Well, first, good morning, everybody.
Today
is Tuesday, January 13th. And let's go ahead and call our first meeting, a public meeting of our 2026 of our county, to order.
Can
I please have our clerk call the roll?
Supervisor Apikoka. Here. Supervisor Young.
Here.
Supervisor Ellenberg is absent. Vice President Aranis.
Here.
President Lee.
Good
morning, President. You do have a quorum.
Thank
you. So, if you're in the chambers and require the Spanish or Vietnamese translation, translation devices are available at the back of the chambers.
The
clerk can assist you with the setup.
Translation
is also available on Zoom using the interpretation button. Additionally, as a gentle reminder for public commenters, staff, and those of us on dais, please speak clearly and at a measured pace directly to the microphone to ensure accurate translation. And this morning, may I also please have... Let's see. How about Supervisor Young to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Gladly.
Please
stand if you're able.
All
right. Ready?
Begin. I
pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank
you.
This morning, our invocator is Josemar Reyes, our Santa Clara County Governor.
And I
believe we have a video to play from Supervisor Ellenberg.
Thank you, and Happy New Year, everyone.
I
am very sorry not to be in chambers
today. I
am in Washington, D .C., attending a conference with all of the state association presidents from across the country, as well as the executive directors.
And
I think I have shared that I am the 2026 president. I am the president of the California State Association of
Counties.
I'm looking forward to being a very active and strong advocate for Santa Clara County and the rest of the state throughout this year.
To
begin today's meeting, it is my deep honor to introduce today's invocator, Josemar Reyes.
Josemar
is the current Santa Clara County Poet Laureate and was previously named the 2024 Creative Ambassador for the City of California. Josemar is a writer,
poet,
and performer, and is widely recognized for his compelling storytelling and for centering the undocumented community and the queer experience with honesty, compassion, and power.
His
autobiographical solo show, Priecho, is the recipient of the Gerbaud Special Awards in the Arts and has toured nationally, reaching universities and cultural institutions across the country.
Josemar
also serves as the Performing Artist in Residence at MATLAB, where his work continues to be rooted in community, memory, and resistance.
As
we begin 2026 and reflect on new beginnings, I am so grateful for Josemar's voice and perspective. I also want to acknowledge and thank SV Creates for helping to make this first invocation of 2026 possible.
And
with that, please join me in thanking Josemar Reyes. And welcoming
Josemar Reyes to deliver this morning's invocation.
It's so beautiful to be here. Happy New Year. Feliz Año Nuevo. My name is Josemar Reyes. I am a proud product of Eastside San Jose. This is the place where I learned to write poetry, where I discovered poetry. And yes, I'm going to do this poem that was inspired by everything that we're witnessing right now. I think it's very bleak times, sometimes it feels. But I love the way in which we show the way in which our community shows up for each other. And so I think I wrote this poem thinking about that. There is something beautiful about being human. Something extraordinary about being empathetic. Allowing your heart to recognize someone else's need, someone else's
longing. So intuitively, your body responds. You offer water to those who are thirsty. A meal to someone who is hungry. Shelter to someone who needs. one in destitution. It reminds you of the blessing that is to exist as a collective. This world is harsh. It teaches us individuality. But we are not robots. You and I are all flesh,
all
heart. We did not make it here alone. Not without someone pouring into our spirits. Not without someone seeing us, fully seeing us, before we could recognize ourselves. This life is reciprocal. You give what you can. You receive what you need. And yes, sometimes our worlds feel too heavy to carry, too heavy to pause, too heavy to lend help. But that is the magic of community, of believing we are all in this together. Those who speak of God must understand that this universe requires all of us, you and me, existing in mutual care, mutual respect. And right now, times are bleak. So many of us are under attack. So many of us feel unseen, unprotected, neglected.
But if a people refuse to believe in God, refuse to see our worth, at least we have each other to mirror it back. Today, I see you for all you have endured, for all you continue to carry, for all the ways you show up anyway. I see you and I thank you for helping me recognize my own magic. I am grateful to coexist with you. We move forward and as all this crumbles, I know this, I am with you, weathering to the storm. We move forward together. Muchas
gracias. Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you. Muchas gracias.
All right. I believe on item four and five, we really don't have any this morning, so we move right into public comments, item six, which is an item reserved for the members of public to address the board on any items not on this agenda. Any public who would like to speak on items on the agenda should request to speak at this time. Please fill out the speaker card to return it to the clerk. We'll call up to 30 names now, and then the remainder names will then be called at the end of the agenda. In -person speakers will be called first, followed by our Zoom speakers. No further requests to speak will be accepted under
continued public comment. Reminder for public on Zoom, as soon as the first speaker in the chamber starts speaking, there will be no more speakers being taken. During public comment, to respect everybody's comments, we do not allow applause or boos. To show your support, you can raise and shake your hands quietly, and I just want to say thank you for your cooperation in keeping our meeting moving
orderly.
Clerk, how many speakers do we have today?
I currently have 12 speakers in person and one on Zoom for a total of 13 speakers. Thirteen speakers? Then let's do two minutes each. All right. Thank you. We are now closing the queue, and we'll start. I'll call several people up. You may speak in any order. We'll start with James Cooper, McKenna Cooper, Malia McLaughlin. Cole Cameron, Robert E., and Cindy H.
Go ahead. Speaker is built in. You may begin
speaking. Hello. My name is James Cooper. I'm the father of two Gilroy FFA students, one of whom is a senior this year. I would like to speak about the proposed date change and lack of adequate notice for the 2026 County Fair. The County Fair has an 81 -year history of supporting our youth who show an interest in agriculture. The state of California is the top in the U .S. in the production of agriculture, which includes produce from the Santa Clara County Valley. The FFA organization, along with the raising and showing of an animal at the fair, introduces students to the lessons of raising the food that feeds our nation. It also teaches them how to
operate the food that feeds our nation. It also teaches them how to operate a successful business. This is done by purchasing and raising a market animal, and then the final sale of the animal at the County Fair. The proposed date change will make it impossible for my 12th grader to show an animal, as she will be headed to college during the dates that are proposed. The Gilroy High School administration has already stated that Gilroy FFA will not be able to participate during the proposed dates. Other states will not be able to participate during the proposed dates. The schools may also do the same.
Last year's
fair included 33 animals from the Gilroy FFA. The lack of livestock participants will greatly minimize the actual purpose of the fair. Some students have already purchased animals as required to show for the original dates of the fair in 2026. These animals will reach their market peak during the original dates and will not be eligible to be shown at the later dates. The west side will not see any events to the local fair closing date, and while their products remain in place as they are overweighted, I will ask the Council to start meeting with the director at the fair.
As I have
already worked with one of the decisions that we made last year, the dentist athletes who typically past three years i'm speaking on behalf of my fellow livestock exhibitors all of whom are heavily impacted by the sudden change to the fair dates this year the fair director chose to change the dates unbeknownst to us exhibitors and our ffa advisors the dates chosen are later in the month than usual and they conflict with the start of school for several school districts in the county as a result of this change our district will not allow gilroy ffa to attend the fair because it conflicts with the first week of school and there are several other schools faced with
similar situations
although
the absence of so many 4 -h and ffa livestock may be overlooked now it will be striking to see the expo hall that was once filled with animals kids and fair patrons be almost empty even after the santa clara county fair has strongly supported livestock exhibitors for 81 years
showing
livestock at the fair has been an amazing opportunity that ffa and 4 -h members are so grateful to have these projects not only teach us about how to care for animals
they
teach us about finances commitment and responsibility the change to the fair dates would prevent santa clara county ffa and 4 -h members from showing at the santa clara county fair on behalf of my fellow livestock exhibitors i would like to ask the board to speak with the fair director regarding the situation and for any future changes to the dates to be discussed with all the ffa members and 4 -h members who are so grateful to have these projects all stakeholders ensuring that our voices will be heard thank you thank you and for the record ffa stands
for the futures farmers of
america great thank you ranked
choice voting sounds fair but it's a deceptive mess
it
confuses voters ballots get complicated mistakes pile up it delays results fraud becomes harder to detect by design it seems voters lose trust in the process it favors the future of the labors and the future of the farm and the future of the farmers and the Divers fringe candidates, not moderates, as evidenced. Extremists can sneak through. Look at San Francisco and Oakland
and
their recalls. It's not transparent. Algorithms decide winners. It's not auditable.
Simple majority is clear and direct, and it works. RCV muddles democracy. It doesn't assure it, as evidenced.
It's
a gamble with our elections. Don't fall for the lobbyist's lies and bribes.
Stick
with what works. And despite the lies, it's not cheaper. We know that.
Yes, please come
up. Thank you, Speaker. Good
morning and Happy New Year. And we all know that Measure A, the sales tax increase in Santa Clara County, passed with strong support
from District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Public Safety. Unions and Sheriff,
because they received assurance from county officers that some fund would support criminal justice and safety programs, not just health care.
That's why in the end of October, all of them decided to support Measure A, if you still remember that.
But
now District Attorney Jeff Rosen believe they were deceived. After county officers say it will be all go to the health care. I kindly remind the supervisors. These were your words and promises that convinced key stakeholder to back the major
support
that was crucial for his passage
today.
We simply asked for full transparency on the final allocation of this fund and basic accountability to ensure that the fund is supported. In short, they reached the intended purpose. Thank you for your attention and your commitment for our community trust. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Malia McLaughlin.
I'm
the current chairperson for the Veterans Commission, and I'm here to plead, especially for Supervisor Aranis and Supervisor Young to please you have openings for our commission.
Could
you please go forth and do some action on appointing someone?
That's
all I'm requesting.
If
you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you.
Try
that again.
Here
we go.
Thank
you.
It
was done over in the time.
Yes, it's a
I won't need it all. I just really appreciate the opportunity to have Malia and Rob, our vice chair, step in replacing me as I become just a commissioner for a while until I move on to the emeritus status.
What
she said,
please, I've
been here for six or eight months asking for the same thing, and I hope. Her softer, gentler voice might be heard this time. There's another item on the agenda that I couldn't frankly find specifically that also, I think, supports this, and I hope that that is considered also.
I'm
an old farm boy from Tulare County, so I have future farmer of America all around me all the time as a child, and I'm really happy that the Coopers have brought forward a concern that I support also and that some action. Is taken to make that change and dates back to when it was so there's not a conflict between school with these kids moving forward in a possible career. We really need them. So again, thank you very much for all your support, all the the biggest small things you've done in so many different ways and that you can support our vets that provide that freedom to do anything we want.
Thank you. We're going to call forward our next set of
speakers, and I'll remind. It asked in -house speakers are microphone is built into the podium, so if please keep your cell phones away from the microphone, and it will avoid the feedback. So our next set of speakers are Brian B. Alice K. Megan Davies. Mark Trout. Raymond Goins. And Monica Sim, and you may speak in any order, please just announce your name, thank you.
Good morning. My name is Megan Davies.
I am the mom of three high schoolers who are members of Gilroy FFA. The Santa Clara County Fair changed the dates this year to August 14th through the 24th, which is the first week of school when it has historically been held in the summer, late July, early August. It was communicated the reason for this change was to secure a multi -year carnival contract. This is blatantly disrespectful and unfair to livestock students dismissing their time and money invested. I attended and voiced my objection to this abrupt and unsolicited change at the Santa Clara County Fair meeting on December 15th, and also the December 16th county meeting. My specific situation is that my senior will be unable
to complete raising his steer, or come back to show and sell his animal as his college is not local and will already be in session. It is unjust that he has invested thousands of dollars for his steer project with no consideration or respect for his financial or time spent in raising his steer. The steer project was purchased in September. The fair date change was not announced until December. There was zero change management applied to such a drastic change in fair dates. At the December 15th Fair meeting, Mrs. Duarte said 25 head of cattle are shown at our fair. 100 ,000 plus dollars is at risk for steer kids who have already purchased animals. It is
extremely unfortunate that the Santa Clara County Fair has lost sight of our future. The youth of our county have lost sight of our future and the youth of our county have lost sight of our future. who will continue to make their impact on our world and will be our future leaders. Raising livestock teaches our ag youth lifelong skills such as time management, financial planning, leadership skills, etc. We have nothing if we don't have a strong agricultural root. I understand that the fair is a business, but to be so severely short -sighted of the big picture and only focused on financials is a tremendous shame. My hope is that the livestock portion of the fair can
still be held this year at the long -standing dates then fair date changes
can be considered.
Good morning President Lee, board, and administration. Before I get
started with what I want to talk about since I have an extra minute I want to say thank you to the
Future
Farmers of America for being here. I'm really sorry that you have to be here, but our board is not serious. That is the truth. Our county is not representing its taxpayers and its residents. That's a big problem and that's why I'm here. I'm hopeful that they will find a way to accommodate your request here especially with the investment that you folks have made. But when it comes to money matters, again, they are not serious. Last November we had another election and we had another problem with vote counting and the voting system. As you know, I and other election observers have been here to report issues with the county's voting system vendor. This vendor has a
history of contractual non -compliance and this county's leadership is a very hard one. leadership has lacked the courage to terminate that contract and claw back the contract value as is legally permitted. We're talking about tens of millions of dollars. I believe it is past time to terminate
the
county executive and the county council. They have failed to protect the taxpayers of this county.
In
a few minutes, they will be asking the board for permission to do more land deals when this county is broke. I challenge this board to demonstrate the courage that they claim they have
and
use the word no, just like my mother used to say when we didn't have the resources in our family to do certain things. No. These same people were presented a budget last spring that was unrealistic. They knew it. And now we have a new sales tax and the county's still in debt. There's still a billion dollar shortfall here. So these people are not serious. Thank you. Hi,
I'm Alice.
I'm disappointed to see that both a Facebook ad and a case commissioner, Steve Chesson, used counties poorly planned and managed special election as a ruse to push for the false claim that ranked choice voting would save the county money.
In
every place that RCV was implemented, there was zero evidence that it saved county any money. Instead, each city and county, with astronomical voter education costs, election after election, still leaving the most vulnerable voter space confused and end up driving voter turnout even lower. Casing Point in Alaska, they budgeted
$150
,000 for voter education and ended up with over $3 .1 million in one election just on voter education alone. This obvious of conflicts of interest and decision -making, the exception must stop now. Okay? And I have many friends that have tried to apply for a case. A case is supposed to be protecting
our election. And it's obvious you can see with all the fraud, I mean, you know, the error
that just came out, it's pretty embarrassing. So you need people that are non -partisan, not one topic specific on ranked choice voting. We need people that are really knowledgeable and willing to do serious work in there. Okay? And we have gone to the case commission multiple times. And I have friends that apply for it, not even consider. Okay? This county is not just for your ranked choice voting lobbyists. It's for everyone. And our election must be protected. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Rembin Goins. I am a community health worker who provides care for patients that are incarcerated here in Santa Clara County. And I also have a unique perspective. I have a unique perspective as being a person that was once incarcerated here in Santa Clara County and I was an inmate. I'm here to speak on the behalf of those people that are currently incarcerated here in Santa Clara County and throughout anywhere else.
My standpoint here is we people elect officials into power to protect the people. But we forget about the people who are victimized by unjust laws that are enforced by law enforcement. Now, some of my brethren have fallen victim to incarceration. They stand in our correctional facilities and the care that they receive from medical is imperative to create a safer community for all of us. If they arrest people because they are a public safety threat to themselves and others and we put them in an incarcerated situation and they receive a lack of medical care because they are not have the opportunity to have proper medical care as everybody else, that becomes a public safety threat once
they come home. Because when you incarcerate somebody that has an existing medical condition, a mental health condition, and they are thrown into jail, that mental health and medical condition only is exactly what they need. And it's not a good thing that they have to be incarcerated. It doesn't help us when they are released back in our community which creates a system of survival back in how do I get care for myself and which laws will then be broken because they have to provide for themselves. With the current costs that we have received by national standards, those populations will be directly impacted when they come home. Whether it be insurance, for medical care, for mental health
care, rent services, whatever other services that this county has provided to a lot of populations. Those are things that we have to be careful about. It is imperative that we take care of our most marginalized first, take care of the roots of society that have been left behind by society, and see what that looks like. Water the roots. Let the roots grow seeds so
that
way we can see what the tree of our community looks like and we all can be filled with fruits, not just one percent. We are currently being oppressed, you know what I'm saying, over police. Nationally, we see that ICE is going rogue in this country. Well, here in San Jose, we have a localized ICE, it was called San Jose Police Department, and I was a victim of that. So as time evolves, we have to do better as a people, we have to do better as a county. We all up here represent equality and equity. Let's show the county, let's show the country how we can lead.
Good morning, my name is Monica Simon. Good morning members of the Santa
Clara County Board of Supervisors. I'm here today to express our concern about the recently announced state change for the 2026 Santa Clara County Fair. This change was communicated only last month after animals had already been purchased and on feed for several months in preparation for the fair's traditional summer schedule. The proposed new date coincides with the start of the school year, whereas previous fairs have always been held during summer. This creates serious challenges for our youth exhibitors, especially graduating seniors and those completing their final year in 4 -H or FFA. It jeopardizes their ability to earn their American degree, the highest honor and the ability to participate in the fair, and the ability to participate
in the fair. The fair is a community -based event, which is based on community and organization, which depends on completing these projects. Beyond individual impact, this decision affects the entire community. The fair is more than an event. It's an educational experience that teaches responsibility, leadership, and agriculture literacy. These programs strengthen ties between urban and rural communities and prepare our future workforce. Disrupting this tradition on short notice undermines these goals. We understand the changes related to difficulties. So. So. Securing carnival rides during the usual time frame. While we appreciate those challenges, the Livestock and Youth programs are foundational to the fair's mission and should not be compromised. Therefore, we respectfully request two things. First, that the
Livestock portion of the 2026 fair be held during its normal summer schedule. Second, that adequate advance notice be provided for any future date changes so families and students can plan responsibly. Thank you for your time and your continued support of Youth Agricultural Programs. We look forward to working together to ensure the success
of the fair for everyone involved. Thank you. The
fear of the Lord is to hate pride.
That's what God says in the Holy Book. You know, the last time I was here, Sylvia walked out, and I don't know, sometimes we have to do that, make a visitation to the restroom. And I don't know if that's why she walked out, but she missed my speech, and she missed a parent's speech that's been calling in for, like,
years.
Every day I pray for that guy. I really do. I don't think he's lying. I don't think he's lying, okay? And this is one reason why I want Jesus to come back. He's going to kill the wicked. All the wicked will be destroyed. There'll be no unrighteous people on this earth. Now, you are in the capacity, okay, the office. Even if it's... You were vote -frauded in, and I probably won city council in 2010, I guess it was, you know? But whatever. You're still here, okay? And I supposedly lost, but you're here. Even if it's through vote fraud, Nebuchadnezzar was king in Babylon, and they didn't vote, you know, in his days. So you
have
the power. I don't. But this is what God says about you, not me. Of course, it applies to everyone. But... Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Hmm. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good? And thou shalt have praise of the same. Look what's happening, though, with Stuart Roach and Enrico Terrio, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. That's what
it says. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do good,
and
you'll have praise of the same.
Read it, folks. It's God's word. Thank you. Our next speaker is
Perrin.
Yes, hello. Good morning to you all. I'll
ask that. No Measure A funds go to the district attorney's office. And that's because he's using public money to help sex traffic children in support of his political supporters. And he's also using money to incentivize his political supporters to assault
parents
who simply don't want their kids to be molested and are trying to protect. And it didn't just happen to me. It's happened to other parents.
This attorney
is
behaving in a reckless and abhorrent manner and destroying our community. And
we
should not give him a single penny more. And he's wasting money
on
Daniel Chung's salary. He just won't. Mr. Chung just wanted to protect. My kids.
Now he wants to come back to work. He's always wanted to work. And Jeff Rosen has thrown away more than $800 ,000 of Daniel Chung's salary in the last four years. And let's not forget that Jeff Rosen previously altered timesheets to give millions of dollars, gifting millions of dollars on this bill and on the stock market. to his top 15 attorneys with thousands of hours that he padded on their salaries.
And
you can't discount that.
He
can do that stuff again. Please, Google D .A. Jeff Rosen, petitioned sex trafficking for more information on what he's doing to my children.
Please
don't give him any more money.
Thank
you for your time.
And this concludes our public speakers. Yes, James, go ahead.
I just wanted to make one comment for those speakers who were commenting about the date of the county fair. I want to encourage you to reach out to the Fairgrounds Management Corporation Board of Directors.
It's
a separate board apart from county administration.
FMC
has the authority regarding the scheduling of events, including the county fair. They hold public meetings.
It's
a Brown Act body, much like the Board of Supervisors, and would encourage you to direct your comments to them.
We
don't supervise the executive director or the operation of the fairgrounds. We don't supervise the fair itself. That being said, we'll certainly reach out with an inquiry.
But
I just wanted to direct you to the right body regarding the scheduling of the fair.
Yes,
Vice President Arenas.
Go ahead.
I also wanted to just thank you for coming in and sharing your concerns about the FFA and not being able to participate,
and
I'm so sorry that it's happening.
My
team is also here to connect you with the right contacts so that we can make sure that you are heard. Thank you. Thank you for making it all the way here.
Thank you. And now we're moving on to our next item of the agenda.
But
before we move over, I just want to say, first of all, thank you for those who attended today's public hearing and public comments,
and
this is really one of those forums that we show what the freedom of speech is. This is a country where you could speak for or against the government, unlike some places like Iran, where you can see the type of deaths that's happening when people are being suppressed, and the speech on criticizing government. You could say whatever you want, practically, up here, to tell your elected leaders of what you feel was right and what's wrong,
but
it's exactly what this freedom of speech is about, and we're strongly proud to hold that tradition.
Thank
you.
All
right.
Moving
on to the next item of the agenda, which is the approval of the consent calendar and changes to the Board of Supervisors agenda. Any of our, my colleague has any issues that you might want to, you know, change on the agenda?
Actually,
maybe
I'll
ask our clerk to read the proposed changes to the consent calendar first, and then we'll go from there.
Rhonda?
Thank
you. We have a correction to item number eight.
The
first sentence should read as follows. Item number eight is a public hearing for the Santa Clara County Financing Authority Leased Revenue Bonds Capital Facilities 2026, Series A.
There's
a request from Supervisor Abacoga to remove item 43 from the consent calendar. Item 43 is to consider recommendations relating to corporate sponsorship, marketing, and advertising program.
There's
a request from administration to hold item number 48 to January 27th, 2026. Item number 48 is to approve second amendment to agreement with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority relating to providing supplemental law enforcement services, amending the scope of services and cost recovery in an amount equal to the County's cost of providing services with no change to the term of the agreement. There's corrections to items number 51E and 51G.
The
item should reflect that they are jointly submitted by Supervisors Jung and President Lee,
and
51E should read as follows.
Item
number 51E. Item 51E is to adopt accommodation for the Federation of Reserve Officers Academies,
Republic
of Vietnam Armed Forces, for its dedication to preserving the heritage and traditions of the Reserve Officers Academies.
Item
51G is to adopt accommodation for the South Vietnamese Navy Veterans, NORCAL, for strengthening community ties and contributing positively to cultural awareness and public service.
And
this concludes our consent calendar update. Thank you, Rhonda. Seeing no changes on the line. Oh, actually, Supervisor Young, your light's on.
No
changes on my part.
Just
a comment on item 41.
I
want to thank KJ and the staff for speaking with my office.
I
look forward to meeting with you and your team and more engagement about developments in District 2 and continued community engagement with our partners.
I
want to acknowledge our staff's commitment to that.
Thank
you.
Thank you. Rhonda, anybody in public would like to speak on these consent items?
I do have one person on Zoom.
Okay. Let's do two minutes.
All
right. We're closing the public speaker queue. We've got one person. Parent, we've asked you to unmute.
Yes,
I'd like to speak to item number 27. I am in complete support of reelecting President Lee as president for another term. I would like to see in this term if President Lee is willing to prioritize protecting my children, my 13 -year -old son. He's already confirmed to me. I would like to see in this term if President Lee is willing to prioritize protecting my children, my 13 -year -old son. He's already confirmed to me that my ex -wife is letting somebody rape him. There would have been unnecessary bathing with the children. There were sexual contact between two of the children. And all of this stuff has had a severe impact on the mental health of
my children. They became withdrawn and anxious all the time. And the problem is that my children have never gotten a screening and they need one.
And because of a conflict of interest. And a retired judge and a well -connected attorney, they're involved and they want the sexual abuse to continue.
The county is refusing to help my kids. And as far as I know,
I
mean, the law mandates that they get help. You can't just leave my kids to continue to be sexually molested.
And I'd ask if President Lee, if you do get reelected. And we vote yes on your new term, which I suspect that you will. If you could please help my kids get a screening this term.
Thank
you so much for your time and I appreciate your help.
And that
concludes our public speakers. I'm sorry.
Thank
you. Yes, and as we have California law does prohibit disclosure of information related to certain investigations of suspected child abuse. And that we are not authorized by law to speak to these specifics.
However, our child welfare departments are required by law to immediately cross -report these type of issues with law enforcement and public should be assured that the county does take these allegations of child abuse and neglect seriously and take appropriate actions.
Thank
you. Yes, Vice President Arenas.
Yes, I just wanted to comment on item 56 and thank the county executive for his leadership in making sure that the south part of our county has the children's advocacy.
This is a place where under one roof, children and youth can receive counseling assessments, forensic exams. When there is abuse that is happening, and in the meantime, I know that we are expanding our taxi service and transport to San Jose CAC,
the
Children's Advocacy Center. And in the meantime, we're also going to have community service. solutions be somebody that an agency that accompanies some of the families during the very difficult times
but
I'm looking forward to breaking ground I'm looking forward to actually having a structure out there that not only
that represents
a home for some of our children but also a place that is nearby and just accessible and so I'm really happy about this item and look forward to just having it done and completed
hopefully
a knock on word on wood that everything comes out as well as it can be and that we can see this Advocacy Center finished real soon so thank you oh and then also Casey I know it's been working really hard on this as well so thank you thank you James for your leadership
would you also like to make a motion to approve and I
will make a motion to approve consent items
second
yes I certainly echo your comments regarding item 56 certainly excited to see this Valley Health Center Morgan Hill Children's Advocacy Center to be finally constructed yeah so really excited about that project thank you without further comments let's take a vote all
right by motion of Super Vice President Arenas seconded by Supervisor Abacoga Supervisor Abacoga I
Supervisor
you yes Vice President Arenas yes
President
Lee aye as well motion carries four to zero
great
thank you so now we move on to our public hearing item eight which is the Santa Clara County financing Authority lease revenue bonds do not exceed four and fifty million dollars aggregate principal
and
to open up public hearing I go ahead and use DeGavo any public would like to speak on this item
so
President Lee is a I can just make a brief presentation, overview, and I'm going to speak to both item eight and nine. They are separate public hearings, but they're really interrelated. First, I just want to thank our FAF, finance agency, and county council staff for their hard work in bringing these items forward. What's in front of the board in these set of recommendations related to item eight and nine is our pursuit of opportunities to save the county money, knowing that even modest amounts of savings can add up given the daunting deficit that we face as a result of the unprecedented federal cuts. Specifically
here, the county back
in 2022 entered into a long, long -term lease agreement for a new health clinic near the Valley Medical Center campus. The board made that decision back in 2022 as a result of a needs assessment that looked at what it would cost to renovate and
upgrade
a number of outdated clinical spaces, outpatient clinical spaces on or surrounding the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center campus. And based on that assessment concluded the most cost -effective approach, would be actually to take a new
upgraded
clinical facility that was offered to the county as a new construction. The county then entered into a long -term lease again back in 2022 for this facility. We've pursued, as the board knows, a number of opportunities to try to reduce county costs and increase efficiencies. And what we've been able to identify here is an opportunity to exercise an option under that lease to acquire, that clinical facility, doing so using what are known as lease revenue bonds. That's basically a way for the county, in essence, to get a mortgage to pay for that cost over time. But the annual debt service, the annual payments on that lease revenue bond are lower than the average annual lease
payments on the existing 2022 lease that the county entered into. In other words, we anticipate saving over two and a half million dollars a year. Over the term of the lease for this acquisition, and on top of that, the county will own the land and building instead of merely renting it.
So
this strategy not only results in the county and the public owning this valuable asset, both the land and the building, but doing so with a savings over the 30 -year term of about 112 million
dollars and an annual
average savings of two and a half million. Now, because debt issuances do cost money to actually put together, we've rolled a couple small things in along with it, including the
refunding
of a 2015 lease revenue bond issuance at a lower interest rate, taking advantage of today's market rates, and for the remaining duration of that existing debt service, an annual estimated savings of $945 ,000 a year. So that's in addition to the savings associated with, basically, swapping the county's current lease obligations for the clinic facility with these lease revenue bonds. So from our perspective financially, this is a no -brainer. From a philosophical perspective of public ownership of these kinds of critical assets, this is also a no -brainer. And we're very pleased that staff has pursued these opportunities, negotiated diligently, negotiated actually a $13 million reduction. In purchase price, as part of the early exercise of the
option, has quickly put together the appropriate financing. I mentioned teams across FAF, finance agency, and county council. And while the annual savings here is modest, two and a half million is certainly not the $470 million gap that still remains in front of us for the upcoming fiscal year. Each bit counts. And we're... And we're continuing to ask every department across the county organization to take every step we can, push every button, pull every lever, and million by million, we will help make that difference. So we're very pleased to bring this recommendation forward. We're happy to answer questions. Item 8 is the bond issuance. Item 9 is the purchase. But given that the bond issuance is
for the purchase, we're presenting those two items together. And we do have staff from FAF, county executive's office, and finance agency and county council here if the board has questions.
Thank you. All right. Thank you, James. First, actually, Vice President, do you mind if I have the public speak first? So, Rhonda, how many people would like to speak on this item in the public? I currently have one speaker for item number 8. Okay. Let's do two minutes. All right. We're closing the queue at one speaker. Cindy, please come forward. Cindy
H. Oh, here she comes.
Thank you.
And first thing I would like to ask, this is a public hearing. And when did you post public hearing notice? And where did you post it?
So I see this kind of public hearing on the agenda several times. But I don't really pay attention to it. But today, I really want to ask, again, where did you post the public hearing notice and where? So I don't want to just come here and figure out, oh, you just have a public hearing. And all through 8, 9, 10, 11, it's all about purchasing property. I don't think you would tell your children, say, oh, you can go to the department store and pick whatever. You can pick whatever you want and just swipe your credit card, even if you don't have the money.
Let me, I think we all remember the urgent campaign advertising in last year's special election say, without Measure 8, our local hospital clinic, trauma center, burn unit will all face potentially shutdown due to federal budget cut. In order to fund a shortfall about $330 million annually, we need to pay more in sales tax. And then I see this item 8, the reason for recommendation. Say the Bond Artified Medical Office Building, Bascom Station, the four Santa Carla Valley health care hospitals. I don't really know what that means. Do we know what that means? We need more hospital. The total amount of the bond is $432 million. We already have no money for hospital.
Thank you.
And
this concludes our public speakers on item 8. Yes, so go ahead and now the public, okay, now I believe we can say the public hearing is now closed. And any questions, comments
from our board? Yes, Vice President. Thank you. I do understand. I understand when there is investments that we need to make within our community, and this is certainly one of those investments that makes sense to me. I have previously have said, you know, we have to be careful about purchases that we make, but when we see in the long run, and we're not short -sighted, when we see in the long run, this will create a lot of savings for our county service, as well as equity in providing, you know, a better life for our community. Yes. And I just want to recognize that if we don't still do the level of fitness and medical care
in the communities that need it, I am absolutely supportive of this. I also want us to continue to take a look at our systems to see which facilities need continue to meet some high stakes or
our high
needs. For example, St. Louis hospital, even though we've purchased it seven years ago, just last week we had a ribbon cutting for Rs. 55 ,000. for cardiac diagnostic services. This means my community has been without diagnostic services, cardiac diagnostic services for seven years.
And
so I want to make sure that these kinds of,
these kinds of services are identified in some way.
And
I know that this has to do with our revenue bonds, but any savings I would love for you to consider South County as it continues to have an emergency room that is in the parking lot.
So
I love that we are continuing to make smart investments and that we are creating, you know, savings.
And
although it's small, I think to me, it's significant to a million dollars. There's nothing to sneeze at.
I
think it's great. And I would love for some level of consideration for South County. As I always do within my comments.
So
anyways, I'll go ahead and move,
make a motion to approve items.
We
are doing both items eight and nine, correct?
Or
is this just a hearing for item eight?
This is just for item eight.
Okay,
so
I'll make the motion to approve item eight.
I'd like to second that.
And
then if I may make some. Good, go ahead, please. Comments.
Thank
you.
Thank
you presently.
And
thank you to staff for bringing this forward.
I
very much support administration's recommendation.
So
this is item eight and nine.
I'll
just make my comments together as well. Purchasing this property at South Bascom Avenue is a smart fiscal management, I believe,
in
that it saves $112 million over 30 years. And even though the two and a half million
year
made, two and a half million years is still going to be a year. million dollars a year is modest in our large budget but it's really quite significant and when we're looking at um budget reductions we are talking in we're you know going to millions and hundreds of thousands of dollars
so
um i see like some of our programs at a cost of two and a half million dollars that we can save
um
so to me this is quite significant
uh
since we've already committed to this facility
uh
through our 2022 lease um this you know the question really is do we want to pay rent for 30 years and owe nothing or convert those payments into building ownership while saving that 112 million
dollars to
me it's a very um pretty obvious financial decision
um so
we've and then i appreciate staff negotiating the almost 14 million dollar reduction in the purchase price
um
so i with this we are you know
building equity
saving money and it's just a practice that i've engaged in when i was a city council member i just very strongly believe in owning as many assets as possible as as we can use those as opportunities to generate revenue down the road
and
um you know and so and then bonding um you know something i learned very early on is that we can use those as opportunities to generate revenue down the road and um you know to be able to finance it over time as generations will be using these facilities these lands
it
makes a lot of sense to me so it's just like frankly do you want to rent a place or you know buy a home if you can afford to buy a home
i
think most people realize that's a strong good investment
and
you know as a county um yes we provide services
but
given what's happening at the federal level and the state level too
more
and more as i've been doing this for almost two decades i feel that you know it's harder we can't really rely on other um levels of government for our funding at all times we have to look at ways to become more and more self -sufficient
and
um these are the types of practices the financial practices
that
um i um i believe are ways for us to be able to do that
so
with that um i very much uh support this and happy to second the measure uh the motion
thank
you so much
yes
thank
you uh
and
i'm happy to echo the sentiments of my colleagues on this board i want to thank director draper you and your team for this work and james thank you for your presentation you answered all the questions i had on my little notepad here in front of me
um this
is a prime example of local government being nimble and responding to market conditions
just
over a week ago on january 2nd the mercury news real estate reporter um george avalos
wrote
that the bay area office market remains wobbly i guess that's a technical term
um
at the same time
it
prevents presents opportunities for savvy investors
by
that measure the county is demonstrating itself as a savvy investor on this item on these items
um
we are getting a brand new building at 1410 south bascom avenue for 14 million dollars less than its original price then it's their original commitment that we were already bound to
plus
our annual bond payments will be millions less than what we would have paid in rent had we followed the original plan of leasing this building 30 years it has been said already i think it deserves to be reiterated again that the county is poised to save 112 million dollars by purchasing this property versus leasing it
i
also want to give kudos to our staff that we had just done nothing and sat on our hands no one would have remembered this lease
no
one would have made comments on how we spent
but
you are looking at the market
you're
paying attention and acting and reacting in real time to save every dollar we have here at the county so thank you for your work
um and
of course i fully support this item as well
thank
you
vice
president you have any further comments
sure
um
first
of all i just want to thank staff for putting together this really uh
important report in this proposal
this
is no small work
jeff
thanks so much
this
is the type of work that we do as a county
and
i would say one thing though
free
basins on the comments from the public as well
is
that the understanding of these least revenue bonds uh is not easy a lot of people get confused from looking at these numbers and we're talking a lot of big numbers
i
think there might be ways that we could do a better job of making it more understandable for the public
whether
it's graphics or whatnot
in
order to explain the reason how this works
so
i think there may be some work that we could do to make it easier to understand to digest
because
when people don't a lot of times don't understand something
they
come up with other theories and that is what we're causing the doubts of what we're doing
this
specific item i think is actually one where it's fairly um easy for us to to to digest in the sense that we are paying this every month already
we're
paying this every year already
what
we're doing here is we'll be having a lower payment at the end of the day and save the county money at
the bottom
and that's really the bottom line
and
as mentioned by supervisor young and my colleague
that
you know because of the fact that the real estate market in the commercial side
is
actually very wobbly shall we say
this
is actually a very opportune time for those who could actually purchase these properties at this reduced cost
because
if we try to build something like this right now
it
will cost us two or three times what we're paying
that's
the reality
plus
the land
and
we know one thing about lands land prices never goes down
they
always go up
let's
be honest right
so
these opportunities comes up is is up to us to protect the the taxpayers uh funds
so
i think this is a very smart thing that we're doing right now
uh and
certainly we're supporting this
but
we also want to look for more of these opportunities in the future during these uh times
thank
you very much
without
further ado let's go take the vote
thank
you
on
motion of vice president arena seconded by supervisor abe koga
supervisor
abe koga
i supervisor
yung
yes
vice president arenas
yes
president lee
aye
as well
motion
carries four to zero
thank
you
now
moving to item nine
which
is the considered purchase of re -property um as a final movement so go ahead and open the public hearing using this gavel
um and
again any members of public would like to speak on this item
we
basically spoke already but if anything else to add
i
do currently have three speakers in chambers and no speakers on zoom
sure
let's do uh two minutes each
all
right
we
are closing the queue at three speakers
um
our speakers are alice k cindy h and brian b
so
um i have questions
i
finally look into it a little bit
and
uh of course i mean everything would look like a saving if you have overpaid long time ago
yeah but
you know i think it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's an inflate a price so i look at the you know for one one four one zero south baskin
uh
and i'm looking at the zero estimate
and
you look like and and i think This is kind of not not complete accurate
but
uh this the 1410 it's only 299494 whatever right
okay and
then that's the that's that's at that's the men
okay and
then i'm looking at the so that's why i have a question if anyone has any questions question, okay? Because you're asking for $340 million, right?
And
then the valuation for that property,
you
know, it's like $24 million,
but
I think that's a little bit low.
Okay, so
I'm looking at it.
This
property was sold in 2022 for $26 million,
okay?
And then we're looking at the public tax history that it was assessed at $90 million, but it's still not $340 million.
So
I'm very confused about the number that you guys are getting,
okay?
And, you know,
so
that's something that it's a concern, right? To say that, wait a minute,
you
know, $90 million,
you're
asking for $340 million.
That
is like 277%. And my concern, also my concern is that,
yes,
buying land, individual. It's awesome. I was surprised that both supervisors want to be an investor, too.
So
you're actually losing the property tax
when
we bought it.
So
how are you going to accommodate that loss?
Because
the landlord is not paying for it anymore.
So
I would be looking forward to more transparency,
more
detail, and I'm sure that you guys calculated all that out, but I'm not saying it,
okay?
President Lee,
thank
you very much for providing some additional explanation around that. Thank you.
Thank you. So when you're looking at this, and if we're looking at a property that's valued in hundreds of millions of dollars, that's probably generating over two and a half million dollars. million dollars a year in tax revenue right
so
is this part of what you're looking at and I appreciate what what you said Margaret
in
a sense that it's it's wonderful to have assets
and
I can go leave the doors here and I can run into probably 100 people
and
I bet you 90 of those people would love to be able to afford a house in this county
and
they can't afford it right
they
have to live within their means
we
don't
I
appreciate you all looking after the financial interest but it would be helpful for us as taxpayers to understand
is
this really a cost savings
or
is this the county acquiring additional assets
I
mean you guys just acquired a warehouse last year a couple months ago
close
to the SAP center
it's
a dilapidated warehouse I
mean
this is blight on the community and it's a county asset
so
are these things that you're thinking through right the landlord has to pay for the maintenance of that building not the county
so
if we really kind of pencil this thing out and look is there really a cost savings here or is this just you know
friends
of people in power that are looking to make money on these transactions
we
know that happens we read about it all the time
I'm
not saying it's happening in this county
but
it would really be helpful to have a lot more transparency
thank
you and I really enjoyed meeting you with the Veterans Day event
thank
you for all you did there
appreciate
it
thank
you and my name is Cindy
and
I really wonder
we
have a lot of things County supervisor can do but it looks like you all focusing on Real Estate Investment
and
if we have money but we don't so this is a BOM
and
shocking to me is to know this kind of BOM is called Lease Revenue BOM
and
I go check it out
and
in the, I checked them out and everyone said I was think the BOM and I said here is my BOM and what happened was, there are a lot of things county supervisor can do that look like you are all focusing on Real estate investment and if we have money but we don't so this is a bomb shocking to me is to know this kind of BOM, is called lease revenue BOM and I go check it out and the, I just assume that that means lease revenue BOM, isn't that right? found that this kind of lease revenue bomb often are structured to avoid needing voter approval for debt
as
they may qualify under legal exceptions so i just wondered is this bomb that's a reason why it's just need the public hearing
and
then you can vote for it and pass it
under the
radar of voters awareness that we have more debt where
is the accountability
and
again i asked
where
did you send the public hearing notice
still
i have nobody answer me
it
should be very easy to answer
when
and where you post it
so
we can know and be participate your decision
and
not just ask year to tell us it's financially very smart.
It's
a no -brainer decision.
If
we have money,
if
voters know we need to pay more
and
we are on debt, huge debt.
Last
year we have a structured deficit, last year, fiscal year, $250 million. Please consider this year.
I will clarify your question relating to where this was publicized at. By ordinance code, there is a certain amount of time that each of these public hearings are required to be posted before the actual meeting. We do post them in the post record. If you look at the legislative file attached to each of these public hearings, you will see a copy of the notice as it was published in the post record. And Rhonda, just for clarification on the date, this was published on Thursday, correct? Last week? No, our agenda was published last week, but I do know, I did not look up all four of them, but I do know that the first, the revenue
bonds on public item number eight, that was published in the post record on January 5th. January 5th? Yes. Thank you. So usually it's at least 10 days before, but they, different hearings do have different requirements whether they're for both the length of time posted and some of them do require two postings in a paper of general circulation. Right. And when you say paper of general circulation, just to be clarified, it's not necessarily just the San Jose Mercury News. It could be a different publication as well. That is correct. I believe we have nine or 10 general publication newspapers within our jurisdiction. We do tend to use the post record most because The post record. Yes.
It has a shorter lead time. To get it into the publications. Correct. Okay good. Tony, do you have anything to add on this one? I do not presently, I can. Okay. SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE LEGAL RULES REGARDING POSTING IN TERMS OF TIMING AND IN TERMS OF CIRCULATION WERE MET HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NO FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS. I 'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I SEE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. CAN I HAVE A MOTION?
MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ABI KHOGA.
MOTION SECONDED. NO FURTHER COMMENTS. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE.
THANK YOU. MOTION OF SUPERVISOR ARRENAS, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR ABI KHOGA.
I'M SORRY. I
WAS WONDERING. SO SUPERVISOR ARRENAS. NO. SUPERVISOR YOUNG. ABI KHOGA. OKAY. I'M SORRY. SUPERVISOR YOUNG. SUPERVISOR ABI KHOGA. CORRECT. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR ABI KHOGA. AYE. SUPERVISOR YOUNG. YES. SUPERVISOR ARRENAS. YES. PRESIDENT LEE. AYE AS WELL. MOTION CARRIES FOUR TO ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND NOW MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER 10, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON 264 NORTH MORRISON AVENUE IN SAN JOSE.
AND STAFF, JAMES, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THIS ONE FIRST BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC?
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILE, AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU. LET'S
GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
I CURRENTLY HAVE TWO SPEAKERS IN CHAMBERS AND NONE ON ZOOM. OKAY. GOOD. TWO MINUTES EACH, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE CLOSING THE SPEAKER QUEUE AT 2. WE HAVE CINDY H. AND ALICE K.
THE MIC'S NOT WORKING YET. ONE SECOND. IT'S NOT WORKING. HERE WE GO. GO AHEAD, PLEASE. SO
I WANT, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SECOND WHAT CINDY HAS SAID ABOUT PUBLIC HEARING. I MEAN, WE, I HAD BUSINESS BEFORE. YES, WHEN I NEED TO POST SOMETHING, I PUT IT ON THE CHEAPEST AND NOBODY WILL READ IT, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S A COMMON SENSE, BUT IT'S SHOCKING FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WHICH THIS IS A VITAL IMPORTANCE, TO PUT IT ON POST RECORD, WHICH MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTS, AND READ IT. OKAY? SO MY REQUEST IS THAT IF YOU REALLY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS, TO WANT PUBLIC TO HAVE A, HAVE A, KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, YOU BETTER PUT IT ON A BETTER PAPER, LIKE A MERCURY NEWS OR SOMETHING, THAT PEOPLE
READ, SO THEY CAN PARTICIPATE. SO OTHERWISE, I HAVE THE SAME COMMENT, LIKE, RIGHT, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE VALUATION. MY GENERAL CONCERN IS THAT THE VALUATION, YOU KNOW, THAT IF YOU LOOK AT A FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THESE PRICES, THIS, THIS ONE IS A, BASED ON MORAL, MOBOTO ESTIMATE, IT'S BETWEEN 4 .79 MILLION AND 5 .86 MILLION. AND THEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR 7 MILLION AND SIX, FOR 7 ,000 SQUARE FEET HOUSE, I MEAN, PRETTY MUCH A HOUSE WITH SOME PARKING LOT, RIGHT? SO, SO THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT WE REALLY NEED ANSWER, RIGHT? DEVELOPS IN THE DETAIL. IF YOU GUYS SIMPLY PUT A PRO AND CON, I MEAN, NOT PRO AND CON, LIKE, YOU
KNOW, A LEDGER, RIGHT? PLUS AND MINUS, RIGHT? IN NUMBERS, EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND. SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT KIND OF SAVING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. RIGHT? AND SAY WHAT THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS, AND THEN WE GO THROUGH THAT. WHAT, WHAT KIND OF SAVING YOU GET VERSUS WHAT KIND OF EXPENSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE. I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE, INCOME AND EXPENSE. THEN EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND. RIGHT? WE'RE ON YOUR SIDE. BUT, BUT THIS, YOU KNOW, LIKE, AT THE TIME WHERE EVERYBODY'S CONCERNED, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BANKRUPT, WE HAVE NO MONEY, AND, AND, AND THIS IS HAPPENING, AND LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF OVER, OVERPAY EVERYTHING, THAT IS A PROBLEM FOR
US.
THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS CINDY. AGAIN. AND I JUST WANT TO, YOU PUT YOURSELF IN THE, BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE CITICOM VALLEY. IF, IF YOU ARE THE MANAGER OR THE CEO OF A COMPANY, CAN YOU BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN FOR THE, EVERY YEAR YOU HAVE THIS KIND OF MILLION, 200, 300, 400 MILLION. DEFICIT TO SUSTAIN YOUR COMPANY.
WE ARE NOT HERE TO CRITICIZE YOU OR GIVE YOU A HARD TIME. ACTUALLY, WE ARE ON THE SAME BOAT. THE BOND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHO ARE GOING TO PAY THAT? WE, TAXPAYER. AND I BELIEVE EACH OF YOU ALSO TAXPAYER. YOU ALSO NEED TO PAY THAT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING COME FROM THE HEAVEN. THE MONEY WILL NOT COME FROM THE HEAVEN. EVERY. THE REASON WHY I'M HERE. BECAUSE I RETIRED. MY HUSBAND STILL NEED TO WORK. OTHERWISE, WE WILL HAVE NO INCOME. SO WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING JUST NUMBER. AND ALSO, EVERY SINGLE MONEY IS COME FROM SOMEWHERE. YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BOND AND LIKE, OKAY, IT'S VERY FINANCIAL, SMART TO DO SO AND
THAT. I KNOW, YOU ARE EXPERT. BUT WHERE THE MONEY? WHERE THE MONEY COME? YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ONE HERE, TAXPAYER. YOU NEED TO HAVE A SHARE. AND WE NEED TO PARTICIPATE. AND WE CANNOT JUST COME HERE AND SAY, OH, MY GOODNESS. YOU MIGHT ANOTHER THING. BUT YOU KEEP SAYING IN THE SPECIAL ELECTION, THIS ELECTION, WHEN WE GOT THE PROPERTY TAX.
NOTICE, WE NEED TO PAY MORE AND MORE AND MORE. THIS BOND, SCHOOL BOND, SCHOOL NO MONEY, HERE NO MONEY, EVERYWHERE IS NO MONEY. I JUST WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT. WE REALLY NEED TO.
THANK YOU. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
THANK YOU. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS POINT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ANY COMMENTS? MOTION FROM OUR BOARD MEMBERS. I SAW THE LIGHT FIRST FOR SUBVISOR AVACOGA. THANK
YOU, PRESIDENT LEE. HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION AND HAD A FEW COMMENTS AND ACTUALLY MAYBE WANTED TO ASK STAFF FOR SOME RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSES TO WHAT WE ARE HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC. LET ME GET
A SECOND. SECOND.
PERFECT. THANK YOU. SO I SUPPORT THIS MOTION, AGAIN, BY WE TALKED ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF DOING SO.
I WOULD SAY OR I GUESS MY QUESTION, I WAS GOING TO ASK STAFF IF YOU CAN MAYBE HELP CLARIFY FOR THE PUBLIC. I KNOW WE GO THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS.
DOING APPRAISALS AND SO FORTH. SO, YOU KNOW, I TRUST THAT WE 'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE. BUT IF YOU CAN MAYBE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR TO THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
SURE.
A
COUPLE THINGS.
SO,
YES, WE DO EXTENSIVE DUE DILIGENCE.
WE
DO AN APPRAISAL.
THE
PURCHASE PRICE HERE IS SUPPORTED BY APPRAISED VALUE. AS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILE, THE PROPOSED PURCHASE PRICE IS NOT TO EXCEED FIVE. FOUR POINT ONE MILLION DOLLARS. THE REMAINDER OF THE AMOUNT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A CAPITAL PROJECT ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVEMENTS.
SO
TO BE CLEAR, THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE ACQUISITION IS NOT TO EXCEED FOUR POINT ONE MILLION. AND THAT'S SAID AT LEAST THREE OR FOUR TIMES IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILE. THE PURCHASE PRICE IS SUPPORTED BY AN APPRAISAL, LIKE I SAID. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ALSO ALWAYS DO WITH PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS A LEASE VERSUS BUY ANALYSIS. TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE
TO
LEASE OR ACQUIRE A FACILITY.
THIS
PARTICULAR FACILITY IS FOR SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT SERVICES. THE FUNDING SOURCE IS THE COUNTY'S OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS, WHICH IS A RESULT OF THE MAJOR LITIGATION SETTLEMENTS WITH MANUFACTURERS OF OPIOIDS. SO IT'S DIRECTLY RELATED TO MITIGATING THE HARMS THAT THOSE MANUFACTURERS CAUSED BY CONTRIBUTING TO THE OPIOIDS EPIDEMIC. IN OUR COMMUNITY AND DELIVERING THOSE SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT SERVICES.
SO
THERE'S ALSO A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FUNDING SOURCE AND THE FUNDING USES.
THIS
PROPERTY HAS LONG BEEN A PART OF THE CAPITAL PLAN THAT'S BEEN IN FRONT OF THE BOARD MONTH OVER MONTH ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES DISCUSSIONS AND EXPANSIONS BOTH IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AT THE QUARTERLY REPORTS AND MONTHLY IN FRONT OF THE FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE.
THANK
YOU. AND THEN I WANTED TO ADD, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I DON'T HAVE THIS RIGHT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO DO THIS IN 2029 ANYWAY BY FAST -FORWARDING IT. IT PUTS US IN A STRONGER POSITION TO APPLY FOR PROPOSITION ONE BOND FUNDING. IS THAT CORRECT?
IT DOES. JUST TO BE TOTALLY HONEST, I'M NOT TERRIBLE ABOUT THAT. I'M VERY
OPTIMISTIC THAT THE
COUNTY WILL ULTIMATELY GET MUCH PROPOSITION ONE FUNDING. WE OF COURSE WILL CONTINUE TO BE PURSUING THAT.
BUT
AS WE 'VE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST, THE COUNTY HASN'T RECEIVED FUNDING IN PRIOR ROUNDS.
BUT
THIS IS A REALLY CRITICAL FACILITY FOR SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT SERVICES
AND
IT DOES MAKE SENSE BASED ON THE ANALYSIS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ACQUISITION RATHER THAN CONTINUING WITH A LEASE APPROACH FOR THE SITE.
THANK YOU. AND THEN WE SAVE HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ON THE LEASE BUYOUT OBLIGATION. THAT'S RIGHT. SO WE SAVE MONEY,
WE
GET THE ASSET, PUTS US IN A STRONGER POSITION FOR APPLYING FOR BONDS, WHETHER WE GET IT OR NOT IS A DIFFERENT CASE.
BUT
I THINK WE WANT TO ALWAYS BE IN THE STRONGEST POSITION WE CAN BE IN.
AND
BECAUSE IT COMES FROM THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS, IT IS NOT GENERAL FUND MONEY.
AND
I THINK THAT, I MEAN, I WILL SAY IT. THAT IS OFTEN THE CHALLENGE THAT WE DO GET FUNDING FOR. WE GET FUNDING FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES THAT ARE RESTRICTED FOR CERTAIN USES.
AND
I THINK THERE'S, IT'S CHALLENGING TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT. SO THE MORE WE CAN CLARIFY, I THINK, THE BETTER FOR THE, FOR US TO BE TRANSPARENT WITH THE PUBLIC.
SO
FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, I THINK IT'S A GOOD DECISION.
AND
WE 'VE ALREADY MADE THE MOTION.
SO
THANK YOU.
THANK
YOU, STAFF.
SO
IS IT YOU?
THANK YOU.
AND
I VERY SECOND THE MOTION.
SO,
YOU KNOW, KIND OF SOME INDICATION OF WHERE MY COMMENTS ARE HEADING. I HAD A CHANCE TO TOUR THIS FACILITY BEFORE IT WAS OPEN. I MET WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THERE, MR. ORAVILLE. I WAS MOVED BY THE INTENTIONAL DESIGN.
I
WANT TO MAKE SURE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH STAFF IS HERE.
I
'LL SEND THEM A NOTE.
OH,
THANK YOU. SO, YOU KNOW, I WAS MOVED BY THE INTENTIONAL DESIGN. AND IT WAS REALLY CENTERED AROUND CLIENTS TO BE KIND TO THEMSELVES AND WORK TOWARDS PROGRESS.
AND
SOMETHING THAT'S VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THIS SITE IS THAT THERE'S A SEPARATE WOMEN'S WING. SO TREATMENT BEDS. SPECIFICALLY FOR WOMEN COMING OUT OF INCARCERATION, COMING OUT OF RECOVERY. YOU KNOW, IMMEDIATE NEED INTO RECOVERY. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CONTINUE TO LACK. YOU KNOW, BEING AT THIS COUNTY FOR A WHILE, I 'VE HEARD THE OUTCRY OF THE PUBLIC OF THIS BOARD, OF PREVIOUS BOARDS, TO ADD MORE SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT BEDS TO OUR INVENTORY.
AND
ONE THING THAT I WAS THINKING WHEN I WAS TAKING A TOUR OF THIS FACILITY IS THAT KNOWING THAT IT WAS A LEASE AT THAT TIME. THAT MARKET CONDITIONS COULD TAKE THIS AWAY.
AS
IT HAS TAKEN AWAY OTHER TREATMENT BEDS IN THE COUNTY'S INVENTORY IN THE PAST. SO, AGAIN, I WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR OUR STAFF PIVOTING IN REAL TIME, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MARKET, CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS.
AND
I APPRECIATE THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE NOT DONE THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN ARGUABLY FISCALLY NEGLIGENT. BUT THE GREATER NEGLIGENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO OUR CLIENTS. AND DIRE NEED OF THESE TREATMENT SERVICES. AND BY OWNING THIS BUILDING, WE HAVE AN AUTHORITY TO PRESERVE THESE SERVICES FOR AS LONG AS WE NEED THEM. AND HOPEFULLY THE MISSION OF THIS COUNTY IS TO WORK OURSELVES OUT OF THAT NEED. SO THAT NO LONGER TREATMENT FACILITIES ARE NEEDED IN THIS WAY. I'M HAPPY THAT THIS WILL ADD 32 BEDS, 22 RESIDENTIAL BEDS AND 10 WITHDRAWAL MANAGEMENT BEDS TO OUR COUNTY SERVICE OFFERINGS. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. THAT NOT SPECIFIC TO FACILITIES AND FLEET, DIRECTOR DRAPER, BUT TO OUR ADMINISTRATION, OR MAYBE
TO OUR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH STAFF.
WHILE
WE ARE USING OUR OPIATE SETTLEMENT FUNDING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, DO WE HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH LONG -TERM SERVICE PROVISIONS AS WE LOOK AT OUR FUTURE BUDGET CYCLES?
WE
HAVE THE BUILDING. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE HAVING THE SERVICES.
SO
WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT, BIG PICTURE, STEPHANIE. THANK YOU FOR STEPPING BACK. WE HAVE VERY SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT OVERALL
SERVICE
FUNDING FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES. WE WILL BE HAVING A STUDY SESSION WITH THE BOARD AT THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY FOCUSED ON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH. BUT THE REALITY IS ALL OF OUR CRITICAL FUNDING STREAMS FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, THAT INCLUDES SIGNIFICANTLY MEDICAID, BUT ALSO THE FORMER MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT FUNDING, AS WELL AS 2011 REALIGNMENT AND OTHER STATE FUNDING SOURCES, ARE ALL BEING SEVERELY IMPACTED.
SO
ACROSS OUR BROADER CONTINUUM OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE SHIFT OF FUNDING AWAY FROM COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH -RELATED OPERATIONS. THAT SAID, THIS PARTICULAR SITE, WHICH IS FOCUSED ON SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT, HAS CLEARLY BEEN A VERY HIGH PRIORITY FOR THE BOARD. THIS, LIKE I SAID, HAS BEEN PART OF. A VERY FOCUSED AND DELIBERATE EFFORT HERE.
AND
SO THIS IS A FACILITY THAT WE DO BELIEVE WILL BE
PRIORITIZED
FOR LONG -TERM CONTINUED SERVICE DELIVERY. 31 OF THE 32 BEDS ARE CURRENTLY IN USE.
SO
IT'S A VERY HIGHLY UTILIZED AND ACTIVE SITE. BUT WE DO HAVE CONCERNS MORE BROADLY ABOUT THE ENTIRE RANGE OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES. AND AS YOU 'LL HEAR FROM ME LATER WITH AN UPDATE ON THE STATE BUDGET, CONCERNS ABOUT THE STATE'S APPROACH TO THOSE SERVICES AND OTHERS.
THANK YOU, JAMES. AT LEAST OUR SITE WILL NOT BE A CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE IN TERMS OF HAVING A PLACE TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT BEDS.
THESE
SERVICES ARE CRITICAL AND NOT ONLY PROVIDE FOR THOSE WE TREAT,
BUT
ALSO IMPROVES COMMUNITY PUBLIC SAFETY,
REDUCING
HOMELESSNESS IN A MEANINGFUL WAY BY HAVING A PLACE FOR INDIVIDUALS SUFFERING FROM SUBSTANCE USE WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS OR WOMEN SUFFERING IN SILENCE. AND THOSE CONCERNS FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE HAVE TURNED TO SUBSTANCES AS A SALVE, AS WE HAVE SEEN STATISTICALLY. SO TODAY WE FEEL LIKE WE ARE MARKING A STEP IN THE PURCHASE OF A BUILDING. WHAT WE GET OUT OF IT AS A COMMUNITY IS SO MUCH MORE, AND I THANK THE STAFF COLLECTIVELY FOR TAKING THIS STEP.
THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I WANT TO THANK OUR STAFF FOR WORKING WITH OUR SELLER TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY SOONER THAN OUR LEASE AGREEMENT,
AND
THAT CERTAINLY HELPS REDUCE THE OBLIGATION. AND ALSO HELP OUR COUNTY SAVE, YOU KNOW, HALF A MILLION DOLLARS EASILY.
AS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT,
THE
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION LOWERS THE COUNTY'S UPFRONT ACQUISITION COSTS, IMPROVES OVERALL FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF THE PURCHASE. AND AS WE ARE STARING AT THIS HUGE BUDGET CHALLENGE AHEAD,
WE
CERTAINLY NEED TO PINCH EVERY PENNY WE CAN.
BASED ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS EARLIER,
ONE
SPEAKER MENTIONED THAT THEY LOOK AT THE WEBSITE, THE MOVADO, SAYING IT'S BUSINESS. IT'S ABOUT $4 .7 TO $5 .86 MILLION. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WE ARE ACTUALLY PURCHASING IT AT BELOW THAT PRICE.
WE
ARE PURCHASING AT $4 .1 MILLION, ACTUALLY.
SO
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BETTER THAN WHAT WAS SHOWN.
THE
OTHER $3 MILLION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ACTUALLY THE RENOVATION, TO MAKE THOSE BETS AVAILABLE THAT WE'RE INCREASING.
SO
JUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS ONE IS EASIER TO EXPLAIN, AND I COULD TRY TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW,
THAT
WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING A REALLY GOOD DEAL. ON THIS, OKAY? AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY TO JAMES, TO JEFF DRAPER, AND ALSO DR. SHERRY TORRELL, AND YOUR AMAZING TEAMS OF PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, JOB WELL DONE. INCREASING THESE BETS IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR COUNTY HAS NEEDED FOR SO LONG.
FOR
THE PAST FOUR YEARS AFTER WE DECLARED THE MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE AS A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS LED BY THE COLLEAGUE WHO IS NOT HERE, SUSAN ELENBERG, AND MYSELF, JOINTLY PUSHING THIS
TOGETHER
WITH UNAMSESVILT,
THIS
IS TRULY A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS. THAT WE ARE MAKING SIGNIFICANT STRIDES. AND THIS IS EXACTLY THE BETS THAT WE NEEDED.
IT
TAKES A WHILE TO GET THERE, BUT WE'RE GETTING THERE.
JUST
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.
AND
THIS IS INCREASING ACCESS TO LIFE -SAVING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR SO MANY.
THANK
YOU SO MUCH.
AND
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, LET'S GO TAKE THE VOTE.
ON MOTION OF SUPERVISOR ABACOGA, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR YOUNG.
SUPERVISOR ABACOGA. AYE. SUPERVISOR YOUNG.
YES.
VICE PRESIDENT ARRANAS. YES. PRESIDENT LEE.
AYE
AS WELL. MOTION CARRIES FOUR TO ZERO.
THANK
YOU.
OKAY.
MOVING ITEM TO ITEM 11, WHICH IS THE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY ON MOUNT MADONNA ROAD.
AND
I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE GAVEL.
YOUR
STAFF WILL GO IN, PLEASE.
GOOD
MORNING.
GOOD
MORNING.
TODD
LOFGREN.
HI.
PARKS DIRECTOR FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY.
I'M
HERE WITH KATHY BRADLEY, OUR PRINCIPAL REAL PROPERTY AGENT. WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE. WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, TODD.
YES,
CHIEF, GO AHEAD.
I
DO JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT, THE VOTERS OF OUR COUNTY CREATED AND ESTABLISHED BACK IN THE 1970S A PARKS CHARTER FUND PURSUANT TO THE MANDATE BY THE VOTERS.
THE
COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT IS FUNDED SEPARATELY AND APART FROM THE REST OF THE COUNTY ORGANIZATION AND IN FACT IS MANDATED, MANDATED TO SPEND A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THAT FUNDING ON PROPERTY ACQUISITION. THIS PURCHASE, THEREFORE, IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND THE REST OF THE COUNTY ORGANIZATION AND IS FUNDED EXCLUSIVELY BY THAT PARKS CHARTER FUND. AND THAT'S GOING BACK TO ONE OF THE EARLIER COMMENTS ABOUT HOW COMPLEX THE COUNTY BUDGET IS. THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A PIECE OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT IS FISCALLY SEPARATE FROM THE REST OF THE COUNTY, BOTH FOR OPERATIONS BUT ALSO FOR LAND ACTIVITY. AND THAT IS A PROPERTY THAT HAS AN OBLIGATION UNDER THAT VOTER APPROVED MEASURE TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY
ON AN ONGOING BASIS. WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, JAMES. YES, VICE PRESIDENT.
I'M HAPPY TO MAKE COMMENTS.
SURE.
I
CAN ACTUALLY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST AND THEN WE 'LL GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.
OKAY.
LET'S SEE.
HOW
MANY IN PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
I
HAVE NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS
SPECIFIC ITEM. THANK YOU. YES, VICE PRESIDENT. WONDERFUL. I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS TRAIL CONNECTION, AND CONGRATULATIONS. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ON BOARD FOR VERY LONG, SO I KNOW IT'S AN HONOR FOR YOU TO ALSO CONTINUE TO DO WHAT OUR PREVIOUS DIRECTOR AND WHAT OUR DEPARTMENT AND OUR COMMUNITY HOLDS AS REALLY VALUABLE AND IMPORTANT, AND THAT IS CONNECTIVITY. I KNOW THIS TERRAIN IS IMPORTANT. IT'S MORE CONVENIENT AND ALSO LESS CHALLENGING FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND FOR FOLKS WHO LOVE THE OUTDOORS. I MEAN, THE BENEFITS ARE JUST ALL AROUND, RIGHT? AND SO THIS IS IN MY DISTRICT, AND I'M JUST REALLY EXCITED. IT'S IN THE YUVA'S CANYON COUNTY PARK IN MORGAN HILL. AND I JUST WANT
TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS. I KNOW THAT WE, AND YOU 'VE BEEN WORKING WITH US. YOU 'VE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD. CONNECTIVITY OVERALL FOR TRAILS. I THINK PEOPLE FORGET THAT SOMETIMES THE COUNTY DOES THIS FOR OUR RESIDENTS, AND THAT IS TO ENCOURAGE THE OUTDOORS TO PRESERVE OUR TRAIL SYSTEM AND CONTINUE IT AS WELL AS PROTECT OUR WILDLIFE. AND SO CONGRATULATIONS. THIS IS WONDERFUL. I'M GLAD THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TO MENTION WHERE THE MONEY WAS COMING FROM AND THAT OUR COUNTY EXECUTIVE DID THAT FOR US. AND SO THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE CONTINUE TO INVEST BACK INTO OUR COMMUNITY, BACK INTO OUR SYSTEM. SO THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS. AND THEN WITH THAT, I'M GOING
TO
MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. THANK YOU. SECOND THAT. I 'LL BE COOKING. MOTION SECONDED. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?
NOPE.
ALL RIGHT. I JUST NOTICED THAT THIS IS ABOUT A MILLION DOLLAR FROM OUR PARK CHARTER FUND, AND WE'RE BUYING 95 ACRES. AT $10 ,000 AN ACRE DIFFERENT. I THINK WE'RE DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB. FOR THE PUBLIC. OKAY. THAT'S ALL. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. LET'S GO
TAKE THE VOTE. I'M SORRY. I MISSED THE MOTION IN SECONDER.
MOTION IN SECOND BY
ABACOGA. THANK YOU.
MOTION OF SUPERVISOR ARRENAS, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR ABACOGA. SUPERVISOR ABACOGA. AYE. SUPERVISOR YOUNG. YES. VICE PRESIDENT ARRENAS. YES, MA 'AM. PRESIDENT LEE. AYE AS WELL. MOTION CARRIES 4 -0. GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER 12, WHICH IS RECEIVING A REPORT FROM THE COUNTY EXEC.
GOOD MORNING,
PRESIDENT LEE, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. A COUPLE ITEMS FOR TODAY'S COUNTY EXECUTIVE REPORT. FIRST, WE CONTINUE TO MONITOR CONCERNING DEVELOPMENTS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL ON A VARIETY OF FRONTS. ONE ITEM SPECIFICALLY THAT WE 'VE BEEN TRACKING IS THE EXPIRATION OF THE ENHANCED PREMIUM SUBSIDIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE EXCHANGES PROVIDED UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. AS THE BOARD IS UNDOUBTEDLY WELL AWARE, THIS WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS AT CORE ISSUE DURING THE SHUTDOWN OF THE GOVERNMENT WHERE THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS WERE TRYING TO GET AN EXTENSION ON THOSE SUBSIDIES INTO THE SUBSEQUENT THREE YEARS. THERE CONTINUE TO BE SOME NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS TOPIC, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THE OPEN ENROLLMENT PERIOD
HAS NOW CLOSED. AND IT LOOKS LIKE ACCORDING TO NATIONAL REPORTING THAT 1 .4 MILLION AMERICANS HAVE DROPPED HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE BY CONGRESS TO EXTEND THAT PREMIUM SUPPORT. WE WILL HAVE MORE INFORMATION IN THE FUTURE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS AND IMPACTS HERE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY. BUT UNDOUBTEDLY THEY HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT. AND IN ADDITION TO THE COVERAGE LOSSES ALTOGETHER, AS A RESULT OF THAT FAILURE BY CONGRESS, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, VERY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF FOLKS WE UNDERSTAND WHO HAVE SHIFTED TO A HIGHER DEDUCTABLE PLAN, WHICH IS LIKELY TO HAVE SOME RAMIFICATIONS FOR US AS WELL AS THOSE INDIVIDUALS FOREGO MORE ROUTINE CARE AND APPEAR ONLY WHEN CONDUCTED. AND
THEN WHEN THESE CONDITIONS BECOME EMERGENT AND REQUIRE MORE EXPENSIVE CARE AND TREATMENT. SO WE 'LL PROVIDE A MORE FULSOME UPDATE. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF OPTIMISM THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECENTLY PASSED SOME EXTENSION OF THE SUBSIDIES. WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE SENATE. BUT THE REALITY IS THE DISRUPTION HAS ALREADY OCCURRED GIVEN THAT OPEN ENROLLMENT HAS CLOSED. AND WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN, WHO KNOWS. AND IF IT DOES, IT MIGHT BE FAR TOO LATE. BUT WE 'LL CONTINUE TO TRACK THAT. THE OTHER BIG PIECE OF NEWS IS ON FRIDAY THE GOVERNOR RELEASED HIS PROPOSED STATE BUDGET FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR. WE'RE STILL REVIEWING THIS VERY CLOSELY. BUT A COUPLE SIGNIFICANT THINGS TO NOTE. FIRST,
KIND OF TOP LINE, THE GOVERNOR IN HIS PROPOSED BUDGET HAS A VERY DIFFERENT REVENUE ASSUMPTION THAN THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST. PROJECTING A MODEST SHORTFALL OF ONLY $2 .9 BILLION INSTEAD OF THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST PROJECTION OF ALMOST $18 BILLION. THE L .A. BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO PROJECTIONS IS THAT THE L .A .O. FORECAST PREDICTED ECONOMIC DOWNTURNS, WHEREAS THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET REVENUE ESTIMATES DON'T. OF COURSE, THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY UPDATED IN THE MAY REVISE. BUT SIGNIFICANT FOR US IS THAT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET REVENUE ESTIMATES DON'T. IT IS THE TREATMENT IN THE STATE BUDGET OF HR1 RELATED IMPACTS OR RATHER THE LACK OF TREATMENT OF HR1 RELATED IMPACTS IN THE STATE BUDGET. NOT WITHSTANDING THE GOVERNOR'S
REALLY POWERFUL SPEECH ON THURSDAY, THE BUDGET PROPOSAL ITSELF LARGELY IGNORES THE IMPACT OF HR1 ON THE HEALTH CARE OF MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS. IT FORTUNATELY DOESN'T DO A LOT OF NEW DAMAGE IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. IN OTHER WORDS, IT DOESN'T LAYER A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL NEW STATE CUTS ON TOP OF THOSE FEDERAL CUTS AS WAS INITIALLY FEARED. BUT IT DOES REALLY NOTHING TO MITIGATE THOSE HEALTH CARE IMPACTS ON CALIFORNIANS. AND I WANT TO CALL OUT A COUPLE THINGS THAT WE 'VE NOTICED RIGHT AWAY, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IN HR1, REFUGEES, ASYLEES, AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ON USE OF THE UNT VISAS, BASICALLY VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OTHER CRIMES, FOLKS WHO ARE
LEGALLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, THERE'S ABOUT 200 ,000 HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WERE KICKED OFF OF MEDICAID. THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET JUST ROLLS THAT POLICY FORWARD AND DOES NOT HAVE THE STATE STEP IN TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THAT COVERAGE AT ALL. THAT PUTS THOSE INDIVIDUALS ON WHAT'S CALLED RESTRICTED VISA. WHICH WILL NOT GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET ONGOING CARE, CHRONIC CARE TREATMENT, PRIMARY CARE, ET CETERA. THAT'S A CONCERN. FOR IHSS, WHICH IS A VERY IMPORTANT PROGRAM FOR THE COMMUNITY, THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET INCLUDES A REDUCTION OF STATE SHARE OF COST BY PASSING ONTO COUNTIES THE FULL COST OF THE GROWTH OF THE IHSS HOURS PER CASE. WE WILL NEED TO ANALYZE THE EXACT
IMPACT OF THAT, BUT GIVEN THE GROWING NATURE OF THAT PROGRAM AND THAT IT IS AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM THAT THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THE NUMBER OF HOURS, THAT'S A VERY CONCERNING AND POTENTIALLY LONG -TERM SIGNIFICANT FISCAL IMPACT ON THE COUNTY. THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET INCLUDES NO BACKFILL OF FUNDS FOR THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT. ADVOCATES INCLUDING THE COUNTY LAST YEAR WERE SUCCESSFUL IN SECURING ONE -TIME FUNDS FROM THE LEGISLATURE TO OFFSET THAT FEDERAL CUT. WE 'LL CONTINUE THAT FIGHT AGAIN THIS YEAR, BUT NO FUNDING INCLUDED IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY INCREASED AUGMENTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SIGNIFICANT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH MANDATES THAT THE STATE HAS PUT ON COUNTIES, ANY NEW
AUGMENTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSING OR HOMELESSNESS -RELATED ISSUES. OR ANY NEW AUGMENTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING PROPOSITION 36 OR OTHER RELATED STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS. THESE ALL CONTINUE TO CONSTITUTE SIGNIFICANT UNFUNDED MANDATES IMPOSED ON COUNTIES. WE OF COURSE NEED TO SEE THE EXACT TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE FOR PIECES OF THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. WE WILL LOOK AT THAT CAREFULLY. AS THE BOARD KNOWS, OUR MAIN FOCUS THE NEXT FEW MONTHS IS GOING TO BE STATE -RELATED ADVOCACY FOR THE STATE TO STEP UP AND HELP MITIGATE HR1 -RELATED IMPACTS. THAT FALLS IN A COUPLE DOMAINS, INCLUDING HELPING KEEP PEOPLE ENROLLED IN THIS VITAL LIFE -SAVING PROGRAM, BUT ALSO PROVIDING DEDICATED FUNDING FOR PUBLIC HOSPITAL SYSTEMS LIKE OURS THAT
FORM THE BACKBONE OF HEALTH CARE FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. AS THE BOARD HAS HEARD BEFORE, PUBLIC HOSPITALS IN CALIFORNIA ARE ONLY 6 % OF THE STATE'S HOSPITALS BUT OPERATE MORE THAN 50 % OF THE TRAUMA AND BURN CENTERS AND TRAIN MORE THAN 50 % OF THE DOCTORS IN CALIFORNIA. AND THE STATE DOES NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT AS PART OF ITS STRATEGY IN MITIGATING FEDERAL IMPACTS AND IN LOOKING AT WHAT'S NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE HEALTH AND WELL -BEING OF ALL CALIFORNIANS AND CONTINUED ACCESS TO CRITICAL CARE. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN THE COMING MONTHS. THE GOOD NEWS IS NO ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT STATE CUSTODY. THAT'S LAYERED ON TOP. THE BAD NEWS IS
CANDIDLY NO MEANINGFUL RESPONSE IN THE STATE BUDGET TO HR1 AND THAT'S VERY CONCERNING GIVEN THAT IT'S THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL FISCAL ACT THAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR. AND SO THE ABSENCE OF A DIRECT RESPONSE TO THAT IS REALLY AN ABDICATION OF LEADERSHIP BY THE STATE AND WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT WORKING IN COLLABORATION WITH OUR DELEGATION, AND PARTNERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA, THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO PARTNER WITH THE STATE TO FILL THAT VACUUM AND ENSURE THAT THE STATE IS SHOWING LEADERSHIP ON THOSE ISSUES AS WELL. THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JAMES. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GETTING A DOUBLE WHAMMY ON THIS HR1 BUSINESS. FIRST YOU GOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CUTTING IT AND WE THOUGHT, OH, THE STATE IS GOING TO HELP US OUT AND APPARENTLY THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL IS NOT. BUT THAT'S NOT THE END, RIGHT? IT'S NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT. THE BUDGET IS THE BUDGET. IT DOES GO THROUGH THE LEGISLATORS, AND OF COURSE WE DO HAVE A VERY STRONG DELEGATION HERE, BOTH IN THE STATE SENATE AND THE STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, SO WE 'LL BE LOBBYING AND ADVOCATING THOSE ISSUES WITH THEM, CORRECT, JAMES?
ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING VERY AGGRESSIVE STEPS FOR ADVOCACY. WE KNOW THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THESE ISSUES. THE IMPACTS ARE VERY REAL AND SIGNIFICANT. ONE OUT OF EVERY FOUR SANTA CLARA COUNTY RESIDENTS RELIES ON MEDICAL, BUT ACTUALLY THAT PERCENTAGE IS MUCH HIGHER IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT FISCAL IMPACTS HERE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY, BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT THAT'S TRUE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND ACROSS THE REST OF THE BAY AREA, AND THAT VERY CRITICAL SERVICES THAT NOT ONLY INDIVIDUALS ON MEDICAL, BUT EVERYONE IN OUR COMMUNITY RELIES ON AND DEPENDS ON UP AND DOWN THE STATE ARE AT RISK AND IN JEOPARDY. ABSENT THE
STATE TAKING A STRATEGIC AND THOUGHTFUL APPROACH. SO WE WILL BE PUSHING VERY HARD ON THESE ISSUES. AND WE'RE NOT SURPRISED THAT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET LOOKS THE WAY IT DOES. OBVIOUSLY, SOME OF THE SPECIFIC DETAILS ARE BEING LOOKED AT AND WE WEREN'T AWARE OF. BUT FROM A BIG PICTURE STANDPOINT, IT'S NOT A SURPRISING SET OF PROPOSALS. IT JUST REAFFIRMS THE HARD WORK THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, BUT WORK THAT WE WILL ENGAGE VIGOROUSLY IN. AND WE HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT WE HAVE GOOD PARTNERS AT THE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL IN THAT WORK. YEAH,
THANK YOU, JAMES, FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
THE OTHER ISSUE YOU MENTIONED IS THE REDUCTION OR THE CUT ON THE IHSS FUNDING FROM THE STATE LEVEL AS WELL. AND AS YOU HAVE RECORDED, WE HAVE CERTAINLY MANY, MANY IHSS MEMBERS THAT COME TO OUR PUBLIC COMMENT, OFTENTIMES REGARDING THAT ISSUE OF THE FUNDING OF THEIR PAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE AWARE OF WHAT THE STATE'S NOT HELPING, THAT THEY COULD ALSO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS AT THE STATE LEVEL. YEAH,
THIS IS A VERY CONCERNING THING FOR COUNTIES RATE LARGE. IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, IT'S FUNCTIONALLY AN UNFUNDED STATE MANDATE TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT 147 MILLION.
AND THIS PROPOSED COST SHIFT TO COUNTIES WOULD EXACERBATE THAT SIGNIFICANTLY. SO IT'S DEFINITELY AN ITEM THAT IN COALITION WITH ALL OF THE OTHER COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE SUPERVISOR ELENBERG IS NOT HERE TODAY, BUT WE WILL OF COURSE BE WORKING WITH HER OFFICE IN THE CONTEXT OF HER ROLE AS PRESIDENT OF CSAC THIS YEAR. BUT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AN ITEM THAT WILL BE ON ALL COUNTIES' RADAR BECAUSE IT'S AN ONGOING COST SHIFT FROM THE STATE TO COUNTIES. THANK YOU, JAMES. YES, GO AHEAD, VICE PRESIDENT.
ACTUALLY, THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK. SO YOU SAID IT PUTS $47 MILLION BACK TO US IN TERMS OF RESPONSIBILITY. DID I HEAR YOU
CORRECTLY? WHAT I WAS SAYING IS TODAY, AS THE LAW STANDS TODAY, SO LEAVING ASIDE THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, RIGHT NOW THE COUNTY GENERAL FUND PAYS ABOUT 147 MILLION. 147 MILLION. TOWARDS IHSS. THE PROPOSAL IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET WOULD REMOVE THE STATE'S SHARE, IN OTHER WORDS, THE STATE'S CONTRIBUTION TO ANY GROWTH IN HOURS PER CASE. AND AS THE BOARD IS AWARE, IF YOU LOOK OVER THE LAST DECADE, THE NUMBER OF HOURS HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY. AND SO THAT COST WILL GROW OVER TIME IF THAT SHIFT OCCURS. WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC FISCAL IMPACT RIGHT NOW FOR THE COUNTY. THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO CALCULATE. BUT IT'S A STATEWIDE ISSUE OF CONCERN THAT BASICALLY TRANSFERS THAT GROWING COST FROM
THE STATE TO COUNTIES.
YEAH. THAT MAKES ME REALLY NERVOUS BECAUSE AS WE KNOW BY 2030 IN THIS COUNTY AND I THINK IN CALIFORNIA AND THEN 2035 IN THE U .S.,
BABY BOOMERS, THE LAST OF THE BABY BOOMERS WILL REACH 65. AND AS WE GET OLDER, WE NEED MORE MEDICAL ATTENTION. AND SO I'M, YOU KNOW, THIS, ANYWAYS, THIS IS JUST REALLY MORE TERRIBLE NEWS.
AND I WONDER HOW WE CAN
MAYBE SHARE SOME OF THIS TERRIBLE NEWS WITH SOME OF THOSE FOLKS WHO COME IN AND SPEAK TO US BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE ARE ULTIMATELY NOT THE ONES COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNOR IS MAKING US NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. WE DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHETHER WHO GETS SERVICES, HOW MANY, WHAT THE GROWTH WILL LOOK LIKE AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT OUR, WHAT AFFORDED BUDGET WE HAVE AND DECIDE WHAT KIND OF HOURS WE CAN PROVIDE, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT CONTROL. SO I THINK THAT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BEGIN TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE FOLKS.
THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT AND WE WILL. BUT I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS VERY IMPORTANT PROGRAM. IT'S A REALLY CRITICAL PROGRAM FOR THE COMMUNITY. BUT THERE'S A TOTAL STRUCTURAL MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROGRAM, CONTROL OVER THE RELEVANT CRITERIA AROUND HOW THE PROGRAM GROWS AND HOW IT LOOKS AND THE COUNTY'S OBLIGATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RELATED TO THE PROGRAM BUT ALSO COST SHARING IN THE PROGRAM. AND IN MY VIEW, IN ORDER FOR THESE KINDS OF PROGRAMS TO IN THE LONG RUN BE SUSTAINABLE AND SUCCESSFUL, YOU HAVE TO ALIGN THOSE PIECES TOGETHER. AND THIS IS A PROGRAM WHERE THOSE PIECES ARE COMPLETELY MISALIGNED. THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL MAKES THAT MISALIGNMENT WORSE, NOT
BETTER, AND WE NEED TO KEEP CONTINUING TO PUSH THE STATE, INCLUDING IN CONVERSATION WITH THE LEGISLATURE, TO ACTUALLY LOOK THE OTHER DIRECTION, WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ALIGNMENT IS BROUGHT CLOSER TOGETHER SO THAT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, AUTHORITY OVER THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE PROGRAM HAS BETTER, IS IN BETTER SYNC SO THAT THE PROGRAM CAN BE STRUCTURED IN A WAY THAT IS MOST EFFECTIVE. BUT IT IS GOING TO GROW IN IMPORTANCE. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, SUPERVISOR. THIS IS A VERY CRITICAL SERVICE FOR VULNERABLE FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS A CONCERNING PROPOSAL BECAUSE WE FULLY EXPECT THE NUMBER OF HOURS TO CONTINUE TO GROW, AND THAT'S NOT A SURPRISE. THE ISSUE HERE
IS WHAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP LOOK LIKE BETWEEN THE STATE AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY?
FAIR ENOUGH. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING THE BEARER OF A LOT OF TERRIBLE NEWS. THE OTHER PIECE THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP WAS THAT WE HAD COMMITTED TO OUR RESIDENTS TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT THE EFFICIENCY OF OUR OWN DEPARTMENTS, EFFECTIVENESS AS WELL AS WE GO ALONG WITH THAT,
ASKED THEM TO SUPPORT MEASURE A THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID, AND THEN, SO NOW, THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BANDED THAT IS HELPING US PUT IT ALL TOGETHER, KEEP IT ALL TOGETHER, BUT THE LAST EFFORT THAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO MAKE IS CONTINUE TO LOOK AT EXTERNAL REVENUE SOURCES, AND SO I WONDER, FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE LOSING THEIR SUBSIDIES, YOU KNOW, OR WHO ARE DROPPING OUT OF OUR INSURANCE OR WHO HAVE NOW A HIGHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TERMS OF COSTS, AND THOSE FOLKS WHO WE KNOW ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY A PREMIUM NOW ON A MONTHLY BASIS THAT THEY NORMALLY WOULDN'T BE DOING BEFORE, HAVE WE THOUGHT ABOUT ANY PHILANTHROPY THAT CAN HELP STEP
IN, AND I KNOW THIS IS A BIG ASK, BUT DURING THE PANDEMIC, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE, THEY WERE A SOURCE OF SOME REALLY GOOD FUNDING. I WONDER IF THEY LOOK AT THIS CRISIS NOW AND ARE AVAILABLE FOR THAT KIND
OF. SUPERVISOR, I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. WE ARE IN THE EARLY STAGES OF RE -EXAMINING OUR PRIMARY CARE ACCESS PROGRAM, WHICH HISTORICALLY SPEAKING WAS THE COUNTY PROGRAM THAT PROVIDED PRIMARY CARE ACCESS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE UNINSURED IN OUR COUNTY. AND BEFORE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, ABOUT 20 % OF PATIENTS WHO CAME TO THE COUNTY HEALTH SYSTEM WERE UNINSURED. AND AFTER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, THAT PERCENTAGE HAS DROPPED DOWN TO BELOW 3%. REALLY REMARKABLE, AND A TESTAMENT TO WHAT AN INCREDIBLE DIFFERENCE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT MADE FOR GIVING PEOPLE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
WE, IN LOOKING AT THE PROGRAM, THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PHILANTHROPY OR OTHERS TO HELP OFFSET SOME OF THOSE COSTS BUT TO ENSURE CONTINUED ACCESS. BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT RECONCEPTION OF THAT MIGHT MAKE SENSE AND BRING IDEAS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FORWARD TO THE BOARD WHEN WE HAVE SOME ANALYSIS AROUND COSTS AND VOLUME AND SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION RELATED TO THAT. SO WE'RE BEGINNING THAT WORK BETWEEN VALLEY HEALTH PLANNING AND HEALTH SYSTEM WHICH ARE THE TWO DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT PROGRAM. IT'S AN EXISTING PROGRAM BUT HAS CHANGED IN ITS SCALE AND SCOPE VERY SIGNIFICANTLY GIVEN THE DWINDLING NUMBERS THAT HAVE NEEDED THAT COVERAGE AND NOW OUR EXPECTATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT GROWTH. WE'RE PRIMARILY EXPECTING
THAT GROWTH TO LARGELY OCCUR AFTER THIS CALENDAR YEAR AS THE WORK RULE REQUIREMENTS BEGIN TO KICK IN ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDICAL. AND THOSE REQUIREMENTS WILL KICK IN IN DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR. SO WE'RE BEGINNING THAT ANALYSIS AND WE LOOK FORWARD IS THE WRONG TERM BUT WE WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD A VARIETY OF IDEAS AND OPTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO ENGAGE WITH SO THAT WE CAN DO WHAT WE CAN TO TRY TO CONTINUE TO ENSURE ACCESS FOR THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
WOULD YOU ALSO INCLUDE THOSE FOLKS WHO WERE ENROLLED WHO ARE NOT, DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION? I FORGET WHAT THAT EXACT, HOW THEY PHRASE THAT.
YES, WE 'VE ALWAYS HAD IN THIS COUNTY, WE 'VE ALWAYS KEPT OPEN DOORS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ANY COVERAGE, INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NOT HAD COVERAGE PRE -DATING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATE -ONLY PROGRAM WHO DID NOT HAVE COVERAGE TO ACCESS TO MEDICAL AT ALL, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE DUE TO THE STATE'S FREEZE IN ENROLLMENT FOR THE UIS POPULATION. THAT FREEZE TOOK EFFECT THIS MONTH, SO NO NEW FOLKS CAN SIGN UP FOR STATE -ONLY MEDICAL, AND WE DO EXPECT THAT TO BE A GROWING IMPACT OVER THE COMING MONTHS AS WELL. WELL,
WHAT I'M AFRAID OF IS THAT THOSE WHO MANAGED TO STAY ON ARE ALSO GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A PREMIUM, A MONTHLY PREMIUM, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I HAD TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, WAS HOW DO WE HELP THOSE FOLKS PAY FOR THAT? MAYBE NOT OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND, BUT OUT OF AN EXTERNAL REVENUE SOURCE THAT COULD HELP PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THEM, BECAUSE AS YOU MENTIONED, WHEN THERE'S A HIGH DEDUCTIBLE, PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO COME TO UTILIZE OUR SERVICES. OR THEY'RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY DROP OUT OF INSURANCE, WHICH IS STILL CONTINUING. I MEAN, THE OUTCOME IS THE SAME. THEY'RE GOING TO CREATE A MORE EXPENSIVE VISIT TO OUR HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SYSTEMS. BUT MORE
IMPORTANTLY, I THINK FOR ME, THAT MEANS A LOT OF LATINOS WILL CONTINUE TO NOT RECEIVE SERVICES. AND AS WE 'VE SEEN IN THE ASSESSMENT, LATINOS LIVE TWO YEARS LESS THAN THEIR COUNTERPARTS. AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DROP OUT. SO FOR ME, THAT MEANS WE'RE CONTINUING TO SHORTEN THEIR LONGEVITY. AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT THE GOVERNOR IS ATTEMPTING TO DO. BUT IN THE END, IT IS CREATING THE SAME IMPACT. AND SO THAT MEANS FOR A LOT OF GENERATIONS, WE LOSE OUR PARENTS REALLY EARLY ON. AND THAT HAS JUST SO MUCH IMPACT.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THAT. THOSE PREMIUMS KICK IN IN JULY OF 2027.
AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TRACKING CLOSELY. OBVIOUSLY URGING THE STATE TO MAKE CHANGES IN ITS APPROACH TO THAT, BUT ALSO WHAT OPTIONS WE HAVE TO HELP MITIGATE IMPACTS. IT
WOULD BE GOOD IF WE CAN FOLLOW UP. IF YOU CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ME IN PARTICULAR, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THAT LOSS WAS FOR LAST YEAR BECAUSE I KNOW ON THE 31ST WAS THE LAST DAY FOR FOLKS TO ENROLL. HOW DID WE DO IN TERMS OF ENROLLING FOLKS INTO THAT INSURANCE PLAN? AND THEN WHAT WAS THE LOSS OF THOSE FOLKS? SO THAT'S JUST ME. WOULD LOVE TO OFFLINE TALK ABOUT THAT. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NO FURTHER COMMENTS ON ITEM 12 GOES TO OUR COUNTY COUNCIL. TONY. AT THE JANUARY 12, 2026 CLOSED SESSION, BY UNANIMOUS VOTE WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED THE COUNTY TO INITIATE LITIGATION IN ONE MATTER. THE NAME OF THE ACTION OF THE DEFENDANT AS WELL AS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE LITIGATION SHALL BE DISCLOSED ONCE LITIGATION IS FORMERLY COMMENCED TO ANY PERSON UPON INQUIRY. THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU. AND THEN WE MOVE TO ITEM 14, WHICH IS THE RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO PROPOSED MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BENEFIT ASSESSMENT LEVY.
AND WE DO HAVE OUR STAFF HERE TO PRESENT ON THIS ITEM. GOOD
MORNING, PRESIDENT LEE, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. GOOD MORNING. HAPPY NEW YEAR. HAPPY NEW YEAR. I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF INTRODUCING ITEM 14, THE 2026 ASSESSMENT FOR THE MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT. WITH ME SITTING IS BU TAI. EXCUSE ME. I WAS JUST WALKING OVER HERE. OH, IDENTIFY YOURSELF, TOO. ADMIN SERVICES DIRECTOR AND STEPHEN. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND I'M TOM, OUR DEPARTMENTAL FISCAL OFFICER. AND OTHER NUMBER OF STAFF ARE HERE TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM. WE HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION. AND QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED AT THE END. AND I 'LL HAVE MY COLLEAGUE KICK US OUT. PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING AND HAPPY NEW YEAR. I THINK IT'S STILL MORNING. STILL MORNING, YES. WE DO HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION, JUST A HIGHLIGHT OF THE MOSQUITO VECTOR DISTRICT'S FINANCIAL STATUS AND THE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, FIND THE for the board to consider an additional benefit assessment for the district. Just as a brief background, the district was established in 1988. It's funded by two benefit assessments, 1996 and 2005.
In addition, there are a few factors that brought us here in asking the board for a 2026 assessment. First, last season, we had saw an emerging detection, multiple detections of Aedes aegypti. This mosquito is a day -biting mosquito, dangerous and invasive. This mosquito is a big concern to our county because it can transmit illness such as Zika, dengue, and yellow fever. So... So, with that, it really causes to think about additional resources that we may consider beyond the two benefit assessment. We worked with our consultant, SEI Consulting Group, to help us with an opinion survey in April 2025. And that survey conducted was a random sampling of 20 ,000 property owners. And the result of
that survey came pretty, very strong and supportive of having the district move forward with a 2026 benefit assessment.
So, in terms of understanding where are we at with the mosquito and vector revenue and expenditure, as you can see here in this table, the district is facing at the end of this fiscal year a structural deficit where the benefit assessment of 1996 and 2005 is not keeping pace with a rising cost of operational costs. The district is projecting a shortfall of $2 .77 million by the end of the fiscal year.
So, the reason for the 2026 benefit assessment is two things. We want to stabilize the district's operations. We want to stabilize the district's operations, address the structural deficit, as well as we, in working with the district, we have looked at cost -saving efforts, looking at optimizing our efficiency. And that continues to put us in a structural deficit. Secondly, as I mentioned, with the emerging threats of Aedes aegypti, as well as the continuing of West Nile virus, we need to address, we need to address the reduction of that transmission.
So, in terms of the services and improvements that we are looking to provide in the 2026 benefit assessment, we are looking at stabilizing the district operations, providing additional resources to aggressively address the Aedes aegypti mosquito, as well as making sure that we have adequate resources to solve the problem. And lastly, we want to support the continuing mosquito monitoring, inspection, and control, to name a few.
So, what does that mean in terms of property owners, if the board chooses to approve us going forward? In terms of looking at the annual rate for property owner, for a single -family home, we're looking at 1575 rate per year, versus looking at a common mean rate. So, we're looking at a median of $9 .45 per year, and then so on, in terms of commercial, industrial, and agricultural. And I would say that in our county, single -family homes are the majority of our property tax, our property types in the county.
And finally, our ask is, for the board's consideration, is to accept a preliminary engineer's report that was submitted to the board. This is a part of the Leslie file, to adopt the resolution of the board of trustees to initiate, allow us to initiate balloting proceeding for the 2026 assessment, to set a May 19th board of trustee meeting, to allow us to then close the ballot proceeding for the 2026 benefit assessment, and finally, giving us the authority to mail notice and assessment ballot to property owners. And that concludes our presentation, and we're open for questions.
Thank you. Let's see, I do see some lights. Actually, let me see if I should ask my colleague, maybe I'll open up the public hearing first, see if any questions from the public on this item. Rhonda, do we have anybody in public who would like to speak on this item, specifically? I currently have no public speakers for this item. Okay, I'll go ahead and close the public speaking portion. I see a few lights. I think Vice President was first, and it didn't surprise you.
Thank you. I know this is something that you've been working on since last March, and so I appreciate the thoughtfulness, the serving that you did for our residents. I know there's not one person who's going to say, yes, please, just add on to my property taxes, because it's never enough, right? As a property owner, I always, you know, I, you know, I, you know, I, you know, I, you know, I kind of just roll my eyes and go with it.
And when it comes to our, our responsibility, of course, I support what we, we are hoping to accomplish, which is the health and well -being of our residents overall, right? And nobody thinks about mosquitoes, but you're, if you're unlucky like me and have the kind of blood that, that people, those mosquitoes are just attracted to, they just love me, you know? I wish it was also true for voters. But, you know, whatever.
I, I greatly appreciate it, and so thank you. I know that this is not, may not be the thing that, you know, is on top of mind for everybody, but this, you keep us healthy, you keep us well, and you've done your job in terms of going to voters, actually property owners is really where it's at, right? Not all voters, but just property owners. And so you surveyed them. You asked them. You made sure that you did your due diligence. I do have to recognize that we kind of got in front of you in terms of our measure, right? And so I know that, that you're going to go a little bit of an uphill
battle, possibly, because folks may feel like, oh, they're another, this is another tax, right? But I know that you broke it down really well in terms of, one, you did everything, you know, you, you did everything internally to make sure that, that we are not asking for something that we shouldn't be asking, right, from property owners. And then second, I think the, the thing to look at here is also that we're not charging the same thing as other counties are, right? We are pretty, pretty conservative, and we're still at a lower rate. And so for that, I think our, our property owners and our residents should be really grateful that we're doing such a great
job in terms of being so conservative, and so I, I appreciate that. I know it doesn't make us popular, but when summer comes around, you know, we're all going to be looking at you all and thanking you, especially me.
So
anyway, so with that, I'm just going to make a motion to, to approve, and just to thank you for all the really great work that you've all been doing. I know it's, it's slow work. And very diligent work. And so thank you so much for making sure you tap into those property owners. It was 2 ,200 folks who you assessed, who gave feedback. And so I'm happy to, to support all your efforts. Thank you. A
motion to add a second?
Happy to second.
Yes, Ms. Young, go ahead.
Thank you, Edgar and Boo, for this presentation. It was informative, and I now know what a property benefit assessment is. Always learning opportunities. But, you know, there's been calls for transparency, understanding, and education for the public today. Can you help me understand, just very succinctly, how is this different from a tax?
Thank you for the question, Supervisor Young. It's a bit different because it is assessed at different intervals, as we showed in slide six. Those are the intervals that are broken down by each property type. Sixty -two percent of our total assessment is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is. A charge is made up by single family homes, which we call it SFEs. For every SFE, the assessment rate would be $15 .75, which
is equivalent to about $1 .31 a month. Those costs are then imposed as part of your property taxes. So you have your 1 % property taxes, and then there's other line items, that we all look at. This would be another line item at the bottom to help us pay and have the resources to combat mosquitoes, and their limbs. mentioned, is the deadliest animal in the world. And so right now it's $15 .75, this 2026 assessment, and it's equivalent to about $1 .31 a month per home. And let me
just kind of lay out, stepping a little bit back from this particular one and just talk more generally about the difference between taxes and benefit assessments. Under the California Constitution, in order to have a benefit assessment, there has to be a relationship to benefit that property that's being served. So some other examples of benefit assessments are in the context of things like a lighting district, for instance, or a road maintenance district, which might help pay for a road that provides access to specific properties. And those specific properties that directly benefit from that assessment are charged for that, whereas a tax, there isn't necessarily a direct relationship between the people who pay and the people who
benefit, certainly not on a one -to -one basis. The reason mosquito and vector control qualifies as a property benefit assessment is because we are, through the vector control district, mitigating these harmful vectors, namely mosquitoes but others. And so the benefit assessment is a benefit assessment that directly harms people's properties and affects the use that people have of their property. So it's a benefit and connection that's direct to each property owner and it's a whole different structure and framework as a result and is completely different from a tax. So it's actually more akin to a fee. It's a different type of fee, obviously, but it's much more like a fee. It's more like a fee than
it is like a tax. And of course, the proceeds that are raised from the benefit assessment can only be used for the purpose of that property benefiting activity. And so the mosquito and vector control district, this is another example. We've had a few today, but another example of a part of our organization that is fiscally separate from the rest and is wholly reliant on the benefit assessment. We've had a few today, but another example of a part of our organization that is fiscally separate from the rest and is wholly reliant on the benefit assessment. So we have a majority of our activity focused on these assessments, and that is what funds its activities and its
work is focused on that vector mitigation. We would not want to, I think, live in a Santa Clara County that had no mosquito abatement occurring. I fall in the same camp as Supervisor Arenas in terms of mosquitoes liking
me, so I
can tell you that's not the case. you from having visited parts of the world where there is no uh no meaningful mosquito abatement that is not pleasant and um and so you know that's the work that this district carries out day in and day out and it's what allows us to enjoy being outdoors in our houses but also on our farms and in all the other outdoor environments here in santa clara county
yeah and enjoy being alive
supervisor young i just want to lean in and also um where the um this is different is also the voters so um in terms of tax we generally think about register voters um weighing in on this type of measure um this in particular you don't have to be a reserve uh register voter it is uh folks that are owning property um that will be um filling out their mail -in ballot and reaching out to the district and um and so i think that's what we're trying to do here in santa clara turning it um and they have a 45 day window for doing
so thank you that was going to be one of my other questions so you've got that in advance that we're not passing or declaring a new benefit assessment today it's going to be the voters that are homeowners who will decide um so could you share with us the relationship between um our these assessments and the mosquito vector controls budget i know that we've had assessments in 96 and in 2005 and then with the approval of today or potential proof today's assessment would we
be able to go to
slide three please thank you uh
good morning my name is stephen thomas the fiscal office for sepa which covers back to control so the vast majority of the district's revenue that's that's clearly 95 ish percent of the revenue comes from these assessments um the but you know the 96 assessment does not change at all ever the 2005 assessment we come to the board every year to request an increase of cpi or three percent whichever is less that means that over time our revenue is increasing by slightly less than two percent our budget is primarily staff vector control staff but also there are support staff in fleet and tss and sepa and other places in the county that are also reimbursed for
the work they do supporting vector control those costs have been increasing at roughly six percent a year obviously that math doesn't math so we did have a reserve up through 2019 or so since between 2019 and now we have been using that reserve but those reserves are nearly depleted which is why we are coming forward to ask for the third assessment yeah well thank you uh i appreciate the work um of your department your office the thoughtful approach to this and i also want to give credit to the engagement that you've done with our community stakeholders
heartened to see that majority of respondents to the survey has provided overwhelming support for this next iteration of a benefits assessment and and i i just want to also appreciate i've learned from you know from my staff and interacting with your offices that should this assessment be approved we will be able to stabilize our budgets for quite some time what is the year that you're projected to be able to stabilize through so
we currently expect with this assessment assuming we continue with the the cpi increases every year we expect to be stabilized through 2045 assuming that payroll costs continue to rise at a similar rate to the last two two or three years all right mosquito free until 2045.
supervisor just one point of clarification on the process here so it is correct that the board is not imposing an assessment today there's a 45 day period to submit ballots there will be a public hearing if there is not a majority protest then the board has the authority at that point to impose the assessment so the board would impose it but only after there's this balloting procedure that takes place
well i look forward to hearing from our homeowners um if the the initial survey indicates anything it indicates that the board is in favor of the broad support and understanding for the necessity of this fee thank
you thank you
presently and thank you staff for bringing this forward um just a small question um you mentioned is it the 2005 benefit assessment you bring it to us is it to the board each year for the cpi increase but for this assessment the cpi is included is
that correct so this is the initiation of the 2026 asset supervisor so every year for the last three years we've been coming to your board as the board of trustees to receive a cpi increase to the 2005 assessment however that hasn't been able to keep up with costs as shown in the table to the right this is to initiate a new assessment which that 1575 is the amount now and in later years if needed the board may vote to increase that by cpi
oh so it's it's not included in this the cpi automatic increase is not
included but we would not need to go back to do this process of imposing the assessment it would just require a public hearing in front of the board each year just as we do for the 2005 assessment okay great
thank you thank you i would um very much support this thank you thank you sir yes
james you have an e further no okay um so looking at the uh chart there uh the expenditure being 11 million dollars and the revenues being 8 .3 million dollars clearly that deficit is very very large i guess my only question has been should this process as hindsight should this process has happened maybe a year or two earlier so that we don't get to that type of situation ever again
supervisor
before we go to the voters we were looking at other efficiency models and we did everything we could we froze some positions we looked at efficiencies however what we didn't count on is aides to gyptite emerging in our county and being established that really impacted operations the use we utilize now dry eyes to better capture from a trapping perspective that increased our cost and also the use of more treatment for aegis gypti that we were thinking and as part of our model and we were thinking and as part of our model and we were thinking and as part of our model model, we were really surprised last year, or excuse me, 2024, with the surprising
emergence and rapid deployment of Aedes gypti. We have about 18 sites right now. We're trying, the team is working very diligently in trying to reduce the spread of the population because Aedes gypti does have an impact to the way we live. So resources from this 2020 success meant we're allowed to expand resources, stabilize the district and ensure that Aedes gypti does not impact the quality of life to our residents in the county. Right. And I
did remember asking Vice President Arenas, as well, of the entire staff, I think, on this group come into our meeting. It wasn't a board meeting, it was our LAFCO meeting that talked about this very issue of how they were not able to do the work they believe is important. And I think that's really important. I think that was really my eye -opener to realize not only how important this group is doing, but what type of dire situation we were at that very moment. And since then, I certainly have been talking to the press, as well, asking these questions and how do we get there. I just want to make sure we don't get there ever
again. And I think it's one of those things that we need to look ahead as emergency preparedness. It's not an earthquake. It's not as sexy as an item like that everybody looked at, or wildfire, but at the same time, this is an emergency. And I hope that if you get to go to the emergency room, you're not going to be affected by it. And I think it's really important that if you get to go to the emergency room, you are going to be protected by it. I don't want to be just being sandwiched in. So let's make sure that we put in the right resources to protect our public. This is absolutely important because as
we know, if we cannot stop those at these micro -level, our public health department will be overwhelmed thereafter. So again, thank you for bringing this on board. And there is this date. I see May 19, 2026. I'm sorry? is the deadline date for people to file their protests and whatnot, and then thereafter, yes, go ahead, Bo. So it would be a public hearing to close the ballot, and then that is an opportunity for the public to engage and provide you their feedback. Right, and assuming there was not enough protests coming in and these numbers came through, Tony, will this board be then taking another official vote in the future? That's correct. There will be a
tabulation, and then the board will impose at that point. Impose that. And at that time, what would be, say, the earliest when this will be implemented in terms of date? Do you have an approximate one? I don't have that date. Go ahead. Sure.
So assuming that this is endorsed by the voters and then approved by the board, this would appear on the fiscal 27 property taxes, which is this December's. And next April, property taxes. Property taxes, okay, great.
Thank you very much for that clarification, and without further ado, let's go take the vote.
Thank you. A motion of Vice President Arenas, seconded by Supervisor Young. Supervisor Abacoga? Aye. Supervisor Young? Yes. Vice President Arenas? Yes. President Lee? Aye as well. Motion carries four to zero. Great. Let's see, now we are looking at items that's been removed. We move from the consent calendar, which I believe is item 43 by Supervisor Abacoga.
Thank you so much.
I pulled this item, I very much support it, and was really just interested in adding a small piece to the motion. I think this is, and this is the corporate sponsorship marketing and advertising program. But, I know you've all heard me continuously talk about the need to find more resources, and I believe perhaps this program could be one of those tools, and so I wanted to add to the motion that, so as part of the work plan, I request the administration to identify additional opportunities for revenue generation for the county through this program. So, just to read the motion in its entirety, I would make the motion to move the adoption of the 2024 -25
Annual Review of the Corporate Sponsorship Marketing and Advertising Program and to approve the 2025 -26 work plan for the Corporate Sponsorship Marketing and Advertising Program with a request to administration to identify additional opportunities for revenue generation for the county. Second. Second. Second.
And, we'd be happy to do
so. Thank you.
Okay, I've got a motion and a second. Let's see if any of the public would like to speak on this item.
Motion of Supervisor Abacoga is seconded by Supervisor Arenas.
Supervisor Abacoga. Aye. Supervisor Young. Yes. Vice President Arenas. Yes. President Lee. Aye as well. Motion carries four to zero. Great, thank you. By the way, for the record, I will state that there were no public speaking. Thank you. FOR THIS ITEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND ON THAT NOTE, LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADJOURN A LITTLE EARLIER TODAY AT 1158. WHAT A RECORD. THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON THE FULL BOARD MEETING. JANUARY 27, TUESDAY, 930 A .M. SAME PLACE, SAME CHANNEL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY. HAPPY NEW
YEAR.