[00:06] Speaker 1: Recording in progress.
[00:09] Speaker 2: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call to order today's meeting of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Would you all please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
[00:25] Speaker 3: Republic.
[00:34] Speaker 2: Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll to establish our quorum? Supervisor Marquez?
[00:39] Speaker 1: Present.
[00:40] Speaker 2: Supervisor Tam?
[00:41] Speaker 3: Present.
[00:42] Speaker 2: Supervisor Miley.
[00:43] Speaker 1: Excused.
[00:44] Speaker 3: Supervisor Fortunato Bass.
[00:45] Speaker 1: Present.
[00:46] Speaker 3: President Halbert?
[00:47] Speaker 2: Present.
[00:48] Speaker 3: We have a quorum. Very good.
[00:50] Speaker 2: The next item is Board of Supervisors remarks. I recognize Supervisor Tam.
[00:57] Speaker 3: Thank you, President Halbert. I wanted to take the opportunity to thank our first responders, the Alameda County Fire Department and the Sheriff's Office for their rapid response and helping to address the fire that occurred on East Welling in Ashland on December 11. And also for their work, especially the Fire Department, providing mutual aid to Washington State for the flood and storm damage that had occurred as well. And I'd like to adjourn today's meeting in memory of Rob Reiner, who worked alongside the late Supervisor Wilma Chan as one of the key architects for Proposition 10, which then led to funding the first five programs. And it's an integral part of Alameda county early childhood care programs. And I also wanted to take the opportunity to celebrate Hanukkah and reaffirm that this board is committed to making sure that there's an inclusive environment in every part of our county and to denounce any acts of anti Semitism, some that occurred very recently in my district in San Lorenzo.
[02:24] Speaker 2: Thank you, Supervisor Marquez.
[02:27] Speaker 3: Thank you, Vice Chair, for those comments. I have the same sentiment with respect to the passing of Mr. Reiner and.
[02:35] Speaker 1: Also just want to request, if possible.
[02:38] Speaker 3: Later today if we could just provide a status update to the public with.
[02:42] Speaker 1: Respect to next steps with the explosion.
[02:44] Speaker 3: That occurred last Thursday in Ashland. And find out if I know that the Red Cross is involved with providing support in housing for the folks that have been displaced.
[02:55] Speaker 1: But if we can get an update on additional support and services that can.
[02:59] Speaker 3: Be provided to the people that were.
[03:01] Speaker 1: Injured, those that are still hospitalized, and.
[03:04] Speaker 3: Those that are recovering at home. So just really unfortunate set of circumstances.
[03:09] Speaker 1: But hope that we can debrief and.
[03:11] Speaker 3: Learn from the situation so that it does not repeat in our community. Thank you.
[03:16] Speaker 2: Thank you, Supervisor Marquez. Supervisor Fortunata Bass.
[03:20] Speaker 1: Thank you, President Halbert. And thank you to my colleagues for your comments as well. I definitely concur and empathize with them. I wanted to just take a brief few seconds to thank the organizations that my office has been able to partner with during the holiday season, including raising leaders who worked with us on Thanksgiving, bags to McClyman's high school families. Also to the Linda Hand foundation, who did their annual Joy of Giving event, and assembly member Liz Ortega, who helped deliver literally hundreds of thousands of diapers to families in need. I also wanted to wish everyone a happy and peaceful holiday. I know with some of the recent events, it is not that for everyone. And I hope it will be a time that people can connect with their loved ones. And while that might be hard for those of you whose loved ones might have passed, who may be incarcerated, who may be detained or deported, it is really a season where we need to reflect on the care and compassion that we all have for each other. And I hope it's with that spirit that we'll be able to have a peaceful holiday. Thank you.
[04:34] Speaker 2: Thank you. I'll echo all of our shared concerns. Indeed, this is a bittersweet holiday with the Hayward explosion, the murder of Ashlyn Ashland, the murder of Rob Reiner. I also will While I don't typically weigh in on international incidents, I think what we saw in Australia was deplorable. I think 16 people dead, 42 injured among the Hanukkah celebration. So that's the bitter part, the sweet part. I'd like to thank everyone who showed up to I think many of us had holiday events where we collected toys and food. Over 500 toys collected at my event. A ton of food the very next day going out to members in the community in need. I'd like to thank also rising leaders at bike Distribution just yesterday, outstanding work. That's the sweet part of our holiday season. So with that said, we'll conclude board remarks and I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes that are attached and corrected on our board agenda today. And then we'll go to public comment.
[05:54] Speaker 3: Mr. President, I will move the minutes for the I for the meetings that are included in our agenda package attached as corrected.
[06:04] Speaker 2: I'll second that motion's been made and seconded. Any public comment on the minutes? Seeing none, I'll ask for roll call vote.
[06:11] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez, Aye. Supervisor Tam, aye.
[06:14] Speaker 1: Supervisor Miley, Excused.
[06:16] Speaker 3: Supervisor Fortunato Bass.
[06:18] Speaker 1: Aye.
[06:18] Speaker 2: President Halbert, aye. So we'll go to public comment on items on the agenda except those listed as set matters. This would include closed session items as well as open session items. Again accepting with the exception of Those listed as 3pm set matter. Any public comment will take in person first three first and then online and rotate back and forth. I'll ask the clerk to please call the first three in person.
[06:53] Speaker 1: Ranjit Tate, item 45, Ben Wang, item 27, Winnie Mae, item 27. Please kindly line up.
[07:09] Speaker 2: Hi, good morning. My name is Ranjit Tate. I'm here to speak on item 45 in support of redelegating Investment Authority to the treasurer.
[07:22] Speaker 3: I'm a member of the alliance of South Asians Taking Action and also a.
[07:26] Speaker 2: Member of JVP BA And I'd like to state that I'm in celebration of Hanukkah with my friends and colleagues in jvp, the Jewish Voice for Peace with the Bay Area. I know many of you are as.
[07:41] Speaker 3: Fed up with this sort of delays.
[07:42] Speaker 2: On the EIP as know lots of us are. And perhaps this is just a regular procedural matter. I do see it as part of the extended and what I consider to be ultimately futile attempt by those who are in favor of being complicit in crimes against humanity to abet the genocide by one state authority. This has just been going on. There were like delays in bringing it up to agenda. They sort of incorrectly brought up a two year old divestment, mistakenly analyzed the financial returns from that. They linked all of the money for community services to what looks to me like the differential return on the anti.
[08:32] Speaker 3: Ethical investment part of our investment, which.
[08:36] Speaker 2: Doesn'T make any sense at all.
[08:38] Speaker 3: They attacked the treasurer, they added dilatory oversight requests and I wonder what is next.
[08:45] Speaker 2: So I would just in closing, I would ask you to redelegate Authority Investment.
[08:49] Speaker 1: Authority with the treasurer.
[08:51] Speaker 2: Support your treasurer, rescind the so called unnecessary oversight and please implement the ethical investment policy as soon as you can. Thank you.
[09:08] Speaker 3: Good morning.
[09:08] Speaker 2: My name is Ben Wong with Asian Health Services and I am here to support YES. On the Language Access Resolution. So at Asian Health Services, our community healing unit has provided holistic healing services in language and culturally concordant to over 400 survivors of violence hate, including homicide cases, home invasions, robberies, hate crimes, elder abuse and more. And we've seen the success that providing linguistically and culturally concordant services is so key to providing this rapid care, this rapid response interventions to prevent the ill effects of untreated trauma and the also to prevent the overutilization of emergency room costly services to interrupt these cycles of violence and trauma. By investing in bilingual and bicultural health care workers and lay counselors and providing the necessary interpretation, it empowers our patients and community members to really have a voice in their care and to have a positive impact on their community. So here to support the language Access resolution. Thank you.
[10:32] Speaker 1: Hi, my name is Winnie Mai and I am also from Asian Health Services. A clinic here in Oakland that provides services in many different languages from our patients. Language access remains critical to our patients. And today I'll be sharing a story.
[10:46] Speaker 3: And quote from one of our patients.
[10:49] Speaker 1: Prior to her knowing about AHS when she was ill, she described it as feeling helpless, not knowing how to access proper care. After being able to talk to doctors in her own language and ask questions, she described that she felt much more at ease knowing that she was able to communicate her needs and her problems. She quoted. Getting translation services isn't just about language support. It's about respect and understanding. When we can express our pain and understand treatment options in our own language, our health is guaranteed and our dignity is protected. So I also support the language access resolution bill. Jake Peterson?
[11:28] Speaker 3: Go ahead.
[11:31] Speaker 2: Hi. Good morning.
[11:32] Speaker 4: My name is Jake Pedersen with Jewish Voice for Peace.
[11:35] Speaker 2: I'm a District 5 resident.
[11:39] Speaker 4: Yeah, I want to thank the board.
[11:41] Speaker 2: For recognizing the horrors that went on in Sydney.
[11:47] Speaker 5: At jvp.
[11:50] Speaker 2: We believe that violence, whether driven by anti Semitism, racism, Islamophobia or any other form of bigotry, must be stopped. And we honor the bravery of Ahmed Al Ahmed, the bystander who risked his.
[12:03] Speaker 3: Life to protect those under fire.
[12:07] Speaker 2: The lesson is all too clear. The safety of Jews, the safety of.
[12:13] Speaker 4: Non Jews is bound together.
[12:18] Speaker 2: And.
[12:18] Speaker 4: And we hope that we can fight.
[12:19] Speaker 2: For human rights worldwide.
[12:23] Speaker 4: To that end, I'd like to ask.
[12:25] Speaker 2: You in regards item 45 today, to redelegate investment authority to the treasurer. The. The treasurer has been subjected to some.
[12:40] Speaker 3: Financially illiterate, baseless and frankly, anti Semitic.
[12:46] Speaker 2: Attacks, which I would implore you to ignore.
[12:50] Speaker 4: The accusations that he is hiding money.
[12:55] Speaker 2: Behind the scenes, hiding losses is deeply upsetting to me and to many others who have worked on this. It's anti Semitic, it's political in nature.
[13:11] Speaker 3: Despite not being openly so.
[13:14] Speaker 2: And I hope that you'll vote yes.
[13:16] Speaker 4: Today on item 45.
[13:17] Speaker 3: Thanks. Spectrum, go ahead.
[13:26] Speaker 1: Good morning, President Halbert and supervisors. My name is Laura Calvert and I'm the Executive Director of Spectrum Community Services, the only organization that provides liheap and weatherization services throughout Alameda County. I'm here today to strongly support the approval of item number two on your agenda. This one time measure W investment will allow us to serve more income eligible Alameda county households and turn away fewer families who are currently seeking help. For the residents we serve, a utility shutoff is rarely an isolated issue. It is often the tipping point that destabilizes a household and puts people at risk of losing their housing. This funding will also allow us to invest more in homes across the county providing safe, healthy living environments through emergency weatherization. These improvements reduce hazards, stabilize housing and help low income residents remain safely housed so they can continue to work, care for their families and be strong members of our communities. Importantly, this action supports the county's broader homelessness prevention strategy by stabilizing households upstream. This investment reduces the number of residents who may otherwise enter homelessness, allowing our county and nonprofit partners to be more effective in reducing the total number of people living on our streets. We're grateful for your leadership and respectfully urge you to approve item number two today. Thank you for your time and continued commitment to the Alameda county residents.
[15:04] Speaker 3: Caller, go ahead.
[15:10] Speaker 1: Hello, my name is PSA Finnith, Program Director at Korean Community center of the East Bay. KCCEB provides bilingual bicultural health education, navigation, safety net services, mental health and wellness services, and advocacy to Asian communities in Alameda County. I'm here to support the Language Access Resolution. Language Access determines whether many Alameda county residents can meaningfully participate in daily life and in local government. For individual who do not speak fluently, a lack of interpretations or translated materials can turn routine interaction, seeking medical care, applying for benefit, responding to an emergency or attending public meeting into overwhelmingly and sometimes dangerous experiences. When language needs are not met, the burden shifts onto families and community members to fill the gaps, often forcing children to interpret for parents or leaving elders isolated from essential information. This situation became a crisis for many immigrants and refugees communities during COVID especially.
[16:08] Speaker 3: For the Korean community.
[16:10] Speaker 1: Many of our Korean speaking community families did not receive timely information about shelter in place, where to get vaccinated and when to get vaccinated, resulting delays in care and access to vaccination. In response, KCCEB launched the Language Equity Readiness Action Project LIRA in partnerships with Asian Sorry. In partnerships with AC Health, KCCB conducted a system language assessment to support many immigrants and refugees community to better accessing COVID 19 related language resources and developing strategies to best address language equity in preparation for the next public health emergency. Today's resolution to ensure Alameda Counties commitments to equitable language access to all residents is a critical step forward. Thank you for your leadership. Supervisor Tam and Marquez. David Scott Item 23 Simule Item 11121954 Public comment Buffalo items 11, 19 and 54.
[17:20] Speaker 3: Good morning. I just wanted to say thank you to everybody. The first shout out I want to give is to Deb Sika because she's now our county librarian and I wanted to thank all the libraries that are work sites for our students. Underneath her, the Alameda County Fremont Library Facilities Fleet Alameda County Fremont Library Literacy the Alameda County Fremont Library Makerspace the Alameda County Library in Albany. The Alameda County Library in Centerville. The Alameda County Fremont Library with their IT services. The Alameda County Library Mobile and outreach services. Lord have mercy. The Alameda County Library in Newark, the Alameda County Library in Union City, the library in Dublin, the Alameda County Library in San Lorenzo and the Alameda County Library in Castro Valley.
[18:05] Speaker 1: In the last two years they've given us 44 placements. And I just wanted to say congratulations.
[18:10] Speaker 3: To Deb and her placement, her position, to her team, Eric Berman and all the libraries. The support they give us free books every year for our clothing store and our Christmas drive. They gave us 280 free books for.
[18:21] Speaker 1: All of our students.
[18:23] Speaker 3: I wanted to let you guys know that also I'm so thankful for everything you guys did. For our Thanksgiving drive and a total we served 700 families. We had almost 20,000 items in all the bags for the 700 families across 53 schools. Shout out to probation for delivering every single bag. The sheriff's office for setting up for us and the fire department for being there force as well and everybody else that was there. Today we have our Christmas drive and we're going to help 150 kids. Delval gave us 51 refurbished bikes yesterday. So thank you for that. I wanted to let you guys know as well that we're finishing up our fall 2025 workshop cohort tomorrow. In district one we had 12 students complete. District two, 61. District three, 38 students.
[19:07] Speaker 1: District four, 74.
[19:09] Speaker 3: In district five we had 14. That means we had 199 students finish out of our 200 that are required. And I'll have that last one finished on Friday. Thank you you guys. And if we could take a picture.
[19:24] Speaker 2: Let's take a photo. After public comment is over, we'll proceed with public comment. Thank you. Good morning, Albany County. My name is Simeon Rainey.
[19:47] Speaker 3: We still don't get the point. We have to do right by God and God's people.
[19:52] Speaker 4: This is wrong.
[19:54] Speaker 2: Like I told am, he told me.
[19:56] Speaker 3: They ain't got no place going between.
[19:58] Speaker 2: John George is full. We got Proposition one. Supposed to build a mental health hospital.
[20:05] Speaker 6: So we wouldn't have this problem.
[20:07] Speaker 2: That man in Southern California killed his family. He had no problem. He have nowhere to go. That's what I'm trying to get these outreach programs so we can get them off the streets. They ain't gonna come to you. You gotta Go to them.
[20:20] Speaker 3: It's sad you leave them out there.
[20:23] Speaker 2: I mean, wooden shelter, it's cold here. Army base. Y' all need to open back up for winter shelter.
[20:29] Speaker 4: That's what it's supposed to be.
[20:30] Speaker 2: Plus the housing on Oak Knoll, Alameda and Bristol Gomez. The housing goes to the Home Institute on the Constitution. Okay, I'm working with the Constitution. I'm going to. And it's sad that you won't do right about people, but they got to get some help. Y', all, we asking for help.
[20:48] Speaker 3: You're taking people from another country.
[20:49] Speaker 1: Put them over your people.
[20:51] Speaker 3: Sad, huh?
[20:52] Speaker 2: Just found your men.
[20:53] Speaker 4: But I've been there.
[20:55] Speaker 2: That's my job as a homeless union. Demanding the people out there what they.
[20:58] Speaker 3: Need, what we need. And it's sad we can't get nothing.
[21:01] Speaker 2: But everybody else can. People born and raise here can't get ice cream sandwich.
[21:06] Speaker 3: You got veterans homeless. A brother in my building right now is a homeless program. He's in the Navy.
[21:12] Speaker 4: He's homeless.
[21:15] Speaker 1: It don't make sense, man.
[21:17] Speaker 2: You got 17,000 guys. Truck drivers got CDL, didn't even take a test. Now he come out across one truck driver shop. He had three beers in his truck. 17,000.
[21:27] Speaker 3: They gave it to him in San Jose.
[21:30] Speaker 2: So you gotta keep up what's going on? Gave him citizenship, all that. It's in constitutional if we act right to use that system against us. Thank you.
[21:56] Speaker 3: Buffalo here. Greetings one and all. I'm tell you these here special appearances.
[22:00] Speaker 2: I've been forced to make before you just wearing me out.
[22:05] Speaker 7: I didn't know we had a comment.
[22:08] Speaker 2: Section on the minutes again. Corrections for a year's worth of minutes of approved. I'm trying to go through the minutes I got of your meetings and figure out what was all corrected. See, down in City hall they talk about unexpected financial urgencies, but they never spoke on it.
[22:25] Speaker 3: Instead of speaking on the rest of.
[22:27] Speaker 2: It, I'm going to speak on item 11. We have a problem here and that is treatment and process policies. One of the building is devoted to low income housing. The CL Dellums building. Our local representatives want to erase it and pimp off the flesh. Now, when a man who has paid.
[22:50] Speaker 3: His rent there senior citizen known suffering from mental disabilities has an episode and.
[22:57] Speaker 2: They don't call the ambulance, they evict.
[23:00] Speaker 3: Him.
[23:02] Speaker 2: We have a problem. When housing authority is outside of your control and I go to them to find out about applying for a place at CL Delma's building, they were very careful to keep my name off of any paper. What I'm saying to you first as.
[23:23] Speaker 3: Refers to item 11.
[23:25] Speaker 2: There is a glitch in the policy of those personnel hired to manage buildings. We sort of have the same problem on the national level. That is to say, some people that's trying to skim that are not adequately.
[23:41] Speaker 3: Briefed on their job.
[23:44] Speaker 2: There are a lot of rectifications. We're all looking at the trail left nationally. I say locally, when the manager of a building devoted to senior housing and handicap puts somebody out, doesn't call the ambulance, just evicts them and they paid rent.
[24:03] Speaker 4: That's a serious problem here.
[24:10] Speaker 1: Last speaker julia liu. Item 27.
[24:19] Speaker 3: Good morning President Halbert and distinguished members of the board.
[24:23] Speaker 1: My name is Julia Liao, CEO of.
[24:25] Speaker 3: Asian Health Services and I'm here to express support of the language access resolution. Our county is one of the most linguistically diverse in the nation. We, with tens of thousands of residents who speak a primary language other than English. At Asian Health services, we serve 50,000 diverse patients throughout Alameda county in 12 Asian languages. We have seen firsthand when language access is inadequate. Our patients and our community members are effectively excluded from critical services such as healthcare, housing assistance and emergency response. We know that interpretation, translation and culturally responsive communication and ensures that residents can understand their rights, comply with requirements and fully engage with our county programs. At Asian Health Services, we see that without these supports, language barriers can lead to delayed care, preventable crises and deepened inequities, especially for our seniors, our people.
[25:26] Speaker 1: Our community members with disabilities, and most.
[25:29] Speaker 3: Vulnerable, low income families and children. So I really want to thank supervisor Tam, Supervisor Marquez, for your joint leadership and putting forth this language access resolution.
[25:39] Speaker 1: This resolution articulating the county's commitment to language access comes at a critical time.
[25:45] Speaker 3: When our federal administration is dismantling language access support and services with the recent executive order declaring English as primary language of the nation. So we respectfully ask that the language access resolution be approved. Thank you.
[26:05] Speaker 2: That concludes public comment. We're going to now recess into closed session. As we do, I'd like to make a little announcement that in the foyer outside the elevators we have some celebration cookies, coffee and tea. Members of the public are welcome to join. We will also take a few photo with rising leaders on our way to close session. With that, we are recessed.
[26:38] Speaker 1: Recording in progress.
[26:40] Speaker 2: Good afternoon everyone. I'd like to reconvene to open session. We're convening from our recessed closed session. I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll to establish our quorum.
[26:50] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez.
[26:52] Speaker 1: Present.
[26:52] Speaker 3: Supervisor Tam? Present.
[26:54] Speaker 2: Supervisor Mightley?
[26:55] Speaker 1: Excused.
[26:56] Speaker 3: Supervisor Fortunato Bass. Present. Present. Halbert.
[27:00] Speaker 2: Present.
[27:00] Speaker 3: We have a quorum.
[27:01] Speaker 2: Since we're reconvening from closed session, I'll ask our county council is there anything to report out from closed session?
[27:08] Speaker 3: Thank you. I'd like to report that in the matter of Crane Ridge Vineyard Owners Association v. Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Alameda Superior court, case number 24cv103095, at a closed session on October 14, 2025, the board authorized settlement authority. And I'd like to report that that matter is now finally settled in the amount of the county paying $150,000. The vote was unanimous by all five sitting supervisors. Additionally, I'd like to report that in today's closed session, in the matter of California v. Trump, case number 251725 First Circuit and Watson v. Republican National Committee, case number 241260 United States Supreme Court, the board authorized the county of Alameda and or the ROV to sign an amicus brief supporting the brief filed by public to be filed by Public Rights Project. In those cases that completes. Oh, and that was on a vote of 40 with Supervisor Miley excused. So the other supervisors voting in favor.
[28:39] Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Before we take up our mass motion and additional items, I would like to read a statement recognizing that we have members in the community from the community here with us today. We all know that there was explosion in the Ashland community and I would like to make a statement on the East Llewellyn Boulevard project, part of this recent incident. The East Llewellyn Boulevard upgrade is a long awaited project to improve the cross crucial transportation passage in Ashland, an unincorporated community in Alameda County. The county is proud to have worked with neighbors and the broader community, including two neighboring schools, to identify the goals and to continue investing in its unincorporated communities. The project spans a portion of East Llewellyn Boulevard, a critical thoroughfare between Meekland Avenue and Langton Way. The event last Thursday was unsettling. Our hearts go out to those injured and the nearby residents who experienced property damage. We are grateful to all the first responders including Alameda County Fire who are trained and entrusted to respond to these events. We also thank PGE for their timely response. As with any project similar serious incident, an investigation is underway by Alameda County Fire and we are collaborating with the National Transportation Safety Board and Cal osha. The goal of the east of Welling Boulevard project is to beautify the neighborhood, create safe pedestrian and cycling options, upgrade a railroad crossing Create high visibility crosswalks and intersections, and to promote safe passage for students at two schools within the project area. We hope that project work will resume in the weeks ahead with a continued emphasis on safety and security. For specific questions, residents are encouraged to review the project website. In addition, the county reminds all residents that calling 811 is crucial for both residents and contractors when there are questions about gas or electrical infrastructure. Anybody that would like to contact alco piocgov.org can do so. This will be issued as an immediate press release as well. I just want to end by having the community know the board has heard the concerns. We share them. We're deeply, deeply unsettled by this, and we will get to the bottom of it. Thank you very much. With that said, I'll move on back to our agenda. I note that we have a consent calendar, item 72 through 89, to take up. Before we then take up our mass motion, is there any Questions or comments.
[31:41] Speaker 1: Mr. President, on your consent calendar? Item 79 has been pulled.
[31:47] Speaker 2: Thank you very much. That item will not be read in the consent, will not be part of the consent calendar.
[31:55] Speaker 3: Mr. President, I will move items 72 through 89 without item 79.
[32:00] Speaker 1: I'll second.
[32:01] Speaker 2: Thank you very much. A motion's been made to approve the consent calendar 72 through 89 with the exception of item 79. May I have a roll call vote? Please, Please.
[32:13] Speaker 1: Supervisor Marquez.
[32:14] Speaker 3: Aye.
[32:14] Speaker 1: Supervisor Tam.
[32:15] Speaker 3: Aye.
[32:16] Speaker 2: Supervisor Miley, Excused.
[32:18] Speaker 3: Supervisor Fortunatabas.
[32:19] Speaker 1: Aye.
[32:20] Speaker 3: President Halpert.
[32:21] Speaker 2: Aye. Our next item before us is the mass motion.
[32:27] Speaker 3: Mr. President, I would like to move items 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 comments on 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. I have comments on 27, 28, 29, 30, 31's an ordinance. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 are ordinances. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 is an ordinance 46, 47 comment on 47, 48, 49, 50, 51's an ordinance. 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 has been withdrawn. 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 comment on 64, 65 has been pulled. And 66 and 67 are ordinances 68 and 69.
[34:13] Speaker 1: Vice President Tam, just a correction. Item 65 is not included in the motion. It will be taken up separately.
[34:19] Speaker 3: Okay.
[34:20] Speaker 2: Very good. A mass motion has been made by supervisor Tam. Is There a second. I'll second second by Supervisor Marquez. May I call for roll call vote? Please? Comments? Yes. First comment is Supervisor Marquez. Comments or questions on item 11.
[34:38] Speaker 3: Thank you, President Halbert.
[34:40] Speaker 1: Item number 11 is to approve a.
[34:43] Speaker 3: Resolution adopting the ambulance services contract policy pursuant to the state of California Health and safety code, section 6, 1797.230. Our interim AC health director. Thank you for being here. Can you please just for the public's knowledge, just recapture the discussion and summary points just to make it explicitly clear with respect to employee and incumber incumbent.
[35:12] Speaker 1: Labor standards when it comes to the.
[35:14] Speaker 3: Transition of an ambulance contract.
[35:17] Speaker 1: Thanks for that question, Supervisor. So the ambulance contract item is at the 3pm set matter. This item is a separate matter that has to do with us getting into compliance with some state law that came out around ambulance counties that have RFPs and ambulance services awarded by those RFPs. So this item 11 is just for the purposes of making sure that we're aligned there where there are certain recommendations. Give me one second. So essentially here the county is adopting a policy that says that any ambulance procurements we do would have employment retention requirements within them for the incumbent ambulance services, that they would demonstrate experience serving as similar populations in geographic areas that, you know, there would also be financial requirements, including requiring the private ambulance service provider to show proof of insurance and bonding and a description of that ambulance provider's public information and education activities. So. And also diversity and equity efforts addressing the unique needs of vulnerable and underserved populations in the current service area.
[36:39] Speaker 3: So this was.
[36:43] Speaker 1: For a long time these have been.
[36:44] Speaker 3: Standing practices with how Alameda county has.
[36:46] Speaker 1: Done its ambulance contracts. But there was a state law that was passed in 2022 requiring counties to.
[36:53] Speaker 3: Have it.
[36:56] Speaker 1: On on the books. So. So this is basically memorializing it in a resolution. We're complying with state law. Yes.
[37:04] Speaker 3: Should we approve a contract later today with our submatter.
[37:07] Speaker 1: Right. And whatever option you go with in the set matter, we would need to have this on record anyway.
[37:13] Speaker 3: Okay, thank you so much.
[37:15] Speaker 2: Next item with questions and comments. Supervisor Tam, item 27.
[37:20] Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Marquez and I are bringing this board letter forward to affirm Alameda County's commitment to equitable language access for all residents, regardless of immigration status or language spoken. As some of the speakers mentioned this morning, Alameda county is home to a culturally and linguistically diverse population of 1.6 million people, 1 third of which were born in another country. And 46% of these immigrants speak a language other than English. At home, residents speak more than 100 distinct languages from across the globe and the county is the fourth most diverse county in the state of California. Ensuring language access is a statement that Alameda county stands by our principles and the county's Vision 2036 values of inclusion, dignity, creating safe, livable communities and resilient populations. I want to thank our county agencies and departments for their efforts to provide language access services to our limited English proficient population. Thank our County Administrator's Office for procuring 8 authorized language access vendors who provide interpretation and or translation services and a vendor that provides multilingual Telephone interpretation services 24 hours a day, seven days a week that all county departments, agencies and service contractors can use. Language access is essential for our residents to receive emergency alerts, health guidance, disaster information and public safety updates. When residents can understand critical information, the entire community is safer regardless of immigration status. In a moment of heightened polarization around immigration and identity, reaffirming this commitment signals that local government will not waiver on fundamental rights. So it is essential that all county departments, agencies and community based organizations have the knowledge about language access service resources and information they need to serve our limited English proficiency residents especially. A comprehensive evaluation will be needed to determine the annual reports for all the self assessments that we that we need to see across all county departments and have that independent review of the language access service and the quality and effectiveness of that service. So we recommend the county administrative office staff compile and prepare a one year language access utilization report with monthly data by department and languages as well as recommendations on how to improve employee and community knowledge and awareness of the language access services to report to my committee, which is the Personnel, Administration and Legislation Committee before the end of FY 2026 and to present at a Board of Supervisors work session on an annual basis. And I wanted to thank Serena Chen from my staff who's taking the lead on this, Ina Sanchez and Alex Vaskovich from Supervisor Marquez's office. And I know Supervisor Marquez also has some comments as well.
[40:50] Speaker 1: Yes, thank you Vice President Tam for your leadership on this and I'm excited.
[40:56] Speaker 3: To partner and collaborate with you. As was mentioned in the board letter, it's important that we strengthen language access in this case county.
[41:04] Speaker 1: All of our districts here in Alam.
[41:06] Speaker 3: Alameda county are rich and diverse and individuals are born outside of this country. And I do want to Note that District 2, it's 45.9% with the cities.
[41:18] Speaker 1: Of Fremont which I share with President.
[41:20] Speaker 3: Halbert as well as Union City, Newark and Hayward. This is data from the Public Health Department that was provided for the years of 2019 through 2023. So it is critical as we continue to launch efforts to strengthen the office.
[41:35] Speaker 1: Of immigrant and Refugee Affairs. This is another step in the right.
[41:39] Speaker 3: Direction to make sure that language accessibility is strengthened in this county.
[41:44] Speaker 1: I also want to acknowledge Asian Health.
[41:46] Speaker 3: Services for their commitment to elevating this and the incredible work that they're doing. We heard from them earlier in public comments. Also want to thank the CAO's office, Supervisor Tam, and which was already mentioned, her office has been instrumental in doing the research. But I want to specifically also thank Serena Chen, Mina Sanchez, and Alex Boskovich.
[42:06] Speaker 1: My chief of staff.
[42:07] Speaker 3: Thank you for looking at San Francisco.
[42:10] Speaker 1: County as a model and best example.
[42:13] Speaker 3: And what we could do here in Alameda county to ensure that we are.
[42:16] Speaker 1: Providing accessibility to our diverse community members. So I hope my colleagues will be.
[42:22] Speaker 3: Joining us in supporting this board letter. Thank you.
[42:25] Speaker 2: Thank you. Next item with questions and comments. Supervisor fortunato bass, items 47 and 64.
[42:34] Speaker 1: Thank you, President Howard. And also regarding the prior item, thank you, Supervisor Chan and Supervisor Marquez, for bringing your board letter forward. I'm fully supportive of the important opportunities with language access. So item number 47 is our proposed fiscal year 2627 budget development strategy and policies from our county administrator. I wanted to thank the administrator and her team. I have been asking for more trans. Transparency in terms of our budget process. And I really want to appreciate the fact that this calls for the proposed budget to be submitted to our board by May 30, which is two weeks earlier than the typical middle of June. And so I think that will allow us, as well as members of the public, more time to digest and deliberate. I know it will also mean adjusting the schedules of our staff. So thank you very much for making that. Making that change. And then secondly, item number 64 is our community wildfire protection plan from our fire chief. I really just wanted to give some visibility to this item. This is an update for this year, and I think it's been several years since it was updated, and it's very comprehensive. I really appreciate the community engagement, the stakeholder engagement. Chief, I don't know if you want to say a few words of how important this is and just lift up this item a little bit more for the visibility of those of us who really care about wildfire prevention.
[44:16] Speaker 2: Thank you, Supervisor Fortunato Bass, members of.
[44:19] Speaker 4: The board of supervisors.
[44:21] Speaker 2: Yeah, this is our third Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
[44:27] Speaker 4: The original one was in 2012, and it really brought together members of the Alameda County Fire Chiefs association, the Hills.
[44:35] Speaker 2: Emergency Forum, and the Diablo Fire Safe Council in developing and coordinating the activities.
[44:39] Speaker 4: Amongst those agencies to be able to.
[44:42] Speaker 2: Deal with fuel mitigation, home hardening and defensible space practices. And it's been a wonderfully collaborative agreement.
[44:51] Speaker 4: Or process that we've been able to put together.
[44:53] Speaker 2: And I think it brings together all those agencies in wanting to make sure that we can educate the community in.
[45:00] Speaker 4: Those efforts and also in keeping their.
[45:03] Speaker 2: Own homes very fire safe.
[45:07] Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And I also look forward to raising more awareness about this update so that people have the tools they need to prevent wildfires. Thank you.
[45:15] Speaker 4: Thank you so much.
[45:17] Speaker 2: Very good. With the questions asked and answered, we are now able to take a vote on the mass motion. Roll call vote, please.
[45:24] Speaker 1: Supervisor Marquez.
[45:25] Speaker 3: Aye. Supervisor Tam, Aye. Supervisor Miley, excused.
[45:29] Speaker 2: Supervisor Fortunata.
[45:30] Speaker 3: Boss.
[45:30] Speaker 1: Aye.
[45:31] Speaker 3: President Hubbard.
[45:32] Speaker 2: Aye. Those items pass. We now have seven ordinances.
[45:37] Speaker 1: The first one, I think is 31 other items. So the first ordinance is item 31. It's the second reading of an ordinance amendment.
[45:44] Speaker 3: An ordinance amending section 2.0, 4.020 of title 2, chapter 2.04 of the county.
[45:52] Speaker 2: Of Alameda Administrative Code regarding pre election residency requirements, requirements for members of the Board of SU Supervisors.
[46:00] Speaker 3: Mr. President, I will move to wait the full second reading and adopt the ordinance under item 31. I'll second.
[46:08] Speaker 2: A motion has been made and seconded to approve item 31. Roll call vote, please.
[46:12] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam, aye.
[46:15] Speaker 2: Supervisor Miley, excused.
[46:16] Speaker 3: Supervisor Fortune Bass, I.
[46:19] Speaker 2: President Halbert, I.
[46:22] Speaker 1: Your next item is 37. It's the second reading of salary ordinance amendments. And I'm also required per the Brown.
[46:29] Speaker 3: Act to read into the record wages.
[46:31] Speaker 1: For your appointed officials. Do you want to make a motion first and then I can read the information into the record? Okay.
[46:42] Speaker 3: All right, let me go ahead and read them into the record.
[46:44] Speaker 1: Chief probation officer, $11,480. County librarian, 10,148. Director of community development, 1256803. GSA director, 1273893. Alameda county health director, 1128240. Child support services director, 1349582. Human resource services director, 11880.
[47:10] Speaker 3: Director of public works, 12865. Director of social services, 146278.
[47:16] Speaker 1: County administrator, 28547135. Chief deputy county administrator, 168, 24, 36. And deputy county administrator, 1297729. Yeah. And those are the bi weekly amounts.
[47:30] Speaker 2: Very good. Is There any other reading title of the reading that needs to happen.
[47:39] Speaker 1: An ordinance amending certain provisions of the.
[47:41] Speaker 2: 2025, 2026 county of Alameda Salary Ordinary Ordinance.
[47:47] Speaker 3: Mr. President, I will move to wave the full second reading and adopt the salary ordinance amendments as specified in 37A and 37B. I'll second.
[48:00] Speaker 2: Motion's been made and seconded to Approve items Item 37A and B. May I ask for a roll call vote, please?
[48:07] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez, aye. Supervisor Tam, aye.
[48:11] Speaker 2: Supervisor Miley excused.
[48:13] Speaker 3: Supervisor Fortune on A Bass I.
[48:15] Speaker 2: President Hubbert I. That Item passed.
[48:20] Speaker 1: Item 38 is the first reading of salary ordinance amendments deleting obsolete classifications in the county salary ordinance.
[48:28] Speaker 2: An ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2025, 2026 county of Alameda Salary Ordinance.
[48:36] Speaker 3: Mr. President, I will move to wave the full first reading and introduce the salary ordinance amendments as described in 38 A and B.
[48:47] Speaker 1: I'll second it.
[48:49] Speaker 2: Motion has been made by Supervisor Tam, seconded by Supervisor Fortunata Bass to approve items 38A and B. Roll call vote, please.
[48:55] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez, aye. Supervisor Tam, aye. Supervisor Miley excused. Supervisor Fortunata Bass, aye.
[49:04] Speaker 2: President halbert I.
[49:07] Speaker 1: Item 45 is the second reading of an ordinance amendment delegating your board's investment authority.
[49:14] Speaker 2: An ordinance reauthorizing section 2.5 8.100 in chapter 2.58 of title 2 of the Administrative Code of the county of Alameda.
[49:24] Speaker 1: Relating to the delegation of investment authority.
[49:27] Speaker 3: To the County Treasurer Tax Collector. Mr. President, I will move to wave the full second reading, adopt the ordinance amendment to enable the annual reauthorization of the delegation of the board's investment authority to the treasurer. I'll second.
[49:44] Speaker 2: Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call vote, please.
[49:49] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez, aye. Supervisor Tam, aye.
[49:52] Speaker 1: Supervisor Miley excused.
[49:53] Speaker 3: Supervisor Fortuna Bass I.
[49:56] Speaker 2: President Humbert I. That Item passes.
[50:00] Speaker 1: Item 51 is also the second reading of salary ordinance amendments. And I want to read into the record the Chief Information Officer bi weekly wages of 1633525, an ordinance amending certain.
[50:12] Speaker 2: Provisions of the 2025, 2026 county of Alameda Salary Ordinance.
[50:19] Speaker 3: Mr. President, I will move Item 51A, which authorizes the HR Department Director to proceed with the separate recruitment for the appointed positions of the registered voter and Chief Information Technology officer. And item 51B. I will move the wave to full second reading and adopt the related salary ordinance amendments as described in B, Small Roman I and small Roman two. I'll second.
[50:48] Speaker 2: A motion's been made by Supervisor Tam, seconded by Supervisor Marquez to approve item 51A and B. Vote, please.
[50:58] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez, aye. Supervisor Tam, aye.
[51:01] Speaker 2: Supervisor Miley excused. Supervisor 400 Bas I President Halbert I.
[51:08] Speaker 1: Item 65 is not an ordinance.
[51:11] Speaker 3: It they are approval of salary amendments.
[51:13] Speaker 1: Related to adjustments in the fire department. I want to read into the record the fire chief's bi weekly wages of 13-30-584.
[51:26] Speaker 3: This is not an ordinance but seeks your board's approval of salary.
[51:29] Speaker 2: I'll move. Approval.
[51:31] Speaker 3: I'll second.
[51:32] Speaker 2: Motion has been made and seconded to approve items 65A and B. Roll call vote, please.
[51:37] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez, aye. Supervisor Tam, aye. Supervisor Miley excused.
[51:41] Speaker 2: Supervisor Fortunato Bass I President Halbert I. Congratulations, Chief.
[51:48] Speaker 1: Item 66 is the second reading of vehicle and traffic ordinance amendments in the unincorporated areas.
[51:55] Speaker 3: An ordinance amending Chapter 1 relating to.
[51:58] Speaker 2: Traffic regulations dash county highways of Title 6 relating to vehicles and traffic of.
[52:04] Speaker 3: The Alameda County Public works traffic code. Mr. President, I will move to wave the full second reading and adopt the ordinance amending chapter one relating to traffic regulations as described in 66, item 66.
[52:23] Speaker 2: I'll second that item. Motion's been made and seconded for item 67. Roll call vote, please. This is for item 66.
[52:34] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez, aye. Supervisor Tam, Aye. Supervisor Miley excused. Supervisor Fortune and Bass.
[52:41] Speaker 1: Aye.
[52:42] Speaker 2: President Halpert, aye. That item passes. Okay, now on to 67.
[52:46] Speaker 1: Your last ordinance is the second reading of ordinance amendments affecting building codes.
[52:53] Speaker 3: An ordinance repealing chapters 15.08, 15.12, 1.
[52:59] Speaker 2: 5.16, 1:5.20 and 15.24 of the Alameda.
[53:05] Speaker 1: County General Ordinance Code and adopting and.
[53:08] Speaker 2: Amending the 2025 editions of the California.
[53:11] Speaker 1: Building Code, the California Residential Code, the California Energy Code, the California Wildland Urban Interface Code, the California Green Building Standards.
[53:21] Speaker 2: Code, the California Existing Building Code, the.
[53:24] Speaker 3: California Historical Building code as Chapter 15.08, the California Electrical Code as Chapter 15.0, the California Mechanical Code as Chapter 15.16, the California Plumbing Code as Chapter 15.20.
[53:41] Speaker 2: And the 1997 Uniform Housing Code as Chapter 15.24 of the Alameda County General Ordinance Code, including previously approved county amendments thereto and finding adoption of this ordinance.
[53:53] Speaker 1: To be exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
[53:58] Speaker 3: Mr. President, I will move the wave the full second reading and adopt the ordinance as described in 67A small Roman 1, 2, 3 and 4 and also under 67B, authorized the clerk with the board to publish publish a displayed advertisement for the ordinance in accordance with the government code.
[54:18] Speaker 1: I'll second.
[54:20] Speaker 2: I had motion's Been made by Supervisor Tam. Seconded by Supervisor Marquez to Approve. Approve item 67. Roll call vote, please.
[54:28] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez. Aye.
[54:30] Speaker 1: Supervisor Tam.
[54:31] Speaker 3: Aye.
[54:31] Speaker 2: Supervisor Miley. Excused.
[54:33] Speaker 3: Supervisor Fortuna Bass.
[54:35] Speaker 1: I present.
[54:35] Speaker 2: Hubbard I. That item passes. That concludes our match motion, including all ordinances. Before we move to the 3:00pm set matter, which we will have to wait to 3:00pm to do, we have one more item before us and that is public input on items not on today's agenda. If any member of the public in person or online would like to speak to items not on today's agenda but within the purview of this board, we ask that you would fill out a speaker slip and if you're online to raise your hand. I'll wait a minute to see if anybody fills out a speaker slip for this item and. Or raises their hand before we take account and then proceed with public comment. Again, this is items not on today's agenda. Our three o' clock set matter items will be taken up at 3 o'. Clock. You can fill out a speaker slip at that time or if you do, it will be segregated for that time. We will take up 3pm Set matters at 3pm how many, may I ask the clerk in person speaker slips do we have and how many online hands are raised for these Items?
[55:50] Speaker 1: There are 14 in person and 0 online.
[55:53] Speaker 2: Very good. Well, we're going to then allow a minute for each person public comment. We'll take them all in person and we'll ask the clerk to call three at a time and ask that speakers can line up at the podium at the microphone and. And give their public comment one after another. First three in person.
[56:15] Speaker 1: Kathy Rodriguez.
[56:16] Speaker 3: Mike Morgan.
[56:18] Speaker 1: Kyle Shaw Powell. Kathy rodriguez. Next is mike morgan. Kyle shaw powell, please line up.
[56:50] Speaker 2: Okay to confirm for the clerk. We're going to close the opportunity to submit a speaker slip or raise a hand online. If your hand's already up, keep it up. If you have a slip in, get ready. But we'll otherwise close that. Thank you.
[57:09] Speaker 4: Where they go?
[57:11] Speaker 3: I want to have them go first.
[57:17] Speaker 2: Welcome. Hello, my name is Mike Morgan. I run one of the dispensaries that is four doors down from the explosion.
[57:28] Speaker 3: And I just want to talk about.
[57:29] Speaker 2: Like I understand, you know, the work of the. Of the construction down that. The Welling Boulevard. I mean, I get the concept of trying to make it look, you know, neater and I understand the logic, but since the. The construction has happened, it's. It's detrimental to the businesses, not just mine and also the ones that are around.
[57:51] Speaker 3: And as far as like being able.
[57:53] Speaker 2: For parking, taken away, parking in front of our, our, our facility. And after this whole explosion incident, I mean, there's nobody that's allowed to even be able to get to our, our establishment, which is basically, you know, it's detrimental to the whole entire business. And it's a very impactful of it.
[58:18] Speaker 3: And I feel so far sorry for.
[58:20] Speaker 2: The, the people that are around me that is impacted. And it's just. I mean, I wish I had a little more time, but it's, it's, it's not, it's not a comfortable feeling.
[58:30] Speaker 3: Thank you.
[58:31] Speaker 2: Because the item's not on the agenda, we can't really engage in discussion. But we'll be in touch with you. I just wanted to get my point across, that's all. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello, my name is Kyle Chappell. I'm the owner of the appliance shop next to the explosion. My mother and dog were in the house at the time. And it's been very traumatic because of what's happened. I lost my father, Jeb, 12 years ago from ALS. So I almost lost my other parent in something that I think should have been taken care of properly and by the either PGE or the fire department in conjunction. I'm just thankful that no one died. My neighbors got out. We only one pet or two pets actually perished. But the whole construction has created a lot of stress in that neighborhood as well as hurts a lot more than just one or two businesses. But we feel terrible for the people that have lost more than us and we're thankful that we have our lives still and very, very blessed to be able to speak to this committee and just please, whatever you can, help with us and determine everything. We're, we're very, you know, we're here.
[59:46] Speaker 3: So thank you.
[59:47] Speaker 2: Thank you for your comments.
[59:52] Speaker 1: My name is Kathy Rodriguez and I'm a homeowner for 21 years on East Wellington Boulevard.
[59:58] Speaker 3: I am very appalled that Public Works Daniel and Amber Lowe have violated our civil rights by taking our property. They took 3ft of 3 to 5ft of our property. They have exposed us to harm and danger. Six people were hurt. The safety concerns that we have, the explosion, there's gaps in our property. The sidewalks are extended too far. Electrical wire exposures. There's electrical shortages. There's families who are displaced. Displaced. They are homeless right now. There's businesses that are displaced. They install.
[60:36] Speaker 1: We've had flooding on our property.
[60:38] Speaker 3: Loss of personal property.
[60:40] Speaker 1: Personally, they took three of my cars.
[60:42] Speaker 3: Off my personal property. There's been fences that have been destroyed. There's been municipal codes because we are commercial property. They're supposed to be from our, from our building to the street, 20ft that now it's down to 15ft. They can't even follow their own municipal codes. My concern is that we need quality assurance. Excuse me.
[61:03] Speaker 2: Thank you for your comments. Your time is over. I have to go to the next speaker. I'm going to have to ask for the next speaker. But we've heard you. We've heard you. The next three speakers can be called please.
[61:21] Speaker 3: Thank you.
[61:23] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[61:24] Speaker 4: My name is Kelly. I think that a lot of people don't understand how the county is connected.
[61:29] Speaker 2: To this explosion in Ashland. People thought it was exploding in Hayward.
[61:36] Speaker 4: Alameda county gave the Public Works Agency $14 million to carry out this project.
[61:42] Speaker 2: And as of a month or two.
[61:44] Speaker 4: Ago they were reporting that the work was 65% complete and was scheduled for completion in May 2026.
[61:50] Speaker 2: They even gave a nice empty happy feelings statement on the explosion just a.
[61:58] Speaker 4: Couple of an hour or two ago. But there's also an office of Risk Management under the county administrator. They take. They're responsible for these kind of risks and liabilities.
[62:11] Speaker 2: So this county is deeply involved in the explosion. It paid for the explosion and maybe the.
[62:21] Speaker 4: The. They should have called 811 when the gas was leaking and they should have been knocking on doors.
[62:30] Speaker 2: The next three in person or do we have more online?
[62:32] Speaker 3: No more.
[62:33] Speaker 2: Okay, thank you.
[62:34] Speaker 1: Ann Lee. Jose Reynolds. Michelle. Please kindly line up.
[63:02] Speaker 3: Good afternoon, my name is Andlee. I'm experiencing a significant financial hardship in paying the mortgage, property taxes and insurance. I have been able to rent or sell my house due to ongoing construction that has been lasted nearly two years. On top of that my house is only two houses away from the explosion house and I have a lot of debris that causing me a lot of stress and financial hardship. So please help. That's all I have to say.
[63:47] Speaker 2: Hello, my name is Jose Reynolds. I just want to express my concern on the safety issues.
[63:52] Speaker 3: I'm the neighbor right behind where the explosion happened.
[63:55] Speaker 2: And I just want to address something that you guys. The president mentioned that the PGE responding.
[64:02] Speaker 3: In a timely manner. But I believe that's not true.
[64:04] Speaker 2: Even though they were on site at 7:30, they didn't can address to all the neighbors that there was a gas leaking. So I guess that's not true that the statement that you made.
[64:16] Speaker 3: And also I want you guys to.
[64:19] Speaker 2: Make sure that all the safety concerns.
[64:22] Speaker 3: That are happening in the area, especially.
[64:23] Speaker 2: In my house because Right now, up.
[64:26] Speaker 3: To this date, I'm not able to.
[64:28] Speaker 2: Use the gas and I don't want.
[64:29] Speaker 3: To use it until you guys make.
[64:31] Speaker 2: Sure that that's the everything that has been done. That's all I want to say. And just don't vote on anything that.
[64:38] Speaker 3: You don't know until the final study.
[64:42] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[64:48] Speaker 1: Michelle. Cassandra bernal. Kim holland paramates singh. Cassandra bernal. Kim holland parameets singh.
[65:18] Speaker 3: Hi, my name is Cassandra Bernal and I'm one of the neighbors. I live right in front of the house where the explosion happened.
[65:25] Speaker 1: It just never made sense to me.
[65:26] Speaker 3: Why we never had like why they never told us that there was a gas leak at 7:30 in the morning. Why we weren't evacuated. Maybe my neighbors wouldn't have been hurt. To this day is very nerve wracking and I, me and my family are like traumatized by this event. We don't even know if it's even safe to be at home to even use the gas. Like we can't even sleep at night. Like we have headaches just thinking and it's just very stressful living in front of that of that home where the explosion happened. I wish things would have been done differently. I wish like we would have gone told to evacuate or. Yeah, it's just very like stressful and have also like the parking. Like I have to, I work at three in the morning and I have to walk three blocks down just to get to my car because of the whole street being vlogged out and it's just not okay.
[66:21] Speaker 2: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.
[66:28] Speaker 1: My name is Kim Holland and I'm a local business and property owner at 897 East Welling Boulevard. And I'm here today to speak about the significant and ongoing impacts the recent street expansion project has had on my property, my business and also the people rely on it. It's been a hard 10 months. While I understand and support infrastructure improvements, this project has caused real harm to our community. My property has sustained damage from flooding access to my business, people were hurt. I concur with all of my neighbors and people in the community that have already talked before me. And I know I have 18 cents or 18 seconds left. We need to improve access to customers to our businesses. We need better oversight with this project. And I'll leave you with this. Local businesses are a vital part of this community too. We should not become collateral damage in projects intended to improve our community. Thank you.
[67:38] Speaker 2: Foreign.
[67:43] Speaker 3: Hello everybody. My name is Parmit Singh. I live at 807 East Leveling Boulevard, Hayward 94541. The day explosion happened, it was very, very, very like scary. And I got very panicked, like very nervous. And I felt a big, big like my house was shaking. And I thought it's a big earthquake. Then I came out, it was a big fire through three houses away from my house. And we were evacuated by the police. So we trying to get help. My land is taken from the front yard and it's not safe. So we are requesting. It's like a safety issue for the life of all the people in on Lowelling.
[68:56] Speaker 2: Thank you for your comments.
[68:57] Speaker 3: That's all I have to say. Thanks.
[68:59] Speaker 2: Thank you. Next Speaker.
[69:04] Speaker 1: James Brito Mary Paranakis Alicia Flores.
[69:22] Speaker 2: Hi, I'm James Brito and I have a compilation of issues and concerns from over a dozen of the residents that we've been talking for the last two days. The main concern was the length of this project and the seemingly lack of coordination between PG&E, the subcontractor and whoever else in the county is supposed to oversee this. The main concern we have especially in the sensitive digging around these gas lines which are owned by PG&E, some of which are over 80 years old. You can make everything on top of the ground look nice, but if under the bottom is rotting away, what good is it? It's going to end up getting what happened to us. It blew up. It does no good.
[70:02] Speaker 3: It has to be.
[70:04] Speaker 2: I don't even know where to begin. All my neighbors since we've been meeting, these are the concerns and hopefully the county can see it in their heart to provide some mental health counseling for those who have been traumatized by this in some way or another and for the displaced folks as well. So I know my time's up. I hope we have more of these meetings.
[70:32] Speaker 1: Hello, my name is Mary Pironakis.
[70:36] Speaker 3: My name is Mary Pironakis.
[70:40] Speaker 1: And I own some houses around the area where.
[70:44] Speaker 2: The explosion heads is.
[70:46] Speaker 1: One of them is a place where the gentleman has a business. He has not been allowed to have any place to park. The people that they come shop and.
[70:56] Speaker 3: So he has to close down.
[70:57] Speaker 1: He also works at the flea market and he brings two vans every night at home that they are full of stuff and nobody's letting him park inside of his driveways. This has been very difficult for my tenant and it's hard on him.
[71:12] Speaker 4: I also have a board and care.
[71:13] Speaker 1: Home just two blocks from the facility with 12 residents and we all very scared that the PGE is not doing.
[71:20] Speaker 2: The right job and something can happen.
[71:22] Speaker 1: That my Clients are not able to.
[71:23] Speaker 3: Get out the house.
[71:25] Speaker 1: We just don't know what to do. We have the paratransit passes coming in.
[71:29] Speaker 3: To pick them up and they are.
[71:31] Speaker 4: Not allowed in the streets.
[71:32] Speaker 3: The clients, they can't go to the program. Thank you.
[71:37] Speaker 1: Foreign.
[71:43] Speaker 3: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Alicia Flores. I'm here on behalf of my parents Ortino and Enedina Flores. They reside at 468 East Llwelling Boulevard. So they were impacted by the construction project. I'm here to implore you. I don't know how to go about this but in front of their house the gas line is fully exposed. The integrity of this line is has been compromised. So it's another tragedy waiting to happen.
[72:12] Speaker 1: I'm extremely concerned.
[72:15] Speaker 3: I'm leaving my contact information. I am helping my parents just navigate this process of everything that's been happening ever since the construction project began. So I hope that you will take the time to look over the photos. And again the it's the they're still supposed to move like a utility pole.
[72:33] Speaker 1: So there's going to be ongoing construction.
[72:35] Speaker 3: Close in close proximity to this gas line and you can see that it is bent.
[72:41] Speaker 1: It's clearly bent.
[72:42] Speaker 3: So if someone could contact us and help us with this matter it would be greatly appreciated.
[72:47] Speaker 1: Thank you for your time.
[72:49] Speaker 3: May I leave this with you.
[72:50] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[72:53] Speaker 1: Ild Ortiz and Bo Yan. I'm the one showing you at May for you take my land for free and build a 4 inch high sidewalk in front of my house and you.
[73:22] Speaker 2: Remove the the high sidewalk but you.
[73:26] Speaker 1: Don'T remove the curb that leading the.
[73:28] Speaker 3: High street that leading the shallow driveway.
[73:32] Speaker 2: All the water back in and our.
[73:34] Speaker 1: House already flooding for three time and I wrote three email November and you ignored and you still building the high.
[73:43] Speaker 3: Street make our house permanently flooding property.
[73:47] Speaker 1: As a explosion morning.
[73:50] Speaker 3: You are building the street at that.
[73:52] Speaker 1: Morning and you doubled my sewer charge this year even it's a second unit is built decades ago and no one in this country being double charge sewer for the old unit.
[74:05] Speaker 3: No new permission no new construction.
[74:09] Speaker 1: But you doubled my sewer charge and the only thing I did is I.
[74:13] Speaker 3: Called Ms. Daniel I had fit another.
[74:16] Speaker 1: Unit legal built decades ago. It's not it's the driveway too small I want a bigger driveway like before this the only thing I did this.
[74:25] Speaker 2: Year tell the Ms. Daniel thank you for your comments.
[74:28] Speaker 3: They didn't correct my driveway they doubled.
[74:31] Speaker 1: My supercharge Ily Ortiz.
[74:43] Speaker 2: Ma' am your comments are over. Time's over. Is there another speaker Ildy Ortiz. Ortiz.
[74:52] Speaker 3: There are no more speakers.
[74:54] Speaker 2: Okay, then we're going to close. Public comment on items not on the agenda. We have a few minutes before 3:00'.
[75:00] Speaker 1: Clock.
[75:01] Speaker 2: I just want to reiterate the comments that I made earlier. And I'd like to thank the speakers that came. I understand this is a passionate topic. We all grieve for those that lost property, for those that were injured, for those who are recovering, for those who were affected. Your comments do not fall on deaf ears. However, we have to recognize this is not an agendized item. We have recognized that. We are deeply investigating this. We're working with our Fire Department, Public Works department, the National Transportation Safety Board and Cal osha, and we will be continuing the investigation as needed. With that said, we're going to recess for a few minutes and come back at the 3 o'. Clock. 4. 3 o' clock set matters. We have several of them. We're now recessed.
[76:11] Speaker 1: Recording in progress.
[76:17] Speaker 2: Well, we're going to now reconvene to open session to finish our meeting. I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll to establish our quorum.
[76:28] Speaker 3: Supervisor Marquez.
[76:29] Speaker 1: Present.
[76:29] Speaker 2: Supervisor Tam?
[76:31] Speaker 3: Present. Supervisor Miley.
[76:32] Speaker 2: Excused.
[76:33] Speaker 3: Supervisor Fortunato Bass.
[76:34] Speaker 1: Present.
[76:35] Speaker 3: Present. Halbert.
[76:36] Speaker 2: Present.
[76:37] Speaker 3: We have a quorum.
[76:38] Speaker 2: Thank you very much. I do note that we should be expected to be joined by Supervisor Miley online. When he comes online, we will make note of it. With that said, we have three items under our three o' clock set matters. A proclamation I understand Supervisor Tam will be presenting instead of Supervisor Miley. Item 70. Then we have a public protection item 70.1, a health care services item 71, and then, time permitting, an informational item by Supervisor Fortune or bass. So four items at the 3 o' clock set matter time frame. I'll now turn the microphone and the meeting over to Supervisor TAM proclaiming December 2025 as HIV and AIDS awareness Month. Supervisor Tam.
[77:29] Speaker 3: Thank you, President Halbert. Supervisor Miley and I serve on the Health Committee of the Board of Supervisors and are pleased to proclaim December 2025 as HIV and AIDS awareness Month. The World AIDS day was on December 1st, and it offers an opportunity to honor the more than 40 million people worldwide who are living with HIV and the 630,000 who have died of HIV related illnesses. In 2023, 9,667 people were living with HIV in the Oakland Transitional Grant area of Alameda and Contra Costa counties with nearly 1/4 out of care and about 32% not virally suppressed HIV positive residents in northern Alameda county are more likely to maintain care than the other areas of the county. Gay and bisexual men account for nearly 70% of new HIV diagnosis, with the highest rates among Latino, gay and bisexual men. Communities of color make up most late diagnosis, including 42% Latino, 25% African American, 22% multiracial and 8% Asian or Pacific Islander. Only 67.4% of the people with HIV in the region are linked to care. 75% of those are retained in care and 68.6% are virally suppressed, with black people experiencing the lowest suppression rates. People who inject or use drugs and transgender women of color face disproportionate HIV burden. And HIV prevalence among black cisgender women at 714.3 per 100,000 is 10 times higher than among white women at 70 per 100,000. Among the people engaged and retained in the ryan white funded HIV care program, 90% are virally suppressed and those who are suppressed cannot transmit HIV through sex. The Alameda County Public Health Department, through its HIV STD HCV section and in partnership with community organizations is committed to preventing new infections, expanding high quality care and biomedical prevention, addressing disparities and organizing a day of celebration and a month of events in December 2025 to support residents living with HIV. Therefore, this board proclaims December 2025 as HIV and AIDS awareness Month in Alameda county and urges all residents, nonprofit organizations, school systems, public officials, health care providers and ally groups to participate in efforts to raise HIV and AIDS awareness and invest in long term sustainable strategies to prevent, treat, create support and provide access to care for people living with hiv. I understand that Curtis Moore, Joe Hawkins, Carmen Foster and Alia Bilal are here to accept the proclamation from the board today. Could you wave your hands?
[80:58] Speaker 2: Ah, why don't we come up and accept the award? Maybe make a few comments. We'll present the proclamation and take a photo. We'll take public comment and welcome Curtis Moore, Section Director hiv, ST and Viral Hepatitis Titus for the Division of. For the Division of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention. I'm the section director over those three programs and I really want to thank you for giving us this opportunity and having this proclamation. And as the data states, 90% of.
[81:32] Speaker 1: Individuals who are under Ryan White program actually virally suppressed, which is one of the goals that we're aiming for.
[81:40] Speaker 2: And for that I encourage the Board of Supervisors to ensure that that funding gets to the CBOs that we work with as a county without clinics, the individuals here, I would like to introduce them these Individuals are the ones that.
[81:55] Speaker 3: Do most of the work.
[81:58] Speaker 2: Come on up and maybe raise the microphones. So there you go. Can you hear me?
[82:05] Speaker 3: Thank you, Supervisor Tam.
[82:07] Speaker 2: My name is Joe Hawkins, CEO and co founder of the Oakland LGBTQ Community Center. I want to thank Supervisor Bass for.
[82:18] Speaker 4: Ensuring that this issue was not erased.
[82:20] Speaker 2: From this month's agenda. Thank you all for not surrendering to the federal government, which announced that it will no longer recognize World AIDS Day.
[82:32] Speaker 3: The center currently operates a total of six separate sites.
[82:36] Speaker 2: Two sexual health clinics, one on Lakeshore and one in East Oakland, a youth club near Lake Merritt, a trans wellness center in East Oakland, and our new LGBTQ Elders Drop in center that will be opening in the 26th. The past 11 months have been a wild and hate filled ride. It's no Secret that in January 2025 nonprofit organizations serving the LGBTQ community, people of color and immigrants became direct targets of the Trump administration.
[83:08] Speaker 3: The attack was swift and intense.
[83:09] Speaker 2: Almost immediately, our center saw a significant drop in funding opportunities and donations. We were then notified by one of our major corporate partners that they would no longer be serving us and supporting us. And to make a deteriorating situation even worse, we abruptly received a notice that a $600,000 federal grant that we had.
[83:35] Speaker 3: Was abruptly stopped. It felt as if the most powerful.
[83:41] Speaker 2: Man on the planet had placed a target on the backs of our community. HIV and AIDS disproportionately impacts the LGBTQ.
[83:51] Speaker 3: And people of color communities.
[83:53] Speaker 2: In 1998, the Alameda County Board Board of Supervisors acknowledged that AIDS was devastating the black community and declared a state of emergency, which is still in effect today.
[84:05] Speaker 3: According to the county's own data, black and Latin people still make up the.
[84:10] Speaker 2: Vast majority of new HIV infections. During the time when we have made major advances to not only treat hiv, but we can now prevent HIV with powerful drugs known as preposterous.
[84:24] Speaker 3: But the conditions that create HIV is not just a medical issue.
[84:28] Speaker 2: It is a societal issue that takes.
[84:31] Speaker 3: Into account the social determinants of health.
[84:34] Speaker 2: If we are ever to get to zero new infections. Stigma has always been one of the.
[84:40] Speaker 3: Greatest contributors to the spread of hiv.
[84:43] Speaker 2: We are now watching medical institutions and local nonprofit clinics and hospital scrubbing LGBTQ language from their website out of fear of losing federal funding. This only contributes to stigma and the.
[84:57] Speaker 3: Distrust of medical professionals by LGBTQ people.
[85:01] Speaker 2: And people of color. I believe that what we've experienced in 2025 is just a small preview of what is to come in the new year. We need your help to become a national model of care by supporting the outstanding work of HIV organizations in Alameda County. Thank you.
[85:31] Speaker 3: Good afternoon, President and honorable members of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. My name is Alia Bilal and I'm the Director for the HIV and the Transvision Program at the Bay Area Community Health. On behalf of the Bay Area Community Health, we thank you for this recognition on the World AIDS Day that we deeply honor the Bay Area Community Health. BUCK is a community rooted, patient centered, federally qualified health center committed to advancing health equity for communities that have historically been underserved, stigmatized and left behind. For decades, HIV care has been central to who we are and why we exist across Alameda county and greater Bay Area. BUCK provides comprehensive wraparound HIV services that meet people where they are. This includes HIV testing and prevention, prep and pap access, linkage to and retention in care, medical case management, behavioral health support and culturally responsive services for the LGBTQ community, communities, immigrants, refugees, people experiencing homelessness and community of color. We also bring care directly into neighborhoods through mobile clinics and trusted community partnership, reducing barriers, building trust and saving lives. On this World AIDS Day, we reaffirm our commitment to ending the HIV epidemic and supporting every person affected by hiv. We honored the resilience of our clients, many of whom navigate complex challenges with extraordinary strength. We uplift the dedication of our staff who lead with compassion, expertise and unwavering commitment. And we recognize the critical partnership, especially with Alameda county, that makes this word possible. I also would like to emphasize that our fight or our efforts to control the HIV is incomplete without considering HIV prevention, surveillance and data collection, analysis and also research. And I hope this will be always integrated as a message when you're advocating for the HIV and the people living with hiv. Together we continue to champion equity, expand access, access to prevention and care and ensure that every individual is treated with dignity and respect, without judgment, fear or barriers. Thank you for your leadership, your partnership and your continued investment in the community based care. With your support, we move closer to a future where HIV is no longer a public health crisis and every person has an opportunity to thrive. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Carmen Foster. I'm a clinic manager at trucha, the HIV Services department at La Clinica de La Raza. Thank you all for being here today. As we come together in recognition of World AIDS Day, we gather with purpose and with heart. Today is a moment to honor the journey that has brought us to where we are marked by progress in care, resilience in the face of challenges and an unwavering commitment to one another. As you look around the room, you will see the many organizations and partners who have worked side by side over the years, united by a shared goal and a deep sense of responsibility. Through difficult moments, we have stood together, and we will continue to stand together, carrying this vital work forward with intention and care. We are here to affirm that this work continues, driven by compassion and determination. We stand in solidarity with those whose voices are not always heard. And we hold close the memories of those we have lost, ensuring they are never forgotten. Their lives and legacies remain at the center of why we do this work, not only today, but always. We ask for your continued commitment to remain engaged, to take action, and to support this work with the same dedication that has brought us here. Thank you for your presence, your partnership, and your enduring commitment.
[89:53] Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Do we have any public comment on this item?
[89:56] Speaker 3: We have five speakers.
[89:58] Speaker 2: Let's call them up and then we'll come down and take a photo.
[90:02] Speaker 1: Jonathan Cole, Winford Len. Sergio Garcia. Jonathan Cole, Winford Lynn. Sergio Garcia.
[90:26] Speaker 2: Before other items 70.
[90:30] Speaker 1: We're on item 70.
[90:33] Speaker 2: Maybe they made a mistake.
[90:34] Speaker 4: Take.
[90:37] Speaker 2: Okay. If anybody in the audience would like to speak on this item, just approach the podium. Online. We have caller.
[90:50] Speaker 3: Go ahead.
[90:53] Speaker 2: This is on item 70. Hello, I'm Jonathan Cole.
[91:01] Speaker 3: Go ahead.
[91:03] Speaker 4: Thank you for the time.
[91:04] Speaker 2: My name is Jonathan Cole. I'm a former AMR employee. I worked as an emt. Yeah, that's a different item. We're going to ask that you lower your hand and when we get to that item, you can raise your hand again. If we could lower everyone's hand and then ask for those that are simply here to talk about HIV and AIDS Awareness Month to re. Raise your hand. That's the only item we're taking public comment on at this point.
[91:33] Speaker 3: There are no speakers.
[91:34] Speaker 2: Seeing none. We're going to close a public comment on item 70. We're going to present the proclamation to our speakers who can come back up. And we'll take a group photo. Okay. I know that we have a curious numbering system. 70 is what we just did. Hiv and Aids Awareness month. We have 70.1. A sheriff's item. 0.1. 70.1, not to be confused with item 71, which will be Alameda County Health approving the recommendations for ambulance Service providing item 71. Then we have item 71.1. After that, an update from Supervisor Fortunato Bass, if time permits. So we're now going to move to item 71, a sheriff's item, which has 70.1. See, that's pretty complicated 70.1. Approving the following recommendations which we'll ask the sheriff's department to present on. After the presentation, we'll ask questions and comments and then we'll have public comment. We'll have plenty of time to discuss this item. Welcome, sir. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. Board. It might be item 71.1 A. Just throwing that out there. I'm Captain Dan Brody of the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. I am the Captain of Support Support Services. I believe I said this last year as well that I am not the military equipment coordinator. The military equipment coordinator is Lt. Gus Mora, who works for me. Last year he was in training, so he avoided it. This year he and his wife welcomed.
[95:11] Speaker 3: A new life into the world.
[95:11] Speaker 2: So congratulations to him, but he avoided it again. It's a, it's a very expensive, long lasting way to get out of having to present. And if he makes me do it.
[95:23] Speaker 3: Again next year, I'm going to begin to believe he doesn't like me very much.
[95:27] Speaker 2: So I have a number of other people that are here for subject matter experts who I thank for volunteering to help me out with this should questions arise. But I want to start off by introducing Commander Kleppinger, Lieutenant Boyd, and Lieutenant Gallardo in case they have to come up to answer questions. They'll be my primary help here. So this is the Military Equipment Annual Report presentation. This is almost identical to the presentation.
[95:49] Speaker 3: That was provided during the public meeting.
[95:51] Speaker 2: I've only added a few slides since then, which I'll touch on as we go through. So it is working. Excellent. So what is the, what is all this? It's California Assembly Bill 481. It requires all law enforcement agencies to report on the acquisition, funding and use of military equipment. The goal, of course, being transparency, accountability, and public input regarding military equipment.
[96:13] Speaker 3: It was enacted in 2021.
[96:14] Speaker 2: We had our first matter on this.
[96:16] Speaker 3: In 2022, and now here we are.
[96:18] Speaker 2: In 2025, almost 2026, which is scary how fast it's moving. Military equipment is defined in California law to include drones or small unmanned aerial vehicles, armored vehicles, command vehicles, specialized firearms, projectiles, diversionary devices, and certain less lethal tools. The sheriff's office does not possess any tracked vehicles, any.50 caliber or greater weapons or weaponized aircraft. And for those who may remember, we did eliminate the.50 caliber that we were carrying before as part of this process. What do we use? Military equipment. It's to safely resolve critical incidents, protect public and officer safety, minimize risks during dangerous events. Equipment is deployed only in specific Circumstances by trained staff, staff that are trained to use it following strict agency policies and of course state law. We have transparency and oversight.
[97:12] Speaker 3: Annual reports must detail the equipment use complaints, costs and training. A public meeting is required within 30.
[97:20] Speaker 2: Days of the report for community discussion and for questions. The ACSO inventory includes some small unmanned aerial systems or vehicles known as colloquially speak today is drones, armor techn armor tactical vehicles, robots, command vehicles, specialty firearms and ammunition, less lethal launchers and projectiles and chemical agents. Most equipment was purchased before the adoption of the ordinance. We have a few new items that.
[97:48] Speaker 3: We'Ve been acquiring so far.
[97:52] Speaker 2: This is the QR code for the actual military equipment report that we have. It's also available on our website if you google. Alameda County Sheriff's Office Military military equipment I believe it is still the first hit on our homepage, but it has our full military equipment annual report. So our top five items by operational use.
[98:13] Speaker 3: And this excludes the use of the.
[98:15] Speaker 2: Small unmanned aerial vehicles. You'll see there's a number a higher.
[98:18] Speaker 3: Amount of use of those.
[98:20] Speaker 2: We go from the Bearcat armored vehicle with 38 uses down to our command post at 16 uses and the ones in between there. So key purposes were personnel and equipment transport, high risk warrant services and scene security and tactical support. We had no recorded uses of military equipment at Santa Rita Jail during this reporting period, which we touched on last year's reporting period as well.
[98:48] Speaker 3: And here's a graph of the most.
[98:50] Speaker 2: Used showing I think this is the first nine if I'm not mistaken.
[98:59] Speaker 3: And then we get into the drone or small unmanned aerial vehicles.
[99:03] Speaker 2: 756 total deployments of those top models being used are the DJI Matrice, the.
[99:09] Speaker 3: Mavic 3 and the Mavic 2.
[99:11] Speaker 2: And primary uses, we use these, these, these small unmanned aerial vehicles for overwatch.
[99:16] Speaker 3: During operations, for search and rescue and.
[99:19] Speaker 2: For scene documentation and for mapping. And here's a chart of the vehicles that were used.
[99:26] Speaker 3: The unmanned aerial vehicles.
[99:33] Speaker 2: So costs and funding. Annual expenses include the acquisition, maintenance, training and replenishment of consumable devices or consumable items. And equipment purchases and costs are reviewed for necessity and cost effectiveness using public funds and some grant money.
[99:49] Speaker 3: Again, only trained and certified sheriff's office members may use military equipment. We have in house training which ensures.
[99:55] Speaker 2: Current skills, state mandated safety standards are followed. And we had no reported policy violations or misuse of equipment during this year. We have a number of ways to submit complaints and comments regarding our military equipment equipment. And we received no complaints during this this year regarding our use of military equipment either through the military equipment direct contact, the the anonymous contact forms or even through our internal affairs.
[100:25] Speaker 3: If you were to make a complaint via that, it would then be reported.
[100:28] Speaker 2: Out if it was connected to this community members can submit concerns via email or through the civilian complaint form reviewed by IA as I mentioned and that email address acso mil-equip.org is the primary one for military equipment. Again however, if any email address received a comment or complaint, it would have been routed to us.
[100:48] Speaker 3: And then that's our website.
[100:53] Speaker 2: So we have we conduct evaluation of our equipment. It's early detection of wear and tear, regular evaluations to identify issues that may impact functionality, technology reviews to assess potential upgrades, comparisons with new models to evaluate existing equipment against new models to assess improvements in efficiency, safety and capability and transparency and trust. We have systematic, systematic evaluations to demonstrate the agency's commitment to responsible governance and over governance, excuse me, and oversight, which includes a review of continued needs as necessary. So projected acquisitions. The sheriff's office seeks approval for several new items such as additional less lethal launchers and projectiles as well as replacement items for damaged equipment. All projected acquisitions follow review and approval processes. So these are the ones that were reported out at the community meeting. They're on the primary military equipment list.
[101:49] Speaker 3: So it's eight new rifles, eight extended.
[101:52] Speaker 2: Range pepperball launchers to complement our current supply of launchers. And I will note that in their military equipment report report it indicates that we had six pepperball launchers. That's because the inventory is drawn at the time of the report around August, September. Since then we've acquired our full complement of 25 pepper ball launchers. And as we mentioned last year we're in the process of working through, of supplanting or replacing our FN303 system with the pepper ball system. An additional or an additional a thousand of these live max projectiles which are extended range chemical irritant projectiles, A thousand extended range marking projectiles to mark mark individuals with paint. 500 jammer rounds for various electrical devices, 500 glass breaker projectiles and then the additional 4000 UC for the marking projectile, the live X and the inert. Those are the projectiles that we were approved Last year we were approved for.
[102:46] Speaker 3: 2,000 of each one.
[102:48] Speaker 2: That was an error that we had. We meant to post and ask for 6,000 each. Each.
[102:52] Speaker 3: @ that time we, we ended up doing 2000. So we, we want to acquire up to.
[102:56] Speaker 2: 6000. That's 4000 plus 2000. Last time I did my math was 6000 but please check it and then an additional one. Since the creation of the report to now is we seek to have a replacement armored vehicle. Not a new one, just a replacement for our current authorized capacity of four vehicles. That was posted to the website on October 16th. ACSO remains committed to transparency, civil rights and minimizing risk with the use of military equipment. Equipment is used to support the safe resolution of high risk events, protect the community and to meet legal standards. We held a community engagement meeting on Tuesday, October 21st at 6:00 clock at the Chairlayan Community Center, 278 Hampton Road in Hayward, California. California. We presented in person and online. We had two people who viewed the presentation. There were no questions or comments or anything made during that time. So our next steps are Here we are submit the report and seek Board of Supervisors approval to receive this annual equipment report. Approve the military equipment use policy as required under government code and to approve our acquisitions listed in projected acquisitions section. Looking ahead, we'll continue our annual review and public reporting. Hopefully not me next year. Hopefully, Lieutenant Mora. We'll maintain focus on responsible equipment use, transparency and fiscal accountability. And we will continue to strengthen training and community engagement. Any questions? Thank you very much for your presentation. Actually, I think we should go to public comment if we could. Now, if a member of Any member of the public is in person should fill out a speaker slip. If you're online for item 70.1, the sheriff's presentation that we just saw, please raise your hand. I'll also note that we have been joined by Supervisor Miley who is participating remotely. We welcome you, Supervisor Mylene. Thank you for being here with us online. Any speakers on this item? Public comment. All the information persons.
[105:00] Speaker 1: First. Jennifer 2, John Lindsay Poland. Jennifer. Jennifer 2, John Lindsay.
[105:17] Speaker 2: Poland. Close public comment on this item. Thank you. How many speakers? Let's allow for two minutes for each speaker. Up to two minutes. Go for.
[105:39] Speaker 1: It. I'll try to be brief. Thank.
[105:40] Speaker 3: You.
[105:41] Speaker 1: Okay. Jennifer Tu with the American Friends Service Committee. Thank you supervisors for hearing this item today. I want to call your attention to two sets of numbers. One is the number of FN303 munitions. It's slightly over 7,000. The proposed pepper ball munitions increase that you're hearing today is $18,000. I'm going to play a 15 second excerpt from last year's October 29th Public Protection Committee meeting. The speaker is captain for from the Alameda County Sheriff's.
[106:20] Speaker 2: Office. Once we get rid of the FM303s and if we get approval to get the pepper balls, the munitions will be one for one replacement as well. So it's not. We're not increasing 6,000 munitions. It's a one for one.
[106:35] Speaker 1: Replacement. And so last year at public protection, what Alameda county sheriff said was that their intent was for the pepper balls to be a 1 for 1 replacement on both the launchers and the munitions. Between the pepper balls and the FN303s, the they have 23 FN303 launchers. We heard just now that they have 25 pepper ball launchers, which is slightly more than a one for one increase. State law AB 481 instructs governing bodies such as this one to only approve military equipment if there are no reasonable alternatives. There are. In addition to the FN303 that the sheriff's office is asking to replace, there is also a 40 millimeter system. I asked this body to not approve the pepper ball acquisition, either the launchers or the munitions, and also to ban scattershot munitions. Thank.
[107:34] Speaker 2: You. Good afternoon, John Lindsey Poland of the American Friends Service Committee. As Jennifer mentioned, the sheriff's office has thousands of other less lethal projectiles at its disposal. Now, even though the sheriff deputies didn't use pepper balls this past year, they want between 14 and 18,000 more. The numbers have shifted some between the report and what is presented today. The board should hold the sheriff to her word and cap the number of pepper balls at what was approved last year, which was supposed to be a one to one. Pepper balls can be fired at an extremely high rate, up to 10 per second, according to its manufacturer, or as fast as an officer can squeeze the trigger. Pepperball launchers hold 160 rounds at a time in a hopper. So many can be fired in just a few seconds. This by itself is, is an escalation from the types of less lethal munitions the sheriff had and used previously. This is an example of what it looks like when pepper balls are fired on someone. This happened on the bridge to Alameda on October 22nd here in Alameda County. This was a federal agent, this was not a county.
[108:48] Speaker 1: Sheriff. But this is what it can.
[108:49] Speaker 2: Look like when someone is fired upon with a pepper ball which holds a chemical payload within it as well as the projectile which has its own effect. Scattershot or multi projectile munitions are projectile rounds that can cause an indiscriminate spray of munitions that spreads widely, widely and cannot be aimed. There is no way to precisely aim these projectiles. There is a much greater risk of injuring the eyes. The UN Special Repertoire on Torture, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights have all urged their prohibition for law enforcement. Oakland PD recently informed us that it will eliminate scattershot munitions they have because they are dangerous. The sheriff should do the same. Thank.
[109:36] Speaker 1: You.
[109:40] Speaker 2: Caller. You have two.
[109:41] Speaker 1: Minutes. Virtual.
[109:49] Speaker 2: Meetings. You have two.
[109:51] Speaker 3: Minutes. Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Wendy Alon and.
[109:56] Speaker 1: I'm speaking here today on behalf of the Berkeley friends.
[109:59] Speaker 2: Meeting. Also speaking.
[110:01] Speaker 1: In to urge you.
[110:05] Speaker 3: To ban the scattershot multi munitions and to decline to authorize the increase in the pepper ball launchers and munitions and to retain them at the current level. As was said before, they haven't.
[110:29] Speaker 1: Been used this year that they they.
[110:32] Speaker 3: Were used in Oakland by the federal.
[110:39] Speaker 1: Agents. A cause injury which can be significant and life.
[110:44] Speaker 3: Threatening and there's no need for them. When the sheriff has adequate numbers already and has the FM303 launchers and those systems as well for just imagine, I mean 180 rounds firing and less.
[111:09] Speaker 2: Than three.
[111:10] Speaker 3: Minutes means.
[111:13] Speaker 1: That so many.
[111:18] Speaker 3: People can be injured at first. And if the 33 requested launchers.
[111:24] Speaker 1: Apparently you have that many, so you.
[111:25] Speaker 3: Can fire them all at.
[111:27] Speaker 1: Once. You know that's thousands and thousands of Alameda county residents are going to.
[111:33] Speaker 3: Be shot at one.
[111:34] Speaker 1: Time. It's not necessary for public safety.
[111:40] Speaker 3: It'S not necessary for officer safety. And we strongly request that you not make this authorization. Thank.
[111:49] Speaker 2: You. Jean.
[111:54] Speaker 1: Moses. Hello, my name is Jean Moses. I live in District 3 and I'm calling to support the position of the American French service. I ask you urgently to stick.
[112:08] Speaker 3: To require the sheriff to stick to less lethal.
[112:12] Speaker 1: Munitions. And I ask that you not authorize the purchases of scattershot and projectile launchers that are being opposed by the American Friends services. And I want to add that.
[112:25] Speaker 3: As the widow of a person who died of aids, I would really, really.
[112:31] Speaker 1: Prefer to see the investment of what I think is about $100,000 go to community support and in particular to the support of the AIDS group that was just presenting prior to this. Thank you very.
[112:45] Speaker 3: Much, Allison. Go ahead. Hello, Allison Monroe here. Speaking for myself, I also support.
[112:57] Speaker 1: The position of the American Friends Service.
[112:59] Speaker 3: Committee. We need to not buy multi.
[113:04] Speaker 1: Projectile weapons, scattershot weapons, as a lot of groups have said. They have no legitimate law enforcement use. They can't be targeted. And I would like the pepper ball purchases to be restricted to what.
[113:21] Speaker 3: They said last year they would.
[113:23] Speaker 1: Do. I also question the idea of needing military weapons at all. There's got to be some alternative. There is no war going on here. There is no war between the administration of the county and the people of the.
[113:38] Speaker 3: County. It's an extremely creepy.
[113:42] Speaker 1: Idea. I plan to continue to go to demonstrations. I've been to a lot in my life and I suspect next year there will be plenty. And I want to feel safe from, you know, in the presence of.
[113:58] Speaker 3: People that work for the county. I'd rather this money was spent on something else. Thank you very.
[114:02] Speaker 1: Much. Jonathan Reyes. Haleem Harris. Joel Sean.
[114:12] Speaker 2: Estega. Hello, everyone. My name is Jonathan Reyes Carranza. I grew up here in deep East Oakland and I went to public school here. I returned home after studying human development and family studies. And so at the pinnacle of the pyramid of the philosophical purpose of a city is to provide public safety. And you may feel that there's an element of policing to ensure that promise. But police are civilian peacekeepers. While the military are trained to violently engage with enemy combatants, these tools and tactics developed for campaigns abroad have inevitably found their ways back home. People have a protected right to protest, and our citizens are assets, not liabilities. We ought to use dialogue as a progressive way towards opportunity as opposed to physical violence as a punishment pathway. If indigenous. If individuals cause conflict during peaceful protest, we should identify those targets and remove them with precision and not put public in harm's way with indiscriminate rounds. The Altano County Sheriff's Office proposed the authorized use of pepper ball munitions for crowd management and civil unrest. Even though the state law highly restricts the use of these projectiles in crowd situations. The Board of Supervisors has a responsibility under law AB41 to only approve military equipment when there is no reasonable or more cost effective alternatives to meet safety objectives. Removing scattershot munitions from the Sheriff's office inventory would be the most cost effective. Would still protect civil liberties while still achieving the same public safety alternatives. So to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, I strongly urge you to listen to these people. And if not them, then please listen to the youth will inherit our county from us. There is no resource more vital to the continued existence and integrity of our communities than our children. So I pray you do not approve the sheriff's office request at this time. Thank you. Hello, board members. I am Jason Estes and Alameda County High School student. I'm a sophomore at Midwest High School and I intern with Bay Peace. The police are asking for more pepper ball launchers and more lethal ammunition. Honestly, it's comical how pointless how much they're asking for considering they haven't had a reason to use them in over a year. 18 to 20, 18,000 to 21,000 rounds. Do they plan on taking the city under. I think the whole thing is stupid. And then they want to pair those rounds with.33 grenade launchers again. To fight. To fight against threats that up until now don't exist. They're wasting money, gearing up for an invisible battle that doesn't solve anything. And God forbid ICE comes in and just starts kidnapping our community members with the same equipment that they are claiming are here to protect us. Again, from absolutely nothing. I believe scattershot rounds make no sense. In hopes to quell the actions of a few. You punish the many. God forbid an innocent bystander might be walking by. That could be anyone. A pregnant woman, a mother, a father, an elder, a child, a teacher, anyone. And the cause of the punishment is what? Honestly, if you ask me, I see no justifiable reason to go through with having more scattershot. If an innocent is hit, then what? They'll say sorry? All they'll do is make it worse by getting sued and causing our city to lose even more money and opportunities. And being that the state of our city is in no way a positive one, I'd say they hardly know what they're doing to begin with. And the argument that they're less lethal also doesn't sit right with me. Just because they are less lethal.
[117:41] Speaker 3: Doesn'T make them not.
[117:41] Speaker 2: Lethal. If I go from shooting someone in the chest to stabbing them in the arm, what changes? There's still excess violence involved. I strongly urge you all to reconsider approving any request for more militarized equipment. Thank.
[117:54] Speaker 1: You.
[117:59] Speaker 3: Hello. I'm Haleem Harris.
[118:00] Speaker 2: Hassan. Most people know me as Atticus.
[118:02] Speaker 3: Harris. I am an Alameda County High School student and I'm an 11th grader in at MetWest High School. Law enforcement are supposed to be seen as peacekeepers and protector of the.
[118:14] Speaker 2: People. People, it's their job.
[118:16] Speaker 3: To. To arrest suspects engaging in criminal activity and people who are dangerous for the rest of the public. So what is the purpose of.
[118:24] Speaker 2: A weapon that is taxed without discriminatory, without.
[118:29] Speaker 3: Judgment? How does this ensure public safety? Innocent people get hurt by these weapons. What did a group of high school students do to. To get hit by this weapon? What did some old lady do when she was just on her daily walk? What did the public do to get hit by this.
[118:49] Speaker 2: Weapon? There is no judgment when this.
[118:53] Speaker 3: Is. When this weapon attacks people. If it's one suspect, we have other weapons that can take them down. We have tasers and we have much more that can get the job done more.
[119:05] Speaker 2: Efficiently.
[119:06] Speaker 3: Efficiently. So what is the point of using a scatter shot, as people before me has probably already described a scour shot or is a grenade style weapon that sends dozens of rubber balls at high velocity from 50ft.
[119:21] Speaker 2: Away.
[119:24] Speaker 3: So what's the point of having this weapon if at the end of the day it's just going to hurt people that did nothing? This, the money that's going into buying these weapons could be used for funding so much more. We can use it to fund schools, we can use it to fund mental health treatment. I am a victim of not being supported in my.
[119:50] Speaker 2: Life. I. That's the rest of the time I have.
[119:54] Speaker 3: Left. Thank you for letting me talk or speak right now, and I strongly.
[119:58] Speaker 2: Urge you to listen to the.
[120:00] Speaker 3: People. Ariana Castellos. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, go.
[120:13] Speaker 1: Ahead. Thank you. Hi, Board of Supervisors. I appreciate your time this afternoon. My name is Ariana Castellanos and I'm calling from Hayward. I'm a small business owner and a homeowner here. And I also wanted to support AFSC's position on the scattershot munitions and the pepper balls specifically because with some.
[120:37] Speaker 3: Of the scattershot munitions, Oakland PD has recently also informed us that they're eliminating.
[120:43] Speaker 1: The scattershot munitions because they feel that they are dangerous. So a little bit about.
[120:48] Speaker 3: Hayward. You know, with a couple thousand dollars, we were able to use some of that money in my neighborhood as.
[120:54] Speaker 1: Part of the people's budget to support a matching grant for updating the park. And in the last two years.
[121:02] Speaker 3: We'Ve been able to use the park.
[121:03] Speaker 1: And had just a dramatic increase in.
[121:05] Speaker 4: Public safety and just kind of like.
[121:08] Speaker 3: A feeling of community in the.
[121:09] Speaker 1: Neighborhood. And so, you know, I really wanted to second the other comment that was shared about finding other ways to invest this money. As part of that people's budget initiative was also the creation of the HART program, which Hayward recently lost. And it's unfortunate because the police department really supported that program and its outcomes. And so I think that being able to use even just a couple thousand dollars to redirect some ideas for investing in our community and kind of how we want to approach public safety, I think is really important because ultimately this equipment is made to be used on our residents, even if they are in a place where they're experiencing a lot of distress or there is a lot of asocial and antisocial behavior instead of meeting their needs and really making that investment in the infrastructure that's of kind to prevent recidivism attacking our own residents is not the solution to public safety that has been shown to work. So I just wanted to echo all of the comments that my community members have.
[122:12] Speaker 3: Made. And also I live in Hayward.
[122:14] Speaker 1: And that meeting was not well attended and I think well publicized. So I would love an opportunity for another meeting to.
[122:21] Speaker 2: Really. Cynthia.
[122:25] Speaker 1: Nunez. Hi, good afternoon supervisors. My name is Cynthia Nunes. I'm from Hayward. My family, my friends and the.
[122:35] Speaker 3: Young people that I work with through.
[122:37] Speaker 1: My job also live in Hayward and all across the county. And these are the folks that are going to deal with the consequences of this.
[122:46] Speaker 3: Decision. The sheriff's office already has thousands.
[122:50] Speaker 1: Of so called lessons lethal weapons including six pepper ball launchers that were not used last year. But still the sheriff's office is asking for 33 more pepper ball launchers in 18,000.
[123:04] Speaker 3: Projectiles. Last year this board was told.
[123:07] Speaker 1: That it was a one for one replacement. This request today proves that that in fact was a blatant lie and in fact they're looking to do an expansion. Pepper balls are not de escalation. One launcher can fire 160 rounds in in seconds, up to 10 per second. It's not a calming situation. It's overwhelming people with chemical force. Especially in crowd settings where state law is sharply limiting their use. We've already seen the harm here in Alameda county including, including pepper balls being fired at an interfaith vigil. When these weapons are deployed. It's our communities and our youth who are harmed. Under AB481, you can only approve military equipment when there are no reasonable or more cost effective alternatives. Buying tens of thousands of more projectiles when only 23 rounds were fired last year fails that test. I'm wondering why add more now? De escalation doesn't come out of a hopper that fires 160 rounds. Every extra projectile that you approve today is aimed at the young people that you claim to protect. Thank you. There are no more.
[124:26] Speaker 2: Speakers. Okay with that. We're going to close public comment, bring it back for deliberation by our board. We'll go with questions are or comments. Actually, would the Sheriff's department like to comment on any of the comments made and clarify? If not, we'll probably have questions that would allow for that seeing. None. We'll just go to Supervisor Tam. Questions?
[124:53] Speaker 3: Comments? Thank you, President Halbert. I just have a couple questions. I appreciate the presentation and the plans to look at less lethal types of tools. The question I had pertained to community engagement. You mentioned that the October 21st community engagement meeting in the Chairland Community center in Hayward had a couple of People attend. And then you also mentioned that there is a website and ways that community members can email and also I understand last year, but I don't know about this past year, the Public Protection Committee typically hears some of these issues beforehand. And I'm just wondering, given that many members of the board probably received the comments that you heard today. Were they presented at those prior meetings and how were they addressed if they were presented? And can you address some of them today? Particularly the issue about the number of projectiles and the ammunitions potentially going from, you know, 2,500 to whether it's 18,000 or 13,000 in terms of where the need is and why there's that, I guess, emphasis on. On stockpiling some of them. Captain Brody, can I interject real quick before you respond? So in the board letter that.
[126:36] Speaker 1: The sheriff provided for this item, there.
[126:37] Speaker 3: Was mention that the public protection meeting.
[126:40] Speaker 1: Which was scheduled for Thursday, October 23rd.
[126:43] Speaker 3: Was canceled per my.
[126:44] Speaker 1: Request. I'm the chair of the Public.
[126:46] Speaker 3: Protection Committee and that is accurate. If everyone recalls that day, we.
[126:50] Speaker 1: Had federal agents at Coast Guard Island. So we did council that meeting.
[126:55] Speaker 3: With, I think it was 24 hour.
[126:58] Speaker 1: Notice due to what was occurring in our.
[127:02] Speaker 3: County. We felt that I felt we needed to be.
[127:04] Speaker 1: Resp. Responsive and closely monitor that situation. So I just wanted everyone to.
[127:08] Speaker 3: Know the reason why that meeting was.
[127:10] Speaker 1: Cancelled. So this year is different because.
[127:13] Speaker 3: There wasn't an opportunity to vet this item aside from the community member community meeting at Cherryland. There would have been an additional opportunity at PPC that did not occur.
[127:23] Speaker 1: Due to the current landscape. And so today being a set.
[127:26] Speaker 3: Matter, and the public's been well aware.
[127:28] Speaker 1: Of this item being agendized, this is.
[127:31] Speaker 3: The opportunity for the public to engage. But do want to flag that.
[127:35] Speaker 1: That was one less.
[127:36] Speaker 3: Opportunity. Opportunity.
[127:39] Speaker 2: Yeah. And so none of those issues were raised at the community engagement meeting at all. So none of those were brought up at our time. What I can speak to is with the inventory increases for Pepperball. So the, as I mentioned in the presentation, what's on the report showing six launchers we've already acquired up to our full complement of 25 that was previously approved last year. That's the one for one between the 25 FN 303s and the 25 pepper bomb balls. The. The additional purchases of. I think it's six of the VXRs. That's the enhanced pepper ball. It's really more for range. It. It enables us to use those extended range cartridges or.
[128:15] Speaker 3: Projectiles. So when you look at the.
[128:17] Speaker 2: Number Increasing from what is 6000 total 2000, 2000, 2000. Between the live X projectile, the inert projectile and the marking projectile, those are the projectiles that work with the original launchers. The 25 that we have, the marking being for marking individuals. Livex has the chemical irritant. And then the inert projectile is for.
[128:37] Speaker 3: Training. It's not meant to be used.
[128:39] Speaker 2: In situations like with people. We, we had a clerical error again where we, we posted only for 2000. We, we do want to acquire 6000 of each of those so that we have the inventory necessary to use those tools throughout the agency. The other increases, the glass breakers are 500, the jammers are 500. The VXR, which is the extended.
[128:58] Speaker 3: Range marking, and then the VXR Live.
[129:02] Speaker 2: Max, that's the extended range chemical. Those are, we'll be acquiring those from zero if we can acquire the new launchers that utilize them. So that explains some of that increase. Part of the reason for the main increase of the ones that were already asked for is we're a relatively large agency. We have a lot of duty stations. And when we start to divide up these items, the projectiles and the launchers amongst duty stations, it's not like we're stockpiling, if you will, at one location. We have to spread these devices out throughout the agency. Another concern is that as we use these and when we replace, and we're on track to replace the FN303 by I believe the first quarter of 2026, if not the second, we'll be able to get rid of the FN303. To refresh your memory, the FN303.
[129:44] Speaker 3: Is not a viable platform.
[129:46] Speaker 2: Anymore. This manufacturer no longer supports it. There's no longer replacement parts available for it. So we've been cannibalizing our supply to make our FN303 launchers work. Is that as we put the pepper ball launchers throughout the agency with that inventory, should we and absolutely don't want to, and as, as we haven't used them, which is fantastic and we hopefully never have to use them, that'd be wonderful. But should we have to use.
[130:09] Speaker 3: Them? If the event is something that's.
[130:11] Speaker 2: Beyond a single local event, a regional event, or a nationwide event, we would have to compete against every other agency that utilizes this platform to be able to replenish. In addition, replenishment timelines could take anywhere from one to three months, depending on getting quotes, working with manufacturers, getting approval to purchase, issuing pos, getting that stuff delivered and.
[130:31] Speaker 3: Disseminated. So keeping an adequate inventory on.
[130:34] Speaker 2: Hand for the sheriff's office and an agency of our size providing mutual aid across all over the place is necessary for us to have those.
[130:41] Speaker 3: Functions. I appreciate that explanation about the multiple sites and the distribution. When you mentioned mutual aid, there was one speaker that brought up the situation that occurred at Coast Guard Island. Was it the same kind of weapon that was used on that individual? I think he was identified later as one of the faith leaders. And then when you talk about mutual aid, if we have this tool, but let's say the city of Oakland doesn't, or some of the other law enforcement jurisdiction doesn't, how is that coordinated? And who gets to use what.
[131:21] Speaker 2: Tools? So I'm unfamiliar with the device that was used at Coast Guard Island. I can't speak to which platform was used with respect to mutual.
[131:29] Speaker 3: Aid. If we are going to operate.
[131:30] Speaker 2: On mutual aid, we operate to our specified policies, procedures, including all of this procedures around military equipment. And the equipment will only be used by sheriff's office staff. That's the approved military equipment by certified people who can use.
[131:43] Speaker 3: It. So you can use it in the city of Oakland, even though the Oakland Police Department may not use it. Is that how it.
[131:54] Speaker 1: Works? So the way it works is anytime we respond, it doesn't matter what city in the county, we do follow our own policy. That's how we train. We don't train on Oakland's policy. It's far different from ours. And we, we stand by our training. It. It falls within state standards, goes beyond state standards. As far as the training that we actually do with our staff, if we go into a city and.
[132:20] Speaker 3: It'S. There's chaos, we have to use.
[132:23] Speaker 1: What tools are with us. We can't. We can't just not use them and let the city burn and let people be in danger. And I've said it time and time again, our job is to make sure that people are. We're preventing harm upon people. That's our first and.
[132:40] Speaker 3: Foremost. And if we see people actively.
[132:42] Speaker 1: Harming other humans who are there to do a very peaceful protest and have a voice on whatever they're speaking to, we have a job to make sure that they are safe in doing so. So we go into a city, if there is a planned action that's.
[133:01] Speaker 3: Going to be taken, the city manages.
[133:03] Speaker 1: That. And if they can't handle that situation, that's when we come.
[133:07] Speaker 3: In. That's when they call for mutual.
[133:08] Speaker 1: Aid. When they've depleted their resources, when they've done all they can with the staffing. That they have and we go.
[133:14] Speaker 3: In, but we follow our own rules. Okay, that's very helpful. I definitely appreciate the challenges and the trade offs that you have to make in keeping the peace and making sure everyone is safe. And I know there are challenges working with different jurisdictions, but I understand that when the sheriff's office is called and they go in, they follow the sheriff's office's training and guidelines, irrespective of what other jurisdictions may or may not allow. Is that.
[133:47] Speaker 2: Correct? Thank you, Supervisor Fortunato.
[133:51] Speaker 1: Bass. Thank you for the information. Firstly, I wanted to just understand a little bit about what the history has been under the state law over the past few years. So I heard that we did not. The sheriff's office did not receive any complaints this past year. Has there been a history of complaints over the course of the few years this law has been in.
[134:16] Speaker 2: Place? So the entire time I've been involved with this, there's been no complaints whatsoever. I can't speak to before that.
[134:24] Speaker 1: Though. Okay. And then has there also been sort of a trend to reduce some particular munitions or militarized equipment over the few years that this law has been in place at the state.
[134:38] Speaker 2: Level? Absolutely. We went through our military equipment inventory. We, we used to have 50 caliber.
[134:43] Speaker 3: Firearms. Those have been returned and we.
[134:45] Speaker 2: No longer carry those on inventory. We carried Humvees on inventory that were replaced that we're returning. They're off our inventory now. And then we also carried additional multi projectile rounds, the foam batons, which were removed from inventory after we did an analysis of the multi projectile munitions that were raised in previous meetings. So we've settled down to the sting ball grenade, the multiple wood and the multiple rubber. Those are the rounds and multiple projectile rounds that we still.
[135:14] Speaker 1: Use. Thank you for sharing that. I do want to understand a little bit more in regards to the comments we heard from members of the public. So in terms of the pepper ball, and I know Supervisor Tam asked these questions. Could you please help me understand a little bit more what the potential uses are? So training, crowd management and civil unrest are some of the uses that were shared. But I understand that at least for crowd control, state law restricts some of the uses for pepper balls. Could you sort of walk me through through what this will be used.
[135:52] Speaker 2: For? Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Tom Boyd. I'm a lieutenant with the sheriff's office and I'd like to address that. As far as crowd control, we are completely forbidden by a policy for using multiple munitions within crowd control situations. So if the Oakland Police Department were To call for mutual aid from us. We would not deploy a sting ball any multiple munitions whatsoever. It seems that there is some confusion as to pepper ball being a multiple munition. It is not. It may be hopper fed, but every time a trigger is pulled on a pepper ball launcher, one projectile goes out. So that can be controlled by the operator. It's not indiscriminate. It would not hit an unintended target. The reason we would like additional launchers is has different capabilities. We would like to get rid of the FN303 completely as it's not serviceable any longer. However, the range of the pepper balls that we currently have is 60ft. That goes from 150ft from the FN303 and then the new launchers, we cover that gap. So that's how it would be used. The pepper ball within a crowd control.
[136:47] Speaker 1: Situation. I'm sorry, what's the increased range from.
[136:51] Speaker 2: 60Ft? Sorry, from 60ft to 150ft usable.
[136:54] Speaker 1: Range. Okay, and so what's a potential scenario where you would use something like this? Say there is some kind of civil unrest. It's focusing in on for a.
[137:07] Speaker 2: Situation of civil unrest, like a traditional riot situation. It would be an individualized suspect who is maybe throwing a Molotov cocktail our way or something. What's immediately assaultive to either us or a member of the.
[137:19] Speaker 3: Community.
[137:21] Speaker 1: Okay. And have has the sheriff use the pepper balls over the past year or the past say two or three.
[137:29] Speaker 2: Years? No, zero deployments at this.
[137:32] Speaker 3: Time.
[137:34] Speaker 1: Okay. And so the request is to go from the current 7,000 plus to 18,000 pepper balls munitions, Is that.
[137:45] Speaker 2: Correct? That is.
[137:46] Speaker 1: Correct. Okay, and is there also our requests for additional.
[137:52] Speaker 2: Launchers? Yes, the additional launchers are the ones to gap the the limitations of the pepper ball launches we currently have and then replace the FN 303 at the longer range they have a 0.68 caliber fin stabilized round that can go farther and is more accurate. And that's what we'd use to break windows. We would use it to knock out cameras, to block cameras in a tactical situation. And also we can use it for the marking that Captain Brody spoke about in a crowd control situation. So it's a longer, more accurate.
[138:20] Speaker 1: Projectile. I see. Okay. And in terms of the increase from the current inventory, is there a particular reason for that increase given that it hasn't been used in the.
[138:31] Speaker 2: Past? There was originally a clerical error where we didn't ask for enough and it really wouldn't cover us in a situation of a national or regional emergency, so we need to have those on hand. We have almost a thousand sworn employees that we need to get through the training for pepperball from our FN 303 for the people who are going to be deploying that. And that takes a lot of rounds to get through our training and certification as.
[138:51] Speaker 1: Well. And are there law enforcement agencies that have sort of a similar geography or population to us, including our mutual aid responsibilities? What is their typical inventory for this type of.
[139:04] Speaker 2: Munition? I'd have to get back to you on that. I think we know a little about Los Angeles county, but that's really not a comparable county. I can get that information to you.
[139:14] Speaker 1: Ma'. Am.
[139:15] Speaker 2: Okay. The closest analog we have so far, San Diego county, slightly around double the size of us, has almost 55,000 total pepper ball rounds in inventory. So significantly more than we're asking.
[139:28] Speaker 1: For. Can you say those numbers one more time.
[139:32] Speaker 2: Please? Sorry. San Diego county, which I believe is about double the size of Alameda county, has over 53,000, or almost.
[139:39] Speaker 3: 55. 53 and.
[139:40] Speaker 2: Change. And then some other rounds of purchasing of Pepperball, specifically the pepper ball.
[139:45] Speaker 3: Chemical inert on their.
[139:46] Speaker 2: Medical. I'm sorry. On their military equipment.
[139:48] Speaker 3: Report. So.
[139:50] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you for all of that. I do remain concerned about understanding the need for the increase, but I'll go on to my last set of questions. In terms of scattershot munitions, there is not a request to increase this part of the.
[140:11] Speaker 3: Inventory. Is that.
[140:12] Speaker 2: Correct? I'm sorry, I missed.
[140:14] Speaker 1: That. There is not a request to increase the scattershot munitions. Is that.
[140:18] Speaker 2: Correct? Absolutely not.
[140:19] Speaker 1: No. Okay, so the issue that we heard from members of the public is really about whether we should continue to use this because it is apparently indiscriminate in terms of how it targets. Is there any conversation with the sheriff's office about reducing this inventory or potentially eliminating the use of this type of.
[140:42] Speaker 3: Munition? I got.
[140:43] Speaker 1: It. So, yes, it's constant discussion. It has been part of our recent discussions. We are working towards either identifying another tool or just removing it altogether. So we are working towards that effort. And just for clarification, on the.
[141:02] Speaker 3: Pepper ball, the increase is for a different model that has a greater capability than what we have in the.
[141:11] Speaker 1: FN303. So we are trying to move.
[141:14] Speaker 3: Away from the FN303, and that new increase is for, like, we'll say the pepper ball.
[141:22] Speaker 1: 2.0. We have 1.0, and then we have.
[141:26] Speaker 3: 2.0. The 1.0 is for, you know.
[141:28] Speaker 1: Our current inventory, but the 2.0 is the one that extends the distance from our current model 1.0 from 60ft to.
[141:36] Speaker 3: 100Ft.
[141:37] Speaker 1: 150Ft. Sorry. So does that make sense as far as the increase? It's a different model with a different capability. So you need both the new launchers and the new pepper balls. They're not and then compatible with the new.
[141:49] Speaker 3: Launcher. The new improved.
[141:52] Speaker 1: To. We can get rid of the.
[141:54] Speaker 3: FN 303s and remove those from our.
[141:58] Speaker 1: Inventory. I see. Okay, that might not have been clear to.
[142:04] Speaker 2: Me. I note Supervisor Miley is online. He's also a member of the Public Protection Committee. I'll just ask Supervisor Miley any questions or comments at this.
[142:16] Speaker 4: Time. Well, thank you. David Halbert, supervised. Howard. President Halbert, can you hear.
[142:22] Speaker 2: Me? Yes, we can hear.
[142:23] Speaker 4: You. Okay. Well, first of all, I just want to thank the sheriff for wearing a Christmas hat. Santa hat looks very cute on.
[142:31] Speaker 1: Her.
[142:32] Speaker 4: She. She looks less intimidating. So. So Sheriff, thank you for that. And you know, I just want to first of all ask a question because, you know, I, I pushed the sheriff's department very diligently to eliminate the.50 caliber. Can you describe the difference between a.50 caliber and one of your, you know, launchers that are non.
[142:58] Speaker 2: Lethal? I'm no firearms expert, but the.50 caliber is a lethal firearm firing a rather large projectile, whereas a. The less lethal or non lethal launchers are designed to fire projectiles that are indeed less or non.
[143:12] Speaker 3: Lethal. Like a, Almost like a.
[143:14] Speaker 4: Paintball. Right? Exactly. So when we talk about weapons of war, a.50 caliber is clearly a weapon of war. And that's one reason why I pushed hard on the sheriff's department to eliminate the.50 caliber. Because there's a distinction between a weapon of war and a toll, as we've been hearing, a toll that's used for non lethal engagement, non lethal crowd control. Anything that's non lethal could potentially injure someone and could end up causing, you know, a fatality. But the purpose of that launcher, it's a, Is non.
[143:56] Speaker 2: Lethal. I.
[143:59] Speaker 4: It'S. No, I'm definitely supportive of the sheriff and the department because I don't want to put officers in a position of, of, you know, having to use lethal force when they have a non lethal tool at their disposal. When we talk about crowd control, we could be talking about a mutual aid response in any of the 16, I believe, counties that the sheriff's department has responsibility for. Under mutual aid and disaster preparedness. We want to make sure that they have sufficient tools to carry out their responsibilities wherever they might be. Furthermore, people who might be engaged with a non lethal encounter with one of these projectiles might not even be Alameda county residents. They could be residents of another county. The Sheriff's department could be in another county. The Sheriff's department might need to use these in a setting at Santa Rita Jail or some other place. I think it's great, as has been pointed out, that they haven't had to use it. It's better be prepared and not to have the tools you need than not be prepared. I think it would be a disservice as a county supervisor to not allow our Sheriff's department to have the tools to protect the 1.6 million people of this county. And I don't know how many millions of people are in the region. So I think the Sheriff's department is going about this in a rational, responsible way of trying to have sufficient tools on hand to discharge their responsibilities in a way that ensures public safety for not only the general public, but for themselves as well. So there's no surprise. You shouldn't be shocked. I support the Sheriff's.
[146:02] Speaker 2: Department. Thank you, Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Marquez, and.
[146:06] Speaker 4: Furthermore. Furthermore, President Calvin. I want to say I have shot some of the these items and I've seen the Sheriff's department utilize some of these items in drills. So I'm confident that they will discharge them appropriately if.
[146:22] Speaker 2: Necessary. Thank you, Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Marquez, the other half of our public protection.
[146:32] Speaker 3: Committee. Yes, thank you, President.
[146:34] Speaker 1: Halbert. So I just want to start.
[146:36] Speaker 3: My comments with a really AC acknowledging.
[146:39] Speaker 1: The work of the Sheriff's.
[146:40] Speaker 3: Department. I would highly recommend everyone, when.
[146:43] Speaker 1: You have some downtime to watch the public protection meeting from November. The state of the jail was really impressive and incredible updates and just.
[146:52] Speaker 3: Want to publicly acknowledge you since we.
[146:54] Speaker 1: Have a large audience today for also.
[146:56] Speaker 3: The work in saving so many lives at Santa Rita Jail. When this item was brought up a few years ago, the sheriff made public commitment to not use the these weapons within the behavioral health unit. But my understanding is they haven't been used at.
[147:09] Speaker 1: All. So I just want to acknowledge.
[147:12] Speaker 3: That we are trending in the right direction. But with that said, I am still very concerned about the large inventory request and not as a reflection of this office because I think you guys are doing really good.
[147:28] Speaker 1: Work. This is a tough job, but.
[147:30] Speaker 3: I just continue to see more, more community engagement, the sheriff's willingness and openness to modify policies to receive.
[147:39] Speaker 1: Feedback. Everything is trending in the right direction. But from my personal opinion, what is not trending in the right direction? Is the state of our federal.
[147:47] Speaker 3: Administration. And we, we see ICE here in our community on a regular.
[147:51] Speaker 1: Basis. We know what happened in.
[147:53] Speaker 3: October. So my fear is we can't control that. And having a large supply of inventory, I am worried about what could happen in the upcoming year in terms of civil.
[148:05] Speaker 1: Unrest. And, you know, we have to.
[148:08] Speaker 3: Weigh out everyone's public.
[148:09] Speaker 1: Safety. But we also have to acknowledge that we are facing an unprecedented administration.
[148:15] Speaker 3: That likes to deliberately attack the Bay Area. So before I land on a decision, I do have a couple of clarifying questions. Also want to acknowledge two years prior, the community engagement meeting was in Castor Valley. Per the recommendation of public protection. There was an ask, let's move.
[148:35] Speaker 1: It out of Castor.
[148:36] Speaker 3: Valley. Let's.
[148:37] Speaker 1: Go. That is unincorporated Alameda.
[148:39] Speaker 3: County. So is Cherryland. So is Ashland San Lorenzo. Let's provide it in other opportunities where people that receive direct service from the sheriff's department.
[148:47] Speaker 1: Live. I seen your.
[148:50] Speaker 3: Flyer. I shared your.
[148:51] Speaker 1: Flyer. But can you just speak to.
[148:53] Speaker 3: The outreach efforts to publicize that community meeting and just what your takeaways were.
[148:59] Speaker 1: Why there really was no one that showed.
[149:02] Speaker 2: Up? Yeah, sure. We, we, we blasted, so to speak, that on social media between our platform, social media platforms. We, we shared it with supervisors, we shared it with intent to be networked amongst different groups. We tried our best for the outreach.
[149:15] Speaker 3: There. I actually believe, I think with.
[149:17] Speaker 2: The increased attention upon the ICE stuff, the federal government stuff, as you reference, I think that's where people's attention was.
[149:23] Speaker 3: And that's why it may not have been.
[149:25] Speaker 2: Attended. But we hosted at the community center. It was a beautiful location. Love to do it again there next year. Just nobody.
[149:32] Speaker 1: Attended. I got some more to add to that too. If you follow our social media. The sheriff's office is out there.
[149:39] Speaker 3: In the community all the.
[149:41] Speaker 1: Time. And so we are constantly sending.
[149:44] Speaker 3: The message that they, we are.
[149:45] Speaker 1: Open. We're accessible to any questions or concerns and we have a great relationship with our communities. We have a number of undocumented.
[149:55] Speaker 3: Residents that live in unincorporated Alameda county that we.
[149:59] Speaker 1: Serve. We serve as far as a law enforcement entity and they love us because they trust us. And it's because we're out there and we're serving them regardless of. Of their documented, documented status. We don't ask any questions. And the fact that we're accessible at all times, it does not surprise me that we didn't have a large.
[150:19] Speaker 3: Turnout for this because we're out there all the.
[150:22] Speaker 1: Time. I'm accessible. I'm out there when I can be and we also are sharing and have been sharing the fact that we.
[150:29] Speaker 3: Have a public portal that they can.
[150:32] Speaker 1: Send anonymous complaints, they can send any.
[150:34] Speaker 3: Concerns to us on the web through social.
[150:37] Speaker 1: Media. Even our undocumented residents.
[150:39] Speaker 3: Know. And we've been partnering and hopefully.
[150:42] Speaker 1: We, we have a new updated video that will be going out to the community as far as what to do.
[150:47] Speaker 3: If they see ice in the area. And partnering with aslp, with the.
[150:52] Speaker 1: The ad hoc committee that has been.
[150:54] Speaker 3: Developed, we have been a good partner.
[150:57] Speaker 1: In making sure that our folks feel safe. So, you know, I hear you as far as the current administration and the challenges that we face with that.
[151:06] Speaker 3: But I think that speaking to some of the youth that have come up here to share how to de. Escalate before we have to intervene.
[151:16] Speaker 1: I say I think that's, I think.
[151:18] Speaker 3: That'S wonderful and I'm.
[151:20] Speaker 1: Hopeful. And we've seen in previous demonstrations against, you know, the current federal administration that we have in place right now have been.
[151:27] Speaker 3: Peaceful. And you want to know.
[151:29] Speaker 1: Why? It's because we have individuals that.
[151:31] Speaker 3: Are part of those protests, those peaceful.
[151:35] Speaker 1: Actions that are making sure that disturbances are not occurring. And we are relying on you.
[151:41] Speaker 3: To hopefully do that and keep the.
[151:43] Speaker 1: Peace so that we don't have to show up. So that if we show up.
[151:46] Speaker 3: It'S just to be there so that.
[151:48] Speaker 1: There is a visibility that you are safe and we're not there to, to.
[151:54] Speaker 3: Disrupt or intervene in any voice that you.
[151:57] Speaker 1: Have. So that's kind of my response, maybe a little too expanded, but I did hear, you know, some of the concerns that were brought forward. And I just want to make.
[152:05] Speaker 3: Sure that our community knows that we're.
[152:08] Speaker 1: Not there to escalate situations. And we are hopeful that those who are participating in those demonstrations, that you are part of that solution to help keep that peace and move those.
[152:21] Speaker 3: I guess, infiltrators, the people who are.
[152:23] Speaker 1: Really trying to take away from the.
[152:24] Speaker 3: Message out of those demonstrations. And last clarifying question, Sheriff, you said that you are looking at. I just want to make sure I'm clear. Is it the pepper ball launcher is what you're looking at.
[152:40] Speaker 1: Eliminating? No, we're looking to eliminate the FN303. Okay. Launcher and replacing it with the pepper ball. I'm calling it the 2.0 just for easy, you know, reference. And is that a manufacturer issue.
[152:55] Speaker 3: The fact that it's not currently available for the.
[152:58] Speaker 1: FN303? It's outdated technology. And.
[153:01] Speaker 3: It. The pepper ball is a better tool that is available on the.
[153:06] Speaker 1: Market?
[153:06] Speaker 3: Yes. It.
[153:07] Speaker 1: Is. Okay, because I thought I heard.
[153:08] Speaker 3: You say you had to purchase a higher inventory of the pepper balls, but that there was a wait period on the, on.
[153:15] Speaker 1: The. The launcher of that. Well, there's a waiting period as far as procurement. That's the only thing. Only because we have to follow county procurement rules, which take a long time. It's government work. That's the timeline. Everything's available.
[153:28] Speaker 3: Now. It's just that having to go.
[153:29] Speaker 1: Through procurement will delay us onboarding the inventory. And with respect to the mutual aid we provide to surrounding jurisdictions, have.
[153:36] Speaker 3: We received any cost comment or any concerns about our inventory list from surrounding.
[153:42] Speaker 1: Jurisdictions? We have not received any complaints or.
[153:44] Speaker 3: Concerns. Okay, thank.
[153:45] Speaker 2: You. I'll round out our comments. I just. I do have a few questions. It seems to me that some of the more updated technology and tools are designed to be safer than their predecessors. Is that correct? Absolutely. I understand that comments were made that. I mean, we're talking about oftentimes situations of crowd control. I don't think we go into a crowd control situation attempting to do harm to an innocent bystander. Is that correct? Absolutely not. A train wouldn't allow for that. Absolutely not. If you're in a crowd control situation, would you deploy any of these without first calling for dispersal? People leave, go home. It's time to go. Whatever dispersing the crowd before any of these tools would be utilized, would that be. Absolutely not. Unless there was an event that.
[154:49] Speaker 3: Occurred at that time immediately we found.
[154:52] Speaker 2: An immediate danger to life or our assault of behavior that we needed to act on. But absent that, of course, like.
[154:58] Speaker 3: You.
[154:58] Speaker 2: Said, we did hear some comments about military equipment, and we shouldn't be using that if alternatives are available. Could you just one more time explain what military equipment, if any, are we using when there's a equal or better alternative? Does that.
[155:23] Speaker 3: Happen?
[155:23] Speaker 2: No. And I think a lot of things get added into being called military equipment. But the unmanned aerial vehicles, those are similar things anybody can go buy at a store. They're not military equipment, but that's just what it's called in the law. With regard to the amount of materials, I assume we have to do training, do we use any of this inventory to train with? Absolutely. Yes. So we have a large team. We can always use more because we're understaffed. A large but yet understaffed team. And we have to train so these materials can be used for training. Do we have enough to train with and have enough to utilize if needed? We do for now. But this, this inventory increase would.
[156:12] Speaker 3: Ensure that we would be able to.
[156:13] Speaker 2: Meet both those goals, particularly when we call it the inert projectile that is made explicitly for training and for qualification. Very good. One of the other slides talked about drone deployment 756 times. Have we solved crimes using drones? Absolutely. Do they help solve crimes in a safer way than say a direct pursuit situation where we can employ it, deploy a drone and take the heat off of a in the moment pursuit, but still solve a crime? Very much so. We can use them in foot pursuit situations to get an overwatch of the area to guide people in better to be safer where we are and.
[156:59] Speaker 3: Are improving our safety, safety of bystanders.
[157:01] Speaker 2: Safety of the suspects we're trying to apprehend. I'm going to finish by saying I trust our law enforcement agency. I trust that you are finding the best equipment that will be the safest available, transitioning in whatever long time frame it requires us to do. Sheriff. But you're monitoring that, that you train appropriately, that we have procedures and protocols that we're not indiscriminately firing upon innocent bystanders. I'm not sure I understand. Innocent bystander after being asked to disperse. Don't understand that. I thank you for using the best technology available to solve crimes, that is drones. More crimes solved with technology in safer environments, safer ways to do that. So I also hear the community, either you believe that we're doing a good job protecting our community or you believe that we don't need all these things. I do hear the community and I do hear their comments, but I just have to say that from what I can tell, our law enforcement teams are doing a great job. So I want to thank you. With that said, I'm supportive of this item. I'll entertain a motion if there is one and or more comments if Supervisor Fortunato Bass, you have additional.
[158:38] Speaker 1: Comments. Yes, I, Supervisor Miley actually jumped in as I was, as the sheriff was answering my last question. I wanted to just make sure I understood exactly where things stood with the scattershot munitions. So, Sheriff, if you don't mind, actually, before, before I ask this again, you know, I do want to reiterate that AB 481, you know, the purpose seems to be to make sure that there is more accountability and transparency and public engagement in how our, our sheriff and other law enforcement agencies operate. And I think that is only to the benefit in terms of building more public trust, which we need in order to have law enforcement and members of the public who can all work together and build the trust that our Sheriff spoke of. So, you know, this is really in regards. My questioning is really in regards to having more of that transparency in line with the state bill. It's not anything else. And I do want to just understand the scattershot munitions a little bit more because this is an annual report. So Sheriff, you mentioned that you are looking at whether this could potentially be phased out. Can you just speak a little bit more in terms of any specific plans, you know, next year, for example, will we have less inventory? I guess that depends on whether or not we use them and deploy them. But what specifically do you think is the future for these munitions? I am really concerned about the indiscriminate nature that many human rights organizations have reported and whether this is necessary. Well, that's definitely part of the discussion as far as the options that are out.
[160:30] Speaker 3: There. Whether, and I know that there.
[160:32] Speaker 1: Is an argument like you don't use.
[160:34] Speaker 3: It, so why do you need.
[160:35] Speaker 1: It? But it's the same thing as our firearms. We don't want to use.
[160:40] Speaker 3: Them. We don't use.
[160:41] Speaker 1: Them. Thankfully, very often we have had to use them. But we need them, we need to train with them because there's definitely a number of people that have some pretty high powered weapons out there that even we don't have access to or own or, or possess. So we've taken high powered, fully automatic weapons out of houses and off of people during traffic.
[161:04] Speaker 3: Stops. And so we have to prepare for.
[161:06] Speaker 1: That. We don't have fully automatic weapons, but I mean that, that's a reality of the environment that we're working within. So it's really about the potential.
[161:17] Speaker 3: Of having to use it whatever circumstance.
[161:20] Speaker 1: Maybe not even with individuals, but with a certain situation where we need to have some sort of distractionary device.
[161:28] Speaker 3: Deployed. And that is a good tool for.
[161:30] Speaker 1: That. So really still looking towards an option, an alternative. And then even if there's other tactics that we can develop or use that would make that tool unnecessary. So those are things that we are looking at and it takes a lot of research. Research, it's nationwide research also looking at what other countries are doing too. So it doesn't happen overnight. It's not something that we're, we're, you know, just doing kind of like a quick rundown on the Internet about. So it is going to take a little bit of time. I don't know what a timeline looks like. I can't, you know, I can't give you that. But know that our office is actively looking at either alternatives or the necessity as far as what, what we would need to keep it in immigration inventory for. So we are definitely taking those.
[162:16] Speaker 2: Concerns seriously and we're, we're having a.
[162:19] Speaker 1: Conversation. I. I guess we have a little bit more information from one of our commanders.
[162:28] Speaker 3: So. Commander.
[162:29] Speaker 2: Clippinger. Thank Sheriff. Good afternoon, Board. I'm Commander Ross Klinger. I'm the division commander of our Management Services division. And you probably met me before when I was working at the jail. I did not have a mustache then, so I look different. So I just want to give you a couple of real world examples of when what we're calling scattershot munitions might still be useful. I want to start by saying that scattershot munitions are not used during crowd control. I just want to be clear on that. I know it's been said. I want to say it again. So the two different type of scattershot multi projectile munitions is really what they're called that I'm going to talk about are the wood baton and the rubber baton. They're fired out of our 40 millimeter launcher system. They each contain three projectiles. Because of the way they're fired, they're relatively accurate. But obviously because of concerns during crowd control, we can't guarantee where those projectiles will go. So that's why we don't use them during the crowd control. Regarding the rubber baton, I want to take you back 10 years almost to Mario woods in San Francisco. So if you remember the details of that circumstance, Mr. Woods was alleged to have slashed somebody in the arm with a knife. When San Francisco Police Department responded, he was still holding the knife and refused to put the knife down. Mr. Woods was walking down the street refusing commands to drop the knife. He was hit with single projectile beanbag rounds by San Francisco Police Department. There was no effect. There are multiple single projectile rounds, two beanbags, and I believe one foam exact impact round. He was also pepper sprayed by those officers, again to no effect. There was a lot of discussion at the time around de escalation and the usage of a Taser. San Francisco PD did not have Tasers at the time. Now, tactics and de escalation aside, we can look at the Taser and if you recall from watching the video, as I did, he's wearing. Mr. Woods is wearing a jacket and turning his body sideways, sideways frequently during the contact. A Taser may not have been effective. I've personally used a taser in a circumstance where someone's wearing a heavy.
[164:50] Speaker 3: Jacket. It's not going to to.
[164:51] Speaker 2: Work. You have to transition. Other force options. Had San Francisco Police Department potentially deployed a Rubber baton. With those three projectiles, it may have had enough kinetic energy to get him to stop moving at least and fall to the ground, giving them an opportunity to either disarm him or compelling him to drop the knife. That's just one example of the use of rubber baton. Regarding the wood baton. So just a few weeks ago, we had a situation in unincorporated Hayward in a donut shop, glass storefront for the building. Right. The suspect was inside with a large knife. There was an employee and two elderly gentlemen still inside the business. Fortunately, in that situation, the employee was able to self evacuate and was able to give us keys for the business. So we were able to lock an, unlock the door as needed during the situation. Those elderly gentlemen we were able also to evacuate. Had that situation not gone the way that it did. Had we not been able to evacuate the people inside and isolate the suspect, had we not had keys to the business, we would have needed a projectile to break part of the glass doorfront of the business to go inside and ultimately render aid and or apprehend whoever's inside. Because we had the keys, we didn't need that. But if we didn't have the keys, a wood baton with those multiple projectiles would have been a very effective way to drop one of the sections of the glass storefront and allow our team to make entry to render the situation safe. I'm going to take you back to 1991 now. I was 11 years old. My dad was working for the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department at the time. Does anybody remember the Good Guys hostage situation in Sacramento? South Sacramento? Okay. So it was very intense for me. My dad actually deployed to that scene to be part of the perimeter. My mom pulled me out of school early that day. She was a little bit worried. She had actually recently retired from the Sheriff's department also. As that incident unfolded. There are hostages tied up on the ground inside the Good Guys business. It went on for hours. Multiple gunmen inside, multiple suspects. At some point, a member of the Sacramento County Sheriff's special enforcement detail used a long range rifle to attempt to shoot one of the hostage takers. That round was slightly deflected by the glass storefront door as it closed. And it was somewhat effective, but not as effective as it should have been. In the ensuing delay with the entry team going into that business, the hostage takers shot multiple victims who were laying on the ground. Again, had a tool like the wooden baton been available and had tactics been different at the time, that tool could have been used to potentially prevent the three deaths and the 11 more shooting injuries that occurred. So as we gain more knowledge in use of the pepperball system, it may well replace these other multi projectile munitions. But we don't know enough yet to know that it would actually be useful and render these situations safer than the tools that we currently have. Do we have any follow up? Thank you for that exhaustive and extensive explanation. It was very much appreciated. Very much. Any other follow up questions? I think it's time for a vote. Is there a motion to approve or.
[168:38] Speaker 3: Not?
[168:39] Speaker 1: Yeah. So the subject is accept the.
[168:42] Speaker 3: Alameda County Sheriff's Office annual military equipment.
[168:45] Speaker 1: Report, approve increases to previously approved items and the acquisition of new.
[168:50] Speaker 3: Items. Review and make required determinations and adopt a resolution making required findings pursuant to Assembly Bill 481 regarding General Ordinance Code Title 9, Chapter 9.45, Military Equipment Use policy. So please listen carefully because I do have a modification. So the recommendations in the board.
[169:10] Speaker 1: Letter are listed as items A, B.
[169:14] Speaker 3: C, D, E. I'm not going to read them all. They're in the board letter. But my motion includes one modification to item B which is approve. So basically approve the baseline inventory.
[169:30] Speaker 1: Of last year for the pepper ball.
[169:34] Speaker 3: Less lethal launcher and projectiles. So that is a modification to everything that's before.
[169:44] Speaker 1: Us. I'll second.
[169:45] Speaker 2: That. Just a clarifying question before I make a substitute motion. Is there a reason for doing.
[169:51] Speaker 1: That? Yeah, I wasn't personally satisfied with.
[169:56] Speaker 3: The rationale for such a stark increase.
[169:58] Speaker 1: From last year to what's being requested this.
[170:01] Speaker 3: Year. And given that there hasn't been uses in the last three.
[170:04] Speaker 2: Years. With that, I'm going to make a substitute motion that we accept the sheriff's presentation and accept item 70.1 as presented. That'll be a substitute motion if it gets a second. We'll vote on it first. Is there a second to.
[170:23] Speaker 4: That? I'll second.
[170:25] Speaker 2: It. Okay, Supervisor Miley seconds that. That's a substitute motion. Is there any discussion on that? And I'll just say yeah, mine is as is, because again, I have heard the sheriff's department and our agency make a compelling argument. I believe that these are items that will help us train, help us keep us safe. And I. I trust our team. So with that said, that's the reasoning for accepting this proposal as is President Halbert.
[171:06] Speaker 3: Yes. May I ask just a clarification? So, Supervisor Marquez, your motion keeps the same quantities of the. Of the pepper ball ammunition which you're saying that the FM303 is now outdated and you're planning on replacing.
[171:31] Speaker 1: That?
[171:31] Speaker 3: Yes. And so is Your motion to allow the replacement but keep it at the level that it was when it was an outdated equipment. Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. So, yes, I concur with allowing the displacement of the launcher, but in terms of the inventory for the actual projectiles, the pepper ball is keeping it at baseline to last.
[171:58] Speaker 2: Year. So just a clarifying question, last year's baseline I thought was a clerical error. So last year they meant to order six, only ordered two. Now they're ordering four. Four to get back to six, which is, which is essentially baseline from last year's intent, even though there was a mistake to last year. Is that.
[172:20] Speaker 3: Right? Correct. I'm seeing head be up to 18k, correct? 18,000. Yes.
[172:27] Speaker 1: Yes. But also remember, we're talking about they a different weapon replacing an.
[172:33] Speaker 3: FN303. The way that they are, they.
[172:37] Speaker 1: Operate is more like a.
[172:38] Speaker 3: Paintball. So you know that. Well, not that, you know, maybe potentially is the drum has a number of rounds in.
[172:46] Speaker 1: It. It's just a different operation. So. And I also need to point out too, and I think Supervisor Haber.
[172:51] Speaker 3: Pointed this out, there's a number of.
[172:54] Speaker 1: Training rounds, there's hundreds of training rounds that are involved in this inventory.
[172:58] Speaker 3: Too. They're just not all, you know, full use rounds. And we train a lot with these, these weapons because we need accuracy when we're going to be deploying.
[173:09] Speaker 1: Them. And, and we're responsible for every.
[173:12] Speaker 3: Round that comes out of these weapons. I'll just be clear with that. We answer to every.
[173:16] Speaker 2: Round. Any other clarification, Supervisor.
[173:22] Speaker 3: Tam? Yeah, I, I guess it's more of a comment. I agree with you that it's a good thing that we aren't using it. That means the de escalation has occurred and we've been very successful in that. And most of the issues that we heard today seem to be, especially around the equipment, seem to be more around replacement and updating and providing the tools for the training that's necessary. I guess if you end up using ammunition and training, it's no longer usable again. So the sheriff is correct. I see her everywhere. I mean, she was at toy drives at Little League, everywhere. And so she has engendered a lot of trust in the community. And I've had the opportunity to tour the facilities, tried a taser gun, was not successful with it. But still I will be touring the facilities more to get a better understanding of some of this equipment. But I guess I'm not understanding the need to keep the munitions at a certain level from when the equipment was Outdated. So that's the question I'm trying to sort.
[174:54] Speaker 2: Through. Sheriff, why do you need this number of.
[174:56] Speaker 1: Munitions? So I also want to remind folks that we have expiration on munitions as well. They're not lifetime, so they do expire. So we need to make sure that our inventory is refreshed. And as far as the number.
[175:10] Speaker 3: Of rounds, I'm going to put it to my training folks to speak to.
[175:14] Speaker 1: The specific number of rounds because they are more of our subject matter experts.
[175:19] Speaker 3: As far as the rounds per, per.
[175:21] Speaker 1: Weapon. And we have a number of weapons, we have a number of duty stations. We're responsible not only for this county, but for multiple.
[175:27] Speaker 3: Counties. So we need to make sure that we are.
[175:29] Speaker 1: Prepared. And I understand 18,000 sounds ridiculous. It does, it sounds ridiculous. But if you look at the.
[175:37] Speaker 3: Coverage, the amount of space that we have to cover, it's.
[175:43] Speaker 2: Reasonable. So are you, are you satisfied with the.
[175:51] Speaker 3: Answer? Yeah, I appreciate that clarification. I'm trying to give deference to the people who are on the public protection committee. That's why I'm trying to understand the.
[176:01] Speaker 2: Differences. Well, I also appreciate the public protection committee members. I don't know with these numbers of. It wasn't discussed, we didn't meet. I don't know why, but I totally understand. That's why we have community members. It seems that maybe there's a split between them, but indeed we are responsible for governing as a board. So we have to, we have to take, take the decisions on, on our own. Again, I think it's come down to what we see. The two different items is a discrepancy in the number. And so, you know, again, I just have to ask. And if you defer to your team, that's fine. But I presume that you're asking for this number of munitions because it will keep us well trained and safer. Please justify the number because you're either going to get lower number or you're going to get the number you've asked for, depending on the explanation of why.
[177:01] Speaker 1: This. Go ahead.
[177:03] Speaker 2: Lieutenant. Sorry about that. I think a point of clarification is when we decommission the FN303 platform, we'll be getting rid of 10,000 rounds approximately of FN303 out of our inventory as well. So we'll have to make up for that, that gap there. A lot goes into these calculations and I don't know that we can dissect, you know, all of this mean. But I guess it's a question of trusting our team. I'm just going to call for the vote. If it's okay. Unless there's any other comments, we're going to first vote on accepting the item as presented. If that fails, we're going to go to vote on the original.
[177:42] Speaker 1: Motion. One more comment.
[177:44] Speaker 3: Too. If so, if we're, if there's.
[177:47] Speaker 1: A vote to not onboard our additional.
[177:50] Speaker 2: Pepper.
[177:50] Speaker 3: Ball weapons, then we stay with the FN303. And by staying with the FM.
[177:58] Speaker 1: 303 because it is outdated and because we have to ourselves put pieces together to make them work, the failure rate is higher than a newer technology.
[178:08] Speaker 2: Weapon. So I just, I have to throw that out.
[178:10] Speaker 3: There. Failure rate is.
[178:11] Speaker 1: Higher. Outdated.
[178:12] Speaker 2: Technology. That's all built into my trust for your presentation. This is why you do it. We're not going to get to the bottom of every little nuance. That's. I understand. So with that said, I'll call for a roll call vote.
[178:27] Speaker 3: Please. Supervisor Marquez, let me just say.
[178:32] Speaker 1: I, I do trust the sheriff's expertise.
[178:34] Speaker 3: And everyone as well as the advocates. But like I mentioned earlier, we are in unprecedented times in this.
[178:40] Speaker 1: Country. So I just think that the risk is too high. So that's my.
[178:44] Speaker 3: Concern. So I will be a no on President Howard's.
[178:47] Speaker 1: Motion. Supervisor.
[178:49] Speaker 3: Tam? Aye. Supervisor.
[178:53] Speaker 1: Miley.
[178:55] Speaker 3: Aye. Supervisor Fortune? On the.
[178:57] Speaker 1: Bus.
[178:59] Speaker 3: No. President.
[179:01] Speaker 2: Halbert? I vote yes. So the motion passes. Thank you very much. Much thank you. For all the presenters, the public comments, I'm going to take a five minute recess. We'll come back at five minutes to five. We're going to get started in one minute, guys. One.
[179:21] Speaker 1: Minute. Recording in.
[179:26] Speaker 2: Progress. All right, I'll say good evening everyone. It's now after five.
[179:32] Speaker 3: O'.
[179:32] Speaker 2: Clock. That's when evening starts. Thank you for bearing with us the next item of our 3 o' clock set matters is a health care services presentation and consideration of alternatives here for our EMS ambulance services. Before we get to that though, I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll to establish our.
[179:56] Speaker 3: Quorum. Supervisor.
[179:58] Speaker 1: Marquez.
[179:58] Speaker 3: Present. Supervisor.
[180:00] Speaker 2: Tam.
[180:00] Speaker 3: Excused. Supervisor o'.
[180:02] Speaker 4: Miley.
[180:03] Speaker 2: Here. Supervisor.
[180:04] Speaker 1: Fortunato. Bas.
[180:06] Speaker 3: Present. President.
[180:07] Speaker 2: Hubbard.
[180:08] Speaker 3: Present. We have a.
[180:09] Speaker 2: Quorum. Very good. With that we will turn to our Alameda County EMS system update presentation by Lori McFadden and Anika Chowdhury. Anika.
[180:19] Speaker 1: Welcome. Good evening Supervisors Anika Chowdhury, interim director for Alameda county health, and Lori McFadden, our EMS director is actually going to go over the very brief presentation we have for you. But I just wanted to take a moment to thank you all for giving this item the additional time and attention that it deserves. You know, as you've heard from me and Lori, the EMS agency provides critical services to all Alameda county residents. And our team takes very seriously our responsibility to ensure reliable and equitable ambulance services. And the highest possible standard of care for our community is the foundation of our work and remains our top priority. So this will be our third presentation for you and with your direction and support. Over the past few months, you know, we've zigged and zagged our way from a traditional contract to a hybrid approach that maintains our exclusive operating area while we do additional work to explore another system redesign that meets the unique needs of Alameda County. So the decision before you today is primarily to select an interim provider while we do that exploratory work. And lastly, I just want to thank all of our system colleagues in the room. You know, many have spent a lot of time with us here and it's been bumpy. But I'm hopeful that as we finalize next steps today, we can move forward with trust and again keep keeping the highest level of care for Alameda county residents as our singular priority. So I'll turn it over to Lori. Thanks, Anika. Lori McFadden, EMS Director Good afternoon. Here we are. Long time no see. I just want to give some updates per your charge to us on November 25th. So we'll give a quick update and then we'll move into interim system options and timelines and then have our recommendations and requested board action. I'm just going to talk about the one thing. We've been through this slide before and we added the the one section where it says that we reported our initial findings to the Board of Supervisors and your board has asked us to do additional analysis on interim options. So that is what we have done in the past few weeks. Oops. And so just to give you remind you of the background and the redesign innovations. I'm not going to go through all the words on this, but the innovations are key to the success and setting us up for success in the future. The 911 nurse navigation at dispatch will remove low acuity patients from the system and leave our ambulances open to get to those high acuity patients. 911 Patient Navigation Sentinel events Still, there are things like response times will still be very short for time sensitive incidents like heart attack, stroke, things like that. But we are basing the metrics really on clinical performance. And that is where the rubber meets the road, right? That is how our patients get taken care of and that is what we are going to be tracking. And not only that, but we're going to drill down into population specific performance measures because there's been some very compelling research that not everyone gets treated the same. So we want to assess that and make sure that it in this county everybody gets the same kind of care, no matter where they're from, what their skin color is, what their gender is. And we're also asking that the provider do behavioral health training for EMS clinicians. We still have the community assessment and transport team, but there will be more required training for all of the field people. Because having been in the field myself so many times, it's not just a medical emergency, it's a combined medical and mental health emergency. So to have all of our people trained in at least de escalation and how to handle people that are difficult is very important. Obviously, our absolute ultimate goal is quality care for Alameda county residents and visitors with equity of service. But we also need to consider system stability and reliability as well as sustainability. So we came to your board on November 25 and through the discussion we decided that it is wise, while we look towards the future to maintain Alameda County's exclusive operating area so that there is one provider that it's easier for oversight and better patient care outcomes, we believe. And then you asked us to continue to explore alternate system designs with stakeholders and then return to the board with our regular updates. So we're already committed to doing that. But then in the meantime, we need to select an interim transport provider. So we at that board meeting, at the work session offered awarding. Bless you. Awarding AMR a five year contract. But your board expressed concerns about the length of the contract. And then the other option was to bless you is to do a two year term with an option to renew for another year. And then there was questions about the innovations if we stayed with the current provider. So we took that and we did some research and we met with falc. Goodness, what is up there? Now you need to say it out loud. So anyway, so since then we've met with FALC to explore potential innovations that could be implemented under the extension extension of their agreement. And we also met with AMR to explore the potential for a shorter term agreement with the innovations that were written into the rfp. And so based on procurement rules and things of that nature, we have two different interim provider options. The first one is the extension of the current agreement with Falk for two years through June 2028 with an option for for an additional year. And that maintains a status quo service delivery and workforce or move to a new agreement with a six month implementation period from January to July of 2026 and a three year service term from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029. And all other terms and conditions as negotiated per the RFP remain the same. The innovations, the equipment, the reporting, the contractual obligation to hire workforce and to honor the current bargaining agreement. And as well as we built in more workforce protections around wellness satisfaction, recruitment, retention and so the timelines would look like this if we stayed with Falk. We would continue research and planning for alternate systems and plan to hold the first workgroup meeting in February of 2026 and then that report would be around September 2026 with regular six month cadence and then we would determine no later than December of 2027 if an additional year would be required to extend Falk. And the intent would be to implement the workgroup determined system at Latest the by 07-01-2029 and similarly but adding a six month transition period with AMR January 2026 through July 2026, the focus would be 100% on transition and the successful implementation of services. And then after that once the service is up and running and then we would move into the workforce for the alternate system in August with the first workgroup meeting no later than September 2026 and then moving to a regular six month cadence with the intent to implement the workgroup determined system the same 7-1-2029. So we come to you now. The first one is thank you for agreeing to maintain Alameda County's eoa. And then you also directed us to explore the alternative service which we are 100% on board for and excited to look at what we can do in the future here in Alameda County. That's specific to Alameda county. But now we need to choose an interim transport provider. So you have two choices. In the research that we did and based on the direction the board gave us, extend the existing FOUC contract for a two year term with option to renew for one additional year or award AMR a three year contract with six month transition period starting at the beginning of the year with Service implementation from 07-01-2026 to June 30, 2029. So that is all I have and I appreciate your time and your direction. And if Anika, you'd like to come up, if you have any questions or anything that you would like for us to.
[190:01] Speaker 2: Answer, let's go with clarifying questions first before we go to public comment. I defer to the health Committee.
[190:15] Speaker 3: Experts to Supervisor Tam, thank you for that presentation and summarizing what we we can and cannot do in the interim. That's the confusion that we have been experiencing, or at least I have. We have received emails from one of the contractors, ostensibly profound, saying that they're ready and willing to provide these innovation services that are part of the AMR three year contract. Can you help us sort through how that's not reflected in the.
[190:55] Speaker 1: Options? Yeah, thanks for that question, Supervisor. And when we met with Falk, we did explore those options with them. So under their current contract, they did have a pilot where they were doing telehealth in the field at some point, but that didn't have a lot of uptake. So their proposal for going forward would be to contract with, you know, a subcontractor to provide those services. When we look at our county procurement rules, that is a substantive enough change to their current contract and what was procured for that current contract that it would require a new procurement. So. So we don't have much option there to add on a thing that is substantially different and essentially what we.
[191:42] Speaker 3: Also bid out in the other.
[191:44] Speaker 1: Rfp. And so similarly for contracting rules, you know, the AMR agreement, as that's been agreed to, the only thing that we could shift in there was the.
[191:57] Speaker 3: Timelines. So you're saying we do have the flexibility to shift, shorten the time frame from the proposal, but not to add a whole new contracting agency as part of the scope of.
[192:14] Speaker 1: Work. So for, for the FAL contract, our option is to extend the contract as is. So usually as with any other contracts that come before your board, when we ask for extensions, the way that we can do that is by making sure that the the contract is not doing anything that's substantially new enough to warrant a new.
[192:35] Speaker 3: Rfp. Okay, that's helpful. My recollection, but I haven't been here that long, is that whenever the county in the past changes ambulance transport providers, typically the workforce goes to the new provider because obviously there's only so many paramedics and EMTs that are available and that there's different unions with the different providers. Can you help us understand if this is going to be a similar situation if one was chosen over the other, given the.
[193:27] Speaker 1: Innovations with the way the contract is written, they would bring over all of the workforce, the EMTs and paramedics and per labor rules, they would maintain that union until they opted to renegotiate or if the union decided that they wanted to move to a different union. There are National Labor Relations Board rules around all of that. But for now, they would have to uphold the current collective bargaining.
[194:09] Speaker 3: Agreement. Okay, that's helpful. The one thing that I personally enjoy in my city is besides the fact that we were grandfathered in with the fire department, we do have an adjunct that the county helped pilot called the care team that responds to like mental health care emergencies or different kinds of behavioral health issues that doesn't require law enforcement to be a part of that response team. Do you see that service with either option being.
[194:58] Speaker 1: Available? So at this point we would still have our CAT team, which is right now, actually, we're piloting a new way around triggering the CAT team. Right now, law enforcement is the entity that requests it, but we're doing a pilot with Oakland Unified School District for letting them trigger the response. We're really thinking about in a stepwise manner, making that available without law enforcement being involved first. But we're doing it in a very careful manner because we want to make sure that the CAT team is available and that there's nothing that any unintended consequences which we don't foresee, but we do need to do it in a very calculated.
[195:53] Speaker 3: Manner. Okay, and how does that work with, for example, Oakland's Macro.
[195:59] Speaker 1: Program? So Oakland's Macro program is one of the many other groups in the county. We have many, many from Alameda County Behavioral Health Department. We have the MET team, the MCT team. They're just all different configurations so that they meet different populations in a different way. So macro is peer driven so that they can. They're very non threatening. They understand and they do a lot of outreach, literal outreach, rather than being called for service. But a lot of the other services are a clinician and a law enforcement person, two clinicians, etc. So we have many, many mental health teams across the county that meet different populations where they are. So we'll just continue to add to.
[196:55] Speaker 3: Those. Okay, that's helpful. Thank.
[196:58] Speaker 2: You. The other half of our health committee. Supervisor Miley, any questions or comments before we go to public.
[197:07] Speaker 4: Comment or the board members? Yes, President Halbert, thank you. First of all, I just want to thank Lori for all the work she's done on this over the many years. I have a lot of respect for, for you, Lori. And you know, my vote today is not anything based on, you know, personalities. It's just based on ultimately what I think I need to do. And I appreciate Anika as the interim agency director working with you on this very difficult decision and effort forward. Now, the way the recommendations are, if we go with amr, we can get the innovations. If we go with Falk, we can't get the innovations. Is that.
[197:55] Speaker 1: Correct? That is our assessment.
[197:58] Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. If we stay with Falk, we don't have to do a transition.
[198:06] Speaker 1: Right?
[198:07] Speaker 4: Correct. Okay, so you've answered those questions. Can I ask the Fire Chief is. Is the chief in the.
[198:15] Speaker 2: Audience? Chief is in the fire.
[198:20] Speaker 4: Chief. Chief. Chief. Chief McCammon. Not McCammon.
[198:27] Speaker 2: Chief. Yes, I'm here.
[198:28] Speaker 4: Sir. Good. Thank you. So is FIRE capable of helping us implement any of these innovations at this point in.
[198:40] Speaker 2: Time? Supervisor Miley, members of the Board.
[198:43] Speaker 4: Of Supervisors, we would be, if allowed by the Board of Supervisors, we would.
[198:48] Speaker 2: Be very pleased in starting up a.
[198:53] Speaker 4: Nurse consultation service in our dispatch center. We would be willing to do.
[198:58] Speaker 2: That during this period of time that we're bridging between now and the end of folks. Excuse me, the end of false contracts and when the new innovations become available. So, yes, we, we are willing to and able to start a nurse consultation service in our dispatch center, provide that.
[199:17] Speaker 4: Service. Chief McDonald.
[199:21] Speaker 2: Right? Chief.
[199:21] Speaker 4: Yes. Yeah. I don't know why. Sometimes I call you Chief McCammon. My apologies. Sometimes I, I go back to former chiefs. But anyway, okay, so thank you, Chief. And then the other thing is, you know, I've got, I've got friends on both sides and, you know, I've been around when we, when we had AMR and then we went over to Paramedics Plus. Then five or so many years later, we went to Falk. And now we're at this juncture again. And I do think these innovations are important, but I also think a transition would be more challenging. So if we can get some of this stuff through fire, I kind of know where I want to go with this. Okay. So thank.
[200:02] Speaker 2: You. Thank you, Supervisor Fortunata.
[200:06] Speaker 1: Bass. Thank you. Thank you to our staff for all of the hard work for very long time that you've put into this and to everyone who's been participating, I wanted to share that. I think from the conversations we've already had, one thing is clear and I just want to underscore that, which is that in terms of item number C on our agenda, directing the EMS agency to research an alternate system design for 911Transport, including and including non exclusive open system and third service options, and report back to the board. That is something that we all agree on. So I just want to underscore that. I think this has been a very long and thorough process, and I think it's noteworthy that there is consensus on our board about moving in that direction. I certainly heard throughout this process that moving towards a system that is more long term, if not permanent, will really help us get the innovations that I know you've been working so hard to achieve. So the question really is, what do we do with the interim? And I do want to share that. From my perspective, I've heard a lot of concern about the turnover that we have had as each of these contracts have changed. And so to me, it doesn't make sense to change providers while we're developing a new system. You know, what was laid out would mean we would have Falk through June 30th. We would have AMR for three years, and then either either an open area system or a third system. And that's a lot of transition and upheaval in a system where longer term, we're really trying to go to something that will work more long term and permanently for us. So I just really want to make sure that we're able to focus on providing stability during this time. It's really great to hear from Chief McDonald that fire can provide some nurse consultation through their dis. I think that helps get us closer to the innovations we're looking for longer term. And I'd really like to have more stability in the interim system until we develop the longer term system so that we're really focusing on more of our effort rather than dealing with more transition, dealing with getting to those options to the board where we can focus on quality care, equity, equity and a system that might be new, but will ultimately be something that will work much better for our county. So that's a little bit of where I am. I don't think I have any questions other than if there is any more information along the lines of what Chief McDonald shared in terms of, you know, what the current system could provide while we're working to build something that gives the board some options. Thank.
[203:23] Speaker 2: You. Thank you, Supervisor.
[203:24] Speaker 1: Marquez. Supervisor, was that a question to answer? Yes. If there is anything to add, in addition to Alameda County Fire providing some potential nurse consultation through their dispatch, is there anything else that's new or different that could could be provided during a transition from the current structure to whatever the options are? I think the challenge there is that we would then be trying to do certain things within a system that we've heard complaints about for the last six years. And so if there is a structured way for us to implement those things, that's kind of what's offered in that option. I will note that, you know, we would work with our fire Partners to implement things that are possible. But I do think that what the chief is proposing is different than what is what was envisioned in our rfp. So that's one nurse at the dispatch center. We haven't had additional conversations about what that looks like. As opposed to in the AMR option, there is a giant call center which is available at all times and just has a deeper bench to. To do the.
[204:41] Speaker 2: Thing. Does that answer your.
[204:44] Speaker 1: Questions? Okay, Supervisor Marquez, thank you, President.
[204:48] Speaker 3: Hubbard. I appreciate everyone's hard work on.
[204:51] Speaker 1: This, getting us to this critical moment and for the way that the board.
[204:55] Speaker 3: Letter was written to provide us with options and hearing all of our input from June as well as the work session back in.
[205:03] Speaker 1: November. Just wanted to clarify in the actual language on the agenda, it says.
[205:10] Speaker 3: For item number C that the report back through the Board of Supervisors would.
[205:16] Speaker 1: Be at the health committee at every six.
[205:18] Speaker 3: Months. But in the presentation I heard come back to the full board. So can we just clarify? I think this is a important issue that we're all.
[205:27] Speaker 1: Tracking. So I just want to ensure.
[205:29] Speaker 3: Sure that the cadence, the updates will come to the full board. And no disrespect to our health committee members, you do an amazing job. But I think we're all closely engaged in this conversation. Was that the intent.
[205:42] Speaker 1: Or. That was probably a real estate issue on the PowerPoint in terms of number of words, but we're happy to share back at whichever venue your board would.
[205:53] Speaker 3: Approve. Okay. And then since our. So my preference would be the full board. And I'll let others chime in, but since we last met in November, has there been any other engagement? We know that Amr Falk has been highly engaged in this, but has there been any updates from the mayor's conference? All of our represents, all of our mayors here within Alameda county or any other city managers. Has there been any other feedback or commentary that.
[206:20] Speaker 1: You. Your office is aware of? We've not engaged the mayors and city managers on.
[206:23] Speaker 3: This. Okay. With respect to Alam county fires, willingness to explore some of these.
[206:34] Speaker 1: Innovations. I don't know, county council, would.
[206:39] Speaker 3: That be like an MOU or what would we need to do to memorialize that in the.
[206:44] Speaker 1: Future? I think that requires more.
[206:47] Speaker 3: Discussion. Discussion. Okay. Those are all my questions for now. Thank.
[206:51] Speaker 2: You. Yes, thank you for the presentation. Indeed. A lot of good information and very crisply and cleanly presented the alternatives. And I especially like the page that has the ems, the system redesign innovations that we're trying to get that improve patient care. When I read some of them, for example, Sentinel EM events. Clear standards and expectations for events that should never occur in the EMS system. Like failing to take a trauma patient to a designated trauma center. So does that happen? I know it doesn't happen often, I'm gathering, but it can.
[207:30] Speaker 1: Happen. It can happen, but it does not happen often. We actually track that and it's.
[207:36] Speaker 2: Unusual. Okay. But it feels like we ought to do whatever we can to achieve that. Even in the current Falk agreement, if we extend it. That's what I'm confused.
[207:50] Speaker 1: About. This is largely a wording change because we moved into clinical metrics. So that's how we brought in the Sentinel events is they involve both operational as well as clinical. It's just a way to present that.
[208:10] Speaker 2: Information. So that's why behavioral health training and EMS clinicians enhanced training regarding assessment of behavioral health and de escalation and preservation of the CAT team. Is there a barrier to enhancing training of behavioral health and de escalation to extending the fault contract that is.
[208:41] Speaker 1: In the contract for amr? That is up to Falk at their.
[208:47] Speaker 2: Discretion. Okay. Population specific performance measures. Clinical performance measured not only for the entire county's population, but also for specific at risk and underserved populations. We are Alameda County. We understand the need to serve at risk and underserved populations. Do we not already do this and are there barriers to doing this.
[209:19] Speaker 1: Period? So I would say that for all of those things, those are always goals for our EMS system and how we approach. Approach things. The difference you're noting here is.
[209:30] Speaker 3: That because of the way the EOA.
[209:32] Speaker 1: Is governed, we use the contract to hold the provider accountable to those things. Right. So it's not to say that Falk could not suddenly. I mean, I think that the system metrics thing would be a big data. Systems change because we don't necessarily collect data in that way right now. So that's a huge operational lift. But there is a. You know, it sort of requires us to go back and negotiate things with them in a contract that has already been negotiated previously per a different.
[210:04] Speaker 2: Rfp. All right. Well, it's just. I take what you say at face value. I understand it. It just seems to me that we should be able to get a lot of these anyway. But I just asked to clarify for sure the Falk agreement. And Falk stands ready, willing and able to implement all of these things with a six month or whenever if we. If we go that route. That's what was in the contract. That's why they. They won The. You mean amr? Yeah, amr. Amr I meant to say.
[210:38] Speaker 1: Amr.
[210:38] Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. All right. Well, jury's still out in my mind, so I look forward to public comment. Thank you. Any other questions? We'll go to public comment. If members of the public are in the room, now would be the time to fill out a speaker slip card. We're going to cut it off in a few minutes. If you're online, now is the time to raise your hand. We will cut it off in a minute or two. I note that this is on item 71. Not 70.1 or 70 and not 71.1. Raise your hand or forget Phil and speak. Slip. How many slips do we.
[211:27] Speaker 1: Have? We have 17 in person and three.
[211:30] Speaker 2: Online. We'll allow two minutes for each speaker. 17 plus 2, 2 plus 3. 20 times 240 minutes. Up to two minutes doesn't mean it has to be a full two minutes. People can also say ditto to the speaker before them. I concur. That's another one. Very good. Call the first three in person.
[211:58] Speaker 1: Please. Amy Skaggs. Nathan Merritt. David Torres. Thank you. My name is amy.
[212:09] Speaker 3: Skaggs. I am a paramedic from amr in contra costa county and I am.
[212:14] Speaker 1: Also the chief shop steward for the union. I'm here to let you know.
[212:19] Speaker 3: That the union members of umsw local 4911 support amr for the rfp in in alameda.
[212:29] Speaker 1: County. Thank.
[212:30] Speaker 2: You. Hello. Good evening. Thank you for being here.
[212:39] Speaker 3: Supervisors. All.
[212:41] Speaker 2: Right. Hello. Good evening. Thank you for being here. Supervisors, I. My name is Nathan Merritt. I'm an EMT. I was hired in this county in 2003. I urge you to approve the time only extension to the car current Falk agreement. Falk is the incumbent 911 provider and is already fully integrated in the county's 911 system. Extending the agreement creates no financial impact to the county and most importantly avoids the unnecessary disruption to emergency medical services. A provider change of this size introduces real risks, staffing instability, operational delays and transitional issues that directly affect patient care. Extending fault, maintains continuity, preserves an extended experience workforce and keeps response reliability intact. This extension also gives the county time. It already has directed staff to take time to thoughtfully evaluate an alternative EMS system designs without getting into a long term commitment with the new vendor. It will give the non transporting fire agencies time to enter into a building powers joint powers agreement and offer transporting services without fracturing the eoa. It will also give stakeholders time to evaluate how destructive an open EA system EOA system will be to EMS services. Approving Falk is the safest Most fiscally responsible option. And it keeps patient care at the center of the decision. I respectfully request that the board support the Falk extension. Thank you, President Hobart, supervisors and county leadership. My name is David Torres and I'm the managing director of Fallock, Alameda County. Thank you for taking the time to consider not just the contracts and timelines, but the people who make Alameda County EMS system work every single day. I sincerely appreciate the board's recognition that workforce stability is not a secondary issue. It is foundational to the success, reliability and safety of EMS in this county. Any transition from one provider to another is difficult. But for the paramedics, EMTs, mechanics.
[214:52] Speaker 4: VSTs, who show up every day and.
[214:54] Speaker 2: Night for this community, those transitions bring real uncertainty. They disrupt careers, families and livelihoods. And they pull attention away from what matters most, caring for patients in this.
[215:05] Speaker 3: County. We have been here.
[215:07] Speaker 2: Before. I have been through two transitions myself. During systems transitions, only about 85% of the incumbent workforce ultimately makes the move. In Alameda county, that could mean losing nearly 75 experienced paramedics, EMTs, logistics personnel, mechanics and supervisors, highly trained professionals, deep system knowledge and years of service to this community. And that statistic comes from transitions where the workforce wanted change. That desire simply does not exist today. Our workforce is unified in support of a FALCA extension and not a transition to amr. Losing that many skilled providers would be catastrophic for this system. These are not interchangeable positions. These are trusted clinicians who know this county, its hospitals, its neighborhoods and its patients. They've built relationships, mastered local protocols, and committed themselves to Alameda County. That experience and dedication deserve protection. A foul contract extension does exactly that. It allows Falk to continue making meaningful investments in the infrastructure that supports both the workforce and the community we serve. I ask that you consider real human and system impacts of this decision and to choose a three year extension for Falk, which provides stability for the workforce and for our patients and community. Thank you. Mr. Torres, while you're here. And I'll ask others as well. Supervisor Fortunato Bass did a good job of saying we all, we all agree on the need, the desire to explore the open system. And indeed, on this recommendation, it says the county will come continue to explore. If contract is extended with you, are you going to help participate in the discussion of an open system or are you going to oppose it? Absolutely. FAL is committed to this county and will stay in this county under any system. Thank you. Just had to ask. Am I not speaking directly into the mic.
[217:12] Speaker 3: Correct?
[217:12] Speaker 2: Yeah. Of your statement, he Heard me. Thank you. Thank you. Next.
[217:20] Speaker 1: Speaker. Caller, you're on the line. You have two.
[217:25] Speaker 2: Minutes. IPhone. Michael, you have two.
[217:43] Speaker 3: Minutes. Hi, my name is Michael White. I'm an EMT currently in the.
[217:49] Speaker 2: County. Not only am I EMT on.
[217:52] Speaker 3: The ambulance, I'm also a cat EMT as well as a domestic violence, substance abuse and volunteer facilitator at Allen Temple Baptist.
[218:03] Speaker 2: Church. So I've been working in Alameda county for a while. I really think that disrupting the service is going to do a disservice to Alam county, especially.
[218:18] Speaker 3: Our. Under.
[218:19] Speaker 1: Our.
[218:20] Speaker 3: Our.
[218:20] Speaker 2: Our. Our less fortunate population. I urge the board, I or.
[218:28] Speaker 3: I urge the board to, to extend F's.
[218:32] Speaker 2: Contract. I also ask that you guys take the time to maybe talk to the workforce and pull ideas from them and see what they think would.
[218:44] Speaker 3: Work. We're the ones that are out running the calls. We're the ones in the.
[218:50] Speaker 4: Streets. We have ideas, we have things.
[218:53] Speaker 2: That we believe would improve the healthcare system in Alameda County. We, we work it, you know, we have the.
[219:04] Speaker 3: Experience. I think that should be taken.
[219:07] Speaker 2: Into consideration when looking at contracts or, or the new RFP or innovative ways to give.
[219:16] Speaker 3: Care. That's all I really got to.
[219:21] Speaker 2: Say. I, I really, really hope that you guys extend it and I hope that you take into consideration maybe pulling.
[219:27] Speaker 3: Advice from the work field who's actually out running the.
[219:32] Speaker 2: Calls. That's.
[219:34] Speaker 3: It. Keith Brown, go.
[219:41] Speaker 4: Ahead. Good evening, President Halford and supervisors. Keith Brown speaking on behalf of.
[219:48] Speaker 3: The Alameda labor council representing over 130,000.
[219:53] Speaker 4: Working families across Alameda County. We urge the board to approve.
[219:58] Speaker 2: Recommendation one the time only extension with.
[220:02] Speaker 4: Falk. This option ensures stability and continuity of a critical public service, allowing our.
[220:10] Speaker 2: System to function without the risk inherent in a major.
[220:15] Speaker 1: Transition. We believe that maintaining the current provider is the most responsible choice for uninterrupted quality.
[220:24] Speaker 4: Care. And just to concur with the previous speaker, it's critical that the board prioritizes engagement with our vitals frontline stakeholders.
[220:41] Speaker 1: The workers of nature, NAIJ and Fire Local.
[220:45] Speaker 4: 55. Any decision that is made must have the participation of our frontline emergency.
[220:55] Speaker 2: Professionals. They must be included at the.
[221:00] Speaker 3: Table in collaboration to come up with.
[221:02] Speaker 4: A long term vision for the future.
[221:05] Speaker 2: Of quality EMS in our county. So again, the Alameda Labor Council.
[221:12] Speaker 3: We urge you to approve the recommendation 1 the time only extension.
[221:18] Speaker 2: Without. Thank.
[221:19] Speaker 1: You. Scott white. Troy hagan. Nate.
[221:27] Speaker 4: King. Good.
[221:45] Speaker 2: Evening. My name is Scott.
[221:45] Speaker 4: White. I'm the regional managing director for.
[221:47] Speaker 2: Falk. I want to thank the board.
[221:50] Speaker 4: For the collaborative approach they've taken during this.
[221:52] Speaker 2: Process. Extending the current contract with Falk.
[221:55] Speaker 3: Creates time and space this board and.
[221:58] Speaker 2: Staff for this board and staff to to thoroughly determine what the next chapter.
[222:03] Speaker 4: Of Alameda County's EMS system should look.
[222:06] Speaker 2: Like and one that reflects the priorities.
[222:08] Speaker 4: And values of the board and your.
[222:10] Speaker 2: Districts. It allows innovation and system enhancements to continue while giving you the flexibility.
[222:17] Speaker 3: To evaluate long term positions without the.
[222:20] Speaker 4: Pressure of an immediate.
[222:21] Speaker 2: Transition. Falk has been and remains committed to being a constructive and flexible partner.
[222:29] Speaker 4: In those discussions and is open to working with all stakeholders. Our goal is to support the.
[222:35] Speaker 2: County in determining how best to serve our residents and visitors in the most effective and efficient and equitable.
[222:41] Speaker 4: Way. Moving.
[222:42] Speaker 2: Forward. A contract extension with Falk ensures that the labor standards and protections for.
[222:47] Speaker 4: The incumbent workforce is a top level priority in those.
[222:51] Speaker 2: Discussions. This contract extension ensures continuity, operational.
[222:55] Speaker 4: Stability and continued improvements of the EMS.
[222:58] Speaker 2: System. As the Board indicated in June.
[223:00] Speaker 4: With its four no votes and one extension. An AM an award to AMR.
[223:06] Speaker 3: Under the previous RFP effort is not what's preferred by the workforce nor this.
[223:12] Speaker 2: Board and it's not worth and it's.
[223:14] Speaker 4: Not what's best for the residents of Alameda.
[223:17] Speaker 2: County. FALCA is in place providing quality service to the community now and we are committed to continuing service throughout the.
[223:25] Speaker 4: Contract extension, maintaining the consistency the residents.
[223:29] Speaker 2: And workforce deserves as was identified as.
[223:32] Speaker 3: A priority throughout this.
[223:33] Speaker 4: Process. Thank you again for your.
[223:35] Speaker 2: Attention. President Halbert and honorable Supervisors. My name is Troy Hagan. I'm the Chief Commercial Office Officer for fal. First, I want to thank the county leadership for the time, care and diligence being put into strengthening Alameda County ZMS system. FAL values this partnership and the shared commitment to continuous improvement in patient centered care. As you may know, Falcon formed the LEMSA in writing that we are able to implement innovations under the existing contract and that we are willing to move forward with them immediately. There will be nothing about status quo. We've been innovating and changing and our service delivery delivery since day one.
[224:14] Speaker 8: And we commit to you that we.
[224:15] Speaker 2: Will continue to do so into the future. While NIMS has indicated these enhancements cannot be mandated by the current contract, FALCO has chosen to voluntarily commit to advancing them in collaboration with the county as we have previously done with innovations throughout the duration of this contract. Our existing contract contemplates adding enhancements such as patient navigation in sections 3.1.7, section 14, which allow for continued system development and the deployment of pilot programs. We can do a lot of different things through pilot programs, even if it's not in the contract, and we commit that we will continue to work with the county to do such things. Among several other innovations, we previously launched a field initiated telehealth capability and with a coordinated effort of LEMSA and the Alameda County Fire Department, their communication center, we're prepared to work with them to implement a nurse navigation type program or physician level program, which is what our current offering is. We can launch that program very quickly utilizing our own. We could do that within three months of working with them with that collaboration, but again we'll work with the Fire Department to look at their program and continue to work with ALEMSA to ensure transparency and accountability. Falk is committing to quarterly updates or as directed by the Board on implementation and performance of these innovation updates. Our view is that progress should continue with longer term system decisions are being evaluated. We can clearly continue to move forward together under the existing contract to ensure that the county and its residents benefit from ongoing system enhancements and innovations. Evening Supervisors. Back here again. I'm Nate, I'm an EMT here in Alco and I live in Oakland. I could rant again about how AMR is a monopolistic anti labor behemoth owned by oligarch PE firms, but I.
[226:07] Speaker 1: Won'T. I would like to bring up.
[226:11] Speaker 2: A couple salient points though. Nurse navigation I believe is a nice idea. However, I do not believe it is the panacea. Panacea apologies that AMR and the LEMSA think it to be. Nurse navigation was implemented in East County San Diego in 2023 per the San Diego Union Tribune and AMR themselves. Nurse navigation reduced ems response by just 7%. It feels a bit like a pittance when we're faced with massive cuts to public health care over the coming years. Slashes in Medic, in Medicaid and Medicare will lead to increased reliance on EMS in emergency rooms as primary care. As it was before. For a remote nurse to refer someone to primary care. How? How would they do that if they don't have primary care? In light of that, we have tumultuous times ahead. Changing providers in the county is always disruptive to the workforce, our partner agencies and to our patients. Given what's happening to our public health system, I fear it could be even worse this coming year. I urge you to stick with Falk. See it through three years and we'll chat again.
[227:22] Speaker 3: Then. Thanks for your.
[227:23] Speaker 1: Time. Adimika Meadows Tom Wagner Seth.
[227:30] Speaker 2: Ollier. Hi, my name is Atamika.
[227:42] Speaker 1: Meadows. Arthur I'm Coming from a completely different perspective here. I'm an epidemiologist by training. I ran hospitals in this county. I worked for the county, both the public health department and when it was healthcare services agency. And so I come here not as only as a national Medicaid expert but also as a mom in this county. I've spent some time, I did public comment in.
[228:04] Speaker 2: November. I'm coming here really worried about.
[228:07] Speaker 1: HR1 which I haven't heard much.
[228:09] Speaker 3: About. We will have a large number.
[228:12] Speaker 1: Of uninsured in our county and we.
[228:14] Speaker 3: Need to figure out how we're going.
[228:15] Speaker 1: To keep our non emergent folks out of our emergency.
[228:21] Speaker 3: Rooms. And I haven't heard many alternatives. I hear this AMR vs. Falk argument back and forth. I certainly understand the labor related issues but and I appreciate FIRE saying.
[228:32] Speaker 1: That they're able to talk about these, these innovations. But there is a big difference.
[228:38] Speaker 3: Between nurse consultation and nurse navigation. Now this issue around nurse navigation has been a issue around the country.
[228:46] Speaker 1: For a very long time. It is in over 30 communities in about 14.
[228:51] Speaker 3: States. I've been part of large Medicaid innovations and this is one of them. It's usually done in conjunction with other large entities like GMR or AMR and others. It's done in Seattle, Baltimore, Riverside, Clackamas.
[229:10] Speaker 1: County. It's not just to give primary care as the gentleman previously before gave. It's also to just keep people.
[229:17] Speaker 3: Out of the emergency room by keeping your non emergent care. So I would just make sure.
[229:23] Speaker 1: That we're making some decisions. As a mom in this county that makes some.
[229:30] Speaker 3: Sense. Thank.
[229:31] Speaker 2: You. Good evening President Halpert, Board members. I guess I'm representing the oligarchy today. My name is Tom Wagner and I serve as the national President of operations for AMR and our parent company gmr. I heard a lot tonight about stability. No EMS organization in the country is more adept at doing these transitions than we are. We do more than anybody else and we are ready to to stand in and provide the services over the next few years while we work together with all of you, our FIRE partners in developing a FIRE based system. Our proposals loaded with enhancements. You saw some of them tonight. And the recommendation was delivered by an independent board that clearly scored our proposal as the best for Alameda County. So I think it's important to note when we start talking about what other people may do or can do, that's secondary to what we proposed and what was scored by an independent panel. The county deserves more than just the way it is now. For the next three years. And we are committed to working with our fire partners to get to that next level. And while we get to that next level, we'll be delivering these innovations. Heard a little bit about nurse navigation and while I appreciate the chief, I've known him a long time, but what they're willing to stand up, that is a, that's far different from, from what we're operating. It has taken us close to 10 years to be able to hone in on what a nurse navigation program can do and how best to deal with the community and how best we can deliver services and provide service to the right patient at the right time. We have over 250,000 patient encounters with our nurse navigation system. So it's just not like you can start it up. We started up and we made lots of mistakes early on in our process and we've learned from those mistakes. And now you can see how this is expanded through numerous cities across the United States. As far as the workforce goes, we're the largest union shop and we are welcome all of the workforce to come over to us and we embrace them as family members. We're ready to invest in Alameda County. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you for everything. Tom. Quaint, same question for you. If the decision is to move to amr, will you work diligently to achieve an open system or a third party system as we've mandated? Not only will we, we have more experience doing that than any other provider in the country. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Seth Oyer, President, Oakland Firefighters and I just want to say right off the bat, I did not wake up this morning and think that I was going to learn this much about pepper balls. That was incredible. So I consider myself educated. So thank you for that. I just want to touch on a couple items. The first and first I want to touch on is that President Savino and I of NAICH 510 have had extensive discussions and we wholeheartedly support Falk being the interim provider here for the two to three year period. We're committed to working together and we have discussions frequently. And then lastly, I just want to say congratulations on retirement of Laura McFadden as her retirement from Alameda County.
[232:50] Speaker 9: EMS. She's been.
[232:51] Speaker 2: Announced. I'm just giving her congratulations, so. Well, let me, let me retract that statement and say that I appreciate her hard work she's done over the decades. And thank you you for your time. I appreciate up to two minutes. Thank you and have a good night. I'll be here all.
[233:05] Speaker 3: Week Sean.
[233:08] Speaker 1: Burroughs Nick McGuire James.
[233:12] Speaker 2: Smith. Good evening President Howard Members of the Board Shaun Burroughs President, Alameda County Firefighters Local 55 when the board made the decision in June on the AMR decision to reject the contract, I think what we all knew at that point in time is there was going to need to be an extension of the existing provider so that we could really dig in and get the work done with all of our stakeholders and all of our partners on what a system that really works and functions for all of our patients, all of our end users and all of our providers would mean. And we, we really did believe that that extension would be with the current provider to avoid disruption not only in the the service that's provided, with all of the intricacies that takes to bring a new provider into such a large area like here in Alameda county and to have a six month ramp up which we experienced with fall when they became the provider in 2018, I think we could all agree that that did not go as smoothly as we had hoped for. Local 55 and fire based labor stand here in support of NAISH 510 and their workforce. We think of disruption in their workforce as they've articulated and I think as Supervisor Fortnado Bass articulated would be disruptive to our system. We do believe we have the ability to sit down and work collaboratively and to solve the challenges and issues that are before us. I encourage you to vote on a two year falk extension with the potential for a third year and direct your LEMSA agency and healthcare agency to begin the hard work of designing a system that is effective for all of our patients within Alameda County. Thank you. Good evening supervisors. My name is Nick McGuire. I'm the executive secretary for N Local 510. The decision before you today is not abstract. It has immediate consequences for patient care system stability and the paramedics, EMTs and support staff who have served this county for decades, who are serving right now. Falk is operating today. Ambulances are staffed today by experienced EMTs and paramedics who know this system, know our hospitals and know our communities that continuity matters. Any disruption without enforceable protections for the incumbent workforce creates instability. Instability and an EMS instability costs time and time costs lives. Supervisors, we always advocate for innovation. But innovation cannot be built on an uncertain foundation that continues to change when the workforce is distracted by job insecurity. Systems do not improve. They struggle to maintain their baseline stability is a prerequisite for progress. I urge you to make a decision today that prioritizes continuity. Protect those already serving this county. Avoid unnecessary risk to patients. Support falc, support naij. Prevent another band aid transition to another EMS provider. Thank you and happy holidays. Good evening President Halbert board members. My name is James Smith, President Livermore Pleasanton Firefighters Local 1974. Local 1974 stands in support of Falk's contract extension. Approving this extension with Falk will preserve continuity within the county including maintaining the same employer for the NAIJ membership represents their EMT and paramedics. This continuity is critical as it allows the stakeholders to work collaboratively toward developing a system that best serves our patients and all of our communities without the disruption of a transition. Once again, we strongly urge your support for the Falk extension. Thank you for your time and.
[237:37] Speaker 3: Consideration. Coleman.
[237:41] Speaker 1: Doyle. David Rudberg Winford.
[237:45] Speaker 3: Liu. Good evening.
[237:56] Speaker 2: Everyone. My name is Coleman. I'm currently a paramedic with FALK.
[237:59] Speaker 3: In Alameda county and have been so.
[238:01] Speaker 2: For about a year now. I come from out of county.
[238:04] Speaker 3: And obviously overseas and I can say that working in Alameda county provides a.
[238:09] Speaker 2: Diverse opportunity and it's a very engaging county to work in. I speak today in opposition to the change of ambulance services and in support of FOUC as the continuing EMS agency. This support stems from my perspective as a field paramedic and coming from seeing an increase in stability both internally as a workforce and externally in relations.
[238:29] Speaker 3: To us as providers and our community over my time.
[238:32] Speaker 2: Here. This increased stability has improved patient care and management workforce relations, subsequently allowing FUEL employees to focus more on patient care and Falk to focus more on more community centered things, more community outreach and more community.
[238:50] Speaker 3: Based innovation.
[238:53] Speaker 2: Possibilities. So if the provider were to change, especially in the timeframes stipulated in.
[238:59] Speaker 3: Agenda 71, it would be a significant.
[239:00] Speaker 2: Disruption to the provision of emergency services in Alameda county resulting in an overall step backwards in pre hospital care. This reward motion would have the greatest detriment to the community places member placing members of the county. Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends and a greatly a great state of unnecessary risk. Not to mention increasing the strain on our partner agencies as they scramble.
[239:26] Speaker 3: To fill the gaps left in the.
[239:27] Speaker 2: Transition. It is from this that I encourage you to continue FALK as the.
[239:31] Speaker 3: Incumbent EMS provider in Alameda.
[239:33] Speaker 2: County. Thank you for your time and your.
[239:35] Speaker 3: Consideration. Have a good.
[239:36] Speaker 2: Evening. Good evening, President Halbert, Board of Supervisors. I'll be short and sweet tonight. My name is David Rudberg. I'm a Livermore resident and a firefighter with Livermore Pleasant fire Department Local 1974. I stand for you today to show support for a Urge you guys to vote for a two year extension with Falk with an option but third year. Thank.
[240:04] Speaker 1: You. Good evening Board of.
[240:16] Speaker 2: Directors. My name is Winford Liu. I was born and raised in.
[240:20] Speaker 1: Oakland, been a resident for more than 50 years in Alameda.
[240:25] Speaker 2: County. I work for.
[240:29] Speaker 1: AMR. I just hit my 30 year mark with.
[240:31] Speaker 2: AMR. 15 of it was with AMR the beginning. So I was there when we lost the contract to Permex plus and then so on. So I've seen it all and I truly believe what county EMS thinks, what we should.
[240:53] Speaker 1: Do. We weren't picked before, twice. And I think that maybe this time we might have a chance to.
[241:02] Speaker 2: Provide what this county needs, the county that I live.
[241:05] Speaker 1: In. So I hope you decide what.
[241:07] Speaker 2: You think is best for us. Hopefully it will be.
[241:10] Speaker 1: Amr. Thank you. Last two speakers. Sergio Garcia.
[241:18] Speaker 10: Allison. Good evening Board of.
[241:29] Speaker 2: Supervisors. I have worked here in Alameda county for AMR since 2000 and when we lost the contract. And I'm not going to stand here and talk negative about any organization or agency. We all know that every organization has pros and cons. But what I will say is I, I know and I feel AMR is the best choice for Alameda county because they are an established provider with extensive resources offering skilled staff of all levels with numerous of specialized vehicles, ambulances and innovations that use technology like telemedicine, Nurse Navigator, aiming to provide the best immediate care to the citizens of Alameda County. I have seen and been a part of the training AMR has focused on leadership to become better leaders for our clinicians out in the field. How AMR makes the effort to work closely with unions and demonstrate teamwork and support our employees both in, on duty and off duty. I'm going to keep it simple. We owe it to the communities in Alco. The rest have been tried. It's time to come back to the.
[242:23] Speaker 1: Best. Hi, my name is Allie. I'm currently working as an EMT in Alameda county and I stand before.
[242:46] Speaker 3: You in opposition to the AMR contract here. Having previously worked for AMR in.
[242:51] Speaker 1: Another county, I can attest to the fact that their organization does not care for the workforce, the county, the medicine or the community they say they want to.
[242:59] Speaker 3: Protect. To keep it.
[243:02] Speaker 1: Short. At the end of the day.
[243:03] Speaker 3: The only people who truly suffer from this change are the community members who.
[243:07] Speaker 1: We here as FAL are day in and day out trying to keep safe and.
[243:10] Speaker 3: Healthy. Lastly, in the past five years.
[243:14] Speaker 1: AMR has already lost multiple contracts including Sonoma County, San Bernardino Washing, Lewis county in Washington and Boulder, Colorado. So to end remember why AMR was asked to leave in the first place and why they've continued to lose contracts. There are no more.
[243:33] Speaker 2: Speakers. Okay, we'll bring it back for discussion and deliberation. I'll start with Supervisor Fortunato Bass and then go this way. And Supervisor Miley, thank you for hanging in there. I know it's late where you are. We'll get to.
[243:46] Speaker 1: You. Thank you, President Halbert, and thank you to everyone who's been participating in this conversation and certainly to our staff and and others who have really been doing a lot of work to get us the system that will work for the entire county. I will just say that after hearing the public comments, I really resonate and agree with having continuity and stability of our current system so that we can get to the longer term vision that we have all expressed an interest in, which is the alternate system with the option for either a non exclusive open system or a third option. So knowing that it's late, including in the area where Supervisor Miley is, I would just go ahead and like to share where I'm at and make a motion. And that motion would be to Approve option number A1. I can read the full motion at the appropriate time, but to approve option A1, which is a second amendment time only extension to the ambulance transport provider agreement with Falk, B to authorize the interim director to negotiate and finalize the agreement, and C, to direct the EMS agency to research the L2 alternate system designs. And again, I can read the.
[245:14] Speaker 2: Full motion, but let's go through board member.
[245:17] Speaker 1: Comments.
[245:17] Speaker 2: Okay. Before we actually do that. But I appreciate.
[245:19] Speaker 1: You. That's where I am doing.
[245:20] Speaker 2: That. Where you're at. Exactly. Supervisor.
[245:23] Speaker 1: Marquess.
[245:24] Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you everyone for the.
[245:26] Speaker 1: Engagement. You know, this is tough. This is a critical decision that impacts everyone in this county, especially our.
[245:37] Speaker 3: Patients. And as well was mention everything occurring with.
[245:40] Speaker 1: HR1. This, this is a critical.
[245:41] Speaker 3: Decision. But as I've made comments in.
[245:45] Speaker 1: The past, I'll be consistent just as a young person, a lay person, age.
[245:50] Speaker 3: 18, working at an emergency room that no longer exists. Kaiser and Hayward. You know, I've just always kind of been on the peripheral seeing what was happening with the contracts in the rotation. And that's not me being involved in local government, but just tracking like why is a change? Why is what we're doing in Alameda county not working? So I do feel that we.
[246:10] Speaker 1: Were at this critical moment where we.
[246:12] Speaker 3: Can collectively come together to design a new system. So I am also in support of the motion that was made, I'm happy to second it with just one minor modification with respect to item number C. Just asking that the six month intervals, the updates come back to the full.
[246:29] Speaker 1: Board. And we'll note that during those.
[246:33] Speaker 3: Six month intervals we should also be receiving an update from the Fire Department in terms of their trajectory and their.
[246:39] Speaker 1: Status on bringing online some of the.
[246:42] Speaker 2: Innovations. Supervisor.
[246:45] Speaker 3: Tam thank you President Halbert. After hearing from all the speakers and also from our fire department and their willingness to look at the innovations that are going to be necessary as we look at a longer term option, whether it's under a non exclusive operating system or a third service option, I think having them start right now with getting accustomed to what the innovations are needed, including diversion away from the emergency room. As one of the speakers had talked about more than just providing nurse navigation, providing more higher level of consultation and having the resources with the CAT team. I'm comfortable with the first option of the.
[247:38] Speaker 2: Motion. Supervisor Miley well, thank you President.
[247:44] Speaker 4: Halbert. As I mentioned earlier on, I've seen a number of transitions since I've been on the board from AMR to Paramedics plus to Falk and here we are again. And I know we need to have these innovations and I know transitions take a while. They can cause a lot of disruption. So I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Chief McDonald said that fire can work on some of these innovations during the, you know, the period going forward with trying to come up with a model that clearly meets the needs of all of the folks in Alameda county to the best of our ability. So I'm comfortable with the emotion that's going to be before us, I.
[248:30] Speaker 2: Think. Thank you. I would also like to thank the speakers. I'd like to thank our team for putting together a very compact and efficient presentation, easy to follow. I'd like to thank our speakers and both companies before us. I know having contracts around the country, both large and capable companies, I stand committed as I was before to exploring and moving toward a non exclusive open operating system. As was mentioned, allowing for stability to occur by extending the fault contract seems to be the safest bet. However, I would like to add one additional component to the report backs to us every six months. What I heard was that within the existing contract with Falk there allows for continued evolution, even piloting programs. They're a company that they say are progressive. I note that some of the things that we talk about as innovations can be implemented in addition to reporting back every six months to this board, likely at a work study session that in addition to reporting back progress on evaluating and moving toward an open operating system or an alternative to that, that we also get a report back on the progress made toward implementing innovations in our system. And so let.
[250:21] Speaker 3: Me. Can I reframe my, my motion? I think it's causing confusion. So let me be clear. Everything is on the record. This is a public record. So let me rephrase my comment.
[250:31] Speaker 1: And the six month interval status updates. My request is to come to the full.
[250:37] Speaker 3: Board. I will resend my comments with respect to calling out any specific entity.
[250:44] Speaker 1: To come and give.
[250:44] Speaker 3: Updates. I will just say anyone that.
[250:47] Speaker 1: Would like to give updates on this matter in public.
[250:50] Speaker 3: Comment. It is a public meeting, but.
[250:52] Speaker 1: I don't think it's appropriate for us.
[250:53] Speaker 3: To specify a potential entity that may be bidding on a contract later. So I just want to keep it.
[250:59] Speaker 1: Clean. So I resend that comment. And obviously these are public.
[251:03] Speaker 3: Meetings. Anyone could provide commentary and updates as they see.
[251:08] Speaker 2: Appropriate. I see staff jumping up and down. Please come talk. I don't want. I remember the discussion that we had at our last meeting around the contract that we have in place. So let's make this more of a question for clarification. It's a good point. The last time we met on this, it was was discussed that to get innovations we have to move to the new contract. We can't get them with the current contract. Today I heard our current contract allows for changes, allows for piloting new innovative ideas. So I'm trying to get in my head either it's pretty hard and fast. Anything that's in the rfp, anything that's considered a new innovation that Falk didn't win, just they cannot do. I'm juxtaposing that with them saying they can. Where is it? I'm trying to understand that.
[252:19] Speaker 3: Because. Today you have before you a recommendation and Supervisor Fortnado Bass has put what she plans to make as a motion before.
[252:33] Speaker 2: You. You did an, you did an.
[252:35] Speaker 3: RFP and you've chosen based on what the proposed motion is, you have chosen to extend your existing bidder as the healthcare director told you that that would be on the terms of the contract as it exists now. My recommendation to you today would be to if, if that is the.
[252:56] Speaker 2: Will of the board and the votes are.
[252:58] Speaker 3: There. I'm not presupposing that they are. They aren't. But if that is the will.
[253:03] Speaker 2: Of the board to vote the motion.
[253:05] Speaker 3: That she put in front of you, Supervisor Fortnado Bass put in front of you and that what can be done in the future with respect to innovations. Let's figure that out another day. Well, well, no. I mean, I think that there can be conversations in the next six month, six months about that. But I would advise your board not to give any direction on that topic. But yes, about who's going to do what and you know, somebody's going.
[253:40] Speaker 2: To bring something back and just vote the motion that's before.
[253:43] Speaker 3: You. So I support the motion as a. With as is with. The only caveat for item C.
[253:50] Speaker 1: Is that the six month updates come to the full.
[253:52] Speaker 3: Board. That's.
[253:53] Speaker 1: It. And I would accept that.
[253:55] Speaker 2: Amendment. Very well. A motion's been made and seconded. Roll call vote.
[254:05] Speaker 3: Please. Supervisor Marquez, I. Supervisor Tam.
[254:10] Speaker 2: Aye. Supervisor.
[254:11] Speaker 3: Miley. Supervisor Fortunate.
[254:18] Speaker 1: Boss.
[254:19] Speaker 3: Aye. President.
[254:20] Speaker 2: Halbert. Aye. That item passes. Very good. We'll now say that like to thank everybody. We're going to take a two minute.
[254:31] Speaker 1: Recess. Recording in.
[254:36] Speaker 2: Progress. We're going to reconvene to open session. Would the clerk please call the.
[254:40] Speaker 1: Roll? Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor.
[254:44] Speaker 3: Tam? Present. Supervisor Miley, You're.
[254:52] Speaker 2: Muted. Supervisor Miley? Miley, you here? You're on mute. Supervisor Miley. He's.
[255:02] Speaker 4: Here.
[255:03] Speaker 3: Okay. Supervisor Fortunate.
[255:05] Speaker 1: Bus.
[255:05] Speaker 3: President. President.
[255:06] Speaker 2: Halbert.
[255:07] Speaker 1: Present. We have.
[255:07] Speaker 2: Quorum. Very good. We will proceed with our three o' clock set matters. And this item is item 71.1. Supervisor Fortune on a bass will make a brief, brief.
[255:19] Speaker 1: Comment. Thank you. Item 71.1. This is an update from the November 6th Alameda County Together for All Ad Hoc committee meeting. Myself and Supervisor Marquez voted to put this on our agenda to give it more visibility to the board as well as to members of the public. We heard a very robust presentation from members of the AAPI community about impacts on the.
[255:47] Speaker 2: Federal. Supervisor Miley, welcome. I see that you are unmuted now. You're.
[255:54] Speaker 4: Here. Yes. I couldn't hear anything to begin with, but now I can hear.
[255:59] Speaker 2: You. Thank you so.
[256:00] Speaker 1: Much. Great. So this is an informational item. Again, the act for all committee wanted to put this on the agenda to give it visibility. We heard at our November meeting from a number of organizations that serve the AAPI community in terms of how they are impacted by the current federal immigration enforcement. And I will just say that we have a very robust memo and set of materials in the packet. There were a number of organizations who presented and they lifted up that about 18% of ICE arrests during the first half of this year was people from Asian and Southeast Asian countries. So it's a community that is very impacted and there's more information in the packet for you to read through. I'll also say that they are not the only community that is impacted. As we know, the Mexican community, other Latino communities, the Afghan community has been impacted. There are many other communities. But we really wanted to lift this up because our immigrant community is so diverse. This is an opportunity to see what's happening with the Southeast Asian community in particular. Thank.
[257:12] Speaker 2: You. Thank you very much. With that said, I'd like to entertain a moment of silence in memory of Rob Reiner. But also I'm going to add to that, please, the victims of the Bondi beach event massacre, if we could have a moment of silence and then adjourn in their memory. Thank you all very much. Seeing that all the items of business before us are resolved and completed, this meeting is now.