City Council - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call to order today's meeting. It's Tuesday, June 30th. It's a regular meeting of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. I'll ask the clerk to call the roll to establish our quorum.

Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Tan. Present. Supervisor Miley excused. Supervisor Fortunato-Bass.

Present.

President Halbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you, would you all please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Our next item is Supervisor's Remarks. Anybody care to mention any remarks? I would like to say that Summer is here. And that means the Alameda County Fair is upon us and it's here until July 12th. Please everyone have a good time at the Alameda County Fair located at the fairgrounds in Pleasanton. With that said, we will allow now public comment on closed session items. Just those items listed as closed session. We're going to recess into closed session and come back when we're finished for our regular calendar. But right now, if you're online, please raise your hand. If you'd like to make a comment in person, please fill out a speaker slip for any item that is listed as a closed session item. Clerk, do we have any speakers online?

We have one speaker. Laura, is this for a closed session item? Laura Lloyd. Laura, this is your last chance. If you have comments about closed session items. We have no more speakers.

Thank you. Then we will recess into closed session. We're in recess. Good afternoon, everyone. We're going to reconvene from our closed session discussion to our regularly scheduled board supervisor meetings. Meeting. I'll ask the clerk to call the roll to establish our quorum.

Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Tan.

Present.

Supervisor Miley. Supervisor Furnado-Bas. Present. President Halbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much. County Council, is there any reportable action from our closed session discussion today? Okay, thank you very much. I'm not sure if the microphone really picked up the comment there.

Oh, I can, I can restate that there were no reportable actions taken in closed session today on our litigation matters.

Okay. Can we proceed then with open session items? We will go to our public comment on items.

Supervisor Hubbard, do you want to report out on the action? I see.

Okay. Thank you for the reminder. No litigation matters. However, this is something we can report out on. And today, I am pleased to announce that after a nationwide search and extensive interview process that our Board of Supervisors unanimously selected Timothy Flanagan as the new Chief Information Officer for Alameda County. Effective September 18th, 2026. Effective September 18th, 2026. I'm just reading what they gave me to read. It says the 18th. It will be effective on September 13th, 2026. His appointment is subject to formal approval at our July 14th, 2026 regular meeting. So should it not be effective July 13th, 2026? September 13th. Okay. And our board will formally approve this on July 14th. Okay. Tim Flanagan has served as a technology professional in both the private and public sectors and most recently served as the chief information officer and the registrar of voters in Solano County. He has also been a member of the technology teams in the counties of Marin and Ventura. The board extends its gratitude to Ram Gurumuthi and the ITD leadership team for continuing to provide thoughtful leadership and stability during the transition. We are proud of our nationally recognized information technology department and its valued employees for their longstanding commitment to innovation and excellence. We look forward to continuing that journey under the leadership of Tim Flanagan. And now we will invite to say a few words, Mr. Tim Flanagan, welcome.

Good afternoon, President Halpert, members of the board. I am the Tim Flanagan that was just announced. So thank you very much. It is an honor to be here. It is a true joy to be selected for this challenging opportunity. And I am looking forward to meeting the team, looking forward to meeting all of our colleagues and doing what I can to help make Alameda a great place to work, play and live and make Alameda the best it possibly can be. Thank you very much. Tim, welcome aboard.

You have big shoes to fill, but you'll fill them well, I'm sure. Any comments from my colleagues? If not, thank you for being here.

Thank you so much. See you soon.

That concludes actions that we took in closed session. So now we will take public comment on items that are on the agenda. except those listed as set matters. We have two set matters at 1.30 and four. Those comments we will hear at that time. So everything other than set matters, public comment will now be accepted.

Mr. President, I also want to announce that items three and 20 have been withdrawn by the respective departments.

Very good. We don't need comment on those items then three and 20. And anyone else who is online, raise your hand. If you are in the room, fill out a speaker slip, please. Will the clerk please call in the room first, speakers, first three, rotating to online after that, and back and forth.

First three in person for item 74, Rick Hamill, Mike Mitchell, Colin Cavanaugh.

Well, I don't know whether to say good morning or good afternoon, but thank you, President Halbert, fellow supervisors. As I announced, my name is Rick Hamill, President of Castlewood Property Owners Association. I would like to provide you with an image, hopefully an image you'll readily understand, which worries me every day, especially during the hot summer months in Castlewood. About four years ago, there was a wildfire on the ridge of Castlewood in the Golden Eagle community. Water to fight this fire was from the reservoir in the 16th hole of the golf course. Water supplied by the pump stations in the valley floor. On July 1st, 2024, I was awakened around 6 a.m. by the Castlewood residents who had no water. There was a PG&E power outage and the backup generators did not engage to continue pumping water to the 250,000 gallon reservoirs. When we looked into the situation, we discovered that the case of the backup generators was not even plugged in. Note, the CSA pays $10,000 a month to rent these disconnected generators. Since that time, there have been multiple portable multiple PG&E outages. Currently, if there is a PG&E outage, Castlewood needs to call Bracewell, the county approved service provider for sewer and water. They drive from Morgan Hill to make sure that generators are one plugged in and two powered up. That is at least a one hour drive in the best case. When the issue was brought forward to the public, the county, we were told the system operates as designed. The county will not discuss operational issues until the $1.4 million is resolved. So I ask you, what if there was a house fire and PG&E power outage was in place, the reservoir tanks ran dry, what would you do? The problem still exists two years after the discussion with the CSA and Public Works. The County refuses to accept responsibility. I'm here to say, I thank you for your time and I ask you to vote no or at the very least abstain from the vote on item 74. Thank you very much.

Hey everybody, my name is Mike Mitchell, I'm the Vice President of the Castlewood Property Owners Association. Item 74 recommends dissolving our municipal entity after stripping it of its assets. Alameda County Public Works is asking you to ignore their mismanagement from 2021 to 2024, then dissolve the entity that they're supposed to serve. The financial impact on the people of Castlewood is over 6,000 people per home, while still delivering substandard services like you just heard about. were already paying the highest fees in Alameda County. Prior to 2021, the Castlewood CSA was on solid financial ground. However, the CSA went unmanaged from 2021 to 2024. In 2024, Public Works noticed the CSA was heading to insolvency and our rates were suddenly raised 172%, which you all approved. Only after that was approved, Public Works insisted on an additional $1.4 million. In other words, 172% increase, then followed by a $6,000 demand per home. Imagine the outrage in your own community if that happened in San Leandro, Hayward, Fremont, or another town. We filed and settled a lawsuit in good faith and have put forward numerous compromises to resolve this issue, including paying the amount through the ad valorem funds. We believe, and our attorneys have communicated, that the county is now in violation of that settlement agreement. In response, Alameda County Public Works has reacted to any compromise by taking a destructive path towards the CSA. As a resident of the CSA, I rely on the board of supervisors for governance and oversight. Our only other recourse is to go to the Alameda County grand jury or file yet another expensive lawsuit. Here's the supervisors who have some background on this issue to vote no. If you are yet unfamiliar with the details, Voting yes would be an action that would to dissolve a municipal entity while placing a significant financial burden on the residents would be to ignore your role as a supervisor. I request that you abstain until you've heard the full story. Council would remain committed to a fair resolution that item 74 seems to be a willful destructive attack. Thank you.

You've exceeded your time. I reached your time limit. Next speaker. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Colin Cavanaugh. I've lived in Castlewood for 30 years. Most of my neighbors are 70, 80, 90-year-old retirees on fixed income. On the board, I'm responsible for fire and safety, two very hot subjects. With the sheriff, we have an excellent relationship. They're very close. They come and we meet them all the time. We were the first community to have flock cameras in Alameda. We've seen an 80% reduction in crime in our area. And I have the data to share if anybody wants to see it. And the sheriff is very aware of this. The fact that we have to call somebody in Morgan Hill in the middle of a fire to come up and plug in a backup generators that we pay for. It's ridiculous. I'm a marine engineer. I have several degrees. Why can't I do it? Oh, that's not allowed. Why can't the homeowners be trained? The golf club used to be trained, but that person retired, and there's no follow-up to get them trained now. It's ridiculous. In the middle of a fire, somebody's going to drive from Morgan Hill. It's crazy. We have also had many very expensive leaks on the roads, in the houses, and flooded basements, all caused mostly by the water hammer in the system. which means the pressure fluctuates like crazy every time the pumps come on. We've known this for years. That's what all the roads being cut up. Every few months we see big water leaks and we are charged for those. But the county has never fixed it. Five years later, we're still talking the same about the generator. So asking the homeowners to pay for incompetence, bad performance, I don't think that's right. Please vote against it. Thank you.

Paul Weiner? Paul, please unmute.

Sorry, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you. Yeah, again, I'm here with my colleagues asking you to reconsider item 74. Again, it proposes to dissolve a CSA and stripping its assets to pay for past oversights. Again, I've been a resident of Pleasanton for over 30 years in Castlewood for just a couple, and I can see the struggles the team faces. has gone through. And I assure you, we do want a collaborative path forward. As the lead for the roads committee within the CPOA, I can tell you that we are making good progress on a project to resurface our roads. So there are ways that we can find to work together. This issue of item 74 is driving a wedge between kind of any win-win situation and suggestions that we've brought to the table. So kind of considering all of that, I ask you, the board, to vote no on 74. And, you know, bottom line is it's destructive to the CSA, to our relationship, to progress. And I think we can do better by working together on a fair, financially responsible solution. Thank you.

Alison Moore, go ahead.

Good morning. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me on. I appreciate it. I'm also a board member. I am a resident of Castlewood community in Pleasanton and I too am here to raise my concerns about item 74. I am very concerned that many major decisions about our water and sewer systems, including the $1.4 million loan and the potential dissolution of our Castlewood CSA are being advanced without our consent agreement or approval. respectfully to the board. Castlewood does not owe this 1.4 million. If you were to review the lawsuit proposition 218, it would be made clear. Two, today item 74 that Alameda County has discussed and is considering breaches the settlement agreement from the prior lawsuit. So that needs to be on record because it is not appropriate nor legal. I do not agree nor approve of the authorization of the 1.4 million to the county. And I do not approve of the dissolution of the Castlewood CSA. It would appear to me that that would be a very important thing for my community to determine first. The stripping of the Castlewood CSA and the money from our funds bankrupts our community and is an unacceptable approach to solution here. As many of us have already said, I asked for more collaborative approach. As my other fellow board members have mentioned, we are more than willing to work with you with the board of supervisors and the county and would crest the request that you reconsider this egregious item and or abstain. Thank you so much.

There are no more speakers. Thank you very much. And thank you for all the speakers that spoke today under public comment. The next item is approval of minutes from previous meetings. Is there a motion to do so?

Mr. President, I will move approval of the minutes from the special meeting on Tuesday, January 16th, the special meeting on January 21st, the regular meeting on June 16th, and the special meeting and budget hearing on June 18th, 2026. Thank you.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Tam to approve the minutes of previous meetings, seconded by Supervisor Miley. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Supervisor Marquez? Aye. Supervisor Tam? Aye. Supervisor Miley? Aye. Supervisor Foranato-Bass? Aye. President Halibut?

I vote yes. With that said, we're ready to make the mass motion. I understand several items will be excluded. Two of them pulled and a few of them excluded, taken out for discussion.

You also have a consent calendar.

I will move the consent calendar with the correction that it's items 79 through 93. I'll second.

Motion has been made by Supervisor Tam, seconded by Supervisor Marquez to approve the consent calendar items 79 through 93. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tan. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Aye. Supervisor Fournier-Benz. Aye. President Halbert.

I vote yes. Thank you. We're ready for the mass motion.

Excuse me, we have a correction to the numbering on the consent calendar. It should be items 80 through 993.

Let's just take a re-vote then. It's a correction to the motion maker and accepted by the seconder.

Yes.

Yes.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tan. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Aye. Supervisor Fornada-Bass. Aye. President Halbert.

I vote yes. The next item is the regular agendized items, the mass motion. I understand we're pulling three and 20 at the discretion of the department.

Yes, items three and 20 have both been withdrawn. Okay.

And we'll have items separate after the mass motion?

There are some items that will not be included in the motion that your board will take up separately.

Okay. Is there a mass motion?

Okay. Mr. President, I will move items 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, and 76. Motion's been made by Supervisor Tam, seconded by Supervisor Miley. For the mass motion made, roll call vote, please.

Chair, can I just confirm, or Vice President, that six will be taken separately, correct?

So the items that are not included in the mass modems are items six, 59, and 74.

Thank you.

The others would be ordinances. So we have comments on 49, and that will be the first item, I think the only one that we have comments so far on, item 49.

Yes, item 49. I just wanted to comment, thank the library for their work, but also acknowledge exceptional community connections for their consulting work that they provided to the Reparations Advisory Commission. They've done a great job, and later today we'll be able to talk more about this, but

just want to wanted to acknowledge knowledge to them and definitely support the additional increase in their contract very good with that said are there any other questions on the items that are included in today's mass motion see none i'll ask the clerk to now call the roll

Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Aye. Supervisor Fornado-Bass.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Yes. I guess our next item then would be item number six.

Item six is a recommendation from the Social Services Agency.

Andrea Ford, Agency Director, Social Services.

Thank you, Director Ford. So this item is a second amendment to the standard services agreement with the refuge to continue providing short-term residential therapeutic care to foster youth ages 12 until they turn 18 and they are serving some of the most challenging youth in our foster care system. So while I certainly support the ability to continue working with this organization, noting that this is a sole source two-year extension and that there are other organizations in Alameda County that can provide these services and we haven't done an RFP in some years, I am very interested in making sure that we have enough facilities for youth, especially those with these higher needs. You know, we've talked at social services about how there are many, many youth who have needs and we do need more places to make sure they can be placed safely. So I am interested again in these services as well as conducting an RFP. And before I share what I'm interested in doing, Just a couple quick questions about this particular service provider. I notice in the results-based accountability information that there was no information regarding the number of youth served or the number of intakes.

Do you have that information? I'm supervisor of Fort Snyder Bass on page two of the board letter. Since 2024, the refuge has served 152 Alameda County female youth. And I just want to also provide some clarification. This request is to add beds to an existing contract. So there will now be two houses instead of one. Right.

So it will expand to two facilities. Okay. The 152 youth serve was not in the... later in the report that had the results-based accountability questions and the answers. So was there also a response to the number of intakes that were done? I didn't see that information.

I do not have the number of intakes available today, but can certainly get that to you no later than Thursday of this week.

Okay. And then I also noted that there's a grievance policy that's attached to the board letter Can you just share with us what is the process if grievances are received, particularly if they are from the young people being served?

So there are grievance policies for all of the contracts that we have. It is... Attachment A of the board packet. And the process is to contact the Social Services Agency Contracts Office at 2000 San Pablo in Oakland. And there's also an email address by which they can voice their concerns.

Correct. And so from there, our staff will investigate and try to come to a resolution. And if we determine that, especially if the issue came from a young person, we would investigate right away and make sure that any issues are resolved.

As for this contract and all contracts, we will start the investigation process immediately to reach a resolution, not to try to reach one, but to actually reach a resolution.

OK, thank you. So as we all know, we've been looking quite a bit at our foster care system because of the state audit, and it's coming to social services very regularly. I am interested in making sure that we have multiple organizations that provide these services in the county. And there's at least three organizations that I'm aware of that provide similar service. So I'd like to make a motion to extend the contract with the refuge for six months and conduct an RFP so that organizations that also provide these services have an opportunity to bid and we can potentially expand the number of beds that we're providing to foster youth.

With your permission, can we extend it for up to 12 months with a goal of maybe six, because it takes about six months for an RFP process to run its course. And then the additional process is following that for up to 12 months, I think would be more realistic, but we will run an RFP.

I'm open to up to 12 months. I think the idea is just putting out an RFP because we haven't done so in a number of years and just seeing if we can get more service providers engaged too. increase the number of beds and services to foster youth.

Thank you. And I also would like to state on the record that Refuge is licensed by the Community Care Licensing Agency in Sacramento. So they are an STRTP. And we have very few of those here in Alameda County. So that's a uniqueness for this particular organization.

Understood. Understood. And I think there's at least one organization that my staff and I are engaged with who has similar licensing. So the RFP could yield additional services. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other questions?

Well, has this exact topic been brought up at the Social Services Committee for deeper discussion, or is this something that we just recently figured out?

We have not discussed short-term residential treatment programs at the Social Services Committee.

Okay. We've had general conversation about placements for foster youth.

Yeah, no, I think if the agency can operate effectively and still continue to serve, and if it's a year, but in that year go through a process of issuing an RFP and opening up to competition but really just opening the view that we're looking at i think it's a great idea i think thank you for you and your team looking into that um i just am confused why it takes six months to do an rfp

I'd like to ask my peer, Director Gassaway, to come up and assist. Sometimes when possible, we do endeavor to have a four-month RFP process, but generally speaking, six months is.

Kimberly Gassaway, Director of GSA. We have discussed this extensively, especially during federal funding that we received, ARPA, et cetera. The fastest you can do an RFP is four months, but that's really pushing it. We have a lot of outreach that has to happen. It's posting. We get a selection committee together. They evaluate all the proposals. You have to make sure the scope is right before it's published. And then just the board process to bring it to you alone is... A month, month and a half. So, I mean, it takes that long to do a really well done procurement. And we've looked at this many times of any areas that we could kill that float, but that is standard.

Well, I don't see a need to rush to a four-month process. If it takes an extra two months to do a six-month process, then I'm fine with that.

You also have to be aware if there's any protests that can extend that time period. So I just, it's in order for us to do it really well and avoid that.

So a year is a good timeframe to plan for. Are those state rules or federal rules or both that are at play causing the length of time that it takes?

It's also county policy. So, you know, we do outreach to small local bidders, just putting the whole package together, getting it reviewed and then publishing it and then giving the proposers at least 30 days to be able to prepare their response. You have that timeline that happens and then you bring your selection committee together and they review it all. The proposals may do some scoring, that all has to be vetted. There may be vendor interviews. If that happens, that adds additional time. then we do a notice of intent to award then there's a certain amount of time that so all the proposers get to see who we intend to award to they have a period of time to respond if they want to protest or not so we have to allow that time to lapse then we bring the item to your board so it's It's all, there's many pieces. We did a whole review of this again during when we received federal funding. So this is not, I don't know if this is federally funded. So it's not a federal issue. It's just how long it takes us to run an RFP.

And that's endemic of all counties in California. maybe small ones can get away with a different way, but smaller counties. But our peer set of counties, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, they all take about the same? Or do they have different policies? I can't speak to that. All right, I'm just curious.

Because I do think that- We've spent a significant amount of time looking at our process and how we could look at making it shorter, but-

I mean, it's important for me to ask these questions because in some regards, we are accused of not having transparency as a county. We're accused of not having checks and balances in place. And I'm speaking specifically about SB 1193, where we are actually more transparent and more disclosive. And we also have in this process a lot of checks and balances, which is why it takes so long. And those are self-imposed often by our own policy. So thank you for explaining that. A motion's been made.

I will second the motion if it's the extension to 12 months. Refuge provides highly specialized services enhance intensive care for sexually trafficked runaways and female youth in particular. And this is an area that I think warrants that time to make sure that we have a smooth transition if needed. But I understand this is a very significant contract. We're increasing it by almost $8 million for another two years. So we would... warrant that extra time that the director mentioned.

So just to clarify, are you going to adjust the contract to only be 12 months and prorate it for 12 months of funding? Yes. Okay. Is that the expectation of the maker of the motion?

Yes. So the motion would be to extend the contract for up to 12 months to issue an RFP And if I could also add, it would be important to ensure not only the outreach as the RFP is happening, but an update to our social services committee as we're hearing updates on the foster care program. And I do want to note, thank you, Supervisor Tam for noting that the refuge serves survivors of human trafficking. This contract is expanding some of the services to that particular population, so I agree that's important.

Thank you, and it's noted that we will provide regular updates at the Social Services Committee.

Thank you. Motion's been made by Supervisor Fortunato-Bass, seconded by Supervisor Tam. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez? Aye. Supervisor Tan? Aye. Supervisor Miley?

Aye.

Supervisor Fournette-Abbas? Aye. President Halbert?

Yes. Our next item, I think, is item 20.

Item 20 was actually withdrawn. The next item is, you have two ordinances, but if you want to take your regular items first, the next item is 59, and I believe there's a recusal.

Item 59, I believe, will be recused by Supervisor Miley. After he recuses himself? Sure.

Okay, yes, I'd like to recuse myself from item 59 under the Levine Act because... George Matthews is providing me with a contribution to my campaign. March 19th, 2026. The amount of $1000.

Noting that Supervisor Miley has recused himself and left the room will now entertain discussion on this item.

Chief Ford, I just have a clarifying question on this item, similar to Supervisor Printz and I've asked this question earlier with respect to the process for any type of grievances, complaints, concerns from members of the community that may be residing in any one of these homes. Can you just explain to the public what that process entails?

Thank you for the question. Good afternoon, Brian Ford, Chief Probation Officer. So members of the public have a couple of options. Obviously, one, they could make a report directly to the vendor themselves. We also have on our website an opportunity for individuals to make citizens complaints. And we have a professional standards unit that conducts independent investigations separate and apart from the vendor. So we have had that happen. And so we'll conduct our own investigations as well.

And that implies to members of the public or utilizers of the actual homes, the facilities, correct? Okay, thank you.

You're welcome. Very well, a motion's been made. Do we have a motion to make? Somebody to make the motion for item 59?

I'll move item 59. Second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Marquez to approve item 59, seconded by Supervisor Fortunato-Bass. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez? Aye. Supervisor Tan? Aye. Supervisor Miley has refused himself from discussing and voting on the item and left the room. Supervisor Fornati-Bass? Aye.

I think our next item is item 74, is that right?

Correct. Item 74 is a recommendation from the Public Works Agency Director, and I want to just clarify on the record that Recommendations A through E require a majority vote. Items F and G require a four-fifths vote.

F and G require a four-fifths vote, but A through E. Require a majority. Okay. Welcome, Mr. Wildes and Brett.

Good afternoon, Daniel Oldesma, Director of Public Works. Just want to give you a brief outline of what the issue is. Number one, Castlewood CSA is an assessment funded service area that's intended to operate solely from revenues generated through the assessment paid by the property owners. That's how the services are provided. That's what the CSA serves as, as an assessment funded operation. So in the past, your board took an action because we got into a financial challenge with the water maintenance service that required us to actually raise the revenues in 2023. However, The gap that was generated because of service provided in the past was left so that we can take some action after engaging with the community under Prop 218. The board took the risk of authorizing that fund $1.4 million because without that fund, we would not have been able to sustain the services. Your board's action actually helped continue the provision of water services for the time being that funding gap was present. Unfortunately, the community voted against that low-interest loan payment. which renders the county in a position where we're going to have to find some way of funding this funding gap. Otherwise, if your board did not take some of this follow-up action, as of today or tomorrow, we would have a $1.4 million gap that we no longer can sustain the CSA services. So we came back and said, let's propose an inner account service loan, which have a zero interest rate. associated with it so that it does not build up any additional impact financially if we were not able to pay back some of the revenues due to revenue shortages because the payment strategy that we are proposing is anytime we do not have any emergency scenario, we save any money, that money goes towards paying this loan or the small adverum tax that we collect If we have any excess, that money goes towards paying this inner account loan. This inner account loan is a loan within the CSA, which has five different accounts. One of it is a sewer capital, which has about 1.3, 1.4 million dollars in fund balance that was sitting there for a long time. So we are using that money. to basically backfill that financial gap, which is absolutely essential because without it, there will be no money to provide the services that we have to provide, the vendors that we have to pay, any of the activities that we are talking about in managing the CSA. So the one thing I would like to add is that what's being proposed right now has absolutely no adverse impact It just gets us moving forward without interrupting the water service provision that we currently have under the CSA. The gentleman that came and talked to you asked you to vote no, but the justification they gave you actually describes what the issue is. The CSA is financially challenged. That's why we cannot connect those emergencies to the generators, to the system, because we need to hire somebody to do so and design the system. We don't have the funds to do that. Anytime there's a power outage, people continue. We still rely on the vendor to come and do those connections because without it, we're going to have to spend money. The water hammer issue that they're talking about, actually, some of the $1.4 million that was in the loan is paying for one of it right now as we speak. The second one, we don't have enough money to do so. So the challenge that the CSA is facing is what actually these folks described. Unfortunately, they're not accepting the mere fact the CSA is a self-funded organization. It is actually, that's why it exists. So my recommendation to you is as proposed in the board letter is to authorize me to make the interim account loan to enable the repayment of the 1.4 million dollars revolving loan because without that we would be continuing to build up interest income interest expenses which i think will be unnecessary if we actually do this in our loan account and approve the terms of the repayment of the inner loan account which is basically zero interest and the money will be paid by any remnants revenues that we get from the emergence if there are no emergencies or extra excess capacity was to emerge. And then authorize the director to reimburse the county revolving fund from the Castlewood CSA water account and direct the agency directed to form a request city of Pleasanton to assume responsibility as well as to direct the director to initiate the dissolution of the CSA. Just an FYI, the dissolution of the CSA was one of the settlement agreements that was reached due to the lawsuit that the CSA brought back, the CPOA brought to the county. Therefore, this recommendation is not new, but was agreed upon as part of the settlement agreement. And this is a long-term process. So it just authorizes us to actually request that if there is another governance structure that can be available rather than the current CSA framework, maybe we should pursue that in order to make sure that the sustained financial capacity. In terms of the request to the city of Pleasanton, as you all know, the CSA, Castlewood CSA is within the sphere of influence of Pleasanton. It's pretty much surrounded by the city of Pleasanton, represents about 2%. Their assets represent 2% of the city of Pleasanton. So the city of Pleasanton would be the ideal entity to take over the maintenance have larger capacity because some of the risk that the individuals raise, the fire risk, some of the challenges that we're talking about is better handled with somebody like Pleasanton who has the higher capacity to do so. And just another information of the city of Pleasanton used to maintain, used to enter the contract with the CSA to do the services that we're talking about. Unfortunately, in 2021, the city of Pleasanton recognized that the services they were providing was highly subsidized by them in the past. So when we put out the RFP, they came back with a proposal of about a $1 million a year service charge. which was about $700,000 more than the next lower service charge provider that we found, the private provider. And that's what we did. And the current Bracewell provider is also competitively bid in providing the services to the CSA the best they can. However, the preference is to have somebody like the city of Pleasanton, which is right there. to do so. That's why we are asking the authorization to at least start conversation with the city to see if there is any venue of the city taking over the maintenance and operation of at least the water and source system. So The issue of insolvency, the issue of training, the issue of leaks, all of these things reflect the fact there is a fundamental financial challenge that the CSA is facing. And like I said, the CSA is a self-funded organization. And the only people that can correct and address that issue are the residents by actually assessing themselves higher, consistent with the demand of the services. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any question you may have.

Questions from board members. Supervisor Tam.

Thank you for that presentation. It clarifies some of the comments that I heard. You had mentioned and one of the speakers talked about the dissolution of the CSA and you said it was part of a settlement agreement that was reached, but it sounded like some of the speakers were not either aware of that settlement agreement or they don't agree with the dissolution.

I think, in fact, one of them were present in the settlement negotiations and even presented that option to start that process with Alaska. So they are aware that that was part of the resolution. the dissolution is a very very long-term process it's not something that you do right away and it's not something that you know we will be allowed to do just willy-nilly because you do have to provide this portable drinking water services it has to be with a provider that can sustain the service okay so the way i understand it and correct me if this is not correct um so when when this came to us uh

There was an emergency situation. We authorized the $1.4 million loan because of the urgent need to protect public health and safety, particularly with water service. And that this interagency transfer essentially would basically allow that CSA account to not have a negative balance going forward so that they can end the fiscal year, which is today, with essentially a balanced budget.

Is that correct? That's one way of looking at it. But fundamentally, if you don't backfill that $1.4 million, then there's no way of paying for services. And the challenge is you can't deny people portable water, drinking water. So this is it really is an unusual condition where it really is not much of a choice because we have to provide these services. I believe that under health safety issues. However, the. proposed in our account transfer allows you to at least do that without creating an additional stress into the system and compromise service delivery. We have to pay these vendors. Without them, if there's a power outage next time, Somebody has to go out there. There's a leak. They mentioned leaks. One of the reasons this 1.4 was built up was because there were leaks out there. There were failures out there at the pump stations. And some of the pumps already are past their useful life. They require replacements. So all of these things require funding. And I think the sooner the CSA and the CPOA recognize that that burden actually squarely falls on the stakeholders of the CSA, the sooner we can transition into a better resolution. And as one of the gentlemen mentioned, We are working right now together with them on a $2.5 million road rehab work. We provided them the information. We provided them the design. We provided them potential financing solutions. And they're not coming back and saying, Tony, you have to pay for that. Because they recognize those things have to be paid by the CSA as a self-assessed entity. So this one, the $1.5 million is no different except it's for water.

Okay, thank you. And as you mentioned, the process for dissolution, going through the LAFCO process, having conversations with the city of Pleasanton, that will take a long time. But in the meantime, the CSA still exists and the emergency repairs that might be needed to the water system will still be essentially funded, right?

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

Supervisor Miley, comments? Yeah, thank you, President Howard.

I have a few comments and I have a few questions. Let me see how I structure my comments. I've worked with the public works director for the last 26 years and even before that when I was on the Oakland City Council and he was in the city of Oakland. But I also represent most of the city of Pleasanton and between 2010 to 2020 I also represented Castlewood And I know this issue around water has been a daunting controversy. I don't think fire and emergencies have any distinction or discrimination when it comes to geography, class, or color. I mean, an emergency can happen anywhere. The obligation to provide water is something that is fundamental. It would be my strong desire that all the parties get together and resolve this. That would include the community of Castlewood, the Public Works Agency, as well as the city of Pleasanton. That would be my strongest desire. So today, I'm going to be abstaining on this item because I just don't feel that there's been enough conversation to get this resolved. And I think that's what needs to take place. Everybody seems to be dug in. their position. As both the county supervisor and a LAFCO commissioner, I do know that even through LAFCO, we cannot impose annexation. We can't impose it. So to get this resolved, I just think everybody's got to be at the table and there might be some give and take on all parties. So I'm going to be abstaining on this today.

Supervisor Marquez, questions, comments?

Thank you for all the explanations and the questions from Supervisor Tam were very helpful. Just wanted clarity with respect to Item E, recommending this to initiate dissolution of the CSA to LAFCO. Do we know how long that process will take? Assuming that this gets approved, that's the step we initiate is that a six month, one year process can give us a sense of what that looks like. And then if we do proceed with that process, is it guaranteed that the city of Pleasanton will also be part of that discussion?

Yes, I think the LAFCO process is a highly structured process. One of the good things about that process is you cannot just dismantle something without having a viable replacement. So the county is not gonna say we're gonna dissolve and walk away. So there needs to be an alternative entity that will provide these services. So in that sense, it's okay, but this recommendation is really pursuing and looking for what are other alternative governance structure that we can pursue. That's what we're gonna find out. And if there is one that everybody agrees on, then we'll pursue that scenario at the time. And usually take some kind of studies, special studies that the LAFCO group will do, and then come up with possible solutions as to what kind of governance structure we will pursue, including City of Pleasanton.

And until a decision is made, it's still our responsibility and obligation to provide the services.

Until that is done, the CSA remains. But like I said, the CSA is a self-funded organization. It has to self-fund itself.

Okay, thank you.

It's my understanding that currently in place is a loan from the county to the CSA that bears an interest rate of the pooled charges. I don't know what that is, but it's an interest rate. you're looking to replace it with an inter account loan with the 0% interest rate, because it's sort of one pocket to another of the same agency. And so therefore you're alleviating the need for interest. If you were not to do that, your choice of options would be to extend or make another loan which would also have an interest rate attached to it. And the reason you have to do that is to balance the budget. We're at the end of the year, budgets have to be balanced and you're doing it in a way that alleviates accrued interest, accruing of interest. Is that right?

Yes. Basically not to incur additional interest costs towards the residents.

I think the crux of this is, and I know we have the still outstanding issue of the amount of the loan, and I know that's not for discussion today, but I'm Hoping that we will at some point be able to have the discussion, whether it's continued. We know that they can sue and we can continue to go to court or we can mediate or somehow continue. You mentioned having a good working relationship now as you talk about the $2.5 million for road improvements. How... Is the current relationship between people who have to pay the bills and you who get to write the checks to do it, is that a good conversation? And the reason I ask is I heard a very recent concern. The generators aren't plugged in. We have to call somebody an hour away. It used to be that the golf club was trained, their maintenance people were trained to plug the generator in if needed. They have very smart people that maybe one of them could be trained. And then yet the answer was no. no, we're not going to do that. We're going to stay with what I heard. And maybe you have a different perspective, but you can't do that. Instead, you choose to call somebody an hour away, which fire could wipe out a neighborhood. I'm trying to get to how you can work better with them and resolve these disputes.

So we're... I don't know if that's a final no decision, but there was a concern as to what is the liability to the county if a layperson was allowed to operate an electrical facility like a generator that is generating a substantial amount of voltage. So But to the core issue that you're raising, it's not that we're against somebody being able to do that quickly. And if that's something that working with risk management, we find a resolution as to indemnify the county, we might be able to do that. However, the bigger issue is we would like to install, just like most other places, water providers, other utilities, there's an automatic notification system, a SCADA system that need to be in place so that people don't have to wake up in the middle of a night to know whether power is out, whether they need this thing. So we have put all these proposals together. All of this information is not new. It's been discussed through the CPOA. The fundamental issue is how do you pay for it?

Okay. Thank you. You'll commit to continue the dialogue with them. I'm also going to... vote no on this item, at least on items A through E and I'll bifurcate them. I'll make a motion to, well, I'm not going to make the motion, but I'll recommend that we make the motion to bifurcate A through E, which requires three fifths vote from F and G, which require four fifths vote. Correct.

Your motion is to bifurcate Mr. President.

No, I think my recommendation is that somebody make a motion to approve items A through E and separately make another motion to approve items F and G. Okay, I will move items 74A through E. I will second.

And just to clarify for the public, the reason why we have to bifurcate is A through E are just policy direction F through G have to do with appropriations or anything having to do with appropriations requires four-fifths vote. the policy decisions are only majority.

So a motion has been made by Supervisor Tam and Marquez. Did you second, I think? Second by Supervisor Marquez.

Supervisor Marquez? Aye. Supervisor Tam? Aye. Supervisor Miley?

Abstain.

Supervisor Fornada-Grass? Aye. President Halperin?

I vote no. No. So the final outcome of that vote, Madam Clerk?

We have three voting for yes.

One abstention and one no. So the vote, the motion passes. Is there another motion to approve item F and G?

I will move items F and G. I'll second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Tam to approve item F. 74F and G, seconded by Supervisor Marquez. Is there any discussion on the item? Seeing none, roll call vote.

Supervisor Marquez? Aye. Supervisor Tan?

Aye.

Supervisor Meyer?

Abstain.

Supervisor Fortunato-Bass?

Aye.

President Halbert?

I vote no.

Did not pass.

Thank you. What's the next item?

You have two ordinances. Item 37 is second reading of salary ordinance amendments.

37 is an ordinance?

Correct. Second reading. 37.

We'll The clerk read the title of the ordinance and then we'll take action.

An ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2025-2026 County of Alameda Salary Ordinance.

Mr. President, I will move to waive the full second reading and adopt the salary ordinance amendment to reinstate Article 3, Section 3-21 as described in Item 37. Thank you.

A motion's been made by Supervisor Tam to approve Item 37, Ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Miley. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez? Aye. Supervisor Tam? Aye. Supervisor Miley? Aye. Supervisor Fornado-Bass? Aye. President Halbert?

Aye. Item 38 is the first reading of salary ordinance amendments related to classifications in the Sheriff's Office.

An ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2025-2026 County of Alameda salary ordinance.

Mr. President, I will move to waive the full first reading and introduce the salary ordinance amendments to update the sections as described in 38A, Roman I and Roman II.

Second.

Motion's been made to approve item 38 by Supervisor Tam, second by Supervisor Miley. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez? Aye. Supervisor Tan? Aye. Supervisor Miley? Aye. Supervisor Fornado-Bass?

Aye.

President Halbert?

I vote yes. That's your last regular item before your set matters.

Very good. With that, I would ask that we take a brief recess. We will attempt to adjourn promptly. No, rather recess, return, return, not adjourn, return. At approximately 1.40, we need a 15-minute break. 1.40, everyone. We are in recess. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to reconvene our meeting. We were not in closed session, so there's nothing else to report out. I will note that we're now at our 1.30 set matter item. And at the request of Supervisor Miley, we will take item 78, proclamations and commendations first. Let's just make sure we're all here. We'll have roll call, please.

Supervisor Marquez? Present. Supervisor Tan? Present. Supervisor Miley? Present. Supervisor Fornari-Bass? Present. President Halbert?

Present.

We have a quorum.

We have a quorum. We'll proceed with proclamations and combinations. Item 78, Supervisor Miley, commending the members of the Alameda County Reparations Commission for their outstanding service, leadership, and commitment to advancing justice and equity in Alameda County. The floor is yours. Thank you, President. Thank you. I see you brought your fan club, your fan club, Supervisor Miley.

Yeah, I know a lot of folks in the audience, many of whom I've worked over the years and many of whom have given me advice over the years. So Supervisor Marquez and I served on the Board of Supervisors ad hoc reparations commission. So these commendations are coming from both of us and the full board. What we'd like to do is Supervisor Marquez will read the commendation because it's the same language for everyone, then I will call out the names, we'll present the commendations, and then we'll give the members of the commission who'd like to speak an opportunity to speak one minute, please, per person. And then we'll take a picture with all of the members of the reparations commission and then i think the president will have any public comment on this item before we go to the main item to see this afternoon i would also like to say that i'm extremely proud of the commission i might state that a few times today when we convened the commission i had no idea the level of work they would take on and they took on the heavy responsibility and they did an excellent job. They typically met the second Wednesday of the month, Supervisor Marquez, in my office and many times myself. We were at the commission advisory meetings. They held listening sessions. They did other things. So they really discharge their responsibility way beyond expectations. And not only did they discharge their responsibility way beyond expectations, they did an excellent job and we'll get to the actual report in the next item. So I don't wanna go into that just yet, but I'm just extremely proud of what they've done. So I'd like to have Supervisor Marquez go ahead and make comments and read the commendation and then I'll read out the names.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley. This has really been an amazing effort to collaborate with you. So I wanted to respectfully ask if you would be open to reading the first three whereases, and then I'll read the remaining four. I think it's important that we hear your voice. You've led these efforts. So if we could do this in partnership, that would be wonderful.

Oh, certainly. If that's what you'd like me to do, the first three whereases. Okay. Okay, so it says, whereas the Alameda County Board of Supervisors established the Alameda County Reparations Commission on March the 8th, 2023 to examine and address legacy and ongoing impacts of systemic racism and discrimination experienced by black residents in Alameda County. And whereas the commission was established as a 15 member body appointed by the Board of Supervisors intentionally, composed to reflect the diverse lived experience, professional expertise, and community perspectives across Alameda County, and was charged with conducting research, facilitating listening sessions, engaging impacted communities and developing a comprehensive draft action plan with short, medium and long term recommendations to advance reparative justice and address inequities in housing, health, education and economic opportunity. And whereas the commission carried out its mandate through a rigorous community centered process, gathering qualitative and quantitative data, documenting historical and contemporary harms, and elevating the lived experiences of voices of Alameda County residents. Through these collective efforts, produce research, recommendations, and a framework for repair that will inform County policy and contribute to ongoing efforts to remedy systemic unit inequities and improve

outcomes for black residents and thank you so much the commissioners have demonstrated exceptional dedication leadership and public service by contributing their time expertise and commitment to advancing truth accountability and restorative justice And on this day, the commission has submitted its report to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, marking a significant milestone in the county's efforts to advance equity, reparative justice and reflecting Alameda County's broader commitment to confronting structural inequities, fostering transparency and public accountability and advancing racial equity. As the Alameda County Reparations Commission concludes its formal term, the imperative to act does not end but intensifies, demanding immediate and sustained implementation of its recommendations. And deepened partnership remains essential to realize reparative justice drive lasting systemic changes. Now, therefore, this Board of Supervisors, County of Alameda, State of California, does hereby commend and express its deep appreciation to the members of the Alameda County Reparations Commission for their outstanding service. leadership and commitment to advancing justice and equity in Alameda County, and further recognizes the importance of continuing the work of repair, reconciliation, accountability, and community engagement to help advance opportunity, equity, and meaningful progress for current and future generations throughout Alameda County. I also wanna give my sincere appreciation to everyone who currently served on the commission. We did unfortunately lose one of the commissioners. I know we'll be dedicating the report in memory of his honor. And I know some people had to step aside, but everyone who played a role in this commission contributed a significant amount of time, energy, love, compassion. And a lot of truth telling. So thank you to all of you for your service. Our county is better off because of your commitment to put others first, to elevate your voices, not only your own, but to have the ability to have the listening sessions throughout the entire county to give people a safe place to share their thoughts and feelings. So thank you and congratulations for your service.

And I suppose Marquez mentioned, you know, some of the commissioners served for more than two years, two to three years. Some of the commissioners and one of the commissioners actually passed away, Jesse. But I really and we lost a couple of commissioners who just turned over and couldn't sustain their time on the commission. but I really, and we'll acknowledge the library for working with the commission, but I really wanna call out the first person who really helped to shepherd this from start to finish, worked with my office, Supervisor Marquez's office, the library, the county staff, and just was a tremendous chair, Deborah Gore. I'll bring it down to you in a minute. But you could you could stand it. If you want to stand there, Deborah. Brandon sat a sash with Brandon. Okay. You need a hurt skin. Natasha Triplett. Octavia Berry. Tyga Berlac. Is she here? No. James Knowles.

D. Johnson. Philip Gardner.

Larry McClendon.

Alan Jones. Leo Bazil.

Jennifer Gaydon.

Chadrick Small.

Now I'm going to give each of them their commendation. And once again, they have a minute if they'd like to make remarks. But let me just let you know, for the audience and everyone, I mean, these folks, I mean, it wasn't like they were always agreeing. It wasn't like there was... It wasn't like there was lack of tension at times. You know, tension is good because it produces the best thinking. But they were certainly dedicated to what they were doing around coming up with this action plan that we'll be talking about on the next item. So like I said, I'm just extremely proud because they represent the best of us. Thank you. The board will come down and get the pictures now with all of you.

Let's invite our speakers if they would like to, rather our commissioners, if you wanna say a minute or two, you can do it. And then we'll have public comment because Ray Bobbitt wants to speak at public comment.

All right. I think I'm the only commissioner who's going to speak on this item. Commissioner McClendon, at the honor of serving under the leadership of Supervisor Tam. And one of the things I just wanted to say, given the accommodations, is I just want to elevate Jesse, the commissioner that we lost. Getting this accommodation without him being here, I know that his spirit is here with us, but some of the things that he was very passionate about is reflected in the action plan. And I wanted to say that we all bring him into this room. And he was one of our original commissioners who started with us. So I just wanted to say, praise Jesse and the things he did all the way until he wasn't here with us.

Any other Commissioner wish to speak? We'll go to public comment then. Sanjeev? This is for 78. Yeah, make it clear. This is for item 78, which is commending the members of the Reparations Commission. If your hand is raised and this is not your item, please take it down. And if it is your item, keep your hand up. We'll call on you.

Sanjeev, go ahead. This is for item 78. Okay. Speaker, go ahead.

Hello, this is Angela Andrews, Hayward City Council. And I just want to thank the commissioners for their hard work and their determination to getting this plan across the finish line. I want to thank Supervisor Nate Miley for your leadership in creating this commission. And I remember being there present when this commission was being announced and really wanted you to make sure that This gets done. And this plan has been done by a great number of folks who are involved as part of this commission. And I want to give a special thank you to the chair, Deborah Gore. And I want to give a special thank you to the district representatives, Tiago Barlock, Octavia Berry, and Mr. James Knowles, who is a resident himself. I just want to make sure that we all know that this is a plan. This is an important first step towards restorative justice. And to make sure that we are giving the Board of Supervisors grace. This work is not easy. It is not something that's simply done. And this is something that's very new for our country. And I want to make sure that we are moving forward in the right direction. And I'm here to be a partner as we continue this work, as we know this work is not done. I also want to just acknowledge all the work of the commissioners and I've reviewed the plan and the plan is clear. It shows what needs to be done. And I look forward to seeing what the next step is in the process towards reparations for the African-American community in Alameda County, but also for this to be an example for the rest of the nation. Thank you.

Jen Brown, go ahead.

Hi, yes. Can you hear me? Sorry, I'm on the Zoom. Great, thank you. I just wanted to, I'm a resident of Oakland, and I would just like to share that I think the Board of Supervisors should take action on implementing this as soon as possible. Anti-Black discrimination has long been a part of our country's history, and I hope that the supervisors don't let the federal retreat from racial justice intimidate them, especially given that there is strong community support behind this initiative.

Next speaker.

There are no more speakers for item 78.

Okay. And I think the last speaker was maybe speaking about the next item we're going to take up. Seeing as how we've completed the proclamations and combinations, I would also like to echo comments made. Thank you to all the participants. And a little note of, I guess, coolness. commissioner triplet daughter just graduated from georgetown university four years in the making is that right so that's pretty amazing i'd like to thank and recognize acacia triplet so anyway i saw that on social media and she was my she was my um nominee to the commission and uh the triplet family is doing a great job in dublin anyway with that said we'll move to item 77 this is the library is listed as library approve the following recommendations do we have a presentation deb you're here the floor is yours

All right. Actually, I'll be opening this up. Yes, Deb will follow me. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The Reparations Commission, as you will hear, spent quite a bit of time and energy and knowledge pulling together this action plan. You know, we started this journey and we're going to hear today remarks from Supervisor Carson, March 28th, 2023, because he really framed it extremely well when we approved moving ahead with the reparations commission and having them come up with an action plan ultimately is their charge, but the board, Back in 2010, you know, apologized for slavery here in Alameda County. And then we also apologize once again for the George Floyd situation of which ended in tragedy. And then we also apologized during a few years ago for Russell City. So we've been on record and it's taken a long time to get to this point to have an actual action plan that we can now take up and look towards implementation and operationalizing over, you know, immediately and into the future. I do want to acknowledge the library under Dempsey Cup. because they stepped forward to be the county governmental entity that worked very closely with the reparations commission in order to bring about the work that we will take up today. As I said before, the commission spent a lot of time and they needed the staff support. We also want to acknowledge the consultants that worked very closely with the commission. I attended all of the commission's retreats and the commission working with the consultant. I mean, like I said, it wasn't without controversy, many of their conversations and their efforts to get to this point. I witnessed some of it and was told about other parts of it as well. But they did that out of the labor of love. And this, you know, this to me is very personal, being an African-American, very personal. And I don't want to get choked up, but it's very personal. And the reason I'm so proud of these people is because they did such a great job. Thank you. And as I put it out earlier, didn't have that level of expectation. But the folks who were appointed by the supervisors at the time and then this board, they just did a phenomenal job. and witnessing their meetings. Bert Jones, who was on my staff at the time, who now works in the city administrator's office in Oakland, attended many meetings as well. We were just very, very impressed with the level of discourse and engagement and the fact that the commission, even though they got a small stipend, and even though their budget wasn't the $5 million that they requested, They may do with the half a million that we allocated for them. And they spent it extremely wisely, extremely wisely and very carefully. So once again, this is historic and we should all be extremely, extremely proud of the work that they've done. So with that, I'll now turn it over to Deb Sega to take it from here.

Here we go, historic moment in Alameda County. So thank you, President Halbert, and thank you to the full board of supervisors for the opportunity to speak to this important set matter. As county librarian, I'm honored to represent the Alameda County Library as the sponsoring department for the reparations commission. today represents a meaningful milestone. The commission was established through the leadership of former Supervisor Keith Carson and Supervisor Miley, whose foresight and dedication to community centered policymaking created the foundation for the work we will hear about today. I also wish to acknowledge the direct involvement in the steadfast support of Supervisor Miley and Supervisor Elisa Marquez. along with their staff. I'd also like to recognize Erin Jones who helped us through all of the finances. and the partnership that we all pulled together to ensure the process remain grounded in community realities, responsive to constituent concerns aligned with county's jurisdiction. Reparations means many things to many people. To help clarify why we are here today, I'm outlining the three specific asks. The first one is to simply receive the report that fulfills ACRC's charge. Today is not the acceptance of the report and the recommendations, but the receipt of it. The second is to sunset or end the ACRC commission officially. But the most important piece is the third, to establish the standing committee to continue the work on the recommendations. Under the leadership of the activator and chair, Deborah Gore, the commission conducted extensive studies through dialogue and community listening sessions across Alameda County. Throughout this process, the commission carefully honored the jurisdictional boundaries and the responsibilities of county government, framing this living document to be assessed, aligned, and actionable. They navigated the complexities of county and city, state, and federal roles with care and keeping community needs always at the center. Nelson Mandela said, we may not be able to see the end of the journey, but we must have faith in our steps. The heart of Alameda County Reparations Commission was apparent and the journey has been meaningful repair that is ongoing. As the commission's work culminates today, the work acknowledges past injustices and charts a path forward rooted in healing, equity and responsibility. With the next presentation, it will become very apparent that this group of caring, professional, talented individuals devoted immense amounts of time, expertise, and compassion to present this draft report to you. With that, I ask you to watch this video that marks the beginning of this commission.

Chair, I don't have a question. I would like to take a few minutes to make a statement, if I may. I want to first begin by thanking President Miley of the board and his staff and Kayla, Matthew, for all the work that you've invested in this effort. It's been, as you stated, a number of years and really appreciate your leadership and your persistence to focus on this issue, which began back in June the 7th of 2011. when the, as you stated, when the board adopted the resolution that formally apologized for African-American enslavement and racial segregation, followed nine years later, nine years later, October the 5th, 2020, when the board adopted a resolution to develop an action plan addressing African-American legislative, social, and economic inequalities, and then followed November, 4th, 2021, a four-step proposal to create a countywide reparations action plan. So I deeply want to thank the commitment, the time and investment that you had to bring us up to this point. I've been listening to some of the other meetings that have been taking place around reparations in and around the state and the country. I know that we are at an inflection point in this country in terms of, as opposed to moving forward, it seems like we're moving backwards in many cases. And I know that given the increasing tension, the undercurrent of the tension, which seems to be growing, that again, you're absolutely right. the best time for us in Alameda County to take up this issue. I wanted to take a few minutes to do two things. I want to take a few minutes because we all received, the full board received on March the 11th, 2023, a copy of a letter that was sent to myself, the board. It was distributed by way of the clerk of the board. So it's stamped March the 10th. And it says, and I'm just going to pick up some of the excerpts of it, and then I'll make a few statements. It says, Supervisor Miley, please drop the idea of reparations. Slavery was 150 years ago. No one alive today either was a slave or had a slave. Some questions for you. How are you going to vet people as far as those who should be receiving reparations? By the color of their skin? Does one have to be a certain percentage black? How will that be proven? Does that seem like an expensive bureaucratic nightmare to you? It does to me. It's something I don't want to pay for. Who will pay for it? How much will we pay? Slavery makes it almost impossible for most African Americans to trace their lineage earlier than the Civil War. So how could they prove they deserve and are products of enslaved people? How about a contribution of people for all races, who fought fiercely against the ills of slavery, and Jim Crow. On a personal note, my great-grandfather was one of those who first fought in the Civil War, and he fought for the North. I'm going to skip down. It says, indeed, many people of all races gave civil rights their passion at all. And how about the extensive affirmative action programs, both public and private, that have gained traction in the post civil rights period? Towards the end of the letter, because it's extensive, in a column to the Hill last year, conservative activist Bob Woodson decried the idea of reparations as yet another insult to Black America that is closed in the trappings of social justice. He has told CNN he feels America made up for slavery long ago, so reparations aren't needed. I wish they can understand the futility of wasting time engaging in such a discussion when there are larger, more important challenges facing many in the Black community. He quotes from Woodson's talk on CNN, America atoned for its sin of slavery when they engaged in the Civil War that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. Let's forsake the argument of every black person receiving $20,000. What would that accomplish? I honestly, within the whole subject, I honestly with this whole subject, wish this whole subject would disappear. The more you have talked about it, the more people get riled up. I know I do. Talking personally. And I don't want to think anyone wants any more riding in the streets if and when there's this foolish idea gets turned down i really want you to think long and hard about these questions i presented and i'd love to hear your reply this came from allegedly a gentleman by the name of kim crow maybe kim crow might even call in today i don't know And we all got this by way of the clerk of the board. Well, I'm one of those who would want to answer Kim Crow's comments because they seem to be increasingly comments that we have here before us in this country that keep cracking up. And so let me begin with this. Because as we start this, I think we should start on a context. The African Atlantic slave trade by recorded history was the largest and most elaborate commercial venture in all of history between 1492 and about 1870. Records even in the Library of Congress say that more than 11 million black African slaves were carried from Africa to one part or another of the Americas. Me, my ancestors, your ancestors were taken to work on sugar, coffee, cocoa, cotton plantations as slaves. We worked in gold mines, rice fields, and we were servants in people's homes. Never, never making a dime. We were free labor. for almost 400 years, African-Americans worked as sleep-free laborers, labor from dawn to dusk. No one should forget that. And that's one of the things that will come out hopefully in this. But as important, and I think it's important that people know, as important as another major part of our country's history, as relevant today as when it was written, and that's the United States Constitution. Mr. Kim writes, and I quote, slavery ended 150 years ago. Well, the Constitution of 1776, and even to this day, March 28, 2023, is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution, which was ratified in 1778, is a document filled with important laws, articles dictating how the government would run but it also includes a preamble to the Constitution. And the opening part of that preamble to the Constitution, which highlights such principles that we follow today, are still very much with us today. The preamble of the Constitution begins with we the people, the basic fundamental laws of this land, the constitutional document in which all policies, procedures, and laws are to this day built on. The Constitution established a law in which our government is not only organized, but runs on. The Constitution establishes the separation of power, the executive, the legislative, the judicial branch of government, all of those branches of government that oversees and determines the way in which the Constitution is carried out. This government and its Constitution was drafted, it was designed by slave owners, slave owners. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, William Samuel Johnson, Governor Morris of New York were major drafters of the United States Constitution. These white men were major slave owners, owning hundreds of slaves. They had a vested monetary interest in slavery. With that intent, they formed this nation. They structured it. They protected it. in their own personal interests by drafting this Constitution, and even today with much of the personal beliefs that they held are embodied in that Constitution, which we still follow today. And according to that Constitution, we have today's government in terms of how we operate. which continues to precipitate, in my opinion, slavery, best with a different name. From the First Amendment of the Constitution, slave owners did not recognize free speech. Slaves were not only beaten, in many cases, they had their tongues cut out. This part of the preamble deals with general welfare, which was for the property of white landowners only. For black slaves, there was, and still to this day, is income inequality. In healthcare, poverty, education, black slaves had no property rights. Black slaves were the personal property of white slave masters, and the Constitution saw to that. The Supreme Court, which is the product of the framers of this Constitution, supported black people by making sure that they were only recognized for a long time as private property. While whites openly took land by land grab, by property laws, and only those who worked the land could not get access to that land. Alexander Hamilton, known as the father of the united states banking system united states treasury the father of all things upon which today's financial system is built own hundreds of slaves the major point of that is that 150 years after lincoln's emancipation even to this day some say how do you define emancipation so again i want to thank you for taking all the years and time to bring us to this point, to have this reparations committee. But let me underscore a few things here. That the practice of reparations is not a new practice. In the United States since the 1900s, the United States government has paid reparations to the victims of forced sterilization, Japanese internment, the 1923 Rosewood riots and victims of the Tuskegee experiment. So I have a different opinion than Mr. Kim does, Mr. Crowe does around the offer of this letter that we read around where we are as black Americans today, because black Americans, especially young black Americans believe America has failed, has failed this country. When one revisits recorded history and again, even if you go to the library of Congress America's bill black Americans went over 11 million black ancestors to this country came in shackles and slaves and we're sold at auction blocks. America is fail, because of the fact that when we were sold off as auction blocks, we were sold away from our basic families our mothers our fathers our sisters our brothers, we were separated no other race. since the founding of this country have experienced for over 250 years protected by the United States Constitution and the government this kind of treatment. As much as those who, like Governor Ron DeSantos of Florida, want to block documented history of blacks, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and the Asian Pacific Islander community from being recognized and taught in our schools, many black people believe America has and continues to fail black people. Our ancestors were placed and our grandparents were placed for almost 200 years in cotton fields as free labor. We were uneducated. We were left uneducated. And when educated, you placed us in inferior schools. United States government put us in substandard housing. And today we comprise the largest number of homeless individuals in this country. The United States government allowed that even sponsored scientific medical experiment and thousands of black and women and women and men experience were experimented on. Black people through the judicial system and the criminal justice system have never received equal protection under the law we've been kept out of the institutions of higher learning. And we're the lowest paying people in the job market. United States government has documented in its participation in making drugs available to black community. And then the government built bigger prisons. Government put us in prisons for long periods in time. Government gave us three strike laws. I can go on and on, but let me say this. Today, we as black people live under the shadow of slavery. because the drafters of the Constitution, major owners of slaves, drafted a document that today in American society operates under the color of slavery. So again, I want to say I really appreciate you bringing us to this point. And unlike what Mr. Crow laid out, I believe this is very appropriate because it wasn't 150 years ago, it wasn't 250 years ago, it continues to persist today.

So I wanted people to hear those remarks by Supervisor Carson, because I thought those were very powerful remarks. And I don't know how many people have heard them before, but I thought it was once again fitting that everybody hear those remarks again. It really makes me choke up, but I mean, he hit the nail right on the head, Deborah.

Thank you. Remind you again, I'm Deborah Gore. I'm the chair of the reparations commission and served from the beginning. I'm going to walk you through a presentation that we prepared for the ad hoc committee and supports all the action items that the department of libraries put in front of you. I too want to lift up Jesse Burleson, who was the commissioner who passed away Jesse served with me and was a confidant and probably my closest relationship on the commission, so to lose him. I also want to lift up the consultants who helped us. Exceptional community connections and informing change were also critical along with the library. So I want to acknowledge those folks who worked with us. So I'm going to take you briefly through this presentation. The materials are public, so if you miss any of it, just pull from that. And then you all have had it, so I'll flip through, but I just want to set the table for comments that commissioners will make both as part of this set agenda and the public comments. And then I'll wrap it up and close it for us. So here is our report that we delivered June 23rd, excuse me, in April for this meeting. Okay, there was a board letter. We are presenting a draft action plan report. We had four priorities and then we have a budget summary which the vice chair will present. So the mandate, so nicely set, the table is set. Actually, so with that speech you heard from former Supervisor Keith Carson was 2023, but the County or the Board of Supervisors, you all had a mandate in 2020. And that's when the formal apology was issued on slavery, segregation, systemic discrimination here in the County. So we're sitting here 2023, 23 years later, working on this. The vision from the ad hoc committee was that we delivered this framework and that the county could build on it specifically for the African-American Black community. So we have four priorities that came out of the report. One, that you formally accept it. I know you're receiving it, but we want you to accept it, to incorporate it. Two, to establish a permanent structure. We're under an ad hoc committee. We want it to be a formal committee with staffing and budget, and then also to set up another commission, 2.0. I tend to frame the commission that we are serving right now as the representation commission, and we're going to move to an implementation commission. The fourth priority is to conduct an equity assessment. We did not have the opportunity, I know we did a lot in three years, but we did not have the opportunity to go into all the departments and agencies who are in fact doing equity work. There is good work being done by staff, there is allocation of resources, and that needs to be lifted up so that the community knows the work that is being done in the county. And then fourth is that, you know, the big word, we operationalize it and that just make it real, make it happen. There is an office of equity, needs to be staffed, needs to be folded in with all the other agenda items so that we can incorporate it into the county's work. So here's the evidence that we did in the last nine months. So we were seated for three years, but nine months is because that's when we got resources. Y'all were so generous to give us a half million dollars. And this is what we were able to do with that money. And Vice Chair McClendon will tell you how we spent that money because it was important that we had credibility and accountability. So we did paper surveys, we did online forms, we had long form digital surveys that the commissioners wrote and built. We had 22 events in five districts Over 400 community members responded to the survey and showed up, and then 83% self-identified as Black. And taken all together, this is not merely a reflection of the community, but it actually is what we are constituting as the community record. Okay, so these are just some highlights of what we were able to discover. And I think our report is close to 220 pages right now. So 83 is under the systemic harm because part of our report says you got to have a harm report to prioritize what you want to accomplish and then engage with the community. So 83% experienced systemic harm in Alameda County. 66% have been subjected to some kind of bias or unnecessary police stops. 64% attend schools where their culture and history was disrespected. Now we understand some of this is not necessarily under the full jurisdiction of the county, but just so you know how the different cities are experiencing harm. 60% face housing policy barriers to ownership and wealth. And then on the vision, right? Talked about the harm, but what do y'all wanna see? 85% wanna focus on protecting and rebuilding black neighborhoods, schools and institutions, 85%. 61% demand community organizations and residents help lead the effort. So we gotta involve the community. A little dense here, but what we wanna just emphasize here is phase one, what did we do? We wrote you a report. We worked with this ad hoc committee. We had a model based on representation and we were in the community. We're about 15 large or 15 members. And we have embedded the community voice in the report. And we're sunsetting today. Where we want it to go, what we're proposing is you implement the plan, that there's a standing committee, that the commission is skill-based with lived experience, that it gets smaller, seven to nine members, but that it have an advisory group from the committee, advisory group that's 20 or 30 members that help advise both the commission and the committee. And then that go for three plus years. It's a little slow. Okay. You also mandated us to give you short-term, medium-term, long-term. These are the 12 policy areas. I know it's hard to read, folks. It's a little small, but again, we'll put the final report available both within the county and on the website that we were able to set up. Short-term, meaning one to two years. So get on this right away. And you saw from the percentages. Housing and property, economic opportunity, right? Close the wealth gap. Physical and mental health. We put a lot of resources in our social services. So I think it's over a billion dollars. And then Black youth, center our Black youth in the community. And then please, please set up this Office of Reparative Justice, short term, get on it right away. Medium term, let's work on some of the systemic stuff. That's foundational, systemic, education, legal system, data, transparency. keeping track of what the data is telling us to inform what we need to do. And medium term, Black civic and cultural power. Long term, long term here is three to five years, not the 26 years we've been working on this so far. Political disenfranchisement, ongoing transparency, like make it public. And then deal with the environmental equity issues and infrastructure. So that, too, that 12 points is also in the report. This is just a visual diagram, right? Go from ad hoc to standing committee. Go from ad hoc commission to a phase two commission. Put that community advisory council, we call it CAC, and then phase it out. and this is with help from both of the supervisors and the ad hoc, phase it so that we can keep the momentum going. Okay, now this is how we see the alignment happening so that we don't have delays, right? The third priority was to look at the equity in all of the departments. So right now we know if we can in the next 60 days or two months, or I know you guys go on recess. So however the standing committee does it, Like I was saying, there is all this existing good equity work happening within Alameda County. We need to prioritize it. In fact, we had a commissioner, Commissioner Saul, who actually put together a framework that you could follow that says, look, let's streamline it. Let's organize it. Let's figure out where the gaps are. Let's see where we're fully aligned. Let's see where we're partially aligned. And then let's see where the gaps are. Right. And the strategic value to the count of the board of supervisor is to create a baseline and then good faith effort that we know the staff is doing and to figure out the true cost of inaction that mathematically can make it visible. So I will lift up here that we do not have a budget budget ask. for this phase as we sunset. We want to allow the folks, the next committee and the next commission to figure out the resources that they need. We are not naming those resources. With that, I'll bring up Vice Chair McClendon to go over how we spend the money.

Thank you again, Board of Supervisors. My name is Commissioner McClendon, Larry McClendon. I've been serving on the commission from the very beginning. And in the beginning, we were trying to decide how to divvy up different roles and responsibilities. And so one of the things that was not mentioned is that the entire commission took on subcommittee roles that they met on their own time during the week, sometimes twice a week. I had the pleasure of serving on the admin and budget committee. which my son referred to the boring committee. When he's asking me what I do and what I have to be on these meetings at night and things like that. And he's, oh, you're on a boring committee. But it was a committee that I knew we needed from the very beginning because it tracks all the widgets. It manages the work that is not as attractive. And so what I'm going to present is a few slides to reference Supervisor Miley's statement earlier is that we ran a tight ship. We wanted to make sure that if you entrusted us with money, that we will be good stewards of that money. So the next phase, the next set of commissioners can be entrusted with more money in the next phase. And so I'm happy to report with the first slide is that you guys can trust us with $500,000 of county dollars, government dollars, public dollars to run a campaign and cabinets each and every city within the county. When we submitted this presentation, to the Board of Supervisors, we had spent $441,754 of those funds that you entrusted, drawn about 108 ledgers of transactions. And then at the time that we submitted this particular report, there was some outstanding invoices that were due. And I will summarize that at the end. Is it here? Oh. Yeah, it's out of order.

Yeah.

Here we go. All right. So. All right. Thanks. There we go. All right, where the funds went, which is really important. So the magic for the commission, as Chair Gord mentioned, it happened within nine months. When we were allowed to use the resources that you entrusted in us, we got the work. And that's where we started touching base with every and anybody within the commission who were able to show up. The first bar that you see there is the big bulk of this went to the action plan, the harm study, and the project management. Also, I want to elevate ECC also as our project leads, who did a wonderful job. And then I'd be remiss if I don't always acknowledge the power of libraries because I did not have the same level of belief that a library can support a commission like us, but they made me believers and I just want to give them kudos.

I mentioned to Larry, this is not your grandpa's library.

And so a big bulk of the expenditures went to project management, the harm study. But one of the things that we wanted to do when we were reaching out to the people within your districts, we want to make sure when we did those community engagements, there were engagements that were meaningful. So each and every community engagement has substance. We want to make sure we have food. We want to make sure we have childcare. We want to make sure we had a therapist there because things come up. And so we wanted to be really good stewards of what that landscape looked like when people came into that room to make sure that they were fulfilled when they left that room and we didn't leave anything out. The resources you entrust us with allowed us to deliver high quality touch points throughout the entire county. And thank you for that. One of the other areas of spending was the public communication and the outreach, our Instagram, LinkedIn, website, all contribute to the ability for us to track and follow up with people. This room is filled with people who are able to have touch points digitally and was able to see the work of the commission. We use a portion of the funds for that. And then the last portion is the meetings, all the things that we did to document meetings, notes, note takers. And so that's how we spent the money that was entrusted to the commission. And I just broke this down, but this is another way to look at the dollar amounts broken down. And again, the numbers are a little outdated because with the library's help, we were able to finalize a lot of our final invoices. And so with this final slide, I show you that we have made and fulfilled all of our payments. We have accounted for every single vendor. We had over 27 vendors, different vendors who worked with us over the nine months. And to date, we are showing a unallocated balance of $2,225.54. from the initial $500,000 that you entrusted us with. And so I believe that we were good stewards. I was trying to spend that $2,000 as much as I can. I couldn't get it across the finish line. So I do need to apologize for that. But thank you for entrusting us with your money. And then I hope that you entrust the next phase with a similar amount or more. Thank you.

Also, as part of our set matter, we have two commissioners who'd like to speak. Commissioner Brandon Sass and Artavia Bailey.

You can go ahead and clap. All right. Hey, I want to thank you guys. Thank you, Supervisors, very much. Before I start, I want to tell a quick story. One of the reasons I'm here, people say, you grew up in Fremont. That's not a lot of Black people. You're right. When you go to your best friend's house when you're seven years old and his dad slams the door, you're crying on the porch and your friend comes out and said, why aren't you inside? Your dad found out I was black. Or when you're walking home from school and someone starts throwing rocks at you and now you have to run home from school. Good for track later in life, but it was because they didn't think rocks would hurt the black kid. Those are things that we think about. And yes, that has changed some, but racism is still ignorance on fire. So as... Thank you. As we wind down the work of this commission, we must be clear. This is not the end of the task. It is the beginning. Reparations, reparative justice, whatever term feels most digestible to the public must continue to move forward with purpose and conviction. Is this document perfect? No. But it's a starting point, a foundation that identifies the most glaring inequities and begins to build the work of building a county where every resident has a fair and level playing field. By the beginning with the core, creating a strong, scalable, duplicatable programs, we can uplift the entire community. You know, in just a few days, our nation will mark 250 years And for the vast majority of that history, African Americans, citizens of this country have been treated as second class and third class participants in the very democracy they have helped build. That truth cannot be ignored and it cannot be dismissed as history. Its impacts are present. measurable and deeply felt today. But here in Alameda County, we have an opportunity. We have the chance to take the reins and begin a real path towards equality. Not symbolic equality, not rhetorical equality, but structural equality, where we can set an example for our country. not just for our county, but for the state of California and for the nation. This moment is ours and yours to claim. This responsibility is ours to carry. And the future we shape can be one that finally reflects the promise of America for everyone. Thank you.

I literally should not say anything behind that, Commissioner Bass. But I will just take a couple moments. Ms. Artavia, why I got to be in juvenile hall to get access to support? If I had this support before, I never would have been here. This is a direct quote from a black male youth who we're not allowed to name, 16 years old, currently in juvenile hall. For generations, we have documented the compounding line items of systemic harm against black people. Harms born from Chattel slavery and continuing today. from the red lining that stripped away generational wealth in communities like Russell City, to the ongoing disparities in healthcare, homelessness, economic mobility, and the ongoing school to prison pipeline impacting black youth at alarming numbers today. We know the history and we know the numbers. But history does not change itself. And studies alone cannot heal our community. This is why we cannot afford the luxury of waiting. Every single day we wait, the racial wealth gap widens. Another generation of Black families are forced to carry a burden they did not create. Every day we lose a chance to honor our ancestors, and we mourn the loss of our elders, including folks like Mother Jessie Mae Johnson of Russell City, who recently passed on without justice or healing from past harms. We've waited too long. Taking action on black reparations right now is about correcting the legends of the past and about building a foundation for the future. True healing and repair requires tangible, institutional, and well-funded commitment. The time for study has concluded and the era of active repair has begun. The responsibility is ours. And the moment to lead is now. In Alameda County right here in California, we will lead this nation as California always has. I want to express my gratitude to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and our ad hoc committee. Supervisors Marquez and Miley, thank you for your leadership and support of this commission. To the incredible residents of Alameda County, including all of our black churches, our nonprofit organizations, and members of the D9, especially the sororities of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Incorporated, Thank you for showing up, thank you for sharing your truths, and thank you for keeping us so grounded in our purpose. To my fellow commissioners, it's been an honor to lock arms with you over these past three years. This journey has demanded our time, our hearts, and a lot of unwavering commitment. But because of our collective dedication, the blueprint for repair is finally here. I respectfully ask that it is approved today for immediate implementation. Thank you all. Let's keep moving forward together. As always, as my mentor, Reverend Jesse Jackson said, keep hope alive.

Okay, so you just bear witness to what a little slice of the commission. So I would like to close with these remarks. So thank you for allowing us to share the presentation. And I wanna provide just a little bit of deeper context. As of this afternoon, we have collected and I think you have received over 195 support letters. And we had about 110 people registered to attend both in-person and online. So I just want to acknowledge the people who showed up today. So I want to start by telling you what this is not about. This is not a debate about whether slavery happened 160 years ago. It did. Nobody in this room is being asked to personally answer for it. So if that's the argument you came here prepared to make, You can set that down. That's not the question in front of you today. The question in front of this board of supervisors is simpler and harder to dodge. Do we still believe in a constitution or do we just believe in the parts that are most convenient? As Keith Carson, I'm channeling what he said, as well as Leo Bazil, who also was an attorney, and Jesse Burleson, who he and I sat a long time talking about the foundational ideas, not mine, not this commission's, but they're written in the documents themselves. Like Supervisor Carson said, the preamble doesn't say government exists to manage a budget. It says we the people form this government to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves. That's the job description. Natural rights theory, the rights don't come from the government. Rights exist to secure them. And that's why the Ninth Amendment says that rights retained by the people don't depend on them being written down. Popular sovereignty, the government's authority comes from the consent of all the people, not some of them. Limited government, that there are bounds on what the governments may legitimately do. The Republic, that representations answers to the people they govern. Finally, checks and balances, built precisely because the framers knew government would sometimes fail and there needed to be a way to correct it. Every one of these principles was violated at one point and another. Not once, not by accident, but systemically for generations against a specific population by the government itself. Not by individuals acting alone, by the government through law. Look, the 13th Amendment didn't just end slavery in 1865. Congress gave power to eliminate what the courts have called badges and incidents of slavery, recognizing that harms don't end when the chains come off. It continues in the structure left behind. The 14th Amendment promised equal protection of the law. The government built redlining maps anyway. The Fifth Amendment says private property can't be taken without just compensation. The government ran freeways through black neighborhoods anyway and called it progress. This is not ancient history. Redlining maps drawn by federal agencies in the 1930s still shape the lending practices in Alameda County today in our living memory. You don't have to take it on faith. We pulled it from the county records, Alameda's own disaggregated data across health outcomes, housing, income, criminal justice contact, education. All of that data shows black residents over index for harms, not as a historical footnote, but right now in this county, in this data, this is not 1865. This is not even 1965. This is data sitting in our department today. And it's not just numbers, you heard us. We held listening sessions across the county and we heard it in our own people's words. Present day stories, not family lore about what happened to a great grandparent, stories about what is happening to them now. This is the piece I need the Board of Supervisors to sit with. The legal objection to reparations has always been the harm is too old. The clock has run out. But you cannot say the clock has run out on a harm that is still showing up in the county's data today. The injury is not historic. It's current. We are just finally measuring it. I know what's being said outside this room today and most likely online and probably by some of us in this room, that we are asking for a handout, that this is about victimhood, that if people would just work harder, none of this would be necessary. So let's be precise about what we're actually talking about. A handout is something government gives you that it didn't take from you in the first place. This is not that. This government accounting for something it took, designed, and enforced with maps, statues, eminent domain, with its own signature on documents, calling that a handout isn't just wrong, it's backwards. It describes the original theft as the baseline and the request to address it as an unearned part. And as for laziness, I'd ask anyone making the argument to explain the data we just walked through using the theory of laziness. Explain that life expectancy gap for black men using laziness. Explain the 1937 federal map grading entire neighborhoods hazardous by the race of the people as laziness. You can't because the data doesn't measure effort. The data measures policy. It measures what government did and not what the residents failed to do. Victimhood is also the wrong word. And we're saying plainly, nothing in the 44 recommendations asked this board to see anybody as a victim. It asked the board to see the record. There's a difference between identifying as harm and documenting the harm that happened. The other is founded in the government data. So here is the actual question. When government violates its own premises against an identifiable group and the evidence shows it continuing today, what is the legitimate response? There's a word that already is in the founding document.

It's not a modern invention.

It's in the doggone First Amendment, sitting right next to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And that's the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance. The framers didn't just protect free speech. They built an expectation that government would sometimes get it wrong and that there would be need to be a path to fix it. So that word redress is 235 years old. This commission didn't invent it, but we're going to use it. Look, also in Keith's speech, he talked about Dr. Martin Luther King, and he phrased it in the terms of a debt. At that march in Washington, he described the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as a promissory note. a guarantee for every American of unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He said America had defaulted on the note where its citizens of color were concerned, handing back a check marked insufficient fund. But listen what he said next, because this is the part people skip over to get to. I have a dream. He didn't say the note was worthless. He said, we've come to cash that check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. He came not to ask for charity, and we are not here to ask for charity. He came to collect on a debt the nation said itself had written and signed, and a debt that is so old, held against an injury so deep. We are never going to settle on that single check. This is exactly the position this board is in today. We also, okay, now the people want to wave this all the way and tell you that the courts already settled this. There is no legal case. And they're half right. Courts have mostly declined to hear the reparations claim. Notice why. Not because the judges found there was harm, because of sovereign immunity, statutes of limitation, standing, look, that's procedural walls, not a verdict on the merits. Those doctrines assume justice happened and stopped. Our data says otherwise. And notice this too, the 10th Amendment reserves the state the rights and to the people, the powers that the courts don't reach. That's not a loophole, that's a design element. When one branch at one level of government cannot act, our system doesn't end there. It hands the obligation down to the level of government closest to the people it has harmed. That's this board of supervisors. That's this reparations commission. That's today. When the court can't act and the legislator declines to act, the harm doesn't disappear. It just sits there. unaddressed while the checks and balances system that's supposed to catch it fails to catch it for generation and generation. The failure is not the reason to give up. It is the exact reason this commission exists. We are not asking the board to invent some constitutional concept. We are asking the board to be the venue that finally does what the court and the legislations have failed to do for over centuries, respond to our documented constitutional harms, with a constitutional remedy. This is not about nobody's guilt. This is not about blame assigned to anyone sitting in these chairs today. This is not about this country. Oh, sorry. This is about whether this country is what it says on paper, the government of, by and for the people. The Alameda County Reparations Commission is bringing you 44 recommendations across 12 focus areas. I'd ask you to hold every one of those against this test. Not that it's some charity. not that who is guilty. You need to hold it against, is this what a government that actually believed in the founding principles would do when it discovers, when it is made plain that the data and its residents has told you, you are violating your principles. We have a county government by consent by limited power, by the rights that precede government, by a system that corrects itself when it fails, or else we don't. The county, your power doesn't exist alongside the Constitution. Your power exists because of the Constitution. So today, this board gets to decide whether Alameda County is finally able ready to repair what it indeed broke. Thank you.

Somebody did not want to follow Brandon and did an outstanding job. And then somebody didn't want to follow that and did an even better job. Amazing. Supervisor Miley, back to you or public comment.

We can go to public comment now and then we'll take it up.

How many slips and how many hands? Rather online, hands online.

Currently I have 29 slips. in person and two online.

Okay, I think we're going to get more online. But let's have one minute for every speaker. And if you could, if you want to speak, please fill out a speaker card. And if you're online, now would be the time to raise your hand, the clerk will count and cut off the online list shortly. The clerk will call three in person and then three online. If you're called to speak in person, just line up behind the speaker in front of you, behind the microphone in the podium, and just be ready to speak when the person before you is finished. So the clerk will now call the first three. Let's do five, five in person, because most people are in person. First five in person, please.

Richard Spiegelman, Michael Morse, Doris Manning. Bishop Jerry McKinn, Wanda Davis.

Was that Bishop Macklin you called? Bishop Macklin? Okay, yeah. I want to make sure I got your name right, Bishop. and as a supervisor, you know, when I had them not getting your name right.

Hi, I'm Richard Spiegelman. It's an honor to follow the speakers. I'm kind of speechless, but I just wanted to say a couple of things. I'm a 50-year resident of Alameda County, and as you all know, I serve as the chair of the Interfaith Coalition for Justice in our jails. And I was going to say that that's not why I'm here, but in fact, that's affecting what I'm about to say. I think it's a remarkable report. I have a whole list of eight pages of things that I wanted to take note of. I'm not going to say them because they're in the report about how criminal justice has affected the lives or criminal injustice has affected the lives of people in this county. And the point that I do want to make is that there are things that are already in process that fit in with this report and ought to be pursued. For example, the Ad Hoc Committee of the Behavioral Health Advisory Board that's going to present more of its 58 recommendations, many of them go to addressing problems of race in Alameda County. And the same thing with some of the concerns we've brought up about housing and homelessness, and my time is over. So I think I'll put it in writing and send you a letter. But thank you so much for supporting this process.

Hello, my name is Doris Manning, and I was kind of feeling like the Lone Ranger here for a minute until she got up and spoke. She went to cry, and that's why I'm kind of emotional. I've been with a couple of groups before, but I'm with this one. I love what I hear now. Sitting down there, I had a little surgery. I'll be okay after a while. But what I'm trying to, when I heard them talking, I said, get up and say something. And I won't be very long if I can. I didn't know what kind of reparation. Everybody's doing different things. I know there's strength in numbers. And I like what I see among you guys. And I'm fixing to join up with you. You know what I mean? This is really nice. But what I'm trying to say is we need to get together more. And I see what they're doing. This is wonderful. I've been with other committees and watched what they were doing and what have you. And we're on the run. We just have to keep going at it. You know, what we are planning to do, we need to keep going and just keep doing it. I get very serious about this. I always liked black history and always tried to do and be with groups and do. But I got real serious. I found my grandmother, and I always tell this, I could care less. I found my grandmother, my sixth grandmother, on a slave ship. And she was leaving from Virginia, going to New Orleans. And I really got tough then. I talk everywhere. And she was only 16 years old. Somebody put her on there. And that's sixth and seventh generation. So I'm going to keep going. I'm dogging behind stuff like that. So she went to New Orleans. I know she got there. And I know that she married my grandfather. And I know what happened with that because they went to Louisiana and I got a manifest from that ship. So I know. Manifests don't lie either. And I know the captain and everything. I got all that information. And so that's what I'm working on now. And I need to get through this group here as soon as I've been a little down, a little sick, but I'm getting better. I'm going to be a superwoman in a minute. You know, I know that California, we're kind of tough here. I don't want to get into politics because I'm not a lawyer. Ma'am, I hate to tell you, but the minute's up. But if you have more to say, I'd love to hear it.

California need to pick up that slate of clauses and that constitution.

They need to do all that kind of stuff because 10, I think 10 countries, 10 states have done it. What's wrong with us? I went to school here and I went to college here. And I don't know, prejudice is a monster. I was out trying to get a job one time when I was younger and it hasn't stopped. We were all in there filling out the application together and we knew it was together because black and white put the same answers down. And that time you couldn't put anything on the slave clause, that clause on there that says who you are wasn't on anymore, what color you are. So we knew that we all fill out the same applications. And when we got there, they started calling all the white kids, calling them, and we called each other because we're all buddies. And I said, how do you know? Because there's nothing on the papers. One of the girls told me, she said, don't turn me in. I want my job. But I want you to know.

Could you wrap it up, ma'am? We got 30 other people who got to talk.

She said, I want you to know. I'm going to sit down. I want you to know what they did. They put a check mark on. And at the end of the day, they threw out all the check marks, OK? So that hasn't stopped. So we need to get what we're doing. And I enjoy everything these people are saying. They're telling the truth. So the truth will stand. And we will make it. We'll do it.

Thank you.

Give a round of applause, everyone.

Thank you.

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in that sight. Good evening. I mean, good afternoon. Members of the committee. My name is Michael Morse, also known as . I'm presenting Ujamakijiji Oakland UCO, a visionary self-sustaining 33-acre development project designed as a model for tangible urban repair, economic independence, and community renewal right here in Oakland. As you look at the master plan before you, you will see that UCO is engineered as a fully integrated municipal footprint. This multi-billion dollar framework is built around 12 core foundational structures designed to serve every aspect of civic life, including a community hospital, a dynamic local economy anchored by a business center and commercial sky farm, an independent three-tier educational campus and culturally descriptive residential zones. This proposal transitions community development away from standard models of structural dependency by establishing a cooperative land tenure network through shared stewardship certificates. Does anybody can see for me? Thank you.

We don't see time though. If you could just wrap up.

So turn that mic on. All right. By establishing a cooperative land tenure network through shared stewardship certificates, we create a path forward for Black families to build generational wealth and localize industry independently. We are actively mobilizing a professional team of urban planners, engineers, and architects to carry out these foundational tasks. I welcome your questions on how this model can serve as a cornerstone for systemic repair and community empowerment. So I want to raise between $5 and $10 billion. And I've designed about 17 major buildings for Eastmont Mall. I want to purchase it for $100 million. And I want to do that through the people by issuing a stock certificate that we would sell maybe for $20 a piece.

So your time is up. Yeah. Next speaker, please.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

Good morning, good afternoon. My name is Wanda Davis. I am a member of the Women's League of Voters Oakland, and I definitely support that you accept this commission's recommendations and their final report. I also just want to say as a mother and a wife and someone who's lived in Oakland for over 50 years, I want to just relay a story to you about my son's experience with my husband. They were stopped by a policeman because they said the car, the van looked like a van they were looking for. No other reason. And he also ended the conversation by saying, huh, father-son moment, huh? Our, my son, African-American sons and daughters should not be experiencing these kind of interactions with our police. So I'm hoping part of this work that we'll be doing will be around training. Thank you.

Marian Abrams, go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.

Oh, no problem. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for the privilege. I represent Glantiding Church in Hayward, California, where we've been 48 years. Pilgrim Baptist Church is there, Reverend Trammell, who's not able to come, but has done so much work in this area. I come by today to leave you two gifts that I hope you will not receive. One is an eraser. The other is whiteout. On the porch of the balcony of the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis, Tennessee, Martin King was shot, killed, and his blood was there. Hours later, the brother-in-law of the hotel owner came out with a brush and began working hard to remove the bloodstain from there. It was not successful. And out of all of the work that he did, the bloodstain was still there. May I say to America that the bloodstain of my forefathers, the bloodstain of those who have suffered, bled, died for this country, right now is under attack. And there is a concerted effort to erase the history of my parents and my forefathers. There is a concerted effort to white it out, take it out of the historic books, take it out of history, take it off the record as if it never attended, was never there, but it is there. And I suggest to you today that if you do not act on this, you need to take this eraser with you. But if you act, leave the eraser here, tell the rest of the world we will not erase what has happened. We will do what's necessary. Thank you all very much.

Miriam, go ahead.

When most pastors go over, he get it right on time. Good job, Pastor.

Okay.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Okay, great. My name is Miriam Abrams, and I've lived in Oakland for about 50 years, which I dearly love. And I'm so inspired by the work that's been done by the commission. I really only have two words to add. Do it. Do it. Make sure this gets implemented. Make sure this gets done. I am a professional planner and I work with organizations and then they create plans. I don't do that, but other people create plans that sit on the shelf. Do not let this happen to this one. Do it. There will be obstacles that will get in the way. You will think that you don't have funds for it. Do it anyway. This is so overdue. Make sure this gets done. Thank you.

Megan, Roberto Williams.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Good afternoon. I am calling in to urge you to vote no on approving flock cameras, mass surveillance. This is for, I'm sorry, this is for item 77.

Different item.

Different item, so then do I call in later? Thank you.

Call in later.

Caller, go ahead. A.M.? Can you unmute? Kendall Johnson.

Hello, Board of Supervisors. I'm Kendall Johnson. I'm an organizer and community developer based here in Oakland and also work on behalf of Black Futures.

I want to share a statistic.

In 1910, Black Americans owned over 16 million acres of land in this country. Today, we own less than 3 million. That land wasn't sold. It was stolen through violence, through policy, and through neglect. We are still living in the womb of that right here in Alameda County. So I'm here because land is not just an economic asset. Land is food, medicine, and the ability to feed your neighbors, fill your community, and stay rooted in place. Black people have access to land, everyone eats better, everyone breathes easier, and the whole county benefits. So I just want to echo the pride of all the presentations before and urge the county to receive this framework. Thank you.

AM, go ahead.

Hello, is my mute off?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Hi, my name is Archer. I have been resident of Alameda County for five years. I was born and raised in Kentucky, Brinkford, Kentucky, one of the cities actually that Martin Luther King Jr. led marches on. And yeah, moving out here, I often felt like Yeah, just as a lot of people have in personal experiences, the layers of the ongoing harm and how over time that can be abstracted and people can kind of... argue about, you know, their own histories and stuff. But I just want to implore to the supervisors to act on this. The committee has given you an opportunity to lead the country in terms of a turning point in the history and really to throw the boomerang back from Manifest Destiny and repair the harm. So thank you.

Next five speakers, Samuel Ramey, Marlene Rubin, Darius Young, Quantum, Kathy Adams.

Anyone can speak. It doesn't have to be in the order called, but go ahead. Yeah. Thank you.

Greetings, Board of Supervisors. I don't recognize anybody anymore except for my good friend, Nate Miley. And I would like to just say thank you for your courageousness for moving this agenda and going along. And thank you to the commission who did a Yemen's job. I'm here to just say that you should accept this report. and that you should make this commission ongoing. Having been a part of the State California Reparations Task Force and watching those things move through, I would say that the flaw was not having the the task force help legislate and go through the legislation process of implementation and i would just like to say that in terms of an apologies apologies are good right but without action they mean nothing and to me being a substance abuse counselor but also doing the work of um violence prevention and you know apologies mean nothing because it's like a um being in an abusive relationship right the abuser says i'm sorry and then the next day the abuse continues and so i would like to say that do this and get it right and you'll be all right thank you

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Marlene Rubain, and I am a member of the League of Women Voters Oakland. The League has not stood up in the past for against racism, and its past presidents have apologized. And now we have formed the Reparations Advocacy Interest Group because they know it is an important issue. The work that the commission has done is an important start. And just as the League is moving forward with practices that begin to address some of the harms it is important that this work continue and that it be given the resources and the human resources to do it and to get action and to make it from theoretical to the practical so it is time and as the button says the time is now thank you

When do I know it's time to go? When that thing moves? Okay. All right. I wanted to thank the Reparation Commission for the work they've done, also the Board of Supervisors for allowing that to happen. My name is Quantum Norwood. I stand in resolute support of the reparations committee commission's draft action plan, we urge you to vote yes on all four priority items today to fully operationalize these repairs. To power phrase the great Frederick Douglass, it is not light that is needed, but fire. It is not the gentle shower, but the thunder. We need the storm. We need the whirlwind. We need the earthquake. And to me, frankly, it's always fascinating watching systems offer us drizzles of empty committees to study a depth they created. But let us be clear. We have not all been sitting idly by awaiting this day. Some of us have been actively pursuing other strategies to see the transformation happen with or without your consent. Our community path to self-determination does not depend on political permission. We ultimately seek our sovereignty from systemic harm, ensuring sustainable community housing, wellness, and equality for our future generation. That will be our true justice. Fulfill your obligation to humane recognition and vote yes. Thank you. Thank you. And again, I thank you.

Kathy Adams. After Kathy will be Kim Thompson, Derek Barnes, Ray Bobbitt, Derek Muhammad, and Carol Tolliver.

Thank you, county supervisors, very much for for entertaining this and particularly Nate Miley for making this happen. And thank you so much to the commission. The work that you've done is just so critical. Just to those who say this is something that needs to happen, maybe needed to happen 150 years ago, but doesn't need to happen today because hey, Slavery ended 160 years ago. Just remember, it didn't. And we've talked about this already. And certainly Deborah did a great job. And and Supervisor Carson also did a great job. But it wasn't just slavery. It's all the things that came after it. It's the black codes. It's the the Jim Crow. It's the redlining. It's the restrictive covenants. It's the inequities and inequities. Education in health care, in public safety and economic empowerment. It's the DWBs driving while blacks that many people continue to encounter. Reparations will not undo the harm, but reparations can at least take a small step into trying to change the outcomes. And I hope that in particular, education equity will be deeply considered here. and that scholarships to black students will be something that can help train a new generation of young people to hopefully become in a position to be able to gain generational wealth. Thank you very much.

Hold on, we got Supervisor Miley.

I just want to thank Kim Thompson. for her work on bringing a historic Black college and university campus, hopefully to Oakland.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Sterrick Barnes, Oakland resident. I stand in full support of receiving this final report establishing the stand by committee and honoring the years of extraordinary work this commission completed. An almost kind of sort of $5 million budget, but on volunteer time with a level of moral seriousness that we rarely see. The data in this report is impossible to ignore. Black citizens in this county are twice as likely to rent as to own. 54% of black households rent or rent burdened. And Black residents make about 70% of the in-house population in Oakland, not because of personal failure, but because of a deliberate, documented, and decades of investment and practices of exclusion from business opportunities, wealth building, and home ownership. Reparations, economic equity, and housing stability are not separate conversations. They are the same conversation. And to Kim Crow, Kim Crow, In the words of the late Dr. Martin Luther King and Joe Madison, willful ignorance and conscientious stupidity describe the immense danger that arises when a lack of knowledge is combined with unwavering conviction. The commission has done its work. The standing committee must now empower to hold this board and this county accountable for doing theirs. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Carol Tolliver, and I represent an organization called CJEC, Coalition for a Just and Equitable California. We have been on this path from the beginning with the state mandate by Governor Newsom. We have followed the state and all the events that they have. We have been to every one. I admire and acknowledge and appreciate the reparations commission for continuing the work. But I do wanna say as a result of the work in California, it has evolved and it's expanding across the country. So this is long overdue and I hope you all agree to receive this study and report and not just let it sit on the shelf, but act on it on the behalf of all Americans. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ray Bobbitt. I just wanted to thank you, first of all, for allowing me to come and speak. And I'm really here to just thank this incredible commission for the job that they've done and the work that they've done. And also this board for its courageous moment to step forward and have this process implemented. Thank you. This is very, very critical and important to our grandparents, our parents, parents. And so just wanted to literally come here and say thank you. And I think we should give another ovation to this commission.

I think this commission has done a wonderful job.

And we should thank this board and thank you so much for your willingness to be courageous. Where else to start but this county. Thank you.

Patrick Small, Zach Stern, Amanda Goldstein, Kim Luong, and Jennifer Gaydon.

Greetings to the board. Thank you for literally putting us on the agenda. And I want to talk about data as quickly as I can. So there's a survey that the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley did in August 2023, asking folks about how black people have been treated in the state of California, about reparations, about cash reparations in particular. And what you find out about Alameda County is that we're ahead of the curve. We're ahead of the curve for the state and the nation. And I think from what I know from talking to you and talking to fellow commissioners, you all support this. You all want to do this. But I worry that you might be afraid to do it because folks are running scared from equity, from racial justice in this country right now. But I want you to know in this county, and the data supports this, the community will support you. If you stand 10 toes down on this and you do what needs to be done, they will have your back.

I will have your back. Everyone in this room will have your back.

This community will have your back. Thank you.

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Jennifer Gaydon, and I have the honor of serving as a commissioner on the Alameda County Reparations Commission. I'm also a real estate agent serving families throughout the Bay Area. From both perspectives, I see the importance of this work. As a commissioner, I've had the privilege of listening to residents, reviewing research, and helping develop recommendations that reflect the voices and experiences of this community. But as a real estate agent, I've personally reviewed HOA and property documents in the East Bay where original recorded language stated that no one other than a Caucasian could own or occupy the property. Those discriminatory covenants are no longer enforceable, but they remain in the historical record as a reminder of the barriers that kept black families from building wealth through home ownership. Imagine the generational wealth that could have been created if these barriers had never existed. Imagine the Bay Area black families who were denied the opportunity to own a home, build equity and pass that wealth on to their children and to their grandchildren. These effects didn't end when the language became unenforceable. We still see the consequences today here in Alameda County. The recommendations before you represent years of thoughtful work, extensive community engagement and careful research. They recognize that the disparities we see today are not accidental. they are results of policies that can and should be addressed through intentional action. So I ask that you support, I respectfully ask your support in adopting the Alameda County Reparations Commission's recommendations.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Amanda Goldstein. I was born and raised in Oakland, and I'm here in awe and gratitude of the work accomplished by the Reparations Commission. and to implore the board to move forward boldly and bravely in implementing this plan. The debt that white affluent people in this country owe to the black people that our ancestors enslaved, expropriated, and continue to exploit and abuse is literally infinite. Our debt is infinite. I think that scares people. But this plan is not scary. It's amazing. It's practical, thoughtful, loving, and visionary. It is right, and it is time. It's exciting to think what our cities will be when the black people who have given so much for so long to make them what they are, have the opportunity to survive and thrive, not despite their government, but because of it. Please don't let this reparations plan go where reports go to die. Please give all our communities a path forward to repair. My neighbor, Kim, who was also called is not here, but she left a statement. May I read it? Or is that, is that allowed? Not allowed?

Sorry, we don't do that.

Thank you. Email it.

You could email it to the clerk of the board and it'll get to all of us.

Okay.

Hi, I'm Zach Stern and I live in Oakland. I'm gonna echo some of the points and support them that already have been raised. The current wealth of our country goes back to the work stolen from African slaves. The disparity has compounded generationally, but it's not an issue in the past. We're still systemically treating black people differently, redlining eminent domain, even rules about running trucks and their air pollution to 880 instead of 580. What we have now is an opportunity. I appreciate the work the commission has done to create this report. What a change we could make. I urge the board to take action and to work to make this a more equitable country. And maybe in the future, people will not have to use that qualifier, more equitable. Maybe we can just get to the point where it is equitable.

Dexter Vizina, Keith Brown, Freddie Davis, Morgan Philbin, and Bishop George Matthews.

Members of the board. I had an item on this morning's agenda, but we deferred it for two weeks for issues of importance like this. So I'll see you in a couple of weeks. First of all, let me say that thank you to the work that this commission has done. But that wouldn't be done without leadership. And thank you for your leadership because you supported these efforts. I want to say that every Black person in this room has experienced racism. There isn't a black person in this room that hasn't experienced it. And so with that being said, my great grandmother, who was an elder when I was born in 1951, she passed in 1976. I was 25. She told me about her parents who were born into slavery. She told me lots of stories. about my great-great-grandparents. So slavery is not far removed from me. So appreciate and thank you for all your support. Nate Miley, you're a true champion here. And Keith Carson, if you're listening, you're my man. All right. Thank you.

Good afternoon. That's to everybody.

Good afternoon.

I am so happy to be here today. Nate, I'm very proud of you for starting this. Alisa, you know I love you dearly. David, you know where you stand with me. I am very proud of the commission. I really support what they have done. And the Haywood South Alameda County NACP is ready to go. We've waited for a long time, but it says the day that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. Beautiful. I was born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama. So I know what racism is. I walked in March with Dr. King. I was there in Washington when he made that speech at age 16. But I'm going to tell you, we're ready to go. We've done a lot of listening. We've had all these sessions. But now it's time to walk your talk. So we are ready to go. So let's just do this. Please, please, I'm begging you, please support what this commission has done because we ready to go. And thank you.

Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm Keith Brown, Alameda Labor Council and lifelong Alameda County resident. I want to just commend the work of the Alameda County Reparations Commission and the action plan which I see really aligns with labor values. It is a vital step towards rectifying historical economic exclusion and systematic discrimination against black people. It is very encouraging to see the recommendations around career pathways for black workers that's included in the plan. And I just want to say to the supervisors to accept and vote on the recommendations coming out of the committee. I'm willing to be a partner to make sure this is reality. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Morgan Philbin. I'm a professor of public health and I'm an Oakland resident. And I want to thank the board of supervisors for all of your work on this and in particular the commission. And I want to note that what they have done is invaluable, but it is a first step. And they've created a report that describes many important actions that the county needs to take to begin to just address the historic and ongoing harms of anti-Black racism across the county. And so this means not only accepting the report, but creating implementation commission, and then actually working to push to implement what is needed. And this will take political will, and like most things, money. It is one thing to be on the record as in support. It is another to actually allocate the funds and to push against other city agencies, for example, the police and sheriff that need radical change and that frankly are often harmful. I know this is challenging. It is not going to be easy. We do not want you to simply take the low-hanging fruit in the report and implement that and pat yourselves on the back. We need you to work on the hard parts and to keep pushing. The Bay Area prides itself on being a leader, and this is one of the areas when we can do it. Props to Broadway nerds in the audience who are going to recognize the phrase, history has its eyes on you. And we, as Alameda County residents, do and will continue to do so. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, board. I'm Bishop George Matthews of Genesis Law Worship Center. Most of you know me. I want to, first of all, thank you, Supervisor Molly, because it was five years ago that you had a meeting, and I took my oldest son, who had just graduated from San Diego State, to a meeting, and you put him to work. as an intern, and his first project was to work on the board solution that funded this great commission. So on behalf of Caleb, who could not be here, he's traveling, I just wanted to thank you for that work. He was able to present to your board in March of 23, where you approved the funding for this. And can we just celebrate Supervisor Molly, who had the vision You put all of this together. I have 15 seconds, but I'll say this, that I moved into Piedmont about five years ago and I ran into redlining to the point to where I was discriminated against. You heard on the news about appraisals. I ran into that. But Linda in Orange County found out what color I was and dragged the loan out. So moved into the house I had to get a hard money loan. and had to pay four points at 8% when I should have had 2.5%. I just said all of that to say that all of the work and all of the things that this commission has stated, Supervisor Carson, and all of what has been stated, it's still going on today. And we don't blame you, the board, but some of the lenders are still using those practices today. And fortunately, I did get the house, but I had to refinance and spent a lot of money. But I should not have had to do that. So I just wanted to say that. Thank you. I'm so excited. And as I take my seat, my time is up. I've been grieving with all of what's going on in the political climate today. But when I got the news about this meeting and the courage that you all are doing, I'm a little bit more encouraged. So thank you on behalf of Alameda County. Thank you so much.

Venus just Michael Yoshi, Ray Sting, Masumi Ayashi-Smith, Lawrence.

May I ask you two not to start my clock? I have a request to make. Please don't start my clock. I want to ask. I just want to ask because I think one minute isn't enough time. If we can request two minutes, even the Board of Supervisors meeting gets two minutes. So why do we, as Black people and the other people speaking here, get one minute? That's my request for next time around. My name is Venus Guest. Yeah, I asked. I just asked. Nothing wrong with asking, right?

Nothing wrong with asking.

Okay. Venus Gist here, advocate for probate court reform. Why? Because the abuse and misuse of black people still exist. My family experienced the alleged criminal illicit behavior that public servants within the probate court system attempted to rob my family of assets. So yes, like they said, slavery still does exist. It's a new day, a new way, a new place, another face. It's still happening to our people. They're taking what belongs to us. There's a lady named Zakiya Jendayi right now. You may have seen her articles in the Oakland Post who's fighting for her house. You know, like slavery, they took our properties back in the day. They're trying to take her house. Judge Bean invalidated the trust. Philip Campbell, the attorney, is trying to put his name on the house. And also Judge Julie Walensky, to me, was allegedly dismissive and dissonant during Ms. Zakiya Jendayi's unlawful detainer trial. This is why I work with these amazing organizations, United Seniors, Oakland, Alameda County. And we have a probate and conservatorship where I work with Board of Supervisor Nate Miley. He's the president of that organization. National Probate Reform Coalition. It's a town hall we have once a month to address these issues that are happening in Alameda County. and Care for People Court, which is my own organization that will manifest soon. So like that man's letter, I know exactly of the history and my family and what happened and the slavery part of it. He was saying, we don't know this. Oh no, we know, many of us know this, how my grandmother was raped and how my father, excuse me, my great grandmother was raped and my grandfather was born out of that and was able to migrate here the family to make a difference. So what we wanna know is like, where's the check? We do deserve the check, reparations. And basically, I'm just gonna get everything out. Okay, my time is up. Thank you for my time. Please more time.

Before the next speaker, I know some people are here for the floor o'clock item. We have another item at four o'clock. If you want to speak on that, fill out a speaker slip for that item. With regard to this item, we're going to stop taking speaker slips because we got another item at four o'clock. If you want to speak at four o'clock, come fill out a speaker slip and we'll cut off speakers for this item. Please, next speaker.

Good afternoon, President Albert and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Michael Yoshi, and I am the pastor emeritus of the Buena Vista United Methodist Church in Alameda, historic Japanese American congregation going back to 1898. I think most of you know The Japanese Americans received reparations back in 1988 for the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and will be commemorating August 10th in the next coming months or so. I want to add my own words of appreciation that already has been expressed to the work of the commission and the commissioners that bring the report back to you today. We know that Japanese American reparations would never have passed without the pioneering work of the civil rights movement led by the black community. It's a tragedy that that's been unfinished business since that particular time. And so we as a congregation support in full the proposal that's before you to be implemented by Alameda County. The United Methodist Church is a national level, supports reparations, has made strong statements for Black reparations in the time that we're living in. It's particularly important, particularly the climate that we're living in now, to be strong, to be bold, to be courageous in what we do. So we fully support the recommendations that are before you and particularly to implement the recommendations that are before you. Thank you very much.

Another pastor right on time.

Hi, my name is Masumi Hayashi-Smith, and I'm here as the co-chair of the Tsuru for Solidarity Black Reparations and Solidarity Campaign. I am also a descendant of racialized incarceration in World War II, and my grandparents, as Reverend Yoshi has talked about, were the recipients of reparations. And so I'm a person who knows firsthand the power of reparations in healing communities and taking first steps to atone for past wrongs. This is an issue that's very important to my community. And it's really important to us, especially for me as a Berkeley resident, that you put this into action. So please take this seriously, take the needs and the interests of my community seriously, because we will be watching this and we are deeply invested in seeing that black reparations happen now. Thank you so much.

Good evening. My name is Lawrence. I am regional advocacy and organizing associate of all of us or none in LSBC. There's really not much I can say that everyone else hasn't said, but potentially provide a perspective that the harm is real. I have great, great, great grandparents. The first time I've ever seen them was on a sale list on a block with some chicken and some other items, like they're at the grocery store. But also, if we're talking about repair, we have to stop the harm, right? I've also been subjected to over-policing of my communities, extensive sentences for crimes that people that don't look like me would get half the time for. But also, I came home and did what... I'm supposed to do, which was be rehabilitated, which was find some type of economic sustainability, but also organized to continue to change the room and to build leaders out of people who are impacted. And so I urge you, it's important that we continue to move forward. We see what our administration is doing to not want to move forward is a clear step that you support the erasure in the in the in the backwards, in the stopping of the for progress of our people. Thank you.

Fiani Johnson, Larry Best, Romaine Chirite, Tamar Carson, Desmond Jeffries, and last speaker will be Phillip Gardner.

Hello.

I'm Fiani Johnson, founder of the Artemina Ross Foundation, also Alameda County resident. First, I would like to thank you for supporting the Alameda County Reparations Commission. and for bringing us to this moment. Today, I'm asking you to take the next step by accepting and implementing the commission's recommendations in full. I stand before you as a descendant of an emancipated slave and as someone who works every day with black families impacted by incarceration, family separation, and generations of systemic harm. Many of us have spent years supporting California's reparations task force, We testify, we organize, we believe, then we watch many of those recommendations go unfulfilled. Please don't let Alameda County repeat that history. Reparations are about repair. Repair means restoring dignity, restoring agency, restoring opportunity, and restoring the ability for black communities to determine our own future. It means investing in housing, education, economic justice, health, land, and community-led solutions that build generational wealth instead of generational harm. Today, you have an opportunity to make history, not by studying repair, but by choosing it. Honor the work of this commission. Honor the voices of the community. Accept every recommendation. Let Alameda County become the model that California looks to when it when it asks what real reparations can be. Our ancestors carried the burden. Let us be the generation that chooses repair. Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Sorry. Good afternoon to the board. My name is Romain Charity. I'm a resident of District 4 and I'm with the Oakland Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression. I support the Alameda County's reparations commission and the recommendations put forth. The Great Migration brought thousands of African-Americans to the Bay in response to the World Wars, and police were used on African-Americans to suppress them politically and economically, a trend that is still happening in your districts. As recently as last year, the family of former Raiders player Doug Martin is still waiting on an autopsy report after they alleged that he was asphyxiated by Oakland Police Department. And they are still waiting on that autopsy report from the Alameda Sheriff's Office. I want to say please move forward with the recommendations put forth and let it also inspire you to take more action towards full equality for African Americans. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Larry Best. I'm an Alameda County resident since 1999, and I'm truly humbled to be here as a white anti-racist. The data is so compelling and I'm not here, you know, from white fragility or guilt. I accept my complicity as someone who has benefited from how the so-called laws and regulations for freedom and opportunity, help people like me, but not so many people in this room. And so I know how hard it is in your position, because you're going to have some hard decisions to make. And I've seen this happen in San Francisco and the state of California. And I just want to echo what people said before me about putting money into this. And it means taking political risks. And I'll just add one final comment, if I may. I want to work with you. Yeah, I want to work with you to work with my fellow. Thank you for your comments.

Hello, my name is Tamar Carson, and I'm just going to speak for myself for a second, just to really thank the people who have spoken today, people on the commission, unbelievable, it's just an honor to be here with you, and for the other people who are incredibly articulate and passionate, thank you for being here. But I'm actually, the only reason I stood up, I would never have chosen to get up in front of people, it makes me very nervous, is to speak for my friend and neighbor here in Oakland, Kim, who had to step away, and you'll So again, this is not me, this is her. And I think she adds a voice that shows the breadth of the voices that support you. As a child of the Vietnam War of refugees, my family and community would not be here today without the civil rights that generations of black folks fought for and won for all of us. What makes Alameda County so vibrant and highly sought after is the tapestry of minoritized people here. This has been a haven we've contributed to. Many of us, Asian Americans included, have benefited from and how desirable and progressive Alameda County is. And yet, redlining has kept our Black neighbors, oh, am I over already? Oh, I shouldn't have spoken for myself.

Hi, my name is Desmond Jeffries, and I'm here to stand in support of this item. I want to thank the Black American Reparations Task Force for the amazing work that you guys have done. I also want to thank the Board of Supervisors for hearing this and in the future putting this forward. I'm here to recommend that we really think seriously about looking through the lens of not the races that say African Americans and Blacks were property, right? That they don't have the right to receive reparations. But look at it through a legal lens. When we were free, granted liberty, in 1865 and the harms that happened during the Jim Crow era. So looking at that, there is tremendous harm that has been done. So I want you to focus on What can be done? What does reparations look like? Imagine all the money that you put into social services, housing, Section 8, health care, food services, that would be offset and saved if you would give us a check. I'll stop there. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I asked to be the last speaker, and I wanted to do that for a reason. I wanted to thank the Board of Supervisors for bringing this up. I wanted to especially thank Supervisor Tam and her aide, Serena Chan, who reached out to me. I've worked with Serena for years on other issues. I want to thank Supervisor Miley, who came to literally every session that we had. Um, I want to thank, um, supervisor Marquez who supported this, um, in the beginning. I also want to thank, um, Mrs. Um, I'd like to thank the library. I will call it by her first name, um, and all of the things before. And I really want to thank my other commissioners, how we got here, why we're here, um, I won't take much more time. I'm just going to say this, that let's not do what San Francisco did. Let's not do what the state did. Let's be what we need to do in Alameda County is be the tip of the spear. I know. The tip of the spear. Please be that. Let's add money.

I'd like to thank all the speakers and close public comment, but bring it back for board discussion and deliberations, and I will recognize Supervisor Miley.

Thank you, President Halbert. I'm sure other supervisors have some comments, but I just want to thank all the speakers. Like I said, I get very emotional, very touched by what we heard this afternoon. And like I said, this is very personal to me. I know Leo Bazil, when he was on the Oakland City Council and I served with him, he said that, you know, you've got to stand for something or you fall for anything. And I think, you know, Phil just mentioning what he said, you know, we have to look at this as a moral imperative and a sense of urgency. And I want Alameda County to be at the forefront. I want us to be on the cutting edge of what needs to take place here. I, you know, this has been historic. This has just been historic. And I'm confident the board's going to, when I make the motion, when it's appropriate, the board will support the motion. But this is not something that we take lightly. And this isn't anything that we're going to just let, you know, stand idle. We will be actively working moving forward on this journey, because as one person said, this is part of the journey, and we still have a lot of road to cover. So the other thing I just want to mention too is something my parents always told me, and I'm sure others in the audience heard this too from your mom and dad, You know, every generation has to do better than the last generation. How many have heard that before? Raise your hand. Yeah. And that's what we're all about. Every generation has to do better. So we're going to do better. We're going to move this forward. So I just thank you all. I feel so proud of you. Thank you. And when the president is ready, I'll make the motion.

Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you, President Halbert. I also want to acknowledge and thank Supervisor Miley, our former supervisor, Keith Carson. Thank you for your steadfast leadership. Really appreciate the report and the timeline. As you know, this commission is just incredible. Each and every one of you have gone above and beyond this. I think what the initial mandate was, because you were so incredibly thoughtful and thorough, the fact that we had a mental health therapist at every listening session just speaks to the acknowledgement that the harm is real and people get triggered and people have had current and past traumas that continue to trigger them. So the fact that you were that thoughtful was just incredibly impressive. I had the opportunity to attend a handful of listening sessions, really appreciate the community engagement, the surveys, just the ability to hear the voices from the community. And since I've been serving on the ad hoc committee, I also thank you to Supervisor Miley for joining me and supporting the work of the consultants, which also just really fast track this work. So really appreciate everyone that did that. And to Deb and Erin, thank you for your incredible leadership. This is something that we have to do as a county. We could review every report, every data set, but what I'm convinced is that my eyes don't lie. I was just at juvenile hall yesterday. I've gone to Santa Rita jail probably at least seven times in the last three years, and it is clear how disproportionate the number of black men are in these institutions and young people. That is just one data set. We know the statistics that have been given with respect to housing. We know the county's role in the destruction of Russell City. It is documented. It is not something that should be questioned. This is factual history that has occurred, not in some far place, but here in the 510 zip code in our county. So I will do everything I can to work in partnership to implement the plan. I do want to speak to, I really appreciate the comments about doing the equity analysis because this County is doing the work. We could do more work, but work is being done. I don't think we've done a great job in elevating that information. So we need to be very upfront with the public. We've made significant investments. There is more work to be done, but we need to tell the entire story. So I just think everyone who worked incredibly hard today, in producing this report. And I know that it's a live document and we'll continue to add to it, but I'm full support of the recommendations outlined in the board letter. Thank you.

Supervisor Tam. Thank you, President Halbert. I also want to thank all the speakers and the presentation. It was truly amazing. Since joining the Board of Supervisors, I had the opportunity to serve with Supervisor Carson on the Health Committee. I served with Supervisor Miley on the Social Services Committee. So I see the huge disparities in health and incarceration data, which correlates to the poverty levels in our Black communities. the pervasive income and health outcome disparities continue to persist to this day in our Black communities. And so thank you so much to every member of the Reparations Commission, the county staff, our librarian, the community partners, and the residents who contributed to this report. The work that was presented to us today reflects very thoughtful research, honest dialogue, and the heart and soul of so many people who were committed to telling the truth about our history and charting a path toward a more equitable future. And this report, as my colleague said, is not simply a document. It's a testament to the lived experience of the generations of Black residents in Alameda County whose voices deserve to be heard and whose stories deserve to be acknowledged. As a county supervisor, I think we have a moral obligation to confront and correct the harms that have been perpetuated against the community. So I want to again commend the commission for producing a report that's both comprehensive and forward-looking It provides us a roadmap, but it's not work that will end with just receiving this report. The real measure of our commitment at the Board of Supervisors will be in the actions that we take in response. Even during times of very significant budget challenges, I believe we must continue to move the needle forward. And progress may require some very thoughtful prioritization and partnerships. but we can't allow the physical constraints that we are facing to become an excuse for an inaction. So I remain committed to working with my colleagues, our community, to identify these meaningful and sustainable steps that we need to start to repair the historic harms and build the future where everyone thrives. And I will defer to my esteemed colleagues when the time comes for their motion.

Supervisor Marquez, for a second, you wanted to make another comment or you wanted to second the motion?

I believe Supervisor Riley already made the motion. You said when?

He hasn't made a motion yet.

I thought you said I'd like to make the motion when it's time. When it's time.

It's not time yet. Supervisor Fortunato-Vasquez. Did you want to say another comment, though?

I say when it's time, I'd like to make the second, but I will be patient. Sorry, I misunderstood your comment.

Supervisor Fortunato-Vasquez.

Thank you. This has been probably one of the most impactful moments in this chambers while I have been a supervisor. I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, Keith Carson, who represented District 5. I also want to acknowledge his predecessor, John George, and thank Supervisor Miley and Supervisor Marquez for the work that you have done to shepherd this process on the reparations commission. And of course, just really appreciate the work of every single commissioner and everyone who participated, including those who went to the town halls across our county. So for me, reparations is about equity, accountability, repairing documented harm, and committing to a fair and a just future. And this is important to me because as a woman of color, as an Asian American elected official, I believe that I'm standing in front of you today because of the incredible work that the African-American civil rights movement did to create opportunity for everyone in this country. And while I call Alameda County home and I've lived in Oakland for 29 years, I grew up in Virginia. That was where my Filipino immigrant parents settled. And growing up in Virginia, I witnessed firsthand segregation, racism and anti-Blackness. And I knew even as a child that that was wrong. Even here in Oakland, while I've lived here over the past three decades, I've seen incredible displacement of our Black neighbors. And so equity has been a priority of mine. And I do believe that reparations is one way that we can acknowledge the lasting impacts of policies and practices that harm the Black community and And it's also how we can invest in a more just future. And while California and especially the Bay Area is often recognized as a place of opportunity and inclusion, Our history here in Alameda County tells a different story. And I really commend the commission for the incredible document that you have prepared that shows us what that history is. And so across our county and district five, which I represent, we've seen the government policies and practices and other practices and acts have contributed to generations of racial inequity that continues today. from redlining and housing discrimination in West Oakland and South Berkeley, two communities in my district that I'm very committed to, where Black families have been denied access to home ownership and the opportunity to build generational wealth. It makes perfect sense to me that this report prioritizes housing. We've seen urban renewal and the use of eminent domain, which has demolished more than 5,000 homes and displaced 14,000 residents as freeways and redevelopment projects cut directly through black neighborhoods. And the case studies that you included in the report on 7th Street, as well as on I-980 really remind us and make real that history. And we even see it today. We see that displacement. We see that lack of investment today. And of course, environmental racism has disproportionately concentrated pollution in parts of our county, including West Oakland for generation. And today those communities continues to fight for environmental justice, whether it's ongoing issues at the Port of Oakland or the proposed coal plant in West Oakland, these are very live fights. And one of the things which maybe fewer people know about is the violence against Sydney and Irene Dearing and their family in Piedmont. and the seizure of their home in 1924. That's a stark reminder that racial discrimination extends across the entire county. And then, of course, the destruction of Russell City and Hayward. We all know that history and we know the film, The Apology. So I want to acknowledge this history, the racial disparities. And again, I think because of all of the work that you have done as the commission over the years, we have an incredible opportunity in front of us to build a more equitable world for future and current generations. And I know for myself, as we commemorate 250 years of this country's so-called independence on the 4th of July, it's an opportunity to look forward to what our county and our country can do together And I believe this commission and this report really lays a solid framework and foundation for making that commitment real and for making that vision real. So I want to truly thank everyone for what you've contributed. I want to extend my sincere gratitude as well to our district five commissioners. Thank you so much for dedicating this report to the late commissioner, Jesse Clyde Burleson, And thank you so much to our chair, Deborah Gore, as well as District 5 Commissioner Shadwick Small. You all did tremendous work, and I appreciate you, and I will be supporting each recommendation that you have brought to us. Thank you.

I would like to echo my colleagues. You all said it so well. I would like to thank the commission, especially Brandon Sass, my appointee. I thought he did a great job all throughout. Yeah, you can give him a clap. That's okay. I'd like to commend what a thorough report this is. Absolutely amazing work. work that starts here but lives on probably forever. But let's hope it's not forever. Let's get from more equitable to just equitable. Let's get this done. I want to thank the committee members, but I also want to say, indeed, our work's not done. I've always believed if you can measure something, you can manage it. Let's have the commission build the metrics by which we will review on an ongoing basis. Where are we? Not every five years, not every 10, every month. Where are we? Where are we with the numbers of people in jail? Where are we with the educational gaps that I spent 10 years on a school board every year seeing gaps of ethnicity in education achievement? every single year that happens we've got to measure it if we can manage it i want to echo comments by miss freddie davis we're ready to go where'd she go we're ready to go freddie davis and then i'm going to channel and turn it over to supervisor miley because i always sometimes say what my pastor says on Sunday at the collection plate, don't tell me what we can't do, tell me what we can do. Supervisor Miley, let's hear it.

Well, I know the numbers you said, you are in support of the recommendations, but the motion today will be this, receive the Alameda County Reparations Commission Final report and recommendations. Sunset the Alameda County Reparations Commission, effective June 30th, 2026, and establish a reparations standing committee of the Board of Supervisors to continue advancing, monitoring, and advising on the implementation of reparations related policies and initiatives in the county. That is the motion.

Is there a second?

Can you clarify? Did you say receive the report and recommendations?

Yes.

OK, second.

Yes. And the reason we are receiving it today is, Deb, the director of the library pointed out at the beginning, is once the board approves the reparations commission, excuse me, the reparations committee, Supervisor Marquez and myself, becoming the standing committee then we can begin the work of looking at the recommendations and moving forward with recommendations to implement but we need to take all of that and take a look at it and see how we're going to move forward on it i'm happy to second and i i'm really pleased that um based off all the comments everyone's in support of the report and um

For me, the priority is going to be to stand up the standing committee so we could focus on the implementation and heard you loud and clear in terms of the advisory body as well to continue that community engagement. And I also want to acknowledge, and if this was said already, I apologize for being repetitive, but I don't recall I heard that we acknowledged Alicia Knight for her incredible work on the harm report. She's been working diligently with this commission, just wanted to acknowledge her efforts as well. And also acknowledge Mr. James Knowles. for representing District 2 so well. I don't know if he's still here. I see his daughters, but please give him our sincere appreciation. Artavia Berry and Tiago Varlick and Vicki Steffens, who no longer served on the commission, but she did provide a lot of value. Also wanted to acknowledge Ronnie Lachey on my team who attended every commission meeting. So this has really been a tremendous community effort and just thank you for keeping the voice of the Community Friends Center you guys delivered. So thank you.

With that, the motion's made and seconded. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez? Yes. Supervisor Tan? Aye. Supervisor Miley?

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato-Bass? Aye. President Halbert?

I vote yes. Motion passes. We're going to take about a 10 minute recess, please, everyone. 10 minutes because our four o'clock meeting is going to be late. 10 minute recess.

Good afternoon, board. My name is Dave Blanchard. I'm a division commander in charge of our law enforcement services. So in light of transparency, I wanted to come up and spend a moment. I asked Sergeant Cully to step in for a moment to discuss some concerns that we just had recently with our technology and I wanted to be transparent and disclose this in public so that we're able to discuss it and talk about what we have done to combat some of these concerns. So about the last week and a half, we were conducting audits and we received some information that there was some concerns surrounding unauthorized access into our network of ALPR cameras. This was something that was conceivably statewide. So what we did was we went in and did an internal audit line by line of everything, every inch of our data that came out of our system. And we did in fact identify that there was unauthorized access into our system. So what we did, we identified the entities that allowed that access to occur and we immediately stopped sharing with the two entities that we found allowed that access to occur outside of our policy and outside of the state law.

Hey, second warning now, no outbursts or we'll have to ask people to leave. We're trying to conduct. You'll all have time for public comment. But that's it.

Thank you. So what I'll say is that this was this unauthorized access was not at the fault of the sheriff's office. We did not allow that access. This came from an entity that was that we were sharing and access with. What we found is that in the last year from May of 25 to May of 26, we independently audited 6.4 million data entries into our system. And out of that, we found 140 that were unauthorized by our policy. That equals 0.08% of all inquiries into that system that we found to be unauthorized. So again, we immediately stopped sharing with the two entities that allowed that. We had follow-up meetings with the directors of both of those agencies and what we had found from them was that their staff, I can't say accidentally, their staff allowed out of state entities to search our data as a human error and a mistake for lack of training. And when they say a few, that was a few individuals didn't understand that California data can't be shared outside of California. So they have rectified that by eliminating those staff members access to all databases and they are dealing with their internal processes independently. So what we have done is done a complete and thorough audit of our data. We are confident that we have identified the 140 entries that were unauthorized. Those entries were for legitimate law enforcement purposes. They were for murder, sexual assault, child exploitation, human trafficking. There was nothing out of those inquiries into our data that caused us concern of being anything that had to do with immigration or gender affirming care or any of the other topics that we do not share with. So moving forward, what we have done is we are now conducting internal audits on a weekly basis to make sure that we are not finding any more. Again, we are not sharing with the entities that allowed that access. They are very well aware of it. And then Sergeant Coley will cover a little bit later some of the things that we're doing to combat that. But what we've also done proactively is that we went through our entire list of agencies that we are currently sharing with. So we were currently sharing with 346 agencies within California. We have decided proactively to limit that to our nine Bay Area counties. as well as four other counties that have major transitory routes that impact Alameda County, Yolo County, Sacramento County, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus County. So we went from about 346 California agencies that we're sharing with down to 123. So I wanted to get the information out publicly today so you're all aware of it, and we're happy to answer any questions about what we are currently doing and what we've done to prevent this from happening again. Thank you. I'll turn it back over to Sergeant Coley.

Thank you, Commander. In addition to the things that the Commander just mentioned, we have proactively added the list of agencies that we do share with to our transparency portal. If you could go back to the last slide, please. When we're speaking about our transparency portal, this is a public-facing portal. If you scan the QR code, this will take you to our portal. You can see searches conducted, who we share with, as well as our comprehensive policy, and that is all available on the portal. Additionally, we're looking at adding new tools, which would allow us to do bulk auditing, as well as we're looking at other vendors outside of Flock that can help us do second party auditing of our searches and data to ensure full transparency. Next slide. This is our Pantel Zoom cameras. This is what they look like. They're pointed in public areas where there is no reasonable expectation of right of privacy. These are traffic cameras, for lack of a better term. The operators within the Real-Time Information Center are only utilizing these cameras upon calls for service, need to know right to know access, at which point then we can direct the cameras and hopefully give our deputies situational awareness before they arrive on scene as to what is going on. The third part of the ARTC and this contract is our drone first responder program. We affectionately call the drone Raven. We're launching drones proactively to calls for service. These stats actually have been updated. This was as of June 12th, but as of today, we've responded to over 276 calls for service and located over 124 subjects. The drone is on scene 55% of the time first, allowing us to have better situational awareness. These tools all work together under the FlockOS umbrella software platform. When we get a 911 call for service, these tools also integrate with other tools that we've invested in. The board has approved contracts with Mark 43, prepared 911, other Axon related products, and these tools all integrate with those tools. We were able to clear 28 now calls for service without even the use of any patrol services. We know nationwide we're running into staffing challenges related to law enforcement, and this tool allows us to enhance our response and sometimes prevent responses that are unnecessary. Statistically proven, the drone and the use of these other tools lessen our use of force because in 27 cases, there's no police action that even occurs. Next slide. So all this data comes into one umbrella called FlockOS. It is a software platform. Yet again, these are not new services we're asking. We have had all of these, and they all are currently integrated. They integrate with our computer-aided dispatch as well. And this is what it looks like. How do these tools work together? How does the integration work? Well, we get an automated license plate reader hit for a missing person. That screen then gives us the notification, a picture of a car, a license plate, and then it also pops up on our drone first responder. We immediately launch a drone. At the same time, an operator is utilizing the pan-tilt zoom cameras because the alert pops up on those as well and starts panning on the pan-tilt zoom camera to try to locate the car. The drone responds 51 miles an hour. We're able to rapidly locate the vehicle with the use of all of these tools in combination. And then we direct our patrol deputies to that vehicle and locate the subject. Next slide. This is what the screen looks like when we're flying the drones and the integrations. On the right, you can see we have 911 calls for service coming in. Now, this is a demo screen, so this is not actual law enforcement data that we're showing you, but this is exactly what it looks like. As we're flying the drone, it's on the left. The pilot then is also looking at the automated license plate reader hits, 911 calls for service, CAD dispatch. and you can see on the far right is the path the vehicle is traveling it allows us to fly the drone in anticipation of where the vehicle is good that transparency portal not only has automated license plate reader data it also has our drone first responder data Many residents saw a drone flying above their house and rightfully so wanted to know what was going on. This is a public facing portal that shows exactly what the call for service was. We redact some of the address for the safety of the people involved, obviously, but it shows a location, the date and time, and it also shows the path that the drone flew. Excellent. An additional part of this, which is also not new and has been previously brought to the board is our Business Connect portion of the contract. This allows private businesses to voluntarily give us access to their cameras on a need-to-know basis. That way, when the business is closed at night or they're unavailable and we get a 911 call, we are able to access those cameras and yet again give responding deputies better situational awareness. Next slide. Since I was last at the board, there's five cases that I wanna talk about. I was at the board less than two months ago and I provided a series of cases and examples as to how beneficial all of this technology is. We're gonna cover some additional cases that have happened just in that very short time, very monumental cases. Next slide. The first one in March of 2026, deputies were detailed to a report of an attempted kidnapping of a child at a local market. Upon arrival, the deputies discovered that an adult stranger not known to this child solicited the minor for oral sex. The suspect then fled when his behavior was noticed by witnesses in the area. Deputies obtained a description of the suspect vehicle and we did locate video surveillance footage, but this was not good enough to identify a license plate or a suspect. The license plate of the suspect vehicle was discovered only with the use of Flock Group's incorporated automated license plate reader technology. Once the ALPR data was obtained, then deputies were able to locate the vehicle and take this individual into custody, preventing him from victimizing any other children. A records check of this individual revealed he had prior arrest for unlawful sexual contact with minors. This individual was an immediate threat to public safety, and without the flock technology, we likely would not have been able to identify him. Next slide. In June of 2026... An attempted robbery and a shooting occurred in the city of Castro Valley. The victim, a 14-year-old, thankfully survived his injuries. During this incident, witnesses described a suspect vehicle. However, that's all we had to go off. Investigators utilized both a combination of the pan-tilt zoom cameras and the automated license plate reader cameras to confirm the suspect vehicle and obtain a license plate. Investigators were able to then quickly link the vehicle to a suspect, locate the vehicle, and arrest him. A search of the vehicle, then pursuant to a search warrant, yielded evidence of the shooting. And that occurred in Castro Valley. Next slide. As the board's aware, on June 8th, unfortunately, burglars broke into Alco Park right next door to the chambers here. Numerous tools and several vehicles including a unmarked law enforcement sheriff's vehicle were stolen. Detectives utilized Flock automated license plate reader because we share with the city of Oakland and that data allowed us to recover all five of those stolen vehicles in less than 12 hours and take a suspect into custody. That's huge. I'm gonna highlight two other cases that occurred in the last 48 hours related to the use of this technology. The first one is we're utilizing drone first responders at the county fair out in Pleasanton right now. The fair has only been open for a few days and we have thousands of people in attendance. Unfortunately, during this, with the large crowds, children become separated from their families. And in these particular instances, we've used the drones four times to locate missing children that have been separated from their parents, and specifically one missing adult who had severe autism and had wandered away from his family. The drone was instrumental in quickly finding these people and reuniting them with their family. The city of Oakland responded to a residence in their city for a female who had Alzheimer's. She got into a vehicle and drove away. The city of Oakland immediately notified the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, ARTIC, at which point we began searching our cameras. The automated license plate data showed that she was driving around in our jurisdiction. As deputies were responding, she drove up Redwood Road back towards Oakland, and we were able to pass that information off to the East Bay Regional Parks Department, who also has flock, and they were able to intercept her and stop her and return her home safely. Additionally, in May of 26, we received information from an automated license plate reader alert that a felony auto burglary vehicle out of the city of Fremont had entered our jurisdiction. We launched a drone and immediately located that car near the Bayfair Mall. As we followed that car, we were able to direct detectives into position to deploy spike strips, slowing and deflating the vehicle's tires to prevent a high-speed chase. Deputies attempted a traffic stop, but the vehicle failed to yield. We did not pursue, and instead we utilized this technology, a combination of the plate readers and the drone, to follow this car at which point the suspect fled on foot and was quickly apprehended. All of these cases occurred in less than the last two months just in our area. As the commander had mentioned, we made some additional changes to the system. We also listened to the board's recommendation the last time we were here. All of these added safeguards, which have been put into the SSA in the new contract with the help of County Council, are all recommendations made by you, the board. We have outlined restrictions specifically on data sharing. We specifically outlined that we do not share federal uh or our data with federal uh agencies um we want an immediate notification from the vendor if there is some sort of data breach which where there hasn't been yet we want full accessibility and audibility rights and full transparency and these are all in the contract and it clearly states that the county of alameda controls our data those were all things that the board wanted and we have put all of those things in next slide This is a map of the county. The red represents the area within the county that would no longer have access to technology. We would be the only entity area in the county without flock safety. That is a huge group of residents that now would become vulnerable. I have no doubt from looking at data from surrounding agencies, over 6,000 in the United States, only 100 of them have turned off lock. And out of that, 14 of them turned it back on immediately when crime spiked. The unincorporated area would become a target for this area or a target for criminals because we lack this technology. I want to point out that we are not sharing any of our drone first responder data or our Pantel Zoom cameras outside of the county, with the exception of Dublin Police Services, which is a contract city for the city of Dublin, and the Sheriff's Office provides staff for that. Any sharing with any local businesses or HOAs is all one way sharing. So they are sharing their data. We are not sharing outwards. We continue to make technology improvements and work with this vendor to increase accountability and transparency. I can tell you that I went, I told you this last time, but I went before our city council in the city that I live in and said the same thing as a resident, not as a police officer. I would not bring something to the board that I wouldn't want in my own city. As a reminder to the board, this is simply a bridge while we craft an RFP. Excellent. And at this point, I would like to invite up the sheriff, Sheriff Sanchez, or to speak from there.

I have a nice, soft, comfortable chair here, but thank you, Sergeant Cully, for that presentation and to our commander who presented an update based off of, you know, we got notified by NICRC. NICRC is the entity at question and WISN, and there was an article that had come out related to information that was passed on out of state. Once we were made aware of that, we were made aware by the director of NICRC of that occurrence. We took... We took action on it. So there is definitely something to say, at least from my perspective, of what transparency looks like. Transparency is what we are doing. We are sharing when there is something that the public needs to be informed of and also sharing the actions that we're taking to make sure that that does not occur again. And if that means that we have to shut off an entity with sharing, That's what it means. And that's what we've done.

You see that there's some next steps that we have.

Maintaining continuity of our critical Arctic infrastructure to continue on with services uninterrupted while we evaluate other entities that can provide the same services is critical. It's critical for public safety operations. It is critical for unincorporated areas that rely on Alameda County Sheriff's Office, to provide law enforcement services to them. It also is in partnership with the neighboring cities that also have flock services in their area. We will continue to conduct outreach and listening sessions with our unincorporated MACs to gather community input and discuss ACSO's long-term public safety technology needs, priorities, and vision. This is while we do our ongoing evaluation of operational requirements. As we know, law enforcement evolves. What the community needs are evolves. But we need to be responsible in making sure that we are still keeping up with technology to support our staff. And like the Sergeant pointed out, we still are significantly short-staffed. This technology assists us in making sure that we respond in a timely manner and appropriately and safely. to incidents requiring law enforcement intervention. If we can go back to the last slide, I really liked the map. So, I mean, this is significant. It is important. Without the approval of this agreement, our deputies and regional law enforcement partners lose one of the most effective investigative tools that we have available. Interrupting these services would reduce our ability to recover stolen vehicles, locate violent subjects, identify suspects, and respond to crimes safely, safely. It is a very valuable tool. It is really on us to be responsible with this tool. And that's what I am committed to. That's what the Alameda County Sheriff's Office is committed to. And that's why we're here today. Transparency and how we use this technology means accountability and not abandonment. There are a number of things we've taken into consideration based off of community input by privacy groups. And we've worked with our county council to integrate necessary language that we believe is reasonable in keeping our vendors accountable and making sure that we have auditing tools and mechanisms to keep not only the vendor accountable, but our agency accountable. That is what we've done. I'm going to remind everyone that this is not new technology. I know that we have people who disagree. However, we do have established contracts for all of the technology that was presented to you today. Contracts that are in place and that we are combining into one. We are going to go to RFP. This time allows us to pick the appropriate vendor to deliver the the services that we already have in play right now. I think I've said enough. If there's any questions, I will take them.

Does that conclude your report? Yes. We can go to questions or public comment. If anybody has any clarifying questions, we can do that before we do deliberation. Any clarifying questions? Supervisor Marquez. Yes.

Thank you, President Halbert. Thank you, Sheriff and team, for being here. I have a couple clarifying questions with respect to community engagement. I understand that there was a presentation similar to the one we just heard right now at an Incorporated Services Committee, I believe, last Wednesday. But my understanding is the standard service agreement was not available yet. So can you speak to the rationale and just kind of like timing of having the community be able to have an additional touch point to understand what is in that document.

As far as what we integrated into the standard services agreement, I can go through and share specific language.

If you could please help us understand what's the difference between what's in this agreement versus... And it is complicated because... you're basically taking a handful of contracts, combining them into one. But if you could just call out the difference between what was approved in the past in contracts, and those were all piggybacks from my understanding, this is also a piggyback contract. But now we've made changes to the standard service agreement. So can you outline what those changes are?

Yeah, I'm going to have Clay Christensen speak Because he's gone through this standard services agreement multiple times over and knows the specifics as far as what we added, but this is an extension for services.

Thank you, Clay Christensen, Deputy County Council and Supervisor Marquez. The additional new provisions are laid out beginning on page five of the additional provisions. And the focus is basically control of the county data and it gives ownership of the county data to the county. So it provides a lot more control to the county than what was previously done under the prior agreements. Um, it also defines anonymized data and also indicates that the County owns the anonymized data in terms of, uh, also accessed by Department of Homeland Security, ICE and Border Patrol. It prevents FLOC from providing any data to those federal agencies. It also indicates that if FLOC receives a subpoena, a judicial warrant or a warrant for that matter, or any other requests by a governmental entity that the uh that flock has to provide 48 hours uh notice of that within 48 hours flock has to provide notice There's also a contractual hierarchy that's stated in provision two on page 10 of the additional provisions. It indicates that in the event of any conflict between the general conditions set forth in the standard services agreement and additional provisions and those of any exhibit or attachment here to the general conditions contained within the standard services agreement and the additional provisions would prevail over any terms that are provided in the exhibit. It also gives the ACSO full audit rights and authority over all county owned data at any time upon request. So those are the main points that were detailed in the additional provisions and also added as added protections for the county.

Okay, thank you for that. And my understanding is this is also using new tech AI technology. Did we consult with ITD to make sure that it's in compliance with our own AI policies here at the county?

The Office of County Council did not. I don't know if the ACSO did.

I'm sorry, what was the question again? If we're in compliance with our own county policy regarding the use of AI. technology?

So AI, as far as the ALPR, the pan toot, I always say toot, it's tilt. The PTZ cameras and all of that. So, and I think that Sergeant Cully can say this probably better than me. It is information that goes to one location and But as far as the use of AI and analytics, that's not applied with LPR, and it's not applied to the pan, tilt, zoom, and DFR. And Sargent called it closely.

So this is not new technology, and it has been vetted by ITD. Technology acquisition request for all of this has been submitted and reviewed by ITD and Sheriff's IT. And this is existing infrastructure that we've had from prior AOPR contracts. So there is no new AI technology that is being implemented here. This is all existing.

Okay. And then thank you for that. And then back to County Council. Can you explain why we didn't seek liquidated damages? Instead, we went for the rationale on indemnification instead. Can you explain the difference in trying to ensure if there's any breach of the contract? What type of violations what safeguards are in place?

Well, we did try to negotiate a liquidated damages provision. So that was included in the negotiations. Unfortunately, FLOC would not agree to a liquidated damages provision. We strengthened the indemnification provision, which there's a new indemnification provision, which is contained on page one. We also added in terms of insurance provisions, there's a cybersecurity insurance for an additional $5 million that was included. In terms of breach, if there's a breach of the agreement, there could be a cause of action for breach of contract, just as there is in any type of a contractual situation. So that is obviously a remedy that could be used.

Thank you. And can someone speak to the frequency of audits and how we will make that publicly known? You've mentioned a violation that occurred last week, but moving forward, how do you plan to manage that?

So currently, we recently changed our policy and we're conducting more frequent audits that auditing would be Available potentially as long as it does not compromise investigations and certainly meets the threshold of related to CPRA requests. So we're currently auditing on a weekly basis right now.

Thank you. I have more questions, but I'll defer to my colleagues and I'll only ask my questions if I don't hear that they've been asked by others, but I want to give others a chance to weigh in.

Supervisor Miley.

Can any questions before public comment actually supervisor Marquez is very thorough and she asked all the questions that I had with respect to starting on page 5 of our contract how change in terms of outlining the restrictions on data sharing preventing federal access. But we had asked for from the last meeting in terms of notification of any breaches full access to audit rights and transparency. and a clear statement of what the ownership of the data is. And so I see those languages that were outlined by County Council.

Thank you. Supervisor Forsenato-Bass.

Thank you. I do have one main question. This is not just an extension of the flock contract. It's a combining of three separate flock contracts, which is different from what we had looked at when we previously talked about the contract because it is essentially expanding Alameda County surveillance capabilities as well as the technology platform beyond ALPR. And my main question is that the board received a letter yesterday from Secure Justice that has additional recommended contract languages, specifically 10 recommended provisions. I did forward this to the Sheriff as well as to County Council. and the county administrator. And I asked specifically whether you could review this language and give us your opinion. For a lay person, these all look like important things to consider. I would like them to be considered. So my question is whether county council or the sheriff or the administrator have had a chance to look at these recommendations and consider them.

Supervisor Bass, Clay Christensen again, Deputy County Council, and we have had an opportunity to review the top 10 recommended amendments that were contained in the secure justice letter dated June 29th, 2026. And I can go through each of those with the board. First of all, in terms of the eliminate commercial AI training rights pursuant to the new provisions that were contained within the additional provisions. The county owns the county data, anonymized data, and any derivative works. The contractor can use anonymized data for training of machine learning algorithms. That's one thing that is allowed under the contract. This is contained in 1B. and then Roman numeral four, little four, on page seven of the additional provisions. That same provision does not allow FLOC to sell or share the anonymized data, except as required to provide services to the county. In terms of two services, secure justice was indicating and eliminate the perpetual vendor license to county data and specifically to support and improve products with language limiting all data use solely to providing contracted services. And I think under the contractual hierarchy that is contained within the additional provisions, in provision 1B on page six of the additional provisions, the contractors provided the limited non-exclusive license to use county data or confidential information solely for performing its obligations under the agreement and not for contractors' own purposes or later use. in, uh, for I think it's 4.1 of exhibit G, which is the contractor's master services agreement. It's page five of 11 contractor indicates customer grants to flock a limited non-exclusive royalty fleet free irrevocable perpetual license to use customer data to support and improve Fox products and services. However, because of the contractual hierarchy, which is detailed in the second provision on page 10, of the additional provisions. The provision on page 1B takes precedence over that contained in Exhibit G, and I would argue, and the Office of County Council would argue, that that provision is inapplicable, that's contained within the master services, because the additional provisions would trump those contained within the master services agreement. As for 3B, The recommended amendment is freeze incorporated website terms. There's three website terms that are contained within, I believe it's the master services agreement. It's a privacy policy, a reinstall fee schedule, and then an implementation policy. I think the Office of County Council and the ACSO, instead of derailing this contract, which is the issue, I think a First Amendment, we could discuss that item and get current versions of those three items, attach them as exhibits and attach them to a First Amendment, but not derail this contract. And I don't think FLOC would probably have a problem with that. That's a rather benign request. Four is clarify ownership of all generated outputs. And... The county owns the county data, anonymized data and any derivative works. This is contained in 1B4 on page seven of the additional provisions. That same provision does not allow FLOC to sell or share the anonymized data except as required to provide services to the county. five uh restore county termination flexibility uh provision 20 is still within the standard services agreement uh allowing the common the county to terminate without cause this agreement On page six of 11 of exhibit G is flocks termination provision, however, again under the contractual. hierarchy contained on page 10 of the additional provisions, the county's termination provision would trump that one that. which is contained in Phlox exhibit G. So I still think that the county provision allowing the county to terminate this agreement without cause prevails. Number six, Supervisor, is strengthen federal access restrictions. We did strengthen it as it pertains to the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, and the Border Patrol. It also indicates in the additional provisions that if the county were to strike that if flock was to receive a warrant or subpoena from a government governmental entity whether it be state or federal that within 48 hours uh flock would have to notify the county so the county would have an opportunity to object and intervene in that matter so and that would pertain to any other agency besides the department of homeland security uh number seven deals with Guarantee complete data portability. Again, I think a suggested approach would be a First Amendment and talk to FLOC. I think this is actually... probably a good idea. And so I think approaching flock regarding this request, but as part of a first amendment, instead of delaying this contract would be the recommended approach. Strength and deletion requirements. There is a 365-day retention period regarding the data, and that's contained within several spots in the contract. I don't think flock again would have a problem with written certification. I think surgeon colleague could probably request a certification from flock that they've actually deleted the material, but they're mandated by the contract to delete the material unless there is a legal reason to retain it. Expand audit rights. Provision four on page 10 of the additional provisions expands the county's audit authority. It states the ACSO shall retain full audit rights and authority over all county-owned data at any time upon request. So at any point, the county can request an audit, including the ability to review and audit all access to county data by any ACSO-approved individual, vendor, representative, customer support personnel, or technical service staff. And then finally, the last item is preserved board oversight of future technology expansion. This board has the authority. It's approving this. It has the right to approve or disapprove this contract. It's done so in the past. And at the same time, it addresses the capabilities that are contained within the contract. And also through various subcommittees, such as the Public Protection Committee, a lot of times this item comes up. It also came up before the Unincorporated Services Committee last Wednesday. So the board has the authority and the oversight ability to review this contract at various times.

Thank you for that. Just so I can make sure I captured the responses. I know for number seven, guarantee complete data portability. You did say that's perhaps a good idea and would be willing to talk to FLOC. Was there another item where you said something similar?

Well, I think in terms of the written certification, which is contained in number eight, and also the ability to freeze incorporated website terms, which is contained in three, that deals with the three links. All of those could be captured by a first amendment.

Okay, thank you. Do you want to take a closer look? And I can do this during public comment regarding the termination clause as well as the liability clause. So I'll take a closer look at that and I might have more questions. Thank you.

Thank you. The questions I have are around the sharing of our data. Yeah, we went from sharing our data with 340 agencies. Now we're sharing with 120. Something like that.

Something like that. We reduced our sharing by 64%. Those current shares that we had prior to that were all lawful shares. They were all with law enforcement agencies within the state of California. However, we've chosen to reduce our sharing to what we believe is necessary to be effective and conduct business until we can continue to put some of these additional auditing tools in place.

What are examples of some that we decided not to share with?

Los Angeles Police Department, San Diego Police Department.

So somebody steals a car in Alameda and gets to L.A., they won't share with us. If they steal a car in L.A. and comes up here, we won't share with them.

That is more than likely the scenario.

Why not? We just decided not to. Was there reasoning?

I will defer that to the sheriff.

Or let me ask it another way. Once we have an auditing tool in place, are we going to reevaluate that?

So the sheriff's office has the ability to turn sharing on and off as long as the entity that we're sharing with agrees to that. And we certainly will reevaluate that once the auditing tools are in place.

Okay. All right. So that was my decision to narrow the scope as far as who we share with. To be quite honest, this is a valuable tool. And I think that if we narrow the people that we are sharing with, then we've reduced the risk as far as our information being shared out. So we have the auditing capabilities right now. We're narrowing the scope. We'll reevaluate it later on, maybe after the RFP process. But at this point in time, I think it's necessary for us to tailor it down there's nothing to say that our investigators are not going to get a call from la but at least we're vetting them we already know what they're what they're asking for that they have an investigation and we could provide whatever information that we have they just won't have direct access ah they just won't have direct access yes okay and then and by

reciprocation they won't share with us if we ask either if we know somebody's headed down to la and we want to ask them for that data would they give it to us we're still going to be good law enforcement partners but as far as direct accessibility okay that's where we limit it all right very good that clarifies and no other questions for me we'll go to public comment after supervisor marquez

Thank you. With respect to the RFP process, can you speak to the period of time? There was mention that it's already been started. Is the idea to incorporate all of the technology into one RFP or is it going to be bifurcated? Can you speak to that?

No, the intent is to put it all together into one contract. And there's a number of vendors that do offer bifurcated. all the services as one kind of collection of services. So it's really just pulling our individual contracts that we already have in play into one contract. So we don't have to keep coming back to the board every year for one particular service or other.

And what do you envision as the community engagement process to get feedback on the development of the RFP?

That I will see is... Director Gassaway here? I don't know if she is. But as far as community input, I'm not sure how GSA would coordinate that. But the RFP process is really a GSA process. And we just communicate with them as far as what the needs are.

Kimberly Gassway, Director of GSA. So regarding RFP process, so initially, as you know, we'll develop the scope, not unlike some of the medical contract we're working on with the Sheriff's Department. Complicated RFP like this certainly can include listening sessions, which we would coordinate with our sheriff partners if that is so desired by your board, so we can get that input from the community. We do that mostly on more... sensitive RFPs. We don't do it all the time.

Yeah, I appreciate that. We do have past precedent. We did something similar to discuss the medical RFP for Santa Rita jail. My office convened a meeting with GSA, behavioral health, sheriff's department. So I would like us to replicate that approach is one suggestion. And then the timeline, can you give us a sense of

So this is similar to a question I had earlier with the board. A simple RFP is six months. If you're talking about something this complicated, as you know with the medical RFP, it could take a significant amount of time. I think the length of time they're asking for this contract is reasonable given, especially if we're gonna do listening sessions with the community and take a lot of that feedback, probably go to unincorporated services area committee, as your board sees fit. So I think it's gonna take, something like this could take over a year, 18 months. It's not unreasonable. Thank you.

Sure. Public comment in the room first and online second, rotating every three. How many speaker slips do we have in hand and how many hands online?

25 in person and currently 22 online.

We'll allow one minute each for public comment. Let's do five in room and then five online.

Robert Apodaca.

We will also cut off public comment slips coming in or hands raised. Thank you.

Robert Apodaca. Colin Cabanel. Mike Katz. LaCabe, Brian Hofer, and Madeline Stacey.

Good afternoon. My name is Robert Apodaca. I've been a resident of Alameda County for the last 46 years. Started off in Berkeley, moved to Hayward, and came back into Oakland and currently live in District 3. I want to urge you to renew the contract because all of Alameda County should have safe traffic and overall security. And I think FLOC does that. I was also happy to learn from the executive director of the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, of which I just joined recently, that FLOC, well, the Chinatown Chamber, Merchant Ares has a number of cameras that they purchase, and they work in conjunction with Flock, which is really helpful to that. So it'd be great to see other independent and privately owned companies to the extent that it meets everybody's requirements. And that would just improve the safety of all Alameda County residents. So I urge you to renew it. Thank you.

Sorry.

Okay. I'll just have to try to see. Okay. Madeline Stacy, on April 21st, some of you said that you had to vote yes for the block contract because it was for services already rendered and we have to pay our bills. That is not the case this time. The Sheriff's Office is stating with this new super contract, they will complete an RFP, but let's be clear that this over 2.4 million is not simply a bridge coverage or an extension. There is added technology and additional cameras added. namely the Flock Nova, Freeform, and the Pantilt Zoom cameras, PTZ cameras, which do track people and clothes and pets, not just license plates. The product and services description add AI-powered capabilities through the Freeform and Nova platforms and related analytical tools. The 2023 agreement was largely silent, but this proposed package does expressly contemplate

So I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I am guessing that we have people on both sides and we can each clap back and forth at each other or we can also just remain silent. I would rather we just keep the quorum so we can stay concentrated on public comment and speakers can line up behind one another so that they can speak when the other is finished. We can get through the meeting. I would appreciate it. The next speaker, and if speakers could line up and the one's called.

Good afternoon, honorable members of the board. My name is Mike Katz-Lacabe, and I'm the research director of Oakland Privacy. I respectfully ask for you to vote no. Approximately 99% of the data gathered by the approximately 100 AI-powered surveillance cameras has no nexus to someone charged with or suspected of criminal activity. That means that Alameda County Sheriff is conducting a mass surveillance program of the innocent residents, workers, and visitors of Alameda County. This collected data of our movements is a rich source of data for those seeking to detain our immigrant friends and neighbors, despite existing California law. Even now, despite documented abuses and violations of California state law, the Alameda County Sheriff cannot prevent the 122 agencies with the sheriff's data from using the gathered data on behalf of federal immigration agencies. The Alameda County Sheriff stores this largely useless data for 365 days, which is more than 90% longer than most agencies in California. A retention of 365 days clearly makes Alameda County an outlier when 165, 192, Law enforcement agencies we reviewed stored the same data for 30 days or less. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. Brian Hofer here on behalf of Secure Justice. I'm here to speak about risk management. Per your counsel, if these provisions are inapplicable, why do they exist? Delete them. That was the purpose of our report. There are clearly tensions and ambiguities in here. that need to be addressed. I appreciate the work that has gone into improving this contract, but you still have problematic areas, including liability. To protect the county's interests, take a look at what your neighbors have been doing. Your liability just went up yesterday. The Supreme Court Justice ruling, Chatri, was specifically on location data risk. I'm sure your council hasn't had time to review it and brief you on that yet, but that's a game changer for Flock ALPR. Richmond successfully negotiated $290,000 liquidated damages penalty for any flock data failure. Oakland secured a $200,000 penalty. Although it wasn't awarded, Berkeley's draft held up to a 1 million. So why won't flock agree here? Assert yourselves. That's which we're at.

Jane, go ahead. Jane Perry, please unmute.

Hi, I am struck by the reclamations discussion coming before this. And I just want to be reassured that the data that's getting collected is not going to be targeting people. And I'm not familiar, I appreciate the technical information that the public comment is bringing forth. And I just wanna make sure that our community is safe and healthy. I'm an Oakland resident since 1981. I brought up my family here and it's really important as a grandmother now that my community stays safe and healthy. Thank you so much.

Colin Kavanagh, go ahead.

Hello, this is Colin Kavanagh. I'm a member of the Castlewood HOA. I'm responsible for safety and fire. I wanted to share with the Board of Supervisors our experience with the flock cameras. We got our cameras five years ago. I think we were the first community in Alameda to have cameras. At the time, we were seeing an incredible number of break-ins and crime in our area. There was a lot of concern about privacy. All that concern is now completely gone. Working with the sheriff's department, awareness with the homeowners, and using our flock cameras, we have reduced crime by 80% in our neighborhood. I would look to the board of supervisors and say, please vote yes. We have an incredible sheriff's department. We should be very proud of what they do and trust them in doing it right. Vote yes and let's eliminate crime from Alameda. Thank you.

Cara Silver.

Thank you. I work as an attorney in the County of Alameda and I'm co-leader of an immigrant rights action team. I am opposed to the continued use of flock cameras for the following reasons. Number one, as evidenced at this hearing earlier, guardrails are not effective. Number two, impact on immigrants. There is abundant evidence that flock network data is used by ICE and border patrol. Border Patrol had a pilot contract with FLOC permitting them to access data directly. Number three, FLOC's program violates the Fourth Amendment. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in a privacy case titled Chantry v. United States. This case confirms older Supreme Court precedent that judicial warrants are needed for locational data. The county's use of FLOC technology without obtaining a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment under this new precedent. Number four, FLOC has not demonstrated that it- Musa Tariq, go ahead.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead. Good evening, chair and members of the board. My name is Musa with CARE, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and we urge you to reject the proposed 2.4 million bridge contract expanding surveillance with flock safety. We appreciate the board for reiterating its commitment to reparations previously, but that commitment is undermined if this board expands technology that actively harms and surveils Black residents. This proposal expands ALPRs to collect data on every passing vehicle. A single license plate scan can already be logged in a database accessible to over 5,000 agencies nationwide and used to track individuals without a warrant. And yes, that includes ICE. There have been documented cases of routine abuse of flock across jurisdictions, including tracking women seeking reproductive care, officers stalking and harassing partners, individuals, and more. These abuses are only discovered when victims come forward, meaning the true scale is vastly underreported. Mass surveillance is antithetical to public safety. Please reject this expansion and stop cooperating with the Trump administration. Thank you.

Jordan, go ahead. Jordan, please unmute.

I'm a homeowner, a business owner, a presidential landlord, a commercial landlord, a victim of crime. My buildings have been broken into. You would think that I would be the very definition of a flock supporter. And I certainly sympathize with the intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I recall, and anyone who was here in the Bay Area 25 years ago when Google showed up on the scene and then Meta, and slowly but surely, they became more and more embedded in our data as individuals all along the way, promising us that they would always handle it perfectly and reasonably. We all, I think, have woken up to the fact that that's not the case here now. We are becoming more and more embedded with Flock every single year. As this contract grows, your ability to extract yourselves from it decreases. And I remain deeply concerned. This is not a vendor who is acting in good faith. They've been shown to lie and to lie publicly and to municipalities across the country. This is not a partner for us. They are not acting in good faith. They do not have the best intentions.

Meena Kay, Stacey Hogg-Stewart, Randy Wage, Noel Forrest, and Chris Stangle.

Hi, I am a resident of Alameda County for 10 years now. And honestly, we got some case studies today from the sheriff's office, and I want to share some case studies as well. Confirmed ICE kidnappings reported by ASLIP, Alameda County Immigration Legal Education Partnership, Marina Boulevard and Merced Street in San Leandro on April 30th. West Day Street and Hathaway Avenue in Hayward on June 19th. Sycamore Avenue and Edith Street in Hayward on June 18th. MacArthur Boulevard and 66th Avenue in Oakland on June 27th, 98th Avenue and Golf Links Road in Oakland on May 2nd. Supervisor Tam, you said on April 21st that this is not a vendor. We have a lot of trust in terms of their use of data and that you agreed with many of the speakers. So it doesn't make sense to expand and approve this contract today, please, based on your previous statements. Thank you.

Hi, I've lived in Oakland District 2 for a few years now, but I'm raised in Chicago. I was raised in Chicago by immigrant parents speaking up against the terror and waste that Flock has already caused there and calling that you listen to the people and end all contracts with Flock. So no on 79. As people have mentioned, we talked about reparations and moving money to budget for it. This is a clear example of where we could be moving money away from surveillance, from policing, and toward the social services that truly stop crime. ALPRs are used to target communities of color and low-income communities for fine and fee enforcement and lead to the prison disparities that we talked about just earlier today. This expanded contract poses a serious threat to our immigrant communities. My family members are afraid to go outside for anything but work. That is not a way to live. And I ask that you all follow Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Santa Cruz, who have already...

Hello, I'm Randy Wagi, a longtime resident of San Lorenzo, California. I fully support the Sheriff's Department. I believe that the flock cameras are solving crimes. We used to have a lot of stolen vehicles in our area, and these flock cameras are getting those stolen vehicles. And also, why the heck? All of you are supposed to be protecting us as board of supervisors. Hayward has Flock. Oakland has Flock. Pleasanton, all of these places have Flock cameras. Why would you disconnect us? You know, we really need... these cameras to keep us safe. That's what I believe. And to not approve this contract, you're going to really do the unincorporated area a disservice. We need this. We really do. I mean, if you've ever walked Hesperian Boulevard or East 14 at night, you really want some, you know, you want to give the police department tools to keep them safe. Thank you. And please vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Chris Dangle. I've been a resident of Alameda County for over 30 years now. And I was deeply moved by the public commentary and your own words just recently about reparations. And I really value this county's commitment to civil liberties and safety of its residents. So I really ask you to reject this contract extension. This stands directly in contradiction to all of those values that we were just celebrating of our reparations. A 2026 study of black cameras in Virginia showed that black majority neighborhoods had four times the flock cameras than white majority neighborhoods. And studies in Illinois show that 84% of drivers who were stopped due to flock information were black, despite the local population being less than 20% black. So I ask you to please stand up for those values for our civil liberties and our safety by not just rejecting this contract extension, but by removing us from this contract entirely. Thank you.

No, of course. Jesse Rosemore.

Hi, my name is Jesse Rosemore. Please vote no on flock. I want to echo what the other speakers have said. And I also want to bring up, you know, we watched what happened on April 21st and the sheriff's department lied about how the public outreach went through their process. They said that there were no concerns brought up in that process. And then the public commenters directly refuted them. And for many other departments, this would immediately be disqualifying. I thought that would be enough. But today we're seeing the sheriff's department sort of like not take the data pieces that we're bringing up seriously. They're also saying that this is not an expansion, which it definitely is. And what I want to know is what other lies are the sheriff's department putting into their presentation? Because this is just what I can see, what we all can see based on what they're saying. So what other lies are put in here? This is so dangerous. ICE is going to fill up that Dublin prison. This is your time to do something about it. No more performative stuff.

Mindy Paciunik? Mindy, please unmute. Chris Morsa?

Yes, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. I just... want to point out the alameda county sheriff is an elected official and as many of you are all like how well versed in the game uh elected officials lie through their teeth all the time telling you uh everything that you want to hear uh rather than the things that we actually need to hear especially when it comes to anything that might be compromising to them and the fact of the matter is like just as has been pointed out multiple times throughout these commentary the sheriff cannot be trusted by a damn site that uh... to be telling you everything you need to know about this contract i mean here we are they're talking about they need a bridge contract two point four million dollars in order to write an rfp that takes most areas uh... no more than a few months that's ridiculous and kind of considering the fact that flock was more than willing to let the contract expire uh... or over ten months i'd say that is a pretty big lie that their services are going to be cut off if they don't, if you don't renew this. Vote no.

Mindy Paczunek.

Yeah, hi. This is Mindy Petchenuk. I'm a candidate for Oakland mayor in 2026. And I want to say my hat is off to the Sheriff's Department. They're doing what is absolutely right. And their request should be honored by this board of supervisors. They have proven the examples, and I know it personally from other situations, which I don't have time to go into right now. But we need the flock cameras. We're in the 21st century. We need the technology to help all our people in Alameda County. So I say to the Board of Supervisors, pass this resolution and don't listen to an ideology. This is about crime. This is about safety. This is about bringing Alameda County to a most productive and healthy society. And the Sheriff's Department needs every tool that they're requesting. They know what they need more than anybody else. So pass this and give them what they need for the flock cameras today.

Tim McKenzie. My name is Tim McKenzie. I'm a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. I urge you to vote no on the contract. For the past decade, the law of the land in California has been SB 34. It is illegal to share ALPR data outside of the state. That has been violated repeatedly through the past decade. In the past year itself, there have been multiple instances like with Mountain View in the month of January, where it was revealed that the nationwide lookup tool has been turned on. The fact that it was only last week that the sheriff found the violations is a damning indictment. It's also no solace that there are more frequent audits. DHS policy prevents ICE access to ALPR data from being recorded, even with the audits. We cannot be certain that our data is not being used for immigration enforcement. I repeat, ICE access to our data is invisible. Vote no.

Dorothy Ponton.

Hi, my name is Dorothy Ponson and I'm an Oakland resident for just over 11 years. I urge the board to vote no and reject this contract expansion. I've had my car broken into many times. I live on the border of Piedmont where there is this wall of flock cameras. It's very clear that you are being observed as you walk this neighborhood. But like Supervisor Fortunato-Bas, I am very curious about the details of the termination and liability clauses. Like, what is our financial plan for the looming payouts for all these constitutional violations that multiple other commenters have mentioned? City of Oakland's going to be paying out. City of San Jose, you know they're both in lawsuits right now. Please vote no. Flock does not reduce violent crime. It helps you solve crimes later. I get it. It's not worth it. Please vote no. Starchy.

Hi, my name is Starchy Grant. I'm a resident of Alameda County since 2008. I too was deeply moved to witness your historic vote on reparations a few minutes ago. I pray you won't turn around and vote to spend our money on the same tool powering racialized policing across the country. Data sharing limits are important, but without a warrant requirement, there's no real oversight. And this so-called transparency portal is a flock-hosted PR pamphlet. Usable anonymized data is an extraordinarily hard problem in computer science, so when you see that in your contract, read it as Flock experimenting on us and our privacy. Flock claims to sell safety, at best it sells magic beans or a half-built monorail, leaving behind a wake of active lawsuits, canceled contracts, and trash bag covered cameras. It's a national joke. Our county faces many challenges, but none of them are that the people here are not under enough surveillance. Vote no. Disinvest in flock and invest in the communities who are elected to serve. Thank you.

Julie Greenfield, Kedua Salazar, Gladys Valdez, Brenda Grisham, Edward Escobar, and Tuan Ngo.

Julie, absolutely.

Hello, my name is Gladys. I'm a longtime resident from Cherryland and Maiden Voice Organizer. I'm here today to express my concern for this expansion of a law contract through the end of 2027. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to pay an overdue bill and temporarily extend the Sheriff's expired law contract. The county was to be in a formal RFP process to openly evaluate different surveillance vendors. Truly, truly, where and well would this happen with community weigh-in? And also recently, Asilep's reports on ICE activity shares that these past two Fridays, there has been targeted arrests conducted by ICE in San Lorenzo and bordering Cherryland and Hayward Acres near the Costco and Hathaway. A total of four people detained. in our unincorporated communities right now. I'd be very, very wary that this is what this would mean for our future. If we extend this contract without a proper competitive bidding process, to me, it will only mean for our more expansion of the technology and aiding harm from the federal government. I wish for nothing.

Good afternoon, board. My name is Brenda Grisham. I've been a resident of Alameda County for 60 years. I lost a son to gun violence here in Oakland in 2010. I'm a business owner on 17th and International. I own four storefronts. In our parking lot, we have over 12 security cameras. So for me, security, safety, and our law enforcement partners are very important. We don't have enough manpower, so we have to leverage the manpower that we don't have with technology. There is never going to be a perfect system, but if we have the system that's working for us, we need to come together and... pass the contract. We need to bring all of those resources into one center because they're helping cities all across Alameda County. They're saving all of us. My daughter's car was just stolen weeks ago in Oakland. They totaled my daughter's car, brand new car, and so it was found by a camera. And so what I'm asking you today is to accept the contract. Put these resources together and do a

Good evening, my name is Lajudwa Salazar. I'm a long-time resident of Alameda County and currently representing My Eden Voice in the unincorporated area. I am here to urge you not to pass the FLOC contract. In April, members of the board raised concerns about FLOC's troubling track record and unethical practices. Supervisors spoke about the need for a competitive RSP process to ensure accountability and evaluate alternatives before committing additional public resources. Those concerns have not disappeared. If anything, they are even more important now that The county's considering sustainability expansion, substantial expansion of the technology. We don't understand the rush. If there are unresolved concerns about the vendor, if the supervisors have already expressed interest in an RFP process, and if the proposal would dramatically expand surveillance capacity, the public deserves a chance to weigh in before a decision is made. When it was presented in the unincorporated services meeting, the item was...

I'm Edward Escobar, the founder of Coalition for Community Engagement. Alameda County's unincorporated communities are nearly 200,000 residents, and there's a lot of undocumented there. Rising to about 250,000 people during the day, the size of a major city, yet they get less public safety than the 14 incorporated cities around them. Less technology, less infrastructure, less protection, and more than half are Latinos. with a super majority being communities of color. Families pushed into these areas because housing affordability across the county leaves them no other option. These communities carry the county's economic weight, and they're told to accept less than best practice public safety. That is inequity. That is a disparity and it is unacceptable. 14 cities use flock cameras as basic best practice. They recover stolen cars, identify suspects and prevent crimes. Yet unincorporated communities, a quarter million people moving through daily are denied the same tools and let me be blunt.

I'm an immigrant. I keep hearing ICE, ICE, ICE reporting people And the flock camera leak or anything that happened with flock hasn't led to deportation of anybody. We've had thousands of cameras across different cities and communities all these years, and it hasn't led to deportation of anybody from abuse of cameras. Yet we have real data on crimes being solved. We're talking about criminals that murdered people, storing vehicles, sexual assaults. human trafficking. These are actual crimes that happen in our community every single day that we need to address to protect our families, our businesses, our neighborhoods. And regarding Brian Hofer with Secure Justice, who's asking for amendments, I just want to read something from San Francisco Supervisor Matt Dorsey. He says, he says, It's legislate to litigate. So he introduces local laws. You can't comply because they're outrageous. And then he's calling a taxpayer shakedown.

I'm sorry, sir.

Despite assurances by the company that it does not sell aggregated data, Flock is fundamentally an AI mass surveillance company whose long-term value depends on monetizing our data. It does this by curating a nationwide proprietary data set to train machine learning models, which it uses as a competitive moat. Investors like Peter Thiel have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the company, which will never be able to justify its absurd $8.4 billion valuation on municipal contracts, and here's why. 404 Media recently reported the FBI is seeking a single vendor for a nationwide ALPR network of its own. The data, which the county owns, will have been used to position Flock as the front runner. The county's policies and safeguards will be powerless to protect its vulnerable populations, and indeed the broader region, from federal overreach. Flock will finally have a customer with pockets deep enough to sustain it, and Palantir Pete will get his payday, thanks in part to this contract. Cancel it.

Deb, go ahead.

The presentations make this sound wonderful. Anytime only one side of a presentation is presented, it's gonna sound great. Is there a reason that there isn't a presentation from an opposing view? That's just very striking. I'd want to hear from a digital security analyst as to whether the system can even can protect the data. And I'd want to hear an analysis of benefits of alternative approaches to crime presentation, crime prevention and safety. If the company refuses our requirements for liquidated damages, it sounds as if we just hold to them, which is amazing.

Kian Bliss, go ahead. Yes, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead. Yeah, I just want to chime in and note how we're here in 2020, like in 2026, and we're continuing to listen to the same astroturf activists like Edward Escobar, Twan Ngo, and even Brendan Grisham come in and just outright lie to you and pretend like they speak for a majority of Oaklanders when really they're just representing the same people. Billionaires in San Francisco and their business like and their nonprofit Astro Turfs like Revitalize East Bay and Empower Oakland. But we're not actually listening to police chiefs themselves or local agencies like, you know, or other local jurisdictions like Berkeley, California, where During the negotiations over Berkeley's proposed FLOC contract, the Berkeley City Attorney's Office substantially revised their master service agreements to conform to sanctuary laws. But after those were transmitted, FLOC returned additional order forms and amendments containing boilerplate language that appeared capable of superseding those city negotiations. I want to note that because... John Lindsay, Poland.

Good afternoon. The sheriff and county council suggested that if you don't approve this today, that the services from these surveillance technologies will be lost. But we know that there were 10 months where it was continued. And the sheriff actually said this in April, that it would be continued after June 30th, even without a contract. And the problems have not been solved. So for example, the drone policy for camera retention, for footage retention is 60 days. The average flock retention time is 30 days. So why would you sign a contract that allows it for 365 days? It doesn't make any sense. The majority of this board said that this is not a company that we have trust in. So this is, as Supervisor Bass said, an expansion of this. And finally, crimes and violence have gone down across the country, including in areas that did not have these types of cameras. This is not related to having cameras. There's a pattern all across the country. Thank you.

Evan, go ahead. Hello, my name is Evan. I'm speaking as a private citizen, user of my own and don't represent my employer. I'm an Albany resident and I work in secure cloud infrastructure for the biomedical industry. So I understand what data sovereignty and all the legality that goes into this. In this room, the sheriff admitted on the record that two organizations improperly accessed the county's flock database and shared that data outside of California. That's confirmed SB 34 violation. That's not a risk. It's not a hypothetical. This county is on the bill for SB 34 violations. SB 34 violations have a $2,500 in statutory damages per harmed individuals. But California courts have left open if that's per scan, which would mean that every single scan that happens that is then breached, we would owe that much money. So this does not make financial sense and it doesn't make data security sense. Thank you.

Seneca Scott, Bob Britton, Angela Mattox, Ray Stangle, and Adam Wolf.

Bob Britton. This evening I'm speaking on behalf of the Eden Area Indivisible Group. I don't have enough time in one minute to tell you everything that I need to tell you, so I wrote you all a letter outlining all of the news articles just in the month of June of breaches by other agencies within California sharing flock data and flock sharing flock data with federal agencies, including Border Patrol. In Castro Valley, where I live, we have twice weekly demonstrations at Redwood Road and Castro Valley Boulevard. Recently, flock cameras, not automatic license readers, but pan, tilt, and zoom cameras were placed right at that intersection. That doesn't make us feel very good. I hope you vote against mass surveillance.

Hi, my name is Angela Maddox. Thank you for listening to me today. I think when we originally got into business with Block with the contract, we didn't know what we know now. We didn't have films of the executive watching little girls gymnastics. We didn't have all these reports of data breaches. To move forward at this point would be very foolish. Like we see the lawsuits, we see all the impact it's had on communities. We started today off with, I believe this meeting was very beautiful. We were fixing the past and that was something very beautiful that we did as a community. And thank you. to everyone here. And now we need to look to the future. We need to have a future that's not just safe, but where we feel safe, where we're not going to be exploited, where we're not sitting in an infrastructure with cameras, with a company that's affiliated with ICE and setting up an infrastructure where they can walk in if they change the contract, because it's changing fast. In two years, it might be different. If Trump changes his mind about something, they might change their mind about sharing the footage, not just with ICE, but maybe two years from now, it's other countries. Maybe it's

Hello, my name is Ray Stangle. I'm a lifetime resident of Alameda County, and I have a few points I want to make. Multiple retired hackers have said that these cameras can be hacked within 30 seconds. There have been multiple cases where cops have used fog cameras to spy on civilians, including spouses and ex-spouses, including a case that led to sexual assault. They are, in fact, used by ICE. This has been proven. Denver canceled their Flock contract and saw a reduction in crime. Cameras in Cleveland were still on despite their contract expiring. Flock has claimed that their own cameras don't track people, but then their own security, their own training videos, excuse me, have said that they do. I personally live a block away from where three cameras are. I've seen no improvement in law enforcement report response time. And there is a lot of crime that happens where I live. So there has been plenty of firsthand experience. And they have lied about whether or not the feds

Good evening. My name is Adam Wolf. I've been Alameda County resident for seven years now. I work in tech. I worked in tech for 19 years. So I'm not speaking as a blindly anti-tech person, but flock is bad tech. Pulling all these surveillance needs into a single contract is classic vendor lock-in tactic. If a good company, an ethical company that comes along in two or three years wants to make ALPRs for us, and maybe we want to go with them, they're not going to be able to compete. They're going to need to offer drones, Nova, everything. And it's the laundry list of all this stuff is going to be very, very hard to satisfy. So we're forcing our hand to be basically choosing either Flock or Axon. I'd love to hear what other vendors are even in play here. Victor Youn?

My name is Victor Yu, president of the Asian American Coalition for Justice. I'm here to support item 79. AACJ is focused on empowering and uniting the Asian American community and advocating for fair representations. In recent years, we have seen a disturbing rise in hate crimes, robberies, and violence affecting our community. Many Asian American families, seniors and small business owners want to feel safe walking to their cars, going to work, opening their businesses, and taking their children to school. And my wife's car was stolen at the Bayfield Bar Station before. It was recovered with the help of LPR technology. It can help real families recover stolen vehicles, assist law enforcement, and make communities safer. And AACJ urged the Board of Supervisors to support Item 79 and the responsible use of PR technology to help protect all residents of Alameda County. Thank you.

NMLD, go ahead.

Hi there. My name is Annabelle. I live in District 5. And I have known Clocks since 2018 as one of my former clients was one of the first investors in them. So I knew them before they had any customers and they were only going to be basically selling cameras to HOAs. And you heard, I've never had any sort of financial interest in them whatsoever. So this is just my opinion as a private citizen, but you heard the Castlewood HOA gentleman say that he thought that Castlewood was the first one in Alameda to have And that doesn't surprise me. And I think that that is what happened, though. It wasn't as if all of these, you know, that Alameda and Berkeley and Oakland and everyone got together and decided that flock was the best thing to use. That's not why everyone has it. So the fact that, oh, everybody has this, that's not a reason to approve this. There are lots of issues in the contract right now. So please just at least wait.

Marina?

Marina, please unmute. Go ahead. You can hear me? Yes. All right, cool. 2003 registered nurse in Alameda County. I wanted to thank Supervisor Bass for highlighting the very real threat of further surveillance with these technologies. And to sit here and say that the federal government has no access to these technologies when these are the same corporations that bankrolled this very federal administration that we are currently living under is laughable. If it was up to me, I'd put all that $2.4 million right back to the previous item that we were talking about, which is reparations. One of the issues that these technologies are supposed to help with is response times. I had a pregnant patient who bled on the side of the road, eventually taking the bus to our hospital after being passed by five police vehicles. Obviously, we don't need these technologies to aid our police department in continuing to fail to meet the needs of its constituents. I have been going around to different community meetings and seeing sheriff's departments try to capitalize on the residents' fears by implementing these technologies instead of addressing healthcare education and housing and demonizing the unhoused with this as well. Pleased to vote no. Thanks. Harshita?

Hi, my name is Varshita. I've been an Alameda County resident since 2012, and I'm a cybersecurity engineer at a software company. I ask you to vote no on any contract extension with Flock. Flock has a terrible data security track record, and the company's CEO has publicly and blatantly stated that he's, quote, willing to lie about Flock's use of 50 million stolen data points. A lot of other folks have pointed out that we have many neighbors in the heart of quote unquote Silicon Valley, like Santa Clara County, the city of Los Altos, Mountain View, Santa Cruz, who have cut ties with Flock. The language of the contract is one matter, but the reputation and track record of a technology company tells us what... we should really expect with the safety of our data. Flock doesn't actually have any technical guardrails built into their technology. They could silently violate the terms of the agreement and we'd be none the wiser. If this was up for a vendor risk assessment at the company where I work, I can guarantee you that it wouldn't be approved. Alameda County deserves more trustworthy technology vendors who take their- Randy?

Hello, my name is Randy Shapiro. Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

I live in Alameda County. I am voicing my opposition to extending the Flock contract. As with all powerful emerging technologies and private for-profit companies locking in a monopoly, there are costs beyond dollars for use, and we've already seen that nationally. In addition to documented contributions to disproportionate policing of Black and Brown communities, 404 Media reports that Flock is not as secure as advertised and company representatives are dishonest about it. It just is not mature technology, and we are the experiment. As a woman, I'm highly dismayed by the number of police department employees and flock employees accessing license plate searches for stalking, harassment, revenge. Please use our tax dollars for housing and mental health support to reduce crime without sacrificing our privacy and dignity.

Dave Thompson and Jane Kramer.

Good afternoon, board. Dave Thompson, co-director of My Eden Voice and co-chair of Alameda County United in Defense of Immigrant Rights. I urge you to reject the extension of the FLOC contract being proposed by Sheriff Sanchez. A, five billion. That's the number of license plates read and stored per month by FLOC. Each of us in this room who has traveled through unincorporated Alameda County has your license plate for the next 365 days. These are not normal times. The staff report does not indicate how it is putting in place protections against well-funded state-sponsored terrorism. We are not afraid of our neighbors. Our communities are under threat by a fascist federal government. Toggling switches on an app is not sufficient to address data privacy concerns with respect to well-funded state terrorism. We urge that civilian oversight sets policy on how surveillance is utilized, including policies on data retention, access, and use, along with vendor risk assessment. By the way, New Hampshire,

Jane Kramer, some quick thoughts on effectiveness and transparency. My sense of how the process works for the public is based not only here, but on other agency meetings I go to. I don't think, or it seems that the public doesn't know what the sheriff's office does. They can't make the distinction between city police, and this ambiguous unit called the sheriff. So my suggestion is that the sheriff reach out and have liaison discussions with the public. Second thought is a lot of people in the public shrink back when you start talking about automation. They think about I'm being spied on. Well, they might be for good reason, but there it is. And they need to be able to deal with it. Andrew.

Hi, I'm Andrew. I'm an Alameda County voter calling in to tell you my total opposition to any flock mass surveillance. As we approach America's 250th founding, talking with people all around this country, Americans of all types hate state surveillance because it is anathema to American values. In this meeting, I listened to a police representative give an answer to a Fourth Amendment breach like it was a corporate memo. This breach requires massive jail sentences. To take you seriously, I would need to hear 30 years easily. This proposal is going against the rights of the people for a system which cannot exist within a free society. These mass surveillance proposals must be rejected outright for this country to be free. Our whole country was founded on this belief that we have our privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment. Happy 250th birthday, America. Let's hope this board upholds your promise and rejects this tyranny. Thank you.

Laura Hill.

Hi, my name is Laura and I'm speaking on behalf of the Bay Area Council and a coalition of over 125 employers based in the East Bay who are committed to building a safer and more vibrant region. The Bay Area Council and this coalition strongly support this item and urge your approval today. Technology like ALPR helps officers increase their response times, identify suspects faster, connect cases, and provide prosecutors with stronger evidence. Many jurisdictions in Alameda County, as well as throughout the broader Bay Area, have deployed flock safety cameras with positive results. Approval of this item will enable Alameda County to coordinate more effectively with agencies within and surrounding the county that are already using similar safety technologies. This technology can absolutely be implemented with appropriate safeguards in a way that balances both the needs of community privacy and public safety. Thank you.

Zahra Jamshid.

Hi, my name is Zahra Jamshid and I'm calling to advise you to vote no and to not review this, not renew this contract. This type of mass surveillance will impact Black, Brown and immigrant communities hardest and more disproportionately. Please divest from flock and invest in social services like housing and mental health support that will actually prevent crime. Thank you.

Diane.

Yes, this is Diane Weidler. I live in San Lorenzo in District 3. First of all, I just want to say that I've heard a lot of accusations against the Alameda County Sheriff's Office saying that they're not being honest and they're not truthful and almost accusing them of working with ICE. And I just like to defend them. They have been nothing but helpful in our unincorporated area and nothing but helpful looking out for our safety at all times. ICE, as a matter of fact, was in our HOA parking lot, I think maybe last summer. And who do we call? We call the Sheriff's Department to get them out of there. It's private property. ICE had no business being there. So I think it's grossly unfair to... to accuse them of not trying to give us the best safety provisions and then asking us for this tools that they need to make us as safe as they can. I think that is all they want. Just lastly, they respond to calls being made. They're not looking to surveil everybody.

Gee Winkler.

Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead. Okay, great.

So I just want to say safety is an essential human need and human right. It's not a deep philosophical topic for me. I travel a lot. All the big cities I travel to around the world have cameras and I feel safe. So why can't we have cameras and other tech in our hometown? And for those of you who are worried about privacy violation and data sharing conspiracy, I hate to tell you, you shouldn't use your smartphones at all. So throw them away because they're spying on you every minute of every day.

That's it.

Caller, go ahead.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Okay. I urge you to vote no. I've been an Alameda County resident for nearly 10 years now. This is a complete violation of privacy. Flock is a completely unproven technology. The $2 million could be better spent doing literally anything else to support the well-being of Alameda County residents. I would also like to say that in 2016, seven Oakland Police Department officers were charged with sexually exploiting a teenager. This technology will make crimes like that more possible for the people who have access to the data. Please vote no. Thank you.

Linda Roman.

Linda? Yes. Can you hear me now?

Yes. Go ahead.

Okay. My name is Linda Roman. I live in District 5. I'm a member of the Wellstone Club and I've lived in Oakland since 1982. I just believe that sanctuary cities and flock cameras cannot coexist. Let's get real. Flock cameras are surveillance cameras and their primary use is to tail and locate immigrants, people of color, and political activists. Folks who are being criminalized by the criminal Trump administration. Vote no on slot cameras. In our country, they are an invasion of, in our county, they are an invasion of privacy and a danger to our communities. Again, vote no on item 79. Vote no on slot cameras. Thank you.

Jean Moses.

Good evening. This is Jean Moses. I live in District 3, and I do not think that the Alameda County Sheriff's Office is intentionally cooperating with ICE. However, Sheriff Sanchez spoke of holding Flock accountable for data breaches, and yet when there were over 1,000 data breaches in 2023, I don't know that there was any penalty that was applied. That being the case, and particularly because of this dishonesty that's been time and time expressed by Flock, I would like to see a contract that is way more carefully and tightly constructed before we even consider to use any aspect of the Flock technology. Perhaps there's a way to do license plate tracking, but not through Flock. Thank you.

Ann Nomura?

Ann? Hi, my name is Ann Nomura, and I'm for a number of reasons. One, me and my family were personally harmed by flock. My license plate was stolen. I was pulled over the high risk stop and asked to come out of the car with my hands up. The sheriff, and this was by Alameda County Sheriff's in Hayward. The sheriff never contacted me to talk about what a harrowing and difficult experience it was for us. And it went on for a great deal of time and cost us a great deal of money to resolve this. And I, I feel it really, you know, Nate Miley is constantly fundraising with Escobar. And I really don't want somebody who is spending that much time raising money with a lobbyist, a contract, which will benefit the lobbyist. I think Oaklanders in Alameda County are the corruption. And I think the rush through looks, you know, flatly corrupt. And it's going to hurt people like my family. It's already been hurt because they have no good policy.

Jordan Harker.

Hi. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. My name is Jordan Harker. I'm a lifelong resident of Alameda County. I'm here to voice my strong opposition to any contracting with Flock. I know that some of the proponents of Flock are using public safety as their number one talking point, while simultaneously belittling the very real risks to people who seek abortion and reproductive health care and people whose immigration status may be in flux or may not be entirely legal. By minimizing the reality of the people who are already being victimized and harmed by Flock, they're telling us very clearly that they don't actually care about substantive public safety. They care about this company and the bottom line of this company. I will also say I've been organizing in progressive circles for almost a decade now. I've never seen the community more in lockstep, more organized, and more ready to fight. So know that we are watching your flock vote. And if you vote to sell us out to a surveilling megacorporation, you will hear about it come election time. Thank you.

Gerald Petchenuk.

Yeah, hi. Can you hear me?