIGHT?
OKAY.
>> YOU SAVED A LOT OF MONEY.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> FEELING BETTER ALREADY,
DR. B.
>> OKAY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
I MOVE THE ITEM.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR
FROM --
>> SORRY.
SORRY.
>> I GOT AHEAD OF THE --
>> YES, CAN I ASK YOU SOMETHING.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE THAT YOU
HAVE A MOTION.
BECAUSE A MOTION WAS MADE.
SUPERVISOR KENNEDY.
>> I'LL SECOND IT.
BUT THEN, I WANTED TO BACK UP
THE DOCTOR, SOMEONE INVOLVED
PRETTY CLOSELY WITH THESE
CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST SIX
YEARS, WE HAVE NO LEVERAGE.
YOU KNOW, WE JUST DON'T.
WE HAVE THE NEED.
THEY HAVE THE SERVICES.
AND I MEAN, I, I OVERESTIMATED
MY NEGOTIATING SKILLS WHEN I MET
WITH THEM YEARS AGO.
AND I MEAN, THAT IS WHERE WE ARE
AT.
>> IF I COULD JUMP IN ON THAT
ONE.
THERE WAS HINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS
2020.
I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT TODAY.
THERE WAS A STRATEGY PUT IN
PLACE BY PREVIOUS DEPARTMENT
HEAD AND THAT BY BRINGING THIS
TO THE BOARD, AND HAVING THIS
CONVERSATION, THAT WE WOULD HAVE
SOME KIND OF LEVERAGE ON THEM.
AND, THE DOCTORS, PAUL LAKE AND
MYSELF, HAVE GONE THROUGH THE
RIGMAROLE, THEY HAVE US.
IT IS FRUSTRATING.
BUT THEY HAVE US.
>> OKAY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
OPPORTUNITY MAY AVAIL ITSELF
SOME DAY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
GOOD PSYCHE HOSPITAL WOULD BE
VERY HELPFUL.
>> SURE.
>> IT WOULD.
>> ANYTHING ELSE?
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR
AND SECOND FROM SUPERVISOR
KENNEDY.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> ITEM 37.
>> ITEM 37, AUTHORITY TO ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH NEXT MOVE
HOMELESS SERVICES, IN THE AM OF
$720,780 FOR THE OPERATION OF
THE MATT MATHER COMMUNITY CAMPUS
FAMILY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
PROGRAM EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2020
THROUGH JUNE 30, 2021 WITH THE
OPTION OF TWO ONE YEAR RENEWALS
THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023.
AT AN ANNUAL BUDGET OF $720,780.
>> ISSUE WAS SUPERVISOR PETERS
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST,
THE REASON IT WAS PULLED.
>> YEAH, WHICH I DON'T HAVE.
>> RIGHT.
>> AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER.
>> SO THERE IS NO NEED FOR
CONVERSATION.
>> NO CONVERSATION.
JUST MOVE ALONG.
>> OKAY.
>> YEAH, I SHOULDN'T.
BECAUSE I CAN'T.
>> SUPERVISOR KENNEDY IS GOING
TO MOVE THE ITEM.
>> SECOND.
>> SECOND BY SUPERVISOR FROST.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> OKAY.
ITEM 46 PLEASE.
>> ITEM 46 IS THE AUTHORIZATION
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
MANNALIVE SACRAMENTO FOR INMATE
REENTRY SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT
OF $76,876 FOR THE PERIOD OF
JULY 1,2020 THROUGH JUNE 30,
2021.
>> YOU WANT TO KICK IT OFF?
>> SURE.
WE RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE AND
HOPEFULLY GOT SHARED.
MAY HAVE GOTTEN SHARED WITH YOU
FROM A PARTY THAT, IN ADDITION
TO COMMENTS WITH HE HEARD TODAY
ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE TO EXPEND
DOLLARS ON, THAT RAISE ISSUES,
RELATIVE TO I GUESS, SOME OF THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THE WEB
SITE AND VISUALS AS RELATES TO
THIS PROGRAM.
>> YES, I, MISS EVANS DID MAKE
ME AWARE OF THAT.
I DID PASS ALONG TO THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
THEY ARE AWARE AND LOOKING INTO
IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
>> I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE
GOOD.
AGAIN, I, YOU KNOW, IMAGES WERE
SENT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN LIGHT
OF A LOT OF OTHER CONVERSATIONS
GOING ON IN THE COMMUNITY.
CONCERNING, I GUESS.
>> GREAT.
AND I CAN TELL YOU, THAT THOSE
IMAGES DON'T RISE TO THE LEVEL
OF STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE FOR
OUR SERVICE PROVIDERS.
TO SAVE EVERYBODY SOME TIME,
THIS ISN'T THE MANNALIVE THAT WE
ARE LOOKING TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT.
THIS IS MANALIVE, NOT THE
MANALIVE FOR SACRAMENTO.
THEY PROVIDE BATTER TREATMENT
PROGRAMMING THAT IS NOT ONLY A
COURT MANDATED BUT ALSO
PROBATION CERTIFIED.
SO THIS --
>> THIS IS A DIFFERENT
ORGANIZATION THAN THE ONE THAT
WE HAD --
>> TOTALLY SEPARATE.
SO MANALIVE SACRAMENTO WEB SITE.
WWW.NOTOVIOLENCE.COM.
>> THE MAVCENTER.ORG, WHICH IS
REFERENCED IN THE CORRESPONDENCE
IS NOT A PARTNER WITH THE
REENTRY SERVICES UNIT OR THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
>> VERY GOOD.
ANSWERED THE QUESTION THAT WAS
POSED THOUGH.
>> THANKS.
I WAS GOING TO RAISE THE ISSUE
TOO.
BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT
THERE WAS AN E-MAIL FROM A
CONSTITUENT THAT MADE SOME
PRETTY PROFOUND CLAIMS ABOUT
IMAGERY THAT WAS USED,
ASSOCIATED WITH, I GUESS A
DIFFERENT GROUP.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND SO THAT IS, WE,
SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI AND I SHARED
THE SAME CONCERN.
I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFY FORGE
-- FOR US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE TWO MUCH.
>> I ASSURE YOU, IF ANY CONTRACT
PROVIDER OR COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZES DID HAVE THAT CONTENT
ON THE WEB SITE, WE WOULD LOOK
AT OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANKS FOR COMING OVER.
>> MOVED BY SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI
AND SECOND BY SUPERVISOR PETERS.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> OKAY.
ITEM 56.
>> OKAY.
ITEM 56.
AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE A
REVENUE AGREEMENT WITH
COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER
STANDARDS AND TRAINING FOR THE
PROVISION OF FORCE OPTION
SIMULATOR TRAINING COURSES IN%
THE AMOUNT OF $1,430 FOR THE
PERIOD OF JULY 1,2020 THROUGH
JUNE 30,2021.
>> I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN HELP
ADDRESS THE QUESTION.
I'M LOOKING FOR OTHERS THAT HAVE
UNIFORMS AN BADGES HERE.
BUT, SO I HAD A QUESTION EARLIER
THIS MORNING ABOUT THIS ITEM.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTION
THAT IS ASKED OF US TODAY IS TO
ENTER INTO A REVENUE AGREEMENT
FOR A FAIRLY SMALL AM, $14,030.
THIS IS FOR FORCED OPTION
SIMULATION TRAINING.
AND MY QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH
JUST THE SMALL AMOUNT AND IS
THAT REFLECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT
THERE IS LITTLE INTEREST IN
THIS?
OR OTHERWISE NOT NECESSARY.
SORRY, I WASN'T SURE WHOM FROM
THE DEPARTMENT TO CALL DOWN.
BUT MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH
WHY THE AMOUNT IS SO SMALL.
REFERENCE IN THE BOARD LETTER TO
ONLY 13 PARTICIPANTS.
I BELIEVE SWORN PARTICIPANTS
FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO SOME CLARITY ON
THAT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD.
I'M LISA, I'M WITH THE
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE.
SO WITH REGARDS TO THAT, 1999,
POST AWARDED US THE FUNDING FOR
THE EQUIPMENT FOR THE FORCE
OPTION SIMULATOR.
AND NOW THIS IS TO JUST PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR 13 OUTSIDE AGENCY
PARTICIPANTS TO ATTEND.
THAT POST WILL REIMBURSE US FOR.
>> THIS, DOES THIS THEN, THIS
ACTION WE ARE ASKED TO TAKE
FUNDS AN AUGMENTATION OF 13
PEOPLE IN ADDITION TO A GREATER
NUMBER THAT OUR DEPUTIES HAVE
ACCESS TO?
>> CORRECT.
>> JUST PART OF THE AGREEMENT
WITH THE POST.
>> OTHERWISE, LEFT WITH THE
IMPRESSION THAT THERE IS ONLY
INTEREST 13 OUT OF HOW MANY
HUNDREDS OF SWORN PERSONNEL WE
HAVE.
AND THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN TO
ME.
>> THE TRAIN, IS IT, A VIDEO?
ON, YOU KNOW, SCREEN, KIND OF
QUESTION AND ANSWER THING?
>> IT IS A FORCED OPTION
SIMULATOR THAT SHOWS REALISTIC
LAW ENFORCEMENT SCENARIOS.
AND THEN, SHOWS WHAT THE
OFFICERS, WHAT THEIR BEST
PRACTICE IS WITH RESPONDING TO
USE OF FORCE OPTIONS.
>> THIS IS ON A LOT OF PEOPLE'S
MINDS RIGHT NOW.
CONCEPT, USE OF FORCE, I ASSUME
THAT THE SIMULATIONS, ARE NOT
STATIC.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY EVOLVE AS
BEST PRACTICES EVOLVE IN THE
SPACE OF THE USE OF FORCED,
SUBDUE SUSPECTS AND WHAT NOT.
>> CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU.
ABELIEVE I WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT
HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
I DO SEE THAT SUPERVISOR FROST
IS IN THE CUE AWANT TO COMMENT,
I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO IN
FRONT OF THE SIMULATOR TO GIVE
YOU A GUN AND A TASER, THREE
DIFFERENT WEAPONS AND IT IS
VERY, IT IS A LITTLE BIT
HUMBLING BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT
IF IS MUCH, YOU THINK THAT IT IS
MORE CLEAR CUT THAN IT REALLY
IS.
I RECOMMEND ANYONE WHO HAS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TRY IT OUT.
BECAUSE IT, IT GIVES YOU AN IDEA
OF HOW FAST AND SPLIT SECONDS
THINGS CAN HAPPEN.
AND WHAT OUR DEPUTYS REALLY GO
THROUGH IN REAL LIFE.
>> I WOULD --
>> I THANK THE SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT FOR LETTING ME HAVE
THAT OPPORTUNITY.
>> I ASSUME THAT ONE OF THE
OPTIONS IS THE USE OF NEITHER
TOO.
RIGHT?
NO WEAPONS.
>> ACTUALLY, THAT IS WHAT
HAPPENED TO ME.
I WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO
WASN'T VERY GOOD AT, STILL
STANDING THERE AND SAID, WHY
DIDN'T YOU SAY DROP THE GUN?
I DIDN'T, I WAS, I COULDN'T
VISUALIZE THE CHILD WITH A GUN.
SO, I THOUGHT IT WAS A BOOK.
I THOUGHT I WAS SEEING SOMETHING
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
SO, IT IS.
IT IS A MATTER OF WHAT YOU ARE
ACTUALLY SEEING AND WHAT YOU,
YOU ARE PROCESSING THAT YOU
MIGHT SEE, GIVEN WHERE YOU MIGHT
ENVIRONMENTALLY COME FROM.
IT IS NOT ANY EASY SITUATION,
AND IT IS, IT IS A MANER OF
TRAINING AND REFLECTS, LEARNING
PRACTICE THAT OUR DEPUTIES GO
THROUGH.
AND OBVIOUSLY, THEY NEED TO
CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
I'LL MOVE THE ITEM.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> MOVED BY THE CHAIR.
SECOND BY SUPERVISOR KENNEDY.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE
TO ESTABLISH FIVE-YEAR PLAN TO 
BE INCORPORATED WITH SENATE BILL
PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING FUNDS 
ALLOCATION.
>> YES.
SO THIS IS REQUEST TO SUBMIT FOR
A GRANT APPLICATION WHICH IS DUE
IN JULY.
WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED S. B. 
YEAR 1 FUNDS AND THIS IS YEAR 
2-6.
YOU INITIALLY HEARD BY STAFF FOR
ONE OF THOSE YEARS.
AND THEN A NOTICE OF FUNDAMENTAL
ABILITY CAME OUT WITH A 
FIVE-YEAR PLAN.
THIS HAS A FIVE-YEAR PLAN.
THAT INCLUDED NEEDING TO PASS 
MONEY TO CITIES...
AND REQUIREMENT OF 20 PERCENT OF
THE FUNDS BE USED ON HOME BUYER 
ASSISTANCE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN?
>> YES.
>> THIS MAY INVOLVE BRUCE AS 
WELL ON THIS.
BECAUSE HE'S NOTED LAST YEAR, 
CERTAINLY IN RESPONSE TO SOME 
QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE NEED 
FOR SENIOR SAFE HOUSE OR 
ADDITIONAL CAPACITY FOR SENIORS 
WHO WERE DIVERGE OF HOMELESSNESS
AND THOSE WHO ARE LITERALLY 
HOMELESS OR IN SITUATIONS OF 
ABUSE OR NEGLECT OR OTHERWISE.
WE HAD DISCUSSION IN REGARDS TO 
A HOME SHARE PILOT AND SAFE 
HOUSE.
WHAT I TAKE EXCEPTION TO NOW IS 
THE NEW GRANT FOR HOMELESSNESS 
AND WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE 
ISSUES OF SAFE HOUSE.
PEOPLE ARE TURNED AWAY AND HAVE 
TO BE HOUSED OTHERWISE IN 
HOTELS, HAVING, NOTICING YOUR 
SAFE HOUSE, KIND OF GLOSS IT 
OVER BY...
GENERAL CATEGORY.
I'M NOT BUYING IT.
>> SUPERVISOR, ON THAT POINT 
CERTAINLY WE'RE COMMITTED TO 
ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF SENIORS.
AND ONE REASON WE HAVE THE 
WORDING WE HAVE NOW IS UNCERTAIN
OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH STATE 
FUNDING AND HOMELESSNESS AND 
THOUGHT WE NEEDED TO SET IT UP 
WITH FLEXIBILITY BUT I ASSURE 
YOU WE'RE COMMITTED AS I 
ADDRESSED THE BOARD BEFORE ON 
THE NEEDS OF SENIORS AND WE'LL 
BE LOOKING TO USE THAT FUNDING 
FOR THAT PURPOSE.
>> FOR THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
WE PUT INTO GENERAL HOMELESSNESS
AND FOLKS FROM ACROSS THE 
SPECTRUM, SINGLES, FAMILIES, 
CHILDREN, I'LL MAKE THE PITCH 
HERE AGAIN WE OUGHT TO FOCUS ON 
THE SENIOR POPULATION.
SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION.
AND WE CAN DO THAT WITH THIS 
MONEY IF WE CHOOSE TO AND WE CAN
CHOOSE TO DO WHAT IS RECOMMENDED
HERE AND I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT 
THAT, FOR THE MATURE ADULTS WHO 
AGAIN ARE AT GREAT RISK, GROWING
NUMBER OF OUR POPULATION AND FOR
US NOT TO CALL THAT OUT AND 
CONTINUE THAT AND NOT JUST 
RENTAL ASSISTANCE.
DO I BELIEVE HAVING A SAFE PLACE
AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE 
EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, IN DISTRICT 
3, GREAT SAFE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, 
WE FUND IT IN THE CONTRACTS 
EARLIER TODAY.
THE MODELS WE TALKED ABOUT THE 
MODELS.
BUT TO KNOW WE CONSISTENTLY TURN
AWAY SOMEBODY EVERY DAY ON 
AVERAGE THAT'S AT RISK, 
VULNERABLE AND POPULATION IS 
GROWING.
AND WE KNOW SOME OF THE NEGLECT 
AND FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES THAT 
GO ON.
AND WE'RE THE GATE KEEPERS FOR 
ADULT SERVICES AND SO FORTH.
WE CAN CARVE OUT OF A TWO 
MILLION DOLLAR TO FUND 
ADDITIONAL SAFE HOUSE CAPACITY 
AND I USE THAT MORE LITERALLY 
THAN FIGURATIVELY THAN LITERALLY
TO FIGURE THAT OUT AND I WOULD 
LIKE TO SEE THE MONEY 
DESIGNATED.
WE'RE POURING MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS INTO HOMELESSNESS 
INCLUDING GENERAL FUND.
I THINK HAVING A CARVE OUT FOR 
THE SENIOR POPULATION IS 
IMPORTANT.
AND AGAIN, I WOULD ASK THAT OUR 
APPLICATION WOULD SHOW THAT AND 
IF YOU WOULD LIKE FURTHER 
DISCUSSION IN FRONT OF THIS 
BOARD, DUE IN JULY, DISCUSSION 
WE CAN HAVE IT TODAY.
TO ME, WE DID IT ONCE.
NOT THAT YOU'LL PAY ATTENTION TO
IT.
IT GOT GLOSSED OVER.
>> THIS SUPERVISOR AS YOU KNOW 
WE CAME HERE FOR THE SECOND YEAR
FUNDS, SENIOR HOUSING, IF IT'S 
THE WILL OF THE BOARD WE CAN 
MAKE THE CHANGE IN THE 
APPLICATION, TO RETAIN 
FLEXIBILITY HERE WITH FUNDING 
FOR HOMELESSNESS AND OTHER 
THINGS.
SO WE CAN MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT IF
IT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD.
>> SO MECHANICALLY, HOW IS THE 
WILL OF THE LORD EXPRESSED ON 
THIS SEPARATE FROM WHAT WE'RE 
BEING ASKED TO DO TODAY.
WOULD THIS HAVE TO BE AGENDA.
>> IF THIS IS YOUR DIRECTION TO 
MAKE APPLICATION, WE CAN DO 
THAT.
>> >> THAT CAN BE MADE AS A 
MOTION.
>> I THINK YOU CAN GIVE US THAT 
DIRECTION AND WE WOULD APPLY THE
GRANT THAT WAY, YES.
>> DISCUSSION.
>> SECOND.
PLEASE VOTE.
>> UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> OKAY.
BEFORE WE HEAR CLERK READ ITEM 
77, I HAVE THIS PUBLIC COMMENT.
IT'S NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS WAS 
TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD.
>> IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT 
CORRECTLY, THAT WAS A PUBLIC 
COMMENT THAT WAS ADDED AFTER 
YOUR SET WAS DISTRIBUTED.
ITEM 77.
YEAH, I DO.
ITEM 77 IS APPROVAL OF FISCAL 
YEAR 2020, 21 COUNTY BUDGET.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>> SO MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF 
THE BOARD, FOR THE RECORD AND 
FOR THOSE LISTENING SORT OF 
RECAP WHAT THE SITUATION IS.
AS YOU WELL KNOW THE COUNTY'S 
BUDGET IS FOR COUNTY EXECUTIVE 
TO PROPOSE BUDGET IN JUNE AND 
HOLD HEARINGS ON THAT AND 
APPROVE IT.
FOR COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO 
OPERATE FROM JULY 1-END OF 
SEPTEMBER.
JULY AND AUGUST COUNTY STAFF 
IDENTIFY REVISIONS TO THE 
RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMONG OTHER 
THINGS THAT CARRYOVER NUMBERS 
AFTER BOOKS ARE CLOSED IN MID 
JULY AND IMPACT OF THE STATE 
BUDGET THAT'S USUALLY ADOPTED IN
MID JUNE.
SEPTEMBER YOU HOLD NOTICE PUBLIC
ADOPT A BUDGET.
FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL 
YEAR.
AS I SAID, IT'S BEEN NOTED 
EARLIER, THAT'S THE NORMAL 
BUDGET PROCESS.
AS WE ALL KNOW, THIS YEAR THE 
SITUATION IS ANYTHING BUT 
NORMAL.
AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE IN MARCH 
COVID-19 HEALTH A--QUICKLY 
BECAME CLEAR THE COUNTY WAS 
FACING UNKNOWN BUT SIGNIFICANT 
REDUCTION IN DISCRETIONARY AND 
OTHER REVENUES IN THIS FISCAL 
YEAR.
ROLLING OVER THE ADOPTED BUDGET 
WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS.
20-21 RECOMMENDED BUDGET.
THIS WILL PROVIDE TIME TO IMPACT
COVID-19 EMERGENCY.
EVALUATE THAT AND CONTINUE TO 
UPDATE THE NUMBERS AS THEY'RE 
AVAILABLE.
LEARN WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO 
OFFSET THE COST INCREASES AND 
WORK WITH DEPARTMENTS CAREFULLY 
THOUGHT OUT PLANS FOR 
EXPENDITURES THAT ARE A RESULT 
OF THE REDUCTIONS.
FOCUSING ON THE ISSUES BETWEEN 
NOW AND LATE AUGUST.
IT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOUR 
BOARD.
IN SEPTEMBER YOUR BOARD WILL 
HOLD REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND
MAKE REVISIONS AND THEN ADOPT A 
BUDGET WHICH YOU'RE REQUIRED TO 
DO BY SEPTEMBER 2.
YOU SHOULD KNOW THE APPROACH 
WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS NOT 
UNIQUE TO US.
A NUMBER OF OTHER COUNTIES ARE 
ROLLING OVER THEIR 19-20 BUDGETS
AND PLAN TO RETURN IN JUNE WITH 
NEW REVISED BUDGETS.
TAKING THIS STANCE...
TO NAME JUST A FEW.
YOUR BOARD DOCUMENTED FISCAL 
19-20,...
4.5 BILLION DOLLARS IN 
APPROPRIATIONS--FISCAL YEAR 
20-21 BUDGET AND WE'VE CHANGED 
WHAT WE DEFINE AS APPROPRIATION.
APPROPRIATIONS, UNITS OR 
PROGRAMS WHICH WERE ACCOUNTED 
FOR AS NEGATIVE EXPENDITURE, 
EXPENDITURES WERE NOT DOUBLE 
COUNTED AND SHOWED INCREASE IN 
EXPENDITURE FOR BUDGET OR 
PROGRAMS THAT CONSIDER FUNDED AS
DECREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS AND 
ALSO MEANT THE SPECIFIC 
APPROPRIATIONS BY BUDGET ADDED 
UP TO A NUMBER HIGHER THAN TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS.
STARTING WITH 20-21 BUDGET, THE 
EXPENDITURE BEFORE 
REIMBURSEMENTS AND CREATED AS A 
RESOURCE.
USING THIS NEW APPROACH, THE ALL
FUNDS APPROPRIATION WOULD BE 
6.23 BILLION AND GENERAL 2.88 
BILLION.
FISCAL ALSO INCLUDES 2.88 
BILLION, NO CHANGE, TOTALLY A 
ROLL OVER BUDGET.
THE ALL FUNDS BUDGET 6.25.
INCREASE 20 MILLION AND INCREASE
TO ROLL OVER WE TALKED ABOUT 
THIS EARLIER.
THE FIRST APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
NEW DENTAL IN 19-20 SELF INSURED
FOR DENTAL INSURANCE, 17 MILLION
DOLLARS AND THE SECOND IS DEBT 
TO SERVICE REQUIRED BY THE TERMS
OF THE BOND EPB DENTURES, SO 
WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TODAY IS 
APPROVE THE, OR ADOPT A 
RESOLUTION OF FISCAL YEAR 20-21 
BUDGET AND RETURNING LATER OR 
DURING OR LATE AUGUST WITH A 
REVISED BUDGET PROPOSAL THAT 
WILL BE THE BUDGET FOR 20-21.
WITH THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO 
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS?
>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD?
>> NO.
I THINK WHAT WE MENTIONED 
EARLIER, WE WILL BE WORKING WITH
UNCERTAINTY.
AND NOT THE CORONA-VIRUS RELATED
BUT WITH CIVIL UNREST.
WE'VE SEEN, HEARD FROM NUMEROUS 
FROM ALMOST EVERY BOARD MEMBER 
ABOUT BODY CAMERAS, SO MR. 
FERGUSAN AND I ARE DISCUSSING 
THAT WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE 
AND GETTING A PROPOSAL IN WHAT 
IT WILL LOOK LIKE, WHAT THE PLAN
WILL LOOK LIKE SO IT'S OUR 
INTENT TO PRESENT THAT IN 
SEPTEMBER FOR FINANCING FOR BODY
WORN CAMERAS.
HEARD FROM YOU LOUD AND CLEAR 
THE SHERIFF TOO AND WORKING 
COLLABORATIVELY TO BRING 
SOMETHING FORWARD TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR THE 
RECORD IT'S UNDERSTOOD CLEARLY 
THAT LAST SEPTEMBER FOR FINAL 
BUDGET I ISSUED A LOAN PROTEST 
AGAINST THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET AND
CONTINUE TPHAOUPBT I'LL MAINTAIN
THAT DECENT FOR BALANCE OF TIME 
BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THAT 
THE BOARD RECONVENESED TO 
CONSIDER THE FINAL BUDGET FOR 
20-21 AND I REMIND THE PUBLIC 
ESPECIALLY THE NO VOTE I STATED 
BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019 FOR 
THE CUMULATIVE CONCERN I HAD AND
CONTINUE TO HAVE OF THE DIS 
JOINTED VALUE SET THAT'S 
REFLECTED AND CONTINUES TO BE 
REFLECTED IN THE SHERIFF'S 
BUDGET BOTH BECAUSE OF THE 
DISCRETION THAT THE SHERIFF 
APPLIES TO THINGS I JUST, YOU 
KNOW, PATENTLY DISAGREED WITH.
CARRY CONCEAL WEAPON PERMIT HE'S
DEPLOYED NOW FOR YEARS.
THE FACT THAT WE HAD GONE 
THROUGH A VERY PAINFUL PROCESS 
WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A RAY OF 
HOPE FOR BODY CAMERAS.
LAST SEPTEMBER THERE WASN'T A 
RECOMMENDATION FROM CEO OR 
SHERIFF FOR BODY CAMERAS.
FIRST DISTRICT SUPPORT FOR 
SHERIFF SO I'LL CONTINUE NOT TO 
SUPPORT THE BUDGET WITH THIS 
CARRYOVER FOR THE SHERIFF'S 
UNIT.
WITH THAT...
>> I REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD THE 
CONVERSATION AROUND THE BODY 
CAMERAS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
AND THERE WAS CONVERSATION 
REGARDING, MY IMPRESSION WAS 
THAT THE SHERIFF WAS NOT OPPOSED
TO THE CAMERAS BUT THERE WERE 
CHALLENGES REGARDING RECORDS 
KEEPING AND I. T. AND RECORD 
RESPONSES, SO I WANT TO MAKE 
SURE WE HAVE THE BIG PICTURE OF 
WHAT IS IT GOING TO COST SO WE 
ARE PLANNING ON THE BIG PICTURE.
IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF BUYING
A BUNCH OF CAMERAS BUT TAKING ON
SEVERAL OTHER FUNCTIONS REALLY 
AND COST.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE 
LOOKING AT ALL OF IT.
>> WE UNDERSTAND AS A COMP HEBS 
I HAVE LOOK AT EVERYTHING.
>> SUPERVISOR KENNEDY.
>> WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF
BODY CAMERAS, THANK YOU VERY 
MUCH MR. GILL, WE APPRECIATE 
THAT.
IT'S LONG OVERDUE IN MY MIND.
I RECOMMEND WE DO NOT THAT WE 
RELY ON THEIR INFORMATION.
A FEW YEARS AGO I WAS GIVEN TWO 
SETS OF NUMBERS AND THEY WERE 
VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT CAME 
FROM SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND WHAT
CAME FROM VENDORS, I WOULD REACH
DIRECTLY OUT TO VENDORS IN YOUR 
INFORMATION GATHERING.
>> GOT IT.
>> ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?
>> NO, SIR, THANKS.
>> ANYTHING?
OKAY.
AND WE'RE, WE HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL
THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE 
SUBJECT DIRECTLY OR SOERBLTD SO 
FAR RIGHT?
MADAM CLERK?
>> ITEM 77 WE DO HAVE PUBLIC 
COMMENTS.
WE HAVE ABOUT 20.
>> WE DO?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> LYDIA FRAISER IS DEPUTY CLERK
AND SHE'LL READ THOSE COMMENTS 
INTO THE RECORD.
>> THAT'S GOT TO BE THE CLEANEST
PODIUM IN CALIFORNIA.
>> FOLLOWING THE RULES.
>> OKAY THE FIRST ONE IS FOR 
ITEM 77.
FROM HELLO I WOULD LIKE THIS 
COMMENT READ A LOUD AT JUNE 15 
MEETING.
I DEMAND THE COUNTY CUTS 
UNETHICAL FUNDING TO SHERIFF...
MILITARIZING THE-WE NEED TO 
DE-FUND THE POLICE--BUDGET GIVEN
TO THE SACRAMENTO SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT, DE-FUNDING OF THE 
JAILS AND THE JAILS TO SUPPORT 
BLACK, PEOPLE OF COLOR, 
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING, MENTAL 
HEALTH CARE, HEALTH CARE, 
EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY LED 
SAFETY PROGRAMS.
SACRAMENTO'S LAW ENFORCEMENT 
NEEDS TO BE DE-FUNDED AND 
DEMILITARIZE--WE SHOULD BE 
FOCUSING OUR FUNDING ON PROGRAMS
THAT HELP OUR COMMUNITY INSTEAD.
THANK YOU.
AND THE NEXT LETTER IS ITEM 77 
FROM MICHELLE.
DEAR SUPERVISOR, MICHELLE.
I MOVED HERE FROM ORANGE I 
BELIEVED WAS MORE CONSERVATIVE 
AND MILITANT THAN MY NEW HOME.
I SHOULD HAVE KNEW BEFORE THIS 
BECAUSE MY FAMILY KNOWS NOT TO 
CALL THE POLICE.
MY SISTER IS SEVERELY MENTALLY 
ILL AND NEEDS SOCIAL WORKERS AND
PSYCHIATRIST BUT NO EMPLOYEES 
FOR HEALTH CARE NEEDED.
INSTEAD IF MY SISTER WAS TO 
ENCOUNTER POLICE OFFICERS SHE 
WOULD BE SENT TO JAIL.
SHE HAS PRIVILEGE FOR BEING 
WHITE.
LAST YEAR SHE WAS VICTIM WHERE 
HER APARTMENT WAS RAIDED BY 
POLICE AND HAS P. T. S. D. AND 
HOSPITALIZED THREE TIMES AND 
WON'T TELL MY FAMILY WHAT 
HAPPENED DURING THE POLICE RAID.
POLICE LISTEN WHEN WE WHO PAY 
FOR YOUR PAYCHECKS [INAUDIBLE] 
I'M WRITING FOR MY CONCERN FOR 
THE BUDGET PARTICULARLY THE 
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT.
I THINK I MADE THAT CLEAR 
BEFORE.
THE CITY INVESTS MUCH INTO--I'M 
REQUESTING YOU TO CREATE A 
BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT DE FUNDS 
THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND 
INVEST IN THE NEEDS OF OUR 
COMMUNITY.
INVEST IN YOUR COMMUNITIES AND 
NOT SHERIFFS AND REHABILITATION 
PROGRAM AND NOT PRISONS AND 
JAILS AND INVEST IN THEIR MOST 
VULNERABLE MEMBERS.
SINCERELY MICHELLE.
NEXT ITEM OR NEXT LETTER ITEM 77
IS FROM TRINA ALLEN.
TO BE READ A LOUD AT THE 
MEETING.
...
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD TO
DE-FUND SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND 
REINVEST THE MONEY INTO THE 
COMMUNITIES IT'S FROM.
PEOPLE WERE PRICED OUT OF THE 
HOUSING MARKET.
THE SAME COMMUNITIES.
EFFECTIVELY THIS CREATED AN 
ANTI-BLACK PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS 
AND LEFT PEOPLE AT GREATER RISK 
FOR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.
NOW SARS COVID-19 HITS A VIRUS 
THAT'S DISPROPORTIONATELY 
KILLING BLACK AMERICANS.
CLEAR TRACK RECORDS OF HUMAN 
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST BLACKS
AND THEY RECEIVE THE GREATEST 
PROPORTION OF OUR MONEY.
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.
EFFECTIVE BOARD YOU NEED TO 
DECREASE FUNDING TO THE ENTIRE 
DEPARTMENT AND REINVEST THAT 
ADDRESS THE SYSTEMIC RACIAL INN 
E QUALITIES THAT THIS BOARD 
CAUSED BY FUNDING AN 
ORGANIZATION OF TERROR ON V. I. 
B. O. C. COMMUNITIES.
THANK YOU, TRINA ALLEN.
NEXT LETTER AARON...
I'M A RESIDENT OF SACRAMENTO 
SPORTS DISTRICT AND WOULD LIKE 
THIS COMMENT READ AT THE 
MEETING.
PREPARING TO THE VIOLENCE 
PERPETRATED BY THE POLICE, AS 
WELL AS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, I 
DEMAND YOU DE-FUND THE RACIST 
AND COLONIAL--HELP PEOPLE.
SINCE THEIR INCEPTION LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE 
INFLICTED PAIN AND DAMAGE UPON 
OUR COMMUNITY ESPECIALLY BLACK 
AND BROWN PEOPLE PROTECTING 
WHITE ELITES AND 500 SHOOTINGS 
BY THE POLICE AND FIVE OF THOSE 
TOOK PLACE IN SACRAMENTO WHERE 
HALF WERE UNARMED.
NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN SACRAMENTO
POLICE HAVE AT TEMPTED TO USE 
NON- LETHAL FORCE BEFORE 
SHOOTING PEOPLE
THROWING MORE MONEY AT LAW 
ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T KEEP PEOPLE 
SAFE AND ALLOWS FOR MILITARIZE.
DON'T USE MONEY FROM THE CARE 
ACT.
THIS IS A POLICE PROBLEM.
THIS IS AN INSTITUTIONAL 
PROBLEM.
WE BROUGHT THESE FUNDS TO THE 
COMMUNITY.
LISTEN TO BLACK LEADERSHIP.
LISTEN TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS.
LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE YOU SERVE.
THANK YOU.
NEXT ON ITEM 77 IS MIA.
THIS COMMENT IS A GENERAL PUBLIC
COMMENT ON 6-16 MEETING.
I WOULD LIKE THIS LETTER READ AT
THE MEETING.
I AM OPPOSED...
UTMOST IMPORTANT THIS TAKE THE 
FOLLOWING MEASURES FOR OUR 
COMMUNITIES TO BE SAFE, HEALTHY,
DE-FUND THE POLICE, REMOVE 
POLICE FROM SCHOOLS, FREE PEOPLE
FROM JAILS AND PRISONS, REPEAL 
JAWS THAT CRIMINALIZE SURVIVAL.
SEVEN, PROVIDE SAFE HOUSING FOR 
EVERYONE.
MIA DAWSON.
NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT, ITEM 77 
AGAIN, MEETING DATE 6-16-20.
IT SAYS AGENDA ITEM 46-56.
I APOLOGIZE.
I AM WRITING TO DEMAND THE 
SACRAMENTO DE-FUND THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT AND...
ONE-THIRD OF THE ENTIRE BUDGET 
AND THEIR BUDGET INCREASES EVERY
YEAR.
MEANWHILE WE CAN'T FIND MONEY TO
FUND OUR SCHOOLS AND ADDRESS 
HOMELESS AND MENTAL HEALTH ET 
CETERA.
WE DON'T NEED TO INVEST MORE IN 
LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN OUR 
COMMUNITY IS IN PAIN OVER 
COVID-19.
WE NEED TO REDEFINE PUBLIC 
SAFETY.
IT'S THE RESULT OF PEOPLE NOT 
HAVING ACCESS TO THEIR BASIC 
NEEDS.
WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE ROOT OF 
THE PROBLEM RATHER THAN UNJUST 
SOCIETY.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY IS GIVEN 181 
MILLION DOLLARS THROUGH CARES 
ACT THAT NEEDS TO BE SPENT BY 
DECEMBER 2020.
NONE OF THIS FUNDING SHOULD GO 
TO SHERIFFS, D.A. BUT FOR BLACK 
COMMUNITIES AND SUPPORT HOUSING,
MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND SAFETY 
PROGRAMS.
WE'RE WATCHING.
I WOULD LIKE MY PUBLIC COMMENT 
READ A LOUD AT THIS MEETING.
ALLYSON.
NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 77 
IS FROM STEVE.
AND THIS IS A DUPLICATE FROM A 
PREVIOUS.
THIS LETTER ON ITEM 77 AS WELL 
IS FROM LAURA.
MOST WIDELY ACCEPTED THEORY IS 
CALLED PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM.
THERE'S BEEN...
I BELIEVE THIS PROCESS 
TRANSLATED TO SOCIAL SYSTEMS.
2020 IS A YEAR OF RAPID SOCIAL 
CHANGE IN THE MIDST OF A DEADLY 
PANDEMIC OF WHAT SHOWING LOVE 
MEANS.
SOCIAL DISTANCING AND WEARING 
MASK AS A WAY TO DEMONSTRATE 
LOVE...
JUST A COUPLE OF HOURS AGO THE 
SUPREME COURT DURING PRIDE MONTH
THAT LGBT FOLKS ARE PROVIDED 
PROTECTION AND...
AND STANDING WITH BLACK PEOPLE 
DEMANDING LIBERATION OF POLICE 
VIOLENCE AND 
SYSTEMIC--REFLECTION OF YOUR 
VALUES AND SINCE YOU REPRESENT 
US IT SHOULD BE A DIRECT 
REFLECTION OF OUR VALUES.
AS SACRAMENTO COUNTY RESIDENT 25
YEARS I SUPPORT DE-FUNDING THE 
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT.
NOT WHITE SUPREMACY.
SHERIFFS NEEDS TO BE DISMANTLEED
AND REPAIRING HUNDREDS OF YEARS 
OF OPPRESSION FORCED ON 
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND START 
THIS PROCESS NOT AND NOT WAIT 
ONE MORE MINUTE.
CALIFORNIA IS A LEADER IN SO 
MANY WAYS AND SACRAMENTO SHOULD 
BE A LEADER AS WELL.
INVEST IN PROGRAMS THAT REMIT 
OUR MARGINALIZED--PUNITIVE 
MEASURES THAT HAVE [INAUDIBLE] 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
CONSIDERATION.
SORRY.
ITEM 77 PUBLIC COMMENT FROM 
AáEUD ANNA.
MEETING 6, 16, 20.
REQUEST TO READ A LOUD.
I'M A BLACK RESIDENT OF 
SACRAMENTO COUNTY AND I'M 
WRITING TO ADVOCATE FOR CHANGES 
OUR COUNTY DESERVES AND I HOPE 
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS A 
BODY THAT HAS COURAGE TO MAKE 
THE CHANGES THAT MANY STAND UP 
FOR DE-FUNDING LAW ENFORCEMENT.
OVER ONE-THIRD OF THE GENERAL 
FUND BUDGET IT'S NOT HARD TO 
IMAGINE HOW DEEP THE TIES 
BETWEEN ALLOCATING AND RECEIVING
THE MONEY.
IT WOULDN'T BE HARD TO IMAGINE 
EVEN IF THEY WRONGFULLY 
INCARCERATE...
IF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE, I
APOLOGIZE, IT IS YOUR 
RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THE WRONG 
BEING DONE AND DO SOMETHING 
ABOUT IT.
WE DON'T NEED A JAIL TOWER 
DOWNTOWN IF YOU PUT THE SAME.
FORMERLY INN CARS RAEULTD PEOPLE
IN IT WHEN IT'S DONE.
WE NEED INSTITUTIONAL RACISM 
DONE AND CASES REVIEWED AND 
BUDGETS THAT WILL MAKE A 
DIFFERENCE AND IN THE AGE OF 
MORE DEMAND EVER, THE MONEY 
PLANNED FOR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
CAN BE BETTER USED FOR CITIZENS 
AND KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY SAFE.
THIS IS NOT ONLY A CALL TO 
REALLOCATE AND DE-FUND SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT BUT 181 MILLION 
DOLLARS PROVIDED THROUGH THE 
CARES ACT.
TO SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITY.
FUNDED INDICATION AND HEALTH 
SERVICES AND NOT [INAUDIBLE] 
PROBATION SERVICES ALLOCATION 
WITH THE PANDEMIC AND UNREST IN 
THE COMMUNITY, YOU MUST KNOW 
THESE DEMANDS ARE SERIOUS.
SEEMS INN CREDIT PLEA RECKLESS 
TO SHIFT FUNDING TO THESE 
EFFORTS AND HOPE YOU HEARD FROM 
THE PEOPLE AND COME TO REMIT 
THEM.
REPRESENT THEM.
THANK YOU.
NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 77.
VERONICA...
DEAR SUPERVISORS, MY NAME IS 
VERONICA ROADS.
I'M WRITING TO YOU TODAY TAB 
CERTAIN OF THE BUDGET FOR 
SACRAMENTO SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT.
MOTHER OF BLACK CHILDREN AND 
WIFE OF BLACK MAN AND PATROL 
AGENT OF--SYSTEMIC VIOLENCE OF 
POLICING.
I WAS SICK TO MY STOMACH 
WATCHING TEAR GAS AND SHOT WITH 
RUBBER BULLETS AND HAVING THE 
NATIONAL GUARD GUARDING WALMART 
COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS AND 
SHAMEFUL.
REAL CHANGE NEEDS TO BE MADE.
TOO MUCH MONEY IS INVESTED IN 
LAW ENFORCEMENTS AND THEY'RE 
MAKING 200 THOUSAND DOLLARS A 
YEAR AND THAT'S SHAMEFUL.
REALLOCATE FUNDS FROM SHERIFFS 
DEPARTMENT AND INVEST IN OUR 
COMMUNITIES.
WE DON'T NEED MORE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT.
NEED TO HAVE REHABILITATION AND 
NOT JAILS.
DISCRETIONARY POWER OVER.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY HAS BEEN GIVEN
181 MILLION DOLLARS THROUGH THE 
CARES ACT AND ALMOST JULY AND 
THE FUNDS MUST BE SPENT BY 2020.
WHY AREN'T THEY ALLOCATED?
THEY SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO 
SUPPORT BLACK COMMUNITIES AND 
SUPPORT MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND 
SAFETY PROGRAMS.
EMPTY SUGGESTIONS OF REFORM ARE 
NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE.
SINCERELY VERONICA ROADS.
NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT ON 77 IS 
FROM...
AND IT READS, I WOULD LIKE FOR 
MY COMMENT QUESTIONS TO BE READ 
OUT LOUD DURING THE MEETING.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND IN OTHER 
COUNTRIES POLICE DON'T USE 
DEADLY WEAPONS.
THEY HAVE STEPS BY USING 
CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONFLICT.
ONCE YOU'RE 
DE-FUNDED--RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
BLACK COMMUNITY AND SERVE OUR 
NEEDS IMMEDIATELY AND PATIENTLY.
BETTER HOUSING AND SMALL 
BUSINESS GRANTS SHOULD BE IN THE
FIRST STAGE OF YOUR PLANS SO 
BLACK FAMILIES CAN BUILD AND 
LEAVE A LEGACY JUST LIKE YOU.
JUST LIKE YOU WE WANT OUR BEST 
FOR YOUR FAMILY,--ITEM 77 IS 
FROM A LAUREN...
AND SHE SAYS BOARD OF 
SUPERVISORS MY NAME IS LAUREN 
AND I CURRENTLY WORK AS A MENTAL
HEALTH PROVIDER.
I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS MY 
CONCERN REGARDING THE BUDGET 
SPECIFICALLY THE BUDGET FOR THE 
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF 
DEPARTMENT AND THEY INVEST TOO 
MUCH MONEY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 
AND RECEIVES OVER ONE-THIRD OF 
THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET 
MEANWHILE FAMILY AND CHILD 
RECEIVE BUDGET CUTS.
60 PERCENT WERE CUT FROM FAMILY 
SERVICES FROM CHILDREN AND 
FAMILY SERVICES WHILE SHERIFF 
WERE ADDED.
I FEAR THAT THESE DISPARITIES 
WILL--TOO MANY BLACK LIVES TO 
SHERIFF VIOLENCE AND WE NEED TO 
DISMANTLE SCHOOL TO PRISON 
PIPELINE NOW AND DE-FUND THE 
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND INSTEAD 
INVEST IN THE NEEDS OF OUR 
COMMUNITIES INCLUDING PREVENTIVE
AND SERVICES WE AS A 
COMMUNITY--SEVEN MILLION DOLLAR 
CONTRACT TO DESIGN A NEW JAIL 
DOWNTOWN AND INVEST IN FUNDING 
FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES 
AND INVEST IN REHABILITATION 
PROGRAMMING AND NOT PRISONS AND 
JAILS AND NONE SHOULD GO TO 
SHERIFF'S 
DEPARTMENT--[INAUDIBLE] MENTAL 
HEALTH CARE, EARLY INCIDENT 
CONVENTION, HEALTH SCREENINGS, 
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS, CHILD 
CARE AND COMMUNITY LED SAFETY 
PROGRAMS.
I ASK YOU READ MY PUBLIC COMMENT
A LOUD DURING THE MEETING, 
SINCERELY...
THE NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 
77 IS FRIDAY MARSY, 6-16 I WOULD
LIKE MY COMMENT READ A LOUD 
DURING THE MEETING.
...
I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS CONCERN 
OVER 20-21 BUDGET TO PRIORITIZE 
HEALTH AND SAFETY.
CARES ACT FUNDING SHOULD NOT GO 
TO POLICE.
JAIL TOWER SHOULD BE CANCELED 
AND REALLOCATED TO HELP BLACK 
PEOPLE WHO SUFFER VIOLENCE FROM 
SACRAMENTO POLICE.
SHOULD NOT GO TO SHERIFF OR 
POLICE AND IT SHOULD BE INVESTED
IN SAFE HOUSING.
NO ADDITIONAL--THEY HAVE BROKEN 
THEIR TRUST WITH THE PEOPLE.
AND OPERATE IN A MANNER THAT'S 
NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW.
WE DESERVE BETTER AND HELP THOSE
IN NEED.
PLEASE LISTEN TO YOUR 
CONSTITUENTS.
MEMBER OF DISTRICT ONE.
NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT ON 77 FROM 
NICOLE.
SINCE THE BOARD RECENTLY 
APPROVED 7 MILLION DOLLARS FOR A
NEW JAIL AND ALLOCATE HUNDREDS 
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO 
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT I THOUGHT IT
WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT
INCARCERATION AND WHAT IT 
ACCOMPLISHES OR DOESN'T.
AMERICA HAS FIVE PERCENT OF THE 
WORLD'S POPULATION BUT 25 
PERCENT OF THE WORLD'S INN CARS 
RAEULTD.
IN CALIFORNIA...
LOCKED AWAY.
OUR STATE RATE OF INCARCERATION 
IS HIGHER THAN U. K., CANADA, 
MAJORITY OF THOSE IN CALIFORNIA 
ARE BLACK ACCORDING TO PRISON 
POLICY INITIATIVE AND IT 
ESTIMATES THE UNITED STATES 
SPENDS MORE THAN 80 BILLION TO 
KEEP PEOPLE BEHIND BARS.
IN CALIFORNIA COST AN AVERAGE OF
81 THOUSAND DOLLARS TO 
INCARCERATE AN INMATE IN PRISON.
THE AVERAGE COST IS INCREASED BY
32 THOUSAND DOLLARS OR 58 
PERCENT.
IN CONTRAST SPENT OVER $12,000 
FOR STUDENT FOR THE MOST RECENT 
BUDGET YEAR.
SEVEN TIMES AS MUCH LOCKING 
PEOPLE AWAY AS EDUCATING OUR 
YOUTH.
SO WHAT DO WE GET FOR OUR MONEY,
APPARENTLY NOT MUCH.
LOCKING CITIZENS AWAY THE SYSTEM
DOES NOT HAVE A GREAT TRACK 
RECORD OF REHOBBLEREHABILITATING
[INAUDIBLE] ON THE STATES THE 
AVERAGE RECIDIVISM RATE IS 43 
PERCENT.
ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL 
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE ALMOST 44 
PERCENT OF THE RECENTLY RELEASED
RETURN TO JAIL BEFORE THE END OF
THEIR FIRST YEAR OUT.
CALIFORNIA IS DOING EVEN WORSE.
OUR RECIDIVISM RATE--FROM THE 
STATE AUDITOR TO THE GOVERNOR 
AND LEGISLATURES AND NOTHING HAS
BEEN DONE.
DESPITE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE BEHIND BARS AND DESPITE 
POLICE REFORM AND BODY CAMS AND 
TRAINING PEOPLE DIE AND HAVE 
THEIR LIVES RUINED BY THE--THAN 
WHITES BECAUSE OF SYSTEMIC 
RACISM.
WE NEED TO ABANDON THE CURRENT 
PRACTICES OF--UNJUST DEATH 
BRUTALIZATION AND WITHHOLDING 
TOO MANY OF OUR VULNERABLE 
CITIZENS.
WE NEED TO STOP CRIMINALIZING 
POVERTY AND MOVE--NEW WAY A WAY 
THAT HOLDS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 
PRACTICES WHICH WE KNOW IS 
ADMINISTERED TO OUR BLACK AND 
BROWN BROTHERS...
BOARD OF COUNTY AS IT 
CONSIDERS--INCREASE NOT INCREASE
THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET OR DIRECT 
MONEY FOR NEW PRISON FACILITIES.
INSTEAD--ALTERNATIVES AND 
REDIRECT COUNTY FUNDS THAT TRULY
SUPPORT THE MOST VULNERABLE 
CITIZENS IN OUR COUNTRY AND 
DIRECTED YOU TO POSITIONS OF 
LEADERSHIP TO LOOK OUT UPON THE 
LANDSCAPE OF OUR COMMUNITY AND 
SEE WHERE OUR NEEDS ARE AND SEE 
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND MAKE 
SURE IT DOES.
IT IS CLEAR OUR PRACTICEING OF 
POLICING AND PRISON DO NOT WORK 
FOR OUR PEOPLE.
WE LOOK TO YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE 
THAT REALITY AND TAKE A NEED.
DO YOUR JOBS.
DE-FUND NOW.
RESPECTFULLY NICOLE.
THE NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 
77 IS FROM SAM.
MEETING DATE 6:16 I ASK MY 
COMMENT BE READ OUT LOUD DURING 
THE MEETING.
THANK YOU.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MY NAME IS 
SAM.
I DEMAND YOU DE-FUND LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AND INVEST IN 
COMMUNITY--BLACK LIVES MATTER 
MOVEMENT AND RACISM IS BROUGHT 
TO ATTENTION OF AMERICANS AND 
THE ENTIRE WORLD AND WE CAN'T 
INCREASE THE BUDGET OF HIGHWAY 
PRACTICAL AND SHERIFF DEPUTIES.
WE CANNOT ENABLE MORE JAILS AND 
PRISONS TO BE BUILT AS THE JAIL 
DOWNTOWN.
PROBLEMATIC AND INHUMANE.
YOUR CONSTITUENTS DO NOT SUPPORT
THE VALUES AND I DEMAND YOU 
REFUSE THE...
TOWARD THE SHERIFF.
INSTEAD I URGE YOU TO USE THE 
FUNDS TO SUPPORT BLACK 
COMMUNITIES, MENTAL HEALTH CARE 
AND YOU ARE URGE TO IMPLEMENT.
DE-FUND LAW ENFORCEMENT, DE MILL
RISE OUR COMMUNITIES, REMOVE 
POLICE FROM SCHOOLS, REMOVE LAWS
THAT--PROVIDE SAFE HOUSING FOR 
EVERYONE, INVEST IN CARE AND NOT
COPS AND CAGES.
TAKE THE PLEDGE TO REFUSE 
MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LAW 
ENFORCEMENT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM 77 IS 
FROM CORIE PRIOR.
HI THERE, I REQUEST THAT MY 
COMMENT BE READ A LOUD IN THE 
MEETING.
I WOULD LIKE TO--[INAUDIBLE] 
SPECIFICALLY THE SHERIFF.
IT BEGINS ON THE NEXT LINE.
DO I NOT APPROVE OF THE AMOUNT 
OF MONEY GOING TO THE SHERIFF 
OFFICE.
WE NEED TO REALLOCATE A LOT OF 
THOSE FUNDS TO INVEST IN OUR 
COMMUNITIES ESPECIALLY OUR YOUTH
AND MENTAL AND PHYSICAL 
HOUSE--COMPARED TO OUR 
COMMUNITIES IS GROTESQUE AND 
WRONG AND WE ARE ALWAYS TOLD 
THERE'S NO MONEY FOR EDUCATION 
OR HOMING FOR THE HOMELESS--SOME
MAY WONDER WHAT ABOUT CRIME?
IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE A TREE, DO
YOU CUT IT BY ITS BRANCHES?
NO.
YOU DIG IT OUT BY THE ROOT.
I WROTE ARTICLES OF COMMITTING 
CRIME.
DECADES OF THE RESEARCH SHOW THE
ROOTS IN CRIME LACK OF 
QUALITY,...
YOUTH PROGRAMS AND TRAUMA.
DOESN'T IT THEN TO ADDRESS CRIME
BY ADDRESSING THE ISSUES.
HERE'S THE KICKER.
CONTACT WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE AT
ANY LEVEL RELATED TO ANY 
NEGATIVE OUTCOME YOU CAN 
IMAGINE, SPECIFICALLY THE ONES I
LISTED AT THE ROOTS OF CRIME.
THIS RESEARCH SHOWS OUR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE IS NOT ONLY RACIST BUT 
PERPETUATES CRIME AND THE SAFER 
ONES ARE NOT WITH MORE POLICE 
BUT RESOURCES.
PEOPLE OF COLOR TELL US OUR 
SYSTEM NEEDS TO CHANGE AND 
DECADES OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 
DOES TOO.
THE VULNERABLE NEED YOU TO DO 
SOMETHING AND DE-FUND THE POLICE
AND...
NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEM 77 
IS FROM...
MCKENZIE.
HELLO, AS A MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMUNITY I WOULD LIKE TO 
COMMENT THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY 
INAPPROPRIATE USE OF FUNDS TO 
BEGIN A 7 MILLION DOLLARS JAIL 
RIGHT NOW OR INCREASE FUNDING 
FOR THE SHERIFF.
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN 
IMPORTANT MOMENT OF HISTORY 
WHERE WE'RE CALLED TO--NOT TO 
EXPAND ITS REACH.
RATHER THAN INCREASING FUNDS FOR
JAILS AND POLICE THEY SHOULD BE 
DE-FUNDING--DEPARTMENTS 
[INAUDIBLE] RESULTING IN THE 
DEATH AND TRAUMA OF OUR BLACK 
COMMUNITY MEMBERS INSTEAD OF 
SERVING THEM.
PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 
MORALLY THE TAXPAYER--MEET THE 
NEED OF THE PEOPLE.
WE CANNOT INVEST IN PUNISHMENT 
IF THE AIM OF THE GOVERNMENT AND
THOSE WHO WORK IN IT IS TO TRULY
SERVE THE CITIZENS.
NONE OF THE CARE ACT FUNDING 
SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO SHERIFF.
ALLOCATED FOR HEALTH CARE AND 
THOSE AFFECTED BY THE ON GOING 
PANDEMIC.
PLEASE READ THIS COMMENT A LOUD 
DURING THE MEETING THANK YOU...
COMMENT ON ITEM 77 IS FROM 
MELISSA...
AND SHE SAYS, HELLO.
MY NAME IS MELISSA AND I'M A 
NURSING COMMUNITY THAT'S 
CONCERNED ABOUT ALLOCATION OF 
THE FUNDS AND SHERIFF AND 
PROBATION DEPARTMENT.
ASKED FOR 3.1 MILLION WHICH 
COULD BE USED FOR FUNDING OF 
REINVESTMENT INTO OUR 
COMMUNITIES SPECIFICALLY THE 
BLACK COMMUNITIES IN SACRAMENTO.
RESERVED FOR PROGRAMS FOR 
SCHOOLS, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
WE'VE SEEN MANY COUNTRIES ACROSS
THE COUNTRY SAN FRANCISCO, 
PORTLAND, NEW YORK CITY, 
ALBUQUERQUE, TO HAVE FUNDING 
TOWARDS PUBLIC SERVICES, 
SCHOOLS, SOCIAL WORKERS AND 
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.
JUNE 15.
AND I THINK SACRAMENTO NEEDS TO 
PLEDGE THE SAME AS CAPITOL OF 
CALIFORNIA IN CALIFORNIA AND 
ACROSS THE NATION TO MAKE CHANGE
L RELATED TO DE-FUNDING THE 
POLICE AND REINVEST THE FUNDS 
INTO THE COMMUNICATED.
IN THIS TIME OF SOCIAL JUSTICE 
AND FOCUS ON SOCIAL EQUITY, I 
HOPE THE BOARD FEELS THE SAME 
WAY.
THANK YOU.
THESE ARE THE NEW SOURCES I USE 
AND RECOMMEND READING ARTICLE 
FOR SOME INSPIRATION ON HOW 
SACRAMENTO CAN MAKE STEPS TO 
POSITIVE CHANGE AND INCLUDES A 
LINK...
[INAUDIBLE] CALLS TO DE 
[INAUDIBLE] WASHINGTON POLLS SHE
INCLUDES ANOTHER LINK, SINCERELY
MELISSA...
THE NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEM
77 IS FROM A BETH SHALL.
BETH HIGH SHALL.
SHE SAYS, THIS IS MESSAGE IS 
INTENDED TO BE READ A LOUD.
GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS, GOOD 
MORNING MY NAME IS BETH HIGHLY 
SHALL AND I LIVE IN MIDTOWN WITH
MY HUSBAND AND TWO YOUNG 
CHILDREN.
OUR COMMUNITY IS SUFFERING AND 
WE HAVE RESOURCES TO MAKE 
COMMUNITY CHANGE.
CIVIL LEADERS I BELIEVE YOU HAVE
AN OBLIGATION TO
AND SPENDING CHOICES OF OUR 
COUNTY. 
THE RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO 
YOU. 
REDUCTION IN ABOLITION. 
OUR NEIGHBORS NEED HOUSING. 
OUR NEIGHBORS NEED HEALTHCARE 
AND JOBS. 
THIS IS WHAT FACILITATES 
COMMUNITY SAFETY. 
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 
DEVASTATES COMMUNITIES AND IS 
NOT MAKING US SAFE. 
I DO NOT SAY THAT TO INSULT OR 
DEMEAN LAW ENFORCEMENT. 
I MEAN IT AS AN URGENT 
IRREFUTABLE FACT. 
WE NEED TO STOP PRETENDING THAT 
THE STATUS QUO IS ACCEPTABLE OR 
NO LONGER JUSTICE. 
WE ARE NOT ON THE PATH TO 
JUSTICE. 
THERE IS A FORK IN THE ROAD. 
KNOCK DOWN WHITE SUPREMACIES AND
COMMUNITIES WITH SUPPORT TO LIVE
OUT THE FREEDOM THAT WAS 
PROMISED. 
THANK YOU, BETH.
>> NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 
77 IS FROM CAMILL RELGADO. 
GREETINGS. 
BELOW IS MY COMMENT ON THE 
AGENDA ITEM FOR THE JUNE 16 
MEETING. 
I WOULD LIKE MY COMMENT TO BE 
READ ALOUD DURING THE MEETING AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 
I AM IN DISTRICT 2. 
GENERAL COMMENT. 
THE COMMUNITIES IN SACRAMENTO 
COUNTY ARE IN NEED OF DRASTIC 
CHANGES. 
FOR THE SUCCESS OF OUR COMMUNITY
MEMBERS AS HIGH SCHOOL AND 
COLLEGE GRADUATES, 
ENTREPRENEURS, HOMEOWNERS AND 
FREE CITIZENS TO LIVE THEIR 
LIVES IN STABILITY AND PEACE. 
WE HAVE BEEN SEWING SEEDS OF 
OPPRESSION, OPPRESSION, AND 
FEAR, JOBLESSNESS, HOMELESSNESS,
AND INCARCERATION. 
OUR CITIZENS ARE KEPT FROM THEIR
JOBS AND FAMILIES AND THEIR 
LIVES ARE TAKEN FROM THEM. 
WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED ANY
OF IT BUT I CALL ON US TO FIX IT
NOW AND TAKE THE BOLD AND ACTION
NEEDED TO HEAL OUR COMMUNITIES 
AND GIVE THEM THE FUTURE THEY 
DESERVE. 
PLEASE INVEST IN OUR COMMUNITIES
IN SOCIAL PROGRAMS FOR 
EDUCATION, JOBS, 
ENTREPRENEURSHIP, SPORTS MENTAL 
HEALTH CARE, ADDICTION, 
TREATMENT, DOMESTIC, EDUCATION, 
JOBS, ENTREPRENEURSHIP. 
-- I APOLOGIZE. 
SOCIAL PROGRAMS FOR -- ADDICTION
TREATMENT, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 
PREVENTION, DESEGREGATION AND 
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS TO BE SAFE 
FOR EVERYBODY AND IT'S NOT 
BECAUSE BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE 
ARE ARRESTED AND KILLED BY OTHER
CASES WHEN THEY ARE NOT 
COMMITTING MORE CRIME. 
USE FUNDING ALLOCATED FOR LAW 
INJUSTICE BECAUSE THE MONEY IS 
NOT BEING USED EFFECTIVELY. 
WE NEED EQUALITY BUT THE 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AS IS 
STEEPENS THE DREAMS OF RACISM, 
OPPRESSION AND PROFITEERING. 
WE ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO MAKE
OUR COUNTRY SAFER, EVERYONE. 
WE CAN DO BETTER AND LIVE UP TO 
THE IDEALS OF OUR COUNTRY. 
IN THE WORDS OF FDR, THE TEST OF
OUR PROGRESS IS WHETHER WE 
PROVIDE ENOUGH WITH THOSE TOO 
LITTLE. 
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW IN 
YOUR HANDS. 
INCREMENTAL CHANGE HAS BEEN 
INEFFECTIVE FOR A OVERHAUL, 
INVEST IN OUR COMMUNITIES, 
SUCCESS, NOT ENRAGING AND 
KILLING THEM IN A PERVERSE 
INTERPRETATION OF JUSTICE. 
THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF MORE 
COMMENTS THAT CAME IN. 
THIS IS FROM MADELINE BRIT. 
I WISH TO HAVE THIS COMMENT READ
ALOUD DURING THE CITY COUNCIL 
MEETING. 
I AM MADELINE, A RESIDENT OF 
DISTRICT 2 IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY.
I AM ASKING WE DEFUND THE 
SACRAMENTO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 
AND ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
AND REDISTRIBUTE THE FUNDS INTO 
COMMUNITY DRIVEN PROGRAMS. 
IT IS CLEAR TO THOSE THAT OUR 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SERVE 
TO ONLY PROTECT CAPITAL PROPERTY
IN A RACIST STATUS QUO, A COMMON
THEME IN OUR CITY'S RESPONSE TO 
COVID-19 TOO, A VIRUS THAT 
AFFECTS BLACK PEOPLE AND PEOPLE 
OF COLOR. 
FOR REAL CHANGE, WE NEED TO 
PROVIDE FUNDING TO OUR 
COMMUNITIES. 
WE NEED SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR 
HOUSING, MENTAL HEALTH CARE, 
SAFETY PROGRAMS, MORE FUNDING 
FOR THE SHERIFF'S AGENCIES, 
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, 
SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES MEANS MORE 
FUNDING TOWARDS UNETHICAL PRISON
LABOR, MORE FUNDING TOWARDS 
MILITARIZED WEAPONS THAT WILL 
UNDOUBTEDLY BE USED TO IMPLEMENT
UNNECESSARY FORCE AND, 
ULTIMATELY, MORE FUNDING TOWARDS
A ROTTEN SYSTEM THAT NEEDS TO BE
DISMANTLED ENTIRELY. 
WHAT KIND OF SYSTEMS ARE YOU 
TRYING TO PROTECT WHEN YOU 
MILITARYIZE FUNDING FOR A 
PROGRAM -- WHAT KIND OF SYSTEMS 
ARE POLICE TRYING TO PROTECT 
WHEN THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO 
CALL FOR THE VOLUME AND 
BETTERMENT OF BLACK LIFERS. 
THE FUNCTIONALITY OF LAW 
ENFORCEMENT. 
AGAIN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE 
PEOPLE AT THE TOP ONLY SERVE TO 
PROTECT CAPITAL AND PROPERTY, 
NOT PEOPLE. 
NOW IS THE TIME TO IMPLEMENT 
REAL CHANGE THAT STARTS IN THE 
COMMUNITY. 
IT STARTS WITH CITIZENS, 
PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING TO 
OUR BLACK COMMUNITIES, TO 
EDUCATION, TO YOUTH COMMUNITY 
SERVICES, TO HEALTHCARE AND 
PERMANENT HOUSING, WHEN OUR 
COMMUNITIES THRIVE, OUR CITY 
THRIVES. 
OKAY. 
THIS IS FROM GENEVA HUTCHISON. 
GOOD MORNING SUPERVISORS AND 
BOARD CLERK. 
I AM WRITING WITH SOME QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS ON THE 2020-2021 
ROLL OVER BUDGET, WHICH IS ITEM 
77 ON THE AGENDA FOR THE MAY 16,
2020 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
MEETING SCHEDULED AT 10:45. 
ONE, WILL THERE BE A PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT BEFORE THE BOARD 
BEGINS DISCUSSING THE OFFICIAL 
BUDGET IN SEPTEMBER. 
WHAT DOES COT STAND FOR. 
I NOTICED IT ON THE DOCUMENT 
DISCUSSING CHANGES FROM THE 
2019-20 BUDGET AND ALSO AS A 
LINE ITEM. 
THREE, WHERE DO REIMBURSEMENTS 
COME FROM? 
WHERE DOES THE REVENUE FOR 
INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS COME 
FROM, SPECIFICALLY PLANNING AND 
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. 
I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO HOW
THAT DEPARTMENT IS MAKING MONEY.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE DEPARTMENT 
WOULD NEED FUNDING BUT NOT 
CREATE FUNDING. 
TWO, WHAT IS LAFCO 5. 
ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO INCREASE 
FUNDING TO THE FAIR HOUSING ACT?
SIX, WHAT DOES THE CRIMINAL 
JUSTICE CABINET DO? 
SEVEN, WHO IS THE CLERK OF THE 
BOARD. 
NINE, WHERE DOES THE REVENUE 
FROM VOTER REGISTRATION AND 
ELECTIONS COME FROM. 
WHO OVERSEES THAT DEPARTMENT. 
HAVE YOU -- I'M SORRY, 10, HAVE 
YOU CONSIDERED PRESENTING A BILL
TO HAVE GRADUATED FEES ON THINGS
THAT TURN REVENUE FOR THE 
COUNTY, IE, HAVING PEOPLE PAY 
BAIL OR TICKETS AT DIFFERENT 
RATES DEPENDING ON THEIR INCOME 
SO THAT THE BURDEN DOES NOT WAY 
DISPROPORTIONATELY ON RESIDENTS 
WITH LOWER INCOMES. 
11, WHY DO REGIONAL PARKS HAVE 
REVENUE. 
ARE ALL REGIONAL PARKS NOT FREE 
TO VISITORS? 
IF SO HAVE YOU PRESENTED A 
MEASURE TO MAKE THEM FREE? 
IT SEEMS REALLY CRUEL THAT THOSE
LEAST LIKELY TO HAVE ACCESS TO 
PRIVATE GREEN SPACES SHOULD BE 
PRICED OUT OF PUBLIC ONES. 
12, ARE YOU CURRENTLY DISCUSSING
DIVESTING MONEY FROM THE 
DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND SHERIFF TO
INVEST IN COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT 
AND THE PUBLIC DEFENDER. 
I NOTICE THAT THE DA AND SHERIFF
ACCOUNT FOR 60% OF THE NET 
COUNTY BUDGET. 
THAT IS REALLY CONCERNING TO ME.
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING ALOUD 
DURING THE AFORE MENTIONED 
MEETING. 
PLEASE DIVEST FUNDING FROM THE 
DA AND SHERIFF WHO CURRENTLY 
ACCOUNT FOR 60% OF NET COUNTY 
COSTS AND INVEST IN COMMUNITY 
ENRICHMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL 
PROTECTION, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 
LIBRARIES, HEALTH SERVICES, 
SOCIAL SERVICES, AND PUBLIC 
SPACES IN LOW-INCOME 
NEIGHBORHOODS. 
13, CAN I PLEASE HAVE A 
BREAKDOWN OF HOW THE FUNDS FROM 
1991 AND 2011 REALIGNMENTS ARE 
DISTRIBUTED. 
14, WHAT DOES THE COMMUNITY 
INVESTMENT PROGRAM CURRENTLY DO?
WHO IS IN CHARGE OF IT. 
15, WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DONE
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF 
TRANSPORTATION? 
COULD I PLEASE HAVE A COPY OF 
ITS INTERNAL BUDGET? 
16, WHAT IS BEING DONE WITH THE 
FUNDS THAT GO TO GOLF? 
WHY DOES GOLF GET SEVEN TIMES 
THE FUNDING THAT UNEMPLOYMENT 
INSURANCE GETS? 
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO
READ AND RESPOND TO MY 
QUESTIONS. 
I LOOK FORWARD TO WATCHING THE 
MEETING NEXT TUESDAY AND HEARING
MY COMMENTS BE CONSIDERED. 
I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE MY 
BUDGETARY CONCERNS INTO ACCOUNT.
I VOTED FOR PHIL IN THE LAST 
ELECTION. 
I WANT TO SEE MY VIEWS 
REPRESENTED IN THE COUNCIL. 
SINCERELY, GENEVA HUTCHISON. 
THIS IS FROM STEVEN SANDER. 
PLEASE READ MY COMMENT INTO THE 
RECORD DURING THE MEETING. 
I AM STEVEN SANDER, A RESIDENT 
OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT 2.
I WANTED TO BRING UP CONSENT 
ITEM 56. 
JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS CAME IN 
FOR ITEM 77 AND CAME IN AROUND 
4:00. 
I WANTED TO BRING UP CONSENT 
ITEM 56 FROM THE JUNE 16 BOARD 
MEETING WHERE SUPERVISOR PETERS 
HAD AN EXCHANGE WITH THE 
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 
SOKESPERSON. 
SUPERVISOR PETERS INDICATED THAT
THE USE OF FORCE SIMULATOR WOULD
BE OPEN TO THE MEMBERS OF PUBLIC
TO TRY OUT TO SEE HOW THESE 
DECISIONS ARE NOT CLEAR 
VIS-A-VIS USE OF FORCE. 
I WOULD LIKE TO TRY IT OUT WITH 
A FEW FOLKS. 
THERE WAS SOME INDICATION THAT 
THE SIMULATOR WAS REALISTIC AND 
PORTRAYED REAL SITUATIONS. 
A SITUATION IN WHICH A CHILD WAS
POINTING A GUN AT HER, AND SHE 
THOUGHT IT WAS A BOOK. 
SHE'S SAYING TO SUPERVISOR 
PETERS THAT SUPERVISOR FOST, WAS
DID YOU BLOW AWAY THAT CHILD IN 
THE SIMULATOR. 
DO YOU EXPECT A SHERIFF'S 
DEPARTMENT TO BLOW AWAY A CHILD.
IF THEY ARE ARMED WITH A GUN, 
ARE YOU SHOOTING THE CHILD. 
WHAT KIND OF SCENARIO WOULD A 
CHILD BE HOLDING A GUN. 
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT I'M 
NOT SHOOTING A CHILD UNDER ANY 
CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER. 
EACH IF THEY WERE POINTING A GUN
FROM ME, I WOULD RESIGN FROM THE
FORCE AND FIND ANOTHER LINE OF 
WORK BECAUSE IF WE HAVE GOTTEN 
TO THAT POINT IN THE SOCIETY 
WHERE A CHILD POINTING A GUN IN 
A SHERIFF'S DEPUTY IS CONCERNED 
A REALISTIC TRAINING EXERCISE, 
WE ARE WELL PAST THE POINT FOR 
THE POLICE. 
THAT IS SIMPLY PUT A COMPLETELY 
INTOLERABLE SITUATION THAT 
TRANSCENDS THE NEED FOR LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AND CALLS INTO 
QUESTION THE FOUNDAIONS OF OUR 
SOCIETY. 
I THINK IT IS VERY TONE DEAF TO 
ASK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO 
COME INTO THE SACRAMENTO 
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, GUNNING DOWN 
SOMEONE AS A LAST RESORT. 
THESE SIMULATORS MUST TAKE INTO 
ACCOUNT AB 392 WHICH STATE ONLY 
INSTANCES IN WHICH THE USE OF 
DEADLY FORCE ARE JUSTIFIED ARE 
TO DEFEND AGAINST AN IMMINENT 
THREAT OF DEATH OR SERIOUS 
BODILY INJURY TO AN OFFICER OR 
ANOTHER PERSON OR APPREHEND A 
FLEEING FELON, IF THE OFFICER 
BELIEVES DEATH WILL COME TO 
ANOTHER OR APPREHENDED. 
STOP INSTITUTIONAL RACISM. 
STOP UPHOLDING THE CONSTABLE 
STATE. 
STOP SHOOTING NONVIOLENT 
PROTESTERS. 
LET PEOPLE EXPRESS THEIR 
COLLECTIVE FURY AT THE SYSTEM. 
THESE THUGS ARE THE BIGGEST 
GANGS OUT THERE. 
WE ARE LIVING UNDER A POLICE 
STATE. 
THESE MODERN DAY SLAVE ROTECTIN-
PATROLLERS. 
GET ON THE MODERN SIDE OF 
HISTORY. 
MY NAME IS JOHN, A RESIDENT OF 
SACRAMENTO COUNTY AND CURRENTLY 
WORK AS A TEACHER. 
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A GENERAL 
COMMENT ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF 
THE BUDGET FOR 2020-21. 
WHY IS THERE NO REFERENCE OR 
DISCUSSION TO FUNDING THE LIZARD
PEOPLE OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY. 
I'M NOT REFERRING TO SOME 
BROADWAY TO POLICE OFFICERS OR A
GROUP OF PEOPLE. 
I LITERALLY MEAN LIZARD PEOPLE. 
WHY ARE WE NOT TALKING ABOUT 
THEM. 
WHY IS THERE NO FUNDING TO EVEN 
RESEARCH THE PROBLEM GROWING IN 
OUR COMMUNITY. 
JOHN TERRY. 
AND I WANTED TO JUST MAKE A 
COMMENT FOR DR. WIRTZ. 
THEY MADE COMMENTS FOR ITEMS 
46-56, AND THEIR COMMENTS WERE 
REPEATED. 
THEY WERE THE SAME EXACT 
COMMENTS SO THEIR COMMENTS ARE 
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD BUT WE'RE
NOT RE-READING THEM INTO THE 
RECORD. 
>> UNDERSTOOD.
>> AND THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE
COMMENTS THROUGH 4:27 P.M. 
>> OKAY, AND I'M GOING TO 
EXERCISE CHAIR'S PRIVILEGE AND 
SAY WE ARE CUTTING OFF PUBLIC 
COMMENT AT THIS POINT FOR THE 
DAY. 
OKAY. 
SUPERVISOR FAUST.
>> I WANTED TO -- OR IS IT 
SUPERVISOR PETERS. 
>> I'M SUE FAUST. 
I WANTED TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I 
MIGHT HAVE LEFT THE WRONG 
IMPRESSION. 
WHEN I VISITED THE SIMULATOR. 
IT WAS BY INVITATION BY THE 
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. 
I FELT IT WAS AN IMPORTANT 
ACTIVITY FOR ME GIVEN I'M A 
PERSON WHO'S MAKING DECISIONS 
AROUND POLICY THAT RELATES TO 
THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT. 
I, AT THAT TIME, WAS ENCOURAGED 
BY THE OFFICERS THAT IF ANY OF 
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE BOARD WOULD
LIKE TO COME AND VISIT THAT THEY
ARE ALSO INVITED, AND IF I LEFT 
THE WRONG IMPRESSION, I DON'T 
KNOW THAT SHERIFF HAS THE 
RESOURCES TO OPEN THAT SIMULATOR
TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. 
I KNOW THEY HAVE RIDE ALONGS, 
AND I WANT TO SAY THAT I'VE GONE
ON RIDE ALONGS WITH THE SHERIFF 
AND CHPD. 
BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE THE 
WRONG IMPRESSION THAT THE 
SHERIFF WAS OPEN OR ABLE TO 
PROVIDE THAT EXPERIENCE BUT THEY
DID INVITE BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SIMULATOR.
SO I WANTED TO APOLOGIZE IF I 
LEFT THAT PERSON WITH THE WRONG 
IMPRESSION. 
THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHAIR, THANKS AGAIN TO 
THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND STAFF FOR
READING THOSE INTO THE RECORD. 
I WOULD SAY THAT ONE THING 
CERTAINLY WAS APPARENT TODAY 
THAT FOLKS HAVE, FOLLOWED OUR 
AGENDA, LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF 
THE ITEMS. 
I THINK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS 
WERE POSED AND SOME OF THE 
CORRESPONDENCE READ RECENTLY 
HERE THIS AFTERNOON. 
THEY ARE ALL VERY GOOD QUESTIONS
AND ONES THAT I THINK HAVE 
ANSWERS TO THEM IN MANY CASES, 
YOU KNOW, WHETHER FOLKS ARE 
TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE 
ANSWER BUT I THINK WHAT WE DO 
HERE IN THESE CHAMBERS AS WE ALL
KNOW IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. 
WE DO PEOPLE'S BUSINESS. 
THIS IS THE BUDGET THAT BELONGS 
TO SACRAMENTO COUNTY AND WE'RE 
GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE OF 
RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT ONLY WEIGH
IN BUT OBVIOUSLY TO MAKE THE 
DECISIONS THAT WE'RE CALLED UPON
TO MAKE. 
I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK IT'S 
IMPORTANT, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOT ONLY ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE 
COMMENTS BUT IF THERE'S A POINT 
OF REFERENCE, AND IF IT'S ON THE
CLERK'S WEB SITE OR A SIMILAR 
LOCATION MAYBE WITH THE COUNTY 
EXECUTIVES THAT THE BUDGET, 
THERE WERE QUESTIONS POSED ABOUT
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN 
SEPTEMBER, YOU KNOW, HOW WILL WE
KNOW AND SO FORTH AND SO ON, AND
I THINK AS THEY'VE TUNED IN TO 
TODAY'S AGENDA, THERE'S BEEN 
GOOD COMMUNICATION AMONGST A 
NETWORK OF FOLKS BUT I THINK 
PEOPLE HAVE A BETTER 
UNDERSTANDING AND AN 
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT IS 
WE'RE CALLED UPON TO DO, AND I 
THINK THE DIVERSITY, THE BREADTH
AND THE DEPTH OF WHAT'S IN A 
SEVERAL BILLION-DOLLAR BUDGET, I
THINK SOME OF THE CONSTRAINTS 
BUT ALSO SOME OF THE CHOICES 
THAT WE ARE GIVEN THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ANY GIVEN 
YEAR AND ANY GIVEN CITY TO THIS 
BOARD SO I GUESS I WOULD 
ENCOURAGE US -- IT'S PROBABLY 
NOT POSSIBLE TO RESPOND TO EACH 
OF THOSE QUESTIONS. 
IT'S MORE COMMENTARY THAN 
QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK THERE'S 
SOME ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT COULD 
BE PUT FORTH THAT WOULD, YOU 
KNOW, GIVE PEOPLE THE ABILITY TO
STEER TO, YOU KNOW, INFORMATION 
THAT WOULD HELP ANSWER THOSE 
QUESTIONS, AND IF NOT, I WOULD 
SAY OUR STAFF HAS BEEN VERY 
RESPONSIVE IN THE PAST AND TO 
OUR RESPECTIVE OFFICES AND 
INQUIRIES THAT RELATE TO, YOU 
KNOW, BUDGETARY MATTERS AND SO 
FORTH. 
BUT THERE WERE SOME GOOD 
QUESTIONS AMIDST MANY OF THOSE 
COMMENTS, AND I THINK ONES THAT 
HELP SHED A LIGHT ON I THINK 
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE 
FACED WITH IN ANY GIVEN BUDGET 
YEAR BUT CERTAINLY THIS YEAR AND
THE FORTHCOMING MONTH. 
AGAIN, THANKS TO ALL WHO 
PARTICIPATED AND HOPEFULLY BY 
THE TIME WE NEXT COME IN, WE'LL 
HAVE A SETTING WHERE FOLKS CAN 
PRESENT THEM THEMSELVES. 
THANKS TO YOU AND ALL OF YOUR 
STAFF FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LOG
AND READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD. 
GOOD JOB. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
I WANT TO POINT OUT 
TOO -- FIRST, I WANT TO THANK 
OUR CLERK OF THE BOARD STAFF 
FOR, AGAIN, HANDLING THE DISTANT
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT THAT YOU 
HAVE. 
I THINK IT WAS DONE VERY WELL 
AND ALWAYS VERY PROFESSIONAL. 
THANKS TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD
AND ALL OF OUR STAFF FOR THAT. 
WHILE WE DID HAVE, AS MENTIONED 
EARLIER, ACCESS OF 100 COMMENTS 
ON ITEMS 46 THROUGH 58 OR 
WHATEVER IT WAS, 56, THAT WERE 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUDGET AND 
THEN, OF COURSE, WE HAD SOME 
MORE POINTED WRITTEN COMMENTS 
THAT CERTAINLY HAD A THEME TO 
THEM THAT WERE JUST READ ALOUD 
NOW BECAUSE THE COMMENTER 
REQUESTED IT BE READ INTO THE 
RECORD. 
THAT'S A TIP OF THE ICEBERG. 
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE OTHER 
BOARD OFFICES BUT I'VE GOT TO 
IMAGINE DISTRICT 1 HAS RECEIVED 
THOUSANDS, PROBABLY A COUPLE 
THOUSAND EMAILS IN THE LAST 
THREE WEEKS, TWO AND-A-HALF, 
THREE WEEKS. 
VERYTHEMA TICK AND, YOU KNOW, A 
LOT OF IT FORM MEANING FILLING 
IN YOUR NAME, BUT ALSO I WOULD 
BE REMISS TOO IF I DIDN'T 
MENTION THAT SOME OF THOSE SAME 
EMAILS THAT WERE COMMON AND 
THEME WERE ALSO PASSIONATE 
WRITTEN AND ON OCCASION TO HOLD 
THE POSITION THEY DO WHEN IT 
COMES TO THIS YEAR'S 
CONSIDERATION OF RESOURCE 
ALLOCATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. 
AND SOME OF THOSE STORIES THAT 
WERE TOLD IN THOSE EMAILS WERE 
VERY POIGNANT, SOME OF THEM VERY
SAD, AND SOME OF THEM WOULD 
ANGER ANYONE BUT I WANT TO BE 
CLEAR THAT I, AS MENTIONED 
EARLIER, MY PROTEST VOTE WILL BE
WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE 
ROLL-OVER BUDGET. 
THAT WAS MONTHS BEFORE I 
RECEIVED THOSE THOUSANDS OF 
EMAILS THAT WE ALL DID AND, 
AGAIN, I LOOK FORWARD TO THE 
DAY, QUITE FRANKLY, AND PERHAPS 
IT HAPPENS IN SEPTEMBER, I DON'T
KNOW, THAT I CAN WHOLEHEARTEDLY 
SUPPORT A BUDGET THAT DOES 
REFLECT WHAT I BELIEVE CONGRUENT
VALUES AT LEAST WITH ME AND THE 
PEOPLE I REPRESENT IN DISTRICT 1
BUT I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT 
I'M NOT SUPPORTING THOSE BECAUSE
I HAVE ANYTHING INHERENTLY 
AGAINST LAW AND ORDER OR THAT I 
DON'T SUPPORT, GREATLY SUPPORT 
OUR DEPUTIES AND OUR STAFF IN 
THE FIELD OR IN THE JAIL. 
THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. 
THIS IS ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE 
HAVE A HEALTHY DISAGREEMENT 
ABOUT PRIORITY SETTING, AND SO 
THAT WILL CONTINUE FOR ME UNTIL 
I SEE THAT THE PRIORITIES BECOME
A LITTLE BIT MORE ALIGNED. 
SO WITH THAT, GO AHEAD.
>> MOVE APPROVAL -- 
>> I'M SORRY. 
I HAVE TO DO THAT.
>> NO PROBLEM.
>> BEFORE WE DO THAT, ANY LAST 
COMMENTS ON BUDGET? 
OKAY.
>> I DO HAVE COMMENTS ON NUMBER 
8 THOUGH.
>> GOTCHA. 
>> I WANTED TO MOVE APPROVAL OF 
THE BUDGET FY 2021 WITH THE 
EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN 
ON THE SCREEN DUE TO A POTENTIAL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
>> SECOND.
>> AND PLEASE LET THE RECORD 
KNOW MY PROTEST VOTE ON THE 
SHERIFF'S BUDGET. 
>> YES, I HAVE THAT.
>> DO  YOU'LL NEED TO DO -- 
>> MOVE THE REMAINDER. 
>> I CAN'T HEAR YOU. 
I'M SORRY, THEY'RE BOTH TALKING.
>> DO WE NEED TO MOVE -- I MAKE 
THE MOTION TO MOVE THE 
REMAINDER.
>> YES, THE BALANCE. 
>> MOVED BY SUPERVISOR FAUST, 
SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR KENNEDY. 
PLEASE VOTE.  
>> THE MOTION CARRIES WITH 
SUPERVISOR PETERS RECUSING. 
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. 
1045 ITEM AT 4:30. 
YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
HERE -- WELL, I WAS OVER THERE, 
BUT THESE TWO WERE HERE IN 2009,
AND YOU DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF
THOSE HEARINGS.
>> ITEM 79 IS THE COUNTY 
EXECUTIVE'S COMMENTS. 
>> ANY COMMENTS, MR. EXECUTIVE? 
>> NOPE.
>> OKAY. 
I KNOW MR. KENNEDY HAS A BOARD 
COMMENT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
I THINK I BROUGHT UP THE LAST 
MEETING OR THE MEETING BEFORE 
THAT, THE IDEA OF HAVING THE 
SHERIFF COME BEFORE US, AND I 
LEFT SOME VERY SPECIFIC ISSUES 
THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS. 
THE CHAIR ADDED TO THAT, SO I 
WAS WONDERING IF THAT HAD BEEN 
SCHEDULED. 
>> I'M STILL IN DISCUSSION WITH 
THE SHERIFF COMING UP WITH A 
DATE. 
WE ARE WORKING ON THAT ITEM. 
I'M LOOKING AT JULY TIME FRAME, 
EARLY AUGUST. 
>> IT'S A BIG PRIORITY 
>> DEPRESSING. 
>> YES. 
>> AND I THINK NECESSARILY IT 
SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE
AS PUBLICLY AS WE CAN BY THE 
TIME WITH COVID AND SOCIAL 
DISTANCING. 
PRIOR TO THAT BUDGET, IT WOULD 
BE HELPFUL. 
>> THE SECOND THING I WANT TO 
SAY IS KUDOS TO CLERK STAFF FOR 
THEIR READING SKILLS, VERY 
IMPRESSIVE, AND I WANTED TO, AND
DR. BELOSON, I DON'T SEE HIM 
NOW. 
I WANT TO SAY I'M LETTING MY 
DECISIONS BE LED LARGELY BY HIM.
WE'RE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN 
MOST COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY, 
AND SO I'M NOT IN A POSITION 
WHERE I'M GOING TO SECOND-GUESS 
HIM AT THIS POINT.
>> GOOD COMMENTS. 
SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI. 
>> YES, I WANTED TO SAY THE 
EMAILS HAVE STARTED AS IT 
RELATES TO FIREWORKS, YOU KNOW, 
LEGAL FIREWORKS, AND I KNOW 
THERE WAS A TASK FORCE THAT WAS 
CONVENED. 
I DON'T KNOW IF THE SHERIFF'S 
STAFF WAS ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN
THAT. 
I THINK IT WAS ABOUT THE SAME 
TIME OBVIOUSLY AS SOME OF THE 
OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT WERE GOING
ON THAT WERE DRAWING PEOPLE'S 
RESOURCES BUT I WOULD SAY THAT, 
YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR WE HAD QUITE
A BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. 
THE SHERIFF WAS PART OF THE TEAM
OF FOLKS THAT ACTUALLY DEPLOYED 
SOME ADDITIONAL STAFF. 
WHETHER WE HAVE THE RESOURCES TO
DO THAT OR NOT, IT'S A SERIOUS 
ISSUE. 
IT DOESN'T GO AWAY. 
I WOULD SAY ANECDOTALLY THAT I 
HEARD FROM FOLKS THAT IT MAY 
HAVE STILL BEEN A BIG ISSUE IN 
THE COMMUNITY THAT THERE WAS A 
RECOGNITION THAT AT LEAST THE 
COUNTY ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS SOME
OF THE CALLS FOR SERVICE, SAVES.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR PLANS ARE 
NOW. 
BUT TAKE A YEAR AT IT AND THE 
REPORT DIDN'T SHOW A LOT OF 
CITATIONS AND SUCH BUT I THINK 
THE PRESENCE WAS IMPORTANT AND 
IT'S GOING TO BE A LONGER 
WEEKEND BUT WE'RE RIGHT INTO IT,
AND I SAW TWO OR THREE EMAILS 
TODAY FROM CONSTITUENTS IN MY 
DISTRICT, AS WELL AS SUPERVISOR 
KENNEDY'S DISTRICT. 
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CAN DO IN 
YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE 
POWERS THAT BE, BUT I DO THINK 
THAT WE NEED TO KEEP SOME 
EMPHASIS ON THIS. 
>> A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
THERE'S A MEMO WE'RE ASKING LISA
BARTLET FROM SACRAMENTO FIRE 
SENT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS ON 
WHAT THEY'RE DOING, AND THE 
CONVERSATION WITH THE SHERIFF IS
WHAT CAN WE DO TO CONTINUE THE 
COLLABORATION WITH SAC METRO ON 
IT, SO I'LL HAVE THE 
CONVERSATION AGAIN WITH THE 
SHERIFF.
>> OKAY, AND I KNOW THAT THEY'RE
LOOKING AT IT, BUT THERE WAS AN 
ARTICLE OVER THE WEEKEND 
REGARDING SOME OF THE OPERATORS 
OF NAIL SALONS, IN PARTICULAR, 
AND LARGE LY ETHNIC COMMUNITY O 
OWNERSHIP. 
I GOT AN EMAIL YESTERDAY AND I 
GOT ANOTHER ONE THIS MORNING AND
I GUESS WE'RE STILL TAKING A 
LOOK AT THAT. 
THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT CAME 
THROUGH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AS
I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU KNOW, JUNE 
19 THEY WERE OPENING UP. 
IT'S STILL UPON US TO DECIDE. 
I KNOW THE DOCTOR RESPONDED TO 
SOME INFORMATION I SENT HER 
YESTERDAY AND TAKING A LOOK AT 
IT.
>> A COUPLE OF THINGS ON THAT 
ONE. 
THAT HAS CREATED SOME CONFUSION 
THAT'S GOING THE OTHER WAY. 
THE GOVERNOR HAS GIVEN THE DATE 
THAT NAIL SALONS CAN OPEN. 
AND DR. BELOSON AND HIS STAFF 
HAVE CONCERNS THEY'RE LOOKING AT
BEFORE GIVING THE GREEN LIGHT SO
THAT IS ACTIVELY BEING 
CONSIDERED WHAT GUIDELINES ARE 
GOING TO BE PUT INTO PLACE 
BEFORE NAIL SALONS OPEN. 
>> IT WAS REPORTED THEY WERE 
OPENING ON THE 19TH IN THE 
NEWSPAPER ON KCRA IN THE 
BUSINESS JOURNAL. 
JUNE 19, NAIL SALONS ARE OPENING
AND PEOPLE ARE TOTALLY CONFUSED,
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF ILLEGAL 
SALONS OPENING, THAT HAVE 
OPENED. 
AND I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE
MOST IMPORTANT THING TO, MAYBE 
IF YOU'RE IN PUBLIC HEALTH, BUT 
IT PROVIDES A LOT OF JOBS FOR 
PEOPLE WHO DON'T MAKE A LOT OF 
MONEY. 
AND WHATEVER IT IS OUR PUBLIC 
HEALTH OFFICE DECIDES THIS WEEK,
THEY HAVE TO MAKE IT CLEAR, AND 
I WAS GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT
OUR WEB SITE WHICH ALSO I CAN 
SEE WHY THEY'RE CONFUSED FOR 
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ON OUR WEB 
SITE BECAUSE IT TAKES YOU 
DIRECTLY TO THE STATE WHICH IS 
SAYING JUNE 19, THEY CAN OPEN.
>> I WOULD ECHO THAT. 
SMALL BUSINESSES, LARGELY 
WOMEN-OWNED. 
A LOT OF ASIAN OWNERSHIP. 
ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDERS THAT 
HAVE OWNED THOSE BUSINESSES. 
I'VE HAD OUTREACH AND SUPERVISOR
KENNEDY AS WELL, THE BOARD, THE 
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO REPRESENT
A LOT OF FOLKS ALONGSIDE 
BOULEVARD CORRIDOR. 
AGAIN, THERE'S HEALTH CONCERNS, 
I GET IT BUT TO MS. PETERS' 
POINT THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION
AND FRUSTRATION. 
THERE'S LANGUAGES AND CHALLENGES
TOO, COMMUNICATION CHALLENGES, 
SO I WANT TO BRING IT TO THE 
ATTENTION TODAY. 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. 
WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT.
>> OKAY. 
SUPERVISOR KENNEDY. 
>> THANK YOU, ONE MORE. 
THAT REMINDED ME, AND I TALKED A
LITTLE BIT WITH MR. GIL ABOUT 
THIS. 
WE ALSO NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB 
OF REACHING OUT TO RESTAURANTS 
RULES ARE AND WHAT THEY CAN AND 
CANNOT DO. 
ANECDOTALLY, I WENT TO FIVE 
DIFFERENT RESTAURANTS TO TAKE MY
WIFE TO LUNCH RECENTLY, AND THEY
ALL THOUGHT THEY HAD TO STILL BE
SHUT DOWN, AND THEY DIDN'T. 
SO I JUST THINK THAT -- AND I'VE
REACHED OUT TO REGION 
RESTAURANTS, AND THEY'RE WILLING
TO PAY FOR THE OUTREACH IF WE 
JUST PROVIDE THEM WITH THE 
CONTACTS. 
>> SO WE'RE LOOKING INTO THAT 
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> SUPERVISOR PETERS HAS AN 
ADJOURNMENT BUT BEFORE WE GET TO
THAT, I DO HAVE ONE COMMENT I 
WANT TO OFFER. 
AND HOPEFUL LY PROVIDE SOME 
DIRECTION TO THE CEO. 
MY OFFICE HAS BEEN IN 
RECEIPT -- IT'S KIND OF 
CRESCENDOED IN THE LAST WEEK OR 
SO. 
A NUMBER OF EMAILS EXPRESSING 
INTEREST IN THE POSSIBILITY OF 
MOVING OUR THREE COUNTY-WIDE 
ELECTION ELECTIONS, OFFICE 
HOLDERS, TO A PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION, SORT OF A 
GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION, WHICH IS
A TIERED STAGGER. 
SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING I AGREE 
WITH IT OR I'M NOT ADVOCATING IT
NECESSARILY, BUT I THINK THERE'S
ENOUGH INTEREST I THINK THAT I'M
SEEING IN THE COMMUNITY THAT I 
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE CO WORK 
WITH MY OFFICE AS WE BEGIN TO 
COME BACK AFTER SOME RECESS TO 
MAYBE SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP A
AROUND -- OR AN INFORMATIONAL 
ITEM. 
IT'S NOT A FULL-BLOWN WORKSHOP. 
BUT WHAT WOULD BE INVOLVED, 
WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE TO HAVE 
CHARTER REVISIONS AND WHAT THAT 
MEANS AND WHAT OPTIONS THERE 
COULD BE FOR FOLKS INTERESTED IN
SIGNATURE GATHERING AND THAT 
KIND OF THING. 
BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WOULD 
BE INVOLVED IN MOVING THOSE 
ELECTION CYCLES TWO YEARS TO 
PRESIDENTIAL CYCLES. 
>> OKAY. 
SUPERVISOR PETERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I THINK WE ALL RECENTLY LEARNED 
ABOUT THE PASSING OF THE HUSBAND
OF RENE McLEAN WHITE, ONE OF OUR
DEPUTY CLERKS. 
WE WANTED TO NOTICE HIS PASSING 
BY ADJOURNING IN HIS MEMORY, SO 
I'D LIKE THE BOARD TO ADJOURN IN
THE MEMORY OF TERRY D. WHITE. 
>> IF THERE'S NO FURTHER 
BUSINESS BEFORE THIS BOARD WE 
WILL ADJOURN IN THE MEMORY OF 
TERRY D. WHITE. 
[  GAVEL ]
